Video games in Taliban controversy

krudler

Basically EA games have removed the "Taliban" tag as the names of the playable enemy forces in the new Medal of Honor game after pressure from the families of US troops. Seems its ok to play as Americans shooting other people, but not the other way around.


http://kotaku.com/5653024/electronic-arts-buckles-under-pressure-removes-taliban-from-medal-of-honor

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 game 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 international military base retailer 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 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 U.S. Army to see how this decision will impact the availability of the game on military bases worldwide and will update when we hear back.

Another year, another game controversy. I thought having the Taliban in the game by name was a good,progressive idea.Not in support of their actions, but its moving games along as a legitimate platform with current cultural references. If all the references to the word Taliban were pulled from a movie or book or tv show due to pressure from troop families thered be uproar, but with games its acceptable censorship.

Kells...

I think they should still be in it cause its like pretending there not there.
And what about the people the SAS killed they were in MW2 so it makes no sense

whadabouchasir

krudler wrote: »

Basically EA games have removed the "Taliban" tag as the names of the playable enemy forces in the new Medal of Honor game after pressure from the families of US troops. Seems its ok to play as Americans shooting other people, but not the other way around.

Still though,it's not quite the same as the u.s. military buying and burning every single copy of a book that they didn't agree with then forcing the publisher to censor the reprint.

krudler

whadabouchasir wrote: »

Still though,it's not quite the same as the u.s. military buying and burning every single copy of a book that they didn't agree with then forcing the publisher to censor the reprint.

True, I dont agree with censorship regardless, but given the America is supposedly the home of free speech, only when that speech doesnt piss off those who make the most noise about these things.

Remember the "No Russian" controversy from Modern Warfare 2 last year? I wish I still had the Joe Duffy show where the hysterical mothers were ringing in blaming everyone but themselves for buying an 18 rated games for their kids then being shocked at the content.

SugarHigh

Americans are allowed to shoot everyone but nobody is allowed to shoot Americans.

Snowie

krudler wrote: »

Another year, another game controversy. I thought having the Taliban in the game by name was a good,progressive idea.Not in support of their actions, but its moving games along as a legitimate platform with current cultural references. If all the references to the word Taliban were pulled from a movie or book or tv show due to pressure from troop families thered be uproar, but with games its acceptable censorship.

I saw that the other day. I dunno what to think... I think it was sligfhtly spinless bye them But then again if it was rock star designing it they would of done it regardless :pac:

I dont rate Ea sports games genrally there pretty gash :rolleyes:

SugarHigh

whadabouchasir wrote: »

Still though,it's not quite the same as the u.s. military buying and burning every single copy of a book that they didn't agree with then forcing the publisher to censor the reprint.

It's actually worse than that. At least with book burning they have to purchase copies of the book and it doesn't prevent other people from buying the book if don't agree with the protest. It's possible that if this got enough bad publicity Wall Mart would refuse to sell it and since they are by far the largest seller of games in the US it would lose EA millions.

speedboatchase

SugarHigh wrote: »

Americans are allowed to shoot everyone but nobody is allowed to shoot Americans.

The other side in the multiplayer games shoot at the Americans dummy

bonerm

That's nothing. All mentions of the Nazi's were removed from the Lego Indiana Jones game. I mean c'mon, 7 year olds have to learn about the greatest period in German history sooner or later.

SugarHigh

speedboatchase wrote: »

The other side in the multiplayer games shoot at the Americans dummy

I know and that's why there is such controversy. The army were fine with having the Taliban in single player, they only got pissed off when they found out there was a multilayer mode where you could be the Taliban killing Americans.

the_syco

WoW. I know this has been happening since about a month ago. I'm thinking someone went legal against EA, as they weren't moving on the issue last I heard about it.

Minstrel27

This kind of thing annoys me. Censoring assholes.

SugarHigh

the_syco wrote: »

WoW. I know this has been happening since about a month ago. I'm thinking someone went legal against EA, as they weren't moving on the issue last I heard about it.

This story is 2 days old. No one is bringing any legal action. The US army is legally allowed to take any legal action they can just refuse to offer support which in this case is to late because EA had already got all the support they needed by the time the Army found out about this.

http://kotaku.com/5653601/playable-taliban-jeopardized-us-armys-support-for-medal-of-honor

SugarHigh

Minstrel27 wrote: »

This kind of thing annoys me. Censoring assholes.

It's not actual censorship in the sense that no one is actually stopping EA from making the Taliban playable. It simply isn't a good move on EA's part not to listen to them because they could lose retail support and there is nothing to gain since they have already got all the publicity out of it that they wanted.

Minstrel27

SugarHigh wrote: »

It's not actual censorship in the sense that no one is actually stopping EA from making the Taliban playable. It simply isn't a good move on EA's part not to listen to them because they could lose retail support and there is nothing to gain since they have already got all the publicity out of it that they wanted.

When a group pressurises a company into making changes that counts as censorship in my view.

skregs

krudler wrote: »

True, I dont agree with censorship regardless, but given the America is supposedly the home of free speech, only when that speech doesnt piss off those who make the most noise about these things.

Remember the "No Russian" controversy from Modern Warfare 2 last year? I wish I still had the Joe Duffy show where the hysterical mothers were ringing in blaming everyone but themselves for buying an 18 rated games for their kids then being shocked at the content.

And the Taliban in MW2 were called "OpFor" for the same reason as this I imagine. But then in the first Modern Warfare they wouldnt even name the country the game takes place in, just "the Middle East"

Riddle101

This is a forseeable circumstance. Obviously, a lot of military familes are rather sensitive to the matter and don't see it as a good thing when they see their country's enemies. I.E Taliban, being a playable side. It dosen't help the fact that they see the Taliban as being a trully evil group, and the Americans and NATO as good guys. So to them it is a bad thing. It's just like in Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 when there was 1 mission where you had to go through an Airport in Russia on a killing spree. In Russia that mission was banned as well. However that does raise another question about video games and what's ok and what's not ok to put into them.

the_syco

SugarHigh wrote: »

This story is 2 days old.

This story is two days old. The story is at least a month old, if not more.

Einhard

Minstrel27 wrote: »

When a group pressurises a company into making changes that counts as censorship in my view.

Well, if people feel so strongly about it, it's open to them to refuse to buy EA games unless they re-instate the Taliban moniker. Pretty simple really.

wes

I don't see how changing the name really make that much of a difference. I think pretty much anyone will know that the "opposing force" is the Taliban in the multiplayer.

derfderf

wes wrote: »

I don't see how changing the name really make that much of a difference. I think pretty much anyone will know that the "opposing force" is the Taliban in the multiplayer.

You'd think it wouldn't make a difference but have u ever heard people a few years ago saying fifa was better than pro evolution because fifa had the real players names?
How does a game become less fun because you scored a goal with ryan greggs instead of giggs.

jackiebaron

Seems like it's simply a case of the US Army being uncomfortable with the fact that they are losing in Afghanistan (if they haven't lost already) and are using the families of dead soldiers (hate that pathetic term "fallen" soldiers...they haven't fallen, they've been killed) as emotional blackmail.

Wonder if it's allowed to be Viet Cong in the multiplayer role.

krudler

jackiebaron wrote: »

Seems like it's simply a case of the US Army being uncomfortable with the fact that they are losing in Afghanistan (if they haven't lost already) and are using the families of dead soldiers (hate that pathetic term "fallen" soldiers...they haven't fallen, they've been killed) as emotional blackmail.

Wonder if it's allowed to be Viet Cong in the multiplayer role.

afaik it is. Thats ok though cos Vietnam was like, ages ago.

Manic Moran

jackiebaron wrote: »

Seems like it's simply a case of the US Army being uncomfortable with the fact that they are losing in Afghanistan (if they haven't lost already) and are using the families of dead soldiers (hate that pathetic term "fallen" soldiers...they haven't fallen, they've been killed) as emotional blackmail..

Though I'm not a great fan of much of the Newspeak which has started to permeate the US Army, the term 'fallen' is neither new nor unique to the US military.

NTM

jackiebaron

Manic Moran wrote: »

Though I'm not a great fan of much of the Newspeak which has started to permeate the US Army, the term 'fallen' is neither new nor unique to the US military.

NTM

Improvised Explosive Device = Booby Trap
Vehicle borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED) = CAR BOMB!!!!!!
Collateral Damage = Mangled Civvies
Enhanced Questioning Technigues = torture
Engage = Shoot
Ordnance = BOMBS!!!!!!
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle = FlyingRobot!!!
Assets = humans

It's pathetic.

Chaotic_Forces

I'M TAKING MY BALL AND GOING HOME!

That's how America is over this. So fu*king what, we get to shoot people, big whoop. You don't see Germany demanding it to be changed, they just ban anything related to Nazis in the country. I bet if America were winning the war they'd sure as Hell allow it.