BAttlefield Vietnam vs. Joint Operations- which would you buy?

GuyuteGuyute Gamehenge
edited August 2004 in Gaming
Hey all,

Looking for some opinions- I will buy one of the two in the next few days, but I don't want to buy both at the same time. They are both the same price, and I think they need similar system specs. Has anyone out there played both? Which one do you prefer? My ISP lags a bit due to me being in Nova Scotia, if that makes a diff.


Thanks.

Comments

  • R4--N_M4l-3RR4--N_M4l-3R
    edited July 2004
    If lag is a problem, neither engine is very net friendly. I have played both of these games, and I would not recommend either one to anyone. Joint Ops is a lagfest using a dated engine with poor netcode and the worst vehicle physics ever seen in a videogame that didn't have a bandicoot in it. Battlefield Vietnam, is just more of bf1942. Seriously, its the same engine with NO new features. BF games arent supposed to be realistic, so i can't fault it there, but it isnt really fun either. If you want a FPS with vehicles for the same price as those two, I would recommend Halo for PC and unreal tournament 2004. Joint Ops has a demo available, so you may want to download it and give it a try, to see what you think, because maybe i'm just an anal grog... BFV has no demo yet but soon, (thats EA for never) there will be one. Try before you buy.
  • deicistdeicist Manchester, UK
    edited July 2004
    Having played BF1942 & vietnam extensively (Check out my clan's pages at www.xdcuk.net if you like that sort of thing) I can tell you there's lots of differences between the two that, whilst not immediately apparent, do make them 2 different games. In fact, a lot of people who love 1942 won't play vietnam and vice versa. Vietnam is a much more hectic experience, everything is more high powered, most classes have Machine guns of some description, the maps don't have non-capturable bases...... all seem to be small differences but they really are noticeable when switching from one game to the other. Oh, the engine is upgraded as well, play on a decent system with all the options turned up and Vietnam looks much better.
  • R4--N_M4l-3RR4--N_M4l-3R
    edited July 2004
    In addition, both are too buggy to be worth your money.
  • deicistdeicist Manchester, UK
    edited July 2004
    That's funny, coz I've been playing Vietnam (and 1942) since the day it came out and haven't noticed any bugs.... there was a balance issue with the engineer kit, but that's been sorted, and there's a couple of other areas that could do with tweaking but there's no actual 'bugs' that I've noticed. Could you be more specific?
  • CycloniteCyclonite Tampa, Florida Icrontian
    edited July 2004
    I own both BF1942 and BFV. I enjoy them both immensely. I also haven't really experienced any bugs.
  • GuyuteGuyute Gamehenge
    edited July 2004
    Good to hear. Thanks for chiming in, all.
    Rainmaker, I actually forgot about UT2K4 until yesterday- noticed it walking into an EB near work...my first netgame was UT, so if this game is improved over the original UT, then it just may jump to the head of the line...surprisingly enough, UT was VERY easy on my poor old system (P4 1.5MHz, 256MB RAM back then, 32MB vid card back then) but the Single-player Unreal's were laggy as hell, even when I dumbed the game down to 800 x600. Unreal II was so laggy I had to stop playing 'cause I couldn't fight- then I downloaded the XMP version, and again, the net game was smooth as silk. Weird. I play BF1942 now and love it, but I am kinda itching to get a new(er) game. It seems like fewer and fewer people are playing BF1942, and I like playing in well-populated games. Being in Nova Scotia, I can't get away from the lag thing...plus, FYI I just noticed on the Joint Ops box that they may decide to charge a fee to play after 30 days- that is a deal-breaker for me. .What originally got me thinking about this game was I saw an interview with one of the developers at Novaworld, and he claimed that they distinctly designed the game to be very UN-laggy...guess that's all relative.

    Funny that you would mention HALO, too. I haven't heard much about it, but it looks cool. Is it still popular?

    on a related note: I know a friend of a friend who is so addicted to Planetside that he almost lost his job, and he works for an ISP- how's that for irony? (But Planetside charges to play, too, I think)
  • R4--N_M4l-3RR4--N_M4l-3R
    edited July 2004
    Cyclonite wrote:
    I own both BF1942 and BFV. I enjoy them both immensely. I also haven't really experienced any bugs.

    I meant JO and BFV are real buggy, JO has so many engine bugs, I won't even get into it, but in BFV, the main bugs are with ATI 9600, 9700, and 9800 pro cards. Using one of these at the high resolution with AA on, causes and nasty crash bug, which despite 2 patches, has yet to be fixed, and led me to give up on the game :rant:
  • R4--N_M4l-3RR4--N_M4l-3R
    edited July 2004
    Guyute wrote:
    I saw an interview with one of the developers at Novaworld, and he claimed that they distinctly designed the game to be very UN-laggy...guess that's all relative.

    Developers always say good things about their games, its called marketing.

    Over 80 players is un-playable, but under that, lag is just and unpleasant surprise.
  • deicistdeicist Manchester, UK
    edited July 2004
    'R4 wrote:
    [N_M4l{3R']I meant JO and BFV are real buggy, JO has so many engine bugs, I won't even get into it, but in BFV, the main bugs are with ATI 9600, 9700, and 9800 pro cards. Using one of these at the high resolution with AA on, causes and nasty crash bug, which despite 2 patches, has yet to be fixed, and led me to give up on the game :rant:

    I have a 9700 pro, no problems with AA at any resolution.... and everyone I know who did have problems before the patch has had no problems since.
  • GHoosdumGHoosdum Icrontian
    edited July 2004
    Guyute wrote:
    Good to hear. Thanks for chiming in, all.
    Rainmaker, I actually forgot about UT2K4 until yesterday- noticed it walking into an EB near work...my first netgame was UT, so if this game is improved over the original UT, then it just may jump to the head of the line...surprisingly enough, UT was VERY easy on my poor old system (P4 1.5MHz, 256MB RAM back then, 32MB vid card back then) but the Single-player Unreal's were laggy as hell, even when I dumbed the game down to 800 x600. Unreal II was so laggy I had to stop playing 'cause I couldn't fight- then I downloaded the XMP version, and again, the net game was smooth as silk. Weird. I play BF1942 now and love it, but I am kinda itching to get a new(er) game. It seems like fewer and fewer people are playing BF1942, and I like playing in well-populated games. Being in Nova Scotia, I can't get away from the lag thing...plus, FYI I just noticed on the Joint Ops box that they may decide to charge a fee to play after 30 days- that is a deal-breaker for me. .What originally got me thinking about this game was I saw an interview with one of the developers at Novaworld, and he claimed that they distinctly designed the game to be very UN-laggy...guess that's all relative.

    Funny that you would mention HALO, too. I haven't heard much about it, but it looks cool. Is it still popular?

    on a related note: I know a friend of a friend who is so addicted to Planetside that he almost lost his job, and he works for an ISP- how's that for irony? (But Planetside charges to play, too, I think)

    UT2K4 plays well on lower-powered systems as well, as long as the graphics options are turned down you should be fine with it. It thrives with more than 512MB of RAM, under that tends to have extra-long load times and a bit of lag. Be careful of your hard drive speed as well. My notebook has a 4200 RPM drive and it takes me about 4x longer than my friends (with lesser spec'd PCs in all other areas) that have 7200RPM drives.
  • NomadNomad A Small Piece of Hell Icrontian
    edited July 2004
    I've never played Joint Operations, but I have Battlefield Vietnam and it's really not worth the buy. It's a lot of fun, but the problem is that online it is extremely sluggish because the netcode is pure crap. Playing the bots is pretty fun, but it gets old and boring fast because they aren't very challenging.
  • GuyuteGuyute Gamehenge
    edited July 2004
    Hey Ghoosdum,

    Good point- I have 512 MB RAM, and a 128MB DDR ATI 9200, and the game is ona 5400 RPM HD; I should be OK. I still love my old riginal UT, but the added playability of using vehicles is a cool development.

    Nomad- thanks for the heads-up. I already suffer from lag because I live in the internet version of the lost city of Sheba- Halifax, NS. Aliant is on strike, and their net speeds already stink. The easier a game is on my system, the less lag issues will effect me. Far Cry was so laggy online that I couldn't play- it felt like the map was being zapped by a slow strobe light...GRRRRR.

    Thanks for the input, all.
  • MohawkMohawk Winchester uk
    edited July 2004
    ive been playing joint ops for about 2 months now (since it came ou) and ther have been lots of patches taht have really helped, there is hardly any lag if you get the right server i much prefer joint ops of vietnam as you work more as a team, and there are more options on what type of game you want to play, thats my opinion anyway
  • BlackHawkBlackHawk Bible music connoisseur There's no place like 127.0.0.1 Icrontian
    edited July 2004
    I would go with both or neither. I don't like the feel of JO and some stuff are way too complicated. The map I played in the beta sucked with the people it had. If you came out in the open, you're dead. Choppers suck too. As for BF:V, feels arcadish compared to BF1942 and the MP isn't that fun either. Maps are more infantry orientaded. Tanks suck and the helicopters feel a bit sluggish. But that could be cause I got used to Desert Combat.
  • GuyuteGuyute Gamehenge
    edited July 2004
    BlackHawk- Maybe BF II will be more up to snuff for you DC-spoiled players. I hated DC at first (because it was a lot tougher as a noob) but it is growing on me. I get 3 times the lag on DC maps than I do on regular BF maps, tho.

    I may just take a chance and buy UT2k4. I also forgot about Call of Duty...wonder if anyone still plyas that game...

    Thanks to all for your ideas.
  • R4--N_M4l-3RR4--N_M4l-3R
    edited July 2004
    I still play it heheh

    has a great fanbase

    mostly mohaa guys who got sick of it

    xp comes out soon for cod
  • BlackHawkBlackHawk Bible music connoisseur There's no place like 127.0.0.1 Icrontian
    edited July 2004
    Guyute wrote:
    BlackHawk- Maybe BF II will be more up to snuff for you DC-spoiled players. I hated DC at first (because it was a lot tougher as a noob) but it is growing on me. I get 3 times the lag on DC maps than I do on regular BF maps, tho.

    I may just take a chance and buy UT2k4. I also forgot about Call of Duty...wonder if anyone still plyas that game...

    Thanks to all for your ideas.
    DC's a real resource hog. You need atleast 768mb to play smoothly. Load times improve alot too.
  • NomadNomad A Small Piece of Hell Icrontian
    edited July 2004
    I'm definately interested in BFII.
  • KingFishKingFish
    edited July 2004
    I think BFII would be a killer game if it's pulled off right. I'm a bit disappointed with BF:V. I like the armament with DC and the fast paced action. I'll get back after this weekend when I buy JO. BF:V does have slow armament and sucky helos. Still haven't found the perfect game although thus far I'd say DC has come the closest. No wonder people are flocking back to it after BF:V has been out a while.

    KF
  • GuyuteGuyute Gamehenge
    edited July 2004
    I like DC too, but the lag kills my flying...I smack into the ground half the time while strafing. If I feel like flying I play BF if I feel like being a ground-pounder I play DC...Thank God for choices.

    And once in a blue moon I go back to Gunbound for an hour hehe.
  • R4--N_M4l-3RR4--N_M4l-3R
    edited August 2004
    Guyute wrote:
    I like DC too, but the lag kills my flying...I smack into the ground half the time while strafing. If I feel like flying I play BF if I feel like being a ground-pounder I play DC...Thank God for choices.

    And once in a blue moon I go back to Gunbound for an hour hehe.

    Gunbound! haha havent played that game in months

    im going to fire it up right now!
  • KingFishKingFish
    edited August 2004
    I bought Joint Ops yesterday and got a few hours of playing time last night. I have to say my first impression is good. As like all new games it'll take a little used to but so far I like. The maps are huge which makes for great combat and feels more wide open, which I thought would be impossible for what was big maps with BF42. It does take quite a bit of time to get from a spawn point to where the action is, which may lead to better choices in combat instead of just running off and getting killed quickly. I wish the vehicles were a bit better although I'm sure the mod community will take care of shortly. I'd have to say that so far it looks like it'll be my BF replacement.

    KF
  • R4--N_M4l-3RR4--N_M4l-3R
    edited August 2004
    KingFish wrote:
    I bought Joint Ops yesterday and got a few hours of playing time last night. I have to say my first impression is good. As like all new games it'll take a little used to but so far I like. The maps are huge which makes for great combat and feels more wide open, which I thought would be impossible for what was big maps with BF42. It does take quite a bit of time to get from a spawn point to where the action is, which may lead to better choices in combat instead of just running off and getting killed quickly. I wish the vehicles were a bit better although I'm sure the mod community will take care of shortly. I'd have to say that so far it looks like it'll be my BF replacement.

    KF

    I'm glad you liked the game, I agree with you about the vehicle physics, they have been patched several times, but still seem to feel poor. In any case, its always good to hear someone likes the game.
  • GuyuteGuyute Gamehenge
    edited August 2004
    The thing about JO is the players per map- nothing suks more than signing onto a BF server that SAYS that there are "48/64 players" and there are actually 12. I want to actually participate in a battle, not watch guys TK because they didn't get a plane...LOL with up to 150 people per server, that oughta be utter mayhem.
  • KingFishKingFish
    edited August 2004
    You'd think so but the vehicles are mainly for transport and are not really offensive weapons like they are in BF. They also spawn rather quickly so I haven't witnessed any TK'ing yet even with all the people.

    KF
Sign In or Register to comment.