play as the Taliban in some videogame, and it would be up to him to determine whether or not he wanted to play the game anymore because of some emotional trauma it would bring up. But that is still the individual's choice based on his personal experience. Nothing is forcing him to play the game. To censor something because it "might" (and that's a pretty big "might") offend someone then you have to censor all forms of media that might do the same. So let's censor the news for broadcasting about the middle east, let's censor Hollywood from making any films, and lets censor all written publication about the conflict because they might write something too descriptive, or from an unpopular perspective.
[citation][nom]Princeofdreams[/nom]I have nothing against FPS games, in fact I am a member of a clan that plays CoD 5. My disgust over this is the blatant sensationalism by EA knowing the controversy, and knowing that controversy will generate more sales.[/citation]
Everything is controversial because everything can offend someone. EA set out to make a game about THIS war, THIS conflict, and made no claims otherwise. Activision set out to make a "representation" about the conflict, and it was more than likely for greater ease with writing a story, not so much because they worried about offending someone. And EA hasn't been going around with giant adverts screaming at us about how awesome the MP is because you can play as Taliban, it's not a selling point, just a part of the product.
[citation][nom]Princeofdreams[/nom]Free speech is important as you say, as long as that harm does not bring harm and offense to others, I would argue this does bring offense to people obviously if you look at the reaction.[/citation]
Nothing I said before really talked about free speech, I was talking about freedom of choice, but since you brought it up... Free speech is protected as long as what is being broadcast to the public (beit by mouth, TV, radio, print, or software) is not inciting chaos and disorder, slandering a person or group, or threatening a person or group with physical harm. Believe it or not "offensive" speech is protected because "offense" is a completely subjective and abstract concept. People can universally, and objectively agree what slander is due to emperical evidence (or lack thereof) proving without reason of a doubt the contrary to what was broadcast. We can universally and objectively agree what speech with the purpose of inciting chaos and disorder is because of the clear intent of the message's purpose. And threats really don't need to be elaborated, saying to someone that you are going to harm them is pretty clear cut. The problem with "offensive" is that every person, based on experiences and behavioral make up find different things offensive. Examples: one group of people say swearing is offensive, another group says it isn't, another group says they are offended by the message of a particular book, while another group isn't. There is no black and white when it comes to offensiveness of material because everyone sees things with a different perspective. And unless someone is at serious risk of physical or economic harm there is no need to take action.
[citation][nom]Princeofdreams[/nom]Games trivialize war, there is no game that gets anywhere close to portraying the genuine horrors, terror and hell people go through, movies have only just started to get close to it. And a war that is current, where people are still losing their lives EVERY DAY on both sides of the conflict should not be trivialized in any way, it should not be used as a marketing tool so some publisher can reap profits.[/citation]
Remember this, they are out to make a product that is fun to play, not to make something to put people into a therapy session for PTSD-by-proxy. And just because it's current doesn't make it any less taboo than other wars, remember that GI Joe was around during the Korean and Vietnam wars, so when kids played someone had to be the NK or the VC, and cowboys and indians has been around since that particular period of real strife between real cowboys and indians. The method of "playing a game" has changed, but the clear distinction between reality and fantasy hasn't. If there are those who are unable to see that distinction, then they need to have their exposure monitored in the first place.
[citation][nom]Princeofdreams[/nom]All the other games that people have mentioned are historical or fictional, even MW2 did not use current squads or terrorist but a fictional troop of soldiers against a fictional group of terrorists. EA have used are real conflict zone, and real events and battles to make a buck, and that is wrong. There was nothing preventing them making up a fictional tale set in modern times (much like MW2)[/citation]
So in order for something that is "true" to made into a product of mass media/product consumption, it must be old enough to where the majority of the target audience (videogames 17-34) either wasn't old enough to experience it or has no living ties (friends/relatives) to the event? Hmmm, I know that there have been a large number of WWII movies, and military themed toys based on both sides of the event that were made during or immediately after the war, so under your logic they shouldn't have been made. What about 'Nam? The only war that was more controversial than this one? I say that because troops that came home from that Hell were treated like monsters, and that hasn't happened at all during this mess. That was a conflict that lasted almost 2 decades, so I know that there is a large number of the population who lived during that time and lost friends and loved ones, yet there was still media and products produced on the subject with the purpose of entertainment during and immediately after that time period.
No matter how you try to spin it against other games/movies/toys/tv shows/etc, it does not matter the historicity or level of fictionalization of an experience with a clear basis on real events, it is hippocritical to approve of those, and not of something that might just hit a little closer to home, again bringing me back full circle to my main point, the only reason this is a controversy, is because someone thinks everyone else in the world should share the same subjective opinions and thought processes they do.
Facebook
Twitter