2nd Op By

Gene Park 6.0 RATING

There is a good reason why Caleb made such a vivid example of the "Arnhem Knights" level. That scene is where all the components of the Medal Of Honor (MoH)series are displayed to tremendous effect. The predominant emotion of the scene is sorrow, it being most evident in the choral piece by Michael Giacchino. The haunting falsetto notes drift along while bullets and bodies crash. The exploding tank shells drown out the song, but when the dust settles, your ears continue to ring that prettiest of rings. Your comrades fall like they were scripted to while you kill Nazis just like you're supposed to. Suddenly, the song sounds like a requiem, making the whole affair very unsettling.

Like I said, that stage is when all components in the MoH series, good and bad, come together. The sound and music is an aural treat. Everything from the uniforms to the crumbled city is as authentic as they could make it. To say this game is well researched is an understatement. Also, like Caleb briefly pointed out, the stage is heavily scripted. Soldiers die on cue. The tank breaks through the wall at the right moment. Planes buzz overhead when you reach a certain spot. All this is to give the player an illusion of spontaneity when experiencing it for the first time. However, this is a difficult game. And after the first try, you realize that you are being taken on a roller coaster ride. The Museum of Tolerance this sure ain't. It's more like a Disneyland attraction, a World War II game of laser tag, complete with their much touted advanced animatronics displays that say or do things on cue once you reach a certain point in the ride.

Along with the now-famous D-Day stage, "Arnhem Knights" is among the only points in the game where it seems all of the developer's ambition pay off. Caleb states that "gamers get to experience World War II for what it really was." I have to disagree. Spontaneity is a huge characteristic of war, and the game has none. When you're told to disguise yourself as a Nazi soldier, you lose your cover at just the right moment. I tried the best I could to keep the cover on and go as far as I can stealthily, but it was impossible because the game didn't want me to. It took the well-spoken German dialogue for me to realize that I was playing a game set in World War II, not a poorer knock-off of GoldenEye 007.

The Bond comparison leads me to another major complaint. The game rarely rises above the context of a spy-espionage mission-based game. There are moments where genuine moments of that "sense of loss and tragedy" can be felt, but it is buried beneath the bodies of soldiers you kill. Considering the weight of the subject matter, the vast and emotional era of World War II, you shouldn't have to find effective exceptions to a work of art like this game. Nor should you have to walk on the backs of dead bodies to find it.

In Chi's review for Dynasty Warriors 3, he analyzed how historical context is used in videogames, and whether violence in videogames is justifiable in that context. He also pondered about whether entertainment, an essential ingredient for a player's engagement in the game, should be a factor in compromising the integrity of the subject matter. It seems the purpose of the MoH series is to present a straightforward trial-and-error type action game in the context of a well-researched WWII backdrop. But I can't call this game an exploitation of the subject matter. A lot of hard work was put into the depiction of this era. And it's to their credit that they decide to ignore the larger aspects of the war, including the Holocaust and the atomic bomb. Events like those are in and of itself larger than life, and to encompass that in entertainment is running the risk of being exploitative and disrespectful.

When thinking of this game in the mindset of a gamer, I found little entertainment in the gameplay itself. It was much too linear, especially in the wake of open-ended first-person shooters like Deus Ex. The action is old school in the sense that each level is like a memory game, shooting the guy as he comes out of the door, and don't forget that sniper to your left. The goals of the game are also boring. From placing bombs to radioing in a signal, everything is done with a touch of a button. As varied the goals might first sound, I soon realized that I was just being taken from point A to B, killing along the way. Sometimes headshots didn't result with a kill, and the much vaunted AI is nothing special. The controls were also an issue for me, but outside of the turning speed (which was excessively slow), little could've been done about the set-up. Such is the curse of a console first-person shooter.

The game's historical context was done professionally and respectfully. Because of its relevant topic, the presentation really stands out amongst other games. Its success shows how far games have come depicting life, and that alone deserves high marks for artistic merit. In an interview for Electronic Gaming Monthly, Executive Producer Rick Giolito said they did everything they could do make the game as authentic as possible, from first-person oral accounts to visiting the battle sites. This game is as much a documentary as it is a linear action game. He says a range of films and books inspired them. Those works of art sometimes are propaganda for or against war, or is at least about the individual experience if not about issues on a macro level. Unfortunately, Frontline doesn't seem to be, or aspire to be, about anything excepting being a straight-up linear shooter, above-average at best in terms of gameplay. And while it is far from exploitative, the historical context serves to depict your typical action/war movie formula, from the Saving Private Ryan opening, to the Star Wars-like shoot and escape ending. All that history and research left me emotionless. Works of art about war never fails to spark some kind of emotion, except this one. And that speaks volumes about the amount of consideration videogames, especially this series, needs before it can be an effective and truly authentic documentation of World War II.

Disclaimer: This review is based on the PlayStation 2 version of the game.

Public Opinion

Jese Guma 7.5 Rating

Gene and Caleb made an excellent point about the game meshing two different styles, but this is actually my problem with it. The video footage and the few missions that take Patterson through full-fledged battles have the broad authenticity of TV documentaries. Most of the missions, though, follow an espionage storyline that has Patterson single-handedly gunning down hordes of pop-up Nazis while uncovering information on a top-secret fighter jet. He even has a train chase and gun duel with the Nazi in charge of the project. These parts are fun, but something in me protested. They didn't belong in a game that had, until that point, seemed bent on realism. Frontline ultimately imitates a WWII movie, not WWII itself.

But it would be an entertaining WWII movie. The missions are linear but often fun. And sometimes terrifically exciting as was the case with the mine cart mission that seems taken out of one of those IMAX roller coaster movies. Frontline kicks off with a virtuoso D-Day simulation, and immediately strives for entertainment over credibility. But I'm okay with that. I think.

Reader Second Opinions