Slashdot Mirror
Amid Controversy, EA Pulls Taliban From Medal of Honor Multiplayer
Last month we discussed news that upcoming shooter Medal of Honor would allow players to take the role of Taliban forces in multiplayer games, causing no small amount of consternation among political groups and military supporters. Now, Electronic Arts and developer Danger Close have bowed to pressure and announced that the Taliban side would simply be referred to as "opposing force." Quoting executive producer Greg Goodrich:
"The majority of this feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. For this, the Medal of Honor team is deeply appreciative. However, we have also received feedback from friends and families of fallen soldiers who have expressed concern over the inclusion of the Taliban in the multiplayer portion of our game. This is a very important voice to the Medal of Honor team. This is a voice that has earned the right to be listened to. It is a voice that we care deeply about. ... While this change should not directly affect gamers, as it does not fundamentally alter the gameplay, we are making this change for the men and women serving in the military and for the families of those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice — this franchise will never willfully disrespect, intentionally or otherwise, your memory and service."
My grandfather died in WW2, could you please remove the Germans from all your future WW2 games as well? The Japanese, too.
Surely not, how would they even think of putting this in a game these days?
liberare massarum ex ignorantia, clausa descendit molestie.
An example of how a corporation can be influenced to act a bit more responsibly through fear of public backlash.
Fuck. I really wanted to get this too. I guess there is always the "moral" alternative of piracy.
Puppet Ackhmed the Terrorist is banned from television appearances due to hate speech.
Ok, look...I understand why there was public and military outcry (similar to the "no russian" level in MW2), but I wonder if there would have been as much controversy had it been for a war that was no longer going on. Beyond that, they are still in the game...they just aren't called 'Taliban'...what's in a name? This makes me think back to the GLA in C&C Generals...
Living With a Nerd
... and for extra realism you get to shoot at British, Canadian, Danish and other "allied" troops. Ultra-realistic!
There have been worse things in video-games. Postal 2 anyone?
If EA had statistical evidence that they would've lost revenue through lawsuits, civil cases, and bad word-of-mouth by releasing the game with "Taliban", then perhaps this was a smart business decision. But if they are simply "bowing" if you will, well, that is lame.
I am not for the Taliban at all, I am just saying bowing to the complainers only reinforces their behavior.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
I'm sick of people pretending the war has only one side. Where are the families of the dead Taliban soldiers, who are logically just as offended by the ability to play as a US soldier? don't they have a "voice" too? or it it ok to disrespect people as long as you're on the right side?
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
Back in the day I actually enjoyed shooting brown and blue blobs of pixels yelling "Argh, mein Leben!" just before going down. History suggests that the SS wore stylish black uniforms instead of bright blue overalls though.. and yes, I'm European and the Nazi war machine ravaged my country. No problem playing games with Nazi's in them, so why should this be different for Taliban?
Learn from the mistakes of others. There isn't enough time to make them all yourself.
The popular children's game has now been renamed to "cops and opposing forces"
I mean.. really, c'mon! We can watch them kill real life soldiers, we can wish death upon them, we can blow them up for real real... but put that in a video game, aimed at adults, and that is incentive and wrong?
They're just 'future proofing' the game for when we invade China and Gliese 581g. It will even work for our upcoming 'Civil War II: More Civil' planned by Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert.
My work here is dung.
It seems to me too many people give too much power to a simple word. Essentially that's what we're doing here right? Gameplay remains unchanged, we're just changing the name of the other team. So is it because we fear the Taliban? Should we start calling them "The opposing force that must not be named"?
What a bunch of weak-minded idiots. If a few people who can't handle a video game with content that they don't like that they don't even have to buy complain about said content, they remove it. Those people have just ruined it for anyone who actually wanted that content, as it was originally planned to be in the game. But, no, people who wouldn't buy the game anyway get their way. Absolutely pathetic. I'm sick and tired of this blatant censorship (even if it wasn't technically forced on them). I already had zero respect for EA and any company like them, but this is insane. Might as well ban everything that someone takes offense to!
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
sed s/Taliban/GenericTerrorists/g
So all these politically correct people will be appeased, but nothing of substance will have changed.
Battlefield has the Middle Eastern Coalition and maps based on battles in Iraq. Never heard any complaint about that...
Of course they shouldn't. The reality is that wargames depict a historical context and history doesn't change to suit the likes of one group or another. There is only one history, the events that took place.
Further, we learn from history that it is dangerous to make an enemy faceless. Doing so is the number one cause of wartime atrocities. What these pressure groups have basically said is that it is more important to hide the reality of the situation than it is to keep Americans aware that they are fighting against people with lives and beliefs of their own. This is a dangerous attitude to have.
I cannot blame a company for eventually caving under pressure, especially one as small as this. But frankly this whitewashing of history is disturbing and historically the consequences of such acts have never been good. This is extremely bad juju.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Please remove $10 from the purchase price if you are removing content.
And with that, the terrorists have truly won. Luckily the next round starts in 30... 29... 28...
'nuff said.
I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
"Political Correctness" is another phrase for "abolishing freedom".
this franchise will never willfully disrespect, intentionally or otherwise
How are they thinking they can unintentionally and willfully disrespect anyone? Words mean things, people, and if they have the man power to swap a few strings somewhere in game code, they can respect their audiences intelligence by proofreading their press release.
I don't care what they call them, as long as they LOOK land ACT like taliban
Maybe you can make one look like Muhammad.
to change your game is counter to everything soldiers fight for.
As a former soldier, I consider pressuring someone to change in this manner shameful.
Freedom of expression was one of the things I had joined the military to protect.
This is no different the a cleric* telling people to burn books.
*Since Muslims have 'Clerics' maybe WotC should be forced to change the name of that class?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Seriously people get a grip.
Newsflash: Its not real!
Just like I can think of killing innocent babies all day, so long as I don't physically do it, its not a issue (accept I have to live with my baby killing thoughts)... Some might say, well no its different because you are participating and showing such activities in video games. Again - Not real. What do you think the thousands of years of theatre and more recently movies are? Some sort of magic box to another dimension? Actors play (or pretend if you will) rolls, where actually quite commonly Nazi's, Taliban, and a whole host of others regularly get portrayed, and in many cases killed (but not for real... they really do get back up after the scene, you just can't see it!). Yes there are actual humans that play those roles and virtually die... Well some might argue those are professionals and not kids... In many cases they are kids, and holy shit we have a rating system for games, be a responsible parent and don't let your stupid rug rats play said game if they are too young, no matter how much they scream (and appreantly yell racial slurs from my experiance on xbox live).
Give me a break and go read a book. Or wait no you can't do that, because there are fictional people is books that occasionally die and are assoicated with one group or another. Best to stay clear of that altogether!
So in conclusion, please go to your nearest cave with your emergency earmuffs, dig a hole in the sand, and stuff said head into hole, you'll be much better off and so will the rest of the world.
end rant.
..so in Afghanistan/ Iraq et al are the Americans renamed to "Opposing Forces" instead?
Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
Like, by making a game out of it, for example...
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
For extra flamebait, it's been suggested that around 10% of the French fatalities at Verdun in WW1 were "friendly fire". Traditionally the military has been more dangerous to its own side than the enemy; until modern medicine and transport, more soldiers got killed (by disease, climate, training and brutality) outside active warfare than in it. Cue realistic war games in which syphilis and typhoid are far more dangerous than enemy action.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
I give this 2 days before it is modded back to Taliban.
So they're saying the families of fallen Afghani civilians (those killed by US/axis forces, well documented, try Wikileaks) are not worth considering then? May as well pull the whole fucking game.
EA are wrong to compromise artistic freedom because of complaints, especially since it's just a cosmetic change.
But if the game is moddable (which seems like like a big maybe), a name change should be easy.
Can we stop pandering to the paranoid shut-ins? At least we now know EA's target demographic: morons
is sometimes a dandelion
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
"EA Pulls Taliban From Medal of Honor Multiplayer" couldn't be more wrong. It's still the Taliban. Looks like they're still wearing turbans from the image and it's still set in Afghanistan. Or is there some other gun wielding, turban wearing "opposing force" in Afghanistan that I'm not aware of? Nice try EA, a simple name change fix for good publicity. But if you were truly sensitive and really cared military veterans' feelings then you probably wouldn't have made this game in the first palce.
Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
But the beta was horrible there's not going to be many people even seeing the change after the reviews come out.
Terrorists Win
I've seen a lot of comments on here that are derogatory towards EA and the families of soliders who have voiced their opposition to EA's decision. I agree that EA made a bad call by white washing the reality of the conflict. One of the fundamental cornerstones of our society seems to be freedom of choice. As Americans, we want the ability to do whatever we feel like doing, no matter how insensitive or offensive to others it might be. As others have said many times before, freedom is not free. That leads me to my question... how badly do all of you people whining about not being able to play the Taliban, want to play the Taliban?
Will you gather signatures and go on the record saying that you want to do it? Will you lobby and protest and make your voices heard? Are you so strong in your convictions that EA has made a bad decision that you will NOT buy the game in order to voice your dissatisfaction?
If there is one thing I've learned about being American it is that those who are willing to make the biggest stink about something usually get their way. So how strong are your convictions? Are you going to do anything about it, or are you just going to whine on Slashdot?
we are making this change for the men and women serving in the military and for the families of those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice
I'm pretty sure this applies to every soldier/rebel/freedom fighter who ever served for their country or their personal beliefs ... including the Taliban, who probably also believe their "cause" is just, however misguided we believe it to be.
I mean, how evil of EA to do this. Here they are being so offensive to YOU, violating your rights to a game not tarnished by this group or that group. I mean, really, the nerve! You know, the removal of this word from the game is so offensive, maybe YOU should exercise your right not to buy the game. Right?
See, what happened is EA decided that to do something that could potentially hurt their profits to appease their sense of morality. They didn't violate your rights or actually offend you. No, they tried to take the high road.
This group... Did they ask that the game not be released? No, they asked for one word not to be used ONLY in multiplayer. The Campaign is left alone. The story is the same. The game is the same.
You? You just decided that you were going to be a righteous bastard. You decided that you would be "offended" because these people who were ACTUALLY offended were appeased. This game is made for people like you who want to PRETEND that you are the kind of person that these people are related to.
MAYBE it's arguable whether this word hurt anyone and whether removing it mattered. One thing is certain though, there is never anything wrong with respecting the wishes of these people. There will come a day when somebody uses a word you don't particularly like around/at your wife/daughter. Somehow I doubt you'll swallow your words at that point.
Even the soldiers that were interviewed by EA had absolutely no problem with having Taliban in the multiplayer.
How does piracy help you play as the Taliban? Or do anything else, for that matter, apart from help companies erode our rights via sympathetic courts?
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
option 1: keep the name, potentially start a giant movement against your company where parents of your main demographic will no longer shell out money for your games and boycott you for a while, perhaps losing you millions.
option 2: change the name and be a spineless shell of a company, where anyone recognizing this will give 2 shits about it and still buy your games anyway.
if it were a small company with only this product or a few and where production and art values were stronger they would easily keep the name, it would actually be a good bit of fortune i think. but with EA having 1000's of games on every platform and IP in the world, it could effect many of their games sales from the potential fallout across the board. its the right move for them, no matter what you think.
Having a game based on a recent or current war should be offensive because war is a very serious matter. It should be. But we've been treating war like a game since Vietnam so making a real game out of it isn't anywhere near as offensive as the war itself.
And when you have a loved one in the field, coming under fire almost every day, you will have earned the right to make this comment.
That must be tough and all but tell me again why this means we can't have a game where you play as the Taliban?
Bow-ties are cool.
Both my grandfathers fought in WW2. One of them was crippled, and actually the other who was a decorated officer (ok, ok, only Iron Cross second class) had the most horror stories and never really ticked right ever after. So can we please remove the Americans, Brits and especially the fucking Russians from games too? (And I don't say "fucking" as just an expletive. Those guys raped even their own female soldiers when they liberated female POW camps.) It seems insensitive that people can buy games where they can play folks who shot at both my grandfathers and some who literally raped half of Europe.
The French can stay, though. Those never harmed anyone ;)
(Not entirely serious post. Just illustrating that there are more countries in the world than the USA, and the EU _is_ a major market for computer games. If we're going remove everything that could offend someone from the USA, then we're going to start the same over here, and there won't be much left which you _can_ put in a game.)
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
It makes sense if you want to maintain game realism.
If they were to implement the Taliban accurately, nobody on the Taliban team would have more kills per death (unless they implemented bomb belts). They'd all shoot Muslim Typewriters*, and not be able to place two shots within 10 yards of each other. This would quickly result in people not playing the Taliban side (or playing it only for the game nerfing effect and to ruin gameplay for others), effectively making the game suck.
It's better than making the Taliban balance accurate to real life and catching all the flack for "Muslim hatred" or some such bullshit.
* "muslim typewriter" - an AK or derived gun used by hajjis which is phyiscally unable of accurate repeat shot placement. subsequent shots pull sharply to the left (the same direction of the Arabic writing system).
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
I will start the fire up to start the book burning. NOT!!!
Good one, Garth!
Bow-ties are cool.
I was going to buy your game but now I will pass. I want what little realism is in a game. The references to real groups empowers me to yell, "Die you Taliban" as I mow down the Taliban. Now, I can simply play more Team Fortress 2 and save my money for a more realistic game.
For a while, I thought EA was going to stand up for their rights to include whatever they wanted in their games, but now I realize they are just as idiotic as the rest of the people in this country. Everyone is too easily offended, and everyone else is afraid of offending someone because they are afraid of being sued because every time someone offends someone else, someone gets sued, and for some reason, our legal system allows these people to win, despite all the freedoms we are (supposedly) allowed by the Constitution. It's the same way with stupidity. All I'm going to say here is McDonald's and coffee. "Swear words" are only "bad" because someone at some point in time decided they did not like a word. They are fucking words. Get over it and use them like they are just another word. I was interested in playing this game. Now I will not even so much as rent it from Gamefly. If anyone I know gets it, I will not play it. We need to start sticking up for our rights and people need to learn to deal with differences in opinion.
So, uh, hey...
If you don't like this decision, protest the same way the anti-Taliban crew did: by refusing to buy the game.
Of course, it's doubtful anyone will actually care so much about this as not to buy it. Two things about gamers - gamers love to whine and blow things out of proportion, and gamers always cave because they would rather accept what they are being told to accept than not have the game.
Look at WoW players. Every single day, it's whine whine whine, but it's never quit, quit, quit. This is no different.
Trust me. If you want to protest this decision, do it the same way the PC censorship crowd did - with your wallet - and let EA know why you aren't buying. Obviously, they listen to that sort of feedback.
The right to offend is central to the right to free speech.
You know, one thing I never get is such references to "wanting to pretend to be terrorists who hate your country." Why is that even worth mentioning anyway?
For most of the rest of the world, we're already used to the idea that someone somewhere hates our countries and that in the name of fun someone has to play that side too. Either because you wouldn't get much of a multiplayer if everyone is on the same team, or because that's the only single-player campaign there is. E.g., there never was any way to play either Wolfenstein game in Germany without basically pretending to be on the side of some guys who were really, really pissed off at Germany. And for good reason too. (Granted, they pussified it by changing the symbols and everything to some weird other war than WW2, but you're still fighting Germans and everyone knew what it's really about.)
Or I don't think many people would go out of the way to apologize to Russians that such games as No One Lives Forever featured them as the bad guys, and it was only possible to play as someone who basically hates the USSR.
Most of us came to terms with the idea that someone somewhere hates or hated our respective country. Heck, down here in the old world we have about 5000 years of recorded history of everyone hating everyone else. We hated the Romans, the Romans hated us, then we were kinda friends with Rome and hated someone else, and they hated us in return, and so on. And the Mesopotamians were bashing each other's head in with bronze maces long before that, while both we and the ancestors of the Romans (and even Greeks) were running around in fur loincloths. And before even written history, we have finds like Ötzi who was killed in combat (presumably by someone who didn't like him or his tribe much), or prehistoric caves in France and Spain of stick figures shooting arrows at each other and bashing each other's heads in with clubs. (Again, I'm guessing it meant those tribes weren't particularly fond of each other.)
Why is the reality that someone out there doesn't like you something that the USA needs to frown upon?
And besides, again, it's a game. What's the difference between that and, dunno, playing an Orc attacking the Humans, or a Zerg doing the same, or really whatever? It's not like someone really wants to feel like he's really hating the USA or humanity, it's just playing an available role.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Let them be replaced with circus clowns.
Actually, I have a tough time imagining that it's the soldiers who got offended by the thought of someone being able to play the Taliban. In fact, the posts I've seen from self-identified members of the armed forces in this thread, not a single one was along the lines of "whew, thank goodness they removed those!"
Not entirely surprising as someone who is actually shot at in real life, has bigger concerns than some pixelated other soldier being shot at in a video game. If you're the kind who'll actually lose his mental shit over a pimple-faced kid playing Taliban for lulz, you'll be a major liability (and probably a casualty) when you meet real Taliban who want you dead for real. Seriously, I can't imagine anyone trained to keep their wits about in a real combat situation, faced with real people who want him/her dead, and real deadly bullets, getting a major trauma over a few kids playing a video game.
The real minority complaining about this kind of shit are some puritans who probably only saw a weapon on TV, and who are all about protecting someone _else's_ sensibilities. You know, the "it's not about me, but OMG it might offend that other guy over there" kind. Even if that guy over there doesn't actually feel any need to be protected by such a knight in shiny armour.
So, really, quit doing that. If you yourself have something to complain about, complain, and if the army has anything to complain about, let the army do it. But inventing some other minority to protect is kinda getting silly.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
"earned the right to be listened to"
Excuse me? Fuck you, sir. I'm a retired Marine but I'm so goddamn sick of people hoisting up military service as if it makes you a super-citizen or gives you any superior insight.
They treat you with utter respect, these flag waving suit wearing pricks, until it comes down to them having to keep their word on medical care and other promised benefits.
So let me get this straight.
Its perfectly ok to plays as a US soldier killing taliban, thats perfectly acceptable. But its not ok for taliban to kill american solidiers right? So in america were ok with killing them but they cant kill us? Its weak minded, pussified political correctness like this that ruins a lot of things. People want free speech, they want the freedom to chose, they want all these freedoms and rights but only as long as they are ones that they think are personally ok for other people. Thats horseshit.
If you can play multiplayer as americans then you should be ok with playing as taliban. Its short sighted, its ignorant and its incredibly dumb to to think otherwise.
Either its all ok or none of its ok.
The minority complaining to EA is doing exactly what you suggest. They are families of servicemen and women who have lost family members in this conflict. EA has specifically said that that feedback, and the wish to be sensitive to those people, is why they're changing the name.
It's not inventing a minority, it's pointing out that if you're claiming that this is some "freedom" issue, and that your freedoms are being trampled by this group of "whiners," the same thing could be said about any minority who we take pains not to offend or mock.
The references to Taliban should have been kept in. There is no question there.
But let's face facts here... EA was banking on controversy to move the game, this wasn't some attempt to accurately depict current events. All that has happened is that management and marketing decided that the potential backlash would result in boycotts if not outright bannings, which would be harmful to sales.
And, while we're talking about free speech, people seem to forget that it goes both ways. EA is free to feature the Taliban. However, those offended, for one reason or another, are just as free to protest, to publicly express their displeasure in the form of demonstrations or boycotts. They don't cross the line when they protest, they cross the line when they start demanding that the game be banned because then they're infringing on the rights of others. Even if it's the right to play yet another derivative first-person shooter.
Interestingly, this is one of the few situations where citizens do have clear power over corporations.
1. Except even then, the comparison to other minorities is still bogus. Other minorities are protected against discriminating or, as you call it mocking, to their face, but don't get to forbid you from playing something that might offend them. E.g., they don't get to tell the hilbillies reenacting Civil War fights that nobody should play the CSA troops because, you know, the CSA was all for slavery and offensive to blacks. E.g., they don't get to tell kids to stop playing cowboys and indians because it's insensitive to the natives.
So in effect even if you want to treat them as a real minority, it's still asking a bit more than any real minority actually does.
Yes, I'm all for extending the same courtesy as I extend to any other minorities. I definitely would be against a serviceman/servicewoman being denied service somewhere, and I'll be the first to frown at someone who calls him/her insulting names or stereotypes. But that's where it frigging stops. When they start dictating what units can be in my games so they're not insulted, I'll also be the first to tell them to take a hike. That's already way beyond non-discrimination, it's already that "minority" trying to elect itself the boss of someone else.
2. Well, then those families should have asked the guy/gal actually down there what he/she thinks, before whining at EA.
Because all I wrote before is based on my experience of actually being in the army. (Granted, thankfully never in actual combat.) We were trained all the time to deal with a real guy trying to really kill us. And he won't stop if you just go, "OMG, I'm so offended that you chose the side who hates me, I'm gonna sit in that corner and pout." You have to kill that motherfucker before he kills you and your mates. (Or more like pin him down until someone or something else can kill him.)
Even as simulations go, we didn't have to face some pixelated shape on a screen, but charge up a hill against real guys with real assault rifles and support weapons, (although thankfully not with live ammo.) How's that for realism? And you couldn't go "well, I'm offended that those guys from the other platoon are playing the side that hates us", because, well, none of us fancied explaining that to an officer, much less to a court martial.
I'd have been actually quite happy if that only happened on a computer screen. Heck, it would have saved me the bother of marching with all the gear and sprinting up a hill.
So if any family member of mine would be offended that someone else would play as the guy trying to kill me, well, they'd damn well better ask me about it. I'd be happy to tell them what I think of _that_ virtual threat.
3. Even more importantly, it still doesn't work. A rose by any other name is still a rose. Some renamed Taliban are still trying to shoot at the electronic effigy of those troops? So the difference is... what?
It would seem to me that the really offensive part in a war is that those guys are really trying to get you dead. Down in the ground with dirt on your head. That they're called Taliban or Red Army or "other side", WTH difference does it make?
Ditto for those families. Someone is still trying to shoot those guys in the game. You'd think that would be the main worry, not the exact name that they have in the game.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Suppressing? If a company decides that (for example) telling dead baby jokes will offend and alienate its customers, and they therefore decide not to do so, were the jokes 'suppressed'?
How are the principles of civic liberties affected because a private group of people (EA Executives, board members, and game designers) decide not to pick a fight with a vocal minority?
Much Madness is divinest Sense --
To a discerning Eye --
Much Sense -- the starkest Madness
what a waste of a story, we all knew it was coming. And how, exactly, is having an accurate portrait of a current war (as accurate as a game can be I guess) demeaning or damaging to the families. Are they playing this game? REALLY? Your family member died in an unjust war of aggression, and you are going to play an online shooter taking place in that exact war? I doubt that. So what, playing as the taliban in name will hurt you? Exactly how? It's a damned game and people need to grow up and take responsibility for their own actions instead of blaming them on stuff like games. Removing the name is in itself an act of disrespect for the people who are fighting in that war. What, it's ok to send your son Jimmy off to die in afghanistan, but it's not ok for his cousin Mike to play a video game based on that conflict?
If you want to respect the families, stop the damned war, not the video game.
Oh, but I forgot, all FPS are assassin trainers, and MoH is obviously a tool to be used by the taliban (or was it Al Queda?) to recruit blond haired, pimple faced jihadists.
How about "The force who shall not be named"?
In related news, it is reported that Taliban soldiers have deployed a new combat tactic. Taliban soldiers now will simply shout "Talibannnn!!!" while charging, which sometimes brings so much stress to the coalitions that coalition soldiers would simply collapse.
Well, holy shit! EA is a true, flag-waving, patriotic company and because of this, I'm gonna go out and buy fifty copies of the game, including one for the Baby Jesus! Hell, I'll even let EA come over and fuck my sister!
this franchise will never willfully disrespect, intentionally or otherwise, your memory and service.
Yeah and we'll do that by giving in to the people who turned your memory into a political football and are using your death to serve their own purposes. Because we're sure you don't want anyone to know why you died or who you were fighting. I'm sure the most important thing on your mind as you died was "I hope nobody ever feels that freedom includes the freedom to pretend to be the Taliban while playing a game." Now we'll run right out and tell those kids playing war in the street that they can't pretend to be Taliban or Iraqi Republican Guard. How disrespectful of them.
Support SETI@home
EA has announced that the Taliban forces will be renamed to "civilians" and have no weapons, US forces will be renamed to Jeremy Morlock and Sgt Gibbs.
EA was quick to add that the game will now be called Medal of Dishonor. PETA has vowed to protest this game until the puppy throwing portion of it is removed.
"This is a voice that has earned the right to be listened to."
The military earns this right by its members being killed or maimed to protect their country, while the academic left earns this right by publishing papers cloaked in double-talk, rousing their students to protest some issue that they've helped to blow out of proportion, and yelling at anyone who dares to disagree with their views, their opportunity for tenure, or their parking space privileges.
A small group of drama queens who get offended when people disagree with them makes a big deal and starts a reputation smearing campaign. For the corporations it becomes about marketing and public image.
Having won their battle, the drama queens feel validated and entitled to whine louder and more often. The politicians happily support them, as their cries about meaningless crap provide an ideal smoke screen for the violence and insanity that is politics.
Once they've managed to take that inch, the mile inevitably follows.
And that is in this war not the US occupation force. Makes just as little sense as a Vietnam game where you can't play the Vietcong side, what's the fun in a game you can't win?
First, let me echo that I agree that it is disgusting that *anybody* can interfere with what EA puts in their game.
If some general said the game won't be sold unless Taliban is removed; ok - do that. Get the game to sell in as many places as possible.
Then 1 week after launch, release a patch which makes them Taliban again.
Looks like a win-win to this simpleton..
I like how this is almost exactly what Blizzard did early on in WOW's development. IIRC, As an anti-poopsocking measure, they would start giving you XP penalties as time went on; you'd start out earning 100% XP, but then if you played for long enough you would slowly get penalties until you were only earning 50% XP. You had to log off and wait a couple of hours to get back to earning 100% XP.
Was that in English? poopsocking? sounds like a registerable sex offense. XP penalties, that's what you pay when you buy and PC and then install linux in place of windows? Let's see if I can use IIRC in a sentence... I get IIRC'd when people use absurd jargon.
/. just got much nerdier.
I think
-- QED
Once they've managed to take that inch, the mile inevitably follows.
It's a shame that you chose to wrap up your otherwise flawless argument with a direct restatement of the slippery slope logical fallacy.
Would not buy from again. F---------
General Joseph *Hooker* (Union Army) was evidently one of many to recognize the morale boost? makes sense.
BTW:
Sun-Tzu's The Art Of War doesn't seem to directly refer to this.
http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html (This page, which posts the 1910 Giles translation, uses the word 'spirit' where 'morale' might fit)
'Alcohol', 'drink', 'women', 'prostitute', and other such terms are not-found.
"A clever general, therefore, avoids an army when its spirit is keen, but attacks it when it is sluggish and inclined to return. This is the art of studying moods." might indirectly refer to this as a potential distraction, but the context more directly refers to general energy level
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Why didn't they call the other team "Afghan Sugar" or "High Fructose Afghan Syrup"?
First of all, the "Tal-e-ban" are a bunch of cowards. The game should reflect this, with little pink jumpsuits with pictures of Allah on them. Like cheap James Bond movie villian's minions. Second, in the "real world" why don't we NUKE the countries that support the little fluffballs and their terrorism. OR BETTER STILL QUIT prosecuting American soldiers for wasting those little psycho buttheads in the first place. Like they say in Texas, "some people need killin". Can't think of a better recipient than woman abusing, illiterate, RPG toting punks that thinks he will get 57 virgins when he is "killed for Allah". From their perspective (3d world country, eating rats, probably some incentive there) so let our Military help them along. The Ayatollah Obama seems to be a sympathizer and not helping anyone but his Obama 2012 reelection tour. In the game anyway, tactical NUKE Mecca and Medina then pick the next targets at will. And make sure if there ARE Taliban in the game they wear pink jumpsuits and that you can hurl pigs at them, as well as heavy artillery. Make this as humiliating and degrading to the punk Muslim Militants as you can.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke
I don't remember people bitching like little cry babies back when 9-11 happened.
I don't recall an outcry from people to remove the terrorists in Counter Strike games.
Or the nazis from wolfenstien.
Or the black zombies in resident evil 5.
Amerika has become the land of hello kitty and diet beer.