Screw it: show EA where their money comes from

[Daystar Clarion]

I wish my constitution was written everywhere, so I could spout how something is 'violating my rights' every ten minutes.

..you can get one that fits in your pocket, you know. Also doubles as a coffee-mug rest or scribble-paper. Smartest dollars you'll ever spend.

Not in this country I can't. The UK Constitution is unwritten in that we don't have all our rights on a single piece of paper, it's buried in other things and is just too intricate to unpiece. Kinda happens when your country hasn't been invaded since 1066. New Zealand and Israel are the other countries that have unwritten Constitutions.

 

[icame]

Yeah sure they lost my respect, but if the games good I'm getting it. Its as simple as that.

 

[katsumoto03]

Ugh. I can't argue with two of you babies at the same time.

Topics like this make me want to buy TWO copies of Medal of Honor.

So in other words...you're fleeing with a frantic backward sling of feces rather than trying to actually argue my point?

I've already made my point repeatedly in other topics, but let me summarize it once more for you so you don't feel left out.

You are acting like a spoiled, entitled child, making a big deal out of something that should be a complete non-issue, something that has zero impact on the game and should have zero impact on your ability to enjoy the game.

By boycotting the game, you're sending the message that your ability to play as a team called "The Taliban" was more important to you than how good the game itself actually is. Which, it should be obvious, is ludicrous.

I like when I meet sane people. Really brightens my day.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

big baby. they did the right thing. sure. they caved into pressure, and most people would not consider it offencive, but they appeased the people who do. so whats the problem? they didnt REALLY change anything. its still the same game. im personally buying a copy. i'd rather buy that then goddamn call of duty 7

Because names aren't "real" things, right?

i'd rather buy that then goddamn call of duty 7

You remind me of a man who, on TV, stated his law-based reasons for not supporting the integration of Southern schools. He then called MLK "Martin Luther Coon."

The moral: your point doesn't carry much clout when you make it clear that you have a massive probably unchangeable bias.

what I want to know is, what's the purpose for this thread? What are you trying to achieve?

Showing that the pressure from consumers is both real and costly, while succumbing to pressure from nonconsumers in areas protected by the first amendment pales in comparison.

And don't think I'm trying to bash you, I read the first post, and I swear I don't know what purpose could be gained by not buying that game, that is all.

It's all about setting a precedent. If by succumbing to nonconsumer pressure and censoring game content and still making a pile of money, EA broadcasts that it's still profitable to give in to demands from nongamers regarding censorship.

If by succuming to nonconsumer etc, etc, yet doesn't make lots of money, even loses money, it gives the opposite message: at the end of the day, it's the consumer base that matters for any given product, and games are no exception. Censor them by nonconsumer demand at your own peril.

Actually, for people who support one or both amendments, it's pretty rare to see them confused. But that's not quite the key issue here.

Allow me to clarify: second amendment rights tend to receive a lot more attention than I would think necessary when the much more important first amendment seems to be taking the second seat. As such, it didn't seem like much of a stretch to forget that something's actual importance is not always related to how much attention it garners. Compare Oscar W. Underwood with Madonna. One has worldwide fame as a pop singer desperately (and creepily) clinging to something resembling youth. The other is a United States Senator. Importance =/= renown.

The first amendment doesn't allow you to say what you wish without repercussion. It prevents the Government from interfering with your right to speech and assemble, which is different. Nothing in the Taliban issue is a free speech issue. When you put a terrorist organisation in the game, that's free speech. When people threaten to boycott, that's also free speech. Nobody's rights have been taken away.

Yes...except that this was a case where the consumers weren't boycotting, or at least a solid majority of them weren't. Ask any gamer who intended to buy MOH whether or not his choice will change because the OpFor team is named 'Taliban.' That's not a boycott: that's forcing action under duress.

Why, if you want to show them where the money is, go ahead. That's still not free speech. You refusing to buy it because they took out the Taliban is no different than the opponents threatening not to if they didn't.

...again, except this is an attempt to restore the status quo. If an artist has his work censored, but still agrees to release it, refusing to pay for it isn't because I want to have it extra-censored, it's because I want it as it was intended.

Neither infringes on the free speech of the devs and publishers; they still have the right to do it, at a potential financial loss. Until Congress passes a law banning the Taliban from appearing in games, don't talk about the first amendment as an issue that applies here.

Yeah, because the government passing laws is the only way that Constitutional rights have ever been infringed on, right?

 

[mechanixis]

Since EA's already caved in to pressure from whatever hundreds or thousands that wouldn't have been buying Medal of Honor anyway, why don't we simply assert the obvious leverage that *we* have as the actual gamers?

Because we don't have any goddamned leverage. As a demographic, we have the self-restraint of a box full of magpies. Out of the handful of people who read what anyone calling for a boycott has to say, a tiny, tiny minority of them will concur, and countless others will be buying the game anyway because they're oblivious to these sorts of gaming-news scandals.

 

[D088Y]

The 2nd amendment huh? You'll have to explain that one to me, because I've always thought the 2nd amendment was about the right to bear arms.

I wish i had bear arms

OT: I never intended to buy it so...

 

[chenry]

It's not a violation of their first amendment rights. People merely complained a lot, and then EA wussed out and changed the name. Nobody forced them to do it. They could've shipped the game with the names intact. But they didn't. And they didn't change anything else about the game, just a name. Calling them OpFor changes nothing about the game. And having been in the Beta, I can honestly say there's not all that much that's amazing about the game to begin with.

So basically, it's not important. Nobody's rights were violated. We're living in a world where the economy's on fire, and people are being tortured in secret prisons and denied basic human rights. And you're getting out panties in a bunch about not being able to be Virtual Taliban.

 

[Megacherv]

Played the beta the other day, all that I could see was grey or brown, and twice as much dust as Bad Company and Bad Company 2 put together.

I shall not be buying it.

 

[nuba km]

Ugh. I can't argue with two of you babies at the same time.

Topics like this make me want to buy TWO copies of Medal of Honor.

I think what they are trying to say is that if something isn't too controversial to be in a book, movie or TV show that it shouldn't be too controversial for a game. we should show that if a company validates the claims that games can't tackle issues that other media can we should make it clear as there market that we will not stand for them lessening the validity of games as an art form. which I agree with but I think this guys idea of don't buy the game is better then change to your name Taliban tactic but to that if you to get the game show people that we want games to be seen as an art form and that we aren't afraid to see that that happens (although don't do anything violent because that can be thrown back into our faces).

 

[HyenaThePirate]

So let me get this straight.

We should now boycott a game and work ourselves into a self-righteous frenzy simply because they chose to NOT officially label the "other team" in team-based multiplayer by a SPECIFIC label? What, is there some sort of intense burning desire to BECOME a member of the Taliban to help along some sort of fantasy of killing U.S. soldiers? Is it really that gratifying of a fantasy?

I could understand people being upset about this if it required that they rewrite major portions of the game, change the story, remove levels like some sort of "Play as the Taliban ala Modern Warfare 2's Airport terrorist scene" thing, but all they did was CHANGE THE OTHER TEAM ONTO WHICH YOU WILL BE PLACED AT RANDOM FROM "TALIBAN" TO "OPPOSING FORCE". Hell, they aren't even changing that team's APPEARANCE, WEAPONS, or LOOK in any way. For all intents and purposes they will still VISUALLY be the "Taliban", since you'd be hard put to imagine that those are Nazis, Covenant, or any other enemy combatant type running around in a kafia screaming in Arabic. Hell, if you are that bent on fighting middle easterners by their proper name, you can just as easily imagine them to be "evil pakistanis" or "evil Iranians" or if you feel a particular need for being insensitive, you could imagine that they are Israelis.

The point being that at the end of the day, the opposite teams are just a means to allow you to differentiate between the enemy team and not putting dozens of rounds into your own teammates. I don't care if you call the team the Westboro Baptist Church Brigrade, as long as they look different enough from the team I'm currently playing on that I won't be trying to figure out who is on my side in a firefight (not that it matters because I've learned that the best action in a confusing situation is to simply kill everything and then say "Sorry" afterwards while looting the corpses.)

Also, you can't really claim a violation of Freedom of Speech if YOU willingly censor YOURSELF. If you stand around in a KKK hood preaching about how much you hate them colored folks, and then when you find it difficult to obtain employment suddenly decide to throw away your hood and start being friendly to brown people, you can't go around crying that you were FORCED to be nice and are some how being violated. YOU made the decision, therefore there is none to blame for it but yourself.

It's not about wanting to be the Taliban at all! You dismissed the name change as frivolous and it is exactly that. Seeing as how it's so wildly unimportant, why bother changing it at all?

I'm not sure about the righteous frenzy bit, but it's certainly something to get a little upset over. It's a matter of principle. Changing a ridiculously minor aspect of something simply because people arbitrarily dislike it?

Eh you can't argue with these dumb bastards. They're all "The Constitution gives me muh guns!" But then.. "The Constitution protects former black slaves, not Mexicans now." They'll bend it and warp it and mindlessly support the powers that control them to the very bitter end.

It's a crap game. Taking the Taliban's name out of the product is a DISGRACE to a real war being fought by real people.

It's akin to companies who stop making video games featuring space exploration because Sarah dumpsterwhore who's raised another dumpsterwhore Palin doesn't believe we've landed on the moon.

So what you are saying is, if they changed the name to Islamic Militants or "Muslim extremists", then you would have been satisfied? You tell me the name is frivolous, then rant and rave about them having the audacity to change it.
If the name itself is unimportant, then the issue of CHANGING the name becomes equally unimportant, thus shooting a big fat hole in your initial complaint to begin with.

This isn't a violation of any rights. It's not even a slight to gamers. It's a name change. Big deal. What, wanna fight about it? Is it even important? If they kept the name, but the game sucked, would you still eagerly shell out your hard earned money for it?
And what about those who actually HAVE lost family members to the Taliban? Should they shutup too? From my perspective THOSE people actually have more of a valid argument for displaying some sort of dissatisfaction with the name than you do. Their gripe is that they lost someone to the Taliban and it's painful to think of people re-enacting that a million-fold in little virtual games. It's not much of a stance, but it's a valid one. On the other hand, YOU are upset because a company decided to be a little respectful and changed the BLOODY NAME of an enemy faction because they sympathized with the people who found it somewhat offensive.

In a way, both arguments are stupid, but this is by FAR the least valid side of it.
It's a simple name change. Get over it.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Yeah sure they lost my respect, but if the games good I'm getting it. Its as simple as that.

This is the third time I've said it in this thread, and it's becoming an alarming trend: that flies in the face of the concept of boycotting. Censored things can still be good in their own right, but that's how censors are able to get away with what they do. At the expense of taking Godwin's wang in my face, do you think that the Nazis came into power and just threw all of Germany's Jews, gypsies, retards, etc into camps on the first day? Again, not saying that it's going to lead to the Holocaust by a long shot, but they're both things that are played as games of inches.

I love it when people set up an account just to put some butthurt kid in his place. Welcome to the Escapist.

I know: it flatters me to know that I'm worth it.

OT: OP is clueless. Although it seems we have already reached a consensus on that.

Quick! Declare yourself the winner! That means you win, right?

I sympathize with your frustration, but there's no doubt that MOH is a corporate product. You said so yourself in the title for this post: "Show EA where their money comes from." The problem with the argument is that you say EA is being "forced" to comply with the detractors' wishes. EA is simply making a decision based on what it feels is best for its bottom line and public image. Don't think EA has a greater motivation to decide this question based on artistic merit than on the potential profits.

I'm fairly confident that I've been careful about using the term "forced." I know that I've used "duress" a few times, a caving to public pressure, but I've been acknowledging that this is ultimately EA's decision, hence why the topic exists in the first place. I'm not proposing that we lobby anti-game groups to change their opinions, or get anti-game laws overturned, simply because in the former there's no point and the latter doesn't exist in this case.

If appeal to the Constitution doesn't work, this is still a game company changing a game on the whims of nongamers without legal reason to do so. It'd be like Honda taking away cupholders from their cars because Samsung demanded them to do so: the consumers aren't even being asked.

If this is a case where the first amendment comes to play, then my proposal is at least justified. If it's not a case of Constitutional violations, then just the same, it's games being controlled and edited by nongamers, and I hold that rejecting the product of of that is the right thing to do.

You have every right to make your voice heard by deciding what you will and won't buy. I just think arguments based on the constitutionality or artistic value of the changes miss the point entirely. Even if there was an artistic argument to make here, saying that Art can only be true or desirable based on whether or not it conforms to your standards is exactly the argument that non-gamers use to claim that games aren't art.

But (going off the art argument) the only standard I'm even setting is that the work is what the artist intended it to be. That's not forcing games to conform to my standards of what art is or is not, unless my calling for the removal of censorship is now a form of censorship.

 

[freedomweasel]

Yeah sure they lost my respect, but if the games good I'm getting it. Its as simple as that.

This is the third time I've said it in this thread, and it's becoming an alarming trend: that flies in the face of the concept of boycotting.

The people you keep explaining this to clearly don't agree with your boycott. I'm not sure what is so confusing.

It comes down to this: the protesters had every right to complain, EA changed, you're now well within your right to protest the change. I'm fairly positive that EA "did the numbers" and determined that the damage done ($$) by keeping the name in was more than removing it.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Showing that the pressure from consumers is both real and costly, while succumbing to pressure from nonconsumers in areas protected by the first amendment pales in comparison.


It's all about setting a precedent. If by succumbing to nonconsumer pressure and censoring game content and still making a pile of money, EA broadcasts that it's still profitable to give in to demands from nongamers regarding censorship.

Fair enough, still, movies also go through this process, they change or remove scenes so they can appeal to a wider audience, and it's barely noticeable. Jack Thompson is an ass in my opinion, but I hardly think he ever had anything to do with the final decision over this, so to me, it doesn't count.
Now, I know as consumers, we think we have more voice than those who aren't, but this is an industry growing, whose target is to appeal to more audiences than the current, and if by this they can do it, I understand the reasoning behind the decision.

If by succuming to nonconsumer etc, etc, yet doesn't make lots of money, even loses money, it gives the opposite message: at the end of the day, it's the consumer base that matters for any given product, and games are no exception. Censor them by nonconsumer demand at your own peril. [/quote]

I agree, but again, we consumers haven't a big demography as the potential consumers, so it's all about deciding to slap people you first met, or people you know and hope they understand why. It'll hurt in the end, but it's an acceptable price to get what we want, which is an entertainment media like MoH. I don't like the idea more than you, but we had worse days.

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

Ugh. I can't argue with two of you babies at the same time.

Topics like this make me want to buy TWO copies of Medal of Honor.

I think what they are trying to say is that if something isn't too controversial to be in a book, movie or TV show that it shouldn't be too controversial for a game. we should show that if a company validates the claims that games can't tackle issues that other media can we should make it clear as there market that we will not stand for them lessening the validity of games as an art form. which I agree with but I think this guys idea of don't buy the game is better then change to your name Taliban tactic but to that if you to get the game show people that we want games to be seen as an art form and that we aren't afraid to see that that happens (although don't do anything violent because that can be thrown back into our faces).

Multiplayer shooters are not an art form. Sorry.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Because we don't have any goddamned leverage. As a demographic, we have the self-restraint of a box full of magpies. Out of the handful of people who read what anyone calling for a boycott has to say, a tiny, tiny minority of them will concur, and countless others will be buying the game anyway because they're oblivious to these sorts of gaming-news scandals.

Why not? Spread it around, make people care. That's how other causes gain their strength. The photographer at Iwo Jima didn't look at the photo he developed and shrug that no one would probably see it. All things begin with an idea. It's just about spreading that idea around.

We should now boycott a game and work ourselves into a self-righteous frenzy simply because they chose to NOT officially label the "other team" in team-based multiplayer by a SPECIFIC label? What, is there some sort of intense burning desire to BECOME a member of the Taliban to help along some sort of fantasy of killing U.S. soldiers? Is it really that gratifying of a fantasy?

Thanks, Captain Strawman. You almost made it look like I was trying to force EA to do something entirely new rather than just restoring a work to how its creators intended it to be seen.

As far as the "self-righteous frenzy" goes...sure, you can do that if it tickles your fancy. I'll just be not buying the game. Sure, it doesn't require motor oil, garden shears, and a blonde wig like yours does, but it works for me.

The point being that at the end of the day, the opposite teams are just a means to allow you to differentiate between the enemy team and not putting dozens of rounds into your own teammates. I don't care if you call the team the Westboro Baptist Church Brigrade, as long as they look different enough from the team I'm currently playing on that I won't be trying to figure out who is on my side in a firefight (not that it matters because I've learned that the best action in a confusing situation is to simply kill everything and then say "Sorry" afterwards while looting the corpses.)

Blah, blah, blah, missing the point, as I guessed you would when I started reading your rather hilarious post.

Also, you can't really claim a violation of Freedom of Speech if YOU willingly censor YOURSELF. If you stand around in a KKK hood preaching about how much you hate them colored folks, and then when you find it difficult to obtain employment suddenly decide to throw away your hood and start being friendly to brown people, you can't go around crying that you were FORCED to be nice and are some how being violated. YOU made the decision, therefore there is none to blame for it but yourself.

Oh, look: now no one on Earth can ever claim to have their first amendment rights violated because they can't remove the filters between brain and action. What a delightfully backwards world you live in.

Somewhat related, I have a phrase for you to look up in your fantasy world where you can run screaming obscenities wearing a Klan-emblazoned thong into a crowded intersection: disturbing the peace.

 

[benbenthegamerman]

I'm not buying it, but not because I'm boycotting it, I just have absolutely no interest in it.

i second this.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

The biggest sale of gener first person shooters comes from the gamers of the world... last time I checked, gamers are outnumbered by frat boys four to one...

I'm not getting it anyway. Boycott!

 

[nuba km]

Ugh. I can't argue with two of you babies at the same time.

Topics like this make me want to buy TWO copies of Medal of Honor.

I think what they are trying to say is that if something isn't too controversial to be in a book, movie or TV show that it shouldn't be too controversial for a game. we should show that if a company validates the claims that games can't tackle issues that other media can we should make it clear as there market that we will not stand for them lessening the validity of games as an art form. which I agree with but I think this guys idea of don't buy the game is better then change to your name Taliban tactic but to that if you to get the game show people that we want games to be seen as an art form and that we aren't afraid to see that that happens (although don't do anything violent because that can be thrown back into our faces).

Multiplayer shooters are not an art form. Sorry.

I now that the multiplayer isn't an art (single player is in some games but that is same with movies comedies not really art most movies not art but they can be) form but why do games have to say made up middle eastern country while books movies and TV shows say Taliban I disagree with why this happened (well I understand the fact that companies done this to avoid bad publicity but the fact that people think that people think games aren't able to handle difficult topics which they are). I think that if movies, books and TV shows can say Taliban that games should be able to do the same I mean one of the arguments to why it should be changed is because it could be used as a training tool for terrorist but suddenly that they aren't called Taliban it can't be used for that (event though that idea is silly in the first place).

 

[T-Bone24]

I enjoy how you criticise the "unconstitutional", yet very american practise of "pressuring a group with no legal basis", then in the same sentence you pressurise a group with no legal basis.

It's a silly thing to boycott a game for, I wouldn't have bought it in the first place, I'm not the biggest fan of shooters. You're just as bad as the people who complained about the Taliban's name being in the game.

Right...so in other words, unless I buy a product that was censored by unconstitutional means, thus indirectly granting a veritable referendum to the censors, I'm as bad as the jackboots who censored it in the first place?

Oh, if only I could live in Bizarro World like you do. Then I might actually see how that makes sense.

You should come to Bizarro World once in a while. Lovely weather this time of year... I think. It's hard to tell when the sky won't stay the same colour for more than a day.

Anyway, thanks for your well-reasoned argument. But yes, I don't really know the constitution as I'm not American, but I'm not saying that you need to buy this game. I'm saying that you should maybe pick a better reason to not buy something.

You can boycott this game for such a silly reason if you want, but don't make me do it.

 

[mechanixis]

Because we don't have any goddamned leverage. As a demographic, we have the self-restraint of a box full of magpies. Out of the handful of people who read what anyone calling for a boycott has to say, a tiny, tiny minority of them will concur, and countless others will be buying the game anyway because they're oblivious to these sorts of gaming-news scandals.

Why not? Spread it around, make people care. That's how other causes gain their strength. The photographer at Iwo Jima didn't look at the photo he developed and shrug that no one would probably see it. All things begin with an idea. It's just about spreading that idea around.

Look, activism is all well and good, but it couldn't be more misspent than on Medal of Honor. EA is not any kind of victim here. This is a game born in the deepest darkest bowels of EA's marketing department. This is a game that was commissioned in direct response to Activision's success with Modern Warfare 2, to the point of being a shameless grab at an existing market. Absolutely nothing new or innovative has been promised by Medal of Honor that puts it above MW2. I challenge you to name one thing, apart from "You can have a beard now".

As for the Taliban name-change: they knew the kind of controversy that this terminology would cause, as well as the publicity it would draw for the game. I guarantee you they made the decision to change the name a long time ago, but held off on actually changing it until just before release, in order to get as much media exposure as possible. They didn't change it because someone commanded them to in violation of the constitution: they changed it because they'll make more money that way.

This isn't a game that was ever designed with the goal of being fun, or of being a high-quality product. This is a game that was designed with the exclusive goal of making money.

So I guess my point is, don't buy it, but for very different reasons.