Print this page
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is in hot water over a scene with allows players to assume the role of a terrorist and shoot innocent civilians in an airport. Leaked footage revealed that, in one of the missions, players can join a group of Russian ultranationalist terrorists and massacre civilians with assault weapons in an airport. (Sounds like a night out in my hometown. sub.ed.)
In Australia the gaming press has even expressed concern, with GameSpot saying the scene is "reminiscent of last year's mass killings in Mumbai". The Aussie Classification Board which is normally pretty daft about games censorship because the nation does not have an 18 certification, allowed the game through. This has meant that lots of 'family' charities such as the Australian Council on Children and the Media to get all upset and demand an outright ban.
Ever since the Life of Brian groups calling for censorship have been arguing the same sort of things. In this case they claim that even if the game is acceptable for 15 year olds younger kids could still get their paws on it. What they do not understand is that such an argument means that it means that censorship is pointless not that it needs to be tightened up. Now it seems such bodies can play the terrorism card with all the enthusiasm and intelligence of George Bush. One statement said that the consequences of terrorism are just abhorrent in our community and yet here we are with a product that's meant to be passed off as a leisure time activity, actually promoting what most world leaders speak out publicly against. We guess that would also mean banning the film Die Hard I, II, and III but hell who says logic has to follow censorship?
One of our favourite quotes said “look we understand it is a game but... we're not far off when you look at the images that you could actually put it on a Channel Nine news report and you'd think maybe that is real”. If you ran a copy of any game online does that mean that you are suddenly going to start thinking it is real? Will people believe that we are being stalked by giant zombies? Suffering from Alien invasion? Films are much more realistic but they don't have parent lobby groups complaining that if you shoved them on the Channel Nine news people would be stupid enough to believe them.
Other quotes dust off the idea that games can be training grounds for terrorists and murderers. One lobby group whined if that material was on the internet about how to become a terrorist, how to join a group and how to wipe out people - that would be removed because it would not be acceptable. The only problem is that is not what the game does. The airport is not real and the tactical considerations are unlikely.
However Activision, the game's publisher, and its lawyers, have been working frantically to remove all traces of the footage from the web, arguing that it was released illegally before the game had come out. But the company has confirmed the footage is authentic and that the mission is part of the game. Activision pointed out that the airport footage was "not representative of the overall gameplay experience". It said players could choose not to play the scene if they found it too confronting.
Published in
News
Terrorist massacre game upsets lobby group
You probably
were not expecting this
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is in hot water over a scene with allows players to assume the role of a terrorist and shoot innocent civilians in an airport. Leaked footage revealed that, in one of the missions, players can join a group of Russian ultranationalist terrorists and massacre civilians with assault weapons in an airport. (Sounds like a night out in my hometown. sub.ed.)
In Australia the gaming press has even expressed concern, with GameSpot saying the scene is "reminiscent of last year's mass killings in Mumbai". The Aussie Classification Board which is normally pretty daft about games censorship because the nation does not have an 18 certification, allowed the game through. This has meant that lots of 'family' charities such as the Australian Council on Children and the Media to get all upset and demand an outright ban.
Ever since the Life of Brian groups calling for censorship have been arguing the same sort of things. In this case they claim that even if the game is acceptable for 15 year olds younger kids could still get their paws on it. What they do not understand is that such an argument means that it means that censorship is pointless not that it needs to be tightened up. Now it seems such bodies can play the terrorism card with all the enthusiasm and intelligence of George Bush. One statement said that the consequences of terrorism are just abhorrent in our community and yet here we are with a product that's meant to be passed off as a leisure time activity, actually promoting what most world leaders speak out publicly against. We guess that would also mean banning the film Die Hard I, II, and III but hell who says logic has to follow censorship?
One of our favourite quotes said “look we understand it is a game but... we're not far off when you look at the images that you could actually put it on a Channel Nine news report and you'd think maybe that is real”. If you ran a copy of any game online does that mean that you are suddenly going to start thinking it is real? Will people believe that we are being stalked by giant zombies? Suffering from Alien invasion? Films are much more realistic but they don't have parent lobby groups complaining that if you shoved them on the Channel Nine news people would be stupid enough to believe them.
Other quotes dust off the idea that games can be training grounds for terrorists and murderers. One lobby group whined if that material was on the internet about how to become a terrorist, how to join a group and how to wipe out people - that would be removed because it would not be acceptable. The only problem is that is not what the game does. The airport is not real and the tactical considerations are unlikely.
However Activision, the game's publisher, and its lawyers, have been working frantically to remove all traces of the footage from the web, arguing that it was released illegally before the game had come out. But the company has confirmed the footage is authentic and that the mission is part of the game. Activision pointed out that the airport footage was "not representative of the overall gameplay experience". It said players could choose not to play the scene if they found it too confronting.