If you're going to invoke critical thinking as a methodology, it's imperative that you be intimately familiar with the subject matter you are critiquing. When you make statements like "And we get to use the actual guns on actual enemies while simulating war tactics..." it belies that you might not really know military FPS games very well, and this is precisely the mistake that Leigh Alexander made when she wrote her Kotaku column. She didn't know what she was talking about, which should remove much if not all of her credibility when she opines on the subject in an attempt at critical thinking.

I'm not sure why you thought that setting the war in Afghanistan was an artistic choice. The Medal of Honor series has always been about celebrating the valor of our soldiers by bringing the existence of the Medal into a greater awareness. In the past, all of the games were set in World War II because Steven Spielberg was involved in the creation of the franchise, and we know how he likes his WW II films. :) Clearly this venue isn't going to work anymore, so EA went with the theater our soldiers are currently fighting in. Going "modern" was an economic necessity if they want to compete with Modern Warfare and Battlefield, so they went to Afghanistan. The Medal of Honor series could -not- have used abstracted settings. That would have been in violation of the spirit of the franchise.

You would not want to see a game that "brought the issues of the current war" to the forefront, Patricia. It would have been one or both of the following:

1) A game about politics. The war in Afghanistan's real issues revolve around extension of American military might and concerns over imperialism, the conflict between domestic and international fiduciary priorities in our government, the difficulty in navigating foreign policy in a region where the nations are culturally foreign or outright hostile, etc. I personally don't want my Medal of Honor game to spend half its time in offices in Washington, D.C. :)

2) A game about human tragedy. Horror. Civilian casualties. Men with their legs blown off crying for thier mothers. Men with third degree burns all over their bodies. I don't really know anyone who wants to see this, either, in their video games. See Jim Sterling's recent video over on Dtoid in which he responds to Alexander's column. This isn't what gamers want, either, and it wouldn't really be appropriate even if they did.

Those are the "real" issues of any war, not just this one in Afghanistan: politics and human tragedy. "Just being a game" doesn't excuse everything, but this IS a video game. Without commercial appeal, EA shouldn't bother wasting their money.

I guess I took Liu's comment "it's not about the war" as meaning they aren't saying the American soldiers are the "good" guys and the Taliban are the "bad" guys; rather, they mean it's about the soldiers they're portraying in the conflict between the two.

And I also think when DICE says they "can't get away from what the setting is", they simply mean they didn't choose where the game takes place. They are only making the multiplayer component, not the single player portion of the game.

@Dennis: Actually, I do play the military FPS games! I would say I play the FPS genre the most, followed by RPGs. I will also note that Leigh Alexander has come on record saying that she HAS played the games she critiqued in the 'who cheers for war.' But, it's easier to discredit someone you disagree with by saying they don't know what they're talking about, right? ;)

But, let me prove it:

I KNOW that we get to use "actual guns" (the MP7, for example, was a gun that was previewed in the beta per reccomendations of a soldier who said it was an all purpose gun, that he used it often and that it was good. The video introducing that gun was footage of the deployed soldier who reccomended it using it in action). That's just one example of an actual gun they use. The al qaeda are the "actual enemies" I speak of, that you can kill. And "simulating war tactics" because this isn't exactly like other military FPS's--you're very, very vulnerable, so people have to actually think about how they play because the absolute second you start running in the open, you're dead.  So people, at least the smart ones start playing like how the Tier 1 operators suggested in the videos: in packs, no one is left behind, etc. Medalofhonor.com even has articles written by actual soldiers regarding how the best playstyle in FPS's always models what they ACTUALLY do in real life! It's crazy, but true: people do play like that. In games like Battlefield, this is way more obvious, though.

No, I did not say I *thought* the setting was an artistic choice, I said that I HOPED it would be. Because, as I started saying in the article, it's a sensitive subject. You don't approach a sensitive subject ham-handledly.

Are you seriously saying that Modern Warfare depiction is an economic NECCESITY? Hmm. Well, I have no idea why Treyarch is wasting their time on the cold war, then, cause that game isn't going to sell anything, right? ;)

it's not so much that I want a game about politics inasmuch as the decision to ignore the politics of something this relevant to our daily lives is a missed opportunity, (hey, that's the name of the article!) and a downright confusing decision when they've gone so far out of their way to make this game as realistic as possible in all the ways that don't actually matter. I want games that matter. Otherwise, what is it doing justice? It would really just be self-indulgent, and, they've gone on and on how they want to give it justice. It would be the only thing that could possibly set it apart. I say this after having spent a good 60ish hours playing the beta.

But more importantly, and as I stated in the article: why put so much effort into making it as realistic and true to the setting as possible in every way except the way that actually matters? It doesn't make any sense, if that's not the point. Moreover, this is a reboot so I'm not sure restating what the "spirit" of the previous Medal of Honor iterations does for your argument. If they wanted to continue in the same vein, it doesn't make sense to come out with a reboot, does it?

What is wrong about a game about human tragedy and horror? We've played plenty of games that deal with those subjects--abstracted, sure, but we've still played them. Had this game actually dared to do the same, it might've actually mean tsomething. It wouldn't be somethign we easily forget about in lieu next year's new model with minor gameplay tweaks and better graphics. What else could have set it apart in this FPS market?

You ended your argument with 'it's just a game's" cousin, it's just business! ;)

Why is a game that's not even out yet getting so much shit for what it supposedly "hasn't done". I don't understand this. Although I have to say I severely disagree with Dennis' assessment that people wouldn't play a game without "tragedy and politics". I think something like that would be a good thing.

What an odd space we find ourselves in. Yes, the development process is about making a functional game. But Patricia's argument can be applied to all shooters, why is there a game that has failed to explore the view point of the historical villains, Japanese, Germany and Italy in World War 2? Call of Duty 2 had German soldiers playable in multiplayer without any Nazi insignias. I really think Liu spoke without the PR filter and said what he honestly believes in. The multiplayer component, for it to work, really needs a blue and a red team. And the single player portion, which Liu has no part of (that's how EA rolls), may have areas of grey. Actually it has a ton of areas of grey, bit then again some in the press have previewed the game others have not.

Hi Patricia,

It's your verbiage I take issue with. That an MP5 exists in real life doesn't make its incarnation in Modern Warfare 2 a realistic depiction of what the weapon actually IS. My sister is dating a Marine Sniper Platoon Lieutenant, and he has nothing but contempt for the gamers who talk about modern weapons systems from their experience in games like MW2 as if they have a clue about them. There's nothing "real" about these games.

Have you ever played Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising, with the medic who replaces blown-off limbs with his magic syringe? This from a game which supposedly goes to great paints to be a "military simulation." In real life, when your leg gets blown off, it's gone, and it's a race against time to make sure the soldier doesn't bleed out. Knowledge that death is constantly hovering over your shoulder informs -everything- the modern warrior does and how he or she is trained. This reality is utterly absent even from the hardcore mil-sims like ArmA II, which is why I take offense when Leigh Alexander tries to tie real life issues of war to video games. It's absolute nonsense, and completely disrespectful to our servicemen and servicewomen IMHO.

I am suggesting that setting military FPS titles in the modern era versus WW II is how the industry has shifted, so yes, anyone desiring to develop a military FPS title has to set it in the modern era - and Black Ops -is- effectively in the modern era. Black Ops teams get the best gear, and many weapon systems in use today are refinements of state-of-the-art weapon systems they used during the Cold War, and small-unit special team tactics very much evolved out of black ops from that time period. Therefore, Black Ops is effectively going to be a modern era, military FPS title. :)

The "realism" they put into these games isn't the realism you mean, Patricia. It's realism of aesthetics. These games will never be realism in tactics. For example, do you know what heavy MG's are for? They aren't actually for killing people. They're not terribly accurate - they're about suppressing the enemy so that infantry can manuever to flank and kill the enemy. When someone is throwing hundreds of rounds per minute of high-caliber ammunition at you, you get the heck down. It messes with your ability to shoot back and to observe the environment around you.

There is no military FPS title which accurately reflects this reality. A SAW in Modern Warfare 2 may as well be an SMG. IRL, if I turned the corner and hit you with one round from a SAW, you are going down. The pure kintetic impact of the round may not kill you, but you are NOT going to be standing up after that single round hits you. In MW2 or Bad Company 2 or the new Medal of Honor, I can shoot you multiple times with a heavy MG and you will not only keep standing up to continue coming at me, you'll still be shooting accurately enough to kill me first. That couldn't be more ridiculously unrealistic.

In WW II FPS games, one shot from an M1 Garand should kill you because even if, IRL, that round doesn't kill you, the caliber and power of the shot is likely going to put you out of that immediate engagement unless you're of a very robust constitution. The game should therefore abstract this into death. It doesn't.

There's nothing confusing about not dealing with "the larger issue" in Medal of Honor. It does not make for a good military FPS title. That's not what the audience wants. Asking for action from a company which is entirely not within their best interests is unrealistic. Only demands that realistically could have been met are worth noting when they are not. Again, consider Six Days in Fallujah. If developers can't even pursue games that are set in theaters of war which are politically problematic, do you really think that delving into the deeper issues of the war in Afghanistan is a viable option? If not, why call EA on their failure to delve into those issues? It doesn't make any sense.

Being a reboot doesn't invalidate the spirit of the franchise. They're not rebooting the core of what defines the Medal of Honor series, they're rebooting the era in which they set these games after something like ten titles set in WW II if we count releases across all platforms. Maybe more than ten, I can't be bothered to count them. A lot of games.

We have never - NEVER - played a game that deals with the horror and human tragedy of war, Patricia. I recommend you read some soldier's accounts of World War II and Vietnam. Everything you see in Hollywood and video games is scrubbed, cleaned, and made presentable, even in miniseries as brutal as Band of Brothers and The Pacific. It is impossible to convey the true horror of war in an FPS title. This is mainstream entertainment designed to sell millions of units; and you can't build things like PTSD, ruined marriages, grieving widows, massive civilian casualties, and fatherless children into an FPS title. Those are just some of the real horrors of war, and do you honestly want to play that video game?

Does anyone?

I do. I've read a lot of books and memoirs about soldier's experiences. There's something powerful in these experiences that they write about. I think there is a potential in games for conveying these experiences.

I honestly hate to bring this game up, as it comes up so often in these types of debates, but Brothers in Arms is probably the best example of a game coming close to what you're describing, Dennis. They've touched on a lot of things in the series that you just mentioned-- loss of comrades, PTSD, the general "brutality of war" as they say. Yes, even civilian casualties. They even have a great suppression and flanking mechanic. If you haven't played the games, I suggest you do, Dennis. 

My point is that I think you're being too harsh in your criticism by effectively saying there's no room for a game like this. Honestly, you sound like someone who hasn't played a wide range of action games...even the MGS series has been touching on these points for some time now...

I appreciate your perspective, Michael...but I think you're being naive if you think that there's a market for a video game where medics are pushing soldiers' guts back into their stomachs, or soldiers are crying out for their mothers as they burn alive, or children are sobbing as they desperately try to pull their mothers from under the rubble of a fallen building. These are the horrors of war. I don't want to deal with them in Modern Warfare 3. That's not why I play video games, and I'm going to hazard a guess that I share that position with the vast majority of the audience. Perhaps that's a conceit, but I certainly have not heard, in all my years of playing FPS titles, anyone asking for content like this.

I think, perhaps, that when I am hearing the phrase "dealing with deeper issues," I am taking us to mean that entirely literally. The Metal Gear Solid series deals with the subject of war in an incredibly ham-fisted fashion which is often difficult to take seriously, wrapped around such silly boss battles and Moebius loops of storylines. It's just more scrubbed, entertainment-production material, IMHO.

A friend of mine recently shot a documentary on a European theater WW II vet here in the States. I've never seen anything like he described in any WW II video game I've ever played, and quite frankly you wouldn't want to. The reality of war is beyond anything any of us have ever experienced in peacetime. It's a unique human experience that simply cannot be replicated through cinematic depiction. Prose, IMHO, is more adequate to begin -approaching- the conveyance of this experience, but even the most expertly-crafted biography or memoir of combat action can't come close to the reality of these experiences.

I've played the Brothers in Arms series. Still not a realistic depiction of war, and I actually felt they were too clinical in how they employed the suppression mechanic with such predicatable behavior from the enemy. The only FPS title I know that's employing a true suppression mechanic is Breach. Taking fire in that game messes with your aim, or so the developer says. It remains to be seen how important that works tactically into gameplay, but if it's true, it's a step in the right direction and a mechanic that I hope becomes a convention in these sorts of games.

Incidentally - I'm sorry if my criticism seems too harsh, but I was shocked when Leigh Alexander wrote her piece considering she knows someone who lost limbs in wartime. Holding up video games as representing experiences like those, or asking for realism in them, is something I take extremely personally and seriously. I recently wrote a piece about the "controversy" over the use of Taliban skins in Medal of Honor, and I had to think really hard about whether to publish it for fear of sounding cavalier, but it was ultimately informed by my viewpoint that these games are not, and should not, ever be taken seriously as an analog for real war, and I will always speak up in opposition to the idea at a conceptual level. I really think it's disrespectful to the real life men and women fighting out there, and every time I hear someone on Xbox Live talking as though playing Modern Warfare 2 somehow makes them an expert on infantry tactics, or even hear idiots talking about signing up while playing the game as if one thing has anything to do with the other, it absolutely turns my stomach. :(

I don't think I'm being naive here, I seriously just do not believe you're giving people enough credit. I'm by no means suggesting that people want "people screaming for their mothers as they hold their guts in" in the next Modern Warfare game. Nor am I saying that the Metal Gear or Brothers in Arms series has done excatly what you're claiming to be too much for a video game.

I will concede to you that a game like this wouldn't sell on the level of Modern Warfare-- there's something very unique and addcitive about it's arcade style of play that drives it's sales, not it's story. All I'm asking is that you please stop saying "oh, you wouldn't want to play this" because absolutely I would. Would I want to go overseas and fight in the war and experience it in real life? No. There are plenty of adults who play games that would welcome a new, truer, perspective on war in the form of a video game.

The problem here is that a completely 100% depiction of war is impossible in a game, but we can strive to convey some sort of message and meaning out of a game. I think BIA came as close to that sort of game as was commercially viable. When a game's story makes you feel for the loss its characters, and it's depiction of someone who has lost half their face to a mortar strike can make you pause for a second to think, I think it says something good about where we're headed with storytelling in this medium.

You can flippantly point out the flaws in any game that tackles these subjects, but I think they're taking steps in the right direction. I don't know if I would be as interested in WW2 and Cold War history without Snake Eater and Call of Duty.

This is what I do not understand. Does anyone know how many movies, books, television shows and even graphic novels have been released depicting this war? A lot, a real, real lot. Yet you never hear a damn person say a word about it. As soon as a video game tries to portray something risky and current, they get attacked. It happened with Six Days in Fallujah, it happened with Modern Warfare 2 and now it will happen again with the new Medal of Honor.

For God sakes, the winner of best picture this year was The Hurt Locker, a film about the Iraq war! Yet since it was a movie it is fine to portray what you want. A few characters had some revelations, a few tears were shed, and BOOM suddenly it is an art piece and worthy of the top honors from the Academy. I have seen "art" in a few showings in NY that had some pretty disgusting representations of the war. The one that comes to mind most is the sculpture of an American soldier with one foot on the chest of a dead terrorist, and the other on the throat of an Iraq child with his gun pointed at the kids head.

That piece was the most popular spot on the large art room floor, and it was sold by the end of the night. Everyone loved it. I would hear people talking about it and saying "It is so true, America is the Nazi's, and we have invaded and murdered so many for what we think is the right reasons". That piece obviously meant something to a lot of people in that hall. Now if you were to take that piece, and turn it into video game form, there would be such a public outcry it would deafen everyone in the industry.

And this is why the video game industry is still looked down upon. As soon as a video game tries to tackle adult subject matter, and gets even a little close to an invisible line that plenty of other entertainment mediums cross on a regular basis, we get blasted. Sometimes even by gamers themselves. If you are going to make a game about the Iraq war, you have a right to promote it and talk about it any which way you want. Just like a movie exec would. Video games should not be any different.

The only way this industy is ever going to be taken seriously is to tackle everything in video game form. Everything that films have tackled. Rape, murder, terrorism, domestic violence, and all the most horrible things you can imagine. After all, some of the most popular films ever made contain one or more of these subject matters in them. Why should this industry have to play it safe?

@ Michael

Well, when you say "people," I think "the marketplace." When I say "you," I mean "any random person." I believe you that you would like a military FPS developed along the lines you describe - but I also imagine you would concede that you're an outlier among the audience.

Activision doesn't make games for you. It makes them for the audience members like me who just want a shooter. I prefer tactical and strategic shooters to pure twitch games like Halo or Call of Duty, but I'm under no illusions that I'm doing anything other than pantomiming the barest-bones aspects of modern infantry tactics.

I don't know what a 'true" perspective on war is other than "It f@#$ing sucks," because that's the long and short of it. There's no moral justification for it, at best it's something forced upon a people or nation and even then is still filled with atrocities committed by the side that ideologically "in the right." If you think about the best WW II movies and television series, don't they all pretty much say the same thing? War is horrific, soldiers form a bond like brothers and depend on each other in a way that anyone rarely does outside of wartime, war changes a person into something scary that they have trouble dealing with in peacetime, etc.

I don't disagree with you that video games are capable of forming bonds with characters such that we, the players, would mourn their loss. In that, I totally cede that this would be a good thing, but we've been talking specifically about "the deeper issues of war" not being covered in these games, the implication being we're discussing that which is absent. Video games already do create characters with whom the audience member is meant to form bonds, so this isn't territory to expand into, if that makes sense? It's not, I would argue, what we're talking about here.

I honestly don't mean to be flippant, but rather to decidedly dismiss the notion that any wargame we have right now is "realistic" in the way we've been using that word in this conversation. :) I also am drawn somewhat to the history nature of some of the Call of Duty WW II settings, but the most one can really gleam from those games is that X Regiment was in Y place at Z time, and fought the Battle of Such-and-Such, which one can look up on Wikipedia and confirm some of the basic situations the player is placed in, like scaling the cliffs at Pointe du Hoc in Call of Duty 2 with the Rangers.

@ Ed

As someone with a film degree who knows movies and has seen a lot of off-the-beaten-path cinema, I would argue that 99% of the time, rape, murder, terrorism, and domestic violence are all handled in very scrubbed-clean fashions by the Hollwyood film industry, which is the analog for the video game industry. Independent films sometimes handle these subjects in more mature fashions, so perhaps indie game designers will do the same, and just like the indie films they will be niche content that appeals to a very small audience.

The art pieces you refer to are not popular art, either. Absolutely one would probably face an outcry, and bankruptcy, if they developed, published, and released a video game depicting Americans as the invading Nazi oppressors.

As an aside, I have a few friends in the military who absolutely despise "The Hurt Locker." That movie has come under some serious flak for its unrealistic depictions by the people who really know the subject matter, for what that's worth.

Ed, I agree completely. It's still a new medium-- it's not a matter of if we tackle these issues, it's only a matter of when. Shit, most of these have been talked about or potrayed in games already, it's only a matter of the right developers stepping up to the plate and bringing something to the table that's new, tasteful and illicits critical thinking.

Dennis,

Well, Activision does make games for me. I enjoy both types of games. As for "realism" in games I'm just trying to defend against your basic "games can't do something" stance you seem to be taking. I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to argue here--that games shouldn't be any more realistic than in their character interaction?

I think a "true perspective" on war would be one from the point of view of the men on the field. What are their thoughts? How do they feel about their officers, the war in general and their predicament? How do they speak about things. I just think that games do have the ability to offer  insight into the war genre other than "it moved and it's wearing gray, shoot it!".

Bleargh! Too much editing going on!

On the subject of film, I think you're right. A lot of the things we're talking about that you don't see in Hollywood but you do see in indie film would would definitely cause some outcry if it were in a game. Look at Heartland, would people have been ready for that? Jaffe says his team wasn't really into developing it as much as he was and that's why it was canned, but I still have to wonder how well it would have done.

I think the Hurt Locker is a great example of what a game could be capable of. Entirely accurate? Probably not, but powerful nonetheless. Whether you agree with the depiction or not it certainly said something that spoke to people, and was relevant. That's what I want out of a game about war. It doesn't have to be entirely accurate to the T, but it would be nice if it said something.

I just want to point out that DICE has nothing to do with the singleplayer aspect of Medal of Honor, they are only in charge of the multiplayer. EA Los Angeles is the development team that's handling all aspect of the singleplayer portion of the game. Just sayin'...

Michael, there aren't both kinds of games. Just the action kind, which is kind of the point of this discussion, yeah? You want the other kind, too. :P

It's not that games can't do something, Michael. Sure, a mililtary FPS could work off of a memoir, say, and present a truly realistc war story. It would also be boring as sin. Long, long stretches of interminable inactivity punctuated by brief interludes of total chaos during which you never realize which direction death came from, and you don't respawn. There's your realistic military FPS. :)

Games CAN do that...but they probably shouldn't, and companies couldn't afford to spend the money to do it properly because they'd never get it back. A game like that would close a studio's doors.

I feel that in order to craft a military FPS that really deals with the reality of war, that game has to at least resemble the realities of war, and most military FPS titles aren't even close. At least The Hurt Locker is predicated on a MOS that actually exists in the military. RL military engagements take place at distances like 250 meters, and Modern Warfare 2 and Bad Company 2 are all CQB. How do we craft meaningful military stories when we can't even depict  the basic nature of modern war because, as gameplay, it would be horribly dull? ArmA II is no vehicles for compelling characters and a story. :)

I still don't understand what you're trying to argue here. You're idea of a "truly realistic war story" would have long stretches of madenning trench digging and staring at a line for hours, but that's more in line with a simulation than a realistic potrayal. By realistic I don't mean let's have the game explode inside of my console when I die to simulate death, I mean let's put some emotional content in and try to convey a message or feeling without sacrificing gameplay. It's all about balance. Earlier you were giving examples of things that could definitely be shown and work in a game (dismemberment, emotional disturbances, collateral damage, etc.), but now you're shifting gears in your argument a bit. I think we have a different opinion of what "realism" in a game means. When I say "I enjoy both" I mean arcade-y games like CoD4 and Bad Company 2, as well as things that I would consider on the fairly realistic side (or should we say more influenced by reality) like BiA or Operation Flashpoint (which I haven't played yet but want to).

Put simply, I am arguing that military first person shooter games are an abstraction. They are not realistic, as Patricia suggests that designers of Medal of Honor are attempting to make them, rather that she misunderstands what they mean by realistic in assuming their comments refer to gameplay and not aesthetics.

As abstraction, I would argue that the kind of emotional content and message you are seeking are not possible for this genre of game. The type of game that you are describing would no longer be a military first person shooter. It would be something else entirely - and therefore, this conversation would effectively cease to be. It would become a conversation about "Why can't military first person shooters be more like [insert name of genre that your proposed game would fit into] games?"

At which point the debate would take a similar form to this one, to wit: military first person shooters aren't meant to be real. They aren't meant to portray depth or feeling. They are action movies. Hans Zimmerman scored Modern Warfare 2. Do we really have to go any further than that? I decidedly did not say that any of those things you listed could be shown and work in a mililtary FPS title, rather I held them up as examples of things which could be shown but which would NOT work and by including them would destroy the experience utterly.

And, again, I think you're fooling yourself if you consider BiA or Operation Flashpoint "on the fairly realistic side." At this point, I would leave it up to people who have actually seen combat to try and convince you of this, because I can only vamp off their memoirs and stories, myself; but the other point I am arguing is that emotional content and conveyance of message and feeling - in a war game, and pertaining to the deeper questions of war itself - would ultimately require that war game to actually make an attempt at being realistic in order to show the proper deference to the serious nature of this subject matter, and doing so would ultimately mean sacrificing gameplay.

In other words: I don't think you and Patricia can have what you are asking for. Not now, anyway. Maybe in some future where the audience for video games has grown to be as large as that of film right now, and in doing so has created a niche wherein satsifying gameplay is allowed to take a back seat to narrative structure...but then, are we really talking about video games anymore, or interactive fiction, which may cross the line and cease to actually be video games?

In the meantime, I don't see the value in criticizing game developers for not shooting themselves in the foot.

He says "in the end, it's a game" not "it's just a game"

HUGE DIFFERENCE. 

Most of your argument is based off a misquote. 

This 'controversy' seems like a flimsy attempt to distract us from the important truth here... that MoH just isn't very good (in MP beta form, at least).

Let me make this clear: We are using severely different definitions of "realism" here. When I say "on the fairly realistic side" I'm not saying I'm going to be crying because of all the death and murder going around, because it's so realistic. I'm saying It's not aiming for that blockbuster movie feel-- not that it's a complete accurate represantation of war. I don't need a veteran to come and scare me straight on real combat tactics and the nature of war.

I still say that you are underestimating the fact that there would be an audience for a game that dared to show the nature of war more than what's currently out there. And I'm pretty sure the audience for games is about equal to the audience of film. What I'm saying is that it is possible to do now, but no one has done it.

You're getting caught up in a lot of semantics here.

This is very poor arguement towards the game Medal of Honor.I have actually played the game and saw it through to the end.I am a combat veteran of our current conflict overseas, and quite frankly I take to offense the actual ignorance of your character towards our troops in afghanistan today. You obviously know nothing about the game, the conflict. As a veteran your criticism towards the game disgust me, and I feel you have a hatred towards our troops.No " it's not about the war, it's about the soldiers." That was a very well said statement in which you deliberately misinterpreted to mitigate your arguement. It is about the soldiers, and you know what there are too many of them who come home to civilians like you and their families who can't interpret what they go through with a civilian. The stories should be told, and I think it was very corageous what those operators did for EA to find a way to interpret that to ignorant people like you in a medium in which alot of us know...games. People should know what war really is. In a country that loves to paint a pretty be all you can be picture about the military we should also know what war is. For god sakes our kids should know what war is.It is ugly, it is unforgiving, and people die. It is not an excuse to play cowboy, it is not an excuse to be world's cop, and WAR SHOULD NOT BE HAPPENING. I applaude this game as I did the documentary " gunner palace" which also had to make an appeal before the MPAA to be able to clasify the documentary PG-13 so that the public can freely view what war is. We love to paint Army billboards on the highways but when it comes to a little blood you people freak out as if you never wanted war.You cannot judge any footage of war nor you are in any position to judge what our boys did to show gamers what WAR is. If people don't like it...DON'T GO TO WAR.