You guys do realize that no one plays BF1942 with AI, right? The AI sucks, but that doens't make it a bad game, because you're supposed to play the multiplayer. I'm not even sure why they included the single player.

And maybe the AI in CoD sucked, but it still had amazing atmosphere. If you just kind of ignore your teammates except for when they tell you what to do, it's an amazing game. The atmosphere and tension was so perfect. Especially if you play with the Exreme-Realism mod with the lights out. That was one of my most intense gaming experiences ever.

Heck, I can't even download the update, much less play well online with my current connection..so I actually play singleplayer a bit.

[QUOTE=Commander 598]I doubt that. CoD didn't exactly have impressively large maps, CoD2's maps will probably be under 2km. The viewdistance will probably be below 500m most of the time(I can set Flashpoints to 2500m and still play it).

I like being able to spot that enemy tank column long before it can spot me, and have plenty of room to go around it.

CoD2's AI probably won't be any real different from CoD's AI, it's greatest tactic is side-stepping and diving away from and on grenades, and alot of scripted stuff. I like immersive games, I like realistic immersive games even better.[/QUOTE]

"Your squadmates in Call of Duty 2 are much more useful than in the original. Along with better-looking characters and much-more-advanced squad AI, we have an all-new battle chatter system. This allows your squadmates to inform you of information happening in the game. The chatter is context-sensitive and specific to points within each level. If the enemy happens to be behind a wrecked car, your squad will call out "Germans behind that wrecked car." To make sure it was fully utilized, we recorded over 20,000 lines for use with the system."

"Germans in Call of Duty 2 move around much more this time. In addition to them running from cover to cover, in order to close in on you, groups of them will even break off from a firefight to flank around behind you. Both sides are also much smarter about grenades. When an enemy (including you) ducks behind some cover, both sides will often respond by tossing a couple of frag grenades at him. You will also see both sides using smoke grenades as portable concealment in order to cross dangerous areas. Another major advancement is that suppression works much better. When you fire close to an enemy, you will literally see him immediately duck down and stay down. But be careful, because you're not the only one laying down suppressing fire now; both sides will actively try to suppress each other."

" A lot of the missions are nonlinear in Call of Duty 2, allowing you to direct the gameplay to your desired style. The open environments enable you to take multiple paths to complete the mission objectives. And remember that the objectives can be met out of order. So you have the chance to use actual military tactics, like outflanking and firing and maneuvering, as the action dictates. Playing the mission a second time using different tactics would result in a different play experience. There are still objectives that your squad will need to complete in order to finish the mission. So the replayability is high and will vary depending on how you undertake the missions."


Yup, JUST like CoD1. Stop being ignorant.

I'm with Sol. How can you diss a title that hasn't even come out when the company has made ONE FRIGGIN GAME (and they didn't even make the expansion pack).

I just have a hard time believing that CoD2 can be somewhat revolutionary, since the last few WW2 games have been pretty much the same thing. I loved playing MOHAA and CoD, but when you think about it there isn't much difference in gameplay.

How does MOHPA compare to CoD? I never played it or the demo, but I heard it was supposed to be fairly non-linear.

barly worth the cd its burned to

[QUOTE=Commander 598]I just have a hard time believing that CoD2 can be somewhat revolutionary, since the last few WW2 games have been pretty much the same thing. I loved playing MOHAA and CoD, but when you think about it there isn't much difference in gameplay.

How does MOHPA compare to CoD? I never played it or the demo, but I heard it was supposed to be fairly non-linear.[/QUOTE]

CoD was revolutionary in its atmosphere and portrayal of characters. CoD2 will be much like this, only set in the African theater. So far as I know, no WW2 game (with a REAL singleplayer mode, not just...bots...) has done this or at least it hasn't done it well enough to be acclaimed. And there's tons of differences in gameplay...no not core gameplay, but then you're talking about the FPS genre in general.

MoHPA got decent reviews, but that's only if you can get it to run.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]It did? I could've sworn it made the game dull, stupid, and just another "LOL SHOOT AT THAT THING BEFORE IT KILLS YOU" game which...well to be honest is not what it was made for.[/QUOTE]


Ditto. I was having all kinds of fun till the stupid monsters showed up and I had to fight underground for ever, Doom III style. The cry engine stinks at that but the mappers seems to have no idea of this. I'm finally outside again killing mercs.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]
MoHPA got decent reviews, but that's only if you can get it to run.[/QUOTE]

EA acctually admited theyed have to rebuild pretty much the entire game in order to fix some of the major bugs in PA

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]BF42 has enough historical accuracy. Some innacuracies obviously need to be made to balance out the playing field.[/QUOTE]

Quite true. I just think if there are going to be inaccuracies, just don't make them too obvious. Like giving an American soldier a British gun, prehaps. Or, during a reenactment of some well-known battle, putting odd or strange additions to the scene.

Oh no, you seem to be mistaken. Your opinion is just wrong.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]CoD was revolutionary in its atmosphere and portrayal of characters.
[/QUOTE]

True... But it only goes so far...



Or a Soviet soldier a British rifle and an obsolete German SMG. The MP18 is incredibly pathetic compared to a Ppsh 41.



Like turning the grassy plains of Kursk into a pine valley? You could barely fly a plane for the trees...


I'd like to take this time to point out pure laziness by the modelers of these games. Play CoD's Soviet campaign and look at the rifle bolt on the standard Mosin Nagant M91/30, it's not supposed to be curved. In the countless photos of standard Soviet infantry for the time period, all but the sniper models have straight bolts. Either the game devs keep passing around the same reference material or they just lazily copy and paste it from a K98 model. What makes it even more annoying is that I actually have one, and it qualifies as a favorite.


Edit: Far Cry's monsters were great until you realized they were every ten feet, and every twenty feet they carried rocket launchers... Whatever happened to jumping out of the shadows and maiming you with claws?

Historical accuracy + BF1942 = Forgotten Hope

Good stuff, that.
New skins for different theatres of operation/units. New vehicles, weapons, tanks, and airplanes. Want a kill-denying parachute? You'll have to pick up the pilot kit that only gives you a pistol/knife set. Flak 88 cannon that can switch between HE and AA-burst shells. Slower traverse speeds for tank turrets. Airplanes armed with 8 machineguns (such as the P51 Mustang) will actually fire from 8 gunports. The BF109's actually get to fire their nose-mounted 15mm cannon, or the Zeros their two wingmounted 20mm cannon. Fighters won't carry 15 bombs. Torpedo bombers only have one torpedo. The Polish! The French! The Finnish! Portable LMG's (30cal, Bren-gun, DP 28, Type 99, MG34, MG42). Bullets and shells realistically drop and lose energy (do less damage) noticeably over range. Driveable TRACTORS! Primitive Anti-tank rifles that are great fun for disabling Pzkfw II's or other early-war tanks, or you can just plink away at bipedal targets or thoroughly demolish cars and trucks. A heavy .45 slug'll fly slower and drop sooner than a 7.92 cartridge. And that's only the tip of the iceberg.

The visibility is still much too poor for proper ship to ship combat or realistic air to air combat. Battleships didn't engage each other at just beyond extreme rifle-range. Fly at a proper altitude and you'll never see the ground either (and you'll stall too).

Less popular than Desert Combat, which means that there are less griefers/whiners/abusers/trolls too. A cross between COD, Red Orchestra and BF1942 then.

Commander--it only goes so far? I thought it was the highlight of most games, atmosphere, putting you into the scene, making you feel like it really is you playing. True there were some inaccuracies, but not many (that weapon you said was pathetic was actually quite good. I never liked the PPSH anyways.) And the modellers are lazy? God forbid they screw up ONE RIFLE. It's not like there aren't 30 or 40 different weapons throughout the game--the fact that they screw up one modelled weapon is a horrible atrocity! Burn them!

The modellers are not lazy, and Call of Duty itSELF is a testament to this. No matter what you say about it, you can't say that the models were not beautiful, were not stunning, the graphical effects were not all in order and in place, everything about the game was just so awesome it's not even funny. Call of Duty may not have been 100% historically accurate, but it did its job and did it well telling about everyone from the 101st to the british RAF (in the expansion). I think all the thing you nitpick about CoD is just minor, minor stuff that really doesn't matter to the game at all. At least SAJN nitpicked something that DOES matter to the game.

Perhaps I should have said "It only goes so far to make it stand out compared to the others...". It had only a bit more atmosphere than MOHAA, and thats because you weren't by yourself for over half the game.



As compared to something with a high rate of fire, low recoil, and a 71 round mag? Not really.



Doesn't the term "nitpick" convey that it's minor? I thought that it was pretty obvious that I was nitpicking something minor anyway. It just agravates me everytime I see that curved bolt turn when i'm so used to seeing myself turning a straight bolt. I personally see it as laziness since they just made one bolt that would fit two rifles, the only difference between a Nagant and it's sniper counterpart is a scope and a downturned bolt, they only modeled a downturned bolt. It was the same in MOH Spearhead and if BF1942 actually had Russian weapons it would be the same there.

It destroyed MOHAA as far as ambience goes, don't even start there.

The PPSH is okay, but it's all in how you use the weapons. Even though the M4 in CS:S is much better on paper than the AK, the AK is still able to produce just as good if not BETTER results than the M4. It's ALL IN HOW YOU USE THE WEAPON YOU'RE GIVEN.

And the PPSH sucks after a few shots anyways.

You can't tell me that Omaha Beach wasn't atmospheric. I don't exactly remember the rest of it...

I'm not saying it wasn't, but MOHAA hardly had the atmosphere of Call of Duty. I mean, the Russian retaking of Red Square ALONE destroys MOHAA in the atmosphere department.

^ He speaks the truth. I recently played MoHAA for the first time a while ago and it really wasn't that fun compared to CoD. Maybe if I had played MOHAA first I would have liked it better, but I really didn't notice that much atmosphere.

MoH:AA and the Brit campaign (save the bridge defense) have the same atmoshpere.

The bridge defense was rawk.

Yep. Looks exactly like Pegasus Bridge. I mean exactly.