Medal of Honor: The Single Player - PC Magazine

Medal of Honor ($59.99 direct) has been plastering its ads with the notation that this game has been made in collaboration with real soldiers. Most likely to make up for its controversial move to let players take on the role of the Tailban or the, now, "Opposing Force" in multiplayer mode. Unfortunately, the Taliban controversy proved more intriguing than the game itself, as it lacks in the engaging story and gameplay found in its chief rival, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare.

Uninispired Story
Players take the vantage points of the rugged rangers of Wolfpack and the efficient Tier 1 officers while fighting real-world battles that happened on the Afghan warfront in 2002. Medal of Honor begins much like a movie, with a bang of a scripted introduction that eventually fades to black, from which point you're taken back to 6 months earlier. And, for the most part, the story is very Hollywood. But instead of giving it any depth or, even dramatic fluff for that matter, it feels cliché. You have ground soldiers on ground fighting the good fight, with a high-powered official giving foolish orders 1,000 miles away. So these men have to make their own rules and do what they think is right—you've heard it before.

Flat Gameplay
While the story isn't the most gripping material, one would think the gameplay would at least be Medal of Honor's saving grace—it's not. Enemies come from one direction, right in front of you. And while most shooters try to keep a quick pace in their firefights, it's hard for me to even justify the battles I had as such. I felt as if I was playing Duck Hunt, waiting for another foul to show its face and shoot it down. If anything, I didn't feel challenged to take strategic position or approach a situation from a different angle.

Even moving through levels became slow, if not frustrating. In order to trigger the next scripted sequence I often was circling around, searching for that small patch of pixels to move to the next part of the story.

Good Graphics, Sound, and Music
Developer, Danger Close, excelled in texture, lighting, and environment design, which looked marvelous during the game's daylight hours—not quite as much after dark. However, the characters were well crafted, each having distinguishing features, such as a beard to separate him from the pack. The guns were also well-detailed and polished. The sound effects popped with each gun fired and cooked grenade thrown, making good use of my external speakers. The score also deserves a nod, adding some dimension to the events, but may well be forgotten, undercut by the closing song in the tune of Linkin Park.

Multiplayer Controversy
I haven't spent enough time in Medal of Honor's multiplayer mode to give a thorough assessment yet. Once I've spent a few more hours in it, I'll report back.

However, I feel it's necessary to comment on changing the name of the Taliban team to "Opposing Force." While the name doesn't alter the gameplay, I do believe it was an overstated controversy. In Call of Duty: Modern Warfare's multiplayer, you play in the skin of a terrorist, yet there's little news about this. In Medal of Honor you don't carry out acts of terrorism as you do in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2's campaign mode where players have the option to shoot down unarmed civilians in an airport.

I understand that each new generation needs to have a "rock and roll music" or a "comic book" controversy that lights up headlines, but having Nazis or terrorists in the multiplayer mode is a staple of this genre.

Should you Buy Medal of Honor?
Compared to the current state of first person shooters, Medal of Honor fails to step it up by creating a story with any depth and gameplay with any oomph. While I commend it for taking a much-appreciated step away from its WWII roots, I also recognize that it's only due to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare's overwhelming success. If Medal of Honor intends to be a competitor in this ring it will have to make great strides to become a unique asset.

More Console Game Reviews:
•   3D Dot Game Heroes
•   Red Dead Redemption
•   2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa
•   Super Mario Galaxy 2
•   ModNation Racers
•   more

View the original article here

Why the White House Will Continue Its War with the Chamber of Commerce - CBS News

October 12, 2010 4:02 PM President Obama, senatorial candidate Alexi Giannoulias, center, and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., look at people in the crowd during a fundraiser for Giannoulias at the Drake Hotel in Chicago, Oct. 7, 2010.

(Credit: AP) The president's remarks at two fundraisers in Miami on Monday night were less notable for what he said, than for what he did NOT say.

For days President Obama has pounded away at the Chamber of Commerce, Karl Rove and others for raising money for their campaign ads that may come from foreign sources. Since last Thursday he's made it an impassioned part of his speeches at fundrasiers and rallies, strongly suggesting something sinister, even illegal, is going on. But at last night's fundraisers the president didn't even mention the charge.

Some critics and political analysts quickly concluded that the strategy must be backfiring, and the White House had decided to cut its losses. A logical response, they said, after a slew of editorial writers, even some from liberal leaning papers like the Washington Post, sharply criticized the White House for making the charge without proof.

Can DNC Backup Foreign Funds Claim?

Some compared the White House campaign to the smear tactics of Joe McCarthy in the 1950s. The non -partisan group FactCheck.org concluded that "Accusing anybody of violating the law is a serious matter requiring serious evidence to back it up. So far Democrats have produced none." Even some Democrats said the attacks were back-firing, making the president look like he's engaged in the kind of unsubstantiated attacks he so sharply criticized in the 2008 campaign.

But today Robert Gibbs said people are reading way too much into something the president didn't say. He waved off last night's failure to bring it up, suggesting that the president was simply giving an abbreviated version of his fundraiser stump speech.

Gibbs went on to ratchet up the White House attacks. If the Chamber really isn't using foreign money, all they have to do is open up their books, he said, and prove it. And he accused Rove of engaging in a "Rovian trick" by comparing his organization to the liberal Center for American Progress which also doesn't release the identities of its donors. Gibbs said the difference is that CAP doesn't use the money to pay for political campaign ads. Gibbs suggested the president will return to the attack in the coming days, when he has a long list of campaign events, mostly fundraisers.

So why would the White House stick with a strategy that's been so roundly criticized? First, because they've determined that at this point in the campaign the most urgent quest is to fire up the base, even if it means further antagonizing independent voters, fact-checkers and some in the mainstream media. Also, the White House believes that Karl Rove is an excellent bogeyman, a man liberals love to hate.

And there's another reason this strategy could help Democrats, who are deeply nervous about the flood of money coming from super-wealthy, anonymous contributors: maybe it will frighten some of them. The last thing they want is for their names to appear in print. If the White House can make them worry that their names might eventually become public, it could, perhaps, convince some of them to close their checkbooks.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Election 2010

Chip Reid is CBS News' chief White House correspondent. You can read more of his posts in Hotsheet here. Tags:Chamber of Commerice ,Campaign Finance ,Barack Obama Topics:Campaign 2010 ,White House

View the original article here

Meg Whitman vs. Jerry Brown: Can Tom Brokaw steer them toward substance? - Christian Science Monitor

Los Angeles

In their third and final debate Tuesday, California gubernatorial candidates Jerry Brown (D) and Meg Whitman (R) will have their last chance to clear up the haze of scandal that hangs over each of their heads. Ms. Whitman is still being dogged for firing an undocumented maid and Mr. Brown’s campaign is in hot water for a sexist slur.

Skip to next paragraph

Just as pressing, though, is the need for both to put the scandals aside and focus on what they will do for the state, some analysts say.

“People have already made up their minds about character and will be looking for answers to ‘What will you do for me?’ ” says Barbara O’Connor, director of the Institute for Study of Politics and Media at California State University, Sacramento. “Each needs to spell out what they will do about jobs, economic recovery, education and the other top issues, voters care about.”

What voters want to know is which candidate has the plan that will work to turn California around, says Gary Aminoff, Vice Chairman of the Republican Party of Los Angeles County. “Those questions [the maid and the slur] are irrelevant,” he says.

Many have hopes that moderator Tom Brokaw, with his decades of experience at NBC, will be able to keep the candidates focused on substance.

“He is a master and a pro’s pro, so if there is any indication that the debate will veer off into titillation, he will steer it back,” says Hal Dash, CEO of Cerrell and Associates, a Democratic strategy consulting firm.

Mr. Brokaw commands respect among voters, says Ms. O'Connor, and the candidates will forget that at their peril. "He is the closest thing we have to Walter Cronkite,” she says. “He’s so loved by most people watching that Whitman and Brown don’t dare try to crawl over him because the people will resent it,” says O’Connor.

Not everyone is so sure that Brokaw will be able to steer the two toward meaningful discussion. “He will not be able to declare any kind of truce,” says Thad Kousser, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego.

Yet if candidates are not specific on their own, the debate’s ultimate value may rest in Brokaw's skill as an interviewer.

“Meg Whitman wants to cut 40,000 jobs. She needs to be asked how that can be done without hurting the state,” says Mr. Kousser. “Jerry Brown says he won’t raise taxes without voter approval. He needs to be asked what he’ll do if voters say no – then what are his plans?”

Whitman probably has the bigger challenge, says Mr. Dash, because Brown has inched ahead in several polls.

“She will have to find a way to be specific about what she will do that is actually achievable and will resonate with those watching,” he says.

Whitman lost ground after debate No. 2 on Oct. 2, in which she chided out Brown for attacking her on the housekeeper scandal. Clips of the exchange were played on local newscasts and went viral on the Internet.

The debate will ask a lot of the candidates, say analysts, and both will have to grapple with how to tell voters what they need to hear without angering them or making their eyes glaze over.

“Expecting politicians to acknowledge harsh reality is like expecting health food at a county fair,” says Jack Pitney, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College. “The state faces a painful dilemma. It needs to reduce the deficit and create jobs. But the steps necessary to reduce the deficit – tax hikes or spending cuts – run counter to job creation.”

View the original article here