Why Americans Take The Congressional Medal Of Honor So Seriously

Print This Post

3 Responses

  1. EdinMiami says:

    Didn't the US gov. make a first person shooter (which by its very nature would be a highly unrealistic picture of war) and market it to the general public (read: those young enough to fight)?

  2. Derrick says:

    America's Army was a recruiting tool. I don't know about 'general public', but they had discs available in the recruiting offices (as well as DD). I played it waaaaay back when it was released in 2002. It was brutally realistic, it's mission was to accurately portray both basic training (without a drill sergeant calling you a homo) and combat. If you wanted to use the sniper rifle in-game, you had to qualify and pass sniper training, which was a real pain (I broke my laptop monitor when I punched it in frustration). If you wanted to be a medic you had to actually attend 'medic classes' complete with lecture and pass a truncated medic exam. Rules of Engagement were enforced, and an honor system implemented that punished team-killers (since friendly fire was always on). No blood, and a really cool system in which you were always the US Army and the OpFor was the 'enemy' (and the enemy saw the same thing). No reticle, you had to always use iron sights. It's nothing like Medal of Honor or Call of Duty, where you played Rambo He-men who could take bullets like a champ. One shot, you were dead. AA also wasn't shamelessly jingoistic, if you can believe that.

    At it's best I believe it was one of the best team-based shooters at the time. At it's worst it was a bunch of teenagers calling each other racist names and abusing the grenade launcher.

    So i guess it was a lot like Call of Duty.

  3. ParatrooperJJ says:

    Airborne SSG Guinta, Airborne!