Medal of Honor

[Steel]

So steam tells me this came out today.

Does the fact there is no thread yet mean that its so good nobody had a chance to leave yet, or was it just uninteresting and nobody bought it?

[Edward Yee]

Those "Tier 1 Operators" must've only consulted on the single-player portion, from what I can tell, otherwise there'd never have been this much spotting and marking targets in SP.

I did hear that the sniping at least as shown in "Friends From Afar" isn't that realistic though, i.e. how high you have to aim to compensate for bullet drop on certain long range shots (do you even?).

[Stark]

I doubt anyone cares, since nobody buys a Medal of Explosion game for realism. Is anyone playing it? I know my man Hotfoot is playing Tango Down instead ...

[CaptHawkeye]

All the reviews say it's a terrible, bog standard corridor stroller. IE: Exactly like what we all knew it would be.

[weemadando]

I played the MP beta for an hour or two and kind of enjoyed it as it offered an interesting middle ground between BFBC2 and MW2 in terms of gameplay that I found fit quite well.

[Stark]

What are the differences between BC2 and MW2 that aren't 'MW2 is broken'?

But yeah I had no interest in even looking at this game; CoD is probably going to suck but MoH was always going to suck.

[Edward Yee]

Ironically that may be why others disliked it -- they're too wedded to one or the other style. Unfortunately sounds like Dragon Rising to me, though I'll give the single-player a try just because.

[CaptHawkeye]

I played the MP beta for an hour or two and kind of enjoyed it as it offered an interesting middle ground between BFBC2 and MW2 in terms of gameplay that I found fit quite well.

Their wasn't really any "middle ground" at all though. It was just a stripped down version of Bad Company 2 with no really new or unique features.

[weemadando]

I played the MP beta for an hour or two and kind of enjoyed it as it offered an interesting middle ground between BFBC2 and MW2 in terms of gameplay that I found fit quite well.

Their wasn't really any "middle ground" at all though. It was just a stripped down version of Bad Company 2 with no really new or unique features.

It played a touch faster than BC2 and seemed to be slightly less instantly lethal in many cases but wihtout having a lot of the perk based bullet sponging that you get in MW2.

[General Zod]

Meh, I can't be bothered to check MOH out; I think MW2 essentially killed my interest in "realistic" fps games. Fallout New Vegas coming out next week anyway.

[Chaotic Neutral]

The lack of weapon variety is what kills it for me, I like having a dozen different choices.

[Stark]

Even when they're not meaningful? BC2 is one of the few games that actually gives a sense that guns are more than identical or a linear progression from 'crap' to 'good'.

[weemadando]

Indeed, the fact that most modern weapons are more or less equal shouldn't come as a shock to people. It's hilarious to me when you have games which go: "LOL! THE AUG HAS RANGE OF 2m! JUST BECAUSE!"

[Mr. Coffee]

Ain't thi game supposed to be billing itself as being more of a tacticool realism game than "Generic Mod-Mil Shooter Mk. III"? If so then not having a shitload of ridiculous gun options and stupid shit like gold plated AKs makes sense.

[Chaotic Neutral]

That would make sense, if the damage values weren't about equal to BC2.

[Tolya]

Its a piece of shit. Imagine Operation Flashpoint:Dragon Rising as a corridor stroller. Fugly scenery, no storyline (as far as I can tell), basically you shoot some taliban because your buddies shoot them too.

Serves those EA motherfuckers right. I hope the old duo does the next CoD:MW right.

[CaptHawkeye]

This is probably the last Medal of Honor game that will ever be developed. Thank god. If that series was unable to move and adapt with the times then it deserves to crash and burn.

The development of this entire game just reeked of cash-in to me. If you listen to the developers they REALLY thought the key to a good shooter was just to set in a modern era as opposed to World War 2. Could it be that the quality of a game is not reliant upon its setting and narrative and far more reliant upon the overall design and quality of its gameplay?

COULD BE.

[Edward Yee]

If that were entirely the case, World at War deserves to have been more popular than it was, but in the store where I work, customers' opinions of that game came down to them preferring "modern guns" and finding the return to World War II guns a negative*, but liking Nazi Zombies.

* Maybe polling data like this influenced EA's decision to hop on the bandwagon? Difference was, customers at my store didn't speak ill of the setting, just the guns, for being "World War II."

[CaptHawkeye]

A lot of consumer criticism aimed at World War 2 games has been created *by* the game journalists. (IE: Poisoning the Well) Yet again showing their ability to sway consumer opinion about things they shouldn't give a shit about.

EDIT: I really have to struggle not to laugh at consumers preferring "modern guns" to world war 2 guns. zomg picatannyzzzz.

[Vympel]

Tried it at my brother's place last night. Its pretty dull. I played the level where you suppress an MG nest to pop smoke so F-15Es bomb the area, it just felt ... flat.

[Edward Yee]

EDIT: I really have to struggle not to laugh at consumers preferring "modern guns" to world war 2 guns. zomg picatannyzzzz.

I haven't thought to ask them the WHY, as the only reasonable answer I can think of, gameplay-wise, would that if a WW II game is anywhere near historically accurate that there's only the StG-44, SMGs and MGs for full-automatic small arms. If it really IS for aesthetic reasons, though...

I admit that perhaps for this reason, I've been telling customers Black Ops tends towards "earlier versions" of some of the weapons from CoD4/MW2, albeit in a few cases in AR form (i.e. the Steyr AUG being a proper AR in Black Ops instead of an "automatic rifle" LMG).

Vympel - maybe they overdid the realism?

[chitoryu12]

Ain't thi game supposed to be billing itself as being more of a tacticool realism game than "Generic Mod-Mil Shooter Mk. III"? If so then not having a shitload of ridiculous gun options and stupid shit like gold plated AKs makes sense.

I've checked out the entire campaign start to finish. The missions are more realistic only in that you don't have quite as much one-man army shit as the previous Medal of Honor games, and now you've actually got a squad with you for almost the whole game. The missions are basically game-fied versions of the most exciting real-life stuff: fighting across the mountains with your squad, long-range killing of mortars with Apaches and .50 caliber rifles, etc. Just with a few dozen more enemies than most soldiers would ever end up personally killing.

Even when they're not meaningful? BC2 is one of the few games that actually gives a sense that guns are more than identical or a linear progression from 'crap' to 'good'.

I'm mostly an anti-armor player, and after I got the SCAR-L I didn't care two shits about the rest of the guns (Apparently the SCAR is a submachine gun. Who knew?) because for all the experience it takes to unlock them they do worse damage per round and waste ammo faster. If two players of equal skill both run into each other and one has a SCAR-L and the other has an Uzi, which takes thousands of experience points more to unlock, the SCAR will win simply because it puts out more raw damage. Their pathetic attempt at "balancing" seems to be to take any gun that has worse damage and give it a faster fire rate (which is harder to keep on target) or marginally better accuracy (which in gameplay terms is barely noticeable).

[Stark]

That's pretty strange, in BC2 they're able to give you a range of guns with some meaningful differences.

[chitoryu12]

That's pretty strange, in BC2 they're able to give you a range of guns with some meaningful differences.

I tested out all the submachine guns I've unlocked. The SCAR-L still beats out all of them because the individual rounds are so much more powerful. With the faster shooting ones, they're harder to keep on target. The ones that, according to the stats, have better accuracy don't have any noticeable difference when shooting targets, both fixed and moving. I've literally got no reason to use the next three guns I unlock for that class.

Beyond that class, I honestly don't notice all the individual differences. Hell, I only have the M24 and Type 88 sniper rifles, and I use the T88 simply because it's semi-auto and I don't have to worry about losing track of my target while loading the next shot.

[Stark]

That's what I mean; the differences between guns in BC2 are significant enough to make a difference, but not so much that taste or role isn't important. Some of the guns suck, but amusingly they're often the higher-end guns. I prefer the 'worst' LMG for instance, due to its single-shot accuracy and high damage, even though it's low ROF and huge reload time mean I always get ruled at close range.