|
people keep talking about the "wow" factor and Total Immersion of battlefield2.
frankly, the second someone lept out of an apache, and ran at me i lost all faith in this game.
What was good about bf1942, is that it WAS cheesy. There was no denying it. "I'll fly my zero right over that enemy carrier, and single handedly take down the entire enemy fleet"
But it just doesn't work for bf2, a game which tries to be a little more realistic.
Small arms hurting tanks? A few bumps and dunes damaging tanks?
I really would have liked this game to have 1-shot kills. I pumped several shots from my m16 into an enemy today before he finally died.
Stupid.
If you're going to give us a flashbanging, intense, explosions, circle-strafing, fast combat game, with powerups, give us Quake, or unreal. And if you're going to give us a squad-based, tactical shooter, give us COD, AA or even Rogue Spear.
There's too much in between. The devs should have sat down and made up their mind on which game they were making.
Anyway, anyone ever played Vietcong? That game was fantastic. I played the demo (2 map demo) online for almost a year before i found the game at a store. Single Player was crap, but multiplayer was awesome. I stuck to playing mostly the 2 demo maps (bridge something, and river something or other) and that was fun. It had the perfect balance of slow-tactical combat (i.e. iron sight aiming, no crosshair, etc) and insane hectic action, tons of crossfires, enemies in bushes, snipers, bayonets, cover fire. It didn't do so well, and i rarely hear talk of it, a real shame. That game (mp anyway) had it going on.
|