EA Responds To Pressure, Removes Taliban From MoH
The Taliban controversy hovering over EA's Medal of Honor will soon disappear. Why? Because the Taliban have disappeared. Well...sort of.
According to a statement released today - as noted at Kotaku - EA have responded to the pressure applied by backlash from "friends and families of fallen soldiers," and have removed the Taliban as playable characters in their upcoming modern-war shooter. Well, the Taliban will essentially still be there, but they'll now be labeled as the "opposing force." Remember when some game companies couldn't get licensing for their sports game, so we got fake athlete names...? Something like that.
It didn't help that earlier in September, the commanding general of the Army and Air Force Exchange Services said they would pull MoH from U.S. military bases worldwide due to the "well-documented reports of depictions of Taliban fighters engaging American troops." Now, a statement issued by the game's executive producer, Greg Goodrich, has confirmed the team's decision to drop the Taliban reference. You can read that statement in full through the link above, but here's a snippet:
"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."
For the record, Goodrich clarified that this decision will not directly affect the gameplay. His statement above finishes with, "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." Well, they probably did the right thing, don't you think?
Tags: moh, medal of honor, moh taliban, ea
10/1/2010 10:34:50 AM Ben Dutka
Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter
Comments (89 posts)
maxpontiac
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 12:17:25 PM
Nickjcal
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 4:04:28 PM
Streets_74
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 8:26:40 PM
coverton341
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 11:03:30 AM
Reply
Streets_74
Wednesday, October 06, 2010 @ 11:46:44 PM
laxpro2001
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 11:09:50 AM
Reply
jigokunohoono
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 11:18:40 AM
Reply
i understand how this could be hurtful to the families but the game will not feature accurate depictions of their kids getting killed so i fell they over reacted
and it's like EA said, someone needs to be a bad guy like when you play cops and robbers and its not gonna make you into a Taliban if you pretend.
i mean there are all kinds of movies about this and no one even bats an eyelash, im really getting sick of all this hate towards video games over things that are fine in other media
coverton341
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 11:22:51 AM
But, you're spot on about films depicting such things and no one boycotts the films or threatens to pull them off the shelves.
maxpontiac
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 1:55:53 PM
But, I think the issue with MOH is the fact that war depicted in the upcoming game is still going on, and there are still plenty of US families being effected by it.
Last edited by maxpontiac on 10/1/2010 1:57:22 PM
carl0975
Tuesday, October 05, 2010 @ 5:51:43 PM
556pineapple
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 11:20:35 AM
Reply
JPBooch
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 11:27:37 AM
It's emotional. I read the full response that EA gave and it tugged on my heart strings. They did the right thing. What has made MoH a great franchise (before they threw it in the toilet) was their reverence for the men and women who have actually served.
They did the right thing.
556pineapple
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 11:47:54 AM
The argument is that playing as the Taliban is disrespectful to the victim's of the Taliban. So isn't it true that playing as Nazis is just as disrespectful to their victims? Shouldn't these soldiers be given the same respect no matter what war they fought in, and no matter how long ago it was? They all made sacrifices and fought for our country. They all went through hardships I hope myself never to see, and they all have my deepest respect. So why are they getting a different treatment?
Last edited by 556pineapple on 10/1/2010 11:49:49 AM
frostface
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 11:24:47 AM
Reply
It's ok to shoot at the Japanese, the Germans or Vietnamese but not at the Taliban because that war is happening now? It's a game. And if you ever wanted to really reach home to people about how crappy war is, give them something, a name, they can relate to.
I remember at times during playing World At War, there were moments that I paused the game and realized, although I'm playing a game right now, it's representative of some really bad moments in world history. By calling the Japanese by their real name in that game, it wasn't like just mindlessly killing a nameless enemy.
So should news channels not refer to the Taliban as the Taliban anymore? Are people really that sensitive? Should everyone be wrapped up in cotton wool? Or should they wake up to the fact that the world is far from perfect and in the real world the enemies have names and this is a game merely imitating and portraying real life. Did someone lose an son or daughter in the making of this game? No?
Then put your energies into bringing your son's and daughters home from the real war and stop worrying so much about a video game.
Last edited by frostface on 10/1/2010 11:25:37 AM
JPBooch
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 11:37:44 AM
Why would you open yourself to sensationalize a group that would like nothing more to watch America burn to the ground and all the people in it die a horrible death? You forget that there are plenty of demented people who would take it to another level and enjoy it. This isn't something that should be de-sensitized. That is exactly what you wind up doing by putting the Taliban name in there as a playable side.
I didn't think it was a big deal either. But, if EA got heart felt letters from people and families who served that thought it was then they are absolutely doing the right thing.
I'm all for free speech, it's what you do with it that matters. If you want to make yourself look insensitive, callous, a butt-head, racist, bigot, or sexist, you have every right to. You will also face the consequences of public opinion as they have the right to free speech too.
Jawknee
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 12:21:01 PM
They fight for ours freedoms and this is what they/we get. More media driven political correctness. Nonsense.
frostface
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 12:40:53 PM
But I don't believe I'm missing the point regarding getting to play as the Taliban. I think people should be able to play both sides of the war.
Not that I expect there to be many (if any) Taliban fighters rushing out to buy MoH, but in the real world people are dying on both sides.
Hypothetically speaking, I would deem it equally offensive to be able to play as the Americans, invading another country and killing their people. I'm not trying to start a political argument regarding my own personal opinions on whats going on over in Afghanistan. I'm not a soldier or related to one who's fighting over there and it would be wrong of me to judge or make guesses at how they perceive their current situation.
However, there are a hell of a lot of people out there that are not pro-America and not supportive of the 'War on Terror' in the Middle East.
But this is a game about a war thats happening right now but it's not ok to name names of all parties involved? If people are gonna be that sensitive, then why make the game at all?
I don't personally agree that it should never of been made, I'm planning on picking it up when it releases. But you can't make a game like this an not expect to offend some demographic of people.
Last edited by frostface on 10/1/2010 12:43:27 PM
Jawknee
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 12:52:03 PM
This isn't about "understanding the Talibans side of the argument." it's about the truth of whom we are fighting over there.
Last edited by Jawknee on 10/1/2010 12:53:18 PM
jaybiv
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 3:49:56 PM
The crux of this discussion is that too many people play the victim card and want the world to be as they see it, when in fact there are 6.6 billion others we have to share this small, blue marble with. Joining the U.S. military is a voluntary choise last time I checked, so anyone joining should have been cognizant of the dangers of joining this select fraternity. As such, it doesn't give them a monopoly on how others should act, think or feel.
I understand EA's decision to back down. I just don't agree with it. The folks doing the most belly aching about it were never going to buy the game anyway, so why listen to criticism from someone who is not going to add your bottom line?
Jawknee
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 5:38:43 PM
Fane1024
Saturday, October 02, 2010 @ 6:09:05 PM
anjpikapp3
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 11:45:58 AM
Reply
Jawknee
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 1:14:12 PM
Benzin
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 1:51:39 PM
anjpikapp3
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 2:14:48 PM
BTNwarrior
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 12:07:10 PM
Reply
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 12:15:53 PM
Reply
maxpontiac
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 12:17:59 PM
Jawknee
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 12:23:00 PM
maxpontiac
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 1:50:58 PM
Benzin
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 2:04:09 PM
Jawknee
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 2:16:59 PM
robinhood2010
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 5:46:10 PM
This has always seemed to be the corner stone of a lot of people's beliefs, especially on this site. I have noted before how gamers have complained about a minority complaining about content, to have said content removed.
With every point, you are going to offend someone, so why not stick to realism? These soldiers are not fighting an unnamed force, are they?
SmokeyPSD
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 12:24:16 PM
Reply
When are developers going to learn that the only way this medium is going to be taken seriously is when we starting drawing lines in the sand. this is RIDICULOUS. It's not like they've reskinned them to be aliens, for years and years we got shovelled WWII games. For once we're actually getting a meaningful, authentic attempt at a important PRESENT conflict.
So the Army brass have spoken out, so freaking what, Tier 1 themselves were involved in the making of it, lots of army dudes freaking play these games themselves. Hell, some might've even WANTED to go in the military from playing 1st person games as a young kid.
To me, Medal of Honour seems to be the ONLY game in years treating this with the respect it deserves. Funny that it gets this crap.
Alienange
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 12:50:32 PM
Reply
Read the WHOLE statement and you'll see that they had an overwhelming response to the Taliban in their game. Most of it was positive. So they could have reasoned that there was no need to take out the word Taliban because the majority don't care.
What they did however, was change the name out of respect for the many many who took the time to write EA and explain in a heartfelt way why this causes them pain.
This is a powerful show of respect to those who wrote them. Have WE received the countless letters that EA has received and read? No. We don't have a clue what EA has seen and heard. Out of feeling and respect for their fellow human beings they've made a TINY change in their game.
I say good for EA. They should be applauded.
Jawknee
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 1:12:09 PM
anjpikapp3
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 1:23:33 PM
Any-American in their right mind would not want to play as the Taliban however, you should not be restricted just because someone disagrees with it? Its the freedom that our soldiers are fighting for, is it not?
This is the big reason we (the US) are so ignorant to what the rest of the world is doing. When we don't like something, we censor it instead of letting it be. If you don't like something, then you have the freedom to walk away.
jaybiv
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 4:05:54 PM
MW 1 & 2 allowed us to play against an unamed Middle Eastern group, so what is the big deal? It's just a game. The Taliban is just a name. Not too many Americans could tell you any more about the Taliban besides their name.
America may be the greatest country on the planet, but it has some of the most ignorant and petty principle driven citizens. No lie. A couple of years ago, a study was out that said 70% of Americans thought Canada was a state. Need I say more?
Alienange
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 5:01:35 PM
@ Jawknee - People who are complaining about this change are just being self righteous. Would this have even crossed anyone's mind if EA hadn't named them the Taliban in the first place? We should all be glad we're even getting the game and that it's not being canceled like the Fallujah game.
Jawknee
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 5:43:24 PM
JPBooch
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 1:40:37 PM
Reply
EA doesn't want people to walk away from their game. More happy people and politically correctness means more people willing to buy and play it. You can save the free speech soap box for the hippie convention.
anjpikapp3
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 2:10:28 PM
Yeah, the Taliban did attack us...so did the Japanese. They hit one of our most prized harbors and killed thousands...Also, MILLIONS died by the hands of the Nazi's. Yet, playing as a Nazi (in MoH and CoD) is fully accepted?? If your going to argue that being attacked by the Taliban is the same as a "game" where the Taliban is a focus then you ARE the ignorant one. It's still just a game depicting (the devs) views of what may have happened during that time....nothing more, nothing less.
Also, the name of the "opposing team" does not matter to true gamers...if the content is worth it, we will buy it no matter whos killing who.
Simcoe
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 3:52:36 PM
Lawless SXE
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 4:25:03 PM
Jawknee
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 5:40:49 PM
Lawless SXE
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 6:54:37 PM
I don't want to argue about this. It always leads to trouble, so I'm alright with saying we shall agree to disagree, aye?
Jawknee
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 7:22:41 PM
But yes, i will agree to disagree with you. :)
Last edited by Jawknee on 10/1/2010 7:24:03 PM
Zorigo
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 4:20:07 PM
AcHiLLiA
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 10:54:00 PM
WorldEndsWithMe
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 4:11:29 PM
Reply
Lawless SXE
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 4:43:58 PM
Reply
Peace.
tes37
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 5:02:54 PM
Reply
No disrespect intended but these people have to move beyond petty issues and work on mending their pain from the loss. Changing a videogame will not bring about any healing.
Last edited by tes37 on 10/1/2010 5:15:14 PM
Shams
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 9:20:12 PM
Shams
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 9:37:25 PM
I just think if we were truly concerned with the loss and sacrifice that soldiers and soldiers' families first and foremost, we would ignore these petty issues, instead of asking them to do it.
I think in the end, the change in name amounts to nothing. It's not like they removed the multiplayer, thereby preventing people from playing as virtual Taliban killing virtual soldiers. But if this is EA's way of acknowledging the complaints of the soldiers and soldiers' families, then it should be understood as that: an assuaging gesture. Not in the name of censorship, or propaganda, or politics, or even money (unless the complaints numbered in the millions which i'm sure they didn't)..
tes37
Saturday, October 02, 2010 @ 1:16:16 AM
tes37
Saturday, October 02, 2010 @ 1:41:19 AM
Shams
Saturday, October 02, 2010 @ 1:43:59 AM
robinhood2010
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 5:39:46 PM
Reply
I find it highly contradicting, this. It's all well and good playing as an Allied soldier, shooting and killing a Taliban soldier, or Nazi, or whatever opposing force it is. So now you can play as someone who will be killing Allied soldiers. Why, all of a sudden, has this caused so much offence, I ask?
I don't hear many Germans, Russians or Japanese complaining about their people getting shot over and over again in countless FPS games centred on war. As I understand it, war takes two to tango, and I think it is ridiculous to change the name of your opposing force.
Guarantee that if the Taliban were not playable, there would be absolutely no problem with this.
Sure, I am not cold hearted, I can understand there are still people dying in the Middle East, but taking the name out of it does not change a thing. Players will still be gunning down Allied soldiers, just as an unnamed force. Compared to that airport scene, this is nothing.
main_event05
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 10:21:06 PM
Reply
When will Censorship in America end? We got school systems in Texas rewriting history and now this. Almost makes me ashamed to be American.
------------------------------------
While on the subject of PC, does anyone else find the term African American to more offensive than Black? I prefer being Black as opposed to African American.
Last edited by main_event05 on 10/1/2010 10:26:59 PM
Shams
Saturday, October 02, 2010 @ 1:00:04 AM
There was a time not too long ago when even that term was considered acceptable. A vocal minority would speak up against that. And they were ignored. But they continued to fight to be called what they chose to be identified as, rather than being called by terms what others chose to call them.
tes37
Saturday, October 02, 2010 @ 2:17:28 AM
That's the way I see all black people, as American, no longer African who live in America. Nothing is wrong with someone's heritage.
Simcoe
Saturday, October 02, 2010 @ 8:17:37 AM
Shams
Saturday, October 02, 2010 @ 9:48:12 AM
tes37
Saturday, October 02, 2010 @ 9:51:50 AM
In fact Aboriginal sounds more offensive.
Since I was a child, American Indian was used as well as Native American to describe the indigenous people of North America.
Last edited by tes37 on 10/2/2010 10:01:25 AM
Simcoe
Saturday, October 02, 2010 @ 1:29:06 PM
main_event05
Saturday, October 02, 2010 @ 10:15:30 PM
StangMan80
Saturday, October 02, 2010 @ 2:01:58 AM
Reply
I am going to get this game and enjoy it, and I have all the respect in the world for the people who are fighting for our freedom.
I just don't understand why this all started any how. There were always bad guys in games that we could play as. any way, this game is going to do good and if you are not picking up this game because of it then you should not be a gamer.
GT5 countdown: 30 days no way YES!
Phoenix
Saturday, October 02, 2010 @ 3:34:23 AM
Reply
* name gets changed *
"O, good, now it's just some guy wearing a turban killing the americans... "
Any1 else see the problem here, It's just a game, and it's just a name, Taliban or not, americans are still being gunned down, so really, does a simply name change REALLY make the families of the fallen feel better? cause it shouldnt...
EA, way to cave to such a silly thing.
___________
Saturday, October 02, 2010 @ 3:54:32 AM
Reply
this is exactly why the media does this, because they know if they bi*** and cry long and loud enough they will get their way.
there like a kid in the toy store after their mother does not buy them a toy, they bi*** and scream till their face goes red!
i wish EA had the balls to stand up too them and say were making the game you dont like it?
tough sh*t!
honestly whats the point?
military bases have already banned the sale of this game so its not like this is really going to help the sales.
may appease 1 or 2 people, but how much you want to bet the people who were bi***ing in the first place never intended to buy the game in the first place!?
Remei Aoki
Saturday, October 02, 2010 @ 9:27:22 AM
Reply
However, at the risk of seeming insensitive, I don't honestly believe that we're doing the right thing by trying to alter the name of the antagonists.
MoH chooses to place it's setting inside the pretenses of the current escalations inside the wars on terror, this includes the Taliban, Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, its the whole reason why we're there. Imagine if designers took the same approach with MoH2, a WW2 game without Nazis, kind-of hard isn't it? Even those older games also allowed you to play as the 'opposing force' in multiplayer, regardless of who they were, nazi, japanese, russian or what have you, why should this be any different?
At the same time, the families of those who were injured or who've died have also suffered and continue to suffer the most throughout our time in the middle-east. I cannot say that I wouldn't have had to consider the change as well, and would have done the same as EA.
Defacto Censorship comes in many forms, but sometimes sensitivity is the biggest barrier we have with our freedom of speech. Here it hit us where the wound is still tender and we, as an industry, flinched.
WickedScarecrow
Saturday, October 02, 2010 @ 7:15:59 PM
Reply
And besides, if it was my family killed in Iraor Afganistan, I would like to have him be immortalized in a game as a hero. Otherwise, he is just 6 feet under and dead, what good is that? GROW UP AMERICA, you bunch of emotionally weak morons.
WickedScarecrow
Saturday, October 02, 2010 @ 7:17:04 PM
Reply
cr67
Sunday, October 03, 2010 @ 4:27:40 PM
Reply
I think EA made the right decision out of respect for our soldiers and it makes me respect EA all the more. Show a little respect yourselves!
Last edited by cr67 on 10/3/2010 4:29:16 PM
SmokeyPSD
Sunday, October 03, 2010 @ 8:20:01 PM
They didn't do anything, they changed a name, that's cowardice not respectful.
snypa_69
Monday, October 04, 2010 @ 4:09:27 AM
Reply
There are British troops fighting in this war too.
Do you think they give a s£$t about playing as the taliban?? You lot are such pu$$ies!!haha.
If anything the British troops should be lobbying to ban hardcore modes. Should we start talking about friendly fire? lol.

Medal of Honor









Benzin
Reply
Friday, October 01, 2010 @ 10:59:17 AM