ehh... its alright. nothin special. the graphics are good, but not THAT good (compared to some other games comin out later this year/next year). oh, and i imagine the star spangled banner playing whenever the US wins will get old REAL fast.
ViRGE
Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
- Oct 9, 1999
- 31,516
- 167
- 106
I rather liked BF1's main theme, it was a really strong song that would have fit the era. BF2's sucks, though the loading music for the map is very nice, I think it's a partially remixed version of the BF1 theme. At least it's not similar to the god-forsaken music of BF:V.Originally posted by: us3rnotfound
well, one thing is consistent: fcked menu music
Well, its not as fun as BF1942 was when the demo for that first came out. I didnt stop playing that for days.... Well months.... Well, i still play....
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
I think it's excellent. It now requires a lot more strategy in how you play. You have sprint, but it runs out, so you need to go from cover to cover. Guys are tougher now, so you can't just spray and pray. Death cam, or lack thereof, means you can snipe away and not have to move after every kill. Great sound effects.
BF1942 was revolutionary in that it included lots of varied and easy to use vehicles. This is more of an advancement in gameplay mechanics than actual content.
What's boring is Counter-Strike:Source.
Counter-Strike is MUCH better quality wise...
I need to figure how force it to display other resolutions.
Yep, CS just exudes quality, which is why its successful. So successful that its been exploited, played to death, and lost most of its luster. But dont act like CS ever sucked, it was, and still is, one of the greatest multiplayer games ever.
BF1942 was good, but I wished the gameplay felt more solid. Id unload right in front of someone and miss them...this kind of thing would never happen in CS.
Sad to say, the same BS still goes on. I really really want to like it, but its as much of a campfest as BF:V. Get in a helicopter, get blown down by a jet, immediately. Do anything BUT snipe, and get sniped. Great potential for teamwork etc, but I can already tell it will suffer the same problems.
No one will play as a team, because no one else is playing as a team. Because no one else is playing as a team, no one will play as a team.
Really wanted to like it more than I did.
Bartokomus
Golden Member
- Mar 15, 2002
- 1,430
- 0
- 76
Originally posted by: dug777
No, it looks like ass (high, 1024, 9800pro) compared to farcry/hl2
actually i can kinda see how it could be fun, but still IMO the gfz need some work...
well yeah it might not look that great..but thats prob for a good reason. If you tried to put doom3 or hl2 grpahics into this thing and load a map that big..put that many people on it..with that many vehicles..and have it run smootly..that would take an insane computer.
That being said i think it looks just fine and i had no problems getting right into the game. I have a 6800GT amd643500 system.
Gameplay needs some work tho. Like the people before said there is no team work..its just total choas and a run to see who can get the plans or tanks first. This is the first day so i dont balme people for just running around trying to play with stuff. Now later I think if you find a good server and a group of friends this coudl be a very good game with a lot of strat.
Airplanes and hellies are a lot harder to fly then they were in 1942...they will take a bit more practice
quakefiend420
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2004
- 14,685
- 1
- 76
pretty weak...it was fun for about an hour or so, but i tired of it quickly...and the graphics sucked ass...hopefully they do much better in the final
So
Lifer
- Jul 2, 2001
- 25,923
- 17
- 81
Originally posted by: dug777
No, it looks like ass (high, 1024, 9800pro) compared to farcry/hl2
actually i can kinda see how it could be fun, but still IMO the gfz need some work...
Looks pretty sweet on my PC. 1152x864, w/ most settings on high, shadows off (due to the bug) and 2xAA
dug777
Lifer
- Oct 13, 2004
- 24,778
- 4
- 0
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: dug777
No, it looks like ass (high, 1024, 9800pro) compared to farcry/hl2
actually i can kinda see how it could be fun, but still IMO the gfz need some work...
Looks pretty sweet on my PC. 1152x864, w/ most settings on high, shadows off (due to the bug) and 2xAA
i guess i'm just expecting too much after playing farcry earlier, as has been said gfx like that are not really an option given the big multiplayer element of the game....
shadows worked fine for me on high (9800 pro, cat 5.6 at 1024).
Might have another shot now and see what i think again
So
Lifer
- Jul 2, 2001
- 25,923
- 17
- 81
Originally posted by: dug777
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: dug777
No, it looks like ass (high, 1024, 9800pro) compared to farcry/hl2
actually i can kinda see how it could be fun, but still IMO the gfz need some work...
Looks pretty sweet on my PC. 1152x864, w/ most settings on high, shadows off (due to the bug) and 2xAA
i guess i'm just expecting too much after playing farcry earlier, as has been said gfx like that are not really an option given the big multiplayer element of the game....
shadows worked fine for me on high (9800 pro, cat 5.6 at 1024).
Might have another shot now and see what i think again
I'd join, but I'm getting sleepy and I just played for ~3 hours straight. My ass is numb.
There needs to be an option to attach audio files to posts, so everybody can hear me swearing.
FX5700 minimum to even run this game? When has any game ever had minimum requirements that are only one generation older than the brand-spanking new hardware? But I can go and get a cheap Radeon8500 and play it, even though my faster, 1-year newer, better GF4 Ti4400 can't be used?
Granted, my video card is 3 years old now, but it still works, and is far and away perfectly good for playing games at 1024x768. So they decide that if we can't support some feature that was just created in the last year, we can't play the game? Except if we have an ATI card, in which case we can play using 4 year old video cards.
What's with including DirectX9.0c and Detonator drivers in a demo? If I needed the drivers, I'd download the damn things myself. If I can handle getting a demo, I think I can handle drivers.
Obviously they've got a deal going with nvidia, but how does crippling support for older nvidia-based cards help them? It makes ATI look better to me since they had support for the feature-sets in much older chipsets.
I'm really just pissed off about this. I was so looking forward to this game, and I really can't afford to buy new hardware just to get myself up to the MINIMUM specs.
I don't think I've ever seen a game where the "recommended" system was nearly the fastest system you could build for any amount of money. Even Doom3's recommended system is only slightly better than my machine, which was last refreshed nearly 2 years ago. Say whatever you want about memory hogs and whatnot, but this is just asinine. 3/4 of people aren't going to have any chance of playing the game at its best, they'll all be just scraping by to meet the specs.
FX5700 minimum to even run this game? When has any game ever had minimum requirements that are only one generation older than the brand-spanking new hardware? But I can go and get a cheap Radeon8500 and play it, even though my faster, 1-year newer, better GF4 Ti4400 can't be used?
Granted, my video card is 3 years old now, but it still works, and is far and away perfectly good for playing games at 1024x768. So they decide that if we can't support some feature that was just created in the last year, we can't play the game? Except if we have an ATI card, in which case we can play using 4 year old video cards.
What's with including DirectX9.0c and Detonator drivers in a demo? If I needed the drivers, I'd download the damn things myself. If I can handle getting a demo, I think I can handle drivers.
Obviously they've got a deal going with nvidia, but how does crippling support for older nvidia-based cards help them? It makes ATI look better to me since they had support for the feature-sets in much older chipsets.
I'm really just pissed off about this. I was so looking forward to this game, and I really can't afford to buy new hardware just to get myself up to the MINIMUM specs.
I don't think I've ever seen a game where the "recommended" system was nearly the fastest system you could build for any amount of money. Even Doom3's recommended system is only slightly better than my machine, which was last refreshed nearly 2 years ago. Say whatever you want about memory hogs and whatnot, but this is just asinine. 3/4 of people aren't going to have any chance of playing the game at its best, they'll all be just scraping by to meet the specs.
ViRGE
Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
- Oct 9, 1999
- 31,516
- 167
- 106
Your TI4400 isn't necessarily "better". It only supports PS1.1, whereas the 8500 does PS1.4, and PS1.4 has a whole lot more in common with PS2.0 than most people would think. Looking at the shader files, my straight-up guess is that BF2 was designed around PS2.0, but it was a fairly trivial task to backport to 1.4 but not to 1.1.
Purely from a performance standpoint though, I'd still call it better. Only recently has PS1.4 been an issue, and not many people are still using 8500's who care.
I've never heard of any game developers designing a game from the NEWEST feature set and cramming in support for slightly older hardware. Most try to go for a mainstream, average feature-set, and provide enhanced features for those few who can take advantage of it. Abandoning a huge user-base isn't the way to move technology forward.
I've never heard of any game developers designing a game from the NEWEST feature set and cramming in support for slightly older hardware. Most try to go for a mainstream, average feature-set, and provide enhanced features for those few who can take advantage of it. Abandoning a huge user-base isn't the way to move technology forward.
ViRGE
Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
- Oct 9, 1999
- 31,516
- 167
- 106
Sure it is. This is DICE's next-gen BF engine, it both needs to be able to support a large battlefield now, and last for the future; designing it around the lowest common denominator just limits what they can do in terms of graphics and perhaps gameplay. If someone wants to play BF2, they'll get a new card; you have to drop old technology sometime.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter