The 'Violence in video games' argument again!

Victor_M

These tabloid rag AKA the Indo is trying to drum up anti video game propaganda in advance of COD MW2, i'm sure an almost identical 'article' appeared before GTA4.

"Leaked footage from Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 showing the killing of innocent civilians looks likely to renew the debate on video game violence.

The leaked footage from the forthcoming Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 shows the player killing unarmed civilians with a group of terrorists at what looks like LAX airport in Los Angeles.

The scenes are likely to be criticised by family interest groups and media watchdogs and will possibly turn the developer and publisher into the latest lightning rods for video game controversy.

Activision, the game's publisher, said that the scene is taken from an early stage in the game's campaign mode.

In a statement, Activision said: "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 forthcoming segment disturbing. These checkpoints can’t be disabled."

It continued: “Modern Warfare 2 is a fantasy action game designed for intense, realistic game play 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."

Created by USA-based games developer, Infinity Ward, Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is one of the most hotly anticipated titles of this year, and is expected to be one of the biggest selling games this Christmas.

Earlier this year, Activision announced they would be charging £10 more than standard new release prices for the game. Its predecessor, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, also developed by Infinity Ward and the last major release in the series, is thought to have sold 13 million copies around the world.

Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is released on November 10 of this year for the Xbox 360 and PS3 consoles. "

This sort of reporting will only drive kids mad to get their hands on it.

Helix

yeh, civilians never die in movies

F1ngers

Victor_M wrote: »

This sort of reporting will only drive kids mad to get their hands on it.

Only for kids aged 18 or over.

Games forum is that way. >>>
<<< Call of Duty forum is over there.

Mossy Monk

Best ban the History Channel so. Can't be having footage of innocents dieing during World War II now.

RobertFoster

Mossy Monk wrote: »

Best ban the History Channel so. Can't be having footage of innocents dieing during World War II now.

Why has no one ever made a concentration camp game along the style of Theme Hospital?

Dont be at yourself

In fairness, videogames differ to movies and TV because you are the one pulling the trigger.

partyatmygaff

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

In fairness, videogames differ to movies and TV because you are the one pulling the trigger battering the R1 Button.

Seriously I can safely say 99% of gamers can tell the difference between real life and a game on their TV.

WolfForager

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Seriously I can safely say 99% of gamers can tell the difference between real life and a game on their TV.

But that 1% can be quite insane, ie. the teenager in the US who killed his parents because they took away his copy of Halo3, thinking "O, they'll respawn".

Damn the mainstream media! Always blowing everything out of proportion, but if it means less kids under 18 getting it them i'm all for it, no more annoying 12 year olds screaming down their mics!

weiland79

The most ridiculous story i read was in regards to Resident evil 5.They said it was racist because the protagonists were black.I mean come on it was set in Africa.And I'm pretty sure that the folks in Capcom don't sit around with white hoods on trying to put racist propaganda in their titles.
I'm sure that the people responsible for these comments are just looking for their fifteen mins or to promote their cause or organisation,just to get their name in the paper.As it's usually some politician or religious fruitcake.
As the guy from Infinity ward says If it has an 18 cert then it's for 18 year olds and over.
I get asked quite frequently by friends and relatives what i think of such and such a game and if it would be suitable for their kids,this happened quite a lot last christmas with GTA4.And of course my answer was No,because i don't think screwing a hooker and murdering her after the deed is something a kid should be interesting themselves with,but it amazed me that a lot of them went ahead and got it anyway.They wouldn't let their kids watch The Texas chainsaw massacre or The bad Lieutenant yet they totally ignore the 18 certificate on a game box.
Of course violence has a place in video games just the same as it has a place in literature and film but it's up to kids parents to watch over what they are playing.

Leiva

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Seriously I can safely say 99% of gamers can tell the difference between real life and a game on their TV.

TRUE....

Can I ask the question a little differently .
Do you think gaming , on line FPS for example, raises agression levels ?

Victor_M

mixednuts wrote: »

TRUE....

Can I ask the question a little differently .
Do you think gaming , on line FPS for example, raises agression levels ?

I think it raises frustration levels and increases blood pressure, I don't think it raises aggression levels though, well not for me anyway.

The major problem is the amount of under 18 year olds who are allowed play these games, I have a constant battle with my 5 year old over me playing COD in the evenings and him not even being allowed in the same room (I wear headphones too so he doesn't hear it either) but I know a guy who lets his 4 and 6 year old sit and play with him, and a few yanks whose kids 9 & 11 are prestige level 7, and going by the amount of kids with mics there are a huge amount of under agers on line.

Helix

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

In fairness, videogames differ to movies and TV because you are the one pulling the trigger.

there is no trigger though

Rev. Kitchen

How do they know those guys being shot are innocent have they done back ground checks ?

Or what about the time i shot my team mate in co-op surely he was innocent ? ... well maybe not

amacachi

Rev. Kitchen wrote: »

How do they know those guys being shot are innocent have they done back ground checks ?

If it is based on LAX then odds are 50% of the people there are the opposite of innocent.

thebman

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

In fairness, videogames differ to movies and TV because you are the one pulling the trigger.

You mean the right trigger on the 360 controller right?

You do know firing a gun is nothing like most games? I dare say people who play games would be the worst people to have trying to fire at a bunch of innocent people as they'd start by trying to sync the gun with the console and looking for the display to plug the HDMI cable into.

mixednuts wrote: »

TRUE....

Can I ask the question a little differently .
Do you think gaming , on line FPS for example, raises agression levels ?

It probably does for some. I get frustrated when playing on a poor team in TF2. I don't think people get angry playing the actual game as they are getting out any agression they have in the game.

Its like saying punching a punch bag raises agression levels. Ok but what happens when the person stops punching the bag? They calm down quickly and have got their agression out and their frustrations and anything that annoyed them during the day is forgotten.

In this way, gaming is an outlet like any other hobby for getting away from work or other problems in someones lives and functions as a form of escapism. Nothing more, nothing less.

People get so worked up about violence in video games but the reality is that killing in games in merely a challenge, a puzzle just like in any other puzzle game. There are many ways to approach a group of enemies and you have to find the right way to take them out with only a short period of time to make your mind up. This is why violent games are so popular. Because many people don't like pondering over problems like what move to do next in chess so it is just another type of puzzle really.

As time has gone on people seem to forget this and focus more on the graphics but do people really think Doom was so popular because it allowed you to kill people that were made up of a few pixels that you could barely make out or because it offered a challenge?

The whole blood argument that has happened with more realistic games seems to be more gamers reacting against health and safety and political correctness gone mad rather than having anything to do with blood in games which nobody really cares about when it comes down to it as they are just pixels on a screen and anybody that thinks otherwise needs their head examined.

L31mr0d

mixednuts wrote: »

Do you think gaming , on line FPS for example, raises agression levels ?

It raises adrenalin levels. How the individual reacts to increased levels of adrenalin varies. The reaction is no different to that of people playing competitive physical sports, some people get aggressive when they have too much adrenalin in their blood, but just because someone loses their head in a game of football does not mean that the game of football should be banned from being played altogether.

Playing SFIV online pumps serious amounts of adrenalin into my blood, I usually need to have a pint of water beside me as my mouth will literally go bone dry. Only happens with this game though as I think when I'm playing team games I don't feel the competitive weight to win solely on my shoulders, whereas in SFIV if I lose it's no ones fault but my own.

I spent last week jumping off cliffs in Scotland for adrenalin hits and noticed they felt no different to the feeling of playing and winning in SFIV online.

Leiva

L31mr0d wrote: »

It raises adrenalin levels. How the individual reacts to increased levels of adrenalin varies. The reaction is no different to that of people playing competitive physical sports, some people get aggressive when they have too much adrenalin in their blood, but just because someone loses their head in a game of football does not mean that the game of football should be banned from being played altogether.

Playing SFIV online pumps serious amounts of adrenalin into my blood, I usually need to have a pint of water beside me as my mouth will literally go bone dry. Only happens with this game though as I think when I'm playing team games I don't feel the competitive weight to win solely on my shoulders, whereas in SFIV if I lose it's no ones fault but my own.

I spent last week jumping off cliffs in Scotland for adrenalin hits and noticed they felt no different to the feeling of playing and winning in SFIV online.

Good Post .
I agree , should we ban football because some players get so aggressive that they end up creaming another player .. NO .

Should we ban violent games because some kids/players get so violent and worked up they go out and smack the bejaysus out of their next door neighbour ...NO .

But the valid comparison you make is the level (and equal )amounts of adrenalin you produce by playing SFIV and jumping of a cliff .

The same equal levels could be produced in other individuals but replace the adrenalin with violence or aggression ,and the cliffs with a school yard brawl.

I love online FPS ,I agree totally with you that common sense needs to be applied and parents follow the age guidelines for particular games

M.

sarumite

mixednuts wrote: »

TRUE....

Can I ask the question a little differently .
Do you think gaming , on line FPS for example, raises agression levels ?

Probably does for me....although in my case not as much as go-karting and probably on par with air-hockey/paintballing. If you put me in front of a T.V screen with X-factor on and my aggression levels go through the roof. Usually then I go play an online FPS as I can get my built aggression out by killing some pixilated version of a friend online.

Aggression can be a natural feeling with the release of adrenalin into the bloodstream (fight or flight). People who play FPS's and then go on a killing spree are more than likely aggressive people anyway. They are attracted to an FPS because they are aggressive and not that it makes them aggressive.

thebman

sarumite wrote: »

Probably does for me....although in my case not as much as go-karting and probably on par with air-hockey/paintballing. If you put me in front of a T.V screen with X-factor on and my aggression levels go through the roof. Usually then I go play an online FPS as I can get my built aggression out by killing some pixilated version of a friend online.

Aggression can be a natural feeling with the release of adrenalin into the bloodstream (fight or flight). People who play FPS's and then go on a killing spree are more than likely aggressive people anyway. They are attracted to an FPS because they are aggressive and not that it makes them aggressive.

Yeah agree with that. I play TF2 mostly which anyone who hates violence in video games would be horrified by exploding body parts but one second your concentrating trying to kill a guy and the next after killing him your thinking, I should taunt and try to get that achievement for showing someone a taunt freeze cam shot (usually too late because you got all worked up).

But realistically anyone that plays TF2 before the round matches knows that video games don't encourage people to become aggressive. There is a minute before the match for the defense team to setup sentries etc.. and in this time half the team are messing around with each other or talking in the chat and when people do get killed, many times they just say good shot to the other person in the chat.

For instance, the last day, both me and another guy killed each other at the same time twice in a row and in the chat he says, we have to stop meeting like this so that kind of explains how these things work.

So I don't think it encourages people to be agressive, I think FPS attract agressive people like this post says.

Dont be at yourself

NekkidBibleMan wrote:

In fairness, videogames differ to movies and TV because you are the one pulling the trigger.

Helix wrote:

there is no trigger though

thebman wrote:

You mean the right trigger on the 360 controller right?

You do know firing a gun is nothing like most games? I dare say people who play games would be the worst people to have trying to fire at a bunch of innocent people as they'd start by trying to sync the gun with the console and looking for the display to plug the HDMI cable into.

I think you've both missed the point, though I suspect Helix was being facetious.

The point I was making was not that videogames are training kids to operate weaponary and develop lethal aiming. That's neither here nor there.

The point I was making was that while violence is also abundant in TV, cinema, music and other forms of art, these are all passive forms of entertainment. We watch Jack Bauer torture somebody, but we are not complicit in the actions. We are as likely to be repulsed by such violence as we are to applaud it.

However, with videogames, you are often the perpretrator of the violence. You are complicit. You pull the - metaphorical - trigger. You decide on the value of a life, decide who lives or dies. Now, fair enough, these are not real people and not real lives, but there is a certain emotional resonance. That's the point of videogames, after all. Most people are well-rounded and emotionally-stable enough to detach themselves from their in-game actions, but not everybody is.

I'm not against violent videogames by any means. However, violence should not just be presented for the sake of violence. It should have context. And, more importantly, it should not be presented and marketed towards young kids.

Otacon

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

I'm not against violent videogames by any means. However, violence should not just be presented for the sake of violence. It should have context. And, more importantly, it should not be presented and marketed towards young kids.

I agree completely. However, what was the last violent game you saw marketed towards children?

Dont be at yourself

I agree completely. However, what was the last violent game you saw marketed towards children?

Virtually every violent videogame is marketed towards children. Next time you're in a newsagents, leaf through a copy of Gamesmaster and see for yourself.

thebman

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

I think you've both missed the point, though I suspect Helix was being facetious.

The point I was making was not that videogames are training kids to operate weaponary and develop lethal aiming. That's neither here nor there.

The point I was making was that while violence is also abundant in TV, cinema, music and other forms of art, these are all passive forms of entertainment. We watch Jack Bauer torture somebody, but we are not complicit in the actions. We are as likely to be repulsed by such violence as we are to applaud it.

However, with videogames, you are often the perpretrator of the violence. You are complicit. You pull the - metaphorical - trigger. You decide on the value of a life, decide who lives or dies. Now, fair enough, these are not real people and not real lives, but there is a certain emotional resonance. That's the point of videogames, after all. Most people are well-rounded and emotionally-stable enough to detach themselves from their in-game actions, but not everybody is.

I'm not against violent videogames by any means. However, violence should not just be presented for the sake of violence. It should have context. And, more importantly, it should not be presented and marketed towards young kids.

Ok its interactive. It is very obvious that the characters aren't real so it is not the same as movie violence which is actually more graphic in nature since its acted out by real people with great effort gone to make it look like an actual person dying. In games, no matter how advanced they are, people will recognise it as an artificial character. This breaks the connection in peoples minds unless they have some inability to distinguish a virtual doll from a real human being in which case they should already be seeing a doctor.

I say doll because in reality computer characters are more similar to moving dolls/action figures than people. There is no emotional resonance of I just killed someone or horror at blood in games because it is all virtual and obviously virtual. I was more disturbed by scenes in Inglorious Basterds than anything in a game.

I've been playing graphically violent games since I was about 12-15 years old an actually earlier if you include 2D games. It makes no difference as it is all obviously fake. If it ever got to the point where I was grossed out by a game, I'd stop playing it but I've yet to see a game that caused me to think about how disgusting something is. Games have not achieved that level of realism and when they do, I suspect game makers will realise it is a mistake to go to that level in FPS because it isn't what most people play for.

Even if most people don't realise it, they play games mostly to get away from every day life and to be put in a challenge against another person/AI character and win. Killing in games is more akin to checkmate than killing someone in real life.

Otacon

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

Virtually every violent videogame is marketed towards children. Next time you're in a newsagents, leaf through a copy of Gamesmaster and see for yourself.

Every ad I have seen in gaming magazines have had the ratings of the game on them, either PEGI or BBFC. They also don't feature any children playing the game itself or have language suggesting that the ad is aimed at kids so I don't agree.

Dont be at yourself

Ok its interactive. It is very obvious that the characters aren't real so it is not the same as movie violence which is actually more graphic in nature since its acted out by real people with great effort gone to make it look like an actual person dying. In games, no matter how advanced they are, people will recognise it as an artificial character. This breaks the connection in peoples minds unless they have some inability to distinguish a virtual doll from a real human being in which case they should already be seeing a doctor.

I think you're doing the medium an incredible disservice there. Videogames are increasingly capable of immersing the user in their virtual worlds and of provoking emotional responses. The strive for, and popularity of, HD graphics, Dolby Surround sound, rumble feedback, motion control and increased graphic fidelity all underline how important it is for the player to feel some way connected to the character's on-screen actions. To distil it down to "playing with dolls" is to hugely underplay what the medium is capable of.

Players will get a rush for surviving an onslaught in Halo or Gears of War with 1HP remaining, for sneaking up and knifing somebody in the back in Assassin's Creed, or for taking on a dozen goons in Arkham Asylum. If videogames didn't provoke these responses, people wouldn't play them!

As I've said, most adults have the mental maturity to clearly delineate their in-game actions from reality. But it can't be argued as a good thing to put those same games in the hands of kids or those who are mentally fragile.

Leiva

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

Virtually every violent videogame is marketed towards children. Next time you're in a newsagents, leaf through a copy of Gamesmaster and see for yourself.

I think this is boiling down to parental controls and what games they allow their children play .
Unlike a over 18's Movie , I think some parents have a misconception that videos games are some how less effective (its only a game) at disturbing their little Johnny than letting him look at a full SAW movie .

The whole gaming Industry is developing , games are getting more like movies but the ability at controlling and manipulating , I personally think the mentality needs to change with the same said parents , some games are worse than sitting down and watching a over 18 movie , little Johnny can now decide how he kills a certain character .
Will this damage a kids mental state ?.................... probably not .
Would a over 18 movie damage a kids mental state ? probably not .
But regulations are in place to protect underage kids from watching over 18 Movies .
Under 18yr restrictions are in place for games but i still think "its only a game" mentality needs to change in some parents heads , the same parents would have an issue with their kid watching a +18 movie , this is either a double standard or some parents aint got a clue what games they are buying for their kids .

Dont be at yourself

Every ad I have seen in gaming magazines have had the ratings of the game on them, either PEGI or BBFC. They also don't feature any children playing the game itself or have language suggesting that the ad is aimed at kids so I don't agree.

I take your point. I didn't mean that violent videogames were being exclusively marketed towards kids. However, they are advertised in such ways that kids will become more exposed to them than, say, a violent movie. Gamesmaster, for example, is clearly a magazine aimed at kids and young teens. However, it is full of previews, reviews and adverts espousing the virtues of violent games.

Otacon

Question: Are TV advertisements for violent games subjected to the same rules as ads for violent movies? Are they only shown after the watershed etc?

I seem to remember that the Madworld ads were only ever shown after 21:00... could be wrong of course.

Dont be at yourself

Mixednuts: I couldn't agree more. Parents need to get over the idea that it's "only a game". The book ultimately stops with them.

Otacan: Advertising guidelines are the same for movies, videogames and any other product, as far as I know.

Otacon

Your point about the content of the gaming magazines themselves is interesting.

I too feel that there is not a strict enough scope to gaming magazines. They seem to be split more into console genres rather than age genres.

For me, I read GamesTM as it caters to my needs; multi-platform, intelligent reviews, interesting articles from the gamer POV. It is aimed at the young adult/adult demographic. However, there is nothing stopping a child of ten or twelve picking it up too.

thebman

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

I think you're doing the medium an incredible disservice there. Videogames are increasingly capable of immersing the user in their virtual worlds and of provoking emotional responses. The strive for, and popularity of, HD graphics, Dolby Surround sound, rumble feedback, motion control and increased graphic fidelity all underline how important it is for the player to feel some way connected to the character's on-screen actions. To distil it down to "playing with dolls" is to hugely underplay what the medium is capable of.

Players will get a rush for surviving an onslaught in Halo or Gears of War with 1HP remaining, for sneaking up and knifing somebody in the back in Assassin's Creed, or for taking on a dozen goons in Arkham Asylum. If videogames didn't provoke these responses, people wouldn't play them!

As I've said, most adults have the mental maturity to clearly delineate their in-game actions from reality. But it can't be argued as a good thing to put those same games in the hands of kids or those who are mentally fragile.

Not really. The player is immersed in some ways but not in others. They have control over it for the most part as the creators. You have emotional responses but in general making someone feel like they just killed someone is not a desire of the creator as most people don't want to experience that feeling.

If you killed someone in real life, the emotions evoked would be a damn side different to what happens when someone clears a room of enemies to make progress in a game.

Again the goal of killing in games is a challenge, the person is happy at the end because they are progressing through the game not because they feel like they just killed a room full of enemies.

Its right that games express emotions but the types of emotions are controlled to be positive as people play games to enjoy themselves.

I think you underestimate kids, I think by the time kids are capable of working out how to play games with complex challenges they are capable of understanding exactly what is going on. Someone under 10 or 12 wouldn't be able to enjoy a game like Gears of War because they wouldn't be comfortable with the complex control schemes involved to navigate the game world and they wouldn't be able to get around the challenges in the game so I don't think they are aimed nor would they appeal to children that might be effected by the violence in games until they are mature enough to handle it.

Personally I don't have an age I'd let kids play games at in mind. It depends on the kid.

Dont be at yourself

Its right that games express emotions but the types of emotions are controlled to be positive as people play games to enjoy themselves.

Bingo. The actions may be violent, disturbing and anti-social, but the game is triggering enjoyable emotions. How exposing a developing child to this is a good thing, I don't know.

Retr0gamer

Pulling the trigger in a videogame is completely different to doing it in real life. I know developers are striving for reality but there's a long way to go. As long as the world is unbelieveable and scripted and you control the world with a controller it will never be as immersive as the tabloids make out.

Otacon

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

How exposing a developing child to this is a good thing, I don't know.

Who is doing this?

Dont be at yourself

Who is doing this?

Irresponsible parents.

Xluna

They said the same about pop/rock music...

faceman

The Examiner ran a similar story today although they said that the player controls the terrorist. FFS, did any of these rags do their research before running the story?

Even Gerry Ryan had a rant about it today in defense of the game!

Overheal

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Pulling the trigger in a videogame is completely different to doing it in real life. I know developers are striving for reality but there's a long way to go. As long as the world is unbelieveable and scripted and you control the world with a controller it will never be as immersive as the tabloids make out.

Same for driving.

Id say when youre kid is hooked on shooters, take him to a gun range. Show him the biggest loudest recoiliest gun you can find. My first shot was from a Desert Eagle .45 - that will put the fear of higher beings into you.

Jazzy

The Independent wrote:

Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is released on November 10 of this year for the Xbox 360 and PS3 consoles. "

gotta love the free advertising

docdolittle

RobertFoster wrote: »

Why has no one ever made a concentration camp game along the style of Theme Hospital?

I'm going to steal your idea and make MILLIONS now :pac: *Insert evil laugh here*

I was asked this question before actually.... It would have to be an indie game, if any company did anything like that they would be hunted down by all those crazy groups of people who hate games :P Plus the whole moral factor :rolleyes:

Edit: quoted the wrong thing :P fixed

Corkfeen

Its probably not the best for a young child to play violent videogames but its not the game makers fault. This argument is the most repetitive thing ever.;)

Actually does anyone remember the "Postal" games, now that was politically incorrect to a huge degree. You could kill anything that moved in that, including gary coleman.

docdolittle

Corkfeen wrote: »

Its probably not the best for a young child to play violent videogames but its not the game makers fault. This argument is the most repetitive thing ever.;)

Actually does anyone remember the "Postal" games, now that was politically incorrect to a huge degree. You could kill anything that moved in that, including gary coleman.

You know postal 3 is coming to the 360 and PS3?

hooradiation

Victor_M wrote: »

These tabloid rag AKA the Indo is trying to drum up anti video game propaganda in advance of COD MW2, i'm sure an almost identical 'article' appeared before GTA4.

"Leaked footage from Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 showing the killing of innocent civilians looks likely to renew the debate on video game violence.

The leaked footage from the forthcoming Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 shows the player killing unarmed civilians with a group of terrorists at what looks like LAX airport in Los Angeles.

The scenes are likely to be criticised by family interest groups and media watchdogs and will possibly turn the developer and publisher into the latest lightning rods for video game controversy.

Activision, the game's publisher, said that the scene is taken from an early stage in the game's campaign mode.

In a statement, Activision said: "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 forthcoming segment disturbing. These checkpoints can’t be disabled."

It continued: “Modern Warfare 2 is a fantasy action game designed for intense, realistic game play 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."

Created by USA-based games developer, Infinity Ward, Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is one of the most hotly anticipated titles of this year, and is expected to be one of the biggest selling games this Christmas.

Earlier this year, Activision announced they would be charging £10 more than standard new release prices for the game. Its predecessor, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, also developed by Infinity Ward and the last major release in the series, is thought to have sold 13 million copies around the world.

Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is released on November 10 of this year for the Xbox 360 and PS3 consoles. "

This sort of reporting will only drive kids mad to get their hands on it.

While the effect of violent video games and just how much responsibility developers have when making games that portray violence is a great debate, I'm struggling to see what the hell your beef is with this article.

It's factual, neutral and devoid of hysteria. Look, This is rampant hysteria and bullshit, the above isn't.

Reporting that a game which shows civilians getting shot might cause controversy isn't bad journalism, at all.

Are we really that thin skinned that anything which isn't sycophantic gushing praise for the games industry is automatically "anti video game propaganda"?

As for the violence in games debate, parents do need to actually pay attention to the damn ratings, but developers need to stop using that as an excuse to turn the gore all the way up to 11 for no damn reason.

This game is actually a case in point, i mean the developers have said that this part of the game can be skipped "without losing any of the story." If that is so, why even include it in the game?

If it's just for visceral thrills (as it seems to be) then frankly they deserve all the scorn they get.

docdolittle

hooradiation wrote: »

This game is actually a case in point, i mean the developers have said that this part of the game can be skipped "without losing any of the story." If that is so, why even include it in the game?

If it's just for visceral thrills (as it seems to be) then frankly they deserve all the scorn they get.

I really don't agree with what you are saying here. As pointed out in the article, InfinityWard put this in to show the degree of which terrorists will go to. It is there so in your mind you will want to stop the terrorist from doing this again when you play as your main characters. It was given this option so that many people (who should be over 18 playing this, I know its not going to happen, but that's another argument) have the option to skip it if they don't like that kind of thing. I don't think it is purely for shock value or "visceral thrills" as you put it....

I can't understand why people get so bothered about this kind of stuff.. The people that don't want these games to be published are never going to play them anyway. I know the debate is that children will get there hands onto these games, but it is up to parents, not the game developer to censor games that are ok for children to play. There are even sites to help parents to decide if a game is ok for there children!

To sum this up: :rolleyes:

hooradiation

docdolittle wrote: »

I really don't agree with what you are saying here. As pointed out in the article, InfinityWard put this in to show the degree of which terrorists will go to. It is there so in your mind you will want to stop the terrorist from doing this again when you play as your main characters. It was given this option so that many people (who should be over 18 playing this, I know its not going to happen, but that's another argument) have the option to skip it if they don't like that kind of thing. I don't think it is purely for shock value or "visceral thrills" as you put it....

Well it's either part of the story, or it isn't. If it is, then you shouldn't be able to skip it, but if you can skip it and miss out on nothing, then why is it there?

It can't be pivotal in showing us how far the terrorists will go and yet at the same time be so unimportant as to be skipped and not affect the story at all.

To use another medium, the kerb-stomp scene from American History X gets me every damn time, i dunno why but it does, makes my skin crawl.
But it's part of the story, if you skip it then you are missing out and as much as i don't like it i wouldn't consider skipping over it, and i don't think Tony Kaye or Ed Norton would argue that you could skip it and not have the story affected in the slightest.

It just seems like a tool to cause calculated outrage as free advertisement, and frankly if they want to do that, they can go die in a fire.

Jazzy

Daily Star wrote:

The high-spec, see-in-the-dark gear has led the game to be dubbed Modern Warfare 2: Peeping Tom Edition.

HAS IT REALLY Ciaran Hannah!!!???

i wouldnt worry about all this tbh. most of the people who read those red tops and in fact any of the outlets that report on "VIOLENT COMPUTER GAMES" are utterly retarded anyway.
the only problem is that developers might start taking in what the retards say and develop games based on appeasing them. i dont think thats gonna happen though as the publicity they get out of these sort of articles gets them more money then designing games that appease idiots.

Leiva

Again it falls on the parents Laps no one else .
Violent games will be made , Drugs will be sold ..educate, educate , educate.

My point was that there seems to be a mentality that "its only a game" with some parents .
This needs to stop and parents need to understand and educate themselves that some games can be as violent as the type of movies they wouldn't dare let their kids watch.
At the moment I personally feel that game developers do not emphasis or warn how much violence is in their releases , a major movie maker would not get away with this !

Overature

I can see what negaitive effects that GTA has on people, but if it was to do anything, it would but halp people learn of the horrors of war and what was going on in the middle east at the moment. The people who make Call of Duty try to make it as real as possible.

docdolittle

hooradiation wrote: »

Well it's either part of the story, or it isn't. If it is, then you shouldn't be able to skip it, but if you can skip it and miss out on nothing, then why is it there?

It can't be pivotal in showing us how far the terrorists will go and yet at the same time be so unimportant as to be skipped and not affect the story at all.

To use another medium, the kerb-stomp scene from American History X gets me every damn time, i dunno why but it does, makes my skin crawl.
But it's part of the story, if you skip it then you are missing out and as much as i don't like it i wouldn't consider skipping over it, and i don't think Tony Kaye or Ed Norton would argue that you could skip it and not have the story affected in the slightest.

It just seems like a tool to cause calculated outrage as free advertisement, and frankly if they want to do that, they can go die in a fire.

Ok.. to be honest, you do sound like you are going a little over the top there, they are game developers trying to bring a new expieriece to people and you want them to die in a fire (that to me sounds like you should be the one thinking about morals in life, never mind video games)


I for one won't be skipping it as I want to see what it plays like. After this I won't be going outside and gunning innocent people down as this is just another source of entertainment in media like film (saw films for example, I don't watch these though) nor will I want people to die in fires as you do...

You should get some perspective on this, it's meant for adults who want to escape the real world and play a game. The start with the terrorists may not effect the storyline but it may effect a persons view of the game to a greater extent within the gameplay and how I.W. are trying to show there game in a new way.

C_Dawg

As someone previously said these games are often certed 18.

Even then only a mental patient would be influenced by the content.

We should wait for a spokeswoman of an anti video game violence organisation to appear on the news and run her over with a car that I hotwired by repeatedly tapped L2 & R2 and then hop out and collect the glowing green chunks of cash.

hooradiation

docdolittle wrote: »

Ok.. to be honest, you do sound like you are going a little over the top there, they are game developers trying to bring a new expieriece to people and you want them to die in a fire (that to me sounds like you should be the one thinking about morals in life, never mind video games)

hyperbole? On the Internet? SHOCKING!

.....

Die in a fire is just an expression, don't fret.

docdolittle wrote: »

I for one won't be skipping it as I want to see what it plays like. After this I won't be going outside and gunning innocent people down as this is just another source of entertainment in media like film (saw films for example, I don't watch these though) nor do I want people to die in fires as you do...

oh god, you're going to make a thing out of this, aren't you.....

docdolittle wrote: »

You should get some perspective on this, it's meant for adults who want to escape the real world and play a game. The start with the terrorists may not effect the storyline but it may effect a persons view of the game to a greater extent within the gameplay and how I.W. are trying to show there game in a new way.

I'm pretty certain IW are trying to tell a story here, it may be a clichéd one, but it's a story.

If developers want their story telling to be taken seriously then they're going to have to accept that people may find their story a bit tasteless in places and question why the scene exists.

Amazingly if you have an industry that's spent forever trying to assert that they aren't just cheap disposable pieces of electronic fluff, then they don't get a free pass when their efforts turn out to be crass.

It's like a damned roundabout. Roger Eber claims that video games "could not be art" and we're all clambering to prove him wrong, say that this killing civilians scene is crass and suddenly it's all "Jeez, it's just a game, relax"

no wonder nobody takes us seriously....