It's hard to state an opinion on this. I understand that most developers try their hardest to deliver gamers the best experience possible. And sometimes when it comes to a real life issue they try to make that experience as realistic as possible. Say for example, a sports game. Most developers try to make you feel like you are actually at the game or either watching the event on TV. This is pretty recent to a discussion (Gundam argument) a person and I had on Facebook two days ago. It was over Dead Space. (You can read it here: Dead Space Debate) Dead Space had been lying around my room for awhile and I decided to play it again. I'm not going to lie. The game is amazing and lots of fun but I remembered awhile back the developers said they looked at car accident victim photos to help design the in-game corpses. I felt kind've disgusted and guilty. I believe in God but that had nothing to do with my decision to stop playing this game. And no I don't go around swinging some sword of holiness. I guess you could say I have morals. I thought to myself, "I'm going around stomping on these corpses that were designed from people that aren't here anyone. That could've been me someone else is stomping." I felt I was making a mockery of the dead. Any of us could've been from those photos they looked at. You could say that in other entertainment industries they do the same thing as EA, but most of them have never came out and said so. It's one of those things I'd rather not know.
Anyways, in Medal of Honor's case I feel a little different. I guess because I wouldn't be dealing with the actual people involved in this situation. This Medal of Honor title is based off an actual event which is Operation Anaconda, that took place in 2002. This game isn't based off a specific soldier's experience and you're not laying waste to specific soldiers on either side. It's sort've a broad take on the event. In this game you can play as the Taliban and EA received a lot of controversy. Amanda Taggart, EA's senior PR said, "Most of us having been doing this since we were 7 -- if someone's the cop, someone's gotta be the robber, someone's gotta be the pirate and someone's gotta be the alien," and also, "In 'Medal of Honor' multiplayer, someone's gotta be the Taliban." That kind've makes sense but at this day and age I've realized that arguments or rather debates from either side are pointless. Everyone always want their answer or belief to be right. The only agreement could be defeat of the other person or some sort of agreement or peace which is hardly ever found. I guess the response that a complainer of this game would recieve is either "Don't play it" or "Don't buy it." What do think? Is EA wrong? Are they going too far to compete with the Call of Duty franchise? Or is EA lacking creativity and can't come up with an original to story to draw in players? (Call of Duty 4 and Modern Warware 2 are original stories) Are people too sensitive? Today, Gamestop was ordered by the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) and agreed to remove the game, reserves, and stop marketing the game at all Gamestop locations on AAFES U.S. bases and in other military PXs worldwide. This decision was made by the commanding general of the AAFES because of the Taliban being in the game (and in playable form). How about he make a decision to make Gamestop STOP taking our games for 15 bucks and selling them for 40! Now enjoy some pointless Gundam babble.
GameStop Pulls Video Game From Military Stores Over Taliban Inclusion [Kotaku]
PX Commanding General Explains Global Ban on Medal of Honor Game [Kotaku]