(The seminal multiplayer online game Counter-Strike, one of the most popular team-based combat simulators, sets its two sides as terrorists and counterterrorists, without any explicit political identification.) The actual identities of the combatants are no more meaningful than the choice of black and white in a chess game. The job is to match wits with the other humans on the other end of the Internet and defeat them through coordination, tactics and execution under pressure. And there is no sense of character development. In such matches there is no story - and no presumption of success. Medal of Honor allows you to play as the Taliban only during multiplayer matches. Imagine the reaction to a game that included a mission where you were cooperating with Al Qaeda during the siege of Tora Bora and had to protect Osama bin Laden while spiriting him to safety. If Medal of Honor let you play as the Taliban throughout an entire single-player campaign, then we would have a real controversy on our hands. And that is why almost every single-player game, Medal of Honor included, sets the player as the “good guy,” in this case as a heroic American soldier. If such a game’s stories end in inevitable failure, no one is going to want to play them. In Medal of Honor’s main single-player campaign, for example, the player takes the role of various United States soldiers, looking to kill Islamic bad guys and accomplish various tactical objectives along the way. In a single-player campaign you are the protagonist of a particular story with its own narrative progression. But those reactions are based on a misunderstanding of what video games are.įirst, it is important to understand the critical difference between a game’s single-player and multiplayer modes.

The outrage is surely genuine (though there are no British, Canadian or New Zealand soldiers in the game) and the discomfort understandable.

Game medal of honor