The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
But I found it wierd. I knew I was playing an absolutely brilliant game, as atmospheric and realistic as any. But for some reason I feel flat once I stop - I don't know if that's down to the intensity of play, or what.
I'm interested - what are you thoughts on the game? I dont want any 'its wicked' comments, but proper opinions on the game.
Thanks.
:)
> Thanks for spoiling it for everyone. We all appriciate it.
What the hell have i spoiled by saying that!!!!!
Medal of Honour: Allied Assault has been out a fair few months on the PC now, and unless you've been living under a boulder, you have seen clips or played the infamous Omaha Beach level that boasts excellent graphics, combined with a brilliant gameplay engine, and some of the most realistic sound you will find this side of the universe. Now, Electronic Arts have released a counterpart to Allied Assault on the PS2, in Medal of Honour: Frontline. This has excited millions of PS2 owners worldwide, as it promises to boast the Omaha Beach level, which the PC version so-definately perfected. Can EA deliver as they did on the PC?
Proceeding the first game, Private Patterson has since recieved a Medal of Honour, commending his efforts in toppling the Germans. However, you begin the game as Private Barnes, sent in to an occupied Normandy to destroy the enemy threat there. And from there, you will be introuduced to the famous Omaha Beach level, which will, without a doubt, not disappoint. It is a direct clone of the PC version, but is still amazing, with bombs dropping right next to you, and blood splattering x and y. In a word: it's a gorefest. Although this is merely a prologue mission, it is still a promising start to the game.
The gameplay is exactly like MoH on the PSX: no change at all, and the missions are very like that earlier game. But MoH was brilliant, and I have no complaints. Actual 'close combat' gameplay is farcically easy - you have time to 'zoom' (seems essential - you can't seem to hit ANYTHING unless you're aiming), aim and shoot most of the time without taking damage. The controls are about as good as a console FPS (apart from Halo) gets, in that you still spend most of the game wishing for a keyboard and mouse. It seems wierd that they haven't gone for the left stick/move, right stick/mouselook control system. That works pretty well in Halo. It's not as if the PS2 pad is defficient on the stick and button front. I never got to grips with the single stick, 4 button method on the Dreamcast version of Quake. The Half Life control setup is the best yet on the PS2 and I am at odds to understand why they haven't gone for that. The graphics for this game are absolutely sumptuous - some of the best I've seen on PS2, though not quite MGS2 or GT3. The audio adds a great atmosphere to the game, but the voiceover/history bits are just a touch 'patronising' - the voice verging on 'Churchill' without quite being that terrible, glorifies war of course.
It has lots of multi-part missions which is a horrible way of making the game longer, but it makes sense I suppose - you'll get sick of doing some bits though. Quite a few of the objectives are a bit vague or just plain daft, like the Omaha Beach level, although it is an amazing level in it's own right. You have to find four of your teammates, yet finding them is 'blind luck' at first and this really isn't a great start. Later, it asks you to 'man a machine gun', which affords such a poor view of the street below, you can't tell which are allies and which are enemies (though as far as I can tell, you can't shoot allies - handy for Americans who seem terrible good at that in reality).
MOH:AA, given it's plaudits, is infinity % better than this. I am an FPS fan but I'm bored of the same-old, same-old - I rather hoped this might be something 'new' but it's not - at least not for me. Give me a better view angle and a feeling of proper control over my character (keyboard and mouse), a bit of co-op and some brains required and I'm a happy man usually. I loved the previous two incarnations which gently eased you into the game and built upon the atmosphere. It's almost as though they have got one of the final levels at the beginning. Medal of Honour: Frontline should satisfy deprived PS2 gamers, but PC gamers will find it lacking what Allied Assault excelled in. You will probably only like this if you own a PS2 and not the PC version.
LF.
I've played MoH:Allied Assault on PC, which is in my view currently the best FPS game on any format.
I know MoH:Frontline is very similar, but you play a different character to the one in Allied Assault, and some of the missions - i.e. the Omaha Beach landing are the same.
So my question is:
Has anyone played both versions, and is Frontline different enough from Allied Assault to warrant buying?
:)
Sometimes a game can be too hard or too intense that it isn't to your liking! This was the same issue with MGS2 for me. I thought it was too easy to be spotted and once you are you're literally screwed!
GTA3 as well, once you get six stars it is absolutely impossible to keep on the run for more than a minute (unless you stay on a roof, which is boring) because some tank will bash into your car and blow it up instantly.
The difference with GTA3 is that you don't neccessarily have to get in bother with the police, but some games force you into the intensity.
I envy you, as I haven't had the opportunity to play Frontline yet. But from what I've heard and seen of it, it's a classic!