Jump to content

Is Battlefield 2 a contender?


effin_GITS
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm not a big fan of B1942. I found the first person view and the look and feel of it to be detatched. I never really felt i was there shooting a gun. The sniper scope jerked away so you never even got to enjoy your kill ;) , but most of all there was a detached feeling to the game.

GR1 had a real sense of being there, even if you couldn't see your weapon. It also had good sized maps and focus.

GR2 on the PC could really build on that. Things have looked better in the last 4 months or so regarding GR2 but the jury is still out. Confidence is hight though.

I just saw the latest Battlefield2 movies and the look of the game is very sharp, much better than the vague feeling of B1942. There is a solid look to the small arms handling and the physics, balistscs etc look spot on. The only thing that concerns me is the huge scale. I'm not a fan of 50 km maps with every war machine you could imagine in play. I don't mind some hardware but i like the focus to be on the men on the ground so i worry that B2 will suffer from that. Although its stated that the maps are scaleable so maybe they can be cut down to more intimate battlefield sizes.

So, as it seems to me that B2 is the only game to possibly challenge GR2, my question for those that have watched the B2 movies is . . . . ( www.gametrailers.com is a great site.) which do you think will be a better game experience? ? ? ?

Considering that I played B1942 for about 3 weeks and GR1 for 3 years, the distinction is a big one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see one BIG difference in BF2 and GR2...

...their giving videos and info on BF2!...

I think they are going to be different games. Different feelings from the maps and riding in all the vehicals but its not a bad feeling. I love how you can destroy mostly everything in the maps, making routes not possible which can lead to awsome missions. Also imagine having the max limit for a game server..you can have your friends in helicopters go up and cover you..need assistance, you tell your friends in the tanks to come in. Then if you need to blow up a enemy incampment(camping)..tell your friends in the jets to do a bombing run. :rocky:

It looks very cool and seems very awsome with them shooting small arms..seems like theres gunna be some sweet firefights.

GR2...well hell..whos knews..what have they told us for us to know anything. Except that it will be sorta kinda in a way like GR2 for xbox. With the same missions, maps and guns possibly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bought BF42 and Vietnam and I will buy BF2 just as I will buy GR2.

I think that both games will be fun to play and will cause me hours of enjoyment.

Like Crowman, I hated waiting for the maps to load in Vietnam, but I think they will fix that because there were numerous complaints on that fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My answer to the topic question is definitely "yes"... I am no fan of the BF1942 or BF Vietnam games, but if Ghost Recon 2 resembles the Console games more then it resembles Ghost Recon Onezy, if the mod tools are just prettied up versions of what rode on Ghost Recon Onezy and is functionally little different as far as deep mod support -- I wager Half-Life 2 and Battle Field 2 will draw most of the [Ghost Recon] audience.

Consider, both of these engines offer all the render candy and features of the RSE GR2 engine and more like: vehicle code, a rich suite of mature FREE tools, more advanced render features -- and most importantly DEEP MOD SUPPORT so that a motivated and committed mod team could in fact render a mod on either of these game platforms that not only resembled but surpassed Ghost Recon 1 and 2 in all the regards that the legacy audience considers important.

Of course Ubi/RSE could pull a fluffy bunny out of a hat and offer "Thee" FPS Tactical Realism Mod Platform to surpass all others with source and tool support that would be ###### your pants standard setters... But do you really think that will happen?

:huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did some testing on BF2 when I worked for EA (please don't hate me because I worked for EA, I hate them just as much as you do). I have to say that as much as I would like to never buy another EA title, I will have to pick this one up because it looked very impressive from a Tac-Sim perspective. Although, because of EA's track record I am assuming it will end up just being another "dumbed-down, run n' gun, shooter".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the exciting/compelling part is that DICE have promised a very complete SDK and mod support, this means that even if the game that arrives is little better then GR2 Console -- Mod Developers will at the very least be able to leverage all those great looking art assets, weapons, equipment and features and cook anything out of it that turns their respective cranks.

Certainly theres' some 'wait and see' as far as will the net-code be the measure of the rest of the engine, will EA pull an Ubi and the rug out from under the SDK, will EA buy Ubi out completely and fire everyone, will the Yeti come and eat everyone that posts to the GRN forums... Tune in next quarter to see EA, Ubi and Valve duke it out for fan adoration...

:D

Edited by Hoak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you define GR2's competition as a game that will draw gamers and their money away from purchasing GR2, there's no doubt in my mine that Battlefield 2 is a major contender.

Currently with GR2 Xbox, whether you like Red Storm's approach to single player is a matter of personal preference, but everyone must admit that GR2 is one of the best multiplayer shooters available on Xbox Live.

However, when it comes to a PC version, the "average" player (which is not the people who post in these forums) will simply say "Battlefield 2 has vehicles and GR2 doesn't" - guess what they are going to buy.

Also, the BF series already has a huge following from the BF1942 debut, and is being hyped up in the PC gaming media already, while GR2 PC hasn't registered on the PC media radar since the PC Gamer article last summer. :ermm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points all, but I think we're all more interested (and concerned) about the draw of serious tactical realism fans (and mod talent); where will it go where will it stay.

For me one of Ghost Recon's strongest cards has been the dedicated and enormously talented Mod Developers that it's attracted... I'm a disappointed that they don't have better tools and resources to do more with the game and engine and hope either GR2 will change that, or we'll see a game that appeals to enough of these guys that we'll finally see serious tactical realism mods come to the fore on other engines.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points all, but I think we're all more interested (and concerned) about the draw of serious tactical realism fans (and mod talent); where will it go where will it stay.

I agree that most people that visit these forums are concerned that GR2 gets great mod support, but the reality is that the majority of people who buy these games just play what comes out of the box ... and don't use mods - at least in the case of GR1. In fact, the majority also just stick to single player.

I don't know if there are any statistics, but I'd be curious what percentage of people who purchased BF1942 also installed the Desert Combat mod.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BF2 is a major player, so much so it could easily influence the GR2 userbase. I said many months ago on these forums that gamers faced with a slew of shooters on the shelves will automatically be drawn to the ones with vehicles. Especially when your throw an SDK into the mix.

Shooters without vehicles are going to need a really unique and compulsive draw to compete with the sort of eye candy and additional possibilities offered by vehicles.

Considering that in all probability BF2 will hit the stores a few weeks before GR2 I'd answer the OP's question with "Yeh, BF2 is very much a contendar".

My only hesitation is due to Soldner :huh: There's a game that looked as exciting as BF2 at this stage, but was totally dire at launch. Not that I really think BF2 will suffer the same fate as it has a different pedegree, but until a demo is released it's all hype.

At the end of the day regardless of how good BF2 is, hardcore GR fans will be buying GR2 anyway. Probably because like me they know it's going to be a great game, it's up to Ubisoft to persuade the gaming public at large the same thing, or else it's gonna be kinda lonely in the lobby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...hardcore GR fans will be buying GR2 anyway. Probably because like me they know it's going to be a great game...

How do they and you "know"? What did I miss?!

:(

You missed how to use the quote feature. You should try and figure it out as it'll save you the embarrassment of misspelling folks names. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoops, my bad... But really I'm not to embarrassed about misspelling someone's anonymous nick, and if they have some manner of tizzy about it, well... :rolleyes:

But what do you and unmentioned 'others' know about GR2 we don't that has you 'knowing' it will be 'great'?

:huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe there are a few cons between the two games that I wish could be sorted out and have both games collide... Like the fact you can't see your weapon on GR... Or the fact that BF has a really really wierd engine that involves vehicals and the character itself. I feel like the character is floating above the ground, rather then standing on it.

Meh, I think both the game engines bother me... I personally love Raven Shield and Americas Army for what they have managed to capture when it comes to realism...

But for BF2 and GR2... I wouldn't know what to expect... GR2 for XBOX seems to be the same as GR, but with better graphics and some glitches sorted out... :s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was young and dumb i just thought 'the bigger the better'. I thought I should join the biggest bank (crappier service), I thought the European union was a good idea cause we'd be big and ard then like the USA (prawn cocktail crisps are now a no no), i thought that Microsoft being Maaaasive would mean a consolidation and sharing of departmental resources resulting in better products (ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha).

Now i'm old and dumb I realise that a bit smaller is better. (anyone remember William Gibsons description of how aliens comming to earth would think that small/medium sized tech corporations were the most intelligent and highest life form cause they were so flexible and adaptable and fast moving and the big ones were lumbering?) anyway. I no longer think it's important for a game i'm crazy about to be the best selling.

The important thing is that the company make a good healthy profit and that there is a big enough player base to sustain a community of sites, modders, online gamers etc. That is an absolutist take on it. As long as the game reaches (hmmm what word am i looking for . . . maximum entropy?, no, er satruation? no that means er, being the biggest)well as long as it's big enough to be 'ah yeah, 'self sustaining' then thats' good enough for me. If more players play another game It hardly makes a difference. As long as there are enough to fill a server or a league/ladder (i never know the difference between them) then that's all i need.

A relativist take would just compare the market share of a game and determine its success based on that but I think the quality of a community says as much as quantity about it's sucess.

P.S. What does Maximum entropy mean again????

Edited by effin_GITS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool post effin, I thought I'd read/owned everything Gibson has written; what novel, short story or essay was it you were paraphrasing?

I agree that sustainability is the measure of all the success I need, in fact it was particular mods of games and not so much the core game that that sustained my enthusiasm with a much smaller audience...

I just have an ill feeling that GR2 was wandered too far from Ghost Recon, and that mods will not be able to make up the difference i.e. the 'Ubi Cupping Maneuver'. But if I set my expectations low enough I can be pleasantly surprised by anything...

Maximum entropy would mean completely undifferentiated, random chaos...

:huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was parraphrasing from either 'Count Zero, burning chrome or oneof the others'. I read them all at once so not sure.

I still have hopes for GR2 but i have come to realise that you can't always trust a game legacy. Sometimes you wait and wait and wait for a sequel expecting the same magic and whe it comes it's just flat. The magic seems to have jumped to another developer and entered a completly different game. For that reason i'm keeping an open mind about all games.

The last five or so years have opened up more terratory with eastern European and Russian developers. I wonder what will happen if China and India take off as game developer hot houses. The more game purchasers there are the more games can be sustained, the more chance of haveing a great game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erm...while I'm trying to stay off this forum (I have uncontrollable potty-mouth), I cannot sit passively letting the language of physics get massacred.

Entropy refers to the transition of a system from oderly to chaotic. When used in physical terms, one could consider a glass filled black sand at the bottom and white sand at the top. As you shake the glass, the sands mix, and you no longer have two neat orderly layers of sand, and mixing it more actually makes it worse (it seems that no amount of shaking will return the sands to their orderly state), until the sands are so mixed they form a uniform "greyish" assembly, which in itself can be considered a new form of orderlyness. Anyways, I wont go into what it means where time-travel and other sci-fi fantasies are concerned, or how the term is most commonly used to describe the thermodynamics of closed systems, but suffice it to say that realeasing the game with modding tools cannot be likened to entropy.

Furthermore, "relativist?" You can compare market shares "relatively speaking", but market shares have nothing to do with relativity. A relativist is a physisist who believes in the laws of relativity, that the concept of simultaneity depends entirely on one observer's frame of reference relative to another observer. Then there's the whole time-dilation/space contraction thing. I cannot see how that pertains to what markets buy what games...unless Electronics Boutique is now a spaceship moving a relativistic speeds (close to the speed of light) through space...then we could argue over who bought GR2 first. Otherwise, Einstein must be rolling in his grave.

Sorry, but it bugs me reading and reading and trying to understand what these terms mean only to seeing people bandy them about in casual conversation without having a clue what they are saying.

If you wish to expand your horizons and impress people with these terms, may I suggest an oldie but goddie "Q.E.D" by the late great Richard Feynman. You'll not only learn how to impress your friends by using physics terms in the right context, but you may catch a glimpse of how reality is alot weirder than fantasy.

Gee, I wonder how many minutes till this one gets deleted, heh heh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...