Author: Dean DeChiaro
Last week I waited in the long line outside Gamestop to get my copy of Infinity Ward and Activision’s latest video game release, the widely anticipated “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.” I don’t identify as a “gamer.” I don’t subscribe to any of those nerdy stereotypes and I only play a handful of games (and when I play those games, I make sure I still shower, eat, sleep and socially interact with other humans). But I love “Call of Duty.” And I’ve never, ever, criticized it – until now.
Leading up to the game’s release, there were rumors that there was going to be a “particularly disturbing” level. I emphasize a feeling of skepticism when I say “particularly disturbing,” because this is a series of games that has, in the past, graphically depicted the detonation of nuclear bombs, the execution of unidentifiable Heads of State and has, overall, shown explicit violence between characters. For those instances, there were never any warnings or rumors of disturbing content, so whatever was included in this new installment must be really, really bad.
And when I turned on the game for the first time, there it was: a message on my television telling me that there was one particular disturbing level, and offering me a chance to skip it if I wished. I’d heard rumors about what it might be, but they didn’t phase me all that much (it’s still just a video game, right?). So I selected no. Let me play the level. Whatever.
The mission in question is called “No Russian.” It refers to the language, not the people. The storyline dictates that your character, U.S. Army Ranger Private Joseph Allen, has been recruited as a deep cover agent with a Russian Ultranationalist terrorist leader, one of the game’s antagonists. To gain his trust, you must complete this mission, following him through Sheremetyevo International Airport (a real airport outside of Moscow) and killing as many civilians as possible . . . meaning all of the hundreds that are present in the level. When they’re all dead, Russian police respond to the scene and you engage them in a firefight. All in all, you kill many, many people, most of them innocent and unarmed civilians.
Infinity Ward and Activision have argued that the level is necessary, acting as a catalyst for the rest of the developing plot of the story. In a way it is, but I personally don’t buy that they somehow couldn’t have gotten around it. The game’s prequel, “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare,” was equally engaging, and one of the best games I’d ever played, and included nothing as gruesome or psychologically harrowing as this.
We live in a time where violence is commonplace, and sad as that may be, there is little we can do to stop it. In real life, in the media and in the entertainment industry, we see little but violence, death and destruction. My parents did their best to hide it all from me, but come seventh grade when all my friends were playing violent s, what were they going to do: get me the game or let me be a social hermit who wasn’t allowed to play? But are the video games we play not violent enough already? The one thing that almost every violent video game has had in common, until now, is that you always play as a good guy. You fight against the terrorists, not with them, and killing civilians has always cost you points, not advanced you in the game.
Within one day of being released, “Modern Warfare 2” made $310 million. If we mark the game at $60 a copy (its standard U.S. market price), that means that about 5,166,667 people have played that level. That’s not taking into account that the game might be a household copy, which means that multiple people are playing, or the fact that people who don’t own the game themselves are playing on their friend’s systems. All in all, it’s a lot of people killing a lot of virtual civilians.
I’m not trying to support the agendas of politicians who rally against violence in video games. If we let them have their way, the only game we’d ever be playing is Facebook’s Farmville. But I do want to call attention to the fact that there is a line between what we can define as acceptable violence and unacceptable violence in video games.
You wouldn’t ever see a level in a video game where you had to fly a commercial jet into a city skyscraper, or execute people based on their race or religion. You wouldn’t see a level where you had to rape a woman, or rob a poor family. So why can you massacre a group of civilians in an airport? Are we that desensitized?
Dean DeChiaro is a sophomore History major. He can be reached at dechiaro@oxy.edu.
This article has been archived, for more requests please contact us via the support system.
