MOH pulled form Military Bases!!

[wick3d_y4yo]

The Gamestop here at Elmendorf just called me 30m ago and told me that they had to refund me my pre-order of MOH due to a new policy. Soo after 3sec Google search this is what I found. I don't agree with it and think it's stupid but now I have to take my $ and go elsewhere. There's a Gamestop 3 min's outside the gate (so far I know). Does this effect anyone else? Maybe they should stop selling ALL military FPS's than! :?:

Per Kotaku

As all stores located on Army and Air Force bases will no longer be allowed to sell Electronic Arts' upcoming military shooter Medal of Honor because an aspect of the game includes playable Taliban characters.

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.

In an email to employees, GameStop says the decision was made "out of respect for our past and present men and women in uniform."

"GameStop has agreed out of respect for our past and present men and women in uniform we will not carry Medal of Honor in any of our AAFES based stores...," the email, obtained by Kotaku, reads. "As such, GameStop agreed to have all marketing material pulled by noon today and to stop taking reservations. Customers who enter our AAFES stores and wish to reserve Medal of Honor can and should be directed to the nearest GameStop location off base.

"GameStop fully supports AAFES in this endeavor and is sensitive to the fact that in multiplayer mode one side will assume the role of Taliban fighter."

The stores on bases contacted by Kotaku all confirmed that they no longer will be selling the game and referred us to GameStops in town to pick up the title when it comes out.

Electronic Arts declined to comment further for this story.

They have, though, made their opinion on the matter clear.

The commanding general of the Army and Air Force Exchange Services confirmed told Kotaku that his decision was based on the inclusion of Taliban in the game and impacts all PXs located on Army and Air Force bases worldwide and all GameStops located on U.S. bases.

[MARDIGRA21]

Well I see where there going with this luckily there's a gamestop 5 min away from me, check out the video I posted in the medal of honor section the Taliban gets his head blown off it looks amazing

[ASignorelli]

I too have a 5 min away game stop, which is a lot closer than 2 hours to the nearest military base. LOL

[justj12479]

That's interesting! :shock: I wonder if they would also take disciplinary action if they caught you with the game on base or even playing it! :shock:

[Pakman3000]

As all stores located on Army and Air Force bases will no longer be allowed to sell Electronic Arts' upcoming military shooter Medal of Honor because an aspect of the game includes playable Taliban characters.

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.

In an email to employees, GameStop says the decision was made "out of respect for our past and present men and women in uniform."

"GameStop has agreed out of respect for our past and present men and women in uniform we will not carry Medal of Honor in any of our AAFES based stores...," the email, obtained by Kotaku, reads. "As such, GameStop agreed to have all marketing material pulled by noon today and to stop taking reservations. Customers who enter our AAFES stores and wish to reserve Medal of Honor can and should be directed to the nearest GameStop location off base.

"GameStop fully supports AAFES in this endeavor and is sensitive to the fact that in multiplayer mode one side will assume the role of Taliban fighter."

The stores on bases contacted by Kotaku all confirmed that they no longer will be selling the game and referred us to GameStops in town to pick up the title when it comes out.

Electronic Arts declined to comment further for this story.

They have, though, made their opinion on the matter clear.

The commanding general of the Army and Air Force Exchange Services confirmed told Kotaku that his decision was based on the inclusion of Taliban in the game and impacts all PXs located on Army and Air Force bases worldwide and all GameStops located on U.S. bases.

http://kotaku.com/5628741/gamestop-pull ... -inclusion

[Pakman3000]

It's amazing, even years after getting out of the Army, how much it colors your everyday life.

As a former Army Medic, now working as an entertainment journalist covering comic books, video games, movies, and TV, my soldier past comes up far more often than I would have ever expected.

The news about Medal of Honor including multiplayer modes where players will control the Taliban, naturally, has become a topic that friends who know of my two backgrounds now ask about on a regular basis. With Thursday's further news that Gamestop has chosen not to sell the game at US Military bases, I was quite simply incensed.

To give minimal history, I served in the United States Army as a Combat Medic for six years. I had two deployments in that time: one to Iraq at the start of the war, and one to Mississippi after Hurricane Katrina. I saw combat, I saw injury, and I saw death.

However, I also saw solace in games. While in Iraq, we networked together a couple of tents and played games like NCAA Football, Halo, and yes, even games like Desert Storm. Video games were a great respite for us during our day to day lives. We were able, for a few minutes at a time at least, to have some sense of normalcy and escape to another time and place, even if it did wind up being something similar to what we were living.

Electronic Arts has been marketing Medal of Honor from the start as a game seeking to honor the military through authenticity. Now, the things I could pick apart there could easily fill another column, but one fact remains: the opponent there, in Afghanistan, is the Taliban. In WWII games you fight against, or AS in multiplayer, Nazis or Japanese forces. In a game set in the modern era on a modern battlefield, it then follows that the opposing force would be the modern enemy. This makes sense, and this is far from the first time that you can play as the bad guys, realistic or no, in a game, let alone in a shooter.

So now Gamestop, at the request of the Army and Air Force Exchange Services, is pulling the game from pre-order and will not carry it at any of the BX/PX (Base or Post Exchange) located shops they run. It was done, to quote the statement given to Kotaku, "out of respect for our past and present men and women in uniform."

OK. There's nothing inherently bad about that. AAFES made a request, Gamestop followed through politely and apparently with no fight. My problem, however, lies with AAFES making the request in the first place. The idea that a gameplay mode in a game people choose to or not to play could be so inherently damaging is simply silly. Giving things this kind of weight and power is the problem, not that they exist in and of themselves. It's something I had to learn myself. For about 3 years after I returned from Iraq, I found it impossible to play any realistic shooters, or to enjoy fireworks. There were little things within those experiences that set off powerful sense memories. Eventually, it took sitting down and trying to remember what was enjoyable about these things to me in the past to make them enjoyable again. Releasing that self-imposed power made me remember, hey, this is a video game, and I like video games.

That's the point here that the officials at AAFES are overlooking in favor of being cautious. This isn't a tool to convert American Soldiers into Taliban. It is a game, and in the game you play one of two roles. In the Army, you sometimes have field exercises in which you are placed on the side of "Opposing Forces." In that, you are role-playing as modern enemies in order to improve your knowledge and your fellow soldiers' knowledge of how to combat them. Games don't come with an inherent evil, an inherent power, or even, most of the time, any specific political message. In the campaign of Medal of Honor, it will be no doubt clear that the Taliban are the enemies. In multiplayer, sometimes, people will be "Opposing Forces." That's not offensive to me as a soldier. The offensive thing to me as a soldier is AAFES thinking I can't protect myself from a product I deem harmful. If it feels potentially damaging to an individual, then the individual doesn't play it and that's all that needs to happen.

It's a video game, and I like video games. It's a shame that soldiers who like video games and want to play this one won't be able to simply pick it up at their local shop.

Lucas Siegel is a Veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and the Site Editor of leading comic book and pop culture site Newsarama.com. He has been an avid gamer since the age of two. For more from Lucas and Newsarama, follow him on twitter at http://twitter.com/LucasSiegel.

http://kotaku.com/5628960/an-ex+soldier ... r-decision

[DahliaBellona]

I don't think there would be disciplinary action, but it's no different from when they sold MW2 on base. But I think MW2 got away with it by calling them "Militia" or "Op-Four" instead, but we military weren't stupid. I think EA got too specific with it, and I think that a lot of it has to do with the debate going on right now on whether Soldiers that play shooter games have a higher risk of PTSD or a lower risk; they're still trying to study that....plus because you can actually play as the Taliban, from what I've heard; that doesn't sit too well at the Pentagon.....if they called it like, The Hadjiban or something, then I don't think it would have been a problem....

[indyred99]

I won't get political but the government needs to keep there damn nose out of this!!! Last I checked we as a free country can play any game we want to. There is a thing such as being called free will that people can make there own decision on whether or not we want to play a game that is sold. Just because it is being sold on base that doesn't mean we want to buy it or even play it. Yes I understand people are complaining that it is to real, last I checked though that is what MOH was going for the realism of the war. That is my rant thanks for listening. I am sorry if I offended someone on here that is not what I was going for.

[DahliaBellona]

You know, TLOG, and Indy, you guys pointed out awesome points. I don't necessarily think the motive behind AAFES making the request makes any sense. It's stupid. It's not like EA put out, "The Heroes in this game will be the Taliban"....geez. THEN even I would have a serious problem with that one. It's not going to cause Soldiers to rethink their commitments and rethink who the enemy is. I mean, geez, Russia had to censor MW2 during the "No Russian" scene, or they will refuse to sell it. And the shooter games (regardless of who you're playing as) kind of releases you and makes you feel like a normal human being playing a game; it takes the reality that we as servicemen and women, and veterans alike, have to face every day; or it can be taking frustration out on the enemy that you unfortunately cannot do in real life Your choice. But that's just the first step of the government trying to censor everything we read, see, or even get to interact with; and that's not fair....ugh...whatever, I'm ordering mine online. :twisted:

[indyred99]

Pre-ordered the other day along with Black Ops.

[Pakman3000]

First off, I am an active duty Air Force member.

It seems that this whole thing is being misinterpreted by the community based upon a possible misunderstanding of how the Army and Air Force Exchange Service works. Hopefully I can illuminate the situation. It is a series of retail outlets that serves ONLY military personnel. If you aren't in uniform, they will ask for an ID card for every single purchase. This is largely due to a lack of sales tax and other savings. AAFES is supposed to exist as a benefit in return for our service. These stores are not comparable to Wal-Mart or Best Buy even though they look similar. The whole thing is run by the military, even the few on base GameStop's operate as vendors with the permission of the military.

Why did AAFES decide not to stock Medal of Honor? Out of respect and sensitivity, as mentioned by Major General Casella. This is not about violence, censorship, political correctness, Jingoism, morality, or anything else. If you walk around a BX or a PX, you will only see three types of people: active military members, retirees, or immediate family members of servicemen. That means that the number of people affected by the war in Afghanistan is astronomically higher than in a civilian store. Those are the people who WILL be affected by a death in Afghanistan. A real world game might be too much to handle. Do you really want to see a little kid show the game to his mom and ask if that's where daddy is? Absolutely not, but it could happen. Picking up Call of Duty: Black Ops? Completely different.

The difference between this game and other military shooters is that it is real and it is current. Fictional games are really no different than a summer blockbuster, and games set in real conflicts have always had at least a generation of buffer space between participants and audience. I wholeheartedly believe that Danger Close went to great lengths to make the singleplayer respectful. I appreciate the effort. The problem is that multiplayer can't have that redeeming effect that story provides. It's just a name change from CoD's "OpFor" to Taliban, but that can be enough.

Keep in mind that this decision only affects military personnel. If someone buys this game on a base and gets upset, they are probably entitled to be. More than likely, they've been there or have been affected by operations there. Is anyone really going to tell a recently returned troop that they are being overly sensitive because they get upset watching Americans play as the Taliban killing other Americans? By not stocking the game on base it becomes a personal decision to buy it and keeps it out of the spotlight. AAFES doesn't have to worry about impulse buys or scenes from veterans or complaints. They are choosing not to endorse something that might upset their clientele. Military life is stressful enough, they are merely trying to be sensitive to the pain of their patrons. It would be in poor taste to advertise a game where the player can kill Americans as the Taliban to an American who might be killed by the Taliban in the near future.

If we want to buy the game, going off base isn't really an inconvenience. We aren't confined to base, so access to the game is in no way being denied (maybe in really remote locations). Most military gamers will probably still pick up the game and won't have a problem with it. The gameplay mechanics won't be any different than other recent shooters, but the locations might be more familiar. Probably not a big deal to most. But again, this isn't about most gamers. This is about people with PTSD or anxiety over a deployed loved one or some other painful trauma. The BX is one of the first and last stops when returning from and leaving for a deployment. A soldier who returns from firefights in Helmand province should expect painful or insensitive reminders off base in the real world. But shouldn't they be spared while on base?

Are the people playing as the Taliban playing any differently than in Modern Warfare? No. But it's about the perceptions of that minority who fight the wars the rest of us turn into entertainment. What it comes down to is that AAFES doesn't care what servicemembers buy, they just try to provide whatever it is that they want. This particular product won't do a very good job of satisfying the customer if they find it offensive or disrespectful. In a normal retail outlet, publicly banning something under those circumstances would be unacceptable. Luckily, this isn't normal.

As for me personally, I had already preordered the game from Amazon. I don't have any problem with the content, but I certainly won't show it around base. I actually deal with Operation Enduring Freedom everyday and expect to be deployed to Afghanistan within a year. I want to go. Anyways, sorry for the diatribe. I felt I could offer a rational military perspective on the issue. Please consider some sort of feature on reactions from warfighters. This is one of the only real videogame news outlets that can run in depth opinion pieces. For an issue like this, a comments section probably isn't enough.

http://kotaku.com/5629429/airman-defend ... -sales-ban

[jxspyder]

So is AAFES going to pull The Hurt Locker off the shelves? Exact same situation, isn't it?

[Timmy_2_Tones]

So is AAFES going to pull The Hurt Locker off the shelves? Exact same situation, isn't it?

I would consider it a different situation, The Hurt Locker is not Idolizing the "Taliban". Granted I think that EA has the Taliban in there for "Realism" only and not to idolize them as an organization. The Hurt Locker is a portrayal of the Soldier, and his life in and out of combat. I can understand where the Commanding General of AAFES is coming from, it is still a sensitive subject for many Military Families. AAFES is simply trying to not have offended customers, customers that will take their business elsewhere over something like this.

[jxspyder]

So is AAFES going to pull The Hurt Locker off the shelves? Exact same situation, isn't it?

I would consider it a different situation, The Hurt Locker is not Idolizing the "Taliban". Granted I think that EA has the Taliban in there for "Realism" only and not to idolize them as an organization. The Hurt Locker is a portrayal of the Soldier, and his life in and out of combat. I can understand where the Commanding General of AAFES is coming from, it is still a sensitive subject for many Military Families. AAFES is simply trying to not have offended customers, customers that will take their business elsewhere over something like this.

I guess I'm confused then. What I've garnered so far, is that in multiplayer, one side is specifically called the Taliban. And this is what's causing the ban. If this is the case, then they're not "idolizing" the Taliban, but rather simply using proper terminology. And if that's the case, and the use of the term is what's causing this......then absolutely this is similar to The Hurt Locker. And my reason for even mentioning it was here:

"Why did AAFES decide not to stock Medal of Honor? Out of respect and sensitivity, as mentioned by Major General Casella. This is not about violence, censorship, political correctness, Jingoism, morality, or anything else. If you walk around a BX or a PX, you will only see three types of people: active military members, retirees, or immediate family members of servicemen. That means that the number of people affected by the war in Afghanistan is astronomically higher than in a civilian store. Those are the people who WILL be affected by a death in Afghanistan. A real world game might be too much to handle. Do you really want to see a little kid show the game to his mom and ask if that's where daddy is? Absolutely not, but it could happen. Picking up Call of Duty: Black Ops? Completely different."

Having had to explain to a friend's son that the opening scene in Hurt Locker wasn't what it looked like when his father died, I can understand the whole not wanting to deal with that situation. However, trying to explain this away as compassion is a pile. It isn't.