Burning Washington: A Step too far?

[Cameron]

The scenes are familiar enough to even the casual gamer: tanks rumble by, choppers pass overhead, exchanging gunfire with troops on the ground; explosions erupt left and right, revealing the grimacing faces of soldiers fighting a faceless enemy.

But in the upcoming “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2/Infamy” one thing stands out: the gallant mansion reduced to rubble doesn’t belong to some crazed separatist dictator hellbent on all kinds of nefarious acts. Instead, it’s the White House. The scenes of post-apocalyptic scenes of carnage play out not in some fictional town in eastern Europe, but in Washington D.C. itself.

The game’s trailer, which debuted to a national audience tuned into Sunday night’s Steelers-Chargers NFL game, has racked up close to 200,000 views since its posting on YouTube Sunday, and reports have it that more than a million have pre-ordered the game.

Does the game go too far? Is it offensive?

Taken from: ‘Modern Warfare’ trailer: Does Washington burning go too far? | csmonitor.com

That is one perspective from the Christian Science moniter but are they really correct? Are scenes of a destroyed capital of a recently attacked nation going too far or is it nothing compared to how far some games go?

[Snakepit]

Seems perfectly fine to me. Canada did it in 1812.

It's okay to set off nukes anywhere else in a game, but if it's the US it's too far? Anyone that thinks that needs to get over themselves.

[Cameron]

Originally Posted by Snakepit

Seems perfectly fine to me. Canada did it in 1812.

It's okay to set off nukes anywhere else in a game, but if it's the US it's too far? Anyone that thinks that needs to get over themselves.

That is exactly what I was thinking. This article implies that it is ok to bomb eastern european countries, but not major countries anywhere else.

[JackAttack]

Originally Posted by Cameron

Taken from: ‘Modern Warfare’ trailer: Does Washington burning go too far? | csmonitor.com

That is one perspective from the Christian Science moniter but are they really correct? Are scenes of a destroyed capital of a recently attacked nation going too far or is it nothing compared to how far some games go?

This already nulls and voids their opinion, so...

[Cameron]

Originally Posted by Volaticus

This already nulls and voids their opinion, so...

As a Christian, I thought you would have accepted their view.

[NathanCat24]

It's a game, so I wouldn't take it so seriously. Of course, there are times when games go too far. I don't see why it's so bad to have America bombed in a video game and not other countries.

While other people are whining and complaining about the game, I will be playing it on my new Modern Warfare 2 Limited Edition Xbox 360.

[AnaBanana]

Originally Posted by Cameron

As a Christian, I thought you would have accepted their view.

Jack's not Christian, he's Jack-an.
I totally agree with Snakepit and Jack, it shouldn't be any different to bomb the U.S. in the game. Besides, it's not real.

[pascal]

"Recently attacked"?
9/11 was 8 years ago. It's a video game. So they should probably get over it.

[Serpent042]

Yes, because its ok to destroy buildings in other countries but the US is too far. Yes I'm being sarcastic. From the perspective of someone who lives in the US, I think that having to defend my own turf would make the game more intense.

[Baseballer]

Lol. What about Fallout 3? Too late to pull the "oh no! not OUR country" card. Besides MW2 is going to be epic, its too late now.