The best Battlefield?

1331 Views 17 Replies 9 Participants Last post by Metalmurphy, Jun 26, 2005

Strider

Discussion Starter · Jun 24, 2005

having played BF1942, BFVietnam, and now BF2 i have to say hands down bf1942 is still the best game by far... bf2 sort of seems like a beefed up version of bfvietnam, the same thing that happened to the UT series imo... they added useless stuff changed the gameplay, look, and feel, and went all out on the looks. I havent played bf2 long enough to really be able to decide how good it is but so far its rather disappointing to me personally, nothing beats the gameplay in 1942, whether it was treading through enemy lines in a panzer tank or gunning down enemy bombers in a spitfire... it was overall the best of the series imo. It could be that im just a WWII junkie but modern warfare just isnt as fun

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

Valcrist

· #2 · Jun 24, 2005

I concure.

I also think the vietnam mod for BF 1942 was better than BFV was anyway

.

RF

· #3 · Jun 25, 2005

BF2. BFV ran like ass on my machine, and I hated the spawn times in bf1942 with a passion.

N1ghtw0lf

· #4 · Jun 25, 2005

BF1942 was too uninhabitted. I could walk for like 5 minutes and not see anything interesting. BF2 is roughly the same experience the other 2 were, and the 3rd time it just seems all done before (only played demo but definately didn't leave a "fresh" experience in my mind). I personally loved BF:V, despite it being the same experience too, the clostraphobic jungle levels and the satisfying feeling of capping a flag after being chopper in with a squad and taking everyone at the flag out cannot be matched by anything ive played in BF2 (because choppers really dont seem all that important) or 1942, when it was walk around or take a jeep for 10 minutes to find 1 or 2 enemies. Just preffered the gameplay (using vegetation for cover), the elements of the game (choppering being key to taking alot of bases), the levels more than i did of any of the others so far. I'm pretty sure abot 95% of the people won't agree with me, but meh

.

cooliscool

· #5 · Jun 25, 2005

BF2.. loving the demo so far. Might pick up a copy tomorrow.. *checks wallet* .. not a cent.. looks like I'm going to have to trade in some things.

Strider

Discussion Starter · #6 · Jun 25, 2005

night: if you liked it so much why didnt you vote

?

N1ghtw0lf

· #7 · Jun 25, 2005

Strider said:
night: if you liked it so much why didnt you vote ?

Meh, one for vietnam

(probably about where it will stay)

Strider

Discussion Starter · #8 · Jun 25, 2005

there we go, 6 votes, wow this is turning out to be a real poll eh?

the apathy i guess was to be expected considering bf2 is still pretty damn new

caipirinha

· #9 · Jun 25, 2005

bf1942, at it's time felt fresh, fun, fast, looked nice and ran well on mid-range machines. I had so many great times playing it, then came BF:V , same thing but a bit more boring.
now, BF2 was just released but having played it a little I can't understand why reviewers are so crazy about this. yes it adds some nice stuff but it isn't revolutionary, see NS for commander done better IMO, the commander interface is really bad and need some serious reworking, running up and down a map trying to raise my flag doesn't sound like an engaging objective anymore, ppl buying the game in a few months most likely will never be a commander on a ranked game, the server could be more flexible allowing the size of the map to be changed dinamically depending on demand, yadda, yadda

come quake wars.

edit: It may look like I hate the game but bf2 is still very fun, it's just that it has some flaws that are so obvious and that are in the series for so long, it pisses me off sometimes.

N1ghtw0lf

· #10 · Jun 25, 2005

caipirinha said:
bf1942, at it's time felt fresh, fun, fast, looked nice and ran well on mid-range machines. I had so many great times playing it, then came BF:V , same thing but a bit more boring.
now, BF2 was just released but having played it a little I can't understand why reviewers are so crazy about this. yes it adds some nice stuff but it isn't revolutionary, see NS for commander done better IMO, the commander interface is really bad and need some serious reworking, running up and down a map trying to raise my flag doesn't sound like an engaging objective anymore, ppl buying the game in a few months most likely will never be a commander on a ranked game, the server could be more flexible allowing the size of the map to be changed dinamically depending on demand, yadda, yadda

come quake wars.

edit: It may look like I hate the game but bf2 is still very fun, it's just that it has some flaws that are so obvious and that are in the series for so long, it pisses me off sometimes.

was waiting for someone to agree with me about something before i started saying stuff and getting bashed by reich about bf2.

All been seen before, single player still has dumb-as-a-doornail-AI, and there isn't a very large selection of vehicles. Still fun, but as he said, nothing revolutionary. Same has been done in the other games, this just has a shiny new engine. There's my opinion, bash away

blehz0r

· #11 · Jun 26, 2005

BF1942, bought it right away when it was out, after playing the demo every day
I still play it almost every day

culubalo

· #12 · Jun 26, 2005

1942 - havent played 2 and vietnam didn't have the same cool vehicles/weaponary as 1942 did...

Metalmurphy

· #13 · Jun 26, 2005

As you can see from what i said here ( http://www.ngemu.com/forums/showpost.php?p=867992&postcount=17 ), my choice goes for for BF2.

And i have to disagree with some stuff u guys said here. For example, in what way does the comander screen need work? , yes i agree its a NS ripoff i said it my self when i first saw it but it does all it needs to do and i dont see how can it be improved.

Not many vehicles i agree, we could allways use more, but it still has more then any other 2 previous games and more then Joint Ops as well (dunno about the expansion pack though never played it).

Also i dont think the AI is THAT bad :S they duck, prone, follow orders, awnser to radio messages, they're aim is a bit bad, but everything else is pretty good, they aint THAT bad, its average.

Also to those who only played the demo (or cracked servers couse i played there too untill my game arrived), its a whole diferent thing playing on ranked servers, before the servers were filled with crappy TKers that destroyed every vehicle with C4 when they couldnt get there first, they rarely followed orders or even make squads, now with the rank system, you can't risk playing like an ass couse it will mess up ur score, and that improves the gameplay ALOT, way more competetive and involving.

And main reason why i preffer BF2 to other games, dogfights, simply amazing, surprisingly enough its more fun then Ace Combat 4. xD, they are very well done (the missile physics is very realistic for example).

Anyway just my 2 cents. For those who own BF1942 you can allways get the Desert Combat mod if you fell thats enough ( http://www.desertcombat.com/ )

See less See more

caipirinha

· #14 · Jun 26, 2005

about the commander interface, no hotkeys, no easy way to select individuals or class select, you have to click at least twice just to select only one class in a squad and you can't select everyone in that classe in the whole team. equipment hp (radar, artillery) alerts too subtle, they are a fundamental part of strategizing and theres no alarm other than that really small hp bar. etc, etc.

Metalmurphy

· #15 · Jun 26, 2005

It does have hotkeys, theres no point in selecting individuals on a 64 player game. Thats why you only command squads. All the rest u said isnt suposed to happen. You command squads, squads leaders command the rest. Its the way its suposed to be. You right about the alerts though.

caipirinha

· #16 · Jun 26, 2005

1) wth, should read the manual

2) personal opinion, I'd like to be able to select individual classes to give specific orders.if in each squad theres someone in an aircraft, is it easier to tell each one to go attack the enemies artillery or select them all and say go? (you may say just send the special forces guy but thats just an example

)

Strider

Discussion Starter · #17 · Jun 26, 2005

Not many vehicles i agree, we could allways use more, but it still has more then any other 2 previous games and more then Joint Ops as well (dunno about the expansion pack though never played it).

not really, i dont think so. BF1942 had... germans japanese american brits and russian forces (i think italian in one of the exp packs, not sure) each one having at least 1 different tank, some having three, an apc, a jeep, at least 2 different airplanes, and there were also 2 heavy bombers. That's a LOT of vehicles when you count them up.

Metalmurphy

· #18 · Jun 26, 2005

Well i meant more types of vehicles, they had more vehicles couse they had more teams, but it was pretty much the same, just diferent skins/models but same type of vehicle, 1 jeep per team, 1 armor, 1 anti air etc... BF2 has that too for each team. It just has less teams.

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.