Medal of Honor (2010 reboot)

I'd like to at least play it at some point. With Black Ops so close there's no way I'm going to be buying it. Two different games I know but still, I already own Battlefield: BC2.

Hopefully I can find a friend with a copy cause I would like to give it a try.

I actually enjoy this game.

Civ, if you find it too easy, play Tier 1. You're timed, it's on hard, and no unlimited ammo banks, and if you die you restart the level.

Well I think it's time to ask this question.

Would a fan of the previous MOH game series enjoy this game? From an outside perspective it looks like a Hybrid of COD MW2+ Battlefield Bad Company 2, not something I'm sure I'd enjoy.

Rotaretilbo wrote:CoD was essentially a MoH rip off.

You are aware Infinity Ward created both series right? They then made CoD because it let them do their own thing without strict limitations on content from the publisher.

KristallNacht wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote:CoD was essentially a MoH rip off.

You are aware Infinity Ward created both series right? They then made CoD because it let them do their own thing without strict limitations on content from the publisher.

There were part of the MOH team, not the complete team and they left after Allied Assault, long before MOH really hit it's prime.

Ruski wrote:MG42? Uh, I believe your talking about either the PKM or M249. Does the amount of difficulties matter? I mean Easy, Medium and Hard are essentially every kind of difficulty. You didn't use the iron sights on your gun and it was pathetically inaccurate? Of course it's going to be inaccurate!

My point was that I could march through on one of the more difficulty playing levels without any problem because I have a super gun that, without even aiming, can annihilate wave after wave of enemies.

[quote="Ruski"]I agree slightly on the first point here, as this did happen to me a few times. But your mad that the enemy can get head shots on you?[.quote]
Yes, the enemy can head shot you. I watched it happen to my friend several times before experiencing it myself.

Ruski wrote:Again, it's not an MG24.

Eh, same idea.

Ruski wrote:The ammo banks point only applies if you do not have a weapon that was of enemy origin. But yes, it's a bit crazy.

I didn't even try an enemy weapon. Why use anything but my not-MG42?

Ruski wrote:You don't play as Russians.....and I'd like to say this. The game takes place in the early days of Afghanistan. I'm sorry if you encounter too many enemies. Let's just forget that "The Whale" and Shah-i-Kot Valley had totalled over 1,000 insergents at the time.

I didn't really pay much attention to the story. And I wasn't complaining about the amount of enemies.

Ruski wrote:No, to be honest, this game is different from CoD. CoD simply goes out of it's way to rip shit up. At least MoH was vaguely based on reality.

This game has very little resemblance to realism. Sure, it LOOKS real, but so did your mom from across the room

I don't play games for realism. In REAL war, you can't blast your way through the Japanese lines with an alien ray gun. In REAL war, you can't rip through enemies with your chainsaw bayonet. In REAL war, you can't go from dogfighting in a state-of-the-art space ship to boarding an alien cruiser, drop off some explosives, and enjoy the fireworks. REAL war is crap. I play games for fun.

I'm not saying this game is DEVOID of fun. In fact, I'm not saying COD is devoid of fun. My problem with CoD is that it's old. The system hasn't changed, it hasn't advanced. It's still cashing in on an idea from the stone age of console gaming. MoH is a fun game, it's just... the same; and the same bores me.

Rotaretilbo wrote:I'm with Ruski on this one. Your complaints seem reminiscent to the complaints profered by Treyarch when we talked to them at e3. I mean, you're upset that if you get shot in the head, you die? Remember when it was heavily stressed that MoH was going to focus on realism?

What? No. Where did you get that analogy?

And no, I don't remember that because I never payed attention to this game before release.

Rotaretilbo wrote:I would also point out that CoD followed MoH to the letter, back in the day, so it isn't exactly surprising that MoH is like CoD, since CoD was essentially a MoH rip off.

I'm not trying to accuse MoH of copying CoD. Perhaps "follow" was the wrong term. Mirrors? I'm just trying to say that MoH bares an uncanny resemblance to recent CoDs; would you disagree?

Angatar wrote:Civ, if you find it too easy, play Tier 1. You're timed, it's on hard, and no unlimited ammo banks, and if you die you restart the level.

See... this seems like a good way to make me frustrated. Frustrating =/= Challenging.

CivBase wrote:My point was that I could march through on one of the more difficulty playing levels without any problem because I have a super gun that, without even aiming, can annihilate wave after wave of enemies.

Like Ruski said, play on Tier 1, and that shit won't happen.

CivBase wrote:Yes, the enemy can head shot you. I watched it happen to my friend several times before experiencing it myself.

You missed the point entirely. No one is saying it doesn't happen. We're saying "so what?" and "that makes sense."

CivBase wrote:This game has very little resemblance to realism. Sure, it LOOKS real, but so did your mom from across the room

Care to make an assertion and then support it, too? I can't really pick apart the inherently flawed argument if you don't give me anything to actually pick apart (though the act of not giving support itself allows me to pick it apart, so I don't mind too much).

CivBase wrote:I don't play games for realism. In REAL war, you can't blast your way through the Japanese lines with an alien ray gun. In REAL war, you can't rip through enemies with your chainsaw bayonet. In REAL war, you can't go from dogfighting in a state-of-the-art space ship to boarding an alien cruiser, drop off some explosives, and enjoy the fireworks. REAL war is crap. I play games for fun.

We're talking about two entirely different genres here. On one hand, we have science fiction, which doesn't have to be realistic to today's information, but has to be realistic in some manners. On the other, we have historical shooters, which are expected to be fucking realistic.

CivBase wrote:I'm not saying this game is DEVOID of fun. In fact, I'm not saying COD is devoid of fun. My problem with CoD is that it's old. The system hasn't changed, it hasn't advanced. It's still cashing in on an idea from the stone age of console gaming. MoH is a fun game, it's just... the same; and the same bores me.

Oh, CoD has changed. It just hasn't changed for the better. The original CoD, the expansion, and CoD2 (or so I've heard) are amazing games. Modern Warfare was decent, but everything after that...meh.

CivBase wrote:What? No. Where did you get that analogy?

I got it from Treyarch when I was at e3. They complained that enemies could one-hit kill you with a headshot, that grenades didn't fly very far, and that your character felt bulky. We laughed and pointed out that a bullet to the head should kill you, that grenades are heavy as fuck, and that soldiers wear like sixty pounds of gear.

CivBase wrote:And no, I don't remember that because I never payed attention to this game before release.

Ya. At the top of the food chain when it came to what went in and didn't go into MoH were actual Tier 1 Operators. Actually military personnel with actual military experience got to decide what went into the game.

CivBase wrote:I'm not trying to accuse MoH of copying CoD. Perhaps "follow" was the wrong term. Mirrors? I'm just trying to say that MoH bares an uncanny resemblance to recent CoDs; would you disagree?

In the sense that both are set in time periods maybe two decades apart, are shooters, and have a handful of similar multiplayer game types, perhaps.

CivBase wrote:See... this seems like a good way to make me frustrated. Frustrating =/= Challenging.

No, I'm pretty sure frustrating == challenging. The catharsis of beating a challenging mission comes from the pent up frustration.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

CivBase wrote:This game has very little resemblance to realism. Sure, it LOOKS real, but so did your mom from across the room

are you really trying to say this stuff is like real war?

when was the last time you saw a realism shooter that actually applied some concept of weapon weight? where fights ended in moments and 20 mags were spent to get like 2 kills?

like civ said. War sucks, thus 'realism' shooters should never even stress realism. cause they always fail anyway.

KristallNacht wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote:

CivBase wrote:This game has very little resemblance to realism. Sure, it LOOKS real, but so did your mom from across the room

are you really trying to say this stuff is like real war?

when was the last time you saw a realism shooter that actually applied some concept of weapon weight? where fights ended in moments and 20 mags were spent to get like 2 kills?

Are you kidding?

That describes Madden 11 down to a "t"

KristallNacht wrote:are you really trying to say this stuff is like real war?

when was the last time you saw a realism shooter that actually applied some concept of weapon weight? where fights ended in moments and 20 mags were spent to get like 2 kills?

like civ said. War sucks, thus 'realism' shooters should never even stress realism. cause they always fail anyway.

Fair enough. But MoH is more realistic than other most other games.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

KristallNacht wrote:are you really trying to say this stuff is like real war?

when was the last time you saw a realism shooter that actually applied some concept of weapon weight? where fights ended in moments and 20 mags were spent to get like 2 kills?

like civ said. War sucks, thus 'realism' shooters should never even stress realism. cause they always fail anyway.

Fair enough. But MoH is more realistic than other most other games.

War sucks in real life. Games are there to give things a lighter mood, and to just fuck around in. Video games shouldn't be realistic.

@NT: In MW2, weapons had different weights. i.e., an MG would make you slower than if you were holding an M9.

When I said "based on reality", I meant as in story for the most part.

Nocbl2 wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote:

KristallNacht wrote:are you really trying to say this stuff is like real war?

when was the last time you saw a realism shooter that actually applied some concept of weapon weight? where fights ended in moments and 20 mags were spent to get like 2 kills?

like civ said. War sucks, thus 'realism' shooters should never even stress realism. cause they always fail anyway.

Fair enough. But MoH is more realistic than other most other games.

War sucks in real life. Games are there to give things a lighter mood, and to just fuck around in. Video games shouldn't be realistic.

@NT: In MW2, weapons had different weights. i.e., an MG would make you slower than if you were holding an M9.

Barretts do not weigh as much as an MP5, nevermind an MP5K.

Also, you were only affected by the weapon you started with. You can pick-up a Riot Shield when you started with an SMG and you'll move the same speed as before.

Yeah but you get his point though. They at least tried.

Rotaretilbo wrote:Like Ruski said, play on Tier 1, and that shit won't happen.

I responded to that.

Rotaretilbo wrote:You missed the point entirely. No one is saying it doesn't happen. We're saying "so what?" and "that makes sense."

And you're missing my point entirely as well. I'm not saying that it doesn't make sense; it's just a stupid feature. No matter what I do, there's always that chance that an enemy lands a lucky shot and I start over.

Rotaretilbo wrote:Care to make an assertion and then support it, too? I can't really pick apart the inherently flawed argument if you don't give me anything to actually pick apart (though the act of not giving support itself allows me to pick it apart, so I don't mind too much).

You're a walking bullet magnet that can carry five times your weight in lead. Blood falls off your face after a few seconds under cover. You're engaging in face-to-face warfare with a guerrilla army. The guns don't even kick (at least, not the ones I've used - including the not-MG42). Sure, it has a more realistic storyline and is very well researched, but the PREMISE of the game is not realistic in the least.

Rotaretilbo wrote:We're talking about two entirely different genres here. On one hand, we have science fiction, which doesn't have to be realistic to today's information, but has to be realistic in some manners. On the other, we have historical shooters, which are expected to be fucking realistic.

My first example was Nazis. You CAN'T make a good realistic game. I mean, you can, but it would be horrible. Real war isn't fun. Most of the time that ISN'T spent doing grunt work you're either fighting for your life against horrible odds or you can't even find who you're supposed to shoot at.

Rotaretilbo wrote:Oh, CoD has changed. It just hasn't changed for the better. The original CoD, the expansion, and CoD2 (or so I've heard) are amazing games. Modern Warfare was decent, but everything after that...meh.

I have all of the CoDs aside from #1. Not much has changed; it just got old after a while.

Rotaretilbo wrote:I got it from Treyarch when I was at e3. They complained that enemies could one-hit kill you with a headshot, that grenades didn't fly very far, and that your character felt bulky. We laughed and pointed out that a bullet to the head should kill you, that grenades are heavy as fuck, and that soldiers wear like sixty pounds of gear.

I only have a problem with the first one, and that's only because it's a terrible feature. TECHNICALLY, a bullet ANYWHERE will make it much more difficult to fight back and, if you're unlucky it'll just kill you. Most people wont survive after the second and third.

If you're going to include headshots for enemies, you may as well have each shot force you to be unable to fight back for a few seconds and severely decrease your aim thereafter. Sometimes these single shots should be fatal. Oh, and if you take any shots, you're probably going back to a field hospital, so you loose anyway.

Rotaretilbo wrote:Ya. At the top of the food chain when it came to what went in and didn't go into MoH were actual Tier 1 Operators. Actually military personnel with actual military experience got to decide what went into the game.

It's still just a game, though.

Rotaretilbo wrote:No, I'm pretty sure frustrating == challenging. The catharsis of beating a challenging mission comes from the pent up frustration.

That's not true. There is a fine line between frustrating and challenging. Challenging is where you are forced to take a new, less familiar approach. Something that's frustration is where the only way to get through something is with dumb luck. Challenges require thought.



Now, so we don't have any misunderstandings, I think realism is okay. In fact, I think a game like this should STRIVE for realism. BUT, gameplay cannot be sacrificed for realism. It's a game first, documentary last.

Nocbl2 wrote:

@NT: In MW2, weapons had different weights. i.e., an MG would make you slower than if you were holding an M9.

but what you don't realize is the M240G (one of the common MGs in MW2) weighs 24 lbs without its tripod and the tripod weighs another 20lbs to stabilize it. And that's BEFORE you add 200+ round ammo drums. The weapon is meant to be employed by a gunner an A gunner from an overwatch position.

KristallNacht wrote:

Nocbl2 wrote:

@NT: In MW2, weapons had different weights. i.e., an MG would make you slower than if you were holding an M9.

but what you don't realize is the M240G (one of the common MGs in MW2) weighs 24 lbs without its tripod and the tripod weighs another 20lbs to stabilize it. And that's BEFORE you add 200+ round ammo drums. The weapon is meant to be employed by a gunner an A gunner from an overwatch position.

Not to mention that in the altitude in which Afghanistan is, the weight feels a lot heavier. I read a book recently about a soldier's experience in the first few years of Afghanistan, and he talked about how, traditionally, 60-80 pounds of equipment felt like 120+. So that weight would be even heavier in a sence, bolstering NT's point.

Civ, why are you saying Tier 1 is frustating if you've never even tried it?

I've made no such claim. I said it SOUNDS like it would be frustrating.