MOH "not about the Taliban or Al-Qaeda"

By Tom Bramwell Published 16 September, 2010

Goodrich says it's about honouring soldiers.

Greg Goodrich has told Eurogamer that the new Medal of Honor uses the Afghanistan war, Taliban insurgents and Al-Qaeda because that's where the game's stars, the Tier One Operators, were deployed.

"The story that we wanted to tell was about these guys in this initial fight, and the individuals that we hooked up with happened to be doing it there," the game's executive producer explained in an interview published today.

"It's an historical fiction inspired by these guys in an historical event, like Saving Private Ryan... That's where they were."

Speaking in light of the recent controversy surrounding MOH's playable Taliban soldiers, Goodrich said the game may be set in Afghanistan but the story it tells is designed to honour Coalition forces, not to exploit them.

"Games are the medium of our time. You and me - this is our medium and how we tell our stories.

"I think a large majority of the individuals who are currently talking about it [negatively] in that way don't understand that this is our best way of being able to honour a group of individuals, to tell a story, to shine a light on a community of warriors that need to be honoured," he explained.

"This game is not about the Taliban, it's not about Al-Qaeda, it's not about the Chechen or Uzebek fighters. It's not the Afghan war. It's about a group of individuals going through an event and us paying tribute to that."

Last night EA CEO John Riccitiello waded into the debate, blaming the media for the furore surrounding the game.

"The controversy... kind of caught me by surprise," he said at the Bank of America Merrill Lynch Media, Communications & Entertainment Conference in California.

"No-one noticed" the option to play as a Taliban soldier in multiplayer "until a journalist decided to put the game box in front of a mom who'd lost her son in Afghanistan to create some controversy," he insisted.

"I think that says more about the newspapers than it does the game industry. Having said that we're incredibly sensitive to the challenges that a non-gamer who doesn't really understand what I've just described might imagine when a journalist who also doesn't understand a game describes it to her. It tends to excite a little bit of angst."

Check out the full interview with Greg Goodrich and our in-depth hands-on impressions of Medal of Honor's single-player campaign elsewhere on the site today.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000. Follow him on Twitter.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (26) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • RedPanda #1 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 14:31:59 28-01-2012

  • SAMagic #2 2 years ago

    "No-one noticed" the option to play as a Taliban soldier in multiplayer "until a journalist decided to put the game box in front of a mom who'd lost her son in Afghanistan to create some controversy," he insisted.
    It was the first thing I noticed in the beta when I started a multiplayer game.

    And I am not a mom who has lost my son in Afghanistan, last time I checked.

    It's some sort of feedback loop where controversy causes more controversy due to them talking more about the controversy.

  • LazyDan #3 2 years ago

    Games may be the medium of our time, but that does not mean they're all of a sudden the most appropriate medium for anything you care to put forward. An action game depicting 9/11 allowing you to pilot the planes in one mode wouldn't make it to the shelves, nor would a game depicting the 2005 tube bombers.

    Everything he said in this interview just came off slimy. Reminiscent of Tony Hayward playing down the significance of his company's oil spill. Like RedPanda said, this is quite clearly not about honoring soldiers, it's about giving your action game a marketable and controversial hook in order for it to sell more copies. Almost as if they saw last year's 'No Russian' Modern Warfare 2 controversy and focused on how to top that, rather than top Modern Warfare as a game.

  • Praetorianer #4 2 years ago

    1. Commercial games are about honouring money.
    2. EA is more about honouring the money above any other aspect that may be a motivation in making a game.
    3. PR is about honouring the shallow word and hypocrisy.

    But does anyone really care or intend to not buy that game because of that? Don't think so.

  • Freek #5 2 years ago

    Eveything is about money. Books, movies and music are not made for chairty either. That does not mean however that the people making them don't also have artistic goals in mind. Same goes for games.
    Edited by Freek at 16/09/10 @ 14:55

  • Praetorianer #6 2 years ago

    Of course nearly everything is about money, but if a game's Producer tries to tell me, that the game is about honouring a specific group of people, and someone like Riccitiello tries to tell people, that he is surprised by such a reaction by the media (which are hypocritical too, of course)...*puke*.

  • Freek #7 2 years ago

    They're goal is be truthfull to the situation in Afghanistan. The soldiers there are fighting the Taliban so that's what that faction is named. They choose to be factually correct rather then dance around the subject by calling it "the insurgancy" or "resistance".
    And it is surprising since terrorists factions have been part of games since the days of Counter Strike.

  • Soton4084 #8 2 years ago

    EA could dispel a lot of the controversy regarding this issue if they were to donate a small percentage of their profits made on the game to the Help for Heroes charity.

  • el_pollo_diablo #9 2 years ago

    I hope it's brave enough to ask the question "should we be honouring these people?"

  • HenryFitz #10 2 years ago

    He had me at "Dicks fuck assholes."

  • Darren #11 2 years ago

    All I can say is that this Greg Goodrich must be pretty stupid (or perhaps downright ignorant and insensitive) to not have realised the controversy a game would attract from featuring the Taliban in multiplayer. I mean that's why other developers tend to use fictional settings and enemies in their games if they want to mirror recent conflicts rather than basing them on actual recent real-life events, which are obviously going to upset those who've lost people they know in them.

    I don't honestly see how a game that is all about killing purely for fun so someone else profits from it honours anybody personally. It's not quite the same thing as making an emotional, genuinely moving movie like Saving Private Ryan is it?

  • Power_n_Glory #12 2 years ago

    If you want to honour them, build a statue in their memory. But seriously, if this were made by a different company, I could almost swallow the story. But because it’s EA, I know he’s talking rubbish. They rarely take an artistic approach and they’ve always been about attracting the widest audience and exploiting the best opportunities to promote a game.

    They’ve just tried to go one better than MW. This is the same company that released Desert Strike just after the first Iraq War. They’re the originators.

  • Skurmedel #13 2 years ago

    @HenryFitz: I love you.

  • kangarootoo #14 2 years ago

    "No-one who cared noticed until a journalist decided to put the game box in front of a mom who'd lost her son in Afghanistan to create some controversy"

    Fixed that for you.

    And as for, "I think that says more about the newspapers than it does the game industry". I hate that type of sentence. Its not about what says more. What it actually says if anything, is SOMETHING about a number of subjects.


    "Having said that we're incredibly sensitive to the challenges that a non-gamer who doesn't really understand what I've just described might imagine when a journalist who also doesn't understand a game describes it to her. It tends to excite a little bit of angst."

    At the risk of flaming, I don't think this can be blamed entirely on misunderstanding. It is a game based on a current war. That is a truth. Now we know from these pages that some gamers are fine with that are some have a problem with it. When we disagree, it is not as a result of a differing levels of understanding, it is because we disgree on some core points or values. So why should we assume that if a non-gamer holds the very same viewpoint that we know some gamers hold, it must be different reasons (such as a lack of understanding)?

    As an industry, we really don't help ourselves, if our main response in these sorts of situations is "you just don't understand games". We wouldn't say that about films or books or plays. We are always saying that games deserve the same level of respect as those other types of media.... except in instances like this when it serves us to pretend they are exempt or different in some way, and that first hand understanding is required before even the basic can be tackled.

    I would have expected better from Riccitiello. Its never good when the result of someone "wading into the debate" is to try and dilute that debate into tit-for-tat hyperbole.
    Edited by kangarootoo at 16/09/10 @ 16:24

  • kangarootoo #15 2 years ago

    @Power_n_Glory

    EA or someone else, I honestly think the last (if only) war game made for truly genuine reasons was Cannon Fodder on the Amiga. All other war games are primarily based on war because it sells.

  • Bremenacht #16 2 years ago

    I agree with many of the comments above - it's been a +1 frenzy! :D

    Every time someone associated with this game describes it's purpose as 'honouring' or 'paying tribute' or one of many other little white lies, I'm reminded of puke.

    Anyone who thinks it's a bit of constructed controversy designed to raise the game's marketing profile and hopefully sell more copies is correct - it's all that matters, as evidenced by the EA CEOs location for that quote: The 'Bank of America Merrill Lynch Media, Communications & Entertainment Conference in California'. Very subtle, Tom!

    The EA CEO's correct in that this story says more about the newspapers then the games industry though. It shows that in spite of their terrible reputations, newspapers can still show moral sensitivity whereas the games industry apparently has none.

    I'll not kick off an argument again, but I'll just say I find anything that exploits a situation where people are dying every day is offensive. Films and books and other media may be able to offer a meaningful message, but all this game offers is pew pew - certainly in the MP mode anyway. Maybe SP offers a lot more.
    Edited by Bremenacht at 16/09/10 @ 17:19

  • Power_n_Glory #17 2 years ago

    Wasn’t the original ‘Medal of Honour’ inspired by ‘Saving Private Ryan’? Because the film was successful, EA decided to capitalise and make a game that tried to recreate the opening battle on the beach. With EA it’s about striking when the iron is hot and WWII was hot at that moment. Now, modern warfare is hot and it’s why they’re jumping on this bandwagon and repeating Call of Duty’s steps. Moving the action from WWII to modern conflicts.

  • riceNpea #18 2 years ago

    ' nurses need honouring.

    we need to make a long hours caring for the sick simulator?
    what there's no money in it?
    can they do it whilst shooting an AK at the terminally ill?
    we'll have to pretend the ill are zombies and the nurses are ex-military?

    gentlemen we have a product. '

  • Vergis69 #19 2 years ago

    People are offended and concerned because you play as Taliban etc? then play a different game. Be offended. I dont care.
    Some people in this screwed up world really need a reality check.

    I agree with the "Honouring soldiers" comment. Nah its about honouring your next payment to a ferrari or boat.

  • ExplodingClown #20 2 years ago

    Mountains
    Of
    Hype

  • Oh-Bollox #21 2 years ago

    nor would a game depicting the 2005 tube bombers.

    Only cos the police would be incapable of shooting you, picking off Brazilian plumbers instead.

    Hur hur.

  • callum9999 #22 2 years ago

    Why is it so bad to play as the Taliban, but the countless games featuring Nazis - who tried to invade Britain and were responsible for the holocaust - are fine?

    The Taliban still being around is irrelevant. It's a (mainly) fictional video game intended to make money, not an ideology EA are trying to brainwash people with.

  • metalangel #23 2 years ago

    @el_pollo_diablo: Don't blame the soldiers, blame the corrupt old men back home who sent them to war.

  • HenryFitz #24 2 years ago

    Until a popular anti-war game is made, the potential of videogames to elucidate the serious issues of war is only theoretical. The mechanics of shooters militate against realism or emotion or subtlety, and the consequence-free environment removes most of the dramatic tension. Think of a classic war film like Full Metal Jacket and try to imagine the video game equivalent. When the sniper at the end says "sh..oot me shoot me, Shoot Me", most players wll say "well, if you insist" Kerblamm. Then they might give her a teabagging.

    Plus, the idea of shooting everything that moves is all right when depicting mythical wars like World War II, where all the Nazis were bad and the death of 100,000+ civilians in the bombing of Dresden was only a minor mishap. In the relatively complex sociogeography of the Afghanistan conflict though, endlessly slaughtering ignorant peasant guerrillas so that the country can one day be ruled by petty and cronyist tribal warlords - well, it's not quite so heroic, is it? It doesn't particularly matter in the world of the videogame, where the fun is all that counts, but when marketing shills start talking about realism and depicting the story of a conflict, you have to think that this is just going to be trite, politically retarded propaganda appended to some shooting mechanics. There is, in fact, nothing wrong with the setting, the ongoing nature of the conflict or the presumably callous disregard for pixellated life, because it is a shooter, and who cares in a shooter? My problem lies in the claims of realism, the aspirations to factuality, the pretensions of balance. Without those, it'd be just another videogame, instead of the insidiously bigoted glorification of colonialism it's likely to be.

  • Death-Jester #25 2 years ago

    If they wanted to honour the soldiers, they should've made a game that didn't suck FAT HAIRY BALLS!
    (going by the late 'open beta' [read: preview] impression. I doubt it changed much)

  • benfresh76 #26 2 years ago

    Absolute, utter, unmitigated, odious, shameless bullshit. I can't believe a real person came out with this crap, these people should be ashamed of themselves.