Sections

EA removes Taliban from Medal of Honor for “the men and women serving in the military”

Friday, 1st October 2010 14:50 GMT By Stephany Nunneley

medalofhonor4

Greg Goodrich, executive producer for Medal of Honor, has stated over on the game’s official blog that EA has removed the Taliban from the multiplayer portion of the game.

The publisher has recently come under fire from both the families of American soldiers fighting in the Middle East and the US Military for the inclusion, and the pressure finally got to the company, apparently. Therefore, instead, the Taliban’s name has been changed in the miltiplayer portion to “Opposing Forces” so as not to insult or dishonor anyone serving in the military, or their families.

“In the past few months, we have received feedback from all over the world regarding the multiplayer portion of Medal of Honor,” wrote 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.”

In September, GameStop stores on military bases stopped taking pre-orders for the game, and decided not to sell it once it hit shelves “out of respect for our past and present men and women in uniform”.

That same month, CEO John Riccitiello stated that Medal of Honor “deeply honors the effort of American troops fighting in Afghanistan” and the controversy surrounding the ability to play as the Taliban “caught him by surprise”.

Medal of Honor releases on October 12 in the US, and October 15 in the UK for PC, PS3, and Xbox 360.

Latest

68 Comments

Sign in to post a comment.

  1. Suikoden Fan

    just seems like they are giving in to the extremists on our ‘side’

    #1 4 years ago
  2. thefaulkness

    -facepalm-

    #2 4 years ago
  3. CaptPierce

    That’s bullshit. I’m still buying the game, but if they had half the cojones before, they wouldn’t give a crap what it was called. The least they could do is call them Insurgents. That also doesn’t DIRECTLY state whom they are either. I guess the pressure just got to them.

    #3 4 years ago
  4. Blerk

    Oh, way to cave, EA!

    They should’ve just renamed them a bit, like racing games used to do back in the day before they had proper licensing.

    “Yeah, these guys are the Tilabun. They’re nasty sorts.”

    #4 4 years ago
  5. OlderGamer

    Well done EA.

    Majority rules, in action.

    #5 4 years ago
  6. The Hindle

    Looks like they have been Talibanned haha terrible i know.

    / gets coat

    #6 4 years ago
  7. OlderGamer

    lol @6

    #7 4 years ago
  8. thefaulkness

    My cat is called ‘osama’ shall i kill it?

    #8 4 years ago
  9. spiderLAW

    Wow, that sucks.
    Well, i can understand why they would have done this. If the majority of the consumers (i believe mostly US residents) were not going to buy this game because of its inclusion of the Taliban then it was a smart business decision to remove them.

    #9 4 years ago
  10. orakaa

    @6 LOL

    So… in the end… they keep the Talibans in the game but they’ll just change their name ?

    This is just ridiculous, it makes no difference !
    It’s as if they would make a game that would imply the destruction of the twin towers and, after a violent backlash from victims’ families, just decide to keep everything but replace the name “World trade center” by “two buildings”

    #10 4 years ago
  11. Uncontested

    The only place the Taliban belong is in the cross hairs of a US Marine or Soldier.

    #11 4 years ago
  12. themadjock

    Overall I think this is a good decision and should have been an easy change to make

    #12 4 years ago
  13. freedoms_stain

    @11, given the number of friendly fire incidents I was under the impression US troops were issued with weapons without any sort of sight.

    I suppose that’s what happens when you contract out to the lowest bidder.

    @12, find: “Taliban” Replace: “Anti-American Brigade if Doom!!!”

    #13 4 years ago
  14. NeoSquall

    Seems like Jack Thompson’s fax hit them hard, whenever it landed…

    #14 4 years ago
  15. spiderLAW

    @11 and 13
    We dont need any of that.

    #15 4 years ago
  16. DSB

    Colour me conflicted.

    On one hand I respected EA for sticking with their creative vision, but on the other I didn’t think it was very considerate to those few who would be genuinely affected.

    @13 Gotta love a bit of couch potato wisdom for the guys in uniform.

    #16 4 years ago
  17. Patrick Garratt

    Keep this thread clean, please.

    #17 4 years ago
  18. Alakratt

    I haven’t logged in for a while but I just had to for this! I can’t believe EA buckled under the pressure! Americans are so fucking hipocrite! They started this war, thanks to them their soldiers are dead. If anyone deserves to wear the bad guy hat is the Americans. And please don’t start with 9/11, their gov knew it was coming and didn’t do shit to stop it! So stop you bitching, if Americans died it was because of their own free will and this bad guy/good guys argument is just plain stupid. If the Taliban got banned from this game then the stupid ass americans deserve to get banned too. (of course then you would have no game, but it would be fair)

    #18 4 years ago
  19. back_up

    EA is Gay confirmed

    #19 4 years ago
  20. manamana

    Sounds like they have planned it from the beginning. No really, read the passage from “However … To Opposing Force” again and dont tell me, that its not heavy marketing speech. I call marketing hysteria just like the airportscene of MW2, so they make shure they got their attention around the globe. And press will write about that kind off stuff. Which eventually boils down to cewl sales, because every FPS-flick is now willing shoot those damn Forces aka Taliban.

    #20 4 years ago
  21. spiderLAW

    @20
    Great observation. Thats makes sense actually. Right on dude.

    #21 4 years ago
  22. Crysis

    So… it seems everyone who has complained about the Taliban being in this game, would rather American (& European) soldiers shot by friendly fire.
    ^Well that’s untrue, they just don”t want the game all together, i think it’s stupid for EA to cater to the audience who i can bet will not buy it anyway.
    OK, let’s remove the Nazi’s from WWI & WWII games, the Zombies from zombie shooters, the Helghast from Killzone, the Convenant from Halo, C’mon EA! you do not cave in & cater to the people who won’t support you regardless of weather you listen or not, you cater to the people willing to support you, don’t give into their stupid demands.
    I in no way support the terrorist, nor the war itself, it’s pointless, no one will benefit from it, lives will be lost & families will be ruined & i blame their own governments-America shouldn’t be interfering in something that does not concern them & the other countries strict rules & restrictions force these extremists to power through intimidation & manipulation.
    The fact that this is based on a current war has 0 impact on me, I may give the game a try but i have pretty low expectations & expect another generic CoD-like game

    #22 4 years ago
  23. Dralen

    At least they actually are listening to the fan response! I f****** hate stubborn developers that no matter how bad a response they get from certain things in a game, they won’t change it, even if it’s the most simple change or addition in the world.

    #23 4 years ago
  24. DSB

    @20 Actually that wouldn’t be very efficient. People are bound to be running stories on the game having the taliban around release, so you’d at least wait for that.

    Then you might hope for outrage, or somehow try to make it look like outrage is going on, and THEN you slam this story on people.

    That would be maximizing effect. You’d get 2-3 times the stories out of that.

    @22 The nazis are a historical entity. They aren’t killing people right now, whereas the taliban are probably killing people as we speak, and also look to be winning the war they’re fighting.

    It’s about sensible distance.

    #24 4 years ago
  25. Blerk

    Has anyone asked the Taliban what they think? :-)

    #25 4 years ago
  26. DSB

    @25 Won’t someone please think of the taliban?!

    Obvious trademark infringement.

    #26 4 years ago
  27. Crysis

    @24, Regardless of whether or not it’s current or pass, many more people have been affected in one way or another because of the world wars, the Taliban should not be viewed any differently from the Nazis, sure different motives & what not, but they shall always be seen to the masses as the ‘bad guys’.
    People have grown up & never knew their parents because of the world war, people will be grown up in 20 years time & never known their parents because of the Taliban, same story, different path.

    #27 4 years ago
  28. manamana

    @DSB hmm, good point, but how are they going to change the names, when the game is already released, with a download? Nevertheless the media is obviously already into this and seing the launch around the corner maybe thats enough to gather attention, bit by bit.

    #28 4 years ago
  29. spiderLAW

    @18
    The American Government is not the American people buddy. The American Government is also not the American soldiers.
    American soldiers fight for the American people and not for the American Governemt. If the American Soliders chose not to become American Soldiers, the American Government would have drafted American Citizens to fight the war instead.

    Please dont be so naive and short sighted.

    #29 4 years ago
  30. DSB

    @27 Those people don’t play videogames. My uncle was in Buchenwald KZ and he’s dead, my great grandmother was murdered in Norway, and I’m here playing Enemy Territory.

    Thus, distance.

    You can keep trying to compare present day terrorists to a long dead genocidal movement, but that doesn’t make them any less different.

    Today people are coming home dead or maimed by taliban. I don’t see anyone coming home dead and maimed from the battle of Berlin.

    20 years from now, no one will care about the taliban. Today, they do.

    #30 4 years ago
  31. MushroomStamp

    First, I had no interest in playing the Taliban. However, I don’t think this honors them, I think it dishonors them because it represents censorship and lack of freedom. They fight for freedom for all, not just those that share their belief systems. At least that is why I served.

    #31 4 years ago
  32. spiderLAW

    What if somebody mods the PC version to have Taliban in it?
    Would that satisfy those who wanted the game left as is?

    #32 4 years ago
  33. Syrok

    Maybe they should include a name editor like they used to have in old football games. :)

    #33 4 years ago
  34. Crysis

    @30, i understand what you’re saying, i just think it’s pretty weak of EA to cave in like that, though they should have known how controversial it was in the first place & just call them ‘The Terrorists’ or something like that from the absolute start, anyone with any interest in the game would have still had a look & it would have shut those damned critics up, i do feel sympathy for those who have lost family in the war, but let’s face it, it was their own choice to go there in the first place, fighting for your country was a lousy excuse for so many of these young men to die, they weren’t helping any body, possibly the locals, but they may have just made things worst, if the American government didn’t interfere with everything, it’s likely 9/11, among many other attacks would not have happened.

    #34 4 years ago
  35. DSB

    @34 I don’t disagree. Soldiers know the risks. It’s their own responsibility. But I don’t think it’s wrong to feel sorry for those who are destroyed by war.

    Some of them end up as very broken people when they come home. I’ve talked to a few myself, and it seems to me like you haven’t met one of those guys.

    No matter what they signed up for, or what they thought they were doing, nobody deserves to be broken like that. Most of those guys have no idea what combat is until it hits them.

    Of course it’s EAs right to put taliban in their game, I’m not disputing that. I even respected them for being controversial. But it is also inconsiderate to those few damaged soldiers.

    #35 4 years ago
  36. LOLshock94

    does tht mean the campaign has gone shorterrrrrrrrrrrrr

    #36 4 years ago
  37. AHA-Lambda

    i cant believe ea gave into the vocal minority here, i am indeed quite disappointed in them now =(

    #37 4 years ago
  38. Crysis

    @35, i have not personally met any veteran since Australia’s military role is generally quite small, but i do respect them & feel sympathy for those who have not came back the same, or at all & the families of those men but it angers me that these situations have started in the first place, how these extremists grow to power is disturbing on how much influence they have.

    #38 4 years ago
  39. themadjock

    DSB ftw, well said

    #39 4 years ago
  40. spiderLAW

    @39
    Didnt know it was a contest LOL :)

    #40 4 years ago
  41. YoungZer0

    “Blah, blah, blah, blah, we’re pussies.”

    Seriously, what a let down.

    You’re fighting in Afghanistan. You’re killing Taliban there, not “Opposing Forces”. That’s what i loved about this game, it’s authenticity.

    I really hope that only the Multiplayer is effected by this. if i hear one Tier 1 soldier say “Look it’s the opposing forces.” I’ll not buy it.

    #41 4 years ago
  42. OlderGamer

    Instead of looking at EA as being weak for changing the name, I think it was weak for them to use the name in the first place.

    I think the reason that wwii settings work so well is that enough time has passed. I agree with DSB 100%. I think it is best for warsim to take a generic pov on this type of thing.

    After giving this whole thing some thought I feel that EA is playing the media and playing the public. Remember the “hey we are controversial” story there PR guys talked to the media about a week or so back? And now this “we changed the name, want to be respectful” stuff. I think its all a scam to build brand awarness and create a buzz amoung potiental buyers.

    As for 18, seek help.

    #42 4 years ago
  43. endgame

    hey can I sign a petition somewhere to have the taliban name back in the game? this is stupid! whoever asked the name to be removed is a joke of a human and can be in now way associated with the military. military personnel can not be that weak. psychologically I mean. whoever did that is not playing the game, I am, and I want it to be as realistic as possible. and now I’m being as serious as possible: If I could I would cancel my copy of the game because of this. too bad it’s been bought through steam. well, that will teach me.

    #43 4 years ago
  44. manamana

    @42 Thats what I meant. They knew the end from the begi… err wait! @43 dont play it then, moron. I think the point that DSB made, should make you think about your words, man.

    #44 4 years ago
  45. daytripper

    @43 are you for real? fuck sake

    #45 4 years ago
  46. DaMan

    @33 +1

    #46 4 years ago
  47. Stephany Nunneley

    @18 “Americans are so fucking hipocrite….If anyone deserves to wear the bad guy hat is the Americans.”

    Please don’t generalize the whole country’s population over a very vocal minority. Ever seen a news report after a tornado decimates a trailer park over here? That should be a good enough example for you. :D

    #47 4 years ago
  48. Catkiller

    EA suckers, damn you!!! Who are you afraid of???? Even my 1yr old son has more courage than those bastards!!!!

    #48 4 years ago
  49. Bremenacht

    HONOR

    RESPECT

    REVERANCE

    GUFF

    #49 4 years ago
  50. SplatteredHouse

    A play for the media attention? I suppose there’s a chance it is.
    What’s going to be available, under the title of Medal of Honor, is a video game. Not a documentary, not some kind of vid blog, or anything similar – I suppose the thing that does suck about this, is that initially, they definitely adopted one position, and now, a short time before the game’s out, they’ve u-turned.

    As I read what Goodrich put, I just find it a bit…”This is a voice that has earned the right to be listened to. It is a voice that we care deeply about.”

    That’s ok. So you graciously gave up your right to tell the story the way that you intended. I’m not arguing with what is said, because I agree with what he wrote, but still, I find myself asking where a line is drawn, on that. (it’s their call, absolutely in this case, but)
    Is it fine, like #10 suggested to portray an event similar to the 9/11 WTC attack, as long as you alter some of the details likely to cause distress? (Is this why Ubisoft’s I Am Alive has completely and utterly vanished from sight, for the reason it depicts potentially catastrophic, harrowing events and tasks the player to survive them – just what IS that thing about??)

    This sort of precedent though, particularly now, I’m concerned could play very nicely in to the hands of those who would go in front of the American Supreme Court, and claim that video games should not be afforded protection under Freedom of Speech. (sale of video games to minors, retailers liability, etc, etc) Speech, here, can be seen to be so free, that people end up getting all of a fluster, at the mere use of a name in a story, so the makers waive their right to tell the game in the way they were going to, anyway. I’m not convinced that offence would be caused.
    Now, the two factions should no longer be considered to be acceptable fodder, akin to a kid’s game of cops and robbers, because it suits their current position on the matter. Is that how it is?

    This bit also rings of convenience, it’s a catch-all: “this franchise will never willfully disrespect, intentionally or otherwise, your memory and service.”

    On this, I think that best established with a sincere, INFORMATIVE foreword/acknowledgement in the manual, personally, and reference in the credits.

    On the one hand, EA make games, and they like to make money from games. On the other, the real-life operatives whose testimonies and combat stories we’re told were used as inspiration, and an understanding built from their time. But, the two mixed altogether, that’s when it becomes really messy.

    #50 4 years ago
  51. DSB

    In order to subvert the first amendment, you’d have to prove that videogames cause violence. There’s absolutely no empirical evidence to support that.

    Idiots can run whatever scare campaigns they want, but that doesn’t afford them any sort of legal or social right to be taken seriously.

    Unenlightened people will always champion unenlightened causes because they don’t care about facts, they just care about their own pigheaded beliefs, and forcing those on everybody else.

    Democracy rarely manages to inspire democratic values, sadly.

    EA has the right to selfcensorship under the law. If they think that’s good for business, they can do it.

    #51 4 years ago
  52. artdafoo

    This is how stupid we Americans can be, The broad who started al this did so because she thought it was a disgrace to soldiers who are currently serving. Because it was possible to play as the Taliban in the game and kill U.S soldiers in MP. NOT because you can kill U.S soldiers mind you, but because you can kill them as the Taliban. So as long as they’re called OP FOR then it’s ok ? If she REALLY gave an eff about U.S soldiers she would want any game where you can kill U.S soldiers banned. So that would be every COD, BF, and any other modern or historical military shooter ever made. So it’s ok to kill U.S troops in COD 3 or COD W@W ? Are there not still vets alive that served in WW2 ? Ahhhh screw them ! She and people that agree with her only gives an efff about current U.S soldiers. Soldiers who served in WW1, Korea, Vietnam some still alive, some dead, screw you guys. Effin hypocrites.

    #52 4 years ago
  53. endgame

    well said DSB, and artdafoo. really sad that things had to happen this way. :(

    #53 4 years ago
  54. DSB

    @52 There’s a difference between shooting hypothetical soldiers in a hypothetical war with hypothetical Russia, and shooting genuine soldiers in a genuine war with the genuine taliban.

    Although I’m sure a lot of WW2 veterans wouldn’t like to play WaW, even so. I’m sure a lot of Vietnam vets wouldn’t like to play Vietcong either.

    The difference with those two is that those vets aren’t getting those games thrown at them as soon as they come home. They’ve had time to come to terms with things.

    #54 4 years ago
  55. SplatteredHouse

    http://www.industrygamers.com/news/feature-special-operations-forces-members-discuss-medal-of-honor/

    #55 4 years ago
  56. artdafoo

    Either you ban all games where you can kill U.S soldiers, either in real or made up scenarios. Or you let game makers do what they want. Saying you can’t make a game set in a current war but a game set in a past war is ok, is disrespectful to the soldiers who served in past wars. Then again take a look at our war Veterans and how our government and we as a society have treated them. So i’m not surprised one bit by this broads selfishness. She and other like her could care less about our soldiers, it’s only when they themselves loose someone in war that they become pro-active.

    ” The difference with those two is that those vets aren’t getting those games thrown at them as soon as they come home. They’ve had time to come to terms with things. ”

    Tell that to all the screwed up Korea, Vietnam and 1st Iraq war and prob some WW2 veterans living today. ” Sorry guys you’ve had a couple of decades to get over seeing your bodies head blown off and watch him bleed to death in your arms. We only care about the feelings of current war soldiers and their families “.

    Effin hypocrites.

    #56 4 years ago
  57. DarkElfa

    Nice move EA, way to cave in to the right wing nutjobs of America.

    #57 4 years ago
  58. DSB

    @56 You’re argueing like a hysterical bitch yourself, you’re just batting for the other side. Nobody’s telling you what you can or can’t publish. Even if they did, the constitution says otherwise, and that’s always gonna get the last word.

    Nobody gives a damn about a hysterical woman on Fox News. What you should give a damn about is people coming home to see characters that could be themselves or their friends getting blown to bits by IEDs on computer screens, for points.

    Nobody’s saying you shouldn’t care for both WW2 and Vietnam veterans, but it seems like you’re a little full of Hollywood images of those veterans. Most of those guys heal over time, and most of those guys accept it as history, even if they’re still worse off for going to war. And so will the guys who are coming home today. They just won’t get there for a while.

    Most veterans from WW2 and Vietnam don’t still have the blood of that friend on their clothes or under their fingernails. They might be missing a leg, an arm, an eye, or all of the above, but they’ve had time to come to terms with that.

    #58 4 years ago
  59. Callum

    This stuff worries me. It’s like south park; Anything goes, they offend everyone and therefore it is ok because they are showing no prejudice.
    They start changing shit because someone got offended at them showing the Prophet Muhammad and they just open the flood gates for other people.
    So we can’t play Taliban, so what, no one really cares. But whats next, we can’t play as police because of rioting related deaths? We cant play as Special Agents because of Dr Evil related deaths?

    WHEN DOES IT END PEOPLE.

    #59 4 years ago
  60. hitnrun

    This would probably be a more moving dispute if it wasn’t a made-to-order seasonal blockbuster shooter from EA.

    The Taliban reference is not a critical facet of a work of fiction. It’s a bullet point in an extensively manicured list of features for a videogame compiled to engineer buzz and hype. “Featuring The Real Taliban” was adopted to drive up sales, like every other speck of this project, and was dropped when it was judged it might wind up hurting sales.

    (In the interim, it was trumpeted incessantly, especially to interviewers who republished the hype in hushed prose, as if an arcade-y holiday shoot-’em-up with set-piece fights and regenerating health could capture the reality of a contemporary conflict.)

    See: other EA masterpieces like the fake Dante’s Inferno protesters, the Godfather brass knuckles, and the Sexually Harass A Booth-Babe Contest.

    #60 4 years ago
  61. LordCancer

    I can certainly appreciate how some may take offense to the inclusion of taliban as a playable faction. I don’t think the game should be banned or censored though and it hasn’t. The game being banned from military bases was necessary. As someone who suffers from ptsd I can appreciate them not selling this to those actively serving in a war against the taliban. I mean its kinda low class and from my point of view extremely tacky to include the taliban. Id much rather see single player narrative that explores the motive and politics of war, not some cheesy airport level ya know. If you believe thats what were getting with medal of honor then I think your mistaken. It’s just another cheesy military shooter with a 3rd grade narrative and gameplay mechanics ripped off from your local cod shebang thats been given way more attention then it ever deserved.

    #61 4 years ago
  62. artdafoo

    ” Most veterans from WW2 and Vietnam don’t still have the blood of that friend on their clothes or under their fingernails. They might be missing a leg, an arm, an eye, or all of the above, but they’ve had time to come to terms with that ”

    Shit I’m sorry yeah, you’re right. WTF was I thinking, it’s just a leg, eye, arm. I mean that’s why god gave us two of those right ? Go take a tour of a VA hospital then come back and act like it’s no big thing. Hey Iraq veteran ! So you lust your lower intestine in the war, so what ! DSB the couch soldier said get the eff over it ! I know a guy from grade school that was in the 1st Iraq war. His company came across a burned out car that had 2 grown ups and 3 kids in the back seat, all burned to a crisp. To this day he can’t tell you the story without tearing up when he tells you about the melted dolls next to the kids. Next time I see him I’ll be sure and tell him to get the eff over it, I mean c’mon dude that was back in 91′ ! for Pete’s sake. I’m sorry DSB we can’t all be as tough as you.

    #62 4 years ago
  63. DSB

    @62 Again, I never said it was no big thing, you’re just being a hysterical bitch and making all kinds of stupid assumptions on my behalf. I’m sure Fox News would love to have a guy like you around.

    I know some of those soldiers myself. None of them wounded, but very much marked by war.

    Nevertheless, in spite of their troubles, a guy who’s had 19+ years to heal can handle a movie like Three Kings or Jarhead being made, whereas a guy who returned two weeks ago, might take a pretty furious offence to it.

    It’s that simple. I’m sorry you don’t grasp the basics of how these things work, but it’s still fully relevant.

    To put it plainly – If something bad happened to you a week ago, you’re allowed to ask for consideration, that’s the here and the now. If something happened to you 20 years ago, tough break, it’s history.

    #63 4 years ago
  64. M41A

    DarkElfa you left wing zombies are a bunch of idiots. The right wing had nothing to do with this and this is a smart move by EA for various reasons. You leftists are a bunch of hypocritical fanatics.

    It allows EA to sell on US military bases, it pisses less people off, and it doesn’t change the game at all besides for a name. Is a fanatical terrorist group a fanatical terrorist group by any other name?

    Medal of Honor multiplayer is MW2 type crap anyway and totally unrealistic, it would be disgraceful to represent what our soldiers are really facing over there as arcadish BS. This sidesteps that problem.

    #64 4 years ago
  65. SplatteredHouse

    US army was ready to withdraw it’s official support for the game, once they learned about the taliban, late in the day. Specifically, earlier this week.
    http://kotaku.com/5653601/playable-taliban-jeopardized-us-armys-support-for-medal-of-honor

    #65 4 years ago
  66. Gekidami

    For guys who go out there, fight and put their lives on the line they sure are a bunch of whiny pussies.

    #66 4 years ago
  67. Phoenixblight

    For people that have no clue what these men and women go through every day, sure are insensitive assholes.

    Read the article, if EA had shown the Army that there would be a multiplayer with taliban, they would have pulled their support faster than Mel Gibson at a synagogue.
    Pretty simple, Quid pro quo. The Army allowed EA to record the sounds off Apaches and guns and even supported the game right until Army found out through 3rd party that the multiplayer was going to be based on an ongoing war.

    #67 4 years ago
  68. DSB

    @66 Whereas you’re clearly a brave man who knows what he’s talking about.

    Let’s put you in a ring with one of those pussies and see who makes it out. Any bets?

    #68 4 years ago