What the Average American Thinks about MOH

[Heavy_Boab]

Taken from Game Politics:

In light of the controversy surrounding the ability to play as the Taliban in Electronic Arts’ upcoming Medal of Honor, Northern California’s Times-Herald solicited reader input on the title, in the form of letters to the editor, and listed them on their website. Freedom to play ... freedom to boycott - Vallejo Times Herald

The responses range from ambivalent to angry, and probably represent a decent enough cross-section of opinions. Samplings of the responses are shared below, led off with our personal favorite:

Aubrey Cosentino: I don't think they should have even made this game, let alone try and release it. I would never buy it. My brother is in the Navy and served over in Iraq. It's a slap in the face to Americans is what it is; first they want to build a temple, now this game, come on now ...

Linda Peterson: I would NOT buy it -- but I don't play or buy any war games at all. I think the Taliban option is in extremely bad taste. Offensive even.

Joe Riordan: In all fairness, I think all games dealing with wars or battles should be able to be experienced from either side. IT'S A GAME, PEOPLE. Get over it. We take everything way too seriously. Grow the heck up.

Rob Page: As an Iraqi freedom vet, I feel it is extremely offensive to have game players be the Taliban. I love playing all the first-person shooter games, but this one I am going to pass up and hope many others will, too.

Kevin K-rock Scruggs: What's the difference from Medal and Honor and Grand Theft Auto. I'm sure that police officers are not fans of that game.

Patty Kelly Morris: Sounds like it should be used for our soldiers to train with instead of releasing it to the general public.

Tina Fowler: It's certainly not a game I would play, but isn't the freedom to make and play it exactly what our troops have fought for through the years?

Fernando Vincent Sierra: Our best defense against this sort of marketing would be to not buy it. But to deny a company from producing anything is stepping on constitutional rights of opinion, armament. Hate to see products like this being sold and if I saw it on the shelves, I would say something to the manager and not shop at their establishment.

Amberly Stoddard Krupcznski: What a crock, that game should be burned off the shelves!!!!!!!!

Tacuma Alexander: Violence is violence. Does it really matter what side you're on? Whether you're a character fighting for the American side or fighting for the Taliban side, it's all the same effect.

Whats your opinion on the game?

Personally I can't wait for it, I'd love to see what they've done with the series. To be honest all these complaints about it are redundant. If they are allowed to make games based on world war 2 and other's, then why should they not be able to make a game about the most recent war.

EDIT: Just seen this comment:

Barbie Shearer: Do you also get to be Americans, shooting Taliban soldiers? Are we only getting one side of the story here?

Seems to me that the view's they are getting are a bit one sided, as it is with most "controversial" games.

[The real gamer_thing]

This is more a comment on the game's setting in general, but I do get the argument that the fact that this is a war that is happening as we speak, at the very least it is in extremely bad taste. History is a different story, a current event makes it pretty disrespectful. But I'll concede that Joe Riordan over there makes the simple and correct point that it's a video game, and should be treated as such.

...........no, wait, video games are treated and forms of entertainment so that makes it even worse, doesn't it =/

[Nemo]

How is there a difference in playing a war game set 60 years ago and one that is set now? That makes no sense..all war is pretty rough and bad..so which is tasteful? Neither...its a game and to be honest...should we stop all production of war movies..Please get a grip some people take the form of media a little close to heart.

It's not like you rape children, make them starve and so on so forth..now that would be a pretty sick game (sick as in disgusting just to be on the save side here)

[delectable]

most of the people that make the comments are commenting based purely on the information they've been given to them which is: "OMG IN DIS GAME U ONLY PLAY AS TALIBAN AND YOU SHOOT AMERICANS AND BURN DA FLAGS OH MY GOD AND BARRACK OBAMA WANTS TO TAKE OUR GUNS AWAY"

whereas in reality you only play as the taliban in multiplayer, (simply to give two opposing sides). they could sort this whole problem out by renaming the teams in multiplayer "team A" and "team B" while not changing the character models.


anyway, the game won't get banned, a few retards won't change their opinions and the game will do a lot better than it was going to do in the sales because these dumbasses have given it so much free advertisement. remember when they tried to ban manhunt? it ended up being the number one selling game for ages.

[The real gamer_thing]

How is there a difference in playing a war game set 60 years ago and one that is set now? That makes no sense..all war is pretty rough and bad..so which is tasteful? Neither...its a game and to be honest...should we stop all production of war movies..Please get a grip some people take the form of media a little close to heart.

It's not like you rape children, make them starve and so on so forth..now that would be a pretty sick game (sick as in disgusting just to be on the save side here)

I disagree. I won't be very good at explaining this but think about what historic/present events represent. The past is the past, gone and done. Is a game based on some WW2 scenario longs since finished insulting and distasteful? (Discounting what Germany think) No, because it acts as a preservation of history, if you will, like any form of media would. But something made based on a war happening right now, where people are fighting right now, where people are being killed right now? It may have the same effect but it also adds the effect of trivialising something that is affecting lives as we speak.

...........okay, that was a terrible explanation. I hope you can catch my drift. Here's a pretty recent example; when Derek Bird went on that tragic shooting rampage the TV show Coronation Street happened to be running a special series of episodes at the exact same time. What was it called? 'Siege Week'. That's right, their plot involved a man going on a killing rampage right when in real life someone was going on a killing rampage. For obvious reasons they postponed the remainder of that special series for a week or so.

[delectable]

if someone kicks a puppy in the face and you make a game about kicking the puppy in the face, but then don't release it for another 15 years until the puppy that was kicked in the face is dead. the puppy was still kicked in the face.

[The real gamer_thing]

Puppy kicked in face ≠ nearly 2000 military casualities in Afghanistan. (Apologies if that's a horribly inaccurate figure.)

EDIT: And besides, my point wasn't that it's right to make a sick joke just because a lot of time has passed.

And before I'm mis-interpreted don't get me wrong, I'm not asking to have this banned, I'm just saying that it is, all things considered, quite a disrespectful thing for EA to do. Of course, that's probably the main reason WHY they did it; I certainly wouldn't argue your point delectable that big controversies mean big sales.........

[delectable]

it obviously wasn't meant to be taken literally. i had kind of hoped that your had the brainpower to see that, in the future i won't overestimate you again though.

[The real gamer_thing]

Of course I knew it wasn't a serious argument. Does that stop me from making a point?

[delectable]

well fine then, guess i just misinterpreted this

Puppy kicked in face ≠ nearly 2000 military casualities in Afghanistan.

as you thinking i meant that literally. in my defence it wouldn't have been the first time something i've said has gone over the head of users on this site, so i've kind of lowered my standards.