Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kanluwen wrote:

CrashUSAR wrote:But it was cool to play as Op-For in MW1-2, yeah?

But therein lies the difference, wouldn't you say?

"Taliban" brings to mind the actual organization and its policies.
"Op-For", to a non-militarily informed individual, is just some wacky fictional terrorist organization staffed by Arabs who like to dress the same.

and in reality, the term OpFor is an abbreviation for Opposition Force.. which is a fictional force used in training exercises.

But as CrashUSAR has said, if you dont like it, stay out of multiplayer or dont even buy the game.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

CrashUSAR wrote:But it was cool to play as Op-For in MW1-2, yeah?

But therein lies the difference, wouldn't you say?

"Taliban" brings to mind the actual organization and its policies.
"Op-For", to a non-militarily informed individual, is just some wacky fictional terrorist organization staffed by Arabs who like to dress the same.

and in reality, the term OpFor is an abbreviation for Opposition Force.. which is a fictional force used in training exercises.

But as CrashUSAR has said, if you dont like it, stay out of multiplayer or dont even buy the game.

Well aware of what OpFor means and what they're used for, thank you very much

The point is, people who don't know what an "Opposition Force"/"OpFor" is...they're not going to immediately leap to "THIS IS CLEARLY THE ALQAEDATALIBAN RENAMED!".

Kanluwen wrote:
Well aware of what OpFor means and what they're used for, thank you very much

The point is, people who don't know what an "Opposition Force"/"OpFor" is...they're not going to immediately leap to "THIS IS CLEARLY THE ALQAEDATALIBAN RENAMED!".

wasn't trying to pick on you or anything dude, just putting out the information, for those who may be reading this thread and didn't know what it means


I do wonder though, if someone made a FPS game, with online multi player, and put the "badguys" as something like the ELF or some such 'other' terrorist group, if there would be any issues the way MoH is having right now.

Probably not.

The issue is simply that the "Taliban" are the here and now. You see them on the news every so often, and it's just...well kinda bad taste to actually name them out like that.

Kanluwen wrote:well kinda bad taste to actually name them out like that.

It's also bad taste to just rename them and pretend they don't exist. But then, we are talking about a video game...

Out of sight is out of mind in today's world.

Well the thing with it is that people don't raise guff about shooting US soldiers in any WW2 games, didn't raise guff about shooting US soldiers in MW, and didn't even say anything about the fact that you are shooting Navy Seals or Army Rangers.

In an article the developers compared it to playing "cops and robbers" and saying that "someone has to be the bad guy.".

I believe then that the whole issue is the name of the bad guys and not the fact that you are shooting US soldiers, British soldiers, or any other soldiers involved in the Coalition.

Ignorance is bliss.

What about Russian soldiers? In MW2 they are made to be evil and we proudly gun them down apparently. What's the difference in gunning down a few polygons dressed as westerners?

It's all a massive hypocrisy, AND it's only a game, so I killed a computer generated character, i'm guilty, so sue me.

If we follow the logic of the protestors, we should be taken to court for killing in a video game.

I'm showing my massive displeasure with the game... by preordering it...

...wait what?

Yeah, I preordered. Very rare for me to do that, but I honestly cant wait.

It's Just Polygons. Me shooting an American in MoH is no different than me Shooting anyone else in any other shooting game. I'm willing to bet that 95% of People don't care, but the five percent that does screams louder. It's just like the "War against Christmas" It's just like any other extremly oversensitive group that were probably those kids that threw a Temper Tantrum when mommy said no growing up.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Horizons/2010/1001/Medal-of-Honor-drops-Taliban-team-from-multiplayer-mode

Seriously? WTF. I think I might cancel my preorder.

You should cancel your preorder anyways, the game sucks.

Really? Because the reviews that were published today gave it an 85% rating... thats pretty good.

Having played the MP beta...I can tell you it's the same old garbage, repackaged.

And of course the reviews published today gave it a good rating. Most of them were only doing it thanks to advanced copies from EA. Which if they gave Medal of Honor bad reviews...they're likely to never get advance copies for any EA game published again, nor the sponsorship of EA for anything they potentially do.

They have removed the taliban from the new MOH as of now.

How is this supposed to compare to MW2? which one is better?

I love MW2's multiplayer, but I suck so bad. My levels getting up there, but that's because my team carries me through with my 3 or 4 kills and 12-20 deaths per game.

I just dunno how people kill me so easy. it's nuts. I can be as cautious as I can, sneak around and aways watch by back, then bam I'm dead.. and when I watch the guy's kill cam, he shoots me but I can't even see myself on his screen, so how does he see me? Do people just sit 2" from their screen and shoot any pixel that moves? I don't get it.

Necros wrote:How is this supposed to compare to MW2? which one is better?

I love MW2's multiplayer, but I suck so bad. My levels getting up there, but that's because my team carries me through with my 3 or 4 kills and 12-20 deaths per game.

I just dunno how people kill me so easy. it's nuts. I can be as cautious as I can, sneak around and aways watch by back, then bam I'm dead.. and when I watch the guy's kill cam, he shoots me but I can't even see myself on his screen, so how does he see me? Do people just sit 2" from their screen and shoot any pixel that moves? I don't get it.

Not that I actually own the game, I agree, having played it at a friends a few times. Asides from that, I find it stupidly hard to pick out the enemy. Now, perhaps you should start a thread asking for advice, Necros?

//back on topic//

On CNN it says the 'Taliban' will be renamed to be 'opposition force'.

Personally I think that although the Taliban are an actual organization, it's still a work of fiction. It's a game. I think that if they banned using the name Taliban for the bad guys in games then in films they shouldn't call them that either. I think it would be hypocritical.

Lord Nimr0d wrote:On CNN it says the 'Taliban' will be renamed to be 'opposition force'.

Personally I think that although the Taliban are an actual organization, it's still a work of fiction. It's a game. I think that if they banned using the name Taliban for the bad guys in games then in films they shouldn't call them that either. I think it would be hypocritical.

It's actually not a work of fiction though. EA's been touting from the get-go that every scenario in singleplayer and multiplayer are "real events that happened, as described to them by vetted sources speaking under a condition of anonymity".

Big difference from the Modern Warfare games where they made things up.

LordofHats wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:well kinda bad taste to actually name them out like that.

It's also bad taste to just rename them and pretend they don't exist. But then, we are talking about a video game...

Might I add it is also kinda bad taste to kill 'people' no matter how real they are.

wizard12 wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:well kinda bad taste to actually name them out like that.

It's also bad taste to just rename them and pretend they don't exist. But then, we are talking about a video game...

Might I add it is also kinda bad taste to kill 'people' no matter how real they are.

But what if it is someone I don't like? That makes it ok, yes?

Medal of Honour has been leaving a bad taste ever since they crapped out that add-on to the superb Allied Assault. It has been going downhill from there and this gritty reboot is fizzling already, it might see some action now but it will be blown away by Black Ops.

I wouldn't be too surprised if some of those "great" reviews were done by the EA P&R department and passed off to certain sites along with a nice case of "oops I dropped a cheque somewhere".

"Black Ops" isn't going to blow diddly crap away.

Treyarch can't make a good game to save their lives.

Gotta disagree there, sure World at War was a xenophobic and hate spewing game that seriously made me hate Gary Oldman and Jack Bauer, but a lot more fun than Modern Warfare 2. Black Ops will easily come out on top of MoH. Okay, it won't be the pile of gak that is MW2, but it will beat MoH.

How was World at War "more fun" than MW2?

They were the same game, for all intents and purposes.

Actually I liked World at War. MW2 on the other hand... no.

Black Ops looks even WORSE than MW2. In fact, a big step down.

Am I taking crazy pills? Couldn't you play as Nazis in the earlier games?

I don't see how the Taliban is worse than Nazis.

Monster Rain wrote:Am I taking crazy pills? Couldn't you play as Nazis in the earlier games?

I don't see how the Taliban is worse than Nazis.

Without getting into a huge ethical debate about standing armies v. terrorist organizations and insurgencies...

You played as the Wehrmacht(aka: the German Army) in the earlier games. While some of the Nazi party were members of the Wehrmacht, not all of the Wehrmacht were members of the Nazi party.

Kanluwen wrote:How was World at War "more fun" than MW2?

They were the same game, for all intents and purposes.

Ah, I see what's going on here.

BrookM wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:How was World at War "more fun" than MW2?

They were the same game, for all intents and purposes.

Ah, I see what's going on here.

If you do clue me in.

I have no personal preference between MW2+World at War. They're both fun games, but with MW2 edging out a bit more to my personal tastes due to the Spec Ops challenges, versus the barely coherently implemented campaign coop and the pantsonhead stupid multiplayer balancing(which, admittedly is true of both games but with WaW being a far far better example of imbalances) that we got from World at War.

Although I'm really waiting for the new Ghost Recon game. When's that coming out again?