I think BF2 did so well is because of it's ability to do so many things. Bf2 has infantry combat, commanding, arial dogfights..etc etc. I think that's what made BF2. It has many games built into one basically. it has just soo many options, and soo many ways of doing things. Few online games have the many different options, usable tactics, that BF2 has.
CoD4 is a good example. A very good game, and in my opinion, has far superior close quarter infantry combat than BF2. But it doesn't have the vehicle, large scale maps, workable squads, team playing medics, etc.
Or, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. I love Stalker. Which game do I think is better, BF2 or STALKER? Niether. They aren't the same type of game, IMO.
There will lawys be good games, some better than others, some that are too different to really compare.
Plus, I think EA tried to take 2142 in a different direction, try something a little different. It worked, a solid game. But it didn't own up to BF2. I am not sure EA intended to replace 2 with 2142 or not, or was 2142 just an alternative, new fun idea. I see them too as seperate games, with different styles. EA didn't deliver as well as they certainly could have with 2142.
The big question is, when BF3 comes out, being a direct sequel to an aging game, and without question, BF3 being BF2's replacement, Will EA Be able to hold up, if not exceed BF2?
That's the big question. EA's big gun BF2 is gonna be hard to top. But, hell, even this community here has given EA what it needs. "BF3 Wishlist" and "BF2 1.5 patch wishlist"
Right there is a good start to see what the gamers want, what works, what doesn't, wherer the fucked up, where they succeeded. I doubt BF2s.com is the only site with such lists. All EA has to do, is put some REAL effort into a sequel, LISTEN TO THE GAMING COMMUNITY, and BF3 should be an incredibnle game.
but going back, BF2 consumed alot of my time. it's funfactor is higher than STALKER. But there are too many game types out there to really say if this one or that one is best.
