Topic: Medal of Honor...... Still Too Soon?

[ControlerFleX]

I know this is old but I've been away from the site and I wondered if any of you all had any opinions on this topic.......



     I have been a U.S. Marine for the last 10 years and I'm also a serious gamer. I think that the Medal of Honor ban is a bit overboard. I do know that EA has now removed the name Taliban from the game and switched it to "Opposing Forces", but I think there is still a problem present. Here in Japan our local Base Exchange(department store), will not be selling this title because of the former Taliban multiplayer option. I've been to Iraq and Afghanistan a total of four times, so I understand how the "War on Terror" effects the families and friends of those who serve. My wife and children could explain a little as well.  Sadly I've seen my  leadership and and close friends die in these wars.

    With that said, it's O.K. to shoot Germans, Vietnamese, Japanese, Bolivian, Cubans, British soldiers, Canadians and oh wait other Americans in many many other games to date. Veterans as far back as World War I are still alive and kickin, have we not disrespected the sacrifices that they and their families had made? As most of you may know, there is a convoy simulator, developed by the U.S. Army,  where we play as "dudes with towels wrapped around their heads , speaking Persian accents" against each other. T.V. and movies can get away with  playing the bad guy, why, because it's not "interactive", insert eye roll here. This type of reaction will make it so that games like "Fight For Fallujah" will never happen because we're scared of what, Now? "World Trade Center", "United 93", "Generation Kill", "Over There", "The Hurt Locker" and many more movies have people who portray the "enemy" of today. Are they unpatriotic for doing so?

    The [uĀ­Ā­rlĀ­=www.pantagraph.com/news/national/article_cbe87626-b1f3-11df-846c-001cc4c002e0.html]upset Mother from San Jose[/url] has every right to mourn her son's death and be proud of the CHOICE he made to serve his country, but she shouldnt impose that guilt on the gamers to feel bad about possibly playing as a real world "bad guy", again what actors do all the time. I have seen what we call "the enemy" and truthfully(this will sound harsh) she nor her son knew exactly who's hand he died by, be it Al-Qaida, Taliban, or some dude trying to protect his home, as we would if the tides were turned......

     Maybe I miss the point on why this was inherently bad but the last nine years of my life has been shaped by this conflict and if it's one thing I've learned it's that there is always something bigger than self. Thoughts?

[broodwars]

Personally, I'm fine with Medal of Honor not being sold on Army bases on the basis of its multiplayer mode.  It's a game where you can play as terrorists in Afganistan killing Americans, something that's potentially problematic since we're currently in Afganistan killing terrorists.  It's not like the Army has banned the game, just that they won't stock it on their bases.  You can still buy the game if you want it, just not on base.  I do find EA's lack of faith in our intelligence disturbing, though, when they changed the name of the Terrorists to "Opposing Force" but left everything else in.
 
And hey, while we're on the subject, thank you for your service to your country, and I hope that you return home safely soon (If you haven't already.  It's hard to tell from your post).

[ControlerFleX]

Thanx, that means a lot to me. I'm in Japan, so out of harms way for now.

Yeah I ordered it from Amazon, but all this "freedom" we fight for, is something I would like to enjoy just as unconditionally as others. But I guess I gave that up when I sighed the contract. LOL!

[TJ Spyke]

It's up to the military to decide what gets sold on their bases (although the fact that the military supports and endorses certain other policies is questionable), but I don't think it's too soon. In a game like a FPS, how is there really any difference in letting a player play as a Nazi or other bad guy, and letting them play as a member of the Taliban? It's not like you are helping them, and it's not like it's even set here in the US. It's just entertainment, people don't have to buy or play it if they don't want; but I feel that developers should be allowed to express creative freedom (to a point obviously, I would object to stuff like a game having any sexual situations with kids). As time goes by, fewer and fewer will have any problems with it. It's like the Vietnam War, now nobody has any problems with making a TV show/movie/video games/etc. that has a major focus on it. Same thing with World War II, nobody protested when EA had you playing out the bombing of Pearl Harbor in Medal of Honor: Rising Sun (although I don't know if you could play as the Japanese in that, but there have been people protesting this game just because it included the Taliban).

[Ian Sane]

I think the problem is that there is a real kneejerk emotional reaction to it all.  I don't think it's too soon, I think too many people are just not thinking beyond their own feelings.  9-11 is recent.  World War II is not.  There's a generation for which 9-11 is the only event of any significance where they really felt the free world was under attack.  I'm one of them.  I never had to deal with Vietnam or the World Wars or even near disasters like the Cuban Missile Crisis.  For me these were all historic events.  I knew people who had lived during them but I was very detached from them emotionally.  9-11 is not like that.  There is an obvious emotional attachment.

I honestly think that that lack of emotional attachment is the cause for this "outrage" regarding this game.  Pearl Harbour and 9-11 are the same thing.  But a lot of us weren't born yet when the Pearl Harbour attack took place.  It's a detached historical event so we don't see it as comparable.  We have no emotional attachment to it so World War II games are cool.  But there are many veterans of World War II still alive today for which the war was a very real part of their lives.  I honestly think that we're being selfish in assuming that our big tragedy is of more significance.  We can have Indiana Jones fighting Nazis and it's just harmless fun but put the Taliban in a videogame and it's so offensive and inappropriate.

I think we have to be consistent.  Either all of this is inappropriate or none of it is.  I understand the emotion involved here but we can't make kneejerk reactions based on emotion.  We can't act like the Taliban and 9-11 are a special case just because that's what we lived through.  I don't mean to be insensitve but I think that's what's happening.

[broodwars]

I think we have to be consistent.  Either all of this is inappropriate or none of it is.  I understand the emotion involved here but we can't make kneejerk reactions based on emotion.  We can't act like the Taliban and 9-11 are a special case just because that's what we lived through.  I don't mean to be insensitve but I think that's what's happening.

I agree with you that there needs to be a consistency.  My only qualm is that this isn't an issue of putting some years between the 9-11 Terrorist attacks and us, like it was for every other major American crisis.  We're fighting the Taliban right now, at this very moment in Afganistan.  There are families right now that are losing people to this war.  If the US Army has decided that it doesn't want to endorse a product whose multiplayer was based on our current enemy killing our soldiers (and, to be fair, vice-versa), they have that right and I completely understand that.  I repeat: The Army didn't ban this game.  They merely aren't going to sell the game on their bases.

[BranDonk Kong]

To be fair, the game sucks. Just sayin'.

[broodwars]

To be fair, the game sucks. Just sayin'.

You've played it then?  Because I would hope you're not just basing your opinion off of reviews.  Just sayin'.
 
I've been kind of interested in the game I just picked up the game, just since the price I could get it for wouldn't be wasn't too bad for the length of the Singleplayer Campaign.  The reviews have been hitting it pretty hard, though.  I forgot that the PS3 version comes with a trophy-enabled HD version of Medal of Honor Frontlines, too.   

[Ian Sane]

I have no problem with the army not selling it on their bases.  It's their decision.  The average American civilian can still choose whether or not to buy it.

[Halbred]

I wrote a big angry post about this, but then it was getting way too political, so I'm shortening it considerably. Ultimately, my point was that I think it's disrespectful to our men and women overseas for EA to replace "Taliban" with "Opposing Forces." People are dying over there, and they're fighting a named enemy. We need to stop walking on eggshells about this.

[broodwars]

I wrote a big angry post about this, but then it was getting way too political, so I'm shortening it considerably. Ultimately, my point was that I think it's disrespectful to our men and women overseas for EA to replace "Taliban" with "Opposing Forces." People are dying over there, and they're fighting a named enemy. We need to stop walking on eggshells about this.

I agree.  EA should have either stuck by their guns and released the game as it was, or they should never have had the Taliban in the game to begin with.  At the very least, just changing the name of the Taliban in multiplayer is pretty pathetic.  I'm not even sure why they changed it considering that last year Activision released Modern Warfare with...you know, that level and left it in despite all the controversy.

[BranDonk Kong]

Yes, I've played it (Xbox 360 version). It's not horrible, but compared to recent games, it's a step backwards.

[Morari]

The names have been changed. The game is not being sold to soldiers. Free speech and artistic expression has been limited and deprived. The terrorists have won. Congratulations.

I'd be more worried about all of the friendly fire and innocent casualties, personally.

[Kytim89]

I have spoken to a few of my relatives and they say that the Taliban portion of the game should be cut out completely because it is, in their words, un-American. Honestly, I could see a game like this only happening once the wars are over(if ever), but I also see this topic being locked down soon because I have this feeling that it is going to get very political. 

[broodwars]

Honestly, I could see a game like this only happening once the wars are over(if ever), but I also see this topic being locked down soon because I have this feeling that it is going to get very political.

I don't see why it should.  This is a topic about the game and how EA has handled its typically-controversial marketing (I'm starting to suspect that EA never intended on shipping the game with the Taliban named in multiplayer, and only made it like that until just before launch as part of a marketing stunt), not the war it's based on or the politics surrounding it.

Incidentally, I'm about halfway through the Medal of Honor singleplayer.  Yeah, it's nowhere near as well-done as the missions in Modern Warfare 2, but I do like the smaller squad-based combat in this game.  And for as derivative as the game can be, there are some very well-done missions like the one I just completed where you spend most of the level fighting pockets of Taliban in the mountains of Afghanistan, and then end up running into an ambush and have to hold out for what seems like a hopeless, endless siege as the Taliban obliterate the cabin you're using as cover piece by piece.  The story is all over the place as well, but I do appreciate that it's nowhere near as goofy as Modern Warfare 2's.  I'm glad I didn't pay $60 for the game, but it's a pretty decent game and the included MoH Frontline looks pretty cool as well.

[Chozo Ghost]

Veterans as far back as World War I are still alive and kickin,

While that is most certainly true, how many WW1 veterans do you know that are hardcore gamers? How many WW2 or Korean war veterans for that matter? So that's probably their reasoning. I'm not saying I agree with it, and indeed I do not agree with it, but the fact is many people who are fighting the current wars are also gamers, and that's something that isn't very much true for veterans of previous wars.

Of course, Gamestop isn't the only video game retailer out there so if you want the game just buy it from someone else. Its really Gamestop's loss.

[Chozo Ghost]

I have spoken to a few of my relatives and they say that the Taliban portion of the game should be cut out completely because it is, in their words, un-American.

But isn't it important that the game have an antagonist? If everyone in the game is friendly to America and all lovey dovey then its not really much of a combat game, now is it? Taking the Taliban out of this game would be just as stupid as it would be to have a WW2 game without the Axis. Either way, it don't make any sense...

We can have Indiana Jones fighting Nazis and it's just harmless fun but put the Taliban in a videogame and it's so offensive and inappropriate.

Wasn't the Taliban in the first Iron Man movie? But you see, the thing is Indiana Jones was fighting the Nazis. It wasn't like there was a multiplayer game that let you play AS the Nazis. Having the Taliban in the game isn't the problem. I think what is offending people is that you can actually play AS them in multiplayer.

Of course, that also puts EA in a tough spot because how can they do multiplayer without the Taliban? They can't have Americans fighting each other (and that would be probably equally offensive). So they were in a no-win situation where they would be damned either way. Unfortunately, this compromise they made by renaming the Taliban to "opposing forces" doesn't really solve the problem, but at the same time ruins the realism of the game. So they've somehow managed to irritate everyone.

ETA: I apologize for double posting. I didn't realize I did it until it was too late. I try not to do that anymore, but mistakes will happen.

[Dirk Temporo]

It wasn't like there was a multiplayer game that let you play AS the Nazis.

I'm pretty sure that every multiplayer WWII game ever had the ability to do that.

[UltimatePartyBear]

Of course, that also puts EA in a tough spot because how can they do multiplayer without the Taliban? They can't have Americans fighting each other (and that would be probably equally offensive).

America's Army sort of does that.  Each team sees themselves as the Army and the other team as generic terrorists.

[Stogi]

It was nice reading your opinion Controller, and I thank you for serving your country nobly.

That said, everything that has been done and changed makes perfect sense to me. Not in a moral or political way, but in a business and impression way. The US Military didn't want to offend anyone and distract it's soldiers, so they boycotted it from the bases and told EA to change the name of the enemy. They didn't want to give the wrong impression. Now EA didn't want to remake an entire game so they conceded and change the name to opposing forces. No reason to piss of the Military (whom they might come back to again) and no reason to not sell a game that's done. That's a very business way to think about it.

So while I understand that people maybe angry or saddened by this, I believe the Military and EA are doing the very things I would do.

[Morari]

This is censorship. The censorship is being done voluntarily, but only because of coercion from the government itself and a woefully small, but brainlessly vocal part of the general public. This is the very opposite of freedom of speech and expression. If we can't continue to let basic freedoms flourish in America, then what exactly are we even "protecting" from the Taliban to begin with?

Maybe it's time we just pull out of the two wars we're in? That way, it'd be in the past and okay to base fiction upon, right? Hell, think of all of the good things that money could go to one we stop wasting it on an endless war!

[broodwars]

This is censorship. The censorship is being done voluntarily, but only because of coercion from the government itself and a woefully small, but brainlessly vocal part of the general public. This is the very opposite of freedom of speech and expression. If we can't continue to let basic freedoms flourish in America, then what exactly are we even "protecting" from the Taliban to begin with?

Censorship?  Coercion?  Please...This is Gamestop and the US Army deciding what they will and will not stock, also known as FREE ENTERPRISE, one of the cornerstones of our nation.  Likewise, EA decided to make a business decision and try to open a new market to sell their product in.  Once again, the game was never banned, so there was never any "free speech" infringed upon.  Military soldiers could still buy the game and bring it onto base if they so desired.  The military was not going to endorse even the virtual killing of its soldiers by the very organization they are trying to wipe out, which was and should be their right as an organization.  The Taliban are still in the game, and they still kill quite a few American soldiers in the game, so where was "artistic expression" infringed on?

Maybe it's time we just pull out of the two wars we're in? That way, it'd be in the past and okay to base fiction upon, right? Hell, think of all of the good things that money could go to one we stop wasting it on an endless war!

Knock it off!  Can't you read the sign?  NO POLITICS!

[NWR_insanolord]

I don't think it makes any sense to be up in arms about this, but be fine with games that do the same thing, but a bit more generic. If anything, I might argue that using real names instead of generic ones is actually more respectful toward the troops.

I've gotta say, I think EA handled this poorly, with a "solution" that pleases no one.

Of course, that also puts EA in a tough spot because how can they do multiplayer without the Taliban? They can't have Americans fighting each other (and that would be probably equally offensive).

America's Army sort of does that.  Each team sees themselves as the Army and the other team as generic terrorists.

If they'd have done that with this game, I doubt people would have a problem with it.

[MoronSonOfBoron]

Whenever I hear of controversies over the latest military FPS, I think of this Perry Bible Fellowship strip.

[BranDonk Kong]

PBF is probably the greatest thing ever.