DICE defends playable Taliban in MOH

By Wesley Yin-Poole Published 9 August, 2010

Feel uneasy? "It's a fair point," says dev.

DICE, the developer behind the multiplayer portion of upcoming Afghanistan shooter Medal of Honor, has defended the decision to allow gamers to play as Taliban soldiers, saying: "It's a game."

Dan Whitehead picked up on the playable Taliban in Eurogamer's recent hands-on preview.

"The hardcore online FPS crowd is not known for its tact, and I can't help but wonder just what sort of epithets will be flying across PSN and Xbox Live when armchair Andy McNabs are shooting at players openly identified as Taliban.

"Watching virtual Coalition troops gunned down by insurgents in the ruins of Kabul, I felt more than a little weird, especially since a friend lost his brother in Afghanistan only a few weeks ago.

"This is a real war that is happening right now, real blood is being shed, and simulating that for fragfest fun while being rewarded for kill streaks... Well, there's just something a bit icky about that. In single-player, there can be a story that adds context and meaning to the carnage. In multiplayer, it's all just for fun. At least the World War II games have the distance of history, and the fact that their conflict has been absorbed into popular entertainment for over 60 years."

"I think it is a fair point," said producer Patrick Liu when asked whether statements saying that gamers will feel uneasy playing as Taliban soldiers are fair, in the latest issue of PSM3 magazine (reported by Connected Consoles).

"We do stir up some feelings, although it's not about the war, it's about the soldiers.

"We can't get away from what the setting is and who the factions are, but in the end, it's a game, so we're not pushing or provoking too hard."

Medal of Honor will be released on 15th October for PC, PS3 and Xbox 360.

We wonder what Linkin Park think?

Picture of Wesley.

About Wesley Yin-Poole

Wesley is Eurogamer's news editor. He likes news, interviews, and more news. He also likes Street Fighter more than anyone can get him to shut up about it.

Read more articles from Wesley by visiting the Wesley Yin-Poole archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (115) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • dirtysteve #1 2 years ago

    To be honest, most games where you're fighting 'insurgents' or 'terrorists',in some vague middle east setting, are partly doing so because of the fictional setting, and partly because of the tact/cowardice issue. Is it unacceptable on some moral level to use closer analogues, or are they (more likely) just avoiding a backlash?

  • dsmx #2 2 years ago

    It very much depends on how it's portrayed, seeing both sides of the conflict could be quite interesting.

  • AphoticCosmos #3 2 years ago

    Got a scoop on the Daily Mail's headline tomorrow:
    BAN THIS SICK FILTH
    Disgusting game allows you to play as brown Muzzie terrorists!

    The Taliban and co have essentially been in every game that has ever included generic Arabic/Muslim/vaguely Middle Eastern terrorists/soldiers, they weren't named but anyone with a pair of eyes could see the clear references. Playing as them? It's not a big deal is it?

    Who else would be the enemy in Afghanistan. The only people our soldiers have killed more than the Taliban are Afghan civilians, and they wouldn't make a very good team now, would they?

    It's not like the Taliban have hijacked DICE and are providing propaganda to young Westerners, now, is it?
    Edited by AphoticCosmos at 09/08/10 @ 14:47

  • AnsemsApprentice #4 2 years ago

    There should be multiple factions that the players can vote on representing, like when you pick maps.

    Taliban - x votes
    S.A.S - x votes
    Edited by AnsemsApprentice at 09/08/10 @ 14:30

  • nuanimal #5 2 years ago

    Controversial maybe, but what it should come down to is it's implementation.

  • Shikasama #6 2 years ago

    So this is their version of the MW2 Airport scene? Cheap controversy for publicities sake.

  • coolbritannia #7 2 years ago

    This is inappropriate for mindless "entertainment". Change the name of the faction, you've had your cheap publicity now.

  • Redeye #8 2 years ago

    Mainstream media are going to have a field day with this...I actually envisage the Fox News anchor having a proper Scanners moment, leaving the contents of their noggin strewn across half the studio.

  • ZeroAX #9 2 years ago

    oh the poor Americans. I wonder how the Germans feel when they are killing Germans, or the Japanese when games like Red Alert and Fallout use nuclear warheads as "fun" weapons (or quests).

    Really either be sensitive about everything and everyone or just accept that when you are insensitive to other people's feelings someone will do the same to you. You can't complain.

  • solidSnake04 #10 2 years ago

    we've been shooting talibans in the face for years. we are just gonna see the other side of the coin.
    alah akhbar

  • richarddavies #11 2 years ago

    I don't give a shit what my character looks like. They all look the same after a bullet in the head.

  • f1r3storm Verified Redakteur, Eurogamer Deutschland #12 2 years ago

    "It's a game."

    That's it.

    Folks play as Nazi soldiers in RtCW, as Vietcong in Battlefield Vietnam or whatever... sure, this didn't happen as long ago as WWII or the Vietnam war, but i don't see any real difference there.

  • Ranger101 #13 2 years ago

    It's still not as bad as Soldier of Fortune's "kill a friendly/civilian and it's game over... unless they're of arab descent in which case kill away you naughty rascal" approach.

    A little bit of stirring going on here, that I'm sure most people of Russian descent will shrug their shoulders at, having been cast as The Enemy in pretty much every contemporary warfare based game.

  • carlitoswagon #14 2 years ago

    Teabagging unacceptable then??

  • sneetch #15 2 years ago

    Dunno why they don't just go the America's Army route and give people the option of always playing as a member of a particular faction: your team mates always look like US/British or whatever troops and the other team always look like the enemy, whether than enemy is Taliban or Genericistan troops.

    Personally it doesn't bother me, I always hit auto-join in these games (in CoD4 I noticed that I normally ended up as Opfor/Russian so I guess it matters to others).

  • Morthill #16 2 years ago

    I have no problems at all with the Taliban as playable soldiers. It's ridiculous that games always show brave Western soldiers who only kill evil Taliban. It's propaganda for the war so it was about time a developer had the guts to let people play the other side.

  • Bluetooth #17 2 years ago

    In FPSs we've had plenty of chances to kill Russians, brown people, blacks and Chinese - but even when America was being invaded in MW2, there was no shooting Americans. That needs to be sorted out - fair's fair.

  • geeza2020 #18 2 years ago

    I think if you're making a game about a current day, real life conflict, then you're retarded. There are real people having their lives ruined by war and death in afghanistan and its just a kick in the teeth for these people's families that have survived, that there will be 12 and 13 year old american little shits having "fun" in a game world that is modelled on their real one.

  • dmcclure #19 2 years ago

    @Ranger101

    Also, for example in MW2, the Russian populace at large are painted as ultranationalists, when in fact there is a lower level of nationalistic sentiment in Russia than in the USA.

  • Mkwone #20 2 years ago

    I'm being a hypocrit here as for years i've been saying games should be allowed to do what ever they want. But this one just doesn't seem right. All it'd take is calling it something other than Taliban.

    But i can't help but feel that all this is is an attempt at cheap publicity.If they go ahead ofcourse it's going to be newspapers and discussed on breakfast telly.

  • Gromit #21 2 years ago

    I think that as it's an ongoing conflict they should've left these two factions, if not the whole setting, out of it.
    As suggested, this is an issue affecting peoples' lives here and now and to ignore this is either lacking sensitivity or seeking notoriety.

    The fact that they have included the Taliban is not the issue, more-so the timing is wrong. After all, playing as Nazi soldiers has never seemed questionable, but probably because they existed over sixty years ago and somehow seem less "real" because of it.

  • PlugMonkey #22 2 years ago

    dsmx
    "It very much depends on how it's portrayed, seeing both sides of the conflict could be quite interesting."

    How on earth are you going to see 'both sides of the conflict' by playing a few rounds of DeathMatch? It'll be virtually indentical from both sides, whilst being about as relevent to the real life situation as Team Fortress.

    All in all, it's in fairly poor taste. I'd put it about on a par with the Taliban vs IRA episode of Deadliest Warrior on the poortaste-o-meter.

  • Gromit #23 2 years ago

    @Carlitoswagon -

    "Teabagging unacceptable then?? "

    It's now called Tali-bagging

  • thesombrerokid #24 2 years ago

    Dan Whitehead needs to go write for the daily mail where he belongs, this is the same plonker that claimed that due to information only he was privy to Resident Evil 5 was categorically racist, only to be shown as a complete sensationalist when the game came out.

    most peoples ideology would say that where the Taliban are concerned there is morally grey justification for their war, and wouldn't say the same for Hitler, time and big budget films don't make a treatment any less crass.

    my personal opinion is that murder and war is never justifiable but games about the subject when they treat the subject material with respect almost always are.

  • JensonJet #25 2 years ago

    Perhaps if the game had a section whereby you abused Arabic men, without proof of guilt, in an illegal 'prisoner-of-war' camp, disregarding conventional laws and moral standards, then I could understand this being controversial. As I assume there's no such level, or subsequent acheivements/trophies for such actions, then I don't think there's much of a story here. At least no more controversy than will always be associated with games with guns.

  • SAMagic #26 2 years ago

    I'm all for historical accuracy, but the current conflict is ongoing and is not really part of history quite yet. I think that's the difference here.

    When I fired up the beta and saw that the force opposing the US were literally called Taliban, I definitely thought it was in poor taste, even if it matches what is happening in Afghanistan right now. Why couldn't they call them insurgents or some other name? Look at Second Wave in 24, for example, or the oft-used plot device of a renegade sub-faction of a nation or group in most FPSs (Soldier of Fortune had such with an Iraqi figure that was seeking to overthrow Saddam - and incidentally SOF did not intentionally allow you to kill Iraqi civilians, it was revealed to be a bug, apparently).

    So do I want to play a faction that has just proudly killed innocent humanitarians who were delivering medical supplies to rural areas because they're offended that people may convert to Christianity? Not at all. It hasn't stopped me enjoying the beta - even if seems to be a copy and paste of Bad Company 2 - but there's easily going to be a lot of controversy closer to the games release, this will certainly be this year's "No Russian".

    Unless Treyarch seriously up their game and find something shocking to implement.

  • bad09 #27 2 years ago

    Who really cares? Was there a big deal at being Nazis in COD?

    It's set in modern Afghanistan that means Taliban big deal, just like all game controversy the words mountain and molehill spring to mind.

  • presh #28 2 years ago

    If this isn't another deliberate publicity stunt then the developers are showing a huge amount of ignorance and naivety. It's a given that the Daily Fail, Keith Vaz and all the other 'games are evil' bandwagon-jumpers will be all over this as soon as they hear about it.

    What many posters here fail to see is that by playing as the Vietcong or Nazis in WaW or similar, there is only historical fantasy involved. The conflict in the middle east has become very different, with lots of use of online footage to 'inspire' and 'recruit' (stupid) people to jihad. I really can't see this not being a great way of derailing any sensible media coverage, and turning the issue of current affairs as games into another childish shouting match.

  • hiddenranbir #29 2 years ago

    They could do something really amazing and insightful by having us play as the Taliban.

    Of course, it will be hollywoodised and rubbish, but a mark for effort.

  • RobotRocker #30 2 years ago

    So do I want to play a faction that has just proudly killed innocent humanitarians who were delivering medical supplies to rural areas because they're offended that people may convert to Christianity?

    Not going to start a political flame war. But on the other side you have a faction that knowingly created civilian casualties in their own war efforts and took measures to bury that info from the public. Either side on the conflict is deep in the black on the moral spectrum.

    It may be a case of "Too soon". Modern Warfare 2 was very smart with how it played itself out as fiction (Who knew the plot twist of MW2 was that The US were the bad guys and you were playing as the bad guys. I am very surprised Fox News never picked that up.But "No Russian" was enough of a red flag to the charging bull of the mainstream media anyway). Medal Of Honor seems a bit crass in trying to create a black and white scenario out of an ongoing conflict where both sides have pulled off some extremely shady stuff.

    The games industry needs to learn much more about subtlety, methinks.

  • PlugMonkey #31 2 years ago

    bad09
    Who really cares? Was there a big deal at being Nazis in COD?

    It's set in modern Afghanistan that means Taliban big deal, just like all game controversy the words mountain and molehill spring to mind.

    The difference is that no-one is currently fighting and dying against Nazis.

    I've always felt that whatever your feelings on whether you support a current conflict, you should support your troops 100%. They don't set policy, but they go through hell to support it and so the least we can do is support them.

    If they know that we're all sitting safe at home whooping and hollering while acting out their predicament for kicks, they might be forgiven for believing that we're not really taking their situation 100% seriously.

    Isn't that alone reason enough to not do it?
    Edited by PlugMonkey at 09/08/10 @ 15:54

  • JensonJet #32 2 years ago

    SAMagic
    What's the difference between the naming of Taliban, than naming Nazis (as pointed out by bad09) or even that the 'good guys' are called American soldiers, or whatever they're referred as. Don't forget the Taliban see themselves as much as the good guys as Americans see themselves, as any soldier sees the side they're fighting for. Sure, we're European and see us and the Americans as the good guys, and there's certainly an argument that we do more good than the majority of people we're in conflict with. But soldiers are people doing a job. It's not for them to make moral decisions or question the morality of their actions.

    Forget the excuses Allied troops, Americans, British, any side in every conflict has killed innocent, non armed civilians. So much so, the dead have a label of their own... collateral damage. I think there's one very simple answer... if you're uncomfortable with the content in a game, you shouldn't play it. The line of decency, taste and morals is drawn at ensuring those depicted in games aren't real people... unless they're alive and have given permission.

    Personally I don't think games are in any way representative of real conflict. They're as loosely based on reality as the A-Team or Rambo. Like videogames based on combat they take elements of reality, but they're a fictional, fairytale world that feed our desire for competition, challenge and (as sad as this to admit) our enjoyment of watching and carrying out virtual violence.
    Edited by JensonJet at 09/08/10 @ 16:02

  • Tbonerngr #33 2 years ago

    Why is it weird to kill for fun when it has to do with a conflict that's closer to today's time. Killing is killing. Its plain and simple. But now that it represents something a little closer to home killing for fun becomes controversial. This guys article is full of hypocrisy.

  • TheNinkyNonk #34 2 years ago

    TALIBAN THIS SICK FILTH

  • PlugMonkey #35 2 years ago

    The person negging me:

    Which bit do you disagree with?

    That our troops deserve our full support, or that our troops might not think they have our full support if they see us spending our leisure time dressing up as their enemies and planting IEDs to blow up avatars of their comrades?

    Edit: LOL. Another silent -1. Ya wuss! :)
    Edited by PlugMonkey at 09/08/10 @ 16:17

  • Bobbus74 #36 2 years ago

    The Taliban are among us. Everywhere you go you see them. Happy to take our handouts and benefits but spill filth from their mouths about our country and our soldiers.
    Do yourselves a favour, put your joypads down and go and kick the heads in of real Taliban supporters out there on our streets. Much more fun than CoD, even if you don't get 'acheivements'..

    EDIT: all you dicks voting down my comment are obviously Taliban lovers yourselves so jog on you mugs.
    Edited by Bobbus74 at 09/08/10 @ 16:33

  • SAMagic #37 2 years ago

    RobotRocker: I don't want to stray into a political flame war either, but here's my take...

    Absolutely, the US are far from clean cut good guys and unfortunately there are often shades of gray in war. I'm reminded of Sam Harris in his book 'The End of Faith' where he looks at the conflict and mentions that it all comes down to intentions - the US often has collateral damage, but civilian deaths aren't intended (as far as I'm aware), while the Taliban, like most terrorists, really don't care, they justify it in their own perverse way. They certainly do not engage only military personnel, they're fine with civilian deaths in carbomb explosions. I've seen some footage of US troops in Iraq actually patching up wounded enemies. Would the insurgents or the Taliban do the same? I really don't think so. There are plenty of other examples where the conduct of the US is, in short, arguably better. That doesn't justify the accidental bombing of wedding parties or the alike, of course.

    Anyway, let's get back to the games. I agree that it's too soon. Would people be fine if you played a COD-style game based in Afghanistan during the 80s where you control a Soviet trooper and then a Mujhadeen in different perspectives?

    As for Fox News not playing through the MW2 and understanding the subtext, that would require them being actual, decent journalists. ;)


    JensonJet: As it's been mentioned, I think it's the context, which is affected by whether the conflict is in history or whether it's currently ongoing. I feel a tiny bit queasy from reading about the atrocious death of Karen Woo and the other humanitarian workers before I jump into MOH and playing as the Taliban, who carried out the attack. And you're right, maybe I shouldn't play it - I can easily get into Bad Company 2 and have no problems with the US and Russian forces, because, like you say, that is a pure fantasy.

    Beyond that, I don't know. I'm sure the Daily Mail and Keith Vaz will come up with some outrageous comments on their own.

  • Stop-gap #38 2 years ago

    How long until this gets called a "terrorist training simulator"?
    Good for them though, even simply from a gaming point of view it winds me up when you have been arbitrarily blocked from playing as a certain side or faction.
    Edited by Stop-gap at 09/08/10 @ 16:38

  • mkreku #39 2 years ago

    So it's more OK to kill a man of Afghani origin than it is to kill a man from America? What kind of nonsense argument is this? Now I want to play as a Taliban!

  • Immaterial #40 2 years ago

    Can DICE not just give them little swastikas and call them TaliNazis?

  • Bobbus74 #41 2 years ago

    @mkreku - sounds like you need your head kicked in too.

  • bad09 #42 2 years ago

    @PlugMonkey

    It's a work of fiction with a modern day battlefield setting, what the hell has playing as the Taliban in a make believe video game got to do with supporting our troops?

    You really think our boys care about such trivial things as a deathmatch team skin on a video game?? If you want to support our troops start speaking to your MP about bringing them home from this nonsense not getting upset at a non-important video game!

  • Bluetooth #43 2 years ago

    @Bobbus74

    Aren't you on the wrong forum - Daily Mail is quite different to spell than Eurogamer.

    When you say "Everywhere you go you see them. Happy to take our handouts and benefits but spill filth from their mouths about our country and our soldiers."

    do you actually mean people who have an asian appearance? Bit of a leap that, calling everyone of asian appearance a member of the Taliban. Much like if I were to say that "Everywhere I go, I see paedos (white men)".

  • Bobbus74 #44 2 years ago

    @Bluetooth of course I don't mean all asian people, I'm talking about the activists and clerics shouting their hate for the west yet still reside in our shores taking all they can get.

  • Cheapshot #45 2 years ago

    I definitely feel a tad uncomfortable about this as my brother has actually fought Taliban IRL, but it would be the same with anything that is portrayed in a videogame that I've been personally involved in. It's not anything to get offended by, it's just going to be a bit uneasy to some people, a.k.a: it's not a big deal in my opinion.

    Saying this, Daily Mail are going to be all over this shit like the swivel headed lunatics they are, that's a given.

  • darth_paul #46 2 years ago

    well, if your playing a multiplayer online game, someone has to play "the other side", unless you want to play against the CPU online, which kind of goes against the logic of MP games

    In the WW2 games you play the NAZI's, dont see a difference between them and the Taliban ... hypocrites
    have no problem playing the bearded-side
    Edited by darth_paul at 09/08/10 @ 16:42

  • TVoJ #47 2 years ago

    Oh No! Not a game based in Afganistan where you shoot at Taliban?
    What next? A game based in space where you shoot aliens?
    Or a horror game with Monstors as the baddies.

    Grow up and get fucking real.

    and to the people stating it's just a publicity stunt.... who else do you fucking suggest they cast as the baddy? Nazi Zombies or some shit?

  • PlugMonkey #48 2 years ago

    bad09
    "It's a work of fiction with a modern day battlefield setting, what the hell has playing as the Taliban in a make believe video game got to do with supporting our troops? "

    I'm aware of that, but that wan't my point or the question that I asked.

    So, you disagree that active troops in Afghanistan might be disheartened to hear that their 'supporters' are running around pretending to be their enemies and planting IEDs for fun?

    Persoanally, I don't know either way, but if there is a 1% chance that one person currently out there might feel faintly disheartened by this, might we as well just not do it? If one recently bereaved mother is going to be upset by the idea, why do it? Why do we need it? If it's a work of fiction, make the enemies all members of Dr Evil's Secret Army. How would that affect how fun the game is?

    The reasons not to do it are overly cautious, but the reasons to do it are non-existent. So why do it?

  • darth_paul #49 2 years ago

    just to point out the hypocrisy of the people: just change the name to NAZI, but keep everything taliban.... that way people cant moan ;)

  • PlugMonkey #50 2 years ago

    "Saying this, Daily Mail are going to be all over this shit like the swivel headed lunatics they are, that's a given. "

    Precisely. The Daily Mail will be all over it. The shitstorm they create will upset a lot of people who Bad09's message of "it's just harmless fiction" doesn't reach. So why do it? Why not just...not do it? Why, in our righteous burning indignation of being gamers, do we actually need this?

  • costa_k #51 2 years ago

    Who cares?MoH is rubbish.

  • Luckz #52 2 years ago

    Amazing 'article' :/

  • actionfitz #53 2 years ago

    you can't get bent out of shape about this then gleefully mo-down allied troops in multiplayer CoD World at War or whatever.
    It's the games equivalent to Red Team versus Blue team but taken in the context of the single player campaign that ships with the game.
    I'll get negged to fuck for saying this... but why is it obscene to play as Afghans killing American/British Troops and not obscene the other way around?
    What with the whole sanctity of Human life concept not recognising maps or ethnicity.

    The guy from Dice is right, its a game.

  • TVoJ #54 2 years ago

    P.S.
    Do you think squadies are upset when they see someone playing call of duty, looking at the terrain and shit, getting all emotional?
    Fuck off do they, most of em are sociopaths anyway. Fucking loads of soldiers play games like this all the time. I mean fuck, what the hell do you think the U.S. Gov developed Americas Army for anyway?

    Think the Koreans are crying in thier milk that some super enhanced U.S soldier gave them an arse tuning before killing a bunch of icey alien mother fuckers?

    I doubt it.

  • bad09 #55 2 years ago

    "So, you disagree that active troops in Afghanistan might be disheartened to hear that their 'supporters' are running around pretending to be their enemies and planting IEDs for fun?

    Persoanally, I don't know either way, but if there is a 1% chance that one person currently out there might feel faintly disheartened by this, might we as well just not do it? If one recently bereaved mother is going to be upset by the idea, why do it? Why do we need it? If it's a work of fiction, make the enemies all members of Dr Evil's Secret Army. How would that affect how fun the game is? "

    Oh come on, how about people who were affected by WW2? Maybe we should we ban burnout because it upsets car crash victims? Were do you stop?

    Your argument is pretty weak and TBH so what if a few are offended? I am a firm believer of freedom of speech so either it's all OK or nothing is. At the end of the day this is fictional entertainment, if it offends you have a choice not to consume said media.

  • PlugMonkey #56 2 years ago

    The people affected by WW2 aren't being affected by it right now.

    That, for me, is reason enough to say "You know what? Out of respect for the fact that you are going through this shit right now, the fact that the funeral might be this morning, I'm not going to do something that might potentially be viewed as a bit crass for no particularly good reason. Because I have no particularly good reason to do it, so why do it?"

    If you can't see how that is different from WWII, then fine.

    Did you see the Raoul Moat GTA hoax? Can you see how making a game about Raoul Moat would be different from Vice City or Kane & Lynch? In the name of 'freedom of speech', would you support a Raoul Moat game? Its all OK, or nothing is, right?
    Edited by PlugMonkey at 09/08/10 @ 17:26

  • mossychops001 #57 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 11:49:27 04-05-2012

  • bad09 #58 2 years ago

    Did you see the Raoul Moat GTA hoax? Can you see how making a game about Raoul Moat would be different from Vice City or Kane & Lynch?

    No I tend to tune out when at the public outcry stuff in the news, people are just too sensitive about unimportant things these days. :)

    Personally I would 100% not care about the making of such a game I would just choose not to buy it. It's no different than Hollywood making films of famous killers or gangsters.

  • dupplawt #59 2 years ago

    I've played as a Nazi German in a multiplayer game before... what's all the fuss about?

  • PlugMonkey #60 2 years ago

    It's no different than Hollywood making films of famous killers or gangsters.

    The only real difference is the timing.

    A bit like how interviewing a war widow on the day of the funeral would be different from doing it another time.

    There's nothing inherently wrong with interviewing war widows, but the timing still matters. How much do you really need the interview?

    Still no-one has come up with a faintly good reason why they actually need this, and why the game wouldn't be just as good if they stretched the fictitious setting a bit further.

    As I said in a previous post, while the argument for not doing it may be weak, the argument for doing it is, thus far, non-existent.

  • el_pollo_diablo #61 2 years ago

    I wonder if the game has YouTube integration a la Noby Noby Boy.
    In a cutting-off-heads-and-uploading-the-footage-directly-to-YouTube type way.

  • bad09 #62 2 years ago

    @PlugMonkey

    So the main problem you have is timing but I find that absurd. It's a game set in a current battlefield and whether that is wrong is purely a personal thing. Why should they gloss over current wars with fictional locations? Is the constant media coverage for "news" purposes tarred with the same brush? Are movies on based current wars at that time the same?

    Sure some may have a real world relation to the product, like the post from Cheapshot about his brother fighting the Taliban, but that does not means the subject is taboo, offensive or in bad taste. I saw the documentary on violent games called Mortal Kombat and one guy on there spoke of his brother being shot in the face in a case of mistaken identity, after that he could not pick up a shooter for years. As tragic as his tale is should we not make shooters to not upset the families of gun crime victims? No of course not and I believe the same of setting your game in current troubles.

    Edited by bad09 at 09/08/10 @ 18:09

  • bad09 #63 2 years ago

    "Someone remind me why 'we' are in iraq/afghanistan again?"

    Oil for Iraq and the CIA are controlling the opium market in Afghanistan now...or maybe a strike against humans from the lizard people though...

    / makes tinfoil hat
    Edited by bad09 at 09/08/10 @ 18:12

  • KDR_11k #64 2 years ago

    Yet nobody considers it immoral to make a game about killing Russians even though Russia is not even our enemy.

  • Gromit #65 2 years ago

    They should quiickly change direction with this and make it into a world peace simulator.

    When the clock counts down, both sides run to a central point on the map where they shake hands and discuss with respect each countries' traditions and religious beliefs. They may share some herbal tea and admire the local architecture.
    When the 30 sec warning flashes up, they will part with a "well it's been nice meeting you, you'll have to come over to that map based more on my country next time... " "oh I'd love to but haven't got that dlc ".... "OH FORGET IT THEN!!!).

  • Soton4084 #66 2 years ago

    On the one hand, I have to admit that I would find it uneasy playing as a Taliban soldier killing British and American troops. However, on the other hand, this will probably be an 18 rated, mature game and that should be taken into account. Previous Medal of Honour games have focused on being authentic and have been respectful and I've got no doubt that this will be the same. The developers shouldn't take the blame for the parents who let their children play this game.

  • PlugMonkey #67 2 years ago

    @Bad09

    I'm not saying we should gloss over anything. I'm saying we should maybe consider the feelings of people currently in difficult circumstances when choosing the subject matter for our entertainment. I take your point about films, but I feel we're still waiting for someone to come out with a reason why we need this.

    If someone was releasing a film about the Afghanistan conflict, and when asked why they made it, they said they thought it was important for people to hear their story of what is happening over there, I think they would get a very different reception than if they said they thought it was a good excuse for a load of people to shoot a load of other people in the face - which is essentially what we have here.

    We're looking at something that makes light entertainment out of something which is still a very open wound for a lot of people. Is that really necessary? Because it's not really in the name of freedom of speech, it's in the name of light entertainment.

    Could we not leave the grieving to grieve and find our light entertainment somewhere else? Would that really be too much of an inconvenience for us? It won't be the developers who are at fault when a journo from the Daily Star doorsteps a bereaved family member (and they will, they did for GTA: Moat), but all things considered, could we not just leave the whole thing well alone and save some people some upset? Unless someone can actually come up with a reason why we should?

    @ KDR_11K
    Nobody is discussing whether it is more or less moral to shoot Afghans or Russians or Germans in a video game. The question is whether or not using a current and active conflict for light entertainment is inappropriate.

  • bad09 #68 2 years ago

    @PlugMonkey

    I don't see why you need a reason TBH. It's a long running war series that has tried to keep up the success of the competition and set their new game in a modern current battlefield which happens to be Afghanistan which means the enemy is the Taliban and in multiplayer (considering said setting and enemy in the game), one team will play the Taliban. What else is there to add?

    Like I said it's a personal choice as to whether you find that offensive but that doesn't mean DICE need to justify the setting or wrong for doing it.

  • Ryze #69 2 years ago

    Oooooh *tut, tut, tut*... this is going to be messy in the media. It'll be interesting to watch as the next couple of months roll on, that's for sure.

    By the way - whenever anyone moans about being negged, I usually add another neg without reading the rest of the comment.

    :p

  • PlugMonkey #70 2 years ago

    Why do you need a reason? Because it's most likely going to result in some people being upset by it. Shouldn't you at least need a reason to be doing that? You know, because you think it's important to make the game work. Or artistically significant. Or even because you just don't like them. But surely you should have something? Otherwise you're just being a bit of a dick.

    Personally, I suspect that may BE the reason. In the same way that I will never believe that the No Russian mission was included for anything other than the hype.

    @ Ryze: Is that aimed at me? I don't care about being negged, but I'd rather someone joined in the discussion than silently click a button that says "YOU R RONG!!!"

  • SalarymanDaishi #71 2 years ago

    It's at times like these I wish the controversial Six Days in Fallujah would've been released. Maybe it would've been the same but at least it always managed to sound a lot more believable and profound than the approach of MOH. The developers aren't necessarily wrong but as for those feelings of uneasiness, they should be reserved for games that aim a bit higher than plain Hollywood...

  • gnrlstuart #72 2 years ago

    'mother calls for violent game ban'. (which her son isn't actually old enough to play anyway) hopefully wont ring through the chavvy'er newspapers before launch. while it may seem a little eerie for some. it is only a reflection of what's really going on out there (on the battlefield). kat williams said it best. its fine to kill 'insurgents' because they are a faceless entity. killing men and teenagers in plain clothes, to me, is just as stirring as being the taliban, shooting down American soldiers.
    all in all. if danger close handle this in a mature Fashion, with absolute maximum respect. it should be fine. and come on, this is coming from a sixteen year old from a council estate in harlesden. im supposed to be an illiterate mugger...
    Edited by gnrlstuart at 09/08/10 @ 19:36

  • ExplodingClown #73 2 years ago

    Could've been worse, at least they're not Iranians. See you next war!

  • bad09 #74 2 years ago

    Why do you need a reason? Because it's most likely going to result in some people being upset by it. Shouldn't you at least need a reason to be doing that?

    In media? Media that is entirely optional to consumers? No I don't think you need a reason.

  • Emmit_Assassin #75 2 years ago

    I was shocked when I first saw it on the beta, and its a fair point that all WW2 games have the Japanese and Germans in them. However, those conflicts are long over and feelings have subsided. The Afghan conflict is still ongoing and there is still a lot of feeling. Its not brave of Dice to do this, its attention grabbing. They may think they're being brave, but I don't agree. Its a little insensitive and just not needed for any reason. In an SP campaign, fine. But don't allow mindless immature kids (no one can deny they'll be playing it) to take control of a Taliban fighter and kill american soldiers.

  • Osahi #76 2 years ago

    Maybe they should change the name into Talibanana or something like that?

    Just to say: I don't (completely) understand all the fuzz. We've been playing as Talibanesque terrorists, in Afghanistan or Iraqi ennvironments for years in games like Modern Warfare. What's the difference? They're not called Taliban. People who are offended should just realise they're offended too soon. Offcourse it's likely people who have relatives or friends in the field will feel awkward, but shouldn't they feel awkward with any war game in a middle eastern setting? Shouldn't they be offended that we make war into a game then? (Not that I mind, I'm offended we're AT war in real life, not that we amuse ourselves with escapism in videogames)

    And yes, the Taliban are extremists that kill inocent people. But is the NATO any better then? Don't we just bomb the shit out of country's because we believe in our cause (democracy in propaganda, oil in real life)? Don't we have stuff like Guantanamo and cluster ammunition? It's a thin line and good and bad all depends on which side you're on. All the people who use the 'Taliban are evil'-argument shouldn't play WOII games then. 6 million jews on the Nazi side, two evaporated Japanese (civilian) cities on the American side, Gulags on the Russian side.

  • bad09 #77 2 years ago

    "In an SP campaign, fine. But don't allow mindless immature kids (no one can deny they'll be playing it) to take control of a Taliban fighter and kill american soldiers. "

    So it's OK to shoot the Taliban but not the Americans. Why is that OK then, because they are the evil enemy?

  • SHPanda #78 2 years ago

    To put this simply... I played the beta, and I didn't even notice.

    I just saw some American/SAS style troops and the usual middle eastern stereotype enemy. I saw no mention of the word Taliban (not saying it wasn't there) and I bet this is/would have been the case for most people, but now it's been blown out of proportion thanks to the media, who basically complain about the hysteria they're creating themselves.

    I admit I did see a mobile phone style bomb, and yes it made me laugh a little, but it wasn't at the expense of anything currently going on in reality, nor was it with any disrespect towards what our brave troops are doing out there at the moment, I just have the ability (like 99% of the population) to separate reality from a fantasy/game based universe. It's not like they're using real soldier names or anything like that and basing it on real events and deaths in the current war.

    Also you'll find that most soldiers especially those who've have life changing injuries have a sick sense of humour as it's one of the only ways to stay positive/sane and they probably won't see a problem with this either, it's just like that Jimmy Carr joke in Manchester that got blown way out of proportion because it "offended our troops" only for the troops to come out themselves and say they were the ones who gave him the joke.

  • yoomazir #79 2 years ago

    YES! I always wanted to play as a taliban and execute pregnant widow women! THANK YOU DICE FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY!

  • Bremenacht #80 2 years ago

    Question for the 'it's only a game' crowd: where exactly do you draw a line? Should there even be a line?

    Would you be happy to gas Jews, rape, hang blacks, mass murder muslims, hack Tutsi's to death, murder children by bashing their brains out on a rock, etc?

    Is it all good, as long as it's in a game? It's impossible to have an immoral game, right?

    Is the the only immoral game one that scores less than 8/10?

    Please explain.

  • El-Dev #81 2 years ago

    I see no problem with this at all to be honest, I'm pretty sure you could play as Nazis in BF1942. Not exactly the nicest of people.

    Though this did make me think about my mate yelling "SHOOT THE MINORITIES!!!" down the mic when we were playing Bad Company 2, simple yet hilarious.

  • coolbritannia #82 2 years ago

    -12 for calling this cheap publicity and inappropriate. There are some cretins in these comments threads.

  • Optyk #83 2 years ago

    Real blood was shed in WW1 and 2. No one fusses about the endless WW games.

  • PlugMonkey #84 2 years ago

    bad09
    "In media? Media that is entirely optional to consumers? No I don't think you need a reason."

    I'm slightly speechless at that. You don't think you need to have a reason before you do something that people will potentially find extremely upsetting, and that you know they may find extremely upsetting? Isn't that basic human decency? I think we may have to chalk that one down to different upbringings. All of a sudden, I'm feeling very quaint and old fashioned. And depressed.

    Two pages in. Still no-one has come up with a reason why they actually want or need this to be in the game. If there's no reason for it, why do it? Except to cause an outrage.

    "So it's OK to shoot the Taliban but not the Americans. Why is that OK then, because they are the evil enemy?"

    Quite. I'm sure they will be portrayed very sympathetically and not just as screaming madmen. :/ My concern is more with our troops and their families, because I doubt the Taliban troops will be exposed to it anyway. Given that it's basically a piece of Western propoganda.

    InsertMoreCredits
    "Regardless of the fact that WWII has been used as a source of entertainment for over 50 years doesn't stop it from still being upsetting for many people, especially for Germans who are constantly reminded of their countries not so glorious past. In fact many games developers and film makers clearly relish rubbing the German people’s noses in it. "

    Do you know, I've never met a German who actually gave a shit. The sad truth is it took them considerably less time to get over losing the bloody war than it's taken us to start getting over winning it.

  • chrisola #85 2 years ago

    Of course, you could argue that ultimately the very idea of making war 'fun' and basing it on real life events is absurd and insensitive to anyone who's life has been affected by conflict regardless of when it happened. War is hell, and always will be...for BOTH sides of the conflict - and really it should not be glorified or made light of.

    Do we need to have a side labelled as 'Taliban' in a war game? No. Do we need to have a side labelled 'USA'? Nope, don't need that either. Both sides could have fictional names and the game would play the same... but my personal opinion is that if you are basing anything on real life events then all parties involved should be represented and featured. Once you go down this route, you have to be 'all in'.

  • CaoSlayer #86 2 years ago

    Will be Rambo an unlockable elite unit for talibans?

  • Redeye #87 2 years ago

    The only reason that DICE are now calling them Taliban instead of 'insurgents' et al is because EA forked out for the licence.

  • Bremenacht #88 2 years ago

    @InsertMoreCredits - I'm asking the 'It's just a game' posters, not the publishers. Publishers only worry if sales may be affected, and given the likely sales from offering war-hungry kids the opportunity to shoot the Taliban, they needn't worry about that. If that's not the point of including the Taliban, I'd be surprised.

    Patrick Liu's comment that "We can't get away from what the setting is and who the factions are" is completely disingenuous. Was the setting forced on them? Did the Taliban demand a role in the game? No.

    To pew-pew is certainly better than to war-war, but I share the distaste at being offered this opportunity to virtually experience a war that's currently consuming lives and will continue to consume lives for years to come.

  • RobotRocker #89 2 years ago

    The only reason that DICE are now calling them Taliban instead of 'insurgents' et al is because EA forked out for the licence.

    Abu Hamza will probably be only available with a code when you buy it new though. Gits

    (Kidding, kidding)

  • dmcclure #90 2 years ago

    @hiddenranbir
    Wasn't this the point of MW2 though? To put across that if Americans were subjected to collective punishment they would strongly desire to resist it? I was amazed that in all the furore this possibility was ignored.
    Russians = Americans
    Americans = Iraqis
    No Russian = 9/11
    Consider also that the only WMD used belongs to the Russians.

  • Reihn #91 2 years ago

    If only the multiplayer had a 'capture the skull' mode.

  • NBAoz #92 2 years ago

    @PlugMonkey:

    You want a reason? How about because that is what these guys are CALLED?? It is only a NAME. It's not like the developers are teaching you how to become a member of the Taliban OR encouraging you to carry out the same exact acts OR asking you to fight for their cause. IF that was the case then I could understand having issue with using the Taliban in this game. As far as I know the multiplayer modes will be the same as they are in all games of this type, eg "Capture the Flag", "Free for All", Team Deathmatch", etc and none of them are specific to the Taliban. It's all about context people.

    In the end, no matter what you do, someone is always going to be offended, but you cannot let that stop you from saying or doing what you want to do (as long as it is not breaking the law) otherwise we lose this little thing called "Freedom of speech"...

  • PlugMonkey #93 2 years ago

    NBAoz: So, you think DICE are going for a realistic portrayal of the hell of war, meaning that it was important for them to get the real life details like this absolutely correct? Oh, no, you go on to say exactly the opposite. It's a mindless deathmatch shooter and it's only a name anyway.

    So if having them actually BE the Taliban will upset people, why not just have them be something else. Does it effect the game? No.

    Oh, because someone will always be upset, so fuck them? I refer you back to posts #33 and #37, as I can't be arsed to write it all out again. (I don't think anyone actually reads these comments threads anyway.)

    But I'll say this again. This is not in the name of freedom of speech, it's in the name of light entertainment. Honestly, games players really are such a pleasant, open-minded bunch. Someone suggests "Hey, should we just not do this? It doesn't actually do anything to improve the game and it might be seen as a bit crass by people currently being maimed and killed in our name" and they harp on about their freedom of speech! Haha! Good on you! Thank goodness YOU'RE here standing up for my rights! I don't know what we'd do without you, laying it all on the line for us like you do! Yeah, fuck the troops. Let's worry about YOUR feelings. YOU deserve more consideration than they do anyway, because YOU'RE here defending our freedom of speech!

    God bless you, son. God bless you.
    Edited by PlugMonkey at 10/08/10 @ 08:04

  • Mydoom #94 2 years ago

    looks like a pretty awesome looking game. shame it's based of a war that is full of lairs. a senceless war where the blood of a countrymen has fallen.

  • NBAoz #95 2 years ago

    @PlugMonkey:

    I agree with you that the name doesn't affect the game in anyway (except for maybe accuracies sake), but if they are basing it on this current conflict and they are using real country names, etc then why not use this groups actual name? Not using it when it is clearly who they are trying to portray would be considered a form of censorship (which comes back to freedom of speech). Calling them another name does not hide the fact that they are still supposed to be the Taliban. Now, if this were a totally fictional game set in space or something like that and there were a bunch of random evil bad guys and they thought it would be a really "good" idea to call them Taliban then yes I would take issue with that because using that name in a scenario like that would be totally pointless and unnecessary.

    I want to make this clear - I am personally against hurting other peoples feelings for no good reason, but I think that there is justification for use of the Taliban name here.

    By the way, how is this not a form of freedom of speech? Yes it is entertainment, but freedom of speech can be included in so many forms, eg films, books, paintings and yes even games. Anything creative can and usually does have some sort of message that it is trying to get across to its audience and there is bound to be something that will offend. In this case the subject matter and the use of the Taliban name will offend, but I just hope that the developer handles it all in a tastefull manner and is respectful to those affected directly by this war living or dead.

    I am not claiming to stand up for your rights, but I am saying it is within EA/DICE's right to say what they want within reason. I think really people are having more issue with the subject matter here rather than a name.

    BTW, I have no idea how anything I have said in any way gives you the message "fuck the troops". I salute them and pray for their safe arrival back home with their loved ones and hope that this conflict ends sooner rather than later. I am against war. War is hell.

    PEACE!
    Edited by NBAoz at 10/08/10 @ 08:35

  • bad09 #96 2 years ago

    I'm slightly speechless at that. You don't think you need to have a reason before you do something that people will potentially find extremely upsetting, and that you know they may find extremely upsetting? Isn't that basic human decency? I think we may have to chalk that one down to different upbringings. All of a sudden, I'm feeling very quaint and old fashioned. And depressed.

    Maybe it is different upbringings TBH, I was brought up a firm believer of freedom of speech even if some don't like what you say.

    I think you are being a little too sensitive on the subject really, did anyone get upset at Jarhead or oscar winning movie Hurt Locker? Did anyone get upset at the war movies made actually during the 2nd world war as propaganda to boost public morale?

    If you were just shooting the evil Taliban would you still be offended or is the main problem the fact that someone has to play the evil Taliban in multiplayer? If it's just playing "the enemy" remember the Taliban were friends back when Russia went there throwing their weight around, the face of the enemy ever changes in warfare.

  • cw- #97 2 years ago

    If they know that we're all sitting safe at home whooping and hollering while acting out their predicament for kicks, they might be forgiven for believing that we're not really taking their situation 100% seriously.

    Rename the troops from US/ British to some fictional names then? Because no matter what you call the enemy, you'll still be shooting at virtual representations of our troops..

  • PlugMonkey #98 2 years ago

    @NBAoz
    Fair enough. Personally, I don't think there is much justification for setting the game in a current conflict. Just because everyone seems to agree that it would have no negative effect on the game to not do it. If they were trying to do something profound, the impact of which would be lessened by them detaching it from reality, then maybe I could see it but I strongly suspect this will not be the case. Maybe I'm too quick to judge, but I can't help feeliing if the idea was to push the medium in terms of making culturally relevent statements, DICE might be saying that instead of "Yeah, it is a bit weird".

    If MoH turns out to be something more than the equivalent of an exploitation movie, then my position may change. At the moment, I think it remains in poor taste.

    It's not that I'm personally over sensitive to the issue, I just don't understand why so many people are so determined they MUST have something that other people will find upsetting even though they can't actually see any real merit in it. That's the bit I don't understand. All the justification is "It's only a game!", but if it's only a game, why is it worth upsetting people over? It's only a game.

    @ Bad09
    I'm really not buying this freedom of speech line. Every day I have the opportunity to say dozens of hurtful things to dozens of people. I don't say any of them though as my sense of tact and decorum overrules my desire to say anything I damn well like, even if it is my right to 'freedom of speech'. Just because you can doesn't mean you always should, and what is the harm in a compromise that costs you absolutely nothing?

  • Muddtallica #99 2 years ago

    @bad09 I think you're missing the point PlugMonkey is making, or at least missing the point which I consider important here. It's not a matter of not liking what MoH has to say here, it's that the game isn't actually saying anything. With the likes of Jarhead, Hurt Locker, even the jingoistic propaganda pieces of the 40s, the use of contemporary war themes and imagery was being used to make a statement, either artistic or political. EA could make the argument that the same is true of MoH's singleplayer narrative, but in multiplayer it's just being used as a dressing for a completely mindless shoot-em-up deathmatch - as they admit, it's "just a game" - and that's what I find troubling. It's like a kid dressing up in a Nazi costume for Halloween, or a monkey wielding a shotgun; they're taking highly charged and contentious material with seemingly no regard or responsibility for the power and meaning of what they're playing with, and that's not something I can defend.

  • bad09 #100 2 years ago


    I'm really not buying this freedom of speech line. Every day I have the opportunity to say dozens of hurtful things to dozens of people. I don't say any of them though as my sense of tact and decorum overrules my desire to say anything I damn well like, even if it is my right to 'freedom of speech'. Just because you can doesn't mean you always should, and what is the harm in a compromise that costs you absolutely nothing?

    Sorry, as much as modern society wants it, you can't pick and choose free speech. The cretinous BNP are proof that no matter how offensive you are to some, people have the right to free speech.

    Free Speech means exactly that, things like tact and decorum are down to your own personal mindset. One mans joke is another mans insult.

  • PlugMonkey #101 2 years ago

    @Bad09
    I think you're deliberately missing the point now. You can defend freedom of speech while simultaneously condemning dicks being offensive for no reason. You just did, in fact, in your last post.

    I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to say or write what they want, but should they not think about the impact it will have before they do?
    Edited by PlugMonkey at 10/08/10 @ 09:50

  • el_pollo_diablo #102 2 years ago

    In response to a couple of recent posts:

    1. It's impossible without playing the game to know if it's "saying anything" about the war.
    2. I have no problem shooting at "virtual representations of our troops". First, they're only virtual representations, and second, they're not our troops. We might come from the same country, but they don't represent us any more than a web designer or a banker does. You'll be calling them heroes next for fucks sake. Read more wikileaks.
    Edited by el_pollo_diablo at 10/08/10 @ 09:55

  • PlugMonkey #103 2 years ago

    el_pollo:

    They represent the government we elected. I didn't vote for them, I marched against them, I don't like them, but that's the system of government we have.

    Oppose the government, but support the troops. Always.

    I think soldiers deserve extra consideration over web designers and bankers owing to the whole maiming and dying angle.

  • el_pollo_diablo #104 2 years ago

    I'm really sorry - you make good points about the government, but I just can't support any of our troops who got on the plane to invade Afghanistan. I fully support those who, on ethical and moral grounds, refused to go.

    I also think the maiming and dying angle applies to those people they shoot. Who are occasionally Afghan web designers and bankers.

  • PlugMonkey #105 2 years ago

    "I also think the maiming and dying angle applies to those people they shoot. Who are occasionally Afghan web designers and bankers. "

    Amen to that.

    We'll agree to disagree on the other one. We shouldn't be there, but soldiers don't get to choose their engagements. Blame the government.

  • el_pollo_diablo #106 2 years ago

    :)

  • Ranger101 #107 2 years ago

    At the end of the day, if there are a lot of people who feel like PlugMonkey, then maybe a line has been crossed and EA should address it. It's not a big deal for them to change a localisation string from Taliban to "Militia"

  • mossychops001 #108 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 11:49:27 04-05-2012

  • JensonJet #109 2 years ago

    It seems to me that there are two distinct camps on this argument:

    1. Typical gamers. Gamers who play shooters like this but have a clear distinction in their heads about real and virtual. They do immoral things in games, but equally things they wouldn't consider in real life. They absolutely don't need to justify or convince anyone about their morals.

    2. Tabloid gamers. I think these gamers are slightly hypocritical (sorry). Gamers who'll take the moral high ground because of a name or a situation in a game, or when it suits them, but have played violent games in the past and justify killing in one game, but can't in another. The simple answer is ignore the game if it makes you feel better.

    I don't think anyone needs to have an issue with this, although I accept if people genuinely feel it's above and beyond their moral boundaries I'm sure everyone respects their opinion. Just because a gamer kills a prostitute in GTA, or kills a child in Bioshock, or kills British forces in a Modern Warfare, doesn't mean anything and is not related to political opinion, moral standards, upbringing or sanity. We're all gamers, and we pretty much spend every minute carrying out actions in games that we would never consider, or care to do in real life. That's part of the appeal of gaming? It's no more wrong than enjoying a film that has violence in it.

  • PlugMonkey #110 2 years ago

    I'm not in either of those camps.

    And frankly, I'm not entirely convinced you have understood what this argument was about. Nevermind.

  • SpaceMonkey77 #111 2 years ago

    Ah whats in a name, they'd be shot in multiplayer, just as much, all the same.

    Its okay if some are over-sensitive about this game, but the best thing to do is vote with your feet and don't buy it. Let other make up their mind.

    I have a friend who served in Iraq, and I'm glad he's now home safely. If he had objections I'd understand them. However, if anyone out there thinks not raising these subjects in media, no matter how brief, is a smart thing, they are very wrong. If its good enough for news, tv shows and movies, its good enough for games, end of.

    I would have liked to have seen a Taliban single player mode, for as much as I might hate them and their acts and warped thinking, there's two sides to every tale. Some people get railroaded into the Taliban against their will, some at a young age. To tell a tale such as this, and the battle of wills that such a person can go through, would have been a positive push for games, without crushing where your support might lay.

  • PlugMonkey #112 2 years ago

    Its okay if some are over-sensitive about this game, but the best thing to do is vote with your feet and don't buy it. Let other make up their mind.

    That wasn't the point either.

    Nevermind.

    I agree with you about the Taliban campaign. It'll never happen though.

  • Pistonhead #113 2 years ago

    Why is it ok to play games about WW2? What does it matter if it ended years ago and there have been films about it etc? It still happened. People alive today fought in that war and/or lost friends and relatives.

    Yet games about that war have been around for years. What's any different about this game? Any combat game is imitating real-life situations which may have already happened or are happening every day.

    This is a totally daft argument. Don't get all morally righteous because it's a bit too close to home. War is horrific. Full stop.

  • PlugMonkey #114 2 years ago

    Nor was that.

    ;P

  • britney55 #115 2 years ago

    Interesting article thanks ! Britney from
    poker en ligne france