Sign in to follow this  
cri74

Virkelige våpen i spill

Recommended Posts

gunsingames.jpg

EA har gitt respons på Danger Close og Medal of Honor Warfighter ved å trekke promoteringen og blogg innlegg fra den offisielle nettsiden til spillet, MOH Warfighter Tomahawk er dermed ikke til salgs gjennom nettsidene. Det hele startet med en pressemelding 13 Juni der EA forteller at de lanserer "Project Honor Initiative" som skal fungere som velferdighet til etterlatte familier av fallene elitesoldater. Dette er jo vel og bra, men det sto ingen ting om at de vil gå i partnerskap med våpenprodusenter og utstyrsfabrikanter.

moh1jpg.jpg

For kort tid tilbake promoterer Greg Goodrich (exec. producer MOH) våpen produsentene via en rekke blogg innlegg, som nå har blitt fjernet, og linker til bestillings sider der amerikanere kan få tilsendt våpenet til sin lokale våpenhandler. "Hele ide'en med dette prosjektet var å gå i partnerskap med produsentene for å være autentiske" forteller Goodrich på GamesCom.

Etter skytingen med "The Joker" i USA har dette vekket oppsikt da The Gameological Society begynte å skrive om våpen og spillprodusenter. Satt på spissen er det vel et moralsk spørsmål om spillets offisielle nettsider bør promotere våpenkjøp. Hva synes du om dette?

Alt er tydeligvis ikke fjernet for på MOH nettsiden kan man fortsatt lese om CS5 sniper rifla - en artikkel som heter "shoot to win".

Jeg ble litt nysgjerrig på autentisitet og realisme i spillet, så jeg fyret opp MOH som jeg kjøpte pga BF3 og begynte der jeg slapp sist jeg spilte. Jeg kunne ikke minnes at det var autentisk... men så har jeg aldri vært elitesoldat heller.

Vel.....Med så mange våpenprodusenter og FrostBite 2.. hva kan gå galt? Min innsats på slagmarken i det forrige spillet er jo upåklagelig og jeg følte at jeg virkelig at det betydde noe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tja hva skal man si, de spillene der som MOH og BF3 er bare arkadespill hvor du løper rundt og plaffer ned første fiende du ser. Skal man komme noe i nærheten av realisme så er det Arma 2 og Arma 3 som tilbyr det. Rimelig ille å si det men føler det er mer realisme i Counter-Strike: GO enn i BF3. Så ille føler jeg BF3 er.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MEH.

Dette havner under våpenimportlover/våpenløyver, som allerede burde være dekkende. I verste fall så kan man si at det er passelig teit å blande inn ekte våpen i et arkadespill som er til de grader molbo som MOH - men jeg sliter med å bry meg overhodet.

Ideen om at det skulle være moralske issues med dette ser jeg ikke. Man kjøper ikke et dataspill for å få seg et våpen. Man kjøper et våpen.

TLDR: Teit? JA. Galt? NEI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

En ting jeg ikke la merke til var at det er en afganer som er på lasteplanet på 1:35. Hva gjør han der?

Sikker noe realisme greier fra MOH... fienden er alltid nærmere en du tror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

En ting jeg ikke la merke til var at det er en afganer som er på lasteplanet på 1:35. Hva gjør han der?

Sikker noe realisme greier fra MOH... fienden er alltid nærmere en du tror.

De er allierte Cri. Det er sånn det er når man har interne stridigheter i et land. Spesialstyrker kriger sjelden alene. De mentorerer lokale styrker, som de så sloss sammen med. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ja, stemmer det.. ble lenge siden jeg spilte det spillet. Husker det når du sier det, det var jo Tier 1.

Så videoen igjen i forbindelse med "fredagsdiskusjonen" - natt til lørdag på teamspeak, gikk i litt forskjellig og blant annet realisme :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EA og Bell Helicopter går til rettssak i juni

Kort fortalt, så mener Bell Helicopter at EA sin fremstilling av helikoptre i Battlefield serien bryter med varemerket og lisensiering. Foruten om Medal of Honor, som brukte ekte lisenser av våpen og våpenprodusenter som en diskutabel markedskampanje, så har hittil ingen spill hatt lisensierings rettigheter for våpen i spill. I følge rettseksperter så har det heller ikke vært en rettssak der en våpenprodusent saksøker en spillprodusent, så en slik sak kan bli ganske interessant og kan sette presidens for andre saker i fremtiden. I flere spill blir derimot våpen brukt og vist frem som om de var ekte, i alle fall i den virtuelle verdenen. I Call of Duty for eksempel så blir varemerket til Colt vist frem under lade animasjonen på M1911. Våpenprodusenter har tidligere sett dette som en slags gratis reklame, på lik linje med for eksempel Coca Cola og at dems produkt blir brukt i filmer. Men en sak som denne kan forandre på dette og muligvis lisensiering av ekte våpen som virtuelle våpen.

Mer om vold-spill og våpen, og reaksjoner på skoleskytingene + samfunnsdebatt her

May 7 (Reuters) - In the midst of the bitter national debate on gun violence, gun manufacturers and videogame makers are delicately navigating one of the more peculiar relationships in American business.

Violent "first-person shooter" games such as "Call of Duty" are the bread and butter of leading video game publishers, and authenticity all but requires that they feature brand-name weapons.

Electronic Arts licensed weapons from companies like McMillan Group International as part of a marketing collaboration for "Medal of Honor: Warfighter." Activision Blizzard gives "special thanks" to Colt, Barrett and Remington in the credits for its "Call of Duty" titles.

Rifles by Bushmaster, which made the gun used in the Newtown, Connecticut school shooting last December, have appeared in the hugely popular "Call of Duty."

Yet, in the wake of the Newtown shooting, the biggest advocate for gun ownership, the National Rifle Association, took aim at videogames to explain gun violence. One week after 20 schoolchildren and six adults were killed in the shooting, NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre called the videogame industry "a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people."

Now at least one game maker, the second largest by revenue in the United States, is publicly distancing itself from the gun industry, even as it finds ways to keep the branded guns in the games. Electronic Arts says it is severing its licensing ties to gun manufacturers - and simultaneously asserting that it has the right, and the intention, to continue to feature branded guns without a license.

For the gunmakers, having their products in games is "free marketing, just like having Coca-Cola" in a movie, said Roxanne Christ, a partner at Latham & Watkins LLP in Los Angeles, who works with video game companies on licensing, but has not personally done a gun deal.

Yet it is also a virtual double-edged sword. "It gives publicity to the particular brand of gun being used in the video game," said Brad J. Bushman, a professor at Ohio State University who has studied video game violence. "On the other hand, it's linking that gun with violent and aggressive behavior."

Gun makers, including the Freedom Group that owns brands like Remington and Bushmaster, and the NRA, did not respond to repeated requests for comment from Reuters.

'ENHANCED AUTHENTICITY'

First-person shooter games let players blast their way through battlefields while looking down the barrel of a virtual gun, taking aim with the flick of a controller. Some of those guns - like the Colt M1911 pistol in "Call of Duty" - turn sideways to face the screen during reloading, revealing the brand name. Games also offer lists of branded weapons to choose from.

Licensed images of weapons in "Medal of Honor: Warfighter" - a game that simulates military missions like fighting pirates in Somalia - offer what EA spokesman Jeff Brown calls "enhanced authenticity."

Back in the late 90's, video game makers initially approached gun companies for licenses to inoculate themselves from potential lawsuits, video game industry lawyers say. Over the years, legal clearances were granted for little or no money by gunmakers, these lawyers said.

Yet overt signs of cooperation between the video game and gun industries had begun to draw criticism even before the December school shooting in Connecticut.

In August, game fans and some video game news outlets vehemently objected to EA putting links to weapons companies like the McMillan Group and gun magazine maker Magpul, where gamers could check out real versions of weapons featured in the game, on its "Medal of Honor: Warfighter" game website.

"What kind of message is a video game publisher like EA sending when it encourages its players to buy weapons?" asked Laura Parker, the associate editor of gaming site GameSpot Australia in a post in August.

EA immediately removed the links and dropped the marketing tie-up, which it said was part of a charity project to raise money for military veterans. The company said it received no money from its gun company partners.

"We won't do that again," said Brown. "The action games we will release this year will not include licensed images of weapons."

EA said politics and NRA comments critical of game makers had nothing to do with its decision. "The response from our audience was pretty clear: they feel the comments from the NRA were a simple attempt to change the subject," Brown said.

EA also says video game makers can have branded guns in their games without getting licenses, meaning the industry could drop the gun companies and keep their guns.

Activision, the industry leader, declined to comment on whether it licenses gun designs from gun manufacturers or if it would stop doing so. Branded guns have consistently been featured in its blockbuster shooter games like the decade-old "Call of Duty."

"We're telling a story and we have a point of view," EA's President of Labels Frank Gibeau, who leads product development of EA's biggest franchises, said in an interview. "A book doesn't pay for saying the word 'Colt,' for example."

Put another way, EA is asserting a constitutional free speech right to use trademarks without permission in its ever-more-realistic games.

Legal experts say there isn't a single case so far where gun companies have sued video game companies for using branded guns without a license. But EA's legal theory is now being tested in court. Aircraft maker Bell Helicopter, a unit of Textron Inc, has argued that Electronic Arts' depiction of its helicopters in "Battlefield" was beyond fair use and amounted to a trademark infringement. EA preemptively went to court, suing Bell Helicopter to settle the issue.

The U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, has set a jury trial for the case in June.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this