April 5, 200718 yr Firearms. Neither. Firearms. http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a265/Raven1733/thtongue-1.gif Oh for the Battlefield series then I like BF:V. http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a265/Raven1733/thbanana_2.gif Agreed too: 2 different games with 2 different gameplays... But Firearms stay my favorite... Egidio. you know you gotta admitt there some logic here. firearms OK do the math $10 for a halflife1 cd 10 mins for the install. 5 years of play(for some longer) bf2 $50 for the game $30 for the expansion $10x2 for the booster packs time wise less about 1 yr. bf2142 $50 for the game $10 for the booster time less than a year firearms has been the single most best game i've ever played for the money i spent on it.
April 5, 200718 yr Personal Computer 2,000$ Half Life 1 disc 10$ Internet Connection 40$ Killing Gossard with a manual clay....priceless.
April 5, 200718 yr Personal Computer 2,000$ Half Life 1 disc 10$ Internet Connection 40$ Killing Gossard with a manual clay....priceless. Now THAT's funny
April 5, 200718 yr I am on the side of BF2...while I do like BF2142 and NS these two just don't stack up to the gaming experience that is found with BF2.
April 6, 200718 yr I have to say that I played BF2 and SF on single player mode for many hours. I thought that was how it was meant to be played. Well it got boring and cranked up the ai smarts, got frustrating. Well I got 2142 because of BF2 and I knew that you had to play it online. Well I did and I had a blast. I recently tried to play BF2:SF with the A team and it was bad, my comp can't handle it in multiplayer mode. So I suppose I have to stick with 2142. If, however I can set it up to play on the comp I built my wife, then maybe BF2:SF may be my favorite. It's way more challenging, and I like the game play better, fighting inside of buildings and rooms and stairways not just outside like 2142. Well since I have only played 2142 online with good results I have to say I prefer 2142.
April 9, 200718 yr Not all newer games are necessarily better, for various reasons. Reminds me of good'ol FA days.
April 10, 200718 yr I have to say that I played BF2 and SF on single player mode for many hours. I thought that was how it was meant to be played. Well it got boring and cranked up the ai smarts, got frustrating. Well I got 2142 because of BF2 and I knew that you had to play it online. Well I did and I had a blast. I recently tried to play BF2:SF with the A team and it was bad, my comp can't handle it in multiplayer mode. So I suppose I have to stick with 2142. If, however I can set it up to play on the comp I built my wife, then maybe BF2:SF may be my favorite. It's way more challenging, and I like the game play better, fighting inside of buildings and rooms and stairways not just outside like 2142. Well since I have only played 2142 online with good results I have to say I prefer 2142. I do not know what settings you have set for BF2 or BF2SF but they do not use as many resources as 2142 so your video settings may just need tweaked??? hope this helps
April 10, 200718 yr When I first started playing the BF2142 demo I didn't like it so much and stuck with BF2 for the most part. When my wife actually bought the game for me I got hooked. Still, I'll probably have to return to BF2 some now. I have been playing some BF2 mods recently (EoD and DCon).
April 10, 200718 yr I have everything set to low. Single player, can handle medium, online can't even handle low.
February 22, 200817 yr This thread has to be old as CoD4 is not in poll. I have found CoD4 to play MUCH better then either BF2 or BF2142. The maps load faster, the play is faster, and I can actually win every now and then. Also the spawning system works quite well and keeps the spawn killing down to a minimum.
February 22, 200817 yr yep thats what necro posting does now lets just let this die and not make me lock it
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.