In my opinion, Battlefield Vietnam could've been the best.
Here's why it could've been the best (had the most potential):
1. Best maps Battlefield series has to offer. Maps may be large, and spread out, but every control point in the game had foxholes, trenches, wooden bunkers, vegetation, and other landscape elements all of the other Battlefields don't have.
2. Best infantry combat..... because of the extra landscaping, such as foxholes, trenches, and weapons pits, infantry combat is the best BF games have to offer. Also, the weapons are better than in 1942, but worse than in BF2. And BF2 weapons were way to powerful imo. Also, there is no "Medic" kit, which drastically improves gameplay. People will argue BF2 is better, but, I'm sorry, playing a game where 10-15 medics do nothing but point farm for their account stats all day, and spam there G36e's at Assault players who have worse weapons, really isn't something I'd call "better".
3. Great graphics, but not so great that it will ruin the gameplay. There's a difference in "good" graphics, and "realistic" graphics. BF Vietnam had good, BF 2 had realistic. So, IMO, graphics were better than in BF2.
Reasons why I think Battlefield Vietnam isn't the best :
1. Lack of online support. Almost no stats, no ranks, no unlocks. Lack of players playing the game, as well. No real incentives to have your team work as a team. BFV with ranks, squads, etc., would've been the best Battlefield.
2. It's too easy to spawnrape with helicopters. You think it's bad in BF2? You don't know a thing.
Here's why it could've been the best (had the most potential):
1. Best maps Battlefield series has to offer. Maps may be large, and spread out, but every control point in the game had foxholes, trenches, wooden bunkers, vegetation, and other landscape elements all of the other Battlefields don't have.
2. Best infantry combat..... because of the extra landscaping, such as foxholes, trenches, and weapons pits, infantry combat is the best BF games have to offer. Also, the weapons are better than in 1942, but worse than in BF2. And BF2 weapons were way to powerful imo. Also, there is no "Medic" kit, which drastically improves gameplay. People will argue BF2 is better, but, I'm sorry, playing a game where 10-15 medics do nothing but point farm for their account stats all day, and spam there G36e's at Assault players who have worse weapons, really isn't something I'd call "better".
3. Great graphics, but not so great that it will ruin the gameplay. There's a difference in "good" graphics, and "realistic" graphics. BF Vietnam had good, BF 2 had realistic. So, IMO, graphics were better than in BF2.
Reasons why I think Battlefield Vietnam isn't the best :
1. Lack of online support. Almost no stats, no ranks, no unlocks. Lack of players playing the game, as well. No real incentives to have your team work as a team. BFV with ranks, squads, etc., would've been the best Battlefield.
2. It's too easy to spawnrape with helicopters. You think it's bad in BF2? You don't know a thing.
Last edited by Spearhead (2006-12-09 11:35:11)
