By Oliver Motok
Every so often, we are reminded of just how far the game industry has to go before it gains the respect that, say, the film industry enjoys.
Granted, progress has been made. Things aren’t quite the same now as they were in 2005, during the infamous “Hot Coffee” scandal of Grand Theft Auto III. And thanks to a certain fellow being disbarred, we don’t hear quite as much courtroom squawking about videogames and their corrupting influence on the minds of children.
Getting to the point, though, and as you might have guessed, I’m here to talk about Modern Warfare 2’s “terrorist” scene, which has been the subject of much scrutiny in both the gaming and the mainstream press lately. To fully understand the discussion, the scene should be described in detail.
During this level, you’re actually an undercover CIA Agent, working with the game’s main antagonist, Vladimir Makarov. The premise is simple: you, Vladimir, and two others walk into a Russian airport and begin mercilessly gunning down civilians. No one is spared, and no resistance is offered outside of a few terrified security guards. Once that’s finished, you and your three companions successfully escape in a hijacked ambulance.
Understand that this is all fully playable; it’s not a cutscene. To say the least, it’ll disturb you. There’s a reason why the game gives two different warnings that the sequence is possibly offensive, and allows you to skip it without penalty.
Is Modern Warfare 2’s “terrorist” scene worthy of discussion and scrutiny? Sure it is. It can be a very upsetting scene, and it’s certainly not something seen before in the world of videogames. However, the tone of both the media and the gaming press seems to phrasing the question as “should the scene exist at all.”
If this fictionalized terrorist attack had been a scene in the next Michael Bay movie, nobody would have batted an eye. If it had been featured as a cutscene in Modern Warfare 2, nobody would have noticed. However, because it’s a playable sequence in the game, people are shocked. Why? Because it’s something they’ve never seen before. And it’s all too easy to fear what you haven’t seen before, now isn’t it?
Stephen Totilo of Kotaku was recently on MSNBC, discussing (or at least attempting to discuss) this very scene. During the segment he said something that I agree with 102 percent: “I think a lot of people look at videogames as children’s books.” And he’s entirely correct – despite how far we’ve managed to come, the general consensus still seems to be that videogames are a child’s pastime. So, when Modern Warfare 2 has the gall to present players with overtly adult material, the world is left wondering how to react.
Naturally, though, as gamers we have a different opinion. Videogames are proven to be a pastime that all ages can enjoy. Modern Warfare 2 has an “M” on the box for a reason – the content of the game is designed for a mature audience. The so-called “terrorist” mission was meant to be experienced by a mature audience. This being the case, then, the question of “should this scene exist” is rendered moot.
There are multiple reasons the scene is beneficial to the game. For one, it’s a guaranteed crowd-shocker, sure to cultivate attention and motivation from the audience. Even hardened gamers who think they’ve seen it all will surely be stunned, and that’s saying something.
Secondly, the segment acts as a major plot point, and it characterizes the main villain, terrorist leader Vladimir Makarov. Sure, it characterizes him as a black-and-white evil bastard, but regardless, it gives a face to the name that players will hear time and time again throughout the campaign. Secondly, it’s this attack that triggers the entire war that the game is based around. In other words, it’s not there simply for the sake of having a “terrorist” level – it’s a very crucial part of the story.
And finally, Infinity Ward is to be praised for embracing the interactive medium to it’s fullest. This is what all games should strive to do. Franchises such as Call of Duty and Uncharted understand that it’s not what you see, but what you do that defines the gaming experience. Naughty Dog could have simply crafted a cutscene for the train sequence of Uncharted 2 – instead, they designed two entire levels in which the player was forced to traverse it himself. Infinity Ward could have put together a hollywood-quality CGI scene that showed the terrorist attack, but they forced the player to experience it firsthand. Controversial as it may appear, it’s simply the best way for videogames – an interactive medium -to tell their stories.
Video games are all about the interactive experience. It’s the single unique advantage that games have over other storytelling mediums. So, should Modern Warfare 2’s terrorist level exist? Absolutely, and hopefully both gamers and developers alike will view it as a solid example to follow. Eventually, the world will get used to it.
Tags: Editorials, Modern Warfare 2
I’m shocked! Three pictures, and not a one altered with MS Paint! This will not stand!
-Nice article by btw.
@SN – I know, right? I need to make up for that!
@Riddles – Yeah, even desensitized ol’ me was a bit disturbed by that section. And while I absolutely agree with you that there shouldn’t even be an argument of “should it be in there”, and while I agree with on you that children book quote, I’m still on the fence when it comes to brushing aside the interactive nature of games just as “something new”.
I agree that people do often fear video games and will use any handle reason to get rid of it, but I don’t know if the severity of watching the equivalent of that scene and actually playing that scene is the same.
In a movie, while the director can choose perspective, you still play an observer. You can put yourself in anybody’s shoes.
When you are pulling the trigger on a man trying to help his bleeding friend, you might feel for them, but you’re not in their shoes.
Now, I’m not even drawing any conclusions with that, like I said, I still don’t know where I stand in justifying the severity of interaction, I just wouldn’t equate watching to playing once “people get used to it”.
“In a movie, while the director can choose perspective, you still play an observer. You can put yourself in anybody’s shoes.
When you are pulling the trigger on a man trying to help his bleeding friend, you might feel for them, but you’re not in their shoes.”
-No instead you fill the shoes of an undercover CIA agent put in a very difficult situation.
-This level actually sounds like a massive draw to me, as it’s an experience I couldn’t exactly get from another game (save for GTA I suppose).
@Ethos: that wasn’t really my point, dood. I don’t deny that the scene is more disturbing in an interactive format, I’m just saying that we’re used to seeing that stuff in movies, but not in games. Hence the minor outcry from the masses.
@Noob: thanks for the compliments. And frankly, the level IS a draw – definitely not an experience found in another game.
Personally, I think I’m with Riddles for the most part. Whether or not this part of MW2 is a draw for a particular person (it’s not really my thing), I’m glad it’s out there for people to experience. Some people enjoy being disturbed (heck, look at the Saw franchise).
From a broader prospective, I think it’s great that video games are slowly getting to be more accepted as “adult” forms of entertainment. No single instance like this will suddenly cause games to be more mature in the view of the general public, but all the little things will add up. Combine that with the fact that more and more adults now grew up with video games, and it’s only a matter of time before people realize that there’s just as wide an array of target audiences for video games as any other form of entertainment.
I doubt I’d even be that disturbed by it …
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/11/19/wot-i-think-about-that-level/