Controversy and trouble are currently surrounding EA’s upcoming Medal of Honor release that lets gamers play as allies or opposing forces. In this case the U.S. Army are the allies and the enemy are Taliban.
The fingers do not seem to be pointing at the fact that the Taliban are included in the game, but instead the fact you can actually play as them, and shoot the U.S. Army.
So where is the fairness in that you say?
Critics imply that it is fine for one side to shoot the enemy on ideological or morarl grounds, but they also say that it is “disrespectful” for gamers to play as the enemy and shoot back at the allies. Therefore, they say it is morally wrong to allow the Taliban to shoot at U.S. forces when you are playing as the enemy.
A mother, who had a son that served in the U.S. army argues that “War is not a game,” and “my son didn’t get to start over when he was killed.”
EA did respond, and said that the game gives gamers the opportunity to play both sides, something gamers have been doing since they were 7 years old.
EA PR representitive Amanda Taggart spoke to AOL News and said this: –
“If someone’s the cop, someone’s gotta be the robber, someone’s gotta be the pirate and someone’s gotta be the alien. “In ‘Medal of Honor’ multiplayer, someone’s gotta be the Taliban.”
At first, EA avoided the press coverage that covered this point of the game, but when it was picked up by FOX News with the headline “Video Game Lets You Be the Taliban,” it got people talking.
What do you think of EA’s decision to let gamers play as the Taliban? Right or wrong?
Source: PC World
*Identifying Monetised Links - outgoing links that we monetise are marked with an '*' symbol.