In The Force Unleashed you play as Darth Vader on the first level. In all the GTA games you have the option of performing some ridiculously immoral and evil deeds.

I guess my point is, if it's simply a way to tell the story, what's so wrong with it?

At first, when I played Force Unleashed, I thought, hey, I don't want to kill the wookies! But then they started shooting at me...

This video isn't playing for me, but appears to be working for those two ^. Anyone else having this problem?

Actually, It doesn't play for me, I just realized I commented on demons comment and then left. I forgot to watch it or vote.

The player loads for me - but no video So I can't vote either...

It doesn't play for me either. Is that the point of the video, to say that playing as a terrorist is somehow unpatriotic?

Tell that to the millions of people constantly playing Counter Strike. You're either a T or a CT, and it really doesn't matter which, as long as your team-mates aren't fucking idiots. Morality doesn't come into it.

I loved that they killed the protagonist in the first game. Maybe you'll get to run around shooting innocent civilians here. Awesome, Infinity Ward, take no fucking prisoners! I like you, Infinity Ward. You've got balls. I like balls.

Won't load for me either, but you can see it via the link.

Spoilers!

It wasn't playing for me either I commented based on the title and controversy channel alone

Here's a working link: http://www.gametrailers.com/user-movie/modern-warfare-2-leaked-footage/333509

Personally I think this looks like Jack Thompson's wet dream.

Well, no matter the videogame precedent this scene is going to catch a lot of heat - and I figure ActiBlizz likes it that way.

*Spoilers ahead*

*No, I'm serious*

We know the game will be wildly popular. We now know its first level involves the player controlling the shooting of a large number of unarmed civilians running in terror. That combination of popularity and opening-intro-controversy will get the Jack Thompsons of the world back on the news talking about the game which, again, is likely more than just a happy PR coincidence for the publisher. Furthermore, we know the Jack Thompsons of the world don't even need a coherent argument or slice of reality to bash the entire spectrum of videogaming. No matter what artistic statement Infinity Ward is trying to make or no matter how 'normal' such a scene would be in an R-rated movie, they know they're going to be slammed over this.

Anyway:

As a game concept and mechanic, ignoring for the moment the likely upcoming controversy? Not sure if I like it. To me personally there was something deeper about Modern Warfare 1's movement restriction in the 1st level where the player watches a military coup through the eyes of a deposed president. The helplessness in controls reflected the helplessness of the situation and afforded the player more observation; by not having to decide where to walk and being literally taken for a ride, the player was instead able to focus their attention on watching the scene that unfolded. The design choice felt purposeful and, to me, increased the emotional affect.

This issue of control, to me, is a key distinction with the prior title versus the opening of Modern Warfare 2. Modern Warfare 2 allows the player to gun down those civilians and in a sense encourages it by requiring the player to keep up with the other terrorists who perform the same actions. I reserve full opinion since I've only seen the shakycam video, but on a conceptual level it just doesn't seem as purposeful. Being placed into the body of a civilian? That would have been interesting from a design standpoint as well; not necessarily better or worse, but I think you could have conveyed the same gameplay message. To me, the official PR response that "the scene establishes the depth of evil and the cold bloodedness of a rogue Russian villain and his unit ... By establishing that evil, it adds to the urgency of the player’s mission to stop them" does not justify the choice from a design standpoint.

Again, clearly this is just ruminating on the designers' decisions without getting deep into the moral or PR aspects of the level. However, I do wonder just how much backlash this is going to get as a result.

TL;DR

This can't be fun.

How many "skins" for suicide belts can there be?

And you'd get motion sickness bowing to mecca 500 times a day.

Moving this video to ant's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

Let the carnage begin. I'll see you putos in Hardcore mode.

EDIT: Change the title to "Choggie's Return"

I'm going to give this vote #10 because I think it deserves all of the attention it gets, and I don't think that MW2 sales will benefit from any additional buzz.
Of course games like this should be legal -- call it art if you want.
Of course parents should keep them from their kids.
..and for those who enjoy playing this level, or think at least it should be in the game, why? ..and think before you answer (sorry for the condescending tone, but damn there are a lot of stupid answers out there!).

This happens so often I have the routine memorised.

Some distributor or developer decides the best way to give their game publicity and to boost its all important opening earnings is to include a gratuitously provocative, sensationalist and utterly unnecessary segment. Somebody acquires the game early, posts the footage on youtube and it reaches critical mass.

The media is drawn to this like a moth to flame in anticipation of easy ratings. They sensationalise it, take it out of content and bring in some 'experts' who have never actually played it or any other video games for that matter but are stalwart advocates against violence in videogames.

They pontificate about how because games are interactive and so realistic, they compel people to commit violence mentioning notable mass killings but being unable to provide any peer reviewed evidence for a significant link between the two.

Uproar ensues, game sells better than it would have otherwise. Rinse, repeat.

So what happens if you shoot all of the 'other' terrorists?

You can't kill them basically. You can try, but I'm pretty sure Makarov who is the main bad guy is just invincible.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by gwiz665.