Recently I wrote about video games and their focus on current events. In that post, I drew comparisons between fighting virtual battles based on history from a few decades ago to a few months ago. I made the claim that there is no significant difference between playing a game where, for example, you kill Nazis in the battle of Anzio and a game where you kill Al Qaeda in Kandahar. The only real difference is time, which I believe is completely inconsequential to the subject matter of the game. Who makes the rules on how much time can pass before you're being insensitive by killing virtual North Koreans?
I digress, but not much. No, for new controversy has reared its ugly head. This time, it's over Electronic Arts' newest addition to the Medal of Honor franchise, developed by Danger Close. In this reboot to the series, players follow the stories of a few American soldiers fighting with the Coalition, sometimes covertly, against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban during Operation Enduring Freedom. I'd like to point out that because this game is historical fiction, no one seems to have a problem with the time and setting of this story; This only adds volume to my cry of hypocrisy over the fate of Six Days in Fallujah. But the real controversy in this title comes from the ability of the player to take on the role of a Taliban militant in the game's online multiplayer.
Yep. That's it. Now, I hope you'll pardon my levity regarding this, because really, it's not a big deal. Yes, I know our soldiers are over there fighting and killing and being killed by the real life Taliban. I'm extremely grateful for the continued freedom their sacrifices have given me and the people I care for. But no, I do not believe video games downplay the horrible things going on in the Middle East. Video games may give an inaccurate representation of events, but video games are an entertainment medium. Interactive, yes, but any gamer will tell you, it's just a game. This brings to mind the double standard afforded to Hollywood, which can produce movies and TV shows like The Hurt Locker, Green Zone, and The Unit, with no one raising a fuss. Hell, even Iron Man got to kick some terrorist ass in Afghanistan (quite spectacularly, I might add; Michael Bay would be proud).
As someone who has been killing and been killed by virtual people for years, the fact that Medal of Honor lets me left-mouse-click at the Taliban leaves me unperturbed. And I'm sure the majority of gamers, and even some non-gamers, feel similarly. But there's always a few people who have to stir up controversy simply because they don't like something. One of those people is Karen Meredith, and you'll never guess who gave her a soapbox.
Fox News (pat yourself on the back if you guessed everyone's favorite propaganda machine) recently interviewed Karen Meredith, who lost a son in Iraq. Karen, it should be noted, has done several public speeches, some of which can be found on YouTube. She is also a member of Gold Star Families Speak Out, a group of veterans and surviving family members of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, who make their voices heard on the issues involving these wars. Her diligent actions helped get Six Days in Fallujah canceled. (Source)
In the interview, which you can watch here, Meredith told Fox News that video games based on World War 2 were essentially okay because that war is "far removed" from our current history, and "people aren't dying in World War 2 anymore." A-hah! So I was right after all. She also said that a game based on a current war is "disrespectful." Fair enough; if the game actively sought to make light of the war, say through satire, then I could certainly see that being considered disrespectful.
The interviewer then quotes EA's Amanda Taggart in an official press release: "We give gamers the opportunity to play both sides. Most of us have been doing this since we were seven... If someone's the cop, someone's gotta be the robber, someone's gotta be the pirate and someone's gotta be the alien. In "Medal of Honor" multiplayer, someone's gotta be the Taliban." (EA Games Label, August 13, 2010) Meredith's response is to say "that people can sit in their recliner, play this game, go grab a beer, come back and play again, and... it's just not based on reality!" Whoa, I'm sorry, what? What point were you trying to make? Because I think you just invalidated your own point by admitting that video games are not reality. Thank you, everyone, and good night.
The interviewer (who is very lucid for a Fox News interviewer, I might add) then quotes statistics that say the average gamer age in the United States is 35, and the average game age of someone buying Medal of Honor is 39. I assume that is based on pre-order numbers at the time the interview took place, August 14, 2010. He then asks her "Can't these adults make the decision of what types of entertainment they watch?" I'm also assuming he meant "play" instead of "watch". Meredith's response amounts to an appeal to emotion by stating that her son didn't get to start over or reset.
Following Meredith's activism, several other representatives have come forth to commit to a ban of the game. On September 3, the Army & Air Service (AAFES) stated that they would not support or stock the game on any Army or Air Force base. Maj. Gen. Bruce Casella explained their reasoning as "Well-documented reports of depictions of Taliban fighters engaging American troops" in the game and, "out of respect to those we serve." (Quoted from here.) Actually, it'd be a good idea to check out that source page, as it quotes Meredith's response to Maj. Gen. Casella's statement. It also quotes her taking shots at EA and its supporters: "A bunch of wannabe members of the military, who see war as a very profitable game for them and one to be 'played' from the comfort and safety of someone's home. Faced with real military service, I'm not sure how many of them have the fortitude or courage to serve, let alone survive a combat situation." Hey, now, ad hominem attacks aren't very nice, and certainly don't put your position in a favorable light.
Sadly, the madness doesn't stop there. Britain's Defense Secretary Liam Fox demanded that the game be banned in the UK, because it allowed players to kill Coalition troops as the Taliban. Fox said "I am disgusted and angry. It's hard to believe any citizen of our country would wish to buy such a thoroughly un-British game. I would urge retailers to show their support for our armed forces and ban this tasteless product." (Source) Thankfully, there are some people in the UK with some common sense, and Britain's Department for Culture, Media and Sport have distanced themselves from Fox's statements, while backing up the game's BBFC 18-rating. (Source) Canada's Defense Minister Peter MacKay has called for a ban of the game, saying he "finds it wrong that anyone, children in particular, would be playing the role of Taliban". (Source) MacKay is apparently very against video games.
Where does this fear that video games are destroying our nation's youth and turning them into killing machines come from? Recently on NPR's All Tech Considered, Heather Chaplin tried to figure that out. I always assumed it was a malfunction in over-protective and conservative adults that are unable to interpret the judgements younger people make in regards to right and wrong. See: bad parenting. According to Eric Zimmerman, co-author of The Rules of Play and a professor at NYU, whom Chaplin interviewed, the double standard between movies and games "stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the psychology of play." (Source) Zimmerman states that the difference between "real" and "play" is hard-wired into mammal brains (remember, all mammals play), which can be evidenced with animals like dogs, who nip at each other during play to signify a real bite. It is also actually more intense for someone to watch a video game being played than to play it, because a player has to think about what they're doing and what is going on around them, whereas the watcher has no distractions. "When you're playing a game," says Zimmerman, "You are always aware that you are playing." Chaplin adds, "So even if you're playing as, say, the Taliban, you're not going to start thinking you are the Taliban or that you want to be the Taliban."
Unfortunately, the controversy got to be too much for Electronic Arts. In the end, they decided to rename the Taliban to the "Opposing Force." EA's Greg Goodrich said: "We have received feedback from friends and families of fallen soldiers. "[They] have expressed concern over the inclusion of the Taliban in the multiplayer portion of our game." He added: "Because the heartbeat of Medal of Honor has always resided in the reverence for American and Allied soldiers, we have decided to rename the opposing team in multiplayer from Taliban to Opposing Force." (Source, full statement here) Ultimately, all they are doing is changing the name. EA spokesman Jeff Brown having this to say: "The only thing that has changed is one seven-letter word in the menu screen. There is not a single pixel or frame that is changed." (Source) I know a seven-letter word in a phrase that describes EA upon reaching this conclusion: a bunch of p-Oh wait, ad hominem. But I'm sure you can guess what I'm getting at.
 |
| The offices of Electronic Arts. |
Massive facepalm. You may think it's a great compromise, since the guns, models, and locales will all stay intact. But remember: a compromise is where everybody loses. EA kowtowed to what was basically a lot of hot air, spewed under the guise of demanding sensitivity for the memories of fallen soldiers. I'm not alone in thinking this, either. Just ask Brian Crecente, Editor-in-Chief of Kotaku.com: "My feeling is, if you think that the decision to include the Taliban in the game needs to be addressed, then you should address it. You shouldn't put a band aid on it."
What's strange is that Brown later reassures us that EA desires the same freedoms of expression that other entertainment mediums enjoy. He's quoted as saying "If you could place a fiction in Afghanistan in a book or in a movie or in a TV show or other contemporary work , then why draw an artificial distinction of 'but not in a video game?'" Something I've been saying all along. It seems gamers no longer need to fear the corporate monolith of EA anymore (as evidenced by some of their other shifts in focus), since it is quickly becoming a whimpering puppy, chasing the tail of its flip-flopping media presence.
Karen Meredith, Liam Fox, and others like them are all opposing the release of Medal of Honor simply because the game takes place in Afghanistan, and features American soldiers fighting the accurately-named Taliban. If they had it their way, the game would not have been completed and would effectively be banned from retail stores. Sorry guys, but that amounts to censorship, which completely opposes freedom of speech. Might I remind you that freedom of speech, which is one of the basic freedoms this country stands for, is what our soldiers are fighting for? Demanding censorship, and thus denying the basic freedoms of speech and choice, amounts to the deaths of soldiers like Lt. Ken Ballard, Karen Meredith's son, being in vain. They fought and died to keep totalitarian ideals like censorship, which the Taliban and their ilk are fervently trying to put in place, out of our country and the rest of the free world.
Electronic Arts, shame on you for enabling these people. You're allowing them to trample all over the video games industry, your way of life, and the rights of gamers. Not to mention your vision of what this game was meant to be, "to tell the soldier's story from the soldier's point of view. You know, devoid of politics or debate or any of that." (Source) Well, EA, you failed. The PC-crazy soccer moms have won. The Joe Liebermans of the world are chugging champagne in celebration. The more this sort of thing becomes common, the more I fear for the future of the video game industry.
No comments:
Post a Comment