BF:V or 1942

Phoenix86

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 28, 2002
Messages
6,653
OK, I tried to get my group of friends into 1942 when it came out, but that didn't happen. Now, for some reason, they are interested in it. With what I read when it first came out BF:V is poo.

Because I know it's important, our machines average about a XP 2000+, 9500 pro and 512 ram.

So my questions...

When it came out I read a million threads with various issues, most saying 'wait for the patch.' Did this patch come out? Is BF:V 'fixed' or still waiting for 'another patch'?

*IF* it is patched which is better with the current mods like DC available? Are there good mods for BF:V? Coming shortly?
 
I would say bf1942, BF:V just dosn't hold my interest unless im playing it with a group of people I know. DC is loads of fun, and not to mention bf1942 is cheaper now.
 
I bought BFV the day it came out. I was thoroughly disapointed with the game at first and I vowed not to play it again until a patch came out. I think most of the problem with my first experience with it was God awful spawn camping and just getting used to it. To find snipers, you will have have to look very closely unlike in 1942. The first patch evened out the game a little and the second maybe made a marginal difference with the frame rate. I played it a few times on the weekend and I think I am getting used to it now. I have not played 1942 for several months now but I still think that game is great too. I guess the difference is that in BFV, you have to fight with more strategy since it is all out guerrilla warfare and BF1942 is more of a run and gun game. Either one is great so take your pick.

To sum it up.

BFV takes massive horsepower and I wish I could run it higher than 800x600x32 with decent frame rates. So it sucks in that respect. 1942 runs a lot smoother.

BFV has a really cool weapon. The SA7 shoulder fired heat-seeking missle. It is not very powerful but it totally kicks ass for taking down helos.
 
ya i would get 1942 just because of the vehicles are so much better and the game just feels more fun...

-warsaw
 
I dont know why everyone bitches and moans about BFV, saying there are so many bugs, this and that. I think people are just blowing things way out of proportion.

Yes, BFV has a few bugs and tweaks that need to be done. For starters, the M60 (Is that the gun?) was way overpowered - a patch has since been released to fix that.

A second bug is that you can't see enemy rockets from helicoptors for some reason. No biggie IMO.

Third bug the game will crash to the desktop... I play the game on a daily basis and maybe once a week it'll crash. I'm not going to bitch over that though because I have more enjoyment through playing it than the miniscule 45 seconds wasted for starting the game again.

Other than those three, I don't see anything else wrong.

To break it down between 1942 and BFV, I enjoy BFV more because it has more intense close-combat fighting (jungle warfare) and the vehicles are awesome - helicoptors alone make it worth its bread and butter. You also get to listen to classic 70's tunes in vehicles.

For 1942, you don't get much for close-combat fighting, and really all that's left are planes and ships - if you're a 1942 veteran you'll know that ships are boring as hell. Most people never drive them anyways... they just spawn on a carrier and wait for planes all day.
 
At my LANs BF:V holds interest for about 3 maps... then it's BF 1942, DC, and we get some forgotten hope in there as well. The way we play, BF / DC is better - we're all a bunch of teamkillin F*tards anyway and tend to end up doing goofy crap like tank flipping, seeing who can take someone out in the most amusizing way possible - stuff we call The Flying Circus.

BF:V runs okay on most machines, those of us with 1GB of ram have little if any issues with the game running GF4's up to 9800XTs - the last patch 1.02 seems to have resolved some networking issues, but the dedicated server has new issues.. :(

I'd say BF 1942 is the more played one -
 
Back
Top