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.
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
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.
Isn't 1940 versions prior to Battlefield 1942?
Still better name than
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
I believe you're making the Battlefront creators seem like the ones innovating.
BF2 is like BF 1942.
SW Battlefront is like BF 1942.
It's a perfectly cromulent word!
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
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.
... 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 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
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
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
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.
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.
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?
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
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
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
# 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!
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.
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!
the ATI support is terrible, presumably because nVidia is the way it's meant to be played.
I think that is an interesting point. I'll admit up front that I only buy ATI, but I think the lack of support for ATI cards by the people at EA is insane. Basically, they're alienating a very large section of their potiential customer base by effectively flipping the bird to anyone who doesn't have an nVidia card. I've heard from people that EA basically tells you that they don't support anything but nVidia cards.
You'd think these people would want as many happy customers as possible, but I think this "political" decision to only really support nVidia cards might come back to kick them in the nuts.
Nope, this is the first time I have INQUIRED as to whether anyone knows if there is a CLIENT installer to this game. I'm certainly not complaining as I would rather not have any games run on my machine then have to deal with the countless other problems with Windows. I'd say it's a fairly legit question since there is a Linux server installer found pretty much everywhere for this game. Perhaps if you would have read my question to begin with, you would have seen what I was asking for. Are you the same person that doesn't RTFA/RTFP then posts/responds blindly? I just want to know if there is more than one of you writing a blind post every damn time. It's old.
Content Management System: A pretentious way of saying "text editor."
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.
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/