The lack of dead U.S. civilians portrayed in Activision’s Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 implies that foreign civilians are more expendable than their American counterparts.
This is the vein of a column appearing in France24, in which the author notes that the game’s Brazilian and “No Russian” levels feature plenty of dead civilian bodies, while a level set in Washington D.C. depicts nary a body from American non-combatants.
Mehdi Chebil writes:
But while Activision producers go to great lengths to depict fatally wounded Russian civilians leaving big streaks of blood as they crawl on the airport floor – all in the name of realism - they designed the US-based levels in such a way that no virtual American civilian can be seen nor hurt.
An Activision representative refused to comment “…on the use of civilians in our games.”
The author also thinks that the media focused too much on the game’s overall violence:
The fact that critics focused their attacks on the generic violence of “Modern Warfare 2”, forgetting its big red 18 rating, without playing enough of the game to see the discrimination it applies within its civilian categories, also reveals another form of contempt for the entire video game industry.
He encourages the media to “pay attention to some of the videogame industry’s more disturbing messages.”
GP: Just to play devil’s advocate, the “No Russian” airport level could feature American civilians… there’s no way to know without checking passports or ids.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGIN / REGISTER
Comments
Shouldn't it be aren't?
http://www.eliteownage.com/pwnage31337ad.html
So the columnist is assuming that no one but Russians would use an international airport in Moscow? Seems to be anti-Russian bias there. Why would anyone want to go to Russia right? There's no reason to go there, it sucks.
See, I can make crazy leaps in judgment too.
It's pretty explicitly stated that American civilians are dying in MW2. I think its Ghost or Soap who says "they're killing a thousand Americans for every dead Civilian in Russia."
Then there's that mission where you have to rescue a VIP from his house in Arcadia. You get there and find the guy's body, while it's never explicitly stated he's a civilian it seems pretty clear that he is. So there's a dead civilian right there.
Then there's the whole mission where it's explicitly stated and you can see that the "Washington Monument Evacuation Center" is being shelled. True you never see bodies but you can absolutely see the camp getting pummled.
"The lack of dead U.S. civilians portrayed in Activision’s Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 implies that foreign civilians are more expendable than their American counterparts."
Well, if we REALLY want to argue about the impression being given that any specific group of individuals are being depicted as "expendable", let's remember that there was the statement that there were not as many women and children victims as there were male victims. Continuing the socially taught belief that men are expendable. "Women and children first." "Boys/men shouldn't hit girls/women." (Leaving the implication that it's ok for females to hit males and the treatment in media that it is humorous or deserved if they do.) And many other socially institutionalized taught beliefs that men are expendable or are not worthy of equal respect based on their gender rather than their individual deservance of respect or lack thereof.
So, yeah, if one can be offended by the ASSUPTION as to the nationality of the victims, one could equally, if not more so, offended by the OBVIOUS and reportedly INTENDED defining of a group of individuals based on gender, or even age, as being "expendable".
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000
Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl
OMG Racism!!!!!!!
Actually, wouldn't it be Nationalism?
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000
Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl
According to UN conventions, racism is the same as ethnic descrimination. And nationalism generally involves the identification of an ethnic identity with a state.
So "racism" would be accurate enough.
I noticed that too. And the overly tragic background music during "Wolverines!" did the rest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtPPKMMx7zk
I was just laughing while this music was playing because it sounds like it would be the end of the world just because the USA gets attacked.
While the music in No Russian was an upbeat, happy affair, M I RITE?!
MW2 was rubbish from start to finish. Yeah, it was popular - all nationalistic garbage is popular - heck, Michael Bay has made millions by feeding nationalist garbage to jingoistic morons. The real question is this: why is a game this unrealistic and bad being held up to such high standards?
The game is crap. Let's just let it go away. I'm sure there will be better games that we can hold up for criticism on the basis of nationalism. That way the criticism won't be so easily dismissed by the retort that 'it's just an incredibly crappy game'.
I totally agree. I've been playing the game, and after everything that happened, I have to say that all this argument and bullshit wasn't worth it. The game is totally lackluster.
I know this is contrary to my opinion of things before the game came out, but I really can't believe anyone, myself included, got so worked up; the "No Russian" level is a pointless romp with a lot of dead bodies, culminating in an event that has absolutely no importance to the game at all, and if you skip the level, you miss NOTHING. So much for all the people telling me it was made to make the user feel something or to add to the story... it adds nothing to the story and made me feel bored. I was glad that level was over, only because I wanted to get on with the story and stop wasting time on some bullshit meaningless level.
Still in the process of playing the game, but it doesn't seem to be getting any better.
When I played the No Russian level, yes I played it, I didn't feel any sad, disgusted emotions towards. Just I thought it was cool showing something like this. But in no way when I say that, I am implying that I am a killer or will kill anybody. I think it was a cool level.
"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry
Because, if there were dead US civilians, then Activision will be promptly protested by the tea baggers.
---You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.
Actually it would probably be proested by neo-cons and ultra-liberals.
This is the only reason I will believe.
Yeah, they'd basically be tried for high treason for NOT portraying Americans as insanely awesome, indestructable supermen.
---You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.
It is because American civilians can't die.
Unless you hit them with a hijacked jumbo jet.
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
I was thinking about that a few days ago, while playing some Spec Ops with my friend. Me and him wondered why there weren't US civilians with guns helping out the resistance. That would be a much better and more realistic game, in the event of an invasion. There would be millions of Americans fighting back with their own weapons, meaning thousands/millions of dead civie bodies.
-Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis-It is best to endure what you cannot change-
You're right. I mean isn't that one of the main reasons we have that ammendment? I'd like to play one of these games as a local militia swept up to fight alongside the Army in my character's home town.
To be fair, the ultra-lib cities are pretty heavy on anti-gun stuff. Can't have guns in DC, for example.
Now if they were to bring that fight to Swamplands in the South, there would be no shortage of shotgunning hillbillies, people with high powered 'anti-deer' ordinance sniping from tree stands, and plenty of fishing dynamite to go round. Part of the benefit of living in the south is not having to worry about invasion from foreign powers OR zombies.
Exact same with Deer Country (all of Michigan, Wisconsin, probably Wyoming and Montana). *Sigh* I'd love to see another country try to take Michigan. Sure, they can have Detroit, but everywhere else is gonna be a street-by-street battle just against the citizens, let alone any military presence.
-Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis-It is best to endure what you cannot change-
Quite a glorified opinion of your militias. If the enemy is in Montana, it means your army has failed. What makes you think a bunch of hillbillies would succeed, where the most expensive military in the world didn't?
The same reason the IRA and VC won?
The IRA won? That's news to THIS british native. The IRA turned into a joke and faded away.
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
If they invade from Alaska, it won't be far until they get to Montana. If they invade from Canada (hell, Canada could invade, you never know), they'd START in Montana. I'm just saying, those starts are damn secure.
Sure, we could lose, but we'd take a lot of Russians/baddies with us.
-Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis-It is best to endure what you cannot change-
Actually, DC went the other way after the supreme court told them the law was fucking moronic.
It would have been interesting if there were civilians during the russian invasion. Maybe objectives involving protecting them?
FFS, are we ever going to stop talking about this POS game?. It's been three months, there are WAY better games being released every week!. Enough!
You may have noticed the site's name, that it's GamePolitics.com? There are certainly many other games that are released every week, better or worse, but there are not so many games that have given occasion to dialogue such as this. I haven't played it and don't care much for it, myself, but the fact is that this game in particular has been one of a very high profile and contains provocative moments. It's not about what game is "better" that merits being discussed, here, but whether or not it provides for more dialogue beyond just discussing graphics or how well it plays. There are numerous other sites for that, if that's what you're wanting.
That aside, I rather am of the same mind as the author of the article, that I'd like to have known that there were dead US civilians displayed where applicable in the US-based levels or those where it would be more or less obvious that there'd be a presence of US civilians. However, as was pointed out, there is something a double-standard at play, and not surprisingly, at that. If it were like that, no doubt there'd be a lot more uproar over it in the US, with all the usual, trite assumptions and accusations thrown about by the usual suspects, plus some.
First off: This is a gaming news site. Gaming POLITICS. There isn't much else going on right now.
Second: The article provides an interesting point, like the other guy above me said. Why AREN'T there US civilians in the game? It's something to be discussed, as well as the OVERALL standard of civies in games, not just in this game.
Third: Name 4 games that are better than MW2 that have been released since. I can think of only a couple: Borderlands...Actually, that's all I can think of at the moment. Sure, MW2 wasn't the greatest game ever, but it was pretty damn good. The storyline had holes, yes, was unrealistic at times, and was fairly short, but other than that it was on par or better than almost all current games in pretty much all areas.
Fourth: Did...did Activision or Modern Warfare 2 ever touch you when you were younger? You seem to have some sort of deep-seeded hatred for this game, tell me, is there a personal reason for this? Just point at this doll to the spot where MW2 touched you. It's okay, you can tell me, I'm a trained professional. Now now, don't cry, that mean ol' MW2 won't hurt you anymore. Yes, I'll give you a hug.
-Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis-It is best to endure what you cannot change-
Does the astronaut not count as a civilian in this case? He got the worst of it in my opinion.
I think it is interesting to point this fact out, as it's true there are no civilians seen in the US levels.
However, the style of the article is blatantly pedantic and over the top:
Yet nobody noticed that the commercial success of “Call of Duty – Modern Warfare 2” was partly built on the implicit - but pervasive - notion that the blood of foreign civilians is more dispensable than that of Americans. Self-censorship?
You have to be kidding me. The author is actually saying that IW intentionally set out with ideas about which civilians are ok to get killed in the game as part of a plan for more sales?!
People have already pointed out that there "No Russian" takes place at an international airport. I can't recall the flight board (It lists outgoing destinations) but I'm fairly sure it includes US locations. If Infinity Ward were focussing on the horrendous deaths of only Russians, why didn't they change the location to a hospital or other building?
As well, as has been pointed out in this thread, the US levels do mention the Russians killing civilians and the shelling of evacuation points.
I felt one of the reasons for "No Russian" in the storyline is that it's a tragic atrocity (Comparable to 9/11 and others) that results in major repercussions. Overall, Makarov is established as a heinous villain and the world goes to hell in a handbasket as the Russian government feels it has a legitimate reason to invade the US.
Perhaps it was done for technical reasons - the US levels are very action oriented and take place in large open areas with dozens of US and Russian troops, who have engaged in fighting for what seems to be weeks, anyway.
The answer: "Because it's FICTION!" The author of this FICTION can do whatever he wants. It's his FICTIONAL world.
Whats the reason for trying to apply real world bias to a FICTIONAL work of art? Those of us grounded in the real world know that real world conflicts are not predjudicial to the nationality of the civilian getting hurt.
There is a point, there are no dead civilians in the US based levels. I was wondering that myself.
GP: Just to play devil’s advocate, the “No Russian” airport level could feature American civilians… there’s no way to know without checking passports or ids.
True, but the media speaks before they think. So do other people out there. But since I have been playing MW2, most of the missions are in other countries. But when I am playing D.C., there are dead soldiers taht do show up in the game on my team. Therefore there are dead Americans.
"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry