Menu Close

Black Ops Military Advisor Defends Medal Of Honor

When the controversy first hit a few weeks ago, we reminded everyone that EA had tapped the U.S. Military to assist in making Medal of Honor , and if those who served and risked their lives aren't offended, than we really don't care what the political windbags say.

Thankfully, one of the military members who had a hand in helping with Call of Duty: Black Ops has stepped forward and illustrated that very point: according to GamerZines , military advisor Hank Keirsey dismissed all the controversy surrounding EA's shooter, saying he's sure the game has been done respectfully, and it will indeed honor the lives of those who served in the war on terror. Said Keirsey:

"To me, if the game (Medal of Honor) is done respectfully – as I'm sure it's going to be done because I know the guys over there doing it – I think it'll honour those who served in the campaign just like it did WWII. 'Oh, but they're playing Taliban in multiplayer'," he added. "Well, you played a Nazi in multiplayer – nobody got offended by that!"

Again, exactly our point. Time is really the culprit here; had all those WWII games came out in the late '40s, we would've had a very similar outcry from parents and politicians. Of course, with over 50 years between then and when the WWII shooters started to flood the games market, nobody did seem to care, did they? Nobody made a peep. But the war on terror is just too fresh for some people. In fact, Britain's defense secretary Liam Fox has asked for Medal of Honor to be banned, saying he was "disgusted and angry" with EA's "tasteless product." EA's simple reply to those who know little about games?

"…many popular video games allow players to assume the identity of enemies, including Nazis and terrorists."

This isn't difficult. We at PSXE maintain our stance on Medal of Honor ; we'd ask the servicemen who volunteered to help with the game, and even others who didn't, if they had a problem with the content. If they did, we'd have a problem, too. If they didn't – and they don't seem to – than we're good to go. They are the ones who matter in this scenario…nobody else.

Related Game(s): Medal of Honor

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
65 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
LimitedVertigo
LimitedVertigo
13 years ago

There will always be a select few that have to find something to complain about. My dad was in Vietnam and he despises any movies or games dealing with that war.

You can't please everyone and as long as you're doing something for the right reasons than you shouldn't regret or restrict your product. I'm actually looking forward to this, looks like something fresh.

Shams
Shams
13 years ago

First off, welcome back.

"As long as your doing something for the right reasons…"

I think that's the question. When the reason is "just entertainment", rather than education or training, such as with a VR sim, than really, is it right?

To me, it's no surprise that a military guy, who's most likely on the activision payroll, is going to promote games about war. And it's no suprise to me, that those recruiting centers at the malls, will market themselves to young adults with video games.

And to me, it's no suprise, that there would be some vet coming back from war, traumatized, and readjusting, and disgusted not at just the insensitivity of the people and the culture at large, but unwillingness to even understand that war is indeed hell, and that they've gone through hell.

So I agree with Ben, that the soldiers (and the victims of war) are the only ones that matter. And I consider it asinine, that someone who is not one of these should go on to tell them, "no,they don't".

Shams
Shams
13 years ago

And frankly speaking, I don't care if they ban such games or not. I won't play them either way. One may fairly ask, "well, where do you stop?" What if people start banning anything with guns. I say there is pretty big difference between fighting fictitious alien enemies, and games designed to take place in real-life wars. But like I said, I don't care, if people can see the difference or not. They'll always be there, even if you ban this or that.

LimitedVertigo
LimitedVertigo
13 years ago

Makes you think about the proposed Mosque at ground zero in NY. It may be legal but a little common sense should tell those involved that it's not a respectful idea.

Shams
Shams
13 years ago

Lol, LV is indeed back!

I fully agree (though I know the real reason why you brought that up).

However, if a church, or a synagogue, or a temple, or an atheist center, or a post office for that matter was made at that same location, there wouldn't be a public outcry, would there? Why? Because not everybody blames religion for what happened on that grievous day (even though there are some who do "there will always be a select few who have to find something to complain about").

In the same way, anyone who knows even the basic tenants of Islam ("To murder even one innocent HUMAN is as to kill all of mankind, and to save even one innocent HUMAN is to save all of mankind"), knows that what took place on that grievous calamity of a day was EVERYTHING against Islam, and those who orchestrated the plot, and those who were involved in that plot, and those who knew about it and allowed it to happen, are the greatest enemies to Islam and all of mankind.

Yet, since 9/11 Muslims in America, and everywhere, are blamed for what happened. Hate crimes are on the increase, but worse than that is the quiet, unspoken grudge and hazing that has become widespread, and has polarized and separated the people even more, posing as an obstacle from them getting to know each other.

So some self-identified Muslims have taken it upon themselves to stand in the public spotlight…so that they may present themselves openly for meeting about certain topics that most have been silent about.

I understand their need, though I don't agree with their method. See, if people do horrific things in the supposed name of Islam, then the media will focus on that, and the people will blame Muslims in general. But if Muslims speak out, and say this has nothing to do with our faith, and in fact, is everything against our faith, the media will not focus on that, and the people will ignore it. So this is the desperate attempt by some to stand out in the spotlight of the media, that has been ignoring them for so long. Though, I believe that method will not help them, in the same way that I have made myself open to YOU, but you have chosen instead to ignore that invitation and nurse a grudge.

LimitedVertigo
LimitedVertigo
13 years ago

Shams,

You didn't need to reply with an entire page worth of rambling. You and I both agree on the issue and that should be good enough.

I simply brought it up as an example of the topic being discussed in regards to showing some level headed empathy and kindness.

Religion is the reason 9/11 happened, PERIOD.

Okay, lets get back to gaming.


Last edited by LimitedVertigo on 8/26/2010 11:24:03 PM

Shams
Shams
13 years ago

Right. Agree with you, and everything else is rambling. You allow yourself to say 9/11 is because of religion, but if someone responds to that, then it is off-topic.

LV, just about every comment you make is an attempt to point out the hypocrisy of others, or to belittle them. Yet, hypocrisy is the one thing you never escape from.

But, yeah, I agree, let's keep it game-related, and friendly if you can manage.

LimitedVertigo
LimitedVertigo
13 years ago

Shams I have no problem with someone stating their opinion, as long as it's backed by logic based on facts and common sense. I just brought up a well known example to further the discussion and add some insight into the issue.

Me stating that 9/11 was a result of religion is just stating an obvious known FACT. If you choose to attempt to ramble towards some resolution that stares away from the real issues than so be it. Notice that I'm not attacking any particular faith.

Shams
Shams
13 years ago

Right, what you say is facts, and what others say that is in odds to that is mere rambling because you are logical, and are more scientifically-minded. Forget about me then. What about Sir Isaac Newton, or Einstein, or even Darwin for that matter? Go read about their beliefs. Perhaps, you find yourself more "scientifically minded" than them.

Underdog15
Underdog15
13 years ago

Just to elaborate on you two:

Religion itself is not to blame, but religious extremists who use religion as an excuse. Those in power have used religion as an excuse throughout all history. Now we see people using the Muslim faith to push propaganda, but I betcha most Muslims are very much against what they do. Similarly, those in power in the middle ages used Christianity as an excuse for war, but I guarantee most Christians were against that too!

LimitedVertigo
LimitedVertigo
13 years ago

Actually Underdog religion is to blame. History is full of intolerance, hatred, and ignorance on the behalf of "religion", not just "extremists".

I take it the Crusades were on the part of "extremists" and the Armenian Genocide as well?

Shams,

I suggest you read some Richard Dawkins, it may help with your false sense of faith and denial to the atrocities committed around the world in the name of a god.


Last edited by LimitedVertigo on 8/27/2010 2:09:50 PM

Shams
Shams
13 years ago

The fact that you mention Richard Dawkins in response to the names i've mentioned speaks volumes. Anyways, I wonder how he would've replied to my point…

LimitedVertigo
LimitedVertigo
13 years ago

He would surely laugh at you as I have since bringing up people I look up to that share the same opinion as me only gives me more ammunition in pointing out how foolish and childish your beliefs are.

The fact that you believe in a grown up Santa Claus and expect people to take you serious is appalling.

Shams
Shams
13 years ago

LV, Richard Dawkins would mock me, as you would. There is no question in that. But would Richard Dawkins mock Einstein, or Sir Isaac Newton, or Charles Dawin for not being scientifically minded, lacking IQ, intellectual honesty, or having childish beliefs?

And Richard Dawkins is no scientist. I can't even call him an intellectual. Watch him get stumped on a simple question asking him to explain the increase in genetic information according to natural selection/evolution. Watch him get wrecked by Jewish New Yorker-turned-Wahabi-extremist.

Shams
Shams
13 years ago

You accuse others of having childish beliefs, but your disbelief in what you can't see is no different than the ego-centricism of a baby.

But, we will indeed see who was right soon enough. We will both eventually die, and either you are right, in which case we return to nothing, and so we will be in the same boat. Or you are not right, and we will see who was decieved: me by my "Santa Claus" or you by your Richard Dawkins.

Shams
Shams
13 years ago

LV, I also find it strange that you point out the atrocities done in the supposed name of God, but conveniently neglect to mention the atrocities done in the name of no God…such as those perpetrated by Stalin, Polpot, and Hitler, and those done in the name of oil, or democracy.

Underdog15
Underdog15
13 years ago

Yeah, LV, I was referring to the Crusades when I mentioned Christianity was used as an excuse for was during the middle ages. People use religion as an excuse, but I'm positive the religion itself is not to blame… Especially faiths that preach on love and peace.

Heck, the whole reason Christianity got so much attention was the fact that it was the first extremely popular religion to preach on the importance of love. I'm pretty sure the muslim faith at it's core teaches about easing the suffering of others.

So yes. It is NOT the religions, but the ones manipulating it's core… called extremists… like the crusades…

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
13 years ago

Great point at the end of the article Ben. I do think that people often think with their emotions and not their head – like Liam Fox.

OhYessss
OhYessss
13 years ago

twat.

Underdog15
Underdog15
13 years ago

As always with entertainment/media, I take on the theatre approach in line with my educational background.

I do feel that an accurate representation is necessary. A glorification of war would be bad. What I mean, is if it's solely about the spectacle, that's bad. But if it accurately shows you the psychological battles the soldiers face, it's good. I want a current war game like this to make me happy about when the fighting stops.

Take a movie/tv show like Band of Brothers. It certainly did not glorify the war. It was entertaining, and cool at times, sure! But it did and excellent job at accurately portraying events in a way that resonates with it's viewers. If MoH can do something similar by immersing us into it's story, then it has been a huge success.

Shams
Shams
13 years ago

I agree with your sentiments, Underdog. I just think games, especially those that are aimed at the super-massive market of shooter fans, are designed to be for multiplayer fun, first-and-foremost. That's why depictions, consequences,and horrors of war would never work with anything having a game-over/continue screen, and would be as likely as kids playing team death match in history class (along with the teacher).

booze925
booze925
13 years ago

hey u bum, u think fox is being anal about this game…
well look at this!
http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=LY4sLNxfeds&feature=player_embedded#at=147
at least fox got the title right!

totozero18
totozero18
13 years ago

@Underdog

Couldn't find myself a better reference than Band Of Brothers, by the way and kinda off topic, is The Pacific any good?


Last edited by totozero18 on 8/26/2010 5:57:11 PM

StangMan80
StangMan80
13 years ago

I really don't see the problem here?
It is just a game, about war, there has always been games about war and games with bad guys you can play as whether it's a gangster or terrorist.

Shams
Shams
13 years ago

That's just it. Some people are upset that they are making "just a game" off of real life war and events, when war is not a game, but a traumatizing reality.

Underdog15
Underdog15
13 years ago

My mom has always said that when I was growing up about any war game, past or present. You'll run into this argument anytime a war game is discussed in a non-gaming forum.


Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/26/2010 3:22:07 PM

ro kurorai
ro kurorai
13 years ago

EA have too great a reputation to lose to screw this game up.
I'm certain they did portray a soldier's life faithfully and all those politicians whining about stuff they don't know sh** about simply contribute to the game's marketing ^^

BikerSaint
BikerSaint
13 years ago

ro kurorai,

Thumbs up on your post!

And I think EA & MOH did a damned fine job portraying a soldier's life both faithfully, and damned well totally realistically too, in their trailer here …..

Hezzron
Hezzron
13 years ago

This doesn't really bother me personally, but I can sympathize with those who are bothered by it.

Nazis aren't causing chaos anymore. The Taliban are. I feel for those who have lost loved ones at their hand. I would like to think that playing as the organization that has killed your friend or family member would be out of the question for most.

A fiction terrorist organization would have been less realistic, but perhaps a little more sensitive to people's feelings.

THEVERDIN
THEVERDIN
13 years ago

Maybe EA should take the Taliban out and put illegal aliens shooting cops and jumping fences, selling drugs, you name it. You think they would feel the same way then?

spiderboi
spiderboi
13 years ago

To the criticizers–it's a game. Get over it!

spiderboi
spiderboi
13 years ago

But yeah as Hezzron mentions, these villains are still active so that makes it a wee bit sensitive. But c'mon–it's a GAME! So long as we don't get to play as the villain as a story progression prerequisite then it's OK

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
13 years ago

That's a very solid stance to take for PSXE. Now where's Six Days in Fallujah?

Shams
Shams
13 years ago

I heard after ball had been dropped, it is being picked up, again.

booze925
booze925
13 years ago

i heard it was interred in the same place that This is Vegas was buried.

jaybiv
jaybiv
13 years ago

bottom line is too many people want to pass their values onto others as if it's their world. no one has a monopoly on pain. just looking at the currrent war. had we been born on the other side of the world, i bet that we would not view the American military in the same light. instead of heros they would be invaders. some people just need to tend to their own gardens before planting seeds in other folks'.

Underdog15
Underdog15
13 years ago

"planting seeds in other folks"

hehehe….

Sorry about that. You do raise a good point. Anytime you try to address real world conflict, you're going to get headbutted by one side or the other. You need controversial media to keep it interesting… sometimes I hate it too, but ya… I consider it a necessary evil.

totozero18
totozero18
13 years ago

@Jaybiv, that's right, it really depends on the place you were born.
Here in SouthAm people tends to be pretty neutral both sides have it's faults, some people sees war on terrorism as a holy war, for some it's just business, if you ask me it's an endless nonsense, and of course the whole thing blows up when one side tries to impose on the other.

@Underdog, it's a REALLY SAD necessary evil.

LimitedVertigo
LimitedVertigo
13 years ago

Live in a country without basic freedoms and I doubt you'll truly be in favor of your local government without the ever present feeling of fear and terror.

Shams
Shams
13 years ago

Right, LV…. your simple and basic freedom to play MOH…Don't worry, you won't lose that.

LimitedVertigo
LimitedVertigo
13 years ago

…or the basic freedom to walk down the street and be whoever I wish to be as long as it doesn't hurt someone else unlike you know where.

Shams
Shams
13 years ago

Don't worry. You won't lose that either.

LimitedVertigo
LimitedVertigo
13 years ago

Never was in fear of losing it, I don't live in Iran.

Shams
Shams
13 years ago

I know, but your paranoid rants suggest that you do.

LimitedVertigo
LimitedVertigo
13 years ago

Paranoid rants?

I post a couple sentences in direct relation to the previous person's post while you continue to post multiple paragraphs with little to no purpose.

If anyone is ranting it's most certainly you. Not to mention stalking my posts.

Shams
Shams
13 years ago

What was your purpose in bringing up Iran? Neither you nor I live there. Nor was it mentioned in the article.

LimitedVertigo
LimitedVertigo
13 years ago

In direct reply to your idiotic response to my comment. As if suggesting that I felt in danger of losing my basic freedoms. I simply pointed out it was the exact opposite, then gave an example of a country where my basic freedoms would be minimal at best.

Are you that narrow minded?

Shams
Shams
13 years ago

Like I said, whether MOH gets banned in England or not, mentioning Iran and your endangered American, civil liberties just seems to be an excuse to bad mouth other cultures and people whom you know nothing about other than from what you gather from youtube, and the like. But that is only expected from you.

LimitedVertigo
LimitedVertigo
13 years ago

Ah yes the typical blinded retort. Simply because I've never been to a certain country means any knowledge I have on it is from youtube or some other idiotic source.

So I'm wrong about Iran, eh? I'd love for you to prove me wrong but yet again we're in the same position where I point out something and you backtrack with zero evidence in your favor.

I guess in your world there are only a select few that can actually talk about the Moon with any reliable information.

Shams
Shams
13 years ago

LV, why should I prove to you how Iran is when I haven't even stated how Iran is, and when it is completely off-topic? You're not getting that. If the onus is on anyone, it is upon you. But I can say your comments are proof enough of your pettiness, prejudice, and hatred.

65
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x