Ward's post about controversial options in the newest edition of the popular Medal of Honor game series drove a lot of conversation here.
It was about evenly split on the boards here as to whether it was a big deal that the franchise allowed players to act as no-joke Taliban insurgents who kill the "Tier 1" operators in the newest version of the game. I, for one, look at it this way: I'll never forget watching Marines play SOCOM on the PSP in ad hoc mode during the Iraqi elections in Ramadi in 2005. In order for your player to regenerate after being killed, your team mate had to come over and "touch" you. Well, those Marine were boobie trapping their oponents' bodies so they'd kill their partners if they tried to regenerate...
The point is, I saw first hand that it didn't matter to those Marines playing the game who's side you were on. They were just as vicious to eachother in a virtual context and didn't pay much attention to the morality of it.
But that's not how it went down with the poo bahs at the military exchanges. It turns out, the game has been banned from the PX at almost all bases and stations because of the Taliban option. Execs agreed with families and some vet advocates that the game's "become a terrorist" capability just hit a little too close to home...nevermind that the game's earlier versions allow you to play a Nazi or Japanese soldier in World War II battlefields. Heck, that was 60 years ago, right?
But I guarantee you every Joe, Grunt, Airman and Squid over in The Zone will be clamoring to play this game in their hooch as soon as they can get their hands on it.
So you tell us, should the bases ban the game?
Is the 'Taliban Option' in the New Medal of Honor Game Too Much?survey software
