I Can't Defend "No Russian"

This post contains spoilers for Modern Warfare 2.

I've had to defend a lot of shit for the sake of video games. When Hot Coffee was burning up the media, I stood behind Rockstar. After all, the content in question was only viewable after a good deal of "teh haxorz" by the player. I thought it was silly that the game had to be temporarily re-rated.

When Manhunt 2 was given an AO rating, I thought it harsh. When Mass Effect was criticized for the inclusion of a sex scene, I stood up for it. When every other M-rated game gets banned in Australia, I'm puzzled.

But I cannot defend Modern Warfare 2's "No Russian" level. I thought that putting the player in the role of a terrorist who went on an civilian-murdering rampage in a crowded airport was too much. Yes, I know that you weren't really a terrorist, but rather some American agent pretending to be a terrorist. Frankly, once you stand around and just watch a bunch of people shoot up a group of unsuspecting tourists, with the option to join in on the "fun", it doesn't really matter. You notice how they all scream as you shoot them? It's because you're terrorizing them. See the word? Terrorize/terrorist.

Once again, you do not have to join in on the slaughter. You can just watch, and slowly walk over the corpses of the innocents as you follow your murderous entourage. Of course, from the plot's perspective this makes no sense, since surely your terrorist friends would wonder why you weren't joining them.

Still, this isn't the first time we've had the ability to kill innocents. Grand Theft Auto games are famous for it. So why wasn't I outraged over it then? And why am I generally okay with the killing of soldiers in games? In Uncharted 2, a game for which my love is greatly known, you kill hundreds of people. If I am to humanize these targets the same way I would the virtual denizens of Modern Warfare 2's airport, could I really bring myself to believe that all those people deserved death?

I don't know why I think that Modern Warfare 2 has crossed that line, but when I went through that level, watching the lifeless polygonal models run from their inevitable deaths, I was uncomfortable. What purpose did this really serve in the game? Some would say the plot would require it. I would agree that the plot called for some sort of act of aggression, to be perceived as from the US, to instigate the Russian invasion of America. I just think the way they went about it lacked any subtlety and, frankly, taste.

I felt angry and disgusted. Some told me this was intentional--that the scene was meant to make me feel this way. Frankly, I don't appreciate someone using terrorism to toy with my emotions. How many of us criticized our government when they did the same to instigate war?

Terrorism is incredibly serious business. It's a subject that has to be treated with delicacy. As much as I love gaming, I would not say the hobby is known for its light touch. No, gaming is associated with shooting, action, over-the-top thrills. These are the things that Modern Warfare 2 does well. I do not appreciated them trying to show me the horrors of terrorism in the midst of what is essentially the gaming equivalent of a popcorn action film. It's like shoehorning a scene from Schindler's List into the middle of Star Wars. It's just not appropriate.

I'm not trying to say that gaming needs to be regulated to cheap thrills and dumb action. The deep stuff just needs to be handled better. Trying to commentate on terrorism by putting the player in the role of a terrorist just doesn't make sense, especially in the middle of an experience as entertaining as Modern Warfare 2. Too many people would see it as an invitation to try to have more fun, where clearly none should be had.

In the beginning of the game, players are given the option to skip the level, showing that even Infinity Ward knew that they may have gone too far with this. Does this exclude the level from criticism? How many people would actually choose to skip a level in a game they bought, especially when they are only told vaguely that it may make them uncomfortable.

I'm not on a crusade to "protect the children" or to censor anything. Obviously Infinity Ward has the right to do whatever they want. It's their damn game. Again, I'm sure a lot of people will disagree with everything I'm saying. That's fine. Personally, this was just too much.

-Mike Minotti

See this post and more on my site: Give Mike Minotti A Gaming Journalism Job.

(10)

John Ostermiller

December 09, 2009

In my opinion, whatever hope Infinity Ward had in "blowing minds" with this level was lost on me the second I opened up on a random street corner in GTA 3. Heck, as I have oft-done before I would go back to what the CO-OP/formerly 1Up-Show guys had to say... GTA IV presented an environment I actively tried to conform to - driving properly, watching lights/pedestrians.

And it was a chilling, oddly liberating moment of ultra-violence when I tore into some "lifeless polygonal models run from their inevitable deaths" in the shadow of the Statue of Happiness.

... Sorry Mr. Belic, guess things weren't any different in America.

Rich McGrath

Why the double standard? Movies such as Patriot Games, Clear and Present Danger, Air force One and many more show terrorist carrying out malicious activities on to unsuspecting bystanders. Yet when a video game does the same thing we are up in arms, and ready to spread the word via their Blogs.

Alex Martin

The level didn't look that fun. You're walking through a linear level, shooting the occasional ineffective security guard. The civilians look so pitiful that only the coldest players could hurt them for fun, like the cartoony GTA caricatures.

How do you depict terrorism tastefully? You can show it in a reduced capacity or joke about it (both of which are disrespectful) - or you show it in detail, which defies taste by the nature of terrorism.

*I mean hurt them for fun as you would in GTA. Which is different cos GTA pedestrians are so undetailed.

Chris Whittington

Infinity Ward was making a game for people who are drawn to "military action". These types of games are very much in the vein of "there are good guys and bad guys...go kill the bad guys". However, the dev must convince you that the bad guys are, in fact, bad and deserved of a hot round to the grape.

Case in point, in the film "300", I never felt that the Persians were any worse then the Spartans. In contrast, after watching the scene in "Braveheart" where the "rightful" British lord rapes and executes William Wallace's betrothed right in front of him, I couldn't wait to see this guy, and his superiors, get what was coming to them.

Personally, I think that IF made the right decision by having you walk in the terrorists footsteps. The scene was gripping and effective despite how uncomfortable it makes you feel. Isn't that the kind of liberty that's rightfully designated for a M rated game?

Juan Letona

The "No Russian" portion is needed as a plot point for the story to continue, but could of easily as effective if it was just a cut -scene. That's my view, the level does have it's artistic value in the grand scheme of the game.

Chris Cosmo Ross

I completely see what you're saying, actually. But the great thing is, you really don't have to defend the level. It is what it is, and whether Infinity Ward simply meant it as a plot device, or to stir up controversy, I believe they succeeded.

Great article, Mike.

Trevor Hinkle

Great article, and I completely agree. Infinity Ward didn't exactly shock me in a good
way.

Jon Cole

I honestly agree that the scene wasn't completely effective, but for what I think are completely different reasons. I was not really that affected at all by the events, mostly because as other people have said, similarly brutal massacres have gone on in many other media.

What bothers me more is that it seems intentionally sensationalistic and makes little sense in the scheme of things. It's really a hard sell trying to convince me that finding an undercover American agent at the scene of a massacre in some garage where undoubtedly people could determine was the staging ground for escape was the lynch-pin for World War III. Sure, the political climate may have been sketchy, but the scale of the attack on the U.S. just felt too decisive and not sloppy enough to make me infer pure reactionary response.

The intended effect was probably increased attention to the game in general and plot progression, one of which is shameless and the other makes no sense. The only other consequence of the scene that might have been intended was proving to the player that Makarov was actually a formidable and cunning opponent, which is probably the only successful caveat of the whole scene.

Jeff Parsons

January 05, 2010

I hadn't read your piece before I wrote mine today, and it seems like we were on exactly the same page. I didn't mention the bit about defending videogames, but it's definitely accurate here. That was a thought going through my head as I "played" that mission. You can't really justify its inclusion in the game.