More controversy...

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: More controversy...

The other MoH had varied perspectives, it wasn't always just the Americans that were the focus or made protagonists, but I also remember the French resistance being the focus of one particular game. The media always likes to indoctrinate us with the role of the Americans, but this game chose to go against the grain and show us something more - something that in our history classes was presented as a mere footnote, but shouldn't be regarded as such.

I haven't played all of the older MoH games, but I remember Underground and Allied Assault. They were memorable and relevant, the material was handled with a great deal of respect. I wouldn't even say they were realistic so much as they were insightful games. They gave me an appreciation for what people went through and what was sacrificed.

I don't think that's what this new Medal of Honor's aim is, particularly because those elements are impossible to capture. I see this as a cash-in, Medal of Honor in name only.

[Lmnop]

Re: More controversy...

Dr Fox said: "It's shocking that someone would think it acceptable to recreate the acts of the Taliban. At the hands of the Taliban, children have lost fathers and wives have lost husbands.

This is my favorite part. Every single time you shoot a Taliban soldier, you're doing the same thing to their wives; their children. It's so easy to dehumanize and vilify our political opponents, but every man with a gun is still just a man.

Onto BBQ: I don't get it. I think you're arguing against yourself.

What's next, are they going to make a game where you're a Nazi and steer Jews into a gas chamber? I'm sure they could add on-line co-op for that.

Notice how in 70 years, we have yet to do that? I know it was cynical rhetoric, but you're being ridiculous and essentially saying "I refuse to play a WW2 simulation unless I get to run the concentration camps" when you say complete bullshit like

If they're going to make a game with playable Taliban, they should go all the way.

If they listened to you, GTA would be tactful in comparison.

Maybe I'm wrong, but from what I gather, you think this game is disgusting because it's not political enough to generate an appropriate emotional response?

[Kailea]

Re: More controversy...

I think DR. Fox is an ass hat that needs to go back and get his facts right before attacking a game of all things.....

Its a game, its a Medal of Honor game on top of that, and its no different then when you could play the Japanese or the Nazies. People just like looking for somthing to yell about.

The multiplayer is done by DICE, so I am defently going to play it, that and I have not played an MoH game since PSX.....soooo..... ;p

"urge stores to ban it;s sales" .....heh how about hell no, in fact I will see if we can put up twice the amount of sales items for it.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: More controversy...

Onto BBQ: I don't get it.

You're right, you don't get it.

Notice how in 70 years, we have yet to do that? I know it was cynical rhetoric, but you're being ridiculous and essentially saying "I refuse to play a WW2 simulation unless I get to run the concentration camps" when you say complete bullshit like

If they're going to make a game with playable Taliban, they should go all the way.

If they listened to you, GTA would be tactful in comparison.

Maybe I'm wrong, but from what I gather, you think this game is disgusting because it's not political enough to generate an appropriate emotional response?

[

I think the game is disgusting because it cashes in on the blood of those that defend us, makes a mockery of a real, current conflict and gives the Taliban recognition. Why should we recognize and give any glorification to a group of cowards?

Its a game, its a Medal of Honor game on top of that, and its no different then when you could play the Japanese or the Nazies. People just like looking for somthing to yell about.

Its very different.

What Japan did at Pearl Harbor was meant to be a formal act of war. The intent was political and to prevent us from stopping the expansion of their empire to Malaya and the Dutch East Indies. It was also to shatter our moral and prevent us from engaging in a very resource-exhaustive war

And pardon me if I'm wrong here, but I don't recall Japan or the Nazis waging war on us in the name of Allah, nor do I recall them running away from the acts they committed to fire a another cheap shot another day.

The only communality any of the parties there share is acting against the will of their populace. Most people in the middle east feel they'd be better off without the Taliban around. I suppose another communality is what Japan did ad the Taliban did is something they did out of fear. Japan's government was and the Taliban are afraid of the west's influence.

For Japan, that was just a very, very small part of it, though. For the Taliban its the main point of what they do.

[MrMageo]

Re: More controversy...

The Taliban is a government you twit. It was the governing party of Afghanistan from the mid 90's until 2001, when the Bush Govt, the same people who tried to BS the world with Iraq WMD's, decided to over-throw them. The intel said that the Taliban Govt backed it, but there still has yet to be any 100% undeniable proof, it is a fleece story on par with WMD's in Iraq. The NATO force is OCCUPYING territory that is not theirs, still 9 years after the "EVIL" Taliban were over thrown.

Hell these people were heroes in the south of afghanistan they protected the people from warlords who would rape children and murder people at will. It is not a surprise many still support them in driving out an OCCUPYING force, that just so happens to be NATO.

Would you stand idly by if some group of countries decided, hey you know what we are dying because the USA harbors the CIA that we know gives weapons to our neighbors, lets all form a coalition and demand that they stop doing that, an when they say no lets OCCUPY them for a decade and try and fix a problem that is not there. Would you not step up and fight back against those that are OCCUPYING the very streets of your hometown, and forcing you to submit to their will in your own god damn country, I sure as hell would.

Take your head from your ass and wake up, the NATO coalition isn't shooting rainbows out its ass, its not making grey skys turn blue. The reason these people shoot us is because weare trying to b police, and bringing OUR way of life and trying to fix THEIRS. News flash, not everyone believes that the WEST way of doing things is the BEST way of doing things.

Our shortsighted pathetic national policies as an alliance are the reason we are getting killed, not because of the "EVIL" Taliban (a political group) but because we are OCCUPYING a country that is not ours, and they are resisting us trying to make them just like us.

Grow up and stop watching the government propaganda that is fox news/msnbc/cnn or any other major network in any of the NATO alliance countries, we die because we are stupid idiots who think we know whats best for everybody.

P.S.

The japanese attack was in response to the sinking of a japanese submarine, it is a documented fact, and as such was a retaliation to an act of war from the USA. You could kind of say that 9/11 was a retaliation for supplying isreal with weapons, iraq and iran with weapons and leaving Afghanistan to rot after promising to help in the 80's after the soviets were gone. You know using and abusing people only goes so far. Stop reading history books printed in the USA, they are full of shit and not worth the paper they are printed on.

[DakAttack]

Re: More controversy...

People have died in video games since long before my time. What's so different with this game?

[Kailea]

Re: More controversy...

People have died in video games since long before my time. What's so different with this game?

nothing that's the thing, and its funny every time when people like Dr. Fox get all anal about it, and even headed discussions somewhat like this one occur.

[Malacite]

Re: More controversy...

Devil's advocate here, but there is room out there to show the side of Taliban and even Al Qaeda members. Yes, the organizations themselves are evil, the leaders are evil, but I'd imagine there are at least a few (if not the majority) of the ground troops, the people that actually do things, that are abused, maligned, mentally ill, brainwashed, incredibly young, and so on. People that are being used. We've had these same stories about Nazis and the Japanese-- doubtlessly, the people leading the fight at the top were incredibly evil in their goals and methods, but the people putting their dark plans into reality were in at least some cases mislead; just as there were Nazi and Imperial Japanese soldiers who we can recognize for their heroism, there are probably at least a couple of Taliban out there who are worthy of recognition.

This. The majority of Al Qaeda and Taliban are people who have nothing else to turn to. No job, no money, no <insert daily necessity of life here> and out of that desperation they turn to these fanatics who are at least offering a solution, even if it's the wrong one.

The rest of them are the minority, crazy assholes who want to spread Sharia law across the globe and eradicate western civilization etc etc.


And like I said, I don't know if this is MoH 2010 or not (sounds like it is) but it's supposed to be about showing off how rough it's been for the troops in Afghanistan.

[Aeni]

Re: More controversy...

There have been a good number of soldiers that have come back from over seas, and reserved this game at my store, if they dont have a problem with it, no one should.

The addon was only announced recently and those poor saps don't have easy access to news and stuff and are probably not worried about video games anyway.

Remember there was a game that was in the works and they scrapped it? Same situation. The war is not over. Again, I would have no problems when it's over but when it's still on, then there is a fundamental difference.

---------- Post added at 12:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 PM ----------

This. The majority of Al Qaeda and Taliban are people who have nothing else to turn to. No job, no money, no <insert daily necessity of life here> and out of that desperation they turn to these fanatics who are at least offering a solution, even if it's the wrong one.

Not Al Qaeda ... don't get your facts mixed up please. Al Qaeda is a very small organization made up of some of the most radical of extremists and are hand picked and trained to carry out their jihadist manifesto. Taliban are a loose organization of varying tribes and some of them are in the war against their own free will and/or have no economic incentives to take the alternate route. Please don't get the two mixed up.

[Kailea]

Re: More controversy...

The addon was only announced recently and those poor saps don't have easy access to news and stuff and are probably not worried about video games anyway.

ok so they are poor saps now? They dont care about the games content -.- Really its sad that people are getting mad over this, its no diffrent from the other examples already give, no matter how many times you say its not.

[Malacite]

Re: More controversy...

Not Al Qaeda ... don't get your facts mixed up please. Al Qaeda is a very small organization made up of some of the most radical of extremists and are hand picked and trained to carry out their jihadist manifesto.

Yes that's why otherwise normal citizens are recruited and brainwashed by their BS to do their bidding, including U.S. citizens, usually via the internet. Might want to actually watch a news broadcast or read the papers once in a while.

[Feba]

Re: More controversy...

We're not exactly happy someone wants to build a mosque near Ground Zero in New York.

Yes, we are. Racists aren't. The rest of us don't give a shit, we like freedom of religion.

I took a piece of history and contrasted it against a few ideas EA doesn't have the balls to take on.

You're missing the big difference, though. SS troops working concentration camps and orchestrating mass murder, and the Nazi soldiers out on the field were exposed to very different views of the war, and were carrying out totally separate acts. It's sort of like saying that all American soldiers are molesting prisoners in war camps-- it's certainly attractive rhetoric to an extremist leader, but it's not at all true.

You also have to consider that America and the coalition are the aggressors and invaders in this conflict. Whether you believe our motives are justified or not, we are the ones that are sending thousands of troops overseas to kill people we don't like and take control of the region (and no, they didn't "start it". The people we are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq have connections to 9/11 as the exception, not the rule).

nor do I recall them running away from the acts they committed to fire a another cheap shot another day.

BBQ, you do realize that firing cheap shots is basically why America exists, right? War isn't fair. Guerilla warfare was a big part of the revolution. It's only logical; if you can't fight a traditional war, you fight the war you can fight. Which is a big part of why what "traditional" war is has changed so much over the past century, and why 'traditional' war will mean something entirely different in a few decades.



Also, it's hardly because it's a modern war. If that were the case, you'd be complaining about Kuma\War, and hell, America's Army.

[Vyuru]

Re: More controversy...

The japanese attack was in response to the sinking of a japanese submarine, it is a documented fact, and as such was a retaliation to an act of war from the USA.

Do we need to bring up this piece of blatant BS again?

Do I need to go into the significance of the Naval Conference of 1921 and Japanese actions regarding this?

Do we need to get into the fact that said submarine was entering Pearl Harbor?

And the crown jewel of all.

The submarine was stumbled across at 0637, it was sunk at 0645. Japanese planes arrived over and attacked Pearl Harbor at 0755. An interesting tidbit of information is that it took the Japanese planes roughly 1 hour and 53 minutes to reach Pearl Harbor. Let's do the math, math is our friend. 0755 - 0153 = 0602. What does this mean? It means the attack on Pearl Harbor was launched 43 minutes BEFORE the submarine was spotted by a destroyer*.

*The minesweeper Condor reported that they spotted something resembling a periscope at 0350, but the destroyer Ward found nothing. Ward stumbled across the midget sub at the entrance to the harbor.

And I will point out that saying that the Japanese attack was a justified act since we sank a sub is a rather foolish argument. Kindly justify what a Japanese fleet under the command of Admiral Nagumo, consisting of the aircraft carriers Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, Hiryu, Zuikaku, and Shokaku The battleships Hiei and Kirishima The heavy cruisers Tone and Chikuma One light cruiser, nine destroyers and three other vessels, which set sail on November 26th 1941 for the attack on Pearl Harbor, was doing 200 nautical miles north of Oahu. I'll also point out that on December 2nd 1941 Admiral Yamamoto dispatched orders to Admiral Nagumo stating, "The date for the declaration of war is fixed for December 8"

Also of note: Akagi & Kaga: 60 planes each. Soryu: 57, Hiryu: No data but 1450 tons heavier than the Soryu, so I'd make a conservative guess at 50 planes. Zuikaku and Shokaku, 72 planes each. Adds up to a grand total of 371 aircraft, 353 of which were sent against Pearl Harbor. First wave consisted of 183 planes (51 dive bombers, 49 level bombers, 40 torpedo bombers, 43 Zeros) Second wave was 170 planes (54 level bombers, 80 dive bombers, 36 Zeros)

Would be interesting to know how long it took the Japanese to develop the special torpedo designed just for attacking Pearl Harbor, but sadly I can't find that info easily although I know I have it somewhere.


Might I suggest the books Zero, by Masatake Okumiya and Jiro Horikoshi with Martin Caidin, United States Destroyer Operations in World War II, and Aircraft Carrier the majestic weapon.


Ah well, I think I'm just done with this now. If you don't get it now, then it is unlikely you will, and whether it is just ignorance on your part, or willful ignorance, I neither know nor care. I mean, heck, the Japanese version of WWII is taught in a high level college history class and basically is, "Americans came and dropped nukes on us for some unknown reason, thus began and ended WWII for the Japanese"

[MrMageo]

Re: More controversy...

Who fired the first shot? Seems to me, regardless of when the planes were launched the US did sink the sub before the japanese arrived and started bombing, so ergo, the US fired the first shot. Regardless of if it matters or not, the first ACT of war was done by the US navy, before Japanese planes attacked. Would it have mattered or not, I doubt it, but the US threw the first stone, regardless of any crap you pull from old american written history books.

[Feba]

Re: More controversy...

Regardless of if it matters or not, the first ACT of war was done by the US navy, before Japanese planes attacked.

Pretty sure that sending military forces into a country without its consent is an act of war.

But no, the US didn't throw the first stone. We may've thrown the first stone to hit, and we may've had a lot more stones to throw once the fight started, and we may've had some big motherfucking stones to end it, but Japan attacked us preemptively. It was a huge miscalculation in securing power; not about retaliation against the west.