EA should make a MoH about this current Israel/Palestine war

#1 Edited by granderojo (1788 posts) -

They would make the next Medal of Honor game about this current war Israel's started up with Palestine. IDF (Israel Defense Force) not only killed Ahmed al-Jabari, a Hamas military leader, on Wednesday, but they also posted a youtube video of it immediately and sent out a tweet saying:

"We recommend that no Hamas operatives, whether low level or senior leaders, show their faces above ground in the days ahead."

I remember when that first Danger Close Medal of Honor came out everyone was upset with terrorists in the multiplayer. Make the game about both IDF and Hamas, and tell a grounded story about how both sides are fucked up & allow you to have terrorists in your multiplayer.

Sources, etc.

#2 Posted by BeachThunder (11953 posts) -

How about a game based around the upcoming next generation console wars; that would be a great idea for a new MoH game.

#3 Edited by Giantstalker (1656 posts) -

EA would be the last company I'd like to see handle this.

Bohemia Interactive would be a much, much better choice (yes, despite the bugs even). They actually put civilians in their games, which I can assure you will be a defining aspect of the upcoming conflict.

#4 Posted by BaconGames (3423 posts) -

EA had their chance with two Medal of Honor games and squashed the opportunity. They introduced the idea of making a realistic and mature war shooter and utterly failed the second time around. While there might be a game about the conflict, EA has not demonstrated any willingness nor ability to make the game that needs to be made in order to justify the story or the premise.

@BeachThunder said:

How about a game based around the upcoming next generation console wars; that would be a great idea for a new MoH game.

The idea of a military-themed (or whatever theme works) shooter that at the root is about the console wars that began on the internet and spilled out into real war is hilarious. I'd play that game, or at least think about it.

#5 Posted by GERALTITUDE (3337 posts) -

Dude I wish, but yeah, not gonna happen. I'll settle for any game wherein the people of the Middle East aren't just moving targets.

#6 Edited by TruthTellah (9122 posts) -

@thabigred: Honestly, while you may think it's clever, that sounds like the worst idea for a MoH game I've ever heard.

So much is wrong with this that I'm not even sure where to start.

#7 Posted by Hailinel (24854 posts) -

@BeachThunder said:

How about a game based around the upcoming next generation console wars; that would be a great idea for a new MoH game.

They should team up with Idea Factory and Compile Heart and make Medal of Hyperdimension Neptunia.

Online
#8 Posted by VierasTalo (783 posts) -

I don't even know what to say about this. Man.

#9 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

No they should stop trying to make money of peoples misery

#10 Posted by Animasta (14692 posts) -

@Giantstalker said:

EA would be the last company I'd like to see handle this.

Bohemia Interactive would be a much, much better choice (yes, despite the bugs even). They actually put civilians in their games, which I can assure you will be a defining aspect of the upcoming conflict.

i'm sorry, no one will be able to do this conflict with anything approaching tact and fairness. Not even the spec ops team.

#11 Posted by mellotronrules (1192 posts) -

i don't think they have the gumption- israel and palestine are both so politically complicated, if they wanted to make big bucks, they'd risk pissing off too many people. besides- i think games about current conflicts are misguided- you don't have the benefit of perspective or retrospect, so how can you be sure you're respectably depicting the conflict?

#12 Posted by Zella (756 posts) -

The idea of armies threatening each other over Twitter is just hilarious to me. Not really surprised about the Israelis's putting it up on Youtube though. A game set around the conflict would surely be interesting but it would be impossible to do it fairly and without massive backlash from one or both sides.

#13 Posted by Animasta (14692 posts) -

@mellotronrules said:

i don't think they have the gumption- israel and palestine are both so politically complicated, if they wanted to make big bucks, they'd risk pissing off too many people. besides- i think games about current conflicts are misguided- you don't have the benefit of perspective or retrospect, so how can you be sure you're respectably depicting the conflict?

this is why WWII shooters were so popular, because you don't really have to be sympathetic to nazi's (I mean I know many of the soldiers were sympathetic but the larger organization was as a whole a bad thing so yup)

#14 Posted by granderojo (1788 posts) -

@Zella said:

The idea of armies threatening each other over Twitter is just hilarious to me. Not really surprised about the Israelis's putting it up on Youtube though. A game set around the conflict would surely be interesting but it would be impossible to do it fairly and without massive backlash from one or both sides.

My thinking behind this is that while the Israeli lobby is massive here in the US, that EA could still get away with it, since it's not "US troops" getting shot. Also the Xbox 360 JUST launched in Israel so losing their sales really doesn't matter.

Also I don't think unbiased matters. Just have two separate campaign, one as biased as the next and allow the player to come away with it what they will.

The great thing about both sides are they're both terrible in equally terrible ways.

#15 Posted by medacris (660 posts) -

Agreeing that I don't think you could do it from either side and pull it off with tact or be able not to offend anyone.

I've always wanted a game (or a movie, or a comic, or anything) where an Israeli Jew and a Palestinian Muslim (or just a Jew and a Muslim period) were best friends for a change.

#16 Posted by Giantstalker (1656 posts) -

It's sort of a strange sentiment: A new conflict is taboo. In ten years, it's edgy. In twenty, it's still 'modern'. In forty, it's a disappointment. In sixty, it's ignored. By seventy, it's history. By a hundred, it's all but forgotten.

Other than time, what's to really stop someone from making a game about any given conflict? Interest? Political correctness? Current relevance?

#17 Edited by granderojo (1788 posts) -

@Animasta said:

@mellotronrules said:

i don't think they have the gumption- israel and palestine are both so politically complicated, if they wanted to make big bucks, they'd risk pissing off too many people. besides- i think games about current conflicts are misguided- you don't have the benefit of perspective or retrospect, so how can you be sure you're respectably depicting the conflict?

this is why WWII shooters were so popular, because you don't really have to be sympathetic to nazi's (I mean I know many of the soldiers were sympathetic but the larger organization was as a whole a bad thing so yup)

Germans learned about the concentration camp from the British. War is complicated and winners write the history books, they were both terrible in their own ways.

#18 Posted by believer258 (11922 posts) -

How about no more supposedly-realistic war shooters?
There are far better reasons for such a game not to exist but at the end of the day I just don't want any more personality-less middle-east conflict games. CoD doesn't even go there anymore unless it's in Black Ops 2. BF3 does but its multiplayer is the reason to play that game.

#19 Posted by addictedtopinescent (3645 posts) -

Sounds like the worst idea ever for a game

#20 Posted by Animasta (14692 posts) -

@Giantstalker: current relevance and political correctness. Like honestly they'd probably make Israel the sympathetic side, and that would be intensely terrible (because Israel is not on the good side no matter what you think of Hamas, not that you could really call them good either). on the other hand, Americans probably wouldn't like a game that pits Israel as the enemy state.

Like maybe you make a game about a fantasy coalition of Palestinian Muslims/Israeli Jews who are trying to make their country free for both parties but that would just be handwaving the whole conflict. Do you see many games about the Yugoslav wars? That's because it's a lot more morally grey, whereas hunting terrorists is generally seen as a good thing as are killing nazi's or whatever. and moral ambiguity makes sense in fantasy worlds but it can be a little insensitive in real life.

#21 Posted by mellotronrules (1192 posts) -

@Animasta said:

@mellotronrules said:

i don't think they have the gumption- israel and palestine are both so politically complicated, if they wanted to make big bucks, they'd risk pissing off too many people. besides- i think games about current conflicts are misguided- you don't have the benefit of perspective or retrospect, so how can you be sure you're respectably depicting the conflict?

this is why WWII shooters were so popular, because you don't really have to be sympathetic to nazi's (I mean I know many of the soldiers were sympathetic but the larger organization was as a whole a bad thing so yup)

troof. actually, i would love to see a game that gave war the moral ambiguity and gravity it truly deserves. especially in a conflict as established in the public consciousness as world war 2. think 'the thin red line' (if you've seen that movie)- a real pacific-theatre game that challenges any conception of 'the good guys versus the bad guys.' it's never that simple. and i'd never trust a huge triple 'a' studio to handle it properly.

#22 Posted by TheHumanDove (2523 posts) -

Gonna play me a war game!

#23 Posted by sins_of_mosin (1556 posts) -

I'm still waiting for a game based during the Korean War.

#24 Posted by mordukai (7151 posts) -

Yeaaaaaaahhhhh....NO!

#25 Posted by gaminghooligan (1447 posts) -

@Giantstalker said:

It's sort of a strange sentiment: A new conflict is taboo. In ten years, it's edgy. In twenty, it's still 'modern'. In forty, it's a disappointment. In sixty, it's ignored. By seventy, it's history. By a hundred, it's all but forgotten.

Other than time, what's to really stop someone from making a game about any given conflict? Interest? Political correctness? Current relevance?

Exactly my thoughts. It's a strange line to cross anytime you base a game in a real war or real conflict. It's hard to judge either side fairly unless you were there. It's also that whole issue of games being meant for fun and leisure. Should it be fun to kill virtual human beings set in a game based in reality? WWII games sort of skated by on the merits that while not every Nazi was evil, the larger picture of the Axis was associated with so many evil acts. In the same realm though you sort of have take into account the view from the other side of the fence. War is always terrible, no matter who is right or wrong. At the same time there's a chance to show first hand the terrors of war and use them to educate. Both sides, for and against these types of games have pretty valid arguments.

#26 Posted by beeftothetaco (425 posts) -

How about Danger Close never makes another MoH game? Ever?

#27 Posted by JasonR86 (9710 posts) -

@addictedtopinescent said:

Sounds like the worst idea ever for a game

Honestly it does. The backlash would be fucking tremendous. It would be like the Afghanistan nonsense from the MOH prior to this last one but multiplied by a shit ton.

#28 Posted by Rolyatkcinmai (2688 posts) -

Just play the part of Spec Ops where you kill all those civilians over and over again and pretend you're Israeli.

#29 Edited by Zekhariah (697 posts) -

@Simplexity said:

Press 'X' to suicide bomb.

The "B" button can be used to pick up rocks. If a rock is already being held, pressing "B" again throws the rock.

You could probably doing something like the 5-day war. There would be a nightmare of bad publicity about it, but there is probably a lot there you could cover. Although, if you got away from shooters, the modern day middle east would probably allow for the grittiest RPG setting ever. If it were a realistic open world game with first person action, trading, and roleplaying in terms of your position in the conflict it would .... probably be to intense to be fun.

Edit addition: Making the game would be a disaster, but it would be amazingly bad if a April 1 press release of a developer to indicated that a game based around a coming of age story set in the Palestinian camps was going to be out soon. Especially if the developer did not really do it, and it was some dodgy rumor that a lot of people believed on reddit and neogaf.

#30 Posted by beepmachine (618 posts) -

Hey what about a game with African Child Soldiers! But seriously, the amount of games based on real world conflicts has started to kind of freak me out a bit. I want more futuristic corporation warfare if anything.

#31 Posted by aquamarin (555 posts) -

As a Tier 1 Operator, I'd make sure no Hamas operatives showed their ugly mugs above ground.

#32 Posted by coakroach (2490 posts) -

I... I dont think you can do that

#33 Edited by SethPhotopoulos (5266 posts) -

@BaconGames said:

EA had their chance with two Medal of Honor games and squashed the opportunity. They introduced the idea of making a realistic and mature war shooter and utterly failed the second time around. While there might be a game about the conflict, EA has not demonstrated any willingness nor ability to make the game that needs to be made in order to justify the story or the premise.

@BeachThunder said:

How about a game based around the upcoming next generation console wars; that would be a great idea for a new MoH game.

The idea of a military-themed (or whatever theme works) shooter that at the root is about the console wars that began on the internet and spilled out into real war is hilarious. I'd play that game, or at least think about it.

Then buy this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperdimension_Neptunia

It might suck or it might not but if console wars are your thing... It ain't no where near may thing.

#34 Posted by granderojo (1788 posts) -

@aquamarin said:

As a Tier 1 Operator, I'd make sure no Hamas operatives showed their ugly mugs above ground.

Beard father? We will have salvation this day!

#35 Posted by Dagbiker (6976 posts) -

I think its fine. But I think Israel acts like a child most of the time. I doubt it would sell. And I don't think it would be a very smart marketing Idea. But I also don't think putting a arms dealer in your video game is a good Idea ether, so who am I to judge.

#36 Posted by bio595 (307 posts) -

That is such a ridiculous idea.

#37 Edited by granderojo (1788 posts) -

I did some more reading since creating this thread, last year I knew the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) put in a bid to go from non-member observer status to 'state status' meaning they get a seat at the table, something Israel has opposed and continues to oppose. Last time America and Europe were able to gather enough votes to stop the statehood bid by running a pretty negative campaign at the UN. This said, apparently the PLO is putting in another bid and US/Europe aren't gearing up for another campaign. Without US/Europeans opposing it, it has the votes easy to pass.

The IDF(Israeli Defense Force) is trying to take out Hamas leaders so they aren't in a position to take over the government when it becomes a state, or at least that's the sounds of it.

So I got the premise for the video game. You fight as both the PLO and IDF soldiers against Hamas. Palestinian statehood bid passes at the UN, and it's your job to keep Hamas from taking over the government. Old enemies have to throw down their age old rivalries to take down a common enemy.

There you go. Sounds like a good premise to a video game.

#38 Edited by TruthTellah (9122 posts) -

@thabigred said:

I did some more reading since creating this thread, last year I knew the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) put in a bid to go from non-member observer status to 'state status' meaning they get a seat at the table, something Israel has opposed and continues to oppose. Last time America and Europe were able to gather enough votes to stop the statehood bid by running a pretty negative campaign at the UN. This said, apparently the PLO is putting in another bid and US/Europe aren't gearing up for another campaign. Without US/Europeans opposing it, it has the votes easy to pass.

The IDF(Israeli Defense Force) is trying to take out Hamas leaders so they aren't in a position to take over the government when it becomes a state, or at least that's the sounds of it.

So I got the premise for the video game. You fight as both the PLO and IDF soldiers against Hamas. Palestinian statehood bid passes at the UN, and it's your job to keep Hamas from taking over the government. Old enemies have to throw down their age old rivalries to take down a common enemy.

There you go. Sounds like a good premise to a video game.

So, it'll just be a game where every side is partly the evil enemy and no resolution will ever really be that satisfying to anyone involved?

I think single player wouldn't make much sense, but the concept would make a fine multiplayer experience. A never-ending conflict fought on the same small but popular map where each side just keeps throwing more people and resources at each other while temporarily pausing at regular intervals after each battle is won by either side so that everyone can assess their kills and deaths until the next battle between them begins anew?

Sounds like a perfect fit.

#39 Posted by GERALTITUDE (3337 posts) -

@thabigred: That's not bad.

#40 Posted by granderojo (1788 posts) -

@TruthTellah said:

So, it'll just be a game where every side is partly the evil enemy and no resolution will ever really be that satisfying to anyone involved?

There are current games on the market, that present a conflict between two sides where each side is evil in their own ways. I don't see what prohibits single player in a game like this.

#41 Posted by BaconGames (3423 posts) -

@SethPhotopoulos said:

@BaconGames said:

EA had their chance with two Medal of Honor games and squashed the opportunity. They introduced the idea of making a realistic and mature war shooter and utterly failed the second time around. While there might be a game about the conflict, EA has not demonstrated any willingness nor ability to make the game that needs to be made in order to justify the story or the premise.

@BeachThunder said:

How about a game based around the upcoming next generation console wars; that would be a great idea for a new MoH game.

The idea of a military-themed (or whatever theme works) shooter that at the root is about the console wars that began on the internet and spilled out into real war is hilarious. I'd play that game, or at least think about it.

Then buy this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperdimension_Neptunia

It might suck or it might not but if console wars are your thing... It ain't no where near may thing.

I read reviews that it was completely garbage. I do remember that game now that you mention it but the premise was and still is the best thing going for it.

#42 Posted by SethPhotopoulos (5266 posts) -

@BaconGames said:

@SethPhotopoulos said:

@BaconGames said:

EA had their chance with two Medal of Honor games and squashed the opportunity. They introduced the idea of making a realistic and mature war shooter and utterly failed the second time around. While there might be a game about the conflict, EA has not demonstrated any willingness nor ability to make the game that needs to be made in order to justify the story or the premise.

@BeachThunder said:

How about a game based around the upcoming next generation console wars; that would be a great idea for a new MoH game.

The idea of a military-themed (or whatever theme works) shooter that at the root is about the console wars that began on the internet and spilled out into real war is hilarious. I'd play that game, or at least think about it.

Then buy this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperdimension_Neptunia

It might suck or it might not but if console wars are your thing... It ain't no where near may thing.

I read reviews that it was completely garbage. I do remember that game now that you mention it but the premise was and still is the best thing going for it.

Personally I think all of it sounds like the worst. I especially dislike that premise.

#43 Edited by mellotronrules (1192 posts) -

@thabigred said:

@TruthTellah said:

So, it'll just be a game where every side is partly the evil enemy and no resolution will ever really be that satisfying to anyone involved?

There are current games on the market, that present a conflict between two sides where each side is evil in their own ways. I don't see what prohibits single player in a game like this.

i think the only thing that would prohibit a game like this would be good taste and tact. i mean, this just speaks to my own personal hangups with releases that attempt to 'game-ify' active conflicts- i just don't see how a company gets away with making-light of a situation where the fate of nations and lives are reduced to left trigger right trigger 6 hour consequence-free campaigns. unless they wanted a game to communicate the horrors of current conflicts- but emotionally disturbing games wouldn't sell well on a mass market, would they?

this is just me, but i think there's something implicitly disrespectful with reducing warfare to a 'game' state- especially when we don't have the benefit of time and perspective. and i'm not speaking from a 'holier than thou' perspective- i've played call of duty games, and i've enjoyed them. but there is a nagging guilt i've always felt- and it's probably why i gravitate towards shooters that are sci-fi. also- i think the majority of enjoyment for shooters comes from the visceral marksman aspect more than the circumstances- i truly believe i'd enjoy a call of duty:mars edition as much as i did the ww2 ones.

#44 Posted by mutha3 (4985 posts) -

No.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.