Medal of Honor info : EA has something up its sleeve for 360?

Inscrit depuis 6908 Jours

http://gamereports.com/news/2089/

EA has something up their sleeves with Medal of Honor: Airborne that is supposedly going to use the power of the XBox 360 to give gamers something special. Check out the link for an explanation of the new gameplay they plan to add to the MOH series to help it compete (and possibly outdue) the near flawless gameplay standard set for WW2 shooters with Call of Duty 2. Will it surpass COD2? Only time will tell.

En réponse à

[b] Never judge a game too harshly via screenshots or videos, because they are in no way capable of properly representing what the game truly looks like were you to see it running in front of you on a 360 [/b]

GriftGFX

Inscrit depuis 7016 Jours

Too bad EA's idea of WWII is bloodless..I'm sorry that just ruins it for me..whatever happened to, "War is hell."?

En réponse à

Optimusv2

Inscrit depuis 6908 Jours

Well its out of respect for the people that experienced it that they don't show gruesome details I guess. I remember seeing a developer saying a certain death looked so violent and yet no blood was shown during the death. I saw it and it indeed looked pretty damn violent without blood. He got shot right in the neck and the sound effect the look on his face everything done perfectly without blood.

En réponse à

[b] Never judge a game too harshly via screenshots or videos, because they are in no way capable of properly representing what the game truly looks like were you to see it running in front of you on a 360 [/b]

Myro

Inscrit depuis 6944 Jours

Posté par Optimusv2

Well its out of respect for the people that experienced it that they don't show gruesome details I guess.

If that was the case, the game shouldn't be made - full stop.
Either have the blood or don't.

En réponse à

http://www.wallpaperbase.com/wallpapers/celebs/natalieportman/natalie_portman_8.jpg

One day you will be mine Ms Portman!

Optimusv2

Inscrit depuis 6908 Jours

I don't mind it much.

En réponse à

[b] Never judge a game too harshly via screenshots or videos, because they are in no way capable of properly representing what the game truly looks like were you to see it running in front of you on a 360 [/b]

anm8rjp

Inscrit depuis 7713 Jours

Disable it, by default, and have it available to turn on in game if you wish as an option.

Problem solved.

En réponse à

smaddady

Inscrit depuis 6995 Jours

Or...it's just blood and there's no reason to worry about not having it? Sure it makes the experience more authentic, but it shouldn't ruin the gameplay any.

En réponse à

Turn down the suck!

wuffyx

Inscrit depuis 6994 Jours

Never cared about blood, gore or dead bodies on the side for an FPS.

En réponse à

grifter_66

Inscrit depuis 6968 Jours

The problem is years ago when the first WW2 game was being made for the PS1 the developers wanted to name it Medal of Honor, unfortunately they needed to get the rights from some WW2 veterans organization (sorry I forgot the actual name) and part of the deal they made was no blood and gore.

You guys need to remember that the people these games represent are still alive and while it is unlikely they will ever see or even play this game if they ask that you not demoralize the solders memories with lots of blood and gore you respect that. It's called suspension of disbelief, you use it while playing all othe video games so use it for the blood in MoH.

En réponse à

Panzer83

Inscrit depuis 6951 Jours

COD1 and 2 barely have any blood in it and no gore and bother are EXCELLENT games.

En réponse à

New rule: If you don't have an HDTV then you cannot comment on the graphics of X-Box 360 games.

GriftGFX

Inscrit depuis 7016 Jours

I mind, and I find the idea that they're holding off on violence out of some sort of respect pretty insulting..did people find Saving Private Ryan disrespectful for showing war to be what it really is--a bloody, depressing mess? I think turning it into a Teen product is more disrespectful than making it realistic is..but then again HONESTLY..how many 80+ year old WWII vets are going to be playing this videogame anyway?

COD and COD 2 both have blood in them..it's a game about a THE MOST FREAKING HORRIFIC WAR IN THIS HISTORY OF MAN..let's put RAINBOWS IN IT TOO..

I mean..I'm sure it's not going to ruin the gameplay any--but then again no MoH game has ever been as good as Call of Duty anyway..so I really don't think we should have too much to worry about anyway..

Bring on COD3.

En réponse à

easynow

Inscrit depuis 6977 Jours

Posté par GriftGFX

I mind, and I find the idea that they're holding off on violence out of some sort of respect pretty insulting..did people find Saving Private Ryan disrespectful for showing war to be what it really is--a bloody, depressing mess? I think turning it into a Teen product is more disrespectful than making it realistic is..but then again HONESTLY..how many 80+ year old WWII vets are going to be playing this videogame anyway?

COD and COD 2 both have blood in them..it's a game about a THE MOST FREAKING HORRIFIC WAR IN THIS HISTORY OF MAN..let's put RAINBOWS IN IT TOO..

I mean..I'm sure it's not going to ruin the gameplay any--but then again no MoH game has ever been as good as Call of Duty anyway..so I really don't think we should have too much to worry about anyway..

Bring on COD3.

call of duty was and is only good because of what medal of honour set down, without one there would be no other. who knows COD might go the way of medal, and become sh1t. medal of honour was good once, and will be good again.
and the fact that the game has no blood in it doesnt bother me. and nor should it

it has alot to do with the fact that you are in controll of the on screen action,you are the one responsible for an other game characters demise. films are a different medium, you have NO controll over the action other than the off button, and thats the point , if you dont want to watch something "gory" you can just turn off the tv/dvd. with games you might want to play the game but not like the idea of the blood. (and you cant realy turn the game off when you get to a gory part.)

yes war is hell but some people are not of a stable mind ( im not condoning censorship but there has to be some responsibility from the game developers. to protect some people)

En réponse à

[quote=GriftGFX]I mind, and I find the idea that they're holding off on violence out of some sort of respect pretty insulting..did people find Saving Private Ryan disrespectful for showing war to be what it really is--a bloody, depressing mess?  I think turning it into a Teen product is more disrespectful than making it realistic is..but then again HONESTLY..how many 80+ year old WWII vets are going to be playing this videogame anyway?

COD and COD 2 both have blood in them..it's a game about a THE MOST FREAKING HORRIFIC WAR IN THIS HISTORY OF MAN..let's put RAINBOWS IN IT TOO..

I mean..I'm sure it's not going to ruin the gameplay any--but then again no MoH game has ever been as good as Call of Duty anyway..so I really don't think we should have too much to worry about anyway..

Bring on COD3.[/quote]

call of duty was  and is only good because of what medal of honour set down, without one there would be no other.  who knows COD might go the way of medal, and become sh1t. medal of honour was good once, and will be good again.
and the fact that the game has no blood in it doesnt bother me. and nor should it

it has alot to do with the fact that you are in controll of the on screen action,you are the one responsible for an other game characters demise. films are a different medium, you have NO controll over the action other than the off button, and thats the point , if you dont want to watch something "gory" you can just turn off the tv/dvd. with games you might want to play the game but not like the idea of the blood. (and you cant realy turn the game off when you get to a gory part.)

yes war is hell but some people are not of a stable mind ( im not condoning censorship but there has to be some  responsibility from the game developers. to protect some people)

grifter_66

Inscrit depuis 6968 Jours

Posté par GriftGFX

I mind, and I find the idea that they're holding off on violence out of some sort of respect pretty insulting..did people find Saving Private Ryan disrespectful for showing war to be what it really is--a bloody, depressing mess? I think turning it into a Teen product is more disrespectful than making it realistic is..but then again HONESTLY..how many 80+ year old WWII vets are going to be playing this videogame anyway?

COD and COD 2 both have blood in them..it's a game about a THE MOST FREAKING HORRIFIC WAR IN THIS HISTORY OF MAN..let's put RAINBOWS IN IT TOO..

I mean..I'm sure it's not going to ruin the gameplay any--but then again no MoH game has ever been as good as Call of Duty anyway..so I really don't think we should have too much to worry about anyway..

Bring on COD3.

GriftGFX I think I just lost what respect I had for you. The veterans who were actually IN THE WAR asked that if EA used the Medal of Honor name not to make the game Gratuitous or bloody and YOU feel insulted. Gimme a break you either need to get over it or play somthing else. The lack Blood in a game does not effect gameplay whatsoever nor will it effect emmersion quality if done right.

You also need to remember that when the contract was signed MoH was not in any way a reallistic representation of WW2 but a fantasy "super soldier" like scenerio on the PS1 so the lack of blood was really not a big deal at the time. Now that MoH has turned into a WW2 game based on real events with graphics far superior to that of it's PS1 brothers the "no blood" contract may be changed to support a slightly more realistic version of the game.

There are many reasons why your comparison of the Saving Private Ryan MOVIE and Medal of Honor VIDEO GAME is stupid (emmersion factor and total control being major issues) but I don't have time to get into that now (completely seperate topic) maybe when I get back.

En réponse à

[quote=GriftGFX]I mind, and I find the idea that they're holding off on violence out of some sort of respect pretty insulting..did people find Saving Private Ryan disrespectful for showing war to be what it really is--a bloody, depressing mess?  I think turning it into a Teen product is more disrespectful than making it realistic is..but then again HONESTLY..how many 80+ year old WWII vets are going to be playing this videogame anyway?

COD and COD 2 both have blood in them..it's a game about a THE MOST FREAKING HORRIFIC WAR IN THIS HISTORY OF MAN..let's put RAINBOWS IN IT TOO..

I mean..I'm sure it's not going to ruin the gameplay any--but then again no MoH game has ever been as good as Call of Duty anyway..so I really don't think we should have too much to worry about anyway..

Bring on COD3.[/quote]

GriftGFX I think I just lost what respect I had for you. The veterans who were actually IN THE WAR asked that if EA used the Medal of Honor name not to make the game Gratuitous or bloody and YOU feel insulted. Gimme a break you either need to get over it or play somthing else. The lack Blood in a game does not effect gameplay whatsoever nor will it effect emmersion quality if done right.

You also need to remember that when the contract was signed MoH was not in any way a reallistic representation of WW2 but a fantasy "super soldier" like scenerio on the PS1 so the lack of blood was really not a big deal at the time. Now that MoH has turned into a WW2 game based on real events with graphics far superior to that of it's PS1 brothers the "no blood" contract may be changed to support a slightly more realistic version of the game.

There are many reasons why your comparison of the Saving Private Ryan MOVIE and Medal of Honor VIDEO GAME is stupid (emmersion factor and total control being major issues) but I don't have time to get into that now (completely seperate topic) maybe when I get back.

Scarface

Inscrit depuis 7002 Jours

Posté par grifter_66

Gimme a break you either need to get over it or play somthing else. The lack Blood in a game does not effect gameplay whatsoever nor will it effect emmersion quality if done right.

I think it does. All visuals that add to the realism, add to gameplay. There was nothing more satisfying than blowing the limbs off of 3 nazi's with a well placed grenade in BIA. 3 things add to a realistic and fun gunfight:
1. Reaction and animation to gun shot hits.
2. realistic gore and exit wound blood squirt(lol).
3. gun feedback, eg recoil and sound.

Bring on BIA3...

En réponse à

GriftGFX

Inscrit depuis 7016 Jours

Posté par grifter_66

GriftGFX I think I just lost what respect I had for you. The veterans who were actually IN THE WAR asked that if EA used the Medal of Honor name not to make the game Gratuitous or bloody and YOU feel insulted. Gimme a break you either need to get over it or play somthing else. The lack Blood in a game does not effect gameplay whatsoever nor will it effect emmersion quality if done right.

You also need to remember that when the contract was signed MoH was not in any way a reallistic representation of WW2 but a fantasy "super soldier" like scenerio on the PS1 so the lack of blood was really not a big deal at the time. Now that MoH has turned into a WW2 game based on real events with graphics far superior to that of it's PS1 brothers the "no blood" contract may be changed to support a slightly more realistic version of the game.

There are many reasons why your comparison of the Saving Private Ryan MOVIE and Medal of Honor VIDEO GAME is stupid (emmersion factor and total control being major issues) but I don't have time to get into that now (completely seperate topic) maybe when I get back.

I don't see a big difference between the two, as far as the whole videogame violence vs. movie violence topic goes--there is a such thing as tasteful violence..I've never read anything about WWII vets going to EA and asking them to turn down the violence in MoH--I'd have to read that first hand to believe it..do you think COD2 is distasteful? I fail to see how that is gratuitious violence..war just isn't happy fun time..and it does add to realism and emmersion.

I have a lot of respect for the military..I just see this as a move to secure a solid teen rating in their game and make it family friendly..I see it as a move to apeal to a larger audience..not as some measure of respect for the military. If they were asked to remove violent aspects from the game well that's a different story all together..I'd like to see some sort of evidence that WWII vets actually care about videogame violence.

I know it doesn't effect the gameplay--I play more BF2 than any other game on the planet--another EA shooter that's bloodless for a T on the box..I just don't personally think that a game based on something so serious should be well..dulled down and less serious.

En réponse à

[quote=grifter_66]

GriftGFX I think I just lost what respect I had for you. The veterans who were actually IN THE WAR asked that if EA used the Medal of Honor name not to make the game Gratuitous or bloody and YOU feel insulted. Gimme a break you either need to get over it or play somthing else. The lack Blood in a game does not effect gameplay whatsoever nor will it effect emmersion quality if done right.

You also need to remember that when the contract was signed MoH was not in any way a reallistic representation of WW2 but a fantasy "super soldier" like scenerio on the PS1 so the lack of blood was really not a big deal at the time. Now that MoH has turned into a WW2 game based on real events with graphics far superior to that of it's PS1 brothers the "no blood" contract may be changed to support a slightly more realistic version of the game.

There are many reasons why your comparison of the Saving Private Ryan MOVIE and Medal of Honor VIDEO GAME is stupid (emmersion factor and total control being major issues) but I don't have time to get into that now (completely seperate topic) maybe when I get back.[/quote]

I don't see a big difference between the two, as far as the whole videogame violence vs. movie violence topic goes--there is a such thing as tasteful violence..I've never read anything about WWII vets going to EA and asking them to turn down the violence in MoH--I'd have to read that first hand to believe it..do you think COD2 is distasteful?  I fail to see how that is gratuitious violence..war just isn't happy fun time..and it does add to realism and emmersion.

I have a lot of respect for the military..I just see this as a move to secure a solid teen rating in their game and make it family friendly..I see it as a move to apeal to a larger audience..not as some measure of respect for the military.  If they were asked to remove violent aspects from the game well that's a different story all together..I'd like to see some sort of evidence that WWII vets actually care about videogame violence.

I know it doesn't effect the gameplay--I play more BF2 than any other game on the planet--another EA shooter that's bloodless for a T on the box..I just don't personally think that a game based on something so serious should be well..dulled down and less serious.

Acert93

Inscrit depuis 6986 Jours

Grift, Grifter, Grift, Grifter, Grift, Grifter, Grift, Grifter, Grift, Grifter, Grift, Grifter...

*Head explodes*

I am always confusing you 2... this thread reads like a split personality disorder!

P.S. Who is Grift ? Where did the name come from? Curious :D

En réponse à

I am too poor to own a 360... therefor I play with paper statistics. The results of my indepth scientific anaylisis determined the most important benchmark is Pi. As in The Ring of Light.

lumzi23

Inscrit depuis 7001 Jours

Posté par GriftGFX

I don't see a big difference between the two, as far as the whole videogame violence vs. movie violence topic goes--there is a such thing as tasteful violence..I've never read anything about WWII vets going to EA and asking them to turn down the violence in MoH--I'd have to read that first hand to believe it..do you think COD2 is distasteful? I fail to see how that is gratuitious violence..war just isn't happy fun time..and it does add to realism and emmersion.

I have a lot of respect for the military..I just see this as a move to secure a solid teen rating in their game and make it family friendly..I see it as a move to apeal to a larger audience..not as some measure of respect for the military. If they were asked to remove violent aspects from the game well that's a different story all together..I'd like to see some sort of evidence that WWII vets actually care about videogame violence.

I know it doesn't effect the gameplay--I play more BF2 than any other game on the planet--another EA shooter that's bloodless for a T on the box..I just don't personally think that a game based on something so serious should be well..dulled down and less serious.

You are completely overreacting.

En réponse à

[quote=GriftGFX]

I don't see a big difference between the two, as far as the whole videogame violence vs. movie violence topic goes--there is a such thing as tasteful violence..I've never read anything about WWII vets going to EA and asking them to turn down the violence in MoH--I'd have to read that first hand to believe it..do you think COD2 is distasteful?  I fail to see how that is gratuitious violence..war just isn't happy fun time..and it does add to realism and emmersion.

I have a lot of respect for the military..I just see this as a move to secure a solid teen rating in their game and make it family friendly..I see it as a move to apeal to a larger audience..not as some measure of respect for the military.  If they were asked to remove violent aspects from the game well that's a different story all together..I'd like to see some sort of evidence that WWII vets actually care about videogame violence.

I know it doesn't effect the gameplay--I play more BF2 than any other game on the planet--another EA shooter that's bloodless for a T on the box..I just don't personally think that a game based on something so serious should be well..dulled down and less serious.[/quote]

You are completely overreacting.

grifter_66

Inscrit depuis 6968 Jours

Posté par GriftGFX

I don't see a big difference between the two, as far as the whole videogame violence vs. movie violence topic goes--there is a such thing as tasteful violence..I've never read anything about WWII vets going to EA and asking them to turn down the violence in MoH--I'd have to read that first hand to believe it..do you think COD2 is distasteful? I fail to see how that is gratuitious violence..war just isn't happy fun time..and it does add to realism and emmersion.

I have a lot of respect for the military..I just see this as a move to secure a solid teen rating in their game and make it family friendly..I see it as a move to apeal to a larger audience..not as some measure of respect for the military. If they were asked to remove violent aspects from the game well that's a different story all together..I'd like to see some sort of evidence that WWII vets actually care about videogame violence.

I know it doesn't effect the gameplay--I play more BF2 than any other game on the planet--another EA shooter that's bloodless for a T on the box..I just don't personally think that a game based on something so serious should be well..dulled down and less serious.

The Veterans didn't go to EA, there is an association that owns the Medal of Honor name and EA needed the OK to use it as the title for their game and part of the deal to use that name was that the game not be bloody. I saw this in a making of video years ago. If I can find anything on it i'll post the link.

En réponse à

[quote=GriftGFX]

I don't see a big difference between the two, as far as the whole videogame violence vs. movie violence topic goes--there is a such thing as tasteful violence..I've never read anything about WWII vets going to EA and asking them to turn down the violence in MoH--I'd have to read that first hand to believe it..do you think COD2 is distasteful?  I fail to see how that is gratuitious violence..war just isn't happy fun time..and it does add to realism and emmersion.

I have a lot of respect for the military..I just see this as a move to secure a solid teen rating in their game and make it family friendly..I see it as a move to apeal to a larger audience..not as some measure of respect for the military.  If they were asked to remove violent aspects from the game well that's a different story all together..I'd like to see some sort of evidence that WWII vets actually care about videogame violence.

I know it doesn't effect the gameplay--I play more BF2 than any other game on the planet--another EA shooter that's bloodless for a T on the box..I just don't personally think that a game based on something so serious should be well..dulled down and less serious.[/quote]

The Veterans didn't go to EA, there is an association that owns the Medal of Honor name and EA needed the OK to use it as the title for their game and part of the deal to use that name was that the game not be bloody. I saw this in a making of video years ago. If I can find anything on it i'll post the link.

GriftGFX

Inscrit depuis 7016 Jours

Hey someone has to take offense to the dulling down of violent subject or we're going to have save a pony in the next game ;P

En réponse à

QuezcatoL

Inscrit depuis 7068 Jours

Posté par Scarface

I think it does. All visuals that add to the realism, add to gameplay. There was nothing more satisfying than blowing the limbs off of 3 nazi's with a well placed grenade in BIA. 3 things add to a realistic and fun gunfight:
1. Reaction and animation to gun shot hits.
2. realistic gore and exit wound blood squirt(lol).
3. gun feedback, eg recoil and sound.

Bring on BIA3...

Yes,and ofc all german soldiers was cold bloody nazis? thats what you think?
Mayby these Vietcong soldiers was just a bunch of evil commies also?

When USA came,the war was almost over in terms of outcome,Germany had lost their main army to russia,and many SS kids was sentd to fight in their place,Why? well over 2 million womens had been raped by the commies in the east,many german soldiers took up that uniform and was later shot to death after transfered to west side cause suddenly USA had invaded Normandy.

And no,im no germany defender,however my reletvies was with the finish army trying to defend Finland from the commie invasion,as ou people know,Germany too kwest europe when Russia took eastern,and tried to take finland,however 500 k dead russian soldiers taught them to stay away,now thats a game i want to have :S

En réponse à

[quote=Scarface]

I think it does. All visuals that add to the realism, add to gameplay. There was nothing more satisfying than blowing the limbs off of 3 nazi's with a well placed grenade in BIA. 3 things add to a realistic and fun gunfight:
1. Reaction and animation to gun shot hits.
2. realistic gore and exit wound blood squirt(lol).
3. gun feedback, eg recoil and sound.

Bring on BIA3...[/quote]

Yes,and ofc all german soldiers was cold bloody nazis? thats what you think?
Mayby these Vietcong soldiers was just a bunch of evil commies also?

When USA came,the war was almost over in terms of outcome,Germany had lost their main army to russia,and many SS kids was sentd to fight in their place,Why? well over 2 million womens had been raped by the commies in the east,many german soldiers took up that uniform and was later shot to death after transfered to west side cause suddenly USA had invaded Normandy.

And no,im no germany defender,however my reletvies was with the finish army trying to defend Finland from the commie invasion,as ou people know,Germany too kwest europe when Russia took eastern,and tried to take finland,however 500 k dead russian soldiers taught them to stay away,now thats a game i want to have :S

Terra

Inscrit depuis 6897 Jours

Maybe Rare should do a gory Viva Piñata. Mmmm… Blood splattered, guts-out Piñatas, chopped with a chainsaw and ripped to- (Hey, what am I thinking?)

Come on guys get over it. If a game is good is good. Blood, or the absence of it, won’t make it any better/worse…

En réponse à

Acert93

Inscrit depuis 6986 Jours

Posté par Terra

Maybe Rare should do a gory Viva Piñata. Mmmm… Blood splattered, guts-out Piñatas, chopped with a chainsaw and ripped to- (Hey, what am I thinking?)

Hmmm... this gets me thinking... I actually was VERY disturbed at the tongue-in-cheek joke about the rodent in therapy over his uncle "touching" him and "eat" his candy. It was a very clear sexual molestation joke.

I know, I know... shows like Shrek include this sort of humor and supposedly kids miss it. But I think certain things are not funny, should be taken seriously, and these sort of thing kind of "desensatize" children to a degree.

Basically I don't understand why an innocent, fun, and colorful game needs to include "adult" style humor at all. It is like Shrek 1 vs. Shrek 2. Shrek 1 relied heavily on punning the old Disney/fairy tales, whereas Shrek 2 relied more heavily on adult/crude humor. Not that I would let me kids watch either... just dissappointed that "innocent" fun is HARD to come by these days.

En réponse à

I am too poor to own a 360... therefor I play with paper statistics. The results of my indepth scientific anaylisis determined the most important benchmark is Pi. As in The Ring of Light.

PlumbDrumb

Inscrit depuis 7009 Jours

Posté par QuezcatoL

Yes,and ofc all german soldiers was cold bloody nazis? thats what you think?
Mayby these Vietcong soldiers was just a bunch of evil commies also?

he said nothing of the sort, so drop it (or I'll hang you by your UnrealEngine).

En réponse à

QuezcatoL

Inscrit depuis 7068 Jours

Posté par PlumbDrumb

he said nothing of the sort, so drop it (or I'll hang you by your UnrealEngine).

Im just so used to see people,write that in vietname games the soldiers was evil commies,or in ww2 its fun to kill evil nazis,cause people got it all wrong.

Those soldiers was villagers who was taken into the army,and the nazis under ww2,well many of them would think this nazi today is fucking idiots.

And no,im no defender of commies/nazis.

My relevties got invaded by the commies under ww2 and won vs them,but that doesnt mean i want cheap games where i shoot commies like vietname games :S

En réponse à

Panzer83

Inscrit depuis 6951 Jours

The ware was not almost over when the US came into the picture Q. Ever hear of the Battle of the Bulge? Or any other counterattack that took the lives of countless soldiers?

I also think it is ignorant of you to say that most SS soldiers were villagers taken into the army. The SS had a very strict selection process (which got dumbed down near the end of the war) and the vast majority of these men believed what they were doing was right and just.

My grandfather was in the Totenkopf division of the SS and he used to tell me all his stories of the war.

En réponse à

New rule: If you don't have an HDTV then you cannot comment on the graphics of X-Box 360 games.

Indiana Jones et le Cercle Ancien

Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver 1-2 Remastered

Assassin's Creed Shadows

GSY Review : Life is Strange: Double Exposure

On sort du train-train quotidien avec Loco Motive

Notre vidéo Switch de Ys X: Nordics