|
by irony 12/25/2009, 7:38pm PST |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/122209dnbusmilitarygames.4e82.html
Randy Pitchford, co-founder and chief executive of Gearbox, said one reason game makers are more willing to make epic war productions is simple logistics and expense.
"The last Brothers in Arms video game, if that was a movie shot in live action, could never exist because it would cost a billion dollars," he said.
Pitchford said the game industry, still young and technologically immature, is also more willing than Hollywood to promote military virtues.
"Maybe there is something to the point of courage," he said, reflecting on the gritty bloodshed and death required to make its Brothers in Arms games both historically accurate and engrossing.
"These themes can be deeper or riskier than what we see in Hollywood. And I know that's true with other games as well."
Gearbox's in-house military guru is retired U.S. Army Col. John Antal, whose business card now includes the titles of historical director, script editor, organizational adviser and military expert.
The flood of pro-military games and trickle of pro-military movies in the last several years is probably due at least in part to politics, Antal said.
"In 2002, there was the movie We Were Soldiers," he said. "Mel Gibson made that movie. That was a very well-received movie in the military. I'm sure Hollywood hated it."
I dunno if I would say codmw2 is really pro military, but compared to the average hollywood movie about the current day wars in iraq and afghanistan it's not anti-military
also I'm sure the new moh modern warfare game will suck as much dick as the previous games, but then again moh airborne was significantly less shitty than the rest, and hey frontline was also really good |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|