Slashdot Mirror
Review: Battlefield 2
- Title: Battlefield 2
- Developer: Digital Illusions
- Publisher: Electronic Arts
- System: PC (only)
- Reviewer: Zonk
- Score: 8
So how do you improve on an already great title? The sequel to Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield Vietnam stays very close to the source material. So close, in fact, that it's hard to point to any fundamental change in the gameplay mechanics. The changes, instead, are quality of life improvements. The game's engine allows for lagless infantry combat and accurate vehicular strikes. A fantastic audio environment places you directly in the action, raising the heart rate as bullets whiz by your head. Graphical improvements allow for a beautiful setting to slay your enemies, and tight level design makes for surprisingly tense house-to-house fighting. Stripping away options in favor of enjoyment, BF2 only ships with the Conquest game type, which pits armies of varying size against each other in a bid to control a set of nodes scattered across a map. Though there aren't that many maps each of them scales from 16 to 64 players. This allows for each map to evoke a different feel, from squad on squad to army vs. army, depending on the battle's size.
The additions they've made to the Battlefield series instead changes the framework of the tried and true gameplay they're offering up. Players have several different kits they can outfit themselves with, as in the original titles, but new kits such as the special forces soldier add in some variety. Support characters, like medics and engineers, can also increase their effectiveness by entering vehicles. These vehicles become mobile support bases, with medics inside vehicles healing fellow players that stand near the unit. Players can form themselves into small squads, each of which has a dedicated voice chat channel. Squad leaders can issue orders via a push-button system or voice, and have their group act in unison. The squads on a particular side are in turn directed by a commander. The commander of a side has a very different perspective on the game, a top down map interface giving him a birds-eye view of the proceedings. The commander has several tools at his disposal, including a kind of enemy detecting radar and the ability to call down artillery strikes. When the entire system is working in unison, players acting in concert within their squads and in league with other units directed by a commander, the experience is something akin to poetry in motion.
Unfortunately, that frission of so many different players working together rarely happens. While gamers have adopted voice chat for everything from Massive games to UT Tourneys, they generally do so with people they already know. In playing online, very few individuals seemed willing to make their voices heard to strangers. The in-game text commands are easy to access and informative, but they're still no match up for a quickly uttered statement. While cohesion within squads does seem to be generally good, as there are only a few people to coordinate, the level of effectiveness is entirely dictated by the squad leader. One suicidal or absent-minded guy at the reins can meant that you and your comrades are in for one messy death after another. In the overall picture, the commander's role ends up less utilized than it could be. Armchair generals abound in the FPS world, but in practice few are anything approaching a virtual Colin Powell. The experiences I've had lead me to believe that overwhelming force will almost always win the day. Beyond the game itself, the frustration involved in getting into combat is often off-putting. It may seem like picking nits, but the glacial slowness and murky obscurity of the server browser is extremely frustrating to have to deal with when compared to the user interfaces offered by other games.
Battlefield 2, then, is an extremely competent first person shooter with a strong pedigree and a vision to improve the way in which the genre is played. It is hampered by the vagaries of online play with strangers, poor user interface decisions. On top of these issues, bugs have been a problem since the game was released. Numerous patches, some even more devastating than the bugs they were meant to fix, have not endeared the game to players. Despite all these problems, when a group of players clicks in a Battlefield 2 game it is unlike any other team-based FPS on the market. Fans of the previous games will be happy to get back into the game they love, no questions asked. Veteran FPS players should definitely consider picking up a copy, as it's highly likely that you're going to run across this title at your next LAN party ... but you'll probably want to save it for LAN parties. Players new to the PC FPS experience will find things to enjoy here, but may be intimidated by the amount of knowledge the game assumes on the part of the player. Overall, while not a disappointment, Battlefield 2 falls short of a dramatic reprisal of the Battlefield series.
umm when has 2 patches been numerous? Aside from no favorites list this game is great. it is all 1942 is and more.
-- Yes, I work for the government, and yes I am watching you.
It amazes me that people keep suggesting that BF2 is this great example of what makes PC gaming better than console gaming.
I am a PC gamer and while I own most of the consoles, I never turn them on because I prefer the PC experience and my high-resolution cutting-edge graphics to playing on a "tee vee".
But Battlefield 2 was clearly designed from day one TO BE A CONSOLE GAME! Just look at the user interface. It's designed to be operated by a console-style game controller without any need for a keyboard, mouse, or any of the rest of the PC user interface.
The primary communication interface consists of a button-triggered popup menu of canned messages, and keyboard-based chat looks like an afterthought.
The user experience for this game will be identical in its console ports, and not because the consoles will be made to behave like PCs, but because the designers of this game went to a fair amount of trouble to make the PC behave just like a console.
The game may look better on today's PCs when compared to today's consoles, but this is simply due to the more modern (and several times more expensive) hardware in a current gaming PC. There may be other reasons why PC gaming is better than console gaming, but BF2 presents no examples (that I can see) of why this might be the case.
BF2 *is* a great game though, and is the first game of its type that actually convinced me to buy it.
G.
BF2 is a fun game which bears a striking resemblance in feel to Star Wars battle front.
It is nice, that in this game, a sniper can actually do his thing and there is a chance (but not a 100% gaurantee) if the enemies noticing you the moment you poke your head out of the building.
Great game...keep up the good job!
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
From the review:
Unfortunately, that frission of so many different players working together rarely happens.
From http://www.m-w.com/:
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary.
PC Gaming excels at strategy games. Games like Battlefield 2 can easily be done on consoles, while a game like Civilization or even Warcraft are much more difficult (yes, I know they've made warcraft for consoles, but it basically sucks).
The problem is not the console itself, but the control mechanism. Joysticks (or pads) suck for strategy games.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
It's much more satifying to play as a sniper now that the game doesn't give away your hiding spot everytime you successfully take someone down.
Also the spawn times of the vehicles should scale based on how many players are on the map. On maps with fewer players there are far too many vehicles to go around.
But VGCats said it best.
The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
...because it is a great game, and all, but there's really not a lot here that's not possible on consoles. Indeed, the fact that the consoles don't offer a similar experience is entirely down to a dearth of similar games - and god knows Xbox Live could really do with a game that bridges the gap between traditional small, userhosted deathmatches (like Halo 2) and the large MMO style as well as Battlefield 2 does.
Gamers Europe - Gaming News. Reviews.
Pitched, high tension battles fought street to street and house-to-house are experiences that consoles just can't offer up yet.
1. Take HALO engine.
2. Apply city-scape graphics.
3. There's no step three.
There are three things I can think of which set PC gaming apart, and none of them are "pitched, high tension battles fought street to street and house to house," which sounds to me like something that consoles would be great at.
What sets PC gaming apart is:
1. Mouse-driven FPS.
2. Keyboard-driven text chat.
3. Mods.
Pretty much everything else a PC game can do could also be done on a console.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
"but you'll probably want to save it for LAN parties."
Ah, with this ridiculous statment you dissolved all 10 small bits of credible information in your transparent review. If BF2 is anything, it is a online multiplayer FPS and calling it a LAN game shows that you've missed the plot completely.
Another poster brought up something I forgot to mention. The controls have much to be desired. There are so many different control types, you can easily spend 20-30 minutes setting up just SOME of them. That and changing them is difficult. I would get a message telling me the desired control key is utilized in another section - but not which part of the section. I have the basics setup - but just barely.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Isn't 1940 versions prior to Battlefield 1942?
Still better name than
Does Battlefield 2 include improved terrain/building damage? Indeed, such things will be the hallmark of future games.
If you bump a tank into a building, the building should suffer from some sort of damage. Games like those in the GTA series do at least include rudimentary support for broken lamp posts, trees, fire hydrants, etc. But besides shattering some glass windows, you can't really cause true damage to your surroundings.
Today's games lack such realism. But perhaps we will see such things in the very near future.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
BF2 is just like BF1942...an OK game that will be the basis for many mods. BF2 is almost an exact copy of Desert Combat for BF1942...I assume that BF2 will have a mod that comes to the top and BF3 will be based on that one.
Battlefield is just one of those games that you should never even open if you have a personality that allows you to get even slightly addicted to games. Hours can go by without even registering with me.
Personally, I like that there are few frills in this game. Simplicity is key in games like this. The depth and dimension comes from playing with other people.
The only thing I disagree with is that people are reluctant to use voicechat with strangers. Maybe this is more the reviewer's phobia coming through than an actual phenomenon. Sure, the first couple times you play with someone you only met through the game may be less conversational, but people remember good players and end up playing with the same "strangers," which erases this effect, if it ever existed in the first place.
If Battlefield 1942 was fought in IIWW realia, shouldn't Battlefield 2 be located, say, in Roman Empire, the unrests caused by king Herod, barbarians' attacks from the north, this kind of stuff, when Jesus was a 2-year-old child?
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
PC Game makers are trying to lure in more of the console crowd?
"but this is simply due to the more modern (and several times more expensive) hardware in a current gaming PC. "
One word. Monitor.
Computers are not turning into consoles. Consoles are turning into computers.
Battlefield 2 is a great concept, but the reality of it is that it is a step towards a FPS game built on a MMORPG-style business plan. There are a lot of factors pushing users towards using the "ranked" servers -- it is the only way to "unlock" additional weapons. The licensing is scary as well, as you are agreeing to not use the game with third-party game locating software, forcing you to use the built-in gamespy browser, and thus agreeing to the GameSpy agreement.
All in all, you are paying much more than $50 for this game. It is a reasonably enjoyable experience, if you play by EA's rules. If not, it is going to be a giant mound of frustration.
Model 551, Chambered in 6mm
Only in the world of computers can a sequel to "BattleField 1942" be called "Battlefield 2" without anyone blinking an eye. Or is it just me that sees this and interprets the 'sequel' as being 1940 versions behind the original, or at the very least, set 1940 years prior? :-)
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
It's a perfectly cromulent word!
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
How does this do on last gen systems? I have a 1800mhz duron and a Geforce FX5950, and don't really care to upgrade. What are my chances of being able to play this successfully?
I've been playing since the game came out, and have the following hardware:
P4 3Ghz with HT
1 Gigabyte of RAM
ATI X800 SE PCIE
160gig Western Digital 8meg SATA Drive
Soundblaster Audigy 2 (in 4 channel mode)
The game runs like a dog in anything higher than 1024x786 resolution on that hardware. You have to leave all the settings at "medium", otherwise stuttering will occur (I've heard this is because higher settings require 256+ megs of video RAM, which I don't have.)
The game easily consumes my gig of RAM, and starts forcing Windows to swap to disk. It gets so bad, that after exiting the game, I have to wait approximately a minute before I can use the PC again (from it swapping all the memory out of the disk.) This PC just has Windows XP installed on it, nothing else running in memory.
The game will also randomly "crash" while loading a level. I'll complete a map online, and it will appear to start loading the next map, a black screen will appear, and then my desktop. Yay!
There are also issues with the "aiming"-- I think it's a case of the server/client prediction being different. I can unload an entire clip of an MP5 at short range (5-10 feet), with crosshairs on someone, and somehow 90% of my bullets miss, and the guy goes into "prone" mode and stabs me up close. Huh? There's also this funky "jump and go prone" manuever, as well as the "jump from a building and fire accurately while falling" manuever. Things that shouldn't be happening, essentially.
It's still an enjoyable game, it just has flaws and needs patching..
Not All Who Wander Are Lost
There's nothing about BF2 that wouldn't work just as well on a console. It doesn't push any kind of graphical limits. It would work great with a typical console controller. It's a great game, yes, but that has nothing to do with it being a PC title.
I don't understand why some people are so anti-console. Look at it this way: a console typically costs less than a flashy PC graphics card, so why not just get one and have fun with it? That doesn't mean you can't also play PC games. If you've been completely blowing off consoles, then you've been missing out on some wonderful gaming experiences.
I'm using a 9700pro which is a 2 1/2 year old card. Its one generation, soon to be two generations, behind in terms of graphics chipset.
I get 50+ FPS playing at 1024x768 with all settings set to medium. As with most people who complain a game sucks because it doesnt' work on their hardware, you probably have a system tweaking issue or are running 3+ year old equipment. BF2 is made to sell as a popular game for 18-24 months. Its designed to have eye-candy that will appeal to an NVidia 7800 user, not a Voodoo3 user.
That said, most users find it necessary to have 1gb RAM due to the heavy caching of textures. Its seems to be the consensus on best bang-for-buck h/w upgrade to improve performance.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
... Got it with my EVGA 7800GTX board (got sick of the SLI skitzing all over the place in WoW).
This game is starved of RAM at 1GB if you play on uberhigh settings, you need 2GB. Yes, that's obnoxious.
Also, where's the shooting range so I can practice with the iron sights?
I agree with the general assessment of the review, but I wouldn't characterize it as "numerous patches." There's only been one patch, then a hotfix.
Play UT2k4. While most of the vehicular weaponry in UT2k4 is similarly underpowered, the tank shells are a violent exception. Being attacked by a tank from long range is pretty much certain death for even a large group on foot in ONS.
The game is bugged beyond belief.
Ignoring the fact that it won't run on Anything older than a 9x00 series ATI card or GF5x00 series nVidia card. It repeatedly drops to desktop on my old 9800 machine - the ATI support is terrible, presumably because nVidia is the way it's meant to be played.
Then there's the problem that if the game ever crashes, I then can't start a single player game without deleting all my user config files from the game folder, otherwise it just loops on the "Start Server" screen.
Then there's the fact that you can't play on the 32 and 64 player maps in single player mode without a mod. And there aren't any bots for LAN play.
This game stinks of EA forcing the developers to rush it out to suit their schedule rather than waiting until it was actually finished.
Yes, there have been some shortcomings with the this game. I feel that the positives outweigh them by far.
I love the stat tracking in this game. In addition to tracking your progress through the ranks for promotion, there are countless medals, ribbons and awards that you can earn by performing certain tasks. Some are trivial, like surviving a very high parachute jump. Others are impossible - check out http://ubar.phusion9.com/ for some examples.
The games tracks tons of useful/useless information about everyone -
- Time spent with each map/kit/army
- kills and deaths with each map/kit/army
- proficiency with all of the various vehicles/weapons
This game has been a blast, consuming tons of my free time over the past few weeks. There is nothing like hovering in a blackhawk with 5 teammates, waiting to capture an enemy flag while mowing fools down with a chaingun. Fun stuff.
The small bugs, like the crappy in game browser (improved with the 1.01 patch) and the flawed teamkill punishment system are nothing compared the favorible gameplay I have experience.
...I don't think DICE/EA QA'd this at all. At least with the 1.02 patch out it's a bit more playable.
This post could go on forever and I don't want that - so here's a list of the embarassing problems this game has. Not all of these are directly DICE/EA's fault, but they're all things DICE/EA could fix:
The Server Browser in the game has no "Favorites" functionality
Copy-Paste doesn't work, so if you want to play on a friend's server get your notepad out
Broken Tabstops all over the User Interface
Teamkill tracking issues too abundant to list
Ranked Servers not uploading their numbers to EAs master servers
Ranked Server Providers cramming so many hosts on single systems that VOIP functionality for in-game voice is non-functional
No anti-Bunnyhopping in the game
Jump-To-Prone is an exploit and should be removed from the game
Didn't the latest XBox Magazine have a demo version of this?
In B1942, even at the "hard" settings, all you have to do is get in a tank and sit outside an enemy spawn point at an ammo dump and blast away. It's even more effective if your an engineer and can fix your own vehicle. It's like shooting fish in a barrel, with 150+ kills possible on almost every map. The Berlin and Stalingrad maps are the most egregious offenders in this regard, I think.
It's an Xbox game (very soon):
M odern-Combat/
http://games.teamxbox.com/xbox/944/Battlefield-2-
I quit!
The MEC (Middle Eastern Coillion)is only ONE of the two opposing forces. It seems someone only played the demo and failed to see the whole other army.
I have played BF2, and it is ridiciously easy to take out infantry with a 120 shell. Or a 50 cal. Crouch or going prone gives better aim, so does, stopping and aiming... Running in with guns blazing like the movies doesn't work. If you have played Call of Duty or Counterstrike this should be second nature to you. Sorry, its not Quake or RtCW.
If what you are reading sounds funny, or sarcastic, lame, or stupid
it is because it is supposed to be. just laugh
Take a look at Morrowind for the Xbox and Morrowind for the PC--there's really no comparison. For the PC, a few choice mods yields far superior character models, new races to play and new monsters to fight, companions to aid you, pack animals to haul your lewt, new weapons and clothes, atmospheric sounds and music, new quests and storylines, etc.
A game that embraces the mod community can rise above its flaws (and believe me, Morrowind has plenty of those) and prolong its life for many years to come. If you need more proof of this, just look at the StarCraft UMS (Use Map Settings) crowd.
Oh yeah--you also forgot:
4. Better Graphics (for those of us willing to pay for them)
Since did a "review" constitute repeating the publisher's marketing brochure and then adding a small paragraph about what problems the game has? If I wanted to read glowing fanboy type crap, I'd go look at what IGN has to say about the game.
Need I remind everyone of KNIGHTS OF TEH OLD REPUBLIC 2? Whose graphics and gameplay failures were so bad it prompted me to make this webcomic for my friend..
Indeed, it is dark times.
One thing that really bothered me about this game was the seemingly random difference in controls when compared to Battlefield: Vietnam.
I can understand some of the motivation for removing the F1-8 chat, as it forces you to move your hand away from the actual game controls. The buttons to switch seats in a vehicle, though, are different for reasons that appear to be pointless. Other buttons for lesser commands are also different, again, seemingly at random.
My biggest complaint: air vehicles, especially helicopters, control very differently. It is immensely frustrating.
When I jump from one game to the other, I find myself pressing incorrect buttons and (worst of all) randomly crashing helicopters into trees. It's not as though the BF:2 helicopters control better, they're just... different.
Other than that, BF:2 is an entertaining game, but I just can't help but be angry about the totally random control differences.
This mainly means that people with Geforce4 cards (quite a lot of people) are unable to play BF2.
Armchair generals abound in the FPS world, but in practice few are anything approaching a virtual Colin Powell. The experiences I've had lead me to believe that overwhelming force will almost always win the day.
;)
Uh...the "Powell Doctrine" is one of overwhelming force. Maybe there's a few more eColins out there than you think
I prefer PC gaming mostly because of the difficult time I have in using the console controllers. My Nintendo 64 controllers are fairly difficult to use, and the XBox controllers are gargantuan! The mouse + keyboard combination just feels better to me. Plus, it's a much better setup to use in FPS games.
One other reason I prefer the PC is the available resolutions. IIRC, most conventional TV's can only do 640x480, which results in clunky looking textures and geometry (although consoles are definitely improving on this). There's not much on a console, if anything, that beats Far Cry or Half Life 2 at 1280 x 1024 (or higher) on a PC. Just my $0.02.
Go, and never darken my towels again! -- Rufus
Dittos here. The game simply won't play, patches or no.
You do realise you have to lead the target a little, right? Putting the cursor on the target will only kill them if they are running straight at you or stationary.
The tank shell thing is annoying, though. At least you can stun them with it now.
Look through any of the several forums dedicated to this game, and you will see many messages about the bugs. I can't play for any longer than about 30-45 minutes without a crash. That may seem short, but this has been after HOURS of trying all sorts of "fixes" that have extended this from 30-60 seconds. In fact, I *just* got finished trying the latest beta (77.76) of the nVidia drivers before seeing this article. The only things that have really helped have been "dumbing down" the video and audio settings. So much so, I MIGHT AS WELL BE PLAYING A CONSOLE!
Just for reference: MSI-based dual Athlon 2800+ MP, 1 GB buffered DDR RAM, GeForce 6600 GT, Sound Blaster Live! (note that this game does NOT support "hardware" audio for this card), and a 3ware SATA RAID card with striped 75 GB Raptors. It ain't the best these days, but it doesn't have much problem playing any of the other dozen A-list titles that I have loaded on it right now, and with a fair amount of eye candy.
I really want to play this game. In fact, my friends and I are thinking about a LAN party this weekend solely using this game. (At this point, I'm sort of resigned to just crashing every half hour or so.) The problem I see with a LAN party based on this game is that we don't have the bandwidth (either cable or DSL) for 6 of us to go outside a single residence to play on a server, but 6 isn't enough to make a LAN-only game interesting. This would be fine if there were bots in the dedicated server , but there aren't. At least, if there are, *I* can't find how to turn them on.
Acts 17:28, "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being."
With a score of 8/100, he must really hate this game.
Or maybe, it's a score of 8/5, and he really, really, over-enthusiastically likes this game.
Perhaps it's 8/Green, and it's abstract.
(*cough* Attention editors: Do not give an arbitrary rating for a review without some indication of what the relationship is. Yes, we're all smart kids and can determine that you probably like the game from your review, so it should be 8/10, with 10 being the best, but it's considered shoddy work to omit the scale.)
That green slime had it coming.
I have a 9800pro and a nice machine that has played absolutely every other game I've ever thrown at it. The game barfs and pukes all over itself when trying to load.
The problem probably is that I am running Win2K and there are some bugs that have not been caught because the game was developed for only one platform : XP.
Quake runs on Linux and is rock solid for a reason. Bugs you don't catch on one platform can express themselves on another.
Ok, so let's see here ....
The game pits American forces against vaguely terrorist middle-eastern stereotypes, in a topical tie-in to today's headlines.
...
The sequel to Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield Vietnam stays very close to the source material. So close, in fact, that it's hard to point to any fundamental change in the gameplay mechanics.
So what you are telling me is that this is the same game that has been hitting the shelfs with different developers names on it for the past 3 years, except they didn't really change anything. Gee, I'm convinced.
If it's a sequel shouldn't it be called a sucessor or perhaps heir? Sibling implies this was created at the same time as BF1942
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Good review, though there has only been two patches.. one good, one bad.
:D
For those that like BF2 in an organized and non-clan environment, join the 21cw tourney!. Play with the best of the best, join the beta campaign. Friendly shit-talking and no cheaters
http://www.21stcenturywarfare.com/
[69BD]S|PfC.Matty
Watch out for S-Coy
"Be glad you sailed for a better day, But dont forget there will be hell to pay" - Dave King/Flogging Molly
Profit!!!
Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war
RIGHT! so many people miss this. Just sit in your tank and spray a lake with the machine gun. notice how its about 2 feet behind? apply that to inf. and, VIOLA! dead meat. There are quirks, but personally anything to nerf the veh.s is a definate bonus. It's just too hard to take in a tank if you're on foot, even with AV kits. The only thing WAY out of balance would be the blackhawks. Give us something to lock onto them besides stinger sites! Those things are the first place heli's look when coming into a base.
They force these companies to release the game much earlier then it should be. Their QA blows. They released a patch that caused even more problems and then told everyone to REINSTALL the game because of their patch. There is so many bugs in the game its redic.
BF2 was never meant to be a console game. It is a 100% PC product. BF2: Modern Combat (Xbox/PC title) is a completely different product. I've played the demo and the two are completely different in terms of units and maps. The similarity is the "house to house" high paced action combat apparently not found on consoles.
The game has it's good points, but it feels massively rushed to production, and shipped with some glaring bugs. However, even with all the issues I list below, it's still FUN, but very frustrating at times. I figured this would bide my time until Call of Duty 2 comes out in October.
If you want to really get a feel for how the game is, just go to these forums and listen in: http://www.forumplanet.com/planetbattlefield/ I haven't listed even a smidgen of the valid complaints people have listed online.
Do the same with a .50 cal and then watch as the soldier runs up and stabs you to death with a hairbrush.
Are you sure you're playing the right game? My experience is that while the main gun doesn't have a lot of "splash" (nor should it), the 50 cal is extremely effective on infantry. The fixed weapons throughout the maps (woefully underutilized) are also extremely powerful. This game puts gameplay over realism, so it isn't of the single shot variety, but it's a fair compromise overall.
In fact one of my favourite things is using the jeep/buggy mounted machine guns to mow down enemies with ease. Of course then some moron hops in the driver's seat and starts driving me randomly around the map (after I carefully placed it in a defensive position near a flag). There's a lot of that sort of lameness. A lot of people who hop in APCs and then drive right past their teammates asking for a ride, dumping it near the enemy base so they can quickly be dispatched by a sniper.
I think the review was quite accurate, and he hit upon a core element of the game - your "success" and enjoyment in the game will vary dramatically based upon the quality and teamwork of your team. With a capable commander, and a team in squads that are doing their thing, it is really a wonderful experience. On most public servers, though, it's just a bunch of lone wolf random people running around the map, defending nothing and just hoping to come across enemy bases with on one in them. Of course because the opposition is the same, they're often successful in capping a flag for a minute. It's just random action where the winning team has better aim, with strategy meaning little. Too few times I've stumbled into a server with capable players and it's just the opposite, with a concerted push to attack specific positions, defense, and so on. Good stuff.
There'll always be bitchers, though. Was on a map last night where there are a number of linebackers on the Chinese side (Anti-Aircraft armoured vehicles), and some chopper guy complained that it was "unfair" (because he kept getting shot down). Apparently the lesson that it isn't a good map for choppers just failed to settle in.
Sounds like you might want to put down the .50 cal and pull out your hairbrush.
I've played PC (this includes Commodore 64, Amiga, x86 PC and Mac) games for years. Recently however, I've found myself paying more attention to console games because I simply cannot afford to pay for the hardware, the games and the hardware upgrades to keep playing new games.
More and more, I've become aware that many people are in the same boat as I am. Opting to buy a console that costs about as much as a video card once every 4 years as opposed to swapping out components on a regular basis.
Now this brings me to my point. We've all read how console gamers prefer "pick up and play" titles that are shallow and addictive, while PC gamers prefer "deeper" and more involving games.
With the statistics showing PC gamers spending more time on their consoles, does that indicate that they are necessarily endorsing the traditional console game stereotype and eschewing more complicated titles deliberately, or is the state of PC hardware with regard to gaming the primary motivator?
Is the image of what a console game is and is not valid any longer when you have a mass migration from the PC? Or does the presence of former PC gamers reenforce it?
In interviews and articles, I've read much on how many gamers want short, simple games that only require a minimal investment of time each play period. With schedules becoming more and more demanding these days, it is understandable, but we seem to be seeing a dearth of titles between the "Short and Simple" categories and the "Evercrack Level-Grind" style.
With the former style being the stereotypical console game, and more gamers moving to consoles, I would hope that developers do not simply abandon those of us who made the switch for reasons other than a desire to change our preferred game type.
The fact is, there are countless titles on consoles already (and in development) that cater to the "pick up and play" crowd. The rest of us have little to choose from. The casual market is being catered to quite nicely. Now for the rest of us platform immigrants.
We want our Deus Ex, Morrowind, etc level of complexity, depth and quality, but we don't want to spend hundreds keeping up with the PC hardware race.
This is why I bitch and moan whenever someone tells me that "such and such game gives you too much freedom and should be more on the rails" (which I get more than you might imagine). There are already tons and tons of games that suit the player who would find walking around Vvanderfell uninteresting. For those of us who like it, there isn't much to choose from. Let us have our games the way we like them and don't insist that every game conform to this new standard that is already saturating the market.
Will developers recognize that "streamlining" gameplay and making it more "accessible" (which usually means "make it more arcade-like and rip out the depth, no matter how much fun it is") could very well be turning off a segment of their potential market?
If you want a FPS, play a PC FPS, having a keyboard and mouse is 500000000x better than using a controller and day. If you want to play a sports game, play it on a console. If you want RPGS, play them on a console, if you want a MMORPG, play them on a PC, if you want a adventure game, play it on a console. PC games have the advantage in a crap load of areas, their are badass games that come out for PC's and consoles, but what seperates the two is PC's have the ability for mods. Half Life and Quake were two of the most defining FPS's ever in the history of gaming. But what made them was mods. Mods are by gamers for gamers, companies even though they try can never give a gamer what he really wants. They can give a gamer a sweet storyline, but as far as multiplayer, its all about the mods. PC's having mods also have craploads of maps also, having the same 1-15 maps on a console FPS sucks. Also the fact that PC engines can support a crap load of players, and the fact that you can host your own dedicated server and play on it and admin it. Consoles cant come close and will never probably. And we know that console game makers arent going to fork over money a month to pay for a dedicated server so that console gamers can enjoy a player experience with more than 16 players. Most broadband connections cant handle more than 12 players. PC games will always prevail, end of story. Console gaming is fun, but while its fun for some genres, PC gaming will never be rivaled. Another great thing about consoles is the ability to tweak any of your settings to exactly how you like it. By editing the autoexec.cfg or your config files, you can adjust everything possible. Consoles have never allowed for that and probably wont.
This seems like an opportune moment to ask this..
I often run small-scale LAN parties with a few friends (think: half-a-dozen people at most, plus lots of pizza, curry and monosodium glutamate). We play several games that seem to suit those numbers.. Age of Mythology, MOHAA:Spearhead botmaps (yay OpCenter!), FarCry (ChemLab is a blast) - and, recently - BF1942 in Co-op mode, us vs. the bots. As a rule, we prefer to play cooperatively rather than FFA, so co-op BF1942 works nicely for us.
With that in mind, can anyone answer me a question - are my friends and I likely to like BF2? The official EA site is completely crap (as always), and makes no mention that I can find of LAN play. (ObMoan: why do so many developers now seem to assume that everyone wants to play online games against complete strangers? That doesn't appeal to me at all!)
How well does BF2 scale to small numbers of players on a LAN? I've read TFA and it seems to imply it only "works" when you have 20+ people playing? Does it support bots and co-op gameplay, or must it always be a free-for-all? Any comments?
Thanks in advance..
I've played both BF2 and America's Army, and while BF2 has the benefits of larger battlefields, more classes of soldiers, more classes of weapons, and vehicles you can commandeer, it lacks the essential ingredient that makes America's Army my favorite by a mile: realism.
EA has consistently proven they think realism is in the graphics. It's not. It's in the game play. America's Army has much more realistic movement, reactions, lifecycle (coming back from the dead is not something that happens in real life, sorry psychic friends), etc.
When I play BF2 I'm amazed by the realistic water, the great tank graphics, and the wonderful explosions. But I feel like I'm playing an arcade game.
When I play America's Army, I'm amazed by the realism of the GAME itself, and I almost always become so immersed in the game that I need a few seconds after quitting to readjust to reality (scary, but true).
So BF2 is an arcade game, and America's Army feels like a simulation in a game-like environment.
In related news, the next version of AA -- due out this fall or winter, I believe -- will likely add larger maps and vehicles you can command, among other improvements.
Dantelope
Smokers
I doubt it's a video card problem.
welcome to windows
PC Gaming has been getting a lot of flak lately.
ha ha
i noticed that the choppers are easier to fly. That's really too bad, i thought it was a good idea to require a fair amount of skill to use the choppers, it usually made things more interesting.
for free wallpapers, visit Sargosis.com
If you guys have problems patching the game, then its debugging log might help to give clues. My log was in C:\Documents and Settings\FoolBoy\My Documents\Battlefield 2\dmp\patchlog.txt.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Anyway, what was I saying? Oh, right -- BF2 is an incredibly complex affair when you're used to run-around-and-shoot-people type FPS games. But, the complexity actually makes *strategy* a viable thing. Nobody is going to complain about "campers" in BF2, since camping is exactly what several of the player profiles are supposed to do. And that is refreshing.
If only they included a blood-caked dog-tag in the box...you know, just for realism.
I'm finding files to run a BF2 server on Linux (yes, I googled it), but can you play BF2 on Linux? Is it like UT200x where they include an installer file on the CD/DVD?
I'd like to buy this game, but I don't have Windows on any of my machines and would like to keep it that way. I'm not finding info anywhere, nor do I know of any good web sites dedicated to Linux gaming (other than games that come with the distro + Loki). I have UT, UT2003, Quake 3, and RTCW installed, so I'm not completely new on how to install the games and troubleshoot issues. I don't want to use some other software to get games working other than an installer for the game itself.
Is this possible? I would think game manufacturers would knock off the whole "server-only game releases" for Linux and give us the goods to play the game itself.
Content Management System: A pretentious way of saying "text editor."
I loved BF1942 and BFVietnam, but I can no longer justify constantly updating my now otherwise redundant windows box (I went mac for my work machine) in order to keep up with the demands of my favorite games. Given that a PS2 or an Xbox is now under £100 in the UK what would folks recommend as the best experience of tactical first person online shooter on a console? Ta
Well I love this game. My geforce 4200 wouldnt run it (aparently by design so you have to upgrade) but the 6800 gt256 is more than enough to handle that.
Its tightly integrated with gamespy, so if your like me and hate that company to death your out of luck. You absolutly need to create a gamespy account to play online. Ripping the CD's to ISO's took a bit longer because of read errors but the game plays fine with the iso loaded with deamon tools. I have heard that if you crack the game for noCD, it will fail punkbuster tests and nto be able to play online. EA's influence is clerely shown on all levels. Once you delete the opening ea movies (.bik) the game is less offensive and loads faster.
Problems are that there are simply not enough maps! where are the old desert combat maps like el alhemin? these maps are too small and dont have enough "fucking around" spaces. The choppers auto hover now which is very nice for crusing. Also as other people said, you can blow bridges and also holes in walls sometimes, depending on the wall.
Does anyone know of any servers that distribute or play custom maps? i was going to start up a server if I could get some maps for it!
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
So you unload a round into a guy who doesn't die because you weren't knowledeable enough to know that an automatic weapon has considerably less accuracy than a semi-automatic weapon (which controls your bursts). This may not be common knowledge to everyone, but it's not difficult to learn, and certainly doesn't warrant complaints from people.
Battlefield 2 is a great game. Sure, it's plauged with issues, but look past it. I play with my team of friends to have a good time, enjoy the rivalry against other teams, and relax after a competition knowing that our combined efforts won a game. The game truly is fun if you come to ignore the bugs.
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
The game is ok. It's a lot like BF1942 Vietnam, which is a turnoff IMHO. The game is too complex with the graphics and too realistic to the point where it's difficult to play. In BF1942 people are clearly outlined against their environment and with BF2 people blend in too well. Sure BF2 is more realistic but even with 64 people on a map you feel alone. BF2 has the feeling of so much empty space whereas BF1942 felt more accurate...even DC feels than BF2.
I guess my complaints are:
- The server select screen sucks. Refresh is slow. You can't add favorites.
- No CTF or anything other than conquest mode.
- By default, rounds are set up to end too quickly.
That said, BF2 deserves credit for implementing VOIP, even though it's hardly used, and squads.
Maybe you're just bad at playing the game. The 50 cal mows down infantry like butter. Tank shells were never designed to take out infantry anyway, and unless they are anti-personnel, they are usually not that effective except to scare the living daylights out of them and make them run for cover. That's why real armies usually have infantry closely accompany armored tanks into a battle.
It's a great game, but like you said it's not perfect. The Sniper unit is nearly useless because the zoom is too small and the gun too underpowered, and the Special Forces class is a juggernaut that can take on almost infantry and ground vehicles alike. Another niggling detail is that the air units seem way too survivable. A direct hit with a tank shell should not leave a combat helicopter able to hobble home and repair. I would have loved to have seen more realistic vehicular damage that actually affect the performance of the vehicle. A direct hit to a Humvee's front wheels should either disable it or dramatically affect its speed and controllability. A shot to the real rotor of an Apache should send it careening out of control.
one of my favorite and most effective tricks was to find the anti-aircraft tank in DC and then park it on the side of a hill. that allowed me to aim low enough to take out infantry with it. it was always 100% effective. i highly reccomend this if you're getting frustrated with the .50 cal or the 120mm tank rounds.
Besides....why are you trying to take out troops with a tank gun? it's overkill...use those rounds on other vehicles
for free wallpapers, visit Sargosis.com
But Battlefield 2 was clearly designed from day one TO BE A CONSOLE GAME! Just look at the user interface. It's designed to be operated by a console-style game controller without any need for a keyboard, mouse, or any of the rest of the PC user interface.
I believe you are confusing the game with the code that implements it. The code is console friendly not the game, a stripped down (wrt content) BF2 could be shoehorned into consoles and you could resuse the user interface code.
Usually this kind of thing is caused by good old fashioned lag. You don't see what's really happening in real time because it all happens on the clients in the order recieved, with some prediction used to show you on screen what is likely happening. But you don't know for sure what is happening until your client gets all the info from the server.
So you may see a guy in front of you and be shooting your heavy artillary at the ground where he is, but he's not really there; since you aimed your heavy weapons at the ground and not him the game can't know you meant to hit him, so he gets to come around and knife you while all this is going on.
People saying that console's have the price advantage are wrong, at least to me. Console's usually have a life span of around 5-7 years. Computer games now arently really dependent on CPU speed but how fast the card sitting in your AGP / PCIe slot are. If you build a decent 2.5 - 2.8 ghz computer with around 1 gig of DDR400 and slap in a 6600 GT, ( I built a Abit IC7 G with a Intel P4 HT 2.6 GHZ and a gig of DDR400 and a 6600 GT for 590 dollars, its called good skills on pricewatch.com ) You can basically play any game that has ever came out for PC and even the newer ones just fine. The thing is with a PC nowadays since most games are just GPU dependent, you can upgrade your card which equals better graphics, faster speed on older games and ones that just came out, and support for new optimizations on older games. And the comp will last you a good while, when I had my GF4 TI4200, that lasted me 3 years, spent 180 dollars on a 9800 Pro after they dropped, its lasted me up until now, when I got a 6600 GT for 170 bucks. People think upgrading graphics cards and buying the newest for 400 dollars are stupid, they act like they cant wait 7 months and let the price drop by 2/3's. Consoles dont have the upgrability feature with graphics, nor will they be able to improve on older games. And the consoles coming out now, whilst beefy, are going to run in the 500 dollar range most likely, but people say "500 dollars for a 3ghz processor and a sweet graphics card!" are right, but the thing why PC's are more expensive, do consoles give you the option for software - music - pr0n - movies - basically unlimited storage - multimedia design. Console are built for a single purpose, thats why their cheaper.
And a more accurate spelling would be frisson. C.f. dictionary.com
"Yes, Jayne, she's a witch. She's had congress with the beast..."
"She's in Congress?" - Firefly, "Objects in Space
Actually, it's a known problem with the Geforce4 and under series of graphics cards. EA knew this when they game was being developed. This means that at least 20% of PC gamers who can play Half-Life 2 perfectly cannot play the graphically inferior BF2 (According to Valve's hardware survey). BF2 uses pixel shader 1.4, Geforce4 cards only support up to pixel shader 1.3. EA has officially announced that they know about the problem and will not be doing anything about. They claim that the "obsolete" geforce4 will not render the game at an acceptable level of quality. This, in my opinion, is complete bullshit, since the game supports the SLOWER Radeon 8500, just because it supports ps1.4.
There is a community hack being developed to attempt to get the game to work, but it's very much just a kludge at this point.
All the same though, I don't buy EA anymore anyway. I even hear there is already an expansion pack that's nearly ready for release! I was laughing when I heard that, typical EA product life cycle. Launch, patch, patch, expansion, patch, expansion, launch new game, stop support of old game, patch, patch, expansion...
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
I've got a Geforce 5700 and it works. I didn't check before the failed 1.0.1 patch, but it that patch it used about 470 Mb Ram, with the new patch it uses less then 200 Mb Ram. I'm quite happy with the game, it's very very good. You should change your card, don't be that cheap :)
I'll do the stupid thing first and then you shy people follow...
I've heard of some games that show you the view of your killer in a movie - that way it can be used to determine if a hack is being used, and can be used to ban cheaters. I think AAOL(Amer Army on line) has this feature as of late.
..........FULL STOP.
Seriously, this game is #1 most hacked game of the year.
As soon as they update punk buster, an update for the hacks comes out.
People run around with enemies painted bright red, can see through walls and terrain, have pinpoint crosshairs on every weapon including sniper rifle when out of scope mode, can see every person on the minimap not just friendly units, can disable fog, can extend their view range way past normal limits, and lots more.
Once you see what the people using the hacks can do, it totally ruins the game for you.
On a side note though, it's always nice right after they update punk buster, because you have a slew of people who can't fight without cheating, so it's alot of fun getting your paybacks.
EVERY CURRENT GAME including HL2 and Doom 3 is playable at 1600x1200 with 8xAA AND 8xAF with good hardware (=3.6GHz CPU or equivalent and GF7800 GT(X) SLI).
;))
If fact, I play older games at 2048x1536. I have two monitors, a 24" CRT and a secondary 19" CRT.
Yes, I did spend a small fortune to a dual-core CPU and SLI (before the 7800GTXs I had dual 6800GTs). No, the cost was much less than a decent home theatre and less then a tenth of a decent car.
My secret? No kids, not buying stuff without a good reason, two adult-household and a bit above average incomes for both. (and most importantly, a GF taht loves gaming as much as I do
End result? Absolutely breath-taking graphics and a playing experience par none.
Capitalization is the difference between "Helping your uncle jack off a horse" and "Helping your uncle Jack off a horse"
Battle field lacks a great deal of traits that make a good game. 1. You don't always want to play with a team, sometimes you want to fight on your own. You don't always want an objective, sometimes you want to have plain ole have fun. The variety of game types is lacking. 2. The server interface is terrible. Why should there be so much trouble to get on a server? If you have played halo II with xbox live, everything works seemlessly. 3. Since it is a computer game, some inherent disadvantages come with it. Your friends can't come over and play easily (there is no way i'm going to lug my computer to a friends place for BF2). Overall, in all honesty, this game is subpar.
Once you get in the game, I just can't argue, BF2 is incredible, the graphics, the gameplay, the adrenaline rush, it's all there. But, cause there is a but:
1-before you get on a map you will need to log in some server, which is local, so even if you don't have an internet connaction you still have to log in to a server. Computer grind to a halt, sound loops (P4 3.4Ghz, ATI800XT, 1GB ram, 10,000rpm SATA drive). (30sec-1min.)
2-Once on the server you need to select multiplayer, then another load starts, then the list of game servers appear, you'll need to reorder it so it reloads again. Sound loops, graphics freeze for a few second (10s-15s).
3-You select a server that looks interesting. Sounds loops, graphics freeze.(15s-20s).
3 a)-if in the meantime you select another server, when the computer starts showing signs of life again it rejams and step number 3 restart
4-Then you connect to the server (10s-15s).
5-The game starts loading all textures of the level you are going to play (40sec-1,30min)
5 a)- if you checked anything else than "application preferences" in your video control panel, because another game requires it, AA doesn't apply, you'll need to restart the game and do step 1-5 entirely.
5 b)- if you change anything about the graphics you need to reload all textures again (step 3-4-5 again), some changes requires step 1-5 again.
6- You actually have loaded textures and are to the point where you press "play" (or whatever the button says), the game loads something, again, (10s-15s).
7- you actually are in the game and have to select you type of soldier and spawn point then really really start the game and when you wanna get out of this map NEVER press esc, EVER, you go back to the menu; graphics feeze, sound loops, computer grind to a halt (5s-15s). You press esc again to go back to game and repeat the wait.
8- You selected your spawn point and have press the button to confirm it, the game loads something (5s-10s) and then you start playing.
9- if after 10 min you don't like the server you press esc, by now you know you'll wait, the menu loads and show you the server list, you double click one, the sound loops, the graphics freeze and 8-12 seconds later it tells you you need to disconnect first (can't do it by itself, see it can reproduce the physic of sand blowing under a bomb but not disconnect automaticaly...). You disconnect, 15 seconds later you reconnect to a server playing the same map, it reloads all textures again anyways and you know the drill...
This is by far one of the most awfull software I have seen in my life, great game if you have the dedication to reach the point where you actually play but i most often than not just quit out of frustration facing a totally stupid interface, I regret buying this game, just because of this, it pisses me off and thats not suppose to be the purpose of a game...
Frankly, my favorite of this genre is still RTCW. It seems like when they started trying to add vehicles to these games, they seriously screwed up the game balance.
The game control is much improved from the old battlefield game. Unfortunately they seem to have a problem with balance. Namely with aircraft. Tanks and ground vehicles, no problem... if anything they're too easy to take out by infantry.
Planes... nearly impossible to kill, unless you're in an AA gun vehicle. The stationary AA missiles don't seem to have the speed or range to nail them, and there's no way to hit them with small arms.
But if you want to win, and you want to get a high score, with all the fame and fortune that goes with it... You have to play the Helicopter right.
The Helicopter has a pilot, two gunners and four passengers.
The pilot and two gunners should be medics. If anybody does get some small arm fire off onto your passengers, they'll get healed. The four passengers... Well there you want engineers. Why? Cause if you get hit by a missile, they'll fix the heli.
With a good pilot, you can come down in on a flag, take the position by hovering for only about 5 seconds, and then move on.
On the ground... it takes about 3 good hits of a bazooka or tank to take out a helicopter.. With the slow reload times, you can't do that in 5 seconds... so you have to have several players targetting the heli. But then you have those four engineers up there repairing...
What this means is, essentially... the only way to take out the helicopter is to hit it with another aircraft like a plane or heli, or completely overwhelm it from the ground. It's hard... real hard... When President Bush said his job was hard, he obviously never tried to take out a heli in BF2.
Meanwhile the guys on the ground are dodging fire from the heli, trying to hit the thing... And those guns are awesomely powerful. and when it leaves taking back the flag.(not always easy, now that it's a spawn point)
Oh, I haven't tried this... but I think having one support player as pilot or gunner may mean the engineers will get rearmed. So when they aren't repairing they can drop mines and grenades all over the place. Fun fun!
Essentially the game is a lot of fun if you're in that helicopter.
Otherwise, the second most fun you can have is to take Special Ops. Find yourself a car... load it up with C4 packs, and then drive around getting all Yassir Arafat on the enemy tanks. That is... you ram 'em and everybody blows up! You, the car, the tank, and the occupant of the tank! Doesn't help much with your score, but it's still fun!
Kind of reminds me of when RTCW was still in beta, and you could run down the hallway with the flame thrower without injuring yourself. Great fun, if you're the guy with the flame thrower.
I'm hoping they fix the game with the next patch.
BF2 Lance Corporal sodablue
In so many ways, the original Battlefield 1942 and Vietnam came across as an unfinished, unpolished beta. The engine in Battlefield 2 seems very optimized and scrutinized, but the interface still comes across as inelegant. The GP here is voicing a complaint about one of many things that illustrate this rough interface. And it makes no sense that if you've assigned the 'ctrl' key to something in the 'AIR' controls this conflicts with your 'INFANTRY' controls.
One important topic missing from this review is that it doesn't reference the Battlefield 1942: Desert Combat mod which was created by the team that was then bought by EA to create this game. Battlefield2 is more an evolution of that mod than of the original 1942 release.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
# No multiplayer coop - playing against a few friends at a lan party with bots for backup was one of my favorite things to do in BF 1942.
This is actually not true. It does have it. You just have to trick it and you're restricted in functionality.
1. Start a single-player game, which is effectively a single-client multiplayer (hence why it says "starting server" during load).
2. Have the others launch an Internet multiplayer session, but click Connect To IP and enter the "server's" IP address. That will directly connect them to the LAN PC.
My nephew and I do this every weekend. It does have its limitations, though:
- 16-player maps only
- You have to manually load new maps
- Each map goes for 3 runs
- Each user must have a legitimate on-line account (or approriate crack, I would assume, but since all of my copies are legal I don't know what the crack status is on this)
No, it doesn't have a direct, configurable, LAN multiplayer, but you can still have LAN multiplayer.
You need a new video card, not because you couldn't play without but because the designers just decided to use the new shader model.
Define "new". The system that my nephew uses has a 128 MB, GeForce 5500 FX card, which by current standards is hardly a new card. The game runs just fine.
I like playing on my work computer and my home computer, why do I have to lug the DVD around?
There is no way in hell that I could agree with you more. On-disc protection is ludicrous and inconveniences only the legitimate purchasers.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
rbanzai is correct. The BF:1942 and BF2 engines are completely flawed when it comes to collision checking artillery. There's no concept of splash damage, either. Tank shells should obliterate a foot soldier if they land anywhere within a 30-ft radius. In none of the BF games is this the case, even with stationary tanks and soldiers.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
I've seen two highly (3+) moderated comments about how much this game bites, application-wise. Both complaints are from users with P4s, one 3.0GHz, one 3.4GHz. Can I hear from some AMD users, are you having the same performance issues?
I assert that my comment is only my opinion, not that of any employer, past, present or future.
They also decided to make it all team play and did not include bots for LAN multiplay. This sucks!! I'm sorry, I don't live in an area with broadband and cannot access any of the servers using POTS. Loogs like my little group of gammers will have to stick with BF:DC and BF:1942 so we can all play and have fun killing the AI.
Most of the issues are with finding servers and finding good people to play with (good as in friendly/ entertaining, not just skill (although that helps) ) There's always tourny style play like bf2combat.net. Just pick a side to play on and join an established community. Solves the problem of finding servers (they have their own), and their teamspeak servers improve chatting.
dumass
alias dir='rm -rf
The memory leak issue is known, and it is not the fault of your video card. Memory leak consumes your GB of RAM, and the paging makes it run like hell. You should be aware of this: http://www.eagames.com/official/battlefield/battle field2/us/editorial.jsp?src=communityupdate_070805
Overclockers
Ironically, the Powell Doctrine also calls for:
s on plans/iraq/powelldoctrine_short.html
1. "...that military action should be used only as a last resort and only if there is a clear risk to national security by the intended target..."
2. "...there must be strong support for the campaign by the general public..."
3. "...and there must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged."
~http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/teachers/les
Now put that into the perspective of the Iraq War, and it's obvious that Powell lost the internal fight to Rumsfeld.
... and I know what I'm talking about; from March '04 to March '05 I spent a year in an infantry company in Baghdad. So, here's my mini-review, with an eye towards comparing the game to its real-life equivalent.
.50-cal fire, kneel, and shoot the .50-cal gunner in the head, I'm going to punch my computer. Yes, this occasionally happened to great effect, in WWII, Korea, Vietname, etc., but the reason you hear about those cases is that they are extraordinary. 99999 times out of 100000, that guy is dead.
Battlefield 2's weapon characteristics are *nothing* like their real-life counterparts. In real life, I can hit a 3-ft. plastic target at 400m with a single round from my M249. I can put five out of seven rounds into a *real* person, much bigger than the target, at the same distance. In Battlefield 2, I'll be lucky to hit a guy with 3 rounds out of an entire 200-rd. box, at about the in-game equivalent of 100m, while laying prone. Hint to DICE: squad support weapons are not innacurate. None of the weapons portrayed in the game have the poor accuracy the game displays. If they did, real militaries wouldn't use them. Please don't artificially retard weapons to balance gameplay; instead, rework the levels. Terrain is often a deciding factor in real combat. Why should your game be different? Besides, the soldiers you're portraying in-game are not truck drivers, pay clerks, or light-wheel mechanics; they are combat arms soldiers. They are trained to move, think, and fight in combat, so how about you let them do that without imposing silly constraints on their ability to fight?
Here's a thought: if you must artificially impose limitations on accuracy, base them on a player's in-game rank. That's quite a bit more realistic - I know I was calmer, steadier, and more accurate at month six in Baghdad than I was on day three.
Here's another thought: one area where most games do not impose artificial constraints is the effect of suppression fire. This is the exception to the rule of arbitrary limits, and America's Army got it right: if someone is shooting at you, your accuracy suffers based on how close they're hitting. This is how it is in real life, and this is how it should be in game. The next time I see some lone wolf jump up and run right into a hail of
All of these bitches seem to be about weapon accuracy, but, hey, that's a core bit of the game. So, next on my list... if I am riding around in a M1 Abrams tank, see somebody hovering over a flag in a Havoc or a Hind, and land a 120mm HEAT round right below their rotor shaft, what happens in real life is this: the chopper explodes, crashes to the ground, and everyone inside dies. It does not drift a little to the side, turn, fire some rockets, and then fly away. Modern HEAT rounds are made to penetrate upwards of 800mm of RHA - they're made to defeat main battle tanks. Modern attack helicopters are made to withstand 20mm cannon fire. Do the math.
Support catastrophic kills on armored targets. If I land a round right on the turret ring of a T-80, the tank is going to explode, spectacularly. It's not going to turn, shoot at me, and then run away.
Tanks are not anti-infantry weapons. They are anti-armor weapons. The coax machine gun, and turret gun, are effective against infantry *at range*, but pretty much useless up close. The main gun on a main battle tank can be used to great effect on infantry when they're hiding in buildings, but if you land a round close to an infantryman in open terrain, you're probably just going to scrape him up or give him a few burns. Sabot rounds don't fragment enough to have a grenade-like effect on infantry, and HEAT rounds dissipate energy too quickly to cause much harm when they strike anything other than a wall, armor, or other such material. And these are likely to be the only two types of rounds a MBT will load. Of course, *hit* someone with a 120mm round, and they're done.
AT-4s, SMAWs, SRAWs, etc. etc. etc. probably w
Arr! The laws of physics be a harsh mistress!
As the OP mentions, the ingame server browser sucks donkey balls... even after the 1.02 patch. However, the last few updates of the ASE server browser work perfectly with the patched version of the game, so my only real compliant with the game is solved for me.
http://gamesdomain.yahoo.com/ase/register is a link to download it. Yahoo bought them out sometime last year, but it hasn't changed any that I've noticed.
I've got a pretty mid-range system, and the game runs excellent for me at almost all high settings... if you're into online FPS games, by all means check this one out.
Battlefield 2 is more on the arcadey than the realistic side, what with medics reviving someone who was blown up by a missile with a defibrillator or engineers repairing tanks in seconds? Planes are slower than in reality, weapons less accurate and less powerful, etc. Whatever it takes to make the game fun.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
So, for those of us who want to run our own server, the game is basically DOA. Our server is co-located at an ISP in Seattle with excellent peering, which means it has the lowest ping for probably half the players in the US and Canada (look for "CSM - Seattle - BF2" in your game browser, BF2 fans). Sadly, it's hardly ever filling up because it's not ranked.
Coupled with the major screwups (like a server which leaks 14K/s of ram which took a week to fix, laggy netcode, poor in-game balance, etc.), it has not taken off anything like the original BF1942 did.
But i dont get what people are saying about it being unstable.... I mean i have a P4 2.4ghz and a gig a ram and an ATI9800PRO. No problems. Now i run in 800x600 to keep it fast due to my vid card is only 128mb but i dont have crashes i dont endup with a slow pc afterwards (when i switch to say play UO). Infact it loads and unloads very quickly. I dont have problems with memort leaks but some folks did evidently. Sounds like to me yall need to get cleaner machines and quit loading so much crap on them. My game system is just that dedicated to games and i dont load crap on it other than games. Its XP (which i dont like) but it is stable as hell. (its actually a dual boot win 2k / win xp). Really i mean i havent rebooted this machine since BF2 came out. So it would appear that it is more Hardware/other software related...and the fact that it has affected who clans of people doesnt mean it is their software. I for one usualy play at least 1 hour a day at BF2 and usually a lot more than that. :)
. I love the sound of burning women and screaming rubber....
ASE doesn't help.
The sad thing with ASE is that it takes days to start the game and when it's loaded, the server is usually full again. I'm trying to play on the registered german servers which is some kind of lottery. The best tactic is to pick a server, filter by its full name and then try to join until it either works or you're sick and tired. It usually takes far less than a second for a slot to be filled after someone leaves and up to 20 minutes to join the server your friends are on.
Why there is no queue to join servers is beyond me. They wanted to have a topseller. They got one. But still, they decided to implement the most frustrating system to join games they could imagine.
Not to mention that they didn't get the Linux server out the door because EA was trying to ship a broken version while DICE had a working one which of course didn't help DICE to fix the bug. Of course, that didn't help to get the number of working servers up. Not to mention the broken 1.01 patch that had to be reverted. EA was suddenly offering a 1.0 Linux server that didn't officially exist before.
Oh well, at least you have some time to recover after joining a server because it takes forever to load the map and the first five minutes of a round are best spent in an unspawned state to wait for all textures to be loaded unless you like seeing every motion in triplicate, which is most fun when trying to fly a jet.
Fight hunger. Filet a politician and send him to a 3rd world country of your choice.
BF2 is a real good game. It's not supposed to be hyper realistic but the fire fights are very life like and the firing mechanics feel very real.
But I dont play any more because of a few things:
1: I spent a lot of money on a new 6800 but cant play with decent settings above 1024- even with 2 gigs ram, unlocked pipelines, OC, etc, the stuttering is unacceptable.
2: Hardly no one uses the built in VO functions. Using it can make incredible squad cooperation, but I don't want to have to join a clan to experience it.
3:Jackass teammates. As commander, teammate mutinies are way too common and easy to succeed. If you run into my arty strikes by ignoring the automatic warnings "ARTILLARY YOUR AREA!" AND ignore your minimap, people will STILL punish you for being teamkilled. This happens all the time. Moving 2 mph should not run teammates over either, especially when they run right into your path. I've been kicked without realizing what happenned because of this.
4: Teamkilling enabled servers are way too common. A game is made to have fun, not for punishing teammates over accidents. To me this hurts every match, and dampers the fun.
5:Lag is too severe. On nearly all servers running over 32 players, when the fighting gets concentrated in tight areas it turns unplayable. I don't know if this is bad net code or bad servers but it sucks.
6:Too much experience needed to level up. It takes way too long to make corporal. When I stopped playing last week, 9/10 players are lance corporals. It's the devs attempt to turn the game into an RPG grind and it sucks.
Maybe after the game is patched and the new players wise up I'll come back. I've played about 50 hours and so I guess I got what I paid for, but for now I'm going back to playing Rome total war.
$0.01 - The server browser is indeed a cringworthy embarrassment. How such a good game can have been released with such a appalling front-end is surely going to be an interesting gamasutra article
$0.02 - Engineers should not be penalised when their retarded teammates drive into their own minefields. I already vented about this here
Tales from behind the Lagom Curtain
Loyalty to your president after he lies to you is the hallmark of truly a ignorant sheep.
repost after ignoring the preview button: Loyalty to your president after he lies to you is the hallmark of a truly ignorant sheep.
To this day I still play the Desert Combat mod with Battlefield 1942. (Actually, I play this and the Secret Weapons mod the most, but it's great to have them all.) Granted, I have a Mac and this game came late to our table, but it's still a game that is fun as hell. Hop in a bike or dune buggy, zip to a flag, slide-break as you switch to the turret position, rat-a-tat-tat the defenders, surprise the guy camping the flag just inside the building. Hasn't gotten old yet!
If you want modern weaponry and vehicles with the old Battlefield game, I highly suggest you try the Desert Combat mod.
Developers probably thought it would take too many CPU cycles. You're right, though.
"OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
Especially when many of you guys usually have multiple machines laying around. For christ's sake, load one of them as windows, or as a dual boot, and go to town with the gaming.
If you know what you're doing, the problems with windows aren't worth worrying about, and since youre only using it for gaming, who the hell cares if IE or outlook is a hunk of crap. Youre not using them on that machine anyway. Just shut up, build yourself a game box out of whatever parts you got, and get playing.
Machine got owned? Format and reload! Or Not! Depends on how much you want to play that game you just bought! Life is unfair!
(Then again, I do understand the base human joy of bitching about things; please - don't stop on my account.)
s'wut i sed.
When I saw this in my live bookmark, I thought it meant a sequal to Battlefield Earth!
"You need the CD/DVD in the drive to play. I know this is standard, but I fail to see the reason when you have each install attached to a KEY too that I'm sure is checked when you play multiplayer. I like playing on my work computer and my home computer, why do I have to lug the DVD around? There's a NOCD hack already or I wouldn't have bought the game."
Nah. Just rip it with error block skipping turned on in alcohol 120% takes about an hour, but then all you need to do is: RIp iso. Mount with deamon tools, install (reinstall off ISO so it plays nice with deamon tools without a registy hack). Turn alchol 120% cd emulation OFF (the game is hardcoded to not run with alcohol 120% running). and fire it up.
also another bonus, theres no added delay in booting up the game, waiting for the CD to spin up. My game loads almost exactly when i click the icon.
also i heard that the NO CD hack actually fubars punkbuster as in you can tplay on PB servers. not a problem with isos.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
The reviewer failed to mention player based boycotts of Electronic Arts. Also there was no serious discussions of the flaws of the game. I know of one serious boycott of their already announced (follow the money!) expansion pack until Electronic Arts fixed the heinous flaws in BF2.
In-game BF2 is tolerably good though you do need a considerable system to play it. However, everything external to the game is horrible. Mostly the problems result from a completely obvious money grab by Electronic Arts. Follow the money!
The ranking system is designed to make money ONLY FOR Electronic Arts. It is NOT an anti-hacking system as EA claims. That is the purest form of sophist marketing tripe. It will take me, and I play 2-3 hours a day, probably 2 years to make 1st Lieutenant. I only have about 2000 game points. Yet, there are already people with over 300,000 points. Eh? We all got it at the same time! The ONLY reason for the ranking system is so that EA can require a fee to run a ranked server. Between $4-$8 per player per month. $250 per month for 1 server. Follow the money!
Once you register you CANNOT change your nick without going through gyrations that would make a die-hard Rube Goldberg fan flinch. In game I'm R2N2. Out of the game, everywhere else Battlefield, I am PoW_Njall. I made a simple mistake with the demo and I'm hosed. Why? Follow the money!
No one I know, and I play A LOT of BF2 and BF1942 uses GameSpy. Yet registration with GameSpy is required? Why? Follow the money!
Electronic Arts says that modifying a Python configuration file is "hacking" and users caught "hacking" will be banned. Servers are not allowed to turn on all weapons thereby requiring players to play on "ranked" server in order to gain in-game access to upgrade weapons. Even if the players on the servers don't want to play for ranks. EA Games will "de-list" any server which opens the weapons. Why? Follow the money!
Had I written the game server browser I would hide myself in absolute shame about how poor it is. It is slow, inaccurate, and without features. Yet, EA prevents other game browsers from working with BF2. Why? Follow the money!
There is a LARGE list of problems that should have been found in testing. Why weren't they found? Follow the money!
If you want to get a clear idea of what to expect in Battlefield 2 from people who LIKE Battlefield 2 check out http://www.totalbf2.com/
Star Wars Battlefront is what you want. Uses the BF 1942 game engine. It's basically battlefield, but with excellent John Williams score, and nifty Star Wars weapons. Excellent game, and can be found used all over the place. Online play with PS2 is fantastic.
There has to be something to discourage everyone from carrying a SAW if it's approximately as accurate as the other weapons but has a ridiculously larger clip/ammo capacity.
In real life, it's fatigue from carrying the damn thing and its ammo, right? I submit that DICE doesn't really simulate that. You've got your stamina bar and a slight slowing of character movement, but does that capture running around all day with the significantly heavier weapon and copious ammo? Does your aim steadily get worse the longer you're alive and using it? (As you grow more tired?)
Maybe the kit difference b/n the machinegunner and default infantry is enough to distinguish them, but I'm guessing DICE thought the change balanced the classes better.
Note that the issue is balance within the game, and not adherence to real life.
I still agree with just about everything you've said, and congrats on serving and surviving.
I use ESDF. It's much better than WASD in my opinon, because you have quicker access to more buttons, and keeps your fingers on the home keys. It was also the default config for Tribes 2, which was the first FPS I played for any length of time.
My usual setup:
ESDF for movement
G for grenade or throw gun (whichever applicable)
B for mines
H for beacons
A for zoom
T for zoom level or spray (w/a)
V for voice menu
Q for healthkit or use (w/a)
W for switch weapon
R for reload or pack (w/a)
X and C for anything
U for global chat and Y for team which is nice, because once you press it your right hand is on the home keys.
Depending on what the stances are (sprint, crouch, prone, etc) I'll use Z, Ctrl, Shift, and Alt. I also use shift and control as modifiers if the game supports it (shift-g for max grenade throw, ctrl-g for drop grenade ammo, etc)
---
The only thing I hate more than a hypocrite is a person who hates hypocrites.
Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
Actually there are console games that have been patched, off the top of my head (of games I own) both SOCOM's, FFXI, EQOA, and Star Wars Battlefront. However none of them were unplayable in their unpatched state.
Especially the xbox. I found bf2 to be bf1942 with modern warfare. There was really nothing special about it. I didn't even really enjoy bf1942 that much. It was plagued by spawncamping and terrible "realistic" controls. Seriously, I don't want to have to learn aerodynamics to figure out how to fly a helicopter.
Read my short stories - You won't regret it.
Actually, the PS2/Xbox/PC versions of Star Wars Battlefront might suit you well for small scale LAN play. The games support bots and since you can set your server to let you choose your side, you can choose to play a humans vs bot game.
I wasnt expecting a realistic game. In the game, i find myself basejumping (parachuting from buildings) all the time (which is silly because everyone will see me but usually i get away with it). Im behind a computer screen anyway how realistic is that? I do agree though that it may be a good idea to make a optional setting that aims for more realism.
despite the bugs and glitches, bf2 is still the most advanced FPS warsim published to date. It's very playable and the experience it provides is top notch.
--
|-_-| . o O ( bEef!)
I think the lack of teamwork in the game isn really the fault of the players being boneheads I often find myself even ignoring the commands my squadleader gave me, since they are usually just get that flag, with the idea behind it that if a lot of people converge there we can take it. usually i think something like ey, that flag is closer and undefended. then why should'nt i go there. Commanders often only use the scan, uav, artillery. and when i am commander (no-one else wanted to be) i do that too. (my in game name is cannonsmudge for the same reason my nick here is Jasper__unique_dammit mutiny me if im commander) maybe there should be a battleplan beforehand, then people may see some logic in why to move how, but i dont see how it is feasable when people keep respawning, then they dont have plans and just will go about semi-randomly. (ofcourse you could spawn everyone at the same batch, but waiting is boring, maybe let dead people play in arcade-ish separate arena) teamplay may only be practical in games when teamplayers know each other and have voice chat. which is a long cry from the random people that enter servers now
Yeah, It seems like every single reviewer has completely forgotten the true prequel to BF2; Desert Friggin Combat, wasn't it mod of the year for two years straight? Any review that doesn't mention it is really lacking any true insight into the game; I saw some that talked about the "New" unit types like support and special ops and never once mentioned DC
I mean just look at this screenshot, http://www.desertcombat.com/navyseals_DCSite.jpg It would be like reviewing counterstrike source and not mentioning counterstrike.
Web Developers: Celebrate to our roots! Animated Gifs and Tiled Backgrounds, dont let our history die!
Check out the Red Orchestra mod for UT2004, it's a total conversion eastern front WWII mod. The guns & aiming are true to life - you have to compensate for drop over distance, you can't effectively shoot from the hip, you must use ironsights, there's realistic weapon sway that increases as you hold your gun up, and the weapon sounds are accurate. It's as close to firing the real guns as you can get without actually doing it.
It's also more realistic than Call of Duty due to the annoying fact that in CoD, you usually have to shoot people more than once before they fall down.
---
I'm not a very effective viral sig. Please help me spread.
Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
50lb vs. 15lb? Brutal.
Single fire for someone playing at home seems pretty easily achieveable, since they're just clicking a mouse. Therein lies DICE's decision: if the purpose of the weapon (and, thereby, class) in the game is suppressing fire and the wholesale slaughter of people in groups (i.e. not requiring sniper-like accuracy), and the addition of such accuracy would allow users to easily apply the weapon (and class) to the purpose of other classes (thus edging out those classes for the same role), then they should limit the default accuracy of the machinegun a bit. Since the purpose of this weapon in real life apparently mirrors its purpose in the game, I think they made the right call.
That being said, I think they should add the "experienced gunner" effect you mentioned to the accuracy as an unlockable bonus (instead of a different weapon, just up the accuracy of the SAW to its real-world level, as you described it). Then people who've put in a hell of a lot of time as a gunner can be more effective at other tasks with it.
Thanks again for your amazingly detailed responses. Seriously. I'm still curious as to the effects of fatigue from prolongued humping of all this gear on accuracy.
How is HL2 Grapically superior? HL2 without the 2.0 shaders looks like bf1942.
I know you're a troll, you know you're a troll. Now only if the moderators could see it.
:)(smile)
if you are 3-4 people who wants to play on the same squad. After about 30 min, you might have been able to get everyone on the server.
And then there's 3-4 ppl making their own squads with no one but themself on.
You can not play FPS or RTS games on consoles, period. GoldenEye sucked, Halo2 sucked, even GTA sucked on console, and thats a TPS. These games are made for upclose to your monitor gaming, with a keyboard and mouse for quick and complex movements and weapon switching.
Consoles on the otherhand will always reign supreme when it comes to sports games, racing games, and platform fighting games. This has been their market, this will remain their market.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
BF2 has surpassed even Counter-Strike as my favorite PC game, and I'll tell you why. With its new chain of command, TRUE leaders can actually succeed. It's much easier to assign a waypoint to your squad (or squad leaders) than to scream jargon ("Short A!" "Smoke right rush left" a la CS) at your team. I don't think I'm hallucinating when I often hear squad leaders say over the mic "I'm requesting more orders from command," and soon enough we're told to attack or defend a certain point, which is conveniently displayed on our map. And I RARELY see anyone flying an attack chopper solo anymore. Everyone knows its best to have a gunner. I don't know how much time the reviewer spent on this game, but it didn't seem to be enough.
To the idiot who said it was originally developed as a console title, I say:
Run this game with a game controller similar to that of an XBox or PS2. Tell me how much fun it is to be OWNED because you just can't take advantage of the myriad of features it has to offer.
To the idiot who said "Apply cityscapes to Halo Engine":
Let go. Halo is all hype. Good party game, but that's about it. The weapons suck, and there're way too many ways to exploit most (maps/weapons/skills... you choose). Plus, you see a rocket fly by from behind, and... woops! Can't turn around in time with your thumbs. Dead.
Holla.
I found that updating Punkbuster manually has cleared up a lot of the random disconnect problems I was having. Download pbweb.exe and run it from the game's \pb directory.
b .php
http://www.evenbalance.com/index.php?page=updatep
You would have thought they would have learned from BF1942 when designing the User Interface (biggest complaint is the Key Assignment).
You click on a command to change the key assignment, press the key you want to assign. If it's already assigned to another key it shows you an error dialog that says the key is already assigned.
It doesn't tell you WHAT command it's assigned to, nor does it give you the option of assigning it anyway.
So you go through and find all the keys you want to Unassign so you can re-assign them. You click on the Command you want to bind and press ESC to clear it.
So what does it do at this point? It moves the mouse to the center of the screen. What moron thought THAT would be a good idea?
Scroll bars? You have to drag them, you can't click to the left or right of them to move them and there are NO arrow buttons.
Then of course there is the bug where you cannot bind X to the reverse command on the Boat. It says it's already assigned somewhere. It's not.
Make changes to the settings, then click on another tab before you hit the "Apply" button? All the settings you just changed are GONE. No warning of "Hey you changed things, do you want to save?".
The Server list, what a joke that is too. Long ass delays and inaccurate information make it frustrating to use.
Once you're IN the game it's not a bad game. However, getting there is worse then going through Boot Camp!
Visit the Arcade Restoration Workshop @ http://www.arcaderestoration.com
The 120mm is a one-hit kill in BF2, done it plenty myself. The trick is knowing how to aim, which if you try to do it the same way as DC or '42, you won't actually hit.
cat
Hardly. It's unfortunate that someone is labeled a troll just because they're pointing out an obvious discrepancy between what the average EA fan boy believes and reality.
The truth is that EA is notorious for their rabid release cycles at the cost of quality, short product lifetimes, and collusions with the hardware manufacturers. There are, sadly, some who will not, perhaps cannot, see this.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Preach on, I've played online for maybe half an hour and already had a full APC run over one of my mines, none of those idiots bothered forgiving me for their stupidity. I planted the mine when the enemy occupied that vehicle since I couldn't do much else to hurt it but what did these idiots think that black cylinder was? C4? C4 has a tendency not to show the "warning, friendly trap" indicator (the red square with the black skull in the lower right corner) on your HUD, just the red skull and crossbones "warning, explosive". No need to mention that half the team was SF but noone ever blew up the enemy artillery.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
said that dice and ea are being so greedy by require providers to host at least 10 public ranked servers
http://www.npcgaming.com Dedicated Gaming Servers
Here's my mini review
--snip--
After playing the fantastic (& free) game Enemy Territory (www.splashdamge.com) almost exclusively for the last couple of years I've decided to give Battlefield 2 a try since I've heard a lot of good things about it. I never actually got around to trying Battlefield 1942 so I have no idea about how the new version compares to the old one. Also, I've only played BF2 a couple of hours before writing this so any opinions expressed here might be outdated before you read it. =)
BF2 is good fun and the large selection of classes, weapons and vehicles means that you can play this for a long time without running out of new things to try your hand at. The selection of standard maps could have been better but each map is quite large so no reason to complain IMO. The objective of each map is always to take control of every flag on the map so there is none of the variation of objectives that you'll find in Enemy-Territory. Don't know if this is the reason that I felt a bit indifferent to how my team performed and didn't care much if my team won or lost. In this regard it really felt like a complex death match game for me. Hopefully this will change when I learn the game better. =)
I had to upgrade my gfx-card to be able to play the game at all. My NVidia GeForce4 was not supported at all which I guess is down to Dice/EA being lazy, out of time or trying to help Nvidia to sell more cards. My 2ghz Pentium 4 and new NVidia 6600GT still struggles if the settings are to high so currently I'm running at 1024*768, 2xAA, settings at medium/low and dynamic lights and shadows off. This gives a playable frame rate and the game still looks quite good.
Two patches have been released for the game but it's still quite buggy...hopefully the next patch will address more bugs (without introducing new ones like the first one did).
All in all a positive experience but it won't replace Enemy Territory as my all time favourite game...for that I think we need 'Enemy Territory:Quake Wars'! ( www.enemyterritory.com ) =)
lh
But you ARE trolling. You have still failed to explain how HL2 configured to use the same shader version as BF1942 looks better than BF2?
As we both know, you dont have an explaination because it isn't true and you are just trolling.
Bring some real discussion to the party next time.
:)(smile)
Top Game Servers By Players
- 1. Half Life
22940 servers, 47003 players
- 2. Half Life 2
14743 servers, 37386 players
- 3. Battlefield 2
6439 servers, 28676 players
- 4. Call of Duty
6412 servers, 10679 players
- 5. Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory
3189 servers, 10063 players
- 6. Unreal Tournament 2004
2671 servers, 6476 players
- 7. Americas Army: Special Forces
1503 servers, 5201 players
- 8. Neverwinter Nights
1237 servers, 3809 players
- 9. Medal of Honor Allied Assault
2284 servers, 3556 players
- 10. Quake 3: Arena
2243 servers, 3233 players
- 11. Soldier of Fortune 2
1384 servers, 2740 players
- 12. Battlefield 2 Demo
239 servers, 2716 players
- 13. Unreal Tournament
2204 servers, 2668 players
- 14. Medal of Honor: Allied Assault Spearhead
1379 servers, 2517 players
- 15. Battlefield 1942
1019 servers, 1917 players
- 16. Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy
705 servers, 1887 players
- 17. Halo: Combat Evolved
687 servers, 1772 players
- 18. Vietcong
345 servers, 940 players
- 19. SWAT 4
230 servers, 819 players
- 20. Battlefield: Vietnam
363 servers, 696 players
Also, wait until after working hours on the East Coast of the US, and the player numbers for BF2 will be higher than Half Life 2. At it's peak, BF1942 seemed to get around 15,000 players playing online at any given momemt.BF2 is almost an exact copy of Desert Combat for BF1942
Translation "I've never played BF2."
* DC has static ammo and health boxes. BF2 has medics and supply players.
* BF2 has squads, DC doesn't.
* BF2 has a commander for each team, with arty, scans, UAV, etc. DC doesn't.
* BF2's helicopter and plane controls and phsyics are totally different. (i.e., hands-off the controls will hover a BF2 chopper, while a DC heli will fall.)
So many differences. They're similar in a way, for sure, but nothing like "almost an exact copy".
everything in moderation
I think the idiots who run into artillery are griefers who want to annoy you by always getting into your line of fire and punishing you for TKing them. Perhaps more servers should disable friendly fire.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Noone ever thought of sniping back? Especially since your position is predictable (or you take time between shots that'll leave the area unguarded) an enemy of equal skill would drop you faster than you spot him.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.