I agree with everything Smarmellows said. There is no reason to forbid MoH. But, seriously, if i was living in afghanistan, how would i consider the idea of civilians having fun in a video game picturing the war happening in my country ? I think, "decadent" would be the word coming to my mind.

I would prefer games like Medal of Honor not to be made and sold. But between freedom of choice and the interdiction of MoH, i would definitively choose freedom. The best for me would be the game to be sold and no one buying it because of decency. But that's only my point of view. I will not claim it loudly in front of someone i see picking the game in a shop, nor would i say that my opinion is the absolute truth.

In the same way, it is also my right to think that Earth would be a better place if there was not something wicked in the human mind that make us have fun playing FPS. I saw people writing in this topic that "it is not worth than..." and often, it was quite true. It is one thing that it may "not worth than" but i prefer considering the "it would be better if".

I dont see it as tasteless, you see it on the major newstations anyways.  It's the incursion that the usa under the previous administration got involved in, and most of the population agreed with, where's the problem?

I see a difference. Most those movie sare making a statement of some kind or trying to make some sort of point. With FPS games, does it really make that much of a difference if you are shooting the "Taliban" or US oldiers or some green guy in a yellow suit? I mean sure, some of the games try to make a small point like that last one the got flack for letting you kill civilians, but the only reaosn I've heard behind this move is we want bad guys. I've not even seen that argument taken a step further to something like we want bad guys the "kids" know and think are "cool" in some way.

I don't see much of a difference, movies and TV shows can also be pretty tasteless. But the fact is watching a movie that shows the horrors of Darfur is going to be quite different from playing an FPS game where you can choose either the genocidal Janjaweed militias or the victims they gun down. I'm not against games that simulate ongoing conflicts, as I said. But I do expect the designers to treat the subject material sensitively and accurately, and not make some sort of ridiculous multiplayer fragfest about it.

Conflict simulation, I believe, is an important part of understanding warfare. I like the concept of ARMA II because it's much more realistic. I think it's pretty important people really understand warfare and it's consequences... the stakes are really much too high for people to make light of it.

Obvious parodies like Cannon Fodder I also think are completely fine.

Listen, I'm a red blooded male, I love wargames. I love weapons. I love action movies. I like playing games where I get to do violence, because just as a male I'm programmed to want to kill things. But I'm also not a moron. Unlike a lot of people, I can tell when I'm having a bullshit daydream about being a #1 Supersoldier/Superspy. Some people (in particular men who are really in bad shape physically) honestly have this tough-guy pro-war stance that is, I believe, entirely based on personal fantasies.

I don't really control what people play and I don't really want to. But what I do ask sincerely is that people actually know the difference between conflict in videogames and actual, real-world conflict. That sounds stupid but my issue is that over the years I have really started to believe that while games don't make people more violent if their attitudes aren't tempered by, essentially, education on the subject then they have these really militant mindsets and tend to underestimate how terrible conflict is. Are they caused by playing games? Of course not, there has always been a great deal of militancy since before there were wargames. But if there was an equal amount of, say, anti-war games, then at least people would get an alternative picture.

So if this war was was popular, it'd cease being tasteless? What? So is the shadow drug war tasteless because it is an undeclared, unpopular war? And the war in Afghanistan tasteful?

Persuading people? On the Internet? That happens?

Seriously, though, in my opinion this isn't truly a first amendment issue. I'm not saying we should ban games that are insensitive and don't carry my brand of propaganda, because I know I'd defend it if it did have my kind of propaganda. And really, they do have the right to make such a game, just as anyone has the right to make pornography and such.

But I don't think that means you have to be comfortable with the subject matter, or to sanction it.

I guess what I'd really want from the military FPS industry is to treat the matter as if lives are at stake, because when you make these sorts of games I truly do believe that lives are actually at stake. Not that someone is going to shoot up mosques, but that people are going to treat this war like some kind of game. At best they're going to support policies that promote warfare, at worst they're going to join the military and be unprepared for an unimaginably brutal and horrifying experience. I can see this creeping militancy when I see how people salivate at the idea of WWIII or Armageddon or the idea of second Civil War. I don't think these people really know what they wish upon themselves and I find it altogether disturbing.

Personally, I don't really have anything against... anyone. I really think that everyone needs to drop their guns, go home and take a long, hard look at their priorities. I don't relish the thought of "killing all the Is-lam-icks", I don't care to keep Saudi Arabia a monarchy on American blood and they can have it for all I'm concerned. I think the terrorists who attack innocent people should be dealt with swiftly and cleanly and for certain American leaders to be charged with war crimes. We should support good people with their endeavors on their terms, provide justice when it is wanted, and punish the bad that hurt us.

I'm sorry, I don't really see the hypocrisy here. First of all I don't think I've ever seen the argument that wars are OK in real life and bad in videogames. The people I've met against violent video games are strict pacifists, and pro-war people I've met are definitely for violent videogames. The issue isn't war in videogames, it's about the depiction of current real-world wars in video games, not "make-believe" ones, otherwise there wouldn't be an issue.

Also... I'm an American, and I've never been for the war even when it was popular. Do I have a right to criticize, or am I painted with the same tar brush? Do I have more of right to criticize MoH than people who have lost family in the war?

I think there's a subtext in what you are saying here, but I'm not quite sure what it is.

Yes? How does this make this a moot point? My point is that it's not a realistic game.

I wonder if there will be a level where you hijack a plane and fly it into a building.

I for one would rather welcome a good, gritty, politically-relevant shooter... provided that it was not some sort of pro-war kill-the-ragheads militaristic propaganda.

And attempting to establish a one-sentence blanket motive for all guerilla fighters in the Middle East is a bit difficult: many see themselves as retaliating against the creation of Israel and its mistreatment of Palestinians, the US's own civilian killings, or perceived land/oil grabs, while others are involved for religious reasons, ethnic/nationalistic motives, or simply because they get more food and economic opportunities than if they'd stayed in their village and farmed sand for the rest of their lives.

Heroin. Not cocaine. Technically opium poppies, because it usually doesn't become heroin until long after the farmers are done with it.

Fixed.

I agree with you completely, and would like your post to be the happy lid on this steamy angry controversial and frustrating subject. Even with all my distaste over the idea of a MoH game with Taliban in it, it is just that, distaste. I believe in the right of free speech, which includes expression through art and video games that may or may not contain vulgar or offensive material. "But I don't think that means you have to be comfortable with the subject matter, or to sanction it." This hits it on the head exactly I think, I don't expect MoH to be banned or censored or any such thing, the response I expect to such uncouth behavior is for it to sell poorly. Though if I'm brutally honest it probably will sell well, sort of in the same way SC2 was guaranteed to sell well, it doesn't really matter what's in it, it has a following and will sell. Most of its buyers I don't think will be offended enough by the idea to pass on a purchase, because most already do treat war like it's some sort of game. To steal a quote, "War is delightful to those who have had no experience of it." And that will always be true, of any shooter regardless of whether or not it tries to be controversial. I can't really think of way game designers might go about making shooters seem more dire, that lives are at stake, since in the end the only reason people play shooters is gun play, playing at war, war games. I doubt the industry would take any sort of overt risk to sales in order to send a better message.

I tend to agree with you Raven, in that yeah we are pretty violent, violent animals. A haughty idea that we're anything but animals, if not worse than, though having principles helps, or just a good outlet. As for our soldiers.. it's not exactly an exclusive club that weeds out all the negative human traits. As patriotic as it might be to call them the best percentile of Americans, it isn't exactly true. The movie Full Metal Jacket is a pretty good example of the transformation from civilian to soldier, they've had some serious overhaul in the way they do things since Vietnam, admittedly, but it isn't exactly their prerogative to churn out philosopher soldiers with a deep understanding of just what they're going to have to do. The bottom line of a soldier is that their job is to kill, a lot of different ways you could spin that to soften it up but in the end, that's what they're being prepared to do. When people break that barrier, when they lose their innocence, there's only a few outcomes you can get from it. One of those, sadly, is pretty much a complete disconnect from human suffering. The idea of killing someone becomes so simple and common place that actually doing it and watching it becomes, in the case you described, laughable. They make light of death. Among others being deeply scarring guilt and outright refusal, such as pretending to shoot at the enemy. I wouldn't describe it so much at that point as they're treating it like a game, but it becomes as acceptable as a game. The death of the person you witness means about as much as a pixel might, sick as it is, it's easier. If that person did mean something to you, even a stranger, and you had to kill them, that wounds you. No amount of justification or praise from citizen or state can erase the wound left in a person when they break that barrier. They either become scarred, or they become monsters. Both having in common the innocence lost, both being guilty in the eyes of the innocent.

Of all subjects this is one I contemplate most, if high school had turned out differently then I'd probably be over there right now, as of yet it's simply postponed until after college. A lot of the guys that year seemed to be doing the same, either graduating and becoming jarheads or dropping out and becoming army fodder. Among them I saw none with an understanding of what they were going to be asked to do. Most were either quiet about the subject and simply wanted to serve, one in particular I knew could only laugh, assuming it would be an easy match since he'd played so many shooters.

I actually wasn't really talking about the game. When it comes to the game I say "It's a GAME, get over it.". There's no difference between this and all the WW2 games out there that kill Nazis, or the Vietnam games that kill "Charlie". They're games, meant for entertainment. If you sat a WW2 vet down in-front of Battlefield 1942 how do you think he'd react? Probably not too well. But those aren't the people really playing these types of games are they?

About the video games and violence, I agree with you. Media often doesn't reflect the personal values that are actually held in society. Often the most open societies are oddly prudish, and the most closed societies can be staggering amoral. I think the Victorian era illustrates this exactly.

My caveat is that I do think popular media does reflect the zeitgeist, and that geist is one scary phantom wielding an AK-47. I don't think militancy has increased because of videogames, rather militant media has really reinforced those attitudes. It's a painful admission for me because I'm so strongly on the "videogames don't cause violence" bandwagon, as you are. But if we're printing books, making movies, and playing games about how awesome and perfect America is and how the muslims are all terrorists, I can't really deny that reflects something ugly. A note: I don't think we're quite there yet, but we've come awfully close sometimes.

It's frustrating and frightening to me, it's an issue I care about because ultimately violence descends to the lowest common denominator. I've never been in a truly violent situation but as someone whose been overseas much of my life I've been touched by war far more than most and I've sometimes been on the peripheral to it. Both my parents were caught in the middle of pitched battles between warring groups and the stories are not pretty. I think as civilians they are more open about their experiences than a soldier might be, which I why I'm so disgusted by the attitudes expressed by a lot of militantly minded people, some of whom are my friends.

There really ought to be a surgeon's general warning on these sorts of movies, books and games, like there is on cigarettes. Just: "Warning: This is not an accurate reflection of combat". That'd make me feel better. People would laugh at it but at least it'd stick in the back of their minds.

As to soldier's attitudes, I think it's important that they share their stories. I've known a number of people who have gone to Iraq and so far the people who are really talking are the civilians. And I've heard first hand stories like the ones you mention.

Well, my mother had lived in Afghanistan before the coup and the Taliban. She told me you used to be able to grow fruits and grapes there (a lot of blood oranges come from Afghanistan), which is a virtually unknown fact. I hadn't heard about the dam but that doesn't surprise me. I had always assumed the Taliban realized opium was more profitable. Afghanistan was actually a really nice, relatively peaceful place. It was the cultural center of a couple of powerful kingdoms. Who the hell buys opium, anyway?