My feature article for my Journalism course. Please comment on what you think, whether you think I should change anything,etc. Would love to know your opinions! And whether you think my title is any good or if you have a better idea...haha.
The doors open, you’re in an airport, you have a gun. The people you’re with open fire on innocent people. There are screams, cries. People are clinging onto each other, trying to help each other. There is blood everywhere. But what do you do? Do you indulge on the pleasure of mowing down innocent, unarmed people? Or do you force yourself to watch but not shoot anyone?
This is the decision players of Modern Warfare 2 are given in only the third level. Even before the games release, Modern Warfare has been all over the news but people are beginning to think the controversial level was put there just for publicity as players have the chance to skip the level without missing out on much. There is no “trophy” for completing this level and it has been argued it doesn’t add much to the storyline of the game.
An article on thesixthaxis.com website reported that two weeks before the release of MW2, footage of the game was “leaked” onto youtube. It was the airport level or “No Russian” as it’s also called, that was leaked in order to build more excitement over the game. Of course, Activision’s PR department fought back against these claims:
“The leaked footage was taken from a copy of game that was obtained illegally and is not representative of the overall gameplay experience in Modern Warfare 2. The game includes a plot involving a mission carried out by a Russian villain who wants to trigger a global war. In order to defeat him, the player infiltrates his inner circle. The scene is designed to evoke the atrocities of terrorism.”
It’s true; the level does make you think about how terrible it would be to be in that situation and perhaps about how you would actually react. However, a lot of gamers have said they have laughed whilst shooting down the civilians. Is this revealing their true character or is it just that we can easily distinguish between reality and the virtual world?
An interview on gamepro.com with the script writer of Modern Warfare 2, Jesse Stern, allowed the writers of the game to give their reasons of why that particular level was in the game. Jesse Stern explained:
“People have really strong reactions to the airport scene and it's been fascinating because we all wanted to make it something that would be upsetting, disturbing, but also something people relate to -- as terrifying as it is, you want to know. And there's a part of you that wants to know what it's like to be there because this is a human experience.”
Psychologists and sociologists however, have always argued violent video games and films significantly influence society and especially young people. Stacey Osborne, a sociology lecturer at Portsmouth College, said:
“I think the violence in video games is taken too far, and does promote a more violent culture, especially among youths. Games of the past did not contain as much violence. Violent games do have an impact on society. It dehumanises violence and makes it feel like a game, a competition.”
It can be argued that video games have always been violent, it’s just now the graphics are so realistic, we think of them as being real. The same can be said for films but you can’t be a part of a film as you can a video game. It’s the fact you’re interacting with the action that seems to make the difference to sociologists. Osborne continues to explain:
“Although, I do not think they impact everyone in the same way. Some people, especially youths see them as a harmless leisure pursuit. It might be older people who do not understand them. There are also a lot of moral panics related to violent games and videos e.g. Jamie Bulgers murder, which can cause the public to overreact.
Although it might be that youths have become desensitised to films, because of movies like saw, so they look for something different, something they can get involved in; video games.”
This brings up another problem, MW2 is rated 18. Yet a lot of youths get a hold of the game one way or another, whether they order it online or get their parents to buy it for them. It seems parents have a lack of interest in their children’s hobbies and therefore do not research about these games they are buying for their children before giving it to them. So is it down to individual responsibility rather than the gaming industry?
But I think we’re missing something here, the opinions of the people who really play these sorts of games. Members of the Official Playstation Magazine forum on Facebook spoke out about what they really thought of the “No Russian” level.
Christopher McDonald, 20, said: “I felt like Infinity Ward had really but me into the shoes of someone in that situation, and was thinking to myself that I didn't need to actually shoot anyone, but would have to for the sake of the mission. Immersion and all that...
”Second time round? Nothing. The shock factor had gone, and in the end I just looked at it as shock factor. Just another level in the game, that's sole purpose if any, was to kick things off.”
Jake Newman, 17, said: “I think the way it was hyped up also made it seem worse than it really was.”
Craig Venables, 18, said: “I wasn’t bothered at all. That kind of thing could happen in real life. So it didn’t bother me in the slightest.”
Diarmuid Durnin,18, said: “When you first start the level and the civilians look at you just as you open fire, that part actually scared the hell into me…it’s the sheer brutality of it...”
So there are mixed opinions between gamers themselves. Even gamers cannot agree if violence is necessary in games or not. But it would have been a sadder thing if we were never given the choice and the level or game was censored completely. In the words of Voltaire, “Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too.”
No comments:
Post a Comment