Which WWII FPS to get? CoD, MoH, BF1942

There are three lines of WWII fps games out there- all proimising fun online experiences and awsome single player…

so which one is the best?

Call of duty
Medal of honor
Battlefield 1942…

any opinions?

BF1942 promises awesome single player?

Can I vote for ‘none’? Sorry, just very tired of the overexploitation of WWII in shooters. BF1942 hands down has the best multiplayer, but it’s singleplayer game is virtually nonexistant. It’s not really even decent training for multiplayer, and it’s certainly got no storyline of any sort.

I choose “none of the above” and write-in Band of Brothers.

Edit: Or, you know, Brothers in Arms. Stop naming WWII shit similarly, people.

Call of Duty, I guess…

But, Brothers in arms is better.

You forgot Brothers in Arms. I would vote for that (if you want a bit more strategic bent) or Call of Duty. Both CoD and MoH:AA have some really bad levels in them CoD has the entire part of the British campaign while you are by yourself and MoH:AA has sniper town.

I would also echo that like quat I am really kind of sick of the setting. Hell do something in Korea or a Vietcong 2 or something please.

– Xaroc

For singleplayer I’d say Call of Duty, Medal of Honor is great too but Call of Duty is a little better.

Multiplayer BF 1942 kills the other two.

I am tired of WWII FPS games and glad to see Vietcong 2 in development.

Hidden and Dangerous 2? Lots of atmosphere, and less on-rails than MoH and CoD, I believe.

If you’ve ever caught yourself thinking “I wish there was a WW2 game with ninjas and robots” then why don’t you just go the whole hog and wish for zombies and pirates while you’re at it, you nerd. Anyways, Silent Storm is fun, sort of a sci-fi WW2 X-Com. Certainly something different anyway.

Well, Return to Castle Wolfenstein had nazi zombies… that’s almost as good as ninja robots.

[size=7]Brothers in Arms[/size]


CoD and CoD UO (the combo pack for both runs at like $30) are probably the easiest to pick up and have fun with, and they have some great singleplayer and multiplayer.

In case you were thinking about MoH: Pacific Assault, note that it runs very badly (at least on my modest system) compared to CoD and MoH:AA. Also, EA won’t let you play MoH:PA online unless you register. I’m still mulling that one over, I dislike registering software because I see no benefit.

I found CoD to be much more enjoyable-- much more scripted and linear but it had an woderful immersive atmosphere-- and it ran just great-- I found MoH to be less so.

BF 1942 has single player? hehe, I loved the multiplayer-- one thing I miss compared to BF2 is the large sprawling desert maps and racing across the sands.

CoD while it has its issues- was pretty much the best single player WW2 shooter I have played- and really that whole first chapter of landing on the beach is just great.

Call of Duty was much more fun. Thing is, Medal of Honor and Call of Duty are made by almost the same developers who were first in 2015 then went to Infinity Ward, so Call of Duty is an improved Medal of Honor.

I found Brothers in Arms boring. I think the main reason it got good reviews is because it tried something new with a very stale genre.

Well, duh. It has considerably higher system requirements as it’s not built on the Quake engine. FWIW, it runs fine on my system.

Ouch, really? I find this hard to believe. What do you mean by register? Do you mean you need to set up an account, like you do with Battlefield, or do you mean you have to submit your name, address, etc.?


At any rate, Dreamad, it sounds like you’re looking for Call of Duty and its United Offensive expansion.



Heh is it because you don’t believe in fun in games or you actually prefer Brothers in Arms? :)

BiA = COH/MOA clone with a one-trick pony “tactical” thingy

I asked this over on Octopus Overlords, but I’ll ask it here too. Is anyone playing BF 1942 these days, or has everyone migrated to BF Vietnam or BF2?

And did anyone get the chance to play the Interstate '76-style mod for BF 1942? I was really intrigued by that.

Heh is it because you don’t believe in fun in games

No, no, I certainly believe in ‘fun’ games. It’s just that the words ‘fun’ and ‘boring’ are so utterly subjective that they’re useless.

“I don’t want to play Sacrifice,” Eric said last night at Shoot Club, effectively speaking for everyone, “It’s boring. Let’s play the game where you make tanks.”

What Eric really meant was, “I don’t want to play Sacrifice. I’m overwhelmed by it’s bold gameplay, unique artwork, and dizzying pace, not to mention the depth of strategy required to succeed and the finely honed balance among the different creatures and spells. I would rather play a game like Red Alert 2 where you can just crank out units, drag select them, and watch them kill or be killed based on the whims of the erratic AI.”

If Eric had said this, I would have been able to take him in a debate. But I didn’t know how to respond to something as vague and subjective as “it’s boring”. What was I going to say? “No it’s not”? It’s like when someone gives a bad game a good review because “it’s fun”. I hate that. Can we just leave “fun” and “boring” out of the equation?