Marine dislikes MOH Afghanistan depiction

By Robert Purchese Published 12 October, 2010

"It equates war with the leisure of games."

Games can never replicate an actual war and EA has created misconceptions by claiming Medal of Honor does, former US Marine Corps infantryman and Iraq veteran Benjamin Busch has argued.

"I honestly don't like that Medal of Honor depicts the war in Afghanistan right now, because - even as fiction - it equates the war with the leisure of games," he wrote on the NPR website.

"Playing and risking your life are different things. In the video war, there may be some manipulation of anxiety, some adrenaline to the heart, but absolutely nothing is at stake.

"Imagine how frustrating this game would be if, just as you began to play it, an invisible sniper shot you dead every time," he added. "The game would not be popular, because being killed that way isn't fair - just like war. Reality has a way of correcting misconceptions."

If only real soldiers could "stop the war and rest", he rued - then the constant dread of a bullet to the head could be relieved. "A videogame can produce no wounds and take no friends away," Busch reasoned.

Nevertheless, he accepts that a videogame can neither train players to be skilled special operations soldiers, "nor is it likely to lure anyone into Islamic fundamentalism". "What it does do is make modern war into participatory cinema," he said. "That is its business."

And while the games of Busch's youth were "more innocent" than those of today, so were "films, news and books". "There is a truth common to all, and that is that playing war in any medium is not combat, and for a gamer, it's not even political," he stated.

"It's just sedentary adventurism in need of a subject."

In reality, there are two ways out of Afghanistan according to Busch: "wounds or luck". Proficiency only plays a tiny part - and playing games won't "protect or endanger" either soldiers or governments.

"For those who truly want to play for a Medal of Honor, recruiters are standing by. Only eight have been awarded since we invaded Afghanistan," he closed. "All but one have been posthumous."

Medal of Honor will be released this Friday for PC, PS3 and Xbox 360. Eurogamer's review will be published at 12pm today.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds. @Clert on Twitter.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (113) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Haloboy #1 2 years ago

    Leisure of games brings about awareness of war?

  • sonicyoda #2 2 years ago

    "It equates war with the leisure of games."

    Like every other war-based FPS before it, no-less. But those weren't set in Afghanistan so they were fine! *Rolls eyes, sighs*
    Edited by sonicyoda at 12/10/10 @ 11:34

  • Kanjin #3 2 years ago

    This saddens me, if anything, war-based games have raised awareness of the hell real soldiers must go through.

  • thedaveeyres #4 2 years ago

    Good job he never played Cannon Fodder.

  • captain_Carl #5 2 years ago

    "Imagine how frustrating this game would be if, just as you began to play it, an invisible sniper shot you dead every time,"

    Sounds like playing online

  • metalangel #6 2 years ago

    He should try ArmA2, where you do get instantly killed out of nowhere by a sniper you never saw.

  • darkmorgado #7 2 years ago

    A videogame can produce no wounds and take no friends away

    My RSI and non-existent social life due to gaming beg to differ.

  • NimbusTLD #8 2 years ago

    I'd like to know how old this guy is.

    I bet they were saying the same thing about war movies before it became a normal part of modern western life.

  • superstu1337 #9 2 years ago

    So I guess watching war movies set in Iraq for leisure purposes is wrong? Oh, and don't forget all those war stories in those books out there. Grab them off the shelves right away! Let's get the funeral pyre going for all things war related!

  • Quint2020 #10 2 years ago

    But we've made films about the current "War on Terror" and nobody kicked off about that....

  • joe90 #11 2 years ago

    What do loads of soldiers do on there time off... play COD.

  • TelexStar #12 2 years ago

    Wait wait wait... Are you saying I don't *actually* get awarded a Medal of Honour when I complete this game?

    /cancels pre-order.

  • darkmorgado #13 2 years ago

    But we've made films about the current "War on Terror" and nobody kicked off about that....

    Argh. I hate the phrase "war on terror" it's such a stupid term. You may as well declare a war on ice-cream for all the meaning it has.

  • tomjoadsghost #14 2 years ago

    "It's just sedentary adventurism in need of a subject."

    this guy can really build a sentence if you ask me, he's sensible, (reasonably) non histrionic and can write well - next time you're looking for a new reviewer can you get him please?

  • metalangel #15 2 years ago

    *declares war on ice cream*

    It'll be a rocky road, men, but we'll triumph. Now get over those wall's (sic) and attack!

  • cianchristopher #16 2 years ago

    Fun fact - Benjamin Busch played Officer Anthony Colicchio in HBO's acclaimed drama The Wire.

    He also played the role of Major Todd Eckloff in HBO's miniseries Generation Kill.

    Pretty cool guy!

  • tomjoadsghost #17 2 years ago

    Is the comment about snipers a thinly veiled dig at halo2 on legendary?

  • sonicyoda #18 2 years ago

    @thedaveeyres

    You win.

    "War! Never been so much fun!"

  • darkmorgado #19 2 years ago

    It'll be a rocky road, men, but we'll triumph. Now get over those wall's (sic) and attack!

    Dammit, they're everywhere! Raspberry Ripple is coming out the walls! Sh*t we have minc choc chip incoming!

  • scottycam #20 2 years ago

    "For those who truly want to play for a Medal of Honor, recruiters are standing by. Only eight have been awarded since we invaded Afghanistan," he closed. "All but one have been posthumous."

    Well thats a profound way to end an article.

  • speedjack #21 2 years ago

    Okay - and I suppose Shindler's List equates the leisure of going to the movies with the holocaust ?

    Art should entertain and provoke... and yes, games are art.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #22 2 years ago

    I bet they were saying the same thing about war movies before it became a normal part of modern western life.

    The thing is, at least for me, no game has ever even come close to convey emotions like movies do. Both movies and games deal with the same topic but movies do it so much better that I see them as two different things - probably because they do set out to achieve different things.

    That is why I agree with him. It's not that the games try to "make fun" of the war but they utterly fail when it comes to everything else and because of that they do feel a bit disrespectful. The medium is simply not evolved enough to deal with some of today's happenings - maybe it will be one day but I really don't see that happening anytime soon. That's why I totally understand why he does not talk about war movies; I see them as something different as well.

  • thewool #23 2 years ago

    As a slightly older gamer, I find the concept of playing a war that's currenlty going on, and one where Brits are getting maimed/killed every other day as slightly tasteless. That's whay I'm not buying it.

  • BillPoon #24 2 years ago

    He makes some good points in a measured way.

    I know it doesn't serve your story, but you skimmed a key line in his essay:

    "But what nation or military has the right to govern fiction? Banning the representation of an enemy is imposing nationalism on entertainment."

  • Spooke #25 2 years ago

    what a non-story.
    Edited by Spooke at 12/10/10 @ 11:54

  • SBfistfun #26 2 years ago

    If you don't like it don't buy it.

    If you don't want to experience the horrors of war don't join the army.

    It's pretty simple really.

  • coolbritannia #27 2 years ago

    Yeah, just make jokes. You're validating his point. No jokes about dead games developers please, but this guy losing friends in combat etc warrants no respect. Where's Retroid to tell them off?

  • Eraser #28 2 years ago

    The difference between this and, for example, Call of Duty is that EA repeatedly keeps saying it's giving a realistic and fair view of the war. They're pretending that it's more than that it is. Activision is clear about CoD: it's a rollercoaster ride of action that's not that closely related to reality anyway.

    I think that the way EA is marketing this and the fact that it's taking place in a war that's still going on is what rubs the wrong way. Having said that, I was also quite surprised Hollywood had the guts to release this less than 5 years after the fact.

  • FogHeart #29 2 years ago

    It'll be a rocky road, men, but we'll triumph. Now get over those wall's (sic) and attack!

    Dammit, they're everywhere! Raspberry Ripple is coming out the walls! Sh*t we have minc choc chip incoming!

    Don't worry, I like to keep this Magnum handy...for close encounters.

  • darkmorgado #30 2 years ago

    @FogHeart

    +1 for a genuine lol

  • psychokitten #31 2 years ago

    How does you being negged in a previous comments thread for seeming cold have anything to do with this?

    I don't think anyone disrespects this guy or people who have lost their lives in wars, we can just separate games from reality. I play war games (CoD, MoH) and I would never assume to know what it's like to actually be in a war, there is no way I can imagine it.

  • NimbusTLD #32 2 years ago

    @Der_tolle_Emil

    The medium is simply not evolved enough

    I agree wholeheartedly :) And we agree that it is an evolutionary process, which implies small steps are to be taken; it will not suddenly transform into a fully mature medium.

    So a true wargame then. Is it possible? Would it be as simple as having characters you truly care about (is that even possible with NPCs?) and a virtual world worth fighting to defend (would it need to be persistent and multiplayer with creative modes that did not involve war then?)? Would it require perma-death?

    What does he think of ArmA 2 I wonder? Do we need to have it set in a current conflict for him to care?

  • Mkwone #33 2 years ago

    I'll agree with what he's saying. Games are nothing like real life, well certainly games like FPS's. I don't think it's a dig at games or MOH in particular it's all about the actual consequences. And in all honesty it's a good thing games aren't like real life, otherwise i'd of died thousands of times.

    The closest i think we could get is that if you get killed it's game over comeplty or bundle in an electric shock device so that everytime you get hit you get buzzed. Neither sound particualy fun to me but i'd of thought it'd give the games a bit more suspense. (I know you can get vests which rumble and vibrate but do they actually hurt or is it just like a normal rumble from a controller?)

  • SteveHolt #34 2 years ago

    "It's just sedentary adventurism in need of a subject."

    Wow. That's food for thought.

  • el_pollo_diablo #35 2 years ago

    edit: I just re-read the article and now realise that in fact he wasn't moaning about the depiction of soldiers, more commenting on the differences between real life and games. And he's right. Sorry mr soldier.
    Edited by el_pollo_diablo at 12/10/10 @ 12:19

  • metalangel #36 2 years ago

    @el_pollo_diablo: I can assure you that the scene from Full Metal Jacket ("Why did you enlist?" "Sir, to kill, sir!";) is not reality.

  • coolbritannia #37 2 years ago

    El_pollo, nice, just dismiss the sacrifice our armed forced make to guarantee the security of us civilians. You fucking idiot...

  • el_pollo_diablo #38 2 years ago

    Rubbish. Invading other countries illegally does NOT make anyone a hero.

  • metalangel #39 2 years ago

    @el_pollo_diablo: blame politicians, not soldiers.

  • Stickman #40 2 years ago

    Games NOT reality?

    Thanks for the heads-up, GI Joe.

  • Spekingur #41 2 years ago

    So basically what he is saying is that it is better to enlist and possibly die for real rather than play a video game for fun?

  • layleeloo #42 2 years ago

    Will this story NEVER die. I'm bored at the over reaction now. Do they not realise the hypocricy of it. No doubt in 50 years time it will be socially acceptable to make games about Taliban and Yanks.

    Until then they are OK with Nazi's, Argentines, Vietnemese, and any other notable historic war race or group, but no - not the Tellytubby-ban. Wish these people would get a grip and realise their own hypocricy.
    Edited by layleeloo at 12/10/10 @ 12:39

  • el_pollo_diablo #43 2 years ago

    metalangel: I do blame politicians, totally. I also completely respect all of those those soldiers who for ethical reasons refused to have anything to do with the invasions. That's genuine moral courage and sacrifice - in my opinion. I just can't respect those who joined the forces after the invasions started. I hope they come home safely and all that but I don't feel that they deserve my thanks.

    Just to re-iterate I didn't intend to start an argument or offend anyone with my (stupid) first comment, which I removed having re-read the article. Sorry if that was the case.

  • Gromit #44 2 years ago

    This is a man who is willing to kill people for real, criticising people who play video games for fun in their spare time. GREAT.

    Why doesn't he talk about the real knock on effects of Afghanistan? Such as Islamophobia and it's real-life effects from the sort of meat heads who would probably also want to kill some "A-rabs". Why is he not angry about the civillians his people have harmed and killed? Why is he not utterly enraged by the lies that led to his army being in Afghanistan in the first place?

    No, instead he wants to question OUR morality!

    What will he criticise next time? Sergeant Bilko?

  • j-bo #45 2 years ago

    I don't particuarly like playing current war games, mainly because I play games for escapism, and having a really frank reminder about what a shit state the world is in, is something I'd rather escape from, rather then into.

    Have me bouncing around in some sci fi alternative shooter, fine, but current war games leave me cold. Particuarly all the hyper-masculine patriotic bullshite that runs through them also.
    Edited by j-bo at 12/10/10 @ 12:51

  • PlugMonkey #46 2 years ago

    speedjack
    "Okay - and I suppose Shindler's List equates the leisure of going to the movies with the holocaust ?

    Art should entertain and provoke... and yes, games are art. "

    No, because I think Shindler's List aimed to make a serious point.

    And while art should entertain and provoke, and while games can be art, is that Medal of Honor's goal? I guess the jury on Medal of Honor is still out, seeing as no-one has actually played it yet, but I'll be very surprised if it turns out to be anything other than an entertainment focussed rollercoaster ride.

    Edit: Ah, the review's up:

    "Medal of Honor is arguably just a shooting gallery spliced with a fairground ride"

    The context is important. Shindler's List isn't the same thing as Saw, and setting Saw in Auschwitz would not be the same thing as Schindler's List.
    Edited by PlugMonkey at 12/10/10 @ 12:56

  • makeamazing #47 2 years ago

    Let me get this straight, games are making war leisure based and cannot create real war, but the US army actually do use military simulators (games) to simulate real war and in fact also have Americans Army (or whatever its called) to promote being a soldier..... hmm interesting. Me thinks someone is jumping on the bandwagon of wargaming hate.
    Edited by makeamazing at 12/10/10 @ 12:50

  • layleeloo #48 2 years ago

    "Art should entertain and provoke... and yes, games are art."

    Hmmmmm. Well while you I and other gamers may think so, there are also many professionals who fail to see games as art. So they are hardly going to look upon gaming through the same eyes as other so called "Art".

  • loopy #49 2 years ago

    This guy makes a lot of sense, a lot more sense than some of the overly defensive comments I've read on here so far.

  • madjim #50 2 years ago

    Pardon me for saying this but there is no honor in a war done for drugs control.

  • JetSetWilly #51 2 years ago

    I'm sure he'll go postal if he ever sees an episode of 'Allo 'Allo.

  • BillPoon #52 2 years ago

    I'd like to thank Eurogamer for this article, my Ignore List bulges with new scalps. Salut!

  • Deckard1 #53 2 years ago

    Anyone know if you can blow up hostages with hand grenades in this game?

  • el_pollo_diablo #54 2 years ago

    @xNickx7

    Does the Nick bit of your name refer to Griffin?

  • Spekingur #55 2 years ago

    @xNickx7: Who is this mass murdering pedophile? Just so I know who you are talking about.

  • Deckard1 #56 2 years ago

    I think he's talking about santa claus Spekingur

  • el_pollo_diablo #57 2 years ago

    Well just to pick you up on your first point, why do you care if your meat is halal or not? It tastes the same, right? And as far as the rest of your drivel is concerned, there's some wacky shit in the bible too, but you don't mention that it should be banned from 'the west' (wherever that is).

    You daft racist.

  • Deckard1 #58 2 years ago

    Santa Claus didn't create Islam?

  • el_pollo_diablo #59 2 years ago

    @Deckard1

    Santa Claus is a christian thing. That's why we celebrate his birthday on 25th December. Come on, you should know that ;)
    He's talking about Pippi Longstocking.

  • Spekingur #60 2 years ago

    @xNick7x: Sorry but how was that any better than in Europe at that time? Or anywhere else in the world?
    You do realise that Islam has the same God as Christianity and Judaism? One could think that this God isn't very nice seeing as he has pitted three of his own religions against each other :p

  • el_pollo_diablo #61 2 years ago

    Can you explain what you mean by "my country"?

  • Spekingur #62 2 years ago

    Also, Santa Claus has his origins in older belief systems. Heck, here we have thirteen "santas", could call them rascal santas since they steal stuff.
    Edited by Spekingur at 12/10/10 @ 14:07

  • el_pollo_diablo #63 2 years ago

    What exactly do you mean by "my country"? It's a simple question. Answer it.

  • TelexStar #64 2 years ago

    @thewool - "As a slightly older gamer, I find the concept of playing a war that's currenlty going on, and one where Brits are getting maimed/killed every other day as slightly tasteless. That's whay I'm not buying it. "

    As an older gamer, I'd argue what's the difference between a war being fought currently verses one fought 70 odd years ago? And how does the latter make it any less tasteless.

    Either come to terms with the hypocrisy in your statement or don't buy any games based on any wars/conflicts.

  • el_pollo_diablo #65 2 years ago

    @stalefart - I'm very happy to live in a multicultural society.

    (edit: and I don't think you've been tarred with the same brush at all for what it's worth)
    Edited by el_pollo_diablo at 12/10/10 @ 14:15

  • BabyJesus #66 2 years ago

    In other news Gordon Ramsey hates Diner Dash.

  • Stickman #67 2 years ago

    Thick liberal pussies. Mmmmmm!

  • TelexStar #68 2 years ago

    @xNickx7 "Islam was created by a mass murdering pedophile who told his followers to take over the world and force people to convert to his teachings. If they refuse, kill them. I am happy that our forces are over there trying to protect the free world. If it was me I would just drop a nuke on the place and ban Islam in the West. Problem solved. "

    You're so unbelievably deluded if you're happy to swallow and regurgitate this miss-information about the Islamic faith. You say you've "looked into their religion" and yet your comments so blindingly and obviously suggest you don't have the foggiest clue.

    Now, please do get yourself off to the clinic and get the snip so your bigoted genes can die with you.

  • PlugMonkey #69 2 years ago

    Telexstar
    "I'd argue what's the difference between a war being fought currently verses one fought 70 odd years ago? "

    You really don't know?

    You don't instinctively understand the difference between the grief over something that happened yesterday and the grief over something that happened 70 years ago?

    You need someone on an internet forum to explain that to you?

    Really?

  • kangarootoo #70 2 years ago

    @stalefart

    "Every neg I get only proves my point."

    Every neg you get proves that people find your posts objectionable. Writing something else doesn't make it true.

  • darkmorgado #71 2 years ago

    Islam was created by a mass murdering pedophile who told his followers to take over the world and force people to convert to his teachings. If they refuse, kill them.

    And this differs from Christianity how, exactly?

  • Mavrik123 #72 2 years ago

    HAHA I really don't get why people are so annoyed about this game? Just like every other FPS it is all fictional. Just because they have designed a game around the 21st Century they complain. I don't believe any of the WW2 games will have all their facts and everything right and how this British guy totally slaughter this German dude, Or these German dudes totally hacked up and gased these Jews...

    It is a game, like all books maybe we need to create a category called Fiction in our game stores?

  • kangarootoo #73 2 years ago

    On a related note recently, I've noticed a much higher degree of right wing talk in the threads associated with the current crop of modern FPS games. You can't walk ten feet in a MoH/CoD thread of late without someone calling someone else a liberal pussy faggot (usually simply because they disagree with them, but can't articulate a whole sentence in response, instead falling back on the same approach to disagreement that has stood them in good stead since they were 13).

    Is it just me? Is it some kind of winter blues thing?

  • M_of_the_sys #74 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    "usually simply because they disagree with them, but can't articulate a whole sentence in response, instead falling back on the same approach to disagreement that has stood them in good stead since they were 13."

    You've just summed up every comments thread on Eurogamer... ever.

  • TelexStar #75 2 years ago

    PlugMonkey

    Yes, please do!

    Would you suggest that the grief WW2 vets feel from their experience is any less real than those felt by the families/service men and women effected by Afghanistan?

    My point (which you perhaps missed or I didn't convey clearly) is that by stating on an internet forum "I'm not buying MoH because it's tasteless", is somewhat hypocritical just because the subject matter happens to be current.

    If one truly felt that a game like MoH was tasteless then you'd have to reason that in order to retain any self-integrity, you'd also have to veto any other game depicting war.

    Personally, I'm interested in gaming because I want to be entertained. I like shooters and online competitive play with like-minded gamers. Not because I want every game to be a social/political commentary on the human condition.

    *edited for typo*
    Edited by TelexStar at 12/10/10 @ 14:58

  • kangarootoo #76 2 years ago

    @M_of_the_sys

    Not all of them. There are some really good ones from time to time. It does seem to change with the scenery thought. I can't actually remember the last decent thread that was associated with a semi-realistic FPS. I wish it wasn't so.
    Edited by kangarootoo at 12/10/10 @ 14:58

  • kangarootoo #77 2 years ago

    @TelexStar

    I have an issue with games set in modern times, but its not for reasons of taste. In a nutshell, games based on current conflicts give a distorted view of the real world to stupid people who don't get their information anywhere else.

    Now when it comes to issues of taste, I agree with you that anybody who has lived through a conflict could find a game based on that conflict upsetting, and the fact that the conflict has ended will not necessarily reduce that upset. Whether that upset matters or not is another discussion perhaps (I'm inclined to think it does, to a point), but for me personally the issue of taste is not the only issue that is raised by a game like MOH.

  • darkmorgado #78 2 years ago

    I don't believe any of the WW2 games will have all their facts and everything right and how this British guy totally slaughter this German dude, Or these German dudes totally hacked up and gased these Jews...

    Erm... did you really just deny the Holocaust?????

  • thewool #79 2 years ago

    @Telexstar - what PlugMonkey said.

    it's very easy to forget what previous generations have gone through. I'm sure if we didn't the world would be a much better place.

    Bottom line I think it's unsettling that I enjoy a computer game (I'm not using art in this context) about this war while real people are simultaneously being killed and family's lives ripped apart. It's just how I feel and you don't have to agree - still not buying the game.

  • vijay_UK #80 2 years ago

    mmm...don't go to war then.

  • drxym #81 2 years ago

    I think his points are valid as well as his acceptance that no matter what he thinks such games will exist. Almost by definition they're not going to be realistic. A game that simulated reality would be simultaneously boring, random and permanently fatal. The Onion got it right with their COD Afghanistan parody where soldiers just stand around talking shit, perform menial operations like escorting supply trucks and then just die while on guard duty with no inkling of why.

    That said, COD and MOH are series well past their sell by date. All the triggered scripts and explodey effects can't mask fundamentally stupid linear shooters. I would love to see something like Crysis tech used to produce an accurate FPS, preferably one where you could play a campaign against real humans who are playing their own campaign in the other direction. That's where things should be going, rather than just another crappy on rails shooter.
    Edited by drxym at 12/10/10 @ 15:36

  • PlugMonkey #82 2 years ago

    Telexstar
    No, not more real, but certainly a lot more raw and painful.

    Imagine you interviewed two people today. Both war widows. A 20 year old who heard the news of her husband’s death yesterday, and an 86 year old who heard of her husband’s death in 1944.

    You think they would be in the same state? Talk about it in the same words and tone?

    Really? Surely you know that is clearly not true.

    Surely you must have felt grief at some point in your life, and so you must know that time is pretty much the only thing that does dull it.

  • kangarootoo #83 2 years ago

    @stalefart

    My subsequent comment wasn't aimed at you really, though I still think that calling everyone pussies just because they neg you is aggressive and more than a little obtuse. You don't even seem to know why you got negged, and yet you come out swinging and making assumptions.


    What seems to have escaped you in your original post is that Northern Ireland is PART of the United Kingdom. The British didn't "go into" N.I., they were already there. British troops and British police trying to locate terrorists on British streets (now I'm not saying they went the right way about it, and I don't want to get into the injustices of Irish history, but those are the plain facts).

    To make a comparison between Ireland and Afghanistan is kind of senseless. And I think some posters find it hard to take seriously the contribution of someone to a discussion about world politic and war, when that person doesn't seem to have even a passing knowledge of the subject.


    You also insist on making this about Islam, when it isn't, which if you will excuse me is a common right wing habit (not saying you are right wing, but if you act like it, people will assume it).

    The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful in thought and action, just like the majority of Christians, Jews or any other religeon you might care to pick. The terrorists in this case are terrorists for the same reason terrorists always do what they do - because they hold perfectly human grievances about other humans. Some of those grievances will be legitimate, and some will not be (life is complex like that you know), but religeon is just one of the flags under which people unite when they share common grievances. Its not Islam plating bombs and shooting soldiers, its just angry people, like its always been.


    As for nick, I guess I have him on ignore, so I don't know exactly what he said.
    Edited by kangarootoo at 12/10/10 @ 15:54

  • arty #84 2 years ago

    I like him.

  • kangarootoo #85 2 years ago

    @PlugMonkey

    Its hardly a competition is it?

    Even from your own examples it is clear that you are measuring grief on a sliding scale. You say a modern conflict is different from a 50 year old conflict, but you can only say that because you personally have chosen to draw a line on the sliding scale and say "bad this side, ok this side". Modern conflicts are worse because you say they are. Surely you can see that distinction isn't remotely as objective as you earlier suggested.

  • TelexStar #86 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    I agree - the issue of how the conflict is portrayed is rarely going to be accurate and this is, as you say, an issue if the developer/publisher are pushing it out as being "realistic".


    @thewool

    For the record, I'm not buying MoH either - not out of taste, purely because I played the demo and thought it was shit. :) I do appreciate your point though and guess it comes down to a difference in point of view. I'm not cold to other peoples/families suffering but for me, any similarities I see in a game like MoH, I could just as easily see in games like Modern Warfare or Bad Company 2.

  • funkmesideways #87 2 years ago

    It could be argued that seeing these scenes of battle in games may water down the feeling of what its truly like to be there. Fighting alongside people you know and seeing them shot in front of you, highly violent stuff, cannot be simulated through a game. You're sitting back playing the game with 'leisure' and relaxed, you may feel a little tense when the game gets hard or you're playing MP but its never the same. The experience not being the same isn't my argument but the fact that this means that people playing the game will never know what its truly like to be in a combat situation.

    I can see how this would annoy some service members, personally.

  • kangarootoo #88 2 years ago

    @TelexStar

    That has ALWAYS been my issue with these games. I don't mind war games perse, but in these cases (and a few others in the past) they have STATED this is about a realistic telling of the story.... it is clearly nothing of the sort. If its not true, don't say it. Make your fictional war game and call it what it is. Don't pretend your war game is realistic, because it can never be, not if you want it to sell (which is one of the points made by the dude in the article).

    That is my take on that aspect of things. It is also why I found one of the early comments regarding war games "showing us how awful war is" really quite baffling.

  • Spekingur #89 2 years ago

    Is the life that is lost any less meaningful if it was 80 years ago or 1 month ago? That life is still lost however long ago it was.

    I also have no idea what the left and right wing arguments are. I have no interest in those, I make up my own opinions rather than follow up on what is left or right. In any case, left and right wing can't be that important. The main reasoning and thinking goes on in the middle. Like arms, wings just react without thought.

  • TelexStar #90 2 years ago

    @PlugMonkey - "No, not more real, but certainly a lot more raw and painful."

    Yes, I do - and I agree. But for that very reason I could absolutely understand why someone actually effected by those wars would not want to play those games. However, as I haven't been directly impacted, It's easier for me to disconnect myself from the connotations of it and enjoy the game for what it is (i.e. a competitive multiplayer game).

    You may think me cold and heartless but again, it comes down to a point of view.

  • alan_stealth #91 2 years ago

    wHO LET THIS GUY TALK?

    What the helll is at stake for me when I watch Saving Private Ryan or Black Hawk Down?

    If this idiot calls what's going on in Afghanistan, war, maybe he's the one who needs to pay a bit more attention to the stakes.

    You're cannon fodder, and sometimes I like to pretend I'm cannon fodder, just like when I played with soldiers when I was a child.

    I could go on with example after example of what is utterly stupid about what this guy said, but there is 100 comments I haven't read that probably cover it.

  • PlugMonkey #92 2 years ago

    kangarootoo
    @PlugMonkey

    Its hardly a competition is it?

    Even from your own examples it is clear that you are measuring grief on a sliding scale. You say a modern conflict is different from a 50 year old conflict, but you can only say that because you personally have chosen to draw a line on the sliding scale and say "bad this side, ok this side". Modern conflicts are worse because you say they are. Surely you can see that distinction isn't remotely as objective as you earlier suggested.

    I'm not trying to start some sort of grief competition. Or say which games are 'fine' and which aren't. People keep saying there is no difference between a current conflict and a historical one, or peoples' feelings toward them. This is nonsense.

    Surely the relationship between grief and time is something instinctively understood by everyone. It IS a sliding scale.

    Where you, me or anyone else want to "draw the line" is immaterial, the scale still exists.

  • Shinetop #93 2 years ago

    This just in: games not real.

  • M_of_the_sys #94 2 years ago

    Shinetop is a heretic!

  • kangarootoo #95 2 years ago

    @stalefart

    Edit: written before your last point.

    "As for bringing Islam into this, well of course I did because the terror attacks were done in the name of Islam. Its a fact mate."

    Just because some nut job says they are acting in the name of Islam doesn't mean we have to believe them. The people involved are hijacking Islan because it legitimises them - it makes it look like they are acting for the benefit of a higher power instead of their own benefit. Instead of condemming all followers of Islam (and I make a distinction between people and the "rule book";) we can respond by saying " you don't represent a whole religion, no matter what you say".

    On the other matter, I don't recall calling you stupid and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I can get a bit superior its true, its not a character trait I'm pleased to have, and its good that you called me out. I still hold though that if you hadn't starting throwing down the "gamers are pussies" language at the first hint of disagreement, you would have done yourself a favour or two.
    Edited by kangarootoo at 12/10/10 @ 16:30

  • PlugMonkey #96 2 years ago

    It's easier for me to disconnect myself from the connotations of it and enjoy the game for what it is (i.e. a competitive multiplayer game).

    Me too. Personally, it doesn't affect me at all. Nor would it affect me if the sides we just called Red vs Blue.

    The point is that if setting it in a real conflict is disturbing for the people who are affected (because it's all still very raw and painful), and if setting it in a fictitious one doesn't affect anyone's enjoyment of the game at all, then why do it?

    It's all loss for no gain.

    It's not like I'm massively broken up about this or anything, it's just that this sort of thing pisses me off:

    "This just in: games not real."

    This just in: war, death and grief very real.

    Why should a not real thing take precedence over a real thing? It's a silly, pointless little game. So instead of telling the hurt people to lighten up, why don't we just give them a wide berth and leave them well the fuck alone? It makes a difference to them, it makes no difference to us, so why?

    Again, not me proclaiming a moral judgment, I simply don't get the logic; and broken logic just rattles around in my head like a penny in a tin can and won't go away.

  • kangarootoo #97 2 years ago

    @PlugMonkey

    Well I suppose my point is that "the same, but by varying degrees" is not the same as "different" in my book. Maybe this is just semantics. The discussion seemed to hinge on you saying "can't you tell the difference", as if the difference was clear and distinct. Is there really a difference between the grief of two different people, or is their grief actually the same, but of different severity? If someone feels as terrible today as the day they lost a loved one 70 years ago, for them, there is no difference.

  • kangarootoo #98 2 years ago

    "So instead of telling the hurt people to lighten up, why don't we just give them a wide berth and leave them well the fuck alone? It makes a difference to them, it makes no difference to us, so why? "

    Here here. We gamers can be excessively protective of our hobby sometimes.

    P.s. "and broken logic just rattles around in my head like a penny in a tin can and won't go away." I like that.
    Edited by kangarootoo at 12/10/10 @ 16:32

  • TitusCrow #99 2 years ago

    "Imagine how frustrating this game would be if, just as you began to play it, an invisible sniper shot you dead every time,"

    Actually I remember one of the original MOH games, maybe allied assault where there was a stage with a bunch of snipers and this is exactly what happened. It drove a few people crazy trying to get past it if they were playing on the hardest difficulty level.

    good days :)

  • darkmorgado #100 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo
    As for nick, I guess I have him on ignore, so I don't know exactly what he said.

    Actually I think he has been bonked on the head with the banhammer as his comments aren't appearing at all (checked by logging out and viewing the threads)

  • kangarootoo #101 2 years ago

    @darkmorgado

    Ah, that would explain it. I didn't think the name rang a bell, and my ignore list is very short.

  • Ternon #102 2 years ago

    That was a very articulate intelligent marine...

  • Breach #103 2 years ago

    These war based FPS games have probably helped recruit more soldiers than any newspaper/tv advert.
    Americas Army was developed for this sole purpose.

    Also in the news,
    Jenson Button thinks F1 2010 in not like driving a real F1 car.
    Luke Skywalkerr thinks 'Force Unleashed' is not like being a real Jedi.
    A Hedgehog thinks Sonic is not a realistic depiction of the life of a hedgehog.

    this 'marine' sounds like a bit of a tit tbh.
    Edited by Breach at 12/10/10 @ 16:57

  • PlugMonkey #104 2 years ago

    "Well I suppose my point is that "the same, but by varying degrees" is not the same as "different" in my book. Maybe this is just semantics."

    Ah, I see. Yes, that's just semantics. ;P

    Like how 'hot' and 'warm' aren't different, but the same but by varying degrees.

  • darth_paul #105 2 years ago

    thank god we have Modern Warfare 1&2 to put everything into perspective, huh, GI? No problem there.
    Edited by darth_paul at 12/10/10 @ 18:08

  • IAchilleasI #106 2 years ago

    "In a decaying society, art, if it is truthful, must also reflect decay."

  • DrMGinius #107 2 years ago

    I think every single game tries to make enjoyable whatever it is about.

    But maybe that's just me.

  • ShiroBen #108 2 years ago

    He comes across as kind of 'precious', for a soldier. There's a difference between reality and fantasy, dear.

  • Sevens #109 2 years ago

    Reasonable statements he made there.

  • PlugMonkey #110 2 years ago

    "Jenson Button thinks F1 2010 in not like driving a real F1 car. "

    He he. Liuzzi thinks it is.

  • BenjaminBusch #111 2 years ago

    My thanks to all who have posted supportive comments in response to my brief essay. In seeing some trends I feel it necessary to address a few of these comments. I posted the same on NPR's website.
    I originally titled it "Talibanned" when I submitted it. NPR gave it the more literate title, "Why A Video Game Does Not A Soldier Make". In doing so, some listeners/readers have made the assumption that my focus was simply denouncing a video war game's capacity and intention to train game players to be soldiers. It is, of course, obvious that they cannot, and I did not state that anyone had said that it was their purpose. I reiterate that they can't produce soldiers to bridge the point that they can also not produce Taliban fighters. For readers who were following my message, this particular truth of the game lessens the justification for our military banning it as if it were a threat. For readers who missed the lead story to my opinion piece, I respond to the fact that "Medal of Honor", a video war game based in Afghanistan during our current war there, has been banned from sale on US military bases as well as those of several allied nations. Tim Myers corrected that misunderstanding best in his comment which I repost. Tim Myers wrote: "I don't think Mr. Busch is disputing a claim that video games accurately represent combat, or the life of a soldier. I read his point as being that politicians are misrepresenting what video games do. It is disingenuous - not to mention out of their jurisdiction - for the Pentagon to demand that the makers of Medal of Honor change the names of the enemy from the Taliban to another, fictitious enemy. In my mind, this is tantamount to banning the portrayal of the remains of American servicepersons from being represented to the American public in any form. It is an example of undue government intervention, and a propaganda tool. No rational person believes that playing video games adequately prepares someone for the realities of war. But our government seems to think that they strike close enough to home to censor them. And therein lies the rub."
    Tim may as well have written my essay. It might have been clearer. But NPR would have only given him 3 minutes 12 seconds as well, and that is what took away some of my connective tissue. The essay began at 832 words. It is now 545. Exact time is difficult to write for. You gamers understand the issue of time better than most as your game experience is driven by it. I am glad to see so much discussion on this site which friends directed me to. I hope that some of you will express your thoughts on the NPR site with the essay as their audience is likely a little light on serious gamers.
    For those of you who understood my point and how much of it I could make in the time I had, my thanks. For those who felt I was unclear, I hope that these additional comments allow you to hear the essay differently. I have my problems with "Medal of Honor", but I find it hard to believe that the military found a way to officially ban it from sale on our bases. I stand by my words. Thank you all for talking it out. Here is the story:
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...

  • Gamer_Zero #112 2 years ago

    "Imagine how frustrating this game would be if, just as you began to play it, an invisible sniper shot you dead every time,"

    Well, they do say multiplaer is very similar to BFBC2.

  • deadsoldiers #113 2 years ago

    "This is a man who is willing to kill people for real, criticising people who play video games for fun in their spare time. GREAT.

    Why doesn't he talk about the real knock on effects of Afghanistan? Such as Islamophobia and it's real-life effects from the sort of meat heads who would probably also want to kill some "A-rabs". Why is he not angry about the civillians his people have harmed and killed? Why is he not utterly enraged by the lies that led to his army being in Afghanistan in the first place?

    No, instead he wants to question OUR morality!

    What will he criticise next time? Sergeant Bilko?"

    Because after 8 years of Bush-era driven, neoconservadurism-fueled, paranoia and hatred driven military invasions, we've all come to accept soldiers invading a country that didnt attack them as the norm, and more so, as the "guardians of our freedom." Soldier dude, STFU, seriously. You're no higher ground to tell anyone what they should or not play or do. Nobody seems to care know why they're even there since 2003. Like that old hippie song, so what are they fighting for, now actually I dont give a ****. You know, it's really funny that a pathetic bunch of tools like this guy are complaining on their portrayal in a freaking video game. Ooh, soldiers are not being shown as the awesome guys they are. Funny how times change. None of this worthless drivel was spewed back when one of the most highly regarded games, one game called Half Life was released, in which US soldiers were, the bad guys you had to kill.

    This is like Jeffrey Dahmer complaining that the last Man Hunt game was an offense and an inaccurate display of what a serial killer is. And yes, I just placed soldiers in the same place as Jeffrey Dahmer, because soldiers in the end, it doesnt matter if they are your brother, sister, fianceé, uncle, whatever, they are nothing but tools and trained killers. They know what they're getting into when they signed the contract. So quit your whining and go back to your killing, tool.