Scaredy-Pants SCi Changes Game Title
Well, okay, 'Global Terror' is probably a bit strong
SCi is making a politically motivated change to the title to one of their forthcoming games. The sequel to Conflict: Desert Storm was to be known as Conflict: Global Terror. With the company’s headquarters based up in London, it’s not hard to see why the bigwigs at the little development studio have decided to change the title to the less ominous Conflict: Global Storm.
Is it too churlish to point out that real people died in the Gulf War, and SCi still made a game about it? Games about real wars, going on at the time, where people actually die, make us feel nervous and uncomfortable. Leave them to the US Army. We understand that shooting games are fun, but they’re just as fun (more fun!) when you get to shoot robots, aliens and space soldiers instead of characters that look like people that really are getting shot. We prefer SCi when it is making games about pirates and rally cars.
Would a game with ‘Terror’ in the title make you too scared to buy it? Do say in the usual place.
Is it too churlish to point out that real people died in the Gulf War, and SCi still made a game about it? Games about real wars, going on at the time, where people actually die, make us feel nervous and uncomfortable. Leave them to the US Army. We understand that shooting games are fun, but they’re just as fun (more fun!) when you get to shoot robots, aliens and space soldiers instead of characters that look like people that really are getting shot. We prefer SCi when it is making games about pirates and rally cars.
Would a game with ‘Terror’ in the title make you too scared to buy it? Do say in the usual place.
Read More Like This
Comments
monkeybanjo 5 Aug 2005 22:14
1/6
I really dislike all these games that are pumped out about current wars. It is disgusting. As you point out - it is all about context, shooting robots are fun - 'America's most wanted' - is just plain sick.
Plezbo 7 Aug 2005 19:34
2/6
All of this is complete bullshit. Where is the uproar over Age of the Empires, or Call of Duty, or Battlefield 1942 for that matter. There are TONS of games that portray historical wars, and treating one period different from another is foolish and hypocritical. If you are going to decry this game as exploiting the men and women who served and continue to do so in Iraq and abroad, then do so about every game dealing with a historical war. And if you are going to do that, then just kill yourself, because you are a worthless sack of s**t.
more comments below our sponsor's message
SPInGSPOnG 8 Aug 2005 13:28
3/6
Plezbo wrote:
If you are going to decry this game as exploiting the men and women who served and continue to do so in Iraq
But that's not what anyone is decrying this game for. They are decrying SCi for hypocrisy.
Every low down slimy scumbag who went to fight in that dirtly, illegal war for oil and corporate profits deserves to get their legs blown off. Just and honourable men would have refused to fight in a war for regime change when the cost was 25,000 civilian lives.
The "War on terror" isn't a war. It's a political distraction while Bush, Blair and all continue to plunder and murder and prosecute outrageous and immoral foreign policies.
DoctorDee 9 Aug 2005 08:37
4/6
monkeybanjo wrote:
I really dislike all these games that are pumped out about current wars.
But the ones about historical wars are fine because... why exactly?
Were the lives of those soldiers worth less than the lives of today's soldiers.
Mendez 9 Aug 2005 09:47
5/6
DoctorDee wrote:
monkeybanjo wrote:
I really dislike all these games that are pumped out about current wars.
But the ones about historical wars are fine because... why exactly?
Were the lives of those soldiers worth less than the lives of today's soldiers.
Yeah, that's right. Something to do with inflation.
F**king economics.
monkeybanjo 9 Aug 2005 13:22
6/6
DoctorDee wrote:
monkeybanjo wrote:
I really dislike all these games that are pumped out about current wars.
But the ones about historical wars are fine because... why exactly?
Were the lives of those soldiers worth less than the lives of today's soldiers.
I didn't say that the ones about historical (e.g. ancient) were fine. I just don't find them as distateful, as the people involved in them are long dead.