Yes, it's by Dan Whitehead. But I think
this is actually a pretty good article on the issues around the play-in-Afghanistan Medal of Honour game. Some choice quotes:
Quote:
I'm not about to make a shrill demand to BAN THIS SICK FILTH. Nor is this a hand-wringing plea for people to stop making these games, or playing them. I've enjoyed them myself and will probably continue to do so. This is more a personal exploration of the issues, an attempt to work out where we're heading with games like this - and if it's somewhere we want to be going.
Quote:
Judging by straw polls of friends and discussions on internet message boards, I'm not the only one [who is uncomfortable]. Some bowed out when Call of Duty: World at War used archive footage of actual executions to heighten the tension of its opening level. Others said "enough" to Modern Warfare 2's "No Russian" linear shooting gallery of civilian targets.
Quote:
As gamers, our perception of these things is skewed. By way of illustration, games journo turned telly man Charlie Brooker did an excellent interview with industry publication MCV last year where he talked about using violent games footage in his Gameswipe special for the BBC. "Let's not beat about the bush - it's f***ing tasteless," he said, describing the relentless carnage in Call of Duty: World at War. "There's a line where I say I enjoy it, but I wouldn't necessarily want to let people watch me enjoying it."
Quote:
"Films turn war into entertainment, so why not games?" goes one popular argument. But that ignores the simple fact that games are not films. Games, by their nature, focus almost entirely on the action. Story can be woven around it, but the core of the experience is hours and hours of endless shooting. Games, and online first-person shooter games in particular, don't do things like pathos, doubt and ambiguity well - if at all.
Quite a thoughtful essay, I felt.