Screw it: show EA where their money comes from

[Char-Nobyl]

"Vegetta! What's the scouter say about his Enrish level?"

"It's over 9000!"

Seriously, wasn't easier to answer my question?

It might've been if I could understand your question. Which I couldn't.

 

[Kiefer13]

I'm still going to get it, provided it seems good. Though I am somewhat disappointed that they backed down on the Taliban issue.

No, dammit, that's...ugh.

Look: actual boycotts are about refusing a service even though you could still use it, or it would make your life easier. You're supposed to make sacrifice. It's not supposed to be easy.

I know damn well what a boycott is. I just never agreed to boycott the game because of this in the first place. I would thank you to not to be so pretentious as to tell me what I should do with my own money.

But it's not just their fault. It's the fault of the idiots who were placing the pressure on them to change it in the first place.

No, it *is* their fault. The greater fault lies with organizations like the US Army who spit on the Constitution by banning it, then go back to fighting for truth, justice, and the American way, but EA takes blame for succumbing to this sort of pressure.

Uh, I'm pretty sure that's what I just said. I didn't say they were entirely blameless for backing down in the face of controversy. I just said it was more of the fault of the people making a controversy out of the issue in the first place. You know, people like the US Army.

The name change may be a superficial one, but it's one that shouldn't have had to be made in the first place. Everyone is still going to know who OpFor are meant to represent.

Think about that, too. What's OpFor's point of controversy going to be? And what's going to happen to it? If EA's precedent is set, we won't get a friendly warning before the level like in MW2: it'll be scrubbed before it hits shelves.

Um, well yes. Obviously I thought about it if I mentioned it.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

So let me get this straight.

We should now boycott a game and work ourselves into a self-righteous frenzy simply because they chose to NOT officially label the "other team" in team-based multiplayer by a SPECIFIC label? What, is there some sort of intense burning desire to BECOME a member of the Taliban to help along some sort of fantasy of killing U.S. soldiers? Is it really that gratifying of a fantasy?

I could understand people being upset about this if it required that they rewrite major portions of the game, change the story, remove levels like some sort of "Play as the Taliban ala Modern Warfare 2's Airport terrorist scene" thing, but all they did was CHANGE THE OTHER TEAM ONTO WHICH YOU WILL BE PLACED AT RANDOM FROM "TALIBAN" TO "OPPOSING FORCE". Hell, they aren't even changing that team's APPEARANCE, WEAPONS, or LOOK in any way. For all intents and purposes they will still VISUALLY be the "Taliban", since you'd be hard put to imagine that those are Nazis, Covenant, or any other enemy combatant type running around in a kafia screaming in Arabic. Hell, if you are that bent on fighting middle easterners by their proper name, you can just as easily imagine them to be "evil pakistanis" or "evil Iranians" or if you feel a particular need for being insensitive, you could imagine that they are Israelis.

The point being that at the end of the day, the opposite teams are just a means to allow you to differentiate between the enemy team and not putting dozens of rounds into your own teammates. 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 (not that it matters because I've learned that the best action in a confusing situation is to simply kill everything and then say "Sorry" afterwards while looting the corpses.)

Also, you can't really claim a violation of Freedom of Speech if YOU willingly censor YOURSELF. If you stand around in a KKK hood preaching about how much you hate them colored folks, and then when you find it difficult to obtain employment suddenly decide to throw away your hood and start being friendly to brown people, you can't go around crying that you were FORCED to be nice and are some how being violated. YOU made the decision, therefore there is none to blame for it but yourself.

 

[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

 

[Flames66]

I wasn't going to buy it anyway. I do not have, nor have I ever had, any interest in this series.

 

[Something Amyss]

Again, first amendment. It was a typo. That'll happen when surrounded by squawks about second amendment violations and, being an American who usually cares more about freedom of expression than firearms, it's a natural slip to get the two confused when it comes to importance.

Actually, for people who support one or both amendments, it's pretty rare to see them confused. But that's not quite the key issue here.

The first amendment doesn't allow you to say what you wish without repercussion. It prevents the Government from interfering with your right to speech and assemble, which is different. Nothing in the Taliban issue is a free speech issue. When you put a terrorist organisation in the game, that's free speech. When people threaten to boycott, that's also free speech. Nobody's rights have been taken away.

Why, if you want to show them where the money is, go ahead. That's still not free speech. You refusing to buy it because they took out the Taliban is no different than the opponents threatening not to if they didn't. Neither infringes on the free speech of the devs and publishers; they still have the right to do it, at a potential financial loss. Until Congress passes a law banning the Taliban from appearing in games, don't talk about the first amendment as an issue that applies here.

The case in California, on the other hand, could successfully be argued as a free speech issue because they're trying to circumvent the concept of games as art in order to ban sale to minors. If you want to brush up on the Bill of rights and find a thread on that, you'll actually make sense.

 

[Soviet Steve]

But the trailer is so gripping D:

4 soldiers going near a door, kicking it in and firering a couple of bullets, then a biker in camo uniform looking to the side.

I haven't been that exited since I discovered that the sun comes back in the morning.

 

[mew4ever23]

I wasn't going to get the new Medal of Honor game anyway, and I could really care less if the Taliban is or is not featured in it.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

It might've been if I could understand your question. Which I couldn't.

My bad, but I think it would be easier to say that you didn't instead of making a clown of yourself, what I want to know is, what's the purpose for this thread? What are you trying to achieve?

And don't think I'm trying to bash you, I read the first post, and I swear I don't know what purpose could be gained by not buying that game, that is all.

I hope this made myself clearer.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

The first amendment guarantees their right to market their games how they want.
What right exactly are they violating?
The first amendment guarantees their right to market their games how they want.
What right exactly are they violating?
Dental Plan.
Lisa needs braces.
Dental Plan.
Lisa needs braces.

Yeah...that's right. It *is* the first amendment. You're just repeating the same two phrases and pretending that it's somehow not a valid answer.

The OP is complaining because EA caved, in spite of their right to market their games how they want.

Replace "in spite" with "because" and yeah, you're right.

The OP however is crying wolf, because it wasn't government pressure, but corperate pressure.

Could you quote where I said that the government was telling EA to change it? Thanks.

In his defence however, he's doing so because he can't tell the difference between a wolf and a coyote.

See above, and could you quote where it says in the Constitution that it's only possible for the government to infringe on civil rights? I mean, people can't infringe on the rights of other people without government power, right?

 

[Danzaivar]

For US gamers, it's a blatant violation of the second amendment's to be pressuring a group with no legal basis,

So EA is being forced to take our guns?

Gah. That's only partially on me. I'm immersed in a society where every other contitutional argument is made over the second amendment, and I occasionally get its number mixed up with that of most important one (free speech, the first). I'll edit that.

Blaming society for your actions makes you just as bad as EA. Just saying.

 

[Hybridwolf]

A name change won't affect my decsion to buy it. The mutiplayer beta ruined it's chances long before all this new crap came about.

 

[The Austin]

It's a good thing that they took the Taliban out.
So I'm not going to boycott it.

 

[Kraegnac]

So let me get this straight.

We should now boycott a game and work ourselves into a self-righteous frenzy simply because they chose to NOT officially label the "other team" in team-based multiplayer by a SPECIFIC label? What, is there some sort of intense burning desire to BECOME a member of the Taliban to help along some sort of fantasy of killing U.S. soldiers? Is it really that gratifying of a fantasy?

I could understand people being upset about this if it required that they rewrite major portions of the game, change the story, remove levels like some sort of "Play as the Taliban ala Modern Warfare 2's Airport terrorist scene" thing, but all they did was CHANGE THE OTHER TEAM ONTO WHICH YOU WILL BE PLACED AT RANDOM FROM "TALIBAN" TO "OPPOSING FORCE". Hell, they aren't even changing that team's APPEARANCE, WEAPONS, or LOOK in any way. For all intents and purposes they will still VISUALLY be the "Taliban", since you'd be hard put to imagine that those are Nazis, Covenant, or any other enemy combatant type running around in a kafia screaming in Arabic. Hell, if you are that bent on fighting middle easterners by their proper name, you can just as easily imagine them to be "evil pakistanis" or "evil Iranians" or if you feel a particular need for being insensitive, you could imagine that they are Israelis.

The point being that at the end of the day, the opposite teams are just a means to allow you to differentiate between the enemy team and not putting dozens of rounds into your own teammates. 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 (not that it matters because I've learned that the best action in a confusing situation is to simply kill everything and then say "Sorry" afterwards while looting the corpses.)

Also, you can't really claim a violation of Freedom of Speech if YOU willingly censor YOURSELF. If you stand around in a KKK hood preaching about how much you hate them colored folks, and then when you find it difficult to obtain employment suddenly decide to throw away your hood and start being friendly to brown people, you can't go around crying that you were FORCED to be nice and are some how being violated. YOU made the decision, therefore there is none to blame for it but yourself.

It's not about wanting to be the Taliban at all! You dismissed the name change as frivolous and it is exactly that. Seeing as how it's so wildly unimportant, why bother changing it at all?

I'm not sure about the righteous frenzy bit, but it's certainly something to get a little upset over. It's a matter of principle. Changing a ridiculously minor aspect of something simply because people arbitrarily dislike it?

 

[Steve Butts]

But you're painting MOH as a corporate product. Look at it for a moment as if MOH was a work of art, with EA being the artist. Robert Ebert aside, it's textbook art censorship. It's a depiction of warfare that's going on right now, yet it's being forced to pretend that it's not, that the US Army is fighting the Balitan in some made-up world.

People have the right to voice their opinions on *both* sides. I'm clearly doing it here, and they're doing it somewhere. I want the status quo restored, the art as it was intended, or I simply won't be buying the game because it will represent a blunted version of what it was meant to be. If anything, the only *change* I want is for it to be *changed* back to what it was before it was browbeaten by nongamers.

I sympathize with your frustration, but there's no doubt that MOH is a corporate product. You said so yourself in the title for this post: "Show EA where their money comes from." The problem with the argument is that you say EA is being "forced" to comply with the detractors' wishes. EA is simply making a decision based on what it feels is best for its bottom line and public image. Don't think EA has a greater motivation to decide this question based on artistic merit than on the potential profits.

You have every right to make your voice heard by deciding what you will and won't buy. I just think arguments based on the constitutionality or artistic value of the changes miss the point entirely. Even if there was an artistic argument to make here, saying that Art can only be true or desirable based on whether or not it conforms to your standards is exactly the argument that non-gamers use to claim that games aren't art.

 

[Bilbo536]

Char, you are completely full of sh*t. The first amendment guarantees their right to market their games how they want--so long as they do so legally--and equally guarantees your right to complain about it. What right exactly are they violating? Your right to speak freely, to assemble a group, to petition them not to do something, to publish information, or to practice your religion?

I love it when people set up an account just to put some butthurt kid in his place. Welcome to the Escapist.

OT: OP is clueless. Although it seems we have already reached a consensus on that.

 

[nipsen]

I wish my constitution was written everywhere, so I could spout how something is 'violating my rights' every ten minutes.

..you can get one that fits in your pocket, you know. Also doubles as a coffee-mug rest or scribble-paper. Smartest dollars you'll ever spend.

 

[Shadowsafter]

Let me make a comparison, i think it is apt...
You're playing a ww2 game, one campaign is Russian, fighting on the eastern front, one is British/ American fighting the west and so on...
But hold on, what's this? a GERMAN campaign? i'm shooting these American/Russian/British men who stood up for their respective countries?!? This will not stand!
Cut back to the Call of Duty, World at War. When you DO play as the germans in MULTIPLAYER, and who among you stood up and said "I REFUSE TO KILL THESE BRAVE MEN OF AMERICA/RUSSIA/BRITAIN"
Absoloute fuck nobody thats who.