Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

GameStop Pulls Medal of Honor From Military Bases

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the not-for-you dept.

The Military 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.'"

cancel ×

362 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Censorship? (1, Interesting)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457218)

Seems more like discretion to me.

Re:Censorship? (5, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457292)

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:Censorship? (2, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457348)

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?

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? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33457414)

Then they shouldn't have played war in real life.

Re:Censorship? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33457514)

Did you know your mother was whoring for the Taliban? That she was fucking and sucking their cocks because she so loves how they use her. After she fucks and sucks them she lets the camels ass fuck her. She feels beastliness is next to godliness.

She offered you up to be their next fuck toy but the Taliban said they already used you up last year and that your only good for licking their assholes after they take a shit.

Re:Censorship? (5, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457428)

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? (4, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457486)

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.

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? (5, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457536)

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? (5, Insightful)

imthesponge (621107) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457596)

"Sorry, you can't buy this game here. We're showing respect for you and refusing to sell it to you."

Re:Censorship? (5, Insightful)

odies (1869886) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457440)

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:Censorship? (1, Insightful)

rotide (1015173) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457504)

To the victor go the spoils and to they also get to write the history books. Remember, the "good guys" are almost always the side who wins.

Re:Censorship? (3, Funny)

vandelais (164490) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457674)

That's why I don't play FreeCiv

Re:Censorship? (2, Insightful)

The Grim Reefer2 (1195989) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457660)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33457762)

Probably because they deliberately ignored the "Pulling the advertisements I can agree with, maybe even putting the game behind the counter out of sight" part.

Re:Censorship? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33457712)

Totally!
They should also remove the Grand Theft Auto series from all their stores in case someone was recently robbed or car jacked, recently got clean from drugs or drug dealing, recently left the life of a prostitute or gangster, or was recently shot.
I mean, damn! Show some respect!

Re:Censorship? (4, Insightful)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457828)

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:Censorship? (1)

hargrand (1301911) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457522)

Military folks do get off base every now and again... and just because GameStop won't sell them in their stores on bases doesn't mean that AAFES / NEX / etc won't be selling it.

Re:Censorship? (2, Informative)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457740)

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 Airmen.

*For those who haven't picked this up from context, "AAFES [wikipedia.org] " means "Army and Air Force Exchange Service".

Re: Censorship? (4, Interesting)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457524)

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:Censorship? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33457716)

This is a very good post. I agree with this completely. We shouldn't be making that choice for them.

Re:Censorship? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33457782)

They defend freedom abroad, or the perception of, so that their delicate sensibilites can be proteted at home, by banishing a game from their immediate psyche that happens to be representative of their employment.

The irony, contradiction, and hypocrisy at play here is so stifling, I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.

Re:Censorship? (1)

mattbee (17533) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457796)

how can you justify making the game completely unavailable to them?

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33457356)

The bigger disgrace is calling it Medal of Honor. Only about 8 have been awarded in the last 50 years.

Re:Censorship? (1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457696)

More like collective punishment. Because some people don't like the game, all soldiers will have to drive out of their way if they want to play it.

Close your tags! (1)

IICV (652597) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457222)

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? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33457224)

"Gimmie that!" *yoink*
"But...!"
"Because I respect you!"

Re:What? (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457320)

My thoughts exactly. Great way to show your respect for the many gamers that are in our military today.

Re:What? (2, Insightful)

rotide (1015173) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457542)

We don't have gamers in the military. Apparently we only have fragile minds that can be shattered by video games. Ignore the fact that they carry weapons and are charged with not losing a god damned war. Nope all that is fine, games that some politician/suit find "immoral" are the real threat.

Like the guys in the US military are so delicate (1)

Punctuated_Equilibri (738253) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457226)

... that they can't emotionally handle this

Re:Like the guys in the US military are so delicat (1, Interesting)

corbettw (214229) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457252)

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:Like the guys in the US military are so delicat (1)

ckaminski (82854) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457590)

They don't teach you to cope with the emotional cost of killing someone - that's left for the public to deal with when they get back from war and are dumped into the streets.

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 (4, Insightful)

pclminion (145572) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457526)

... 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:Like the guys in the US military are so stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33457650)

It means those stations outside the US won't be able to get the US version easily. In some cases, that might mean expensive shipping, but sometimes it's hard to get a commercial site to ship to an overseas APO at all and you have to go to far greater lengths. This is the one audience that is somewhat captive - it's not like any chain off base, where you can easily walk to the next strip mall over.

Re:Like the guys in the US military are so stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33457678)

Soldiers and Marines might not be able to figure it out =-)

Oh no! No play-as-enemies? (4, Insightful)

glassware (195317) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457228)

I can still play as Germans in WW2 games, though? Phew. For a second there I was worried.

Re:Oh no! No play-as-enemies? (1, Insightful)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457480)

A few years have passed since WWII to let the raw emotions ease. I am very sure that if games like this existed at the time, there would be a near riot if a company tried to release one where you got to play the German side just after WWII (never mind while it is was ongoing as is the case now). My father was a veteran of that war (front of the front line combat from France to Germany) and he had strong feelings many years after the war. They eased somewhat later in life, but he still had issues about what he saw and did. Except for one he told my mother, he would only tell us stories where no one was hurt even though combat was going on (e.g. How many guys can you fit under a Bren Gun Carrier? Eight, as long as they are being mortared at the time. How far can a guy throw a dud 88 shell when it crashes through the stone wall of the house you are in? A long, long way... while shitting bricks at the same time.). He buried his rifle and side arm very shortly after armistice was signed (while still in the army in Europe) and refused to carry or use a weapon after that. They busted him from Staff Sargent all the way to Private after he refused to tell them where he buried them and refused to carry a weapon. It is easy to sit in a chair in front of a computer and pass judgment. The same as it is to compare society's feelings at the time events happened 65 to 71 years ago to how they feel about them today (and some folks still feel as strongly and think playing the German side is repugnant).

Re:Oh no! No play-as-enemies? (1)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457552)

The difference is that WWII vets aren't even close to the target audience age-group for such games.

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 (2, Interesting)

fey000 (1374173) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457240)

Out of respect or out of fear of vociferous soccer moms? They have certainly never found issues with war games in the past, even when the opposing sides were concurrent.

Trust? (3, Insightful)

rotide (1015173) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457242)

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?

GameStop thinks military can't handle this game (3, Insightful)

imthesponge (621107) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457254)

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 (3, Insightful)

siriuskase (679431) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457498)

I agree. Buy only pulling from the military market, they are turning the issue into an advertising gimmick. Not only will this tactic generate more controversy than an everybody or nobody approach, it will become a "forbidden fruit" for the population that has a difficult time obtaining the product. They aren't making it impossible to get, just hard to get. I see no respect at all in playing these kinds of games with our military. The company knows they want the game, they just think there is something to gain by waving it just out of arms reach. And they call it "respect", my ass. The couldn't be more disrespectful.

Re:GameStop thinks military can't handle this game (1)

mdielmann (514750) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457810)

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? (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457256)

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:Respect? (1)

jythie (914043) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457324)

*nod* my guess is, all this will get them is some pissed off soldiers who were looking forward to the game....

Re: Respect? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457334)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33457478)

I wonder how much of the controversy stemmed from military bases to begin with.

I'll make a wild ass guess and say zero percent.

Re:Respect? (3, Interesting)

countSudoku() (1047544) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457402)

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!

Too Soon (0, Troll)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457264)

I guess the term "too soon" counted in the days following 911, but guys on the front lines don't deserve this same respect? How about let it lay for a few years before adding the Taliban as an option if they must at all. Personally, I find it a bit repugnant. I'm curious, do they allow the Taliban characters they play to throw acid in the faces of girls who dare go to school, or execute them for showing their faces? If this company was really serious about this and not just going through the motions, they would pull the game from the shelves until this disrespectful option is removed.

Re:Too Soon (1)

jythie (914043) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457336)

So American soldiers shooting American soldiers would be better?

Re:Too Soon (1)

rotide (1015173) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457338)

It's almost been a decade since 9/11. Besides, this isn't even a recreation of 9/11. Hell, it's not even Al Qaeda. This has _zero_ to do with 9/11 unless any and all Arabs are considered terrorists connected with 9/11. Hell, you don't even have to be of Arab descent to join the Taliban. So this isn't even a race issue. People just don't like the idea that you can play as "the enemy" (whoever that is) and shoot at people _you_ consider friendly. Oh noes, what about all the WW2 games where you can play as the enemy? Shit.. Or all the games that happen way in the past, say, Age of Empires? Where do you want the line drawn? I guess you want it drawn where Arabs are _not_ allowed to be playable. Especially Arabs with weapons and "Americans" are targets.

Re:Too Soon (0, Troll)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457562)

Try critical reading... I'm not talking about 911. I'm talking about the fact that people gave some time between the event a when they tried to capitalize off of it. Idiot.

Re:Too Soon (1)

rotide (1015173) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457608)

My apologies your highness. Lets not make any games about my post you didn't like either. You might find that "a bit repugnant" as well seeing as it was a bit "too soon".

Re:Too Soon (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457636)

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:Too Soon (1)

Chucky_M (1708842) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457754)

This has _zero_ to do with 9/11 unless any and all Arabs are considered terrorists connected with 9/11.

That is exactly the problem, anyone of Arab decent is a terrorist until proven otherwise in this unfortunate age. If you want to test this try to travel via a US airport with an Arab friend, good luck in customs and I hope you both make the next flight.

Re:Too Soon (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457364)

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:Too Soon (1)

rotide (1015173) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457396)

A quick re-skin and no one would care. Oh noes! Your fiction involves something I morally object to! STOP THE PRESSES!

Re:Too Soon (1)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457620)

And the Japanese are still trying to rewrite history so as to make it look like they were victims and didn't perpetrate war crimes like using poison gas in China and murdering two or three times the people the Germans murdered in death camps and as slave laborers. The people allowed fanatics to run the country just as did Germany. The bombing of Japanese cities was brought on themselves. Besides, more people were killed in the incendiary attacks on Tokyo than in Hiroshima (and about as many in Dresden). Why is the fact that it was a nuclear bomb that makes it more terrible than what was done in Tokyo?

Re:Too Soon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33457406)

What about respect for the rest of the world? How many people would be upset about the option to play US troops because of [insert list of democracies toppled and acts of terror committed against people all around the world]. ;)

What's Next: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33457268)

No to avoid [foxnews.com] Glen Beck demogogery [slashdot.org] ?

Yours In Perm,
K. Trout

Re:What's Next: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33457354)

Kilgore Trout

Popular in military? (2, Insightful)

penguinchris (1020961) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457284)

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:Popular in military? (1)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457450)

Yeah, I have a brother-in-law in the Airforce. He and his friends are very big on first person shooters. Judging by all of the men and women in uniform that I've met (and yes, many of them have been deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq) this is just going to make them raise their eyebrow and ask "WTF?" Though, it will probably come with at least one or two more expletives...

I can see (3, Insightful)

KillaGouge (973562) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457298)

I can see why they would do this. Being a prior Air Force member, not everybody who gets deployed, comes back the same. I do agree though, if it was truly respect they would pull the game all together. I know it is easy for non-military people to say that we should let the solders decided, but in all honestly, it could end up being very traumatic to some. PTSD doesn't show up right off the bat. I know you can play as German's in some of the WW2 games, and you can be "terrorists" in CS, but with the level of realism that games are coming to, it really could push some people over the edge.

Re:I can see (1)

imthesponge (621107) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457318)

Is it the "getting shot at" part or the "playing video games" part that pushes people over the edge?

Re:I can see (1)

KillaGouge (973562) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457448)

getting shot at can put them on the tipping out, and seeing it re-enacted through the eyes of the pepole that shot at them (even though they are just polygons) could give them the final push.

Re:I can see (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33457576)

Citation need you lying sack of shit.

Re:I can see (3, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457424)

That could go down a really scary slope since your argument basically says that companies should refuse to sell goods to all soldiers because some might have a reaction to the content.

Re:I can see (1)

rotide (1015173) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457470)

So, screw choice, lets just censor anything that could possibly make dealing with [insert some trauma here] more difficult? To hell with deciding for yourself, we need people/boards/committees/government/the UN deciding what is and isn't "damaging" to those who might be "damaged" by it.

What? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457302)

GameStop has decided it won't sell the title at its stores located on US military bases

I'm more confused by the fact that there is commercial stores inside USA military bases in the first place.

Re:What? (1)

OnePumpChump (1560417) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457456)

There's Taco Bell and Pizza Hut and Popeyes, and seamstresses/tailors, too. A lot of these are, I'm pretty sure, actually staffed by AAFES employees. I'm not sure why you'd need a Gamestop franchise. It isn't like Gamestop has any unique products.

Re:What? (1)

KillaGouge (973562) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457466)

I believe it was because some single solders that didn't have transportation where complaining that the BX/PX/NEX wasn't getting games in fast enough, or couldn't pre-order, and they didn't want to have to do everything online because most of the time, you get a P.O. Box type address that people don't want to ship too, unless you are an APO

Out of respect? Really (2, Insightful)

kharas (970753) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457306)

From the summary they mention the reason for their decision to be "out of respect for our past and present men and women in uniform."
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 (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457312)

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 there is a special circle of Hell reserved for Electronic Arts.

Re:Seems like EA (2, Funny)

PostConsumerRecycled (653177) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457432)

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:Seems like EA (1)

pregister (443318) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457702)

Well, you didn't HAVE to shoot all the civilians. My first run-through I shot none, just to see what happened. I shot an awful lot of airport signs. My second run-through, I shot the hell out of everyone. Since then, I just skip that scene.

Re:Seems like EA (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457824)

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 given to reviewers. Therefore I must conclude that the news is intentionally released. I guess they are going by the premise that "any publicity is good publicity".

So they'll play VBS2 Lite instead... (1)

Frescard (807703) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457340)

Quite funny, considering that the Army itself is freely distributing a simulation that allows you to play any side you want: video 1 [youtube.com] & video 2> [youtube.com]

Censorship... (2, Interesting)

Pla123 (855814) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457346)

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?

Re:Censorship... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33457692)

It's not censorship. It's a single retailer being selective about where they sell a product. Sorry if you're too stupid to see the difference.

of course its perfecly fine to play as (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33457474)

Nazi's, Japanese, Vietcong, and terrorist in every other military FPS

Hypocrisy (2, Insightful)

drumcat (1659893) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457500)

Pulling the ads is sensitive. Pulling the game at ONLY military outlets is wrong. If the game is "bad" enough to be pulled at military bases, where very mentally tough individuals reside, you sure as hell better not sell it to 14 year old suburban couch potatoes. They certainly will not be able to handle it. I do applaud them for pulling the advertising -- no need to waive it around inside bases.

Re:Hypocrisy (1)

rotide (1015173) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457580)

Don't worry, it's going to be rated M for Mature. The 17+ crowd are able to make the right decisions. Those in the military. Not as capable.

Ya right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33457550)

..and Activision had NOTHING to do with this. lolumad?

(MoH does suck, but still...)

vets often play as OPFOR (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33457572)

funny, my bro that is an 82nd airborne vet plays online multi-player Call of Duty and such all the time. He says he only play with other vets--some from Vietnam Era. Without fail, when these actual vets play online, they play as NAZIS. Can totally see them doing the same thing with Taliban multiplayer. Don't see what the difference is...

Lies made real (1)

mutherhacker (638199) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457574)

The Taliban (former government of Afghanistan) are the name Fox News & other US Government outlets have marked as "evil" because they "harbor Terrorists". Complete and utter nonsense. We now see, how complete nonsense, if repeated enough times propagates everywhere, becomes reality and starts affecting various other aspects of life.

Re:Lies made real (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33457734)

What part of it is "nonsense" exactly? Did the Taliban not harbor terrorists? Are the Taliban not evil? Bear in mind that nothing about Fox News or American foreign policy have any bearing on the answers to those questions.

Obligatory joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33457602)

In Soviet Russia, new video games pull out all the stops. In American military bases, GameStop pulls out all the games!

Election Year (1)

A. Kim (620073) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457606)

Let's stir up as much heat as possible about frivolous issues that distract from what actually needs to be done.

Not only that, what better target is there than video games?--a medium that is already stereotyped and reviled by millions of people who don't know any better and don't really care to consider other possible viewpoints.

Respect the troops?? (0, Troll)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457618)

I seriously don't understand why anyone would pay any respect to US soldiers. They are voluntarily risking their own lives while travelling halfway cross the world to kill people that never harmed them in any way. Each of them that dies, had it coming and had a death that was unnecessary and totally avoidable. Parents of servicemen on tour probably ought to take a good look on themselves and figure out how they could fail so horribly as parents that their child became a state-sponsored murderer. It deserves no respect what so ever.

Look, (1)

SlashDev (627697) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457644)

allowing soldiers to play games about the same war they are fighting. Hhmmm I wonder what an army psychologist think about this... You don't need to be Einstein to figure it out.

Re:Look, (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457802)

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? (1)

bistromath007 (1253428) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457676)

"Some of you feel that this does some kind of injustice to your brothers in arms, so we're going to allow you to pretend it doesn't exist while still selling it to everyone else. We're doing this because we respect the fact (which we pulled out of our ass) that you can't handle things that make you upset as much as people who don't travel to foreign countries to get shot at for something they don't believe in."

Suitable (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457690)

This is a suitably ridiculous response to a ridiculous situation. I'm surprised GameStop had the nads to go there.

Really? (1)

Fool106 (977984) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457708)

'out of respect for our past and present men and women in uniform.' So should we not play as Nazi's and Japanese in WW 2 games?

In other news (1)

dswensen (252552) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457728)

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.

Wow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33457732)

Thats just retarded.

Decision made by AAFES, not GameStop Corp. (5, Informative)

imthesponge (621107) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457746)

TFA doesn't make this clear. Here's a better one: Video Game Pulled Globally From Military Stores Over Taliban Inclusion [kotaku.com]

The Army and Air Force Exchange Services has confirmed to Kotaku that they requested the game pulled from the 49 GameStop's located on bases in the continent U.S. The ban, an AAFES representative told Kotaku, also extends to all military PXs worldwide.

"Out of respect to those we serve, we will not be stocking this game," the Army & Air Force Exchange Service's Commander Maj. Gen. Bruce Casella, told Kotaku. (emphasis added)

Re:Decision made by AAFES, not GameStop Corp. (2, Interesting)

imthesponge (621107) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457776)

Though technically the request was made and GameStop decided to honor it, but of course not doing so would mean bad press.

Let the market decide (1)

hex0D (1890162) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457786)

I don't know how many military people would be offended or not by this. Why not let them decide for themselves by buying the game, or not, or complaining to the store if they find it's mere presence too much? If it offends, it won't be in the store on base very long, and if it doesn't - let them choose to buy it!

it's all about intelligence (not that type) (1)

recharged95 (782975) | more than 4 years ago | (#33457792)

It's all about Gamestop thinking that closed minded politicians or a nit witted public think it's unpatriotic and end up boycotting Gamestop--such that sales go off a cliff.

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 and 2nd guess, you're better off. The military should be using it as a training tool. But then again, we live in a lemming, non-intelligent world nowadays. It is... all about control, control of cash (gamestop) in this case.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?