Battlefield: 1942 vs. Battlefield: Vietnam

[iamshady]

I've searched this forum for some conclusive discussion, but none of the threads really talked about which Battlefield was better. Obviously, 1942 has more mods, bigger maps, and a more established fan base, but will that last in the long run? Vietnam has newer graphics and a tweaked engine, but it doesn't seem as popular (no planned DC mod)... will it die out? Do Vietnam players find themselves going back to 1942 often?

I'm interested in getting one of them. I just started playing CS again and I want to try one of the Battlefield series games. I've done the research, so help me come to a decision!

 

[Maverick]

1942 will live on for a while because of Desert Combat

Personally I wouldn't waste my time with Vietnam, i didn't like it.

 

[edro]

1942 definately. Vietnam was a huge let down... Vietnam is basically a mod of 1942. Desert Combat blows Vietnam out of the water.

 

[GTaudiophile]

I never liked Desert Combat. It's very unbalanced mod, giving a big advantage to the allies. It's also a resource hog.

I'd get BF:1942, simply because it offers the most balanced game play, has been out the longest, and has been refined.

Having said that, I only play BF:V now. It offers slightly faster gameplay and is a sniper's paradise.

 

[spacelord]

I like them both.

 

[DT4K]

1942 is better by far.

I've been playing 1942 since the first demo was released in fall 2002. IMO, it is the best game I've ever played. When BFV came out, I bought it on the first day because I was really excited about it. But I was pretty disappointed. I played it quite a bit for the first few weeks because I kept hoping I would like it more once I had played it more. But after that, I went back to 1942 and haven't played much BFV at all lately.

Overall, I just think 1942 is a better game. It has better balance, better maps, better vehicles, better performance on less than uber elite computers, and is much more stable and less buggy. Not to mention the fact that the first BFV patch made things worse for a lot of people. Personally, I'll give BFV another chance when the next patch comes out.

EDIT: I disagree with GTAudiophile on DC being unbalanced. At certain times, there have been definite balance issues with certain weapons or vehicles being dominating. At one point, the Coalition Blackhawk miniguns had huge splash damage so people would just circle the iraqi base and instantly kill anything that moved. But the most recent version is pretty balanced and I see both sides winning on a regular basis.

 

[xSauronx]

i didnt like either....remotely :/

 

[Stark]

they're the same game, just with different weapons. i haven't had the desire to launch 1942 since buying bfv, but i don't play all that often

 

[SoylentGreen]

Having played BFV I passed up the opportunity to buy it for 19.99 at amazon.

1942 is much better.

I didn't pass on UT2k4 for 19.99 however.

 

[iamshady]

Yea, that's the dilemma I am having.

I am trying to play the BF: 1942 demo, but the damn thing won't even load up (drops me right to desktop). That might be the deciding factor.

Those who own BF: 1942, are the expansion packs a must?

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: iamshady
Yea, that's the dilemma I am having.

I am trying to play the BF: 1942 demo, but the damn thing won't even load up (drops me right to desktop). That might be the deciding factor.

Those who own BF: 1942, are the expansion packs a must?

No. Not many people play the expansions.
I bought Road to Rome and it was a nice change for a couple weeks. Then I went back to playing regular 1942. I played the Secret Weapons demo and wasn't really impressed so I didn't buy it.

Not sure what your issue is with the demo. I never had any problems with it. I know that when 1942 was first released, it was very buggy. People had all kinds of problems including crashing to desktop. Maybe the demo was just never updated so it's still buggy.
I would just buy 1942. It is pretty cheap now and it's well worth it.

I still think it is the best game I've ever played. I came from playing Quake, Rogue Spear, Medal of Honor, and CS. BF adds so much more variety to the basic FPS with all the vehicles you can drive and fly.

 

[suklee]

No, Please don't buy the expansion packs! please. I have both expansion packs and regret buying either one of them :roll:

You're better off with the plethora of free, downloadable mods, eg. (in no particular order) Desert Combat, BG42, 1918, EOD, Forgotten Hope, etc.

 

[Gurck]

Single player any good on these? Or is it basically log on and pwn j00r frendz0rz for the kiddies like ut?

 

[edro]

Single player is multiplayer with bots, just like Quake 3 was.

The bots are stupid, and if you raise the skill, they will pwn you. It's still fun though.

 

[PanzerIV]

Originally posted by: Gurck
Single player any good on these? Or is it basically log on and pwn j00r frendz0rz for the kiddies like ut?

Noooooooo. You do not want to play singleplayer except to practice. The BF series is all about multiplayer gaming.

To the OP BF:1942 is probably your best bet. I have both and play both often but BF:V actually has too much eye candy for me making it hard to see where the hell anybody is, friendly or not. If you like ambushes then BF:V is your game because there are so many good hiding places in the jungle.

 

[iamshady]

Well, I bit the bullet and bought BF:1942 Deluxe for $25 off Amazon. It comes with the original and Road to Rome expansion.

Thanks for the tips and suggestions everyone!

 

[MrCodeDude]

Vietnam sucks.

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I never liked Desert Combat. It's very unbalanced mod, giving a big advantage to the allies.

You must not have played it in a while.

The allies certainly don't have any kind of advantage over the enemy. It's the map that really decides who has the advantage.