http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/08/10/medal-of-honors-taliban-multiplayer/
There is a lot of commotion about DICE's decision to allow players to play as the Taliban in the next installment of the MoH series.
Getting things like 'kill streaks' and headshots on coalition soldiers would seem like a thorny issue indeed.
Dan Whitehead from Eurogamer seems to take a particularly strong stance:
“Watching virtual Coalition troops gunned down by insurgents in the ruins of Kabul, I felt more than a little weird, especially since a friend lost his brother in Afghanistan only a few weeks ago. This is a real war that is happening right now, real blood is being shed, and simulating that for fragfest fun while being rewarded for kill streaks… Well, there’s just something a bit icky about that. In single-player, there can be a story that adds context and meaning to the carnage. In multiplayer, it’s all just for fun.”
Unfortunately, I was not able to find a similar blurb from Dan and his weirded out feelings regarding the 'No Russian' mission from Modern Warfare 2 (I am disregarding his single-player "excuse" as laughable by the way).
Your thoughts?
Deaths to gun violence is a broad term, and the point isn't to marginalize one group over another. Violence in general exists, violence in general is gray, deaths to gun violence is general too since there's any number of different ways that someone can be killed by gun violence, and GTA isn't exactly a recreation aimed at every single one of those people. Not to mention that any game that ever had a gun in it ever might apply to this category of offense. So the offense to the sensibilities of such people is so broad and generalized that it's impossible to bend society to cater to them. If someone made a game about children accidentally shooting each other because their parents didn't lock the gun up, and rewarded you for kill streaks, that would be pretty sick and I'm sure we wouldn't be arguing about it. It's specific. The line we're talking about is thin indeed, even though it might not seem that way. GTA isn't "acceptable" in the sense that it's just fine and dandy that people are blowing each other up, but that's the way gray works. You can skirt the edges of acceptable behavior and not get burned at the stake, at least as far as society is concerned. An individual however probably would not want to talk about shooters and other violent video games to a veteran, can be considered rude, but society as a whole cannot bend reality because certain aspects of life hurt a person's sensibilities. Society can and does however intervene when specific groups of people are targeted. Hate crimes, for instance. There's a reason society doesn't allow you to say certain words to certain people without repercussions.
Agreed.
“Watching virtual Coalition imperialist troops gunned down by insurgents freedom fighters in the ruins of Kabul"
Fixed
I've stopped playing wargames since I'm tired of playing as imperialistcontrolled troops against whoever is the U.S enemy of the day.
If I get a taliban campaign which doesn't depict them as the bad guys then it would be acceptable.
Someone pointing out the imperialism in these militarized games, that's unexpected.
That's why I don't play most FPSs. Too militaristic.
Halo 3 is a bit better than most, because you're fighting an enemy that makes a point to inflict as many civilian casualties as it can, and thus causes the remaining civilians to want to join the Human insurgency.
Very Bad taste, very insensitive.
But then there's no law against being an insensitive idiot, nor should there be.
Also, MoH is rubbish anyway, so its obviously just for attention, itll help sell copies to kids.
There really is no agreed upon definition of what terrorist are, despite what some dictionary quoters my suggest, however they are usually linked to trying to spread terror in the civilian population.
But almost everyone agrees that there's a difference between terrorism and war crimes. Nearly all definitions in the literature would classify the Covenant's actions under the latter rather than the former, either because of their organization or intent.
I was referring to the common American definition of "terrorist", not what I personally think a "terrorist" is (hence the quotation marks). I personally don't think the term "terrorist" should even be used in serious discussion, being far too subjective and general.
I use the X-Com version. A Terrorist is usually a large (4 square!) fat unit usualy with a big cannon or a power bite than will get stuck in closets and constantly walk around corners during thier trun. They have lots of health and are best delt with by dropping lots of explosives on them.*
*Unless its some kind of zombifying unit which is far more dangrous and its best to carpet the entire area with everything you have regardless of civilian casualtys.
Technically, doesn't the multiplayer make *more* sense if one team is playing the 'bad guys'? I never played the MW games, but I always assumed the multiplayer was like Counterstrike (Ts vs. CTs). Apparently it was CTs vs....CTs? Okay, that makes lots of sense guys. But hey it's far less offensive for US troops to be killing each other, right?
I don't think anyone would care if it was US troops playing each other. I mean just ask some people in the military, I am sure the Army and the Navy would love to have a go at each other is what I am told by such folks
It really is that simple.
By every definition, the Covenant (as you describe them) are terrorists.
Define terror.
I mean saber rattling is all about alarming your enemies into essentialy fearing you. Is that 'terror'?
The Covenant doesn't really care how the Humans feel as their getting glassed, they just want them dead. The fear portion is largely unintentional. If any military tactic that causes fear in its target is an act of terror, then pretty much every country that fights a war or has a military is filled with terrorists.
Im pretty sure those Palestinians in what remains of Palestine are pretty terrorfied as 155mm artillery shells land near them and tanks rumble down streets and through buildings while troops go from door to door pointing their guns at people.
Does that make the IDF terroists?
For those comparing WWII Germans to the Taliban it is worth pointing out that the situation was completely different in that many of those soldiers were fighting for nationalistic reasons (i.e. because they were German). The Taliban, however, are not a national government, thus those that fight under that title are doing mostly for belief.
Of course, this begs the question as to whether it's more reprehensible to kill someone based on your government's belief or your own, but I find it easy to understand the complaint as playing a German doesn't suggest the same level of endorsment as playing a Taliban.
That said, it's a video game, if this is what people are using for personal guidance and education I think the coming [insert cliche] apocalypse is far more pressing.
Yeah, states can engage in terrorism too. Hints, anyone?
It's ok to kill as long as you're diong it as an american coalition soldier.
Lolz this.
Silly people. Either you got a problem with killing or you dont. Sigh, this is why we are where we are today and will be always. Something as stupid as an imaginary border in a map (Nations, Countries) makes killing acceptable or not? We are all "earthlings" and "human" so the issue should be, should humans kill humans in a video game? But noo lets worry about stupid shit like flags and beliefs that were made to control the masses lol.
It does make a lot of sense. We've had 10 FF incidents in Iraq already
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
