Call of Duty WWII
- 主题发起人 F.F.C._fritz
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
Well, that's just because the game is ****. 
I still stand by my opinion that it doesn't in any way need to follow whatever historical theme or whatever gash so strictly, it's just a game (I assume that is also the opinion of everyone else that isn't completely retarded). If the game was actually good then I don't think anyone would complain about that, just like Wolfenstein.
I still stand by my opinion that it doesn't in any way need to follow whatever historical theme or whatever gash so strictly, it's just a game (I assume that is also the opinion of everyone else that isn't completely retarded). If the game was actually good then I don't think anyone would complain about that, just like Wolfenstein.
I have no problems there (max. settings at 2560x1440). It really lacks a proper cover system though.Jean-Chrysostôme Bruneteau de Sainte-Suzanne 说:
It doesn't feel like being in a warzone. The maps are so small there are not many strategic options.
Not much advantage is gained by being tactical, I think. If everyone play their best - without being egotistical - and support each other there's no need for a plan.
Would be nice if you couldn't have half your team being snipers. The different troop types are almost strategically irrelevant.
You don't have situations where you go "****, our sniper is down, who has a grenade left to blow up the mounted machine gun?" or whatever.
Basically it's run-shoot-die-repeat. Don't see why people would bother playing more than a few hours.
In the War mode there's a point where infantry supports a tank, and if they die the tank starts retreating. That's nice, and has some of that WWII vibe.
Age of Empires II: The Densetsu 说:Well, that's just because the game is ****.
Yep. Nobody bothers complaining about the inaccuracies in spaghetti westerns or in kurosawa period films, because those tend to be excellent films which capture the spirit of the setting almost perfectly, and it almost seems unfair to judge them so superficially. Conversely a film like The Eagle or Braveheart or The Last Samurai is much more likely to get nitpicked on its material inaccuracies because they just take the setting and slap modern """topical""" themes on them, which makes the audience angry that they're basically being missold a modern war movie.
It's like correcting someone's grammar in a post. You only do it when their post is absolutely stupid.
Couldn'dt'v'e said it better myself, Jacob Hind.
The only interesting game mode is War because it has different objectives. Everything else is a confusing team deathmatch murderball that reminds me of old Quake - especially since people can wear any sort of uniforms, making identifying targets extremely chaotic. There is no historical accuracy at all and I kinda like that they didn't even try so I could have a female grunt wearing a Dutch uniform wielding a Japanese SMG while fighting the Germans in France. But the grinding system is bollocks as you have to grind each division AND each weapon AND their accessories/modifications. Maps are ridiculously small, hit boxes are a little wonky and I gotta say I had more fun trying out the WW1 Battlefield version. If only there were more maps for the War mode and that these forced players to stick to accurate weapons and there were no magical special abilities - in essence if this was more like Day of Defeat, it'd probably be decent.
Sofia Johanna Jeanette Munsterhjelm von Platen 说:
The difference being Quake, Quake II and Quake III are arena shooter masterpieces.
Methinks they have left all the historical accuracy they mentioned in the interviews (how much of it we'll see, we don't know) for the single-player - swastikas and jews included - while the MP was never intended to be historical, just mindless fun. So I don't think we'll see strange optical stuff or K98 with 7 round magazine in the SP...I guess. Personally I'm not agreeing with their idea of a multiplayer mode set in an historical setting completely lacking accuracy or at least some attempt to authenticity and I think it's a shame.
In the earliest WWII CoDs, MP didn't look like a simulator, but Axis used Axis weapons, Allies used Allies weapons just as they were in the Single Player and there was no anxiety to be inclusive and PC to the paradox (black wehrmacht women).
The trend of leaving "authenticity" aside had started already with Call of Duty World at War, which may not have had white banzai chargers or black soviet women, but still had all the optics, silencers and unrealistic stuff you can see in COD WWII, including US Marines armed with German or Russian weapons etc., so I'm surprised to hear people being this outraged and surprised.
They just probably don't trust their public to have fun with an "authentic" multiplayer, that's why it has become this stupid.
If you want a good WWII multiplayer experience, just go (or go back) to play Red Orchestra or Darkest Hour - or Day of Infamy for a more arcadey experience. Really, I'm not saying it like "go to hell", it's for your own good. Old graphics or not.
In the earliest WWII CoDs, MP didn't look like a simulator, but Axis used Axis weapons, Allies used Allies weapons just as they were in the Single Player and there was no anxiety to be inclusive and PC to the paradox (black wehrmacht women).
The trend of leaving "authenticity" aside had started already with Call of Duty World at War, which may not have had white banzai chargers or black soviet women, but still had all the optics, silencers and unrealistic stuff you can see in COD WWII, including US Marines armed with German or Russian weapons etc., so I'm surprised to hear people being this outraged and surprised.
They just probably don't trust their public to have fun with an "authentic" multiplayer, that's why it has become this stupid.
If you want a good WWII multiplayer experience, just go (or go back) to play Red Orchestra or Darkest Hour - or Day of Infamy for a more arcadey experience. Really, I'm not saying it like "go to hell", it's for your own good. Old graphics or not.
Red Orchestra 2 is a better alternative than old RO:Ostfront, in my opinion. Much less clunky, more alive too.
Captured Joe 说:
Yeah, I actually agree with you, but you know, saying you prefer Ostfront make you sound like a pro
It really does.
Dystopian
Ostfront was an objectively better game with objectively better maps.
TANK MAPS, TANKS IN GENERAL, COMBINED ARMS, TACTICS, OPEN FIELDS, HALFTRACKS this is really all I need to list in order to confirm its better than RO:2. I had fun with 2, but Ostfront and Darkest Hour have way more time logged in my library and I haven't touched them in years*. *I've played Darkest Hour a little bit every few months still. RO:2 is infantry rush into killing grounds over and over on every map. At least you could ram a t-34 into a tiger in Ostfront and flip it over.
I myself am partial to "Realm of the Mad God" with its infinite maps and responsive shooting mechanics before a scoundrel named "Complete Hardtack the Jaded Rosbif" with his motion picture entitled "Putain, c'est quoi?" ushered in the influx of casuals.
Grönsíir 说:
There's Iron Front. Arma 2 engine game that has a German singleplayer campaign.
类似的主题
