- Apr 17, 2005
- 13,465
- 3
- 81
DoD: Source or BF2?
- Thread starter Inspector Jihad
- Start date
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
DoD:S - faster gameplay, smaller/less expansive maps, meaning only infantry battles, better netcode and engine and very polished overall
BF2 - larger player games, given large maps, vehicles and all makes it a true battlefield, stats (ranks, awards, gun unlocks), some annoying gameplay aspects (for me it's claymores that have retarded, somewhat random distances for them to explode, chopper and jet whores, and constant artillery bombardments, and every single person goes prone when they spot you), though actual bugsare not very common.
The fact that BF2 logs your stats is very cool since with bf2s.com you can check out every aspect of your playing. Plus gun unlocks and whatnot make you keep playing. So I would say DoD:S is more of a game to jump into and play a quick 15 minutes, but BF2 probably has more lasting appeal. Though BF2 has good graphics, even at native res, 4x AA, AF, and nearly maxed details, it just doesn't seem to have the very clean and sharp look that DoD:S has. But obviously trying to draw as large of maps as there are in BF2 in Source isn't really possible. So I guess you can't compare them directly, so overall I would say they both have excellent graphics. BF2 requires a better computer, and give yours in your sig, you won't expect to play it as smoothly or with as good of details as DoD:S would play. A lot of people say 2GB is necessary, but as long as you don't run it with lots of background/system tray programs, 1GB is sufficient but obviously more is better.
All of the above is just my opinion.
edit: If you haven't already, get the BF2 multiplayer demo. I really dislike the demo map (Gulf of Oman) but it gives you an overall idea of the game decently. And DoD:S sometimes has free weekends, or now they have some guest pass deal through Steam to play DoD:S. So you likely can play both of them before making a purchase. Still, at ~$20 and ~$30 each, they are both very well worth it.
BF2 - larger player games, given large maps, vehicles and all makes it a true battlefield, stats (ranks, awards, gun unlocks), some annoying gameplay aspects (for me it's claymores that have retarded, somewhat random distances for them to explode, chopper and jet whores, and constant artillery bombardments, and every single person goes prone when they spot you), though actual bugsare not very common.
The fact that BF2 logs your stats is very cool since with bf2s.com you can check out every aspect of your playing. Plus gun unlocks and whatnot make you keep playing. So I would say DoD:S is more of a game to jump into and play a quick 15 minutes, but BF2 probably has more lasting appeal. Though BF2 has good graphics, even at native res, 4x AA, AF, and nearly maxed details, it just doesn't seem to have the very clean and sharp look that DoD:S has. But obviously trying to draw as large of maps as there are in BF2 in Source isn't really possible. So I guess you can't compare them directly, so overall I would say they both have excellent graphics. BF2 requires a better computer, and give yours in your sig, you won't expect to play it as smoothly or with as good of details as DoD:S would play. A lot of people say 2GB is necessary, but as long as you don't run it with lots of background/system tray programs, 1GB is sufficient but obviously more is better.
All of the above is just my opinion.
edit: If you haven't already, get the BF2 multiplayer demo. I really dislike the demo map (Gulf of Oman) but it gives you an overall idea of the game decently. And DoD:S sometimes has free weekends, or now they have some guest pass deal through Steam to play DoD:S. So you likely can play both of them before making a purchase. Still, at ~$20 and ~$30 each, they are both very well worth it.
- Apr 17, 2005
- 13,465
- 3
- 81
schneiderguy
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2006
- 10,801
- 91
- 91
I've got a guest pass for Day of Defeat source that would let you try it for a few days so you can see which game you like better. pm me if you want it
- Apr 17, 2005
- 13,465
- 3
- 81
Originally posted by: schneiderguy
I've got a guest pass for Day of Defeat source that would let you try it for a few days so you can see which game you like better. pm me if you want it
ygpm. thanks again bro!
intersting note, dod is 20 bucks on steam and 15 bucks on amazon. :|
EA is evil. Based on that alone, get DOD:S.
If you want real reasons:
There is a more probability that you will be engaged in a battle more often in DOD:S than in BF2. Since you may not be able to get a vehicle all the time, you may spend a lot of time walking.
Retarded team members are more likely to piss you off in BF2, since there is more of a need for an organized team to win.
DOD:S has substantially less bugs.
You can change your name in DOD:S at a drop of a hat. It's complex in BF2.
DOD:S is substantially cheaper.
If you want real reasons:
There is a more probability that you will be engaged in a battle more often in DOD:S than in BF2. Since you may not be able to get a vehicle all the time, you may spend a lot of time walking.
Retarded team members are more likely to piss you off in BF2, since there is more of a need for an organized team to win.
DOD:S has substantially less bugs.
You can change your name in DOD:S at a drop of a hat. It's complex in BF2.
DOD:S is substantially cheaper.
I enjoy DoD:S waaaaay more than BF2. Battlefield is far to unrefined, and most people don't use strategy in the way the game was built to be played. In DoD, people are far more tactical and there are true, visible flanks (unlike the random, wide open spaces of BF2) that you can rush/protect (attacking/defending). It's just a more interesting game experience. And, I mean, you can beat people with a little shovel! How much fun is that!
StinkyMojo
Golden Member
- Nov 15, 2004
- 1,283
- 0
- 71
HhhaaWHHaattt?!?! I can't even hear BF2 mentioned without having to feed my addiction... Must go play NOW!
: )
(Just kidding... I can't comment because I don't own DoD...)
Never played CSS, but I tried BF2 for a while and ended up just going back to CSS. IMO BF2 does not work well on public servers. It can be create on a lan party or with a group of friends on ventrillo in a pub. But if you're just going to jump on a pub yourself, there's virtually no teamwork or strategy. You just run around randomly capturing spawn points and shooting people along the way.
What really bothers me about BF2 is that anyone can capture any spawn point at any time. This makes it very hard to defend because you don't know where to defend. You just end up running to the nearest enemy spawn point and fighting whoever you run into along the way.
What really bothers me about BF2 is that anyone can capture any spawn point at any time. This makes it very hard to defend because you don't know where to defend. You just end up running to the nearest enemy spawn point and fighting whoever you run into along the way.
gorcorps
aka Brandon
- Jul 18, 2004
- 30,739
- 454
- 126
What kind of game would it be if you knew where people were headed? I mean think about it... if you knew they were going after point A, then you'd go and defend it. But then they'd know you're there, so they'd try going after B. Well then you'd have to go to B. Hey this sounds a lot like how it is now! GO FIGURE!
The problem isn't the game, it's the people :disgust:
That's why it sucks. Noone wants to perform any teamwork. There is no communication in BF2. So, like Sureshot said, you run from point to point killing whoever you randomly happen to see, and oftentimes you don't even see anyone.
DoD is going to get some votes because of the people who simply hate BF2, for them it isn't about which game is better, but attacking EA and BF2 in any way possible. Usually this is because they couldn't get BF2 running on their machine, got their ass kicked, or hate EA with a vengeance. BF2 is the better game, whether or not you can find people to enjoy it with is the question, having a group that you actual work with is much more enjoyable than random people.
clamum
Lifer
- Feb 13, 2003
- 26,252
- 403
- 126
I have and played a lot of both and they're good in different ways. Battlefield 2 has much more content to it with the unlocks, maps, vehicles, and stats/awards. It also requires a faster computer to run. Depending on the map and people, there can also be plane whores and such, hahaha, as well as like duragezic said people go prone the instant they see you. Which may or may not bother you.
DoD: S is a more focused (and polished IMO) game with smaller battles and less content. It's class based like Battlefield 2 is but there is a little less variation among the classes. The maps are much smaller, obviously, but are quite detailed and there's always ways to out-flank your enemy.
Instead of listening to someone say "BF2 sucks (or EA sucks) or DoD is boring" or whatever usual uselessness, I would try both. You can get the free demo for Battlefield 2 which will give you an idea of the gameplay, and like duragezic said you can get a weekend pass for DoD: S.
DoD: S is a more focused (and polished IMO) game with smaller battles and less content. It's class based like Battlefield 2 is but there is a little less variation among the classes. The maps are much smaller, obviously, but are quite detailed and there's always ways to out-flank your enemy.
Instead of listening to someone say "BF2 sucks (or EA sucks) or DoD is boring" or whatever usual uselessness, I would try both. You can get the free demo for Battlefield 2 which will give you an idea of the gameplay, and like duragezic said you can get a weekend pass for DoD: S.
They should at least implement a system like UT 2k4, where at any given time there are only 2 spawn points you can go for, and you have to capture those before you can go for spawn points deeper in enemy territory. Now since there are only two spawn points to defend, it's actually possible to play defense. There is much more strategy on offense, because you have to figure out how to beat the defense, rather than just run to a random spawn point.
The best BF2 games happen on maps like Strike at Karkland, since the map is relatively linear, you only have easy access to 1 or 2 spawn points at once. To get to the other spawn points you have to sneak past enemy lines. And since there are no aircraft, you can't just airdrop to any spawn point. However, even that map falls apart once a few spawn points behind enemy lines are captured.
Maps like the Gulf of Oman are a complete waste of time because you can easily get to any spawn point you want.
clamum
Lifer
- Feb 13, 2003
- 26,252
- 403
- 126
It's not really that easy most of the time. Sure, maybe you could sneak back to a spawn point but it would take awhile if you want to avoid detection, and if you're only one person it's going to get longer to capture the point, meanwhile the commander would probably spot you and either sent arty there or tell his team. If you're with a whole squad it's harder because you're more likely to be seen by the enemy. If you do capture it, it's probably surrounded by the enemy in which case they can spawn all around it and take it back before enough of your team members could spawn there, defend it, and advance (usually).
That's my experience FWIW.
meltdown75
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2004
- 37,548
- 7
- 81
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter