Comparing COD2 & BF2

[mOeeOm]

Originally posted by: Seeruk

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
BF2 is just too arcadey for me.

It is for me too ... JointOps is far superior but now the servers are dead as BF2 is the 'in thing'

I got Joint Ops with my asus x800xl...I read some reviews and didn't seem so good.

Should I install?

 

[Seeruk]

Originally posted by: mOeeOm

I got Joint Ops with my asus x800xl...I read some reviews and didn't seem so good.

Should I install?

Absolutley!!!

There is not one thing that BF2 has that JO doesnt (Ok apart from commander mode) - yet each of those things is implemented better in JO.

The maps are enormous, the weapons more realistic, the graphics gorgeous, and the playmode is much better defined as it draws everyone into a single area of fighting rather than the lame benny-hill-esque run around the bases style BF2 allows

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
The squad system is nice but it is just one innovation that is easily evened out when using a chat program such as TS or Vent.

I'm certainly not one for defending BF2, but the squad system is one of the few things they actually executed well. You can't possibly compare that system to talking on a VoIP proggy.

Not even comparable.

Of course you can. Anyone in a gaming clan who knows the maps back and forth and pretty much only play together do not need a squad system that shows you exactly where everyone in your 'squad' is located. It's a great thing for a game such as BF2.

Besides, a squad system in a WORLD WAR II shooter would be asinine. Hell, I don't even like having a radar in a WW2 game.

BTW, comparing BF2 and CoD is, once again, a stupid comparison. Just because you shoot guns at each other does not mean you need to compare the games. Why do we not also throw FEAR and Quake 4 into the discussion while we're comparing apples and oranges? Serious Sam perhaps?