OVER THERE! Now At the Game Depot

Starmyth · #1 July 31st, 2005, 04:40 PM

The US Air Force neglected to train me in the use of any 'flame' weapons. So, alas, any such action on my part would likely cause more 'friendly' fire damage than that which might be caused the intended target.

WBWilder · #2 August 4th, 2005, 11:45 PM

Absolutely. THank you Pyros. I despise flame wars and would never consciously try to start one. Its just a scenario about seven young soldiers in Iraq trying to take an enemy position. That is all that it is. No political statement, no favoritism, just a battle to be fought.

WB

nosrac · #3 August 5th, 2005, 11:26 PM

Quote:

WBWilder said:
Absolutely. THank you Pyros. I despise flame wars and would never consciously try to start one. Its just a scenario about seven young soldiers in Iraq trying to take an enemy position. That is all that it is. No political statement, no favoritism, just a battle to be fought.

WB

maybe leaving out the "george bush" comment would help Bill? necessary? not all americans view their president that way.

WBWilder · #4 August 6th, 2005, 02:11 AM

Probably. That is a can of worms that does not need to be opened here and you're right. Its a tender subject that should be left alone...and I will.

Double_Deuce · #5 August 6th, 2005, 12:50 PM

Quote:

WBWilder said:
Probably. That is a can of worms that does not need to be opened here and you're right.

Anyway, lets get back to the topic at hand.

WB - Do you plan to do a scenario based on combat in each episode? I think that would be cool and definately different.

WBWilder · #6 August 6th, 2005, 01:37 PM

THanks Mike. I doubt it. Not every episode will be "programmable" from a scenario standpoint.

And since this seems to be a sore subject, I'm going to leave it alone.

Wild Bill

Rich · #7 August 7th, 2005, 01:14 PM

Haven't watched the show but it was panned by every review I read as being totally unrealistic. For example, a trans company was assigned to go after terrorists (rather than infantry, one reviewer said this was picked to get females in the action, who knows?}. Troops had to wait a loooong time for air support. There was only one mortar that fired only one shot and then disappeared. Stuff like that. I suspect WB's scenario will be a lot better than the actual show.

And I always wonder about people who complain about Fox. At least this is one station that never used obviously phony memos just before an election.

Double_Deuce · #8 August 7th, 2005, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Rich said:
Haven't watched the show but it was panned by every review I read as being totally unrealistic.

I always try to keep TV and Movies in perspective when viewing them especially when there are claims of them being "realistic". No matter how you look at them they are still "entertainment" and "for profit" enterprises. If they aren't filming the action live or using real bullets how "realistic" can it be?

Rich · #9 August 7th, 2005, 04:57 PM

You're right of course. But some are better than others. And when portraying a current conflict that has strong political overtones it's more important to try for some realism to keep it from just looking stupid and biased. I'm going to try and catch the next episode and judge for myself.

Rich · #10 August 8th, 2005, 12:59 AM

Well, I got a chance to watch the show tonight. The best thing I can say is it was terrible. Not much of a plot. The characters were very unmemorable. The acting sucked. Too much political correctness (the real guys don't call them "insurgents"). And way too many commercials. Over There ranks as one of the worst shows I've ever seen.