Electronic Arts Buckles Under Pressure, Removes Playable Taliban from Medal of Honor

gizmo

As the thread title says, it seems EA has given into the pressure and decided to remove the Taliban as a usable skin in MoH MP. To be honest I'm pretty disgusted by this move, I hate to see ignorant reactionary rabblers getting their own way.

Here's the article in full for all your mobile users...

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.

Kotaku

Kiith

It's a good thing they removed it. I might have been influenced by it and decide to start a holy war against America.

pdbhp

Ah freedom of speech and all that quashed as usual whats next moderators on boards.ie:D

johnny_ultimate

That is a major disappointment to me too. Sure, it's nothing but a change of multiplayer skin at the end of the day, but giving in just feels like defeat. I've played MoH, and tbh removing the Taliban from a game that focuses on Afghan battles is ludicrous. It's not handled tastelessly or anything in the game, it's just 'generic terrorists vs generic army men' - but removing the terrorists from the conflict, or even just removing the Taliban tag, feels like they're giving into a minority.

If games can't make a statement, even a very basic one, it's a damn shame.

Retr0gamer

I'm pretty disgusted by this as well. Reminds me of when Rule of Rose got banned in a few European countries when the Daily Mail and some politicians jumped on the game because it depicted child abuse. Sure it wasn't the best game but storywise it was very intelligently told and dealt in a disturbing but sympathetic view of child abuse. You don't see books and films about child abuse getting banned but why is a it taboo to explore such themes. Same case here, there's plenty of films and books showing unsympathetic sides of war and if they were banned there'd be uproar about censorship but when it's a game it' not allowed.

So now without the Taliban in the game we probably have US vs. US forces multiplayer or possibly UK forces. That's a bit more disurbing.

Mr E

Ah I think its pretty sensible, folks. The game hasn't changed - no big deal.

Otacon

Mr E wrote: »

Ah I think its pretty sensible, folks. The game hasn't changed - no big deal.

If they had come to this decision themselves, then I would have no issue with it tbh. But the fact that they stepped back in the face of these ignorant rabblers, makes my blood boil.

It might not affect my overall opinion of the game, but it does lower my opinion of EA a bit.

Wossack

do the Taliban have a particular uniform or what? or would they just look like the opfor in everything else (cs, americas army, mw2 etc), but the skin be called 'Taliban'?

fairly daft if you ask me

robby^5

If we can have films like Apocalypse Now 4 years after the end of the Vietnam War, then how are games ever going to be accepted as an artform by folks like Roger Ebert (who spoke out on games being an artform and is personally my favourite film critic) if games cant make the same kinds of statements that films have been making for decades.

super_furry

Great PR. They get acres of mainstream press coverage for the decision to include it in the first place, then get even more for their ‘sensitive’ decision and their concern for the soldiers’ families. Wouldn’t be surprised if this was the plan all along.

gizmo

robby^5 wrote: »

If we can have films like Apocalypse Now 4 years after the end of the Vietnam War, then how are games ever going to be accepted as an artform by folks like Roger Ebert (who spoke out on games being an artform and is personally my favourite film critic) if games cant make the same kinds of statements that films have been making for decades.

Because games are for kids of course! :pac:

Retr0gamer

Wossack wrote: »

do the Taliban have a particular uniform or what? or would they just look like the opfor in everything else (cs, americas army, mw2 etc), but the skin be called 'Taliban'?

fairly daft if you ask me

They should just do what the old Pro Evo and ISS games did for players and teams they had no license for and clal them the rag heads.

calex71

What cracks me up is the majority of those who would / could be offended by it would likely not have played the game anyway or any other game for that matter.

Dav

*ahem*

They have actually sent it to army bases to be played by soldiers on duty for their feedback, it was something they said they were proud to have done. It's also the sort of thing that alot of American companies do for good PR - sending free stuff to the troops to show their support etc.

On top of all this, I got a press release yesterday saying that pre-sales for the game are higher than for any of the previous MoH games, so it would seem that people are looking forward to it regardless and that this simply won't matter in the grand scheme of things.

Overheal

Interesting anyway. Makes you wonder if WWII vets have an issue with Call of Duty players being able to play as the Nazis, Russians, and the British of all things!

Interesting because it's a telling factor in how people view the war, as contrasted against a 'conventional war' that we always learned about in school.

Zapp Brannigan

Bit of a lame decision.

Anyone I talked to liked the fact that it was the Taliban in it and not generic middle-eastern bad guys.

I wasn't gonna buy it any so it doesn't affect me.

gizmo

Sorry Dav, I saw "Producer" in the thread and lost interest.

Jonny7

Yeah good thing they pulled it; this woulda made Fox News, started all the yokels off and woulda been bad for games in general.

But yup, we have the power, we get to make all the films and games where they mow down waves of brown people

Gunmonkey

Overheal wrote: »

Interesting anyway. Makes you wonder if WWII vets have an issue with Call of Duty players being able to play as the Nazis, Russians, and the British of all things!

When it first broke the Taliban was the name of the MP side, Fox News had a mother of a killed soldier on saying how terrible it was they were doing this. She said "The fact that they've already done games about World War 2 ... that's far removed from our current history, people aren't dying in World War 2 any more." so they dont count.

Now it doesnt affect the game that much,as EA's Jeff Brown tells Kotaku

Does changing one word in the menu screen have any impact on the actual play of the game of the game that takes place in Afghanistan? If they think we shouldn't have done that, I urge them to play it.

but its a bit stupid to push for the change in the first place. Its a game set in Afghanistan, where Americans are shooting Taliban, why werent the US soldiers changed to "Western invaders" or such??

Jazzy

good old america

dreamers75

Kinda weird its ok to play as Americans and slaughter everything but to play as something that slaughters americans isnt ok

Theres modding tools for the PC version so the Taliban wont affect them :pac:

longhalloween

I ca kinda understand it.

From an Irish perspective this might seem like overly harsh censorship, but from an American point of view, especially since most people know or are related to soldiers in Iraq its a very sensitive point.

Imagine if they made a game where you play as Cromwell conquering Ireland or as the Black and Tans, there'd be a fair bit of outrage on our part then.

dreamers75

longhalloween wrote: »

I ca kinda understand it.

From an Irish perspective this might seem like overly harsh censorship, but from an American point of view, especially since most people know or are related to soldiers in Iraq its a very sensitive point.

Imagine if they made a game where you play as Cromwell conquering Ireland or as the Black and Tans, there'd be a fair bit of outrage on our part then.

But you get to play as the irish lad in all this.

tis not right, policticaly its saying they are right to be fighting the taliban, which they are srsly not. Its painting an enemy but in their eyes they are not an enemy. But in reality they are.

Gunmonkey

longhalloween wrote: »

Imagine if they made a game where you play as Cromwell conquering Ireland or as the Black and Tans, there'd be a fair bit of outrage on our part then.

See, this is where a lot of the news organisations are throwing a stink over nothing for, they percieve "playing as the Taliban" as it being a game where you control the Taliban and plan raids on the Americans and suicide bomb yourself into marketplaces and such, when its just the name of a MP faction that have the same objectives, tactics and weapons as the Americans.

For comparison, an Irish version of the game would have you playing as a rebel soldier in a flying column, raiding Black & Tan patrols and such, but in the MP one side would be the IRA and the other the B&T, which isnt offensive as thats what the 2 sides were, not the IRA and "the other guys".

flynnlives

So will they remove playable nato troops from the afghani version of the game?!

NeoKubrick

Mr E wrote: »

Ah I think its pretty sensible, folks. The game hasn't changed - no big deal.

It's sensible marketing in America, which territory this game panders to and which territory success will be measured, but it's not sensible in any accurate definition of the word. If a label was just a label and "the game [isn't] changed", then they should remove all contemporary references: that's sensible.

Grumpypants

So EA are saying its ok to shoot as many Arabs as you like but shooting an American is insensitive

Stercus Accidit

BS

Imagine Counter strike without the terrorists, instead, politically correct gender and race neutral antagonists, some happy smiling white person in cordoroys and a checked shirt maybe.

Stingerbar

I think they are crazy.. basically no one in Afghanistan is going to buy the game now..

gizmo

Grumpypants wrote: »

So EA are saying its ok to shoot as many Arabs as you like but shooting an American is insensitive

Actually it seems to be the other way around, they don't want people playing as the Taliban, killing Americans. It's the other way around they have no problem with. :pac:

Anyway, the only change that has actually taken place is that the word "Taliban" has been replaced with Opposing Force / OpFor. Just goes to show you how ****ing stupid the issue as in the first place.

Grumpypants

gizmo wrote: »

Actually it seems to be the other way around, they don't want people playing as the Taliban, killing Americans. It's the other way around they have no problem with. :pac:

Anyway, the only change that has actually taken place is that the word "Taliban" has been replaced with Opposing Force / OpFor. Just goes to show you how ****ing stupid the issue as in the first place.

Its daft all right i don't think they should have put it in in the first place and no one would have said anything its like when they had Suadi citys in COD4 only people that noticed where the saudis who banned it not sure anyone else would have spotted it.