About the game
- Medal of Honor
- PC, X360, PS3
- Published by Electronic Arts
- French release: Available
- US release: Available
What's up?

Top stories
About
- Copyright 2007-2009 Gamersyde SARL
Log in
Express links
- Activision/Bungie game revealed by court
- A new Castlevania for Nintendo 3DS?
- Brothers in Arms Furious 4 cancelled?
- Rumor: Eidos hiring for new Deus Ex 'for the new platforms'
- Volition working on Saints Row 4?
- Dishonored arrives October 9th
- BioShock Infinite now planned for February 2013
- New Dead Space arriving by March 2013
- Prototype video shows the origin of Assassin's Creed
- Issue #1 of Max Payne 3 comic book series available for free
- Ubisoft registers “Rayman Legends” domain names
- Activision files trademark for The Blast Furnace game
- Heavenly Sword 2 was in production, now canned
- Marketing survey hints at a Rayman Origins sequel
- Rocksteady teases Batman Arkham City DLC

All comments
Page 1 2 >>How many holes did he shot in ???
No wonder he is angry and shoots at him..would do the same if some guys just comes up and wants me in the heat ! :)
Anyway,looks like some solid FPS action here,nice grafix,but I think the animation could be a bit better when they start moving at the beginning.
But thats nothing big,just mention it cause the rest looked so nice.
In CoD they at least were just some generic middle eastern soldiers, who wore uniforms, had tanks etc.. These enemies however are meant to resemble the real people fighting over there, dressed with turbans and and hiding in those little villages...
It just gives me the feeling that the game has a propagandistic purpose... A bit like those Palestinian anti-Israel games.
It may sound hypocritically (since I enjoyed CoD: MW 1 & 2 ) but I don't like the fact that you're fighting the Taliban.
In CoD they at least were just some generic middle eastern soldiers, who wore uniforms, had tanks etc.. These enemies however are meant to resemble the real people fighting over there, dressed with turbans and and hiding in those little villages...
It just gives me the feeling that the game has a propagandistic purpose... A bit like those Palestinian anti-Israel games.
PS. this game looks and sounds really good. everything sounds so meaty.
The Singleplayer stays untouched.
Anyway: Looks solid but I also don't like "real" scenarios... probably because the real situation in Afghanistan is much more complex than "US rolling in, killin da bad guys with turbans".
Unfortunatly I highly doubt the game will go into "political" semantics like terrorist, taliban, afghans, al-kaida, pashtuns and so on.. They are all bad guys. They live in Afghanistan and they wanna take away our hot dogs and baseball... get em boys!
It may sound hypocritically (since I enjoyed CoD: MW 1 & 2 ) but I don't like the fact that you're fighting the Taliban.
In CoD they at least were just some generic middle eastern soldiers, who wore uniforms, had tanks etc.. These enemies however are meant to resemble the real people fighting over there, dressed with turbans and and hiding in those little villages...
It just gives me the feeling that the game has a propagandistic purpose... A bit like those Palestinian anti-Israel games.
Unfortunatly I highly doubt the game will go into "political" semantics like terrorist, taliban, afghans, al-kaida, pashtuns and so on.. They are all bad guys. They live in Afghanistan and they wanna take away our hot dogs and baseball... get em boys!
I think "OpFor" is just what they are going to call the US opposing team in multiplayer, so no one "kills" GI's as a taliban.
The Singleplayer stays untouched.
Anyway: Looks solid but I also don't like "real" scenarios... probably because the real situation in Afghanistan is much more complex than "US rolling in, killin da bad guys with turbans".
Unfortunatly I highly doubt the game will go into "political" semantics like terrorist, taliban, afghans, al-kaida, pashtuns and so on.. They are all bad guys. They live in Afghanistan and they wanna take away our hot dogs and baseball... get em boys!
I personally would love a game that dealt with the realistic aspects of war. Seeing the Taliban stone women to death while buried up to their necks in sand because they hailed a cab or allowed themselves to get raped would be sickening, but would also give a strong motivation to kill them. Then you could come across situations where the same enemies are using innocent civilians as human shields. Would make for some very difficult decision making, and allow people to see what kind of hell our soldiers actually go through. Maybe even having to deal with fellow soldiers who have lost it and are taking things out on civilians. I realize these things would be damn near impossible to implement in a game, but it would be very interesting.
I am just sick of all the war games that totally black and white. Kill this guy, but don't worry there are no civilians to worry about. Or if you do accidentally kill a civy, it is mission over and restart at a checkpoint. Not very realistic...
Then you could come across situations where the same enemies are using innocent civilians as human shields. Would make for some very difficult decision making, and allow people to see what kind of hell our soldiers actually go through. Maybe even having to deal with fellow soldiers who have lost it and are taking things out on civilians. I realize these things would be damn near impossible to implement in a game, but it would be very interesting.
I am just sick of all the war games that totally black and white. Kill this guy, but don't worry there are no civilians to worry about. Or if you do accidentally kill a civy, it is mission over and restart at a checkpoint. Not very realistic...
Like protect the VIP. One random person is selected to be a VIP which the Coalition forces protect, and the Opposing forces try to kill. The VIP would have full control and ability to run or crouch, but only be equipped with a pistol.
But alas no one really listens to the gamers! Dice was probably too busy anyway.
I rather wait for BlackOps.
If the Taliban is called 'oposing force', then they should call the US soldiers 'invading force'.
I rather wait for BlackOps.
You say you don't like the "real" war scenarios, but then you say "unfortunately" they won't be going into the political aspects of war. Which is it?
I personally would love a game that dealt with the realistic aspects of war. Seeing the Taliban stone women to death while buried up to their necks in sand because they hailed a cab or allowed themselves to get raped would be sickening, but would also give a strong motivation to kill them.
Then you could come across situations where the same enemies are using innocent civilians as human shields. Would make for some very difficult decision making, and allow people to see what kind of hell our soldiers actually go through. Maybe even having to deal with fellow soldiers who have lost it and are taking things out on civilians. I realize these things would be damn near impossible to implement in a game, but it would be very interesting.
I am just sick of all the war games that totally black and white. Kill this guy, but don't worry there are no civilians to worry about. Or if you do accidentally kill a civy, it is mission over and restart at a checkpoint. Not very realistic...
A lot of people and devs are just missing what we in Germany call "Fingerspitzengefühl". It's this fine touch you need, to hit exactly the sweet spot for what you should show and do and what you shouldn't.
And it are comments like this that are absolutly missing this fine touch.
You want more civilians implemented in the game? Well that would be a bad choice because it would turn YOUR character into a dick.
That's right a ... HUGE DICK.
Because despite american belief, the GI's over there aren't saving the day, doing humanitarian aid and shit. Well at least not the Tier 1 operators. Infact they are called upon by their commanders to stay out of any civilian shit going on.
Your mission is "Bla" don't you dare deviate and get it done.
Showing all aspects of war is something that pretty rarely can be done without demonizing both partys of war. Including the main character.
A feat, easily and often done in movies, but somehow developers seem to struggle a lot harder with. Probably because they don't want to turn their protagonist into a dick.
Buying this and i will buy BO, plus the Vietnam ex pack for BF:BC 2.
And this comment is exactly the finest example I could think of why I don't like real scenarios.
A lot of people and devs are just missing what we in Germany call "Fingerspitzengefühl". It's this fine touch you need, to hit exactly the sweet spot for what you should show and do and what you shouldn't.
And it are comments like this that are absolutly missing this fine touch.
You want more civilians implemented in the game? Well that would be a bad choice because it would turn YOUR character into a dick.
That's right a ... HUGE DICK.
Because despite american belief, the GI's over there aren't saving the day, doing humanitarian aid and shit. Well at least not the Tier 1 operators. Infact they are called upon by their commanders to stay out of any civilian shit going on.
Your mission is "Bla" don't you dare deviate and get it done.
Showing all aspects of war is something that pretty rarely can be done without demonizing both partys of war. Including the main character.
A feat, easily and often done in movies, but somehow developers seem to struggle a lot harder with. Probably because they don't want to turn their protagonist into a dick.
And how exactly would adding civilians to a game make the character a HUGE DICK? Wouldn't the "dick-ness" of my character be dependent on my actions relative to those civilians? Take GTA for example. You can kill innocent people and be as big of a dick as you like. Also, COD MW2 had you acting as an American and purposely NOT stopping the murder of hundreds of civilians. The purpose of civilians in a military game would not be to kill them, but to avoid killing them. Obviously you wouldn't be able to just slaughter them, but it would add to the experience. I'm sure the military wouldn't like having civilians in the game due to the possibilities, but guess what? The military isn't making the games anyway. Although to your point, something like I am suggesting would have to be implemented into a mature sim-style game, not a COD run-n-gun affair. Something like ARMA where there aren't 12 year boys running around killing civilians for fun. You know?
To me, it doesn't sound like you are interested in "Fingerspitzengefühl" at all. But rather, for every game to have a black and white plot of bad guys vs. good guys with no gray area whatsoever. To me that is boring. The kind of games I enjoy are ones where tough decisions and actual thought are occasionally required.
Stopped reading above.
It may sound hypocritically (since I enjoyed CoD: MW 1 & 2 ) but I don't like the fact that you're fighting the Taliban.
In CoD they at least were just some generic middle eastern soldiers, who wore uniforms, had tanks etc.. These enemies however are meant to resemble the real people fighting over there, dressed with turbans and and hiding in those little villages...
It just gives me the feeling that the game has a propagandistic purpose... A bit like those Palestinian anti-Israel games.
I love when people say 'i'll wait for Black Ops', it's like people can't enjoy two MP games at the same time or they will humanly combust via a killstreak.
Buying this and i will buy BO, plus the Vietnam ex pack for BF:BC 2.
So much for Black Ops I guess.
It's worse when people just last year said Infinity Ward rules and Treyarch sucks.
Treyarch still does Call of Duty better than Medal of Honor does, and you're kidding yourself if you don't think MoH isn't trying to be some weird BF/COD hybrid, while generally failing at both. That's based on the original beta though, so we'll see what happens. My dislike for MoH mostly stems from poor design choices, so I doubt that more development time is going to fix that, but there's a new PC beta out right now. Can't hurt to give it a second chance.