Hi everyone,

I got a little question. I'm willing to buy myself 'a good FPS' in the coming month, to have some shooting fun. I find a community in a game very important (no Counter Strike whining kids or people who say on everything 'fak u' or such), but the game itself is of course also important. Graphics don't mind me: the gameplay and fun does.

Now I am doubting between 3 games:

-Call of Duty 4
-Battlefield 2
-Crysis

CoD2 I enjoyed véry much, so it is tempting to buy CoD4 again, however on pure gameplay and durability of being able to play Crysis seems better: more options on how you want to play and not the linearity.

However, Crysis also has it's flaws. Graphics wise or system requirements are no problem here, but I heared the shooter isn't that fun either after a time. Yes, you have many options and you're own moving paths (no linearity as in CoD4) however after some time that was just a bit the annoying part - a friend told me, not sure if this is true.

Battlefield 2 is a very exciting game, however it feels a bit 'arcadish'. Therefor some people made the "Project Reality" mod and it looks really, really great !

Bottom line is: it's a draw. I really can't choose and as it has been proven in the future I hope the LFS Community can aid me with some good critics or facts I haven't read / heared about or own game opinions.

For the moment I'd say BF2, just because of the realism mod. Not only because the mod is great (and we'll all agree some realism isn't bad ), but it shows also that there is still an active, good community in the game. While Crysis is new and.. I'm doubting a bit on the durability I can play Crysis, don't feel like paying so much cash (for a student) for a game which can be played with a full community only for a year or two.

I really can't make a final choice
So, if you have played any of these games or friends who have and told you about it, any feedback is welcome in order to make me decide!

Thank you very much,
GC

I haven't played Crysis multiplayer, but I haven't finished the single-player game either because it "does a Far Cry" and turns rubbish half-way through. I suppose you'd want especially good performance to play it online, and it's tough on hardware - I don't think it would be a good choice for a multiplayer shooter.

BF2's fun but full of annoying children. Haven't played COD4 so I'd pick BF2.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

I haven't played Crysis multiplayer, but I haven't finished the single-player game either because it "does a Far Cry" and turns rubbish half-way through. I suppose you'd want especially good performance to play it online, and it's tough on hardware - I don't think it would be a good choice for a multiplayer shooter.

BF2's fun but full of annoying children. Haven't played COD4 so I'd pick BF2.

Yes, that is also what I heared about Crysis. Multiplayer wasn't that good either for Crysis.

Online gameplay is indeed important, however a fun singleplayer campaign is also welcome. Though the main focus is indeed on the online part.

BF2 and annoying kids ? Oh noes I got the old Delta Force: Black Hawk Down here and I really like to play it still, but the problem is it is also full of kids, or people who jump from clan to clan, ect... Ruins the fun of it.

Thanks for the advice, BF2 just got a big closer to be bought.
GC

I have experience of all three, and the only one that is worth considering for GAMEPLAY and LONGEVITY is Call of Duty 4.
Modding tools have just been released, so there is a big influx of user maps at the moment, some good, some average, and some that are downright abysmal.
Give it a few weeks and the 'big boys' will have some great maps to play on..

bf2 is good online, if you can get it to work. Everytime i install it i get different errors and bugs.

BF2 was a bit of a pain online the last time I logged in. If you go Special Forces it wasn't so bad, but vanilla BF2 was full of stat padders and vehicle whores. Which is a real shame because it was great fun back in the day, and I really miss the bigger vehicles in SF.

Call of Duty 4 is my favourite shooter of all time. The number of online modes means you can really play what you want. I like the Hardcore and Ground War modes, but they're all great. Add to that the custom classes and you have a sweet online game.

Crysis I'm not so sure about. It looks fantastic and the demo ran fairly well on my sort of mid-range PC. The AI recalculating cover from demolished scenery killed it every so often. Having only played the demo I can't really comment fairly though.

Quote from GianniC :

...Battlefield 2 is a very exciting game, however it feels a bit 'arcadish'. Therefor some people made the "Project Reality" mod and it looks really, really great !...

Check this, another "reality"-mod: Point of Existence

I would go for BF2.

IMHO the only Multiplayer shooter worth playing is Red Orchestra. http://www.redorchestragame.com.

The most realistic FPS game out there, and it's quite cheap. And it has lot's of players.

What about Armed Assault - was that any good?

Quote from thisnameistaken :

What about Armed Assault - was that any good?

regard that game as the netkar of first person shooters

Quote from Shotglass :

regard that game as the netkar of first person shooters

The developers have sidelined it to develop a demo called Woodstock saying it uses the same engine?

ArmA IS quite good actually, but only in organised Multiplayer games. The Singleplayer sucks compared to OFP, but doing custom made 40-50 people large scale coop missions is simply a blast.

A strong tie between CoD4 and BF2 now... With CoD4 just taken the lead... I remember the SP fun I had with CoD2 so...



But BF2 sounds good too... Damn it!

Quote from GianniC :

BF2 sounds good

It is, but some maps have up to four jets, and the other 60 people on the server get to be targets for the four guys in the jets.

Realising this, the other 60 people on the server spend all their time hanging around the runways team-killing eachother while waiting for a jet to respawn. When a jet does respawn, whoever gets inside is usually team-killed, but often in creative ways that mean the pilot is blamed for the team kill (driving a jeep into a stationary jet seems to work well for this). Eventually the really naughty people get banned for too many team kills, so they are replaced by new players who do exactly the same thing.

After approximately one hour of this the map will change, to another map that has jets.

Don't the realism mods sort of fix that jet and teamkilling problem ?

Regards,
GC

Sounds very familiar Kev
Clan games are usually good in BF2 though.

BF2 vs COD4?

I got my copy of BF2 + Special Forces for like £7 delivered. CRACKING game. Online (imo) is only really good in an infantry only server, but with a bunch of friends, BF2 + TeamSpeak is GREAT fun (as proved by UKCT!).

Why can't you buy both? BF2 is cheap as chips these days...

Quote from Jakg :

Why can't you buy both? BF2 is cheap as chips these days...

Not here. CoD4 is in the shop €60. Even if BF2 is €10 then (which is unlikely) it is too much for my budget.

I still have BF2 & SF installed, I've just not played for months. If you can point me to a decent Euro server with no vehicle camping or stat whoring you can count me in

Then we'll see how it compares to CoD4

Quote from TAYLOR-MANIA :

that does happen all too often. But if you're good enough, once you're in one you just don't get out (don't die)!

But that's what everybody's trying to do, which doesn't make for a fun game.

Quote from TAYLOR-MANIA :

Also there's plenty of other things to do apart from wait for a plane...

The only other thing to do is get blown up by planes. It's so easy to take out other vehicles with a jet, or bomb CPs for cheap kills or whatever. AA guns are still useless and the emplacements can be taken out before your plane is even visible to whoever's manning it, and everybody knows if you do fire at a jet the missiles are just as likely to lock on to a friendly one and blow that up instead, scoring you a team kill and getting you kicked off the server. The jets were just a bad idea.

In BF1942 at least the flak guns had some effect and the planes were relatively slow, so pilots had to be a bit careful. In BF2 they're almost totally invincible.

The other problem I remember is snipers. If you put your detail level to low, all the grass disappears, meaning snipers lying in grass get a clear view and anyone running at full detail (like I did) couldn't see them. Which seems a bit retarded to me.

The planes would've been better if there had been either more of them or a better way to defend against them. I'm pretty sure RL AA guns have a pretty long lock-on range. Some land-based guns like you find on the US ships would've made life easier.

Never played COD4 so i would recommend BF2. Most of the Mercury team plays it (well was on till 2am playing it last night so tis not that bad i guess).

If you ever get bf2 you can play with me, bawbag, rooble, [Duck], dombo, paulc2k, viper, baby bio and jonesy......... but bf2 is only good when you know how to play it decent enough because theres so many jet hugers that just do nothing but wait for a jet.

Quote from rc10racer :

Never played COD4 so i would recommend BF2. Most of the Mercury team plays it (well was on till 2am playing it last night so tis not that bad i guess).

If you ever get bf2 you can play with me, bawbag, rooble, [Duck], dombo, paulc2k, viper, baby bio and jonesy......... but bf2 is only good when you know how to play it decent enough because theres so many jet hugers that just do nothing but wait for a jet.

Finally I can beat Peckers at something!

I'll sleep well over it and think about it. More feedback welcome, it is (still) a tie between BF2 and CoD4.

No Orange Box option, eh?

I'd go with crysis, imo.

Quote :

Posts: 666

BUY DONT BUY ANYTHING UNTILL YOU POST AGAIN, bad look