Nintendo Wii Fanboy

Word! How can you give MoHH2 no love? It is an amazing FPS on the Wii.....

For shame, for shame.....

The sad thing is, it PAINS me to play MoH:H2 just because of how unreal it is. I bought it with high hopes, but it let me down. The controls are quite comparable with mouse and keyboard, but for Christ's sake, it doesn't take 5 shots to kill a Nazi with a fuckin' Garand. Nor do people eat Tommy gun/Stg-44/BAR bullets for breakfast, lunch, and dinner before finally dying. When I have Team Fortress 2 or CS 1.6/Source (two completely games btw), why should I play MoH:H2. Then again, its the ONLY fps on Wii I've played. I'm quite sure it was much better than Vanguard or the other WW2 shitter/shooter (CoD3, right)

MOH 2 is awesome, but you're right, it does take a LONG time and a lot of ammo to kill some guys, and while I was frustrated at first, I ended up liking it in the long run. It made me sit back and strategize, taking cover, and popping up at the opportune moments, similar to what I'm doing now with Killzone on the PSP.

The health system in the game gets some gripes (regen is pretty fast), but you don't want realism WiiFTW, trust me.

As for how many bullets it takes, with headshots you can drop someone with 1 karb, gewy, or springy bullet, 2 garand or pistols of either flavor, 3 Stg44, 3-5 BAR or Thompson, 5-8 mp40, and depending on distance, a single shotty round. Yes, the game weights in favor of headshots, but it doesn't take an endless supply of bullets to kill. Some people also make the mistake of thinking that any time the reticule is red you're hitting your target, but that isn't what it means.

@ mian:


Yes, I do want more realism. It's frustrating, in fact. The controls are pretty much sensitive enough for one to shoot accurately (no autoaim needed) that it should be like Counter-Strike, where one shot kills headshot for good weapons, 2 for stuff like a glancing headshot or weaker weapons, etc. Unless of course WW2 weapons aren't terribly strong which I wouldn't know about. Would they go through the helmets you wear in the game? I'm assuming you're excluding the helmet when you're factoring in how many headshots to kill.

Yes, those calculations don't include helmet deflections (cases where the helmet is actually blown off someone's head), but actual skull contact. Helmets don't do deflections every time, and I'm not sure what the formula really is for when they do and don't.

Your particular complaints simply don't reflect the competitive games I play in every day. I rack up dozens of kills per game, and it doesn't normally take that many shots to do. Is it harder to make a kill than in some other titles, sure. But everyone is playing the same game, and it's still a very competitive enviornment. It isn't as if you're playing MoHH2 and everyone else has counterstrike weapons to use against you.

One of the benefits of the quick regen and weaker guns is that it forces better gunmanship. People who can make headshots with an MP40 (or any weapon for that matter) can rack up kills like a madman, several per clip. People who just want to spray and pray with smgs go through their entire cache of clips often yielding nothing or just getting other people's scraps. That at least is how it should be.

One of the downsides is that it encourages nade-spamming, since nades weren't balanced to gun strength. I typically play in guns only servers, so the balance that MoHH2 chose still has a lot going for it for me.

It wasn't really designed as a physics demo. If it were, I might agree. They were showing off effects that were less contact-oriented, and they succeeded at bringing some wow.

It's nice to see someone try and swing for the fences. We could use an all around shooter that brings it all. MP3C brings the single player campaign and the looks and the controls, but limits how long you can really use them by leaving out the multiplayer. MoHH2 just brings the controls and makes them endlessly usable with great multiplayer, but the campaign, physics, ai and virtually everything else, well, reflect the budget that the game was made with.

What's the difference between hardcore and neo-hardcore?

neo-hardcore... you mean the new generation kids that only care about graphics?

... whatev... if it was me, I'd rather leave them outta' the Wii.

Neo-Hardcore Gamers are the new kids. I like the Wii and its potential. I will be honest graphics do matter at times. If this engine can live up to its name I think you will see better 3rd party support for the Wii. The Wii needs to re-capture the hardcore gamers that are locked on other systems. I realize that the Wii may not equal the graphics of the 360 or PS3 but good graphics and solid gameplay will go a long ways. And...if 3rd parties can support the system with innovative games that appeal to hardcore and neo-hardcore fans the Wii "can" reign supreme. Keep in mind I have a 360 and a Wii. I am rambling now.

Yeah, looking at this tech demo, the water and lighting effects were nice but I was simply embarrassed by the models. Everything looks choppy and rigid. Then I remembered that when the first screens for MP3 were released, everyone said the exact same thing - that the game would look horrible.

Heres hoping this makes it into a game that sees the light of day.

To be honest I don't think the character models in MP3:C are that good, it's actually the lighting effects that make it look nice (I've noticed that decent lighting can cover up all sorts of dodginess; I'm speaking as a movie buff here as well as a Wii fanboy, but I think that rule can apply to both games and films).

The IGN article seems to say that they're close to reaching a deal with a publisher. If No More Heroes got published, this certainly will (it has the potential to make way more money after all, not being quite so 'punk rock' and 'indie' after all).

Actual footage soon, so we'll see what it really looks like in the near future.