Kotaku posted This Story in the ongoing sea of drama that is the Taliban multiplayer fiasco with the new Medal of Honor. One of the comments solicited a response from me that I felt was worth sharing hear, so that people actually read it.
I get where the military (and others opposed to the multiplayer Taliban thing) are coming from and I think EA knew it was a controversial, borderline disrespectful thing to do when they did it. It got the game a lot more attention than it probably would have, otherwise. Beyond the moral question of whether it's right or wrong to allow players to "role play" as an enemy that is actively killing our family and friends on a regular basis, this was stupid from a purely commercial stand point.
What's that, little Jimmy, you don't want to play a game as the people that killed your father. Yea, I don't blame you. The fact is there are people that find this objectionable and EA is making a mass market, commercial game that they want to sell a lot of copies of. If little Jimmy doesn't want it, he won't talk little Billy and little Tommy into buying it, either. My brother severed in Afghanistan and made it home, ok. My cousin is over there, right now and one of my co-workers lost his son there. I can tell you right now that I would never want to play this game for those reasons.
Again, I am not saying oh they shouldn't do this. They absolutely have the right to do whatever they want. I am saying that I know more than a few people that would never want to play this because of that. There's a reason Modern Warfare chose to go with a "near future" setting, beyond the extended gameplay possibilities. You want your game to appeal to as many people as possible. This Medal of Honor game has made a few decisions that will make people not want to play it, at all.