Steel Crimson Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 Two very popular FPS but which one do you prefer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alice Moonflowyr Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 Neither, they both suck. I like BF3 and Halo thank you very much. Oh, and Borderlands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel Crimson Posted January 7, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 [quote name='Spike the Bloody' timestamp='1357526993' post='6113766'] Neither, they both suck. I like BF3 and Halo thank you very much. Oh, and Borderlands. [/quote] Oh Halo, I did not think to put Halo on the list DX Of the two I think CoD is the better one, most popular at least, do you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makο Posted January 7, 2013 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 I like me some Medal of Honor. My childhood shooter, right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Revan of the Sith Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 Call of Duty. MOH has sucked as of late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTFauKorean Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 Medal of Honor was my childhood, I grew up with Front line and Rising Sun. They were the first ones to make a real WWII based shooter series, and their sprites were phenomenal at the time. The realism of real war came from the fact that actually aiming and hitting some thing is nearly impossible unless you're standing still, and even more so you had to be crouching so you didn't get nailed yourself. What made it lose its popularity, was its inability to work on the mechanics for iron sights. MOH's look on aiming was simply a zoom of the hip shot view, it did not affect recoil, you were not allowed to actually move n this sight and it made your cross hair movement slow drastically. So in other words for players who can aim at smaller targets while moving/dodging (players with more skill) it was pretty much pointless. Call of duty began with finest hour, who was the first to bring in the iron sight system. Hip shots realistically had barely any accuracy and down the line of sight was required to actually kill something. Still implementing the same danger of being killed with a few shots you had to remain behind cover and you could not just run and gun people down, holding your iron sights up because your movement speed and cross hair movement was reduced. MOH tried to implement iron sights with European assault and was the first to bring in weapon classes and wall peak shots after COD's second release big read one. This was MOH's peak and to this day actually my favorite WWII console shooter. But what happened next was COD's ability to pump out a game known as modern warfare. It snowballed into a multi-million dollar franchise, and MOH's experience with only WWII shooters lead to its demise. MOH warfighter was made to combat the COD series and failed miserably. The makers of Battle Field simply observed and created a game with what consumers wanted. higher graphics, higher level of tactics and strategy, realism and skill. The COD series simply revolved around special forces, meaning you were a running gunning killing machine that didn't give a f*** about cover. This lack of realism helped BF3 by revolving the game around your average marine. While COD allowed mistakes to be forgiving BF3 offered the realism of actual war, where a single mistake will give you no chance at redemption or survival. In conclusion the MOH series has become a relic and put in the halls of gaming history while 2 franchises COD and BF3 continue to fight for popularity among two very different consumers. Fast paced competitiveness Vs. Team orientated strategic warfare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.