Home Gaming Flamebait Friday Debate – Did The Medal Of Honor "Taliban" Controversy Work?

Flamebait Friday Debate – Did The Medal Of Honor "Taliban" Controversy Work?

1 min read


If you have been following the news, you would know that the new Medal of Honor caused a ton of controversy when they announced that in multiplayer, you could play as the Taliban.

Americans freaked the hell out, Gamestop said they refuse to stock the game on military bases and people in general just lost their minds. In response to the backlash, EA announced that they had changed the name from Taliban to Opposing Forces, but did they really have to and did it only give the game even more exposure?

Let’s think about this from a US perspective, using games like Call of Duty and Battlefield as a reference.

Is violence OK? Yes. Is it OK to shoot a virtual U.S soldier in the face? Sure, why not. Is it OK to depict America being invaded and cities being destroyed? No problems there. Is it OK to play as a bunch of Russian terrorists mowing down an airport full of innocents? Well, it was kind of frowned upon but in the end it made some sort of statement about something, so it wasn’t so bad, right? It is just a game in the end, isn’t it?

Is it OK to shoot a virtual U.S soldier in the face if you on a virtual multiplayer gaming team of Middle-Eastern soldiers called the Taliban rather than Opposing Forces? Apparently the answer is “Hell no!“.

Why is it fine to shoot U.S soldiers in games with all sorts of other baddies? I don’t know about you guys, but if someone was shooting at me, I would be less worried about who he was and more worried about the pieces of lead flying towards my nostrils.

The developers knew that this would cause controversy when the news was released and they also knew it would give their game a lot of extra exposure. Do you think it worked for them or against them in the end?

Let us know what you think about all of the madness.

Last Updated: October 15, 2010


  1. Yeah it worked for them.. Just about every news site had it up. Could I care? not really :biggrin:


  2. Dave

    October 15, 2010 at 12:30

    It’s completely different because it allows players to play AS enemies that are CURRENTLY killing American Soldiers at the same time. These aren’t 50-year old Nazis, or some fabricated Russian splinter group. This was an actual, current enemy. I’m not necessarily “offended,” but I can see why many were–and anyone who can’t see the difference between this case and other enemies in other games is simply trying to be a contrarian.

    That being said, I firmly believe EA always planned to release this game with “opposing force” as the enemy (a la Call of Duty). They simply used the possibility of naming that enemy “Taliban” to drum up sales. Sadly, some people got sucked in to buying a very mediocre product.

    And for the record, that whole Russian Terrorist scene in MW2 was not only superfluous, it was utter, illogical nonsense that would only occur in the most insane conspiracy theorist’s brain.


  3. Uberutang

    October 15, 2010 at 12:31

    Really do not get this whole sensitive thing people have.

    Things happen, get used to it! :za:


  4. easy

    October 15, 2010 at 12:37

    you american by any chance?


  5. graeme

    October 15, 2010 at 23:58

    What a freakin’ funny picture!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Check Also

FIFA and EA Split? How Did it Happen and What Now for the Future of the Franchise?

In life, there are many staples, peanut butter and jam, bread and a toaster, and in gaming…