Slashdot Mirror
Controversy Arises Over Taliban Option In Medal of Honor
eldavojohn writes "CVG is covering the controversy surrounding players' ability to play as a member of the Taliban in EA's Medal of Honor multiplayer. Fox News hopped on the wagon, interviewing a Gold Star mom whose son died in Iraq. She said, 'My son didn't get to start over when he was killed. His life was over and I had to deal with that every day. There's 1200 families from Afghanistan that have to live with this every day. And we live it — it's not a game... EA is very cavalier about it: "Well, it's just a game." But it isn't a game to the people who are suffering from the loss of the children and loved ones.' EA's response to this criticism of giving players the objective to 'gun down American troops' was this: 'Medal Of Honor is set in today's war, putting players in the boots of today's soldier... We give gamers the opportunity to play both sides. Most of us have been doing this since we were seven. If someone's the cop, someone's got to be the robber, someone's got to be the pirate, somebody's got to be the alien. In Medal Of Honor multiplayer, someone has to be the Taliban.' Of course the story recalls Six Days in Fallujah, which was dropped by Konami following similar controversy. It's clear at least a few people take issue with games surrounding modern conflicts."
She said, 'My son didn't get to start over when he was killed. His life was over and I had to deal with that every day. There's 1200 families from Afghanistan that have to live with this every day. And we live it -- it's not a game..
That's funny, I hear that's what the people on the other side said too, except possibly in another language.
Last I heard, American soldiers were supposed to be fighting to preserve a way of life, a way which includes freedom of expression.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Movies, books, children's (non-computer playing-in-the-yard) games even. We don't like (and thus the kids don't have) toy weapons in our family, and guess what? The pine cones are BOMBS! now...
Games are no different. Tasteful? No. But war never is.
.: Max Romantschuk
...he'd be playing war games (not necessarily on a computer) where he played the side of the Taliban.
Was there any outcry when Battlefield Viet Nam came out? Because you can totally frag G.I.s in that game, and there are plenty of Viet Nam vets still around.
I don't see it much differently than being the Germans, Russians, Japanese, or any other opponent of the US in a conflict. I appreciate the realism of a theatre of war when depicted in entertainment, I guess its too soon for those involved to handle.
I can understand that it isn't like by those that have been involved, but in reality when playing games who hasn't wanted to be "the bad guy"? Move along nothing to see..
You've been able to play as a Terrorist in Counter Strike since day one. It came out ten god damn years ago.
I dont want to hate on Americans, but seriously, you have no problems with a game where Russians are the enemy, despite the fact that Russian gamers might be interested in the latest new FPS. The same could be said about any number of WW2 games, where Germany is the enemy. I know that it was based on a different era, political climate etc, but get over it - there are two sides of the story, as EA says, and you need to accept that. Dont like it? Dont play the game. Or dont play that part of the game. And in the process, stick to your beliefs that America is always right and only evil people have opinions contrary to yours.
Newsflash: life isnt fair, neither is war.
My son didn't get to start over when he was killed. His life was over and I had to deal with that every day. There's 1200 families from Afghanistan that have to live with this every day
I feel your pain. Given our nation's involuntary draft, the servicemen who have died in the war thus far did so against their will. They did not know what they were fighting for, and what they were ready to give up to secure our freedoms.
Oh, wait. They did. They bleed crimson red so we can maintain our way of life. They chose to join the service.
You do a disservice to the fallen soldiers memories by acting like the very corrupt, anti-American terrorists. How dare you?
They died for us. It's our job to keep on living and enjoy life. You've better things to do than to wallow about some videogame.
I have a Great Grandfather that died in WW2, do you think anyone in my family complains that everyother video game title out there centers on this conflict? How about games where you could be the Germans? I don't here a whole lot of gripping from Fox News about them. I don't get why this person wouldn't want her sons story, and the stories of all of the soldiers over there from every other country, to be told to the world in a form that the youth will acctually pay attention to.
I did a deployment to Iraq in 07-08. My sister was killed in the line of duty (Army). My parents have a triangular box with flag to 'commemorate' that. These games are fine. The woman complaining is an ass. Unless they started naming people and having you kill real people, the issue is moot. We all know there are enemies out there and they shoot to kill. Simulating it isn't a problem.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
....Even if someone somehow forced you to buy the game, most servers have the option to let you choose your team. Don't like the Taliban, but don't have the time to be a real soldier? Join the American team! Kick some Taliban ass! We're now 10 years deep into the latest conflict. When can people start talking about this conflict as a reflection of our culture? It has to happen sometime.
moox. for a new generation.
I understand why this mother would be upset, she lost her son and that's sad.
Race car games let you bump others into the wall. Baseball games let you throw beanballs. Basketball games let you recruit a posse and commit all kinds of off-the-field shenanigans. Maybe what we need is more padding for our children, that way they can live safely and without fear of something terrible happening. Sounds like a great way to motivate children to live life to its fullest.
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
( particularly when the Alzheimer's infected Senator John McCain continues to emit nonsense)
Someone has to play the role of LSD or the person who ingests the LSD. You decide here.
Cheers.
Yours In Domododevo,
Kilgore Trout.
but i believe that I played on the Russian army side of Bad Company. Or as a Colombian drug lord. No ones up in arms over that.
I know, let's just outlaw violence, that way only only governments and outlaws will use it. Imagine a world where kids don't get into fights. Adults can all go to arbitration. As a matter of fact Mr. bin Laden has an appointment with me and my arbitration people, early next week.
fighting is a big part of hockey and games without it will suck alot.
Clearly Uplink is insensitive to server admins who have lost data due to hacking. They didn't get to start over when their server was owned and they had no backups, and their families have to live with that every day. It's not a game... Introversion is very cavalier about it: "Well, it's just a game." But it isn't a game to the people who are suffering from the loss job.
Yuppies are die hard hypocrite pussies. Wake me up when a game contains the following plot:
1. A foreign invader bombs your village and drops leaflets about liberation
2. You lose one cousin to an errant bomb, another is killed by a rival tribe
3. The electric grid starts to fail. Riots take over the streets, and you can no longer go to school or even visit family across town
4. Finally, your mother is forced into prostitution because your father was abducted, tortured, and killed by the invaders
5. You completely lose your mind and embark on a mission to kill at least one foreigner in retribution for the suffering you have endured
When that shit happens, video games will be art, and they will start to matter. Any complaining about obviously pro-American games like Medal of Honor is the most pathetic and empty endorsement of patriotism I've heard this week. And trust me, there's a lot of competition.
It looks like Gold Star Mom is quite happy for people to play a game where they're members of an foreign army of occupation killing a mixture of innocent civilians, local freedom fighters and their own side. It's just when they get to play a role on the side of the conflict that's defending against invasion that there's a problem.
Arguing that any game based on a current conflict is a little tasteless seems a reasonable line of argument, or even that any realistic game based on "modern" conflicts needs to be treated carefully seems pretty reasonable. But objecting to a game simply because you get to experience (a sanitized, trivialized version of) both sides of the conflict is not.
Its just a fucking video game. You do realize that all the Taliban that we gun down not only in Afghanistan have families too ? So, what is different about a video game that we slaughter nazis, or Vietnams, etc ? They have families too and they have suffered a lot.
Your son or daughter made the ultimate sacrifice and we all appreciate that. But does that mean we need to alter everything in our life in order to accommodate your lose ?
No, thats just silly and ridiculous.
Global Thermonuclear War? I've been waiting for that game for years...
I truly mourn for the days when /. was free of morons such as yourself. I pity you.
Probably not, but my Flash game where you torture and kill annoying slashdot trolls is coming along nicely. In level 6 you shove a Library of Congress up Joe the Dragon's ass, then he bends over and it looks just like goatse. To be fair though, I was kind to you compared to what happens to Trisexual Puppy.
I totally agree with this woman. Anything that can be linked to personal loss in video games should be disallowed. My son died in the 80's because a giant L-shaped girder fell on his head. People are unaware of the amount of construction accidents that happen everyday and affect the lives of so many, these game developers can be so insensitive!
"Nuke the USA" is something that is fun to do in Civilization IV. Substitute Persia for Iran and you have your game right there.
(And then you play the Fallout series which takes place in post-nuclear-apocalypse America.)
I'm pretty sure they have objections of their own to having them depicted as cannon fodder in the games single player part. Plus they have a lot more casualties and grieving families. I'm not overly PC but the game might be "too soon". But marketing is counting on that for the extra publicity.
For the express purpose of losing and mocking the dumb SOBs. All through the match I would warble and scream like a Taliban fighter and would yell out "Allah Fubar" or "Admiral Akbar", before getting sniped, as I was getting sniped I would scream, "I can see heaven and my 72 virgins, oh crap they are star trek nerds!!" before respawning.....
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
I always thought there could be some fun in an al-Qaeda game where you have to bypass a pile of security and pull off the biggest possible terrorist attack. It could be a co-op multiplayer game where your friends take on different terrorist roles. It would need to be cleverly designed for infiltration that doesn't involve constantly shooting people to be fun.
For those who feel that playing the Taliban is offensive, I order you off the property because I am releasing the Dickwolves and you better hope you are not caught.
If this offended you, please read Gabe and Tycho's response while you are being herding to the mines.
...is that maybe it's too soon to be making a game about a war that is currently in progress, with parents welcoming their sons home in boxes.
Just my opinion.
Pretend there is some witty statement here.
God forbid we should offend somebody!
A nuke the usa game where you can play as north korea or Iran?
You mean, like Civilization 4?
You wouldn't believe it, too - not only that game lets you nuke New York with impunity, but you can actually spread Islam (Islam!!!) in American cities, leading them to revolt and secede! And then demolish Christian temples in them, and build mosques!
You wouldn't believe the unspeakable lows some people are willing to get to in their burning hatred of America!
I'm sure some people will be offended, but gosh darn it.. any trained soldier will tell you that training to 'think like the enemy' is a good thing. It lets you anticipate him and kill him before he kills you. If the soldier's mom is offended, I'm sorry to hear about it, but it is distinctly possible that some of her son's squad may find their lives saved at a future date by playing simulations like this one.
I hope that someone takes her aside and explains that to her.
Not true. America's Army solved this problem rather elegantly: there were two teams in any given match, and no matter which team you were on, your teammates were always displayed to you as Americans and the players on the other team displayed as Bad Furrin Terrorists ("OPFOR"). So nobody had to play as a Bad Furrin Terrorist; the BFTs were always the other guys, not you. Given how effectively this approach removes the issue of "playing as the Taliban" I'm a bit amazed EA's developers didn't use it.
Read my blog.
I can't watch the video, so this is based solely on the summary. It is entirely possible that the 'Gold Star Mom' (huh?) now objects to all depictions of war as entertainment. The summary doesn't say she thinks it's OK to play the US side, but not the side who killed her boy. It just says she objects to war being portrayed as a game.
This is not a viewpoint that I share, but she's welcome to it.
BF: BC3? You would play as Russians but close enough.
An interesting game...
It's gotta be rough playing Taliban where your only hope of anything is to shoot quickly than run, and hopefully you'll kill someone before you die, if you're lucky. Where if you ever begin to get the upper hand in any fight, your opponent calls in a helicopter that you have no defense against, or even hope to have a defense against. Where your only chance of winning is if your opponent decides to go home. That would be so depressing.
Qxe4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEFCON_(video_game) - fairly close
Also, there was this one C64 game, where you nominally play a world peacekeeper, IIRC. However, despite being a small kid (or perhaps because of it), I quickly figured out how to provoke nuclear exchanges; much more entertaining.
One that hath name thou can not otter
Please, pretty please tell us you're joking?
Or, alternatively, tell us you were serious so we can add you to the "ignorant fuck that'll guzzle down anything Fox squirts down his throat" list.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some Defcon to play...and I think I'll play the Russians today. any particular US cities you'd like me to refrain from nuking?
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
That's funny, I hear that's what the people on the other side said too, except possibly in another language.
Mark Twain put it quite eloquently in The War Prayer.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
...offended. Tagged "thinkofthechildren". Faux News sensationalism strikes again and were it not for them, the parents of dead soldiers would probably never have even heard about the game, let alone: "The Taliban Option". So who is the real villain?
Cops and robbers, sure, but who the fuck ever heard of playing pirates and aliens? Who's even the bad guy in that scenario? EA should've gone with the analogy all of our father's at one point impressed upon us: "If someone's the pitcher, someone's got to be the catcher, son. Now let daddy see your mitt."
if it offends you then don't buy it, by making a controversy out of it your just giving them free publicity and increasing their sales.
> Substitute Persia for Iran and you have your game right there.
Yes, but this is different. You are calling for the extinction of Muslim monkeys when you "Nuke Iran", so animal activists should unite. They are inferior, and they deserve to be dehumanized. The only reason the US keeps them around is for comic relief.
Wasn't there the same fake shit storm with quake and mass effect alien boobs? Do people really have nothing else to get upset over? US is falling apart and they bitch over a game that will gladly affix controversy badge to the box?
meh em,
Good for EA ( still hate you, but a lil less nao)
You forgot the tag for the idiot moderators.
Do you get to stone American women, and take a kalashnikov to a gathering of gays ?
Soo to make them happy we must have Americans vs Americans? This sounds so one sided..
~Mekkah
Hm, just slightly modify the story in one of MGS/etc. games. After all, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" (and mujahideen were very much described as the latter in western media for a long time)
One that hath name thou can not otter
I have plenty of karma to burn, and having a completely factually correct post (you can actually do every single thing I've listed in Civ4, and I also forgot to mention that you can play as Iran while doing them all, too!) modded flamebait only adds to the irony. Besides, these kinds of inane moderations tend to be corrected fairly quickly.
Didn't even Hot Coffee help GTA? I'm wondering when they'll have a kicking dogs and raping babies option in a game. That'll make polygonal titties in that unexceptional biking game look like old hat.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Get over yourself. The government is not forcing EA to shut this game down. These are private citizens expressing their First Amendment rights (which I presume you claim to support). Just as EA has a right to produce this game, grieving families have a right to voice their disgust at EA's complete lack of wisdom and decorum.
Firest a ground zero mosque now this whats next? A nuke the usa game where you can play as north korea or Iran?
You never played Balance of Power? I had it on the Amiga back in the '80's. Must have been a newer version than Wikipedia mentions because I recall being able to play as Middle Eastern or Chinese in addition to being U.S. or Russia.
"Life is offensive. Get used to it."
EA should do something really controversial. I'll buy the game when I can play and/or shoot Muhammad.
--
Toro
Because "Talibhans" don't exist, after all.
But, there is more than 76.4%* of American who can't write "Afghanistan" without making a mistake, so they will continue arguing.
*No reference available
...and steal the Kaa'baa's cornerstone, or even destroy it. I'd love to see that as a mission. It would also make a good Tomb Raider level.
Since when did mothers start playing video games now, especially ones that depict war? Bitching about an OPTION that can be selectively unselected is idiotic in my opinion. We have the choice to pick the story lines if we decide to buy the game because my money is what counts and it's what the distributor is offering for said money. Yea, our soldiers died in the war but no one can help but empathize with the enemy and this game will make good use of that empathy. Maybe it will even help people of the US realize how much it hurts for them as it hurt our soldiers too... freaking imbeciles. They made the choice to go to war and they paid for it...
In games where the Russians are "the bad guys" you can be them too and kill Americans. In Battlefield Bad Company 2 the two sides are Russians and Americans. When playing multiplayer you will be assigned to one of those two side and you will be killing the other one. In fact, you alternate. Many maps are "attack/defense" kinds of maps. One side is coded as defenders the other as attackers. So you play a round as the Americans, then reverse roles and play as the Russians. You identify enemies by the way they look, and how they speak (the Americans sound American, the Russians either speak Russian or speak English with a Russian accent depending on how you set it).
I think the reason people aren't whining is because it is a fake conflict. It is set in present day or near future with a conflict between the US and Russia. That is, of course, not presently happening so people are ok with it because it is just make believe.
To be prepared, the military plays war games, and one must assume that some play the part of our foes (in this case the Taliban, but perhaps generic terrorists, or Germans, or Russians, etc.). The idea of getting kids into playing games as a RECRUITMENT tool isn't lost on the U.S. Army! Such games require people to either play the part of the foes, or programmers to program the part of the foes. Studies have shown that games decrease reaction time, and provide a way to teach combat techniques that are used in real battlefields.
So just from the Military's point of view, military games are a positive influence as they prepare kids to be soldiers (I'd rather have games that prepared kids to do something else myself, BTW, but most of those just are not as fun to play with my boys... It is always more fun to shoot the Dad).
Now I doubt the Military is going to come out and defend EA here. But in their heart of hearts they are on EA's side.
It is tough to fight what I call the "Escalation of Righteousness" where somebody stands up and says, "This is in bad taste." Often, it is because "This" is in bad taste, or isn't polite, or maybe just isn't something the average Adult cares about enough to defend it. So a few people stand up and say, "We should stop this!" Most people don't agree, but don't disagree enough to fight it, and "This" gets banned even though there is no point in doing so.
I have seen this over Halloween, over playing cops and robbers in a school playground, in playing doge ball at recess, and now over a video game.
We just have to stop this. The idea that this game is "un-American" is bogus every which way you look at it. Speak up people, and shine the light on such ideas and show them to be the idiotic ideas that they are.
A mom of a soldier killed in Iraq has a problem with a video game that lets you pretend to take the side of a religious ideology. Where the hell was she before her son joined up? Where was her help when I was trying to tell our government not to send people to die over there in a futile and unwinnable war? Now she's wandering off into nonsense-land over a goddamned video game that I happen to enjoy. Anyone who condemns a game and doesn't condemn the actual reason that people are dying and did little to stop it in the first place is a hypocrit and a fool. I have sympathy for her grief and I wish I could roll back time and make Clinton not diddle Lewinsky so that Bush wouldn't have won the election and gone into Iraq to try to make his daddy like him, but none of that has anything to do with video games. Moms who are opposed to video games: stop misdirecting your grief and face what needs to be faced.
It's ok to laugh as you tear apart people's bodies with a chainsaw, or repeatedly crouch over the bodies of your defeated opponents in a sort of mock-rape style (as seems the custom of children in FPS games today), or just sit there with a sniper rifle as long as you're doing it for the American side. Doing it from the opposing team of a war that is going on in real life, even if it's just a game, is showing just how unpatriotic and anti-American you are, and that CLEARLY makes you a terrorist IRL. After all, only terrorists would want to kill an opponent without playing as a U.S. soldier. --Fox News
wouldnt be too surprised if tracing that "controversy" led back to ea...
not a bad play either, americans buy it to kill taliban, everyone else buy it to kill americans.
The problem with modern game settings is that someone is always going to be offended. Even in the best most fair cases its still the digital equivalent of picking at scabs. I know many just pass it off as a game, but I will admit that it makes me uncomfortable to trivialize the current situation in the middle east knowing that I have friends and family that are playing the "game" every day and don't get several lives and power up's to do so. EA is of course correct in that if there are people playing one side there have to be people playing the other side as well...the question is should we really be playing at all?
Cops and robbers, Cowboys and Indians, Gi Joe and Cobra, etc. It's play and it's acting and it serves a purpose.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
(Just google the damned acronyms, I'm not linking all of them.)
I was assigned to the 509th PIR, over at JRTC in Fort Polk, LA for some years. Our mission was to replicate an insurgent force in JRTC training exercises. This meant, in a nutshell, we dressed up like insurgents and adopted their tactics in MILES based exercises. I would lug a fake artillery shell and a pretty accurate replication of an IED and dig it in. I'd then hide off the side of the road and wait for a convoy to come by, and then tell a firemarker to set off the artillery simulator. We'd have other guys set up with RPG simulators and blank small arms fire to mount a combined attack. And they don't just do straight fighting. The OPFOR conducts kidnappings and executions, too. They even have medical dolls splattered with fake blood that replicate mass killings of civilians as a terror tactic. They don't replicate torture or rape, but I recall when we a soldier who had wandered off by himself, that kid was scared shitless.
It's possibly the best training the Army has. Every unit thinks they're hot shit, and they all make the same mistakes. After they've been wiped out four or five times over and hauled their friends (in full combat gear in that lovely Louisiana heat and humidity) away a few times, they start to realize that maybe they still have something to learn. The officers get to actually move large numbers of soldiers around when someone else is trying to counter them, and they also learn how difficult it is to gain local support when an insurgency is actively trying to disrupt their efforts.
Now, while it is good training, no one, not that I've ever met in the military, doesn't think it is also fun as all hell. I'd say a large part of the reason the 509th is so effective is because they really love their job.
mujahideen were very much described as the latter in western media for a long time
But keep in mind that the US was much more provoked to action and Afghanistan was given an out with plenty of time to comply then was the case with the Soviet invasion. It's not like Soviet suffered at the hands of anyone but themselves and the bombing raids certainly didn't start 09/12.
The moment you ragged on Obama as 'the worst President'. If you honestly think Bush was any better, then you have NO credibility at all with your statement.
And yes, one thing has something to do with the other, since YOU decided to mention that.
You comment being marked as 'insightful' says volumes about the readership of this site.
Seriously. WW II games, Battlefield Vietnam.. you play as the Americans or as the Vietnam.
Hell even SOCOM (which is a game I was severely addicted to) you played as US Seals or The Terrorists, which changed depending on the maps you played and the versions, but a lot of them were setup with Taliban type Terrorists.. and the fact that spoke Arabic backs up this point. My friend from Palestine was amazed we could speak arabic so well when we played LAN games until we told him the game actually said the phrases (such as (ok slashdot doesn't do arabic characters lol) which should read I have the hostages if google translated correctly, as well as Rahelah or however it's correctly spelled, which means Voyage or other similar terms depending on the dialect according to my friend but in game was said when you tossed a grenade)
I guess the mass media missed that whole family of games, huh?
motto of today
the beta is so bad no one will ever actually play the release version.
There's 1200 families from Afghanistan that have to live with this every day.
It is actually 1200 families from the USA, and at least 17000 families from Afghanistan.
Source: http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html#afghanistan
It's a game, shut the fuck up.
Her son died in a war to "Protect Freedom". And yet she belittles his death by complaining about a game that allows the players the freedom to be whoever they want in the conflict.
Lady, your son signed up because he believed it was the right thing to do, he died for his beliefs. The least you can do is respect what died for.
I don't agree with this war but I respect those who at least have the balls to put their lives on the line for their beliefs. Its far more than most of us will ever do.
Other things the same distance from Ground Zero. Just to put the distance into context and unpack the debate about what should be allowed planning permission in this area.
Personally I think one option would be to have a row of religious buildings from all the major world religions built next to each other. That way nobody could be accused of being given preferential treatment and the believers of each religion would have to talk to each other and find ways of getting on with each other (yes I know this would either be ineffectual or a tinderbox in reality).
Not sure of your expression "Islamic/ US relations" - I think these are orthogonal, they are not in the same dimension. Islam is a religion and the USA is a nation state, they are different types of entity. "Christian / Islamic relations" or "USA / Iranian relations" I would get. though the latter is slightly complicated as Iran I believe is a theocratic state.
In school I used to play board games such as Squad Leader, Axis & Allies, etcetera and of course somebody always ended up playing the bad guys.
My rights don't need management.
There has almost always been a "bad guy side" in FPS. Sometimes the designers try to make the bad guys NOT an actual organization. This time they didn't.
But I'll bet you her son played the video game or one like it in the MWR when he had some down-time.
And there are two sides to the real war. This is one example of a war game (there are many I hear).
Her problem is that she doesn't get that there's another side in real life, too. Many Afghan soldiers, not unlike her son (just from another country) are killed by our (American) troops on their own land. The difference here is opinion of who's the "good guy" and who's the "bad guy".
Let me make it clear that I am not favoring either of the two sides.
What are video games? In this case, is it not an attempted approximation of real life war? Why should this woman, mother of an American soldier, be any less outraged and hurt by the fact that there are American soldiers in the video game? Is it simply because it's almost the default to play the Americans in these kinds of games?
We need to wake up as a human race, from this slumber we call individuality. We'll save a lot of lives that way.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
This is just a game. As in, it's not real. Get a grip in reality, please. Lots of people die in many different ways, and just because someone you know died a certain way that people in a game die in, it certainly doesn't mean that the game needs to be banned.
Screw your censorship, you oversensitive idiots. Censorship is an obscenity in and of itself. If you don't like it, don't play the game. This is insane. I'm tired of people who think that everything that they don't like needs to be censored.
I raged.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
What's next?
Watching your social security trust fund go toward buying some more up-armored humvees, obtuse weapon systems, drones, and benefits for the blasted apart.
Seriously dude, be upset that in the US we spend more than most nations COMBINED on defense. This will be the downfall of our country, that and the leeches that make up the top 2%.
Ike knew it would lead to this:
http://www.h-net.org/~hst306/documents/indust.html
I think hearing this song can help. DEVO - Freedom of Choice http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jVoroHx3IU&playnext=1&videos=IibK1CODwX4
Should of read: < sarcasm > tag
> modded flamebait only adds to the irony. Besides, these kinds of inane moderations tend to be corrected fairly quickly.
True, just pointing it out so it gets rectified sooner.
It's simple, whichever side you play, yours looks like the Awesome Good Guy Moral And Fair Playing Americans and the other side looks like those Nasty Evil Smelly Savage Pigdog What'stheirwhatever. Real' easy to do with computer games.
That way we can avoid the issue entirely, not having to face the threat of having to see the situation from their side (however wrong it always is). It can be done with the Allies versus the Nazis. The Europeans versus the Russians. The Democratic versus the Communists. We can just completely disregard the visceral drama of what "they" have to deal with.
After all, everyone prefers to play counter-terrorist, just someone has to play the terrorists to make it fair. Both sides surely shed a tear whenever they hear "Terrorists win."
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
During vietnam they made movies and tv shows about Korea, but not vietnam (as far as I'm aware). I think making a game about current conflict is stupid. Not only do we not really have the history to fully understand it, its a poor choice for those who are currently involved. Freedom of expression shouldn't overpower ethics they way some people think it should. If you wanna play this war game, go enlist in the Marine Corps. Otherwise, give them 20 years to deal with the trauma.
Does this mean that all players have standard US issue weaponry and therefore applying identical tactics and strategy ?
Now I didn't play America's Army but I did play C&C Generals, and there it would have been very difficult to pull that off. I mean, one faction has suicide bombers and primitive weapons and the other has high-tech stuff. I guess each could show up as American, but the strategy would be far off what you'd expect from American troops :)
The military uses simulations like this to better educate the grunts in the field. The fact that you don't die forever in the game is why you can retry the simulation multiple times. If she's not OK with that there are games that you die once then sit around for 30 minutes and then get tagged back in (somewhat like MILES if the sarge who's got the clicker is actually paying attention.) When players are given the option of shooting people, with blood and damaging explosions that do effects to the sim-world they'd rather do that than play MILES. Sure it's in bad taste, but if her son had a choice, I'm sure he would have played the taliban side and learned a thing or two. Like maybe: war is hell and there are assholes who will kill you any way they can cause you're there and they don't want you there.
The military is volunteer, the game is a for profit game that you can choose to buy. Leave the country as it is and stop complaining about games that piss you off. In 2000 years people will be decrying BSG because the robot-human war has been a travesty and many people have died. But you know what, if my robot transplanted brain is still alive I'll play that damn thing on full volume, I don't care if my non-toaster neighbors are offended.
The real-world version is a bit more expensive, but has been an excellent investment:
http://www.irwin.army.mil/Pages/default.aspx
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Fat ladies in sensible shoes at it again...
You can't silence it, but you don't have to listen.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Hey Mom! It **IS** a game, that's the point.
I'm sorry for your loss. My father is dead and we still play fighter airplane games.
Nobody is forcing YOU, Mom, to play.
Actually this isn't be a half-bad way to drum up interest and probably a greater margin; it's the sort of thing one side of the newsatainment press report with outrage, with some of the more meditative press writing long-winded analyses of the entire situation. In any case they do the marketing for you; not necessarily in endorsement, but with mere mentions.
People who tended to get offended over this matter were never a large part of Medal of Honor's market anyway so essentially we've a rather good astroturfish decision that won't be damaging long term and will likely benefit EA if more interest is drummed up prior to release. Thus it's 'good' business.
Offtopic: PopeRatzo I was just browsing a Slashdot topic from last year (Caffeinated Alcoholic Drinks May Be Illegal. and encountered some cooking pointers. I have noted down your meat preparation tips and humbly propose you set up a cookery blog called 'Cooking with Ratzo.' to imbue others with this knowledge.
... are you anyway? Stick to GTA, shooting cops and stealing cars.
Have gnu, will travel.
My brother died in a car crash.
It is incredibly insensitive to have racing games.
Ban them all!!!
I have mod points. I'd mod him down, but I would rather point out his obvious error. EA is free to express itself, it is not free from being criticized for its expression. I am constantly amazed at how many people don't get this.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Global Thermonuclear War? I've been waiting for that game for years...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defcon_(video_game)
Argh, yeah I think I played that on the Spectrum ... you got intelligence from "Big Bird" satellites, had SDI satellites that could stop nuclear exchanges if you guessed correctly where they would happen and could order countries to increase or decrease their missile stocks, yes?
See also Shadow President (PC, 1993.)
You know what, screw you. Screw you because you lumped all Muslims as supporting the terrorists. Screw you because people like you are one of the reasons why many misguided Muslims turn to terrorism. Screw you because you are against real Muslims trying to bridge the divide with the American people. Screw you because you made a hypothetical straw man argument. Yeah, mod me down as a troll or what not. I'm a Muslim and I am against terrorism in any form, be it carried out by amateurs or by someone hiding behind a Predator Drone. The US had destroyed more civilian buildings, killed more innocent people, wiped off villages off the map, then what was lost during the September 11 attacks. It has destabilised the volatile Afghanistan region and is kindling a greater fire in Kurdistan. All this at the cost of benefiting the people behind the original attacks and your military-industrial complex. What is wrong with allowing some people trying to heal the wounds by building this Islamic Centre? (it is not a mosque)
Does anybody remember this game? The best point was the news between the missions, when playing for the different sides. Was the civilian village you burned down really camouflaged terrorists (as the mission instruction said) or was it a civilian village (as the propaganda said when you played the other side). Was the war really about freedom like you are told in the beginning? Or was it just about power?
The gameplay will only be balanced if the Taliban side has an instant respawn, can't shoot, has a Belt Weapon accuracy of 10 meters, and can use women and children for protection.
Just saying.
You mean, like Civilization 4?
Civilization 4 is played at a high level of abstraction.
Games like Medal of Honor are more or less plausible - I would not say realistic - simulations of small unit combat.
There is a difference - and it is a difference that matters, if you are going to make your case for these war game honestly.
The US is the one that has no reason to be over there. The US is the one interfering with foreign sovereign nations.
You are invaders. No different from Atila, except for the fact that Atila was in a time when conquering other nations was the norm, and the US is a barbaric nation from the past in more modern and civilized times.
And the country that is getting invaded is somehow the 'bad guy'?
Come on.
All I can say is: The rest of the world rejoices every time one of your soldiers die.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Civilization 4 is played at a high level of abstraction.
GP has specifically asked about "nuke the USA" game. Nuclear strikes are carried at a "high level of abstraction" in reality as well.
There is a difference - and it is a difference that matters, if you are going to make your case for these war game honestly.
It doesn't seem to matter to vast majority of people out there, including many war veterans (indeed, why not ask them?). Pixels are pixels. They don't have an "immoral" bit.
Good thing it was her son's choice to join the military. Much like my choice to play a war video game instead.
There's 1200 families from Afghanistan that have to live with this every day.
That must be Americans only. Last week I read that it's 2000 for the coalition...
I find it unrealistic to compare cops and robbers to the Taliban and US soldiers.
I'm sure there are a few families of cops killed in the line of duty who would beg to differ. Cops, like US soldiers, really do die in real life when they get shot at.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Not all those who fire upon American troops are Taliban; defending their home or not - they have their subcultures just as we have. The actual Taliban numbers are low and of that group it has subgroups such as Al Qaeda.
A video game with a lame story isn't expected to make such complex distinctions when the media in the USA doesn't do it.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
We stopped reading when you said social security trust fund. You need to be better educated.
In the America's Army series of games the missions are two sided in such a way that both sides are the "good guys". For example, there was one scenario where an Afghan village was occupied by the Taliban and US soldiers (i.e. you and your squad of other online players) had to infiltrate the village at night and eliminate them. Of course, if you were playing on the defending side then the scenario was reversed, the Taliban were launching a night attack against the US soldiers (again you and your squad of other online players) who where there to protect the Afghan villagers. Each side appeared to the other as "the enemy" (i.e. used the Taliban insurgent skins and weapons) while both sides appeared to themselves as American soldiers (i.e. US Army uniforms and weapons). I remember thinking that this was a pretty clever solution to the problem of "one side has to be the bad guys".
to watch Glenn Beck's opinion on this!
They're there voluntarily. At least those of the invading forces, like the US ones usually are.
When we have a war game that extensivly depicts civilian suffering, we'll have a more accurate war game. Schools, hospitals, houses of worship, media centers and more, blown up by both sides. Orphans and amputees everywhere. People starving to death or dying from easily treatable diseases.
War isn't fun, and war games that try to be anything close to realistic cannot be fun. If they're fun, they're don't have any significant amount of truth in them.
We are all God's parents.
completely factually correct post
Christian temples
Christians have churches not temples.
And of course the Americans have shown their importance of preserving monuments such as all the ones in Hiroshima.
Like the alternative of carpet bombing Tokyo for months and a million dead on both sides would have been so much better. When thinking of how America used The Bomb, please consider the otherwise inevitable alternative.
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
Any place of worship is a temple by definition. Western Christians generally use more specific words to denote them (e.g. church vs cathedral), but all of those are temples. Eastern (Orthodox) Christians actually use the word "temple" very often - e.g. the name Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow would be literally be translated as "Temple of ..." .
In any case, in Civ4, the basic religious building called "temple" regardless of religion - "Christian Temple", "Islamic Temple", "Taoist Temple" etc. So the sentence as written was absolutely correct.
I do not want to be callous, but my grand mother is 102 (may she lives to be 103) year old, and when shewas 100 and I showed some of myWW" games to her she was sad. She said she felt that games where people could play as german in WW1,WW2 are shit in similar word as this woman, she after all lost 1 husband, 2 uncle and 2 tante, 1 cousin, in those wars. So from now on we should forbid anybody to be german in multiplayer. She was split for the 70' war for which she only heard stories. Or we could just ignore both my GM and this woman : game reflect realities put it in a form usable by people to play. Some subject will ALWAYS upset somebody. Where doyou draw the line to which upset people you hear and those you ignore ? You drawit where it makes financial sense that upsetting people will not lower your income. Also potentially, those upset should look elsewhere.
The Ultimate War Simulation Game: "Like my Grandpa always said, there were no naked human pyramids in Starcraft"
But of course, it is a game. Politics and War are nothing but games for resources and power. People justify it using Patriotism, National Security, Terrorism blah blah. If you don't see it, you are living in your make believe world.
I had a ridiculous game once as the Romans... half the world, way ahead in production and a modest lead in tech. Several cities with over 200 hammers/turn, repeat-building ICBMs, and many of the other large cities repeat-building Tac Nukes for my subs and Missile Cruisers. Babylon, the other major power, decided it would be a good time to declare war. Three hundred mushroom clouds later, they had no cities larger than size 1. Zooming all the way out and seeing one side of the planet glowing yellow was pretty cathartic.
GP has specifically asked about "nuke the USA" game. Nuclear strikes are carried at a "high level of abstraction" in reality as well.
This was something that DEFCON nailed so very well. Playing to the soundtrack of muffled beeps and ventilation fans, then hearing someone sobbing in the background as "5 Million Dead" glows over Los Angeles, was enough to make me stop playing, creeped out.
http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/971741326_PoBhw-L.jpg
And we live it -- it's not a game... EA is very cavalier about it: "Well, it's just a game." But it isn't a game to the people who are suffering from the loss of the children and loved ones.'
Easy solution: Don't buy it, don't play it. There, solved that for you.
Really, we as a society need to get out of this stupid tribal mindset that we are offended by things that other people do with no effect whatsoever on ourselves. I'll admit up front that it isn't the same level of evil, but it is in the same category (semantically) as Taliban who are offended at other people being in love with each other.
And yes, I say that to a griefing mother. Grief makes you irrational, and irrational people should not be the ones who decide how society works. They deserve our support and comfort, but they don't deserve to dictate policy.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
What is not often said, is that wars are started to keep people busy. Jobs are declining in USA, and has been for the past 40 years since WWII. Technology today allows for outsourcing most everything to other countries, so all the real dollars just fly out of the country. It doesn't help to have imaginary dollars as these rely on exploiting developing countries and making sure YOUR market always have them beat down - or you pay some dictator to do it for you. In the longer run, it is naturally not sustainable for your own economy. So what to do?
Start a war!
It is often stated wars are started because of resources, political and religious differences, yes, even single incidents like assassinations, may be triggers for war.
However, ultimately, wars are a means to keep the population docile and controlled. Creating an external enemy ("Bad Guy" (tm)) is an age-old technique to gain power and make people focus on what you want them to focus on, not what you're actually doing. It also helps to create jobs, a big war-industry and gain influence in other's territories and control their resources. Often, science and research are also strongly promoted by war. Even more ultimately however, wars serve the warlords and their corporations, and very few else.
That young, healthy males and females should "sacrifice their lives", for some warmongering corporation, is of course not something a populace can swallow. So they buy ANY propaganda, or justify it anyway they can once a nation has committed to war. You don't really have to do much propaganda except the usual ones, because the populace will actually do it for you! The national identity is ingrained in people, they are unable to be responsible for their own actions. Once a war is started, "you are either with us, or against us". In some countries, deserting is punished by death.
The only catch is that this is not sustainable and is destroying our planet, but that's a "small detail in the bigger picture", which is to serve a warlord and his many corporations.
i'm sorry for your loss but i can't have you censoring my world because of your grief, take it up with the people responsible if you really want to fight it, but keep your hands off my spare time and my internet, PLEASE There's always a few people to take issue with everything, anything that's done can possibly offend anyone somewhere. Not playing Taliban will not bring dead soldiers back, and censoring the issue out of anyting will SURE as hell not make the taliban go away. Not talking about muslim fundamentalists will not grow back the severed head of cartoonists either. Avoiding issues and censorship helps NObody.
beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)
Freedom of Speech is not Freedom of Defamation
might keep some troops alive one of these days. They're in the prime demographic for this kind of game and I predict that lots of active duty soldiers will be buying it. One could hope there's a military discount. Think of it as a "combat simulator troops will voluntarily play on their own time on very sophisticated graphics hardware". A simulator with a "Red Team" option is automatically more useful.
A soldier who's thinking when on convoy "Hmmm, if I were a Taliban, where would I put IEDs on this road?" or "What a wonderful place to put an ambush" because he played the "Red Team" option might outlive one who isn't thinking about things like that.
While video games are not reality, that's the problem with any kind of simulation regardless of who makes it or budget.
Tech Public Policy stuff
I've been playing Call of Duty as a Nazi bastard with my trusty Gewehr rifle for years. Nobody said a word.. (well, except "r u bot?")
Well no need for taliban forces in the game really... just make them US forces shoot other US forces.
Wouldn't be to far fetched either.
Hey I have great idea! How 'bout YOU DON'T PLAY the f*ckin game if you don't like what's in it. It's a GAME. I guess Fox news has run out of shit to complain about since Bush left office. I play GTA all the time, and it doesn't make me wanna kill hookers so I can get my money back...it usually happens on accident.
The Empire must always win.
Whenever someone advocates a viewpoint (or demonstrable fact) that they disagree with they will bring someone on who disagrees with said viewpoint or fact in order to "show both sides of the argument". When someone tries to portray the war on terror from the perspective of "the enemy", showing both sides suddenly becomes unacceptable.
Choose not to play or buy the game.
While I disagree with EA's addition of this option in this game, I cannot say I agree with taking away their right to put it out there.
I think it is in bad taste and is showing a lack of compassion and respect for our troops and their families. I will just vote with my wallet, as I would hope anyone who feels as I do would.
I don't think it's right to tell an artist they cannot produce art that I disagree with, I just won't support an artist for doing so.
Which is more important, protecting the principle of freedom of speech or protecting the feelings of people who have had great harm done to themselves or their loved ones?
This is a key issue in many public policy debates, such as whether Muslims can build anything near the the Freedom Tower.
A game that accurately depicts war is no game at all.
So the Taliban have been hiding in Iraq after all, not just in Afghanistan? Don't think so. That soldier's mother should rather channel her understandable anger and grief by denouncing the politicians responsible for needlessly invading Iraq and sending her son there to his pointless death than to take exception to a game that let's people unbeknownst to her play as members of a party that in her case isn't even to blame for her son's death.
is involved in the story. enough said.
lol u mad, Fox?
That is a great idea, but I propose to ban all post 1900 wars, so there wont be any hurt feelings from post 1900 games, and there won't be hurt feelings from the wars itself as well!
The US is currently at war against the Taliban. To create a game that lets you play as the enemy in a current war is unheard off. It's borderline treason (promoting the enemy) and in very poor taste.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Make a game where you can be an industrial revolutionist or a turn of the century Southerner lynching black people. Hey, it's just game, right?
You AC -- you are wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html
Though widely used, the term "Social Security Trust Fund" is something of a misnomer, as the Social Security Administration of the United States actually oversees two separate funds that hold federal government debt obligations related to what are traditionally thought of as Social Security benefits. The larger of these funds is the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund, which holds in trust those funds that the federal government intends to use to pay future benefits to retirees and their survivors.[2] The second, smaller fund is the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund, which holds in trust those funds that the federal government intends to use to pay benefits to those who are judged by the federal government to be disabled and incapable of productive work, as well as to their spouses and dependents.[3]
What about America's Army? Produced by the military...players could be the bad guys or the good guys--and even get bad-guy weapons.
From a war-gaming perspective it's important to know what it's like to fight against your own forces. Just like in American Football its common for teams to split in half and play each other, and in Chess its always interesting to stand up and walk around to the other side of the board to see yourself as the opponent sees you.
The deep relationship between games and military strategy is apparent; don't discount was can be learned by playing the bad guys.
There was Balance of Power which was a Cold War sim; you'd normally play that until you got sufficiently pissed off at the endless manufactured crises and then go and play Bravo Romeo Delta until the planet glowed. Myself I was quite fond of Central Intelligence where you were the guy in charge of organising a revolt in some banana republic or other; it had a wonderful simulated society and economy, you'd graduate from organising student leaflet campaigns to stealing explosives from quarries and using them in your freedom fighting to arming and training guerrillas in the woods. Lovely idea, shame about the dreadful interface.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
governments could go the extra mile a have victim-less virtual wars. let the best ping wins.
So you want to be "Smart, rational, empathetic, open minded and willing to compromise," but think that all "extremists and zealots...should be REMOVED from society." That it THE definition of hypocrisy. I in no way support those who like to monger them some hate but that doesn't mean we should commit borderline genocide.
I suppose the fundamental question here (in my opinion) is whether Americans believe that all muslims are terrorists. If yes, than I understand this perspective. If all muslims are terrorists, then every mosque is a home of terrorism, and related to the people who blew up the towers at 9/11.
If however you believe that not all muslims are terrorists (clearly the US military doesn't, it has serving soldiers who are muslims), then you have to consider that the mosque is not associated with the people who professed the same religion and killed on 9/11. You have to consider that the worshippers there may be peace loving and not want to be associated with the 9/11 killers, and so under the US Constitution and the oft mentioned cry of 'freedom' allow them to build their place of worship.
Personally I am prepared to believe there are many strands and interpretations of Islam, in the same way that most Americans who call themselves Christian don't associate with the Westboro Baptist Church and despite these people calling themselves Christian, may have very different views in their place of worship.
I'm standing in the station,
I am waiting for a train,
To take me to the border,
And my loved one far away;
I watched a bunch of soldiers heading for the war,
I could hardly even bear to see them go;
Rolling through the countryside,
Tears are in my eyes,
We're coming to the borderline,
I'm ready with my lies,
And in the early morning rain, I see her there,
And I know I'll have to say goodbye again;
And it's breaking my heart, I know what I must do,
I hear my country call me, but I want to be with you,
I'm talking my side, one of use will lose,
Don't let go, I want to know
That you will wait for me until the day,
There's no borderline, no borderline;
Walking past the border guards,
Reaching for her hand,
Showing no emotion,
I want to break into a run,
But these are only boys, and I will never know
How men can see the wisdom in a war...
And it's breaking my heart, I know what I must do,
I hear my country call me, but I want to be with you,
I'm taking my side, one of us will lose,
Don't let go, I want to know
That you will wait for me until the day,
There's no borderline, no borderline,
No borderline, no borderline...
thank God the internet isn't a human right.