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."

109 of 671 comments (clear)

  1. Hypocrisy Isn't Free by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.'"
    1. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 2, Funny

      They should make Bionic Commando 2-player, so you can play the side that resurrects Hitler.

      I bet that albatross makes a sweet UAV as well.

    2. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Irrelevant. He should have know the risk when he started to work as a soldier.
      Should we stop making games/movies/etc. containing firemen/policemen/etc. because those people also died in their line of duty?

    3. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by markov_chain · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Unfortunately the GP didn't exercise his freedom to express himself with certain punctuation.

      --
      Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
    4. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by xMilkmanDanx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There isn't a mod -1 insensitive option.

      And he does have a point, just because we don't hear the other side doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anytime you're dealing with a 'modern' conflict (as in the events are still fresh) you're going to be stepping on people's losses.

      I do question the wisdom in choosing a real and current conflict as a game setting. An even slightly fictionalized setting, would do much to reduce this negative association.

    5. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by wjousts · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry, does the idea that people on the other side have families that grief the loss of their loved ones make you uncomfortable?

    6. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by toriver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Remember: It's not art unless someone is offended. If it offends no-one it is merely entertainment.

      Or we could restrict game topics to pre-1900 conflicts in case there are some long-lived victims around.

    7. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "These days", huh? Well, if you could go back to whatever previous "days" you imagine as the time when freedom of expression wasn't a myth, you'd find that it too was chock full of people like you smugly declaring that "freedom of expression is pretty much a myth these days". They were as wrong then as you are now.

    8. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by Gilandune · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That does not explain why the game should be banned/censored, which, if i remember correctly, is the point of this discussion. We all agree that freedom of speech goes both ways but, one parties freedom of speech shouldnt be so much more important than the other one as to be able to censor it.

    9. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by Bryansix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Only this has Everything to do with freedom. Censorship comes in many forms including self censorship and censorship by ridicule.

    10. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, but you can't torture people in Gitmo either so in the end you just have to accept that you can't do everything both sides do.

    11. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 2, Informative

      That does not explain why the game should be banned/censored, which, if i remember correctly, is the point of this discussion.

      I don't think you remember correctly. None of the articles have mentioned the word "Ban" or "Censor" anywhere, and I haven't watched the video but I don't think the Mother did either.

      In essence this is just a mother expressing her negative opinion towards games about modern warfare. I don't think anyone has taken any actions to try and get it to actually change though. It's not like EA is going to do a recall or anything.

    12. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More to the point, should we ban games where you can play, say, a Mafia enforcer or a member of a Asian Triad? I mean, cops have died battling organized crime.

      In the end, while I can understand families of slain soldiers being opposite, so far as I'm concerned liberty trumps they're objections absolutely.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    13. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by flitty · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Reminds me from this post from Penny Arcade, when Gabe interviewed his grandfather about WWII Games

      Q. What do you think about gamers playing video games based on World War II?

      A. I haven't really paid enough attention to the games themselves to be able to tell you truthfully, but I would think, if it's just people shooting one another, I don't think it's a proper thing for young people to do. I think it sets a bad example for them, because they get into the mood of doing that, and that begins their lifestyle. And that's not the lifestyle you want.

      Q. When groups of gamers are playing these games together it is common for some of them to play as the enemy. They might play as Germans defending the beach at Normandy for example. What's your opinion of that?

      A. Well, it ties back in to what I already said. I don't think it's an appropriate game. I think they can make games that will interest kids, that don't have to include war. We don't need to be killing each other in games. There's other ways of strategizing and using the kind of skills that make those games popular.

      Full thing here

      --
      Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
    14. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by bistromath007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It has everything to do with it. Freedom is sometimes in poor taste.

    15. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by AffidavitDonda · · Score: 4, Informative

      not exactly. only certain symbols (the swastika, the ss runes) are illegal. game companies simply replace or remove them.

    16. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by Americano · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, hush with your "logic" and "reasonable arguments." This is slashdot, enjoy the down-mods! :)

    17. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by Torodung · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What now? Cave drawings are offensive? So is the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel or Rodin's "The Thinker?" So was the entire portraiture of Renoir? Who did Seurat offend with his "Sunday Afternoon?" Who's offended by (most) still life or landscape paintings?

      Art doesn't have to be offensive to be art, it just has to be offensive to make headlines in a sensationalist, pop-culture media. All art has to do, in general, is communicate something to its audience that cannot be communicated in any other medium.

      --
      Toro

    18. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by idontgno · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Censorship comes in many forms including self censorship

      Basically true.

      and censorship by ridicule.

      Now you lost it. Ridicule isn't censorship. If's freedom from censorship. If I ridicule you, I hope you keep talking, so I can keep ridiculing.

      If ridicule censors you, that's you self-censoring for invalid reasons. Freedom requires courage sometimes. At some level, you can't blame someone else for your own lack of courage. (Yes, at the extreme, that means courage unto death. It's been done, and someday in the future it may need doing again.) But courage in the face of asshattery isn't so extreme, and the lack of it is properly risible.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    19. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by PitaBred · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So... they're offending their target market, going to fail in the marketplace because nobody will buy the game, and collapse as a company? Great! Free market at work!

      Or it offends a few busybodies who make a bunch of noise, and... life goes on.

      If you don't like what they do, don't buy the damn game. It's not that hard. Just refuse to open your wallet when they hold you at gunpoint. Life's too short to get offended. You don't have a right to not be offended. You have a right to free speech and association.

    20. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by Bemopolis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which is funny, since Gitmo was the result of assuming that we COULD do everything both sides do.

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    21. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by Seumas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So movies about current military events in which people on both sides who have families and friends are killed are okay. Sensationalistic commercial news organizations living for the past decade eating out of this same trough are fine. Politicians exploiting the same thing for political gain are fine. Authors writing books about it are fine. VIdeogames, however, shouldn't dare come close to it?

      Videogames and other media about the current events are not undermining anything. Wanting to censor or ban those things, however, directly undermines everything that people claim the military is fighting for (I won't waste anyone's time getting into the obvious argument that shooting unarmed men and children in a van in the middle of the road and gloating about it and then covering it up doesn't seem to have anything to do with "protecting freedom").

      If this type of game would make you uncomfortable, you shouldn't buy it or play it. I don't like those SAW movies, so I don't buy or watch those. I love a good horror movie, but I don't care for torture porn. Again, if I don't like it, I don't have to contribute to or consume it. Those who do, can.

      I don't care about any "but my brother died in the military!" arguments. Who cares? That is very sad, but it has no relevance to free speech. This shouldn't even be a debate. We either embrace free speech or we don't. If we do, then this conversation is over. There's no caveat that says "except when it makes someone uncomfortable". And if we do, then let's do away with this bullshit notion and start censoring and banning everything.

    22. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by ShakaUVM · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >>I do question the wisdom in choosing a real and current conflict as a game setting.

      So it's okay to play as a Japanese guy dive bombing Pearl Harbor, but not a VC slashing the throat of an American sentry?

      There's been so much media and gaming surrounding WWII, I'm astonished that people realize at all that the people in it were just as real (many of whom are still alive today) and died just as painfully. My American grandparents greatly disdained all the WWII video games for that reason (my paternal grandfather was pretty technologically adept). My German relatives, one of who had his jaw blown off in the Battle of the Bulge, probably have similar sentiments, though I've never gathered the courage to ask him.

    23. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by NiceGeek · · Score: 5, Informative

      "with his takeover of the health care system" I'm sorry, when exactly did that happen?

    24. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's also a really stupid law. I went on a German exchange at school. All of the children I met had played Wolfenstein 3D, but because it was not allowed to be sold in Germany they'd all pirated it. It didn't stop anyone playing the game, it just stopped Id Software getting any money.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    25. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by ooshna · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I guess you didn't hear about the Patriot Act or even lesser what happened when South Park showed Mohammad this year? I think its funny how They showed him in the Super Best Friends episode and no one cared but now not only is he shown as a big black box but they bleep his name as well.

    26. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by KahabutDieDrake · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think you don't have the foggiest idea of the facts of the case. The so called ground zero mosque is more complicated and yet simpler than you imagine. High five for buying into the media blitz. Now lets have some facts to fuck up your opinions.

      The planned community center is NOT on ground zero. It's blocks away. Roughly equidistant from 2 other mosques already in place in the area. The "symbol" isn't a symbol. It's a freaking YMCA with slightly different religious overtones. The only appreciable difference is, right now, this country likes Christians and doesn't like Muslims. Racism, religionism, whatever you want to call it. This whole thing is about HATE mongering. The people behind this community center are the kind of people we need in this country. Smart, rational, empathetic, open minded and willing to compromise. The kind of people AGAINST this center are the kind of people we SHOULD be putting up against walls. They are extremists, and zealots. Both of which, no matter the creed, should be removed from society as they are of no benefit, and we KNOW THAT as a society.

      If providing a community center in NY, where exists dozens of similar centers from dozens of creeds is counter productive.... well I don't even know where to begin. Are you AWARE of your bias? Do you just not care? NY was once known as the melting pot. It was the place where dozens of religions, creeds and races mixed and more or less got along. If that is now not true anymore because of "ground zero".... well, I guess we can declare a winner can't we?

    27. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by MakinBacon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't seem to understand that there is NO LEGAL PRECEDENCE for denying a religious group the right to build a place of worship solely because you don't like them. The Constitution's 1st amendment was created with exactly this sort of situation in mind. If we do not allow them to build their mosque/community center, we are denying them one of the most fundamental rights of American law.

    28. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by gknoy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Both sides do not stone teenage girls to death...

      So how you get from "torturing people in Gitmo" .... And to put torturing a terrorist for information that will protect an innocent life on par in the ethical scale with burying people alive because "God" told you to? That's just wrong.

      Torture does not yield reliable information. It yields statements which the victim thinks you want to hear, even if they're entirely false. Torturing people is always bad, it is never ethically sound.

      Okay, back to the real topic: playing virtual terrorists or Really Bad People in a multiplayer video game. People are not playing these games to stone virtual children or mass-murder civilians. Yes, as far back as Counter-Strike there's been sides that are planting bombs, or kidnapping hostages -- but the "crimes" of Team A are merely a plot hook, a vector for the competetive gameplay that the players want.

      Hostages are "easily killable assets which require extraction". Bombs are, well, bombs, but the target could be a weapons cache, a school, or a harbor, and gamers wouldn't really notice or care. They care much more that it's a bomb placed behind that building, or through this choke point, than what the fictional target is. The goal of the game, when playing as the OpFor, is to achieve tactical success.

      Frankly, I feel that America's Army did it best, as someone noted above: each side sees themselves as being on the "good guys" team, with objectives explained appropriately. However, we've been playing Counter-Strike, Global Operations, Call of Duty, and Enemy Territory for over a decade, and this is not very different. The only difference is that the Bad Guys are a group we are currently fighting against. Pretty much any gamer won't care - the reasons to choose Team A vs Team B are either aesthetic ("I don't want a mask") or logistical ("Team B has better guns"). Most servers will even auto-assign a team to preserve team balance. Very rarely does any ideological ("I want to be a bad guy") viewpoint have any bearing on team choice, because both sides swap roles (attacker vs defender) after rounds in most such games.

      The name, nationality, or character models used for Team A and Team B are completely orthogonal to the gameplay in just about any game. Counter-Strike is the only exception I can think of, where each team has a different stable of guns to choose from. Many players preferred to play with the M4+silencer, whereas many other players were die-hard fans of the AK-47, even going so far as to use captured guns when they were forced to be on the team that could not buy them. In nearly every newer game I can think of (OK, not Battlefield 2) all characters can choose from the same guns, so the teams are effectively Team A and Team B.

    29. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by fishbowl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >In one word, yes. It's all a matter of sensibility.

      As soon as you define "matter of sensibility" in a way that has universal acceptance *or* can stand as a basis for a legal decision in court, it will be meaningful.

      Like pornography, just because "you know it when you see it", that doesn't make it a reasonable universal standard that can be applied to any given scenario.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    30. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by AstrumPreliator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My father would agree.

      He was in the Marine Corps in Vietnam. I've heard quite a few stories, mostly humorous, from his time in Vietnam. Although he's told me a few which were truly horrific. He saw things that colored his view of the world, just as I'm sure Gabe's grandfather did. My father can't stomach watching Saving Private Ryan, other movies based on war, or video games based on war. Video games tend to glamorize it, and both movies and video games tend to put in the gore to make it sickening for someone who has lived through it. He also talks about how you'll never truly understand what it's like until you're there and you see your friends die, smell the stench of death, live with the stress, and experience the fear.

      Having said all that I do play a lot of games. Games such as Red Orchestra I quite enjoy. I can handle simulated violence, I know it's fake. I know I wouldn't be able to handle it in real life though, so I respect veterans' for that and I understand why they have the views that they do. Although there are a lot of people in the current generation which can handle it. I've had a few friends go over to Iraq and Afghanistan who were gamers before and still are after. Although I've never spoken with any of them in depth about it.

    31. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have some perspective. Plenty of it. Would you like some?

      No, we don't stone teenage girls to death, we put them down for how they are fat or ugly to the point where their self esteem gets so low that they commit suicide.

      We don't bury homosexuals, we just kill them

      We don't beat people for listening to certain kinds of music. Even if some are criminals, we just assume All their fans are gang members.

      And of course the Americans have shown their importance of preserving monuments such as all the ones in Hiroshima.

      I mean you can't just say "But they are bad" and act like everything our society does is all high and mighty. Perhaps if you asked them why they are fighting you'd understand a bit more. Not all of them are shooting American troops because their God said so. Some of them dislike the embedded materialistic society we've created and want to stop the greed from spreading out of America. Most of them see this as an invasion, and they are fighting back.

      Torturing people to find out information to protect the soldiers you put there in the first place sure does seem to balance out nicely. Tell me, how does being in the middle east stop people from taking over American Jets? Couldn't those soldiers be manning the airports over here? Maybe then I wouldn't need a full body scanner to take a picture of my junk, instead I'd get someone who is a professional with weapons and demolitions to identify if I'm armed or not.

    32. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "These days", huh? Well, if you could go back to whatever previous "days" you imagine as the time when freedom of expression wasn't a myth, you'd find that it too was chock full of people like you smugly declaring that "freedom of expression is pretty much a myth these days". They were as wrong then as you are now.

      Actually, they were as right then as he is now.

      In the olden days people did have the advantage that it was harder for government to keep track of what everyone was saying, so most people got away with it. On a grand scale, freedom of expression is and has always been a myth. A myth we should continually work to make into a reality.

    33. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by SETIGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Cave drawings are offensive?

      To anyone who doesn't like the depiction of slaughter of animals for food, possibly.

      So is the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel or Rodin's "The Thinker?"

      The former has nudity. The latter depicts Dante contemplating Hell. I think you'd not have a problem finding someone who is offended by either.

      So was the entire portraiture of Renoir?

      Nudity again.

      Who did Seurat offend with his "Sunday Afternoon?"

      People who think colored dots are satanic. People who stand too close with their eyes crossed waiting for the 3D image of a dinosaur to appear.

      Who's offended by (most) still life or landscape paintings?

      Anyone who likes originality.

      Not that I'm agreeing that art is required to be offensive. I'm just pointing out that it's impossible to make any statement of any kind without offending someone. Offense is in the eye of the beholder, and is also the fault of the beholder. It is best ignored.

    34. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I do question the wisdom in choosing a real and current conflict as a game setting.

      Especially when it's done just to get your game in the news. Medal of Honor saw how much press Modern Warfare 2 got with their airport terrorist scene, and they want in on some of the fun.

      I don't have high expectation that this scene is being put in the game to advance the story, or to make a serious point, but rather to cause a controversy. I hope I'm wrong, but if that's the case, EA is just trolling for free advertising.

      Worse, it sets back the possibility that games could be used to meaningfully examine contemporary issues.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    35. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      point is is there a line where one side in a war is so evil that it is plain wrong to be able to play as that side in a game?

      Not in my opinion. Like they said, cops and robbers is a prime example. Someone has to be a robber, despite theft being against the basis of laws in just about any society today, and is a core rule of many religions.

      I know you can play as Germans in many WWII games but that was a long time ago while this war is still going on.

      So? Many WW2 vets lost a lot of friends in that war - And many people had fathers who went off to war and died. So where is the outcry from them?

      But okay, I'll humour you: Why does it make a difference if it is "Terrorists" or "Taliban"? I mean Call of Duty Modern Warfare had Russian Terrorists - does that make ALL the difference?

      By the way if you mean to equate the water boarding of a few terrorists in order to get information with what Taliban did to the people of Afghanistan then you have a lot of reading to do.

      And if water boarding is no big deal to you, why don't you try it out, you know, voluntarily, cause its nothing to a strapping guy like you. And if you think water boarding is the only torture thats been going on or that it's only been a few terrorists, boy do YOU have a lot of reading to do.

      Honestly, just go watch the Collateral murder video on Wikileaks again, because thats the hot topic right now. Now tell me that the military has been open and honest about everything it's done, and every bit of its actions are for the sole protection of the people of the United States.

    36. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by jd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The US has a health care system? When did that happen?

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    37. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by ooshna · · Score: 3, Informative

      The producers of South Park made their own choices.

      Umm apparently you don't know that Matt Stone and Trey Parker (Creators, Executive Producers, Head Writers, and for Trey Parker Director) released the episode uncensored online before Comedy Central forced its takedown and censorship.

    38. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by Surt · · Score: 3, Funny

      The thinker is *naked*! For all we know he's thinking about how best to mix kiddy porn and clubbing baby seals.

      Think of the children, and baby seals...

      Oh come on, that can't be true. The best way to mix kiddy porn and clubbing baby seals is so straightforward that to hypothesize him 'thinking' about that is just ridiculous.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    39. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's always had one. I can walk into a medical center and get the best healthcare available in the world for me or my family. I'm unclear what your point is. That I have to pay for it?

    40. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by Jerf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, we don't stone teenage girls to death, ... don't bury homosexuals, we just kill them, ... don't beat people for listening to certain kinds of music.

      No, in fact we do not do any of those things. We in fact condemn those things and tend to prosecute and imprison the individuals who do those things. Just about the only way we could show our disagreement more strongly is to execute the individuals, but better than even odds says you'd consider that barbaric to, which leaves we with not much more we can do to show our displeasure.

      When the Taliban stone girls to death or actually, factually publicly execute gay people by burying them alive, they do so as the ruling government in question. If there is a "we" there, if there is in fact a broad public consent that this sort of stuff is OK, that's what it looks like.

      I utterly reject any suggestion that there is moral equivalence between the US and the Taliban, and say it says more about the person doing the equating's inability or refusal to see evil than about the US. The US isn't perfect, what a shocker, but the idea that we would publicly execute someone, or deeply weave honor killings into our culture, or engage in widespread female genital mutilation, is just absurd.

      (Besides, if we are morally equal no matter what we do than there's no great argument to get any better. You hate X for bruising someone, you hate X exactly equally for going on a mass murder rampage, you've not given X any particular reason to care what you think. Moral equivocation as a technique for trying to get the US to behave better is profoundly, deeply flawed, because it is based on entirely sacrificing the very idea that there is a "better" to be.)

    41. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, I want to see Gabe's grampa modded too.

      I'm thinking a cyber-exoskeleton with built-in minigun and a few RPG's slung over his shoulder.

      Gabe's grampa could really bring a spark back into world war II action!

      --
      "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
    42. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by rolfwind · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just so you know, if torture doesn't yield reliable information, you're doing it wrong.

      Of course you're doing it wrong, you're torturing.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502492.html

      For six decades, they held their silence.

      The group of World War II veterans kept a military code and the decorum of their generation, telling virtually no one of their top-secret work interrogating Nazi prisoners of war at Fort Hunt.

      When about two dozen veterans got together yesterday for the first time since the 1940s, many of the proud men lamented the chasm between the way they conducted interrogations during the war and the harsh measures used today in questioning terrorism suspects.

      Back then, they and their commanders wrestled with the morality of bugging prisoners' cells with listening devices. They felt bad about censoring letters. They took prisoners out for steak dinners to soften them up. They played games with them.

      "We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture," said Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler's deputy, Rudolf Hess.

    43. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by Elektroschock · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When you are a solidier it is part of your normal duties that you could get killed in action. There is no moral argument in complaining about getting shot when you occupy a foreign nation and your nation attempts to impose your societal model on their nation. Many Afghans don't agree with Taliban opinions but many Taliban are Afghan while the occupying forces are not. I am not arguing that the invasion of Afghanistan is "wrong" because I don't moralize the military interests of the United States.

      Furthermore, soldiers are supposed to obey and do their duty, not to "fight to preserve a way of life, a way which includes freedom of expression" or pursue other personal political agendas. That is propaganda for the uninitiated. A military is rooted in the traditions when soldiers were like prisoners and 30% of them got killed in a single battle.

      Unlike warfare the current occupation of Afghanistan implies insignificant losses of coalition soldiers. That does not require all the mourning and respect for those killed in action, heroism tales and phrases like in a real war. Likely more Americans die in the making of the hollywood war movies about their heroes than in battle: car accidents, drugs, gun crime - you name it.

      Americans follow a strategy of their chess master Bobby Fischer and sacrifice the pawns of their opponents, even use machines to kill. I think war without risk leads to moral decay, it is not a fair fight. It is very useful that soldiers die because it reminds the nation that engaging in war should not be taken too easy and their leaders bear a responsibility for its military planning.

    44. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by alexo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can walk into a medical center and get the best healthcare available in the world for me or my family. I'm unclear what your point is. That I have to pay for it?

      You can also get the best justice available in the world, with the same caveat.

    45. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by ooshna · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No but if you happened to be talking to a relative that is out of the usa what are the chances that your being monitored? Or how about this little unknown video. And before you respond watch the video and explain to me how convicting a girl for purgery and sentencing her to 9-25 years for testifying against the people that used her and one of them getting less time for stealing 40mil is ok. Actually watch the video don't just dick around and say its bullshit without watching it.

    46. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by fishexe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mod parent down. I know this family, and it is highly insensitive of you to put it this way.

      Because innocent Afghans who've lost family members to US bombing are totally different from Americans who've lost loved ones to Taliban attacks, and it's highly insensitive to make it sound like they have something in common, right?

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    47. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Go ahead and object until you turn blue. I'm just pissed off that shit like this ends up making new censorship laws more often than not.

    48. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by couchslug · · Score: 2, Informative

      "It yields statements which the victim thinks you want to hear, even if they're entirely false"

      Not necessarily. There is no logical reason that professional interrogation combined with torture cannot achieve useful results.

      Given that it is proven possible to break highly trained and committed people (such as US flyers in the Hanoi Hilton), torture coupled with sufficiently specific questioning and used in conjunction with other intel sources could extract useful info which could then be verified using non-tortuous means.

      If one is willing to contemplate professional, clinical, non-sadistic torture instead of stereotypical torture, it becomes a reasonable tactic. (Especially so when used against Communists, Jihadists, and others not worthy of preservation.)

      Paul Aussaresses used torture to good effect in Algeria. (Had De Gaulle not sold out the loyal Algerians and French colonists, Algeria could well have remained French.) He also had the balls to document it in his autobiography, usefully adding to literature on the subject.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    49. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by fishexe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Remember: It's not art unless someone is offended. If it offends no-one it is merely entertainment.

      Although the converse is not true: many things are offensive and yet still are merely entertainment.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    50. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wonder how many enemy's sons her son killed...oh, wait, they don't count.

      --
      No sig today...
    51. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by bloodhawk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      last I checked there were more than 1200 afghan families in a similar situation just this year and they weren't even soldiers. So how exactly is it highly insensitive to point out her hypocrisy. If she wants to protest against modern conflict games that's fine, but to protest just against american deaths is purely hypocritical.

    52. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry, does the idea that people on the other side have families that grief the loss of their loved ones make you uncomfortable?

      The propagandists try very hard to make sure we aren't uncomfortable about whatever happens to "the other guy."
      Why else would anyone describe the events which transpired in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba & Abu Ghraib, Iraq as "fraternity hazing."

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    53. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, we don't stone teenage girls to death, ... don't bury homosexuals, we just kill them, ... don't beat people for listening to certain kinds of music.

      No, in fact we do not do any of those things. We in fact condemn those things and tend to prosecute and imprison the individuals who do those things. Just about the only way we could show our disagreement more strongly is to execute the individuals, but better than even odds says you'd consider that barbaric to, which leaves we with not much more we can do to show our displeasure.

      The Western lifestyle, which includes being able to drive one's fat ass down to Wal-Mart to buy some plastic shit for next to nothing, is predicated upon slavery, murder, and torture. We simply have abstracted this stuff away from our lives by exporting it to China. You and I and everyone you know is partially responsible for these acts. We know that the people making the crap at the dollar store are likely to be doing it inside a prison camp where they've been imprisoned for their political or religious views, but we still shop there (as a people.) You might like to think that if you saw someone being enslaved before you that you would act; would you then go forth and stop people from selling goods made by slaves? Our government indeed has been one of the largest funding sources for the Taliban, but we still pay our taxes. We are partially complicit, you and I, in the successes of the Taliban. I like to pretend I have the moral high ground sometimes too, but I think reality is substantially different than what you're telling yourself.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    54. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by JohnFluxx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm married to a Japanese woman and my grandmother in law lost friends during the war. Her house was bombed and she lost all her material possessions.

    55. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by Anzya · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just as the death penalty is made acceptable by lethal injection, appropriate technology could assist information extraction with less stress on the people doing the interrogating.

      On the other hand. Not everyone believes that the death penalty is acceptable regardless of the method.

      --
      "This message was brought to you by Sarcasm and Troll Feeders United (or STFU, for you un-hip people)."
    56. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In fact, once we have RFID bullets, I'm thinking about setting up an Internet site that brings mothers of soldiers in contact with the mothers of the enemy soldiers their sons have killed.

      It'll be interesting to see how long wars can last after that. War mostly works only because it is anonymous. And we've known that for a long time, it's one of the strongly emotional topics in "Im Westen nichts Neues" ("All Quiet on the Western Front"). We just don't yet have the technology to break through it.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    57. Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free by jd · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ah, well, if we're going to quote, there's this link:

      Esmin Green, 49, had been waiting in the emergency room for nearly 24 hours when she toppled from her seat at 5:32 a.m. on June 19, falling face down on the floor.

      She was dead by 6:35, when someone on the medical staff, flagged down by a person in the waiting room, finally approached, nudged Green with her foot, and gently prodded her shoulder, as if to wake her. The staffer then left and returned with someone wearing a white lab coat who examined her and summoned help.

      Or this link:

      Relatives said Rodriguez was vomiting blood and writhing in pain for 45 minutes while she was at a hospital waiting area. Experts have said she could have survived had she been treated early enough.

      To quote those Wise And Twisted Sisters, "If that's your best, your best won't do."

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  2. Humans have always enacted war by Max+Romantschuk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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 :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
    1. Re:Humans have always enacted war by Soilworker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dear Mom,

      You're currently destroying all the effort your son made fighting a threat to your freedom.

      Thanks,
      The talibans.

  3. If her son was alive today.... by russotto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...he'd be playing war games (not necessarily on a computer) where he played the side of the Taliban.

    1. Re:If her son was alive today.... by Dahamma · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...he'd be playing war games (not necessarily on a computer) where he played the side of the Taliban.

      (citation needed)

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/25/AR2009102502633.html

  4. uhh by buddyglass · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:uhh by linzeal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, but since the first Gulf War when they changed how reporters operate, pictures can be taken and statistics collected war has been sanitized of any moral ambiguity so much that people react to anyone the US bombs back into the stone age as Nazis. Oh wait, you can play Nazis in like 10 games.

    2. Re:uhh by linzeal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Show me a picture of a dead American soldier in a major news paper and maybe I will believe you. Afghanistan is going on longer than Vietnam because we have no sense of what is going on over there except a bunch of words. Its like living in a time before there were cameras, even the Crimean had pictures of dead bodies on both sides published in newspapers at the time.

  5. Too Soon, I Suppose by BigSes · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Too Soon, I Suppose by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is a game called Red Orchestra: Ostfront 1941-45. As the name implies, it's a (multiplayer) FPS set on WW2 Eastern Front, with Germans and Soviets being two opposing factions. Naturally, it lets you play for either one. It is also fairly realistic, not just in gameplay, but in depictions of various things - i.e. all swastikas and such are in place where they should be, and so on.

      Now, forget Afghanistan, heck, forget even Vietnam - Soviet Union lost 10 million soldiers in WW2. 10 fucking million!

      Which does not preclude Russian gamers today - including those having WW2 vets in the family - from playing this game in general, or playing it specifically for the Germans. If anything, the game is actually strongly appreciated for being one of the few Western games that deal with the subject of Eastern Front (which bore the brunt of the war) at all - most Western movies and games about WW2 focus on Allied, and, more specifically, American involvement, to the point that it seems sometimes that war in Europe started with the landings in Normandy...

    2. Re:Too Soon, I Suppose by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Insightful

      find worrying that some people only play as germans, but I'll give them the benefit of doubt

      Well, I personally prefer playing for the Germans simply because their infantry weapons are somewhat superior - they've generally got slightly better iron sights; MP 40 is much easier to control in full auto than PPD, PPSh, and still easier than PPS; MG 42 is the king of machine guns; and, most importantly, on 1944-45 maps they have the epic win that is StG 44. I suspect that is why Germans seem to be slightly more popular in general.

      On tank maps, on the other hand, most prefer Soviets, because of T-34.

      Now, of course, there are also the occasional folk with nicknames such as "SiegHeil1488", but there isn't really any doubt there. In any case, if they want to waste time shooting pixels in a video game, rather than spending that same time beating up immigrants and Jews, I'm all for it.

  6. Counter Strike by Mantrid42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You've been able to play as a Terrorist in Counter Strike since day one. It came out ten god damn years ago.

    1. Re:Counter Strike by Narksos · · Score: 5, Interesting

      When I used to play America's Army, which was created by the US Army as a recruiting tool, they had all of the multi-player game types written from both sides. I dug up an IGN article describing how this worked:

      The terrorists are holding a UN envoy hostage and you, as the Army team, must infiltrate the area and confront and defeat the terrorists. But the other team doesn't think they're terrorists. Instead, they get an Army briefing indicating that they've been asked to defend the envoy from possible abduction by an infiltrating terrorist force.

      That way everyone could play for the "good guys". Everyone could fight for the cause they thought was right, which is usually how war works anyway. There wasn't any controversy about you shooting at people who thought they were playing as "America", because while you played they looked like "terrorists".

      The system was clever, and probably appropriate for this application (I don't think the US Army wants to encourage people to shoot at them), but as we have games based around modern conflicts, people have to play both sides. It is "just a game". Cops and robbers would be pretty boring with no robbers. Should we not watch heist movies because it encourages people to steal money? Modern Warfare 2's No Russian mission (in which the player is undercover as a terrorist and has the option to massacre civilians with no penalty) created controversy in the US, but the overriding opinion was that it right to include it in the game. How is this any different?

      Oh right, this time we're shooting Americans.

  7. HTFU by Smoke2Joints · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:HTFU by wjousts · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, but those Russian gamers will probably pirate it anyway ; )

    2. Re:HTFU by Kitkoan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Its not just limited to war games. The GTA series lets you kill cops and that really does happen in RL. As mentioned in another post, you could be a terrorist in Counter Strike. There are 2 sides to everything and some people just don't want you to see any side but theirs. Its how the US has slowly becoming a Nanny state because someone didn't like something they saw/heard/ect and felt that if they didn't like it, no one should see/hear/ect it.

      --
      Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
  8. Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Rerelease it in a few years then by ComputerGeek01 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  10. These people are idiots by HBI · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:These people are idiots by Ironhandx · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is the reaction I get from everyone I've talked to that does a stint overseas. There was one that I know that might have a few issues, but even then he wouldn't complain about them or stop anyone from playing a game(except maybe directly around him) and just avoid the stuff himself.

      I have a number of family members in the military and multiple family members that have done a stint in Afghanistan, the only consistent response I get from them and others I know through them is "We don't know why the fuck we're there. The majority of the people don't want us there and it would be easier to evacuate those civilians that want to leave than change the mind set of the majority."

      The sad part is several media outlets have attempted to report on this and have quickly been bombarded by public(read:political) outcry against it, and its quickly squashed. Interviews with soldiers that actually make it to being widespread throughout are generally of the sort where it is very easy to pick up that the soldier is basically reading from a script except for maybe a few heart wrenching moments where they recall actual experiences. Almost nothing I've seen in the media coincides with what I've heard from the people on the ground.

    2. Re:These people are idiots by HBI · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hearing what people say on the ground doesn't sell newspapers/ad views. The truth is that anything the government does at a macro level is disorganized and spotty on the ground. In some places, the US presence did good and we got stuff done. In some places, it was not well received. The variable was generally the people involved. Quality officers/government employees got good results, the mediocre and uninterested got nothing done or made enemies for us.

      My experience was that Iraqis wanted life to be peaceful, orderly and to have control of their own destiny. We might not like their choices, but they are theirs to make.

      Soldiers never really understand 'what they are supposed to be doing' or 'why they are there' on anything but a slogan level (Fight Communism! Fight Terrorism! End Fascism!). I go all over the world and hear the same thing from soldiers everywhere. Their officers know better, but it seems to me that the officers often give a very serious briefing to their people (once) and assume that the mission brief means the same thing to the common soldier that it does to them. They are immersed in planning for said mission. It's their life. It's just some droning speech to the soldiers. If you read back to WWII or even before that, this is a common feature of military life, then and now.

      Afghanistan is a losing game and we all know it. Just waiting for the clock to tick now towards the ultimate withdrawal.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  11. (obligatory) Nobody is forcing you to buy the game by Hadlock · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ....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.
  12. What about server admins? by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

  13. What the fuck ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  14. Not just war games! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!

    1. Re:Not just war games! by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 4, Funny

      My uncle Mario was killed almost 30 years ago by a gorilla throwing barrels down the ladder he was climbing up.

      I've been fighting to have that damned game banned all this time.

      --
      This space available.
  15. I would play as aTaliban by jameskojiro · · Score: 4, Funny

    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...
  16. Release the Dickwolves by Herkum01 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  17. And so begins the free advertising by TheDarkPassenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    :)

  18. Re:Firest a ground zero mosque now this whats next by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Informative

    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!

  19. Dangit, it's good training ! by cbelt3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  20. Um, no by jalefkowit · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    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.

    1. Re:Um, no by Geldon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Interesting. I didn't know that...

      I do appreciate the existentialism, though. I mean, in the end, doesn't every side of a battle see themselves as the patriots and their opponent as the "bad guys"*?

      *Insert whatever the term of choice is for the conflict in question. Whether it's Fascists, Commies, Terrorists, or Borg, it's still "the bad guys."

  21. To be fair.. by ArbitraryDescriptor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  22. It's gotta be rough by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:It's gotta be rough by Nukky+Cisbu · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...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. .

      Odd. I didn't see an option that you could play "Reuters Photographer."

  23. Re:Firest a ground zero mosque now this whats next by sznupi · · Score: 2, Funny

    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
  24. You don't have the right to not be... by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...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?

  25. Pirates and aliens? by apparently · · Score: 4, Funny

    A'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

    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."

    1. Re:Pirates and aliens? by gront · · Score: 2, Informative

      Vampires, Pirates and Aliens is apparently an ABC (Australia) cartoon based on a series of books. Dunno how many *boom* Headshots! there are per episode, but probably not that many. http://www.abc.net.au/abckids/shows/prog176.htm

  26. EA needs to sack up by Torodung · · Score: 2, Funny

    EA should do something really controversial. I'll buy the game when I can play and/or shoot Muhammad.

    --
    Toro

  27. Re:If you win by mfulk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No, but you get to drive a remote controlled UAV and drop bombs on a bunch of kids in afghanistan, all from the comfort of your desk.

  28. Re:Dale Earnhardt, Ray Chapman, Len Bias, et al. by Seumas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't see why she would be upset.

    I understand losing your child is a heartbreaking experience, even if they volunteered to be put in a situation where that was likely to happen. However, I'm pretty sure that does not destroy your capacity for thinking and rationality. This woman is like those crazy parents whose child dies in a freak drowning-in-a-bucket accident and then go on a lifelong crusade to ban buckets.

    Losing someone in a military action doesn't grant you any greater influence or control over "freedom of speech" than anyone else.

  29. All credibility lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  30. Ironic by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  31. Other things the same distance from Ground Zero by fantomas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  32. Re:Firest a ground zero mosque now this whats next by rinoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  33. Listen to DEVO - Freedom of Choice by ronaldmigahil · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think hearing this song can help. DEVO - Freedom of Choice http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jVoroHx3IU&playnext=1&videos=IibK1CODwX4

  34. Freedom of Speech by TheSpoom · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  35. Re:Poor timing by Alanonfire · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I like your use of "*sigh*" to start your arrogant "I don't care about anyone but myself" post. It didn't make you come across as either:

    1) A bad troll
    2) A little kid

    If your need to exercise your freedom of expression overpowers your ethics, you probably have some serious social disorders. I can tell that you don't share my morals or ethics, because you put yourself ahead of people around you.

    Thanks for your reply, this is exactly what I was anticipating in response.

  36. easy solution by Tom · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  37. This is just a publicity stunt and in bad taste by Satanboy · · Score: 2

    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.