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."

Comments

Well that's stupid.

[mweather]

My grandfather died in WW2, could you please remove the Germans from all your future WW2 games as well? The Japanese, too.

Re:Well that's stupid.

[Lunix Nutcase]

in an effort to reduce the number of reminders that bring undue stress into the lives of families waiting for their loved ones to return.

Huh? None of these whiners were going to buy this game to begin with so how are they being put under undue stress because someone else is playing a game where you can play people labeled as the Taliban? These whiners need to get over themselves. Secondly, how does this reduce the reminders when pretty much everyone who is going to play this game is going to know that this white-washed "opposing force" IS really the Taliban since all the models, weapons, etc are all the same.

Re:Well that's stupid.

[mweather]

So your position is that getting shot at in a video game by a bunch of guys in turbans isn't going to remind them of Afghanistan or cause stress unless they're named "Taliban"?

Re:Well that's stupid.

[digitalPhant0m]

Isn't the Freedom to put 'whatever characters you want in a video game' exactly what the 'soldiers in harms' way are trying to defend?

Think about it. However infuriating it may be to the soldiers, families, friends and pundits to include Taliban in the game, like it or not, that's freedom.

Re:Well that's stupid.

[travdaddy]

My grandfather died in WW2, could you please remove the Germans from all your future WW2 games as well? The Japanese, too.

I think we should keep the Germans in the WW2 games, and my grandfather died in a concentration camp! He fell out of a guard tower.

Re:Well that's stupid.

[HaZardman27]

I agree with you completely, I'm simply pointing out the reasoning behind this. EA is not dismissing their freedom to put what they want in this game; there has been no government interference here. They are simply choosing to avoid offending people, which is also their right.

Re:Well that's stupid.

[somersault]

They're also free to complain, and EA are free to take action if this negative PR is causing shops not to stock their latest game.

Think about it. However infuriating it may be to you that you can't authentically pretend to be terrorists who hate your country, EA wants to make money.

Re:Well that's stupid.

[hedwards]

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.

Re:Well that's stupid.

[TheCarp]

In other news, the teams in counter strike will no longer be known as the terrorists and the counter-terrorists. Instead, the weapons have been removed and replaced with paint ball guns, and the teams will be known as "accounting department" and "marketing department".

Animations of soldiers dieing and hitting the ground will be replaced with characters raising their marker and walking off the field.

-Steve

Re:Well that's stupid.

[Rude Turnip]

My grandfather killed six Germans at Normandy. Unfortunately, this happened in 1967.

Re:Well that's stupid.

[Voulnet]

The soldiers are fighting for your freedoms? That's funny; those who are trying to take your freedom live in the US, not Afghanistan.

Re:Well that's stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

My brother died in a marketing accident, you insensitive clod!

Re:Well that's stupid.

[couchslug]

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.

Re:Well that's stupid.

[IICV]

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.

Gamers were outraged. How dare you punish us for playing the game! etcetera.

So what did Blizzard do? Well, whenever you started a fresh session, you'd have a 200% XP earned bonus! This would gradually wear off until you were only earning 100% XP. If you logged off and waited a few hours, you'd get the 200% XP bonus again!

Gamers were pacified, because apparently the ones who really cared about this couldn't do math. Blizzard didn't actually make any changes, they just started calling the first part a 200% XP gain bonus, instead of calling the last part a 50% XP gain penalty.

It's funny how stupid people are. It's still the Taliban, you're still only earning half XP after a few hours of play - they're just calling it something else so you'll stop bitching.

Re:Well that's stupid.

[Lunix Nutcase]

it's pure entertainment of a situation that is extremely serious for some

Then they can choose to avoid the game. It's no different to how if you don't like a certain TV show that instead of trying to get it banned that you just *gasp* turn the channel and ignore it.

Re:Well that's stupid.

[h4rm0ny]

While true, your logic could equally be used to support removing the US troops from the game, renaming both groups Force A and Force B. Yet few seem to be clamoring for that.

So now you can play as an American...

[Gordonjcp]

... and for extra realism you get to shoot at British, Canadian, Danish and other "allied" troops. Ultra-realistic!

Re:Taliban Playable?

[snowraver1]

What is so wrong with it? It's a fact. Americans and the Taliban and fighting. Why hide the truth? Are we supposed to just pretend that Americans and the Taliban are "Super Best Friends"? I know, let's just ignore everything.

In other news...

[alexo]

The popular children's game has now been renamed to "cops and opposing forces"

Re:In other news...

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

This PC shit is fer the birds.

Back in my day, if you offended someone, you tell them it wasn't personal and move on. Now we have both extremes.... People going out of their way to personally offend others, and people who are offended by simple shapes.

Know this...

It will never end.

Re:Taliban Playable?

[characterZer0]

No. We are supposed to dehumanize the Taliban and make sure nobody thinks from their perspective, so we can continue to kill them with no twinge of guilt.

Power of a word?

[Dotren]

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"?

Re:Good.

[Lunix Nutcase]

I think you mean a bad example of a corporation being a pussy in face of a bunch of whiners? The fact of the matter is that you are still playing as the Taliban and all the models are exactly the same. All this is is a white-washing of the name.

Re:Taliban Playable?

[xaxa]

Are the Americans (?) still referred to as such? In the interest of fairness, I think they should be called the "invading force".

Re:Good.

[JonySuede]

I don't feel that suppressing an artistic representation of a current war because of a fear of public backlash is the right thing to do. True that for the shareholder EA this is certainly the most responsible approach, but with regards to the principle behind the US constitution and the civic liberties in general, I feel that this is totally irresponsible.

Errr... this is a wargame, folks!

[jd]

• In real wars, people die. It is expected. All who go into a warzone do so in the knowledge that they may not return. How do you sacrifice that which you have already surrendered for King/Queen/President/Fanatic (delete according to nation) and Country?
• Should the Americans get their name removed? There will be friends and family of the Taliban too. If this were truly about honoring the fallen, why be selective?
• Should they retroactively delete the names of nations for World War 2 games? All of those nations had people die too, and friends and family of those fallen are still alive today.

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.

arrogance

[spleen_blender]

"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.