Screw it: show EA where their money comes from

[Korroth Dyahwanre]

I'm not buying the game because it looks like shit, not some perceived bullshit.

EA was not forced to change it, they chose to change it. That's pressure, not legal requirement, and therefore there is nothing we can do about it.

it's not that they were legally required too(which would have happened next anyway if the pressuring party had not gotten their way) its the fact that they did it to appease the assclowns in office. Boycotting the game does little with out lots of people ignoring the game... I've been Boycotting Blizzard since their customer service is the worst on the planet that I have personally had interaction with. It's done nothing and they don't even notice my lack of participation. EA is slowly gaining strikes in their favor now too. While I agree that making a stand is an awesome idea and the only way is to get others on board with it and drive sales into the red. your presentation is kinda lack luster, I had to read a lot of this 4 page thread in order to find out fully what the frack your talking about. I for one will not be buying it, not because of the "changed a name BS" but because I have no interest, if I'm going to play a EA FPS it will be the Battlefield Series anyhow. Besides that unless it's coming out on PC I wouldn't buy it anyway. I don't own a crap-box360 or a PS3.

So we're saying that in the dozens of WWII games where Nazi Germany was the antagonist that its ok to leave them as Nazi's and German(I'd heard that in the past the Swastika had been banned from various country's or forced to be changed), or the Vietnamese in the Vietnam games because they are, "overwith". Now its not ok to have the Taliban labeled because it's a current event and they might blow us up?? If this is a game regarding that issue(war against the Taliban) and this time frame(post9/11/01) then it should have been left alone.

I ultimately agree with the point of this thread. I for one wont be buying the game I doubt I'll even touch the game. That has more to do with the money I have sunk into another EA game that they refuse to help me with the lazy bastards then any game about fighting Taliban. And honestly Counterstrike has been a long standing successful Anti-terrorist game for years with out "labeling" outside of Terrorist and Counter-Terrorist's.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Multiplayer shooters are not an art form. Sorry.

Neither is paint. Paint is not art, but a painting is. Brushes, canvas, all not art, but the ultimate product is. And if Venus de Milo proved anything, it's that even with pieces lost, a work of art is still a work of art.

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

I mean one of the arguments to why it should be changed is because it could be used as a training tool for terrorist

That's not one of the reasons it was changed, and no intelligent person would actually believe that.

Again, this is multiplayer we're talking about. I've said it so many times, but if we were talking about single player, where there's a narrative and a point, this would be a different argument. But as it's just multiplayer, most of these arguments about free speech and whatnot are completely irrelevant.

 

[Steve Butts]

I'm fairly confident that I've been careful about using the term "forced." I know that I've used "duress" a few times, a caving to public pressure, but I've been acknowledging that this is ultimately EA's decision, hence why the topic exists in the first place. I'm not proposing that we lobby anti-game groups to change their opinions, or get anti-game laws overturned, simply because in the former there's no point and the latter doesn't exist in this case.

If appeal to the Constitution doesn't work, this is still a game company changing a game on the whims of nongamers without legal reason to do so. It'd be like Honda taking away cupholders from their cars because Samsung demanded them to do so: the consumers aren't even being asked.

If this is a case where the first amendment comes to play, then my proposal is at least justified. If it's not a case of Constitutional violations, then just the same, it's games being controlled and edited by nongamers, and I hold that rejecting the product of of that is the right thing to do.

Again, this is absolutely not a First Amendment issue. Congress did not pass a law saying that it was illegal to make or sell this game. The responsible corporate entities have decided to change the content and limit the retail availability of the game based on matters of commerce and conscience. Ultimately, the game is being controlled and edited by EA. It may be responding to outside pressures, but it has the right and responsbility to make that evaluation.

My apologies if I misrepresented your argument. You did use the term "forced," at least in your response to my first post.

 

[mechanixis]

Multiplayer shooters are not an art form. Sorry.

Neither is paint. Paint is not art, but a painting is. Brushes, canvas, all not art, but the ultimate product is. And if Venus de Milo proved anything, it's that even with pieces lost, a work of art is still a work of art.

But a game does not equal a shade of paint. That would be like...a polygon, or a line of code. The game is the sum of those parts just as a painting is the sum of all its brushstrokes.

Semantics aside, competitive multiplayer games are more sport than art. What makes this sort of realism so repulsive to the layman is that you're acting out one of the most horrific aspects of the human experience, and you're having such a gosh-darn zany good time doing it. There's no statement or artistic expression there; if there were, this might not be an issue.

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

Multiplayer shooters are not an art form. Sorry.

Neither is paint. Paint is not art, but a painting is. Brushes, canvas, all not art, but the ultimate product is. And if Venus de Milo proved anything, it's that even with pieces lost, a work of art is still a work of art.

In order for this comparison to work, you have to argue that "art" is made during the playing of a multiplayer match.

As if a good headshot is a work of art or something.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

I think what they are trying to say is that (MORE FOLLOWS)

Please...don't try to speak for me. Ever again.

Fair enough, still, movies also go through this process, they change or remove scenes so they can appeal to a wider audience, and it's barely noticeable.

Nope. They don't. Movies alter more graphic content to lower the rating. This has nothing to do with the rating. Or, alternatively, they change endings or smaller parts based on test screenings. Again, no the same thing.

Jack Thompson is an ass in my opinion, but I hardly think he ever had anything to do with the final decision over this, so to me, it doesn't count.

I never said anything about him, and I know that he's long since been disbarred, so I don't really care about him.

Now, I know as consumers, we think we have more voice than those who aren't, but this is an industry growing, whose target is to appeal to more audiences than the current, and if by this they can do it, I understand the reasoning behind the decision.

...yes, except that the groups trying to get content changed are also among those who think that video games cause children to be evil. That's like banning gays from attending a certain highschool because you think that by giving into WBC demands, they'll become more tolerant. Blood in the water doesn't placate a shark.

I agree, but again, we consumers haven't a big demography as the potential consumers,

...what? That's not true. A successful company like EA has a massive customer pool. Any attempts at expansion (this applies to any company) would be into smaller, more targeted ventures. That's why a single-store franchise doesn't open six new storefronts overnight.

so it's all about deciding to slap people you first met, or people you know and hope they understand why. It'll hurt in the end, but it's an acceptable price to get what we want, which is an entertainment media like MoH. I don't like the idea more than you, but we had worse days.

So in other words, their policy is to spit on their devoted fanbase in the hopes that people who might possibly maybe buy their game at some point maybe. If you truly believe that this is their policy, then you don't have reason to boycott MOH. You have reason to find the nearest EA building and burn it to the ground.

 

[Kraegnac]

So what you are saying is, if they changed the name to Islamic Militants or "Muslim extremists", then you would have been satisfied? You tell me the name is frivolous, then rant and rave about them having the audacity to change it.
If the name itself is unimportant, then the issue of CHANGING the name becomes equally unimportant, thus shooting a big fat hole in your initial complaint to begin with.

This isn't a violation of any rights. It's not even a slight to gamers. It's a name change. Big deal. What, wanna fight about it? Is it even important? If they kept the name, but the game sucked, would you still eagerly shell out your hard earned money for it?
And what about those who actually HAVE lost family members to the Taliban? Should they shutup too? From my perspective THOSE people actually have more of a valid argument for displaying some sort of dissatisfaction with the name than you do. Their gripe is that they lost someone to the Taliban and it's painful to think of people re-enacting that a million-fold in little virtual games. It's not much of a stance, but it's a valid one. On the other hand, YOU are upset because a company decided to be a little respectful and changed the BLOODY NAME of an enemy faction because they sympathized with the people who found it somewhat offensive.

In a way, both arguments are stupid, but this is by FAR the least valid side of it.
It's a simple name change. Get over it.

Where the hell are you getting "So what you are saying is, if they changed the name to Islamic Militants or "Muslim extremists", then you would have been satisfied?" from? I thought it was pretty clear that the point wasn't what it was changed to, but that it was changed at all.

And it was you who claimed the name was unimportant in the first place.

"... I don't care if you call the team the Westboro Baptist Church Brigrade, as long as they look different enough from the team I'm currently playing on that I won't be trying to figure out who is on my side in a firefight..."

So let's leave out the whole "name doesn't matter" bit.

Neither I nor burntheartist once said it was a violation of any rights at all, so it seems to me that you didn't really read what was posted before replying. All I was doing was addressing the absurd generalizations and intuitive leaps you were making about the motives behind the OPs feelings. Those serve only to make what you're arguing against seem ridiculous and don't further the discussion at all.

Upon reading your posts a little more closely, I've noticed that you're latched onto the idea that people are upset about what the name was changed to and from. This is not the case. The upset is at the fact that a fairly unimportant aspect of a video game was changed specifically because a large number of people (who would likely never even see it)heard about it and thought it was offensive.

Now, I personally doubt that simply removing the name "Taliban" from the Middle-eastern terrorist team removes any stigma at all. Even if they're not specified as such, it is very clear that they are supposed to represent exactly that. That'd be like getting upset that a WW2 game depicts SS troops executing Allied POWs and then demanding that the black-coated, jackbooted, goose-stepping fellows be called "Bad Guys" instead.

The "opposing force" was named Taliban because that's essentially what they represent. An extremist Middle-Eastern faction opposing American troops.

I don't really agree with all this about violating rights and such, but I do think it is certainly an interesting topic for conversation.



So, get over it.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

In order for this comparison to work, you have to argue that "art" is made during the playing of a multiplayer match.

As if a good headshot is a work of art or something.

Hardly. The art is the game itself, not necessarily any individual part of the game.

Or, for a different approach, you can't judge art by how its owner treats it. You can frame a child's fingerpainting in the Louvre or use a strip from a Van Gogh as toilet paper, but it won't change anything about the world's view of the works, though it will change the world's opinion of your sanity.

 

[nuba km]

I mean one of the arguments to why it should be changed is because it could be used as a training tool for terrorist

That's not one of the reasons it was changed, and no intelligent person would actually believe that.

Again, this is multiplayer we're talking about. I've said it so many times, but if we were talking about single player, where there's a narrative and a point, this would be a different argument. But as it's just multiplayer, most of these arguments about free speech and whatnot are completely irrelevant.

no they also changed the name in single player from what I now and that is one of the reason people gave to why it SHOULD be the changed and that is the only reason I heard people give to why it should be changed but the reason WHY IT WAS changed was because the bad publicity I was trying to show why it was stupid also ENN already gave pretty much any reason to why changing the name because it was offensive was stupid.

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

In order for this comparison to work, you have to argue that "art" is made during the playing of a multiplayer match.

As if a good headshot is a work of art or something.

Hardly. The art is the game itself, not necessarily any individual part of the game.

I don't agree. As I said before, multiplayer shooters are not art. They serve no purpose other than entertainment. You cannot defend them with the same arguments you use to defend real art. And even if I agree that single player games can be art (though solely because of the narrative), that doesn't give that game's multiplayer content "protection" under the umbrella of art.

 

[mechanixis]

In order for this comparison to work, you have to argue that "art" is made during the playing of a multiplayer match.

As if a good headshot is a work of art or something.

Hardly. The art is the game itself, not necessarily any individual part of the game.

Or, for a different approach, you can't judge art by how its owner treats it. You can frame a child's fingerpainting in the Louvre or use a strip from a Van Gogh as toilet paper, but it won't change anything about the world's view of the works, though it will change the world's opinion of your sanity.

If Medal of Honor and games like it are art, they are art based on a lie. Games could say some powerful things about war and mortality and conflict. But game designers know you just want your respawns and your headshots, and your badass all-American heroes saving the day in exotic locales around the world, so that's what they give you.

If games about wars (that claim to be realistic portrayals, at least) were art in any significant capacity, they wouldn't be so much fun to play.

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

I mean one of the arguments to why it should be changed is because it could be used as a training tool for terrorist

That's not one of the reasons it was changed, and no intelligent person would actually believe that.

Again, this is multiplayer we're talking about. I've said it so many times, but if we were talking about single player, where there's a narrative and a point, this would be a different argument. But as it's just multiplayer, most of these arguments about free speech and whatnot are completely irrelevant.

no they also changed the name in single player from what I now and that is one of the reason people gave to why it SHOULD be the changed and that is the only reason I heard people give to why it should be changed but the reason WHY IT WAS changed was because the bad publicity I was trying to show why it was stupid also ENN already gave pretty much any reason to why changing the name because it was offensive was stupid.

I've heard nothing about them changing the name in single-player.

Lots of reasons were given about why it should be changed, and some of them were stupid reasons put forth by stupid alarmists. Others were GOOD reasons, like the fact that it's completely insensitive.

As I've said elsewhere, EA would have EASILY survived any negative press. As history has shown, this kind of controversy almost never hurts a game's sales, which is all that matters. Grand Theft Auto survives it, Call of Duty survived it, and Medal of Honor would have survived it.

 

[nuba km]

I think what they are trying to say is that (MORE FOLLOWS)

Please...don't try to speak for me. Ever again.

sorry I was trying to summarise several peoples opinion about this not just yours I understand why you may not like me for saying that what I thought your where trying to say but at least you don't have the problem of your brother volunteering you for hard work which you don't want to do because you are busy with your own work which ends up making you stay up late 11-12 because it was delayed by the hard work that your brother volunteered you for because he wanted to seem like a nice guy.

 

[nuba km]

I mean one of the arguments to why it should be changed is because it could be used as a training tool for terrorist

That's not one of the reasons it was changed, and no intelligent person would actually believe that.

Again, this is multiplayer we're talking about. I've said it so many times, but if we were talking about single player, where there's a narrative and a point, this would be a different argument. But as it's just multiplayer, most of these arguments about free speech and whatnot are completely irrelevant.

no they also changed the name in single player from what I now and that is one of the reason people gave to why it SHOULD be the changed and that is the only reason I heard people give to why it should be changed but the reason WHY IT WAS changed was because the bad publicity I was trying to show why it was stupid also ENN already gave pretty much any reason to why changing the name because it was offensive was stupid.

I've heard nothing about them changing the name in single-player.

Lots of reasons were given about why it should be changed, and some of them were stupid reasons put forth by stupid alarmists. Others were GOOD reasons, like the fact that it's completely insensitive.

As I've said elsewhere, EA would have EASILY survived any negative press. As history has shown, this kind of controversy almost never hurts a game's sales, which is all that matters. Grand Theft Auto survives it, Call of Duty survived it, and Medal of Honor would have survived it.

well I don't get offended when Germans are portrayed as completed bastards and 100% evil (except when it happens to Nazis because they were that). I hate even worse when someone thinks all Germans are Nazis I correct them and get on with my day because like someone ones said "NOTHING HAPPENS WHEN YOU ARE OFFENDED" also how can it be so offensive sure you shoot a some American soldiers but guess what you do it in 99% of modern fps games on multiplayer. also it doesn't from my knowledge try to make the Americans looks evil or straight out insult all Americans also if it is because it is trying to paint the war in some shades of gray (single player) guess what the war is not good versus evil it is oppressing forces versus religious extremists guess what that is morally gray.

 

[Spencer Petersen]

Maybe if this was a case about people trying to completely ban the presence of the Taliban in any game or at least some legal action it might have some relevance on the constitution, but for now, its just EA being a giant pussy, nothing else.

 

[joshthor]

big baby. they did the right thing. sure. they caved into pressure, and most people would not consider it offencive, but they appeased the people who do. so whats the problem? they didnt REALLY change anything. its still the same game. im personally buying a copy. i'd rather buy that then goddamn call of duty 7

Because names aren't "real" things, right?

I could change my name to fredrick wilconson and i would still be the same person, and the taliban could change its name to happy kitty sing along troupe and they would still bomb the shit out of cars and stuff. the content is the same the name is different. so what? same exact thing. a name is a title, nothing more.

 

[savageoblivi0n]

bah i wasn't gonna buy it anyway, new vegas looms before me..and after that black ops, fable 3 etc etc...

 

[zombays]

I'm not buying it because A) I'm bored of multiplayer whore-ish gmaes with NO dedicated support.
B) It looks like a steaming pile of dogshit and C) I am actually enjoying Halo Reach besides my doubts, mostly because I create the scariest fucking things on Forge but whatever.

ANYWAYS, I don't know why the fuck you're bitching, there's always going to be people with a sack around to say "FUCK CENSORSHIP, HERE'S SOME TITS AND EXPLODING GOREY CHUNKS OF DICKS!"