I actually do have a big problem with No Russian, to the point that it seriously aggravates me.
So, in the mission, you are supposedly playing a secret agent from CSI (or something like that) infiltrating a terrorist cell. However, it makes little to no sense that you would have any orders to actually take part in the terrorist act, you know, the thing you should be trying to prevent. The games lets you kill civilians or not (the choice doesn't make much sense to me since either you are "all in" and should be required to kill them so as not to arouse suspicion or you should be against it due to the whole "enemy agent" thing), but if you dare shoot one of the terrorists, you get an instant game over. The dialog seems pretty much the same whatever you do. Then at the end of the mission you get killed no matter what because they knew you were an agent this whole time so nothing you did matters (except that you could have, you know, shot them with the live gun they trusted you enough to hand you despite knowing you are a traitor. Except the game won't let you do that).
It is so brazenly manipulative and nonsensical that it completely removes me from the experience. I think it could potentially have been interesting if it had more of a point to it, and I don't dislike it on principle (Spec Ops: The Line is one of my favourite games ever and you are required to slaughter civilians there). However, it completely falls flat for me because of how it was implemented.
I'm not 100% sure, but I'm assuming based on the other replies that "clean house" is the heavily marketed stage in the Modern Warfare remake. If that's the case, I am completely disgusted with it and 100% against it purely on principle since it incentivizes you to murder a civilian because "psyche!" it turns out she was a terrorist hiding a bomb in her baby carrier or whatever. I would have respected it a tiny bit if it wouldn't have immediately given you a game over for killing "innocent" civilians, and instead had your character deal with the fallout (politically and emotionally), but no, that might have looked bad for the US Navy.
In short, justifying US army or agent targeting civilians = bad; Showing US army killing civilians is not always bad, provided there are consequences.
Log in to comment