So how does Battlefield 1942 stack up to Call of Duty? I've heard it's a pretty good game, but I was pretty impressed with the overall feel of Call Of Duty. Don't know how it could get any better. Though I've heard the expansion packs are nice.

I don't play online (I'm on dial up), so that aspect is worthless to me.

Anyway, who here has played both? And your thoughts between the two?


Hell, and for that matter, is Medal Of Honor worth playing when stacked up to either of them?

battlefield is more cartoonish compared to call of duty.  however, bf1942 seems more open with bigger maps, and more vehicles and weapons, you see something, you can drive, fly or shoot it..
graphics and gameplay is awsome in COD, tho...

Battlefield 1942 multiplayer is awesome.  Single player is worthless.  Do not buy it only for single player, you'll be disappointed.

Call of Duty is one of the best single player FPS I've ever played.  Multiplayer is ok, nothing great.

I asked pretty much the same question a week ago, and settled on BF 1942.  The one thing that swayed me that way was one posters comment that Call Of Duty was the same each time you played a map, whereas 1942 changed in singleplayer.

1942 is kind of cartoonish in graphics, but I've found it alot of fun. AA guns you have to lead the planes with, bazookas, tanks to jump into, etc... and the AI is semi decent on the enemies, though not as good as a human always.

I'll probably pick up call of duty at some point as well.

BF42 was made to be a multiplayer game. In single player mode you play the same maps against bots with no story line present. Of more interest is Desert Combat(free BF42 mod) which is a modern day Combat of U.S vs. Iraqi forces. Some of the maps take place in cities during day and night missions. The maps are awesome. It is a hoot flying choppers and planes, and driving all types of vehicles.  Not terribly realistic but loads of fun.
Call of Duty would be better for you since you are interested in single player games. After playing multiplayer games all these years I can't get into single player games much anymore.

single player MOH:AA was not bad. The mission through the village with snipers was pretty tough. Most of the other missions I found to be pretty easy.  

go with cod...you will love it

COD

BF42 is like Tribes: a MP-only game with single-player for 'practice'....

However, it's also very playable online with dialup, just stick to the maps with heavy naval/air components, or play artillery on the tank maps... As long as you avoid infantry combat and dogfighting, lag isn't a big deal...

BF single player sucks, but the multi is the best out atm

I like MOH: Frontline for PSII...... Though, I'm just getting into these game!

CoD for single, 1942 for multi

Call of Duty is great for single player. It can be very frustrating on the higher difficulty levels, but so satisfying. I love it. The only thing I dont like is how short the game is.

Multiplayer is quite boring (all team deathmatch, all the time). Everyone is either a sniper or MP40/Thompson. The snipers just camp and everyone else jumps around so snipers cant shoot them.

The nice thing about BF is that you can practice in single-player. If you crank the Enemy AI up, it's pretty challenging.

Another nice thing about BF? [b]It's not about you[/b]. It's about the mission. I haven't played COD yet, but in BF...you're a cog in the gearwork. You're not the one the enemy is hunting, you're not the only focal point in the game. If you're in a group of 3 teammate AI players, and a passel of enemies show up, [b]you won't be their main target[/b]. That, and that alone, drew me to the game.

It's nice knowing you are playing as a team, and not as a bunch of lone gunmen...

I found playing against bots in BF42 that all you have to do is sit back and snipe them. They would never touch me. What is fun is playing with actual players using voice comms such as ventrillo and playing 12 vs. 12. The most intense experience you can have with computer games.