BF2S Forums a better bf2 than bf2?

someone once wrote:

No.

Well, I guess we are doomed to play crossplatform games, since they make 3x more profit. No chance such a publisher like EA will ever make PC exclusives again

Spidery_Yoda wrote:

I voted no. DICE these days simply don't have it in them. I don't know what happened to them but they seem to have no idea how to make a good BF game anymore.

Sadly, this.

I think they're going to want to stick to their console formula, and that means 'no prone' because it 'slows down the game.'

Along with that, there will be other features like small servers, low vehicle count and kits that make no fucking sense, like starting a medic with an LMG.

e: I've recently taken up BF2 again, and am thinking of dabbling in 2142 until I unlock everything there.

RDMC wrote:

And I really do hope another BF2 will come around, a game with so much diversity in infantry, vehicles, maps and guns, the same addictiveness but with better hitreg, better graphics and which is completely designed for the PC.

Those things you mentioned are indeed the things that made BF2 so great.

In fact, I believe that DICE already made the biggest mistake when they cut the 64-player map versions in the EF maps Great Wall and Taraba Quarry. Same goes for AF's Road Rage.
Actually, you could argue that it even started when they ditched the promised 128 player support.

The bad hit-reg IMO was unfortunately caused by the stupid patching that was outsourced to DICE Canada, then brought back to Sweden after the take-over by EA, which had DICE Canada closed down. Too many cooks spoil the broth...

The only game on par with BF2 (and even better in some aspects) is BF2142, but with it's futuristic style it certainly isn't the most popular in the series.
BF2142 was the last truly good Battlefield game on the PC and I have a hunch that it'll stay that way until something major changes in the gaming industry and/or console hardware.

BFBC2 is a good game (compared to other war-themed FPS series) and has many new features that are an improvement over BF2/2142, but at the same time, cross-platform production has reduced or straight-out removed and mutilated so many good and proven features from older games.

And the lack of a prone option is definitely the most harmless compared to, for example, commander/squad leader structure, proper communication options or selective fire.

globefish23 wrote:

RDMC wrote:

And I really do hope another BF2 will come around, a game with so much diversity in infantry, vehicles, maps and guns, the same addictiveness but with better hitreg, better graphics and which is completely designed for the PC.

Those things you mentioned are indeed the things that made BF2 so great.

In fact, I believe that DICE already made the biggest mistake when they cut the 64-player map versions in the EF maps Great Wall and Taraba Quarry. Same goes for AF's Road Rage.
Actually, you could argue that it even started when they ditched the promised 128 player support.

The bad hit-reg IMO was unfortunately caused by the stupid patching that was outsourced to DICE Canada, then brought back to Sweden after the take-over by EA, which had DICE Canada closed down. Too many cooks spoil the broth...

The only game on par with BF2 (and even better in some aspects) is BF2142, but with it's futuristic style it certainly isn't the most popular in the series.
BF2142 was the last truly good Battlefield game on the PC and I have a hunch that it'll stay that way until something major changes in the gaming industry and/or console hardware.

BFBC2 is a good game (compared to other war-themed FPS series) and has many new features that are an improvement over BF2/2142, but at the same time, cross-platform production has reduced or straight-out removed and mutilated so many good and proven features from older games.

And the lack of a prone option is definitely the most harmless compared to, for example, commander/squad leader structure, proper communication options or selective fire.

I never really bothered much with 64 players so for me playing EF/AF with 32 players was more than enough for me. Though 64 player servers did have something chaotic about them that just made it fun to play it anyway. But that is not even the issue in modern games, problem for me is that they focus way too much on shiney shitty awards, useless customizable soldiers and what not. For me it was perfectly fine to just have 6 standard classes...

The customisation in BF2 was perfect. You did your job and you had 3 weapons to choose from. No shity power ups or useless crap

Bf2 is better only because:

1)Bf2 was the first game (i think) that used the ranking system (in bf series it is)
2)everyone was waiting for it to come out,since 1942(dc-mod) was released
3)it was considered back then,to be an awesomely looking game
4) ??? 64 player battles,huge environments,vehicles,guns e.t.c.

Now there's nothing new...just better looking games..everyone get used to ranks,vehicles,guns,we got it all now,in all games...

if someone never played bf2,their opinions about this game will be negative,since bf2 has a lot of issues,which we (veterans )solved,learned and perfected

globefish23 wrote:

You're right!
The last new improvement in the Battlefield series was the Destruction 1.0 in BFBC1.
Well, and maybe the targeting dart gun in BFBC2.

Everything else, weapons, class loadouts, unlock trees, etc. has been available in previous games.

Well there are a few minor improvements like better class/weapon customization, vehicle unlocks etc. but overall they dumped way more features in BC1/2 than they intoruced in previous games (eg. 2/2142)

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Adams_BJ wrote:

The customisation in BF2 was perfect. You did your job and you had 3 weapons to choose from. No shity power ups or useless crap

THIS.

+1

Also, I WANT the matches to potentially last for a long time (like BF2).