Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[The Headliner]

Shops refuse to enforce Medal Of Honor 'boycott'

Retailers and the UK video games trade body have both spoken out against UK Defence Secretary Liam Fox's suggestion that there should be a boycott against Medal Of Honor and it's supposedly 'Un-British' option to play as the Taliban.

The Defence Secretary, who isn't even a real fox, was quoted by The Sunday Times as saying that the new Medal Of Honor game was 'tasteless' and that 'it's shocking that someone would think it acceptable to recreate the acts of the Taliban against British soldiers.'

We'd agree with him about the game being tasteless but his comment about British soldiers proves that he's actually no idea what the game is like and has certainly never played it. Medal Of Honor features only U.S. and Taliban soldiers, with no evidence so far that other countries are even mentioned in the game.

Unfortunately he carried on with his rant, claiming that, 'it's hard to believe any citizen of our country would wish to buy such a thoroughly un-British game. I would urge retailers to show their support for our armed forces and ban this tasteless product.'

Based on our preview of the game it's more likely people will avoid it because the multiplayer isn't very good.

Anyway, as you'd imagine UK retailers haven't exactly been eager to take up the call, with ShopTo and Grainger Games already confirming that they will be stocking the game.

Trade body ELSPA has also spoken up, saying ' There should be absolutely no link inferred or implied regarding support for our troops serving anywhere in the world based upon a retailer selling this game.'

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has already tried to play down Fox's comments, by categorising them as purely 'a personal view' and not the harbinger of any official ban.

What do you reckon? Is there something "not quite right" about playing as the Taliban during an ongoing conflict, or is it just a game? Does it enlighten players to both sides of a war, or encourage undue sympathy towards real-life terrorists? Is it something you're keen to play yourself?

[Ethan]

Well I dont really see a huge problem with it, but I can see why people are upset. Goes against the country rah rah stuff. Don't buy it if it upsets you.

[Kraul]

I can understand why some would be upset with it, but I'm not.

I'm still waiting for another game where I can play through the campaign as part of the Emperor's army or a Nazi against the Allies. I haven't been able to do that since some flight fighter sim that came out like ten years ago (forget the name).

In a medium like video games, we should be able to experience both sides of every picture whenever possible. Even if it means you play as a "bad guy" and fight the "good guys" instead. Some people might be encourage to be bastards after playing as the Taliban, or as Nazis, or whatever, but then again those same people would probably find encouragment to be bastards from a box of Twinkies or their neighbor's dog, so...

As for it being something that's a current conflict, on the opposite side of the spectrum, maybe it would help some people actually understand the other side a little more. Satan forbid that we show the other half, the "enemy" in a war, in a slightly sympathetic light at all (a pet peeve of mine is how 'the enemy' is always treated as 100% bad, when that's hardly ever the case).

Besides, the majority of people that would be playing it would just be playing the game like any other - not giving a second thought to the characters they're playing.

On a side note, do the same people against this game want to ban American movies about the Revolutionary War, too? You know, those un-British films about Americans killing British military personnel and mostly portraying them as soldiers of an evil/tyrannical empire? Oh, I guess those are just movies, they're not the same...

[gungrave17]

well medal of honor is basically just a carbon copy of modern warfare, so why should i buy the game

[Kraul]

Well...Call of Duty came out after Medal of Honor, so to be more accurate:

Call of Duty is a copy of Medal of Honor who is now a copy of Call of Duty. Yet neither is a copy of the other, just similar games in the same genre.

[gungrave17]

i mean the new medal of honor is a copy of modern warfare 2

[The Headliner]

On a side note, do the same people against this game want to ban American movies about the Revolutionary War, too? You know, those un-British films about Americans killing British military personnel and mostly portraying them as soldiers of an evil/tyrannical empire? Oh, I guess those are just movies, they're not the same...

The argument when it comes to movies versus games is that movies are a passive medium, in which you receive the story as an impartial bystander, while games require you to become actively involved in the events and roleplay as those characters, becoming responsible for their actions and taking on their motivations as your own. A movie director can try and sway you with his portrayal of certain sides in a war, but you're not obliged to partake in his bias to the same extent that you are when adopting the roles defined by a videogame.

[Kraul]

gungrave: Yeah, I know. I'm just saying that they've both "copied" eachother at one point in time or another, but I don't really consider either series to be a copy of the other. No more than I would consider Bugs Bunny a copy of Mickey Mouse.

As for the topic of this thread, I want to point out one thing that bothers me that I didn't mention in my original post:

The UK Defense Secretary Dr. Liam Fox criticized the game in advance of its release stating that it was "shocking that someone would think it acceptable to recreate the acts of the Taliban against British soldiers. At the hands of the Taliban, children have lost fathers and wives have lost husbands. It's hard to believe any citizen of our country would wish to buy such a thoroughly un-British game. I would urge retailers to show their support for our armed forces and ban this tasteless product."

I've heard similar arguments against these types of games before, but these people always seem to take the side that can best be described as "our side getting hurt at all is a crime against the soldiers and family affected on this side". Basically, if you're going to talk about how it's tastless to fight against fictional digital soldiers that so happen to represent "your side" because of the real-life tragedies that came from similar incidents the game imitates, then don't leave out "the other side".

Okay, so British soldiers have died and British families have suffered for it. Maybe you'll even argue the same point for soldier's and families from the same side of the war (say, Americans for example), but what about the soldiers and families of the "enemy"? Does the pain of the sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, etc not count when it's not the "home team" taking the hits? I guess every one of the soldiers/rebels that have died at the hands of a Brit, or an American, or an Australian are just pure evil scum that deserve no sympathy and are probably barely human, right?

While I disagree with their basic "think of the children!"-like stance, if they're going to take it, then try not to such a small minded nationalist while you're at it.

The argument when it comes to movies versus games is that movies are a passive medium, in which you receive the story as an impartial bystander, while games require you to become actively involved in the events and roleplay as those characters, becoming responsible for their actions and taking on their motivations as your own. A movie director can try and sway you with his portrayal of certain sides in a war, but you're not obliged to partake in his bias to the same extent that you are when adopting the roles defined by a videogame.

My argument for that is that the majority of gamers seem to pay little to no attention to any real-life moral issues when playing a game. They're just playing a game. One moment you're on team A attacking team B, the next you're on team B attacking team A. I rarely hear people mention much difference between the two unless it's purely gaming reasons (this team has better weapons, stages, etc).

And that if it's going to have any kind of affect on someone, it's an opportunity to educate. It seems so many people are quick to think that understanding or humanizing enemies is a bad thing. So many would rather think that all Nazis were evil people for example, but games can give you a chance to live part of a random Nazi's life and see that maybe he wasn't all that much different than you - just caught in a different situation.

I guess that's a huge reason why they have such an issues with this. They don't want people to feel sympathetic to the Taliban and risk having them turn against "the good guys" in one way or another. The truth is that most people that play the game probably won't give it a second thought, many of them will probably still have whatever opinion they have for the Taliban after it that they had going into it, and the few that will be affected are no different than the few that might be affected after reading a book or watching a movie or having a particularly intense dream.

I guess my biggest problem with all of this is just the knee-jerk reaction these people have towards doing anything but villainizing the things they don't like.

[The Headliner]

And that if it's going to have any kind of affect on someone, it's an opportunity to educate. It seems so many people are quick to think that understanding or humanizing enemies is a bad thing. So many would rather think that all Nazis were evil people for example, but games can give you a chance to live part of a random Nazi's life and see that maybe he wasn't all that much different than you - just caught in a different situation.

I agree with this in principle, but personally doubt (and could be wrong) that a mass market franchise videogame is going to make the effort to illustrate exactly what that situation is, and walk the delicate line between showing how these people you refer to are "just like us" but also how they are woefully misguided, at best. I mean you can humanize the enemy all you want, but there's no getting away from how unconscionable it is to fly passenger planes into the WTC or gas millions of Jews. There's rational empathy and then there's taking off the blinkers, turning them around and putting them back on again. I'm not sure I trust EA Games to strike the right balance in this sensitive area, but that's just me.

[Kraul]

Oh, I agree that EA won't be doing that. I'm just saying the opportunity is there.

I mean you can humanize the enemy all you want, but there's no getting away from how unconscionable it is to fly passenger planes into the WTC or gas millions of Jews. There's rational empathy and then there's taking off the blinkers, turning them around and putting them back on again. I'm not sure I trust EA Games to strike the right balance in this sensitive area, but that's just me.

And the United States is directly responsible for possibly up to 246,000 deaths in Japan - most of those innocent civilians - by being the only country to ever drop a nuclear bomb on another (twice over). And how many other innocents have died during warfare, land disputes, etc by the hands of an American, British, Australian, Canadian, etc soldier? We find much of it easy to justify since "they" are on "our side", but it's all just as inhumane as the WTC attacks or the Holocaust.

Or maybe forceably removing millions of natives from their land by threat (and sometimes not even with that luxury) of lethal action isn't equal to the forced removal of millions of Jews, gypsies, and other persecuted peoples during WWII? Perhaps the forced slavery of thousands in the not to distant past doesn't really compare...

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that everyone has blood on their hands of one kind of another. I'm not trying to excuse anything like the WTC attacks, but to look at it as an act of pure evil that must have been thought up by the devil himself like so many people seem to believe is ridiculous.

Do I agree with the general actions and beliefs of the Taliban? No. I don't agree with the Nazis, either. But what they do that is considered so evil isn't so much different than things we (or at least our countries) have done ourselves. The only difference is we're on the other side of the attacks when we cry foul.

[Ethan]

I have to agree with Kraul. Everyone has blood on their hands, its just easier to justify it from the country you are in point of view. My thing is its not real, its a video game. If we are going so far as to say you shouldn't play games because it represents the other side. Should we even play games with war in them in the first place?

Killing is killing regardless whose flag you are waving.

[Kraul]

Should we even play games with war in them in the first place?

I think that's the question the people opposed to games like this should be asking. Not because now players can attack "us", but because war itself is an abomination.

I still wouldn't agree (although I'd agree with the general moral idea) but at least I could respect a reason like that.

[The Headliner]

An update on this:

The Army and Air Force Exchange Services (AAFES) has banned Electronic Arts' Medal Of Honor from sale in all U.S. Army and Air Forces bases around the world, because it lets players play as the Taliban.

The AAFES runs a series of discount stores and services for U.S. soldiers and airmen, including 49 GameStop shops for personnel to use. None o f these though will now be stocking EA's new first person shooter.

According to an email obtained by website Kotaku, 'GameStop has agreed out of respect for our past and present men and women in uniform we will not carry Medal Of Honor in any of our AAFES based stores.'

'As such, GameStop agreed to have all marketing material pulled by noon today and to stop taking reservations. Customers who enter our AAFES stores and wish to reserve Medal Of Honor can and should be directed to the nearest GameStop location off base.'

'GameStop fully supports AAFES in this endeavour and is sensitive to the fact that in multiplayer mode one side will assume the role of Taliban fighter,' ends the email.

Commander Maj. Gen. Bruce Casella, the head of AAFES, later commented, 'We regret any inconvenience this may cause authorized shoppers, but are optimistic that they will understand the sensitivity to the life and death scenarios this product presents as entertainment. As a military command with a retail mission, we serve a very unique customer base that has, or possibly will, witness combat in real life.'

In the UK, Secretary of State for Defence Liam Fox recently got himself in hot water for calling on British retailers to enforce an unofficial boycott of the game. He described the idea of playing as the Talbian as 'un-British', but unusually his comments were both ignored and ridiculed by the mainstream press.

Dr Fox's other main beef was that the game lets you kill British soldiers, despite the fact that in reality there are no British troops in the game at all.

[Kraul]

Then they had better ban the games where you can play as Nazis or anyone that is an enemy of "us". You know, just so they don't come off as complete oversensitive hypocrites.

[The Headliner]

In a shock move Electronic Arts has removed the option to play as the Taliban in the forthcoming Medal Of Honor, claiming that comments from 'friends and families of fallen soldiers' had convinced them otherwise.

Although the main campaign mode only allows you to play as U.S. soldiers the multiplayer mode lets you play as Taliban fighters. This fact (and various other invented ones) have not pleased some commentators and politicians, with UK defence secretary Liam Fox calling on shops to impose a de facto ban on the game.

Now Electronic Arts seems to have done the job for them, replacing the Taliban with a generically named 'Opposing Force'. There doesn't seem to be any indication that anything else much is being changed though, and we suspect the visuals will remain unaffected.

Writing on the official website executive producer Greg Goodrich had this to say:

'In the past few months, we have received feedback from all over the world regarding the multiplayer portion of Medal of Honor. 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 is due to be released on Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 and PC on 15th October.