BF2 full version?

Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

Well, were are all the reviews from the full version owners?
I was expecting to see a lot of comments about it by now.
8 answers Last reply
More about full version
  1. Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

    On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:47:15 -0700, "Lou" <NospamLou@nospam.net>
    wrote:

    >Well, were are all the reviews from the full version owners?
    >I was expecting to see a lot of comments about it by now.
    >

    Pretty cool....a lot laggier than I remember 1942 being, but a lot
    more playable than 1942 was at its inception.

    Sniper rifles are undermagged and underpowered. Especially the MEC
    rifles. You don't so much as snipe with them as shoot several times at
    someone from a distance.

    US weapons 'seem' to be more pwerful than their counterparts.

    That's really all the complaining i have for it.
  2. Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

    In article <4s9pb1pfoiir5ej0dn1ls5j7qbao71l8kl@4ax.com>, me@key.com
    says...
    > US weapons 'seem' to be more pwerful than their counterparts.
    >


    i've seen the damage chart, everything is pretty well even, except the
    ak-101, which is more powerful than the u.s. counterpart.


    /CF

    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  3. Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

    On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 02:26:00 -0400, Colonel_Flagg
    <colonel_flagg@NOSOUPFORJ00-internetwarzone.org> wrote:

    >In article <4s9pb1pfoiir5ej0dn1ls5j7qbao71l8kl@4ax.com>, me@key.com
    >says...
    >> US weapons 'seem' to be more pwerful than their counterparts.
    >>
    >
    >
    >i've seen the damage chart, everything is pretty well even, except the
    >ak-101, which is more powerful than the u.s. counterpart.
    >
    >
    >/CF
    >
    >----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    >http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    >----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

    So they say.
  4. Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

    In article <mjvpb15uj9e8jhb2lie7vre43lpma6in2r@4ax.com>, me@key.com
    says...
    > On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 02:26:00 -0400, Colonel_Flagg
    > <colonel_flagg@NOSOUPFORJ00-internetwarzone.org> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <4s9pb1pfoiir5ej0dn1ls5j7qbao71l8kl@4ax.com>, me@key.com
    > >says...
    > >> US weapons 'seem' to be more pwerful than their counterparts.
    > >>
    > >
    > >
    > >i've seen the damage chart, everything is pretty well even, except the
    > >ak-101, which is more powerful than the u.s. counterpart.
    > >
    > >
    > >/CF
    > >
    > >----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    > >http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    > >----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
    >
    > So they say.]


    hell, it's an easy thing to test, i usually do it with every new
    game/mod i play.

    you and a friend get in teamspeak, go to an empty server and try out
    each weapon on each other in a "test" mode. get near a medic cabinet, in
    this case, you'll both need to be commanders to drop supply boxes, lay
    down and shoot each other in the head at different distances. count the
    number of "bars" in your health-meter to determine how much damage the
    weapon inflicts.

    we've already done this for sniper rifle accuracy, which doesn't change,
    over long distances.

    we've also done this on empty m1a2 tanks with a u.s. a/t weapon. 2 shots
    from rear, i think it was 3 from the side/tracks and 4 from the front.
    (empty). if it's like bf:42, when the tank is occupied, it should take
    more shots to kill it. empty vehicles in vanilla/42 were easier to kill
    (except the light tanks, which we all know are one-shot-kills from the
    rear and down the escape hatch).


    /CF
    >

    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  5. Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

    >
    >hell, it's an easy thing to test, i usually do it with every new
    >game/mod i play.
    >
    >you and a friend get in teamspeak, go to an empty server and try out
    >each weapon on each other in a "test" mode. get near a medic cabinet, in
    >this case, you'll both need to be commanders to drop supply boxes, lay
    >down and shoot each other in the head at different distances. count the
    >number of "bars" in your health-meter to determine how much damage the
    >weapon inflicts.
    >
    >we've already done this for sniper rifle accuracy, which doesn't change,
    >over long distances.
    >
    >we've also done this on empty m1a2 tanks with a u.s. a/t weapon. 2 shots
    >from rear, i think it was 3 from the side/tracks and 4 from the front.
    >(empty). if it's like bf:42, when the tank is occupied, it should take
    >more shots to kill it. empty vehicles in vanilla/42 were easier to kill
    >(except the light tanks, which we all know are one-shot-kills from the
    >rear and down the escape hatch).
    >
    >
    >

    What kind of results did you get from sniper rifles?

    In the field the MEC rifle doesn't have crosshairs, has a quicker
    reload time, and sometimes took me 3(!) shots to bring a guy down.

    The M24 seems to be more powerful and has crosshairs of course.

    Both seem to be on a par with 1942 as far as hitting moving targets
    go.
  6. Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

    Lou wrote:
    > Well, were are all the reviews from the full version owners?
    > I was expecting to see a lot of comments about it by now.
    >
    >

    http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/battlefield2

    Here you go, 11 reviews so far, average grade 91 out of 100.

    regards,

    Achtung Ecco
  7. Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

    "Achtung Ecco" <nospam@spam.no> wrote in message
    news:42bd5ffa$0$67260$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk...
    > Lou wrote:
    >> Well, were are all the reviews from the full version owners?
    >> I was expecting to see a lot of comments about it by now.
    >>
    >>
    >
    > http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/battlefield2
    >
    > Here you go, 11 reviews so far, average grade 91 out of 100.
    >
    > regards,
    >
    > Achtung Ecco

    Thanks. However I don't usually go by what the game review sites and
    magazines say anymore. I do see there are several "user" reviews that
    average an 8.3 score. I realize there are some reviews that just say
    "Awesome!.Get it!" but there are also some others reporting on some of the
    problems of the game.

    Seems most the posts here say its a fun game to play, but still has a few
    issues and could use some patches.

    Lou
  8. Archived from groups: alt.games.battlefield1942 (More info?)

    In article <hk4qb152nrfoahstqc6in7pt03oibhvtug@4ax.com>, me@key.com
    says...
    >
    > >
    > >hell, it's an easy thing to test, i usually do it with every new
    > >game/mod i play.
    > >
    > >you and a friend get in teamspeak, go to an empty server and try out
    > >each weapon on each other in a "test" mode. get near a medic cabinet, in
    > >this case, you'll both need to be commanders to drop supply boxes, lay
    > >down and shoot each other in the head at different distances. count the
    > >number of "bars" in your health-meter to determine how much damage the
    > >weapon inflicts.
    > >
    > >we've already done this for sniper rifle accuracy, which doesn't change,
    > >over long distances.
    > >
    > >we've also done this on empty m1a2 tanks with a u.s. a/t weapon. 2 shots
    > >from rear, i think it was 3 from the side/tracks and 4 from the front.
    > >(empty). if it's like bf:42, when the tank is occupied, it should take
    > >more shots to kill it. empty vehicles in vanilla/42 were easier to kill
    > >(except the light tanks, which we all know are one-shot-kills from the
    > >rear and down the escape hatch).
    > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    > What kind of results did you get from sniper rifles?
    >
    > In the field the MEC rifle doesn't have crosshairs, has a quicker
    > reload time, and sometimes took me 3(!) shots to bring a guy down.
    >
    > The M24 seems to be more powerful and has crosshairs of course.
    >
    > Both seem to be on a par with 1942 as far as hitting moving targets
    > go.
    >


    we haven't tested power yet, we tested accuracy, which both are the
    same, at distance. no deviation at distance, which is what we were
    worried about. we assumed it would drift with windage, etc. but it
    doesn't. (either).


    /CF

    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Ask a new question

Read More

Reviews Games Video Games