Burning Washington: A Step too far?

[AA7]

Nope, it's fine to me. Even though the States have the best security in the world, it's interesting how the implemented the White House burning down in the game.

People I know, already have MW2. -_-

[diddyboy95]

Originally Posted by guilemaster

Well, maybe my eyes were playing tricks on me, but i think i saw children in the airport scene. If the rationale of some people is that the M rating justifies them putting whatever they want in a game, why don't they throw some babies in front of those bullets? As long as it gets an M rating, i guess its fine for them to put whatever they want in. I saw the leaked footage, and it goes over my own moral lines. I was kinda sitting on the fence about getting this, but even with the option to skip the scene, I don't really want to be a part of it. I know I'm hard to understand, so just bare with me. You're free to believe whatever you want, and to have your own standards, but i think there is a point where the "its just a game" thing no longer applies. To me, its here.

Finally somebody who understand what im trying to say. Its not all about the location, its about the entire situation. Having children, completely innocent civilians, and families getting attacked is, in my opinion, just a bit too far. I will probably still get the game (depending on GameInformer's final opinion on it), I do not consider this to be ok by any means.
I would like to directly respond to the thread question.
Q: Burning Washington too far?
A: No
Q: Killing innocent civilians, families, and children in a completely realistic, terrorist prone environment, too far?
A: YES

Yes, it is a video game, but just saying that it is fictional does not justify the rating.

[90HeroMAXD]

OMIGOD BURNING WASHINGTON!!!

That's like, worse then Independence day when they destroy the white house. Or or. Washington D.C. Getting destroyed!! Call the censorship comity its a disaster!!!

This is plain BS nitpickers. Finding another reason to call Video Games "Bad" yet we see well a hole bunch of things that are much worse.

[guilemaster]

i don't think that some people are seeing the issue all the way through. No one really cares about the Capitol burning. The whole friggin city was blown up in Fallout 3. That isn't the problem.The problem is the shooting civilians and children bit. And mentioning GTA, people did make a big deal about it. And that was "just a game" also. That counters the argument its supposed to support. If its just a game, why does that stuff even have to be in it in the first place. I certainly hope that people will suggest they like shooting civilians and police in their games. That has to do with an unstable mind-set, and should be talked on in its own topic. As for the fact that no one cares about seeing China or Europe burned down, its because their wasn't as much realism and no civilians were being shot in those games. Now that this is realistic and set in a modern universe, it is much more controversial.

[GuineaPig3]

Oh get out >.> who is offended?.. If i put a cross on a building that gets destroyed ( hmmm a CHURCH) people are going to get offended? what about a synagogue, or a mosque? the ONLY time i would say be unnecessary is to put famous buildings/icons that were destroyed in history and killed people etc. damaged the place~~~ such as... certain events.
Though it is symbolic, people need to just..chill out~ its not like IW is foreshadowing another attack or something.

BTW~ to the poster who said about innocent families and such, you have a great point...but GTA has been here for years and you kill innocent bystanders and such~ which is more realistic in the game than in MW2~, just pointing that out~ whoa btw im got to check the video...now that you say it like that ill see~

You also have to take in effect movies that show way more terrible stuff and taboos than a video game does too...~

[Serpent042]

Originally Posted by GuineaPig3

You also have to take in effect movies that show way more terrible stuff and taboos than a video game does too...~

...And get a lot less criticism.

If its just a game, why does that stuff even have to be in it in the first place.

Because its not a kids game. The M rating is the equivalent of an R-rated movie.

That has to do with an unstable mind-set, and should be talked on in its own topic.

Or maybe they are really trying to drive home a darker situation than the last game? And the whole shooting civilians bit, if terrorists, were to actually attack the US, do you really think they would limit their attack to the military? 9/11 is a perfect example of the fact that some people want to cause as much damage and spread as much fear as possible, regardless of who gets hurt.

Its not an unstable mindset, its realism. If people can't handle a realistic game, then they should be playing something else.

[guilemaster]

Or maybe they are really trying to drive home a darker situation than the last game? And the whole shooting civilians bit, if terrorists, were to actually attack the US, do you really think they would limit their attack to the military? 9/11 is a perfect example of the fact that some people want to cause as much damage and spread as much fear as possible, regardless of who gets hurt.

Its not an unstable mindset, its realism. If people can't handle a realistic game, then they should be playing something else.

(ha! i figured out the quote system)
That had nothing to do with what i said. Perhaps i wasn't clear enough, but what i meant to say was that if you(the player, that is) thinks its fun to go around shooting civilians and that that's okay because its "just a game," then you have a problem.

Movies get less criticism for two big reasons.
1. Movies aren't interactive, and so people automatically assume that they are okay.
2. Video games are targeted to kids(don't give me that crap about "M" ratings. More kids play Call of Duty and Halo games then adults to. And they are marketed towards that group [12-18 year olds]) and so they believe that the effects will be more profound.

but GTA has been here for years and you kill innocent bystanders and such

Right, and i pointed out that GTA has gained more criticism then ANY game so far. It's banned in thailand, australia(big surprise there), and came really close to being banned in other countries including the UK.

Oh get out >.> who is offended?.. If i put a cross on a building that gets destroyed ( hmmm a CHURCH) people are going to get offended? what about a synagogue, or a mosque? the ONLY time i would say be unnecessary is to put famous buildings/icons that were destroyed in history and killed people etc. damaged the place~~~ such as... certain events.
Though it is symbolic, people need to just..chill out~ its not like IW is foreshadowing another attack or something.

Most of the people i've talked about this with aren't offended about this. They are offended that it allows the player to shoot up a bunch of civilians. Its the same issue as GTA, only its MUCH more realistic.

[Serpent042]

Originally Posted by guilemaster

(ha! i figured out the quote system)
That had nothing to do with what i said. Perhaps i wasn't clear enough, but what i meant to say was that if you(the player, that is) thinks its fun to go around shooting civilians and that that's okay because its "just a game," then you have a problem.

Movies get less criticism for two big reasons.
1. Movies aren't interactive, and so people automatically assume that they are okay.
2. Video games are targeted to kids(don't give me that crap about "M" ratings. More kids play Call of Duty and Halo games then adults to. And they are marketed towards that group [12-18 year olds]) and so they believe that the effects will be more profound.

And now I have to ask, how is shooting a civilian different than shooting any other person in the game? In the end, they are both people.

I'd also like to point out that this is fiction, which means that those people do not exist. Now if the game had you playing as a Nazi soldier killing people in a concentration camp, then that is something I would take issue with, because that was something that really happened to real people. I had more written for you numbered points, but decided to leave it out to keep them from distracting from my point.

Its not real. Contrary to popular belief, most gamers are capable of discerning reality from fiction. Those who can't really shouldn't be playing in the first place, which is why its the parents responsibility to moderate the games, not the developers.

[InJoyAndSorrow]

It is a video game... Controversey makes a game sell...

[AA7]

Children and civilians are shot everyday. You guys need to wake up, the world isn't perfect. Infinity Ward is trying to make the game the most REALISTIC as possible. The White House burning down does not foreshadow it will. The States have the best security in the world for god sakes.

A lot of you are using your religious views for this argument as well. No offense or anything, but your religion isn't superior to others, just let the game be and forget about it. If you're against it, don't play it.

It's a 17+ Rated game, so talking about this on a Nintendo site gives more biased opinions as most people here are under 17. Go to another forum and you'll see people being pumped up about the story and looking in depth at what Infinity Ward did, rather than bring the most anticipated game of the decade down.