Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2- “No Russian” Controversy (SPOILERS)

Before starting the campaign for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, a dialogue box appears with a warning for players. It says, “DISTURBING CONTENT NOTICE: Some players may find one of the missions disturbing or offensive. Would you like to have the option to skip this mission?” The player can either pick “Yes, ask me later” or “No, I will not be offended.” When I first played the game, I was shocked that Infinity Ward felt it necessary to include this type of warning in a game with a mature rating, as the game’s intended audience is people old enough to handle these kinds of graphic images.  Along with this, because of the importance of the mission’s contents to future aspects of the story, I believe that players should not have the option to skip the mission.


The mission in question is entitled “No Russian,” in reference to the fact that the player and the Russian terrorists he has infiltrated are instructed by their boss to only speak English. A video of the mission’s gameplay can be seen here:, although be warned it is not safe for work. Anyways, the mission has the player assume the role of deep-cover CIA agent Joseph Allen, who has infiltrated a group of Russian ultranationalist terrorists. The terrorists are carrying out a massacre at a Russian airport, killing everyone they see with heavy machine guns and grenades. However, the success of the mission does not rely on whether or not the player decides to assist in the killing of innocent civilians or airport security. The images throughout the mission are certainly graphic and disturbing, but they are necessary in portraying the terror and brutality brought upon by the actions of these terrorists. At the end of the mission, the terrorist boss (Makarov) reveals that he knows Joseph Allen’s true identity and kills him (i.e. the player).


Leaving behind the body of an American agent at the scene of the massacre was Makarov’s plan all along, confirmed by how he ordered all the terrorists to only speak in English. He sought to deceive the Russian government by tricking them into believing that United States was responsible, in order that they invade the United States. His plan is totally successful, and this mission begins the cascade that leads to the start of World War 3. Later on in Modern Warfare 3, the player gets to hear Makarov as he states, “The bigger the lie, the more likely people will believe it,” referencing back to this mission from Modern Warfare 2.


All in all, I believe that players of this game should be forced into playing this mission. The game is rated mature for a reason: it is supposed to have violence and graphic content. It is expected that people who buy the game are mature enough to handle these circumstances. It is not the game designers fault that ignorant parents buy these types of games for their ten-year old children. Not to mention, the actions taken out in this mission are absolutely vital to understand the events that follow in the story. Without playing “No Russian,” players would have no understanding of why Russia invaded the United States and chose to start World War 3. Furthermore, they would have less of an appreciation for how evil Makarov, the series’ primary antagonist, truly is. Thus, because of the mission’s importance to the story and the game’s mature rating, I do not believe that players should be given the option to skip “No Russian” in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.

  1. You’re right, people are far too sensitive towards material they have already consented to view. As the scene marks a huge turning point in the game’s plot, it should be viewed by the player. If the player doesn’t want to take part in a sequence where they are given free reign to kill innocent civilians, then why are they playing a game based around the killing of others? Is the killing of innocents that much worse than killing in general? As you say, it’s not even necessary for the player to kill anyone to pass the mission. The player also earns no rewards for completing the mission, making a necessary experience soley for the story. I suspect that Activision (the game’s publisher) added in the warning to appease the parents you speak of who buy M-rated games for their children, but complain at excessive violence. Customers are customers.

  2. crhyde said:

    I agree that people are agreeing to play a mature game and need to respect that fact. My parents were some of the few who wouldn’t allow me to play mature games unless I was actually old enough or they did some research and agreed it was okay for me to play. I remember the first mature game I got to play with was Halo because my parents asked about it and decided that because it was rated mature just for the violence and strong language I was old enough to play it. If my parents however read that a game was rated mature because you murder innocent civilians as a terrorist they may not have been similarly inclined. Where I disagree with you though is that people should be forced to play the game, maybe someone decided they were ready to play a mature game that was mature due to warfare violence but not the mental ramifications of shooting innocents. The fact that they included the option was to appeal to multiple people. Maybe some people wouldn’t have even played the campaign if they weren’t given the choice to skip. I think it was a smart option from the designers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: