Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/21/2005 1:12:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2005 1:48:14 PM EDT by BeetleBailey]
Let me just preface that by saying that IMHO, COD1 was the best WWII single player FPS to date, even having played the Brother in Arms & MOH series.

BF2 is out of the question, since I need ~$200 in PC upgrades to play it. (AGP, ram, etc)
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 1:44:17 PM EDT
for console? PS2?

It's a fun shooter, but you'll blow through the game FAST. I havent timed myself, but I got through it within a weekend. Even on "HARD" setting, I can get through the levels pretty easily.

It's worth a rental. The online is OK...sound is AWESOME though.

I can't comment on any other versions besides PS2.

oh yeah, you play as an American the entire time. The BAR is awesome...the thompson sights are better...but I still used the MP40 the most.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 1:48:46 PM EDT
sorry- for PC. This would mean consistent multi-play would be a selling point for me too.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 4:27:11 PM EDT
I think it was worth it. Very good game.

The fact that I thought it was good enough to buy a second copy for xbox360 says something
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 8:17:58 PM EDT
if you could play COD2 y not BF2???


i didnt think there was much difference as far as stressing components
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 12:06:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PsyKo:
if you could play COD2 y not BF2???


i didnt think there was much difference as far as stressing components



Well, Call of Duty 2 and Battlefield 2 are different sorts of games, with different graphics engines.

The maps on BF2 are monsterous compared to COD2, and there is also tracking all the multiplayer action. Takes a little more RAM, CPU, and Graphics horsepower for some of that stuff.

Also, Call of Duty 2 isnt an EA game, which means that the people who coded it actually had talent.
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 7:43:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By adair_usmc:

Originally Posted By PsyKo:
if you could play COD2 y not BF2???


i didnt think there was much difference as far as stressing components



Well, Call of Duty 2 and Battlefield 2 are different sorts of games, with different graphics engines.

The maps on BF2 are monsterous compared to COD2, and there is also tracking all the multiplayer action. Takes a little more RAM, CPU, and Graphics horsepower for some of that stuff.

Also, Call of Duty 2 isnt an EA game, which means that the people who coded it actually had talent.





Hilarious. I have STOPPED playing BF2 because of the total bullshit glitches in BF2, the cheaters, and the lack of more maps! I'm so sick of Strike at Karkland and Moshoo City or whatever it is...
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 7:49:53 AM EDT
totally worth it!
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 8:07:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/22/2005 8:09:48 AM EDT by DonD]
If you do not have a dual core AMD processor it may be worth it once punkbuster is added to prevent cheating. There was a recent shut down of servers for a day to protest no plans for a patch to address
the cheats. The single player is good. I would suggest a closer look at Brothers in Arms Earned in blood, much more realistic squad based combat.
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 6:14:30 AM EDT

wow, I didn't think it would be THAT much even better than COD1. These developers amaze me.
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 9:38:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DonD:
I would suggest a closer look at Brothers in Arms Earned in blood, much more realistic squad based combat.




+1 picked it up yesterday, seems alot better than COD2, i think the railed gameplay of COD/COD2 is lame and lacks strategy/drive.


as far as multiplay, ill stick with DODS
Top Top