Page 1 of 1
Star Wars Battlefront vs Joint Ops
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 12:08 am
by Scanner
Both of these games have claimed the crown from BF1942, but everyone knows that there can be only one.
Which of these two deserves the title more, if "other" is not an option?
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 1:27 pm
by naednek
joint ops. So much better than BF:V I haven't played battlefront, but from a general observation, it didn't get that much attention here.
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 7:42 pm
by knob
The only problem I have with Joint Ops is that it seems to have a lag problem on the bigger servers (64 - 128 people).
It's really hard to snipe someone from some insane distance away. It's even harder when you're lagging like mad.
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 8:34 pm
by Zitterbacke
SW-BF wasn't as good as BF1942. I never felt the importance of getting the Spawnpoints. In BF1942 you got a Tank as reward, or whatever. In SW-BF you get...well the spawn. And rush again.
And JO is more like Ghost Recon, than it was like BF1942. At least in Coop.
Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 3:03 am
by Faldarian
Joint Ops would be a great game to me if it had bots to play against single player. As it is, it's multiplayer only, and gets almost no playtime for me because of that. If you're looking for multiplayer online only, though, it's a good pick.
I liked BFV better, but they play differently. I liked Battlefront better too, but that's mostly because a) I like Star Wars quite a bit and b) I play the bots just to blow some stuff up.
Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 10:35 am
by Kobra
Joint Ops is one of the best games - ever. In our opinion around here.
The huge multiplayer battles are stunning, and what make it great, and none of it is bogged down in silly single player with poor AI. Battlefront is an aweful game.