carlo b
Posts:
Joined: 12/31/1969
Credibility: pts
|
I have bought all the games in the BF series, and i feel i need to say this, BF1942-KING of the lot, road to rome-OK, Secret wepons-WASHOUT! then came vietnaam, and they just did not develop this in anyway, it had the potential.
EA get us all used to co-op mode, which is great, period but they left it out of BF2, where is the consideration for us, we need co-op mode it great fun, and maybe they will add more maps at the same time as they create a co-op mode, your thoughts guys
|
| 10/11/05 17:44 |
Login to rate this user's post! |
theonlyNw
Posts: 4
Joined: 08/09/2005
Credibility: 0 pts
|
i'm sorry but battlefield 1942 was horrible. the models were god-awful. and the weapon balance was stupid. bf42 was rock-paper-scissors in 3d. you tell me how a chest shot from a .308 enfield on a guy that doesn't have body armor shouldn't kill in one hit.
and the maps were just rolling landscapes with a couple buildings.
BF2 beats BF42 hands down.
|
| 10/22/05 02:18 |
Login to rate this user's post! |
carlo b
Posts:
Joined: 12/31/1969
Credibility: pts
|
I agree with you, however BF42 set the standard for all games, yes based on a few things like shooting people and wepons, but its still the the best game around, BF 2 needs loads of work, it doesnt flow like 1942, why does dice use a map from 1942, remake it and put in to BF2?, becuse the maps and the game play was and it awsome.
every one has their own opinon, but if you run a pole, more than likely BF42 will get more votes based on overall game play
|
| 10/22/05 05:52 |
Login to rate this user's post! |
theonlyNw
Posts: 4
Joined: 08/09/2005
Credibility: 0 pts
|
nah bf42 was just so simple that they couldn't screw it up. bf2 is just plagued with bugs. it's 1,000 times as complicated and requires wayyyyy more teamwork, and consequently there are more noobs.
|
| 10/27/05 00:24 |
Login to rate this user's post! |
