Analysts criticise EA's MOH Taliban cut

By Wesley Yin-Poole Published 1 October, 2010

Pachter: "No uproar about Nazis in COD."

Videogame analysts have criticised EA for renaming Medal of Honor's Taliban faction to Opposing Force, one even accusing the US company of "caving in".

Today EA confirmed it had dropped the Taliban moniker for the faction that fights against Allied forces in the multiplayer section of the game.

It said it took the decision in response to feedback from soldiers and their families.

"I'm a little surprised and disappointed," Wedbush Securities analyst Michael Pachter told Eurogamer.

"I think that the political pressure is pretty silly, and don't think most gamers care. While it's definitely in bad taste to play as the Taliban, it's historically accurate to portray the conflict as having two sides, and technically appropriate to allow a player to play either side.

"The crazy thing is that there has been no uproar about the ability to play the Nazis in Call of Duty multiplayer, and that's been offered for a long time.

"Nobody can claim that the Taliban are any more evil than the Nazis, but apparently the Politically Correct police don't care about bad guys from their parents' or grandparents' generation.

"My preference is to see developers make games the way that they want, and to let the market decide if it's a good idea or a bad idea. In this case, the backlash wasn't from the gaming community, but from the press, and I think it's a mistake to cave in.

"For the record, I'm not a fan of the Taliban, and wouldn't mind seeing them fight the Nazis in a game, so that no matter who wins, one of them always loses - sort of like Alien vs. Predator."

Last month EA CEO John Riccitiello blamed the controversy surrounding Medal of Honor on the media.

"No one noticed [the game] ... 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 said. "I think that says more about the newspapers than it does the game industry."

Colin Sebastian, of Lazard Capital Markets, said EA "probably wants to have its cake and eat it too".

"The game has already benefited from a lot of free publicity from the Taliban issue, and so they can now take the high road and remove that label from the game.

"On the other hand, I suspect they also don't want to take the risk that the issue blows out of proportion and distracts from the other qualities of the game."

Jesse Divnich, vice president of Capital Research at EEDAR, labelled EA's decision "absurd".

"Personally, I would have implemented at least the option to toggle between the word Taliban and OpFor.

"And what is most absurd about all of this is simply a name, a seven letter word. They are not changing how the game looks, plays, or feels, they are simply doing a 'Find All: Taliban, Replace With: OpFor'.

"I hope those who opposed Medal of Honor's release woke up this morning with a smile on their face, only to look themselves in the mirror and realize how hallow of a victory they've truly won."

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

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 (49) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • M_of_the_sys #1 2 years ago

    "For the record, I'm not a fan of the Taliban, and wouldn't mind seeing them fight the Nazis in a game, so that no matter who wins, one of them always loses - sort of like Alien vs. Predator."

    I think you'll find we all lose... so the saying goes.

    Edit: or is it just 'we lose'?
    Edited by M_of_the_sys at 01/10/10 @ 19:23

  • menage #2 2 years ago

    Well, there are worse guys out there then Pachter. Sure he has a useless job but well, at least he actually plays games.

    And who wouldn't trade with the fucker if they had the chance, just spewing random useless quotes and playing videogames. Sounds a bit like what everybody here does, only he's being paid for it.
    Edited by menage at 01/10/10 @ 19:26

  • Smoped #3 2 years ago

    "Nobody can claim that the Taliban are any more evil than the Nazis", now I'm not one to go quantifying evil on a scale of one to ten or anything, but I'm pretty sure many can and do claim just that.

  • shamblemonkee #4 2 years ago

    scale of evil

  • Sunworship #5 2 years ago

    In terms of evil results achieved, the Taliban could work hard for another century and not be able to hold a candle to the Nazis'. They are small time, like a hundred others before them.

    Of course the Stalin/Lenin regime out-evilled them all.

  • teh_MBK #6 2 years ago

    haha, haven't read the entire article yet, just saw that Pachter was "surprised". I sure wasn't, it was bound to get cut before release and the only reason it existed was to generate some cheap marketing.

    On another note, does this mean that books and movies will have to use "Opposing Force" aswell?
    Edited by teh_MBK at 01/10/10 @ 19:48

  • RevanNL #7 2 years ago

    Pachter is full of it, in every WWII shooter the nazi's are called Axis in multiplayer and OPFOR is the name for the terrorists in MW2 as well.
    Edited by RevanNL at 01/10/10 @ 20:59

  • ChthonicEcho #8 2 years ago

    It's a plain action game. It doesn't need the Talibans as an opposing faction for it to work. It's as though writers of the Iron Man film went out of their way to specify that Tony Stark is captured by Al-Qaeda.

  • Fab4 #9 2 years ago

    Ah yes, the famous Axis Zombies

  • Bremenacht #10 2 years ago

    Fantastic. Gamers trapped between agreeing with Pachter or agreeing with EA's decision. Lose/lose. Possible answer: call Kotick a douchbag.

    Nazis vs Taliban is a good idea. Adding Daleks would be cool too. Imagine: 1943 - Daleks storm the Nazi stronghold of Monte Cassino, only for Talibans to nuke the site from orbit.

  • coolbritannia #11 2 years ago

    Hey Pachter, just watching the news, looks like the nazi's have killed another half dozen of our troops today. You're right, no one complains about that do they.

  • bad09 #12 2 years ago

    So will it be gay space marines in MOH now?

    That molehill sure looks big to some people....

  • DreadedWalrus #13 2 years ago

    Is it just me, or is this the most outspoken Pachter has ever been? Normally he just makes predictions and analysis and stuff. This time he's expressing active disappointment in the actions of a company after the fact, and speaking out against the "Politically Correct police". It feels a bit weird.

  • jackdoe #14 2 years ago

    Who the hell cares if they are called the Taliban in multiplayer? Honestly. People calling out freedom of speech in the US obviously don't understand the concept of freedom of speech. Like trying to impose your will on EA to keep the Taliban name in for example?

  • AHiFi #15 2 years ago

    Pachter - Ever heard that old dozzy 'time heals all wounds'? I don't mind Pachter a lot of the time (in that, I ignore him), but just fuck off regarding this one.

    coolbritannia = spot on mate.
    Edited by AHiFi at 01/10/10 @ 20:55

  • makeamazing #16 2 years ago

    Ah leave Pachter alone, i like the guy, someone asks him a question, he replies and they post it, you cannot blame the guy for answering...its not his fault that websites post everything he says, he has just as much right to an opinion as everyone else.

  • BadFlounder #17 2 years ago

    What a mo.ron

    There WOULD be an uproar if troops were currently dying fighting the Nazis. I'm not big on political correctness but this is a little too raw for most consumer tastes. And freedom of speech has NOTHING to do with it. If you want no one to buy the game and to piss off every veterans group around then keep the Taliban name. Seriously people...is this really that hard to understand?

  • SpaceMonkey77 #18 2 years ago

    As an analyst, we are all kind of jealous that Pachter gets paid to do this. And like anyone, he's not always right, but on this EA/Taliban stuff, I respect him adding his view, which I agree with for once.

    There's nothing worse than a company bragging that they are going to do something, to then gutlessly u-turn on it. It was unforgivable for Sony and BC, and its unforgivable for EA here, even if its just a name. They are compromising gamers who want their games to not be a pointless fragfest, but entertainment that should challenge our minds, as well as our gaming skills. And again, this is also another fine example of why games win never be taken seriously, if they can't challenge and do things film and tv do.

    And the funniest thing, these same complaining masses, happliy went to see the Hurt Locker and The Green Zone, films about an ongoing conflict, yet no one bat an eyelid of disagreement opposition. Didn't the Hurt Locker also win an Oscar?

    Nice one, Pachter.

  • dirtysteve #19 2 years ago

    You notice there's no cry from Ireland to remove British soldiers on sensitivity grounds. As was mentioned, it takes a bit of journalistic skullbuggery to get these things started.

  • brseg #20 2 years ago

    Its not so much about comparing the Taliban to the Nazis, but more the fact that the Taliban are killing our troops right now. If a conflict is over, it feels a bit more acceptable to play the enemy.

  • BillyBrush #21 2 years ago

    EA get attacked for including Taliban.

    EA then get attacked for removing Taliban.

    Poor bastards :/


    Not sure about that...that's two news stories for the price of one, a week before their game comes out. I say poor bastards who buy it.

  • Sabreman64 #22 2 years ago

    I'm betting EA had all this planned and the Taliban's inclusion and later removal were deliberately designed to drum up publicity for the game.

    First, it's announced that the Taliban are in the game. There's a kerfuffle as everyone and his dog attacks EA for featuring the Taliban in the game. Several weeks later, EA announce the removal of the Taliban from the game, and claim that this was due to public pressure. Thus, EA appear to be the good guys, and have (coincidentally) generated a load of publicity for their latest mediocre Medal of Honour game.

    *sarcasm*Well done, EA.*sarcasm*
    Edited by Sabreman64 at 01/10/10 @ 22:40

  • ZeroAX #23 2 years ago

    I think the world might be coming to an end. I actually agree with patcher

  • BuddyChrist #24 2 years ago

    Erm... I think there is a difference...

    We were not making Nazi games... While we were still at war with them.

    We make light of it now, but at the time we (the royal we) were to busy being strong for our country, and busy not dying.

    The difference here is that everyone was afraid, which forced everyone to be brave.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't give a rats ass what a bunch of pencil pushers (or code monkeys) put in their next game.

    Good men (and women) died for us to do whatever the hell we want (in the greatest respect to all).

    Oh- and for the record, you can't piss off a terrorist. That's like splashing the ocean. If they weren't pissed off at everything, shit man- they wouldn't be terrorists.

    They don't give a shit what we think, leave them in the game, and equip them with tickle sticks, get the guy who does Mario's voice to voice them all, but ensure you pull religion out. No god can save those douchebags.

  • Plewt #25 2 years ago

    Buddychrist

    What the fuck are you on about, or rather, what are you on?

  • ucankurbaga #26 2 years ago

    Sure America invade any country they want and they get away with it, when people from those countries shows resistance and attack back they get branded as "terrorists"...

  • DAN.E.B #27 2 years ago

    No!
    When they target and blow up civilians they are branded as terrorists!
    Edited by DAN.E.B at 01/10/10 @ 23:50

  • Thedni #28 2 years ago

    I never truely understand the sheer hate for Mr. Pachter.

    Granted his intrests are financial but he does seem to be a decent chap. TBH it's good to see a money man that actually believes in the industry and takes an active intrest rather than simply reads up on fiscal reports.

    I don't know why every damn gaming site quote him to buggery either.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #29 2 years ago

    To be honest I think it was a stupid idea to begin with.

    Big fan of freedom of speech here but let's not kid ourselves: We are still talking about a video game here. We can argue all we want about how it's not just a stupid hobby etc. but the fact is that gaming in general has so many other obstacles yet to overcome that we haven't even remotely arrived at the point yet were we (gamers/developers) can point with our fingers at the bad press and we really are all about free speech.

    I'm obviously a gamer myself but I think there is a clear (and huge) difference between WW2 shooters and this. WW2 has been over for quite some time and this makes it a lot easier for me to see CoD as a game. I don't see the point in using Taliban in a game only because it's a game. It's disrespectful to so many people; War is not a game and should not be made into one.

    WW2 and the Nazi regime is still very present in people's minds. However I don't feel as disrespectful when playing any WW2 game. I can't really tell you why. Maybe it should feel wrong and doesn't because I'm too young and did not have to go through any of this.

    In the end I understand people saying Taliban should not be used. There is nothing to be gained from it.

  • craziii #30 2 years ago

    that is bad. controversy is good for sales you know. like that airport level in mw2.

  • Soton4084 #31 2 years ago

    WOW! I think this is a first... Pachter actually saying something that the majority of gamers will agree with.

  • Phishfood #32 2 years ago

    I don't think the political pressure is so silly. Its a current event. Would probably have been ok to use "Taliban" a few years after the war is over.

  • HenryFitz #33 2 years ago

    I can't think why they changed the name to Opposing Force when Derka Derka was available.

  • 32768Colours #34 2 years ago

    Its ironic - although perhaps a somewhat facile comparison - that the Taliban seek to oppress the free world with their religious dogma, and yet we usually seem to do a fairly good job of oppressing ourselves through political correctness and pandering to any vocal minority whenever they can present themselves as a victim. It's that which I find offensive, because those that genuinely deserve protection from prejudice and exploitation are often smothered by petty self-interest groups that kick and scream their way onto the front of the sensationalist newspapers.

    This is why we have issues like MacDonald's being berated constantly for causing obesity while the idiots that stuff their faces daily on Big Macs are the "victims" of a poorly represented product. Of course! Let's ignore the fact that eating a Big Mac meal every day is an individual's choice. You can't claim to be a victim if the damage caused is instigated by your own free will! Also I feel very strongly that censorship should never be implemented on the whims of the politically correct.

    Featuring an extremist group like the Taliban in a game was always going to be a difficult and sensitive issue. The question EA needed to ask was not "Have we upset people?" generally but instead "Are the majority of complainants genuinely victims of the atrocities caused by the Taliban?"

    Or are the complaints predominantly from the Political Correctness Brigade who are offended by proxy; wheeling out their well-rehearsed outrage at the audacity of whoever gets in their way?

    Serving soldiers made a career choice and with that came the very real prospect of active duty so its perhaps difficult to see them as victims.

    But what about the families of the fallen soldiers? If a teenager loses a parent in a current war he is an indirect victim of that war, so is it fair to ignore these peoples' concerns and make light entertainment of the perpetrators just because we have the democratic freedom to do so?

    Under these circumstances doesn't deciding to remove the Taliban from a game simply represent the thin sliver of the empathy that separates us from terrorists and oppressive theocracies? Whether of course EA removed the Taliban out of respect or just as a matter of damage limitation we'll never know, but hopefully it was for the former.

    We should in fact save our vitriol for the mainstream journalists who seize upon others' grief for column inches and profit; they're the ones that skew these issues, redouble extreme viewpoints, reinforce petty censorship and marginalise real victims.
    Edited by 32768Colours at 02/10/10 @ 03:00

  • Silvervein #35 2 years ago

    This is all about history and politics. Political correctness isn't anything new, the only difference now is that it isn't officially sponsored by the government (as it was in soviet russia during cold war, for example).
    It would be nice if people crying with outrage about terrorists oppressing free world would take the time to read history books, namely the ones dealing with actions of US in the middle east during cold war and the period that followed it.
    Thinly veiled excuses of the 'saving free world' kind don't really cover the fact that their happy trip to the middle east to secure oil and other resources is the main reason their own citizens that happen to be in the military and dying there.

  • Quixz #36 2 years ago

    Im sure the name change will result in a few handred thousand more copies being sold..

  • RKOwned #37 2 years ago

    taliban is a little more recent threat then nazis, pachter.

  • Sunyavadin #38 2 years ago

    Congrats on killing a lot of goodwill in oder to appease people you never needed to appease, will never be customers, and have no impact on the choices of your actual customers, or your sales. Good job, EA.

    Next, how about Activision start making copies of CoD with no Allies in, because they need not to offend nazi groups?

  • misinformed #39 2 years ago

    A weeks worth of advertising and all they had to do was change two words of text in game.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #40 2 years ago

    Featuring an extremist group like the Taliban in a game was always going to be a difficult and sensitive issue. The question EA needed to ask was not "Have we upset people?" generally but instead "Are the majority of complainants genuinely victims of the atrocities caused by the Taliban?"

    Or are the complaints predominantly from the Political Correctness Brigade who are offended by proxy; wheeling out their well-rehearsed outrage at the audacity of whoever gets in their way?

    Serving soldiers made a career choice and with that came the very real prospect of active duty so its perhaps difficult to see them as victims.

    I think this is simplifying the matter a bit too much. We can talk quite a bit about the US' problems and the reasons why many people join the Army but that's besides the point. I think it is irrelevant WHY you are a victim. It's also extremely ignorant to distinguish between complaints by families or soldiers and complaints from people who are not directly involved in the war.

    The problem is that noone is gaining anything at all by calling the enemy Taliban. It is so completely irrelevant (it's a game!) that it's even more ridiculous to count how many people they are offending. It's just plain stupid to offend people just because you can and hide behind a huge 'it's just freedom of speech' banner. It does not matter why people are offended. This is not some important political decision but something that has really no importance whatsoever in the game.

    I'm glad EA decided not to use the name Taliban in the game; I still think it was a stupid idea to begin with and they should have never even tried to use that name in the first place.

    I also find it despicable that analysts are now criticising EA. It is extremely unfair because EA did nothing wrong. If Pachter is such a big fan on free speech then I encourage him to release a game with the Taliban instead of cowardly hiding behind his office desk spouting nonsense at every possible moment.

  • monkeywithnoeyes #41 2 years ago

    difference being Nazis's are about as much of a current threat as the zombies on Cod are.

    As for the arguement that nobody complains about film's that are showing the current conflict...well it's a question of taste and respect isnt it? I dont remember seeing point rewards fly up on the screen during the Hurt Locker whenever somebody got shot in the face

  • sir_smooch #42 2 years ago

    I agree that there should be an option in the menu to toggle the name on or off. People should always have a choice. I thought that was the one good thing about cod mw2. at least people had a choice to play the controversial parts of the game or not.

  • Sunyavadin #43 2 years ago

    No, no... we can't give gamers choices like that. They mustn't be allowed to make their own minds up, think where free will being allowed in a progressive, western nation might lead!!!

  • Xboxfanuk #44 2 years ago

    All those gamers in the middle east will now boycott this game.

  • 1471 #45 2 years ago

    "Wedbush"?

  • albinac #46 2 years ago

    it dose change how the game feels because when you are on the allied side you are figthing nobody instead of the evil taliban and that will change some peoples sensation of the multiplayer.i hate anyone that uses violence to make people suffer and that gose for the taliban as well. i will not be buying this game precisely for takking out the name of the real evil and placing it with a no name that is historically incorrect.

  • Lord_Gremlin #47 2 years ago

    Actually Nazis are worse than Taliban. One can sympathize with Taliban to some extent, but it's really hard to sympathize with Nazis or justify them.
    Well, my grand grandfather was killed by Nazis during WW2.Maybe I'm biased because of this. However my other grand grandfather kicked their fucking arses right all the way back to Berlin.

    Alright, I'm off to buy Wolfenstein.

  • Sunyavadin #48 2 years ago

    Basically, on reflection, EA have given in to the demands to make the enemy in this a faceless, dehumanised force in order to appease the right wing who do everything they can in other media to dehumanise the opposition in times of war so as to prevent anti-war sentiment from gaining so much momentum.

  • silent_snake #49 2 years ago

    We have yet to see the "Apocalypse Now" of video games.
    And judging by this news it will be a long wait.
    Edited by silent_snake at 04/10/10 @ 12:21