http://e3.gamespot.com/video/6381457/a-matter-of-authenticity

Watch this! So good.

For context this is Tom Mcshea being confronted by a developer(?) on the new Medal of Honor after writing an article attacking them for the game they are making.

Here is an excerpt from the original article that the video is in response to:

In military games like Warfighter, that preach how much they respect troops and how realistic they are, I find it sickening and shameful that health is treated so unrealistically. Making a quick buck on the backs of soldiers instead of educating consumers of the horrible truths of the battlefield trivializes the very things these development teams say they value.

I never played the first Medal of Honor reboot and have no intention of playing this one, but it really fires me up how he shits all over the development team.

I never much cared for Tom Mcshea's sensationalism but it is not until today that I would describe him as a pile of shit. If he doesn't like the way health is handled then say that you don't like the game. That is fine. But to accuse the people making the game of being disingenuous and insulting them is disrespectful and out of line. Videogame journalism at it's fucking worst.

@TentPole: Agreed. I just think it's a fantastic interview that strays into real opinion and not just the journalism that is, "Tell me about your game."

@TentPole That entire article, to me, felt like this guy trying to stir up some controversy so he could feel important. Haha. This 'journalism' is only a step above a damn tabloid, it seems.

@Jayzilla: I agree that this is the best interview of E3. If you can manage to keep from getting enraged as I have it is even pretty damn entertaining for it's own sake as well as having substance. Tom even kind has a point (which I understand but do not agree with) but when he takes that criticism he has for the industry as a whole and uses it as ammunition to make disparaging comment about individual developers he crosses the line and then some.

Had to comment on Gamespot. My brother actively serves. I know guys that have served overseas and have been injured and killed there. I fully respect all of the troops even though I don't always agree with what they are doing. War isn't fun. This is a game though. It is meant to be fun. I game with my brother and all of his military friends. They aren't insulting by games like this. They are games. I can't even think of any war games that insult troops. It just frustrates me that Mcshea is trying to exploit a developer that cares about their product.

EDIT: Not gonna comment on Gamespot ever again. What a terrible community. Ill stick with you Duders over here.

Tom McShea is a gross human being.

My god. It's like talking to a child.

I like Tom McShea, and this is certainly not the first time I've heard him express this viewpoint on military shooters. I understand where he's coming from, and even if it doesn't bother me in those ways as well, I find it refreshing that someone from a major gaming site would go ahead with this interview and be allowed topublish it. And I also think it's great that the people involved with the game would agree to do this as they could have very much ignored it and just gone along showing the PR approved demo and trying to get on more sites and shows with purely positive spins

@MildMolasses said:

I like Tom McShea, and this is certainly not the first time I've heard him express this viewpoint on military shooters. I understand where he's coming from, and even if it doesn't bother me in those ways as well, I find it refreshing that someone from a major gaming site would go ahead with this interview and be allowed topublish it. And I also think it's great that the people involved with the game would agree to do this as they could have very much ignored it and just gone along showing the PR approved demo and trying to get on more sites and shows with purely positive spins

I don't have a problem with his viewpoint on military shooters. I have a problem with his view on the people who make those games. It is fucking disgusting.

I think Greg Goodrich doesn't give people who play video games enough credit here. I think a game steeped in hardcore realism would get lots of attention on the show floor, precisely because it's something different.

But yeah, McShea was a little bitch here. There's a way you can disagree with something and not act like a petulant little child. A way you can voice your problems with a game while showing respect to your peers.

McShea may be right here, but it's an empty victory, because of his rhetoric.

@Spoonman671 said:

Tom McShea is a gross human being.

That guy... is a professional? Jesus Christ man.

The problem with Medal of Honor: Warfighter is not an issue of "regenerating health." No, the real problem is the return of Chester Bennington.

thanks for that. mcshea is so appropriately uncomfortable that entire time. he knows his argument has NO substance or validity whatsoever. i'm not an fps type of guy, but i was intrigued by the demo of MoH, and even moreso now.

Wow.

This is why not all journalists are cut out to be developers.

EDIT: The longer this video goes on, the more I want to punch McShea in the dick.

Read that the other day. Shook my head a couple of times in disbelief. Read like a politically frontloaded hippie-crap anti-war opinion piece. Like the only feeling a modern warfare themed game may stir is genuine shit-your-pants terror and paralyzing fear of death - lest it serve as a recruitment tool.

Call me a romantic, but I do enjoy a good dose of heroism and glory. Stories of the bravery of operating at and beyond the limit, inevitable loss, and eventual success against all odds. If romantics sign up for war, and find horrors and death instead of glory - that's life. How can you call yourself a writer and not be down with trying to live a romantic life?

The vibe I get from Goodrich, if he wasn't bound by order, he'd at the very least shake some sense into McShae. I'd certainly not enjoy arguing with McShae. He's the kind of guy who's never gonna gain insight, respectively admit to it. I'd have a hard time containing my rage, and not become verbally abusive.

I'd call him a cynic hippie assclown! Honestly though - these sort of seemingly inconsolable arguments are proof positive why we need war. If it's serious enough, eventually somebody's got to go - and good god am I grateful that there isn't regenerating health for terrors like Bin Laden!

I'll give McShea points for having balls. Admit it, it takes some brass ones to put oneself in that situation, and he didn't back down. And my praise ends there. I disagree with him, and his article just repeated the same point over, and over again. Then, his point gets reasonably answered in the interview, and yet, he continues to repeat it over, and over. Yea, fuck that dude. I've said it before, academia has taken an interest in gaming, and now the up-their-own-ass types have become emboldened to start disseminating their PC, snobbish sensibilities, and are generally stirring the pot. Whether this is good or bad for games? Who knows? In this case, it's just bullshit disguised as something important. If anything, he did a major favor for MOH, because now I'm way more interested in that game than I ever was before.

@High_Nunez said:

I'll give McShea points for having balls. Admit it, it takes some brass ones to put oneself in that situation, and he didn't back down. And my praise ends there. I disagree with him, and his article just repeated the same point over, and over again. Then, his point gets reasonably answered in the interview, and yet, he continues to repeat it over, and over. Yea, fuck that dude. I've said it before, academia has taken an interest in gaming, and now the up-their-own-ass types have become emboldened to start disseminating their PC, snobbish sensibilities, and are generally stirring the pot. Whether this is good or bad for games? Who knows? In this case, it's just bullshit disguised as something important. If anything, he did a major favor for MOH, because now I'm way more interested in that game than I ever was before.

I wouldn't even qualify McShea's argument as being worth calling academic. He ignores every salient, intelligent, well-informed point and meaningful anecdote thrown his way to complain about the existence of regenerating health in the one game mode that EA showed at E3, and he didn't even play the demo on the show floor.

That's the exact opposite of academic. That's ignorant and bullheaded stupidity.

The interviewer comes off as amazingly thick, vs. the patient dev.

I think the interviewer does not believe Warfighter is going to to have any resemblance to authenticity (or thinking it is COD with an extra overwrought story), so they want to call out the developer for describing it in that fashion. Although the developers conviction and confidence in what they are making would tend to make me curious about how this particular one will turn out.

What a shite argument. Glad this Goodrich fellow took the time to talk it out. Reminds me of Angry Joe arguing with Geoff Keighley.

Props to McShea for meeting with the guy. That said this is part of the reason why I stopped listening to the HotSpot (I know, should have stopped when the bombcast first hit, but I like listening to people converse). Not just him but Brendan Sinclair got under my skin with their stubborn stances. Sinclair especially when he was defending BioShock 2's story (because, and he openly admits, he's friends with someone on the team who worked on BS2) and his dislike of Heavy Rain's lack of consequences when you don't enter what the quick-time asks of you. Well what the hell does the guy expect with the latter? Who the hell plays a game that's immersed you into it's universe only to have you wonder "RUN RUN RUN R... I wonder what would happen if I didn't press this button".

I find it amusing that you have two guys arguing about authenticity/realism of war, in which neither have been. Silly conversation. If you want to play extreme mechanical infantry realism, play Operation Flashpoint/Full Spectrum Warrior. The reality is a game like that is not going to get the return to justify a 150 million AAA title like Warfighter.

Nobody wants to play realism. People might say they do, until they have to start taking topography charts/or land navigation. Not to mention having to deal with realistic ballistics.

I think a better conversation or approach is why constant FPS tropes have made the genre so goddamn stale. How can developers develop more dynamic game mechanics to the FPS genre.

You know this gets me thinking that EA should remake the game SEAL team. That game was extremely punishing.

McShea is an idiot.

@jakers11 said:

Had to comment on Gamespot. My brother actively serves. I know guys that have served overseas and have been injured and killed there. I fully respect all of the troops even though I don't always agree with what they are doing. War isn't fun. This is a game though. It is meant to be fun. I game with my brother and all of his military friends. They aren't insulting by games like this. They are games. I can't even think of any war games that insult troops. It just frustrates me that Mcshea is trying to exploit a developer that cares about their product.

EDIT: Not gonna comment on Gamespot ever again. What a terrible community. Ill stick with you Duders over here.

I'm directing this at you seeing as you have family in the military ... I get that your brother, and yourself, don't find the games as such offensive, but what about the marketing and PR hyperbole around them? I mean I play a lot of Battlefield 3 and love the craziness of it, but don't like the way it's marketed as realistic when it's not at all. I think McShea's point is valid in some ways - you can make war games, but don't say it's realistic. These are action movies in video game form and it seems McShea's point is they should be sold as such... and I'd agree. I don't think DICE, EA, Treyarch, etc and looking to make money from suffering though... they just want to make fun games. Would you agree that the marketing and PR spin around the games is wrong calling them 'realistic'? I mean you must have heard first-hand how bad it can get...

(not intended as an attack or flame war bait)

I'll give McShea some credit for meeting the guy but yeah, his argument is kind of ridiculous. You could make the same argument against literally any other game. Medal of Honor isn't a war simulator and it doesn't claim to be. Tom's problem seem to be with video games as a whole and has nothing to do with Medal of Honor. Seems like a bunch of misguided anger over nothing.  

@Hailinel said:

@High_Nunez said:

I'll give McShea points for having balls. Admit it, it takes some brass ones to put oneself in that situation, and he didn't back down. And my praise ends there. I disagree with him, and his article just repeated the same point over, and over again. Then, his point gets reasonably answered in the interview, and yet, he continues to repeat it over, and over. Yea, fuck that dude. I've said it before, academia has taken an interest in gaming, and now the up-their-own-ass types have become emboldened to start disseminating their PC, snobbish sensibilities, and are generally stirring the pot. Whether this is good or bad for games? Who knows? In this case, it's just bullshit disguised as something important. If anything, he did a major favor for MOH, because now I'm way more interested in that game than I ever was before.

I wouldn't even qualify McShea's argument as being worth calling academic. He ignores every salient, intelligent, well-informed point and meaningful anecdote thrown his way to complain about the existence of regenerating health in the one game mode that EA showed at E3, and he didn't even play the demo on the show floor.

That's the exact opposite of academic. That's ignorant and bullheaded stupidity.

I agree with you, duder. What I meant was that the academic interest in video games nowadays enables guys like Mcshea. With this newfound attention games are getting, guys like him will be coming out of the woodwork with some crusade (justified, or otherwise) to wage against the gaming culture/industry. I don't think he represents academia, but without that attention, nobody would've cared enough about his message for it to even become published.

That was a bit brutal to listen to (for how badly McShea was... out-debated?); I would feel bad for McShea if I didn't think he was a foolish sensationalist asshole after his article and his extremely weak arguments in the interview. I guess McShea gets some points for meeting the guy, let alone posting that on his website.

This Tom McShea guy is talking total bullshit. All this interview did was make me want to play MOH:WF and actually gives me a bit of respect for the devs.

Tom spends the first 15 minutes talking about regenerating health FFS.

Best quote of the whole thing:

- Dev: "Because we're an entertainment product brother. Are we supposed to make a game that's no fun and people don't enjoy?"

- Tom: "YES! EXACTLY!"

He probably thinks he won the argument.

Fucking pathetic.

The developer seems like a decent guy, I would have definitely lost my cool if I was in his position.

Why is Tom Mcshea even commenting on a genre he cleary hates and doesnt even play? Its his opinion and i have no problem with that but seriously why? So glad a developer, you know the ones who are busting their asses creating somthing, confronted him face to face.

McShea is such a twat. i'm glad i don't watch their content

I'd give anything to watch Ryan kick McShea in the genital triangle.

Gamespot needs to fire him. He was laughing in the man's face, that's very unprofessional.

Yeah, the giggling and interrupting. Very unprofessional. He was also VERY Condescending.

@PandaBear: Theres no doubt they exaggerate it as much as they can. I do agree using the word realistic when it isn't a simulator is quite annoying and the fact that CoD is usually released on Remembrance Day here in Canada isn't the best way to go about things. I have to agree with you on the marketing side, they try a little too hard to get people hyped for their games by slapping words all over it that really don't apply to it once you play it. But you have to accept that that is how marketing is done. Mcshae's crusade won't change anything.

I think when all was said and done the argument never really went anywhere and that neither side is completely right or wrong (though I think Mcshea was being a lot more unprofessional than the developer) but what I found interesting about the whole thing was just how friggen RAW that interview was. You hardly if ever see this blunt and up-front side of things in the gaming industry/gaming journalism.

How does someone this naive work in games? It's not like he's got a hot rack going for him. Maybe he gives good head?

That...was hard to watch.

The worst part about it is, I can see what Tom was trying to argue, but it's obvious he's the kind of guy who has to really contemplate every word of his articles when he's writing them, because when faced with the task of having to defend his editorial and argue his point, he completely falls apart. Throughout the entire 20+ minute interview, he never comes right out and says what his argument is, he just keeps referring back to the regenerating health issue. I feel like what he was trying to argue was the idea that the developer is, in his eyes, falsely advertising Medal of Honor as being an "authentic" war game based on real people's experiences when it includes unauthentic "gamey" mechanics such as regenerating health and respawns.

Greg tried to defend his point against Tom, but also had a hard time doing so, I feel, because I don't think he really understood exactly what Tom was trying to argue in the first place (because Tom argued it poorly). Tom repeatedly used the term "realism," which was easy for Greg to write off since it was not the exact word the studio was using, but instead "authentic." Greg was right in saying that it was a matter of semantics between them, but that was never the argument in the first place. To say that a game is "authentic," and to name off all the ways in which it is, but conveniently leave out the ideas of pain and death on the battlefield, is misleading. If they wanted to be true to their fans and the people they claim to "honor" by making these games, they would need to list off the ways in which the game is "authentic," since there are clearly aspects of the game, small as they might see them, that are absolutely without question not authentic. Obviously no marketing team is going to do that, so instead they just say that their game is "authentic" and not going for "realism," since that term is much easier to argue for.

tl;dr

Tom McShea had a valid point that could've lead to an interesting debate between himself and Greg but is bad at debate, it seems.

I think the developer nailed his point with "No one pays sixty dollars to go to a funeral."

Go play the ARMA games Tom.

@PandaBear said:

@jakers11 said:

Had to comment on Gamespot. My brother actively serves. I know guys that have served overseas and have been injured and killed there. I fully respect all of the troops even though I don't always agree with what they are doing. War isn't fun. This is a game though. It is meant to be fun. I game with my brother and all of his military friends. They aren't insulting by games like this. They are games. I can't even think of any war games that insult troops. It just frustrates me that Mcshea is trying to exploit a developer that cares about their product.

EDIT: Not gonna comment on Gamespot ever again. What a terrible community. Ill stick with you Duders over here.

I'm directing this at you seeing as you have family in the military ... I get that your brother, and yourself, don't find the games as such offensive, but what about the marketing and PR hyperbole around them? I mean I play a lot of Battlefield 3 and love the craziness of it, but don't like the way it's marketed as realistic when it's not at all. I think McShea's point is valid in some ways - you can make war games, but don't say it's realistic. These are action movies in video game form and it seems McShea's point is they should be sold as such... and I'd agree. I don't think DICE, EA, Treyarch, etc and looking to make money from suffering though... they just want to make fun games. Would you agree that the marketing and PR spin around the games is wrong calling them 'realistic'? I mean you must have heard first-hand how bad it can get...

(not intended as an attack or flame war bait)

As someone who has someone who retired from the military and lived in a military city, they love to play Call of Duty, they love Battlefield, SOCOM, and whatnot, but they dont really care about the marketing. It says Call of Duty on the Box, says Battlefield, etc. I think the marketing is just that, and most people understand that they are selling a game, but as far as I know, no one I know personally takes any offence to it, it's just a game.

@Dourin said:

The worst part about it is, I can see what Tom was trying to argue, but it's obvious he's the kind of guy who has to really contemplate every word of his articles when he's writing them, because when faced with the task of having to defend his editorial and argue his point, he completely falls apart. Throughout the entire 20+ minute interview, he never comes right out and says what his argument is, he just keeps referring back to the regenerating health issue. I feel like what he was trying to argue was the idea that the developer is, in his eyes, falsely advertising Medal of Honor as being an "authentic" war game based on real people's experiences when it includes unauthentic "gamey" mechanics such as regenerating health and respawns.

Greg tried to defend his point against Tom, but also had a hard time doing so, I feel, because I don't think he really understood exactly what Tom was trying to argue in the first place (because Tom argued it poorly). Tom repeatedly used the term "realism," which was easy for Greg to write off since it was not the exact word the studio was using, but instead "authentic." Greg was right in saying that it was a matter of semantics between them, but that was never the argument in the first place. To say that a game is "authentic," and to name off all the ways in which it is, but conveniently leave out the ideas of pain and death on the battlefield, is misleading. If they wanted to be true to their fans and the people they claim to "honor" by making these games, they would need to list off the ways in which the game is "authentic," since there are clearly aspects of the game, small as they might see them, that are absolutely without question not authentic. Obviously no marketing team is going to do that, so instead they just say that their game is "authentic" and not going for "realism," since that term is much easier to argue for.

tl;dr

Tom McShea had a valid point that could've lead to an interesting debate between himself and Greg but is bad at debate, it seems.

Bad debating skills are the least of that fuckers problems.

So he want Medal of Honor to have you spent 50-100 hours waiting, all in real-time of course, around the base and patrolling the perimeter with nothing happening in between levels?

At the same time you can only take between 1-5 bullets before dying, without health regenerating over the course of the entire game, and if you die the game deletes your save and forces you to start all over?

/sigh

What this comes down to is people looking at two words and not understanding what they mean, authenticity and realism isn't the same thing...

Just because you conduct interviews and write articles for gamespot does NOT make you a journalist. Personally, I don't consider most video game commentators/reviewers to be journalists. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, but the evolving view of what a journalist is, both in games and in the media at large, is disturbing.

@TheHumanDove said:

That McShea guy went full retard

Simple Jack!

@Hailinel said:

EDIT: The longer this video goes on, the more I want to punch McShea in the dick.

Fucking this. Gotta pause the video regularly to take a deep breath.

I know the article probably went through several Gamespot people before getting posted (which is fucking mindboggling that it still did despite of this), but in theory, can you fire someone for putting out a piece this retarded? And then being totally unable to defend it in a non-retarded fashion? The broad consensus about this guy is that he's a total joke now. That's not great for Gamespot, so why keep him around?

That McShea guy went full retard