• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Medal of Honor has a better single player campaign than Black Ops

firehawk12 said:
Yeah, maybe. I just feel like after he nuke scene in MW1, there must be someone there who actually cares about storytelling through game play/game design and the airport scene in MW2 reflects that.

I dunno. The airport scene rings hallow for me as "CIA dude takes part in the horrible crime! BUT WAIT! THE BIG BAD DUDE KNEW HE WAS A SPY ALL ALONG! XD! *HEADSHOT!*" totally was "Uh, but if he was made, wouldn't the CIA intercept the big-bad's conversations and pull the dude or at least rescue him?"

IW: *whistles* "ANNNNNYWAY, you're going to shoot up an airport! WHOOOOOOOOOOOO~~~~~~~~~ CONTROVERSY!~~~~~"

Me: This is fucking stupid. MW1 at least didn't jump the shark in controversy and story.
 
TheSeks said:
I dunno. The airport scene rings hallow for me as "CIA dude takes part in the horrible crime! BUT WAIT! THE BIG BAD DUDE KNEW HE WAS A SPY ALL ALONG! XD! *HEADSHOT!*" totally was "Uh, but if he was made, wouldn't the CIA intercept the big-bad's conversations and pull the dude or at least rescue him?"

IW: *whistles* "ANNNNNYWAY, you're going to shoot up an airport! WHOOOOOOOOOOOO~~~~~~~~~ CONTROVERSY!~~~~~"

Me: This is fucking stupid. MW1 at least didn't jump the shark in controversy and story.

Well, I wrote about it here when the scene was leaked way before the game came out and at that time I thought it could have been an intelligent discussion on the nature of killing in these games. Ultimately, we're just shooting shitty bots controlled by even worse AI. Does it matter if they're Middle Eastern terrorists, Russian soldiers or Russian civilians? At the time I thought it was trying to make a comment on the importance of context for the people who hate games because they're violent but also trying to "wake up" the 12 year olds who mindlessly play these games and never give a second thought to murdering a fake character in a video game.

But in hindsight, I realize that was really naive of me to think that. :lol
 
Htown said:
Goldeneye on Wii, best shooter campaign this fall.

Yep.
Agreed, except I'd go a bit farther and say best of the entire year, and easily amongst the best of this generation.
 
You're all forgetting the part where they somehow traced a single bullet back to a Brazilian slum just by looking at a surveillance camera recording.
 
Neuromancer said:
My favorite part of MW1 was the part where you had to take the coriolis effect into account in order to shoot some guys arm off.

Yeah that's such an awesome moment if you hit him on your first try. By my fifth try I was just tired of looking at the mission failed screen.
 
firehawk12 said:
I think the only people who think Codblops has a good campaign in terms of game play or story are apologists. It's perfectly serviceable, but it suffers from all the Treyarchisms that plagued CoD3 and W@W (dull story, dull set pieces, scripted gameplay with infinite spawns).
I thought the Black Ops campaign was awesome, especially the parts with Ed Harris' character. I loved that section with the Nova Gas and the glass helmets, I loved almost everything in Vietnam, and I fucking loved Rooftops.
 
Neuromancer said:
Yeah this is more or less what I've been hearing, I asked for this game for Christmas and I'm looking forward to playing it.

When I get it, what difficulty would you guys recommend, just the regular? I don't like dying too much or getting frustrated. Thanks.
Play it on hard. It isn't much of a challenge.
 
My favorite part of MW2 was the airport scene, you know I bet shit like that happens all the time in the real world and we don't ever hear about what's really going on and sometimes to be the good guy you still have to do some really bad things, because the world isn't black and white, it's shades of gray.
 
I strongly disagree with the OP. MoH's campaign was forgettable, unpolished, hot garbage. I found it tough to even muster the willpower to even finish the game. For what it's worth though, i'm not acting as if Black Ops is the greatest game ever. However, I found it to be a much more intense and enthralling experience than MOH.

I also don't understand all of the Sam Worthington hate. I thought he was terrific. His aussie accent is easily detected, sure, but I thought he was awesome as Alex Mason.
 
Neuromancer said:
My favorite part of MW2 was the airport scene, you know I bet shit like that happens all the time in the real world and we don't ever hear about what's really going on and sometimes to be the good guy you still have to do some really bad things, because the world isn't black and white, it's shades of gray.

Honestly, one of these game should just have a waterboarding scene where the outcome is randomized. Maybe the guy gives you bad intel just to get you to stop, maybe the guy gives you good intel, or maybe the guy is just an innocent in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Funny enough the only game I can remember with a torture scene was also published by Activision - it was an adventure game called "Spycraft" and it also had a disclaimer that let you skip that part if you wanted to. :lol

theignoramus said:
I thought the Black Ops campaign was awesome, especially the parts with Ed Harris' character. I loved that section with the Nova Gas and the glass helmets, I loved almost everything in Vietnam, and I fucking loved Rooftops.
There was just nothing really special about it. The level designs were fairly linear and they didn't have any noteworthy scenes. I mean, you make a game about MACV SOG and don't do anything interesting with Vietnam other than have CCR and Rolling Stones play in the background?
 
Neuromancer said:
My favorite part of MW2 was the airport scene, you know I bet shit like that happens all the time in the real world and we don't ever hear about what's really going on and sometimes to be the good guy you still have to do some really bad things, because the world isn't black and white, it's shades of gray.

Easily my least favorite scene in the game. You have zero control as the player. Hey why won't don't I just shoot these bad guys right now and end the game right here? Because then we don't have any reason to justify an airborne invasion of America with helicopters.
 
the_zombie_luke said:
MOH might be better than Black Ops' campaign, but not building off Airborne is nearly unforgivable. In Airborne, you had giant non-linear levels, you could upgrade your weapons, it had a cover system, and parachuting down to kick a Nazi in the face never got old. I was hoping that the next game would take those features and just have the modern setting, but I was wrong.
Agreed. One of my favorite shooters of all times. Still surprised sometimes when I play it and end up parachuting to an area I haven't hit before and keep thinking, no enemies will be here, and than I am laying down lead. I adore the game.

Also a lover of MW2 here. I loved the America Fuck Ya moments through the entire thing. Super enjoyable gun porn.
 
Never played MOH, but as you said, BLOPS is pretty weak when it comes to campaign. Jeff Gertsman had it right when he called the campaign "hokey." There were multiple times where the characters just did things where you had to question what the fuck were the writers thinking.
 
I just remembered - Codblops would have been more daring if they bothered to make the ending a playable level. They didn't have to show "the event", but to have you find your spot and look down the sights right before you pulled the trigger? That would have been enough. Instead you get a crappy FMV.
 
firehawk12 said:
I just remembered - Codblops would have been more daring if they bothered to make the ending a playable level. They didn't have to show "the event", but to have you find your spot and look down the sights right before you pulled the trigger? That would have been enough. Instead you get a crappy FMV.

Didn't the game end in 1968?
 
firehawk12 said:
I just remembered - Codblops would have been more daring if they bothered to make the ending a playable level. They didn't have to show "the event", but to have you find your spot and look down the sights right before you pulled the trigger? That would have been enough. Instead you get a crappy FMV.
Yeah, that was such a pussy move and proved that they couldn't even try to match those who they so readily copy.
 
Mully said:
Didn't the game end in 1968?

The game ends with you being the "second gunman on the grassy knoll". I mean, they pretty much say you killed JFK without actually saying it or showing it.

Stallion Free said:
Yeah, that was such a pussy move and proved that they couldn't even try to match those who they so readily copy.

IW would never write themselves into such a situation, but you'd almost expect them to gleefully let you pull the trigger. :lol
 
firehawk12 said:
IW would never write themselves into such a situation, but you'd almost expect them to gleefully let you pull the trigger. :lol
Yeah, IW was crazy and ridiculous, but they weren't pussies. And that held up outside of their games too when they all ditched Bobby.
 
Well, allow me to offer an elaboration on one assertion I made.

I talked about how the game very intelligently links levels and uses the setting of hilly Afghanistan very well. The "retreat" mission down the ridge of the mountain after being defended by Dusty and Deuce is a very good example of this. How many Bro shooters have so much retreating? You're on the run like 40% of the time in this game. I think it is very cool how they transition from the snipers warning about losing visual as Neptune goes over the ridge, and then when they go over the ridge you transition right to the ground squad and fight your way down. Run your way down, really. Lots of natural cover and interesting points to shoot and be shot from.

I think it's just sort of very smooth and well paced.
 
Y2Kev said:
Well, allow me to offer an elaboration on one assertion I made.

I talked about how the game very intelligently links levels and uses the setting of hilly Afghanistan very well. The "retreat" mission down the ridge of the mountain after being defended by Dusty and Deuce is a very good example of this. How many Bro shooters have so much retreating? You're on the run like 40% of the time in this game. I think it is very cool how they transition from the snipers warning about losing visual as Neptune goes over the ridge, and then when they go over the ridge you transition right to the ground squad and fight your way down. Run your way down, really. Lots of natural cover and interesting points to shoot and be shot from.

I think it's just sort of very smooth and well paced.
The transition idea is wholesale ripped from Call of Duty 4. Oh yeah they also did the whole retreat thing a number of times in that game too.
 
Stallion Free said:
The transition idea is wholesale ripped from Call of Duty 4. Oh yeah they also did the whole retreat thing a number of times in that game too.
I'm not comparing it to Call of Duty 4, though. I don't really remember that game very well. Other than grenade tossing.
 
Y2Kev said:
I'm not comparing it to Call of Duty 4, though. I don't really remember that game very well. Other than grenade tossing.
"How many Bro shooters have so much retreating?"

Idk, it kinda looks like you asked for other comparisons there.
 
Stallion Free said:
"How many Bro shooters have so much retreating?"

Idk, it kinda looks like you asked for other comparisons there.

It's sort of a rhetorical question. Though it doesn't hurt that there's only 1 or 2. I don't even remember it in CoD4. What are you thinking of? The evac in One Shot, One Kill?
 
Y2Kev said:
It's sort of a rhetorical question. Though it doesn't hurt that there's only 1 or 2. I don't even remember it in CoD4. What are you thinking of? The evac in One Shot, One Kill?
The evac from the helicopter crash near the start, you are on the run there. And then it smoothly transitions you up to the sky in the AC-130.

The retreat from One Shot, One Kill.

The retreat from the Farmhouse after that.
 
Stallion Free said:
The retreat from the Farmhouse after that.

I feel like this one in particular is still such an offensive push. When you come over that ridge, you actually get to ambush all the foot soldiers coming up the hill. Doesn't that happen right after you cross the embattled farm? I can't really remember.

One Shot, One Kill lacks a real sense of desperation, honestly with how annoying the level is and the stupid timer on the screen. There isn't any sense that you can actually lose. But that's what CoD does, I think...you're invincible. Or you're basically faceless/nameless and your death serves to further the legend of Price, one of GameInformer's Characters of the DECADE.
 
Y2Kev said:
I feel like this one in particular is still such an offensive push. When you come over that ridge, you actually get to ambush all the foot soldiers coming up the hill. Doesn't that happen right after you cross the embattled farm? I can't really remember.

One Shot, One Kill lacks a real sense of desperation, honestly with how annoying the level is and the stupid timer on the screen. There isn't any sense that you can actually lose. But that's what CoD does, I think...you're invincible. Or you're basically faceless/nameless and your death serves to further the legend of Price, one of GameInformer's Characters of the DECADE.
Medal of Honor had that exact same issue. It was most obvious holding off in the hut.
 
How does Goldeneye single player compare to these two? I got sort of bored of Medal of Honor single player after playing at a friend's house. I didn't play a whole lot though.
 
Stallion Free said:
Medal of Honor had that exact same issue. It was most obvious holding off in the hut.
I don't agree with that at all, and there are other posters in the thread that are saying we all thought we were going to die!
 
Y2Kev said:
I don't agree with that at all, and there are other posters in the thread that are saying we all thought we were going to die!
I just kept wondering why my friendlies say they are low on ammo, but still keep magicking in more for me when I ask them for some. It's an amazing example of how gameplay can ruin a story's effect (like Phoenix Down in FF7?)
 
firehawk12 said:
Honestly, one of these game should just have a waterboarding scene where the outcome is randomized. Maybe the guy gives you bad intel just to get you to stop, maybe the guy gives you good intel, or maybe the guy is just an innocent in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Funny enough the only game I can remember with a torture scene was also published by Activision - it was an adventure game called "Spycraft" and it also had a disclaimer that let you skip that part if you wanted to. :lol


There was just nothing really special about it. The level designs were fairly linear and they didn't have any noteworthy scenes. I mean, you make a game about MACV SOG and don't do anything interesting with Vietnam other than have CCR and Rolling Stones play in the background?

Holy shit! Someone else remembers "Spycraft" -- I LOVED that game and was hoping for a sequel, but one of the game's main consultants (former CIA director William Colby) died before the sequel could be made. I've actually met former KGB Major-General Oleg Kalugin (the game's other consultant) at a lecture at the International Spy Museum in Washington, DC and he's a REALLY nice guy! That game was espionage done RIGHT!

You're on-target about the wasted opportunities for the MACV-SOG sections of CODBLOPS. There is so much rich material there and Treyarch just failed to use it at all!
 
I guess the bigger question is whether the single player campaign is worth it for a steam download? I don't care about the multi. I didn't particularly like the blops single player campaign except the Siberian gulag parts and that night boat raid part while sympathy for the devil played in the background. Oh and I really liked interacting with JFK and McNamara.
 
Y2Kev said:
I don't agree with that at all, and there are other posters in the thread that are saying we all thought we were going to die!


You mean you were scripted to fake die. In a sequence where people infinitely spawn out of the hills. And your teammates says they are out of ammo even though you can magically always refill your ammo from them. (so why are they out of ammo?) And then the magically scripted calvary rides in to save you.

If you thought you were going to die there you only thought so because the scripting was obviously trying to put you in a non-winnable situation via scripting and infinite respawns. There was never any real sense of danger there anymore serious than any other part of the game. Now you may have felt so because the clock timer for the script was invisible. Which is a viable design call. But that is what you are responding to. Not any case of great mission design overall. Because it wasn't.
 
Stoney Mason said:
You mean you were scripted to fake die. In a sequence where people infinitely spawn out of the hills. And your teammates says they are out of ammo even though you can magically always refill your ammo from them. (so why are they out of ammo?) And then the magically scripted calvary rides in to save you.

This is incredibly reductionist to boil down what is going on and how the player is reacting to a series of scripts and some attempts by the developer to not break the game. First off, you can refill your ammo from your teammates because--in the event you actually did run out of ammo-- you would not be able to finish the level. What is the alternative? That this should be a chokepoint where you can game over? Something out of Steel Battalion? I admit the scene lost something because the characters' sense of desperation does not match what is going on mechanically, but they do have other tools at their disposal.

I don't understand scripted to "fake die". As opposed to real die? The game is scripted to make you feel like you are going to die. And it does a very effective job of that, regardless of whether or not you can get ammo from your teammates saying they are out of ammo.

And the enemies do not infinitely respawn. If you sit back and pick them all off, you complete the level. That is not infinite respawning.

If you thought you were going to die there you only thought so because the scripting was obviously trying to put you in a non-winnable situation via scripting. There was never any real sense of danger there anymore serious than any other part of the game. Now you may have felt so because the clock timer for the script was invisible. Which is a viable design call. But that is what you are responding to. Not any case of great mission design overall. Because it wasn't.

No, I was responding to my teammates telling me we were out of ammo, a ton of soldiers rushing on a fixed point, and some effective visual and audio cues letting me know there was real tension. It's not the same as every other encounter in the game. This is a different script. I don't understand why you'd point out that the designers were trying to make me feel like the situation was unwinnable. Of course they were...I think they were successful. That's the crux of what I'm saying.

That people are saying they responded differently to this scene indicates to me that there is something unique about this scene. There is a real sense of danger in the scene that is more present than in other scenes.

I think Edge says it well:

Though it paints a broad picture of an invasion force conducting itself with appropriate military rigour, this is still a heavily scripted, linear shooting gallery in which hordes of enemies bundle towards you without any thought of of self-preservation. But the game turns this crude tenet to its advantage in missions where retreat becomes essential; several key moments deal in simple survival, as the numbers of enemies overwhelm, whittling down and working around your remaining cover.

There's something about the way that scene is composed that makes it feel different. And, yes, it could have been better.
 
Y2Kev said:
This is incredibly reductionist. First off, you can refill your ammo from your teammates because--in the event you actually did run out of ammo-- you would not be able to finish the level. What is the alternative? That this should be a chokepoint where you can game over? Something out of Steel Battalion? I admit the scene lost something because the characters' sense of desperation does not match what is going on mechanically, but they do have other tools at their disposal.

I don't understand scripted to "fake die". As opposed to real die? The game is scripted to make you feel like you are going to die. And it does a very effective job of that, regardless of whether or not you can get ammo from your teammates saying they are out of ammo.

And the enemies do not infinitely respawn. If you sit back and pick them all off, you complete the level. That is not infinite respawning.



No, I was responding to my teammates telling me we were out of ammo, a ton of soldiers rushing on a fixed point, and some effective visual and audio cues letting me know there was real tension. It's not the same as every other encounter in the game.

You keep talking about how immersive the game is. Its not my fault if they introduce mechanics that break the very immersion you seem to be pimping. When they told me they were out of ammo all I thought was well this corny and contrived. And people keep continously coming and respawning over that hill. COD 4 also had places where if you actually sat there and killed eveybody the spawning stopped in areas. But for most people that feels the exact same as respawning enemies. Because the game is repopulating an area where people enter from an unseen horizon and until you reach a certain kill count. Because I certainly didn't kill everyone to make the calvary arrive.
 
Stoney Mason said:
You keep talking about how immersive the game is. Its not my fault if they introduce mechanics that break the very immersion you seem to be pimping. When they told me they were out of ammo all I thought was well this corny and contrived. And people keep continously coming and respawning over that hill. COD 4 also had places where if actually sat there and killed eveybody the spawning stopped. But for most people that feels the exact same as respawning enemies.

I don't think games are immersive. In Medal of Honor's case, I said the campaign is cohesive and well paced, and I think the story is not insulting (though it is juvenile).

I've already stipulated that neither game is realistic. I just think this game is less unrealistic. Which I value and you do not...that's fine. I'm not combative about it. I don't think I need to convince anyone that one is better than the other. I'd just like to discuss.

I think immersion is a term used by people complaining about HUDs and Wii graphics.

Because I certainly didn't kill everyone to make the calvary arrive.

Let me just ask you: what if the characters died in the scene? What would you think in that case?
 
RustyNails said:
I guess the bigger question is whether the single player campaign is worth it for a steam download? I don't care about the multi. I didn't particularly like the blops single player campaign except the Siberian gulag parts and that night boat raid part while sympathy for the devil played in the background. Oh and I really liked interacting with JFK and McNamara.
Hell no. Medal of Honor won't take you more than 4 hours in singleplayer and that 4 hours is nowhere near good enough to warrant anymore than 30$ and even that is stretching it.

Just out of curiosity Kev, do you play many shooters and are you well invested in either series (as in you have played pretty much every relevant release)?
 
Y2Kev said:
I don't think games are immersive. In Medal of Honor's case, I said the campaign is cohesive and well paced, and I think the story is not insulting (though it is juvenile).

I've already stipulated that neither game is realistic. I just think this game is less unrealistic. Which I value and you do not...that's fine. I'm not combative about it. I don't think I need to convince anyone that one is better than the other. I'd just like to discuss.

I think immersion is a term used by people complaining about HUDs and Wii graphics.

See this whole thing boils down to the very things you responded to completely turned me off. So to argue the point that I think these techniques are poor is at a certain point moot. Because if they worked for you then more power to you. How can I argue that something that worked for you is bad. All that matters is the experience you had for your personal gaming tastes. All I can say is that they didn't work for me. It felt very boring and contrived and like levels that would be cut from a COD game for being boring. Which is perhaps the point. Both games while ostensibly military games are going for a completely different feel. So if you have a preference already then that will color how you or I feel about the actual campaigns.
 
Stallion Free said:
Hell no. Medal of Honor won't take you more than 4 hours in singleplayer and that 4 hours is nowhere near good enough to warrant anymore than 30$ and even that is stretching it.

Just out of curiosity Kev, do you play many shooters and are you well invested in either series (as in you have played pretty much every relevant release)?

First Person Shooters on my Xbox 360 gamercard:

Every CoD
Every Halo
MoH
Orange Box
Metro
Both Battlefield Bad Companies
Both Rainbow Sixes
Duke Nukem 3D
Both L4D games
Turok
Quantum of Solace
Brothers in Arms: HH
Both Bioshocks
The Darkness
Prey
Perfect Dark Zero
Condemned

I have Singularity in front of me.

That's not even counting TPS or PS3 games!

edit: Stony, that's very fair. I can completely see where you are coming from.
 
Stallion Free said:
The evac from the helicopter crash near the start, you are on the run there. And then it smoothly transitions you up to the sky in the AC-130.

The retreat from One Shot, One Kill.

The retreat from the Farmhouse after that.

What about protecting that injured guy until the helicopter came after the one shot, one kill? The area near the fair? HOOOOOOOOOOOOLY SHIT, that took sooooooooo many tries for me to carry the guy onto the helicopter.
 
Y2Kev said:
Let me just ask you: what if the characters died in the scene? What would you think in that case?

It sort of doesn't make a difference for me if the characters died or survived that scene because that's not really the point of that scene. It was pretty clear as I started playing that stage, that it was going to be a last stand defense kind of mission. So at a certain point I knew I just had to hunker down and survive as long as I could. And I would either die or survive but it probably would have less to do with my actions and more to do with the scripting and what sort of mood for the story they were trying to tell. I actually thought we would die. But only because I thought that was the story they were trying to tell and they were going for a moment. Like in Halo Reach where you know you are going to die at the end of the game.

Like I said I think what you were responding to was a last stand mission where the timer is missing versus some of the black ops missions where there is overtly a timer on screen. You were immersed because there wasn't a timer on screen so for you that gave you a sense of the unknown and some connection to how you must feel it must feel in a real no win situation in the military where you don't know when the calvary is going to show up.

For me it was just frustrating. Because my immersion is different. My immersion is only for the moment to moment gameplay side. Buying into the whole real life when will the military arrive thing doesn't work for me because neither game is some real military sim. Both games are riffs on a certain sort of military movie theme. So I want the explicit timer. Kinda like the TV show 24. I want to know kinda what I need to do and in what time frame. Because what interests me is the gameplay challenge side of it. I don't want the information hidden because my bias is for the game side. Not the immersion side.
 
Both are horrible for me. Way too scripted and linear, these game feel more like rail shooters than FPS. Plus it's like there is no AI at all.

I'm fine with linearity and some scripts, but these games take the concept way too far. Games like Gears of War or Uncharted are just as spectacular, but without the crazy linearity and they are also pretty fun to play, with interesting combat mechanics and stuff.
 
Y2Kev said:
First Person Shooters on my Xbox 360 gamercard:

Every CoD
Every Halo
MoH
Orange Box
Metro
Both Battlefield Bad Companies
Both Rainbow Sixes
Duke Nukem 3D
Both L4D games
Turok
Quantum of Solace
Brothers in Arms: HH
Both Bioshocks
The Darkness
Prey
Perfect Dark Zero
Condemned

I have Singularity in front of me.

That's not even counting TPS or PS3 games!
Alright that's a really solid list, how can you not be disappointed with both games? FPS is easily my dominant genre and I was looking forward to both games and while they were certainly enjoyable (and I will replay them because I replay most FPS games) I still felt let down by the games. Medal of Honor especially because Allied Assault was the game that made me a die-hard FPS fan. I have been a day 1 whore for every MOH on PC (yes, even the expansions for AA) and this was the first time a game in the series had really disappointed me.


RockmanWhore said:
I'm fine with linearity and some scripts, but these games take the concept way too far. Games like Gears of War or Uncharted are just as spectacular, but without the crazy linearity and they are also pretty fun to play, with interesting combat mechanics and stuff.
Holy shit, you almost made me spit out my coffee.
 
Stallion Free said:
Holy shit, you almost made me spit out my coffee.

I was going to say something similar.

We are always talking about degree of course. Both of those games mentioned are highly linear. Are they as linear as MOH or COD? Maybe not but both are damn linear and much closer to those games than something like Halo.

But more importantly I actually like a linear game. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a greatly scripted roller coaster. I actually prefer that design more to something like Halo. If I want a non-linear game I want it to go all the way kind of like Deus Ex. I don't really care for the middle ground of a Halo game on the campaign side.

But everybody is different. What bugs me about a lot of people on here is there assertion that one type of game is highly superior to another. The more correct call is for more variety. Because taste and opinion is variable. The only way to satisy more people is to cater for more variety. Now sales may reflect what more people want. But generally the key to sales in most other markets is setting yourself apart. Rather than just strictly trying to clone what is already popular. That is the most disappointing part of MOH to me. It's like a straight average COD clone on the gameplay side to me. It would have been a far more interesting game to me if they had tried something different outside of just a tone shift into Blackhawk down.
 
I too think I prefer linearity in a shooter campaign. But I used to be different. I used to think I loved Halo, but after ODST and Reach I just don't like it as much anymore. Every encounter goes on too long.

And MoH is the first MoH I played. I installed Frontline and played some of that last night. Shooters were wacky back then, lol.
 
Stoney Mason said:
But more importantly I actually like a linear game. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a greatly scripted roller coaster.
A-fucking-men brother.

A well-scripted linear and tightly paced shooter can be a fucking incredible experience. And they can be replayable in the way that movies are rewatchable.

My favorite example of this is the Snow mission from the start of MW2. The mission is fucking flawlessly designed and scripted. Everything about the mission is polished and feels so right. I have probably replayed the level 10+ times because of that. Are the setpieces ridiculous? Of course they are. But as linear scripted levels go, it doesn't get any better than that.

Y2Kev said:
And MoH is the first MoH I played. I installed Frontline and played some of that last night. Shooters were wacky back then, lol.
This is mean because people have fond memories of the game, but Frontline and Rising Sun were always just shitty wannabes in comparison to the PC MOH titles. I mean Frontline didn't even come till a couple months after Allied Assault so why it gets all the credit for the D-Day when it's version is lame in comparison to the one in AA is beyond me. Pacific Assault destroyed anything worthwhile in Rising Sun.

I highly recommend going back and playing Allied Assault and the first expansion if you ever get the chance.

Also, Airborne is one of the more unique takes on the FPS genre in years.

So basically, missing out on the heritage definitely factors into you being more forgiving of new MOH.
 
Yeah, and it builds really well throughout the mission. It is varied in both pace and mechanics.

I like MW2 a lot, though. Lots of people dislike it, and many cite the story. Again I'm not really a stickler for narrative here. It's on the periphery. But it does weigh in the overall equation. And I just never took MW1 seriously.
 
Y2Kev said:
First Person Shooters on my Xbox 360 gamercard:

Every CoD
Every Halo
MoH
Orange Box
Metro
Both Battlefield Bad Companies
Both Rainbow Sixes
Duke Nukem 3D
Both L4D games
Turok
Quantum of Solace
Brothers in Arms: HH
Both Bioshocks
The Darkness
Prey
Perfect Dark Zero
Condemned

I have Singularity in front of me.

That's not even counting TPS or PS3 games!

edit: Stony, that's very fair. I can completely see where you are coming from.
BiA:HH is really underrated.
 
Y2Kev said:
I too think I prefer linearity in a shooter campaign. But I used to be different. I used to think I loved Halo, but after ODST and Reach I just don't like it as much anymore. Every encounter goes on too long.

I quite enjoyed parts of the original Halo but the I actually realized the parts I liked best were generally the scripted parts. Like when you are on the ship on Halo and the attack breaks out. Or when you land on the planet for the first time and you see an enemy ship come down for the first time.

I like Halo. I've played all the games. But they are honestly not my favorite fps campaigns although I do enjoy them. But I get why other people really really like them. The sandbox parts for me just aren't as fun as they are for other people but that's fine. That's why variety and satisfying different gamers is cool.
 
SapientWolf said:
BiA:HH is really underrated.
I didn't like it. I don't think I really understood how it worked. It felt slow and laborious.

Stoney Mason said:
I quite enjoyed parts of the original Halo but the I actually realized the parts I liked best were generally the scripted parts. Like when you are on the ship on Halo and the attack breaks out. Or when you land on the planet for the first time and you see an enemy ship come down for the first time.

The only Halos that really felt sandboxy to me were 1 and 3. I thought 2 felt very constricted (particularly early) and Reach's difficulty kept me on a straight and narrow path. The game had so much filler in it that I thought the sandbox felt kind of small when I looked back on it.

ODST just felt messy to me. And the "sandboxy" wandering was unnecessary.

oh i forgot Condemned 2. That game was garbage.
 
Top Bottom