What is your stance on Medal of Honor?

[dust1n]

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.

This is a non-issue. People killing actual people are issues. Video games are a waste of time to argue about in comparison.

But if I must actually comment on the video game, than complain about Israeli and Middle Eastern video games... are any military-glorifying video game. What does it matter you can play as a member of Al Qaeda... what difference to simulated violence does this make at all? I grew up playing games where I could shoot Americans as Russian, Algerian, Korean, or Middle Eastern terrorists... where were the complaints in 2000?

 

[Kathryn]

I don't see a problem with the game company releasing the game, and with anyone who wants to buy it and play it doing so.

I also don't see any problem with military bases banning the sale of the game through military facilities. It's not like military and their personnel can't buy it elsewhere. Military exchanges aren't required nor expected to carry anything that anyone could ever want to buy. There are all sorts of things that are determined to be inappropriate or unnecessary for the base exchange to carry.

 

[fatima_bintu_islam]

What does it matter you can play as a member of Al Qaeda... what difference to simulated violence does this make at all? I grew up playing games where I could shoot Americans as Russian, Algerian, Korean, or Middle Eastern terrorists... where were the complaints in 2000?

Al Qaeda are ..... Shhhhhhhsh..... Muslims :tsk:

:redcard:

 

[Smoke]

I have kind of a problem with soldiers playing personal shooter games of any kind. It's kind of troubling to me that there's this culture of treating shooting people as a game when that's your real job. I wonder whether it tends to blur the line between fantasy and reality and whether it might not tend to encourage soldiers to make bad decisions in the field. The well-known video of American soldiers picking off unarmed civilians, and more recent reports of American soldiers killing civilians for sport, seem to indicate that there's a serious problem with our military culture, and I can't believe that personal shooter games are likely to help.

That being said, I can't imagine any reason to ban just one particular personal shooter game on military bases, and I certainly don't see any reason to ban it among the general population.

 

[dust1n]

I have kind of a problem with soldiers playing personal shooter games of any kind. It's kind of troubling to me that there's this culture of treating shooting people as a game when that's your real job. I wonder whether it tends to blur the line between fantasy and reality and whether it might not tend to encourage soldiers to make bad decisions in the field. The well-known video of American soldiers picking off unarmed civilians, and more recent reports of American soldiers killing civilians for sport, seem to indicate that there's a serious problem with our military culture, and I can't believe that personal shooter games are likely to help.

That being said, I can't imagine any reason to ban just one particular personal shooter game on military bases, and I certainly don't see any reason to ban it among the general population.

If the thread was "How do you feel about first person shooters", I would comment more, but since it's so specific to Muslims in Medal of Honor, what can I really say? It's the same as every other game where you kill everything that can be killed. Is it inherently bad? I don't think so. Can it be used for maniacal purposes? Sure it can.

Should kids be playing these games, or at least spending as much time as they do doing so? Probably not.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think it's total ******** to censor that. I can put in Counter Strike for my Xbox and play as terrorist, of which one group I do believe is slightly based on Middle Eastern Terrorist. They have been in many games (terrorist and Islamic Terrorist alike). Or what about Flight Simulator X. You can fly your plane into buildings.
It also infuriates me how some kids out there think that playing such games would make them good soldiers. Maybe rather than Medal of Honor or Call of Duty they should play Metal Gear Solid that has an emphasis that War is not a video game(and a reward system that gives you more points and a higher rank for killing fewer people, rather than more. MGS4 even has an award that requires you to kill no one, including bosses).

 

[dust1n]

Maybe rather than Medal of Honor or Call of Duty they should play Metal Gear Solid that has an emphasis that War is not a video game.

:yes:

 

[Venatoris]

I think it's total ******** to censor that. I can put in Counter Strike for my Xbox and play as terrorist, of which one group I do believe is slightly based on Middle Eastern Terrorist. They have been in many games (terrorist and Islamic Terrorist alike). Or what about Flight Simulator X. You can fly your plane into buildings.
It also infuriates me how some kids out there think that playing such games would make them good soldiers. Maybe rather than Medal of Honor or Call of Duty they should play Metal Gear Solid that has an emphasis that War is not a video game(and a reward system that gives you more points and a higher rank for killing fewer people, rather than more. MGS4 even has an award that requires you to kill no one, including bosses).

I'm with you 100%. Damn good point about MGS, wish I had thought of that. As for the idea that soldiers shouldn't play fps games, I think you're right on the money with the flight simulator analogy. Pilots train with flight sims all the time. It gives them a chance to experience different scenarios that may happen in real life and learn ways to do deal with them. I think fps games should be mandatory in the training of all soldiers because it aids in building team strategy in warfare scenarios. Realistic warfare simulators are no different from flight sims, IMO. They may save your life.

 

[Smoke]

I think fps games should be mandatory in the training of all soldiers because it aids in building team strategy in warfare scenarios. Realistic warfare simulators are no different from flight sims, IMO. They may save your life.

And is it your position that FPS games are realistic warfare simulators?

 

[Venatoris]

And is it your position that FPS games are realistic warfare simulators?

Not on the whole, no. Marginally realistic simulators do exist though. It's more about the strategy and team coordination aspects in these games that make them a valuable training tool for real soldiers. I won't try to compare a video game to real life warfare but that doesn't mean they can't be put to good use.

 

[HonestJoe]

If the thread was "How do you feel about first person shooters", I would comment more, but since it's so specific to Muslims in Medal of Honor, what can I really say?

I don't think it's about it depicting Muslims specifically. The issue is that it is apparently aiming to be a realistic depiction of an ongoing and politically delicate conflict. I think the comparison with a WW2 game being (somehow) produced in 1944 has already been made.

I accept that the objection isn't entirely rational or logical and I don't really know the right way to address it but that doesn't stop it feeling not quite right to me (and it seems I'm not alone).

 

[Panda]

I don't think it's about it depicting Muslims specifically. The issue is that it is apparently aiming to be a realistic depiction of an ongoing and politically delicate conflict. I think the comparison with a WW2 game being (somehow) produced in 1944 has already been made.

I accept that the objection isn't entirely rational or logical and I don't really know the right way to address it but that doesn't stop it feeling not quite right to me (and it seems I'm not alone).

Both Modern Warfare games have you playing as terrorists but I guess making them Russian terrorists makes it ok?

 

[HonestJoe]

Both Modern Warfare games have you playing as terrorists but I guess making them Russian terrorists makes it ok?

No, that's pretty much the exact opposite of what I said. The religion, race or nationality of the characters being depicted is largely irrelevant. The key factor is the specific depiction of real on-going conflict we're directly involved in.

 

[dust1n]

I don't think it's about it depicting Muslims specifically. The issue is that it is apparently aiming to be a realistic depiction of an ongoing and politically delicate conflict. I think the comparison with a WW2 game being (somehow) produced in 1944 has already been made.

I accept that the objection isn't entirely rational or logical and I don't really know the right way to address it but that doesn't stop it feeling not quite right to me (and it seems I'm not alone).

And my sentiments are as follows, 'If you have a problem with a realistic depiction of an ongoing and politically delicate conflict, then you should have a problem with the real ongoing and politically delicate conflict.'

As far as I am concerned, the game is protected by the first amendment to depict whatever it wants to. The sad thing is is that people are concerned with others acting out virtual realities of entirely softer magnitude of actual realities twenty times worse their virtual counterparts.

 

[Kathryn]

The game is protected by the First Amendment. Active duty military are not disallowed to buy, own, or play the game.

The military base exchange stores simply aren't carrying it. So what - they don't carry my favorite brand of lipstick either, so when I lived on post I bought the lipstick off post.

Military exchanges also have a limited supply of book titles, scuba diving gear, and feminine hygiene products. They don't carry the complete Garth Brooks collection.

You probably can't buy Kahlil Gibran's "The Prophet" at the base exchange either.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Military exchanges also have a limited supply of book titles, scuba diving gear, and feminine hygiene products. They don't carry the complete Garth Brooks collection.

From what I've seen they carry a good beer selection. So at least they got the basics covered.

 

[HonestJoe]

And my sentiments are as follows, 'If you have a problem with a realistic depiction of an ongoing and politically delicate conflict, then you should have a problem with the real ongoing and politically delicate conflict.'

It's perfectly possible to have a problem with both and to respond to both seperatly. I do to an extent.

That said, I could see a consistant argument for someone not objecting to the conflict but still objecting to it being depicted in a computer game, ethier on the basis of the conflict as a necessary evil (where the game isn't) or that making the game somewhat bellittles the seriousness of the conflict.

As far as I am concerned, the game is protected by the first amendment to depict whatever it wants to.

Just because we have the right to do something doesn't mean we have to choose to do it. I don't see an issue with questioning why someone chooses to use a particular legal right. I'm not saying the game should be banned but I am saying the producers could (and maybe should) have chosen not to make it in the way it is claimed they have. The subject in general is certainly worthy of a wider discussion given the way the gaming industry is developing.

The sad thing is is that people are concerned with others acting out virtual realities of entirely softer magnitude of actual realities twenty times worse their virtual counterparts.

That kind of comes back to my origional response to you. I don't think it's sad that some people express a little concern about the nature of this game. It would be sad if they did that instead of expressing concern about more serious matters or spent significantly more time and effort on it but that isn't happening. I think it would be a sad thing if nobody cared about the "less important" issues at all.

 

[dust1n]

It's perfectly possible to have a problem with both and to respond to both seperatly. I do to an extent.

That said, I could see a consistant argument for someone not objecting to the conflict but still objecting to it being depicted in a computer game, ethier on the basis of the conflict as a necessary evil (where the game isn't) or that making the game somewhat bellittles the seriousness of the conflict.


Just because we have the right to do something doesn't mean we have to choose to do it. I don't see an issue with questioning why someone chooses to use a particular legal right. I'm not saying the game should be banned but I am saying the producers could (and maybe should) have chosen not to make it in the way it is claimed they have. The subject in general is certainly worthy of a wider discussion given the way the gaming industry is developing.


That kind of comes back to my origional response to you. I don't think it's sad that some people express a little concern about the nature of this game. It would be sad if they did that instead of expressing concern about more serious matters or spent significantly more time and effort on it but that isn't happening. I think it would be a sad thing if nobody cared about the "less important" issues at all.

Ah, I see my misunderstanding. I can understand that I suppose, but I can't see a reason why it is an issue specifically because the game is relative to recent events. If the complaint was about the violence, then sure.