Goodrich trashes this bozo. He has not played the game, not even the multiplayer let alone the narrative driven single player. He expects that the promotion section of E3 should be "not fun" and communicate reverence...What a douchebag. I hope GS editors take note and give Tom an extended vacation...
A Matter of Authenticity
Aaron and Ryan explore the new Zero Dark Thirty map pack for Medal of Honor: Warfighter.Posted Dec 19, 2012 | 93:44 | 5,212 Views
We can see attackers on Chitral Compound, but they can't shoot us.Posted Dec 18, 2012 | 3:54 | 630 Views
Developers show us the new Chitral Compound and Darra Gun Market maps.Posted Dec 17, 2012 | 10:37 | 7,334 Views
Art Director Chris Salazar delivers inside access on Medal of Honor Warfighter's upcoming Zero Dark Thirty map pack.Posted Nov 13, 2012 | 2:12 | 1,969 Views
CBS reports seven members of SEAL Team Six are under investigation for revealing secrets while serving as paid consultants on EA's shooter.Posted Nov 8, 2012 | 1:09 | 4,727 Views
- Jun 7, 2012
E3 2012: Medal of Honor executive producer Greg Goodrich confronts Tom McShea about his editorial concerning military shooters.
Greg: [pulls out a gun] Tom, my friend, you are entering a world of pain. . . . . . . .You mark that frame an 8, and you're entering a world of pain.
Does Greg not look like a thinner version of John Goodman? "Has the whole world gone crazy? Am I the only one around here who gives a shit about the rules? Mark it zero!" I was waiting for him to turn into Walter Sobchak. Haha. "
Does anybody remember the columbine massacre? http://youtu.be/X0Au1hvHlkE
so, they pay tribute to national warriors by making video games off of them as bunch of mindless rambo/terminators in which soldiers use as a mockery towards others who are either naive or those who aren't even close to their level....great job guys. you really paid your dues.
"it's Authentic"....what a joke....it's as about as "authentic" as call of duty....btw little kids...call of duty very far from "authentic"
Greg trying his best to spin the "Authenticity" by playing the tough guy bullshit. He is trying to defend his brand. Tom needs to grow some balls and fight back, Greg is using every tactic in the book to make Tom look like a weakling bullshitter.
@Erock4430 No spin or tactics needed. Tom IS a weakling bullshitter, and Greg ground that fact into Tom's punk-ass face.
I have played the campaign. it was bland and a bit disjointed. maybe because most real life war stories are actually bland.
I didn't feel for the main characters, I didn't feel for their cause.
One of the good guys made a terrible ex-wife joke and I'm supposed to root for this guy?
was the game authentic? Yes. But you could make a movie where a M1A2 Abrams with meticulously accurate details do a triple backflip bullet dodge and still call it authentic.
The game is like that.
Goodrich's point becomes way less convincing without a good game or story to back it up. Now that the game's out, he can't hide behind the "Did you play the game?" cop-out, claiming that everything Tom wants out of a wargame is actually in there. Apparently it's not. Didn't see this when it was published at the time, but you did a great job defending your article Tom!
This guy should personally apologize to Tom for wasting his time and the producing the rubbish that is Warfighter.
This is so old but im watching this for the first time. Goodrich is a huge imbecilic moron! The idea that western invasion of third world countries happen so we have the 'freedom' to play video games is INFURIATINGLY STUPID! You have a serious cognitive malfunction if you think we're invading the middle-east to protect our 'freedom'. They dont give 2/5s of a fuck about our freedom thats not why some of them do terrorism. They do terrorism because they have our MILITARY Stuck up their asses, patrolling their streets and killing their friends and family with IMPUNITY! I cant believe McShea (an incredibly sensible guy) sits there and let him spout his bullshit without countering him properly.
Well, I'm not sure if I should take a side here.
For starters, Tom McShea's point is 100% valid, EA's marketing doesn't match the game as a whole, it matches parts of it (hardcore mode, no-respawing mp, etc.).
That being said, what Greg said is valid too, this is a game, its costs millions to make and it needs to sell, otherwise money is lost and maybe, several careers could go down with it. This is an entertainment product, it has to appeal to as many people as possible, so going 100% fps simulation isn't a great idea.
Who wins? I don't know. All I know is that now I'm sure I'll buy this game (I was going to do it anyway, an extra reason doesn't hurt right? ), play it for myself and THEN I'll judge who was "righter".
@Toplinkar btw dont buy it...unless you want to spend $60 on a buggy CoD....
@p4kman88 No worries, didn't buy it. It was a close call though. Quite frankly, I kinda wish for an FPS that really resonates a little more with reality. So far, I'd say the one that comes closer is counter-strike,since it doesn't allow you to respawn during a round and a single bullet is more than enough to kill, as IRL.
I just wish there were more games like counter-strike out there.
@Toplinkar if it needs to sell why not give what fps really want...something addicting....in a sense something that stand out from the run of the mill CoD shooters.....i know as an fps and tps player i want to play a game that's engaging of my senses (vision, sound, muscle reflex) and have a sense of camaraderie from the players on my team instead of just random bots that have various skill level in kill/death ratio because they don't say thing useful in the game other than to talk shit about "n00bies".....and why would they need to..the respawn rate is faster than bunnies fucking...it's an ideal game for antisocial ADHD kids....and there were people that still played socom 2 for the ps2 since it's release all the way until the servers were finally shut down as of may 31, 2012.....i mean that has to mean something right?
OH I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE ONLY GIVE THEM ONE LIFE?!?! Oh... you have that in a different mode? OH, WELL, THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE REGENERATING HEALTH!!! Oh... that's in the game too?
So, this tool is mad because the game has more modes than the one... ONE mode he wants? TO HELL WITH OPTIONS! The entire argument is retarded, both sides of it.
I agree with Greg, if you want realism head to the ArmA franchise, I play ArmA but i also play MoH. MoH is about authenticity, ArmA is realism. You have my full support Greg. GameSpot, i lost my respect for you... And here comes a sh*t storm of comments hating me now...
I know I'm the minority here but I agree with Tom. Albeit handled poorly but what do you do when doucherich cries foul like a baby the whole time. This whole marketing and advertising deal of real weapons on EA's website only serves to make Gregs argument hypocritical.
Mr.McShea is always talking on podcasts and such about how developers should have more freedom to do what they want, always bashing any "control" over creativity. But from this debate it seems that Mr.McShea is pushing onto the developer what HE wants the game to be, not what the developer wants the game to be. He often says elements in Medal of Honor and other FPS's "Should" be a certain way. This, in my eyes, is extremely disingenuous.
With this new take on advertising real weapons, this guy has just contradicted himself. I've lost what little respect I still had for EA. Tom Mcshea makes a valid point and this whole situation regarding the propaganda EA is doing for real weapons just makes me agree with him even more.
@AndCarlsen i think it's the opposite, with the new article, the whole line of the editorial lose all credibility.
why the hell are they yearning for realism and then condemn it?
I would buy this game because of this interview alone... Tom is a moron... He got owned by Greg Goodrich.
I like what Greg has to say, I like what they are trying to do with this game.
"Why would you choose to make a game that is fun?"
This guy is an absolute idiot.
I like what Greg has to say, "Once you die, you should wrap the CD up and take it back to the store, because you are done"
Tom McShea deserves criticism for his criticism of Medal of Honor: Warfighter's "authenticity" or lack thereof. I feel the issue he was drawing attention to, but I find it difficult to feel him. In other words, I respect what he was saying, but I find it difficult to respect him. His input is as valid as anyone elses, unfortunately he has only himself with which to input said input through. This is the classic case of a human being failing to learn or understand the concept of or impliment said concept in order to ultimately become a "Renaissance Man" or "Completionist" or basically someone who attempts to master all skills, as opposed to a smaller set of a chosen few. This fact allows the weaker aspects of his character to cause, or be used to create, distraction by his opposition, his support, and even indecisive listeners. Sadly, ad hominem is often invalidly used by humans as a way to subvert the truth of claims. Therein lies the criticism Tom deserves, allowing the invalidity of his character to eclipse the validity of his point. I don't want to or even know where to start with Carolyn Petit...
I'm new to the GameSpot forums. Got something to say about this interview.
Now I'm not a professor on ethics or anything, but I can understand Tom's concern. Taking a life is not supposed to be 'enjoyable' ? not cool. Yet, humans, being what we are make it necessary.
Today, we possess the technology to mimic visually and audibly what people experience on the battlefield, minus the pain and the real life suffering (e.g. PTSD, divorce, dis-figuration, death, fear, etc). But, when we try to make things 'realistic' or 'extreme realism', aren't we crossing the line between what?s 'fun' and what?s just 'wrong'? When I played games like "Ikari Warriors" or "Contra" in my N.E.S-days, the technology at the time couldn't bring me close to what I experienced playing games like MW or Battlefield 3. I love these new fps games. Even now I'm still puttin'-in hours on Battlefield 3. Yet, with all the realism they placed in the game, I never felt like I was becoming calloused, disrespectful, or careless with the subject of real war. Why?
I recently visited the 'Tong-Il' unification facility in South Korea (pronounced Toong-ill). This was right on the border of the DMZ - the land space separating North and South Korea. People may not know this but the peninsula of Korea is still at war. To this day, every young South Korean man has to undergo strenuous sessions military training. They finish college later and undergo a lot of stress both physically, socially, and mentally because of war. Nevertheless, it is a necessary part of life they have accepted for the safety of their country.
When I visited the DMZ, my sense was highlighted to a level of sensitivity that choked my vocal cords. I saw real ordinance that was dropped from B52 bombers, excavated shell casings, bullet-ridden helmets, broken watches, hats, shoes, canteens, and the bones of dead men. Every room game me a sense of horror and sorrow. Why? Because everything there represented the cost of real blood, real death - real war. I cried. My wife is Korean and she watched me with what looked like a sense of respect. That day, just like my visit to other war memorials triggered in me sorrow for something real, something that has real consequences. This was absent in my gaming.
Now, why don't I approach the game with the numinous and looming horror of war that is real? Simple; it does not induce it. There's a great level of difference between shooting with a controller on a screen and seeing the actual bullet holes of an AK-47 through a tin helmet or running to avoid shrapnel whizzing by your neck and pushing the right joystick to duck. That day at the DMZ, my mind demonstrated the ability to perceive the difference between the two. If it didn't, I'd probably be undergoing intense rehab for gaming-PTSD or sorting my life out before I 'catch' a headshot from a sniper class.
Let's face it. Games don't replicate the feelings associated with all of life. It?s to grand a thing to be contained, to visceral and multi-faceted to be emulated by a CPU or game engine - too human. Yes, there is a responsibility to own up to. But Tom shouldn?t be asking Tier One ?why the realism? or lack of respect? Tom should be asking, ?Why is war part of life?? Maligning a game developers subject of choice isn?t fair because it?s not the real issue. The line has already been crossed. War is the problem.
I?m still preordering though. I like shooters ? not killing people.
"Why did you chose to make a game that's fun?". This has to be one of the silliest questions ever. The experience he describes of playing Red Orchestra and being "terrified" and "scared of getting a shot" is also one of fun, of entertainment, otherwise he wouldn't even sit down and play it, but beg to be away from it. "Red Orchestra" is engaging and makes one want to play it exactly because it's fun, because one knows he cannot get harmed or depressed by playing it, that he gets the thrills without the dark side.
Wow what a moron. Maybe next time you can have someone who is not a angry anti war journalist interview him. IT'S A FUCKING GAME. Gamespot you should fire this guy not being a real journalist.
As a former active duty Marine and Afghanistan veteran, I find absolutely nothing disrespectful about the representation of combat in this game. It's a GAME. It's ENTERTAINMENT. Like Mr. Goodrich noted, you cannot simulate the experience of real-world combat in a digital medium. What honors the men and women who put their lives on the line is not about game mechanics, but how they are portrayed as individuals. It's about how their stories are told. The developers of this game clearly hold these warfighters in high regard and have made a genuine attempt to convey that respect through this medium.
As a warfighter myself, I appreciate that priority, but I still want an entertaining experience! In my opinion, Mr. McShea is simply advocating for his gameplay preference, and his argument has NOTHING to do with honoring our country's servicemembers. There's nothing wrong with catering to players who prefer a more action-based play style; that will simply bring this story to a wider audience, which in my opinion is a very good thing.
While I don't want to disparage Mr. McShea, from the perspective of a servicemember who has actually served in a combat zone his argument is completely baseless and just sounds absolutely ridiculous every time it comes out of his mouth. I agree with Mr. Goodrich on every point. He has interacted with real-world warfighters, and he clearly understands the mindset far better than Mr. McShea, who doesn't have any leg to stand on in this debate other than his own uninformed opinion. We all recognize this is a game, we'll enjoy it as such, and I don't think any of us will take offense at the fact that our digital counterparts get regenerating health (for goodness' sake, get over it, Mr. McShea).
That being said, I personally enjoy a more "realistic" experience, and so I'll choose the hardcore mode that the developers have thoughtfully included (that's right, Mr. McShea, I'm not looking for an "escape" from my experiences in my free time, but thanks for broadly psychoanalyzing combat veterans). But that preference is not grounds for criticism of a well-crafted gaming experience, and as a gaming journalist Mr. McShea should know better than to let his personal gaming preferences cloud his professional judgment so profoundly. The extreme suggestions he makes (losing the game if your squadmates die???) would destroy the entire experience for the vast majority of players, myself included. You're right, Mr. McShea, you're NOT a game designer.
While I'm on that particular note, the suggestion regarding losing the game if your squadmates die isn't even remotely realistic or "respectful"; we are expected to accomplish the mission, even if it means we don't come home. Warriors die. To expect that a game would require players to maintain an entire squad intact through a war shows a remarkable disregard for the priorities of real warfighters. It does not honor our servicemembers to suggest that death means failure or that squad leaders should expect a 100% survival rate.
I remember standing at attention as a flag-draped coffin was loaded on the tarmac in Afghanistan, honoring the sacrifice of one of our own who gave everything. And it wasn't game over. We kept going. We accomplished our mission. Mr. McShea doesn't have a clue what honor means for those serving our country and wrapping his gameplay preferences in the patriotic guise of advocating respect for those who serve is far more offensive than a lack of realism in a video game.
I am personally very excited about this game, and I give credit to the developers for what seems to be a job very well done. If Mr. McShea has issues with the gameplay mechanics, the least he can do is give the developers the same credit for a well-executed game within the framework of their chosen genre and go play ARMA to satisfy his desire for "realistic" digital warfare as he understands it from his gaming chair.
@this3ndup well said as are I and i also agree with Mr Goodwich has anyone heard what has happened recently??
Who's the journalist who interviews an executive producer without having played the full game?
Tom...you need to SHUT FUCK UP... and stop saying stupid ideas for the game, let the experts do their work.
It's a shame when a journalist tries to ruin the reputation of an amazing game.
Danger close is creating a very good game, Medal of Honor 2010 was one of my favorites.
I think this is the beginning of Medal of Honor, perhaps to "compete" with the battlefield and Call of Duty, which would be great to force the developers to strive further for better games.
What an OUTRAGE!! This pathetic, snivelling imbecile displays zero capability or professionalism as a journaliist. How does this moron get or keep this job with all the bright kids desparate for work today?
This journalist is making a complete fool out of himself. Pity. Well actually, no pity. He should just quit this job, doesn't suit him at all. He also brings up failed, non-important arguments for a statement which he doesn't even understand himself. Greg managed himself just fine explaining their making a game that's supposed to be fun.
Tom needs to be fired....I could write better articles...i got a creative writing degree (and getting a journalism degree later next year) that would ACTUALLY be unbiased...
Plus i would actually play THE GAME I RAIL AGAINST before I would dare open my mouth...I am not an MOH fan defending the game...actually MOH2010 ain't really my fav game.
But this guy Tom just EXUDES stupidity and unbridled ignorance about a war game of this nature....its really sad to see GAMESPOT hires people like this.....Hey gamespot HR dept, email me!! I will work for free just so THIS GUY won't do reviews anymore...lol...NOT JOKING...deadly serious.
Greg is the one who knows whats up....ThiS IS NOT ARMA!!
Get it thru your heads...now would i like an HC mode that wasn't just a recycled MOH2010 "no regen health" deal???? of course....but it is what it is. Hopefully it will be worth the wait.
and btw, the interviewer is SUCH AN A**HOLE....he is so transparent and almost abrasive to this guy who is just honoring the vets (who i happen to know many who agree with greg's POV)
that guy needs to either try ACTUALLY playing the game or shutting up...
Gj Tom, everyone in the GS community who watched you behave like a child in this video thinks you're a douchebag.
Wtf is he on about? He's asking why they're pushing it as fun. BECAUSE IT'S A FUCKING GAME. Why don't you get in the makers of CoD and GoW and Halo and Battlefield and criticize them for advertising their games as fun? He's giving him shit for not including features that TOM wants in the game.
Having read Tom's editorial he was totally out of line, seems like he was just picking at what they said and trying to cast a bad light on this game for no reason. Of course it's not 100% realistic, real life war isn't fun, hence why I'm playing a video game and not joining the army.
socom 1,2, and confrontation didnt have regenerating health...even in their nonranked matches....and how fun was that?!....and then came regenerating health in socom 4.....and how fun was that garbage?....i agree, that tom took it too far with the "REALISM" aspect...but nonregenerating health makes the GAME much more fun and forces the PLAYERS of the GAME to communicate (THAT'S NOT TRASH TALKING) and use teamwork. Honestly as cheesy as it sounds it feels 100x better to win one match in socom than to win 10 matches in a row in a call of duty game. There's just something about being stuck on a team of random people and working together to find a solution and win. man, i miss the old socom series.....