In partnership with CBSSports.com
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I'm a WWII addict... the problem is, even with modern graphics, they'll need to find a story they haven't told, which is tough. Not that I wouldn't love to revisit Normandy or Market Garden or Leningrad or Iwo Jima, 'cause trust me I would, but they're all still pretty fresh in my mind. They'd have to REALLY go over the top in those theaters to justify going back. But I'm all for it. Start with North Africa, IMO.
BF 1944 can't be too far off. That is what I'm hoping for after BF4. I'm happy BF4 will be on next gen. 64 players, 60 frames per second, 1080p.... Can't wait. I'm not happy about BF4 because I would prefer either 1944 or 2143, but I'm just glad we get the true Battlefield experience with BF4.
I think they could retell some of the same stories. Especially with the advances in technology.
I really don't care though because I am just concerned with the MP portion. I really want a full fledged 1944.
Yea, if I had to choose I would pick a full 1944 and a DLC 2143. Hopefully both are full games back to back. Would be perfect.
See, as much as we all hate what CoD has become, nothing will ever come close to what the original CoD did for WWII FPS. I was a HUGE MoH:AA player back then, and CoD really turned the whole genre upside down. I must've played that first demo at least 50 times. Still play the game itself, actually.
I won't be looking at COD for a good shooter. I play BO2, only for the arcade shooter feel. Battlefield takes a massive dump on anything COD has come out with in the last 6 years.
I say that because I loved COD4 and thought it was a great game.
That's why I mentioned the CoD titles for the WWII years. They were, far and away, the best of that era. As good as BF1942 was, and it was good and I played it a LOT, the original CoD is the best WWII FPS of all time, IMO. And that's saying a lot, coming not long after MoH:AA.
Imagine the cut scene and facial graphics from Halo 4 in those settings. Love it or hate it, the cut scenes were PHENOMENAL.
As far as MP goes 1942 is far better than any CoD ever released. The CoD MP was pretty bare bones back then.
I heard Halo's cutscenes weren't in engine. I am sure they looked good but I still prefer UC style cutscenes that look like the game.
It wasn't any worse than MoH, and I played the hell out of both. The solid MP combined with a fantastic SP made CoD the best IMO.
For Multiplayer(assuming that is what you are talking about since 1942 didn't have a campaign), 1942 was much better than any COD, and I loved the first 2 COD's. COD3 wasn't that good, IMO. They missed the boat on that one. Jets, Naval Warfare, a lot more players on the map, choppers... It was awesome.
If they weren't in engine, they did a good job masking it. Not the near-realistic looking intro cutscene from the beginning of the game, but the others were still fantastic.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. I LOVED BF:1942. But the original CoD is the best WWII shooter of all time IMO. Second only to MoH:AA with BF:1942 a VERY close 3rd.
Just run and shoot. Same thing over and over. 1942 was a game changer. First game to have all out warfare.
Like I said to MM, agree to disagree. I'll admit that BF1942 had better MP than CoD, but it was the combined MP/SP of CoD that made it the best IMO.
Graphics too good? Didn't like the vehicles? Bullet physics instead of laser bullets? Players feeling like he was actually carrying a gun and gear?
What was "terrible"?
Serious question, as I think BF owns COD in every single aspect of the game.
That is just what I heard. I guess they were talking about the opening scene.
I don't mean to insult, truly, but I wonder if some of y'all's opinions have been blinded by modern day CoD when looking back at the originals. CoD used to be a FANTASTIC title.
It did. COD, COD2, and COD4 were amazing titles. As far as multiplayer goes, BF has always had the upper hand because it is all-out warfare on big maps with more players in objective based game modes.
No offense. People like what they like. Nickelback breaks sales records, and I hate Nickelback. I was just asking, what was so terrible about BF?
And don't forget, COD got its start by copying Battlefield and MOH.
This post was edited by MarineMountie 20 months ago
1942 didn't even have SP so there is no argument there I guess.
I like the older CoD's but have always preferred BF when it comes to MP.
I hate Nickleback, so we're cool, mang.
I wouldn't say CoD really copied all that much from BF1942 back in the day. I really think CoD tried to take on MoH head-on back then. And did a damn fine job IMO.
The early days of BF1942 were pretty rocky, IMO, because they maps were so big but not nearly as many gamers were ready and online for those matches. If we had the same involvement now as we did back then, it would've been legendary. So here's to BF1944.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports