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."
An example of how a corporation can be influenced to act a bit more responsibly through fear of public backlash.
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
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!
You know what will get those soldiers out of harm's way? QUITTING THE WAR!
Seriously, instead of pressuring EA to remove Taliban, these groups should divert their efforts to lobbying for a withdrawal.
They're doing nothing but deceiving themselves by hiding/masking the truth...
It's a bullshit argument to begin with. PTSD is nasty because it's not the expected triggers that cause trouble, it's the non-obvious ones that do. And in cases like this it's largely pointless. Pretty much the entire game is one big trigger.
Bullshit controversies like this just do more to make things tough for returning veterans as it carries the wrong message about the hardships coming back. It's not a two bit computer game that results in the suicides, it's everything, the lack of connection, the feelings about what one was involved in, both good and bad, and the difficulty of reintegrating.
One video game is hardly going to be a make it or break it case for many vets. Perhaps if the people claiming to care about veterans affairs would actually put their energy into something useful, all that might change.
No, it's the position of a bunch of whiners who are trying to use the deaths of soldiers as a way to censor others. It's extremely despicable.
Knowing G.I.s, they'd likely take turns playing Taliban while on actual deployment, since a shitload of G.I.s are avid gamers and have been since PCs were first available.
I suspect (lacking polling data) that given the typical military mind-set, most G.I.s would see the censorship reflecting complete pussification.
As for AAFES, they are at the mercy of every sensitive cunt who wants to turn their stores into a walled garden. Back in The Day, we could buy fap fodder like Penthouse on base. With the rise of Bible Thumpers and PC housecunts in the new corporate military, that went away.
The hassle of dealing with frothers makes it easier to just cave to them on non-mission-related issues, and G.I.s don't need AAFES for anything but food and booze.
I miss the days of the more isolated military when civilians left us the fuck alone, and our fun was our business. Booze and whores ARE fun when you are deployed to some foreign shithole, and none of that mattered outside the military for about two hundred years. Change is not always progress.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
The march through Russia will doubtless have been filled with heroic deeds, not least because of the extreme conditions they faced. Rommel, the commander of the German's African forces, performed many acts of heroism and is often held in high regard by military historians. Rudolph Hess is an interesting figure, not least because he managed to be reviled AND held as a hero by both sides simultaneously. That's no small achievement. A great uncle of mine who helped hold off the German forces whilst the rest of the allies escaped at Dunkirk maintained a diary of the retreat and then of his time as a POW. His description of the German forces shows a full range of people, ranging from the compassionate to the psychotic. His description is a far, far cry from what you'll see in any traditional history book.
Not all history is written by the victors. The Bayoux Tapestry, for example, was produced by the Saxons and depicts the Saxon view of the Battle of Hastings, not the Norman perspective.
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)
They do when they blow something up. Oh, wait, is that why there's terrorism?
You are correct, which is why it is all the more important for teachers of subjects such as histories or the humanities clearly distinguish between the two. It is by confusing the objective with the subjective that modern reporters excuse their lack of objectivity by claiming that it's all really subjective anyway. A gun was fired or it wasn't, a bridge was crossed or it wasn't, a battle was fought or it wasn't. These things may be subjectively interpreted, but their objective reality (or lack thereof) is independent of that interpretation.
It is fair enough that some things are not knowable - because records were destroyed, or because there was a concerted effort to conceal that information permanently - but there the fact that is known is that the historical data for a definitive answer does not exist. So there is still a definite split between objective facts and subjective views. In most real-world cases, there will be additional facts - the archaeological facts on the ground. These are "facts" in the sense of object A was found at location B with a context of C and scientific tests reveal D. Because the archaeological record can be tampered with, there is nothing that definitely links object A to a specific event or a specific person. Interpretation of such a record is largely subjective.
Actually, we can refine this two-way split a little further into a three-way split: The facts (insofar as they can be objectively known), the subjective views, and the deductive reasoning/critical thinking that allows you to produce "derivative facts" ("facts" for which no direct evidence exists but which explains both the facts that do exist AND the subjective views as far as can be reasonably done). Derivative facts are not truly objective (as different people may come to different conclusions) but neither are they truly subjective (assuming that the method used is based on the scientific method and has been shown to produce accurate conclusions when tested).
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)
"Even if you feel that you are correct and the opposition is overreacting - sometimes it's in your own best interest to avoid upsetting other people. "
That is how you can turn a democracy into a dictatorship.
It's completely like that here in Europe : if you protest something the EU doesn't like , they will make it very clear you should "avoid upsetting people , aka shut up " .
Just look at the EU constitution/Lisbon treaty : people spoke up against them , the EU basically told them to shut up , and they just carried on with implementing it , as if nothing happened.
Granted , it's a bit far fetched for a game , but it's the same idea : EA is reacting out of fear , not because they care so much ( then they wouldn't have put it in there in the first place ) .
Slipping shoelaces ?