Bitmob.com

Really, the entire Hanover section was fantastic and completely overshadowed anything with Dom and Marcus, IMO."

http://raptr.com/ashpanic"

My favorite people are definitely those that stick to Gnasher 100 percent of the time. Makes me giggle maniacly when they're trying to shotgun me from halfway across the map (hyperbole) and I down em in a few seconds flat with my retro/lancer."

But, let me prove it:

I KNOW that we get to use "actual guns" (the MP7, for example, was a gun that was previewed in the beta per reccomendations of a soldier who said it was an all purpose gun, that he used it often and that it was good. The video introducing that gun was footage of the deployed soldier who reccomended it using it in action). That's just one example of an actual gun they use. The al qaeda are the "actual enemies" I speak of, that you can kill. And "simulating war tactics" because this isn't exactly like other military FPS's--you're very, very vulnerable, so people have to actually think about how they play because the absolute second you start running in the open, you're dead.  So people, at least the smart ones start playing like how the Tier 1 operators suggested in the videos: in packs, no one is left behind, etc. Medalofhonor.com even has articles written by actual soldiers regarding how the best playstyle in FPS's always models what they ACTUALLY do in real life! It's crazy, but true: people do play like that. In games like Battlefield, this is way more obvious, though.

No, I did not say I *thought* the setting was an artistic choice, I said that I HOPED it would be. Because, as I started saying in the article, it's a sensitive subject. You don't approach a sensitive subject ham-handledly.

Are you seriously saying that Modern Warfare depiction is an economic NECCESITY? Hmm. Well, I have no idea why Treyarch is wasting their time on the cold war, then, cause that game isn't going to sell anything, right? ;)

it's not so much that I want a game about politics inasmuch as the decision to ignore the politics of something this relevant to our daily lives is a missed opportunity, (hey, that's the name of the article!) and a downright confusing decision when they've gone so far out of their way to make this game as realistic as possible in all the ways that don't actually matter. I want games that matter. Otherwise, what is it doing justice? It would really just be self-indulgent, and, they've gone on and on how they want to give it justice. It would be the only thing that could possibly set it apart. I say this after having spent a good 60ish hours playing the beta.

But more importantly, and as I stated in the article: why put so much effort into making it as realistic and true to the setting as possible in every way except the way that actually matters? It doesn't make any sense, if that's not the point. Moreover, this is a reboot so I'm not sure restating what the "spirit" of the previous Medal of Honor iterations does for your argument. If they wanted to continue in the same vein, it doesn't make sense to come out with a reboot, does it?

What is wrong about a game about human tragedy and horror? We've played plenty of games that deal with those subjects--abstracted, sure, but we've still played them. Had this game actually dared to do the same, it might've actually mean tsomething. It wouldn't be somethign we easily forget about in lieu next year's new model with minor gameplay tweaks and better graphics. What else could have set it apart in this FPS market?

You ended your argument with 'it's just a game's" cousin, it's just business! ;)"