Better than BF2?

[atarigod2600]

Hey all,

I can only play wake and karkand so many times :p I play all the maps but still BF2 is a great game I've just played way to much. Is SF really that much better to spend 20bucks on?

[imported_Rafterman]

Re: Better than BF2?

Yes. You'll love it.

[atarigod2600]

Re: Better than BF2?

I've read that there are less and less servers as time goes on, I know expansion packs aren't as popular as the origanl should I worry about that or just hope it holds strong?

[USARANGER]

Re: Better than BF2?

i would like it more if my stupid graphics cards wouldnt lag so much one them
i cant play city maps...to much lag
i cant play night maps...... to much lag with night vision goggles
i cant play iron gater....... do i really have to explain why? (sf ppl will know what i mean.)
i can only play those few russian maps, and guess what?? no server ever plays them .
but i do really think the maps r great, and really wish i could play them. i dont know why i get lag on the sf city maps, im fine on the bf2 city maps. it doesnt make sense. but im planning on buying a new card soon, so il be ready to play )

[imported_Mongo Only Pawn]

Re: Better than BF2?

I'll tell ya -

I've had nothing but issues up the wazoo with Special Forces and Euro Forces, which is a monumental bummer 'cause those maps are pretty cool.

BUT

After downloading Armored Fury, I'd have to tell you to pick that up. It doesn't lag nearly as much as S.F. and E.F. - I've got a crappy video card and a PC that MAXES out at 1GB RAM. (grrrrrrr)

Even though the video has to be turned down to it's lowest possible level when I play BF2, Armored Fury and BF2 Vanilla still play very well. They just don't look as nice as I'd like.
So, long story short, bite the bullet and get Armored Fury. It's worth it.

[Sung_Do_Chuck]

Re: Better than BF2?

It's not better.. but it's a must-have add-on! :)

[xbrandomx]

Re: Better than BF2?

SF changed the way I fight. Completely. You've got to think more stragetically. They aren't just going to hand you all of the CPs on a plate and say "ok go". You've gotta grind for it. Most of the maps are earning peice by peice. With BF2 you can just go around and lolligag... cap a point here and there... avoid the mess... SF you go into the action and through it. Very different.

[Angelsoul]

Re: Better than BF2?

If you don't like planes, then SF is something you should have. Still theire are choppers but a mounted 50 cal can take care of that.

I haven't regret buying SF and I enjoy it playing it every time. Warlord, Iron Gator and Ghost Town, best maps to SF. Lots if infantry action.

Go for it.

[imported_Ownerofall]

Re: Better than BF2?

I thought that when i got SF id never play normal bf2 again, but, after about a month of only SF, i decided to unlock sf guns for normal bf2. SO i went back to normal bf2 and stayed, playing sf only a little. bottom line, sf is only good in small doses

[FPS[VT_NERD]]

Re: Better than BF2?

I think SF is a great change of pace from vanilla. The city maps are not so linear b/c of the grappling hooks and zip lines and people can be practically anywhere on the map so you have to constantly watch for them. I would get it as long as you enjoy infantry combat.

[imported_Ownerofall]

Re: Better than BF2?

I think SF is a great change of pace from vanilla. The city maps are not so linear b/c of the grappling hooks and zip lines and people can be practically anywhere on the map so you have to constantly watch for them. I would get it as long as you enjoy infantry combat.

yeah no planes and attack helis suck, if there is a tank, zipline across the road!

[Gav]

Re: Better than BF2?

It's not better.. but it's a must-have add-on! :)

I actually think it is better than vanilla. And I also think that playing SF makes you a better player when you go back to vanilla too - something about the SF gameplay just makes you up your game a bit. I think it's because of the tactical element introduced by grapples and ziplines. They make you think more, be more observant for enemies that aren't out in the open in front of you, and get you used to attacking in different ways/directions and playing tactically rather than the "run into the chaos and kill as many as you can before you die" thinking that's more common in vanilla. I think SF makes you a smarter player as you spend more time on it...

I would say everyone should get it, as long as they like infantry action. Jet whores obviously need not apply though.

[$kelet0r]

Re: Better than BF2?

If commander assets like artillery and UAV were removed, it would be even better - the maps are really just far too small for them
other than that, there's a great mix of vehicles and infantry combat without bf2's overpowered jets

[[SCOT]PhatHemmer]

Re: Better than BF2?

I think SF is a great change of pace from vanilla. The city maps are not so linear b/c of the grappling hooks and zip lines and people can be practically anywhere on the map so you have to constantly watch for them. I would get it as long as you enjoy infantry combat.

Totally agree! If I'm on Karkand and some tank whore is spawnraping the whole time it can get a bit tiring...

So I hop onto Ghost Town and Have a great time!

[Cigar_Man]

Re: Better than BF2?

I think SF is a lot better than vanilla.

My stats time for :

BF2 301:34:36
Special Forces 431:01:09
European Forces 7:52:04 12
Armored Forces 36:05:37

But AF is really fun also.