PS3 News: Medal Of Honor's War On Terror Hits Controversy City - PS3 News

Members Login: Register | Why sign up? | Forgot Password?

Medal Of Honor's War On Terror Hits Controversy City

It was bound to happen. In fact, we're honestly surprised it took this long.

Because the new Medal of Honor involves the current war on terror, and there is the option to play as the Taliban, it was inevitable that EA's title would garner plenty of controversy and criticism. The first to latch on has been a member of the Gold Star Moms, who voiced her displeasure on Fox News; you can watch the Fox and Friends video below and draw your own conclusions. A woman who lost her son in Afghanistan, Karen Meredith, had this to say:

"War is not a game period. Right now we are going into a really really bad time in Afghanistan. We've just come off the worst month of casualties in the whole war and this game is going to be released in October. So families who are burying their children are going to be seeing this and playing this game. I just don't see that a video game based on a current war makes any sense."

We find it interesting that she specified the fact that the war is "current," and that we never heard any such controversy during years and years of shooters based on World War II. ...as usual, time heals and somehow makes things okay for everyone. But anyway, EA has responded to this whole mess with the following official statement:

"Medal of Honor is set in today's war, putting players in the boots of today's solder. We give gamers the opportunity to play both sides. Most of having been doing this since we were seven. If someone's the cop, someone gotta be the robber, someone's gotta be the pirate and someone's gotta be the alien. In Medal of Honor multiplayer, someone's gotta be the Taliban."

Unsurprisingly, Meredith believes that's an unfair analogy and although the Fox reporter does mention that the average age of the gamer who will purchase Medal of Honor is in their mid-to-late 30s, Meredith doesn't budge. She simply says she doesn't see the need for such a game in the first place, and cites more sensitive publishers like Atomic Games, who decided not to publish Six Days in Fallujah and Sony, who didn't produce a game called Shock and Awe.

We will only add one additional bit of commentary: we would like to point out that, in our eyes, the most important individuals in such controversy are those who are risking their lives; i.e., the very individuals we are playing as (or against). That being said, EA collaborated with the military and Tier 1 operators to make Medal of Honor authentic and true-to-life; those directly involved with the war on terror voluntarily and enthusiastically lent their time. If they don't feel offended or uncomfortable about this - the very people we owe so much to, and those who really are respected in the campaigns of most games - then we're fine. How's about you?

Related Game(s): Medal of Honor

Tags: medal of honor, fox news, ea, moh controversy

8/15/2010 8:48:14 PM Ben Dutka

Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Share on MySpace Share on Delicious Share on Digg Share on Google Buzz Share via E-Mail Share via Tumblr Share via Posterous

Comments (110 posts)

B-RadGfromOV
Sunday, August 15, 2010 @ 9:41:14 PM
Reply

If you find it wrong, don't play it and don't pay any attention. The whole argument she really has is "Too soon."

Agree with this comment 11 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Killa Tequilla
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 1:28:43 PM

It's just a game! BFBC2 is no different! Get on with your life! No one else has been disturbed with a little fun entertaining war-game thats a war-game about there country! I mean there TONS of em. If Hollywood can do it, EA CAN TOO! So what? Black Ops is in Vietnam.... are we going to have a Vietnamese woman disturbed about a little fun game? A movie is a movie, a game is a game. War is War. It ain't all the same.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Sunday, August 15, 2010 @ 9:55:52 PM
Reply

Every hour of Fixed News you watch takes an IQ point off.

Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 8/15/2010 9:56:11 PM

Agree with this comment 14 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

Victor321
Sunday, August 15, 2010 @ 9:56:04 PM

Guaranteed!

Agree with this comment 9 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Kangasfwa
Sunday, August 15, 2010 @ 10:33:14 PM

That can be said of any commentary-based news network depending on your political views.

Agree with this comment 8 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

booze925
Sunday, August 15, 2010 @ 10:47:49 PM

a usual liberal comment...
but i tend 2 avoid politics, especially after last time

Agree with this comment 4 up, 8 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 2:22:22 AM

Hey I didn't say anything political.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 12:10:27 PM

World, i respect you so don't take this the wrong way, but aren't you projecting a bit? i seem to remember you saying you watched MSNBC. How is that network any less biased to the left when you have blow hards like Keith Olberman, Ed Shultz and Rachel Madow "reporting" the "news."

That station is a mouthpiece for the democrat party and their cause. Most network news stations like CNN, ABC, CBS all lean left. Fox is the only one that has a slant to the right and they still have lefties on all the time to debate and discuss the issues. When was the last time Olberman had on a conservative to debate? Never. So...you can't really call Fox News "fixed" without saying the same about other news agencies.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 6 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 1:10:26 PM

For what it's worth WorldEnds, I thought your joke was friggin' HILARIOUS.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 5:32:59 PM

It's more "balanced" you also have hard right wingers like Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchannon, plus independents like Dylan Ratigan. And they don't just kiss left wing ass, when the administration is wrong they all call em out.

Ultimately though, they don't lie, ever. They don't accept false reports to ruin careers or show fake footage of crowds in an attempt to advance an agenda. They don't cowtow to radio pundits or play the Nazi card or put together conspiracy theories like Beck.

Furthermore, the news is actually separate from the commentary so you are allowed to think for yourself.

My comment about Fox News isn't because they are hard right, it was because they tout themselves as "News" when they are anything but.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

joeboo
Wednesday, August 18, 2010 @ 11:10:05 AM

Fox News is truly garbage and cannot compare to MSNBC in terms of thought and information. And MSNBC is corporate establishment media. The right and left are not equal. This is a common and flawed idea. Is EVERY idea equal? Hardly. There is something fundamentally flawed with conservative "thought" and this study (as well as plenty others) show this. This is damning of all US mainstream media but shows that right-wing media is the worst.

This study shows an interesting thing about consumers of conservative news outlets which is they are the most misinformed. The most informed would be what are called "liberal."

Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php

Also turns out that when you expose conservatives to more news, they become more misinformed. The opposite with liberals. Page 20 (22 in the Reader) shows this.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Victor321
Sunday, August 15, 2010 @ 9:55:53 PM
Reply

Perfect point at the end Ben, but not many people know about that little tidbit of EA hiring real soldiers and teams involved in the war to help them with their game =(

Agree with this comment 6 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Sunday, August 15, 2010 @ 10:21:46 PM
Reply

I can play as Bowser in Mario Kart, too.

Agree with this comment 12 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

jimdude99
Sunday, August 15, 2010 @ 10:23:11 PM
Reply

I can't stand Fox News, Ben made a great point at the end BTW.

Agree with this comment 8 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

booze925
Sunday, August 15, 2010 @ 10:43:26 PM

eh.. you can't blame fox. im sure any news station would've jumped on this story.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

hellish_devil
Sunday, August 15, 2010 @ 10:51:20 PM

Lol @ pick of Tenzen

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 2:16:06 AM

GOD I did not like Tenzen, a blight on a great game.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 8:38:25 AM

Booze, fyi, find a different station than FOX. Canada and the rest of the first world nations mock fox news. You have good news stations in the states, but FOX is a mockery. Fox often lands on the lips of Canadian comedians.

I personally think Americans and Canadians are equal with extremely similar societies, but when people do argue about whether canada or america is the greater country, I guarantee you the Canadian will simply say... "We don't have FOX."

Agree with this comment 3 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

booze925
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 11:22:09 AM

underdog, i really want to avoid arguing about how thats the liberal media that mocks anything conservative, including fox...
so dont bring it on ok?

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 12:14:15 PM

Yea Underdog, i respect you too but you have to stop listening to what others say about Fox. The reason people go after Fox so much is because they are the one cable news station that goes against the grain. Most new, especially in Canada has a liberal bias, so of course they would go after Fox for not trumpeting the liberal line.

For the rest of you who want to harp on me for saying things you might perceive as political, I ask you to chill out before hand. Im not trying to start an argument, just offering a different take on all the Fox News hate. No one denies they slant to the right, but its one news station out of many that slant to the left and thats a fact.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 1:11:21 PM

I've got nothing to bring on. Truth be told, I don't fully understand American politics. I usually vote conservative up here, but from what I see, even Canadian conservatives are liberal compared to American conservatives. (Although it's more straight forward here. Our liberal party is called "The Liberals" and the conservatives are "The Conservative Party". lol)

It's unfortunate that it can be so hard to find a news station with no bias one way or the other. You guys need a C-Pac station like us! (They sell themselves on being non-biased. Do a damn good job too!)

Agree with this comment 3 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

kraygen
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 1:46:39 PM

I hate to break it to all of you, but all news is biased. Fox, msnbc, whatever. It doesn't really matter, it's all skewed to the perspective of the people who own and or run it.

So called news isn't news, it's someone's perspective of how they see things.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 4:09:21 PM

I see Underdog and i certainly appreciate the clarity. It's hard to find news sources that don't slant the news to fit their agenda that is usually why i don't watch any of it. I suggest you watch Fox then MSNBC back to back for a month. You will see there is a big difference in their coverage and how they report it. Then you should be able to notice a big difference. Fox slants slightly right, MSNBC slants hard left. That's pretty much how it goes for most media in the US. Fox is a minority right leaning news network. All the rest slant either slightly or hard left.

Now as for the topic, i can certainly understand why this woman feels the way she does but shes feeding the politically correct mantra that i despise. So what if it's too soon, it's reality. People need to learn to deal with it instead of trying to make everyone feel warm and fuzzy.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 5:38:00 PM

Nevermind the liberals or the conservatives, Fox is just blatantly wrong most of the time. For instance, I tune in sometimes and I see something like Social Security which according to them will be bankrupt and can't figure out why they keep saying it's a huge problem when it will pay 100% of benefits until 2037 and is currently running a 2.5 trillion dollar surplus.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 8:36:55 PM

Do you have a source? From my understanding it IS running in the red and didn't hear it from Fox.

As far as MSNBC, I do like Scarborough but I'd hardly consider him a right winger. As for liars, I do don't watch Fox so I can't say who lies and who doesnt but Olberman and Shultz have told their share of lies. My biggest problem with MSNBC is they have too many demagogues professing they have all answers while comparing their political opponents to Nazi's and Al Qaeda.

Last edited by Jawknee on 8/16/2010 8:48:05 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 10:28:20 PM

Oh yea, his is where I read Social Security is going broke. The New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html?_r=1&hp

Not known for their right wingyness. ;)

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

telly
Tuesday, August 17, 2010 @ 6:26:17 PM

@Jawknee, World's point is reiterated in that story: the current prediction is that SS will run into a wall in 2037.

"The trustees did foresee, in late 2008, that the recession would be severe enough to deplete Social Security’s funds more quickly than previously projected. They moved the year of reckoning forward, to 2037 from 2041"

And, as World correctly stated, SS balance right now is $2.5 trillion, as the program has taken more in over several decades than it paid out. Again from the Times:

"The balance is currently about $2.5 trillion because after the early 1980s the program had surplus revenue, year after year."

SS is, this year, paying out more than it takes in, but that surplus is not going to disappear overnight as the right-wing fear-mongers would have you believe. That line of thinking is just patently false.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Sunday, August 15, 2010 @ 10:25:01 PM
Reply

So her so DIES in a senseless war, and all EA has to say is "someone's gotta be the Taliban?" Who looks stupid in THAT picture.

As you say Ben, games based on history are ok. Games based on the present, not so cool.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 9:15:35 AM

I only agree if it glorifies war in a similar way that GTA glorifies crime. If it's a realistic take on the soldiers and manages to make an interesting commentary on it, then it can even be considered artistic. The best art in history have always been commentary on current affairs. Commentary on history is rarely remembered. Hind sight is 20/20, but an insightful view into current affairs is genius.

EA has an opportunity to do something good. But you're right about one thing... they could potentially fudge this up.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 1:26:13 PM

Underdog15 - What are you going on about? MoH is the furthest thing from "an insightful view into current affairs."

MoH is nothing more than a MW rip-off with a poor choice of settings. You want an insightful view into current affairs? Talk to Ms Meredith.

It's so easy to throw around the word "art" as an excuse for terrible things. If EA has screwed up by making a game with it's setting a little too close to home, then they'll get the poor sales they deserve for being so thoughtless.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 2:07:18 PM

Thanks for almost reading my post.

As I said, if it glorifies war, it's a wasted effort on EA's part, and Meridith has a point.

As for the artistic view, I have a hard time believing it can accomplish it well, but it is a possibility. Whether the subject matter is tasteful or not is irrelevant, and you cannot deny a creative story that speaks a degree of truth the title of 'art'. I feel that 4 years of study is enough to give me, at the very least, a plausable and elementary view of what constitutes valid art.

I could give you a huge list of well respected artworks of various mediums that were controversial to both government and war, many of which were brutal, sometimes exaggerated takes on reality.

If you've read any of my postings on this topic, you would know that I at least recognize Meredith makes a valid argument. I've said it a couple times, in fact. However, if MoH is indeed working with those who have been close to real action, you can't help but have a little hope for a somewhat realistic portrayal of what it's really like.

My mistake in causing you to wonder what I'm "going on about" was that I wrote with a tone that assumed everyone has experienced a good saturation of modern art. That was wrong of me, and perhaps I should have been more clear.

Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/16/2010 2:15:00 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 2:15:39 PM

Also, if MoH is a rip off of MW2, then MoH has no hope...

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 2:38:33 PM

Oh yeah... ps.

How long until a game about the current war is ok to put in a game? I'm just not sure of the cut-off... Because... I'm pretty positive there are still people alive from WW2 who could be sensitive...

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 4:02:34 PM

Goodness Alienage, drop the superiority complex. Internet anonymity doesn't give you a license to be a jerk to everyone who doesn't agree with you.

With your logic, any new shooter released that features modern day events and soldiers is a MW2 rip-off. GET OVER IT! It's just a damn game. You sure are insecure secure about it.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

556pineapple
Sunday, August 15, 2010 @ 10:25:25 PM
Reply

I've never played Cops, Robbers, Pirates, and Aliens before. Sounds like fun!

Anyway.

All the cable news networks annoy me. Especially FOX. Everything is so sensationalized these days it's unbelievable. Instead of reporting on world events, it's all worthless, trivial issues and opinion pieces passed off as news reports. That rant aside, that woman may have some valid points, but as everyone else has pointed out so far, nobody seems to want to know or care that the soldiers have not only allowed the game to happen, but assisted in the development. I never heard any controversy about The Hurt Locker being made, and it won the Oscar for Best Picture. But because this is a video game, it's all of a sudden a big issue. The hypocrisy in the world makes me sick. Sorry for the rant, but I'm tired of games being treated so poorly by the media.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

SerendipityDeus
Sunday, August 15, 2010 @ 10:33:53 PM

its sad how people have such a double standard, movies based on the "current" war don't get the red light. but the moment that a game comes out based on it, it becomes a huge deal. i understand that we're in control of the player and that in movies we're just watching it, but sometimes i feel like they only do this as a publicity stunt.

in the end the game is still gonna come out, and with this added media coverage even more people are gonna play it. what they're doing is just giving it free advertisement because people will want to know what exactly all the fuss is about.

Last edited by SerendipityDeus on 8/15/2010 10:34:34 PM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

BikerSaint
Sunday, August 15, 2010 @ 10:34:24 PM
Reply

I often want to play the good guys, as well as the enemy in a game, even if I might feel that one side is little more than scumbags.

Just make a good game even better & longer into two by giving me separate SP modes for Chimeras, the Halghasts, & even the talibans.

AND.... I still want some bally publisher to step up & give me "6 Days In Fallujah", dammit!!!(anyone except anti-vision)

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

SerendipityDeus
Sunday, August 15, 2010 @ 10:43:33 PM

i was actually looking forward to playing 6 Days on Fullujah. i was slightly disheartened that people made it such a big deal that it actually got dropped. It probably could've and still can be a game that sends out the message "We, gamers, are not kids anymore. We're more than capable to handle some of the tougher situations in life. And this is just a way for us to see and perhaps to a lesser degree, experience, what those very soldiers you're "defending" have gone through to protect us and keep us free."

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

BikerSaint
Sunday, August 15, 2010 @ 11:15:43 PM

BTW, I forgot to add this line into my last post above.

R.I.P. Lt Ken Ballard, you ARE one of our fallen heroes!

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

sawao_yamanaka
Sunday, August 15, 2010 @ 10:41:53 PM
Reply

Its all good to me. Doesn't affect me at all. My friend was involved in that, he was also hoping for 6 days in fallujah but he said this should be better. The only thing missing from this game are fully destructible environments. You were able to use them in COD but of course since its COD this game is a no-no right? Whatever.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

booze925
Sunday, August 15, 2010 @ 10:49:46 PM

there was destruction in CoD?
dont u mean BC2?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

sawao_yamanaka
Sunday, August 15, 2010 @ 11:00:13 PM

I meant use middle easterners in cod. Destructible environments in the fallujah game.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

booze925
Sunday, August 15, 2010 @ 10:51:42 PM
Reply

is it bad that i wanted a WW2 game where u play as the japanese?
from the invasion of china to the bombing of hiroshima...
i would buy it :P

Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 8/16/2010 12:49:06 AM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Snicket
Sunday, August 15, 2010 @ 11:47:47 PM

Many people get offended by that word, not me per se, but I did find it distasteful.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 12:48:55 AM

Pretty close to a slur. I'm going to edit it.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 5:38:26 PM

Everything Booze says is distasteful.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

GuernicaReborn
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 10:15:30 PM

Why would you want to play a game based on the Japanese invasion of China. It was basically a slaughter of every unarmed man, woman, and child the Japanese army came across. Ever heard of Kill all, Loot all, Burn all? Thats just sick.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

booze925
Tuesday, August 17, 2010 @ 9:00:06 PM

@GuernicaReborn its history, and i think it deserves 2 be told. besides, when you go back 2 playing CoDWaW, you can be like "THATS what I'm fighting against"
@WorldEndsWithMe if its distasteful to you, then thats how i like it, and thats how I'll continue 2 b.
piss off, amigo

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

GuernicaReborn
Wednesday, August 18, 2010 @ 1:11:01 PM

It has been told, there are quite a few books and first-hand accounts of it. Read my post again, and tell me if you want to play a game like that. Not much of a challenge in killing millions of Chinese civilians.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

animalmother
Thursday, August 19, 2010 @ 9:54:22 AM

Calm down Guernica...the Japanese didn't kill millions. Yes, they killed thousands, but they flat out didn't have the time to kill millions of chinese.
As much as i respect and love the Japanese(im Greek) they did many atrocious things in the name of their genetic superiority up bringing but say they kill millions is a bald faced lie(not necessarily you but whoever told you).

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

GuernicaReborn
Thursday, August 19, 2010 @ 7:02:31 PM

L-O-L!!!! Are you kidding me? Look up the Second Sino-Japanese War. Please. Just google it. Most estimates are around 20 to 30 million dead in China. China officially lists the number dead at 35 million. It lasted for 8 years, from 1937 to 1945. It ended with Japans surrender in WWII.

China wasn't unified, they were too busy fighting between themselves to form any semblance of a national defense system. It made Japans invasion that much easier. I can pull dozens of credible sources from around the web, and I have a few books that I've read on the subject that I can quote from.

Lets see you pull one credible source that says there were only a few thousand killed, or even only 500,000 Chinese killed in the Second Sino-Japanese War. I guarantee that any information you find on deaths in this invasion will tell you there were MILLIONS of Chinese killed in this war.

AnimalMother, next time you tell someone to calm down, then call them a liar, do some effing research. You just sound like a damn fool. Get out of here. You're the liar.

Last edited by GuernicaReborn on 8/19/2010 7:08:55 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

animalmother
Friday, August 20, 2010 @ 7:58:54 AM

Nahhh, Guernica....i still say you ought to calm down. 20-30 million? Ya right...you have any idea how long it takes to kill 20-30 million people especially when you don't have the horrible kind of deathcamp killing machines of the Nazi's or Nuclear weapons.

"Find a credible source to back up my claims" ?
I don't owe some odd character like yourself anything so i couldn't careless if you believe me. If you want to keep being a gullacalf, thats fine, its your choice as a living being.
Me...20-30 million is garbage...even the Nazis with their camps killed just 5million and im going to believe the Japanese did 4 times that? Sure.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

GuernicaReborn
Friday, August 20, 2010 @ 12:04:46 PM

Go to the forum, so I can have some witnesses as I make you look like a fool. You say it's a lie, but you obviously don't even want to research anything to back up your claims.

Do you know that in one night, the Doolittle Raids killed 100,000 Japanese people? Over the course of eight years, that would be equal to 2.9 Billion. 20 Million only equals 7000 people a day over eight years, not much by any standards concerning WWII.

Have fun being ignorant the rest of your life. Oh, and read a history book.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

GuernicaReborn
Sunday, August 22, 2010 @ 10:02:13 PM

One more thing animal. Most estimates put the total number dead from the Holocaust at 11 million. Now, this is only those exterminated in Hitler's Final Solution. If you add the number of Soldiers killed by the Germans in WWII, this number goes up.

Also, Russia lost 20 million people in WWII as well. Keep in mind that WWII was half the length of the Second Sino-Japanese war.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Sunday, August 15, 2010 @ 11:01:58 PM
Reply

Ben you said exactly what I have been for a long time!

"That being said, EA collaborated with the military and Tier 1 operators to make Medal of Honor authentic and true-to-life; those directly involved with the war on terror voluntarily and enthusiastically lent their time. If they don't feel offended or uncomfortable about this - the very people we owe so much to, and those who really are respected in the campaigns of most games"

What you said there is basically what I've been trying to tell people who have problems with these games. Obviously I dont get in arguments, it is a sensitive subject. But some people are just looking for something to argue about it seems, or trying to find something in everything to complain about.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Snaaaake
Sunday, August 15, 2010 @ 11:06:55 PM
Reply

I just love watching these people go nuts over this kind of things.

By the way Ben, that vid ain't working.

Last edited by Snaaaake on 8/15/2010 11:17:59 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 12:10:16 AM

Um...it is for me.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Nickjcal
Sunday, August 15, 2010 @ 11:12:59 PM
Reply

People need to understand things about video games. People want to get their stories out and be remembered. Video games are a way to remember their stories. Its also a way to "understand your enemy".

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Xombito
Sunday, August 15, 2010 @ 11:22:11 PM
Reply

I see a trend here. Contoversy and modern war games. Will Black Ops court controversy as well?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Nickjcal
Tuesday, August 17, 2010 @ 9:02:00 AM

Thats what makes me mad. Vietnam was a war thats comparable to this war and nobodys saying anything about that?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Snicket
Sunday, August 15, 2010 @ 11:45:26 PM
Reply

Having played the Beta, I felt uncomfortable playing as the Taliban while mowing down US troops. I recently made a documentry about a family whose husband was deployed in Afghanistan, so it was a little too close to home.

But I understand the argument, but I still chose not to buy this game, the main reason being I did not find it very good, second, I don't like the idea of the Taliban vs. US.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

johnld
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 1:24:57 AM

thats basically my point, you dont like the game for whatever reason, dont buy it. its you're choice. so dont deprive the others who have no problem with it.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

DeadReaper
Sunday, August 15, 2010 @ 11:50:53 PM
Reply

So its ok to shoot and kill people from the middle east, russians, japanese, koreans and so on in video games, but when were able to play it from the other side it becomes an issue. Gotta love that double standard.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

animalmother
Thursday, August 19, 2010 @ 9:59:25 AM

American politics 101 i'ld say. Its alright provided its America that does the killing and usually in much larger numbers than their enemies but when its virtually another race attacking their kin in game...its horrible.

People forget that these war games they've so gladly played as the Americans in are two sided conflicts. Now i don't pretend to Justify what the Taliban does but they ARE the other side and alot of them(watch your own 60 minutes) are just soldiers who fight for a paycheck and NOT truly the Taliban way of life. Ltes keep things in context.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Sol
Sunday, August 15, 2010 @ 11:56:27 PM
Reply

Anyone remember Six Days to Fallujah or whatever it was called?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 12:01:20 AM

Absolutely, last I heard, which was a bout a year ago, they still wanted to release the game, but were looking for a publisher I believe.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Kangasfwa
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 12:03:14 AM
Reply

"I just don't see that a video game based on a current war makes any sense."

(1) Technology based on video games called Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy (VRET) helps soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2719363/video_game_technology_being_used_to.html?cat=19

(2) A specialized VRET option, also based on video game tech, is called "Virtual Iraq":
http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/health/2009/09/30/2009-09-30_virtual_iraq_video_game_helps_treat_military_veterans_for_posttraumatic_stress_d.html

(3) Video games in general could help too:
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/01/07/Video-game-may-reduce-PTSD/UPI-17101231382573/

I feel sorry for this woman for losing her son, but for her to dismiss a game out of hand that is being developed in collaboration with soldiers still serving is an act of ignorance on her part. A big act of ignorance considering this game is being developed with respect to the soldiers. A game that wants to tell the soldiers' story in the right way--not all flashy and stylized like in Hollywood movies.

I understand the point about the taliban in multiplayer. But what would she rather have? US soldiers shooting each other in a civil war fashion? How is this different than seeing soldiers die in a movie? Or when these things are discussed on the History channel?

I can understand not wanting to be reminded of a loved one's death. I drive the truck my Grandfather left me when he died. I avoided driving it at first because it reminded me of him. It hurt. All these people can do is to try to avoid the reminders until they have been able to heal. Video games usually aren't big news outside the dedicated media. So calling for this game's cancellation is unjustified to me, especially considering the care and respect that went into making it.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BTNwarrior
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 12:15:10 AM
Reply

I'm gonna have to write in my will "never use my death to forward an agenda"

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 1:05:50 AM
Reply

This is quite lame of Fox.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/14/fox-news-whoa-multiplayer-video-games-put-some-people-on-the-enemy-team/

Agree with this comment 1 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

johnld
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 1:17:21 AM
Reply

i dont mind hearing other people's opinions, what irritates me is that people try to make a much bigger deal than things are. this woman probably doesnt even play videogames. its not like shes the intended demographic that the game is aiming for. i wouldnt mind it much if the one complaining actually played videogames. even then, the consumers have the option to avoid the product, why the hell would you go and ruin it for everyone else. it just shows selfishness to me.

as for playing as taliban, i havent heard this before. all i remember is that they said you would play the game from 2 perspectives, the tier 1 operators (the scalpel) and the rangers/marines (the sledgehammer).

On a side note, when can it be considered a good day/month considering both sides. whenever theres a crime that can be related to videogames, its pretty much they cant tell reality and videogames apart. I could say this is only a game and not reality, althought there are actual people that were consulted about the subject.

Last edited by johnld on 8/16/2010 1:20:53 AM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

sawao_yamanaka
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 2:54:06 AM

I think they meant to be referring to multiplayer but obviously the news and this woman do not investigate. The subject matter has never bothered me at all and I do agree that it gets very irritating. We have so many other problems going on but when it comes to videogames they always have a field day on this.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Lawless SXE
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 2:04:15 AM
Reply

Once again the media latches onto some random fools point of view over gaming and blows the entire thing out of proportion. Now, I don't mean to drop a slur about this woman, but really she isn't the one who is intended to buy this game. So, her son was killed in combat (and I don't mean to sound heartless here), but how many others have suffered the same fate? You don't hear most of them complaining about how this game is going to offend them, because they aren't the people who are going to buy it.

I believe that the people who are planning to buy this will be individuals that are capable of rationalising and not just wanting to kill off Americans as the Taliban. These are very likely people who will be genuinely interested in the story that EALA and the soldiers that they are working with want to tell.

As Ben brought up, what difference does it make whether the war it is based on is current, or a hundred years old. War is war, and conflict is gaming. If a developer thinks that they are able to craft a good game, with a story in any particular time period, there will be a war to base it off. I really hope that people don't buy too heavily into this nonsense and boycott the game, because such an action is not deserved. If it doesn't appeal to you, fine. If you are offended by it, fine, but don't you dare going and forcing your close-minded beliefs on the rest of us, 'cause I'll tell you where to go real quick.
/rant
Peace.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Lawless SXE
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 2:09:37 AM
Reply

Scratch the double post.
Peace.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

sawao_yamanaka
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 2:50:13 AM
Reply

I can't really say I felt uncomfortable while using the taliban at all. It is just a game and nothing more. I'm not trying to be insensitive about the whole situation but for her to bring this game down when the game itself does not involve killing actual people, I think she wants to put her blame somewhere else besides her own ignorance about what went into developing this game. Blaming videogames is the best scapegoat nowadays.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

JAMES M
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 3:13:20 AM
Reply

typical stupid reactions... one of the points they make "families who are burying their children are going to be seeing this and playing this game".....................

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Zorigo
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 8:20:38 AM

yeeh. because if they're burying a loved one i highly doubt they're gonna be playing the damn thing.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 3:24:12 AM
Reply

oh dear lord i was wondering when the sh*t would hit the fan!
let the shitstorm commence!
why cant these people leave these things alone?
they dont like violent video games fine, DONT PLAY THEM!
i dont like motorcycles because there so freaking loud!
i dont like trucks because they dont obey the road rules, and think there the only ones on the road everyone has to move over for them.
but do you see me b*tching trying to get them banned?
nope, so fudge off and leave peoples pleasures alone!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 8:59:55 AM

It's not about the violence. It's about a concern for sensitivity about current war affairs.

I don't fully agree with her either, but I wouldn't just blow her off. She makes decent enough arguments to have a meaningful debate about it.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 9:10:49 AM

but thats what i dont understand people who were knee deep in it are helping make the game!
if there ok with it than why do their mothers have to intervene?

its not because of insensitivity, 50 bucks says if they made this game but did not have the taliban in it, if they had a fictional enemy there would be no problems!
there just using that BS as a lame excuse to start whining, as a shoe horn to get violent games banned.
they have no problems with the moral side of things, its just they dont like violent games and there using this as a lame excuse to get what they want.
manipulation at its finest!

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

KNG201
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 6:03:40 AM
Reply

just look at SOCOM 3+ in MP you can play on both sides....SEALS VS TERRORIST or SEALS vs MERCENARIES....& that was a while ago where she been at? she is intitled to her opinion...even if her friends is filling her head with bull poop....

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Bloodysilence19
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 8:14:37 AM
Reply

this lady reminds me of jack thompson just hates any game that's violent or someone getting killed.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Zorigo
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 8:18:13 AM
Reply

Im sorry but the thing that angers me most is how little she god damn knows. whats happening in countries like afghanistan and palestine is dire and she knows sod all. Im not entirely sure that relates to the topic but it angers me.

It also annoys me that they think its unsuitable. yes it could be but there not exactly idiots. they know a thing or two about sensitivity surely. Its not like they're gonna make it a fun house to play as taliban. im pretty sure everyone realises that the taliban are bad people. EA isn't gonna make a game where they glorify the 'robbers' is it.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

animalmother
Thursday, August 19, 2010 @ 10:01:59 AM

Agreed.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 8:49:30 AM
Reply

I'm Canadian and don't watch much American news, but I definitely avoid Fox when I do.

However, that chick at least makes a good argument. Even if you disagree with her, at least she isn't using mindless drivel to support her stance. I don't fully agree, but I do respect her standpoint. She presents a useful argument.

I sit in between the two sides. Being a theatre major, I fully support the idea of accurately depicting things the way they really are and showing characters truthfully. I also think if video games want to truly be considered artistic, they need to address world issues in the NOW and less in the THEN.

Now, that being said, this video game could go too far to the side that supports Meridith's argument. I don't mean to suggest that war should be watered down in games, but I do think it needs to be a realistic portrayal. In other words this:

--This game goes too far if it glorifies war.--

If it makes it cool or funny, then it's not a realistic portrayal, nor is it artistic. (Why I personally dislike GTA series.) If, however, it depicts war as a brutal reality with all the heartache it causes, then it's good. If, say, it leaves us with the feeling that we just wish it would end, then it will succeed.

We need a game that comments on war in the now. Movies do it... this game can really help people understand the brutality of war through interaction. If done tastefully with respect to the emotion of the soldiers (IM NOT SUGGESTING WAR BE WATERED DOWN!!), this game could be a tremendous artistic experience! Especially if you get to see it through the eyes of taliban... both the ones who believe in what they fight for and those forced into it.

I hope they work hard on this title.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 1:35:58 PM

The problem with that is this particular game is an FPS. An FPS lives and dies by its online component. The multiplayer is not art, it's deathmatch. Nobody cares if they're playing as US military or space spartans, they just want the game to be fun.

Nobody is going to buy MoH and be amazed at the accuracy of its campaign. Did gamers hit the encyclopedia after playing W@W ? Nope. This game will be no different.

Perhaps the only thing that'll be unique here is that people won't buy it because of the poor taste in setting.

Of course that is yet to be seen.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 2:32:25 PM

I suppose I look more to SP since that's what I appreciate more. Multiplayer is sort of just an add on to me.

Other than that, I don't see what the difference is between an American, a Taliban, a Russian, a Brazilian, etc. They're all people... and FPS's kill them all. No one stood up for the pain my grandparents went through in WW2 when WW2 games came out.

And hey... even if some Americans find it distasteful, most other countries don't have much invested into that war in a way that would affect many civilians. The best man at my wedding is in Afghanistan right now. I guarantee you we'll play MoH when he gets back.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

shaydey77
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 10:19:03 AM
Reply

I'm sorry she lost her son. War is pointless death but thats just my opinion.

However, if i lost a son at war the last thing id care about was getting a game stopped. Fair enough to campaign against war itself but this is just plain silly.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Mornelithe
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 10:32:14 AM
Reply

I was in the Beta, and I gotta say, I kinda agree with her. It seems pretty cold and callous that I'm playing a game, where both military and civilian casualities are experienced everyday.

I didn't really get a chance to experience the single-player, but the multi-player definitely didn't seem to be based on actual events. Just a random place where a firefight can happen.

I liked the game, but it was definitely something I was thinking about while playing it.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

mike rlz
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 1:02:18 PM
Reply

I know someone who died in a car crash. GT5 should not be released.

MOUNTAIN DEEEEW AND CHEEETOOOOS!!!!! (anyone get it?)

Agree with this comment 3 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Tom_Robertson
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 1:30:02 PM
Reply

Well if they are entusiastic, let it happen I say. EA thought this through and went through the military in my opinion..made sure they were okay with it first.

FYI...the video wasn't working when I clicked on it

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

kraygen
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 2:03:40 PM
Reply

We all knew this was going to happen and so here it is.

I'm not really sure there is a right answer to this. People this game is aimed towards probly won't be offended, but that doesn't mean everyone will like it.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 2:35:43 PM
Reply

I'm going to get it for 2 reasons.

1) CoD doesn't do it for me.
2) I want a game that shows current affairs. I don't need a WW2 game, a futuristic game, or a vietnam game. I wasn't alive during Vietnam, and none of my friends or relatives were involved at all. So... don't care.

But THIS MoH game... I would love to get a look into what my friends and family see over in Afghanistan. At the very least, I'd like to understand a few things better.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

booze925
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 4:04:06 PM

ur relatives, AKA ur parents and/or ur aunts n uncles, were NOT involved with vietnam in any way?? for gods sake, HIPPIES were a part of the vietnam era!
ur relatives must've lived under rocks

Agree with this comment 0 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 4:11:03 PM

Booze, hes Canadian. Why would they be involved in the Vietnam war? To my knowledge Canada's involvement in the war effort were slim to none.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

booze925
Tuesday, August 17, 2010 @ 8:54:57 PM

he's canadian??
oops.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

ps3sownsxbox360
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 4:41:20 PM
Reply

i think its stupid for them to do that. its a game.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 5:44:17 PM
Reply

On the plus side that footage next to the Fox tool looks pretty damn good.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

CharlesD
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 6:38:01 PM
Reply

Don't care about the controversy. If the game is good, I'm getting it.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

THEVERDIN
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 7:08:32 PM
Reply

Well all I have to say is the soldiers that are coming home today are hero's and when I came home from Southeast Asia we we're murders and baby killers. Views sure have changed.

Last edited by THEVERDIN on 8/16/2010 7:09:35 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BikerSaint
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 8:41:08 PM
Reply

Techy,
Not to me, you weren't!

And I salute you for giving your service!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Kowhoho
Monday, August 16, 2010 @ 10:15:49 PM
Reply

This is getting taken out of context and blown way the hell out of proportion. The only time you play as the Taliban is during the multiplayer. The single player is where the actual story and character developement begins, a story that EA has stated goes out of it's way to respect the soldier.

Don't take my word for it, watch the E3 trailer.

Think it's insensitive to portay "real" combat? Look back at Modern Warfare. You played as a terrorist countless times and killed hordes of American soldiers. Does that bother you? Think about what you're proposing. This complaint could be made about every war game, but then again not every game is labeled as "controversial," and you don't have to worry about those. All you would have to do is change a few dialogues and slap on a couple more desert scenes and wham bam you're playing the Afghanistan war.

If it bothers you that people die in war, that they get shred to pieces and left for the maggots, tough. That's your reality. Get used to it.

And isn't it strange to say that this game in particular sets off negative emotions and grief over lost loves when every little thing from the stores you visit to the other people in your life can set off the same reaction?

The game isn't making light of War. It's not a "game," not a joke. The game takes war seriously and so should you.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Kingharris
Tuesday, August 17, 2010 @ 5:19:17 AM
Reply

So what it's fine to play as a American soldier in an illegal war. In which the US goverment as well as others cover up the fact they also kill civilians and friendlys, tbh I barely know who Fox News are.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

GuernicaReborn
Tuesday, August 17, 2010 @ 9:06:16 AM

They don't cover it up, they just don't go around flaunting it. Civilians and friendlies die in every war, the difference is that the US and its allies don't go out of their way to target them. Unfortunately, mistakes do happen and civilians will die.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

SmokeyPSD
Tuesday, August 17, 2010 @ 9:30:36 AM
Reply

Can't speak for how the story unfolds or on the war sentiment the game will garner, but if it's anything like previous titles, it will be authentic. Especially with the Tier one involvement.

If it's ok to make war films on current wars, it's ok to write books, it's ok to make games. Not much more to it really.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

SmokeyPSD
Tuesday, August 17, 2010 @ 9:34:18 AM
Reply

I'll also add, that if violence isn't upsetting, in any media I think that is obscenity. If you don't show it realistically and the way it is that is harmful and immoral.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

redruM
Tuesday, August 17, 2010 @ 5:02:06 PM
Reply

omg lighten up you tards... theres countless movies about war on terror ffs.. ._.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

animalmother
Thursday, August 19, 2010 @ 10:10:45 AM
Reply

Im just gonna put my true 2 cents here; this topic is hogwash, like ben said FIRST of all, the military and real soldiers helped create this game in terms of scriptual/factual/strategic and tactical accuracy and clearly they have no problem with it.
This somewhat ignorant woman, who i do feel sorry for, its never easy to lose a child, comes out with nothing more than her PERSONAL opinion. Everybody has one like everyone has an A-sphincter. I can't understand her pain but while i respect it, its largely ignorance which isn't her fault.
If you don't like the game...don't play it. I watch the Military channel up here in Canada and you will see TRUE war footage, of Russian, German and other soldiers being killed or lying dead on camera. Massive wounds, bodies torn...
Many families of these people would likely hate to see this footage, as it would cause them great pain. However the same that applies here, applies to MoH...if you don't like it, don't order or watch the channel and in MoHs case, buy the game.
I find it funny though as usual certain sects of America find this game horrible, twisted and evil but only because it will be American soldiers being killed virtually by Taliban. If it was any other race like the Russians who fought Muhadjedin(spellcheck) everything would be okay.
For the strongest country in the world, no sarcasm intended, it amazes me how sensitive you are...
You(Meredith) still barely care about Hiroshima and the 70+ thousand that died JUST on initial blast let alone all who died/affected by radiation sickness...yet you can't bare the thought of a G.I.s being killed in the virtual world.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Amazingskillz
Thursday, August 19, 2010 @ 3:19:32 PM
Reply

It's not cool playing as the Taliban. Have you seen that picture of the Afhgan lady with her nose cut off. They behead people and get their money from Opium. They should not be glorified in any light.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

animalmother
Thursday, August 19, 2010 @ 4:53:43 PM

That is true...they fight and conduct themselves without morals...the Germans in WWII were viscous but the taliban does do some really evil ****...maybe they ought to change their in game title to "Afghan Militants/Rebels" to not shed any glory.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

GuernicaReborn
Thursday, January 13, 2011 @ 1:13:53 PM

It is spelled Vicious, not viscous. Viscous is used to describe a thick solution. Also, you are a moron. Read a book.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Leave a Comment

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Our Poll

Got Madden NFL 25?
Yes, and it's great!
Yeah, but I'm a little disappointed.
No, but I plan to get it soon.
...they still make sports games?

Previous Poll Results