What's the big deal about BattleField?

[Hi Ho]

I don't know what the big deal is about the Battlefield games. The first one didn't impress me. The second one really doesn't impress me. JointOps impresses me. In BF2 the map is so small it's just not fun to fly a jet around. In JointOps the maps are completely limitless. No boundaries what so ever. Having a max of 64 players is a dissapointment. It's a lot more engaging when there are 100+ players on a very large map like in JointOps. Battlefield gets all the hype and creates a big buzz while JointOps came out quietly with not many actually anticipating it or talking about it. In my opinion JointOps is the superior game. It's a lot more fun to play.

[Siberian Bear]

The first one impressed me until I realised that they had the names and of the T-34 and the T-34-85 mixed up. A small issue yes, but interesting that after about 6 patches they never fixed it. The other thing that really really got to me about the first one was the "connection problems detected".

I can't say much about battlefield vietnam since I never got it.

I played the first Joint Ops beta and I was really really impressed, games with 100 players didn't lag at all, and you seemed to require a little more skill than in the battlefield games. However what really marred it was the team killing by a what seemed like a significant few. I played the demo of Joint Ops again (the smaller island map) and I really didn't like it. Another point to make about Joint Ops is the day night cycle, on the beta I played on servers with no time limit - it added another tactical element when you could perhaps move into a decent position at night. However in the end I didn't get the game - I bought Soldiers Heroes of World War 2 instead, but now I am looking out for it in the shops.

I've been playing the demo of Battlefield 2, and I've got to agree with you the maps are too small. Also with Battlefield 2 there is the political side: basically USA versus Iraq with China involved perhaps to make the game more "hypothetical". The fuss seems to be all about the graphics and also to do with the amount of money EA have spent advertising it. I'd certainly choose Joint Ops over Battlefield 2.

Looks like I've made a quite long post only on my opinions...time to shut up I think.

[Jaggannath]

I actually enjoyed Battlefield, but that was most likely because I was playing a 20 or so player game, where the smaller map is handy to keep it high intensity. Yeah, Joint Ops may be more strategic planning of attacks, whilst I found that BF was intended to be a little like CS, but without having to wait for the end of the round. Go in, and kill or be killed, the better marksman in the better position wins. I also think part of it was that BF was a little different in that it took making weapons such as tanks and bombers to the next level

[netnamakan]

I love BF2. I have been playing all day, the choppers are a blast. It is everything i expected + more.
Yes I have to agree with you about the planes, they aren't any fun on the small map, plus I am only good at the helicopters.

The game seems to only look good at higher rez's, which is to bad seeing as my p4 2.8 and 6600gt can only do 1024x768, with the settings around medium, and low on a few of them.

I will certainly buy it, and I will have to check out joint ops as well

namakan

[Hi Ho]

I played the first Joint Ops beta and I was really really impressed, games with 100 players didn't lag at all, and you seemed to require a little more skill than in the battlefield games. However what really marred it was the team killing by a what seemed like a significant few. I played the demo of Joint Ops again (the smaller island map) and I really didn't like it. Another point to make about Joint Ops is the day night cycle, on the beta I played on servers with no time limit - it added another tactical element when you could perhaps move into a decent position at night. However in the end I didn't get the game - I bought Soldiers Heroes of World War 2 instead, but now I am looking out for it in the shops.

Most servers have friendly fire disabled. My favorite, Orange Bowl, has a 6 hour time limit which is just about right. The day/night cycle is still in the game and I love that too. The map that was in the demo is rarely played in the full game. There are a lot of better maps.

[DragonNOA1]

Originally Posted by netnamakan I love BF2. I have been playing all day, the choppers are a blast. It is everything i expected + more. Yes I have to agree with you about the planes, they aren't any fun on the small map, plus I am only good at the helicopters. The game seems to only look good at higher rez's, which is to bad seeing as my p4 2.8 and 6600gt can only do 1024x768, with the settings around medium, and low on a few of them. I will certainly buy it, and I will have to check out joint ops as well namakan

No problem. The thing I like and dislike about multiplayer is that you perform better with lower settings and that no one can hide well if minimal things are drawn like grass and trees. I would like to force a game to draw grass so that it would be hard to see someone laying in it. The only setting that should be upped a little is blob shadows b/c you need to know if something is above you.

Edit: I just reread my post and it is kinda confusing. Plz take you time with it and use caution.

[netnamakan]

Thats is a very good point dragon, I understand exactly

I will try that out right now.

thanks

namakan

[Siberian Bear]

I also think part of it was that BF was a little different in that it took making weapons such as tanks and bombers to the next level

I think that was the main selling point for me, I'm a bit of a tank enthusiast.

[Propain]

what me and me m8s liked the most aboot it was the fact that it was fun. me personnaly was more into the coop than anyhting else , less flamming that way.

[Techdec42]

I agree with HiHo Joint Ops. Is a whole lot better

[Turbo91Bird]

Battlefield rulez

[Jaggannath]

OK, just played the BF2 demo, a mate shared it for me from his computer. I love it, it's so much fun... a great step up from the 1942 series
If only I had time to play it properly, that was from a 30 minute run before training tonight.

[arthur666]

If the complete game has WAY more single player features than the demo, I'll definitely buy it. But if you can only use the small maps, forget it. Or maybe one day I'll be able to get a decent internet connection at home and see for myself why online shooters are so popular.

[Turbo91Bird]

The maps are going to be much bigger, no worries. Its just a demo people. They don't even have all the features and weapons available in it. Just wait for June 22nd.

[Fibre Optix]

I don't know either I just tried the DEMO and it's okay.... I'll stick with my CS:S

[arthur666]

Hi Ho,
Is Joint Ops worth considering for single player?

[Hi Ho]

Hi Ho, Is Joint Ops worth considering for single player?

JointOps doesn't have single player. Unless you count the training missions.

[DragonNOA1]

Originally Posted by Turbo91Bird The maps are going to be much bigger, no worries.

Are you sure about that?

Originally Posted by Turbo91Bird Its just a demo people. They don't even have all the features and weapons available in it.

Are you sure about that one too?

[Turbo91Bird]

Yeah I am sure, check their website. There is suppose to be laser guided bombs, very huge maps (check IGN.com interviews), upgraded weapons as a player does better, and much more. Do some research and u will find out.

Don't base one map in a demo to be the same for every map in the game. BF1942 wasn't like that and neither was DC.

[spartan015]

yea... remember this is instant action too. and if they made it that small because it shows how the game is some what squad based. Supposely you can play up to 32 in single player but of course when it comes out we shall see. next week... day after school ends, this is gonna be one really good summer break for me.

[arthur666]

I read an FAQ on IGN.com that says the XBox360 version will have better single player features, like the ability to switch to control different soldiers on the field during a game.

[spartan015]

no offense to those who love xobx but... no. its not for xbox, and whats the point of controlling other players? perhaps im just too dedicated to my pc but BF2 isn't really a type of game i would play on xbox, or any other console games. as i recall battlefront was on xbox too, it was horrible on xbox, but i guess its my opinion. perhaps ill change my mind when halo2 comes to pc. until then xbox shouldnt have pc games.

[netnamakan]

Yes I agree with you that bf won't play to well on the box, however let em try


The reason you would want to swtich soldiers is just so could play in the best position at all times, always on the battlefront, very similar to the way you can switch players in most hockey/sports games.

[Yuanji]

actually, I've read that BF2: Modern Combat is coming out for PS2, Xbox, PSP, and Xbox360 when it comes out. I think PS2 and Xbox will have more limited Multiplayer (only 24 players I think)

[arthur666]

Originally Posted by netnamakan Yes I agree with you that bf won't play to well on the box, however let em try

I don't know. I would usually be the last person arguing for XBox, but I think the 360 is gonna be a huge leap forward in power and might rival the PC for multiplay. We'll see in December I guess. But yeah, the current Xbox is probably way too weak for such a game.

[netnamakan]

Yeah I was reffering to the current xbox, the 360 will be way different.

However, IMO a FPS will always play better with a mouse.

[arthur666]

Originally Posted by netnamakan However, IMO a FPS will always play better with a mouse.

Very true.
I can't imagine trying to take a 200m shot aiming with my thumb! Although the 360 will support keyboard/mouse if the game does.

[spartan015]

they only reason i like xbox is halo... and a few other games. i personally hate microsoft for what they did with xbox. ALL THEY WANT IS MOENY! they are taking all the markets, first they take the comp industry (example. windows) yet they havent fixed all the bugs... then they deciede to go up for the console indurstry... i suppose it creates flavor but yea.... i only see it as they are greedy to have all sides. I hope the PS3 takes em out, of course me being japanese with ppl i know in Sony might create an unbalanced vote. lol oh well. I actually look forward to the PSP one, i like the psp lol. for me its gonna be a sad day when microsoft goes handheld

well if the xbox 360 adds an keyboard and mouse input... im on board lol. i have one for the xbox a 3rd party add on... be nice to play with a mouse and keyboard, then its like comp... but its cheaper.

yeah i think ill stop typing cuz im going kinda random. well gonna go play bf2 see ya later

[Jaggannath]

Originally Posted by spartan015 i personally hate microsoft for what they did with xbox. ALL THEY WANT IS MOENY! they are taking all the markets, first they take the comp industry (example. windows) yet they havent fixed all the bugs... then they deciede to go up for the console indurstry... well if the xbox 360 adds an keyboard and mouse input... im on board lol. i have one for the xbox a 3rd party add on... be nice to play with a mouse and keyboard, then its like comp... but its cheaper.

I don't see the point of hating a corporation personally... and anyways, if you really disliked what they did, you wouldn't buy the XBox 360 irrespective of whether it had a keyobard or not, as you know the other consoles will follow suit if it's a success

Why shouldn't Microsoft expand into other markets?? Surprise surprise, a capitalist corporation gears everything they do towards money. Just because they haven't make a completely water-tight OS, doesn't mean they should drop everything just to do that. The money they bring in from the lucrative console market adds to the money available to maintain the support for Windows OS's, and I think M$ does a good job of supporting OSs through their life.

[spartan015]

ah i wouldnt agree. they sued linux... they preload internet explorer... (before u had to install it ur self) i mean i use IE now and then when it wont load in firefox but ive gotten so used to tabbing that its hard to go (and i dont want to download the plugins) and u have a point, the US is a capalitst government...er yea lol. but since it runs off money... look its unblanced... rich ppl and poor ppl there is a huge gap. i mean i think windows is a awesome thing (98 is my fav) but like when sp1 came out and soo many ppl lagged they didnt fix anything. (perhaps they did now) oh and i think we went off topic. btw on the screen shot when u load up bf2 demo it says u can play instant battle in 16, 32, and 64 so i mean if they are advertising it in the demo then its gotta be true or close to it.

oh last but not least, it is my opinion and if anyone disagrees thats ur opinion so yea lol.

peace.

(one thing microsoft did good was halo not halo2 (i thought it was not great the single player, mutiplayer is decent).