U.S. Army May Reverse Medal of Honor Ban

[Andy Chalk]

I don't really agree with the ban, but if it truly offends the military, and those who've died in service, then I say they have every right to refuse to sell it in their stores.

But the point is, where does the offense come from? The depiction of an enemy actively trying to kill American soldiers, or merely what we call that enemy?

 

[Zhukov]

Huh. You yanks really love your military huh?

And yes, this whole thing is really bloody stupid. The game has Taliban in it. So call them Taliban.

 

[mjc0961]

We all know that the Taliban hasn't actually been removed from the game, it's just been renamed to the Half-Life [http://www.amazon.com/Half-Life-Expansion-Pack-Opposing-Force-Pc/dp/B00002CF96/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1286202735&sr=8-2]-esque "Opposing Force." And there's no guarantee that the Army will do about about-face on selling the game in its stores. But the fact that merely changing a team name warrants even a discussion about lifting the ban is troubling. How exactly is it respectful to say that the only way it's appropriate to release a videogame about the ongoing exploits of the U.S. military is to pretend that it's not actually about the ongoing exploits of the U.S. military?

That's basically what I was going to say. Thanks for saying it for me so I can go watch LRR instead.

 

[duchaked]

well Germany banned it for other reasons, a bit more archaic but I mean after seeing the news flip back and forth with this issue I feel like maybe it's just best to respect the wishes of others, cuz it's really not THAT absurd either way either side

I mean, I realize that I don't have a family member involved or lost to the Taliban, or a painful Nazi back history that I'm trying to forget

 

[DSK-]

It's not like we didn't know who the enemy was in COD4 and MW2 anyway, right?

I can understand why they banned it, but it still seems double standards compared to the many WW2 games with Nazi's and the like.

 

[Blind Sight]

So wait, a game like Modern Warfare 2, which deliberately and without apology badmouths the Russians (i.e. one of the United States' 'allies') is completely fine, but if you name the Taliban in your game that's wrong. Is it really better to have the Taliban as 'Opposing Force' (i.e. unnamed MUSLIM force) then to actually have the political and historical analysis behind it?

Apparently it's completely rational for the Army to sell a game about Muslims shooting Americans, as long as they don't mention they're Taliban. Perhaps they should change the name of the Americans in the game to 'foreign invading force that has screwed over the majority of Middle Eastern countries in their attempts to protect Israel, export culture and import oil.'

It's not like we didn't know who the enemy was in COD4 and MW2 anyway, right?

I can understand why they banned it, but it still seems double standards compared to the many WW2 games with Nazi's and the like.

It kind of reminds me of what China does with games with Nazis in it, ban them until the content is removed. Company of Heroes Online previewed in China with the Allies fighting the 'Federation', the Third Reich in all but name.

 

[Falseprophet]

But the point is, where does the offense come from? The depiction of an enemy actively trying to kill American soldiers, or merely what we call that enemy?

I don't get it either. During WWII, American artists drew Nazis in comic books, and American actors portrayed them in movies. Those portrayals weren't considered "offensive to the troops". Why is this different?

 

[Dogstile]

So they're changing it because it doesn't explicitly say the names of the brownies you're shooting?

*facepalm*

 

[DTWolfwood]

But the point is, where does the offense come from? The depiction of an enemy actively trying to kill American soldiers, or merely what we call that enemy?

I don't get it either. During WWII, American artists drew Nazis in comic books, and American actors portrayed them in movies. Those portrayals weren't considered "offensive to the troops". Why is this different?

to be fair all of this was more or less done after the war was over and we had won. in comics of the era, it was always a one sided fight. USA beats Nazi Germany. (Any that didn't were controversial.) In terms of MoH, we're still fighting that war, and complete victory is no where insight. When you allow ppl to play as the enemy and give them a fighting chance at winning a battle, it becomes a psychological cluster fuck to soldiers who play it.

When something is done in hindsight its a lot less offensive when the outcome is already known. Had movies like Platoon/Apocalypse Now come out during instead of after the Vietnam war, it would be a huge detriment to the soldiers fighting the war. Nothing to say to lower morale among the fighting men/women.

While i totally think EA copped out and this whole issue is moot, I can see y this can be considered offensive.

 

[LawlessSquirrel]

"Half-Life-esque"? Isn't "Opposing Force" or OPFOR what the army actually calls the so-called "Bad Guys"?

Humanizing the enemy makes your peons question your orders

This exactly. I'm personally questioning how much of the issue is to honour the dead, and how much is to avoid letting any soldiers sympathise with the enemy. It's harder to kill someone when you consider them human.

Yet it's easier to kill someone when they are trying to kill you. In this circumstance humanizing the enemy would not have an adverse effect on most of the troops. They can only return fire, which means they can only fight when their life is in danger. I don't know about you, but if something is trying to kill me regardless of if it is human or not, I'm going to protect myself even if it means killing the threat. These are trained soldiers who have killed before and will kill again. It doesn't make it right, don't get me wrong. I'd prefer peace over war everyday of the week. But, I'd be pretty suprised if it adversely affected the soldiers. Sure they may be brainwashed to a degree, but they are human and they are doing what they believe to be correct, give the troops a little more credit about their own humanity than you are.

I apologise if I came across as offensive, I don't mean to belittle the people that would fight for what they believe is a just cause. All I'm saying is that to pursue a cause knowing it'll likely lead to you killing people requires a degree of personal conditioning and dissociation that can be challenged by identifying in some way with the enemy. It's only human. But of cause, PTSD is a nasty side effect.

War itself is terrible, and I'd love to rant about it, but my point is that it takes a lot to be able to do what soldiers do, and it wouldn't surprise me if the people in charge were handling this issue more as a way to keep out anything that could weaken the conditioning than as a tribute to the people who sacrificed themselves.

Again, if I'm sounding offensive, I don't mean to.

 

[Baconmonster723]

"Half-Life-esque"? Isn't "Opposing Force" or OPFOR what the army actually calls the so-called "Bad Guys"?

Humanizing the enemy makes your peons question your orders

This exactly. I'm personally questioning how much of the issue is to honour the dead, and how much is to avoid letting any soldiers sympathise with the enemy. It's harder to kill someone when you consider them human.

Yet it's easier to kill someone when they are trying to kill you. In this circumstance humanizing the enemy would not have an adverse effect on most of the troops. They can only return fire, which means they can only fight when their life is in danger. I don't know about you, but if something is trying to kill me regardless of if it is human or not, I'm going to protect myself even if it means killing the threat. These are trained soldiers who have killed before and will kill again. It doesn't make it right, don't get me wrong. I'd prefer peace over war everyday of the week. But, I'd be pretty suprised if it adversely affected the soldiers. Sure they may be brainwashed to a degree, but they are human and they are doing what they believe to be correct, give the troops a little more credit about their own humanity than you are.

I apologise if I came across as offensive, I don't mean to belittle the people that would fight for what they believe is a just cause. All I'm saying is that to pursue a cause knowing it'll likely lead to you killing people requires a degree of personal conditioning and dissociation that can be challenged by identifying in some way with the enemy. It's only human. But of cause, PTSD is a nasty side effect.

War itself is terrible, and I'd love to rant about it, but my point is that it takes a lot to be able to do what soldiers do, and it wouldn't surprise me if the people in charge were handling this issue more as a way to keep out anything that could weaken the conditioning than as a tribute to the people who sacrificed themselves.

Again, if I'm sounding offensive, I don't mean to.

Lol, no worries. I came back as overly aggressive. You were fine. You are absolutely right as well. PTSD is VERY serious and I would argue is because they are killing people. No matter what the military says, and eventually that will get to you. All we can hope for a swift and minimal blood end to conflict.

 

[Falseprophet]

But the point is, where does the offense come from? The depiction of an enemy actively trying to kill American soldiers, or merely what we call that enemy?

I don't get it either. During WWII, American artists drew Nazis in comic books, and American actors portrayed them in movies. Those portrayals weren't considered "offensive to the troops". Why is this different?

to be fair all of this was more or less done after the war was over and we had won.

Nope, plenty more [http://violintide-da.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/captainamerica1.jpg], often featuring German and Austrian exiles who had fled Hitler, portraying Nazis on screen. No one considered those portrayals disrespectful to the troops.

In terms of MoH, we're still fighting that war, and complete victory is no where insight. When you allow ppl to play as the enemy and give them a fighting chance at winning a battle, it becomes a psychological cluster fuck to soldiers who play it.

Except that the military does this themselves on a regular basis [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_simulation].

When something is done in hindsight its a lot less offensive when the outcome is already known. Had movies like Platoon/Apocalypse Now come out during instead of after the Vietnam war, it would be a huge detriment to the soldiers fighting the war. Nothing to say to lower morale among the fighting men/women.

How many movies and TV series have been made about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? The former only "ended" just over a month ago; the latter is still ongoing. Sure, most of these films were box office bombs, but almost all of them were critical of the wars in some fashion. And sure there was criticism of the films, but no one seriously attempted to ban or censure them. Heck, even Iron Man and Transformers used the wars as a backdrop.

I don't buy this line of reasoning. I still think MOH is being singled out because it's a video game, not because of its content.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

I'm astonished that they ever banned it. Soldiers need these games more than anybody. Not only is there a lot of downtime in a war, it boosts morale. You could either sit around all day feeling shitty about being away from home, watching friends die, and having to kill people, or you could be playing a fun game where there are no consequences that passes the hours. Do they think our soldiers don't know they're fighting the Taliban? That they're not aware? They won't correlate "opposing force" to the Taliban?

 

[DTWolfwood]

Spoiler

But the point is, where does the offense come from? The depiction of an enemy actively trying to kill American soldiers, or merely what we call that enemy?

I don't get it either. During WWII, American artists drew Nazis in comic books, and American actors portrayed them in movies. Those portrayals weren't considered "offensive to the troops". Why is this different?

to be fair all of this was more or less done after the war was over and we had won.

Nope, plenty more [http://violintide-da.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/captainamerica1.jpg], often featuring German and Austrian exiles who had fled Hitler, portraying Nazis on screen. No one considered those portrayals disrespectful to the troops.

In terms of MoH, we're still fighting that war, and complete victory is no where insight. When you allow ppl to play as the enemy and give them a fighting chance at winning a battle, it becomes a psychological cluster fuck to soldiers who play it.

Except that the military does this themselves on a regular basis [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_simulation].

When something is done in hindsight its a lot less offensive when the outcome is already known. Had movies like Platoon/Apocalypse Now come out during instead of after the Vietnam war, it would be a huge detriment to the soldiers fighting the war. Nothing to say to lower morale among the fighting men/women.

How many movies and TV series have been made about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? The former only "ended" just over a month ago; the latter is still ongoing. Sure, most of these films were box office bombs, but almost all of them were critical of the wars in some fashion. And sure there was criticism of the films, but no one seriously attempted to ban or censure them. Heck, even Iron Man and Transformers used the wars as a backdrop.

I don't buy this line of reasoning. I still think MOH is being singled out because it's a video game, not because of its content.

1) Lemme quote myself "in comics of the era, it was always a one sided fight. USA beats Nazi Germany."

2) Military Simulations in most cases refer to the bad guys as the OPFOR. As in what EA is doing now. A none distinct enemy with no name. Its not the same when you are the Taliban, and your Taliban team have just won against the US Rangers.

3) Movies are protected under the First Amendment Right. Videogames are not, yet. Documentaries and TV Shows all attempt to show a reality of the war, not glorify them. And this entire incident is mere "criticism," to use your word, and attempts by defunct politicians who want to divert our attentions away from what really matters.

As i've said before, this entire issue is a MOOT POINT. The military has ever right the ban the sales on its bases if they deem it to be a bad influence to the troops. Just like any private organization. It doesn't mean they are banning the game, just where they can be bought on site. Not like the Troops won't be able to get a care package from home if they wanted to play the damn game that badly.

 

[DTWolfwood]

Internet borked and i double posted

 

[Lord Honk]

Man, this topic is a serious attention whore. Leave it or change it, but for God's sake (or Allah, for all you OPFORs out there), don't waffle around that fething much!

That being said, I'll go kill me some MEC in Jalalabad, brb...

 

[DazBurger]

So... They call the opposing force "Taliban" and the game gets shit.

They stop calling the opposing force "Taliban" and now its just an "opposing arabic faction" and the game is ok?

Hey guys! Voldemort! This is basically the same thing right?

SSHHH!! Dont say that!!!

 

[TimeCruiserMike]

i've lost whatever little respect i may have still had for EA which wasn't much.

 

[Andronicus]

Strangely enough, I find this appropriate:

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy:
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague/Taliban.
What's Montague/Taliban? It is nor hand nor foot,
Nor arm nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O be some other name!
What's in a name? That which we call a rose/terrorist,
By any other name would smell as sweet/deadly.