SUBSIM Radio Room Forums
Page 4 of 5 123 4 5
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)
-   -   Let's ban Taliban game (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=173985)

kiwi_2005 08-24-10 04:20 AM
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 08-24-10 04:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arclight (Post 1475799)
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi_2005 (Post 1475800)
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 08-24-10 04:40 AM
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 08-24-10 05:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Castout (Post 1475803)
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 08-24-10 11:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konovalov (Post 1475542)
Storm in a tea cup. Don't like it then don't buy it as is my intention. :yep:
Agreed, simple as that.

Tarrasque 08-24-10 11:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arclight (Post 1475814)
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 08-24-10 12:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarrasque (Post 1476039)
...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 08-24-10 12:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLAM Strike (Post 1476048)
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 08-24-10 01:08 PM
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 08-24-10 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird (Post 1474932)
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 08-24-10 03:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLAM Strike (Post 1476080)
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 08-24-10 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarrasque (Post 1476151)
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 08-25-10 04:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arclight (Post 1475814)
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 08-25-10 04:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Castout (Post 1476575)
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 08-25-10 02:17 PM
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:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:53 PM.
Page 4 of 5 123 4 5
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.