So you may have heard this game has a controversial scene in which a young family are caught by a terrorist attack in London. The game tells you there is disturbing content ahead of time and gives you the option to skip it, just as it did last time with the airport slaughter sequence. Of course the developers know that you won't skip it, not least of all because you don't know what it is you are skipping (even though it says it doesn't affect your progress). Clever.

The scene (spoilers!) is a small sequence of a young mohter and her cutesy cute little girl being filmed by the father from the perspective of a home movie camcorder thingamobob. They are on holiday in London. As the kid plays around on the pavement chasing pigeons and generally being cute, a van pulls up and then explodes. You don't see any gore, but the family are killed instantly before toxic gas seeps out and the scene ends. It's not terribly pleasant.

It adds nothing to the game, unlike the airport scene which has a purpose and allows you to interact (or not). Even then it was an unpleasant scene.
Is it fair to criticise these sequences for being, shall we say, controversial? I say yes. Games want to be taken seriously as 'art' so their developers need to adopt some responsibility for their content and not just create shocking scenes for marketing value. If we look at it as 'just a game' then the whole package is functionally no different to Pong: colliding pixels you control. What's the point then? I grew out of Pong years ago. Maybe I should grow out of this?

It's not pleasant to watch, IMO. It adds nothing to the game and it's just there to garner controversy of the sort that does the hobby and its participants a disservice. I don't think that's cool. In the context of what is basically a right wing nutter's worst fears made real, a preposterious storyline that could only come from post 9/11 cynics and, i'm afraid, america, it's made worse. The story is totally over the top, has many brutal moments (close up executions) and is ultimately, note for note, a complete retread of evertyhing that the last two games did.

However that doesn't necessarily make it a bad game, because the gameplay in those previouys games wasn't bad. So it's hard to get a handle on this. Do you mark it down for being a retread, or do you mark it high for playing well? It's unique in that regard.

I feel a little weary to be honest, having played about half the campaign (I switched off after that scene, I just lost interest and felt as if I'd been inappropriately touched by someone in a Michael Bey costume). We live in a pretty fucked up world and although it might sound monstrously naive I'm a little tired of the right wing gung ho fantasy world the writers have created. Thing is the first game was done very well; it certainly wasn't tame, but it never crossed the line. It was tasteful and, relatively, well written. Certainly it wasn't realistic, but it was plausible, exciting and fun. I didn't have to see a young family die in a bomb explosion or watch as terrorists slaughter an airport full of civilians. The sheer number of bodies left after each set piece just increases. The set pieces are done well, but again they are variations on a theme: escape from the Russian sub is the jetbike escape from MW2, chase through an African shanty town is the favela chase from MW2. Sometimes this is done with a wink and a nod (the aircraft scene with the Russian president), mostly it is not.

Perhaps the metacritic audience that marked the game down (and then some!) are to blame for mistaking MW3 to be so different, but the developers have gone on record as saying they have made a few significant changes.

Mostly in multiplayer, though to be honest if you didn't enjoy it before you wont' now! 12 hours after release there were already people who had reached rank 40. 9 hours later I saw a guy that was level 70. I managed to reach level 9. It was toxic: a slaughterhouse for people that seemed to have been playing already for days. So much for the talk of making it a bit more noob friendly. It most certainly isn't that. It's also very unbalanced.

Think of the children!

Meh. That's the easy response.

Though unfortunately the demographic actually playing the game will be those not old enough to buy it.

Quote from: danbuter;488747Think of the children!

Think of *me!* I was disturbed just reading about it.

The world doesn't need that kind of garbage, especially in a "game".

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;488753Think of *me!* I was disturbed just reading about it.

The world doesn't need that kind of garbage, especially in a "game".

That can be said about reality TV shows, violent movies, and a whole raft of media.

The best way to fight stuff like this is apathy - don't buy objectionable games.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;489012That can be said about reality TV shows, violent movies, and a whole raft of media.

The best way to fight stuff like this is apathy - don't buy objectionable games.

That, and making sure people *cough*lazy parents*cough* understand warning labels are not just pretty stickers.

I enjoy the graphic violence. Personally, I don't get worked up over cartoon characters killing each other, no matter who they represent.

I think it's great art, and seeing it helps me immerse in the game. That's all.

Link to the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7thFUlYUU4

I'm struggling to see how there's anything offensive in this.

QuoteHowever that doesn't necessarily make it a bad game, because the gameplay in those previouys games wasn't bad. So it's hard to get a handle on this. Do you mark it down for being a retread, or do you mark it high for playing well? It's unique in that regard.

Well... Not really. This debate goes back at least 25 years. Wizardry and King's Quest in the '80s were hit with this discussion repeatedly.

The whole singple player experience is pretty ugly. It's a preposterous wholly unsubtle story translated into a 5 and a half hour linear shooter that plays exactly the same throughout. None of the depth and subtlety of the first MW is present at all. It's certainly spectacular and well made, but it's aalso a giant clusterfuck that's difficult to see what on earth is going on and, more importantly, which of the many THOUSANDS of russkies are shooting at you. It makes Red Dawn look like Shakespeare. I found it a rather hollow and depressing experience quite frankly. Seeing streets filled with dead nerve gassed civilians and tanks gunning survivors down is not really pleasant and in the context of this absurd story all the more tasteless.

Anyone want to run a Price of Freedom online game?

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;488746So you may have heard this game has a controversial scene in which a young family are caught by a terrorist attack in London. The game tells you there is disturbing content ahead of time and gives you the option to skip it, just as it did last time with the airport slaughter sequence. Of course the developers know that you won't skip it, not least of all because you don't know what it is you are skipping (even though it says it doesn't affect your progress). Clever.

If games want to be taken seriously as a medium for telling stories in (Like movies and books etc), then those scenes should have been treated seriously as part of the plot, and the player shouldn't have had the option to skip them.

(In linear books etc., the reader has the ability to skip any section, but the work never presents them with the choice to skip a section.)

But CoD isn't about that any more, it's about putting the player front and centre in an action film about Gunman McBullets and his ten thousand friends, so... maybe it shouldn't have been there, because that isn't what that genre is about.

Except you aren't front and centre, you're perpetually following at least one other person throughout the entire game in one of the most railroaded experiences ever.

Wow, you didn't like the game. What a fucking surprise there. :rolleyes:

I guess that's how you know you've got a hit game on your hands: GW tells the world what a shit game he thinks it is.

And by the way, what did you think you were playing? Fucking Candyland? It's called "Modern Warfare". Guess what happens in modern warfare...{gasp}...civilians get killed sometimes. Dear god, how offensive. :rolleyes:

The gameplay is fine. Aside from the usual horde of obsessive twitch junkies distorting the online.

The single player story is another matter entirely; the campaign is, at most, 6 hours long - and thats only if you die a lot. The story makes no sense and has no basis in reality, unlike MW1.

I can't remember the last time Russian terrorists released nerve gas in every major city in Europe as a prelude to a massive invasion. At least Drax had the decency to do it in space.

I saw the cut scene and I don't see the issue. You can see actual terrorist footage on the internet where real people died.

I'd love to see more "adult" themed games. I'd love to see more M titles become big hits that are clearly not aimed at children or young teens.

My problem with MW is the way too short single player campaigns. I have no interest in playing with the obsessives.

Does MW3 have an option of bots of varying difficulty levels?

You can see all sorts of shit on the internet, doesn't mean I want it in a video game. What's next Call of Duty: 2girls 1cup?

there are no bots, unless you count the inhuman addicts that comprise the player base. The only option is regular play. There isn't even any skill based matchmaking ffs so be very warned.