Call Of Duty!
<div class="IPBDescription">oO</div> <a href='http://files.worthplaying.com/files/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=viewdownloaddetails&lid=824&title=Call%20Of%20Duty%20-%20Demo' target='_blank'>Clickeh!</a> It's here! <i>WOOHOO!</i>
And it seems that Gamespy as we know it is down...I can't access it. Hmph.
And it seems that Gamespy as we know it is down...I can't access it. Hmph.
Comments
I still don't see whats so great about this. It looks like a single-player heavily scripted DoD with a sweet engine to me.
AKA, I'd rather get it for free. It sounds great, but it doesn't really intrigue me.
I've seen the gameplay videos and everything, and I seriously felt "My god, that is so freakin unrealistic", because of the fact your comrades would take 1 shot and die, and then you get hit, and you still have basically 95 health. I know about gameplay, but comon. I still wish someone'd make a REALISTIC WW2 fps....THAT would rock. The only one thats been ANYWHERE near close is BF 42, but its still 100x more arcade that real. Comon, lets get the REAL ww2!!!
I still don't see whats so great about this. It looks like a single-player heavily scripted DoD with a sweet engine to me.
AKA, I'd rather get it for free. It sounds great, but it doesn't really intrigue me.
I've seen the gameplay videos and everything, and I seriously felt "My god, that is so freakin unrealistic", because of the fact your comrades would take 1 shot and die, and then you get hit, and you still have basically 95 health. I know about gameplay, but comon. I still wish someone'd make a REALISTIC WW2 fps....THAT would rock. The only one thats been ANYWHERE near close is BF 42, but its still 100x more arcade that real. Comon, lets get the REAL ww2!!! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Want realistic? Play the first 45 seconds of the Omaha Beach chapter from Medal of Honor on the hardest difficulty. Start in boat. Group yells "30 seconds!" Boat stops. Door opens. Then you've got a 75% chance of getting shot up just like everyone else by the time you can even stick a toe in the water.
Is it realistic? Heck yeah. One thing that's been common in wars is that if you're on the side at a disadvantage, it tends to suck rather badly and more often than you'd like, you can't do a thing about it. Makes for rather annoying quicksave-quickload-rinse-repeat gameplay.
<b>Back on topic</b>
I've noticed the filename for the demo from FilePlanet is "call_of_duty_demo_gsi.exe", while FileShack's copy is "call_of_duty_demo.exe" instead. The filesizes are both around 174~175. Anyone know the difference?
[edit]Downloaded the one from Fileplanet because (beleive it or not) the wait in line was much shorter. The hype about this game is putting it on par with HL2, Deus Ex 2, and Doom3. The gameplay is the exact same as Medal of Honor only with more teammates. Seriously, if someone had told me this was a community mod for MoH, I probably would have just complimented the amateurs on their mapping and voice acting and then proceed to completely believe it was nothing but a mod. Is the gameplay good? Um....I guess, if you're the sort who <i>liked</i> MoH and doesn't mind that the majority of its faults are still shown in this demo (possible internal quote at Activision: "Let's finally give the player the ability to lie prone for once and charge $50 for it in a new box!"). Otherwise, I'm saving my money and passing this up, because I know I won't miss it. The recent Freedom Fighter demo impressed me more as a <i>game</i> despite having less content and inferior graphics.
I was floored by the single player level, it was so freaking intense. When I got to the end I was sorta **** that the level was over, I was having so much fun. Not to mention that the graphics are... amazing, for lack of a better word. The opening part where your crew is pinned down by MG and mortar fire is great.
Anyway, I guess I missed out on all this when MoH:AA was released, but I'll prolly catch it this time around.
Call of Duty ****
Why:
MOHAA: More of a man-who-can-do-anything-kills-germans. Low performance with mediocre graphics. Good story.
Call Of Duty: More teambased, more intense. Actually gave me chills. High performance with EXCELLENT graphics. No comment on story yet.
I still don't see whats so great about this. It looks like a single-player heavily scripted DoD with a sweet engine to me.
AKA, I'd rather get it for free. It sounds great, but it doesn't really intrigue me.
I've seen the gameplay videos and everything, and I seriously felt "My god, that is so freakin unrealistic", because of the fact your comrades would take 1 shot and die, and then you get hit, and you still have basically 95 health. I know about gameplay, but comon. I still wish someone'd make a REALISTIC WW2 fps....THAT would rock. The only one thats been ANYWHERE near close is BF 42, but its still 100x more arcade that real. Comon, lets get the REAL ww2!!! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you want realistic damage to yourself then turn up the difficulty.
O.k, I took 2 sniper shots at the MG42 positions, but after that it was pure pistolage <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Medal of Honor is realistic right up to pushing an arrow key to move a polygon forward...
Jeez people, its a video game. Give reality a rest, that's why you're playing games in the first place.
Medal of Honor is realistic right up to pushing an arrow key to move a polygon forward...
Jeez people, its a video game. Give reality a rest, that's why you're playing games in the first place. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
*Agrees*
Most people play games to do things they can't. You can't go back in time and risk your life in WWII, so make a game and give it tons of realism.
And to really rub it in, they have a list of "supported chipsets":
· ATI® Radeon 7200, 8500, 9000, 9500, 9700, 9800
· All nVidia® GeForce™ chipsets
Well, I don't have a GeForce, I have a Radeon. Which Radeon? A 7000. The last model which DIDN'T support DirectX 9 <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
Yet for some reason Rise Of Nations plays fine even though it requires DX9 <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
it ran at 2 fps. however, i change the 32 bit color to 16 and now i get something like 80 to 90 fps.
that alot of change for a little setting.
And yes, I realise thats asking a lot. Thats why someone should do it- it would kick butt.
Can’t wait for the full version.
Anyone know if you can kill your team-mates? Because I saw a buddy that had a BAR1918... never thought of killing him though. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Anyway, this game reeeally is better than AA. More team based, more realistic atmosphere, better sounds, better graphics and a little better AI.
In other words, this game is hella of fun.
I still don't see whats so great about this. It looks like a single-player heavily scripted DoD with a sweet engine to me.
AKA, I'd rather get it for free. It sounds great, but it doesn't really intrigue me.
I've seen the gameplay videos and everything, and I seriously felt "My god, that is so freakin unrealistic", because of the fact your comrades would take 1 shot and die, and then you get hit, and you still have basically 95 health. I know about gameplay, but comon. I still wish someone'd make a REALISTIC WW2 fps....THAT would rock. The only one thats been ANYWHERE near close is BF 42, but its still 100x more arcade that real. Comon, lets get the REAL ww2!!! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whats wrong with DoDs realism again? and BF42 should not even be mentioned in the same post as DoD
I still don't see whats so great about this. It looks like a single-player heavily scripted DoD with a sweet engine to me.
AKA, I'd rather get it for free. It sounds great, but it doesn't really intrigue me.
I've seen the gameplay videos and everything, and I seriously felt "My god, that is so freakin unrealistic", because of the fact your comrades would take 1 shot and die, and then you get hit, and you still have basically 95 health. I know about gameplay, but comon. I still wish someone'd make a REALISTIC WW2 fps....THAT would rock. The only one thats been ANYWHERE near close is BF 42, but its still 100x more arcade that real. Comon, lets get the REAL ww2!!! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whats wrong with DoDs realism again? and BF42 should not even be mentioned in the same post as DoD <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Americas army, your guns accuracy is pretty realisitic, your weapon can jam and you have to clear it etc.
Its not my favorite game but it has its moments.
But now on to what I am wanting to post right now...
---
I was wrong. 100%, balls out, wrong.
Call of Duty kicks ****. Up and down the friggin street.
Best SINGLE-PLAYER I've played in my entire life.
And the single player seems realistic enough to be multiplayer.
I am gonna buy this. HL2 will come after, but I'm buying this to hold me over. Dear God, this game kicks butt. And now a quote from it(AND GET THE DEMO!)
"I have never prayed but one prayer to God. 'O Lord, let my enemies be ridiculous.' And God granted it."
I highly doubt something that was exactly as WW2 was would be very much fun.
Call of Duty kicks ****. Up and down the friggin street.
Best SINGLE-PLAYER I've played in my entire life.
And the single player seems realistic enough to be multiplayer.
I am gonna buy this. HL2 will come after, but I'm buying this to hold me over. Dear God, this game kicks butt. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*dances and grooves*
<i>Told ya so! Told ya so!</i>
I just played the demo mission. I like how in this game its not one of those "You against the world" games. You actualy have help. You are in a squad. Like in the D-Day assault in MOHAA but with help all the time.
Yah, that's realism for you. Getting hurt from random things placed throughout the map. Fun fact: the Germans didn't use bullets, but placed trigger_hurts at strategic points.
Squadmates don't serve their purpose.
"What's this fool talking about? They shoot at enemies for you, right?"
Right. But that's not their purpose.
"Well then what <i>are</i> they there for? Cannon fodder so you're not the one being shot at?"
No, not that either, though they sometimes do it pretty well.
<b>Let's all agree on something. The squadmates are there to make you feel like you're in a squad.</b> As many people have said in above posts, the point of this game over, say, Medal of Honor or RTCW is to make you feel like you're not a one-man army. In concept and on paper, I agree that this makes it a more realistic, more fun game.
But in practice, the heavy scripting is too evident to make your squadmates feel like people. You move forward past clearly-mapper-determined points, and the "squad leader" gets everyone to move forward. Once there, they get an order (usually some variation of "get in positions to provide covering fire while the player moves in") and they shoot enemies as they see them. At this point you move forward, the one-man-army you are in so many other games, and the squadmates shoot any enemies they see you haven't killed yet.
In effect, these AI "squadmates" are turrets on feet. They plop themselves down in place, watch your back from there, and when they see you've gotten far enough they stand up and run to the next place to plop down again. Despite people thinking that this is such an advancement over those one-man-army games we've mentioned, it's really the <i>exact same thing</i> but with human-shaped portable turrets who follow you.
Compare this to an old game the majority of us here are familiar with. Opposing Forces for Half-Life. For the majority of the game, you are a one-man army. But in those few instances where you have one, two, or three squadmates, <i>they actually perform like squadmates</i>. They move with you instead of moving forward when you're far enough forward. They look for cover wherever the heck they can find it. They heal up and make jokes between battles. Their deaths actually matter, not for the plot of the game but for your own self-confidence as a fellow squadmate in not being able to help when you should have. And occasionally, they make the human mistakes of straying from the group because they're concentrating too much on one flank of the battle.
OpFor was made in late 1999. We're in 2003, and the best we can do is stuff like higher poly counts and larger maps? The fact that this game is getting such high praise is ok, I suppose. In a world of bargain-bin junkware, we'll take whatever playable game we can get. But the fact that this game is getting so much <i>undeserved</i> praise disgusts me. After setting all preferences of realism types aside, after setting all preferences for time period aside: anyone who compliments the team dynamic of this game, or says that it's better than any singleplayer game they've ever played before, is seeing a level of innovation to this game that I honestly can't find here nor there.