Despite Homefront, THQ VP Critical of Taliban in Medal of Honor
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
I think this is the problem with the industry. Books, movies, television, all of those mediums can be based on a real ongoing conflict. But once video games try to that its OH NOES, PLAYING AS THE EVILS, BAD BAD BAD.
TRIVILIZING THE CONFLICT, MAKING IT FUN. OH NOES>
Note: I was one of the people that did not think that including Taliban in MoH was a great idea. That said, if you included it okay, lets do it. Some one has to be the bad guy. So what?
Then EA illustrated my point nicely when they changed one word to two words. NOTHING. ELSE. CHANGED.
This is the second person [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.249910-Homefront-Designer-Says-Controversy-Is-Good-for-Games#9239056] representing Homefront I've seen going on about how great speculative fiction is, and how great "controversy which isn't controversial" is.
Yawn. Neither of these guys have advertised their game as anything special. We've been having 'speculative fiction' in games for years and years.
Although I suppose having both of those (albeit on respective sides) in the game could actually help the whole murkiness of it all.
But yeah, as long as both sides were 'bad', I think it could be a pretty interesting game.
Yawn. Neither of these guys have advertised their game as anything special. We've been having 'speculative fiction' in games for years and years.
I'd play that, as long as they made both sides a) playable and b) seem like bad guys and good guys. Not just "You are badass hero resistance fighter taking down tyrannical government!" or "You are badass soldier taking out terrorist scum threatening the American Way[sup]TM[/sup]!"WanderingFool said:
Although I suppose having both of those (albeit on respective sides) in the game could actually help the whole murkiness of it all.
But yeah, as long as both sides were 'bad', I think it could be a pretty interesting game.
So...he has a problem with real soldiers blowing holes through United States soldiers in video games (Germans and the Taliban), but having real soldiers who have never directly attacked the United States blowing holes through United States soldiers is okay? Um...uh...
On a side note, I can relate to not wanting to play as "the enemy" in any multiplayer game. Killing someone from my own country still feels a bit wrong to me, but I deal with it.
On a side note, I can relate to not wanting to play as "the enemy" in any multiplayer game. Killing someone from my own country still feels a bit wrong to me, but I deal with it.
So...does this guy realise that he missed the whole argument and debate by a few months?
More than a little late to the party there.
More than a little late to the party there.
I was not offended by Medal of Honor at all. Its Homefront that I find offensive. I can go with North Korea starting a serious conflict but not a World Conflict.
If homefront had been set in South Korea playing a South Korean I would be on board.
Having the game set in the U.S. is just cheap attempt at pandering to an American audience.
In a realistic setting the story is just ridiculous. North Korea taking over the U.S. and several Asian nations? U.S. occupation by any nation with our own resident crazies and access to large numbers of firearms.
And if it is set in an alternate universe what is the point of the U.S. setting and the fight for freedom marketing? It is set in America but it is not OUR America so the scenes of occupation lose any effect they may have had.
I guess its not that big a deal since this will probably be terrible or else they wouldn't be trying to so hard to market it.
/rant
If homefront had been set in South Korea playing a South Korean I would be on board.
Having the game set in the U.S. is just cheap attempt at pandering to an American audience.
In a realistic setting the story is just ridiculous. North Korea taking over the U.S. and several Asian nations? U.S. occupation by any nation with our own resident crazies and access to large numbers of firearms.
And if it is set in an alternate universe what is the point of the U.S. setting and the fight for freedom marketing? It is set in America but it is not OUR America so the scenes of occupation lose any effect they may have had.
I guess its not that big a deal since this will probably be terrible or else they wouldn't be trying to so hard to market it.
/rant
I agree completely we shouldn't see the Taliban as bad guys in video games... with all the good work they do killing innocent people, throwing acid at women getting an education, etc. in real life.
also does it matter what one group of pixels does to another group of pixels
also does it matter what one group of pixels does to another group of pixels
This leads me to conlude that this Danny Bilson is an obvious ****.
It's funny how people think it's culturally relevant for movies and music to "portray the reality" and are praised because of it, but when it comes to videogames it's suddenly a big no-no.
What's wrong with being able to play the taliban? You'd think that a reasonable and levelheaded person would appriceate that people get the opportunity to get a glimpse of the perspective of the "other side" of any given confict going on in the world in order to help further understanding of different points of view and perhaps even come up with a solution.
But NOOOOO, when it comes to corporate america, everything has to support the government. The Taliban are evil boogeymen and not human beings with human goals, motives and agendas and it is both "disgusting" and "insulting" to portray them as human. Right?
Fucking panzies. You'd think that a person involved in the video game industry would've grown past the mainstream bullshit, but it seems that some can't wait to expose themselves as the obvious tools they are...
It's funny how people think it's culturally relevant for movies and music to "portray the reality" and are praised because of it, but when it comes to videogames it's suddenly a big no-no.
What's wrong with being able to play the taliban? You'd think that a reasonable and levelheaded person would appriceate that people get the opportunity to get a glimpse of the perspective of the "other side" of any given confict going on in the world in order to help further understanding of different points of view and perhaps even come up with a solution.
But NOOOOO, when it comes to corporate america, everything has to support the government. The Taliban are evil boogeymen and not human beings with human goals, motives and agendas and it is both "disgusting" and "insulting" to portray them as human. Right?
Fucking panzies. You'd think that a person involved in the video game industry would've grown past the mainstream bullshit, but it seems that some can't wait to expose themselves as the obvious tools they are...
So videogames should educate us on "correct morals" now?dillirgaf said:
It is irrelevant what the taliban are doing or what they stand for. It doesn't excuse that some corporate tool in the videogame industry is basically saying that me (an adult human being) should have to suffer through some moral education through a fucking videogame.
I'm quite satisfied with my own sense of morals thank you very much, im not particularly interested to get another set forcefully jammed into my head by something I induge on for entertainment reasons.
If I wanted to ponder over good and evil or try to maintain why a certain set of morals are more appropriate then others, then I'd read books on the subject matter, not watch some stereotypical hollywood flick where people of "terrorist decent" are aways portrayed as irrevocably evil and wrong, nor do I wish to play videogames going that same route.
Good videogames give the players freedom of moral choice. They don't act like moral guidelines for the player to follow, and even if they try to they would fail miserably due to sheer hypocrisy.
But you're not killing someone from your own country. You're "killing" a fictional character in a virtual and hypothetical setting. So why would you feel "wrong" about it?Sniper Team 4 said:
Just because you "kill" virtual characters it's not like that would incite you to kill an actual human being, right?
The reason why such a scenario would be unlikely in the extreme is not because any sort of inability on the part of the North Koreans, but more because North Korea have nuclear weapons.SpiderJerusalem said:
The U.S wouldn't dare to go up against a country that could potentially launch nukes. The U.S armed forces might seem like "the shit", but the only theing they will ever really be used for is domestic oppresion as well as bullying underdeveloped countries whose military technology is basically stuck in the mid 50's and who don't have access to nuclear weapons.
A country that possess nuclear weapons basically have an anti-invasion shield, because no politician worth his salt is going to advocate the actual invasion of a country that could launch nukes and thus engage a mutually assured destruction of the two respective countries as well as the rest of the world.
So if you wonder how we are to achieve world peace, here's the answer: Make sure that each and every country has nukes. Then no one is going to dare start a fight with anyone else.
Might I suggest that you play a little gem of a game called Deus Ex?WanderingFool said:
It's pretty old, but it's pretty much what you describe and eerily relevant to current events. It actually came out BEFORE 9/11, which is pretty remarkable considering what kind of subject matter the game deas with.
This is why my idea would work wonderfully:
You pick how you want your team to look to yourself. Say you want to be red team, when you join your team will always look red and the enemy will always be blue. But if your friend who is an opposing player chooses red in his options your character will be blue.
In other words it's just a choice on perspective, you can pick how you/your team will look but it's not universal.
It's hard to explain but it makes sense trust me.
You pick how you want your team to look to yourself. Say you want to be red team, when you join your team will always look red and the enemy will always be blue. But if your friend who is an opposing player chooses red in his options your character will be blue.
In other words it's just a choice on perspective, you can pick how you/your team will look but it's not universal.
It's hard to explain but it makes sense trust me.
It's okay to kill Commies en masse, America beat the commies. People know that when an American dies at the hands of a Commie in a game 'it's okay, it could never really happen.'
It's not okay to kill Islamic insurgents en masse, because America's still getting kicked around by them. When people see an American dying at the hands of an Islamic insurgent they're reminded that they're fighting an (IMO) unjust war halfway around the world and they don't like it. Well, from the outside media's point of view, gamers by-and-large seem to be supportive of boundry-pushing games.
Long story short, American media still likes to assert America's dominance or heroic vicrtory if they do get beat and anything that doesn't show that is bad. At least from where I'm sitting, but I'm not American so maybe they just export all the wrong imigary.
It's not okay to kill Islamic insurgents en masse, because America's still getting kicked around by them. When people see an American dying at the hands of an Islamic insurgent they're reminded that they're fighting an (IMO) unjust war halfway around the world and they don't like it. Well, from the outside media's point of view, gamers by-and-large seem to be supportive of boundry-pushing games.
Long story short, American media still likes to assert America's dominance or heroic vicrtory if they do get beat and anything that doesn't show that is bad. At least from where I'm sitting, but I'm not American so maybe they just export all the wrong imigary.
TBH anyone who argues that the Taliban or the North Koreans should not be 'named' in a game because they are the 'real life bad guys' is an idiot.. For starters why are the Taliban folks and North Korean soldiers the bad guys anyway, its only the Western worlds point of view that they are 'bad' and so publishers should stop pandering to fox news..
Rant over..
Anyway, meh.. I don't know anyone who would take offense at having to play the Taliban in a game, it would make a nice change, a lack of organization, more player based decisions on how to defeat the enemy.. could be a good game..
And considering I really don't care who I kill in a game (British or not British) so if I had to kill the SAS whilst playing as Spetsnaz I'm quite happy.. oh wait COD4 did that without complaint...
Besides plenty of people have already been killing American soldiers in games for years, just look at either of the Modern Warfares especially 2 where you have two campaign missions killing US soldiers..
Rant over..
Anyway, meh.. I don't know anyone who would take offense at having to play the Taliban in a game, it would make a nice change, a lack of organization, more player based decisions on how to defeat the enemy.. could be a good game..
And considering I really don't care who I kill in a game (British or not British) so if I had to kill the SAS whilst playing as Spetsnaz I'm quite happy.. oh wait COD4 did that without complaint...
Besides plenty of people have already been killing American soldiers in games for years, just look at either of the Modern Warfares especially 2 where you have two campaign missions killing US soldiers..
The whole Taliban "controversy" was something that EA's marketing team has done in the past because it was a cheap and effective way to drum up sales. It gets on the news outlets and it generates free press for the game. EA did this with Dante's Inferno, it did it with older Medal of Honor games, and it will do it in the future because this marketing strategy works. Like it or not, there is a segment of the population who thinks because certain adults "hate" the game, the game is great for them. This group does it with movies and books just as easily. These people think that rebelling by playing a video game is something cool.
To me, all it shows is that this industry still needs to do some growing up.
To me, all it shows is that this industry still needs to do some growing up.