PDA

View Full Version : EA Buckles



dinsdale1978
10-01-2010, 10:31 AM
I may have to cancel my preorder now. If EA doesn't even want to stand up for the integrity of it's product, I would rather not be Tier 1. :tongue:

http://kotaku.com/5653024/electronic-arts-buckles-under-pressure-removes-taliban-from-medal-of-honor?skyline=true&s=i

Responding to the reaction of the "friends and families of fallen soldiers," Electronic Arts today said today they are removing the Taliban as playable characters from their upcoming military shooter Medal of Honor.

The opposing force that the U.S. military take on in Afghanistan in multiplayer bouts is now called the "opposing force."

Medal of Honor came under intense pressure from the military after it became known that in the multiplayer portions of the game, players would be able to take on the role of Taliban fighters.

In early September, the commanding general of the Army and Air Force Exchange Services told Kotaku that he decided to have Medal of Honor pulled from U.S. military bases worldwide because of the "well-documented reports of depictions of Taliban fighters engaging American troops" in the game.

Electronic Arts declined to comment at the time about whether the decision by the Army & Air Force Exchange Services would impact the design of the game.

In a statement this morning on the Medal of Honor website, Greg Goodrich, executive producer of Medal of Honor, said the decision to drop the Taliban reference was driven purely by the feedback from friends and families of fallen soldiers.

"This is a very important voice to the Medal of Honor team," he wrote. "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."

Goodrich said the change will not directly affect gamers or alter gameplay.

Here is Goodrich's statement in full:

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

We have reached out to Electronic Arts and the Army & Air Force Exchange Services to see how this decision will impact the availability of the game on military bases worldwide and will update when we hear back.

Borlaxx
10-01-2010, 10:48 AM
This is sooo stupid. We all will know they are the Taliban with just a different name, unless in the single player game they are called the "Opposing Force" as well, and instead of Afghanistan, the game now takes place in "Middle-Eastern Country."

I understand the rational, but self censorship in the face of uninformed, illegitimate, and unnecessary opposition leaves a really bad taste in my mouth. I just don't understand why a GAME designed for ADULTS had to be treated differently than any other media like a movie, book, TV show, documentary, etc. Yes, young kids should not be able to play as the Taliban, but if they are, that is their parents' fault, not the developer.

Unless this game gets reviewed as the best FPS game in the history of gaming I will now never be getting it on principal alone. Pathetic.

Borlaxx
10-01-2010, 11:20 AM
They had to see this "controversy" coming months ago, which either means it was done on purpose to create hype, which is distasteful, or they truelly meant the game to be realistic like they said but just don't have the balls to stand behind their product.

Pwizzle99
10-01-2010, 11:24 AM
Yes, it sucks that they changed it. But it won't keep me from getting the game.
Hell, half the time during a game it's just "us" against "them" to me. So I don't care what their official name is.

Jackie R
10-01-2010, 11:26 AM
Personally, I did not have a problem with the Taliban being in the game but if the following:


the decision to drop the Taliban reference was driven purely by the feedback from friends and families of fallen soldiers.

Is true, then I have no issue with EA pulling them from the game. Much like jstsumguy said, having or not having the Taliban is not going to affect any of the gameplay nor my feelings towards it.

Borlaxx
10-01-2010, 11:32 AM
True, it doesn't affect the game play at all, but it does undermine the entire "realism" aspect they have been pushing with this game being set during a real conflict as a way it sets itself apart from the MW games. Also, I read that the enemy will still be called the Taliban in the single player game, so the change is cosmetic only. You will still be playing as the Taliban, they are just not called that. I have a hard time seeing how this trivial change will ease the minds of those who oppose the game, but I do see it turning off people who have been following the game for months. What's next? People keep complaining about US troops still being killed in a game so they change it to water guns and nerf guns?

Pwizzle99
10-01-2010, 11:36 AM
I know in MW2 when playing with friends in the past, the only time the team names were even mentioned in conversation was at the start of a round when someone would ask," Are we the marines or the haji's?".

Otherwise, it was just "Shoot at the team that doesn't look like us." Or "shoot at the people with no names showing.". So nomenclature is not a game breaker by any means. It would have made it feel more authentic to some, but overall the game is still the same game. The gameplay doesn't change, just the titles.

"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet" -- Shakespeare

ustolemygmrtag
10-01-2010, 12:24 PM
I know in MW2 when playing with friends in the past, the only time the team names were even mentioned in conversation was at the start of a round when someone would ask," Are we the marines or the haji's?".

Otherwise, it was just "Shoot at the team that doesn't look like us." Or "shoot at the people with no names showing.". So nomenclature is not a game breaker by any means. It would have made it feel more authentic to some, but overall the game is still the same game. The gameplay doesn't change, just the titles.

"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet" -- Shakespeare
I aggree with your take on this. EA, Ithink made the right call. To me, the name doesnt matter at all. It is all about the gameplay. And if a fallen soldiers family is hurt by a name. For thier sacrifice for us, it should be changed, out of respect.

REMEC87
10-01-2010, 12:42 PM
I know in MW2 when playing with friends in the past, the only time the team names were even mentioned in conversation was at the start of a round when someone would ask," Are we the marines or the haji's?".

Otherwise, it was just "Shoot at the team that doesn't look like us." Or "shoot at the people with no names showing.". So nomenclature is not a game breaker by any means. It would have made it feel more authentic to some, but overall the game is still the same game. The gameplay doesn't change, just the titles.

"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet" -- Shakespeare
I aggree with your take on this. EA, Ithink made the right call. To me, the name doesnt matter at all. It is all about the gameplay. And if a fallen soldiers family is hurt by a name. For thier sacrifice for us, it should be changed, out of respect.

I agree with you guys on this. It really doesn't affect me either way what you call the other team. It's just a game.

In spite of freedom of speech, I do think that using a current existing terrorist group's name in a game is poor class because it gives said organization exposure and credentials of sorts...the same kind of thing that doing a documentary or show about serial killers glorifies that way of life to some deranged individuals. But in the end I am not a deranged psychopath looking to join a terrorist group or start killing people so what do i care.

Borlaxx
10-01-2010, 01:18 PM
Weren't most of you the same people who were complaining here: viewtopic.php?f=44&t=962&start=190#p48135 (http://teammp.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=962&start=190#p48135)

What has changed your minds? The fact that it is now more than one woman complaining?

I agree that soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice and their families shouldn't be disrespected, but I do not see how calling the enemy by their real name instead of some generic name is disrespectful any more so than any war movie based on a real conflict. So it is okay to have Nazis playable in a game because WWII happened a long time ago? Well, I am sure there are some of the few remaining WWII vets who don't like that, but I guess they don't matter.

To me this is just another example of the pussyfication of America under the suffocating umbrella of political correctness. The Taliban are real. The war in Afghanistan is real. A video game, even though it contains references to real things, is fake. There is nothing about this game that glorifies the Taliban or the death of American soldiers. While I understand that a small group of people may not like it, they don't have to buy it, same as I don't have to watch a particular TV news channel that IMO is full of shit, but just because I don't like it doesn't mean they have to change it -- I can just not watch.

Sorry, I know this is a rant, and I know in the grand scheme of things all they are doing in changing a name in a game in order to pacify a group of grieving people, but I find any form of self censorship to be worrisome, especially in this day in age when politicians already want to censor video games and restrict their sale in the same ways as they do pornography. If the developers start censoring themselves then I guess the PC politicians have already won. Rant over.

Pwizzle99
10-01-2010, 01:32 PM
I didn't post in that thread u linked I don't believe.
But if I had, I would have said the same as I stated here. They could name the teams "A" and "B" or "shirts" and "skins" for all I care. Names don't mean anything overall to me. It's the same gameplay regardless, therefore I dont worry about it and I won't boycott it over a name change that does NOTHING to how the game is played.

I'm FAR from politically correct, myself. But I don't see the reason for the amount of uproar over it. It is what it is and the game makers can do as they wish. But until it affects gameplay, then its a non-issue for me. If game makers start changing dynamics within the game, THEN maybe I'll boycott a game if I don't agree with those changes.

Borlaxx
10-01-2010, 01:41 PM
I'm FAR from politically correct, myself. But I don't see the reason for the amount of uproar over it. It is what it is and the game makers can do as they wish. But until it affects gameplay, then its a non-issue for me. If game makers start changing dynamics within the game, THEN maybe I'll boycott a game if I don't agree with those changes.
I not saying anything about this will affect the gameplay, because it will not. I am just commenting on the rational behind making this change, and what that indicates about our society. Regardless, appears I am in the minority here, so I will stop now. Unless, of course, me complaining enough will cause you to change your stance on this issue <--- point made :p :-"

Pwizzle99
10-01-2010, 01:48 PM
I do agree our society has turned everyone into a bunch of PC whine bags at least publicly. And my comments weren't directed totally at u because I've read alot of forums that ppl say they won't buy it now. It's just not enough if a change to force *me* to boycott it.

We are all entitled to our opinions though. So I hope u didn't take it as a "meet me in the street at high noon" type thing. LOL I was just stating my own opinion on it as well.

DB4
10-01-2010, 01:51 PM
Coming soon from EA Sports: Cougar Forest PGA TOUR 2012.

Pwizzle99
10-01-2010, 01:52 PM
Coming soon from EA Sports: Cougar Forest PGA TOUR 2012.


I hope they will have scenic "holes" on this course. =))

DayliteMag
10-01-2010, 01:53 PM
I'm sure that EA knew EXACTLY what they were doing when they decided to create a video game based on a current, armed conflict. Sorry to be so cynical, but I come by it honestly as a Gen X'er. I seriously doubt that a major media company like EA wouldn't have foreseen this controversy. All of this (including our discussion here on this thread....including this post...Aargh!) is "free" advertising for the game and will only encourage sales. It's all just a big "show". All of it...period. In the end, EA gets what they want - a bestseller - the PC Police get what they want - stomp on free-speech - the gamers get what they want - a hot new game that everyone is talking about (and I agree with sumguy...gamers don't give a crap what anyone is called)....so who loses out in this scenario...I think it's the families of fallen soldiers, who in all of this are just pawns, being used by big corporations and special interest groups.

It's all bullshit.

Jackie R
10-01-2010, 02:00 PM
I did post in that topic you mentioned Borlax and I applauded your stand (just like I respect your stand here).

That being said, I don't think I changed my mind. I was fine with EA's decision to include the Taliban in their multiplayer portion of the game back then and to be honest, it doesn't really bother me that they've changed their minds and removed the name now. Besides, I believe their 'authentic experience' has more to do with the single player and from what I have understood, you still fight the Taliban during the campaign.

I guess, at least in the way I see it, this was a free will decision taken by EA so it's fine. Yes, they buckled under the pressure and gave in but as far as I know they were in no way forced by any legislation or law to do so (this would have been VERY different).

At the end of the day, call the multiplayer U.S. vs Taliban, Green vs Blue, or 1 vs 2, I'm still looking forward to the 12th. http://theadultgamer.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Borlaxx
10-01-2010, 02:15 PM
I'm sure that EA knew EXACTLY what they were doing when they decided to create a video game based on a current, armed conflict. Sorry to be so cynical, but I come by it honestly as a Gen X'er. I seriously doubt that a major media company like EA wouldn't have foreseen this controversy. All of this (including our discussion here on this thread....including this post...Aargh!) is "free" advertising for the game and will only encourage sales. It's all just a big "show". All of it...period. In the end, EA gets what they want - a bestseller - the PC Police get what they want - stomp on free-speech - the gamers get what they want - a hot new game that everyone is talking about (and I agree with sumguy...gamers don't give a crap what anyone is called)....so who loses out in this scenario...I think it's the families of fallen soldiers, who in all of this are just pawns, being used by big corporations and special interest groups.

It's all bullshit.
Agreed!


We are all entitled to our opinions though. So I hope u didn't take it as a "meet me in the street at high noon" type thing. LOL I was just stating my own opinion on it as well.
Meet me at noon. You can be the U.S., I will be the "opposing force". :D :))

Pwizzle99
10-01-2010, 02:24 PM
We are all entitled to our opinions though. So I hope u didn't take it as a "meet me in the street at high noon" type thing. LOL I was just stating my own opinion on it as well.
Meet me at noon. You can be the U.S., I will be the "opposing force". :D :))


Regardless of what THE GAME calls you.. you will still be the haji's. lol It's something I picked up from gaming with guys from work that are ex-marines that served over in Iraq. So don't report me for not calling you OpFor, ok? :hug:

theczech99
10-01-2010, 02:25 PM
To gamers (IMO) this is a non issue! Taliban, Russians, Americans, do gamers really give a shit who they are in a game? HELL NO!!! Just give us a MP game with awesome graphics, great sound and lots of weapons and gadgets to kill each other with.

Sorry guys Iím going to sit out every other round because I refuse to play as the Taliban.

Now if they would have done away with the towels and sheets for clothes of the opposing force I would have to cancel my preorder.

Jackie R
10-01-2010, 02:32 PM
Now if they would have done away with the towels and sheets for clothes of the opposing force I would have to cancel my preorder.
http://theadultgamer.com/images/smilies/Heristical.gif

REMEC87
10-01-2010, 03:01 PM
I not saying anything about this will affect the gameplay, because it will not. I am just commenting on the rational behind making this change, and what that indicates about our society.

Retro
10-01-2010, 03:28 PM
I am just commenting on the rational behind making this change, and what that indicates about our society.
Wasn't that indication made clear when your guys elected Obama?? :-"


I'm with Borlax, this decision was weak. The game is really not being changed, but the problem of seeing this company cave into a very small minority who most likely had zero intention of buying this game is just wrong. So what if the game would not be sold at military bases? Now maybe I'm wrong here but I don't think I am, since when were military personal and their families confined to the base? And who cares if the guys over sea's are not allowed to get the game? Do they really have time for it, and is it really the type of game they would want to be playing in those circumstances?

Kind of funny that the whole "war" is being sold to the public on the basis of providing "freedom" (after the whole WMD failure) to people who are oppressed by a government that controls their lives? :-? Yet the very military and government saying this is complaining and putting pressure on a developer over the content of a video game with a rating of 18+.

It's little things like this that lead to each of us losing more and more of our rights and freedoms.

Look at bike helmets. Now we all probably make our kids wear them and would all agree that it's the smart and safe thing to do. But here in Canada it's the LAW. I would have my kids in helmets anyway, but I don't like that the governement is telling me that I have too. No one really complained about it when the law first came in about 15 or 20 years ago. But when they started talking about having the law include adults... (Denmark has no such law and has the most riders who don't wear them, they also have the fewest injuries hmmm.)

When government and small interest groups begin to you what you can and can not do, there's a problem with that and no matter how small the issue everyone should be upset by it if you value your freedom.

dinsdale1978
10-01-2010, 03:41 PM
Coming soon from EA Sports: Cougar Forest PGA TOUR 2012.


I hope they will have scenic "holes" on this course. =))

Outlaw Golf 3: Tiger Woods Hits the Holes with Putter.

Borlaxx
10-01-2010, 03:52 PM
I am just commenting on the rational behind making this change, and what that indicates about our society.
Wasn't that indication made clear when your guys elected Obama?? :-"


I'm with Borlax, this decision was weak. The game is really not being changed, but the problem of seeing this company cave into a very small minority who most likely had zero intention of buying this game is just wrong. So what if the game would not be sold at military bases? Now maybe I'm wrong here but I don't think I am, since when were military personal and their families confined to the base? And who cares if the guys over sea's are not allowed to get the game? Do they really have time for it, and is it really the type of game they would want to be playing in those circumstances?

Kind of funny that the whole "war" is being sold to the public on the basis of providing "freedom" (after the whole WMD failure) to people who are oppressed by a government that controls their lives? :-? Yet the very military and government saying this is complaining and putting pressure on a developer over the content of a video game with a rating of 18+.

It's little things like this that lead to each of us losing more and more of our rights and freedoms.

Look at bike helmets. Now we all probably make our kids wear them and would all agree that it's the smart and safe thing to do. But here in Canada it's the LAW. I would have my kids in helmets anyway, but I don't like that the governement is telling me that I have too. No one really complained about it when the law first came in about 15 or 20 years ago. But when they started talking about having the law include adults... (Denmark has no such law and has the most riders who don't wear them, they also have the fewest injuries hmmm.)

When government and small interest groups begin to you what you can and can not do, there's a problem with that and no matter how small the issue everyone should be upset by it if you value your freedom.
I completely agree with you, but lets be careful treading that fine line leading to a political debate.

Besides, you don't want to get in a debate with me, because I am the MASTURdeBATER 8-}

ustolemygmrtag
10-01-2010, 04:41 PM
I am just commenting on the rational behind making this change, and what that indicates about our society.
Wasn't that indication made clear when your guys elected Obama?? :-"


I'm with Borlax, this decision was weak. The game is really not being changed, but the problem of seeing this company cave into a very small minority who most likely had zero intention of buying this game is just wrong. So what if the game would not be sold at military bases? Now maybe I'm wrong here but I don't think I am, since when were military personal and their families confined to the base? And who cares if the guys over sea's are not allowed to get the game? Do they really have time for it, and is it really the type of game they would want to be playing in those circumstances?

Kind of funny that the whole "war" is being sold to the public on the basis of providing "freedom" (after the whole WMD failure) to people who are oppressed by a government that controls their lives? :-? Yet the very military and government saying this is complaining and putting pressure on a developer over the content of a video game with a rating of 18+.

It's little things like this that lead to each of us losing more and more of our rights and freedoms.

Look at bike helmets. Now we all probably make our kids wear them and would all agree that it's the smart and safe thing to do. But here in Canada it's the LAW. I would have my kids in helmets anyway, but I don't like that the governement is telling me that I have too. No one really complained about it when the law first came in about 15 or 20 years ago. But when they started talking about having the law include adults... (Denmark has no such law and has the most riders who don't wear them, they also have the fewest injuries hmmm.)

When government and small interest groups begin to you what you can and can not do, there's a problem with that and no matter how small the issue everyone should be upset by it if you value your freedom.
I completely agree with you, but lets be careful treading that fine line leading to a political debate.

Besides, you don't want to get in a debate with me, because I am the MASTURdeBATER 8-}
=)) =)) =))

dinsdale1978
10-01-2010, 05:01 PM
Can I just apologize for dropping this discussion bomb on our normally civil forums.

I can see both sides and think everyone has made some valid points. My original rage may have been misplaced. The developers probably didn't have much say in this decision and my issue was with artistic integrity. (I have a BFA in painting, so an artist being able to freely express themselves is important to me.)

Do I think this game will somehow sully the honor of soldiers killed in action? No. Do I think that active soldiers would be spending time playing this game? Probably not. Do I think that this was all a manufactured risk for publicity by EA? Maybe.

Bottom line is that I still want to play the game and am more angry at EA for their clumsy releases and lack of proper support for existing games.

I have forgotten how mad my wife was when I was playing a Nationalist character in the Battlefield Heroes game. They look like Nazis and with her being a Russian Jew, the wounds are still deep. I had to create a new toon in that class on the Royals side just to make sure she didn't rage on my for that.

Let's see how the gameplay goes and what the total experience brings before we judge this minuscule move as something tragic.
:cheers:

Jackie R
10-02-2010, 06:19 AM
Don't worry about it buddy. Here, I'll provide a distraction:

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Conway Twitty:

[yt:2re16caf]Og1QRtcWdEY[/yt:2re16caf]

http://theadultgamer.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Jackie R
10-04-2010, 02:16 PM
I found some more background on why the Taliban was pulled from the multiplayer:

U.S. Army "Surprised" by Taliban in Medal of Honor Multiplayer (http://www.1up.com/news/army-surprised-taliban-medal-honor)


Although they came aboard the project early on to offer support in the development process, the United States Army didn't learn about the inclusion of the Taliban (now removed) as a playable faction in Medal of Honor's multiplayer until the game was nearly complete.

...after learning about the Taliban in multiplayer, the Army even briefly considered pulling their support for the game as a symbolic gesture.

Borlaxx
10-04-2010, 03:02 PM
I found some more background on why the Taliban was pulled from the multiplayer:

U.S. Army "Surprised" by Taliban in Medal of Honor Multiplayer (http://www.1up.com/news/army-surprised-taliban-medal-honor)

[quote]Although they came aboard the project early on to offer support in the development process, the United States Army didn't learn about the inclusion of the Taliban (now removed) as a playable faction in Medal of Honor's multiplayer until the game was nearly complete.

...after learning about the Taliban in multiplayer, the Army even briefly considered pulling their support for the game as a symbolic gesture. [/quote:328rm3vq]
[-x Shame on you EA! Don't you know not disclosing the whole truth behind your plans for military involvement is the governments responsibility :))

Toxic Avenger72
10-10-2010, 03:23 PM
Saw this comic today. An F-bomb is in the comic so I used the spoiler.

[spoiler:2pull2mz][attachment=0:2pull2mz]09virtual06.jpg[/attachment:2pull2mz][/spoiler:2pull2mz]