i would play it. but it will never become a reality there was a game that was about a bloody battle in Iraq Falluja i think and it got pulled from development because of complaints. could you imagine the uproar over this.....
| Samus Aran said: everyone who said no is probably a hypocrit... Never played a ww2 game? That's A LOT worser then 9/11... I would play the game WITH PLEASURE. |
Hmmm, a full scale war with soldiers killing soldiers vs. an attack on unarmed civilians by terrorists claiming to be sent by God.
Yeah, that was an absolutely idiotic reason as to why something like this would be hypocritical.
GOTY Contestants this year: Dead Space 2, Dark Souls, Tales of Graces f. Everything else can suck it.
Akvod said:
So it's only ok if all those families were dead (and there still are those who were alive during WWII, Vietnam, and Iraq [Full Spectrum Warrior])? That's kind of a messed up sense of morality (as long as no one can complain, it's ok). |
"Messed up sense of morality"? No, not at all.
The dead are dead, and they stay that way. It's the living we should rightly be concerned about.
And for the same reason I don't play, or encourage, games about WWI, WWII, Vietnam etc either.
No problem with Napoleonic, ancient, future or fictional stuff.
And that seems to me to be a perfectly logical and consistent approach to take.
No
Megadude said:
So how many games have you played based on the Holocoust or other war crimes? None?
The way you talk just sounds jaded. |
Like I said before, you can actually "Exterminate Population" in Rome: Total War (killing 2/3rd of the popualtion) and commit genocides and war crimes (enslaving).
YES. First level would be scripted trying to stop the plane hijackers but failing. Then you switch between a fireman and a cop entering the flaming towers trying to save people like Day of Crisis. End boss would be flaming terrorist zombies from the crash.
"You won't find Adobe here in Nairobi"
so were is my Tower Defense WTC edition?
throw there few ninjas, flametrower, spaceships and Airwolf - that would made this game better.
Wish I had been able to chime in earlier but I want to say that the Greeks had a saying. Roughly it is that 'Tragedy today is comedy tomorrow.'. And while each tragedy has its own cool-down time before its OK to talk about or put into the form of a game it is true that eventually everything is acceptable to joke about once the wounds have healed. This of course comes with the caveat that mean-spirited jokes or reenactments are an exception, but there are always respectful ways to do things without compromising the integrity of the idea if you wait for the appropriate time.
I think the question is a personal one and each person will get to vote with their wallet or their voice if they decide to go forward with this. I say let the market decide when its too soon and when it's acceptable. Some would probably buy it and some would probably protest it...but if a company has the capitol to invest in the project and is willing to risk the bad PR then I don't think anyone should be able to stop them.
 |
| To Each Man, Responsibility |
If the gameplay was good and it didn't try to push a political messege (regardless of what that messege is) then yes I would
Depends if it was good or not. If it was too good to pass up (a-la goldeneye) then yeah I would have to play it. But if it was sh!t (a-la Goldeneye: Rogue agent) then no.
But in response to the content, yeah why not? I've played games like desert strike and call of duty without phasing me and they were based on events which were just as (if not more) tragic.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
