Electronic Arts has reversed course in their decision to include the Taliban as playable in Medal of Honor's multipayer. In spite of past statements that the company wouldn't bow to pressure to remove the content, EA cites " feedback from friends and families of fallen soldiers."
Instead of "The Taliban," the multipayer team will be refered to as the much less ominous "Opposing Forces." Gameplay will remain the same.
In a blog post, the game's executive producer Greg Goodrich posted the following:
In the past few months, we have received feedback from all over the world regarding the multiplayer portion of Medal of Honor. We’ve received notes from gamers, active military, and friends and family of servicemen and women currently deployed overseas. The majority of this feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. For this, the Medal of Honor team is deeply appreciative.
However, we have also received feedback from friends and families of fallen soldiers who have expressed concern over the inclusion of the Taliban in the multiplayer portion of our game. This is a very important voice to the Medal of Honor team. This is a voice that has earned the right to be listened to. It is a voice that we care deeply about. Because of this, and because the heartbeat of Medal of Honor has always resided in the reverence for American and Allied soldiers, we have decided to rename the opposing team in Medal of Honor multiplayer from Taliban to Opposing Force.
While this change should not directly affect gamers, as it does not fundamentally alter the gameplay, we are making this change for the men and women serving in the military and for the families of those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice - this franchise will never willfully disrespect, intentionally or otherwise, your memory and service.
To all who serve - we appreciate you, we thank you, and we do not take you for granted. And to the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines currently serving overseas, stay safe and come home soon. Greg Goodrich Executive Producer Medal of Honor.
Just for contrast sake, check out this statement from EA president Frank Gibeau, from back in August:
“There’s a lot of furor around games that take creative risks – like games that let you play terrorists in airports mowing down civilians... At EA we passionately believe games are an artform, and I don’t know why films and books set in Afghanistan don’t get flack, yet [games] do. Whether it’s Red Badge Of Courage or The Hurt Locker, the media of its time can be a platform for the people who wish to tell their stories. Games are becoming that platform."
This is what we call a flip-flop... but one that, to me, makes perfect sense. What do you guys think?
Comments are Closed
Comments
Displaying 161–180 of 186
81234567891010
TheyTarget
Yeah. This is kinda bull. I'm pissed. I'm not gonna support a game that doesn't stand by its roots. I mean, does this mean that they are gonna start censoring more games? In world war 2 games are we gonna be fighting "opposing forces". In.... lost my thought girlfriend wearing just panties. Be right back.
Vesuvian Ast3r1x
A FAIL OF VERY EPIC PROPORTIONS.
That is total BS, so what if they changed the name? From Taliban to "Opposing forces". It is still the same. So you guys can't stand to call your character Taliban, all because of some twisted double standard sense of patriotism? So what about world war 2 games of which there has been no shortage? Should we call the Nazi's "Those German Guys" or is it okay to call them Nazi because of the fact that that conflict is over? If you answer yes to that then you're essentially saying that the people who died in that struggle don't matter any more! I'm not American, don't get me wrong I think your nation is great but sometimes I really don't understand your country and as for EA I have nothing but respect for your company but you've shown me that even you don't have enough faith in your product to see through to the end the way it was supposed to be. Sorry for the rant but that's how I feel on the matter.
Muscley_Arms
that instantly makes me want to take the pre order off this game and put it on the force unleashed 2 or fall out new vegas
Tman88
I agree with Treeclaw's post. It was a tough call and there's two sides to every form of controversy. I wasn't really about avoiding bad publicity but more about not alienating people who have had relatives die or got seriously injured in the war. People like that may have stayed away from the game before but now may consider picking it up or at least playing it. Also the Taliban aren't completely removed, just renamed, so people should still know who the opposing force really is. Like I said, it was a tough call and there were two sides to the story. There's things that on paper look easy to do in game development but in reality it's never that easy, there's usually more to what's going on beind the scenes. Either way, the game itself is still going to be the same and it's still going to be fun. Also like I said before, things in game development seem easy but to really get a good thought process about the situation you got to put yourself in their shoes for a moment.
P1rate
Well, everyone has pretty much said it all. One thing is clear to me. EA execs want more MONEY and they saw this as the best way to get it. Sure there are a few who actually care about the controversy and are sympathetic to soldiers and their families but the execs want that money. MO MO MO MO MO!!!!!!
electronization
It just seems tacky to change the name to "Opposing Forces" when the game's coming out Oct 12-less than 3 weeks away. Plus everyone already knows the Opposing Forces IS supposed to be the Taliban-if they were going to change the name they should have done it long ago not less than a month away.
BONERJAM
I knew this was going to happen. EA want to sell the product to as many people as they can and this was the best way to do it. People are going to whine and complain about EA caving but in reality its all about sales. With a subject as touchy as the Taliban it isn't surprising distributors would be afraid to sell it. Smart move on EA's part weather or not people agree with it.
Empyu
I was against the idea of having the Taliban in the Multiplayer, but not in the Campaign. Even so, I was willing to listen to EA when they said they'd give players the chance to see for themselves how it is in the Beta. But now they've backed off from their stance before even making their case. That's like inviting someone to a fight only to not show up!
A lot of people are reacting as though this is some form of censorship. It isn't. EA is still free to release the game with the Taliban name available in multiplayer but they were convinced otherwise by the public's voice, not the government.
They put themselves in a situation where they couldn't satisfy everyone, so they chose to go with sensitivity over liberty. It became more of a business decision more than a choice based on principal. Don't go overreacting and thinking we've lost another piece of freedom because we lost the ability to virtually shoot an American soldier while playing as a Taliban extremist.
Forcing EA to release the game with the name unchanged would be a breach on their rights as well. Saying you'll no longer but the game because of this is using the same tools other people used to get the name pulled in the first place. Once you realize that other opinions other than your own exist, you might start to consider just how hard this decision was to make for the people working on this game.
So on one hand, it's nice to know a corporation can be sensitive. On the other hand, it sucks when all the dialogue ends simply because one side no longer has the will to stand on its ideals. When IW released the No Russian level in CoD, they got a lot of people talking. There was a massive outpouring of opinions on both sides. And people were too busy arguing to notice how great it was that so many people were allowed to express themselves and put thought into the issue. This was another opportunity to have something like that, but now it's over.
If only people would focus more on listening rather than winning arguments, stories like this wouldn't be such a huge waste of time.
chrono3212
So that's it? We just give up our creative freedom because someone is offended? There are people who are offended by my existence. Did I do anything wrong? No, but there will always be someone who is offended by something somewhere. I hate this decision simply because the people who cried the loudest got their way.
Korzo
Fre...freedom? I always wondered why games would tell stories in fictional places that resemble real places or fictional people who resemble real people. It always seems to baffle me how uptight people get when video games want to use real places or persons to tell a story, after all video games that tell stories are nothing more then interactive movies and as EA said back in August that movies depicting real wars and terrorist get praised not punished.
I respect EA's choice to switch names but at the same time it seems childish. You can't please everyone and It seems like EA's choice to switch the name of the terrorist group is them trying to do just that. But does it change anything? Are the people against the Taliban being in the game going to be less upset about it or even buy the game now that the "Taliban" are gone?
The thing that irks me about this is that this was a problem about multi-player. The idea that it's wrong that players can be the Taliban against American soldiers. It's a name, and yes it's the name of a real terrorist organization, but still, just a name. Even if they didn't originally use the Taliban, why would it be any better if it was a fictional terrorist organization? You'd still be a terrorist killing American soldiers.
I hope that this is the last we hear about this tussle. Unless EA decides to switch it back there's nothing more that can be done within reason. I hope the people against the Taliban being in this game can let this be and I hope that after all is said and done and this game is out people can realize that it is just a game and nothing to be up in arms about
Ewoc
WHY are we even in this war when they have already won? They control the world without leaving their own country.
Diremike
It may be a flip-flop but its no big deal honestly, calling the taliban fighters "insurgents" maybe would of sounded better then "opposing forces" though imo.
And yea this game is in possibly the worst spot for release in the history of games. Halo has already shown its dominance. Now gamers are gonna be choosing between MoH and Black Ops and its not gonna end well for someone.
DrStrangeL0ve
and so what if they changed the name, what does that do to the fun of the game? if we change the name of the covenant on halo to super fuzzy cat killers, does that change the game? no halo is still fun
JustTheBeginning
So their skins are EXACTLY the same and all they did was change the words that pop up on screen and now everyone is now ok with it? Something is severely wrong with that.
DrStrangeL0ve
why do you people care? They said, "EA cites " feedback from friends and families of fallen soldiers." Friends and Family! so unless you have a family member that died in this war, then shut the hell up!
Treeclaw
This was a tough call. On the one hand the controversial name not only kept the publicity on the game, generating alot of buzz. It also really affirmed games rights to be as creative or realistic as they pleased. On the other, the name wasnt really needed. Unlike in MoH, the airport scene in MW2 was a driving force to the game, a major plot point.
TLDR: MoH controversy not really needed, and making controversy just to be controversial is probably not a smart move. MW2 controversy was a necessary evil to really drive the game.
whatchel
Ridiculous!
nivlac978
I'm so sick of the term Opposing force. I want to know who it is I'm fighting. I want to know who they are, what their motivations are. The strategy to get more people behind a war is to dehumanize the enemy, this is kind of like that. Instead of labeling us the "good guys" and them the "bad guys," why can't we just call everything by it's proper name? It's an effing word just like Nazi, Grow a sack EA and fix your mistake.
chaser5000
This is no violation of anyones freedoms they did not have to remove the taliban from the game they have as much right to keep them in the game as the families have to disagree with them. why do people think that freedom of speech means freedom from responsibility or empathy all ea did was view this from the other side.
CALiiGeDDon
BOOOO. EA are such pushovers. Controversy is what helps sell a game...just look at the airport mission in Modern Warfare 2.
Displaying 161–180 of 186
81234567891010