LATEST CHATTY HEADER
Subscribe to Shacknews Mercury starting at $1/month!
Chrome Shack Community Guidelines Chatty Search
Scroll down to join the conversation.
New to Shacknews? Signup for a Free Account
Already have an account? Login Now
Subscribe to Shacknews Mercury starting at $1/month!
Chrome Shack Community Guidelines Chatty Search
Scroll down to join the conversation.
The World War II buff in me really feels like I'm obligated to own it and play through it, but the gamer in me is saying "WHY THE FUCK DID YOU BUY THIS." I mean the first one was fun, I paid 20 bucks for it, played through it twice and ok yeah, Call of Duty. More or less Medal of Honor with teamwork. So Call of Duty 2 is on sale at Best Buy and I snached it up for 29.99, and I'm sort of regretting it. Sure, it's fun, sure it's intense, sure, it's loud.
Having my hand held through 95% scripted missions sucks some serious dick.
The game advertises it's self (and I quote) as "where, through advanced A.I., the player's squadmates as well as enemy troops alike call out updates in real-time based on the ever-changing battlefield conditions."
Ever changing my ass. If you don't "Move forward" before the rest of your team does, you can fight respawning krauts until your ammunition runs out if you decide to. The same battle, over and over and over.
Fine, the calling out of updates may add to the above-average sound design and atmosphere of this game, which I find more than appealing. But of course the "Advanced A.I. is going to call out updates" when what it's calling out is SCRIPTED and guaranteed to happen no matter how many times you play through the fucking game. More Germans coming up over that ridge you say? Well I might be mistake, but I believe after I shot that last tank, the same group of Germans came over the same ridge the last time I played this.
It's so shamefully obvious too, it's not like they're even trying to hide it. At least Doom3 had some scripted stuff that you weren't exactly sure if it was A.I. or a script.
I realize this game is obviously made to appeal to the 14 year old casual Xbox kid who thinks war is awesome. I also realize I am not that type of gamer anymore. Had I played this say... 8 years ago I would have been utterly stunned. Hell, the box even quotes Computer Gaming World lol as saying "It's almost too intense." But that is some serious bullshit. It's not at all intense when you're quite literally "going through the motions"... just noisy. It's really about as exciting as doing a 100 lap race around that oval track in Gran Turismo 3 & 4.
Sigh. I regret buying this game.
6.5 / 10
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 79 replies.
Duval, I hope you're still reading this thread. I may come off as negative but don't get me wrong, I played Brothers in Arms and I have played COD as well as this demo etc. So realize I played them and don't have a grudge or hatred towards you either.
That being said I do disagree with some of your assments. To critique a few of your responses, 1) Brothers in Arms 1 should have beat CoD in graphics...the games came out almost two years from one another.
2) I really was disappointed in the story aspect from the first game and I hope you really plan on expanding the heck out of it. For one thing this supposedly enthralling story was half baked if you ask me. The cliche war is hell monologue got a bit old especially because I never got an attatchment to the characters. This was only further compounded by the fact that your squad mates could die in the mission then be fine in the next cut scene. I understand the continuity but it really was a bit jarring, especially considering the supposed realism.
3) In brothers in Arms I felt that the elegant squad command was nice at first but the more you played the more it felt like I was baby sitting them half the time. It basically turned into a "Find the cover point and start a base of fire" while I went off and Rambo'd the rest of them. If I ever dared to send a team to take a point the almost always ended up dead. I know AI pathfinding is a huge and difficult task but the one big thing that annoyed me as well was that my men when I send them to sit at a corner would often "cover" but be around the turn so they just end up getting shot.
4) I think it is awesome that you guys went out and scouted and recreated battles. As a history fanatic it is nice to know that this place existed here. The thing though is that while you fault COD on linear gameplay I think BiA had it just the same. While it was pretty open it was clear there were set paths in the game. A good sequence for what I mean is that when I was playing the mission where I have to take out the posts for the glider landing in BiA there was a sequence where a few guys would run out off the field and I chased them then they hopped a fence and I couldn't jump it.
Now I realize you play both of these games too and they are kind of shooting for a similar market but Call of Duty does their own thing and you guys do yours. Take this little list as you will, I was just giving my input. I like both games and realize their are faults with both but it just seemed like for everything Road to Hill 30 was supposed to be I was let down.
The post has been reported. Thank you!
You must be logged in to post.
You must be logged in to post.