+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 56
Discussion: Counter-Strike Source / Counter-Strike - General Discussion - Battlefield 1942 vs. Counter Strike Source - Since the CSS community is a bit more recent than our battlefield community I wanted
-
04-20-2005, 04:51 PM #1
- Join Date
- Oct 2003
- Location
- Lake Wylie, SC
- Age
- 36
- Posts
- 11,578
Battlefield 1942 vs. Counter Strike Source
Since the CSS community is a bit more recent than our battlefield community I wanted to post this thread here and get everyone's opinion. I'm looking for the things you like / dislike about both Battlefield 1942 (including DC mod) and Counter Strike Source. Along with that, what makes you play one over the other?
I'll start by point out some differences.
1. Size of maps
BF has larger maps than CS.
2. Length of games
CS games tend to be much shorter in duration.
3. Use of vehicles
BF has tanks, planes, helos, boats, etc. CS is infantry based.
4. In-game voice comms.
CS has, BF doesn't.
5. Infantry classes & weapons.
In BF you select the class (preset weapons). In CS you purchase your weapons.
6. Objective based play.
CS has hostage rescue, bomb plant / defuse. BF has flag capture & hold, push maps, destruction maps.
7. Respawn vs. Die once.
CS you die and wait. BF you can respawn and rejoin the battle.
These are just a few to get us started. What else is there? Remember, each of those points can make someone lean towards one game or the other. For example, if you like the quick infantry based games you might prefer that part of CSS.
I'm not trying to debate which game is better (we all know BF is).
I just want to see what people look for in a game. I know there are other games / mods out there, but let's just start with these two.
-
04-20-2005, 04:55 PM #2
- Join Date
- May 2003
- Location
- Memphis, TN
- Posts
- 14,267
Re: Battlefield 1942 vs. Counter Strike Source
Last night, when I was playing BF for the first time since CSS was released, I asked Apophis: "How does CSS survive while competing with an offering like this?"
I want DEPTH in a game, and BF offers far more of it. I don't even know how MUCH yet, but I know it's MORE, which is good.Steam Community? Add me. | Join #tacticalgamer | Search Results Legend | New Posts Forum Filter | Postbox Toggle | Live Thread Review | One Line Results | Free Remote, Encrypted Backup
Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Zephyr: Apophis is clearly a highly sophisticated self-aware AI construct that runs on a highly modified toaster oven in Wyzcrak's basement.
-
04-20-2005, 05:14 PM #3
Re: Battlefield 1942 vs. Counter Strike Source
I enjoy the flexibility in a teams overall strategy with the larger maps. In CS your strategy consists of VERY limited tactics that tend to become very repetitive very quickly. In BF:DC the wide open maps allow for more varied tactics in taking over a flag or defense of a flag which enhances the teams overall strategic plan.
Originally Posted by asch
I don't see any positive or negative about this really. When it comes down to it, you get a lot of playtime in both games. Death penaltys in BF:DC delay your respawn a little bit so you want to keep yourself alive, but not to the extent that they do in CS.2. Length of games
CS games tend to be much shorter in duration.
CS has the capacity for vehicles. But vehicle code is very poor and in no way comparable to the vehicle code in BF:DC. BF:DC has infantry based maps with only a coulpe or no vehicles that are primarily inserted for utilitarian use rather than as a combat enabled vehicle.3. Use of vehicles
BF has tanks, planes, helos, boats, etc. CS is infantry based.
In-game comms in CS are of poor quality and often difficult to understand. Points are definitely awarded for having the feature built in though. The integration into the game is nice, as is the automatic separation of teams and living/dead players.4. In-game voice comms.
CS has, BF doesn't.
Why would a counter-terrorist task force be required to buy their own weapons?! That has never made any sense to me. I understand it helps reward the successful execution of a team strategy, but it just seems a bit "odd".5. Infantry classes & weapons.
In BF you select the class (preset weapons). In CS you purchase your weapons.
This is more a difference of overall engine capabilities. If CS had the map size and dynamics of BF:DC, a simple bomb plant/defuse mission would be a big waste of space.6. Objective based play.
CS has hostage rescue, bomb plant / defuse. BF has flag capture & hold, push maps, destruction maps.
See #2.7. Respawn vs. Die once.
CS you die and wait. BF you can respawn and rejoin the battle.
Diplomacy is the art of saying "good doggie" while looking for a bigger stick.
-
04-20-2005, 05:59 PM #4
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Posts
- 433
Re: Battlefield 1942 vs. Counter Strike Source
Both have their merrits, personally, I have yet to play a game i enjoy more than battlefield. The huge maps, the variablity of weapons (tanks, planes, boats, choppers(DC) infantry) and the ebb and flow of the base captures makes battlefield really stand out as an intense, strategic FPS experience. Well, I have done it again, i must now go play.....
-
04-20-2005, 07:05 PM #5
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Location
- Austin, Texas
- Age
- 23
- Posts
- 1,554
Re: Battlefield 1942 vs. Counter Strike Source
Dont you need Road to Rome to download DC? Otherwise I would hook up to the server here.
-
04-20-2005, 07:13 PM #6
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Posts
- 433
Re: Battlefield 1942 vs. Counter Strike Source
No you dont Originally Posted by Karkianman101
-
04-20-2005, 07:21 PM #7
Re: Battlefield 1942 vs. Counter Strike Source
Desert Combat requires only the original Battlefield 1942 game. All of the patches and Desert Combat downloads are available in the TG Downloads area.
Diplomacy is the art of saying "good doggie" while looking for a bigger stick.
-
04-20-2005, 08:43 PM #8
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario
- Age
- 39
- Posts
- 754
Re: Battlefield 1942 vs. Counter Strike Source
Both games have something to offer and I am a huge fan of DC. I agree with all that has already been mentioned in regards to DC. As for CSS....well it just looks so darn good. Not to mention the physics. One thing I did notice since trying to refuel my DC passion is the length of the rounds. Since I have been playing CSS exclusivley since it came out, I forgot that when you sit down for some DC, you are going to be there a while. *Note to self....Bring 2 beers to the desk while playing DC, not 1*
BRING ON BF2!!!
A good man stands up for himself. A great man stands up for others.
-
04-20-2005, 08:52 PM #9
- Join Date
- May 2003
- Location
- Memphis, TN
- Posts
- 14,267
Re: Battlefield 1942 vs. Counter Strike Source
I must admit that the wheelbarrow on lostvillage just stared at me when I shot it with my pistol (it looked threatening.. shut up).
I was expecting it to... fall over... or something.Steam Community? Add me. | Join #tacticalgamer | Search Results Legend | New Posts Forum Filter | Postbox Toggle | Live Thread Review | One Line Results | Free Remote, Encrypted Backup
Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Zephyr: Apophis is clearly a highly sophisticated self-aware AI construct that runs on a highly modified toaster oven in Wyzcrak's basement.
-
04-20-2005, 08:53 PM #10
- Join Date
- May 2003
- Location
- Miami, FL
- Age
- 41
- Posts
- 8,684
Re: Battlefield 1942 vs. Counter Strike Source
I think bf is a more complete game that CS ever will be.. It's far more intense, requires more teamwork, has more variety, etc.
But those things also work against it in comparison to CS..
You can sit down and play CS casually for 30 minutes. You can relax after you die. Sometimes you are in the mood for some mindless fun. CS requires far less players to have a good game.
If we had a larger DC player base here, I would probably play it more than CS. But CSS works for now. If bf2 is a good as advertised, things could get interesting around here.
-- Suits are what you wear when doing things you shouldn’t want to do anyway.
FROM THE TACTICAL GAMER PRIMER.
3) Support game play in a near-simulation environment. Where the focus of play would not be solely on doing what it takes to win, but doing so utilizing real-world combat strategy and tactics rather than leveraging exploits provided to players by the design of the game engine.
-
04-20-2005, 08:58 PM #11
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Location
- Manhattan, New York, United States
- Age
- 33
- Posts
- 10,036
Re: Battlefield 1942 vs. Counter Strike Source
Hey now c'mon, I had a copy of bf1942 in my hands the other day thinking, I can play with TG peeps, but i didn't buy because i need to spend the money on ram, vid card, mobo, and other nice comp upgrade things. :P Plus i figured bf would be a sparodic playing event untill bf2 comes out. Which i'd rather just wait for bf2. Now you guys are all playing bf: DC and i'm pissed! Shoulda got it anyway aye?
ah well, i'll see you all on cs when you wanna get a beat down!
Until BF2!
-
04-20-2005, 09:24 PM #12
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Location
- United States
- Age
- 26
- Posts
- 795
Re: Battlefield 1942 vs. Counter Strike Source
i love css compared to battlefield 1942. only big major problem in css is that the "vehicle-driving" engine is still unstable. that's my only complaint, other than that, it's all about the css.
-
04-20-2005, 10:02 PM #13
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Location
- Connecticut
- Posts
- 253
Re: Battlefield 1942 vs. Counter Strike Source
I got it... and am trying to figure it out offline... so far I suck... the dynamics are so much better in CS... but love moving from place to place and working on a long term objective in BF.. I won't be around for DC for a little while yet... (not ready for Prime Time) Originally Posted by Vulcan
-
04-20-2005, 11:41 PM #14
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Location
- TN
- Age
- 25
- Posts
- 794
Re: Battlefield 1942 vs. Counter Strike Source
BF's only problem is the team work. I can never catch the team planning. Normally, you just kill people all day. I'm sure it's different in TG, of course, but not that I've seen without TG'rs playing.
I always get lost in the maps. I'll admit, I can fly the PISS out of the big bomber in BF1942. I enjoy flying the planes, it's fun. The faster ones are harder to control, as I am using a keyboard and mouse to play everything I play. Joysticks confuse me.
Wyz made a good comment. CSS has movables. BF1942 doesn't. If it's not playable, it's not moveable.
My 2 cents.
-MomYer Mom /O>
To all but me is the look given but never received. My heart sinks faster and faster every time I look into them, yet I do not understand their controling power on my soul. - W11114m W45h1n670n
-
04-20-2005, 11:57 PM #15
- Join Date
- May 2003
- Location
- Dallas/Ft. Worth area of Texas, USA
- Age
- 37
- Posts
- 18,761
Re: Battlefield 1942 vs. Counter Strike Source
This sums it up for me... CS is really such a simple, repetitive game. The gameplay is extremely limited by the engine. Sure, it looks nice and you can shoot barrels, but that doesn't do it for me... Originally Posted by Tempus
Become a supporting member!
Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:
Reply With Quote
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
Bookmarks