Best World War Style Franchise? Call of Duty, Warhawk, Battlefield,etc.

I'm sorry if I missed some games but I could only fit 5 of those in the poll.

Nonetheless, I'm getting interested in these type of war shooters and don't know which ones to follow more than the others. I'd enjoy a good single-player but mostly will be in it for the multiplayer. How do you think these games will do against eachother in multiplayer? What's their differences? Thanks!

If you're in it for the multiplayer, then defiantly Warhawk. Hell, all the game is ismultiplayer. I had the beta, and the game kicks ass.Not-A-Stalker

I don't know, it just doesn't look as fun as the other games that are also on the PC. I think Call of Duty 4 and Battlefield are the ones that standout the most, but I don't know much about MOH or BIA though their predeccessors were AA I believe. Perhaps if anyone can do a breakdown of the cons and pros of them? I mean, is MOH and BIA just the same as COD 4 pretty much?

[QUOTE="Not-A-Stalker"]If you're in it for the multiplayer, then defiantly Warhawk. Hell, all the game is ismultiplayer. I had the beta, and the game kicks ass.andyb1205

I don't know, it just doesn't look as fun as the other games that are also on the PC. I think Call of Duty 4 and Battlefield are the ones that standout the most, but I don't know much about MOH or BIA though their predeccessors were AA I believe.

Warhawk isn't on the PC... but trust me. Ask anyone that has played the Warhawk beta, and they'll more than likely tell you it was one of the most fun multiplayer experiences they've had.

[QUOTE="andyb1205"]

[QUOTE="Not-A-Stalker"]If you're in it for the multiplayer, then defiantly Warhawk. Hell, all the game is ismultiplayer. I had the beta, and the game kicks ass.Not-A-Stalker

I don't know, it just doesn't look as fun as the other games that are also on the PC. I think Call of Duty 4 and Battlefield are the ones that standout the most, but I don't know much about MOH or BIA though their predeccessors were AA I believe.

Warhawk isn't on the PC... but trust me. Ask anyone that has played the Warhawk beta, and they'll more than likely tell you it was one of the most fun multiplayer experiences they've had.

I'll probably give it a try in that case, since I'll be getting a PS3 and Xbox 360 sometime in August. But isn't Battlefield way funner? (is Warhawk like Battlefield?)

But anyways, I'm sure all of these games are different in their own ways, and that's just what I want to find out :)

If you're in it for the multiplayer, then defiantly Warhawk. Hell, all the game is ismultiplayer. I had the beta, and the game kicks ass.Not-A-Stalker

I was in the beta (R_Dot_Yung can back me up, since he played it), and I thought it was terrible.

[QUOTE="Not-A-Stalker"]If you're in it for the multiplayer, then defiantly Warhawk. Hell, all the game is ismultiplayer. I had the beta, and the game kicks ass.BioShockOwnz

I was in the beta (R_Dot_Yung can back me up, since he played it), and I thought it was terrible.

Honestly I just saw Black Hawk Down again on my sexy TV and got pumped up lol (though it was a sad movie). But first I thought Medal of Honor and Brother in Arms were some mediocre games cause I didn't know too much about them, but Medal of Honor's two predecessors were actually AA and AAA (8.3 and 9.0 on PC). And Brother in Arm's predecessors were also AA and AAA (8.7 and 9.0)

Are they just good singleplayer games or do they have a really good MP as well? (not sure if I should keep an eye on them or not)

I like Codename: Panzers and Panzer Front.

EDIT: I noticed the TC changed the title to upcoming, so nevermind.

[QUOTE="Not-A-Stalker"]If you're in it for the multiplayer, then defiantly Warhawk. Hell, all the game is ismultiplayer. I had the beta, and the game kicks ass.BioShockOwnz

I was in the beta (R_Dot_Yung can back me up, since he played it), and I thought it was terrible.

Yeah, well you don't count. >:0

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]

[QUOTE="Not-A-Stalker"]If you're in it for the multiplayer, then defiantly Warhawk. Hell, all the game is ismultiplayer. I had the beta, and the game kicks ass.Not-A-Stalker

I was in the beta (R_Dot_Yung can back me up, since he played it), and I thought it was terrible.

Yeah, well you don't count. >:0

Fine! :(

COD4 FTW! :)

My choice as up to now is COD 4.

Brothers in arms is a close second, looks like a great game for squad based tactics.

WARHAWK easy. Anyone that has played the beta can tell you that his pwns the BF series, and for multiplayer destorys games like COD 2 & 3 in terms of fun. As for COD4, well not much is known, but I don't expect things to change much fom part 3, except for what your looking at ( going from WW2 to Modern Day )

Warhawk Ground & Air combat, both kick major *** and its the best of both worlds.

WARHAWK easy. Anyone that has played the beta can tell you that his pwns the BF series, and for multiplayer destorys games like COD 2 & 3 in terms of fun. As for COD4, well not much is known, but I don't expect things to change much fom part 3, except for what your looking at ( going from WW2 to Modern Day )

Warhawk Ground & Air combat, both kick major *** and its the best of both worlds.

shaggymcp

Well, I guess we'll see if Warhawk is a "Battlefield" killer

Brothers in Arms ALL THE WAY!

I think warhawk would be the most entertaining overall. And definately have the best online battles.deadhead127

cough cough, HALO 3!!! cough cough :)

Why isn't Halo 3 up there? lol. You fight a war on earth in Halo 3 defending with hundreds of thousands of marines against the covenent as they search for the ark I guess._KenKittyragi_

16 person multiplayer keeps it from this thread. Not that the multiplayer is or isn't good, it's just not the World War Epicness that Warhawk or Battlefield are.

[QUOTE="deadhead127"]I think warhawk would be the most entertaining overall. And definately have the best online battles._KenKittyragi_

cough cough, HALO 3!!! cough cough :)

32 players online, massive maps, plenty of awesome vehicles and weapons(probly not as good as Halo 3's, though.) good graphics and the abillity to have ground or air battles. Yea, Warhawk wins in multiplayer.

Well I didn't put Halo cause I'm talking about World War-type games.

Couple years ago when Battlefield came out everyone was all over it!

Honestly I just saw Black Hawk Down again on my sexy TV and got pumped up lol (though it was a sad movie). But first I thought Medal of Honor and Brother in Arms were some mediocre games cause I didn't know too much about them, but Medal of Honor's two predecessors were actually AA and AAA (8.3 and 9.0 on PC). And Brother in Arm's predecessors were also AA and AAA (8.7 and 9.0)

Are they just good singleplayer games or do they have a really good MP as well? (not sure if I should keep an eye on them or not)

andyb1205

MoH: Airborne is looking like it's AA quality. Same for the new BIA. MoH:Allied Assault still features the greatest level in a war FPS, Omaha Beach. BIA is a tactical WWII FPS, while MoH is more run 'n' gun and arcadey.

WARHAWK easy. Anyone that has played the beta can tell you that his pwns the BF series, and for multiplayer destorys games like COD 2 & 3 in terms of fun. As for COD4, well not much is known, but I don't expect things to change much fom part 3, except for what your looking at ( going from WW2 to Modern Day )

Warhawk Ground & Air combat, both kick major *** and its the best of both worlds.

shaggymcp

No, Warhawk doesn't pwn the BF series. No one has done it better than BF yet. You gotta play BF2 on a server where everyone uses teamwork and the squads stick together though, or else it isn't that fun. The Project Reality and PoE2 mods for BF2 are better than vanilla BF2 though. At least IMO.

CoD4 obviously looks great and will probably be the epitome of the kind of scripted, cinematic gameplay that has been the series' trademark. Multiplayer sounds great as well with different abilities and whatnot.

But I've always been more of a Battlefield-person. I can play that **** forever. And what with the environments now being mostly destructible I could probably play it for even longer.

Also, what would be the differences between the games? Call of Duty 4 is more fast-paced in your face on the battlefield action, while a game like Battlefield has tanks,etc and is bigger and a bit slower-paced?andyb1205

Call of Duty = Scripted awesome.
Battlefield = Dynamic playground awesome.

Also, what would be the differences between the games? Call of Duty 4 is more fast-paced in your face on the battlefield action, while a game like Battlefield has tanks,etc and is bigger and a bit slower-paced?andyb1205

Yeah BF2 is a bit more slower paced. There two different styles of an MP game. Both are fun though. But who knows how the BF:Bad Company will be.

[QUOTE="Not-A-Stalker"]If you're in it for the multiplayer, then defiantly Warhawk. Hell, all the game is ismultiplayer. I had the beta, and the game kicks ass.andyb1205

I don't know, it just doesn't look as fun as the other games that are also on the PC. I think Call of Duty 4 and Battlefield are the ones that standout the most, but I don't know much about MOH or BIA though their predeccessors were AA I believe. Perhaps if anyone can do a breakdown of the cons and pros of them? I mean, is MOH and BIA just the same as COD 4 pretty much?

As mentioned, CoD4 will be scripted awesome. Great fun the first time you play through it and it looks like they've not only raised the bar, but punched it into orbit. I guess you could call it the Michael Bay of the games mentioned. Don't know much about the multiplayer, although the general concensus is that it's gonna be great. So that's were you'll go once you've played through the campaign.

Medal of Honor is the same, classic Rambo-soldier tale that MoH has always been. But the thing about Airborne is the whole Airborne thing. You'll drop in from the sky and land wherever you want. Which should lead to different strategies and increased replayability. Also the maps are gonna have to be a whole lot more openended and the AI more dynamic than previously. But still, to me, it seems that once you're on the ground it's still a Rambo-sim at heart. I don't like that personally.

Brothers in Arms will be offer the whole squad command shenanigans and deplying your troops tactically, oversee the battlefield and make smart decisions and whatnot. It's kind of part RTS. You'll shoot evil nazis and command your troops. Also it's gonna be a ****load toned down compared to MoH and CoD, cause they're just crazy. BiA focuses more on smaller, more realistic encounters. It'll be more about authenticity and storytelling than the above games and their elaborate scripted scenes of **** blowing up and things going to hell everywhere. Also, Gearbox are gay for trying to tell a story, so it probably won't just be all kill, kill, kill, but a couple of scenes that show off other sides of the war.

And Battlefield will now and forever stomp on Warhawk. Though I haven't played Warhawk, so that's a bit unfair I guess. But from what I've seen it looks too loose and...toylike. Reminds me of Timesplitters. Which I didn't like. I don't particularly like dogfighting either so...

Battlefield Bad Company? WTHNobuoMusicMaker

Yah..that's the title of Battlefield's new game lol, and for some reason it's only for Xbox 360 & PS3 (Not PC)