It's not trying to.

Yeah, but it should, because the real thing is awesome and the fake thing is not. I don't mean a pure mech simulation, I just mean...not suck.

The Battlefield games aren't about realism, they're about teamwork and strategy, bringing a coalition of people together in various roles, assault, support, air, sea, ground, and taking out the enemy.
The problem comes with these new versions where you have the customization and the hyper graphics and reduced classes and heightened customization and kill tracking and overly-CS-feeling gameplay.
Battlefield is NOT Counter-Strike.
Counter-Strike is about short rounds of combat, bang bang plant a bomb it's over. Battlefield is about prolonged warfare, seizing enemy bases and advancing your troops.

-Or, you know. Whatever. That's just how I look at it.

BF1942 demo.

But anyways, you're an ignorant and foolhardy little guy, so I'll cease arguing with you now. No matter what I say you're going to go "OMG I WAS RIGHT" because you absolutely bathe in the fact that, once in a while, you may be right, and you fight against anyone who might take that from you with a vengeance.

I still think it has potential, but we'll see.

But if it sucks, maybe the series will just follow a trend of one good game, one god awful one.

But they've gone 1 ok game and 2 bad ones?

I liked BF2, but its all up to taste.

I liked sniping the same person over and over again in BF2.

All you needed to do was set up shop near a helicopter or near a stationary gun.

I actually quite like the demo for what it is. The titan mode is a nice addition.

Hey, at least it has potential. I'm happy as long as it doesn't end up as another BF:V.

BF:V was epic.

Unfortunately, it was also buggy as hell.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]BF:V was epic.

Unfortunately, it was also buggy as hell. :([/QUOTE]
how so? I've never had too many problems with BF:V or 1942.

Are you kidding me? I had random crashes all the time, bullets not hit, random lagouts, random kicks, random graphics glitches, etc in BF:V. I loved the game to death, but c'mon.

keyword there is "I". Don't assume we all have your problems.

No, all those bugs existed. And the gameplay was generally unbalanced as hell.

It wont run for me. <3 EA's unending commitment to quality (crap).

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]BF1942 demo.

But anyways, you're an ignorant and foolhardy little guy, so I'll cease arguing with you now. No matter what I say you're going to go "OMG I WAS RIGHT" because you absolutely bathe in the fact that, once in a while, you may be right, and you fight against anyone who might take that from you with a vengeance.

I still think it has potential, but we'll see.[/QUOTE]

Yes, make it into a personal issue. That'll contribute.

All I'm saying is that I expected it to be exactly what it is. EA ruined what was a good thing.

I love jumping to conclusions about games that aren't even out yet. Everyone is doing it these days so it must be cool. I think I'll jump on the bandwagon and do it too, even though all I've seen is an early demo with one map, but that's enough to make a snap judgement about a game.

There were numerous documentations of said problems. You have no idea what you're talking about. BF:V was known to be buggier than BF1942, which was buggy as hell on its own.

Yeah, BF:V was buggy as hell for a lot of people. I never had a lot of trouble with it, but it did freeze up on me a lot more than I would have liked, especially when it was first released.

Most of that requires a certain degree of realism when taking on historic fact. The BF series lacks this severely. Imagine a WW2 history buff's surprise when a tank that historically was vulnerable to small arms and had a gun that would be lucky to penetrate wood slaughter the enemy. Alone.

I wasn't so much annoyed that some tanks were outperforming their real counterparts, I was annoyed at the fact that they made a tank with a gun visually smaller than a BAR on par with a Tiger.

Imagine my surprise when I discovered that they completely ignored Soviet and Japanese small arms, and the Garand(Or the M1903 Springfield for balance reasons)


The good news is that 2142 should be able to ignore most of those problems with the fact that it's completely fiction.

I may actually consider trying it.

Why does everyone have to be a **** and punish tk you NO MATTER WHAT? I'm flying one of those transports, and some guy jumps out and dies, and I get charged with the tk and he punishes me for it... I was just flying ffs! That and various people standing around my apc get ran over cus I cant see them, and of course they punish the tks, and eventually I get banned from the server. Its retarded. They should take that punish tk thing out because no one uses it for its intended purpose.

I thought the demo was missing alot of vital content and most of the stock guns are pretty terrible, but it still had enough BF feel to it. Im kind of dissapointed with the vehicles they seem inferior to "modern" weapons. Alot of the mounted weapons would be more appropiate as tank cannon or anti air rather. Also the mechs are a bit annoying, the driver weapons are pretty weak for anything except anti-infantry, and its all fast shooting cannons which overheat fast, these were my least favorite mech weapons in mech warriors games.

The game needs more lasers and weapons that are more accurate than WW2 guns.

As far as performance issues i turned my geometry down to low and that seemed to boost performance significantly.

Yes, the demo is far limited compared to the beta. The game is a whole other game once you factor in unlocks and ranks. Makes it much more fun and diverse. Not to mention that there are certain other things, like revive that we are missing, due to unlocks.

So far I have seen some really fun battles in the demo, last minute titan saves.

My poor lappy would cry if I tried to run it.

I seem to get disconnected from games a lot. Is this common for anyone else?

You need to read through the rest of the thread.

Go into audio options and turn off voip. That'll do the trick.

[QUOTE=Commander 598]Most of that requires a certain degree of realism when taking on historic fact. The BF series lacks this severely. Imagine a WW2 history buff's surprise when a tank that historically was vulnerable to small arms and had a gun that would be lucky to penetrate wood slaughter the enemy. Alone.

I wasn't so much annoyed that some tanks were outperforming their real counterparts, I was annoyed at the fact that they made a tank with a gun visually smaller than a BAR on par with a Tiger.

Imagine my surprise when I discovered that they completely ignored Soviet and Japanese small arms, and the Garand(Or the M1903 Springfield for balance reasons)


The good news is that 2142 should be able to ignore most of those problems with the fact that it's completely fiction.

I may actually consider trying it.[/QUOTE]

there is a garand in bf1942, but you need to get one of the expansion packs (dunno which one, since i just bought the set).

just dled the demo. lets see now...

I alwyas thought the fact that BF1942 was SO unrealistic made it ALOT more fun.

Aye.

Games that aim for realism just about always suck anyway. Mostly because realism buffs always have something to ***** about.

Return to Castle Wolf and Enemy Territory MP are both so bad at being historically accurate yet so fun. When I play, I think "Quake" rather that "WWII-era shooter".

I don't think a Garand was added with any expansion packs. Various mods did add it.

I wouldn't exactly call RTCW inaccurate, aside from the obvious. It's just a tiny, unseen part of a much bigger picture. Kind of like any war themed game or movie that sort of takes place behind the lines.

BF1942 botched historical fact. Favorite example: Kursk, one of the largest tank battles in history.

In game, a pine forest(Complete with sawmill). In Reality, grassland.

but grass is so ugly! and provides no strategic whateveryacallit

it does if it's long enough

Game Informer gives it an 8.25 I believe. I don't have my GI on hand.

The new GI's out? Where's mine?!



Thanks, I'll try that.

They also review FFXII in the new GI. It's a pretty good one, but I haven't gotten to do more than glance through it.