which is better?

[yhayatli]

which is better BF2 or counterstrike source. i know you will all say BF2 but why?

[DOGGiE52]

Re: which is better?

That's like comparing swiss cheese with american cars...

BF2 is a whole other game, other gameplay, other genre etc...

[yhayatli]

Re: which is better?

which one is more fun then, because id rather have a car than swiss cheese

[7man]

Re: which is better?

Well I am not sure about CSS since I dont have it so I can say.

[DOGGiE52]

Re: which is better?

Well imho BF2 is absoutely more fun cause of the introduction of new style of gaming (different vehicles and tactics)...

[DuffMan]

Re: which is better?

Well I am not sure about CSS since I dont have it so I can say.

Why did you bother replying then?

imo BF2 is better because it's more diverse than CSS...cars, tanks, APCs, boats, choppers and jets, plus better quality maps just makes it better all-round.

[camper.]

Re: which is better?

Battlefield 2 is more fun, but when it comes down to an exhibition of skill, NOTHING beats CSS. Well, maybe cs 1.5 but that's a different story.

[mwillin0000]

Re: which is better?

BF2 is waaaaaaaaaay better. my brother thinks otherwise though. i dont know why. the whole idea of buying a weapon for one round in CS:S just kind of throws me off. plus i like the points system in bf2

[Weeden]

Re: which is better?

Well, they're both TOTALLY different games and it depends on your POV

If you want a Team-based game that lets you respawn with vehicles, stats and unlockable weapons then BF2 is for you.

However, if you want a Team-based game based more around skill and money and one objective then CS:S is for you.

So it really does depend on what you like and/or are looking for in a game.

Hope that helps

[Blackhawk5]

Re: which is better?

bf2 cuz is different and u can drive fly and swim. bf2 has bad singleplay because is just same as multiplay lol.

[Liam.]

Re: which is better?

bf2 cuz is different and u can drive fly and swim. bf2 has bad singleplay because is just same as multiplay lol.

Same bad single player for CS:S...

[Solver]

Re: which is better?

which one is more fun then, because id rather have a car than swiss cheese

It's different genres AND different gameplay. What do you want and like? Let's see.

BF2:

Vehicles, mostly large maps (relatively).
A respawn system.
Flag capturing and control point system.
Unrealistic damage.

CS(S):

No vehicles, smaller maps, often indoor fighting.
No respawn. You're dead when you're dead until the next round. Rounds are 2-5 minutes, though.
Objective / elimination. You win by eliminating the opposing team or getting an objective.
Semi-realistic damage.

To elaborate on the realism of damage. Neither BF2 nor CS(S) has really realistic damage, but CSS has more realistic. In BF2, assault rifles kill in 3-4 shots. Not all rifles will kill with a headshot. In CSS, damage depends a lot on where you hit and if the enemy is armored. For example, headshots. If the enemy has no helmet, a headshot with anything other than the Glock pistol is fatal. With a helmet, headshots are fatal with a Desert Eagle and most rifles. The most popular sniper rifle in CSS is a one-shot kill anywhere except the legs.

In BF2, the fights are more arcade, you're more likely to spend a whole clip of ammo in one fight. Of course, skilled players with the right weapon can still drop you in one shot.


BF2 has stuff like healing / rearming in a round. CS doesn't. It's not like you live long enough anyway.


EDIT: To summarize it in as little as possible. In BF2, you respawn and you have vehicles. In CSS, you do not respawn and there are no vehicles. The games are sufficiently different that you might like both. CSS is free if you have Half-Life 2 anyway.

[markan dorka]

Re: which is better?

I think CS and BF2 have pretty similar damage numbers, if you use armor.

3-4 shots for AK, instant kill for headshot
4-6 for M16, headshot (w. helmet) leaves you down to like 10 health

pistols / SMGs, pretty much similar, except CS has wider variety of them, in BF2, all deal 20 and 19.

Pump & Auto shotties, pretty similar

Only glaring difference is AWP vs. BF2 sniper rifles

CS weapons are more accurate for first shots though, that's probably why they feel more lethal (also because people spend more time with less than 100% health in CS), but this is basically a tradeoff because of map layouts. I think BF2 accuracy is good as it's now. To have CS-like acc. would need CS maps .. Even though they aren't 1:1, they're much closer to each other, than say when compared to DoD.

Anyway, they're totally different games, and I like them both, for different reasons. CS is much more tactical, as in pre-planned tactics and their execution, whereas in BF2 you have to think on your feet - gameplay is more like DoD. Kinda like tactics vs. strategy.

I find CS much more polished (of course, they've had 6 years to perfect the gameplay) and sort of "controlled". BF2 is way more chaotic and absurd, and open-ended. And they're both solid and fun.

[Solver]

Re: which is better?

An array of BF2 weapons, though, sucks at long range. Try to get a long-range kill with a pistol or MP5. CS doesn't really have these long ranges, but pistols and SMGs are generally feasible there at the longest ranges you encounter.

But having no medics is a huge part of it. You spray your SMG, maybe hit a guy once, but his health is down.

AWP is indeed a glaring difference. I think that pistols are, too.

[predragjanjic]

Re: which is better?

which is better BF2 or counterstrike source. i know you will all say BF2 but why?

are you kidding me

running around a small map while limited to a few weapons is better then having a big *** map with a bunch of cool vehicles?