MOHAA & RTCW Online
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,641
Likes: 0
From: here
Is Spearhead a seperate version of MOH or just an add-on?
The single player mission is pretty poor IMHO but it is worth it for the better graphics & multiplayer maps & extra features like smoke nades & portable MG42 heavy machine gun
[Edited by Daz34 - 11/4/2003 6:43:09 PM]
Scooby Regular
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 22,177
Likes: 0
From: Twitching with a camera
Have to agree with Jye there.
Was playing RTCW offline, when I bought BF1942. Interaction with everything on there just makes the game far more diverse and hence enjoyable. Sacked off RTCW instantly, and haven't gone back.
Ah the highs of the game (picking someone off with a sniper's rifle from across the sea...) and the lows (changing to handgun for close combat, only to realise you've forgotten to reload).
Great game.
Was playing RTCW offline, when I bought BF1942. Interaction with everything on there just makes the game far more diverse and hence enjoyable. Sacked off RTCW instantly, and haven't gone back.
Ah the highs of the game (picking someone off with a sniper's rifle from across the sea...) and the lows (changing to handgun for close combat, only to realise you've forgotten to reload).
Great game.
Trending Topics
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 5,896
Likes: 0
From: Dumbartonshire
1942 has a steep learning curve but conquest mode makes it worth it being so much better than CTF etc. Spearhead was a very lame and short (sp) expansion pack IMO, does the new MOHAA BT have a conquest ticket based mode or is the sp any better?
If not I'd give 1942 another go while dl'ing the free mods especially DC.
If not I'd give 1942 another go while dl'ing the free mods especially DC.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 5,896
Likes: 0
From: Dumbartonshire
Eh? Don't you agree? Looks better to me. Better explosions, tracers, smoke, better IQ. Praps your pc just isn't up to showing the difference
I was comparing MOHAA to more aesthetically pleasing games, like 1942
My overclocked, watercooled 2800 Barton and Raddy 9800 pro runs games just nice cheers
I was comparing MOHAA to more aesthetically pleasing games, like 1942
My overclocked, watercooled 2800 Barton and Raddy 9800 pro runs games just nice cheers
Scooby Senior
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
From: North Wales
BF1942 just encourages spawn camping, because that is the nature of conquest. Or, it's spawn, trudge for ages on foot to the nearest action on an a map thatis so big it feels empty unless there are 200 players, and then get sniped. Admittedly, being able to use the vehicles is a good idea, but I suspect they only put planes in to reduce the monotony of crossing a map the size of Asia!
MOHAA, much more intense! And bring on Call of Duty, looks promising.
MOHAA, much more intense! And bring on Call of Duty, looks promising.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 5,896
Likes: 0
From: Dumbartonshire
Why people prefer MOHAA etc to 1942. My take after playing both for some time. Some of this is cut and paste but I agree with it.
1) In 1942 people get shot in the back a lot or die from vehicular/plane/H armour fire. Most FPS players have been trained over the years on games based on smaller or corridor based maps without vehicles or planes to worry about. The job at hand has almost always been to clear enemies from in front of you. Now with 1942 they can get you from all directions including from the air, sea and from distant artillery.
The fact that troops can parachute, fly, sail or drive into someone else base requires differing counter approaches to defend. Those FPS gamers who rely solely on fast mouse aiming and reaction skills will get owned in 1942 as the game requires real tactics and skill especially to work together as a team and to use vehicles properly.
2) Vehicles. These require a severe adaptation of attack plans. Run and gun players do not stand a chance against vehicles.
3) Maps. They are considered too big. Most FPS players attention span is only a few seconds. Losing focus during one of those treks (or drives if you play as the game intended) across maps can mean instant death. The map size is BS anyway as most maps are similar in size to MOHAA/COD maps. Many smaller city based maps are included with intense infantry based fire fights being the norm.
4) It was laggy and buggy when first released. Both problems have been solved.
5) Some people only tried the SP game, which is rubbish. 1942 was designed as multiplayer-centric with SP being added on mainly to familiarise players with the multiplayer aspect of the game.
6) Spawn camping - this can happen in all games and has been addressed in 1942. It is shunned upon and campers will always end up dead or kick banned anyhow. I love killing campers.
7) Perhaps the uniqueness of playing with 63 other players online on one map is too much for people, as if the game is ticket based and easily matched may last over an hour np.
All IMHO
1) In 1942 people get shot in the back a lot or die from vehicular/plane/H armour fire. Most FPS players have been trained over the years on games based on smaller or corridor based maps without vehicles or planes to worry about. The job at hand has almost always been to clear enemies from in front of you. Now with 1942 they can get you from all directions including from the air, sea and from distant artillery.
The fact that troops can parachute, fly, sail or drive into someone else base requires differing counter approaches to defend. Those FPS gamers who rely solely on fast mouse aiming and reaction skills will get owned in 1942 as the game requires real tactics and skill especially to work together as a team and to use vehicles properly.
2) Vehicles. These require a severe adaptation of attack plans. Run and gun players do not stand a chance against vehicles.
3) Maps. They are considered too big. Most FPS players attention span is only a few seconds. Losing focus during one of those treks (or drives if you play as the game intended) across maps can mean instant death. The map size is BS anyway as most maps are similar in size to MOHAA/COD maps. Many smaller city based maps are included with intense infantry based fire fights being the norm.
4) It was laggy and buggy when first released. Both problems have been solved.
5) Some people only tried the SP game, which is rubbish. 1942 was designed as multiplayer-centric with SP being added on mainly to familiarise players with the multiplayer aspect of the game.
6) Spawn camping - this can happen in all games and has been addressed in 1942. It is shunned upon and campers will always end up dead or kick banned anyhow. I love killing campers.
7) Perhaps the uniqueness of playing with 63 other players online on one map is too much for people, as if the game is ticket based and easily matched may last over an hour np.
All IMHO
Scooby Senior
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
From: North Wales
6) Spawn camping - this can happen in all games and has been addressed in 1942. It is shunned upon and campers will always end up dead or kick banned anyhow. I love killing campers.
)and is one of the reasons why I play other games more often.I stick by my statement about the maos though, even with planes and jeeps, maps like El Alamein are just too big, even for 64 slot servers
Geezer
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post