Call of Duty 2

[Musopticon?]

No he isn't. Kinslayer is.

[Judge Hades]

Well, he's an alt of someone. I shall find out and I shall like him! Nothing you can do will stop me!!!!

[CaptainPants]

If it's of any help to you in your quest: I've always hated you.

[Musopticon?]

Well, he's an alt of someone.  I shall find out and I shall like him!  Nothing you can do will stop me!!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

*pushes a big red button on a control board*

 

I dare to disagree, sirrah.

[Deraldin]

Anywayhey, did someone here like this game?

 

Or is everyone just pissed off because they removed cooking of grenades? :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I enjoyed it. Never got around to playing the first one though...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

CoD 1 was pretty much like Medal of Honor. With Russians. Don't bother.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Never played MoH either. Not really into FPS. The only reason I played CoD2 was because a friend gave it to me. "

[Judge Hades]

Removed. - Shadowstrider

Back to the topic at hand, I think that trying to make games cinematic really cheapens the gameplay experience. If I want to see something cinematic I go to the cinema. makes some odd of sense there. If I want to play a World War 2 game I want to see gritty realism and blood oozing from my stumpy legs because I stepped on a land mine.

[Hell Kitty]

Man, this thread has turned into a great big pile of ****, or spam, whichever you prefer.

 

Anyway, I actually enjoyed it, and I generally don't like WW2 FPS. The levels were much more open compared to the original. And what's this about broken up levels? The maps are no smaller than any current PC only FPS.

 

As for blaming you pressing the wrong keys on the game... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's like claiming a puzzle is stupid because you're not smart enough solve it. Being able to rebind keys isn't exactly new...

[Shadowstrider]

Thread pruned. Stop bickering.

[Zulu 86]

Well actually I went out and got CoD2 after playing, and really enjoying, the first one + expansion, and I did think it was rather good.

 

It's got Juhani in it! (w00t)

 

But I say "rather" good.

 

It's got Juhani in it! (w00t)

 

I mean, the levels were larger and more realistic than the first game(s) but lacked that special spark - the original missions seemed...well...more original. But with such huge chunks of the war in Europe already covered in CoD and UO, I respect the decision not to go over the same areas twice, but it does make the flow of the game feel very disjointed. Not to demand "Where's Berlin? Where's the rest of Stalingrad? Where's the Paradrop over Normandy? Where's Kursk? Pegasus Bridge? Kharkov? Bastogne? Sicily? etc" but just one mission to get over the Rhine, secure the town - "And yes, so the Americans made onto German soil for the first time - this time, the attempt to bridge the Rhine was successful. Then some stuff happened then the war ended." Even with the end of UO, as you make an insane attempt to take back the Kharkov railyard, there is still a very long way to go for the Red Army before it can start waving flags on the top of the Reichstag, but as the train full of reinforcements comes literally crashing through the station, as the VVS comes sweeping down to wreck havoc, the Wehrmacht flee for their lives - you can tell the war is turning, the Red Army is not about to worry about the phrase "Ne shagu nazad!" again - it's onward all the way to Berlin (just about). In other words = closure. CoD2 doesn't have that.

 

And yes, the Thompson's magazine is pitiful - I often drop it for a "liberated" MP40 or better still, MP44. It is a good game, but...I...I don't think it offers anything really new.

 

Except perhaps...

 

It's got Juhani in it! (w00t)

[Calax]

Actually in terms of level length, Call of Duty 2 has shortened levels. It doesn't feel cinematic because the game's levels are to small and only contain maybe one or two of the scripted events out of the first one (that gave it so much personality) and a heck of alot of fighting.

 

Call of duty one was different from medal of honor in that it had alot more scripted events, you always had buddies, you didn't go marching up Omaha (which its kinda funny... there a grand total of one WWII fps where you do go up Omaha) and you weren't always an american soldier.

 

Out of the more recent games of the two franchises I think I like Pacific Aussalt better than Call of Duty 2. Pacific Aussalt actually has a heck of alot of scripted events. You get little souviners for doing somthing special, your always with a party. and your health doesn't regenrate. Also if your life bar hits the floor you don't instantly die... you fall over and can call for the teams medic to come and patch you up. You can only call for the medic 4 times per mission in the beginning so you have to use them wisly. and if you die in the middle of a giant crossfire... well your screwed buddy.

 

Also the music is better.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

All WWII games are going to be samey. I just read the review in NoM where they scattered in some other game screens to see if anyone could tell the difference.

[Judge Hades]

So, Juhani is in it. Interesting. I didn't think there were any Cathar in WW2 Europe.

[alanschu]

I didn't like Pacfic Assault's spawning badguys. You could be looking right at a bush checking it and making sure it's clear, only to turn around and suddenly a guy is stabbing you in the back because he has magically appeared out of thin air.

[Judge Hades]

You just missed your Spot or Search Check, thats all.

[GuardianLegend]

I absolutely love COD2. Best FPS ever, by far, for me.

 

The biggest weakness are the guns, which require you to use ironsights to hit anything. The guns are nearly useless without ironsighting. I've seen many people play COD2 on the Xbox360 and have no idea that ironsights are required, and thus they walk away from the game frustrated. It's no surprise, considering how COD is probably the only line of FPS games where ironsighting is required.

 

The odd thing is.. in multiplayer, ironsights becomes a lot more optional. If only mp's gun behavior was in the sp game, at least in the easier difficulties.. I'm sure the game would be a lot more accessible.

 

I don't see how we can slight COD2 for being "on rails". It's one of the least linear of all FPS games, and I've played them all. Only the more realistic FPS games like Operation Flashpoint and Rainbow/Ghost Recon games are less linear, but none of these games have scripted action sequences at all, and are pretty tame in delivery.

 

As for being dumbed down, I only slightly agree. On the harder difficulties, I found COD2 to be one of the hardest games I've ever played. The regenerating health aspect was great, really keeps the game moving along, but still harshly punishes you for big mistakes. I only wish that the "red dots on the radar" and grenade position indicator were optional/disabled on harder difficulties.

[alanschu]

But but but, normal difficulty should be lifelike realism!!!

 

To want anything else is to want dumb games!

Edited December 15, 2005 by alanschu

[Judge Hades]

Ah, you are finally getting it.

[alanschu]

Fortunately, as with most things discussed in life and video games, you are wrong and everyone realizes it.

 

Thank god you aren't the one calling the shots for video games.

 

Just because it's your warped view of the way things "should" be, doesn't make other people fans of "dumb" games for recognizing it for what it is. The original FPS games weren't 1 shot 1 kill on normal, and they shouldn't start now, unless specifically mandated like Rainbow 6 (which even then wasn't always one shot one kill, and afforded other non-realistic devices like heartbeat sensors to assist the game player).

Edited December 15, 2005 by alanschu

[Haitoku]

But but but, normal difficulty should be lifelike realism!!!

 

I don't agree.

 

Lifelike would be far to difficult to be considered normal.

 

Maybe FPS should have different difficulty settings... Easy, Normal, etc should be replaced with... Realistic, Unrealistic, etc... Come on, that's a good idea right?

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

"Maybe FPS should have different difficulty settings... Easy, Normal, etc should be replaced with... Realistic, Unrealistic, etc... Come on, that's a good idea right?"

 

No, it's not, because 'realistic', 'unrealistic' and whatnot do not describe the difficulty.

[alanschu]

For the record I don't think that normal should be realistic

 

 

I think people would realize just how "unfun" that truly is. Most games that offer a "realistic" setting aren't realistic either...it's just much tougher.

[Judge Hades]

Also some people obviously think that one shot one kill is what people mean by "realistic" and not taking into account of grazing hits or hits in nonvital areas.

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

"Also some people obviously think that one shot one kill is what people mean by 'realistic' and not taking into account of grazing hits or hits in nonvital areas."

 

Because, you know, it isn't as if most of the time one shot is enough to take you out of the fight, even if not immediately and even if it doesn't kill you?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Also some people obviously think that one shot one kill is what people mean by "realistic" and not taking into account of grazing hits or hits in nonvital areas. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Even if your not actually dead if you get hit by a WWII bullet you wont feel much like fighting. Regenerating health though is just freaky and strange. If I had designed the game I'd have made the character look a bit like wolverine :D

Edited December 15, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[alanschu]

The thing is, those "grazing" hits typically aren't shrugged off. Nor are "shots to non-vital areas" things you just ignore.

 

Come on, you wanted realism here right? Shot to arm = incapacitated = game over. Shot to leg = not walking = incapacitated = game over.

 

You're the one that wanted the realism based on some bizarre "ruleset" that the majority of FPS games never adhere to. Soldiers don't get shot in non-vital areas and go "hey, I was shot in a non-vital area, I guess I'll keep on going on this wounded leg."

 

Furthermore, what consitutes a "non-vital" area? If you get shot in the leg, you better hope you didn't take one in your femoral artery. Perhaps you'd like to simulate the agonizing moments of your soldier screaming for his mother has he takes a fatal wound that slowly kills him, and there's nothing the player nor any of the NPCs can do about it? And you'd like this to be the default difficulty setting, with somehow more difficult settings past this?