X

Sessler's Soapbox: Tali-Banned?

Posted: September 7, 2010
Sessler's Soapbox: Tali-Banned?
http://www.g4tv.com/videos/48528/sesslers-soapbox-tali-banned/
http://images.g4tv.com/ImageDb3/250314_LGST/soapbox-9-7-10.jpg
Video_48528
Adam addresses the recent decision to not sell the new Medal of Honor game on US Army Bases.

Comments are Closed

  • elite_hoster

    I guess the best way to say it is,

    If a kid/teenager is playing moh and is on multi-player and plays as Taliban and kills the American team 30 times, while there is already a war going on the sense of awareness for the situation will be blown out of proportion! as media content has 50 times more chance of impacting not only one person but the whole nation, a lot of xbox/ps3/pc games have had this type of war, but the time lines were different Nazis,japs, from viet cong.

    Terry, terry taliban = Taliban
    Gerry, Fritz = German during WW2
    Ivan = russian during WW2, cold war

    There still are few pc games that incorporates what "ea" are doing but not on controversial level. games today are easy to visualise as today's art especially for 80" and generation and late 90"s generation, but it's impossible to tell a government what is appropriate content for any one as they have the statistics on peoples behaviour patterns and life style trends. so expect this never to end.

    Posted: September 8, 2010 5:20 AM
    elite_hoster
  • elite_hoster

    How many shoes does adam sesler have

    Posted: September 8, 2010 4:57 AM
    elite_hoster
  • BusoRenkin

    Am I the only one that thought the title was for Tali from Mass Effect?

    Posted: September 8, 2010 4:43 AM
    BusoRenkin
  • godofwar117

    I just want to thank Mr. Sessler for being such a great advocate for Video Game rights. Its nice to know that we have someone who is competent, and knows of what he speaks of. If you ever ran for office my good sir, you would most defiantly have my vote!

    Posted: September 8, 2010 4:22 AM
    godofwar117
  • zombiebailey

    i understand the army's decision to ban selling the game on base but i don't support it i don't belive EA is trying to pass a message saying the taliban rock by having you play as them in multiplayer i do belive the military sorta overreacted just a bit

    Posted: September 8, 2010 4:19 AM
  • Muscley_Arms

    and also the military has every right to ban the sale of something on bases across america because that is goverment property and they dont have to let things be sold there. just like any store doesnt have to sell something they dont want to sell.

    Posted: September 8, 2010 1:49 AM
  • Muscley_Arms

    i understand that ppl have lost friends and family in Afghanistan and not like the idea of being able to play as the taliban. personally i see nothing wrong with being able to play as them in multiplayer because thats who we are fighting in real life and in the game and it would be stupid and inaccurate if you fought american vs american. sessler made a good point about being able to see something through other peoples eyes. thats one reason i personally play fps's so i can see with out getting put into that postition what it would be like to fight in a war, even tho the only way to really experince war is to fight in one, but it still gives me an idea of what its like. the fact that there is a game about something that is happened there is nothing wrong there otherwise every WW2 game is wrong. and senitor palpitine said it best. good is just a point of veiw. to us were the good guys and the taliban are the bad guys. to them its the other way around. anyways even if someone doesnt like the thought of this game they can just simple not play it. they shouldnt try to get rid of soemthing they think is wrong just because they think it is wrong. if they dont like something they can just simply not do it and ignore the fact that its there because its not like that if the dont play the game everyone will think less of them or hate them.

    Posted: September 8, 2010 1:46 AM
  • RandyMercer

    In the industry there's always the risk of taking things "too far" the movie industry faced the same thing when movie began to branch out and challenge the rest of the world people were in an uproar. Movies such as the "Last Temptation of Christ" can be used as a movie to cause an uproar, to say the least it didn't sit well with many; it challenged religion. I'm not gonna say MoH is going to challenge where you stand on the said war (I can't say that because I haven't played it obviously) but there is that possibility. I also want to add, the reason I think people are so up-in-arms about this game is due to it being called a game, people still consider the PS3, Wii and 360 as just toys to keep their 6-15 year old busy. So when something that's this heavy comes around they aren't prepared for it. But to that point why are they so shocked at this every year? They act like this is something never seen or done before, games are apart of culture and things such as war, humor etc. will be adopted and used for material, just like in movies, music or books.Like Mr. Sessler said this is not flat out censorship, people will protest against this game however, like many other FPS titles on the market, soldiers would more than likely support this title for simple fact that they could identify with it.

    Posted: September 8, 2010 1:04 AM
    RandyMercer
  • STCook

    I can understand where some of these people are coming from. Real sons and daughters have died because of a Taliban attack. In fact one of my close friend's brother died in Afghanistan by an ambush from the Taliban. But I would like to point out that in multi-player, you are not making the choice to play as them. It is randomly selected and the media is failing to present all the information solely to grab headlines. There is no story behind multi-player and quite frankly I don't believe anyone that is of age to legally buy this game is caring what faction they are playing as. I would be a little upset if this was part of the campaign, ala MW2, but so far this isn't the case so I feel that the business of video games is being unfairly attacked again by an older generation that is not affected by video games.

    Posted: September 8, 2010 12:45 AM
    STCook
  • Lims

    Soldiers are not 'denied access'. The U.S. military is simply taking themselves out of the loop of endorsing the game via sales on their base. If a soldier told his C.O. that he was buying the game and he was going to play it, there would be no recourse. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I just think that they are playing it safe and smart.

    Imagine the backlash if they allowed and endorsed ( even by implication ) the sale of said game on their bases? Now THAT would be headline news.

    Posted: September 8, 2010 12:19 AM
  • BatmanGotham

    EA must love all this free press they are getting for this game. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the only reason the Taliban are playable is to promote the game. EA could have easily made a fictional name for the Taliban to show respect to the families whose have lost loved ones to the Taliban. This is their "No Russian" scenario and it worked out for them.

    This won't stop me from getting the game. I just think someone needs to call out EA for this. It will mean more free press for EA when they release some statement denying these accusations.

    I do understand why they Army wouldn't want a game where you can play as the enemy sold on their bases. It would be a different story if they didn't allow members of the military from buying the game at all , but they didn't do that. You can still buy it off base.

    Posted: September 8, 2010 12:17 AM
    BatmanGotham
  • Peatore

    Well, the way I relate to this story is that I have family that was murdered by the IRA during the troubles in Northern Ireland. I gotta admit, a game where you can play as an IRA member fighting British soldiers would get me a little rallied up.

    Posted: September 8, 2010 12:15 AM
    Peatore
  • expl0siv0

    I feel feel the opposite in that I think it would be a bigger deal if we played as the taliban in the single player. Personally I see multiplayer in fps' as competition, akin to sports. In multiplayer I could care less if I was red team, blue team, Americans, or taliban.

    Posted: September 7, 2010 11:32 PM
    expl0siv0
  • Sircle

    I personally think that the ban is a lackluster attempt to protect our troops. I do respect the fact that Gamestop has chosen not to sell the game on on-base stores. But since any troops can go off site and purchase the game I really feel like the ban is a feeble attempt. EA has every right to have the Taliban available in the multiplayer modes. As both Adam and critterforhire mentioned, video games are stories. And if the game had the player be the Taliban during the campaign, killing American troops I would definably be much more firm on my stance to back the ban. But since the Taliban only appears in the multiplayer there's a strong lack of relatability from the soldiers to the game. So I remain loosely swayed to support the ban. But I strongly support EA for putting what they did in the game for the simple fact: They have the right to do so.

    Posted: September 7, 2010 11:00 PM
    Sircle
  • cheesepwnage

    god stop whining and enjoy the game, frankly there have been a lot worse things that u have been able to do in games why does this one have to be such a big deal.

    Posted: September 7, 2010 10:28 PM
    cheesepwnage
  • Luck702

    @istinkles Not all holocaust victims were jewish you idiot.

    Posted: September 7, 2010 10:22 PM
    Luck702
  • Tman88

    I agree with everything Adam just said. Also it's good to see that most people see Medal of Honor for what it really is, instead of condemning the game just because terrorists can be played in multiplayer. Another thing is that the game takes place in Afghanistan during the war so its setting is going to be much like the real conflict that's going on.

    Posted: September 7, 2010 10:16 PM
    Tman88
  • CareyGrant

    Adam with a beard and sunglasses reminds me of ZZTop.

    Posted: September 7, 2010 9:49 PM
    CareyGrant
  • Canid117

    So by Uwe Boll's offensive new film I assume you mean "Auschwitz"? Yes guys Uwe F___ing Boll is making a movie about Auschwitz.

    Posted: September 7, 2010 9:20 PM
    Canid117
  • EliteSpetzNaz

    Good argument Mr. Sessler. I agree with just about everything you said. My point of view is that its kind of sad that the people who fight for our country are having something taken away from them that the general population has access to. I believe, if anything, the soldiers should be the last people to ever have anything taken from them. Taliban or not, its their choice to buy or play it and I think its disturbing that they now don't have a choice. On a side note, I don't blame the mother that lost her son in anyway and want to thank her for her sons sacrifice, its our soldiers who make our country what it is. This is a very complicated subject but I believe Adam did a great job of voicing some of our opinions. Thanks Sess.

    Posted: September 7, 2010 9:16 PM
    EliteSpetzNaz
AdChoices