Medal of Honor 2: What we want to see

MagicBoughie24 on 22 Jan '12 said:

Getting quite bored of playing as a brainless American soldier which is usually the case in most military FPS. You would think America was the only country to ever go to war.

Maybe someone should make a game using British forces and not just the SAS. Or alternatively Aussie/NewZealand or any other unsung countries.

griffa94 on 22 Jan '12 said:

Couldn't agree more about playing as a different nation.

I'm bloody fedup of every shooter taking the main perspective of Americans, it's as if they're the only good guys now. (and MW3 needed more S.A.S missions)

I miss the days of playing the British in the old Medal of Honour's and I'm already beginning to miss the World War Two genre -.-

Multiplayerking on 22 Jan '12 said:

Medal of Honor 2: What we want to see

1) The letter 'u' in the f**king name!

2) A game that is actually fun to play. Either that or non-existence.

charliecheswick on 22 Jan '12 said:

I thought the last MoH was decent,it wasn't great but it wasn't rubbish either. Thing is,CoD,Battlefield and MoH all tend to blend into one another,if you've got one you really don't need the others. I'll probably get flamed for this but,that's why i enjoyed Homefront so much. The story was different and you,well,i anyway,felt emotionally involved with the campaign. It felt personal,almost Half Life like in that you were actually making a difference to events.
Not sure if DICE were side-tracked at all but the map designs for MoH felt a bit lazy. You could see the enemy spawn points from your own spawn points and most on-line matches would turn into a sniper-fest. Random spawns were really frustrating too. The campaign was enjoyable but nothing that really stood-out. I think the sequel really has a lot to do to earn my hard-earned loot.

marathi on 22 Jan '12 said:

Well, Medal of Honor refers to the highest military decoration a soldier can achieve in the United States Armed Forces, so I think you should look to other games to play as different nations. I also doubt you'll ever see a "u" in the name, as that's how it has always been spelled, and not very likely to be changed in the forseeable future. And what's this about CoD, BF and MoH blending in to each other? If you compare the sp portions, yes, maybe. But CoD and BF's mp portions are as similar as a car and an orangutang (never played the latest MoH), and let's face it, mp is where it's at for most fans of these games.

sbradley88 on 22 Jan '12 said:

No mw3 and bf3 mp are not that dissimilar. It's more like comparing a car to a limo. Same basic machine, same use, drive it the same way, just on a larger scale

sbradley88 on 22 Jan '12 said:

And I've always referred moh as a mixture of bf and cod.

gmcb007 on 22 Jan '12 said:

More cowbell

Laughlyn on 22 Jan '12 said:

gotta say that Cod and BF multiplayer are two very different games. CoD allows you to just run around by yourself, u dont really need team mates TDM just means u have less folk shooting at you than Free4all and even team based objective games dont really need you to work as a team a great deal.
In Battlefield if you try take an MCOM by yourself then chances are you'll just get slaughtered, occassionally you can take a flag in conquest if you leg it to 'E' while everyones fighting at 'A' on otehr side the map but you'll alwyas find life easier actually supporting others in your squad.
MoH from what i played seemed a lot more like CoD, less squad based and more 'lone wolf' style gameplay and i've neve rbeen a big fan of CoD, reason i didnt buy it myself n just borrowed it.

Would be nice to have an FPS game where you can select a country's armed forces to join, maybe in teh next battlefield game? since as someone has said, the name of the game is about a U.S army medal (also explains its spelling) i'd love it that if your in U.K you could pick the S.A.S or even just British Army infantry, it would expand on unlocks similar as the last unlocks on BF3 are us accuired/russian accuired weapons.
And it would liven up MP isntead of seeing the same clone faces killing you depending on kit type

MANYOO4EVA on 22 Jan '12 said:

How about a campaign that lasts longer than a fart?

I want a free-for-all MP mode. I'm not really much of a team player as I prefer lone wolfing.

What about a sniper only MP mode?

Erm, can't think of anything else at the mo, but the above would do for starters.

skabone on 22 Jan '12 said:

You'd never think Medal of 'Honour' did the whole army FPS cinema thing first would you. Needs its own identity now its been copied and improved as the last one looked and played like a crappy battlefield lite. Ghost Recon & Rainbow 6 have re-invented themselves a couple of times to keep ahead and have got it right and wrong as they've done so. Needs to try and innovate rather than keep up with all the rest. They tried some new things with Airborne, which sucked, but I'd at least like them to try and do something really different again; I already have BF3, don't play COD - don't need either or an amalgamation of the 2

And if you're going to do co-op - don't just re-hash levels from singleplayer with buddy mechanics - I want a different totally custom experience worth playing - co-op on bf3 is really crappy

marathi on 22 Jan '12 said:

No mw3 and bf3 mp are not that dissimilar. It's more like comparing a car to a limo. Same basic machine, same use, drive it the same way, just on a larger scale

Then I think it's safe to say we agree to disagree.

Taus on 22 Jan '12 said:

I'm loving BF3 MP at the moment, by far superior to COD MP namely because it forces you to play in a more collaborative, tactical way. 32hrs into the MP I have finally stopped running around like a dumbass looking for a fire fight (COD style). If I am not taking flags, MCOMMs etc I am backing other players up, moving en mass to a target rather than running in

Enjoying so much that I am a little worried about what I am going to play post BF3 (if I ever make it to rank 45!). Before BF3 I was more a single player campaign gamer, loved RPGs etc but now I am totally into MP, tried to play Uncharted 3 for a couple of hours to switch things up from BF3, I lasted about 2 hours, it felt like an isolated, on rails experience

Anyways, so post BF3 I am expecting to purchase MoH. Will not be playing Campaign so most of the article's points do not really interest me. I would like a MP in the tactical, rather than run and gun, style of BF3 however with the following features:

1. Smaller maps: The larger maps in BF3 give a totally unfair unadvantage to snipers who can essentially lie in some bushes miles away from the action and pick players off. If you want to go after them you have to run across a vast open pace to get to them - you'll mostly die if you try this

2. Do away with Claymores: Mines are the cheapest, mostly cowardly way to earn kills which require little skill. For anyone who reckons there is skills to a decent Claymore, fine, show your skills, instead of perching on stairs which was been loaded up with Claymores, come out and have a firefight

3. Vehilcles are a must: BF3 distinguishes itself from COD via the controllable vehicles, same please for MoH only more variety on land vehicles, less so on air combat

4. Destructive environments,

dicky1993 on 22 Jan '12 said:

at the end of the game this song plays and everyone just goes f**king nuts : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOfe1bX8bII

rivariad on 22 Jan '12 said:

open ended, based on surviving formula (eating, drinking, sleeping) bf3 engine and s**tload of vehicles

skabone on 22 Jan '12 said:

1. Smaller maps: The larger maps in BF3 give a totally unfair unadvantage to snipers who can essentially lie in some bushes miles away from the action and pick players off. If you want to go after them you have to run across a vast open pace to get to them - you'll mostly die if you try this

2. Do away with Claymores: Mines are the cheapest, mostly cowardly way to earn kills which require little skill. For anyone who reckons there is skills to a decent Claymore, fine, show your skills, instead of perching on stairs which was been loaded up with Claymores, come out and have a firefight

3. Vehilcles are a must: BF3 distinguishes itself from COD via the controllable vehicles, same please for MoH only more variety on land vehicles, less so on air combat

4. Destructive environments,

sorry dude - as much as I love BF3, MOH needs to go in a different direction. As for your suggestions,

1 - BF3 is all about the large maps - we lose out on consoles a little as they need to be populated with more players but I still relish the open freedom you have. If you're coming from COD then you probably spend a lot of time just running and turning corners - scope out your direction more and flank - there are plenty of places to hide and snipe from but they fall pretty quickly if you work as a team

2 - claymores are brill - great way to cover your back or plague a rat run. If anything I would like them easier to dis-arm or explode - friendly fire & splash damage needs improving so they're more risky to use.

as for 3 & 4 - this is the reason I play bf3 - i'm slightly disappointed at the lack of destructability tho. In bad company 2 - there were only some buildings you couldn't total - now i get confused and disappointed when I go to take out a camper and find the wall he's hiding behind to be made of Admantium.

I don't know if the new MOH needs to copy BF3 - it really needs to be different.

Taus on 22 Jan '12 said:

@skabone

Agreed re: running around like a dumb ass, took me about thirty hours to appreciate taking up a position and covering it is not camping in the CoD sense, having said that the game is unreasonably & unfairly skewed to sniper and, irrespective of playing tactically, all snipers are born campers, doesn't matter what FPS you play, they are universally hated for their camp, one hit noob tube weaponry tactics - just take them out of MoH.

In terms of your point, ok for new but how do you do that. Can't make it at arcade-y, CoD provides that, tactical / realistic is BF3. The only style of FPS that is in need of revitalising is the Halo style MP; bold colours, over the top dynamic avatars, fast paced, randomly spawning weapons, shields which means you have to get quite a numbe rof hits to take someone down so you get mad running battles.

Reach was disappointing in retrospect, that style is wide open but you couldn't really do that with / in a real life setting like MoH

NB Disagree re: Claymores, they are cheap, low skill accessories, agree re: destructibility, what annoys me about destruct is the inconsistency. In Seinne Crossing you can literally blow up a whole floor of a building using a grenade or the M320. On other maps you cannot even blemish a container made out of corrugated steel (Kharg Island) - balls!

sonic_uk on 22 Jan '12 said:

Less emphasis on Multiplayer (none at all would be fine with me), more Single Player content, better graphics (if that's possible - the first game had amazing graphics), maybe customizable in-the-field weapons (like Crysis where you pick up attachments and can customize your arsenal on the fly in real time without having to quit to an external menu) and the same awesome storytelling experience.

Balladeer on 22 Jan '12 said:

Variations of this play through the entirety of the game.

SpandexArmstrong on 23 Jan '12 said:

I don't want to see MOH2. f**k it. Isn't anyone sick of this garbage yet?! Anyone?

notaMONGBRAIN on 23 Jan '12 said:

WHAT HARD-CORE GUY WANTS (HARDCORE REALLY MEANS MS/SONY FANBOY)

1,kill cam for that cry baby im really a casual core gamer
2, aim assist for mr core
3,quick scoping for skillless childish fps-ing
4,a huge no curser cross hair aim radius for mr im so core HOLD MY HAND PLEESE
5,no wii remote support as true fps via a pointer mouse is over there dumb heads!!!!!!

we all know the above is true

right back to cod wii pro cam and pointer mouse FOR REAL GAMERS!!!!

Dimpee on 23 Jan '12 said:

I agree, let Danger Close develop the multiplayer as well. I enjoyed Medal of Honor's campaign more than the multiplayer. Personally, I would be happy to see a return to WWII, I think think it would be a welcome return!

rhyfel on 23 Jan '12 said:

oh great another military fps to look forward too yawn yawn.

Masterspy on 23 Jan '12 said:

Loved the first game, but I've played demo's longer than the single player campaign.
I do accept however that I am the only person in the world who still enjoys single player anything.
Playing as the SAS with the NZSAS and ASAS would be sweet! SAS overload!

Joe90_Remy700 on 23 Jan '12 said:

the moh campaign was the best modern day one i have played so far. IF they do mp, then they need to gimp the sniping a bit, and the spawning. and the spawn sniping. and throw a few good game modes in there, on normal mode they should have a kill cam as snipers in moh were dicks to say the least, and maps need to be itelligently designed. i think DICE rushed the mp a bit as nowhere near as much attention to detail went into it as bfbc2 or bf3

destructable environments and vehicles are a no-no for me, for this game - it'll be too much like battlefield and really they released moh to take a different direction to battlefield games

sonic_uk on 23 Jan '12 said:

WHAT HARD-CORE GUY WANTS (HARDCORE REALLY MEANS MS/SONY FANBOY)

1,kill cam for that cry baby im really a casual core gamer
2, aim assist for mr core
3,quick scoping for skillless childish fps-ing
4,a huge no curser cross hair aim radius for mr im so core HOLD MY HAND PLEESE
5,no wii remote support as true fps via a pointer mouse is over there dumb heads!!!!!!

we all know the above is true

right back to cod wii pro cam and pointer mouse FOR REAL GAMERS!!!!

Sigh... there's always one. Did you come up with that all by yourself? Are we supposed to worship you now or something? News flash - no one cares.

Balladeer on 24 Jan '12 said:

It's Wiigodboy again. Just ignore him.