Guns don't kill people.
People kill people
Videogames are violent
But nobody say humans are the violent ones
[quote]a thoroughly un-British game[/quote]Cringe
Yet again we have people getting angry over games because they don't know the real story. It's like when Mass Effect was called a sex simulator because of the optional 0.5 seconds of blue arse you could see in the game.
It's funny because it wouldn't be a problem if they just called the taliban by a different name and pretended it wasn't actually in afghanistan.
[QUOTE=DrLuke;24279215]They deserve it for what they did with Westwood alone.[/QUOTE]
lmao never thought I'd see someone post this, but I agree
[QUOTE=gman003-main;24279849]Face it. Even little kids know, someone has to pretend to be the bad guy. You can't play cops and robbers without robbers, you can't play cowboys and Indians without Indians, and you can't play Medal of Honor without the Taliban.[/QUOTE]
This, but according to their logic, applying it to the US and Taliban is WAY OVERBOARD. They will then say that you have crossed the line so much, they must BAN this content!
[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;24279768]This is my biggest annoyance that I see in America.
Everyone's like "YOU FUCKIN TERRORISTS KILLED MY FAMILY'S MEMBERS, YOU SAVAGES", but they don't even acknowledge that the Taliban or the insurgents have families too.
It's not like the Taliban and the insurgents are robots programmed to only fight or something.[/QUOTE]
You hate everything about America. Everything you have to say on it is biased as fuck and therefor invalid. Please stop trying.
And a ban would be retarded, they've never played any of the Battlefield games if they think that children will become terrorists by killing American/British player models.
I'm sure they make these articles to specifically annoy people who want to enjoy games and to rally support from people with no knowledge of games or its history.
In cod mw2 you played as insurgents in mp and shot british sas troops and no one complained about that?
Not sure why they are aiming this at Medal of Honor, when really it should be 'ban every war game based on a real life events' which is the large majority of em. I would find WW2 games a lot more disrespectful than this one (not that I do, it's a damn video game).
I think I speak for all of us when I say:
[img_thumb]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/emoot/frog.gif[/img_thumb]
He must have done something, as the BBFC rating has been increased to an 18 for "strong bloody violence", where as it was a 15. See: [url]http://www.bbfc.co.uk/ADM271965[/url]
[quote]Whilst the majority of the battle violence in the game would have met with the allowance of the BBFC Guidelines for strong violence at '15', the use of a particular weapon (a shotgun) allows the player to cause more gory injury to enemies by blowing off their heads or limbs, accompanied by large blood spurts and sight of bloody stumps in the aftermath. The violence in these moves was more focussed and personalised and presented a challenge to the Guidelines at '15' which state that violence 'should not dwell on the infliction of pain or injury'.[/quote]
Be Warned: The full description will make you even more hyped than that last paragraph did.
I want my games to have more gibs actually.
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;24278495]Yet, he hasn't complained about CS, COD4, and MW2.[/QUOTE]
Because FOX NEWS didn't cover them. If they cover Team Fortress 2 I'm sure some stupid people will find reasons to ban it.
[B]"At the hands of the Taliban, children have lost fathers and wives have lost husbands."
[/B]What about the families of the Taliban members killed?
Stupid woman.
[b]WE SHALL BAN VIDEOGAMES BECAUSE VIDEOGAMES KILL PEOPLE[/b]
But seriously this is retarded.
The primitives must learn that to truly experience the experience, one must see it from ALL perspectives, or at least from as many perspectives as one can. This includes the perspective of the "enemy".
It looks like we're stuck between a rock and a hard place concerning this Medal of Honour reboot. On one hand, being able to play as Taliban means that you can fight on the other side of the conflict, and god forbid we ever see the battle through the eyes of the other combatants as well as our side, in case we actually feel some kinda empathy for them.
But on the other hand, just having one side fighting against a bunch of NPC Taliban members effectively dehumanises them in a way, and that's not right at all.
On the third hand, however, it's just a bloody video game, and if you don't like it go crucify yourself.
Basically nobody posting here has looked into why people are offended about this, it's because it's a distasteful representation of a current war, not because it's violent or because it involves combat. It's because while it's going on about how realistic it is and how they've gotten advice from actual military personnal while designing the game yet you still kill people for killstreaks in a typical arcade style team deathmatch setting. I don't think it should be banned. But it's still pretty distasteful.
Taste is in the tongue of the beholder, it's a matter of opinion.
jesus christ, people only found out you can play on both sides of the war in video games?
welcome to 1999.
[QUOTE=ironman17;24285465]Taste is in the tongue of the beholder, it's a matter of opinion.[/QUOTE]
True, but it still annoys me that people are bothering to comment on this without really thinking about it. Oh well, it's the internet, what was I expecting?
[QUOTE=CoolCorky;24285118]I think I speak for all of us when I say:
[img_thumb]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/emoot/frog.gif[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
This sums up the whole article.
^^ I'd be inclined to agree. The specific detail of the Taliban makes it just a little more distasteful than the faceless Ts from CS:S. Despite all the big voracious "HURR GET OVER IT" that's going on in this thread, I doubt anyone would dare say it to the grieving widow or child of a dead soldier.
It's silly to play a multiplayer game about a conflict, and only play as one side. It kinda ruins the experience as you don't see it from multiple perspectives. Only by seeing the conflict from both perspectives can you truly experience war, 'cause if you only know one side of the story, you're kinda biased in terms of opinion. Knowing both sides of the story can enlighten you, give you a clearer, less-biased opinion on the matter. But they don't want us to know the other side of the story, lest we become able to relate with the other side.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;24285568]^^ I'd be inclined to agree. The specific detail of the Taliban makes it just a little more distasteful than the faceless Ts from CS:S. Despite all the big voracious "HURR GET OVER IT" that's going on in this thread, I doubt anyone would dare say it to the grieving widow or child of a dead soldier.[/QUOTE]
Actually, I would. Why? Because it's a video game. It's pixels shooting pixels, player models killing player models.
It doesn't matter who you support in the war, be they Coalition or Taliban or Insurgent or whatever, it's a video game meant for fun. And why couldn't we say that to them? Jewish gamers didn't go crazy over getting to play the Nazis in DoD, for example, and they may have lost ancestors in the Holocaust.
People that complain about video games like Medal of Honor are fucking assholes.
[QUOTE=ironman17;24285589]It's silly to play a multiplayer game about a conflict, and only play as one side. It kinda ruins the experience as you don't see it from multiple perspectives. Only by seeing the conflict from both perspectives can you truly experience war, 'cause if you only know one side of the story, you're kinda biased in terms of opinion. Knowing both sides of the story can enlighten you, give you a clearer, less-biased opinion on the matter. But they don't want us to know the other side of the story, lest we become able to relate with the other side.[/QUOTE]
Agreed.
It's just a bunch of old men playing at running the country, afraid of their subjects actually thinking twice about the war they're fighting in. To see from one perspective is to have one eye open, lacking in the ability to perceive the depth of the situation. See it from both sides of the dealio, and both eyes are open, allowing us to see the whole thing with better clarity and depth.]
And yes, I read this in Bob Page's voice. I guess that's what I get for using the term "old men playing at running the world", and switching "world" for "country".
[QUOTE=ironman17;24285589]It's silly to play a multiplayer game about a conflict, and only play as one side. It kinda ruins the experience as you don't see it from multiple perspectives. Only by seeing the conflict from both perspectives can you truly experience war, 'cause if you only know one side of the story, you're kinda biased in terms of opinion. Knowing both sides of the story can enlighten you, give you a clearer, less-biased opinion on the matter. But they don't want us to know the other side of the story, lest we become able to relate with the other side.[/QUOTE]
Haha yeah if you call team deathmatch truly experiencing war.
Well, it's not a full experience, but it gives a touch more clarity to it. We exist in a world of three dimensions, and in this 3D world of ours, everything has multiple sides. Y'gotta see as many sides as you can to get a better perspective of things.
Though i'll admit simply TDM isn't the full experience. There's a lot more to it than just simple killing.
Man, if parents find this bad, they're going to flip when they find out their kids play as terrorists in counter strike.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.