What is your stance on Medal of Honor?

[BucephalusBB]

A short introdudction:
Medal of Honor is a well respected videogamingserie. It is a first person shooter putting the player behind the gun. The new MoH will be released in oktober and has a scene in where you have to play a taliban soldier.
For this reason some american shops will not be selling this game.

The Medal of Honor taliban controversy deepens

What is your stance on this?

 

[BucephalusBB]

For me btw I think this is ridiculous. I am all for free speech/will and this could be considered a block to it. Also, games allow you to play with terrorists since ages.

I can also make this more alround, Germany is banning games that are to brutal and China is blocking almost half the internet.. Isn't that just witholding information? What will be the difference between people in countries where everything is allowed and countries with restrictions now that internet opened up the world?

 

[Eliot Wild]

I believe it should be left up to the retailer. I don't see it as the government's role to censor anything. If retailers want to sell video games that allow animated character-players to dress up like extremist and fly planes into buildings or blow up American military personnel, I believe it is their right to do so. And before someone plows into me as being disrespectful to our troops, I want it stated for the record that I am former military myself. Having sworn at one point to give my life in defense of our constitution, I certainly am not going to start stomping on it now and claim there are some topics that are off-limits and some speech that isn't protected.

If people find such games offensive, then they shouldn't purchase them or allow their children to do so. But unless a product presents an incontravertible threat to public safety, I don't see a cause to ban it, certainly not because it has the potential to hurt someone's feelings and/or disregards the general public's emotional sensitivities.

Of course, all the above applies specifically to the United States government and its constitution. I have no idea as to whether or not other countries guarantee through constitutional compact their citizens the unfaltering right to freedom of expression.

 

[Panda]

People are just being ridiculous. There are already games that allow you to play as Nazi's, Terrorists and numerous other groups that let you kill American troops. My question I suppose is why is it only a problem with it is Americans that are getting killed?

 

[England my lionheart]

I don't see the problem either

 

[DallasApple]

I guess my mind is so twisted I dont see the problem..I mean seriously I dont see what the problem is..I dont even see the issue..

Oh well..

O.k if you cant play games of war? STOP playing real war!

Hello!!!

LOve

Dallas

 

[Tarheeler]

I believe it should be left up to the retailer. I don't see it as the government's role to censor anything. If retailers want to sell video games that allow animated character-players to dress up like extremist and fly planes into buildings or blow up American military personnel, I believe it is their right to do so. And before someone plows into me as being disrespectful to our troops, I want it stated for the record that I am former military myself. Having sworn at one point to give my life in defense of our constitution, I certainly am not going to start stomping on it now and claim there are some topics that are off-limits and some speech that isn't protected.

If people find such games offensive, then they shouldn't purchase them or allow their children to do so. But unless a product presents an incontravertible threat to public safety, I don't see a cause to ban it, certainly not because it has the potential to hurt someone's feelings and/or disregards the general public's emotional sensitivities.

Of course, all the above applies specifically to the United States government and its constitution. I have no idea as to whether or not other countries guarantee through constitutional compact their citizens the unfaltering right to freedom of expression.

I agree.

 

[Father Heathen]

If they don't like the game, then they shouldn't buy it. How simple is that?

 

[Tiapan]

A double edged sword

Cheers

 

[Venatoris]

A short introdudction:
Medal of Honor is a well respected videogamingserie. It is a first person shooter putting the player behind the gun. The new MoH will be released in oktober and has a scene in where you have to play a taliban soldier.
For this reason some american shops will not be selling this game.

The Medal of Honor taliban controversy deepens

What is your stance on this?

My only problem with the MoH series is bulky and uncustomizable(at least to my satisfaction) control configurations but I'm still looking forward to the new edition. Granted, the last version I played was European Assault.

As for playing as a Taliban character, I don't really care. All first person shooter games need opposing factions to function. Look at Counter-strike, you choose between Terrorist and Counter-terrorist. I don't see how this is any different.

And for the children in other countries who won't have access to games like this, don't worry. My friends and I, plus many in the online gaming community, will find a way to get the product to you for free. It's just the way we roll.

 

[HonestJoe]

I'm somewhat torn.

I share the discomfort about the possibility of such realistic depictions of an ongoing conflict in a game (I say possibility because I don't see anything saying definitively what will be in that game). I also understand the US Military requesting on-base stores don't stock it (according to the article and as is their right).

But, I also agree with the free speech principal and wouldn't wish to see any all-out ban on the game unless there was some direct risk demonstrated. That said, there are a couple of things people so often forget about free speech. First, just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean you have to do so and secondly, all rights come with responsibilities. You have the right to say things but that doesn't remove your responsibility for any consequences of what, how and when you choose to say them.

To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing hadn't been deliberately hyped up by the producers of the game to get some free advertising. I suspect all the hype could cause more damage than the actual content of the game had 90% of us never known about it.

 

[BucephalusBB]

To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing hadn't been deliberately hyped up by the producers of the game to get some free advertising. I suspect all the hype could cause more damage than the actual content of the game had 90% of us never known about it.

To be honest, I do agree that there is an increase in these kind of messages since the Coffeemod.

 

[AxisMundi]

I believe it should be left up to the retailer. I don't see it as the government's role to censor anything. If retailers want to sell video games that allow animated character-players to dress up like extremist and fly planes into buildings or blow up American military personnel, I believe it is their right to do so. And before someone plows into me as being disrespectful to our troops, I want it stated for the record that I am former military myself. Having sworn at one point to give my life in defense of our constitution, I certainly am not going to start stomping on it now and claim there are some topics that are off-limits and some speech that isn't protected.

If people find such games offensive, then they shouldn't purchase them or allow their children to do so. But unless a product presents an incontravertible threat to public safety, I don't see a cause to ban it, certainly not because it has the potential to hurt someone's feelings and/or disregards the general public's emotional sensitivities.

Of course, all the above applies specifically to the United States government and its constitution. I have no idea as to whether or not other countries guarantee through constitutional compact their citizens the unfaltering right to freedom of expression.

Well said.

To often in this country, people and certain groups of people either pretend to speak for the population, or pretend to be the moral guardians of this Nation.

They fight for some invented cause without consulting those they "fight for", demand books be removed from library/store shelves, etc.

I fully expect this quite clear advertising attempt to work quite well, and opposition groups to rise up in protest quite soon. The hail of appeals to emotion and other demagoguery artillery will be quite thick.

 

[Amill]

I can already play video games where I can go around brutally killing innocent civilians so I see no reason to be upset by a game where I could kill American soldiers as a terrorist.

But I am kind of surprised they created a scenario where you play as part of the Taliban though.

 

[Panda]

But I am kind of surprised they created a scenario where you play as part of the Taliban though.

Really? The controversy about it gets it a huge amount of free advertising. Their potential market generally won't care about being able to play as the Taliban, if anything it is a sort of selling point gimmick.

 

[dust1n]

A short introdudction:
Medal of Honor is a well respected videogamingserie. It is a first person shooter putting the player behind the gun. The new MoH will be released in oktober and has a scene in where you have to play a taliban soldier.
For this reason some american shops will not be selling this game.

The Medal of Honor taliban controversy deepens

What is your stance on this?

Seems like people should be more concerned with actual people shooting actual people...

 

[Alceste]

If you want to play a shooter , who cares who's shooting who? It's the same pig in a different shade of lipstick. Just wear headphones if you're my boyfriend. All those loud bangs stress me out.

 

[HonestJoe]

Seems like people should be more concerned with actual people shooting actual people...

"Why are you complaining about me punching you in the stomach when I could be shooting you in the head?"

Concern about both isn't mutually exclusive and expressing concern about one says nothing about the perceived importance of the other.

 

[dust1n]

"Why are you complaining about me punching you in the stomach when I could be shooting you in the head?"

Concern about both isn't mutually exclusive and expressing concern about one says nothing about the perceived importance of the other.

I didn't say either one of those things.

 

[HonestJoe]

I didn't say either one of those things.

What were you saying then? When someone comments on a discussion about a "bad thing" to just mention a "worse thing" in the same field, the impression I (and I suspect many other people) get is somewhat dismissive of the debate.

Concern about real people getting shot should go without saying. I don't see why you'd mention it (and just that) other than to suggest we shouldn't spend (waste) time discussing this.

Apologies if that wasn't your intention but that's how it came across to me.