I'm a bit confused, can someone tell me why EA is putting out 2 modern warfare games? What are the main differences? The multiplayer has been developed by the same company (Dice) right?
*After 6 years, I finally got to change my sig! Jericho is World Heavyweight Champion!!!*
RIP Old Sig...3/17/2002-9/7/2008
Medal of Honor is made to be more realistic and authentic. The Battlefield series is an "arcade" shooter franchise. Medal of Honor's multiplayer is being developed with the Frostbite Engine, but with no destruction, likely no vehicles, and a most likely, a faster pacing. Plus, it's a different team over at DICE making MOH's multiplayer.
Yeah, traditionally, MoH has been a deeper, darker, more cinematic game. Battlefield, on the other hand, has always been a more arcadey game, with the main emphasis being on vehicles. Similar themes, totally different gameplay.
^ Um actually, tradition Medal of Honour has been bright, slapstick, and unrealistic. Get your facts straight.
^No, from a gaming standpoint,the series has been fairly authentic. Most games don't utilize real weapon reloads and the actual sounds either. No game is ever going to be as real as actual fighting, they're games.
I was always under the impression that the battlefield games weren't arcadey.
BF1942 was arcadey but the Bad Company series is more realistic but in an over the top way.
Ignore all other posters, they don't have a clue.
Battlefield is a sandbox game. It is indeed an arcade shooter but it has elements that set it apart from CoD. There is freedom to tackle objectives anyway you want, vehicles, destructibility, and a slightly slower pace. It tries to be more realistic and hardcore than other shooters and it is to a point, though ultimately the experience is still very arcadish.
MoH has never been about authenticity. From past experience, i believe they are games meant for cinematic and good story telling value. The gameplay is similar to arcade shooters though with a twist on controller layout and the addition of a lean feature for a slightly more tactical feel. Most MoH games were pretty linear, although Airborne had mini sandboxes, which was great. I think this one is going back to the linear feel, but faster pacing and more explosions.
also, i say that it is not authentic because in real life soldiers did not take teddy bears and eat bread from kitches, or fight large beefy chefs throwing knives at you. Also, there weren't any elite nazi unites with huge miniguns and gasmaks. All of that was part of the great cinematic feel and story.
The bread is delicious!
I'm thinking most of you guys have only touched the console Battlefield games. The ones on the PC are COMPLETELY different and have a bit more focus on slower, slightly more tactical gameplay with a decent degree of realism (In the sense that the weapons are modeled slightly more accurately than some games). The Bad Company series has a lot more focus on faster, run-and-gun action, and the first Bad Company was only a few steps better than Black when it came to complete and total disregard for any sort of authenticity in regards to the weapons (Hint: Almost every weapon in Bad Company had 20-30 more rounds than their real counterpart and they handled more like something out of Halo).
The Bad Company series is SIGNIFICANTLY more dumbed down than the older PC games, most likely because all developers seem to assume that console gamers are mentally retarded buffoons incapable of breathing and talking at the same time, much less figuring out how to play a game that requires anything beyond blindly running around shooting everything. Case in point, the older PC games tended to have 8 or so different, more specialized classes, while Bad Company waters it down to 4.
Besides, to answer the TC's original post: Bad Company 2 just came out. This game isn't coming out until a good six months from now. They are hardly going to be competing for sales.