Yeah but McShea's taken the word 'realistic' far too literally. And he has only worried about the miniscule idea of regenrating health because I suspect it has a political component that's gonna ignite debate. But it's a non-issue if you ask me.
I agree that the developer may have exagerrated the term 'realistic', but I also suspect that it's been taken too literally by McShea. Besides, what amount of realism would satisfy McShea? He is silent on that. Also, we all have to admit that the games are more realistic than ever.
What McShea should have said is that games have never been as sensitive to real world events as they are now. They have never been scrutinized and evaluated so closely by so many interest groups in all history. The example of Six Days In Fallujah demonstrates that (ex)serviceman/women are the ones to decide.
McShea's fetish on regenerating health looks miniscule in relation to the potential recruiting material of 6DiF.But here he gives no credit to those involved in previous evaluations.
He's not commenting on their popularity, he has a beef that they aren't as realistic as the developers are telling him. The fact is that these games have never been more realistic and sensitive to real world events.
They are more realistic than ever, and this is where McShea makes his realisation? It's just noise. No developer has or is saying that they are re-creating war AS IT REALLY IS. Not one.
McShea would have an argument if Medal of Honor promised to be a simulation, but it does not. It is realistic as can be while still being a game, not a simulator. Again, nobody is claiming that the game is a battlefield simulator.
Also, equating how a game handles injury, game overs and other details says nothing about how a developer does or does not respect a real soldier.
McShea's cynicism in respect to this 'marketing speak' negates his own article - surely we're merely reading 'sensationalist journalism'...
so_hai's comments