Disappointed with Medal of Honor

[rocklobster]

I hear there's actually a Medal of Honor game that lets you play as a member of the Taliban. This is just appalling. Don't they realize how many people died at their hands? Isn't this like spitting on their graves?

[Nate]

I've tried at least five times to respond to this thread, and every single time I just couldn't get the words right. So then I am forced to use an image to attempt to display my reaction to this thread. That reaction is as follows:

[battletech]

I applaud you Nate on the tactful way you expressed your opinion on this matter. Is he talking about that one game where it was in the beginning of the game and only in the beginning? An was it not optional too? If it is what I think it's about. Was it not a long time ago that this game came out? Can some one provide more info please? I'm sorry I'm to lazy to look it up myself. Thank you.






P.S. This is not an attack on any one. If you feel I have offended you I'm sorry.

[Nate]

I applaud you Nate on the tactful way you expressed your opinion on this matter.

Well, it originally WASN'T going to be tactful, but I'd rather not make more work for the mods.

Is he talking about that one game where it was in the beginning of the game and only in the beginning? An was it not optional too? If it is what I think it's about.

You're thinking of the "No Russian" scene in Modern Warfare 2. The outcry over that was that you were in an airport and had the opportunity to shoot and kill civilians. Despite the fact that you didn't have to shoot any civilians (the objective was merely to keep pace with the group), the level in question was made skippable in the final version, with no achievements tied to the level (and thus no penalty for skipping).

What rocklobster is talking about is the 2010 Medal of Honor game which was more or less loosely based on Operation Anaconda, which was an actual military operation in 2002 with the goal of destroying al-Qaeda/Taliban forces.

As most FPS games do, the game had a multiplayer option. That's what the complaint is about, is that there are two forces in multiplayer: the Coalition and the Opposing Forces. The Coalition is obviously based on US and other allied forces, and the Opposing Forces are based on the Taliban. Which means if you're the Opposing Forces side in multiplayer, you're playing as the Taliban.

Because of the pressure from military groups, the developers removed the word "Taliban" from multiplayer and replaced it with "Opposing Forces."

And that's the complaint is you're allowed to play as the bad guys and it's somehow insulting to the memory of people who died in the Afghanistan conflicts or whatever. But it's the same tune people have been saying about World War II shooters, or any other kind of war game. The only reason anyone is making a big deal about it now is because it's current, and it's an easy target for complaints since video games are still relatively new technology. It's still okay to pick on video games. It happened with radio, television, comic books, rock music, and it'll happen with whatever comes along next.

When this war is nothing but a memory, no one will even care, just like no one cares about board games. Remember Axis and Allies, the board game? You can play as the Axis powers in that game. You can play as Germany and even Japan if you have the Pacific version. Why does nobody complain about Axis and Allies? After all, the Axis forces in World War II killed many good soldiers, not to mention the reprehensible acts by Germany itself (which is of course outside the scope of the game, but does not change the fact that Germany did these things). Pearl Harbor was a pretty horrible thing, but nobody calls Axis and Allies: Pacific an insult to military members who were killed during that attack.

Why? Because board games are familiar. They're not new, they've been around for ages. Nobody picks on board games because everybody loves board games. But video games? They're the new kid, not fully accepted in society. On top of that, World War II was like 70 years ago, so it's less personal. There's hardly any WWII veterans around to complain about it, so it's not a big deal. And again, if this game was made 50 years in the future, no one would even care about it. They'd be like "So what?" But because it's fresh in people's minds, it's a big deal.

So there ya go.

[Gojira]

War games do this stuff a lot.

[rocklobster]

So...I take it Grand Theft Auto is harmless too? There are some criminals who say they were inspired by it, after all.

[Htom Sirveaux]

So...I take it Grand Theft Auto is harmless too? There are some criminals who are brainless idiots incapable of distinguishing fantasy from reality, after all.

Fixed.

And for the record, I don't care for GTA, either. I think it might as well have been written by a bunch of fourteen-year-old boys around their middleschool lunch table.

[Nate]

So...I take it Grand Theft Auto is harmless too? There are some criminals who say they were inspired by it, after all.

Yes, Grand Theft Auto is completely harmless. Correlation does not equal causation, and inspiration means literally nothing.

If a person was inspired to become a killer by Agatha Christie novels, should we ban Agatha Christie novels? If a person is inspired to become a killer by A Clockwork Orange, should we ban A Clockwork Orange? If someone is inspired to become a killer by the story of Jack the Ripper, should we ban all works based on Jack the Ripper's life?

We wouldn't have very many books, movies, or TV shows if we're going to ban everything people claim to use as inspiration for their deeds. On top of that, look at the sales figures for GTA. How many people have bought the game? Is there a huge rash of serial killings? I've played Grand Theft Auto III, IV, Liberty City Stories, AND Vice City. I have yet to commit a single crime. And know what? Most people are like me.

It's like Htom said. There's always brainless idiots willing to shift the blame to anything to avoid responsibility for their actions. If they think they'll get a shorter sentence by blaming a video game or a movie, they'll do it even if they're lying. You think someone who's committed crimes would be above lying in court to try and get a reduced punishment? Seriously, now.

Also, your statement did nothing to address the fact that you can play as the Axis powers in many board games and video games, and there has been little outcry against World War II video games (except that they're overdone) and there has been zero outcry against Axis and Allies the board game. And I believe it is for the exact reasons I mentioned in my post.

[rocklobster]

I think it's also the fact that WWII was a pretty long time ago. I just don't like the idea of playing as people this evil.

[Nate]

Then don't play multiplayer in the game. Also I find it difficult to believe the Taliban is more evil than World War II era Germany, but that's fairly subjective I suppose.

[ADXC]

I think it's also the fact that WWII was a pretty long time ago.

So what you're saying is that we can play Germany and kill many Jewish people in a level called "the Holocaust" and it not be bad because it was a "pretty long time ago?"

[rocklobster]

I see your points. I retract my argument.