Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Luk3us

Modern Warfare 2

Recommended Posts

This is pretty far from a consensus since there are a lot of people out there who enjoy GTA4. Sure there's been a hype, and the people getting rid of it probably think basics the game hasn't changed significantly or simply had too high expectations.

Share this post


Link to post

Have you seen the leaked terrorist footage?

 

Links have spoilers, main text copied below.

 

SPOILER WARNING: The story below contains information that reveals major plot details about Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. The game's developer, Infinity Ward, is recommending a total media blackout for those who wish to play the game without any prior knowledge of its story.

Story - http://au.gamespot.com/news/6238331.html?tag=nl.e544

Video - http://www.mapmodnews.com/article.php/Forc...odern-Warfare-2

 

Source: Leaked video viewable (for now) on CNN's user-submitted iReport section and on Mapmodnews.com. The same video has been pulled from YouTube "due to a copyright claim by Activision Games Inc," indicating its authenticity.

 

What we heard: In every trailer released for Modern Warfare 2--including the almost image-free teaser released at the 2009 Game Developers Conference--one event has loomed large. Each trailer depicts a group of Russian ultranationalist terrorists massacring civilians at an airport with assault weapons.

 

Now, footage has leaked that appears to show the game will indeed depict the massacre, reminiscent of last year's mass killings in Mumbai, India, which left nearly 200 people dead. In a move sure to ignite controversy, the footage indicates the game will cast players as one of the killers, having them shoot civilians en masse from a first-person view.

 

Several sites have posted footage showing the same group of five terrorists (including the player), wearing body armor over business suits, as has been shown in every trailer for the game. (See screen comparisons, which have leaked, lower-resolution footage on the bottom.) The killers first emerge from an elevator, as the sound cues in the very first trailer portrayed. Once out, they open fire indiscriminately into a crowd by the security lines before moving up a series of body-draped escalators shown in the "Infamy" trailer released earlier this month.

 

From there, the terrorists move through a shopping level--with the player dispatching wounded civilians squirming on the ground--before moving down another escalator. Then, the scene shifts to the airport's tarmac where they encounter a group of security personnel under a large passenger jet with red, white, and blue stripes. The same jet appears to be shown in the "Infamy" trailer but from the opposite viewpoint of the security personnel moving to stop the killings.

 

At that point, the leaked footage ends. However, despite being of low quality, the footage bears several telltale signs that indicate it is authentic--or an extremely elaborate mod. First is the fact the terrorists shown look identical to those in the last two official Modern Warfare 2 trailers. Second is the fact the blurry subtitles appear to show the name "Makarov"--the last name of the game's primary antagonist, Vladimir Makarov.

 

Third is the onscreen heads-up display, which appears to be the same as that in preview versions of the game shown to the press. Fourth are indications that the footage came from the same European source that posted video of a third-person multiplayer mode in Modern Warfare 2. Reflections on the screen showing another monitor and PlayStation 3 menu cues are the same as footage that appeared on YouTube before being pulled.

 

That same yanked third-person footage was confirmed as being legitimate in Twitter postings by Robert Bowling, director of communications for Modern Warfare 2 developer Infinity Ward. In a tweet today, Bowling also indicated that footage from the game's campaign had leaked out. In response to a message from a user asking "Do you think the leaked SP footage is too much?" he responded, "I know man. Media Blackout! I'll keep this Twitter feed and the official Infinity Ward YouTube spoiler free. Singleplayer leaks suck."

 

Interestingly, the footage shows a multiplayer icon over another terrorist's head, indicating the level could be played in the game's Special Ops co-op mode. One rumor circulating is that the player will be an undercover operative who is forced to participate in the massacre or blow his cover.

 

The official story: Reps for Modern Warfare 2's publisher, Activision, had not responded to requests for comment as of press time.

 

Bogus or not bogus?: Not bogus. Infinity Ward is known for taking major risks to surprise its audience, and comparisons between official Modern Warfare 2 trailers and the leaked footage leave little doubt of the latter's legitimacy.

 

The bigger question is will the sequence impact Modern Warfare 2 sales? Sure, players can commit similar mass killings at any time in almost every Grand Theft Auto game. However, the brutal nature of the airport massacre and the ever-sensitive subject of terrorism might prove a toxic mix, in terms of publicity, if the mainstream media decides to pounce on it.

 

[uPDATE] Though US Activision reps remain mum on the matter, a UK spokesperson confirmed the leaked footage as authentic to game site VG247. The spokesperson also offered the following statement from Activision:

 

"The scene establishes the depth of evil and the cold-bloodedness of a rogue Russian villain and his unit. By establishing that evil, it adds to the urgency of the player's mission to stop them."

 

"Players have the option of skipping over the scene. At the beginning of the game, there are two 'checkpoints' where the player is advised that some people may find an upcoming segment disturbing. These checkpoints can't be disabled."

 

"Modern Warfare 2 is a fantasy action game designed for intense, realistic gameplay that mirrors real life conflicts, much like epic, action movies. It is appropriately rated 18 for violent scenes, which means it is intended for those who are 18 and older." (The BBFC 18 rating in the UK is the equivalent of M for Mature in the US.)

 

[uPDATE2] Activision US has now issued the following statement. "The leaked footage was taken from a copy of game that was obtained illegally and is not representative of the overall gameplay experience in Modern Warfare 2. "

 

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

 

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

 

My comment...

The basic concept that it's not a movie, but a level, even a co-op level is pretty ghastly.

Share this post


Link to post

Pff, shameless marketing. "Leak" the video, and stir up some controversy prior to release.

 

 

Its a FPS, you kill people. Its the whole point.

Share this post


Link to post
reveals major plot details about Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2

Wait this game has a plot?

 

How much single player content is there anyway? Hours of gameplay that sort if thing.

Share this post


Link to post

No dedicated server? I'll pass. CoD is dead to me.

 

-edit- and Infinity Ward.

Edited by Mighty BOB!

Share this post


Link to post
Its a FPS, you kill people. Its the whole point.

 

But I think you miss the point... it's not just "people".

The point of this video is kill helpless civilians who are running away from you in terror, not to kill equally armed, equalled skill combatants in gladiatorial battle to the death. I love violent games, I love killing the bad guys, or my friends in a LAN battle. But I find the notion of intentionally, and for gameplay's sake, the murder of innocent civilians -

abhorrent.

 

If they showed this scene as a cut-scene, I would absolutely no problems with, it would be motivating and engaging. But to encourage you to actively participate in the same action is not anti-hero gameplay... *this* is everything the world fears about computer games.

Share this post


Link to post

Bad guys are people too you know. The whole point of the game is to murder other people, at the end of the day if you really think about it. Even with out the civilians its all truly abhorrent slaughtering other people.

 

But I don't care, and you know why? Because its a video game, none of it is real, IN THE SLIGHTEST. I know its not real, which is why I don't care about anything I do when playing a game.

Share this post


Link to post
But I think you miss the point... it's not just "people".

The point of this video is kill helpless civilians who are running away from you in terror, not to kill equally armed, equalled skill combatants in gladiatorial battle to the death. I love violent games, I love killing the bad guys, or my friends in a LAN battle. But I find the notion of intentionally, and for gameplay's sake, the murder of innocent civilians -

abhorrent.

Ever play Red Alert 1 as the Soviets? Teddy bear with bullet holes remind you of anything? Good times those were... good times...

Share this post


Link to post
Bad guys are people too you know. The whole point of the game is to murder other people, at the end of the day if you really think about it.

 

No I strongly disagree. (Besides the point that almost all bad guys in computer games are purely 1 dimensional characters who's sole purpose in life is to kill you.) The point of shooter games is not to murder other players. It's to kill them in combat, in self defence, in a gladiatorial arena. I'm an "eye for an eye" kind of guy and most games fit into these categories.

 

There is an infinitely large difference between murdering (ie. the unlawful and criminal killing of) innocents who are pleading for their life, who are in the wrong place at the wrong time and killing and enemy combatant before he kills you (especially when he is equally armed, or at least has equal access to weapon spawns).

 

This level is a quantam leap over the proverbial "line" of good taste, and reasonable behaviour that should be "crossed".

 

Even with out the civilians its all truly abhorrent slaughtering other people. But I don't care, and you know why? Because its a video game, none of it is real, IN THE SLIGHTEST. I know its not real, which is why I don't care about anything I do when playing a game.

 

I can be quoted earlier in the month that I am diametrically opposed to playing sport on computers, they are activities that should be done in real life. I prefer to play games on the computer that I can't do in real life... like war games and shooters. But even when I play violent and gory games I still tend to stay within the lawful alignment of possible actions. I guess one of the many reasons why Grand Theft Auto doesn't appeal to me...

 

I have no evidence to support this statement, other than my experience after go-carting, but I wonder if the vast majority of peeps who like driving simulators also drive in real life like a hoon?!? The games tend to excite you into doing something slightly more exciting that what you did in real life. Each new generation of game pushes the boundaries of what's possible, and what's in good taste. So my argument is that computer games are continuing in an upwards escalation of the desensitisation of the general public.

 

So yes I would play that level and in no way be tempted to go out and do the same, (perhaps the motivation of the scene is to show how horrible it would be) and the same for you and the majority of people you know... but there are some people out there who are going to take one step closer to madness because of it. And that's a frightening thought. (Keep in mind that I'm a big beliver in cute phrases like "speed doesn't kill, it's the sudden stop" or "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

 

But having said all that, this is an issue that I would probably make a poster for and join a protest march about...

Share this post


Link to post

So what's your take on that baby-killing topic?

 

By the way, I think if someone is so weak-willed as to let a game influence their morality, their morality will inevitably become corrupted whether they play any games or not. I think it takes a preexisting fault to bring someone to that side of the line.

Share this post


Link to post
I guess one of the many reasons why Grand Theft Auto doesn't appeal to me...

 

 

Grand Theft Auto.

 

Share this post


Link to post

And see, I knew I wasn't the only person who thought it was weird they had an association!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

There is an infinitely large difference between murdering (ie. the unlawful and criminal killing of) innocents who are pleading for their life, who are in the wrong place at the wrong time and killing and enemy combatant before he kills you

 

Murder might not be the best word, as it has all these negative connotations surrounding it. But at the end of the day, some guy is still lying there dead on the ground. FPS games glorify killing/murdering other people. So I don't see how people can get upset, when all of a sudden they are killing "innocent" people. What wanton slaughter is OK, but only if they have it coming? lol.

 

 

So yes I would play that level and in no way be tempted to go out and do the same, (perhaps the motivation of the scene is to show how horrible it would be) and the same for you and the majority of people you know... but there are some people out there who are going to take one step closer to madness because of it. And that's a frightening thought. (Keep in mind that I'm a big beliver in cute phrases like "speed doesn't kill, it's the sudden stop" or "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

 

But having said all that, this is an issue that I would probably make a poster for and join a protest march about...

 

I'm inclined to side with Nmenth, there has to be something wrong with the person if a video game can push them over the edge.

Share this post


Link to post

Murder doesn't have bad connotations, it is by definition the unlawful act of killing, it's a criminal act.

When a soldier kills - in ordinary circumstances - it's a regrettable but ultimately sanctioned act by their government.

By definition there is an important distinction between murder and kill. And what this game depicts and encourages the player to do, is murder.

 

I'm not talking about violence per se. I'm talking about purposes, motivations, and end results.

 

In my very passionate, personal opinion... I believe it is completely naive to ignore the cumulative affects of games with these scenes. Because, the next game will have to out-shock this one, and the next game will have to out-shock that one etc etc etc. I really worry about the erosion of standards in today's society.

Share this post


Link to post
In my very passionate, personal opinion... I believe it is completely naive to ignore the cumulative affects of games with these scenes. Because, the next game will have to out-shock this one, and the next game will have to out-shock that one etc etc etc.

I don't think it is a goal of games to out-shock previous generations. Horror movies, perhaps, but games... I don't think so.

 

I do not believe slaying of innocents was put into this game to shock, I think it was done because some gamers find the slaying of innocents to be as fun as smiting demons and blowing up zombies. Taking out terrorists gets cliché and dull, but you can have the same guns, scenes, vehicles, and tactics, but replace terrorists with innocents, and it's a new game with new fun.

 

I really worry about the erosion of standards in today's society.

Another topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Murder doesn't have bad connotations, it is by definition the unlawful act of killing, it's a criminal act.

When a soldier kills - in ordinary circumstances - it's a regrettable but ultimately sanctioned act by their government.

By definition there is an important distinction between murder and kill. And what this game depicts and encourages the player to do, is murder.

 

That is just a cop out. Just because the government says its OK, doesn't make it so, nor does it make it right. I will however, say that what they do is a necessary evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Murder doesn't have bad connotations, it is by definition the unlawful act of killing, it's a criminal act.

When a soldier kills - in ordinary circumstances - it's a regrettable but ultimately sanctioned act by their government.

By definition there is an important distinction between murder and kill. And what this game depicts and encourages the player to do, is murder.

 

I'm not talking about violence per se. I'm talking about purposes, motivations, and end results.

 

In my very passionate, personal opinion... I believe it is completely naive to ignore the cumulative affects of games with these scenes. Because, the next game will have to out-shock this one, and the next game will have to out-shock that one etc etc etc. I really worry about the erosion of standards in today's society.

This is what happens when you blend fantasy and reality. Wake up and smell the freshly roasted coffee. It's a game, not real life. Never forget that nice, clean distinction.

Share this post


Link to post

(Been busy, haven't had a chance to respond to these posts, it's not for a lack of caring!)

I don't think it is a goal of games to out-shock previous generations. Horror movies, perhaps, but games... I don't think so.

I refer you to Lukey's first comment on my post.

Pff, shameless marketing. "Leak" the video, and stir up some controversy prior to release.

 

I think it was done because some gamers find the slaying of innocents to be as fun as smiting demons and blowing up zombies. Taking out terrorists gets cliché and dull, but you can have the same guns, scenes, vehicles, and tactics, but replace terrorists with innocents, and it's a new game with new fun.

But this is my point, slaying innocents is not fun it's abhorrent. It is a concept that should not be considered on any level, and especially not used in a game for entertainment's sake.

 

That is just a cop out. Just because the government says its OK, doesn't make it so, nor does it make it right. I will however, say that what they do is a necessary evil.

I refer you to use of the word 'regretable' I used in my post. And I'm pointing out the difference between the criminal act of killing and the sanctioned act of killing. It is a general understanding that soldiers are empowered and expected to kill other soldiers as necessary... "it's part of the job". There is a clear distinction in the eyes of the law between a soldier in a combat situation, and a civilian who are involved in killing another person.

 

 

This is what happens when you blend fantasy and reality. Wake up and smell the freshly roasted coffee. It's a game, not real life. Never forget that nice, clean distinction.

 

Two things DD...

1) "Wake up and smell the freshly roasted coffee" is a personal insult. If you want to debate, you need to discuss the subject not the person. I'm not offended, hurt or bothered by your comment, but resorting to personal comments dilutes your effectiveness to argue the merits of your case. You need to up your game. :)

2) fantasy is a poor choice of word to support your argument.

 

Fantasy is a work of imagination. It has it's roots in the level of imagination required, because it's based on something improbable, highly unrealistic, extravagant, unrestrained, wondrous and strange, it's an illusion based on no solid foundation. When something is said to be so unreal then it's considered fanciful. It is closely associated with the genre of fiction that involves magic, sorcery and mythical creatures. Unfortunately the scenario created in this game is not that hard to imagine.

 

COD4:MW2 is not a fantasy, it belongs in the sub-category of FPS known as "SIMULATION". The game goes to great lengths to create a real world environment, with environments and people that look and behave in a genuine fashion. The purpose of a simulation is to create the impression that you are actually *in* that situation. It's an environment as seen through your eyes... you see your own hands, you see your own weapons, you look where you want to see, the avatar is *you*. The game creator is doing everything in it's power to immerse you into the experience. The creator wants your participation to be as real as possible.

 

And what is the experience he wants to simulate for you... the murder of innocent civilians!

 

And this is my issue with the game. If the same scene had been a cut-scene movie, I would have yawned with boredom unless it showed some interesting fatalities... but it doesn't it wants you to carry out the atrocities!

 

.

.

.

No... I don't expect to hear about a wave of copy-cat airport killings as a result of this game.

 

Yes... I'm worried about the cumulative effect of games like this have on society, especially now that the next game is going to have to out-shock the public... which means there will be a growing trend to games murdering innocents for general consumption... which has a cumulative effect of desensitises public to the issue and therefore making it more palatable.

 

Yes... it is a game, but the problem with it, is that it is feeding the darker compulsions of people.

eg. How hard is it to keep driving at or below the speed limit, and how easy is to drive a little (or a lot) over on purpose. How easy do we justify it... i'm late... there's nobody around... we're a good drivers... we can handle it. But speed limits exist for a reason... for our safety... and yet we continue to flaunt the rules and endanger our own lives.

 

Think about almost every facet of life... doing the right thing takes effort, doing the wrong thing seems effortless in comparison. Eating junkfood... veggin on the couch watching tv... living in a messy house... it's all so easy to do! We probably all have things we do naturally that are good and right (eating vegables, making our beds) and we all have things that takes effort to do (but we know we should).

 

(So why do we continue to allow and promote the temptation to do the wrong thing???)

And when is Saracen going to chime in here on the merits of Anarchy??? :)

 

Yes... This level in this game *is* abhorrent full stop

 

It should never have been conceived, nor implemented.

It should never have been used as a form of entertainment.

Share this post


Link to post
I refer you to Lukey's first comment on my post.

Do you think they added a civilian-killing level to use for shameless marketing that will stir up controversy, or do you think they took a level (which was already planned to be in the game) and decided to use it for shameless marketing, knowing that people like you would start up the controversy (assuming they did, in fact, leak the clip on purpose)?

 

I think it was marketing via convenience, not game design intended to spark controversy.

 

I refer you to use of the word 'regretable' I used in my post. And I'm pointing out the difference between the criminal act of killing and the sanctioned act of killing. It is a general understanding that soldiers are empowered and expected to kill other soldiers as necessary... "it's part of the job". There is a clear distinction in the eyes of the law between a soldier in a combat situation, and a civilian who are involved in killing another person.

I just find the use of the word sanctioned to be amusing... I am not going to argue this point at all, I'll just toss this annoying substitute out there instead...

The government is made up of people, I'd say no better than us, but I think it is not a stretch to even go so far as to boldly say politicians are actually more corrupted than we are. Who are they to say someone deserves to die? I am not saying they should not, I am only asking you to question yourself as to why war is more justified simply because a person of authority said so.

 

Two things DD...

1) "Wake up and smell the freshly roasted coffee" is a personal insult. If you want to debate, you need to discuss the subject not the person.

Gben, I'd like you to meet Doctor Destiny. You've both been around here for awhile now, but I guess in all this time you've never actually met...

 

COD4:MW2 is not a fantasy, it belongs in the sub-category of FPS known as "SIMULATION". The game goes to great lengths to create a real world environment, with environments and people that look and behave in a genuine fashion. The purpose of a simulation is to create the impression that you are actually *in* that situation. It's an environment as seen through your eyes... you see your own hands, you see your own weapons, you look where you want to see, the avatar is *you*. The game creator is doing everything in it's power to immerse you into the experience. The creator wants your participation to be as real as possible.

All games are simulations. Not all of them are simulating a world as close to our own, but they are all simulations.

 

And what is the experience he wants to simulate for you... the murder of innocent civilians!

Obviously less justifiable than destroying the world with tiberium. I know you think that is ok because tiberium doesn't exist, but as it is created in a simulated world, so too are non-existent innocent civilians. These civilians are not real, nor are any imaginary families or homes they live in, they exist as much as tiberium, magical spells, and mythical creatures.

 

And this is my issue with the game. If the same scene had been a cut-scene movie, I would have yawned with boredom unless it showed some interesting fatalities... but it doesn't it wants you to carry out the atrocities!

So watching murder is ok, just actually committing it is not... I find the lines of morality you draw to be amusing. Either murdering non-existent innocents is ok, or it is not.

 

Yes... I'm worried about the cumulative effect of games like this have on society, especially now that the next game is going to have to out-shock the public... which means there will be a growing trend to games murdering innocents for general consumption... which has a cumulative effect of desensitises public to the issue and therefore making it more palatable.

I still think your 'out-shock' theory is all in your mind. Killing innocents has been around for a long time. Remember that comment I made back there a bit about that bullet-riddled teddy bear?

 

Yes... it is a game, but the problem with it, is that it is feeding the darker compulsions of people.

Those darker compulsions must be in us first before they can be fed.

Share this post


Link to post

I actually found out that after the release of MW2, most people are complaining that there are no dedicated servers in MW2 and MP gameplay isn't working well. Perhaps my instincts are right, shorter gameplay than MW1 and MP.... well MP in MW1 was better than the latest one.

 

Seeing the rankings in Metacritic, it scored well from critics but not as better than COD4 Modern Warfare. Even the users gave and rank this game a giant epic fail between 1s and 0s.

 

I think otherwise it's best to wait for a COD game pack from Activision soon, so I can buy it as if it can be much more worth for the price and... I haven't actually played COD4 yet.

 

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think its worth buying if your not into the multiplayer part, because to me that's all MW2 is, a multiplayer only game. The single player campagin is something like 6 hours or something.

 

MW2 is over hyped and over priced. Especially here in NZ, they charge around $135 for the Xbox 360 or PS3 version and $109 on PC. And that just the standard edition of the game.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, COD is a multiplayer game first and formost. The SP experience is just tacked on... Although they did add a few new features this time around...

 

Pitty they didn't include anything useful for the PC... Damned console ports....

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×