The Prison of Choice
Except that would be better. Even the most fervent conservative could probably find something to relate to in Al Qaeda’s views and ideas, however extreme and Religiously fundamental they are. What you’re given in ‘No Russian’ is cardboard cut-outs of terrorists; sneering robots with guns that sadistically watch wounded civilians crawl away before putting them out of their misery. Hell, the game even lets you skip the level.
Which is a defeatist way to look at it. ‘Hey, you don’t have to play it.’ Well no, you don’t. You can skip the level. You can not play the game. That the developers themselves put that skip button there is even more puzzling. Either you can skip it and miss out on a crucial element of the plot, meaning that skipping really isn’t an option if you want to understand the bonkers narrative, or that level isn’t important at all to the wider story. After completing the game, I can see an argument that ‘No Russian’ is integral to the plot, but at the same time it seems it would get along just fine without it. You never see Makarov (the terrorist leader) again, and if it wasn’t for one conversation with him in the penultimate level, he may as well have died in the airport. While it did triggered a Russian invasion of America (another laughably crazy concept, further pulling MW2 further away from the serious tone of the airport scene), I can think of numerous other plot devices that would have worked, and would have fit in better.
The invasion of Georgia, for instance, would’ve provided a very contemporary and believable reason for Russia to go to war with America. Russia invades Georgia, America rushes to the aid of the small country, things escalate until Russia invades America. Why they didn’t go with something so simple and fitting with the tone of the rest of the game, I honestly don’t know. It just further points towards doing the level purely for the sake of it and the shock factor.
//Following the script
All of this and I haven’t even reached the point where I condemn the actual scene itself, regardless of context. The Call of Duty games (of which this is the sixth) have always prided themselves on their scripted nature, conveying an extremely cinematic experience to the player that gets the blood pumping and conveys the feel of a battle, even if it doesn’t portray the realism of one. The level of linearity in the games is impressive; it’s quite literally a shooting gallery where you progress through cleverly disguised corridors, firing at the enemies that pop their heads up before advancing. This is fine; I’m not condemning the nature of the linear FPS. The problems arise when the developers include a level that asks you to do something so morally grey it may as well be black.
Some of you may have played the recent slew of Bioware RPGs that constantly bombard you with moral choices. Up until the recent, excellent Dragon Age, most of these have been pretty clear-cut, with a good option, a slightly worse but still good option, and an evil option. These were your decisions to make, to pick and choose as you pleased. If you chose the evil option, that was a conscious decision, and you where forced to deal with the consequences. Maybe you were playing the role of an utter bastard, and that choice felt like the right one to make. The point is it was you who clicked that conversation option, and you who had to deal with the consequences.
[Continues...]
As much as we disagree on the subject Phill, I must say that this is a strong article which contains a very valid argument.
Counterpoint on sister-blog The Daily Scoundrel: http://thedailyscoundrel.com/2009/11/12/games-modern-warfare-2-no-mercy-for-no-russian/
[...] bit in it. Everyone has written about it. From the Telegraph to the Daily Scoundrel to Resolution (Who have hefty reservations that the whole thing works at all). Anyone seen anything else really [...]
In my opinion the scene doesn’t make any sense. I don’t care what kind of undercover agent you’re supposed to be or what your orders are – if you’re not a maniac you would turn your gun on the men trying to kill hundreds of civilians. I don’t care if the big bad guy you’re supposed to infiltrate your way to might possibly have a nuclear bomb, you would kill these other dudes first. You couldn’t help it without being a psychopath monster yourself.
I think the issue is much simpler than you are making it out to be. IW purposefully made this scene to provoke revulsion in the player and to highlight how horrific the act is. You seem to implying that they just put it in there for shits and giggles and the shock factor was just an unintentional by-product of that, which seems to miss the point entirely. I agree that if the scene was placed in greater context that it would have been more powerful but the fact you are actively encouraged to kill innocents (as opposed to something like GTA where killing innocents is an option, but something I’m sure every player did without thinking twice) is what makes it so uncomfortable, and therefore such a good thing. In something like GTA you can get away with wantonly killing hundreds of innocent bystanders without even having to deal with the consequences, even though those consequences may just be aesthetic. This scene doesn’t let you escape from the consequences of your actions and forces you to deal with the ethical implications. That can only be a good thing.
I understand your point Jesse, but I feel that you need to work a little harder to understand the way the world works. This is just a game, but many people are put in this kind of position on a daily basis, albeit less extreme. If it seems like I am taking a ’side’ then I apologise, it is not intended.
In Afghanistan and Iraq both sides routinely kill large numbers of innocent civilians in their efforts to target each other. They either believe the sacrifice (or risk thereof) is worth it, or are psychopaths. Which do you think? The Israelis have attacked nuclear processing plants in foreign countries. The US have shot down civilian aircraft in the gulf just in case they were hostile. Several terrorist organisations in Europe a few decades ago killed innocents to fight what they saw as the march (back) to totalitarianism. I won’t even try to list the various atrocities committed by organisations like the PLO. The UK infiltrated republican groups in Northern Ireland, even supplying equipment to them in some circumstances are part of the cover. We also supply weapons and equipment to regimes who are likely to use them against their own civilian population.
The world is not so simple that you can presume that anyone who makes this kind of decision is a psychopath. Or perhaps you can, in which case they make up a non-trivial proportion of the population.