backtop


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 The reason the game has been withdrawn from PX shelves is that the multiplayer aspect of the game allow players to play as Taliban fighters.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 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
quote:
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 (blog) 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 them...is 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 out...so 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.


"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki