So... we've already discussed it to death but now for the numbers... I'm interested.

www.gamespot.com

[UPDATE] The ESRB's Modern Warfare 2 summary is now live, and it is easy to see why Activision wanted to keep it under wraps for as long as possible. The description describes the exact circumstances of the massacre, and what role the player will be assuming. (WARNING: MASSIVE SPOILERS BELOW.)

-no dedicated servers for pc
-no party chat in MP game for 360
-role play as a murdering terrorist under a ridiculous excuse in SP
-MP with screaming 12 year olds cussing like sailors but with half the vocabulary

This game really doesn't offer much.
Won't buy it, but will gamefly it for the rest of SP, but no MP. And skip the scene.

I'm still getting it for 360 and PS3. Never had plans to get the PC version so the changes there don't affect me. I have not viewed the scene and I don't plan on seeing it until I encounter it in the game. I don't want spoilers and I want to see it in context. I'll decide to play it or not then.

There is no answer on your poll that reflects this so I'm "undecided" on playing the scene but I'm absolutely buying the game.

Was never intending on getting it (probably can play a friends version though on Xbox ;)), but if I do, I will play the scene.

No big deal to me. It is a video game.

Not getting it because of no dedicated server software. That scene wouldn't have bothered me, they are just pixels, if you equate it to real life then the player has the problem not the game, IMO...

I should receive mine via mail today, I will be playing the scene, it is a computer game not real life, I also never had any issues with using napalm in any flightsim or attacking AA positions in build up areas either.

Staffan

I played the scene. But, it sure felt "wrong", even in the context of the game.

ditto. But i'm wondering about a couple of other things. There are a couple of far more violent scenes then that airport level in there. But you aren't hearing anything about......

Already got it AND am playing the scene because I'm old enough to know the difference between a game and my own personal real life actions.

I started the scene, got a couple minutes into it then went to menu and skipped it. I don't begrudge them for doing it and I understand what they were going for but I had seen enough.

Now, you can skip the scene, and I would probably skip it myself after I initially saw for myself what the fuss was about, however, you cannot skip the fact they ditched the dedicated servers part.
That is a real deal breaker.

Nope! Sorry I will buy Arma2.... or something else. But definitely no fancy pants console game for a PC. Heck, I'd rather buy DCS:Black Shark with SF than this!!

I'm finding all the fuss about this scene a little strange I must admit. Apparently it's quite alright to virtually butcher thousands of soldiers, but virtually massacring a few hundred civilians is somehow taboo.

Really? I can understand people who look at the *whole game* in horror and argue that it glorifies violence and so on. I definitely see their point. And I can definitely connect with people who play the game for what it is and enjoy it (and this game has engaged me more than any "gamey" FPS in the past). But seriously, if you're ok with the virtual murder of the literally thousands of soldiers that you will carve your way through in the course of the game - many of whom you will shoot in the back, and while they are wounded, and with a knife in the neck from behind - I ask you what is the difference?

Soldiers are people too. Virtual soldiers are no less human than virtual civilians. Think before you drink the kool-aid on this issue.

I got it and played the scene, Activision said they wanted the players to experience the game through the eyes of the badguys to give the player an even better idea of how evil the bad-guys in this game are, and it worked wonders.

However, what's controversial for me is the fact that



IMO the level serves its purpose well, it's disturbing, it made me feel quite sick to a certain degree, and that's something not easy to do, I for example follow a lot of crimes personally over here in Sweden, have seen a lot of nasty autopsy pics, I have seen six year olds with their throats slit(German woman stalked Swedish man and attempted to kill his wife and her two children from a previous marriage). So it's not easy to disturb me.

Anyway, personally I find it sad that there's so many people that want this scene removed etc, what better way to make you truly dislike an antagonist than to experience one of his worst crimes through 'his' eyes?

IMO I like the fact Infinity Ward dared do such a controversial thing.

I am really glad, they did this level. I'm not sure, why would anyone be upset - the game let's you choose, if you want to play it or not.

I'm old enough to decide for my self if I want to play it or not, and I really hate it, when someone tries to decide instead of me, what's best for me and what is necessary and what isn't.


"Opinions are like a-holes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks."

My problem with the level is I'd love to see if the rest of the story explains why it was worth letting this mass murderer (Makarov) live and allow the airport scene to happen. I mean, if my whole mission was to get close to this guy, and I'm standing behind him and his 3 buddies as they are about to massacre a bunch of civilians and a host of heavily armored riot police (I'm still not sure outside the context of video game violence how the couple of us managed to pull that feat off), what exactly is the reason (outside of advancing the story in an arbitrary manner) I don't just shoot these four in the back before the whole thing gets rolling? Wasn't that the point of me getting in close to him in the first place?

There needs to be some huge explanation somewhere, or this whole thing just smacks of shocking folks to generate some more buzz for the game. The story part of it makes zero sense right now.

Bought and played the game on PS3. I played the scene, and yes it did feel wrong....I looked to see if there were any children civilians, there was not so I kept playing...but if there were kids, I would have quit that second, and quite likely not finished the game. I guess it comes down to personal moral convictions.

The outrage over this level in the game is....laughable to say the least, I mean seriously people it's a GAME and they gave you the option to skip it...and you DON'T have to shoot civilians to get through the level, if it hurts your so delicate sensibilities just don't play the level its that simple, with all of this "outrage" you think Activision just released the next Grand Theft Auto or something...

Delicate sensibilities ? Everyone has their own personal moral limit. Just because it is not the same as yours, that does not make it "delicate". I don't care either way if other people play the level or not.

Personally I believe it was a strategic plan to cause even more hype for the game. I doubt it needed any though.

I bought the Steam version. I read your review on the main page and have no desire to go around killing innocent people and cops. I never played any of the GTA games for that reason. It's not a morals reason, it just doesn't appeal to me. When I shoot someone in a game, I need there to be some sort of reason as opposed to climbing a mountain just because it's there.

So I voted Getting it but skipping the scene.