CoD: Modern Warfare 2 -- Too Violent?

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.