X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |||||||||||||||
leaked,cammed,footage,clip,Modern Warfare 2,II,sequel,Call of Duty,CoD,violent Leaked footage of a Modern Warfare 2 level as a terrorist?
Comments  who voted for this video ant
- marinara
- BreaksTheEarth
- demon_ix
- gwiz665
- Kevlar
- EDD
- Throbbin
- brycewi19
- grinter
Leaked Footage Of A Modern Warfare 2 Level As A Terrorist? Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videogames Videos by Vote  Subscribe Top 15 Videogames Sifters of All Time Top 15 Videogames Sifters of the Past Week Newest Appreciated Comments         | ||||||||||||||
Stumble This
I guess my point is, if it's simply a way to tell the story, what's so wrong with it?
The player loads for me - but no video
Tell that to the millions of people constantly playing Counter Strike. You're either a T or a CT, and it really doesn't matter which, as long as your team-mates aren't fucking idiots. Morality doesn't come into it.
Personally I think this looks like Jack Thompson's wet dream.
*Spoilers ahead*
*No, I'm serious*
We know the game will be wildly popular. We now know its first level involves the player controlling the shooting of a large number of unarmed civilians running in terror. That combination of popularity and opening-intro-controversy will get the Jack Thompsons of the world back on the news talking about the game which, again, is likely more than just a happy PR coincidence for the publisher. Furthermore, we know the Jack Thompsons of the world don't even need a coherent argument or slice of reality to bash the entire spectrum of videogaming. No matter what artistic statement Infinity Ward is trying to make or no matter how 'normal' such a scene would be in an R-rated movie, they know they're going to be slammed over this.
Anyway:
As a game concept and mechanic, ignoring for the moment the likely upcoming controversy? Not sure if I like it. To me personally there was something deeper about Modern Warfare 1's movement restriction in the 1st level where the player watches a military coup through the eyes of a deposed president. The helplessness in controls reflected the helplessness of the situation and afforded the player more observation; by not having to decide where to walk and being literally taken for a ride, the player was instead able to focus their attention on watching the scene that unfolded. The design choice felt purposeful and, to me, increased the emotional affect.
This issue of control, to me, is a key distinction with the prior title versus the opening of Modern Warfare 2. Modern Warfare 2 allows the player to gun down those civilians and in a sense encourages it by requiring the player to keep up with the other terrorists who perform the same actions. I reserve full opinion since I've only seen the shakycam video, but on a conceptual level it just doesn't seem as purposeful. Being placed into the body of a civilian? That would have been interesting from a design standpoint as well; not necessarily better or worse, but I think you could have conveyed the same gameplay message. To me, the official PR response that "the scene establishes the depth of evil and the cold bloodedness of a rogue Russian villain and his unit ... By establishing that evil, it adds to the urgency of the player’s mission to stop them" does not justify the choice from a design standpoint.
Again, clearly this is just ruminating on the designers' decisions without getting deep into the moral or PR aspects of the level. However, I do wonder just how much backlash this is going to get as a result.
TL;DR
How many "skins" for suicide belts can there be?
And you'd get motion sickness bowing to mecca 500 times a day.
Let the carnage begin. I'll see you putos in Hardcore mode.
EDIT: Change the title to "Choggie's Return"
Of course games like this should be legal -- call it art if you want.
Of course parents should keep them from their kids.
..and for those who enjoy playing this level, or think at least it should be in the game, why? ..and think before you answer (sorry for the condescending tone, but damn there are a lot of stupid answers out there!).
Some distributor or developer decides the best way to give their game publicity and to boost its all important opening earnings is to include a gratuitously provocative, sensationalist and utterly unnecessary segment. Somebody acquires the game early, posts the footage on youtube and it reaches critical mass.
The media is drawn to this like a moth to flame in anticipation of easy ratings. They sensationalise it, take it out of content and bring in some 'experts' who have never actually played it or any other video games for that matter but are stalwart advocates against violence in videogames.
They pontificate about how because games are interactive and so realistic, they compel people to commit violence mentioning notable mass killings but being unable to provide any peer reviewed evidence for a significant link between the two.
Uproar ensues, game sells better than it would have otherwise. Rinse, repeat.