Slashdot Mirror
Controversy Arises Over Taliban Option In Medal of Honor
eldavojohn writes "CVG is covering the controversy surrounding players' ability to play as a member of the Taliban in EA's Medal of Honor multiplayer. Fox News hopped on the wagon, interviewing a Gold Star mom whose son died in Iraq. She said, 'My son didn't get to start over when he was killed. His life was over and I had to deal with that every day. There's 1200 families from Afghanistan that have to live with this every day. And we live it — it's not a game... EA is very cavalier about it: "Well, it's just a game." But it isn't a game to the people who are suffering from the loss of the children and loved ones.' EA's response to this criticism of giving players the objective to 'gun down American troops' was this: 'Medal Of Honor 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.' Of course the story recalls Six Days in Fallujah, which was dropped by Konami following similar controversy. It's clear at least a few people take issue with games surrounding modern conflicts."
She said, 'My son didn't get to start over when he was killed. His life was over and I had to deal with that every day. There's 1200 families from Afghanistan that have to live with this every day. And we live it -- it's not a game..
That's funny, I hear that's what the people on the other side said too, except possibly in another language.
Last I heard, American soldiers were supposed to be fighting to preserve a way of life, a way which includes freedom of expression.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
...he'd be playing war games (not necessarily on a computer) where he played the side of the Taliban.
Was there any outcry when Battlefield Viet Nam came out? Because you can totally frag G.I.s in that game, and there are plenty of Viet Nam vets still around.
You've been able to play as a Terrorist in Counter Strike since day one. It came out ten god damn years ago.
My son didn't get to start over when he was killed. His life was over and I had to deal with that every day. There's 1200 families from Afghanistan that have to live with this every day
I feel your pain. Given our nation's involuntary draft, the servicemen who have died in the war thus far did so against their will. They did not know what they were fighting for, and what they were ready to give up to secure our freedoms.
Oh, wait. They did. They bleed crimson red so we can maintain our way of life. They chose to join the service.
You do a disservice to the fallen soldiers memories by acting like the very corrupt, anti-American terrorists. How dare you?
They died for us. It's our job to keep on living and enjoy life. You've better things to do than to wallow about some videogame.
I have a Great Grandfather that died in WW2, do you think anyone in my family complains that everyother video game title out there centers on this conflict? How about games where you could be the Germans? I don't here a whole lot of gripping from Fox News about them. I don't get why this person wouldn't want her sons story, and the stories of all of the soldiers over there from every other country, to be told to the world in a form that the youth will acctually pay attention to.
Dear Mom,
You're currently destroying all the effort your son made fighting a threat to your freedom.
Thanks,
The talibans.
....Even if someone somehow forced you to buy the game, most servers have the option to let you choose your team. Don't like the Taliban, but don't have the time to be a real soldier? Join the American team! Kick some Taliban ass! We're now 10 years deep into the latest conflict. When can people start talking about this conflict as a reflection of our culture? It has to happen sometime.
moox. for a new generation.
Yuppies are die hard hypocrite pussies. Wake me up when a game contains the following plot:
1. A foreign invader bombs your village and drops leaflets about liberation
2. You lose one cousin to an errant bomb, another is killed by a rival tribe
3. The electric grid starts to fail. Riots take over the streets, and you can no longer go to school or even visit family across town
4. Finally, your mother is forced into prostitution because your father was abducted, tortured, and killed by the invaders
5. You completely lose your mind and embark on a mission to kill at least one foreigner in retribution for the suffering you have endured
When that shit happens, video games will be art, and they will start to matter. Any complaining about obviously pro-American games like Medal of Honor is the most pathetic and empty endorsement of patriotism I've heard this week. And trust me, there's a lot of competition.
There is a game called Red Orchestra: Ostfront 1941-45. As the name implies, it's a (multiplayer) FPS set on WW2 Eastern Front, with Germans and Soviets being two opposing factions. Naturally, it lets you play for either one. It is also fairly realistic, not just in gameplay, but in depictions of various things - i.e. all swastikas and such are in place where they should be, and so on.
Now, forget Afghanistan, heck, forget even Vietnam - Soviet Union lost 10 million soldiers in WW2. 10 fucking million!
Which does not preclude Russian gamers today - including those having WW2 vets in the family - from playing this game in general, or playing it specifically for the Germans. If anything, the game is actually strongly appreciated for being one of the few Western games that deal with the subject of Eastern Front (which bore the brunt of the war) at all - most Western movies and games about WW2 focus on Allied, and, more specifically, American involvement, to the point that it seems sometimes that war in Europe started with the landings in Normandy...
I can't watch the video, so this is based solely on the summary. It is entirely possible that the 'Gold Star Mom' (huh?) now objects to all depictions of war as entertainment. The summary doesn't say she thinks it's OK to play the US side, but not the side who killed her boy. It just says she objects to war being portrayed as a game.
This is not a viewpoint that I share, but she's welcome to it.
It's gotta be rough playing Taliban where your only hope of anything is to shoot quickly than run, and hopefully you'll kill someone before you die, if you're lucky. Where if you ever begin to get the upper hand in any fight, your opponent calls in a helicopter that you have no defense against, or even hope to have a defense against. Where your only chance of winning is if your opponent decides to go home. That would be so depressing.
Qxe4
...offended. Tagged "thinkofthechildren". Faux News sensationalism strikes again and were it not for them, the parents of dead soldiers would probably never have even heard about the game, let alone: "The Taliban Option". So who is the real villain?
Interesting. I didn't know that...
I do appreciate the existentialism, though. I mean, in the end, doesn't every side of a battle see themselves as the patriots and their opponent as the "bad guys"*?
*Insert whatever the term of choice is for the conflict in question. Whether it's Fascists, Commies, Terrorists, or Borg, it's still "the bad guys."
find worrying that some people only play as germans, but I'll give them the benefit of doubt
Well, I personally prefer playing for the Germans simply because their infantry weapons are somewhat superior - they've generally got slightly better iron sights; MP 40 is much easier to control in full auto than PPD, PPSh, and still easier than PPS; MG 42 is the king of machine guns; and, most importantly, on 1944-45 maps they have the epic win that is StG 44. I suspect that is why Germans seem to be slightly more popular in general.
On tank maps, on the other hand, most prefer Soviets, because of T-34.
Now, of course, there are also the occasional folk with nicknames such as "SiegHeil1488", but there isn't really any doubt there. In any case, if they want to waste time shooting pixels in a video game, rather than spending that same time beating up immigrants and Jews, I'm all for it.
I don't see why she would be upset.
I understand losing your child is a heartbreaking experience, even if they volunteered to be put in a situation where that was likely to happen. However, I'm pretty sure that does not destroy your capacity for thinking and rationality. This woman is like those crazy parents whose child dies in a freak drowning-in-a-bucket accident and then go on a lifelong crusade to ban buckets.
Losing someone in a military action doesn't grant you any greater influence or control over "freedom of speech" than anyone else.
The moment you ragged on Obama as 'the worst President'. If you honestly think Bush was any better, then you have NO credibility at all with your statement.
And yes, one thing has something to do with the other, since YOU decided to mention that.
You comment being marked as 'insightful' says volumes about the readership of this site.
Her son died in a war to "Protect Freedom". And yet she belittles his death by complaining about a game that allows the players the freedom to be whoever they want in the conflict.
Lady, your son signed up because he believed it was the right thing to do, he died for his beliefs. The least you can do is respect what died for.
I don't agree with this war but I respect those who at least have the balls to put their lives on the line for their beliefs. Its far more than most of us will ever do.
Other things the same distance from Ground Zero. Just to put the distance into context and unpack the debate about what should be allowed planning permission in this area.
Personally I think one option would be to have a row of religious buildings from all the major world religions built next to each other. That way nobody could be accused of being given preferential treatment and the believers of each religion would have to talk to each other and find ways of getting on with each other (yes I know this would either be ineffectual or a tinderbox in reality).
Not sure of your expression "Islamic/ US relations" - I think these are orthogonal, they are not in the same dimension. Islam is a religion and the USA is a nation state, they are different types of entity. "Christian / Islamic relations" or "USA / Iranian relations" I would get. though the latter is slightly complicated as Iran I believe is a theocratic state.
What's next?
Watching your social security trust fund go toward buying some more up-armored humvees, obtuse weapon systems, drones, and benefits for the blasted apart.
Seriously dude, be upset that in the US we spend more than most nations COMBINED on defense. This will be the downfall of our country, that and the leeches that make up the top 2%.
Ike knew it would lead to this:
http://www.h-net.org/~hst306/documents/indust.html
You can't silence it, but you don't have to listen.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
The one difference between WW2 and current/recent wars is the near universal consensus on which side was in the right. GIs in WW2 had nearly universal support back home including a country that was mobilized behind them. From women entering the workforce to general rationing, the country stood behind them because it was recognized that winning the war was something that simply needed to be done. I imagine sentiment in the USSR was similar.
Today's conflicts are much more nuanced. There's a substantial number of people, both in the US and abroad, who see the US troops as the persecutors rather than the defenders of freedom. It's entirely probable that people would play the game as the US's enemy believing that killing US soldiers was the equivalent of killing Nazis. There's no such fear when it comes to playing WW2 games since it's almost inconceivable to people that people would dishonor the memories of those who fought against the Nazis. Those soldiers are unimpeachable heroes and, therefore, don't need anyone to argue for avoiding video games on the subject.
The morally-ambiguous nature of current conflicts causes those who believe strongly in one side or the other to object to the objectification of the conflict.
You know what, screw you. Screw you because you lumped all Muslims as supporting the terrorists. Screw you because people like you are one of the reasons why many misguided Muslims turn to terrorism. Screw you because you are against real Muslims trying to bridge the divide with the American people. Screw you because you made a hypothetical straw man argument. Yeah, mod me down as a troll or what not. I'm a Muslim and I am against terrorism in any form, be it carried out by amateurs or by someone hiding behind a Predator Drone. The US had destroyed more civilian buildings, killed more innocent people, wiped off villages off the map, then what was lost during the September 11 attacks. It has destabilised the volatile Afghanistan region and is kindling a greater fire in Kurdistan. All this at the cost of benefiting the people behind the original attacks and your military-industrial complex. What is wrong with allowing some people trying to heal the wounds by building this Islamic Centre? (it is not a mosque)
I like your use of "*sigh*" to start your arrogant "I don't care about anyone but myself" post. It didn't make you come across as either:
1) A bad troll
2) A little kid
If your need to exercise your freedom of expression overpowers your ethics, you probably have some serious social disorders. I can tell that you don't share my morals or ethics, because you put yourself ahead of people around you.
Thanks for your reply, this is exactly what I was anticipating in response.
And we live it -- it's not a game... EA is very cavalier about it: "Well, it's just a game." But it isn't a game to the people who are suffering from the loss of the children and loved ones.'
Easy solution: Don't buy it, don't play it. There, solved that for you.
Really, we as a society need to get out of this stupid tribal mindset that we are offended by things that other people do with no effect whatsoever on ourselves. I'll admit up front that it isn't the same level of evil, but it is in the same category (semantically) as Taliban who are offended at other people being in love with each other.
And yes, I say that to a griefing mother. Grief makes you irrational, and irrational people should not be the ones who decide how society works. They deserve our support and comfort, but they don't deserve to dictate policy.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org