Top

It Was Only A Matter Of Time

Do you all remember that level in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2? The airport level where you terrorize a Russian airport?

Well a Russian news channel, Russia Today, has came out suggesting that Modern Warfare 2 is somewhat responsible for the sickening terrorist attack that just recently took place in Moscow’s Domodedovo Airport.

Now I’m not agreeing with their thoughts on how Modern Warfare 2 is to blame, but I do think we should be asking ourselves if that level was really needed. While I don’t believe that violent video games cause violent acts, I don’t feel that games should be trying to be constantly trying to take it to the next level. Instead of focusing their time on making games more immersive, instead of trying to really work out a great story, more and more games seem to be trying to out do each other when it comes to gore and wanton violence.

What do you think? Do you feel that games are starting to go a little overboard with all the guns and violence? Maybe my thoughts have changed since I’ve had a child but I really do feel that while I understand a game is just that, a game and not real life, the violence has been just too excessive for myself lately and with games like Call of Duty, Bulletstorm, Killzone, that this trend isn’t going to go away anytime soon.

(For the record, I’m not saying that any of those shooters will be a bad game by any means, I’m just asking if the excessive violence is really needed in games.)

via NYTimes.com

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • yes, the violence IS what makes the game. otherwise BORING

  • No, violence is not needed in the game.

    First of all the level was designed so that you would not HAVE to shoot anyone to win, proceed or get the narrative point. Games are about experience and we should not be afraid to make games that offer experiences that are “touchy” or contravesial.

    When playing that scene many people felt compelled NOT to Shoot, others didnt care and went to town. In either case the level provided what games should, choice and experience. Plus, the narrative sets up that by doing this mission, you are in fact saving the lives of millions of others. It is a trade off and an intense situation.

    Excessive Violence isn’t always needed in games but when making critiques people should not jump to the conclusion that a game sucks because its not violent, or vice versa, that a vioent game doesnt have good morals embedded in its design.

  • Excessive is in the eye of the beholder. Do I think that games are focusing too much on killing off everything and leaving a bloody mess, yes. More time needs to be put into making a good game, not gory graphics.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention It Was Only A Matter Of Time — Platform Nation -- Topsy.com()

  • Baseless or excessive violence is usually in place to serve the purpose getting a strong reaction from the player. I mean, a headshot with a sniper is certainly cool, but flipping around your gun to the chainsaw side to slice your enemy as blood splashes across your screen (Gears of War)….its magnificent.

    In the case of Modern Warfare 2, I don’t know how a airport bombing came to be associated with 4 guys with guns shooting down people in an airport. I don’t think there is any correlation between the two besides the setting. I mean if a movie potrays a supermarket shootout, its not the same as the bombing in the supermarket.

    Nevertheless, that level in Modern Warfare 2, in the words of Infinity Ward got exactly the controversy they wanted, the reaction they wanted. It did push boundries, it was disturbing indeed, however, the this reaction justifies it be not excessive.

    Now whether violence and gory material hurts your psychology and all that is an altogether seperate discussion.

  • Brian Heitzenrater (FrehleyzComet)

    If you think that’s bad, imagine what they will be like 10 years from now. By then even Mario games will be a bloody slaughtering mess of goomba flesh.