Next Medal of Honor allows gamers to play as the Taliban.

Apparently, the next MoH will allow us to play as the Taliban. I've never been big on censorship, but I got reservations about this because the Afghan war is going on right now. Personally, I'd rather see them wait until the war is over. I also understand their point of view that it's not possible to not have the Taliban be playable, especially in PvP, when there needs to be two sides. What do you guys think?

Link

I reckon it's a cool idea.

If anyone gets up in arms about it they need to lighten up.

Cool off OP. They're just games. People can differentiate between them and the real world.

Yet its ok to play gta4 and light up some girl on the streets

A game where equal numbers of equally armed people fight on each side, killing, dying and respawning up until the end of the round, doesn't reflect war in Afghanistan or anywhere else, no matter what names are slapped on the locations or the differing teams.

Yet its ok to play gta4 and light up some girl on the streets

EdenProxy

Thats what i thought. Heck no one complains about mw2 nukes so I don't see why playing as talibans is sucha big deal.

The Nazis were far worse than the Taliban, and many games let you play as an SS soldier.

The Nazis were far worse than the Taliban, and many games let you play as an SS soldier.

Pixel-Pirate

In military shooters I always disconnect from the faction you play as anyway. Otherwise I'd feel dirty playing games such as MW2 and Battlefield 2 for the PS2.

Besides, in Battlefield 1942 you could play as the nazis, which have long been the most popular bad guys ever in games and films alike, and nobody complained.

I want CoD with a german campaign :(

I want CoD with a german campaign :(

Postal_Guy

Heroes of Stalingrad will have one.

Who cares? This is old knews, its been in the beta for months. It's just a game, if you get pissed about this you have issues.

Does the multiplayer in MoH allow you to choose your side? Or does the computer automatically assign you?

If the computer automatically assigns you, then I may just stick with the single player for MoH.

The Taliban aren't going anywhere any time soon, so might as well rep. themX360PS3AMD05

So does MW2Black_Knight_00

Not really Taliban, but close enough.

in ten years you will be able to play as Al Qaeda flying the planes into the towers. Do they have you killing US troops in that game?WE ARE STILL FIGHTING THE GODDAMN WAR!!! I think I would support the government banning this for enemy propaganda in a time of war.

I think I would support the government banning this for enemy propaganda in a time of war.

herpderp9000

I don't see a problem with it, it's a game. Anything should be allowed in a game because it's hypocritical to say doing one thing is bad or offensive but not something else. We kill people in games all the time, do cruel things like detonating the atomic bomb in Fallout 3. We run over pedestrians in GTA, stomp on turtles in Mario games, so why can't we shoot children or be terrorists in video games? It's not real and we know this, that's why it's fun.

Does the multiplayer in MoH allow you to choose your side? Or does the computer automatically assign you?

If the computer automatically assigns you, then I may just stick with the single player for MoH.

MathMattS

Dude it's just a game. It's not real. They are just pixles being shown on a t.v. with a graphics card. They are not even physical.

It's to soon. It's just going to create controversy andnegative coverage in the media, which will paint gaming and gamers in a negative lightto the wider community.

This will reduce our chances of getting a R rating here in Australia.

In the MOHgame - - do you throw acid in the faces of little girls (like the real Taliban does)- or do they water down the evil of these monsters, to make them seem morally equal with US soldiers?Born_Lucky

I'm sorry, but I don't see the big deal. Killing U.S. soldiers as the Taliban should be no different then the U.S. soldier killing a Taliban member. It's like if there was a game of Timothy McVeigh. If you killed him, it'd be peachy. But if you're him killing someone, I bet there would be a problem.

Im in the Beta, its impossible to complete it cause I keep dying, but the thing is Im supposed to kill myself... It just dosent add up.

[QUOTE="herpderp9000"]I think I would support the government banning this for enemy propaganda in a time of war.

foxhound_fox

Undercovers of course:P

I think I would support the government banning this for enemy propaganda in a time of war.

herpderp9000

For it to be enemy propaganda, it'd have to be made by the Taliban.

[QUOTE="herpderp9000"]I think I would support the government banning this for enemy propaganda in a time of war.

foxhound_fox

I've no problems with it, just a game afterall

Well, in MW2 there's that controversial airport level where you play as terrorist, it was pretty brutal, but it was also a part of the game's story, but they still allowed gamers to skip playing this part. I think that if they do so in MoH then it'll be important to the plot or at a dramatic or pivotal point in the game, but like MW2 if it stirs up too much controversy it'll probably be optional to play it as well. Of course, online competitive multiplayer will probably be out of the question... unless for some reason they make it so no matter what team you're on then all of your team will look like US military while the enemies always look like Taliban, no matter what team you're on... though I really don't see a need for that.lamprey263

That part didn't strike me as being brutal, First there were limited character design, so I ended up shooting the same woman in a pink shirt at several differentpoints in that level. Second, it wasn't really realistic at all, When's the last time you never saw any children at an airport? I don't think game devs can make a brutal enough game to match the horrors of warfare

[QUOTE="X360PS3AMD05"]The Taliban aren't going anywhere any time soon, so might as well rep. themfoxhound_fox

Past events kept them around too. Rather than win the war in Afghanistan, the administration (misled by bad intelligence) launched a second war in Iraq.

The Taliban never forgot about Afghanistan, but we did for a while, and in that time they regrouped (sadly, it wasn't the last time the administration would prematurely declare victory).

In fairness, as a guy who was working in the region when the Taliban rolled across Afghanistan in 1995 and who subsequently wrote his thesis on them, I'm not sure this would have played out differently even if the administration had kept its eye on the ball. The Taliban was never going to go down easy or quickly (they enjoy broad support among Pushtuns and while they enjoy less support among other groups, Afghanis tend to unite around the banner of Islam when confronting a foreign occupier).

People talking about moral equality in a war game, hilarious.

The Nazis were far worse than the Taliban.

Pixel-Pirate

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

The Nazis were far worse than the Taliban.

MaxPred2010

[QUOTE="MaxPred2010"][QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

The Nazis were far worse than the Taliban.

Chiefme

[QUOTE="Chiefme"][QUOTE="MaxPred2010"] No they weren't.MaxPred2010

To be fair, this all didn't start from 9/11. All this conflict and propaganda goes back decades.

[QUOTE="Chiefme"][QUOTE="MaxPred2010"] No they weren't.MaxPred2010

Next, on Fox News...