Do you enjoy the Battlefield 2 demo?

[dug777]

actually given after about three rounds my system gets so laggy i have to restart BF2 i'm ready to chuck in the towel and wait for the patch

 

[GTaudiophile]

Jury is still out...we'll see...

 

[BurnItDwn]

I like it so far, though I don't like it nearly as much as when the demo for BF1942 first came out. I played the BF1942 demo for many many many hours, every minute was pure extasy, Battlefield 2, I like it, but, it's not enough to make me shoot my load or anything.

 

[RadioHead84]

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
I like it so far, though I don't like it nearly as much as when the demo for BF1942 first came out. I played the BF1942 demo for many many many hours, every minute was pure extasy, Battlefield 2, I like it, but, it's not enough to make me shoot my load or anything.

And I am sure your keyboard thanks you.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Originally posted by: RadioHead84

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
I like it so far, though I don't like it nearly as much as when the demo for BF1942 first came out. I played the BF1942 demo for many many many hours, every minute was pure extasy, Battlefield 2, I like it, but, it's not enough to make me shoot my load or anything.

And I am sure your keyboard thanks you.

Actually, I have a Model M keyboard, I can just take the keys off and wash em!

 

[mflacy]

It's no Wake Island demo, that's for sure.

If they had picked an original level, it would go a long way to impress me. It seems like they pulled everything from DC and just upped the graphical level.

 

[Yossarian]

the only real complaint I have so far is the general ineffectiveness of rifles.

 

[GTaudiophile]

From what I can tell, it's only a modified version of the previous BF engine. It's still jerky when climbing ladders, for example, and the GUI is still utter shite.

 

[silverpig]

Meh, it's alright. About what I expected from EA. Gonna play hl2 through again for the 4th time now

 

[blinky8225]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: buck

Originally posted by: dudeman007
I was super excited, but unfortunately I'm extremely sad to say, I got bored.

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.

Add +szx 1440 +szy 900, or what ever resolution you need to change it to, to the shortcut.

 

[Lord Evermore]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
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.

And yet, every other game is able to support "old" technology while still having reasonably nice graphics and good performance. It seems from others' comments that the graphics are nothing to write home about, and while large battlefields and large numbers of users are obviously hard on the hardware, I still see no reason to abandon such "old" hardware as a GF4 simply because it doesn't support particular features that have only recently been available in nvidia's product line. That's precisely the reason there are sliders and selection boxes in the Options menu, to let users with lesser hardware manage to still play the game.

Considering that even Doom3 and Half-Life2 can be played on as little as a GF4 MX or GF3, or even a TNT, I don't see the point in dropping support for those. At the very least, don't drop two entire generations of video chipsets. Blame it on the poor scalability of the engine maybe (one thing I've seen mentioned), but that doesn't excuse the issue, it just points out one cause.

I sure don't see anything at the moment that's making me think I'm going to want to go buy a new video card just to get a taste of the game, before I even know if I like it.

 

I like it but been playing GTA:SA all weekend. Cancelling my BF2 pre-order. GTA will last a while.

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: xcript

Originally posted by: nycxandy
BF2 owns CS. No contest.

:thumbsup:

agreed

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Lord Evermore

Originally posted by: ViRGE
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.

And yet, every other game is able to support "old" technology while still having reasonably nice graphics and good performance. It seems from others' comments that the graphics are nothing to write home about, and while large battlefields and large numbers of users are obviously hard on the hardware, I still see no reason to abandon such "old" hardware as a GF4 simply because it doesn't support particular features that have only recently been available in nvidia's product line. That's precisely the reason there are sliders and selection boxes in the Options menu, to let users with lesser hardware manage to still play the game.

Considering that even Doom3 and Half-Life2 can be played on as little as a GF4 MX or GF3, or even a TNT, I don't see the point in dropping support for those. At the very least, don't drop two entire generations of video chipsets. Blame it on the poor scalability of the engine maybe (one thing I've seen mentioned), but that doesn't excuse the issue, it just points out one cause.

I sure don't see anything at the moment that's making me think I'm going to want to go buy a new video card just to get a taste of the game, before I even know if I like it.

If you don't want to buy a new video card, that's fine, but you are responsible for yourself not being able to play the game. The GF4 is over 3 years old right now(and really it's older than that, it's NV2x tech, so it's really 4 years old), 2.5 generations of technology behind, and over 4 factors of performance below current high-end cards. PC gaming is the high-end, if you want to stick with it then part of the requirement is hardware upgrades. Otherwise, go pick up an Xbox and get Battlefield: Modern Combat when it comes out.

 

[Schadenfroh]

locks up every 20 minutes in windows xp 64bit on my system

 

[eakers]

I played for a bit today and yesterday and i liked it. i didn't suck too bad so it was fun.

 

[PricklyPete]

Yes, I 've been playing for several hours and I haven't even played multiplayer yet.

 

[Chaotic42]

It's alright. It kills my system, but I like the fact there are more objects in the game like foliage to hide in and such.

They just need to move a little faster.

 

[bootymac]

I love it. Multiplayer blows singleplayer away! I'm learning to kickass with the Medic

 

[neonerd]

give me some more maps, and you'll find me playing them

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
locks up every 20 minutes in windows xp 64bit on my system

It works fine for me in XP64, Schandenfroh.

 

[Lord Evermore]

The GF4 is over 3 years old right now(and really it's older than that, it's NV2x tech, so it's really 4 years old), 2.5 generations of technology behind, and over 4 factors of performance below current high-end cards.

And how far behind is the Radeon 8500, which they still allow to run the game? This was obviously not a situation where the hardware could not perform, they've just disabled support for it in the game for reasons not entirely clear.

Yes, gaming is often associated with high-end hardware, but never before has a developer completed excluded anyone without the very best, newest technology. (And in fact, they've only done that to nvidia users.)

 

[CRXican]

It worked ok for a while but now it quits to desktop or restarts my computer. It sucks!

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Lord Evermore

The GF4 is over 3 years old right now(and really it's older than that, it's NV2x tech, so it's really 4 years old), 2.5 generations of technology behind, and over 4 factors of performance below current high-end cards.

And how far behind is the Radeon 8500, which they still allow to run the game? This was obviously not a situation where the hardware could not perform, they've just disabled support for it in the game for reasons not entirely clear.

Yes, gaming is often associated with high-end hardware, but never before has a developer completed excluded anyone without the very best, newest technology. (And in fact, they've only done that to nvidia users.)

The GF4 DOES NOT SUPPPORT PIXEL SHADERS, the game does. They did not want to code support for cards that can't handle pixel shaing. ATI supported them a generation earlier than Nvidia. Why is that not acceptable?

 

[Transition]

Originally posted by: Anubis
didnt play it
most likely wont
didn play BF 1 either

Gees thanks for your input. I had a ham sandwich for breakfast.