The Misguided Attempts to Ban Medal of Honor

Default_picture
Friday, September 17, 2010
EDITOR'S NOTEfrom Brett Bates

The U.S. military's ban on Medal of Honor in base stores because you can play as the Taliban is ridiculous. Do they really believe soldiers are adult enough for actual war but not for a fake one? Mark has more.

Medal of Honor

Over the past few weeks, EA's up-and-coming reboot of the Medal of Honor series has come under fire. Britain's defense secretary called for a ban on the first-person shooter entirely, and the U.S. Army has prohibited the game from being sold from any stores that reside on a base. Soldiers can still purchase Medal of Honor off-site and play it to their heart's content, but they can't buy it from any stores subsidized by the military.

The problem? You can play as the Taliban in multiplayer.

 

That's it. It isn't the violent nature of the game. It isn't the ESRB rating, the foul language, or anything to do with the single-player campaign. The entire controversy is due to the fact that you can use a character modeled after the notorious real-life terrorist organization.

This wouldn't be such an odd move if these groups had also attempted to ban the 2,000 or so other military shooters that let you play as Nazis or "generic terrorist." Can you not play Counter-Strike: Source in those countries or pick up a copy from the local GameStop on a military base?

Shooter fans are no strangers to war. They've killed Germans, Russians, Japanese, and innocent civilians at an airport. They've seen America itself invaded and nuked in a crazy "what-if" scenario -- multiple times, in fact. They've gone through both World Wars and every other major conflict in modern U.S. history. None of the games portraying these events have depicted these conflicts as fun; instead they've exposed gamers to deaths in the millions, innocent lives lost, and the struggle that soldiers experience while fighting for a cause. In fact, the developers behind Medal of Honor have stated they included the Taliban to keep the game as accurate and realistic as possible.

Death and war are inevitable parts of life, and taking offense to games that show them in a realistic manner is insane. Yes, Medal of Honor has 3D model of terrorists, but do people really think that if gamers experience "a day in the life of the Taliban," they'll want to jump ship and start shooting allied soldiers?

EA Games President Frank Gibeau wonders why video games are being treated different than other art forms, and he's got a point. "I don't know why films and books set in Afghanistan don't get flack, yet [games] do," he told Develop. "Whether it's The Red Badge of Courage or The Hurt Locker, the media of its time can be a platform for the people who wish to tell their stories."

As of now, the game hasn't been officially banned in any of country, although the ban on U.S. military bases will be in effect. I guess our soliders can engage in actual wars but need to be protected from the fake ones.

What do you think? Should games like these be banned?

 
Problem? Report this post
BITMOB'S SPONSOR
Adsense-placeholder
Comments (13)
There184
September 17, 2010

I don't know why the defense people are chiming in. It sounds like something the culture guys should be dealing with. If they're suggesting that having you kill the Taliban (as if we haven't already killed Muslims in games), or killing as them, might provoke extremists, they're missing the point of the "War on Terror". If this game can provoke terrorists, then banning it would give terrorists a victory. And they're ostensibly at war with terror.

100media_imag0065
September 17, 2010

In all honesty, I do not think you are 100% correct. You say that playing the Taliban in this game will not make someone suddenly want to become a terrorist. Well, I say otherwise. I played Call of Duty 1 through 3 and had such an urge to kill Nazi's that I have spent the last 5 years of my life studying, designing, researching and finally building the ultimate time machine.

 

A minor miscalculation has made it so I can only travel to 1944, but not come back. I spent millions of dollars I did not have, but I figure I do not have to pay anyone back since I won't be coming back. If it wasn't for these damn video games I never would have become obsessed with killing Nazi's. But alas, this is how video games work. When you enjoy something, you must spend your life emulating it. So I bid you farewell fellow gamers. I am off in my time machine to go kill me some Nazi's....

 

P.S. Keep an eye out for the chapter in your history books about D-Day. As a matter of fact, take out the book now and just keep staring at it. In about 15 seconds you will see that boring picture of soldiers lying on the beach replaced with me, wearing my InFamous shirt, running on the beach with an M249 in one hand and an American flag in the other. Im about to change history.

Brett_new_profile
September 17, 2010

@Ed: That is one of the best comments I've ever read.

230340423
September 17, 2010

@Ed: The inFamous shirt is what sells it. What an image.

Twitpic
September 17, 2010

Great points, Mark. Like you said, a ton of other shooters feature terrorists; but I guess the difference is they aren't labeled as Taliban, just nameless bad guys. Excellent article.

Jason_wilson
September 17, 2010

@Ed Umm...yeah...I don't get your comment. Mark is talking about defending the First Amendment and U.S. soldiers exercising the rights they risk their lives to defend. Are you making light of it? Or are you pointing out how ridiculous those who want to ban the game are?

5211_100857553261324_100000112393199_12455_5449490_n
September 17, 2010

I really don't care that they're putting a name to the terrorists, myself.  Purely speculative, I might have a problem with them using this as a buzz producer to push more units to get it noticed in the mass of Battlefield BC2 and MW2 playerbase that would otherwise not pay any attention, but who knows what the point of actually naming the enemy was.  As so many other games have left it to the user's imagination, I hardly think it was necessary to draw THAT much attention to it... 

 

I can see why bases might have a problem with it, and they have every right to make something available in the on-base stores, or make it unavailable.  As long as they're not confiscating copies bought outside the bases, cool.

Photo
September 17, 2010

I believe it's acts like these that deteriorate the principles this country was founded on. The people who allowed that ban to pass are, in my opinion, thinking they are defending this country, when they're really just slapping it in the face.

100media_imag0065
September 17, 2010

@ Jason. I am being ironic. If they want to be ridiculous and tell grown adults that they are not allowed to exercise their rights to the fullest, then I am going to be ridiculous...You really couldn't tell?? You could cut the sarcasm with a knife.

 

I agree with everything this article had to say. I find it absolutely disgusting that the U.S. Military it is perfectly fine with 18 year old kids fresh out of high school signing their life away and being sent overseas to get shot at and shoot at others, but they find a problem with this video game? Not only are the U.S. Military fine with this, but they scout out most of these children before they are even of age and actively campaign to make them sign their lives away.

 

This is all just dandy with the Military and the government. However, playing a virtual video game that depicts terrorists is not. I repeat, shooting real terrorists and getting shot at by real terrorists is just fine, but doing it in video game form is wrong...

 

P.S. Due to the fact that my past self is currently in 1944 (although another miscalculation on my end sent me to the wrong beach...on the wrong country), this message was written by my future self in the present. Let me explain. During my time travel I accidentally created a tear in space itself (another miscalculation on my end). I managed to land in 1944, but was immediately met by my future self from the year 2029 (p.s. Stop buying Apple products now. Especially iPhones, if you have any Apple products burn them. They become self aware in 2020).

 

He alerted me of your message which was sent in 2010, and told me time travel has been perfected so he could send a reply. So I wrote him all of this on the back of a Cuban Bible (don't ask) and told him to post it on Bitmob. I refused to go with him, because Nazi killing is what I was born to do. The tear in space I created during my time travel somehow allowed him to find me, and offer his assistance. I am fine by the way, and have a date tonight with a nice young lady from Horchenbuerger. Farewell, and godspeed.

Img_20100902_162803
September 17, 2010
I think the whole let's protect our children and respect the arm forces is what is at work here. The military is a bit behind the time. A gay military officer can fight and die for this country, but as soon as he or she is outed they are kicked out. What a shame. Gamestop is self censoring themselves. Probaly does not want to lose that lucrative contract they have.
Default_picture
September 17, 2010

I think the bans are (while a bit extreme) out of respect (YMMV if such "respect" is actually that, or a poor attempt to "protect" them); after all, who wants to play as the guy who rigged the bomb that killed your best friend and took your leg? It could also be propaganda: maybe the government does not want the men and women on the frontlines to have any indication that the Taliban are human (although a multiplayer skin would hardly do that).  Perhaps Nazis and the like are allowed because we are not currently at war with them?  At any rate, I believe that the soldiers should have the right to know that the Taliban is playable, and choose whether or not that is important to them, and base theur decision on that.

Bithead
September 18, 2010

Thank you for your service to our country, Ed.  Thank you.

N504124366_1001553_4199
October 05, 2010

>>>>None of the games portraying these events have depicted these conflicts as fun; instead they've exposed gamers to deaths in the millions, innocent lives lost, and the struggle that soldiers experience while fighting for a cause.

I don't agree. Many times you'll hear developers discuss way inwhich to make the gaming experience more enjoyable and if gamers didn't find it 'fun' they'd put the controller down. Yes, players fight for a cause, sometimes factual, others fictional. The presentation is one sided, always, but that's part of the 'fun' - who wants to play a game where they revist the mourning families and hospitals full of screaming amputees? booooorrrrring, and I right?

>>>>but do people really think that if gamers experience "a day in the life of the Taliban," they'll want to jump ship and start shooting allied soldiers?

I get that this is rhetorical, but sound logic works inverted. Take Americas Army for example, it's a recruiting tool and an FPS. Many reports of soldiers enlisting and mulled over it while playin MW series... if it happens one way, it CAN happen another (not saying it's likely, but let's be a bit fair).

As a former soldier, I have my own opinion on the  name change and ban - while I do get that EA is probably being reverent, and I appreciate it deeply, the honoring of soldiers shouldn't come with the price of integrity. Who bitched about Civ V where Washington can have Manifest Destiny and crush Hiawatha? No one, ther's not enough people left who have stake in that complaint, ironically as a result of the very reality the game may depict.

You must log in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.