What bothered me most about that whole controversy is that EA caved and changed the Taliban to something else. It's not the fact that they changed it that's the problem, it's the fact that video gaming can't be taken seriously if people don't stand by their decisions kind of thing.DioWallachia said:
According to Extra Credits:Waaghpowa said:
It's because you could play as the Taliban for the opposing team in multiplayer, so they just went and changed the name to "Opposing Forces" and everyone was cool. It was a pretty BS controversy and I think the only reason they did it was because the US army was refusing to allow the game to be played on their bases or some contrived shit like that.Flipip said:
Which is part of the reason why games from big publishers have continually lost my interest. While I'll agree it's within their rights to care about their profits, they're compromising the quality of their games to do it.ResonanceSD said:
It isn't the killing of american soldiers that was the problem, it was the Taliban/insurgents as playable characters in the multiplayer. American soldiers have been killed in just about every war game with multiplayer ever made.DioWallachia said:
This game isn't meant to be anti-war so much as "humans without social constraints are just fucking bastards".DioWallachia said:
I think he was talking about the difference between a spoon and a knife actually. I could be wrong though.DioWallachia said:
Summary much appreciated. After what passes for a glowing review from Yahtzee, I'm thinking of picking this up for my brother, who likes shooters (and horror) but also engaging his brain. The length of the game is a major disappointment, though-- is there any kind of multiplayer or additional content? Call me biased, but as someone who mostly plays RPG's I'm pretty appalled by what passes for standard length in the shooter genre. I'd hoped the centrality of plot would push this particular game in the opposite direction.Deviate said:
ResonanceSD said:
To be honest I do think that they innovated the way games can tell a story that uses the player as a key factor to it (in the end the choice is about how much of a hero do you (the player, not Walker) still want to be). This is a story that wouldnt work as well if it was a movie or a book and that for me is a really big step on the right directionDeviate said:
There's multiplayer, yes, but all of the reviews I've read say it's pretty lackluster. Which is only to be expected, since the actual game mechanics are so generic.Noetherian said:
Aidinthel said:
I felt that it was a bit forced, seeing as how it's the game that makes most of the darkest decisions for you, and not you, yourself. For me it would have had more of an impact if I was faced with several options and I picked the wrong one by accident.ResonanceSD said:
I'm not entirely sure what you meant by that but i don't think i am desensitised at all. I was only expecting controversy based on previous experience. As people in this forum have reminded me, Medal of Honor took a lot of flack simply because the OpFor faction was named Taliban and you could kill American soldiers, Spec Ops has American soldiers committing atrocities, one thing i thought would get it flagged by some people, and you are actively killing them, sometimes in horrible ways, another thing i thought some people would flag. Never mind, I wish i had never made the fucking comment.ResonanceSD said:
I just played the controversial bit. I'm not going to ruin anything. However I can say that it blows anything Treyarch, DICE or IW could do so far out of the water, it's not even funny.Flipip said: