Despite Homefront, THQ VP Critical of Taliban in Medal of Honor

[Tom Goldman]

Despite Homefront, THQ VP Critical of Taliban in Medal of Honor

If it were up to THQ's Danny Bilson, the Taliban would never have been included in EA's Medal of Honor reboot, but North Korea is still up for grabs.

EA and Danger Close's Homefront [http://www.amazon.com/Medal-Honor-Xbox-360/dp/B000TI836G/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1295115162&sr=8-1].

In an interview with Eurogamer, Bilson said: "I wouldn't have put [the Taliban in Medal of Honor] in the first place." He separates Medal of Honor from Homefront by pointing out that Medal of Honor is based on a real, ongoing conflict, while Homefront, whose storyline follows a North Korean invasion of the U.S., is "speculative fiction."

"When you get into reality - and that's real, that's not speculative science-fiction like ours," he added. "I don't want to play as the Taliban, particularly."

Bilson wouldn't even want to play as the Germans from World War II. He said the "heroes and villains" from real world conflicts are in his "psyche," and they play into his personal sensitivity when making games, though not necessarily THQ's in a broader sense.

Homefront uses real-world imagery and politics to display a future where a North Korean invasion of the U.S. puts a death grip on its citizens. The latest trailer [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/106129-THQ-Unveils-New-Homefront-Trailer] shows U.S. soldiers killed in brutal ways. To Bilson, this is apparently different than Medal of Honor's use of the Taliban, because "if people are dying in the real world that becomes sensitive."

Is there really a difference? Homefront and Medal of Honor both deal with the toll that war takes from humanity, and both display it in a realistic manner. Homefront might be an even harsher view, albeit one based in an alternate reality. Just because it doesn't take place in the "real world," is Homefront somehow different from Medal of Honor in regards to what it depicts? I'm not so sure.

Source: Eurogamer [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-01-14-bilson-wouldnt-have-put-taliban-in-moh]

Permalink

 

[Irridium]

So... he doesn't want to see things from the perspective of the other side of a conflict because it clashes with his "they're completely bad, we're completely good" views?

*sigh*

 

[CezarIgnat]

North Korea....invading US?


[small]Who the f#%$ writes this shit?[/small]

 

[Dectilon]

What do South Koreans think of it?

 

[D_987]

I don't see how he's being hypocritical, yes maybe in what he depicts, butt hat's not what he says. He claims he doesn't want to play as the Taliban, and that he feels depicting a real world, current situation to be offensive. He doesn't claim that creating a realistic, war based shooter is a bad concept, nor does he claim that EA were wrong for making a game like that, he merely claims the fact a current war situation was used was a poor choice.

That's not hypocritical...

 

[thethingthatlurks]

In an interview with Eurogamer, Bilson said: "I wouldn't have put [the Taliban in Medal of Honor] in the first place." He separates Medal of Honor from Homefront by pointing out that Medal of Honor is based on a real, ongoing conflict, while Homefront, whose storyline follows a North Korean invasion of the U.S., is "speculative fiction."

Speculative fiction? Those idiots cannot even feed their own damn population. How in the world are they going to invade the American continent? Say what you will about MoH, at least it portrayed a real war. This is a meth induced hallucination of a tiny-penis-compensating gun toting, right wing extremists with a vertical family tree.

Bilson wouldn't even want to play as the Germans from World War II. He said the "heroes and villains" from real world conflicts are in his "psyche," and they play into his personal sensitivity when making games, though not necessarily THQ's in a broader sense.

How is a soldier, regardless of nationality, either a hero or a villain? They're nothing but mindless tools, who carry out the orders of their superiors (at least in the grand scheme of things). There is no fundamental difference between playing an allied or a german (note: not nazi and/or SS) soldier in ww2, except for the inevitably hilarious accent in which the orders are given. This guy's an idiot..

 

[Catalyst6]

Yes, it's theoretical. Silly, even, the concept that North Korea could physically invade the US and WIN is kind of like England deciding that they wanted their land back, then taking it.

However, it still deals with a *possibility*, one that may appear in the very near future. So they can't exactly take the high road of "it's all just for fun, anyways".

The problem lies in the question of why they picked North Korea by name. Yes, they're violent, but they could have used a nameless country to fight against, or placed it in the future where new boarders have been drawn to make a new country in the same general area.

But no, they wanted to tie it to modern-day politics in the same way that Medal of Honor did. Thus, they can't talk.

Of course, it helps that the game is set in a place where there *isn't* an active war going on.

 

[Cousin_IT]

It's okay because the USA isn't losing in the Korean peninsula atm.

 

[KeyMaster45]

I still think they were weak for caving to pressure. I say let Jack Thompson and his ilk shout as loud as they want because despite changing the name it's still implied that they are the Taliban. They're still the same character models in the same setting as when they were called the Taliban. It's more "okay" to portray current events by dancing around the idea of who we're fighting?

The only way we're ever going to get them to shut up is if we simply start ignoring them, by caving on this they now believe they have power over the industry. Hell I think Jack Thompson even took credit as the cause for the name change.

If we ever want the industry to gain respect they're going to have to show people that they won't cave at the first sign of controversy.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

What I'm wondering is how the heck "Renaming the taliban" somehow stopped the supposed training terrorists could've used it for.

It was the fact that you could play as the Taliban and "kill American soldiers". And, as those of us with a sense of logic (unlike Fox News) say, "and Americans killing Americans is any better?". Apparently if you make a generic stereotypical terrorist group from the country of Middle-Eastern-stan, it is perfectly ok, but not if you use real world names.

I swear if I ever see a game that comes up with some sort of conflict like Six Days in Fallujah or Medal of Honor again, and they stand their ground and publish the game anyway, I'll buy it just to support them for doing so.

 

[cairocat]

Biased article is biased.

 

[thethingthatlurks]

What I'm wondering is how the heck "Renaming the taliban" somehow stopped the supposed training terrorists could've used it for. Did they really think that the conversation went on like this.

Terrorist #1: Hey! Dude get over here!

Terrorist #2: What is it?

Terrorist #1: I just found out those American Infidels are making a videogame... AND WE'RE IN IT! We're stars!

Terrorist #2: Wow! Really? This is awesome, maybe we can use this to train some new recruits, we should go tell the great leader immediately!

Terrorist #1: W-wait a second, apparently there's a controversy about it going on in the U.S.

Terrorist #2: What's happening?

Terrorist #1: Wait for it... OH CURSE THOSE INFIDELS! They just changed the name from the Taliban to "Opposing Force"

Terrorist #2: OUR PLANS ARE FOILED! NOOOOOOOOOOO! Now we can't use it to train somehow!


Seriously, even if you change the name, it doesn't make much of a difference, and honestly, do you really think Terrorists would buy a ton of Medal of Honor games JUST because their name is in it, and how will that teach them everything they need to know? Plus, what's to stop them from playing Call of Duty or something, just because of the fact they'd be playing as russians and that would somehow stop them from "using it to train"?

*shrugs* I guess the Taliban could have sued for royalties or something. You know, with their crack team of cave lawyers

 

[nin_ninja]

So... he doesn't want to see things from the perspective of the other side of a conflict because it clashes with his "they're completely bad, we're completely good" views?

*sigh*

THEY BAD! AMERICANS GOOD! WE CANUCKS NEED STRONG AMERICA TO PROTECT US!

See, the system works fine. We all play along so that we don't have to deal with these morons.

 

[Nouw]

What do South Koreans think of it?

I thought you'd never ask.

Plot is bullshit and never happening but at least it makes a good game right?

I agree with the man, this would never happen whereas fighting the Taliban is quite real and that was the fuss. But that does not mean I suppourt the change, I merely understand where they are coming from.

 

[The Wooster]

So just to be clear on this.

Making a game about a war your country is currently involved in is insensitive.

Making a game that antagonizes a nation your country is on the verge of warring against isn't.

 

[Woodsey]

IT WAS ONLY IN THE FUCKING MULTIPLAYER. You do the exact same things as the American side too, only the team name was different and so were the character skins.

One could easily argue that speculating on a North Korean invasion (although that'd never happen) of America is insensitive to the current hostilities between America and South Korea versus the North. You could even argue that making it is allowing the North to see it as propaganda against them.

But then, we don't say that because we're not fucking morons.

Danny Bilson is a hypocrite.

 

[Staskala]

I think that creating a fictional war with real nations is infinetely worse than making a game about a real conflict, especially if those nations aren't on the best terms to begin with.

With the scenario of North Korea invading the US and portraying them as baby-eating-100%-evil monsters you are harming "real" international relationships.
By making a game about an on-going conflict you at least can't do more damage than what's already been done, but creating a new enemy-image is far, far worse.
(although it being "new" is debatable, as the American media is also doing its best to establish this)

I really don't want to know how many people will go "Yup, that's North Korea for you" when they play this game.
It is fiction, yes, but will everyone see it as such?

Oh, and by the way, calling it "speculative fiction" like there's even a shred of a chance of this ever happening... F*ck off.

 

[Drummie666]

So... North Korea wasn't a real-life american enemy? Cause... they were... and kinda sorta are. North Korean soldiers killed American soldiers. So have the Taliban. Besides, I found Medal of Honor to be extremely respectful to those fighting against the Taliban. One of the best ways to do that is to show those playing it what those fighting the war go through on a daily basis. It certainly did that.

Hmm, I just had an idea that could please everyone. Tell me what you guys think. How about in the multiplayer, only the NATO side is playable, having the Taliban side be AI that auto adjust difficulty based on the skill level of those on the NATO side? Having some realistic situations as modes. If you want to go against other people instead of AI, how about a mode where it's a training scenario for NATO, one side is NATO, one side is a pretend Taliban.

How about that? Would that work or is that stupid and we should just go with both sides being playable?

Edit: I was against renaming the Taliban. I noticed after rereading my post I noticed that I came off like I was sounding like I was completely against playing as the Taliban in the multiplayer. I'm not. Just wondering whether my random idea was good.

 

[manythings]

What do South Koreans think of it?

Don't be silly, they're not real people like us. They are a speculative science-fiction race. South Korea, indeed... pshaw!