Yesterday, I was replaying some levels in the campaign in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 for the Xbox 360. There is this one scene in particular that is generating controversy. Even gamers themselves are expressing dismay, saying the game borders "on snuff."
The game places you in the role of a terrorist, mowing down civilian bystanders. The setup is that you're trying to infiltrate a band of Russian terrorists. To gain their trust, you've got to go on a killing spree at their leader's bidding. As your virtual commanding officer declares, "You don't know what it's already cost to put you next to him. It will cost you a piece of yourself. It'll cost nothing compared to everything you'll save."
In a nutshell, you are on an undercover mission working with terrorists. You go into a Russian airport and kill every unarmed civilian you can find. Some civilians are trying to drag away injured civilians to try and save them, and they are easy targets for the terrorists and put down quickly. In the end, the SWAT team comes and you have a major shootout where you kill many police officers. Very graphic and very bloody.
The thing is, this entire sequence could easily be part of an action thriller film. It's horrifying and brutal, but in the context of the overall story, it does in fact have a place. As far as I can determine, the actions your character takes in this scene, while certainly barbaric, are actually necessary in the context of the story.
As to how far a story can go, that's up to the author. Even Les Miserables is brutal in some places.
This game isn't for kids; it is rated Mature and is sold only to those over 17. Free expression is a bitch, but here's a clue: if you don't like the game, don't play it, and don't allow your kids to play it either.
As such as it is not suitable for children, parents shouldn't be buying this game for kids.
It isn't meant for children, this may surprise you, but the biggest buyers and players of computer games are in their 20's and 30's - they aren't kids.
You don't think this game is appropriate for children, that's fine, it was never supposed to be.
Now, at the beginning of the game there is a disclaimer that one of the missions could be disturbing and you are given the option to opt out of it, without harming your score or ranking.
Has the media even considered the fact that the sequence in question is supposed to make you sick to your stomach?
That, in fact, it's probably the most visceral way to teach people the real horrors of terrorism on both sides of the equation?
I've been playing violent video games ever since I was 10 and I NEVER had any desire to mimic what I saw in the games. Only a person who is already disturbed would want to act out what they saw in the game. People tend to forget that video games are NOT REAL, and besides, there's a reason that the game is rated M for mature, because it's only for those who are 17 and over.
Video games aren't the problem. They're just a symptom of a deeper issue. Whether it's kids who find refuge playing them all the time (because they're not with their families), the real violence they depict in fictional ways or objectionable content being allowed into the home in the first place, the issue isn't just the game (or the R-rated movie, or the secular media); it's what behind them. If we spend all of our time treating symptoms, people will still get sick from the actual disease. And for that, there's only one cure for.
On a side note, I am surprised people are not freaked out over Fallout 3. Fallout 3 is way more violent and disturbing. You can kill innocent people and eat them. You can hack off people's body parts and rearrange them into funny positions. One mission involves gaining a child's trust so you can lure him away from his protectors in order to sell the child into slavery.
Must I remind everyone that in the Grand Theft Auto series, you can sleep with hookers to restore your health level, but that it decreases your money level, but it's OK because afterward, you can just kill the hooker and get your money back?
And of course, the hooker isn't armed, so it's not worth wasting ammo. Generally, it's better to just beat her to death with a baseball bat.
Joe Manchin's tone changed when it came to the subject of video game violence and the possible link to the Sandy Hook shooting, however, as he wants "Grand Theft Auto" video games to be banned: "Look at Grand Theft Auto, put out by Rockstar Games in New York City and see what it promotes. Shouldn't that be looked into and maybe be banned?"
So, how is this game problematic, given that GTA III came out in 2001?
On the topic at hand, this is certainly a game for adults. If a parent buys this for a kid, that parent is at fault, not the game.
I think the media is making too much of this. Football is more significantly more dangerous than video games, yet we celebrate kids who play football and outlaw selling these games to kids.
For the most part, the market's moving with the original demographic, but everyone still associates "game" with "elementary school" or something similarly ridiculous. Games were a kid's market when I was getting into them four, five, or even six years ago, but I know for sure my brother and kids on Xbox Live are far out of the target demographic for anything I ever play these days.
A lot of politicians and parents probably know that, or are at least aware of it, but that just won't do when there's moral panics to kick up.
I wonder why people don't flip out over, say, Dragon Age, with its deeply and horribly institutionalized systems of caste and racial discrimination that explicitly treat large chunks of the population as not real people, incidentally. If they're looking for something to panic over, they could at least be creative enough to venture outside of the FPS genre sometimes.
Of course, I have seem people seriously freak out about Spore on the grounds that destroying planets desensitizes children to murder...
If you don't like it, don't play it. But going around preaching the same tired sermon about video games and violence is just boring.
