Mc Shea's follow up article

  • 89 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Edited by warxsnake (2720 posts) -

Tom Mcshae is a bitch. The interview was over in the first few minutes, want hardcore mode? its there, fuck off. 
I'm not defending the game either, I played a few minutes and woke up a few hours later with keyboard impressions on my face. 

#52 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4569 posts) -

@warxsnake said:

Tom Mcshae is a bitch. The interview was over in the first few minutes, want hardcore mode? its there, fuck off.

Hardcore mode still has re spawns no? The problem is not about the tropes of first person shooters, the problem was EA went around calling this game "realistic", that's the problem here. Even to make this game 1% realistic you would have to go the ARMA route of if you get shot in the leg your crawling around for the rest of the level after spending 2 minutes patching up your leg.

#53 Posted by TeflonBilly (4742 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior: You really see this as a true journalistic endeavour by McShea to point out the hypocrisy of stupid military shooters and not him trying to score brownie points by dogpiling on the game now that the coast is clear?

Unless McShea makes a marked stance in the future by levelling disgust at ALL shooters which aren't wholly rooted in fantasy or science fiction with no plausible implication of geopolitical climate then all he's doing is a fancy way of trying to say "I TOLD YOU SO!"

This was nothing more than an attack article by him to make himself feel better about coming off as a prick in that interview. Nowhere do I see any journalistic merit in his outrage and all I see is more inconsistent garbage due to him having a hard on for this game which I personally don't see a reason for existing. However there are people who do enjoy this escaism and there are people who worked hard on this game trying to have a level of authenticity taht they felt "respected the troops". I find that stance laughable and would've enjoyed somebody a lot more talented and intelligent than McShea try to broach the subject. Unfortunately you have the idiotic braying of McShea muddying up the discourse with his rhetoric and superficial criticism.

McShea has shown his hand as a reactionary hack rather than a well researched and intelligent journalist who went at this whole issue with the grace of three legged rabid pitbull. He shames his profession.

#54 Posted by Thoseposers (851 posts) -

i think that if you're taking away the notion that the enemies are depicted as stupid animals based on bad ai then you're really stretching it. That's just bad ai, nothing more

#55 Edited by Bourbon_Warrior (4569 posts) -

@TeflonBilly: You seem to have missed the point again.... its not an attack on the genre its an attack on a developer marketing their Shooter game as a realistic experience and he called them out on it.

Is it wrong for me to have read your whole post in the voice of Glen Beck?

#56 Posted by ImmortalSaiyan (4745 posts) -

@TeflonBilly: Mcshea is not being inconsistent at all. I have been listening to the hotspot for a while and Mcshea has this problem with all military shooters. He truly believes what he is saying and is not trying for hits.

He is focusing of MOH because of the marketing behind it which stated itself as authentic and true to the troops that respects what they go through. In the argument months back the dangerclose guy told Mcshea to play the finished product. So he did.

#57 Edited by themangalist (1853 posts) -

@TeflonBilly said:

@Bourbon_Warrior: You really see this as a true journalistic endeavour by McShea to point out the hypocrisy of stupid military shooters and not him trying to score brownie points by dogpiling on the game now that the coast is clear?

Unless McShea makes a marked stance in the future by levelling disgust at ALL shooters which aren't wholly rooted in fantasy or science fiction with no plausible implication of geopolitical climate then all he's doing is a fancy way of trying to say "I TOLD YOU SO!"

That shows you do not know the man at all. Ever since he was in Gamespot he's been very anti-war games. He more than once denounced "modern warfare" games on the Hotspot. It has always been something he avoids talking about/reviewing/previewing, unless in circumstances or discussions where he has to. MoH is the ultimate "war game", at least from what the marketing wants it to be portrayed as. It really is no mystery that the man stood up to talk about it. Him being an unprofessional game journalist however, is a question for another day.

#58 Posted by Tim_the_Corsair (3053 posts) -

I'm just trying to work out how Medal of Honour is disrespectful when compared to every other modern warfare shooter on the market?

EA claim it is authentic. EA consulted with veterans on the first game and (I assume) this one as well, so would that not be a claim to authenticity compared to their rivals in the genre, regardless of whether the contents of this game are based on real events as the first one was?

Why is the fact the war in Afghanistan is still ongoing make a game using that setting disrespectful? Is Black Ops disrespectful to Vietnam veterans? People that were there the day JFK died? What about the original Call of Duty and Medal of Honour and WW2 veterans? You can't have stuff like this both ways.

Is Modern Warfare 1-3, Battlefield Bad Company, Battlefield 3, and many other games not extremely disrespectful to Russia?

I don't give two shits about Warfighter, but the fact that people (including McShea, who I have little experience with, but who has certainly not shown much to make me want to start getting to know his body of work) have chosen this particular game to get up in arms about because the word "authentic" was used is just absurd.

#59 Edited by beeftothetaco (438 posts) -

I agree with most of the other comments; McShea is a pretentious, self-important piece of shit with no charisma. And if my memory doesn't fail me, it was HIM who asked for an interview with Goodrich. With that said, what Goodrich had to say in that interview was just as retarded as what McShea did.

#60 Posted by TeflonBilly (4742 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior: I see it as a stepping stone for him to attack an entire genre. Anybody who took more than a glancing look at MoH could see it wasn't a realistic and true experience. That's hollow marketing speak and anybody who didn't see it as that is pretty thick. You could clearly see during the interview with the producer that he said if you want a more realistic representation of combat, then play ARMA. However that wasn't the sort of game they were making, they were making a game in the vein of CoD, however they had worked with and done a lot more research to create a more authetic experience. Never did they say that this was a completely realistic portrayal of being in a combat zone. McShea however decided to extrapolate this into being a vehemently racist attack on everything not Western and an affront to any soldier who has ever served. He has taken something that is at it's core offensive and blown it out to ridiculous proportion to make it the most offensive thing taht ever existed and thusly tried to paint himself as a hero and paragon of virtue by attacking this bloated bogeyman he has created.

Instead of calling the game on it's shit realistically, with the very real implications of how these games are no better than the action movies of the 80's that the Regan administration loved cause it stirred up the Cold War mentality, he has turned every argument silly by making bad AI out to being a concentrated effort in dehumanizing brown people.

He isn't being consistent or clever about his criticism and is therefore hurting the very real core of his argument that these shooters aren't good for the spirit. However he is at the same time shitting on escapist entertainment for many people who don't see anything deeper in these games than a shooting gallery. I wish I was more clearheaded and was able to word myself better, but he has been hurting the very real core of his criticism with how he's acted and therefore doesn't earn anything more than scorn from me. It's like the people whos tarted the Video Nasty bruhaha in the 80s. They began with a very real concern and criticism about a lot of violent and horrible movies should not be available to all and may very well be damaging, however that almost immediatly ballooned up to a totalitarian review board which banned proper works of art with damaging filth.

His rhetoric makes no possibility for nuance and only says that this is bad and this is good. As far as that goes, I'd compare McShae's writing more to Glen Beck.

#61 Posted by RockyRaccoon37 (474 posts) -

Well, this thread is a special kind of sad.

I've only browsed these forums here an there for the last few years, but I never knew that it was filled with so many people who are so quick to throw derogatory comments at a person solely for their opinion and shut down discourse with childish comments.

You don't have to agree with him, heck even I dont agree with all Tom has to say, but respond with an arguement, don't get vindictive and cruel when someone has another opinion.

Use your thoughts and retort his arguement or kindly fuck off and die. There are too many people like you out there destr

#62 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4569 posts) -

@TeflonBilly: Thank you! You finally saw his point it was a bullshit marketing campaign. It took you a while but you got there!

#63 Posted by RockyRaccoon37 (474 posts) -

Totally hate my phone. Totally.

#64 Posted by RockyRaccoon37 (474 posts) -

But for serious, grow up please.

Thanks.

#65 Posted by TeflonBilly (4742 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@TeflonBilly: Thank you! You finally saw his point it was a bullshit marketing campaign. It took you a while but you got there!

I never implied it was anything but a bullshit marketing campaign. I thought I made it clear I have nothing but a distaste for MoH: Warfighter in my original post.

However, I have more disdain for somebody in McShea's position and with the ability to use it as a soapbox to misuse it so grossly. I simply can't see how anybody could take marketing thumping their chests that they've worked with and done the research to make this a more authentic experience than their peers in the marketplace to such an extreme he has and turned it into the zealotry he's shown in this article and in the prior interview.

#66 Posted by abomunist (126 posts) -

@Kerned said:

McShae is just speaking the truth, like it or not. It's good for someone to be raising these sorts of issues.

This

#67 Posted by TeflonBilly (4742 posts) -

It may focus on Spec Ops: The Line, but this video tackles all the points McShea wants to only intelligently and with care

Loading Video...

McShea's pathetic input in the very interesting spoilercast about Spec Ops shows that he is not well equipped to tackle this subject unless he decides to be a lot more well thought out and not as petty and reactionary.

I can afford to be a dumbass when I write cause I'm just a nobody on a messageboard. He's supposed to be a journalist and therefore owes his audience and his profession the courtesy of something better.

#68 Posted by ArbitraryWater (12728 posts) -

You see, I'd be more willing to listen to Tom McShea's (admittedly somewhat valid) point if he was capable of saying it without coming off as a total prick and using details other than "The enemy AI is dumb because it's a video game meant to appeal to a wide audience"

#69 Posted by RollingZeppelin (2283 posts) -

@abomunist said:

@Kerned said:

McShae is just speaking the truth, like it or not. It's good for someone to be raising these sorts of issues.

This

I just wish he would do it in a less douchey way. I would actually like to support the guy but I can't since he comes off as a complete ass. Criticism is much more effective if it is razor sharp and based on objective truths, and is all but useless if used in a preachy holier-than-thou way.

#70 Posted by wjb (1760 posts) -

Although I agree with some of his points, this doesn't seem to be the smartest idea. Half the Internet probably knows him solely from that E3 exchange, and even though it would be unfair to assume it as his original intention, following up about Medal of Honor in this fashion (or in any way) makes it appear he took things personally and needs to further justify a point he has already probably made several times over (I don't know because I'm not a fan of McShea).

I think letting it go would have been a better solution. People are smart and have already made up their minds about Medal of Honor: Warfighter months ago. The reception it has received is a surprise to no one.

#71 Posted by TheHumanDove (2521 posts) -

Just because MoH turned out shitty, it doesn't make anything he said prior to the release any more valid. Of course, I'm not surprised he created a rebuttal after the reviews bombed. One of those classic 'Told you so' things people like to do so often.

#72 Edited by PandaBear (1484 posts) -

@Tennmuerti said:

@Spitznock said:

To those unfamiliar with the story, back during E3, Gamespot editor Tom Mc Shea pushed a story calling out at the grossly inaccurate portrayal of war in military shooters (found here http://tinyurl.com/8uazd3r), and was shortly after coaxed into doing an interview

Oh noes a game journalist was coaxed into doing an interview! On a topic he wrote on, about a game he criticized. The shameless horror!

executive producer Greg Goodrich in which Goodrich flagrantly bullied Mc Shea throughout; stating that (and I'm paraphrasing so forgive me) "realism and authenticity are not the same thing".

You have no idea what bullying is do you? Two adults talking heatedly about a topic they care about is not it.

This sure reads like an unbiased and non one sided post. :/

What do you folks think? Did Warfighter make good on its promise?

Here's a clue the quality or authenticity of MoH had little to do with why most people were pissed at McShea, at least on this website (considering most knew next to nothing about the game at that point), it was his same arguments repeated ad nauseum while he ignored what the other person said entirely. It was not an interview it was an unprofessional farce to watch (regardless of who was right or wrong).

For the record I don't think the new MoH is a very good game, and will personally never play it.

Just to piggyback on this ... it was NOT bullying. It was a heated discussion. And both guys are entitled to their opinion, but that was a pretty weak interview on both sides. McShea was unable to think on his feet and Goodrich held the PR line (that's his job though, so I can't blame him). The follow-up better be a fucking revelation compared to a lot of his previous (and GameSpot in general) bullshit. Seriously, he said "regenerating health" about a thousand times... it was so annoying.

#73 Posted by Giantstalker (1883 posts) -

To me, this is the truth. I'm not speaking for vets or the service, but from my own perspective on why he's misguided.

There is little to no respect involved in actually fighting these people. Insurgents, pirates, rebels, militants, whatever. Respect their methods, sure; if you don't, then the next roadside bomb will probably have your name on it. But back to the people. The people who are less than dirt - the enemy is really more of a concept.

We really do believe they deserve to die. More importantly, it's not just a belief - it's a capability, and mandate. This is why artillery lands on them, aircraft strafes them, and drones have watched them every day for the last decade. If we believed anything less, or did anything less, we wouldn't deserve to defend anyone.

McShea and others are applying some kind of nobility or understanding to the whole concept of the enemy. As though they deserve it, or it's needed, or simply that it's right. Touching, but that kind of attitude creates someone who won't fight. Training specifically works to eliminate that kind of thinking. Without the right mindset, you won't ever stop doubting what you're doing or why. And when you meet an opponent with no such second thought, one who did not hesitate or doubt themselves for a second, you'll lose. And then it doesn't matter if you were right or wrong, because now you're just a million dollar mistake.

I am at a military facility right now, typing this in my off time. We are two weeks into a Canadian Forces basic training course for new recruits, and I'm an instructor. This is the fundamental and uncompromising truth of this system.

Tom's kind of morality shouldn't get applied to military attitudes towards the enemy. It's not the greatest game, having bought it I'll admit, but Warfighter (and other military shooters) simply show an attitude that disturbs people like him. Since he can't get over it, he'll just label it wrong, and proceed to write reams about it. In public, no less, and on a venue which should be an objective look at video games. I don't mind editorials but his view is borderline political and sickeningly naive. It's the latest sad rally aboard the hate train against popular shooters, and he knows he'll get community support because of it. It's crass populism in a video game context.

I'm really glad the crew at this site know better than to spout off like this. I hope McShea gets the point, and just stops playing military shooters (Or military games in general. Or games where you kill things.)

#74 Posted by allworkandlowpay (916 posts) -

@Giantstalker: I believe that what McShea is getting at, isn't that the enemies are doing something righteous and noble, but that if you are the developer of a video game, one who is espousing to be an "authentic and realistic" modern military shooter, than maybe your story shouldn't reflect the enemy in the same way as the villain in a Bruce Willis flick. Al Qaeda and it's affiliates have real motives behind their actions other than "let's fuck shit up" and have personal experiences and beliefs that lead them to this. If the game is giving you the opportunity to see behind enemy lines as MOH:WF does, maybe it should treat the story a bit more realistically as well.

#75 Posted by JasonR86 (10007 posts) -

McShae shouldn't even speak to this subject as someone who knows so little about it. It's like me writing an editorial on the quality of work from a highly regarded chef when I can barely make toast.

#76 Posted by allworkandlowpay (916 posts) -

@JasonR86: By that logic nobody should ever review or critique a game unless they also make them. Should also call the New York Times too, and tell them that until they have current or former senators writing for them, they shouldn't even be touching the goings on in the beltway.

He is an editor and is making an editorial. It's an opinion of his, obviously fueled heavily by some political or morally aligned viewpoints. Is he right, is he wrong? That's up to you. His qualifications really don't have much bearing on it.

#77 Posted by JasonR86 (10007 posts) -

@allworkandlowpay said:

@JasonR86: By that logic nobody should ever review or critique a game unless they also make them. Should also call the New York Times too, and tell them that until they have current or former senators writing for them, they shouldn't even be touching the goings on in the beltway.

He is an editor and is making an editorial. It's an opinion of his, obviously fueled heavily by some political or morally aligned viewpoints. Is he right, is he wrong? That's up to you. His qualifications really don't have much bearing on it.

I don't know. He's speaking to international issues, the experiences associated with war, etc. and he's simply a dude who writes about video games. I don't mean to sound reductive but these issues are bigger then Tom. I mean he can write about them all he wants. I can to. But people shouldn't take either of us seriously because we don't know what the fuck we're talking about. The difference between Tom writing about games and writing about, I don't know, something that would lead to this conclusion;

" Medal of Honor: Warfighter is a game that furthers the divide between Western philosophies and the rest of the world. But it's not alone. It's only a meager imitation of what has come before it, underlining how pervasive this problem has become. Until we recognize what these games represent, and how damaging they are, developers will continually parrot the same jingoistic blather."

are world's apart. He's an expert on video games. This editorial speaks to a bigger issue and, maybe it's because I don't know anything about Tom, but I don't have faith in a word the dude wrote.

#78 Posted by allworkandlowpay (916 posts) -

@JasonR86: You see I feel like we view the article very differently. I don't see it as an intricate attempt to pick apart the complex socio-political issues that plight the globe, no instead he is attacking a game for overly simplifying or blatantly ignoring the complexities of real world issues while trying to claim authenticity. It's two wildly different things, and the later being something you could say is very much within his expertise.

#79 Posted by JasonR86 (10007 posts) -

@allworkandlowpay said:

@JasonR86: You see I feel like we view the article very differently. I don't see it as an intricate attempt to pick apart the complex socio-political issues that plight the globe, no instead he is attacking a game for overly simplifying or blatantly ignoring the complexities of real world issues while trying to claim authenticity. It's two wildly different things, and the later being something you could say is very much within his expertise.

...am I talking to Tom's alt. here on Giantbomb? Tom, if it's you, just leave an extra period at the end of the next post you make. Don't worry, no one else will know.

#80 Posted by Ares42 (3014 posts) -

I'm not completely informed on this stuff, but wasn't McSheas reasoning for picking on MoH that they claimed to be "authentic" ? Isn't that just some stupid argument you'd have with some PR guy, not some big criticism of a game ?

#81 Posted by allworkandlowpay (916 posts) -

@JasonR86: HE KNOWS TOO MUCH! FIRESTORM! FIRESTORM! BURN THE HARD DRIVES NOW!

#82 Posted by TheDudeOfGaming (6116 posts) -

@PeasantAbuse said:

Lol at Goodrich "bullying" Tom Mc Shea.

This. I skimmed through the video, granted, but I didn't see any bullying just a dude that's questioning a product and another dude that's defending it. I was expecting Goodrich to get up all in Mc Shea's face...I shall leave disappointed OP!

#83 Edited by algertman (871 posts) -

The McShea video where he acted like a dick to the Goodrich was embarrassing. It was horribly unprofessional and he should have been fired over it.

Also Mcshea was in the GS videos with Ryan and has no idea what is going on the industry and is a sad little Sony fanboy. Man, his thing about how the PS4 would come with some super tablet and the Vita had 15 high quality exclusives was a good laugh.

#84 Posted by devilzrule27 (1241 posts) -

Internet people get angry over the dumbest things. I don't know which is worse, McShea getting mad over a games claim to authenticity or the internet getting mad at McShea for getting mad over a games claim to authenticity.

#85 Edited by Marokai (3313 posts) -

McShea is a flake, but the issues he raises are perfectly legit. The dude's not claiming to be an expert on the realities of warfare, the article was just about how vapid the modern military shooter has become and how arguably disrespectful to very real issues and borderline racist they can be. McShea is totally abusing his soapbox to take his opinion too far, sure, but MoH isn't anything close to an authentic experience, it does suck, modern military shooters (and arguably a lot of Western games in general) are pandering male power fantasies, and it's only the enthusiast press, God help us all, that can take that opinion and do anything with it. 
 
But where I come down despite all that is this: do we want people in the enthusiast press with convictions and a desire to do something greater with their job than be walking commercials for products, or not? Flawed as people like McShea can be, it is better for the industry and for us as consumers to at least have people in the press that aren't complete tools that shit on consumers and anyone arguing with an even remotely anti-corporate approach. The McShea's, the Jim Sterlings', hell, even the Patrick Klepeks of the world should exist, for all the flaws they have, or there is no dissent, no push to make lemming consumers challenge their pre-existing notions. The FPS factories and megapublishers continue to churn out shit and we continue on with grossly pandering products that do nothing to challenge or evolve the genre or the very medium of video games more broadly.  
 
Someone earlier in the thread got pissy with McShea's implication that the AI is bad because it's marketed to a mass audience; as if McShea was calling it a simply stupid approach to game design that stupid people like. Well I'll be straight up about that, he's right. Warfighter isn't just a bad game or a disrespectful game, it's a dumb game because it's designed to be dumb. It's a 5 hour kiddie coaster ride like a lot of other shooters that are completely unimaginative and funnel the player in a direction with snap-on aiming that makes dispatching the overly numerous enemies a triviality.  
 
This is the type of game in a genre that's gotten so reductive and so factory assembled and focus grouped so to require as little brain cells as possible. That is the point. Sterling said in the Destructoid review that Warfighter is a game that exists just to exist. Just to keep the factories moving, just to pay the bills. It exists just to sell. That is the problem. It is a dumb game because it is designed to be dumb, and it is designed to be dumb because in order to sell as many games as possible, developers and publishers have to keep racing to the lowest common denominator. Numerous series have suffered this fate. That is the core of the problem McShea attempts to tackle in his own overly pretentious way. Games being dumb have given rise to all kinds of problems, and people growing increasingly complacent have made fixing things tougher than ever before. And that just doesn't go for video games alone. 
 
Edit: Arguably, the real controversy in all of this reaction to military first person shooters is that, and I made a post in response to Brad's review of Warfighter about this, people in the press who truly believe that the genre is dead and that games like this provide a wholly vacuous experience, don't put their money where their mouth is. They judge the game to be bad, without reason of existing, without any unique qualities, but hey, it's about a 3/5. But hey, it's about a 6 or a 7. At least McShea takes his bitchy approach on this issue to the dudes responsible in interviews. The last thing we should do is encourage our press to be less confrontational. The press needs to grow a pair and direct that newfound courage at publishers and developers, and less at their own customer base/readership. "Professionalism" isn't "total deference to bullshit public relations." And if it is, fuck that.

#86 Posted by TheHT (12356 posts) -

Oh dear me, does his writing always sound so... masturbatory? It just comes off as insincere.

#87 Edited by TeflonBilly (4742 posts) -

@Marokai: I love for the press to be confrontational and come with hard hitting questions. I do NOT love for him to come in with his preconceived notion and having no plan whatsoever of maybe changing his mind or actually take in the responses he ot. All he does is plug his ears and repeat ad nauseum his talking points without even hearing out his opposition. McShea is an unintelligent hack who has no plans of doing journalistic legwork and actually try to create an engaging story and would rather repeatedly shout his opinoin and force it upon other ina completely binary "YOU'RE EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US" approach to his reporting. He's an embaressment to a fledgling branch of journalism and should disappear.

As I said earlier, I can agree with some of his sentiments on a fundemental level, but he has no understanding of nuance or shades of gray. Outside of his coverage of this debacle, everything else I've seen or heard from the guy is insultingly idiotic. He does not deserve the job or platform he has.

I already posted this once before in this thread, but this video encompasses all the points McShea wants to make, but with all the talent and wit he sorely lacks.

Loading Video...

Campster is a guy I often don't agree with (He is way too obsessed with games having to always be something they don't set out to be), but he amanges to get his points across coherently and I can usually see his side of the argument and find myself even swayed to points I originally didn't agree with.

#88 Posted by NekuSakuraba (7788 posts) -

I totally disagree with mcshea on this. If you want a "realistic, non fun" shooter than go look elsewhere, (I would like to mention that I am sure many people do find ARMA fun, does that make ARMA offensive to soldiers?).

No, Medal of Honor is not realistic, but they never claimed it would be. Is it authentic? I'm not sure, I haven't played it, but it looks like they tried to make it as authentic as it could be while still making the game they wanted to (which happens to be a call of duty esque shooter).

He says it offensive, but I don't think that's their intention or anyone else's, they are just making a game. Should games explore enemies backstory to make them more human-like? Sure! That would be awesome, but like nearly every other FPS out there today, it doesn't. I also don't understand why mcshea is picking solely on warfighter when there are other, similar games he could be questioning. Why didn't he pick on Call of Duty or Battlefield? Does he not want to upset their large fan bases?

In some ways he is right, there should be more exploration of enemies back stories, but to say they are being offensive to soldiers? I don't know about that, I doubt they have the intention of offending people.

Also, he seemed to outright ignore the guy in the interview and it didn't seem like a professional interview to me, more of a fight. Like @Tennmuerti said, it wasn't a matter of who was right or wrong, it just seemed unprofessional.

I'd also like to restate the fact that I haven't played warfighter and I don't have intentions to at the moment, so I can only go by what I have seen.

#89 Edited by big_jon (6154 posts) -

I am not sure I can understand how you are "Respecting" military men and women when making a game that is meant to be fun, and empowering, I meant really, how fucking stupid has this add campaign been?

Nothing says authenticity like regenerating health, moving down hundreds of dudes, emo ass Linkin Park songs, and a fucking stupid Machinema "reality" series.

There is nothing wrong with making war games, but trying to make this out as some kind of tribute to the solders is so juvenile. I also find it irritating how there is often never any mention of the people who are not the solders who suffer because of war, people are way too quick to always focus on their "side" of war.

@Peanut: Call of Duty's add campaign does not suggest that it is paying tribute to the soldiers.

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.