At least for this discussion, Greg was the superior debater.
Greg had more information to draw from than Tom, which made him appear way more prepared and knowledgeable about the topic at hand.
He also did a better job of establishing his presence. At 8:19, Greg says, "Let me finish," and Tom stays quiet. Whenever people see this in a discussion, people tend to feel more respect for the person who's authoritative.
Also, Greg provides a lot of anecdotes about those who serve, which appeal to the hearts and minds of the audience as well as underscore his reverence to those who serve.
On the other hand, Tom sometime comes off sounding redundant about the regenarative health issue and a few of the things he said were horrific sound bites. For example, at 13:31, with regards to Arma and Red Orchestra, Tom says, "I'm saying they're not fun, and they are brilliant at times." OUCH!
After Tom said that, Greg's face says it all for me. There is a slight smirk on his face as if he was thinking, 'This one's in the bag.'
I think Greg agreed to do this debate partly because he knew he had a good chance to win. :)
I really do hope that when the game comes out and Tom had a chance to play it, he would do a follow up article. By that time, he will have more concrete information to work with.
Ultimately, I think both Tom and Greg have their hearts in the right place. They both come off to me as people that appreciate and respect what the men and women of our military do for us.
With regards to this debate, I think the kind of military shooter that would truly disrespect soldiers are the ones that have subtle inaccuracies with far reaching consequence.
For example, I understand that soldiers live by the creed that no man should be left behind. Now, if a videogame comes along where in the storyline, a squad WOULD leave one of their squadmates behind, a lot of people would be outraged, soldiers included.
The reason why is because to the average person who is not aware of a soldier's creed, risking the lives of four people to save one person is counterintuitive. So if they see the squad leave one of their own behind in the videogame, this average gamer would think it's okay. This would be misinformation.
Comparatively, regenerative health and all the other unrealistic elements of a game are universally understood as fake. Therefore, no one is really worried that someone, however impressionable, would think that soldiers could get shot over a thousand times and heal 100%!
I think this is why military shooters don't rub most people the wrong way, even soldiers. The developers try to be respectful with the subtle details, while the areas that are inaccurate are already understood as being fake. Simply put, subtle lies and inaccuracies can be more damaging than outlandish ones.
@oflow @grey_fox1984 I like your idea about taking a positive approach in sending a message, rather than a negative one.
However, if Tom were to write the editorial you suggest, he still would have needed to reference Medal of Honor as the antithesis to ArmA III.
If he doesn't reference MoH specifically and simply clumps every action shooter with, "...standard health regen and glorification of headshots...," it would be wrong as well because he would be criticizing a game like Call of Duty that doesn't strive for deep meaning.
@tomislavgrujic On a practical level, I absolutely understand your point and I do believe that Danger Close has to walk these tightropes between making a war game that offers a real message that says something meaningful, while making a game that appeals to a large audience in order to sell well and be profitable.
Nevertheless, philosophically speaking, their vision to make a serious and contemplative war game is compromised to some degree. The whole product has so many contradictions in terms of tone and style.
For example, one part of the game may tell a personal story that offers insight to the heart and mind of a real operator, yet there's another part of the overall package that's just about destroying the other team for points and stats accumulation.
I think making a videogame probably presents more challenges to artistic vision than any other medium!
@psuedospike @oflow It's just that Schindler's List was a powerful film that was stuck in my mind. It was a piece of entertainment, but I didn't react to it the way I did when I watch a movie that's more lighthearted or one that was not about something tragic that happened in real life.
As far as games are concern, a game like Silent Hill or the old school Splinter Cell games are games I would categorize as engaging, but not laugh out loud, want to jump around the room, pump my fist up kind of fun. Not that I do any of those thing for those fun games...
@oflow I recall that Danger Close talked about their previous game, Medal of Honor (2010), in a similar fashion to the way they're talking about Warfighter. I've played and completed the campaign for Medal of Honor (2010) and I can say that the combat gameplay clashed with the tone they worked so hard to establish in the story, characters, and audio/visual.
Warfighters' demo didn't look like the gameplay was going to be different. Maybe I will be wrong?
Tom criticizes Danger Close more vehemently than other developers who work in the same genre because Danger Close seems to be the only developers who talk a lot about their respect for the troops and their game's authenticity.
Under this context, Tom feels Danger Close needs to go further to reach their intended goal. He feels that in order for Danger Close to reach their goals, the combat gameplay needs to be a little more realistic. I stress the 'little more' part. Tom is not asking for absolute REAL or a simulator where players need to spend months before taking on a mission! He is asking for a game that makes us feel more like a human soldier, rather than Master Chief during the minute to minute gameplay.
On a side note, FUN and ENGAGING falls under entertainment. A movie like 'The Avengers' falls under the category of FUN while a film like 'Schindler's List' falls under ENGAGING. Both are forms of entertainment, but elicits different emotions from the audience.
With that being said, if Danger Close wants to make the serious and contemplative videogame they've been advertising, the entire product has to reflect their overall vision. That means that their combat gameplay has to be serious too. Again, not realistic or simulator, but something that makes players think twice before going out into the open.
Otherwise, Danger Close should come out and say that they are interested only in making a really exciting and fun action shooter with an interesting and personal storyline. If they came out and said this, I don't think Tom would have written the article that he did. At least, not in criticism of Danger Close.
After watching and listening to the entire discussion, I have to side with Tom, even though his, 'war games shouldn't be fun,' comment may have elicited a lot of bad reactions.
The problem with Mr. Goodrich and Danger Close's position is that by trying to satisfy a large number of gamers with different game modes and play styles, their vision to craft a game that offers a unique, respectful and believable insight to the experiences of the men and women who serve our country is ultimately fractured and compromised.
For example, in their previous game, Medal of Honor (2010), the story, characters, and audio/visual were great. The ending was somber and tasteful. It felt 'authentic' as Mr. Goodrich would describe it. However, the actual minute to minute gameplay involved a lot of fast paced and accessible killing where body counts would often exceed 25 per mission! Additionally, the concept of regenerating health does run counter to providing a believable war experience where fear, stress, and tension should exist.
Furthermore, in the discussion, Mr. Goodrich talked about how there is a hardcore mode. That's fine, but there's also a mode where you can respawn countless times in a round and do other super human things!
Danger Close's Medal of Honor games lack a singular vision and tone. It's like watching a war movie where it's one part Saving Private Ryan and one part Rambo III.
I understand that they are an entertainment company competing in an extremely crowded genre, so they have to try to make as many people as happy as possible in order to sell the game and be profitable. All of this is perfectly fine. However, if Danger Close is going to take this path and make an arcade-like action first person shooter, then don't present the game as being something more than it really is. There's too many light hearted parts of the game that brings down the more serious, contemplative parts.
I think a game like Brothers in Arms is perhaps something Tom is thinking about when it comes to making a game that speaks to the experience of soldiers who were involved in combat. It's still a game where you can restart however many times you want, but combat is measured and penalties for mistakes are high.
Chronolp27GS's comments