Akvod said: Derek said: Anyone who equates a war (specifically WWII) to a terrorist attack is a moron. I'm sorry, but read a book or watch the History channel and learn something, PLEASE. In what aspect? They both involve tragedy, the taking of lives (both soldiers and civilians). The only difference I see is "legitimacy" (an official war vs. a terrorist attack), the scale and quantity (a life taken is a life taken though), and such...

Honestly, besides people getting killed, I don't see how they are similar.

War = typically soldiers vs. soldiers, and the fighting is typically "justified" from all sides 

Terrorism = civilians or soldiers vs. "innocent" civilians - there is typically no "fighting," and it is not seen as "justified" from all sides

canch said: Army of two had refences to 9/11.  I think people who are saying 'no' are talking rubbish.  You all play games based on real events... Call of duty games are a prime example as well are the rainbow 6 and counter strike games. But how would you make a 9/11 game ? what sort of game would it be.

hell it could besuch a simple concept as your a new marine recruit in the us military and you get news there was an attack on us soil and your shipping ot for war after going thourgh basics. So start of game - Tutorial your doing the obstacle course for the final test. you finsh. Cut Scene "congradulations private your the newest recruit for the US Marine Corp serve your country with pride" Cutscene Graduation ceramony every throws their caps in the air. The someone comes in with raspy voice asking everyone to calm down to take a seat the recruits whispering amongst themselves 'wtf going on' CO - "we just got word there has been an attack on US soil. They targeted both the twin towers, pentagon, and another into a field we believe their target to of been the white house. Our orders are at o hundred hours we ship out. This is boys we're going to war" Then the start of the missions and the game can end with you being one of sadams captures

TRios_Zen said: nordlead said: TRios_Zen said: I'd find it hard to find pleasure by emulating, in game form, either the terrorist, or the murdered innocents. If that makes me a hypocrite, so be it; I can absolutely live with that. Only if you find joy in playing WW2 games and such would it make you a hypocrite. Anyways, I'd like to point out that even though I'd play the game if it was good, I'd never buy or rent it. I think playing a combatant in an armed conflict against another armed combatant is vastly different than playing a terrorist in an attack against  an unknowing/unarmed target; so I'd disagree with the premise for your classification.  However, I think your comments on this thread have not been offensive or insensetive, even if I personally disagree with them.  Side note, I am FAR from some moral saint, so I'm defintily not trying to come off as holier-than-thou, I just honestly could not stomach finding enjoyment in a game like this (or one based off of the holocaust or any other mass murder/genocide).

well said.

TRios_Zen said: I think playing a combatant in an armed conflict against another armed combatant is vastly different than playing a terrorist in an attack against  an unknowing/unarmed target; so I'd disagree with the premise for your classification.  However, I think your comments on this thread have not been offensive or insensetive, even if I personally disagree with them.  Side note, I am FAR from some moral saint, so I'm defintily not trying to come off as holier-than-thou, I just honestly could not stomach finding enjoyment in a game like this (or one based off of the holocaust or any other mass murder/genocide).

While the WW2 comparison is week, it still has valid points. There have been a handful of questionable war games, and heck a good war game should realisticly kill plenty of innocent bystanders too. I haven't played many WW2 games, but the reality behind them is equallly horrific to a terroirst attack. Most wars end in more non-willing civilian casualties than any single terroirst attack. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with WW2 games or whatever. Heck, even if games like GTA are ok, then a terroirst game should be ok. In all the GTA games I've played I just shoot whoever I feel like, and probably run them over with my car right after that. Like I said, I'd play one just to see what they did, but I'd never buy it.

Also, I was thinking more along the lines of playing the "good guys". Obviously any game based on a real life terrorist attack would be completely pointless if you played the good guys as you'd just die in the end, and people don't like that. If you played the badguys it would also suck, as you just press 1 button and everyone dies.

Derek said: Akvod said: Derek said: Anyone who equates a war (specifically WWII) to a terrorist attack is a moron. I'm sorry, but read a book or watch the History channel and learn something, PLEASE. In what aspect? They both involve tragedy, the taking of lives (both soldiers and civilians). The only difference I see is "legitimacy" (an official war vs. a terrorist attack), the scale and quantity (a life taken is a life taken though), and such... Honestly, besides people getting killed, I don't see how they are similar. War = typically soldiers vs. soldiers, and the fighting is typically "justified" from all sides  Terrorism = civilians or soldiers vs. "innocent" civilians - there is typically no "fighting," and it is not seen as "justified" from all sides

But that exactly is my point, both are about people being killed, and to say that one game is bad because it trivializes the deaths of real people, and to get excited about a game that triviliazes a ficitional account of a real life account of death is hypocritical.

And you yourself used quotation marks over justification like I used legitimacy. Murder if murder. I'm not saying murder isn't necessary or shouldn't be used (for e.g. self defense) is naive, but to say that the murder was some how "alright" is trivilizing it. The loss of life is always a tragedy, and to celebrate or glorify it is blood lust.

And like I said before wars include civilians. If you're naive enough (and I don't think you are) to believe that wars are like Call of Duty, where there's only enemy soldiers on the battlefield, then video games are indeed trivilizing the reality and gravity of the situation. Wars don't always take place in conveniently placed grassy fields. They take place in dense cities, towns, and homes of people. Whether or not terrorism involves a short bomb explosion, or war requires a long battle doesn't matter, they both achieve the same thing, and war usually achieves it in a bigger scale.

To say that the loss of life, home, and hapiness is "legitimate" in war, is a sad and dangerous mentality, that inevitably continues the cycle of war and violence.

The only reason why I don't say "lets ban video games" is because it is our individual responsibility to not take video games seriously, as if they were propaganda glorifying violence, but what it is, a toy.

 

Akvod said: TRios_Zen said: nordlead said: TRios_Zen said: I'd find it hard to find pleasure by emulating, in game form, either the terrorist, or the murdered innocents. If that makes me a hypocrite, so be it; I can absolutely live with that. Only if you find joy in playing WW2 games and such would it make you a hypocrite. Anyways, I'd like to point out that even though I'd play the game if it was good, I'd never buy or rent it. I think playing a combatant in an armed conflict against another armed combatant is vastly different than playing a terrorist in an attack against  an unknowing/unarmed target; so I'd disagree with the premise for your classification.  However, I think your comments on this thread have not been offensive or insensetive, even if I personally disagree with them.  Side note, I am FAR from some moral saint, so I'm defintily not trying to come off as holier-than-thou, I just honestly could not stomach finding enjoyment in a game like this (or one based off of the holocaust or any other mass murder/genocide). Errr, we can easily commit acts of terror against civilians in GTA IV.

YOU could.  I did not play the game that way, sorry.

who says anywhere that 911 game you take on the role of a terrorist? Do you take the role of hitler in ww2 games and kill 6 million jews

Yes why the hell not we play games about both sides of World War II for crying out loud.

Max King of the Wild said: who says anywhere that 911 game you take on the role of a terrorist? Do you take the role of hitler in ww2 games and kill 6 million jews

Well in Rome: Total War you can play as the Romans and "Exterminate Population" as you conquer each settlement in the Mediternian. I'm playing Barbarian Invasion right now, and you can "sack" a settlement and exteriminate its population. And the only thing I'm thinking about is public order, and not the actual reality of the situatiotion when I click "Exterminate". So you can say there that a video game trivialized a serious matter and decission. Fortunately I know that I'm not killing real people, and I won't become a dictator who conquers, kills, and enslaves thousands of peoples.

Hell yeah. I would even buy all the sequels :


Afghan is done -
great RTS, though a little too easy if you play on the american side.

Saddam is next -
the plot seems somewhat unrelated and there are no super-weapons.

Guantanamo Day -
you get to control a new army, the french, and invade Cuba just to piss off the US