Play as the Taliban:

What do people expect anymore? It's aimed to shock and cause a fuss probably to help sell.

Big woop, I'm not surprised people don't make it so you can behead people yet.

People will buy it and play it, people won't.

I will buy it and play it.
 
AcidHell2 said:
No, how does it deemen it in the slightest?
And if you are going to change to that argument, how about all the films, books and magazines. You also angry at all of them making money from it?

You angry at the armerican army having an official recruitment game?
Click to expand...

I am not angry at all, I am simply pointing out that many will find it insensitive.

The very fact that it is seen as acceptable to allow the virtual killing of ISAF troops in a War that is still being fought has more to do with modern society than my own opinion on it.

Like I said would it be acceptable to add a mod to Microsoft Flight sim to allow you to fly a 747 into the WTC in recreation of 9/11?


I will most likely buy it an play it as many of you will, it doesn't change the fact that making it is insensitive in the current climate.
 
Castiel said:
I am not angry at all, I am simply pointing out that many will find it insensitive.

The very fact that it is seen as acceptable to allow the virtual killing of ISAF troops in a War that is still being fought has more to do with modern society than my own opinion on it.

Like I said would it be acceptable to add a mod to Microsoft Flight sim to allow you to fly a 747 into the WTC in recreation of 9/11?
Click to expand...

Oh hells yes, I'd download that in an instant! :D
 
But people don't have a problem with police games.

Yes it does show something about modern society it is far to easy to complain and far to many points to be scored.

I bet the game is not blocked from flying planes into buildings.
 
Moredhel said:
Shocking, in multi-player someone has to play on the opposing team?! That's awful!

It's not like you have to play a Taliban fighter setting off IEDs next to British tanks, it's merely a different skin to distinguish one side from the other in multi-player games. The single player campaign has no playable Taliban element...

Guess what guys, this concept goes way back, ever play cops and robbers when you grew up? Robbers are bad right, but someone had to be them, this was not shocking. Why is it suddenly shocking, despite robberies being responsible for more deaths each year than the Taliban!?
Click to expand...

So true. I very much doubt that when I play this game as the Taliban in Helmand that I will declare a holy war against the infidels and board the next flight to the US. Would they be happier if it was you could play British against US troops?

Im pretty sure this topic came up when the Battlefield 2: Special Forces mod was released. FOX claimed that the Taliban were using the game to train their children. Ive never been to Afghanistan but im sure the Insurgents dont use zip lines to cross building to building.

Dont the US military use games such as Americas Army to recruit?
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/7962037/Medal-Of-Honor-controversy-analysis.html


WTF, you can play as the Taliban in the upcoming MOH FPS. Calls for it to be banned have surface already led by the Defence Secretary.

I don't usually think banning anything legal such as Videogames or Films is the way to go, but allegedly being able to effectively play a Terrorist killing co-alition Soldiers in the current climate is a bit insensitive, even for gamers.
Click to expand...

What, did you not play Japs and Commands as a child?
 
Castiel said:
I am not angry at all, I am simply pointing out that many will find it insensitive.

The very fact that it is seen as acceptable to allow the virtual killing of ISAF troops in a War that is still being fought has more to do with modern society than my own opinion on it.

Like I said would it be acceptable to add a mod to Microsoft Flight sim to allow you to fly a 747 into the WTC in recreation of 9/11?


I will most likely buy it an play it as many of you will, it doesn't change the fact that making it is insensitive in the current climate.
Click to expand...


WHat part of its not actually recreating anything are you not understanding here.

Its a multiplayer element that has no story attatched to it..

So its nothing like adding a WTC part to a microsoft sim.


As has been pointed out so many times in this thread.. someone has to play the bad guys.
 
AcidHell2 said:
But people don't have a problem with police games.

Yes it does show something about modern society it is far to easy to complain and far to many points to be scored.

I bet the game is not blocked from flying planes into buildings.
Click to expand...

People would have a problem with a recreation of the PC Blaylock Murder, or something similar though.

I dont think the game is blocked, but you cannot play as an insurgent flying a 747 in the WTC as completion of your objective either.
 
Azzy.. said:
WHat part of its not actually recreating anything are you not understanding here.

Its a multiplayer element that has no story attatched to it..

So its nothing like adding a WTC part to a microsoft sim.


As has been pointed out so many times in this thread.. someone has to play the bad guys.
Click to expand...

I must be mistaken, I though that we were indeed engaged in operations in central helmand where the multiplayer element is alleged to take place.
 
OpFor in MW2 are the Taliban in everything but name. There's even a multiplayer level called Afghan where you play either as American soldiers or OpFor, killing each other. Just because EA decided to actually have the name Taliban, controversy was brought once again to the gaming world.
 
Because it's a flight sim why would you have it do that.

People are stupid and seem to lack the inteligence to identify between a game and real life.

Most complaints come in after media breaks storys. People jump on the bandwagon and entre mob mentality.

How does it deemen the soldiers actions? What is it recreating? (ie people have no idea what they are complaining about)
How is it any different to cops and robbers?
 
Castiel said:
I must be mistaken, I though that we were indeed engaged in operations in central helmand where the multiplayer element is alleged to take place.
Click to expand...

What you're essentially objecting to though is the fact that they're named Taliban.

If they were called Big Bad People or something you would have no objection? Can you see how silly this is? The multi-player element, aside from the names of the teams, will be absolutely no different to Modern Warfare 2 or Bad Company 2.

Do you object to them?

The multilayer maps will be in nondescript desert settings or urban centres, not re-creating the climactic fire fights of the invasion of Afghanistan, you know why? Because that doesn't make for balanced multi-player gaming. This is not about attempting to re-create anything, it's about giving a single-player game a multi-player element that fits together rather than seems like a totally different game. Real fire-fights happen because one side sees an advantage in it or has the odds stacked firmly on their side, if that advantage happened in a multi-player game, no one would play it! This is why multi-player cannot be judged as re-creating anything.
 
To be honest this is a non arguement. People are offended over anything, and the people who are normally offended have no interest in the product that is being released. This is just yet another blow to the UK game industry from our terrible government.

I wouldnt be surprised if the next mario is put underfire because you are jumping on mushrooms and its harmful to the environment.

Just to relate this to this particular example. I saw this on GMTV a couple of days ago, the older guy on there who obviously had no intention of buying the game was outraged by it and even said the phrase "should it be banned". So they brought on a guy fromt he army i cant remember what rank he was, but there i was prepared for another Alan Titchmarsh show type thing, And believe it or not, The army guy thought it was fine. I will attempt to find a link to the interview but if someone from the army has no problem with it having probbably lost friends and collegues what right does anyone else (other than families of those who were killed) have. I find that most people are shoutting insensitivity and offence have nothing to do with anyone who is in the Army and are mearly causing a fuss on behalf of those people.

Anyways i kinda forgot where i was going with this so im gonna leave it here
 
AcidHell2 said:
Because it's a flight sim why would you have it do that.

People are stupid and seem to lack the inteligence to identify between a game and real life.

Most complaints come in after media breaks storys. People jump on the bandwagon and entre mob mentality.

How does it deemen the soldiers actions? What is it recreating? (ie people have no idea what they are complaining about)
How is it any different to cops and robbers?
Click to expand...

Why not? Add it to F22 Raptor then, the point being that it wouldn't be acceptable.

I understand better than you know, but I am not complaining about that exactly. More the decision to base the multiplayer in Central Helmand (not an generic environment based on Helmand) specifically and allow you to play the Taliban specifically (not simply some generic insurgent) to kill ISAF troops (not generic Allied troops).

From the allegations ( whether they are true or not I cannot say) theyu have recreated a battle scenario from the central helmand province without generic considerations, effectively recreating a war we are currently engaged in.

How can you not think that some people, those who have fought, died and lost people in helmand as recently as this week would not find it insensitive?
 
Moredhel said:
What you're essentially objecting to though is the fact that they're named Taliban.

If they were called Big Bad People or something you would have no objection? Can you see how silly this is? The multi-player element, aside from the names of the teams, will be absolutely no different to Modern Warfare 2 or Bad Company 2.

Do you object to them?

The multilayer maps will be in nondescript desert settings or urban centres, not re-creating the climactic fire fights of the invasion of Afghanistan, you know why? Because that doesn't make for balanced multi-player gaming. This is not about attempting to re-create anything, it's about giving a single-player game a multi-player element that fits together rather than seems like a totally different game. Real fire-fights happen because one side sees an advantage in it or has the odds stacked firmly on their side, if that advantage happened in a multi-player game, no one would play it! This is why multi-player cannot be judged as re-creating anything.
Click to expand...

Then again I have no argument, but the report says differently and it is from that aspect my argument derives.
 
Taliban is a generic term already, it is not a specific group of people.

It is a generic soldier fighting a generic insurgent in a generic back ground.

It is no different to a load of cop and robber games. With generic cops fighting generic robbers in a American city background.


Why would a flight sim that is all about flogging have a specific mission in.

How about certain swat games where you take out terrorists similar situations to many hijacks/hostage situations are they bad and evil.

Or is it that people just enjoy playing these games, just like the complainers like reading the books and watching the film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom