GameStop Pulls Medal of Honor From Military Bases 362
donniebaseball23 writes "EA's Medal of Honor reboot doesn't ship until October 12, but it's already seen a fair amount of controversy thanks to the publisher's decision to allow people to play as Taliban in multiplayer. The controversy just got escalated another notch, reports IndustryGamers, as the world's biggest games retailer GameStop has decided it won't sell the title at its stores located on US military bases. The new Medal of Honor won't be advertised at these stores either. GameStop noted that they came to this decision 'out of respect for our past and present men and women in uniform.'"
Close your tags! (Score:2)
It looks like someone forgot to close an <i> tag. Good thing it was near the end of TFS, or it would have been less readable than usual.
What? (Score:5, Funny)
"Gimmie that!" *yoink*
"But...!"
"Because I respect you!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh no! No play-as-enemies? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can still play as Germans in WW2 games, though? Phew. For a second there I was worried.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
For the new Medal of Honor, on the other hand, game's target age group and age of the actual veterans aren't all that different.
Another bending over (Score:2, Interesting)
Trust? (Score:4, Insightful)
Do we not trust our servicemen and women to stay loyal to the US Government/Military when they play this game? Are we afraid they will decide the Taliban are a more noble cause? Are we afraid they are sitting on the fence and this game will push them to cross to the other side?
Or is the pendulum of Political Correctness just swinging even farther into the ridiculous zone?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First, I want to thank you for your service to our country. Sincerely. I simply don't have what it takes to do what you guys do and I appreciate the sacrifices all of you make. Thank you!
With that said, and I apologize, as a fellow citizen I'm going to have to say this.
It's your mentality that is one of the many reasons this country is really starting to suck. I understand you went through a lot and playing a video game brought back some awful memories, etc. But that is _no_ reason to support the remov
GameStop thinks military can't handle this game (Score:4, Insightful)
If they really were doing this out of "respect", they'd pull the game altogether. Not that I think it should be pulled, but pulling it only from military locations makes no sense. This is just saying "If you're in the military, you can't have this game. Not yours."
Re:GameStop thinks military can't handle this game (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
They can't drive half an hour to another store? Or buy it online? Or have it special-ordered to the store on the base? Really?
I don't agree with the premise this is being done with, but I can understand it. Remember, military bases have people other than just military on them, such as children whose friends or family have died. And those who will be inconvenienced will find a solution to this tiny problem.
Respect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Respect would be acknowledging that our men and women in uniform are adults and can decide for themselves how they want to spend their leisure time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Respect? (Score:2)
Respect would be acknowledging that our men and women in uniform are adults and can decide for themselves how they want to spend their leisure time.
I wonder how much of the controversy stemmed from military bases to begin with. Playing as the bad guys has a long tradition. (Any military posters here to comment?)
Our media and demagogues thrive on manufactured controversy.
Re:Respect? (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, they signed away most rights when they joined. If the Col. sez "no one gets to do X" and X is something like a controversial game or the dangerous and useless facebook, then they might have to give that up. No lawyers will be assisting with that, I can assure you. I gave up mine too, but I got mines back, son!
What's next though; playing PacMan as the Ghosts?! Surely not! Blasphemers! Game Stop, STOP them from gaming!
Re: (Score:2)
I get tired of hearing how the military "signs away most of their rights" when that is patently false. You do have limits on some right, and you really DO sign away a few while you are serving, but the vast majority of rights are the same for civilian and military. What you lose and what you gain is made perfectly clear before you sign on the dotted line. I don't think the system is perfect and sometimes is abused (an usually corrected) by higher ups, but is not quite as draconian as claimed by people "w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you asserting that everyone who signs up is presented with a copy of the UCMJ before they sign? Because that would be a necessary step for your assertion to be true, and I don't believe they are.
I hear what you're saying, but most of us civilians don't walk around with copies of the Constitution and statute books, either. In the military the people who tell you what to do have a tremendous amount of power over you, but they are also subject to intense scrutiny from their higher ups. The UCMJ applies a
Popular in military? (Score:3, Insightful)
Aren't military games pretty popular among soldiers? I would wager that many are going to play this game anyway, and will just be annoyed that they can't get it on the base. I guess I am also a little surprised they even have video game stores on military bases...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's banned amongst the Taliban. The game allows you to play as the Americans, killing freedom fighters!!!
I can see (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it the "getting shot at" part or the "playing video games" part that pushes people over the edge?
Re:I can see (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Being also a "PAFM", I note that G.I.s game heavily. From bored pilots gaming in the Alert shack to enlisted gaming in the dorms, it's wired force.
If _knowing_ a game exists where one side can _choose_ to play ragheads is going to wig someone out, they need help immediately before they go to NTC or into an exercise and flip out when facing the OPFOR in training.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a USMC OIF combat vet that has suffered from PTSD. I can barely survive the fourth of July, but games like ARMA II are surprisingly cathartic for me, and have helped de-stress me when symptoms raise their ugly heads. This move is insulting to the principle for which military people stand for. I swore an oath to one thing, and one thing only, that being the constitution. By disrespecting the constitution and the freedoms that come with it, moves like this are counter-productive to the forward movement of
What? (Score:2)
I'm more confused by the fact that there is commercial stores inside USA military bases in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Out of respect? Really (Score:2, Insightful)
If they really want to respect them they should be giving them the choice to choose on their own. Not forcing their own decision upon them.
Enough with the spoonfeeding mentality...
Seems like EA (Score:2)
They are just trying to repeat the success Activision enjoyed with it's shockingly scandalous "in bad taste" scene where you had to kill the civilians at an airport in order to proceed. Despite all the "bad press", Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 went on to generate more than 310 million dollars in sales on the first day and broke sales records by a huge margin.
Of course since this is an EA game, they will probably drop the ball and bungle the release completely. But that's just my opinion, since I believe t
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
But that's just my opinion, since I believe there is a special circle of Hell reserved for Electronic Arts.
No no. Electronic Arts is a special circle of hell. At least according to some who have worked there.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok I wouldn't know I haven't played it. However I think there's a trend towards negative press being a "good thing" in the gaming industry - Grand Theft Auto - the "hot coffee scandal"; Fallout 3 and the "scandal" about the posters in Washington DC public transport upsetting the locals, Call of Duty, and now this.
It's hard to think it's not being done on purpose. I mean after all, no one has to know if the "Taliban" can be played or not until AFTER release. It's so easy to disable that "feature" on a distro
Censorship... (Score:2, Interesting)
So even if they wanted to buy it they won't be allowed?
They are allowed to die in battle but not to chose what to play?
Imagine the game was very realistic - It would give them big advantage to see their own weakness through the eyes of the enemy.
How is that any different than any WW2 game?
Hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Look, (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It probably wouldn't help to be Einstein, since he was a physicist, not a psychologist.
C'mon, it's not rocket science, either, von Braun.
How is this respect? (Score:2)
Suitable (Score:2)
This is a suitably ridiculous response to a ridiculous situation. I'm surprised GameStop had the nads to go there.
In other news (Score:2)
All Mario games are now off-limits to people allergic to mushrooms. They might get upset. And don't even get me started on the trauma of Burger Time.
Decision made by AAFES, not GameStop Corp. (Score:5, Informative)
TFA doesn't make this clear. Here's a better one: Video Game Pulled Globally From Military Stores Over Taliban Inclusion [kotaku.com]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Though technically the request was made and GameStop decided to honor it, but of course not doing so would mean bad press.
it's all about intelligence (not that type) (Score:2)
If they were really smart, soliders should use the game and play as the bad guy--cause for them to think in the ememy's shoes equates to a better solider from getting hurt. Heck, if you knew your opponents chess moves, guess who wins? Granted, the game probably has crappy agent logic for foes.
If one can think about your enemy a
Tell me how this makes any sense? (Score:2)
Modern Warfare had players as "taliban" or Iraqi soldiers (though it wouldn't call them that - As Yahtzee put it, they're all from Unspecifiedistan), and they wouldn't pull that from store shelves. So because the enemy is identified in this case, that suddenly makes it less appropriate? In a multiplayer setting, you can't both be the US forces unless you pull an America's Army and just have the enemy show up as OpFor all the time while you appear to be American all the time.
I mean, I have a hard time imagin
not censorship (Score:2)
Don't worry... (Score:2)
Actual Story... (Score:3, Funny)
Sun Tzu & The Taliban (Score:5)
Sun Tzu put it best why American soldiers should play as the Taliban:
So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.
If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Not all of them are, but the ones likely to get upset by this have: access to weapons; combat training; learned how to deal with the emotional cost of killing someone. Not the kind of person you want to risk upsetting.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't teach that - you either cope with it, get help coping with it, or go stark raving mad.
I've known a few lifers who went over to Iraq who've told me that since coming back they've thought an awful lot about eating a bullet.
Like the guys in the US military are so stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
... that they can't acquire the game some other way if they really wanted to.
I didn't realize "making sure computer games are readily available to soldiers" was a priority of the US military, much less a priority for a private company who themselves have the freedom to do what they want.
"We're fighting for your freedoms, just don't exercise them."
Re: (Score:2)
Their dependants who shop on base are for fucking sure sensitive, far more so than G.I.s.
Re:Censorship? (Score:5, Insightful)
We trust those men and women with automatic rifles, artillery, tanks, fighter jets, and battleships. We trust them to shoot and kill people to (in theory anyway) protect our way of life. We trust them to literally take a bullet so that people back home don't have to (again in theory at least). I think that we should give them the respect they deserve and trust them to make their own decisions about what games to buy and play. Pulling the advertisements I can agree with, maybe even putting the game behind the counter out of sight, but how can you justify making the game completely unavailable to them? But that's just my opinion.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not a matter of "trust," it's a matter of respect. Maybe someone who just lost a friend to the Taliban might not really be in the mood for seeing a game where they can re-enact killing their friend.
Re:Censorship? (Score:5, Insightful)
My point from my original post which you seem to have missed:
I think that we should give them the respect they deserve and trust them to make their own decisions about what games to buy and play.
Telling people who are risking their lives for us that they aren't emotionally stable enough to handle this game is insulting. Maybe some of them can't, but that should be their decision, not yours or mine.
Re:Censorship? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, technically it should be GameStop's decision, since it's their stores. And they're deciding. But like many of the posters here you're mistaking discretion/respect for "fear of an emotional collapse."
Like, if I see you waiting on line for a movie, I am not going to just cut ahead of you. I won't do this not because I'm afraid you'll have an emotional breakdown then and there, but because it shows politeness.
Re:Censorship? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and what I'm saying is that pulling the game from your stores does not show politeness. It's a highly anticipated game that doubtless many people in the military are interested in playing, Gamestop is just saying "nope" without even asking what they think about the matter. As I said before, I could understand not putting up giant displays advertising for the game, and I can even understand putting the game behind the counter and making available by request only, I cannot understand taking that decision away soldiers themselves.
As someone below this post put it much more elegantly:
"You can't have that."
"But-"
"Because I RESPECT you!.
Re:Censorship? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Censorship? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Sorry, you can't buy this game here. We're showing respect for you and refusing to sell it to you."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But like many of the posters here you're mistaking discretion/respect for "fear of an emotional collapse."
Like many of the posters here you're mistaking self censorship for "discretion/respect".
You can argue that they're self censoring out of respect, but don't argue that it isn't censorship.
Like, if I see you waiting on line for a movie, I am not going to just cut ahead of you. I won't do this not because I'm afraid you'll have an emotional breakdown then and there, but because it shows politeness.
Phrases like "disturbing the peace" and "disorderly conduct" generally apply to situations like this.
Unlike the situation with GameStop and Medal of Honor, there are laws designed to reign in people who violate social norms (like standing in line) when social pressure isn't enough.
Re:Censorship? (Score:5, Insightful)
What about some guy who lost his Afghan/Iraqi/Pakistan friend when US soldiers shot them? Maybe he even wasn't an soldier, but a civilian. There have been countless news about those shootings. What makes it more right to be an US soldier shooting them than being the "enemy" and shooting US soldiers? Hypocrisy at its best.
You know, they are people just like you. They have families, childhood, friends, loved ones, dreams. Don't forget that on your high horse.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Censorship? (Score:4, Funny)
That's why I don't play FreeCiv
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not a matter of "trust," it's a matter of respect. Maybe someone who just lost a friend to the Taliban might not really be in the mood for seeing a game where they can re-enact killing their friend.
Someone modded this as "Troll". Really?!?
Re:Censorship? (Score:5, Insightful)
Since there are still WWII vets around, games with Nazis should be no-go. Anything after WWI really. Of course, some people may have lost relatives in previous wars, so war games should basically be banned, out of respect.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Chess glorifies political and religious oppression and war, representing a system wherein common people and even low-ranking nobility are expected to give their lives for the life of a king who is basically useless. Maybe we should ban chess out of people who live in oppressive theocratic monarchies.
Re: (Score:2)
Pulling it from bases removes it from view of sensitive dependants who shop there.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not a matter of "trust," it's a matter of respect. Maybe someone who just lost a friend to the Taliban might not really be in the mood for seeing a game where they can re-enact killing their friend.
But reenacting killing someone else is somehow more respectful?
I think you are a little confused as to what "respect" means. These soldiers are fighting and dying in the name of protecting and promoting liberty and free speech. Your concept of "respecting" that means sheltering them from a video game they ma
I call PC BS (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps my father was killed by VC, does that mean that nobody should make historically accurate Vietnam games? What if my grandfather was killed by a German, does that put ww2 games in bad taste?
Sure the time scale is greater, but its just being fucking 'PC stupid' to go to lengths like this. I think if I was killed in Afghanistan, I would be pissed off by politically correct assholes who want to sweep everything under a rug, 'out of respect for the survivors'.
What the HELL is wrong with a factually depicted game? Telling an accurate story is very respectful of those who served.
Re:I call PC BS (Score:4, Insightful)
You are ignoring that the Army and Air Force Exchange Services asked them to do so. That happens to be an agency of the Department of Defence and hence a part of the Government.
They also are the landlords for the stores, and hence could stop allowing gamespot to have stores at all.
So the Government asks someone to not sell something with at least an implicit implication that not obeying would have negative consequences. In what world is that not censorship?
It's not the first time they've pulled such blatant censorship either.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not a matter of "trust," it's a matter of respect. Maybe someone who just lost a friend to the Taliban might not really be in the mood for seeing a game where they can re-enact killing their friend.
Well then maybe they shouldn't buy the game. Meanwhile others should be allowed to do so. Just what freedoms did his hypothetical friend die for? There's a huge difference between not advertising it out of respect and BANNING it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
From what I know of the way GameStop operates, I highly doubt this is "a matter of respect". It's more likely that
1) They weren't selling many copies of the game at military bases
2) They were catching a lot of flak and losing customers because of the advertisements at the military bases.
If they were truly doing it "out of respect for the soldiers", then they wouldn't want to profit off the game and would remove it from their shelves in ALL their stores.
Now, as for the people who complain ab
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I recently lost a friend in a tragic block-stacking accident. I demand Tetris be removed from store shelves immediately.
Re: Censorship? (Score:5, Interesting)
but how can you justify making the game completely unavailable to them?
I'm going to guess that the GameStop executives had an emergency meeting on the topic "What high-profile action can we take to defuse this controversy real quick", and the geniuses came up with this.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if you use this expression in the US, but soldiers playing Medal of Honour strikes me as a busman's holiday [wiktionary.org]. Maybe Gamestop just think it won't sell?
Re:Censorship? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, this Gamespy article [gamespy.com] makes it sound like AAFES* asked Gamestop to pull the game. Logically (a dubious word to use in conjunction with military bureaucracy, but run with it a second)... Logically, that means that AAFES will pull the game from its own shelves as well.
This doesn't say anything about NEX (Naval Exchanges) and MCX (Marine Corps Exchanges), which were independent organizations last time I checked, so maybe the Sailors and Marines will be able to buy the game. And mock the Soldiers and A
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OMG I just heard about this game called "Counterstrike" where they let you play as TERRORISTS!!! And they take hostages and shoot at anti-terrorist forces! OMG OMG OMG!!!
Seriously, when did it become an issue to have people play as bad guys in video games? Why are we even talking about this?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've been playing terrorists in Tac Ops for nearly a decade.
I've played right along side a friend that fought in the second gulf war, and one who was army intelligence in Korea.
It is nothing that they can not handle. If anything making it unavailable would be seen as disrespect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And, somehow shooting Germans or us Japs is better, because it is less recent? I lost about a quarter of my bloodline in Hiroshima, yet games still involve nukes.
I do love how nobody is upset about the option of killing americans, just that the cluster of polygons doing the killing (removing from rounds of tag for a 10 second cooldown time) are labeled as someone we don't like.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Too Soon (Score:5, Insightful)
Do they let the American soldiers in the game shoot civilians, rape young Afghanis and bomb weddings with UAVs?
Try to remember this is only a game.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>> By the way, name democracies that were toppled by America
This is actually a wonderful question. Start with:
Chile, Nicaragua, South Vietnam.
Plus Hawaii, Cuba, Philippines, Honduras, Iran, Guatemala, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, Indonesia, Haiti.
Others?
Re: (Score:2)
'Forward, the Light Brigade!'
Was there a man dismay'd ?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Some one had blunder'd:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do & die
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
He's five foot-two, and he's six feet-four,
He fights with missiles and with spears.
He's all of thirty-one, and he's only seventeen,
Been a soldier for a thousand years.
He'a a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain,
A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew.
And he knows he shouldn't kill,
And he knows he always will,
Kill you for me my friend and me for you.
And he's fighting for Canada,
He's fighting for France,
He's fighting for the USA,
And he's fighting for the Russians,
And he's fighting for Japan,
And he thinks we'll pu
Re: (Score:2)
"They are voluntarily risking their own lives while travelling halfway cross the world to kill people that never harmed them in any way"
Hosting Al Qaeda would certainly qualify as an act of war by the Taliban. That was rather harmful to the folks in the WTC.