Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Battlefield 1942 vs. Counter Strike Source

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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). :icon16: 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.
    |TG-12th| asch
    sigpic

  • #2
    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. | 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.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Battlefield 1942 vs. Counter Strike Source

      Originally posted by asch
      1. Size of maps
      BF has larger maps than CS.
      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.

      2. Length of games
      CS games tend to be much shorter in duration.
      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.

      3. Use of vehicles
      BF has tanks, planes, helos, boats, etc. CS is infantry based.
      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.

      4. In-game voice comms.
      CS has, BF doesn't.
      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.

      5. Infantry classes & weapons.
      In BF you select the class (preset weapons). In CS you purchase your weapons.
      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".

      6. Objective based play.
      CS has hostage rescue, bomb plant / defuse. BF has flag capture & hold, push maps, destruction maps.
      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.

      7. Respawn vs. Die once.
      CS you die and wait. BF you can respawn and rejoin the battle.
      See #2.
      Diplomacy is the art of saying "good doggie" while looking for a bigger stick.

      Comment


      • #4
        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.....

        Comment


        • #5
          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.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Battlefield 1942 vs. Counter Strike Source

            Originally posted by Karkianman101
            Dont you need Road to Rome to download DC? Otherwise I would hook up to the server here.
            No you dont

            Comment


            • #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.

              Comment


              • #8
                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.

                Comment


                • #9
                  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. | 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.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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.

                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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!


                      - -

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Battlefield 1942 vs. Counter Strike Source

                          Originally posted by Vulcan
                          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!
                          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)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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.

                            -Mom
                            Yer 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

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Battlefield 1942 vs. Counter Strike Source

                              Originally posted by Tempus
                              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.
                              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...
                              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:

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X