Medal Of Honor - Allied Assault or Battlefield 1942?

[Ravenous]

OK, Im itching for a Computer game for my new computer and in this week sales they have the new Battlefield 1942 for only $34.99! Not bad I think, so Im thinking of getting it. Now Im VERY strapped for cash, so I can only get one game at the moment for awhile. It seems both these games offer the same, yet with enough suttle differences to make it worth owning both games. Im just trying to decide which one to go with first.

What do you guys think? Which one has the least amount of bugs and problems? Which one needs the least amount of patches on the get go? Which is more better graphics/fun wise? Hows the internet play? Also which handles the best with an Optical mouse, or are they both built on the same type of engine where controlling one is like controlling the other? LOL. Its probably alot of questions, but thanks to anyone who helps out.

Its Appreciated!

[Porkchop]

I wouldn't say that both offer the same at all. "Medal of Honor" is single-player focused, with an okay but not great multiplayer component. "Battlefield" is multiplayer focused, with a half-assed and best left unexplored single-player component.

So what are you looking for? "Medal of Honor" is extraordinary in single-player, if a bit short. You can finish the whole thing in 10 or 12 hours. They're excellent hours, mind you. The graphics are outstanding and moody, and there are some absolutely phenomenal scenes.

"Battlefield" is not as graphically impressive, is more of a hardware hog, and REQUIRES a broadband connection to work at all reasonably. But if you manage to get into a lag-free game with lots of good players, it's amazingly fun.

[Taxi]

I basically played BF 1942 all day yesterday, and loved every minute of it. (Multiplayer on LAN.)

MOA is good too, but I think BF1942 wins hands down.

[Ravenous]

Did you play it online? How was it? How were the people and what size were the armies? I really want this game cause I d/led some vids of it and the Boats and B-19 bombing looked bad ass! And $35 sounds pretty sweet for this game.

[Draysoth]

MoH:AA for single player... decent multi.

Battlefield for multi... terrible single player.

Which way do ya wish to play?

[DVDriven]

Originally posted by Draysoth

Battlefield for multi... terrible single player.

I agree that online for both games is where they both shine, but I enjoyed the single player campaigns (especially if you've allied yourself to the Axis. Psst, don't tell Donald Rumsfeld or Dubya) I thought the AI was pretty sound in some areas, weak in others (keep in mind that this was the Easy setting. I'm working my way up )

You can't go wrong with either game. There will be an expansion pack available later this year for MOH:AA, which should be a nice addition for the single player mode. BF1942 is on sale this week for $35 (can't remember where; I can check my flyers if you're interested). If you buy both, there's no need to decide.

[elwood731]

The MOH expansion pack is something to take into consideration. It is fairly common for games to be rebundled with their expansion pack shortly after the expansion is released. So you might want to hold off on MOH, buy 1942, and then wait till a Gold Edition or something like that is released of MOH and its expansion.

[Ravenous]

I actually want to buy both, Im just trying to decide what to get first. lol. With MOH comming out with an expansion pack and 1942 being $35, maybe this has become a dumb question.