bit-gamer.net

MOH changes Taliban to Opposing Force

MOH changes Taliban to Opposing Force

Electronic Arts has renamed the Taliban faction in Medal of Honor to Opposing Force.

Electronic Arts has announced that it has changed the name of the Taliban faction in Medal of Honor's multiplayer portion after gathering feedback from "friends and families of fallen soldiers.

Earlier this year EA skirted controversy when UK Defence Secetary Liam Fox said he was "disgusted and angry" at the fact that "someone would think it acceptable to recreate the acts of the Taliban [in a game]." EA defended itself by saying that it was only the name of one of the multiplayer factions, nothing more.

"Most of us have been doing this since we were seven: someone plays the cop, someone must be robber," said an EA spokesperson at the time. "In Medal of Honor multiplayer, someone's got to be the Taliban."

Now though, EA has changed the name of the Taliban faction to a more generic 'Opposing Force' for reasons detailed in an open letter from Medal of Honor's producer, Greg Goodrich, copied below.

"In the past few months, we have received feedback from all over the world regarding the multiplayer portion of Medal of Honor. We’ve received notes from gamers, active military, and friends and family of servicemen and women currently deployed overseas. 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. 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."

"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."

"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."

Let us know your thoughts in the forums.

51 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Phalanx 4th October 2010, 09:38 Quote
I think if it makes people who are ignorant of the fact that it's just some text in a game and not a real thing happy, I say do it.

As gamers, we know what we're doing. It's a game. The only people freaking out here are the ones who want the publicity, like that idiot mentioned in the article. The families and friends of soldiers simply gave their feedback and got listened to. Perhaps that clown Liam Fox could take a leaf from their book.
Jaberw0cky 4th October 2010, 09:53 Quote
actually i would have had more respect for EA if theyd stuck to thier proverbial guns and dealt with the real world issue. In the end Opposing Force still consists of middle eastern men with plenty of muslim iconography on them. I recently watched The Hurt Locker, and i dont remember hearing any controversy over the subject matter there.
I mean no disrespect to anyone, but some perspective wouldnt go amiss.
CardJoe 4th October 2010, 09:56 Quote
Personally, I'd expect them to change the names of both sides. Surely the Afghanistan populace might get offended at the other side?
Unknownsock 4th October 2010, 10:14 Quote
Ignorance is blizz is guess...
eddtox 4th October 2010, 10:16 Quote
I'm with Joe on this one. Irrational people are being irrational.
Draksis 4th October 2010, 10:17 Quote
$10 says the first mod out changes the name back. Welcome to the big world!
DriftCarl 4th October 2010, 10:22 Quote
another win for the Taliban. Yet again proving that they are significantly changing our lives. 1 bit at a time.
recognize 4th October 2010, 10:34 Quote
I too find it absolutely disgusting how EA deemed it acceptable to include any references to terrorist organisations in a game. Whats wrong with having blue v red team or alpha v beta?? Why do they feel the need to associate a fictional game with real-world entities like the Taliban? Are we not force fed enough propaganda from the media?… This is scandalous, thousands and thousands of people have died as a result of this 'war on terror', a war meticulously orchestrated by rich corporates and puppet governments. Fitting how EA see fit to advocate these corrupted times.
stonedsurd 4th October 2010, 10:35 Quote
Cop outs.
DeathAwaitsU 4th October 2010, 10:41 Quote
pfftt, pussys :/
Mentai 4th October 2010, 10:54 Quote
This was so disappointing.
Phalanx 4th October 2010, 11:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by recognize
I too find it absolutely disgusting how EA deemed it acceptable to include any references to terrorist organisations in a game. Whats wrong with having blue v red team or alpha v beta?? Why do they feel the need to associate a fictional game with real-world entities like the Taliban? Are we not force fed enough propaganda from the media?… This is scandalous, thousands and thousands of people have died as a result of this 'war on terror', a war meticulously orchestrated by rich corporates and puppet governments. Fitting how EA see fit to advocate these corrupted times.

I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you are, then perhaps some of that pent-up rage should be allocated to other media such as film and written word? Seeing the word 'Taliban' written on a computer screen is no different to seeing is written in a novel, newspaper or used in a film.
recognize 4th October 2010, 11:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ph4lanx
Quote:
Originally Posted by recognize
I too find it absolutely disgusting how EA deemed it acceptable to include any references to terrorist organisations in a game. Whats wrong with having blue v red team or alpha v beta?? Why do they feel the need to associate a fictional game with real-world entities like the Taliban? Are we not force fed enough propaganda from the media?… This is scandalous, thousands and thousands of people have died as a result of this 'war on terror', a war meticulously orchestrated by rich corporates and puppet governments. Fitting how EA see fit to advocate these corrupted times.

I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you are, then perhaps some of that pent-up rage should be allocated to other media such as film and written word? Seeing the word 'Taliban' written on a computer screen is no different to seeing is written in a novel, newspaper or used in a film.

Pardon me but I can allocate my 'pent-up rage' in whichever direction I choose, be that written novels, films, or articles on ignorant game publishers. May I remind you that this name change was amended following pleas from families of troops killed by insurgents in Afghanistan.
Fizzl 4th October 2010, 11:35 Quote
Socially acceptable to shoot named members of the Third Reich but not nameless Taliban, interesting. I guess time is a factor.

It doesn't make a difference to me, they may as well be red team and blue team.
Phalanx 4th October 2010, 11:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by recognize
Pardon me but I can allocate my 'pent-up rage' in whichever direction I choose, be that written novels, films, or articles on ignorant game publishers. May I remind you that this name change was amended following pleas from families of troops killed by insurgents in Afghanistan.

EA are hardly being ignorant. Having the word 'Taliban' in a game doesn't make a company ignorant, it just shows that they aren't blurring reality. Does this mean that the families of people who have been killed by the Nazis in World War II should be petitioning companies not to use the word Nazi in films, books or games? No. They accept what has happened.

As people before have mentioned. Irrational people are being irrational.
StoneyMahoney 4th October 2010, 11:55 Quote
All this and hardly anyone bats an eyelid at all the myriad games based on World War 2 or Vietnam that let you play as Axis or Vietcong soliders. I'd imagine there's an awful lot of people who lost loved ones in those wars who are around but I doubt anyone ever bothered to complain.

There's also a massive double standard being waved here. We care sooo much about the grieving widows and children when they're on our side, but we don't give a **** about what happens to the loved ones of the opposing force. We've got games where we can be allied soldiers and kill Taliban / Al Queda / Iraqi soliders, so what now we just thumb our noses at *their* grieving widows and children because they're on the wrong/losing/opposite side? (delete according to your own level of conceit)

Heaven forbid that we actually have a rational look at why and how a conflict happens from *both* sides. If that were to happen we might actually start to realize that maybe we don't have the moral high ground in every battleground the USA wades into, dragging us along with them. To quote Bill Hicks, how does to feel to find out that *we* are the Evil Empire?

OMG, RANT!
lacuna 4th October 2010, 12:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by recognize
I too find it absolutely disgusting how EA deemed it acceptable to include any references to terrorist organisations in a game. Whats wrong with having blue v red team or alpha v beta?? Why do they feel the need to associate a fictional game with real-world entities like the Taliban? Are we not force fed enough propaganda from the media?… This is scandalous, thousands and thousands of people have died as a result of this 'war on terror', a war meticulously orchestrated by rich corporates and puppet governments. Fitting how EA see fit to advocate these corrupted times.

Thats an impressively high horse you have there. Gauging by your reaction to mentioning the Taliban in a game, I fear you may actually explode if someone dared to make a game involving nazi germany. Fingers crossed that we will never see anything so heinous!
BRAWL 4th October 2010, 12:32 Quote
Fair enough, Can't say it'll stop my pre-order.
StoneyMahoney 4th October 2010, 12:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lacuna
Quote:
Originally Posted by recognize
I too find it absolutely disgusting how EA deemed it acceptable to include any references to terrorist organisations in a game. Whats wrong with having blue v red team or alpha v beta?? Why do they feel the need to associate a fictional game with real-world entities like the Taliban? Are we not force fed enough propaganda from the media?… This is scandalous, thousands and thousands of people have died as a result of this 'war on terror', a war meticulously orchestrated by rich corporates and puppet governments. Fitting how EA see fit to advocate these corrupted times.

Thats an impressively high horse you have there. Gauging by your reaction to mentioning the Taliban in a game, I fear you may actually explode if someone dared to make a game involving nazi germany. Fingers crossed that we will never see anything so heinous!

Actually, I find his statement contradictory. He tells us how disgusted he is that we can play a game from the perspective of "the other side" but then goes on to burn "our side" in anti-neocapitalist effigy.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for neocapitalist burning (in effigy or otherwise) but given the historical origin of the Taliban and the way they came to power in the first place, we should really be removing references to the United States from all our games instead. They may have done the whole world a favour by supporting Afghanistan in it's resistance of Red Communism, but DAMN did they pooch-screw the end-game in that one, hence today's situation.
jimmyjj 4th October 2010, 12:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by recognize
I too find it absolutely disgusting how EA deemed it acceptable to include any references to terrorist organisations in a game. Whats wrong with having blue v red team or alpha v beta?? Why do they feel the need to associate a fictional game with real-world entities like the Taliban? Are we not force fed enough propaganda from the media?… This is scandalous, thousands and thousands of people have died as a result of this 'war on terror', a war meticulously orchestrated by rich corporates and puppet governments. Fitting how EA see fit to advocate these corrupted times.

Which rich corporates are these? And who is controlling the puppet governments? Are aliens involved?

There are good arguments from both camps both regarding the war in Afghanistan and this specific issue, there is no need to reach in to the realms of lunacy and conspiracy theory.
GravitySmacked 4th October 2010, 13:29 Quote
I really don't care who's called what, all I care about is whether it's a good game or not.
jimjam205 4th October 2010, 13:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GravitySmacked
I really don't care who's called what, all I care about is whether it's a good game or not.

^ This!

a moral victory i guess for those who were actually bothered by what they were called in game :/
CharlO 4th October 2010, 14:13 Quote
They were considering several options.
"Liberation Forces" vs "Opposing to be liberated Forces"
"Jesus an pals" vs "Satan worshippers"
"Normal Peoples" vs "Goat lovers"
"Good Guys" vs "Bad people"
"Predators" vs "Aliens"
Fizzban 4th October 2010, 14:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlO
They were considering several options.
"Liberation Forces" vs "Opposing to be liberated Forces"
"Jesus an pals" vs "Satan worshippers"
"Normal Peoples" vs "Goat lovers"
"Good Guys" vs "Bad people"
"Predators" vs "Aliens"

+rep
They should have gone with "Jesus an pals" vs "Goat lovers". Would have made me lol.
Bonzo45 4th October 2010, 14:33 Quote
That's a text book Press Statement right there! Right before the Open BETA for Medal of Honor starts! To be fair EA have probably made the right decision there. They've changed literally nothing in the game and it's good publicity!
MaverickWill 4th October 2010, 17:29 Quote
Right, well, anyone else think it's time we start pushing to get the Taliban referred to as "Opposing Force" in real life? That should hopefully show people that it's only a name change - something as superficial as a dozen letters. At the end of the day, we'll still be in Afghanistan, firing guns into Afghan resistance warriors, and dying occasionally.

This doesn't change a thing.
recognize 4th October 2010, 17:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ph4lanx
Quote:
Originally Posted by recognize
Pardon me but I can allocate my 'pent-up rage' in whichever direction I choose, be that written novels, films, or articles on ignorant game publishers. May I remind you that this name change was amended following pleas from families of troops killed by insurgents in Afghanistan.

EA are hardly being ignorant. Having the word 'Taliban' in a game doesn't make a company ignorant, it just shows that they aren't blurring reality. Does this mean that the families of people who have been killed by the Nazis in World War II should be petitioning companies not to use the word Nazi in films, books or games? No. They accept what has happened.

As people before have mentioned. Irrational people are being irrational.

Using the word Taliban for a team name is in bad taste, not only for grieving families (on both sides) but for the general public who are being programmed into this ‘USA = good, Taliban = bad’ culture without knowing all of the facts. IMO video games should be kept separate from real world events as sensitive as this, be that Taliban, Nazi's or whatever historical ‘opposition’ you care to name. Call it glorification, advocating or just a team name, it’s in bad taste period hence EA’s decision to make changes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneyMahoney
Thats an impressively high horse you have there. Gauging by your reaction to mentioning the Taliban in a game, I fear you may actually explode if someone dared to make a game involving nazi germany. Fingers crossed that we will never see anything so heinous!

Actually, I find his statement contradictory. He tells us how disgusted he is that we can play a game from the perspective of "the other side" but then goes on to burn "our side" in anti-neocapitalist effigy.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for neocapitalist burning (in effigy or otherwise) but given the historical origin of the Taliban and the way they came to power in the first place, we should really be removing references to the United States from all our games instead. They may have done the whole world a favour by supporting Afghanistan in it's resistance of Red Communism, but DAMN did they pooch-screw the end-game in that one, hence today's situation.[/QUOTE]

‘anti-neocapitalist effigy’? lol Sorry you must have me misunderstood, it was a simple comment on the ties between government and business where corporations, conglomerates, and/or government entities with private components, control the direction and governance of a country and/or warfare. I am disgusted that EA feel it necessary to even consider having a USA vs Taliban situation in a video game, regardless of which ‘side’ you choose.

[QUOTE=jimmyjj]...There are good arguments from both camps both regarding the war in Afghanistan and this specific issue, there is no need to reach in to the realms of lunacy and conspiracy theory.[/QUOTE]

“There are good arguments from both camps both regarding the war in Afghanistan”... Like oil maybe? Weapons contracts? Do some research kiddo, fact and lunacy are two very different things.
Taniniver 4th October 2010, 19:22 Quote
Personally I'm against the change, simply because it's so one-sided. If they change the name of one, they should change the others too; All this change says is that they support the wishes of certain Americans and NOT the wishes of anyone else.

Compared to the Americans who objected, there are probably as many people in the world (if not more) who have had their friends or family killed by American soldiers and who would support the Taliban, but their voices don't get heard since they aren't the target market for the game.
Canon 4th October 2010, 19:27 Quote
How long before the government consists of a bunch of jumped up activists that will argue anything remotely connected to the authorities of the land and the head of state is pushing herbal remedies from No.10, seriously?
Sebbo 5th October 2010, 00:26 Quote
While I don't care much about the name change, or all the political ranting above, I do wish they hadn't chosen a name so generic. Hearing and seeing "the Opposing Force" in place of "the Taliban" or any other name all throughout the campaign is going to seem really forced and break the immersion a bit
StoneyMahoney 5th October 2010, 09:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by recognize
anti-neocapitalist effigy? lol Sorry you must have me misunderstood, it was a simple comment on the ties between government and business where corporations, conglomerates, and/or government entities with private components, control the direction and governance of a country and/or warfare.

One of the facets of neocapitalism goes further than normal every day capitalism by suggesting that pretty much every function of government short of law making and diplomacy should be out-sourced to private entities for a profit. A lot of the US Army's functions were outsourced - mundane stuff like catering and warehousing and logistics as well as hiring mercs to do some of the fighting - and then a reason was conjured out of thin air to have a war in Iraq to make sure they turned a profit on the scheme. They even outsourced all the "humanitarian" rebuilding work afterward. It was then subcontracted so the corporations awarded the contracts did nothing but swipe a big chunk of the money on it's way past. And the sub-contractors hired sub-sub-contractors and took their cut, etc etc, until about 50% of the rebuilding money was misappropriated.

Politicians lying to the electorate and killing a whole lot of people to reinforce an economic standpoint and make a bunch of money for their political allies in industry - that's neocapitalism at work. Yeah, I get exactly what you were talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by recognize
I am disgusted that EA feel it necessary to even consider having a USA vs Taliban situation in a video game, regardless of which side you choose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyjj
...There are good arguments from both camps both regarding the war in Afghanistan and this specific issue, there is no need to reach in to the realms of lunacy and conspiracy theory.
... Like oil maybe? Weapons contracts? Do some research kiddo, fact and lunacy are two very different things.

Afghanistan was the only country that defeated communist Russia's aggressive expansion plans, thanks to covert military aid paid for by America and (IIRC) Saudi Arabia (or Egypt, can't remember which). America refused to send Afghanistan any reconstruction aid after the war*, even though the Afghans had effectively just defeated America's enemies for them at the cost of a large proportion of their adult population, the leveling of their cities and a variety of other atrocities. The Mujahideen, the only Afghans who knew America was involved due to their training by the CIA, took this pretty personally. They were the only disciplined fighting forces left in Afghanistan and the various groups didn't agree on what should happen next, causing a civil war.

It's not lunacy or conspiracy theory, it's simply what happens when you screw around with another country that you don't understand and you don't make any effort to clean up the mess you were involved in making. Personally I'm all for a video game being made about this, maybe it'll inspire the younger generation who don't know anything about this to make the effort to find out what really happened. There's not a lot they can do about it now, but they might be able to stop things like this happening again in the future.

Of course, that would also require the game itself to handle the issue sensitively from both sides and be thought provoking in it's presentation of the moral dilemmas involved. But I'm just kidding myself on that, it's a MoH game from EA, of *course* it won't be sensitive.

Suggesting that the conflict is merely about the appropriation of resources or increased weapon sales clouds the real issues behind it all and shows just how politically astute you aren't, Recognise. Please don't do that, you just make the whole situation worse. Interesting how this whole discussion motivated you to prompt others into doing research when it doesn't seem you could be bothered to do any of your own.

(*lack of reconstruction aid to Germany coupled with the huge reparations they were made to pay after WWI is what caused the economic collapse that allowed Hitler to come to political power and start WWII, so it's not like the rise of the Taliban or something similar wasn't obviously going to happen or anything)
recognize 5th October 2010, 11:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneyMahoney
Suggesting that the conflict is merely about the appropriation of resources or increased weapon sales clouds the real issues behind it all and shows just how politically astute you aren't, Recognise. Please don't do that, you just make the whole situation worse. Interesting how this whole discussion motivated you to prompt others into doing research when it doesn't seem you could be bothered to do any of your own.

Don’t be so condescending, to question my political astuteness from a proposal that oil supply and weapons contracts (amongst other factors) contributed to recent war efforts is quite ridiculous and borderline ignorant, StoneyMahoney. You corroborate that this is not about lunacy or conspiracies, then go on to flame me for encouraging others to RESEARCH and not dismiss alternative theories as lunacy or conspiracy. Quite amusing that you naturally assume I am a 'he', for all you know I am a 'she' with an abundance of knowledge in various areas of US foreign policies. To assume is to make an ass out of ‘U’ and ‘ME’ :)
StoneyMahoney 5th October 2010, 12:52 Quote
Read what I said. I never contradicted you, I just suggested that you drastically oversimplified the reasons behind the conflict. That's a pretty dangerous thing to do if people who are listening are likely to take those reasons as read and then not look into them any further. It lets the people behind the actual, more serious issues off the hook to some extent as their actions become buried in the collective memory, if you will.

Please don't take my expansion on my previous suggestions as condescended towards you either, that was actually in response to JimmyJJ's suggestion that your assertion about governmental and corporate collaboration in manufactured warfare was lunacy, my bad for not separating those two threads out in my response sufficiently. Apologies for that.

Oh, and I can gather quite a lot from the way you write, and you write like a guy. ;)
Ending Credits 5th October 2010, 14:40 Quote
War "victims" have managed to find a new way to piss me off. Honestly, I understand that they've made an unwilling sacrifice but they're not the ones forced onto the frontlines, yet we pay little attention to what the average soldier thinks. This probably isn't even the actual view of most families who've lost a loved one but a whole bunch of politics and marketing helped by a few who've taken their berievement as a chance to jump into the spotlight.
Memnoch-fr 5th October 2010, 18:54 Quote
Seeing the amount of comments for and against, as well as some posts that are borderline arguments, it's probably a good idea.

Time probably is a healer (Nazi Vs. Taliban argument). The fact is, the thrid reich finished in 1945, Soldiers are still fighting against Taliban. That is a big difference. We don't really know what soldiers/families of soldiers in general think of this.
general22 6th October 2010, 06:11 Quote
This would be worth caring about if the game wasn't a generic pile of poo. Hopefully single player will redeem this game.
Grape Flavor 6th October 2010, 21:24 Quote
haha, can't have one article on this game here, or on RPS, without hand-wringing about how the neo-capitalist-imperialist-colonialist-whatever USA baby killers are conspiring to rob Afghanistan of all its precious sand. And depending on who you ask, maybe even the goats. No, to be fair this particular thread's pretty tame, actually.

@recognize "programmed into this ‘USA = good, Taliban = bad’ culture without knowing all of the facts"
I dunno about USA=good, I happen to live there and personally I think this place is pretty screwed up. But please tell me all these exonerating facts that make the Taliban something other than a bunch of retrograde fanatic thugs. I'm genuinely curious.

@Joe
I'm not sure that most Afghans would really be all that more offended at USA than Taliban. Polls (and yes I do question the feasibility of conducting an accurate poll in these conditions) show that about 14% of the Afghan populace wishes the Taliban to return to power. Not exactly a resounding endorsement for the Taliban either. There's a big difference between genuine popular support, and cooperation just because if you don't, they're going to kill you.
Lucas | GhoSt 6th October 2010, 23:33 Quote
F**k that! I wanna kill sum Talibans!!!
thehippoz 7th October 2010, 02:28 Quote
I dunno why these kinds of games always remind me of these phone calls (nsfw)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRLeVW4VYLk
hyperion 7th October 2010, 02:57 Quote
I wish the EA spokesman would have said: If we change the name, the terrorists win...
mastorofpuppetz 8th October 2010, 21:37 Quote
LMAO at clowns being sensitive over a GAME faction being called TALIBAN, WTF, seriously, of all the things to be mad at, what about MOVIES that use taliban, Watched NCIS the other night, it had TALIBAN in it, where is the rage? Geta life idiots. Its a fictional GAME, you shoot with pixalated guns. These people COMPLAINING will never even touch the game they just saw the word taliban and game in one sentence and their ignorance took care of the rest.

Lots of high horse condescending douche bags in this thread. Im gonna sign in as Bin laden in MOH just to tick you off.
mastorofpuppetz 8th October 2010, 21:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by recognize
I too find it absolutely disgusting how EA deemed it acceptable to include any references to terrorist organisations in a game. Whats wrong with having blue v red team or alpha v beta?? Why do they feel the need to associate a fictional game with real-world entities like the Taliban? Are we not force fed enough propaganda from the media?… This is scandalous, thousands and thousands of people have died as a result of this 'war on terror', a war meticulously orchestrated by rich corporates and puppet governments. Fitting how EA see fit to advocate these corrupted times.

i find humans like you disgusting, I have lost people in my life, the LASt thing on my mind is if a GAME faction called taliban hurts my feelings. Grow the heck up. Seriously, this has ZERo to do with real life events, its a game, and its just online sides. Naming an online faction the taliban has zero effect on 99% of sane humans who have lost people in the warr.
Sloth 8th October 2010, 22:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastorofpuppetz
i find humans like you disgusting, I have lost people in my life, the LASt thing on my mind is if a GAME faction called taliban hurts my feelings. Grow the heck up. Seriously, this has ZERo to do with real life events, its a game, and its just online sides. Naming an online faction the taliban has zero effect on 99% of sane humans who have lost people in the warr.
I would like to point out the irony of telling someone to "grow the heck up" in such an immature manner. You obviously have your own opinions on the matter, but an honest piece of advice: people will be more willing to listen when you behave in a reasonable manner.


My only confusion is why so many people are up in arms defending the original naming. The name bothered some people, so it was changed. I don't see the great desire to play as a terrorist that so many people seem to have. As Memnoch-fr says, there are still people out there fighting this very real war, the war which Medal of Honor specifically portrays, as opposed to the strikingly similar but still fiction conflicts in games such as MW2. It strikes me as crude and callous to play a video game as their potential killers. I don't see why you shouldn't be able to and think it's a bit silly for EA to go and change the name so late, but why would you want to is what bugs me. Go enlist if you want to fight terrorists.
The_Beast 8th October 2010, 22:10 Quote
Does it even matter? Who's still going to buy the game, IMO it wasn't all that great. I defiantly wouldn't spend money to play it.
Daddyfish 9th October 2010, 20:43 Quote
If your going to base a game in a real life country then the name of any factions belonging/ present in it should be used. What's the point in dumming things down as to not appear insensitive when the game is about killing people and blowing things up. Virtually simulating someone getting getting their head blow to pieces by a sniper is fine, but having your team name as Taliban is not?
general22 12th October 2010, 00:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
My only confusion is why so many people are up in arms defending the original naming. The name bothered some people, so it was changed. I don't see the great desire to play as a terrorist that so many people seem to have. As Memnoch-fr says, there are still people out there fighting this very real war, the war which Medal of Honor specifically portrays, as opposed to the strikingly similar but still fiction conflicts in games such as MW2. It strikes me as crude and callous to play a video game as their potential killers. I don't see why you shouldn't be able to and think it's a bit silly for EA to go and change the name so late, but why would you want to is what bugs me. Go enlist if you want to fight terrorists.

Why do people want to play as terrorists you ask?

The answer is because nobody is actually substituting playing a game for a real life war experience. I have no desire to experience the horrors of war anytime soon and I have great respect for those who do even if I may not agree with the reason for them being there.

People just want a a great game with a good story whether based on real events or not and in the case of an FPS, good gunplay. Nobody is playing the game to substitute shooting US soldiers in the face in real life so does it really matter what the factions are called? Anybody who takes offense to this need to be a little less uptight.

Isn't the reason American soldiers are in conflicts at the moment to protect the freedoms that American citizens enjoy and freedom of expression is one of them. Anybody who feels offended by the inclusion of the Taliban in a game are cheapening the sacrifice made by american soldiers.

PS: I am not american
Sloth 12th October 2010, 18:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by general22
Nobody is playing the game to substitute shooting US soldiers in the face in real life so does it really matter what the factions are called? Anybody who takes offense to this need to be a little less uptight.
Right there. That's what I don't understand.

In one sentence you say that it doesn't matter, but in the next claim that people need to be less uptight when they take offense. Going by the first sentence there is no reason for anyone to give it a second thought when the name is changed. It's just a name which ultimately has no effect on the game. The story and gameplay are all entirely the same. What does it matter if someone else in the world does take offense? The argument is now "I am offended" vs. "It's just a name". If "It's just a name" is true, then it's not a valid argument and "I am offended" wins by default.

Yet people still want the name to have stayed. So what's the real argument? That freedom of expression should be upheld? That's a double-edged sword. People who take offense are free to make their opinions known, they're adding just as much value to that freedom of speech as anyone else. So why should the enemy in the game be named the Taliban as opposed to anything else?
general22 13th October 2010, 09:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
Right there. That's what I don't understand.

I am saying there is no need to take offence to having the Taliban in the game for the reasons I outlined. I am also saying that people who are taking offence to this are free to be offended and call on the name to be changed. That doesn't mean they are right. This isn't hate speech or inciting violence so I don't see the need for meaningless censorship.

You ask why they should be called the Taliban in game? Presumably the reason is due to the setting. I am sure now that the name has been changed we are still not playing as terrorists in the game.
woody_294 13th October 2010, 10:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by recognize
... Do some research kiddo...

Where should I do this research? On the Jihadi websites? On the government conspiracy sites? The newspapers? I do not agree, nor disagree with this drama, but please don't try to make people out as naive because they haven't watched a "documentary" on it or read the newspapers. You can not have been present at every event that has caused what we see today.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums