Halo: Reach.
MW2 had some pretty fethed up gak in it that made everything suck in some circumstances and sometimes I feel like I only play it because I'm not good enough for Counterstrike. Although it is fun sometimes. I'm pretty sure (unless it's made by different people) that it's going to have a lot of the same problems.
Halo was pretty awesome and I've heard it will go to PC eventually so YEEEAH.
Greetz,
Mr. Self Destruct
Win at what exactly? If we're talking about sales, or which will be most played, I imagine it will largely depend on release timing or whatever. Both games have large groups of dedicated fans, and both games take a different approach to their multiplayer.
My prediction is that they'll largely co-exist, and be a source of "MY GAME IS BETTER THAN YOUR GAME" arguments for years to come.
The Dreadnote wrote:Win at what exactly? If we're talking about sales, or which will be most played, I imagine it will largely depend on release timing or whatever. Both games have large groups of dedicated fans, and both games take a different approach to their multiplayer.
My prediction is that they'll largely co-exist, and be a source of "MY GAME IS BETTER THAN YOUR GAME" arguments for years to come.
This.
If we'r talking game of the year awards. Depends who's ass is being kissed, since both halo and cod have been subject to massive amounts of that.
My vote go's to Halo though, but that's Biased since I've always been a fan of that series (books and everything) and always thought CoD was a bucket of gak.
I'm a bigger fan of the COD series but I think that with the mucn needed changes they are making to Halo it stands a better chance of coming out on top. I'm still wary from ODST and Halo 3 so I will borrow before I buy. I have a feeling I'm going to be owning both of them in the long run though.
Depends i think. The Cod series looks to like it is waning. And also depends. Do to legal reason infinity ward isnt making cod this time. so it might not be the same. But then again the same goes for halo.
garret wrote:And also depends. Do to legal reason infinity ward isnt making cod this time. so it might not be the same.
Don't blame legal reasons when you can blame Bobby Kotick.
garret wrote:But then again the same goes for halo.
What? Reach is being developed by Bungie and published by Microsoft. It's not changing hands until afterwards, when it will be developed by 343 Industries.
garret wrote:Depends I think. The COD series looks to like it's winningand also depends. Due to legal reason infinity ward isn't making COD this time, so it might not be the same,but then again the same goes for Halo.
I'm so bored of COD games, i'm not buying one unless it's a World War One, or World War Two game. They all seem the game... booring.
Halo: Reach is just like all the other Halos except they added some new assassinations that will get boring after the first few times.
Black Ops is set during the Cold War so that'll be interesting. There had been a few Vietnam based games, but they were poorly done so I hope that Black ops will be better.
I will also add that Treyarch is really stepping up their game so I am incredibly hopeful.
I see Black Ops pulling ahead after the little kids stop playing Halo: Reach because its "too hard" due to the health bars.
Black Ops is just like all the other CoDs except they added some new guns that will get boring after the first few times.
Halo: Reach is set during the fall of Reach so that'll be interesting. There had been a few Reach based books, and they were pretty good so I hope that Reach will be better.
I will also add that Bungie is really stepping up their game so I am incredibly hopeful.
I see Reach pulling ahead after the little kids stop playing Black Ops because it's "too hard" due to more realistic damage models.
Black Ops is based off of books too. They're called 'history' books, and in my own opinion reality is better than fiction.
Bungie lost its exclusive contract with microsoft and now works for activision(losing the Halo name), Treyarch gained the CoD franchise.
I will also put in the fact that Treyarch added a new game mode to the CoD franchise, a game mode that has yet to get boring and has a slew of devoted fans.
I never saw any threads concerning "Halo:Reach Assassination Rumours", only Nazi Zombie rumours. So yeah, I'll put Black ops ahead.
Halo: Reach has undergone a great amount of change. While keeping the same actual gameplay structure as Halo, it now has customization options akin to Call of Duty (Customizable weapon loadouts, perks, etc. that exist on a level-based system). Even if it is plagiarism, I think it will only help to boost reception and sales, as both systems work very well together.
On the other hand, Treyarch Call of Duty games have been universally received as being much worse than their Infinity Ward counterparts, and Black Ops doesn't do much to change the Call of Duty formula. In fact, it seems like a one-off, forgettable entry in the series to me.
halonachos wrote:Black Ops is based off of books too. They're called 'history' books, and in my own opinion reality is better than fiction.
Bungie lost its exclusive contract with microsoft and now works for activision(losing the Halo name), Treyarch gained the CoD franchise.
I will also put in the fact that Treyarch added a new game mode to the CoD franchise, a game mode that has yet to get boring and has a slew of devoted fans.
I never saw any threads concerning "Halo:Reach Assassination Rumours", only Nazi Zombie rumours. So yeah, I'll put Black ops ahead.
Bungie lost its exclusive contract with microsoft and now works for activision(losing the Halo name), Treyarch gained the CoD franchise.
This is relevant to a game that IS being made by Bungie... how?
Also, reality, has never been better then fiction, otherwise fiction would not exist. Fiction is often made to either make reality look better, or make it look like hell on Earth.
And bungie added a new game mode too, it's called, Forge, make your own. Oh, and now we get fully customizable Firefight too, Huzzah!
Theater is just a nice addition too.
New weapons and abilities, entirely new battle type(space fighter, and thus new vehicles), Prequel to a good story (and with awesome books already about the same war scene) are bound to deliver us some good times.
Oh, and they stepped back to the good ol' healthbar and medkits system, WOHOO!!
halonachos wrote:Black Ops is based off of books too. They're called 'history' books, and in my own opinion reality is better than fiction.
Bungie lost its exclusive contract with microsoft and now works for activision(losing the Halo name), Treyarch gained the CoD franchise.
I will also put in the fact that Treyarch added a new game mode to the CoD franchise, a game mode that has yet to get boring and has a slew of devoted fans.
I never saw any threads concerning "Halo:Reach Assassination Rumours", only Nazi Zombie rumours. So yeah, I'll put Black ops ahead.
Treyarch has always been the CoD "B-team",though. The only reason they are in full control of the CoD franchise is because the much better Infinity Ward is embroiled in legal problems with Activision. And pretty much,all Treyarch did was reskin Infinity Ward's work into other titles. With no Infinity Ward,CoD will quickly stagnate,IMO,especially since Activision insists on spamming out a new CoD game every year whether they have any good ideas for one or not.
I think Reach will be the better title simply because Bungie is a much better developer than Treyarch,.
The thing about Reach though is all of the over-hyping that's already happening. So anything less than a game that is 110% pure gold is going to be a dissapointment to everybody whereas treyarch has been getting dogged for a long while and is the red-headed stepchild of the CoD team. So if they surpass a 80% rating I would count that as an acheivement and a success.
I do see it as retooling the CoD franchise though, instead of skipping directly to "modern warfare" they went to the Cold War. So that means a potential prequel to modern warfare, think about that one.
So far they added an unbeatable game mode that can last forever(you can beat firefight), campaign co-op(lacking in MW and MW2), used what was good about MW(perks/customization), added some vehicle play(that can be interesting at times or annoying as hell).
Unfortunately, WaW was a WW2 game and most people were tired of WW2 games at that time so I think that alo affected the ratings it received.
The sniper level, the beginning of the campaign, the sea-plane level, the storming of the reichstag, all of these were fantastic levels. Although it seemed that there was a lot of movie references, they still pulled off a fantastic game with a lot of good times in it.
Black Ops looks good and sounds challenging. They removed the nukes, should have better servers, apparantly have levels where your kit is reduced to a knife, and best of all is set in the era between Modern Warfare and World at War.
So if Black Ops isn't long campaign wise, chances are it may be a stepping stone to linking WaW to MW somehow. Similar to the relationship between Command and Conquer's Tiberian Sun and Red Alert series and From Paris With Love.
The thing about Reach though is all of the over-hyping that's already happening. So anything less than a game that is 110% pure gold is going to be a dissapointment to everybody whereas treyarch has been getting dogged for a long while and is the red-headed stepchild of the CoD team. So if they surpass a 80% rating I would count that as an acheivement and a success.
I do see it as retooling the CoD franchise though, instead of skipping directly to "modern warfare" they went to the Cold War. So that means a potential prequel to modern warfare, think about that one.
So far they added an unbeatable game mode that can last forever(you can beat firefight), campaign co-op(lacking in MW and MW2), used what was good about MW(perks/customization), added some vehicle play(that can be interesting at times or annoying as hell).
Unfortunately, WaW was a WW2 game and most people were tired of WW2 games at that time so I think that alo affected the ratings it received.
The sniper level, the beginning of the campaign, the sea-plane level, the storming of the reichstag, all of these were fantastic levels. Although it seemed that there was a lot of movie references, they still pulled off a fantastic game with a lot of good times in it.
Black Ops looks good and sounds challenging. They removed the nukes, should have better servers, apparantly have levels where your kit is reduced to a knife, and best of all is set in the era between Modern Warfare and World at War.
So if Black Ops isn't long campaign wise, chances are it may be a stepping stone to linking WaW to MW somehow. Similar to the relationship between Command and Conquer's Tiberian Sun and Red Alert series and From Paris With Love.
You can beat firefight if you set it to be beatable. At least one of the default modes (classic) goes on forever. It also has a ridiculous amount of customisation options, and the ability to share custom gametypes over XBL.
Have to say that I've hated the CoD games since they went modern warfare. I hate the "we will spam you with enemies until you reach a certain point on the map", and I don't care about the setting either, which probably doesn't help.
I also hate the multiplayer, with apparently no level or skill matching such as there is in the Halo games, so you come in for your first ever MP game with the crappy guns and armour and get nailed by a bunch of people on their 800th trip through the ranking/perk system with all the decent stuff.
At least in CoD 3 there wasn't so much of a problem with that - I loved multiplayer on that.
Already have Reach on pre-order. Going to run around in my magical flaming armour. Woo!
halonachos wrote:The thing about Reach though is all of the over-hyping that's already happening. So anything less than a game that is 110% pure gold is going to be a dissapointment to everybody whereas treyarch has been getting dogged for a long while and is the red-headed stepchild of the CoD team. So if they surpass a 80% rating I would count that as an acheivement and a success.
I do see it as retooling the CoD franchise though, instead of skipping directly to "modern warfare" they went to the Cold War. So that means a potential prequel to modern warfare, think about that one.
So far they added an unbeatable game mode that can last forever(you can beat firefight), campaign co-op(lacking in MW and MW2), used what was good about MW(perks/customization), added some vehicle play(that can be interesting at times or annoying as hell).
Unfortunately, WaW was a WW2 game and most people were tired of WW2 games at that time so I think that alo affected the ratings it received.
The sniper level, the beginning of the campaign, the sea-plane level, the storming of the reichstag, all of these were fantastic levels. Although it seemed that there was a lot of movie references, they still pulled off a fantastic game with a lot of good times in it.
Black Ops looks good and sounds challenging. They removed the nukes, should have better servers, apparantly have levels where your kit is reduced to a knife, and best of all is set in the era between Modern Warfare and World at War.
So if Black Ops isn't long campaign wise, chances are it may be a stepping stone to linking WaW to MW somehow. Similar to the relationship between Command and Conquer's Tiberian Sun and Red Alert series and From Paris With Love.
Reach is getting heavily hyped,but so does every Halo game. Usually,Bungie delivers,with ODST being the only real exception to that. Which,ODST wasn't bad,but it was basically just a $20-30 expansion they sold as a $60 game.
I don't expect anything from CoD's campaign. After MW2,it should become apparent to everybody that Activision is pretty much just focusing on the multiplayer aspect of the game,which stinks,as CoD was always known for great campaigns before that. Unfortunately,now that Activision is in it's typical franchise mode,which is spam out a game in the line every year whether it really adds anything or not,the campaign mode will probably be another short mess.
Campaign co-op is nice,but the new campaign will probably be extremely short and it's nothing new. Other shooter franchises have been doing it for years. The reintrocution of vehicles could severely hurt game balance in multiplayer. Other than that,it's just new perks/guns.
Soladrin wrote:ODST started at 45 bucks here, and it also had Halo 3 multiplayer disc + DLC maps and Halo Reach BETA invite.
IMO it was a better buy then Halo 3 itself.
ODST's Campaign was awesome too.
ODST was a good buy if you were new to Halo 3. However,for a lot of people,the Halo 3 multiplayer disc and DLC maps were worthless because they already had them. The ODST campaign was good,but pretty short. $60 is a little steep for a 5-6 hour campaign and Firefight,IMO.
Haven't played ODST, but read the guide inside and out. Looks like an interesting concept(flashback portions) because it somewhat explains the debris that you discover. For example the helmet in the console really isn't explained just the fact that a person who wore the helmet did exist.
If I recall resistance had a similar health system. I say similar because there was limited health regeneration in that game. You had four boxes for health, if you lost half a box it could refill if you didn't take any damage in a period of time. If you lost 1 and a half boxes of health, only that half could refill, the completely empty box required a med kit.
And Bah to your medkits, 007 goldeneye denied the existence of such. Oh and another thing, if James Bond can carry a rocket launcher, grenades, throwing knives, more than several pistols/ machine guns/ shotguns, and a sniper rifle how come the Superhuman Master Chief can't?
IG_urban wrote:what, you going to say "cool story, bro", again?
Nah, I was going to point out that you can only carry two weapons because it's a) more realistic, and b) it adds a layer of strategy that comes from not being able to bring the ideal weapon for every fight.
CSB is reserved for posts that boil down to "I like X but I don't like Y, therefore X is good and Y is bad".
I was one of those guys who started my HALO journey at ODST. It was okay, nothing great, I actually picked it up for the firefight stuff and the HALO 3 stuff so it served that purpose well. I am looking forward to both Reach and Black Ops but I have to think that Reach will most definitely be the bigger of the 2.
Reach because bungie don't go "oh, you've not bought our overpriced DLC... BUY IT! BUY IT! BUY IT!" like COD does. They simply don't let you in that playlist and they have a fairly even amount of DLC/non DLC playlists.
FM Ninja 048 wrote:Reach because bungie don't go "oh, you've not bought our overpriced DLC... BUY IT! BUY IT! BUY IT!" like COD does. They simply don't let you in that playlist and they have a fairly even amount of DLC/non DLC playlists.
Reach, as you just know it's gonna make it's way into the Red vs. Blue series at some stage.
I am looking forward to both, though.
its said that there aint gonna be no sniper in black ops
in reach however...
I have yet to see anything that has said Black Ops will lack a sniper rifle. In reach however, sniper rifles leave a little trail that says "Hey! Shoot me!".
And halo being more realistic because a super human can't carry more than two guns? I can understand CoD having that, but if my guy can jump 10+ feet in the air and kick a bomb in space so that it hits an enemy ship, and has gear that augments his strength and whatnot he had better be able to carry more than two guns. Its not realistic, that's rubbish strategy or not.
Can you imagine what it was like when the scientists pitched that idea.
Scientist: We have plans for a suit that will augment the user's strength, agility, and power. He will jump great heights, complete feets of daring, and save our world.
Military Guy: Excellent, are there any drawbacks though?
Scientist: Well, the user will be unable to carry more than two weapons at a time, maybe three if they are small enough.
I must say that i think halo reach will take it, atleast with me. The reason being is ive been through CoD Mw2s leveling system 6 times and now im very board of CoD where as on halo 3 I have REACHed the max level and still play it and have tons of fun.
its said that there aint gonna be no sniper in black ops
in reach however...
I have yet to see anything that has said Black Ops will lack a sniper rifle. In reach however, sniper rifles leave a little trail that says "Hey! Shoot me!".
And halo being more realistic because a super human can't carry more than two guns? I can understand CoD having that, but if my guy can jump 10+ feet in the air and kick a bomb in space so that it hits an enemy ship, and has gear that augments his strength and whatnot he had better be able to carry more than two guns. Its not realistic, that's rubbish strategy or not.
Can you imagine what it was like when the scientists pitched that idea.
Scientist: We have plans for a suit that will augment the user's strength, agility, and power. He will jump great heights, complete feets of daring, and save our world.
Military Guy: Excellent, are there any drawbacks though?
Scientist: Well, the user will be unable to carry more than two weapons at a time, maybe three if they are small enough.
Military Guy: Seriously, and why is that?
Scientist: Strategy.
Well,the 2 gun thing makes sense from a certain perspective. He's carrying one weapon(or two small ones),and has one slung. Sneaking,running,and/or jumping 10 ft in the air would very clumsy if you had 5 guns on slings clanking around,even though you easily have the strength to carry them. You'd be adjusting slings constantly,getting snagged on stuff repeatadley,and the metal on metal clanking would give away your position. Not to mention you have to carry AMMO for all those different weapons,too,and the logistics for reloading would be a nightmare. "Uhhh...ok,is this my SMG ammo? No. That's Assault Rifle. Is this it? Nope,that's for the Battle Rifle. No,those are shotgun shells. Ahhh...here it is. Now,are these my full clips,or my partially spent ones?"
Still, what is the difference if he is carrying a rocket launcher and a fuel-rod launcher thing?
THose are two very heavy, very unwieldy weapons yet he can carry both and sneak around with them. Now, if it was that you carried a rocket launcher and could only carry a smg or pistol then I would agree with you there. However, that isn't going to happen in anything outside of Battlefield.
Also, it is hard for me to believe that a person who is 7ft, weighs about 1,000 pounds, and wears a suit made out of metal is going to be stealthy.
Its not more realistic at all, not saying that call of duty is realistic though(getting shot in the upper chest by a sniper doesn't kill you?).
If you want realistic, stick with Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six(the originals on the PC) and maybe batlefield.
The original Rainbow Six's were punishment. There was a healthbar, but you didn't heal. A shot from a pistol could kill you, and you laid out plans with a team of people. Your kit was simple to manage(one main, one side, special equipment) and you could choose armor types and ammo type(shotgun:slug, shot, or rubber? submachine gun: FMJ or hollowpoint?).
Seriously... your basis for the game being silly is that... you can only carry two guns? It's a video game. I'd love to be a walking armory as much as he next guy but that kind of throws game balance out the window.
Both games have their fans. They're both arcade shooters in different lights. Halo will likely win, as there is a lot of sour taste still around from the MW2 fiasco, and Treyarch games have never been of the same quality as Infinity Ward and lets face it Infinity Ward's quality is gone forever. Everyone who mattered quit!
CoD is dead and we can all see it. Halo will likely die once Bungie leaves unless the new developers are of sufficient ability in the "is this fun yet" department.
I've never heard of Crytek, but I'd buy a Ubisoft CoD in an instant. Mind you, I guess Ghost Recon will always be there for me. Hmm... On second thought, I'll just stick with Ghost Recon
IG_urban wrote:Crytek Frankfurt and Ubisoft need to pick up CoD.
QFT. A CoD made by Ubisoft would renew my faith in the franchise. Gawd damn, do they ever make good stuff.
Yeah. That new DRM is spectacular. /end sarcasm
Crytek is horribly overrated. Their games have always been a mountain of eye candy and no nutritional value.
You.....I......I don't even know where to begin with you. Explain yourself.
metallifan wrote:I've never heard of Crytek, but I'd buy a Ubisoft CoD in an instant. Mind you, I guess Ghost Recon will always be there for me. Hmm... On second thought, I'll just stick with Ghost Recon
Crytek made Far Cry, Crysis, Farcry 2, and Crysis: Warhead. Ubisoft develops, Crytek does the graphics, they already have a partnership...now they just need to do it.
metallifan wrote:I've never heard of Crytek, but I'd buy a Ubisoft CoD in an instant. Mind you, I guess Ghost Recon will always be there for me. Hmm... On second thought, I'll just stick with Ghost Recon
Are you talking about the original Ghost Recon series... or Advanced Warfighter? I always wanted to try the original series... I've only tried Advanced Warfighter 2 but thought it was pretty dang good.
metallifan wrote:So... Does Crytek -have- to put part of their name in the titles of all of their products? That seems extremely amateurish...
I don't know about all that...
I think if they make games as awesome and beautiful as they do, they can do whatever the feth they want. Besides...they're foreign, they can be weird to you and get away with it.
I don't think it's amateurish. It's a style thing. A lot of studios have some sort of trade mark they include in everything. Bungie's Marathon logo for example or Epic Games' constant inclusion of extremely macho men with arms the size of tree trunks.
Urban do you mean Ubisoft's horrible DRM or Crytek?
THe DRM sucks and I refuse to buy any Ubisoft games so long as they use it.
As for Crytek, I think that their games are visually appealing by in terms of being a game have never really been that great. The first Far Cry had a lot of nice ideas, but some technical glitches and bad AI kept the game from shining, not to mention the lame story line. Far Cry 2 was horrible. Crysis while a step in the right direction imo, was not a very good game, suffering again from AI glitches, bad level design, and technical glitches.
Graphically their the best, but there are developers that I think make funner games.
I've never played any of their games. I skipped Crysis after several reviews and players agreed that it wasn't much more than flashy graphics, and from what I've heard of Farcry, it's just Elder Scrolls meets GTA meets Tropico which is all good and fun, but for some reason it seems to get pretty mediocre reviews.
And yea, really, amateurish. Just seems to me like any company that has to put it's name in the title of all it's games just to remind you who made it isn't really all that. If you can provide an insight into the games I'll likely change my tune, but right now I'm going off of what the majority opinion seems to be
metallifan wrote:Farcry, it's just Elder Scrolls meets GTA meets Tropico which is all good and fun, but for some reason it seems to get pretty mediocre reviews.
That's pretty much all of Crytek's games, but poor coded, unbalanced, and with massive levels that don't really mean anything because enemies are always in the same places. Not to mention their freak'n XRAY VISION granted to the by Superman so that they can see through miles of jungle and snipe you with their shotguns.
You need to patch your games, man. I agree on Farcry 2, it was huge, and when I beat it was just like, "well! you did it!". Farcry, I thought, for it's time, was great, coming off Half Life's wake of pwn, though, it could not stand up. Crysis however, is fantastic. I have played through the entire game on hard and Delta difficulties. Everytime you die, the enemies are in new formations, in different areas of the map. I'll admit there are issues...but come ON!!! the Nano Suit?!?!? fething amazing! I got scary good with it, and you can do such awesome gak, like, run at a humvee speeding at you, jump over it, and shoot the spare gas can on the back before you land. Pick up big sheets of steel and throw them at a group of enemies, leap up in the air, grab a guy in midair, throw him at another dude before you land, etc....I dunno...I think that is so cool....
You said it yourself, the graphics are the absolute best, no company can do it all.... Valve made half life 2, one of the greatest story lines and games of all time, but the graphics could have been way better, etc...
I say between the Nano Suit, almost entirely destroyable environments! (you can shoot down a tree and have it fall on a truck full of troops!!!), and the graphics, Crysis is pretty damn cool.
although, there are the people that just want to be able to shoot gak and pwn n00bs, so I guess that wouldn't be for them...
I just think an FPS where you can kill everyone without firing a single shot is AWESOME!
PLUS!! the weapon mods??? soo cool! You basically have a modular weapon system. The ak you get can be a sniper, assault, CQC, etc....
LordofHats wrote:Treyarch games have never been of the same quality as Infinity Ward
I would just point out that when Treyarch was working on World at War, they were also working on James Bond:Quantum of Solace and Spider-Man: Web of Shadows, they've said that they are putting 100% of their resources into Black-Ops, meaning that it will be much, much better than World at War.
They haven't been working on anything other than Black-Ops since 2008.
LordofHats wrote:Treyarch games have never been of the same quality as Infinity Ward
I would just point out that when Treyarch was working on World at War, they were also working on James Bond:Quantum of Solace and Spider-Man: Web of Shadows, they've said that they are putting 100% of their resources into Black-Ops, meaning that it will be much, much better than World at War.
They haven't been working on anything other than Black-Ops since 2008.
They put 100% into Call of Duty 3 too. About the same as WaW in quality.
I'm not saying they can't make a great game, just that history shows that while they make good games, and even great games, their Call of Duty titles never stand as strong as Infinity Ward's (ignoring MW2, it sucked)
LordofHats wrote:Treyarch games have never been of the same quality as Infinity Ward
I would just point out that when Treyarch was working on World at War, they were also working on James Bond:Quantum of Solace and Spider-Man: Web of Shadows, they've said that they are putting 100% of their resources into Black-Ops, meaning that it will be much, much better than World at War.
They haven't been working on anything other than Black-Ops since 2008.
So it's still gonna suck, cause those games were both made of fail, 3 fails added together makes one big fail.
metallifan wrote:I've never heard of Crytek, but I'd buy a Ubisoft CoD in an instant. Mind you, I guess Ghost Recon will always be there for me. Hmm... On second thought, I'll just stick with Ghost Recon
Ghost recon is a fun game, I prefer my sneaking done sam fisher style my anti-terrorism rainbow six style, and my spec-ops done Ghost Recon style. Red Storm was also a fantastic developer, but I also enjoy volition and pandemic(who closed after The Saboteur).
Ooh, if ubisoft made a CoD game along with Volition, that would be amazing.
As to Treyarch though I will say some positive things.
1) I think they started the sniper rifle shine when the light hits the scope.
2) Tanks are always fun.
3) Hello, my name is Gibby and this my friend Nubs.
4) Lack of all powerful killstreak rewards.(Dogs are easy to kill).
5) First to allow extension of melee attack via bayonet
6) Sawed off shotgun
7) Sticky grenades(first in series)
8) Not all snipers had a ghillie suit(although I will give MW2 points for have ghillie suits that match terrain)
9) Night figthing
Not going to be a webcomic for awhile. I don't have a fancy shmancy computer drawing thing and colored pencil shows up bad on the scanner. It is most likely going to be done through deviant art though because I am cheap.
Armor Saves, a 40k comedy to be published with "Technicolor"(working title) a more serious 40k comic worked on by another artist, to be published with "Cecil the Cowardly Catfish" also by me.
LordofHats wrote:Treyarch games have never been of the same quality as Infinity Ward
I would just point out that when Treyarch was working on World at War, they were also working on James Bond:Quantum of Solace and Spider-Man: Web of Shadows, they've said that they are putting 100% of their resources into Black-Ops, meaning that it will be much, much better than World at War.
They haven't been working on anything other than Black-Ops since 2008.
So it's still gonna suck, cause those games were both made of fail, 3 fails added together makes one big fail.
So, three decent games in which they didn't apply their full manpower, is equal to one decent game with full use of manpower?
Soladrin wrote:No, my point is I've never seen Treyarch make something that was actually really good, no matter how much manpower they invested.
QFT
Treyarch's CoD games aren't bad. But they've never been as good as IW's, and with most of IW's key staff quitting, I doubt the CoD series will be able to maintain it's level of quality prior to the fiasco that was MW2. Will the games still be worth buy, fun to play, and generally good? I don't know. I just know we're past the peak of the series and it's not coming back. The only direction to go is slightly down or way down.
Goliath wrote:I'm sorry, but why do you keep on referring to MW2 as a failure, or a fiasco, or that it sucked?
It was the most successful game launch ever, how, in your opinion, is it bad?
High sells and a successful launch does not mean a game is good. It's only a measure of whether or not people expect it to be good.
My problem with the game is that it is insanely simplistic. None of the guns carry recoil (Exaggeration, I can count the ones that have recoil on one hand) in addition to a general lack of weapon balance, you have an infinite number of tubes for your noob tube, and kill streaks are overpowered and unbalanced. Anyone can succeed in the game, even people with no skill or ability at it (Some people probably like that, I don't). The hit boxes are huge. They've always been big in CoD, but I mean they are huge. You can be hiding around a corner and still be shot because the hit boxes extend beyond your body. More so, hackers are present in almost every game, and the networking is horrible. The game is broken and at times unplayable. I decided to try it again last week and in the first game I joined: 1 multihacker, 2 wallhackers, and everyone had a noob tube. The game just isn't fun to play. I'd play private games but you gain no experience from them.
I'm not really gonna get into single player. I beat it on hardened in six hours. It wasn't worth sixty bucks no matter how flashy it is (granted, the part where helis are falling from the sky was hilarious because my buddy kept getting smashed). Spec Ops would be fun if there were a way to find people to play with other than begging a friend to suck it up and play with you.
Note that I am a PC gamer, and speak of the PC version of MW2. I've never played the console versions, and what sometimes doesn't fly on the PC will fly just fine on console. My biggest problem with MW2 is that when you use a mouse, its easier to ask how can I not get kills than how can I get kills, and the constant presence of hackers in the playlists (Ones who never seem to get banned). Consoles have fewer hackers, and a game pad lacks the same precision of a mouse in aiming. The game probably would be more enjoyable on my 360 but I just don't want to buy it again.
EDIT: More than that though, the quality of MW2 is nothing compared to what we saw in CoD2 and CoD4, both utterly amazing games. It's like they reproduced what looks like a Call of Duty game, and plays like a Call of Duty game, but the quack from the duck just seems to have a little less soul in it. CoD has degraded from a worthy shooter into a generic arcade gun runner (I should say tube runner/hacker fest as far as PC is concerned). I remember played CoD4 with my buddies and it was a blast. We had fun. In MW2 we had nothing but frustration and annoyance, and a general lack of actual fun after the first ten to twenty hours. Only two of my buds still play MW2 out of the ten who have it. The rest of us went back to CoD4 and then to BFBC2. I hand it to Activision. They may have created what I feel is a crappy game, but they've catered to players who for many years just haven't been able to get anywhere. The noobs. If you can't pwn in MW2, just uninstall your operating system. You're not going anywhere XD.
I'm going to go back to Unreal. If for no other reason than to watch people with no lives act with inhuman reflex and aim at a video game.
LordofHats wrote:The game just isn't fun to play. I'd play private games but you gain no experience from them.
So which is it you want from your game? Fun or points?
That's a silly statement. The experience points and leveling up are part of the fun.
If a game makes everything you try to do a hassle, there's not much of a point in playing it, and I find everything in MW2 a hassle between the catering to noobery, constant hacker presence, and the horrible networking mess that is IW Net.
Don't get me wrong, it's fun sometimes. Going 10-1 on my Kill to Death ratio is awesome when its so easy, but it only stays awesome for so long.
Goliath wrote:I'm sorry, but why do you keep on referring to MW2 as a failure, or a fiasco, or that it sucked?
It was the most successful game launch ever, how, in your opinion, is it bad?
High sells and a successful launch does not mean a game is good. It's only a measure of whether or not people expect it to be good.
My problem with the game is that it is insanely simplistic. None of the guns carry recoil (Exaggeration, I can count the ones that have recoil on one hand) in addition to a general lack of weapon balance, you have an infinite number of tubes for your noob tube, and kill streaks are overpowered and unbalanced. Anyone can succeed in the game, even people with no skill or ability at it (Some people probably like that, I don't). The hit boxes are huge. They've always been big in CoD, but I mean they are huge. You can be hiding around a corner and still be shot because the hit boxes extend beyond your body. More so, hackers are present in almost every game, and the networking is horrible. The game is broken and at times unplayable. I decided to try it again last week and in the first game I joined: 1 multihacker, 2 wallhackers, and everyone had a noob tube. The game just isn't fun to play. I'd play private games but you gain no experience from them.
I'm not really gonna get into single player. I beat it on hardened in six hours. It wasn't worth sixty bucks no matter how flashy it is (granted, the part where helis are falling from the sky was hilarious because my buddy kept getting smashed). Spec Ops would be fun if there were a way to find people to play with other than begging a friend to suck it up and play with you.
Note that I am a PC gamer, and speak of the PC version of MW2. I've never played the console versions, and what sometimes doesn't fly on the PC will fly just fine on console. My biggest problem with MW2 is that when you use a mouse, its easier to ask how can I not get kills than how can I get kills, and the constant presence of hackers in the playlists (Ones who never seem to get banned). Consoles have fewer hackers, and a game pad lacks the same precision of a mouse in aiming. The game probably would be more enjoyable on my 360 but I just don't want to buy it again.
EDIT: More than that though, the quality of MW2 is nothing compared to what we saw in CoD2 and CoD4, both utterly amazing games. It's like they reproduced what looks like a Call of Duty game, and plays like a Call of Duty game, but the quack from the duck just seems to have a little less soul in it. CoD has degraded from a worthy shooter into a generic arcade gun runner (I should say tube runner/hacker fest as far as PC is concerned). I remember played CoD4 with my buddies and it was a blast. We had fun. In MW2 we had nothing but frustration and annoyance, and a general lack of actual fun after the first ten to twenty hours. Only two of my buds still play MW2 out of the ten who have it. The rest of us went back to CoD4 and then to BFBC2. I hand it to Activision. They may have created what I feel is a crappy game, but they've catered to players who for many years just haven't been able to get anywhere. The noobs. If you can't pwn in MW2, just uninstall your operating system. You're not going anywhere XD.
I'm going to go back to Unreal. If for no other reason than to watch people with no lives act with inhuman reflex and aim at a video game.
everything you mentioned can be solved by joining a group.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I play with a group of about 700, there are AT LEAST 20 people online at all times, the group is all about no hacks, no tubes, good connections, etc. it is invite only, and if somebody is caught doing any of these things, people just drop out of the room and unfriend the perp on steam. close to banning as you can get.
LordofHats wrote:everything you mentioned can be solved by joining a group.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I play with a group of about 700, there are AT LEAST 20 people online at all times, the group is all about no hacks, no tubes, good connections, etc. it is invite only, and if somebody is caught doing any of these things, people just drop out of the room and unfriend the perp on steam. close to banning as you can get.
So? Why should I need to find a massive group of players to enjoy a game? Whether or not the problems can be solved by this or that doesn't matter. All problems can be solved, but the problems are there and Activision and IW have never tried to solve them. I shouldn't need to work my way into some exclusive band of friends to get a game going and enjoy it.
EDIT: Even in a group I still have to deal with unbalanced weapons and overpowered kill streaks. I'm sure there will be tube jockey's present too and the networking is still horrible. The only problem a group solves are the hacker problems. Wait... wasn't one of IW's excuses for IFail Net that we wouldn't need Clans to deal with hackers for us... Clans are a group of people and are invite only... WAIT A MINUTE!
I looked at the metacritic ratings and had some fun with it. I know some people hate metacritic because of their scoring system, but it works for the most part.
Halo: 97
Halo 2: 95
Halo 3: 94
Halo ODST: 83
CoD United Offensive: 87
CoD Big Red One: 77
CoD 3: 83
CoD 5: 85
MW Reflex Edition for Wii: 76
What I get from this is that the Halo games while good, are overhyped and are gradually falling to pieces, now that Bungie works for Activision I doubt they will make anymore Halo games.
I also get that Treyarch made a fantastic PC game, but suffered on their first console game. They have continued working on it to improve the game for the consoles. Unfortunately they made the Wii version of MW, which got a lower rating which is most likely due to the Wii being the Wii. I use the ghosbusters game as an example.
halonachos wrote:What I get from this is that the Halo games while good, are overhyped and are gradually falling to pieces, now that Bungie works for Activision I doubt they will make anymore Halo games.
Agreed about the Halo games. I blame Microsoft more than Bungie though. Publishers sometimes punish developers to get games out and often they come out premature or before they're ready. In Halo's case, Bungie really wasn't interested in extending the series past Halo 3 and I think that was effecting their mindset while they were making the game because they knew Microsoft wanted them to make more Halo games. I'll however point out Halo is no more overhyped than any other major release game including Call of Duty. Once a game hits a certain point hype just goes crazy, Halo, Call of Duty, and Gears of War being the examples that first come to my mind.
I will point out Bungie, unlike Infinity Ward and Treyarch, does not work for Activision. In most cases, when a game is developed, the Publisher retrains publishing and copy rights, effectively making them the owner of the franchise rather than the people making the game. For example we all know Bungie will never make another Halo. They don't hold the development rights, Microsoft does. Now that they left their ownership by MIcrosoft and no longer want to make Halo games, Bungie fans have known for a long time (Since ODST) that there weren't going to be anymore Halo games by Bungie after Reach. Bungie's agreement with Activision lets the Developer keep all copy rights, meaning they can leave their partnership with Activision whenever they want to, and Activision retains none of the ownership rights to Bungie's work, just the right to publish. This is extremely rare in the industry, and only a company with the hype of Bungie could probably get such a good deal.
It's not really abnormal for Bungie though. They've never been big on franchise games. They only made the Marathon Trilogy, and then 2 Myth's, and then the Halo Trilogy. I wouldn't be surprised to find them working on a stand alone or the first segment of another trilogy as their next project. Their agreement with Activision says that Activision will publish three multi-platform games, so I'm leaning towards trilogy.
halonachos wrote:I looked at the metacritic ratings and had some fun with it. I know some people hate metacritic because of their scoring system, but it works for the most part.
Halo: 97
Halo 2: 95
Halo 3: 94
Halo ODST: 83
CoD United Offensive: 87
CoD Big Red One: 77
CoD 3: 83
CoD 5: 85
MW Reflex Edition for Wii: 76
What I get from this is that the Halo games while good, are overhyped and are gradually falling to pieces, now that Bungie works for Activision I doubt they will make anymore Halo games.
I also get that Treyarch made a fantastic PC game, but suffered on their first console game. They have continued working on it to improve the game for the consoles. Unfortunately they made the Wii version of MW, which got a lower rating which is most likely due to the Wii being the Wii. I use the Ghostbusters game as an example.
I should point out that the lowest rated Halo game(ODST) is also the one that really wasn't intended for anyone but die-hard Halo fans who actually enjoy the background and not just the multiplayer aspect.
And one could easily argue that the only reason "United Offensive" got high marks is because 1)it wasn't anything more than an expansion pack for Call of Duty and 2) Infinity Ward/Gearbox basically gave them everything they could to ensure they didn't screw up.
If you like to argue that point point about the expansion then that makes it easier for me. Over time then, Treyarch has been only getting better with their games.
Also, it doesn't matter who ODST was aimed towards. There were most likely other reasons besides who it was intended for giving it relatively low scores.
If I said that WaW wasn't intended for anyone besides die-hard WW2 fans who actually enjoy the background and not just the multiplayer, would you feel that as a good argument.
Well, if they had a lot of help with United Offensive and it was only expansion, its not fair to compare it to actual console games now is it?
All world at war did was add gibbing, a flash off of the sniper scope(MW2 used that), treyarch added tanks and vehicles, added a flamethrower which had been neglected in most other WW2 games, covered the pacific theater, added the possibility to extend melee range unlike MW(although MW2 did use that), added multiplayer night fighting(apparantly we don't fight in the dark anymore), not to mention the replay value went up due to the co-op campaign and of course the zombie mode.
MW2 scrapped those game modes, which is stupid as hell in my opinion. I want the co-op and if a series of missions is the only co-op offered then it sucks. Once I get 3 stars for each mission I'm done and there's no need for me to play them again so I go online.
WaW, I can play the co-op campaign with a friend and have a contest to see who's better at the end. Also, you can't beat zombie mode, literally. I can't get to level 25 and say "Look at that, I beat it." I can only say "Hey, I wonder if I can get farther.". So those two game modes alone make WaW better than MW2.
I truly believe that WaW suffered for only one reason, it was set during WW2.
There are a lot of WW2 games, but not too many modern war games. Although MW2 didn't do anything too special in terms of setting it during the modern era, after all Battlefield 2 beat them to the punch more than awhile back and offered more.
Flamethrowers were neglected in most other WW2 games because they didn't cover the Pacific Theater. They just weren't common outside of the Pacific or Eastern Fronts.
The "flash off the sniper scope" thing was used in Medal of Honor games prior to World at War. So that's not innovative. Same with bayonets.
As for Nazi Zombies...so what?
Firefight for ODST worked the same way. The only reason it got booed was the fact that Firefight required you to move around and actually work coherently with a team. You can't just get a random bunch of jackasses together and play it.
Actually, if you want to live you need to work as a team in zombie mode as well. The main difference is that you can hide behind cover in firefight and you have a set number of lives. In Zombie mode there is no cover, just choke points, and you can go on even after you're downed as long as the other guys survive the round or revive you before actual death.
Flamethrowers were used in both theaters, not just the pacific so that's no excuse for their lack of use. In fact there were two man flamethrower teams deployed at normandy during d-day.
Please reread the comment if you're going to try to have a productive conversation.
Flamethrowers were neglected in most other WW2 games because they didn't cover the Pacific Theater. They just weren't common outside of the Pacific or Eastern Fronts.
Normandy was one of the exceptions to the rule, simply because they were attacking heavily fortified positions and they knew it.
As for your other comment...
I've played with complete dumbasses in zombie mode. One person can carry the team, provided they know what they're doing.
halonachos wrote:I looked at the metacritic ratings and had some fun with it. I know some people hate metacritic because of their scoring system, but it works for the most part.
Halo: 97
Halo 2: 95
Halo 3: 94
Halo ODST: 83
CoD United Offensive: 87
CoD Big Red One: 77
CoD 3: 83
CoD 5: 85
MW Reflex Edition for Wii: 76
What I get from this is that the Halo games while good, are overhyped and are gradually falling to pieces, now that Bungie works for Activision I doubt they will make anymore Halo games.
I also get that Treyarch made a fantastic PC game, but suffered on their first console game. They have continued working on it to improve the game for the consoles. Unfortunately they made the Wii version of MW, which got a lower rating which is most likely due to the Wii being the Wii. I use the ghosbusters game as an example.
I find it amusing that your data misses out the scores for Modern Warfare (94, 92 and less for other handhelds and PC) World at War (84) and Modern warfare 2 (94, 86 for PC).
Also haven't Bungie said that this is the best game yet about all of the Halo Games, and they have been getting worse and worse reviews.
Soladrin wrote:Wait... 83 is a low score for you people? YOU BE CRAZY!
It's not low. It's just not spectacular. And the Four Point scale is a real phenomenon. It happens because if a reviewer gives a game from a major publisher too low a score, the Publisher stops sending them games to review. The most blatant example is how Game Spot I believe it was, was denied access to Assassin's Creed 2 for review because their critics had given poor scores to other Ubisoft Games (EDIT: It might not be Game Spot. I can't seem to find the article. It was Game ____ I just need to find the right reviewer). A German reviewer was also propositioned by Ubisoft with the opportunity to review the game before any of its competitors if a good review was given. The reviewer turned it down.
One reviewer, Game Informer, even ADMITS the scale exists by stating in their own reviews section that a 7.5 is to be considered average, an 8.0 as good, 8.5 as great, 9.0 as amazing, 9.5 as spectacular, and a 10 as perfect.
EDIT: This isn't to say you can't use reviews. You just need to recognize that this scale is in place and adjust to it. I read Game Informer, so I got used to it years ago.
I find it amusing that your data misses out the scores for Modern Warfare (94, 92 and less for other handhelds and PC) World at War (84) and Modern warfare 2 (94, 86 for PC).
I believe that he was try to focus on the Treyarch titles. Infinity Ward's have always gotten much higher scores from users and critics.
Also haven't Bungie said that this is the best game yet about all of the Halo Games, and they have been getting worse and worse reviews.
Yeah. 97, 95, 94. You can really see the quality slipping away a point at a time. Everyone knows ODST sucked, but Bungie didn't want to make ODST, and the game itself was mostly pushed and designed by Microsoft with Bungie doing the leg work. Most Halo fans knew the game wasn't going to be that good (Or at least I did. I've been playing Video Games for 20 years. You get a sixth sense about these things ). I honestly doubt that Reach will score as high as the Halo Trilogy, but I think that the game will score higher than ODST. There are some interesting ideas in the game, but I'm iffy on how well recieved they'll be. Will the game be good? Yes. Will it be mainstream good and thus get thousands of stellar reviews for being another face in the crowd of FPS games that clone each other over and over like MW2? Probably not.
I would like to point out Halo is the father of the Modern FPS game. Advanced Enemy AI, ally AI, recharging health, kill bonuses, interface design, online leader boards? Halo brought all of these into the mainstream market. Call of Duty, does not exist, without Halo.
IMHO i think that Cod4 is better than Cod6
and reach is going to own black ops no matter what
if you cant see your legs or the shadow of your legs when you look down even if theres a lot of equipment so thats why you might not see them halo is more realistic (cept for the high jumping aliens lasers and shields)
IMO ODST's Campaign was a million times better then Halo 3, Halo 1 is still the best though IMHO. But, Reach is taking a step back along with it's steps foreward, in the Beta it felt more like Halo 1 then halo 2-3 to me, which I loved!
They changed grenade arcs though which was annoying...
Also, reason why reach will own black ops: Focus rifle, f yea
So, the reason Halo will beat Black Ops is due to its unrealistic/ sci-finess? Just say that and I'll be pleased as a peach.
And no Kanluwen, flamethrowers were not just used by the allies in eastern front or pacific theater and no D-Day was not the exception. D-Day just had more flamethrowers than normal due to bunkers/trenches/mg nests/ etc. To say that besides D-Day, flamethrowers were not used on the western front is foolish,because history says they were used.
I like that about zombie mode though, its easier to survive and easier to get a longer game out of it. You can revive a fallen buddy, get perks for more health and faster revive, and as long as one guy manages to finish the round the game goes on. I can assume that if you play with idiots on firefight then you will also lose and that it is possible for one person to carry the group as well. That point has nothing to do with the game, just the players and by the sounds of it you take it rather seriously.
I open the doors I shouldn't open in zombie mode for people like that.
Guy: Halo, don't open that door. If you do we'll lose.
Halo: Whatever.
Guy: No don't open the door we need to...
*beeps*
Guy: I can't believe you did that, now we're all going to lose because of Halo. Halo you are
*beeps*
Guy: HALO STOP OPENING DOORS
Rage quit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, goliath I didn't put MW2 and such in there because Treyarch didn't make them, that was IW.
halonachos wrote:So, the reason Halo will beat Black Ops is due to its unrealistic/ sci-finess? Just say that and I'll be pleased as a peach.
Actually no, the reason Halo will beat Black Ops is due to Treyarch absolutely sucks at making games. If Black Ops weren't being released as a Call of Duty title, it would be a flop.
And no Kanluwen, flamethrowers were not just used by the allies in eastern front or pacific theater and no D-Day was not the exception. D-Day just had more flamethrowers than normal due to bunkers/trenches/mg nests/ etc. To say that besides D-Day, flamethrowers were not used on the western front is foolish,because history says they were used.
Actually, again...you're wrong.
I made the statement that flamethrowers were not present in previous Call of Duty games because of the fact that they never really portrayed any battles where flamethrowers were used.
Flamethrowers were not used heavily on the Western Front outside of D-Day by Allied forces. I'm sure you can find absolutely obscure operation where they were used to clear a path for tanks or something, but they did not see combat outside of Normandy. The British and American forces mostly used flamethrower tanks. Those were far more effective than any kind of man portable system, to the point where German command protested their usage and German forces tended to execute any flame tank crews that were captured.
That's what history says.
Now, as for the Germans...
The Germans used them during the assault on Fort Eben Emal and a few times of putting down revolts in the ghettos. They then moved in the more logical way that everyone else was heading and begin development of vehicle mounted flamethrowers.
halonachos wrote:So, the reason Halo will beat Black Ops is due to its unrealistic/ sci-finess? Just say that and I'll be pleased as a peach.
Actually no, the reason Halo will beat Black Ops is due to Treyarch absolutely sucks at making games. If Black Ops weren't being released as a Call of Duty title, it would be a flop.
And no Kanluwen, flamethrowers were not just used by the allies in eastern front or pacific theater and no D-Day was not the exception. D-Day just had more flamethrowers than normal due to bunkers/trenches/mg nests/ etc. To say that besides D-Day, flamethrowers were not used on the western front is foolish,because history says they were used.
Actually, again...you're wrong.
I made the statement that flamethrowers were not present in previous Call of Duty games because of the fact that they never really portrayed any battles where flamethrowers were used.
Flamethrowers were not used heavily on the Western Front outside of D-Day by Allied forces. I'm sure you can find absolutely obscure operation where they were used to clear a path for tanks or something, but they did not see combat outside of Normandy. The British and American forces mostly used flamethrower tanks. Those were far more effective than any kind of man portable system, to the point where German command protested their usage and German forces tended to execute any flame tank crews that were captured.
That's what history says.
Now, as for the Germans...
The Germans used them during the assault on Fort Eben Emal and a few times of putting down revolts in the ghettos. They then moved in the more logical way that everyone else was heading and begin development of vehicle mounted flamethrowers.
yeah, listen to him, he happens to be an expert at the subject...in fact, he invented history.
IG_urban wrote:yeah, listen to him, he happens to be an expert at the subject...in fact, he invented history.
He also has the advantage of being right.
All the major participants in WWII used their various man carried Flamethrowers and used them, but it was mostly the Germans and the United States, and the United States did not use them much in Europe. The British and Japanese are notable for almost never using the ones they had (Not that the Japanses had many to start with, they were fighting a modern war using outdated tactics and technology almost universally). And yes, most militaries switched to tank mounted flamethrowers because the effective range of the weapon is between fifty and seventy feet depending on the model. A man is libel to be shot before he reaches his target and many were. A tank on the other hand? Much more effective.
There is however a much simpler explanation for why we never saw a Flamethrower before CoD5. Maybe they just didn't think of it? Or possibly they couldn't build it into the game without causing problems. Go play WaW, turn on your console and type /cg_drawfps 1 (I believe that's the command). Fire a flamethrower and watch your FPS get cut by a lot depending on your card. I have a Nvidia GTX 275 and normally play the game at 300+ frames. Turn on that flamethrower though and the particle effects drop my FPS to 90. Of friend of mine crashed his game firing the flamethrower. His graphics card couldn't handle it XD.
The Germans also followed a scorched earth policy and loved to use the things in the western and eastern fronts. I think they would've used them in the Africa Campaign if they could.
In fact they had several variations of the man portable flamethrowers. One was small and fit on the lower back to allow another pack of not flamethrower to be carried.
The germans also protested the use of the shotgun and being caught using a trenchgun resulted in immediate execution. The japanese would pick of medics, the russians hated the germans, each army had their own pet peeves. This doesn't mean they wouldn't use the thing causing them though.
There were a lot of bunkers in europe and no doubt at least some of them have a few scorch marks from a flamethrower, but the CoD games could've at least had the germans using them.
As to the FPS thing, it was used in just about every GTA game ever made and some of those had huge cities running at the same time.
I wouldn't use FPS as a major contributing factor.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also Kanluwen, how come I have yet to see a flamethrower used in a D-Day invasion? Medal of Honor didn't have it and neither did CoD.
halonachos wrote:As to the FPS thing, it was used in just about every GTA game ever made and some of those had huge cities running at the same time.
I wouldn't use FPS as a major contributing factor.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also Kanluwen, how come I have yet to see a flamethrower used in a D-Day invasion? Medal of Honor didn't have it and neither did CoD.
FPS is a means one can measure how well the game is running on a machine. Higher FPS typically means the program is running faster; Unless there is a bottle neck in the RAM or the Processor. This usually doesn't happen though, most people have their bottleneck in the graphics card. When FPS goes down, its because the card can't process all that's going on, and the processor has to take over some of the work, slowing down execution. It's not the most valid, but it's the simplest to explain. Low FPS = lower system performance. Smoke is also very taxing on processing, a reason the map Ambush was not very popular in CoD4 was that the smoke effects in game lagged players, so a lot of servers removed it from the server list. Pretty much anything requiring a large amount of particle effects will tax a system. You can even see grenades cut in on your FPS for the brief moment they're exploding. I'm not saying they were worried about players having low FPS, but they were worried about the game running well on as wide a range of machines as possible. FPS was just my means of trying to explain that. YOu don't make a game and pray it runs. You make a game, test it, tweek, check driver compatibility, run OS tests, networking tests, and do every other thing you can think of so that the game runs smoothly.
So yeah. Flamethrowers can be very taxing on the system running the program, especially when using high end graphics. GTA is not a good example. Have you seen GTA4? Or even Red Dead Redemption? Rock Star's games are not graphically strong. GTA4's graphics are five or six years old, and RDR's are two or three. The flame effects are also no where near as complex as those present on CoD5's flamethrower. Even in GTA, I'm willing to bet FPS and performance slowed. The human eye can't perceive more than 30-40 FPS (EDIT: Some say the max is 60), so you may not notice that it's happened but it probably did.
As for D-Day, I already explained the technological limitations caused by not making the flamethrower effect a red blob, and I once again suggest maybe the game makers didn't think of it. Their game developers not historians. Maybe they just didn't think it was worth developing a flamethrower. A lot of WWII games at the time released because of Saving Private Ryan made WWII popular again in pop culture, and many game makers thought, let's make a Saving Private Ryan game. I haven't seen it in awhile, but I don't think we saw any flame throwers. Doesn't surprise me a genre of games inspired by the film don't feature them heavily. Hell, Spielberg wrote the story for the first Medal of Honor! This is especially evident in CoD, in that every campaign in COD seems to be ripped from some movie somewhere;
Call of Duty ( A Bridge too Far, Enemy at the Gates; blatant scenes ripped from EatG, and the British Campaign is ABtF copy paste job)
United Offensive (Band of Brothers)
Call of Duty 2 (Saving Private Ryan, The Desert Fox, Enemy at the Gates)
Call of Duty 4 (Anything written by Tom Clancy or his large cast of ghost writers, Black Hawk Down; there is blatant scene rip from Sum of All Fears)
Call of Duty 5 (Wind Talkers, more Enemy at the Gates)
Modern Warfare 2 (More Tom Clancy, I was waiting for Sam Fisher, Rainbow Six, or the Ghosts to show up. Oh, and lets not forget RED DAWN)
It's almost blatant really. Infinity Ward and the CoD series have been taking its cues from various films since forever. They especially seem to have an abnormal love for Enemy At the Gates and a Bridge to Far, going so much as to copy paste entire scenes of the films into their games. I'll also point out that the people who made Medal of Honor and the people who made Call of Duty? Same people. A lot of the Call of Duty developers came from the company that made Medal of Honor. Just like how we'll likely find many similarities between whatever Respawn Entertainment produces in the next few years and Infinity Ward's CoD titles.
EDIT: Damn. I look at that and I read it over and I just think "What was my point?" XD
Funny... My Grandfather had plenty of stories about running into Allied Flame Tanks (Churchills mostly) from the war. I think the big reason Flamethrowers aren't portrayed in as much in games is because of how horrendous they were as far as inflicting injuries go. It's one thing to lose a leg stepping on a mine. It's entirely another to have your skin and muscle actually burned away to the point where it's coming off in chunks. Grandpa saw, first hand, some flamethrower victims. And he said that out of everything he witnessed during the war, they were the most terrifying sight of all. So, again, that's probably why they weren't in Call of Duty or Medal of Honor, IG.
But the fact that they don't exist in Viddyeah-game levels doesn't mean they weren't used in reality.
metallifan wrote:Funny... My Grandfather had plenty of stories about running into Allied Flame Tanks (Churchills mostly) from the war. I think the big reason Flamethrowers aren't portrayed in as much in games is because of how horrendous they were as far as inflicting injuries go. It's one thing to lose a leg stepping on a mine. It's entirely another to have your skin and muscle actually burned away to the point where it's coming off in chunks. Grandpa saw, first hand, some flamethrower victims. And he said that out of everything he witnessed during the war, they were the most terrifying sight of all. So, again, that's probably why they weren't in Call of Duty or Medal of Honor, IG.
But the fact that they don't exist in Viddyeah-game levels doesn't mean they weren't used in reality.
I made a point to mention that, Metalli The Western Allies went to great lengths to avoid using man-portable flamethrowers in Europe, except in extreme circumstances. But they used the hell out of flame tanks.
The allies did, the germans embraced the fething things.
My Great Grandfather had stories of running into underwater tanks, still haven't seen any of those in a WW2 game. In fact that's what we need to revitalize the WW2 genre, underwater tanks and customization. Halftracks with machine guns, halftracks with anti-tank weapons on them. Panzer General eat your heart out.
metallifan wrote:Funny... My Grandfather had plenty of stories about running into Allied Flame Tanks (Churchills mostly) from the war. I think the big reason Flamethrowers aren't portrayed in as much in games is because of how horrendous they were as far as inflicting injuries go. It's one thing to lose a leg stepping on a mine. It's entirely another to have your skin and muscle actually burned away to the point where it's coming off in chunks. Grandpa saw, first hand, some flamethrower victims. And he said that out of everything he witnessed during the war, they were the most terrifying sight of all. So, again, that's probably why they weren't in Call of Duty or Medal of Honor, IG.
But the fact that they don't exist in Viddyeah-game levels doesn't mean they weren't used in reality.
you have no argument from me, I just think Kanluewn can be a know-it-all, and I was giving him a hard time.
halonachos wrote:My Great Grandfather had stories of running into underwater tanks, still haven't seen any of those in a WW2 game. In fact that's what we need to revitalize the WW2 genre, underwater tanks and customization. Halftracks with machine guns, halftracks with anti-tank weapons on them. Panzer General eat your heart out.
Underwater tank is a bit of a misnomer. They weren't really fully submersible. It would be cool in a game, but since we've taken the stance that the games must portray realism (for some reason) you'd need the tanks to sink as they approached Normandy, drowning the crew and the player and thus ending the game.
I kid. It would be cool to see a new WWII game some day; hopefully one that isn't so European centric. Granted, I'd love a game that protrayed the war from the German perspective. I'd like to see more of Africa, or maybe the early stages of the war where Germany pwned face on everybody. You can only do Stalingrad, Operation Overlord, and Market Garden so many times before it gets really really old. The market got a little over saturated with all the Medal of Honor and Call of Duty clones, like how we now have all the Modern Warfare clones. Might be awhile before we get something good. I'd like it if Respawn decided to make another WWII game. That group of designers has always succeeded in that genre above and beyond others.
metallifan wrote:Funny... My Grandfather had plenty of stories about running into Allied Flame Tanks (Churchills mostly) from the war. I think the big reason Flamethrowers aren't portrayed in as much in games is because of how horrendous they were as far as inflicting injuries go. It's one thing to lose a leg stepping on a mine. It's entirely another to have your skin and muscle actually burned away to the point where it's coming off in chunks. Grandpa saw, first hand, some flamethrower victims. And he said that out of everything he witnessed during the war, they were the most terrifying sight of all. So, again, that's probably why they weren't in Call of Duty or Medal of Honor, IG.
But the fact that they don't exist in Viddyeah-game levels doesn't mean they weren't used in reality.
you have no argument from me, I just think Kanluwen can be a know-it-all, and I was giving him a hard time.
I do know it all, so I've definitely got that going for me.
As for the "underwater tanks"--there's two kinds of examples. The Germans converted a small number of medium tanks for experimenting in the hopes of invading England.
Needless to say, that idea bombed heavily.
Then of course, the other kind...which LordofHats mentioned. The Allies converted a large number of Shermans to be used during the Normandy beach landings to provide fire support for the landing troops.
The story from my great grandpa could actually be a cool cinematic.
He was in an anti-tank halftrack when all of a sudden they heard and felt rumbling. The lake next to them had ripples coming from it and next thing they knew, a panzer with a snorkel device attached came right out of the lake.
The D-Day invasion via Snorkel tank would be cool, the main character in any WW2 game that participates in D-Day always almost drowns so it would fit.
