Does EA have a political Agenda?

[big_sammy_b]

Why is it that if your the British or Americans the people you fight are describned as 'insurgents' meaning of course the 'bad guys' and yet the people the Russian Spetnaz fight are called 'rebels'? Suggesting they are the good guys?

Also notice the Brits and Americans never fight each other but they do fight the spetnaz? Whys that? In real life the Brits Americans and Russians are all allies.

And lastly if your on a server say as navy seals in the next map if its new teams you will as default be put on thr British or rebel side. But if your spetnaz then your always put on the insurgent side?

Whats up with that? Does EA think the russians are Evil? And why does EA consider the 'rebels' different to the 'insurgents' ? I'm sure if you asked Vladimir Puntin about the chezchens he has problems with he'd say they were terrorists/insurgents and in fact one of the main reasons Puntin gave his support for Bushes recent war mongering is becuase he would like support fighting chezchen terorrism in his own country.

This really annoys me.

[Burn]

Re: Does EA have a political Agenda?

Its just a game?

I wouldn't read to much in to it. Just relax and enjoy yourself.

[BeerStein]

Re: Does EA have a political Agenda?

Never thought of it that way - just thought of it as a game.

Maybe EA is out there for world domination through gaming. Next stop, they are going for Microsoft.

[BigFinger]

Re: Does EA have a political Agenda?

Maybe EA is out there for world domination through gaming.

Thats hardly a secret now is it ??

CHALLANGE EVERYTHING ??




.

[Warbird_7]

Re: Does EA have a political Agenda?

I agree with big_sammy; EA's choice of match-ups and nomenclature was poor. It is just a game, but it makes a disturbing allusion to certain world views...

[DimeBagWhore]

Re: Does EA have a political Agenda?

I think you have the connotations wrong. Insurgent is a neutral term. It just describes a particular way of fighting. Rebel is actually a slightly negative term, because it implies that the activilty is at least illegal (if not actually wrong). You are looking for bias where there is none.

As for the whole US, UK, Russia thing, the US and the UK have not fought a war since the war of 1812, and have been been been firm allies in war for nearly a century, whereas the both the US and the UK have fought numerous wars against Russia and Russian allies within the last centry. Although relations are friendly at the moment it is quite reasonable to think that things might not stay that way.

[big_sammy_b]

Re: Does EA have a political Agenda?

well i disagree on ur definitions there.

Rebels = Rebellion = rebeling against repression, which suggests they are some sort of 'freedom fighters'. Couple that with the fact that if you play as rebel you will be set as UK or USMC next round shows what EA sees the term as.

Insurgent you may well be right i certainly prefer the terms as apposed too terrorist (seeing as its a bit rich for a invading force to refer to the people trying to fight back as terrorists).

But all in all it does show political bias.

[MackTheKnifeAU]

Re: Does EA have a political Agenda?

I would belive that :

Insurgency = A "force" or group fighting an occupying power which is a "friend" of the person describing them. Obviously when someone who hates the Occupying power, it becomes something like "Freedom Fighter" or "The Resistance".

Rebel = A "force" of group fighting against the existing power\goverment, typically looking to overthrow the government. Eg Chechen Rebels, and maybe the IRA (I'm not certain about what happened there).

Both Rebel and Insurgent are pretty similar and often interchangable, and can become terrorist or freedom fighter depending on the beliefs of a person talking about them, EG a Jewish person would probably say the PLO are terrorists, but a Arab person might think they are freedom fighters. If someone invanded Ameica, people doing what the Iraqi Insurgents are doing now would be "The Resistance" to most westerners not "Terrorists".

Generally the difference is how MUCH a group can effect the governing power, an Insurgency would probably not be able or plan to overthrow and replace the current governement, whilst a Rebel would actively be trying to acheive this aim (IE in a rebellion, overthrowing the existing governement).

Example, the Insurgency in Iraq would almost certinaly not be able to overthrow the governing powers there, but simply want to cause as much damage, whilst Rebels like in many African, South Pacfic and South American countries can be fully fledged armies trying to overthrow the governemnt in power.

[BigFinger]

Re: Does EA have a political Agenda?

I think you have the connotations wrong. Insurgent is a neutral term. It just describes a particular way of fighting. Rebel is actually a slightly negative term, because it implies that the activilty is at least illegal (if not actually wrong). You are looking for bias where there is none.

As for the whole US, UK, Russia thing, the US and the UK have not fought a war since the war of 1812, and have been been been firm allies in war for nearly a century, whereas the both the US and the UK have fought numerous wars against Russia and Russian allies within the last centry. Although relations are friendly at the moment it is quite reasonable to think that things might not stay that way.

which war has the US fought against russia ?

lets also not forget the biggest market for this product... which is guess where ?

i would like too see a uk v russia us v russia and some european maps too

also what about some chinese spec forces with thier own equipment then ? what about the UN which draws from many countries and operates in many theatres.

the ausies would be a welcome addition to and give us some plausable pacific maps.

.

[big_sammy_b]

Re: Does EA have a political Agenda?

Rebel = A "force" of group fighting against the existing power\goverment, typically looking to overthrow the government. Eg Chechen Rebels, and maybe the IRA (I'm not certain about what happened there).

Thats the correct definition of a terrorist not a rebel. A terrorist cannot get its way democratically in a democratic country and so uses terror in order to force there beleifs on the rest of society. A Rebel is a force foighting aginst a governemnt/occupying power that has control of where they reside in non democratically.

[MackTheKnifeAU]

Re: Does EA have a political Agenda?

Thats the correct definition of a terrorist not a rebel. A terrorist cannot get its way democratically in a democratic country and so uses terror in order to force there beleifs on the rest of society. A Rebel is a force foighting aginst a governemnt/occupying power that has control of where they reside in non democratically.

Can a terrorist overthrow a government? Did Osama try to take over the government of the US? A Rebel is someone trying to overthrow a government. Insurgent\Terrorist is not trying to overthrow (unless something drastic happens), because they do not have the numbers and means to attempt a Coup.

Rebel = Someone fighting for a rebellion. Rebellion = Overthrowing an existing goverment, either in full (entire country) or in part of a country (people like Chechen Rebels, Basque Seperatists and the IRA).

Insurgent = Someone fighting to damage and attack a goverment\governing power.

Essentially, an Insurgent is someone fighting against a government\governing power using Guerilla Tactics and possibly Terrorist acts, because they lack the numbers and strength to perform a full blown coup\change of power.

[DimeBagWhore]

Re: Does EA have a political Agenda?

which war has the US fought against russia ?

The Cold War. Most of the actual fighting was done through proxies. The most notable direct engagement between US and Russian forces was in Korea.

Rebels = Rebellion = rebeling against repression

A rebel is just a member of a domestic force fighting against the established government, for whatever reason (good or bad) by whatever means (good or bad). Note the US Civil War as an example. If anything it was the rebels who were represive. They were fighting for the preservation and extention of slavery.

A terrorist is someone who uses particular methods. In fact the term "terrorism" was first applied to government agents in certain countries (notably Czarist Russia) who used assassination, abduction, murder, bombing, torture, and so on, to suppress unrest and uphold the government. It can be applied to anyone who uses violence with the primary aim of creating fear, rather than destroying or overpowering an opponent.

[ptegan]

Re: Does EA have a political Agenda?

sammy_b, how do you think it could have been done better?
Do you think it would be more fun to play is SAS/US/Russia were all on the same 'side' ?

[big_sammy_b]

Re: Does EA have a political Agenda?

i just think it should have consistancy. I think the use of the words rebels terrorists or insurgents should of been left out altogether.

And MackTheKnifeAU the IRA are the DEFINITIVE example of what a terrorist is. They are/were a criminal organisation attempting to force there beleifs on the rest of the kingdom non democratically. As the majority of people in the republic of Irland and in the Uinted Kingdom both disagree with there aims which is why they terrorise.

If they had support they wouldn't need to they would just run for governemnt and win.

[imported_Rafterman]

Re: Does EA have a political Agenda?

It's funny how in one post everyone is in agreement that EA is a bunch of smacktard idiots who can't do anything right, while in another they have a broadbased political agenda and are trying to force their views on the gaming world.

Maybe Halliburton will buy EA and we can really get the conspiracy nuts going.