Former US Congressman Calls for Tali-Ban on Medal of Honor

So yeah its plain ignorance on the part of those wishing to ban this game, but understandable regardless that it `does` allow you to play as a Taliban and allows you to kill an American troops so i can see both sides,

but SPOnG i love you but seriously am seeing these posts more and more on purely your site and as such your becoming the anti Daily Mail, but not in a good way as it looks like your showing an ignorance to a huge majority of non gamers who just don't understand, posting every little thing about games being banned and how under no circumstances ever, must a game be banned.

A focus on educating people about game is what's needed not a piss take or non understanding of ignorance, in fact the nintendogs story the other day was 100% bias and I find all your anti banning posts to be plain and simply bias where is your devils advocate you slam the papers for this kind of attitude and while your opinions differ your attitudes dont, I personally would appreciate a more balanced opinion.

I only point this out as I believe I am not the only one who feels this way.

I don't think that our story is a piss take. I don't think that it shows any bias. In fact, we don't even say that in our opinion the game should not be banned. We simply report on what has happened and allow the reader to draw their own conclusion.

Of course, while the American Army are the "good guys" to Mssrs McInnis and Rayburn, they are invading infidels to the Taliban. The game is taking the dispassionate view that they are both just forces of combat, and it is down to the player to decide which they choose to "be".

I would venture that it is the opinion of the SPOnG staff generally, that McInnis and Rayburn's view is a geocentric and generally unsympathetic one that is typical of the US military, and which only serves to exacerbate the international tensions they provoke. But the story does not seem to imply that.

The dog thing... well, I just found it typical of a certain kind of people to look for someone/thing to blame. If your dog bites someone, it is the dog's fault, and your fault for how you have trained it, and failed to supervise it. Blaming a game, or any other external stimulus is simply trying to avoid your responsibilities, and seeking a scapegoat. Too many people are unprepared to accept responsibility.

Haritori, mate, we love you too - and appreciate and respect your opinions. I hope you know that. I also don't think that we're against any game being banned. In the case of the Nintendog story, the report was to highlight that the mainstream media - (Mail, Titchmarsh, Fox News) rarely if ever reports on things like Games Aid, educational gaming, the fact that games are fun... but often attempts to tag "video games" against "a vaguely related tragedy".

In terms of the Taliban controversy. No, I personally don't see why a game should be banned for laying out the fact that there are two sides in all conflicts.



I'll certainly take that onboard in future because, as I say, I appreciate your opinions. So much so, actually, that I'll be pleased to run an opinion piece from you if you have the time.

However, I don't think we've defended games like RapLay or Manhunt 2 - I've even raised doubts about the massive hype around GTA IV and its supposed "realistic social documentation".

As I say though, I take what you say in all seriousness and with due respect.

Cheers

Tim

Well someone loves me ;-),

I should of been more clear on one thing, and that's all gaming sites very rarely seem to get a opinion from both sides in respect to this, targetted at spong was wrong on my part and the fact you even reply to my posts shows the difference between here and other sites.

but...

@DoctorDee, first my comments about piss taking etc were more towards the dog story, and yes I agree so many people lay the blame on video games, I just felt the story was very bias, no hint of a possibility of truth I wasn't trying to offend the author or SPOnG just simply put across as a reader how it was interpreted by myself.

@Tim I agree that you don't defend all games, but what I find silly is how I can watch Marsh and Fox News reports and watch as they make up s**t and I can laugh but I get angry when they don't allow the defending side to voice or even bother to listen too or talk over the answer, and sometimes I feel that gaming sites can do the same, obviously some of it out of protection of there stance in the matter but sometimes because its easier to point out how silly a story sounds, `dog attacking a girl because of noise from Nintendogs` yeah sounds silly, but the full story actually pointed out she had a older sister baby sitting her and at no point did the story say she was attacked for playing Nintendogs but the noises from the game cause the dog to become aggravated, thus attacking her foot at which point she kicked out and it the went for her face, but the fact remains that the DS game did provoke the dog and non intentionally, yet the story made no effort to mention this, and I have read the story on other sites and again the same thing, sounds too stupid to be true so lets write it like that. I rarely ever in fact have I ever? had a rant at SPOnG, but I feel the best way to defend the industry is in all honesty be the bigger person, something I rarely see. i agree also that this game should not be banned on the basis of real life conflicts, but I also understand that it does seriously offend some people whether its a genuine or political reason that should be respected. and maybe one day by showing that respect the industry can receive the respect it deserves.

I would love to take part in an opinion piece, nothing would make me happier to contribute in this way, but I would also like to see SPOnG do an interview or podcast with some of these offended/non gamer people and in a sensible way where everyone can have a say and maybe some opinions can be changed and maybe some acceptance may happen on both sides, I don't see anyone else doing it.

Dee's round at mine right now, and we've both said, "Good bloody point, let's do it."

So, we will.

Get your opinion piece in though.

Cheers

Tim

Not surprised by this. Just another day and the World Police pushing their agenda. Its very easy for the moral non gaming masses to give their opinion, when they've never played the game. Yet, they are believed, because they wouldn't lie, would they?

The most disappointing thing, is that after the bs with the Iraq/Afghan wars and news medias part in it, you'd think people would investigate their concerns, beyond the tv news and tabloids. Such a shame more people are such sheep. I don't like the Taliban anymore than the next guy, but they exist. In every conflict, there are two sides to every story. Most of the time, its only after wars have ceased, that we hear both sides of the tale usually. With modern media like games, we have a good opportunity to tell these stories, some which we might otherwise not hear.

Some might say I'm mad and hate freedom, but that's not true. I'm sure there are many people, who end up fighting for the Taliban, just through having no job or simple intimidation, brain washing and bullying, so would it hurt to tell such tales? While a sides name has changed, I hope that the Taliban single player campaign (if its still in there) can deliver something interesting, that could yet trump this silly u-turn decision. If its still present, it might yet save the game from this debacle.

Perhaps EA should rename the great U.S army in MoH, to World Police instead. It'd be true in way.