Did they run out of ideas and thought they should base it around real life?
The original Medal of Honours were greatly inspired by World War 2 and used that to form direct rivalry with Call of Duty. Medal of Honour was a massive competitor with Call of Duty for quite a number of years, but with the release of Modern Warfare sales of Call of Duty sky-rocketed to unimaginable figures. The newest Medal of Honour instalment is an attempt to once again replicate Call of Duty's approximate time period and takes a tasty chunk out of Call of Duty's sales.
It has mentions of Taliban
Not anymore. There was a lot of controversy over this particular titbit of gameplay. Absolutely ridiculous argument; they changed the name to opposing force and utterly assuaged complaints, at the end of the day, it's still the same bunch of psychopathic terrorists, simply with a different name, so no clue what families were worried about in the first place.
so no clue what families were worried about in the first place.
This, this, this, this, this, this, This, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this! It's as if they want players to not think the Terrorists are bad. Oh, and yes they are. It's in the name - TERRORist. They strike terror into people to unstabilize the society, for whatever reason I don't know. Oh, religion is one of them. Political interests are another, I can't remember exactly what, I think it has distant (but direct) relation to WWII...
Meh, the enemy is quite unrealistic as most of the time you find youself fighting a conventional war, were Aghanistan is not a convenional war. MW2 brings up realistic ideas with the ultranationaists.
Mostly units on the frontline is conventional. We also use the AC-130 gunships and other aircraft but we do not target the enemy with airstrikes etc, because their guerilla tactics use civilians as cover. Also, it isn't conventional in real life, so I'm a little disturbed as to what you're trying to say here.
MW2 brings up realistic ideas with the ultranationaists.
Not really, a terrorist that uses America as a scapegoat, twisting a near-world war that will let him.... what? He's a cold blood killer for the highest bidder, or something to that effect is what General Shepherd said. That means he's a mercenary / terrorist hybrid, someone who gets the job done no matter what, and yet... he kills many at Moscow and blames it on America? Sure, that would mean he wouldn't be the suspect, but that is pretty dull.
Also, I think America's moral capacity wouldn't allow one of their soldiers to slaughter hundreds of people at an airport.
So, no, it isn't really that realistic.
Other than that, I cannot exactly defend MoH since I've not played it, but also, MW2 isn't even conventional. Russia in the game had used a strategy allowing serious breach of defense and get a headstart, but yet... America wins? I doubt it, if Russia and America faced eachother now I would be unsure who would win, nor would I want to know, to be honest.
Highfire, I must praise you for keeping threads alive but your so annoying at the same time.
A conventional war is a war fought with conventional tatics Eg tanks vs tanks and jets vs jets and so on, Afghanistan is a NON-conventional war as their is a insergency amoung the population hence the gurilla tatics. So in the sense that I was saying Afghanistan is a NOT a conventional war.
I don't know if you read the newspaper much but the threat of terrorism in Russia is quite high so a airport being shot up is quite a likely incident.
Also, I think America's moral capacity wouldn't allow one of their soldiers to slaughter hundreds of people at an airport.
America does not have a moral compacity if they did they would be in the internaional war crimes tribunel and a majority of there soldiers would be facing breaches and would be sent to jail, but America knows that they kill defenceless women and children so they choose not you be apart.
If you can't defend MOH then why are you posting in a thread about MOH.
Mostly units on the frontline is conventional. We also use the AC-130 gunships and other aircraft but we do not target the enemy with airstrikes etc, because their guerilla tactics use civilians as cover
You would be surprised. Leaked documents detail the US Army being surprisingly reckless with airstrikes, leading to a lot of civilian injuries and/or fatalities. The American army are quite aware of the implications that come with airstrikes, but if a job needs to be done, civilians will, in most cases, die.
I doubt it, if Russia and America faced eachother now I would be unsure who would win, nor would I want to know, to be honest.
Neither would win directly. In all likelihood there'd be a stalemate where neither moves in fear of nuclear war. Provoke either country and the ICBMs get launched, you'd get a proxy war, much like the Cold War, in fear of Armageddon.
I don't know if you read the newspaper much but the threat of terrorism in Russia is quite high so a airport being shot up is quite a likely incident.
If you can't defend MOH then why are you posting in a thread about MOH.
I cannot exactly defend MoH
It means I will defend it from what I know.
A conventional war is a war fought with conventional tatics Eg tanks vs tanks and jets vs jets and so on, Afghanistan is a NON-conventional war as their is a insergency amoung the population hence the gurilla tatics. So in the sense that I was saying Afghanistan is a NOT a conventional war.
You're completely right. My bad, I read it wrong and got jumbled up in my words. lol. Well, I can't defend MoH on that... soo..... lol
Neither would win directly. In all likelihood there'd be a stalemate where neither moves in fear of nuclear war. Provoke either country and the ICBMs get launched, you'd get a proxy war, much like the Cold War, in fear of Armageddon.
2002: Nord-Ost siege 2003: Stavropol train bombing 2003: Red Square bombing 2004: Moscow metro bombings 2004: Russian plane bombings 2004: Beslan school hostage crisis 2010: Moscow metro bombings
I quickly analysed some of those stories and most, if not all, were carried out by Chechen terrorists wanting independence from the rest of Russia. Russia and it's various rebel groups/organisations may have the money and equipment to carry out a terrorist attack, but the US and other countries are not related to the terrorist's reasoning.
Furthermore, if there was no war preceding the terrorist attack, then there'd be no reason for an American to be there whatsoever, so you couldn't blame it on any country besides Russia at all.
I quickly analysed some of those stories and most, if not all, were carried out by Chechen terrorists wanting independence from the rest of Russia. Russia and it's various rebel groups/organisations may have the money and equipment to carry out a terrorist attack, but the US and other countries are not related to the terrorist's reasoning. Furthermore, if there was no war preceding the terrorist attack, then there'd be no reason for an American to be there whatsoever, so you couldn't blame it on any country besides Russia at all.
I don't understand much of this however BOOM! Nice. I also couldn't be bother analysing them like you.
why cant medal of honor come up with their own ideas quit ripping off modern warfare 2 i mean come on the world war 2 games were fun but the new one is not might as well go buy modern warfare 2 plus the taliban part is stupid i agree with that one guy that said that terrorist inflict terror on people and were supposed to think they arent bad
why cant medal of honor come up with their own ideas quit ripping off modern warfare 2
It's not ripping off Modern Warfare 2 in any respect. The modern setting was done in video games long before the Modern Warfare franchise was ever conceived. Story-wise they're completely different, I do not see where you're getting this from.
taliban part is stupid
How?
i agree with that one guy that said that terrorist inflict terror on people and were supposed to think they arent bad
Medal of Honour isn't attempting to convince you that the Takliban's beliefs or reasons are good, they just want to focus on what an American soldier has to encounter, and the most effective way to do that is interact with the people that they oppose on a daily basis.
Medal of Honour isn't attempting to convince you that the Takliban's beliefs or reasons are good, they just want to focus on what an American soldier has to encounter, and the most effective way to do that is interact with the people that they oppose on a daily basis.
But there are stupid people out there who play it and are like, "man i dun hate dem tal-e-ban for makin mah game so hard they just have ta die right noaw"
Medal of Honour isn't attempting to convince you that the Takliban's beliefs or reasons are good, they just want to focus on what an American soldier has to encounter, and the most effective way to do that is interact with the people that they oppose on a daily basis.
Reminds me of the Crusades whereas the Christians (Catholics?) would kill the prisoners but when Saladin found abandoned Crusaders or captured them he would release them, feed them, talk with them on many things, and etc. In the end many, MANY Crusaders either converted or released themselves from their original faction to remain with Saladin because they underestimated his moralities and knowledge - because their faction presented him as a Demon.
I do not see where you're getting this from.
That's why I wouldn't go into it. lol.
- H
P.S Holy crap, a bee just flew on my PC and it is HUGE!
Yeah it's called a ransom and if they wouldnt pay they would be held in a prison and then executed. The game in no way shows you in depth the taliban it shows you a enemy and it shows you what it's like to be a special ops soldier in todays army, most of the story line you here hints about how most of the taliban are coming out of Pakistan. This game in no way is factual, the Taliban are not well armed they are using weapons from the Soviet invasion.
