Well I just tried the demo of H.A.W.X. and all I can say is that if this is what Ubisoft consider an appropriate use of the clancy name then he should get his name back from them.
This thing makes Ace Combat 6 look like a complex and nuanced simulator in the vein of IL2 Stumovik or Lock On Modern Air Combat.
A definite non-buy in my book.

Clancy isn't being raped. He's being given lots of money for nothing but his dignity.

Yeah, after I posted it I wondered if rape is the wrong word, he's basically asking for it

It reminds me of the South Park episode where the cops arrest Spielberg and Lucas for raping Indiana Jones.

Too bad that didn't happen in real life.

It's not rape if both parties give consent. I think Tom Clancy doesn't really care how the games are done as long as he gets paid. Would you care what happened to your work if someone shoved a metric ton of money under your nose??

I would if it was happening to everyone else resulting in NO GOOD NEW GAMES TO PLAY!
Not that I was ever a huge fan of Tom Clancy games.

Only Tom Clancy game I liked was Splinter Cell:Chaos Theory; the other ones slipped under my radar.

I'm still looking forward to HAWX. I wasn't a big fan of Ace Combat, since it was stupid and filled with bullshit fictional stories. But exploding crap over Rio? Awesome.

rape implies it was nonconsensual, do you really think he doesn't care? I think he does. I think he believes it's a wonderful game.

err, download the demo then, you might get disappointed

I'm at school...

The "Rape" of Tom Clancy is a bit harsh, especially when he, apparently, vito's everything that goes out with his name on it.
You don't ike it, that's all, but I dare say that others will enjoy and call it a welcome addition to the TC Games Store. Everything is like marmite; you either like it or you don't.
Calling it a rape reminds me of one of UK_John's famous threads.

Well it's about as far from the clancy tradition of in depth tactical and thoughtful gameplay as you can get. Even Rainbow 6 Vegas 2 managed to do some tactical things or at least pretended to, in this it's a case of "Here's 200 missles on a plane that MIGHT only hold a dozen, there's the enemy. Some of them are tanks or ships but shoot them with fragmenting AA missiles anyway because they're made of tinfoil, LOL!"
They've thrown any hint of realism or even the pretense of realism out the window in favour of cheap thrills, EXACTLY what people always accuse console games of doing. F14s would NOT out-tun F16s. F16s can NOT do what is basically a burnout in mid air. There is no fighter on the planet that can carry the roughly 200 missiles that this gives an F16, even if it is set in the early 2020s, I don't think magic tiny missiles that grow to the size of a sidewinder when fired are a realistic future warfare development.
Back in the amiga days, F/A18 Interceptor featured a submersible aircraft carrier that you could sink by shooting 6 sidewinders into the conning tower (and would hapily rearm you if you landed on it), that was less of a problem back then because the game never claimed a heritage of realism and we were also too busy saying "HOLY FUCK! FILLED POLYGONS!!!". Nowdays it's just cheap and shitty, especially if they're slapping a name on it thats always been connected with a strong level of attention to detail and attempting to recreate real world tactics.
Also, Veto means to forbid something...

Far be it for me to feel welcome around here but these are your claims.
If other people like it or don't like it then it is up to them but when Mr Clancy has the option to VETO anything that goes out with his name on it, the fact that it does go out, as Elmo quite rightly states ( I have no idea why you felt compelled to correct him as the word veto is used in the right context ), whatever is released is done so with his backing.
Don't forget you've got a demo. The real game may well include limited ammo, but also bear in mind it isn't real - it's a game.
Purely because you think it is dross does not mean it won't be a hit for be enjoyed by many people.