-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
New Medal Of Honor Announcement Teased With BF3 Insert, Presumably Unveiling Soon
- Thread starter GnarkillZA
- Start date
Neuromancer
Member
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I thought the entire game was superb except for perhaps the heli level. I had no issues with the scripting or the level design.See You Next Wednesday said:
It is definately a short game but I knew that going in and I paid accordingly.
I've never understood the praise MOH's SP campaign gets while every COD campaign gets laughed at. I really don't see the difference, they're both your run of the mill dudebro shooters, both have crappy stories, the only difference is that COD runs at 60 fps on consoles which makes infinitely better and it has plenty of those "cinematic" moments which makes them a much better experience.
Neuromancer
Member
MoH is more grounded and realistic in terms of setting and setpieces. For that alone, I liked it better than CoDBlops's SP.Colocho said:
I would guess it 's because of the overall tone of the game. For as many military shooters that have come out in the past years none has really tried to replicate what our military is going through in the ME.Colocho said:
And for as janky and poorly executed as most of the campaign was, I really like this approach.
Edit: what he said ^^
Snarfington
Member
What I want to know is why it's supposedly the 360 version's insert, but only has PSN/PS3 logos on it. Hmm.
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
The MP is still active on PC, at least.Sephiroth503 said:
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
Respawn Entertainment
Believe
Believe
Neuromancer
Member
I don't know if they'd be interested, seems like they want to strike out on their own with something new (and I don't blame them.)Vulcano's assistant said:
XANDER CAGE
Member
What's the point of juggling two semi-realistic modern war game franchises? Seems cannibalistic.
Neuromancer
Member
Not if they alternate years. It's not too different from a new CoD every year.BigJiantRobut said:
Bought MoH on a steam went in with no expectations. It was pretty average from what I played, I got bored after 90 minutes.The multiplayer was bad as well imo, it has no place in the current market. I'm surprised people liked the game since it screams mediocrity in every way, it doesn't do anything to set itself apart either. Are there really people excited to play a sequel to that?
StoppedInTracks
Member
Activision does the interesting alternate between Modern Warfare and WWII/ Cold War games.
What would be different between BF3 SP and MOH SP?
I... can't see it working that well.
What would be different between BF3 SP and MOH SP?
I... can't see it working that well.
I didn't play the last Medal of Honor, but my understanding is that the multiplayer was more akin to Call of Duty than Battlefield.XPE said:
Battlefield and Call of Duty multiplayer are very different.
Singleplayer? Well, the games aren't sold on their singleplayer. I guess that could be a problem for those that buy the games for the campaign.
Neuromancer
Member
Plenty of people (perhaps not the majority but a significant number that Activision and EA would be foolish to ignore) do buy these games for the single player campaigns.Tron 2.0 said:
Sorry, I should have said that in the post-Modern Warfare era the games are primarily multiplayer driven. The early games certainly had more noteworthy campaigns.XPE said:
Well I don't doubt they'll continue to include a campaign mode, but the games are unquestionably marketed and sold based on their multiplayer.Neuromancer said:
Would the sales of Battlefield or Call of Duty be significantly hurt if the games went multiplayer only? I doubt it, but I'm sure Activision and EA have the data to tell us.
Neuromancer
Member
I disagree, looking at how many campaign trailers they put out. If anything I'd say it's a 50/50 split, in terms of what makes it to the average consumer. Part of that could be that story trailers look more coherent than MP footage though.Tron 2.0 said:
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
~Kinggi~ said:
I paid $60 for BF3 beta... and I still felt ripped off since it wasn't early beta at all.
Rated-Rsuperstar
Member
olore said:
At this point I think the Allied Assault name has more weight to it then Medal of Honor. They should still go back and make a true sequel to the first game.
Bumblebeetuna
Member
I was immensely disappointed with MoH 2010, hopefully they do a much better job with the sequel.
Some moments of the SP were very good, and were more down to Earth and authentic than anything a CoD/BF campaign has ever come close to presenting. But the overall campaign was very meh imho and had way too many bugs and design issues for a retail release. The game was so linear that sometimes if you strayed too far from the set path, invisible enemies would kill you. Also, in the later levels there were tons of enemy spawn issues. Playing Tier 1 mode or whatever and getting to the end of a level only to die because infinite enemies keep spawning behind you sucks.
And the MP.. ugh. No recoil on the guns, no content at all and then they tried to sell us DLC like 3 weeks after release.
Some moments of the SP were very good, and were more down to Earth and authentic than anything a CoD/BF campaign has ever come close to presenting. But the overall campaign was very meh imho and had way too many bugs and design issues for a retail release. The game was so linear that sometimes if you strayed too far from the set path, invisible enemies would kill you. Also, in the later levels there were tons of enemy spawn issues. Playing Tier 1 mode or whatever and getting to the end of a level only to die because infinite enemies keep spawning behind you sucks.
And the MP.. ugh. No recoil on the guns, no content at all and then they tried to sell us DLC like 3 weeks after release.