Ok tell me that was not just epic.

Yes, yes it is epic. I'm hoping to pre order it soon.

Dude, the spider grenade was the best part.

RIGHT! I'm watching the guy throw it and I'm thinking "The hell is that?" Then the damn hooks pop out and destroys the room.....mind blown.

DayTex wrote:

RIGHT! I'm watching the guy through it and I'm thinking "The hell is that?" Then the dam hooks pop out and destroys the room.....mind blown.

I'm trying to figure out what the hell they are.

Call of duty + Frostbite 2.0 engine = MoH WF

Finally a Canadian presence in a FPS!

Yeah.... I'll stick to realism. (BF3)

If I want to be in a Micheal Bay action film I'll get BO2.

VDEATHMASTERV wrote:

Finally a Canadian presence in a FPS!

:O WHAT IS DIS?! xD

Lol Death, suddenly so excited.

Mets, don't be closed-minded.

Personally, Battlefield is amazing and is outstanding in every standard of a shooter title, but MOH has been evolving immensely, and this, even like it's predecessor, stands-out as a combination of what you can experience in Battlefield, and what you can experience in Call of Duty. The title truly brings emphasis in balance for a shooter.

I can't wait to play as SFOD-D, SEAL, SASR, and JTF2. However, mind you, these are Tier-I special forces. There are many people stating, "Where is Rangers, Green Berets, CSOR, COBRA, etc." don't notice that those aren't SMU's, and they're stating Tier-II/Tier-III units.

Apart from that, I'm anxious. There is so much more new gear now, and seeing them balance it will be difficult.

metsman3.0 wrote:

Yeah.... I'll stick to realism. (BF3)

If I want to be in a Micheal Bay action film I'll get BO2.

Realism and BF3, not really. Try Project Reality mod for BF2 or ArmA.

DeadlyChaos09 wrote:

Mets, don't be closed-minded.

Personally, Battlefield is amazing and is outstanding in every standard of a shooter title, but MOH has been evolving immensely, and this, even like it's predecessor, stands-out as a combination of what you can experience in Battlefield, and what you can experience in Call of Duty. The title truly brings emphasis in balance for a shooter.

I can't wait to play as SFOD-D, SEAL, SASR, and JTF2. However, mind you, these are Tier-I special forces. There are many people stating, "Where is Rangers, Green Berets, CSOR, COBRA, etc." don't notice that those aren't SMU's, and they're stating Tier-II/Tier-III units.

Apart from that, I'm anxious. There is so much more new gear now, and seeing them balance it will be difficult.

MAYBE THEY WILL BE ADDING OTHER UNITS LATER lol sorry for caps the caps button was on now im too lazy to change it

I won't be getting this. I waste money on the original MOH so I think I will use the money for Hitman instead

Definitly getting this with Grand theft Auto V

Have to disagree with your statement Total.

Personally, I think that Medal of Honor was a good title. It emphasizes tactics, teamwork, and objective-play, mixing a classic Battlefield aspect in a Call of Duty mixture in terms of managing your killing streak. However, it did lack many things. The campaign was tedious in terms of firefights, multiplayer had it's...boredom, and it lacked to bring anything new apart from your setting as a Tier-I operative. However, it never hurts to try it again. I heard DICE is working on the MP a bit, and EA is officially not working on the title, but Danger Close is. Also, the campaign looks interesting, but MP looks like it's going to be a hell of a time. Don't knock it till you try it.

Woo, go Deadly . I agree, I think it has potential of being great but maybe some balancing issues?

DeadlyChaos09 wrote:

Have to disagree with your statement Total.

Personally, I think that Medal of Honor was a good title. It emphasizes tactics, teamwork, and objective-play, mixing a classic Battlefield aspect in a Call of Duty mixture in terms of managing your killing streak. However, it did lack many things. The campaign was tedious in terms of firefights, multiplayer had it's...boredom, and it lacked to bring anything new apart from your setting as a Tier-I operative. However, it never hurts to try it again. I heard DICE is working on the MP a bit, and EA is officially not working on the title, but Danger Close is. Also, the campaign looks interesting, but MP looks like it's going to be a hell of a time. Don't knock it till you try it.

I think we have differnet views

I thought the campaign was very well done and i thought it was brilliant, The story was good and the whole idea worked and when played was fun... To me Multiplayer was such a piece of ****. Aside from snipers being OP the whole online to me grew boring in about a week. Additionally VOIP was messed up and online was buggy. I think the biggest fault was the gameplay in that It was trying not to be BF or COD and ended up as a bi-product whereby it was boring and didnt mix well..

I guess we have different views

On MP, but the Campaign was amazing. The storyline featured an excellent setting, character, and interesting missions. Unlike most campaigns, the "Spec-Ops" setting features random clips of massive destruction and bad-*** feeling like a Michael Bay movie.

The Campaign featured a setting to give you the feel of a Tier-I Operative, however, at times, I just felt like the firefights were dull, which is very common. Most of the time, you encounter insurgents with ARs, or RPGs as well, and it was common throughout the story. What I mean is, to make a firefight exciting, you had to expand the standards of weaponary used. Other than that, the SP was 9/10 for me.

MP was well-done, and yes, was boring, but I always found myself coming back to play due to it's balance of BF and COD. Personally, I believe if BF and COD were to mix, it would combine to a true FPS king, and MOH featured that with a uniqueness as well.

But the insurgents do just use AKs and RPGs in general

I loved sniping in MP, used to go 43/0 all the time on Helmand Valley

In MoH war fighter there are a few levels in Bosnia(BiH) and I live there.

In the campaign, if the "Insurgents" are running around with AK variants, and RPG type weapons, then they hit the nail on the head for trying to make the AI seem real.

In the real world, we don't have al-Qaeda members rolling up on the troops with G36s, or Javelins.

Trying to "spice that up" would just be retarted, as now days, firefights are pretty quick, and are usually fought at long distances. If you wan't realism, they should show the times with the SF people working with the Natives, instead of always having a run-&-gun setting. But who would want a game like that?

They did have one of those native cooperative missions but it was a cut scene that a retarded general calls an air strike on.

You guys are way off and misunderstand what I mean...

When I say that the firefights are dull, it means that they are predictable. It does not mean that their should be insurgents using M16A2/A4 rifles with an SMAW and M9 handguns. It means that it should be more interesting in terms of enemy positions, encounters, etc...

For example, instead of the cliche firefight "RPG on the roof" encounter, it should be "RPG, second level, and Sniper on the roof, with infantrymen on the bottom level." Obviously, it's a long encounter, but you're bringing so much depth into the firefight, it becomes so intense. Shooting guys in the same spot with the same encounter is dull, in which MOH had IMO.

ill get this but when its 40 or 30 dollars