| 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.
