Ben-DutkaThe Taliban controversy hovering over EA's Medal of Honor will soon disappear. Why? Because the Taliban have disappeared. Well…sort of.
According to a statement released today – as noted at Kotaku – EA have responded to the pressure applied by backlash from "friends and families of fallen soldiers," and have removed the Taliban as playable characters in their upcoming modern-war shooter. Well, the Taliban will essentially still be there, but they'll now be labeled as the "opposing force." Remember when some game companies couldn't get licensing for their sports game, so we got fake athlete names…? Something like that.
It didn't help that earlier in September, the commanding general of the Army and Air Force Exchange Services said they would pull MoH from U.S. military bases worldwide due to the "well-documented reports of depictions of Taliban fighters engaging American troops." Now, a statement issued by the game's executive producer, Greg Goodrich, has confirmed the team's decision to drop the Taliban reference. You can read that statement in full through the link above, but here's a snippet:
"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. Because of this, and because the heartbeat of Medal of Honor has always resided in the reverence for American and Allied soldiers, we have decided to rename the opposing team in Medal of Honor multiplayer from Taliban to Opposing Force."
For the record, Goodrich clarified that this decision will not directly affect the gameplay. His statement above finishes with, "To all who serve – we appreciate you, we thank you, and we do not take you for granted. And to the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines currently serving overseas, stay safe and come home soon." Well, they probably did the right thing, don't you think?
Simcoe is dead right there. The Taliban did no such thing. I'm not defending them, but try getting your facts right before condemning a group.
Peace.
Lawless, they harbored al Qaeda while they planned and executed the attacks. Then they wouldn't give them up when we asked. So they are just as responsable as those 19 hijackers.
Now that may be true, but from what I've gathered, the Pakistan and Afghan Taliban are almost two completely different groups. The first are the ones that seem to be harbouring and aiding Al-Qaeda. The latter seem to be trying to distance themselves from the affair and focus wholly on fighting back the invasion into their country.
I don't want to argue about this. It always leads to trouble, so I'm alright with saying we shall agree to disagree, aye?
I don't want to argue with you either. I respect you and like reading your posts. I just wanted to make it understood that there really isn't a difference in Al Qaeda's and the Taliban's ideology. They both have the same goal. the Taliban have just been able to take control of a once free country wreak their havoc on their own people while Al Qaeda's focus is the West. There virtually is no difference between the two besides the people they are going after.
But yes, i will agree to disagree with you. 🙂
Last edited by Jawknee on 10/1/2010 7:24:03 PM
War is stupid. Good thing we have FPS games to get a taste of what are blessed soldiers have to deal with everyday.
it's a shame the absolute rule of do not murder isnt so absolute…
(philosophical mind… makes you say this)
yah, so what. I hope ur not thinking what I'm thinking.
Eh, whatever they wanna do with their game…
they should get a LOT of commendment for this.
but opposing force? is that the BEST they could come up with?…
Cowardice. This is not a moral dilemma. It's a videogame and so not real. As such, why deprive people of the ability to 'participate' in the war on terror and 'aid' in the freeing of Afghanistan. Also, I fail to see how this will help them from a business perspective. It may have been banned from sale in certain areas, but anyone who wants it will still be able to get it elsewhere. Also, given that the enemy has been referred to as the Taliban for so long, I imagine that everyone has made up their minds and allowed their prejudices to come to the fore. The omission of a name will hardly be enough to change that.
Peace.
Reminds me of Matt Stone and Trey Parker's "Either it's all ok to make fun of, or nothing is." quote (bearing in mind that this particular topic isn't about humour) but it was the first thing that came to mind.
If it says Taliban above your head, it's all the more fun to put a bullet in your character. I think Socom used terrorist groups that were linked to Al Qaida, but I could be wrong. Abu Sayyaf, I believe was one of them.
No disrespect intended but these people have to move beyond petty issues and work on mending their pain from the loss. Changing a videogame will not bring about any healing.
Last edited by tes37 on 10/1/2010 5:15:14 PM
Petty issues? Over a nonconsequential change in a video game, you are discounting the suffering endured by soldiers and families who have paid the ultimate sacrifice! And you accuse them of being petty? Reality Check!
Wait, my bad, i think i read your post wrong. If by "petty issues" you're talking about the game's content, then i agree.
I just think if we were truly concerned with the loss and sacrifice that soldiers and soldiers' families first and foremost, we would ignore these petty issues, instead of asking them to do it.
I think in the end, the change in name amounts to nothing. It's not like they removed the multiplayer, thereby preventing people from playing as virtual Taliban killing virtual soldiers. But if this is EA's way of acknowledging the complaints of the soldiers and soldiers' families, then it should be understood as that: an assuaging gesture. Not in the name of censorship, or propaganda, or politics, or even money (unless the complaints numbered in the millions which i'm sure they didn't)..
You are correct about the intentions of my words in your second post.
As far as sacrifice and loss, I am no stranger to losing family members in war. It just happens to be the Vietnam war. I wasn't speaking as someone who doesn't know what it's like.
Apologies. Didn't mean to come out guns blazing. Guess i was kind of on edge by reading some of the other comments.
I had to sign in to say something here.
I find it highly contradicting, this. It's all well and good playing as an Allied soldier, shooting and killing a Taliban soldier, or Nazi, or whatever opposing force it is. So now you can play as someone who will be killing Allied soldiers. Why, all of a sudden, has this caused so much offence, I ask?
I don't hear many Germans, Russians or Japanese complaining about their people getting shot over and over again in countless FPS games centred on war. As I understand it, war takes two to tango, and I think it is ridiculous to change the name of your opposing force.
Guarantee that if the Taliban were not playable, there would be absolutely no problem with this.
Sure, I am not cold hearted, I can understand there are still people dying in the Middle East, but taking the name out of it does not change a thing. Players will still be gunning down Allied soldiers, just as an unnamed force. Compared to that airport scene, this is nothing.
Politics and Video Games don't mix. Thinking about it reminds me of the "Special" kid (I hate being PC) trying to hammer the square peg in the round hole.
When will Censorship in America end? We got school systems in Texas rewriting history and now this. Almost makes me ashamed to be American.
————————————
While on the subject of PC, does anyone else find the term African American to more offensive than Black? I prefer being Black as opposed to African American.
Last edited by main_event05 on 10/1/2010 10:26:59 PM
Yes, but we can both agree that both "Black" and "African American" are less offensive terms than "negro". And that's not just a matter of being politically correct. That's a matter of having respect. Some people have difficulty getting their heads around that.
There was a time not too long ago when even that term was considered acceptable. A vocal minority would speak up against that. And they were ignored. But they continued to fight to be called what they chose to be identified as, rather than being called by terms what others chose to call them.
Notice that the American Indian is the only nationality that is called American first. It is my belief that no matter where you come from, if you live here you should consider yourself first and foremost as American.
That's the way I see all black people, as American, no longer African who live in America. Nothing is wrong with someone's heritage.
I think that you'll find many Aboriginals will find the term American Indian to be offensive and would likely prefer First Nation, Aboriginal or Native American, in which case American still comes second.
Interesting observation, Tes37. Can't say I've ever made that one. I suppose it's a way of distinguishing an American Indian from an Asian Indian, or an Indian American (Asian Indian born in America). I've always preferred to refer to them as Native Americans only because "Indian" is a misnomer based on the mistake of Columbus thinking he had reached India (talk about a comedy of errors), if i'm not mistaken.
My grandmother who was Cherokee Indian never spoke of any such offense to being referred to as an American Indian.
In fact Aboriginal sounds more offensive.
Since I was a child, American Indian was used as well as Native American to describe the indigenous people of North America.
Last edited by tes37 on 10/2/2010 10:01:25 AM
Interesting, perhaps it's a regional thing, because First Nation peoples in Canada find the whole "Indian" labelling derogatory (the rationale being Indians are from India) and it's not PC here. Also, you wouldn't call an Inuit an Eskimo here either. "Aboriginal" is a widely used and perfectly acceptable term that includes the three main indigenous groups here in Canada: First Nations, Métis and Inuit.
All great points. It's just that the need to put African in front of American just makes it seem so… you know. Plus, it's just a waste of syllables.
Who cares what they are called It's a video game!
I am going to get this game and enjoy it, and I have all the respect in the world for the people who are fighting for our freedom.
I just don't understand why this all started any how. There were always bad guys in games that we could play as. any way, this game is going to do good and if you are not picking up this game because of it then you should not be a gamer.
GT5 countdown: 30 days no way YES!
" O no, there are pixels fighting for the taliban, killing the american pixels!!!"
* name gets changed *
"O, good, now it's just some guy wearing a turban killing the americans… "
Any1 else see the problem here, It's just a game, and it's just a name, Taliban or not, americans are still being gunned down, so really, does a simply name change REALLY make the families of the fallen feel better? cause it shouldnt…
EA, way to cave to such a silly thing.
🙁
this is exactly why the media does this, because they know if they bi*** and cry long and loud enough they will get their way.
there like a kid in the toy store after their mother does not buy them a toy, they bi*** and scream till their face goes red!
i wish EA had the balls to stand up too them and say were making the game you dont like it?
tough sh*t!
honestly whats the point?
military bases have already banned the sale of this game so its not like this is really going to help the sales.
may appease 1 or 2 people, but how much you want to bet the people who were bi***ing in the first place never intended to buy the game in the first place!?
I think that the word "insurgency" may have been a better descriptor, and be less of an issue due to the fact that it doesn't directly name the Taliban itself.
However, at the risk of seeming insensitive, I don't honestly believe that we're doing the right thing by trying to alter the name of the antagonists.
MoH chooses to place it's setting inside the pretenses of the current escalations inside the wars on terror, this includes the Taliban, Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, its the whole reason why we're there. Imagine if designers took the same approach with MoH2, a WW2 game without Nazis, kind-of hard isn't it? Even those older games also allowed you to play as the 'opposing force' in multiplayer, regardless of who they were, nazi, japanese, russian or what have you, why should this be any different?
At the same time, the families of those who were injured or who've died have also suffered and continue to suffer the most throughout our time in the middle-east. I cannot say that I wouldn't have had to consider the change as well, and would have done the same as EA.
Defacto Censorship comes in many forms, but sometimes sensitivity is the biggest barrier we have with our freedom of speech. Here it hit us where the wound is still tender and we, as an industry, flinched.
Then take the 'Nazis' and Vietcong out of games. I hate how games call WWII German soldiers 'Nazis', they are not Nazis. Is every American solder a Republican cuz our government is a republic? No! They are just German soldiers fighting cuz their government told them to. So we fought Germans in a couple wars, the Koreans, Vietnamese, Soviets, English, blah blah blah. And now they want to cry about the Taliban? America needs to grow up, grow a pair, stop bitching, and realize that its just a game and its not the only one that Americans get killed by the enemy.
And besides, if it was my family killed in Iraor Afganistan, I would like to have him be immortalized in a game as a hero. Otherwise, he is just 6 feet under and dead, what good is that? GROW UP AMERICA, you bunch of emotionally weak morons.
And EA is a bunch of pussies. They dont even have support worth a crap.
while you are at it pull Russia and Japan from other games online like Bad Company its no different and rediculous, over a stupid game.
Some of the comments on this topic make me sick! It's all about having respect for our troops. Don't you get that?? Then some of you stated you're not going to buy the game because of this, that's just childish imo. The reason we can play as Nazis and others is because those wars happened decades ago and you're not really offending anyone. The war in Afganistan is still going on and so of course some of our service men & women are going to be offended. They put their lives on the line everyday for YOU! Perhaps some of you should show a little respect and stop thinking only of yourselves for just a minute! I can gaurantee if you spent just 5 minutes in Afganistan being shot at by the REAL Taliban you'd change your @#!$ tune! Than you might just be thankful for our brave men and women out there defending OUR freedoms so you can sit in your comfy house playing your video games.
I think EA made the right decision out of respect for our soldiers and it makes me respect EA all the more. Show a little respect yourselves!
Last edited by cr67 on 10/3/2010 4:29:16 PM
Comment, fail. Any war is terrible but it should be able to be freely expressed in any form. Be it film and game. So WWII happened ages ago, so it's a freeforall on that time is it? Ok, go make a exploitation flick on the holocaust then, see how Israel and Jewish communities react.
They didn't do anything, they changed a name, that's cowardice not respectful.
^ Its a game, lighten up pillhead
What about the poor Afghanistan Kids who have to play as the Americans, oh thats right, One Sided. I forgot. Americans are the only thing that Matter. Lets see what Country we can Destroy today. If I made enough money Id leave this Shithole, Fuck America.
Whatever they feel like doing in the end it's still the same game thats all I care about.
All you Americans make me laugh.
There are British troops fighting in this war too.
Do you think they give a s£$t about playing as the taliban?? You lot are such pu$$ies!!haha.
If anything the British troops should be lobbying to ban hardcore modes. Should we start talking about friendly fire? lol.