Boycotting COD6 due to leaked scenario

chrisnsally

chrisnsally

CAGiversary!
Feedback
114 (100%)
Flame away, but after watching the recently leaked footage of the player gunning down civilians as an undercover terrorist, I can't support the company. If you haven't seen it, it's REALLY disturbing.

Yes, I understand there is violence in games - I enjoy many of them. Yes, I understand there are worse things in movies. But I don't have to support them.

I was really looking forward to playing it, too. :bomb:
 
Is anyone even 100% sure this is even real? Until it is present in pre-release review copies and acknowledged by Infinity Ward, at least to me this seems like an elaborate hoax...
 
link? I also don't think it would be real just because it seems like it would piss off a lot of people, but I haven't seen it.
 
If you don't like it don't buy it!

Why aren't you buying it?! Ur stupid lolz.

There, it's covered.

That scenario doesn't really make any sense, so I don't see why it would be in the game. Why would a terrorist walk into an airport and try to shoot people? You'd just blow it up. Walking in has way too high a risk of failure and guns don't cause enough damage. That's not very good terrorism.
 
[quote name='SpazX']If you don't like it don't buy it!

Why aren't you buying it?! Ur stupid lolz.

There, it's covered.

That scenario doesn't really make any sense, so I don't see why it would be in the game. Why would a terrorist walk into an airport and try to shoot people? You'd just blow it up. Walking in has way too high a risk of failure and guns don't cause enough damage. That's not very good terrorism.[/QUOTE]

Can't wait for the suicide bomber simulator game.
 
Player gunning down civilians at an airport. Hmmmmmm - sounds familiar. Oh yeah, Dead Air campaign in Left 4 Dead - they're infected civilians, but civilians nonetheless.
 
yes, i'm stupid lolz, because i have a different opinion than you. got me - what was i thinking?

and really? you're comparing zombies to airline passengers? really? you should be on the debate team - seriously.

i've been on CAG a while - thought I'd have a few more people on my side of the fence. little disappointed that's not the case - oh well.
 
Maybe it's because anyone who has played video games has done things similar to this multiple times, or even if they haven't, they've seen it in movies or TV shows. Getting your vagina all in a twist NOW is just plain ridiculous.

It's part of the fucking story. It shows you why the good guys you're playing as are going after the bad guys. Instead of saying "DERE TURRISTS!!" they're actually going to show you in the most intimate way they can in a game. It's not really all that different from showing you a terrorist attack from the perspective of the terrorists on an episode of 24 or in a Tom Clancy movie. Yes, you are controlling one of the characters, but what's happening is happening whether you choose to interact with the scene or not. You can just walk through the level and watch the other guys shoot people.
 
I think it's perfectly reasonable to be disturbed by the footage. The fact of the matter is, though, that this just doesn't fit with the premise of the game. It's the engine, almost certainly, but you have to wonder if someone got a hold of it and made a mod that features mass civilian casualties. I don't know what to think, but I will be incredibly shocked if this is real (as in, really part of the MW2 story).

My reserve's not going anywhere. I'm holding off judgment until I know the whole story. Since when do we trust the internets?

evanft makes some good points, too. It's entirely possible that Infinity Ward wants to force you to play this to NOT enjoy killing innocents for once.
 
Yeah, I am not even sure if the footage is real or not. Why would an undercover CIA agent kill civilians in an airport? Why would he allow terrorists to kill so many civilians?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dabogues']The fact of the matter is, though, that this just doesn't fit with the premise of the game. [/QUOTE]

As far as we know, you spend the game hunting Russion ultranationalist terrorists. This scene appears to depict one of their attacks from the POV of an undercover CIA agent within the terrorist group. I really don't see how it doesn't fit with the premise.
 
Before seeing this video, I was planning to just wait until one of my buddies was done with the game and borrow it from him to play through the campaign. Now, I'm thinking about getting it right away.

COD4 went to some powerful and daring places narratively, and it looks like MW2 is going to up the ante considerably. The video was surprising, shocking, and made me think about what kind of story it's possible to tell in a first-person video game. I can't wait to play it and I can't wait to see where else Infinity Ward is going to take us.
 
[quote name='evanft']Maybe it's because anyone who has played video games has done things similar to this multiple times, or even if they haven't, they've seen it in movies or TV shows. Getting your vagina all in a twist NOW is just plain ridiculous.

It's part of the fucking story. It shows you why the good guys you're playing as are going after the bad guys. Instead of saying "DERE TURRISTS!!" they're actually going to show you in the most intimate way they can in a game. It's not really all that different from showing you a terrorist attack from the perspective of the terrorists on an episode of 24 or in a Tom Clancy movie. Yes, you are controlling one of the characters, but what's happening is happening whether you choose to interact with the scene or not. You can just walk through the level and watch the other guys shoot people.[/QUOTE]

Your response says far more about your lack of ability to think than it does about the OP. The scene in question bothers the OP whether it does you or not. There could be a million explanations as to why, from the OP being overly sensitive to you being a borderline psychotic. The truth is that it doesn't particularly matter which explanation is most accurate, as the fact that the question is even getting raised is pretty interesting.

I'll never understand the motivation behind people getting mad at anyone who questions their media. It perhaps lends credibility to the old argument that we're all brainless drones waiting for the media to tell us what to think and do next. If anyone questions it along the way we label them a heretic.

To the OP, I think context of the scene probably matters a great deal. As some have mentioned, this seems fairly similar to scenes featured in 24 and other films/shows. It's a little more disturbing placing you in the part of the action, but if the narrative is there it could be compelling. It's either a step more toward exploitation in games, or toward games as art.
 
it's a game... good greif.

This has been done before....

GTA
Postal series
Hitman series

Killing civilians always existed and alot of games.... just because you're a terrorist? doesn't really make it any worse.

Has anyone played Ramage?

Did anyone cry and whine because you ate a person while being George Lizzie or Ralph... and actually that was cannabalism...

Cry even more fowl there...

I'd understand if the OP has a personal issue... but making it a public issue is not going to work and quite foolish to think everyone is like you.
 
[quote name='elwood731']Your response says far more about your lack of ability to think than it does about the OP. The scene in question bothers the OP whether it does you or not. There could be a million explanations as to why, from the OP being overly sensitive to you being a borderline psychotic. [/QUOTE]

Bullshit. The OP has a gamerscore of 410 in GTA4. He's probably done more in that game that he would in this opening mission. In fact, in GTA4, you're basically playing a bad guy for the entire fucking game, not just one mission. Yet I don't see any threads from him declaring his boycott of GTA4. So this leads me to conclude that the OP doesn't really have a good reason for his opinion, that it's merely reactionary bullshit.

[quote name='elwood731']I'll never understand the motivation behind people getting mad at anyone who questions their media. It perhaps lends credibility to the old argument that we're all brainless drones waiting for the media to tell us what to think and do next. If anyone questions it along the way we label them a heretic. [/QUOTE]

Or maybe because most of the time it's complete bullshit.
 
If this was related to something like the Columbine game that came out, then I feel your boycott might have more merit. As it is though, just some random bad guy killing people in a airport doesn't seem like a big deal to me. GTA seems to be much worse, hell half the fun of that game is just the crazy murdering rampages you can go on. You shouldn't let this get to you.
 
I don't see why everyone's all up in arms against the OP. For whatever reason, he does not like what he's seen in the previews, so he's chosen not to buy the game. That's as solid a reason as any to not get a game (don't like FPS, don't like Japanese pretty boys, etc.). The only thing to pick at would be his choice of word, "boycott." While I may not care whether or not he gets COD4 for whatever reason, it's more on topic than what some "ignorant man-child" has to say.
 
Haven any of you stopped to think that maybe the OP's issue isn't with killing civilians but being labled a "terrorists" and killing civilians. I can understand that.
 
[quote name='chrisnsally']you're comparing zombies to airline passengers? really? you should be on the debate team - seriously.[/QUOTE]

:roll: They're infected, not zombies. But you're right - killing sick people is so much better than killing the healthy. What was I thinking. Why don't you go shoot some civilians in GTA - I'm sure that will make you feel better.
 
[quote name='elwood731']I'll never understand the motivation behind people getting mad at anyone who questions their media. It perhaps lends credibility to the old argument that we're all brainless drones waiting for the media to tell us what to think and do next. If anyone questions it along the way we label them a heretic.[/QUOTE]

I think your point about "context" is probably the final word on the topic, but I also think you're somewhat missing the reasons the OP's opinions aren't being taken very seriously -- as Evanft points out, the problem is that the OP's questioning of media is *selective*, which indicates an ill thought-out position. Ultimately, by *only* questioning this particular scenario, and not the media overall or even games as a whole (as evidenced by his GTA IV gamerscore, or any kind of previous "Let's Boycott Army of Two/Six Days in Fallujah/Call of Duty II multiplayer/etc" thread), he's really *reinforcing* the media and gaming status quo, which depicts terrorists as little more than faceless drones, no more human than robots or aliens, to be killed by the thousands with nary a concern. Not exactly a bold moral position on which to stake his ground.

In short: if you don't want to buy a game for whatever reason, nobody's gonna make you. But if you're gonna get all geopolitical about your game content, you'd better be consistent, especially if you're going to look for support with a boycott. Otherwise, you're going to be laughed at, and rightfully so.
 
[quote name='evanft']Bullshit. The OP has a gamerscore of 410 in GTA4. He's probably done more in that game that he would in this opening mission. In fact, in GTA4, you're basically playing a bad guy for the entire fucking game, not just one mission. Yet I don't see any threads from him declaring his boycott of GTA4. So this leads me to conclude that the OP doesn't really have a good reason for his opinion, that it's merely reactionary bullshit.[/quote]
This is exactly what I mean by not thinking. Thank you for illustrating. Trying to play a game of "gotcha" with someone instead of listening and discussing their view shows a lack of ability to reason.

Or maybe because most of the time it's complete bullshit.
Click to expand...
So? What if it is most of the time? Does that mean you blindly close your eyes and shout at the top of your lungs so you never have to hear...or think?

For those complaining that similar things have been done in games before, you do realize those similar things have sparked controversy as well, right? Those similar things have also caused many gamers (including supposedly 'hardcore' ones) to not buy the games. What is the point of a discussion forum if you're not going to discuss things like this and instead reply attacking him without thinking? All he did was question a video game, not your mother. Grow up.
 
[quote name='trq']
In short: if you don't want to buy a game for whatever reason, nobody's gonna make you. But if you're gonna get all geopolitical about your game content, you'd better be consistent, especially if you're going to look for support with a boycott. Otherwise, you're going to be laughed at, and rightfully so.[/QUOTE]

Agree with that.

If you're going to take some public stance against something, you better damn sure have all your ducks in a row and have consistent principles on the issue.

Otherwise you end up with egg on your face like politicians who campaign on family values and get caught having affairs etc.

That said, this is a discussion of a video game, so no need for jumping all over the OP. Just ignore him and move on if you disagree with his stance.
 
[quote name='trq']he's really *reinforcing* the media and gaming status quo, which depicts terrorists as little more than faceless drones, no more human than robots or aliens, to be killed by the thousands with nary a concern. Not exactly a bold moral position on which to stake his ground.

In short: if you don't want to buy a game for whatever reason, nobody's gonna make you. But if you're gonna get all geopolitical about your game content, you'd better be consistent, especially if you're going to look for support with a boycott. Otherwise, you're going to be laughed at, and rightfully so.[/QUOTE]

I think perhaps you're reading into his argument and deciding on motivation that hasn't exactly been spelled out yet. Personally, I would blame him if he didn't return to spell it out more in-depth considering the personal attacks this thread has been filled with.

But trying to paint him as a hypocrite because of another game he played without hearing him out is just a poor way to respond. Again, it shows an unwillingness to actually think, but instead look for shortcuts that cut out the need to think. This is the same tactic people use when Obama says something about race relations and their reaction immediately jumps to, "He's just doing it to win the black vote."

"Being consistent" is a euphemism for not thinking, in case you were not aware. We use this on politicians all the time, arguing that a changed position shows they cannot be trusted to be consistent. When in truth, people often have grades of beliefs that pop up depending on the context of the situation at hand. There's also the case that people sometimes change their minds after having done one thing.
 
[quote name='anubis20']I've been waiting for a game that had the balls to do this, :twoguns: all those fucking :whee: civilians!!! [/QUOTE]
^ this :applause:
 
[quote name='Jerajdai']Player gunning down civilians at an airport. Hmmmmmm - sounds familiar. Oh yeah, Dead Air campaign in Left 4 Dead - they're infected civilians, but civilians nonetheless.[/QUOTE]
Have you even played Left 4 Dead? They attack you first (if you don't get them first) and there's a difference between a civillian who is trying to survive versus a zombie (yes, it's a zombie, a running zombie, but still a zombie) who vomits, grabs you with it's tongue, pounces or just comes charging through a wall to murder you in a violent rage.
 
[quote name='bardockkun']Have you even played Left 4 Dead? They attack you first (if you don't get them first) and there's a difference between a civillian who is trying to survive versus a zombie (yes, it's a zombie, a running zombie, but still a zombie) who vomits, grabs you with it's tongue, pounces or just comes charging through a wall to murder you in a violent rage.[/QUOTE]

Infected are people. They're trying to survive too ...by eating you. They're just a little more proactive about their survival is all.
 
[quote name='Jerajdai']Infected are people. They're trying to survive too ...by eating you. They're just a little more proactive about their survival is all.[/QUOTE]
Proactive? More like abunch of assholes!
 
[quote name='elwood731']I think perhaps you're reading into his argument and deciding on motivation that hasn't exactly been spelled out yet. Personally, I would blame him if he didn't return to spell it out more in-depth considering the personal attacks this thread has been filled with.

But trying to paint him as a hypocrite because of another game he played without hearing him out is just a poor way to respond. Again, it shows an unwillingness to actually think, but instead look for shortcuts that cut out the need to think. This is the same tactic people use when Obama says something about race relations and their reaction immediately jumps to, "He's just doing it to win the black vote."

"Being consistent" is a euphemism for not thinking, in case you were not aware. We use this on politicians all the time, arguing that a changed position shows they cannot be trusted to be consistent. When in truth, people often have grades of beliefs that pop up depending on the context of the situation at hand. There's also the case that people sometimes change their minds after having done one thing.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. If the OP has a nuanced view on why he's disturbed by the game, it's his responsibility to lay that out, particularly if he's hoping for support or an in depth discussion. As it is, the sole reason for his objection is the killing of civilians, which, as others have pointed out, is inconsistent with his other game choices.

And not to get off on a rhetorical/epistemological tangent, but "being consistent" just as often indicates that you've thought about your opinions and the reasons you hold them enough to be able to set personal biases and preferences aside as best as possible, rather than operating on an arbitrary, irrational level. As you said earlier: it depends on context. In this particular case, the available evidence indicates to me that no such effort has been made.
 
[quote name='trq']In short: if you don't want to buy a game for whatever reason, nobody's gonna make you. But if you're gonna get all geopolitical about your game content, you'd better be consistent, especially if you're going to look for support with a boycott. Otherwise, you're going to be laughed at, and rightfully so.[/QUOTE]

I would normally agree with your well-thought out viewpoint.

But I read the thread, and I saw zero of the intellectually nuanced perspective you provide, and 100% more schoolyard teasing from grown adults premised on phony analogies.

The internet is a beautiful thing because it allows people to not only become offended by things and make decisions for themselves, it allows a whole other layer of people to become outraged and offended that a person would make a decision for themselves.
 
You shouldn't have played Resident Evil 5 either... Since your white, and shooting black people. That's just full of racism!

Of course I'm joking. Seriously though its just a game... Get over it...
 
Sorry OP, don't agree with you.
You're obviously able to do what you want of course, but like the others have stated, if you have GTA's, SR's, etc in your game library, then you're not really justifying anything and kind of look like a hypocrite or at least someone with confused morals. You're going to miss out on a badass game is all I can and will say about it.

I'm sure some soccer mom's and Jack Thompson will be right behind you though.
 
I don't buy the premise that owning and playing GTA, or any kind of violent game, for that matter, means that it's hypocritical to think some games, or their specific scenarios, are too violent or offensive to want to own.

It's an overly simplistic "violence = violence = violence" argument, and it's not as self-evident as some of you seem to think. I'd like to see someone make a compelling argument that the content of Grand Theft Auto renders moot any claim of offensiveness due to violent content in another game.

I get that it's a matter of opinion, and that the game's going to sell 8 million easy cheesy. But I also think, if you see no merit to the OP's argument, "I bet you played GTA" is not particularly convincing.
 
Yeah I'm not going to boycott the game like the OP, but I do find this very odd...

It doesn't feel like it would fit in to this type of game.
 
I can see where the dude is coming from. Its not the action, as its been replicated in many games, its the "intent of its characters". You're an undercover terrorist committing a terrorist act on innocent people. Maybe he knows somebody that was severely injured/killed in a terrorist attack or something.

Personally, I'm glad to see the game is earning its mature rating from not just violence and bloodshed. Thats a truly "mature" moment, if its in the game. Other than that, I hate Call of Duty games (with the exception of the Nazi Zombies mode), so I'll be avoiding this as is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top