Bf2 Vs Cod2

iFight

Battlefield or Call of Duty, going out later to get one of them, cant decide which. Which is better? (For online play-- dont care about story modes)

Thanks

Kobevader

I would have to say that bf2 is waay better online than cod2. i know you dont care about the story but just so you know, battlefield has a much worse single player mode than cod2. As for online play on cod2, gameplay options are....limited and get kind of repetitive. Also, in cod2, only 8 players can play online on one server-no usable vehicles.

Vegeta

BF2 but I am a fanboy so I am a bit biased

Dooom

Kobevader wrote:

Also, in cod2, only 8 players can play online on one server

Eh? Where'd you get that from? (Assuming the OP's talking PC games..)

I'd go for CoD2 imo.

iFight

thanks guys

AnCapaillMor

BF2 all the way.

Sgt. Politeness

i found cod2 terrible online. boring, same old rehash of cod1 basically. In fact, i palyed cod1 online more than cod2. The soldiers animations as they run looks laughable, and as for the death animations..good god.
BF2 has its fair share of problems, ****ty patches that do more harm than good, stat padding, gradually being taken over by stupid 'look at the size of my e-penis' kids who think the game is all about medals and ribbons, but its still a vastly superior game to cod2

Retr0gamer

DoD FTW!

projectmayhem

Retr0gamer wrote:

DoD FTW!

indeed.

but bf2 > cod2

KdjaCL

Bf2
squad based blowing **** up
Dods
fun based shooter no real longterm gaming
Cod 2
MOHAA updated with ironsights.


kdjac

Azza

Both games are good but I would opt for Call of Duty 2. However I play both rather little now as I played COD1's mutiplayer so much I got bored of the second one quickly (they are both the same really) COD2 has a far better single player game.

In my opinon Day of Defeat Source owns both of them in terms of online game play. Its excellent.

Jim

I've come to detest BF2 for its lack of gameplay basics.
Gotten into DoD:S the last 2 weeks or so. Much more satisfing than BF2.

Sgt. Politeness

ignore this

Sgt. Politeness

a few reasons why i prefer dod:s

Chucking nades back at the people who threw em, and blowing up several people with it


Triple rifle nade kills


Triple nade kills


And the owning

Jim

Omg, double accounts!

Sgt. Politeness

zomg..double post

KdjaCL

Dods doesnt reward you for being good or winning a map only a cheesey sound, no respawn and Dods would be a lot better. Atm you have no value on your life, so what if you die you be back there in 5 seconds.

In Bf2 if you die you possibly lose the flag and that makes it a lot more interesting than just" run shoot die spawn and repeat". And the Dod maps are starting to annoy me, why the hell does everything have to be narrow streets, wasnt Ww2 in the countryside too?

Both excellent games with their own issues but DoDs gets older faster
Cod2 is really just MOHAA updated which isnt bad but its like the 5th time now.

kdjac

Azza

Well all games have problems...very few get it totally right.

Battlefield 2 had far worse issues regarding patchs than DOD:S. For any instance of you dying in day of defeat where it does not really matter I can think of double that amount of times that is true in BF2. If you die you could be guarding or capturing a flag in either game. The spawn times are normally only 5 seconds longer in BF2 so you could argue you don't need to value your life there either. Well you might say its important cause its longer to travel back to that location but you don't get stuck out in the wilderness in DOD:S. I love the bonus round you get when you win DOD:S which is a reward in itself. (Free enemy spading)

Yes I wish there was more maps in DOD:S but I prefer tight maps. Normally a front line is formed and you have to bulldoze you way threw working as a team. The enemy falls back closer to spawn making it harder and harder. BF2 while offering more freedom with bigger maps does not look as good as the Source engine which is simply too much of a system hog to do big maps. In BF2 yes you have more freedom but I find it unrealistic that just have certain hard points that the enemy can attack and flank at will (not that its not entirely without merit) Alot of games are constantly chasing your own tail as you capture point A, then go for point B capture it only to find enemy has retaken A. Rinse lather repeat.

Both games suffer from class/vehicle mongering though

KdjaCL

Bf2s issues are all dev related , the underlying gameplay is superb, team based blowing stuff up. Gameplay wise theres nothing a bug fixing patch cant fix (i couldnt play for 2 weeks thanks to 1.22 bonus features). When on a good server with good squads and teamplay it comes into its own, the ballte never stays still its always moving and you use what you find for cover. If theres a tank on the other side of a wall and you have a machine gun HIDE and hide well

The only gripes i have with Dods are gameplay related technically its perfect, looks great as the maps are tiny and hl2 engine is lovely looking. But its the never ending piling dowqn tight corridors that your forced down. Even with a few holes dug in the corridors all classes arent truly used, sniping for example only works for a certain amount of time before your pushed back, then you have to change as there is no other spot.

I have both and both well worth the money i paid for them and i would recomend them to anyone, but find Bf2s open endness and the fact you can play a map 20 times and never once die in the same spot under the same conditions as the previous death the more rewarding longer term gaming exp.


Cod 2 still sucks but at least the latest patch has PB in it, damn cheating whores were running amok, i may even play it again. But dont feel the money i paid for that justifies what i got considering i have MOHAA


kdjac

Frederico

KdjaC wrote:

Bf2s issues are all dev related , the underlying gameplay is superb, team based blowing stuff up. Gameplay wise theres nothing a bug fixing patch cant fix (i couldnt play for 2 weeks thanks to 1.22 bonus features). When on a good server with good squads and teamplay it comes into its own, the ballte never stays still its always moving and you use what you find for cover. If theres a tank on the other side of a wall and you have a machine gun HIDE and hide well

The only gripes i have with Dods are gameplay related technically its perfect, looks great as the maps are tiny and hl2 engine is lovely looking. But its the never ending piling dowqn tight corridors that your forced down. Even with a few holes dug in the corridors all classes arent truly used, sniping for example only works for a certain amount of time before your pushed back, then you have to change as there is no other spot.

I have both and both well worth the money i paid for them and i would recomend them to anyone, but find Bf2s open endness and the fact you can play a map 20 times and never once die in the same spot under the same conditions as the previous death the more rewarding longer term gaming exp.


Cod 2 still sucks but at least the latest patch has PB in it, damn cheating whores were running amok, i may even play it again. But dont feel the money i paid for that justifies what i got considering i have MOHAA


kdjac

People are attracted to DOD and DODS because you can get insanely good at it, up to pro counterstrike levels. I used to get scores of 60 kills 10 deaths or higher on pub servers, but on a pickup skilled game maybe get 2 or 3 kills (by luck) and 18 to 20 deaths.. its the sharp half-life engines that allow you to become that skilled, BF2 and COd2 are more fun type games.

KELTICKNIGHTT

have played both,get tired of playing both
play for a time and then other and maybe counterstrike source etc

Fanny Cradock

Just get wolfenstein:enemy territory for free.

a classic

Sgt. Politeness

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Just get wolfenstein:enemy territory for free.

a classic

defintiely one of the best online fps's of all time IMO. ive enver played any other game with objectives like ET, much better than simple 'cap flag a, go, cap flag b, go cap flag c' etc etc. Tho dod:s still owns all

Dcully

Well having ran servers for DOD,DODS and COD2,and currently running servers for BF2,CODUO and Red orchestra i can give my opinions on mentioned games.

Origional DOD 1.3 is class,far better than DODS in every way.
DODS isnt actualy bad but as i say its not as good as old game in terms of gameplay,its also worth considering the numbers playing normal DOD vastly outweigh those playing DODS.
Speaking from someone who has played DOD for years both competitively and for fun the vast majority of the DOD community have not taken to DODS and still play DOD.

COD2 is just pants,if going COD route go for COD or CODUO,preferably both in deluxe edition.

BF2 is still an immensely enjoyable game,id go for it above others mentioned.

Id also sugest Red Orchestra,simply outstanding game,its a realism game with a steep but hugely rewarding learning curve.

As mentioned Wolfenstein is fun also.

Azza

Much the same boat as you Dcully.

I respect what your saying about DOD being preferred to DOD:S and the community sticking buy it.

I personally prefer Source to DOD 1.3 I think both are great games. Actually I prefer DOD when it was 3.1 before it moved over to valve and steam.

I was a massive CODUO player and found Call of Duty 2 mutiplayer to be no different from the orginal which I played into extinction. Not enough changed to keep me hooked for long. Single player is still worth checking out. I still consider COD2 far superior to any of the MOH series on PC.

I like Red Orchestra as well but I can understand it not being everyones cup of tea. Its something different in an over crowded genre.

I like BF2 but I actually prefer BF Vietnam.

All games are good in my opinon. But DOD:S is in my view most enjoyable.

I thought Wolfenstein was so so. Enemy Territory was mean't to be good but never played it with enough people to figure out if it was.

R0ot

BF2 wins in my opinion but thats only my opinion and everyone is entitled to theres. But BFV kicks BF2's ass any day and COD2 is good but doesn't beat BF2 or BFV