Hardcore_gamer:
Can't they just do that with a cinematic?
Yes, but it wouldn't be nearly as effective as playing the scene
Also, how many people do you think will actually feel "uncomfortable"?
I'd be willing to bet 90% of the people who buy the game will feel uncomfortable to one degree or another.

I bet most of the players (aka retarded 12-16 year olds) who play the game will probably be thinking things like "YEAAAAAA! DIE YA BITCHES!!!" or "lol! I just nailed a crotch shot on that guy in the wheelchair!" rather then "wow! That's disturbing".
While possible, I think the people who are actually disturbed will far outweigh those who don't take it seriously

My thoughts anyway *shrugs*

I called it! You all saw it! It's not the Daily Mail though, so I was only half right.

Hardcore_gamer:

CantFaketheFunk:

Hardcore_gamer:
Your playing a terrorist gunning down civilians?

No offense, but are they trying to make censorship boards ban there game?

This sort of mission feels entirely unnecessary, and it won't add enough to the game for it to we both the bad name it will undoubtedly give gamers.

How is it unnecessary if the entire point is to make gamers feel uncomfortable, in order to make the enemies feel that much more evil?

Can't they just do that with a cinematic?

Also, how many people do you think will actually feel "uncomfortable"?

I bet most of the players (aka retarded 12-16 year olds) who play the game will probably be thinking things like "YEAAAAAA! DIE YA BITCHES!!!" or "Rofl! I just nailed a crotch shot on that guy in the wheelchair!" rather then "wow! That's disturbing".

Judging by the responses to the last thread about how many people felt vaguely uncomfortable with it? A good number of them. Do you really think the 12-16 year olds are going to be the primary audience for this game? Many (if not most) gamers are older than that, you know.

There's a difference between a cutscene and putting the players into the shoes of the attackers. By forcing the player to do something they find deeply unsettling and wrong, it creates a far more powerful emotional trigger with the events of the game. You could have chosen to not pull the trigger, but you did. You were the one who aimed and fired.

It's the same reason why Shadow of the Colossus works so well in making you feel guilty for being the one who slaughtered the mostly-innocent Colossi. That game wouldn't have worked nearly as well (or felt nearly as unsettling) if you watched Wander stab them instead of pushing the button themselves.

Again; no one would complain if this were a scene in a movie or a book from the villain's PoV. Why is it suddenly bad for a game to aspire to those same heights?

Really, what is up with the Aussie rating system, really needs to get checke dout. Also, i didnt know we were going to have the oppertuny to play as the baddies, me like!

I hate the guy that posted the leaked video and myself as well.

I'm just saying, if I somehow got to play that part without any of it spoiled for me, it would blow my mind.

Hardcore_gamer:

CantFaketheFunk:

Hardcore_gamer:
Your playing a terrorist gunning down civilians?

No offense, but are they trying to make censorship boards ban there game?

This sort of mission feels entirely unnecessary, and it won't add enough to the game for it to we both the bad name it will undoubtedly give gamers.

How is it unnecessary if the entire point is to make gamers feel uncomfortable, in order to make the enemies feel that much more evil?

Can't they just do that with a cinematic?

Also, how many people do you think will actually feel "uncomfortable"?

I bet most of the players (aka retarded 12-16 year olds) who play the game will probably be thinking things like "YEAAAAAA! DIE YA BITCHES!!!" or "Rofl! I just nailed a crotch shot on that guy in the wheelchair!" rather then "wow! That's disturbing".

A cinematic doesn't really change it for me. If you're the kind of person who gets their jollies from shooting a bunch of civilians in an airport, you're still going to enjoy watching it just as much. I don't see how there's an improvement there, if it makes you more uncomfortable, good, it's achieved it's goal. If it doesn't, then little is actually different in my mind.

Only a quarter of gamers are under 18 and hopefully it's the parents of the ones under 16 who are buying the games, not the children themselves.

Games should be immersive, and that's what this game aims to do. The reactions of the handful of moronic children who get their hands on it really shouldn't come into the decision making of games in general. I remember watching people pee themselves and die in the Sims, simply because I could make it happen, crotch shots will happen in every game that has a crotch and a gun. If that's the worst thing about this game then we really don't have much to worry about at all.

Well of course the Australians were going to flip out. At this point I don't care what they think about games anymore. They'll jump to ban or censor anything, including the internet itself, at any chance they get.

And of course I'm talking about the Australian government doing the aforementioned flipping out, censoring, and banning, not Australian citizens themselves, so no one get offended please.

honestly, Infinity Ward's ability to spin such intense scenarios in CoD4 were just plain out amazing, and it seems like they're upping it for MW2...tho yeah this will be all over the news =.=

Sisyphus0:
Terrorism is another form of war, it's not especially evil, it's actually effective in many circumstances.

Terrorism has never been effective, ever. It always strengthens the resolve of the target and unifies the people against them. This is what West Wing has told me, and I consider West Wing better viewing than you.

On topic, though at first i thought that the scene was in bad taste i realised that i was missing the point. I was meant to think that it was bad and that i shouldnt like the idea of what i was doing. It's a fantastic way to motivate your audience if you remove them from their comfort zone and in this case it will likely make me want to put the suckers in their place alot more than just a cutscene :P

CantFaketheFunk:
Do you really think the 12-16 year olds are going to be the primary audience for this game? Many (if not most) gamers are older than that, you know.

I think it's a pretty safe bet that at least every third person to play this game will be <17.

CantFaketheFunk:
By forcing the player to do something they find deeply unsettling and wrong, it creates a far more powerful emotional trigger with the events of the game. You could have chosen to not pull the trigger, but you did. You were the one who aimed and fired.

I think what disturbs me most about this is that it's too close to what is really happening right now, especially in the middle east, almost every week. In Fallout 3 you have the option to nuke a town and take out alot of people in the process, but it plays in a fictional world where the setting and the plot is very detached from reality.

But terrorists mercilessly gunning down people happens all the time in our real world. And here we are, wealthy western boys with our functional democracy, sitting infront of our PCs and consoles in our cozy living rooms, playing a game where we are the terrorists killing people... just to get some "emotional kick" out of a game. While around the world very real innocent people are suffering that fate on a regular basis.

I don't know. The contemporary nature of the event in conjunction with having the player act it out on the wrong side of morality, to me feels like violence porn. At best, it's extremely bad taste.

CantFaketheFunk:

Again; no one would complain if this were a scene in a movie or a book from the villain's PoV. Why is it suddenly bad for a game to aspire to those same heights?

In books or films you're not usually put in the role of the one commiting atoricites.
edit: I misunderstood. I would feel no different about this issue if it where a book.
Also, I would not call it "heights", I would name it "lows".

Shut up Australia, seriously.

Looks like this is another game you guys wont be getting.

vivaldiscool:

sheic99:

Tiamat666:

Sisyphus0:

Hardcore_gamer:
Your playing a terrorist gunning down civilians?

No offense, but are they trying to make censorship boards ban there game?

This sort of mission feels entirely unnecessary, and it won't add enough to the game for it to we both the bad name it will undoubtedly give gamers.

It's a war game about, oh let's see, WAR. Fuck, are you stupid? Terrorism is another form of war, it's not especially evil, it's actually effective in many circumstances. Having some guys shoot a bunch of civilians in an airport is no different from playing an American soldier and shooting a bunch of people trying to protect their country. "Oh deary me, playing someone from another country killing people from this country is horrible!!!! But playing someone from this country killing people from other countries is fine."

As far as I'm concerned there should be no censorship in games, movies, music, books, anything. At most there should be warnings for those who don't want to see certain things, but for those who are mature enough to view REAL LIFE in its entirety, they shouldn't be prohibited from experiencing it.

Hardcore_gamer, your views are cowardly and pathetic, as well as woefully hypocritical. You are not a hardcore gamer.

Sisyphus, you have no idea what you're talking about and your morals are just about on-par with Bin-Ladins. Congratulations.

Why is bombing no longer horrendous when it comes from US planes?

Because military planes at least try to attack military targets?

Fortunately, the US has been doing better at that in recent years than WWII, but not that's not always so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Speedy_Express

I personally cant wait to 203 a bunch of civilians.

But on a more serious note, I was slightly uncomfortable just watching the shit quality video. I think it will be even more powerful when you are walking through the airport later on as a Soldier, seeing all of the bodies you and your other team just slaughtered.

sheic99:

Georgeman:
I feel that this scene is unnecessary. Nothing that couldn't be handled by a cutscene. Point proven further by the fact that it can be skipped, just like a cutscene. I hope that this ISN'T the extent of what Modern Warfare 2 has to offer, that is, military drama replacing gameplay. And seriously, how much more negative publicity do games need? (Oh wait, there can never be enough)

I highlighted the most important word in your post. The sole point of this kind of scene in all forms of media is meant to build drama. This is the game industry trying mature the medium a bit. The only way for the story telling to advance to a serious level is by ruffling a few feathers. I hope that IW doesn't pull this scene from the game.

A game is NOT a movie. Story telling isn't a main part of games. It's an extra. A nice one in some cases, but still an extra. Advancing the story writing in a game won't advance the games' medium at any rate. There have been tons of games with good stories. No one sought to copy them. People (well most of them anyway) do not buy and play games for their story (otherwise Planescape: Torment would have been a very famous game)

And personally I doubt that there are many people who will take this seriously. Most of them will say "Cool, I get to kill civilians!" or "What kind of bullshit is this?!". Thus, why story-based games can only be appreciated by a niche of gamers. Finally, I suspect that the whole "leak" might have been intentional. You know, as a cheap way to entice people to buy the game (a.k.a. Mass Effect syndrome)

Tiamat666:

I think it's a pretty safe bet that at least every third person to play this game will be <17.

IW isn't developing their game with the sub-17 crowd in mind. They're developing it to be played by adults. As robrob posted above, only a quarter of gamers (in NA at least) are under 18. But IW shouldn't be responsible if parents want to get their kids a game that they have no business playing.

I think what disturbs me most about this is that it's too close to what is really happening right now, especially in the middle east, almost every week. In Fallout 3 you have the option to nuke a town and take out alot of people in the process, but it plays in a fictional world where the setting and the plot is very detached from reality.

But terrorists mercilessly gunning down people happens all the time in our real world. And here we are, wealthy western boys with our functional democracy, sitting infront of our PCs and consoles in our cozy living rooms, playing a game where we are the terrorists killing people... just to get some "emotional kick" out of a game. While around the world very real innocent people are suffering that fate on a regular basis.

I don't know. The contemporary nature of the event in conjunction with having the player act it out on the wrong side of morality, to me feels like violence porn. At best, it's extremely bad taste.

So, movies and books can depict modern violence, but games can't? Why?

If the medium is ever going to push narrative limits and define itself as more than just a series of glorified toys, I think it needs scenes like this, or games like Six Days in Fallujah. Maybe there will be stumbles, and maybe it will be in bad taste, but if no one is willing to try out of FEAR of stumbling, then what does that say about the industry? What does that say about gamers?

You're absolutely correct that this is stuff that happens around the globe today, but I think it's for that exact reason that games and developers shouldn't be afraid to tackle it. The virtue that games have always had above passive media like movies and books is their interactivity; in theory when you beat the boss, YOU are the hero. I think games should absolutely leverage that, if they seek to find their own narrative identity as a medium. Sure, IW could just have made this a cutscene, but then they'd just be aping a movie. By making the player do it, by asking the player to play the role of somebody doing something that it makes unmistakably clear is reprehensibly evil, that's something that a book or movie could never do.

If movies had never sought to make people uncomfortable or make them feel bad, we'd never have a film like Schindler's List.

Maybe IW's execution thereof will be in bad taste, but look how they pulled off the aftermath of a nuclear explosion in CoD4 - anyone who plays the game will probably tell you that it's the single most memorable moment in the whole story. They've earned some serious narrative credit, and I think they have the chops to pull it off.

In books or films you're not usually put in the role of the one commiting atoricites.

No, you're not. But the protagonist can be evil, or an antihero. I think if games are going to come into their own as fiction, they should stop just aping movies and try to find their own way of tackling subjects even as controversial as this one.

If you're too disturbed by it, that's why they let you skip it.

Well, on the one hand, the advertising is working. I might go rent it yet, even though its still not my kind of game.

I am intruiged at this, i will buy it and play through. After which i doubt i will want to shoot people in a airport, too far away, i prefer schools (sorry). though i honestly think there government should STFU, games have ratings for a reason, and the PARENTS are responsible for there kids, and employees are there to inform a parent if there kid is using them to get the game (ala GTA 4)

OT: I wonder why Boarderlands wasn't banned . . .

Georgeman:

A game is NOT a movie. Story telling isn't a main part of games. It's an extra. A nice one in some cases, but still an extra. Advancing the story writing in a game won't advance the games' medium at any rate. There have been tons of games with good stories. No one sought to copy them. People (well most of them anyway) do not buy and play games for their story (otherwise Planescape: Torment would have been a very famous game)

Tell that to Mass Effect, Gears of War, Beyond Good & Evil, Half-Life 2, any Final Fantasy game, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver, none of which would be nearly as famous or widely purchased were it not for their stories.

CantFaketheFunk:

So, movies and books can depict modern violence, but games can't? Why?

In movies or books there's actors and you don't have any choice at all. You identify alot more with what goes on in a videogame because you're the one in control, especially in first-person mode. The comparison you're making is flawed because they are very different mediums. Interaction is a very powerful thing. I mean, you acknowledge this yourself;

CantFaketheFunk:

Sure, IW could just have made this a cutscene, but then they'd just be aping a movie. By making the player do it, by asking the player to play the role of somebody doing something that it makes unmistakably clear is reprehensibly evil, that's something that a book or movie could never do.

right here.

CantFaketheFunk:

You're absolutely correct that this is stuff that happens around the globe today, but I think it's for that exact reason that games and developers shouldn't be afraid to tackle it.

I have to completely disagree with you here. The game is not a documentary. It's a game and it lacks decency. Yes, "decency" is a terrible thing to say or expect these days. Only pussies and grandma use that word. But I still believe in something like that and to me it's indecent to make a joke about someone at his funeral. It's indecent to act like a handicapped person infront of someone who is handicapped. It's indecent to play on the shortcomings or misfortunes of others, right in their face, and this is what this game does.

CantFaketheFunk:
If movies had never sought to make people uncomfortable or make them feel bad, we'd never have a film like Schindler's List.

Schindlers list shows you the atrocities commited by the Nazis by showing you what the Nazis did. It doesn't require you dress up in SS-uniform and accompany a Jew to a gas chamber to make it's point, does it? Would you consider it appropriate if Spielberg allowed some cinema visitors to do just that before seeing the movie? So that they can better appreciate what was happening back then?

As an Australian i really hope that this doesn't affect the release of this game, but it does highlight the need to have an R18 rating so that as an adult i can make a reasonable choice in what products I want to buy.

To those of you that are tellin' people to lay off because it's just a game...

Enlist...

See what happens and see if you still agree with the "It's just a game" argument

it's not promoting it. it's not glorifying it. It's not glamourising it or advocating it. It's just... Showing it. Jeez.

Pretty sure I'll be playing that sequence, since it sounds pretty awesome. You always gotta indulge in a little evil every now and then, or all the good drives you fucking crazy.

Tiamat666:

In movies or books there's actors and you don't have any choice at all. You identify alot more with what goes on in a videogame because you're the one in control, especially in first-person mode. The comparison you're making is flawed because they are very different mediums. Interaction is a very powerful thing. I mean, you acknowledge this yourself;

Yes, it is. Which is why games should use that difference to their favor in telling an impactful story. They shouldn't just aspire to make movies-lite, they should aspire to use the strengths of the medium to their advantage.

I have to completely disagree with you here. The game is not a documentary. It's a game and it lacks decency. Yes, "decency" is a terrible thing to say or expect these days. Only pussies and grandma use that word. But I still believe in something like that and to me it's indecent to make a joke about someone at his funeral. It's undecent to act like a handicapped person infront of someone who is handicapped. It's indecent to play on the shortcomings or misfortunes of others, and this is what this game does.

No, the game is not a documentary. Movies and books about the setting don't have to be documentaries; why does a game?

I disagree with you wholeheartedly. How is this indecent? The game isn't rewarding you for doing this. You don't get achievements, you don't get points, your character dies at the end of it. It is portraying this act - because things like this do happen - as vile and completely evil. If the game were in any way making it out to be a positive thing, you'd have a point, but its entire purpose is to make gamers feel genuine anger and hatred toward the villains of the piece.

If a game wants to take its cues from tragic events of the headlines - but properly portrays them as tragic and senseless - how on earth is that indecent?

Schindlers list shows you the atrocities commited by the Nazis by showing you what the Nazis did. It doesn't require you dress out in SS-uniform and accompany a Jew to a gas chamber to make it's point, does it? Would you consider it appropriate if Spielberg allowed some cinema visitors to do just that before seeing the movie? So that they can better appreciate what was happening back then?

You're missing my point entirely.

Movies and games are entirely different types of media. A game can only aspire to be "movie-like" in telling a story as long as it goes the "cutscene" route. It's much more effective to leverage the medium's interactivity to accomplish the same thing.

Movies are allowed to make you uncomfortable and portray atrocities. Why aren't games allowed to make you uncomfortable?

Here's the thing: No one is forcing the player to pull the trigger at all. Ever.

I think this will be very interesting to listen to watch develop. It's nice to see develops taking their games in new and intriguing directions. I'm also very curious why they even released that part of the game, its not like they need the publicity and that could be the most memorable part of the game. Perhaps they have another trick up their sleeve?

CantFaketheFunk:

Yes, it is. Which is why games should use that difference to their favor in telling an impactful story. They shouldn't just aspire to make movies-lite, they should aspire to use the strengths of the medium to their advantage.

Agreed.

CantFaketheFunk:

No, the game is not a documentary. Movies and books about the setting don't have to be documentaries; why does a game?

I'm not arguing against this.

CantFaketheFunk:
..., but its entire purpose is to make gamers feel genuine anger and hatred toward the villains of the piece.

This is what I have a problem with. This doesn't work in this way. It's a contradiction. During that scene, the player is playing as the villain. How is he supposed to feel "genuine anger and hatred" towards what he himself is doing at that very moment? That's a warped proposition. It doesn't make sense. And it's unnecessary. You can provoke strong feelings without requiring the player to act out the "evil-side" of it. That's why to me this is practically a "snuff-scene" and a promotional stunt. Wow, you get to play the bad guys and murder helpless civilians, awesome! And apart from it being morally bankrupt, it's indecent for letting us play out the terrible thing that is happening to people right now.

No, I don't buy into the artsy justifications for having this.

CantFaketheFunk:

Movies are allowed to make you uncomfortable and portray atrocities. Why aren't games allowed to make you uncomfortable?

Of course they can do that. But why do they have to do it by putting you on the wrong side of the argument? As I said, it doesn't make sense.

Tiamat666:

This is what I have a problem with. This doesn't work. It's a contradiction. During that scene, the player is playing as the villain. How is he supposed to feel "genuine anger and hatred" towards what he himself is doing at that very moment? That's a warped proposition. It doesn't make sense. And it's unnecessary. You can provoke strong feelings without requiring the player to act out the "evil-side" of it. That's why to me this is practically a "snuff-scene" and a promotional stunt. Wow, you get to play the bad guys and murder helpless civilians, awesome! And apart from it being morally bankrupt, it's indecent for letting us play out the terrible thing that is happening to people right now.

I was under the impression you were playing as an undercover FBI agent. I may be wrong.

At any rate, I'm not quite following your argument that "It's indecent for letting us play out the terrible thing that is happening to people right now." By that logic, Call of Duty 4 was indecent for allowing the player to participate in a war not unlike what is happening in the Middle East.

Tiamat666:

CantFaketheFunk:

Yes, it is. Which is why games should use that difference to their favor in telling an impactful story. They shouldn't just aspire to make movies-lite, they should aspire to use the strengths of the medium to their advantage.

Agreed.

CantFaketheFunk:

No, the game is not a documentary. Movies and books about the setting don't have to be documentaries; why does a game?

I'm not arguing against this.

CantFaketheFunk:
..., but its entire purpose is to make gamers feel genuine anger and hatred toward the villains of the piece.

This is what I have a problem with. This doesn't work in this way. It's a contradiction. During that scene, the player is playing as the villain. How is he supposed to feel "genuine anger and hatred" towards what he himself is doing at that very moment? That's a warped proposition. It doesn't make sense. And it's unnecessary. You can provoke strong feelings without requiring the player to act out the "evil-side" of it. That's why to me this is practically a "snuff-scene" and a promotional stunt. Wow, you get to play the bad guys and murder helpless civilians, awesome! And apart from it being morally bankrupt, it's indecent for letting us play out the terrible thing that is happening to people right now.

No, I don't buy into the artsy justifications for having this.

CantFaketheFunk:

Movies are allowed to make you uncomfortable and portray atrocities. Why aren't games allowed to make you uncomfortable?

Of course they can do that. But why do they have to do it by putting you on the wrong side of the argument? As I said, it doesn't make sense.

A question: Have you played Shadow of the Colossus?

JeanLuc761:

Georgeman:

A game is NOT a movie. Story telling isn't a main part of games. It's an extra. A nice one in some cases, but still an extra. Advancing the story writing in a game won't advance the games' medium at any rate. There have been tons of games with good stories. No one sought to copy them. People (well most of them anyway) do not buy and play games for their story (otherwise Planescape: Torment would have been a very famous game)

Tell that to Mass Effect, Gears of War, Beyond Good & Evil, Half-Life 2, any Final Fantasy game, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver, none of which would be nearly as famous or widely purchased were it not for their stories.

Tell me then, how do I constantly hear how great are the games' other assets but never the stories? And Beyond Good & Evil shouldn't be on that list, because it was a flop. I think that all of those aforementioned games would be damned fine without a need for a story.

Gears of War? The multiplayer. Mass Effect? The fact that it was a space opera ringed well for quite a few people. And Half-Life 2 took quite a ride on the back of its predecessor which didn't have much in the way of story (Initially it also sold less but over the time and with price drops and the whole Steam Mcguffin it did exceed its predecessor in sales) Batman Arkham Asylum? Duh, it's Batman. (In other words a good game using a famous iconic hero. It wouldn't be all that successful if it wasn't Batman) I won't answer about Soul Reaver because I don't know all that much about the game. As for Final Fantasy, I can safely attest that the feeling of exploring an interesting world is far more memorable than a story or characters.

My point still stands. I almost never see stories copied (especially not the greatest ones), but I often see gameplay ideas stolen right and left.

Georgeman:

Tell me then, how do I constantly hear how great are the games' other assets but never the stories? And Beyond Good & Evil shouldn't be on that list, because it was a flop. I think that all of those aforementioned games would be damned fine without a need for a story.

Gears of War? The multiplayer. Mass Effect? The fact that it was a space opera ringed well for quite a few people. And Half-Life 2 took quite a ride on the back of its predecessor which didn't have much in the way of story (Initially it also sold less but over the time and with price drops and the whole Steam Mcguffin it did exceed its predecessor in sales) Batman Arkham Asylum? Duh, it's Batman. (In other words a good game using a famous iconic hero. It wouldn't be all that successful if it wasn't Batman) I won't answer about Soul Reaver because I don't know all that much about the game. As for Final Fantasy, I can safely attest that the feeling of exploring an interesting world is far more memorable than a story or characters.

My point still stands. I almost never see stories copied (especially not the greatest ones), but I often see gameplay ideas stolen right and left.

I honestly don't think a single one of the games I listed would have been successful (or in some cases, even possible) had they not had compelling stories to go along with them, including Gears of War. In fact, I don't know a single person who bought Gears of War specifically for the multiplayer.

CantFaketheFunk:

A question: Have you played Shadow of the Colossus?

I'm afraid I never even heard of that game. And it's unlikely I'll ever play it as I don't own and will probably never own a Playstation.

JeanLuc761:

At any rate, I'm not quite following your argument that "It's indecent for letting us play out the terrible thing that is happening to people right now." By that logic, Call of Duty 4 was indecent for allowing the player to participate in a war not unlike what is happening in the Middle East.

That's a little out of context. I meant that people getting gunned down by terrorists is something that happens almost weekly. Read the previous posts if you want the whole picture.

Georgeman:

JeanLuc761:

Georgeman:

A game is NOT a movie. Story telling isn't a main part of games. It's an extra. A nice one in some cases, but still an extra. Advancing the story writing in a game won't advance the games' medium at any rate. There have been tons of games with good stories. No one sought to copy them. People (well most of them anyway) do not buy and play games for their story (otherwise Planescape: Torment would have been a very famous game)

Tell that to Mass Effect, Gears of War, Beyond Good & Evil, Half-Life 2, any Final Fantasy game, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver, none of which would be nearly as famous or widely purchased were it not for their stories.

Tell me then, how do I constantly hear how great are the games' other assets but never the stories? And Beyond Good & Evil shouldn't be on that list, because it was a flop. I think that all of those aforementioned would be damned fine without a need for a story.

Gears of War? The multiplayer. Mass Effect? The fact that it was a space opera ringed well for quite a few people. And Half-Life 2 took quite a ride on the back of its predecessor which didn't have much in the way of story (Initially it also sold less but over the time and with price drops and the whole Steam Mcguffin it did exceed its predecessor in sales) Batman Arkham Asylum? Duh, it's Batman. (In other words a good game using a famous iconic hero. It wouldn't be all that successful if it wasn't Batman) I won't answer about Soul Reaver because I don't know all that much about the game.

My point still stands. I almost never see stories copied (especially not the greatest ones), but I often see gameplay ideas stolen right and left.

There is a whole genre of games that story telling is the main focus and that would be RPGs, try telling the millions of people playing them that the story doesn't matter, although lets not forget that storytelling is a huge part of most games, without it all games would be the same linear game just doing slightly different things.

How ironic, as I just watched todays new Doomsday Arcade.

OT: Eh. I'm buying it. I won't skip it. Thats that.

JeanLuc761:

Georgeman:

Tell me then, how do I constantly hear how great are the games' other assets but never the stories? And Beyond Good & Evil shouldn't be on that list, because it was a flop. I think that all of those aforementioned games would be damned fine without a need for a story.

Gears of War? The multiplayer. Mass Effect? The fact that it was a space opera ringed well for quite a few people. And Half-Life 2 took quite a ride on the back of its predecessor which didn't have much in the way of story (Initially it also sold less but over the time and with price drops and the whole Steam Mcguffin it did exceed its predecessor in sales) Batman Arkham Asylum? Duh, it's Batman. (In other words a good game using a famous iconic hero. It wouldn't be all that successful if it wasn't Batman) I won't answer about Soul Reaver because I don't know all that much about the game. As for Final Fantasy, I can safely attest that the feeling of exploring an interesting world is far more memorable than a story or characters.

My point still stands. I almost never see stories copied (especially not the greatest ones), but I often see gameplay ideas stolen right and left.

I honestly don't think a single one of the games I listed would have been successful (or in some cases, even possible) had they not had compelling stories to go along with them, including Gears of War. In fact, I don't know a single person who bought Gears of War specifically for the multiplayer.

But I do think it possible. You see, only a small minority of gamers truly care about stories. Stories can become barriers to the enjoyment of a game, especially, if they are unskippable. Also, just because you think that a story is "compelling" doesn't mean that everyone agrees. Others might call it obnoxious, intrusive, nonsensical, etc. Also, stories are not "replayable" so they are hardly a strong selling point.

Tiamat666:

CantFaketheFunk:

So, movies and books can depict modern violence, but games can't? Why?

In movies or books there's actors and you don't have any choice at all. You identify alot more with what goes on in a videogame because you're the one in control, especially in first-person mode. The comparison you're making is flawed because they are very different mediums. Interaction is a very powerful thing. I mean, you acknowledge this yourself;

CantFaketheFunk:

Sure, IW could just have made this a cutscene, but then they'd just be aping a movie. By making the player do it, by asking the player to play the role of somebody doing something that it makes unmistakably clear is reprehensibly evil, that's something that a book or movie could never do.

right here.

CantFaketheFunk:

You're absolutely correct that this is stuff that happens around the globe today, but I think it's for that exact reason that games and developers shouldn't be afraid to tackle it.

I have to completely disagree with you here. The game is not a documentary. It's a game and it lacks decency. Yes, "decency" is a terrible thing to say or expect these days. Only pussies and grandma use that word. But I still believe in something like that and to me it's indecent to make a joke about someone at his funeral. It's indecent to act like a handicapped person infront of someone who is handicapped. It's indecent to play on the shortcomings or misfortunes of others, right in their face, and this is what this game does.

CantFaketheFunk:
If movies had never sought to make people uncomfortable or make them feel bad, we'd never have a film like Schindler's List.

Schindlers list shows you the atrocities commited by the Nazis by showing you what the Nazis did. It doesn't require you dress up in SS-uniform and accompany a Jew to a gas chamber to make it's point, does it? Would you consider it appropriate if Spielberg allowed some cinema visitors to do just that before seeing the movie? So that they can better appreciate what was happening back then?

Ok, I'm going to get some sort of reprimanding for this, but really.

Take that firm grip you have on what you think is the world around you's balls, and let go.

I don't see why everyones so serious about this. Its a fucking game. Oh no, you're shooting people!

Who the fuck says those people are innocent? In real life, all of them are going to hell. Innocence is a word people throw around to wildly. More than half probably had sex before they got married, did drugs, or stole something.

All of which are against the 10 commandments. Even if you're athiest, all of those are breaking a certain moral code that all people have lost today.