Originally posted by bignatealpha

---

Originally posted by xfighter1138

---

Originally posted by bignatealpha

---

Yes, yes, yes, it went waaaaay too far and I haven't even played it. Killing guys with guns trying to blow your head off is one thing. Killing civilians is another. For all those who say "Grand Theft Auto already did it," that doesn't make it right. That's not how it works in real life. You can't get away with something just because somebody has before. It's still wrong whether one person or a hundred people do it. It's a plus that Infinity Ward made the mission optional, but putting it in their in the first place was a bad idea.

---

I doubt you'd care if it was american soldiers shooting upon civilians. I think people with brains actually know that it's a game and it doesn't influence you.

---

You obviously haven't heard the stories of criminals inspired by GTA. Video games do influence people. Sometimes, often times, it builds up slowly and subtly, so that you get so used to it, that by the time there's a noticeable change, you won't realize it.

---

Im sure he has heard about the crimes inspired by GTA. Theyre just video games, fiction if you will. Games come with ratings and warnings for this reason. This game in particular even gave you the choice to skip these missions. Get over it, if you play these games and feel inspired to go shoot someone then theres something very wrong with you.

Originally posted by bignatealpha

---

Originally posted by xfighter1138

---

Originally posted by bignatealpha

---

Yes, yes, yes, it went waaaaay too far and I haven't even played it. Killing guys with guns trying to blow your head off is one thing. Killing civilians is another. For all those who say "Grand Theft Auto already did it," that doesn't make it right. That's not how it works in real life. You can't get away with something just because somebody has before. It's still wrong whether one person or a hundred people do it. It's a plus that Infinity Ward made the mission optional, but putting it in their in the first place was a bad idea.

---

I doubt you'd care if it was american soldiers shooting upon civilians. I think people with brains actually know that it's a game and it doesn't influence you.

---

If people actually think that video games influence themselves, then I wonder how far they've actually made it in life.

You obviously haven't heard the stories of criminals inspired by GTA. Video games do influence people. Sometimes, often times, it builds up slowly and subtly, so that you get so used to it, that by the time there's a noticeable change, you won't realize it.

---

If people actually think that GTA influences people, they I wonder how far they made it in life.

Originally posted by bignatealpha

---

You obviously haven't heard the stories of criminals inspired by GTA. Video games do influence people.

---

Read this.

Originally posted by joebab

---

Anyone that gets influenced by those games are already mentally unstable so it most likely would have happened anyway.

---

Games like GTA are made for a market of individuals that already are on the verge of "poppin a cap in yo ass", it doesn't increase the chances of real life violence.
If anything it gives an outlet for people so that they don't commit mass murder.
Though if you really believe the medias hype about games then there's no helping you...

Originally posted by DarkHyren

---

Originally posted by bignatealpha

---

You obviously haven't heard the stories of criminals inspired by GTA. Video games do influence people.

---

Read this.

Originally posted by joebab

---

Anyone that gets influenced by those games are already mentally unstable so it most likely would have happened anyway.

---

Games like GTA are made for a market of individuals that already are on the verge of "poppin a cap in yo ass", it doesn't increase the chances of real life violence.
If anything it gives an outlet for people so that they don't commit mass murder.
Though if you really believe the medias hype about games then there's no helping you...

---

That doesn't make it right. Besides, this is totally off topic. If you want to discuss the impact of GTA on gamers, create a thread for that.

You're the one that brought up the topic of GTA not me, I was just folling on that point.
The point is that the MW2 is realistic in the respect of the airport mission as opposed to being all fantasy land, where the Russian "bad guys" would just accept anyone no matter what
If you don't like it, don't play the game at all, it's as simple as that.
It's a video game, it's for entertainment, it's not real life.
It doesn't affect anyone unless they are mentally unstable (in which case even Mario Bros. will set them off one day), if it doesn't meet up with your high standards then just ignore it and leave all us "sinners" alone to play our games in peace.

Actually, I didn't start a conversation about GTA, and I wasn't blaming you DarkHyren. I just used it as part of my point, and then a conversation started about its influence, so my last post was just saying to everyone in general that we needed to get back on topic.

Moving on, I have nothing against a portrayal of real life in the game, even if it involves civilian death. What I'm against is having the PLAYER be the one slaughtering the civilians. That just goes to far in my book.

Others mentioned it but it was dropped and didn't continue. But anyway.
If you have nothing against "real life" stuff in games then you should understand that in real life one has to get ones hands dirty, especially if you're in the line of work that is depicted in these games.
If you want to play a game with these characters where you play as one of them you should have to take the good with the bad.
As xfighter hinted at though, would you have such a big problem if it was the other way around, that you played an american that had to take over an Iraq airport and killing Iraq civilians?
This mission should be mandatory and anyone that doesn't like it shouldn't play the game.

Originally posted by DarkHyren

---

Others mentioned it but it was dropped and didn't continue. But anyway.
If you have nothing against "real life" stuff in games then you should understand that in real life one has to get ones hands dirty, especially if you're in the line of work that is depicted in these games.
If you want to play a game with these characters where you play as one of them you should have to take the good with the bad.
As xfighter hinted at though, would you have such a big problem if it was the other way around, that you played an american that had to take over an Iraq airport and killing Iraq civilians?
This mission should be mandatory and anyone that doesn't like it shouldn't play the game.

---

As a matter of fact, I would too care if it was you killing Iraqi civilians. Notice my posts were saying that I simply didn't like having you kill civilians. Period. I am not biased, and would still have a problem playing a game where you kill civilians even if they were on the opposite side. They're not in the army, they're not the enemy. As for your assertion that the mission should be mandatory, that would just make matters worse in my mind. It wouldn't be as bad if the mission had something significant to do with the story, but it didn't. Skipping the mission doesn't hurt the story, even Game Informer said so in their review. So if the mission was unchanged but mandatory, then the whole point would be to give you a taste of what a soldier does, and I don't think that military personnel would be happy. Do you think they like that they have to do these things? Any one of them that has had to go through a situation like that is probably ashamed of what he had to do and wouldn't want that in a video game he plays. You're treating this issue a little too lightly for someone who admits this stuff is real.

Not that I buy what you say about the civlians, but I'll ignore that part for now.

I never said that people that have to do these things liked doing it, I said that they just have to.
The game can be made to be as realistic as possible considering most everything else in it is, I don't care if the military machine is happy or not.
I also don't care what some game reviewer says, most of them are idiots.

I would think someone in the military wouldn't be playing these kinds of games if they want to get away from those types of things, and if they arn't then they know that it is in the line of duty and would just play.
Most know that these things happen and are not adversely affected, simply because they are trained not to be.
The ones that are affected badly wouldn't have anything to do with this game even without the airport mission, simply because anything in the game could remind them.

I think our military and police members should weight in on what affects them rather then us speculating though.
But I think most won't care, even if the mission was madatory.

i did find the airport level disturbing to watch, but no one was forcing me... censorship is bad IMHO... if you don't like it don't be part of it

I think your missing the point bignatealpha, its just a game. You have the choice to skip the mission at the beginning so why even bother arguing about it?

I felt the level was very important to the storyline as it builds up your emotions towards the guy your trying to chase down throughout the game... rather than your just chasing him because the game tells you to.

Also keep in mind you can walk through that whole level without shooting everyone, just the law enforcment pretty much.

this explains the whole thing:
http://trueslant.com/tassi/2009/11/16/reflecting-on-modern-warfare-2s-airport-massacre/
it also has a vid of the level.

just so you know, i was laughing the whole way through. it was one of the funniest things ive seen in a game. i would never think about doing something like that in RL, but i love to do it in games. i killed every person i saw, and what made it even more funny was that people kept running when they could have just pretended to get shot, fall, and lay motionless untlil the gunmen passed (which is what i would do in their shoes)

Yeah, the mission "No Russian"...Wow, neither me or any of my friends knew what to think of it...Well, except for one of my friends. He thought it was a masterpiece! Listen to him go on and on...

"Remember, No Russian..." -Every time he goes through a door at school.

"Holy *&%@ Andrew, this game was &*%^ing banned in Russia HAHAHAHAHAH!" - Xbox Live

"Look at my emblem! It's Makarov!!!"

I can't wait to ask him what he wants to be in 5 years!

I'm only posting about someone I know that is sick enough to love blasting civilians in a realistic Call of Duty manner.

My point of view? Gtwalq and Chronabis are totally right. IW gave everything thought. Should I tell the players what to do or should their emotions tell them what to do? I mean, few games make the idea of killing innocents emotional.

"Gone too far" should describe that Infinity Ward made a true soldier experience. If I was a real soldier, I would automatically want to skin the leader terrorist alive. The game looks so damn real, the controls are tight, multiplayer is as addictive as the first. That wasn't enough. Military tactics can't be the only thing driving you towards your goal. You have to hate someone that's killing thousands each day.

No I dont it's just a game it dosent happen in real life.... well in the movie gamer it does but thats another thread..

Originally posted by Chronabis

---

this explains the whole thing:
http://trueslant.com/tassi/2009/11/16/reflecting-on-modern-warfare-2s-airport-massacre/
it also has a vid of the level.

---

I think this article went a long way in helping to show what sort of emotions this type of scene can invoke in a person. The author expressed how he was actually so moved by the horror, he was motivated to feel the same disbelief others experienced despite playing games like GTA in the past (whilst admittedly slaughtering innocents with reckless abandon, mind you).

I think it's downright awesome.

Not the slaughter (indirectly), but the power IW has to weave a tale. COD helped create a real sense of immersion with their Modern Warfare installments. However painfully short their campaigns might be, they draw you in and make you want more. More importantly on topic though, with this much feeling in one part of the game you can't help but WANT to take down Makarov. This Russian big-league terrorist isn't just some guy labled "baddie." These sorts of scenes help you hate the enemy, you thrive on that hate and get a rush as you play. See games like:

Oblivion (Elder Scrolls IV):
So full of glitches and rough storytelling, you had a hard time feeling a part of the story. I never felt motivated to light those fires, I just went around exploring and picking flowers until I stumbled into other, more interesting quests. Then you have games like this, and Condemned, that make you feel a part of the events happening on the screen. This is the experience game developers five, ten, twenty years ago only dreamed they could give the players.

Was this a little extreme? Maybe, but not in some sadistic way that many are making it out to be. I don't agree that they designed this part of the game "Because they can." I think the shock value here was used as a tool to tell a tale and bring out feeling for the player. I think it's widely accepted that gaming can be an art form these days, no need to bring up a MGS discussion. They told a damn good one here, in my opinion.

Originally posted by Chronabis

---

this explains the whole thing:
http://trueslant.com/tassi/2009/11/16/reflecting-on-modern-warfare-2s-airport-massacre/
it also has a vid of the level.

---

If I had seen that in the first place, I might have changed my mind. But I haven't played the single-player campaign, so I wouldn't know how it makes you feel. I guess I should have thought about that more. But whatever, I would have skipped the mission anyways...

listen gta does the same thing you can got into an airport and kill every one in side and you would see the same thing on the news why does this make a big deal it can be skiped if you realy dont want to see it but i think is is fine that they have it in it and this big debate remindes me of gta 3 in the early 2000s

Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 did not go to far and as far as I'm concerned no video game could ever go to far. It's just a game and should be taken seriously those who do take it seriously are the reason people say games destroy todays youth. And if you ask me it was just portraying what goes on over seas. It just like that movie Passion of Christ. All it does is goes on the records of what is written the only difference is you are actually seeing it instead of reading it. Therefor we say it is going to far!!!

I know this is a fairly old thread but I voted and now I'm posting saying that they didn't. Movies have gone way further then this and so has other games. You really can't judge one without the other being put into perspective.