As soon as we heard that Medal of Honor would feature the Taliban in its multiplayer component, we all could have easily predicted the media shitstorm would ensue, as "real journalists" stumbled over each other in a scrabbling bid to declare their insincere outrage the loudest.
Electronic Arts CEO John Riccitiello is apparently "surprised" by the controversy, however, and lays the blame for the anger squarely at the feet of the media.
"The controversy kind of caught me by surprise," he says. "No one noticed [the game] ... until a journalist decided to put the game box in front of a mom who'd lost her son in Afghanistan to create some controversy. I think that says more about the newspapers than it does the game industry.
"Having said that, we're incredibly sensitive to the challenges that a non-gamer who doesn't really understand what I've just described might imagine when a journalist who also doesn't understand a game describes it to her. It tends to excite a little bit of angst."
I do agree that certain journalists' handling of things says nothing favorable about them as professionals, but I also refuse to believe that anybody at Electronic Arts was surprised by this. I'll defend the game's right to exist and mock the silly things said by journos and politicians, but come on ... don't play the innocent bunny rabbit, sir!
Riccitiello: MOH outrage "says more about newspapers than it does the game industry" [GI.biz]
Jim Sterling serves as reviews editor for Destructoid.com, head of the Podtoid podcast, and produces a number of news stories, original features, one-of-a-kind videos. With his passionate argumentative style, controversial opinions, harsh delivery, and dedication to brutal honesty Sterling is a name that you can't help but recognize.
Likes
PS2, iPod Touch, Silent Hill 2, Metal Gear Solid, Dynasty Warriors 3
Meet the rest of the team
| BBcode help |
| [b]Bold text[/b] |
Bold text |
| [i]Italic text[/i] |
Italic text |
| [url]http://www.dtoid.com/[/url] |
http://www.dtoid.com |
| [url=http://www.dtoid.com/]Web link[/url] |
Web link |
|
| [img]http://www.example.com/robot.jpg[/img] |
 |
Post a comment! You can also post a photo below:
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
38 comments | showing # 1 to 38
|
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
Comments policy
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!
Contest:
11:30 PM on 09.16.2010 | 
oh wait.
I wonder how many more years people like me have to make a comment like that.
EA drew more controversy than Activision because new MOH involved topic related
to American Nationalism, it's just matter of POV
That's why its disingenuous.
The whole point was to create controversy, media attention and get free advertising. It wasn't for the sake of free speech or pushing games forward as an artistic medium.
EA could have released an MOH game that sold on the merits of being a good game, but no, they want a piece of Activision's pie, so they'll play it like Activision does. MW2 more than proved that it didn't have to be a good game to sell well.
In my opinion, this is quickly turning into a repeat of what happened to Resident Evil 5: people getting upset at something that they have no idea what they're talking about but don't care because they want to force their ideas onto others.
I think they must have expected some controversy, but perhaps not this much. Other games have done it before yet no one batted an eyelid, so why throw eggs at this game?
Wouldn't that be a bloody simple solution?
Whoooo!
Way to go on that marketing ploy.
Obviously a lot of these people have a problem with who you can be in the game aren't always fully informed of the game or are just ignorant and need something to cry about. But it's different when you're going to pretend that you didn't expect anything from this, his statement is pretty idiotic.
I don't argue EA's "right" for artistic freedom, but at the same time, giving that amount of responsibility assumes they are going to use it wisely and respectfully, and this, I think is not wise nor respectful.
I like Mr.Lefty's solution.
My friend in the Army doesn't really care, and he asked his entire unit what they though: they didn't really care either.
The point I'm trying to make? People think this is offensive, so they automatically label it as offensive, even if it doesn't even offend them in the first place. It's people being way too sensitive about a word used to label something in a video game.
"We had absolutely no idea that this controversial action, or anything of the other ones we've perpetrated in the past, would be controversial. Really. I swear!"
Nobody had a problem playing T's in CS because they weren't real groups that are committing violent acts today.
Even the ones in CS which were based on real groups were so obscure and often had done terrorist operations in other countries, most americans hadn't heard about it.
So it's safe to say that if you think this way, you aren't looking at the issue of what people are actually offended about.