Does EA have a political Agenda?

[big_sammy_b]

Re: Does EA have a political Agenda?

lol!

I don't think for a minute it was intentional or anything.

Its jsut a little ignorant and poorly thought out. With somthing like a video game i think its important to be completely neutral with such matters, which is better for EA afterall beecause they want to be popular with as many people as possible and sell more games.

[Flipya54]

Re: Does EA have a political Agenda?

EA's choice of match-ups and nomenclature was poor.

Nice word, one of my favourites... I don't recall ever seeing it on a game-forum...

[[3SA]D|Sgt.Colinloves]

Re: Does EA have a political Agenda?

With somthing like a video game i think its important to be completely neutral with such matters,

Well that dont happen, does it?


UK Vs USA. would of been good.

[dirtylarryuk]

Re: Does EA have a political Agenda?

lol!

I don't think for a minute it was intentional or anything.

Its jsut a little ignorant and poorly thought out. With somthing like a video game i think its important to be completely neutral with such matters, which is better for EA afterall beecause they want to be popular with as many people as possible and sell more games.

EA or DICE could have decided on the "team" match ups, gott say as someone with an IQ larger than 12, the match ups are at best "poor taste".

But the same can be said on the "john Woo" voilence of the game, no limbs blood, heads getting blown of, just "John woo" style physics and dust hits. All fun but you do wonder if it should be more realistic.

The advertising campaign for BF:Modern combat was poor taste.

Larry

[The Question]

Re: Does EA have a political Agenda?

Rebels are not always the good guys. Rebels are just people who do not like the current order.

[big_sammy_b]

Re: Does EA have a political Agenda?

well all i can say is when i think of the word 'rebels' i can't help thinking about the original star wars movies.

And obviously the rebels were meant to be the good guys fighting a non democratic repressive dictatership in those movies.

[The Question]

Re: Does EA have a political Agenda?

I have nothing against Russia as long as they provide my fish eggs.

[imported_DigitalSPG]

Re: Does EA have a political Agenda?

Hollywood have been doing this kind of thing for decades. In-particular showing the Americans as the saviours of the world and hugely over inflating their role in major conflicts. This is often at the expense of historical fact, U571 is a prime example of this. The simple reason for this is that the US market is massive and for a film to do well in the States it has to be patriotic and show the US in a good light. It is therefore logical that this ideology is being passed on to the gaming industry. It is all very subtle and you only notice it if you look for it, but then that's how propaganda works.

Also they do have to be politically sensitive, there is still a war going on in which US Forces are getting killed, just look at todays headlines . I think that is why Al-Qaeda are not a force in BF2, that would be too close to reality and the press could make an issue of American teenagers playing as al-Qaeda terrorists and killing marines. Remember the BF series is a huge money spinner for EA and if it is not presented in the right way it could be very costly to them.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Re: Does EA have a political Agenda?

this is how it goes

MEC SF = team 1

Insurgents = team 1

Russians (on the map Mass destruction and Ghost Town) = team 1

Rebels (on the map Surge) = team 1


SAS, SEALS are always team 2, and the russians and rebels are team 2 on a map each.

[MackTheKnifeAU]

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.

What is your point? I never said they did'nt use terrorist acts. I really fail to see what point you have at all.

To others, why is it "poorly thought out"? The people fighting against the SAS and Seals are usually Insurgents, and the People fighting against the russians are rebels. The russians are probably fighting on base their country "owns", against forces trying to overthrow the goverment of that particular area and replace it with their own (rebellion), whilst the SAS\Seals are fighting smaller groups that are not trying to overthrow a government and replace it with their own, but cause terror in the population there, and fight the invading forces (insurgency).

The current names are as "un-political" as you can get. No specific groups are named, just a general name and "theme" for the 2 groups.

Do you have something else to call them? And does it really matter?

[WarGimp]

Re: Does EA have a political Agenda?

I don't think for a minute it was intentional or anything.

Its jsut a little ignorant and poorly thought out. With somthing like a video game i think its important to be completely neutral with such matters, which is better for EA afterall beecause they want to be popular with as many people as possible and sell more games.

They have to cater to the market. Unfortunatly, that means playing to the lowest common denominator. Thus, "media-hype" invades BF2.

The glorification of the term "insurgent" is just another way that mass media and spin doctors villify the enemy. By making the term popular, it makes the people that are being killed seem less human. They're just insurgents, after all. Never mind that they are fighting for their beliefs and their way of life (reguardless of the moral judgments we place upon them).

Check it out:

in·sur·gent
1. a person who rises in revolt against civil authority or an established government; especially : one not recognized as a belligerent
2. one that acts contrary to the established leadership (as of a political party, union, or corporation) or its decisions and policies

re·bel
1. To refuse allegiance to and oppose by force an established government or ruling authority.
2. To resist or defy an authority or a generally accepted convention.
3. To feel or express strong unwillingness or repugnance: She rebelled at the unwelcome suggestion.

Sounds like the same damned thing to me.

[Flipya54]

Re: Does EA have a political Agenda?

I think you have the connotations wrong. You are looking for bias where there is none.

Ah even more pretty words!!!

:banana: I LOVE this thread :banana:

[s|k]

Re: Does EA have a political Agenda?

lol!

I don't think for a minute it was intentional or anything.

Its jsut a little ignorant and poorly thought out. With somthing like a video game i think its important to be completely neutral with such matters, which is better for EA afterall beecause they want to be popular with as many people as possible and sell more games.

Yes well I don't think it's biased, it's just the popular names of the groups in the media. Now if they had named the Russians 'Death Squads' instead of Spetsnaz, the insurgents 'Murderous Villains,' the Seals as 'Conquering Heros,' the Rebels as 'Triumphant Champions,' and the SAS as 'Proud Liberators,' then yes you'd have a point.

[noobeffect]

Re: Does EA have a political Agenda?

EA didn't choose them out of randomness. The conflict is supposed to take place around 2007, so EA's creatin of the MEC shouldn't have surprised anyone.