"Someone's got to be the Taliban"

By Johnny Minkley Published 15 October, 2010

Does Medal of Honor really respect the soldier?

After months of controversy, Medal of Honor finally went on sale today. You know, just in case you didn't notice.

From the moment EA announced that the reboot of the franchise would be set in Afghanistan, it didn't take Mystic Meg to foresee the ramifications of the decision.

From Defence Secretary Liam Fox's ill-informed calls for this "thoroughly un-British game" to be banned (he was at least literally correct in that British troops do not feature), to EA's eleventh-hour removal of the Taliban from multiplayer in the face of sustained pressure, the debate has frequently been unedifying, but the game's content demands it.

I am of the view that EA has every right to set its game where and when it chooses and, once passed by the ratings body, the decision rests with individual consumers as to whether they play it or not, whatever their reasons.

Having said that, while I'll defend utterly EA's right to make a game about the war in Afghanistan, the publisher has done itself few favours in defending the decision.

Basing a game on a war that is still raging and killing will clearly and understandably provoke emotive responses. So, when a "disgusted and angry" Fox brands the option to play as the Taliban against US soldiers in multiplayer "tasteless", how does EA respond? By equating it with a childhood game of cops and robbers:

"Most of us have been doing this since we were seven: someone plays the cop, someone must be robber. In Medal of Honor multiplayer, someone's got to be the Taliban."

Pathetic. And strikingly at odds with the stuck-record "respect for the soldier" auto-response robotically repeated in every other press release and interview.

I intended to review Medal of Honor on national radio last Saturday. While in the studio, the news bulletin led with the latest death of a British soldier, Sergeant Peter Rayner, killed in an explosion in southern Afghanistan. We quickly decided that, given the 'light' tone of games coverage, it really wasn't appropriate to feature EA's title.

In 10 years as a journalist this is the first time current affairs have impacted on the straightforward practice of game reviewing. It's familiar territory for other media: television shows can be pulled from schedules if their content clashes uncomfortably with tragic events in the news.

I don't see this in any way as an argument against EA making the game. But this is uncertain ground for the games industry and delicate steps are required.

If you accept the proposition that, if current conflicts can be dramatised in novels and on TV and film, then of course they can in videogames, the important question then becomes: how good a job does EA do of this?

In the original press release announcing Medal of Honor, an EA exec is quoted as saying: "We felt it was important to tell the story of today's war and today's elite soldiers via today's most relevant medium - videogames".

The argument that likely many more people will experience Medal of Honor's story in game form, compared with, say, last year's Oscar-winner The Hurt Locker, is not without merit; but is it a good medium through which to "tell the story"?

To the team's credit, it has avoided the deliberately provocative tactics seen in Modern Warfare 2, notably the infamous 'No Russian' level. It's a more sober, less absurd experience by design that goes out of its way to avoid making any grandiose political statements - indeed the only uncomfortable moment for me came in a needlessly gung-ho CGI sequence at the game's climax.

The terrain of Afghanistan informs the gameplay to a great extent, playing on the confusion of the mountainous environment and the perpetual fear of ambush. Beyond that, however, as Tom noted in his review, it's "just a shooting gallery" - an often excellent, but overwhelmingly generic one.

The clumsily-written, disjointed narrative does not distract from what is a tense, enjoyable, commendable return to form for the series. But it offers little meaningful insight into the conflict itself - if that is indeed what EA hoped to achieve.

Beneath the controversy, Danger Close has produced an uncontroversially good game. But does it advance gaming's cause as a medium for exploring the complex themes of a current conflict? Not by an inch.

Picture of Johnny.

About Johnny Minkley

Johnny Minkley is a veteran games writer and broadcaster, former editor of Eurogamer TV, VP of gaming charity SpecialEffect, and hopeless social media addict.

Read more articles from Johnny by visiting the Johnny Minkley archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (78) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • beckyh #1 2 years ago

    Mine arrived yesterday and I played it and finished it. Enjoyable game with some fun levels. But it didn't make me want to join the armed forces. What it did do though more than in any other war fps make shake me up and make me think about what the armed forces do in war. If people play the belly of the beast level in the wadi they will see what I mean. It was quite unsettling and made me wonder how on earth there were no more deaths for real in Afghanistan.
    Edited by beckyh at 15/10/10 @ 12:12

  • karooo #2 2 years ago

    Gamers dont care they just wanna shoot. EA just hyped up the Taliban BS and it backfired on them.

  • Das_Ginge #3 2 years ago

    I havent played this yet, but I will. However it seems EA really missed an opertunity here to do something special, they could have made it, respectful and classy instead them seem to have missed that point.

    I do think that to some extent they are right, someone does have to be the bad guy, however is the generic arab "oposing force" any less offensive then actually saying they are the Taliban?

    The Taliban are a legitimate side in the real war, they have held a large well supplied invading army at bay for close to a decade, and show no signs of slowing down. If a game is being respectful of soldiers surely acknowledging this fact would be high up on the list.

  • SpaceMonkey77 #4 2 years ago

    Agreed. I got my copy yesterday, and after finishing the single player campaign, I was very underwhelmed, thinking of what this could have been, had EA not castrated their supposedly big corporate nuts, have way through development. I was expecting that Taliban single player game to be there, and it wasn't. What a missed opportunity.

    I like my games to be memorable if possible, and little in it will have me thinking about current conflicts at all. So strange it is that by trying to be more realistic, and not doing so enough, has also played right into Activision's hands. CoD7 will now clean house in November.

  • gribb #5 2 years ago

    @Das_Ginge respectful to our soldiers, not theirs is a more apt description of the Medal of Honor campaign.

  • Sunyavadin #6 2 years ago

    Bowing to pressure from Fox 'News' is pretty pathetic.

    More pathetic when the US government fire people based on it.

    But yeah, they lost masses of respect for that.
    If they'd included the name it would just be a generic, swiftly forgotten FPS.
    The thing people forget is, when you censor a word, you give that word power. It suddenly has more meaning to people. On the other hand, if everyone is exposed to it constantly, the concept behind it becomes something people care less and less about.

  • Golgo #7 2 years ago

    Personally I don't believe EA pulled the Taliban reference at the 11th hour, as alleged. The manufacture and distribution of videogame disks, instruction booklets, etc. on a global scale does not happen/cannot be changed overnight. I bet the non-Taliban version was well into production a while back, and EA just milked the Taliban angle until the last minute for publicity reasons. I'm happy to be called wrong on this, but that's what it smells like to me.

  • SteveHolt #8 2 years ago

    Agreed, comparing the Hurt Locker with MOH's story mode is a good place to start: the movie completely obliterates the game, by all accounts: smarter, scarier, more action-packed, more accurate and more respectful.

  • Spekingur #9 2 years ago

    Hurt Locker is still a movie made to entertain.

  • FreakyZoid #10 2 years ago

    > Bowing to pressure from Fox 'News' is pretty pathetic.

    Where does Fox News come in to this?

  • TheElfishGene #11 2 years ago

    "I intended to review Medal of Honor on national radio last Saturday. While in the studio, the news bulletin led with the latest death of a British soldier, Sergeant Peter Rayner, killed in an explosion in southern Afghanistan. We quickly decided that, given the 'light' tone of games coverage, it really wasn't appropriate to feature EA's title. "

    It's a game only a game regardless of subject and setting, your decsion to pull the review was wrong and overtly sentimental you could have changed the "light" tone of the review and turned into a memorial out of respect for the guy, do you seriously think most servicemen and their familys give a rats arse about a video game, i served in the 80's and inbetween patrols and overseas deployments i would watch and love war films, the gorier the more realistic the better, if games then had been like they are now and featured the Falklands or NI the whole country would have been playing them with Thatcher cheering us on all the way.
    War is hell granted but kow towing and hiding from the mainstream media and society because you felt it was the right thing too do is just plain cowardice, society today is just far far to pc a few liberals start crying about this that and the other and the whole country starts screaming, get off your high horse and go review the damn game.

  • brseg #12 2 years ago

    I feel a bit out of step here, but personally I *don't* support the gratuitous use of a current war setting. Hurt Locker is a million miles from the MoH shoot-fest. It feels disrespectful.

  • HisDudness #13 2 years ago

    cheeky_error: I haven't played MoH, but from what I understand it wouldn't be a stretch to see combatants who were involved in Chechnya also fighting in Afghanistan. The Mujahideen (not necessarily ethnic Chechen) engage national militaries on many fronts. But I concede that it would be strange to have Chechen rebels fighting in Afghanistan.

  • lordofthedunce #14 2 years ago

    Do games even need to touch on these subjects in this 'real' way?

    Allowing people to take control of once side or another in a MP situation does nothing to enhance the medium's credibility to tell a story responsibly because FPSs are pretty much about shooting people in the face.

  • Jonny5Alive7 #15 2 years ago

    They were probably always going to pull it, its got them a ton of free publicity. It only leads to more sales not less.

  • kangarootoo #16 2 years ago

    "I am of the view that EA has every right to set its game where and when it chooses"

    Its a shame that this discussion so often descends into defending the RIGHT of publishers to release one kind of game or another. For me that discussion is short and clear. EA absolutely have the right, and I would not want them to be prevented from it.

    The question me, is whether EA SHOULD. Given that they have the right to make pretty much whatever game they want, the issue becomes what game do they CHOOSE to make.



    @cheeky_error

    "Bowing to pressure from Liam Fox is pretty pathetic"

    I've said this in previous threads, but I'll repeat it here. The whole pitch of MOH, and the whole issue of naming the Taliban, was done in the name of selling games.

    When it became clear than naming the Taliban might actually harm sales, EA changed it. There was no "backing down", there was no "changing tact". This entire exercise has always been in the name of maximising sales, and all EA have done is modified their marketing campaign as time passed in order to continue to maximise those sales. This is not remotely uncommon a practice.

    So they aren't gutless, because it was never a gutsy move in the first place. And they haven't let gamers down, because they weren't doing it for us. People are assigning noble motives to EA, and then crying foul when they turn their back on those principles, but the mistake was in assigning those motives in the first place. It was never about anything but the sales, and nothing but nothing has changed in that respect.
    Edited by kangarootoo at 15/10/10 @ 12:50

  • jebus #17 2 years ago

    @Spekingur "Hurt Locker is still a movie made to entertain."

    Epic fail there then.
    Dull as the proverbial dishwater I thought.

  • HisDudness #18 2 years ago

    Cheeky_error: It seems a bit Clancy-esque, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were veterans of the Chechen wars (not necessarily ethnic Chechens) also fighting in Afghanistan, just like there were veterans of the Aghanistan war (1980), fighting in Chechnya.

  • kangarootoo #19 2 years ago

    @Spekingur

    The motive behind a movie or game doesn't change what it is. A movie made to entertain can still inform and challenge respectfully. A game made "to tell the story right" (not that I believe that was the motive here) can still end up being a hollow shooting gallery.

  • geeza2020 #20 2 years ago

    God this is boring, this is an EA publicity stunt and that is all.

    Articles and other media focus about the "furore" around the game are all manufactured by EA to try and sell more copies. Its a well know tactic in the industry. Looking back over the years at games that have had controversial elements; MW2 No russian level, Mortal Kombat with its OTT gore, GTA:SA hot coffee, Manhunt's depictions of murder and torture. All these games sold varying amounts, but there is no doubt that the media spotlight on them did nothing but enhance the sales of these games.

    And today it seems that big publishers like EA know this, so will add elements like the Taliban to their games just so it gets more attention. I mean MoH looks extremely average anyway, and without the "removal of Taliban" incident we have going on, I think a large chunk of people would be totally unaware of the games existence, or if they were aware, just would have no interest in the game as it is an average fps at best.

  • Bigglesworth #21 2 years ago

    Kangarootoo once again beats me to my own opinion =)

    So much talk of rights, none of responsibilities.

  • Gamez_Kartel #22 2 years ago

    Fact still stands that Eurogamer have been confused with their review scores lately. A decent game like Mafia 2 shoulda at least got a 6 or 7 but rather a 4, how insulting. FIFA 11 gets a 8 when it's obviously a 9. Now we got MoH getting an 8 when most other sites gave it far less. I don't take your reviews seriously anymore.

  • kangarootoo #23 2 years ago

    @cheeky_error

    No doubt those first few levels are well designed and fun to play. It strikes me that "well designed" and "fun to play" are the things that matter in a game. The real world setting means nothing to us really, but still we vent rage when someone wants to take it away from us.

    PlugMonkey put it very well in another thread, in response to someone saying "its just a game, its not real" and I shall cheekily paraphrase in his absence.

    "But war and grief are very real. Why does the not real matter more than the real. Its a pointless little game, so why even go there. It matters to them (grieving objectors etc), it doesn't matter to us, so why not give them a wide birth and leave them the fuck alone."

    This made a lot of sense to me. That the game is set in real Afghanistan in a real and current conflict really means borderline zero to us gamers. Our experience will be defined by the pacing, and graphics, and the sharpness of the controls, and the level design, and all those "gamey" things. Yet when a grieving mother turns up on the news saying this game makes her feel bad, we essentially tell her to toughen up and leave our beloved gaming alone.

    Why? Why why why why why would we do that? As PM said, it matters to her, it doesn't matter to us, so why don't we set the bloody thing in Oz or A galaxy far far away? It. Makes. No. Sense.

  • kangarootoo #24 2 years ago

    @Gamez_Kartel

    I think you want the class next door.

  • CrispyLog #25 2 years ago

    A 'shooting gallery' game is never going to showcase how complex and emotive games can be. If they made a game in which you were a medic spending ages saving people only to then see them get killed, then that could be more sensitive to the suffering of a modern conflict.

  • kangarootoo #26 2 years ago

    @geeza2020

    Its not always a conspiracy you know. The industry grapevine says that Hot coffee was a genuine and painful mistake, and Manhunt 2 failing certification was a massive problem internally. Both were genuine mistakes, and neither of those hiccups paid dividends in the end. MW2 and MK on the other hand, I agree totally (but its not like their marketing was particularly secretive).

  • layleeloo #27 2 years ago

    What gets me is the sheer hypocricy of this. No one will care in 50 years, just like no one objects to Nazi's and the vietnemese etc which you could consider predujicial but it isnt, its just blatant fact of history. Just as this is history in the making. Therefore people should stop pandering about it - im sure all the russians dont like bing the baddies in most games nowarsdays but as there isnt a current war with Russia its not an issue. I say get over it - this has nothing to do with the real war what so ever. It may sound insensitive and no disrespect to the people out there and who have died, but this is still, JUST a game. People need to keep saying that to themselves.
    Edited by layleeloo at 15/10/10 @ 13:22

  • Darksjeik #28 2 years ago

    Nice article but where's that promised Face Off at?
    Edited by Darksjeik at 15/10/10 @ 13:33

  • SteveHolt #29 2 years ago

    kangarootoo wrote: " As PM said, it matters to her, it doesn't matter to us, so why don't we set the bloody thing in Oz or A galaxy far far away? It. Makes. No. Sense. "

    Here comes my pretentious and long-winded analysis:

    Gamers are very adolescent-minded: they want to be treated as adults, which translates in wanting to play mature-themed games. And what's more mature as a theme than an actual, real war? Hence MOH.

    But deep inside they're still children: they want some escapism, huge ka-boom, ultra violence, easy and undisputed victory. That's why MOH plays like Navy Seals the movie, and not like Platoon (also starring Charlie Sheen BTW)

    That's why we have games like MW2, RDR, MOH or heavy rain, which are basically "an adolescent take on a mature subject". If any moral authority watches while you playing, you can tell him/her: "you see, games are for adults. I'm an adult".

    That's why some people are uncomfortable wih Bayonetta, Halo, viva pinata or cell-shaded Zelda: those games don't "look" mature enough, even if their gameplay is better than their "grittier" equivalents... And that's why MOH doesn't take place in "a galaxy far far away".

  • el_pollo_diablo #30 2 years ago

    Medal of Honor: Invading Shops Now.

  • ucankurbaga #31 2 years ago

    Why are people talking about this game anymore, it is crap game, rushed for early release, not even worth discussing...

  • el_pollo_diablo #32 2 years ago

    Well it was released today.

    You youngsters with your short attention spans etc...

  • CatWeazle #33 2 years ago

    I doubt EA really care. Their aim is to infiltrate the "Shooting-Gallery FPS" space, and it will be a long term plan. If this year they have managed to sneak 25% of sales which would otherwise have gone on COD7, they will be happy. Next year (and this *will* be a yearly franchise) they will hope to garner maybe 40% or 50%, and so on.. Next year's installment will be set in a different conflict no doubt.

  • kangarootoo #34 2 years ago

    @layleeloo

    "It may sound insensitive and no disrespect to the people out there and who have died, but this is still, JUST a game. People need to keep saying that to themselves."

    Or.

    Or, we could say to ourselves, "it doesn't matter where it is set" and knowing this to be true, we could just get over it.

    Why can't we say that? That way, it doesn't sound insensitive, indeed it isn't insensitive, nobody gets upset, and the end gaming experience for us is as good as identical. What is wrong with that plan? Just a thought.

  • kangarootoo #35 2 years ago

    @SteveHolt!!!

    A good, if hardsh, analysis.

    My solution to all of that is easy. A two step plan if you like.

    1. Play the games you enjoy playing, however nerdy or kiddy they might appear.
    2. Get a bit of self confidence, and don't seek validation from others on the basis of how "kiddy" they think your hobbies are.

    Tadaaaa!


    Seriously kids, if you learn how to kiss properly (i.e. better than every other boy in your school), that girl you like in Geography won't give a fuck what you do in your spare time (this is a lesson I wish I had learned sooner :) ).

  • kongzi #36 2 years ago

    This article doesn't get to the point. It poses question and instead of answering them it goes into a sort of mini-review of the game.

    So.. does MOH really respect the soldier?
    I still think the best way to respect soldiers is by showing their work and the situations and surroundings they do it in as they are. Don't cover it up. If you are bold enough to blatantly cash in on 'current events' (or tragedies is more like it), at least be honest about it. EA is giving off a seriously mixed message here: on one hand war is awesome and cool and the kids love it, but on the other hand it's totally serious business and you must only talk about it in the most serious terms and be sure not to offend anybody. It's cheap.. i may like this game, but something gives me a sour taste about it. Something I didn't have with MW2's no russian bit (actually thought that was pretty smart comment on yourself as the player, we like to say "it's just a game it dont mean nuthin" but something does change when the game tells you you are killing innocent people. Also it makes you play the villain and the good guy in the same story which I think is a quite imaginative way of bringing interactivity into a linear storyline without having to sacrifice plot and pacing).

    I think maybe in the end MW2 is the more 'respectful' game, because apart from the real world locations, tactics and tools it's obviously fantasy and exploitation: war-porn. It doesn't try to tell you anything about "the people in the field" because it knows it hasn't got anything to say about that, and if it had, making a shooting gallery game out of it isn't the best way to talk about it. If you want that, i'd recommend Generation Kill, an excellent mini series about soldiers in Iraq. In that the "opposing forces" are kept deliberately vague (altough politics are openly discussed). In film you can do that, because it's a passive medium. If it's interactive the opposing force is something the viewer (player) has to interact with so that's not really an option if you're out to make a valid point with your story...
    I don't think EA ever wanted to do that with this game and I don't think it would even technically be possible to do that in a shooter, maybe in a few years. Untill then, if you can't come up with a better concept for a game than guns, toys and big explosions, just give me the best guns, coolest toys and biggest explosions you can make and shut up.

  • Bluetooth #37 2 years ago

    BBlack Ops has bots. I'll buy that.

  • Dave52 #38 2 years ago

    Will you have this sort of article when Black Ops comes out...?

  • layleeloo #39 2 years ago

    @UpperMiddleClass. You said it better than I could when I put "hypocricy". That is what I mean, its OK to shoot these people, but not to play as them? Hence my comment. Its ludicrous.

    @ kangarootoo. Fair point

  • WiseNail #40 2 years ago

    Give me the Covenant, Locust Horde, Chimera, or the Collectors over killing humans any day of the week.

  • el_pollo_diablo #41 2 years ago

    @WiseNail

    I'm the opposite :)

  • layleeloo #42 2 years ago

    Is it just me or when we really think hard, is this issue any different from any of the other hundred we always have. People moan about black people in games a la stereotyping Gears style, people moan about lack of female Heroins or female leads (which I could debate until the cows come home, no pun intended), and now people are moaning about the forces used in a game.

    It seems no matter which way they go about anything in creating games it seems there is always someone who is going to take the hump or get offended. Like someone above said, the only way to avoid these things is to create non specific enemies, non stereotypical leads and basically nothing of anything that stands out or would be seen as fun/humerous or interesting by the average gamer. Which in all fairness would be dull as heck. This being the video gaming industry, someone is always going to moan and complain about something we are playing. Seems nature of the beast nowardays unfortunately.
    Edited by layleeloo at 15/10/10 @ 14:19

  • Spekingur #43 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo #24:
    It can go both ways on both mediums. What did we learn from Hurt Locker? That explosives are dangerous? That being in war is difficult? That war can change your social behaviour and your mental health?

    I enjoyed Hurt Locker but I never viewed it as educational or thought provoking (and it didn't provide those things, at least not for me). MoH doesn't do those things either.
    I also don't think that Hurt Locker provides an accurate picture of the war - not something I could truly judge though because I haven't been in that war and very likely never will, unless it breaks out globally.

  • Judas_Priest #44 2 years ago

    Personally, I believe any representation of war (in a distinctly entertainment medium at least) will never be truly respectful to the soldiers and their families and as such I believe that focusing on less realistic circumstances is generally the more thoughtful towards those who have been, or continue to be affected by the conflict in the world.

  • layleeloo #45 2 years ago

    @Judas_Priest "Personally, I believe any representation of war (in a distinctly entertainment medium at least) will never be truly respectful to the soldiers".

    Good point there. At the end of the day can the viewers of players of any media TRULY respect them to a high enough degree unless you have been in their shoes in reality?. I think not.

  • yoomazir #46 2 years ago

    This game is going to be popular in Afghanistan

  • joelstinton #47 2 years ago

    The problem with MOH, it has nothing of value to defend it self with against critics. The narrative, and the game offers no insight into the war in afghanistan, it's copy and pasted B movie script does not help matters. if the game offered some sort meaninfgul narrative that has something to say about what is happening then there could be a debate. whilst i agree that writers have a right to set a story in any time, any where they wish, there is also a need for game stories, characters, and worlds to move beyond the norm that have existed for some 20 years of gaming now. EA missed a big opputunity to say to the media, skeptics of gaming and yaysayers of games are good for no one, that this medium has something truly great to say. failed. big time.

  • Bremenacht #48 2 years ago

    How nice to know the hype over this shallow game is almost at an end.

  • Gecks #49 2 years ago

    i don't think there's nothing to be gained by setting a game in a real situation, even one as sensitive as afghanistan. there's a degree of gravitas they could hit when slapped right in the middle of something that's currently just a headline; a breaking news ticker; a grieving mother. i think it's arbitrary to say that WW2 is fine, or Vietnam is fine, because they were a 'long' time ago - many have been affected by those conflicts, and continue to be.

    at least, that's the argument i'd use if MOH was 'the thin red line: the game', but i gather it isn't.

  • Judas_Priest #50 2 years ago

    @layleeloo

    Precisely.

    EDIT: Lol, someone went around negging all the comments.... bar one.
    Edited by Judas_Priest at 15/10/10 @ 15:39

  • obscured021 #51 2 years ago

    I dont see what the big deal is renaming the other side, you got to play as nazis in the older games and no one compained same with the first few cods.

  • sberemski #52 2 years ago

    There is a lot of bullshit on all sides here....

    Who cares that you can play as the Taliban (especially in multilayer where story/meaning is basically irrelevant to the motivations of the player)? Its only a game! Its not like previous COD/MOH were condemned for allowing you to play as the Nazis.

    EA are so full of bullshit in claiming this game "respects the soldier blah blah blah". How is equating killing soldiers on the battlefield with earning points used to customise your avatar respectful?. I hardly think that you will see the armed forces in Fallujah popping a few Taliban in the head and then going back to base apply the new camo paint they have just unlocked. WTF?!

    The SP of this game dramatises combat and tells the story in the way that any good "Saving Private Ryan" Will. The MP...thats just paintball....I dont think that anyone cares who they are shooting as long as the game mechanics are good.

    If EA want to publish a game that really tells the story of the sacrifices soldiers make for their country they should do a point-and-click adventure game that tells a story a soldier who has come back from combat, can't find a job, can't find his sanity and can't re-adjust back to civilian life. You could also have some kind of binge drinking minigame or something.

  • carlitoswagon #53 2 years ago

    Off the topic, but thought you had to Pre-order for access to Battlefield 3 beta. Looks like that's not the case. This'lll be going cheap very soon and looks like a decent shooter. No harm waiting for a bargain with access to an all out war game.

  • kangarootoo #54 2 years ago

    @layleeloo

    We shouldn't fall into a mindset of "it seems nothing I do is right, so I'm just not going to bother".

    And this current issue differs slightly from the GeOW racial stereo type you mentioned. Racial stereo types in games are almost always a result of ignorance and a lack of imagination rather than a conscious decision. It is also a very grey area, as you cannot state as a fact "that is a racial stereotype" in the same way you can state "that game is based on a real and current war".

    The response to a racial stereotype slip up could perhaps be "try harder in your character development and writing", whereas the accusation for MOH might be "make better game concept choices".

  • kangarootoo #55 2 years ago

    @Spekingur

    I've not seen Hurt Locker, so I can't comment on the specifics, but it is probably fair to say that very few films about war are 100% authentic, and those that are don't make for very enjoyable or even very interesting watching. Films above all else must contains drama for them to be watchable (drama in the true sense, which comes in many forms, but involves essentially conflict and resolution).


    @Gecks

    I suppose some might say that an emotional scene (even if very well scripted) dropped into the middle of a game of recharching health and quad bike chases is out of place and is no recompense for the lack of authenticity witnessed elsewhere.


    @sberemski

    I wish you hadn't included the immortal line "its just a game", as everything in your post was right on the money :)

  • Spekingur #56 2 years ago

    Naturally they need to involve drama and excitement of high enough values to be enjoyable by most.
    Computer games achieve the same thing in diffirent ways (mostly through interaction).

    Games are not films. They are diffirent mediums to convey something for you to enjoy and/or entertain yourself.
    Thus comparing a film with a computer game is somewhat unfair to both sides.

  • davidov92 #57 2 years ago

    I can't see why it's just a shooting gallery. It's already better than CoD MW2, and that's what it was meant to be.

  • Quixz #58 2 years ago

    Currently playing and enjoying every minute! :)

  • benfresh76 #59 2 years ago

    When (if) I'm ever online with this, and one ignorant, adolescent yank after another is calling me a faggot and then teabagging me, I'll be sure to remember that this game was made to revere the dedication and sacrifice of our armed forces in this ongoing, messy and tragic conflict.

    I'd love to see game makers attempt to make a war game with 'soul', but until the audience (the vocal majority of which currently seems perfectly satisfied with brainless, crude and disrespectful shooters) demands it, it will never happen.

  • jambo74 #60 2 years ago

    Pick it up budget in 2 months

  • ktwse #61 2 years ago

    @kongzi nails it in post #45.

    Very well written, film is a passive medium and as such can comment on current/controversial events in a much less biased way. Simply because YOU don't have to pick sides. Games desperately try to be perceived as adults (as @SteveHolt!!! wrote) but most of them end up adolescents. Demanding attention, demanding to be treated as grown ups with no clue whatsoever what that really entails. Very few games come close - most strikingly, the most adult games I've played in my 29 years of gaming have been the ones that didn't try: Ico is perhaps the best example; a well conceived story beautifully told but certainly not a game aspiring to be "serious" or "adult", simply a game aiming at telling a story very well.

    Hurt Locker and Generation Kill are two excellent references since neither ever attempts to glorify the events playing out on screen. Being stories told in a passive medium, they get away with that. Games by their very design put the viewer in the role of the lead, and since an intrinsic aspect of any type of gaming is reward, they NEED to glorify the player, ie the lead character. Meaning they can never be completely unbiased unless they disconnect themselves from situations which demand bias.

    Thiis what eg Ico does so well, but where most games fail miserably. I'd say Heavy Rain is the most recent example of a game that successfully manages to tell a more adult story, if only for the fact that it doesn't glorify any one character: play the game right and you're awarded with the Perfect Crime trophy for getting away with the murder...

  • Rodchenko #62 2 years ago

    Currently playing and enjoying every minute!

    I am not trying to criticize you personally as I also generally play and 'enjoy' these type of games, but in the end there is something inherently wrong and rather revolting about drawing pleasure and enjoyment out of something that has a human war and the killing in it as a central motive.

    To bring in another movie comparision: There is nothing really 'enjoyable' about Kubrick's 'Paths of Glory' – for me the only 'anti-war' movie that really works – yet the experience of watching it is still involving and captivating in an emotional sense. It's a movie that leaves you in a depressed but thinking state of mind, which, imo, is the only state you should be left in when it comes to this subject matter.

    Sadly, computer games based on a (human) conflict seem to have a long way to go before they are able to trigger such reactions and as long as they fail in doing so, they will – imo – always remain cynical, questionable or outright forgettable.

  • silent_snake #63 2 years ago

    We have yet to see the "Apocalypse Now" of video games.
    And judging by today's industry standards it will be a long wait.

  • benfresh76 #64 2 years ago

    Since when did war boil down to killing everything that moves? I cant imagine a more disrespectful interpretation of the incredibly complex and difficult work the various branches of the military are engaged in in the middle east, let alone the military and civilian casualties on both sides of this conflict. Until game designers can find the will (and the market) to engage the player in a more meaningful and revealing interpretation of sensitive, contemporary conflict, games of this kind will play a significant role in holding back the credibility and cultural value of the medium.

  • SEMacDowall #65 2 years ago

    The only way this game would be morally justifiable is if you played as the Taliban throughout, considering we invaded their country.This game is about as much fun as playing a Nazi soldier invading Poland.

  • Symbul #66 2 years ago

    It just seems ludicrous to me to elevate the inclusion of historically accurate forces in a (loosely) historical wargame to any kind of disrespect to soldiers. It's a video game. We know games don't make us rabid killers, sociopaths or any other nonsense that's been spewed. MOH is not out there elevating the Taliban and their ambitions and this unnecessary sensitivity to it is absurd. If they can make games where you play the Waffen SS without anyone blinking an eye but not include a local guerilla faction in Afghanistan and Pakistan then I just don't know what to say. Too soon? Christ almighty, come on.

    Not that I think the Afghanistan conflict is particularly interesting from a wargame perspective. And I did not buy COD, but that's got nothing to do with what the bad guys are called.

  • man.the.king #67 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    Sometimes I wish you were one of the writers on EG - would certainly make for more interesting reading :)

  • man.the.king #68 2 years ago

    @sberemski

    "I hardly think that you will see the armed forces in Fallujah popping a few Taliban in the head and then going back to base apply the new camo paint they have just unlocked."

    BTW, Fallujah (or Falluja) is in Iraq - I don't think you will find any Taliban there :)

  • man.the.king #69 2 years ago

    @SEMacDowall

    "The only way this game would be morally justifiable is if you played as the Taliban throughout, considering we invaded their country.This game is about as much fun as playing a Nazi soldier invading Poland."

    I agree - next they will be setting FPS/TPS in Iraq and searching for "those WMDs" (which, unsurprisingly, will actually turn up at the end of every level/chapter and include fantastical weapons like futuristic biochemical/sonic/nuclear devices), while completely ignoring the real reasons for that particular war.
    Edited by man.the.king at 16/10/10 @ 07:19

  • J.C #70 2 years ago

    EA games. hate the company. and its crap like this that makes them such total cunts. dead space is good though :)

  • Dylbot #71 2 years ago

    Congratulations, Johnny, now you're just as Daily Mail as everyone else whinging about this issue. Fucking hack.

  • AOFanboi #72 2 years ago

    These military shooters are already sanitized a lot - what with the near total lack of civilians, as opposed to in real life? Soldiers having been weaned on these games entering the real forces might not be aware that not every other person they run into is an enemy soldier.

    That said, perhaps the devs shopuld have left out multiplayer altogether, then the only ire would have been from pasty-faced nerds instead of media and the politicans.

  • Iain815 #73 2 years ago

    'Steve Holt is a bastard. He doesn't even know who his real father is. What else don't we know about Steve Holt?'

  • Freek #74 2 years ago

    Games can clearly handel drama and story in a mature way. Look at Ico or Heavy Rain. It's possible to tell a good story and have gameplay that supports that.
    But that has to be your goal from the outset. And in the case of MoH you get the impression that the marketing and publishing part of the company had a totally different idea then the creative side.
    One side wanted a billion selling casual friendly war game a la Call of Duty the other wanted to tell a more authetic story with the involvement of the actual soldier who have fought in Afgahnistan.
    The resulting clash gave us a game that does neither particularly well.

  • CHACK #75 2 years ago

    well its done over 200K at retail since Friday so I guess that's a big fat yes then.

  • basstaverns #76 2 years ago

    I played the first few missions, what a load of rubbish over-hyped generic crap. It's completely unoriginal and thoroughly offensive to the everyone involved in the war in Afghanistan, failing to respect local culture in anyway. one of the opening lines "turn this shit off" (aimed at the radio) and the idea that it's absolutely fine to throw a grenade in a random house because you want to go through there. If you make a game that is this contemporary then it should have respect for the people it's dealing with, and this does not.

    @Judas_Priest - couldn't agree with you more

  • bioreit #77 2 years ago

    Pre-edit: This has turned out way longer than I meant it to, but I kind of needed to write this much.

    The way I see it, the negative reaction to possibly being able to play as the Taliban is... goddamn me for saying this.... more than a little bit racist.

    There's been a clear progression of how soldiers are portrayed in other media (mostly film) over the last few decades. Particularly in American WWII movies, American soldiers were initally portrayed as the steroetypical gung-ho Hollywood hero, all Camel-smoking, good ol' farm boy, gen-u-ine true Yanks, fighting for God and mom's apple pie. Especially anything with John Wayne in it.

    This stayed true for a while, including Korean war movies, although you did get the odd film which showed some pathos and the 'horror of war', although this really picked up with the Vietnam war. Not just in how that conflict was portrayed on celluloid, but also in how that conflict enabled a wider acceptance of a more truthful representation of the situation. But they almost completely showed the Americans/Allies to be good, Nazis/South Koreans/VietCong to be bad, with sympathy drawn from the audience as the good guys experienced a very real hell.

    A very small number of films dared to tackle the concept that what was true for the good guys was also true for their counterparts - that they didn't want to be there; that except for this stupid war they'd be at home doing normal things. This, despite the fact that even as far back as WWI (yes, even further than that, but this was as far back as I could recall while still being in the period of mass-media consumption) there were reports of the opposing sides getting on when they weren't trying to kill each other - Christmas game of trench football, anyone? The Great Escape can be used as an example of this, with Colonel von Luger being depicted as a somewhat decent man but restricted in his actions by the fanatical belief in Hitler displayed by many Nazis, especially the SS and Gestapo. An even smaller proprotion of war movies flipped convention on its head and showed the good buys being bad - like Platoon - but these were few and far between.

    By the time of the 1990s, attitudes had changed and audiences were willing (and it could even be argued that in some cases they expected) to see 'the enemy' portrayed in a human way, rather than as one-dimensional cartoon-esque baddies. Saving Private Ryan did a decent job with the last surviving Nazi on that bunker assault - showing him scared for his life, pleading, desperately trying to find some element of sympathy from his captors. Even his subsequent stabbing of Mellish is in keeping with the character of someone who maybe doesn't want to be there, but is doing what he has been trained and needs to do. Three Kings showed a smidgeon of this with some of the Iraqi soldiers, although they tended to the greedy and selfish with an over-riding interest in carrying on the persecution of the Kurds. Even the one officer who was mildly humanised by the story of his family being killed by an American bomb. And Black Hawk Down was even lambasted for its old-fashioned betrayal of the residents of Mogadishu, such had the expectations of war movies changed so much.

    But when it comes to the Taliban, there is no possible element of thinking that some of them maybe don't want to be there - that maybe they've been drafted against their will. Or that they were eager to join, until they realised what war was really like. No - by their very definition for people like Liam Fox, they are all eager, willing and contented members of a terrorist organisation who are not allowed any semblance of personality or free will. They are merely all precise facsimiles of the stereotypical image of an Arab fighter with bandaged AK-47 in hand, as though they've just stepped out of Team America.

    Which is not to say that EA had even the slightest intention of portraying them in this way - I'd imagine the Taliban campaign (if they'd had the guts to make one) would have been precisely the same type of shooting-gallery-with-some-ok-and-sometimes-poignant scripting as the American one, just with different character models and sound samples - but the instant knee-jerk reaction of the Mary Whitehouse inheritors would have prevented any meaningful debate in any case. All that would be seen is that you get to play as the towel-headed bastards - and if you sympathise with even one of them, then you must be one of them too.

    So, if Nazis and Koreans and Iraqi Republican Guard and Kasier Wilhelm's army and the Viet Cong can all be portrayed in a human way without so much as the raising of an eyebrow, why can't the Taliban be seen in a more humanised way? Surely we can't be expected to wait until a couple of decades has passed after the conflict ends? Or are we only permitted to shorten the amount of time between a conflict and a reasonable portrayal of all of its participants if we decisively win?
    Edited by bioreit at 18/10/10 @ 21:30

  • tonyholland #78 2 years ago

    Racist? And what about Black Ops? (poor)