Columnist Chides CoD Modern Warfare 2's Night Vision Goggles
Columnist Chides CoD Modern Warfare 2's Night Vision Goggles
July 17, 2009
Game writer Rob Watson of the Philadelphia Inquirer takes Infinity Ward to task in today's column for the company's plan to include real, functional night vision goggles in the upcoming Modern Warfare 2 Prestige Edition:
I hate trippin' over games with a violent angle because I know there are many people out there who believe that these video games are the product of Satan or some such nonsense, but [night vision goggles are] a bad idea.
I would say 99.9999 percent of gamers who buy the Prestige edition will have a blast with these new goggles, innocently playing around at night with them.
Yet, it is also like giving away a free race car with Gran Tourismo or Forza - someone is going to cause a highway wreck. In Modern Warfare 2's case, I shudder (just a bit) to think of someone, who may have a hard time with reality anyway, donning these goggles for real mischief or even worse.
Infinity Ward should know better. They are great at fake realism. One of the best. This maybe be crossing that line, however.
FULL DISCLOSURE DEPT: Rob and I share game coverage chores for the Inquirer.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:16pm
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:10pm
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:00pm
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:53pm
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:48pm
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:42pm
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:40pm
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:39pm
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:34pm
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:32pm
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:26pm
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:25pm
Valdearg: @AE: Actually, I think, at least for now, businesses can still discriminate against gays in a few states.. Something like 5 or 8. Its part of why Gay Rights Advocates are in support of the Employee Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA.
Valdearg: @AE: Actually, I think, at least for now, businesses can still discriminate against gays in a few states.. Something like 5 or 8. Its part of why Gay Rights Advocates are in support of the Employee Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA.
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
Dude, really?
You think that those will be REAL night vision goggles? I have a sneaking suspicion that they won't be what you think. I honestly would not be surprised if they were either A) toy night vision goggles or B) equal to generation 1 night vision (IE the type that used to weigh 40 pounds and be mounted on top of an M1 carbine). Either way, how does night vision encourage violence? What is that .0001 percent going to do with them that is so fucking terrible? Are they gonna peep at their neighbors? Or do you really believe that people will be running around their neighborhoods with Night Vision goggles, maybe some IR Illuminators, and rifles? I mean, if a bunch of kids bought these, it may make for some crazy airsoft stupidity, but that's about all I can think of, and even then, the airsoft guns have orange tips and, let's face it, chances are pretty good that the kid or two who would do this are already known troublemakers in their community, which means that it's not like the parents didn't have some sort of heads up that buying this for their dipshit kid was a bad idea.
I don't know where people get these ideas that night vision allows people to commit mischief at night. Know what else you can do to see at night? Sit in the dark for about 40 minutes, and once your eyes have adjusted, be sure not to look into any bright lights. You'll be able to see just fine in the dark. It's not like night vision is magic, your eyes can do nearly the same thing. That's why hunters in tribes in places no one has ever heard of can still hunt at night.
I'm sorry, but I don't see this as something that'll be misused; just as a really strange thing to include in the packaging of a video game: however, that doesn't make it bad, just unusual. Anyone remember the FFX-2 pistols? How about the Resident Evil (I think it was 4) chainsaw? Yeah, this is in the same vein, methinks.
I think someone confirmed these are the same LED goggles you can buy off the shelf.
---You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.
As in, the ones that you buy for children? Like that 'Spy Gear' pair or whatever?
See, that's what I thought, especially when you consider that REAL night vision these days is at least 500 dollars and can be as much as 8000 dollars.
Yeah, I think that's what they are.
---You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.
Exactly. Night vision goggles aren't nearly as usefull as people seem to imagine them to be, and anyone who would commit mischief with a pair of these things would have certainly done whatever they were going to do anyway.
Not to mention that if they really wanted to get NVGs for misuse.... they could just buy em.
I think the bigger issue here is that at the price vs the regular edition without goggles, these are highly likley to be rubbish, and the games absurdley high price point (at least here in Europe) could set a new standard (new games are usually £40/$65 for a high profile title, Modern Warfare 2 is £55/$90, the first was bad enough when it came out at about £50 and stayed like that for months)
I saw this comment on a few news sites yesterday, but...
Amazon.co.uk £44.96
Game.co.uk £44.99
Play.com £44.99
HMV.co.uk £44.99
GameBasement.co.uk £43.99
I cant find a single shop taking pre orders that is pricing it at £55 as the articles state. I assume the £54.99 is the SRP or RRP or what ever they call it nowadays.
The first modern warfare stayed at its full price for a long time as it continued to sell well, this is true of wii fit and the guitar hero/rockband games (without periherals, as people buy a new one with a peripheral and go back to buy the older ones). You cant blame the retailers for not discounting the game whilst it stilll has strong sales...
The £54.99 is RRP (play.com's price of £44.99 shows 'you save £10' next to it).
I'd expect £44.99 to be average online(which is still about £5 more than I like to begrudgingly pay for a just released new game), I think you'll see it at the full £55 in the places no one who buys games for themselves would ever shop (like W.H. Smiths for example)
Here we go again- people scaring themselves and others over what MIGHT happen if a infintesimal minority of the population MIGHT take an object and commit "mischief" with them.
This concern is no different than a concern that selling:
- lighters may enable an arsonist to set fires.
- kitchen knives may enable a stabbing murder.
- a ladder might cause someone to fall and break their neck.
- a flashlight might cause someone to shine it in a bicyclist's eyes at night and cause him to crash (happened to me).
- a sledgehammer that might be used to smash a puppy or a child's skull.
- wire clothes hangers that may be used to perform unsafe abortions.
- a hunting rifle that may be used to kill people.
- sugar that could be used to destroy a car engine.
Do we ban all of these things?
The list can go on forever, and can include truly lethal items (guns) or seemingly harmless ones (a fiountain pen can be used to stab someone). Almost every object in the world can be used by somebody to cause trouble. This guy needs to relax.
If you're England, you do ban most of these items.
I enjoyed the flashlight though. Seriously, someone shined a flashlight in your eyes at night? That's pretty damn hilarious if I do say so. I mean, I'm glad you're okay and all, but that is funny as hell. Was it one of the super high powered lights or something, some LED action, or what?
Hell no. You did not just try to say that the object used isn't the culprit. We all know that guns kill people and without guns there would be no murder. This is fact. Just ask anyone on the hard left. Same with the lighters. Since smoking is all but illegal, the only reason anyone would buy one is to commit arson.
lolz.
---
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
I await the inevitable day we have to get a license and sign a declaration of responsibility before we can buy a Mars bar because it might kill someone with obesity, we'll have to use swipe passes to enter DIY stores just in case anyone secretly likes to murder people with hammers.
Guns don't kill people, rappers do.
After much research and consideration of my findings I have determined a very important fact.
Guns don't kill people, BULLETS kill people.
*pistol whips you*
You sure about that?
Dude, people can buy night vision goggles..
It isn't like they are restricted items in the united states or something.
Yeah, you just can't buy Infrared Illuminators. Craziest damn things.
Since when?
Since every respectable company that makes them put them on the 'banned to non-leo/mil personnel' list. But go call Insight Technologies if you don't believe me. Ask if they'll sell you an AN/PEQ-2.
Well I don't know about Infrared Illuminator goggles, but you can buy the camera and illuminator online for as low as $50.
I don't think you understand what an illuminator is...
An illuminator is something you put on a rifle or pistol. While wearing compatible NVGs, the illuminator (when activated) will shoot a visible beam of light to whatever it's pointing at.
I'm so confused about why this isn't satire.
There are already cams with nightvision, right? Rob Watson is an alarmist, also. I´m thinking the only one who really want to commit some "mischief" is him.
The cynical side of videogames (spanish only): http://thelostlevel.blogspot.com/ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com/
Yeah, lets trounce on the entertainment of everyone for the .0001%. I'm sure .0001% try to shove the stick that comes with the popsicle up their brothers arse. That doesn't mean everyone else shouldn't get to enjoy popsicles. Way to go Chicken Little. I chide you back and raise you a scornful look.
Anyone who is going to commit mischief with night vision goggles already has a pair. GP, is your associate at The Inquirer having a slow news day?
Let's do some math (groan): Let us assume Modern Warfare 2 (or whatever they end up calling it) a good million units, and 50,000 of those are special editions. 0.0001% of 50k is… 5.
5.
5!
Five people getting up to "mischief". In a very narrow sense, "mischief" can mean harm, but in the broader, common usage it is usually nothing more than annoying behavior. So applying this, we get 4 people just being annoying with their cheap night vision goggles and 1 who may do something more than annoying.
Yeah. Totally a slow news day.
"Let's do some math (groan): Let us assume Modern Warfare 2 (or whatever they end up calling it) a good million units, and 50,000 of those are special editions. 0.0001% of 50k is… 5."
0.0001% of 50k isn't 5, it's .05 -- you most likely failed to divide 0.0001 by 100 before multiplying it by 50k. Needless to say, Mr. Watson's made-up numbers and invented problem are even more out there.
That's what I get for doing math after being up all night.
Ok, so we have a 0.05% of a person. So the part doing mischief would just be the eyes looking through the goggles. Damn those roving eyes!
Someone who's planning on commiting real mischief probably won't be relying on Modern Warfare 2 for their only source of night vision goggles.
I can see some merry pranksters using them and not getting night vision goggles if Modern Warfare didn't include them but not people who want to do something serious.
----------------------------------------------------
Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.
These are probably toys, not the real thing, I'm not sure on the price of that kind of military hardware, but I would more than strongly suggest that it is not the kind of price that makes it possible to hand out night vision goggles with Video games.
To buy a military issue or equivalent NVG set costs between 500$ (Generation 1, vietnam or early 80's crap) to 8000 (the new, SF-issue type, with helmet mount).
In other words, these 75$ goggles are toys, no doubt about it.
Honestly, even if it was a fully functional pair of real night vision goggles I'd be more worried about the idiots using it blinding themselves accidentally. From what I've heard, you really don't want to have those on when someone suddenly turns on the lights.
-P, never worn them
You can't ban or restrict selling something just because there is a slim chance someone might misuse it. You can't make the world idiot/crazy proof, someone will always find a way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfO9JUNXN7U&feature=channel_page
Doesn't stop people from trying.
---
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
If you can buy a set of today's standard, military-issue night vision goggles and package it in with a 60-50$ game package without losing money, I think we have bigger issues at hand.
"who may have a hard time with reality anyway"
Seriously?
It seems video gamers are the only ones who actually can tell the difference between reality and fantasy.
Reality: tens of millions of people play violent video games and somehow don't go on killing rampages
Fantasy: Games warp peoples' minds and make them aggressive, angry and violent.
It's the politicians and anti-game zealots who live in fantasy land, not us.
Haha, I know that there was a reason I was pre-ordering the special edition...
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
This was the first I'd heard of a Prestige edition. Are the goggles really going to be that bad? I mean, I don't expect state-of-the-art materials, but the technology is old enough where it really shouldn't matter so much.
NVGs are extremely expensive, no matter how old the technology. Chances are, these are like those 'spy gear' googles; basically, goggles with a few LED lights that'll pretend to be night vision.
Huh. A little research shows you're right. The $80 gear from Jakks-Pacific isn't true night vision, although it allows you to see in the dark. Still, neat toys.
Does this Rob guy use his brain much? This is going to be like a Happy Meal NVG. Have you seen the crap they give out with these premium editions? In fact, they make Happy Meal toys look good.
And besides, "to think of someone, who may have a hard time with reality anyway, donning these goggles for real mischief or even worse." If that person exists, NVG are the last thing we need to worry about getting into thier hands.
Wait...was this news post serious?
HAHAHAHAHAH
It took me all of milliseconds for my brain to process the fact that these aren't even remotely real night vision goggles. I didn't even have to look at the game price. Let's even say it retails at Halo 3 Legendary's MSRP of $150 CAD, I couldn't imagine it being more than that.
That doesn't even approach the cost of real night vision goggles which run into the thousands (that's 3 zeroes...) of dollars. I'm actually curious what these are then, someone mentioned cheap LED goggles. How do those work exactly? I've never seen that before.
''Yet, it is also like giving away a free race car with Gran Tourismo or Forza - someone is going to cause a highway wreck''
yes SOMEONE is going to cause a wreck. Not A Game. Not a Car. The HUMAN behid the act. How can you hold game companies responsible for somebody misusing a gift?.
Do you sue manufacturers of kitchen knives when an unhinged individual stabs somebody?
Do you sue Ford when somebody drives drunk down and crashes killing somebody?
No.. you blame the individual who commited the act. Simple.
/headdesk /headdesk /headdesk, because one isn't enough for this kind of idiocy.
seriously, are you freaking kidding me...
Did this guy go out of his way to look like a total imbecile, or did his brain suddenly stop working at the moment when he pressed the "publish" button on this article?
I'm assuming these are first or second gen NVGs. That being the case, resolution sucks, so they're nigh upon useless anyway.
"HEY! LISTEN!"
I think some Night Vision Googles would make some nice interesting fun in the wood though :)
If anybody's played Logan's Shadow, I was curious. Are Infrared Goggles really that clear? This seems like a good place to ask that.