BleepingComputer.com: Battlefield Vietnam vs. Bad Company 2

A guy said to me that the gameplay in Battlefield: Vietnam was superior to that of Bad Company 2. I was wondering what y'alls' opinions are about these two games.

By the way, does driving the vehicles (I've only played the 1942 demo) give any of you folks headaches? I suppose it could have been my imagination, but I seemed to get headaches after driving the vehicles or riding in the mounted turrets and read that the screen bobbing up and down can cause headaches. I play other games without headaches so it's not just a general "allergy" to video games, and I was wondering if you others knew what this was, and also: Would the better/different graphics of Bad Company 2 eliminate the headaches?

-OS51

Hmmm, haven't played either of those but I've never been a big fan of historical shooters so I vote Bad Company 2. Overall though I'd say wait for Black Ops or go MW2

personally, Ive never been a fan of any of the battlefield series until bad company 2 game came out, now I play that almost exclusively and love it. Im hesitant about black ops, glad they brought back dedicated servers, but Im still miffed over what they pulled with mw2

Well, why then? What's better about it? What's the difference?

-OS51

I dunno, part of it may be im running it on a system that can handle it, previous battlefield games Ive played have never been on systems that were capable of handling it. The gameplay is definetly a bit better, better graphics, guns, etc.

OS51, on Jul 31 2010, 10:44 PM, said:

Being a previous addict of the Battlefield 2 game (1,287 hours played), which used the same Refractor 2 engine as Vietnam, and a current player of Battlefield: Bad Company 2 I can say that BC2 is a LOT better. What plagued the Battlefield 2 game (and Vietnam) was hit detection.

Between the two games, you are better off with Bad Company 2 because it is new and there are a LOT of local servers for it. The older Battlefield games are active but not as many servers.

Could anyone compare/contrast the gameplay aspects?

-OS51

Well, there's a pretty obvious one you seem to either not care about/are overlooking:

One takes place in 'Nam, and one doesn't!

That right there is a pretty big difference.
Plus, the Frostbite engine utilized by BF:BC2 is far more open than the engine used by BF:Vietnam.

Vietnam, if I recall correctly, wasn't as popular as '42, either.

Lol. True. Locale is important. xD

What do you mean by "open?" Like you can do more with it etc.?

Yeah, I think you're right about popularity. One guy theorized that it could be because WWII was a more famous war.

-OS51

In Battlefield Vietnam if you shoot a wall with a tank, the wall is invincible and doesn't receive as much as a scratch. In Battlefield Bad Company 2, if you shoot that wall with a tank it is going to blow up along with anyone on the other side of it. Depending on the weapon you can shoot through things like fences, etc.

Bad Company 2 really is state of the art when it comes to gaming.

hehe true that. Nothing more annoying then having a tank blast through the wall your hiding behind right before you pull the trigger when sniping. extremely annoying, but I suppose realistic, to a point (Im not sure many tank commanders would justify shooting a house just to be rid of a sniper in real life, but then again, ive never actually been to war) On the other note, I can't say I havent used that method of getting rid of snipers myself.

It happens all the time actually. When you see enemy combatants going into a building, that building is generally blown up by tanks, air strikes, M203 grenade launchers or AT4 rocket launchers. It's safer than risking troops by sending them into an ambush.

Most snipers I kill just by walking up to them and knifing them. Most snipers are so concentrated on long distance targets that they don't pay attention.