I think Infinity Ward has succeeded with making their point. This game travels far beyond your typical shooter. This game depicts the reality of war in a tragic, artistic, and true fashion. This scene is NOT intended for those who can’t handle it or for those who are too immature to process the meaning behind it.

Parents, this one’s on you. It has a rating for a reason. It’s sad, terrifying, horrific, and leaves you feeling sick to the stomach. You can shoot innocent civilians, or simply walk through it while the other terrorist do the killing. I shot them because it was implied in briefing that sacrifices would have to be made for the greater good.

If you play it, you’ll learn the meaning behind this scene by seeing what unfolds after. There are some major things to take away from it. Terrorism is of ultimate evil. It is not funny, nor is it to be taken lightly. The threat is real to anyone, any place. Furthermore, sacrificing innocent lives for the greater good can cause a reaction far beyond what you had intended.

If you or your kids can’t read into what it’s really about, stay away. I hate to think of some kid laughing their way through the airport in Columbine style.

And when I play multiplayer, I’ve had two distinct mindsets at various times. Sometimes, I feel as though I’m in a competitive sport, with the soldiers as mere icons, rather than actual serious concepts. I think this is just fine. Other times, I allow myself to appreciate the experience of being a part of a military team, and what that must be like. Both instances I find to be valuable.

Ironically, in my job in the air force reserve I’ve actually loaded ammunition onto planes that then go on bombing runs on terrorist cells, so I understand the necessity of death, dismemberment and wanton destruction in war better than most, but if anything that means I enjoy its simulation even less.

On the issue of tweens most-wanting MW2, that’s another example of a trend I find MOST disturbing: kids in our culture not only gravitate toward innapropriate material, but it’s often marketed to them and parents don’t even care. I must say, though, it’s a lot better of a situation in the gaming industry than in the film, tv, and music industries. At least game publishers are somewhat wary about blatantly marketing their wares to teens. On the other hand, maybe they don’t have to since most of the industry IS teenagers and young kids.

(Incidentally, while playing the E-rated Sid Meier’s Railroads!, I was struck by the fact that the game promotes ruthless capitalist acumen. Not only do you compete with other rail barons, but the only way to actual success is to destroy their plans own for success. When you do so, you are treated to a fullscreen freeze frame of your opponent wallowing in despair. Is this what we want to teach our children? To hope for the the failure of others? Is that innocuous just because it doesn’t include decapitations or innuendo or words that kids use regularly on the playground in elementary school?)

That Modern Warfare 2 is rated M should tell every parents something about the game’s content. Though the fact that it’s apparently earned Most-Wanted Game status for tweens says something else.

Amusingly, Australian authorites, like usual, are missing the point:

The consequences of terrorism are just abhorrent in our community and yet here we are with a product that’s meant to be passed off as a leisure time activity, actually promoting what most world leaders speak out publicly against.

As if Activism would be legally allowed to “promote” terrorism.

Either way, this is NOT a kids game. I think most “Gamer” dads would understand that and take precautions (assuming they are good at being a dad). The problem is that I think that many parents, especially those that don’t play modern video games, still take the Game in Video Games too literally. I hope this will change as gaming becomes more prevalent among adults.

For parents, it is easier to monitor movies. More parents watch movies than play games, so they are familiar with the territory. But parents that don’t play games will have to make an extra effort to be familiar enough with what their kids are playing.

Well, save for the fact that I acknowledge that the degree of distancing, while facilitated by the kind of game, is most basically a function of the degree to which individual players identify the fantasy with the reality.

Back in the day, Bugs Bunny and the Three Stooges came under attack for their violence and the “fact” that they would prompt their young viewership into like action. We argue, But they’re too cartoony. No one would take them seriously. But apparently some children did and hoped to mimmick the roles these fictionalizations played out. Of course, not all children did. The one’s who could tell reality from fantasy didn’t.

I can see an argument made that as a game approaches reality we should seek to become more aware of its unreality. But to leave it at the game being a representation of something awful is not a robust enough response since, as I pointed out, so is Super Mario Bros.

The key to understanding the affect of this is always going to hinge on each individual’s reaction to the representation. You clearly invest more verisimilitude into the representation than I do. When I aim a representation of a gun and shoot a representation of a bullet into a representation of a human head, there’s no connection to an analogous real-life situation. If my wife did the same, there would be. And when you do the same, there seems to be at least some connection.

We all approach these things differently and each case needs to be approached on its own terms.

The Dane, good point about the new dimension added on to the story in light of that little detail. I knew about that, but was trying to cram a LOT of facts into a little blog post and just didn’t want to try and fit it in. But yeah, it’s relevant, and it speaks to the complexity of the story – and actually makes me pretty excited about it.

As for pointing out that the computer images aren’t people: I certainly can’t argue with the statement, but it’s important to realize that those computer generated images represent ideas and concepts that actually mean things. So when you aim a representation of a gun and shoot a representation of a bullet into a representation of a human head… well, that’s still a representation of something pretty awful.

This is important because it increases the story-value of the scene dramatically. It raises questions of the ethic of “modern warfare,” of collateral damage (e.g., civilians killed in order to preserve an opportunity to more greatly damage an enemy), etc. It really turns the story-mechanism of the game into something valuable and worthwhile.

Still, at the end of the day, those civilians aren’t people. They’re computer-generated AIs with some sort of ragdoll physic attached. For some people, especially non-gamers, that’s connected so tenuously that they might as well be real people. But for many of us, the connection is always evident and we never don’t feel as though we are playing a game.

I think your point about who should (be allowed to) play this game is particularly salient, too. Back when I had an XBox 360, I had the first Modern Warfare. I remember how horrifying the initial scene in the storyline was – watching passively from the perspective of a political prisoner as you are driven to your execution, unable to do anything other than look around at all the death and mayhem around you; watching one of the bad guys cock a pistol, point it at your head, and pull the trigger. I thought it was gripping, raw, shocking, and real. It made a statement to me about the world and the type of mentality it takes to show that kind of brutality. My students thought it was boring because it was 3-4 minutes of video game that they didn’t get to shoot anybody.

I hope and pray that more parents will begin fulfilling their role as spiritual leaders for their kids and either protect young minds from this kind of media, or (maybe better) take the time to experience it with their kids and talk through the issues.