BF2 or 2142? that is the question....

[Bald-Eagle11]

Re: BF2 or 2142? that is the question....

2142 got played for a week , then i binned it . Only wish i could have bought a hard copy rather than downloading it . I could have E-bayed the ****e

[CATIA]

Re: BF2 or 2142? that is the question....

Maximum PC take on 2142

http://www.maximumpc.com/2006/12/battlefield_214.html

Bottom line:

We’d really like to like Battlefield 2142, but given our aforementioned complaints, we just can’t recommend it.

More reviews from Team warfare staff ladder/league AKA TWL:

http://www.teamwarfare.com/forums/showthread.asp?forumid=117&threadid=343039

[imported_Wasp]

Re: BF2 or 2142? that is the question....

The fact that they are UNLOCKS, while they have always been a standard issue items, makes it a rather poor sarcastic argument in favour of a game that smells of unoriginality.



Then you havent played sh!t. Apart from serious bugs and glitches in game (J10 and other jets heatsource disposition and hitbox mesh problems) every weapon or vehicle in BF2 can be taken down. It just isnt the simple "jump in, click twice and jump out" type of effort that is necessary.

The more serious the vehicles get, in the power ladder, and the higher the skill of the players using them, the more effort you need to input to take them down. There is NONE of that in BF2142. The fact that I, solo engineer stood my ground at a silo, against countless of incoming armor units, speaks of the fact that its not challenging.

BF2142 is a notch down and step backwards in terms of gameplay challenge. Lot of people have said that they dont feel frustration in the game, and that everything can be countered with everything. The same people say BF2 is one hell of a nightmare. Since these people have not tried to apply any effort into their game, you can see that BF2142 benefits to the rushing, intuitive (not thinking), lazy player. Now ask yourself, is that a GOOD thing? It can be a lot more fun, yes. But since the challenge factor is out, and the need for improvement is off, you can see the reason why BF2142 is losing its player base rapidly.

On the similar note, BF2 isnt what it used to be either. There are a lot of changes that did the game good, but most of them either didnt do anything or made it worse.

And your input on clan war experience is sad to be honest. If theres a game, and theres clanwars, surely the strategy part should involve around a certain problem. BF2/2142 should be a CHESS game, not CHECKERS.

In public plays, if youre a medic and see a tank rolling in, you dont lob grenades on it. You sit the fvck down and hide. If youre not in a jeep or STA site, and you see a helo passing by, you dont stand there, you dont shoot it, you sit the fvck back and hide.

And an addon to that- in public server games, I have seen too many times where the players apathy towards a problem has given the enemy air force or armor a free pass to rape them. They choose to b!tch over the chat, or call kick votes. Nobody goes after the problem. Everyone just rushes to get killed. I dont take these kind of people seriously and I sure has hell dont take people seriously who promote grey mass, simplified gaming and no challenge in a videogame. Beating Super Mario Bros on NES, and just about every NES game Ive played has offered me more challenge than BF2142.



Who the fvck should care about the points. You see, this is exactly the rushing mentality thing. Ive met only 2 squads in my BF2142 50 hour play time that actually knew what they were doing. Thanks much to Lugal from Secretsofbattlefield.com. I dont remember the flags name, but it was the Demo map. We stood our ground at the first flag next to enemy main. We kept that flag with a purpose, and we had a plan, something higher and smarter than "Ok, we got this one, lets go on to the next one". You say squadplay. No, rusing towards a flag, setting down SLSB and rushing IN to get the flag and then moving on to the next is NOT anything really new. You just get more points that way, and you may not even benefit your team. The flag behind you gets capped, and youve basically done nothing but to fill your PTS sack up. There are key locations and flags, and people dont look up to defend and keep them because that doesnt bring in any points (and as a matter of fact, its HARDER to defend than to attack).

Ive played a number of clan wars for SWAT4 clan, and there has always been a central problem(s) that we took into account in our strategies. Whether it be a certain weapon use (pepper spray) in certain situations (tight quarters), or gaining a strategical position and bleeding the enemy dry. Even public games revolve around this, intuitively. Both BF2 and BF2142 do not have that because people just rush into, to get more pts. And you promote that as a good thing?!

You talk about my clan play without having actually played a single fn clanmatch?? I've come as far as I can come in BF2 and even played with my national team. There comes a domino effect from having an air vehicle with no serious counter. The chinese planes owns the air, takes down the US choppers, the chinese choppers can take out the US tanks in peace etc.

Many clan battles in BF2 is decided by who looses the least as US or who avoids being zeroed on tickets. I have the same experience in public play as well. Daquin Oilfields is a constant bombardement from the chinese bomber because the US planes get shot down and are being kept down on the runway.

I dont mind one bit that ppl play for points in BF2142. Because that causes them to follow my orders. You get points and field unlocks if you play in a squad with a squad leader that gives orders ppl follow. The squad beacon also gives the sl opportunity to place a spawn closer to the target. My squad beacon gets used alot when I play as sl. This is an improvement over BF2 where the sl usually dies before ppl can spawn on him.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: BF2 or 2142? that is the question....

Ask yourself, is such strategical level of gameplay that bad? Youre promoting a total mirror balance, without the need to play differently depending on your side. Its forced right now, yes. And most of the problems are created by DICE themselves. But if the obvious bugs and glitches would be solved, wouldnt it be actually more of a challenge to play game A with cutting your losses to minimum, and in game B winning by as much as possible? As I said, BF2 shouldnt be checkers. BF2 should be chess.

I dont mind one bit that ppl play for points in BF2142. Because that causes them to follow my orders.

I thought it was the best solution to the problem and before BF2142 came out I actually supported the idea (while it was being discussed on these boards). Still, gameplay mechanics should force a player to play in a team, not the points that get registered on their account. I would like people in my squad that care, not people who are lemmings. And while I think with the stats situation as a whole, this carrot on a string method works the best, its exactly the reason why I dont play BF2142. I dont feel motivated, because points thrown aside, I can do anything and everything on my own, and it isnt challenging, at all.

The squad beacon also gives the sl opportunity to place a spawn closer to the target. My squad beacon gets used alot when I play as sl. This is an improvement over BF2 where the sl usually dies before ppl can spawn on him.

Only the stupid and rushing squad leaders get killed in BF2, or inexperienced ones. Now with SLSB, squadleader himself, people have less problems occuring while they rush, because they can spawn back regardless of their squadleader. Its -1 for the need for squad leader skills. Bumrushing works sometimes, but should never be a textbook tactic, which it is promoted to be in BF2142.

[imported_DANK]

Re: BF2 or 2142? that is the question....

Hmmm I enjoyed BF2 and all the expansions when they were popular; but I enjoy BF2142 more for all the interesting and massive combination of things.

Also enjoy getting some benefits out of it like the badges, dog chains and other stuff than constantly killing; more objective also and makes you work with squads.

My former buddy who played CS all the time just got into BF2142 because he likes the dogtags and using the sniper rifle; he picks off guys all the time with his CS shooting skills.

I have never really had any problems with the games because I am very competant at using a computer and can fix problems; I also have a good ping to servers which usually helps a lot. Setup the game on one of my old gaming machine with a 9800 Pro and he ran it at Medium settings telling me it ran perfectly fine with no CTD.

[Maxor127]

Re: BF2 or 2142? that is the question....

BF2 is far from perfect, but I didn't like BF2142. It felt bland, weapons and vehicles were either way too overpowered or underpowered. It's easy to get disoriented because there aren't a lot of defining features. It's not user-friendly. The account restrictions for EA are completely messed up. I created a soldier on my brother's account to try the game out and then deleted it and made my own account and tried creating the same soldier I just deleted, but it wouldn't let me. Soldiers get forever locked into whatever account made them. And it's almost impossible to tell the difference between the enemy and allies since they all look the same in shiny gray armor. It's basically the same thing as BF2 with some cool ideas, but overall it feels generic and has a lot of the same problems as BF2 as. I prefer the modern combat of BF2. If they could make a BF3 set in the modern era and use some of the ideas from 2142 and fix the bugs, which would probably mean scrapping this whole engine then I'd get BF3, but I think 2142 is a waste of money.

[imported_Wasp]

Re: BF2 or 2142? that is the question....

Ask yourself, is such strategical level of gameplay that bad? Youre promoting a total mirror balance, without the need to play differently depending on your side. Its forced right now, yes. And most of the problems are created by DICE themselves. But if the obvious bugs and glitches would be solved, wouldnt it be actually more of a challenge to play game A with cutting your losses to minimum, and in game B winning by as much as possible? As I said, BF2 shouldnt be checkers. BF2 should be chess.

I'm fine with subtle differences in weapons and vehicles but the J-10 is ridicilous. It's a game breaker. In inf battles there is to much of a difference between the AK and the M16 also which again makes maps like karkand a question of who looses less tickets in the US round. Inf battles are often flag by flag which forces you to take the hotel flag first.

I believe in balance and hence if a weapon has a disadvantage it should have another advantage. Like accuracy instead of rate of fire for instance. The US infantry player should have been equipped with an M4A1 or XM8. And why the hell does the AK101 have more damage? It has the same ammo as the M16A2. DICE has never been able to get air balance right either. But it was better in BF1942. Still the BF109 dominated there.

I thought it was the best solution to the problem and before BF2142 came out I actually supported the idea (while it was being discussed on these boards). Still, gameplay mechanics should force a player to play in a team, not the points that get registered on their account. I would like people in my squad that care, not people who are lemmings. And while I think with the stats situation as a whole, this carrot on a string method works the best, its exactly the reason why I dont play BF2142. I dont feel motivated, because points thrown aside, I can do anything and everything on my own, and it isnt challenging, at all.

I agree it's not optimal but as long as points equals unlocks ppl are going to play for it. Ofcourse DICE made everything unlocks in 2142 just to brag about 40+ unlocks in adverts. Making the defib and nades unlocks is laughable. They have released some tool to make certain unlocks available on unranked servers though. Which makes it possible to use them in clan wars.

Playing style is a matter of personal preference. I like the intense battles of 2142. I don't play any differently now than when I played BF2. I'm always on the move and never go straight for a target. Unless I'm a commander or sniper ofcourse. But even then I frequently change position.

Only the stupid and rushing squad leaders get killed in BF2, or inexperienced ones. Now with SLSB, squadleader himself, people have less problems occuring while they rush, because they can spawn back regardless of their squadleader. Its -1 for the need for squad leader skills. Bumrushing works sometimes, but should never be a textbook tactic, which it is promoted to be in BF2142.

Well considering the level of play I often encounter both in BF2 and 2142 I dont expect much of an SL. Half the assault players in BF2142 dont even know how to use a defib apparently. Damn gotta run.. :)

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: BF2 or 2142? that is the question....

I'm fine with subtle differences in weapons and vehicles but the J-10 is ridicilous. It's a game breaker.

Subtle and mirror balance is for DICE and idiots. Thats as simple as it gets. The best way to balance the game is to create combinational balance. C beats all, but A + B beats C, which is the simpliest example. It will also make the games more interesting for people, as it creates challenges, and "Heureka!" moments.

In inf battles there is to much of a difference between the AK and the M16 also which again makes maps like karkand a question of who looses less tickets in the US round. Inf battles are often flag by flag which forces you to take the hotel flag first.

I do better with AK101, but I use both weapons as if they were the same. I did the same with jets and I always lost. Theres obvious misbalancies, and theres not that obvious chances to equalize the situation. Thinking players figure them out. Im not saying that you can make M16 better than AK101. Im saying that if you choose M16 wisely, you can beat AK101 at certain situations.

Pure 1:1 balance is dull, boring and stupid, even if it does create less frustration.

I believe in balance and hence if a weapon has a disadvantage it should have another advantage. Like accuracy instead of rate of fire for instance.

Thats mirror balance, BUT, with such fundamental element as infantry level combat in BF2, I believe youre right. And this method has always been used. M16 is more accurate then AK101. M16 will own AK101 at long range. AK101 will own M16 at close range. Overall AK101 just has more use because of the way people play.

The US infantry player should have been equipped with an M4A1 or XM8. And why the hell does the AK101 have more damage? It has the same ammo as the M16A2. DICE has never been able to get air balance right either. But it was better in BF1942. Still the BF109 dominated there.

There will always be something bigger, something better and something "overpowered". But do you really have to resort to equalize everything? Thats the easiest way out. And least interesting.

Well considering the level of play I often encounter both in BF2 and 2142 I dont expect much of an SL. Half the assault players in BF2142 dont even know how to use a defib apparently. Damn gotta run..

LOL, too true.

[Solodon]

Re: BF2 or 2142? that is the question....

BF2142 is a bad mod of BF2. EA had a headstart in modding it. With less then stellar results.

Feel like your floating, detached from your character, poorly executed character feel.

I did not even buy it after trying demo. BF2 Rules........

[Rambo]

Re: BF2 or 2142? that is the question....

bf2141&1/2 Suks!!imo

[imported_bigpappa]

Re: BF2 or 2142? that is the question....

the character animation is too bouncy for me when running, reminds me of BFV

[imported_Wasp]

Re: BF2 or 2142? that is the question....

Subtle and mirror balance is for DICE and idiots. Thats as simple as it gets. The best way to balance the game is to create combinational balance. C beats all, but A + B beats C, which is the simpliest example. It will also make the games more interesting for people, as it creates challenges, and "Heureka!" moments.

Calling ppl idiots.. Now that's a way to not get your point across.. /moving on

[CQ-Reborn]

Re: BF2 or 2142? that is the question....

(for example, a somewhat better server browser, hit detection(need i say more)

Does that include the knife?

[Bundai]

Re: BF2 or 2142? that is the question....

Its that simple:
BF2 > BF2142

[Fakky]

Re: BF2 or 2142? that is the question....

I have about 40,000 points in BF2 and about 18,000 points in BF2142, so I have a good feel for both games.

Each of them have their bonuses and weaknesses. I play mostly BF2142 now simply because my friends play it now and it's new to me.

BF2 is more polished / less buggy. Long load times. Simpler missions.

BF2142 has better rewards for team play. Short load times. Ribbons and Badges give you points towards unlocks now. There are about 40 unlocks. 4 classes instead of 7. Each class has 8 unlocks. Then there are some general unlocks (like extra sprint distance and quicker sprint recharge) and some squad-leader unlocks.

BF2142 has some interesting play aspects, like using EMP to disable vehicles and mess up HUD's on soldiers, attacking giant Titan transports hovering over the battlefield, cloaking devices, etc.

As time goes on Dice will continue to fix BF2142 so it will be as polished as BF2, then they'll start over with a new project and it too will be buggy as hell and they'll start the polishing all over again.

I don't know. Both are quality games. If you like the idea of fighting in a Starship Troopers / sci-fi kind of environment, you'll get enjoyment out of it.