MoH singleplayer is only 5 hours long.

I wonder what danger close was doing with most of their time....

It's only five hours long?!?

T-800 wrote:I wonder what danger close was doing with most of their time....

Do they ever mention the Taliban in that very short time frame?

Honestly the short singleplayer doesn't come as a surprise since that seems to be the way most shooters are going. Very short singleplayer and "hopefully" a robust multiplayer. If they haven't change things since the summer closed beta then chop robust off.

Eh wasn't gonna but anyway. I think I might get black ops since so, many on here's are

I'm still on the border line with both of the titles coming out.

I know I'm a sucker and will buy them eventually. But I highly doubt on the release day/pre-order.

Now I sound like a broken record. Have said this way too many times. LoL

Hmmm. not so good, but what they've shown of SP looks pretty great.

Besides I've only made it into level 2 on BC2 SP. I think had only played to the 3rd level of MW2 SP before I traded that one in. Reach... I'd like to at least finish co-op campaign before I trade it in.

So basically the odds of me even playing Sp for 5 whole hours before I get rid of it is very, very slim.

The difference is that BC2 MP (heck all BF MP) proved to be great. And people like myself, would have wanted no SP (just MP with bots for newbies) like the older BF series.

MoH, from what I have gathered so far, is not great enough as MP standalone.

Crimson Exitus wrote:

T-800 wrote:I wonder what danger close was doing with most of their time....

Do they ever mention the Taliban in that very short time frame?

Honestly the short singleplayer doesn't come as a surprise since that seems to be the way most shooters are going. Very short singleplayer and "hopefully" a robust multiplayer. If they haven't change things since the summer closed beta then chop robust off.

That is the issue they had 2 developers working on the game. Dice on multiplayer and danger close on single player. It is unacceptable that the single player is only 5 hours long when 1 studio has been working on just that for over a year.

Good point

Just found out MoH only has 8 multiplayer maps 5 of which can be played in all modes. I am not even renting this now.

dude MoH is gonna be a fail.....

delicious camel wrote:dude MoH is gonna be a fail.....

Dice/danger close dun goofed

Watch out, there is a possibility that when you start MoH MP in the full release, it would have a giant picture of flashing Troll prancing around.

StormEye wrote:Watch out, there is a possibility that when you start MoH MP in the full release, it would have a giant picture of flashing Troll prancing around.

That would be ftw and ftl at the same time lol.

And to think such a game caused a stink with the media...


BTW how would I procure one of those VSS appreciation club stickers for my signature?

There are whole bunch on the bfbcs.com.

Just goto graphics section and there are banners and such.

StormEye wrote:There are whole bunch on the bfbcs.com.

Just goto graphics section and there are banners and such.

Thank you kind sir.

Crimson Exitus wrote:

StormEye wrote:There are whole bunch on the bfbcs.com.

Just goto graphics section and there are banners and such.

Thank you kind sir.

NP

Here.

Test post...

/EDIT: F*** yeah.

OT: Anyways, too bad. MOH looked somewhat promising from the first trailer.

Crimson Exitus wrote:Test post...

It worked.

T-800 wrote:

Crimson Exitus wrote:Test post...

It worked.

Indeed. Thank you again.

Why do most WWII shooters need to suddenly go Modern? I'm not really complaining since the only WWII FPS I've played was COD: WaW, just because COD4 did it doesn't mean it's a good idea for everyone else.

I think the generation has changed, and the new war, which can be felt much closer to us, is very marketable.

Also, lack of emphasis put unto History on current youth generation, has faltered the value of WWII.

I wouldn't mind more WWII FPS's with either more emphasis on stealth and espionage or an alternate history (Turning Point: Fall of Liberty comes to mind but it was s***)

It is very interesting, that I think WWII had the most distinctive weapon roles in the history of warfare.

Unlike the nowadays, where Assault Rifle/Battle Rifle can fill in the roles of most, if not all, role a soldier can play, WWII weapons had put a distinctive role for a soldier.

SMGs for hosing down at close quarters
Bolt Actions for precision and power, sniper roles
Semi-auto for standard issue on US side, and marksman roles in other countries.
MP-44 the only AR in existence.

And even among the same weapons category, there were a great distinctions in characteristics of handling, recoil, RoF, Stopping power at certain ranges.

GTA IV has a similar idea, where one weapon isn't ideal for every situation but it's mostly function over fashion.

I wouldn't take an assault rifle or a battle rifle to a close quarters area which would be better suited for weapons like a SMG or a shotgun.