The Medal of Honor taliban controversy deepens

Opinion: As the US military bans the sale of Medal of Honor on bases, we explore the real reasons no one wants you playing the Taliban.

The growing controversy surrounding EA's upcoming Medal of Honor is an interesting one. Gamers, and those involved with the game, have known - or at least assumed - for some time that the Taliban would be playable in Medal of Honor's multiplayer; however, as the game approaches release, and this realisation has hit in the wider community, this game choice has spawned a backlash of criticism and censure.

Most recently, Kotaku announced that the US military's Army & Air Force Exchange had requested on-base Gamestop outlets to not stock the game. This is the first time an actual military body has weighed into the debate, and it's a most interesting development.

Major General Bruce Casella, the AAFES' CO had this to say:

"Out of respect to those we serve, we will not be stocking this game. We regret any inconvenience this may cause authorized shoppers, but are optimistic that they will understand the sensitivity to the life and death scenarios this product presents as entertainment. As a military command with a retail mission, we serve a very unique customer base that has, or possibly will, witness combat in real life."

This comes on top of the British government calling for a general ban on the game, to which EA responded by saying "Whether it's Red Badge of Courage or The Hurt Locker, the media of its time can be a platform for the people who wish to tell their stories. Games are becoming that platform."

Game media is now taking sides, as well, with this comment from online source Gamespy: "...if I were somehow playing [Medal of Honor: Allied Assault] as WWII was still raging in 1944, I think I would feel much differently. Put simply: it's too soon, EA."

It's in the game
The curious thing with Medal of Honor is just how closely EA's worked with serving soldiers, on just about every aspect of the game, and that's also what's interesting about the criticisms. So far, it's rear echelon types and politicians saying how poor EA's taste is - not frontline troops.

This truth is, there are - right now - troops serving in combat roles whose main form of relaxation is logging onto Modern Warfare or something similar and letting off a few virtual rounds. The idea of fighting real 'terrorism' on the battlefield and then relaxing by fighting it virtually is nothing new.

Gaming is even an important part of the cool-down from combat operations, and is often used extensively to treat post-traumatic stress disorder - by creating environments that mirror the stresses of combat, but which can be controlled and paused in order for a soldier to learn to make sense of what he or she has seen.

Of course, the enemy is often some nameless OpFor or Red Team, but given many of these game-based simulations model middle-eastern or Afghan environs, let's not kid ourselves.

But that's for an arguably more noble purpose than entertainment - no one would say "it's too soon" to the idea of a shell-shocked vet receiving therapy. But can the opposing force in an ongoing conflict be used in for purposes of entertainment or drama?

EA Games' President Frank Gibeau makes that point himself when he refers to The Hurt Locker - an Academy Award winning film set in Iraq. It's just one of many films - good, bad or otherwise - that depict the War on Terror, and no one makes the claim that they are any less valid or sensitive by featuring plots and characters based on current events. It's part of how we, as a society, parse those events. Whether we're troops dealing with the actuality of combat, or seeing that combat on our nightly news, telling stories is part of how trauma is integrated into our lives.