A Matter of Authenticity

Link

This is basically a twenty-one minute video of Tom and Greg conversing each other on an editorial that Tom McShea made in regards to the new MOH game. Greg Goodrich and his team learned about it and Greg took it upon himself to speak to Tom about his comments. I just found it all interesting to me, what both sides had to say about it. Is Tom in the right or in the wrong?

I didn't watch the video but I did read McShea's article, and for the most part I have to agree with him. Medal of Honor, and now MOH: Warfighter have been advertised as extremely realistic war games, and to some extent they are - the weapons and gear soldiers carry with them is accurately reproduced to an extremely high level, and McShea acknowledges this. However, the disconnect between the game and real life comes to a head in the combat, which as McShea points out, is just like any other shooter: regenerating health, individual bullets don't inflict much damage, etc.

I don't know if I agree with McShea though when he then accuses the game of trivializing the death of soldiers. Obviously being killed by a bullet or two would be much more realistic, but how enjoyable would that be for a player in the game? Of course, that can bring up a whole other argument about whether there should be games about war in the first place, which I really don't feel comfortable taking a stand on, even though I do admittedly enjoy military shooters.

I don't know if my rambling here is making any sense, so I'm just going to end this by saying that I'm going to agree with McShea.

I didn't watch the video but I did read McShea's article, and for the most part I have to agree with him. Medal of Honor, and now MOH: Warfighter have been advertised as extremely realistic war games, and to some extent they are - the weapons and gear soldiers carry with them is accurately reproduced to an extremely high level, and McShea acknowledges this. However, the disconnect between the game and real life comes to a head in the combat, which as McShea points out, is just like any other shooter: regenerating health, individual bullets don't inflict much damage, etc.

I don't know if I agree with McShea though when he then accuses the game of trivializing the death of soldiers. Obviously being killed by a bullet or two would be much more realistic, but how enjoyable would that be for a player in the game? Of course, that can bring up a whole other argument about whether there should be games about war in the first place, which I really don't feel comfortable taking a stand on, even though I do admittedly enjoy military shooters.

I don't know if my rambling here is making any sense, so I'm just going to end this by saying that I'm going to agree with McShea.

Vari3ty

I agree and the point in the MOH demo that showcases this the most is the guy being mowed down by a rifle shot and the game will just carry on. In real life no amount of body armour deemed mobile would stop that bullet from messing you up. But he merrily trots along, sure he has God Mode for the demo presentation but in the real game too you obviously don't die at that point.

They are real to an extent but when you remove the real damage bullets do and make it regenerative health it really pulls you out of that concept and turns it into a game that glorifies war instead of showing the intensity of it.

Tom also has a talk with Kevin Van Ord on Arma III and Kev said he brought him in because of that article alone and they talked about the reality of war and how Arma is the only game really doing it justice.

I didn't watch the video but I did read McShea's article, and for the most part I have to agree with him. Medal of Honor, and now MOH: Warfighter have been advertised as extremely realistic war games, and to some extent they are - the weapons and gear soldiers carry with them is accurately reproduced to an extremely high level, and McShea acknowledges this. However, the disconnect between the game and real life comes to a head in the combat, which as McShea points out, is just like any other shooter: regenerating health, individual bullets don't inflict much damage, etc.

I don't know if I agree with McShea though when he then accuses the game of trivializing the death of soldiers. Obviously being killed by a bullet or two would be much more realistic, but how enjoyable would that be for a player in the game? Of course, that can bring up a whole other argument about whether there should be games about war in the first place, which I really don't feel comfortable taking a stand on, even though I do admittedly enjoy military shooters.

I don't know if my rambling here is making any sense, so I'm just going to end this by saying that I'm going to agree with McShea.

Vari3ty

Tom McShea comes across a little bit fanatical in his article.

For the most part I completely agree with everything he's saying but trying to insinuate that game companies don't respect fallen soldiers because they make their games... well... GAMES is a bit off putting.

Using words like 'preach', 'sickening', 'shameful' and 'very upsetting' just comes across abit hardcore fanboi-ish for my taste. If he wanted to disagree with the game there's no need to get so worked up about it. It is a GAME after all.

However on the subject of regenerating health, I 100% agree.

I personally would be happy to see a FPS that featured correct damage, no regen or medkits (maybe have to actually see a doc or something) and permadeath/level restarts... but I'm not gonna cry because the latest FPS out there doesn't deliver that and still claims to be realistic.

I overall agree with Mchea but I do have a change of view when it comes to SP and MP respectively. So I do not agree with Mchea's viewpoint in MP games, altho I DO in SP games.

But The underlining debate that has run throughall his article, and this discussion is a symptom of something that Mchea (and alot of us) wants, but that is shyed away from from the most part.

Being the interactive media advancing with conveying a story, they do not always need to be fun. Mchea did mention the difference between a war movie, and the games.

But for SP games I agree with Mchea, most wargames use so much effort to imitate real war, but there is never consequences, its not personal. The gameplay could aswell be Doom, war is almost portrayed as a fun pasttime, and not a dark brutal, and sad. Which now has become almost disgusting in some of the war games, less and less consequences, and almost a macabre mockery of war. And as such they should not make games about war, if they are unable or unwilling to tell a true War story, and not just the run of the mill "Go kill half the population of X country"

MP wise, erspawn, healthpacks or regenerating health should matter little, since there would be no portrayal of anything really. It is a setting sure, but no story, no personality, and in alot of ways, its the same as little boys playing war in the backyard with plastic weapons. Unless MP mechanics are revamped alot within the near future.

However Goodrich IS right in his statement, that this is E3, the gamemode shown, were shown due to its being easy for people to get hands on with, and he states that there are a mode that should be more serious. But the story would have to follow the mechanics, or it would have been pointless. For an e3 event however, the settings they picked likely have been very thought through, and is a consequence of the average publich of e3.

Overall, it is a disconnect between a Dev that wants to make games, content with what games are now, and Mchea who wants gaming to evolve. Possibly surpass movies, which gaming HAS the potential to, but no devs wants to tackle.

But as of now, wargames are this odd joke, you never have fear, everything is allright, because you regen, ammo are plenty, and there is no dark and sad consequences of your actions, there are no emotionel impact whatsoever. All that is left, is the equalant of an 80's action movie, but it does not "feel right" since the games themselves are not over the top, there is no irony or a feeling of "yeah this is a GAME with a war setting, but rather this is a WAR game (as in, war is not a backdrop, but the focus).

Just my few cents

The article was good and right up to the end where he got way over the top hyperbolic. The video discussion was pretty terrible though. Tom was pretty rattled I imagine and had trouble keeping focus.

The article seemed to be about how that these games weren't anything like "authentic" and that the publisher shouldn't use inaccurate marketing language to say that they are because if they do that then it disrespects the soldiers who actually experience this. It also emplored considering other possible "more authentic" gameplay. Mostly, it was about marketting though. The video though was just some crazy rambling about why aren't they trying to make a game that isn't fun to play.

Really weird.

Does anyone have a link to the article in question?CarnageHeart

Yeah.

Here you go!

I agree and the point in the MOH demo that showcases this the most is the guy being mowed down by a rifle shot and the game will just carry on. In real life no amount of body armour deemed mobile would stop that bullet from messing you up. But he merrily trots along, sure he has God Mode for the demo presentation but in the real game too you obviously don't die at that point.

They are real to an extent but when you remove the real damage bullets do and make it regenerative health it really pulls you out of that concept and turns it into a game that glorifies war instead of showing the intensity of it.

Tom also has a talk with Kevin Van Ord on Arma III and Kev said he brought him in because of that article alone and they talked about the reality of war and how Arma is the only game really doing it justice.

seanmcloughlin

This

I can see where Tom is coming from and to some extent I agree but I think Tom is attacking MOH in a way that side-steps what Danger Close is really trying to do with Warfighter. There is no doubt that regenerating health isn't a "realistic" depiction of combat but what Tom fails to realize is that Danger Close isn't trying to simulate realistic combat so much as to simulate the mindset of a soldier and the experiences he has. Sure treating death of the player as nothing more than a respawn counter or checkpoint diminish that, but there is so many other ways to which that can be portrayed to the player; which was exactly what Greg was trying to explain to Tom. Go play the single player campaign for Arma II and then go play the single player campaign for Medal Of Honor (2010) and tell me which was the more compelling "soldier experience." Arma II may have the realistic gameplay to back it up but I don't remember a single damn character from Arma II but I can still recall Voodoo, Mother, Preacher, and Rabbit from MOH.AcidSoldner

& this

& to add MOH is trying to be a authentic, " realistic arcade FPS", if people can understand what i mean by that term. I realy dont care for a lot of these games but i do favor what MOH is trying to do over other games like COD, just based on the authenticity.

I agree with both side of the arguement & actually i like Toms concept for a real war game. I would play that for sure. I would also have to say i dont agree with Greg throwing around the term, its suppose to be " Fun ". Games arent about being fun, just as movies arent fun.

There have only been a few games in my life that i actually found fun. Games for me about are a journey, they can be thrilling, or engaging, its about an experience. Im looking for an engaging experience.

i agree with mcshea that there is a huge disconnect making authentic weapons, locations, and plots (im going on the producer's word here. it could be ridiculous) and matching them up with arcadey gameplay (and even that might be giving the weight of the consequences too much credit. at least arcade games make you worry about spending more quarters...). the gameplay is the most important part of the messaging of the game and slapping researched models on doesnt change that.

the producer also jumped around in his justification with conflicting positions that it is art and a commercial product at different times. something can have properties of both art and product, but it cant be art in one moment and then a commercial product in another. you cant defend the game by calling it your artistic vision in one moment and then in the next brush off criticism with claims that it is a commercial product. if youre going to give it the title of art then defend it as such.

still, tom didnt help his point as much as he could have. im sure the next MoH wont exactly be the most original game out there, but he should have played what was available if he was going to write such an editorial. regardless of whether he was speaking out of strong caution or anticipation, his rightful point is that the medium revolves around interaction. game criticism has more weight after playing than watching.

on the same note, i think tom's signature in his articles gives the wrong impression. the whole bit about "loving the things you hate and hating the things you love" is obviously a joke, but it still gives off a little bit of a artificial contrarian vibe which i dont believe is really there in his writing.

Their discussion had a few funny moments. Particularly when Tom says "It feels very video gamey" and Greg immediately responds "It's a video game". I understand Tom's issue but I didn't feel he made a good argument (not having actually played either the 2010 MoH or the demo of the new one didn't help him). He was mostly criticizing the multiplayer for points that are often addressed. He didn't like the fact that you can respawn, for example, but a lot of games offer modes where you don't get respawns.

If anything, the video made me more interested in Warfighter's single player. I had dismissed the first Medal of Honor as just another military shooter after playing the multiplayer and finding it "more of the same". I heard the single player had a pretty good story but I never got around to it. Battlefield and the like have boring single player campaigns, so I usually skip them. However, during their discussion Greg explained that there is a mode in the game called Hard Core that eliminates regenerating health and the like, and that caught my interest. Tom suggested that mode be the default to more capture the intensity of war, but I have to agree with Greg that they're making an entertainment product and have to appeal to the market.

I agree with Tom on one thing. It's frustrating how, in a game like MOH, you can shoot down someone so many times, thinking that one-four bullets will end them quickly. If they had body armor to withstand more punishment, that's a little different. But without body armor, they should die very quickly and they don't. So to have that guy, the one you've been shooting down, just turn around and shoot you in the head and survive the gunfight is pretty ridiculous. I know that this is supposed to be a videogame and that anything goes, but if you nailed that person many times on the body, shouldn't he or she die not too long after that?

I agree with Tom on one thing. It's frustrating how, in a game like MOH, you can shoot down someone so many times, thinking that one-four bullets will end them quickly. If they had body armor to withstand more punishment, that's a little different. But without body armor, they should die very quickly and they don't. So to have that guy, the one you've been shooting down, just turn around and shoot you in the head and survive the gunfight is pretty ridiculous. I know that this is supposed to be a videogame and that anything goes, but if you nailed that person many times on the body, shouldn't he or she die not too long after that?

Metamania

I would really like it if there came a military shooter that embraced some sort of point damage and more customization options. In the old Mechwarrior games you would load out you Mech piece by piece by putting missiles in it, or heat sinks on one area, or adding jump jets, that drastically changed how your Mech handled. I like the idea of a military shooter doing the same thing. Add a side arm to your hip, wear bulkier body armor, carry two weapons, have ammo pouches. The more space you use the slower you are, etc. And I like the idea of an FPS utilizing Fallout 3's damage system. Crippling arms hurt your accuracy, for example. If you take a bullet to the head, you die. Two to the chest, you die. If you take a .50 caliber round to the arm it rips off and you bleed out. Etc.

[QUOTE="Metamania"]

I agree with Tom on one thing. It's frustrating how, in a game like MOH, you can shoot down someone so many times, thinking that one-four bullets will end them quickly. If they had body armor to withstand more punishment, that's a little different. But without body armor, they should die very quickly and they don't. So to have that guy, the one you've been shooting down, just turn around and shoot you in the head and survive the gunfight is pretty ridiculous. I know that this is supposed to be a videogame and that anything goes, but if you nailed that person many times on the body, shouldn't he or she die not too long after that?

IndianaPwns39

I would really like it if there came a military shooter that embraced some sort of point damage and more customization options. In the old Mechwarrior games you would load out you Mech piece by piece by putting missiles in it, or heat sinks on one area, or adding jump jets, that drastically changed how your Mech handled. I like the idea of a military shooter doing the same thing. Add a side arm to your hip, wear bulkier body armor, carry two weapons, have ammo pouches. The more space you use the slower you are, etc. And I like the idea of an FPS utilizing Fallout 3's damage system. Crippling arms hurt your accuracy, for example. If you take a bullet to the head, you die. Two to the chest, you die. If you take a .50 caliber round to the arm it rips off and you bleed out. Etc.

Hearing all this would definitely make the kind of FPS you describe to be very unique. I like it. It all depends on what you decide to go with before entering the battlefield. Like you said, if you go in heavy, you'll become slow and cumbersome. But if you eschew defense in favor of speed and quick shots, you'll be a lot faster and able to avoid bullets pretty well. And I remember those options; I played Mechwarrior and Battletech when I was a kid and as I was growing up, so I definitely know where you're coming from.

I didn't watch the video but I did read McShea's article, and for the most part I have to agree with him. Medal of Honor, and now MOH: Warfighter have been advertised as extremely realistic war games, and to some extent they are - the weapons and gear soldiers carry with them is accurately reproduced to an extremely high level, and McShea acknowledges this. However, the disconnect between the game and real life comes to a head in the combat, which as McShea points out, is just like any other shooter: regenerating health, individual bullets don't inflict much damage, etc.

I don't know if I agree with McShea though when he then accuses the game of trivializing the death of soldiers. Obviously being killed by a bullet or two would be much more realistic, but how enjoyable would that be for a player in the game? Of course, that can bring up a whole other argument about whether there should be games about war in the first place, which I really don't feel comfortable taking a stand on, even though I do admittedly enjoy military shooters.

I don't know if my rambling here is making any sense, so I'm just going to end this by saying that I'm going to agree with McShea.

Vari3ty

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

I didn't watch the video but I did read McShea's article, and for the most part I have to agree with him. Medal of Honor, and now MOH: Warfighter have been advertised as extremely realistic war games, and to some extent they are - the weapons and gear soldiers carry with them is accurately reproduced to an extremely high level, and McShea acknowledges this. However, the disconnect between the game and real life comes to a head in the combat, which as McShea points out, is just like any other shooter: regenerating health, individual bullets don't inflict much damage, etc.

I don't know if I agree with McShea though when he then accuses the game of trivializing the death of soldiers. Obviously being killed by a bullet or two would be much more realistic, but how enjoyable would that be for a player in the game? Of course, that can bring up a whole other argument about whether there should be games about war in the first place, which I really don't feel comfortable taking a stand on, even though I do admittedly enjoy military shooters.

I don't know if my rambling here is making any sense, so I'm just going to end this by saying that I'm going to agree with McShea.

Black_Knight_00

Not if you take a bullet to the head. :P

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

I didn't watch the video but I did read McShea's article, and for the most part I have to agree with him. Medal of Honor, and now MOH: Warfighter have been advertised as extremely realistic war games, and to some extent they are - the weapons and gear soldiers carry with them is accurately reproduced to an extremely high level, and McShea acknowledges this. However, the disconnect between the game and real life comes to a head in the combat, which as McShea points out, is just like any other shooter: regenerating health, individual bullets don't inflict much damage, etc.

I don't know if I agree with McShea though when he then accuses the game of trivializing the death of soldiers. Obviously being killed by a bullet or two would be much more realistic, but how enjoyable would that be for a player in the game? Of course, that can bring up a whole other argument about whether there should be games about war in the first place, which I really don't feel comfortable taking a stand on, even though I do admittedly enjoy military shooters.

I don't know if my rambling here is making any sense, so I'm just going to end this by saying that I'm going to agree with McShea.

Metamania

Not if you take a bullet to the head. :P

[QUOTE="Metamania"]

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"] Real life has regenerating health ;)Black_Knight_00

Not if you take a bullet to the head. :P

Well, you get my point in the end. :P

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]Does anyone have a link to the article in question?Metamania

Yeah.

Here you go!

Thanks. I wouldn't piss on MoH or any other CoDesque game if it were on fire and I'd be lying if I claimed I could pick McShea out of a line-up before the editorial, but now that I've seen the editorial and the interview, McShea comes across as a clown.

I think its hilarious that he recommended the Prinny: Can I Really Be the Hero? school of game design (a character dies but is replaced by an identical character from a limited pool of lives) as an example of how to implement death in a war game. Such a method makes life more valuable but it doesn't make individual characters more important (also, its as far from realistic as quickly regenerating health). And its pathetic that he didn't bother to play the single player before ripping the game.

The designer came across as an adult talking to a snarky kid of importance only because GS had the bad judgement to hire him.

I think a lot of people are getting themselves confused with exactly what Greg Goodrich has said about the game. As he said himself he never said it was realistic he said it was authentic, this including the warfighters from each country, the various weapons and kits, the locations, and the fact that all missions in the game are based on real missions. Just because you don't die in one bullet doesn't at all make it a bad game, otherwise we better start complaining about all the other shooters on the market. And the point that Tom was makign is that there should be no checkpoints and if you die and get to do it again then that is unrealistic, so really for him he is stating that once he is dead he can't play the game again, as it would be unrealistic to get a second opportunity surely? But then he doesn't actually mean this when questioned about it so in my opinion the point he is making has many faults to it and he can't describe exactly what he thinks. Well done for Greg and Danger Close for amking what looks to be a great game and I can't wait to play it, and I will try out the various difficult settings as it is an option.

I think a lot of people are getting themselves confused with exactly what Greg Goodrich has said about the game. As he said himself he never said it was realistic he said it was authentic, this including the warfighters from each country, the various weapons and kits, the locations, and the fact that all missions in the game are based on real missions. Just because you don't die in one bullet doesn't at all make it a bad game, otherwise we better start complaining about all the other shooters on the market. And the point that Tom was makign is that there should be no checkpoints and if you die and get to do it again then that is unrealistic, so really for him he is stating that once he is dead he can't play the game again, as it would be unrealistic to get a second opportunity surely? But then he doesn't actually mean this when questioned about it so in my opinion the point he is making has many faults to it and he can't describe exactly what he thinks. Well done for Greg and Danger Close for amking what looks to be a great game and I can't wait to play it, and I will try out the various difficult settings as it is an option.

gta_gamer10

the hypocrisy is that goodrich keeps saying that MoH is meant to "put the player in the boots of the soldier" which requires more than just authentic weaponry. it requires the developer to design the rules of the game to make the players' interactions more consistent with that aim. whenever he was pressed on why it played like a bloodthirsty romp of superheroes, he kept going back to very unauthentic excuses like the game being just a commercial product. when a developer uses the "product" excuse for their artistic vision, they lose any right to defend that vision as such.

EDIT: im starting to think he literally meant the soldier's boots because those are all thats remotely authentic.

What did greg mean when he said "i'll continue to play zelda" I just ... he just had no respect for tom, i really feel sorry for tom getting attacked like this for his opinion, that handshake and the look on greg's face.TheGuardian03

That was a low blow (even though I found it funny) but I really don't think either of them had respect for each other.

[QUOTE="TheGuardian03"]What did greg mean when he said "i'll continue to play zelda" I just ... he just had no respect for tom, i really feel sorry for tom getting attacked like this for his opinion, that handshake and the look on greg's face.IndianaPwns39

That was a low blow (even though I found it funny) but I really don't think either of them had respect for each other.

I agree with Tom on one thing. It's frustrating how, in a game like MOH, you can shoot down someone so many times, thinking that one-four bullets will end them quickly. If they had body armor to withstand more punishment, that's a little different. But without body armor, they should die very quickly and they don't. So to have that guy, the one you've been shooting down, just turn around and shoot you in the head and survive the gunfight is pretty ridiculous. I know that this is supposed to be a videogame and that anything goes, but if you nailed that person many times on the body, shouldn't he or she die not too long after that?

Metamania

Man, I agree with your statement. I can't tell you how many times I play shooter games online, put so many bullets into ONE player, he/she turns around & kill me with less than few shots. I kind of understood what Mr. McShea was saying, but his article comes across as elitist & unessecary.

[QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

[QUOTE="TheGuardian03"]What did greg mean when he said "i'll continue to play zelda" I just ... he just had no respect for tom, i really feel sorry for tom getting attacked like this for his opinion, that handshake and the look on greg's face.LoG-Sacrament

That was a low blow (even though I found it funny) but I really don't think either of them had respect for each other.

McShea also calls MoH sickening and shameful. There wasn't any respect during the entire thing.

[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"][QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

That was a low blow (even though I found it funny) but I really don't think either of them had respect for each other.

IndianaPwns39

McShea also calls MoH sickening and shameful. There wasn't any respect during the entire thing.

That would explain the heat that's on him, especially with Kevin Van Ord bringing him in to discuss more of that video. It felt more like a pep talk to him with McShea acting all kind and polite...or faking it, rather.

[QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"] goodrich also said hed like to shoot mcshea right in the middle of the debate. good thing he stuck to his guns.Metamania

McShea also calls MoH sickening and shameful. There wasn't any respect during the entire thing.

That would explain the heat that's on him, especially with Kevin Van Ord bringing him in to discuss more of that video. It felt more like a pep talk to him with McShea acting all kind and polite...or faking it, rather.

What? I didn't see this. Link?

[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"][QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

That was a low blow (even though I found it funny) but I really don't think either of them had respect for each other.

IndianaPwns39

McShea also calls MoH sickening and shameful. There wasn't any respect during the entire thing.

[QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"] goodrich also said hed like to shoot mcshea right in the middle of the debate. good thing he stuck to his guns.LoG-Sacrament

McShea also calls MoH sickening and shameful. There wasn't any respect during the entire thing.

So do movies, books, and anything that is sold about a certain subject. Documentaries about civil wars in African countries capitalize on civil wars in Africa, movies about wars capitalize on wars, etc.

'In military games like Warfighter, that preach how much they respect troops and how realistic they are, I find it sickening and shameful that health is treated so unrealistically. Making a quick buck on the backs of soldiers instead of educating consumers of the horrible truths of the battlefield trivializes the very things these development teams say they value.'

First off, I agree with McShea. With the whole article. Want to pass your game off as realistic? MAKE IT REALISTIC. There are alternatives for regenerating health and infinite respawning, tested and true - seen in several different games. Counter Strike and Rainbow Six come to mind, both of which I consider fun. Then, Greg says they needed to find a compromise between realistic and 'game fun' - well, there wasn't a compromise. They focused the realism on aesthetics only - the clothing, apparel, weapons, the places and the names of the units - and left the gameplay arcadey. Now tell me, what defines a game as realist: the gameplay or its appearance? Would a flight simulator be a good simulator if it had top-notch graphics and all airplanes created to date, but played like Snoopy vs. the Red Baron (it's rhetorical, and the answer is no)?

He isn't complaining about how some wargames are unrealistic, he's complaining about how a game was advertised as realistic - 'to give an idea of what the soldiers go through out there' - and then had the gameplay of call of duty. Last time I checked, you don't come back ten seconds after you die, nor do you regenerate your health as if you were some primitive life form. Had they put limited respawns (or respawn once at the beginning of each round) and a health stat that doesn't recover gradually (or that you can recover partially with medical kits and whatnot), then Greg could say that the game was a compromise between fun and realistic.

[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"][QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

McShea also calls MoH sickening and shameful. There wasn't any respect during the entire thing.

iHarlequin

So do movies, books, and anything that is sold about a certain subject. Documentaries about civil wars in African countries capitalize on civil wars in Africa, movies about wars capitalize on wars, etc.

'In military games like Warfighter, that preach how much they respect troops and how realistic they are, I find it sickening and shameful that health is treated so unrealistically. Making a quick buck on the backs of soldiers instead of educating consumers of the horrible truths of the battlefield trivializes the very things these development teams say they value.'

First off, I agree with McShea. With the whole article. Want to pass your game off as realistic? MAKE IT REALISTIC. There are alternatives for regenerating health and infinite respawning, tested and true - seen in several different games. Counter Strike and Rainbow Six come to mind, both of which I consider fun. Then, Greg says they needed to find a compromise between realistic and 'game fun' - well, there wasn't a compromise. They focused the realism on aesthetics only - the clothing, apparel, weapons, the places and the names of the units - and left the gameplay arcadey. Now tell me, what defines a game as realist: the gameplay or its appearance? Would a flight simulator be a good simulator if it had top-notch graphics and all airplanes created to date, but played like Snoopy vs. the Red Baron (it's rhetorical, and the answer is no)?

He isn't complaining about how some wargames are unrealistic, he's complaining about how a game was advertised as realistic - 'to give an idea of what the soldiers go through out there' - and then had the gameplay of call of duty. Last time I checked, you don't come back ten seconds after you die, nor do you regenerate your health as if you were some primitive life form. Had they put limited respawns (or respawn once at the beginning of each round) and a health stat that doesn't recover gradually (or that you can recover partially with medical kits and whatnot), then Greg could say that the game was a compromise between fun and realistic.

MoH: Warfighter addresses the point of regenerating health and respawns by including a "Hardcore" mode, which immediately caught my attention. Tom suggested this mode be the default setting, but I think the inclusion of such a mode is good enough. Like it or not, MoH is directly competing with CoD, and while us gamers that have been playing games forever wouldn't mind health packs or any other alternative to regenerating health the folks over at Danger Close have to open their product so that it will sell.

All I know is that I've completely dismissed MoH: Warfighter until I heard about the inclusion of Hardcore mode, which can really add something to the game imo.

So do movies, books, and anything that is sold about a certain subject. Documentaries about civil wars in African countries capitalize on civil wars in Africa, movies about wars capitalize on wars, etc.

iHarlequin

theres a difference between something that ends up making money despite saying something worthwhile about war and something that was designed with the intention of making money on war that happens to apologize along the way.

even before the arts were financed through markets, they still had financial pressures of a different sort (dont think commissioned works of art had fewer financial pressures than ones distributed in markets).

[QUOTE="Metamania"]

[QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

McShea also calls MoH sickening and shameful. There wasn't any respect during the entire thing.

IndianaPwns39

That would explain the heat that's on him, especially with Kevin Van Ord bringing him in to discuss more of that video. It felt more like a pep talk to him with McShea acting all kind and polite...or faking it, rather.

What? I didn't see this. Link?

I would think the videos would explain the heat that he's in. First with Kevin and now with someone from the MoH team.

[QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

[QUOTE="Metamania"]

That would explain the heat that's on him, especially with Kevin Van Ord bringing him in to discuss more of that video. It felt more like a pep talk to him with McShea acting all kind and polite...or faking it, rather.

Metamania

What? I didn't see this. Link?

I would think the videos would explain the heat that he's in. First with Kevin and now with someone from the MoH team.

I mean, I saw the video with Tom and Greg. I thought you meant there was a video with Kevin and Tom. Or did I misunderstand?

[QUOTE="Metamania"]

[QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

What? I didn't see this. Link?

IndianaPwns39

I would think the videos would explain the heat that he's in. First with Kevin and now with someone from the MoH team.

I mean, I saw the video with Tom and Greg. I thought you meant there was a video with Kevin and Tom. Or did I misunderstand?

No. You didn't misunderstand. There is a video with Kevin and Tom. I'll see if I can locate it.

Ok, I found it. Here you go. They were talking about Arma III and Kevin mentions the article that Tom McShea wrote about war being glorified. Watching this video and then watching the other video with Tom and the producer of MOH Warfighter felt like there was some heat on him - legit heat. This is basically my feeling to it.

I mean, the more I watch the video, the more I feel that is Kevin isn't just talking about the Arma III game to Tom, it's like he's giving him more or less a pep talk about realism and stuff like that, trying to give him the riot act or something. I found it kinda funny that Tom mentions the COD AI to be like Hogan's Alley, where they just pop up on the screen and you just shoot them.

Personally this whole thing to me seems like McShea is trying to make some political point, doing it in the cheapest, most yellow manner he can devise, and without ever actually getting around to whatever point is bubbling inside his brain.

Personally this whole thing to me seems like McShea is trying to make some political point, doing it in the cheapest, most yellow manner he can devise, and without ever actually getting around to whatever point is bubbling inside his brain.

worlock77

Haven't watched the videos yet, but from McShea's article, couple of things to say. It sounds like McShea is looking for an anti-war game (in the vein of contemporary war films) and brother, until gamers can play a game without wanting to shoot someone every two minutes, you're going to have superhero-like Captain Americas for soldiers. I don't think it's fair to single out MOH on any of these points because there are egregiously worse violaters, and respect for the veterans is a double edged sword. In any war film/documentary you're going to have veterans in the audience criticizing or praising the film because of how "honest" it is. It seems to me the MOH devs are firmly in the tribute-bordering-on-propaganda camp, and Geoff Ramsey from Rooster Teeth/Achievement Hunter even said, (paraphrasing), Medal of Honor is almost like a five hour blowjob to the military.

HOWEVER, as a counter-point, McShea's stance is more in line with my own. If these guys are touting respect and honour for real life vets, then immediately turn around and show something absolutely ridiculous and dismiss it as just being "a video game", then clearly they have no business paying respects to anybody. It's the reason I'm so vehemently against Gearbox's Furious Four and why I probably will never support GBX again. Randy spent 6+ years saying BiA gets it right and the team is dedicated to honouring the war, then they release F4 which was about "kicking ass", in his own words. Where you can take a hatchet to "Nazis" and brand them in the vein of Inglourious Basterds. THAT is trivializing the war, even moreso than MOH. It showed me everything Randy said was essentially PR talk.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Personally this whole thing to me seems like McShea is trying to make some political point, doing it in the cheapest, most yellow manner he can devise, and without ever actually getting around to whatever point is bubbling inside his brain.

thebambom

That's nice but McShea wasn't talking about the prevelance of violence in our society. He was criticising a video game for being a video game.