|
Originally Posted by Chirs Britton
Britain did not have much of an Airbourne but it still made an impact.
|
Err, what about Sicily, Normandy(Pegasus Bridge etc...), Arnhem, Battle of the Bulge, Crossing of the Rhine? Not much of an Airborne? That's slightly damning, it certainly did.
I wont say that MoH Airborne is a brilliant game, because it isn't. I didn't have much of a problem with the gameplay, except the respawning in the air part, even though the progress you made, enemies you killed etc. is not undone, yet you're back in the air. Fair enough at the start of the mission, but once you've landed that should be it. The weapons mods and things I was slightly impressed with, as well as the skill drops etc. As for historical accuracy, Chris is right about the SS body-armoured, MG42 weilding walking tanks, that's just pissing on history.
As for CoD4, I was generally very impressed however there were a few things that I spotted easily and so should the developers. For a start, the labelling of some of the SAS soldiers was incorrect. The lowest rank in the SAS is "Trooper", not "Private". This shows a rather chronic lack of effort. Also, there were too many Americanisms in the British soldiers' speech. Referring to torches as "flashlights" was one obvious example. Also, believe it or not, I noticed a problem with the USMC speech. At several points they do that "hooa" thing that Americans do, however that is strictly a US Army thing as far as I know. Beyond these little tiny problems, it is a collosal game that is miles ahead of MoH which seems to be going backwards rather than forwards.