Medal Of Honor, The Trailer

Spike TV’s Video Game Awards took place last night and EA tool the opportunity to run their trailer for the rebooted Medal Of Honor. I’ve posted it below, courtesy of the all-seeing GameTrailers. It’s all looking very modern.


  1. Funky Badger says:

    Medal of Duty 3: War Moderner!

  2. l1ddl3monkey says:

    I’ve always had a soft spot for the MOH games and now that the Infinity Ward have disappeared so far up their own arses following the release of MW2 (which is the gaming sequel equivalent of Highlander 2 – yes I hated it that much) maybe the MOH folks can get provide some gritty FPS modern warfare* action.

    I’d like to think that the MOH series is due a decent release (which Airborne would have been if it had less American military industrial complex jingoism and those fucking guys carrying MG42s on shoulder straps which completely ruined it) and maybe it’ll get it’s place in the limelight this time round.

    Then again: I definitely saw a quad bike chase in that trailer, which is not a huge leap away from snowmobiles…

    *Oh clever – now I can’t even talk about other franchises without using those two words together and implying that anything that focuses on such things is somehow a copy of the MW franchise.

    • Soulless One says:

      And don’t forget that 1-second shot of a night-vision flying gun camera. perhaps from a AC-130 BayCee BunBirty.

    • Melupom says:

      And the American Special Forces do actually use Quadbikes in Afghanistan – I’m not so sure about the SAS and Snowmobiles though…

  3. westyfield says:

    Looks fun from where I’m sitting, although, yes, comparisons to CoD4 can’t be avoided. I’m sure I even saw an AC130 gunship camera at one point…

  4. Vandelay says:

    I’ve recently gone back and played Allied Assault for possible the first time in about 6 years and I had forgotten just how good it was. Technology holds it back a little (which the first CoD rectifies quite nicely, if I recall correctly – for example, compare the early MoH jeep level with the early level in the car in CoD), but it still feels wonderfully atmospheric (bar the out of place comedy run away from grenades animation) and exciting to play. Bar the hard difficulty verging on the impossible, but well in the infuriating zone, I’m really enjoying my play through.

    Having said that, I’ve not been very interested in any of the MoH games since. This seems to be really following in the tracks of MW2 and my attitude is very much why go for second best. Hopefully, they can do things a little differently and provide a unique experience, but my hopes aren’t too high yet.

  5. demonarm says:

    You guys need some help?
    link to

  6. DK says:

    Instead of doing something original and beating the CoD series to the Sci-Fi Punch they go with the lazy “let’s just do the same things they did” approach. Utterly boring.

    • EvaUnit02 says:

      MW2 is already pretty much in sci fi territory.

      Heartbeat Sensors, really?

    • DK says:

      If it doesn’t have energy weapons and/or Power Armor it isn’t Sci-fi.

      As an added bonus, Power Armor would finally give a credible excuse for the main character invulnerability all the newer CoD games have had.

      Basically, I want them to rip off Republic Commando.

    • Sam Bigos says:

      I’ve begun to not care about what setting the game is in, just whether it is a good game. To me, modern combat is much more appealing than ‘sci-fi’, how would you even make a sci-fi FPS?

      To me, the trailer looks really good, though a bit cartoony possibly because of the lack of detail on the textures. It looks a lot like Battlefield: Bad Company 2 infact, though not quite as nice.

    • Funky Badger says:

      Sci-Fi FPS. Umm, Half-Life 2? Deus-Ex, System Shock 2, Bioshock? (Gears of War if you don’t mind including 3PS)

    • Jonas says:

      I think you missed Halo, which seems to be the most obvious example.

    • l1ddl3monkey says:

      “FEAR: It’s behind you” and “FEAR 2: It’s behind you again” were sci fi FPS type games and none the better for it.

    • Concept says:

      “how would you even make a sci-fi FPS?”

      Wow. Just wow.

      Hole = Dug.

    • Funky Badger says:

      Jonas: was only picking good games…

    • Zerotime says:

      Given Soap’s penchant for terrible injuries, I’d almost put money on him being nothing but a brain in a jar by the time Modern Warfare 4 comes out.

  7. Tei says:

    I want a “Rambo 3” mod based on this game. Where you play as Rambo killing Afganistan invaders to free the Taliban. The first mission will be you escorting a transport of missiles for the Taliban people.

    • AndrewC says:

      Tei: Playing as a ‘rebel’ who is fighting a huge imperialistic force by blowing things up is what sci-fi FPS’ are for. The sci-fi stylings are just enough to stop any of those horrible anti-games brigade from noticing.

    • Guy says:

      Free the Afghans dude. The Yanks were involved in the late 1980’s supporting the Mujahedeen against the Commies. The MJ’s turned into the Warlords after the Commies left. The Taliban was a student movement (Talib=student) born out of the refugee camps on Pakistan’s border in response to the Warlords. Backed by the Pakistani Intel boys they destroyed the Warlords in the mid 1990’s, kicking them up to the north. Then after 9/11 the West invades and backs the remaining Warlords against the Talibs. The Talibs then reform in Pakistan as anti-Western chappies and take the West on up till modern day.

      This whole ‘we created the Taliban’ thing is tosh.

      Anyway, the game looks very…normal: extremely linear missions with a Tom Clancy plot, broken up with variety performances (gunship, helicopter, quad bike). On the one hand if its tighter than the two MW games then it could be a blast. On the other hand it’d be great if it was a big open motherfucker where you get to choose your approaches and create random chaos.

      Who am I kidding, I’m just waiting for Hidden and Dangerous 3…

  8. Jonas says:

    I liked Airborne, so I’m pretty interested in this. I’m hoping it’ll be as open and adaptive as Airborne was, though I reckon it will probably be as linear and ultra-scripted as the CoD games. I’m also hoping it’ll be longer than 5 damn hours. I’m not putting quantity over quality, but… five hours!?

  9. bananaphone says:

    “how would you even make a sci-fi FPS?”

    Uh, by making an FPS in a sci-fi setting?

    (examples: Crysis, Chrome, Chaser, Halo, Killzone etc etc)

    Sci-fi CoD or MoH could be very interesting indeed, there’s a lot of potentialy cool set pieces (atmospheric reentry, zero G, assaulting a space ship and so on).

  10. Quercus says:

    It does look an awful lot like CoD4 doesn’t it?

  11. mrrobsa says:

    Personally I think they should have carved out their own identity by making a trailer that was not reminiscent of COD MW games. Mission failed.
    AC130 gunship death. Beaten soldiers sat tied to chairs. Shot of man opening and closing metal shutter door of garage. Quad = Skidoo.
    I suppose it’s entirely possible they are deliberately trying to appear to be similar to CODMW because its popular, I was just hoping for something a little fresher.

  12. duel says:

    High profile, big budget, war type games seem to be all the rage right now.

  13. V. Tchitcherine. says:

    Rock, Paper, Shotgun editors; The Spec Ops: The Line trailer and minimal information provided is just stunning, yet this receives precedence?

    • Kieron Gillen says:

      V. Tchitcherine:
      i) We don’t post on Sundays. Anything you get is a bonus.
      ii) Format information about The Line is pretty nebulous now. God knows what’s its for. We’re a PC site.
      iii) Someone may post it later. Who knows?


    • Toby says:

      That would be this one, people:

      link to

      And yes, thanks for that because it looks rather nice indeed.

    • V. Tchitcherine. says:

      Reply to Kieron Gillen’s reply. (Wish this could be more convoluted to reference to Brazil.)

      Ah, that’s the reason, I did not mean to be critical or sound annoyed if that is how my comment was perceived, though the latest trailer as posted shows quite clearly it is coming to the PC as well as Xbox 360 and PS3.

    • AndrewC says:

      Okami’s mum is really ugly.

    • Him says:

      @ Kieron
      You post on Sundays because you love us, and we love you for it too.

    • EvaUnit02 says:


      The trailer for Spec Ops confirms that it’s coming to PC. See the platform logos at the very end.

  14. Sam Crisp says:

    That one with the shifting sands looked more interesting. Actually, that one was too shooty. This one was was stabby and rolly, too. Will this have shifting sands? Or perhaps forgotten sands?

    There was lots of sand at this years VGAs.

  15. Rakysh says:

    Pah. Why are we getting this tosh when somebody could be making Republic Commando 2?

  16. Metal_Circus says:

    I really have to agree with DK. How fucking boring can you get? I know it’s EA but jesus. I am dissapoint.

    • DK says:

      I’m disappointed because it’s EA – the new EA was going for originality. (and tanked sales wise because of it)

  17. Sainted says:

    To be honest, with DICE’s involvement I’m more afraid that the MoH MP will be a BF:BC2 copy. Looking at the trailer only confirms that.

  18. V. Tchitcherine. says:

    Also, this isn’t the first time that EA have blatantly copied successful contemporaries without shame. After the tremendous excitement for Half-Life 2‘s announced physics integration and facial expression they made a trailer for Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault featuring tanks shelling a pyramid of barrels and a soldier making expressions… timely.

    EA as a composition of in-house developers and as publishers are just terrible, beyond the grinding out of hurried money-grabs and desperate attempts to co-opt popular trends their only appreciably fine work is either due to anomaly or where have little to no input in design decisions.

    There usually aren’t such fine parallels nor so finely timed but compare this Modern Warfare 3 to Spec Ops: The Line; one is reviving a series by perfectly miming the most successful non-MMO game on the market and the other is reviving a series through a truly original setting with compelling concepts and ideas (an exploration of morality in a post-apocalyptic Dubai where the very sand itself contributes a large amount of dynamism and destruction).

    Why must you troll so badly EA executives?!

  19. Gemski says:

    See Battlefield 2142 or Shattered Horizon?

  20. bookwormat says:

    Embracing good ideas from others is a smart move, and an important requirement for any kind of progress.

  21. Ybfelix says:

    The beard looks weird in game.

  22. fearian says:

    I can’t find the photo at the moment, but the guy with a beard is a [b]real dude IRL.[/b] – There’s a photo of a pretty much identical guy in iraq, unkempt beard, sunglasses, cap – holding two rifles or something looking badass as hell.

  23. Justin Keverne says:

    EA “tool” the opportunity? Really?

  24. autogunner says:

    more modern warfare 1 ‘realism’ less modern warfare 2 silliness, k thanks EA

  25. Wooly says:

    This looks like a game about warfare in a modern setting!

  26. Muddy Water says:

    Speaking of the VGAs, what the fuck kind of a category is “Best Performance by a Human Male”?! Is there an award for non-human males?

    And that Spec-Ops trailer is tits. At the very least, it looks far more interesting than the new Call of Duty and Medal of Honor games.

  27. Nikolai says:

    YES! Yet another game set in a modern setting, but free of any critical though about the situation! We need more games to reinforce the neoconservative imperative of unilaterally intervening left and right. Thank you EA.

    • Nikolai says:


    • Serenegoose says:

      @Nikolai: You can tell that from a minute long trailer showing the actiony bits of an action game? Any chance of this wednesdays UK lottery numbers?

    • Guy says:

      Right on my man! Chopping the head off an Afghan for being gay is awesome. And those women like to wear blankets on their heads, act as slaves and never leave the house. And hell, they positively scream with delight when you throw acid in their face for daring to talk to another man. And of course, we all know you don’t need the women’s consent to brutally have sex with her anytime you feel, even if she’s begging you not to. Furthermore those Hazara guys really like it when you lock them in a burningly hot shipping container and leave them in the desert to die. After all that stuff is cultural and traditional. They like it. I mean they’re all like tribal and wild and so on. They want to live in a dusty shithole with no chance of gaining even the most basic securities of food, free speech, tolerance and freedom from violence. Who are we to try and make their lives better?

      After all we’re only there for that famous Afghani oil!

      (Critical thought is a two way street)

    • TeeJay says:

      Two opposing flavours of hysterical bullshit doesn’t average out to give an intelligent medium.

      Sometimes bringing “issues” (political, ethical, historical etc) into games adds to them, sometimes it detracts.

      Sometimes any ‘message’ (deliberate or subconscious) is taken in a totally different way by viewers/players/critics.

      There is no way of knowing yet how intelligently or sensitively this game will (attempt to) treat the current war in Afghanistan, nor what (if any) political or moral message/comment/meaning it will have.

      (I sometimes wonder what a game set in 1980s Northern Ireland or the Falklands would look like, also how different they woud be if aimed primarily at a US or UK market.)

    • Guy says:

      I’d be indebted if you could point out the hysterical sections of my post. Obviously its satirical but the examples of Taliban wrongdoing are backed up by Amnesty International/Human Rights Watch whilst the desire of Afghans for ISAF to stay are backed up by the last Gallup poll in the country (which is, to the best of my knowledge, the most extensive so far).

      Obviously I’m only compare/contrasting with the self-loathing of Westerners and moral wrongness of ‘America First’ and not making points about, say, how US Special Forces keep dropping bombs on the wrong villages, getting involved in drug wars and going native.

      As for political games; I think its very possible but I haven’t really seen any games made so far that encourage me into thinking it would be anything but ‘America, Fuck Yeah!’ or ‘White Imperialist Fascists!’. Video games or big video games at least aren’t that sophisticated yet.

      The Falklands I don’t see as a hugely controversial conflict outside the UK and Latin America. And most of the controversies (Belgrano etc.) are just ludicrous. Northern Ireland of course is a different matter. That said I don’t necessarily see a US or UK game being all that different considering 90% of British films on the subject have ended up being broadly sympathetic to the (P)IRA i.e. ‘Bloody Sunday’, ‘Sunday’, ‘Hunger’. Its really British working class opinion that was anti-IRA.

    • V. Tchitcherine. says:

      Reply to what Guy says on December the 13th, 2009 at 5:09 pm.

      All of the reasoning in protection of women’s rights, education and a humane civic society were the same, exact reasoning by the Soviet army. Education for instance, has always been an important element in traditional Marxist-belief and vestiges remained -however twisted- in the SSRs. Certainly there are figures who desire to educate and better the lives of Afghans, just as there were during the Soviet occupation but it does not ameliorate the violence of invasion and occupation, exacerbation of repression and civilian slaughter. All of these crimes have regressive social effects upon whatever noble and humane aim one could desire.

      But this is all entirely irrelevant what you or I think about the situation, the actual legitimate discussion is what do the Afghan people want. They’re an extreme diverse collection of collaborating and conflicting Pashtun villagers and tribesman yet they coalesce on the idea that the occupation must cease and some form of political resolution to the conflict must eventuate. Afghani women who by inference you are attempting to support condemn the occupation, Malalai Joya, a leading women’s rights activist in Afghanistan wants the occupation to cease and explains that under most metrics, conditions for women have worsened during the occupation.

      It’s utter hypocrisy too from the West considering they supported the Northern Alliance (remember the rather neutral-sounding name from the invasion, presented as freedom-fighters rather than warlords) who easily rival the misogyny of the Taliban. Like all values by all nation-states, they support them only when it is useful.

      But virtually all colonial wars have been waged in the rhetorical belief it is beneficial to the victim.

    • Guy says:

      Dear V,

      As I’ve said above, I’m not making a complete and balanced case for ISAF to remain in Afghanistan. Rather I was having a little joke. You say what matters is what the Afghan people want. Well, as I mentioned, the best recent poll was the Gallup one that overwhelmingly showed that Afghans wanted ISAF to remain.

      As for Afghani women- outside of Kabul we rarely hear their voices. Partly because of oppression, partly because of a lack of interpreters and partly a lack of women soldiers. Now I’m not arguing that things are much better now than they were but at least there is the potential. At least some can go to school. At least some are in the Parliament. At least there is the possibility that in the future things will get better. Under the Taliban there is no hope at all.

      There is little doubt that the Northern Alliance are not nice people but we use the tools we have. Yes it isn’t pleasant but that’s life. I won’t say the ends justify the means but without the NA then ISAF couldn’t even control Kabul. At least with them as allies we can try.

      As for colonial wars- you’re a hundred years out of date chum. The Yanks are desperate to get the hell out of Afghanistan. 2011 and all that jazz. Most of ISAF is there because the USA is, not through choice (after all most of ISAF is European and the EU was happy for the Balkans to burn in the nineties). The US doesn’t rule Afghanistan. After all the Afghan Govt just passed a law that lets men rape their wives if they refuse sex. The US has condemned the law several times but could do nothing. When the British were confronted with sutee in India they just banned it and arrested those involved. That is colonialism.

      (And if you want a little controversy- colonialism has largely been beneficial to the people it ruled. Ferguson’s ‘Empire’ being the lodestone of this school of thought. Certainly who can look at Sub-Saharan Africa today and say that the racism and exploitation was so much worse than the horrors currently being contributed [racism and exploitation still amongst them]. Remember to jump out of Euro-centrism too; when the British conquered India they conquered it from previous conquerors who’d conquered it from previous conquerors ad infinitum… )

    • V. Tchitcherine. says:

      Dear Guy,

      My comments on the opinion of Afghani people were second-hand from the organisational efforts of the aforementioned Malalai Joya amongst rural women. I concede from examining a detailed 2009 BBC news poll whose methodology is sound (free of cluster-bias for instance) that popular opinion is more nuanced but undeniably the opposite of present operative policy;

      On a question of the number of NATO/ISAF soldiers, 18% were for increasing the number, 29% for the same level, 44% were for decreasing. 77% considered air-strikes unacceptable to 16% who deemed they were acceptable to kill militants. 64% want a political resolution whilst only 25% want to continue fighting the Taliban. Incidentally 89% either strongly or somewhat support female education.

      There is clearly minuscule support for the Taliban and their removal was an immensely positive event however the false dichotomy that it must have been done in x manner or not at all is ludicrous. Similarly follows the support for Northern Alliance which repress the very women who are given opportunities in a more liberal Afghanistan. The claim that one must deal with imperfect partners is an obvious observation but the emphasis is on necessity, it is not a necessity to support the Northern Alliance.

      Furthermore the occupation directly fuels the insurgency and not only in the population it radicalises, a recent study found that 20% of all aid goes directly to funding the Taliban or insurgent groups in the form of protection payments, similar to the Mafia in operation; pay us or we’ll attack your construction project.

      The issue of present day colonialism is quite real and in its current modality has many similarities to Athenian imperialism. The most democratic and free nation-state in the world of the time (though not America today with its non-proportional voting, institutional pressures- but that’s another issue) practised a brutal system of imposing client states on neighbouring poleis in arrangements favourable economically and strategically to itself. Indeed the cleruchies of Athens are virtually mirrored in the colonial fortresses that are the world’s largest embassies in Baghdad and Kabul (and still expanding).

      Imperialism and subjugation have always existed and they will continue exist for the foreseeable future, though there have been exceptional and stunning moves towards independence and regional integration in the last few decades. Whether it was to promote the contemporaneously noble and unchallengeable right to promulgate white-Christian spiritualism, to the then incontestable merit of ‘civilisation’ to the present appeal of ‘freedom and democracy’, imperialism is quite real though modalities are different. I recommend searching for George F. Kennan’s declassified Policy Planning Study of February 24, 1948, from the U.S. Department of State.

      As for the ‘controversial’ notion that it benefited living standards, my response is; and? It’s an observation but it in no conceivable manner justifies the horror of the Belgian Congo, British India, the Conquistadors, the Monroe Doctrine and hundreds of other examples. It was a choice to enact systems of subjugation and subservience, it was not a law of physics or nature. You could make the same justification that the technical raising of living standards should permit Nazism, Slavery and Timurlane’s conquest. You did say before that you’re not saying the ends justify but.

      Thank you for the stimulating conversation and I’m quite a fan of Hidden & Dangerous 2, in fact I recently re-installed it and am amazed at the sheer depth and opportunity of it all, the lack of native widescreen support is abysmal though.

    • Guy says:

      Dear V,

      The BBC poll rather reinforces what I said earlier: people may want less ISAF troops but they don’t want them gone. As for fuelling the insurgency and aid- I agree, though I think this happens largely due to ISAF cock-ups. As for the NA, well, they’re enormous jerks but they also make a majority of the Afghan Govt which is the only real hope for an ISAF win and/or the possibility of things getting better. I have yet to see a credible alternative. That said I don’t always agree with how the ISAF states deal with the Govt or Insurgency…

      I just don’t see the Colonialism myself. The US isn’t sending bands of settlers out. Afghanistan is worth nothing economically (As Rory Stewart keeps pointing out: the Afghan Army costs more than the Afghan Govts entire revenue stream). And Afghanistan isn’t strategically worth the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of soldiers and billions of dollars. Particularly with US bases in most of the ‘Stans.

      The idea that democracy is counter to imperialism has never been borne out by history, its an American delusion based on American founding myths that just aren’t true. Even if it were you just can’t compare the Green Zone to the British Empire or the Persian or the Mongol. If the Americans are supposedly imperialists then they’re doing a bloody awful job. They have bases and soldiers in country but little political power, they’re not making any money and they haven’t any land for settlers. Colonialism does remain and will remain but the US Adventure in Afghanistan either isn’t colonialism or the worst colony I’ve ever seen.

      As for my controversial notion; I don’t see it. Empires happen because of history. They aren’t inevitable but they are products of society and culture at the time. I also have to note that all your examples are Western-Centric. I don’t necessarily see that the examples all hold water. Less people died in the Belgian Congo than are dying right now in the current Congo war. Which has gone on longer, killed more people and seen more exploitation post-independence. And the Congo was exceptional, even for European colonialism.

      As for your examples. Well Nazism didn’t bring any benefits to the people it conquered. The Nazi state wasn’t an Empire but a Nation State that conducted wars of conquest and genocide. Slavery is an far-ranging social condition and hence hard to qualify. For a Turkish Janissary there was a rise in living standards. For a West African enslaved by another tribe then the quality of life got worse. Attempting to work out if slavery makes things better or worse on the whole is impossible. Timur was a bloody conqueror but that is one episode in the Timurid Empire which lasted over three centuries (and was itself defeated by the British Empire) and not necessarily representative of the whole.

      Anyway, thank you for the interesting conversation. Great to hear from another H&D2 fan.

      P.S. I imagine you’re using Chosmky for this? (The link and the references to the Monroe Doctrine). Whilst I agree with some things he says it might be worth reading this: link to Nick Cohen is Old Left and if you’re interested in looking at the arguments of the interventionist Left then his book ‘What’s Left?’ is an excellent start.

    • TeeJay says:

      @ Guy

      “I’d be indebted if you could point out the hysterical sections of my post.”

      I am not anti-invasion (Iraq or Afghanistan) or anti-intervention elsewhere (Balkans, Sierra Leone etc). I am objecting to your reply to Nikolai dressing up a complex and nuanced foreign policy decision with pantomime head-chopping, slave-owning, acid-throwing, raping, container-stuffing, villians versus heroic, altruistic liberal, humanitarian crusading knights on a noble mission to civilise the world. Or painting all criticism of intervention as idiots or oil-based conspiracy theorists. OK I see you subsequently saying it was a joke but it is this far too prevalent over-emotional “good versus evil” non-debate that is ‘hysterical’.

      If there really is an obligation to “liberate” people then it is fairly obvious that there are plenty of “candidates” for intervention – some would be laughable easy to invade (many small countries) but harder to subsequently leave in any stable and sustainable state. Some are actually important western allies (eg Saudi Arabia). Some invasions would be massively disasterous (eg another war in Korea). Some just aren’t on the agenda (a US invasion of Mexico to ‘win’ the drug wars there) maybe because being closer to home for some people they realise what a completely inappropriate or blunt tool “solution” it would be. When deciding on intervention a decision makers always need to balance any ‘moral’ reasons with all the other ‘interests’ (economic, political) and impacts that will or could arise (eg civil war, destruction, death) even if the invasion itself is 100% successful and ‘for a good cause’. Good intentions can sometimes lead to bad results. Simply ‘decapitation’ missions can end up being multi-decade commitments and getting bogged-down into something you can’t easily leave.

      This is the stuff of real policy making. The sixth-form debates over abstract principles and tabloid-TV-style sound-bites are just after-the-fact marketing, playing-to-the-gallery posturing, a way for people to emote and rant and maybe feel like they are taking “part in the debate”, and a way for journalists to fill up pages and air-time without actually knowing, saying or understanding anything.

      But I digress:

      …your extended discussion about the pros and cons of policy towards Afghanstan doesn’t answer Nikolai’s original complaint about games being “free of any critical thought about the situation”. Do you agree or disagree with this?

      Also have you ever analysed the hidden politics or values of war games? Do you think any games even have any? (Of course almost everything has some kind of values and politics, even if they are simply unconsciously reflecting the mainstream status quo of its audience, maybe their fears or concerns or their desire for escapism).

      You say “Video games or big video games at least aren’t that sophisticated yet” Maybe you have been playing different games from me or maybe they haven’t communicated the same things to you, but I can assure you that there are plenty of videogames that have contained subtle ‘commentary’ and ‘concepts’ about war, and plenty of games journalists (including the RPS guys) who have written some very good stuff about this if you care to go and find it.

      Re. The Falklands: I am not talking about Belgrano type controversies – for me it would the difficulty in getting excited about machine-gunning 19-year-old Argentinian conscripts who didn’t want to be there in the first place. Maybe an American audience would see it as brutal european colonialism? As for “Its really British working class opinion that was anti-IRA” are you saying that the middle and upper classes are/were more sympathetic?

      Also not true, neither is your “90% sympathetic” claim:
      link to
      link to
      …and this doesn’t include tv series where the IRA appears eg “The Professionals”, “The Sweeney” etc

      There are lots of reasons people have and probably will stay away from making FPS-style videogames about “The Troubles” – also why cack-handed, clueless or heavily politicised versions (eg some films) set many people’s teeth on edge. Maybe if I lived in Afghanistan I might feel the same way about games set there?

      But again, I am digressing…

      …how do you feel about “lack of thought” in games that address very political and politicised issues?

    • Guy says:

      Dear TeeJay,

      Alrighty then:
      1. What I said was obviously totally one-sided (deliberately) but everything in there was based on facts. All of the things I mentioned have happened or continue to happen. That’s why I reject the ‘hysterical’ label. And yes it is superficial but really, a 30-second gag on a website about video-games isn’t supposed to be a highly academic debate on Afghanistan (if I really want that then ‘Ghosts of Alexander’, ‘Registan’ and ‘Free International’ would be the places I’d go).
      2. I wasn’t addressing the critical thought comment but the sentence after about neocons and intervention. The clip is too short for me to make any serious comment on whether the game will show critical thought, though I doubt it.
      3. Yes games can contain commentary and concepts about war (and some very good ones too) but (a) I did use the phrase ‘big video games’ and (b) I have yet to see a game that could offer a serious, balanced and authoritative take on an issue like Afghanistan. I’ve seen nothing with that intellectual depth or heft.
      4. As for the Falklands, can’t see it myself. Nobody gets excited about machine gunning 19-year old Argentinian conscripts. They get excited about playing a game with great story, great gameplay or great ideas. Nobody gets excited about machine gunning 19-year old German conscripts but we all slaughter thousands of Nazis in hundreds of FPS’s- provided the game is good. Have you ever seen anyone walk away from Modern Warfare and say, ‘Blimey, I just can’t kill these young Russian conscripts’ but then turn to Counterstrike and say ‘Blimey, these volunteer SWAT chappies deserve a good machine-gunning’? Being young or a conscript only matters if you set out to make the gamer aware of it. As for Americans seeing the Falklands as brutal colonialism: only if you explicitly showed it that way. With its British population it would actually be much easier to take a pro-Brit stance and show the Argentinians as brutal colonisers. And how controversial would it really be? People complain about how many modern FPS’s have Americans running around invading various Middle Eastern countries but have any been banned? Has there really been mass controversy? Or over Vietnam games? Or Total War: Empire? (The Fallujah game is the only one I can think of).
      5. From personal experience the British middle classes tend much more towards sympathy with the IRA or their aims. Working class people of my acquaintance, unless ideological (i.e. Marxists), were much more likely to oppose the IRA. The 90% is more of an indicator than an actual statistic (hence no reference). Perhaps it would be better if I said that most of the big films about the IRA have been at least sympathetic. The two big films about the IRA of the last decade were ‘Hunger’ and ‘The Wind That Shakes the Barley’. The first was very sympathetic. The second was essentially pro-IRA propaganda (but what else do we expect of Ken Loach?). Perhaps it would be fairer to say that films with the IRA are more likely to be sympathetic than not.
      6. I imagine anyone in Afghanistan reading a Western newspaper, let alone playing a videogame would be shaking their head. Anyway. If a videogame is aiming to be political then I feel it should contain thought. If its entertainment then, well, most of the time its entertainment. I’d rather see thinking entertainment but I’d prefer my entertainment made sure it was enjoyable before worrying too much about thought. It all depends rather. I can live with my modern FPS’s not having an intimate understanding of Afghan rural society or the finer points of counter-insurgency but I don’t want things like torture cropping up.

  28. Walter says:

    Can we please stop pointing out all MW references. I’m sure everyone has noticed already. Also by the same logic MW was a crappier copy of BF2.

  29. Jambe says:

    Yes. American special forces are allowed facial hair and certain amounts of indigenous garb to blend in with local populations.

  30. Okami says:

    I think it’s a shame that you’re reporting on this game and not on Yager and 2K’s take on the modern military shooter Spec Ops: The Line. At least The Line looks like it’s trying to do something novel in terms of setting and isn’t just heroic american soldier fights against filthy foreigners.

  31. Vhati says:

    look great compared to MW2. and im sure the multiplayer will not be gimped to hell.

  32. Vhati says:

    look great compared to MW2. and im sure the multiplayer will not be gimped to hell.

    I will say that modern warfare 2 is the greatest thing to happen to fpses recently. The epic sales for it will in turn increase sales of other games. Such as battlefield bad company 2. People will see that game and say hmm, more players online, more guns, vehicles, destructible environment. Why did i ever buy MW 2 in the first place.

  33. Blather Blob says:

    @Jonas: I’d vote for Doom as the most obvious example. It even followed up a WWII FPS.

  34. Dante says:

    Call me when the Brothers in Arms guys go modern, that’ll be worth seeing.

  35. RedBeardGod says:

    Saw a few minutes of the Spike VGA whilst channel surfing last night. Was terribly awkward (saw Ludacris lookalike bomb while making sports and Tiger Woods jokes and the Bioware guy (who also has a wicked beard, incidentally) screw up his acceptance speech). Is the British accented emcee supposed to lend the awards an air of sophistication and credibility?

    Also, aren’t they supposed to black out/censor SF faces until they’re off active duty? That beard Walter linked is pretty famous as everyone links to that photo (clearly that operator enjoys his work too much).

  36. Greg Wild says:

    Looks spiffy. Little more can be said, for now.

  37. Bogie says:

    Big question is has it got dedicated servers!

    If they do shitty listen servers like MW2 i’m out.

    • TotalBiscuit says:

      DICE are making the multiplayer. After all the noise they made about BC2 having dedicated servers and how much better it would be than MW2, do you really think they won’t put it in MoH? That’s be crazy.

  38. Optimaximal says:


    I think ‘Cowboy’ is too much of a hard-ass to worry about stuff like internet celebrity – if you blew him up with a bomb, his beard would probably absorb the blast and he’d then proceed to kick your dogs ass. If you don’t have a dog, he’ll rape your cat.

  39. Mr. Versipellis says:

    Didn’t I predict it? oh wait, that was on Gamepot.
    Still, a CoD 4 rip-off it is, for sure. Looks good though, IMO. I like the lighting.

    • TotalBiscuit says:

      You can’t rip-off what you yourselves created. IW spawned from 2015, who made MoH. It’s the same developers making all this stuff.

  40. Sunjammer says:

    Between this, ArmA2, OPF2, MW2 and Bad Company 2, isn’t our cup filled yet? Honestly, this whole american perspective modern warfare thing is the new WW2, and it’s equally if not more boring; There’s no romance this time around.

    Until they make Call of Duty: Aztec warfare, I’m AWOL.

    • TotalBiscuit says:

      Evidently not since modern day shooters seem to keep selling by the truckload.

    • Jimmy says:

      Could always make a Men of McDuty: Modern Meals 3 set in WWI. It would be like the usual fare, only with crappier failing rifles and even crappier tin box tanks. The game could be designed as only to permit a realistic reproduction of trench warfare, with trench failing, trench boredom, trench lice, and trench rats.

  41. Rive says:

    Medal of Warfare – Modern Honor.

  42. Kadayi says:

    Personally I’m looking forward to this. I found that COD:MW2 was far to frantic and breakneck where as something in between that and say Arma 2 would be just about right. I’m hoping that this is it.

    • Soulless One says:

      So something somewhere in between the fastest and slowest-paced modern military shooters? That narrows it down.

    • kadayi says:

      @Soulless One

      Pretty much. MW2 doesn’t have any tactical nuance to it, it’s an on rails shooter and you shoot the targets as they pop up (its kind of dumb tbh) where as Arma 2 is a bit too tactical for most most people. Personally I like it, but it’s not everyones cup of tea, som somewhere in between seems to be the thing to aim for.

    • godwin says:

      Well isn’t that Battlefield (whichever, their pacing and scale haven’t changed all that much) then? I think it sits nicely between those extremes. But anyway how did you come to such a conclusion given that this is pretty much just a teaser trailer?

      On the trailer itself, my one big gripe is that it’s just attempting to best MW2. I think that might hurt more than taking the risk to try something different. But that shouldn’t really matter taking into consideration the average ADD consumerist gaming crowd this game seems to be aimed at.

  43. Psychopomp says:

    Where were people screaming about CoD ripping of MoH all that time back?

  44. kafka7 says:

    One of the major features of combat service isn’t fear or adrenaline, but boredom. Why don’t games emulate that?

  45. BobFlanagan says:


    link to

    Surely, you’ve seen this?

  46. shalrath says:

    Good God, that Spec Ops game has the worst 3rd person camera in history. And I’m 99% sure that Special Operations .. err Operatives, don’t just fire full auto at everything they see.

    But the camera, good God the camera.

    • Kadayi says:


      As it’s an FPS title I wouldn’t worry too much about the over the shoulder camera. I’d imagine that’s it’s simply for the trailer. I’d also say they probably aren’t going to force you to use full auto either. Sometimes though full auto is pretty useful, esp if you want to suppress a target whilst your team mates advance on/flank them.

    • Lord_Mordja says:

      Huh? The camera looks like a standard third person one to me…

  47. Shadowcat says:

    Common booby trap errors #37: Sitting your bait on a chair with casters may increase the likelihood of your targets surviving the blast. We also strongly recommend timing the detonation to go off as soon as the trap is triggered, rather than 2-3 seconds later.

  48. Tull. says:

    “Console of Console: Console of Console port 3”

    I LOL’ed. :D

  49. Grape Flavor says:

    @V. Tchitcherine. says: December 15, 2009 at 1:18 am

    I believe your terminology is rather odd. Colonialism is the creating and maintaining of “colonies”, which non-indigenous populations are settled into, or resources pulled out of, for the benefit of the master state. Considering no one has any interest in populating Afghanistan with Americans, and Afghanistan has no resources that anyone gives a damn about, and in fact the United States is hemorrhaging massive amounts of treasure over there, rather than making it, the analogy falls quite flat. If this is an attempt at colonialism, it’s the most absurd such adventure launched in world history.

    Contrary to the scheming-imperialist image which is so fashionable overseas, few if any citizens of our country want to have anything to do with the farce of a nation-state that is Afghanistan. But unfortunately that decision was not made by us alone. Operatives from Afghanistan, operating openly, with the full permission of the Taliban, have attacked our country causing serious damage to human life and property. You already know all of this very well.

    And as far as “subjugation” goes, do you really believe the people of Afghanistan are any more “subjugated” than they were under the Taliban? Or is “subjugation” only wrong when done by foreigners? As in, was the Pol Pot regime morally superior to what a responsible but foreign-backed government would have been? Was Nazi terror morally superior to the occupation of Germany in the Western sector?

    And even your own poll numbers undercut your case. 47% want to maintain or increase the ISAF presence, whereas 44% want to decrease it. When you compare this to the BBC polls that reliably show less than 10% of Afghans desire the Taliban to return to power, it’s hard to infer from that that the Taliban are the popular freedom fighters struggling against Western “colonial-imperialist subjugation.”

    I’m afraid that in my opinion, your angle on Afghanistan seems to be rooted more in rote anti-Americanism and liberal Western self-loathing than in a fair analysis of the Afghans’ needs or the legitimate security interests of the Western world.

  50. StalinsGhost says:

    Other fun fact: A large chunk of the Taliban’s leadership, and a fair proportion of its muscle came from outside Afghanistan – Saudi Arabia and Pakistan particularly. They’re not necessarily seen as a native organisation themselves, and aren’t a nationalistic movement – there’s a lot of native figures of power who have no interest in supporting the Taliban or ISAF.