Let's ban Taliban game

[Castout]

http://latestnews.virginmedia.com/news/uk/2010/08/22/fox_urges_ban_on_taliban_video_game


Gamers are apparently instructed to stop the coalition "at all costs", and receive points for every allied troop they kill.

Dr Fox said: "It's shocking that someone would think it acceptable to recreate the acts of the Taliban. At the hands of the Taliban, children have lost fathers and wives have lost husbands.
He's forgetting one important factor,

that people could play as the British forces too.

Let me rephrase what he said from the British forces side in MOH(no offence to British people just trying to make a point that a game is a game and should not be brought into politics or politicized)




Gamers are apparently instructed to stop the Taliban "at all costs", and receive points for every taliban they kill.

Dr xoF said: "It's shocking that someone would think it acceptable to recreate the acts of the British Forces. At the hands of the British Forces, children have lost fathers and wives have lost husbands.


And the Taliban would now ban this game too!




Tuuuuuupid is what stupid does.

[Flaxpants]

I agree 100%. In my opinion, allowing you to play as the Taliban as well as the British shows neutrality on the part of the game producers, and frankly, more open mindedness than this 'Dr'.
Games are for fun, what they have done is remove all doubt that their game is in anyway a piece of propoganda. I think they have actually de-politicised their game by doing this. Good for them.

Fair's fair and all that.

[Takeda Shingen]

I don't know about boycotting and whatnot, but it does seem to me that making a game when you can play as a faction such as the Taliban at this time does strike me as poor marketing decision. Maybe a better idea in 10 or 15 years, but now is too close to a lot of people's hearts.

[Dowly]

There's plenty of games out there that have taken the basic layout from the 'war on terror', the faction just isn't called "taliban", but 'insurgents' or 'x' rebels.

Big deal, it's a game.


Didn't we have something similar about Battlefield 2, year or so ago? :shifty:

[TarJak]

There's plenty of games out there that have taken the basic layout from the 'war on terror', the faction just isn't called "taliban", but 'insurgents' or 'x' rebels.

Big deal, it's a game.


Didn't we have something similar about Battlefield 2, year or so ago? :shifty:
:yep: and in the BF1942 mod pack as well IIRC with the Iraqi campaign.

[Takeda Shingen]

There's plenty of games out there that have taken the basic layout from the 'war on terror', the faction just isn't called "taliban", but 'insurgents' or 'x' rebels.

Big deal, it's a game.


Didn't we have something similar about Battlefield 2, year or so ago? :shifty:

I'm not saying that it is unacceptable; just that it is probably not a good idea now. Could you imagine a Vietnam video game being released in 1975?

[TarJak]

No my IBM 5100 portable wouldn't run it due to an error in the basic compiler.:O:

http://stuffthathappens.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/ibm-5100-portable-computer.jpg

Seriously though the difference here is that in the 20 years of the wars in Vietnam, computer games were not really part of popular culture until the last couple of years of the conflict. This war has been going for 9 years and computer games have been there all the way through. Opportunity + time = product.

[Dowly]

Could you imagine a Vietnam video game being released in 1975?

Ow hell no! Who'd buy a game with the graphics of that era?! Was there even home gaming systems back then? :doh: :O:

EDIT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlMe9ai5jCA

[Takeda Shingen]

:O: You guys know what I meant.

[TarJak]

Yeah Tak but we can't help ourselves can we?:O:

[Castout]

No my IBM 5100 portable wouldn't run it due to an error in the basic compiler.:O:

http://stuffthathappens.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/ibm-5100-portable-computer.jpg



You Sir must be bloody rich to afford one of those devil machine :DL

[Takeda Shingen]

Yeah Tak but we can't help ourselves can we?:O:

:haha: That's what I like about SubSim.

[Dowly]

:O: You guys know what I meant.

Depends. Did it include jelly wrestling? :hmmm:

[Castout]

I'm not saying that it is unacceptable; just that it is probably not a good idea now. Could you imagine a Vietnam video game being released in 1975?

Sssshh I've been wanting an Israeli-Hizbollah ArmA 2 expansion.

I hope peace would work its way out so that I can get my game :O:

[Safe-Keeper]

Project Reality has had both the Taliban and HAMAS as playable factions, complete with suicide bomber cars and trucks, for quite a while now. Nothing new under the sun.

[Castout]

Project Reality has had both the Taliban and HAMAS as playable factions, complete with suicide bomber cars and trucks, for quite a while now. Nothing new under the sun.

Let me google that and see if they got Israelis too :DL

Edit: yes they have among many others . . . too bad I don't have BF2. I'll wait for their ArmA 2 version which I understand is under development.

[Skybird]

Poor taste, but what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. When you add to a shooter a sense of reality by inclduing names and faces from reality, then you also transport parts of the content of the fighting side'S ideology as well as an invitation to identify with one of the sides. And then it is not just a shooter like Unreal anymore. If the side to identify yourself with is in explicit defence and use of terrorism, then at the latest I think the morals of such a release becomes absolutely questionable. Some say its free market, and anything goes. I say: No, not anything goes, and not anything must go. And "anything goes" should not be allowed or tolerated. There are limits to everything.

Could I have a "hostel movie" simulator where I am realistically torturing and killing bounded victims - maybe with optionally available digitally recorded enhanced screams sound package and a small plastic vial with guaranteed original human tears fluid as special gadget in the surprise special edition for the first 200 customers? Or a stoning-simulator? we could have realisistic physics for calculating the correct flightpath of the stones, depending of power used, throwing distance and size of ther stone. Advertising with a slogan of helping to battle adultry? the faces of the victi... I mean the cheating women, are covered in reality and so realism could be claimed for covering them in the sim as well. This would make it a non-troubling experience even for younger players.

Business is not neutral on morals. And it should never allowed to be.

[Flaxpants]

If the side to identify yourself with is in explicit defence and use of terrorism, then at the latest I think the morals of such a release becomes absolutely questionable.

But from a Taliban point of view, the Americans are terrorists, so to be fair, you would have to ban the game outright, or any wargame with 'real world' sides.

[Skybird]

But from a Taliban point of view, the Americans are terrorists, so to be fair, you would have to ban the game outright, or any wargame with 'real world' sides.
The Taliban's point of view is and should be of no concern for us.

I indeed supoort the idea that shooters should not enable the player to identify himself with any faction shown in the game on odeological grounds, especially when the faction is trying to simulate a faction from reality. Psychologically it makes a difference whether you shoot at the "blue Alliance" or Red Bots, or at Nazi figures, Allied aces or UN blue helmets. In the first case, you game against bits and bytes and oixels. In the second you haven given it a face, making you shooting at something that is a bit more human than just bits and bytes and pixels.

Leave it to "Bluefor" and "OpFor". does not change the mission a bit, nor the gameplay, but psychologically it makes a difference. Ort did oyu think the game "America's Army" is named like that just by random coincidence...? Here, the identification effect is a wanted ingrendient, since the game was designed to acchieve right this effect - for recruiting purposes. I oppose such projects.

Let's leave it to tactical challenge and strategic problems. It's like with sports shooters. These guys for the most to not imagine to shoot at real people, and they do not prject mental images of people they hate onto the target poster. They are about the mental focussing, calobrating the instrument, and getting a good point score for the series they fired. If one of them starts to pin photos of faces onto his target posters, I would avoid him at all costs (and report him to the staff).

[Rilder]

I want a game where I can shoot this "Dr. Fox" over and over again.

Call it: Idiot Douchebag Hunter... :rotfl2:

[Flaxpants]

Perhaps he could be the victim in the stoning simulator.

[Tribesman]

I indeed supoort the idea that shooters should not enable the player to identify himself with any faction shown in the game, especially when the faction is trying to simulate a faction from reality.
So no more silent hunter then, all them WWII flight sims better go too.
Damn I was really looking forward to killing another 109 or sinking an British troopship.

[Castout]

The Taliban's point of view is and should be of no concern for us.

I indeed supoort the idea that shooters should not enable the player to identify himself with any faction shown in the game, especially when the faction is trying to simulate a faction from reality. Psychologically it makes a difference whether you shoot at the "blue Alliance" or Red Bots, or at Nazi figures, Allied aces or UN blue helmets. In the first case, you game against bits and bytes and oixels. In the second you haven given it a face, making you shooting at something that is a bit more human than just bits and bytes and pixels.

Aren't you going too far on this. It's just a game. Using the same logic then the ban would also apply to street racing game, fighting game or any game that has any sort of simulated violence in it with semblance to real place and real people and which makes possible the breaking of law in it(and which state law would be used). Even some sports game like an olympic game should be banned to your defense because once you play a certain country in that sports game you take side and identify with that frakkin country and try to punish and humiliate any other country that you play against with in that game. No more FIFA World cup game for us too!


Next they're going to regulate which color to be banned and racial proportion and gender proportion in all game 3D models....and after that what to think and what not to think when gaming!

Where do you stop. . . once you begin politicizing a game?!




I can tell craps too such as these:

Do you think those who're playing Taliban in next MOH game would really kill British Forces or play them to practice killing them in real life?! That would be plain stupidity.

Or wouldn't British troops who play Taliban in that game benefit from acquiring real practical experience on how the Taliban fight? That actually can save their lives in their actual deployment?

The game could even garner public support for British forces in Britain if the young generation sympathize with the British forces in game and couldn't agree with the method of the Taliban.

Would actually playing Taliban make one to hate the British and the other way around? It could very well give them respect to the capability of the RL British forces. . . .




You see the man's reasoning has NO BASIS aside from his sentiment. It's called politicking though he chose the wrong subject by bringing game into his politics. Doesn't he have more important job than trying to regulate how a game should be designed? If not he ought to be a game programmer than a public officer.

Where do you stop. . . once you begin politicizing a game?!



Come on politics in gaming?!

[Flaxpants]

And what about lethal weapons? Would you ban guns in games by the same token unless they were sport shooting games? I suppose a game such as Lemmings could be construed as offensive by somebody who likes that particular animal, the list goes on.

The biggest question about your argument Skybird is where exactly would you draw the line?

[Castout]

And what about lethal weapons? Would you ban guns in games by the same token unless they were sport shooting games? I suppose a game such as Lemmings could be construed as offensive by somebody who likes that particular animal, the list goes on.

The biggest question about your argument Skybird is where exactly would you draw the line?

hunting game promotes hurting animals...BANNED.


I thought the point in gaming is to do what otherwise couldn't . . . who's the jerk that . . .:nope:

Monopoly should be banned too. London IS NOT FOR SALE!

[Rilder]

hunting game promotes hurting animals...BANNED.


I thought the point in gaming is to do what otherwise couldn't . . . who's the jerk that . . .:nope:

Monopoly should be banned too. London IS NOT FOR SALE!

Lets ban Space games too, ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO BREAK THE SPEED OF LIGHT.

[Skybird]

And what about lethal weapons? Would you ban guns in games by the same token unless they were sport shooting games? I suppose a game such as Lemmings could be construed as offensive by somebody who likes that particular animal, the list goes on.

The biggest question about your argument Skybird is where exactly would you draw the line?

When a game starts to give shooters and bots a face, when you get invivted to idenitfy yourself with ideology, or the task of killing enemies. If you are a bit-open-minded you can understand by my earlier explanations what that means. Also, what we define as terror and/or severe criminality must not be made object of a game, at least it must not allow the player to act on behalf of what our culture understands as terrorism.

In principle I think it is quite simple. It only becomes comlicated where it is tried to make it more complicate in order to allow such distortions. but one does not need to take an ethics course to see where the problem is when you start to play a terrorists assassinating civilians, identifying yourself with the role.

that'S why I think that EA can shove their opportunistic claim about how "neutral" their approach is, right into their lower bottom.

[Skybird]

hunting game promotes hurting animals...BANNED.


I thought the point in gaming is to do what otherwise couldn't . . . who's the jerk that . . .:nope:

Monopoly should be banned too. London IS NOT FOR SALE!
Without doubt you try hard to not get what I say.

"Rape simulator", anyone? I am sure there is a market for it. It allows us to do what otherwise couldn't.

[Rilder]

Without doubt you try hard to not get what I say.

"Rape simulator", anyone? I am sure there is a market for it. It allows us to do what otherwise couldn't.

If it stops a rapist from actually going through with a rape....

[Castout]

Without doubt you try hard to not get what I say.

"Rape simulator", anyone? I am sure there is a market for it. It allows us to do what otherwise couldn't.

So why there isn't a rape simulator yet?

That's the question we all should be asking ourselves if the market for that was so lucrative.

The answer to that is the key to this whole debate.



Furthermore the British minister assumed that if you played Taliban in game you would become terrorist. Shouldn't the opposite is also true that if you played British Forces you would also become a British soldier.

And to take that logic to other games:
You would be a RL international soccer player or a coach if you played FIFA world cup
You would be a RL tycoon when you played Monopoly
You would be a RL tank crew or tank commander when you played Steel Beast
You would be a RL pilot when you played any flight simulator
You would be a RL illegal street racer when you played street racing game.
You would be a RL general when you played Hearts of Iron
You would be a RL mobster or gang member if you played Mafia
And you would be a RL Mario or Luigi when you played Mario games
etc

or is it?

Any WWII games that made Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia playable should also be banned because they promoted fascism and communism. Because ideology never gets obsolete though the regime may have fallen.

Red orchestra 1/2 BANNED.
IL-2 Sturmovik Banned
Tiger Vs T34 banned
etc


THE TRUTH IS THE GAME GIVES CREDIT TO THE ALLIES FORCES. Let's face it the main appeal of MOH are the Allies forces.
Would anyone buy the game had there been only the Taliban as the sole playable faction?!
They must have been mad if they did!

The Taliban as playable is just to close the gap that human players could cover to act as a capable opponent in multi player and to serve as alternative to break the monotony(to avoid boredom).

[Oberon]

Rape simulators? That'll be Japan then, already done, already done.

Honestly though, like Dowly says, this thing has been going on for ages just under a different name, insurgents, terrorists. Heck, look at Counter-Strike.

[raymond6751]

Playing at war is playing at killing people. Call the firing figure any name you want, but when a shot is fired in a game, it is intended to 'kill' an enemy figure.

Sensitive people won't be playing this game. If you have lost someone dear to you in that fight, you won't be buying a wargame and certainly not this one.

This, I think, comes under the Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Expression, and poetic license kind of umbrella. Don't buy it if it offends.

[Subnuts]

Weren't people having a fit four years ago when they learned that SH4 wasn't going to be another U-boat simulation?

Playing as the Taliban: Tasteless and offensive.
Playing as WWII German submarine commander, sinking allied ships and killing hundreds of people: AWESOME!

[Jimbuna]

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/2822/yawnbigji2wt7.gif

[Bilge_Rat]

yes, all these controversies are silly.

It is perfectly acceptable to play as a waffen SS kampfgruppe commander mowing down allied troops in WW2, but not as an insurgent leader mowing down allied troops in 2010.

[Raptor1]

The Taliban's point of view is and should be of no concern for us.

I indeed supoort the idea that shooters should not enable the player to identify himself with any faction shown in the game on odeological grounds, especially when the faction is trying to simulate a faction from reality. Psychologically it makes a difference whether you shoot at the "blue Alliance" or Red Bots, or at Nazi figures, Allied aces or UN blue helmets. In the first case, you game against bits and bytes and oixels. In the second you haven given it a face, making you shooting at something that is a bit more human than just bits and bytes and pixels.

Leave it to "Bluefor" and "OpFor". does not change the mission a bit, nor the gameplay, but psychologically it makes a difference. Ort did oyu think the game "America's Army" is named like that just by random coincidence...? Here, the identification effect is a wanted ingrendient, since the game was designed to acchieve right this effect - for recruiting purposes. I oppose such projects.

Let's leave it to tactical challenge and strategic problems. It's like with sports shooters. These guys for the most to not imagine to shoot at real people, and they do not prject mental images of people they hate onto the target poster. They are about the mental focussing, calobrating the instrument, and getting a good point score for the series they fired. If one of them starts to pin photos of faces onto his target posters, I would avoid him at all costs (and report him to the staff).

Of course it changes things, otherwise there won't be any atmosphere or story, you would just go around shooting faceless mooks without any point. Sure, the game is about the same, but it would not be much fun.

Nobody playing such games is identifying with factions or imagining they're shooting at real people anyway, they are just playing a game.

[DarkFish]

In the SH series you can play as the Nazis:o Oh Nooooeeees! Ban it!!!!:timeout:

[Rilder]

Nobody playing such games is identifying with factions or imagining they're shooting at real people anyway, they are just playing a game.

..and even if they ARE imagining they're shooting at real people, they are probably that type of person OUTSIDE of the game and the game is, if anything, PREVENTING violence by giving that person the medium to get out their violent tendencies, would you prefer that person take out his need to kill on real people or 3D models with textures?

[G.K.]

I support the NATO troops in Afghanistan and I understand that many good soldiers lost their lives back there (even some Czechs, too...:cry:), but isn't it jist a damn videogame after all? I can't understand why those things are confused with politics...:nope:

[yubba]

We are really blessed to have the opportunity too play these historical accerate video games , and be able to learn from both sides of these games, history, weapons systems, and what the people might have gone through in real life. I for one about crapped my pants playin Metal of Honor, landing on Omaha Beach ,so it was a game it gave me a good idea what it was like , I got killed many times. My great uncle Willard was there, he survived it, and the rest of the war , though I never heard him talk about it, but he did give me a 8mm german mauser , he only said it was something he got in the war,so I got a good idea what he went through. Even playing real war games someone has too be the bad guy, you couldn't have a Top Gun without a aggressor squadron. No matter how tasteless something is it shouldn't be banned, it's not who we are as a people ,if you ban this game [ by the way where do you get it, and what's it call again] what's next.

[TLAM Strike]

It is perfectly acceptable to play as a waffen SS kampfgruppe commander mowing down allied troops in WW2, but not as an insurgent leader mowing down allied troops in 2010.

http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/975/hitlergame.jpg


NATO vs. Taliban isn't so bad, anyone remember the Kursk or Ponyri maps in Call of Duty? What side are we rooting for there?! :hmmm:

[Konovalov]

Storm in a tea cup. Don't like it then don't buy it as is my intention. :yep:

[Castout]

If you have lost someone dear to you in that fight, you won't be buying a wargame and certainly not this one.



yea that would be the best solution there is. Come to think of it the game may indeed bring distress to people who have lost their loved ones in similar circumstances in real life.

But the minister argument imo is still A FAIL that people would identify with the faction they play in game.
That's just inviting flaks.
http://www.wio.ru/galgrnd/flak/flaks.jpg

I just killed 15 US Army soldiers playing as Takistan Army yesterday and the cruel thing I sniped them all with a 0.50 cal KSVK rifle(Russia's M107 equivalent), and they had no chance.... and I enjoyed playing every bit of it but does that make me a terrorist?! Ugh :nope:

But then again I killed many many more Takiban insurgents and Takistan Army playing as US Army solider in that same game . . . .because I'm very fond of the SCAR-H(Mk17) rifle only available to the US side in game . . .

[Flaxpants]

Storm in a tea cup.

As I have a particular fondness for Tea cups, I find this remark rather offensive.

[Arclight]

Just getting hung up on a word again. If they had changed 'Taliban' to 'Baliban' the whole thing would have flown under the radar.

[kiwi_2005]

I always choose the terrorist side in Battefield cause their weapons are far better. The AK47 is the best rifle ever to be made though ive never tried it in RL but in-game it reins lol. This game where we can play the taliban well I wouldn't choose them cause they're taliban it will be based on what weapons they have to offer.

[Castout]

Just getting hung up on a word again. If they had changed 'Taliban' to 'Baliban' the whole thing would have flown under the radar.

would not work if the minister still objected to seeing British Forces being shot at in game. Maybe changing them to Blitish Forces but then he would say the game is discrediting the British Forces.

It's his argument that I don't agree with and thus his motive.

I always choose the terrorist side in Battefield cause their weapons are far better. The AK47 is the best rifle ever to be made though ive never tried it in RL but in-game it reins lol. This game where we can play the taliban well I wouldn't choose them cause they're taliban it will be based on what weapons they have to offer.


Umm my experience with AKs in ArmA 2 is that they SUCK :D . . . . A LOT.
I usually open fire at relatively long distances even without long range optics or even with no optics at all . . . .and in ArmA 2 the AK spreads its bullets like crap at those distances :damn: and as I almost always go semi that means a lot of trigger pulling and anytime the enemy could return accurate counter fire. Plus most come with poor optics or nonexistent of long range optics or the required accuracy itself from the equipped rifle.

95% of the time when playing Red I would only be playing as Red sniper with SVD Dragunov or KSVK though mostly SVD. That's some awesome weapon at least in the game :O:(so much so I bought an airsoft SVD). As for other AKs I can't be bothered with them . . .at least unless I change my style of playing and engage at closer distances.

As for the bluefor my favorite are quite plenty: M43A2(Sniper rifle), M107(Sniper rifle), G36(German Army standard rifle which I think the most awesome rifle in the world only falling behind the brand new SCAR-H at least in the world of Arma2 :P) and SCAR-H(Mk17 assault rifle)

[Spike88]

So they're complaining about playing Talibans in multiplayer. I guess it would be better for British Forces, to fight them selves instead? These people obviously have no clue how multiplayer works.

I could see this being a bigger deal if you actually played the Taliban in single player, and had to set up suicide bombs, interrogate American soldiers, set up roadside bombs and the like.

The whole IED thing is no different than C4 in any other game. :down:

[Arclight]

would not work if the minister still objected to seeing British Forces being shot at in game. Maybe changing them to Blitish Forces but then he would say the game is discrediting the British Forces.
Are you quite sure?

What about the upcoming British Armed Forces expansion for ArmA 2? British forces, in a desert, figthing insurgents. Only difference is the name of the faction. You think if it was about the concept, that expansion would draw the same criticism. Plenty more examples for that matter.


I still think he or one of his aides googled 'Taliban' and got a hit on MoH or something. Political ****storm ensues for the sake of being political, or coming across as patriotic and winning some favors that way.

[STEED]

Storm in a tea cup. Don't like it then don't buy it as is my intention. :yep:

Agreed, simple as that.

[Tarrasque]

Are you quite sure?
I still think he or one of his aides googled 'Taliban' and got a hit on MoH or something. Political ****storm ensues for the sake of being political, or coming across as patriotic and winning some favors that way.

No it's called attempting to divert public attention from the fact that he and his cronies are presiding over what is likely to be the most savage cuts to the British armed forces in living memory.

At best it is being suggested that we are likely to lose one or both of our in construction carriers, at worst there is rumours that the entire RAF could be scrapped, with the other two services taking up some of the slack.

[TLAM Strike]

...at worst there is rumours that the entire RAF could be scrapped, with the other two services taking up some of the slack.

Well they already turned over (partially) the RAF's Harriers to the RN.

So they would turn over all the other fixed wings to the Army?

....... I think the British might be on to something... :hmmm:

[Tarrasque]

Well they already turned over (partially) the RAF's Harriers to the RN.

So they would turn over all the other fixed wings to the Army?

....... I think the British might be on to something... :hmmm:

Well my personal view is they should abolish the RAF and the Army and just turn everything over to the navy. But I might just be slightly biased...:har:

[TLAM Strike]

Oh I can see it now, the RN flush with Army gear gives it all to the Royal Marines. The Royal Marines get it in their heads that they should be a separate branch.

The UKMC! :haha:

The results will be disastrous!! :03:

[Wolfehunter]

The Taliban's point of view is and should be of no concern for us.

I indeed supoort the idea that shooters should not enable the player to identify himself with any faction shown in the game on odeological grounds, especially when the faction is trying to simulate a faction from reality. Psychologically it makes a difference whether you shoot at the "blue Alliance" or Red Bots, or at Nazi figures, Allied aces or UN blue helmets. In the first case, you game against bits and bytes and oixels. In the second you haven given it a face, making you shooting at something that is a bit more human than just bits and bytes and pixels.

Leave it to "Bluefor" and "OpFor". does not change the mission a bit, nor the gameplay, but psychologically it makes a difference. Ort did oyu think the game "America's Army" is named like that just by random coincidence...? Here, the identification effect is a wanted ingrendient, since the game was designed to acchieve right this effect - for recruiting purposes. I oppose such projects.

Let's leave it to tactical challenge and strategic problems. It's like with sports shooters. These guys for the most to not imagine to shoot at real people, and they do not prject mental images of people they hate onto the target poster. They are about the mental focussing, calobrating the instrument, and getting a good point score for the series they fired. If one of them starts to pin photos of faces onto his target posters, I would avoid him at all costs (and report him to the staff).Why is this an issue its a game nothing more. You play a character from the other side of the fence. Why is it ok for the UK or USA to make shooters that target other nations and not other other way around? If you don't like the game don't play it. If you don't like to see it don't watch it. Jezz... :nope:

[Tarrasque]

The Royal Marines get it in their heads that they should be a separate branch.



The Booties already think that. They hate it when it is pointed out that it says Navy on their ID card :haha:

[Jimbuna]

The Booties already think that. They hate it when it is pointed out that it says Navy on their ID card :haha:


Well they shouldn't....they should feel honoured that they are the army of the senior service :sunny:

[Castout]

Are you quite sure?

What about the upcoming British Armed Forces expansion for ArmA 2? British forces, in a desert, figthing insurgents. Only difference is the name of the faction. You think if it was about the concept, that expansion would draw the same criticism. Plenty more examples for that matter.


I still think he or one of his aides googled 'Taliban' and got a hit on MoH or something. Political ****storm ensues for the sake of being political, or coming across as patriotic and winning some favors that way.

yea I'm aware of that.

It's not even about me being a gamer or one which play first person shooter similar to MOH . . . . what the man is attempting is putting too much control on what is actually happening in our own mind. He assumed the effect of playing certain game to the mind of its gamers. Nobody is going to be a terrorist because they played certain game. Terrorist may play the game or even liked it but if a British minister wants to control what game can and cannot be played by some terrorists who live some thousand miles away then he must be out of his mind . . .because he must first joined them to be effective at enforcing that.

Today I virtually killed 19 Takistan army soldiers and Takiban insurgents in one single engagement all sniped with the M107 Barret 0.5 cal from about a click away expending 4 magazines for those(Gosh that rifle is some rifle) and without me getting killed at all...it was GREAT FUN but that doesn't mean I'm now a US Army soldier or blindly identifying myself with it.

Nor it's the other way around.

Chill out, breathe some fresh air, go to a vacation, have some good sex with loved one then come to senses...life is easy as 1,2,3 why make it so hard?

[Arclight]

Chill out, breathe some fresh air, go to a vacation, have some good sex with loved one then come to senses...life is easy as 1,2,3 why make it so hard?
:haha: Couldn't agree more. :yep:

Well kinda, wouldn't say life is easy, but definetly no need to make it more difficult.



At any rate, seems we all agree it's nonsense. Don't think I'll ever understand politics, but then I don't think I really want to anyway. :hmmm:

[conus00]

It just a game, get over it! As much as I disagree with Taliban practices and their goals the point is: NOBODY IS TWISTING YOUR ARM TO PLAY AS TALIBAN SIDE.

Also, on a humorous note, let's ban the game of chess: It's a racist game because you use WHITE pieces to try to beat BLACK pieces. Or vice versa.
:nope:

[Safe-Keeper]

I went through a phase like this, where I refused to play WWII games, and especially the German side. I see where people are coming from. Still... it's a game, and the fact that you can gun down Talibans more than makes up for the fact that you can play as them.

Let me google that and see if they got Israelis too :DLNo, they just have HAMAS fighters sitting around very bored, the wall keeping them from making themselves useful. Though you do get a shovel and the ability to try fruitlessly to dig tunnels to Israeli settlements.

Also, on a humorous note, let's ban the game of chess: It's a racist game because you use WHITE pieces to try to beat BLACK pieces. Or vice versa.Never thought of that. I add to your concerns the fact that White always goes first.