Google+

Military store ban on Medal of Honor still stands

After weeks of arguing, and defending artistic integrity, the Medal of Honor developers finally decided to take the word “Taliban” out of the multi-player portion of the game, replacing it with “opposing force”.

The controversy surrounding the inclusion of a certain seven-letter-word in Medal of Honor’s multiplayer has been a major sticking point for the Armed Service Exchanges, and certain families of fallen service members. Having actually lost sleep over this issue, the developers decided to remove the offending subject. “Not good enough,” says the Army & Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES).



“Out of respect to those touched by the ongoing, real-life events presented as a game, Exchanges will not be carrying this product. While we regret any inconvenience this may cause, our position is consistent with the direction stated a month ago. I expect the military families who are authorized to shop the Exchange are aware, and understanding, of the decision not to carry this particular offering,” said AAFES commanding officer Major General Bruce Casella in a prepared statement.

Oct 6, 2010

Source: Gamasutra



Medal of Honor drops Taliban name out of respect for fallen soldiers 
Terrorist group will now be known as Opposing Force in EA's rebooted shooter




Taliban controversy taking toll on Medal of Honor team's morale 
Developer Danger Close reacts to public outcry over playable Taliban fighters




Fox News takes aim at Medal of Honor Taliban controversy 
EA’s upcoming shooter branded as ‘disrespectful’ in TV discussion

25 comments

  • Gameguy94 - October 8, 2010 4:42 a.m.

    @Philious That's quite a bold statement be careful where you say that, someone might jump you, but in way you are very correct. I can sympathize with the military families, but all this is really unnecessary. Looks like a duck quacks like a duck...it's probably a duck(or taliban) I also think if these people knew how multiplayer worked they wouldn't so offended. As EA said its like cops and robbers, just character skins nothing more.
  • Utnapishtim89 - October 8, 2010 1:43 a.m.

    Real life events presented as a game? If that was their original reason for not carrying it then why didn't they complain about World at War or any of the other CoD and Moh games in the past? Or for that matter why aren't they complaining about Black Ops? All these games have parts that resemble real events or actually were real events. This reason is BS I thought it was stupid when they changed the name but accepted it. That was their reason before and them changing it now makes no sense in regards to other games.
  • twinkletitsMcGee - October 7, 2010 9:03 p.m.

    I heard Activision gave the Army and Armed Forces Exchange $20 million in order to not stock the game.
  • FeathersMcgraw - October 7, 2010 6:10 p.m.

    Yea you can shoot the people from other countries all you want but shooting AMERICANS? Thats just to far.
  • halfdime - October 7, 2010 6:11 a.m.

    Hey Philious the families and service members suck it up everyday. I assume most of them dont care actually, and AAFES is very greedy, I'm surprised that they AREN'T selling it seeing as they only really care about is money, I wonder what the real reason for them not selling it is.
  • Philious - October 7, 2010 5:52 a.m.

    What a joke, EA should change it back, screw the families. I could understand if it was depicting true stories from Afghan or Iraq but it ain't. This is just the typical media crap that ruins history, every other call of duty game (besides the MW stuff) has been at least historically correct in the sense they didn't need to have Allies/Badguys and no jewish people backlashed against using Nazi's or Wehrmacht in those games. I played the multiplayer beta on PS3 at eurogamer and it's a definate contender for fps king. My view the families and service men/women need to suck it up and get on with life, anyone who signs up with the Army/AF etc knows the risks. EA need to grow some ball's and say no FU media and military this is going to be historically correct. I just hope there's a level in there where I can plant some IED's or go on a suicide mission (with the typical muslim music backing). My 20p!
  • halfdime - October 7, 2010 5:41 a.m.

    If AAFES really cared, then why do they treat their veteran employees so horrible and pay them minimum wage with no benefits when they are a 10 billion dollar per year company?
  • Nitecuze - October 7, 2010 4:50 a.m.

    If they seem so uptight about a "video game" they need to chill out. Every war game in the past/future WILL have tie ins to our own human existence whether we realize it or not. I'm not of American backround but this seems a little stupid to me. We're meant to have FUN in our video games. Props to those who stood up to fight for their beliefs and all but in the long run it'll be a forgotten video game, will the complaining really get them anywhere further with their war?
  • Shadowhatchi - October 7, 2010 2:13 a.m.

    I think that the army just told EA to not try and puss out.
  • icmike69 - October 7, 2010 2:13 a.m.

    really a name change? its a free country here in america. its the 1st amendment, if your offended by what they got to say don't buy it. easy as that.
  • Wookiegonewild - October 7, 2010 1:33 a.m.

    I am so angry and dumbfounded over this whole thing I do not know what to say. On the surface this whole thing may seem very small. But it's things like this that go a LONG way to giving people like Jack Thompson what they want. And also set the thing we love most back in the journey to becoming more accepted by mainstream culture. It is times like these that I am reminded of the words..."Dam the torpedoes, full speed ahead..."
  • Jamahl - October 7, 2010 1:29 a.m.

    Its funny how now the multiplayer is exactly the same as modern warfares (homogenous terrorists vs "the US of A") and they still ban it. Of course, I guess the maps would still be in afganistan... but maybe the multiplayer part of the game exists in shmaffganistan instead!
  • NappyAfro - October 7, 2010 1:25 a.m.

    At least it's AAFES was civil and gave a respectable reason why they still won't sell it on military bases. Still, this means the name change was indeed pointless. I guess that's what happens when you make games based on current events... though I distinctly remember the controversy surrounding comic books during times of war and around touchy social controversies.
  • AlpineGuy - October 7, 2010 12:40 a.m.

    People in military bases overseas HAVE TO RELY on AAFES to provide them with things like video games that they can only get back home. Back when I was stationed in Germany, the rule was if my tiny little PX didn't have a new game in stock, I had to wait until I went to the 'States to buy it. (That, or order it online, which cost a lot in shipping and took several weeks!) By refusing to stock Medal of Honor, several people overseas are screwed out of playing a game that they may have been actually excited for. EA was stupid for changing the name and AAFES wasn't too bright for banning it in the first place.
  • keefster - October 7, 2010 12:36 a.m.

    Agreed with zeb364. Why is this game getting such shit, anyway? People need to calm the fuck down.
  • Zeb364 - October 7, 2010 12:16 a.m.

    They should change it back then. If they can't win either way then there's no harm with going with the name you originally intended. Not to mention "Opposing Force" is a lame name brought on by self-delusion.
  • Voltanis - October 7, 2010 12:15 a.m.

    Glad to see all that effort paid off there EA. Now please change it back.
  • TURbo - October 6, 2010 11:51 p.m.

    Change it back to the Taliban
  • Visual217 - October 6, 2010 11:47 p.m.

    Really? Why is the AAFES being such pussies about it? Its a fucking videogame! Why don't they go do something else more useful......like fighting the actual fucking war and winning it then bitching over something else that can't harm anyone! Not like anyone is gonna turn itno a Taliban soldier and start shooting teh shit out of anyone
  • abbottfrizzell - October 6, 2010 11:37 p.m.

    And what about Modern Warfare 2, I mean it isn't a real war but what if in the future we do fight the Russians over that same subject matter?

Showing 1-20 of 25 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000

OR…

Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.