Modern Warfare 2 going to far?

[Jazzmaster 716]

Originally posted by: dylan386

No... it was Canada....

quote>

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah...

no.  Canada had nothing to do with this war...it was little more than a country of French, Indian and Federalist "rejects" at the time (I may not be exactly correct about that, but I digress)...

EDIT:  Looking back, I was actually thinking more of the post-War of 1812 Canada, lol

The burning occured during the War of 1812, between the very young America and superpower (at the time) Great Britian.  Great Britian had defeated us in just about every battle (excluding that of New Orleans, which really technically doesn't count)  including the one that was fought before the burning of of Washington D.C. (Batlle of Blatensburg, 1814).  In any event...they did a large amount of fire damage to many of the buildings--if not destroying them--and the British soldiers were even said to have eaten the food left in the White House by vacating politicians before burning it.

[Hudizzle17 1]

I stopped taking the article seriously at "Christian" Science Monitor.

I'm sure there have been "worse" games, if that's the word one might choose to use.

[sneakeypete 16]

I'm pretty sure anyone in eastern Europe would be extremely offended by this article.

[Kryptowhite 9]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: Kryptowhite

Those of us who were alive in 1812 aren't strangers to seeing DC burn down.quote>

That was in 1814.

quote>

Ouch.

[Duke87 1,070]

Okay, first of all...

...again. 1814. 1814! Not 1812. It was in the "War of 1812", but that war lasted three years. The burning of DC was towards the end of the war. And, the troops that did it were British, not Canadian. Although a fair ammount of fighting did take place during the war in what is now Canada, Canada was not yet an idependent nation at the time and thus can hardly be credited/blamed (depending on how you look at it) for the war and actions in it.

Secondly...

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Games that graphically depict war and carnage need to be made to go the way of child porn.  It is time to study war no more in our new century.  Let the carry overs of the last century fade away into history's lessone, but make sure this history is not forgotten.

War is not a game.  Hate is neither a game nor funny.

Nations that even consider war as any kind of a solution should be ostracized from civilization.  I am sick of people shooting at each other.

Glorification of war is the same as legalizing child porn IMHO.  War mongers should be sent to a small, inaccessible, deserted island.

quote>

One can hardly consider video games that depict violence to be the same as child pornography. The problem with child pornography is not what it depicts, but what is necessary for its creation - namely, that children must be made to pose/act in a sexually explicit manner, which, obviously, is wrong. On the other hand, pornographic material which does not depict real children but is instead drawn or computer generated has no such problem and is, in fact, perfectly legal - because no children were harmed in the process of making it.

In the same vein, video games depicting war, seeing as they are by nature computer generated, are hardly questionable from that standpoint since no actual wars were started in the process of making them or are started in the process of playing them. Real war is not a game, but video games, regardless of what they depict, are.

...and the game does not "glorify" war. It's our culture that glorifies violence, and banning the game wouldn't change that. Indeed, it might... provoke violence from people opposed to such measures. No one likes having something they want forbdden to them, especially when it's "the man" doing the forbidding.

But beyond all that, there's this thing called the first amendment and freedom of speech/the press which, at least in the US, means that any manner of banning/censoring such things by the government is uncostitutional and renders the entire debate moot. It ain't happening here.

As for ostracizing nations that solve their problems through war, well that works just fine... until they decide to attack you.

Then, obviously, you must either fight a war, or perish.

And there is the important distinction. Any violence, whether it's as large as a war or as small as punching someone in the face, is wrong when it's an act of agression. When it's done in self defense, that's an entirely different story.

Starting wars is an international crime and is something people have been punished for. Fighting wars when someone else starts one with you as the target... well, no one can be blamed for that.

You can tire of people shooting at each other all you want, but it's not going to stop ever becuase it can't stop unless every single person on earth is on board with it. It only takes one person shooting one bullet to break the global cease-fire, and then you have to shoot back in order to stop them.

Don't get me wrong, peaceful solutions are an admirable thing to strive for, but the sad reality is that sometimes they aren't viable. D'ya think we're going to be able to negotiate peace with Al Qaeda? Of course not, because they don't want peace. They want us dead. And when it comes down to it, killing them is preferable to letting them kill us.

I'm all for sending warmongers like Osama Bin Laden to a small inacessible deserted island (that is to say, a prison cell), but we have to catch them first...

[Jamonbread 222]

Since I'm from Canada I may have more knowledge then some on this matter. Canada was a british colony at the time, not indepent so sure its great britain technically, but most troops doing the fighting were Canadians. The whole war was the U.S. trying to invade Canada so obviously many of us were fighting for our country / colony / Queen.

What I'm saying is, Under the British, Canadians burned it down.

[Jazzmaster 716]

Originally posted by: Jamonbread

Since I'm from Canada I may have more knowledge then some on this matter. Canada was a british colony at the time, not indepent so sure its great britain technically, but most troops doing the fighting were Canadians. The whole war was the U.S. trying to invade Canada so obviously many of us were fighting for our country / colony / Queen.

What I'm saying is, Under the British, Canadians burned it down.quote>

Yeah one of the reasons we went to war was the speculation of gaining Canada...but if it's a British Colony then that's why the history books all say the British did it...

It's kinda like how at the time we fought the French and Indian war, the American colonists were still considered English...

[Explodingsims 3]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Games that graphically depict war and carnage need to be made to go the way of child porn.  It is time to study war no more in our new century.  Let the carry overs of the last century fade away into history's lessone, but make sure this history is not forgotten.

War is not a game.  Hate is neither a game nor funny.

Nations that even consider war as any kind of a solution should be ostracized from civilization.  I am sick of people shooting at each other.

Glorification of war is the same as legalizing child porn IMHO.  War mongers should be sent to a small, inaccessible, deserted island.

quote>

Personally, I think war is bad. Very bad, but sometimes, it is a necessary  evil. If someone attacks you, then you are totally within your rights to attack them back. But usually this should be a last resort.

As for games that depict war, I have no problem with them. They're quite fun. Usually, at least with the ones that actually depict realistic battles, they don't glorify it either. Modern Warfare one did this quite well, including a scene where you slowly died after a nuclear attack.  But really, these games don't fan the flames of hate. They're just there to blow off steam, most people who play them wouldn't want to joind the army. They understand that there's a difference between a bunch of pixels and a living man.

[Jazzmaster 716]

Originally posted by: Explodingsims

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Games that graphically depict war and carnage need to be made to go the way of child porn.  It is time to study war no more in our new century.  Let the carry overs of the last century fade away into history's lessone, but make sure this history is not forgotten.

War is not a game.  Hate is neither a game nor funny.

Nations that even consider war as any kind of a solution should be ostracized from civilization.  I am sick of people shooting at each other.

Glorification of war is the same as legalizing child porn IMHO.  War mongers should be sent to a small, inaccessible, deserted island.

quote>

Personally, I think war is bad. Very bad, but sometimes, it is a necessary  evil. If someone attacks you, then you are totally within your rights to attack them back. But usually this should be a last resort.

As for games that depict war, I have no problem with them. They're quite fun. Usually, at least with the ones that actually depict realistic battles, they don't glorify it either. Modern Warfare one did this quite well, including a scene where you slowly died after a nuclear attack.  But really, these games don't fan the flames of hate. They're just there to blow off steam, most people who play them wouldn't want to joind the army. They understand that there's a difference between a bunch of pixels and a living man.

quote>

That actually brings up a good point...you know how it is in these games.

Better to play GTA IV than to hijack cars, NFS than to perform illegal street racing,or play Call of Duty than to kill people in real life..

[Patricius Maximus 236]

9/11 Mania resurfaces once again. What does 9/11 have to do with warfare in an American city? Have they not ever heard of  Earth vs. the Flying Saucers? No one ever speaks out about the depictions of destruction in near-photorealistic detail for that movie, and nor should they be speaking out about that in this game.

Also consider the fact that this review comes from the same bunch of fascists that deny fact in the name of the Bible, blindly support the war, and want to transform North America into a medieval church-centered society. So I'm not surprised any depiction of attack on the US, fictional or not, and especially in their least-favorite medium, offends their sensibilities.

I have a news flash for them -- if you don't like it, don't buy it.

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

9/11 Mania resurfaces once again. What does 9/11 have to do with warfare in an American city? Have they not ever heard of  Earth vs. the Flying Saucers? No one ever speaks out about the depictions of destruction in near-photorealistic detail for that movie, and nor should they be speaking out about that in this gamequote>

In the same genre

[redrummage 9]

Depictions?  That didn't really happen.  Bill Pullman wasn't President of the United States?  Randy Quaid isn't a drunk? 

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: fukuda

In the same genrequote>

It's worth pointing out that that movie came out years before 9/11, so the chief source of the complaints here (seeing american cities blown up in attacks is too traumatizing in the post 9/11 world) doesn't apply.

Still, it is absurd that the standards should change in light of 9/11. I mean, it's been eight years now. If the game was slated to come out in november of 2001 it would be understandable to delay it or tone it down. Wouldn't be the only thing to get changed in light of recent events.

Duke Nukem: Manhattan Project, released in the summer of 2002, was originally going to be titled Duke Nukem: Nuking New York (although there are no nuclear weapons in the game...). Understandable they'd change that.

And Third Eye Blind's song "Slow Motion" off their album Blue (released summer 1999) was made to be instrumental in light of the recent Columbine massacre. The original version with lyrics was released a few years later, and looking at the first line ("Miss Jones taught me English, but I think I just shot her son..."), it immediately becomes apparent why they were removed .

Point being, it's fine to do that "in light of recent events", but 9/11 is by no means a recent event. Hell, we already have a couple of movies about it and other works that involve/reference it. The "too soon" argument is no longer valid here.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Point being, it's fine to do that "in light of recent events", but 9/11 is by no means a recent event. Hell, we already have a couple of movies about it and other works that involve/reference it. The "too soon" argument is no longer valid here.

quote>

I wholeheartedly agree.

[trainboy1094 0]

Honestly, I see NOTHING wrong with this game (and i have it on pre-order ). I find it interesting that people choose to criticize this, instead of the new movie 2012. In that film, the world ends, and considering Washington DC is on earth, that will most likley get destroyed too. (And if I remember correctly, 2012 is by the same group that made Independence Day)

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Yoshiisland

Originally posted by: Jamonbread

CANADA BURNED THE WHITE HOUSE IN 1812!quote>

Pretty sure that was Great Britian...

quote>

Quite correct.  The Dominion of Canada didn't exist until 1867.  Canada became a real country at the battle of Vimy Hill in the first world war.  Before that we were captive to the British almost as a colony.  We got our own consitiution in 1067.  Takes a long time to do it peacefully, eh?

We Canadians have a long held confusion about our identity.  We often identify ourselves with the United Kingdon when it comes to history, since the links are so strong and have never been really broken, just attenuated.  On the other hand, if you want to see a distinct soceity contrast us, the great mosaic, with the United States, the great melting pot.

[simcity4fan12 13]

I can't believe someone like that would freak out over a game. I'm a christian, I think games like that are awsome! Just my comment on the subject. No offense but that was really random for someone to say "CANADA BURNED DC IN 1812!"...and brought the thread about a reaction to a game toward the War of 1812. Yea, it was Britian that did that.

There has been plenty of games that had to do with destruction of RL places, a game that came out for Playstation 2 way back, called Defender, had to do with aliens that destroyed all of Earth and took it over and drove humans off to other planets, like Mars. You later return to a city in France that is in ruins.

[Explodingsims 3]

Originally posted by: trainboy1094

Honestly, I see NOTHING wrong with this game (and i have it on pre-order ). I find it interesting that people choose to criticize this, instead of the new movie 2012. In that film, the world ends, and considering Washington DC is on earth, that will most likley get destroyed too. (And if I remember correctly, 2012 is by the same group that made Independence Day)

quote>

Oh Lawd does it. The White house gets crushed by the USS John F. Kenedy.

Originally posted by: Duke87

Point being, it's fine to do that "in light of recent events", but 9/11 is by no means a recent event. Hell, we already have a couple of movies about it and other works that involve/reference it. The "too soon" argument is no longer valid here. quote>

Exactly. Yes, it's a tragic event. But seriously, by eight years, the wounds should be prettty well healed.

Plus, in this game you are an AMERICAN soilder, so it's not like you're the one ripping apart the city. As fun as that would be.

[SomeRandomAmerican 5]

Okay, we all know it. 9/11 was a tragedy. Almost 3,000 people died and the course of American, no, world history was changed. But people need to start thinking and moving on. We can't keep using 9/11 as an excuse for excessive security measures and censorship.

Now by censorship I mean protesting or complaining or even trying to sue companies for producing these "violent" video games. Now I played COD4's single player, and anyone else who has knows that it was more of a movie than a game. Scripted events, gorgeous realism, and overall fantastic work made it more of a work of art than a game. Yet every time another revolutionary game comes out, one that pushes the envelope of what we're used to and brings a bit of reality back, somebody has a problem with it. This is an example, as is another title, Six Days in Fallujah. It was a military shooter based on the experiences of US Marines in the Second Battle of Fallujah, and drew massive criticism when it was announced, to the point where the project was shut down and a respectable developer closed its doors. Why? Because it was being "insensitive" and "bringing to mind traumatic events in the recent past." It was supposedly offensive to the very same Marines that had provided advice and guidance during the games production.

We all need a bit of a wake up call when it comes to how we see games. We need to start seeing them more as bits of artwork, and not as things for children's amusement. Perhaps showing the reality of DC under attack by an unknown foe is what it would take.

[Nerd_Guy 4]

I am an American, a Christian, and a patriot, and I cannot wait to get my hands on this game! I have it pre-ordered of course

[Yoman3 5]

I'm not a fan of the DC warzone thing not because I think its insensitive, I just don't see how they can do it realistically, I mean there is a little security around DC, especially after 9-11

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Originally posted by: Yoman3

I'm not a fan of the DC warzone thing not because I think its insensitive, I just don't see how they can do it realistically, I mean there is a little security around DC, especially after 9-11 quote>

Do you really think that security could stand up to a massive invasion force and leave DC untouched? I doubt it, if it was sufficiently large. We also don't know any of the circumstances surrounding the attack, so it is best to not presume too much.

Originally posted by: Explodingsims

Originally posted by: Duke87

Point being, it's fine to do that "in light of recent events", but 9/11 is by no means a recent event. Hell, we already have a couple of movies about it and other works that involve/reference it. The "too soon" argument is no longer valid here. quote>

Exactly. Yes, it's a tragic event. But seriously, by eight years, the wounds should be prettty well healed.

Plus, in this game you are an AMERICAN soilder, so it's not like you're the one ripping apart the city. As fun as that would be.

quote>

8 years and the wound healing? With these fascists who are still in a state of mania concerning 9/11, the wound will never heal. Instead, if they have their way, they will go on a bloodthirsty quest around the world in search of elusive vengeance, and the even-more elusive, mysterious, ambiguous adversary they persue called "terror", which will destroy themselves and the world along with them.

And you are correct in pointing out that the point of view in the game is American, so it sends a positive theme -- protecting the country from attack. I thought that was what these people wanted to be doing...

Originally posted by: trainguy4449

Okay, we all know it. 9/11 was a tragedy. Almost 3,000 people died and the course of American, no, world history was changed. But people need to start thinking and moving on. We can't keep using 9/11 as an excuse for excessive security measures and censorship. quote>

I'd go farther than that and say that 9/11 was used as a vehicle towards the establishment of totalitarian rule in the US. But I agree with the above statement.

Now by censorship I mean protesting or complaining or even trying to sue companies for producing these "violent" video games.quote>

Sue the companies for producing violent video games? I doubt if that case would last long (assuming Americans still have a vestige of real justice left).

Yet every time another revolutionary game comes out, one that pushes the envelope of what we're used to and brings a bit of reality back, somebody has a problem with it.quote>

Yes. That is almost the definition of conservative, one that has problems with any change whatsoever.

This is an example, as is another title, Six Days in Fallujah. It was a military shooter based on the experiences of US Marines in the Second Battle of Fallujah, and drew massive criticism when it was announced, to the point where the project was shut down and a respectable developer closed its doors.quote>

I really don't understand these objections. Surely representing the works of the troops in art (be it in the form of a game, movie, painting, etc) honors their exploits and legacies for generations to come. I would view it as a memorialization they should be proud of.

Why? Because it was being "insensitive" and "bringing to mind traumatic events in the recent past." It was supposedly offensive to the very same Marines that had provided advice and guidance during the games production.quote>

It looks like the Marines agree with me.

We all need a bit of a wake up call when it comes to how we see games. We need to start seeing them more as bits of artwork, and not as things for children's amusement. Perhaps showing the reality of DC under attack by an unknown foe is what it would take.quote>

I agree with that. Video games need to be looked upon a form of art. A recent and still developing form, but it is art nonetheless.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

I really don't understand these objections. Surely representing the works of the troops in art (be it in the form of a game, movie, painting, etc) honors their exploits and legacies for generations to come. I would view it as a memorialization they should be proud of.quote>

But that, of course, is operating on the assumption that the actions of our troops overseas are honorable - something many people would beg to differ with. Not everyone believes that our fighting is justified or anything to be proud of.

This is thus actually a liberal objection, not a conservative one. That we have games involving war and all is the status quo - and something that it is insisted must change.

[Larks2242 251]

Originally posted by: Explodingsims

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Games that graphically depict war and carnage need to be made to go the way of child porn.  It is time to study war no more in our new century.  Let the carry overs of the last century fade away into history's lessone, but make sure this history is not forgotten.

War is not a game.  Hate is neither a game nor funny.

Nations that even consider war as any kind of a solution should be ostracized from civilization.  I am sick of people shooting at each other.

Glorification of war is the same as legalizing child porn IMHO.  War mongers should be sent to a small, inaccessible, deserted island.

quote>

Personally, I think war is bad. Very bad, but sometimes, it is a necessary  evil. If someone attacks you, then you are totally within your rights to attack them back. But usually this should be a last resort.

As for games that depict war, I have no problem with them. They're quite fun. Usually, at least with the ones that actually depict realistic battles, they don't glorify it either. Modern Warfare one did this quite well, including a scene where you slowly died after a nuclear attack.  But really, these games don't fan the flames of hate. They're just there to blow off steam, most people who play them wouldn't want to joind the army. They understand that there's a difference between a bunch of pixels and a living man.

quote>

Well Said

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

I really don't understand these objections. Surely representing the works of the troops in art (be it in the form of a game, movie, painting, etc) honors their exploits and legacies for generations to come. I would view it as a memorialization they should be proud of.quote>

But that, of course, is operating on the assumption that the actions of our troops overseas are honorable - something many people would beg to differ with. Not everyone believes that our fighting is justified or anything to be proud of.

quote>

I don't believe that any war that the US fought since World War II was a defensive war, and thus consistent with ethical principles, so I am not proud of their exploits, either. I was speaking of "they" as in the religious conservatives and fascists who don't want games like the Fallujah one to exist. And who can argue that representing their exploits (good or bad) in art memorializes their work for generations to come?

[heitomat 156]

Originally posted by: Explodingsims

So, apperently Americans aren't ready to see war take place in their own land, but Eastern Europeans, or other nations are?

quote>

My thoughts excactly. There's not that much of a difference from fighting in the still burning ruins of Europe in earlier versions of COD.

Anyway, I find it more inspiring when such games play out in "real" cities.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Z77 3]

oh poor critics....not even going to go there..otherwise it'll probably be 10 pages long....literally.

Personally though...Call of Duty is one of my all time favorites and i dont care if the plot is you being a chilean that has to assassinate the U.S. president...i'll still play it. Because im SMART ENOUGH to know that a video game is a video game. nothing more. not a planning tool or a remote control device. a GAME that people can sit down and enjoy and even let off steam by shooting people without actually doing it. (thats why i play rise of nations too...that way i can go into the information age and nuke the tar out of everyone )