#MW2 Airport Level

[Gray24]

So, after listening to ExtraLife Radio and Buzz out Loud about the airport level. I played it, ignoring totally the warning screen at the beginning of the game.

I gotta say, the level disturbed me a little bit. More in fact because it really had no point, you could play every level of the game without needed to play that level. IW could have invented a better level that didn't push the boundaries anymore. I'm sure I'll be flamed for this but the level was just a bit disturbing.

[zfubarz]

1 Shouldn't this be on the games and gaming board.
2 I think there's a couple topics about this there.
3 Yeah it was pretty messed up.

[Matt]

I don't agree at all.

It all comes down to the games as art argument. If they are, then fair game to IW. No one would really have second thoughts about putting an act of terrorism in an action movie, or a tv show, or a book. It's the same thing here - it was a neccessary element of the plot of the game, a game that is part of a series bult on it's cinematic and striking depictions of war.

Yes, the level was disturbing. It was supposed to be. That was the point. It was setting up the bad guy as evil, and it was intended to make you feel that. Things like this happen in real life, there are people that terrble.

That said, I didn't think it was the most disturbing part of the game myself - that part came after the russian invasion, and you play a Ranger fighing his way through a sleepy residrential area of modern-day washington DC, as the bombers fly overhead, paratroopers drop in, and the APCs blow it all to pieces. Then they're told, "hey, if you have family in arcadia, today's you're lucky day, we're going to save their lives"

I found the realization of what it would mean to our way of life if an invasion of that scale ever happened to be significantly more troubling than a typical action movie terrorism piece.

I'd also like to note that as you mentioned, IW gave you the opportunity not to play that mission. In fact, they gave you two. The first pop-up said "there's a disturbing mission ahead", do you want to cancel it?" and ten when you said no, there was another one saying, "you sure, cuz it's pretty bad, and you won't be able to change your mind" They gave you plenty of warning which you chose to ignore.

In addition they preface the mission in the game by placing you in the role of a person working to save thousands more people than are killed in that scene, and warn you going in that "this mission will cost you a piece of your soul, but it's for the greater good".

You had tons of opportunity to decide that maybe that level wasn't for you, so don't put in on IW to not "push the boundaries". Pushing the boundries is what makes are stand out.

-m

[Matt]

GP: What did you hope to achieve from a narrative standpoint with the airport level?

Stern: We've been catching a lot of criticism for that and a lot of praise as well. People have really strong reactions to the airport scene and it's been fascinating because we all wanted to make it something that would be upsetting, disturbing, but also something people relate to. There's something instantly identifiable about it when it happens, when you're in that situation and the level begins.

I find that interesting, that the player knows what's going on instantly. It's too familiar and at the same time it's not something that people are able to get that close to. Right now, there's a documentary with interviews of people who were actually in Mumbai when that attack took place and you've got similar accounts of Columbine. I'm sure we'll get some from Ft. Hood.

People want to know. As terrifying as it is, you want to know. And there's a part of you that wants to know what it's like to be there because this is a human experience. These are human beings who perpetrate these acts, so you don't really want to turn a blind eye to it. You want to take it apart and figure out how that happened and what, if anything, can be done to prevent it. Ultimately, our intention was to put you as close as possible to atrocity. As for the effect it has on you, that's not for us to determine. Hopefully, it does have an emotional impact and it seems to have riled up a lot of people in interesting ways. Some of them good. Some of them bad.

-m

[Vaughn]

I am equally for offending people that deserve it, and avoiding offending people that don't.

The fact that they gave you a choice puts them in the clear, in my books.

"Want to hear a racist joke? No? Okay."

[Gordon Fearman]

Yeah, I didn't actually shoot any people. I just shot a lot of windows and looked at Makarov and was like "yeah, I'm totally helping. Hear those gunshots?"

I think the most emotional level was the first Washington level, "Of Their Own Accord". The music cue as you see the Department of Commerce is brilliant. Closely seconded by "The Enemy of My Enemy".

[InsaneFool]

Since I never played it due to my boycott, I have however watched my roommate play it on his Xbox.

I couldn't help but stare at the TV speechless until it was over, and for a good 5 minutes afterwards. It was disturbing to say the least, but I'm glad it was there.

Its not something that should be glossed over. Like it or not, Terrorism is part of modern warfare...not the game series, but the world we live in now. Just as the British Army Regulars thought the idea of camouflage and ambushes were abhorrent acts of cowards, war has evolved and now our armies can't function without them.

So a game that deals with Modern Warfare should have these things in them, and that is just the basic reason. I also thought it really helped the story, it helped ILLUSTRATE how evil Makarov was, and that is the key to good game narrative - Show, don't Tell.

[RainbowToeSocks]

I have no problem with the Airport scene.
It wanted to invoke strong emotions with the player and try to get the player to feel the antagonist was disgusting and have a strong hatred towards him.
Yes, its a bit unnerving but as long as its not offensive just for the sake of being offensive (like unneeded racism) then its fine.
Its nothing different than what you'd see in a movie.
Video game violence is the 'in' thing right now to bitch about and people are trying to freak out over things we normally put up with in other media just to get attention.

[Genghis Ares]

I have a feeling that part of the reason they did the level was for the controversy it would make and the sales and interest it would generate. Bad press is still press.

When I played the level, I did the same thing Gordon Fearman did. I never shot a single civilian, although I had to kill some of the cops in order to continue, but in the end, the level never really affected me. I was more peeved by how it ended. Making it feel almost entirely pointless, apart from being a plot point/catalyst.

[Gordon Fearman]

Yeah it's fun to hide behind a wall and still get shot. Makarov has damn good aim.

[Gray24]

No, hey look I'm all for "games as art" being that I'm a writer myself. Granted my books concern Roman history and not bloody massacres through airports. I just was noting that even though I ignored the warnings given to me AND I played through the level I found it disturbing. Any bigger argument then that, like should it be banned (No, bad Russia!) are bunk. I'm totally against banning anything. It boils down to a choice I made to play it. I choose to.

Just my $.02

~d

[wedrinkritalin]

I don't think it was plot essential, it was clear makarov was extreme right wing, his evil is obvious and the loading screen set up his terroist tendancies, a minute video summing up his attack on an airport would have been more tasteful maybe. Personally I played the level, only shot policemen and troops but I can't say I enjoyed it, matt has his viewpoint and he expanded better than me but like it's just a personal thing. It's the same way I play a game with allied npcs in it with friends and they butcher them, for no reason, I just don't find it fun or nice

[Gordon Fearman]

You don't think it was plot essential? How is not plot essential? Dude, did you miss the part where Russia attacked the gorramn United States!? Geez.

[InsaneFool]

It was absolutely necessary for the plot...just as sitting in the back of the car and being executed was necessary in the first game...it SHOWS the player what is going on and what kind of characters you're dealing with. During the briefing they go on and on about how much of a bastard Makarov is, how he is a gun for hire with no morals and what he has done in the past, but thats telling...it works for news organizations and crappy movies, but not games.

[MostlyImprov]

Well, games are an interactive medium. If that sequence was simply not playable, the plot would likely be a fair bit less effective. Alright, maybe it wasn't a perfect excecution, but I did feel that it certainly added something.

Adam Sessler did a Soapbox on this. He had a few interesting things to say, mostly about games needing to be able to push the boundaries of that is accepted in the medium.

[Nevrmore]

I've really only heard from two major camps on the issue: The, "Oh my God this was horrible, why would you put this in a game?" point and the "Oh my God this was so poignant, it needed to be in there" point.

I didn't feel either of those. I didn't think it was terrible or deep. I came into it thinking, "Okay. My character's undercover in a terrorist cell. This is something he'd have to do." and so I did it. I didn't enjoy the sadism of it or decry the violence, didn't revel in how morally complex it was or write it off for being too pretentious. it was just another level, you know?

Now for moments that really were poignant:

(SPOILER)

The first level in Washington. Unlike all the other levels, you're given no objective and no introduction. You just start in an underground bunker, small enough that you're naturally guided through the hallway and toward the stairs. You walk up the stairs, entirely of your own accord, and walk into the field, and the first thing you see is the White House on fire right in front of you. What a huge impact.

Another good moment was at the very end, when you and Price rappel down a cliff face and you take out a guard beneath you by stabbing him. He looks right at the screen, right at you, with the most terrified expression I've ever seen rendered in a video game. It sent a shiver down my spine.(/SPOILER)

[Cade Antilles]

Y'know, I really didn't have a problem with the level. It was a shock, when realization hit of what was expected of me, but I wasn't offended. But, I said, "Well, when in Rome..." and completely got into it. I don't know what that says about me, but, well, there you have it.

I will, however, echo the sentiment that the first level of fighting on American soil was a bit distressing to me. But, it seriously inspired me to completely whoop the invaders' asses. Killing simulated Russian invaders gave me a rush.

[Gordon Fearman]

Yeah, one, use the spoiler tag. Two, that's not the White House. I believe it's the Department of Commerce.

[Nevrmore]

Ex-cuuuuz me, Princess.

[octopimpostor]

I really liked the level. I was able to get through the whole level without shooting by holding the riot shield and crouching. I thought that the level really added to the game, but agreed with gameinformer that they could have added more levels like it.

[badgersprite]

The level was supposed to be disturbing. I'd be worried if anyone played it and didn't feel uncomfortable. The airport level was a bold artistic statement, trying to get home the message that violence in the real world is not glamorous or glorious; it's murder.

IW's purpose was pretty clear to me the moment the level started. It said, quite bluntly, "You wanna have fun shooting people? Here. Shoot. Feel like a hero now?"

I'm honestly surprised at how many people seem to miss the artistic point of the game. The MW dev team have always made it obvious in their games that they're anti war. Why do you think they set so many battles in the US? They were trying to drive home the point that war is a horrible thing when you have to fight it on your own soil, and the story line was also about how easily people are manipulated into fighting pointless wars.

Honestly, I can't believe how many times I've had to explain the story to people. You guys are MUCH better than all the other places I've been on the 'net.

[octopimpostor]

I keep hearing people say that you are killing american citizens. OMFG FOR THE LAST TIME YOU ARE NOT! i had to get that out. I hate it when people start talking about it without ever playing it.

[badgersprite]

I keep hearing people say that you are killing american citizens. OMFG FOR THE LAST TIME YOU ARE NOT! i had to get that out. I hate it when people start talking about it without ever playing it.

I have to wonder why that would make a difference. These people you talk to think killing Russians is okay, but shooting Americans is a big no-no? Those people disgust me. Pimp slap them in the face for me, would you?

[octopimpostor]

killing any civilian is TERRIBLE, but it adds to a game. the great thing about it is that you don't HAVE to kill any civilian, its just a choice. its just that when people think you kill americans, it shows that they have yet to play the game or even see video of it. you have to be pretty blind to no notice the russian lettering on all the shops.

[badgersprite]

I agree. People judged that level completely out of context, meaning they had no sense of its meaning or purpose. I think the huge problem with the media consciousness surrounding video games is that people don't twig that having content in a video game isn't the same as condoning that behaviour. Everyone is well aware that movies, TV shows and music can be subversive and ironic, but, for some reason, people don't get that video games are too.

I can't believe how many times I've had to point out the obvious to people: that Infinity Ward included this violence in order to condemn it. Ironically, the media controversy surrounds the one damn war game that actually has a sense of social responsibility, and that doesn't glorify war or violence.

I mean, I'm a damn dirty anti-war protester hippie and even I like MW2. I love it's moral grey area, I like the fact that it challenges my beliefs and ethics, and I find it refreshing that a game respects my intelligence and doesn't force-feed anything down my throat; you actually have to think about the story in order to understand it, which is evidenced by all the threads on The Escapist asking "WTF happened?" and the replies that completely miss the mark. =P