Andy Chalk said:
But the point is, where does the offense come from? The depiction of an enemy actively trying to kill American soldiers, or merely what we call that enemy?
I don't get it either. During WWII, American artists drew Nazis in comic books, and American actors portrayed them in movies. Those portrayals weren't considered "offensive to the troops". Why is this different?
to be fair all of this was more or less done after the war was over and we had won.
Nope, plenty more [http://violintide-da.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/captainamerica1.jpg], often featuring German and Austrian exiles who had fled Hitler, portraying Nazis on screen. No one considered those portrayals disrespectful to the troops.
In terms of MoH, we're still fighting that war, and complete victory is no where insight. When you allow ppl to play as the enemy and give them a fighting chance at winning a battle, it becomes a psychological cluster fuck to soldiers who play it.
Except that the military does this themselves on a regular basis [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_simulation].
When something is done in hindsight its a lot less offensive when the outcome is already known. Had movies like Platoon/Apocalypse Now come out during instead of after the Vietnam war, it would be a huge detriment to the soldiers fighting the war. Nothing to say to lower morale among the fighting men/women.
How many movies and TV series have been made about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? The former only "ended" just over a month ago; the latter is still ongoing. Sure, most of these films were box office bombs, but almost all of them were critical of the wars in some fashion. And sure there was criticism of the films, but no one seriously attempted to ban or censure them. Heck, even Iron Man and Transformers used the wars as a backdrop.
I don't buy this line of reasoning. I still think MOH is being singled out because it's a video game, not because of its content.