Support NeoGAF

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

This was truly super controversial and when I played it back then, it was something that never really...idk...clicked with me. I didn't really internalize what was happening in the game as it happened, I just did it because I had to beat that part of the mission to progress. As I've gotten older and and realized what happened, I feel disgusted about it and disgusted that it made the final cut in the game. MW2 is one of my favorite COD ever but this mission really dampens what I would have considered a positive memorable game..

 

[Roufianos]

It had zero impact on me. Felt like a shooting gallery. Had no immersion at all.

 

[Northeastmonk]

When was the whole "teen-crazed" Call of Duty trope invented? Remember when Walmart ran ads for Call of Duty Modern Warfare? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RVxAf-5MBsE

Once upon a time the series was recognized and enjoyed by a lot larger demographic. That may be just marketing, but I've noticed a big transition in how the series is looked at then versus now. I don't think we all looked at No Russian and thought about what those MP only people or kids thought. Now it's a much larger brand and a service.

I couldn't image I'd see mothers buying their kids Black Ops 2 collectors editions on Black Friday and kids wearing CoD tshirts at Walmart.

 

[Kinyou]

It's pretty messed up and obviously just there for shock value but it's also interesting to push the boundaries to such an extent. It's also an experience I can't really imagine in any other medium. A movie can't put you directly in the shoes of the terrorist and have you be the one who pulls the trigger.

 

[giggaman]

Are you saying MW2 is a bad game or Spec Ops is a bad game lol.

Spec Ops was a bad game. MW2 at least had good multiplayer action for what it tried to do. (And the hilarious Russian SAM battery on top of the Department of Justice). Even most people who think Spec Ops made them rethink what it made to be a human playing a shooting game in the modern era or whatever, still conclude it was a weak game.

 

[JeffZero]

A friend of mine showed me the level as some weird last-ditch effort to get me into Call of Duty.

It backfired.

 

[Jangowuzhere]

I'm not sure about that -- the villains in the original Modern Warfare were Russian ultranationalists (using some Arab dictator as a puppet briefly). But even if you're right, the point is that Russians are still a 'safe' choice, because Russians have never perpetrated any kind of terror attack on the US. Developers like IW wanted to avoid the controversy of picking a far more realistic scenario -- Islamists gunning down people at an airport.

Also, people talking about how Spec Ops made them 'rethink' shooters like MW come across pretty silly. You should not need a (bad) game functioning as meta-commentary to tell you that videogames exploit some of our darker impulses.

The ultranationalists in MW1 still fit into the terrorist bracket. MW2 had you fighting Russia and the actual nation. It was a lot more gray area than just straight up bad guys.

MW2 involves you jumping over mountains with snowmobiles and recreating scenes from Michael Bay's The Rock. IW wanted to kick off a mostly dumb action military story with a shocking set piece. I don't see where Islamic terrorists fit into the picture. IW wasn't trying to be realistic to the real world, they were trying to tell a fantastical story. The only reason why the invasion of America works is because it is Russa. Any other county would come off as just crazy (China would also work I guess.)

What especially made no sense was how Makarov, one of the guys you did the mission with, was the head of the super powerful terrorist organisation you were trying to stop. Why would you NOT just kill him there and then? Why the fuck would you allow a major terrorist attack to happen like that? What exactly do you stand to gain from remaining in cover?

Because Makarov was never the big cheese. The game literally explains to you that Makarov is small fry, and you are only undercover with him to get to the bigger world threat. Stopping one massacre is nothing to potentially stopping dozens more afterward.

 

[Izuna]

2011? Surely you got the dates mixed up...

 

[CherryIcee]

"Remember...no Russian"

"What about our face masks since you are a known ultranationalist terrorist?"

"Shit"

 

[Soodanim]

I don't remember much, but I remember thinking that the whole furore over it was overblown. It's not real. Reading this thread and seeing the holes in it points out how shit the mission is, but that's about it.

It had zero impact on me. Felt like a shooting gallery. Had no immersion at all.

I couldn't think of the wording but this is exactly how it felt from a gameplay perspective. Just mowing down targets with guns. Shit ain't really anyway, don't act like you never wanted to attack dense groups in games.

 

[TissueBox]

This is exactly what I was thinking at the time. I understand not wanting to blow your cover, but when it gets to the point where you and a group of people are going to mass murder civs with machine guns, you have to blow your cover at that point and take them down.

Plot induced stupidity strikes again!

 

[legacyzero]

I kinda laughed at all the outrage. But I'm one of those "let the creators create, and judge the creations accordingly" type of folks. And it worked. Creators created, and it was judged accordingly. The writers were attempting to create a villain, and a reason for a Russian invasion on American soil. The scene itself could have been better, and it all ended up it making too much sense in the grand scheme, butnInthinknit served it's purpose.

 

[Big_Al]

Spec Ops was a bad game. MW2 at least had good multiplayer action for what it tried to do. (And the hilarious Russian SAM battery on top of the Department of Justice). Even most people who think Spec Ops made them rethink what it made to be a human playing a shooting game in the modern era or whatever, still conclude it was a weak game.

I actually enjoyed Spec Ops quite a bit as a shooter itself (regardless of its themes) and think it's pretty underrated as a shooter. I certainly don't think it's bad in any shape or form.

 

[Woorloog]

It's pretty messed up and obviously just there for shock value but it's also interesting to push the boundaries to such an extent. It's also an experience I can't really imagine in any other medium. A movie can't put you directly in the shoes of the terrorist and have you be the one who pulls the trigger.

It is funny how some stuff really flies under the radar. Is it due to marketing (or lack of it) or perhaps because of the framing?

Consider Red Faction Guerrilla. It could be called a terrorism simulator... you're a rebel and kill soldiers and destroy buildings and stuff belonging to nominal government. But it is portrayed as a-ok because the EDF are evil for some nebulous reason and for some reason civilians actually seem to be fine with the rebels and the game penalizes you for killing them.
Don't think i've ever heard of any controversy about that game.

 

[Slermy]

In the German version that was the only way to beat this level. As soon you shot a civilian you had to restart the level (or skip it).

That's pretty awesome. When I played the level, I purposefully shot above/around civilians.

 

[theechrisfox]

I remember playing it back when it was new and having not much of a reaction. I guess all the shit thats happened in the years since (Pulse, Breivik, Aurora, etc) makes seeing the gif on the first page of this thread pretty offputting now.

 

[Gnome Scat]

I didn't understand why it had to be in a game like Call of Duty, it was a complete tonal shift and wasn't necessary to play through, unless they wanted to show you a specific point of view to help enhance the story. But then again, I think playing as a civilian in that scenario would have been more compelling.

Anyway I found it sick how some people got genuine entertainment out of mowing down defenseless civilians with machine guns like that.

 

[selo]

I played it back in the day, and I treated it as what it is, just a game. I'd be hypocritical if I had gotten offended because I'm pretty sure I've ran over innocent people or shot them by mistake in other games, like GTA. No big deal for me.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

i remember gaming people on podcasts falling over themselves to say they didnt shoot.

i shot everyone.

 

[The Xtortionist]

Because Makarov was never the big cheese. The game literally explains to you that Makarov is small fry, and you are only undercover with him to get to the bigger world threat. Stopping one massacre is nothing to potentially stopping dozens more afterward.

Pretty sure Makarov was colluding with Sheperd to start WW3, which is why you can't kill him in No Russian. But the game conveys this pretty horribly IIRC.

 

[mas8705]

Considering the kind of world we're in right now, I'm pretty sure this would still be seen as controversial. Back then, it was pretty bad too and while I get the idea behind it, it was still rather harsh (even though it was still a terrorist attack).

I didn't take much offense to it myself mind you, as I still don't nowadays, but I can easily see where it can get people triggered.

 

[veloxStrix]

I didn't understand why it had to be in a game like Call of Duty, it was a complete tonal shift and wasn't necessary to play through, unless they wanted to show you a specific point of view to help enhance the story. But then again, I think playing as a civilian in that scenario would have been more compelling.

Anyway I found it sick how some people got genuine entertainment out of mowing down defenseless civilians with machine guns like that.

I'm not sure that there were that many and also not sure about how different it really is from killing any other person in a game. Playing the civilian makes you the good guy. There is no conflict. It could be a tense, terrifying situation but ultimately there is no moral quandary. The scene was excellent, in my opinion. What makes it stand out like a sore thumb is the lack of any follow-up. The ideas and themes brought to mind - the casualties of war, consequences of intelligence agencies allowing for collateral damage within thresholds, the human face behind terror - are never actually revisited in a satisfying way.

Pretty sure Makarov was colluding with Sheperd to start WW3, which is why you can't kill him in No Russian. But the game conveys this pretty horribly IIRC.

Yes. This is also why they know you are an American agent to begin with.

I can't even fucking imagine what the response to this would be now. I was like 10 when MW2 came out and I remember being shocked by this.

I think it would be less of a reaction than people think. Outrage at media has become chump change in comparison to political coverage. Even war has taken a back seat. It's all too easy to forget that there are still wars going on in Syria, Sudan, and Libya.

 

[Swimmer9800]

I can't even fucking imagine what the response to this would be now. I was like 10 when MW2 came out and I remember being shocked by this.

Disclaimer: I was a Very mature child

 

[Always-honest]

Yeah it was pretty disturbing.

I did some shooting though. Because i thought: fuck it, it's all virtual. But still didn't feel right.

 

[0racle]

In the world we live in today, I would LOVE the devs that created this disgusting display to share how they feel.

 

[Aters]

A different kind of edgelord. I won't touch this franchise.

 

[Briarios]

I'm not sure that there were that many and also not sure about how different it really is from killing any other person in a game.

Wait ... do you really not see a difference between killing unarmed civilians versus soldiers/terrorists that are trying to kill you?

 

[Big_Al]

Pretty sure Makarov was colluding with Sheperd to start WW3, which is why you can't kill him in No Russian. But the game conveys this pretty horribly IIRC.

Yeah it's because of the nuke in MW1 killing so many of Shepherds men so he wanted to start WWIII to help with enlistments and get basically a blank cheque for defense spending. It's as ridiculous as it sounds

From what I remember of the 'No Russian Mission' I'm pretty certain Shepherd says something to your character about 'losing a little piece of your soul' as if you know what's coming up, but that's just from memory.

 

[Jangowuzhere]

Pretty sure Makarov was colluding with Sheperd to start WW3, which is why you can't kill him in No Russian. But the game conveys this pretty horribly IIRC.

Yes, the relationship between Shepard and Makarov is very poorly explained and head scratching.

The story in MW2 is ever harder to believe with the release of MW3.

In the world we live in today, I would LOVE the devs that created this disgusting display to share how they feel.

I imagine they feel exactly the same as they did before? It was a method of storytelling they wanted to attempt. Whether you liked it or not, it definitely got people talking about what is or isn't acceptable in a video game.

Calling it a "disgusting display" only reminds me of the ignorant media outlets like Fox News attacking it. As entertainment and storytelling, MW2 is pretty damn tame. There is far more morally questionable stuff in our medium and other mediums in general.

 

[veloxStrix]

Wait ... do you really not see a difference between killing unarmed civilians versus soldiers/terrorists that are trying to kill you?

Do those soldiers and terrorist not have families and people who love them in real life? Are they not also people who are hoping and dreaming up until the point where you killed them? Who joined whatever force they are in for whatever reason - to escape poverty, because they had no choice, they wanted glory, whatever. I don't see much of a difference. Murder seems pretty straightforward as far as moral questioning goes. In reality.

 

[SuperStiltzkin]

Do those soldiers terrorist not have families and people who love them in real life? Are they not also people who are hoping and dreaming up until the point where you killed them? Who joined whatever force they are in for whatever reason - to escape poverty, because they had no choice, they wanted glory, whatever. I don't see much of a difference. Murder seems pretty straightforward as far as moral questioning goes.

This doesnt sound as smart and forward thinking as you think it does.

 

[veloxStrix]

This doesnt sound as smart and forward thinking as you think it does.

Yeah, sorry. I was busy with pulling a copy of Beyond Good and Evil out of my anal cavity so I could get ready to refute whatever well thought out NeoGaf reply was coming up. And then I realized I didn't have to because it would just be some "Your dumb kiddo" comment.

 

[SuperStiltzkin]

Yeah, sorry. I was busy with pulling a copy of Beyond Good and Evil out of my anal cavity so I could get ready to refute whatever well thought out NeoGaf reply was coming up. And then I realized I didn't have to because it would just be some "Your dumb kiddo" comment.

I'll be sure to pray for those dead ISIS terrorists just as hard as I do for their victims.

 

[veloxStrix]

I'll be sure to pray for those dead ISIS terrorists just as hard as I do for their victims.

I hope you do.

 

[ValkyrUser]

It had zero impact on me. Felt like a shooting gallery. Had no immersion at all.

Agreed. After years of mowing civilians down in GTA games this didn't even make me blink.

 

[7DollarHagane]

I always think of this game as a condemnation of the idea of player choice or games being able to affect people emotionally.

Most players just mindlessly mowed down the Innocents the same way they do the enemy soldier becauase the game is dumb and trite and meaningless.

 

[Frozenprince]

I hated this level. Not because of the subject matter, but because it felt completely unearned. You get some voice over exposition in the loading screen, then you're in the airport and innocent people are getting mowed down. No proper setting of the scene, no build-up, no establishing of your undercover relationship with the terrorists. It made the whole thing feel manufactured and exploitative; put in the game for controversy first and foremost.

This is what it was for me, personally. It's the second mission in the game after a really short tutorial level. Nothing in it feels terribly earned.

 

[SuperStiltzkin]

I hope you do.

I did say i would pray for their vicims

 

[Peltz]

I felt it didn't make any sense and was used for shock value.

Agreed. And it was tasteless

 

[veloxStrix]

I did say i would pray for their vicims

Did you forget the context of the discussion you were even having? That's a new level of dense. I think we can both agree that this conversation isn't actually going anywhere soon. You have my permission to quote to get the last word in.

 

[iShouldGoPro]

holy shit the red mark showing which direction he got hit lmaooo

i never noticed this before omg haha what were the programmers thinking

 

[iRAWRasaurus]

¯_(&#12484_/¯ I enjoyed the mission. Don't see the issue. But each their own.

 

[YesThatGuy]

To me this was the most realistic part of the game. US undecover agent kills innocent people in order to start a war? Well, of course.

 

[SuperStiltzkin]

Did you forget the context of the discussion you were even having? That's a new level of dense. I think we can both agree that this conversation isn't actually going anywhere soon. You have my permission to quote to get the last word in.

Youre arguing that killing unarmed civilians is equal to killing soldeirs and terrorists aren't you? And thats bullshit. Yeah when you kill a soldier, maybe youre killing someone who is forced to or maybe youre killing someone who believes you should die. At the end of the day, you are shooting someone who is shooting back at you vs. a civilian who isnt shooting at you.

 

[Whompa02]

I didn't shoot anyone and I remember feeling gross playing it at the time.

 

[mortal]

I remember how controversial this was. I'm really glad that they decided to keep such a scenario in a "AAA" game and make it actual gameplay as opposed to a cutscene.

Had it ended up being a cutscene, it wouldn't have had the same impact. The fact that it was so divisive at the time is a testament to the potential of interactive experience unique to Video Games that you can't experience in films or literature.
Admittedly, COD games aren't necessarily the most mature or sophisticated games in terms of tone, still, it's more of an example of that moment.

All too often it feels like video games as a medium are somehow not allowed to explore certain topics or imagery that could be deemed sensitive. Like there is this glass ceiling put in place, and it frustrates the hell out of me.The technology within games become more sophisticated with each generation.
Higher fidelity visuals, better animations, better AI. Despite the amazing amount of games being developed, I still feel like there are barriers we still have yet to break through and shake this perception that videos games are for children, and exclusively meant for cheap entertainment.

 

[FantasticMrFoxdie]

"If you thought 'No Russian' was controversial, wait until you play our latest game - Watergate Remastered!"

-Activision

 

[SoundPulse]

Pretty blatant attempt to have another big 'shock' like CoD4's nuke, but the game doesn't really attempt to say anything with it so it falls far flat. Still better than the time they blew up the little girl in MW3; that was just so ridiculous that you couldn't help but laugh at it.

 

[nephilimdj]

Just think, if washington post is to be believes, is a Mossad Agent in Syria doing same shit as this in ISIS but with rape and other stuff.

 

[Musky_Cheese]

I thought it was fine. It doesn't ask you to kill anyone and sets up the big war. If you find it distasteful because you have to shoot innocent civilians... then you made that assumption. It doesn't tell you to do that at all.