Of course its my opinion. Do I need to add "I think" before everything I say so it doesn't offend you Nenjin?
No, you could try not stating it as though it's incontrovertible though. That would be sweet.
-graphics suck at anything but a distance (also features the most laughably awful ragdoll system ever created)
-like I said it ran like ***
-the interface was horrendous (a 2D interface that lags and does not let you map certain keys unless you manually change the text in the config files....nice)
-changing a large number of the graphics features meant you had to sit through a longer load screen while it populated several 100mb of data to be saved to your hard drive making an already long load time even worse
It must be nice to view stuff from the past and judge it, then and now, by today's standards. Man I wish I had that crystal ball.
When it came out, BF2 was cutting edge, in graphics, features and handling. The ONLY thing I'll give you there is performance; BF2 has always had issues there and I still get annoyed by it today. That's better than when today's entire networks take a **** and no one can play though.
But the rest? Yeah, let's focus on all the things it can't compete with, sort of like saying "Oh Final Fantasy was terrible because it was 2D, man." I can name several games that have some of those issues today.
-the infamous floaty feeling killed any sense of impact and weight
Granted. You get used to it though, just like any video game version of physics.
-the maps sucked besides maybe Gulf of Oman
Karkand
Bloody Pearl
Jalalabad
Sharqi Pennisula
Ghost Town
Warlord
Songhua Stalemate
And those are just the ones I play regularly. You don't know what you're talking about there.
-all the MEC characters looked like Sadaam
Herp derp. All the "Reds" have red berets in BC2. Hi, comrade.
-nice squad system that promoted teamwork
There is it.
The size of the battles plus coordinated team work completely stomps what BC2 offers with tiny maps, chump gun play, and smaller player counts. The actual war simulation of BF2 is way better than BC2/MW2's "a bunch of dicks shooting each other in a box" design.
Going prone, being able to get shot and healed up, repairing and destroying assets...that all feels like real combat. BC2 is two assholes shooting at each other, hoping for that two hit kill, or hoping when they go for cover that someone doesn't blow the wall up. I'd prefer realism, even the shaky realism of BF2, over Hollywood.
If BF2 had destructible terrain, or if the engine (which only got used for BF2) could have handled it, it would still be one of the best FPS out there.
I get not everyone likes BF2, there were too many things that annoyed. More power to your opinion and likes and dislikes. But don't crow that BC2 is somehow amazingly superior. It's more stable, runs better, looks better. Perfect for people that don't look any deeper than a game's skin, and who won't be bitter when they drop that **** like it's hot come BF3.
But let me ask you this: Can you take 5 of your buddies in BC2, load them into a Helio, go high altitude, drop out of the sky and laugh your asses off as you fall, throw grenades before you land in the enemy base, slaughter the defenders, blow their assets and then leave laughing in one of their stolen helios?
BC2 can suck it. It can be fun, but ultimately it's half the game of BF2. The only reason I don't play it more is I've already put more than 500+ hours into it. I can't say the same of any big name FPS since. (KF is not AAA.)
Either that or they're just idiots. I mean how could someone possibly say BF2 is better than BC2. It's ridiculous.
Or maybe we just find BC2 to be shiny while lacking a **** load of features it's parent game had. No ****ing prone? Give me a break. That's ridiculous.
