Mazty said:
Gahars said:
Yeah, it's a FPS, but not all FPS' control the same. Some have better button layouts, feel more fluid, etc. and MoH, in my opinion, had a more slippery, less refined control scheme. Just because 2 games are in the same genre doesn't mean they control identically.
I don't think either series can really be called realistic, but at least in some of the Call of Duty games I get enjoyable plots, maybe not too deep, groundbreaking, or even sensible in some cases but just enough, rather than a never ending parade of beards hidden behind a wall of military jargon with lazy excuse plot shoved in and not resolved."
And while I had fun playing with friends, I was never the biggest fan of Battlefield Bad Company 2's multiplayer, so seeing as Dice was behind MoH's mp and that I was playing through the game at a friend's house, I opted not to play something I probably wouldn't like anyway.
MoH was designed, from the ground up to compete with Call of Duty's newest installments, and by compete, I mean imitate shamelessly. Props to EA for trying to take an old franchise and reinvigorate it, but copying the moves of your competitor isn't the correct way to go.
I really cannot see what you mean by "slippy controls". Unless you've greasy fingers, "slippy" cannot be applied to controls.
Less refined? The buttons work, ergo they are refined....
Actually MoH can be called realistic. Sure the body count is a little high, but go read some true military accounts and it really isn't that ludicrous (e.g. Sniper One, Generation Kill).
On the other hand CoD MW2 story was exceptionally unrealistic, didn't make any sense whilst being ludicrous all at the same time. Black Ops was pretty much the same "Boom YEAH TEAM AMERICA!!" nonsense. Using MW2 as an example, how can you find a plot which literally makes no sense enjoyable? MoH's glory hunting idiotic generals is disturbingly accurate (Lieutenant Colonel Stephen Ferrando).
The MP was, unlike CoD MW2 and BO, balanced, whilst having some good ideas, such as skill rating, and great variety in levels, game modes and weapons, with no one weapon being the best.
Saying they copied CoD MW is like saying (ignoring the time of release) Se7en is copying Saw. One is a pile of unrefined, but well advertised, garbage for the masses, the other is a masterpiece.
1) Refined has nothing to do with if they work, but how they work, and I found the controls in general to be less polished and responsive than what I would find in one of the Call of Duty games.
2) Just because something is realistic, doesn't mean its fun, or enjoyable, or well written. I mean, think of all the memorable characters from Medal of Honor, like... um... that one guy had a beard. Another guy did too, I think...
Also, as for plots, I make no claim that the plot of MW2 was, in hindsight, sensible. But you know what, I got sucked into it and it had some pretty awesome moments. Think of it like a guilty pleasure, in contrast to Medal of Honor, which provided little to no pleasure.
Oh yeah, another story about idiotic generals being incompetent. Never heard that one before. Ever. At all. Soooooo original and interesting.
3) Multiplayer has only 3 classes and 8 maps on the disc, with only a few game modes. Sounds very varied. Also, at least in Black Ops on the 360, balance isn't really an issue, so that point is moot. Also, skill ratings? Like, a system that gives you points for doing well, or "having skill"? Wow, no other game, including those Call of Duty games this is imitating, I mean competing with, has ever done that. Ever.
And from what I've read, the Skill Rating system is a confusing mess that doesn't even seem to work.
Hey, I can get a difference in opinion. Sure, if you want your poor man's version of another game series, that's your choice. I'll let you play your game, and I'll play mine.
But I'm sorry, you just called Medal of Honor, "a masterpiece". Your argument has lost any possible validity.
