Print 92 comment(s) - last by rdeegvainl.. on Sep 7 at 12:00 AM

MOH banned from sale on base PXs  (Source: Kotaku)
Multiplayer Taliban characters are the cause of the ban

Video games are a huge business and one of the most popular genres in the market are first person shooters. These games generate billions of dollars each year for the video game industry and have sparked harsh criticism at times because of the violent content of the games.

The latest game to come under fire is the upcoming shooter from EA called
Medal of Honor. Surprisingly, the game hasn't come under fire from the typical groups that oppose violent video games, but the U.S. military. 

Kotaku reports that the Army and Air Force Exchange Services has confirmed to it that they have demanded that the upcoming Medal of Honor game to be pulled from the 49 different GameStop locations that are located on army bases within America. The ban also extends to all stores selling the game on military Post Exchanges [PXs] globally. The reason the game has been withdrawn from PX shelves is that the multiplayer aspect of the game allow players to play as Taliban fighters.

An email from GameStop
Kotaku received states:

GameStop has agreed out of respect for our past and present men and women in uniform we will not carry Medal of Honor in any of our AAFES based stores... As such, GameStop agreed to have all marketing material pulled by noon today and to stop taking reservations. Customers who enter our AAFES stores and wish to reserve Medal of Honor can and should be directed to the nearest GameStop location off base. GameStop fully supports AAFES in this endeavor and is sensitive to the fact that in multiplayer mode one side will assume the role of Taliban fighter.

Apparently, the game is not banned from play by military personnel and is not banned from the base altogether; the game simply isn’t allowed to be sold on base. Military personnel can buy it off base and play it at the base. There has been no official comment by EA on the issue so far.

Another first person shooter franchise set to get a new installment soon is Call of Duty with Activision putting the largest marketing campaign it has ever undertaken behind the new title in the franchise called Black Ops.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: So....
By MrTeal on 9/3/2010 10:48:11 AM , Rating: 4
No, but they might have had an issue with it if such a game had been available in 1944. It's a little different when the military is actively engaged with the very forces that the game lets you control.

RE: So....
By FaaR on 9/3/2010 11:13:18 AM , Rating: 5
Is it? Why?

It's just a game; if one is against fake taliban in a fake environment killing fake american soldiers on general principle, then it shouldn't matter if it's fake taliban or fake nazis; in principle it's the same thing.

This is just populist double standards because people are scaremongering against brown muslim people. America is a free country with freedom of expression - or so people seem to believe anyway - and the army exists to uphold THOSE principles. So on what legal (and moral, for that matter) basis do they arbitrarily ban one game and not any number of others?

...And no, "decency and respect" is not a correct answer. People may disagree with any number of things; doesn't mean we have to, or should ban everything just because some choose to get upset by them.

RE: So....
By DominionSeraph on 9/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: So....
By neogrin on 9/3/2010 11:57:42 AM , Rating: 5
If the playing as a Taliban fighter is really so repugnant and disrespectful to our Men and Women in uniform then it shouldn't be necessary to pull the game from the PX and on-base GameStops since none of our Men and Women in uniform (or their dependents) would buy the game.

The fact that there are Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines actually pre-ordering the game, kind of suggests that they are not repulsed or feel disrespected by it.

I'm a former Marine and I have no problem with it and the interviews, I've seen on the news, (and by talking with other current and former service members) seems to indicate that the majority of them don't seem to mind too much either.

So who exactly is bothered by this? Could it be the Politically Correct Busybodies who think military personal should be offended by the game?

RE: So....
By theArchMichael on 9/3/2010 12:35:11 PM , Rating: 3
I consider myself pretty liberal and I think if the military had a problem with it they are dealing with it the right way. They are just taking it off the bases. As someone else mentioned it might be a little demoralizing for some of the soldiers.
To qualify my comment, I'm not in the military or a psychotherapist and I rarely play video games anymore.

RE: So....
By knutjb on 9/4/2010 2:58:25 PM , Rating: 2
I was in the military and AAFES reacts to the powers that be, usually in congress.

I remember when they wanted to ban all magazines with nudity in the mid nineties. We just laughed and sent nasty-grams to our representatives for treating us like children through political correctness.

AAFES is a contract provider and not directly connected to the DoD and is more easily influenced by politics of the day to protect their interests.

RE: So....
By lyeoh on 9/5/2010 2:11:22 PM , Rating: 2
If the only reason the military has a problem with it is just because players get to play the Taliban, then I'd say the military is the real problem, and is screwed up.

Being able to play the other side is a very useful exercise for most conflicts.

Now of course if it gives players very wrong ideas about the Taliban or your own forces, then military personnel shouldn't be playing it. You need an accurate model of the enemy and your forces.

If the game leaks military secrets then it should be banned and the people leaking those secrets to the game maker should be arrested.

RE: So....
By Ammohunt on 9/3/2010 3:35:18 PM , Rating: 4
What they really need in a game is to pit Marines against ARMY..of course it would be so lopsided against the Marines as to not really be that fun. Rangers lead the way.

RE: So....
By Master Kenobi on 9/3/2010 6:56:05 PM , Rating: 3
Rangers might lead the way but Intel is always out front.

RE: So....
By Ammohunt on 9/4/2010 12:04:08 AM , Rating: 2
Not without fire support...Artillery King of battle!

RE: So....
By lyeoh on 9/5/2010 2:31:22 PM , Rating: 3
The leaders should lead the way. We should put the leaders on the frontline. Not in actual military action, but in spirit.

Basically if any leader proposes an _offensive_ military action or starting a war by other means (not defensive, defense is different), a referendum is held, if not enough citizens want a war, the proposing leaders all get put on a Death Row.

Then at a convenient time other referendums are held to see if the citizens still want each of those leaders alive. If there aren't enough votes for a leader that leader is executed.

This to me is the fairest way for starting wars. This way even psychopathic leaders would think twice about starting wars. No crocodile tears about sending our youth to die... And soldiers and civilians will know that the leaders are willing to put their own lives on the line too.

Equally important, the defending side and the rest of the world will know that (say) 70% of the attackers (civilians included) wanted the war. So killing them all (civilians included) in defense by whatever means is justified (as long as you don't touch the other countries). If the attackers think 30% collateral damage is too high they should make the referendum margin higher. The defense could first try to convince the prospective attackers to not bother voting in the referendum and avoid the war in the first place.

This way if the people don't want a war they don't get one, if they really want a war, they really get a war.

Yes I'm serious. War is very serious. People die in wars. On both sides and often even in sides that are supposedly not involved.

RE: So....
By Spookster on 9/4/2010 4:11:32 AM , Rating: 1
Keep dreaming. There's a reason the Nazi's nicknamed us DevilDogs.

ARMY (Aren't Ready to be Marines Yet)

RE: So....
By tim851 on 9/6/2010 11:08:58 AM , Rating: 2
RE: So....
By JonnyDough on 9/3/2010 4:14:06 PM , Rating: 3
I'm a military service member who joined the military at the age of 29...and I have more of a problem with 18 year old boys who have little understanding of life being armed with guns to engage in a political fight they don't really understand. The violence in games just proliferates an already rampant problem with teaching our kids conflicting views of prejudice and diversity in our society. I believe it makes little difference overall until we realize that violence begets violence, and hatred begets more hatred. Dehumanization and a propensity for war can be fed to a child of any age. This is why parents need to explain the need for arms, while not actively promoting them.

RE: So....
By shaidorsai on 9/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: So....
By DominionSeraph on 9/3/2010 5:11:28 PM , Rating: 2
The thing is, people often like it when others do things that make it obvious that they're in their hearts -- even when it doesn't exactly align with what'd they'd do for or avoid themselves.

In this case, some degree of offense is likely in a good percentage of servicemen. Because the path to offense is direct -- all it takes is for the serviceman to have an understanding that people are taking on the mantle of suicidal Muslim fanatics glorying in their deaths as infidels -- a delusional perspective completely opposed to civilized sense; and it takes either obliviousness of this to miss offense, circuitous reasoning to get around it, or tangential reasoning to minimize it, this makes the offense of a type which should be actively worked against. (I suppose there's a fourth type: Babbling incoherently and convincing yourself you've made an air-tight case as to why it's acceptable. Ahhh... the flexibility of the human mind.)

If a serviceman can dance around the prickers, that's fine. But the feelings of others who will take the direct line path even if it hurts them emotionally also must be considered. To show caring for those on that central human path, you must show that you can see the big patch of prickers, obvious as day, sitting right in that path.

The fact that people have a wide array of emotional defenses doesn't mean that the default assumption of others should be that they will be engaged. It's better to make the world a place in which those defenses aren't needed than be cold and distant and dumping the whole burden of coping on each individual.

RE: So....
By surt on 9/4/2010 11:35:10 AM , Rating: 2
There are people in any sufficiently large group who lack moral character, the military included. Just look at how some of them were so easily drawn into torture. Just because a military person does it, doesn't make it right for the military, nor does it make it right in general, and neither does it make it good for morale.

RE: So....
By Hieyeck on 9/3/2010 11:57:46 AM , Rating: 5
Turn off IPv4 today. When security guards think they know more about networking than tech support, it's time to turn down the buzzwords and turn up the tech. Let's see them figure out how to enable their home routers for IPv6

RE: So....
By Lerianis on 9/3/2010 2:53:53 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I agree with that previous poster before you, and I have an IQ of 150+ (documented by the Kennedy Krieger center in Baltimore) so.......

RE: So....
By ekv on 9/3/2010 3:10:32 PM , Rating: 3

RE: So....
By Smilin on 9/3/2010 4:52:09 PM , Rating: 1 you fail for:

1) Using credentials to bolster an argument instead of a solid point.
2) Using unverifiable credentials.
3) Doing 1 & 2 while on teh intarwebz and thinking someone out here cares.

RE: So....
By DominionSeraph on 9/3/2010 5:57:58 PM , Rating: 1
Exactly why did you read that as though it was presented as a proposal of an all-encompassing engineering solution?

You might want to think about re-rolling your character. INT 18 is good, but at WIS 3 you're still effectively blind.
WIS 8 should clear up your agreement with FaaR.

RE: So....
By kyleb2112 on 9/3/2010 6:21:39 PM , Rating: 2
Well my IQ is 160 and I say you're wrong. So you are.

RE: So....
By corduroygt on 9/4/2010 12:57:12 AM , Rating: 3
Mine is over 9000 and I decree that you're all wrong...

RE: So....
By Cullinaire on 9/4/2010 11:10:52 AM , Rating: 2
Damn, looks like it's time to buy another scouter. Thanks a lot.

RE: So....
By ekv on 9/5/2010 3:31:07 AM , Rating: 2
Hal? Dave here. Um, we both know how this is going to turn out, so...

RE: So....
By MrTeal on 9/3/2010 11:57:26 AM , Rating: 3
Are you kidding? Do you really think that just because the Army is fine with Call of Duty or Enemy Territory now that they would have been ok with the idea of US forces playing Nazis and blowing up Americans during WWII?

America is a free country with freedom of expression - or so people seem to believe anyway - and the army exists to uphold THOSE principles. So on what legal (and moral, for that matter) basis do they arbitrarily ban one game and not any number of others?

The armed forces are not based on freedom of expression. Even if they were, they are not banning soldiers from playing or owning the game, they are just not allowing the sale of a game they find objectionable on their bases. As someone else said, it's no different than Wal-Mart not selling music that they find offensive.

This is just populist double standards because people are scaremongering against brown muslim people.

Please. It's not some inherent bias against brown people, it's a bias against the people that are currently the enemy. The Nazis and Soviets weren't exactly buddy buddy with the Army either.

RE: So....
By Spacecomber on 9/3/2010 1:34:44 PM , Rating: 2
If I were to speculate on the reason that the military finds this game troubling, it's because you get to play as the enemy, and war requires a certain amount of black and white thinking to prosecute. It's you or it's them who are going to die, and you have to feel confident that your reasons for killing the enemy are honorable, if you are going to live with yourself the rest of your life. Although this is just a game, it does blur the boundaries between being a soldier on one side or the other. The truth is that soldiers on either side always have much more in common than what there is that separates them politically/culturally. In other words, there is probably at least as large a gap between soldiers and civilians as there is between soldiers of different nationalities.

RE: So....
By ekv on 9/3/2010 2:04:38 PM , Rating: 3
Interesting. I'm not a soldier so I don't know the psychology behind that. I assume the commanders that made the decision to pull the game from the PX, etc., do know the psychology.

My speculation was more towards the Taliban -- and other "insurgent" terrorist bastards (just so there's no doubt 8) -- being able to use this as PR. It seems to me the whole muslim thing has victimhood down pat. Resistance to building a mosque ... "we're the victim". Resistance to building nukes ... "we're the victim". I exaggerate, sure, but you the point is still perfectly valid.

I wouldn't want to let the enemy have even a possibility of a PR victory. Of course, the game is still allowed to be played. So perhaps that is not it. Perhaps, the military commanders talked with EA about aspects of the game and EA told them to stuff it. Hence the ban.

RE: So....
By Targon on 9/4/2010 4:13:52 PM , Rating: 1
There is a difference between playing a game with the enemy being the enemy, and playing the enemy and attacking the US troops. This is the primary issue here, and I find it amazing that more people just don't seem to understand it.

So, we have OUR people, fighting because our government demands it of them, not because they necessarily want to be over there. Now, you put a game out there where people can play the game with the focus being to kill American troops. That is pretty messed up if you ask me.

Red vs. Blue team, that's fine, but you have the current ENEMY combatants as the ones you can control to attack the "good guys", and you open up a lot of potential issues, including encouraging those who are already anti-American to play a game where THEIR goal is to kill Americans as the primary part of gameplay.

EA execs should get their asses kicked for not thinking about this!

RE: So....
By ekv on 9/4/2010 9:59:24 PM , Rating: 2
I pretty much agree with you. I think EA is for the most part playing up the controversy for the sake of publicity.

Having said that, the issue ought to be given some thought and discussion is appropriate. A game that does portray enemy tactics would prove useful to our troops. Even a current enemy. As long as the enemy is portrayed relatively accurately and as long as our tactics are not compromised. That last part is violated by the likes of the NY Times way too often.

The point of allowing this would be so that "civilians" could get a somewhat realistic taste, as it were, of what our troops are up against. I am still concerned, however, about the Taliban being able to point at product X and claim the sanctity of victimhood.

RE: So....
By Lerianis on 9/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: So....
By mattclary on 9/3/2010 3:18:48 PM , Rating: 1
The difference between the Nazis and Al Qaeda is the Nazis were better equipped. If you think the Nazis are worse, you are fooling yourself. Before you retort, let me just say, "Daniel Pearl", and he is just the most famous of people slain like pigs. If they had the ability, they would be shoving Jews in ovens just as quickly.

RE: So....
By Fritzr on 9/4/2010 2:13:48 AM , Rating: 2
Another difference. A great many of the "Nazi" soldiers were ordinary patriotic Germans who were not members of the Nazi party and did not support the party. They were however asked to do their duty as soldiers and follow orders. There were Nazi party members in the US armed forces in WWII also, patriotic Americans who thought Hitler was an inspired leader did their duty as American soldiers. The American National Socialist party was destroyed by the political fallout of the actions of the German National Socialists, but they have been revived and are alive and well in the modern USofA.

An interesting book is "Insanity Fair" by Douglas Reed. Written by a journalist based in Germany and Austria in the 20s & 30s it covers the politics of the time and the author expected a major war to break out soon. It was published in 1939. My copy had a couple of chapters added for the 13th reprint in April 1939. Available from Google Books and may be available in other places also. A sequel written in 1948 is called "From Smoke to Smother, 1938-1948"

The Taliban and related groups are not a national political party, they are a radical fundamentalist church that is trying to force as much of the world as possible to convert to their religion. If they need to kill a few followers along the way, they will pay the price in order to ensure that the world prays in the correct manner. In another century it was the Catholic Church and the best known Taliban group were known as The Crusaders. In recent times two more Christian Taliban groups fought in Ireland. The Catholic Taliban call themselves the IRA and the Protestant side is the UDF. Both call on followers to kill infidels (anyone belonging to the other church)

RE: So....
By ekv on 9/3/2010 3:19:02 PM , Rating: 2
"With the conservative loonies" ... would that be the 'lesser' and 'evil' conservatives? or just the 'different' conservatives? Aren't you being awfully black and white about this?

RE: So....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/3/2010 4:44:43 PM , Rating: 3
The real issue is that the world has to move towards war being the LAST RESORT.... in the past 100 years, it hasn't been E V E R!

That's just garbage. Who taught you this stuff? War IS the last resort. It just so happens to be the only resort that works.

Give me an example of this last "100 year" period, and I'll show you proof that negotiations, talking, trade embargoes etc etc did NOT work, and that military action was the last resort used.

When you are you liberals going to learn? You can't talk someone to death.

RE: So....
By Master Kenobi on 9/3/2010 7:08:53 PM , Rating: 4
Unfortunately most of these loons forget just how many of their freedoms they would not have if not for the armed forces fighting wars to eliminate threats to our culture and way of life. Do you really think these hardline muslims of Afghanistan really care that you are american? They want nothing less than everyone to follow their beliefs. People in their own country that do not follow their beliefs are stoned, beaten, whipped, or shot. They have no problem doing the same for anyone from another country. Not everyone over there is a hardliner like this, but there are tons of them worldwide that flock to Afghanistan to fight the "infidels" that do not follow them.

It is time to understand that this war will never end. It might end in Afghanistan but it will be continued worldwide by small hardline groups fighting against modern cultures because they percieve them as threats. India, Pakistan, Serbia, Bosnia, Phillipenes, Somalia, Niger, Syria, Chechnya, and more. These have been and will continue to be battle grounds until these hardliners can be snuffed out. The wars of today and tomorrow will not be between nations but instead between small guerilla factions fighting against modern ideology. Get used to it, this is the future.

RE: So....
By Azure Sky on 9/4/2010 2:06:44 AM , Rating: 1
so can you and ratclamer77 explain the Korean war?

from what I remember it was about stopping "the evils of socialism/communism" because they where going to "take over the world"...

please inform us also as to what the point of Vietnam was...seems it was about forcing our will on them...didnt work out to well did it.

RE: So....
By Clienthes on 9/4/2010 11:40:58 AM , Rating: 2
North Korea invaded South Korea, which was under our protection following WWII. That was the point of WWII, aiding an ally.

The Vietnam war was similar; North Vietnam (communist) tried to take over South Vietnam (not communist) by force. The US aided the South Vietnamese.

In both cases, if the communist forces hadn't been trying to expand their territory by force, we wouldn't have gone to war.

RE: So....
By Clienthes on 9/4/2010 11:42:40 AM , Rating: 2
First pp should read, "That was the point of the Korean war."

I now understand what the preview screen is for.

RE: So....
By AznAnarchy99 on 9/4/2010 4:26:59 PM , Rating: 3
I never post on here but I had to come and and clear this up.

The United States refused to let Vietnam unify under Communist rule after Ho Chi Minh ousted the French after the First Indochina War. During the treaty negotiations they forced the Chinese, who at the time was still coming into power, to use their influence on the Vietnamese to agree to the terms of an election a few years after. The US placed a corrupt and brutal President in South Vietnam by the name of Ngo Dinh Diem. Obviously he was not popular and it was a given that he would lose in a fair election to Ho Chi Minh. The US and South Vietnam decided that they would not uphold the elections for unification at all.

RE: So....
By eskimospy on 9/5/2010 2:54:17 PM , Rating: 2
War is absolutely not the 'only resort that works'. There have been a great number of occasions where diplomatic and economic pressure have obtained the desired outcome.

His statement that war has never been the last resort was stupid and wrong, but your statement that it's the only thing that works is just as bad.

Think how ridiculous the world would be if we had to go to war every time someone passed a tariff we didn't like instead of applying diplomatic and economic pressure through the WTO.

RE: So....
By Manch on 9/3/2010 7:18:40 PM , Rating: 3
black/white thinking is insane but you label all conservatives as racists. Wow you just proved yourself to be hypocrite and a dumbass.

RE: So....
By Azure Sky on 9/4/2010 2:09:09 AM , Rating: 2
probably because to be a true right wing nutjob you need to think of war as the first option, and need to be worried about people who arent like you(be it race/color/creed) taking over the world or something like that.

Im around alot of people like that, I just roll my eyes, these are the same people who tell you ALL MUSLIMS WANT TO KILL EVERYBODY ELSE!!!

Im not a Liberal, and im sure as hell not a right wing nutjob, I think both sides need kicked in the fu**ing head honestly...

RE: So....
By JonnyDough on 9/3/2010 4:16:31 PM , Rating: 2
If I wasn't a poster, I'd +5 you. Well said.

RE: So....
By diggernash on 9/3/2010 6:01:31 PM , Rating: 2
"you have to feel confident that your reasons for killing the enemy are honorable, if you are going to live with yourself the rest of your life."

You are naive to believe that there are not large numbers of people that can put a bullet in someone for any number of petty reasons without considering the morality of the act. In their case their is no question of why, because the act of killing never generates that level of thought. Looking at the world through your glasses only changes what you see, not what you are looking at.

As for the original topic, if the servicemen on any particular base are not protesting, let the game be sold on base.

RE: So....
By Azure Sky on 9/4/2010 2:14:04 AM , Rating: 2
well said, I for one could put a bullet into somebody without a 2nd thought, If they are a threat and I can, I will neutralize that wrong?

but I also wouldnt just randomly go into a mall/bar/wtfe and kill a bunch of random people, oh yeah, And i have played these "violent video games" since they first came dont tell me they cause kids/people to be violent, its mental disorders and bad parenting that cause that, not games...its like the woman who sued blizzard because her son committed suicide over being ripped off in wow...or the woman who sued sony over the same thing happening in EQ...people need to take personal responsibility for their own mistakes(like letting mentally unstable kids/children play games that could make it worse)

RE: So....
By diggernash on 9/4/2010 4:53:20 PM , Rating: 2
I would say that the fact that the women sued after the suicides, puts the blame squarely on them. Kids from good parents do bad things, but good parents of bad kids don't sue to justify themselves.

RE: So....
By beerhound on 9/4/2010 12:05:49 AM , Rating: 2
I doubt it is banned because of dislike for "brown people". Remember that some of those seeing this on the store shelves have been there in the situations this game is depicting. They might be concerned that this could trigger a reaction in someone suffering from PTSD.

RE: So....
By surt on 9/4/2010 11:32:58 AM , Rating: 2
It's pretty straightforward really. Whether or not it 'should' matter to people, for some odd reason it apparently actually does matter whether the content is about an opponent from the current engagement, or one neither they, their parents, nor their grandparents, nor any living relative had any actual experience of. Bizarre, I know, but somehow it seems to matter to them.

Now the moral, and legal basis on which the military may make such a ban is generally referred to as 'readiness'. If the game is actually interfering with morale, and thereby endangering lives, the military is empowered (and quite right!) to institute such a ban.

RE: So....
By Zebo on 9/5/2010 3:56:48 AM , Rating: 2
Who cares what color they are you racist?

Killing fundis regardless of skin color is fun.

RE: So....
By rdeegvainl on 9/7/2010 12:00:27 AM , Rating: 2
Seems as though its just to make headlines. Why aren't they doing it for other recent games that they still sell in GS and the PX like the modern warfare games or CS, wherein both you get to play terrorists?
But whatever, they can do what they want, I did my time and they don't get to bother me anymore.

RE: So....
By FITCamaro on 9/3/2010 12:08:05 PM , Rating: 1
I'm with him. In BF2 you can play as a middle eastern character against American forces.

It's a game. Now should the Taliban characters scream "Death to America!" and should "suicide bombing" be an unlockable power? No. But cops vs. robbers essentially the same regardless of what the names placed on each are.

RE: So....
By JonnyDough on 9/3/2010 4:21:03 PM , Rating: 2
Scary to think though, that it's just a matter of time. The question always remains though, does acceptance of war and violence make us more violent and warring? Or is it simply a reflection of real life? I would have to argue that dehumanization and not only the acceptance of, but the LOVE of violence (such as bloodsport, i.e. wrestling/mma/roman gladiators/movies/video games/etc.) makes our society more prone to killing. To think otherwise is obvious folly. A young boy taught to grow crops to live, will grow crops to live and know little of killing until he is taught how to hunt.

RE: So....
By Azure Sky on 9/4/2010 2:22:13 AM , Rating: 3
I would disagree that "violent videogames" lead to dehumidification or desensitisation, watch the penn and teller episode about violent video games, they tested your theory out, a kid who played these violent games for HOURS ON END pretty much every day was taken to a shooting range and got to shoot a target(home alone poster i think it was) he took 1 shot, and didnt want to take another one, ended up in tears upset because he shot a real gun at a picture of a real person.

Kids and adults enlarge arent as simple minded as you seem to think, MOST people(not all, but most) have no problem telling virtual violence from real violence, the mentally ill, thats another story...

As somebody who grew up on these games and whos been around countless kids and is friends with many adults who had the same experience, I have yet to meet one that became dehumanized or desensitized to the horrors of this world, infact most of them will honestly tell you they couldnt shoot a real person, many would even admit they probably couldnt even shoot somebody to protect their own lives.

but then again, most of them had parents who actually parented rather then expecting the tv and schools to do that for them(unlike most kids today)

RE: So....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/3/2010 4:46:46 PM , Rating: 2
I'm with him. In BF2 you can play as a middle eastern character against American forces.

You can? I own Battlefield:Bad Company 2 and all you can play is Russian or American.

RE: So....
By Omega215D on 9/3/2010 5:14:17 PM , Rating: 2
Battlefield 2 is the game that came out before the Bad Company series.

RE: So....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/3/2010 5:18:32 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, my mistake.

RE: So....
By Azure Sky on 9/4/2010 2:15:40 AM , Rating: 2

RE: So....
By Lazarus Dark on 9/3/2010 4:34:44 PM , Rating: 2
yeah. Honestly, the ban makes total sense to me. You join the military to protect freedom... but in order to do so you have to give a little up.

“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki