Battlefield 2- Lies in the shadow of 1942?

[Flares]

Re: Battlefield 2- Lies in the shadow of 1942?

FWIW, I thought BF:1942 sucked. I prefered MOHAA, it's derivatives and BF:V for a quick blast. WWII Online was my game of choice for spectacular air/ground/sea team play. Organising missions for a couple of hundred players, with squadrons of tanks, followed by trucks carrying mounted troops and pulling at guns, supported by light bombers and fighters was a rush. Unfortunately it's a rather time consuming game which you can't just jump into.
BF:2 has a good combination of eye candy, vehicle and infantry combat, plus a decent attempt at a squad and VOIP system. BF:2 is far from perfect and it's unlikely to ever be, but it has enough positive attributes to keep me, plus several thousand other players interested.

... I guess a game is what you make of it.

Indeed it is... It's impossible to please everybody. Play the game and make your own mind up.

[BIFF EXPLODER]

Re: Battlefield 2- Lies in the shadow of 1942?

Hmm, more fun than 1942? Maybe.

2's infantry combat beats 1942's anyday. Even though the weapon balancing makes no sense in terms of real world combat (LMGs primary use is close combat? wjat?), it's really fun in my opinion.

1942's (and DC's) vehicle combat will generally win. The maps in BF2 just... aren't that good. There's never enough vehicles for your team, but the enemies seem to always have enough.

It depends on the map, in my opinion, and currently most of the maps aren't amazing.

eeeeeeeeexactly

[Noni]

Re: Battlefield 2- Lies in the shadow of 1942?

El alamein was the perfect map for me.

It was huge, meaning snipers/C4 dudes/ Veichles all had a chance. It was great and you really needed strategy!

[IVfluids]

Re: Battlefield 2- Lies in the shadow of 1942?

Then why do you have over 400 posts here:hmm:

Because I am bored as **** and there are only about 12 of us still posting on the original DC boards. Just because I post here, doesn't mean I think it is a better game

[sav112]

Re: Battlefield 2- Lies in the shadow of 1942?

El alamein was the perfect map for me.


Cant agree more mate, fantastic huge map. a real sense of space and the dog fights were fantastic.

the sat-uplink kills it for me in bf2 for snipers. i used to snipe and be a pest in bf1942 not in bf2.

[imported_Fig]

Re: Battlefield 2- Lies in the shadow of 1942?

BF2 is annoying and stupid because:

A good portion of people who play are obsessed with thier rank. Rank really in means how much time you've spent playing, with the exception of K ratio, which is still not a very good gauge, as perhaps you are best at luring out enemies into ambushes (endless list of other situations to follow)

The maps SUCK. I'll say it again. The maps SUUUUCK. With the exception of Karkand and a few others, gameplay is monotonous, uniteresting, and usually extremely predictable. POE and DC had WAAAAAY better maps than BF2. Bashra's Edge, Bashra at night, 73 eastings, Oil Rig, all awesome, unique maps with no bland gameplay, each had its own style. BF2 100% lacks this, nearly all its maps are complete crap, built not for an interesting experience, but an easy one.

The jets are still too overpowered, and there are many (like me) who think that an M16 shouln't be less lethal than a BBgun...

[amish marauder]

Re: Battlefield 2- Lies in the shadow of 1942?

BF:2 and BF:2 SF is by far a better game than BF1942 ever was.

BF1942's weapons (hand carried) were/are terrible. but anyway, DC was the game to play. When DC released I never played BF1942 ever again. DC had my undivided attention.
I like BF2 better than DC as well. But I do miss the larger open maps of the older games.

[Pirelli]

Re: Battlefield 2- Lies in the shadow of 1942?

In 1942 I mostly played CTF which was great fun!

The ranksystem drives people into a pointhunting coma - loosing all creativity.

[Noni]

Re: Battlefield 2- Lies in the shadow of 1942?

I totally agree Pirelli, without the ranking system most people will "chillout".