 |
|
|
| |
UK Defense Secretary Fox Calls For Ban On 'Tasteless' Medal Of Honor
by Kris Graft [PC, Console/PC]
|
|
| |
|
August 23, 2010
|
| |
UK Defense Secretary Liam Fox implored retailers to ban the sale of Electronic Arts' upcoming Afghan War-based game amid concerns that family and friends of deployed and fallen British soldiers might be offended by the game's premise, which pits U.S. forces against the Taliban.
"It's shocking that someone would think it acceptable to recreate the acts of the Taliban," said Fox in a BBC report. "At the hands of the Taliban, children have lost fathers and wives have lost husbands."
He continued, "I am disgusted and angry. It's hard to believe any citizen of our country would wish to buy such a thoroughly un-British game. I would urge retailers to show their support for our armed forces and ban this tasteless product."
But there are no British troops featured in the upcoming game, EA said, and the game "does not allow players to kill British soldiers."
Medal of Honor is a reboot of one of the publisher's core first-person shooter franchises, and includes a single-player mode that focuses on the story of elite American special forces soldiers fighting in the War in Afghanistan. A multiplayer mode allows players to choose U.S. soldiers or Taliban forces. The game, created under the guidance of current soldiers, is due out in October 2010.
Fox later didn't backtrack on his comments despite the revelation that there are no British troops in the game. "The point remains that part of this game allows you to play the part of the Taliban attacking ISAF troops in the area of central Helmand where British troops are operating," according to his spokesperson.
EA Games label president Frank Gibeau argued that the game is an accurate portrayal of a real-life conflict. "Many popular video games allow players to assume the identity of enemies, including Nazis and terrorists. In the multiplayer levels of Medal of Honor, teams will assume the identity of both U.S. forces and the Taliban."
The UK's Department for Culture, Media and Sport distanced itself from Fox's call for a ban on the game, in a Eurogamer report. A spokesperson said that there is a ratings system for video games in place (Medal of Honor is rated for ages 18 and up in the UK) and consumers can make the choice for themselves at retail.
Medal of Honor, which up until now had a World War II setting, also received criticism in a recent Fox News report, in which the mother of a soldier killed in the Middle Eastern conflict said, "War is not a game, period," and called EA's title "disrespectful" to soldiers' families.
|
| |
|
|
1. Yet another politician who jumped to denounce something they don't understand, it appears. When will they (or their staffs) learn?
2. Well done, Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Assuming such a department actually was a necessary element of a national government, at least they said the right thing, which is for vendors to provide accurate ratings information and for consumers to use that information responsibly.
3. That said, I also think it's appropriate to report on the objections by parents and spouses to the content of a game that simulates the conflict that cost them their loved ones. Western democracies tolerate differing opinions, and these people have as much right to express their displeasure as fans of Medal of Honor have to express their satisfaction at getting to play the bad guys.
4. At what point does publishing an "accurate portrayal of a real-life conflict" start to be a problem? How much of that is OK as art, or good for the videogame industry?
What if EA published a game in which you could choose to play as either a combat fighter pilot who has to decide whether to shoot down a hijacked passenger jet aimed at some major capitalist landmark, or as the hijacker flying that plane? That's a scenario that could happen -- does it cross a line or not?
How "transgressive" would a game have to be to put politicians and a lot of the public together on the other side of the line from a game developer or publisher?
5. What's up with using unflattering pictures of politicians? (Cf. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/30023/UK_Politician_Ed_Balls_Calls_Lack_Of_Ga
me_Industry_Support_Madness.php)
I don't mind a bit of cheekiness in my games journalism, but eventually the use of bad pictures of some pols and not of others is going to start looking like indirect editorializing. I can get that confusing mixture elsewhere; I value Gamasutra for its high-quality objective games journalism and its clearly distinct opinions/analyses/editorials. Just a thought.
How does it sound this way?
"War is not a book, period."
"War is not a movie, period."
"War is not a photograph, period."
There is enough media out there that "recreate[s] the acts of the Taliban" that it is completely ridiculous to get at games at this point. I guess the word "game" just has a negative connotation in general.
Anyway, that's not really my point here. My point is:
I was recently listening to NPR and they were talking about Madden Football. There was a writer there who was talking about a real football game. The time for the game was nearing an end, the game was tied, and one of the players got the ball and ran it towards the end zone. Time was running out, and instead of going right into the end zone for the touch down, the player took a 90 degree turn and ran along side it until there was only 6 seconds left then took it in. He ate up enough time that he made it impossible for the other team to have enough time to get another touch down, it was a game winning decision. After the game he said that he knew to do that from his experience playing Madden Football.
The pro football players of today all grew up playing Madden Football. You have, for the first time in history, really - rookie quarterbacks starting in every game. They learn the game from playing Madden. In a regular, pro season a player can only participate in 16 games a year. But with Madden, they can participate in literally hundreds of games per year. It's a football simulation, and they learn things from all of that experience that accelerates their knowledge of the game.
It seems to me, that games such as Medal of Honor, Call of Duty, and whatnot can do the same thing for our soldiers - put them through countless hours of simulations without them having any skin in the game. These can be seen as combat simulations, and you can bet that the majority of our soldiers have clocked in hours playing these games. Perhaps the more realistic we can make them, the better off they'll be.
They've even used "off-the-shelf" games to help train. But most "army games" are poor simulations of the real thing and can teach really bad habits (e.g. firing an RPG at your feet is not an acceptable way to enter a second story window ;) ).
I might be naive but like how comics rallied for moral during tough times, I hope games can become a more influential part of that medium.
I say everyone not support the war and buy the video game instead.
How backwards is it to be upset about video games but support and believe in the real deal.
The game will either have more depth than the usual fare, or it will be a great looking but vapid excuse to compete online. Regardless, banning the game through legislation or "convincing" retailers not to sell it is wrong* on many absurdly obvious levels.
*by wrong I mean antithetical to the widely accepted ideals of modern free society
BTW already had pre-ordered MoH since Allied Assault is probably my favourite game ever. Incidently should I uninstall my other CoDs/MoH since you can kill allies......
PS I think they would get less heat if they took out the multiplayer action-playing as a taliban character and left this to a single player, based on true story events.---but the heat is what they want--makes people buy more.--good job Defense Secretary Fox for the free advertising and controversy.
Well, I guess we can't all be blind patriots now can we?
Does that mean we should seek to ban everything other war.