Discussion in 'Gaming' started by DragunovHUN, 22 Aug 2010.
The first mod to this game should be :-
Liam Fox's face replaces that of the Taliban fighters.
Who knew people felt so strongly about their right to virtually kill their country's soldiers.
Also, why can we play WWII games then huh? I'm so witty! Hm, maybe because playing the bad guy isn't the point. The point is playing the bad guy who could actually be out there right now killing a fellow Brit who would love to just come home for his tea. It's not even over and they're making a sport out of it. Even if one doesn't agree in asking people not to play, it must be admitted that it's a little tasteless.
The problem isn't that the Taliban are in the game, it's that the politician is an idiot and trying to create another sensationalist news story because he thinks the game therefore supports the Taliban in some way. I'm sure if he actually played the game he might realise that's not the case and would be in a better position to comment on the matter.
For the record, I have no problems with the Taliban being in the game. At least not to the point where I would be up in arms over it. I do think it is in poor taste, but not enough to take it to the point where I would be willing to condemn the devs for their choice. Where I took exception was the fact that m0ngy stated some ill conceived ideas about the Taliban, and some pretty extreme views too. He seems to think they are some sort of modern day French style resistance party, when history and the present show them to be a clear and present danger to the Afghans themselves, more than a danger to any other nation,
It's 'non british' apparently.
**** him. Britain is becoming a nation of gamers whether he likes it or not... and those games include first person shooters where you play as the bad guy. Whether that's the taliban, the nazis, the vietkong or just red.
What is absolutely non british is advocating censorship.
So playing as a Nazi who could have shot my Grandad is OK, whereas playing as a Taliban fighter who could have shot my mate who's in the army is tasteless and wrong. I can see where you're coming from but I can't really agree that there's a lot of difference there.
Out of curiousity, would you argue that it's not tasteless to play as a US marine shooting the Taliban guy?
Messed up logic.
Oi. Red are the good guys. Blu are the bad guys.
The thing that does worry me is the fact that EA's target audience could be seen to be teenaged players. Now within that group, we would find a substantial number of teens who had parents serving in Afghanistan, or brothers or sisters. Would they have the right to consider it offensive that players can opt to play as the Taliban? I do think they do have some right, but coming from a forces family, I would be the first to admit that I am biased in this.
I would argue that it is tasteless. I don't think current issues, especially such emotive ones, should be used for purely entertainment purposes. I just don't see any need myself, but that's my opinion only.
Maybe it's time somebody made a game that lets you kill virtual politicians instead, I'm sure it would sell by the boat load
Well if the kids in a family, where the parents are serving in a combat zone, go out to buy a game where they can and/or choose to play as the enemy that's shooting at their parents in real life. I really don't think the problem lies with the game is it? Liberal application of a palm upside some heads would be required, no?
I can see getting upset over that.. thing is the war is still going on- a bit too recent for some
1. Play as British soldier. Get Shot. Die.
2. Play as American soldier. Get Shot. Die.
3. Play as Taliban soldier. Get Shot. Die.
4. Realize though this crude metaphor that the human condition is universal.
5. Respawn as politician class with the lofty ambition of bring about world peace.
6. Defame wargames because encouraging patriotism gives the politician class more power.
7. Level up.
Very fair point. I do still question why games devs make such controversial decisions though. Is it purely because they want to provide entertainment, or they are exploiting current events and using them as marketing tools? I think the line is fine, and easily crossed. With the war still raging on, surely it would have been better not to produce a game based on that war at this juncture in time? Maybe it's me being old fashioned, but I didn't take up gaming many moons ago so I could get involved in current political and social issues. I done so as an escape from reality for the time I played, and to gain enjoyment from the past-time. If I want social messages or reminders of conflicts, then the news serves me well, I don't look at games to provide me with this. As I said though, maybe it's just me being old fashioned, and my age is catching up with me?
Bin Laden didn't knock down the World Trade Centre. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that he devised, carried out, or funded the operation. NO EVIDENCE! The CIA, who originally CREATED Bin Laden to fight the Soviets, have been saying this for years. They wanted to launch a real investigation into what happened on 9/11, using old world spy tactics (tried and true) and their director was sacked and replaced. Since then, the CIA has been largely sidelined from the 'War on Terror' because of the US (and it's allies) global agenda to capture oil assets in the middle east. Nothing to do with Bin Laden or the 'War on Terror' at all, as evidenced by so many public inqiries. We're using conventional methods of warfare to fight an invisible enemy, you work it out, doesn't take a genius to know it'll never succeed. Under real and impartial analysis, those video tapes do NOT demonstrate the 'evidence' the government and mainstream media want them to. A few snippets of conversation taken out of context can be made to say anything, look at those current affairs show every night. Subsequently, there have been many fake video and audio tapes released... by who?
None of your business how they run their own country, nothing to do with you mate. You should stop wearing your undies on the outside of your jeans and mind your own business. You really think the US and UK started a war in the most hostile region on earth to save the women and kiddies? Man, you're ignorant. The Afghan population currently look to the Taliban for good, LOCAL governance, because the far away corrupt regime in Kabul is illegitimate and incapable of delivering. These are an ancient, traditional people, living in mud huts on goats milk. What do they know of 'democracy'? They don't want it! They want a benelovent dictator, a warlord who keeps things in order, cutting off the hands of theives, stoning adulterous women, and beheading murderers. This is how it's been for thousands of years, who are we to enforce our ideologies on them?
Poppy production was BANNED by the Taliban, under penalty of death. Drugs are anti-Islamic. It's the warlords the Taliban were perpetually fighting, on the fringes of the country, that were growing poppies. Herion production has increased expodentially now because the inept, western backed government exists only because the US have done deals with the warlords, who're now free to do as they like. The 'democratic' government is incapable of doing anything about it, again, unable to deliver real governence to the people. Sorry, but you're very ignorant. You should read more and watch less television.
Knock off the conspiricy ******** pal, it doesn't cut the mustard with me
You're absolutely right it's none of my business and it didn't attempt to justify the war. Could you point out where I claimed this was the case. I would say it is you who is being ignorant and not me here. What I did state is the fact that the Taliban are simply not the fluffy, friendly people you seem to think they are. This got brought up in another thread not long ago, and the Taliban have committed some attrocious acts against their own countrymen, and on a grand scale too. So I suggest that you read up a little on the fluffy friends you hold in such esteem. After all, you said yourself you are proud of them! You know, the ones who will strap a bomb to a child of their own nation, or the ones who will detonate roadside bombs regardless of who is in the killzone. They are also the ones who will kill anyone suspected of conspiring with the coalition troops, regardless of guilt. Yeah, they sound just like the type of chaps I would invite over for a beer
Until it was realised by the Taliban that the west would no longer be bankrolling their arms proliferation, and the money had to come from somewhere, boy for someone who likes using the term ignorant, you are guilty of it yourself a lot too.
Look, Afghanistan is a strategic strong point. You control Afghanistan you control a multitute of trade routes througout the region. It's known as the 'Graveyard of Empires', many have tried to control this region; the English, the Soviets, and now the US backed 'allies'. Illiterate kiddies and womens suffrage (human rights) have nothing to do with it. Please, gimme a break. Oh, and guess what, the Yanks have been busy using gound penetrating radar and they've found an abundance of untapped mineral resources! Who would've thunk it? What people don't seem to understand is the Taliban ARE the people. On the ground there's almost no discrimination. You'll NEVER bring the Taliban to heal because they have the active support of the people, for all sorts of family, cultural and historical reasons. Vietnam proved that. I'm no leftist, I'm a realist, and we shouldn't engage in a protracted conflict we have no hope of winning. Everything the west has done to these people, and the middle east in general, simply re-affirms they negative preconceptions of us, INCREASING radicalism and fundamentalism. You want to stamp these dangerous ideolgies out? Send them aid, help them develop in their time, on their own terms, they want flush toilets and fresh water, not McDonalds and LCD TVs. Let us prove we are not the imperialist scum they believe we are, use the carrot not the stick approach.
End of rant.
You seem to be confusing the issues here, as I was never justifying the invasion. In fact, I have openly spoken out against the invasion in other threads here. Let's be straight on that.
Now on to the point of your statement that you would be proud to act out the role of the Taliban, this is where I got involved with you. You are a stupid person for coming out with a statement like that, and nothing you have said since has convinced me otherwise.
Well, pretty much in this day and age, nothing is sacred. Unles it's explicitly made illegal. I mean they even made a 9/11 movie. I doubt that was made solely for the victims to get "closure".
Most likely, it's just the company trying to produce something relevant to the times so to speak. Everyone has done WW1/2 to the death. Futurestic shooters. Generic US/Russia/China conflict... New material in that sense.
And you'd be surpised how many social issues can be found in games. Abuse of power, abandoment issues, same sex relations .... the list goes on. It's very hard to tell a story without any social content in that that's what makes us relate to the story. However, i don't deny there are some very very very disturbing games out there. Just have to stay away from what we can't stomach. Everyone else is welcome to whatever floats their boats.
To all the big walls of text above:
Shut up and talk about some prat of a politician who is criticising a game for portraying war.
"Defence Secretary disgusted by MOH"
Separate names with a comma.