Did the makers hire a military advisor? They should have, while providing interesting gameplay, I have noticed several things wrong and annoying with this game as far as firearms are concerned. And the fact that I beat it on my day off. You don't have to cock the high standard .22 every time you fire. A Browning Automatic Rifle only holds 10 rounds. The same ammo for every gun? In all german boxes? Not one inanimate object in the game is interactive unless its part of the plot (or a box, whooo). I love how you can carry 300+ rounds for a thompson plus all the other ammo for the other weapons and still move like jesse owens, has anyone besides me ever carried a signifigant amount of ammo, *pant pant* I shoot someone directly in the head and their helmet flies off?! They weren't kevlar back then. Radio detonated bombs were not in common use. Omaha beach was garrisoned by Hitler Junge, not very many grown men. I wish I was as deadly accurate with a KR98 Mauser while I was running at 500 yards oh and while firing from behind walls, obviously impenetrable walls since I cant even shoot through wooden ones. They put a modern scope on the M1903, it should be brass. They need to learn the difference between panzershreik and panzerfaust.
I love to see germans smoking cigarettes near an ammo cache.,, miniature stuka divebombers.
They need to hire me.
I guess I just don't find anything fun anymore now that I play operation flashpoint all the time, this is obviously a game that anal retentive history buffs like me could have loved, if, like so many others, they had not sacrificed quality for a release date, at least the thing runs without too many bugs, I thank them for that. Now its just another shooter, kinda like hidden and dangerous, but this one actually works.

But now I beat the damn thing in a day and i'm out 50 bucks.
-Oberleutnant Durham
p.s. Omaha beach was freakin awesome, especially with headphones

Oh yeah, and I like the fact that no one in the game really gets injured, I guess the rifles are loaded with rubber bullets, people give an impressive OHHHH and fall down. if you are going to make a ww2 game, give it some gore, or at least a bullet wound, hell, make sweat fly off of them, anything! for christs sake, the salty ocean spray at omaha and the rest of the beaches was red,
But then again, I have two kitten fetus' on my desk in fermaldihide. so maybe i'm just a sick bastard.

Yes they did hire an advisor, Dale Dye the same one who worked on SPR, and as to all your other complaints the devs needed to think about playability, there's a million other posts on this topic and I don't wanna list off all their reasons so just do a search for it.

If you wanna more difficult experience play the game again in all three difficulty modes, and there's always the multiplayer...

------------------
http://dba.gamepoint.net/images/pvtr...averobber1.jpg
"It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them." - Mark Twain

Well, that is why it is called a "Game"? I wish I had enough time on my hands to nitpick this game like you did. Last but not least....put "Bull" in front of your name like the old cigarettes...it will tell people the contents of your posts before they waste time reading them.

------------------
http://www.enter.net/~eaglerm/Eagle0001.JPG

No you just wish you had enough time to learn what I have about history. If they hired a military advisor then how come I know more than he does.

gameplay > realism

should it be

Gameplay = God?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Tahoma, Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oberleutnant Durham:
No you just wish you had enough time to learn what I have about history. If they hired a military advisor then how come I know more than he does.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


LOL!!!! Yeah I'm sure you know more than a professional military advisor. Look, the game isnt relaistic because they designed it that way, it has to be playable and enjoyable for the masses, and getting gunned down everytime you play Omaha isn't enjoyable for most people. Just relax about it, if you don't like it, don't play it.

Think of it this way, at least your not fighting reincarnated zombies http://www.alliedassault.com/ubb/biggrin.gif


------------------
http://dba.gamepoint.net/images/pvtr...averobber1.jpg
"It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them." - Mark Twain

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Tahoma, Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oberleutnant Durham:
A Browning Automatic Rifle only holds 10 rounds. They need to hire me.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROTFLMFAO!!!

You come to post all your "high and mighty, ex-military assassin" gripes and you make a mistake yourself. This is classic. Everyone knows that the BAR held 20 rounds of .30-06 US service.

Most of your complaints are subject to speculation and I have no problem with a person's opinion or an "anal-retentive history buff".

However when you go out of your way to "correct" the developers only to be blantantly misinformed yourself, I feel the entire MOH community should have a good laugh.

Sandman out.

oh yeah... *smacks self* 20 .. yep thats right.. well.. ain't I an idiot..

Well, although I would have liked MOH:AA to be a bit more realistic, how about this. Just wait for Modifications for MOH:AA. I'm sure theres someone out there who has thought about the same stuff, and has enough time to go out and code something up later on for yall history buffs. http://www.alliedassault.com/ubb/smile.gif

and the BAR only held 10 rounds? how are you supposed to use the BAR as "base of fire" for advancing troops with only 10 rounds? and if its true that it only held 10 rounds, then damn that SUCKS!

------------------
http://trenchsig.20m.com/images/trenchsig135.jpg

Achtung!

[This message has been edited by Trench (edited January 24, 2002).]

10 rounds my ASS
http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/browning.htm


i knew that sounded wrong

------------------
http://trenchsig.20m.com/images/trenchsig135.jpg

Achtung!

Look guys! It's the old thing: "you can't please all of the people all of the time"!

There are numerous complaints that the game is not "playable enough" Vs. "The game is not realistic enough".....

I would suggest that they have tried to strike a balance between the two!

In the end, people will vote with their wallets!
Cheers, truppe

------------------
http://members.optushome.com.au/truppe/Truppe.jpg

Realism is a mean, not an end. http://www.alliedassault.com/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
I'll see you on the beach!
http://digitali.4t.com/majclick2.jpg

I agree completely with Durham.. many of the things he said were completely true. I wondered while playing this game why in the hell they did half of the things they did (or more importantly, didnt do). I really think that 2015 rushed this game out the door. Or maybe EA did it... EA surely didnt mind ruining the game by taking out gore.

To eveyrone jumping the bones of people complaining about "Lack of realism", just look at Op. Flashpoint and Ghost Recon.. these games are great! If im not mistaken, both of these games are extremely realistic.. a claim made by the designers of the game; they however pulled through with this claim.. 2015 and EA weren't even near the mark. The biggest thing that pissed me off about this game was how much 2015 and the mohaa.ea.com website piped about realism, and then they come out with this half-baked BS.

After suffering through RTCW, I was pretty much drooling to get MoH: AA in my hands. How foolish I was to believe that my dreams of a completely realistic WW2 FPS would come true. Who knows? maybe im just a jaded gamer. All I know is there are SOOO many things they could have done to make this game close to perfection, yet they opted to dumb it down for the kiddies. I have always hated EA as a company, now i hate them even more.

------------------
What is the Walrus Punch?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Tahoma, Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>They need to learn the difference between panzershreik and panzerfaust.
I love to see germans smoking cigarettes near an ammo cache.,, miniature stuka divebombers.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Dude the Panzerfaust was a 1 use gun only! U fire it ur done. In the game they have a panzer shreck. Yes i would also like to see soem jU-87 STUKA DIVE BOMBERS COME IN AND STRAFE US AND BLOW OUR TANKS UP. but EA wanted it to be "fun" for the little kids. I think it be cool on D-day if 2 109's came down and streaffed some troops!



------------------
http://dba.gamepoint.net/images/luftwaffe.jpg

Time for me to chime in.

It's pointless making posts like this. Medal of Honor was not and is not supposed to be a realistic, squad-based simulation. It's an adventure with a lot of over-the-top action and thrilling environments, set in the interesting era of WWII. Op-Flash is a hard core military simulation (well, the infantry part anyway.. the tank/air sim part is laughable) that was first and foremost totally realistic (you usually die in one, SOMETIMES 2 shots)

They are both GOOD games. It all depends on your opinion and what kind of importance you place on realism. This is like comparing apples to oranges, folks. I happen to like both games for what they are. I appreciate the time Bohemia Interactive took to get things realistic in OFP; I appreciate the time 2015 took to make everything look and feel authentic and exciting.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Tahoma, Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oberleutnant Durham:
No you just wish you had enough time to learn what I have about history. If they hired a military advisor then how come I know more than he does.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No, idiot. The game is NOT supposed to be realistic. It is supposed to be a combination of realistic AND arcade. Your complaints are stupid, it is the arcade part of the game.

Also, for you to say 'how come I know more about that guy(their advisor, Dale Dye)' shows your LACK of knowledge on military history. If you knew much about it, then you would know who Dale Dye is.

hey durham..d/l Day of Defeat

People the game has been released, why do these threads keep showing up? As I've said before If you have that many problems with the game simply don't play it. I think it is the most realistic WWII game out there (haven't played WWII online so I don't know about that one), and is it or is it not fun to play?

If you can't answer that it's fun then move on to a more realistic game. All out realism can be fun but I believe that in a game like this it would be much too frustrating.

/end rant http://www.alliedassault.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
http://dba.gamepoint.net/images/pvtr...averobber1.jpg
"It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them." - Mark Twain

WW2 online sucks.... Why do I need to know who dale dye is. oh and about the panzer thing... they're firing a panzerfaust round out of a panzershreik

It's pointless making posts like this. Medal of Honor was not and is not supposed to be a realistic, squad-based simulation. It's an adventure with a lot of over-the-top action and thrilling environments, set in the interesting era of WWII. Op-Flash is a hard core military simulation (well, the infantry part anyway.. the tank/air sim part is laughable) that was first and foremost totally realistic (you usually die in one, SOMETIMES 2 shots.

Or 3 4 or 5 depending where you are hit, the flying in Operation flash point sucks yeah, but the other sim aspects are flawless. beautiful gameplay, a solid plot, FUN AND ACCURACY IN REALISM. I actually have to have a minute of angle on the sniper rifle in flashpoint.. I LOVE IT. Codemasters are awesome! they KNOW when a product is ready for shipping