Game scenarios - real world or fictional?

sliabh

There was a comment over on one of the site threads about using real world countries/agencies for game scenarios. I know from other discussions here that this has been a sensitive subject in the past.

In general what are people's opinions about the use of real world situations, country names, organisations etc. for game scenarios? Should it always be avoided because of the risk of controversy, or is "real world" better for immersion?

I know some subjects are too hot to touch, but for example: would a game set in Afghanistan where one side play as the Taliban be inappropriate?

What do people think?

Airsoft Reloded

sliabh wrote: »

There was a comment over on one of the site threads about using real world countries/agencies for game scenarios. I know from other discussions here that this has been a sensitive subject in the past.

In general what are people's opinions about the use of real world situations, country names, organisations etc. for game scenarios? Should it always be avoided because of the risk of controversy, or is "real world" better for immersion?

I know some subjects are too hot to touch, but would a game set in Afghanistan where one side play as the Taliban be inappropriate?

What do people think?

I'm assuming an afghan person over here would have feelings about an afghan milsim and obviously the same for someone of a different nationality if they were to see a game based on their country.

I think Dave is right that it is better avoided, no need for it anyway.

Hivemind187

Cowardice and censorship raises its ugly head again I see.

Look, the simple fact is that no matter what we do there is someone, somewhere that will find the content, activities or pursuit of our own freedom of expression offensive. It is no better than the mentality of those who demanded airsoft be banned because it encourages violence or glorifies guns etc.

Take this to the logical extent and see where it goes. Films about Iraq and Afghanistan? Banned. Vietnam? Banned. Video games where terrorists or the FBI or the CIA etc are mentioned or alluded to? Banned. Does this make sense?

The truth is that people who make calls for "realistic scenario's" to be taken out of airsoft (or movies, games etc) are making one of two fatal errors. Either they are getting offended on someone elses behalf for a perceived slight which has no bearing or effect on them directly or they are terrified of people having any form of knowledge in a specific regard. More often than not it is the former.

To those that say "we dont need it" you obviously have a short memory because thats the same spurious line of attack that was used by the likes of McManus and Joe Duffy to attack airsoft on grounds of realism.

Airsoft Reloded

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Cowardice and censorship raises its ugly head again I see.

To those that say "we dont need it" you obviously have a short memory because thats the same spurious line of attack that was used by the likes of McManus and Joe Duffy to attack airsoft on grounds of realism.

Cowardice and censorship?

I was thinking more along the lines of common decency really, why not do an Omagh game? I'm assuming if we did there would be a few that would be offended or just not like it, now whatever about freedom of speech. You can say what you want but that doesn't mean you have to bring things like that up.

You can have a game and just call one team the terrorists (or attackers, green team) and so on, calling them a certain organization doesn't give the game any more or less realism so why bother and risk offending someone (because we can is no reason).

Hivemind187

Airsoft Reloded wrote: »

Cowardice and censorship?

I was thinking more along the lines of common decency really, why not do an Omagh game? I'm assuming if we did there would be a few that would be offended or just not like it, now whatever about freedom of speech. You can say what you want but that doesn't mean you have to bring things like that up.

You can have a game and just call one team the terrorists (or attackers, green team) and so on, calling them a certain organization doesn't give the game any more or less realism so why bother and risk offending someone (because we can is no reason).

*checks dictionary* Yeah, cowardice was definitely the right word.

Films, tv shows, books - all fiction have been produced mentioning or been directly about the Omagh bombing. Why should airsoft be any different?

I'll give you an example. Which is the more immersive?

On the one hand you have a game where one side wears black and the other wears green. One side is called "attackers" the other is called "defenders".

Or

One team is permitted to dress in regional garb, a combination of uniforms and light robes. They are the "Taliban", the "Mujaheddin". They have a unified appearance, a name, an identity in which they can invest some emotional content.

More to the point - what do we usually call the "good guys" in any game? NATO? The USMC? Delta? Notice how our cultural identity influences who we see as the good guys and how we assume that using these titles is not going to offend?

Removing colour and texture from games, from scenarios etc just to prevent a minority from being offended (for no good reason I might add) is unreasonable and amounts to nothing less than cowardice and hypocrisy.

I take issue with your implication that such things are added to games simply to offend (by the way). Straw man arguing at it's usual best. The reason that elements of reality are included in a game is to make the suspension of disbelief easier. Implying that freedom of speech and expression is little more than an excuse for developers and writers to deliberately annoy or offend people betrays a fundamental flaw in your reasoning and in your approach to airsoft - that you think airsoft is offensive and needs to cover up and hide away.

fayer

Airsoft Reloded wrote: »

Cowardice and censorship?

I was thinking more along the lines of common decency really, why not do an Omagh game? I'm assuming if we did there would be a few that would be offended or just not like it, now whatever about freedom of speech. You can say what you want but that doesn't mean you have to bring things like that up.

You can have a game and just call one team the terrorists (or attackers, green team) and so on, calling them a certain organization doesn't give the game any more or less realism so why bother and risk offending someone (because we can is no reason).

+1

Hive you need to state your other interests and bias as a Journalist in this debate.

In the larger context I think real world games could work but 2 factors put me off, 1) trusting the site owners not to come up with a game that is a copy of a current genocide (has happened), 2) Airsoft in Ireland dose not need negative attention on any kind, its a simple thing to avoid real world games in the interest of prosperity of the sport.

gerrowadat

Practicing defending a base against the insidious forces of Benny Lava: OK.

Practicing being the IRA or the Viper's gang defending a drugs stash versus the Irish Army ranger wing : Whoops, sorry, that could be for a real event, hand over the brappers and there's a fella called Joe on the phone for you (Also you're under arrest under section 15 of the offences against the state act).

J.D.R

I think it woiuld seem cool to do the total immersion, but it would offend some people. So, instead of calling them the Nato/ Delta -v- the Taliban/Mujahadeen, just get rid of the names, and your sorted. Use the same ROE's and Equipment/ Getup, but without the names.

Hivemind187

fayer wrote: »

+1

Hive you need to state your other interests and bias as a Journalist in this debate.

In the larger context I think real world games could work but 2 factors put me off, 1) trusting the site owners not to come up with a game that is a copy of a current genocide (has happened), 2) Airsoft in Ireland dose not need negative attention on any kind, its a simple thing to avoid real world games in the interest of prosperity of the sport.

My "other interests" and "bias"?

Ok, here's my CV with relation to this;

Founder member of the IAA.
Wrote original consitution of the IAA.
Wrote original code of conduct for the IAA.
Wrote almost every element of paperwork and policy of hte IAA between 2006 and 2008.
Wrote various.
Dropped out of journalism in 2003 due to financial problems.
Wrote a couple of articles for Airsoft International.
Developed the Rules Of Engagement Rule Set.
Wrote and ran a number of successful games for both HRTA and Rules of Engagement.

I think I covered most of the important elements but I'm sure I'll be reminded of the ones I have missed - it's not like they are a secret.

Now, allow me to restate my point.

Any form of censorship in relation to the content of airsoft games fundamentally undermines the sport as a whole. Selling out the freedom to pursue the sport in its entirety for the short term political gain of not offending the "victim of the week" myopic.

We - as in airsoft as a whole - have been told over and over "You dont need realistic equipment" or "you dont need realistic uniforms". Time and again we answered the critics with the same - cast iron points - 1) Yes we do - they aid in the willing suspension of disbelief and 2) We are doing nothing illegal, nothing immoral and nothing unethical - why should we change what we do in private to appease those who never see or take part in it?

There is no justifiable answer or position that you can take that supports censorship of content.

fayer

Hivemind187 wrote: »

My "other interests" and "bias"?

Ok, here's my CV with relation to this;

Founder member of the IAA.
Wrote original consitution of the IAA.
Wrote original code of conduct for the IAA.
Wrote almost every element of paperwork and policy of hte IAA between 2006 and 2008.
Wrote various.
Dropped out of journalism in 2003 due to financial problems.
Wrote a couple of articles for Airsoft International.
Developed the Rules Of Engagement Rule Set.
Wrote and ran a number of successful games for both HRTA and Rules of Engagement.

I think I covered most of the important elements but I'm sure I'll be reminded of the ones I have missed - it's not like they are a secret.

Now, allow me to restate my point.

Any form of censorship in relation to the content of airsoft games fundamentally undermines the sport as a whole. Selling out the freedom to pursue the sport in its entirety for the short term political gain of not offending the "victim of the week" myopic.

We - as in airsoft as a whole - have been told over and over "You dont need realistic equipment" or "you dont need realistic uniforms". Time and again we answered the critics with the same - cast iron points - 1) Yes we do - they aid in the willing suspension of disbelief and 2) We are doing nothing illegal, nothing immoral and nothing unethical - why should we change what we do in private to appease those who never see or take part in it?

There is no justifiable answer or position that you can take that supports censorship of content.

Didnt you also have a short stint in Spar?

Airsoft Reloded

Hivemind187 wrote: »

*checks dictionary* Yeah, cowardice was definitely the right word.

Dictionary:
lack of courage to face danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc

Where in my post did I say that I am afraid (or lack the courage) to face these things? To say that I don't want to offend someone is being a coward, what dictionary are you reading?

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Films, tv shows, books - all fiction have been produced mentioning or been directly about the Omagh bombing. Why should airsoft be any different?

Because airsoft is a sport and not a descriptive commentary or anything of that sort.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I'll give you an example. Which is the more immersive?

On the one hand you have a game where one side wears black and the other wears green. One side is called "attackers" the other is called "defenders".

Or

One team is permitted to dress in regional garb, a combination of uniforms and light robes. They are the "Taliban", the "Mujaheddin". They have a unified appearance, a name, an identity in which they can invest some emotional content.

It is exactly the emotional content (or more accurately the response) that I would try to avoid (but hay I guess being considerate is considered cowardice in your mind) also you can still have teams dress in different garb and give them cool names without them being based in reality.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

More to the point - what do we usually call the "good guys" in any game? NATO? The USMC? Delta? Notice how our cultural identity influences who we see as the good guys and how we assume that using these titles is not going to offend?

Removing colour and texture from games, from scenarios etc just to prevent a minority from being offended (for no good reason I might add) is unreasonable and amounts to nothing less than cowardice and hypocrisy.

How dare we think of the minority, thank god you don't rule a country. Also a lot of people wouldn't see the above as the good guys and who said I assume that they don't offend?

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I take issue with your implication that such things are added to games simply to offend (by the way). Straw man arguing at it's usual best. The reason that elements of reality are included in a game is to make the suspension of disbelief easier. Implying that freedom of speech and expression is little more than an excuse for developers and writers to deliberately annoy or offend people betrays a fundamental flaw in your reasoning and in your approach to airsoft - that you think airsoft is offensive and needs to cover up and hide away.

I obviously don't think airsoft should be hidden (the implication is idiotic) and I never implied anything of the sort, I simply said doing so just because we can without thought of the repercussions or implications to others is both negligent and unthoughtfull (but again we are back to being cowards I guess), I actually didn't say that but sure I am now.

Airsoft Reloded

Hivemind187 wrote: »

My "other interests" and "bias"?

Ok, here's my CV with relation to this;

Founder member of the IAA.
Wrote original consitution of the IAA.
Wrote original code of conduct for the IAA.
Wrote almost every element of paperwork and policy of hte IAA between 2006 and 2008.
Wrote various.
Dropped out of journalism in 2003 due to financial problems.
Wrote a couple of articles for Airsoft International.
Developed the Rules Of Engagement Rule Set.
Wrote and ran a number of successful games for both HRTA and Rules of Engagement.

I think I covered most of the important elements but I'm sure I'll be reminded of the ones I have missed - it's not like they are a secret.

I bow down to your deadliness

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Now, allow me to restate my point.

Any form of censorship in relation to the content of airsoft games fundamentally undermines the sport as a whole. Selling out the freedom to pursue the sport in its entirety for the short term political gain of not offending the "victim of the week" myopic.

Airsoft isn't about the re-enactment of historical battles though.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

We - as in airsoft as a whole - have been told over and over "You dont need realistic equipment" or "you dont need realistic uniforms". Time and again we answered the critics with the same - cast iron points - 1) Yes we do - they aid in the willing suspension of disbelief and 2) We are doing nothing illegal, nothing immoral and nothing unethical - why should we change what we do in private to appease those who never see or take part in it?

There is no justifiable answer or position that you can take that supports censorship of content.

It can hurt peoples' feelings isn't a good enough answer for you not to do something that is of no benefit to you anyway?

Hivemind187

Airsoft Reloded wrote: »

lack of courage to face danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc

Where in my post did I say that I am afraid to face these things? To say that I don't want to offend someone is being a coward?

The middle two. You are avoiding a perceived difficulty and opposition by deliberately omitting content where it is not actually necessary. Your option is to stand your ground and say "hang on mate, I'm not actually trying to deliberately offend you - I suggest if you are that peaved you should look somewere else rather than this private venue for a game people play by choice".

Airsoft Reloded wrote: »

Because airsoft is a sport not a descriptive commentary or anything of that sort.

Never said it was. However if you really want to pretend that there isnt an element of roleplay and storytelling involved be my guest. Though I'm pretty sure I'm not along in saying you may have missed the point a little.

Allegory and reference to reality are two key elements of storytelling and adding flavour to a scenario.

Airsoft Reloded wrote: »

It is exactly the emotional content (or more accurately the response) that I would try to avoid (but hay I guess being considerate is considered cowardice in your mind)

Straw man. My argument was for the very real emotional content in the player not the potential emotional reaction of a minority of people who would need to be actively looking to get offended.

Airsoft Reloded wrote: »

How dare we think of the minority thank god you don't rule a country.

I know. It would be a democracy. Just imagine how terrible that would be.

Airsoft Reloded wrote: »

I obviously don't think airsoft should be hidden (the implication is idiotic) and I never implied anything of the sort, I simply said doing so just because we can without thought of the repercussions or implications to others is both neglegent and unthoughtfull (but again we are back to being cowards I guess), I actually didn't say that but sure I am now.

Actually you did.

Put simply, you imply that there is something to hide, that airsoft has an element in its essential character that needs to be masked and dis-associated from things like war, tyranny and other bad things in the world because to include these elements somehow reveals this sordid secret. I am saying precisely the opposite, airsoft has nothing to hide and in having nothing to hide it should be completely unafraid of its content - just as tv, films and perhaps more related, video games are.

I challenge you to make one cogent argument which supports the position of deliberate content censorship wherein the content is not intended to deliberately antagonise or insult a specific group or people.

Hivemind187

fayer wrote: »

Didnt you also have a short stint in Spar?

No.

I did three months in Tesco when I was 16.

Hivemind187

Airsoft Reloded wrote: »

I bow down to your deadliness

Are you going to blow raspberries and threaten to steal my milk money too?

Airsoft Reloded wrote: »

Airsoft isn't about the re-enactment of historical battles though.

A quick leaf through Airsoft International or any one of a dozen other national or international magazines would show you to be utterly and devastatingly wrong on that score.

Airsoft Reloded wrote: »

It can hurt peoples' feelings isn't a good enough answer for you not to do something that is of no benefit to you anyway?

Straw man again.

I established how it is a benefit.

Please establish - if you can - how you can avoid hurting anyones feelings. Seriously ... I'm not just asking for myself but for the UN and ACLU and a bunch of other people who have been trying to figure that one out for the last 60 years.

Hivemind187

gerrowadat wrote: »

Practicing defending a base against the insidious forces of Benny Lava: OK.

Practicing being the IRA or the Viper's gang defending a drugs stash versus the Irish Army ranger wing : Whoops, sorry, that could be for a real event, hand over the brappers and there's a fella called Joe on the phone for you (Also you're under arrest under section 15 of the offences against the state act).

From Article 40.6.1. The Irish constitution.

i. The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.
The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.

ii. The right of the citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms.
Provision may be made by law to prevent or control meetings which are determined in accordance with law to be calculated to cause a breach of the peace or to be a danger or nuisance to the general public and to prevent or control meetings in the vicinity of either House of the Oireachtas.

iii. The right of the citizens to form associations and unions.


Pretty sure that's the content of any FICTIONAL PASSTIME protected.

Freedom of expression (check)
Freedom of assembly (check)
No weapons (check)
No intent to engage in a breach of the peace (check)
Private (check).
Ireland is currently not at war with anyone and no state of emergency is in force ... (check).

Yep, were pretty much safe.

Fireborn

If the original acts are embarrasing (for want of a better word) controversial enough to require this type of debate about their recollection, shouldn't you be more concerned about stopping said acts from happening in the first place?

Airsoft Reloded

Lets stop multi quoting (its hard on the eyes).

Right now, I agree that there can be an added bit of buzz in games with realism but my point is that you can just as easily get that from the likes of MACs' story based game in which there are pro and anti state forces of an imaginary state, your are there by getting the buzz without the risk of insulting or otherwise hurting other peoples' feelings. Why if you can have that extra "bit" of buzz without the risk would you not do so? Its not about standing ground.

(your points)

1, What does blow raspberries mean lol and why would I threaten to steal your milk money?

2, AI is a terrible mag (in my opinion obviously)

3, I have explained how it is not

There are elements of roleplay but not neccessarily of real world figures, reference to reality can be saying terrorist instead of Bush.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

"Straw man. My argument was for the very real emotional content in the player not the potential emotional reaction of a minority of people who would need to be actively looking to get offended."

Thats why I said: "(or more accurately bla bla)"

Granted the majority rule and all that but why completely ignore the wishes or the worries/feelings/customs of the others?

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Actually you did.

Put simply, you imply that there is something to hide, that airsoft has an element in its essential character that needs to be masked and dis-associated from things like war, tyranny and other bad things in the world because to include these elements somehow reveals this sordid secret. I am saying precisely the opposite, airsoft has nothing to hide and in having nothing to hide it should be completely unafraid of its content - just as tv, films and perhaps more related, video games are.

I challenge you to make one cogent argument which supports the position of deliberate content censorship wherein the content is not intended to deliberately antagonise or insult a specific group or people.

I said nothing of the sort about airsoft, I challenge you to provide proof of such statements.
Video games do on the oft get banned you know.

Lets say an attack on a British patrol in the north, the heroic IRA kills many invading Brits OR lets say a horrific terrorist incident in which many loyal and brave soldiers were gunned down by cowardly (and by coward I mean afraid of stuff not thoughtful ofcourse) insurgents. Now the creator of such a game could say I think that this is a good story line (and he would be correct) but that is sure to seriously upset people.

Now, if you can state one point to me to disprove anything I've said I will retract it but lets not just keep slinging back and forth useless statements like "I challenge you this and that", the debate is about wether or not its a good idea to have real life people or organizations depicted in airsoft games and so far the majority say no (by your logic we should ignore you)

P.S sorry about the multi quote, it couldn't be avoided.

Airsoft Reloded

Why are you quoting that? (never mind I just read the above post)

Hivemind187 wrote: »

From Article 40.6.1. The Irish constitution.

i. The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.
The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.

ii. The right of the citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms.
Provision may be made by law to prevent or control meetings which are determined in accordance with law to be calculated to cause a breach of the peace or to be a danger or nuisance to the general public and to prevent or control meetings in the vicinity of either House of the Oireachtas.

iii. The right of the citizens to form associations and unions.


Pretty sure that's the content of any FICTIONAL PASSTIME protected.

Freedom of expression (check)
Freedom of assembly (check)
No weapons (check)
No intent to engage in a breach of the peace (check)
Private (check).
Ireland is currently not at war with anyone and no state of emergency is in force ... (check).

Yep, were pretty much safe.

Puding

this debate i think is only just behind that of acu and multicam in reaccuring again and again

right this is going to be a bit random but a few things i wanted to say

Airsoft isn't about the re-enactment of historical battles though.

wow that umm rather wrong, please visit any international forum or magazine and historical and modern reenactment is a major sorry massive area of airsoft in the res of the world it is only in ireland a couple of other countrys where this realism is in the minority

it all comes down to the gamer/player or sport/hobby debate round and round we go where we stop no one know :rolleyes:

http://www.arniesairsoft.co.uk/forums/index.php?showforum=57
http://www.ww2airsoft.org.uk/
http://www.gunmanairsoft.co.uk/
http://vietnamairsoft.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=298&view=previous
http://www.stirlingairsoft.com/
Tour of duty series

As some examples of real world themed events

Know by its nature airsoft is controversial fact. The very act of running around a field playing with replica firearms will offend some.

With anything like this be it events or impressions it comes down to intent, am i going out to cause controversy ? with everything you do you have to have knowledge and respect for what your doing.

Airsoft Reloded

Puding wrote: »

this debate i think is only just behind that of acu and multicam in reaccuring again and again

right this is going to be a bit random but a few things i wanted to say



wow that umm rather wrong, please visit any international forum or magazine and historical and modern reenactment is a major sorry massive area of airsoft in the res of the world it is only in ireland a couple of other countrys where this realism is in the minority

it all comes down to the gamer/player or sport/hobby debate round and round we go where we stop no one know :rolleyes:

http://www.arniesairsoft.co.uk/forums/index.php?showforum=57
http://www.ww2airsoft.org.uk/
http://www.gunmanairsoft.co.uk/
http://vietnamairsoft.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=298&view=previous
http://www.stirlingairsoft.com/
Tour of duty series

As some examples of real world themed events

Know by its nature airsoft is controversial fact. The very act of running around a field playing with replica firearms will offend some.

With anything like this be it events or impressions it comes down to intent, am i going out to cause controversy ? with everything you do you have to have knowledge and respect for what your doing.

I haven't denied that Airsoft can have games where you imitate others or actual world events, what I said was its not what airsoft is about. Just because events of this nature happen doesn't mean they are what define airsoft.

Puding

I haven't denied that Airsoft can have games where you imitate others or actual world events, what I said was its not what airsoft is about.

to me that statement contradicts itself, that is your own view and for me tbh very narrow

Just because events of this nature happen doesn't mean they are what define airsoft

and my point is that to me and for a lot of people that is 100% airsoft, each to there own

J.D.R

Hey look, driving your car is about racing.

http://www.nascar.com/
www.formula1.com/
http://dirtderby.com/
http://www.rallyireland.org/


ANything can have many different uses.

sliabh

Airsoft Reloded wrote: »

Video games do on the oft get banned you know.

To be fair that is usually because of content (sex, violence) rather than storyline. Off the top of my head I can't think of one. Outside of the likes of Germany where there are specific laws about certain topics.

Airsoft Reloded

Puding wrote: »

to me that statement contradicts itsel, that is your own view and for me tbh very narrow



and my point is that to me and for a lot of people that is 100% airsoft, each to there own

To me your view is narrow (if your view is that airsoft is about those sort of events), what about: Sunday skirmishes, organized competitions, themed events of a fictional nature? My point is that there are several different styles to airsoft so it is incorrect to say that it is about one or the other and THAT infact would be your view.

Oh and how does that statement contradict itslef?

Puding

J.D.R wrote: »

Hey look, driving your car is about racing.

http://www.nascar.com/
www.formula1.com/
http://dirtderby.com/
http://www.rallyireland.org/


ANything can have many different uses.

i agree fully, my post was an answer to the statement that 'Airsoft isn't about the re-enactment of historical battles though. '

and as i said

it all comes down to the gamer/player or sport/hobby debate round and round we go where we stop no one know

there is room for all areas in airsoft, i can not stand competitive airsoft but i never said it should not be played

what is the quote ' i do not agree with what you say, but i will defend your right to say it'

Airsoft Reloded

sliabh wrote: »

To be fair that is usually because of content (sex, violence) rather than storyline. Off the top of my head I can't think of one. Outside of the likes of Germany where there are specific laws about certain topics.

My point was that games sometimes get banned but point taken.

Puding

To me your view is narrow

agree, but nether are wrong and both have there place, i was simply offering the counter point to your argument by providing evidence that there area a lot of people involved in this area of the hobby

Airsoft Reloded

Puding wrote: »

agree, but nether are wrong and both have there place, i was simply offering the counter point to your argument by providing evidence that there area a lot of people involved in this area of the hobby

Granted and apoligies if my answer came off as abrupt.

In my view the real world events are not needed (because you can do the same events with "fictional" characters or organisations) and can be needlessly controversial is all I'm trying to say.

sliabh

Airsoft Reloded wrote: »

Sunday skirmishes, organized competitions, themed events of a fictional nature? My point is that there are several different styles to airsoft

I fully agree with that, and I don't want this to be a mil-sim vs speed-soft type discussion. I am interested in seeing what people think is appropriate in terms of storyline for any type of game.

Thinking back on the three mil-sims I played in at HRTA two were real world (SAM hunting in Iraq, terrorists in LA) and one was fictional (Jebrovia).

Considering your strong views on the subject Hivemind, why did you go for a fictional country for the ROE series?

J.D.R

The point I was trying to make is thatm trying to define an activity to one thing is useless. Some use airsoft to re-enact battles, others use it to socialise, others use it for the chance to shoot their friends. The definition of airsoft isn't what you play, airsoft is the playing. Simple as

I say we should allow the use of it to allow realism into certain events. Not for the justice of free speece, or anything that has been said so far, but for the simple reason that the only way for things to grow is to do new things. its all well and good trying to test a theory on an internet Forum, but until you get out into a SIte and do it for real, we will not know if it works.

Airsoft Reloded

sliabh wrote: »

I fully agree with that, and I don't want this to be a mil-sim vs speed-soft type discussion. I am interested in seeing what people think is appropriate in terms of storyline for any type of game.

Thinking back on the three mil-sims I played in at HRTA two were real world (SAM hunting in Iraq, terrorists in LA) and one was fictional (Jebrovia).

Considering your strong views on the subject Hivemind, why did you go for a fictional country for the ROE series?

Yeah Hivemind lol.

Puding

In my view the real world events are not needed (because you can do the same events with "fictional" characters or organisations) and can be needlessly contraversial is all I'm trying to say.

a fair point and if people just use real world events to get attention and to be controversial then they should not use them, tbh i think its easier for organizers to use a bit of both as it offers them more freedom

for example an event based on the conflict in iraq but with fictional towns and names and operations/background

Airsoft Reloded

J.D.R wrote: »

The point I was trying to make is thatm trying to define an activity to one thing is useless. Some use airsoft to re-enact battles, others use it to socialise, others use it for the chance to shoot their friends. The definition of airsoft isn't what you play, airsoft is the playing. Simple as

I say we should allow the use of it to allow realism into certain events. Not for the justice of free speece, or anything that has been said so far, but for the simple reason that the only way for things to grow is to do new things. its all well and good trying to test a theory on an internet Forum, but until you get out into a SIte and do it for real, we will not know if it works.

But noone has denied that it would or could work (obviously it does), the argument is that it is distateful, not needed and can have negative repercussions.

Puding

Considering your strong views on the subject Hivemind, why did you go for a fictional country for the ROE series?

just because you can do something does not mean you have to do it every time, hiveminds point from what i read was that you can do it and if you want to base and event on real world events you can and nothing should stop you doing this, does not mean you have to always do it, in fact to always base an event on the real world would in my opinion lower its impact and meaning

can have negative repercussions

far point but as i put in my first post, people are just as offended in my experience with the idea of guy running around with replica in there eyes its all 'playing soldiers' does not matter if the day is fiction or fictional

in fact there is a strong argument to be made that Vietnam/ww2 airsoft in a way is more respectable and in relationship to reenactment brings it a little more credibility

J.D.R

Airsoft Reloded wrote: »

But noone has denied that it would or could work (obviously it does), the argument is that it is distateful, not needed and can have negative repercussions.

That is the point I am trying to make, we will not know what will happen with it until it happens.

Wether it is distasteful is all up to perspective which is very hard to change. I know many people who think it is distasteful t run around in a field with fake guns shooting people. But it happens. The perspective can chage however, when nder the right circumstances. One you have an unbiased look at the events, like if you do have a Nato -v- Taliban scenario, do not have Good -v- Bad, just do it the way it is

Airsoft Reloded

J.D.R wrote: »

That is the point I am trying to make, we will not know what will happen with it until it happens.

Wether it is distasteful is all up to perspective which is very hard to change. I know many people who think it is distasteful t run around in a field with fake guns shooting people. But it happens. The perspective can chage however, when nder the right circumstances. One you have an unbiased look at the events, like if you do have a Nato -v- Taliban scenario, do not have Good -v- Bad, just do it the way it is

Granted (and very well put), I take back what I said about it being distasteful so (that was a bit narow).

J.D.R

And this from a 17 year old. I really am a genious

Airsoft Reloded

J.D.R wrote: »

And this from a 17 year old. I really am a genious

Lol, now I have to argue for the sake of it. There again though, if its done at a time when those places (or organizations) are at war it can be distasteful, would you agree?

Puding

if its done at a time when those places (or organizations) are at war it can be distasteful, would you agree?

would agree 100% and it is why i always say you must have respect and knowledge in what you do, be it running a themed event or putting together an impression to run with in the event

people must get feed up of me saying it but i honestly believe the respect and knowledge and thing has merit and if people follow it , it would removed or limit some of the problems with anything based on the real world

J.D.R

Airsoft Reloded wrote: »

Lol, now I have to argue for the sake of it. There again though, if its done at a time when those places (or organizations) are at war it can be distasteful, would you agree?

Distasteful no, innapropriate, maybe. If it has happened, then I see no reason why it shouldn't be allowed happen. Only under the right circumstances, but if it happened, then I say go ahead.

I do aggree, that it should have some time to have settled down. Only when all the facts, or at least those which yoou can verify, have been so, then it can happen. Once we know enough about the event, and can give an unbiased account of it, I say its OK. If you cannot give an unbiased account, then don't attempt it

SNAKEDOC

i think that due to the fact that we are playing a game and not a reenactment group we could get away with real world senarios. i.m not saying right we will enact the gulf war we are iraqis you are the US. but we can use the countries and army names as any team can win we will not be just portraying the terrorists or the US or the French to be the losers. we use the names and countries for realism but we are not demoralising any one country or people to being something they are not. such as. drug smuggling. Irish army are trying to prevent swedish or icelandic or spainish drug smugglers from landing a shipment. "Just as long as we don't go actually dressing up as the irish army" LOL:D:D

Airsoft Reloded

Puding wrote: »

would agree 100% and it is why i always say you must have respect and knowledge in what you do, be it running a themed event or putting together an impression to run with in the event

people must get feed up of me saying it but i honestly believe the respect and knowledge and thing has merit and if people follow it , it would removed or limit some of the problems with anything based on the real world

Well put, so you would agree that it must be thought out for the sake of the possible implications at any rate?

Hivemind187

Airsoft Reloded wrote: »

Lets stop multi quoting (its hard on the eyes).

Sorry but it's there for a reason - it makes the text easier to separate.

Airsoft Reloded wrote: »

Right now, I agree that there can be an added bit of buzz in games with realism but my point is that you can just as easily get that from the likes of MACs' story based game in which there are pro and anti state forces of an imaginary state, your are there by getting the buzz without the risk of insulting or otherwise hurting other peoples' feelings. Why if you can have that extra "bit" of buzz without the risk would you not do so? Its not about standing ground.

Bit of buzz ... you really arent trying very hard are you?

My point (again - since you seem impermeable to reason or logic) is that there is no reason to censor anything for the sensibilities of others. They have the choice whether they wish to expose themselves to the content or not. If they choose not to so much the better. The content of a game or a movie or a book - where not deliberately trying to offender - is harmless in every way shape and form.

Airsoft Reloded wrote: »

(your points)

1, What does blow raspberries mean lol and why would I threaten to steal your milk money?

The only thing I can do here is be derogatory towards you intellect and your education so I'm not going to stoop to it.. I'm not going to be trapped into a ban by playground tactics.

Airsoft Reloded wrote: »

2, AI is a terrible mag

The quality of the magazine is irrelevant to my point, which was the content of it and any other magazine makes you either ignorant or a liar.

Airsoft Reloded wrote: »

3, I have explained how it is not

There are elements of roleplay but not neccessarily of real world figures, reference to reality can be saying terrorist instead of Bush.

So now you are back tracking and making your argument all fuzzy around the edges to appear "reasonable" in the hope that appealing to the moderates sensibilities will get you more favor. Good luck with that, it's something that these boards have seen a lot already.

There was never any suggestion regarding a real world personality - we were discussing groups and concepts. Including a specific individual in a game might actually be grounds for a defamation suit but that would be dependent on how it were handled. For example, if you portrayed Mr.Saddam Hussein Al Tikriti in a game as a murdering tyrant who made use of chemical weapons in an expansionist war against Iran then you would be fine. Call him a child molester and you'll be sued.

But I digress. The point is that you have not established that it is not in anyones interest to include reality or references to reality - in fact you have admitted there is a benefit in the comments above.

have you ever heard the phraze, "art imitates life" - its been around a while with good reason. Television, film, books, comics, stand up comedians, radio shows, newspapers, video games etc etc all trade in the content of reality, using it for inspiration or a setting or for direct content.

Airsoft Reloded wrote: »

Granted the majority rule and all that but why completely ignore the wishes or the worries/feelings/customs of the others?

I didnt say we shouldnt be concerned or have empathy for their feelings/circumstances. I said that those feelings and circumstances should not dictate what can and can not be portrayed in a game scenario - dont put words in my mouth you'll get bitten.

Let me ask you a question: A planning application is put into your local authority for the building of a Synagogue. A local Muslim Cleric lodges an objection because he feels that the presence of a Synagogue close to his Mosque is an insult to his faith and a political insult reminiscent of the Israel/Palestine problem. The Jewish Rabbi and community that want it built say they are offended by the Muslim objections. Now who is right and who is wrong?

Here we have the same issue. Airsofters are a minority and the individuals likely to be offended are a minority. Which group has the right to have their wishes, needs and desires catered to above the others?

Airsoft Reloded wrote: »

I said nothing of the sort about airsoft, I challenge you to provide proof of such statements. Video games do on the oft get banned.

Yes video games get banned. Did you notice that there is a lot of opposition to those decisions though? Did you ever ask yourself why the game or the movie etc was banned? Educate yourself a little on the actual question before you make statements like that.

For the record: Manhunt 2 was refused certification (not actually banned, they generally cant ban a game or video anymore) because it was deemed to be "unrelentingly grim and violent". This was a position that was challenged by the games developers and one a decision that was subjected to massive criticism by the industry and pundits alike. The real reason? the British home office did not want another newspaper fiasco in which a game baring the title "Manhunt" was linked to another murder. Like it or not (and even though it was nothing to do with them) the British government were vilified and castigated for allowing the game to be placed on the shelves because of the actions of one deranged child.

I'm using this as an example of the kind of reasons people use for censorship that might seem to have justification - however I would point out that while the murder of a young man was horrible it was not a consequence of the content of a video game. The murderer was disturbed before playing the game and if it were not Manhunt that were blamed, it would have been something else.

Surely the taking of a life is a far more egregious crime than unintentionally offending someone. I put it to you that the blaming of a video game for the death of a young man is obviously erroneous and the blaming of content in privately held games for the offense felt by someone - who would have to either choose to be offended or be looking for something to be offended by - is equally erroneous.

Airsoft Reloded wrote: »

Lets say an attack on a British patrol in the north, the heroic IRA kills many invading Brits OR lets say a horrific terrorist incident in which many loyal and brave soldiers were gunned down by cowardly (and by coward I mean afraid of stuff not thoughtful ofcourse) insurgents. Now the creator of such a game could say I think that this is a good story line (and he would be correct) but that is sure to seriously upset people.

Whats your point? That people are offended by being reminded of things that actually happened?

I'll call SkyNews and the FoxNetwork and tell them to stop playing the footage of he towers coming down because it is upsetting people.

Even you have admitted that it could be a good storyline (though it would need reasons and motivation in order to be workable but I digress). So why should the story of a game, the setting and the quality suffer because of the potential - and lets be clear about this, we are talking about potential not actual - upset it may cause some phantom person at some point somewhere?

Airsoft Reloded wrote: »

Now, if you can state one point to me to disprove anything I've said I will retract it but lets not just keep slinging back and forth useless statements like "I challenge you this and that", the debate is about wether or not its a good idea to have real life people or organizations depicted in airsoft games and so far the majority say no (does this mean we should ignore you)

Other than the fact that you have responded to questions with questions, avided dealing with content that you find to difficult and have managed to reduce this to the level of playground mud-slinging?

How about the Constitution of Ireland article 40.6.1 which guarantees the freedom of expression and assembly?

I'm pretty sure the IAA constitution has no powers to control content or exercise censorship (at least not the way it was originally written and conceived). I'd check but for some reason I cant seem to find the damn thing on the website anymore.

By the way "I challenge you to" is a standard debating position, it issues a direct instruction to the opposition that they must establish a specific point or there argument falls flat. The burden of proof is actually with you since the default position is that we should be permitted to say and produce what we please (the above mentioned 40.6.1) - you are the one claiming otherwise.

Airsoft Reloded

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

i think that due to the fact that we are playing a game and not a reenactment group we could get away with real world senarios. i.m not saying right we will enact the gulf war we are iraqis you are the US. but we can use the countries and army names as any team can win we will not be just portraying the terrorists or the US or the French to be the losers. we use the names and countries for realism but we are not demoralising any one country or people to being something they are not. such as. drug smuggling. Irish army are trying to prevent swedish or icelandic or spainish drug smugglers from landing a shipment. "Just as long as we don't go actually dressing up as the irish army" LOL:D:D

BUT lol, the Irish v the British could (and would) cause nedless hard feelings yes? As proven at The Take Aim cup not to long ago by certain people (and that was just wearing a certain something).

Puding

good point SNAKEDOC the problem you will find is that to a large number of people airsoft is not a sport but a hobby and the 'reenactment side' as it where is a strong component of why they take part

Well put, so you would agree that it must be thought out for the sake of the possible implications at any rate?

of course, if you have ever read anything I've posted in other threads like this and in my post about airsoft impressions I've always said you need to be aware of the impact of your actions coved it in my first post in this thread, but the same is equality so for any airsoft even be it fiction or non fiction based airsoft in general is controversial for the simple act of using replicas,

.22 Lover

Ive should have said this earler but

Hivemind187

sliabh wrote: »

I fully agree with that, and I don't want this to be a mil-sim vs speed-soft type discussion. I am interested in seeing what people think is appropriate in terms of storyline for any type of game.

Thinking back on the three mil-sims I played in at HRTA two were real world (SAM hunting in Iraq, terrorists in LA) and one was fictional (Jebrovia).

Considering your strong views on the subject Hivemind, why did you go for a fictional country for the ROE series?

lol, simply put, I needed it for the story I wanted to tell. If you read the background though there are other nations involved, plenty of references to real world elements which all affect the missions and scenario set up.

Jebrovia was a fictional nation in a mountainous region situated on a fictional expanse of land between Kazakhstan and somewhere else. The opening salvo of the game required a specific set up (the pass between the lee's of two mountain peaks). I wanted somewhere that I could create a specific dictatorial government (which exhibited elements of both totalitarian communism and fascism) with a specific set of geographical parameters. A real one didnt exist so I opted to create my own. Creative license I suppose.

However the NATO expeditionary forces are a real entity - I wonder why no one is offended that I used them?

Hivemind187

Airsoft Reloded wrote: »

Yeah Hivemind lol.

Uh-huh.

"Assassinate the chief of police" I believe was one of your concepts. Yeah, thats a great advertisement for airsoft if thats what you are so concerned about.

sliabh

Hivemind187 wrote: »

However the NATO expeditionary forces are a real entity - I wonder why no one is offended that I used them?

Personally I took umbrage at the slight on (the real) NATO's honour when we were so comprehensively thrashed

Hivemind187

Puding wrote: »

would agree 100% and it is why i always say you must have respect and knowledge in what you do, be it running a themed event or putting together an impression to run with in the event

people must get feed up of me saying it but i honestly believe the respect and knowledge and thing has merit and if people follow it , it would removed or limit some of the problems with anything based on the real world

The only problem I have with this is that "whilethey are at war" - what possible difference does this make?

People who love lost soldiers continue to love them after the war has ended.

The heated political positions on the subject continue to remain fiery long after the last shots have been fired.

Yet cinema, video games, tv and a dozen other entertainment sources do not shy away from reflecting the goings on of the world in those mediums - nor should airsoft. If the game works best in a downtown Baghdad setting then write it and play it that way, if it works best as a Normandy landing game write it and play it that way. Its just a goddamn game and it should be payed for fun without all of the unnecessary "you cant do that" nanny-goat BS from people with too much time on their hands.

Art reflects life. Thats all that we are doing when we play games.

P.s.
The quote "Sir, I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is usually attributed to Voltaire however there is no specific record of him having said it so the origin is still up for debate. what isnt up for debate is how important and true a saying it is.