Got down the demo. Game looks really old. Footsteps sound like a cheap toy drum.
Same old poop. Just running around a big field doing nothing. Graphics are garbage.
Went to the beach ( kill zone ) .. no waves, no fish, nothing. This is the same
stupid piece of **** that BF1942 was. No way I'm buying this junk. I knew it.

The guns sound pathetic IMO. I got bored blowing stuff up with AT4s and vehicles do not do it for me. Was it just me, or did the AT4 seem to be more efficient that bullets for killing infantry?

It's good mindless fun. But that gets old and I can't see staying w/it for any amount of time.

Don't care,I still wanna fly that copter.

I saw the game as anything but mindless. In fact, I don't know how anyone could be successful playing indivdually. It is definitely a team sport. This game is all about teamwork, stradegy, voice comms, etc.

It was a little too real for me. It may get a lil' boring for some people holding down a flag and no enemy shows up right away cause' they are busy somewhere else on the map, but I thought the theory behind it was more like the real thing. Course, I've never been in a real war, I'm just thinking it works more like BF2 than some other games. But, maybe gamers don't want realistic. I have to confess, I like FarCry because there's very little dead time, and Urban War is my favorite map now... just because there's never a boring moment, and you can rarely hold first flag the whole time.

BF2 requires a lot more thinking... and after a hard day at work making decisions all day... sometimes... I don't want to have to stradegize all night.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: emilynicole,

I thought the hit detection in OE was completely sporked until I got a load of the BF2 Demo...

Coming close to holding my interest with the jet and heli...maybe next time.A much larger flying area is definitely needed.I have piloted many heli's in different games and this 1 here should handle better.

BF2 is way too arcadey for my taste. Its a mindless straight forward run'n'gun game.
I'll stick with FarCry and RvS for CQB and OFP for the rest while I'm waiting for OFP2

After playing maybe 10 times this game is finished for me.The sounds are getting very annoying.The flyer's are pretty much useless if your lookin for fun.The graghic's look old.I could go on but....

Was able to try the full game.Turn's out they did a bad job on the demo.The copter's and jet's have no problem's at all in the full.

I doubt any one of you Far Cry fanboys have even played touched Battlefield 2. Don't comment on something you haven't even tried. Here's some free eye candy.

I have the full and the graghic's are much better in farcry.It's easy to get building's to look just fine,now take a look at the vegetation.Notice what those tree's look like there in that pic for example.You can be sure as well,the reason you cannot swim underwater in this game is probably because the engine would not be even near capable to make it look the way it should.

Please note that Battlefield 2 is a multiplayer game, not a singleplayer game. You can throw in all the extreme graphics you want in a singleplayer game, but not in multiplayer. In Far Cry, the singleplayer has all the lighting effects and dense lush forest, but the multiplayer of Far Cry does not have all the eye candy lighting effects nor the same dense forest, otherwise it would be extremely laggy.

You think the Far Cry engine is far superior to the Battlefield 2 Engine? Laughable. First off, the Far Cry engine can barely run in itself. The hit detection is the worst I've ever seen and the lagginess of player movement is mind dumbing. In addition, the Far Cry Engine gets really laggy when you get over the reccomended 16 player limit. Battlefield 2 can handle just fine for up to 64 players, and that includes detailed vehicles and helicopters buzzing around. Not to mention the hit detection in Battlefield 2 is quite comparable to CSS. As a sniper, for example, you don't have to compensate for lag by shooting in the predicted path of the player. You can just shoot the player directly and score a hit.

The weapons in Battlefield 2 are by far the most unique and realistic I have ever seen in any game. What you point at is not necessarily what you will hit. You can't expect to point the sights of an M4 at a target 300 meters away and expect to score hit. Most assault rifles are designed put bullets in the air rather than be accurrate. This is where the sniper class has a major standpoint.

While you wait 15 minutes for your CD key to stop being in use, stop by at a Battlefield 2 server and have some hardcore fun.

One more thing, the pic above is from a desert map. Do you seriously expect to find the most detailed and lush vegetation in a desert?

//swimming underwater? Are you kidding me? In reality, most firearms would be rendered useless due to water damage. Soldiers aren't scuba divers, welcome to realism.

I'm going to have to agree with aprax and MooShoePork on this issue. I absolutely love BF2, just because a game might have a bit better graphics doesn't mean its a better game. In the past 3 days I have about 30 hours of gaming in for BF2, its quite addictive. The only thing I cared really about this game, was the netcode, and well BF2 has excellent netcode, infact I've played several 64 people servers and there was little to no lag what-so-ever.

If you think the BF2 engine isn't capable of anything the FC engine can do, wait and see, I really think you will be in for a shock.

quote:

You think the Far Cry engine is far superior to the Battlefield 2 Engine? Laughable. First off, the Far Cry engine can barely run in itself. The hit detection is the worst I've ever seen and the lagginess of player movement is mind dumbing

Have no idea what your talkin about there,and the tree's were just an example!!Quite obvious they all look the same no matter what map your on.I much prefer gameplay over realism when it comes to aiming,shooting etc.When I'm in a copter aiming a rockit or whatever I definitely want it to strike where I aim.

quote:

Originally posted by marts123:
Have no idea what your talkin about there,and the tree's were just an example!!Quite obvious they all look the same no matter what map your on.I much prefer gameplay over realism when it comes to aiming,shooting etc.When I'm in a copter aiming a rockit or whatever I definitely want it to strike where I aim.

And yet you people say that BF2 is too arcady? Just proofread your post

I'm with aprax though: He's already a legend and he's only made 1 post. Kudos, bud

And I would guess you have the same tech problem's as he does with fc.I myself will definitely continue playing both full games of fc and bf2.Fc I can play with none of the problem's mentioned here with fc.Even tho i'm on higher setting's in bf2 the general feeling of realism is much more evident in fc.

This word, realism, I don't think you know what it means.

While your comparison of the FC engine to the BF2 engine was laughable, now you're just being difficult.

Far Cry is extremely far from realistic. If anything, Far Cry is a true arcade shooter like many other first-person-shooter games such as Counter-Srike Source. The weapon are in no way characteristic of how they are in real life. In Far Cry, the M249 is way too stable and accurate. The M249 is not an assault weapon, as it is treated in Far Cry, it is a support weapon, designed to shoot out lots of bullets to provide cover fire. There is no way in heck you could even be close to accurate firing an M249 while standing and running around as is a common characteristic in Far Cry Multiplayer. The only suitable way to fire an M249 decently is in the prone position with a supporting tripod. Battlefield 2 treats the M249 and other heavy support weapons as they should be

Another example is the M4 in Far Cry. The M4 by definition is an assault rifle. I've been able to hit targets with the single-shot fire mode on the M4 that were over 800 meters away in Far Cry measurement. Realisticly, the accuracy of any weapon is not increased by using different fire modes, and it should be next to impossible to hit targets that far away with almost any assault rifle, as the bullet would lose most of its velocity at that distance.

Despite the fact that the AG-36, OICW, M4, and M249 use the same ammunition by Far Cry definition, each rifle does a unique amount of damage bullet-wise. How is that even possible when they all use the same cartridge? Arcade-style warfare at its best.

While Far Cry is very arcade-like in its weaponry, its damage models are also very far from realistic. While most games, including Battlefield 2, don't go by the 1 shot one kill basis, Far Cry is off on the extreme end. It should not take four up-close shotgun rounds to the head to kill someone. It takes a ridiculous amount of ammunition of any weapon type to take down players. A .50 caliber round to any part of the body would be an instant kill, (as well as a few missing limbs). Even other arcade-like shooters like CSS go for "headshot=instant death" rule.

You complain about Battlefield 2 arcady while having previously complaining about the inaccuracy of the helicopters? Perhaps a few lessons in physics should teach you how rocket trajectory is affected by air resistance and movement from the source object. While also being realistic, it also helps balance the helicopters with other elements in the game. An extremely accurate rocket-shooting helicopter would make it into a "uber-weapon" like the imaginary semi-automatic rocket launcher is in Far Cry.

Battlefield 2 does not have any of these informalities, it is by far one of the most realistic tactical shooters that has come to date.

I wasn't talkin about the way the weapons work concerning realism obviously!!!Again I see more tech. problem's with your rig when it comes to fc.A few thing's you have said just are not right,not even close.Play fc on a half decent machine and see the difference.Again I find gameplay much more fun when the gun's are 'unrealistic',as you put it.I'd much rather the rockit's deliver less damage and be more accurate on those heli's in bf2.

I feel that my computer was fairly decent for playing Far Cry, while almost 9 months old, my rig has a 3.4 ghz Pentium Processor, a Geforce 6800 Ultra 256 MB, and 2 gigs of 400 mhz dual-channel RAM. While these components aren't the newest top of the line equipment, this setup proved more than enough to play Far Cry at the highest settings.

Second off, I have been playing Far Cry since around March of last year. I have become very proficient in the multiplayer segment of Far Cry, usually placing with the highest scores in games hosted by clan servers. (some players may remember me as "ASDF", each letter a different color)

My viewpoints of Far Cry and BF2 is simply that, an opinion, and I respect your views to the contrary. How you prefer first-person shooters is your business, and I feel that it isn't my place to intrude on what kind of gaming you prefer. Reading previous posts in this thread, I felt some of the comments about BF2 were blatantly wrong and needed to be addressed (no graphics improvement? Give me a break!)