CoD: Modern Warfare 2 -- Too Violent?
Wednesday, November 11, 2009 at 8:57PM 
This post is adapted from a conversation held earlier today on FaceBook.
On Tuesday of this week, Activision released the eagerly awaited sixth installment in the Call of Duty series: Modern Warfare 2. I didn't get a heads up about the controversy surrounding the game until Monday evening. I was told that there was an early scene in the game that was drawing a lot of criticism not simply because of violence, but rather the particular kind of violence.
Well, I've played the early levels of the game, and I can tell you that the controversial scene is actually pretty shocking. And I've played quite a few games such as this in my time. I think that while the controversy is going to garner Activision a lot of attention for the game, it may become a lightning rod for people who complain about violence in video games resulting in a negative backlash.
Is the level of violence in this particular scene precedent setting? I'm not certain, but I do know this is the first game I've ever played that offered a disclaimer at the beginning of the game allowing the player to bypass the particularly disturbing scene. Activision has also released a statement in regard to the game:
Infinity Ward's Modern Warfare 2 features a deep and gripping storyline in which players face off against a terrorist threat dedicated to bringing the world to the brink of collapse. The game includes a plot involving a mission carried out by a Russian villain who wants to trigger a global war. In order to defeat him, the player infiltrates his inner circle. The scene is designed to evoke the atrocities of terrorism. At the beginning of the game, players encounter a mandatory "checkpoint" in which they are warned that an upcoming segment may contain disturbing elements and they can choose not to engage in the gameplay that involves this scene. Consistent with its content, the game has been given an "M" for Mature by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board. The rating is prominently displayed on the front and back of the packaging, as well as in all advertising.
In regard to the particular scene in question, the player has three option: (1) It can be skipped [a warning allows for this before the player even gets to the initial training level];(2) it can be played and fully participated in, or (3) it can be played and not participated in. I chose the last option. I called Kathy over to look at what was on the screen. She couldn't believe it either.
Okay, let me try to give some context to this entire situation based on my own experience with video games. It's no secret that I like "shooter" type video games. But it's an element of fantasy. This kind of war fantasy has been around with us for millennia. Football is a game of war as is chess. We've always had this kind of thing with us.
Is storming the beach at Normandy in Call of Duty different psychologically than performing in a Civil War re-enactment? Probably the re-enactment is something MORE vivid in the mind of the participant, but I've never been involved in one so I cannot say for certain. For me—and I hope that you don't find this disturbing—the average first person (or third person) shooter can provide a relaxing form of escape for me at the end of a long day. Really.
In spite of many concerns about violence in video games, there's surprisingly little video game tie in to real-life violence. In fact, for testosterone-laden teenage boys (and escapist 41 year old men), these games may be a healthy outlet when participated in under the right conditions. For boys especially,—most of whom in the 21st century don't perform manual labor all day or go to war at early age and probably don't get enough exercise in general—these games are a better outlet than say, getting into real fights or performing actual acts of violence.
But there is a lot of killing.
I reflected on the issue of all the killing a few months back while playing the latest James Bond game Quantum of Solace. FIrst, I noticed that a lot more "bad guys" are killed in the game than in the movie. An unrealistic number, in fact. That may even be true for some of the military games based upon actual events.
As for putting myself in the role of James Bond, I asked myself if I could perform these same acts if this wasn't a game, but real life. No. I couldn't. In fact, I'd be a horrible secret agent. First, I'd crack under the mere threat of torture. Second, when I play a game and I'm shooting a bad guy, I don't really have to look him in the eyes. He's pixels. He has no real existence, personality, emotions, worries, or joys.
But if it were real life, I'd be concerned not just over taking someone's life (that would be great enough), but I'd also be concerned for the fact that he has a wife, children, amother who loves him, etc. — even if he were a "real" bad guy. I'd still have those concerns beyond the issues of right and wrong, justice and injustice. I couldn't be a secret agent. Heck, I don't even think I'd make a good soldier of any kind regardless of how much I admire those who have chosen this profession. I'm content to merely play the soldier in the virtual world where there are no "real" consequences.
So, that brings us back to the new Modern Warfare Game. There is a scene in the game in which your character is a CIA agent who is in deep cover with a Russian Terrorist Cell. They walk into a Russian public airport with machine guns and start shooting civilians. They are doing this for the same reasons that any terrorist does what he does--to spread fear and send a message to their enemies. The scene depicts literally hundreds of men and women who are not soldiers, but merely airline travelers, being shot in cold blood. These innocents don't have any means to defend themselves. Some of them are shown as wounded, crawling along the floor. Often the other terrorists in the game would shoot a wounded and dying and victim to quicken his end.
Although the character the gamer is playing is expected to participate in the setup of the story, I just didn't. I simply walked along. It was never even a question for me. I was not going to participate, even if it meant that I could proceed no further in the game. Fortunately (seems like an odd word at this point) non-participation is allowable in the game. There's no "penalty" for not shooting the innocent victims yourself. But it's disturbing nonetheless to watch it take place.
This kind of violence is simply over the top. It has no precedent to my knowledge in any previous video game. And it doesn't mean that my virtual hands were free of blood last night because (1) my character simply walked along as it was happening [there was no other playable option at that point], and (2) once the police descend onto the airport, there is really no choice in playing the character other than to fight back. In this sense, I did violate my own sense of video gaming ethics. I have chosen not to play games such as the Grand Theft Auto series because some of them have requirements to kill policemen and other vile deeds. Yet when the policemen started firing on me last night while playing the game, I admit that I fired back.
Even though this is virtual, even though no one got hurt in real life, I don't like this. I like playing the good guy in games. Defeating the bad guy. Being the hero. I didn't feel heroic after this mission in Modern Warfare 2.
Now, there are interesting considerations here. First, does the fact that the character is a CIA mole in a terrorist cell justify such actions? I mean, is this whole portion of the game supposed to be "okay" because he's working for the supposed "good guys"? On a level of reality, would the CIA have planted a mole inside the group that was responsible for the 911 attacks and then helped them carry it out? I seriously doubt it.
Second, and to give away the ending of this scene, the character in the game who is undercover gets killed. But is this justice served? Is this supposed to be Activision's answer for what has just taken place?
Third, is this level of violence really necessary for setting the stage for how bad the villain in the game really is? Keep in mind that this wasn't an atrocity that you watched, this was an act you were supposed to take part in through the avatar of game character. That's what makes this different. I can hear about the shootings at Fort Hood. But I don't want to recreate the scene so that I take part in it—even as make believe.
Somehow it's not enough. None of these reasons justify what takes place in the game. I'm not going to tell anyone not to play the game. This is not about censorship. And I'll even play through the rest of the game knowing that there are no more scenes like this. But I urge you to take caution if you have teenagers who play this. The option to skip the controversial mission comes at the beginning of gameplay.
In hindsight, I wish I'd skipped it.
Xbox, video games in Entertainment
Reader Comments (13)
Rick: Thanks for your thoughts on this. I've never been a big fan of FPS games but after playing Fallout 3 I began to like them a bit more. I'm definitely interested in this game so it's nice to get your take on the violence. I'd consider myself something of a minimalist when it comes to video game violence. I take the position that none of it is real so killing a good guy is just the same as killing a bad guy. I've played most of the Grand Theft Auto series and have probably killed a couple of every kind of character in each game, regardless of where they fell on the moral spectrum. I don't personally think I'd have a problem participating in the scene you describe, but I guess I can understand why some folks would. Out of curiosity, apart from this scene, how's the game play? I've never played any of the games in this series but I'm always impressed by the commercials.
Out of curiosity, apart from this scene, how’s the game play? I’ve never played any of the games in this series but I’m always impressed by the commercials.
Yes, I didn't include that kind of information since I wasn't actually writing a review. So, I'm glad you asked! I've played all the CoD games except for the first one. The graphics push the edge of the Xbox. Very realistic looking backgrounds and human movements are very fluid--some of the best anywhere.
The Modern Warfare games are different from the others in the series as they revolve around fictional wars. The others focus on actual battles in WWII. It's interesting to see who the bad guys are though. I've said that the only politically correct enemies in games are aliens, zombies, and Nazis. You'd think that Islamic extremists would be the fitting bad guys in the new game, but it's interesting that they've chosen Russians. Maybe Russians are more politically correct bad guys than Islamic terrorists these days.
20 years from now this will be no problem. They'll have some other unmentionable thing brought in and then there will be debate about that.
Jeff
Rick,
I always think of the John Piper quote on these things:
"I have a high tolerance for violence, high tolerance for bad language, and zero tolerance for nudity. There is a reason for these differences. The violence is make-believe. They don’t really mean those bad words. But that lady is really naked, and I am really watching. And somewhere she has a brokenhearted father."
As a fan of horror films and action books and movies, I have to limit my criticism of such things to the merits of the entertainment value of such things, not the moral implications behind them. I am also a fan of the classic argument for catharsis and the simplistic slogan "Everybody I know watches violent entertainment, and none of them are in jail for violent crimes".
You make a good point about the excess of killing in games and shows. In real life dead bodies draw attention, and time spent killing people allows more people to come to try to kill you. I remember one SEAL memoir where the retired veteran called a completely non-violent mission a "perfect operation".
As for being a spy, it's not a great secret that a natural facility for lying and manipulating people is a good headstart for espionage. It's very much a business where you must have a laser-like focus on your goals and subordinate other concerns to that goal. But that subordination necessarily has its limits, or should have.
There is a very interesting book on intelligence called http://www.amazon.com/Fair-Play-Moral-Dilemmas-Spying/dp/1597971537/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258002131&sr=1-1" rel="nofollow">Fair Play by former CIA counterintelligence chief James Olson that examines the moral dilemmas in various scenarios for intelligence officers. The scenario in the game is closest to Olson's "Terrorist Act for Bona Fides". It is interesting that the only people willing to consider such a thing acceptable were men whose jobs didn't put them in the field; the actual intelligence officers to a man said "No" to such a scenario.
As for "Arabs"/ Moslems being unacceptable in entertainment and real life as possible terrorists/killers, that is proved by the switch to Neo-Nazis from Middle Eastern types in the film version of Tom Clancy's "Sum of All Fears" and the dribbling in details of the Ft. Hood tragedy.
I am curious how you rectify these "games" with Ephesians 4:17 through 5:21? Or maybe with Philippians 4:8? Or with Colossians 3?
I Just don't see Jesus sitting down with us playing FPS games...or even tolerating the games in our homes. I am in no way a pacifist. I have been in the Army for 18 years, and was a police officer for three. I have seen my fill of horrors, and in no way feel this style of game can be lightly played as "an escape". There is a deeper problem here. Why isn't the escape found in our God's word?
I've never looked at one of my guys and said, "I need some escape. So let's go kill some bad guys." You are to far into your game to see it for what it is. It is non edifying, death glorifying, gore loving, role playing, non-Christ centered time waste.
There is no Biblical argument against my opinion, and I hope you hear my love for you as my brother in my emotional appeal for you to put these "games" away. Please don't let the world stain you.
A thoughtful commentary, and for much the same reasons I do not feel inclined to play MW2. (Though oddly enough, I have played the GTA and Godfather games, which have seemed to me much more cartoony than the military and espionage FPS games I've played. I'd rather play Mario 64 than Splinter Cell, and the GTA games "feel" more like Mario than Splinter Cell to me. No accounting for taste, I suppose.)
But some of the most important novels also contain scenes of shocking horror, and the reader of a novel has much the same role that Rick had as a passive observer of the opening of MW2. Merely witnessing such horror from the perpetrator's perspective makes the observer to some degree complicit in it, which is the effect that the writer seeks to create. As video games have become a serious art form for narrative storytelling, this type of scenario will become more common. As with all art, it requires us to take it seriously and thoughtfully and also to take responsibility for how, why, and when we interact with it. I would never advise an adolescent to read Andre Brink's An Act of Terror, nor to watch The Battle of Algiers. And neither should be sought by adults for cheap thrills or kicks.
The possible contradiction with video games comes with that last point: We still generally regard video games as primarily games, primarily or even exclusively intended for fun or for the most superficial, immediate pleasure. We do not have the same expectations of books or movies or theater. Some of what I regard as the best and most important movies have actually been deeply unpleasant, or at any rate not-fun, to watch. That's something we accept in other art forms, and for things like the airport-terror scent of MW2 to "work," we will have to have the same attitude toward video games.
Chris said what I really wanted to say but much better.
My view is cynical and I was basically saying, the yeast of our culture seeps in and life goes on, sadly in my opinion, but I'm a hypocrite because of some of the TV shows I watch.
When these games first came out we were shooting at robots. Satisfying enough for me. Now they're killing people and even innocent ones. I'm not a pacifist either, in fact I think we should be doing more by using force to defend the defenseless. But I don't think that killing people, stealing things, etc. should be entertainment for those who are commanded to be holy.
Since I've become more and more familiar with chronic suffering I turn more and more to the Bible and reading about God and the Bible as an escape into the real world. (And I know you do a whole lot of this.) Although it's not a fair comparison because games stress me out. I can't even play Tetris!
I don't mean to be a judge or a moral majority or minority, I know you care and have thought this out, just expressing my shock. Fifty years ago this would have been completely out of the question.
Jeff
Chris has said what I am thinking much better then I could, because he has been in REAL life situations. These types of games are not a healthy way to "escape". In fact they are rather disgusting. I have never been in the service so I cannot even pretend to know what Chris has seen and THAT is why I find games like this somewhat deplorable. At best these games allow armchair soldiers to feel a little more manly, and at their worst these games further desensitize us to such violence. That is never good!!
Yes, when we were kids we all played cops and robbers but a) We were children and b) That generally deteriorated into a debate over who got who first until the grilled cheese was ready!
Comparing these types of video games to Chess or Football is missing the point. Football is violent but it is a competition of consenting participants with no intent towards gore or death. Chess is a game of "war" like strategy that is once again a (mental) competition between consenting participants where the worst that can happen is that someone spills their tea or coffee. Not a strong argument from you Rick!
RS Rogers brings up the debate that we accept violence in other art forms. Well first of all these video games are not an art form. True art never asks the participant to be passive emotionally and/or intellectually.....that is what entertainment is for. And before anyone gets excited I think a little escapist entertainment is a good thing! We all do need to escape! But these games are NOT an art form, so that debate is over.
What this all leads to is how does one want to be entertained? Does one really want to escape into and be entertained by gore infested video games or movies that simulate and glorify obscene violence to other human beings??(regardless if that violence is directed towards the "good" guy or the "bad" guy) That is the question. I second Chris' opinion. I don't want to be stained.
I hope you don't think I am picking on you Rick as I don't even know you and heaven knows I don't spend all my free time in the best way that I could, but these games have gotten more and more disgusting as the years have gone by and too many of our children spend WAY too much time in front of these types of images!! Where does it stop?
After reading my post, I want to reassure you that I am in no way coming from a haughty position looking down my nose at anyone. You may be all into glorification of gore and death, but I tend to over eat, and am quick to anger.
I am very leery of anything that I would not allow my kids to watch, and causes me PTSD.
I am just looking to come along side and help hone a fellow brother and encourage were he might not see.
[...] Preparing Our Children For the Apocalypse? So it is now with reference to Rick Mansfield’s recent post about an extremely violent and especially distasteful scene in the early parts of the recently [...]
this is why I prfer games like Age of Empires or Dune or something like that - they are far less inolved.
Rick,
I likes lots of shooting games, and I did play that last Modern Warfare game which I enjoyed the best, although the Rainbow Six games are really good too. I do plan on buying this one and I think that they have done just duty with informing people of the level of violence in this game. IMHO if someone insists on watching/playing the game after the warnings and is the offending, it's their own fault. That is why they warn you, same thing with movie ratings. You know what you are getting yourself into, so why complain afterward?
I can totally relate to you on "...shooter [games] can provide a relaxing form of escape for me at the end of a long day. Really." They do for me, it's a nice way to release some stress, or going outside and shooting some basketball does the trick too ;-)
In the terrorist mission i just walked along too it is very wrong that they put this but atleast it shows you how mindless you can do something like that just walk and shoot inocent people that dont know you but its just a game its not real hope this never happens in real life which will probably will happen someday