[LdB:MaxX] wrote:
Put it this way
Well you spend money on an expansion for a game thats a year old, and already had 2 expansions that kind of failed. OR spend That money (Plus a bit more) on a completley new game, with new features etc?
Word got out a long time ago that SF is a good game to play. It can be purchased in the store and you have a visible, tangible product that you don't have to download. I believe this is one of the reasons why it's more popular then EF.
As a matter of fact SF still remains problem free to date. I have read no reports of CTD, lost connections nor high pings with SF, PERIOD! However, the same cannot be said with BF2/EF. A few others as well as myself have yet experienced a problem while playing SF. All I can say is that having it's own interface was better trade off then anyone would have ever thought.
So will I buy a possble buggy AF over a bug free SF...nope!
The question is simple, why is SF (just an expansion) have less problems then BF2? More and more people are reinstalling SF because word of mouth is getting out that SF has yet to fail them. So, I ask you a simple question will you play a BF2 that is littered with bugs (CTD, High Ping, Lost connection, messed up browser, etc) or play SF which doesn't have these problems? The answer is simple.
Last edited by ECH (2006-06-04 08:02:09)