Poll: the new medal of honour; offensive and tasteless, or is that just me?

[Kryzantine]

I feel that this kind of game is necessary for some of us, not tasteless. In fact, I think it's quite sad that the most meaningful timeline a game can have, the present, is severely underused because people might be "offended" at it. What is offensive about video games that isn't already in the real world? People who think that something is offensive in a game are the same people who think it is offensive in real life, is what I'm saying. The content will not actually generate new opinions on the basis of its setting.

I say that the present is the most meaningful timeline a game can have because we play video games to enter a world that is not open to us at the moment. This is the whole reason fantasy is such a popular genre (ironic, really; fantasy should not be a genre because everyone should develop and experience their own fantasy instead of someone elses). War games are traditionally about experiencing wars, its violence and its psychology. What better way for the general population to experience a current conflict without the bullet holes than through video gaming? Let us see just what is going on in Afghanistan, put us in that environment through artificial visuals and sounds, and let that help us make our judgement. It's better than doing another god damned WW2 game anyway.

As a last word, I'm sick of people already hating on MoH months before it even comes out. Let me address the main points:

1. It is not a COD clone. In fact, it's quite far from it. The Modern Warfare series is set in an alternate reality where Soviet remnants take over modern Russia and try to restore the state to its former glory by promoting terrorism against the free world. I can say for sure we won't see any nukes dropped in MoH. I can say for sure we won't have to shoot up a Russian airport terminal. I can say for sure we won't be invading the damned White House, or launching a giant EMP grenade over the capital, or be invading an old Soviet gulag to save a 30 year SAS veteran, or have any evil American generals turn on the SAS. OK, maybe the last one (zing!), but both games involve kicking ass with the US Army Rangers in some capacity, and they have the same weapons, and the similarities are very slim after that.

2. The multiplayer is a BC2 clone. Well, when the same studio works on both the multiplayers in MoH and BC2, which are set in the same general time period with the same guns, I'm actually surprised they didn't recycle the multiplayer and just called it a day. There are quite a few distinctions and it seems to be less of a team effort game, more about cohesion between particular army roles. I haven't played either multiplayer yet, so I honestly can't speak well for this.

3. The multiplayer is a buggy, laggy POS. This is more of a common sense issue, but people can't seem to grasp that it's an open beta for a game that's not coming out in months. Of course it's going to have bugs, lots of them in fact. This is what beta versions of games are like. This is what your precious MW and BC2 multiplayers were like months before their release.

I just think it's a shame that EA is trying something with their series and the gen pop is putting it down because they think it's a copycat. The truth is that it's far more realistic than MW and especially MW2 ever was. I have high hopes for MOH.

 

[Altorin]

If it's not offensive showing soldiers dieing in World War 2, it's not offensive showing them in Helmand. I mean, obviously the current conflict is a lot more relevant, but really, it's still young men dying either way. I figure as long as they handle it respectfully, then I don't think it's offensive. I think media has a moral obligation to report on current events, gaming included.

As for the Taliban thing, from a moral perspective, it could certainly be offensive, but from a pure gameplay standpoint, there really isn't any other way to do it. I mean, how else are you going to represent the enemy in Afghanistan in multiplayer? The only way to do it would be scrap multiplayer entirely.

However, I can certainly understand why you yourself wouldn't want to buy it.

It's more likely to be offensive to middle eastern people then westerners.

 

[Mstrswrd]

It's about as offensive as every movie on the subject; that is to say, it might be if they aren't careful, but if they have even 2 brain-cells to rub together, it won't be. It could, if they do it right, be very good, showing the horrors of war and still being an enjoyable game, much in the same way that Saving Private Ryan was done well enough to get the point across (war is hell), but, as a movie, it's still enjoyable (though in an odd way).

 

[fenderstrat]

maybe taliban are people too?

 

[lostzombies.com]

Wait, hold on. Back up. FOUR dead in a week is 'SLAUGHTERED?'

I've never understood the vast disparity in death counts. It takes thousands in a few hours for third world death tolls to be news worthy (but tens of thousands over the course of several months or years isn't), it takes hundreds of first world civilian casualties before the news is interested, but less than one soldier dying per day is a national tragedy.

Jesus fucking christ.

Especially if you have any interest in history these modern day conflicts are nothing compared to the past. The British media has been going crazy because 300 people have died this year in Afganistan. Any death is sad but the media seem to be ignorant of the fact that hundreds of millions of soldiers alone died last century (In living memory), just scanning down casualty lists from WW1 and picking one battle:

Brusilov Offensive WW1 - nearly 2.5 million casualties in less than 4 months

It probably sounds offhand but when you have an interest in history (everyone should) the kind of numbers that are being reported in Iraq/Afganistan are something that would not even raise an eyebrow for a few minutes of fighting in previous conflicts. I mean did everyone either forget about the horrendous losses that are still in living memory or have the media simply decided that soldiers nowadays are worth more than people who fought in WW1/2?

It may just be me but it kind of seems disrespectful to the people who fought wars that actually meant something.

 

[mchoueiri]

Its a game, get over it. The only thing insensitive about it is the fact that they're just bleeding the FPS genre dry.

so true

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

Situation is kind of like the 2012 movie, thing.

You're.........kidding, right?

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I find that tremendously insensitive, and I think anyone who doesn't intuitively sense the difference between simulations of 50-60 year wars and those of modern conflicts producing new casualties every day... well, you're either ignorant beyond belief or a complete shithead.

So basically: "If you don't agree with my definition of insensitive, you are a fucking retard."

Such a shining example of debating skills, sir.

Why is Modern Warfare 2 any different?

If you're going to pick apart a post, do it correctly.

WW2 was 65 years ago. We've had that long to process, examine, and grieve. We've had books and films and a very long time to distance ourselves from the trauma of that global event.

The war against the Taliban, and the associated trauma, is ongoing. As we type, men and women are dying overseas. We haven't processed any of it, and simulations are going to reopen psychological wounds that haven't even begun to heal.

When I said people are either ignorant or "fucking retarded" (as you put it), I was referring to those who cannot see the distinction between these two conflicts. I was specific in my language.

Time is definitely a factor when it comes to what is and isn't insensitive. You wouldn't bug someone right after his mom died, would you? Then why do you think it's not at all insensitive to simulate for fun the horrendous combat that steals young lives as we speak?

I don't think MW2 is much different at all. I think that's a pretty offensive game as well.

Of course, people are welcome to do whatever they please in the privacy of their own homes. If you want to play "plant the IED" on your computer or Xbox or whatever, by all means, go right ahead. But there are a lot of people out there who get sick at the thought of so many other people enjoying a rough estimate of the experience that ruins so many lives. I happen to think they've every right to be offended.

 

[RedBeta22]

Ive been playing the PS3 beta for the past week, I can not freaking wait for MOH. Who cares about the setting.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

let me set the context, I have a friend in 40 Commando, and if your not British or don't follow the news, they are getting slaughtered. 4 dead in the last week, and that figure is liable to be out of date soon.

So with friends and loved ones being brought home in cold steel boxes every day, is the new Medal of Honour game, which allows people to fight as the Taliban against the Coalition Forces in Helmand province, where my friend is fighting now, today, offensive to anyone else?

I understand that games need to be a bit naughty to get attention (vis a vie modern warfare 2) but I won't be buying Medal of Honour. Its... well it makes me feel nausous turning on the news and waiting for a name i know to be listed, so why should some game devolper who wanks off to clips on youtube of IEDs destroying Humvees get my money?

I think that you are being just a tad sensitive, it is a game after all, if you don't like it don't buy it. But as has already been stated tonnes of times, MoH is about accuracy. Plus I don't see how it's any different to MW2 when playing as Opfor, you are playing as the enemy, killing us, it's the same thing. And MoH looks like it will be a really good game with a nice balance between BC2 and MW2.

 

[ClaptonKnophlerHendrix]

But it's okay to play as the Western forces because they're only killing Afghans? It's just the other side of the coin. One side would always have to be the Afghan forces in the multiplayer. There are people in the world who would be offended because you're able to play as Western soldiers, because they have links with Afghan soldiers. Besides, this is no worse and possibly better then the "No Russian" mission in MW2 from a Westerners viewpoint.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

-Snip-

In a nutshell, it's a game. You are targeting but pixels on a screen, killing them with pixels from a gun image produced by pixels. Yes, people are dying as we speak in war, but that is a reality of war as well. Sure, I can understand people being offended over a modern situation portrayed in which a relative of theirs is placing their lives in danger, or dying. But so much sensitivity towards a game that portrays the realism of what war represents, and that even the enemy is a human being as well, is dangerous. Would you advocate the removal of all war related movies, in which case you are watching historically realistic wars occurring, just without actually pushing a button to fire a pixellated gun at a target as though you would in a video game scenario?

 

[RobCoxxy]

Did you ever play as OpFor in COD4? Same thing really. Except it was obviously Iraq, and obviously the Iraqi army you were fighting.

I don't find it offensive or tastless. I've got 2 friends about to go to Afghanistan, 1 due to come back, and 1 just finishing training, as is probably going to be posted out there next year. It's not like it's some kind of anti-forces hate message.

Fun fact: OpFor is short for "Opposing Force" which in US army wargames is the name of the "enemy" team.

Better, less obvious fact: FNG means "Fucking New Guy"

OT: It's not that offensive, OP. Not exactly tasteless either. We already have films about the current war, it makes sense gaming is the next step.

I also wonder if there's mini games where the Coalition forces torture and humiliate POWs. That would be offensive.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

In a nutshell, it's a game. You are targeting but pixels on a screen, killing them with pixels from a gun image produced by pixels. Yes, people are dying as we speak in war, but that is a reality of war as well. Sure, I can understand people being offended over a modern situation portrayed in which a relative of theirs is placing their lives in danger, or dying. But so much sensitivity towards a game that portrays the realism of what war represents, and that even the enemy is a human being as well, is dangerous. Would you advocate the removal of all war related movies, in which case you are watching historically realistic wars occurring, just without actually pushing a button to fire a pixellated gun at a target as though you would in a video game scenario?

Well put.

One thing that bothers me is the feeling that people are profiting from the conflict. This is one area where books and films are slightly less vulnerable to accusations of insensitivity. A giant MOH reboot from EA, with tens of millions of dollars behind it, is clearly aimed at dethroning CoD and generating untold hundreds of millions in revenue for the publisher. It's not about honoring the troops or telling their story or even critiquing the war. It's just business. That's the part that would offend me. Just so happens I don't have any close relatives or friends overseas right now, so I'm not directly offended by this product. I am, however, empathetic towards those who are impacted by the war. Their indignation towards this game is 100% justified.

 

[Cogwheel]

I can definitely see why you're offended. Seems quite insensitive to me. As for everyone who finds this hypocritical/a double standard/just like MW2, sure. This is why I refuse to play any games like this. Seems rather exploitative, anyway, making games based on actual wars or disasters and so forth. I certainly don't have any respect for games like that, but that's just me. Some people don't mind - quite a few, actually, if the profits they make are anything to go by. Good for them, but I personally have a problem with it.

..Right, that came off as a little on the flametastic side of things. Sorry if I offended anyone, that wasn't my intention. I'll go hide over there and wait for my potential probation, then.

 

[Kair]

I actually find having to fight at the side of the United States extremely offensive.

I find the leadership and general attitude of the American nation and army extremely ignorant and chauvinist. Even more ignorant than the Islamic fanaticism you find in the Taliban.

It's like watching a boxing match between Hitler and Stalin.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

I voted yes because I find all of these dumb action games with realistic premises to be a bit tasteless. I'm more okay with more dry realistic simulation/strategy games or dumb action games with more unreal adventure story settings.

 

[thenoblitt]

i dont see how it is offensive, if anything it can give you a perspective as to what they are doing