Once again, the world has been confronted with difficult questions about the nature of videogames as an entertainment form. Footage of recently release Modern Warfare 2 featuring the player gunning down innocent civilians in an airport was leaked several weeks ago and caused the usual ignorant and ill-informed backlash from the usual ignorant and ill-informed social commentators in the press.
Accusations that “it makes light of terrorist activities” were thrown around will-nilly, betraying a gross misunderstanding of the medium, not to mention the scene itself (as this isn’t exactly what I would call a “light” treatment of terrorist violence). Yes, the scene is shocking. It is harrowing. It makes your stomach turn to watch it. And most people who have played through this scene, I hope, would feel at least some discomfort at mowing down innocent civilians no matter how desensitised to violence they might be. But why is this a bad thing? The revulsion and emotional resonance that the violent act provokes is a strength that videogames have over any other kind of entertainment form because it forces the player to really contemplate the ethical repercussions and the extent of the immorality of modern terrorists’ atrocious methods. It is an established narrative device that has been used to convey the horrifying truth of terrorism that could not have been achieved in any other way, even if, as has been suggested, it was played out from the perspective of a victim instead.
The interactivity of videogames can often raise complex moral questions, and the fact that the player is actively and complicitly participating in the violence in this scene, as opposed to merely viewing it, is really why the game has come under heavy fire from the sensationalist press. But for me, this is a huge strength of the videogame medium and obviously something that movies or books could never achieve. Infinity Ward clearly have a boundary pushing agenda with this scene, but this is a good thing and should be credited by gamers and non-gamers alike for its artistic merit. If the player were merely viewing this in the form of a cutscene it would not have the same element of shock, and therefore would not burden the player with really considering the actions of the terrorists or contemplating the moral implications of them in the same way.
The overblown hype even made its way into Parliament, with the extraordinarily obtuse, ill-reputed and witless Labour MP Keith Vaz launching yet another pathetic anti-gaming tirade, this time against IW and Activision for said violent scene. The voice of reason was heard, however, thanks to Labour MP Tom Watson who also set up a Facebook pressure group entitled Gamer’s Voice, which is now over 4000 members strong.
The whole MW2 multiplayer fiasco may have been a big step backwards for PC gaming, but this is undoubtedly a courageous step forwards, and IW should be highly commended for being the first to take it and for showing us that games are capable of much more than cheap thrills.
As you said, I hope many didnt make light of this scene, I was actually a bit disturbed by what the scene depicts. That being the atrocity that is terrorism and the impact it has on people(although I did laugh at the heavy voiceover someone did).
It gives a startling insight into what events like the mumbai attack a year ago and the columbine massacre must have been like for the victims, that being complete fear for your life. It was shocking to watch as civilians tried to save their friends only to be gunned down. If there was any part of that game that I will remember most it will be that moment, mostly because the rest of the game was dry for memorable moments.
I think the whole thing would’ve been more effective if they’d placed you as a civilian. Make the mission end and progress the game as soon as you get killed (so no respawning). So it’d be possible to get away and survive, but most likely you’d die and the game would move on.
Do you not think it’s just a bit of a heavy handed push in the ‘this is a MATURE game, ok guys?’ direction which is only undermined by the almost obnoxious action sequences?
To me, it’s like, if you want to make a serious game with serious issues, fine; I’m cool with that. But you can’t make a serious game with serious issues if you can absorb bullets and basically be a super soldier as you wade through hundreds of enemies in an action movie plot.
Does that make sense? Dunno. Going bed.
Craig forced me to appear here. I’ve already said my bit about it on my blog. Go and have a look. http://drugcrazed.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/no-press/
Btw, this is revenge for Craig plugging his blog on mine. Git.
There was no forcing. And like I say, that’s how the internet works you crazy fool.
@ Drug Crazed
I’m sorry but I think your response is a bit of a cop out. It’s good that you don’t agree with the majority of criticisms made and you certainly had a unique take on the situation, but you really think that we should concede on the quality of our games because of the ignorance of sensationalists?
@ Craig
Why can’t we have both? You seem to assume that serious issues and “obnoxious” action sequences are incompatible…
They are. You can’t go Action! Explosion! Snowmobile Chase! Deeply disturbing slaughter of innocents. Explosion!
It doesn’t sit right with me. In my humble opinion games – like any other media – need a tone setting for the experience. You wouldn’t slip Radiohead into the middle of an S Club 7 album, same goes here. Although, I have to concede that I haven’t played it and am purely going of footage of general gameplay and that scene; you’re the expert at the minute so if you say “it isn’t like that” then I’ll believe you.
p.s. Obnoxious was maybe the wrong word to use. Maybe ‘crass’ is better.
Ooh, Alec Meer has made my point better than I could in his ‘Wot I think’ http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/11/17/wot-i-think-modern-warfare-2
I know when to admit I’m beat. This is certainly how I felt playing through the game, but I guess I must just be in a minority.
I really think that you can take from games whatever you want, and this is what I chose to take from it.
I’m glad most people agree it shouldn’t be banned but I genuinely am surprised at the amount of people who thought the scene was inappropriate.
I actually thought Alec’s arguments were quite weak. Overall, I think Phil Cameron’s were the most convincing- http://resolution-magazine.co.uk/content/the-prison-of-choice/
It’s not a case of being ‘beat’. With anything like this of course it’s going to split opinion – that’s the joy of it isn’t it?