What I don't get about the MOH "controversy"

[jaing1138]

This isn't the first time you get to play as a terrorist in a game.
My question is:
Would they really prefer it if you played as all US or allied soldiers killing each other?

Well it would be historically acurate

 

[joshuaayt]

Well, if playing violent video games makes you violent, then, logically, playing... uhm... Talibinous... games will make you a Taliban. And we have too many of those to consider making more in beautiful America.
People need to stop caring about petty things like this.

 

[Lineoutt]

I looked it up and apparently you only (can) play as the Taliban in multiplayer, nothing more than switching jerseys from match to match. It seems like getting up in arms about TF 2 if you're fond of the color red, but deeply resentful of the color blue.

Goddamn you blue! You switch yet another person to the dark side!! Red lead the way!

 

[XJ-0461]

What you have to remember is that the people so outraged by the game don't get the finer details of it. If you say to anyone on here that "in Medal of Honour you play as members of the Taliban in the multiplayer mode" it's perfectly fine and reasonable, seeing as in every WW2 game with multiplayer some one has the play as the German Army, and that's never really bothered anyone.

But when a reporter or overly protective parent is told the same thing using the exact same wording, all they hear is "play as Taliban" and conjure up images of a game that gives personalities and backstories to the Taliban members, and the story will actively involve shooting American or English soldiers. Of course we know that this is all bullshit, but they don't. And that's where the controversy is coming from.

In short, the controversy has come about mainly because the people who only have a peripheral understanding of the game are the ones who are condemming it.

 

[GonzoGamer]

This isn't the first time you get to play as a terrorist in a game.
My question is:
Would they really prefer it if you played as all US or allied soldiers killing each other?

you're lying to yourself, bro, you do get it and you're playing devil's advocate for the sake of argument, bro.

just that the taliban is a rl group(an anti-draw muhammad group that kills you, to be exact) and ppl who take offense to this sort of thing(soldiers, raging conservatives, dead soldiers parents) don't want players to re-enacting this sort of thing for the sake of entertainment. just reminding you bro.

its not like ww1/ww2 where the conflict is on the fringes of living memory, there are thousands of troops that are still fighting the angry muslims.

I understand their argument but I don?t think it?s valid when you consider these things are re-enacted in movies, documentaries, and other entertainment mediums that they don?t complain about. Even other games. Some people find war entertaining, so you?re going to have to assume that it?s going to show up in the media in various ways. You?re right, I don?t really think war is something that should be glorified but at it?s worst, it?s given us some really good movies and games. I just don?t think there?s any reason to deny (what would otherwise universally be considered) decent content to people who want to play it. You also hae to remember that those soldiers are also fighting to give others the freedom of speech we are able to enjoy.
And to tell you the honest truth, I really don?t know what the nay-sayers would consider a decent alternative to the multiplayer setup.
As someone stated earlier, it is (in the end) probably just a lame attempt to garner publicity to a game that would probably otherwise be considered a common military shooter in a market saturated with them.