Medal of Honor Controversy

Heard about it... ****ing lame.... I think their using this as promotion for their crappy multiplayer. Sneaky bastards....

 

IMHO Politicians only make statements like this to pander to some areas of the public. In reality, nobody really gives a ****. I can say with almost 100% certainty that his statement "...most Canadians are uncomfortable and angry about this" is incorrect.

They should just let the consumer decide whether to buy it or not. That is the beauty of a consumer-driven society. The government shouldn't meddle in social matters such as these.

I also believe that the constant need for everything to be politically correct is just retarded. Its a big scary world and **** happens. People hate other people, people call people bad names, and people die. Get over it. Don't stuff it under the rug. Man up.

 

I heard that EA actually raised the bar on the Multiplayer; improved hitboxes, weapons, etc.

I didn't read the OP, but I thought this was over with already?

 

"At the hands of the Americans, children have lost fathers and wives have lost husbands. I am disgusted and angry. It's hard to believe any citizen of our country would wish to buy such a thoroughly un-Afghan game. I would urge retailers to show their support for our armed forces and ban this tasteless product."

we should stop playing games with Americans in them

 

I really think this is rather stupid. Seriously, it's a game. They can cry themselves a river, it's just a game. How many countless other games have we played with terrorists vs Americans or Canadians and stuff. I'm pretty sure there's a good amount of which that include the Taliban. Why didn't they get mad at those? And it's not like anyone got mad about the others. And there are other games that are based around other real life wars (Vietnam, Korea, World War 1, World War 2, Civil war, etc), who got mad at those if they let you play as the other team? NO ONE. This shouldn't be such a big deal to them.

 

I don't ever hear any Taliban supporters complaining whenever I kick there asses on MW2
lol

 

I don't see a single argument put forward in that statement that doesn't equally apply to any other combat game depicting a real life military operation/war/whatever. They essentially seem to be saying that, because the Afghan war is real, it is not suitable subject matter for a game. Sorry, since when were WW1 and WW2 fictional, thus making them suitable subject matter for the myriad of FPS games based on them? I hear no one objecting to those, and I think the actual basis for objection is that the Afghan conflict is still ongoing, fresh in people's minds with more potential to cause offence. If you start to disect this principle even further, the only logical conclusion is that the real basis for objection is the idea of death and war being made in to a game, a pursuit of fun and enjoyment. In this sense, I don't even think that whether the plot basis for the game references a real life conflict is strictly relevant, and in this sense no FPS is any more morally agreeable than MoH would be. Now we all know that the debate over violence in video games is an ongoing tirade in the media and other public forums, but it's interesting to note that here the objection is, at least in premise, more practical. These violent video game arguments generally focus around the effect on younger players of engaging in these acts for enjoyment, and how it may affect their real world lives, mentalities and actions. I haven't seen anyone objecting to them on a simply moral basis, and people seem happy to accept that if you don't approve of this practice, don't participate in it and just don't buy the games.

Now personally, I hold the wider political view that 'the right to not be offended' should not be a right enshrined in democratic law. Offence is not inherently based on logic, it's an emotion and therefore ultimately unreliable and changeable. I'm not saying offence and the converse attitude of tact have no worth, it's not a question of worth and more a question of fact, they are undeniable aspects of humanity and thus society, and so we have to deal with them on a day to day basis. To say they don't matter or ignore them is to deny a key aspect of our humanity. I just think that offence, as with other emotional reactions, is too complex to be inducted in to the black and white nature of actual legislation, which is where my argument applies to this discussion. Objecting to this game on that personal level is completely fair, I may disagree but I respect and treasure others' rights to object on their own, even completely subjective basis, and their right to voice said objections goes without question imo (on a forum with a predominantly US userbase, I'm guessing most will agree with me on this one).

The big step comes between objecting (even voicing said objections in a very public manner) and actually expecting this to be taken to the level of either legislation or some kind of official ruling definitively prohibiting the games production or sale on the basis of offence. I think this is definitely where the line must be drawn, between moral and actual real world condemnation. I also think that demanding that the games developer/publisher pull (or significantly alter) the game on this basis is comparable to officially blocking it, since it mandates action as opposed to just expressing opinion. It's the difference between saying "I think you should" and "you must".

In no logical or practically definable way is this game hurting anyone as far as I'm concerned, and anyone is fully within their rights to voice their distaste and even demonstrate it by not buying the game and not supporting a company who's actions they morally disagree with. As others have said, I think this discussion is coming up as it's a tender issue in the current public eye, not one which has any actual logical difference to the many other real world inspired FPS games out there. But hey, if politicians and various social commentators weren't reactionary about video games all the time, then what would we have to moan about? .

 

The game does not endorse or glorify the Taliban, and if it did, he would have said that. Instead, not once does he even try to explain why playing as the Taliban is "wrong". He is condemning this game, and not even making an argument. Finish this sentence: "Playing from the Taliban perspective in a video-game is ________". What word goes there?

The truth is there are too many idiots in the world for this article not to be written. It was an inevitability that someone (especially a politician) would hear about the game and realise what great publicity condemning it would be. It doesn't matter if the argument is that the game's existence causes a "disrespect" or is "unpatriotic" or that the game will brainwash people into being sympathetic to the Taliban (which is just plain ridiculous), because they are all wrong.

The worst part is that I can't even DEBATE whether it is wrong for the game to have been made, because the article did not tell me why.

 

If video games were around during WW1 and WW2 they'd have the same issue. Pretty much, Pegasi's first paragraph says it all.

Really, all this article says is politicians are idiots (like we really need this article to tell us that).

 

This is just stupid. Taliban Vs. American army. That's whats happening! Why cant there be a game about that? I just hope that they don't make the Taliban look good. That would be the only issue with this game.

WTF! I don't understand that. I'm guessing this, but i think it's saying this...

America is sending troops to be kill innocent people in Afghanistan and people are loosing loved ones. This person hates that. He can't believe that a person would buy this game because it makes America look good. He wants that game banned.

That's just wrong in so many ways. America isn't killing family men and loving husbands. They're killing people who would sacrifice there own life to kill people that don't think like they do. They're killing the people that destroyed two towers and about 3,000 civilians were killed.

 

The same thing happened with MW2, seeing America in flames etc. all it really did though was make people want to buy it more. Look MW2 is still up, did it get lots of hype from it, yes. It could just be an attempt to get more publicity or completely by accident...