I wouldn’t really describe myself as a military man.
I just never understood the appeal of being woken up at 4 or 5 in the morning by a screaming sergeant then proceeding to run around for a few hours.
I like my pillow far too much for that.
Now, by no means do I have any lack of respect for the men and women who serve and defend our country and my freedom. I’ll support the troops until I die.
It’s just not for me.
However, if I were a military man, in my down time I would still be looking forward to some time with my Xbox — as I know many of our troops do, as well.
I also know I would still be excited for Electronic Arts’ reboot of “Medal of Honor.”
Due to the recent success of Infinity Ward’s record-breaking “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2” last year, EA has taken the franchise from World War II into present-day Afghanistan.
“Medal of Honor” will have players following multiple Tier One Operators working in Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom. EA worked with several military consultants to help make the reboot as realistic for gamers as possible.
With online multiplayer options becoming a staple of current popular video games — see “Modern Warfare 2,” “Halo: Reach” and “Battlefield: Bad Company 2” as examples — EA has brought in DICE (developer of “Battlefield: Bad Company 2”) to develop the multiplayer portion for “Medal of Honor.”
Yet the multiplayer has brought EA’s reboot into the limelight — and in front of a firing squad.
If there’s been a pattern as of late with video-game sales, it’s that controversy is what sells.
Last year the media erupted on Infinity Ward’s uber-successful “Modern Warfare 2” over a level in which gamers played as an undercover agents infiltrating a Russian terrorist group. While undercover, the terrorist group opened fire on innocent civilians in an airport, in which the player could choose to participate or not.
As with most multiplayer components to shooting games, there are two sides — usually a good side and a bad side.
With “Medal of Honor” taking place in Afghanistan, players can assume the role of the Taliban in the multiplayer portion of the game.
Similar to last year’s “Modern Warfare 2” uproar, this has sent the media into a frenzy.
It’s even gone as far as the game not being stocked by the Army and Air Force Exchange Services “out of respect for our past and present men and women in uniform.”
This is completely absurd.
Like I said, I completely respect our men and women overseas and feel sorry for the families who lost loved ones defending our freedom. But this is a video game we’re talking about.
It isn’t real.
In “Modern Warfare 2” multiplayer, it was Army Rangers versus Russian terrorists. In older “Call of Duty” games — as well almost every other game set in WWII — players either played as American or German soldiers.
None of those games were banned, and they included the “killing” of American soldiers by enemy forces. What makes “Medal of Honor” different?
Absolutely nothing.
Yet again, politicians and angry mothers are using video games as scapegoats and working up a fuss over things they don’t understand or have ever even played (“Medal of Honor” isn’t released until Oct. 12).
“Medal of Honor” is rated M for Mature, which means it’s designed for adults by adults. No one is forcing anyone else to play it.
If you disagree with the game’s message, the simple solution is just not to buy it. But don’t ruin it for everyone else.
I’m gracious for what the men and women in uniform are doing for us overseas. I just hope they don’t have too difficult a time getting their hands on what looks to be a fantastic video game.
 
Adam Arinder is a 21-year-old communication studies senior from Baton Rouge. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_aarinder.
 
 
 
—-
Contact Adam Arinder at [email protected]