Uh, yes they will, that's basically what's being detracted here. It's their choice, yeah, but people are saying that they've made a stupid choice that they shouldn't have. That they have the right to do that in no way protects it from criticism. I have the right to nail my feet to the floor, but that doesn't mean nobody can come and tell me how retarded I am for doing that. The army has the right to ban a video game, but that doesn't mean nobody can say they're stupid and hypocritical for it. It may have been their choice, but people are absolutely allowed to criticize it.Nomaic said:
U.S. Marine "Baffled" by Medal of Honor Ban
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Never has the phrase "give that man a medal" been so uncannily appropriate, but of course, people will not listen to him. They'd rather listen to the media's claims that medal of honour trains suicide bombers, crazed snipers, and is, in extreme cases, capable of turning your children into ganondorf clones.
What amazes me most about this story is that the Marines are letting their personnel smoke. The US Marines, supposedly the finest fighting force in the world (though I'd like to see them take on the SAS) is letting their soldiers pointlessly destroy their stamina and general good health. How are they supposed to do their 10-mile runs (or whatever, sorry for inaccuracies) if their lungs are caked in tar?
Unfortunately for this Marine, he's likely going to catch some flak and perhaps end up in real trouble once it gets out that he's questioning military decisions in a public forum. The military can and will ban things it thinks are injurious to morale, while promoting things that keep soldiers happy, like booze and cigarettes. It's a huge ball of contradictions, sure, but so much of what the military does fits under that.
So, because Medal of Honor is deciding to take place in a named war it's deemed as tasteless? That's generally what I got from your post.Therumancer said:
If Modern Warfare 2, Bad Company 2, various war movies taking place in "Namelessbad", and alcohol and cigarrets that are detrimental to a soldier's health are allowed to be sold, why shouldn't a game with basically a similar premise be sold? Because they decided to name the enemy?
You've got books, movies, TV Shows, radio talk shows, and several other video games all taking place or having some connection to the war in Whereeverthehellsban, why should this one specific game be disallowed from trying to approach the subject matter? Because the war is still going on? Because it disrespects the army? I point to every other FPS coming out nowadays and every other action flick depicting the army or military as corrupt or waving the American flag for patriotism.
I just find it silly to ban/not allow selling of one game out of many others just because they decided to be relevant. You (and neither am I) are not the one going out there risking your life for a war, these soldiers use video games just to escape (ironically so, I suppose).
I don't know if I'm going to buy the game or not, I probably will just to spite the controversy. I've played the mutliplayer and it was alright, but that says nothing about the single-player. But I don't see a reason to ban it when so many other similar games are being sold, the only difference being they're just in "Whocarestan".
Common its not like all don't know that most governments are downright stupid, specially with a lot of the US gov.
Seriously, think about it. The United States government believes that people are not mature and responsible enough to drink a beer until they are 21, yet they think that those same people are mature and responsible enough to kill other people by the age of 18.
Seriously, think about it. The United States government believes that people are not mature and responsible enough to drink a beer until they are 21, yet they think that those same people are mature and responsible enough to kill other people by the age of 18.
Jumplion said:
The differance is that the war is currently going on, that is the differance. What's more this is a situation where the "opposing force" is being put into the hands of the players with them being able to take a direct hand in a simulation of killing our troops.
What's more, with all the anti-US sentiment out there, I have no doubts a lot of people are going to use the whole "kill US soldiers as the Taliban" thing in some rather nasty ways, human nature being what it is.
Understand that during World War II where we invoked War Powers doing this would have been illegal (the Smithsonian has an entire section on WW II propaganda and what it entailed). Right now we have not invoked War Powers however so that technicality is a moot point. I do however feel very similarly about this to how I feel about the crap Jane Fonda pulled during Vietnam.
One important thing to understand here though is that there is no real "ban" taking place. The goverment is not trying to declare the game illegal, or anything of the sort. There is no grounds to do so, and since we don't have War Powers/Martial Law in effect, I would of course oppose them doing so even for something I dislike. Martial Law is a differant cup of tea entirely, short of that I don't think freedom of speech only applies to things that I happen to agree with.
What we are dealing with here is the Military's stores choosing not to carry the game. That and people in the military encouraging people not to buy it. The military stores DO have the right to choose what products to carry and what not to carry, just like any other business. Nobody can force a store to buy, carry, and sell a product to consumers.
As far as it goes, I agree with the statements made by the military so far, their reasoning, and desician not to have their stores carry it. I also think that people should not support this product on principle, but that's opinion and not anything legally enforcable.
Agayek said:
The differance being that the war is currently ongoing. It's not just a modern conflict that happened in the past.
Also when it comes to those movies, they were not glorifying the enemy. It's also important to note that Gaming is an interactive media, there is a bit of a differance between taking on the role of a terrorist killing American forces, and watching a drama simply set during the conflict where the lines are clearly drawn.
It should also be noted that the multiplayer invites abuse, with all of the anti-US sentiment if you don't think there are people who are going to get off on/make a point out of killing US troops over things like XBL and the like, then I think your quite naive.
Understand however that there is no "ban" going on right now. All that has happened really is that the military has said that it's stores will not carry the product, and that it's leadership thinks that people in general shouldn't support something like this.
There is no law preventing people from buying, selling, or playing this game. Nobody has even suggested one. The only thing we see happening is a specific group of stores not carrying the product, and you can't force a store to carry every product out there.
Understand that while I dislike this game, I would not be supporting an actual censorship campaign. That's something else entirely differant from what is going on here. There is a differance between stores choosing not to carry something, and people saying they don't like something and shouldn't support it, and actual legal action to surpess something. Free Speech does not simply apply to things that I (and others) happen to agree with.
The exception to this of course would be if Martial Law was declared and War Powers were invokred. Sort of like how during World War II the goverment pretty much gagged the media and took control of what could be said and distributed. This was done to both surpress sympathy for the enemy (Hitler was hugely popular even in the US, remember he was an internatonal man of the year), peace at any price sentiment, and even more importantly a pretty strong isolationist sentiment that continued even after Pearl Harbour. The goverment didn't prevent people from gathering information of a sort it didn't like, but did put limitations on when that information could be released (ie years after the conclusion of the war). This pretty much let the War Department both release propaganda unopposed, and also control what information was out on the airwaves... part of the idea being to prevent stupidity like what Geraldo pulled early on during our latest war.
Of course none of that is relevent to the current situation since the goverment has not chosen to consider the current conflict a crisis worthy of pretty much removing a lot of our fundemental rights for the duration. Whether they should have done this or not is debatable, I'm one of those who will point out that while cooler heads have prevailed since World War II, it's also noteworthy that the US also hasn't won a serious war since World War II. Our morality and the way we've let anti-war sentiment flourish during conflicts have turned every action we've gotten into, into a battle against an insurgency where we can't use our best weapons and all of this wonderful killing technology to it's full capabilities. It's important to note that our military has never been defeated, but due to our morality it has been held off (due to fighting with both hands tied behind it's back and a blindfold) until eventually we wind up pulling out of what turns out to be an endless and unwinnable conflict by the objectives we set for ourselves.
At any rate, I'm getting well away from the subject since little of that is relevent. To me the whole "playable Taliban" thing (irregardless of what they are called) reminds me a lot of the garbage Jane Fonda pulled during Vietnam. She largely got away with it because we didn't impose the powers that would have made it an actual crime (though it's still heavily debatable, read up on her some time). Not an exact analogy, but the bottom line is that I think this whole stunt is tasteless and I don't think anyone who is serious about their support of our troops should be purchusing this game, even if some of the troops themselves have no problem with it (a lot apparently do, especially on the higher levels). Let's be honest, if this product is released, for every serious player out there, we're probably going to see what amount to anti-US/anti-war snuff flicks being produced. This product basically being a doorway for people to vent anti-US sentiment.
If you for a second think something this touchy is going to be handled with respect by the players of say "X-Box Live" who have anti-US sentiments (not all do, but it's international, and there are a lot of anti-war elements even in the US), then I think your very naive.
I don't think the product should be banned, but I definatly think people should choose not to buy it, or not to carry it if they own a store.
Yes, he sounds like a man who has a solid grasp on reason. However, he's a grunt and no one in the higher tiers of the rank structure will pay any heed to him.The Red Dragon said:
So do you disapprove of TV shows, documentaries, movies, books, etc... all talking about the subject? If these mediums are allowed to express their viewpoints on the war, why not video games? And you're acting as if this game is the only one that puts the "OpFor" in the players hands, MW2 and such do that, so it's unfair to single out this one game, that's aiming for "honoring those that served" mind you. War going on, Shmore going on, half the time I barely even know what's going on over there, maybe this game will educate people on the subject matter, who knows.Therumancer said:
You make it seem as if every person who plays it will use it that way, in which case it eerily reminds me of Jack Thompson's saying that MoH could be used to train the Taliban. Not saying that's what you're saying, just the feeling I get off of this...
That's a whole 'nuther can o' worms. This is a different time, different standards, different lifestyles, what would have happened in the past is not relevant. What's relevant is that now, in this war, every other medium has the freedom to express their viewpoints/takes on the war, why should video games be excluded? In fact, from what I have seen (developer videos and whatnot), they're aiming for the more "brotherhood" aspect of it, providing no real support or opposition to the war. Whether they succeed in conveying that, that remains to be seen, but they know how they're approaching it.
To an extent, yes, I understand their reasoning. The thing is, they are singling out this one particular video game just because it just so happens to name Namelessban. As the soldier said, there are much worse content being sold (alcohol and drugs, MW2 (har d har har), etc...), singling out this one particular game just shows skewed standards and is really just pointless.
The old sentiment of "if you don't like it, don't play it!" sort of falls in here, as much as I dislike the saying.
Jumplion said:
To respond to a few points in what will doubtlessly be my last message:
#1: Understand, there is a differance between a book or a movie making a statement and creating an interactive murder similation about a real world conflict. What's more there are very few, if any, movies or books out there that glorify the killing of American/Allied troops by the Taliban.
There are some things that come close to what this game is doing, but again those things deal with conflicts that are long since over with, not something that is happening right now.
#2: I never said all people are going to use this for blasting the US, and creating videos and such. I doubt it will even be most people. The point is that there are people who will be doing it, and we're giving them the tool knowing this. This mostly being an issue because, again, the war is currently going on.
#3: Modern Warfare 2 is something else entirely. It's dealing with non-existant forces in a non-existant war, in a world that has divorced itself almost entirely from reality (we have fighting on Space Stations and super soldiers...). It's not dealing with a real situation that is going on right now. The whole "No Russian" thing would have been even worse if say instead of being an infiltrator in the terrorist group doing it, with a "sacrifice a few to save a lot" message at the very worst, if your character was a loyal and fanatical member of The Taliban doing the same thing... which is what this upcoming game is doing.
#4: The location is not really the issue, nor is the choice of enemy, the issue is again, the abhillity of the player to take on the role of that enemy and kill our side in a war that is currently underway.
Note also that there was an outcry when someone wanted to make a game called "Seven Days In Fallujah" which had our troops killing Muslims in a real conflict, it's doubtful that game will ever be made now. It shows some truely warped priorities and ways of thinking that people will defend this game, but jumped all over that one.
The bottom line is that we're going to have to agree to disagree here. Nobody s going to stop anyone from buying this game in general. Nobody is forcing stores not to carry it. I however do agree with the statements by the military higher ups that people should however have some standards and not support this game, or carry it, on their own.
For me, a big part of the problem here is that a lot of people do not see what is wrong with this, and that's worse than the game itself. It shows some truely warped perceptions on what is right and wrong, and on their own country. When you have people screaming bloody murder about a game where the enemies of your own nation are killed (Seven Days In Fallujah) but those same people are going to come out in defense of a game where the enemies of their nation kill their own people (both in a current conflict) that is plain out disturbing. I think people defending this game or who plan to buy it need to seriously re-assess their priorities and think long and hard about what they are doing, especially if they were involved in speaking out against games like "Seven Days In Fallujah" before this.
Such are my thoughts.
Interactive murder simulation? So what are books and movies, passive murder simulations? That's Jack Thompson speak right there, and who's to say that the added interactivity-ness of video games couldn't possibly add more depth and stuff to the story? You have yet to fully explain to me why video games shouldn't be allowed to tackle issues like this, even if the war is still going on. Again, books, movies, etc... are all allowed to tackle the subject with varying degrees of success, passive mediums or not, wouldn't the fact that video games are interactive improve the potential for getting people to understand the situation?Therumancer said:
Of course, that depends on how well the video game itself handles it, which, unfortunately, from recent reviews, Medal of Honor seems to be struggling at. But hey, baby steps. Better than MW2's severe glorifying of America's Cold-War paranoia.
Then this shouldn't be a concern of yours. At all. You are thinking of MoH as a much bigger thing than it actually is.
The allegory is still there, heavily. You're still a soldier in Namelessban, fighting some terrorist group, and then you've got even more terrorists from another group. So, what, we should all just disguise the situation in different names to make it seem like a fun action blockbuster? We can't just be direct and put "these are the people they've faced, and this is their story"?
So what's the difference between naming them "OpFor" or "Taliban"? Mw2 is off the hook yet MoH is scrutinized because of a name.
6 Days in Fallujah was intended as a sort of "documentary" style game, and the developers, Atomic Games, are know for their realistic and down-to-earth games. It's safe to say that the developers would try to be as respectful to tell the soldier's story as they could be, whether they would have succeeded or not I don't know.
Hell, I didn't even know what Fallujah was until the game was announced, and I would have been greatly interested to learn about it. See that? Video games telling stories through interactivity. What a thing to do.
I disagree with that sentiment!
But yes, I do believe we have gotten off the main path here. Though, because both of us love the sounds of our own voices, I wouldn't mind continuing this conversation through PM.
I've never seen anyone against the 6 Days in Fallujah game, the only people I saw against it was a wife of a soldier there and some other people. The soldiers from the battle were involved in the development of the game itself, so it's a wonder what would have been made if 6DiF hadn't been dropped...
