Call Of Duty 2

[TNM93]

Best FPS games I've enjoyed playing:

UT2003
COD
RTCW

Hopefully COD2 is as good as the original.

 

[Stangs55]

Originally posted by: CraigRT
I am excited for this game too.. I'll be disappointed if it sucks as much as FEAR does.

wow, i thought fear was one of the greatest sp fps games i've played

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: TNM93
Best FPS games I've enjoyed playing:

UT2003
COD
RTCW

Hopefully COD2 is as good as the original.

Just depends on what you want really. To me it is almost the same game as CoD with better graphics and sound effects. There are a few extra 'features' but it feels much the same. The single player is spectacular and the multiplayer is still just as good as it always has been.

Nothing ground breaking but I just don't see what they could have added to make it any better. Please don't say a BF2 squad system clone because that just wouldn't fit right in a WW2 setting.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: CraigRT
I am excited for this game too.. I'll be disappointed if it sucks as much as FEAR does.

I agree...All the hype out there about F.E.A.R is total B.S.


Ausm

 

[TNM93]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: TNM93
Best FPS games I've enjoyed playing:

UT2003
COD
RTCW

Hopefully COD2 is as good as the original.

Just depends on what you want really. To me it is almost the same game as CoD with better graphics and sound effects. There are a few extra 'features' but it feels much the same. The single player is spectacular and the multiplayer is still just as good as it always has been.

Nothing ground breaking but I just don't see what they could have added to make it any better. Please don't say a BF2 squad system clone because that just wouldn't fit right in a WW2 setting.

Never played BF2, but I played BF1942 and Vietnam, and found them boring as hell. I've heard mixed things about BF2. I might pick it up someday when the price is in accordance to how I feel about it.

 

[TheUnk]

What I don't understand is how people can play CoD multiplayer, then play BF multiplayer and then say CoD is superior. There is so much more to do and so many things that can happen in BF that each round feels unique. As opposed to the very basic MP that is CoD.

 

Originally posted by: TheUnk
What I don't understand is how people can play CoD multiplayer, then play BF multiplayer and then say CoD is superior. There is so much more to do and so many things that can happen in BF that each round feels unique. As opposed to the very basic MP that is CoD.

Its about gameplay more than things to do.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: TheUnk
What I don't understand is how people can play CoD multiplayer, then play BF multiplayer and then say CoD is superior. There is so much more to do and so many things that can happen in BF that each round feels unique. As opposed to the very basic MP that is CoD.

Nothing about BF feels unique to me at all. Usually what happens is that if you are infantry, which I always try to be, you get killed by a tank or a helicopter or a jet. I'm sure the game is great if you're into vehicular combat but I'm not into the BF2 style of that at all. If they took air combat out of the game or if I could find a server that was modded to have no air, then I would gladly give it another go.

 

[TheUnk]

There are plenty of maps without air to worry about, most of them still have land vehicles though.. I'm almost always infantry. Just takes using your head a little more and knowing when to attack vs. sitting back. I think the game would be extremely boring with just infantry.

 

The more i play the more i have fun. There needs to be a UO aspect to this game for prolonged gameplay IMO.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: TheUnk
There are plenty of maps without air to worry about, most of them still have land vehicles though.. I'm almost always infantry. Just takes using your head a little more and knowing when to attack vs. sitting back. I think the game would be extremely boring with just infantry.

I don't mind tanks. If you know of any servers that are land based only (infantry/armor) please post it here or PM me.

BTW, our CoD2 server is up but I'm going to hold off on posting the info until we get everything set up correctly. It will be mostly S&D but will possibly have some HQ thrown in there every few rounds or so.

 

[Born2bwire]

Did they use the same health system for both singleplayer and multiplayer? I'd prefer the traditional health bar for multiplayer. I would think that it would put the bolt action rifles at a disadvantage since one would only be able to get in a single hit if a guy is popping in and out of cover.

 

[Stangs55]

Originally posted by: Born2bwire
Did they use the same health system for both singleplayer and multiplayer? I'd prefer the traditional health bar for multiplayer. I would think that it would put the bolt action rifles at a disadvantage since one would only be able to get in a single hit if a guy is popping in and out of cover.

same health system for sp and mp

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Born2bwire
Did they use the same health system for both singleplayer and multiplayer? I'd prefer the traditional health bar for multiplayer. I would think that it would put the bolt action rifles at a disadvantage since one would only be able to get in a single hit if a guy is popping in and out of cover.

It's actually still pretty much the same. The bolt action has always been at somewhat of a disadvantage in close quarters but at range it still rocks.

All in all I haven't decided if I want to keep the new health status or mod in a health bar.

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
It's actually still pretty much the same. The bolt action has always been at somewhat of a disadvantage in close quarters but at range it still rocks.

All in all I haven't decided if I want to keep the new health status or mod in a health bar.

Ok then. I just found the Firingsquad's review and they implied the same. They also mentioned that the MP44's recoil was reduced. Wonder how that'll change things... Once I was able to get the recoil under control, I could reach out and get anybody in COD. Whenever I went onto modded servers with reduced recoil, the effectiveness of the MP44 just got ridiculous. I'll try to swing by Best Buy or EB Games after work today and pick up a copy. I don't think I'll be put off by the subtle changes, just that I've gotten comfortable with the balance of things in COD:UO and we fear change.

 

[Ausm]

I played 2 hours last night on a 64 person server and it rocked


Ausm

 

[raystorm]

Originally posted by: Malladine
I'd buy this game for MP alone considering no jeeps and tanks. I would buy it if my video card was faster!

9800np/3000+/1gb ram and the demo ran like molasses. Can anyone verify that the performance is the same with the retail version?

I have a similar pc (except my cpu is a Athlon XP 2500+) and the game runs at 5fps..maybe less! No matter the settings in the options the game just chugs along like a slideshow. The only thing I haven't tried is DX7 mode and I refuse to do so.. I want to play the game as it was meant to be play. Amazingly Quake 4, F.E.A.R., Serious Sam 2 and that Lost Coast level in HL2 all run pretty damn well on my pc at high settings (@ 1024x768 with no AA) but this game is unplayable for me.

 

Originally posted by: Ausm
I played 2 hours last night on a 64 person server and it rocked


Ausm

Ditto, i play as "Mess-o-Ribs"

You cant miss me, im always top 5.

Yes i know im a dork, my GF tells me all the time.

 

[Born2bwire]

Meh, I'm really not liking the multiplayer. The recoil on the weapons is way too low.

 

[Azndude2190]

has anyone finished the singleplayer campaigns yet?

 

[Dethfrumbelo]

Nice game. On the hardest difficulty setting it really makes for a challenge. The 1st US mission (D-Day) was a real bitch.

The weapons aren't terribly realistic with recoil and accuracy. Brothers in Arms is a little better about that.

I was getting low frames/s ~30 fps at 1280x1024 2xAA until I turned off dynamic lights. After doing that, my frames jumped into the 40-50 frames/s range. The 2nd to last British mission gave me extremely low frames, so I dropped to 800x600 for that one.

 

Originally posted by: Born2bwire
Meh, I'm really not liking the multiplayer. The recoil on the weapons is way too low.

They are trying to keep the fun factor alive. I think its fine, MP is fun as hell.

 

[TheUnk]

Yeah too much realism is stupid.

 

[Fingolfin269]

The recoil will be modded at some point. Thank God. Fun for fraggers is one thing but fun for players who want to mod in realism is another. It's stupid that someone can be just as accurate with a MP44 as someone who is sacrificing speed for single shots with a kar that just don't happen to kill in one head shot all the time now.

 

[BlueWeasel]

Originally posted by: raystorm

Originally posted by: Malladine
I'd buy this game for MP alone considering no jeeps and tanks. I would buy it if my video card was faster!

9800np/3000+/1gb ram and the demo ran like molasses. Can anyone verify that the performance is the same with the retail version?

I have a similar pc (except my cpu is a Athlon XP 2500+) and the game runs at 5fps..maybe less! No matter the settings in the options the game just chugs along like a slideshow. The only thing I haven't tried is DX7 mode and I refuse to do so.. I want to play the game as it was meant to be play. Amazingly Quake 4, F.E.A.R., Serious Sam 2 and that Lost Coast level in HL2 all run pretty damn well on my pc at high settings (@ 1024x768 with no AA) but this game is unplayable for me.

That sounds pretty much unplayable. I've got a similar system to Malladine's (XPM @ 2.5Ghz, 1GB RAM, 9800 Pro) and loved the original COD and UO. But if it runs that bad on modest hardware, I may just have to wait until I upgrade.