Battlefield 2 Demo Available

The waiting isn't quite over yet... by hob42 · 2005-06-10 10:32 · Score: 4, Funny

Looks like FPS geeks aren't leaving the house this weekend.

Yeah, because that's how long it's gonna take to download it.

Re:The waiting isn't quite over yet... by nacturation · 2005-06-10 11:11 · Score: 1

So maybe it's time to open up the Remote Desktop port and tell the home machine to start downloading while I'm at work. Aw, hell... I'll probably just end up downloading from work and putting it on a USB flash drive. :)

--
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Re:The waiting isn't quite over yet... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-10 11:45 · Score: 0

Just great.

My kid's on my home computer, and my USB drive is 512M, and I'm splitting from work in 30 mins, with 1+ hours to go until the download is done.
Re:The waiting isn't quite over yet... by roche · 2005-06-10 13:41 · Score: 1

My download will be complete in under 90 minutes and I will be helping others get their demo at the same time. We can thank the Torrent technology for that.

--

roche
Bah Humbug!

Hope its like BF1942 by MrJones · 2005-06-10 10:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

When BF1942 came out, it was really cool! Using all those vehicules.
The tech look very promising in BF2, I don't like the war theme(Iraq is still too fresh, too controversial).
But, its a must try demo.

Cya you all in azureus and later in the demo ;)

P.D.: www.3dgamer.com has a torrent too.

--
Get my e-mail after a captcha test in: http://tinymailt

Re:Hope its like BF1942 by Triskele · 2005-06-10 12:55 · Score: 1

I don't like the war theme(Iraq is still too fresh, too controversial).
Seconded!! Sorry but I don't want to fight for any of the sides provided.

And the other thing about WWII aside from the less dubious morality is that the weapons and vehicles are not such overkill and give a much better balanced game for the scale of the maps. Desert Combat was a very well done mod but nothing like as much fun to play.

--
--
USA: home of the world's largest terrorist training camp.
Re:Hope its like BF1942 by Babbster · 2005-06-10 20:30 · Score: 1

Oh, get over yourself. Gamers have been engaged in modern combat in the middle east since long before the current conflict. Your logic is the kind used by the anti-gaming putzes every time they use words like "murder simulator."
Re:Hope its like BF1942 by Triskele · 2005-06-11 03:09 · Score: 1

Gamers have been engaged in modern combat in the middle east since long before the current conflict.
They may well have. But not me. It's not that its a "murder simulator" (as I loved BF1942) but more like it's propaganda (like Tom Clancy novels) and that leaves a really bad taste in my mouth...

--
--
USA: home of the world's largest terrorist training camp.
Re:Hope its like BF1942 by MrJones · 2005-06-11 11:16 · Score: 1

If you play as USA and your team won, the US national antom is played :)
This is weird ...

--
Get my e-mail after a captcha test in: http://tinymailt
Re:Hope its like BF1942 by mister_llah · 2005-06-12 07:33 · Score: 1

Yeah, I agree, Iraq is too fresh, and Korea would be too much like BF:V... and there is already a WWI mod for BF1942, soooo...

I think they should do a "Battlefield 1863"...

It'd be totally awesome to fire once, then reload for 45 seconds... ohhh hell yeah... and medics, instead of med packs, have hacksaws, and they saw off limbs... and instead of tanks, there are horses ... on second thought, maybe they should stick with Iraq.

--
MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
Re:Hope its like BF1942 by Anonymous+Cow+herd · 2005-06-13 04:23 · Score: 1

Nah, not really... after all, what kind of propaganda lets you play as the "enemy" and kick the U.S.'s ass?

--
Ita erat quando hic adveni.

Yay karma points! by BTWR · 2005-06-10 10:39 · Score: 1

3dgamer download link

Fast torrent link by shuz · 2005-06-10 10:43 · Score: 2, Informative

Here is a torrent that is pretty good.
http://shuz.homelinux.com/Battlefield_2_Demo.exe.t orrent

--
There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle

Re:Fast torrent link by casio282 · 2005-06-10 10:56 · Score: 1

That link is giving me a "permission denied"

--

:wq

Linux? by joebp · 2005-06-10 10:44 · Score: 1

Does this work with linux? I tend to buy every FPS which supports linux and it looks like a great game.

Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-10 13:44 · Score: 0

Does this work with linux?
No.
Re:Linux? by silvwolf · 2005-06-10 18:15 · Score: 1

No, and it doesn't work in Cedega either :(

But it is fun!

So what's new in this one? by Merk · 2005-06-10 10:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

I've heard about the "commander" mode, or "role", but don't know all that much about it. Is it at all similar to how the Commander role works in Savage? What else are people really looking forward to? Is this one supposed to be more friendly with on-screen text? BF 1942 was awful with that, it was sometimes unreadable. Vietnam I think was a bit better but far from great.

Are there vehicles that play really differently than what's available in BF 1942 or Vietnam? One thing that was both good and bad in that one was the realism of the vehicles. It was good in that there were lots of vehicles, all of which were driveable, but it was bad because the realism mix just wasn't right. On one hand, one person could "crew" a tank completely, driving it, shooting, etc. There was a place for a second person, but their role was pretty useless -- just a machine gunner or something. On the other hand, the look and abilities of the tanks was vaguely realistic. I think it would have been much more interesting if you *needed* a crew of 3 to make a tank work, and in a ship you could either fire the main guns, or move the ship, not both.

Anyhow, I'll have to check out the demo, see what's new...

Re:So what's new in this one? by chris_mahan · 2005-06-10 11:29 · Score: 1

Yes. Tanks should be much harder to kill, and fewer.

Helicopers should be much faster (they go 240 mph in real life)

jetfighters too

The bodies should stay for the entire round, and should be able to be used as protection.

As far as artillery, it should work much better, and one should go based on coordinates: like: lay 16 rounds of 155 at 78-44. Then the arty guy should be able to calibrate his guns, and fire away.

It should be possible to hide a mine by diggin it in.

Barbed wire should actually stop the soldiers, not just hurt them. They should be able to cut them or grenade them out.

A few annoyances.

--
"Piter, too, is dead."
Re:So what's new in this one? by Datamonstar · 2005-06-10 11:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

This isn't a simulator....

--
The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
Re:So what's new in this one? by Dr.+GeneMachine · 2005-06-10 13:56 · Score: 1

That is the problem - I'll stick with Op. Flashpoint and count the days till the sequel arrives.

--
This comment does not exist.
Re:So what's new in this one? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-11 03:12 · Score: 0

-Medics can revive the dead

Seems like a good change, but it turns out to be relatively unimportant compared to one you didn't mention: Players can set other players as their respawn point. With the Squad menu, you can designate somebody as your "squad leader", meaning you get some HUD icons pointing to him and his destination (fluff), but most importantly, that you can respawn next to him. I feel that respawning at players is the single biggest gameplay change.

Remember in Battlefield Vietnam, how careful positioning of the mobile spawn point could be helpful? But it was tricky and slow to move, and your team had only 1 or 2 per map. In bf2, any player can volunteer to become a mobile spawnpoint! This includes transport helicopters for endless paradropping- if a "squad leader" is flying the vehicle, then his squad members will spawn inside it.

-Helicopters have become tank-resistant and take multiple shells to shoot down

But in compensation, helicopters fly a little slower, turn a lot slower, and do much much less damage to tanks. (As compared to Desert Combat, which should really be considered the previous installment) So in many ways, they are easier for tanks to shoot at, cancelling the extra strength. However, tanks can no longer aim as far up as they once could, making a high-flyer unshootable.

It remains to be seen how high most helos decide to go- flying high makes you an easier target for airplanes, and so far it seems that killing helos is the jet-pilot's job #1.

(Note that helos can barely kill tanks now, because the pilot only has one attack button. The alt-fire anti-tank missile from DC is gone... and so far, at least, not enough co-pilots can use the TV-guided missile to make up the difference)

-Player-guided missiles that work flawlessly.

I couldn't find out how to make them work right. That could partly be because they are fired from the 2nd seat in a helicopter, and it's hard to get a pilot to stay still for testing/practice.

-Radio command interface vastly improved.

It's changed, but not totally improved. The number of commands has been reduced ("simplified"), but now the default way to input them is via the mouse. (Push Q, then do a pie-menu type thing). Although the F5F6-system in bf1942 was lacking, I would have preferred a V34-style like in RTCW: most players are good at pushing the number keys to change weapons, so also using them to navigate a menu of radio messages makes sense.

Also, of course, there are new commands just for the squad leaders and commander, who has a huge special GUI for the task.

-Planes are slightly faster and it's hard to bomb things.

I haven't tried bombing much, but I notice that planes drop about 8 sub-munitions from one bomb. So it probably has a bigger effective blast-radius, which should help.
Re:So what's new in this one? by qoa · 2005-06-12 06:22 · Score: 1

Don't forget the tanks are FAST now. Imo the atillery is a bit too powerful. Entire spawns get wiped out, vehicles and all sometimes. The dash feature is nice.

--
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
Re:So what's new in this one? by yoyhed · 2005-06-12 11:53 · Score: 1

And while you're waiting, I'll have fun when I play my games!

--
WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
Re:So what's new in this one? by Anonymous+Cow+herd · 2005-06-13 04:01 · Score: 1

-Medics can revive the dead
Not to nit pick, but there's actually two states in the game, critically wounded and dead. If you're dead-dead you can't be revived. If you're critically wounded, you're incapacitated for a short amount of time (during which time you may be revived by a medic) before you die. The system seems to take into account how much damage you take to determine whether you're wounded or dead... e.g. small arms fire and splash damage seems to leave you critically wounded, whereas big stuff like getting hit by artillery/c4 or run over by a vehicle kills you instantly.

--
Ita erat quando hic adveni.

torrentspy link... by Tanmi-Daiow · 2005-06-10 11:02 · Score: 2, Informative

http://www.torrentspy.com/directory.asp?mode=torre ntdetails&id=326061

--
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis

Re:Fast torrent link -Try again by shuz · 2005-06-10 11:04 · Score: 1

Sorry about that. try again.

--
There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle

Also a note to ATI video card owners... by antdude · 2005-06-10 11:16 · Score: 3, Informative

Blue's News report:

"ATI Cards and Battlefield 2 Demo -- In testing the demo, EA has encountered some visual issues on certain ATI cards with the previous Catalyst drivers (5.5) and are working with yesterday's 5.6 release to discover if the issue is resolved. If in playing the Battlefield 2 demo you encounter texture corruption of any kind, we recommend rolling back to the Catalyst 5.1 drivers. ATI is aware of this issue and is working to resolve it."

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).

How about those recommended specs? by gregor-e · 2005-06-10 11:17 · Score: 3, Informative

From the official Battlefield 2 README:

WINDOWS

- Minimum Specification, based on playing a 16 player game:
CPU: 1 Ghz
RAM: 384 Mb

- Recommended Specification, based on playing a 64 player game:
CPU: 3 Ghz. For AMD Athlon 64 CPU: 3500+ (2.2 Ghz)
RAM: 1 Gb

BANDWIDTH

- Minimum
2.5 Mbit

- Recommended
5Mbit

Re:How about those recommended specs? by CliffH · 2005-06-10 11:33 · Score: 2, Informative

You forgot some other important points:

Must use a Direct X 9.0c compatible card

These cards must have at least 128MB of RAM

Minimum cards are the GeForce FX5700 and Radeon 8500 or greater

This will probably change a few people's minds as to whether they download or not. I'm not even going to attempt it until I hear otherwise on my Ti4200 w/128MB.

--
sigs are like a box of chocolates, they all suck remove the underscores to email me
Re:How about those recommended specs? by Wwolmack · 2005-06-10 12:15 · Score: 1

Its also got the same curse that bf1942 suffered from: the inability to run at 1280x1024.

Almost everybody who games and has an LCD has a 17" lcd.
Almost every 17" LCD has a native resolution of 1280x1024.
Getting stuck with 1280x960 is an insult to everybody who's paid for a videocard that will run this game at 1280x1024

BF1942 had some horrible text rendering/pixel interpolating since it actually rendered at 1280x960. EA had better release a patch for this, or they are in for a lot of complaints.
Re:How about those recommended specs? by jimi+the+hippie · 2005-06-10 12:55 · Score: 1

"Almost everybody who games and has an LCD has a 17" lcd."

And what exactly do you use to base this assumption on?
Re:How about those recommended specs? by dhakbar · 2005-06-10 13:39 · Score: 2, Funny

"Almost everybody who games and has an LCD has a 17" lcd."

And what exactly do you use to base this assumption on?

Oh, I'm sure that this being Slashdot, he spent hours of his time researching sales data for various demographics and then consulted with his local university's statistics department in order to be sure that the information fits with his hypothesis.
Re:How about those recommended specs? by jimi+the+hippie · 2005-06-10 14:00 · Score: 1

HAHAHA
Re:How about those recommended specs? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-10 14:18 · Score: 0

Umh, gamers using LCDs? Plus, 1280x1024 is not a 4:3 resolution, it's also not a widescreen resolution, it's just funky. It makes sense for them to only support 4:3 and widescreen only (just 4:3 is kinda crappy, imho). I remember when I was starting with OpenGL, I couldn't figure out why my square wasn't square, till it hit me that I had X in 1280x1024... :)
Re:How about those recommended specs? by Suddenly_Dead · 2005-06-10 14:58 · Score: 1

I've a Radeon 9800 Pro, Althon XP 2700+, and 1GB of RAM. I have to play at medium graphic settings (and no AA/AF), it doesn't look particularily nice and still doesn't run altogether smoothly. The load times are especially horrendous (minutes), and it has to do "shader optimizing" each time you load after changing your video settings, which takes even longer.

It does have a fairly nice draw distance though.

The full version will only have 12 maps, however, and this demo doesn't look incredibly bright. Maybe I'm just a pessimist, I must play more =)
Re:How about those recommended specs? by prockcore · 2005-06-10 15:37 · Score: 1

Must use a Direct X 9.0c compatible card

Not only that, nvidia users need to upgrade to the *beta* drivers included in the demo. Otherwise there are graphical errors.
Re:How about those recommended specs? by WhatAmIDoingHere · 2005-06-10 15:51 · Score: 1

I have a nice 12ms 17" LCD and had the game pre-ordered. Good thing the demo let me know that I can't run it at my native resolution.

--
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Re:How about those recommended specs? by KDR_11k · 2005-06-10 18:42 · Score: 1

The Radeon 8500 has only 64MB. Or at least the standard ATi version sold as "Radeon 8500" at retail has. I know because that was my main issue with it.

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Re:How about those recommended specs? by KDR_11k · 2005-06-10 18:47 · Score: 1

That's your problem for getting a 1280x1024 screen. I mean, what should they do, give you extra viewing space on the top and bottom? That'd be cheating. Should they just stretch it? I'm sure you'd appreciate the distorted graphics.

If there was any point to that I'd start a petition for 1280x960 LCDs because I'm sure as hell not getting a 1280x1024 one. Or a widescreen LCD (yes, that's really useful for text editing, right?).

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Re:How about those recommended specs? by AlexMidn1ght · 2005-06-10 19:20 · Score: 1

Those are the server specs.

Full readme is available on Gamespot
Re:How about those recommended specs? by wheany · 2005-06-10 21:15 · Score: 1

17-inch-screens have developed the most in the last few years. They have the best refresh rates, and they are cheaper than 19-inch-screens. And most 19-inchers have the same resolution and slower response than 17-inchers.

I don't have any real data to back this up, but I'm pretty sure most players have come to the same conclusion as I have.
Re:How about those recommended specs? by wheany · 2005-06-10 21:17 · Score: 1

How about letting the user decide what resolution to use, even it's 567*1631?
Re:How about those recommended specs? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-11 03:08 · Score: 0

I've seen some people in chat saying it the Ti4200 1238 worked fine, a few said it didn't. I also saw a post on planetbattlefield posting a fix, but I didn't check it out.
Re:How about those recommended specs? by casio282 · 2005-06-11 03:49 · Score: 2, Informative

It won't run on my GeForce Ti4200. It whirs for a couple of seconds and just quits back out without a message.

--

:wq
Re:How about those recommended specs? by tritab · 2005-06-11 15:14 · Score: 1

I get the same result. I have an Athlon XP 2000, 1GB RAM, and a GeForce 4200 128MB 8X AGP. At least they could have popped a dialog box telling me they arbitrarily chose not to let me play with my video card.

Now the question is, do I get a new video card for my current computer (AGP) or upgrade the whole deal to get PCIe?
Re:How about those recommended specs? by qoa · 2005-06-12 07:35 · Score: 1

I play it without upgraded drivers, the game seems to run a-ok for me.

--
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
Re:How about those recommended specs? by Anonymous+Cow+herd · 2005-06-13 03:51 · Score: 1

Really? I have a 9800XT, gig of RAM and a P4 3.06, and I can play OK at high settings, with res. set to 1024x768, 6xAA, just turn down dynamic lighting, shadows to medium and it runs like buttah 99% of the time... but yeah the load times are pretty long (but well worth the wait!)

As for the "only" 12 maps, remember that map size scales to the number of people playing. Heck, the demo only ships with one "map", but for all practical purposes it shipped with three... the same map in a 16-person game is pretty different (and plays differently) from the 32-person map and the 64.

--
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Re:How about those recommended specs? by Suddenly_Dead · 2005-06-13 10:34 · Score: 1

I do see your point about the variable map sizes, the variations are quite interesting to see (and the demo doesn't include the 64 player map). At that I was just basing my little report on the technical things I saw, mostly. I really do like the gameplay, especially how they improved the support classes like the medic.

As for the settings, I did muck around a bit and run it okay at high settings, 1024x768, with shadows and something else at medium (like yours). It's still not quite good enough on 32 player servers that I've tried AA, but I'll do some tweaking and see what I can get.

BF2 Demo: EA Launch Recalled by Popsikle · 2005-06-10 11:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

Due to bad internal testing, the wrong version of the server went out to us linux admins.

more info:
http://bf1942.lightcubed.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p =13143#13143

Email from EA:

From: Murphy, Mike
Date: Jun 11, 2005 12:07 AM
Subject: Incorrect BF2 Linux Version
To: "Murphy, Mike"

Hey Guys,

A quick note to all of our community leaders and file partners. We
inadvertently released an out-dated Linux version for today's
Battlefield 2 Demo Server. It is imperative that you not make this
available on your web sites and that you let people from your media
outlets know not to host it for download or run demo servers with it.
We will follow up early next week with a version that works.

If you have any questions at all, feel free to call or email me.

Thanks

Mike

Re:BF2 Demo: EA Launch Recalled by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-11 23:11 · Score: 0

You shouldn't be supporting them unless they release a Linux client as well as a Linux server. But, I guess you're not a Linux user anyway.

Re:Can you imagine this on an Intel Macintosh? by Quarters · 2005-06-10 11:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

stunning visual and multimedia capabilities of Mac OS X,

You mean OpenGL and OpenAL, right? 'Cause that's what you're talking about. Those are available on pretty much all OS's

What it would take to "move PC gaming away from being a Microsoft OS-specific activity" (if that were true, which it isn't) is for a platform to come out that has as easy of a game development SDK, hardware and driver support from ISVs, and enough of an installed base for game development to look lucrative to developers.

The Mac has maybe one of those. No change in the CPU is going to magically grant it the other two.

Re:Can you imagine this on an Intel Macintosh? by CyricZ · 2005-06-10 11:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

OpenGL and OpenAL are two such multimedia facilities offered by Mac OS X. Indeed, along with other Mac OX S technologies such as Quartz, QuickTime, QuickDraw it does begin to form the backbone of the ultimate gaming PC.

The transition to the Intel platform may very well give it the userbase it needs. In fact, it may be a case of the two building off one another: the increased userbase will increase its appeal to game developers, who will provide more games, which will further entice current Windows gamers to switch over to Mac OS X and Apple computers, which will lead to further game develpment, and so on.

--
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.

Bots? by drxray · 2005-06-10 11:54 · Score: 1

Does the demo include bots?
I prefer to learn how to play offline - especially since this game will probably choke my computer to the point where I can't hit anything moving anyway.

--
Slashdot - Mutual Assured Discussion

Re:Bots? by Lukey+Boy · 2005-06-10 16:03 · Score: 1

Yes.
Re:Bots? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-11 03:00 · Score: 0

bots are in single player only. The AI is a LOT better IMO than previous FPS games. The bitches will even knife you! Obviously, the bot are just bots, but they no longer run up to you, and just stand there looking at you. They also work in teams, heal, resupply, fix vehicles. Really, much better.

Mod Parent Up by PhosterPharms · 2005-06-10 14:29 · Score: 1

Please, I never do this, but that's the funniest post I've read on Slashdot in a while.

Re:Mod Parent Up by sn_moore · 2005-06-10 14:57 · Score: 1

me neither, but you're right!.....
Re:Mod Parent Up by Mostly+Monkey · 2005-06-12 12:32 · Score: 1

I was about to mod him up until I realized that all you guys recommending it are at most only 400ish uids apart. It's probably a coincidence but still...

Back on topic, Isn't it possible to change to supported resolutions by modifying an ini file or the shortcut? This was a solution with the original 1942.

--
Chika Chik-ah... do-e ow ow.

Ahem... by Mercury2k · 2005-06-10 15:08 · Score: 1

Looks like FPS geeks aren't leaving the house this weekend.

Uh, looks like I am going to have to work the whole weekend just for the cash to afford the upgrades to my system that are needed just to be able to PLAY the bf2 demo!

Re:Ahem... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-10 15:14 · Score: 0

Yup...I've been looking for an excuse to upgrade my graphics. Funny how Doom 3 and Half Life 2 can run just fine on a system with a Geforce 4...granted they do not have the outdoor expanses and huge servers toted for BF2...but come on. This is gonna cost me at least £200.
Re:Ahem... by alyandon · 2005-06-10 19:37 · Score: 1

The demo runs quite nicely at 1024x768 on my P4-2.4c (overclocked to 2.8), 9800 Pro and 1 gig ram.

Reminds me a lot of HL2 in the way it performs actually.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2005-06-10 15:09 · Score: 3, Informative

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Thanks for telling me that by ibentmywookie · 2005-06-10 17:26 · Score: 1

I only have a Ti4400, so I guess I'll be cancelling this download then...

--
-- The doctor said I wouldn't get so many nose bleeds if I just kept my finger out of there!

MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-10 17:46 · Score: 0

I've already commented unfortunately and can't give him points, but this is important information.

Re:Can you imagine this on an Intel Macintosh? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-10 17:59 · Score: 0

wow.
quicktime.
it sure beats the shit out of directX.
The ultimate gaming pc already existed for years man, too bad you owned a Mac. Now I'll just say this: if the mac is so fucking great, why would it take so long to finally get to the fabled x86 platform in the end, and still come out better than a pc?
oh, right, OSX?
For gaming, nothing that's so great about OSX matters, you're inside another view entirely. If you love apple so much, just wait till they get their iConsole or whatever. I'll play games on my windows pc like i always did and laugh at you.

Re:Can you imagine this on an Intel Macintosh? by KDR_11k · 2005-06-10 18:40 · Score: 1

Ah, yes, a revolutionary experience that would be completely identical to the PC experience! Seriously, man. What can OSX do that Windows can't that actually matters for games? What Battlefield needs is 3d accelleration (DirectX or OpenGL (can be wrapped with SDL)), sound (DirectX, OpenAL (can be wrapped with SDL)), input (DirectX, SDL) and netcode (DirectX, SDL). Notice a pattern here? Exactly, DirectX does everything the game needs. If they wanted cross platform compatibility they'd use SDL. What does OSX offer that's a complete and superior replacement for all of these?

Man, you should be modded flamebait for making such an off-topic and unfounded statement.

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.

Played it and my two cents... by antdude · 2005-06-10 21:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

Woah, BF2 demo is awesome! At first I was disappointed because the game was so choppy even though I had decent pings. I lowered graphic settings like lighting. Now, it is playable at 1152x864 resolution, v5.2 Catalyst driver, and everything else at maximum.

I love the special effects. I love when my visual goes BLURRY when I get hit by artillery or whatever. I love being the medic guy like in Return to Castle Wolfenstein multiplayer. Giving people med kits to use and reviving injured players get me points! Capturing flags/areas WITH buddies rock (see the attached screen shot -- see that chopper too?). Listening to poeple with voice communication (rad) -- I wished I could talk clearly!! Being on the huge aircraft. Wow. Seeing the realistic ocean. Driving through the city reminded me of videos from news and movies (e.g., Black Hawk Down).

Attached two screen shots of me playing! I am SO buying this game on the week of 22nd. I think I will sell BF:V, but might keep BF1942 for its Forgotten Hope mod (still need WWII theme!). :D

The game borrows cool elements from Natural Selection mod (commander, communication, etc.), Return to Castle Wolfenstein/Enemy Territory, Day of Defeat, etc. Running/Sprint is limited (you get tired after a while).

The bad parts: Long loading times. Configuring keys SUCK!! Too many introductions that can't be skipped.

Goodbye Desert Combat and Point of Existence mods! I can't wait to play more demo this weekend before my long summer of crunch times at work starts. Of course, I need to crank up my speakers and subwoofer. Muhaha!

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).

Re:Played it and my two cents... by Madoc+Owain · 2005-06-11 02:19 · Score: 1

To skip loading the movies, go to: [install directory]\EA GAMES\Battlefield 2 Demo\mods\bf2\Movies and ZIP/move/delete all the files there. You'll go directly to the game when you next start it.
Re:Played it and my two cents... by MagerValp · 2005-06-11 03:29 · Score: 1

Configuring keys SUCK!!

DICE have acknowledged the problem with binding to different input devices (i.e forward with mouse button, backwards with keyboard), and a fix should be in the first BF2 patch. As a workaround, use the secondary column for the mouse, and the primary for the keyboard.

Too many introductions that can't be skipped.

Rename the movies folder (found inside mods/bf2).

--

READY.
#
Re:Played it and my two cents... by bitkari · 2005-06-12 04:11 · Score: 1

They also need to sort out the mystery 'X' key under the Boat commands that can't be remapped :/

Don't even get me started on Joystick Axes......

Re:Can you imagine this on an Intel Macintosh? by FinestLittleSpace · 2005-06-10 22:23 · Score: 1

You're fucking stupid.

Time to Upgrade! by TiredGamer · 2005-06-10 23:53 · Score: 1

Talk about sticker shock... 128MB VRAM to run. That knocks out quite a few cards, though most folks can upgrade for dirt cheap. The really painful hit was to sound cards (all those SB Live cards, ouch). The system RAM requirement is pretty steep for a game that's going to get so much hardware acceleration, but seeing EA's already eliminated about one-third of the gamers out there I don't think they really will care.

Methinks the bar is set high so the engine can be quickly tweaked for an Xbox360 launch. Weird for a game that's fast-paced combat rather than immersive first-person like Doom 3 and Half-Life 2. It still runs fine in medium-high settings for me, so no big deal. Sucks for anyone that has a system older than 2002, though.

I really do like the new in-combat command system, though. It's nearly as responsive as the BF42/Vietnam command system, though it needs more if there's going to be a commander type mode.

I'm rather unhappy, though, that there'll be so few maps in the box. It reminds me of BFVietnam's pisspoor number of official maps in the first release.

--
No penguins were harmed in the making of this post.

Re:Time to Upgrade! by Anonymous+Cow+herd · 2005-06-13 04:28 · Score: 1

Actually, triple the number of maps that ship with the game, as each map is resized depending on how many people are playing. The same map in 16 and 32-player configurations play *very* differently.

--
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Re:Time to Upgrade! by TiredGamer · 2005-06-13 08:16 · Score: 1

That makes sense... it was always a major complaint of the BF series that more players didn't make the maps larger or more versatile, just more laggy. Large games would get bogged down in spawn-camping since the number of spawns never changed. I hope this was one of the things changed...?

--
No penguins were harmed in the making of this post.

This Game Sucks by DrunkenTerror · 2005-06-11 04:19 · Score: 1

Looks like you have to register with IGN and GameSpy to play online. Forget it. Yall have fun. I'll be playing DC with $50 still in my pocket.

Re:This Game Sucks by grumpygrodyguy · 2005-06-11 07:53 · Score: 1

Looks like you have to register with IGN and GameSpy to play online. Forget it.

Can anyone verify this? Does this affect the official version or just the demo?

--
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
Re:This Game Sucks by TiredGamer · 2005-06-11 08:50 · Score: 1

The entire game requires GameSpy to run as anything but "defaultPlayer" -- even in Single Player mode.

--
No penguins were harmed in the making of this post.
Re:This Game Sucks by grumpygrodyguy · 2005-06-11 11:28 · Score: 1

The entire game requires GameSpy to run as anything but "defaultPlayer" -- even in Single Player mode.

Ok, but is this just for the demo or also for the retail version due out on the 22nd?

--
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
Re:This Game Sucks by TiredGamer · 2005-06-11 14:38 · Score: 1

I'm thinking this is how the retail game will operate. It appears to be built around a client/server mentality... you "log in" to your local game just as you would log into a remote game.

--
No penguins were harmed in the making of this post.
Re:This Game Sucks by barc0001 · 2005-06-11 17:09 · Score: 1

This is incorrect. I downed it and played it last night. No gamespy reg, no IGN reg. You just have to create a profile for yourself in the game and it's good to go.
Re:This Game Sucks by DrunkenTerror · 2005-06-11 17:23 · Score: 1

Take this how you will. This is a log of a chat I had with a buddy of mine. "Jimmy" is our buddy who worked on BF2. carbonite says, "i also got confirmation from a non-Jimmy ea employee" carbonite says, "that the only reason you ahve to enter all that data to get a gamespy id is because of the ranking system" carbonite says, "because in the full version, you gain rank in offical EA servers. Non-EA sanctioned servers (say, ours), the ranking would be meaningless."
Re:This Game Sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-11 17:41 · Score: 0

If you had read the words on the screens dealing with profiles instead of just clicking OK! to everything, you would have seen the statement that by creating a profile, you are agreeing to 3 different EULAs, one for GameSpy, one for IGN, and one for EA.

Sorry to inform you... by cyberfelon2k5 · 2005-06-11 04:23 · Score: 1

Geforce4 owners are SOL, the game will not work at all. Strange considering the Geforce4 is still a decent card and can run Doom 3, Half-Life 2 and Far Cry better than the low end Radeons supported by BF2. Ah well, time for an upgrade I suppose...

no win 2k by atarrri · 2005-06-11 07:18 · Score: 1

You turkeys could have told me that it only runs on xp. It took about 7 hours to download just to find out that I can't play it.

Re:no win 2k by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-11 08:47 · Score: 0

I've been playing it just fine under win2k. It gave me a warning, but it worked without problem.
Re:no win 2k by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-12 02:39 · Score: 0

I'm playing it on W2K right now. I got the warning, but it runs just fine. Are you sure you have a supported vid card? I have a few friends who have been caught out because of their vid cards.
Re:no win 2k by bitkari · 2005-06-12 03:59 · Score: 1

It runs ok on Windows Server 2003 (using dice-supplied drivers) if that's any help.

EA is terrible. by VoidWraith · 2005-06-11 07:24 · Score: 1

Not just because of their politics, but in the games they publish and create too. I tend to play Command and Conquer Generals with my friends over the internet service they provide. Its the worst net-coded RTS I've played in a while. What other game has "mismatches" where "synchronizaton data has been lost" and it won't even bother trying to resynchronize? What other game has disconnections completely randomly, not to do with a connection at all, when it should simply be connecting the clients to the server.

Now this game won't even run. I get an error that memory cannot be read. I checked to see if it was my video card (which isn't on the supported list, but is better than most of them, its an ATI FireGL X1), but the memory address it gave was not one assigned to the card. The other issue is, does it support multiproccessing? I've got 2 with hyperthreading, meaning the OS thinks there's 4, could that be causing the problem?

And if you read the readme, there's so much they don't support and don't seem to plan on supporting. Its like a big "fuck you" to anyone without standard and new hardware. How hard is it to support game-port joysticks? Seems like a decent programmer could put that in in about a day. They use DirectInput, after all, it doesn't seem like that would be a challenge. I won't be buying this game, and I'll continue to try and avoid EA games in the future. They've got such a terrible track record, they dont deserve my money.

Re:EA is terrible. by TiredGamer · 2005-06-11 09:05 · Score: 1

See my post above.

It's about maintaining a portable codebase for console releases. Battlefield: Modern Combat is being produced alongside Battlefield 2 (I've even seen it called Battlefield 2: Modern Combat). The console release will make EA ten times more cash than the PC release... which one do you think EA and DICE are going to focus their energies on?

--
No penguins were harmed in the making of this post.
Re:EA is terrible. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-11 16:16 · Score: 0

"What other game has disconnections completely randomly, not to do with a connection at all, when it should simply be connecting the clients to the server."

Earth 2150.

p.s. Run memtest lately? That could be the problem.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2005-06-11 11:47 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I played it with v5.2 driver... by antdude · 2005-06-11 12:12 · Score: 1

... no problems. Whew.

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).

The choppers are much easier to fly than BF:Viet by abandonment · 2005-06-13 17:04 · Score: 1

Just tried it out for a few minutes...seems to be pretty fun.

My biggest complaint with DICE games is that they manage to make the absolute worst installers ever, and their menu's are the laggiest nightmares i've ever seen in a game...

Another complaint is that when you are first configuring the game, every time you change video settings, it has to spend a LONG time 'optimizing the shaders' for your new settings...

For myself, I have no idea how much I can tweak the video options to get the best visuals/performance out of the game, which resulted in 2 or 3 passes through these 'optimizations'...all in all I ended up having to spend almost an hour just installing and configuring the stupid game before I could even get into a game without the machine lagging out hardcore.

Also, why does it take SO LONG to start up and (even worse) disconnect from a SINGLE PLAYER SERVER!! I mean seriously...

Publishers whine about games not being able to reach the 'mystical' mass-market and then provide hideous install processes - 600 meg DEMO's that include a TON of extra shit that the game doesn't even need etc...

You go through 2 licenses that you must agree to before you even can install the demo...one for the 'tools' and one for the 'software'...

The demo includes so much extra crap that it really tarnishes what should be a really enjoyable game all around (if you can get over the fact that it's basically US Army propaganda):

1) Gamespy Arcade - why won't this program just die...
2) Nvidia Drivers - nvidia bribed them into bundling drives with the demo, adding extra bloat
3) Full DirectX9c - which seems to be a 'custom' version of DirectX9c because the game complained about a missing dll even if i didn't install this...I already HAD directx9c, why am i FORCED to install something like this?

Anyways...Once you get into the game itself it's extremely fun, but gawd-help you if you need to get back to that menu for whatever reason.

------------

With that said, the choppers are alot easier to fly than BF:Vietname - BFV's choppers made the game worth playing personally...i could fly around doing nothing for hours just because it was so fun...

The UH-60 is REALLY SLOW, but it's infinitely easier to hover than the BFV choppers...

The coolest thing about the planes is that the HUD in them actually works - you can see your tilt & rotation right from the HUD (duh like a 'real' chopper these days)...

Having the ability to hover in the VTOL planes is pretty sweet as well, but I imagine this will probably result in over-powered aircraft once people become really good at them...mind you there are alot more anti-aircraft options in this game compared to BFV as well, so who knows...

They have the muffled 'wounded' effect that FarCry does when you are hurt, except this time you get to stare at the empty sky waiting for the 30 seconds for the respawn to kick in...

For the short period of time that I have to play games in my schedule, there are too many annoyances to make me buy this game...I've already suffered through several DICE releases to realize what they are good at and what they aren't...so, it's fun, for what it is...but will it get my money?

No thanx...don't need YET ANOTHER ARMY GUY GAME (YAAGG)

--
Gekido's Lair

Re:The choppers are much easier to fly than BF:Vie by abandonment · 2005-06-13 17:12 · Score: 1

Oh, and another major annoyance (for me anyways) is that it creates NOT ONE, but TWO seperate folders in the 'my docs' folder for 'profiles'.

First is just 'Battlefield 2' and then it makes a second folder called 'Battlefield 2 Demo'...

I absolutely hate programs that insist on dumping shit into the my docs folder like this...no matter how much microsoft wants developers to do this, the my docs folder is for shit i actually use - profiles and other garbage that I'll never actually need to look at should be stored in the application folder...

anyways... /end rant

--
Gekido's Lair

Re:Can you imagine this on an Intel Macintosh? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-20 05:51 · Score: 0

No reason to get Mac bashie. From what I've been reading there's no call to be an elitist PC (Wintel) user about this game. EA just created a monster that almost on one can handle with their current machine. Also what are seeing for Linux users, jack. Windows 32 with DirectX and top of the line hardware. Shit I'd almost, almost think it would be better to get this for one of the consoles and let it worry about choking on the graphics.

98 comments