• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

New MoH-Airborne Trailer

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#61
I downloaded and watched the Fight Anywhere trailer on my 360 since gameplay footage when projected on the TV gives a great feeling of how its going to look while playing it, and I'm not impressed. It looked and awful lot like Frontline graphics-wise, and the gameplay doesn't appear that great either. The maps seem very small, and it just all seems too arcadey. The sniper rifle has some kind of wind tracer :confused:. The gun sounds are really nice though, probably the best part.

I was looking forward to Hell's Highway as well but with the last trailer I'm not too sure about it anymore. I'm probably going to rent both.
 
Upvote 0
#63
And it's people like you who let EA Games produce these ****arsed no effort games over and over and still make money. Gaming companies shoulden't be allowed to get away with this medicore horsedong.
Click to expand...

Could be, but am I another hardcore EA fan due there are some games published or made by EA that I actually like, like PS1 ORIGINAL Medal of Honor which is still one of the best games out there. Bar none. Or the fact that personally BFME2 is possibly one of the best RTS games I have played lately in past few years. I guess I am then.

You do have a point there, but let's face the fact - let's take TWI for example, if TWI would have released RO as free of charge, would we have possibly have that much support from TWI itself or even imagine about plausible RO2 or whatever they have their hands on now? Money runs the business quite well.

I agree that it is sad that once game company (aka EA in RO forums) begin the grinding with this "more money less quality", it flows markets with crappy products more or less and I agree - it does suck to some extent. I try not to be offending, but in past few years I have learned one thing:

Never talk about anything political or unrealistic about RO forums. It ends up in a barfight. Same applies for some small nitpicks.

Sure I do understand that some people just want more generic realism in their games and some don't, but where's the line of this realism? Some people keep saying E.G. that RO should have this and that and this and that due it would make game more fun and blabalba, but where's the realism? If someone says he wants some uniforms to be corrected, everyone says "omg unnecessary crap, who cares about uniforms?" <--- I smell conflict.


I personally don't mind if unrealistic game is produced and published. I guess the fact is, that anything historical done not-that-realistic-way seems to be like a red clothing to an artist around here.
 
Upvote 0
#64
I have other games (actually my son has: AOE etc...) that I would like to play single player but am so damn addicted to RO, I almost never do. I would only be interested in a good FPS for its multiplayer aspect. Even if it is supposed to be good/great in single player, it is not the same as multiplayer.

In regards to multiplayer, there are new standards in my opinion (RO). Most companies it seems are going for the bigger audience of the run-n-gun gameplay crowd and relying on the graphics of a game to get people to purchase it.

Unless the multiplayer kicks butt from my RO skewed perspective, I absolutely will not buy this game for the single player missions.
 
Upvote 0
#66
DraKon2k said:
What's so bad about the guy jumping off a roof and take no fall damage? First off, I think that was demonstration-only, 2nd how else would you get down if you land on a rooftop? And 3rd, if you thought Airborne was going to be anywhere as realistic as RO then you're a moron.
Click to expand...
I highly doubt that it's demonstration only. They only show what they want you to see and I'm sorry, but falling a good 8 metres without any apparent ill-effects is just stupid. Even in the most unrealistic games (lets take Quake 3 or UT2k4 as examples here), when you fall from a height, you get hurt. Apparently these WWII soldiers were issued with inertial dampners though. Lucky eh? I don't know why they needed parachutes, as they clearly weren't necessary...

We all know it isn't going to be realistic in any way, shape or form and the implication that I do, much less the implication that I'm a moron, is mildly insulting. The fact is though, there's a line between "unrealistic" and "bloody stupid" and whichever side you choose, you need to be consistant. Serious Sam is "bloody stupid" and because it doesn't deviate, it works incredibly well. Counter-Strike is "unrealistic" and it works (albeit not my cup of tea). Games like Call of Duty, Battlefield, etc though take bits from this side and bits from that side and then try to throw bits of "realism" in as well (purely as a gimmick I might add). The result is a steaming turd that they stick in a box and sell to suckers.

Seriously. This is EA we're talking about here. When was the last time they released a game that wasn't a bug-ridden, overhyped, unfinished, brainless piece of mass marketed crap? From what they've shown us so far (and bearing in mind their track record on other recent MoH titles) this is going to be no exception.
 
Upvote 0
#67
PsYcH0_Ch!cKeN said:
Games like Call of Duty, Battlefield, etc though take bits from this side and bits from that side and then try to throw bits of "realism" in as well (purely as a gimmick I might add). The result is a steaming turd that they stick in a box and sell to suckers.

Seriously. This is EA we're talking about here. When was the last time they released a game that wasn't a bug-ridden, overhyped, unfinished, brainless piece of mass marketed crap?
Click to expand...
I enjoyed Call of Duty in Singleplayer and the Multiplayer with UO(and the german front mod) and after some time I started to enjoy CoD2 online as well. I always enjoyed BF2, although it was pretty buggy(actually I hardly ever noticed, because instead of *****ing about how bad everything is I actually try to get into the game). I always loved playing DoD 1.3(and earlier versions), for a pretty long time I also often liked playing DoD:S. So do I enjoy RO, though I haven't played it in a while. So, am I "sucker", as you would say?

I'm afraid your problem is that you're ****ing ignorant. NOES IT'S NOT AS REALISTIC AS RO = BAD GAME. I don't like it = bad game, everything who says anything against that is a "sucker".

You got to differ. If I want to play a realistic ww2 shooter, preferably with the eastern front as setting, I'll play RO. MoH:A, BiA:HH etc. never claimed to be realistic. Just because it has Ironsights and all those "rather realistic features"(=things you would see in a realism shooter) doesn't mean it's supposed to be realistic, that's just a trend that's going on, look at BF2.

So while you don't have to like it and you can very well argue about the game, you can't just say OMG THIS GAME SUCKS ITS UNREALISTIC BULL**** SCREW THIS, that just makes you look like a bloody moron. This reminds me kind of those 12 year old clichee cs-kids, just with the opposite opinion about realism.
 
Upvote 0
#68
While I withold my judgement on this game, the whole "omg it's not realistic thus it is bad" mentality is kinda prevalent from a lot of people on these forums. I mean, I'm pretty sure I've seen someone complain about a sci-fi shooter being unrealistic. I could see someone doing the same thing if someone made a pokemon diamond thread on here. "Sorry but there is NO way a pikachu is going to fit inside that tiny ball. More unrealistic trash!"

I remember how people complained about CoD series not being realistic when the developers were saying "We don't want it to be the most realistic wW2 game, we want it to be the most cinematic WW2 game."

I thoroughly enjoyed COD2's single player campaign (the multiplayer is another thing entirely...eh...I enjoy playing it with friends but that's it).

However I wouldn't 100% subscribe to the nonscripted, nonlinear stuff...they told us the same thing about CoD2 and it was still pretty linear.
 
Upvote 0
#70
Lionel-RIchie said:
However I wouldn't 100% subscribe to the nonscripted, nonlinear stuff...they told us the same thing about CoD2 and it was still pretty linear.
Click to expand...
It'll definately be non-lineair, they couldn't release the game marketing-wise if they didn't feature this, because for at least 30% of the potential buyers would buy it because of it's announced freedom (being non-lineair gameplay), the other because it's Medal of Honor or because it's a popular game.

However, I do think it will have some scripts here and there.
Simply because AI isn't as developed and advanced yet, it did come a long way making things like this possible though.
 
Upvote 0
#71
I'm afraid your problem is that you're ****ing ignorant. NOES IT'S NOT AS REALISTIC AS RO = BAD GAME. I don't like it = bad game, everything who says anything against that is a "sucker".
Click to expand...
Isn't this just repeating what you said in your first post to me? Try reading my post again. Games don't have to be realistic, but when they try to throw realistic elements in with the rest of it as a gimmick, it just becomes a joke.

You think it's just me who thinks that CoD 2 was crap? Or DoD: S? Or the last Medal of Honor outing? Take a look around the internet. It's not just me and it's definitely not just these boards (which of course are biased, this is a realism game forum after all). Popular opinion is that it's because they were crap games. And realism gamers are a niche group, so you can bet most of the haters in those cases are the sort who also hate realism, meaning it's not just a case of "oh noes teh gamez nt reelistic enuff lololzz!!"

As for BF2, if it weren't for the fact that the netcode and hit detection are so woefully inadequate, it would be a decent game. That is, after it had run the EA patch gauntlet. Which itself is something of a tradition these days.

I like unrealistic games, but only when they don't try to pretend otherwise. TF2? Looking forward to it. UT3? Can't wait. And you'd better believe I'll be the first to grab Serious Sam 3 once it makes an appearance. I detest however, all these "oh, we're not trying to make a realistic game" developers who say it whilst demonstrating the latest pseudo/realistic feature they've added, as I mentioned earlier, as a gimmick.

I might add that I'd be a whole lot more sympathetic to a wider range of multiplayer games and their features if they paid more attention to quality netcode and hit detection. Regardless of game features and content, if you can shoot through someone's chest for no effect (other than the impact mark appearing behind the player model), have a headshot register as a leg shot when clearly the only part of a player visible is their face, kill someone after they've run around a corner or get a kill on a player whilst they're not even close to your aiming reticle, then a game will earn an instant black mark in my book. I suspect that the only reason so many people tolerate it in so many popular games is because most have never experienced anything better.
 
Upvote 0
#72
PsYcH0_Ch!cKeN said:
Isn't this just repeating what you said in your first post to me? Try reading my post again. Games don't have to be realistic, but when they try to throw realistic elements in with the rest of it as a gimmick, it just becomes a joke.

You think it's just me who thinks that CoD 2 was crap? Or DoD: S? Or the last Medal of Honor outing? Take a look around the internet. It's not just me and it's definitely not just these boards (which of course are biased, this is a realism game forum after all). Popular opinion is that it's because they were crap games. And realism gamers are a niche group, so you can bet most of the haters in those cases are the sort who also hate realism, meaning it's not just a case of "oh noes teh gamez nt reelistic enuff lololzz!!"

As for BF2, if it weren't for the fact that the netcode and hit detection are so woefully inadequate, it would be a decent game. That is, after it had run the EA patch gauntlet. Which itself is something of a tradition these days.

I like unrealistic games, but only when they don't try to pretend otherwise. TF2? Looking forward to it. UT3? Can't wait. And you'd better believe I'll be the first to grab Serious Sam 3 once it makes an appearance. I detest however, all these "oh, we're not trying to make a realistic game" developers who say it whilst demonstrating the latest pseudo/realistic feature they've added, as I mentioned earlier, as a gimmick.

I might add that I'd be a whole lot more sympathetic to a wider range of multiplayer games and their features if they paid more attention to quality netcode and hit detection. Regardless of game features and content, if you can shoot through someone's chest for no effect (other than the impact mark appearing behind the player model), have a headshot register as a leg shot when clearly the only part of a player visible is their face, kill someone after they've run around a corner or get a kill on a player whilst they're not even close to your aiming reticle, then a game will earn an instant black mark in my book. I suspect that the only reason so many people tolerate it in so many popular games is because most have never experienced anything better.
Click to expand...
CoD2 isn't crap, neither is DoD:S. CoD2 takes it's time until it actually becomes funny and DoD:S is it's own kind of thing. If you're already like "nah, what a ****ty unrealistic game" before you even play it, then it's no wonder that you're not going to like it.

Also it takes time before you get into it(and the other way around). When I first played CoD2 I totally sucked in it and always died, which was pretty frustrating. With time however, I got into it. With DoD:S it was the other way around. First I loved it, and after some months I started not to like it anymore, because I felt like it lost the nice ww2 atmosphere of DoD 1.3, also I was very disappointed with Valve's support, as until today there are only 8 official maps and well-known issues still aren't sorted out, but hey, that's the buisness. So you gotta give the game time.

I guess you didn't play those games long enough to actually get into it(I could be wrong), but at same time you(mustn't be you, but "your kind of player") tell the "noobs" who say that RO is crap to give the time, because it takes it's time to actually get into the game.

The main flaw in your argument is that neither CoD nor MoH were ever described as realistic(in terms of gameplay/features) by the developers. Just because there are ironsights, doesn't mean it's supposed to be realistic, because as I already said, ironsights in games are a current trend in ego-shooters. I also find it kinda funny that you say BF2 basically is a good game. Let's get back to your complaint about taking no fall-damage(which is wrong as I wrote above). In the video it looked like you would take no damage when you jump down a roof. But jumping off roofs(and most buildings in BF2 are much higher than they seem to be in MoH:A), then pulling out a parachute out of nowhere and slowly gliding to the ground is way more realistic I guess.
 
Upvote 0
#74
I guess you didn't play those games long enough to actually get into it(I could be wrong)
Click to expand...
Yes, you're wrong I'm afraid. I've played CoD 2 since release, both competitively and casually, and still do. That doesn't stop me thinking it's a steaming pile though. I play it because some of my friends play it, that's it. That means I've had years to build up a really seething hatred of the game and it's "features" (not to mention years of vCoD before that).

Also spent plenty of time in DoD: S. I paid for it and I waited years for it. I was getting a return on that investment if it killed me. But no matter how hard I tried to like it, it didn't get any better and honestly is a disgrace to the DoD name. Had they marketed it as a different game then fine, but they didn't. They chose to use the rep of existing title to engineer sales and honestly, the Steam stats tell the tale:

Game ---------------- Players -- Servers -- Player Minutes/Month
Day of Defeat --------- 5,489 --- 1,866 --- 206.699 million
Day of Defeat: Source 1,586 --- 2,531 --- 134.962 million

Source has double the servers but only 1/4 of the players. This does fluctuate, but I don't remember the last time Source had even as many as half the players of DoD 1.3. The only other game I know of where a sequel has been this badly outshone by its predecessor is (funnily enough) CS.

The reason I'm posting all this is simply to try to make you understand, I'm not a solitary voice claiming that my opinion should be everyone else's and certainly my opinions on the aforementioned games is not one based on ignorance. The fact is though, I've been bitten as badly as anyone else when it comes to shoddy games and I've lost count of the number of times I've been suckered by pretty graphics or a cheap gimmick, but finally I learnt my lesson. It's the "boy who cried wolf" syndrome. These companies kept bringing out crap and I kept buying it, as did many others. But we learnt and now we treat everything they bring out as crap because history has a habit of repeating itself. Maybe the games will be good, but I'm not about to give them the benefit of the doubt. Especially not EA with their track record.

Also, I said BF2 would be a decent game, not a good game. It still has its share of gimmicks, namely ironsights which have just as much conefire as regular shooting, therefore why bother having them? It's little things like that which drag a game from being "stupidly unrealistic and proud" (BF1942, the best of the series) to "psueorealistic, but not really! *snicker*"
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#75
PsYcH0_Ch!cKeN said:
The reason I'm posting all this is simply to try to make you understand, I'm not a solitary voice claiming that my opinion should be everyone else's and certainly my opinions on the aforementioned games is not one based on ignorance. The fact is though, I've been bitten as badly as anyone else when it comes to shoddy games and I've lost count of the number of times I've been suckered by pretty graphics or a cheap gimmick, but finally I learnt my lesson. It's the "boy who cried wolf" syndrome. These companies kept bringing out crap and I kept buying it, as did many others. But we learnt and now we treat everything they bring out as crap because history has a habit of repeating itself. Maybe the games will be good, but I'm not about to give them the benefit of the doubt. Especially not EA with their track record.
Click to expand...
You know that there have been demos/free weekends?
 
Upvote 0
#76
I bought DoD: S as part of the HL2 Silver package - the only reason I forked out for it I might add, as I already had the entire back catalogue anyway. So there was no try-before-you buy. We were all duped into thinking it'd actually be like DoD (it wasn't a sequel after all, but a Source version), but it wasn't and the majority of the community was quite angry about it.

As for CoD 2, the demo was quite misleading. It was quite similar in many ways to the CoD 1 demo, but while that turned out to be an accurate representation of the final product, CoD 2's demo wasn't even close. I would go so far as to say that it was deliberately misleading, but it doesn't matter any more. I learnt my lesson. I won't be buying another IW product unless I see mountains of positive feedback after release. I'm not holding my breath though. Their next offering, CoD 4, is yet another shooter being developed for consoles primarily, which means that the PC gets yet another shoddy port.
 
Upvote 0
#77
I honestly couldn't care less as to whether or not a game is "realistic", quite simply because the entire term is complete bull**** to begin with. The standards people set as being "realistic" is not authenticity or even the most lifelike game released, they set it at reality itself. Its ridiculous to even assume that a game will live up to those standards within the next half century.

Honestly, I like DoDS, but it isn't HL2's DoD. That's probably going to end up being RnL. And I like BF2 because it uses teamwork on a much greater scale than RO has, and definitely will once FH2 hits and BFE-WaW upgrades to the new engine. I don't care if a game is realistic or not, I judge a game by its gameplay.
 
Upvote 0
#79
DraKon2k said:
I enjoyed Call of Duty in Singleplayer and the Multiplayer with UO(and the german front mod) and after some time I started to enjoy CoD2 online as well. I always enjoyed BF2, although it was pretty buggy(actually I hardly ever noticed, because instead of *****ing about how bad everything is I actually try to get into the game). I always loved playing DoD 1.3(and earlier versions), for a pretty long time I also often liked playing DoD:S. So do I enjoy RO, though I haven't played it in a while. So, am I "sucker", as you would say?

I'm afraid your problem is that you're ****ing ignorant. NOES IT'S NOT AS REALISTIC AS RO = BAD GAME. I don't like it = bad game, everything who says anything against that is a "sucker".

You got to differ. If I want to play a realistic ww2 shooter, preferably with the eastern front as setting, I'll play RO. MoH:A, BiA:HH etc. never claimed to be realistic. Just because it has Ironsights and all those "rather realistic features"(=things you would see in a realism shooter) doesn't mean it's supposed to be realistic, that's just a trend that's going on, look at BF2.

So while you don't have to like it and you can very well argue about the game, you can't just say OMG THIS GAME SUCKS ITS UNREALISTIC BULL**** SCREW THIS, that just makes you look like a bloody moron. This reminds me kind of those 12 year old clichee cs-kids, just with the opposite opinion about realism.
Click to expand...
Signed and agreed. I liked the original PSX MoH, MOHAA, the demo for Spearhead(the game was iffy, but the Malta demo was sex and cocaine), BIA, the CoD series(at least for singleplayer), and I'm definitely going to be buying MOH Airborne and BIAHH. I enjoy a game for what it is because becoming frustrated for what it isn't is a large waste of money and time, and is in general a poor way to live one's life.

I really like where FPS games are going because the game designers are realizing that crap games arn't being purchased anymore. CSS has a fanbase because it was a port of CS, and there are plenty of crap FPS games that people pay no mind to. Look at the History Channel Civil War game on the Steam store, it actually looks pretty good, but read a few reviews and you realize just how poor the gameplay is.
 
Upvote 0
#80
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu