The lights are on
Shooter fans can be a finicky lot. We love explosive action and intense firefights. We thrill at the speed with which deathmatch games can swing in our favor. So go take down a few waves of aliens and save your team's flag, because when the gun smoke settl
I just got the game, and I must say, the single-player campaign is sucking some serious monkey so far, and I've only played the first mission. But the multiplayer shined it's unique light, not too much like BFBC or MW2. But still seemed like it was missing something. Go ahead and sound off about what you think MoH did right/wrong. ^^;
Well, I decided to pop into a GameStop while running errands yesterday and asked the guy at the counter out of curiosity "Got any used copies of Medal of Honor in yet?"
"Yea man, people are turning them over pretty quick... I've got 3" (this is 3 days after release)
A game has to be pretty disappointing for you to essentially take a 30$ hit on trading it in so quick... but everyone knows the 7 day return policy with used games so I thought... yea I'll pick it up, bring it back in a few days, whatever.
Pop it in... cross my fingers for improvements from the beta. Exactly... the same... game. The movement hasn't been tweaked at all, you'll still stop from a sprint if you catch a piece of debris the wrong way. You still stop moving and are unable to jump through a window if you don't continue to crouch-jump whilst inside the pane.
You still have to wait to join the next round to begin, and spawn, to BE ABLE TO LEAVE THE LOBBY, how in the world do they get away with that design decision?
This game is 100% deserving of it's mediocre reviews... it's stilted, and amateur and it's evident from the first 60 seconds you play. Is it fun? Almost... if I weren't constantly battling the game engine, I almost had fun a few times.
I'll be posting more on this game as I delve into the campaign and more multi over the next few days.
Well I have to say, I decided to beat the campaign for the trophies and I'm glad I did. Despite the bugs from using Unreal 2, I really enjoyed playing it. 'Running with the Wolves' was by far the best mission of the campaign, and also the most criticized by GI. The ending literally almost brought me to tears, and if you have a deep respect for our armed forces, you will too.
Right when I popped in the disc on Thursday (the 14th) there was this massive update that was multiplayer-only related, and it apparently fixed most of the m-player glitches, and smoothed out some things. I am really enjoying multiplayer, even with the major unbalancing of explosives/shotguns.
But yeah, I hope EA goes through with their decision to continue the series, because they could seriously improve the title, especially with all the feedback they're getting.
I was considering writing out a full blown review right now... but it's Sunday and that's just too much work. So here's my bullet points, spoiler free.
- Stuff I enjoyed -
Death animation: Rather than the industry standard of instantly flopping to the ground, MoH went the route of the "look down at your hands in disbelief", and it's pretty cool... makes for dramatic effect for those 3 or 4 times you may die through an entire campaign playthrough.
+1 ammo count: If you manually reload before firing dry, your ammo count is the amount in a full clip, and the one chambered from before the reload. Cool detail.
Mission pacing: I completed the entire campaign in one sitting on normal in about 4 and a half hours. The pacing between unique missions like the 1000+ meter two-man sniping, the ATV driving, and calling in air support (very cool implementation, I'll spare details for those avoiding spoilers) I felt if nothing else the overall short game was very well paced.
Cinematic flare: As is the standard for military shooters now, impressive cutscenes and setpieces are a must. Because the graphics show a considerable amount of deterioration most of this effort is lost while playing on 360, but there are at least two that everyone should enjoy.
Sparkle snow: Although the translation of the game engine to consoles has gone terribly, one cool effect shines through, literally. Sparkling 3 layered snow. I'm kinda grasping at straws for nice things to say...
- Things I didn't like -
Console graphics: I've had the pleasure of playing this game on both consoles (between 3 different displays), and PC... and I'll say that on PC the engine shines. It needs real power to make it work though, and 360 certainly doesn't cut it in the campaign. You know that feeling of disappointment, when you buy a PC game and your system can't handle it at max specs so you tone it down... and then down some more... until finally you're at minimum specs just to get it to run smoothly? Well, I won't say it looks like THAT... but when you see broken glass on mission 2, and take a moment to look at a skybox, or enjoy the first 6 seconds of an in-game cinematic with unrendered textures... you'll know where I'm coming from.
On a side note, this game seems to suffer or benefit greatly from display size. I've played the 360 version from a 23" monitor, a 37" LCD and a 52" LED (while passing it around during a LAN) and it looks increasingly terrible on bigger screens - does not scale well : /
Representation of everyone except Tier One: High command and the grunts (Army Rangers in this case) are treated very stereotypically in the campaign... you'll know what I mean if you play through - and it's certainly an unfair and unrealistic design decision.
Weapon variety: Everyone knows about the 3-class multiplayer structure, and the limited amount of weapons unlocked through out the course of online play... what you may not know is the campaign is even more underwhelming. If you were to exclude the rail-shooter vehicle segments and designator missions, I think you encounter probably... no more than 12 guns through the entire game, and will probably only use 8 of them. *shrug* Call me spoiled, but I'm used to 40+ weapons in my military shooters.
The engine: I'll just make a disclaimer that this is entirely subjective, but I am NOT a fan of the Frostbite engine. I don't know what the average frames per second of this game is on 360, but you try and get yourself used to it... then go to something that is known for it's solid 60fps like a CoD... and you shake your head in disbelief. All that graphical dumbing down and you would think it would at least bring a solid FPS, you know? MoH even lacks the one impressive feature of the games it plays identical to, Bad Company, the highly destructible environments. It's still in effect, but with the explosives being so weak that no one uses them and less in the way of vehicles... you never see it. The player movement... feels like a first person Gears of War, the lack of movement during a sprint and the somewhat throttled aiming.
I agree with everything but the graphics (up to a point). I thought the environments were gorgeous, and the lighting effects even better. I was surprised when I saw the lighting and shadows in single player. But the character animations were a bit bland, and seemed to lag a little after hopping down off of a ledge or the like..
The engine is (apparently) Frostbite 1.5, the same engine that BFBC2 uses. I really do think the explosives are majorly unbalanced, except for the grenades which can be annoyingly powerful at times. But for RPGs and the like, it seems like you need to make direct contact with an individual to kill them. Something that I hope will be at least patched.
And I did notice the sprinting in single player. It seemed like you moved at the same speed just walking, and I found myself sliding constantly just to move faster.
I personally like my FPS games at 30fps moreso than 60fps, it's just way too fast.
So you're saying Bad Company 2 has but one impressive feature?
Gameplay that isn't based completely around shooting bad guys
Destruction (the 'one' impressive feature you pointed out)
Weapon Proficiency Stars
Some of these may seem like minscule details, but the only reason I'm playing past General of the Army (besides the amazing gameplay/ maps) are weapon stars.
From what I've playing of the Medal of Honor single player, it sucks. I really think I would rate it a 5.75/10.
The multiplayer, for me, is a 10/10. The only real problem with it is the small amount of content, but that really isn't a huge problem: BC2 came out 2 years ago with very little unlocks and I'm still playing that.
Your bias is showing. Nice sig.
Just because I like the Battlefield series doesn't mean I am biased.
I didn't portray bias in any way in my post.
*engage debate mode*
If an impartial discussion about a single topic is going on,
and a well known supporter of that topic joins in and makes ambiguous comments
in support of the topic (whilst being sure not to bring up their career
involvement with it in the course of discussion, but wearing a T-shirt
endorsing it) does that mean they aren't bias?
You love Battlefield, that's fine. I'm not one to argue
against a fan of a series (read: fanboy) because you're allowed to love any
game you want - whether it is universally lower reviewed than its competition
or not. However... with BF1943, BC, and
BC2 on your PSN and no other FPS (forget
about the fact that BC2 is the only title you've collected a platinum trophy
for, and you've posted it on your profile as your third favorite game of all
time)… yes sir, your bias is showing.
Now… with all that out of the way... I was hoping I wouldn't
even have to argue on this point, but let’s delve into the impressive features
of BC2, shall we? (Ugh, this was supposed to be a MoH thread)
Squad Play: The
ability to play as a group? I thought every single multiplayer shooter allows
this, or are you referring to the ability to isolate your group of yourself and
3 friends from the rest of your team?
Gameplay that isn't
based completely around shooting bad guys: Uhh...? Are we comparing to the
FPS of 2000 or something? Last I checked, every FPS has many many modes besides deathmatch... and on
that note - isn't BC2 well below median on variety of gameplay? THREE game
modes? Rush, Conquest, Deathmatch… I guess 4 if you want to count the DLC only
Onslaught mode, or I’ll even give you a dirty 5 if you want to count Squad Rush
as its own thing. I won’t bring up the number of modes available from the
competition to keep things civil.
enough. Battlefield games have always done vehicles well, no one can deny that.
'one' impressive feature you pointed out): I guess we can make it one of two
now. Blasting apart cover is cool to look at, and an interesting idea, but also
makes for a quickly devolved battlefield.
Ranking System: Am
I missing something here? What games don’t have this? But I’ll be fair here,
and say maybe you were talking about the stat tracking? That is indeed very
cool for a game to have all that data handy, I do wish other titles would implement
full stat tracking.
Maps: Surely the
quantity of maps isn’t what you’re referring to… a total of 10 maps that aren’t
even coded to support all game modes. What is impressive about the maps? The
scale is somewhat unique (See: MAG, Frontlines,
Quake Wars, FarCry 2, Operation Flashpoint, Tribes series, Section 8 – should probably
count Halo Reach and Resistance 2 as well) to the title as most of the competition
opts for tighter more competition friendly map design…
Dog Tags: Do you
really consider a list of people you’ve killed with melee an impressive
feature? I guess we should fold that into stat tracking.
Stars: Same answer as for dog tags… only I will also note that a weapon
skin is certainly more interesting and rewarding than a number of stars next to
your weapon when you kill someone.
Wrapping up: So there you have it, I forgot a few things so I will bring up my count of cool features from
BC2 from 1 to 1.75. Stat tracking gets a full point, destruction gets half
a point and vehicles get a quarter point - because as cool as tanks and blowing
up walls may be, it makes for a much less competition friendly shooter... which is why I played DICE games for a week to a month, and other franchises for months, or years.
You are a hypocrite: calling me biased when you, yourself, show complete bias in your post.
And I guess Half-Life 2, Team Fortress 2, and CoD4 aren't shooters?
I was just offended by your saying that BC2 has one good feature so I argued that it has many great features.
This is a MoH thread...not a BC2 thread.
Universally lower reviewed? Who actually takes critics' opinions and uses them to decide whether to buy a game or not? The critics are idiots and overlooked many errors in the MW series because of hype...if EA hyped their shooter games up as much as Activision does with theirs (but ignores the actually great games in the roster, like Singularity), the games would recieve higher ratings.
Also, BF just isn't as mainstream as the CoD series. There are some elements that are different and reviewers perciever as wrong, which is incorrect and subjective.
So I guess now you can't buy multiple games from a series without being called a fanboy...I guess now I'm a CoD fanboy, an Uncharted fanboy, a Zelda fanboy, a Mario fanboy, etc.
In order of their appearance:
Where does my bias lie, exactly? Unlike yourself (as previously mentioned) my play history between 3 platforms will show time spent with almost every worthwhile shooter in the past 4 years... before gamer tags and stat tracking it was games like Delta Force, Counterstrike, Quake 3, Unreal Tournament, etc.
Where am I denying the existence of HL2, TF2, or CoD?
It was you who changed the topic to BC2
(This next one is just a doozy) Who takes critics reviews to decide whether to buy a game or not... umm, everyone? What is there to take into consideration besides reviews when purchasing something? The marketing from the company releasing the product...? If you're sold by marketing more than reviews... enjoy having an empty wallet, I guess.
Edit: I just got finished listening to the Game Informer Online podcast on Medal of Honor... if you haven't, you should give it a listen.
If EA hyped their games as much as Activision... do you want me to give you time to withdraw that statement, or shall I go ahead and start collecting quotes from devs and the publishers alike tied to EA products? Obviously you're referring to CoD with that statement, and that franchise requires absolutely zero in the way of marketing...
BF isn't as mainstream as CoD... because they don't want to be, or the gameplay doesn't resonate with as many people...?
And finally... you are absolutely not a fanboy of any other franchise, according to the cold hard facts presented by your 1: PSN activity, 2: Forum signature... and looking over your profile again I just realized I am arguing with a 15 year old -_-
At first i thought the online multiplayer for MOH was pretty awesome, but after getting spawned sniped 3 times in a row by de same guy because of de crap spawning system and having many BS moments, i think de multiplayer is barely decent. The only time you have fun is when you snipe and play sector control. Still i have to say dat de score chain system is a nice feature and de fact dat RPGs and AT4s dont have as big of an explosive radius as MW2 is great because people wont go running around wif blowing u up or noobtubing u like in MW2 which has really killed dat game.
in de last line i forgot to write de words i quoted: running around wif "RPGs/AT4s" blowing u up or noobtubing u like in MW2 which has really killed dat game.
I really enjoyed MoH, from single player to multi. It can definitely use improvements, but you can say that about EVERY game.
@AVENGERLDZ That was so hard to read it was ridiculous. That must have been just as hard to write. I applaud you.