Ns Still Kicks Bf2's ***
bassport
Join Date: 2004-01-24 Member: 25656Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2004-01-24 Member: 25656Members, Constellation
Comments
pffft...its spam to say ns still kicks bf2's ***
/sevillaugh
I request arguments <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
NS doesn't have snipers.
NS doesn't have anti-tanks.
NS doesn't have 3-hit kill lmgs,it takes more accuracy.
(based on BF2 Demo)
Both are good in their own way. NS is good for scaled-down encounters,while BF2 is good for a larger-scale battle.
NS does have more emphasis on teamwork,BF2 seems to be a random jumble of luck regards that. (one time,a boat dock spawner was ignored for 5 mins+)
I reckon NS is better cos I dispise snipers in any fps game,they ruin it for the rest of us,and I dispise BF compared to NS generally.
But then I also dispise CS compared to NS. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I like it so far (only played the demo).
But I've seen better games like that (COD).
NS doesn't have snipers.
NS doesn't have anti-tanks.
NS doesn't have 3-hit kill lmgs,it takes more accuracy.
(based on BF2 Demo)
Both are good in their own way. NS is good for scaled-down encounters,while BF2 is good for a larger-scale battle.
NS does have more emphasis on teamwork,BF2 seems to be a random jumble of luck regards that. (one time,a boat dock spawner was ignored for 5 mins+)
I reckon NS is better cos I dispise snipers in any fps game,they ruin it for the rest of us,and I dispise BF compared to NS generally.
But then I also dispise CS compared to NS. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
if NS is so great and BF2 sucks so much why does BF2 have about 33,500 with 5793 servers players on and NS has 517 with 182 servers? (I believe that has to be one of the lowest points in its history.)
Rational arguements only, I don't want to hear that the NS community is capable of playing a "better" game as there were more dynamics to worry about in BF1942 then NS, BF2 only adds more dynamic elements.
if NS is so great and BF2 sucks so much why does BF2 have about 33,500 with 5793 servers players on and NS has 517 with 182 servers? (I believe that has to be one of the lowest points in its history.)
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because not everybody conforms to the majority opinion. It's called personal taste. When someone says that they think game X is better than game Y, they aren't saying that everyone should think that way, well not normally anyway.
By the logic you are suggesting the sims is the greatest game ever.
Also I am comparing a tactical FPS with another tactical FPS, not a simulation game vs. an FPS. They are in the same genre hence why the topic is concerning NS vs BF2, and not NS vs the Sims, or WoW for that matter.
NS is free, BF2 costs 50$ USD, why does NS have a significantly less player base than game that hasn't been out for more than a couple of weeks?
I like ns for the non-realism, hate how its impossible to enjoy outside of a scrim/clan situation
I really never have seen such a nicely thought through game! Biggest let-down for me is, that I don't find any friends to play with. I have to play on german servers with people I don't even know... <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
PS: I just saw what I initially wrote: I think BF2 is a cool game, but it gets boring and stale faster than NS.
I really never have seen such a nicely thought through game! Biggest let-down for me is, that I don't find any friends to play with. I have to play on german servers with people I don't even know... <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
PS: I just saw what I initially wrote: I think BF2 is a cool game, but it gets boring and stale faster than NS. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eh would I disagree with boring comment, simply because it is tougher to determine who is going to win in BF2 then it is in NS.
When in NS, being on the winning team is fun, no matter how long it takes to win. However, being on the losing side sucks, because there is virtually no chance of come back due to the resource system.
Ns is about how much tech you get amass by obtaining enough resource points. In bf2 its tactical/strategy AND action, where as everyone gets the same tech, or the means to counter tech by skill.
NS has an onos which if used right cannot be killed by low tech marines, regardless of how much skill the marines have.
Powerlessness does not attract people to a game. For that 1 onos to enjoy his "HAHA I CAN CRUSH EVERYBODY" is at the expense of around 3-4 marines (or more depending on tech).
The onos is one of the primary flaws in NS as it can only be balanced by other countering tech, not by skill.
I like BF2 because no matter what the enemy throws at you there is an oppurtunity for the other team to counter with enough skill. I believe this is why more people gravitate to BF2 rather than NS.
Basically I thought BF2 would be the same thing so I didn't buy it.
Basically I thought BF2 would be the same thing so I didn't buy it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I assure you, the other maps are worth the 50$. The ranked servers are pretty cool, but are unneccesary.
Give it a shot, you will not be disappointed.
O_o
What? NS and BF2 are not even close to being in the same genre. First of all, if you just want to go by their "official" classifications, NS is a FPS-RTS, and BF2 is a (what I would call) a MMOFPS. One game, you manage resources, and two teams that are completely different are fighting on a small map (anywhere from 6v6 to 16v16). BF2, on the other hand, has two teams that are exactly the same (well, they're the same compared to the vast differences between marines and aliens), the maps are bloody huge, and it is not designed to play 6v6 games.
This isn't even a preference call between, say, AoE and Starcraft. It's comparing apples to oranges.
Same for NS <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
If NS were to receive the same publicity, then I have no doubt in my mind NS:S will have a much bigger fan base.
I really never have seen such a nicely thought through game! Biggest let-down for me is, that I don't find any friends to play with. I have to play on german servers with people I don't even know... <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
PS: I just saw what I initially wrote: I think BF2 is a cool game, but it gets boring and stale faster than NS. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eh would I disagree with boring comment, simply because it is tougher to determine who is going to win in BF2 then it is in NS.
When in NS, being on the winning team is fun, no matter how long it takes to win. However, being on the losing side sucks, because there is virtually no chance of come back due to the resource system.
Ns is about how much tech you get amass by obtaining enough resource points. In bf2 its tactical/strategy AND action, where as everyone gets the same tech, or the means to counter tech by skill.
NS has an onos which if used right cannot be killed by low tech marines, regardless of how much skill the marines have.
Powerlessness does not attract people to a game. For that 1 onos to enjoy his "HAHA I CAN CRUSH EVERYBODY" is at the expense of around 3-4 marines (or more depending on tech).
The onos is one of the primary flaws in NS as it can only be balanced by other countering tech, not by skill.
I like BF2 because no matter what the enemy throws at you there is an oppurtunity for the other team to counter with enough skill. I believe this is why more people gravitate to BF2 rather than NS. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have to disagree with the onos bit. I enjoy being the marine on the end of the onos that .. <i>doesnt</i> eat you, but instead plows through your entire squad. Its very fun, and one of the main appeals for me to 1.04 (on a good server) is that once the aliens got a foothold the marines honostly felt like they were fighting a fruitless battle. Pulling victory from that battle was probably one of the best feelings at the end of a great game.
edit: In the end, its each person to their own taste.
You could say that the tickets are resources in themselves and need to be managed correctly to win. After all, if you just fling soldiers at an unattainable point you reduce your tickets while theirs stays relatively unchanged. So resources vs tickets, both games can be FPS-RTS.
NS doesn't have snipers.
NS doesn't have anti-tanks.
NS doesn't have 3-hit kill lmgs,it takes more accuracy.
(based on BF2 Demo)
Both are good in their own way. NS is good for scaled-down encounters,while BF2 is good for a larger-scale battle.
NS does have more emphasis on teamwork,BF2 seems to be a random jumble of luck regards that. (one time,a boat dock spawner was ignored for 5 mins+)
I reckon NS is better cos I dispise snipers in any fps game,they ruin it for the rest of us,and I dispise BF compared to NS generally.
But then I also dispise CS compared to NS. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
if NS is so great and BF2 sucks so much why does BF2 have about 33,500 with 5793 servers players on and NS has 517 with 182 servers? (I believe that has to be one of the lowest points in its history.)
Rational arguements only, I don't want to hear that the NS community is capable of playing a "better" game as there were more dynamics to worry about in BF1942 then NS, BF2 only adds more dynamic elements. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
because it was a commerical release with a big company behind it (ea) .
O_o
What? NS and BF2 are not even close to being in the same genre. First of all, if you just want to go by their "official" classifications, NS is a FPS-RTS, and BF2 is a (what I would call) a MMOFPS. One game, you manage resources, and two teams that are completely different are fighting on a small map (anywhere from 6v6 to 16v16). BF2, on the other hand, has two teams that are exactly the same (well, they're the same compared to the vast differences between marines and aliens), the maps are bloody huge, and it is not designed to play 6v6 games.
This isn't even a preference call between, say, AoE and Starcraft. It's comparing apples to oranges. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No sir, I disagree.
They are both FPS shooters with a tactical command display (aka overhead view).
They are about controlling important points on the map (hives/resource towers, and flags).
Both games require teamwork, NS requires more than BF2 which is a turn off to those with a lot of talent because they can be brought down by a horrible team/commander. Flags also provide resources in the sense of armor, spawn point advantage, and sometimes aircraft, which is similar to holding resource towers in NS because the more towers are held the more resources can be researched into tech.
I while true, BF is traditonally designed for 8v8 and not 6v6, that does not change the fact that NS and BF2 have enough similarities to be compared against each other. And even if it was, I have seen/participated in clan scrims in a 6v6 enviornment. Unlike NS, you do not need the intended amount of players to have a good game of BF2.
There is a preference in games because one only has a limited amount of time to play games, which is why a person with extremely limited time (such as myself) has tothe right decision in a game to achieve the maximum amount of enjoyment while using the time alotted. I choose Battlefield 2 because I feel that it is a superior game to NS.
And I don't understand the logic of saying BF2 was buggy, when most of the people who criticized have never played NS 1.0, which Netcode was so buggy it was nearly impossible to move.
If NS were to receive the same publicity, then I have no doubt in my mind NS:S will have a much bigger fan base. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ns has reported over 1 million downloads to date according to their front page.
How much more publicity is needed ?
Half Life still has the largest FPS community to date.
NS doesn't have snipers.
NS doesn't have anti-tanks.
NS doesn't have 3-hit kill lmgs,it takes more accuracy.
(based on BF2 Demo)
Both are good in their own way. NS is good for scaled-down encounters,while BF2 is good for a larger-scale battle.
NS does have more emphasis on teamwork,BF2 seems to be a random jumble of luck regards that. (one time,a boat dock spawner was ignored for 5 mins+)
I reckon NS is better cos I dispise snipers in any fps game,they ruin it for the rest of us,and I dispise BF compared to NS generally.
But then I also dispise CS compared to NS. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
if NS is so great and BF2 sucks so much why does BF2 have about 33,500 with 5793 servers players on and NS has 517 with 182 servers? (I believe that has to be one of the lowest points in its history.)
Rational arguements only, I don't want to hear that the NS community is capable of playing a "better" game as there were more dynamics to worry about in BF1942 then NS, BF2 only adds more dynamic elements. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
because it was a commerical release with a big company behind it (ea) . <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If a big commerical success was neccesary for release why did Counter-Strike beta 6.5 have more players on their servers than any other Commerically released FPS?
Mods are capable of beating out commerically released games if they are <b><u><i>GOOD</i></u></b> enough
Infact counter-strike was so popular, it even replaced Quake 3 as the CPL's game of choice and still remains one of the important games at the CPL today.
All came from a simple modification of the HL engine, and beat out all of the other commericially released FPSes.