The multiplayer in this game is quite a few steps above, though. What are you playing it on?
I only do PC based games.
but i like the bunny hop its a skill that compensates the silly snipers who prefer to hide and because the maps are drawn with so many sniper spots the normal players who ACTUALLY GO AFTER THE ENEMY FLAG need some diversion. Many servers took away the smoke, but the smoke was a key to get to where you wanted to go and grab the flag.
It isn’t so much just the size of the Xbox controller but that it feels wrong in my hands.
Blu-ray is :-o :-o :-o over DVD. Even with the upscaling of the PS3. I picked up the Band of Brothers Blu-ray set and it has picture in picture commentary with the Easy company soldiers. Or you can go with pop video like news reels and stuff, maps and bios with pics of the real guys. Plus the leap in picture quality. Waaaayyy cool.
I’m really bummed that the FPS-thing doesn’t work for me. I really feel I’m missing a bunch of the fun of this gen of video games. Have you tried the Brothers in Arms games or are they console exclusives? How are they compared to COD?
@Imperious:
I only do PC based games.
but i like the bunny hop its a skill that compensates the silly snipers who prefer to hide and because the maps are drawn with so many sniper spots the normal players who ACTUALLY GO AFTER THE ENEMY FLAG need some diversion. Many servers took away the smoke, but the smoke was a key to get to where you wanted to go and grab the flag.
I definitely prefer a mouse and keyboard over a controller for FPS games, but the Xbox online multiplayer is just so simple and sweet. Plus, my comp has been out for about 2 years and I haven’t replaced it.
Ok, I understand the bunny hop, and know it’s a skill. But for a game that goes for some sort of realism, it just doesn’t seem appropriate. You are complaining about snipers being smart and playing a game more like it’s real life counterpart. I really have not had problems with snipers in COD5 as I’ve found most maps just aren’t that great for sniping. They aren’t wide open like Red Orchestra was. If anything, the guys with the quick reflexes are the ones that kill me the most since I usually play aggressive. And those GD bouncing betties.
It isn’t so much just the size of the Xbox controller but that it feels wrong in my hands.
The 360 is much better than the original…but it’s still bigger than Sony’s. You may not think that, but having larger hands myself I prefer the compactness of the PS2/3 controller. But the Xbox one has more features.
Blu-ray is :-o :-o :-o over DVD. Even with the upscaling of the PS3. I picked up the Band of Brothers Blu-ray set and it has picture in picture commentary with the Easy company soldiers. Or you can go with pop video like news reels and stuff, maps and bios with pics of the real guys. Plus the leap in picture quality. Waaaayyy cool.
I know the quality is there, but couldn’t all that be done on DVD? I don’t see why not. I just didn’t see the need or desire to drop a load of money on something that is better quality but at a higher price point and a far smaller library of movies. I still have VHS movies I haven’t replaced with DVD yet. :lol:
I’m really bummed that the FPS-thing doesn’t work for me. I really feel I’m missing a bunch of the fun of this gen of video games. Have you tried the Brothers in Arms games or are they console exclusives? How are they compared to COD?
I have played BiA on the PS2…I think the first two releases. They are very much more strategy oriented but still heavy on the FPS aspect. You usually get a couple of support teams (fire and assault) that you have to direct how to attack. It really emphasizes strategy and tactics rather than lone gunning. But if you were good enough, you could. It just feels a lot more “stiff” than compared to COD. It’s realistic, but in its own way. COD is pretty much all action, a little more intense and fast paced. I’ve loved the gun models and sounds…probably the best I’ve found for a WW2 FPS. Hope that helps.
Well if you don’t have the display it probably is still best to stick with DVD but if you have the display:
480p vs. 1080p is no contest. DVD’s largest drawback in competing is space. DVD’s hold about 8.5GB compared to 50GB for Blu. There just isn’t the space on a DVD to do what Blu-ray does.
Well if you don’t have the display it probably is still best to stick with DVD but if you have the display:
480p vs. 1080p is no contest. DVD’s largest drawback in competing is space. DVD’s hold about 8.5GB compared to 50GB for Blu. There just isn’t the space on a DVD to do what Blu-ray does.
Oh definitely. If I had the money, I would definitely go for the best setup. And I was aware of a space difference, I just thought DVD was still capable of some of those features (maybe having to limit how many it committed to), but ultimately the biggest difference was quality.
Actually, let me put it this way. Going from VHS to DVD is such a huge leap, I thought it warranted the cost. I just don’t see the benefits of Blu Ray over DVD being significant enough to agree with the price tag.
Well i got 1080P and i port over my PC games to my 50 inch so its like a video game, only im using mouse and keyboard. Its also good so you can watch any DVD of any region or watch stuff from internet on wide screen.
For example, Olympics Badminton matches were always on the internet, but linking it to the TV allowed me to drag it over to my wide screen which is huge.
@Imperious:
Well i got 1080P and i port over my PC games to my 50 inch so its like a video game, only im using mouse and keyboard. Its also good so you can watch any DVD of any region or watch stuff from internet on wide screen.
For example, Olympics Badminton matches were always on the internet, but linking it to the TV allowed me to drag it over to my wide screen which is huge.
Isn’t technology wonderful?
Actually, let me put it this way. Going from VHS to DVD is such a huge leap, I thought it warranted the cost. I just don’t see the benefits of Blu Ray over DVD being significant enough to agree with the price tag.
I’m not upgrading the collection because the upconversion of the PS3 is adequate but I’ll be first in line when Wrath of Khan is released on Blu-ray. :lol:
@Imperious:
Well i got 1080P and i port over my PC games to my 50 inch so its like a video game, only im using mouse and keyboard. Its also good so you can watch any DVD of any region or watch stuff from internet on wide screen.
For example, Olympics Badminton matches were always on the internet, but linking it to the TV allowed me to drag it over to my wide screen which is huge.
Actually, my roommate bought a new TV and I helped him hook it up in just this manner. It’s pretty sweet, but only two complaints - the resolution is so high most text is too tiny to read from his couch and you can’t do split screen/picture in picture with two different inputs (say watching cable and surfing the internet at the same time).
Actually, let me put it this way. Going from VHS to DVD is such a huge leap, I thought it warranted the cost. I just don’t see the benefits of Blu Ray over DVD being significant enough to agree with the price tag.
I’m not upgrading the collection because the upconversion of the PS3 is adequate but I’ll be first in line when Wrath of Khan is released on Blu-ray. :lol:
Oh some day I’ll move it on up, and I’m sure my own Wrath of Khan will force me. :mrgreen:
…only two complaints - the resolution is so high most text is too tiny to read from his couch and you can’t do split screen/picture in picture with two different inputs (say watching cable and surfing the internet at the same time).
Sounds like you might have two shortfalls there. Not enough resolution from the PC’s video card and not enough features on the TV.
Another thing is you might want to get a test disc (or break out a THX DVD those usually have some test patterns) and calibrate the display and/or the output of the PC. Or check the AVS forums for a calibration thread from other owners and try some of those settings.
Oh some day I’ll move it on up, and I’m sure my own Wrath of Khan will force me. :mrgreen:
I am eagerly awaiting a Blu-ray edition of Wrath of Khan and First Contact. Most of the blu-ray I’ve picked up is new stuff, or stuff I’ve never had or only had VHS.
I heard the only thing good about World at War was the Zombie Mode. Yes, COD2 at least was better than COD3. 4 is the best, though.
It uses the exact same engine as 4, but is set back in WW2. It’s a good game. Zombie mode is fun, and they added a new map to it, but I don’t like the annoying voiceover they added.
It has more multiplayer modes than 4, up to 4 players coop campaign (2 player split screen locally), more ranks/weapons/perks.
I think it’s better than 4. It’s just some people don’t like it because all the weapons are auto or are Infinity Ward fanboys and won’t touch it because it’s not IW.
Haven’t played much lately though… Left4Dead has kept my attention.
Ok yea I know, this hasnt been used in a while but I knew COD:W@W had to be in here somewere lol
I love it!! Hey for anyone who plays PS3 online my PSN name is: Stukas87
I’ve noticed that about 90% of players use the MP40, atleast in team deathmatch so ever sense I’ve been playing hardcore modes to get away from it. I know they’ll never do it, but I wish they would add a patch that downgraded the thing. A 9mm pistol round coming out of a like a 5-6 inch barrel should not be killing someone with 3-4 bullets from half way across the map (COD5 has some large maps) when the guy with MP40 gets peppered with a .30 cal MG or something :x Otherwise the game is awsome. I do get bothered that no mater what team your on you can choose any weapon but I always make a class for each country and use them with whatever team I’m put on. Doesnt feel right running around using a G43 in a Pacific map and knowing I’m on the American team lol
Nazi Zombies anyone!? :evil: :mrgreen:
xbox 360 owner, sorry
