A rather opinionated article was recently brought to my attention by fellow blogger Bass Force, and it got me thinking.

The article, written by a journalist at Destructoid, basically talks about EA’s decision to include Al-Qaeda as a playable faction in the upcoming reboot of the Medal of Honor franchise. The author, who is of Afghan heritage, speaks of his initial shock upon realising that you can play as a member of the Al-Qaeda group, and argues how he cannot support the game because of this inclusion. It’s a pretty interesting read, regardless of whether you agree with it or not.

Now, this post isn’t an attempt to deconstruct Mr. Aziz’s argument and argue against it- many in the Destructoid community have already done so and I’ve no intention of jumping on the bandwagon. However, in order to provide a little context, I have to share a summary of my view. Personally, I can’t agree with Aziz because he casts his argument in a way that is clearly biased. Without sounding offensive, he’s obviously a bit of a sucker for the political discourse constructed by the Bush Administration (and other Western governments, too). Our heroic Destructoid journo speaks of “good guys” and “bad guys,” but the current situation is anything but black and white.

I’m a postgraduate student in the field of International Relations, and one of my modules over the past year has been Terrorism Studies, so I consider myself something of a well-informed individual on the subject. Therefore, it interests me greatly to read articles such as this, and I thought that given my (non-practical) experience, I might as well share my views.

Before I commence, I have to issue a disclaimer, or else before I know it the comments box will be flooded with death threats and/or accusations that I’m a sponsor or supporter of terrorism. I am utterly against the use of methods that cause harm or death to human life. I merely wish to look at this subject in a semi-academic light so that I am able to share my views in a clear and honest manner.

So where do we draw the line with regards to depictions of terrorism in games? Should it be a taboo subject? The most cynical of us will consider EA’s decision to include Al-Qaeda as a cheap promotional stunt, designed to provoke controversy and therefore extra sales. I personally don’t think that they’re quite that heartless (yes, even EA people!). Historical accuracy is becoming more and more sought after in the video games of today; we expect ultra-realistic graphics with gruesome portrayals of violence and “mature” storylines, so it only makes sense that EA wants to create an experience as realistic (but also entertaining) as possible. Perhaps EA just wants to do this aspect some justice?

Of course, the chances are that this historical accuracy will be somewhat distorted by patriotism and our own (Western) bias. In other words, Al-Qaeda will be made to look like the baddest of bad guys. The extent to which this is actually true is, of course, a matter of great debate, and one that time prohibits the treatment of. Much research has proven that quite a lot of things that we believe to be true about terrorism aren’t. For example, the idea that terrorists are “evil”. Or that terrorism stems from poverty. Or that terrorists are mentally ill sickos who must be disturbed if they are to carry out such acts. This is what a highly effective political discourse has managed to instill over the past decade. I doubt all terrorists are evil madmen who will stop at nothing but utter death and destruction – they have legitimate grievances that they seek to remedy through their actions. Bin Laden is not an idiot: he’s well versed in history and politics and he rationally thought out his past actions (even if the results were completely irrational).

My issue here is that games will be anything but accurate, as they will have to portray a very one-sided affair if they are to be considered tasteful, or rather, in keeping with the political discourse that the Western world has been subject to since September 11, 2001. But say if a game were to be released that showed the story from the other side. Could this in any way be acceptable? The fear here would be that such a game would only serve to empower the cause of terrorists. We don’t care about terrorists in games like Counter-Strike because they’re entirely fictional, and furthermore, there’s no story mode that places terrorism in a justified or sympathetic light. It’s baffling to imagine what a game like this would actually be like- how would it be received? Heck, would it even make release?

As the old saying goes, there’s two sides to every story, and whilst I have no wish to look into the right and wrong of both sides, one can’t help but think that a non-bias approach must be taken if terrorism is to be dealt with as a serious issue in games. As someone who is so close to the subject in academic terms, I’m for pushing the limits of the subject, but I’m very clear and comfortable with the boundaries. Telling the other side in a more honest light could have disastrous consequences for some players and children (who seem to all be playing Modern Warfare 2 and Grand Theft Auto nowadays). At the same time, it could be a great way of informing the masses about the reality of the “Global War on Terrorism”.

This is such a tough cookie to crack and I’ve felt so confined the entire time that I’ve been writing this article (I apologise for the poor structure too – I’m super tired!). What are your views folks? Where would you put that line?

Games: Counter Strike, Medal Of Honor, Platforms: Xbox 360, Genres: Shooter, Publishers: Electronic Arts, Developers: Electronic Arts