Despite Homefront, THQ VP Critical of Taliban in Medal of Honor
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
The thing I would like to see is a game based on the Afghanistan War... but, mind you, the one between Russia and the Mujahideen. Would be interesting how people would argue against that. I mean, on one side we have the bad communist hordes of oppression, on the other the (secretly helped by America) freedom fighters of Afghanistan. Hooray for the "towelheads" (not meant offensive, just trying to sarcastically paraphrase the view of many ignorants on the people in that region), right? Oh, hey, look, it's our glorious leader, Osama Bin Laden... oh wait...
Could make for a pretty interesting game if told right, and for quite a strange discussion about the whole thing.
But I doubt anyone would ever touch this in the next years.
Could make for a pretty interesting game if told right, and for quite a strange discussion about the whole thing.
But I doubt anyone would ever touch this in the next years.
Sign me up.Taluien said:
Seriously, a game like that would actually spark my interest. But I'm sure both countries represented would have something to say about being exploited in such a way.
Also, typically the Americans would be made at as saviours which would ruin it all.
i'd say there was a huge difference between cashing in on a real life event to get more sales, and inventing fictional scenarios to project storytelling. It all comes down to intention - imagine if a game featured a depiction of the houses of parliment being blown up. Owing to the fact that the houses of parliment have never actually been destroyed in this way, the intention here is to project a fantastical departure from reality, designed to excite the player's imagination.
Now imagine that a game decided to put in the world trade center being destroyed, with a vivid reconstruction of planes flying into it, and people jumping from the windows etc. Suddenly, there is no fantastical departure, because this actually happened. The intention here isnt to propel a player into a compelling fiction, it's simply a short cut to generating very real feelings of sadness, controversy, and a bunch more publicity.
Honestly, i cannot think of any other reason why a coperation like EA would put the chance to fight as taliban into the game. If they were proposing to do it in a way which handled the subject matter in a more sensitive manner, with the intention to deliver a multi-sided narrative that didnt rely on seeing american soldiers being blown up, then i wouldnt mind. But the fact is that they wanted it in to excite some controversy about the fact that you can kill americans in a modern day conflict - exactly the kind of economics driven, non-moral approach to media coverage that we should be criticising.
Now imagine that a game decided to put in the world trade center being destroyed, with a vivid reconstruction of planes flying into it, and people jumping from the windows etc. Suddenly, there is no fantastical departure, because this actually happened. The intention here isnt to propel a player into a compelling fiction, it's simply a short cut to generating very real feelings of sadness, controversy, and a bunch more publicity.
Honestly, i cannot think of any other reason why a coperation like EA would put the chance to fight as taliban into the game. If they were proposing to do it in a way which handled the subject matter in a more sensitive manner, with the intention to deliver a multi-sided narrative that didnt rely on seeing american soldiers being blown up, then i wouldnt mind. But the fact is that they wanted it in to excite some controversy about the fact that you can kill americans in a modern day conflict - exactly the kind of economics driven, non-moral approach to media coverage that we should be criticising.
As i said, i regard it as a matter of intentionality. Games are often about states of war, in the same way as movies are set about them. But the difference is that theyre generally not doing it purely as a means to be controversial, and so boost sales. What i object to, is a company who obviously saw the naming of a playable faction as "taliban", to be a potential means of generating exposure.nipsen said:
They didnt do it for any artistic purpose, it was just to generate hype, hence why they folded so quickly once they realised that the backlash may actually be counter productive in marketing the product. Had they stuck with it, i might be inclined to think that perhaps there was a genuine point to it, beyond being controversial.
The same goes for any other artistic medium, when someone tries to take shortcuts to become hyped through controversy. Whilst i wouldnt condone censoring them, i certainly wouldnt regard them as a product of good taste, or real quality for that matter.
This guy seems to not understand quite was he is implying when he gets all offended like this. On the other hand I will agree that the article is quite biased.
So, it's not okay to fight on the side that's willing to kill and die for their belief.
It is okay to fight on the side that are willing to kill and die for money?
It is okay to fight on the side that are willing to kill and die for money?
hope the man realizes what EA did was simply creating publicity for itself when they OK'd the naming of the opposing force "Taliban"
They knew the reaction they would get from the get go. If they didn't, everyone in their PR department needs to be fired.
They knew the reaction they would get from the get go. If they didn't, everyone in their PR department needs to be fired.
I have, actually. 'course, the reason they all die is to 1) symbolize germany's defeat, and 2) to reiterate the pointlessness of war. I'm afraid I don't quite see how that's related to the hero/villain dichotomy.Akalabeth said: