Poll: Let's take MOH into our own hands.

[rockyoumonkeys]

It may not come up while your playing the game, but it does make you think about it afterwards

No, it doesn't. There is nobody on the planet who is going to play multiplayer and then have a grand philosophical discussion about the realities of war. Nobody.

yeah, but these kinds of people already think we are horrible, so i don't see any harm in doing something that will piss them off a little more, or even show them that we won't tolerate thier bullshit without dishing out some of our own.

That's right, just keep reinforcing the stereotype. Good work.

 

[AssassinJoe]

Oh no! We don't want to offend the Taliban. They are such nice people!

I wish I could type sarcastically...

I hate people who want to be politically correct. They ruin everything.

 

[Soushi]

Simply put, there's no reason why the "bad guys" SHOULD be so accurately named, since it doesn't add anything to the game. We're still talking about something which, at its root, boils down to "red team" and "blue team". What added enjoyment are you getting by being allowed to play as "the Taliban"?

By that logic, the american soldiers should be renamed as well so that no has to deal with american forces getting killed, besides nobody really cares about playing as american forces do they.

But yes, while in the multiplayer it doesn't add anything to it to have them named the Taliban, the fact that they are gets you thinking about the war and I think that is the point. It may not come up while your playing the game, but it does make you think about it afterwards and changing the name cuts this down.

Quote A: I am not complaining about not being able to play as the Taliban. Trust me, i hate those fear and hate mongering motherfuckers and wish them all a rusty shovel lodged in thier skull. However, EA made a descision to put them in the game, a ballsy move, but there you go, yet when teh heat inevitably got turned on they caved faster than a building made of paper in a rain storm. What i am worrried about, and what this all boils down to, is censorship and political busybodying where it does not belong. I would be saying teh same thing if the opposing team was going to be called "the Kittens" and a bunch of animal rights people got it cut from the game.

Quote B: You make a good point. I am not sure i agree with the final part of it, but as for the first part, you are very correct. The problem is the double standard.

 

[Pist0l 07]

It may not come up while your playing the game, but it does make you think about it afterwards

No, it doesn't. There is nobody on the planet who is going to play multiplayer and then have a grand philosophical discussion about the realities of war. Nobody.

Fair point, I guess I would but that doesn't mean everybody would. (Not grand philosophical discussion but some disscussion) I guess I'm mad at EA because I feel like it was taken out just to aviod all the negative media rather then the soldiers and their loved ones, but I can respect them if thats why they changed it. I just don't think that was the reason.

Side note: Damn you for having reasonbale arguments, I have to actually think about my responses

 

[freedomweasel]

yeah, but these kinds of people already think we are horrible, so i don't see any harm in doing something that will piss them off a little more, or even show them that we won't tolerate thier bullshit without dishing out some of our own.

That makes your reasoning sound worse. If they already think we are awful people, why prove it to them? Why not, as others have said, write well reasoned arguments and send them to EA if that is really how you feel?

...
It should be stressed again that we're talking about multiplayer skins. We're not really talking about video games as a whole. If they change the bad guys in the single player game, we're having a whole different argument. This is simply about your ability to play as "the Taliban" versus "generic bad guy name".

People complain too much about political correctness or censorship or whatnot, but whatever happened to just being nice? Instead of getting all up in arms because your video game got changed a little bit, can't you look at it from the other side and realize that, other malevolent motivations aside, what EA did could simply be seen as a kind gesture for people who are hurting?

It seems we are mostly in agreement. Personally, in this case I completely agree with EA's decision, Red vs Blue, Coalition vs Taliban, whatever. The game is first to 100 points, doesn't matter if I'm on the unicorn team or the Autobots. Single player like you said, is a totally different discussion, as it does attempt to tell a story.

Off topic somewhat, but it would be interesting to see public reaction on a movie vs story based game where the main (playable) character is the 'bad guy'. I think that is where some of the complaints stem from, that games get treated differently. Whether or not that is the right way to do it us different discussion however.

Oh no! We don't want to offend the Taliban. They are such nice people!

I wish I could type sarcastically...

I hate people who want to be politically correct. They ruin everything.

Maybe I missed the joke, but no one is worried about offending the Taliban.

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

Quote A: I am not complaining about not being able to play as the Taliban. Trust me, i hate those fear and hate mongering motherfuckers and wish them all a rusty shovel lodged in thier skull. However, EA made a descision to put them in the game, a ballsy move, but there you go, yet when teh heat inevitably got turned on they caved faster than a building made of paper in a rain storm. What i am worrried about, and what this all boils down to, is censorship and political busybodying where it does not belong. I would be saying teh same thing if the opposing team was going to be called "the Kittens" and a bunch of animal rights people got it cut from the game.

Yes, EA made a decision. But what you consider a "ballsy move", many others consider a "misguided move". Some would consider walking up to a cop and punching him in the face to be "ballsy", but let's be honest, it's a stupid one with no benefit.

This isn't about censorship. This is about EA recognizing a poor decision and fixing it.

 

[Flames66]

I would consider it, but I have no intention of playing this game.

 

[C95J]

I'm not gonna bother, because I won't get the game, and I don't really care if the faction in multiplayer is a different name. It's not like it is going to change any gameplay.

 

[Soushi]

yeah, but these kinds of people already think we are horrible, so i don't see any harm in doing something that will piss them off a little more, or even show them that we won't tolerate thier bullshit without dishing out some of our own.

That's right, just keep reinforcing the stereotype. Good work.

Aha, but just like i will never be able to convince you that this idea of mine is good, they will never be convinced that gamers are to be respected, or that we have our own sensibilities that don't need to be reinforced by others, or that we can tell what is good and what is bad on our own.

To me, the choice is clear: Lay down and keep letting these peolpe who don't even play games continue to dictate what kind of fun we have -or- fight back in whatever way we can.

What you wanna do is up to you. If you think this idea is stupid, fine, don't do it. Just keep in mind, if i was like Jack Thompson or any of these other jerks, i would trying to turn my ideas into law, sticking my toungue out and slapping my bum at you when i got my way. Me, i'm sick of having what i can and cannot play decided for me by these people, so i will do whatever i can to be a thorn in thier side.

 

[Wolfram23]

I still think it's overreaction. I understand the sentiment that people lost loved ones to the Taliban (actually, isn't the Al'Queda the militants?) but let's say someone made a game... maybe not a FPS, but whatever it is, it supports PVP. And the team names are Cancer and Organs. Would anyone give a fuck? I lost an uncle, and aunt, and 2 grandparents to cancer yet that would not bother me. In fact I'd probably enjoy playing as Organs and killing the shit out of Cancer.

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

One thing I haven't seen discussed a lot, and which we should all keep in mind is this:

Medal of Honor prided itself on being officially endorsed by the US Army. But the playable "Taliban" jeopardized that. They weren't happy about it, and were considering withdrawing support.

http://kotaku.com/5653601/playable-taliban-jeopardized-us-armys-support-for-medal-of-honor

So knowing that, would you still insist on having the Taliban in the game, even if it meant the US Army withdrew support of the game?

 

[Jim Grim]

Oh no! We don't want to offend the Taliban. They are such nice people!

I wish I could type sarcastically...

I hate people who want to be politically correct. They ruin everything.

I don't know where you got the idea that this about offending the Taliban. It's more to do with the families of the people they've killed, y'know? Think, champ!

OT: It seems a little petty on both sides. Who cares what one of the multiplayer teams is called? It's still possible to enjoy the games just as much.

 

[Nixzilla]

I voted that your on a substance and clearly insane. But anyways I think its weird that prototype wasnt even looked at fuuny for the masses of American soldiers slaughtered but M.O.H makes it to where you can be a Taliban and the US Army praticaly has a seizure.

 

[The Cheezy One]

this just sounds offensive. if i ran into gamers with the tag "taliban-XXXXXXXX", i wouldnt think "those guys are crusaders for a cause", id think "i wonder if anyone playing against these guys who has lost a family member in this war will take a personal vendetta against them"

unrelated note - people are getting all up in arms about a specific people being the bad guys, i wonder how the russians/chinese/koreans feel being constantly being made out to be the unarguably bad guys. i feel a lot of cultural guilt there

 

[nuba km]

if I get the game I will make my dog tag to Taliban if I can but I won't change my gamertag.

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

yeah, but these kinds of people already think we are horrible, so i don't see any harm in doing something that will piss them off a little more, or even show them that we won't tolerate thier bullshit without dishing out some of our own.

That's right, just keep reinforcing the stereotype. Good work.

Aha, but just like i will never be able to convince you that this idea of mine is good, they will never be convinced that gamers are to be respected, or that we have our own sensibilities that don't need to be reinforced by others, or that we can tell what is good and what is bad on our own.

So just to be clear here, you are in favor of reinforcing this negative stereotype of gamers?

 

[Shoggoth2588]

No exaggeration, this is the #1 dumbest thing I've ever heard of.

You don't say...you plan to boycott the game by purchasing it? One money changes hands, the politicians and Ned Flanders' of the world stop caring. Remember how many people were harping about Mass Effect's sex one week after launch? I'm pretty sure it is the same number my doughnut is imitating. I can't believe I voted before reading that opening post because if anybody deserves fire, it's the people who intend upon 'boycotting' by BUYING that which has been changed.

I was expecting 1 person to buy 1 game on the 360 or something, hack the shit out of it to make the US/ British forces into dirty looking terrorists and have then shooting at puppies. This will be put onto dozens of discs and given away in a way similar to the old AOL floppies.

 

[freedomweasel]

yeah, but these kinds of people already think we are horrible, so i don't see any harm in doing something that will piss them off a little more, or even show them that we won't tolerate thier bullshit without dishing out some of our own.

That's right, just keep reinforcing the stereotype. Good work.

Aha, but just like i will never be able to convince you that this idea of mine is good, they will never be convinced that gamers are to be respected, or that we have our own sensibilities that don't need to be reinforced by others, or that we can tell what is good and what is bad on our own.

To me, the choice is clear: Lay down and keep letting these peolpe who don't even play games continue to dictate what kind of fun we have -or- fight back in whatever way we can.

What you wanna do is up to you. If you think this idea is stupid, fine, don't do it. Just keep in mind, if i was like Jack Thompson or any of these other jerks, i would trying to turn my ideas into law, sticking my toungue out and slapping my bum at you when i got my way. Me, i'm sick of having what i can and cannot play decided for me by these people, so i will do whatever i can to be a thorn in thier side.

No, THIS, right here, THIS, is the reason people think gamers are crazy. Extremists on every issue encourage the public at large to think people in that community are crazy. Westboro Baptist Church? Lots of people believe all Baptists to be batshit crazy. If you meet enough Baptists, you'll realize this is false.

If regular people meet enough people that enjoy gaming, and aren't into throwing tantrums, maybe they'll give the community more respect. Or, you could continue to hurt your own cause.

 

[Pist0l 07]

This isn't about censorship. This is about EA recognizing a poor decision and fixing it.

Ok, I can understand that but what about the whole double standerd issue? Why should being Taliban and shooting at U.S. MP skins be worse then Call of Duty's Op-For shooting at american forces?

 

[Micah Weil]

Oh Christ...
Yes, bad on the MoH for cracking under the pressure of Political Correctness, but it's their game. Let them make whatever decisions they want in regards to it and, if you don't like it, don't buy it. I can promise you that someone will mod in the Taliban by the end of the release week.

Hell, the release day if they're ambitious.