On November 11^th, 2009, there was a tremor in the force like few others. As well as some other huge games, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 made its way into the consoles (and, technically, handhelds) of many eager consumers—both fans of the series and newbies—that played it gleefully, overjoyed to get their chance at observing one of the most hyped video games of all time. In short, Modern Warfare 2 succeeded so thoroughly that it broke records few had even considered, let alone thought possible; and deservedly so—as our review affirms, Modern Warfare 2 is an engrossing experience of epic proportions.

There was just one tiny problem.

Assuming the role of a CIA agent (PFC Allen), players were given the opportunity to gun down hundreds of civilians, taking part in a massacre at a Russian airport in one of the game’s missions.

The importance of this, many argue, is that it is ostensive of the gratuity with which video games convey scenes of violence. As a counterpoint, many people turn that same idea around. Perhaps this section of the game means absolutely nothing, considering you could more easily eradicate more random pedestrians and law enforcers all throughout games like Grand Theft Auto and Assassin’s Creed than is possible in this single mission in an otherwise acceptable game. Others, rather ineptly nullifying both of those arguments, simply reply to criticism by stating that, “It’s just a game.

Though all three of those positions have their validity, each can easily be shot down. Sure, the mission is, in some ways, a result of decades of the whole-hearted reception of violent content by gamers. But those behind the game could’ve dreamt the same level up by watching movies, reading books and listening to music with premises in violence. As for that same point’s antithesis, it doesn’t exactly help anyone’s cause to have more violent games; and having violence in games become in any way expected would only harm everyone involved.

Now, is it just a game? That position on the matter could be the most offensive.

Such a notion is not only inarguable in its vapidity, but insubstantial in its ambiguity. Indeed, Modern Warfare 2 is just a game. But The Silence of the Lambs was just a movie. Catcher in the Rye was just a novel. And, to clarify my point, a mansion is just a house. To be as irresolute as to assert that any mission in Modern Warfare 2 is irrelevant and unimportant simply because it is a game is to completely miss the point of people’s concerns. Books say something. Movies say something. And, I’m sorry but, games say something, too. And whoever is saying the something must consequently own up to what is being said—whether it’s something good or not.

In the case of Modern Warfare 2’s “No Russian” mission (the part of the game in question), there really wasn’t any message. This small section of the game served only to further the plot, though it did so on rather shaky ground. In fact, there is an option at the start of the game to skip “No Russian” entirely;  the plot can remain completely intact whether that mission is played or not.

So why is it important at all? Its true significance, which some may not have guessed, is exactly because it is a game. If the same scene had occurred in a movie, book or television show, or had been depicted in a photograph or painting, it would matter less for whoever was taking it in. The one seeing a movie or book or picture with an airport shooting depicted would only observe the moment, and a reader would only come to understand it. Because it occurs in a game, players don’t just experience the mass slaying of countless civilians, but dictate it as well.

Taking up the controller, one might fire remorselessly, executing the innocents with as much vigor as one would an enemy soldier. Or that same person might only shoot the ones crawling pathetically away, those leaning against the walls, and others that helplessly reaching out for aid. That same person, still, might choose not to fire at all, seeing no reason to further damn themselves by actively participating. Whatever choice is made in anyone’s case, it’s important that there is a choice at all, and it absolutely had to be made. Even inaction here would be taking a stance.

So what does any given player’s choice say about him- or herself? When all is said and done, it’s really up to that player and no one else. After all, is not shooting anyone any better than only shooting the injured victims who might somehow survive? Is leaving the injured to die slowly while shooting down the able much better than just slaughtering everyone?

Honestly, who cares? It’s just a game, right?