Rezzed, The PC and Indie Games Show. Brighton, 6th-7th July 2012

Rock, Paper, Shotgun

Modern Warfare 2 Opening Footage Leaked?

By John Walker on October 27th, 2009 at 6:51 pm.

Not as alive as he used to be.

People looking to avoid Modern Warfare 2 spoilers should not read on. A remarkable video (below) of what’s purported to be the beginning of Modern Warfare 2 has appeared. It’s in French, and we’ve obviously no idea if it’s definitely real at this point, but it seems to be showing the first level of the game, in which you play a terrorist mowing down innocent civilians in an airport.

It’s a useful gaming device: put you in the enemy’s position for a glimpse of the other side. Interestingly, however, it’s one that Infinity Ward never opted to do in the original Call of Duty WW2 games, avoiding letting you play as the Germans despite showing different nations’ perspectives on the conflict. Putting you in the position of a terrorist killing civilians is clearly a very controversial decision. It could be designed to give the player a horrible view of those they’re fighting against, but if this is the case it will be a contentious way to start the game. All speculation for now, clearly. Here’s the video:

__________________

« | »

, .

172 Comments »

  1. 27/10/2009 at 18:54 El_MUERkO says:

    I fully expect the mainstream media to explode in a ball of ignorant rage. Should be fun :)

  2. 27/10/2009 at 18:55 Heliosicle says:

    it was also the french that leaked the 3rd person multiplayer mode

    silly people.

  3. 27/10/2009 at 19:03 Melloj says:

    Geez – I am pretty ok with most anything in games and have mowed down pedestrians in GTA to no end, but I found that a bit disturbing.

    Yeah – the press is certainly going to have a field day with that.

  4. 27/10/2009 at 19:03 Dain says:

    I know MW is going to be very very very linear, but forcing a player to slaughter a load of unarmed civillians in the first level? That’s not very appealing to my personal sense of fun..

  5. 27/10/2009 at 19:05 Thirith says:

    Infinity Ward have to be extremely good at what they do if they want this to come off as anything other than thoroughly tasteless. Then again, I would’ve probably said the same about one or two scenes in the first Modern Warfare, and that turned out very well.

    • 27/10/2009 at 20:25 Funky Badger says:

      This has been the one thing I’ve heard about MW2 that makes me interested in it. Hope they’ve really gone through with it.

      Narrative bravery. Wow.

  6. 27/10/2009 at 19:07 MrTambourineMan says:

    Wow, if this is really the opening than hats of – > it should show us that IW have some balls after all!

  7. 27/10/2009 at 19:08 Rakysh says:

    I think the CIA thing is possible, or maybe a simulation first level to get you in the minds of the terrorists? either way, it’s pretty messed. That was disturbing. Still, the press will over blow it no doubt. You lot reckon it’s real then?

  8. 27/10/2009 at 19:10 Jimbo says:

    It’s worth noting that the intro says you’re a ‘Deep Cover CIA Operative’, rather than just a terrorist.

  9. 27/10/2009 at 19:10 ThePinkNinja says:

    Hmmm, that is very brutal.

    Not sure I’m entirely comfortable with having to gun down hundred of realistic people.

    Unless there’s a really good achievement for it anyway.

  10. 27/10/2009 at 19:15 Cooper says:

    Interesting, if this is real.

    Surely, if you are playing this scene you could, just, not shoot? Let yourself be taken out by any law enforcement or just refuse to participate? In which case, and you, as a terrorist, die, is it ‘game over’? If you refuse to participate, does the game not progress?

    In which case, do we not return to the problem of bioshock and what happens once you make apparent that gamers are all too often bound so tightly to a game’s linearity and the odd cognitive dissonance that occurs once that’s made apparent, but no alternative option presents itself?

    (On a side note, and with extra cynicism: There’s a reason the armed forces particularly target game players. We are used to accepting, and rarely questioning, strict rule conventions, despite idiosyncracies and obvious flaws in their reflection of reality (see: Those locked doors). Having vast numbers of game players forced through a ‘being a terrorist’ section appeals very much to this cynical reaction.)

  11. 27/10/2009 at 19:15 Lack_26 says:

    I can see it now,

    “Murder game, Modern Warfare 2, in which players take control of a terrorist [sic], now allows real-life terrorists to plan attacks on airports. The game also features combat in Washington DC and will tell the player to kill hundreds of American citizens. It also kidnaps children and votes Democrat.

    You have been watching Fox News, now over to Joe-the-righteous to tell us about how these terrorist training machines are turning our children into Jihadists.”

  12. 27/10/2009 at 19:17 RockPaperTerrorist says:

    …in which you play a terrorist mowing down innocent civilians in an airport.

    Thanks for spoiling that. Bet you were *that* guy that walked out of Empire Strikes Back talking about how Vader was Luke’s father in earshot of the people in line waiting to see it (simpsons reference).

  13. 27/10/2009 at 19:18 kyrieee says:

    I can’t wait for people to shut up about this game

  14. 27/10/2009 at 19:19 Jimbo says:

    Of course it’s real. ‘Kill these dudes to maintain your cover’ seems like exactly the kind of thing IW would do, and would need to do to top the execution scene in the last one.

    They’ve left themselves just enough moral wiggle room – obviously the media will still flip out, but this is about on par with something Jack Bauer would do.

  15. 27/10/2009 at 19:20 Kangarootoo says:

    Gone already :(

  16. 27/10/2009 at 19:22 Radiant says:

    I don’t want to play that.
    Sim or not.

  17. 27/10/2009 at 19:23 678 says:

    The ending of the mission is… interesting. Bad guys pay in the end, is that what are they trying to say ?

  18. 27/10/2009 at 19:25 FernandoDANTE says:

    Those innocent civilians are human representations of the dedicated servers.

  19. 27/10/2009 at 19:27 Sobric says:

    “This video has been removed from Metacafe”

    well that was quick.

  20. 27/10/2009 at 19:28 cliffski says:

    “this video has been removed from metacafe”

    I’m a big COD fab, and havent ordered this yet. If its true that there is a ‘shoot the civilians’ section, I have to say that would help put me off the game.
    The reason I liked the old WW2 shooters is the whole thing felt pretty justifiable. This doesn’t sound so black and white :(

    • 27/10/2009 at 20:29 Funky Badger says:

      Have you played CoD4 at all?

      The bits where the SAS murder people in their sleep in particular?

    • 28/10/2009 at 07:29 psyk says:

      My memory of the cod4 stroy is hazy but the sleeping people on the boat were terrorists and they got killed in there sleep (boo hoo doesn’t happen all the time) because its easier than them waking up getting armed and attacking from behind.

    • 28/10/2009 at 18:30 Funky Badger says:

      psyk: the sleeping people on the boat were uncomprehending sailors, murdered in their sleep. You/your-character calls them terrorists because that makes it easier for “you” to sleep at night.

  21. 27/10/2009 at 19:28 TheApologist says:

    Not for me this one.

    I found MW pretty repugnant, and this looks pretty much worse. The problem is that the FPS is too restricted as a genre to tell these kinds of stories well and not be horrible.

    You can’t be entertaining FPS game #384723894 and be trying to tell nuanced, morally ambiguous stories. A character capable of soaking up tonnes of bullers with rechargable health who has to charge a corridor with a big gun massacaring civillians means, to my mind, this cannot work. By all means tell this story, but not in this way.

    The press will go nuts, but IF these first impressions are right, this time it will be with good reason.

  23. 27/10/2009 at 19:31 AndrewC says:

    I felt bad for the people getting shot, I didn’t want them to get shot, the shooting felt disgusting. At last, an FPS to evoke humane responses in me!

    And brilliant use of complicity and meta-comment in that the player dude decides after the first massacre to just join in with the shooting. The airport seemed full of defenceless, cowering, wounded people who pose no threat to you – and the player shooots them.

    Huge-balled game design there. Though, of course, if they had *really* huge balls, the player could refuse to shoot anyone else as all killing is morally culpable murder, and the game would then switch to being a relaxing fishing simulator. A switch that would be un-reversible.

    Anyway – good stuff, unless IW just included it because they thought it would be *cool*.

    • 27/10/2009 at 22:06 Buemba says:

      Anyway – good stuff, unless IW just included it because they thought it would be *cool*.

      Wouldn’t surprise me. I seem to remember hearing Shawn Elliot (I think) mention in an episode of GFW Radio that when he asked IW what they thought of all the discussions the AC130 level (“Death From Above”) elicited the reply was something like “we weren’t expecting that at all! I mean, we just did that level because we thought it would be kick ass”.

      But who knows, maybe the praise several story sequences in COD4 got encouraged them to try to do something with more of a message in the sequel…

  24. 27/10/2009 at 19:32 Yargh says:

    The briefing makes it pretty clear that you are an infiltrated US agent trying to get closer to Makarov (the end of the video shows how well thought out that was) and stresses that part of the cost of this is losing part of yourself to the mission.

    I’d guess that the intro serves to show up how the incompetent and amoral intelligence agencies screw everything up and the rest of the story is about how the real men from Special Forces clean up after them.

  25. 27/10/2009 at 19:34 Larington says:

    I don’t think it’d be bold of me to say this openning level, if what is claimed here is true, is actually a part of the marketting campaign for the game. People were watching videos of the first level of the original Modern Warfare which generated some buzz for the game… Only this time its the mainstream media that are the target of the buzz, not gamers or consumers (Directly).

  26. 27/10/2009 at 19:38 Michel says:

    This is obviously the 4th mission of Act 1. Where are people getting “opening” from?

  27. 27/10/2009 at 19:39 IN says:

    I am angry at IW, they do this to stimulate the fear of the people and bad press is all they want for this.
    You know why they coupled terrorism to flying? Because flying is a natural fear to people and attaching terrorism to that makes people fear terrorism much more effectively, terrorism is all one big lie!

  28. 27/10/2009 at 19:39 obo says:

    I’m pretty sure if any mainstream media outlet gets a whiff of this, you won’t be able to do anything without getting this part of the game spoiled for the next three years.

  29. 27/10/2009 at 19:40 RockPaperTerrorist says:

    @John Walker

    Dude, the spoiler is immediately below it a couple of lines down in the same paragraph. Maybe if you add some white space after “…do not read on…”

    Anyways I’m just being indignant just to be indignant since gaming forums all over the ‘net are talking about this anyways.

    So much for the media blackout 402 wanted, eh?

    IW’s doing interesting things with MW. *Spoiler* Do not read ahead if you haven’t played the first: The first one briefly placed you in the role of a middle eastern president who gets executed as well a marine witnessing the effects of a nuclear blast firsthand before succumbing and dying. Really powerful stuff experiences since they are integrated into the game rather than shown just as cinematics.

    • 27/10/2009 at 20:43 Flobulon says:

      I’m pretty sure you’re missing the point – the characters you described in MW were, at the time of their deaths, innocent. Or at least more innocent than someone gunning down civilians in an airport.

      The two really can’t be compared.

  30. 27/10/2009 at 19:41 kyrieee says:

    Couldn’t they at least have made a new ‘opening the door and checking the room’ animation?

  31. 27/10/2009 at 19:45 Roadrunner says:

    The video is broken now :(

  32. 27/10/2009 at 19:46 Thrawny says:

    looks like a PS3 copy from the popups in the top right corner, can’t say i like the idea of mowing down civilians. :/

  33. 27/10/2009 at 19:48 Simon Jones says:

    I’d find it far more interesting to play as an unarmed civilian during such a sequence. I rather doubt I’ll be able to play through the level if it genuinely encourages you to shoot civilians.

    I can’t help but think there’s a lack of context here.

    • 27/10/2009 at 19:54 Lack_26 says:

      I’d find this far more interesting as well, although, the press is less likely to flip about that, so there would be less coverage, and publicity is always good (well, I’m sure sometimes it isn’t, but you wonder if Manhunt would have done nearly as well had the press not picked up on it).

  34. 27/10/2009 at 19:50 Dagda says:

    More or less in agreement with Yargh. It also explains how the US is getting blamed for the attack- the guy found at the scene was a CIA operative.

    Bravo to Infinity Ward for having the balls to pull something like this.

  36. 27/10/2009 at 19:56 Bobby says:

    “This video has been removed from Metacafe”

    Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo…!

  37. 27/10/2009 at 20:03 TheBlackBandit says:

    No. I’m pretty good for violence in games, and I don’t mind it at all, if it aids the story, but this really is a little tasteless. Really.

  38. 27/10/2009 at 20:10 Dr Lulz says:

    I’ve slagged off a lot of overly senseless violent videogames like Manhunt or Saw, but this… this just takes the cake, and then some.

    • 27/10/2009 at 20:25 Thirith says:

      The difference to my mind is that from what little we’ve seen, I don’t see much of a sadistic element, which those other games have (in a virtual sense, of course). This strikes me as disturbing, on purpose, rather than “Ooh, cool, I can kill him with a hacksaw!”

  39. 27/10/2009 at 20:18 Tei says:

    I still think we need to make a mod for L4D, where all the zombies skins are cleared, and paint like normal people, and the zombies sounds replaced by “please don’t shot me” stuff.

    Who says THE PUNK movement is dead?

  40. 27/10/2009 at 20:23 1stGear says:

    Congratulations, Infinity Ward. You have provoked a genuinely strong reaction in people, and thus done more for gaming as an art form than a thousand Hideo Kojimas or Bioshocks. I was wondering how you were going to top the aftermath of the nuclear blast in MW1 and you appear to have done it.

  41. 27/10/2009 at 20:30 Rick says:

    This justification that you’re a CIA operative undercover just doesn’t cut it for me. If you’re a CIA operative and you’re involved in a massacre of this scale (which we can probably assume from this video is at least a hundred) just to maintain your cover, then you’ve lost perspective and your connection to human decency is questionable by not attempting to stop it. The point of going undercover in these organisations is to stop attacks and large scale loss of civilian life.

    This feels like being controversial to get into the papers for publicity to me. Either way, I don’t want to play the role of a mass murderer of innocent civilians, regardless of what sort of rationalisation is given for it.

    • 27/10/2009 at 20:37 Funky Badger says:

      If MW2 achieves nothing else but this comments thread then its a) art, and b) the most important FPS of the year.

      Bravo.

    • 27/10/2009 at 21:30 Jimbo says:

      I’m sure you’re right that they intend for it to be controversial, but the fact that people are disussing and questioning the merits of undercover work has already elevated it above a simple publicity grab, imo.

      I bet you can go through that entire scene without killing any civilians. Given the ending, I consider it extremely likely that the player is even free to attempt (but ultimately fail) to stop the attack. So long as the net result is one dead CIA operative left at the scene of the massacre, they can, in theory, give the player the freedom to choose how it plays out without effecting the overall storyline one bit.

      If that is how it happens, then it’s a shame this leak happened, because that really would have been something to experience without any prior knowledge.

  43. 27/10/2009 at 20:46 Humus B. Chittenbee says:

    If this turns out to be ‘me’ dreaming, viscerally, about how a terrorist attack happened so as to cause me to be even more invested in fighting terrorism (esp. if I knew someone who was killed in the attack) – I would be all right with it being portrayed in the game. Otherwise, I agree – It feels as if it will be too upsetting to the general public’s view. Honestly, I think this will put me off the game without further information.

  44. 27/10/2009 at 20:47 Clovis says:

    If the press does go ape over this, then screw the press. I shoot random people in games all the time. I beat them with tire-irons and run them over with cars. If one of the randoms in GTA IV suddenly started begging for his life after a baseball bat wack to the head, it would totally freak me out. This seems to be the same idea. The audio and scenes like people dragging others to “safety” were especially affecting. Games should be allowed to shock us and make us question our hobby, and not be pilloried for it.

  45. 27/10/2009 at 20:51 Blah says:

    Would it be appropriate to point out that three posts ago, we were celebrating a man smacking around civilian miners with a sledgehammer. He is also a terrorist. He also destroyed buildings.

  46. 27/10/2009 at 21:08 medwards says:

    That’s bullshit absorption of common propaganda. Terrorism is NOT property destruction, and the attempt to imply that property destruction is the equal to murdering bystanders is the same crap logic that surrounded the Reichstag fire. Get some goddamned perspective.

  47. 27/10/2009 at 21:09 Tei says:

    I have just watched half the video with sound.

    It just sad. Is that what IW want to provoke, It worked.

    Let say that I don’t want to say this again. I think we know already too much about this thing (terrorist).

  48. 27/10/2009 at 21:18 JayeRandom says:

    The difference between this and Red Faction Guerilla is that that Red Faction Guerilla, by design, discourages the player from killing innocent bystanders.

    • 27/10/2009 at 21:45 Clovis says:

      No, that is not the important difference. You are just barely discouraged and there are plenty of games where it doesn’t matter at all. The difference is that it is portrayed in a realistic manner. You wouldn’t have to be discouraged in any game if the people are screaming and acting the way they did in this video. In most games people go “Ah.” and cower a bit maybe. I would be much more discouraged by playing the MW2 scene shown.

  49. 27/10/2009 at 21:25 CoyoteTheClever says:

    I don’t get why people care so much about what role they are playing. I’m a bloody pacifist and anti-militarist, but I’m not clamoring for a pacifist to play as. If a story is good, does it really matter whether you are the good guy, the bad guy, or anything in between? In my view, no matter who I’m playing in these FPS games, I’m the bad guy. But I can live with that, because its a game.

    As for what sort of organization the CIA is, I wouldn’t put it past them to kill a bunch of civilians to maintain their cover. If that’s the story, it doesn’t seem too far fetched. A little more of the morally gray to provoke critical thinking rather than the standard American flag waving and big damn heroes moments against all of Germany that is rife in the genre is a good change in FPS storytelling. The thing is, they know they can pump out this game and get record sales. So it is good if they are being creative with it and taking risks.

  50. 27/10/2009 at 21:57 Psychopomp says:

    You know, it’s probably *supposed* to make you extremely uncomfortable, people.

  51. 27/10/2009 at 22:01 faelnor says:

    The whole scene really is unhealthy and unsettling. I’m intrigued.

    We get that kind of trope on TV all the time, it’s only natural that storytellers would try to adapt it to the interactive medium. And since we’ve recently come to the observation that games as an Art form are finally mature enough to purposefully elicit the whole spectrum of feelings, from good to horrible (see: The Void), how can anyone be outraged?

    Though it is surprising that a major studio making an AAA title would go for it.

  53. 27/10/2009 at 22:36 Sunjammer says:

    Thank you, John Walker, for putting the “spoiler” part of your post in the pre-jump section. I totally appreciated accidentally reading about what The Moment this year was going to be. That was really neat.
    Fucking hell.

    • 27/10/2009 at 22:40 Vinraith says:

      What part of “People looking to avoid Modern Warfare 2 spoilers should not read on” wasn’t clear?

    • 27/10/2009 at 22:44 1stGear says:

      To be perfectly fair, there are people who read a little bit faster than they process (Myself included). Leaving the spoiler in the first paragraph does put such people at risk. Though considering this clearly happens very early in the game, treating John Walker like the Spawn of Satan seems a bit overboard.

    • 28/10/2009 at 00:37 Psychopomp says:

      Aye, I’m fairly certain spawn of satan don’t cry :P

    • 28/10/2009 at 01:01 kyrieee says:

      The headline says “footage leaked”
      What did you expect?

      I really don’t see what the deal is with this footage though. Nuking megaton and talking to the irradiated survivors in Fallout 3 is way more fucked up, not that it matters. It’s not real and if I thought of any part of a game that involved killing people as real then I’d be repulsed. Games about killing people don’t have the luxury to make statements about killing people because they trivialize killing people. It just doesn’t work

    • 28/10/2009 at 06:54 Mad Doc MacRae says:

      Spoiler warning:

      Rosebud is a sled.

  55. 27/10/2009 at 22:48 Inanimotioon says:

    Thank you Alan Au for the link.

  56. 28/10/2009 at 00:47 Dance Comm says:

    I loved that part where it says ‘this video has been removed’ can’t wait for part 2.

  57. 28/10/2009 at 01:08 Radiant says:

    Actually to be fair it has got play the GTA trump card:
    The guy playing it was a moron.
    Watch the vid again.
    He didn’t have to shoot the civs at all.
    He chose to.

    He even chose to shoot the wounded!

  58. 28/10/2009 at 01:16 Thiefsie says:

    prepare for this to be banned in Australia

  59. 28/10/2009 at 01:17 JadedGreen says:

    Hmm, that link seems broken. The one on the front page seems to work though

    http://hellforge.gameriot.com/blogs/Hellforge/Modern-Warfare-2s-Controversial-Opening

    Looks like they were originally hosting the video and removed it.

  60. 28/10/2009 at 01:32 mike says:

    SPOILER ALERT:

    The guy you play is an undercover CIA agent, he dies at the end of the mission, so there’s karma for ya :P

  61. 28/10/2009 at 01:34 Wooly says:

    I don’t like this. It seems too much to me like sensationalist violence porn posturing at being art. Reminds me much more of, say, Postal, than the opening sequence of Modern Warfare 1.

    I think my reaction if I were playing this would not be the presumably intended reaction of thinking “oh my god I can’t believe I’m doing this.” Rather, the way it is presented in a typical FPS attitude is the glorification of violence by giving the player the objective: go shoot some dudes. I don’t feel like I’ve done a very good job of explaining my feelings, but I don’t believe I’m getting the message IW (presumably) intended with this sequence.

    • 28/10/2009 at 11:05 Olympia says:

      I disagree. A glorification of violence isn’t supposed to induce a visceral and shocking response like this part of gameplay is. I think the purpose of the sequence is to put a tough choice in the hands of the player, which is to decide to shoot or to look on. It’s probably going to be one of the most powerful and meaningful moments in a war/combat game.

  62. 28/10/2009 at 01:38 Davee says:

    NOOOOO! I was too late! “This video has been removed from MetaCafé.”

    And for every link I click it seems like Activision has been there and removed it… Damn they were fast to get rid of every trace.

  63. 28/10/2009 at 02:11 Stijn says:

    I think this really needs context to have anything meaningful said about it, and it doesn’t have context in the current footage.

  64. 28/10/2009 at 02:19 El Stevo says:

    Looks fun.

  65. 28/10/2009 at 02:42 lePooch says:

    That hellforge page’s comments section has turned into a shitstorm pondering the nature of good and evil, right and wrong, all because of the OP calling the mission ‘art’.
    I agree though that the context of this mission is rather important; was it created solely for shock value, or is there commentary of some kind? How much of the story builds up to this, if at all?
    Reading the comments helped me understand the motivation behind it, sort of. Also, you get to see one fool being pwned by the poster in the thread.

  66. 28/10/2009 at 03:33 Baris says:

    Honestly, unless there’s some huge backstory to this mission that was skipped, I really don’t see how it is much more than shock for the sake of publicity. If someone could sum up for me why they think the content of that video should even be mentioned in the same sentence as the brilliant intro to MW1, I’d appreciate it.

  67. 28/10/2009 at 03:59 Suman1083 says:

    To be quite honest I am not too sure about the Call of Duty franchise tackling something like this. The problem is the past games of the franchise are more akin to a Jerry Bruckheimer film then to something like a Saving Private Ryan or a All Quite on the Western Front. If this truly is one of the first levels in the game, then Call of Duty has a responsibility to make sure this is not just another well polished shooter with cool explosions. Infinity Ward can’t have it both ways.

  68. 28/10/2009 at 04:05 kulak says:

    Working video link:

    http://www.viddler.com/explore/Destructoid/videos/1102/

    Also, its a fucking game.

    The fact it might be reaching for an emotional response besides “fun” is something to be lauded. Clearly this sequence is reaching for something beyond “fun”.

    I found the scenes disturbing, but thats actually a good thing.

    I find all this nay saying pretty ironic, considered how much flak the CoD series gets for being bland and formulaic.

    This is almost as dumb as movie audiences who bitch about “unhappy” endings because it makes them feel bad. Sometimes media can engage on deeper levels than “fun” and “happy”.

  69. 28/10/2009 at 04:09 kulak says:

    The idea that the only things its okay to shoot in games are Zombies and Nazis (cause all german soldiers where evil card carrying nazis, its not like there was conscription and execution for deserters), is exactly the attitude thats keeping gaming from being viewed as a serious platform for art.

    Its the movie equivalency of comparing All Quiet on the Western front, and Dambusters.

    Just because some narratives allow you to feel good about people being killed, doesn’t mean they’re better, and generally they’re far less subtle and complex if they’re going for “goodies versus baddies” formula.

    • 28/10/2009 at 05:28 Idle Threats and Bad Poetry says:

      You know, I think you’re on to something. Art challenges us to think about things in different ways. This game is not promoting or romanticizing terrorists (unlike GTA which glamorizes life as a thug). I’m not sure yet what it’s trying to say, but maybe it’s something along the lines of “You cannot know a man unless you walk a mile in his shoes.” You know, know your enemy.

    • 30/10/2009 at 10:17 Olympia says:

      Agreed, I’m into this post.

  70. 28/10/2009 at 04:10 wat says:

    I don’t get what the uproar is – How is this much different from, let’s say, GTA IV?
    I remember being ordered to kill plenty of unarmed civilians in that game: Take out my rival there, eliminate that lover over here (e.g., given the choice of executing Dwayne’s ex-girlfriend) and so on. MW1 has you shoot the unarmed and even sleeping / drunk sailors on board of the freighter on the very first level as well. Oh, and let’s not even talk about the millions enslaved or murdered in Total War (SACK VILLAGE) / Defcon / etc.
    What’s the outrage? Just because it’s larger in scale / more detailed, or because the player isn’t one of the good guys?
    The naiveté I’ve seen from some people over this matter is absurd – The game labels the player a good guy, and it’s A-OK (MW1, GTA, tons of other games), but if you label the player a terrorist it’s suddenly the most disgusting thing?

    @Baris: Because it puts you in a role that is not enjoyable at all, and one that is totally unexpected (Just as in MW1).
    It also forces you to make a decision about the relationship between you and your character, similar to, let’s say, playing on the Dark Side in Knights of the Old Republic (Add that one to the list above, you can do some really nasty stuff in KOTOR). Will the players continue to act along in such a situation and keep up the game’s masquerade, or will they refuse the mechanics of the game world?

    You say that they need a huge backstory beforehand to make this mission good, I claim the opposite: The effect on the player would be greatest if that is the very first scene in the game.
    It begins like any other FPS, you and your “squad” start out in an enclosed space and then enter a huge, noisy place.
    Many first-time players react to that by clinging to their AI mates – But what if those suddenly open up on unsuspecting travelers? What will the reaction be? And what does that tell us about the influence not just of our games but also about group pressure and power?

    I just hope they collect player reactions like Valve do, because I sure want to know how many people actually throw down the controller and return their game in that instant, as many love to claim.

    Of course I can’t be certain that this isn’t just some huge publicity trick by IW (maybe even a IW-made fake leak created for that purpose), but it’s certainly bloody well done.

    • 28/10/2009 at 06:10 Baris says:

      Perhaps I was too hasty in judging it.

      I do agree that the reaction it would elicit from people seeing the level for the first time when they boot up the game and assume they’re being thrown into a generic good guys fight terrorists is interesting. However, I’m not sure I follow you on it forcing you to make a decision about the relationship between you and your character. Unless there’s an option to turn on your terrorist buddies or there’s a backstory explaining how your character started out as a normal young man and became a terrorist I can see reactions simply being “Well that was bullshit, why the hell did the game just force me to play a boring mission that I didn’t even have the satisfaction of being the good guy in?”. Which is quite similar to the reaction I expect I would have.

    • 28/10/2009 at 10:19 Rick says:

      GTA4 usually gives you the choice before shooting unarmed people and innocents, such as Dwayne’s girlfriend. The game doesn’t require you to kill indiscriminately; its even possible to shoot only to incapacitate rather than kill in most firefights, excluding when fighting key characters.

    • 28/10/2009 at 11:10 Olympia says:

      I think that a lot of the controversy has to do with the fact that it’s in an airport, which presumably people will think is insensitive.

    • 30/10/2009 at 10:07 Olympia says:

      Also, in GTA, killing innocents isn’t part of the narrative.

  71. 28/10/2009 at 04:33 Heliocentric says:

    What happens if you kill all your terrorist friends?

  72. 28/10/2009 at 04:47 tmp says:

    Can’t help but think it’s a poor decision to include that level… simply because it has nothing interesting from gameplay standpoint. A snail pace escort mission with very little else but shooting helpless targets with few of them fighting back while clearly outmatched? Really, is that it?

    The whole thing is hanging on the initial shock value, and when that goes away some 10-15 seconds into the experience there’s nothing left. Makes one wonder if the rest of game also relies on such gimmicks and how much of actual game is really there.

  73. 28/10/2009 at 05:01 Idle Threats and Bad Poetry says:

    It’s real. Clips of the level can be seen in the MW2: Infamy trailer on Steam.

  74. 28/10/2009 at 06:19 Hulk Hogan says:

    The people should poop themselves after they die.

    It’s realistic and too many games ignore because they’re afraid of offending the religious right, or the PC police liberals, i forgot which.

    BARF!.

  75. 28/10/2009 at 06:37 Osbob says:

    People, THIS IS NOT THE OPENING LEVEL. The video clearly shows it is the fourth mission in Act I after what appears to be the icy cliff level (going by the image next to the mission). I’m sure there will plenty of context.

  76. 28/10/2009 at 08:30 Jochen Scheisse says:

    Also, it’s not a terorist. The video clearly shows it’s Bobby Kotick after what appears to be the MW2 boycott. I’m sure there will be plenty of context.

  77. 28/10/2009 at 09:38 GK says:

    Hm. An actual terrorism simulator.

    What’s interesting about this level is that while you’re not required to shoot the civilians, it’s psychologically engineered to make you. Your “allies” start shooting, and you reflexively start shooting too.
    The really interesting thing is that this is “in character” for you. You’re supposed to be in deep cover trying to fit into the terrorism outfit.
    But no matter how many civvies you massacre, I somehow doubt that you can change the ending script and keep from being executed outed as a mole at the end. So I think the message there is muddled- you gain none of the promised profit from the atrocities you commit, so what’s the point in asking the ethical question in the first place? Is the moral of the story, “don’t compromise your beliefs to try to fit in, because you’re going to get executed anyway”?

    I wonder what happens on that level if you start shooting your allies (specifically, the guy who executes you).

  78. 28/10/2009 at 09:48 Gabbo says:

    I can’t say I was bothered by it in any way. In fact I wish more games would use an angle like this. Collateral damage as well as playing a sequence where you see the game from the antagonist’s point of view are both criminally underused as a storytelling method in gaming (let alone shooters). It would also make enemies slightly less faceless/red shirt-esque when you see the rationality for what they’re doing first hand.

    I highly doubt IW will use the fact that you’re undercover for any real character depth or exploration. It seems more for shock value than it is to make us question the ‘heroes’ actions in these situations (especially given the ending of that video). It’s obviously more a means to make the villains seem all that more worthy of having several clips emptied into them and the special forces as unquestionable heroes, like any other shooter.

    I would gladly be mistaken, but I doubt I will be.

  79. 28/10/2009 at 09:54 bill says:

    I doubt this’ll be it, but it’d be interesting to have something (anything really, a tv drama, a movie, whatever) that actually realistically showed the terrorist’s perspective.

    most movies, tv shows, etc… show them as either crazy fanatics, or intelligent masterminds…but they rarely actually have them explain WHY they’re doing what they’re doing. The only movie i remember getting close was The Siege… and then it totally blew it by resorting to the “evil terrorist mastermind” stereotype at the end.

    I don’t mean they should justify their actions of course, but it’d be nice to explore why they’re so willing to die and kill innocents for their cause… what made them come to that stage, etc..

  80. 28/10/2009 at 10:12 [21CW] 2000AD says:

    Can anyone provide a rough translation of the briefing at the start of the video?

  81. 28/10/2009 at 10:25 Tei says:

    I have to say (again?) that this video make me sad, but I choose to respect IW (even with my feelings of vengueance after the dedicated server fiasco).

    Tecnical comment:

    It seems since the game is highly scripted. Much like a interactive 3D FMV game. That some scenes don’t make sense at all. We see survivors running TO the terrorist. People “saving” other victims moving it.. TO the terrorist.
    I suppose this is because these script sequences are designed so the players is somewhere else, and may make sense, but that this player is moving out of that imaginary linear trail “ruining” the sequence.
    If that is false, the whole thing is poorly done, in a way. Since If people shot in a mall, most peple will run to the doors to exit, and a pile of bodys will form there, tryiing to escape… before the terrorist get to the doors, theres will be none, but about 60 persons on the door, on the floor, killed / wounded by other victims tryiing to escape.

    This fictional “victims” seems to wait in the interior of shop and EXIT these shops just wen the terrorist come. It don’t make sense at all.

    Continuing with my tecnical comment, I don’t like what IW is doing with scripted sequences. A scripted sequence where a copter explode in a expectacular way, is impresive, but one that meet the player but become rapidly a inmersion breaking factor is bad use of scripting sequences.

    So, wen you are playing MW2, are you playing a videogame, or “moving forward” a 3D movie? It looks to me like MW2 is almost into FMV territory.

    • 28/10/2009 at 09:29 Tei says:

      Also, what replay value have a game full of scripted sequences? sure, is fun the first time, but once you know everything is scripted It will totally chocking to see people die the same way, the same “casual” events. It will be like that movie of Bill Murray… ,”Groundhog Day”.

    • 28/10/2009 at 10:09 Psychopomp says:

      On the other hand, scripted events tend to be far more memorable than random happenstance.

    • 28/10/2009 at 10:29 AndrewC says:

      Man, Groundhog Day is great!

      I’ve seen it lots of times.

    • 28/10/2009 at 11:17 Olympia says:

      There is literally no evidence that this event has to be played through the same way each time.

    • 28/10/2009 at 11:41 Tei says:

      “There is literally no evidence that this event has to be played through the same way each time.”

      Scripts events are like tiny “3D movies”, more this ones that maybe use motion capture, so the logical conclusion is that these “events” will reproduce exactly every time. Non-scripted stuff will be random, but scripted events, like a truck derrailing and breaking a pilar (non in this video) will be exactly equal in every way.

      Good news: If the game is full of these tiny scripts events, maybe you will miss some, so these will be “new” to you on the next replay.
      More good news: Half-Life2 game is built using some of these script events, and is awesome, but on the other part Valve somehow know how to use these events, and are administered for a reason. Here looks like are just “eyecandy, for the sake of eyecandy, and because we have a budget the size a small country”-sake.

      I remenber a event in HL2, where a door is break by a soldier with the foot. If you open such door before the soldier enter, the soldier still “use the foot” on the invisible door.
      Maybe MW2 will be a “Just don’t think, see and feel” game…

  82. 28/10/2009 at 11:13 Olympia says:

    The leaks that happen to showcase controversial things like the 3rd person gameplay and the first sequence could also have been set up to create buzz as a counter to the drop in interest by PC gamers because of the dedicated server issue, but that’s a dumb idea.

  83. 28/10/2009 at 12:18 EBass says:

    I guess IW doesen’t like to play with a (commercialy at least) winning formula.

    I liked Cod4:MW, but I said at the time the formula, endless respawning enemies, totally scripted sequences, near total linearity, hadn’t changed since the original and is getting old.

    I’d be willing to stake my life on the fact that if you decided you were morally opposed to this action and decided to shoot down your “team” instead, the mission would end saying “Friendly fire will not be tolerated!”

    • 28/10/2009 at 18:38 Dain says:

      I’ve dabbled, but never really invested any time in. I’d argue there’s a difference between the cartoon silliness of GTA and the somewhat real looking but I suppose there isn’t. Yes, I know, I’m a massive weirdo because I don’t get a kick out of killing civillians, I understand.. there’s very little point me presenting my point of view.

      I’m sure this whole terrorism thingy is very brave and artistic, but at the end of the day, I really don’t enjoy shooting cowering people in the head.

      I’d join in in saying it’s a perfectly legit story telling scene if it wasn’t simply the fact that due to the style of game, the player is FORCED to do it. Where’s the option to say “To hell with my cover” and go down fighting to try and save people.. there isn’t one.. because it’s a FPS. I don’t find it disturbing or anything.. just not fun.. which is surely a perfectly valid viewpoint when giving an opinion on game?

  84. 28/10/2009 at 12:31 Dain says:

    Heh,
    shooting guys with guns in a linear level = bland game
    shooting civillians in a linear level = art eh?

    Sorry.. no matter how.. *cough* artistic it is, still not my idea of fun. I play these sort of things to have fun y’see. Not to feel smug about how artistic the experience of being forced to massacre a bunch of people is.

    • 28/10/2009 at 15:30 kulak says:

      @ Dain.

      Yeah cause we all know if something isn’t fun its not worthwhile.

      I mean whats Schindlers List all about? Whats fun about a bunch of jews getting killed? Why do people want to feel smug about genoicde? Give me High School Musical 2 any day.

      to quote peep show

      “Why’s everything got to be fun? ‘Hey, Watson and Crick have discovered the double helix!’ ‘Did they do it on a skateboard?’ ‘No.’ ‘Oh, well fuck off then, I’m not interested.’”

    • 28/10/2009 at 16:49 Dain says:

      Games are not like films, no matter how hard they try.

      I doubt I’d have enjoyed schindler’s list if it had required me, every few minutes to press a button in order to execute a jew. If your analogy was correct, we’d be able to produce a death camp management game and say “Look, it’s not mean to be fun, it’s ART.”

      Games for me will always be about enjoying myself. Sorry, I guess I’m just not highbrow enough to appreciate the beauty of firing a large gun at cowering civillians.

    • 28/10/2009 at 18:23 Funky Badger says:

      Dain, have you ever played a GTA game?

    • 28/10/2009 at 23:13 Psychopomp says:

      “I doubt I’d have enjoyed schindler’s list if it had required me, every few minutes to press a button in order to execute a jew. ”

      Actually, I’d like to see a Schindler’s List game like that. You have to pick the ones to save, and the ones to kill, and you have to kill them *by your own hand.* Not a cutscene, mind you. No, you’re in control the entire time.
      MGS3 showed that forcing the player to kill someone they care about can be absolutely heartbreaking.
      If you’ve played it, you know the bit. Press square to kill Boss.

  85. 28/10/2009 at 12:45 Zabiyaka says:

    http://www.liveleak.com/item?a=view&token=364_1256689255

    I wonder why the airport? They could “do” a school, for example. Or a hospital. Preferably, a maternity ward. With flamethrowers, too. To only show that terrorism is baaaaad.

    To those who asked about the translation: the context: the player seems to be a CIA operative undercover in Makarov’s band of terrorists. Makarov sends them to stage an attack on the Russian airport in such a way that the authorities would believe that it is the work of the westerners. I recon, this justifies everything: we do not want to blow our cover, do we?

  86. 28/10/2009 at 13:15 l1ddl3monkey says:

    I am the guy who half way through Sixth Sense blurted out "I think he's a ghost too" and then had to listen to people call me unpleasant names for the remaining half of the film.
    Also this post was meant as a response to a comment that's up there someplace and it didn't work. So now I just look mentally ill. Again.

  87. 28/10/2009 at 15:53 tmp says:

    Yeah cause we all know if something isn’t fun its not worthwhile.

    I think he’s got a valid point. If you went to see Schindler’s List but got served High School Musical 2 mid-way through you’d have an understandable reason to be disappointed, no? It works the other way, too.

  88. 28/10/2009 at 16:54 Nighthood says:

    Anyone who says this video raises lots of deep and complex issues [has a different opinion to me and gee, I just can't stand that] is an idiot. The first modern warfare was a simple man-shoot, this is going to be a simple man-shoot too. No “complex story” or any of that, it’s just a daft game with delusions of a good story. This video, combined with the price and no dedicated servers has made me positive I’m not buying the game. As another thing, the mass media will rip this game to threads now, and I actually don’t have a problem with that in this case. It’s a stupid premise for a level, and NOT one that will be regarded favourably.

  89. 28/10/2009 at 17:21 Mastersmith98 says:

    The idea is sound: take the perspective of a terrorist (you are a CIA agent, but you’re still seeing things from their eyes), the only problem is the execution of it.

    In games, killing the bad guys is justified purely by the fact that we’re doing right and they’re obviously wrong. It’s the mainstream Hollywood way of doing things (as one poster put it). There’s no grey area and usually the bad guys are presented without any humanization at all. Often too many times this creates a biased stance towards the group that the archetypal antagonists represents.

    When I first heard about this I was happy to see that IW was taking on a taboo subject in gaming, letting us play the bad guys, but then I realized the context and the audience of the game. Your average COD player isn’t going to understand the implications of his actions. There’s no humanization of the bad guys, no motivation, you’re just gunning innocent people down in an airport. We’ll have to wait and see what more IW does with this, but personally I see this as a cheap way of making the bad guys evil baby eaters.

    • 28/10/2009 at 18:37 tmp says:

      We’ll have to wait and see what more IW does with this, but personally I see this as a cheap way of making the bad guys evil baby eaters.

      Apparently this is exactly what the intention behind it was, yes.

      http://www.vg247.com/2009/10/28/confirmed-leaked-mw2-civilians-vid-as-real-skippable-through-checkpoints/

      “The scene establishes the depth of evil and the cold bloodedness of a rogue Russian villain and his unit. By establishing that evil, it adds to the urgency of the player’s mission to stop them.”

      and this part is hillarious:

      “Modern Warfare 2 is a fantasy action game designed for intense, realistic game play that mirrors real life conflicts, much like epic, action movies.”

      Yes, the ‘epic action movies’ mirror real life conflicts in a realistic manner. Oh dear.

  90. 28/10/2009 at 17:26 Jas Purewal says:

    In case people haven’t seen this: http://gamepolitics.com/2009/10/28/leaked-modern-warfare-2-footage-shocks.

    There is going to be a massive, massive wave of media and political anger of this. Watch this space…

  91. 28/10/2009 at 17:58 underproseductor says:

    lol@terrorists manually killing hundreds of victims with firearms without facing any resistance.

    They use bombs. Or at least chemical/biological weapons.

    This just seems so unrealistic and not plausible.

    • 28/10/2009 at 18:28 Funky Badger says:

      Look, they even faked a wiki site:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Mumbai_attacks

      Oh no, that’s real.

    • 28/10/2009 at 18:43 underproseductor says:

      Geez, of course they use firearms. Every terrorist must have an assault rifle.

      But I mean, It’s not like THAT. This MW2 scene looks so fake, as someone already mentioned, these civilians are actually helping terrorists kill them.

      I might discuss here the best ways of murdering masses and attack planning, but I hope there is no need for that.

    • 28/10/2009 at 18:51 Funky Badger says:

      Just because you’d do something differently in your head, doesn’t mean that’s how it works in reality. See above link for evidence – or watch an episode of America’s Stupidest Bank Robbers et al.

  92. 28/10/2009 at 19:12 XM says:

    This is the official song for IW and Activision from all COD fans around the world.

    Enjoy!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbN0g8-zbdY

  93. 28/10/2009 at 19:22 Haircute says:

    DAIN:

    Get off your persecution horse. I can not read 3/4 of what you have written because I keep stopping when you say things like:

    Sorry, I guess I’m just not highbrow enough to appreciate the beauty of firing a large gun at cowering civillians.

    Shut up. Just stop saying that.

  94. 28/10/2009 at 19:44 Vinraith says:

    1980, at least in the US.

  95. 28/10/2009 at 20:05 OJ287 says:

    Ive been doing this in every RPG for years.

    Kill every civilian, ally and enemy in the level

    Watching this video felt similar and a bit stale because of it.

  96. 28/10/2009 at 20:06 OJ287 says:

    Ive been doing this in every RPG for years.
    *save game*
    Kill every civilian, ally and enemy in the level
    *load game*

    Watching this video felt similar and a bit stale because of it.

  97. 28/10/2009 at 22:06 clive dunn says:

    Mumbai sim, Beslan sim, 9-11 sim. I’m not against slippery slopes but i don’t like standing on one myself.

    • 28/10/2009 at 22:45 Funky Badger says:

      Russians executing German prisoners (CoD5)?

      Concur with Dracko… one of the most common complaints is no games “risk” anything or try anything different. And then one does…

    • 30/10/2009 at 20:09 A-Scale says:

      Good, bring them on! The only reservation I have is that they might not be done with due respect to the subject matter. If it can be done in a realistic way that properly displays all sides of the issue (rather than just Civilian Headshot! +5 Exp!) it will help people to understand what irregular conflicts mean, what the mindset of religious extremists is, and further it will challenge our morality.

      I think this particular scene is a tremendous idea because it allows one to choose how they will morally deal with the issue using normal FPS mechanics. If you believe that the interests of the majority will be served by going along with the terrorists to gain their respect, one might choose to fire AT, but consistently miss the civilians. But it remains to be seen what Activision will actually do with this scenario.

    • 31/10/2009 at 13:21 Dracko says:

      Welcome to asymmetric warfare. Enjoy your stay.

    • 31/10/2009 at 13:24 Dracko says:

      Besides, it’s a great counter-point to the first game’s intro.

    • 31/10/2009 at 13:37 Dracko says:

      Best comment I heard relating to the controversy:

      At first I was like “How can any government agency justify having their operatives actively participate in full-scale terrorist attacks?” then I remembered oh yeah, CIA.

      I’m guessing Modern Warfare 3 is gonna open up with you reenacting the last 30 minutes of Antichrist from the perspective of Charlotte Gainsbourg.

    • 31/10/2009 at 16:13 A-Scale says:

      Is that a 9/11 conspiritard quote?

    • 31/10/2009 at 16:31 Dracko says:

      No. Why would it be?

  98. 29/10/2009 at 00:01 Deuteronomy says:

    Except in WWI the western powers +Russia were the bad guys and the Central powers were fighting for truth and freedom against a gang of terrorists.

  99. 05/11/2009 at 05:02 john says:

    dumbass read the DONT READ SPOILER….. BEFORE YOU COMMENT….

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Search

Read our finest words

Respond to our gibber

Play indie, mods, demos

Browse the archive