I was actually much of a fan of bf2 when I bought like a year or two ago. but if its like bc2 but with 64 players and bigger maps then sign me up. seriously though how different can it be to bc2? dont mention singleplayer, I didn't bother with that on either of these games. they both set in same time period I presume and using the same engine and are the same type of game. so whats the point?
I realize I'm going to get flamed for this, but...
Does anyone else actually prefer BC2's "consolized" (read: smaller and more focused) presentation over that of the regular Battlefield series? I was really into Battlefield 2 when it was first released, and although it's a great game, I honestly felt like the scope of the game just hampered its enjoyability much of the time. Huge maps are all well and good, but not when you constantly end up stranded half a mile from the battle because your idiot teammates each took off in their own vehicle and sped off without you, ignoring your requests for a ride. This was a problem even in servers at half capacity with only 32 players, as was the mass overpopulation of snipers, which was another problem exacerbated by the huge maps. And the squad system didn't help much either, as most squad leaders didn't seem to even understand the concept.
In sum: When it comes to multiplayer, I'll take a smaller, more focused game that gets everything right and gives players less opportunity to create headaches, rather than a wide-open, experimental cluster-(censored) where huge numbers of morons can run rampant, any day of the week.
JN_Fenrir
while I kind of agree. I dont think it was smaller maps and less player which fixed those bf2 problems in bc2, they rebalanced and redid things such as the squad system, hopefully these new features will stay. but again I dont get why these two games need to be titled as different series, unless its some pointless singleplayer thing.
Log in to comment