Medal Of Honour: “Tier 1″

By Jim Rossignol on March 13th, 2010 at 9:00 am.


Yes, honour. We will rebrand the games industry with our Old World spellings! Anyway, EA’s cavernous developmental innards have spawned a trailer for Medal Of Honour. It’s one of those trailers were a dude talks huskily about war and how badass his shooty comrades are, while dudes get shot and stuff explodes on screen. There’s talk about sledgehammers and scalpels, but it seems more like you’re going to be using rifles and air-strikes.

__________________

« | »

, .

165 Comments »

  1. negativedge says:

    trailer needs more beard

  2. AndrewC says:

    At 01:08, does he really kill a goatherder?

  3. Alfonso says:

    Would they would keep trailer based minimalistic look. Bad Company and MW2 have almost ruined fps games with their flashy hud’s and “DOUPLE KILL” (or whatever) info’s. It just took me some time to realize what I’m missing while looking action in first person since everything was so smooth and clear.

  4. AndrewC says:

    Yeah so while i’m fine with having a generic soldier be a fantasy power figure for young boys, i find it uncomfortable when the soldier is made specifi…OMG MY PHONE’S RINGING!

  5. Brumisator says:

    Ameeericaaaa!

    FUCK YEAH!!

    Coming in to save the motherfucking day yeah!

    • Heliocentric says:

      This

    • Helm says:

      it’s even more disgusting when one realizes that these games are not made to be ideologically propaghanda (I would guess) but are just selling themselves based on what is the safest estimate of their target audiences feelings, this is to say, the theme of this game (or MW) is trying to not be too imperialistic or too iconoclaustic, just somewhere in the middle, let’s try to sell this to as many people as possible.

      If ideologically backed violence in a realistic, modern setting is detestable once, non-ideological violence in a realistic, modern setting is ten times worse. Capitalism making a product Spectacle of the products of its own disease. It’s not even America! Fuck Yeah! It’s ….Fuck Yeah! Buy this wherever you’re from!

    • Paul says:

      again, this. I don’t think I will be buying this. Fuck wars and governments that wage them.

    • TotalBiscuit says:

      Ermm, it’s a video-game, not a political speech.

    • Fumarole says:

      Take away all the games that require killing people then. You know, for the sake of the children.

    • Helm says:

      a small and friendly cuddly strawman in one corner, a big a terrifying one in the other

    • blaargh says:

      Helm I find these words you speak compelling and interesting, please continue posting more like them

    • A-Scale says:

      Your “critique” of capitalism and its devil gaming spawn makes me laugh heartily like a bearded Russian man.

      I laugh yet harder at someone who is too philosophically juvenile to understand the concept of just war.

    • invisiblejesus says:

      I’d buy a game that pits Helm and A-Scale against each other in a steel cage match to see whose worldview reigns supreme. I’d pay extra for an unlockable Bruno-inspired alternate ending. Maybe as DLC.

    • Rinox says:

      lol @ ‘just war’ comment

      Have fun with that

    • Joseph says:

      lol @ too philosophically juvenile to see ‘just war’

      lol. retarded kid types words on internet.

    • invisiblejesus says:

      Again with the intellectual laziness. There is a real philosophical argument for a “just war”, it’s a serious point of view. And while I suspect I probably disagree with A-Scale on virtually everything else pertaining to this topic, there is a pretty rock solid basis for calling the Afghanistan invasion (NOT the Iraq invasion) a just war. But hey, don’t let intellectual honesty spoil your fun or anything.

    • Vinraith says:

      @invisiblejesus

      I fear that once one party in a conversation has taken an absolute stance (such as “all war is bad”) the “conversation,” such as it is, is over. Pointing out what a twisted, historically ignorant sentiment it may be is, unfortunately, completely fruitless. Absolute positions are, by nature, never born of reason. Consequently they are not subject to it, either.

      And yes, when folks like you and I are forced to side with A-Scale on a political issue things have gotten particularly dire.

    • Rinox says:

      I’ll admit that that was a trollish comment made while utterly drunk. But see my other post in this thread (in reply to Grape Flavor) lower in this thread for more info on my position. I like to think I’m not – entirely – intellectually lazy. :-) Ah RPS, where people like Vinraith and invisiblejesus will stay polite on even the lamest troll comments you make and make you realize you’re being a bit of a troll. How unlike the internet (note: not sarcasm, genuinly pleased).

    • invisiblejesus says:

      @Rinox: No worries, man. I’d be a liar if I said I’d never posted something hasty while drunk. And I did read your other posts and they made a lot of sense. It’s all good.

    • Helm says:

      Concept of just war could be argued for or against, I don’t find the idea preposterous. But that still doesn’t mean it’s a positive thing to be making videogames about it while it’s happening. You rush to conclusions, A-scale.

  6. terry says:

    Honourable Medal of Husky Airborne Warrior’s Duty – Escape from Not-Afghanistan.

    I like the mountainscapes, the rest looks kinda generic and humdrum. And that had better not be DX11 shiny mud >:(

  7. Glove says:

    That looks awful

  8. Po0py says:

    I will not buy this game unless I get an Osama Bin Laden unlock character skin to play online. And I want specific taunts, like ALLAH UH AKBAR! When I get multi kills and shit. Seriously, don’t DLC that shit. Out of the box is the only way.

  9. Pew says:

    So Tier 1 is either Special Forces or Blackwater/XE eh? Scary.

    At least they learned from arming militia groups to fight a common enemy. Oh…

    • Ging says:

      Tier 1 operators are high level US special forces, apparently.

    • Greg Wild says:

      Blackwater generally don’t participate in offensive military operations – yet. God forbid they ever do. They’re basically heavily armed private police.

    • squirrel says:

      Oh, please, EA please dont make Tier 1 some guns for hire… Though “working under the National Command Authority” make it a bit suspicious. After all, the Bush’s administration did hire guns for hire.

      BTW, 911 incident has been 9 years away, and we are looking forward for a game describing the war with no ending yet……

    • Brer says:

      They’re mis-using the term “Tier One” in the marketing campaign for this game. IRL, it’s a blanket term and not the name of some specific unit. It describes the “special mission units” (SMUs) like DEVGRU and 1st SFOD-D that draw their operations (as opposed to support) personnel exclusively or almost exclusively from the special operations community rather than the general population of their parent branches. So while the SEALs draw from the whole of the NAVY and the Special Forces from the whole of the Army, DEVGRU takes mostly applicants who are already SEALs, and Delta mostly applicants who are already Green Berets.

  10. Demon Beaver says:

    Medal of Honor, with guest appearances by ZZ Top

  11. The Diddler says:

    They should include sledgehammers and scalpels as melee weapons.

  12. HexagonalBolts says:

    Why does nobody ever make a game where you’re a normal soldier any more? You almost always end up some charactured ‘badass’, ‘bad company’, ‘tier 1′, or spy or something that’s so over the top it’s just ridiculous and detracts from war. I loved how in the earlier Call of Duties you would be just one of the masses charging forwards and being mown down amongst the chaos. My favourite memory was in Russia, being given just five bullets, and having to scavenge through the massacre for a gun while bombs exploded around me… It struck a chord, sure it might have been some old crude game by today’s standards, but it was emotional, historical and an approach that took its subject seriously rather than resorting to euphemism. But maybe I’m just viewing it with the taint of nostalgia.

    Maybe someone does make games like that still. Anyone got any recommendations for me?

    • Rich says:

      It was also a huge cliché; basically just an interactive version of Enemy at the Gates. Wish I could find the link to the review of Enemy at the Gates by an actual Russian, the movie is full of total bushwa. On the other hand the guy did make the mistake of thinking Saving Private Ryan was anything but Hollywood fluff, so I guess it works both ways.

      CoD has always been fun and cinematic, but not close to accurate.

    • Fumarole says:

      OpFlash 2 sees you play just regular infantry, mostly, with some pretty impressive large scale battles that you’re simply one element of.

    • Dorian Cornelius Jasper says:

      I was always under the assumption that “Bad Company” consisted mostly of expendable soldiers. “Bad” soldiers, if you will. Disposable because the real spec ops guys are too expensive to waste.

      That the series centerpiece group of lovable chuckleheads haven’t actually died is then a matter of plot armor.

  13. Pike says:

    Well, the problem there is that, if you want to make an FPS in a modern setting from a western perspective then the regular grunt wouldn’t really see enough combat to fill out more than a short intro. Special forces are really the only ones who will beliveably engage in the kind of infantry missions that suit an action oriented video game. I mean I guess you could make a Chechnyan campaign game,, from the perspective of a russian grunt, but I doubt that would be a concept any of the mainstream studios would be willing to risk,

    So I guess the closest we’ll get to the regular grunts of WWII shooters in a modern setting will be the tounge in cheek cheesy 80′s action grunts of BF Bad Company.

  14. Mavvvy says:

    ARMA 2 my friend, its good at washing off the dirt from the generic shooters.

  15. Web Cole says:

    Bored now.

  16. the wiseass says:

    Oh great another generic shooty shooty war-game. This feels like playing the same game over and over again.

    Honestly can you tell the difference between all these games anymore? Because I sure can’t.

  17. Jimbo says:

    He’d better hope they never figure out how to set their IEDs to vibrate.

    • EthZee says:

      I now have the mental image of a terrorist downloading catchy ringtones onto the phones/detonators. If there’s anything worse than being killed by an IED, then it’s having James Blunt or Lady Gaga be the last thing that you hear.

      Now that’s awful.

    • Heliocentric says:

      No love for crazy frog?

    • EthZee says:

      Crazy Frog has the same effect on the human body as the IEDs. I don’t think the terrorists are quite that depraved.

  18. Shadrach says:

    Oh another one of these shooty things with macho ‘merikans saving the world…

    • A-Scale says:

      Oh, another one of these ennui filled responses to a modern war game…

    • TeeJay says:

      According to wikipedia about 12 or more countries have sent special forces to Afghanistan, but a lot of them are not keen to advertise the fact often for domestic political reasons. How about a game featuring some “Kommando Spezialkräfte” or “Régiment de Parachutistes d’Infanterie de Marine” ‘badasses’ for a change?
      The reality is that even China (eg mine-clearance, police training), Russia (providing supply lines to NATO forces, action on drugs), India (intelligence, reconstruction/aid, officer training) and (!!!) Iran (reconstruction, action against taliban, action on drugs) have ‘helped out’ in various ways (each for their own separate reasons of course), but none of this fits in with the simple “story” everyone knows how to sing ad nauseum.

    • Vinraith says:

      @TeeJay

      Which is unfortunate, because playing as the military of some of the typically unfeatured nations could be a really interesting change of pace. I understand why there’s so little variety in PC game military fiction, but it’s a damn shame nevertheless.

    • A-Scale says:

      Aren’t the soldiers from areas other than Britain generally regarded as lazy and averse to combat? I think I’ve heard that somewhere. Wouldn’t make for much of a game.

  19. squirrel says:

    Bad Company 2′s campaign game really does not fit in the Battlefield gameplay. It’s not cinematic enough. For Bad Company 2, I really look forward to bot support.

    But hey, this is Medal of Honor, father of Call of Duty!! I really look forward to a much more cinematic gameplay than Modern Warfare 1 and 2, which is already stunning and exciting. And yet I want non-linear or even sandbox style gameplay. (I recall that GSC even managed to put a few CG cut-scenes in the middle of gameplay of Stalker SOC) Am I too greedy?

  20. Dreamhacker says:

    I recommend spelling it “Medaille of Honour” to really get that norman-middle english feel.

  21. TonyB says:

    Wow, it’s Rogue Warrior.

    Obviously it’s unlikely to be quite so broken, but there’s a certain familiarity to the generic-looking shooting and overlong knife kills in the second half of the video.

  22. Guy Cole says:

    The subtitles on these things are getting ludicrous now. But it makes me wonder at how close super-super military terminology is sounding more and more like marketing terminology.

  23. Tobias says:

    Wow, EA is really serious on getting a piece of the CoD cake (eewww). Even right down to the music, this is Modern Warfare through and through. It’s the military shooter equivalent of Dante’s Inferno.

    That said, it looks kinda neat. I have no idea what drives me into playing military shooters, but they kinda work for me, and this one looks like one hell of a quality rip-off.

  24. bhanbagta says:

    Maybe I’ve been playing too many Star Wars games, but it really feels like this should be about playing the rebels, using courage and ingenuity to hold off the vast technological and numerical advantage of the invading empire.

    • Tobias says:

      That would surely be fun from a gameplay standpoint, but nobody wants to be on Team Djihad.

    • Heliocentric says:

      Nobody? I’ve been riding on a motorbike strapped up with ieds and an rpg gunner on the back in project reality. My best attack so far killed a dozen british soldiers stacked up around an apc.
      But i still hold the jeep gunners on the 50cal who can reliably shoot down transport helicopters in high regard, they make the sky a no mans land. Its a game cheese nuggets.

    • Grape Flavor says:

      Yeah, totally, man. Especially the part where you get to cut the heads off the homosexuals, stone the women for talking to a stranger, and give a good old flogging to anyone who looks at you funny.

      That’d be sweet. I imagine such a game would go over extremely well with the RPS crowd.

    • jalf says:

      Yeah, totally, man. Especially the part where you get to cut the heads off the homosexuals, stone the women for talking to a stranger, and give a good old flogging to anyone who looks at you funny.

      Yes, because that’s how it is in Afghanistan. Any woman who ever talked to a stranger got stoned. They actually don’t have any women left by now. Everyone who looks at someone else has gotten flogged too.

      Just like every child in the US got killed in a school shooting, and every abortion doctor got shot outside a church. And everyone’s daughter died because everyone chose to *not* ask a doctor, but instead pray to God.

      And of course, this is entirely beside the point. He pointed out that playing the other side would be more interesting from a gameplay point of view. He said nothing about the politics or culture of either side. Just that from a gameplay point of view, it might be a wee bit more interesting not to play on the side of the overwhelmingly superior force.

    • Grape Flavor says:

      @Jalf
      I was just advocating that if the Taliban viewpoint be depicted in videogame form, that it be an accurate and representative one. Such as ruthlessly enforcing draconian Sharia laws, terrorizing civilian populations for cooperating with the government, destroying humanitarian/public works projects, etc. If you’re going to depict an ongoing, real life war, IMO you should do it right.

      And are you really making apologies for the Taliban regime? If you are really saying an ruthless fundamentalist religious dictatorship ruled by fear and terror and violence, is “more or less” on the same level as a government that, for all its MANY infuriating flaws, at least has freedom of speech and generally sacrosanct constitutional and human rights, than I don’t think I can even debate with you.

      If you think the Taliban is/was so great, read the stories of the people who’ve lived under it. There have been apologists for every brutal regime in history, but never has any amount of denial and excuse-making by these people made any difference to the people who have to actually live under the violent day-to-day reality.

    • Jayt says:

      Grape I don’t think you read his post, re read it, it didn’t say “war is good, so is the taliban”

    • TeeJay says:

      @ Grape Flavor: “If you’re going to depict an ongoing, real life war, IMO you should do it right”

      In which case a game would include the dynamics of Pastun-versus-Tajik politics, the number of insurgents who are simply ‘working’ (like many other soldiers) and the role of control over the drugs trade and other sources of revenue (eg local and national government posts)? It would also mention the c. 600 civilians killed each year by NATO/ANA alongside the c. 1,500 by insurgents?

      By the way, which government are you talking about when you mention “generally sacrosanct constitutional and human rights”? From looking at the Amnesty International 2009 report on Afghanistan http://thereport.amnesty.org/en/regions/asia-pacific/afghanistan you aren’t surely talking about the Kazai government are you?

      Don’t get me wrong, I support NATO action in Afghanistan but this doesn’t have to mean talking in terms of absolutes or ‘good versus evil’. Like many places around the world the choice is really about what is the *lesser* evil and whether using force will actually solve more problems than it creates. Pretending it’s all about “absolutes” obscures this.

      In any case, there are plenty of ways you could write a story where a lone operative ends up fighting either alone or with insurgents against a far larger conventional army – various Rambo films have managed it. If you objected to the “hero” siding with Taliban-Al-Qaeda/etc. maybe you could tweak things so they ended up across a border fighting some corrupt general who had framed them and kidnapped their wife/children/puppy (or some other bullshit hollywood-type device to justify the violent shit-storm about to be unleashed)***.

      (*** “Green Zone” aka “Bourne Identity does Baghdad” ?)

    • Grape Flavor says:

      @TeeJay
      Well yeah, if you wanted to run a full-out simulation it would need to become more of an RTS. And I was talking about the United States government. It has many grave shortcomings which I could rant about in detail, but it seemed to me he was making a general equivalency between that and the Taliban regime, and even I would say that’s going too far. The Taliban is a another whole level of political suck IMO. The Karzai regime isn’t ideologically nasty per se, but it’s pretty clear they couldn’t find their ass with both hands and a map.

      And no it’s not about absolutes, you’re right. I don’t think in absolutes. I seem to have this uncanny talent for taking a very reasonable position and making it sound unreasonable, kind of politician-speak in reverse, if you will. :)

  25. jackflash says:

    Is Tier 1 the same as AAA?

  26. scundoo says:

    Graphics don’t look all that great.

  27. asdf says:

    Lesson for all bomb-makers: you’ll have more success if you set the triggering mobile phone to SILENT instead of downloading some wanky ringtone.

  28. WALTER says:

    How many years have you all been shooting pixel men in the face and cheering and now you’re all concerned with the rights and the message of the pixel men in this game. Clueless bunch of clowns the hate train for the USA passed when Obama was elected, haven’t you heard?!

  29. Radiant says:

    Call of Honour: Medal of Warfare.

    They should do a semi realistic take on the Afghan war.
    You move 100 yards outside of your safe area get shot at, shoot back indiscriminately until the shooting stops and then get blown up by an ied when you go to distribute aid.
    For the in between bits you take control of a family trying to go shopping and have to avoid getting shot at by random pmc suv’s as they drive by. Frogger style.

  30. jti says:

    Just threw up a bit into my mouth when I saw the trailer. I wonder if the right wing people in the States are behind all this crap. It’s like watching Hitler youth, this one.

    • pedant says:

      it’s a game! Fantasy? Escapism? Simplification?

      Bringing right-wing (whatever that means these days), capitalism and Nazism into a debate about a trailer seems possibly taking things a bit far? Also, imagine if Leni Riefenstahl had done a a trailer for a game of elite soldiers? Do you really think it would feature badly lit beardy dudes in lots of clothes? Please… I’d watch it though.

      Also, if possibly enjoying this game makes me bad, I shudder to think what liking Defcon and Hearts of Iron says of me?

    • Rinox says:

      In Defcon you’re not playing as one side only. Not necessarily anyway.

  31. Mr_Bacco says:

    Even though the trailer confrims that this next MoH is shaping up to be a ripoff of a somewhat tired concept, I can’t help but feel there’s a nice, “plain” feel to the visuals shown in that trailer, and also that the approach they’re taking to the special-ops-shooty-stabby-executive-super-secret-solider idea is quite a low-key one. I think that both of these things could possibly make for a refreshing and appealing experience if the Devs get it right. I for one, am hoping that they do.

  32. Erkenbrand says:

    Crickey! Looks like we’ve got a troll, known for posting inflammatory comments with no real content or analysis. And so rare to see on the RPS boards! Note the distinctive “Hitler” plumage. Truly an amazing find.

  33. Ratty says:

    Perhaps its more a case of what MW2 should have been like ?

  34. Mike_in_Ohio says:

    that extra “u” in “Honour” scares me…. just like Stone Henge.

  35. Leelad says:

    As long as the multiplayer allows me to move the top half of my body left and right like MOHAA did just to start spontanius dances i’ll buy.

    • RedFred says:

      Oh my that brings back memories. MOH:AA was the only online game that played with any regularity. I remember doing whole rounds dancing like that the entire time.

  36. l1ddl3monkey says:

    Massive Raghead Death Simulator: Revising History While It Happens!

    Join the war for oil on terror from the comfort of your own home and help ensure that Orwellian ideal of a perpetual conflict against a big evil invisible enemy is drummed into impressionable youngsters so it can continue forever more.

  37. l1ddl3monkey says:

    The Medal of Honour series continues to revise history, this time while it still happens.

    Join the war for oil on terror from the comfort of your own home and help ensure that Orwellian ideal of a perpetual conflict against a big evil invisible enemy is drummed into impressionable youngsters so it can continue forever more.

    • Grape Flavor says:

      There is no oil in Afghanistan. Fail.

    • john says:

      another pathetic response, the war in afghanistan was a direct response to 9/11, a valid one, the regime was harbouring terrorists and the Americans had the full support of the international community. The Americans get NOTHING from being in Afghanistan, and only stay out of a nive hope that they can actually help improve the conditions of the native population.

      Find another outlet for your simplistic and childish geopolitical rants.

      Is there a reason there’s such a large contingent of the limp wristed on here or is it just that the majority web/tech/game geeks tend to be little bitches with a need to work out their rage issues?

    • Grape Flavor says:

      @john

      I know. Over and over again I hear terms like “imperialism” thrown around. “Imperialism” for what? “Colonialism” for WHAT? What the hell could we possibly be interested in from Afghanistan? What, exactly, are we supposed to be trying to take? The sand? The poverty? The men’s beard-hairs?

      The idea that we’re making some kind of profit on this thing is so absurd that I’m amazed people are still clinging to it. The only thing keeping us there is fear of it again becoming a safe haven for terrorists, and the noble, if naive, notion that we can bring some iota of human rights to the country and keep the Afghans from Taliban butchery.

      It’s just rote anti-Americanism, and/or an self-loathing ideology that says the West is always wrong about everything and the scrappy 3rd-world guerillas are always right.

    • invisiblejesus says:

      It’s just cheap, easy elitism from people who’re too intellectually lazy to educate themselves on what’s actually going on in the mideast. Ironically, they’re likely from NATO nations and therefore their countries are involved as well. Keep your cool, a flame war will only appear to justify their behavior.

    • jalf says:

      I know. Over and over again I hear terms like “imperialism” thrown around. “Imperialism” for what?

      For becoming, and staying, an empire? Is there any other kind of imperialism? ;)

      The idea that we’re making some kind of profit on this thing is so absurd that I’m amazed people are still clinging to it.

      True.

      The only thing keeping us there is fear of it again becoming a safe haven for terrorists

      Not the *only* reason. Another important one is simple PR. A lot of politicians have a lot at stake, and they don’t want to look bad by admitting that the war is achieving nothing.

      and the noble, if naive, notion that we can bring some iota of human rights to the country and keep the Afghans from Taliban butchery.

      Naive, yes. Perhaps even well-intentioned. But noble? Is butchery noble if it is to stop another party from butchering? Is it noble to try to deliver “human rights” as some kind of divine gift descending from heaven at gunpoint? Or is it just absurd and foolish?

      I don’t think it’s necessarily “noble” to do something stupid, violent and counterproductive, even if *some* of the intentions were good.

      It’s just rote anti-Americanism, and/or an self-loathing ideology that says the West is always wrong about everything and the scrappy 3rd-world guerillas are always right.

      How can it be “anti-American”? He didn’t even *mention* America. And is it “self-loathing” to say that there were other motivations at play than charity and goodwill towards all of mankind?

      I don’t think so. Nor do I think it is “anti-American” to be critical of what’s being done by our countries.

      I also note that you “forgot” to respond to his other, much more interesting, point:

      help ensure that Orwellian ideal of a perpetual conflict against a big evil invisible enemy is drummed into impressionable youngsters so it can continue forever more.

      Are you saying that this had nothing to do with why the invasion happened?
      Are you seriously claiming that part of the motivation was not to give a convenient face to an invisible and intangible enemy, to create something that can be “fought”, that can be blamed for what happened, that can be fixed? No part of it was to drum up support for Bush and his cronies?

      I think he had a valid point. The west didn’t just decide to invade Afghanistan out of the good of their hearts. They did it because they needed to turn an intangible problem (a lot of people hate us enough to commit horrible acts of terrorism against us) into a simple and PR-friendly one (We’re starting the WAR ON TERROR! You’re either with us or against us. We’re gonna clean up this planet!”). They needed to show their voters how decisive they were.

      “Those poor Afghans deserve some of our human rights” wasn’t a major factor.

    • Grape Flavor says:

      @Jalf
      I am doubting the wisdom of ever committing myself to this debate, but I’ll play for a little while longer. I hate hit+run posts so I’ll stick around a bit.
      “For becoming, and staying, an empire?”
      My fundamental question, that AFAIK no one has yet even attempted to answer, is HOW, exactly, does this help the US become, or stay, an “empire”. This theory makes no sense. Fettering away huge quantities of economic and military resources in a country that has no natural resources or economy to speak of, to no national gain whatsoever, does not help to form or maintain an empire.
      “Is butchery noble if it is to stop another party from butchering?”
      You could say the majority of the world’s butchery has been stopped by further “butchery”. Did Hitler stop of his own accord? How about Imperial Japan? How about Pol Pot? How about American slavery? Every once in a while something peters out on it’s own, like Stalin, but of course it took a DEATH to make that happen, too.
      Noble, though? That depends on a realistic cost-benefit analysis. Is it noble to nuke a city because some guy abuses his dog there? No. Would it be noble to assassinate a dictator who is committing unspeakable genocide, if it would put an end to it? Most people would say yes.
      The United States is in Afghanistan. This is a fact. We can not undo this fact. Our choices are: To suck it up and defend the vulnerable and flawed civil society that has been established there. Or we can throw the Afghans to the mercy of the Taliban, and it’s been established that they have none.
      The United States has indeed caused a lot of destruction in Afghanistan, some of it acceptable (Taliban/Al-Qaeda assets), some of it tragic (civilian casualties). There was an obligation made to the Afghan people that we would help them come out the other side of all this chaos, that we would give them a crutch until and only until they are able to stand by themselves. Some people think there is no such thing as moral obligations, that each entity should act purely based on its own interests with no regard to their commitments or the external consequences. I am not one of those people.
      the other guy’s “help ensure that Orwellian ideal of a perpetual conflict against a big evil invisible enemy is drummed into impressionable youngsters so it can continue forever more”
      Conspiracy theory bullshit. Yeah, I bet the Illuminati and the Freemasons cooked this whole thing up as some kind of master plan to enslave humanity. Okay. Make accusations based on evidence, not conjecture about secret agendas and hidden cabals. When you actually have evidence that the war in Afghanistan is part of some huge Orwellian plot, you let me know.
      “Are you seriously claiming that part of the motivation was not to give a convenient face to an invisible and intangible enemy?”
      The Taliban and Al-Qaeda are not invisible, nor are they intangible. They are not shape-shifting spirits from another dimension. They are real flesh-and-blood people just like everybody else. And like all real people they can be captured or killed, and their weapons destroyed. That is the goal in Afghanistan. Whether it can be practically achieved or not, is unknown at this point.
      And stop pretending like they were just peacefully minding their own business until big bad US of A came and started pushing them around. A little thing happened with very tangible planes and very tangible people and very tangible fiery death by the thousands. You might have heard about it.
      “They needed to show their voters how decisive they were.”
      Right, because the best way to secure political ascendancy is to launch long, costly, and seemingly intractable wars. Are you kidding me? George Bush is a political leper. The more wars he launched, the lower his polls tanked. If that was their strategy, it didn’t work. And anyway, I thought the whole problem the world had with Bush was that he did whatever the hell he wanted and didn’t care what anyone thought. This kind of grand, conspiratorial calculating is way above his level.
      Your day may be just beginning, but for me, it’s 3 in the morning. I’m going to have to cut this short at some point.

    • l1ddl3monkey says:

      LOL INTERNETS: SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS!!!

    • Jayt says:

      sweet back-peddling ^

    • l1ddl3monkey says:

      Not backpeddalling at all. I made a one line comment and off the back of that several, obviously psychic members of the RPS board, have ascertained my sexual orientation, my opinion of the US, that I’m an elitist etc etc etc. You people are stunningly clever and apart being wrong about every assumption you’ve made about me you’ve done a really good job.

      Note there’s not one rebuttal to the actual point I raised (instead there’s a lot of rebuttal to what people presume I meant and a lot of personal attacks – way to make a grown up argument folks) because the people making all the fuss don’t get it and are ideologically incapable of doing so and ditto me on their position, but at least I made a point without resorting to personal abuse.

      How did this discussion end up on RPS anyway? Is the Youtube comments area closed today?

    • FunkyBadger says:

      Weren’t 20 our of 21 of the 11th September bombers Saudi? And the money was Saudi – routed through the Taliban but originally Saudi?

      “We” invaded the wrong country.

      The situation in Afghanistan can be improved – its just that it’ll take dozens of years for any changes to stick, and western politicians think in 4-5 year cycles. So there’s fat chance of that happening (although, interestingly, the Russian’s were in for the long-haul back in the Mujahadeen days).

    • invisiblejesus says:

      @Funkybadger: That’s not that surprising, given that Bin Laden is originally Saudi. Doesn’t change the fact that he was in Afghanistan at the time of the invasion, not Saudi Arabia.

    • FunkyBadger says:

      invisiblejesus: Quite.I read an interesting book by the – I think – 2nd in command of ISI from the Mujahadeen times, and he pointed out that it was the flow of money from America that allowed the insurgency to continue (that and the relatively safe staging area in Waziristan).

      I’d say they situation is pretty similar now – exceot the cash is flowing in from a different direction.

  38. jti says:

    Watch the trailer again. Dude kills an unarmed shepherd! Our hero! All arabs are BAAAAAD, killllllll!!!!

  39. Grape Flavor says:

    Great job guys! I expected idiotic, ugly rote anti-Americanism from every post about this game and so far you’re delivering in spades. Thanks for helping to shatter the last vestiges of my faith in the rationality and basic goodness of humanity.

    I’m gonna go throw up now.

    • Rinox says:

      Yes, I’m sure the war in Afghanistan is based on all those principles.

    • Grape Flavor says:

      I never said whether is was or wasn’t in that post, just that this thread helps to destroy my (very small) faith in those things.

      But I’m curious. YOU tell ME, smart guy, what IS the war in Afghanistan about? Why was it started? Why does it go on today? What are the motivations of all the involved parties in this? What should we do now?

      I’m terribly curious as to whether you’ll actually take the bait here, or whether you’ll find you don’t actually have anything to say. I’m tired all of the snarky one-liners and digs in this thread. I want you to actually showcase the intellectual emptiness of your position, in all its horrible glory.

    • latterman says:

      (because this is the Internet: there’s no moral judgment about anything in the following post)

      for starters there’s an obvious interest of the US government in securing their dominance regarding world politics, be it by diplomatic or by military means. Afghanistan is a demonstration of what a world power is able to do if it feels threatened and/or feels the need to demonstrate and secure it’s power.

    • jalf says:

      @Grape Flavor: How about you give it a shot? You obviously know better than anyone else in this thread what it’s all about. And yet you’re wasting your time insulting people and calling their posts “idiotic”. Perhaps the rest of us are tired of snarky one-liners and digs too. Perhaps you should show that you’re better than the rest?

    • Grape Flavor says:

      @latterman

      So it’s all a craven conspiracy to take over the world, just like the baddies from cartoons and James Bond films. Okay. Given how powerful the United States still is, conspiracy theories like this are inevitable. Though there’s still, last time I checked, no factual evidence to support this conspiracy theory other than “well obviously cuz America is evil”: i.e. “rote anti-Americanism”

      So Afghanistan is… what? A tech demo? Purely a showcase of military might? A) We’re floundering in Afghanistan so I don’t see how this is all supposed to impress anybody B) Everybody is already very aware of our advanced military capabilities C) Spending this amount of money and military resources substantially ties up our military. Thus making us MORE vulnerable and DECREASING our ability to project power. I think the rest of the world’s leaders can see that.

      The question is, what makes you think the United States is so much more inclined towards evilly plotting for world domination than any other country? Than, say, the UK? We’re both more-or-less liberal democracies. Is it just that the US has more of a means these days? Then what about Russia or China? They’re both repressive nationalistic oligarchies, why aren’t they targeted for this theory?

      Again, we get back to “rote anti-Americanism” But it still puzzles me why these theories are so popular in the UK. I’m a pretty good student of history yet whatever huge grievance the UK has against the United States, I must have missed it.

    • invisiblejesus says:

      Grape dude, let it go. They’re just going to keep playing games with you and get you more and more pissed off, and then the second you say something they can creatively interpret as being “Ugly American” they’ll just jump all over you and declare it proof that they were right all along. This is just a really sophisticated attempt at trolling. Don’t give ‘em what they want.

      For what it’s worth, I spend a pretty decent amount of time gaming with folks from the UK and a couple other countries. Based on that experience I’m pretty sure most folks on that side of the pond don’t have this kind of attitude.

    • Grape Flavor says:

      @invisiblejesus

      Yeah, I’m going to bed. It’s 3AM, what the hell am I doing. I’ll check this tomorrow.

      Besides wasn’t this article supposed to be about a video game? Seems we all forgot. :(

    • Grape Flavor says:

      hmm okay ONE more. here you go bud.

      @ Jalf
      “How about you give it a shot? You obviously know better than anyone else in this thread what it’s all about. And yet you’re wasting your time insulting people and calling their posts “idiotic”. Perhaps the rest of us are tired of snarky one-liners and digs too. Perhaps you should show that you’re better than the rest?”

      The war in Afghanistan was launched as a reaction, possibly an over-reaction, to the major terrorist events in September 2001. Al-Qaeda was the party responsible for 9/11, at least in the most direct sense. (Yes, no missiles and holograms.) Al-Qaeda was primarily operating out of Afghanistan with the permission of the fundamentalist Taliban regime. The United States demanded they hand the Al-Qaeda leaders over for prosecution, Taliban basically said “fuck you”.

      Taliban summarily gets their shit blown up by ISAF. Osama Bin-Laden flees to Pakistan. Taliban insurgency begins. Afghans try to form competent, democratic government, with marginal success. War drags on, possibly due to underfunding and/or distracting US focus on Iraq.

      Afghans become disillusioned by new Afghan government and the continuing civilian casualties. Taliban is able to persuade some to join its cause, and many more are forced to cooperate through violence and intimidation, making ISAF’s job difficult. Afghan gov’t continues to be ineffective due to corruption, incompetence, and Taliban sabotage of humanitarian and public works projects. Shit gets worse.

      President Obama sends a surge of addition troops to ISAF. Outcome is uncertain. Increased pressure on Afghan goverment. Present day.

      There you go, Afghan War in 30 seconds. Note absence of hysterical conspiracy crap.

      I’m as much of a cynic as the next guy but “sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.”

    • Rinox says:

      Well…I don’t think you’ll call me crazy if I say that I find that going to war with a country (granted ruled by a fucked up regime) isn’t ‘rational’ and definitely not a showcase of ‘goodness of humanity’. And I’m pretty sure the Taliban government didn’t go ‘yes we have him in our basement, but you’ll never get him infidels!!’ when the US/Alliance asked them to hand over Bin Laden. What they probably did was refuse to let their troops on Afghanistan soil or refuse to talk with the alliance countries, which then prompted the military response.

      See, that’s the thing. The Taliban government, Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, they’re all freaking bastards and I’d sure as hell prefer it if they just gave up and die. But there is this undeniable double standard that when we (ie the NATO, largely) decide that a war is ‘just’ and ‘right’ we can just barge into a country and do our thang. It’s not just a Western problem, either (cfr Russia and its border wars in South Ossetia/ China’s campaigns in Tibet). Crooks or not, even Afghanistan has national sovereignty. I agree that there was a justification for a reaction, but not of this magnitude. The war in Iraq may be very different from Afghanistan, but the essential premise was the same “we believe that Saddam is a threat to security in the area/world so we must invade Iraq”. The biggest difference was that it blew up in everyone’s faces because the end there wasn’t shit (while Bin Laden was very much in Afghanistan).

      So, in short: do I sympathize with the ideas behind the war, and did I want to see the targets go down? Yup. But I’m continually sickened by this all-pervasive ‘strength makes might’ principle and hypocricy that seems to be taken for granted in our world of today. It’s not because no world leaders (except for Ahmenijad, but he’s a loon) dare to say it out loud that it isn’t true. All these wars are fought on lofty goals to, in short, ‘make the world a better place’, but in reality these wars are only fought over revenge, money and ideology. And if we have to breach international law or a nation’s sovereignty for that, hey, we have a good reason! If we really wanted to promote enlightenment, rationality and basic human kindness there are many more admirable things to do or EVEN countries to tackle – not necessarily with a war, obviously. How about all these trade embargoes with ‘bad’ countries all over the world? Is that a way of improving the world too, by almost directly bereaving countries’ populations.

      It’s not right because we can. If we’re not going to set a good example ourselves, why would we expect anyone else to follow suit?

    • Grape Flavor says:

      @Rinox
      I guess it just depends on your definition of a “just war”. No war is truly just of course, innocent people will die, abuses will be made, etc. But in the relative sense I think this one is pretty OK. I believe fundamentally the US is fighting to establish stability and democracy in Afghanistan, and the Taliban is fighting for the return of their fundamentalist terror state, although I’m sure they see their own cause in a noble light. This wide gulf in objectives between the 2 sides, in addition to the Taliban culpability in the 9/11 attack, leads me to more or less label the thing a “just war”.
      It may have been an overreaction. I can’t say. Perhaps Al-Qaeda could have been destroyed without taking the Taliban too, I’m not qualified to make that analysis. Either way it’s way too late now to simply “not” invade Afghanistan. We’re there, and we have to deal with it, and make the best of the situation we have today.
      What I take strong exception to is all this talk of imperialism, murder, genocide, etc, etc. I think the United States has made it pretty clear their goal is to stabilize Afghanistan and get the hell out. Almost nobody in the United States really “wants” the US to be in Afghanistan. There’s nothing there that we want there, hence no motive for all these conspiracy theories, and it puzzles me that so many assume the worst motives, when there is no evidence to support those claims.
      I think the whole sovereignty thing was sidestepped from the United States’s perspective by the fact that we still recognized the largely deposed Northern Alliance government as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. So from that point of view, the “sovereign government” of Afghanistan was pretty gung-ho about this whole thing.
      The rest of it boils down to the old isolationism vs. interventionism thing. I think it’s tricky to find the right balance there, and this issue will always produce divided opinions.
      Sorry for assuming bad faith. You’re more reasonable than I supposed.

    • Rinox says:

      @ Grapflavor

      Nah, it’s ok. I suppose I was a bit snarky about it at first with the short comment(s).

      With regard to the imperialism thing: without sipping from the Koolaid here, there was very much a blueprint for establishing a “new American age” during the Bush neocon years. Of course, having a plan is different from actually have your population and the world swallowing it, but still. I can see where it’s coming from.

      In the end, I think I’m just a pacifist. I find it hard to agree with any war that is not a direct response from a victim towards an agressor (and even then), but I suppose in today’s reality those kinds of wars are rarer and rarer.

    • Grape Flavor says:

      @Rinox
      We can agree on that one. There were indeed some creepy plans for enforcing some sort of absolute American hegemony floating around the neo-con think tanks and the Bush Administration. I’ve read some of the policy papers, they were pretty overt. The ideas of the Bush administration are horribly unpopular though and I don’t think we need to worry about them right now. Even most Republican politicians won’t touch Bush with a ten-foot pole. I don’t consider myself an Obama supporter by any means (i’m in the political center), but I think at least ONE thing we don’t need to worry about is him re-activating these Bush-era proposals.

      And I don’t necessarily think the war in Afghanistan is entirely, or even mostly, a product of that way of thinking. I believe it was a genuine reaction to the 9/11 attacks. Whether or not it was a counter-productive OVER-reaction, history will tell. But we’re there and we have to deal with it as best we can. Right now, I don’t think fleeing Afghanistan is the best way to do that.

    • FunkyBadger says:

      @Grape: nice analysis.

  40. Patrick says:

    What the hell is “Old World”? Surely you meant “Ulde Wourlde”.

  41. DaveyJones says:

    I’m going to laugh when this game comes out, and it turns out to be a brilliant gem, parodying action-y American cinema in a sort of Team America way, while being very enjoyable to play as well.

    Well, I would. But I’d have to be in an alternate “modern gaming hasn’t gone to utter shit” universe, where S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is bug-free and Peter Molyneux isn’t full of shit.

  42. captainpuke says:

    I think you spelled honor wrong.

  43. SofS says:

    @ Grape Flavour

    Looking over your comments, you seem to be a fan of attributing motivations to collective entities (the US staying in Afghanistan out of nobility/naivete, most relevantly). I’d submit to say that this is a reductionism broad enough to obsucre the whole issue. Can you really say that a nation has a unified will and a motivation? Does its government or its military?

    It could be that you are saying that the individual Americans in Afghanistan have these ideals. If so, that’s neither here nor there, as it’s impossible to determine that one way or the other from here. Rather, I think your argument is that the military action in Afghanistan is noble/naive in and of itself, unknowable motivations of the people involved notwithstanding. If this isn’t an accurate characterization of your position, I apologize; if it is, I would ask you to explain why you consider the operation to be noble.

    • Grape Flavor says:

      @SoufS

      I’m not so much extolling the merits of the military campaign itself, more taking outrage at the casual depiction of American troops as dirty rotten evil murdering criminals who take glee in massacring people as part of their daily routine. The military is generally considered to be one of the

      And this characterization of the war as some kind of imperialist adventure for profit is so unbelievably silly in my opinion. NO one yet has answered my question as to how, logically speaking, the US is supposed to be benefiting of profiting, or is in any way strengthened, by this whole mess.

      Perhaps I’m just a fish out of water here, in American settings you do not hear this kind of rhetoric. Not but rarely, and then only from the most insanely radical among the radicals. So to hear ostensibly normal, functional individuals make these kind of statements casually, as if it were commonly accepted fact, is rather jarring.

    • invisiblejesus says:

      Heh, what makes you think these are normal, functional individuals? You don’t know that. They could be anyone. They could be fat sweaty guys with no pants on and with refrigerators full of human flesh. They could be 12. Who knows?

      Also, very clever bait there with adding the “u”, SofS. That must have taken a bit of thought. I appreciate that kind of commitment to trolling.

    • SofS says:

      @Grape Flavor

      Isn’t the campaign itself the important thing? We can all take issue with characterization of soldiers, but it’s ultimately their actions that are either to their merit or their shame. From the news coverage I’ve experienced in my country (Canada, as you may have guessed), the general level of ethics has struck me as average; some soldiers distinguish themselves in navigating through difficult situations, others make poor decisions (we recently had one about shoddy treatment of prisoners that our people had a hand in), and most get by and do the best they can. It isn’t rapacious or saintly, it’s professional. They’re doing a job, which leads one to then consider the job itself.

      If you aren’t extolling the virtues of the campaign, what do you think about the soldiers carrying it out? They can certainly be torpedoed by poor command decisions or unknown unknowns, so to speak, but they are the ones on the ground who are actually doing the things that we hear about in the news. The situation in Afghanistan continues to be poor after most of a decade; who do you see as bearing the blame?

      In any case, I don’t think this is really what you were talking about. People insulted your troops and you didn’t like it. I’m not fond of the blanket blame placed on soldiers myself; I quite openly think that the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq turned out to be colossal mistakes in many ways, but that’s no fault of people whose only decision in the process was to sign up for service. I think that the anti-military attitude is dissatisfaction at a larger issue finding outlet toward one visible aspect . Me, I’d rather blame the politicians who order the military into these unwinnable situations.

      @invisiblejesus

      It’s just how we spell. I usually don’t really notice.

    • Grape Flavor says:

      @SofS
      How do I put this. The operation has been mismanaged, mistakes have been made, civilian lives have been lost, etc.

      But at the end of the day, the US objective is to leave Afghanistan in some sort of decently functioning state, to prevent terrorists from again using it as a base, and then to get the hell out.

      The Taliban objective is to drive the US out before the Afghan gov’t can pick up the slack, and subsequently reestablish their fundamentalist tyranny over the Afghan people at all costs. Probably also going to invite al-Qaeda back in the process, where they will again use Afghanistan as a base to plot mass murders of Western civilians.

      I think one of these aspirations is more noble than the other. In fact, I think one of these aspirations is downright decent. I bet you can guess which one.

      Why the rest of the world seems to jump to “OMG murderous imperialist genocide”, is beyond me. Here in the US it’s not really all that controversial within the mainstream. Even Obama and the Republicans can agree on this one. And that’s really saying something.

    • invisiblejesus says:

      “Why the rest of the world seems to jump to “OMG murderous imperialist genocide”, is beyond me.”

      Honestly, I really don’t think they do, not most people anyway. It’s just in the best interests of some folks in politics and the media (and some big mouths on internet message boards) to make us think that. I think in general that we should be very skeptical of anyone who tries to convince us that everyone hates us. They usually have some way of benefiting from us accepting that belief.

    • SofS says:

      @Grape Flavor

      My main objection to that would be that you’re attributing a motive to an action carried out by many individuals. You can say that it’s the US objection to stave off later attack by eliminating the Taliban; that makes strategic sense, given what’s known from the news. Many people do not trust that it is the intention of all those involved, and I am one of them. There may not be much opportunity for a nation to profit, but I am concerned over the drug trade. Afghanistan is the world’s largest exporter of opium, if I remember correctly, and people with power there (including the limited-time but extreme authority offered by commanding a military force) have the potential to exploit this resource for their own gain. This isn’t necessarily what is happening, of course, but whenever there is potential, there needs to be oversight. I admit an inherent distrust for oversight being provided by a nation itself or that nation’s allies. There is too much opportunity for exploitation in Afghanistan, too many ways to accrue wealth under the table, and this invites suspicion of wrapping up individual motives in the notion of a larger, collective motive.

    • Grape Flavor says:

      @SofS
      You make good points, but of course there’s a difference between understanding why someone could put faith in a theory, and that theory actually being true. I’ve heard the opium thing before. But according to reliable news sources, the United States is aggressively destroying the opium poppy crop, to the point that it is alienating Afghans and arguably undermining the larger goals. If there was actually evidence that the US was selling the opium and making some huge profit, that would be different.

      If NATO oversight isn’t good enough, I’m not sure what would be. Oversight is considered most credible when from stable democratic nations with strong roots in the rule of law. Sure, we could invite a North Korean or Sudanese agent to watch things, but I highly doubt their “analysis” would be any more accurate or beneficial than the US, the UK, or anyone else in NATO. And given too much information they could do a lot of damage. Even Chinese or Russian observers would likely use any intelligence gained from NATO as ammunition against an alliance they perceive as threatening to their strategic interests.

      We need to be skeptical of creating false equivalencies. The opinions of manipulative Stalinist police states such as North Korea are not necessarily of equal importance or weight to those of liberal democracies, just because both nations have sovereignty and a seat in the UN. Just because you have a seat at the table, doesn’t mean you have anything worthwhile to say.

    • FunkyBadger says:

      Grapes: on the question of who’s profiting from the war(s) – its not so muc “the US” as such, as particular bits of it; Haliburton, Boeing, Lockheed, BAe, Blackwater etc. the usual suspects.

      (This apparent profiteering seems to be much more apparent in Iraq than Afghanistan, probably because we haven’t actually got to the rebuilding stage there).

  44. Shnyker says:

    Medal of Honor: Modern Warfare 3: Slightly More Realistic One.

    I’ll bite.

  45. AndrewC says:

    Oooooo! Politics! While it should be noted that the people who agree with me are completely right, what i’m interested in is how they’ll ramp up the challenge in the later stages, considering this is a conflict between the world’s biggest and most advanced military and a bunch of guys with 20 year old AKs. The last MOD ended with fantastical nazi supersoldiers, so what do they have planned for the terrorists?

    Mechsuits made out of recycled soviet tanks.
    Reverse engineered rail gun made from downed spy satellite.
    A cave system that opens out into an illuminati base.
    Cloned Osamas!

  46. TeeJay says:

    @ Grape Flavour

    While sending troops to help a democratic Afghan government resist an insurgency may well be a valid and noble aim (also removing Saddam, depending on your view) you are overlooking the possibilities of doing things differently. Note that the Northern Alliance kicked out the Taliban very quickly before many NATO troops arrived – can you show that NATO troops were necessary either to remove the Taliban or to prevent them from returning to power? Note the US supports Pakistan against the Taliban and Al Qaeda without sending in troops. Note that Al Qaeda are actually based in a whole range of countries and keep moving around – they are often in areas which have pre-existing (civil) wars. If you took your simple logic to it’s conclusion then NATO would potentially be invading Somalia, Pakistan, Sudan, Chad, Yemen (and others) and staying until each of these had resolved all internal political disputes, had built strong governments and were stable. There are always going to be mountains, deserts, jungles and cities for terrorists to base themselves in – the concept of sending large numbers of troops into every single country they could be based (and inevitably getting involved in local conflicts and local politics) is a bit of a crazy strategy. It might be appropriate in specific cases but it shouldn’t be adopted as a general rule, unless you really *do* want to create a ‘global empire’ with a ‘world-wide police force’.

    I actually support NATO action in Afghanstan but you confused if you think there is ever only one possible policy or way of achieving objectives.

    As for “what is in it for America/Europe/”the west” … it might be true that there isn’t any immediate and narrow financial ‘pay-off’, but looking at the bigger picture there is a clear interest for the ‘free market’/richer countries (aka “OECD countries” = Europe & Turkey, US/Canada/Mexico, Aus/NZ/Korea/Japan) to collectively maintain their influence in the middle east/central asia (and elsewhere). They don’t want to wake up on day and find themselves ‘locked out’ of a region. Other countries very interested in having future influence Afghanistan include Russia, China, India and Iran. OECD countries only have c. 15% of the world’s population but c. 65% of global GDP. They have a long term interest in keeping the world ‘open for trade and investment’ and promoting political and social values that integrate with their own. From this point of view having Iraq and Afghanistan move towards being ‘western-allied’ and ‘western-facing’ countries is beneficial – if Iran ‘switched’ as well all the better. The opposite and unwelcome trend would be a rise in anti-western governments, a regional grouping that shut out the OECD and/or orientation towards non-OECD countries (eg boycotting US/Europe and opening up only to China for example).

  47. godwin says:

    All this talk of war… and who is the target audience? Really, think about it, look at what the comments on GT.com are all on about. As the franchise enters the realm of modern warfare, there are going to be real implications in attaching the brand of HONOUR to an action-packed simulation of a foreign army’s (or coalition’s) CURRENT operations in Afghanistan. The frightening part is that most people who consume this product will not give that premise a second thought: how do things like that affect how they think? What they say? How they vote? What are we consuming when we play a game? Is a gaming experience separate from the story driving the game and the points of view the player is put through in that story? Don’t any of you think that game developers, like writers or artists, and the industry at large, need to bear responsibility towards the views and experiences they project with their characterisations and narratives in games? Do none of you think that there should be more room for criticism and deconstruction in order for the medium to mature and become receptive to plurality?

  48. Mr. Versipellis says:

    Well, it’s a CoD clone but we knew that from the start. It might be fun, and I think the graphics look pretty good.

    • Soobe says:

      They do look good…probably because they are using some Global Illumination and most likely a form of realistic atmospheric rendering known as : http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/atmos/blusky.html

      I was thinking about this the other day–using such rendering techniques designers are able to keep texture detail about the same as what it was in say, Oblivion, but then, like in Fallout 3, the game looks like it’s on a totally different generation console.

      This saves or at least keeps budgets in line, but the results are sooo much more realistic. It’s really quite cool when you think about it.

  49. Soobe says:

    Soooo..the terrorists are too stupid to turn off the IDE’s dial-in ringtone? Hmmm, doesn’t sound like they adapted all that much.

  50. ChrisMathers3501 says:

    Ugh. Everything seemed so clear in the early days of the war in Afghanistan. Back before we knew Bin Laden had fled and back before Dumbass decided to start the Clusterfuck War, it seemed like there was an actual mission statement. Now I’m not so sure. Are we after him or aren’t we, and if we are, why aren’t we in whichever shithole we think he’s holing up now? Or are we? Maybe a real-life Tier One is slitting him ear-to-ear right now. One can only hope. Too much bullshit and politics though, just thinking about it is making that thing inside my skull hurt. Between idiot conservatives who automatically assume their leaders have their best interests at heart because they ACT like good Christians and hate people who have a different way of life, and arrogant liberals who won’t shut up about the connections between government, corporations, and genetically engineered food that people ALREADY KNOW ABOUT, it’s hard to not come off as biased in either direction, so I’m not even gonna try. What I WILL try to do, is talk about THE GAME ITSELF instead.

    It looks badass. Every MoH has. And I actually like the fact that the core concept is a blatant ripoff of Medal of Honor’s number one clone. Not that I thought Call of Duty was any less of a good title. Both series had their strengths and their hooks. Medal of Honor was always about the individuals who stood out above the rest and almost always seemed to drop you into enemy territory as an OSS agent, while Call of Duty was more about the soldiers on the front line fighting as a team (Soap, do this, Miller, do that) and, while being the more eclectic of the two in terms of numbers of protagonists in the game and their nationalities, almost always seemed to find time to stick you in the boots of an SAS commando. “Scalpel and Sledgehammer” comes to mind…

    And it’s clear MoH’s strong suit is and always has been Scalpel. With only some 200-odd operators in the US military considered Tier One, it don’t get much more “Scalpel” than that. Little bit ago I saw some screenshots. They said this one dude was part of your squad, but you couldn’t tell just by the screen alone. His tactical vest looked like the only clothing on him that wasn’t scavenged rags. He had a beard worthy of a mean old goat farmer. And his weapon might have been American-made but it looked like it’d either been pulled from burning wreckage or used to fight the Soviets, or even both, probably a deliberate detailing to make it blend in with the environment and/or the other Afghans’ weapons. If you were a Taliban fighter just hanging around a mountainside on guard duty making sure no one got too close to where your buddies were hiding the big Russian arty piece they were gonna use to shell some approaching vehicles, and you suddenly flopped down into some snow-covered sand gaping at the spurts coming out of your chest as you fade out, not even knowing that the whole team guarding the mortar is already dead and you didn’t even hear them drop, there’s a very good chance that your head-chopping, goat-screwing, woman-stoning, cave-dwelling days were ended by one of the most advanced and specialized military operators in the world, and he looks, walks and talks just like you.

    And we still ain’t even seen much of the door-breaching, chopper-piloting “Sledgehammer” action we were promised yet. Between MoH, Call of Duty: Vietnam, Halo: Reach, Portal 2 and the new Fallout game it is shaping up to be one Hell of an interesting year in gaming.

    Oh yeah, and before I forget, I know I always bring this up when talking about MoH or CoD, but I want to see a game set during World War One. With trenches. And blimps.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>