Despite Homefront, THQ VP Critical of Taliban in Medal of Honor

[literallyanythingelse]

Bilson wouldn't even want to play as the Germans from World War II. He said the "heroes and villains" from real world conflicts are in his "psyche," and they play into his personal sensitivity when making game.

Doesn't THQ publish Company of Heroes, where there are 2 campaigns where you play as the Germans in World War 2 (in the expansions)?


Just sayin'

 

[Motiv_]

Fuck you Bilson.

So it's perfectly fine to portray Russians, Germans, Chinese, North Koreans, and even fellow Americans as baby raping mini-Hitlers, but the second you get some ragheads into the mix, it's being "Insensitive"? Give me a break.

Mass murdering innocent civilians[footnote]Modern Warfare 2[/footnote], brutally torturing your opponents and killing them in an even more violent fashion[footnote]Black Ops[/footnote], hell, even a game where the point is to do nothing more than murder others in as violent ways as possible[footnote]Madworld, Manhunt, Bulletstorm[/footnote], are not only allowed, but after the initial controversy, jack shit actually happens! They sell well, are met with critical praise, some even have sequels!

Never ceases to amaze me.

Bilson wouldn't even want to play as the Germans from World War II. He said the "heroes and villains" from real world conflicts are in his "psyche," and they play into his personal sensitivity when making game.

Doesn't THQ publish Company of Heroes, where there are 2 campaigns where you play as the Germans in World War 2 (in the expansions)?


Just sayin'

Oh, but in THQ's own words,

It's okay because they're reluctant fighters who are defending the Fatherland and aren't really Nazis.

Bunch of fucking hypocrites.

 

[FaceFaceFace]

How is a soldier, regardless of nationality, either a hero or a villain? They're nothing but mindless tools, who carry out the orders of their superiors (at least in the grand scheme of things). There is no fundamental difference between playing an allied or a german (note: not nazi and/or SS) soldier in ww2, except for the inevitably hilarious accent in which the orders are given. This guy's an idiot..

They may be mindless tools, but then you're still serving those superiors, so winning a game as the Nazis means you're prolonging the Holocaust. In a fictional video game where none of this matters, of course, but there still is a distinction between the sides. You just have to be one of those people who forgets the "game" part of video game to care, I guess. Kinda sad that an video game company executive thinks that way, but then I doubt he even plays games.

So... he doesn't want to see things from the perspective of the other side of a conflict because it clashes with his "they're completely bad, we're completely good" views?

*sigh*

How does shallow detail-less multiplayer let you see conflict from the perspective of the other side? I'm sure once a deep experience that actually does let you see the other side comes out people like him will still disapprove, but come on, neither Medal of Honor nor any WWII shooter explores that in any way. Kinda like the above quote says.

 

[Spencer Petersen]

Because if I didn't make money from it, its insensitive and should be banned.

 

[The Random One]

North Korea....invading US?


[small]Who the f#%$ writes this shit?[/small]

The US, obviously.

 

[Ayjona]

"When you get into reality - and that's real, that's not speculative science-fiction like ours," he added. "I don't want to play as the Taliban, particularly."

Bilson wouldn't even want to play as the Germans from World War II. He said the "heroes and villains" from real world conflicts are in his "psyche," and they play into his personal sensitivity when making games, though not necessarily THQ's in a broader sense.

I find Bilson's reasoning very peculiar. While the allies won the second world war, and while they fought for something most of us now perceive as just and right, there is no guarantee that the actual soldiers you portray in a computer game are heroes, or villains, regardless of the side they fight on.

In a World War II-themed RTS, where you guide the Germans to victory, the player would definitively be portraying most of all of what we see as the "bad" side. However, when playing as a single German/Taliban/your choice of soldier fighting for a villainous nation, it is entirely possible the soldier does not have any insight into the basis of the conflict and is unaware of the atrocious actions of his nation, or is the victim of powerful propaganda, and truly believes that he is giving his life to protect his home, his family, his friends and his people from an aggressive, conquering enemy. While it is debatable if this makes the soldier a hero, it certainly shows that he has the stuff of heroes, and that he is far from a villain.

By the same token, a soldier fighting for the liberating forces of a coalition freeing a country from a dictator might still do it for all the wrong reasons, and kill a few civilians on the side, just for fun. Not my kind of hero.

The stalwart but misled defender of home and family killing the evil-hearted member of the "good" forces in self-defense, or in defense of his kin, have not committed any actions traditionally associated with villainous behaviour, even if this defender fights for a truly destructive and callous nation. Not all members of the side generally deemed to be in the wrong in a conflict have committed villainous acts.

Fighting for a particular side in a war does not necessarily make anyone a hero or villain. Their personality, character, and, most importantly, actions are what define their goodness.

 

[samsonguy920]

This is just one more reason I won't be touching this game with a ten foot pole. This guy's attitude reeks of self-servitism and quite likely is being used only to try to make people feel good about getting the game.

It is nothing more than publicity. And smells of brainrot.

 

[Burck]

I don't care about whether or not there's any "difference" between the games.


I think that its important for any cultural expression (i.e. games, literature, movies) to actually express current conflicts and dreams.

Recently I heard of a publisher removing the word "******" from his edition of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. While yes the word was and still is offensive, its presence shows the conflict that existed at the time.

To white-wash culture is to make it false. To remove the word ****** from books or to destroy copies of Mein Kampf is to create a culture that is naive and ignorant of itself.

Danny Bilson, think more carefully about the power of culture.

The merits and demerits of the upcoming game, Homefront, are another topic.

 

[Caliostro]

Heeeeeeeeeeeyo! Hypocrite!

North Korea....invading US?


[small]Who the f#%$ writes this shit?[/small]

Same person "Who wrote Red Dawn!!!" apparently.


...who?

 

[Roboto]

I think that creating a fictional war with real nations is infinetely worse than making a game about a real conflict, especially if those nations aren't on the best terms to begin with.

With the scenario of North Korea invading the US and portraying them as baby-eating-100%-evil monsters you are harming "real" international relationships.
By making a game about an on-going conflict you at least can't do more damage than what's already been done, but creating a new enemy-image is far, far worse.
(although it being "new" is debatable, as the American media is also doing its best to establish this)

I really don't want to know how many people will go "Yup, that's North Korea for you" when they play this game.
It is fiction, yes, but will everyone see it as such?

Oh, and by the way, calling it "speculative fiction" like there's even a shred of a chance of this ever happening... F*ck off.

They don't have the internet there. They'll never even hear about it.

 

[Cowabungaa]

He said the "heroes and villains" from real world conflicts are in his "psyche," and they play into his personal sensitivity when making games, though not necessarily THQ's in a broader sense.

In other words; he's aware of the de-humanisation thanks to propaganda but just doesn't give a shit about it and would rather keep living in the fantasy world created by said propaganda. Another fine example of cognitive dissonance.

 

[Loonerinoes]

So... he doesn't want to see things from the perspective of the other side of a conflict because it clashes with his "they're completely bad, we're completely good" views?

*sigh*

That's all this is about. Doesn't matter who the hell it is, it's just the fact that you get to play for a side that has ties to RL events and that is given the opportunity to beat the crap out of AMERI-KAY!

Honestly...some of these days someone should just make a videogame that supposes America's imperialism going wild in the future by trying to take over the world and a league of nations has to stop it, with China at the helm. Player gets a chance to play both sides, but either side you play and whoever wins it all because of your actions - the end is always a dark one. China winds up doing the exact same America would only in a slightly different way with more pretense on Communism, but really using the same kinds of imperial strategies.

I'd love to see these 'politically-correct' hypocrites throw one massive shit-fit over a game like that.

 

[Bretty]

Permalink[/quote]

Biased article is biased.

Not just me then....

 

[Crimsane]

Ah yes, ye olde "their similar thing to what we're doing is bad, buy ours instead" argument. Tbh, MoH wasn't that good and I doubt Homefront will be any better.

 

[random_bars]

The problem really with all the complaints about 'playing as the Taliban' in MoH is that the complainers implied it's some extensive campaign mode where you play as a member of a Taliban group enacting terrorist plots against the US or something. When in reality? It's just one of the skins in multiplayer. Seriously. It means nothing - they could make the multiplayer dinosaurs vs cavemen and as long as they both had the same sized hitboxes, it wouldn't make the slightest bit of bloody difference. Who you 'play as' means nothing. In World at War you 'could play as' (in multiplayer, of course) was Nazis - why wasn't there a huge controversy about that?

 

[Thaluikhain]

North Korea....invading US?


[small]Who the f#%$ writes this shit?[/small]

And has the gall to say "Homefront uses real-world imagery and politics".

I mean, at least admit to sticking in mind controlled zombie dragons or whatever.

 

[WanderingFool]

Maybe its just me, but this seems kind of Ass-hat.

I think what we need is a modern day American civil war game, not a game about the American Civil war, but a game set in modern times, with some event happening and a civil war breaks out.

America vs. America

Lets see what Fox News thinks of that!

PS, I had no Captcha shown, but got an error and had to file a captcha. Escapist, GET RID OF THESE FUCKING THINGS!