British Politician Defends His Call For Medal Of Honor Ban

[QUOTE="R4gn4r0k"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] Now you're just being ridiculous. :|Ninja-Hippo

You said many games use a different name than the real one to avoid stuff like this.

Now I'm asking if it would make a difference if they did that to this game, and it's ridiculous. Why ?

Yeah okay, the way I asked the question was silly :P

My question still stands though. Let's say they replace the taliban in this game with nazis ? Would it be fine then because then it wouldn't offend anyone ?

I think he meant "skin" in the video game sense... :|

Cherokee_Jack

Indeed I did.

when its nazi's or the Vietnamese its okay but when its the taliban its suddenly wrong? doesn't compute with meChris_Williams

For Real, The Logic is just baffling.

"Oh Taliban is no good? Well lets just replace the Taliban with Russians." -_-

(no one said that I was just making a point.)

[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"]when its nazi's or the Vietnamese its okay but when its the taliban its suddenly wrong? doesn't compute with meLegatoSkyheart

For Real, The Logic is just baffling.

"Oh Taliban is no good? Well lets just replace the Taliban with Russians." -_-

(no one said that I was just making a point.)

True. If at the end of the game it turns out that the Nazis from the original Medal of Honor are behind everything... nobody will see problem with it :s

>

Yeah okay, the way I asked the question was silly :P

My question still stands though. Let's say they replace the taliban in this game with nazis ? Would it be fine then because then it wouldn't offend anyone ?

R4gn4r0k

While I can see that the Taliban being in multiplayer can be taken offensively it really isn't much different from the Vietcong or Wermacht in multiplayer. Yes you could argue that "bu-bu-but we're fighting the Taliban right now and people are dying!!11," people also died in Vietnam and WW2. There are people still alive from those wars, that had relatives in those wars, that lost loved ones in those wars, and yet we're whining about this one game because it has the Taliban and it's "happening right now." If the Taliban can't be in a game why should the Nazi's, Vietcong, or even the Americans be in a game?

Double standards, folks, double standards.

how could this possibly get banned when mw2's airport scene didn't :|

how could this possibly get banned when mw2's airport scene didn't :|

munchlax99

The funny thing is that the airport scene was way more distasteful then this. It was supposed to enhance the narrative by making you hate the villain, but the villain was only in the game for that level and a few short clips, making the entire level pointless. It was just a controversery drummer upper.

[QUOTE="R4gn4r0k"]

>

Yeah okay, the way I asked the question was silly :P

My question still stands though. Let's say they replace the taliban in this game with nazis ? Would it be fine then because then it wouldn't offend anyone ?

Ninja-Hippo

For as far as I know, the criticism didn't start until EA announced that the Taliban is playable in MoH. It was known for months if not longer that this game was going to take place in present-day Afghanistan. Yet I heard absolutely noone calling this game 'poor taste' or whatever because it takes place ina war that is still raging until the point that it became clear the Taliban would be playable in multiplayer. So in the end I think it boils down more to the fact that the criticasters think it's okay if you shoot Talibs as an American, but not the other way around.

You shouldve heard what this certain Australian politician said about the "No Russian" level -- "Earning points by killing civilians" - _ +illmatic87

Yeah, most politicians are oblivious to how modern video games work. I've heard similar claims about GTA allegedly 'awarding players points' for killing prostitutes. The funniest thing about GTA is that, apart from scripted mission events, everything comes down to the moral behaviour of the player within the game, and this is something that opportunistic anti-video game lobbyists still don't seem to realise.

Its this kind of censorship that is holding back human development. Just because it could possible offend some people it should be banned? What about all those people out there who'd like to know what it feels like to be in this kind of combat, on either side, and have neither the means or desire to actually put their lives on the line? How can you represent a conflict without equally depicting both sides? What, are the "bad guys" supposed to be just some faceless organization that means nothing to history? What is that going to accomplish?

For as far as I know, the criticism didn't start until EA announced that the Taliban is playable in MoH. It was known for months if not longer that this game was going to take place in present-day Afghanistan. Yet I heard absolutely noone calling this game 'poor taste' or whatever because it takes place ina war that is still raging until the point that it became clear the Taliban would be playable in multiplayer. So in the end I think it boils down more to the fact that the criticasters think it's okay if you shoot Talibs as an American, but not the other way around.

DraugenCP

[QUOTE="DraugenCP"]

For as far as I know, the criticism didn't start until EA announced that the Taliban is playable in MoH. It was known for months if not longer that this game was going to take place in present-day Afghanistan. Yet I heard absolutely noone calling this game 'poor taste' or whatever because it takes place ina war that is still raging until the point that it became clear the Taliban would be playable in multiplayer. So in the end I think it boils down more to the fact that the criticasters think it's okay if you shoot Talibs as an American, but not the other way around.

Ninja-Hippo

[QUOTE="DraugenCP"]

For as far as I know, the criticism didn't start until EA announced that the Taliban is playable in MoH. It was known for months if not longer that this game was going to take place in present-day Afghanistan. Yet I heard absolutely noone calling this game 'poor taste' or whatever because it takes place ina war that is still raging until the point that it became clear the Taliban would be playable in multiplayer. So in the end I think it boils down more to the fact that the criticasters think it's okay if you shoot Talibs as an American, but not the other way around.

Ninja-Hippo

I'm not saying I don't understand them in the sense that I don't knowwhere they're coming from, because I do, but I just think it's massively hypocritical of people such as Fox to call for a ban just because it's their personal belief that it's tasteless. I personally consider games in which you have to kill Russians (anation I feel way more connected to as a European than the USA) or invade other countriesunder the NATO bannerto be way more tasteless than a game that lets the opposing side shoot back, but I don't go on the opportunist tour by screaming foul and calling for a ban on these games because of my personal feelings. Hell, I can even play and enjoy these games as long as Idisconnect from what is happening on the screen, as getting genuinely immersed by those events would make me feel slightly uncomfortable.

[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"]when its nazi's or the Vietnamese its okay but when its the taliban its suddenly wrong? doesn't compute with mehexashadow13

Don't forget the commies.

And it's fox as usual having no idea what they're talking about.

Um... no, its not Fox the channel, its a guy named Fox.