• EA chickens out, pulls Taliban from MoH multiplayer

    When playing a war game, players like to be the hero. We want to shoot the gun that kills the guy that wins us the war, battle, whatever. The upcoming Medal of Honor title from EA stirred up controversy by including the Taliban as playable characters in the multiplayer portion of the game, and some gamers seemed unsure of how to react.While EA first responded to complaints by claiming it was just a game, and that someone needed to be the bad guy, the company has since buckled under the weight of the bad press; the Taliban has been removed from the multiplayer aspect of the game. Well, at least the name.
    Greg Goodrich is the game's executive producer, and he made a statement about the feedback the team has received on the game. "We've received notes from gamers, active military, and friends and family of servicemen and women currently deployed overseas," he wrote. "The majority of this feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. For this, the Medal of Honor team is deeply appreciative." So the complaints have been in the minority; that's not surprising.
    He goes on, however, noting that they have been contacted by family members of soldiers who have been killed in combat.
    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 ofMedal 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.
    The game itself will not be changed in any way, the opposing force in the multiplayer section will simply no longer be called Taliban. Apparently, the only thing offensive was the name. This isn't changing the core content, simply the idea that seeing online play through the eyes of our enemy is so offensive that we must call them something else.
    Which is what makes this move so cowardly, not to mention stupid. Is this game based on an actual conflict, or isn't it? EA can pay lip service to realism, but only when it comes to guns and tactics; naming the enemy in the conflict that the game is exploiting is apparently way too offensive to be allowed.
    We must be shielded from the idea of our enemy being human, and being able to play them in multiplayer crosses that line. I'm sure the soldiers and the family of soldiers who were offended before will be heartened by the fact the people killing virtual American troops look and act like the men who killed their real friends and family... but are called something else. Renaming something you don't like makes it go away, right?

    Source: Ars Technica
    Comments 4 Comments
    1. Benjalolo's Avatar
      Benjalolo -
      after all it's just a game and therefore they should have let us play as the Taliban, kinda disappointing though i guess i saw it coming.
    1. porked's Avatar
      porked -
      just another example of Kid Glove mentality. Man, i could only wonder what this country would be like if we had that mentality back in the 50's. Probably be more fat, limp dicked depressed people then we do now i guess.
    1. IdolEyes787's Avatar
      IdolEyes787 -
      No it's the only right thing to do because killing people has to be presented as being moral .

      This is in no way my opinion but I heard someone say that probably someone should bomb them or something.
    1. darkmawl's Avatar
      darkmawl -
      Good marketing move.1
      1) Include taliban - get press reporting it.
      2) let it rest
      3) remove it - get press reporting it.