Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Never again!!!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Paul Mann III
    replied
    Originally posted by Nokturnal View Post
    But the point i was trying to make was i prefer MoH as it allows you to move at your own pace and pick off the enemies before advancing. Whereas CoD just sends wave after wave until you get sick of it and run forward to the next area.
    That's just ignorant. COD and MOH have the same combat flow. Pick off enemies and advance to the next generator.

    I just shoot it out with each wave. Being patient is my strong suit, and real warfare doesn't penalize you for being careful. When you get the last guys, it becomes easier to walk to the next area... I've cleared entire battle areas and just peacefully walked around after that. You don't know what you're talking about here. Sorry.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Mann III
    replied
    Originally posted by Nokturnal View Post

    Well i can't really comment on SOCOM as it's a console only title and i've not played a console game since the days of Mortal Kombat 2. But i've heard the name a fair bit, so i guess it must be doing something right.
    SOCOM is unbeatable, console or otherwise...

    Leave a comment:


  • Nokturnal
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul Mann III View Post
    I don't see the same fans or games I guess. Odd.

    I think both fames mindless rambo-shooters. For real.

    The franchise offerings of SOCOM and maybe Ghost Recon are the only top-shelf shooters... And if you don't know, then you won't know...
    Well i can't really comment on SOCOM as it's a console only title and i've not played a console game since the days of Mortal Kombat 2. But i've heard the name a fair bit, so i guess it must be doing something right.

    Ghost Recon however, has been steadily going downhill since the first release, might still be a fun game but it's not the game it once was. The upcoming "Future Soldier" is the final nail in the coffin as far as i'm concerned. Robots and super-humans with shoulder-mounted rocket launchers just doesn't sound right...

    As for the rambo comment, yes you're right i didn't mean to imply that i thought MoH was realistic or anything. It's basically just alot of action-scenes from movies thrown into a game...Though with Steven Spielberg as the creator you had to expect that.
    But the point i was trying to make was i prefer MoH as it allows you to move at your own pace and pick off the enemies before advancing. Whereas CoD just sends wave after wave until you get sick of it and run forward to the next area.
    Again, not having a go at CoD fans, but i'm often reminded of those old arcade games that used to pop up with a little hand directing you to the right-hand side of the screen if you've taken too long killing the badies.

    Leave a comment:


  • Golani
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul Mann III View Post
    How was it "done better?"

    I think Dale Dye advised on production, I guess that would do the trick... But I played the game out, and I wasn't overly impressed in comparison to World at War.

    It did have the in-house multiplayer against AI, and that's always a bonus, but other that I can't think of anything that made MOH's offering stand out....
    It was focused on the Pacific and only that, with the already ridiculously short campaign of World at War being half dedicated to the USSR you end up playing what? 5 Pacific missions?

    Aside from that- I don't know exactly what (been awhile) but I found the game to be overall more interesting and fun, with better missions.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Mann III
    replied
    Originally posted by Nokturnal View Post

    But MoH and CoD are not the same type of game, despite the obvious similarities.

    They have different audiences, and while people might play both, they'll always prefer one over the other.
    I don't see the same fans or games I guess. Odd.

    I think both fames mindless rambo-shooters. For real.

    The franchise offerings of SOCOM and maybe Ghost Recon are the only top-shelf shooters... And if you don't know, then you won't know...

    Leave a comment:


  • Nokturnal
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul Mann III View Post
    How was it "done better?"
    There wasn't a never ending swarm of enemy units in MoH.

    CoD always does this and (to me personally) it's one of the most annoying feature of an FPS. The game loses alot of points for forcing the player to run through the battle like some sort of Rambo wannabe.
    I could accept it if it was simply alot of units, but it's not. They'll keep spawning until you progress and run forward...That's not fun, that's a twitch-fest.

    Not having a go at CoD fans, i've played them all too. But MoH and CoD are not the same type of game, despite the obvious similarities.
    They have different audiences, and while people might play both, they'll always prefer one over the other.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Mann III
    replied
    Originally posted by Golani View Post

    I think Medal of Honor: Pacific was better done, but it's a bit older.
    How was it "done better?"

    I think Dale Dye advised on production, I guess that would do the trick... But I played the game out, and I wasn't overly impressed in comparison to World at War.

    It did have the in-house multiplayer against AI, and that's always a bonus, but other that I can't think of anything that made MOH's offering stand out....

    Leave a comment:


  • Wilpanzer
    replied
    I bought the game for the historic footage, what a waste.

    Leave a comment:


  • Golani
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul Mann III View Post
    History Channel games are awful!

    Call of Duty: World at War is probably your best bet for a Pacific shooter...
    I think Medal of Honor: Pacific was better done, but it's a bit older.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Mann III
    replied
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post

    I bought a copy of History Channel's "Battle for the Pacific."

    A total load of........................
    History Channel games are awful!

    Call of Duty: World at War is probably your best bet for a Pacific shooter...

    Leave a comment:


  • PMCinc.
    replied
    Yeah they didn't do too well on Civil War: A Nation Divided either. I beat the game literally in one day with time to spare. Also I have never seen a man able to survive the shots from a rifle and live until I play HC's Civil War.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rooks Bailey
    replied
    The only good History Channel game was Take Command. Otherwise, forget the series. If you are looking for a good WWII fps, stick with the Battlefield series or Red Orchestra.

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    started a topic Never again!!!

    Never again!!!

    I bought a copy of History Channel's "Battle for the Pacific."

    Thankfully is was from the cheap bin but 20 is still 20.

    A total load of.......................

    First battle is for Wake Island.

    Leading SGT wearing the 29th Inf Patch.

    Constant orders are "follow me". He gets into a fire fight and if you just wait he doesn't move. I wait, left the game running for 15 minutes and he was still there.

    Other than some rudimentary interface per key board there are no controls. No status on your "hero" nothing.

    The first and last from HC and Activision.

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X