• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

OMFG BF2 is shipping!!!

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Does it still have those problems with like the 6600GT where you have to set your refresh rate to 60hz before you can play it?
 
Originally posted by: cobalt
Does it still have those problems with like the 6600GT where you have to set your refresh rate to 60hz before you can play it?
Click to expand...

I played for a few minutes this morning at 75hz with no problems... Then again - I've never had a problem with my 6600GT
 
Has anyone picked this up in a store? Bestbuy, Walmart, etc all say they are available the 23rd.... What's the deal??

Thanks!
 
Originally posted by: skace
Squad: JoyRiding 🙂 Everyone wants to drive a C4 equipped Jeep.

I will purchase the DVD edition when I get home because I've been playing the demo non stop.
Click to expand...

Ahhh Jihad Jeep. How I missed you. In vanilla bf1942 you could load up the dynamite packs into a jeep and crash headlong into a tank to blow it up, or jump out and let the inertia take the jeep to the target and pop it. DC disappointed at this as C4 would clip right through the vehicle and lay ont he ground. Or trail slightly behind the vehicle and eventually lag out of the bounding box.

*sniff* I'm happy to see the return of Jihad Jeep tatics...
 
Picking up my gamestop pre order on the way home...woohoo!

Might have to suddenly come down with an illness this afternoon 😉
 
AdamSnow:

Apparently EA deemed it wise to disallow players from using bots in singleplayer on maps larger than Small (16 player). Reason why? I have no clue.
 
I'm sorry guys, but I just don't find BF2 as much as fun as BF1942. I'm sick of all these things like UAV's and satellite scans where the other team can see where you are. It takes away from that hide and seek ambush feel of the original game and BFV. Also, the only way to become commander on a full server is if you are one of these super nerds who have no life and sit in a dark, dank, cold room all day and play, thus boosting their rank. I do, however, belive that the squads are a great feature.

What I would like to see done to the game as it is now -

a) Do away with the commander mode
b) Do away with all of this infrared, UAV, satellite scanning stuff
c) Make sniper rifles a tiny bit more powerful, so that you actually have a good chance of a headshot
d) Do away with the ranking system
e) Bring back the old method of artillery spotting, which I found more difficult, but more rewarding when getting a kill from it

Overall, it's still a good game, just it not as good as I expected.
 
And BTW, the TK system is rediculous.

I take my comment on doing away with the commader mode. OK, I would be happy with a commander mode, but they should at least put a limit on the number of arty strikes, supply drops, UAVs, etc that they can use.
 
Waylay:

I support your points c and e. I disagree with you on a: Commander mode is very cool, and we should have commander set up in a mobile APC-like command platform or a command Blackhawk/chopper in order for him to use any of the equipment (also makes him a prime target).

The UAV/satellite/IR stuff is just as important in modern battlefields as artillery. BF2 is supposed to be modern combat, and these are elements of modern combat. Could they be implemented better? Definitely. Do commanders get live Battlefield feed accurate to the inch, as they do in BF2? Hell no; we need to get rid of that and have the commander rely more on forward scouts and intel gathered from troops on the ground rather than instant visuals: commander knowledge of troop position, enemy and friendly, should rely primarily on reports from troops and less on electronics. UAVs are awesome, but I would rather see a physical UAV flying around that you could knock out as opposed to some omnipotent detector limited only by fuel.

I wanted BF to be actually a war; meaning, aside from skirmish servers, players can 'Enlist' in any faction to fight in different 'Wars,' which are equivalent to presistent-world realms on RPGs. All three sides start with certain assets and units at certain positions, controlling certain territories. The war is then fought via a chain of command, each side having a supreme commander and suboordinates that direct different units to assault or defend various positions. All of these positions are filled either by players who want to devote that much time, or computer generated. Players then join up with various units, which can be Infantry, Armor, Artillery, Air Force, etc... and combined arms conflict can occur on a fluid, global arena, which deploys the player through, say maybe a carrier, to a hotspot where they can battle. Most importantly, the outcomes of battles actually matter; victory means you can keep on advancing, while defeat sets you back. Ultimate objective being to win the war. Wars can be fluid in scale, size and duration, depending on capabilities. If BF2 were like this, I'd buy it in an instant (this does seem like the next evolutionary step, right? From 32 player matches in pre-BF, to largescale battlefield in BF1/V and finally to all out war in BF2; it seems logical since the BF2 war is fictional, as opposed to its predecessors). But, EA chose to just wrap BF in some DX9c packaging and call it a new game.
 
I'm glad there's no persistant online world where the battle effects that outcome. Let the communities come up with that (just as they did for DC) rather than build something like that in game.

I'm not one of those gamers who can devote hours upon hours to a game so BF2 is great for jumping in, having fun, and jumping out when the wife calls.
 
Originally posted by: Farmer
Waylay:

I support your points c and e. I disagree with you on a: Commander mode is very cool, and we should have commander set up in a mobile APC-like command platform or a command Blackhawk/chopper in order for him to use any of the equipment (also makes him a prime target).

The UAV/satellite/IR stuff is just as important in modern battlefields as artillery. BF2 is supposed to be modern combat, and these are elements of modern combat. Could they be implemented better? Definitely. Do commanders get live Battlefield feed accurate to the inch, as they do in BF2? Hell no; we need to get rid of that and have the commander rely more on forward scouts and intel gathered from troops on the ground rather than instant visuals: commander knowledge of troop position, enemy and friendly, should rely primarily on reports from troops and less on electronics. UAVs are awesome, but I would rather see a physical UAV flying around that you could knock out as opposed to some omnipotent detector limited only by fuel.

I wanted BF to be actually a war; meaning, aside from skirmish servers, players can 'Enlist' in any faction to fight in different 'Wars,' which are equivalent to presistent-world realms on RPGs. All three sides start with certain assets and units at certain positions, controlling certain territories. The war is then fought via a chain of command, each side having a supreme commander and suboordinates that direct different units to assault or defend various positions. All of these positions are filled either by players who want to devote that much time, or computer generated. Players then join up with various units, which can be Infantry, Armor, Artillery, Air Force, etc... and combined arms conflict can occur on a fluid, global arena, which deploys the player through, say maybe a carrier, to a hotspot where they can battle. Most importantly, the outcomes of battles actually matter; victory means you can keep on advancing, while defeat sets you back. Ultimate objective being to win the war. Wars can be fluid in scale, size and duration, depending on capabilities. If BF2 were like this, I'd buy it in an instant (this does seem like the next evolutionary step, right? From 32 player matches in pre-BF, to largescale battlefield in BF1/V and finally to all out war in BF2; it seems logical since the BF2 war is fictional, as opposed to its predecessors). But, EA chose to just wrap BF in some DX9c packaging and call it a new game.
Click to expand...


Yeah, for the commander mode, I totally agree with you on the fact that he should rely more on scouts and actual ground troops than instant visuals. For instance, he could only fire artillery when a soldier requests it at a certain position. Also, they could put an ammo limit on the artillery guns, or a limit on the number of times a UAV can be used. Something like that would definately improve the gameplay.
 
But, EA chose to just wrap BF in some DX9c packaging and call it a new game.
Click to expand...

I'm glad that EA stays with the proven successful format... just hop in and have fun. Only thing is I wish EA would have allowed up to 128 players per server instead of 64 as in the old BF games.
 
mooncancook:

Well, yer right. BF is fun, and it has stayed fun. Just not enough innovation. 128 Players would be nice, seeing as how a lot of players wait for vehicles, so many that there arent too many soldiers actually fighting the battle.

Gripe: EA Claims the F-18 in the game is a E/F Super Hornet, but the model is of an A/D Hornet. Not too important, but cmon!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top