Battlefield Vietnam

Um, Lowman, you havnt actually played either, from what ive gathered.

i totally gave up on EA after they released 2 terrible patches in a row, Atari and Digital Extremes i have massive faith in, theya re always releasing addons and bonus packs and the UT community imo is far more hardcore than casual BF players, you dont see very many BF clans now do you

To be fair, both are good games, but in the long run UT2004 will come out on top, EA have released to little to late, what BF:V has done hasnt revolutionised anything, UT2004 has so many features to keep you interested, The game engine is imo the best engine for any game atm, its stable, offers superb graphics and unlimited moddability, the BF engine is aging, pretty unstable (lots of people have problems running the game) and it doesnt come with any program to create your own maps, you have to download it.

UT2004 has inbuilt team communication via headset, its got Text-To-Speech, 10 game modes, 100 maps, comes with UnrealEd, its extremely scaleable, loads much faster than BF. and the best thing of all is its played by people who work well in a team and isnt populated by LAMERS, N00BS, or my pet hate TEAM KILLERS :evil:

Um...DOM - that's why prefaced what I said with "from what I have seen so far"...and going by how much people love BOTH games...that is all. To each his own - I'm not disagreeing with anybody, I am simply offering my take on the subjectiveness of game reviews - something I know a thing or two about. Once again, games are supposed to be fun...if you love it, have at it. Doesn't matter much what anyone else thinks of the game if you are enjoying yourself.

yer, but i think there is a set forumla for reviewing games, I think about 80/90% of gamers crave the same things, and the other percentage of gamers are very much purists or like specialised games, every review magazine i read (PC Gamer / PC Zone) i agree with, you get the odd person writting in saying they dont agree, but those people tend to play Role Play Games all of my friends who read these mags agree with the reviews, if it were true that there were vast groups of people who all wanted different things from a game there would be an aweful lot more genres of games, but quite frankly there are only really a few main types of game;

First Person Shooter
Racing Game
MMORPG's / RPG's
Simulations
Turn Based / Real Time Strategy

those 5 are really what makes up the game industry, theres the odd oddball game which gets through which becomes a success (like Uplink or The Sims) but i'd day that 40% of all games that are released are first person shooters and if PCG is anything to go by, about 50% are Strategy games.

Edit : Add Sports games to that list, saying that tho, they tend to be exactly the same game but with a year added onto the title; Fifa 1999 / 2000 / 2001 / 2002 / 2003 / 2004 - Um, only slight changes with each release, so i dunno if Sports games are really that big a genre

All very valid points made by a hardcore gamer...but my only point in all of this, is that if Vassil3427, for example, gets more enjoyment out of BF:V, and thinks it's a much cooler game, then it doesn't really matter is his case, what any of the reviews said...and the same could be said in your defense if the reviews put BF:V slightly ahead of UT2004...to each his own...

yer, but im willing to put my neck on the line here, im pretty sure that a lot of you havnt played it yet, ive played both, im in the position to criticise both games, and i bet, if you all went out and bought UT2004 now (yes, that means you lowman) you would think it was a much better game, all of you go and buy it now, if you dont like it (extremely unlikely) just take it back and say you bought it for a friend for his birthday but he has already got it (thats my line btw, so dont steal it word for word ) Im 100% sure you will prefer it over BF:V, any BF infact, even my old flame Desert Combat.

and dont use the "I cant afford it" excuse, your all computer engineers and technicians *looks at lowman* so you all earn loads, lowman can send his servant to buy it for him, im sure the rest of you can too :grinthumb

Note : My Next Post will be my 100th!!!

I wouldnt prefer any game over Battlefield 1942 or Vietnam. Especially a game like Unreal. Sorry dude.

fair enough, but actually Play UT2004 before you take preference, if your thinking its anything like the original UT, you'd be wrong, if you think its exactly like UT2003 (which a lot do) you'd also be wrong, they have completely rehauled the physics engine, added the new gametypes Including Onslaugh which is prolly the equivlent to BF conquest (but better )

The only thing which is the same is the graphics and weapons (apart form the addition of a few new weapons) add to that all the excellent features like Voice overnet and text-to-speech and you have yourself one kickass game.

woo, that was my 100th post /\

I spose you prefer BF/DC coz of you the feeling of freedom, go anywhere, do anything, and you dont enounter a lot of man on man action in BF, you have massive advantage too if you favour one vehicle over another, in UT04 Onslaught, every vehicle is equal to another, a Goliath tank is equally as likely to take out a Hellbender truck as a hellbender truck is to kill a Goliath etc, plus there isnt any class of people, you arent bound to only sniping if you choose to snipe people like you are if you choose a scout in BF, your not bound to becoming a medic like in BF, if you wanna heal someone or something, you just select your link gun, i like that fact.

The only area i think BF beats UT is the sheer vastness of the maps, it takes aprox 15 minutes to run from on corner of El Alemain to the other (that is offcourse if you dont get TK'd) i thought that was both its strength and its downfall, if you got shot down in a plane or something and you were stranded right in the middle of somewhere you miss out on the action completely, and as for "Requesting a pickup"...........yeah right, too many dumb or ignorant people imo, they play for the good of themselves and not for the good of the team because they dont HAVE to because of the freedom your given, with UT04 you have your freedom in Onslaught maps, theyre pretty big, but your never to far away from a vehicle to get in and get back into the action, Digital Extremes have surpassed the original UT imo after a bit of a flop with UT2003

That is what makes the game realistic. You dont have all these advantages that you talk about in real life. There's nothing fun about unrealistic games.

That's exactly the point I was going to bring up. The Battlefield series was masterful because it combined games like Rainbow Six with games like Unreal Tournament, it's both realistic and has an arcade game FPS sense to it. The difference between Battlefield and Unreal Tournament is that there is strategy in Battlefield, which makes it so much more immersive than games like Quake and Unreal. But, it's not as strategic as an RTS or something, that's why it's so good. It can be played either way, full-blown strategizing or just run-around-and-shoot-everyone-you-can madness. I'm not saying that's bad, but Battlefield will sure stay on my machine alot longer than games like Unreal. I still have 1942 installed, as well as Vietnam. I still like UT though, I'm gonna get it soon, it's fun while it lasts but it gets really old really fast.

And the statement about Battlefield not coming with a map editor is completely false. Battlecraft Vietnam is included with Battlefield Vietnam, as well as a Mod tool and a couple other things that I can't remember.

I'm afraid UT2004, along with that entire series seems so pointless to me...I mean you run around shooting each other...there's really no point or strategy..its just chaos...

I would much rather play BF Vietnam!

I've played UT2004 and the vehicles didn't seem all that useful. They didn't seem to have that much armor in comparison to a player. There seem to be two schools of FPS. One is the realism/strategic school and the other is the mad frantic fragfest school. To be honest I had fun playing a little of the original UT and Quake3 was fun for a while but a lot of the time in a fight in Quake/UT etc. it comes down to who has the biggest weapon and who manages to run over the most health packs. I much preferred the Counter Strike gameplay where you can stealthily creep round a map with 1 hps left and take out 5 enemies. I can't put my finger exactly on what makes this type of play more appealing to me but it is. BF falls in between the two but is closer to the first school of FPS.

I'm in agreement there - being a SOCOM I and II addict (and a veteran), I just can't get enough of those military style games...I do like Unrealing once in a while, and I think the idea of the iGib matches (no health, no other weapons, one shot and you're dead) level the playing field as far as playing online...but my PERSONAL preference is more in line with the military tactics style games...and as Vehementi said above - having the options of going full throttle and slaughtering everything you see, or spending 2 hours creeping 100 meters with a bit of health left to take out 4 or 5 enemies...to me, that's a challenge and satisfying...I haven't played BF: Vietnam yet, but it looks awesome, and is at the top of my list to buy next...

So are there any former Tribes/Tribes 2 enthusiasts here and who's waiting in the wings for Vengeance?

Tribes 2

I played Tribes 2 a few times Masque - but it was one of those situations where a buddy of mine had it, and I was immersed in several other games of my own at the time - and I never got around to picking it up for myself. Definitely cool though, from the few times I played it...any major improvments to the game\gameplay in Vengeance?

Not sure but I hear they're using a whole new engine for it. I played both religiously but things waned for awhile once the script-kiddies started taking the game over. I am curious to see just how well they do with Vengeance. I guess I'll wait and see. For now BF '42 has got my attention with a touch of Call Of Duty.

Sounds like a well rounded selection of games you have on your plate currently Masque...I'm definitely picking up BF '42 and BF: Vietnam soon...but I REALLY have to get my new gaming system built first...I was going to wait until the nextgen vid cards come out, but I'll go ahead and by one of the best cards I can for now , and then I'll just put it in one of my older machines when the new one's come out...

PS...I started reading the lowdown on Sierra's site about Tribes: Vengeance, and it looks like it could be a pretty cool game...I'll have to check it out when it's released...

Well I got Vietnam.... all around I perferr Desert Combat.

The heli's in Vietnam suck, guns are way over powered.. its got lots of good improvments that needed to be done, and the maps+style of gameplay has a different twist to it.

Perhaps I'll have to add Desert Combat to my list as well Agissi...how would you compare the gameplay between both of them? Anyting that Vietnam is better at than Desert Combat? Most of the posts I've read are from people who play both...