When I was in hospital for a month a few years ago, I read my first and only Tom Clancy novel. I felt like a dirty, dirty thing had been done to me... NEVER AGAIN!
Imho, he deserves to get gangraped by the whole staff of Jane's Information Group.

The thing about Tom Clancy, is that by selling his name to Ubisoft, he basically sold his soul.
And I might add, his books are good books! Sure, he wasn't in the military, and he used to run an insurance agency (what?). But I like his books. If you want real, I suggest you read the novels of Seal Team Six founder, Richard Marcinko and play the game when it comes out.

He didn't say the game won't be successful... He said the game goes against everything the Tom Clancy name stands for.
The word Veto is used in the wrong context by Elmo. He said; "The "Rape" of Tom Clancy is a bit harsh, especially when he, apparently, vito's everything that goes out with his name on it. " Obviously this is false, otherwise this game wouldn't be coming out with Tom Clancy's name on it. I wouldn't assume to speak for Aliasalpha is thinking, but I personally thought the reason he explained the meaning of "Veto" was because Elmo used the word incorrectly.
As for the idea that the real game will not have f-16s carrying 200 missiles when the demo does, that's about a reasonable a conclusion as assuming that a car you're test driving will have more features after you buy it.

I've got no problem with you.
I entirely agree that my belief that the game sucks is a purely personal opinion. What I think is somewhat more absolute is that the tom clancy name is percieved as having both depth and realism, something that the demo for this game rather notably lacks. There was nothing that seemed like an approximation of a flight model of a military aircraft with any weight, other aircraft with documented performance characteristics perform in a way thats quite out of line for them and heavily armoured ground targets are falling prey to a single shot by weapons that they'd barely feel. This could hardly qualify as realism and is, by implication, selling things that aren't there.
Also the ammunition is not unlimited, I just made it sound like it. There IS an ammo counter for the remaining missiles but it never got below 30 for either type of missile even after killing what must have been over 100 enemies. Sadly this is something that is quite unlikely to be changed for the retail release.
As for the veto thing, the article I'd read at the time of the sale implied that tom clancy did NOT have the right to veto things if he didn't like it, hence my confusion at the use of the word.

I don't think he could rape his own name...he's not exactly respected as an author...unless you think thriller hacks like Dan Brown are respected.

Amen! I mean, they know how to produce a page-turner. But still, you don't want them on your shelf. Maybe a hooker-analogy is suitable here?

Heh. By sheer chance I just picked up 'Patriot Games' from a second-hand bookstore today. And yes, yes, he's a hack and he's disgustingly right-wing (the big evil bad guys in R6 were environmentalists, for christ's sake), but the books are fun enough on their own merits, and so thick that once you open one you're pretty much guaranteed not to have to think "hmm, what should I read now?" for about a month or so.
That said, I did pick it up purely because it was $1, and I wanted to bring my purchase up to a nice tidy ten.
edit: yeah, I don't do so well with that word either

Tom Clancy Hello Kitty adventures anyone? No better yet! Tom Clancy presents Tony Hawk. :P

Hey there's already HAWX, Hawk's is barely a correct spelling away!

Ok imagine this. A black ops soldier on a flying skateboard with a katana in one hand and a rocket launcher in the other fighting commienazies from space.

if they were hippy commienazis then I'd say we're onto a winner!

That could be the unexpected plot twist.

Nope, I did intend to use it in that context. Clancy can veto, yes, I speled it right this tiem, anything with his name on it. i.e. allowing or not, by the use of veto, as the case may be, anthing with his name on it. maybe if I said "He veto's everything that may go out with his name on it" it would read slightly better.
The context is correct and was my intent, thank you for trying to educate me in the use of the english language.
Can we get on with the discussion?