MEDAL OF HONOR, a title that all of us have heard of. A title that was even featured on FOX News for the 'controversial' issue of it naming the enemy forces Taliban. Of course the last we heard of this issue was about a week ago, when EA decided to sucomb to media pressure and rename the enemy 'OpFor,' an abbreviation for opposing forces. Controversy in video games is nothing new. GTA (Grand Theft Auto for those of you out of the loop) provided tons of controversy for it's lewd and violent gameplay, and the infamous 'hot coffee' mod. Gears of War had tons of violence, with the curb stomp, and the ability to rip enemies in half. Then there was that one game based on the Columbine shooting, and you all know how THAT went. Video games are a prime example of controversy in the media, and now the supreme court has taken notice (see Schwarzenegger Vs. EMA) and now the fate of video games, as we know them, is in the balance. The thing is, I really don't see the controversy in extreme violence. It's a video game! And if someone thinks the violence/language is too extreme, that person should join the military, or go to Times Square. But there are certain issues that need to be respected. Now, I really don't have any problem with EA changing the enemy's name to OpFor. I support our troops wholeheartedly, and I think respect should be given to those fallen soldiers, and respect the opinion of the families. I have more than a few words for those war protesters at the marine funerals, but I'll save that for another time.
But back to the main subject. I downloaded the Medal of Honor open PC beta (i do NOT normally play games, other than flash games, on the PC) and I was pleasantly surprised by how polished they made the gameplay since the console beta in August. Two modes were available to play in the beta; Combat Mission, and Sector Control. Sector Control is basically Domination (from MW2) on steroids, with points coming twice as fast, and the action (on a full server) is quite hectic, but in a tactical sort of way. Combat Mission (I spent more time on this than the former) was really surprising. Now, when I first started playing this, I expected this "capture this point, move on to next," This is right up to a point. On the loading screen (it lasted for about 4 minutes. ugh) there was this communication going on between this soldier and the operator, and it's like this super-mini storyline, where (on this map anyways) the Coalition is dropped to find survivors in a crashed helicopter, and neutralize enemy forces. Now there are other side objectives, but I like that DICE is taking a more realistic approach to war games. You could tell right from the start of the match, that it wasn't this arcadey MW2 ripoff. It seemed like a serious game, and I'm really excited for the campaign. But something that stuck out like a sore thumb, was the unbalanced explosive weapons. I could shoot a RPG, and land the shot 2 feet from the guy, and I wouldn't even get a hit marker! Something that DICE is definitely gonna have to patch when it releases. Also, the pistol has the same power as a battle rifle, and I was able to snipe someone from halfway across a map with it. So, while the multiplayer seems promising, there are definitely a few issues that need to be sorted out
Game On. ^^;