Is the Criticism of Modern Warfare 2’s ‘No Russian’ Mission Warranted?
Both the enthusiast gaming press and the mainstream media have rendered their verdict on Modern Warfare 2’s ‘No Russian’ mission; they are outraged. For those unaware, the mission pits you in the shoes of an undercover agent trying to infiltrate a terrorist cell by any means necessary. When the terrorists enter an airport to murder many innocent civilians, you have to at least accompany them, and have the option of participating in the slaughter.
I’m not going to discuss whether or not the mission in the game makes sense or dictate what others should believe. I want to offer my take on a few of the arguments being made by both critics and defenders of the content which I think verge on overreaction on all fronts.
Relax, videogame fans
First I want to address some of the defenses I hear from the community. One of the largest is ‘religion is responsible for far worse real life violence, these people are not in a position to comment.’ Does deflecting criticism make it any less valid? A critic doing something equally incorrect doesn’t exonerate games from negative public opinion. Instead of lashing out at critics, we should be exploring whether there’s any validity to their complaints.
Another common defense I hear for both this and many other controversies is ‘it’s just a game.’ To be perfectly blunt: it’s not. I don’t think that videogames are fundamentally less able to discuss critical issues than film, books, or any other form of media. Videogames are larger and more popular than most other forms of entertainment, and downplaying their significance is no longer valid. Modern Warfare is not just a game; it’s a cultural landmark and should be judged as one.
Finally, comments such as ‘I’ve played violent videogames for 15 years, and I’m not a murderer’ are not helpful in the least. Anecdotal information is not going to accomplish anything, and using that as proof that games are harmless is ridiculous. Plenty of people smoke their whole lives and don’t get lung cancer, either.
You think that statue is for Cristo Redentor? Fool, it's a symbol of TERRORISM!
What happened to listening to the experts?
As for the critics from the BBC, this discussion took place on the morning of the game’s release. It’s quite possible that every one of these speakers waited in line to purchase the game at midnight and feverishly played through the campaign all morning before appearing, but somehow I doubt that’s the case.
What happened to listening to informed experts discuss topics, BBC? It doesn’t seem from the conversation that any of these speakers even understood the context of the mission. Did they know you’re warned twice that you’re going to see disturbing content? Did they know that you don’t have to fire on any unarmed civilians if you choose not to? This might not change their opinion, but educated discussion based off a one line summary is usually not possible.
This picture glorifies fire ... and terrorism
In addition, one of the women claims that her fifteen year old was horrified when he watched the mission with her, and somehow this makes it worse? Either she read the 18+ age limit on the package and decided it was appropriate for him, in which case she’s responsible for any harm caused, or she was unaware of the age rating, revealing her irresponsibility as a parent. In neither case is Activision or Infinity Ward to blame.
If she wants to suggest that all objectionable media should be banned, that’s one thing, but I don’t think that’s an argument she’s willing to make. The question of whether or not this is appropriate for children given ‘they’re going to get their hands on the game anyway’ points mostly to parental irresponsibility or retailer apathy towards age gating. I am of the opinion that adults should have access to whatever fictional content they want.
A further criticism I’ve seen leveled at the game is that violence is worse when it’s against unarmed civilians than when it’s against other soldiers. If that’s the case, why was the outrage in GTA over the sex and not the random mowing down of civilians in automobiles? Why was there no similar outrage over Age of Empires where you could kill random peasant laborers? Likely that’s because it didn’t make exciting news as Age of Empires wasn’t as popular or graphic, but I guess it isn’t solely the content that counts.
Terrorist in training?
Critics seem to take issue with the concept that playing this mission glorifies terrorism as by default you should be enjoying everything in a videogame. How is this any different from Air Force One, where terrorists don’t just take over a plane, but hold the President hostage? How is it different from Arlington Road, where the terrorists win in the end? How is it different from Red Faction: Guerilla, where you are clearly a terrorist but painted as the protagonist?
I would suggest that the difference for even these critics who are uneducated on videogame history is that film is different from interactive games. Intuitively I feel like most would agree that Modern Warfare’s No Russian mission is worse than Hostel despite the relatively lower level of gruesomeness because you aren’t just watching.
You know who else used shields, and lasers? Yeah ... Hitler. Think about it
This raises a few points to me: does something like fencing, paintball, or laser tag, which arguably trains you to commit violent acts more than a videogame by putting a simulated weapon in your hand instead of a controller, have a worse effect? In both situations the goal is merely to defeat your enemy rather than actually injure them in person. To be fair, in one situation you’re killing civilians and in the other you’re facing off against willing participants, more analogous to fighting soldiers in a videogame. How does it stack up to football where competition can result in real life injuries? Does that possibility outweigh killing virtual innocents?
I don’t know the answer to that. What I do know is that the mere suggestion that interactivity adds more to the experience by default implies videogames are the most powerful form of media. Any critic who wants to level that argument must then acknowledge that videogames will ultimately be not just the equal of, but be more influential than film, books or any passive form of media.
Finally, I find it curious as a personal aside that multiple hosts of video game podcasts I listen to went out of their way to say they were disgusted immediately by the mission, and could barely get through it. Is that just posturing to make themselves sound less bloodthirsty? Are they afraid of potential backlash from the audience? Only a few co-hosts were willing to admit that they didn’t care and happily gunned down all the virtual civilians to complete the mission. I’m with them; it doesn’t bother me at all and given MW2’s sales figures, it doesn’t bother many people.
Several trends are clear to me: that videogames are as significant as any other form of media currently, and those arguing games are just a game either as defense or criticism are in a losing battle. It is also clear that there is an intelligent discussion taking place on blogs like The Brainy Gamer and others behind the scenes, it’s just not reaching the mainstream.
When videogames are acknowledged along with the internet as the most significant leisure development of our generation, that intelligent discussion will finally come to the forefront. I don’t mind criticism; what I can’t stand for is nonsensical, uneducated and knee jerk reactions to ideas which are actually quite important.
