I have to say, those chase sequences are pretty exciting looking. We'll see how they work out.
Is that thrust-vectoring I see (at least with "the Shark's" Flanker)? That seems like something you could implement quite easily into the arcade style of AC.
That's actually called the "Cobra" something that the Flanker can do normally.
Given that certain models of the MiG-29.....a long-standing aircraft in its own right...can have thrust vectoring, I'd imagine Sukhoi's top engineers can churn out versions of their aircraft that can pull of ridiculous turns too.
That being said, considering that aircraft, I think, does not have thrust vectoring, it's very, very impressive.
The Fulcrum, while being a small, short-range fighter by comparison to the recent Sukhois, is legendary for its maneuverability. A testbed model with thrust-vectoring, not carrying a payload, must be the closest thing in real life to flying a TIE Interceptor.
Go to about 2:00 to see the actual nozzels flex. At 2:45, hold onto your jaw. At 5:54, the aircraft performs what is apparently called the "Super Cobra", a more exxtreeeemeee version of Pugachev's Cobra (named afte the Soviet fighter pilot). The value of a long-range superiority fighter versus a faster short-range one, aside, I think the Sukhoi is more beloved/admired in the West simply because it is the Cadillac to MiG's Porsche 911 Turbo (insert your better car analogy here), but a crowd in Russia and the CIS would argue that MiG is the superior underdog.
Well, i think both planes are pretty much comperable. Since Russia's airforce consists of MiG and SU, its quite understandable there are modernization packages for both. But Sukhoi is the export version, so naturally there is more "marketing" and thats perhaps why the Super Fulcrum has a fairly small nice of attention compared to the Super Flanker. Also Sukoi won the contract for the PAK-FA (T-50), their export stealth fighter by building the SU47 prototype (wich is also being developed further) and recently they also seem to have secured a contract for Russias new supersonic stealth bomber, the PAK-DA (and from the leaked info, if i look at the airframe i can't help to draw comparisions to NASA's X-43 and wonder if it will become a scramjet powered strategic bomber) and there is some hush-hush secret stealth project going on with China as well (J-20). MiG has certainly a ring to its name it earned especially during the Vietnam war, but its star is surely on the wane.
fun fact: After the second gulf war the Iran refused to give back four lend MiG29 and integrated the fighters into its airforce. They also got 32 more from Russia. After that another 120 should have followed but political pressure from the USA prevented that.
MiGs were and are indeed quite popular, but the SU27 is also a legend on its own, an indeed both were pitted against each other occasionally. In that case the SU27 kept the upper hand and in most cases without losses. In all fairness you have to consider that this was before both models recived thrust vectoring engines.
The Flanker borrows heavily from the F15 quite obviously. The F15 impressed its opponents much more most people can imagine. During the gulf war Iraqui pilots refused to launch becaus F-15 were known to operate in the area.
In May 1983 a F-15 collided with another plane and lost the most of its right wing but could still make it to the next runway and land safely. In Israelis service the F15 scored 56 kills with no casaulties taken.
F-15 were able to defeat F-22 Raptors repeadetly in training exercises during dogfight. This was attributed to inexperienced pilots because on paper the F-22 should handle better in WVR combat, however i guess it has also to do with the F-22 being a pure fly-by-wire aircraft, where the F-15 can override computers and still be flown manually for that little extra a computer won't allow because its deemed too dangerous for flight stability.
It impressed the Russians so much they started to build their own copy. And they are still improving it, whereas the F15 gets replaced by the F35/F22 (well with the F22 production halted its more F35, is also supposed to replace the F18 and the A10, i think this is a big mistake on the American side). The Flanker is 30% larger than the MiG29 and accordingly better armed. Its the "heavy" fighter version, where the MiG29 is the "light" fighter. Even the USA purcased in 2009 two Su27 for evaluation purposes.
Sukhoi secured the lion's share of national defence, development, export aircraft and technology transfer projects.
While I wouldn't dispute the Su-27 being developed in response to the F-15, I'd be reluctant to call it a "copy" since it conjures images of "technological reverse-engineered copy" like the Tu-4 was of the B-29. Aircraft designed in response are certainly influenced by earlier designs, as was the case with the Su-27. At the same time, in that sense you could say the B-1 is a copy of the much older supersonic Tu-22 and Tu-22M bombers (especially the later, being one of the earliest wing-sweep strategic bombers)--no doubt the designers were smart enough to observe the strengths and weaknesses of the earlier aircraft. "Copy" is a tricky word.
I think Angolan Su-27s have faced MiG-29s, and done well, but I can't think of the exact time at the moment.
Both sides spyed heavily on each other. Maybe "copy" is not the right therm but it was the Russian version of a F-15. Of course the Russians are still dedicating a lot of modernization to the SU-27 airframe, whereas the F-15 is being retired.
During the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea (1998-2000) ethiopic Su-27SK shot down six MiG-29SMT of the eritreian airforce without taking a loss their own.
That might be the conflict I'm thinking of. And of course, there was a degree of espionage involved, but given what I've read written by design bureaus on both sides, and the distinctions they make, I think it's worth it to take them at their word to a reasonable degree, and that there is a distinction between "inspiration" and "informative" and outright copying, even if it is just one of degrees. That might make me naive, of course, but I think it's a lot more helpful to distinguish between actual copying via reverse engineering to something like the K-13, and seeing the Americans make a strategic supersonic bombers clearly influenced by the two Tupolev designs that came after it, and obviously incorporating similar elements and influences for a similar purpose, even though it was known that the US was fascinated and very familiar with the Tu-22 (hence the naming of the later model).
Otherwise, then, I could be wrong, and the B-1 could very well be an American Tu-22M in every meaningful way, sans refueling probe and with decades more debate over design, and the Su-27 a Russian F-15--rather than just "an answer to" or an "equivalent of". Of course, you could say I'm debating semantics, but I do think the distinction is important. I guess it comes down to what is "inspiration" and what is "copying", and a limited number of things you can do in aircraft designs.
Actually, I'd like to see the FALKEN, even though it'd kind of awkwardly sit among the "realistic" setting--I think I just want to see more fully-encased nearly-sci-fi aircraft, Nemo of Ace Combat 3 style. I would not oppose to giving such a treatment to an existing aircraft if they wanted to turn it into a boss.
Actually, I'd like to see the FALKEN, even though it'd kind of awkwardly sit among the "realistic" setting--I think I just want to see more fully-encased nearly-sci-fi aircraft, Nemo of Ace Combat 3 style. I would not oppose to giving such a treatment to an existing aircraft if they wanted to turn it into a boss.
Have they mentioned DLC skins?
DaMoonRulz on
0
PunkBoyThank you! And thank you again!Registered Userregular
I haven't played an Ace Combat game since...forever. And that trailer inspired two questions.
1. What Ace Combat games are worth it. I feel like I have been missing out on this series.
All of them are worth it in their own way, but the cream of the crop for me are Ace Combats 4, 5 and Zero. 6 is okay, but the plot is crazed and the fucking angels jesus christ the fucking angels.
2. Is the music of this trailer any indication of the music included in the rest of this series? Because holy poop!
I haven't played an Ace Combat game since...forever. And that trailer inspired two questions.
1. What Ace Combat games are worth it. I feel like I have been missing out on this series.
2. Is the music of this trailer any indication of the music included in the rest of this series? Because holy poop!
Ace Combat 4, 5, and Zero are pretty much universally loved. The only debate is over which is the best.
Never played Ace Combat 6, but I've heard it's decent, although the story is VERY Japanese with lots of navel gazing and stuff that has nothing to do with the war itself (kids hiding treasure from the military, housewife learning to get along with a woman from an enemy country etc).
And yes, every Ace Combat soundtrack, even the PSP ones make sweet sweet love to your ears.
5 had horrible wingmen. You know you've failed at character development when
the player celebrates the death of one particularly obnoxious asshole.
Also shitty plot with gigantic holes everywhere.
I really liked Zero, even if the FMV dialogue was almost as terrible as AC5's, just because it gave you a tight narrative that made sense. Oh, more variety in plane loadouts was nice too.
Zero suffered from an inferior aircraft selection (though not weapon selection) compared to its predecessor, and a really shitty final battle. Solo Wing Pixy will go down as one of the most disappointing characters in an AC game.
5 had horrible wingmen. You know you've failed at character development when
the player celebrates the death of one particularly obnoxious asshole.
Also shitty plot with gigantic holes everywhere.
I really liked Zero, even if the FMV dialogue was almost as terrible as AC5's, just because it gave you a tight narrative that made sense. Oh, more variety in plane loadouts was nice too.
any wingmen that aren't just random NPCs that praise your heroic actions are terrible
Zero suffered from an inferior aircraft selection (though not weapon selection) compared to its predecessor, and a really shitty final battle. Solo Wing Pixy will go down as one of the most disappointing characters in an AC game.
Really? I thought the Air Joust was a much better final boss than blowing up a helpless satilight that doesn't even fire back.
The FMVs in Zero ran the gambit. Kudos for Namco for doing a bit of a gamble, but just because all video game FMVs tend to be hilarious doesn't mean the fact gets forgiven. Still, it was an interest approach.
Zero suffered from an inferior aircraft selection (though not weapon selection) compared to its predecessor, and a really shitty final battle. Solo Wing Pixy will go down as one of the most disappointing characters in an AC game.
Really? I thought the Air Joust was a much better final boss than blowing up a helpless satilight that doesn't even fire back.
Saving the world from the disaster of war, versus one semi-important moron in an even obscenely overpowered aircraft that's only vulnerable from one angle of attack, and coincidentally mounts all the superweapons that giant installation were constructed to operate, effectively negating their significance?
No contest. Air joust sucks by itself--playing "air chicken" isn't that much fun to start with against a nonhuman enemy, in a game where pulling ridiculous acrobatics is part of the experience, being forced to do it is even worse. Having to listen to him rant and rave with Namco's trademark stupid writing, ranking high up there among stupid writing in the series....does not make it better.
There's a reason Namco never went back to the whole "On, these tiny aircraft are ONLY vulnerable from one point." Even "capital ship aircraft" battles are big enough, and the targets slow enough, to allow some variation of attack. It felt more like Namco acknowledging, "Okay, we can't fucking program meaningful AI to save our lives, so we're going to give the boss the size of your own aircraft all the weapons in the game. Literally. Oh, also, the judge says you can only attack him from his precisely his 12. So, er, have fun." Despite the fact they made decent strides in programming AI among some of the Belkan aces.
Zero suffered from an inferior aircraft selection (though not weapon selection) compared to its predecessor, and a really shitty final battle. Solo Wing Pixy will go down as one of the most disappointing characters in an AC game.
Really? Pixy and PJ were the only tolerable wingmen in the entire franchise.
This isn't saying much though, considering:
Chopper - Won't goddamn shut up about bullshit MUSICAL PREFERENCES while I'm trying to dogfight. Won't goddamn shut up about LOL PACIFISM.
Edge - Won't goddamn shut up about LOL PACIFISM. Why did you join the goddamn OASDF if all you're going to do is bitch and whine about fighting the enemies of the Fatherland?
Archer - Whiny incompetent with the self-confidence of Rodney Dangerfield.
Swordsman - See Edge.
Heartbreak One - He's tolerable, but he also disappears shortly after the campaign begins.
Talisman - See Edge. Throw in a dash of DANCING WITH ANGELS DERP DERP DERP.
On the other hand,
Pixy - Badass.
PJ - Rookie, but keeps his mouth shut and follows your lead.
Shame he never does get to propose to his girlfriend.
Pixy: blathering, rage-adicted moron, boring narrator otherwise.
PJ: Oh God! Three days from retirement!
Like there aren't enough of either in AC. Having a cheat aircraft and failing to kill the one significant enemy of yours doesn't make you a badass. Then again, given this is AC, aside from wonky FMVs, there's not a lot to characterize the pilots.
Pixy: blattering, rage-adicted moron, boring narrator otherwise.
PJ: Oh God! Three days from retirement!
Like there aren't enough of either in AC. Having a cheat aircraft and failing to kill the one significant enemy of yours doesn't make you a badass. Then again, given this is AC, aside from wonky FMVs, there's not a lot to characterize the pilots.
Well, he'll shoot down aces and chase them off your tail. PJ does too, but he isn't as effective since XMAAs aren't as good as Pixy's dogfight missiles.
He does also in canon land his bird with only one wing remaining.
On the other hand, the AC5 and 6 wingmen were just kinda... there. Occasionally they'd shoot at something, but 90% of the time they just kinda dicked around.
It's not terribly impressive (at least to me) given the wild distribution of plot armor in the series. Edge holds a bunch of trained army soldiers with a sidearm while trying to rescue downed pilots in the freezing snow. Walking after a bail out like that is an impressive feat, but this is AC, so it's not that impressive.
Archer does a runway takeoff while said runway is being strafed and bombed. This is ridiculously fucking hard in Arma 2, I can only imagine how hard it might actually be with jet aircraft.
These things don't really make them actually badass, and it doesn't really apply to SWP either--to me--just because he totally loses his shit for an uninspired paramilitary group at the end (rather, it just makes me think he never had his shit together in the first place, despite the overly melodramatic FMVs). He was given an aircraft more powerful than God, as a crazy lunatic, and still lost. I'll always think of him as "the chatty loser with the Kalishnikov and some brown fatigues."
Yuri Lowenthal as Russian wingman.
ICBM hunting.
B-1 Bomber and F-18 confirmed.
Troop transporting.
Superweapon is Trinity, an enhanced (nuclear?) bomb.
Music is still godly.
The writing remains to be seen, of course. Ace Combat 5 basically had a large chunk of the cast of Cowboy Bebop's English dub narrating many of the missions and still got a lot of flak.
Then again, I don't really feel one way or another towards Yuri Lowenthal. Sooo....I'll hope they have the Tu-160, the cooler counterpart of the B-1, or the Tu-22M, in a game that apparent Russia is a big deal in. The Tu-160 was only in AC4, and the Tu-22M in Ace Combat Advance, apparently...
...possibly, though the authorities won't really do much about the numerous illicitly-made copies that are sold throughout the country, apparently.
That's what got North Korea made the enemy in Crysis, I heard. It's why North Korea is being edited into the enemy of the new Red Dawn (this ought to be interesting--imagine a SE remake of the original Red Dawn where Poland is the enemy instead of the Soviet Union). And making North Korea the enemy does get you censored or banned in South Korea, apparently. I can understand why, in a country where men are drafted purely for the reason so they can be made to sit in foxholes on the border across from the real life versions of those digitized enemies, who are still armed to the teeth. Last thing they need are games giving the North super-powered nano suits and alien allies, I guess.
The choice of Russia, though? Perhaps Americans...just don't like Russia since an overweight inebriate who uses T-80 tanks to stop parliamentary debates stopped being President, and was replaced by a guy who likes to fish without a shirt on an knows Judo. Given how well commercially games have done where Russia is the bad guy...both Bad Company games, all of Modern Warfare, World in Conflict...American audiences just really like killing faux communist Russians. It's like "American audiences like stacked women in bikinis", except that's not really limited to Americans.
Neither is killing Russians, in retrospect. Russian gamers have been taking those games in stride. My hat's off to them. Imagine how well Modern Warfare would sell in the US if it was red-blooded, straight-talking, beer-drinking Americans taking over the whole world, and just some Russian mastermind in the 11th hour?
Actually, that sounds like a much less commercially successful game somewhere....
Do you really want a game where America beats up Canada? Plus the guys shown here are mercs, not the Russian air force... yet.
US military power is not calculated based on which country it can defeat in war game scenarios, but how many it can defeat simultaneously.
That leaves a very short list of countries that writers can draw on. And China's airforce doesn't have the same luster to it that the Russians and their MIGs/Flankers have.
Posts
That's actually called the "Cobra" something that the Flanker can do normally.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DRIx_-usew&feature=related
That being said, considering that aircraft, I think, does not have thrust vectoring, it's very, very impressive.
The Fulcrum, while being a small, short-range fighter by comparison to the recent Sukhois, is legendary for its maneuverability. A testbed model with thrust-vectoring, not carrying a payload, must be the closest thing in real life to flying a TIE Interceptor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeiqMn7xb_Y&t=2m45s
Go to about 2:00 to see the actual nozzels flex. At 2:45, hold onto your jaw. At 5:54, the aircraft performs what is apparently called the "Super Cobra", a more exxtreeeemeee version of Pugachev's Cobra (named afte the Soviet fighter pilot). The value of a long-range superiority fighter versus a faster short-range one, aside, I think the Sukhoi is more beloved/admired in the West simply because it is the Cadillac to MiG's Porsche 911 Turbo (insert your better car analogy here), but a crowd in Russia and the CIS would argue that MiG is the superior underdog.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Utj2yP4ItDg
fun fact: After the second gulf war the Iran refused to give back four lend MiG29 and integrated the fighters into its airforce. They also got 32 more from Russia. After that another 120 should have followed but political pressure from the USA prevented that.
MiGs were and are indeed quite popular, but the SU27 is also a legend on its own, an indeed both were pitted against each other occasionally. In that case the SU27 kept the upper hand and in most cases without losses. In all fairness you have to consider that this was before both models recived thrust vectoring engines.
The Flanker borrows heavily from the F15 quite obviously. The F15 impressed its opponents much more most people can imagine. During the gulf war Iraqui pilots refused to launch becaus F-15 were known to operate in the area.
In May 1983 a F-15 collided with another plane and lost the most of its right wing but could still make it to the next runway and land safely. In Israelis service the F15 scored 56 kills with no casaulties taken.
F-15 were able to defeat F-22 Raptors repeadetly in training exercises during dogfight. This was attributed to inexperienced pilots because on paper the F-22 should handle better in WVR combat, however i guess it has also to do with the F-22 being a pure fly-by-wire aircraft, where the F-15 can override computers and still be flown manually for that little extra a computer won't allow because its deemed too dangerous for flight stability.
It impressed the Russians so much they started to build their own copy. And they are still improving it, whereas the F15 gets replaced by the F35/F22 (well with the F22 production halted its more F35, is also supposed to replace the F18 and the A10, i think this is a big mistake on the American side). The Flanker is 30% larger than the MiG29 and accordingly better armed. Its the "heavy" fighter version, where the MiG29 is the "light" fighter. Even the USA purcased in 2009 two Su27 for evaluation purposes.
Sukhoi secured the lion's share of national defence, development, export aircraft and technology transfer projects.
I think Angolan Su-27s have faced MiG-29s, and done well, but I can't think of the exact time at the moment.
During the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea (1998-2000) ethiopic Su-27SK shot down six MiG-29SMT of the eritreian airforce without taking a loss their own.
Otherwise, then, I could be wrong, and the B-1 could very well be an American Tu-22M in every meaningful way, sans refueling probe and with decades more debate over design, and the Su-27 a Russian F-15--rather than just "an answer to" or an "equivalent of". Of course, you could say I'm debating semantics, but I do think the distinction is important. I guess it comes down to what is "inspiration" and what is "copying", and a limited number of things you can do in aircraft designs.
We may possibily even get the FALKEN.
I like the way you think, sir.
Actually, I'd like to see the FALKEN, even though it'd kind of awkwardly sit among the "realistic" setting--I think I just want to see more fully-encased nearly-sci-fi aircraft, Nemo of Ace Combat 3 style. I would not oppose to giving such a treatment to an existing aircraft if they wanted to turn it into a boss.
Have they mentioned DLC skins?
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/116/1169854p1.html
1. What Ace Combat games are worth it. I feel like I have been missing out on this series.
2. Is the music of this trailer any indication of the music included in the rest of this series? Because holy poop!
All of them are worth it in their own way, but the cream of the crop for me are Ace Combats 4, 5 and Zero. 6 is okay, but the plot is crazed and the fucking angels jesus christ the fucking angels.
You have no idea.
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
Ace Combat 4, 5, and Zero are pretty much universally loved. The only debate is over which is the best.
Never played Ace Combat 6, but I've heard it's decent, although the story is VERY Japanese with lots of navel gazing and stuff that has nothing to do with the war itself (kids hiding treasure from the military, housewife learning to get along with a woman from an enemy country etc).
And yes, every Ace Combat soundtrack, even the PSP ones make sweet sweet love to your ears.
And this.
Latin and Ace Combat go well together.
I really liked Zero, even if the FMV dialogue was almost as terrible as AC5's, just because it gave you a tight narrative that made sense. Oh, more variety in plane loadouts was nice too.
any wingmen that aren't just random NPCs that praise your heroic actions are terrible
Really? I thought the Air Joust was a much better final boss than blowing up a helpless satilight that doesn't even fire back.
Saving the world from the disaster of war, versus one semi-important moron in an even obscenely overpowered aircraft that's only vulnerable from one angle of attack, and coincidentally mounts all the superweapons that giant installation were constructed to operate, effectively negating their significance?
No contest. Air joust sucks by itself--playing "air chicken" isn't that much fun to start with against a nonhuman enemy, in a game where pulling ridiculous acrobatics is part of the experience, being forced to do it is even worse. Having to listen to him rant and rave with Namco's trademark stupid writing, ranking high up there among stupid writing in the series....does not make it better.
There's a reason Namco never went back to the whole "On, these tiny aircraft are ONLY vulnerable from one point." Even "capital ship aircraft" battles are big enough, and the targets slow enough, to allow some variation of attack. It felt more like Namco acknowledging, "Okay, we can't fucking program meaningful AI to save our lives, so we're going to give the boss the size of your own aircraft all the weapons in the game. Literally. Oh, also, the judge says you can only attack him from his precisely his 12. So, er, have fun." Despite the fact they made decent strides in programming AI among some of the Belkan aces.
Really? Pixy and PJ were the only tolerable wingmen in the entire franchise.
This isn't saying much though, considering:
Chopper - Won't goddamn shut up about bullshit MUSICAL PREFERENCES while I'm trying to dogfight. Won't goddamn shut up about LOL PACIFISM.
Edge - Won't goddamn shut up about LOL PACIFISM. Why did you join the goddamn OASDF if all you're going to do is bitch and whine about fighting the enemies of the Fatherland?
Archer - Whiny incompetent with the self-confidence of Rodney Dangerfield.
Swordsman - See Edge.
Heartbreak One - He's tolerable, but he also disappears shortly after the campaign begins.
Talisman - See Edge. Throw in a dash of DANCING WITH ANGELS DERP DERP DERP.
On the other hand,
Pixy - Badass.
PJ - Rookie, but keeps his mouth shut and follows your lead.
PJ: Oh God! Three days from retirement!
Like there aren't enough of either in AC. Having a cheat aircraft and failing to kill the one significant enemy of yours doesn't make you a badass. Then again, given this is AC, aside from wonky FMVs, there's not a lot to characterize the pilots.
Well, he'll shoot down aces and chase them off your tail. PJ does too, but he isn't as effective since XMAAs aren't as good as Pixy's dogfight missiles.
He does also in canon land his bird with only one wing remaining.
On the other hand, the AC5 and 6 wingmen were just kinda... there. Occasionally they'd shoot at something, but 90% of the time they just kinda dicked around.
Archer does a runway takeoff while said runway is being strafed and bombed. This is ridiculously fucking hard in Arma 2, I can only imagine how hard it might actually be with jet aircraft.
These things don't really make them actually badass, and it doesn't really apply to SWP either--to me--just because he totally loses his shit for an uninspired paramilitary group at the end (rather, it just makes me think he never had his shit together in the first place, despite the overly melodramatic FMVs). He was given an aircraft more powerful than God, as a crazy lunatic, and still lost. I'll always think of him as "the chatty loser with the Kalishnikov and some brown fatigues."
Yuri Lowenthal as Russian wingman.
ICBM hunting.
B-1 Bomber and F-18 confirmed.
Troop transporting.
Superweapon is Trinity, an enhanced (nuclear?) bomb.
Music is still godly.
Then again, I don't really feel one way or another towards Yuri Lowenthal. Sooo....I'll hope they have the Tu-160, the cooler counterpart of the B-1, or the Tu-22M, in a game that apparent Russia is a big deal in. The Tu-160 was only in AC4, and the Tu-22M in Ace Combat Advance, apparently...
EDIT: Double post, MWMG. Buggy forum, as usual.
That's what got North Korea made the enemy in Crysis, I heard. It's why North Korea is being edited into the enemy of the new Red Dawn (this ought to be interesting--imagine a SE remake of the original Red Dawn where Poland is the enemy instead of the Soviet Union). And making North Korea the enemy does get you censored or banned in South Korea, apparently. I can understand why, in a country where men are drafted purely for the reason so they can be made to sit in foxholes on the border across from the real life versions of those digitized enemies, who are still armed to the teeth. Last thing they need are games giving the North super-powered nano suits and alien allies, I guess.
The choice of Russia, though? Perhaps Americans...just don't like Russia since an overweight inebriate who uses T-80 tanks to stop parliamentary debates stopped being President, and was replaced by a guy who likes to fish without a shirt on an knows Judo. Given how well commercially games have done where Russia is the bad guy...both Bad Company games, all of Modern Warfare, World in Conflict...American audiences just really like killing faux communist Russians. It's like "American audiences like stacked women in bikinis", except that's not really limited to Americans.
Neither is killing Russians, in retrospect. Russian gamers have been taking those games in stride. My hat's off to them. Imagine how well Modern Warfare would sell in the US if it was red-blooded, straight-talking, beer-drinking Americans taking over the whole world, and just some Russian mastermind in the 11th hour?
Actually, that sounds like a much less commercially successful game somewhere....
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
US military power is not calculated based on which country it can defeat in war game scenarios, but how many it can defeat simultaneously.
That leaves a very short list of countries that writers can draw on. And China's airforce doesn't have the same luster to it that the Russians and their MIGs/Flankers have.
Tanks rolling over the Canadian plains is my fetish. :oops: