U.S. Army May Reverse Medal of Honor Ban

[Andy Chalk]

U.S. Army May Reverse Medal of Honor Ban

Now that the Taliban has been removed from Medal of Honor [http://www.amazon.com/Medal-Honor-Limited-Xbox-360/dp/B000TI836G/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1286202585&sr=8-1], the U.S. Army may be reconsidering its decision to ban the game from stores on military bases.

The Army announced in GameStop [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/103219-U-S-Military-Bans-Medal-of-Honor-From-On-Base-Stores], "out of respect for our past and present men and women in uniform," agreed to honor it.

But now that Joystiq [http://www.ea.com] that the Army is "aware of reported changes to the latest Medal of Honor game" and that "the organization has been, and continues to be, engaged in a thorough review to fully understand the extent of the modifications." Furthermore, while EA Vice President of Communications Jeff Brown said the publisher hasn't come right out and asked the military to change its mind, he did send a letter last month "clarifying some facts about Medal of Honor."

We all know that the Taliban hasn't actually been removed from the game, it's just been renamed to the Half-Life [http://www.amazon.com/Half-Life-Expansion-Pack-Opposing-Force-Pc/dp/B00002CF96/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1286202735&sr=8-2]-esque "Opposing Force." And there's no guarantee that the Army will do about about-face on selling the game in its stores. But the fact that merely changing a team name warrants even a discussion about lifting the ban is troubling. How exactly is it respectful to say that the only way it's appropriate to release a videogame about the ongoing exploits of the U.S. military is to pretend that it's not actually about the ongoing exploits of the U.S. military?

Medal of Honor comes out on October 12 for the PC, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360.


Permalink

 

[JeanLuc761]

We all know that the Taliban hasn't actually been removed from the game, it's just been renamed to the Half-Life [http://www.amazon.com/Half-Life-Expansion-Pack-Opposing-Force-Pc/dp/B00002CF96/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1286202735&sr=8-2]-esque "Opposing Force." And there's no guarantee that the Army will do about about-face on selling the game in its stores. But the fact that merely changing a team name warrants even a discussion about lifting the ban is troubling. How exactly is it respectful to say that the only way it's appropriate to release a videogame about the ongoing exploits of the U.S. military is to pretend that it's not actually about the ongoing exploits of the U.S. military?

That's EXACTLY my problem with this whole controversy.

As George Carlin once said, "Changing the name of a condition doesn't change the condition!" How does hiding from the truth help anyone?

 

[Gxas]

So... They call the opposing force "Taliban" and the game gets shit.

They stop calling the opposing force "Taliban" and now its just an "opposing arabic faction" and the game is ok?

Hey guys! Voldemort! This is basically the same thing right?

 

[Arachon]

"Half-Life-esque"? Isn't "Opposing Force" or OPFOR what the army actually calls the so-called "Bad Guys"?

 

[AaronDemoncia]

"Half-Life-esque"? Isn't "Opposing Force" or OPFOR what the army actually calls the so-called "Bad Guys"?

Humanizing the enemy makes your peons question your orders

 

[clockpenalty]

Changing the name of the team makes a major difference. Many NES games were censored by merely changing in-game text. A video game is closer to a book than a movie and thus changing elements of the script is indeed highly valid as a form of censorship.

 

[Irridium]

But they didn't remove the Taliban. All they did was change the name. I can't believe how stupid all this is.

Also this:

We all know that the Taliban hasn't actually been removed from the game, it's just been renamed to the Half-Life [http://www.amazon.com/Half-Life-Expansion-Pack-Opposing-Force-Pc/dp/B00002CF96/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1286202735&sr=8-2]-esque "Opposing Force." And there's no guarantee that the Army will do about about-face on selling the game in its stores. But the fact that merely changing a team name warrants even a discussion about lifting the ban is troubling. How exactly is it respectful to say that the only way it's appropriate to release a videogame about the ongoing exploits of the U.S. military is to pretend that it's not actually about the ongoing exploits of the U.S. military?

That's EXACTLY my problem with this whole controversy.

As George Carlin once said, "Changing the name of a condition doesn't change the condition!" How does hiding from the truth help anyone?

 

[icyneesan]

I'm not the only one who thinks this is probably the most stupid 'thing' (cant really call it a fight or arguement) in the video game industry? right?

Oh Darth Vader, you always know just what to say.

 

[Gindil]

As a person that worked at AAFES, the 4th largest retailer in the US (especially for the military) I can honestly say, yes, this makes a (minimal) difference.

Gotta think, there's a lot of people in the military that want to play the game. AAFES has a lot of pull in what gets stocked and what is sold to the military. So it's safe to say the managers looked at the game and put pressure on EA to change it or else they won't stock it.

Not that we, the peons care too much about the name change. I believe everyone and their mother understands that the OPFOR is still going to be the Towelie that's Banned. We just have to look like we're a cohesive unit when the game comes to Germany or Japan and people get to play it that aren't US citizens.

 

[Woodsey]

People don't get that this name change is both ridiculously unimportant and also important beyond belief.

The name change changes nothing about the character models or whatever, you're still playing the Taliban just with a changed name. So in that respect, the name change doesn't mean shit.

The fact that something that doesn't mean shit is being forced to change does make it worth something though, because every other medium can include the name Taliban. Fuck me, I'm sure there are books somewhere about experiences with the Taliban, and films too.

 

[Therumancer]

I think this is pretty straightforward. There is nothing wrong with killing the Taliban in a video game, but playing as The Taliban killing US/Allied troops is a problem.

I do not think the military has an issue with them being present as antagonists in the single player, but rather with them being usable for people to kill US troops in the multi-player no matter what it's called.

If you don't think that people all over the world are going to login as Taliban and start engaging in some serious US bashing along with playing the game, I think your naive.

I'll also go so far as to say that the increasing usage of video games as a training tool (sort of) for military forces might play a role. I wouldn't be surprised if the usage of what is presumably authentic representations of weapons and tactics being used in actual conflict is also an issue because it might help insurgents better prepare (at least mentally) for facing the US military.

No need to argue with me, I have heard the other sides, and criticisms of those points (and many others I have not made). The bottom line here is that I pretty much agree that this is in bad taste and the military choosing not to support the product.

I would disagree with any direct legal ban (ie saying it's illegal to sell at all) but I do believe that the product is tasteless, and that the military has a right to choose not to sell it in their stores.

Also one point that I think a lot of the people argueing in favor of this game miss, is the pressure that was put on the game "Seven Days In Fallujah" when it was being planned. Oddly that influances my thought processes on this, more than it probably should.

The issue with SDIF was pretty much that it featured the US military engaged in a real battle, killing Muslims. When this situation is revered, and the central issue is Muslim insurgents killing US Troops, all of a sudden people don't have a problem and are defending it. I personally find this disturbing.

Like it or not this is mired in anti-US/anti-Middle East War politics. I think most people think about this kind of thing in the short term, because they like the message in regards to what it's saying right now. I think people are increasingly not looking at the big picture and the precedent something like this is setting, not to mention how ridiculous the attitude is in the big picture.

A lot of people against the war, will sit around and talk about how they support our troops, but not the war. I think ironically a lot of those people are the same ones who think it's just lovely to have a playable Taliban faction in multiplayer.

 

[LawlessSquirrel]

"Half-Life-esque"? Isn't "Opposing Force" or OPFOR what the army actually calls the so-called "Bad Guys"?

Humanizing the enemy makes your peons question your orders

This exactly. I'm personally questioning how much of the issue is to honour the dead, and how much is to avoid letting any soldiers sympathise with the enemy. It's harder to kill someone when you consider them human.

 

[Jared]

Well, I suppose those on base will be happy...all over a name change, its embarrasing really...

 

[fKd]

but cod:mw is ok right? wtf? lol army & moron logic...

but tbh all this fuss for a meh game? generic, done before, brings nothing new to the medium etc

move on

 

[TerribleAssassin]

People don't get that this name change is both ridiculously unimportant and also important beyond belief.

The name change changes nothing about the character models or whatever, you're still playing the Taliban just with a changed name. So in that respect, the name change doesn't mean shit.

The fact that something that doesn't mean shit is being forced to change does make it worth something though, because every other medium can include the name Taliban. Fuck me, I'm sure there are books somewhere about experiences with the Taliban, and films too.

And it's not really role-playing a Taliban soldier, it's merely a skin to get got shot at by 12 year olds....


Then again, it does seem abit stupid that they're lifting the ban because of an edit to a line of text.

 

[Motiv_]

I don't really agree with the ban, but if it truly offends the military, and those who've died in service, then I say they have every right to refuse to sell it in their stores.

 

[Baconmonster723]

"Half-Life-esque"? Isn't "Opposing Force" or OPFOR what the army actually calls the so-called "Bad Guys"?

Humanizing the enemy makes your peons question your orders

This exactly. I'm personally questioning how much of the issue is to honour the dead, and how much is to avoid letting any soldiers sympathise with the enemy. It's harder to kill someone when you consider them human.

Yet it's easier to kill someone when they are trying to kill you. In this circumstance humanizing the enemy would not have an adverse effect on most of the troops. They can only return fire, which means they can only fight when their life is in danger. I don't know about you, but if something is trying to kill me regardless of if it is human or not, I'm going to protect myself even if it means killing the threat. These are trained soldiers who have killed before and will kill again. It doesn't make it right, don't get me wrong. I'd prefer peace over war everyday of the week. But, I'd be pretty suprised if it adversely affected the soldiers. Sure they may be brainwashed to a degree, but they are human and they are doing what they believe to be correct, give the troops a little more credit about their own humanity than you are.