Originally Posted by *Legend*

Um, you mixed those two up there. xD

warrock (no respect for it, therefor the letters aren't capsed) - is horrible. Unrealistic damage, Bad...scratch that, HORRIBLE graphics, horrible controls, and a very noob unfriendly environment. Adding levels to a tactical FPS makes it hard on beginners because of the fact tat it's harder to kill, but easier to get killed. When a person levels their HP and SP are upped, meaning more bullets taken, and more rolls. This makes it hard for people to land a hit or do damage. You literally have to team up 3 new people just to take one person down. I've seen that happen. LAG, lag is the keyword! The game lags like my Aunt Pearls bloomers (I don't really have an aunt pearl) and vehicle battle makes it worse. Not to mention missions are unclearly explained and the game is very buggy.

BattleField 2 (plenty of repect for it, therefor the letters are capsed) - Realistic damage, way easier to get into, awesome graphics, awesome controls, and lagless. Vehicles are seemless and the controls for them are top ace.

In all truth, comparing warrock to BF2 is like comparing 29 cent Spam to a Sirloin Steak.

Originally Posted by Dreakon

I've tried that before, the whiners just used the "Enemy Territory is free and that game is good" angle. Not realizing, that it was backed by a successful and stable company and was built with the production values of a retail game, then switched free at the end.

Graphic-wise, sound-wise is all obvious, BF2 comes out on top. Gameplay-wise is debatable because even though they are similar, they are not the same. Some might prefer Warrock's fast-paced arcade style shooting to BF2's realism.

Originally Posted by Azure

I dont know why people keep comparing this game with battlefield, it's more similar to counter strike in my opinion.:cool:

Originally Posted by *Legend*

Yeah, and the dude that posted 3 posts ahead of mine keeps trying to push his ideas onto others STILL. Dude, you said it right there, it's an arcade type game, they can't even be compared. BF2 is a realistic strategy game. And it has nothing to do with it. The game was produced by two well known, stabilized, and VERY succesful companies. So this game can very well be compared to ET. The companies' financial statuses have nothing to do with the game's quality, especially if it made it into E3. So if anything, you should really stop breathing down his neck because he made a valid point.

Originally Posted by *Legend*

Um, you mixed those two up there. xD

warrock (no respect for it, therefor the letters aren't capsed) - is horrible. Unrealistic damage, Bad...scratch that, HORRIBLE graphics, horrible controls, and a very noob unfriendly environment. Adding levels to a tactical FPS makes it hard on beginners because of the fact tat it's harder to kill, but easier to get killed. When a person levels their HP and SP are upped, meaning more bullets taken, and more rolls. This makes it hard for people to land a hit or do damage. You literally have to team up 3 new people just to take one person down. I've seen that happen. LAG, lag is the keyword! The game lags like my Aunt Pearls bloomers (I don't really have an aunt pearl) and vehicle battle makes it worse. Not to mention missions are unclearly explained and the game is very buggy.

BattleField 2 (plenty of repect for it, therefor the letters are capsed) - Realistic damage, way easier to get into, awesome graphics, awesome controls, and lagless. Vehicles are seemless and the controls for them are top ace.

In all truth, comparing warrock to BF2 is like comparing 29 cent Spam to a Sirloin Steak.