GamePolitics article about the airport terrorist video that got out, but the bottom part is what I'm interested in:

A better translation would be "You've hit a civilian. Watch your fire!", but the intent is the same. The article doesn't mention it exactly, but you're supposedly CIA infiltrating this terror cell, so you have to partake in the mission (although you're allowed to skip it due to its content) but not cross the line yourself.

Actually, Steam is the only online retailer that is selling. Direct2Drive won't sell it along with several others

Article here

Oh Valve, what happened to you in the last year.

I highly doubt this is Steam's fault. There's plenty of games with Steamworks support in them that don't require Steam if you buy it elsewhere.

No I meant, They didn't get on the "Boycott MW2" bandwagon, instead shelling out for $$$$$.

... they are a videogame vendor... They didn't do anything unethical, they just did something careless. Don't blame steam for carrying a videogame.

Exactly.
Sure, give a "good on ya" to the stores boycotting the game, but don't go hating other stores for trying to do business as usual.

Expecting Valve to hop on the "boycott" wagon is just stupid.

There ARE people who want to play MW2 for the PC. I know, novel concept. Are you telling me their choice to play a game should be limited because a game vendor feels some strange moral obligation to prevent him in making the decision for himself? We aren't going to supply this game because this group of people are angry about X reasons!

It's their own store software that the game is trying to install. Why would they care?

[Video Removed because Activision sicked its lawyers on Youtube. *******s ]

Holy ****.
It looks like an utterly gigantic slaughter, The news networks are going to have a ****ing field day.
Also- What kind of CIA agent would infiltrate a terror cell, and then not stop the largest attack they could possibly pull off?

Oh wow ... ****. Thats some crazy stuff..., I wasn't expecting that

Edit: cause some dope disabled deletes.

The entire game should be like that. Just going around trying to rack up as many civilian kills as possible.

Is Postal 3 ever going to be made?

The Hays code of censorship was enforced on movies in the 1930s in part to prevent the glorification of gangsters during the Depression, because of movies like the Public Enemy, and lasted for a good 30 years. I think something similar will happen with video games in the not-too-distant future, this time under the banner of 'terrorism'. And with sequences like this, it may come sooner than later.

Call of Duty blatantly showing the horrors of war and terrorism?
Nahh, they never do that.
My only gripe with the video was the crappy looking onscreen blood you get when you get shot. That destroys the immersion bigtime.
What's with games insisting on making you feel like your head is actually a camera?

I think there's difference between "Showing the horrors of war" and "A mission where the objective is the slaughter of civilians". A much better way to show this would be to have the player-character as one of the far-outgunned security officers, or a SWAT officer.

Or anything else that doesn't involve you stabbing civilians.

Okay, so the level restarts when civilians are shot only in the German version? Either that or the vids leaked at different development stages.

Well, German versions of games get stricter restrictions due to regulations. I'm surprised that the mission would even appear in the German version in the first place.

No one is forcing you to kill the civilians in the level. You are participating, sure, but nothing plays out differently if you DON'T shoot anyone. Hell, if you wanted to create the same effect, you could shoot over everyone's heads and then you could imagine that the terrorists THINK you're killing the civilians with them when you're really not. I think the only real question here is the one asked by Tibby...what could the CIA agent be trying to stop that is so important that he would allow this slaughter to happen? It's entirely possible that there is a good answer to that.

I think you need to lighten up. It may be incredibly realistic and brutal, but it is still a game. A game trying to send a message, no less. What you just said is probably the whole point of the level. To evoke horror and disgust in the player. You aren't forced under pain of defenestration of your console/PC to shoot every civilian you see... you can simply follow the terrorists and not shoot. It is up to you, as the player, and your comfort level and how immersed you want to feel.

Of course, like someone else said, the whole blood on the screen thing is utterly retarded and destroys that immersion they worked so hard for. Game companies really need to realize that your eyes are not glass lenses.

What if you have glasses on. This is exactly what it looks like to me when I splash water.

That video seemed a little gratuitous and well, kind of lame. It felt like it would have been better handled through a cut scene. I didn't get a 'terrorism evil, don't let them win' impression from it. More of a 'Wraa, look at us we're edgy and controversial'.

I think you missed the fundamental point of which was brought up by Bob just now.
You play a CIA agent who has infiltrated the group, and yet you still allow this slaughter to happen, even participate. Why?
What could be happening to justifty that?

And even if that weren't the case, showing the horrificness in that event is done much better by putting you as one of the gunners. Being a SWAT officer against them would've been a much softer way of doing it, and I'd say the way they've done it was just right, given your reaction.

Maybe the shooting was done outside the US.

That's pretty ****ing hardcore.

That looks like they're really pushing the envelope.

Moscow. Says so right in the opening of the level.

There you go. If anything, the CIA welcomes a few less Russkies in the world. Not to mention, Russians are pretty used to senseless massacres.

It also explains why they were able to get away so easily.

Yeah, we understand that, but try explaining that to someone that has never played a computer game and never will. There are people that are easily convinced that this sort of thing is a 'murder simulation' and will corrupt dear innocent children. Censorship of movies only became a big issue when talkies emerged on the scene, a radical new technology that was completely alien to generations of people. This isn't even a partisan thing, both democrats and republicans say utterly retarded things about computer games, it's a generational issue.

On that topic, I always used to say the same thing you are, that it's just a game and it's not a big deal, but my views on that have changed somewhat based on some reading I have done. I'm talking about On Killing, On Combat, Stop Teaching Our Kids To Kill, etc. The author is well versed in training people to kill, and he believes that violent video games CAN have a significant effect on the way people view killing. Honestly it IS training for killing, it's just only half of the training (the physical side), and it's buried under layers of conscious understanding that it's just a game, for fun. We all understand that, and barring any mental problems in any of us, it won't matter.

Anyway, I don't think it matters much in this context...it IS just a game, and you DO kill people in the game, and it's your own choice whether or not to kill civilians. I don't see a difference between this and GTA except at least here, it's treated much more realistically...in a good way, I think.

Wow, that was brutal. I would never play that. I mean, I wasn't going to anyways, but wow.

I would disagree that it's training for "the physical side". I can see how it would desensitize you to the actual act ("the mental side"), but there's a big difference between using a controller or keyboard/mouse and picking up a real gun and shooting it.



Yeah... L4D2 has this in the demo whenever you use a melee weapon... with just a few consecutive kills it makes it more difficult to see what you're doing, argh.

Yeah, I sure as hell couldn't tell you how to load/unload any gun other than a simple shotgun. And I've played countless war games. I just phase the reload animations out, haha.

And yeah, people need to boycott MW2 less and boycott the fact that it COATS YOUR EYEBALLS WITH BLOOD WHEN YOU ARE SHOT more.

I learned all I know of guns from games, and my own curious research because of such.
I am confident I could shoot an AK and reload it, however thats as far as my knowledge of warfare goes.

Anyway, guys who are jumping on me: I don't think this will make people killers or anything, it just looks to be done in a tasteless way to me is all.

Oops, that was a typo.. Of course I meant the mental side, NOT the physical side.

Tibby, I am curious about how much people learn about how weapons work from games. You seem like a good example, if you don't mind I wonder if you could answer some questions for me (don't look it up before you answer, please, I'm just curious about whether these details are absorbed or if they are even included): Where is the safety on an AK-47? Do you insert the magazine straight into the gun or do you have to rotate it in?

The magazine is inserted front-first and the safety is dustcover/fire selecter thing.
Don't kill me if that's wrong, like I said it's not like I've ever shot one.

Hey, I've never shot one either, but I was looking into buying one for a while, so I researched them. You're correct on both counts (to my knowledge). Did you learn that from games or from your own research?

Part one from games (the animation shows it) and part two from my own research.
Guns really are incredible machines, I have spent many an hour researching them.

That doesn't prove anything: guns are designed so they're easy to use. I claim that if you've ever fired any rifle with a detachable magazine you can use any assault rifle.

Playing Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare 2 caused my child to shoot up his school.