Battlefield Vietnam vs Unreal Tournament 2004

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Oct 19, 2000
17,861
3
81
I gave up on Battlefield 1942 when it became less strategic and more just deathmatch.

I haven't been keeping up with BF Vietnam, so tell me. Is it an expansion pack or a whole new game?

And by the way, I voted for UT2K4.
 

AU Tiger

Diamond Member
Dec 26, 1999
4,280
0
76
I'm most interested in Battlefield Vietnam of the two, but won't be getting either. I have a lot of catching up to do before buying new games, I still have uninstalled and mostly sealed games - Warcraft III, Baldur's Gate II, Neverwinter Nights and the list goes on and on. Thankfully most were bought at $20 or less.
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
76
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: Tabb
Heh, after playing BF Vietnam today I can't say its that great. Its still pretty laggy and its just not that polished. I guess I'll have to play it at a lan sometime.
Cant say Im surprised. Got to wonder why theres no demo out...

BF1942 when it first came out was an excercise in frustration. Laggy as hell, and I could swear that 90% of the shots that were dead on ended up being misses. It just didnt have the solid, polished feel that even day of defeat had. Its just a god awful engine, and Ive always thought so from the very beginning. Its like the game is working against you rather than with you. Not to mention weird mouse lag problems, text thats all screwed up when you use AA, the absolute worst control scheme for some of the vehicles (you mean I actually have to *hold* the forward button to keep the plane in the air? So I slow down by tap tap tapping it? wtf?) It had a cool wow Ive never done this novelty that wore off too quick, when you realize how bad of a game it actually is. The format is brilliant, but Im waiting for a company to make a solid war game with vehicles that doesnt play like garbage most of the time.

Still looking forward to it, but Im already prepared to be dissapointed.
Funny, that I haven't had those problems with either BF1942 or Desert Combat and I have Road Runner and I'm connected to our DI-614+ by a Uniden 802.11b USB wireless adapter.

And I use the keyboard to control tanks/jeeps and a joystick/throttle to fly planes. Simple and efficient.
The problems have been fixed somewhat since the release of the game, apparently it took months for some brilliant genius at EA to figure out that it would be a good idea if people could know whether or not they scored a hit. The lag also has been fixed to a reasonable degree. But its still jumpy at times. Every single person I know has the exact same problems...its not so much as a "problem" that needs to be fixed, but just a weak engine to begin with. You dont get that solid feeling you get like when you play a game of CS.

I use a joystick too, but it shouldnt be necessary, and its STILL retarded. Another einstein at EA decided that itd be a good idea to devote half of the throttle to running the prop backwards. So for speed regulation you have only half of your throttle left. Of course its still sensitive as hell, cause anything less than 75% on the half you have left will cause your plane to fall slowly from the sky. Nice.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: Tabb
Heh, after playing BF Vietnam today I can't say its that great. Its still pretty laggy and its just not that polished. I guess I'll have to play it at a lan sometime.
Cant say Im surprised. Got to wonder why theres no demo out...

BF1942 when it first came out was an excercise in frustration. Laggy as hell, and I could swear that 90% of the shots that were dead on ended up being misses. It just didnt have the solid, polished feel that even day of defeat had. Its just a god awful engine, and Ive always thought so from the very beginning. Its like the game is working against you rather than with you. Not to mention weird mouse lag problems, text thats all screwed up when you use AA, the absolute worst control scheme for some of the vehicles (you mean I actually have to *hold* the forward button to keep the plane in the air? So I slow down by tap tap tapping it? wtf?) It had a cool wow Ive never done this novelty that wore off too quick, when you realize how bad of a game it actually is. The format is brilliant, but Im waiting for a company to make a solid war game with vehicles that doesnt play like garbage most of the time.

Still looking forward to it, but Im already prepared to be dissapointed.
Funny, that I haven't had those problems with either BF1942 or Desert Combat and I have Road Runner and I'm connected to our DI-614+ by a Uniden 802.11b USB wireless adapter.

And I use the keyboard to control tanks/jeeps and a joystick/throttle to fly planes. Simple and efficient.
Just because you don't have them doesn't mean it doesn't exsist. :) The reason behind the fscked up text is because it's rendered in 3D. Anyone know if Battlefield uses a polygon hit detection? I today I was using the m-60 and someone guy was hiding behind the flag pole. I shot the pole but it kinda hit the side of the pole. The veichle jumpyness is just about gone, heh. There isn't anymore at all to be honest, the veichles stick to the road.
 

spidey

Senior member
Jul 17, 2002
749
0
0
I'll probably spend more time on BF:V, but sometimes I like the fast-paced UT action.
 

geno

Lifer
Dec 26, 1999
25,074
4
0
I've got a feeling I'll be into UT2K4, though I'm not a huge fan of the weapons, the maneuvering abilities in the game can get pretty intuitive, and I like that
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
The problems have been fixed somewhat since the release of the game, apparently it took months for some brilliant genius at EA to figure out that it would be a good idea if people could know whether or not they scored a hit. The lag also has been fixed to a reasonable degree. But its still jumpy at times. Every single person I know has the exact same problems...its not so much as a "problem" that needs to be fixed, but just a weak engine to begin with. You dont get that solid feeling you get like when you play a game of CS.
that was annoying..hah, i guess i was lucky in that i kinda stopped playing for a while and started back up once it was fixed and fun to play again:p
 

TommyVercetti

Diamond Member
Jan 4, 2003
7,623
1
0
Since we are on this topic, UT 2004 runs fine on my P3 800 MhZ/384 MB RAM/Radeon 9000 128 MB. It's very brisk and looks good, no hicups either. But BF 1942 loads really really slow, around 4 mins to load a new map. The first 30-40 seconds of the game are very laggy, but then the game is smooth. What are the ideal requirements for BF 1942?
 

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
166
106
Originally posted by: TommyVercetti
Since we are on this topic, UT 2004 runs fine on my P3 800 MhZ/384 MB RAM/Radeon 9000 128 MB. It's very brisk and looks good, no hicups either. But BF 1942 loads really really slow, around 4 mins to load a new map.
Speaking of slowness, this is why EA licenced all that Vietnam-era music for the game. With the long wait for a game load, there's just enough time to get in a whole song or 2.;)
 

CubicZirconia

Diamond Member
Nov 24, 2001
5,193
0
71
Just for the record, BF is not more strategy oriented than UT. When people say that what they really mean is that's slower paced. And a slower pace does not equal more strategy.

I voted for UT2k4, it's like the original UT, except better.
 

styrafoam

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2002
2,684
0
0
Maybe they mean strategy in the sense of exploiting the strength of each class/player and using combined force of arms to deal with tactical situations? Not really much depth compared to hitting each weapon locker and rushing the nearest node, dance in a circle for a minute or two with whatever random enemy you run into, then getting creamed in a hail of rocket and flak spam from all the fresh respawns. UT is fun for deathmatch, but I voted for Battlefield.
 

TheBoyBlunder

Diamond Member
Apr 25, 2003
5,742
1
0
I've played both, and UT seems to be for the "twitchy" gamer. BF:V seems to be for the FPS fan that likes a little strategy, though it could easily fall apart into a team death match style of combat.
 

FreshPrince

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2001
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: CubicZirconia
Just for the record, BF is not more strategy oriented than UT. When people say that what they really mean is that's slower paced. And a slower pace does not equal more strategy.

I voted for UT2k4, it's like the original UT, except better.
exactly....they're just too ashamed to admit that they don't have the skillz to play faster paced games...

screw the "realistic" factor...if I want that I'll go shoot someone for real! ;)

ya play a game for the fantasy factor....and anyone telling ya...well, UT looks too fake, I don't like the cartoon feel is really saying: "my hand eye co-ordination is too slow to play a fast paced game like UT and quake...therefore they made a slower moving game like BF: VN for us noobs" :p

I've played A LOT of games and I can tell ya, it takes more personal skill and team strategy to play UT: CTF than any other game! You get 12-16 seasoned old school ctf guys like me and put us in a game, and you will see the game of your life! Wish I could've saved some of those recorded UT:CTF games from a couple of years back. You guys would drop your jaw seeing how much skill and teamwork that went into those games.

Teamwork = UT = CTF
 

Kaiser__Sose

Golden Member
Oct 14, 1999
1,660
0
0
just got BF:V yesterday... seems it was released early in Canada cuz almost everyone on the servers is in canada.. anyway.. great game so far.
 

CubicZirconia

Diamond Member
Nov 24, 2001
5,193
0
71
Originally posted by: TheBoyBlunder
I've played both, and UT seems to be for the "twitchy" gamer. BF:V seems to be for the FPS fan that likes a little strategy, though it could easily fall apart into a team death match style of combat.
I can't read this anymore. It's unbelievable. Saying that UT is for the twitchy gamer and that BF is for the "fan that likes a little strategy" is a hugely inaccurate overgeneralization. Yes, it's true that if you're playing UT you can run around aimlessly shooting rockets to and fro, but if you do that, you're going to get your ass kicked. There are plenty of people playing UT who do nothing but run around blasting away hoping to get some kills, but they suck ass and they never win. I don't know how to make this any clearer, but if you want to be good at UT, you need to use strategy just like in BF. I'll reiterate; slower pace does not equal more strategy. Everyone loves to say that, but it's not true.
 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,776
29
81
Originally posted by: Kaiser__Sose
just got BF:V yesterday... seems it was released early in Canada cuz almost everyone on the servers is in canada.. anyway.. great game so far.
How buggy is it?

What res are you playing, and with what hardware?
 

MrBond

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2000
9,911
0
76
I picked up BF:V after hearing a lot of good things about it from other people. I figure $35 is a lot cheaper than it'll be in a couple of weeks, especially if it's really good and people start buying it.

BF1942 is an entirely different game on a private server with people who actually care about playing and not just flying the planes. Find yourself a good group of players and it's the best game you can play online right now. I play DC almost nightly with the same group of guys, it's excellent.

Public servers suck, plain and simple.

 

darkeneddays

Senior member
Jan 10, 2002
439
1
0
Neither, I hate them both(at least BF 1942...assuming BF:V is the same)

I don't mind the occasion DM on UT2k4 but I wouldn't buy it for just that. I've tried time and time again to like Onslaught and everytime I play it I just get annoyed. Teammates acting retarded. Getting run over 2 seconds after spawning. Futile attempts to take back the last power-node. I think there are some major balancing issues with it.

BF1942 was WAY too slow for me. With a ping of like 70-80 I'd pump and entire clip into someone and they would still be standing. Accuracy just seemed off on everything. Same problem with retarded teammates though.

The only remote chance of me having fun with either one of these is on a LAN, with people I know.

I'm looking forward to MOH: Pacific Assault. MOH:AA is more of my style. Not too much twitch, not too damn slow.
 

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,641
58
91
Accuracy and damage models are a peave of mine in bf1942, i really hate falling 3 feet and dying or have someone shoot a panzershrek at my tank, it miss by something like 2-3 feet and it still take a good quarter of the tanks damage meter with it..
I hope BF Vietnam fixes those issues.,
 

element

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,635
0
0
Ideally I'd want UT2004 with a realism mod like Infiltration used to be back in UT99. Your player would slow down and get tired depending on how much ammo/weapons he was carrying, the weapons had iron sights that worked, not that lame crosshair in the middle of the screen. You had to work as a team and get objectives done. This would be awesome with snipers in the weeds and vehicles in UT2004.

BF1942 with DC was really good until they mucked it up with the 1.6 patch. Joysticks no longer work properly, so how do you BFers use the vehicles? With the keyboard? That blows IMHO, I'm too used to using the stick to control vehicles especially planes/choppers.

I like the vehicle control in UT2004 demo. Wish we could have the best of both worlds, UT2004 vehicle control (using mouse) and BF's realistic weapons/gameplay with INF's ironsight aiming system and player fatigue.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY