Print 92 comment(s) - last by rdeegvainl.. on Sep 7 at 12:00 AM

MOH banned from sale on base PXs  (Source: Kotaku)
Multiplayer Taliban characters are the cause of the ban

Video games are a huge business and one of the most popular genres in the market are first person shooters. These games generate billions of dollars each year for the video game industry and have sparked harsh criticism at times because of the violent content of the games.

The latest game to come under fire is the upcoming shooter from EA called
Medal of Honor. Surprisingly, the game hasn't come under fire from the typical groups that oppose violent video games, but the U.S. military. 

Kotaku reports that the Army and Air Force Exchange Services has confirmed to it that they have demanded that the upcoming Medal of Honor game to be pulled from the 49 different GameStop locations that are located on army bases within America. The ban also extends to all stores selling the game on military Post Exchanges [PXs] globally. The reason the game has been withdrawn from PX shelves is that the multiplayer aspect of the game allow players to play as Taliban fighters.

An email from GameStop
Kotaku received states:

GameStop has agreed out of respect for our past and present men and women in uniform we will not carry Medal of Honor in any of our AAFES based stores... As such, GameStop agreed to have all marketing material pulled by noon today and to stop taking reservations. Customers who enter our AAFES stores and wish to reserve Medal of Honor can and should be directed to the nearest GameStop location off base. GameStop fully supports AAFES in this endeavor and is sensitive to the fact that in multiplayer mode one side will assume the role of Taliban fighter.

Apparently, the game is not banned from play by military personnel and is not banned from the base altogether; the game simply isn’t allowed to be sold on base. Military personnel can buy it off base and play it at the base. There has been no official comment by EA on the issue so far.

Another first person shooter franchise set to get a new installment soon is Call of Duty with Activision putting the largest marketing campaign it has ever undertaken behind the new title in the franchise called Black Ops.

Comments     Threshold


RE: So....
By DominionSeraph on 9/3/2010 11:25:12 AM , Rating: -1
I really wish there was a captcha that could filter for IQ.

RE: So....
By neogrin on 9/3/2010 11:57:42 AM , Rating: 5
If the playing as a Taliban fighter is really so repugnant and disrespectful to our Men and Women in uniform then it shouldn't be necessary to pull the game from the PX and on-base GameStops since none of our Men and Women in uniform (or their dependents) would buy the game.

The fact that there are Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines actually pre-ordering the game, kind of suggests that they are not repulsed or feel disrespected by it.

I'm a former Marine and I have no problem with it and the interviews, I've seen on the news, (and by talking with other current and former service members) seems to indicate that the majority of them don't seem to mind too much either.

So who exactly is bothered by this? Could it be the Politically Correct Busybodies who think military personal should be offended by the game?

RE: So....
By theArchMichael on 9/3/2010 12:35:11 PM , Rating: 3
I consider myself pretty liberal and I think if the military had a problem with it they are dealing with it the right way. They are just taking it off the bases. As someone else mentioned it might be a little demoralizing for some of the soldiers.
To qualify my comment, I'm not in the military or a psychotherapist and I rarely play video games anymore.

RE: So....
By knutjb on 9/4/2010 2:58:25 PM , Rating: 2
I was in the military and AAFES reacts to the powers that be, usually in congress.

I remember when they wanted to ban all magazines with nudity in the mid nineties. We just laughed and sent nasty-grams to our representatives for treating us like children through political correctness.

AAFES is a contract provider and not directly connected to the DoD and is more easily influenced by politics of the day to protect their interests.

RE: So....
By lyeoh on 9/5/2010 2:11:22 PM , Rating: 2
If the only reason the military has a problem with it is just because players get to play the Taliban, then I'd say the military is the real problem, and is screwed up.

Being able to play the other side is a very useful exercise for most conflicts.

Now of course if it gives players very wrong ideas about the Taliban or your own forces, then military personnel shouldn't be playing it. You need an accurate model of the enemy and your forces.

If the game leaks military secrets then it should be banned and the people leaking those secrets to the game maker should be arrested.

RE: So....
By Ammohunt on 9/3/2010 3:35:18 PM , Rating: 4
What they really need in a game is to pit Marines against ARMY..of course it would be so lopsided against the Marines as to not really be that fun. Rangers lead the way.

RE: So....
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/3/2010 6:56:05 PM , Rating: 3
Rangers might lead the way but Intel is always out front.

RE: So....
By Ammohunt on 9/4/2010 12:04:08 AM , Rating: 2
Not without fire support...Artillery King of battle!

RE: So....
By lyeoh on 9/5/2010 2:31:22 PM , Rating: 3
The leaders should lead the way. We should put the leaders on the frontline. Not in actual military action, but in spirit.

Basically if any leader proposes an _offensive_ military action or starting a war by other means (not defensive, defense is different), a referendum is held, if not enough citizens want a war, the proposing leaders all get put on a Death Row.

Then at a convenient time other referendums are held to see if the citizens still want each of those leaders alive. If there aren't enough votes for a leader that leader is executed.

This to me is the fairest way for starting wars. This way even psychopathic leaders would think twice about starting wars. No crocodile tears about sending our youth to die... And soldiers and civilians will know that the leaders are willing to put their own lives on the line too.

Equally important, the defending side and the rest of the world will know that (say) 70% of the attackers (civilians included) wanted the war. So killing them all (civilians included) in defense by whatever means is justified (as long as you don't touch the other countries). If the attackers think 30% collateral damage is too high they should make the referendum margin higher. The defense could first try to convince the prospective attackers to not bother voting in the referendum and avoid the war in the first place.

This way if the people don't want a war they don't get one, if they really want a war, they really get a war.

Yes I'm serious. War is very serious. People die in wars. On both sides and often even in sides that are supposedly not involved.

RE: So....
By Spookster on 9/4/2010 4:11:32 AM , Rating: 1
Keep dreaming. There's a reason the Nazi's nicknamed us DevilDogs.

ARMY (Aren't Ready to be Marines Yet)

RE: So....
By tim851 on 9/6/2010 11:08:58 AM , Rating: 2
RE: So....
By JonnyDough on 9/3/2010 4:14:06 PM , Rating: 3
I'm a military service member who joined the military at the age of 29...and I have more of a problem with 18 year old boys who have little understanding of life being armed with guns to engage in a political fight they don't really understand. The violence in games just proliferates an already rampant problem with teaching our kids conflicting views of prejudice and diversity in our society. I believe it makes little difference overall until we realize that violence begets violence, and hatred begets more hatred. Dehumanization and a propensity for war can be fed to a child of any age. This is why parents need to explain the need for arms, while not actively promoting them.

RE: So....
By shaidorsai on 9/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: So....
By DominionSeraph on 9/3/2010 5:11:28 PM , Rating: 2
The thing is, people often like it when others do things that make it obvious that they're in their hearts -- even when it doesn't exactly align with what'd they'd do for or avoid themselves.

In this case, some degree of offense is likely in a good percentage of servicemen. Because the path to offense is direct -- all it takes is for the serviceman to have an understanding that people are taking on the mantle of suicidal Muslim fanatics glorying in their deaths as infidels -- a delusional perspective completely opposed to civilized sense; and it takes either obliviousness of this to miss offense, circuitous reasoning to get around it, or tangential reasoning to minimize it, this makes the offense of a type which should be actively worked against. (I suppose there's a fourth type: Babbling incoherently and convincing yourself you've made an air-tight case as to why it's acceptable. Ahhh... the flexibility of the human mind.)

If a serviceman can dance around the prickers, that's fine. But the feelings of others who will take the direct line path even if it hurts them emotionally also must be considered. To show caring for those on that central human path, you must show that you can see the big patch of prickers, obvious as day, sitting right in that path.

The fact that people have a wide array of emotional defenses doesn't mean that the default assumption of others should be that they will be engaged. It's better to make the world a place in which those defenses aren't needed than be cold and distant and dumping the whole burden of coping on each individual.

RE: So....
By surt on 9/4/2010 11:35:10 AM , Rating: 2
There are people in any sufficiently large group who lack moral character, the military included. Just look at how some of them were so easily drawn into torture. Just because a military person does it, doesn't make it right for the military, nor does it make it right in general, and neither does it make it good for morale.

RE: So....
By Hieyeck on 9/3/2010 11:57:46 AM , Rating: 5
Turn off IPv4 today. When security guards think they know more about networking than tech support, it's time to turn down the buzzwords and turn up the tech. Let's see them figure out how to enable their home routers for IPv6

RE: So....
By Lerianis on 9/3/2010 2:53:53 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I agree with that previous poster before you, and I have an IQ of 150+ (documented by the Kennedy Krieger center in Baltimore) so.......

RE: So....
By ekv on 9/3/2010 3:10:32 PM , Rating: 3

RE: So....
By Smilin on 9/3/2010 4:52:09 PM , Rating: 1 you fail for:

1) Using credentials to bolster an argument instead of a solid point.
2) Using unverifiable credentials.
3) Doing 1 & 2 while on teh intarwebz and thinking someone out here cares.

RE: So....
By DominionSeraph on 9/3/2010 5:57:58 PM , Rating: 1
Exactly why did you read that as though it was presented as a proposal of an all-encompassing engineering solution?

You might want to think about re-rolling your character. INT 18 is good, but at WIS 3 you're still effectively blind.
WIS 8 should clear up your agreement with FaaR.

RE: So....
By kyleb2112 on 9/3/2010 6:21:39 PM , Rating: 2
Well my IQ is 160 and I say you're wrong. So you are.

RE: So....
By corduroygt on 9/4/2010 12:57:12 AM , Rating: 3
Mine is over 9000 and I decree that you're all wrong...

RE: So....
By Cullinaire on 9/4/2010 11:10:52 AM , Rating: 2
Damn, looks like it's time to buy another scouter. Thanks a lot.

RE: So....
By ekv on 9/5/2010 3:31:07 AM , Rating: 2
Hal? Dave here. Um, we both know how this is going to turn out, so...

