What I don't get about the MOH "controversy"
- Thread starter GonzoGamer
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I played this game, and now I totaly want to join the Taliban!... is what typical politicians and anti-gaming people are PRAYING that some kid says after playing MoH, so they have some new way to turn games into a scapegoat.
They clearly lost the "games cause violence" battle, so the newest battle in their little "jihad" (I'm not being cute, that's the closest thing I can equate certian people's hate for games to) is that "games are insensitve".
Books went through the same thing, and so did movies. It's doomed to fail, and a few might even know this, but as long as there is something to keep games in a negative spotlight a little longer, they won't have a new scapegoat to find.
...yes, this MoH thing is just another BS thing in typical anti-gaming stuff, so I posted my entire theory of people who are anti-gaming... again.
On a side note, haven't they heard? Bad publicity is STILL publicity. Some people will buy it for shock value alone. It's worked for other games.
They clearly lost the "games cause violence" battle, so the newest battle in their little "jihad" (I'm not being cute, that's the closest thing I can equate certian people's hate for games to) is that "games are insensitve".
Books went through the same thing, and so did movies. It's doomed to fail, and a few might even know this, but as long as there is something to keep games in a negative spotlight a little longer, they won't have a new scapegoat to find.
...yes, this MoH thing is just another BS thing in typical anti-gaming stuff, so I posted my entire theory of people who are anti-gaming... again.
On a side note, haven't they heard? Bad publicity is STILL publicity. Some people will buy it for shock value alone. It's worked for other games.
Bah, not really a big deal.
This is another one of those things that people blow way out of proportion, considering one of the signs of the apocalypse.
This is another one of those things that people blow way out of proportion, considering one of the signs of the apocalypse.
The one problem with this is the simple fact that many gamers want to have games looked at as more than just a game. Looking at it from the "games are art and have culteral signifigance" angle you could see that by having the player take the role of a Taliban fighter, while soldiers are still fighting them, it glorifies them.Polaris19 said:
Now me, I really don't care. I hate the Taliban and really wish we would turn the whole place into glass. I see games as games, but if you want to be recognized for being an art form worth merit, you have to be ready to take the shots that go along with it and not pick and choose which game is art and which isn't. Debbie Does Dallas is just as much a piece of art as Citizen Kane, maybe not as well done, but still a work of art nonetheless.
It's all in the name. Seriously, call them Terrorists it'll be the average run-of-the-mill (controversy wise) awesome shooter. Stick the label "Taliban" a wave of idiots and politicians come running with their pens and paper ready to fight for their cause of so and so game should be banned.
I think the reason is because you play as the Taliban (duh! But read on). They already dislike games for letting you kill people. Killing Simulation is how they see games like Medal Of Honour. You play as a US Solider, that's not too bad for them. Play as the Taliban? They'll think it's a game that's going to train the Taliban or change people's point of views in the 'war.
The fact that you play as the enemy in an on-going war where people die from the said faction of controversy is that last straw plucked.
Imagine if people made games about people playing as Nazis in WW2. Imagine Company Of Heroes and Call Of Duty (you can play as Nazis right? Well the Axis anyway) coming out during WW2. It'd gain huge controversy for the fact you play as the faction of the enemy in the war. Nazis weren't as bad to them when the games came out because it was an enemy that doesn't exist anymore. The Taliban do exist and they're killing US Troops. The fact that you can play as one of them is as I said before is 'the last straw plucked'
That was the longest and most intelligent post I made!
I think the reason is because you play as the Taliban (duh! But read on). They already dislike games for letting you kill people. Killing Simulation is how they see games like Medal Of Honour. You play as a US Solider, that's not too bad for them. Play as the Taliban? They'll think it's a game that's going to train the Taliban or change people's point of views in the 'war.
The fact that you play as the enemy in an on-going war where people die from the said faction of controversy is that last straw plucked.
Imagine if people made games about people playing as Nazis in WW2. Imagine Company Of Heroes and Call Of Duty (you can play as Nazis right? Well the Axis anyway) coming out during WW2. It'd gain huge controversy for the fact you play as the faction of the enemy in the war. Nazis weren't as bad to them when the games came out because it was an enemy that doesn't exist anymore. The Taliban do exist and they're killing US Troops. The fact that you can play as one of them is as I said before is 'the last straw plucked'
That was the longest and most intelligent post I made!
I think it often makes games a little more interesting to have the freedom to play as the bad guys. After all, if there are only linear choices then there IS no variety or morality because without evil there is no good and everything stagnates in sameness. Contrast is refreshing. Counter-Strike would be kind of silly if the two teams were the counter-terrorists and the counter-counter-terrorists fighting each other over the right to fight terrorists that you are not allowed to play as or talk about or think about.
The only reason there's any controversy is they didn't have to stretch the concept to sensationalize it. If they had called the terrorist team the "Evil And Not Very Sharply Dressed" or "EANVSD" faction it would take longer than the media's attention span to create controversy over something that was "looking-like-it-was-remotely-inspired-by-current-events-but-not-specifically-named-as-such."
So of course, easy target is easy and people have something nice to complain about. It very well could've been a deliberate move to try to increase sales by generating tons of publicity and hopefully sales with the inevitable and stupid controversy. Even if it was deliberate, good for them because if that was actually the plan then it probably worked and if it worked then it deserved to work. If it wasn't deliberate, good for them for just having the guts to be the first game to take this step just as there was a first game to allow you to play as Nazis and so on. Someone has to take that first step at some point and more steps will follow, it's never too soon and it's all quite silly to care about.
In any case, shying away from approaching or referencing reality until a few decades after the fact would be a truly controversial move to me. Nobody should be afraid of the freedom to take a look at or talk about things that are happening right now.
The only reason there's any controversy is they didn't have to stretch the concept to sensationalize it. If they had called the terrorist team the "Evil And Not Very Sharply Dressed" or "EANVSD" faction it would take longer than the media's attention span to create controversy over something that was "looking-like-it-was-remotely-inspired-by-current-events-but-not-specifically-named-as-such."
So of course, easy target is easy and people have something nice to complain about. It very well could've been a deliberate move to try to increase sales by generating tons of publicity and hopefully sales with the inevitable and stupid controversy. Even if it was deliberate, good for them because if that was actually the plan then it probably worked and if it worked then it deserved to work. If it wasn't deliberate, good for them for just having the guts to be the first game to take this step just as there was a first game to allow you to play as Nazis and so on. Someone has to take that first step at some point and more steps will follow, it's never too soon and it's all quite silly to care about.
In any case, shying away from approaching or referencing reality until a few decades after the fact would be a truly controversial move to me. Nobody should be afraid of the freedom to take a look at or talk about things that are happening right now.
This is the first time the "Terrorist Team" has actually been referred to as the Taliban.
I didn't say it made sense.
I didn't say it made sense.
I don't get why there wasn't an outcry over DoD if they are that upset about this. YOU PLAY AS NAZIS!
Shhhh! James Cameron will hear you!shootthebandit said:
In other news: a lot of decisions regarding games don't seem to make a lot of sense lately.
Me and Big Boss would like to disagree with you on part of that. xDPolaris19 said:
But seriously, there will always be controversy about everything forever; not only video games. People see something they don't agree with, they start flinging poo.
wow that pretty much summed up exactly how i feel about this issue. it's not like playing as a member of the taliban in a multiplayer game is going to swing your opinion and make you a terrorist. and being a member of a group of people that killed millions of jews is fine! the whole thing is just bloody ridiculous.Serenegoose said:
Like a few people have already mentioned the difference between Nazis and the Taliban is an issue of time. The horrors that the Nazis inflicted on people occurred 70 years ago. They were also a faction that were ultimately defeated in history conclusively enough that despite the wishes of a few bigoted fanatics they are never coming back into meaningful power anywhere. This makes them somewhat safe to take on the role of one of their soldiers and try to "win" with them especially since the German army faced such long odds in WW2 it can be a good challenge.
The Taliban are different though in a few regards the first being of course that the event that they are known for 9/11 is much more recent and the chances of running into someone that 9/11 had an immediate impact on their lives is much higher. Secondly Taliban and its associated splinter groups are still a going concern for regional/western/U.S. security to this day and new major successful terrorist attacks remains a possibility every day. Third it is still very debatable of rather or not that they will remain out of power or ultimately lose the fight as war exhaustion grows in the U.S.
The Taliban are different though in a few regards the first being of course that the event that they are known for 9/11 is much more recent and the chances of running into someone that 9/11 had an immediate impact on their lives is much higher. Secondly Taliban and its associated splinter groups are still a going concern for regional/western/U.S. security to this day and new major successful terrorist attacks remains a possibility every day. Third it is still very debatable of rather or not that they will remain out of power or ultimately lose the fight as war exhaustion grows in the U.S.
Well, you can't kill your team-mates in COD.....
But seriously, if you're offended don't buy it! Christ!
But seriously, if you're offended don't buy it! Christ!
Well, if playing violent video games makes you violent, then, logically, playing... uhm... Talibinous... games will make you a Taliban. And we have too many of those to consider making more in beautiful America.
People need to stop caring about petty things like this.
People need to stop caring about petty things like this.
What you have to remember is that the people so outraged by the game don't get the finer details of it. If you say to anyone on here that "in Medal of Honour you play as members of the Taliban in the multiplayer mode" it's perfectly fine and reasonable, seeing as in every WW2 game with multiplayer some one has the play as the German Army, and that's never really bothered anyone.
But when a reporter or overly protective parent is told the same thing using the exact same wording, all they hear is "play as Taliban" and conjure up images of a game that gives personalities and backstories to the Taliban members, and the story will actively involve shooting American or English soldiers. Of course we know that this is all bullshit, but they don't. And that's where the controversy is coming from.
In short, the controversy has come about mainly because the people who only have a peripheral understanding of the game are the ones who are condemming it.
But when a reporter or overly protective parent is told the same thing using the exact same wording, all they hear is "play as Taliban" and conjure up images of a game that gives personalities and backstories to the Taliban members, and the story will actively involve shooting American or English soldiers. Of course we know that this is all bullshit, but they don't. And that's where the controversy is coming from.
In short, the controversy has come about mainly because the people who only have a peripheral understanding of the game are the ones who are condemming it.
I understand their argument but I don?t think it?s valid when you consider these things are re-enacted in movies, documentaries, and other entertainment mediums that they don?t complain about. Even other games. Some people find war entertaining, so you?re going to have to assume that it?s going to show up in the media in various ways. You?re right, I don?t really think war is something that should be glorified but at it?s worst, it?s given us some really good movies and games. I just don?t think there?s any reason to deny (what would otherwise universally be considered) decent content to people who want to play it. You also hae to remember that those soldiers are also fighting to give others the freedom of speech we are able to enjoy.Liquidcathedral said:
And to tell you the honest truth, I really don?t know what the nay-sayers would consider a decent alternative to the multiplayer setup.
As someone stated earlier, it is (in the end) probably just a lame attempt to garner publicity to a game that would probably otherwise be considered a common military shooter in a market saturated with them.