The latest installment of Medal of Honor, gives the option to gamers to play as the Taliban: fighting, killing and terrorizing US Troops. And it appears there are many out-spoken haters of the game already.

I don't follow video game announcments and releases all that closely. I don't remember reading about a new MoH game, but I remember hearing about it. Today, on break from work, I heard EA was under public attack for it's latest game that lets players kill US Troops. They were saying it's wrong, and blah blah blah.

Sure, it's morally wrong. But it isn't constitutionally wrong. Correct? We have our freedom of speech. The News station even interviewed KIDS, and they couldn't have been older than sixth, seventh grade. They said they like the blood and the shooting. One kid even said he wanted to join the Marines.



Now, I don't think the News station ever told the kids precisely what they were being questioned about. I don't think a kid would say he'd like to join the Marines if he was shooting at them in a video game. I would run a bet that the reporter asked "What do you like about shooting games?" opposed to "Would you play a game that was shooting at US Troops? And the team you were on was the Taliban, the exact force we are up against in the Middle East?" While I doubt any reporter would use those words precisely, that'd be a better question to broadcast responses from.


Now, I have no issue with this game. I believe EA is doing something entirely original and new. While it is morally and nationally wrong, I don't see why it can't be a great experience. I'll never buy it, I rarely play the games I do have, but if I get the chance I'll enjoy it like every other FPS I play.

In CoD, Multiplayer, We play as Terrorist or Counter-Terrorist, basically. Same in Counter Strike, and any other online FPS.



Other views?

No, it isn't. How is it even remotely morally wrong? It's no more "morally wrong" than US troops shooting terrorists in video games. It's all fictional entertainment, nothing moral or immoral about it.

This is sensationalist news to cover the fact that real journalism is too hard, and that mindless fear pandering is easier and generates more views anyway.

This kind of thing makes my head hurt; it's just the media trying to find things to make people upset about things. I agree with Kllrnohj on this. It's just a game, people.

I find the entire theme of the series morally wrong. All it does is glorify war. Whether it's Americans killing Nazis or Talibans killing Americans, it's a gruesome scenario that devalues human life.

Indeed, but if you removed all violent video games, noone would play them. Violence is an inextricable part of our psyche. That's why the news gets such high ratings when they report on violent crimes, despite everyone saying they abhor violence...

Humans are violent creatures. It's part of being a predator. Video games provide a safe release for those violent urges. Would you rather people with an urge to inflict damage do it virtual or in the real world? Because "people with an urge to inflict damage" covers just about everyone.

I wasn't trying to impose my morality, in case there was some confusion. Whether or not other people get their jollies by exploring violent images is not something I'm concerned with. I simply don't see the incentive of these games; and thus, I would never purchase or play them.

It may be true that people are largely inclined toward violence by their very nature. I'm not sure. I'm not; and that's really the basis for my aversion to this stuff.

IMHO it's just a game. If in the real world talibans can terrorize US troops and US troops can raid them, then why couldn't we do both in a game?

Yeah it is just a game. I play violent video games (I.e. Call of Duty. MoH, Gears of War, Assassin's Creed, Halo, Counter Strike, Socom, James Bond, Termninator, etc.) and I'm not violent. And nobody cared about the level in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II when you walk around as a Russian killing hundreds and hundreds of civilians in an airport. This isn't that big of a deal.

I think most (normal and sane) people don't connect video-game violence to real-world violence. They don't equate the events in the game to real-world situations, ie, they don't think of what they're doing in the game as plausible in the real world or even an alternative to acting out the same scenario in real life. The other people are just obstacles in the game, no more or less so than capturing an enemy pawn in chess is an obstacle in that game. I play Unreal Tournament, and I'm not playing to kill the opposing players or AI bots, I'm playing to outsmart and out-skill them as an intellectual challenge.

Uh... yes, yes they did. Some *countries* even outright banned the game completely because of that. There was a *HUGE* outcry about that in the media, mass controversy and all that. It wouldn't surprise me if MOH is doing something similar just to generate all that free press.

Weren't the Columbine shooters trying to live out Doom? Or was that just the media trying to rationalize the irrational?

That's news to me if that is indeed the case.

I've heard all kinds of reasons thrown around, from Marilyn Manson to Doom, from being outcasts, to being sociopaths.

It seems to me that being sociopaths kinda goes without saying. I'm sure "living out Doom" is yet another piece of media sensationalism.

there is zilch wrong with being able to play as the bad guys. I really don't get the objections. Come on, I had relatives and friends over there, and I have no problem with it. Some people just like to flip out.

Aye, I think we were pretty much all in agreement on that particular point, no?