Medal of Honor Controversy

First off I want to say that I haven't played this game, I have however done a fair share of research behind it and have also played similar first person shooter video games before.

I know this news has been out for awhile, but I wanted to bring this to anyone's attention that has yet to hear about it. Video game publisher EA put out a game this past fall called Medal of Honor. This game is a shooting game set around the current war in Afghanistan and puts you in the shoes of an American Army Soldier as he fights his way through Taliban forces. The controversy behind the game though is that the game developers were going to allow players to play as the Taliban in the multiplayer side of the game. Obviously that was going to draw some criticism from people, especially since the war is still going on. However the level of response to this decision was more than the developers anticipated. In fact before the game was released the developers made the decision to rename the Taliban side into the "Opposing Force".

This has me disappointed for a variety of reasons and not in the game developers, but the people who decided to rally against this game. First off, and what I think to be the most obvious, is that you don't play as the Taliban in the game's campaign missions at all, just the multiplayer. This means that there are no scripted events where you go around gunning down American soldiers as the Taliban. Instead, you were simply supposed to be either the Americans or the Taliban in a multiplayer level where you played against other people online. The way I see it, that shouldn't be offensive at all. With all the flak their game was getting, EA released several statements defending their position saying things such as:

    "[The game] is set in today's war, putting players in the boots of today's soldier. We give gamers the opportunity to play both sides. Most of us have been doing this since we were seven. 
"

"If someone's the cop, someone's got to be the robber, someone's got to be the pirate, somebody's got to be the alien. In Medal Of Honor multiplayer, someone has to be the Taliban."



Which I believe to be perfectly sound arguments. There always has to be a bad guy involved when there is a good side, and I believe that not including the Taliban in the game in the first place when the game is so clearly stated to take place during the Afghanistan war would have also generated some conflict. Probably not as much, but I believe there would still be some there.

Fox news also ran a segment on Medal of Honor  before the game was even released where they did an interview with a mother, Karen Meredith, who lost her son to the war. In this interview they spoke about how "war isn't a game", and how Medal of Honor is "disrespectful to the soldiers" who were currently serving. At one point Meredith said something I found to be very interesting:

"War is not a game, period. The fact that they've already done games about World War 2...That's far removed from our current history, people aren't dying in World War 2 any more,"

So it's ok to play first person shooters about a war that happened in the past but not ones that are set in present time? Were there not also countless people who died in WWII as well? That statement really confuses and upsets me, especially since many people seem to believe it.

Jim Sterling, a writer from the gaming website Destructoid, points out that Meredith doesn't have to play the game if she doesn't want to, in fact, anyone who doesn't want to play the game doesn't have to, that does not mean it should be banned for everyone though. He adds:

"Her son made a decision to become a soldier and put his life on the line, just as other adults have the decision to play what games they like.

"

Which I couldn't agree with more. Just because some people believe something to be controversial does not mean everyone does, or someone might still believe it to be controversial and just not care that much about it. It's up to people to make their own decisions, Medal of Honor is a Mature rated game aimed at people ages 18 and up, people by that point in their lives have a definite knowledge of what they do and don't like, what does and doesn't offend them. Younger gamers might get their hands on the game, but that would be under the guidance of whoever was old enough to give it to them too.

I just want to end this rant by saying that the critics and other officials out there should let people make their own decisions about something, rather than going off and saying everything that is controversial should be banned. If that was the case then tons of TV shows, movies, songs, and other media would also had/have to be banned as well.

Links to articles and videos I mentioned:
Article Describing Fox New's Response to Medal of Honor
Article Offering Another Viewpoint Towards the Controversy
A Review of Medal of Honor by IGN
The Fox News Video Clip on Medal of Honor