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

[Lou]

I think it'd be a better idea to boycott the game instead of giving them money and naming your multiplayer handle to something having to do with the Taliban. Just to show them you're not happy with whats up.

An angry letter would have the same effect, really.

 

[Forever of the Stars]

Taliban takes excerpts from the Qu'ran and twist them to fit thier own meaning and stereotypes.

You know who else takes excerpts and twists them? EVERYONE ELSE. Republicans, democrats, christians, atheists, EVERYONE DOES THIS. It is not terrorism.

(ie: some harmless name changing)

Harmless name-changing indeed.

Except, apparently, when EA does it. ZING!

But if the name changing is covering something bigger, Ie: censorship and this plauge of politial correctness, then it becomes not so harmless. The name changing is just the tip of the iceburg, its what is underlying that really counts.
BTW: it is up to other people to decide wether it is 'zing' or not.

This is you blowing this crap way out of proportion. As I said before, the whole Taliban thing was a bad decision from the start, and EA fixed it themselves. They misjudged the public's response, and since it's their product, they can change it however they like.

There's no larger menace here. This is not the tip of the iceberg. This is one little ice cube floating in the ocean. There's nothing beneath it, and in a short while it will be gone. If this has any larger implications, it will be better quality control in the future, to prevent such misguided decisions from being made.

This is you acting like a spoiled, insensitive, and entitled child who doesn't care about anyone but himself.

Besides, since i am argueing that there is something beneath the surface, something that goes far beyond the simple name change, something that has the potential to influence far more than just one game, your final argument is fundamentaly flawed (or at the very least circular). I could be mistaken, i am open to that possibility, but i am still arguing over principle, not for my own presonal gain or experience.

Anyways, this is your opinion and you have a right to think that way. I might disagree with you, but hey, that's jsut the way things go. Heck, i agree with you, i hope this is all over nothing and there is nothing below the surface. I am more than willing to discuss this with you, all i ask is that you don't have this disolve into name calling.

My argument is neither flawed nor circular. I'm telling you flat out that you're blowing this out of proportion, that there's no larger problem, that this isn't the tip of the iceberg. This is one decision EA made to change something that SHOULD have meant more to families of fallen soldiers than to people playing the game. As I've already explained repeatedly, it has zero impact on the game or the gameplay or your enjoyment of the game. It's something you probably wouldn't even have noticed if they hadn't announced it. But it's something that meant a lot to the families of those soldiers, and if making the change makes them more comfortable, I can't understand why we wouldn't all support such a change! After all, what have we really lost? NOTHING. We still get the game. We still get the multiplayer. We just don't get the juvenile pleasure of saying we're the "Taliban".

It just appears that game companies have so fallen over themselves to be as "realistic" and "accurate" as possible, that they completely forgot to take into consideration the feelings of the people who are actually affected by these wars.

The problem is that people who go off about "political correctness" are just giving the impression that they're only concerned with their right to be completely insensitive towards others. People who go off about "censorship" have completely misread this entire situation.

You shouldn't WANT to make this such a huge deal. Like I said, all you're really doing is making yourself look selfish, insensitive, and entitled. You SHOULD want to say "it's a tiny change that has no effect on how fun the game is, and if it makes some families feel better, I'm all for it. Good to see that EA is capable of biting the bullet and correcting a bad decision." I seriously don't understand the mindset of someone who can get so upset about something like this.

Once again, i disagree. For whatever reason, i do see something far more sinister just below the surface . I agree, with you, marking them as Taliban while the war is on is a little insensitive, maybe even tastless, and more than a little foolish form a marketting perspective.

What i want you to understand is, i am not doing this becasue I want to play as the Taliban, nor because i feel entitled to play as them. The name means nothing, that is not the issue here, please understand that. The only reason why i am so upset about this and think others should be too, is that it is just the begining. EA is not caving becasue of some heartfelt conflict of morals after some soul searching, they crumbled becasue they were threated by people who represent special interest groups and who have a political agenda. These are people who truly do not care about wether or not people can play as the Taliban, this is about political victories and political pandering. The change means nothing, the names mean nothing, it is what lies behind that is truely the point here. It is about sticking to your guns in the face of people who aren't interested in the issue they are discussing, merely in the screentime its gets the,, and teh way i see it, there is nothing spoiled or entitled about that.

I bolded the sentence that I disagree with there (just is italicized because I fixed the spelling), you make this sound as if it's some sort of sinister plot to create a 1984esque world through editing the name of a multi-player team in a video game . I think you may be looking just a little bit too far into this. As far as things go I really don't think that Jack Thompson is planning to set up some sort of police state. While I don't agree with him, he's just an old man who happens to be set in his ways, eventually he'll give up. (I'm really not trying to say people should agree with him, but to react in this way every time he does something only gives him reason to continue his crusade).

 

[Soushi]

Taliban takes excerpts from the Qu'ran and twist them to fit thier own meaning and stereotypes.

You know who else takes excerpts and twists them? EVERYONE ELSE. Republicans, democrats, christians, atheists, EVERYONE DOES THIS. It is not terrorism.

(ie: some harmless name changing)

Harmless name-changing indeed.

Except, apparently, when EA does it. ZING!

But if the name changing is covering something bigger, Ie: censorship and this plauge of politial correctness, then it becomes not so harmless. The name changing is just the tip of the iceburg, its what is underlying that really counts.
BTW: it is up to other people to decide wether it is 'zing' or not.

This is you blowing this crap way out of proportion. As I said before, the whole Taliban thing was a bad decision from the start, and EA fixed it themselves. They misjudged the public's response, and since it's their product, they can change it however they like.

There's no larger menace here. This is not the tip of the iceberg. This is one little ice cube floating in the ocean. There's nothing beneath it, and in a short while it will be gone. If this has any larger implications, it will be better quality control in the future, to prevent such misguided decisions from being made.

This is you acting like a spoiled, insensitive, and entitled child who doesn't care about anyone but himself.

Besides, since i am argueing that there is something beneath the surface, something that goes far beyond the simple name change, something that has the potential to influence far more than just one game, your final argument is fundamentaly flawed (or at the very least circular). I could be mistaken, i am open to that possibility, but i am still arguing over principle, not for my own presonal gain or experience.

Anyways, this is your opinion and you have a right to think that way. I might disagree with you, but hey, that's jsut the way things go. Heck, i agree with you, i hope this is all over nothing and there is nothing below the surface. I am more than willing to discuss this with you, all i ask is that you don't have this disolve into name calling.

My argument is neither flawed nor circular. I'm telling you flat out that you're blowing this out of proportion, that there's no larger problem, that this isn't the tip of the iceberg. This is one decision EA made to change something that SHOULD have meant more to families of fallen soldiers than to people playing the game. As I've already explained repeatedly, it has zero impact on the game or the gameplay or your enjoyment of the game. It's something you probably wouldn't even have noticed if they hadn't announced it. But it's something that meant a lot to the families of those soldiers, and if making the change makes them more comfortable, I can't understand why we wouldn't all support such a change! After all, what have we really lost? NOTHING. We still get the game. We still get the multiplayer. We just don't get the juvenile pleasure of saying we're the "Taliban".

It just appears that game companies have so fallen over themselves to be as "realistic" and "accurate" as possible, that they completely forgot to take into consideration the feelings of the people who are actually affected by these wars.

The problem is that people who go off about "political correctness" are just giving the impression that they're only concerned with their right to be completely insensitive towards others. People who go off about "censorship" have completely misread this entire situation.

You shouldn't WANT to make this such a huge deal. Like I said, all you're really doing is making yourself look selfish, insensitive, and entitled. You SHOULD want to say "it's a tiny change that has no effect on how fun the game is, and if it makes some families feel better, I'm all for it. Good to see that EA is capable of biting the bullet and correcting a bad decision." I seriously don't understand the mindset of someone who can get so upset about something like this.

Once again, i disagree. For whatever reason, i do see something far more sinister just below the surface . I agree, with you, marking them as Taliban while the war is on is a little insensitive, maybe even tastless, and more than a little foolish form a marketting perspective.

What i want you to understand is, i am not doing this becasue I want to play as the Taliban, nor because i feel entitled to play as them. The name means nothing, that is not the issue here, please understand that. The only reason why i am so upset about this and think others should be too, is that it is just the begining. EA is not caving becasue of some heartfelt conflict of morals after some soul searching, they crumbled becasue they were threated by people who represent special interest groups and who have a political agenda. These are people who truly do not care about wether or not people can play as the Taliban, this is about political victories and political pandering. The change means nothing, the names mean nothing, it is what lies behind that is truely the point here. It is about sticking to your guns in the face of people who aren't interested in the issue they are discussing, merely in the screentime its gets the,, and teh way i see it, there is nothing spoiled or entitled about that.

I bolded the sentence that I disagree with there (just is italicized because I fixed the spelling), you make this sound as if it's some sort of sinister plot to create a 1984esque world through editing the name of a multi-player team in a video game . I think you may be looking just a little bit too far into this. As far as things go I really don't think that Jack Thompson is planning to set up some sort of police state. While I don't agree with him, he's just an old man who happens to be set in his ways, eventually he'll give up. (I'm really not trying to say people should agree with him, but to react in this way every time he does something only gives him reason to continue his crusade).

I am open to the possibility that i am reading into this deeper than need be. However, i can't help but feel that there is something a much more important going on here. It may be confrentational of me, but the way i see it we have to stand against people like Thompson, especially now with all of the debates around video games circling around, otherwise we may end up losing control over our favourite medium. I'm not nessacarily suggesting something as extreme as 1984, but i am suggesting that it is a slippery slope from here, to people who have nothing to do with the medium deciding what actual game content, or gameplay items can and can't be in games. As i have said before, this has nothing to do with the names, it has to do with pandering to political whiners who ***** and moan because its gets their face on the news.

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

snip

You keep blasting EA for "caving in" and "backing down", and that they should be "sticking to their guns". Are you saying you've never made a mistake? Never done something you realized was a bad decision and wanted to change it?

The problem is that you're looking at EA here as being 100% evil, a group who would never do something that didn't benefit them in the wallet, when that's not the truth. You're giving "special interst groups" too much weight here. You're pushing too hard on the argument that EA's decision was 100% because of external pressure, and that's just a cynical viewpoint I would never want to have.

And regardless, there's nothing admirable about "sticking to your guns" when you've made a bad decision. That's called being STUBBORN, and it's a negative trait. As far as I'm concerned, I don't CARE what the true motives were behind EA making the change. What matters to me is that they made it, and the game does not suffer for it.

 

[Kukakkau]

Um only difference is that they changed the online team's name from Taliban to OpFor it isn't a big deal the campaign is the same, multiplayer skins are the same. Only difference is the name that you will never even notice when playing

If it bothers you that much just call them Taliban anyway - what I'll likely do

 

[Soviet Steve]

I really wish you would include the "I DONT CARE" option so I didn't have to call Jack sexy.

 

[kouriichi]

I dont see a problem with them changing it. :/
Theyer desicion, not ours.

 

[Soushi]

Well, this is how the industry works. If removing something like this allows the game to have a better distribution, whether we agree with it or not, why complain?

The industry is not new, but it's still growing, there will be bitter bites and tasty ones as well, so, even if I disagree with what they did, I understand the reasons behind it, and I know this seems like a step back, but we'll get over it soon enough, and Jack Thompson can go to hell himself.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

My goodness this is silly.

Because EA isn't going to care what you named your person. They'll be happy you bought the game, and nothing happens other than you feeling like you protested something. By purchasing the thing you're protesting, and then using it.

This is like protesting against Walmart by buying 30 items and going through the 15 items or less line, and thinking you're achieving something.

 

[chenry]

Wheeeere's the "No, because I don't care" option?

 

[Jandau]

Virtual Shackles put it quite well...

 

[Blind Sight]

I like this idea, I'm not buying the game anyway (very sick of the same modern world shooters) but I like your attitude, I'm not afraid to use the word Taliban and I don't think EA should be either, but it was still their choice. And to all those saying 'no it'll just give everyone the wrong idea about gamers' the fact is that it doesn't matter what happens, these people will still think gamers are bad people. Hell, you never see anyone talking about gamer charities like Child's Play, why? Because they're always going to ignore the good and focus on the bad. As Moviebob put it in his Game Overthinker episode on the subject, there are two people to this argument, thinkers and believers, the believers are going to BELIEVE whatever they want regardless of how gamers act. Are you really afraid to use the word Taliban because of what other people think?

Tell you what, I'm running a let's play series on youtube right now, I usually don't have much to talk about during loading screens, I'll mention the idea, but my traffic is probably not good enough to make an actual difference haha.

 

[Soushi]

snip

You keep blasting EA for "caving in" and "backing down", and that they should be "sticking to their guns". Are you saying you've never made a mistake? Never done something you realized was a bad decision and wanted to change it?

The problem is that you're looking at EA here as being 100% evil, a group who would never do something that didn't benefit them in the wallet, when that's not the truth. You're giving "special interst groups" too much weight here. You're pushing too hard on the argument that EA's decision was 100% because of external pressure, and that's just a cynical viewpoint I would never want to have.

And regardless, there's nothing admirable about "sticking to your guns" when you've made a bad decision. That's called being STUBBORN, and it's a negative trait. As far as I'm concerned, I don't CARE what the true motives were behind EA making the change. What matters to me is that they made it, and the game does not suffer for it.

Firstly, no Ea is not evil, they're just... well... really rather dim. Yeah, like everybody else of course i have made mistakes in the past, but sometimes changing later can do more harm than good. Now, i almost never say something is %100, becasue things rarely are. Ea is not %100 evil ( i even see them as the victim here in some respects), their descision is not %100 based on external pressure, ect. My point is, there is enough pressure there, and the pressure has enough wieght behind it, that we should be worried. If EA did change thier mind becasue of some soul searching and such, then i would have no problem with them. The trouble is, i do not think that was the case. they caved because of pressure from external sources.
Either way, it seems as if we jsut stand on opposite sides when it comes to theoretical points of this argument

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

Firstly, no Ea is not evil, they're just... well... really rather dim. Yeah, like everybody else of course i have made mistakes in the past, but sometimes changing later can do more harm than good. Now, i almost never say something is %100, becasue things rarely are. Ea is not %100 evil ( i even see them as the victim here in some respects), their descision is not %100 based on external pressure, ect. My point is, there is enough pressure there, and the pressure has enough wieght behind it, that we should be worried. If EA did change thier mind becasue of some soul searching and such, then i would have no problem with them. The trouble is, i do not think that was the case. they caved because of pressure from external sources.
Either way, it seems as if we jsut stand on opposite sides when it comes to theoretical points of this argument

1. EA is a monumentally successful company. They're not dim. And they're successful enough that they don't NEED to "cave because of pressure". They'd absolutely survive keeping "Taliban" in the game. Activision survived Modern Warfare 2, which in my eyes was even worse, despite there being a narrative. EA absolutely didn't need to make this change. They chose to, and I give them all the credit in the world for falling on their sword. It would have been easier not to.

2. Again, I think you are inventing reasons why they changed it, overstating amounts of "pressure" and such. You think the opinions of non-gamers don't matter, but they do. EA has to worry about EVERYONE, not just the people buying their games.

3. You could say they were in a lose-lose situation. If they don't change it, they upset one group, if they do change it, they upset another. But they made the right choice. Given the choice of upsetting the families of fallen soldiers or a bunch of whiny, entitled teenagers, I think the choice is clear. You can fault them for not doing it sooner, but that's why it's called a "mistake". You can say they fixed their mistake "too late", but better late than never.

4. You're worrying for nothing. I don't know what else to say to get you to stop being so paranoid and alarmist. But whatever. If you insist on believing EA got bullied, knock yourself out. It's not true, but you clearly won't be convinced of that.