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.

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.

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).

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

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

Perhaps he could be the victim in the stoning simulator.

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.

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?!

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!

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

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.

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....

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).