Battlefield

fatsheep

I used to play Battlefield 1942 and remember it being a really fun game. However, one of the disks got scratched a while back so I stopped playing it. I was considering buying it again but then I remembered I heard good things about Battlefield 2, the sequel, so I might just get that instead.

My only worry is that my computer might not be up to the task of running Battlefield 2 well (atleast not as well as it can run 1942). Here are my specs:

AMD 64 3000+ (1.8 Ghz)
1 Gb RAM (could up this to 2 Gb soon)
Nvidia 6600 GT (128 mb)

Given that and the fact that I don't want to spend much money. Would you advise me to go with option A:

Battlefield 2 for $8 + shipping

or B:

Battlefield 1942 with all the expansions for $10 + shipping

Or something else?

QCH

BF2 SHOULD run fine on your specs. I like both of them but for different reasons.

fatsheep

QCH2002 wrote:

BF2 SHOULD run fine on your specs. I like both of them but for different reasons.

Mind expanding on that last sentence? (just curious)

Also, I meant to post this under Gaming not software...

Gate28

Personally, I think BF2 is the best in the series. I like it a lot because of the ranks and upgrades, which add to the replay value. I like BF2142 because WW2 is classic, and it's the only MMOFPS to do it right. Vietnam was good too. There needs to be more Nam games.... The new one, 2142, is alright. It's good because it significantly expands on the ranking and rewards systems in BF2 and adds a new game mode called Titan, but I think it's the worst in the series because of bad servers, the lack of support the game has from EA, and some balancing issues.

QCH

BF:1942 was cool for exactly the reasons Gate28 listed. BF2 was visually better, planes and helos flew better, and the overall gameplay was much better. If I had to choose... BF2.