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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

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.

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".

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.