Why Is Sf Less Played Then Bf2

[MidnightOps]

Re: Why Is Sf Less Played Then Bf2

Battlefield 2 is the original. The original of a series is always the most liked.

I don't like the night maps in SF but I really just don't appreciate it as much as BF2. Not sure why.

[Daz]

Re: Why Is Sf Less Played Then Bf2

If anything it would make people want to play it more because smaller maps rule.

The problem I have with it, is that the majority of the maps are just re-aranged BF2 maps, with the same buildings just put in different locations and arangements and have no real thought into them. There are a few with some new buildings but other than that most suck.

Not to mention I hate night maps, They are cool and that but I hate having to constantly switch my nightvision on and off all the time, there is no comftable middle ground.

Also most people only have BF2 and if you want all your friends on a server you are gunna have to play BF2. And on bf2 you get 7 more unlocks for all armies which is good.

I need to start playing it more.

[jarm8181]

Re: Why Is Sf Less Played Then Bf2

I like SF. I like pretty much anything Battlefield (except BFV, I thought that game was terrible).

I think people are turned off by SF because like so many have said, it's a performance hog. I spent 700 dollars to upgrade my PC so I could play SF with a good framerate. Now that I have this nice system, SF is a LOT of fun to play and looks great.

And I agree with most people here, they should've integrated SF into vanilla BF2 so you don't have to crash to desktop to switch between games.

I like the night maps but I do think the night vision goggles should've worked differently. There's shouldn't have been any wash out problem with NV goggles with light sources, instead they should've made the goggles limited through short battery life. It's annoying to have to keep turning those things on and off all the time because of a light source.

I love the grappling hooks, tactical non-lethal weaons, the RPG, the new guns. I like it just as much as vanilla.

[wattsfox43]

Re: Why Is Sf Less Played Then Bf2

I like SF. I like pretty much anything Battlefield (except BFV, I thought that game was terrible).

I think people are turned off by SF because like so many have said, it's a performance hog. I spent 700 dollars to upgrade my PC so I could play SF with a good framerate. Now that I have this nice system, SF is a LOT of fun to play and looks great.

And I agree with most people here, they should've integrated SF into vanilla BF2 so you don't have to crash to desktop to switch between games.

I like the night maps but I do think the night vision goggles should've worked differently. There's shouldn't have been any wash out problem with NV goggles with light sources, instead they should've made the goggles limited through short battery life. It's annoying to have to keep turning those things on and off all the time because of a light source.

I love the grappling hooks, tactical non-lethal weaons, the RPG, the new guns. I like it just as much as vanilla.

I am with you.. i am just not seeing these performance issues with SF that I keep hearing about. and I only have an Athlon 64 3200 with 1.5 gig of Corsair pc3200 ram, ati 9600 all in wonder 128mb video, creative x-fi pro sound card,
(system is liquid cooled and overclocked just a tiny tiny bit seriously not a lot though,just enough to make the difference between the 3200 and 3400) only performance issues i have seen are connection related if im on a bad server. but i RARELY ever find one of those because im on 8mbs down and 512k up.

i have almost equal time between vanilla and sf since i have only migrated from CS since November

[ghaib]

Re: Why Is Sf Less Played Then Bf2

because there's no karkand in SF. period

[Grimlokster]

Re: Why Is Sf Less Played Then Bf2

cause it prolly suxxxx

[adambaum]

Re: Why Is Sf Less Played Then Bf2

cause it prolly suxxxx

Prolly, does that mean u cant run it, or you have never played it?

cuz if u can run it its the baum-ski :shoot:

[kran1um]

Re: Why Is Sf Less Played Then Bf2

I find most of the people complaining about lag are either: Europeans on a US server (in which case they ping around low 150's) and/or they are on a huge map and everyone fighting in one place (ie Palace). The Warlord needs to be 40 peeps or below to rid the lagfest. It's no different than any other map that way, but if you get into the massive 64, then even I have a problem with everyone else's lag, I am hitting 30's and still skipping from everyone elses b.s.

[Kalafan]

Re: Why Is Sf Less Played Then Bf2

Just got SF last week, played through all the maps about thrice thus far. It's alright IMO, although the performance issues (Palace on Warlord. Hey, might as well throw a few hostage situation-type scenarios in here while we're busy adding ziplines and tear gas, EA/Dice! I'm getting sick of nothing but CTF!) do have a significantly negative impact on how enjoyable it is at times. Also, IMO, the conventional arty should've been left out, at least concerning the rebel/insurgent groups (mortars would've made a bit more sense in their case). Hell, I'd have left it out completely, instead advising players with artillery fever to line a few of their tanks up on a hill overlooking an enemy position, and start shelling it. Gotta hand it to the developers for making the Spetz vs. Rebels maps look just like Eastern Europe always seems to look on TV, though. :p

[megawhompertoo]

Re: Why Is Sf Less Played Then Bf2

Just got SF last week, played through all the maps about thrice thus far. It's alright IMO, although the performance issues (Palace on Warlord. Hey, might as well throw a few hostage situation-type scenarios in here while we're busy adding ziplines and tear gas, EA/Dice! I'm getting sick of nothing but CTF!) do have a significantly negative impact on how enjoyable it is at times. Also, IMO, the conventional arty should've been left out, at least concerning the rebel/insurgent groups (mortars would've made a bit more sense in their case). Hell, I'd have left it out completely, instead advising players with artillery fever to line a few of their tanks up on a hill overlooking an enemy position, and start shelling it. Gotta hand it to the developers for making the Spetz vs. Rebels maps look just like Eastern Europe always seems to look on TV, though. :p

Yup. Alot of folks agree with you on the arty especially. I also agree with you that EA should have at least given us a couple of different gamestyles (as you suggest) other than CTF. C'mon?! How many multiplayer games ship with ONE game mode???

Having said that, it is still fun. Still more fun than vanilla...and I'm still playing...almost a year later. So they really must not have done that bad.

[Gav]

Re: Why Is Sf Less Played Then Bf2

because there's no karkand in SF. period

Yeah there is - it's called Warlord. And it owns Karkand. IMHO, of course.

I never have any lag issues with SF. In the palace on Warlord, on the carrier on Iron Gator etc etc, no lag at all. As someone said, I think a lot of it is to do with what server you choose. I always try to find one I hit at under 100ms, and that normally gives me plenty of options.

[Zer0ed-In]

Re: Why Is Sf Less Played Then Bf2

SF is fantastic, but.....

1. The night maps never worked for me. I admin a SF 64 server from day 1 until the other day, and the night maps used to be the least popular.

2. The video lag problem you get in the chopper on some maps spoils that part of the game.

3. No future support (patches) for SF means EA are saying "forget it".

Great game but move on now me says and thinks.

You sir, are right on the money here.

[mitchelcostello]

Re: Why Is Sf Less Played Then Bf2

i think they should intergrate the whole lot onto one game put grapple hooks onto snipers and spec ops weopons available to every map that way we can have snipers in different locations and the whole map can be used also they should make the maps even bigger and get rid of the red line. there is a map with a shipbuilding crane (desert like one town mec v usmc) and two towers behind it with ladders to the top now what was the piont in putting those there if they are at the back of a map and all you see is fog (91%) what a load of crap they could easily put boats and jets in that one if they opened it up it's not nearly as big as iron gator. you only need one disk to play any of the gamesand it would be very nice if we could have a mix of unlocks on any map on one server rather than ****ing about selecting a server and restarting the whole game to play the maps.

i think ea should re release everything including patches to one game 2 disk if necessary put all weopons on all maps and then they would find the rating would be up another 20% and it would be the best kickass game on the pc. PC games developers need to get there act together as they will find the console market putting them out (especially if it takes 3 years to make the game). notice that when you register bf2 and do the research questionaire they ask if games are prefered on console.

well i have had my moan

1) put the lot in one game
2) snipers need grapple hooks
3) every map has all sf weopons (mec ect. have there own sf weopons)
4) one server can play any map

[QWFreak]

Re: Why Is Sf Less Played Then Bf2

Pretty much the same as most of you have said here. Indeed, the number of SF servers are dropping at a alarming rate which begins to indicate a possible extinction of this wonderful game.

There are pros and cons, always, for any game. In my case, I bought BF2 as soon as it was released. But then in all honesty, I played it only once in a while. The reasons are very straight-forward, I have had enough of the tanks and planes whoring in BF1942 and I just can't stand them anymore in BF2. BF2 preserves the tradition tank and plane whoring which upsets me so much, so much so until I found Karkand which I can handle easily with my Anti-Tank weapon. Still, I didn't play it very often.

When I heard that SF is more on the infrantry combat side, it took my attentions. When it came out, I bought it without hesitation. I have spent so far 85:54:28 on SF. And 14:31:50 on BF2. As to EF, it is 0:25:18. I think the powerful war machine in the air is no different than a thermal nuclear bomb to me. As you know, nearly all BF2 maps are set in the rural landscape, opened and proned to air-strike. For such maps, 2 to 3 good pilots will dominate the game, given the poor performance of the Surface-2-Air missile. I gave up BF2 a long time ago. The only attraction to me is Karkand and a couple of urban maps.

The movie "Black Hawk Down" has inspired me a lot playing modern FPS specially DC of BF1942 and today's BF2/SF. BF2/SF both have regenerated the atmosphere talking about the urban maps only. I can't take EF because it is not urban.

SF has many good features. Do you know why urban maps are so friendly to us? Think for a moment and you will realise the virtue of a good urban map like Warlord. Indeed buildings are duplicated from Karkand but who cares. The buildings have different heights and they are densely put together which basically means you can attack enemies at different locations given the zip line and the grappling hook. This add more possibilities to enemy's hiding position which makes the map more replayable.

The good thing about SF is that there are no jets. This is a great success EA/DICE manages to differentiate SF from BF2. Ghost Town has the best blend or mix with chopper, APC, ATV, water and land mass. In fact, Ghost Town is even better than Warlord. Quite frankly, I fear not about Warlord, but the most daunting spot in Ghost Town is to set up a perimeter around the Convoy area. That spot is just the most vulnerable and dangerous spot and what do the trick are those burning vehicles left around the flag.

What fails SF is the implementation of night vision. It is extremely annoying that the NV conflicts badly with even the slightest light source. I love to play map like The Devil Perch because of its geography but not a night version of the map. A day version of the map definitely helps to regain popularity. Night Fight is a cool map actually but again, the NV spoils it.

Iron Gator is a disaster! It's not because of the lag, the lag can be resolved by a higher spec PC- more RAM, better video card, better CPU and that will fix the problem. But the fundamental problem of Iron Gator lies greatly in its design. What if there is no good pilot on the MEC side? As map designer you have to calculate as many possibilities as possible! If nobody knows how to fly the chopper, the MEC team just get slaughtered. The only strategy is a co-ordinated attack on multiple flanks towards the carrier but how would you expect that to happen in a public server???

Another small problem with SF is the texture of all the maps except Iron Gator. I have found most maps in SF are set in cloudy weather which makes the maps darker compared to other maps in BF2. And the game doesn't give us a Gamma adjuster?! Why not give us a gamma adjuster? I have to adjust the Brightness of my CRT.

The performance of SF is not a problem because it is not there for high end PCs. We are experiencing lag is because our PCs are not capable to deliver the performance SF demands. Just to be fair to EA/DICE, we should not constantly complain SF about the performance.

Having said all that about the bad things in SF, I find there are bad things in BF2 also. BF2 is poised by exploits recently discovered by some of our servicemen. Look, this is what kills a game. I gave up BF1942 just because of exploit not to mention Joint Operation. It is also my reason to give up Songhua Stalemate. But then it is a side-effect of a popular game. So in a way, it is good to stick to SF because as it is less popular so it is less infected by exploits.

[Alcorr]

Re: Why Is Sf Less Played Then Bf2

I don't think its so much the problems with sf like terrible framerates and bugs and sucky nightvision/nightmaps as it is two reasons:

1. Quite simply, more people have vbf2 than sf....everyone that has sf has vbf2.
2. Bf2 has jets, and therefore bigger maps....pleasing a large base of players.