Medal of Honor

[westvirginia]

No, my point is, if there's truly no significance to which side you play, that's it's just like black and white in chess, why not make it more like the other game they referenced and just make it terrorist vs counter terrorist?

 

Because there is significance to which side you play, at least to those with a personal attachment to soldiers over there. You can pretend it's not the case, but there's some rather empirical evidence to suggest the opposite.

 

Well-put. This is one of those "just because you can doesn't mean you should". The guy at EA needs to be paid a visit from a couple of Force Recon boys. In the middle of the night.

[Gopher]

This is one of those "just because you can doesn't mean you should".

That's pretty much my thought on it. I'm not a gamer, in the slightest... the closest thing I've played to these types of games is probably one of the Bond 007 games on Playstation, and that was about 10 years ago. I get that people can do what they want, and it's their business. I get that gamers can play the role of a Nazi soldier, and it doesn't mean that they support the Nazi regime, or anything close. Most importantly, I get that it's a game, and nothing more than that.

 

All that said, it just seems to be in poor taste... In an age where there are so many entertainment options, including literally thousands of various video games, it just seems unnecessary to create a game where the player can play the role of an enemy with which we are currently at war. I mean, where do these gaming creators draw the line? What's next... a game where you play the role of a child abductor/pedophile, trying to capture their "prey" and running from the law? After all, it would just be a game, and the fact that somebody plays that "role" doesn't mean they agree with it, right? For all I know, this probably already exists in the gaming world... who knows.

[detlef]

That's pretty much my thought on it. I'm not a gamer, in the slightest... the closest thing I've played to these types of games is probably one of the Bond 007 games on Playstation, and that was about 10 years ago. I get that people can do what they want, and it's their business. I get that gamers can play the role of a Nazi soldier, and it doesn't mean that they support the Nazi regime, or anything close. Most importantly, I get that it's a game, and nothing more than that.

 

All that said, it just seems to be in poor taste... In an age where there are so many entertainment options, including literally thousands of various video games, it just seems unnecessary to create a game where the player can play the role of an enemy with which we are currently at war. I mean, where do these gaming creators draw the line? What's next... a game where you play the role of a child abductor/pedophile, trying to capture their "prey" and running from the law? After all, it would just be a game, and the fact that somebody plays that "role" doesn't mean they agree with it, right? For all I know, this probably already exists in the gaming world... who knows.

Exactly.

[SEC=UGA]

 

Like this game, think it was posted here before.

[detlef]

Like this game, think it was posted here before.

Dude, yes, like that freaking game. What the hell is wrong with people?

[jackshi17]

Whenever I play "Gettysburgh" I always take the South. Does this make me a bad person?

[The Holy Roller]

Whenever I play "Gettysburgh" I always take the South. Does this make me a bad person?

 

Yes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[detlef]

Whenever I play "Gettysburgh" I always take the South. Does this make me a bad person?

That's not a very good comparison. There is much legit debate about which side was the "bad guys" in that war. Don't get me started on the whole BS we've been taught about it being a war to free the slaves.

[Ursa Majoris]

Whenever I play "Gettysburgh" I always take the South. Does this make me a bad person?

I likely would too. I'm a great admirer of the southern armies. The question is whether you would play at being Taliban.

 

Edit: Actually that isn't the question at all. The question is why anyone would want to make money from a current conflict by turning it into an amusement.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Ursa Majoris

[Yukon Cornelius]

The question is why anyone would want to make money from a current conflict by turning it into an amusement.

 

for many its all about the Benjamins plane and simple. Its the 9/10ths rule

Edited September 14, 2010 by Yukon Cornelius

[wiegie]

update: players will not be allowed to play the role of the Taliban

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/gaming.gadget...dex.html?hpt=T2

 

EDIT players still will be able to play the Taliban, the game just won't call them the "Taliban" anymore

 

I guess that makes it all better

Edited October 1, 2010 by wiegie

[bpwallace49]

Whenever I play "Gettysburgh" I always take the South. Does this make me a bad person?

 

Are you calling TimC a bad person?

[Ursa Majoris]

update: players will not be allowed to play the role of the Taliban

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/gaming.gadget...dex.html?hpt=T2

 

EDIT players still will be able to play the Taliban, the game just won't call them the "Taliban" anymore

 

I guess that makes it all better

Looks like a night time visit from some large gentlemen with close cropped hair had the desired effect.

[Pope Flick]

Looks like a night time visit from some large gentlemen with close cropped hair had the desired effect.

 

 

More likely the desired effect was they decided they got all the free publicity they could get out of it with the news coverage, then made a change they really didn't care about, given that other games have done the same thing )allow you to play as taliban without naming as such)

[Gopher]

Basically, the equivalent of how college football games show the number of the players, but not the names. In other words, technically, you're not playing the role of a specific player (or the Taliban), but the game still accomplishes its general purpose.

[BeeR]

I have mixed feelings on this. First, let me say that I rarely play video games myself... I do own a Wii, but haven't played it in months. Part of me agrees with the sentiment that it's just a game, and people can do whatever they want. It's their choice. They might be considered "messed up" to want to play the part of the Taliban or Nazi, but that's their problem. There are certainly worse things going on in our society, for us to worry about.

 

On the other hand, I think there is a pretty significant difference between playing the role of a Nazi soldier, and playing the role of a Taliban member, in 2010. In other words, World War II ended over 60 years ago. Doesn't make it any less significant, but we're not currently at war with the Nazis. Another way of looking at it is this... If video games did exist in the 1940's (hypothetically speaking), do you think it would have been appropriate for Jewish kids to play the role of Nazi soldiers?

 

Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying that we should be compared to the Jews during the WWII era, or anything of the sort... All I'm saying is that it's a little bit different, to play the role of a villain from 60+ years ago, compared to playing the role of scumbags who are killing our soldiers as we speak.

Exactly. Taking that even further, does anyone have an issue playing the Romans brutalizing whoever in a video game? Saying that's the same as playing the Taliban in a game is pretty ridiculous.

 

Anyway, back to the Medal of Honor recipient. Props to him and all those in harm's way.....there are those of us simply "in the military," and then there are the real warriors

[Square]

update: players will not be allowed to play the role of the Taliban

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/gaming.gadget...dex.html?hpt=T2

 

EDIT players still will be able to play the Taliban, the game just won't call them the "Taliban" anymore

 

I guess that makes it all better

Maybe you guys missed your time to be angry. In the multiplayer portion of Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 (and I believe 1 as well) you could play as OpFor which was basically a bunch of middle eastern guys that wore rags and carried RPGs and AKs. CODMW2 has done about a billion dollars in sales so its pretty much one of the most successful video games ever sold. Now, they got fancy and shortened their name to OpFor (opposing force) instead of outright calling them Taliban or Al Queda or something (here is what they looked like (more here and here) I guess I'm just not holding anything against Dice or the MOH franchise as they really weren't doing anything that new other than give them the actual name. OpFor specifically in MW2 was fought in Afghanistan if I remember correctly.

 

My 2 cents on actually playing as an OpFor (ragwearing terrorist) in MW2 is that you don't really feel any different than when you play as a Navy Seal or Force Recon. It's random every map and you can't choose what you look like or what side you are on. You choose your weapon and can't see yourself so other than the 2 seconds at the beginning when you are around your teammates you don't even really know what everyone looks like. Your are usually too busy running and shooting to worry about any context more than just your team looks different than the other team (typically names or blue vs red colors appear on most games to tell friend from foe). If they didn't have a symbol on the scoreboard at the end I probably wouldn't even really know what I'm playing against most of the time (they have two Arabic broad swords crossed as the symbol for OpFor).

 

I haven't played the multiplayer of MoH yet but I started the campaign mode this weekend and the games pretty awesome so far. Sneaking through an Afghanistan town and knofing taliban members in the dark after disabling the circuit breaker box and turning on your night vision is a fun time. So while you can technically play as a bad guy during multiplayer the premise of the game was to show how bad ass some of the force recon people are.

[rajncajn]

I play Call of Duty with a clan that has several active and at least two retired (one close to 70) military players, from various countries and none of them have ever expressed a concern over playing as a nazi, russian or terrorist. When playing in a multi-player mode you just don't view yourself as a nazi etc. You view yourself as a team player playing against another team. Sure, we would all like it better if they didn't use terrorists, but the single player game(which it is built around) is supposed to be based on reality and is played from the US or SAS side. The multiplayer part of the game has no choice but to use the same models for it's game play or they would have to sell it as a separate product.

[jetsfan]

When I play Civilization, I rarely play as the USA.

When I play Modern Warfare, it is irrelevant as to which side I play on.

When I play the old Call of Duty games, it is also irrelevant as to which side I play on.

According to this thread I hate America and wish for all our troops to die

[WaterMan]

update: players will not be allowed to play the role of the Taliban

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/gaming.gadget...dex.html?hpt=T2

 

EDIT players still will be able to play the Taliban, the game just won't call them the "Taliban" anymore

 

I guess that makes it all better

 

That will please most of the people who have a problem with it.

 

When I play Civilization, I rarely play as the USA.

When I play Modern Warfare, it is irrelevant as to which side I play on.

When I play the old Call of Duty games, it is also irrelevant as to which side I play on.

According to this thread I hate America and wish for all our troops to die

 

At least you're aware that one of your hobbies is America hating. It's pretty easy to have that as a hobby now days without even knowing it. It was sometime after 2000 that America hating really hit it big.

Edited October 19, 2010 by WaterMan

[rajncajn]

I was thinking about this problem this morning & remembered that when I was a kid, me & my brother had army men. Both of us had WW II battle sets, his was Iwo Jima and mine was Navarone. When we played against each other one of us would always have to be either Japanese or German and we were "killing" American army men. Heck we used to blow them up with firecrackers, shoot them with bb guns and burn them. I'm not sure how games like this are any different than that. More realistic, maybe, but it's the same concept & people who play really look at it no differently.

[Scooby's Hubby]

color me Frankenstein for all I care, as long as I get to blast some little 12 year old during on-line gaming.

 

too bad you can't sensor on-line game play, there are alot of potty-mouthed people out there.

Edited October 21, 2010 by Scooby's Hubby