runes
Posts: 107
Joined: 1/15/2001
Status: offline
|
dissapointed.
that's all i can say. I really enjoyed the original, but feel UO suffered everything the first one did. There were no improvements in engine, combat, freedom or anything.
Most say the game is pretty linear, i'd say restricting- asphyxiating even. What is good about that, i guess, is that it really shows the futility of some of these battles. But by doing so, destroys most of the replay battle. I can't go over to that foxhole to get a better position, i'm not "allowed to", i'll get blown up, or i can't cross the river over there to flank the bridge, i'll get killed. In this day and age, with games like GTA or Spiderman 2, "deus ex machina" type gameplay really doesn't cut it.
You don't need to be controlled so tightly to tell a good story. It just gets frustrating, immensely so, when i want to do something different, but am just killed off because that's not the path the game wants.
The last level, very very cool, very good back and forth combat, but then, after about 5 minutes, it gets tired. Get up, grab the 88 take out a tank, someone yells "stuka!", and you run to the only place where you don't get hurt, lie down, go back out, go to the 88, someone yells stuka. Etc. Etc. And believe me, you won't survive if you try to move form behind that train car ;)
The first russian level was also quite cool, the beginning of kursk. This was probably one of my favourite levels, trench warfare. I think a good ww1 "Call of duty" is possible...
My complaint is just that the game is so stifling. Once you know the "path" (wait for explosion, run to the house, take out machine gun, run back out) then the game just because simple, boring and way too easy, even on the hardest settings.
But the first time you play it, whoa. There's an experience. But, none of the levels in UO surpassed any of the levels in the original.
Even the very first, battle of the bulge levels had SO much potential. We went walking/driving through these levels and saw big fortifications, bunkers, machine gun nests back at hq... how much of this scenery was used? About 5%.
I would have loved to see a dynamic game where you can get pushed back to HQ, defend it there, or, if you do really good, break the german lines and push them back.
I really enjoyed the single player game of BG1942 (i disliked MP) because, the game felt real, as far as troop movements back. Units pushed forward, fell back, advanced, flanked, everything. And if you watched the little radar-objective map, you saw units moving as a whole, and reacting dynamically as they would in real life.
Call of duty, or whatver uber-real WW2 shooter needs this feature. Not just great storytelling, visuals and cinematics, but a realistic way in which to implement these. Maybe the Stukas don't ALWAYs come at the same time, (that was annoying too, guys appearing in the exact same position every time, again, too linear), maybe the artillery shells and falling trees happen in a different manner. By the time i was done playing the first level (i played the demo about a zillion times) i could play it with my eyes close... That tree falls, that guy shouts for a medic, here come 3 germans on the right, explosion on my right etc. etc...
And the friendly AI... horrible. How many times did they run infront of my sights when not just aiming, but often firing a full burst? Grenades too, they need to be redone. For some reason you always throw them at full strength, you just whip them over there. No luck using them "tactically"... enemies and friendlies/do throw grenades back which is cool, i saw this little exchange between borris and some jerry where they lobbed this grenade back and forth 3 or 4 times, before i just shot the kraut and the grenade got my comerade.
"I'll cover you"?? Yea right, i feel safe for a second, i turn a corner and there's like 4 krauts. So much for 'covering me'.
And i really didnt like the heroism stuff, sure taking out a tank or two is cool, but defending a chateau against like 7 tanks and an entire regiment of germans? Leave that to other games.
Similarly, i just don't like the SAS stuff. Leave that to other games like commandos or rogue spear.
Call of duty excells at big battle, chaotic, lots of guys, explosions and the full on experience, not many other games come close to that. Stick with those levels... They're way more fun.
But the best part of the game was flying the B-17. They need to make a game all of that (i remember the game B17 but didnt play ittoo much) Running around, changing gunner positions, wlaking the whole length of the plane, very cool. I'd love to see an open ended game with changing characters (if the gunner gets wasted or something) that you meet, different missions and such... I just loved walking around the b17 and watching people do their thing. And i liked watching outside, as the scenery changed and whatnot, pretty cool.
but, all in all, what would i give this game? 8/10, but not an enthusiastic 8. I just gave it the 8 because the first Battle of the Bulge/First russian/B17 missions are cool. It really should get like a 6/10, but, because it's call of duty, and there arent any other shooters in its caliber, it gets bumped up.
Buy it/download it/steal it/whatever, i do reccomend it, but i am quite dissapointed.
|
Printable Version
Call of Duty, United offensive: My review/discussion - 
RE: Call of Duty, United offensive: My review/discussion - 
Tanks have been implemented really well IMHO - they can dominate but need skill to use and unless supported can be taken out very easily by Panzerfaust or Bazooka. A totally different "feel" from BF1942, and much the better game IMHO. Certainly the more atmospheric one.
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread