• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Modern Warfare 2 Opens with Terror

Ikari

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
93,838
Reaction score
68,930
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
IGN: Modern Warfare 2 Opens with Terror

A leaked video from France surfaced on the internet this morning showing what appears to be the opening single-player campaign mission for Modern Warfare 2. In it, the players apparently assume the role of a terrorist, and are seen entering an airport through an elevator with the rest of your squad members.

The team enters near the baggage check area where about 20 civilians are standing before being gunned down ruthlessly by your squadmates. The rest of the level takes the team through the airport shooting civilians lying on the ground and running away in fear. The graphic depictions in this sequence are some of the most violent-looking and realistic scenes we've seen in a video game. This could cause controversy from the mainstream media for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

But there's more, Activision confirmed this.

IGN Advertisement

Publisher Activision has spoken out about the video, not only confirming its legitimacy to IGN, but also saying players are warned beforehand about the level's upcoming violent sequences.

"The leaked footage was taken from a copy of game that was obtained illegally and is not representative of the overall gameplay experience in Modern Warfare 2," an Activision spokesperson told IGN.

"Infinity Ward's Modern Warfare 2 features a deep and gripping storyline in which players face off against a terrorist threat dedicated to bringing the world to the brink of collapse," the spokesperson added. "The game includes a plot involving a mission carried out by a Russian villain who wants to trigger a global war. In order to defeat him, the player infiltrates his inner circle. The scene is designed to evoke the atrocities of terrorism."

Right now, Activision is saying players may choose "not to engage in the gameplay." That could mean choosing not to fire your weapon or the possibility of an "opt-out" from the level entirely. We won't know until we play for ourselves.

"At the beginning of the game, players encounter a mandatory "checkpoint" in which they are warned that an upcoming segment may contain disturbing elements and they can choose not to engage in the gameplay that involves this scene," Activision says. "Consistent with its content, the game has been given an "M" for Mature by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board. The rating is prominently displayed on the front and back of the packaging, as well as in all advertising."
Click to expand...

Well there it is, I wonder how much "outrage" this is going to produce. There's a scene in Modern Warfare 2 where you play on the terrorists side and shoot up civilians apparently in a very bloody and realistic manner (though I wonder if it could be a realistic as Condemned....that game was creepy real). For me, it's not going to change my purchase. I thought Modern Warfare 1 was a great FPS and I look forward to 2 coming out. It has some cool multiplayer stuff. But I also don't see a big deal with this either. Australia is pissed off over it, but it's just a game. And it is a game centered around fighting terrorists, so whatever. I think any involvement by the government on this front would only be nanny state.
 
21st Century Warfare is against Terrorism, whether we (and I sure as hell don't) like the rhetoric involved or not.

Activision is capitalizing on it.

If we don't like it then we should just not buy it.
 
Yup. It's rated M, so it's not like anyone can just buy it anyway. But there has, in general, always been a small, dedicated group to rage against video games. I don't know exactly how "out" in the news this has gotten. I happen to read a lot about upcoming games and such and came across these articles. Australia is up in arms about it (though it's not surprising coming from the country which banned Left 4 Dead 2), and I'm wondering if this becomes general knowledge if some Americans won't be in that same boat.
 
I look forward to the game, but why did they make the terror scene interactive? Why involve the player in it?

Terrorism is probably the most inhuman act that the current century has seen, and while I agree that it should be presented that way - if only to show the people how inhuman the perpetrators of those attacks are - to make the scene interactive, and involve the player in it... is just wrong.

So yeah, you could say that in GTA and other games the player also takes part in the killing of innocents, but it is certainly not presented in the same way that it is presented in modern warfare 2 - in a very realistic way that has happened too many times around the world in the last 50 years.
 
Apocalypse said:
I look forward to the game, but why did they make the terror scene interactive? Why involve the player in it?

Terrorism is probably the most inhuman act that the current century has seen, and while I agree that it should be presented that way - if only to show the people how inhuman the perpetrators of those attacks are - to make the scene interactive, and involve the player in it... is just wrong.

So yeah, you could say that in GTA and other games the player also takes part in the killing of innocents, but it is certainly not presented in the same way that it is presented in modern warfare 2 - in a very realistic way that has happened too many times around the world in the last 50 years.
Click to expand...

I think they made it so you could skip the level. And why wouldn't it be interactive? It's a video game, not a movie.
 
Im sure all the anti-video game forces from the left and right will bitch about it and whatnot but for most people there are bigger things to worry about. As for the game itself, I didnt like CoD4 all that much but World at War was a huge improvement the no dedicated servers makes me hate the game more. I prefer playing Battlefield 2 anyway.
 
Ikari said:
I think they made it so you could skip the level. And why wouldn't it be interactive? It's a video game, not a movie.
Click to expand...
It's a scene, not part of the game.
In the first Modern Warfare, remember that scene the game starts with?
The execution of that mid-eastern country president by a terrorist organization leader?
You played the president, and could do nothing about the flow of events but to move your head around(which is the camera).
Same should have been applied to the opening scene of modern warfare 2.

To actually play the terrorist and murder the innocents is just too much.
I'm not speaking about its offensive manners towards victims of real terror, I'm speaking about the way they let the players partake and kill innocents in a realistic situation that could have actually happened in real life.

If the scene wasn't interactive, and was like in modern warfare 1, I'd be applauding Infinity Ward for making it, as the presentation of terrorists as what they are, might just change a few terrorist-supporting minds in the wide world.
 
chevydriver1123 said:
Im sure all the anti-video game forces from the left and right will bitch about it and whatnot but for most people there are bigger things to worry about. As for the game itself, I didnt like CoD4 all that much but World at War was a huge improvement the no dedicated servers makes me hate the game more. I prefer playing Battlefield 2 anyway.
Click to expand...
Modern warfare 1 was a masterpiece that has set a new FPS standard(that was yet to be surpassed) and has opened the genre to more creative and brilliant developments.

Call of Duty World at War was not developed by the same guys that have developed Modern warfare(infinity ward), and cannot be compared to modern warfare(And hence it cannot be called an improvement).

World at war is about a real historic plot, while modern warfare is about possible plots in present time.
The style of the two games is completely different, and the only thing that might be similar is the used engine and the HUD system.
 
Apocalypse said:
It's a scene, not part of the game.
In the first Modern Warfare, remember that scene the game starts with?
The execution of that mid-eastern country president by a terrorist organization leader?
You played the president, and could do nothing about the flow of events but to move your head around(which is the camera).
Same should have been applied to the opening scene of modern warfare 2.

To actually play the terrorist and murder the innocents is just too much.
I'm not speaking about its offensive manners towards victims of real terror, I'm speaking about the way they let the players partake and kill innocents in a realistic situation that could have actually happened in real life.

If the scene wasn't interactive, and was like in modern warfare 1, I'd be applauding Infinity Ward for making it, as the presentation of terrorists as what they are, might just change a few terrorist-supporting minds in the wide world.
Click to expand...

It's a level and it says it has an opt out option. So what's the big deal?
 
Ikari said:
It's a level and it says it has an opt out option. So what's the big deal?
Click to expand...
My issue with it is that people would be able to play a terrorist that slaughters innocents, that's all.
 
Ikari said:
But it's not real.
Click to expand...
True, just like GTA is not real when you run over random people with your car.

But the difference is that in modern warfare, the scenes are based on real possibilities, and are created with a lot of drama and shock in them.
This scene is pretty mental.
 
Apocalypse said:
True, just like GTA is not real when you run over random people with your car.

But the difference is that in modern warfare, the scenes are based on real possibilities, and are created with a lot of drama and shock in them.
This scene is pretty mental.
Click to expand...

You can run over random people with your car just as easily as you could join a terrorist organization and go shoot up a mall.
 
Apocalypse said:
But the difference is that in modern warfare, the scenes are based on real possibilities, and are created with a lot of drama and shock in them.
Click to expand...

So are Wolfenstein and Left 4 Dead, but we happily engage in those.
 
Ikari said:
So are Wolfenstein and Left 4 Dead, but we happily engage in those.
Click to expand...
Wolfenstein was no more shocking than a James Bond movie. ;)
Haven't played left 4 dead, don't like zombies much.
 
Apocalypse said:
Modern warfare 1 was a masterpiece that has set a new FPS standard(that was yet to be surpassed) and has opened the genre to more creative and brilliant developments.

Call of Duty World at War was not developed by the same guys that have developed Modern warfare(infinity ward), and cannot be compared to modern warfare(And hence it cannot be called an improvement).

World at war is about a real historic plot, while modern warfare is about possible plots in present time.
The style of the two games is completely different, and the only thing that might be similar is the used engine and the HUD system.
Click to expand...

Well I also admit that I played World at War first then tried CoD4.
 
Apocalypse said:
True, just like GTA is not real when you run over random people with your car.

But the difference is that in modern warfare, the scenes are based on real possibilities, and are created with a lot of drama and shock in them.
This scene is pretty mental.
Click to expand...


If you ever play Splinter Cell, it's has elements of real possible scenarios as well, where Black Ops kill indiscriminately, whether civilian or foe, to accomplish the main objective.

I guess that's why it an M game. :shrug:
 
Apocalypse said:
Wolfenstein was no more shocking than a James Bond movie. ;)
Haven't played left 4 dead, don't like zombies much.
Click to expand...

Aww...no I was trying to say that Wolfenstein and Left 4 Dead are based on real possibilities.

And no one likes zombies, you're not supposed to like them. You're supposed to kill them. That's why realistic training games like Left 4 Dead should be encouraged amongst the general populace.
 
Lightdemon said:
If you ever play Splinter Cell, it's has elements of real possible scenarios as well, where Black Ops kill indiscriminately, whether civilian or foe, to accomplish the main objective.

I guess that's why it an M game. :shrug:
Click to expand...
I take it that you're speaking about double agent, where you could side with the terror organization and bomb the tourists' yacht and stuff like that.
Yeah, that's a comparable situation, but again - in modern warfare they make it way more shocking.
I still remember how shocked I was from the nuclear aftermath scene in modern warfare 1, when you can't do nothing about it and you just die there together with your entire unit for the first half of the game.
 
I believe I read in the game a nuke is set off in Washington DC as well and you and your squad fight, along with the rest of the military to keep control.Games are exaggeration of reality and war games take those exaggerations to apocalyptic levels.

If you don't like it then don't buy it. Personally, I look forward to the game. It's no different then an interactive movie. The terrorists are always defeated in the end.

56679_orig.jpg
 
Last edited:
Apocalypse said:
I look forward to the game, but why did they make the terror scene interactive? Why involve the player in it?

Terrorism is probably the most inhuman act that the current century has seen, and while I agree that it should be presented that way - if only to show the people how inhuman the perpetrators of those attacks are - to make the scene interactive, and involve the player in it... is just wrong.

So yeah, you could say that in GTA and other games the player also takes part in the killing of innocents, but it is certainly not presented in the same way that it is presented in modern warfare 2 - in a very realistic way that has happened too many times around the world in the last 50 years.
Click to expand...

Because, you gotta have an underhanded way of accusing the CIA of blowing up all the countries of the world. I watched the leaked trailer day 1 it was out. I am glad I have this game preordered. This game will push boundries. And I haven't sat down and played a game and said "Ohhhhhhhhh ****...." since.. Postal. Or maybe Manhunt.

Whats weird, even though they are all just polygons.. Why is so gross for me to watch?

And for those that wish to see the slightly shocking video.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEcnuVapt4g"]YouTube - COD Modern Warfare 2 Airport Spoiler[/ame]


And based on this video game alone I am now saying "CIA DID INDIA!!":p
 
No, I think it was in poor taste to make it playable, but guess who is still going to buy it and play it? Me.
 
Ikari said:
So are Wolfenstein and Left 4 Dead, but we happily engage in those.
Click to expand...

Those aren't realistic possibilities.... or did I miss a joke?

Fudge...I need a sandwich.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
Those aren't realistic possibilities.... or did I miss a joke?

Fudge...I need a sandwich.
Click to expand...

Of course those are realistic possibilities! You're not one of those types who runs around unprepared for undead attack are you? Zombies represent one of the, if not the, greatest dangers to modern day society; we can't take them lightly. And Nazi zombies.....even worse! You must always be on the look out for zombies and Nazis and especially Nazi zombies and to a lesser extent zombie Nazis (though Nazi zombies are by far the worst of all).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom