ShadowsofHope said:
Therumancer said:
Ahh well, I'm rambling (as I tend to do), and this is getting well off subject. In the end I think people in the US/UK and allied nations should indeed boycott this game and that it's out of line (though the goverment should not itself ban it). They should not give the producers money for making it, even to "find out" since what they put into the game stands on it's own. A lot of people of course disagree wih me and my reasoning, that's fine. We'll see what happens, but to be honest I have so little faith in video game boycotts and game consumers having any kind of meaningful voice, that I doubt the request of the UK Defense Secretary will have any influance at all.
By that reasoning, Iraq and Afghanistan have every right to call the Western Powers and Europe "Devils", as they lose tens/hundreds/thousands of women, children and husbands each and every day in their own villages/homes/cities to said forces, having doing nothing to justify such against them except be the same skin tone as the Taliban forces the West
really has their beefs with.
It'd be different if there was a campaign for the Taliban forces in the game, but it is simply part of multiplayer. I mean, it really doesn't take that much to realize any middle-eastern force in a game named "OpFor" is exactly whom you think it is, just covering the real name.
But.. each to their own, as you said. I just disagree with your premises.
As I've said in other posts, when it comes down to wars it's typically "us against them" rather than any great battle between good and evil. In this paticular case it comes down to the game glorifying the other side.
Nobody much cares for their wives, children, and everyone else to die. As I've pointed out before in other threads, the job we did on the Nazis during World War II was rather intense. We committed just as many atrocities as they did, groups like "The Hitler Youth" didn't just evaporate, and some of the things we did in the final days fighting against the "Volkssturm" were pretty intense. Not to mention the fact that we flew bombers over the countryside and blew the living crud out of civilian farmers and workers, not to mention a lot of our own people who were being forced to work as part of efforts to cripple the infrastructure.
You can't win a war by being a nice guy, and when you get down to it, in the end it's the biggest bastards that win, and then get to write the history books later.
Wars, especially long wars, are never popular with people. There will always be excuses made by civilians to end them even when it's stupid because nobody wants to die, or see their children die, plus they cost a lot of money and resources that could be being used for other things. One of the big problems with "The War On Terror" was that the goverments involved did not declare martial law, gag the media for the duration (similar to World War II, the media could gather info, but anti-war material gathered was not allowed to be released until after things were over), or anything else.
In this paticular case we're looking at a video game doing exactly the kinds of things that "war powers" for information control were intended to address, albiet those powers were never invoked. Pretty much the game is producing propaganda for the other side, and that is counter productive to the war effort. A war which is increasingly unpopular in most of the nations fighting it, largely because where it was intended to be a quick thing, it turned into a gruelling, drawn out occupation which nobody was prepared for.
The entire point of the game is to be subversive and contreversial, and also strike a chord with anti-war elements who are of course becoming increasingly vocal each year the war goes on.
A guy in charge of national defense and fighting wars and such is of course going to be seriously peeved about this kind of thing, because it DOES undermine the war effort which is part of the point. Much like how Jane Fonda tried to undermine the war efforts in Veitnam (albiet in a differant style). Without war powers he has to do things the hard way, and that includes seeking a ban (he'd be irresponsible to his position not to), or at least encouraging a boycott.
Ah well, too long a post, given that we're not going to agree. I guess we've both stated our opinions. Understand though that my basic opinion is that wars blow chips, even if they are nessicary. Once a war starts it's our side against theirs, I of course want our side to win, and "fair" doesn't much enter into it. Of course they value their people as much as we do ours, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a bloody war and they are the enemy. Once you get to the point of a war, anything bad for them is good for us.
