Close
Report Comment to a Moderator Our Moderators review all comments for abusive and offensive language, and ensure comments are from Verified Users only.
Please report a comment only if you feel it requires our urgent attention.
I understand, report it. Cancel

EA drops Taliban from Medal of Honor

Fri 01 Oct 2010 2:19pm GMT / 10:19am EDT / 7:19am PDT
Publishing

Out of respect for the families and serving soldiers in the military, says producer

Electronic Arts has removed references to the Taliban in first-person shooter Medal of Honor.

The company said the decision was made out of respect for serving soldiers and their families, as the company would never "wilfully disrespect, intentionally or otherwise, your memory and service."

The game attracted criticism from MPs in the UK for depicting the Taliban, which EA defended by stating: "If someone's the cop, someone's gotta be the robber, someone's gotta be the pirate and someone's gotta be the alien. In Medal of Honor multi-player, someone's gotta be the Taliban."

Earlier in the week EA said the game was the most pre-ordered title in the history of the franchise.

The full statement from executive producer Greg Goodrich follows:

"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."

47 Comments

Jordan Woodward Studying Interactive Games Design, University of Gloucestershire

79 0 0.0
Quite ridiculous really. No disrepect to any of the soldiers fighting the taliban or friends and families who have lost loved ones to the taliban but the world has gone mad with PC. You wouldn't see movies removing references to the taliban because it might offend people.

The industry can't start being afraid to make games and write storylines that might offend people. Countless games have included German soldiers from world war 2, including previous Medal of Honor games, surely they would have offended war veterans? Yet they went ahead.

Posted:4 years ago

#1

Terence Gage Freelance writer

1,289 126 0.1
I think this has been a very calculated and very effective marketing ploy, and I am interested to see whether news channels such as Fox et al report further on this name change (which would no doubt please EA immensely).

Posted:4 years ago

#2

Richard Westmoreland Game Desginer, Exient Ltd

138 90 0.7
It's a shame they wussed out like this. The tabloids only have power so long as people continue pander to them.

Posted:4 years ago

#3

Kevin Clark-Patterson Lecturer in Games Development, Lancaster and Morecambe College

294 27 0.1
Completely the right decision!

The difference between a film and game is Ė

The VIEWER would watch occurrences that the Taliban would be employing.

The PLAYER, (the huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge difference would be that) I am the Taliban, employing those techniques to kill and hurt people.

This is the fundamental difference between interactive media and passive media. Then moral lines get blurred and all of a it's seen as OK to shoot innocent people in game which has been proven to be taken literally and translate into the real world actions.

Donít get caught up in the political correctness of it all. Itís wrong. Why glorify extremists and immortalise them in games and further 'promote' the cause. EA should know better...HOWEVER, I am quite sure EA knew exactly what they were doing when they started all this and the media market that surrounds controversy in the industry...

Iím all for games being a creative medium that has great power to influence but this is the wrong lines for boundary pushing, but pushing in the wrong areas of being insensitive and immoral.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Kevin Clark-Patterson on 1st October 2010 4:13pm

Posted:4 years ago

#4

Jim Webb Executive Editor/Community Director, E-mpire Ltd. Co.

2,287 2,507 1.1
We're allowed to kill people just so long as we're not killing Americans with terrorists? Yeah, that makes sense.

Completely ass backwards, we have become. The level of violence allowed in our games is incredible but don't you dare associate any aspect of said game with something that might be considered unpleasant most largely to a group that would never have any intentions of consuming the medium in the first place?

EA, I thought you had balls this generation. You just let the PC advocacy loudmouths neuter you.

Posted:4 years ago

#5

Luke Salvoni Co-Founder & iOS Developer, Officially Made Ltd

65 4 0.1
It wouldn't surprise me if this was their plan all along - all publicity is good publicity, and it'll save them a few extra $m in advertisements and enhance their image - everybody wins.

I wonder if this change is active at the booths inside the Eurogamer Expo.... I'll have to see tomorrow.

Posted:4 years ago

#6

Andrew Clayton QA Weapons Tester, Electronic Arts

150 8 0.1
Here's hoping there's a mod to put it back to its original version, official or not.

Posted:4 years ago

#7

Private Industry

1,176 182 0.2
If something looks like a duck and you call it dog does not change the fact it`s a duck :)

Posted:4 years ago

#8

Russell Watson Senior Designer, Born Ready Games

86 34 0.4
"Electronic Arts has removed *references* to the Taliban in first-person shooter Medal of Honor."

Easy win for EA. It is a superficial change, the game is still set in Afghanistan 2001.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Russell Watson on 1st October 2010 5:05pm

Posted:4 years ago

#9

Alan Pierce Programmer, Digital Delight

63 19 0.3
Yes, you can now fight as the Balitan.

Posted:4 years ago

#10

Yiannis Koumoutzelis Founder & Creative Director, Neriad Games

363 208 0.6
I agree with Jimmy.

This is so wrong... and the public forced them to do it!
If that is the case "Terrorists" should be removed from Counter Strike. And any other game that allows you to play as the bad guy, a thief, a pirate, and all other unhealthy and negative examples!

GTA shouldn't exist!
They should stick with their decision.

It's JUST a game. FICTION!

Posted:4 years ago

#11
Well now, a grumpy type might say it looks like this reversal is as cynical and crass as the original idea to make fucktons of cash, er, I mean a game, about an ongoing US invasion of a country. The enemy offend by their mere existence after all, I guess that's why it's okay to (a) kill them in real life and (b) make a game about killing them in real life - but they don't deserve a name. So yeah if I close one eye, paint myself purple, stand on my head and bark at the moon at midnight I can *just about* see how it is that in this situation, above all groups it's American soldiers' sensitivities that are being abused.

While it's sad they did this, I don't get annoyed over it as an artistic issue as I really didn't detect any seriousness or depth in the setup of MOH in the first place, so removing their name loses us nothing to human advancement. To me it just shows up how empty and shallow the genre is - trying to attach gravitas to it like EA does has just turned the whole story into a joke. It's a fucking shooting game, beyond basic game mechanics the only oomph these games have is in how good the graphics are and how realistic the violence is. I know because I love shooters, play them all and will play MOH but I'm pretty aware about what it is that attracts me to them - explosions, death, power and escapism. If you're looking for sophistication, here be dragons.

So some healthy perspective about where the future sophistication of gaming is likely to come from is needed here - and it won't be advanced on any dramatic or emotional level through games about killing people. The best shooters have immersion, bombast and fireworks - it's not the same thing.

Posted:4 years ago

#12

Jordan Woodward Studying Interactive Games Design, University of Gloucestershire

79 0 0.0
I completely understand the difference, was probably hastey of me to compare it to films. However I hardly see it as me employing taliban techniques and glorifying them if I were to play as the taliban in a game. When people play as the Germans in a WW2 game are they glorifying the actions of Hitler? Do you play GTA and then want to go out and murder hundreds of people with a golf club? Is there really any difference to faceless rebels shooting American soldiers anyway?

Removing violence from games would kill off a huge portion of the industry, it's all fiction and I hate how games are persecuted and branded as evil by some.

As mentioned, we're probably playing right into EA's arms by having such debates though.

Posted:4 years ago

#13

Daniel Vardy Studying HND IT, De Montfort University

90 1 0.0
so, we are allowed to play games as the SAS, Marines, American Army and even Nazis but we can not play as the Taliban? some strange double standards going on. we all know that they are the Taliban anyways, its set in Afghanistan where the local 'opposing force' is the Taliban.

Posted:4 years ago

#14

John Donnelly Quality Assurance

313 38 0.1
Without knowing what has gone on internally and who made contact with EA I cant comment on the published reason for the change, but the end result is they gained massive publicity to the game and now can pull the "offending" content when the pre-orders are in.

At the end of the day, it does not matter they are called the militants are still going to try and kill the US army players which does not really change anything.
Its still war and still set in a conflict zone.

I wounder will it moddable or not

@Daniel, thats not 100% true, the correct term would be the mujahideen. The Taliban are just one group from within many such groups in the counrty. The country is still very "tribal" and the Taliban is just one group but it was the one that gained power after the Russians left the country.

Edited 3 times. Last edit by John Donnelly on 1st October 2010 5:57pm

Posted:4 years ago

#15

Victor Vieira editor, Zombiegamer

6 0 0.0
Not interested in this title now, for one simple reason - The people that forced them into the decision, hilariously are not the one's that are going to buy the game in the first place.

Im not really happy with people that are not the 'actual' consumers changing things in the titles I buy.

No disrespect again to anything to do with those harmed in the war, but Granny Morry of Soldier Y and Prime Minister X shouldn't be influencing the games a 'core' gamer plays.

Posted:4 years ago

#16

Daniel Vardy Studying HND IT, De Montfort University

90 1 0.0
@John

thanks for the info, but the same still applies though. its silly that i can play as an American soldier and kill 'enemy x', however it is wrong for me to play as 'enemy x' and kill American soldiers

Posted:4 years ago

#17

Private Industry

1,176 182 0.2
Wonder if it will be changed by patch or directly from the disc, because in that case they must have changed it already like 4 weeks ago. Kind of disappointing, not because I want to shoot American Soldiers as Taliban, but for authenticity reasons and for the sole reason that things are being changed because some people are offended.

No disrespect to the people who fight there or who lost family and friends there, but it just shows that games are still far away from being treated proper because Books or Movies can offend other as much as they want and it will not lead to the author or movie director to change something because of that.

Too bad I`m not rich otherwise I would finance Atomic Games to release Six Days in Fallujah.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Private on 1st October 2010 6:49pm

Posted:4 years ago

#18

Jordan Woodward Studying Interactive Games Design, University of Gloucestershire

79 0 0.0
£82 million rollover on the euromillions, make it happen Werner lol :D

Posted:4 years ago

#19

John Donnelly Quality Assurance

313 38 0.1
Games are still a soft target with many groups and are still seen as a back room rather than mainstream media like books and movies.

The silly thing is that the more the press raised the issue the more the taboo factor has sold more copies.
Its been a major marketing win for EA, but then again they are not stranger to the negative press given the reports on Mass Effect and sexuality.

Posted:4 years ago

#20

Lee Walton Co-Founder & Art Director, No More Pie

36 11 0.3
Wow- I'm a little disappointed with Kevin Clark-Patterson's attitude, considering he will be teaching future games industry talent. How on earth the industry is supposed to progress under that kind of teaching I don't know....
It's a ridiculous situation indeed- imagine if Polyphony were forced to change the name of the 1930's Volkswagen (literally the "peoples car" in German) Beetle they have included in GT5, because that vehicle was once associated with the person/ethos that designed and created it in the first place- Hitler and the Nazi party of Germany. Clearly you can't kill anyone with a Beetle in GT5, but they may die of boredom lapping the Nurburgring in it.
Does this decision mean that to include the Taliban in a game we must wait 60 years- then it is OK? But films like The Hurt Locker can beat this industry to it- by 60 years....

Posted:4 years ago

#21

David Wicks Editor / Co-Founder, Gamers Heaven

34 0 0.0
"Opposing Force" all those creative people at EA and that's the best alternative name they can come up with? it's like they want gamers to kick up a fuss about such a lame title that EA get to put in an option to choose between the new and original titles ala MW2... which as mentioned above is the best option.

Posted:4 years ago

#22

Jim Webb Executive Editor/Community Director, E-mpire Ltd. Co.

2,287 2,507 1.1
Kevin Clark-Patterson, do you not think that this is doing even more for that "cause" than the original game itself led on? To claim that the game was immortalizing and glorifying the Taliban is minor compared to the immortalizing and sanctifying this action and the media outcry against the game has done.

You want to remove a concepts power...ignore it.
You want to empower them...do exactly what the press, EA and you are doing right now.

Posted:4 years ago

#23

David Rider Publisher, Hustler UK

83 0 0.0
I bet whoever decided to call the bad guys in CoD4 et al "OpFor" is jumping around excitedly, yelling, "See! See!"

Posted:4 years ago

#24

David Rider Publisher, Hustler UK

83 0 0.0
I bet whoever decided to call the bad guys in CoD4 et al "OpFor" is jumping around excitedly, yelling, "See! See!"

Posted:4 years ago

#25

Patrick Williams Medicine and Research

93 61 0.7
@ Kevin Clark-Patterson: As a scientist, I have to point out that a) science can't prove anything, only disprove and b) there has yet to be any study that provides credible evidence substantiating a link between real world violence and any single video game.

Posted:4 years ago

#26

Private Industry

1,176 182 0.2
Hmmm a better name than "Opposing Force", how about Talibanned or Balitan? :D

@Kevin: For every study that says games cause people to run around and shoot others there are 3 studies that say otherwise. The majority of the brain is still not understood and making a study saying games have those highly negative effects on people can`t be based on solid facts. As for people who are mentally unstable, well they don`t need games for going on a killing spree movies, music and books have the same effect on those people as games can have. If they would never play a game it wouldn`t change much for them. As I always like to point out when it comes to that people where running amok before the times of games and if at some point games are not anymore made they will still do that. Why? Because they have problems psychological problems and other problems and playing games or not will not change anything for them.

In regards to shooting innocent people, we are just talking about MoH and the fact remains it is set in Afghanistan and in a competitive multiplayer environment you need side A and side B and if you have that specific setting it has to be US Soldiers vs. Taliban, what else should it be US Soldiers vs. British Soldiers or US Soldiers vs. US Soldiers? There are no civilians in the multiplayer so no innocent people there.

I don`t see anywhere glorify extremists in the game, it`s like saying any WW 2 game that let`s players play in any kind of way on the German side glorifies Nazis. Also can`t see what should be insensitive and immoral about playing as the Taliban to portrait a war the way it is. Surely you can`t play US vs. Inuits in a war game set in present Afghanistan.

On a special note playing as a US Soldier and killing and hurting people makes it all better and correct? I have seen some interesting and disturbing videos from Wikileaks and not sure the Americans are so much better and stick to high moral.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Private on 2nd October 2010 1:35am

Posted:4 years ago

#27

Antony Cain Lecturer, Wakefield College

263 21 0.1
I don't think acting something out in a game makes me any more likely to re-enact it than viewing it in a film would but I agree with Kevin about it being the right decision by EA.

It's got nothing to do with putting Americans above others, it's about timing. I don't particularly want to shoot an Afghanistan-based American solider in a game right now... but nor would I want to simulate drowning thousands of Pakistanis, trap some Chileans in a cave or kidnap a blonde child during her family holiday in Portugal. Games desensitise us to pretty much anything shocking; I know because I see it everyday in 16 year old gamers and in myself - I could pick up the pad and mow down those solider without feeling any real emotion.. and that's exactly what's wrong. Make people feel ok about shooting/blowing crap up, sure... but let's at least try to preserve some kind of feeling/compassion for 'current' issues. It's not like this game handles it in a heart-wrenching emotional style that a documentary could - and it certainly doesn't use the conflict to make bold political statements like, say, a comedian would. It's just so unnecessary in this guise.

"Wow- I'm a little disappointed with Kevin Clark-Patterson's attitude, considering he will be teaching future games industry talent. How on earth the industry is supposed to progress under that kind of teaching I don't know.... "

Kevin's a teacher first and a member of the games industry second; his duty isn't to send students out into industry regardless of their views on reality. His role is to try to educate well rounded, respectful individuals and that often involves going against game content, not mindlessly supporting it. You can't seriously suggest he stand in a class full of teenagers and preech that it's ok to totally ignore public opinion and general moral reasoning just to turn a profit.

Honestly, I love reading people's opinions on here and often use them in classes but people are so stubborn/pigheaded when it comes to absolutely anything to do with censorship. There are some topics that are unsuitable for games; maybe this isn't one of them but it's obviously very close to the borderline.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Antony Cain on 2nd October 2010 2:53am

Posted:4 years ago

#28

Simon Arnet

54 3 0.1
Considering that November 2nd is coming right around the corner video game makers will be playing it safe trying to garner up a good image. I'm firmly against EA removing it though for the sake of politics I am all for it. If this gives games a chance of gaining freedom of speech protect so be it.

Posted:4 years ago

#29

Jonny Pickton Studying Diploma in Games Design, Futureworks

5 0 0.0
Eh, probably the right decision in retrospect.

Whilst I disagree to the protests against MoH and Activision, I guess it was the easiest thing for them to do, pre-release.

I hate this sort of, picking and choosing of censorship. Looking at it objectively, all war games are horrific. By all accounts, playing the Nazis in earlier CoD games should have caused a similar uproar.

By the logic of those people apposed, a few years after the current war, Taliban Vs Marines will be perfectly acceptable in games.

It makes no sense.

You either let everything slide, or you ban war games permanently. There cant be this picking and choosing just because one instance offends you more than another.

Anyway, I don't hear the Taliban complaining of having to play the Marines....

Posted:4 years ago

#30

Gregor Manby Producer

13 0 0.0
Well, this was clearly an exploitative marketing ploy, which makes it all the more disrespectful. There's no way I'm buying this game now.

Posted:4 years ago

#31

Antony Cain Lecturer, Wakefield College

263 21 0.1
"By the logic of those people apposed, a few years after the current war, Taliban Vs Marines will be perfectly acceptable in games."

It'll never be acceptable for everyone but at least if made in the future it won't be like salt on a fresh wound; more like picking at the scab.

Posted:4 years ago

#32

Lee Walton Co-Founder & Art Director, No More Pie

36 11 0.3
I admire the sentiments that somebody here aims to "educate well rounded, respectful individuals", that is wonderful- and I agree in principle. The sad truth is that EA is just like any other publicly owned company- in that it exists purely to make money, to maximise shareholders returns (I worked for them myself in the past btw). They will make all decisions based on that purpose alone, and NO OTHER purposes. Aiming to teach students the opposite ethos is noble, and will perhaps go some way to changing this immature industry, but it certainly does not prepare them for the reality of a money-making business that they may eventually find themselves working in.
The real issue here is that if the game truly conveyed the horrific feeling of killing another human, it would be so traumatic that it would have the opposite effect and actively discourage war and killing. It gets even more complicated when we take into account that armed forces know that killing is actually hard for humans to do morally- and they have spent the past 60-70 years researching and developing psychological and technical solutions to eliminate any emotion in order to get more killing done. I recall some sort of study from WW1 saying that a majority of soldiers missed with their aim on purpose, due to the moral problem of killing another human. We see un-maned, remote IR camera-feed based killings now- where ironically weapons of war more closely resemble the computer games that the media condemn.

Posted:4 years ago

#33

Ahmad Salman

13 0 0.0
I don't see how this move will effect anyone positively .. it's dumb

Posted:4 years ago

#34

Ceyhun Alyesil IT Integration Manager, SHR Interaktif Servisler

20 3 0.2
I was expecting this change. If EA's main target is U.S. market they should listen their customers.
Terrorism is very dangerous spot for games. If you are at fight with a name you should be really carefull because anything wrong can crush your project. Red vs Blue is ok. American vs Russian is ok. But there is no war between this sides at the moment. But America vs Taliban is something real and when people see that their son start to playing as an Taliban member they can be really mad.

Posted:4 years ago

#35

Justin Jackson

11 0 0.0
Ever wonder why FPS's are in a word quite 'involved' now? @ Lee, yes how strange that 'farmer Bob' in WW1 had trouble shooting another individual regardless of WHO they are, as we all bleed the same red blood. Now we have ( x millions of coppies sold )*( x hours/day) + neuroplasticity = .... have a gues, and a nice day.

Posted:4 years ago

#36

Private Industry

1,176 182 0.2
The US market is the main target, but they don`t listen to the customers, not the people who buy the game complain. The complaining comes from the people who don`t buy the game anyway. And what does the name change do?

What I think is funny in regards to the people complaining is that now they are happy because they are not called Taliban. But does it really change anything? The still look like Taliban and we all know they are Taliban so people still play as the Taliban and you still shoot US soldiers in multiplayer.

Posted:4 years ago

#37

Jim Webb Executive Editor/Community Director, E-mpire Ltd. Co.

2,287 2,507 1.1
A Taliban by any other name would kill you just the same.

Posted:4 years ago

#38

Kevin Clark-Patterson Lecturer in Games Development, Lancaster and Morecambe College

294 27 0.1
@ everyone who has had a pop at me and my apparent teaching methods...looks like Iíve missed my chance to respond appropriately and in a timely fashion but ill echo some of the comments above anyways.

My main aim is to educate individuals in a well rounded manner, I try to introduce them to as much as I can, the only problem is there are so many issues in the industry that can be used as examples when we deal with theory as opposed to practical. The industry really has come a long way in 30 years and it is still finding its feet with being such a young medium in comparison to music and film, without sounding old, but as an individual who has had a Ďgaming backgroundí of over 25 years I believe I have adequate experience to pass on to my students especially in dealing with controversy.

Having conducted our own research into the games industry only last week we have already built up a demographic of gamers and gaming habits with Ďtypicalí results as you would expect from a 17-19 year old age group of games development students however in such a case as this...I truly believe that the majority of my students would oppose what so many people in the industry above this post believe to be acceptable; thatís their own thoughts and opinion, not mine and definitely not my influence...they have their own minds and own opinions...all I ask is that they justify their decisions with sound argument.

The particular naming that has caused so much debate, Iím almost 100% sure that EA knew what they were doing still btw! And if itís a duck and sounds like a duck, itís still a duck, so be it...but at least the duck doesnít know itís a duck!

Posted:4 years ago

#39

Jack Attridge Sound Designer

2 0 0.0
Watching people play this today, no one seemed to care what they're shooting at since they are just looking at the 10+ points that pops up afterwards, and they don't care who they are since all they can see is their gun.

Posted:4 years ago

#40

Nick Pearce Producer

1 0 0.0
I am firmly in the camp of "This is the right thing to have done".

We don't see FPS's being modeled on the IRA or other active paramilitary groups, because this would seem to legitimise them and their cause.

Yes we have as the "Player" been in a position to shoot or stab many countries citizens in the past, within the context of either a re-enactment of a specific battle in history or fictionalised battle. The word I feel we need to focus on here is "History" as this is perhaps one of the major sticking points in this debate, we are currently at WAR with the Taliban, a big war a major war, that involves multiple countries and tens of thousands of men and women.

In my opinion trivializing this conflict by including the Taliban by name is wrong on many levels. I don't believe this is an issue against freedom of speech, this is an issue of moral correctness and should be supported. Do we have games based on the police force, with down loadable content, which mirrors the media for creative storytelling? A stealth level based on the failed capture of Roal Moat perhaps, or find the missing graves of the Moors murderers....! God help us if we ever do!

Just because we can do something in game does that mean we have too? Where does freedom of speech start and moral correctness begin?

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Nick Pearce on 4th October 2010 9:40am

Posted:4 years ago

#41

Mario Rodriguez Gonzalez Game Evaluation Analyst, Electronic Arts

15 0 0.0
Well, that's nice. Let's just keep assuming gamers are an uneducated bunch, unable to separate reality from fiction and that need to be protected from themselves, shielded away from the horrible, horrible, horrible truth of the world by cosmetic changes of name (cosmetic, indeed. As a lot of people say- sounds like a duck, looks like a duck, flies like a duck, it's a duck).

Then let us all get suprprised at how "immature" the industry is and how people refuse to take vedeogames as a serious form of art and have them as mere escapism. Well, excuse me, I meant "imaginative relaxation". Surely, the use of the term "escapism" is too derogatory to be ever, ever used in public.

Jesus F. Christ...

Posted:4 years ago

#42

Jamie Watson Studying Bachelor of Games & Interactive Entertainment, Queensland University of Technology

179 0 0.0
i wonder if this game was a army other then the american one (say using the British SAS or the Aussie Special forces) would it be OK to use the word "taliban" becuase it doesnt affect the amercian army? why is it all the time that games are made it has to go back to the US market?......Why not do the game with british SAS for example? i wonder how that would go?..

Posted:4 years ago

#43

Yiannis Koumoutzelis Founder & Creative Director, Neriad Games

363 208 0.6
dragons are better :)

Posted:4 years ago

#44

Joe Bognar PR Account Executive / Journalist

99 2 0.0
I agree with Russel Watson. Nice one EA! :)

Posted:4 years ago

#45

Munro350 Mun gamer

2 0 0.0
Not to concerned about the skin being dropped, what has infuriated me stealthy approach and decision that only a particular company has the right to host the servers. I guess the failure of MW2 and its closed servers has fallen on deaf ears.

Short term profits do not equal to long term profits, unless i belong to some other world regarding profit / loss margins.

Posted:4 years ago

#46

Shane Sweeney Academic

417 441 1.1
Im fine with this decision as long as books and films told from the perspective of the Taliban are also completely unacceptable to society and should be removed.

Seriously this is Super Columbine Massacre RPG! all over again. People should go watch the documentary "Playing Columbine".

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Shane Sweeney on 5th October 2010 1:26am

Posted:4 years ago

#47

Login or register to post

Take part in the GamesIndustry community

Register now