kaya'08
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2008
- Messages
- 6,363
- Reaction score
- 1,318
- Location
- British Turk
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Britain's Defence Secretary Liam Fox has defended his comments calling on retailers to ban the forthcoming Medal of Honor video game from their stores.
On Sunday, Mr Fox said he was "disgusted" by the game, which allows players to adopt the role of the Taliban in the Afghan war.
I understand you have personal feelings involved bro.
But at the end of the day...
"It's just a game".
I don't see this being any more or less shocking then the airport scene from CODMW2
To be honest with you, when i say i agree with Fox, i agree in the sense that it is insensitive. I know it's just a game but its quiet distasteful. The thing with the airport scene is, that has no relevance to current modern day conflict. In COD, it is well known you can play terrorists (on multiplayer anyway), but MoH takes it to a new level by introducing a Taliban storyline.
But being the free market guy i am, the game developers have a right to publish and create this kind of storyline and game.
Where was all the bitching when I could play as the Nazis in a million WWII games?
What games, for example?
As I recall the Command and Conquer series has a Soviet campaign. There are plenty of games that allow one to play as a bad guy.
With all due respect C&C is a strategy game. COD/MoH is a full immersive first person storyline campaign.
I don't really see a meaningful distinction there. Strategy games have storylines too, which can be just as immersive. C&C Red Alert even had FMV of an actor playing Lenin who assigned the missions, IIRC. There are plenty of games out there that don't exactly live up to our better angels, is my point.
The C&C storyline is nowhere near as realistic on a personal level as first person shooters. Even graphically they leave room to have a far less profound effect on the player. Would you not agree?
I still dont see what's wrong with a soviet campaign. IMO it isn't comparable to a terrorist storyline aimed at attacking NATO soldiers.
I disagree, I think you're drawing a mistaken conclusion here. I don't really find first person shooters all that realistic, and certainly not any more so than any other genre of game. And to see how truly immersed people can be in a strategy game, just take a look at the popularity of Starcraft in South Korea.
So how is that different than playing soviets attacking NATO soldiers? Or playing aliens attacking space marines, for that matter? How about Grand Theft Auto? Bottom line is they are just video games, they aren't real. It's a game, it's not some form of brainwashing.
This seems like it's dovetailing into the larger debate of whether video games cause violence. There's really no evidence to support this proposition.
The game's publishers Electronic Arts said the minister had portrayed parts of the game inaccurately.
The government said Dr Fox was expressing a "personal view".
BBC News - Liam Fox defends call for ban of Medal of Honor game
Quiet frankly, i agree with him. EA is playing a dangerous game (excuse the pun).
With all due respect C&C is a strategy game. COD/MoH is a full immersive first person storyline campaign. The experience is far more personal and in those regards, realistic.
Secondly, what's wrong with the soviets? They where commo's, sure, and they did bad things like most commo regimes do. But they weren't no Nazis and they sure as hell weren't terrorists.
With all due respect C&C is a strategy game. COD/MoH is a full immersive first person storyline campaign. The experience is far more personal and in those regards, realistic.
Secondly, what's wrong with the soviets? They where commo's, sure, and they did bad things like most commo regimes do. But they weren't no Nazis and they sure as hell weren't terrorists.
Just so we're clear, I'm not criticizing you for your point of view, but I have to ask why.On Topic, I have no desire to play a game that places you as "the Taliban".
Just so we're clear, I'm not criticizing you for your point of view, but I have to ask why.
MOH has decent gameplay, but they went down a serious WTF road with Airborne. Since when do the Nazis have a huge doom fortress with flakk cannons and elite stormtroopers that HAND WIELD MG42 machine guns?
You don't know history do you? How many Soviets died at the hands of their Gov't? I'll give you a hint, it's higher then the number of Jews Hitler killed.
On Topic, I have no desire to play a game that places you as "the Taliban".
MOH series sucks anyhoots.
I dont really see anything wrong with the game or why having a Taliban storyline is any worse than having any other kind of storyline.
BF2 had you playing as Chechen rebels and insurgents from Unspecifiedistan. Just Cause had you aiding drug cartels and South American rebel groups.
Are they worried this might generate sympathy for the Taliban? I dont think that's a well-founded worry if that's the case
Where was all the bitching when I could play as the Nazis in a million WWII games?
Most of those games are strategy games.
Strategy games mostly do not involve a deep storyline and a realist theme, and hence do not raise any awkward feelings, such as the feelings one had when playing the terrorist in the COD:MW2 airport scene.
The game's publishers Electronic Arts said the minister had portrayed parts of the game inaccurately.
The government said Dr Fox was expressing a "personal view".
BBC News - Liam Fox defends call for ban of Medal of Honor game
Quiet frankly, i agree with him. EA is playing a dangerous game (excuse the pun).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?