Support NeoGAF

[hellclerk]

I like MoH and all, but I wouldn't put it on tribes level.

I just don't see MUCH of a reason to keep on MoH after CoD comes out. For those who want realistic shooters, vehicle combat, or twitch game play there are better alternatives.

MoH doesn't really deliver "better" than anyone else in the multi department.

Well no, but it delivers differently. I don't have it yet because my motherboard's memory controller got fried, but as soon as I start playing it, I'll get the feeling that the kind of very tight gameplay will appeal to me. I'm getting my uncle to buy it so we can play together across the country, and honestly, a relatively small, dedicated community tends to be more noobie friendly than a large, constant community like CoD. If EA supports that community, however small it might end up, they'll stick around.

 

[Massa]

Well since the most I have ever seen on has been 30k at a time, it isn't hard to believe, unless you're one of those people who don't consider a 2k playerbase "dead."

It definitely won't be on the top 10 in a month or two.

Dead is when you can't play a game because nobody's playing it, not when it's not in a top 10.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

Dead is when you can't play a game because nobody's playing it, not when it's not in a top 10.

That's also only part of what I said. I'm sorry you can't understand hyperbole.

Well no, but it delivers differently. I don't have it yet because my motherboard's memory controller got fried, but as soon as I start playing it, I'll get the feeling that the kind of very tight gameplay will appeal to me. I'm getting my uncle to buy it so we can play together across the country, and honestly, a relatively small, dedicated community tends to be more noobie friendly than a large, constant community like CoD. If EA supports that community, however small it might end up, they'll stick around.

Like I said, I like it, it's just other games do it better.

It's definitely a nice change of pace on consoles, but on PC with Arma, and Operation flashpoint along with CoD there really isn't a "need" for MoH.

Also, with EA/DICE's lackluster support of BFBC2 I don't see support lasting long either. The promise of new content and maps only to be given the same regurgitated crap over and over was a letdown.

 

[Massa]

That's also only part of what I said. I'm sorry you can't understand hyperbole.

I understand just fine, I just don't agree with you. I'm sorry a disagreement is reason enough for you to insult my intelligence.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

I understand just fine, I just don't agree with you. I'm sorry a disagreement is reason enough for you to insult my intelligence.

Oh, so you just wanted to argue the semantics of a post that included hyperbolic statements.

Right.

Probably be best to just refrain from posting next time, or actually contribute by saying why you believe the game won't suffer a severe drop off next month, especially since it's numbers are very lackluster as it stands right now (30k on XBL).

 

[Spl1nter]

I like MoH and all, but I wouldn't put it on tribes level.

I just don't see MUCH of a reason to keep on MoH after CoD comes out. For those who want realistic shooters, vehicle combat, or twitch game play there are better alternatives.

MoH doesn't really deliver "better" than anyone else in the multi department.

Well MoH fits into its own niche of fps. There are a lot of PC players who do not like the COD run and gun arcade style. Battlefield is a larger franchise then COD on pc for a reason, the console and pc player bases are different. Also the PC multiplayer scene is a lot more fractured then consoles, last major singular fps was BF2 with COD4 being large as well.

It's definitely a nice change of pace on consoles, but on PC with Arma, and Operation flashpoint along with CoD there really isn't a "need" for MoH.

You dont know your games if you think that ARMA and COD are close enough that MoH cannot fit in the middle. They are on the exact opposite ends of the spectrum.

 

[aristotle]

Also, with EA/DICE's lackluster support of BFBC2 I don't see support lasting long either. The promise of new content and maps only to be given the same regurgitated crap over and over was a letdown.

Lackluster support? Granted, they slowly unlocked levels that were already on the disc, but they still released them and kept the community coming back. Not to mention there's a fairly comprehensive looking map pack on the way for BC2. I just don't understand the logic behind what you said. I'm sure there are more things planned for MoH, but we just haven't heard about them yet. Hell it only released Tuesday. I don't remember them telling us much of what was in the pipeline for BC2 until they got closer to the release dates of them.

With that being said, DICE I think is working too much on too many games. They're still supporting BC2 and MoH may well suffer for it. I'm certain MoH has more coming, but it may take longer than what most gamers would like. That in the end is what I think will kill the console community. PC is a whole different monster in that regard though.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

Lackluster support? Granted, they slowly unlocked levels that were already on the disc, but they still released them and kept the community coming back. Not to mention there's a fairly comprehensive looking map pack on the way for BC2. I just don't understand the logic behind what you said. I'm sure there are more things planned for MoH, but we just haven't heard about them yet. Hell it only released Tuesday. I don't remember them telling us much of what was in the pipeline for BC2 until they got closer to the release dates of them.

With that being said, DICE I think is working too much on too many games. They're still supporting BC2 and MoH may well suffer for it. I'm certain MoH has more coming, but it may take longer than what most gamers would like. That in the end is what I think will kill the console community. PC is a whole different monster in that regard though.

Yes, but they were the exact same maps we already had, already on the disk, but with different points. They weren't new. Vietnam is NOT a part of that "promised support" since it's a full on expansion, I also don't expect much in the way of "new" content for vietnam either.

When they promised new maps, most people expected actual new maps, not hidden content on the disk that was just the same maps with different points on them. Especially when they made such a big deal out of IW/Activision charging for maps.

Well MoH fits into its own niche of fps. There are a lot of PC players who do not like the COD run and gun arcade style. Battlefield is a larger franchise then COD on pc for a reason, the console and pc player bases are different. Also the PC multiplayer scene is a lot more fractured then consoles, last major singular fps was BF2 with COD4 being large as well.



You dont know your games if you think that ARMA and COD are close enough that MoH cannot fit in the middle. They are on the exact opposite ends of the spectrum.

I think you are misunderstanding me.

Those who want realism will go to Arma, those who want arcade military combat will go to CoD.

There is nothing "special" for MoH. It's enjoyable, and does "ok" but ultimately it's forgettable.

 

[Spl1nter]

Yes, but they were the exact same maps we already had, already on the disk, but with different points. They weren't new. Vietnam is NOT a part of that "promised support" since it's a full on expansion, I also don't expect much in the way of "new" content for vietnam either.

When they promised new maps, most people expected actual new maps, not hidden content on the disk that was just the same maps with different points on them. Especially when they made such a big deal out of IW/Activision charging for maps.

So I guess $15 MW2 map packs count as support but an expansion for BC2 doesnt. That makes sense....

Its still support for the game just in a different form

I think you are misunderstanding me.

Those who want realism will go to Arma, those who want arcade military combat will go to CoD.

There is nothing "special" for MoH. It's enjoyable, but ultimately forgettable.

I do understand. You dont understand that the pc community isnt black or white. There is a grey area where numerous players play numerous games. COD really isnt as big on pc as it is on consoles and to say ARMA is a huge PC FPS game, the only other option for military fps....

 

[aristotle]

Yes, but they were the exact same maps we already had, already on the disk, but with different points. They weren't new. Vietnam is NOT a part of that "promised support" since it's a full on expansion, I also don't expect much in the way of "new" content for vietnam either.

When they promised new maps, most people expected actual new maps, not hidden content on the disk that was just the same maps with different points on them. Especially when they made such a big deal out of IW/Activision charging for maps.

Well whether it's what you wanted/expected or not, they still supported the game after release. Expansions are support. Your definition of them is not. The community is still alive and kicking. It's huge in fact. The gamers kept coming back. They even released skins (I know it was small, but it was still support). Like I said already, it's been less than a week. Put down the pitchforks and the firesticks.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

So I guess $15 MW2 map packs count as support but an expansion for BC2 doesnt. That makes sense....

Its still support for the game just in a different form

Again, you are misunderstanding me.

EA made a huge deal about IW charging for map packs (which were new to the disk completely even if some were rehashes) and said that they would never charge for new maps, well as we all know now, the maps weren't ever new, they were just the same maps used in different modes.

I would have gladly payed for new maps for BFBC2, but we never got any, instead Vietnam is a completely different "mode" to which we can expect the same type of "content."

The same maps over and over got old, and quickly.

EA/Dice really pissed off some people with that "game" they played. I won't be getting vietnam because I'm pretty confident it will be the same crap.

Well whether it's what you wanted/expected or not, they still supported the game after release. Expansions are support. Your definition of them is not. The community is still alive and kicking. It's huge in fact. The gamers kept coming back. They even released skins (I know it was small, but it was still support). Like I said already, it's been less than a week. Put down the pitchforks and the firesticks.

It wasn't support, it was unlocking content on a disk they already released.

It was just a delayed tactic to keep people coming back by "unlocking" what we already had.

 

[Spl1nter]

It wasn't support, it was unlocking content on a disk they already released.

It was just a delayed tactic to keep people coming back by "unlocking" what we already had.

Then why was it I had to download large patches to play these map packs. Its because they were not finished on the disk, content was added. If they were simply unlocking the content the patches would of been a few kb. Nevertheless its still support and Vietnam is as well. As aristotle said just because it wasnt what you expected doesnt mean its not support.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

Then why was it I had to download large patches to play these map packs. Its because they were not finished on the disk, content was added. If they were simply unlocking the content the patches would of been a few kb. Nevertheless its still support and Vietnam is as well. As aristotle said just because it wasnt what you expected doesnt mean its not support.

Large patches? I never downloaded large patches, there were 2 or 3 small ones, but those were either gameplay patches, or the skin ones.

The maps were content on the disks that were unlocked, if you don't/didn't know that, I'm sorry to burst your bubble.

In fact, the day they were released, I didn't have to download anything, and I remember that because I went into the store to download them, and found them to already be "installed."

Vietnam is a whole new mode, and not support for the existing BFBC2. BFBC2 still has the same maps, same modes and same issues.

 

[Spl1nter]

Large patches? I never downloaded large patches, there were 2 or 3 small ones, but those were either gameplay patches, or the skin ones.

The R8 patch was 976 Mb.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Then why was it I had to download large patches to play these map packs. Its because they were not finished on the disk, content was added. If they were simply unlocking the content the patches would of been a few kb. Nevertheless its still support and Vietnam is as well. As aristotle said just because it wasnt what you expected doesnt mean its not support.

There was a large patch for the last one so there may have been some actual data for one of them. But most of the "support" was indeed in the form of just unlocking stuff off the disc. And even then it was mainly just making map available in other modes which is a bit weak. BC 2 really needed more maps. And it's really weird that despite all their big talk about "free" they never really released much. That was what stopped me from eventually playing the game even though I really like it. The lack of maps

I'll definitely buy Vietnam but then at that point it really isn't that different than a map pack with some graphical touches. Which is what I wanted more of earlier. Actual new maps.

 

[Spl1nter]

I'll definitely buy Vietnam but then at that point it really isn't that different than a map pack with some graphical touches. Which is what I wanted more of earlier. Actual new maps.

I agree that BC2 should of received new maps earlier on. however MoH support should be based on BC2 as we have no actual indication of what it will be plus map sizes are quite a bit smaller so it may be easier to create new maps.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

The R8 patch was 976 Mb.

That was on PC, perhaps the content wasn't on disk for PC (since it was distributed digitally for the most part), but it was on console, which doesn't surprise me.

Also, that PC patch had a hefty server/client/gameplay update.

 

[Spl1nter]

That was on PC, perhaps the content wasn't on disk for PC, but it was on console, which doesn't surprise me.

Also, that PC patch had a hefty server/client/gameplay update.

Still even in maps that were available there were geometry changes made to the maps. There may not of been new assets but changes in map design could be done through manipulation of code.

The whole point is you received additional content and there is no way you can argue against that. It may not of been what you wanted, it doesnt matter. Content is content.

Also if you are a console gamer then why are you spewing PC bullshit about what people play.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

Still even in maps that were available there were geometry changes made to the maps. There may not of been new assets but changes in map design could be done through manipulation of code.

The whole point is you received additional content and there is no way you can argue against that. It may not of been what you wanted, it doesnt matter. Content is content.

Also if you are a console gamer then why are you spewing PC bullshit about what people play.

It wasn't additional content, it was the same content (same maps) for different modes, and after the PR crap they pulled it was complete bullshit.

You do realize console gamers can also be PC gamers right? Remember what you said about "black and white?" Yeah, heed your own words.

P.S I have BFBC2 on PC and 360, though admittedly didn't play it much on PC, since it actually felt "better" on 360.

For PC gaming I tend to stick to Arma 2 and TF2, when I get the itch these days.

 

[hellclerk]

Still even in maps that were available there were geometry changes made to the maps. There may not of been new assets but changes in map design could be done through manipulation of code.

The whole point is you received additional content and there is no way you can argue against that. It may not of been what you wanted, it doesnt matter. Content is content.

Also if you are a console gamer then why are you spewing PC bullshit about what people play.

In addition to this, they've already released new skins and sights via Dr. Pepper if you'd look a page or two back. If that's any indication, there's going to be plenty of support in the future.

The game fits a niche on the in between. Sure, I like realistic military combat, but I also like it when it feels well paced and actiony. CoD is just a bit too crazy, plus MW2's online support felt like an insult. However, I'm still getting Black Ops, just on the Wii, but I like the more tactical, infantry gunplay focused stuff. That's why I LOVE Nelson Bay Rush in BC2. MoH seems to be my style.

 

[Spl1nter]

For PC gaming I tend to stick to Arma 2 and TF2, when I get the itch these days.

So you should know how different and numerous the fps communities are on PC.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

So you should know how different and numerous the fps communities are on PC.

I also know just because 1k people are still playing a game doesn't make it an "active" community in everyone's eyes.

MoH doesn't/won't have the legs of any of the other games mentioned here. Like I said, it's a "good" game, but these days for FPS "good" just doesn't cut it.

 

[aristotle]

In addition to this, they've already released new skins and sights via Dr. Pepper if you'd look a page or two back. If that's any indication, there's going to be plenty of support in the future.

Just not on PS3. RAGE!

 

[olimpia84]

I decided to get this and took advantage of TRU buy 2 get 1 free...
Yeah, this game is nowhere as good as BC2. The destruction/physics that are missing don't bother me as much as the level design. Levels are small and encourage people to hide in a corner to kill whoever walks by instead of going for the objectives.

My plan is to get all the trophies asap and then sell it....

 

[micster]

Goddamn this game is glitchy. I had one glitch where me and the beardy guy pulled up to a place and he didnt get off his bike. And I couldnt get on mine. So it just sat there doing nothing and I had to restart from the last checkpoint. The same thing happened later on where one of the characters was clipping and it forced me to restart from the last checkpoint. I took a video of that one -- http://blip.tv/file/4254678

 

[Yopis]

Well since the most I have ever seen on has been 30k at a time, it isn't hard to believe, unless you're one of those people who don't consider a 2k playerbase "dead."

It definitely won't be on the top 10 in a month or two.

Before the cod's of the world 30k to 40k online was not too bad. If this game stabilizes someplace and holds it wont be a bad game to play every now and then. After black ops comes out if it can hold 20k or more then im cool with that. Don't need crazy numbers with little kids yelling racial slurs every night to have fun.

This seems to be the first try from dice with this kind of game (smaller cod/bf mix). Hopefully they can build from this and do better next time. How many cod games did it take to hit the ultimate jackpot? Hope they get another crack at the game. Got this from TRU B2G1F so not really losing much.

 

[hellclerk]

I also know just because 1k people are still playing a game doesn't make it an "active" community in everyone's eyes.

MoH doesn't/won't have the legs of any of the other games mentioned here. Like I said, it's a "good" game, but these days for FPS "good" just doesn't cut it.

So what you're saying is that your definition of active is better than our definition of active? Now you're just being obtuse. This isn't like some obscure multiplayer mod, this is a big budget shooter, with big budget marketing, and more than solid gunplay, and even if the community isn't MASSIVE, it'll be plenty to play online with, at the least on PC.

You see, this is why MW and MW2 have ruined the gaming industry. It's not because of the mechanics or the bar filling elements, it's because it creates unreasonable expectations for the sales of video games. People seem to instantly assume that because a game isn't selling tens of millions it must be an unpopulated failure of a game. Oh wow, MoH won't be on the top 10 list next week, because we all know that no one can get a good online game running for a game off of the top 10 list! That's unrealistic and silly.

Just not on PS3. RAGE!

Hey, now you know how I feel on PC BC2 without SPECTAT or Onslaught >:|

 

[aristotle]

Hey, now you know how I feel on PC BC2 without SPECTAT or Onslaught >:|

Ouch. Luckily SPECTAT is just cosmetic and Onslaught is just a silly bot room. I feel for ya though.

 

[hellclerk]

Ouch. Luckily SPECTAT is just cosmetic and Onslaught is just a silly bot room. I feel for ya though.

Hey, well so are the skins and sights. Totally cosmetic |3

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

So what you're saying is that your definition of active is better than our definition of active? Now you're just being obtuse. This isn't like some obscure multiplayer mod, this is a big budget shooter, with big budget marketing, and more than solid gunplay, and even if the community isn't MASSIVE, it'll be plenty to play online with, at the least on PC.

You see, this is why MW and MW2 have ruined the gaming industry. It's not because of the mechanics or the bar filling elements, it's because it creates unreasonable expectations for the sales of video games. People seem to instantly assume that because a game isn't selling tens of millions it must be an unpopulated failure of a game. Oh wow, MoH won't be on the top 10 list next week, because we all know that no one can get a good online game running for a game off of the top 10 list! That's unrealistic and silly.

I would say they ruined it because they have made people expect better quality from their shooters. In a world of Arma 2, CoD, Halo, TF2, and Killzone, this iteration of MoH isn't anything special in terms of multiplayer shooters.

MoH is basically a "new take" on BFBC2's squad death match. Which was also unimpressive, imo.

The only thing I see this game doing beneficial for the genre is added bonuses for taking objectives.

I also never said "my" definition of active was better than yours, simply stating that many people will see this as a dead game, relatively soon.

 

[panda21]

i thought the campaign was pretty good. preferable to CoD by a long way.

theres a huge gap between even new operation flashpoint and ARMA, never mind this. this fits fairly well between CoD and new flashpoint.

its not got the most amazing gameplay but neither has CoD, this at least has the bonus that the story is not insane and actually makes sense.

 

[enewtabie]

I'm enjoying the multiplayer,but it's got some balance and hit detection problems. Also it's a sniper fest on every game I've played..I rarely get killed by anything other than a sniper rifle.:lol

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

i thought the campaign was pretty good. preferable to CoD by a long way.

theres a huge gap between even new operation flashpoint and ARMA, never mind this. this fits fairly well between CoD and new flashpoint.

its not got the most amazing gameplay but neither has CoD, this at least has the bonus that the story is not insane and actually makes sense.

Yeah, I loved the SP, the MP is "ok."

Even on a scale of COD - New flashpoint, MOH still ranks very muchcloser to CoD than even Opflash.

Opflash multiplayer could have been amazing. If only Codemasters hadn't messed up the online. What the hell were they thinking.

 

[hellclerk]

I would say they ruined it because they have made people expect better quality from their shooters. In a world of Arma 2, CoD, Halo, TF2, and Killzone, this iteration of MoH isn't anything special in terms of multiplayer shooters.

MoH is basically a "new take" on BFBC2's squad death match. Which was also unimpressive, imo.

The only thing I see this game doing beneficial for the genre is added bonuses for taking objectives.

I also never said "my" definition of active was better than yours, simply stating that many people will see this as a dead game, relatively soon.

Well you sure seemed intent on putting the people who disagreed down, besides the fact that you have no evidence, empirical or anecdotal to support such a claim, not to mention has any actual bearing on how 'active' a community is since it proposes no way to change anything. Like I said, the expectations for such a large, active community are, aside from unrealistic, unnecessary. What people apparently 'see' is a moot point. And it doesn't change the fact that you were presenting a subjective view as a fact.

And I can't agree on the Squad Deathmatch mode. There is nothing there even somewhat resembling it in any shooter. What MoH multi does isn't necessarily new to modern style shooters, but it DOES refine what's there, and that's just fine. With all these modern shooters already out there, you can't reinvent the wheel EVERY time, so what DICE did was make a tight, straightforward, down to earth shooter. Hopefully one that has more weapons, maps, and modes in the near future. That's something I can get behind, and others will too, and it'll be plenty to maintain a solid community on the system.

 

[maks]

I like MoH and all, but I wouldn't put it on tribes level.

I just don't see MUCH of a reason to keep on MoH after CoD comes out. For those who want realistic shooters, vehicle combat, or twitch game play there are better alternatives.

MoH doesn't really deliver "better" than anyone else in the multi department.

Nothing has come close to Tribes level for me :lol


I like some of the suggestions in here but about the Kill Cam...how about we have it in regular modes, but disable it for Hardcore. I think that makes sense overall in terms of balancing gameplay with an authentic feel and making the mass audience happy.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

Well you sure seemed intent on putting the people who disagreed down, besides the fact that you have no evidence, empirical or anecdotal to support such a claim, not to mention has any actual bearing on how 'active' a community is since it proposes no way to change anything. Like I said, the expectations for such a large, active community are, aside from unrealistic, unnecessary. What people apparently 'see' is a moot point. And it doesn't change the fact that you were presenting a subjective view as a fact.

And I can't agree on the Squad Deathmatch mode. There is nothing there even somewhat resembling it in any shooter. What MoH multi does isn't necessarily new to modern style shooters, but it DOES refine what's there, and that's just fine. With all these modern shooters already out there, you can't reinvent the wheel EVERY time, so what DICE did was make a tight, straightforward, down to earth shooter. Hopefully one that has more weapons, maps, and modes in the near future. That's something I can get behind, and others will too, and it'll be plenty to maintain a solid community on the system.

Like I said, it's at around 30k peak right now on XBL. I can say most assuredly that the game won't gain MORE steam from here on out. It's a mediocre MP experience, I realize you may not want to believe that, but it is, and this game will fade into obscurity relatively soon. People will most assuredly still be playing it (albeit not in any substantial numbers), but people play all kinds of games, even complete crap games.

What exactly does it refine? I find that it hasn't refined anything, in fact, it doesn't do ANYTHING very well, it simply does everything "ok," some may even argue that it's a step in the wrong direction (balance issues, time investment = stronger weapons, and lack of choice to name a few).

I'm talking about what we have now, you're speculating on what MAY come. You can hope till you turn blue in the face that the game will get the attention that it needs, but as it stands now, it's nothing special.

 

[micster]

Most blatant sequelbaiting ever. Now to bosh the multiplayer on.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

Most blatant sequelbaiting ever. Now to bosh the multiplayer on.

It was based off of operation Anaconda, an operation that took place relatively early in the Afgan war, even if it wasn't, the Afgan war isn't over, what would you expect; Osama's head?

 

[micster]

It was based off of operation Anaconda, an operation that took place relatively early in the Afgan war, even if it wasn't, the Afgan war isn't over, what would you expect; Osama's head?

Well no, but my qualms is more with the bit that seemed tacked on.

Spoiler

Rabbit dying and the scene of them in the plane was fantastic. Emotive, the music was right: It was great. Even the line saying its not over yet was fine. But then seeing another short clip of two doing another operation just made me go oh. Because we had this grande ending which made you think about how war will always continue. And then it was like the devs went LOLTHESERIESWILLTOOBUYITPLEASE

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

Well no, but my qualms is more with the bit that seemed tacked on.

Spoiler

Rabbit dying and the scene of them in the plane was fantastic. Emotive, the music was right: It was great. Even the line saying its not over yet was fine. But then seeing another short clip of two doing another operation just made me go oh. Because we had this grande ending which made you think about how war will always continue. And then it was like the devs went LOLTHESERIESWILLTOOBUYITPLEASE

I took it as more of "and the war continues," type of thing, but there will no doubt be more games.

 

[REV 09]

If this game had more polish and content then it could be a very viable substitute to CoD. The core mechanics, at least in the campaign are quite good...the shooting and sound effects feel right and I really like how it feels when you take a bullet. Thematically, the game strikes a great balance between being grounded and fun. I also liked the setting a lot. The way enemies move about the hills and terrain makes it feel different from other modern shooters. It just needed to be longer, have some type of co-op, and have more mp maps. It's a good start to rebooting the franchise. Hopefully they stick with it.

 

[panda21]

i thought they said they were only doing a sequel if it got same huge number of sales? so theres probably not going to be one...

Spoiler

also i forgot about the axe part.. wtf was that? fuck!

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

i thought they said they were only doing a sequel if it got same huge number of sales? so theres probably not going to be one...

Spoiler

also i forgot about the axe part.. wtf was that? fuck!

Tactical Tomahawk, I had one during both deployments, it's just another tool, but they look bad ass. Typically they are used to gain entry to doors/boxes/etc.

 

[Enosh]

I took it as more of "and the war continues," type of thing, but there will no doubt be more games.

yeah for me it was also more of a "despite of everything that hapened they still do what they have to"

 

[panda21]

Tactical Tomahawk, I had one during both deployments, it's just another tool, but they look bad ass. Typically they are used to gain entry to doors/boxes/etc.

oh were you in afghanistan?

thats another thing that struck me i just remembered.. the door kicking. like every 5 minutes someone is kicking a door :lol its like super door kicker HD. i think there must be the most door kicks per hour of any game ever.

edit:
oh and the ending.. it just made me sad thinking about what actually happened in the game and the people who died.. and for what? the special forces were basically just getting in fights on purpose to try and draw them out and kill as many as they could. but it just seemed so pointless considering how brave they were being just to kill a bunch of taliban, rather than some tangible objective. obviously thats how it really is but its quite a contrast with most games like this. hell even operation flashpoint had some big fancy objective at the end.

 

[JaxJag]

This game has some of the most inconsistent map design I've seen.

A few of the maps are just downright terrible.

 

[dustin]

I'm about an hour into the campaign, and I have no idea why this game exists. I know I've only played an hour of it, but seeing as how it's a four hour game, am I safe to say that this is a slower Call of Duty? It's the same game right down to the default controls, slow motion door breaching, and badass scripted NPC melee kills. It's not a bad game, glitchy yes, but not bad. Not great either, it's just so ehhhh. Nothing about it stands out as of yet. With Black Ops coming out in a month and Reach already released, why the hell does this game exist? It's a decent appetizer for CoD, but other than that I don't know why this game was rebooted. It's MW but slower. So far at least. Does it get better gaf?

 

[iNvid02]

i think trying to be *too* realistic failed

 

[panda21]

I'm about an hour into the campaign, and I have no idea why this game exists. I know I've only played an hour of it, but seeing as how it's a four hour game, am I safe to say that this is a slower Call of Duty? It's the same game right down to the default controls, slow motion door breaching, and badass scripted NPC melee kills. It's not a bad game, glitchy yes, but not bad. Not great either, it's just so ehhhh. Nothing about it stands out as of yet. With Black Ops coming out in a month and Reach already released, why the hell does this game exist? It's a decent appetizer for CoD, but other than that I don't know why this game was rebooted. It's MW but slower. So far at least. Does it get better gaf?

i think mainly the story was the appeal for me. i dunno why but about around the ATV mission i kind of started to want to see what was going to happen to the tier beard guys.

 

[Nozdeuce]

Anyone else finding it obscenely easy to get headshots in multiplayer? I'm constantly surprised when a 15 pops up instead of the 10. Seems like an outright majority of my kills are headshots, which has definitely not been the case in other shooters like CoD or BFBC2.