EA axes Taliban from Medal of Honor

By Wesley Yin-Poole Published 1 October, 2010

Tali-banned!

EA and Danger Close Studios have axed the Taliban from controversial Afghanistan shooter Medal of Honor.

In a statement executive producer Greg Goodrich said the decision to change the name of the Taliban faction to Opposing Force was taken in response to feedback from soldiers and their families.

"In the past few months, we have received feedback from all over the world regarding the multiplayer portion of Medal of Honor," said Goodrich.

"We've received notes from gamers, active military, and friends and family of servicemen and women currently deployed overseas. The majority of this feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. For this, the Medal of Honor team is deeply appreciative.

"However, we have also received feedback from friends and families of fallen soldiers who have expressed concern over the inclusion of the Taliban in the multiplayer portion of our game. This is a very important voice to the Medal of Honor team. This is a voice that has earned the right to be listened to. It is a voice that we care deeply about.

"Because of this, and because the heartbeat of Medal of Honor has always resided in the reverence for American and Allied soldiers, we have decided to rename the opposing team in Medal of Honor multiplayer from Taliban to Opposing Force.

"While this change should not directly affect gamers, as it does not fundamentally alter the gameplay, we are making this change for the men and women serving in the military and for the families of those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice - this franchise will never willfully disrespect, intentionally or otherwise, your memory and service.

"To all who serve - we appreciate you, we thank you, and we do not take you for granted. And to the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines currently serving overseas, stay safe and come home soon."

Medal of Honor has suffered criticism from some quarters for being set in Afghanistan and depicting an on-going real world conflict, and allowing gamers to play as the Taliban in the multplayer portion of the game, developed by Swedish outfit DICE.

Last week EA organised a last minute PC open beta for Medal of Honor to "clear up any misunderstanding" about the Afghanistan setting of the modern war game.

And in August Defence Secretary Liam Fox demanded shops refuse to sell the game because it allowed players to kill British troops as the Taliban.

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 (118) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • Bremenacht #1 2 years ago

    Good.

  • FortysixterUK #2 2 years ago

    That's probably a good point.....either way still looks like an excellent game.

  • cianchristopher #3 2 years ago

    Actually it looks like a shit game! And this was a complete clusterfuck. Shame on you EA, either stick to your guns, or don't bring up this crap in the first place.

  • NimbusTLD #4 2 years ago

    So a mere name and maybe even a skin change to appeases the masses who won't even play the game. No matter that everything else is the same!

    What I am curious to know is who is the opposition now.

  • bodypopper #5 2 years ago

    There was a reason Infinity Ward avoided making direct reference to real life conflicts in MW and MW2. I'm surprised EA went this far.
    Edited by bodypopper at 01/10/10 @ 15:14

  • iamian #6 2 years ago

    ok, so they're not called the taliban anymore but a rose by any other name and what-not...

  • Koozer #7 2 years ago

    Quite a lot of people died in World War II, I demand any reference to Germany, Nazis, the Wehrmacht, Russia, the Soviet Union, Americans, the British, Italians, Japanese, Polish and French to be removed from every WWII game ever made.

  • Bremenacht #8 2 years ago

    You could almost imagine this thing being entirely orchestrated. They've got shit-loads of publicity for using the Taliban in the game, played the authenticity card, and now they play the good guys after all.

    Oh, another entirely bogus term to add to their MoH bullshit bingo list - 'reverance'. Yeah, right.
    Edited by Bremenacht at 01/10/10 @ 14:59

  • BOBBYLUPO #9 2 years ago

    I think they'd probably shift a few more copies if they called them 'zombies'.

  • darleysam #10 2 years ago

    It's a safe move, but pretty funny that everyone's okay because they're now not called the Taliban any more.

  • Fightclubber #11 2 years ago

    Its like releasing call of duty 2 and renaming the Nazi's bastards instead. Doesn't seem like much of a change tbh
    Edited by Fightclubber at 01/10/10 @ 15:00

  • MiniAmin #12 2 years ago

    Provided it doesn't affect the gameplay, I don't care; we won't really know whether it's a good decision until we've played the campaign and examined how enemies are depicted therein.

    To whoever negged my post: Films which have featured the Taliban haven't received as much notoriety as this game. It all depends on how the subject matter is treated and I think it's too early to make a definitive concurrence with this decision because we don't know how the Taliban will be portrayed in the campaign.
    Edited by MiniAmin at 01/10/10 @ 15:27

  • BigJonno #13 2 years ago

    Ahh yes, WW2 references. Clearly something that happened 70 years ago should be treated exactly the same as something that is happening right now.

    As for the change, I think it's absolutely hilarious. Instead of being Taliban shooting at American troops, you'll now be generic terrorists shooting at American troops. I see that the name is the important bit and not the fact that people are being shot at and dying.

  • Iain #14 2 years ago

    Well, I'm not even going to get into the ridiculous notion of "renaming them changes everything"...

    To me it seems - and I wouldn't mind being wrong about this - it seems like a long-planned PR move. Let the controversy generate public awareness of the title and once that's milked go on and "do the right thing".

    Edit: Bremenacht beat me to it.
    Edited by Iain at 01/10/10 @ 15:03

  • CosmicFuzz #15 2 years ago

    It's only the multiplayer.

  • sfp_noodle #16 2 years ago

    "In a statement executive producer Greg Goodrich said the decision was taken in response to feedback from soldiers and their families."

    Or it was, you know, taken because they were afraid of the Daily Mail. I find it hard to believe that after over a year of dev time, they would take this decision 2 weeks before releasing the game for a reason like that.
    Edited by sfp_noodle at 01/10/10 @ 15:06

  • NewbieZilla #17 2 years ago

    NimblusTLD

    "So a mere name and maybe even a skin change to appeases the masses who won't even play the game."

    Thing is, a lot of gamers were saying they weren't going to buy a game where you can play as a Taliban. Largely people from Mericuh, naturally.

  • onezeonx #18 2 years ago

    EA pussy out ffs

    People need to realise its a GAME!
    Grow the fuck up and worry about other things

  • sonicyoda #19 2 years ago

    They've changed it to the Talibum.

    This whole situation is a load of balls. Yes, perhaps it is a little insensitive to include Afghanistan and the Taliban in a game when that conflict is actually ongoing but violence is violence and I don't think the setting really makes the game any more controversial than the last war-based FPS.

    Also, there's a game on the App Store called Air Assault which is entirely based in Afghanistan. Haven't seen any complaints about that one!
    Edited by sonicyoda at 01/10/10 @ 15:10

  • JeffGerstmann #20 2 years ago

    THIS IS A STEP BACK

    I support the mission in Afghanistan and think the only way we can (keep) 'win'(ing) is by staying

  • FogHeart #21 2 years ago

    EA: DICE, can you roll over?

    DICE: Edit...Find/Replace...Taliban...Insurgents. >OK. done.
    Edited by FogHeart at 01/10/10 @ 15:09

  • pantbash #22 2 years ago

    US/UK etc forces have killed civilians.


    As a Civilian myself I demand that the "Allied" forces be referred to as Opposing Force #2

    Anything else would be an attack on decency.

  • waynenot #23 2 years ago

    So now the single-player's a shit game without the Taliban in it.

  • HisDudness #24 2 years ago

    They should have renamed them to The Man in the Black Pajamas...

    Worthy fuckin' adversary dude...

  • geeza2020 #25 2 years ago

    This fucking stinks of a nasty corporate PR stunt to me. I know people above have said this already, but it's worth repeating. EA have done this just to get some free publicity.

  • TenMinJoe #26 2 years ago

    "Opoosing Force" is the silliest opposition name ever. This kind of scatological humour has no place in a serious video game.

  • tokenwebster #27 2 years ago

    Yh i dont really understand this, i dont understand why a name change is so necessary. I dont see how it can be offensive, its not like its some racist or homophobic being said. And i completely agree with NimbusTLD, these people probably wont be playin the same.

    Just annoys me how games get so much stick for doin thing that tv, films etc. have all ready done.

    EDIT: Now im readin SniperSAS comment and i kind do understand a bit better from that respected but i think peado and rapist is abit extreme.
    Edited by tokenwebster at 01/10/10 @ 15:31

  • local_celebrity #28 2 years ago

    Alan: I’m not driving a Mini Metro. I’m not driving a Mini Metro. I’m not driving a Mini Metro.

    Lynn: No, no it’s different. It’s called a Rover Metro now.

    Alan: They’ve rebadged it, you fool!

  • el_vicio #29 2 years ago

    Right, so anytime a faction that has caused death among civilians shouldn't be named in a videogame?
    I guess the US Army'd have to go, too

  • schnide #30 2 years ago

    This is cowardly. I've been defending EA for being brave and taking a stand against doing exactly what they've come out today and done. I'm really disappointed by this, and I was just about to preorder.

  • TheRealBadabing #31 2 years ago

    Irony, thy name is SniperSAS.

  • hy4000uk #32 2 years ago

    shit game gets shitter

    it's not s if anyone who played the beta would ever buy this tripe anyway

  • des #33 2 years ago

    garbage,preorder canceled...what a flop

  • ozzzy189 #34 2 years ago

    total arse

  • TheElfishGene #35 2 years ago

    "we have decided to rename the opposing team in Medal of Honor multiplayer from Taliban to Opposing Force."

    Why bother in the first place? maybe some reasearch was in order before not after embarking on such a difficult and controversial subject.

    Oh and ps "opposing force" sounds bollocks!

  • icematt12 #36 2 years ago

    Local Militia or Rebels would be a better name imo.

  • kangarootoo #37 2 years ago

    "this franchise will never willfully disrespect, intentionally or otherwise, your memory and service."

    Oops, too late. By about10 years.

  • Spekingur #38 2 years ago

    Failyban.

  • Toothball #39 2 years ago

    Bit of a cop out, but I'm not overly worried either way. Wasn't going to be playing this regardless.

  • gjgjg #40 2 years ago

    "...change the name of the Taliban faction to Opoosing Force..."

    oose? oopse

  • RobTheBuilder #41 2 years ago

    Sensible decision, but a rather sad one for freedom of gaming expression and story.

  • kangarootoo #42 2 years ago

    @SniperSAS

    "The taliban are responsible for the murder and torture of westerners and their own countrymen"

    Hmmm. Not quite sure how to break this to you...

  • kobashi #43 2 years ago

    Pathetic EA! Guess it is okay to go and kill taliban fighters but as soon as they fight back people start complaining!!

    "The taliban are responsible for the murder and torture of westerners and their own countrymen"

    Er no, have a look at the invading forces first!
    Edited by kobashi at 01/10/10 @ 15:44

  • Skurmedel #44 2 years ago

    EVIL RUSSIANS. If we can't have talibans we must have vily pinkos with ulterior motives! There must be a cliché enemy in there somewhere.

    Also, there's a fair bit of flag waving in this game it seems.
    Edited by Skurmedel at 01/10/10 @ 15:41

  • alimokrane #45 2 years ago

    It did the job of getting them the attention they wanted and now they removed it to look like heroes ...... They should add a bunch of americans there waving flags and clapping to complete the picture! What a joke!
    Edited by alimokrane at 01/10/10 @ 15:40

  • Cappy #46 2 years ago

    The should have just replaced it with editable text boxes so players can call the participants in the conflict whatever they want.

  • local_celebrity #47 2 years ago

    I'm devastated. I was really looking forward to shouting "DEATH TO AMERICCAAA!" to all the idiots on Xbox Live.

  • kangarootoo #48 2 years ago

    On the subject of freedom of speech, that isn't really what this is about.


    EA have always said this game is supposed to be honouring and respecting troops (eyebrow, come down from up there). So if troops and their families turn around and say "hang on a minute, that bit there is a bit off" they surely have to respond. If they didn't... their lack of sincerity might be revealed for exactly what it is.

  • OllyJ #49 2 years ago

    Quick better get the voice actors back in!!!

  • Mr_Brown #50 2 years ago

    I can see why they'd do it and it's fair enough. Considering this is based on an ongoing conflict I think it's a good move to tread carefully.

  • Markitron #51 2 years ago

    This kind of censorship is bullshit. For how many years have ppl been shooting british soldiers while playing as a Nazi? Either everything is OK or nothing is.

  • Frandroid #52 2 years ago

    He's saying it's only the multi-player that's affected, so you won't be playing as the Taliban. The implication there is that the single player is untouched and you'll still be facing the Taliban in campaign mode.

  • beckyh #53 2 years ago

    So it looks like the taliban, shits like the taliban and shoots like the taliban, but actually it is only the opposing force. Oh thats okay then :-/

  • ucankurbaga #54 2 years ago

    I was looking forward to play as a Taliban side, this is really a let down. People forget that this is video game after all...

  • Tangled #55 2 years ago

    I wonder if this means the Taliban will mass-cancel their preorders.

  • djed #56 2 years ago

    The ww2 german army was composed of many a pimply faced youth, just like in any other army. Renaming them bastards or any other such derogatory term would be quite disrespectful of those brave men who made the ultimate sacrifice.

    Edit: Maybe they could have renamed them 'freedom fighters'? sry.
    Edited by djed at 01/10/10 @ 15:59

  • Slikz #57 2 years ago

    Face it EA.........

    You're scared of Bill O'Reilly!

  • Darren #58 2 years ago

    Good. I'm glad to hear this.

    And there was EA claiming that they were doing nothing to upset anyone and that article actually states that the changes have been made after consulting with the soldiers and their families! A bit of commonsense should have told them that using a generic name, even if everyone knows who they're supposed to actually be, would be the far less offensive option. It is what other war games have been doing for years!!!

  • beckyh #59 2 years ago

    They should have changed it to Russian, French or Cornish, as we are not at war with them.

  • kangarootoo #60 2 years ago

    "They should have changed it to Russian, French or Cornish, as we are not at war with them."

    Give it time. I'm sure we'll get around to it.

  • LazyNinjaUk #61 2 years ago

    I'm really confused, are people kicking up a stink because you play as the Taliban or just because they are just in the game?

    Either way is it really going to have such a negative social or culture impact? Do people think that gamers who play as the Taliban are going to get a taste for being genocidal, religiously repressive murders and want to do it for real?

    Isn't it funny that no-one took offence to Socom 2 which also let you play as the Taliban and Al Qaeda, maybe because it wasn't big news back in 2004....

  • captain_Carl #62 2 years ago

    What the fuck EA? Stick to your guns

  • Bradach #63 2 years ago

    ...but they're both opposing forces... they should have called the allies 'Opposing Force 1' and the Taliban 'Opposing Force 2' (lol)

  • Demiath #64 2 years ago

    But, EA, what about those destitute young Pashtun boys fighting for what they strongly believe (rightly or wrongly) will ultimately mean the difference between genuine independence for their own people or endless domination by a foreign military presence? We don't have to agree with their political analysis or show any understanding for their less than enlightened views on, say, crime prevention and social policy in general, but at the very least one ought to allow these ultimately tragic Third World losers the courtesy of not being reduced to nameless cannon fodder for the West's most formidable army...

  • darkmorgado #65 2 years ago

    Good evening, infidelssssss. I KILL YOU!

    /achmed

  • dirtysteve #66 2 years ago

    I'm confused, are we supposed to applaud this gutless act of kowtowing? Now it's heroic Allies vs. Dastardly Fuzzy Wuzzies?
    Edited by dirtysteve at 01/10/10 @ 16:39

  • Skurmedel #67 2 years ago

    I don't know what a playable nazi is, is it Herman Göring with a gold plated Desert Eagle? Maybe he has the suicide ability from Call of Duty 4 as well. But you can fight for the nazis, by playing the Wehrmacht, in Call of Duty. And you can in a bunch of other games as well.

  • Boomerang #68 2 years ago

    "So what will the yanks be shooting ....? "

    Other yanks normally.

  • Timbercottage #69 2 years ago

    I'm Jewish, please remove the Nazis from WWII games IMMEDIATELY or I will send a strongly worded letter to you!

    You cowards! What's wrong with having the Taliban in a game about a war with the Taliban? I am confused you spineless cowards.

  • mumblyjoe #70 2 years ago

    Pussies

  • darth_paul #71 2 years ago

    actually, playing as a Taliban an shooting Xbox Kansas rednecks would have been a plus :p
    Edited by darth_paul at 01/10/10 @ 16:52

  • Seehuusen #72 2 years ago

    I wonder how the voice acting changes from....die you motherfucking taliban fuck ! to....die you motherfucking opposing force fuck....it just doesn't make any sense does it?

  • kangarootoo #73 2 years ago

    "I'm confused, are we supposed to applaud this gutless act ofkowtowing"

    Well given that the whole thing was an exercise in inreasing sales, its not really gutless is it? I mean, people seem to be talking as if this was originally some kind of statement in the name of truth and freedom of speech and so on. It was never a gutsy act, so how can it now be a gutless one?

    They did it as part of a marketing effort, and this recent change is just an updated version of that same marketing effort. Nothing has change really, other than one of the words in the press release.

  • alan_stealth #74 2 years ago

    At least one can assume the soldiers of WWII had something worthy to glorify.
    Not "wars" fought over oil under the facade of liberation.
    Is the final level a stage where you get to play the part of the Private Military Firm protecting Oil Assets in newly "liberated" "Not-Taliban Land."

  • SpaceMonkey77 #75 2 years ago

    Lol, that a bloody joke. We all know the damn game has already been printed. You had the balls to do this, and you get scared days before release. Sorry EA, you guys had my vote for trying to treating adult gamers with some respect, but this has lost you my vote. Games didn't need more 'never take me serioussly' castration, as we get enough of that from those who don't even play games.

    Guess I'll be playing my 360 copy offline then. When that update comes I'll be blocking it. If its not optional, you suck more, EA.

    I can see every film or tv series, never mentioning the Taliban ever again. Not! And no one will ever care about such bs once and after the game is released.

    What this tells gamers is that even though the game is for us gamers, you all don't matter, just your money. What a sad, pussy whipped day, for the games industry. Shame on you, EA.

  • shadow1979 #76 2 years ago

    In that closing statement I imagined waving American flags and patriotic music in the background. A bit overplayed dude.. I respect anyone that fights for their country but paint an honest picture if your going to do a game on war about real and current events EA!

  • darth_paul #77 2 years ago

    @SpaceMonkey77
    well, i think that the Taliban would only have been playable online (Team Coalition vs Team Taliban)... in the single player campaign, dunno if youre supposed to play any other faction that Tier1.

  • hiddenranbir #78 2 years ago

    Thing is, we'll know who the opposing faction are. The fucking Taliban.

  • darth_paul #79 2 years ago

    @hiddenranbir
    its the same in Modern Warfare 1+2

  • GamesConnoisseur #80 2 years ago

    Ban Hammer struck against the TaliBAN!

    So now renamed as Opposing Force, with the same geometries, textures, bump mappings, colourings. Unless they gonna censor those too?!

    Media gonna plays this up, but felt it would be right move as can easily see Tea Party movement getting so het up about this in US should this went ahead. Result could have been bad for gamers in US and elsewhere, so better to be safe.

  • BritishBlue1 #81 2 years ago

    SniperSAS is odds on favourite for being a Daily Mail reader.

  • Iliad #82 2 years ago

    What's the point in changing the name from Taliban to Opposing Force unless they change the appearance of the "Opposing Force" so they no longer look like the "Taliban"? It seems an utterly pointless.

    Either keep it the way it was or change both the name and appearance. Or, alternatively, show better foresight when planning the multiplayer. How did they not see this coming?

  • Power_n_Glory #83 2 years ago

    It's too early to release this sort of game. Still a touchy a subject that splits people and EA should have known better.

  • chrisola #84 2 years ago

    /cancels pre order

  • j3mSpur #85 2 years ago

    Farcical. I bet the Taliban are miffed the game isn't honoring their brave fighters by calling them what they are.

    Surely extending the logic EA have applied here the Allied forces deserve a vague label also... How about "western oil interest defenders"?

  • SavageEvil #86 2 years ago

    This world needs to grow up a little bit more, all the time spent living and people have yet to come to terms with war. You think that with the way people are by nature that wars would be obsolete, lol. Not on your life, as long as people have differing views and people who will go to extremes to get their point across, there will always be conflict and strife. Not sure what families of the deceased soldiers are thinking, considering this game is still played from the victors POV, so you get to be one sided in the main game and only in the multiplayer can you use the "opposing force". So what exactly is the problem? Not sure if anyone playing this game will be traumatized, but people have been traumatized by irresponsible parenting, lazy and ulterior motive driven politicians.

    The big stink is over the use of the name Taliban. Sometimes I wonder if it weren't for sensationalistic people like Bill O'Reilly and epically strange news channel like Fox, not many people would have made noise about this at all. EA seems like they planned this from the get go, lots of people know about the game now and watch as the sale will be pretty high as the game itself is now in the public eye. Marketing is getting extremely smart and can pretty much pick and choose what is the next big idea, look at how people respond to MoH, just because of the name Taliban used in the game. EA marketing squad are on point, US is full of people who will be offended by one thing or another, just choose who you want to prod and unleash your marketing campaign. Money talks and ideas how to make lots of it is driven by attention you can garner, no such thing as bad attention when marketing a game. I'm surprised no one tried to sue EA in the US, since that is what Americans tend to do, abuse their right to sue for any and everything. Not all are sue happy, but there are a lot who try to abuse the justice system and they get away with it.

  • mkreku #87 2 years ago

    So it's now officially OK to kill Afghani people while being US/British, but not OK the other way around?

    Well, thank you, EA, for strengthening the "us" and "them" views of the world. More xenophobia for our young. Yay.

  • M_of_the_sys #88 2 years ago

    What are you complaining about? You still get to shoot at Americans*.

    I kid.

    I imagine that a lot of sales will come from parents buying this for their kids. What will parents think when they hear in the media that this game lets you play as the Taliban. At least this way they can point to the rating system and say "ahem" when/if parents complain.

    /removes corporate thinking cap

    *I don't personally play a game to kill any nationality. I'm absolutely comfortable knowing I'm making some chav controlling a fictional character weep into his controller.
    Edited by M_of_the_sys at 01/10/10 @ 19:17

  • MakyoDetector #89 2 years ago

    Those imperialist bastards!

    But we still get to shoot Americans in MP so all is well.

  • Osahi #90 2 years ago

    Oh, such good news. Nobody has to be offended when they can play with skins that look like Taliban, with weapons the Taliban use and in Afghan-like environments, because they're called 'OPPOSING FORCE'. This changes jack shit and EA should've stuck with their guns. People are offended? Booyah. Freedom of speech and art. There is NOTHING this game did wrong...

    This is so sad, I can't even laugh with it.

  • coolbritannia #91 2 years ago

    Why the fuck are you retards negging the guy who said good? Tossers.

  • patchbox360 #92 2 years ago

    black ops it is then

  • coolbritannia #93 2 years ago

    I love how some of the guys in here saying this is ok are the same outraged folk from the dead Relic dev threads.

    Oh how fickle your moral outrage is. You don't think that playing as the enemies of this state, who are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of our servicemen is offensive?

  • kobashi #94 2 years ago

    So it's now officially OK to kill Afghani people while being US/British, but not OK the other way around?

    Well, thank you, EA, for strengthening the "us" and "them" views of the world. More xenophobia for our young. Yay.

    That was my point, EA just did what the media have done in this country since the war started. Why can some people not accept that the US/UK is an occupying force and the taliban alongside other mujahideen groups are resisting occupation.

    honestly do people seriously expect the people in afghanistan to just allow UK/US british soldiers to walk in and do what they want?
    Edited by kobashi at 01/10/10 @ 19:43

  • CARL05 #95 2 years ago

    Pre-order cancelled..

  • Guildenstern #96 2 years ago

    Hey, EA, how about you just don't try to commercialize slaughter of people that is going on RIGHT NOW, you greedy fucks?

  • karaokequeen3 #97 2 years ago

    Cop-out

  • SpaceMonkey77 #98 2 years ago

    Well, if their sales suffer, after a huge pre order surge, that's there problem. Can't play both sides of the coin, EA. Next time, stick to your guns.

    And the most annoying thing about all this, is that I was backing EA and MoH, after Activision screwed us previously with MW2.

    Seems you can't put your trust in big publishers anymore. Once this bs has died down, I'll pick it MoH on the cheap, as i still hope its worth a play.

  • Brakara #99 2 years ago

    I would actually be more "offended" to have to play something so generic it's called "Opposing Force". Where's your creativity, EA? I mean, what's next, calling Afghanistan "Foreign Country"? That would be neat, playing a game where you fight in Foreign Country against Opposing Force. *sigh*

    Also, didn't EA say they took the realism and power of their war games seriously? Well, I guess only until it hurt their ability to profit from those wars.

    Edit: put "offended" in quotation marks since Vergis69 thought I was serious.
    Edited by Brakara at 02/10/10 @ 02:17

  • dirtysteve #100 2 years ago

    Also, it's still set in Afghanistan, current era right? Surely then, given those facts, it's Taliban in everything but name. If they had chosen a fictional country/war like Modern Warfare, there'd be no need rename the enemy, especially something as weak as 'Opposing Force' (makes me think of Half-Life: Opposing Force though)

  • Vergis69 #101 2 years ago

    Oh ffs. What a sad "Im offended" world we live in. Grow up.

  • coolbritannia #102 2 years ago

    The lack of tact in this thread is baffling.

    Here's your fucking reason why people found this offensive:

    http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSh...

  • GDS83 #103 2 years ago

    Just shows how superficial the decision really was to name the opposing force as the Taliban if all they have to do is simply switch out the name.

    Of course, we should all expect the most likely reason: The publisher knew it would be a superficial change to name the opposing force as the Taliban (after all, it's for the faceless multiplayer mode) but went ahead anyway for publicity (which they obviously got). It is likely the publisher intended from the start to switch it out, but only after most of the milk ran dry from the publicity teat.

    Now, if the publisher actually created a campaign around such aspects, perhaps even offering a dual-campaign where you experience the 'other side' and they dealt with it with respect, with actual issues / points raised throughout about the situation (highly unlikely any dev would be capable of this, I know), then I would actually respect such a creative decision. Also I would disagree with the pressure (censorship) to put a halt to such an angle.

    However, as it is, this is just using a provocative name for the sake of naming it as such, for publicity. I just find that in poor taste.
    Edited by GDS83 at 01/10/10 @ 23:18

  • Blazewamp #104 2 years ago

    i just dont get it its not real its a game your not killing anyone

  • Hastur #105 2 years ago

    And while your at it EA, you may as-well rename the coalition forces as 'invading aggressors'. Because you wouldn't want to dishonour the civilian casualties they caused.

  • Tad59 #106 2 years ago

    I like how people complain about the Taliban name being in the game, but having the America forces and British forces in the game is okay. It's pathetic! people need to grow up!

  • ExplodingClown #107 2 years ago

    @coolbritannia: Aside from all the usual arguments about taking the Queen's Shilling, at least those people get shipped home for a decent burial and a lot of crocodile-teary hypocrisy about 'heroes' from the people who sent them off to get killed, but who in life would have crossed the street to avoid them. When the guests at a civilian wedding party get blown into twitching lumps of smoking meat by a drone-fired missile, they get maybe a few centimetres of ink at the bottom of page 7 and some mealy words about how 'regrettable' it all is. Funny old world, eh.

    (If you want to paddle further in the moral sewer, read up on the fun trophy-hunting of the U.S. 'kill team' who have been wasting innocents just to collect trophies of skulls, teeth etc.)

  • Farzlepot #108 2 years ago

    Oh God no.

    We won't be able to shut the Daily Fail up for weeks now. The gloating will be endless!

  • Acrid #109 2 years ago

    No Taliban, No Sale

  • Genji #110 2 years ago

    Call them Opposing Force, call them terrorists or whatever the hell you want, they're still the Taliban. Changing the name doesn't make the problem go away.

  • DoctorFouad #111 2 years ago

    they still taliban, changing the name wont change the reality....

    all this story we call it marketing, purpose : increasing sales.
    Edited by DoctorFouad at 02/10/10 @ 07:43

  • paulf #112 2 years ago

    there's hundreds of families of dead soldiers who probably wish removing the taliban was this easy in real life

  • Codger81 #113 2 years ago

    [insert name of generic anti-American & anti-British organisation here] solider, killed you.

  • GratefulGhoul #114 2 years ago

    Not so subtle PR move from EA right from the beginning. You can almost see them around a smokey board room saying "We will create controversy like MW2 last year to get free publicity, then change the name at the last minute to maintain respect"

    Smells of first class bullshit, the fact everything is the same but a name has changed to keep the non playing masses happy is laughable.

  • coolbritannia #115 2 years ago

    Exploding Clown, you don't have to tell me, I've been involved with CIVIC's campaign for greater transparency around civilian deaths in Afghanistan for nearly 5 years. Currently we try and buy off the civilian relatives of the dead with a pittance, the US forces ignore the numbers of dead or intentionally misrepresent them. However, 2 wrongs do not make a right, and playing as the taliban, a force that terrorizes Afghanistan civilians more than the coalition does, is not in good taste.

  • Skywise #116 2 years ago

    So we can't shoot the Taliban online now? Can we still shoot the Americans?

    EA, why don't you stop exploiting current conflicts you greedy bastards :p

  • chrisola #117 2 years ago

    as long as i can still kill yanks with friendly fire, i'm happy.

  • White_Waffle #118 2 years ago

    Ah, people, you have to understand that the Taliban are the evil ones and we are the good ones. Many don't know that but in other parts of the world, there are a lot more evil people being born.
    Wait, you say that's not the true? But how would you explain why they do those numerous bad things that they do, which have been going on for thousands of years?

    What? The bad guys are in power there because of interventions in that region from USSR and USA? Millions were killed by those kind of interventions world wide? But come on, that's in the past.... What is important now, is that there are those bad people there. Sure mistakes were made in the past, but now we have to fight them and bring those poor souls over there some liberty and free them from their oppressive believe system.

    Well this time it will work and we make it a happy place over there. It's not like there are the same ideas and same kind of people in power that were 20 years ago. Oh wait... (there was some sarcasm in a few parts above)

    Some controversy and a modern fresh war place will be good for sales, i think that was the intention behind the setting.

    And for all those outraged patriots, because real families in the western world lost their children! - I could say: I'm sure there are a lot, a lot more foreign children dead then western children or what kind of defensive war is waged on foreign soil?...
    But I'm gonna stick with: Those soldiers that were killed in those places knew that they went over there to eventually shoot people, maybe also civilians if unlucky. Of course all of them did it because of their patriotism and not because of quite some money.
    Show some respect says the press...