Sections

Making Medal of Honor: Warfighter more personal

Monday, 11th June 2012 09:02 GMT By Dave Oshry

A row erupted at E3 last week about Medal of Honor: Warfighter’s take on “realism,” but, as Dave Oshry explains in this touching editorial, Danger Close’s vision of modern combat is the one American veterans can relate to most.

Soldiers don’t want to come home from battle and re-live their losses: they want to explosively re-create their triumphs. They want to remember their experiences as an action movie, not as a tragic opera. At least my friends do.

Although the multiplayer matches in games like Call of Duty and Battlefield often consist of dozens of players on each side – I usually only play with one or two other people.

In fact, I usually only play with one other guy. His name is Aaron. He’s the former Aussie editor of RipTen, the current senior editor for HBG and a writer for PlanetPlaystation. He’s also damn good at first person shooters and the best friend I’ve never met.

You see, Aaron now lives in Auckland, New Zealand and I live in San Diego, California. The closest we’ll ever to get to a fist bump or a high five is when we capture an objective together on Operation Firestorm in BF3 or hold off a horde of zombies and make it to a safe house in L4D2.

My real life friends live here in San Diego. San Diego is a military town and my friends are mostly comprised of men and women who’ve served. In 2010 when everyone else was playing Black Ops, they were playing Medal of Honor. They said it was more authentic, more realistic. They said they knew guys who worked on the game with Danger Close. They said they were the real deal. One of my buddies almost even had the DC logo tattooed on his leg before I talked him out of it.

At E3 this past week I got hands on with with Medal of Honor: Warfighter and its Sector Control mode, more commonly known to the CoD crowd as Domination or the Battlefield crowd as Conquest. What’s different about Warfighter is that the game splits you into fireteams. You and one other player are joined at the hip. In this way the game feels more like a co-op experience than a massively multiplayer one. More importantly, it becomes a personal one once you start to figure out the goals of EA and Danger Close.

Warfighter’s executive producer Greg Goodrich sat down with Tom McShea of Gamespot at E3 to discuss an editorial Tom had written about how Warfighter isn’t an “authentic” experience because it follows the formula of other modern day shooters, featuring things like regenerating health, killcams and headcounts.  And while Tom makes a good point with his desire to see more realistic games that portray war as more of the hell it truly is and less of a “game,” I believe that EA and Danger Close are clearly trying to find a balance between what sells, what works, and what is respectful to their source material. Material made up of the stories of the real men and women who have fought and died in service to their country.

Even in multiplayer, what I played wasn’t your typical shooting experience. I soon realized that I had to rely on my fireteam to survive and succeed. The mechanics were there for a reason. We had to use the distinct skills of our chosen class to compliment each other. We had to survive when the other was down so we could respawn closer to the objective. We had to work as a team. I had to get to know this writer from South Korea I’d been paired with – even if I was only going to know him for the next 15 minutes and he spoke next to no English. I had to make it personal.

Authenticity isn’t realism

And I think overall that’s what Danger Close and EA are going for here. Not necessarily a “realistic” military experience, but an “authentic” and “personal” one. One that military operators can relate to, yet civilian gamers can imagine is more real than anything they could ever dare experience. They want to get the gear, the locales, the equipment and the personalities right, but still craft an enjoyable experience – even if war is anything but.

Soldiers don’t want to come home from battle and re-live their losses: they want to explosively re-create their triumphs. They want to remember their experiences as an action movie, not as a tragic opera. At least my friends do.

Warfighter’s E3 multiplayer trailer.

There’s plenty room for authenticity in video games and also plenty of room for realism, but what I think the teams at EA and Danger Close have realized after working so closely with the men and women who have seen combat is that this is the type of game that they want.  They want a game that is fun, authentic and realistic in its presentation even if not in its execution. They want a game that they can play their with friends and say, “Hey this is kind of like ______,” or “Remember when we did some shit like this in ______?” Yet they also want to make a game that they can play with an outsider like me and say, “Man, these guys know their shit – this game is dead on.”

I will likely never experience the reality of war. Neither will Aaron. And here’s to hoping we never will. However, what I can experience is a video game built on the principals of authenticity and respect for the men and women who’ve lived through it.

I can’t begin to imagine the real truth behind what went on when my friends were in combat overseas. All I get are the exaggerated stories told to me at the bar or around the barbecue pit. Stories that sound a lot more like what goes on in a video game than in real life. This is what they choose to remember, what they want to remember. This is likely why they played all that Medal of Honor in 2010. And it’s probably why they’re looking forward to Warfighter the most this year. For those who want a more realistic experience, Goodrich says that the game has a hardcore mode which only allows you one life.

I’ve always found it interesting that my friends who have seen real combat are the ones who prefer the more fast-paced and “exaggerated realism” of games like Medal of Honor and the ones that have never worked outside of an office prefer the “true realism” of simulations like ArmA. Perhaps somewhere between the two lies a game that we all want to play, and perhaps that game is Warfighter.

The sad truth is, my friends don’t have a lot of friends left. And they certainly don’t have a lot of online friends. Most of them don’t use Facebook and they’ve never even heard of Twitter. The experiences they want to share with the ones they do have need to be personal ones, and I believe that Danger Close and EA get that – even when it comes to multiplayer. Goodrich says that even if they fail at accomplishing that feat, that if they cannot convey to us the experiences given to them by the operators who helped build this game, then they at least want people to know that they tried.

I must admit that the more I hear and see of Warfighter, the more I’m interested in seeing how the single-player portion turns out. I’ve grown tired of Call of Duty’s campaigns and Battlefield 3′s felt uninspired. Given the more focused direction of the multiplayer on display at E3 and the dev team’s commitment to authenticity and personality, I’m hoping to be pleasantly surprised come October – and I hope my friends are too.

Latest

44 Comments

  1. Edo

    I felt sorry for the guy from GameSpot that attacked them for not being “realistic” I honestly did,as he was so utterly oblivious to his own ignorance that there was nothing else to do or say.

    #1 3 years ago
  2. Patrick Garratt

    I honestly couldn’t bring myself to watch that video interview.

    #2 3 years ago
  3. Edo

    @2 That was a smart decision believe me.

    #3 3 years ago
  4. JRNO

    That GameSpot interview was painful to go through. Greg and Danger Close certainly earned my respect with that.

    #4 3 years ago
  5. G1GAHURTZ

    I don’t see what was so painful or difficult to watch.

    IYAM, the Gamespot guy was spot on. MoH’s USP as an authentic tribute to real military personnel is a schizophrenic one.

    Sure, you might have “authentic” weapons, etc, but as the guy pointed out, you’re gonna have kids buying the game and screaming stuff like “WOO!! I JUST F***ING RAPED THAT GUY ALL UP THE WALL!!!” when his headshot counter (ooh, how authentic that is!) goes up.

    It’s basically a lie. You unquestionably cannot mix “authenticity” with arcadey, CoD clone gameplay.

    The Danger Close guy is just trying to sell his game on a stupid idea.

    It’s either arcadey, or it’s realistic.

    It’s impossible to be both.

    #5 3 years ago
  6. Edo

    @5Those that have unbiased look on today’s state of military shooters certainly see what was so painful or difficult to watch.

    #6 3 years ago
  7. GwynbleiddiuM

    I’m a MoH fan and even though I liked Danger Close’s MoH I have to side with G1GAHURTZ on this.

    #7 3 years ago
  8. OrbitMonkey

    ^ so it can’t be authentic in style, theme and be fun too?

    #8 3 years ago
  9. DSB

    @5 Spot on.

    I’m pretty sure Dave is overselling the game here. If it isn’t a tactical shooter, and you don’t actually have anything on the line in an online match, like permadeath, or getting truly hurt by explosions and bullets, then the notion of that as somehow bringing reality closer has more to do with not really understanding the nature of warfare, beyond “Top Gun” or “Navy Seals”.

    For most civilians combat is pretty far from home, and a lot of the time, special forces aren’t used as direct combat units.

    It’s really the same with BF3. It’s beautiful, visceral and extremely stimulating, but it’s a big mistake to confuse it with anything real, and I think it’s a huge shame to call it that, when you actually have developers who are dedicated to true combat games, but don’t actually get any attention for it.

    Developers like Battlefront, Blackfoot, Eagle Dynamics, or Serallen. Or mod teams like Project Reality.

    #9 3 years ago
  10. G1GAHURTZ

    @8:

    Sure, it can be, but then it’s not really authentic, is it?

    I agree with the Danger Close guy, when he said that it was down to semantics, but in that case, they’ve got to be clear exactly what aspect of authenticity they’re trying to deliver.

    Go on the MoH website, and you get this:

    Nearly 13 years ago, the Medal of Honor brand was born with authenticity and respect for the soldier at its core – and that commitment remains to this day. It’s our goal to put you directly in the boots of the soldier whether it be in World War II or today’s war. Every detail from the sound of the weapons to the landscapes of actual locations inspire the complete Medal of Honor experience. For the first time in Medal of Honor, we’re consulting closely with not only Tier 1 Operators from the U.S. but also Tier 1 Operators from around the globe including the Polish GROM, the Australian SASR, the German KSK and more. No other gaming brand brings authenticity to life like Medal of Honor.

    Now, I could be reading it wrong, but for me, “directly in the boots of the soldier” means that you’re going to experience exactly what it feels like to be in the situations that the real people have been in.

    You can’t possibly combine that with a Willis/Stalone/Schwarzenegger style of over the top, go in and f*** everybody up, action that the game is also going to deliver in order to be fun.

    How can you?

    They need to be clear about exactly what this game is. If it’s authentic in terms of equipment, but not in terms of gameplay, then they should say that.

    I think the major issue here, and the major issue that the Gamespot guy had, was that some kids are going to pick up this game, see “authentic! authentic! authentic!” on the box, and think that real war is fun, and all about shooting ‘the bad guy’ in the head with a dead cert, black and white understanding.

    You’re (Danger Close) saying the game is authentic. You’re saying the game is fun. You’re saying authentic war can be as fun as this game.

    #10 3 years ago
  11. DSB

    It’s hard to see how using “the soldier” as a marketing ploy to sell videogames is respectful in any way.

    Soldiers serve the people, rentacops serve corporations.

    #11 3 years ago
  12. ManuOtaku

    #10 “You’re (Danger Close) saying the game is authentic. You’re saying the game is fun. You’re saying authentic war can be as fun as this game”.

    That will depend on the person believes and the way he sees things, the game can be fun, but “reality” or “authenticity” checks on you in the end, becuase it doesnt matter how good you are in the game with a kill ratio of 10/1, the thing is the time you die, is when you realize how difficult is to stay alive in an open field, most of the time you dont see the enemy that did killed you and/or you see it way too late, and then is when “reality” strikes you, man if i was on the field i already have been dead, and i wouldnt had the opportunity to keep on the field doing my job, the people that doesnt see this is because they dont want to look it for personal believes or other things, but even in the most arcadie game out there, it has some kind of reality in them, is up to the person who play its to see it or not, playing this games makes me appreciatte soldiers a lot more, i find this games fun? yes i do, but it doesnt make me desire to be in the same position in real life, thats another thing.

    #12 3 years ago
  13. Ireland Michael

    “Soldiers don’t want to come home from battle and re-live their losses: they want to explosively re-create their triumphs.”

    And this is a good thing? You’re basically trying to justify the glorification of violence, and it disturbs me on a personal level to think that that might be exactly what these soldiers want, if it’s true.

    I think the real reality is that they’re simply trying to make excuses for turning Medal of Honour into a CoD clone.

    #13 3 years ago
  14. OrbitMonkey

    A lot of armchair breast beating here. Most of it coming from guys who’d be laughing it up, if this was about sexism say.

    The games going to be authentic in its feel and art direction. And yes it will also be
    violent and fun.

    And of course you can have both.

    #14 3 years ago
  15. DSB

    @14 Sexism doesn’t kill people outside of maybe Saudi Arabia. And I don’t see how that might compare to the supposed trauma that women suffer, when people make videogame characters with big tits.

    I don’t think anyone is disputing that a sense of authenticity is fun. Call of Duty plays on that as well, but it doesn’t claim to be a faithful representation of anything, and it doesn’t claim to do justice to what any of the actual soldiers are doing.

    There’s a difference there.

    @13 It’s not really that simple. I’ve studied a bit of combat psychology, and it’s definitely not a case of glorifying violence. More like becoming addicted to it.

    Combat shifts between total godlike superiority and total childlike helplessness within seconds. One second you may be unloading a high powered rifle and loving that, and the next you may be shit scared from the bullets flying around your head. Not to mention what happens if one of them hits you or your friends.

    That’s how combat changes peoples psychology. They get addicted to the thrill, but they can’t escape the inherent terror that comes with it.

    That’s also why support personnel, from mechanics to cooks, are far more likely to develop PTSD. Usually they get to experience some of the terror with none of the release offered to combat troops.

    That being said, San Diego is mostly navy and naval aviation. It stands to reason that if you’re a crewman aboard a boat, and you aren’t in danger, then the violence may seem more exciting than it would to combat troops.

    #15 3 years ago
  16. Ireland Michael

    @15 That’s not a good thing either.

    There’s nothing fun about war, and EA are trying to act like there and this is what soldiers want. It’s insulting to the soldiers, and it’s especially insulting to their families and friends who have to see them mentally fucked up because the horrible experiences they’ve had to go through.

    #16 3 years ago
  17. OrbitMonkey

    ^ ea are the sole company responsible for making war look fun are they? Don’t be daft. It’s been sold as a fun time for boys since time immemorial.

    #17 3 years ago
  18. Ireland Michael

    @17 I’m criticizing the military as much as anything else.

    My kids have been thought that war isn’t fun, that it damages people, and they’ve witnessed first hand through members of their family just what it can do to people.

    You’re over-generalizing my comment and making assumptions on things I never even said. I never said EA were the only ones. I just said they’re guilty of it.

    #18 3 years ago
  19. OrbitMonkey

    ^ So why only pull ea up over it? This is what I’m not getting here. Videogames are full of violence, no-one bats a eye lid.

    But now everyone getting theirs panties in a bunch of EA hyperbole? Just sounds like some collective hysteria of fuck all.

    #19 3 years ago
  20. Ireland Michael

    @19 Because this is a news story *about* EA doing It? If I wanted to talk about Activision, I’d do it in an Activision thread. Whether other companies are doing it wasn’t even part of the discussion. It’s simply whether EA are guilty or not in this instance.

    “This is what I’m not getting here. Videogames are full of violence, no-one bats a eye lid.”

    The difference here is that those other games aren’t pretending to be meaningful or honouring the memories of those who have served their time in the airfields and trenches.

    For the record, I have full respect for those who have. I just think they deserve better than this bare faced bullshit. They’re just making excuses for making it more like Call of Duty.

    #20 3 years ago
  21. DSB

    I think fictional war is perfectly thrilling. I think it’s cold and disrespectful when you try to sell it using actual soldiers in actual conflicts, and no one is doing that except EA.

    Certainly not to this extent. I don’t believe anyone fighting in Afghanistan is seeing payment for their use in an EA marketing campaign. Never mind a request for consent.

    #21 3 years ago
  22. Ireland Michael

    @21 Exactly my point.

    #22 3 years ago
  23. OrbitMonkey

    ^ How is this insulting? Granted they could be a scene in the game where the hero’s are butt fucked by the Taliban…. But I doubt it.

    In fact Danger Close are repeatedly saying they have tried to be very respectful and apparently soldiers who play it, like it…

    Which is not surprising as their being portrayed as hero’s, who do a tough, neccesry job..

    So why the big fucking drama? No reason at all.

    #23 3 years ago
  24. DSB

    It doesn’t tell their story. It only claims to.

    They aren’t a part of this game – in spite of it proposing to be about them and their war – they’re just being used to sell it.

    They’re pawns, not participants.

    I’m pretty sure soldiers are as diverse as most other people, and I’m sure there are plenty who love everything from Top Gun to Act of Valor, but this is being portrayed as faithful to the war they’re fighting right now, in spite of being nothing of the sort.

    A real soldier can be forced to open fire on civilians. Did they put that in there? A real soldier can be forced to pick up the bloody chunks of his buddy. Did they put that in there?

    Really, that’s just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what’s involved with a combat mission. This isn’t a tribute to soldiers, it’s just porn featuring them.

    It doesn’t mean that it won’t be a good game, or that you should give a fuck – that’s up to you – but it’s not a faithful depiction of the war they’re fighting.

    #24 3 years ago
  25. OrbitMonkey

    ^ Stop being so melodramatic, of course it’s not going to contain the more harrowing aspects of war. That’s not how you pay respect, you do that by bigging up the soldiers taking part, which is what these games do.

    And yeah compared to all the other videogames they are the most faithful depiction of the war… Which is all EA claim.

    #25 3 years ago
  26. Erthazus

    First of all, MoH devs don’t try to sell more realistic CoD. They are still very different because the engine is different so the result in the end is different.

    CoD is basically Quake 3 Arena and MoH is a stripped version of Battlefield: Bad Company.

    It’s a war of brands and marketing and not the war between games.

    Just sayin’

    #26 3 years ago
  27. urbz2011

    If you dnt like it then dnt play it plan and simple.

    #27 3 years ago
  28. DSB

    @25 That’s bullshit.

    You don’t pay respect to anyone by prettying up their experiences, and giving people a false idea of what they were actually subjected to.

    You know just as well as I do that the only reason why it isn’t in there, is because it has nothing to do with tribute, and everything to do with basic entertainment.

    The kind of entertainment that others pull off just fine, without having to exploit current conflicts or the people who fight them, for a shot of cheap PR.

    “You’ve seen the war – Now play the videogame”.

    Movies like The Hurt Locker or documentaries like Restrepo are faithful tributes to those soldiers and what they do, and they have a right to that claim, because they don’t lie about what happened.

    #28 3 years ago
  29. Ireland Michael

    @25 Nobody is being melodramatic. It’s called “critical thinking”.

    “That’s not how you pay respect, you do that by bigging up the soldiers taking part, which is what these games do.”

    By that logic, Rambo is a valid representation of war.

    You can’t say it’s faithful if it really, really isn’t. Ignoring the harrowing aspects of war is like making a horror movie without scares. There’s a big difference between “bigging them up” and turning them in theatre caricatures like CoD and Homefront do.

    Taking away the humanity of a hero stops them from being a real hero.

    Why is it that Saving Private Ryan can do it, but video games can’t? I think the closest we’ve ever gotten to this sort of thing in video games is Brothers in Arm: Road to Hill 30.

    #29 3 years ago
  30. OrbitMonkey

    ^ Yes your right DSB, if I’m to pay respect to Mike Tyson, I’ll be sure to focus a large part on his date rape trial…. :-/

    And Ireland, I think you’ll find the nastier parts of war are touched upon, comrades dying etc, but the main focus will be on winning. Because believe or not, peeps tend to prefer that kind of thing.

    Seems to me the main beef here, is that it’s mainly people’s liberal attitudes being offended.

    #30 3 years ago
  31. Ireland Michael

    @30 “And Ireland, I think you’ll find the nastier parts of war are touched upon, comrades dying etc…”

    I think they made it pretty clear in the article that it won’t. That’s the problem.

    #31 3 years ago
  32. G1GAHURTZ

    Well, I can’t speak for anyone else, but the main “beef”, if you want to call it that, for me is simply the blatant deception and manipulation.

    Seems to me like they had a big E3 presentation where Danger Close put forward this USP that Warfighter was super “authentic”.

    After that, a Gamespot employee noticed the blatant contradiction in having an “authentic” game that has over the top, arcadey, get-shot-a-million-times-without-dying gameplay, and wrote about it.

    Now at this stage, I’m not really bothered about the whole story.

    Dev makes game, dev PR guy does spin in some interview, some other guy disagrees and writes about it.

    It happens every day.

    I just simply protested to the way that following this, the DC guy, whoever he is, went to the trouble to sit in front of a camera and try and justify his crap with more and more gibberish.

    Now, the guy is a very good speaker. He’s eloquent, smooth, and didn’t have any of the almost stuttering nervousness that came across from the Gamespot guy. That’s probably why some people might have thought that the Gamespot guy (can’t be bothered to look for his name) didn’t know what he was talking about. The fact that he hadn’t played so many games that the DC guy kept asking him about didn’t help his case, but he was absolutely right in what he was saying.

    I resent being lied to and being told that I’m wrong to have a different opinion to what some 6 figure salary, smooth talking salesman is trying to aggressively push on me.

    Essentially, they’re spinning, twisting and manipulating in order to sell a game and get richer. To me that’s grotesque.

    You might think differently, but that’s up to you.

    The game is an arcade “shooter”, as the DC guy kept repeating. There’s absolutely ZERO authenticity in the gameplay as a whole, and using real life people and events to try and get a bigger bonus is digraceful.

    Do other companies do it? Of course they do.

    And they’re equally as wrong.

    #32 3 years ago
  33. manamana

    I absolutely salute you DSB & Ire for chosing the right words, explaining your pov and beeing sensible about this difficult issue.

    But there is one point that puzzles me. Why is it, that those friends/soldiers of Dave Oshri seem to love this game for what it is and what it represents and obviously how its praised by DC and EA?

    #33 3 years ago
  34. OrbitMonkey

    @Giga, Fair points. Though I’d still argue that Danger Close have to provide a entertaining game, hence the gameplay mechanics and handle the source material respectfully, which they seem intent on doing.

    Spielberg always does this. Saving Private Ryan & Schindlers list are both respectful and entertaining, can Danger Close pull it off? We’ll see.

    I have no problem with its contemporary setting. Films, books and other media use it, so why not a video game?

    #34 3 years ago
  35. OrbitMonkey

    @manamana, Soldiers like war stories mate, it’s a large part of why they become soldiers in the first place. And those stories they relate too and which big them up, they like even more.

    It’s really that simple.

    #35 3 years ago
  36. Ireland Michael

    @33 I think GIGA deserves some credit too. He made his point pretty well.

    I touched on that in my original post, in how it bothers me that actual soldiers would want this sort of hyper-violent arcadey shooting as a representation of what they go through, over some sort of understanding and respect for the difficult experiences they’ve gone through.

    Then again, I think it’s also a matter of age and perspective.

    I saw first hand what the hardships of *real* war did to my wife’s uncle. He served in Vietnam and he saw some fucked up stuff. He never talked about it much, but it severely changed him as a person. He was still a good man at heart, but he was angrier, prone to snap, more aggressive, more violent, less patient.

    Most of these kids in the army nowadays have it easy. A lot of them seem to think they’re war veterans because they sat on a boat for a year or stood around in Iraq for six months doing nothing. Heck, I have cousins who think just like this. Most of them haven’t seen any serious war or conflict because… well… there really wasn’t / isn’t any besides that which the US was / is creating.

    Many of them don’t know the reality of war, so many of them still possessed a young minded, juvenile perspective of what it is. They think it’s all about beating the bad guys and blowing shit up, but few of them currently have actually faced that kind of real hardship. You just have to look at the death rate statistics for this “war” to see that.

    I’m not saying there isn’t real conflict going on or that nobody in the army, navy or military has suffer hardship. I’m saying that I strongly believe that anyone whose been through it for real wouldn’t support this game, it’s approach, or its imagery.

    #36 3 years ago
  37. OrbitMonkey

    ^ You honestly can’t see why a soldier might prefer a game that makes them out to be a serious badass over a game that see’s them constantly bent at the belt buckle, scurrying for cover, praying they don’t get shot?

    I guess soldiers don’t need escapism huh?

    #37 3 years ago
  38. manamana

    Yes, props to all of you guys, who made some really valuable points. Especially on this thread. And I’m glad nobody came trolling in btw. Good carma.

    #38 3 years ago
  39. Ireland Michael

    @38 There’s a difference between being represented as a badass and being a caricature.

    This is a badass: http://bulk2.destructoid.com/ul/159540-cowboy.jpg

    This is trying too hard: http://www.aceshowbiz.com/images/still/act-of-valor-poster04.jpg

    Medal of Honour appears to have gone from the former to the latter in the space of a single game.

    Personally, if I wanted escapism, I wouldn’t use something that represents the thing that causes me hardship in the first place. But like I said, my problem isn’t with the escapism. My problem is with the game being pawned off as something that it clearly isn’t.

    #39 3 years ago
  40. OrbitMonkey

    ^ It’s a propaganda piece for the armed forces and that’s exactly how it’s being sold imo.

    It’s funny you use the Act of Valor poster as trying to hard. A film made with actual serving soldiers. Kinda proves my point about what some of these guys actually want.

    #40 3 years ago
  41. DSB

    @33 Your guess is as good as mine. I don’t know Daves friends. People have very different wars, and even though I’m a nerd for any book on the subject, I can’t still pretend to really understand the psychological aspects.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXj-RG5T7cQ

    One of the guys behind that movie also wrote a book called “War”, which was really a very honest perspective on war, from the point of view of someone who isn’t a soldier.

    I think one part actually describes how the soldiers loved to sit around on their PSPs at night and kill eachother in Medal of Honor: Underground. And this is while they’re often fighting for real during the day.

    The sense I got wasn’t that it was a great pass time, but rather a pretty tense game where it was all about tricking the other guy into making a mistake so he’d die. Others in the unit thought it was grotesque.

    The thing that gets me is that every veteran I know loathes nothing more than people who misrepresent their war, including other veterans who come home and lie about what they did.

    @41 Well, a lot of people in special forces are saying that stuff like Act of Valor puts their guys at risk. Special forces aren’t direct combat units, they’re covert action units, and a major reason why they’re so well trained in combat is in great deal because every guy needs to be that much better in a firefight, if they’re going to survive.

    If the military considers that sort of exposure serving their needs, then the military has a problem.

    #41 3 years ago
  42. Ireland Michael

    @42 “The thing that gets me is that every veteran I know loathes nothing more than people who misrepresent their war, including other veterans who come home and lie about what they did.”

    I think that’s the defining difference between those who have experienced it and those who have yet to. Not everyone in the military is “fighting in the trenches”, so to speak. Not everyone gets to see it first hand.

    #42 3 years ago
  43. Dave Oshry

    Holy great discussion going on here Batman!

    To give some more perspective, the majority of my friends are in the US Navy. This is San Diego, after all.

    Two of said friends are SEALS, one of whom was being looked at for team 6 before his drinking problem got the best of him. Another is a mechanic who has deployed to the middle east four times and recently nearly drank himself to death and spent a week in the hospital. Others are scattered about the Navy, some are officers, some are in BUD/S trying to become SEALS and some just goto base in Coronado and photocopy orders every day.

    However, they have all seen combat. Many of them have died both overseas and after coming home. Most of them have drinking problems. Most of them have PTSD. Yet for some reason they all seemed to agree that Medal of Honor was the most authentic military game out there. They tried the rest, but kept coming back to MoH while everyone else played BlOps or BFBC2.

    Guys are often told explicitly NOT to work with video game and movie companies, as they will be reprimanded if they do so. From what I’ve heard the guys who actually agreed to be in Act of Valor did so at their own peril or jumped through A LOT of hoops. I can only imagine the same goes for anyone who’s been involved with Danger Close. It seems to me that overall these guys ‘want’ to tell these stories and they ‘want’ to be involved with these entertainment products.

    Obviously I cannot speak for the entirety of the world’s armed forces, just my friends – and that is the focus of this piece.

    Time will tell what they think of Warfighter. I hope they think that Danger Close “got it right” again, because it seems to me that is the intention of everyone involved.

    #43 3 years ago
  44. OrbitMonkey

    @Dave Oshry, I hope they get it right too mate. Nice piece btw, good read.

    #44 3 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.