Displaying 1–20 of 137
I was going to write more, but not sure how much I can say. Anyways, the military holds war games where groups are assigned sides and roleplay terrorists against military, including hand-to-hand fighting, blowing up explosives, firefights, etc. I can't understand how they would not only allow things like this, but make it mandatory, and then not let someone play a videogame. Trust me, I did this and it is way more intense and realistic than any videogame. Anyways, just thought I would throw that out there.
wtf doesnt every call of duty game let you play as the bad guys
It's the same old crap the military brass has always done. It has nothing to do with the Taliban and everything to do with military brass trying to exert total control over every detail in service members' lives. The military tells you where you can swim, what bars you can go to, how far off post you can travel without explicit permission (much like the way people in the old Soviet Union needed "papers" to travel), and if you are single they have complete control over who you live with and they financially penalize you for choosing not to eat their crap food (single soldiers eat in the chow hall for free, but they get their food allowance taken away.) There has even been an instance of a general getting certain cable channels blocked from the installation because they offended the fragile sensibilities of his nut-job bible thumping wife. I loved the day-to-day of the military, but the desire of the brass to excessively impose themselves on the freedoms of same service members who give their lives to protect everyone elses' is wrong in every way.
so have people completely forgot that you could play as a terrorist in counter strike or what?
dude unstandable love the way "you put it german troop" honestly world war two bad genicide but happens more arcuatatelly (spelling sucks) moore in slaved own race (human) personal choice in long run put it short. but with military useing simulation fire i think it would be tactactcl, if your "choosing" to play this game. because the way people play online "not competive though" you get attacked the same way by small arms fire (gurilla style. now when actually playing as a marine (have to support it not for their sacrafice) i wouldn't be any where why dad vietnam vet (early) i'll play these game with him watching. taught me that the braviest was the one who went in the tunneles but didn't always come out. back to topic civil war how many should of died to the amount that did. now jump 40 yr to ww1 and look at casualties and the advancment of training?
This was a great soapbox Adam. I have to say that I have mixed feelings about picking up Medal of Honor. On the one hand I LOVE realistic shooters. On the other hand I don't like the idea of replaying someone else's tragedy. There is a way to do that that is sincere and considerate but I just don't know about dramatizing an event in a game that's still playing out on CNN. I want to be patriotic and support the individuals involved in this conflict. But I also want to be patriotic and support the game industry and our first amendment. As you said the soldiers can easily hop over to target or walmart and pick up the game so this isn't a huge deal and frankly I agree with the military's decision. Out of respect it makes sense to leave it off the shelves. But for me personally I am still struggling with the idea of playing something that has yet to see a conclusion. I find myself wanting to find something less REAL i guess . . . like BRINK. SO looking forward to BRINK. I think what's interesting about BRINK is that it's got huge potential as an FPS but it's going to allow me to take a break from life, which is what movies, books, and games are about I think. When games like Black Ops and Medal of Honor start to focus on events that are so real I feel like i'm not necessarily getting a break from reality. Watching a documentary on Vietnam would be fine but I play games because they can sort of allow me to be someone else for awhile and have fun! Now don't get me wrong. I think i'd have a TON of fun in Medal of Honor Multiplayer. But I just get this gut feeling that the basis for the content would sort of spoil the experience. So there ya' have it. I think i've convinced myself that maybe waiting for an FPS that doesn't require me to re-live and enjoy what is surely an ongoing nightmare for others is the right step. On the other hand it's just a game.
sessler is right as usual you do need to look at both sides of the coin because to much now a days a few people get a whole group of people upset and angry. and like sessler said its a delicate subject but something that needs to be talked about
Let's make sure we know exactly what censorship is before we talk about this. "To censor" is to control what information is available to the general public. Censorship is usually done by governments, but it isn't an action exclusive to governments. When a particular retailer does not sell a certain item, it is in no way conducting or condoning censorship. Remember that when someone refuses to sell an item, he is exercising his right to free speech just as much as someone who does choose to sell the item.
when it comes to video games people just take them too seriously, i mean yeah there is a conflict over seas still and yeah many families in the US are losing family there but the true can be said for innocents on the other side. no matter how close a video game is to real life quite simply it isn't its fictional and not only that if you find a particular game distasteful for what ever reason then do not buy it, its called the freedom of choice. as for whether or not its right to not allow a game to be sold in certain places its completely up to the owner of the store not any one store has all games, if the one you go to doesn't have then go some where else. People get way too touchy over things that are rather insignificant, if you do not like something ignore it.
I just think it's in poor taste. I fully support the right to make the game featuring the Taliban but to not just create a new antagonist group for a playable multiplayer game is just poor judgement. I will still play the hell out of it, but using someone's pain and suffering to get media attention is pretty low. The game will still sell the same no matter if they are named the Taliban or the a new group named Sword of jihad. Just my opinion.
It is easy to sit at a computer completely out of a warzone and criticize the decision by Gamestop and the US military to not sell the game at army bases. Gamestop has the right to sell whatever games they like - but is it a smart or wise decision to do so at army bases? It is hours of entertainment for me and my friends. It is a matter of life and death for those exposed to enemy fire on a daily basis.
why didn't they ban MW2, u can play as the talaban in multiplayer in that.
I have to say sessler i am a bit disappointed that you completely overlook the Taliban point of view considering what you mentioned about loosing family in the ww2 during the holocaust to the people of iraq and Afghanistan you americans are the invaders/nazi's if you will your killing there familys and destroying there live's which is why so meny people from those countrys join the taliban in the first place and now you Americans make a computer game about it and frankly its immoral i dont think a game should ever been made about an on going conflict but i also just found it completely ignorant to only speak of it from the Americans point of view. I also made a comment when there was another news article about it on this site a while ago which was fairly close to what you just said now tho. Would you like it if someone in your family was just killed and then a games company thought hay you know i know this just happened to you but i want to make a game out of it so people can re inact it online with no real consequences and completely trivialise what happens to the people who's lives and familys are devastated by the actions of the usa/uk/ and the taliban. Why cant they make a fictional war game there would be no issue at all its a cheap way to get some hype for the game. I think its just immoral.
The main (And only) reason they they take issue with playing MoH is the fact that you play the a member of the Taliban as opposed to "nameless arab #39". Want to know who else is on this bandwagon, one JACK THOMPSON, yeah that right Adam's favorite Ex-lawyer.
great soapbox really deep and fair
When I played socom we used to allways be the terrorist guys, we'd run down a hill shooting off our AKs into the air and yelling gibberish trying to sound like bin ladin.I get that people wouldnt want to premote people playing as the Taliban, but multiplayer is really just a red vs blue scenario. And soldiers are just gunna go off base and buy the game anyway. So this isnt really a big deal to begin with.Regardless, I hope to see lots of US soldiers online when the game launches.
Well said Sess like always, great reviewer and face in gaming. im just a tad curious why the first level of battlefield bad company 2 is playing in the background?
Personally these guys are grown men the army in this case is acting like there parents if they wanna play Medal of Honor they should be able too. You know now one ever discusses this on Bad Company 2 that you play as Russians (If you remember the history). The media as a tendecy to ruin games and get bad publicity. Personally I don't even look at it as playing as the taliban or american I see it as a good shooter
Posted: December 14, 2010
24,417 Views | 01:49
Posted: August 8, 2012
1,428 Views | 00:20
Posted: November 4, 2010
7,996 Views | 01:05
Posted: October 19, 2010
9,516 Views | 01:23
Posted: November 23, 2010
12,231 Views | 01:56
© 2012 G4 Media, LLC. All rights reserved.