I'm speechless... I am in total agreement Tom. Who sells this to a kid even with an option to skip the mission?

Well put. I think you've nailed it, Tom. The game will be hailed as a total success, but why IW have chosen to include this scene and offer the player control over a massacre is tasteless and over the top. I'm going to play my copy tonight and I can't decide if I will skip this scene or not. Probably will...

Notice it's rated 18+ (or equivalent) it's meant for MATURE audiences, if you cant take shooting fake people in a fake situation with fake guns and fake blood then you should have skipped the level/passed on the game entirely. It's place in the game is to make you think that these people are actually evil, not just "oh yeah those are the bad guys". It makes you realise actually how terrible the things people do are

It saddens me that parents/grandparents will buy this for their young children.

I'm in agreement with you here as well. The airport scene, regardless of the amount of effort that went into getting the blood and scripting right is downright lazy. It's as though IW didn't bother trying to figure out how to make us hate Makarov (?) in an intelligent manner, but decided instead to stick us inside a pointless scene. Heaven forbid they'd hire a writer to actually make sense of the story and have us hate the villain. I had hopes that this scene would be justified by the end of the game and having finished it I can tell you I have no idea what the hell the plot of the game was to begin with, let alone the purpose of that scene.

"offer the player control over a massacre"

It might be better if they did, if they let me shoot the other gunmen, drop my weapon and lie down on the floor, potentially jeopardizing... what, exactly? The story doesn't really make it clear what would happen, I dunno, the secret agent who infiltrated the terrorist organization prevented an attack and spared dozens, if not hundreds of lives.

But they don't give you control. They force you through it. It's an on-rails sequence with free-look until the police arrive.

Can't wait for the mod that arms the civilia-oh, I forgot, no mod support. Don't want pesky users not experiencing this exactly in the manner it was so immaculately crafted.

"It makes you realise actually how terrible the things people do are"

If you don't already know how terrible shooting up an airport terminal is until you see it demonstrated in photorealism, please, please seek help. Psychological, law enforcement, parental, something. Please.

I am not kidding.

The responsibility falls on parents or parental figures who allow children to play mature games. Stores by me actually check ID before selling games rated "Mature".

If this store was allowing the game to be sold to an adult who was obviously buying it for their child...their responsibility as a sales person is to say...this is for adults.

Again, as people have stated, it is a game. If you find graphic depictions of violence done to pixels and wire frames disturbing...do not play. The gore and violence is no worse than horror genre games. Yet people seem to think it's okay to blow a zombies brains out ala Fallout 3.

Brains are brains, same violence just a different skin texture.

Stop blaming the companies and let parents take responsibility for what their children watch and play.

@elle

Wow, you make jokes about killing hundreds of innocent people, nice

I find it very interesting indeed that this sequence has caused such an (understandable) controversy, whereas the AC130 sequence in CoD4, which in my mind asks you to do just as reprehensible things - slaughtering hundreds of fleeing people while your unseen colleague yells in celebration - barely caused a murmur.

I find reactions like this (or the reactions to Super Columbine Massacre RPG, for that matter) kind of incomprehensible. I mean, yes, it's not fun (for most people) to virtually take part in a massacre of innocent civilians. But it's not like they're asking you to like it. The point is to evoke a specific emotional response to these people, who are, I would assume, the villains of the storyline. I haven't played the game yet. It's conceivable it's cheap and tawdry and badly handled. But I don't think it's any of those things automatically just because they decided to include it in a videogame.

And there's much worse in any given GTA game or, for that matter, Saints Row 2, a game which gleefully glories in its sociopathy, because in those games the person doing all the killing of innocents is the hero of the story. You don't immediately step out of the killer's shoes to go fight them for the next several hours.

I haven't played it, but as long as its an adult playing it, I've got no problem with it. In the end, it's on parent's shoulders. If it's as visceral as you say, though, it's going to be the new ammunition for anti-violence in gaming activists, which gives us all a bad name.

That's not a screenshot from the game, is it? If so, that's amazing. I'm still looking to find something in that picture to tell me it's not a movie set.

I get tired of continually coming onto this website and getting lectured about some kind of moral delimma. Why this is wrong and not that. If you dont like it then dont play it. Most everybody knew this would be in the game. Dont even start talking about the FAGS stuff again. Dont be a politically correct a-hole.

@malkav
I think Tom Chick is saying that it's cheap and tawdry because he played through it and found it cheap and tawdry. I'm not sure how they could have played this particular scene more subtly, but that might be an indication that they shouldn't have added it at all.

I just think that a studio that has had you play doomed protagonists before could have found a better way out to paint the villain as a bad man.

Also... IW didn't just become this studio, they've always been this studio. They're just trying to up the ante.

Tom, is it safe to say that you found the violence distasteful because it was artistically void?

It seems like the same kind of comparison you'd make comparing the violence in "Passion Of The Christ" to the violence in "Saving Private Ryan". One is manipulative and dishonest, the other is artistic and meaningful.

Good for you Tom, for saying what no one else will.

If IW wasn't so terrible at story telling, maybe this scene could have been salvaged. But IW makes the video game equivalent of a Michael Bay movie.

Sounds to me like the scene did its job. You felt disgusted with what the terrorists did and it gave you a reason for wanting to stop them. It was in your face and brutal, just like the real thing.

As for kids playing the game, they shouldn't be playing it anyway. The game is clearly marketed to adults, but the fact it is a "game" makes people think it is for children, an idea that is far from true anymore.

Perhaps parents should keep a better eye on what their kids are playing.

I liked the scene, and no not because I'm a evl person that is trying to plan my vengeful takedown of a school or place of business.
I liked it because it does go well with the story, it shows you the kind of guy your after. As its been said in previous posts, it is a 18+ game. I for one say good job IW for giving us a different perspective on things that are going on in the game, a simple cut scene would not have been enough in this situatiion.

CoD: MW2 is a awsome game, and lets not forget, the makers of the game give you a chance to skip this level for the adults that whine to much, its nobody's fault but your own for seeing this scene.

"Sounds to me like the scene did its job. You felt disgusted with what the terrorists did and it gave you a reason for wanting to stop them. It was in your face and brutal, just like the real thing."

I'm not entirely sure this is the case for everyone who plays/views it. Does a scene like this make you hate the antagonist, or does it take you out of the story? Do you react by saying "Boy, I sure hate the bad guy now" or "Ah, this is the narrative device made to make me hate the bad guy! I do/do not"? If it pulls you out of the game, or the story, and make you ponder why such a scene is in this game, it doesn't really serve the narrative purpose.

I really wonder if this was included just to get publicity or press. Since they're already guaranteed to sell millions of copies, does it matter at all if they stir a little controversy for extra screen time?

On another note, which Mr. Chick might be interested in: CBC's news covered the Modern Warfare 2 launch on a few of their programs, and ended with the kicker that a Call of Duty game was played by Brandon Crisp - the Ontarian boy who died after running away, after his parents took away his copy of CoD4, a little over a year ago.

They wanted realism and a challenge, we wanted realism and a challenge, don't knock them because they took the video game industry up a notch and made a very powerful scene. THEY WARNED YOU BEFORE YOU STARTED THE SCENE, THERE WAS A DISCLAIMER. Complaints about this level are illegitimate and null for these reasons.

How does this take the video game industry up a notch? How is it a challenge? How is it realistic? CoD has become as grounded in reality as 24 or the Ubisoft Tom Clancy games.

Jeeze, Elle, you do realize that the article includes a picture of the aftermath of an actual terrorist massacre, right? Kind of voids out whatever attack you were making on Tom.

Tom, I already heard concerns about this scene in the media and was wondering whether you'd address them. I got a feeling there's a "whole game" review coming beyond this, which might be having your cake and eating it too, but it's your blog.

I'm mixed about this. Part of me thinks of IDW's recent Cobra comic book, where a G.I. Joe character goes undercover and commits numerous attrocities to gain greater and greater access to a (admittedly ultimately larger than life) terrorist organization. However, that undercover mission and the moral/psychological process of protagonist coming to terms with his actions, though he arguably disintegrates in the end, is the whole point of the work. If more was done with this "morally ambiguous" (as the intelligence community would likely call such an operation) mission of an undercover within a terrorist mission, that's a bit more understandable as a game experience. It builds to a point.

As I understand it though, this is simply a one off mission from the bad guys perspective. Nothing of substance is gained for the game's protagonists from this mission. The claim that you get to see "how bad the bad guys are" is a thin argument. If this game was truly daring, they'd "railroad" the players as the victims. Let them see the slaughter from that perspective, having your virtual friends, loved ones and colleagues, gunned down. Let them play multiple victims. Let them learn loss by having a few runs at a scenario that's impossible to win (no one gets out alive).

Sounds like this level was done in poor taste under the pre-text of pushing the envelope where we're really just getting a sequence that panders to the bassist gamer trigger finger impulses.

I write all this, but still want to know what that exploding space station in the trailer was all about....

Anonymous, the How is it a challenge remark I can see, but come on how is it realistic? Like stuff like this has never happened. As if you've never seen this depicted in a movie. Come out from under that rock... dang man..

bassist = most base? basest?

Man, I wasn't even thinking about hating the bad guy. I was thinking about what would happen to PFC Allen, having been a part of an atrocity. I was looking forward to character building/destroying. I would have liked more character establishment.

And then [SPOILER] etc, so that left me a little cold.

I felt that the scene was written to make me feel uncomfortable, and it did that well. I didn't enjoy the experience but I enjoyed the presentation.

On some level, though, I can't help but agree with Tom - how much of this was just for marketing hype?

I can understand people's complaints, but then I don't understand how it's ok to shoot representations of people defending their homeland? People who were drafted and forced to fight? It's ok to kill them, because, as I hear... IT'S A EFFIN' GAME!

Despite people being upset about this opening scene, they will still play through the game. If it's so bad and so wrong, RETURN THE GAME. DON'T FINISH IT. Otherwise, you have nothing to complain about. It's like people who sit through a whole movie and then complain and ask for their money back.... despite watching the whole thing.

"THEY WARNED YOU BEFORE YOU STARTED THE SCENE, THERE WAS A DISCLAIMER. Complaints about this level are illegitimate and null for these reasons."

So, if Michael Bay put a "Warning, this movie really sucks, please feel free to leave now if you don't like sucky movies" before his movies, criticism would be "illegitimate and null". I'm sure lots of people who make crappy entertainment would love to be informed of your discovery!

Looks like MW3 will work better for you bleedin' hearts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReKUSzo8Y-s

When I first heard about this whole thing, I was like "okay, it will help the story, make me want to kill this guy and everything...fine."

But after I have played through the entire story, I look back on that, and realize that it was pointless, and actually didn't cause any hatred for this "villain" that I thought it was going to. This isn't about "morals" in a video-game, its about artistic and story-telling direction. The fact is that scene was inserted for no apparent reason, and IW should have spent that time creating a story that made sense.

TLDR? The scene didn't do anything with our emotions once we finished the campaign, and we now realize how pointless it was, and it was just IW's publicity grabber.

Well said, Jay.

But what about that space station?

Grow up. It's like asking why Shindler's List was even filmed. We know that 6 million Jews were murdered and there was a book that it was based off of so why did we need to watch an entire film of them getting murdered in the most appalling ways? Did it need to be visualized in a graphic and realistic manner? Maybe or maybe not but it did evoke an emotion of disgust or sympathy.

The same could be said of a myriad of other pieces of media, even art. You can call MW2 art if you want or you can chastise me for even considering it, I don't care.

As for people who say that they did this for sales, please. If anything it would hinder sales from concerned parents (if any of those exist nowadays) who would be purchasing it for their child.

And the FAGS thing was funny. I think it was actually amazing that the South Park episode revolving around the word "fag" and how it's lost it's connection to gays and is instead being used as just an insult that doesn't necessarily involve sexual orientation was aired shortly after it.

I think it was a risk that IW took and I respect them for that.

Instead of whining about this and that about a game. How about we just pay game designers to put porn clips in their games that can be a "secret unlockable" like in gta san andreas before the mpaa changed it to adults only so we can just laugh as idiotic parents go crazy over what game their kids playing.

I had the "opportunity" to watch this last night when my friend showed the GameTrailers video of it. My question was exactly the same as yours: why is this in here? I really don't see the point.

Sorry, dude, putting your ignorance of how controversy is often exploited to market entertainment aside, if you're going to say ModWar2 is a work of art, people have a right to talk about it. While there's a lot of formal analysis (and most reviews do stick to "formal" aspect like game play) art criticism has always been involved with ethical moral philosophy (basically dwelling on questions of "should?"). If you can't handle Tom god forbid _thinking_ about games that push the moral envelope in what it has its players play through, then just work on your killstreak while the adults talk over your head. People can play and a have life of the mind entertained by the hobby too.

No need to call me ignorant, Marty, I just fail to see how that scene would result in positive out come of sales for IW. If the negative press some how lead to a positive impact on sales it would be negligible and not worth the amount of effort that IW obviously put into it. This part of the game is getting not nearly as much coverage of MW2 game play or the story in a broader aspect.

"then just work on your killstreak while the adults talk over your head" I have no idea why you're labeling me as some juvenile who can't appreciate the artistic values of games or argue over them.

Yes, dude, your failure to see the sales potential from controversy is based on ignorance. Yes, the "gamer press" and mainstream publications with dedicated gamer columnists are writing about the merits of the game as a whole. But the BBC doesn't usually pay much attention to video games, at least in the news broadcasts they produce for U.S. consumption. Yet, what was their penultimate news item? The controversial airport massacre? The BBC isn't alone in that.
How long had San Andreas been out when the "XXX" unlocking went public and Senators started calling for hearings? What happened to its sales?

By achieving that attention, IW "unlocks" so to speak markets beyond the die hards who grabbed it at midnight or earlier. Folks both aware and unaware of its release hear the controversy and think "hmm, I gotta get this and see for myself" or at the least mention it by the water cooler, thus perpetuating the buzz. Kids who are otherwise oblivious to game marketing are attracted to the forbidden fruitiness of it like a celebrity cover to Playboy that gets mentioned with disdain on the Today Show, making their parents tut. This isn't rocket science, it's pretty standard cynical marketing practices that, as Tom's pointed out, Rockstar has made a playbook out of.

I labeled you as a juvenile mostly because it was fun to type that; but also because your Schindler's List association wasn't really an apt comparison (you're talking about something commemorating the Holocaust, we're talking about a game that makes terrorism a playable experience, so by your logic playing a game as say, the Mumbai assailants from around this time last year would be an appropriate commemoration of that event?). That and your puerile dismissal of "Fags" as a problematic slur because the public overlooks its meaning while unconsciously perpetuating it.

I love it when dumb people act smart

Apropos of nothing, that's a nice paragraph transition from your description of the GameStop siege to "Eventually, we fight the Russian police."

You know, the fact that the game includes such a visceral scene is intriguing to me - that powerful of an emotional response is tough to elicit, personally speaking, and I'd have a lot of respect for a game that was able to do it, purely for the craft involved, even if whether the inclusion were arguably uncalled for in the grand scheme of the game's story. I can't think of the last time a video game really made me feel that way.

Also - ITT: moralfags being trolled.

Also also - this is the second time I'm posting this, since the captcha failed on the first try, as usual.

People need to realise the only reason this is in the game is they know that some people will appreciate it. And if they don't they can skip it. It's not the makers of the game who should be frowned upon, but the people who lap this stuff up.

Yes.... Caleb... Thats it, thank you! I'm sure IW had a panel of people standing around during the conception of this game, talked about all the different possibilites of what to do. This decision was taken under careful consideration, and they produced what they felt the majority of the fans of the CoD franchise would like, of course they could have just made everyone go through it, but they didn't, you get to choose. If you made the wrong choice and regret it, sorry....

Released the day before Armistice/Remembrance day. Could be worse and they do it on a day which was all about remembering fallen soldiers for the sacrifice they made.

You really think so, Tom?

I haven't played the game yet, but everybody (including mainstream media) seem keen on spoiling this particular moment of the game to me, so I feel I at least have a right to throw my ill informed opinion into the mix.

Personally, I think this is a big step for games in becoming more mature. If a game can elicit these emotions about shooting virtual people, and do it without an in-game crutch (like reputation points or a max casualty objective), then that's a good thing.

MW2 "teaches" you that killing a bunch of people is a gruesome, horrible act. Riding over grannies and killing prostitutes in GTA, on the other hand, is a meaningless, almost comical affair.

I haven't played the game yet. (my copy come in today) so I don't know how I will fell during or after playing the level.

But from the comments and Tim I understand it comes off unnecessary. but maybe that it point? you are undercover trying to infiltrate a terrorist organisation. maybe it trying to make you think about do the means justify the goal. are the sacrifices you had to make measuring up to your victories. again I haven't played the game yet so I don't know!

It make me think about a documentary I saw the other day about a devastated US soldier how had to shoot I kid how was about to give away is squads location. he had to make the choose between one or many. it is the same in the game you have to choose between the hundreds you save in the airport or the thousands you save later. I understand that a lot of you will say that you have no choose. but you have you can shoot you "team-mates" you will save the hundreds in the airport but the story stops there, you don't infiltrated the organisation and so you are not capable to get the intell to continue the story. you choose!

Stone, I'm not sure I get your point, due to the bad spelling and broken grammer, but it seems like your on the side of its not that big of a deal. Am I right?

quote: so why did we need to watch an entire film of them getting murdered in the most appalling ways

It is ignorant to think Schindlers List was a film about the killing of the jews. It was a film about choice. The choice you have as a person even in an inhumane environment.

MW2 does not give you that choice. It is even worse, because games are all about choice. But not CODs games.

If the game had a tone that matched this scene in some way it might be different. It doesn't, the rest of the game is like an OTT Bond Movie. The scence is offensive and sadly it is hubris on the part of the developer.

@borg, Sorry, second language. I haven’t chosen a side. I have to play it first. My point is that maybe the people how leaved this game felling that this level is unnecessary are the people how get what IW wanted to get across. Maybe the level is not about getting you to hate the enemy. It make you think about the lesser of two evil. You have to do this terrible thing to stop the organization. Are you ready to go this far? Are you willing to kill one to save a thousand. Most will say yes. But are you also willing to kill 400 to save a thousand, or kill 999. And are you willing to kill yourself to save a thousand?

When it comes to setting the bar pretty high, IW's delivered here with nonstop exhilaration on a thrill ride fans of the series expect.

Any contender to this crown will need to top a tour-de-force of savvy marketing and gamespace tie-ins the like of which this reviewer's never seen. It'll need to be visually stunning AND worth the price of admission.

"MW2 "teaches" you that killing a bunch of people is a gruesome, horrible act"

Really? Outside of that one particular mission that seems to exist as an island onto itself, how many civilians get caught in the cross-fire of war in all the other missions? How many civilian corpses did you encounter in the entirety of the first Modern Warfare?

That's the problem. Modern Warfare is a mostly bloodless shooting gallery with magically vanishing corpses, but in this one scene and only this scene you have people screaming, blood trails, and a real sense of consequence. Doesn't that seem at odds with everything else in Modern Warfare?

I don't think Tom, or anyone else agreeing with him, is saying that games shouldn't tackle hard topics and elicit harsh responses from players. But they should do so with maturity and an understanding that Infinity Ward, in the context of everything else they've done, is lacking. In that sense it comes across as totally crass and exploitative. It's like Duck Hunt with a massacre scene and further proof that "M for Mature" means anything but.

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/11/10/onion-sends-modern-warfare-2

SERIOUSLY! the game is freaking rated M for mature so good parents shouldnt get the game for their kids. the game gives you the option to skip the mission. for god sakes theres plenty of games that have done worse. and how can you say its worse then grandtheft auto... seriously! yeah so its a freee choice game but the entire premice of the game and all of your mission goials revolve around killing people and unarmed civilians. so seriously this review is ridiculess. little kids who cant handle an M RATED GAME BECAUSE ITS FREAKING RATED M FOR MATURE FOR A REASON SHOULDNT GET THE **** GAME ! its the JOB of the PARENTS to determine if their kids can handle it. i personally had no real problem with the fact that the mission was in the game, however it did effect me emotionally, which was the point. more and more games nowadays are trying to go for shock value and to go for emotional effects. the more mainstream games become and the more popular then movies they become the more stuff like this u will encounter. their are plenty of movies that have worse content then this, and if video games are slowly replacing movies then that same ADULT/ MATURE content is to be expected to pop up in more and more MATURE rated video games, which u have to be old enough to buy anyway or have a gaurdians permission. yes its controversial but its a story. what would you expect, if your going undercover as a terrorist then your going to have to do what terrorists do and thats one of their things, its called realism you idiots. in real life if a cop goes undercover as a drug dealer he/she actually freaking sells drugs, omg freak out on them cause their doing something terrible, no no you wouldnt would you, put say if someone put that into a video game you'd all crap your pants. as time passes and video games grow more advanced we're going to see more and more mature content, because video games are going to soon become like movies, just interactive. we've all seen controversial movies, i've seen movies with worse content then this that never got criticized this much. for gods sakes calm down, play the game if you want or dont but dont go wasting a space on this blog, which i once thought was good, for stupid statements that have no real thinking behind them...... im out... screw fidgit... figures a website powered by scifi oh my bad i forgot they retarded up their name now, SYFY would become slowly just as dumb as the parent company. SyFy ruins their shows and all they are associated with, fidgit has now offically just became another peice of garbage... thanks... know what your talking about and think about all aspects of your statements before opening your mouths.. you ignorant people

Well judging by your post you're clearly mature enough to play it aren't you Jared? Thank you for explaining what realism is. It's so humbling to be called ignorant by such a sparkling wit as yourself.

Not really.

It must be really depressing, having the sort of mind that gets that worked up about stuff you read on the internet. About videogames. Take your own advice, 'calm down' and 'don't go wasting space on this blog'...

Also, 'officially' a piece of garbage? Really?

This is what makes this the best gaming blog. Thanks for not just being a slightly wacky news aggregate site

Eurogamer's take is interesting:
"The removal of player agency is at once frustrating and brilliant: through it, the limitations of the first-person-shooter's purpose and themes are revealed. In a genre that limits you to interactions sent down the barrel of a gun, for perhaps the first time in history, Infinity Ward makes you wish for a bandage instead."

Can I get ruling on this? Do the two Shindler's List references = Godwin's Law?

I'd also add that timing is a big factor here. I'd be willing to bet that the Ft. Hood massacre is coloring a lot of gamer's experience with the scene in question. If anyone cares to remember, the Columbine massacre is generally acknowledged as being responsible for the universally bad reviews that were attached to Fight Club. Perhaps we're seeing the same thing here.

keysE2S of course. the two shindler's list references are form of godwin's law, but it not really far to use godwin in a argument about a game with series is mostly about WWII, is it?

I mentioned to my friend earlier today that it's too bad MW2 didn't come out last week so they could try and use it as a scapegoat for the shootings across the country in the last week.

Someone pointed out to me that you can also just shoot over the heads of the civilians, thus yourself not shooting them, if that makes you feel better. ;)

I just find it amusing that in a game full of simulated violence where you are killing them, you choose to complain about particular variations of it. How do you know that those "bad guys" weren't forced into it? Think about their families. You don't care about them? What if some of those civilians were child molesters, rapists, wife beaters, etc etc? YOU DIDN'T CONSIDER THAT, DID YOU?! NOOOooOoOoOoo... Just because you don't have a gun doesn't make you innocent.... in a video game.

in reply to m ("Really? Outside of that one particular mission that seems to exist as an island onto itself, how many civilians get caught in the cross-fire of war in all the other missions? How many civilian corpses did you encounter in the entirety of the first Modern Warfare")

I played the first Modern Warfare and while yes in its core it's an action game about shooting people it never seemed to make light of the loss of lives to me. The very first scene, seen from the eyes of the soon to be executed president, has similar content and tone as the elevator scene, albeit less shocking.

And sure, yes, there is probably also a lot of over the top action in it. It's still a videogame- I'm not saying Infinity Ward just reinvented the medium. But for a videogame, being able to do something like this is a step forwards, not backwards.

@Stone
Is Shindler's List really a "war movie"? Why not use "Saving Private Ryan" or "Thin Red Line" as examples? Wouldn't those two movies be more apropos for a FPS?

WTF is with the spoiler, dude. Some people haven't played it yet.

Believe me, those grandparents will be the first to complain to their congressman about the game.

As for the scene, I had no idea about it until today. What is the point of a GAME where you shoot innocent people in the back? Not much really.

I won't even hunt Elek tusks in WoW for rep...there is something intrinsically wrong with collecting elephant ivory for reputation even in a game.

It seems different to put that in a game than say in a movie where I have at least a chance to know what to expect...and remember these are labeled "games" as in fun, like Monopoly and Chutes and Ladders. Does the fact that it is a game make a difference- I think it does, somewhat- I agree that games can make a statement but shooting innocent people in the back is not the way to do it.

I like the idea of having the player do something terrible, forcing some internal conflict on us. It's that kind of thing that takes advantage of the drama that interactivity brings to the table. But I didn't feel that in this level.

Once I started playing the level, I wanted it to be making more of an impact on me.

All I kept thinking was "Wow, this is excessive."

I think because of how over-the-top it was, I was drawn out of the game and spent more time thinking about what it took to put the scene together, rather than playing and experiencing it.

It would've helped to have more story in place by the time you do this too. I didn't really have any developed sense of why it was important to do this, other than "gotta prove I'm willing to do anything to be near this bad man."

I needed more context and more relevancy for this scene to do what they were intending.

Something like this could've been accomplished with one, single execution that they have you perform.

This scene was more spectacle than drama, and it suffered because of it.

@ anony: "I get tired of continually coming onto this website and getting lectured" So... stop coming here? Do you expect Tom to change for your benefit?

@ jared: Tom has as much a right to post his opinion as you do. However Tom knows what a paragraph is. And what sentences are. And how to use capitalization. And isn't 12 years old... and/or high.

This level sounds like it was conceptualized by a bunch of drunken frat boys getting together and saying "dude, how edgy would it be to kill innocent people like a terrorist!?!?" "ooooh good call dude!" *high fives all around*

I'm disappointed that may have been delivered in a beer & pretzels fashion instead of taking it to another level. Of course, I haven't played it yet, so I guess I'll have to reserve final judgement.

No, Vibe, i do not expect anybody to change for my benefit. Although i do appreciate a good gaming site void of someones personal convictions about these things. I enjoy reading Tom's articles (most of the time ;) Also, Vibe, you lower yourself to much with your flames...

I agree with you, Tom. On the "choice" idea - I am finding as I play the rest of the game that one of the going themes in Modern Warfare 2 is that soldiers do not have a choice in what they do. I suppose it is arguable that that theme applies to this level literally in the ways you described, especially in the way that you must move slowly an are "forced" to be deliberate. I am not making an excuse for the scene - like you, in the end, I found it execution not meaningful but pornographic. The same thing, if you have to say it, could have been said better. That said, I would encourage everyone to actually play the game before they pass judgment, though. A lot of the comments on this post do not have their facts straight. Another intentional trick on Infinity Ward's part to make this level the perfect flame-bait, I am sure.

So ... that space station.....

This is without doubt the most disgusting game I have ever bought. I thought the gratuitous violence in Wolverine was bad, but this beats it hands down. First I have to deal with the blood spots when wounded, then totally unnecessary brutality. I am not finishing the game and will be dumping it ASAP.

I don't have any problem with the inclusion of the scene in the game. I think it could've been an emotional and thought provoking set piece had it made any logical sense. But four guys taking on an entire airport full of people and dozens of SWAT team members exposes this scene as the ridiculous, distasteful thing that Tom says it is. It makes absolutely zero sense for the player character to go along with the blood bath, and yet, it's the player's only choice. Mix in the fact that the half dozen civilian models are recycled over and over, and the scene loses any gravitas it might have had.

I think IW might've been onto something by putting the player into the enemy shoes for a short time. The execution is way off though. To me, the only thing that somewhat saves the entire thing is the way it wraps up. The ending of the scene drives home just how senseless the entire massacre was. The player is left feeling culpable for the horror than ensued without even the barest of justifications for it.

@KeysE2S
I think Godwin's Law is more like if I were to say that the terrorists are like Nazis or that IW is Hitler or something else along those lines. I wasn't comparing anything to the Nazi movement, just playing devil's advocate with a movie that portrays Nazis. I can't really argue for the other guy though.

@ Marty
The BBC does actually talk about video games a bit. I looked at their homepage today and on there it mentioned how Microsoft is banning Live from those who use modded 360 to play pirated games.

When doing a search on the site for "Modern Warfare 2", the air port controversy had one story dedicated to it and the others were on it's record breaking sales. As for other networks, I checked CNN and they mention Modern Warfare 2 (they don't have as many articles on it as the BBC). They review the game and about the air port briefly but aren't out raged; they call it "powerful". A quick Google search for "Modern Warfare 2" and I can't find any headline involving disgust for the game in the 20 that I read. It honestly isn't getting that much attention although two Labor Party members in the UK are bringing it up.

"How long had San Andreas been out when the "XXX" unlocking went public and Senators started calling for hearings?"
It had been out for about 9 months on PS2 and a little over a month on the Xbox and PC before the game had received its AO rating in the States

"What happened to its sales?"
In March of 2005 Take-Two Interactive said that the sales for GTA:SA was at 12 million units for the PS2. It came out on Xbox and PC in early June 2005. When the AO rating came out, the game could no longer be sold in most retailers due to their policies. The game was re-released nearly two months later on PS2 and Xbox with an M rating while a patch was available for PC. Over all, sales for the game had died off by then, PC and Xbox versions were not even able to sell 3 million units combined. Take-Two also was willing to replace AO units with M ones, a little over 25 hundred were. I would say it didn't help but I don't have exact figures, you can go look them up yourself if you care to.

As mentioned before, I was playing devil's advocate with Schindler's List.

As for the word "fag" i hope it shares the same fate as the word "dumb". "Fag" can mean a lot of different things and has gained different definitions over the centuries, I don't understand why it can't do it again.

did you guys ever think that it is in there just to show how horrible terrorist actually are. It is one thing to see it on the new but to have to see it first hand. I personally think it is brilliant.

"did you guys ever think that it is in there just to show how horrible terrorist actually are. It is one thing to see it on the new but to have to see it first hand."

1. As others have pointed out, it's possible to show "how horrible terrorists are" without resorting to shlocky gooberisms like this. It's called "writing" and "staging." Something IW used to be pretty good at.

2. Is there a single person alive in the developed world today who do not understand the horrible things terrorists do? Do we really need Infinity Ward to point it out to us in some silly cinema scene?

3. Are you seriously trying to say that seeing the Madrid bombings or 9/11 attacks on the news is somehow less effective than seeing some scripted rail ride in a crass big budget videogame?

I don't know about you, Joshua, but it seems like a videogame sequence that provokes such a visceral feeling of horror and dismay would have to be fairly well-written and staged. And I don't think that knowing something intellectually (terrorists are willing to kill civilians, and therefore evil!) is the same as actually witnessing such an action. The feeling I got from watching that scene was a sense of how divorced my own personal ethos, hell, my whole sense of how the world was supposed to function, was from people who would willingly do this. "How can people do this?" I wondered. "Who the hell would be capable of taking hundreds, possibly thousands of lives so willingly, without any hesitation?"

Then, the game started, and I took hundreds, possibly thousands of lives willingly, and without any hesitation. It's okay, though- they were holding guns, so killing them was completely okay!

Do you not see how subversive the whole game becomes in light of the opening sequence? If it seems gratuitously shocking, well, maybe after mowing down millions of armed soldiers and unarmed civilians in other games, we need something gratuitously shocking to wake us up to the kinds of activities we take for granted in most videogames. Games can't be art unless they take death seriously- reveal it as something permanent and horrible. Modern Warfare 2 may be hamstrung by typical FPS conventions in other areas, but in its opening sequence, it scores one for art.

Ooh wow turns out the Uncharted 2 post was just a pretender to the throne.

Well third in line to the throne.

People are STILL posting in that killzone topic, it's never leaving.

ITS A FUCKING GAME. IT'S NOT REAL.

As usual, parents shouldn't be buying it, it is up to them. The game warns you... Also it is fake, let them take out their aggression. You don't HAVE to shoot anyone...

you were given fair warning before you started your massacre. even then, you could've gone to the start menu during the mission, like you can in every mission, and quit, including the part where you step out of the elevator and realize just what you're about to do. if you had qualms about perpetrating a virtual massacre yet didn't quit the mission before you started killing, then you're in no position to complain. so cut the "you're not given a choice" crap.

yeah, this scene was disgusting and tasteless. but what else did you expect terrorism to be? IW probably didn't include this in the game to be compelling and innovative (but, then again, they could have). It was largely for shock value and controversy, and the fact that we're all here talking about it proves they achieved their goal. yeah, it was cheap of them, but are video games honestly supposed to be a place where you look for artistic merit? being cheap turns a profit, and IW is a company.

i can see how a virtual massacre can rub some kids the wrong way. but that doesn't mean that people old enough to responsibly enjoy some MA entertainment shouldn't be allowed to do so. there's a line between reality and fiction, and the media can safely create stuff like this because most people can see that line. the people that can't are called "children," and it's up to responsible parenting to prevent kids too young for MW2 from getting MW2.

but in the end, as the saying goes, it's just a freaking game. it's a thing you use to escape from the world for a while, and should be treated like it.

Mr Chick you are simply wrong here. Games are often discussed as to whether they qualify as a form of art or not. I bring you a new criteria: if games cannot push our moral boundaries and force us to explore parts of ourselves and others that we would rather stay hidden, how can they be art?

Lolita. Crime and Punishment. 1984. The Satanic Verses. A Clockwork Orange.

Games are a truly unique medium in that they can put us in the shoes of someone doing digital representations of actions that we find abhorrent in real life. Why should we not embrace this ability and explore the outer reaches of our moral bounds?

Hi, interesting topic, enough to make me turn in my first post. I have to disagree with argument presented here. The game is simply entertainment and offers warning before hand.

A person should be capable of discerning between reality and what is fictional entertainment. No one is forced to play the game.

If it comes off as immoral to put this in a game to someone then they shouldn't play the game, simple as that. I don't believe everyone should abide by the same moral codes as long as they aren't harming an actual living person in some way. It's just pure entertainment.

Who cares it's just a game, I don't see what the big deal is. If 9/11 hadn't of happened nobody would be making a fuss about this.

You seem to have forgotten the next worse think IW has put in a COD game- in Modern Warefar you capture and then torture a high ranking enemy. Then, after the team has the information needed, they shoot him in the head. While he is unarmed. And tied to a chair.

Infinity Ward has no idea the horrible message this is telling anyone who plays the game, and I am always surprised that no one else seems to care about this scene.

Frank, that scene is no worse than any other show you see that is rated for a MA audience. People are not complaining about the fact it was what it was, they dont like the fact you control the guy and his actions. If it was a CGI sequence, it would have been tolerated a bit more. Honestly people, this isn't as bad as you make it out to be. Its just a game. If you dont like it, get get Wii Sports Resort or Animal Crossing. The Saw movies have more blood in them then this. I have a 5 y/o boy, I wont let him watch me play this like I do with the Halo games, like me he will learn the difference between real and fantasy before he's allowed to play games that I'm sure by that time will be much more graphic than these current games.

Frank if you think that scene in CoD:MW was bad, you've been living under a rock. Does anybody think that terrorists would only fight people with guns, did everyone in the WTC's have guns? This is life people, as ruthless, unjust, horrible, and tacky as it may seem, its life.

borg, for chrissakes, stop saying that MW2 is real. It's as real as a comic book. It's an episode of 24 made into a game, it's Tom Clancy's Modern Warfare 2.

I think the difference between what else IW has done and this scene is that in the scene where you bomb areas, in the scene you torture the man for information and int he scene they set off a nuke, they earned that. They set up the situation and had it integrated into the narrative. They earned those moments and made them purposeful as well as effective. I have not played the game, but from what I am told it is the first part of the game and is only minimal. In that case, IW has not earned the scene. Everything in art has to be earned, somethings require more set up, respect to the subject matter and reasoning to earned their place.

The problem isn't whether or not a game should be allowed to push moral boundaries and make people uncomfortable. The problem is in this case it seems that IW cheapened the experience by making it look like controversy fodder. Earning the right to depict controversial images or subject matter is not unique to video games, but all mediums.

I saw this scene at a friends house last night. It is an absolute work of art. The music, graphics, and overall ambiance is absolutely perfect. I am going to buy this game AND an xbox360 JUST BECAUSE of the airport scene. I want to support anybody who uses freedom in the correct way. It even inspired me to develop my own game. It is called "Do drugs and kill innocents for fun, just because I can".......Real Freedom, using every drop of it.

It is just as masterful and important work of art as the Mona Lisa, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Sistene chapel, and Michelangelo's David. Perhaps more so, because you can participate.

I do understand what they were going for emotionally here, but logically this whole scene is more than a bit ridiculous.

I am sorry, no undercover operative is going to perpetrate a mass murder like this. The whole act defies the nature of being a soldier. I watched the scene take place thinking 'This is bullshit! this guy would have plugged slugs in the back of all of these terrorists heads before pulling the trigger on one innocent civilian!'

Makarov was right there. Killing him and his crew and stopping the attack at the same time at worst would have pushed back any plans Makarov was forming and would have given the US more time to combat those plans.

In theory I think the scene could have worked if the scene started out with Makarov questioning your loyalty and then forcing you at gunpoint to open fire on the civilians, but as the scene is scripted it just does not work for me. You are behind the whole crew, you have the perfect placement to stop everything before it happens.

The scene could have been made just as poigtnant and have still been logical with just a few changes.

As far as the 'it is just a game jokers go'- Yes, it is a game. That does not mean that there is no point to discussing the moral message placed inside those games.

Borg- I was always taught that to not become the enemy, you had to not act like the enemy. I am not someone who does not believe in any form of torture, but I will also never think killing an unarmed combatant is OK.

If you do, I am sorry, but your moral radar is completely broken.

"It is just as masterful and important work of art as the Mona Lisa, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Sistene chapel, and Michelangelo's David. Perhaps more so, because you can participate."
Wow.
Just...wow.
Egon Spengler was right. Print is dead.

>>>>>Lolita. Crime and Punishment. 1984. The Satanic Verses. A Clockwork Orange.

>>>>>>Mona Lisa, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Sistene chapel, and Michelangelo's David.

>>>> Modern Warfare 'massacre the civilians' airport scene.

I just cannnot believe people are (a) talking about these things in the same breath as the gun-porn action movie excess of MW2 and (b) acting like it's some kind of justification for the airport scene.

Just when you think you've plumbed the depths of the internet's stupidity, someone comes along with an even better ignorance bathysphere.

In reading most of these comments I can see a distinct lack of parenting having occurred for most and the same pervading stupidity that has infected this great country.
It is a game but it is not some expression of freedom or artwork. If you need a game to show you how bad terrorism is you won't have to wait much longer before one blows you up or shoots you dead in real life on your front yard anyways.

Thanks for the preview about what's in there. In the game ratings, there's MA and then there's MA; I seldom find the rating to be consistent between games. I teach my children the lessons of 9/11, Columbine, and now Ft. Hood. And while it feels to let the bad guys have it from time to time, or to sometimes even be a bad guy, excessive is excessive and gratitous is gratitous whatever the reasons for having the scene. I'm tired of games that I have to look for mods to tone language and violence so I can play them in front of my kids. As much as I've enjoyed the series in the past, I may skip on this one.

@joesocwork Why would you ever play a game like this in front of your kids??? Even if you censored the blood and language, there is still the massive slaughter even beyond this level.

I for one quite enjoyed the level. It evoked a strong emotional response never quite achieved in playing a videogame. I made the conscious decision to act the part and kill many civilians. As the level wore on, I started to become more disgusted with myself.
The ending was the perfect cap to the story. For the first time in a video game it wasn't an "OH SHIIIT!!!" moment like when blasting full speed in the snowmobile. It was an "oh shit..." moment. I immediatly realized what had happened. All of the senseless killing for nothing. For once, a violent video game did the opposite of desensitization for me.

For myself, this level made MW2 that much more realistic. The following levels became that much more intense. The level truly set the tone for the game. War is horrible. War is not a badass mowing down the enemy. War is an incomprehensible monster. This game is the first to show a hint (albeit a tiny one) of the truth of war. Bravo Infinity Ward.

Tom, thank you so much for having some balls and saying something critical about this. So many people in the enthusiast press have reactions along the lines of "games should be allowed to do anything other mediums can," which is patently obvious and completely missing the point.

I'm not sure I agree with you entirely, because I've not played the game yet, but your reaction is at least valid in a way that the others I have seen are not.

My initial take on the topic is here if anyone's interested: http://boomculture.blogspot.com/2009/11/play-as-terrorists-in-call-of-duty.html

Did you play it? It is different than you think. It like talking about a movie you didn't see or a book you didn't read.......N1CKOLAS played it, he had the same reaction as me. It was absolutely creepy......and it made you go, wow, this IS a work of art.

Did you play it? It is different than you think. It like talking about a movie you didn't see or a book you didn't read.......N1CKOLAS played it, he had the same reaction as me. It was absolutely creepy......and it made you go, wow, this IS a work of art.

@ N1CKOLAS: LOL! Did my post even imply that I play or advocate playing any FPS in front of children? I thought I implied that I teach my children, at age appropriate levels, that there is war, there death, there are bad people, and it is ugly but sometimes has be acknowledged and dealt with. I don't need video games or so-called art to teach those lessons. And separately I don't deny I get a thrill in administering imaginary justice to dastardly pixels [i]when my kids are asleep![/i]. But that the depiction of such doesn't have to be done in a gratuitous manner that overwhelms the point of the player's intentions, and it certainly doesn't have to be done to where I feel like I have to look over my shoulders in the middle of the night when emergencies happen, relaxation time is over, and I have to parent.

Also, choice and informed parental guidance FTW. Deviating a little, but the media arn't helping underage kids getting hold of 18+ video games by constantly implying that games/consoles/whatever are mere toys and not valid forms of entertainment or art or whatever the feck you wanna call it.

Also, choice and informed parental guidance FTW. Deviating a little, but the media arn't helping underage kids getting hold of 18+ video games by constantly implying that games/consoles/whatever are mere toys and not valid forms of entertainment or art or whatever the feck you wanna call it.

Or should I say, "are helping", sorry.

Sorry, maybe I did misunderstand. Could you clarify then?

"I'm tired of games that I have to look for mods to tone language and violence so I can play them in front of my kids."

As South Park recently tried to explain, the word fag can be used in reference to people other than homosexual men. It also can be used in reference to douchey people. The guy in front of you sits through a green arrow at a stoplight, he's a fag, and a douche who inconvenienced you. A player who blindly chucks grenades in hopes of killing other players, is a fag. Neither of these uses are meant to convey a belittling of gay men.

No Chris, that's not how it works. I find it literally unbelievable that people can say what you just said with a straight face - "it means gay and I use it to mean bad but that doesn't imply gays are bad" listen to yourself! How stupid are you?

@Chris-
If it's such an innocuous word, would you ever drop it in front of your parents? Or the parents of your significant other? Or your minister/rabbi/iman/worship leader? Imagine you are the best man at your friend's wedding. Would it be appropriate to use that word in your toast?

@ Sup3rT3d and KeysE2S, irony? sarcasm?

To the rest, play the damn game and stop jumping to conclusions about a video that is taken out of context. You wouldn't judge a random violent or disturbing scene out of a movie like this.

It's a video game. Save your bitching for things that matter.

It truly saddens me to read how many clueless IDIOTS there are in this world. OPEN YOUR EYES. First of all, the is the game rated M(18+), so if parents didn't want their kids playing it, they wouldn't be playing it. Second, the company included the option to skip the level with a message that clearly reads "One of the levels is very graphic/disturbing etc." And if you decide to choose the "I won't be offended" option, it gives you ANOTHER message reading "Are you sure you want to play this level?" This level is probably one of the only parts of a video game that can have a REAL emotional impact on you. If you're going to select the "I won't be offended" option, don't come on your computer later and whine about how "disgusted" you are after YOU chose to play it. The option is there, and it's simple: If you can't handle it, don't play it. And don't even get me started on the fact that nobody complains about or judges movies.

@n1ck
So, you follow chris are teh interwebs and explain his "humor" to everyone? I think it's safe to say that dude isn't funny.

>>>don't even get me started on the fact that nobody complains about or judges movies.

Do you read any press outside of IGN? Movies constantly get called out on stuff, how can you not know that? You're also totally missing the point, this isn't about kids playing it, and the idea that people aren't able to 'handle it' is laughable - it's not hardcore or challenging, it's just a bit pathetic. And sick.

@N1ckolas
maybe I'm just not bright enough but no matter how many times I read Chris' post I can't find even a hint of irony in it.

Like I am assuming that many of you haven't actually played the game, I am going to make the assumption that Sup3rT3d and KeysE2S haven't watched the South Park episode that Chris was referring to.

Marty B......you're a retard (see....you're not the only one that can namecall). The point dude made was right on. People such as yourself would applaud an "artistic" portrayal of cruel and horrific death in a film like Schindler's List, but denigrate MF2 for it.....even though you can't argue around the point that you have the opportunity to opt OUT of the sequence entirely. So save your high horse BS about being "subjected to being a participant". Nobody's twisting your arm to participate in that scene. Let me guess.....you're a regular listener of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh as well right?

Okay, here is my stand on this, I didn't get offended by this level to this extent, the whole point of this level the way I seen it is that it shows the atrocities of terrorism, and it puts you in a compromising situation and causes you to have to make the decision to kill innocents. in my eyes, it's no different than GTA in the sense that you can kill everyone in sight. if it will offend you... SKIP THE DAMN MISSION.

I actually think Infinity Ward should be applauded for putting that level into the game. How many scenes in games contain that kind of emotional impact? Personally for me, killing is killing, regardless of who is being killed. You mean it's perfectly all right to kill Russian soldiers in a base just cause they are the "bad guys"? Killing them just on the orders of some commanding officer isn't exactly justified in my book. If you can't stomach this, than don't play the level. And don't be such hypocrites, I'm willing to bet most of those who are 'shocked' and 'disgusted' by the level...STILL PLAYED THROUGH THE WHOLE LEVEL. Kudos to Infinity Ward and I hope more developers will do the same.

Really? It's tasteless if it's in video games completely acceptable in movies? Wake up already. If something like this were done in a film, it would be considered thought provoking and deep. But obviously video games can't conjure up that same feeling. That would just be ridiculous. Something like this occuring in a video game is no different than it happening in a movie. Grow up already. I played through that scene and was horrified and shocked, but I wasn't outraged or disgusted. It made me think about what was actually happening. What IW has done here is taking video games to the next level where what happens in a video game can resonate with you ad make you think beyond what is presented to you.

Really? It's tasteless if it's in video games completely acceptable in movies? Wake up already. If something like this were done in a film, it would be considered thought provoking and deep. But obviously video games can't conjure up that same feeling. That would just be ridiculous. Something like this occuring in a video game is no different than it happening in a movie. Grow up already. I played through that scene and was horrified and shocked, but I wasn't outraged or disgusted. It made me think about what was actually happening. What IW has done here is taking video games to the next level where what happens in a video game can resonate with you ad make you think beyond what is presented to you.

@"lil" nicky
I'd like to take a moment to propose N1ckolas's Law:
"As [an interwebs comments thread] grows longer, the probability that some jackass ends up using South park as a basis for moral and ethical behavior approaches 1."
Read: put down the beer bong and sticky buds, bro. Every person on the planet doesn't want to rush your frat.

Oh wait. Was this supposed to be "irony" or "sarcasm"? Those only work if you're funny in the first place.

Assumption correct.

It's a video game you morons. It's not real! I don't care if they make a game where you shoot babies in the face while taking intravenous drugs as you bang a retarded hooker. You Know why? Because none of it is real. None of it has any bearing on the real world. Anyone who is offended by something they see in a TV show, movie, or video game is a total idiot. If you don't want to see it....don't buy it. If you don't want your kids to have it...then don't let them have it. Very simple. Just because a few extremely uptight people find something wrong with something fake that they chose to participate in, doesn't mean normal people should have to miss the experience.

The question boils down to 'Is burning a picture of a baby morally equivalent to burning a real baby?'

The answer, of course, is that on one level it is. Read http://www.amazon.co.uk/Risk-Science-Politics-Dan-Gardner/dp/1905264151 for a more complete explanation.

I realize I'm a bit late to the party here, but having played the level, I don't really find it in bad taste, but I don't really feel that it was effective either. Perhaps it was the hype to the scene, but it didn't really make me feel anything. It was just a scene with some civilians dying, which I think would have been more powerful from the other point of view (the civilians).

SPOILERS FOLLOWING!!!

I would, however, say that the later scene where Ghost and Roach are murdered by Shepherd was extremely powerful. That scene really made me hate that man, and made his subsequent death extremely satisfying. But even more than that, the game actually managed to make me identify completely with the character. I felt like I was there, having to watch my friend die, and THAT is where I think the real emotion of the medium is to be found. Not in shock value and moral dilemma, but in making the player feel that they are actually the character they are playing.

Umm.. You didn't have to play the level

Yes, the level is questionable. You don't really accomplish anything by playing it. You can walk through the level without firing a shot and the result is the same. You can have some fun and try fragging the other terrorists which will just bring the same result faster. I played it and while I thought it was a little disturbing, I take heart in that it is a friggin' G-A-M-E.

Root word in 'over-analyze' is ANAL. For those who complain about "selling it to kids", um... there's a game rating for mature... instead of complaining, try PARENTING. Or does the thought of doing something like explaining right and wrong to your kids THAT daunting?

It's just like every other thing you are free to do in this country (complain, sue, vote Republican)... if you don't like it, skip over it. You won't be missing anything by doing so. It's a pointless level.

Folks - it's illogical to complain about shooting people in one level of a game about shooting people. Besides, who's to say those "civilians" were so innocent?

Why so serious?

So you bought a game knowing this level would be there decided to ignore the warnings played the level anyways and are now blaming IW for making you experience such a disgusting display of violence and terror.

Looks like the only thing disgusting here is your journalism techniques

To Mike: Yeah I can see how playing violent videogames has not affected you or your worldview in the least, Mr. VirtualBabyShooter. Not that we human beings are ever influenced by things that are not "real" right? Tell that to the ad industry or to the very marketers that apparently managed to sell you a game that you don't need because you're too "normal" to derive any emotion from things that are so blatantly unreal. And let's not mention movies -- they're just a bunch of actors playing out previously scripted scenes against pre-designed backdrops! No point in laughing, crying or feel about those either!

Terrorism is always vulgar, pointless, pornographic, self-centered psychotic indulgence of random deaths of civilians, there is no "proper" way to portray terrorism in an "artful" way and the fact I hear people saying that shows those who know nothing beyond watching the evening news and saying "Oh gee that's bad." But yet, terrorism like this is real, and happening all around the world, FOR REAL, and would you do anything to stop that? No. But take a video game portrayal of terrorism, and you'll go out and wage war... how useful. If this display of terrorism angers you so much, if its as vulgar and disgusting as I think it is to you, shouldn't that make you want to help in the fight against REAL terrorism? Go sign up for the service or something if you'd like to do something productive against horrific violent acts of murderous terrorism against civilians. Support the troops, support Israel, support freedom loving people everywhere who don't particularly like being terrorized and oppressed. Say something about the real people, people say... getting slaughtered by the dozens FOR REAL like this quite frequently every week in some parts of Africa? Maybe work on that issue first before whining about a video game forcing you to see massacre first hand in the comfort of your little suburban comfort bubble?

W wins, good effect on target, comfort bubble breached. Possible real world entry?

Edit: IW wins. Typo.

for those of you who have commented saying that the level was in bad taste, i would ask you to remember that video games EXIST TO MAKE MONEY. and you know what? their target base wants this kind of violence. did you think that people play GTA for the plot? you delude yourselves. stop complaining and skip the level if you are really that offended

While I completely accept this will be lost in deluge of comments that have already been posted and have yet to come on what I have little doubt will be the 'one' that finally knocks KZ2 off of its perch, there are some crucial points which have been missed here. SPOILER warning in advance;

Firstly, to all those who thought the mission was pointless, that brief 5-10 minute level is the crux of the entire invasion of America which subsequently follows. The American agent you play, whose body is left at the scene is the catalyst for Russia to have grounds to invade. Not only is it a horrific terrorist act, it is visited upon the perpertrators own people. In a way it is actually quite clever, as the implication is that Makarov is aware of the double agent the entire time and uses him to great effect. By leaving one body, that of an American operative behind, he pins the entire massacre on the US, giving Russia the excuse it needs to wage war on its eternal opponent (and IW the excuse it needed to stage a shoot out in a gas station and a burger bar, and a war on home soil, something guaranteed to give players some sense of attatchment to the game). While I am by no means saying I think this is intelligent, artistic, well written, worthwhile or in fact of any merit at all, it has a point, within the framework of the story arc, one which is essential for the events that follow it. This in no way justifies what occurs, but it is not as meaningless and arbitrary as has been suggested.

Secondly, as has been mentioned above, but slightly glossed over, you have not had your agency removed. You can play a concientious objector. You don't have to fire a single shot (at a civilian). Anyone who did, doesn't really get to complain about the sequence as they have voluntarily participated in the digital atrocities they find so distasteful. An interesting caveat to this is that in the next mission you are actively told NOT to kill civilians. I'm not sure that changes anything about the mission in question but is certainly food for thought. The developers were fully aware of the choices they were offering the player at each stage of the process.

Third is the assumption that games are for children. The simple fact that a rating system for the medium exists at all would lead one to believe this was obviously not the case, however, public opinion takes time to evolve, and the mindset that games are only played by children is still strong. This is presented in two very worrying ways; Firstly that the attention they recieve from the media assumes all games WILL be played by children, allowing the media to get on a high horse and preach about exactly the things this discussion has brought forth to the detriment of the medium and the adults who partake in it. Secondly, parents buy games for their children with little to no consideration for their content. This is, I assume, down to several factors, not least of which is the childs desires, and how it expresses them to its parents. The simple fact that parents give in to pressure from their children shows how significantly the tables have turned in the parent/child relationship, something which needs serious consideration. This by no means applies accross the board, but is of such a serious nature that even if it is one parent buying this for their young child, it is cause for concern, and I can absolutely vouch for the fact that is being done by more than one.

Fourth is a direct continuation of the above point. At least 50% of the reason for the level exisiting or bing included at all is the effect it would have on market saturation. Any press is good press. I would imagine the majority of people who have commented above have bought the game, both those condemning it, and those extolling its virtues. What was the last game you saw mentioned on the news? My bet is it was probably GTA, and before that possibly Manhunt (which was worse than this by a mile for encouraging the player to actively participate, and even enjoy participation in horrific acts). Both games were highly anticipated, and sold astronomically well, almost as a direct consequence of the controversy that surrounded them. Not only that, of the thousands of games which are releases each year, they are still remembered long after the fact. You can't buy that sort of publicity. This in no way denigrates the experience on offer here, or goes to smear IW's good name. We all understand that business is all about making money and if a 10 minute sequence can have this sort of impact on the number of people aware of your product you would in fact be a fool not to do it.

Are games art? Of course they are, they are an application of skill and talent for the enjoyment of others. Any further debate is purile and unnecessary. The things we call art nowadays range from the ridiculous to the extreme and everything inbetween, from sliced up animals, to public self harm, to boxes nailed to walls and back to a starving dog. Art is all about pushing boundries and seeing how far you can go. Art is also entirely subjective, and therefore even if you don't like it, it doesn't lessen its status as art. Is this game art? Of course it is, by the same application of fact and reason. By this metric it can quite happily be compared to Schindlers List, and the comparison is actually quite valid. Schindlers List present horror, atrocity and death with very little in the way of respect for the viewers feelings. It pulls no punches in its attempts to portray something its creators felt necessary to present to an audience. This is no different. Just because it isn't centred around WWII and the holocaust doesn't mean it is somehow less, or that Schindlers List is somehow better. You may well prefer the film to this game, and you may in fact feel that this is a particularly ham fisted attempt at what Schindlers List achieved extremely eloquently and convincingly. None of this lessens Modern Warfare 2 as an artistic expression. If you really think it's that bad, take it back or don't buy it, just as you would a film or a jumper that you didn't like. By giving money to its producers you are in fact validating if far more than any critical acclaim or good review possibly could, and you are undermining any criticism you may wish to convey about it as you have paid up, and therefore your opinion after the fact is moot. You have already given them the only thing they care about, your money. I am sick of people buying shit they don't like and then moaning about it, because the only message they are actually giving off is 'make more of this, it works and is profitable'.

Back to the case in point; Personally, I own the game and played the level. I found the level dull and clumsy and the game as a whole, well I'm bored of the single player campaign already and I am nowhere near finishing it. The chances of me reaching the end are in all liklehood zero. I played Modern Warfare 1 from start to finish, I found it compelling, interesting, engaging and entertaining, unfortunantely I have no such passion for the sequel. It is quite literally, a sequel. It copies its predecessor almost entirely, but attempts to be bigger, louder, faster and with more explosions to the point that it actually interferes with the enjoyment I am getting from participating in it. The multi-player is a different story however. It is almost identical to the first, and given the first was an exemplory multi-player experience, this is no bad thing. I have no doubt it will be just as long lasting and just as well supported by both the developers and the players. It is a real shame the failed to deliver on the story this time round, but at the end of the day, that was only ever going to a few hours of a much bigger experience, so I find it hard to be particularly upset about it.

And thats it. If you're still reading I apologise for the length of the post and thank you for your dedication. See you on the battlefield where you can punish me in full for my wasting of your time :)