If you listen to the politicians and pundits who have been criticizing the game, what they complain about is that you can shoot American soldiers. So, this move should do absolutely nothing to satisfy them.

isnt it the US Army thats always talking about how they are out there dying to protect our rights to freedom?

that is, until you exercise them.. thats unacceptable

Personally cannot wait to waste the Taliban pieces of.... Oops out of ammo!

* REMOVED *
This comment was deleted on Oct 3, 2010, 09:38.

Simply put in two words...

Money talks.

Figuring that having military support would also be accompanied by both information/resources and funding of some degree, losing money from the coffers is generally a bad idea.

Why is it you think a lot of military-based movies try to get military support? So they don't have to spend money paying for resources that the military could supply for free and/or pony up the payment.

But that's just one reason to garner support...

The only scary thing about this controversy is that the US Army has such influence on the game developers. EA is bowing to whining about something that has never been an issue before.
Whats next? No more movies based on actual events where uncle Sam is involved?

We had Russia as the badguys in Operation Flashpoint, ArmA and ArmA2. Neither Russia nor the US whined there. If anyone had the right to complain, it should have been Russia for being pictured as bad.
Now uncle Sam is whining about what name the developers used as the opposition.
If the US Army cant handle that a game developer is using the correct name in a setting based on actual events then the US Army should condemn the war they themselves are a part of and pull out. Renaming Taliban to "OpFor" is just sugarcoating the truth.
Grow up, uncle Army.

We are still battling Nazis in games! The Taliban are the replacements! I call a spade a spade.

I'd be more inclined to believe that EA was some sort of troll mastermind when it comes to advertising if not for Activision consistently beating them out for five years now and their efforts to capitalize on the Wii falling flatter than non-casual devs who don't even bother with it.

There may not be such a thing as bad publicity, but publicity via controversy and "normal" viral marketing only goes so far. If they seriously have an executive in their marketing department saying "We need to play this entire thing viral instead of spending money on actual advertising which is proven to be the most important influence on sales," he and whoever hired him need to be fired.

And frankly, I find it far more likely that "We expected no controversy" is ignorance, not cover. Or are we still pretending that common sense is actually common?

Fang wrote on Oct 2, 2010, 20:15:
I don't know why they didn't try to implement it like America's Army, where no matter what side you played, you were on the US side.

I've been thinking this since Day 1. Of course, I've also said since Day 1 that this was nothing but a publicity stunt, and got booed on several sites for it. I recall specifically that the game makers said that they "never anticipated controversy" stemming from the original arrangement - ha! And yet, this change was "unexpected," especially given how 95% of the argument here (even after the change) is not focused on this fact?

To those getting ready to reply to me, consider this: was there not a post on this very site (recently) stating that "analysts" expected MoH to perform poorly due to lack of advertising (from not "getting the word out")? Then what the heck do you think this whole episode was about? It's amazing to me that people can be so blind - and so easily led into the corral. Welcome to the "new" guerrilla advertising.

I'd like to put forth "Anyone who has ever touched a Rubik's Cube is racist" due to it promoting colour separation.

Donkey_Punch wrote on Oct 2, 2010, 21:41:
Funny how all the Americans cried when the Fallujah game was criticized. They used the "freedom of speech" excuse. "It is just a game" was a typical response.

Guess things change when it is white Americans being killed instead of just dark skinned people from a different country.

..Speaking of no common sense..You really don't have a clue do you?..

You just won "Most Retarded Comment of the Week" award.

" they're worried about the publicity of a game is likely to inflame tensions in Afghanistan and Pakistan"

ahhhh I think it is a tad too late for that. Imho, the powers that be are alittle out of touch with reality AND current events. They should keep their politics in their own arena. The realites are as well, that in OUR part of the world, THEY are safe to walk down our streets.

How far do you think you`d make it onfoot thru a city in the East???? And here we all are worried bout a game? Ahuh. Riiiiiight.

Funny how all the Americans cried when the Fallujah game was criticized. They used the "freedom of speech" excuse. "It is just a game" was a typical response.

Guess things change when it is white Americans being killed instead of just dark skinned people from a different country.

I can't wait till someone just /callvote scramble teams

Supposedly Six Days in Fallujah is still going to be released, I doubt it has any mosque battles, even though it did happen in reality.

Fallujah is known as the "city of mosques", with over 200. One in every two mosques were used to hide insurgents during the battles.

And then it hit the fan again because the first time didn't work out so well.

The first battle concluded when our leadership foolishly agreed with local officials who wanted to try to talk things over instead. The Marines were pretty pissed about it. That - along with handing control over to an Iraqi general - didn't go well.

All this does is confirm that common sense..aint so common.

I don't know why they didn't try to implement it like America's Army, where no matter what side you played, you were on the US side.

If your goal is to get US Army support, they showed the way they would like it to be executed. AA did it years ago, it can't be that hard to implement technically.

DangerDog wrote on Oct 2, 2010, 18:43:

Just hoping that I will be able to kill as many "taliban" as possible. I sincerly hope that I can enter a mosque and just slaughter as many of them as I can--after all what goes around comes around.
Hopefully I can kill as many muslems as I want in the game.

I doubt it, though there's suppose to be a UAV mission in MOH.

Supposedly Six Days in Fallujah is still going to be released, I doubt it has any mosque battles, even though it did happen in reality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKxa6IPjL_U

shit hit the fan in Fallujah after those private security workers were killed and their burned bodies were hung from a bridge.

And then it hit the fan again because the first time didn't work out so well.

I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand it seems like unabashed kowtowing to political correctness, which I hate. On the other, it seems like it's only common sense to not sell a game were you can play "our enemy" in an on-going war. It's one thing to play Nazis in a WWII setting, this is quite another.

Just hoping that I will be able to kill as many "taliban" as possible. I sincerly hope that I can enter a mosque and just slaughter as many of them as I can--after all what goes around comes around.
Hopefully I can kill as many muslems as I want in the game.

I doubt it, though there's suppose to be a UAV mission in MOH.

Supposedly Six Days in Fallujah is still going to be released, I doubt it has any mosque battles, even though it did happen in reality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKxa6IPjL_U

shit hit the fan in Fallujah after those private security workers were killed and their burned bodies were hung from a bridge.