Pure Evil - Day of Defeat vs. Call of Duty 2

[Evil Avatar]

Marketing snafu or clever strategy? Yesterday the demo was released for Call of Duty 2 (http://www.callofduty.com/) and the retail version of Day of Defeat: Source (http://www.steampowered.com) (boasting a whopping 4 maps for your $20) were both released on the same day.

And don't forget about the demo for Gearbox's WWII shooter, Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood (http://www.fileshack.com/file.x?fid=7690) was released just a few days ago.

Which one did you download? Which one did you play? Tired of WWII games yet?

[Ludoc]

I'll be picking up EiB. Gearbox should stop spending money on advertising and just have Randy Pitchford do interviews.

[TheKeck]

Which one did you download? Which one did you play? Tired of WWII games yet?

I've downloaded Brothers in Arms and Call of Duty, but sadly, I haven't been able to play either yet. There's just so much to do..... Indigo Prophecy, FarCry I still haven't beaten......Maybe today, though.

I'm still open to WWII games, but they're going to have to impress me. The CoD2 video all but killed the enthusiasm I had for the game, but we'll see what the demo does.

[Malovech]

Does anyone know if there's a way to make BiA 1-2 bullets and your dead? I appreciate that is realistically harder to aim in that game, but my bullets should realistically do more damage too.

[RichardTowler]

COD2, enjoyed it, even though its fully scripted, there is a great feeling of been in it, rather just playing it :)

[H.Bogard]

BiA is a waste of time
CoD2 and DoD S for life!

the reason we get tired of ww2 games is because of crappy ones like BiA :p
*ducks

[thecrazyd]

There should be an all of the above option.

[Thin_J]

I think both CoD2 and DoD are well worth my gaming time.

I was pretty outraged that I paid money for the first BiA though. It seemed cool for about ten minutes, and then it just started to piss me off.

[Karmakaze]

And a "Red Orchestra" option. It's free and still better than DoD:S and EiB (can't say anything about COD2, haven't checked it out).

[ÜberJumper]

BiA is crap for multiplayer, however, the single player was brilliant.

[thecrazyd]

And a "Red Orchestra" option. It's free and still better than DoD:S and EiB (can't say anything about COD2, haven't checked it out).
Yes, add an option for "Really Boring WW2 Mod that Bends fun Over and Bones it Hard."

[EvilBob46]

the reason we get tired of ww2 games is because of crappy ones like BiA :p
*ducks

Wah? What's this blasphemy?

[PantherModern]

I didn't play CoD for long, but it works pretty well. It reminded me of the first game a lot, which isn't bad or anything, but I was hoping for a bit more dynamism. The weapons seemed inaccurate and felt weird too. But, it was the multiplay that I spent time with in CoD 1, and maybe that will sway me here. I need to tweak my vid card settings too, cause the game ran like ass on my system and my system isn't half bad. As far as DoD source, I like it. Definitely needs more maps. If I hadn't gotten it with the HL2 silver package, I would be cheesed. But, never having played the original for comparison, I can say it plays quite well.

[Citizen Philip]

Wirochosha likes the DoD: Source.

[Evil Avatar]

And a "Red Orchestra" option. It's free and still better than DoD:S and EiB (can't say anything about COD2, haven't checked it out).

That is a great game/Mod, but it is pretty old now, so I didn't include it.

[Ludoc]

BiA is crap for multiplayer, however, the single player was brilliant.

I think that's part of the reason they added co-op. Now you'll get to play with other people while enjoying the goodness of campaign.

[Franjo]

I'm all bout the multiplay....so COD1 for me still. I'll hit up COD2 once patches come out...yeah im one of those weirdos who wait for that sort of stuff.

[Liquidize105]

The problem I had with CoD was that it played like a shooting gallery.

There's a divide, and from the other side of that divide Nazi troops pop up from covers, wait a sec or two and open fire.

I never bought CoD.

Even though I think EiA's infantry resurrection is a HUGE mistake (took away the validity of players' attachment to the characters), my weight is behind historical accuracy.

[XxSATANxX]

I think STEAM is gonna have to start downloading really quality PORN before I'd venture down that path again. But thanks to the last EA thread I learned a thing or two about STEAM I did'nt know before. Finished Dl'ing COD 2 but I'm at work so it'll have to wait until after HOUSE.

[Kelegacy]

I'm VERY tired of WW2 games. Please, stop.

Or at least do something different. I played Call of Duty but that was the last WW2 game I played. I'm burned out.

[PacerDawn]

I still likes me the WWII shooters, can't go wrong with those. I much prefer the single player campaign to multi-player, however.

"And I looked and behold: a pale horse. And his name, that sat on him, was Death."
-Johnny Cash, The Man Comes Around

Miscredit on the quote. Should be more like: -The Bible, Revelation 6:8

[Achilles]

Does anyone know if there's a way to make BiA 1-2 bullets and your dead? I appreciate that is realistically harder to aim in that game, but my bullets should realistically do more damage too.Whether you hit something is determined by the cover that it's behind. Even if your crosshairs are right on it, if it's at full cover it's not getting hit on the first shot. If you could just shoot guys from behind cover the game would be really easy and too similar an experience to the other WW2 shooters out there. They're trying to simulate the effect cover has on a battlefield and get you to flank. Generally enemies die in 2 or 3 shots, or one to the head if you're actually hitting them.

Likewise your character will die in 4 or 5 hits, if you actually get hit, but a lot of the time there are a lot of near misses which is represented by the white circle instead of the red blood splats. And a lot of the blood splats are grazing shots instead of direct hits. If you want to get killed from behind cover though, just play the game on hard, you'll get killed in 2 or 3 hits all the time. The enemies need the protection of cover or the point of their gameplay and squad mechanics would fall flat.

Personally I’m all about CoD 2. DoD doesn’t have a demo, but I played the one for both CoD and BiA.

[Evil Avatar]

Miscredit on the quote. Should be more like: -The Bible, Revelation 6:8

I know where the quote comes from, but you need to follow the link. It is from a song. It is on the unreleased Dawn of the Dead soundtrack. It is what they play during the really bloody beginning montage.

[A-Team]

Marketing snafu or clever strategy? Yesterday the demo was released for Call of Duty 2 (http://www.callofduty.com/) and the retail version of Day of Defeat: Source (http://www.steampowered.com) (boasting a whopping 4 maps for your $20) were both released on the same day.

And don't forget about the demo for Gearbox's WWII shooter, Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood (http://www.fileshack.com/file.x?fid=7690) was released just a few days ago.

Which one did you download? Which one did you play? Tired of WWII games yet?
I hate to sound obvious here, but the people that actually wanted Day of Defeat: Source either bought HL2 Gold/Silver or pre-ordered it well before the CoD 2 demo was released. The impact that Activision had on the number of people ordering is probably pretty slim, especially when you consider that CoD2 was a pre-release demo *and* DoD:S lacks a singleplayer gameplay mode.

EIB, well, I think it's a good football field or two away from DoD: Source in terms of gameplay... but I guess you can pit them together for laughs.

I guess what I'm trying to say is there wasn't anything too clever about the release times for the games, but I'll admit that I thought it was strange of Activision to pump out CoD2 at the last minute with very little warning.

[Bishop]

I've played CoD2 and I love this demo. It came out of nowhere, with not a whisper of it going to be released. I've played both CoD and CoD:UA, I love them both. Not too fussy on the BiA games though, could never get into the whole direct your squad thing. But CoD2 is going to be a sure buy for me when it gets released. DoD:Source looks awesome as well but like was mentioned in a previous post "it doesn't have any single player missions".

[agentgray]

I'm VERY tired of WW2 games. Please, stop.

Or at least do something different. I played Call of Duty but that was the last WW2 game I played. I'm burned out.
I'm not tired of WWII games, I'm just tired of WWII games based on D-Day. Please, stop.

There's so much more to go from: Iwo Jima, all of Alistair McLains books(fictional), Ghost Soldiers raid (great book, IMO), Sicily, Patton's 3rd Army marches, Africa, Russians taking Berlin, etc.

I know I'm missing a lot.

[Varsity]

EIB was on-rails, DOD is too random to be fun (I thought it was dodgy hitboxes, but no), and I'm not even going to bother with COD2. I'm burnt out.

[mpsmith]

CoD2 will cover Africa.

But I'm with you in that I'd like a game to cover the marines in the Pacific... At the same time, though, it could get very monotonous (with an amphibious landing or air raid comprising every other mission).

And the stupidly-slow iron-sights/scope pull-up in DOD:S is... stupidly slow. Unrealistically slow. I've used an M1 Garand enough times to know it doesn't take anyone that long. Maybe the untrained but these are soldiers. I have good aim, too, which just irritates me because I hate not using iron-sights but in order for me to stay alive I have to.

DOD:S blows! HDR isnt a big deal! And CS:S needs to come out of beta!

[TheKeck]

I'm not tired of WWII games, I'm just tired of WWII games based on D-Day. Please, stop.

There's so much more to go from: Iwo Jima, all of Alistair McLains books(fictional), Ghost Soldiers raid (great book, IMO), Sicily, Patton's 3rd Army marches, Africa, Russians taking Berlin, etc.

I know I'm missing a lot.

What... you mean World War II didn't last a week?

[DeadPixel]

How about a WWII game where the battles take place onlarge snow field. I want to see frost covered tanks, trenches full of frozen bodies, naked winter trees and the grim winter haze.

Please for the love of Jebus, stop making Omaha beach assault levels and small town fights where shooting a wooden log cabin with a Panzer tank results in an ugly black texture pasted all over unbroken glass widnows. BAH!

[Rifter]

I have DoD: S and enjoyed playing it last night. It is an arcady shooter, not a serious game. I grabbed BiA for our LAN party this weekend, and then found out it was 2 player only! If they could maybe open it up to 8... I will probably look at it again. Especially with co-op missions.

CoD 2 I plan to snag tonight. In all honesty, I play these games for MP, not SP.

[Maskatron]

Personally, I'd rather play BF1942 for my WW2 fix. And I think I'm burnt out entirely on single player FPSs at the moment.

[Evil Avatar]

Personally, I'd rather play BF1942 for my WW2 fix. And I think I'm burnt out entirely on single player FPSs at the moment.

Funny, I would say I'm becoming rapidly burned out on multiplayer FPS's at the moment. I've been playing a Mercenaries on the Xbox and if they could make a multiplayer title that had a large dynamic world like that I would be interested, but the old Player vs. Player on a small static map thing is getting really old.

[The Iron Weasel]

Enjoyed CoD 2 demo, that is all.

[Sensei-X]

I'll take CoD2 over DOD:S any day of the week. Luckily DOD:S came as part of my HL2 Silver Package and was more of an after-thought then a serious investment.

[Dirty Harry]

Im playing dod:s on a private server and its just great. Cod2 is alright but more of the same old, hope multiplayer is better this time around

[GunnyMo]

CoD hands down any day of the week.

BiA is good but, imho, focuses waaaaaay to much on the "flank and manuever" piece of the game and that gets old fast. CoD is raw, uncut, hardcore WWII FPS at it's finest. Btw, I've played the 360 version and, unless you are running a top of the line system, it blows the PC version out of the water (and I am a PC gamer as well so keep the hate to yourself). I just don't feel like spending a grand to upgrade my PC to run shooters at the resolution you get out of the box on 360. But that's just me.

Oh, and btw, someone asked at our conference if F.E.A.R. would be coming to 360 and the developer response? "We can't comment on that." IE: yes it is. :) That is some great news!

[The Iron Weasel]

I loved CoD multiplayer played it nonstop for like 3 months, search and destroy all the way! Anyway when UO came out i thought it was cool but never played base assault as much as S&D. I hope CoD 2 does the same thing, but all that said, CoD 2 demo was badass. DoD:S is really good too. EiB is reall good to i likes all of them.

[Fyd]

They are different games, i mean that DOD its only a mod so we cant compare it to a entire game like cod2, i think both games are great, one multiplayer, other, singleplayer, i think DOD as a mod, its well done, even if they have only 4 maps and its fun, hdr its great but turned it off, the demo of COD i like it very much, all is scipted thats the thing that i really dont like, but anyway it has great grahics, sound, models and maps seems to be good.

sorry for my bad english :)

[DuvalMagic]

<<<Whether you hit something is determined by the cover that it's behind. Even if your crosshairs are right on it, if it's at full cover it's not getting hit on the first shot.>>>

Wrong. What is affecting your accuracy is the simulation of realistic weapon accuracy. There is no math that affects the player's ability to hit if the enemy is behind cover (it's just that an enemy behind cover will offer a smaller target for you).

In real combat, less than one out of every thousand shots fired hits anything meaningful.

Brothers in Arms is still a game, so we're not as unreasonable as real combat is with respect to accuracy. But, in Brothers in Arms, we affected accuracy such that about 1 in 5 aimed shots at medium to long range typically hits. That subtle adjustment doesn't nearly bring us to the kind of violence of action that real combat tends to offer, but it does help gamers get a taste of the difference between real combat and these fake reaction time skill test twitch shooter video games we play (which, incidentally, includes most of the FPS games I have made before doing BiA).

Typical FPS games are almost like using Windows - point the cursor over the icon and click... That's not real combat.

What we learned in research for Brothers in Arms by talking to real soldiers and actually doing combat exercises with the entire team is that the momentum of real squad combat is affected by directed fire that suppresses the enemy. Suppressive fire is not necessarily accurate as more shots miss than hit. What suppressive fire does is it makes it very difficult for a human being shot at to muster the courage to stand out in the open and return fire.

It's tough because all of these arcade-style games over the years have conditioned us as gamers to expect them to function like Windows.

On one hand, we want to live the fantasy of being one of these soldiers - like one of the guys in the squad in Saving Private Ryan or in Band of Brothers.

We want to experience it like it really was - at least that's what we're saying we want.

But we're fed these fake, unrealistic combat experiences where it's not about team work and it's not about real tactics and violence of action and fire and maneuver, but it's simply about these mundane reaction time skill tests.

So we're conditioned to expect these mundane reaction time skill tests.

You know the ones - a) bad guy wakes up and starts shooting at me, b) my health starts going down, c) I have to put my crosshair on him and click my mouse button, d) if I do that fast enough, the bad guy will fall down before he made my health go to zero, e) pick up magic canteen or wait while my health magically regenerates and move into the next corridor section to wake up the next bad guy.

We're being tricked into buying this experience over and over again with shiny and glitz - we're fed scripted moments that are barely more interactive than a movie (but they look a lot worse and cost a lot more than a great movie trailer moment).

Brothers in Arms invested in discovering what the real history was, discovering what real combat was all about and created a game that put the two together in a new paradigm for FPS games.

The good thing is that if you're ready for it, there's no going back. You can't play a classic FPS anymore and not see it for what it is... Just a series of reaction time skill tests with expensive scripted gags.

The hard thing is that it tries to evolve past the bad conditioning we've had. Some folks that aren't ready for it reject it...

It's a tough balance - I'm torn about it all the time and we've had lots of discussions about it at Gearbox.

Do we dumb down the game and boil it down to a typical action FPS in order to make it accessible to gamers who aren't ready for the next step? Or, do we take the risk and do the new things?

Frankly, when Colonel John Antal plays Call of Duty 2, he laughs - every bad guy that just sort of runs out in the open street to shoot at you makes him laugh. Every scattering of bad-guys arranged like a shooting gallery makes him laugh. The complete ambient nature of the allied AI is a joke. To a real soldier that knows what real combat is all about - particularly to the veterans who fought in WW2, the notion of CoD being an authentic representation of real combat is, well, absurd.

Even the sugar coating of violence and language gets on the nerves of the guys who were there.

These influences - the influences of real soldiers and the real history told us what the right answer was for this particular series.

I can imagine other games that aren't based on history - aren't based on serious subjects. Such games wouldn't have such a burden to do things correctly. This subject - the subject of WW2, we believe, deserves the right kind of respect.

[insidious]

Wow, awesome post Duval. It really supports the topics Randy brought up in his interview with the EA Staff (Liquidize i think?)


Anyway - CoD2 is just more of the same formula that worked so well the first time. From my perspective scripted events still draw you into the game world, and its just fun to see all this other action going on around the player. Only on repeated plays through does it get a bit repetitive and worn out. I was hoping the Demo would reflect the scale the United Offensive expansion pack brought to the game, as i thought several of those levels were twice as populated (read: action packed) as the original game. Either way, CoD2 will still retain the multiplayer population base of the original, and continue to be successful in its own right.

Day of Defeat - I'm still getting the hang of. I enjoy the additional challenges associated with weapon accuracy, as they handle nothing like CS weapons at all. The sound engine enhancements are awesome, great job on ambience. My biggest complaint is the maps: 1) Too few, although its guaranteed more will be rolled out on steam in the future (some original ones please?). 2) They seem WAY too linear, i want to be able to flank, or run around in a town alot more than they give us the freedom to do, and every route seems like im getting funneled somewhere.

Brothers in Arms - I have not played the sequel's demo as of yet. But the squad gameplay mechanics of the original were a refreshing change. From interviews and comments it sounds like Gearbox is on the right track to establishing themselves a viable franchise.

[Ernst_Jager]

Realistic isn't always fun. The trick is finding the balance between the two. While I like realistic bullet paths and historically accurate weapons types and outfits, I don't want to worry about having to sleep, eat or take a dump in my FPS.

I enjoyed BiA, CoD and DOD:S. Though to be honest I much preferred Hidden and Dangerous 2 to all three. The RPG elements were very nice and I really enjoyed all the different types of weapon types you could use. You can NEVER to many different weapons in a game in my opinion.

[absolut taco]

bla bla lots of reasons why BiA is a great game and everything else sucks...
Who gives a flying shit what some soldier thought about CoD2? It's probably gonna outsell BiA2 by a lot. You know why? It's fun to play. When I play games, I don't want 100% realism. That's what real life is for. Games are for fun. Fun! I played through BiA and thoroughly enjoyed it, because it was very different. Did it spoil me for "normal" FPSs? Hell no! Right now, I am mostly excited about CoD2, after playing the demo. It's just plain fun!

[absolut taco]

Btw, I've played the 360 version and, unless you are running a top of the line system, it blows the PC version out of the water (and I am a PC gamer as well so keep the hate to yourself).
Is there a mouse/keyboard combo coming for the 360? If not, I'll get the PC version.

[Worldcrafter]

I gave the CoD2 demo a try (didn't even know it was released until this post) and it ran perfectly on my computer. Max everything. I have a nice computer, but the processor is just a 2.4 P4, so nothing earth shatteringly fast. I'll have to see what the 360's version looks/plays like, but for now, it looks like CoD2 and Oblivion are going to work just fine on my PC, which makes me happy.

Oh yeah, and the demo felt a lot like the first game, which wasn't a bad thing. I quite enjoyed it.

[Vulture]

DuvalMagic.

Well then please explain the fact that only one man out of a squad actually hit the enemy and the rest were ammo carriers. Of course this factoid comes from Vietnam and Korea and not WWII vets. Your point about suppressive fire misses in that most of the squad was just pulling the trigger in the general direction of the enemy. What you call supppression was just a byproduct of nervous discharges. A typical squad was lucky to have two men that actually aimed at the enemy.

As for the CoD and having enemy stand in the open. Please review the charges ordered by their superiors at D-Day, Stalingrad, Kursk, Iwo Jima,etc. Some really did just stand there and fire their rifle at the enemies lines(and then they were cut down quickly.) Unit discipline is for veterans, you lose the greens because of those actions.

Modern Combat training is different because it recognized the mistakes of previous wars. It also exploits how a squad reacts to incoming fire and builds a response out of it. But to compare it to WWII fighting is a stretch.

[insidious]

Well then please explain the fact that only one man out of a squad actually hit the enemy and the rest were ammo carriers. Of course this factoid comes from Vietnam and Korea and not WWII vets. Your point about suppressive fire misses in that most of the squad was just pulling the trigger in the general direction of the enemy.

I don't think the point missed at all... If someone were shooting bullets in my General Direction, consider me suppressed. Additionally, i understand Band of Brothers' assault on a fixed position (end of episode 2) to be a tactically accurate representation of combat. I'm quite sure it wasn't accomplished by a gunner and "bunch of ammo carriers" alone. Citing this examples historical relevance, I don't understand what Korea and Vietnam have to do with it.

[GunnyMo]

Wow, Duval, that's gotta be the best sales pitch I've read in a while. Did this Colonel you used actually serve in combat? I'm just asking.

Seriously, though, I don't mean to knock him as I know he's a well respected vet and as a vet myself I'm not about to put any disrespect his way. However, CoD is very realistic to me and I suppose that is all that matters. I won't be buying BiA 1 or 2 as I've played both (well, demo on the 2nd) and, once again, it's more of the same: supress, flank and move on. Then again, that's about all any real combat situation is. Yes, I have "been in the shit" so to speak (Somalia, 1993 - no WWII but someone shooting at you is someone shooting at you) and CoD hits the realism factor for me; BiA does not.

I enjoyed your post on BiA and all of the research put into it but that argument fell flat as soon as you started bashing CoD. You actually almost had me sold on putting more time into BiA #2 but your flame bait soured me on that aspect. I'll be sure to let my friends know as well. :D Do you think those guys on CoD put in any less research than you did? I doubt it.

Btw, you might want to rethink the AI of your tank drivers in BiA #2. When the drivers in BiA #1 couldn't drive past a wall without getting stuck on it, it was time to hang up the controller.

[Achilles]

What you call supppression was just a byproduct of nervous discharges. A typical squad was lucky to have two men that actually aimed at the enemy.It struck me as a good tactic to fire in the general direction of the enemy even if you couldn't see them or had a low chance of actually hitting them, that way they won't be able to concentrate their fire on your group or have the time to start taking aimed shots at you. That was Rommel's policy anyway; fire first and often, it doesn't matter if you're hitting, just get some fire on the enemy so they can't fire at you as easily or maneuver as freely, and try to shock them into being cautious. I'm not sure if that's what you were talking about.Oh, and btw, someone asked at our conference if F.E.A.R. would be coming to 360 and the developer response? "We can't comment on that." IE: yes it is. That is some great news!That is great news! I was going to get it for my PC, but I can't run it with everything turned on unless I get a new motherboard and $500 video card. Now I'll just wait for the 360 version.

And yes, CoD2 on the 360 is amazing looking, that'll be the platform I get it for even though I'll have to wait a month.