A former US Marine has given his thoughts on the new Medal Of Honor game and they are rather sobering. Benjamin Busch served as an infantry officer in the United States Marine Corps and has served two combat tours in Iraq.
“I honestly don’t like that Medal of Honor depicts the war in Afghanistan right now, because — even as fiction — it equates the war with the leisure of games. Changing the name of the enemy doesn’t change who it is.” he said.
“Imagine how frustrating this game would be if, just as you began to play it, an invisible sniper shot you dead every time. The game would not be popular, because being killed that way isn’t fair — just like war. Reality has a way of correcting misconceptions.”
Mr. Busch makes a strong argument on behalf of serving soldiers and – unlike certain British MPs – has a balanced view of the game, noting the title is unlikely ‘to lure anyone into Islamic fundamentalism.’ Also, unlike British MPs his words have a hell of an impact;
“A video game can produce no wounds and take no friends away.”
“Those who truly want to play for a Medal of Honor, recruiters are standing by. Only eight have been awarded since we invaded Afghanistan. All but one have been posthumous.”
If you wish to read the entire article from Mr. Busch (or listen to it – it’s taken from a radio show) then click here.
To be honest I’ve never given the setting of Medal of Honor much thought, it’s just another game and you could argue that we have all been slaughtering Russians, Japanese and Allies in countless games without giving two hoots.
The difference is they were faceless, nameless grunts. Benjamin (pictured to the left) has mates who are in Afghanistan, being shot at right now.
Source: NPR.
cc_star
Yeah, because videogaming has gone that way – probably thanks to the rise of FPS on consoles and the way games ‘reward’ you with.
Bulletstorm looks like it takes this to the Nth degree, but at least that’s not based in reality.
The instant reward of the kill paramount over the the tragedy of it
Hoodie
Maybe they should have donated £1 from every game to the Help for Heroes charity and it’s American equivilent. Maybe us gamers should do that anyway?
jikomanzoku
The whole timescale thing for me is one of massive hypocrisy. Either all war is off limits for games, current or past, or it’s fair game – anything else just seems dishonest to me.
jikomanzoku
Sorry hoodie, my post is in the wrong place, it’s not in response to your comment but rather the issue itself.
jikomanzoku
My stand point is that games are and always have been a safe, consequence free playground in which we can excercise elements of our psyche. This is true whether they be Chess, Go, Age of Napoleon, DEFCON, Brothers In Arms, COD, MOH or whatever the future holds.
It’s perfectly natural for games to reflect situations and events within the real world, but to expect them to do that in some thought provoking and insightful way is currently unrealistic.
Perhaps gaming has been brought to a new threshold by the increased prevalence (due to videogaming) of gaming amongst adults and it will be interesting to see whether it can make something of a quantum leap to marry the traditional role of a game to deeper philisophical and reflective meaning? Can it be done? and importantly, like it or not, will it be commercially viable to do so?
Even if this is the case, it’s not going to be the likes of MOH or COD that make that leap. For now Peacemaker has to be as close as the medium has come to dealing with conflict issues in a considered and thoughtful way, but it will be interesting to see where it goes, whether as a medium it can and should “mature” and whether someone can make that approach pay.