I dunno about this. At what point do we draw a line? Anything goes simply because it's a game?

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/61038

I agree... what next a rape simulator?

Now how is it that those guys can go through a metal detector with squad assault weapons but I can't get through with a belt buckle?

Nuts.

This is different from going on a rampage in Grand Theft Auto in what way?

COD has completely jumped the shark. COD2 was a great game. COD3 added the silly fight sequence struggle business, I didn't play far in that one. COD4 was a nice hallway based SP, but MP was ruined by perks only unlocked in public rooms, and public room gameplay is for the ADHD crew that can't focus more than 5 minutes on an objective based game type. COD WAW added *zombies* of all things. COD MW2 brings in 3rd person and now terrorist gameplay.
They are really over doing this, and not in a good way. I'll gamefly it, but this is getting worse and worse with every passing day.

I dunno, maybe no difference? I think maybe recreating real-life events may have something to do with it. For instance, how about a Columbine school shooting as part of an add-on for Modern Warfare 2?

I think too much is just too much, it's like a HBO TV serie... adding sex and hyper violence in EVERY episode even if it doesn't really serve the purpose of the story, but heck, they are such a "good seller". In that way, Silence of the lambs was scarier showing little than too much... let the imagination do the math and not just adding more violence/sex "porn" sequence. It's too bad because like a good HBO TV show, COD don't need that to be really interesting.

COD4 did what they describe with that scene during the opening credits where you're the prisoner in the car, powerless except to look around, and then executed. That was pretty rough, but damn effective. Now they flip your role trying to "establish cold bloodedness"?
No, they're just trying to top the drama, and mainly the hype, of the last game by pushing it too far. Next time I guess you'll play a terrorist flying into a skyscraper with some lame excuse about making the game more urgent to you also. Making it skippable doesn't make it alright. How many people are really going to skip the sequence if they don't know what's coming? That's ridiculous of them to put that out as an excuse.

1/ Can't believe some guys set up a video camera near his monitor (Ever heard of FRAPS?) You can see the guy in the reflection watching from the other side of the room.

2/ Why would someone waste all that ammo doing that?

3/ Why they moving so slow, it's not like they have any resistance?

I'll wait for the game and see how it's all brought together before I give a #%&*$# what some asshat stupid media report says.

I do work for a fictional Sci-Fi universe, and noone bats an eye when I with the stroke of a pen wipe out Riga in Latvia, for instance, or we release a bioplague on a world and kill billions of civilians.

How is this different from a writer, say TOm Clancy, writing a scene in a book of his where he kills tons of civilians (like the nuke scene from Sum of all Fears). He's actively killing them, even if they are not real.

Is George Lucas evil for blowing up Alderaan in "A New Hope"?

Or if I play IL-2 1946 and bomb a factory/city with a large bomber. I kill fictional civilians workign in said factory, or in any house I might accidently destroy.

*shrug*

Øystein