By now, many of you will have played Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 and seen the questionable sequence. It appears in the middle of the game after a shoot-out and seems to be ‘found camera footage’.
Activision quickly removed the YouTube videos as they surfaced, but it still caused considerable discussion when the story appeared, especially given the characters involved.
Our two sided poll saw Team Adam, who eloquently argued that the scene was part of the story, face off against Team Tuffcub’s view that it was superfluous.
Here’s the gist of Adam’s argument:
This scene can be shocking and you could even call the act sick, but the fact is that these things happen and in fiction (whether a movie, book or game) real life events are often mimicked to engage the reader, viewer or player and this is no different.
On the opposing side, Team Tuffcub who questioned why the scene was included:
The child’s death is not shocking because they blew a kid up, it’s shocking as it’s in the game with sole purpose of generating headline news across the world and shifting a few more copies of Modern Warfare 3.
There was no need for this to be a family, the sequence could have had the same impact (possibly more) if they had blown the truck up amidst the crowds of tourists on Oxford Street.
So who won the battle?
Well it seems that both teams can claim a victory of sorts but with 43.54% of the vote Team Tuffcub stormed to the lead as many thought that the scene was deliberate tabloid baiting.
However, Team Adam can claim a victory as, by and large, the mainstream media have completely ignored the virtual child being murdered and concentrated on the important matter of publishing photos of the 7/7 London bombings beside screen grabs of MW3 despite the BBFC stating that there is no link between the two.
Thanks to everyone that voted.
Now that the game’s out and (hopefully) lots of you have had chance to play the section referenced, has your opinion changed at all?
InternationalGamer
This is not comparable in the slightest way in what happens in MW2. The ‘No Russian’ is absouletly worse than this. The fact that you actually have the option to do the terror yourself.
I’ve seem worse and sick seens in movie, including big blockbusters.
Mickey2010
I dont think there was any point in it to be honest! but these things happen in life and we see stuff like this in movies nowadays! it’s sick but if it help the story then let it happen! but in Call Of Dutys case it was kind of pointless it didn’t affect the story at all
cc_star
Not changed my opinion.
Designed to spark an emotion in the gamer. Revulsion at war, the need for war & the need for people who can kill, calmly.
It’s not like the Heavy Rain shower & toilet scene, drying with a towel, which was just gratuitous nonsense designed for adolescents.
Awayze
It’s a game!
RFC2007
I don’t really care. PC brigade out in force as usual. Everything offends these days FFS. Get a grip… It’s just a computer game.
Deathbrin
Hasn’t changed, but then i voted for a storm in a teacup.
jikomanzoku
voted for the teacup myself, the games BBFC rating takes into account the content and, importantly, kids do get blown up – both in the real world and in other forms of fiction. Games either are a valid art/entertainment form comparative to other forms, covering a variety of topics and suitabilities, or they aren’t. If, as I believe, they are, then if you don’t like the content, don’t watch,read or play it – find something else amongst the myriad releases that does fit your sensibilities and preferences.
I don’t watch, read or play everything to “like” it and some of my favourite films, such as Requiem For A Dream, and books, like Blood Meridian and The Road – deal with very bleak themes indeed and are far from “entertaining” but that doesn’t make them invalid or any less brilliant. Within those titles though, any violence that takes place, be it against child or adult, is always viewed as part of a greater patchwork, which makes each instance integral to the story.
If the developers included this particular scene in order to tell their story, then they have every right to use such a dramatic device, but it isn’t neccessarily going to have gravity or lend credence to their story, because of its context within MW3.
The context in which the scene takes place, is similar for me to that of a cheesy summer blockbuster action flick, in that the scene is rendered meaningless. When viewed against a backdrop that consists entirely, of a very polished shooting gallery, in which the hero characters, who recover from gunshots in seconds, mow down hundreds if not thousands of faceless mooks, it doesn’t really have any gravitas for me. The scene ends up looking crass, cheap and insignificant.
I’m not denying for a second that, for some people though, the scene will have the desired effect and will elicit an emotional response; and good for them, it’d be a boring world if we all liked the same stuff. Different people have different tastes, none more or less valid than others.
I’m not knocking the quality of the gameplay or hating on CoD there, its absolutely undeniable that it does what it does Incredibly well and that it’s a great game, I’m just not in their target demographic.
So really, for me it all boiled down to them being able to do the scene if they wish, but that in itself not lending any import or quality to proceedings. If it’s a potboiler, it’ll remain a potboiler, no matter what you throw at the participant. If something in any story is rendered ridiculous or insignificant by its context and surroundings, be that in a film, game or book, it’s probably not for me, but others will love it and all power to them. Horses for courses ‘n’ all that.
So yeah, the polled question, wasn’t quite the question the whole thing raised for me.
Andy Torr
Get over it. If I was a developer, I’d love to put this kind of stuff in a game. Why not? Wish everyone would stop picking up on it like they do and making it a big deal. Don’t like it, don’t play.