http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/med...reviews;title;3

A little disappointing really. Firstly, max 12 players? Geez, hope they didn't break a sweat trying to figure how to get SO MANY into one map. (sarcasm).

No vehicles of any sort. Again, ugh.

Only one mode aside from a Team Deathmatch mode. Geez, again, come on.

Finally, 6 maps, 3 recycled from old game, 3 copied from the single player game? Did they run out of money or out of creativity?

The flag capture mode sounds interesting, since it's not traditional capture the flag. However, overall it still looks pretty weak IMO. The freedom affording in the single player campaign still sound very cool, but the only real innovation here for multiplayer is parachuting in, and I'm not sure that overcomes the above listed shortcomings of limited players, limited modes, no vehicles and old maps for the multiplayer mode.

I was wishing they'd do better. Sigh.

The reason it says max of 12 is it's a review for the xbox which is being beta tested and why they have info on it. I'm guessing the other details could be wrong as well for PC.....

I think they where in a hurry to make it

i would imagine its going to be exactly like cod u/o with better graphics. the flags mode would be exactly like domination (which ive always been a fan) which first started in bf1942 . i dont know where these guys are getting off saying ww2 games are dying? im an avid ww2 reader,watcher and gamer. to this day i may watch an episode of history channel even though ive seen it 10 times already on ww2,i believe most who play these games are the same . although ive been playing cod2 alot, i still think that theres a missing bridge between the u/o community and cod2 community and moh had the chance to be this bridge . i remember when i first payed cassino (being were on topic as of late) with one tank per side and i would play dom mode, the tank was very vulnerable and not as dominating as in say ponyri and seemed more realistic.



for the record ,(if i can remember right) when bf1942 and moh were slowing ,cod came in with almost exactly the game type as airborne -then u/o expansion.they may be testing the waters to see if itll sell.

missing bridge?

you can say that again

after all the years of moh games this is there best yet what a joke im sure thell make more money then they spent on this one easy

Imagine the potential this multiplayer mode COULD have.

Firstly, how about you get to pilot your own slow moving plane into the dropzone for your drop. Or how about a player can even designate himself a "pilot" and pilot repawning players.

Now how about German's having anti aircraft batteries installed so they can shoot and destroy incoming aircraft, especially around their key entry points to their main areas. The deeper you fly in, the more dangerous you make it for yourself.

How about Germans having a limited number of tanks and jeep to defend.

How about special secondary weapons for allies. Maybe a mortor team where one player can carry shells, another mortor.

How about Allies being able to hotwire civilian vehicles around the landscape? Or, of course, being able to steal German vehicles.

How about a mode where there is only one objective (like a base) Germans must defend. Games would be time limited and there would be two rounds per game, with players being switched after each round.

How about new maps designed especially wuth these unique multiplayer modes in mind, instead of old stuff.

These are ideas I threw togther in 5 minutes. I could go on. There are a lot of creative angles that could be worked into the basic premise that the Germans are on defence from an allied airborne attack. It just seems to me that no one is trying to be the "best", to be innovative. It seems the idea of the airdrop is the only innovative angle here, instead of using it to create a more complete gameplay experience that is hard to find.

MAybe an expansion pack will address this, but what they're pushing out the door sounds pretty ho-hum to me. I think the single-player game sounds great, but the multiplayer sounds like only a minor wrinkle over tons of other stuff out there.

you just named every aspect of bf1942.

No I didn't. I have BF2 and there is one game type, a sort of domination + deathmatch. I assume BF1942 was the same. What I don't like is there's no major "thrill" that if I get a certain objective (like blowing a base), we win, like in base assult. Instead, 90% of games you can tell who is going to win half way through because it is score based and once a team starts winning and dominating, a turnaround rarely happens. Sometimes the last 5 minutes are a total waste. You're team either is too far ahead or behind to make a difference.

Some of the things I described are from BF1942 I'm sure. That's OK isn't it? Hell, I'd be happy with a COD/UO clone with better graphics and a few enhancements! Instead it sound a little like Airbone is going with the absolute minimum. Essentially two game types, one a stripped down version of domination (only 3 flags), and two types of deathmatch. Only unique thing is only one team parachutes in. Meh. COD/UO still has more innovation and it's 4 years old!

Understand Undead that I was looking forward to hearing what Aiborne would be, unfortunately it sound very similar to the average multiple on most 3d shooters. No vehicles, basic complement of weapons, only one or two gametypes, limited maps, etc. I'm disappointed. I was hoping it'd be a future game for this clan. It doesn't sound like there's enough there though to capture enough imaginations yet.

YEAH, i agree with you mod . the thing with the three flags may be cool if its like cnq type game play though.
depends on the maps,really . where did it say the map list?

Guys you are reading a review of the game for XBOX. Not PC. So getting riled up about what it may or may not have is a bit premature... I have a REALLY bad feeling you are about to see ladders begin to close in TWL for UO and COD2 so you better get use to something different. I know they just closed our 6v6 TDM ladder because it had less than 10 active teams. If I'm not mistaken one of our UO ladders is at 10 teams and two of those have no record. TWL is also requiring PB to be streamed which is going to result in more teams dropping I bet. So the death of our games continues.... let's not shoot down these games before we even play them.

Just wondering where you got your information from MOD?

You might want to check this out, http://www.after-hourz.com/index.php?optio...view&id=181

hope i wasnt wrong but i thought my review was pretty close to the after hours but what ever. i did read that because jeep paid for it ,the xbox will have jeep vehicles. to me it sounds like a buy but the thing i didnt like was no prone and the sprint without getting tired.

Copyright law has gone nuts if you need to get a license to depict a 60 year old jeep in a computer game. To think we have to pay extra money for a game because it is in it! Then they whine that people download games from torrents. Yeesh.

Again, I ask, why is there no game with a Base Assult or Base Assult-like mode?

I've said this before and I'll say it again, the reason is money. The money is not in modes like BA. Look at the popularity of Counter-Strike. There are still tons of people who play that game. COD2 and CS are the top two FPS games on Xfire, with BF2 a very distant third. Hell the original COD is still on there, whereas UO isn't doesn't even show. Sure, it's possible that not all of the UO players have Xfire, but I've met a lot of COD2 players who don't have it either. Yeah, it may seem like so many people want there to be a BA type mode, but you have to remember two things: 1) this is a majority UO clan, so obviously more people around here are going to want that type of game; 2) the dissatisfied minority is always more vocal than the content/satisfied majority.

And, just like Geno has said twice now, this was the XBOX version that was reviewed. We don't even know what the PC version will be like yet.

And, just like Geno has said twice now, this was the XBOX version that was reviewed. We don't even know what the PC version will be like yet. [/quote]





no, the review mule posted was for the pc,sorry for the wrong up guys,not much difference though.they did put objective gameplay in for our base guys.im looking forward to this game,should be fun.

It costs almost nothing to add the BA mode. THey don't actually have to BUILD bases. Just computer generate ones, with a little programming to control planting and defusing. For a major studio, a couple days work tops. They could put them in established maps if they are too lazy to make dedicated BA maps. Release a modding ool and let the game community take care of creating new maps. IMO, there's no cost issue at all.

Anyway, COD/UO has had tremendous staying power for a game that only was a expansion of a 5 year old game. If COD original still has more players (a big maybe, as I'm not sure an Xfire poll is scientific), it is partially due to the fact not everyone who bought COD bought UO, but anyone who has UO had to have bought COD. Thus, there's clearly a lot more COD games floating around.

IMO, COD2 sales were not high enough to justify a PC version of COD3 partially because lots of people were waiting for the BA option or expansion for COD2 which never came. The younger Xboxers and stuff might be happy with TDM 24/7, but slightly older crowds prefer objectives beyond simply gun-and-run.

Simply put, COD2 would have sold signifcantly more on the PC if they had added the elements that many PC gamers wanted and expected.

mod ,i just dont think youll see ba from moh who has never done ba before or any of the ea games for that matter.

when i said a bridge i meant something new ,maybe something a tdm and ba player would both be into . anyway,its still something new and ill be buying it for sure.

Because MoD there is more ppl out there who only know how to run around and shoot other online players and dont know anything but tdm or dm. I think its too much work for them to do anything but those 2 game types.



One more thing cause xfire says CS and COD2 is the number one games for FPS doesnt mean it is.

You think everyone that plays FPS games has xfire?

No shit. I never said it was the definitive set in stone truth. Like I said in my first post, there are bound to be a large number of people who play other FPS's that don't have Xfire, just like there will be a large number of people who play CS and COD2 who don't have Xfire.

And btw, I played my fair share of UO and BA when it came out, and I was good. It just got boring to me, and the game play just wasn't that good IMO. Just because someone doesn't play the game or like the game type doesn't mean "its[sic] too much work".

If you say so

What a constructive comeback. Seriously dude, can you not get it through your head that just because someone doesn't like BA means they suck at it, or thaty they think it's too much work. I don't like BA, but that doesn't mean I think that it should be eliminated from any game made from here on out. All I'm trying to do is provide some constructive conversation about why they might not have included any sort of BA type game type.

I would find it highly unlikely that there is a significant difference in the percentage of people who play UO and have xfire and the people who play other FPS and have xfire.....

i wasnt trying for a comeback, i dont need to act as a kid

And i dont recall saying anything about BA gametypes

I did not mean a comeback as in "ZOMG my dad can beat up your dad." I meant that your retort to my comment added nothing to the argument at hand.

This part was supposed to be added to the end, but it wouldnt let me edit.

MOD,
I agree with you, it probably wouldn't take much effort to add in a BA style mode and vehicles. The problem is that management is in charge, not the programmers, and not gamers. If they don't see any advantage (ie more money) in adding that game type, they won't do it. They look at games like CS and COD2 and say "Hey, we could make a lot of money if we brought in the players from those two games." They probably don't want to take any players away from their Battlefield series either, so that might be another reason they didn't include vehicles and BA type modes.

The last part, about the idea that cold number crunchers are letting other products fill the so-called "niche" has more resonance to it. In a sense, it harkens back to something I said earlier where it seemed like no one was trying to make the "best game". It's like, "lets tack on a multiple, but let's not work too hard at it". Give 'em the basics, let them buy something else if they want a killer multipler experience. However, there's something to be said for building brand loyality by striving to be the best. I think mistakes were made. Number crunchers make the decision they think will bring the highest profit, that does not mean they are always right. For example, COD and AIborne both could have made a new Battlefiled type game for WW2 and capitalized on the brand name. Instead of thinking big, they thought small.

Also, I'd like to point out I don't consider this a debate of TDM vs. BA or any other game type. More about making a multipler component with broad appeal and many features we don't see in other games, including a variety of gametypes. The more the better. I'd buy that!

I'd also point out to any game makers in the house that if you don't make a great multipler with punkbuster, it is very easy for players to then just download a torrent and play the single player! Great multiplayer boosts legit sales. I wonder how much thought the bean counters put into that.

because the argument wasnt going anywhere.

And i didnt want to get into a pissing match over a game.

MOD, I don't know if the MOHA developers will release the modeling tools for this game (I hope they do), and if they do I suspect there are a lot of mappers, scripters, etc. out there in the gaming community that will come up with new maps and game types as they did in CODUO, so all is not lost.

Let's hope, though out-of-box greatness would have been the ideal.

I'll still probably get it for the single player experience. But without a great multiplayer out of box, it might be just as easy for people to torrent it for now as buy it! Like I say, do bean-counters not consider that?

i think someone will def mod b/a in but:



i was really hoping this year someone would do something different.moh looks good but its still the same engine as cod etc.. blah blah.do i care about single player?no..do i care if im a floating target with a parachute?double no...so what did they do that is so different?i feel the gaming team who has the balls to do something different are the ones who get game of the year and sell copies of the same game for 3+ years. i thought red orchestra wouldve done well but to be honest i got frustrated with the gameplay.i did really like the concept ,except for a few minor details .

u/o -tired of the graphics

cod2- great graphics,awesome weapons and great concept but too much shoot from the hip .



i was hoping someone would release a new objective gametype. something crossed with cnq,s&d and base would be cool as hell .i would like it if they would re do the dday and market garden maps as well with better graphics and gameplay ,not to exclude northern africa.



i will buy moh but only because its new.

I love BA and would be happy with just a clone, but also happy with something LIKE BA, but not necessarily the same.

I think what I like best about BA is that one team plants, but the other team still has a chance to save. So, its about the timer. If your planting, you're praying for the timer to get down to 10 seconds before someone defuses. The defenders are racing to ge thtere before it is too late. And no matter how the game is going, there's always a chance to save a key base with a microsecond to spare, or for a team winning all game to suddenly lose in the dying minutes if they fail to protect their bases.

Other new, interesting game types could be built on this concept. "A bridge too far" could be a gametype where both teams try and capture the same bridge, and it they can hold it for 5 minutes, they win. If other team capture in the 5 minutes, then they try and hold it for 5. That's a little like King of the Hill in Halo, but something that would fit in with the theme of a WW2 game. Or, instead of a bridge, make it a base or a building. "Pavlov's House"! (A level in COD/UO if anyone remembers... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlov's_House )

Or how about this for a gametype. At the end of each map are bunkers that can only be destroyed by tank fire.In the middle area of map on opposite edges there are two "tank depo's". Depo's have to be captured and then they will spawn tanks only the capturing team can drive. They can then use those tanks to take out the bunkers. First team to destroy bunkers wins. The tank depo's can be recaptured by the opposing team. Teams could thus be down to the last few shots on their last bunker, but if they can turn it around and hold the depo's they could hold on and perhaps still win!

Again, just another made-up idea for this post, but at least something different and fitting with a WW2 them and incorperating vehicles without it being a BattleFiled clone. One would think a whole group of people spitballing ideas would be able to find something beyond two TDM modes and one slightly diferent version of domination.

yes i have to say cod2 has great graphics

but i find the game play isnt as good as uo