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."

Comments

Re:Hypocrisy Isn't Free

[clarkkent09]

No, I don't really expect to be able to do those things but that's not the point. The point is is there a line where one side in a war is so evil that it is plain wrong to be able to play as that side in a game? Maybe not but my biggest problem with that is the insensitivity to the feelings of the soldiers' families. I know you can play as Germans in many WWII games but that was a long time ago while this war is still going on.

By the way if you mean to equate the water boarding of a few terrorists in order to get information with what Taliban did to the people of Afghanistan then you have a lot of reading to do.