View Full Version : MW2 killing civilians

11-13-2009, 01:36 AM
Has the line been crossed?

What's your feelings?

Well I'm about to rant, so be for-warned:

I saw a scene where you can actually slaughter civilians. I think that's a bigger issue than the dedicated servers. It makes me wonder which school will be in the cross-hairs of some kid who thinks it's cool to do or whatever might be in their minds.

Most will not even think this is an issue but HH doesn't show GTA for a reason. I actually did research in the '80's showing how virtual worlds can lower the stress of combat as the user becomes more familiar with varying circumstances... getting people 'used' to slaughtering civilians is really a poor choice of story lines.... all done with the lame excuse of making the game more intense. What's the next game release going to have? slaughtering babies? i.e., there's a line and as adults we have to understand when the line is being crossed and stand up to do the right thing. It's obvious I think this is over the line. geesh ::)

First I'd like to hear what the CIA would do under those circumstance... I bet the undercover cia agent would take out the terrorists right there.

Second I'd love to see a survey of actual ages of those playing MW2. They can label the game M for mature all they want but I suspect a good percentage of those playing it is under 18. It is labeled 18, isn't it?

Why does that matter? Because!

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that scene is bad for me or you reading this post... but the world has a lot of people growing up in lots of different circumstances and someone just might think that, 'hey why not, at least people will respect me then' and just do it. I certainly hope not but I've always said talk is cheat, so talk a lot, rather than face the real-life ramifications of not talking at all.

11-13-2009, 04:35 AM
I always said that games are not the one pulling the trigger, it's the state of mind of someone that wants to for whatever reason.

It's the same as seeing children play police officer as they are young, while running behind the "bad guy" on the playground they say "bang" your dead. Most of those kids don't become a criminal neither.

It's a state of mind, if someone is in a bad situation other words, doesn't see a exit to his/her problems, then making the right decisions gets harder and harder and at some point they reach boiling point.

Person a will walk away, person b will kick the hell out of someone... It's something that is there young. And some of it comes from their parents.

There are parents that say, "if they hit you, then hit them right back two times as hard,,

Not even talking about movies/series yet, who hasn't seen "Rambo? or the A-Team?" Many, so why are we not shooting around with guns?

11-14-2009, 11:28 PM
well i think there's a difference between Rambo who is portrayed as being justified and 'hero like' and someone who slaughters innocent people. Rambo was attacking ignorance although it is a good example of 'close to over the line'. There have been movies that portray villians, etc. but when one uses 'slaughter' and 'civilians' together, and portrays it as a deliberate act allowing the viewer to actually participate, it is bad taste.

99.9% will get it and that's that... it's the one person who uses it as an example/excuse that could put real people in harms way. I personally don't think it's worth it as part of any story line except if you actually had the option of taking out the terrorists who were about to commit the act.

11-15-2009, 01:32 PM
Here is some one who wanted to cheat in MV2http://gamevideos.1up.com/video/id/27045

02-03-2010, 06:02 PM

02-04-2010, 10:49 AM
let's see if we can get this video site on our side...


Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 Game Hacks Gameplay

Dear GameVideos,

I'm writing to make a suggestion regarding content which promotes hacking. As you probably know hacking is a leading cause for gamers leaving a game server and as has happened in the past can lead to the total failure of a game title, and you're probably aware that hacking/cheating is a form of abuse on innocent gamers. Lastly, the promotion of hacking videos can lead very young people to think it is actually okay to cheat in gaming. Depending on what they're exposed to, if they see enough 'it's so cool to cheat' promotions they can easily get caught up in the frenzy and find themselves banned. We at HackHunters.com really don't think any of this is cool. We also don't think it's cool for major websites like GameVideos to even want to 'touch' such videos, but understand that perhaps they haven't considered the ramifications of hosting such promotions.

In fact, unlike other user submitted material, hack videos are really just one thing... an advertisement. If this is the case you should be charging these people money to have their video on your site. Make no mistake, the promoters of hacks are pretty much like drug pushers. Besides the differences in product there isn't much difference. If you ever go to their websites they are often covered in (muckelpucket) and other enticements to attract younger unsuspecting kids that don't get the ramifications yet.

We ask that you take a stand and remove any hack promotion videos you can. If you like, HackHunters will help you locate any other content on your site like this. Just say the word and we'll provide you with a well organized list.

Best regards and hope we can work together.

Founder of HackHunters

07-14-2010, 10:25 AM
Red Dead Redemption has the killing of civilians and sheriff's in the game.

That game was created by the people who created GTA so really it's no surprise they incorporated the same mentality into this new game, but I guess I was hoping that, considering it was a western that maybe the developers would use it as a break from their past attitude. Considering the competition in game development and sales, it's really no surprise that they kept their attitude to help them sell games.

Don't get me wrong, it's not the 'end of the world' when a game has your character shooting civilians, it's just I think it's in bad taste and it's gratuitous (definition: uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted : gratuitous violence.). Of course there is a shallow reason for why your main character must kill civilians... to get the posse to chase you (ah, yeah, not really sure but seems like the story could just make you the bad guy and upon seeing your face on a wanted poster you'd get the idea that you're going to be chased).

Anyway (hope i'm posting this in the rant section ;D ) when anything you're confronted with in life goes places that are just in bad taste, then you have to make a choice of whether to: engage, ignore or walk away from.

HackHunters is walking away from Red Dead Redemption and has therefore removed our reviews/videos of it. Kind of stinks really as the game had some cool aspects, like riding a horse on your computer monitor (that's pretty new stuff, with an old fashion twist).

I don't represent everyone here and nor do I want to. I appreciate the diversity of thought and opinion, and if you like the game that's your freedom of choice which I value more than a little game, so enjoy it. If you like it and have something to say regarding it you're free to post it here with no fear of bashing. That goes for everything.

07-14-2010, 04:12 PM
I think on that scene is complete bogus. Of course i skipped it, but my friends at school that it was really cool and fun. I say otherwise. That scene should have never been made. Even though there is a option to skip that scene, most people don't because they wonder what it is going to be like.

07-18-2010, 03:07 AM
I didn't skip it, but their was a reason for it asking you if you wanted to play the mission. Wasn't their?

09-20-2010, 10:05 AM
I was scrolin' the forum and i saw this post.

We have gta, we have mafia, need for speed, getting up, these are "criminal games". Video games give us the chance to do something that is not allowed(i realy dont like war i grew up in one, but cod is cool fun). Why is the No russian mission different from second sun(the nuke on Washington). It is a part of the game, and many people would agree both are wrong. I dont think that a kid playing No Russian would pick up his dads m60 and go sloughter a school, even playing the mission is stressfull and if that child grew up in normal home he would know that it isnt ok. I think that that scene in game is cool as a part of the story, and the point of cod games is to bring us the most realistic picture of war and genocide so that it will rase awareness about it. So far cal of duty has shown us WW2 as well as WW3(if it ever beagins) very realisticly and if every politician is to play the No Russian mission, he might just say "dude this can happen to my people on my airport, i dont want a war."

09-20-2010, 11:22 AM
i like the 'don't want war' part because civilians are always included in war.

but basically it is a line. personally i want civilians in games, but only in order to reinforce the notion that you never kill a civilian but making the player wait before they can respawn before continuing. It's really that simple. I personally think we have to take responsibility for our actions, and that includes those who make games. There is a monty python humor to GTA, but given the fact that society is made up of all sorts of mental states, I think it not wise to reward that type of behavior even if there is only one person on the planet who might use that as an excuse to actually target real innocent civilians. Our games aren't that important that we can't sacrifice that type of gaming (the targeting of civilians).

Our good games are a struggle between two sides, who ever has the best strategy and skill wins (typically). Civilians aren't really a part of that struggle, yet as I pointed out they do offer an opportunity to reinforce 'doing the right thing'.

So, that's my policy, but you and your clan can certainly play all of those games as it is a free world. So no need to defend or whatever, it just depends on your point of view.

I also agree that us humans need to vent, so gaming even with GTA can allow that to happen, so in fact maybe in the future it'll be shown that GTA has done society a favor in lowering criminal acts. ;)

09-21-2010, 12:22 PM
well green, you have officialy left me speachless. you are smart.

Here is a historycal event in the STUPIDEST DAY OF SERBIA EVER. If someone knew what would have happend(longterm) this would have not happend.

The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide,[1][2][3][4][5] refers to the July 1995 killing of more than 8,000[6] Bosniak men and boys, as well as the ethnic cleansing of another 25,000–30,000 refugees, in and around the town of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina, by units of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) under the command of General Ratko Mladić during the Bosnian War. A paramilitary unit from Serbia known as the Scorpions, officially part of the Serbian Interior Ministry until 1991,[7] participated in the massacre.[8][9] It is alleged that foreign volunteers including the Greek Volunteer Guard also participated.[10][11][12]

In April 1993 the United Nations had declared the besieged enclave of Srebrenica in the Drina Valley of north-eastern Bosnia a "safe area" under UN protection. However in July 1995 the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR), represented on the ground by a 400-strong contingent of armed Dutch peacekeepers, failed to prevent the town's capture by the VRS and the subsequent massacre by the Bosnian Serbs of more than 8,000 civilians and prisoners, mostly men and boys.[13][14][15][16]

The Srebrenica massacre is the largest mass murder in Europe since World War II.[17] In 2004, in a unanimous ruling on the "Prosecutor v. Krstić" case, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), located in The Hague, ruled that the massacre of the enclave's male inhabitants, accompanied by the forcible transfer of all of the women, children and elderly, constituted a crime of genocide.[18] Theodor Meron, the presiding judge, stated:

By seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims, the Bosnian Serb forces committed genocide. They targeted for extinction the 40,000 Bosnian Muslims living in Srebrenica, a group which was emblematic of the Bosnian Muslims in general. They stripped all the male Muslim prisoners, military and civilian, elderly and young, of their personal belongings and identification, and deliberately and methodically killed them solely on the basis of their identity.[19]

In February 2007 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concurred with the ICTY judgement that the atrocities committed at Srebrenica constituted a genocide, stating:

The Court concludes that the acts committed at Srebrenica falling within Article II (a) and (b) of the Convention were committed with the specific intent to destroy in part the group of the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina as such; and accordingly that these were acts of genocide, committed by members of the VRS in and around Srebrenica from about 13 July 1995.[20]

The ICJ also ruled that Serbia "has violated the obligation to prevent genocide", and that Serbia was to cooperate fully with the ICTY including the transfer of individuals accused of genocide to the ICTY.[21] Ratko Mladić has been accused by the ICTY but still remains at large and is suspected of hiding in Serbia or in the entity within Bosnia and Herzegovina called the Republic of Srpska.[22]

The majority of those killed were adult men and teenage boys but the victims included boys aged under 15, men over the age of 65 and even reportedly babies.[23] The Preliminary List of People Missing or Killed in Srebrenica compiled by the Bosnian Federal Commission of Missing Persons contains 8,373 names,[6] some 500 of them under 18,[24] and includes several dozen women and girls.[25] [26] As of March 2010, 6414 genocide victims have been identified through DNA analysis of body parts recovered from mass graves[27] and 4,524 victims have been buried at the Memorial Centre of Potočari.[28]

In 2005, in a message to the tenth anniversary commemoration of the genocide, the Secretary-General of the United Nations described Srebrenica as the worst crime on European soil since the Second World War, and while noting that great nations had failed to respond and that blame lay first and foremost with those who planned and carried out the massacre and those who assisted and harboured them, acknowledged that the UN itself had made serious errors of judgement and the tragedy of Srebrenica would haunt the UN's history forever.

i personaly think that if there was a simulation to show to the solders and comanders of the army this would have been prevented. I am not proud for what happend and i am doing what ever i can to "redeem" the sins of my state. some serbs(sonme 60%) think that this was justified and heroic. Those that see the error are marginalized and discriminated for "not being REAL serbis(and i am atheist in a fanatic state can u imagine the amount of hate me and those like me recive? xD )". I am more than a real serb, i am yugoslavian, i have friends in bosnia, croatia, albania and i am proud of them. If serbia and the whole balkan region is to advance we all have to forget the war and start working together to bring respect to once a greatest nation ever.

edit: if you want to read more about this monstrocity tat should never happe again on any planet here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre

09-21-2010, 12:51 PM
massacres happen because people, dumb people that is, actually think they can get away with it. If a simulation was done the people who did it would look like the monsters they are and i think that the 60% you say 'think that massacre was justified' would quickly change their minds... but then again maybe those sort of horrors helped bring about the stop in hostilities more quickly. Lets only hope that the victims can be thanked for bringing about peace.

The whole Yugoslavian thing was a sad day in world history, but reflects just how extreme human thought can be. That's maybe why I say the 'drilling into all humans the idea that killing civilians should always be avoided, even in video games' is an important cultural thing everyone on earth should adopt.

when you blur the lines between right and 'really wrong' you make it appear culturally acceptable. A dangerous thing to those who don't have enough experience in life to understand the consequences, or are driven by other things like hate, greed, or whatever.

09-21-2010, 02:53 PM
Good replay, it has been a while since i talked to someone so smart on this matter. I admint, you are right. If you ever visit serbia, please contact me.


01-26-2011, 02:45 PM
maybe we'll have a conference one day, or at least a bbq and gaming tournament :)


Russian media links airport bombing, Modern Warfare 2
By Tor Thorsen, GameSpotPosted Jan 25, 2011 11:46 am PT
State-sponsored Russia Today channel says Call of Duty game "mirrors" Monday's suicide bombing outside Moscow.

Read more at GameSpot and view the Russia Today video: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6286915.html


ahh, another point came to mind. The US Army has been developing virtual technology in order to train it's soldiers as I'm sure other countries do. The purpose is to give the soldier as much experience as possible before entering real combat, in order to allow them to function better by overcoming their fear, hesitation, etc. They call it 'virtual emersion' while we seem to be calling them 'games'. That's a fine line between the two depending on your own person POV. So I reiterate, it is our responsibility as 'responsible adults' to reinforce the values of civilized behavior whenever an opportunity arrises.

simply put, when 'your child acts bad if you don't check that behavior you risk an ever increasing escalation which can get to a point where it is out of control'. Those that need interventions have reached that point. Jefrey Dahmer reached beyond out of control as his behavior was never checked. It is the opportunity games offer to reinforce acceptable behavior, and in fact the opportunity to punish bad behavior (time out for killing civilians) that can add a layer of difficulty to the game and thus be considered a win win.

Developers who condone uncivil behavior, and even reward it are doing a disservice to everyone. While practically everyone can distinguish between a game and reality, it only takes one person to use the game as a virtual exercise, applying it to the real world, to make for yet another sad episode in our human existence.

Considering the vast majority of clans do not tolerate uncivil behavior, you'd think that at some point the developers would get the point and act responsible themselves. Isn't there at least one corporate type at IW who has enough guts to stand up and do what's right? It really comes down to where they have any sense of what ethics are and have the guts to apply them despite peer pressure or monetary gain.

09-01-2011, 04:45 PM
Why You Won't Be Shooting Innocents in Battlefield 3
Exec producer says games should grow up.
August 30, 2011

Source: http://ps3.ign.com/articles/119/1191577p1.html?_cmpid=ign40

While many action and shooting games allow the gamer to gun down innocent civilians, Battlefield 3 won't be among them.

The game's executive producer Patrick Bach has been talking about the practical and moral difficulties of allowing players to kill innocents, or alternatively, of barring them from absolute freedom. He told Rock, Paper, Shotgun, "I'm trying to stay away from civilians in games like BF because I think people will do bad. I don't want to see videos on the internet where people shoot civilians. That's something I will sanitize by removing that feature from the game."

He added, "In a game where it's more authentic, when you have a gun in your hand and a child in front of you what would happen? Well the player would probably shoot that child. But we would be the ones to be blamed. We have to build our experiences so we don't put the player in experiences where they can do bad things."

Many shooting games have allowed the player to gun down civilians, most notoriously in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2's 'No Russians' level, in which the player is free to shoot fleeing people in an airport firefight.

Bach said that restraining the violence "doesn't mean that I don't want people to feel that war is not good" He added, "We are trying to do something that is more mature. Mature not being gore; some people confuse the two. That's childish actually, to want more blood. I think games need to grow up a bit. They will grow with gamers. There will always be games for children, but I want games for grown-ups, games I can play. As long as I'm in the business I will make games that I want to play."