Look, you play a game where you fight the Taliban in single player. Who do you think was going to be the faction opposing the Marine in the multiplayer component of the game? I doubt John Riccitiello really didn't expect that there could be a controversy, but it's not like he could've done anything about it, not without changing the whole design of the game or removing the multiplayer...rockyoumonkeys said:What a liar. That crap was put in there deliberately to cause exactly this kind of uproar, considering what it did for Modern Warfare 2.
MichiganMuscle77 said:Medal of Honor multiplayer has ALWAYS been Axis vs. Allies.
Who is the Axis in this case? The Taliban. It's sort of a no-brainer, this is the MoH formula.
ENKC said:Just wait until they find out you can play as Nazis in World at War...
If someone didn't hear of MW2 until the story on Fox then they were not going to buy it anyway. They are baffled by this controversy because of how incredibly retarded it is even by "Think of the children" standards. No one complains about the Taliban in MW2 (And they are in MW2's Afghanistan levels and multiplayer maps) or those wacky nazis in WWII shooters. So why complain here? There are reasons it is just that all of them are dumber than the hicks in Deliverance.rockyoumonkeys said:I didn't dispute any of this. Yes, MW2 would have still sold very well. Yes, it would have become one of the best selling games ever regardless. But the controversy absolutely boosted awareness, and it also boosted curiosity. The controversy certainly changed, in some peoples' minds, the perception of CoD from that of a generic war shooter to something more complex and thus more interesting.Canid117 said:MW2 sold because it was the sequel to one of the most beloved shooters off all time. The controversy may have boosted early awareness before ads started coming out and so increased pre-order sales but it was going to sell better than most other games ever have regardless. If there was a mission where you played as the Taliban I might agree with you but it is just multi-player. The real reason they put this in is because, hey someone had to be the bad guys.rockyoumonkeys said:Yes. It still would have sold extremely well, but it absolutely gained a boost from the controversy.Woodsey said:Are you seriously saying that MW2 wouldn't have sold so well if not for some stupid little controversy?
Look, I'm not saying either game is deserving of this controversy. I'm just saying that it baffles me that anyone is surprised by it, especially EA's boss.
It's really not they put in the Taliban because they were going to use some of stories from the Tier 1 Operators that they worked with on the game. They said all the time changing the name to Nonameistan would feel like disrespecting them.rockyoumonkeys said:What a liar. That crap was put in there deliberately to cause exactly this kind of uproar, considering what it did for Modern Warfare 2.
Improved but still terrible, Activision is no better.Dragonborne88 said:I didn't realize making fun of EA was still the cool thing to do, now a days. And here I've seen EA as the bright light in the game creativity department, especially when put up against that other company...what was the name...oh right, Activision...Randy11517 said:EA has a boss!?!?!?!?
I always assumed it was run by a horde of about 50-60 bipolar chimps with brain damage.
EA has been on a road of improvement since a few years ago. And that was after the new management took a hold of the company. Don't even pretend that EA is the great evil of the game development world anymore when the President of Activision says stupid stuff on a daily basis.
Annoying, but true. Alas, tis la vie.SirBryghtside said:It's not Carr that was in the wrong, he didn't mean to offend anyone - it's the papers, for spreading it to the people who will be affected most.
This news post is disturbingly similar to that story.
Source [http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2009/nov/05/jimmy-carr-paralympics-joke]