One of the most popular videogames genres is the first-person shooter, where players take control of a faceless character and use an arsenal of knives and guns to kill everything that walks in front of them. Unsurprisingly then, videogames found an ally in the setting where people tend to use guns the most: real-world wars.
However, because of the inherently violent nature of war, videogames based on war need to perform a delicate balancing act. They must replicate the exciting and visceral atmosphere of war, enough to keep involved the notoriously attention-deficit teenage demographic, but also avoid confronting the player with the harsh realities of war that might offend those who have been affected by war.
Early shooters like Doom and Wolfenstein deftly skirted this conflict entirely by making the enemies demons from Hell, and the Nazi armies of a robot Hitler, respectively, but as videogaming evolved game developers became more capable and willing to push the envelope in regards to the graphic nature of war. In the past 5 years alone, game developers have made numerous attempts to expand the genre into the difficult setting of the modern-day Middle East, and in doing so have encountered numerous controversies over their efforts.
The World vs. The Taliban
One game in particular that has been the subject of the most idiotic public backlash is the upcoming Electronic Arts title Medal of Honor, a first-person shooter which takes place during the Afghanistan War. From what is currently known about the as-of-yet unreleased game, the single-player campaign follows several American and British soldiers during Operation Enduring Freedom in the first few months of the war.
The opposing force is, of course, the Taliban, the forces that ruled Afghanistan at the time of the invasion. As would be expected from a military shooter, by game’s end, players will have shot hundreds, if not thousands of angry, AK-47-wielding bad guys, in this case, radical Afghan extremists. The ability to shoot at the Taliban in the game has not been the least bit controversial, considering Canada, the United States, and Great Britain have been doing that in real life since 2001.
The controversy only arose when the press discovered that the Taliban could shoot back, specifically in the multiplayer mode. Players choosing to play against other players, whether locally or online would be given the option to play as either the Tier 1 Operators, the protagonist group in the single-player campaign, or as the Taliban.
As a result, players who choose to play as the Taliban will end up shooting at American and British forces, a decision Amanda Taggart, senior PR manager for EA, the company publishing the game, explained simply: “Most of us having been doing this since we were 7 -- if someone's the cop, someone's gotta be the robber”.
The World vs. Electronic Arts
Politicians and the media however don’t see it that way. Earlier this year, UK Defense Secretary Liam Fox said “It's shocking that someone would think it acceptable to recreate the acts of the Taliban. I would urge retailers to show their support for our armed forces and ban this tasteless product.”
Soon after, Canada’s chief of defence staff Gen. Walter Natynczyk was quoted saying “You never want to show mockery of the unfortunate situation of true combat. “To have an entertainment system that would appear to glorify [the war in Afghanistan], to appear to take away from the awful, serious nature of what this is, I’m saddened by it.” Fox News, a media outlet known for lambasting videogames that push boundaries, invited the mother of a soldier who died in Iraq to discuss the controversy, who rejected the idea that videogames should tackle modern wars, stating “War is not a game, period.”
Electronic Arts vs. Electronic Arts
But of the many detractors of the inclusion of the Taliban, there have been none more damaging than Electronics Arts themselves. EA Games president Frank Gibeau told gaming business site Develop that they knew the game was a “creative risk” and though they anticipated controversy, “At EA we passionately believe games are an artform” and stated that they would not back down in the face of criticism.
This stance was heavily contradicted by an earlier and more widespread statement from EA DICE producer Patrick Liu; “We can't get away from what the setting is and who the factions are, but in the end, it's a game, so we're not pushing or provoking too hard.” Fox News jumped on the “it’s just a game” comment, pointing to it as proof that EA had no business making the game.
The biggest blow to the game came on October 1st when Medal of Honor’s executive producer Greg Goodrich announced that, with only two weeks left before Medal of Honor's October 14th launch, the name of the opposing force in the multiplayer mode would be changed from ‘Taliban’ to ‘Opposing Force’, not only giving legitimacy to Fox and co.'s complaints but submitting to them.
A Needless Debate
The concerns over the option to play as the Taliban may have had merit if not for the fact that inclusion of the Taliban in the game was entirely cosmetic from the beginning. The multiplayer mode of wargames must have at least two factions from the single-player campaign, meaning that some players will end up playing as Nazis, Soviets, Vietcong, etc.
The Taliban are no different, just a brown-skinned variant of the ‘generic soldier’ avatar players use to shoot other players. The angry “players can pretend to kill American soldiers” rhetoric trumpeted by opponents becomes moot when one realizes that both the ‘American soldier’ and the ‘Taliban insurgent’ are just skins that the player inhabits in order to shoot at other players, especially since most of the players are middle-class American citizens, blowing off steam after a hard day’s work.
Medal of Honor will be released on October 14th, 2010.
Marc Patterson - I am a twentysomething student studying at Halifax's Saint Mary's University. I have a love of videogames and for geek subjects in general ...
Join the Conversation