What EA should do is create two versions of the game. One with singleplayer and one with both

I'm getting the game. The single player look greats and multiplayer looks like BFBC2's resurrection

Medal of Honor is back and looks better then ever. EA is bringing the franchise to modern day Afghan. With an all new single player this game is definitely going to be bashing skulls with CoD: Black Ops. The multiplayer is being designed by Dice and the weapon customization looks like it is going to surpass Battlefield Bad Company 2′s.

It is all most the end on 2010 and no year can end with out at least one video game controversy. Last year Activsion took a beat down with the "No Russian". This year EA is sending Medal of Honor to the batting plate. All I can say is play ball.

During the finally days of summer the Medal of Honor beta for the PS3 and PC arrived. The multiplayer features to faction: the Tier 1 Ops (main characters of the game) and the infamous Taliban. I bet you can guess what the controversy is. The game will randomly put you on one to the two teams. Each team is give a set of weapons to choose for depending on their faction.

I first heard about this from Destruction.com. Hamza Aziz wrote wrote an article about the game letting you play as "Al Qaeda" and the game personally affected him because his family was from Afghan. It was later released that it was the Taliban that you could play as not Al Qaeda. My reaction to the playable Taliban in Medal of Honor was "Oh great. Fox News is going to have a field day with this." And of course I was right. In early August Fox News brought a mother who's son died in the war. Karen Meredith said "War is not a game, period". Uh, duh. I think even Sarah Palin could figure that out. Karen went on "The fact that they've already done games about World War 2 … that's far removed from our current history, people aren't dying in World War 2 any more." Looks like someone has a little case of Double Stander Fever.

The game later was under fire from the UK Defense Secretary. Liam Fox made the uneducated statement "It's hard to believe any citizen of our country would wish to buy such a thoroughly un-British game" Un-British . Really. Ever heard of Modern Warfare . He continued to say "to show their support for our armed forces and ban this tasteless product." Isn't banning the game kind of extreme. Canada tried taking a whack at it. "Canadian forces, our allies, aid workers and innocent Afghans are being shot at and sometimes killed by the Taliban. This is reality. I find it wrong to have anyone, children in particular, playing the role of the Taliban," said Peter MacKay. And on Sep 1 New Zealand entered the "debate" as well. "Terrorist acts have caused the deaths of several New Zealanders" said New Zealand's Minister of Research, Science and Technology "his game undermines the values of our nation, and the dedicated service of our men and women in uniform.Hundreds of New Zealand servicemen and women have put their lives on the line in Afghanistan to combat terrorism, and this month Lieutenant Tim O'Donnell died in action over there." Now the game is anti New Zealand. Wow.

Reading all of this I have realized that not one of these politicians or the "gold star mom" has even read the Medal of Honor blog let only be to the website. I've also noticed the when it come to video game people are able to make statements about the subject with ever even playing Pac Man.

I'm I the only one that remembers the game.. um. I think it was called Call of Duty: 4 Modern Warfare. Yes that was the name. It feature the Tali.. oh sorry. The group that looked like the Taliban, sounded like the Taliban, and were in the same region but weren't the Taliban. I think they were called OpFor.

The truth is that multiplayer has no storyline. It no different then Team Red vs Team Blue. Hamza is really the only one the really did his research. All the others are just making up lies for some idiotic reason. Fox needs to play Call of Duty 4 before he starts calling something un-British.

Also I think we should be going after Al Qaeda. Don't they have Osama Bin Laden. Didn't they do the 9/11 attack. The Taliban is really a secondary objective. It seems to me that today people can't keep their eyes on the prize.

Also both EA and Activsion do a lot of research when doing the game. They call in Military Advisers and people who have actual been in the war. So there is noway their games are "disrespectful" If you what to win this war you have to get into your enemies' state of mind. And if you what the truth about the war you have to look at it from both your point of view and you enemies. As for me, I'm getting ready for Halo Reach.

Well let me answer your question with another question: How long has Nintendo been able to milk Mario?fingerslipped

I do see where your coming from but... Mario is one of those game targets to families that have stupid game night and don't think any game sucks. Mainly parents with average income who are so into hiding the dirty secret or their kids that they don't stop to pull their jackass head out of their asses and open their eyes to a newer world. A world where it isn't green grass meadows but more war torn cities. A world where a person is hated for creating a virtual scenario of you being in the middle of a terrorist attack on a fictional Russian airport.A world in which 14 yro boys get a craving off of taking a shotgun and blow a hole though a zombie and gladly watching it intestines spill out of it body and then go have dinner. Maybe just maybe they aren't ignorant of present day times but more of just don't want to see that the world where their kids are growing up is **** up. It is their loss but more their kids. Hopeful its number 2. That they want to see the world from the '40s and the '70s were people wore suits and dress when they went to see a movie. When if ever they see the realilty of today's world I will be one of the first people to welcome them and the children.

Halo Reach is just around the corner. And with its new graphics its the best looking Halo game of all time. But we can't play Halo Reach without think about Halo CE. Halo The Combat Evolved gave people this great sense of exploration. From the technical hallways to the very last level. Halo 2 delieved a great change from Halo CE. The great parts of it were being able to use the Jackals shield and played as the Arbiter. Halo 3 was the last game of the Halo Triolgy. The final ending was epic. Halo was the game that made Microsoft rich bastard. Halo is Microsofts God of War. And like God of War I think Halo is more than worthy of having it whole series being remastered. With the Halo Reach engine remaking the series would honestly be awsome. I am also a fan Halo Wars. It was the first Halo game give a different POV of the franchise. I think its entitled a sequal. Maybe this time on the PC. Maybe if they can't make a remaked the Halo Triolgy they should realse a kit so fans are able to make it by themself. I'm also wait for a Halo movie. Maybe one about Harvest.

True. But I think Halo would be cooler if they had a mortality movement like Army of Two.

I really don't care who you get to play as as long as there is another Halo game. On a different note, if Reach really is Bungie's last Halo, then who will take on the next Halo game?Xeogua

Bungie said that Halo will continue Halo for 5 to 15 more years

Thel 'Vadam aka Arbiter wasn't really a Covenant hero. He was a Covenant Separastist. A Covenant hero would be more like the Arbiter in Halo Wars akaRipa 'Moramee.

It would be awesome if Bungie make a game where you can play from a Covenant hero's point of view.

Will Master Chief return to Halo? If so what will be a good title? What will be the plot? And when will it release?