Displaying 41–60 of 137
well first off the idiots that are relentlessly dogging on this game consider themselves sensetive peace loving morons. if they do believe that our "beliefs" are being taunted by allowing our own American personnel to play as the "them" than why dont you ever ask after so many war games that have come out what do you believe "they" feel, they dont care, they still play our games even if it involves playing on our side and blowing up a sect that closely resembels their belief system. Im in the airforce ad i have no problem playing a game that would have me PLAYING as the other team beacause at the end of the day iwill turn off my PS3 and go right back to serving my country.
A video game that even remotely promotes war, makes me sad.During the previous wars filmmakers used war movies that were pro-war to get Americans to go to war.One example would be Frank Capra who was able to convert many Americans who did not have any intention of going to war, into blind patriotism.The point being that, art is very powerful in changing people that are not informed. I'm not sure what this games intention is cause I don't care about war games, so without any knowledge of it's intention, I would say, allowing people to play as the other side is a good thing. It makes the game less 'one-sided' depending on how the Taliban is depicted, the same as allowing the player to play as a Nazi.It may sound like I'm defending Nazi's and what not, but I want to make it clear that I'm not. I'm not on anyone's side when it comes to primitive ways of solving problems.Holistically speaking, I think taking something as serious as war and turning it into a toy is ridiculous, unless it were an artful piece that educated people about the mediocrity of war, and if there is such a game I hope someone would let me know.A true video game of worth would educate people on the fallacy of war, and teach people how to find common ground with the other-side.
Hype like this is good for a game remember grand theft auto 3 with the whole thoughtless violence and the whole airplane+buildings thing. Everyone I knew had a copy just cause of the hype of the evil bad things people were pointing out about it. Good for EA with the re release of medal of honor. I know I will be picking it up for abit of the hype and also I have been following this game since the announcement.
In my opinion the only reason why people are more angry about this is one its more realistic and becuase the enemy is called the Taliban instead of Call of Duty for example they're called insurgents.
I can see where Adam is coming from with his side of things people are coming down hard on EA for this decision on putting in the Taliban in multilayer but what Adam brings to light is a very valid point the holocaust was a horrible event people today still try to deny it happened but it did and they put out world war two games very you play the Nazi or German soldiers during that time period is almost the same thing the only difference is that we are dealing with the Taliban now and Adam has a good point if you don't agree with something then why play it or even buy it you have a choice believe it or not we all have a choice and can chose for our selves I understand Adams choice to not play those games if only more people thought like then we would not have these types of issues but sadly people tend to close their minds and don't want to side the other side of the argument but Adam I respect your decision to not play those games and understand your reasons and wish to express my condolences to you and your family.
im not speaking from expirence and i think EA has every right to do this but if my dad had died fighting the taliban like many fathers have, i would not be comfortable playing as one AND killing american soldiers. i think it would be ok if they fought idk lets say russians even if its random
I think both sides of this argument might be over-reacting here. From, what I understand there's nothing stopping the troops from getting this game off-base; they can probably even have it mailed to them on-base from Amazon or something. There's nothing stopping them from playing it on-base. They just can't buy it on-base. To me that means this is somewhat of a non-issue. The Dept. of Defense decides what gets sold on-base to our troops. Not EA or some retail chain.Now, the other side I think is just as baseless. For one thing they are completely ignoring an obvious factor in all of this: choice. The woman who lost her son (which is terrible and I can't imagine what she went through and probably is still going through) is most likely not going to CHOOSE to play this game. Other people will CHOOSE to play this game. And their right to do so is just as valid as this woman's right to grieve and be upset. Also the ignorance about the conditions in which you would play as the taliban (multiplayer) makes me want to disregard the argument altogether. Maybe if someone explained these conditions it would make more sense to those that don't understand. There isn't really anything you can do about those that have made up their minds before knowing all the facts, though. I really think both sides are making a mountain out of a proverbial molehill.
Sessler you are a traitor! If you are a Jew WTF are you doing in states? you know that you have a country, right?We are waiting for you!
First things first let me pass off my respect for Adam for his soapboxes. Now moving on to this little debacle regarding the use of Taliban skins for EA's game Medal of Honor. On one hand as far as the negative reception of the game I can completely understand that argument. In that this is something that on a symbolic level sits wrong with some folks, there doesn't even really need to be a strong reason to feel as such, if someone finds that objectionable then there's really no place to argue that. However in respects to the opposite side of the argument, EA's not doing anything wrong. At least nothing that seems to be ethically deranged or in the context of the narrative be malicious. So at the end of the day I can respect an individuals distaste for such a product, but I must insist that if EA is working in a fair fashion of respect to the situation, so no such limitation should be placed on their product. It just boils boils down to that basic principle that if you as an individual find certain material objectionable then by all means make the decision not to consume it, but with that being said if I could ask of you to respect my decision to consume those materials.
Freedom is the issue here phantomzxro. Freedom of speech. Nothing is more important, not personal feelings or national security. It is the supreme driving idea of our Constitution and if you censor one thing in one place you might as well censor it all.
I think i would have to disagree with sessler on this one. I feel if it was so easily up for debate then they would have had a vote on it from the bases if most of the man and women on the base were cool with it. This just seems like a politics thing. To cover themselves from anyone raising a fuss over it and seeking action.
I just find it odd that the mother leading the argument is trying to honor her son's death by trying to take away one of the freedoms he died to defend. It's so ironic.On the other hand, I can totally understand where people are coming from in having strong feelings against this game. But you know what else people have strong feelings against? Pornography.Too bad it's protected under the 1st just like this game. If you don't like it then don't look at it, or in this case play it.
As a veteran of the Airborne Infantry I can tell that the exchanges policy is completely unwarranted. If we were to take games that we play now and put them in those time periods for example Bad Company 2, would they be banned or seen as a way to influence the public to side with the current US policy. I have lost many friends in the wat and seen many return but I do believe that when something like this happens its ignorance. I remember numerous times laughing and joking around with 3 other guys in the barracks playing mulitplayer on quite a few FPS, it was a way to release the stress and forget about where you were. To be frank if any person vs person game real or otherwise was taken to the extreme then there would be problems, but after all, all it boils down to is pixels and some other guy on the other end.
Th fun isn't thinking I'M KILLING AMERICANS, the fun's thinking "sweet headshot man"
Would insurgents, or terrorists have been the better choice as a title for the online aspect of the team games? It's just a title to identify team "B" and nothing more. My heart goes out to the families who have lost loved ones in Afghanistan, and Iraq, but to have someones "Mother" who had the ability to give her child the ability to go to college and never have to join the military and have their life at risk in the manner which is war, I say shame on you for not giving your child 100% of your effort for a better life. Being a former member I know most people join so they can afford a college education. The terrorist attacks in 2001 is what kind of event that causes Patriots to join. Most who join today are doing what they can to survive on their own.
I myself have never been to into real war game (based on actual conflicts) didn't get into any WW2 games or things like that. It always seemed strange to me to play a game where real people gave there lives. I do play MW2 and whatnot its just games based on real events that rub me wrong.
Agreed. I don't understand this in a way that can give me enough confidence to argue mostly on one side or the other. It's a touchy issue that I think everyone has a right to have his or her own opinion.
I see and understand both sides of this debate. For your everyday gamer, I really don't see why playing a game where you can be the Taliban, is no different from playing a game where you are a criminal. But on the flipside, on a military base out there in the middle of everything that is going on, it will come off a little insensitive to the men and women over there who may have loss a friend in battle. So if he/she hops online as a US soldier and is playing against people playing as the Taliban, for all we know it may have a different effect on them over there then us over here. But then again, it's just a game, and if soldiers don't have a problem playing it then why should we?? There the ones over there fighting not us, so at the end of the day let them decide if they want the game or not.
Being in the Army and been deployed 3 times in Afghanistan, I will still buy this game. Playing as the Taliban will not bother me. To me, it's just a game, nothing more. Playing MW2 is the same. You can play as "OPFOR". OPFOR is dressed as insurgents. AAFES never stopped playing that game. To many sensitive people complaining about another game that offends them. Grow up people....Don't like it? Don't buy it. Keep you opinions to yourself.
censorship doesn't need help. tasteless games that make people feel disgusting will not be fun, nor get critical acclaim, nor will they sell well, nor will people talk about them in a good light, nor will they propagate more games of the same kind to be created. they have a brief flash of negative attention and then get buried.my guess is playing as the taliban is no different than playing as a united nations soldier. it's not disgusting, it's tragic. tragedy is a story worth telling. what if people were randomly be forced into innocent bystander mode, where you are unarmed and just have to stay alive? there's some gravity for you. then again, it's only fun if you get to shoot people, right?
Posted: December 14, 2010
24,494 Views | 01:49
Posted: August 8, 2012
1,451 Views | 00:20
Posted: November 4, 2010
8,003 Views | 01:05
Posted: October 19, 2010
9,532 Views | 01:23
Posted: November 23, 2010
12,246 Views | 01:56
© 2012 G4 Media, LLC. All rights reserved.