Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 banned in Russia

[Cythieus]

http://timesonline.typepad.com/technology/2009/11/modern-warfare-2-banned-in-russia.html

Modern Warfare 2: it's the game that keeps on giving.

One week after the controversy broke in the UK, it has arrived in Russia.

Unlike us, those Russians don't mess around. The game has been banned.

This is perhaps understandable, since the game's most controversial scene is the terrorist shooting in a Russian airport, and its main storyline concerns a future conflict between America and an ultra-nationalist Russia.

Anyway, it appears that Russians are not best pleased with their depiction in the game, and the developer Infinity Ward is currently hard at work cutting out the airport scene with a view to resubmitting the game to the relevant authorities.

Video of the Level in question:
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 Gameplay Walkthrough 4 Act I No Russian

What do you think about all of this? Too much or is Russia stepping on free speech?

[Brandon]

In a post 9-11 era I think Infinity ward was absolutly over the top with the scene. Now I havnt played Modern warfare 2 yet, and honestly I have little interest in it, so my opinion my change but my first thought is was a level like this really neccessary? Yes, yes its a good way to get that feeling across that "War is bad" and "Terrorism is bad" but that could have been done by playing as some police forces tasked with stopping these terrorists.

Would we not call for a ban on a game that re-enacted 9-11 or any other terrorism event? It would never happen because of the first amendment but people would call for it

[Cythieus]

In a post 9-11 era I think Infinity ward was absolutly over the top with the scene. Now I havnt played Modern warfare 2 yet, and honestly I have little interest in it, so my opinion my change but my first thought is was a level like this really neccessary? Yes, yes its a good way to get that feeling across that "War is bad" and "Terrorism is bad" but that could have been done by playing as some police forces tasked with stopping these terrorists.

Would we not call for a ban on a game that re-enacted 9-11 or any other terrorism event? It would never happen because of the first amendment but people would call for it

Why is it anymore over the top than the countless books, movies and shows that feature violence of the same type? I don't get why when video games do the same stuff as books and movies its considered scandal.

[Brandon]

I dont think it is any different. The reason why video games get the brunt of it is because theyre more interactive which gives the misconception that it teaches players to be violent or how to desensitize themselves from violence

If you had posted a book, movie, or something else with this same scene that made an emphasis on the player shooting unarmed civilians then I would have made a similar statement

[Cythieus]

I dont think it is any different. The reason why video games get the brunt of it is because theyre more interactive which gives the misconception that it teaches players to be violent or how to desensitize themselves from violence

If you had posted a book, movie, or something else with this same scene that made an emphasis on the player shooting unarmed civilians then I would have made a similar statement

There's been no studies done to show a correlation between violence and video games. You do realize the same claim was made about Role Playing not too long ago. They even made a movie about it.

[Brandon]

Actually there have been studies. One in particular noted that more aggressive people are attracted to violent video games rather then video games being the cause of aggressive tendencies. You can find my thread on that study here: https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=15159.0

Personally I believe violent video games are more of a way to vent violent tendancies or emotions like anger then to learn how to be violent. The same can be said for roleplaying games which have the similar theme of interactiveness. I dont believe the same can be said for movies and music because at their core they are not interactive, its sensory input allowing you to see/hear the events, not act them out.

The interactive nature is the reason why video games are always put up to show like this.

To me its a question of you can, but should you? I could be wrong but after watching the video a second time to completion I dont see a single reason why that level absolutely had to be put into the game. There didnt seem to be any story elements to it, it was just that team of people having a shoot out in the airport for...why? The ending of the video talks about making the soldier protagonist (The player's character) into an example. IMO that could of been done in a much more compelling way that would have furthered the storyline and been done without a "shoot out in an airport" level

Edit: and while Im thinking about it Ill ask again, if this had been an american airport would we have not done (or at least called for) some kind of similar action?

[MercyfulFate]

Actually there have been studies. One in particular noted that more aggressive people are attracted to violent video games rather then video games being the cause of aggressive tendencies. You can find my thread on that study here: https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=15159.0

Personally I believe violent video games are more of a way to vent violent tendancies or emotions like anger then to learn how to be violent. The same can be said for roleplaying games which have the similar theme of interactiveness. I dont believe the same can be said for movies and music because at their core they are not interactive, its sensory input allowing you to see/hear the events, not act them out.

The interactive nature is the reason why video games are always put up to show like this.

To me its a question of you can, but should you? I could be wrong but after watching the video a second time to completion I dont see a single reason why that level absolutely had to be put into the game. There didnt seem to be any story elements to it, it was just that team of people having a shoot out in the airport for...why? The ending of the video talks about making the soldier protagonist (The player's character) into an example. IMO that could of been done in a much more compelling way that would have furthered the storyline and been done without a "shoot out in an airport" level

Edit: and while Im thinking about it Ill ask again, if this had been an american airport would we have not done (or at least called for) some kind of similar action?

It was absolutely integral to the story, it was the very incident that caused war.

In fact, America was invaded following this incident in the game with thousands of Americans killed. So no, it still wasn't banned here.

[Jude]

If it was in an American Airport Fox News would've been all over it; I bet the other media outlets would've picked it up as well.  I still don't think that it's OK to ban it.  Just because America would've made the same mistake doesn't justify the Russians making it.

[Brandon]

So finding a single american body in an airport that could be matched to security tapes as one of the shooters, and yet ignoring all the other culprits who were not found and likely seen leaving the scene of the crime. Was the basis for Russia invading the US?

If so I take it back, the plot isnt compelling at all its total bullshit. You can not tell me that Russian and American intelligence was so incompetent that they overlooked the other men in that group of shooters.

Having a war in a game break out between Russia and the US is fine and all but its not the same thing as a level where you go into the airport where the objective is to kill unarmed civilians and security personell. If the level had been exactly the same but set in an american airport then I really do think we would have been just as outraged as the Russian government seems to be

I still think Infinity ward was out of line with this but at the same time Russian censorship might be too. I really have no clue as to what their laws or culture would say about this

[mannik]

So finding a single american body in an airport that could be matched to security tapes as one of the shooters, and yet ignoring all the other culprits who were not found and likely seen leaving the scene of the crime. Was the basis for Russia invading the US?

If so I take it back, the plot isnt compelling at all its total bullshit. You can not tell me that Russian and American intelligence was so incompetent that they overlooked the other men in that group of shooters.

In the story of the game, its not that they found the body of an American that triggers the invasion, its the fact that they found the body of an American soldier.

The group of men are an international terrorist organization that an American soldier is sent in to infiltrate as an undercover operative. The airport level is the only one where you actually do anything for them though, and of course, you are betrayed and killed at the end of it.

Now that that's cleared up, on to what I actually think about it.

I personally, wasn't that appalled...and I honestly thought it was an American airport at first....(Right up until security started screaming Russian at me.) I'm not really surprised that its banned in Russia though, they don't have the same constitutional freedom of speech we do....but to be fair, you are warned about that level as soon as you select 'new game'. You have a choice, skip the level at no concequence, or play the level and slaughter hundreds of digital civilians, possibly dieing several times in the process....

I don't neccessarily agree with it being banned, but Russia is Russia, they ban stuff (like the Beatles) and we as Americans sit around argueing over the fact that someone somewhere made a decision that doesn't effect us in the least. That's just the way the world is.

[Brandon]

Alright, then its even more BS then I thought. These guys have to be known throughout the world, their faces had to have been caught on security tapes and eyewitnesses would have had descriptions.

Furthermore, the agency running this under cover operation is going to have some documentation of him going under cover. That's how these things work, somewhere (off the net) there is something saying this soldier, police officer, etc was doing this.

A final question, WTF was a PFC doing there? I cant realistically see anyone under the rank of Sergent going into an undercover operation like him. Soldiers of such a low rank just don't have the experience to pull of a job like that. You need someone who's been working intelligence for several years or at least shows a high level of understanding in those situations which rank reflects.

So from what I'm hearing, the whole story seems to revolve around the idea that Russian military intelligence and police forces are completely incompetent.

[Callie Del Noire]

Alright, then its even more BS then I thought. These guys have to be known throughout the world, their faces had to have been caught on security tapes and eyewitnesses would have had descriptions.

Furthermore, the agency running this under cover operation is going to have some documentation of him going under cover. That's how these things work, somewhere (off the net) there is something saying this soldier, police officer, etc was doing this.

A final question, WTF was a PFC doing there? I cant realistically see anyone under the rank of Sergent going into an undercover operation like him. Soldiers of such a low rank just don't have the experience to pull of a job like that. You need someone who's been working intelligence for several years or at least shows a high level of understanding in those situations which rank reflects.

So from what I'm hearing, the whole story seems to revolve around the idea that Russian military intelligence and police forces are completely incompetent.

The feel that I get is this is the last straw, the big bad in the game (I've already finished the single player campaign) is a renegade US officer.. so I think there is more that could have been put into play to show this. (and should have been)

[MercyfulFate]

Alright, then its even more BS then I thought. These guys have to be known throughout the world, their faces had to have been caught on security tapes and eyewitnesses would have had descriptions.

Furthermore, the agency running this under cover operation is going to have some documentation of him going under cover. That's how these things work, somewhere (off the net) there is something saying this soldier, police officer, etc was doing this.

A final question, WTF was a PFC doing there? I cant realistically see anyone under the rank of Sergent going into an undercover operation like him. Soldiers of such a low rank just don't have the experience to pull of a job like that. You need someone who's been working intelligence for several years or at least shows a high level of understanding in those situations which rank reflects.

So from what I'm hearing, the whole story seems to revolve around the idea that Russian military intelligence and police forces are completely incompetent.

1. If someone goes that deep undercover, their existence as their former self is ERASED. There was no proof left he was an American, the only proof was him and it died when he did.

2. Makarov and his men aren't widely known, and Makarov made sure no one knew he was Russian. Even if his face was released people would have assumed he was American since the only body found was American. He even says "No Russian" in the beginning.

3. They picked someone of low rank that no one would know all that well. Unless you're in said military operations you can't say what rank is or isn't picked.

[Brandon]

Before I start I want to point out that Im not a person who has to have 100% realism at all times but if youre going to write a story then it needs to be realistic enough that my red flags dont go up by the end of the scene. So far MW2 seems to have more plots holes then the Resident Evil series

Anyway, I did work in military intelligence for one out of my 6 years in the US Army. Everything I said is said from my experiences. You don't send low ranking and/or inexperienced soldiers into dangerous undercover ops and there is always a record of the assignment locked away in the intelligence files. Doing the former puts the mission in jeopardy, not doing the later is against regulations

Military intelligence operatives do not assume anything, they take the evidence for what it is and analyze it (in this case linking faces to known names/groups). Come to think of it, you kind of messed up your own point there. If an undercover operative has their identity erased, then how could they link the PFC as an American soldier? There would be no records of his service, no drivers liscence, no family records, or anything to say he was American. On top of that they clearly say he's working under a Russian alias so he has to at least look a bit Russian and he must have some paperwork on him to back up the alias. This story was set in a time thats years ahead of us, where theres documentation to prove who you are, or to disprove who you arent. Its not the 1800s or earlier when you could just walk over the hill and claim to be someone else

So anyway, this Makarov guy made sure that no one knew he was Russian, yet he has a russian sounding name so Im assuming he is indeed Russian which means theres going to be a paper trail somewhere...He's linked with a terrorist orginization thats likely watched by multiple governments...yeah, still not buying it sorry. What about the other 4? guys? How come they werent linked to these terrorists? Why wasnt their vehicle stopped outside the airport by the authorities?  (please dont give me some lame excuse like they werent checking when they clearly had military units in the airport before they got out)

If this was reality and this happened just as the video shows it. As soon as the Russians would have linked the PFC to the US, Military Intelligence would have pulled out the paperwork to show he was on assignment and what that assignment entailed and then diplomacy would have prevented any war. I know a bit anti climactic. However this was not reality, just a poorly thought out story. To quote Yahtzee (partly to lighten the mood and partly to put another stake in the discussion) "I know that drama demands the enemy be a plausible threat but I still think it would have been more credible if the villains had been a group of disgruntled insect people from the earths core...wearing silly hats."

To close: I think Ive ripped the story apart enough. From what I have heard thus far, I think it was poorly thought out, maybe poorly written, and only in place to string together a group of gunfights.

I still think infinity ward is at fault though, there were a lot of less horrific events that could have been realistic enough to do a Russians on US soil story. I almost wonder if this was a test to see how people would respond to playing terrorists for future games

[Serephino]

I will admit I'm not familiar with this particular game, but... ITS A GAME!  I'm not much of a gamer, but the ones I do play, I play for fun.  It should not be taken so seriously.  It's like people saying Resident Evil 5 is racist because you're killing black zombies in um... Africa.  I hate to break it to people, but Africa is where black people originated. 

[Jude]

You're using real world information to debate the plausibility of a plot in a video game.  That's like saying, I KNOW THE WHITE HOUSE CAN'T BE BLOWN UP CAUSE CSPAN IS STILL ON THE AIR; I DEMAND FALLOUT 3 CHANGE ITS PLOT.

The events leading up to the game didn't happen either.  Pretend the military changed its policy and a mistake was made, and that's why it happened Brandon.  Either way you're a member of a group of people that consists of less than 1% of the population that would actually see a problem with this.  For another comparison, that's like saying the Back to the Future movies terrible because there's no such thing as a flux capacitor.

It's called suspension of disbelief, and never every entertainment product requires it.

[Oniya]

Methinks the Russians love their children too also need to learn this 'suspension of disbelief'.  Either that, or learn when to stop suspending their disbelief.  One of the two.

[consortium11]

You're using real world information to debate the plausibility of a plot in a video game.  That's like saying, I KNOW THE WHITE HOUSE CAN'T BE BLOWN UP CAUSE CSPAN IS STILL ON THE AIR; I DEMAND FALLOUT 3 CHANGE ITS PLOT.

The events leading up to the game didn't happen either.  Pretend the military changed its policy and a mistake was made, and that's why it happened Brandon.  Either way you're a member of a group of people that consists of less than 1% of the population that would actually see a problem with this.  For another comparison, that's like saying the Back to the Future movies terrible because there's no such thing as a flux capacitor.

It's called suspension of disbelief, and never every entertainment product requires it.

While I can't really talk about the game in question, suspension of disbelief may be required by nearly every entertainment product... but it's also something entertainment products must foster.

Fallout 3 doesn't reak the suspension of diselief because of the setting... it loses it because of the massive plot holes that made me go "huh?" and the inconsistancies with its own cannon.

No game can claim suspension of diselief as a carte blanche excuse to do whatever they want... instead it is about finding the balance between the player accepting what is happening and the game not throwing things at them that force them out of it.

[MercyfulFate]

Before I start I want to point out that Im not a person who has to have 100% realism at all times but if youre going to write a story then it needs to be realistic enough that my red flags dont go up by the end of the scene. So far MW2 seems to have more plots holes then the Resident Evil series

Anyway, I did work in military intelligence for one out of my 6 years in the US Army. Everything I said is said from my experiences. You don't send low ranking and/or inexperienced soldiers into dangerous undercover ops and there is always a record of the assignment locked away in the intelligence files. Doing the former puts the mission in jeopardy, not doing the later is against regulations

Military intelligence operatives do not assume anything, they take the evidence for what it is and analyze it (in this case linking faces to known names/groups). Come to think of it, you kind of messed up your own point there. If an undercover operative has their identity erased, then how could they link the PFC as an American soldier? There would be no records of his service, no drivers liscence, no family records, or anything to say he was American. On top of that they clearly say he's working under a Russian alias so he has to at least look a bit Russian and he must have some paperwork on him to back up the alias. This story was set in a time thats years ahead of us, where theres documentation to prove who you are, or to disprove who you arent. Its not the 1800s or earlier when you could just walk over the hill and claim to be someone else

So anyway, this Makarov guy made sure that no one knew he was Russian, yet he has a russian sounding name so Im assuming he is indeed Russian which means theres going to be a paper trail somewhere...He's linked with a terrorist orginization thats likely watched by multiple governments...yeah, still not buying it sorry. What about the other 4? guys? How come they werent linked to these terrorists? Why wasnt their vehicle stopped outside the airport by the authorities?  (please dont give me some lame excuse like they werent checking when they clearly had military units in the airport before they got out)

If this was reality and this happened just as the video shows it. As soon as the Russians would have linked the PFC to the US, Military Intelligence would have pulled out the paperwork to show he was on assignment and what that assignment entailed and then diplomacy would have prevented any war. I know a bit anti climactic. However this was not reality, just a poorly thought out story. To quote Yahtzee (partly to lighten the mood and partly to put another stake in the discussion) "I know that drama demands the enemy be a plausible threat but I still think it would have been more credible if the villains had been a group of disgruntled insect people from the earths core...wearing silly hats."

To close: I think Ive ripped the story apart enough. From what I have heard thus far, I think it was poorly thought out, maybe poorly written, and only in place to string together a group of gunfights.

I still think infinity ward is at fault though, there were a lot of less horrific events that could have been realistic enough to do a Russians on US soil story. I almost wonder if this was a test to see how people would respond to playing terrorists for future games

http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/Shepherd

"General Shepherd served as the supreme commander of the US and coalition military forces in the Middle East during the course of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, including the Marine Force Recon forces killed when Al-Asad detonated a nuclear weapon in the capital city. It was possible he was callsign "Overlook", the voice heard in Shock and Awe. After losing 30,000 troops as a result, Shepherd became disenchanted with the world, seeking a way to fully unleash the military might of the United States, as well as spark a restoration of American power and influence around the world, something he felt had waned in recent years.
To accomplish this, Shepherd needed an enemy, something to rally the entire nation behind him. To that end, he began to work with Russian Ultranationalist Vladimir Makarov to sow the seeds. Shepherd becomes the commanding officer of Task Force 141 with the intent of "stopping" Makarov and handpicks Joseph Allen to be an undercover agent. It is later implied that Shepherd revealed Allen's undercover status to Makarov to facilitate a war between Russia and the United States. As a result, the United States is invaded, and in response, Shepherd is named supreme commander of all US military forces around the globe, just as he had planned. With the full power of the US armed forces at his fingertips, Shepherd was in a perfect position to realize his ultimate goals: to make the United States the mightiest power on the planet, and style himself as the hero who made it so. While doing so he procures another team of elite US Army soldiers to be part of his Shadow Company, their goal is to do General Shepherd's bidding no matter what."

You do realize that said PFC was picked by the very man who wanted a war to achieve his goals? General Shepard picked the guy, then turned out to be the bad guy himself when Makarov became the lesser of two evils. The same General Shepard tries to stop Captain Price from detonating a Nuke over the eastern seaboard of the US to disable the Russian invasion force. He explained later that he wanted a war, so chances are he knew PFC Allen would get caught and this whole thing would blow up.

He got exactly what he wanted. Ignoring points about the story not being well thought out, which I agree with, you're obviously expecting perfect realism here. It's a video game, and you're not going to get that. You're saying things like "Why didn't cameras catch them?!" and things about them being caught when they left...

Obviously if those things happen the story wouldn't have progressed as such. They never explained how he was linked as an American, heck this is one part in a two part story arc, so chances are it will be further explained later on.

Bottom line, you need to actually play the whole game to understand more because you're arguing from lack of information. It's also called suspension of disbelief for the sake of a story. Even so, by the point the massacre happened, US intelligence saying "Hey that guy was ours and he was undercover!" the Russians wouldn't have given a damn. They wanted retribution, and they acted on it.

It's a video game, let it go.

While I can't really talk about the game in question, suspension of disbelief may be required by nearly every entertainment product... but it's also something entertainment products must foster.

Fallout 3 doesn't reak the suspension of diselief because of the setting... it loses it because of the massive plot holes that made me go "huh?" and the inconsistancies with its own cannon.

No game can claim suspension of diselief as a carte blanche excuse to do whatever they want... instead it is about finding the balance between the player accepting what is happening and the game not throwing things at them that force them out of it.

Bethesda owns the rights to Fallout, and thus canon is what they make of it. Hell, name me any series in almost any form of entertainment that hasn't warped their own canon. It's damn hard, believe me.

[RubySlippers]

All Russia did was make the game even more desireable to gamers there and go up in price on the secondary markets. Kind of like that sick game RapeLay a few years ago it was banned in some countries, e-tailers stopped stocking it and made the game even more popular with a higher price. Its just free advertising.

[Brandon]

Before I start I want to point out that Im not a person who has to have 100% realism at all times but if youre going to write a story then it needs to be realistic enough that my red flags dont go up by the end of the scene. So far MW2 seems to have more plots holes then the Resident Evil series

Emphasis mine. So far Ive given the game plenty of suspension of disbelief but that suspension can only be stretched so far. Thus far I havnt asked anything about how Markarov's team got into the airport as heavily armed as they were (apparantly undetected no less), how Makarov got an ambulance there, why when the military did show up in the airport they didnt flank the shooters, how the Russians are handling logistics for the war on our soil, or where our civilian fighters are. These are just basic questions for me too. The need of suspension of disbelief for others might be less but this doesnt break mine, it shatters it beyond repair.

Its true Im not the college frat boy demographic that this and other FPS tend to target but that doesnt mean Im not going to tear apart a crappy story when I see it either, especially when Im a semi-proffesional game/movie critic. While it would be more professional for me to sit down and play the game before crucifying or praising it the more I hear about this game the more Ive been dreading experiencing the story that it offers. Even so, Ive gone over to youtube and watched several single player video's so that Ill be more informed. Now Ive only watched 4 different levels so far including the no russian level and just as I suspected the story seems unimersive, poorly thought out, and almost meaningless. Its only purpose thus far is to string together a group of endless gunfights and it relys on the audiences ignorance and the assumption that any investigation that was done was done by incompetant officials. As a saving grace observation, while I say that the story is unimersive the opposite applies to the gameplay in several aspects.

In the case of your link, if that information is not located somewhere in the game (I didnt see it but I admit I havnt seen the entire game yet) then it really doesnt count. People, like myself, will judge the game by itself and not by outside sources.

[Dray]

Fiction is fiction, it matters not what happens on a video game.  It is the same as others shooting down things that occur with comedians and their 'racism' or with South Park.

Perhaps I see things differently then some, but I could not care less about different races and religions, it is all the same to me, everybody is equal and I hate and like everyone the same.  I make 'racist' jokes about every race and religion so we could call that...'equality'  :P

I can see why Russia may see this as offensive, but I think many overlook one very messed up point.  America sends a guy in as undercover and he participates in shooting many innocent people?  I think this shows the horrible acts, the dishonest deeds, and the shame that occurs during warfare.  Not one country, race, religion, ethnic group, or anyone is innocent when it comes to war and video games try not to hide that fact but show it all and give it all which what makes them such an attraction...there are no lies or secrets in video games, everything is out in the open.

the world today is scared of being politically correct and all this other crap.  There is still much secrecy and hatred, even though everyone acts kind and pleasant to one another and pretends to be 'one big happy family'...alone they scowl and hate, revealing their true feelings in the dark and keeping to the shadows.

So this is where I applaud Modern Warfare 2 and other games and pieces of work alike that are not afraid to take a stand and show what is what.  It is about freedom of speech, expression, and imagination after all.  I seriously do not know why Russia would find this surprising anyways...countries always seem to discriminate against other countries that they dislike or are not to friendly with.  Modern Warfare 2 needed a target and an idea and Russia is one of the main countries we(americans) have conflicted with in the path, via the 'cold war'. 

Movies, books, and so many others things have fantasy settings and ideas such as this that is based off the wonder of the future.  Modern Warfare just targeted Russia knowing many Americans viewed them as a potential threat and would accepted them the most as the enemy...it is a target marketing system, take what your players, viewers, readers want to see and put it into play.  Does not mean it will actually happen in the future, it is a 'what if' statement.

I don't see all those intergalactic aliens out there threatening to blow our planet up with a doom freighter because we constantly fight and kill them in games...or will they?  ;)

[MercyfulFate]

Emphasis mine. So far Ive given the game plenty of suspension of disbelief but that suspension can only be stretched so far. Thus far I havnt asked anything about how Markarov's team got into the airport as heavily armed as they were (apparantly undetected no less), how Makarov got an ambulance there, why when the military did show up in the airport they didnt flank the shooters, how the Russians are handling logistics for the war on our soil, or where our civilian fighters are. These are just basic questions for me too. The need of suspension of disbelief for others might be less but this doesnt break mine, it shatters it beyond repair.

Its true Im not the college frat boy demographic that this and other FPS tend to target but that doesnt mean Im not going to tear apart a crappy story when I see it either, especially when Im a semi-proffesional game/movie critic. While it would be more professional for me to sit down and play the game before crucifying or praising it the more I hear about this game the more Ive been dreading experiencing the story that it offers. Even so, Ive gone over to youtube and watched several single player video's so that Ill be more informed. Now Ive only watched 4 different levels so far including the no russian level and just as I suspected the story seems unimersive, poorly thought out, and almost meaningless. Its only purpose thus far is to string together a group of endless gunfights and it relys on the audiences ignorance and the assumption that any investigation that was done was done by incompetant officials. As a saving grace observation, while I say that the story is unimersive the opposite applies to the gameplay in several aspects.

In the case of your link, if that information is not located somewhere in the game (I didnt see it but I admit I havnt seen the entire game yet) then it really doesnt count. People, like myself, will judge the game by itself and not by outside sources.

The information is in the game, hence why it's in the Wiki.

While MW2's story wasn't as good as it could have been, you admit you're arguing from a position of ignorance in regards to the game. Don't say you're a semi-pro critic and argue against a game based on a youtube video of a single level.

I mean you're talking about the military showing up at the airport, when no military showed up at the airport. They were police.

They kept their weapons in bags, if you play the level you hear them unzipping bags before you appear in the elevator. The 9/11 terrorists were on watchlists everywhere and still managed to get on planes, and that was in the US. This is in Russia. As for the ambulance, it could have been there prior to the attack. Most attacks such as this would be set up ahead of time.

[Serephino]

Its true Im not the college frat boy demographic that this and other FPS tend to target but that doesnt mean Im not going to tear apart a crappy story when I see it either, especially when Im a semi-proffesional game/movie critic. While it would be more professional for me to sit down and play the game before crucifying or praising it the more I hear about this game the more Ive been dreading experiencing the story that it offers. Even so, Ive gone over to youtube and watched several single player video's so that Ill be more informed. Now Ive only watched 4 different levels so far including the no russian level and just as I suspected the story seems unimersive, poorly thought out, and almost meaningless. Its only purpose thus far is to string together a group of endless gunfights and it relys on the audiences ignorance and the assumption that any investigation that was done was done by incompetant officials. As a saving grace observation, while I say that the story is unimersive the opposite applies to the gameplay in several aspects.

In the case of your link, if that information is not located somewhere in the game (I didnt see it but I admit I havnt seen the entire game yet) then it really doesnt count. People, like myself, will judge the game by itself and not by outside sources.

No offense, but even if you watch a dozen youtube videos, you're still not going to get the whole story.  For the few games I've played, everything unfolds bit by bit.  Watching a few videos on it is like reading a book, skipping a bunch of chapters, then calling it stupid.  There could've been an important detail in one of those chapters you skipped that would've tied everything together. 

And again, it's a game, not a lesson in military protocal.  Most things in most games don't make sense when scrutinized with real world logic. 

[MercyfulFate]

No offense, but even if you watch a dozen youtube videos, you're still not going to get the whole story.  For the few games I've played, everything unfolds bit by bit.  Watching a few videos on it is like reading a book, skipping a bunch of chapters, then calling it stupid.  There could've been an important detail in one of those chapters you skipped that would've tied everything together. 

And again, it's a game, not a lesson in military protocal.  Most things in most games don't make sense when scrutinized with real world logic. 

Exactly, it's the Modern Warfare universe, not the real world. Hell, a nuke was detonated in the first one killing 30,000 American soldiers. So to try to apply the real world to the story is rather silly to be honest.

[Revolverman]

Exactly, it's the Modern Warfare universe, not the real world. Hell, a nuke was detonated in the first one killing 30,000 American soldiers. So to try to apply the real world to the story is rather silly to be honest.

I don't think that gives the game Carta Blanch (SP I know) to have plot holes you can drive an Aircraft Carrier though.

[MercyfulFate]

I don't think that gives the game Carta Blanch (SP I know) to have plot holes you can drive an Aircraft Carrier though.

If you read what I said, I admitted the story isn't perfect. However a plot hole implies something is missing, and of what's been discussed, not much is missing.

[Drake Valentine]

Eh… I followed bits and pieces of the argument so far, however.

The video in question is very disturbing and I am a bit unnerved by the factor of innocent civilians being gunned down in an airport. With all the talk of ‘plot’ and ‘story’ they could of interpreted it another way in game. I mean, they could of gave some form of media or news of shootings without showing it, instead of putting you there in the scene of the crisis. I can understand why many of the Russians are angry at this and I fully agree with their banning of the game, the video of the scenery was unnecessary to its fullest. Sure, there is lots of violence in gaming, I will agree. I mean, GTA(Grand Theft Auto) series isn’t any better with all of its random sprite civilian killing and what not. I don’t agree much to that line of games either, though how that video above played out was just to ‘real’ and horrific, even for a ‘game.’ Yea, everyone has a right to free speech, don’t get me wrong there, but you know, sometimes you have to ask yourself where do you draw the line in gaming or game developing? When too much is too much? To me, that video there was too much, but that is my verdict on it.

[Jude]

I was more or less alluding to the fact that in order to see the supposed plot hole you need to research it or have personal experience that shows it for what it is; to the average gamer what goes on in MW2 seems perfectly believable.  I haven't heard any of the gamers I know complain, I haven't seen a single review that berates lack of realism/coherency, and the only complaints I have seen are coming from people who freely admit they haven't touched the game.

[MercyfulFate]

I was more or less alluding to the fact that in order to see the supposed plot hole you need to research it or have personal experience that shows it for what it is; to the average gamer what goes on in MW2 seems perfectly believable.  I haven't heard any of the gamers I know complain, I haven't seen a single review that berates lack of realism/coherency, and the only complaints I have seen are coming from people who freely admit they haven't touched the game.

To be fair, there is plenty of confusion in regards to the story. A lot of it is left open and I think it's partially because MW3 is the second half of the story.

I love when things bother people like this, and more than anything this has just given Activision and Infinity Ward more publicity, not that they needed it mind you.

Video games are essentially interactive art in a lot of ways, and I think they should be allowed to explore most any topic. If you disagree or don't like it, you don't have to buy it. It always baffles me when people want things banned that they disagree with, no one is forcing you into purchasing it.

[Serephino]

Yeah, that's kind of the same thing when someone reads a fan fic then flames the author because they didn't like the pairing, or a fetish in it was disgusting and perverted.  Warnings are there for a reason.  If you don't like D/s, find something else to read. 

I don't like games like that, therefore, I don't buy and play them.  My boyfriend wanted me to play Left 4 Dead with him.  Not my thing so I didn't.  I don't like Animae, so I don't watch it.  It's a simple but effective concept. 

[Kotah]

I just think the fact that the game actively has you gunning down civilians that are trying to carry other people into safety as a bit... gruesome. If you watch the video, there is also a handful of children getting killed. Is that really necessary?

As far as I'm concerned, they could have accomplish the same story line tactics by putting this entire level as a cut scene.

And for a point that someone made before. If Russia put out a game where a Us airport was getting shot to hell with civilians being slaughtered? Our reaction would have been 10 times worse. Cause lets face it. Our reaction always is worse. They banned a game. Big deal.

America once started a war because a couple of Americans went into Mexico and got arrested.

Oh, but the story line! The story line clearly sucks. I don't play these war games, becasue they... suck. Hey! I know the red scare is a big deal, but c'mon did we really need another game banking on it? Let alone, a game where a bunch of people are slaughtered? As PART OF THE STORY. Several games you can slaughter all you want, as your choice. I am a bit put off by the fact that this game demands civilian slaughter of any kind.

[Brandon]

Oh, but the story line! The story line clearly sucks. I don't play these war games, because they... suck. Hey! I know the red scare is a big deal, but c'mon did we really need another game banking on it? Let alone, a game where a bunch of people are slaughtered? As PART OF THE STORY. Several games you can slaughter all you want, as your choice. I am a bit put off by the fact that this game demands civilian slaughter of any kind.

To be fair, you can skip the level and you can progress through the level in question without killing a single civilian yourself without being penalized.

As far as the arguments on story, why am I reminded of Michael Bay's response to making a bad transformers movie? "You cant expect it to be good because it was always just a toy commercial." Questionable source material is not a license for bad film making. Likewise ignoring things that would happen in reality because its "inconvenient" to your story isn't a license to ignore reality for the sake of a story either. Especially for a game that calls itself and is advertised as realistic. This is supposed to be a realistic game but beyond the gunplay its not, thus it falls way way way short of what its trying to be and is IMO bad. It might be enjoyable if you took a look at it similar to a James Bond movie but not when you take a good look at it and compare it to the reality its supposed to represent. Yet somehow Im supposed to overlook all this because "its just a video game". I dont think so

[Kotah]

Right, so show me the level where the soldiers start raping the village women.

Which does happen.

In fact, a few years ago in Latin America, there was a political coup in Haiti.  60% of women  between the ages of 9 and 84 were raped by soldiers and police force taking part.

I know this because when I was in collage I went as a part of Amnesty international in a delegation to determine human rights violations. We did other things like monitor the Venezuelan elections as well. http://www.haitisolidarity.net/article.php?id=122] An article written by another member of the delegation. [/url]

Just becasue it happens, does not mean it needs to be in a video game.

[MercyfulFate]

Well for one, not sure where you're seeing children in that video. There are none.

Second, it doesn't NEED to be in a game, but no one should have the right to say it can't be. If you don't like it, or it offends you don't buy it or skip the offensive part. I can't stand when people try to dictate to others what is, and isn't morally acceptable.

Hell if some people had their way Harry Potter would be banned for introducing children to "evil witchcraft".

[Jude]

Tasteless, purposeless, right or wrong, it doesn't matter really.  It's a simple free speech issue.  If you don't believe in censorship, then you should be in favor of them being able to do this with their own intellectual property.  And if you do believe in censorship... well, considering this is a website with rape fiction, snuff, and all sorts of other illegal/immoral fiction, I have to wonder how consistent such a position is.  Especially when these forums are arguably more interactive than a video game is; you are dealing with real people even if what happens isn't.

[Kotah]

If you notice i haven't called for the game to be recalled. I've just been arguing that it's terribly bad taste.


I also think that Russia having banned the game isn't that big of deal. Like I said before, if it was an American airport, and you played a Russian char and went in and started gunning down civilians... our response would have been far worse. Along the red scare line.

At the beginning of the video there is a mother (i assume) holding the hand of a little boy (I assume sex) in line. Later in the video a little girl in a green dress get's shot.

America has been known to ban things from other countries. It only seems to get people offended when it happens to be an American corporation that's getting banned.

[MercyfulFate]

If you notice i haven't called for the game to be recalled. I've just been arguing that it's terribly bad taste.


I also think that Russia having banned the game isn't that big of deal. Like I said before, if it was an American airport, and you played a Russian char and went in and started gunning down civilians... our response would have been far worse. Along the red scare line.

At the beginning of the video there is a mother (i assume) holding the hand of a little boy (I assume sex) in line. Later in the video a little girl in a green dress get's shot.

America has been known to ban things from other countries. It only seems to get people offended when it happens to be an American corporation that's getting banned.

I still don't see any children, I don't know where you're seeing this. The banning of any game is an issue, not just this. If it was an American airport my, and most people's opinions wouldn't change. Heck there's whole levels through decimated American homes.

Left 4 Dead 2 is being banned in Australia, which is silly. Manhunt 2 was banned in the UK if I remember correctly as well. Even American pundits freaked out over Mass Effect's "sex scene" and I use that loosely because it was so minor it wasn't even worth talking about.

[Kotah]

Yeah, people freak out.

America practices censorship as well. An easy example would be the censorship of Japanese media sold in the us.

[MercyfulFate]

Dante's Inferno is getting flak and it's not even out yet, because you have to fight evil babies in Hell.

[Kotah]

Evil babies?

hehe

[Oniya]

Dante's Inferno is getting flak and it's not even out yet, because you have to fight evil babies in Hell.

*wants Dante's Inferno just for the classical reference*

[Kate]

One in particular noted that more aggressive people are attracted to violent video games rather then video games being the cause of aggressive tendencies."

I agree - it is an outlet.

In the same way porn is an outlet for going out and trying to do it yourself.

As far as demonic actions such as rape - as long as it is the "enemy" that is doing it
and it casuses a feeling to grow in the player that it is "wrong" - then it is good i think that POST rape scenes where you see the victum in tears - in a way you sympathise and wish to prevent such things or help her and stand up for her rights is ok - such things are inevitable.

Games like movies have ratings - but if it has these things i think it shoudl have an "R" rating or whatever.

[Hemingway]

Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, I find the story of Modern Warfare, particularly the latest installation, amazing, and not simply as a game of its kind. It ends up becoming a very personal, and by the end, blurs the lines of morality - I don't want to elaborate too much, in case anyone wants to know for themselves.

I'm a bit torn about the "No Russian" level. Censorship is something I would never advocate, and even though I felt awful playing through it, it doesn't offend me - few things do. However, I can understand why it would offend others. What I don't understand is the, I almost want to label it hypocrisy, in protesting against these scenes, but at the same time being so far removed from actual events of this kind that you really have no concept of it at all. It seems to me like what these people are against is being exposed to it, not the acts themselves.

[Jude]

I thought the story was poorly fleshed out and hard to follow in many instances.

Character motivations were especially difficult to understand when it came to some of the larger events of the game.

But I do generally agree that it was an OK story.  8/10 if I had to score.

[MercyfulFate]

Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, I find the story of Modern Warfare, particularly the latest installation, amazing, and not simply as a game of its kind. It ends up becoming a very personal, and by the end, blurs the lines of morality - I don't want to elaborate too much, in case anyone wants to know for themselves.

I'm a bit torn about the "No Russian" level. Censorship is something I would never advocate, and even though I felt awful playing through it, it doesn't offend me - few things do. However, I can understand why it would offend others. What I don't understand is the, I almost want to label it hypocrisy, in protesting against these scenes, but at the same time being so far removed from actual events of this kind that you really have no concept of it at all. It seems to me like what these people are against is being exposed to it, not the acts themselves.

I'd say if it made you feel awful, or feel offended it probably did it's job quite well. Half Life 2 for example was a masterpiece in part because it made you care about the characters you interacted with like Eli and Alyx.