EA Cuts Taliban From Medal of Honor

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
IamQ said:
This just shows how stupid people are.

"They're called 'Talibans', that horribly wrong, you hate America, you fucker!"
"What if we don't change anything, except that we rename them to 'Opposing Force'?"
"Well then, that's alright."
Well, it remains to be seen if it's going to be alright that was as well. Just because EA says that it's "fine" at the momenet doesn't mean that it is, I mean the annoucement is still fairly hot off the presses.

To be entirely blunt, I am one of those who was against the entire idea, and I think they shouldn't even have a playable arab faction for multiplayer. Heck, I'd even go so far as to say that they probably should release without multiplayer at all if that's what they want to do with it.

I understand the perspective (mostly left wing) on these forums. However at the same time I find it deeply disturbing that people had issues with "Seven Days Of Fallujah" which had US/Allied troops shooting Muslims, but for some reason think that it's a good thing to have playable Taliban who can kill US/Allied troops in this game.

I don't think anyone has talked about gamers hating America, but at the same time if someone DID say that, it wouldn't be entirely out of line. Looking at how things have been playing out, one can certainly get that impression.

I think the problem is that there is so much anti-war rhetoric out there tied to the left wing, and attempts to portray this as a right wing war, as opposed to an American war... not to mention all the "peace at any price" junk which Democrats are infamous for... that people are getting hyped up for anything that seems contreversial and against the war that they aren't stopping to think about how tasteless something like this is.

I personally hope that EA decides to further relent and make Multiplayer a simple contest between genetic looking special forces guys or something, rather than including any kind of muslim themed faction given the theatre the game is set in and the current conflicts.
 

Dana22

New member
Sep 10, 2008
1,274
0
0
Poomanchu745 said:
Javex said:
I'm disappointed in you, EA.
You are disappointed that they listened to soldiers and families of soldiers and used better judgment in making a decision? It's not like they were being forced to do anything. They chose to heed the wishes of many people who's lives have been changed by their interaction with the Taliban?

I wouldn't have minded either way really, but it sounds like they at least used good reasoning and judgment in this call.
Yes, I am.

Im curious if they would listen to ww2 veterans and their families, and remove Nazis from different game.
 

ZeoAssassin

New member
Sep 16, 2009
388
0
0
ugh this really pisses me off, they really should have stood their ground on this one.

personally i will still call them the Taliban just to spite EA
 

SnipErlite

New member
Aug 16, 2009
3,147
0
0
*sigh* so they got all the bad publicity and heat for having the Taliban in, then didn't even include them. So now they'll get more heat for bowing out and caving in.

Stupid, EA, stupid....

EDIT:
Jarrid said:
I can sum up my feelings on this by quoting a game I used to love:

*little worm voice* "Coward!"
0_O

I was just thinking I need to install Worms on my laptop before I go to university..... Now that was weird.....
 

Vault Citizen

New member
May 8, 2008
1,703
0
0
when it comes to the game itself this doesn't annoy me, I had already decided not to buy it in the end because I was never that into Medal of Honour and I wanted to save money.

The reason this does annoy me is I see it as part of the struggle to get games recognised as a form of media as valid as say movies. I think it is acceptable to have games depicting these events with these peopke just as it is acceptable for movies, television and books to do so.

I don't like that EA backed down (and have handled this terribly despite doing so well to begin with) because when a game company defends its product against such controversies I don't believe it is just defending itself but games as a whole.
 

Antari

Music Slave
Nov 4, 2009
2,246
0
0
EA hasn't done anything right since the early 80's. And those successes may have been mistakes.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Dana22 said:
Poomanchu745 said:
Javex said:
I'm disappointed in you, EA.
You are disappointed that they listened to soldiers and families of soldiers and used better judgment in making a decision? It's not like they were being forced to do anything. They chose to heed the wishes of many people who's lives have been changed by their interaction with the Taliban?

I wouldn't have minded either way really, but it sounds like they at least used good reasoning and judgment in this call.
Yes, I am.

Im curious if they would listen to ww2 veterans and their families, and remove Nazis from different game.

The differance being that World War II is over 50 years in the past.

What's more, this kind of thing would never have been an issue during World War II because it was a real war. As in one where we actually fought instead of this "winning the peace" crud where we engage in police actions as opposed to simply destroying the enemy and his nation/culture of origina nd then coming home.

During World War II the goverment invoked War Powers, that is the long standing abillity of the goverment to pretty much use The Constitution for so much toilet paper for the duration of a conflict. Things like the current "patriot act" that people foolishly rail against were compromises between invoking full war powers, and peacetime operation.

The goverment took direct control of all media, and surpressd dissent. Reports were either pro-war "booyah America" or not made at all. People could still gather information, but anything that was negative to the conflict or what the goverment wanted was surpressed until years after the conflict officially ended. This is why while they aren't part of mainstream history, you can find plnty of pictures of American atrocities, as well as plenty of evidence of what we really had to do in order to win the war. It wasn't pretty. War Powers allowing the goverment to paint it as an epic battle between good and evil, when in reality Hitler was very popular in the US (international man of the year) before the war, and isolationist sentiment was very strong. There was plenty opposition to the war on a lot of grounds but those people were effectively gagged through whatever means nessicary.

The World War II propaganda machine produced things like the stories of "Human Flesh Lampshades" and "Portable Nazi Bone Grinders" and other things, complete with physical evidence... all of which turned out to be elaborate fakes when tested a long while after the fact and as a result put doubts (among the educated) on the validity of a lot of other claims made during World War II. People like Ilsa Kochs were demonized during the war, yet when actually tried were never successfully convicted. While doubtlessly a horrible person, the stories about her that lead to (much later) exploitation movies like "Ilsa, She Wolf Of The SS" and the like were also by and large false.

The point here being that during the war, had someone tried to make a game like this where you could play as the Nazis, it would have been shut down instantly. There would have been no complaining to the media allowed. If the company persisted there would have been some nice deep, dark goverment prison to stick them in until the war was over.

Wars blow chips for a reason, never forget that. However they are also nessicary, and that includes those kinds of techniques. Right now I think we are demonstrating why such things are nessicary, there shouldn't even be dialogue on a subject like whether it's okay for a company to effectively write propaganda for the other side.
 

SelectivelyEvil13

New member
Jul 28, 2010
956
0
0
Well on the one hand, it's about time you screwed your heads back on, EA! Don't even try to pull that crock that you didn't think it would be that "big of a deal." This America we're talking about. People get riled up at the mention of sex in the middle of gruesome maiming in media and devolve into factious morons over whether or not it would be worth saving a kitten stuck in a drain. So even putting the word "Taliban" near a controllable avatar in a video game?
Ho. Lee. #@%^.

Then of course, the other hand is dying to know why all of a sudden they've dropped the name? Yes, this crescendo of controversy has led up to them falling back and publicly neutered themselves, but were there other factors involved, possibly relating to its sales? Regardless, this late in the game, we still will know that the 'new' faction is really the Taliban since it's a mere name change.

One final point of interest: wasn't there some convoluted correlation between the inclusion of a playable Taliban faction and "respecting the troops?" So how is Medal of Honor "special" now?
 

Sindre1

New member
Nov 8, 2008
830
0
0
Was going to buy it out of support, even if I have never played their games before.
Now I will not.
 

Dana22

New member
Sep 10, 2008
1,274
0
0
Therumancer said:
The differance being that World War II is over 50 years in the past.
I dont see how does it matters. I thought its about people personal feelings.
 

Hawkeye16

New member
Nov 15, 2009
473
0
0
Thats right EA, show people games are art by bitching out at the first sign of controversy!
 

spartan1077

New member
Aug 24, 2010
3,222
0
0
CURSE YOU GENERICIASTANIANS!!!! This is bullsh*t... they need to grow a pair and actually stand up for something. Who CARES that you're taliban... it doesn't mean some kid is gunna join the Taliban cause he likes playing as them.
 

Yelchor

New member
Aug 30, 2009
185
0
0
So...

It's alright to be soviet soldiers depicted as they burn german soldiers alive, foreign-hostile spacemarines as they comit genocide on alien civilizations, being part of a fictional terrorist group that comits mass murder on hundreds of Russian civilians...

...But being able to play as the Taliban, with the majority of recruits probably being vengeance-driven people who has had enough of being under the mercy of the western super-powers that has most likely done more harm then good for the well-being of their families, that's just going too far!

Now, I don't like the Taliban very much either. But what could be gained is a level of depth depicting reality in a way we've only seen a couple of movies do, placing you into the very heat of the fire. This whole "good countries" vs. "evil countries" really gets to my nerves at this point, it does nothing to tell history, nor of those who suffered with it.

The biased nature of the modern world today is disappointing to say the least. What good will it do to shy away from reality, pretending all the people who has gone through so much torment from both sides never existed? That all those who fight the United States are morally-bankrupt monsters that only serve as an excuse for you to kill them in virtual realities?

The hardships during the Second World War will have been in vain if it's only to be remembered for how it gave you free room to depict Nazis as villains without explanation and with violence as a fair way to resolve it. Atleast if you ask me.
 

K_Dub

New member
Oct 19, 2008
523
0
0
In the end, it shouldn't matter who you play as! You play as the Taliban, your just trying to kill the people that don't look like you. You play as the Americans, your just trying to kill the people that don't look like you. The options of who you get to play as are purely aesthetic with a slight variation in the ways that you can pop someone's cranial cavity open. I'm sorry, but this is just a ridiculous decision to make at the last minute. Way to wimp out EA.