I'm not disagreeing with you. My main point was that people are more likely to be offended by this on moral grounds, rather than pure political correctness, which doesn't have a whole lot to do with morality as such

Does that mean if anyone disagrees with you they are wrong and 'bad guys'?

Wait a minute... are you guys actually discussing a somewhat  delicate role-of-the-military/free-speech issue in a civil tone!?!?!?    And people are almost universally AGREEING WITH EACH OTHER!?!?!? On the INTERNET?????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow. This is nothing short of miraculous!

But in all seriousness, I for one both don't really see what all the fuss is about. Well, I sort of expected it because I've seen this sort of thing before a load of times whenever some creative enterprise touches on the military or Islam or some skeleton in somebody's national closet, but playing as a theocratic guerilla fighter doesn't strike me as particularly abhorrent. Yes, these people have a rather counterproductive religious ideology, and they have demonstrated a disregard for human life that borders on war crimes, but a lot of video games revolve around characters and groups whose morality is questionable or nonexistant: just look at Grand Theft Auto, the option to play as the Empire/Sith in your average Star Wars shooter, or for that matter the Katamari series that lets you hoover up buildings, people, and entire civilizations as food. Why should this be any different?

As a holder of rather cynical views on the military and just generally an irreverent person, I get flamed a lot if I am stupid enough to get into any sort of political discussion involving foreign policy and/or "national security". I suspect the same animus will be shown at work here (not on the thread, mind you- in this controversy). Personally, I agree with, well, all of you that this sort of hypersensitivity is a bit trying, and should probably be ignored by a game company that behaved "well" (of course, there's the fact that I suspect it probably wouldn't be an issue if there weren't soldiers involved, but that's another topic). If you don't like playing the Taliban, then don't play as the Taliban. If you really don't like playing as the Taliban, then don't buy the game. But don't force your scruples on the rest of us. Sure, I don't interest myself in most shooters because I think they're militaristic, and I refuse to join my parents in watching The Real Housewives of (I forget the city) because it turns my male-feminist stomach, but I'm not going to demand that any of that stuff be shut down because it conflicts with my personal political views...

While I myself am not a fan of any game that does not have at least one of the following.. Robots, aliens, monsters, and other critters from various realms of fantasy/fiction.

If I did purchase the new MoH, I would not play as the Taliban .. but that's a personal choice and I have no problem the game allowing this many games allow you to play either side of it's campaign... 

I firmly believe the we each have the right to vote to support or not support any game we do not like the content ( i.e. buy or not buy).. But I will be damned if I will tell you what to play or not..

Games are supposed to be light-hearted (for the most part) escapes from reality. Games based on conflicts are usually either fictional or based on long past history, to make a game with Taliban in it that shoot and kill coalition soldiers makes light of the fact that it's actually happening. We can make light of WW2, and every other war that ever came before it, but you probably wont see any WW2 veterans playing any such games (not entirely to do with their age, old as they are... only a few left), all because it was so long ago. Very few of the people who actually experienced it are still around, and it's history, so it's acceptable. To make a game about a conflict that is ongoing, where you have fun by simulating the situation that people are going through right now is utterly disgusting and a complete disregard for the pain and suffering that's going on. It all depends on the games approach, if it's trying to teach people about the conflict and appreciate that it's happening, lift us out of apathy.. but I doubt it. Seems more like a cheap way to get advertisement and in the end the game is about people killing each other.

It's just disgusting. Calling things something else, like opfor, IS beating around the bush, but it's just polite. I can't imagine how much of an ass I would be, to play that game, and perhaps die in some explosion and laugh about it. I've laughed at that sort of thing before, explosions and physics are fun, seeing fake people tossed around has a bit of a comedy to it. But what the hell would I say to a soldier who comes home missing a limb who asks me what I was doing? How did I pass the time? Oh, yeah, I was just playing MoH and getting blown apart by Taliban, was a lot of fun! Would probably offend him less than spitting in his face. The mere idea of making such a game and specifically calling them Taliban is disrespectful of what they're going through. I'll play a game as Nazis, sure, but not one where your objective as the Nazi is to collect Jews to put into in oven. There is such a thing as freedom of expression and art, but there is also such a thing as vulgarity and exploitative business practices. Such things would be all well and fine if they only affected themselves, but they don't, they affect others, that's why you wear pants when you go outside and err against running through the streets naked and covered in jello.

Anyway, can I play as the wife of one of the Talibans?

Well, these forums are kind of special, and Stardock is a very special and unique kind of company.  I think one thing (and I don't mean I only think just the one thing ) is that "the way you tend to treat others is the way they tend to treat you".  And because Stardock respects us, we tend to respect each other, a lot more than is usual, on the internet anyway.  But a lot more good stuff happens and is done by people than the biased media would have us believe.   I mean, if we were really as bad and put knives in backs as often as the media makes out, how would the media even exist?

Basically, if you treat others well, they will tend to treat you well, and the opposite if you don't.  Simple truths like this make the world go round, and shine the sun in everyone's hearts.

Best regards,
Steven. 

I don't actually have the game or any of its previous iterations, but I am assuming the Taliban have different weapons and skills than the NATO soldiers. Thus, there is a gameplay reason to have them in there, if a flimsy one. Besides, I for one just like the variety of tactics, appearance, and methodology that comes from playing different factions in the same conflict.

That said, I doubt that any of the reasons I mentioned above were actually behind this decision. Instead, it reeks of a publicity grab. Which, unfortunately, means that it may not actually be included in the final game. That actually disappoints me, because I am convinced that the best way for any society to deal with its widely-sensitive topics is by facing them head-on, with as little reverent sidestepping as possible. And the "war on terror" is certainly a rather sensitive topic.

A lot of games feature characters and factions who are both real and morally unsound, in situations that display it as good, clean fun. Do you think people who have lost brothers and fathers and sons to gang violence enjoy playing Grand Theft Auto? Is the offense of the police and inner-city population any less significant than that of soldiers? I think we can all agree that carjacking and drug wars are ethically inexcusable... but those sorts of games do exist, and are quite popular.

And a small nitpick: my father disapproves of Apocalypse Now because he claims it adds a false moralistic certainty to the Vietnam war, not because of the violence. [plug]Buy his book when it comes out: Soldiering On, by William Shkurti[/plug]. He's not really the nasty-letter-writing type, either: I was using him more as a hypothetical, and mentioned Netflix because the movie itself has already been around for quite some time and is not about to be changed.

Society will always be vulgar, and what is acceptable or not is relative to the society. Games like GTA, Saints Row (I play the latter), are extremely vulgar, to be terribly honest the main attraction of Saints Row is the unrestrained almost Benny Hill like quality the violence has for me. I titter something fierce when I watch my toon do a cartwheel over the hood of a car because I slammed on the accelerator of my motor cycle without looking. It's just how much we're gradually becoming desensitized to violence. The point where we stop is the point where society as a whole no longer finds it acceptable, at least in the case of a game like GTA. I don't really see people dieing in a race as a good example because risking their lives was more by choice, and the racing games themselves aren't focused on getting your driver killed. Are business sims 100% accurate simulations of corporate greed? Do they fully represent the swathe of affects that a mega corporation can have on the lives of the people they marginalize? If somebody makes a business sim where the point is to cut corners in health and safety, among a slew of other horrible things corporations can and will do, then just what are they thinking? The simulations of business and governance I've seen that try to represent the modern world, as far as I can think, put a happy face on business so it's as much a fantasy game as it is a business simulation.

If they called the terrorists something else, if they tried not to accurately represent everything that's over there right now, then it wouldn't be so offensive. I agree with the interpretation that they're trying to be offensive and controversial to get sales.

We'll know we've crossed a certain threshold if they make a game about flying planes into buildings... as it stands people are just in an uproar about mosques being built.

I understand what you're saying, I'm not trying to argue that we should have all media that may or may not offend banned. It's a complicated subject, and the opinions seem to throw back and forth between extremes. We either appreciate the sensitivities of no one, say, do, and make whatever we want when we want, or we wear bath robes and say "Be well" instead of goodbye. It's nonsense. Violent things exist in the world, society and the individual can do nothing about this, it will and forever shall be a part of existence whether we like it or not. On the level of the individual, out of respect for those you know that have been through such things, you try to avoid it and anything like it, if that's what they need. Society as a whole cannot bend this way, there are too many people with too many different things that may or may not offend. So society applies at the general level, the individual at the specific. The simplest and most overt way, the horrible scenario that everyone likes to attest to censorship and political correctness, is that society applies a sledgehammer and bans everything. Bath robes and be well scenario, in the attempt to respect all sensitivity it bans everything. The other end of the spectrum is the completely free society, bordering on anarchic. Everyone can say what ever they want, to whomever they want, do what ever they want, when ever they want. Naked jello races every day, and people say hello by using the f word. Peoples feelings be damned, it's about numero uno and whatever the he wants to do.

Thankfully, we don't live in either of those societies. We live in a complicated, depressing, angry, violent, and at least hopeful middle ground. It's nice 'n gray. Lots of people want to bend society in either direction, but for the most part is floats back and forth amongst the gray portion. On this same scale comes video games, swaying back and forth between bath robes (the sims) and jello races (Gta). A game however like MoH that includes Taliban is swaying into the black, so to speak, it's a complete disregard, freedom of expression at its most vulgar, rawest. Cartoon depictions of a prophet, almost. It's not just a generalized display of violence, it's specific, to a name, Taliban, coalition. These names are tied to real people, who exist right now, who are dieing, right now. The violence they go through, the death, the shooting, is happening right now and it's not fun. So making a game where Taliban and Coalition forces shoot each other, these specific groups, and it's supposed to be fun, is like walking right up to one of our soldiers and giving him the finger. It's specific, targeted, that's the difference.

And, er, to be clear.. this response isn't directed entirely at you. Speaking out loud in general as well as responding.

People read your posts?