Widescreen Gaming Forum

I think its because MW2's singleplayer is fictional. Where as that afgan tour game was supposed to be historically accurate.

I suppose this is true, still, it mirror's the present conflict to a very similar degree.

Yeah for sure, I'm just trying to find a logical conclusion. It doesn't affect me what so ever.

By 'that Afghan game' I assume you are talking about the game Konami pulled, which was not only set in a real and current conflict (Iraq) but based on a particular 'battle', Fallujah? Some vets (or more likely some busy bodies who have heard of) that particular fight objected to it.

I haven't heard of any Afghan games that have been cancelled?

_________________
Dipping bags at Mach1.9

I thought it was Afghanistan but it could have been Iraq. Either way yes, that was it. I don't really see how there is a huge gaping difference between setting a modern war game in Afghanistan or Iraq in general and having it take place during a particular battle. Medal of Honor might use real battle settings, we have no idea, and no one seems to care.

I don't care either, about either, I just see it as somewhat hypocritical.

.....POINT BEING, my video game idea is full of win.

Okay.

Get cracking.

This. :D

Wasn't there a game called 'Vietcong'? I seem to remember it wasn't well received...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38740099?GT1=43001

EA's upcoming "Medal of Honor" shooter series reboot lets gamers play as allied or oppositional forces in a contemporary war theater. The allies in this case are U.S. Army Rangers. The theater is Afghanistan. And so the opposition, not surprisingly, is the Taliban.

That's not sitting well with some. The trouble stems not from the Taliban's inclusion in the game, but EA's decision to let you play as them in online multiplayer dustups. In essence, critics imply that it's okay for one side to shoot the other on ideological or moral grounds, but say that it's "disrespectful" to allow players to play as the enemy — in this case, the Taliban —and shoot back.

I've got a great idea - why not just ban guns over the world? :lol:

Melt 'em all down and we can start throwing rocks at one another again. First side to run out of hand-thrown non-metallic projectiles is the one that has to pick up the rubbish and turn out the lights before going home...

I've got a great idea - why not just ban guns over the world? :lol:

Great idea ;), your job is to convince the Southern United States to give up their guns. :hide

http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/10/01/5214301-ea-dumps-taliban-player-mode-from-medal-of-honor

Citing feedback from "friends and families of fallen soldiers," Electronic Arts said it would remove the Taliban name from its new "Medal of Honor" game's multiplayer mode. Instead, that player selection would be called "Opposing Force."

And yet the only thing they changed was the name, no textures or models have been altered. Frankly I'm disgusted with the reaction to this "accurate" portrayal (ie. the name) of the enemy players in the game.

http://kotaku.com/5653154/medal-of-honor-maker-defends-taliban-renaming-addresses-free-speech-concerns?skyline=true&s=i

What I find interesting about this article is that the games creators don't really have steam for an argument about their free speech being suppressed. What they don't seem to realize is that the right to free speech is somewhat of a double edged sword: people also have the right not to listen to you (ie. not buy your game).

_________________
EVGA GeForce GTX 970 SC ACX 2.0 3.5GB | 3 X LG Flatron 24EA53VQ in Nvidia Surround | Optoma HD20

http://kotaku.com/5653177/modern-games-struggle-with-modern-warfare?skyline=true&s=i

A summary article that touches on what was discussed here.