did someone say Muad'Dib??

I trust the media to let me know what to be outraged about.

Try telling anyone that's lost a loved one in Afghanistan that the use of the Taliban name is acceptable.

Okay, if that's the bar, why not protest the VC or Nazis or whatever? There are still people alive who have had loved ones killed by them, yet they are playable factions. Battlefield had the MEC, which were Iraqis in all but name. Is it really this superficial: simply a matter of changing the name? If they had called them Mujahedeen instead, that would be acceptable, leaving everything the same?

jdreyer wrote on Oct 3, 2010, 07:08:
I truly fail to see why using the Taliban as an playable enemy force is so offensive? Is it truly more offensive than letting people play as the Nazis (COD2, Battlefield 42) or the Vietcong (BF Vietnam, others). Hell, the Army's own game used head wrapped terrorists as a playable enemy. Countless other games have used the middle east as a setting.

Are there any military or ex-military out there that can explain this to me? Do you support or oppose this? Why?

Try telling anyone that's lost a loved one in Afghanistan that the use of the Taliban name is acceptable.

Fuck politics its a video game.
Having viewed a vid of the trailer I'm buying it.
The game pyhsics/sound/graphics looked great and the production was seemingly very polished.

I truly fail to see why using the Taliban as an playable enemy force is so offensive? Is it truly more offensive than letting people play as the Nazis (COD2, Battlefield 42) or the Vietcong (BF Vietnam, others). Hell, the Army's own game used head wrapped terrorists as a playable enemy. Countless other games have used the middle east as a setting.

Are there any military or ex-military out there that can explain this to me? Do you support or oppose this? Why?

space captain wrote on Oct 3, 2010, 03:30:

[VG]Reagle wrote on Oct 2, 2010, 15:17:
A few years ago the Taliban were our best friends. We trained them and armed them to fight the Russians. Now they are the "enemy" lol.

Sorta like saddam hussein

...and every other autocrat and dictator that held a valuable resource or provided a strategic benefit. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[VG]Reagle wrote on Oct 2, 2010, 15:17:
A few years ago the Taliban were our best friends. We trained them and armed them to fight the Russians. Now they are the "enemy" lol.

Sorta like saddam hussein

We were promised the first ever game of total realism in a current real world conflict, telling the story of real soldiers fighting a very real enemy, and then when the chips were down EA broke that promise.

This article is fucking retarded because it gets one simple fact wrong: The single player still calls them Taliban. The single player isn't being TOUCHED by this change. They just call them Opposing Forces in multiplayer, and the multiplayer isn't about realism because you, you know, respawn.

All this is about is that if they left Taliban as a playable choice in multiplayer, than Fox News will run "GAME HAS YOU KILLING AMERICAN SOLDIERS AS TALIBAN, EA HATES AMERICA" on their broadcasts for a month, and ignorant sobs will get all offended and then our worthless congress will probably do an investigation on whether EA is "aiding and abedding our enemies".

Kajetan wrote on Oct 2, 2010, 19:51:
EA proudly announced, that the new MoH sets a new pre-order record. Seems, like EA didn't offend a majority of their customers, that they only offend people, who were not their customers at all. As such, a wise and clever marketing move, knowing that gamers don't give a shit about the faction name in a modern warfare shooter.

Since the new MoH has already set a new pre-order record, a viral marketing stunt like this probably won't really help sales any. Most marketers do stuff like this when they are trying to push a mediocre product that has seen very little publicity. But MoH looks like a triple A title that has seen a lot of good press up until this point. Theoretically a move like this would hurt sales, except for your correct observation that gamers are going to buy a great game regardless of what everyone is named. Those who were sitting on the fence will probably be turned off by all the negativity surrounding the game now. Especially since EA caved. Now there is no controversy. There is nothing more to see.

The problem is that while gamers may not particularly care about the name of the bad guys' team, I think they do care about being shoveled a line of crap for any reason. We were promised the first ever game of total realism in a current real world conflict, telling the story of real soldiers fighting a very real enemy, and then when the chips were down EA broke that promise. And they did it without telling us a particularly good excuse which only feeds the feelings of being lied to. Both sides have treated us like we are stupid, and I feel like this is what has so many people upset. Hence I think EA's decision wasn't marketing, but a clumsy effort at backpedaling to try to appease a minority.

Now, if some EA official were ever to step out and say for certain that it really WAS just a big marketing stunt, I'd have to just call them a bunch of jerks since intentionally lying to your customer base to inflate sales is a really crappy way to get attention for your product.

budrojr wrote on Oct 2, 2010, 17:38:
I fail to see how pissing off a huge portion of your customer base is a wise marketing move.

If you piss off a huge portion of your customer base, then yes, this wasn't a wise marketing move. Benetton learned this the hard way in the 90s.

But EA proudly announced, that the new MoH sets a new pre-order record. Seems, like EA didn't offend a majority of their customers, that they only offend people, who were not their customers at all. As such, a wise and clever marketing move, knowing that gamers don't give a shit about the faction name in a modern warfare shooter.

These writers are such colossal pussies. This dude would cower like a fawn at the first sign of any conflict. Who cares what they call these guys...it is a game.

Kajetan wrote on Oct 2, 2010, 16:15:

budrojr wrote on Oct 2, 2010, 16:05:
I agree with this article very much, however.

You do know, that this whole affair was only a viral marketing campaign from EA to hype the launch of the game?

I fail to see how pissing off a huge portion of your customer base is a wise marketing move. It's not like the game was unknown or anything. It already stood to sell a metric crapload of copies at launch. I think they got themselves caught between a rock and a hard place with no real good way out. On the one hand, if they don't cave to pressure, they jeopardize further involvement from the military which could lower the overall quality/realism of all future militaristic games. On the other hand, if they cave, they piss off the freedom of speech/games as an artform camp. I think they made the decision which would impact the long term situation the least. It's a tough call for them to make, and I disagree with their decision. As much as it irks me, I will still buy the game.

Suggestion to EA: Why not change the code so we can modify the name of EITHER force to whatever we want? Then you could have Taliban V. Tier 1, pirates v. ninjas, or whatever. Best way to deal with it is to make it a total non-issue for either side.

This has to be the most nonsense I’ve ever seen, can’t call them Taliban but yet they are in the game to be killed. What a crock. If someone has a problem with the name to bad, this is reality and the reality is who do you think we are fighting in Afghanistan? Color coded targets? Pure crap who they try to treat us like we are children. And for the US Army to say we are going to pull support if you use the name that has to be the most stupid thing I’ve ever read or heard.

budrojr wrote on Oct 2, 2010, 16:05:
I agree with this article very much, however.

You do know, that this whole affair was only a viral marketing campaign from EA to hype the launch of the game?

It'll be interesting to see just how sanitized the multiplayer is of Taliban content, I wouldn't be surprised if the player models for "OpFor" aren't all generic looking balaclava wearing bad guys.

[VG]Reagle - "A few years ago the Taliban were our best friends. We trained them and armed them to fight the Russians. Now they are the "enemy" lol."

So you're saying that the enemy of our enemy should always be our friend? I don't understand the point you are trying to make here. Or was that just an observation?

I don't believe the Taliban were EVER our friends. I think they were a tool the CIA very foolishly used. In retrospect it seems they picked the wrong "enemy" to work against.

I agree with this article very much, however. It seems that the top brass have forgotten that they are supposed to be protecting the ideals of this country, not subverting them. Their decision is unfortunately very un-American and highly regrettable. It is just as regrettable that the developers caved on this matter, although I understand their position.

A few years ago the Taliban were our best friends. We trained them and armed them to fight the Russians. Now they are the "enemy" lol.