So, as a lot of people already know, the highly anticipated Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 was released in North America and the UK on November 10, 2009. In the first 24 hours, the game made $310 million, selling roughly 47 million copies of the game in just those two regions. Modern Warfare 2 sold more copies than the previous record holder Grand Theft Auto IV which made $310 million, selling roughly 36 million copies worldwide. Judging from how many copies of Modern Warfare were sold in just North America and the UK, the sales are probably going to be much higher.
Now besides the new record though, it has come to my attention that the developers of this game, Infinity Ward, may have crossed the line in the making of one of the stages of the game. Now before I talk, if you plan on playing this game and do not want the plot ruined in any way, you should probably stop reading now.
Players are warned beforehand in some stages that may be offensive to some and are given the option to skip levels in the campaign of the game. One of the most notable levels is staged in a local airport. In one of the stages of the game, you may participate as an undercover agent posing as a terrorist in killing unarmed civilians in an airport and fighting against riot police that come to regain control of the situation. However, even if players decide to not participate in the mowing down of civilians with machine guns, the player is also unable to give aid to the citizens.
First person shooters have always been attacked as being too violent, and I personally have been rather nonchalant about it, but I think that Infinity Ward may have crossed the line this time. It's one thing to go around shooting people that are trying to shoot at you, but (although its not real) shooting a bunch of unarmed people that flee from you saddens me. The game allows you to skip these possibly offensive levels, but what are the chances of people skipping levels in a highly anticipated game that they spent $60 on? Most people are going to be playing and experiencing these brutal levels and may possibly be having fun with it due to the intense gameplay features that Call of Duty has become famous for, which I find disturbing.
Although this new game may be very entertaining to play, I do not believe Infinity Ward should have made a stage as brutal and inhumane as this.
-Yuzo Yanagitsuru
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
what about grand auto theft? Or maybe they brought it up as a controversy too. I'm not sure.
There was definitely controversy when grand theft auto was going to be released. Most of the articles are buried beneath all of the call of duty articles because they tend to compare call of duty to grand theft auto, but here is a little article:
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/entertainment/March-April-08/Grand-Theft-Auto-IV-Released-Amidst-Controversy.html
Grant theft auto did have a lot of civil disobedience and murdering officials and innocent citizens, which I am also against, but I think call of duty went up a whole new level with the ability to mass slaughter civilians, which grand theft auto did not give. I don't know how the plot works in the game, but is it really necessary to have a level where the player gets to mow down a bunch of civilians?
-Yuzo Yanagitsuru
I agree. It would be a problem if such video games bring about columbine-like incidents but usually obsession with violent video games is a side effect of deeper psychological trauma and or problems, not a cause. Boo senseless violence!
But I would like to ask; what is the difference between killing the "terrorist" and killing a civilian. How does who one kills determine the nature of the same act? Isn't it still advocating killing?
"I agree. It would be a problem if such video games bring about columbine-like incidents but usually obsession with violent video games is a side effect of deeper psychological trauma and or problems, not a cause. Boo senseless violence!"
I think there is a lot wrong with that statement. Coming from someone who played Call of Duty 2 competitively for money for a great many hours, I didn't play because I have deep psychological trauma, I played because it was fun. And it didn't cause me to want to shoot people in real life. After all, guys, it is just a game.
I agree. The games out there are supposed to only games. It is the people who take them too seriously and that is when it becomes a problem. Although, the game does feature some of this senseless killing, maybe that is part of the reason why it's rated mature. I think most people (hopefully, or our society is in trouble) over the age of 17 know to that what happens in the game isn't meant to be replicated. Especially if that is senselessly shooting people.
-Henry Zhang
I agree with Henry. The game is rated M for MATURE, and it's for a reason. People that are buying it know what they're getting. And it's just a game.. I see where people are coming from when they speak out against offensive material but if they're so offended, then they just shouldn't play. I personally haven't played COD, but GTA (despite the violence) is a game I find worth wasting a couple hours on. This is simply because it's fun, not because players get pleasure out of "killing" civilians with their cars.
I'm surprised at who are defending video games and who are attacking it.
2 guys and 1 girl against
2 guys and 1 girl for
Since I don't have a box-x or ps2 (whatever you call them), I could care less about which way this argument swings.
Thanks for the comment Kevin, it was really insightful and helpful.
You're welcome, Jack.
On a side note, I'm just waiting for an argument to break out for once that does not involve me.
Jack, I am sure that you do not revel in blood and gore sputtering from people being shot in Call of Duty, you play it for competitive purposes etc. Individuals such as those who were involved in Columbine altered their game settings so that they could enjoy the blood and guts of killing virtual people. My comment is specifically referencing such instances of obsession with violence- Just to clarify.
Post a Comment