Battlefield 2 Demo out

[Shockeye]

Demo server is running.

209.59.137.153:16567

It's set for 64 players and VOIP is enabled.

Also is listed on the Gamespy master server list.

[schild]

Runs slower than Half Life 2.
Looks worse than ut2k4.
Too many vehicles in a small area.

What's the big deal again?

Oh it's EA. I guess you just have to GET IN THE GAME.

[schild]

Challenge Everything.

[Azazel]

Challenge Everything.

Yes, because this forum is just SO MUCH an EA fanboi haven 

Nothing to do with people liking that thing called DC.




..I'm reminded of the Goth kids on Southpark sometimes reading here 

[schild]

What? I really have no clue what you're saying.

[Toast]

The vehicular combat is one differentiator.  I like the improved scorekeeping as well as streamlined cooperation. The rag doll physics model is slick.

It's just fun to play a game that let's you jump in and pretend to be a real soldier using realistic weaponry.

Graphics looked fine to me.

[Azazel]

What? I really have no clue what you're saying.

1. It means it looks like you're disliking it in an attempt to be the "cool kid" in your own special underground clique who don't like what everyone else likes, so you can be fashionably different.

2. DC = Desert Combat. Mod for BF1942. Fun mod. Drive tanks and blow shit up.

3. BF2 = "Retail" version of DC. Improved/updated graphics. New Tanks and Maps, but essentially the same as DC. People love DC, but it hasn't had anything new for quite some time, so BF2 = new shit for DC. Drive tanks and blow shit up. As Toast points out, it's what makes the difference for many of us between CS/CS:S/etc and BF/DC/BF2.

4. So people's enjoyment of and wanting more of the DC mod for BF1942 has very little to do with people wanting to be "in the game" or "challenge everything". Which takes us back to point 1.

[schild]

Toast's response was much more adequate. My main gripe lies in performance.

Far Cry, even with it's draw distance on maximum and graphics cranked up ran better than BF2.
Half-Life 2, which looks spectacularly better at Medium (and high) on my machine ran better than BF2. In any given area.

As I've said, I'm probably still buying it, but it seems like these guys took the best machines on the market, ran the game and saw that it performed decently. Then decided it meant the game was optimized enough.

[Yegolev]

What? I really have no clue what you're saying.

1. It means it looks like you're disliking it in an attempt to be the "cool kid" in your own special underground clique who don't like what everyone else likes, so you can be fashionably different.

This doesn't apply to someone who openly admits to playing Harvest Moon.

[AcidCat]

Far Cry, even with it's draw distance on maximum and graphics cranked up ran better than BF2.
Half-Life 2, which looks spectacularly better at Medium (and high) on my machine ran better than BF2. In any given area.

I guess if your only concern is displaying a pretty picture on your monitor that runs at 120FPS, then I can see why BF2 lets you down. Personally I don't see how the game doesn't "run good enough" for you - what kind of problems are you having? I have an older machine that I put a couple hundred bucks into in preparation for the game, a 1.6 P4 now with 1 gig of RAM and a 6600GT - not a top of the line system by any stretch of the imagination - and the game runs perfectly smooth for me. Of course I'm playing in 1024x768 with no AA, shadows, etc. - a setup that would probably make your eyes bleed  - but it's fine with me, I play all my games in that rez, the gameplay is the star of this show so I'm just glad the game runs well for me, I could care less about maxing out graphics potential.

[Trippy]

I don't have performance issues with BF2 and I have a crap system. On the other hand the game by default had all of the graphic settings turned down so the game doesn't look so good, but really for this sort of thing I'm just interested in the gameplay.

[schild]

I have a fast machine, but my graphics card apparently isn't up to snuff. And that's its big gripe. I've got a 5200 Ultra. Despite my 1.5 gigs of ram and 2.8ghz processor, it runs slower than a gimpy catholic schoolgirl. And I've got everything on medium with no AA and the res is 800x600.

Yarrrr, there be no excuse. I'm not about pretty pictures most of the time (Most Of The Time), but I'm more interested in knowing what's so goddamn special about this game that it can't run decently at godawful settings.

Also, I'm still fighting against a reboot as I already had the latest drivers and directX installed. I want to know why it wanted me to reboot.

[Azazel]

See? Having an argument with, you know, points works much better than showing how cool you are by infering that people who enjoy the demo are EA fanbois and sputing off some catchphrases to make yourself look teh cool.

Your points about optimisation are much more useful then "challenge everything"

 :-D

[AcidCat]

Hmm, maybe it is your card then. Processer seems much less an issue as mine barely makes the minimum and has caused no problems.

Did you not install the drivers that came with the game then? I've heard that has made a considerable difference in performance for some people.

[schild]

Yes, I was calling Shockeye an EA fanboi.

Donnie, you're out of your element. I wouldn't call anyone on this board an EA fanboi.

[Azazel]

Yes, I was calling Shockeye an EA fanboi.

Donnie, you're out of your element. I wouldn't call anyone on this board an EA fanboi.

 

That was my point.


Your buddy-buddy injoke was pointed at the whole thread in a "what the fuck is the big deal? you're all a bunch of fanbois" kinda way.

Last time I looked, you said you planned to purchase it yet hadn't yet leeched/run the demo to check it out for yourself.

I'll be intimidated later, k?

[schild]

Ok, you took a silly pill this morning. I'm gonna break this down easy.

1. I had already played it when I made that post.
2. It ran slower than tar on a cold day and there's no visible reason as to why that would happen.
3. Surely, EA is challenging nothing let alone everything with performance like that on a more than adequate system for the most taxing of modern games.
4. You're taking all of this a bit to personally. I can't quite figure out why. Unless BF2 ate your baby. In which case, I apologize, but it's just the sort of thing that happens to fall under EA's MO.

[AcidCat]

2. It ran slower than tar on a cold day and there's no visible reason as to why that would happen.
3. Surely, EA is challenging nothing let alone everything with performance like that on a more than adequate system for the most taxing of modern games.

Did you also play 1942 and Vietnam? For whatever reason, DICE's game engines are system hogs. I guess you can either get hung up on that point and rant and rant about how the engine should be better optimized - heck you're right, it should - or you can just accept that we don't live in a perfect world. The gameplay either is or is not worth the hassle of maybe upgrading your PC. For me, it definitely is.

[schild]

I do not plan on upgrading my system for Battlefield or anything else until Christmas. Short of adding more...hard drive space. But that has nothing to do with money. If next-gen consoles have mouse and keyboard peripherals of any sort from any company, I just don't see a reason to upgrade. Period. Anything that can be done on a computer with a mouse and keyboard can be done more comfortably on a couch with a lapboard.

BF1942 runs fine on my system. As does Vietnam. Of course, I'm using the same system now. Maybe I'll reboot before tonight. Maybe.

[AcidCat]

If next-gen consoles have mouse and keyboard peripherals of any sort from any company, I just don't see a reason to upgrade. Period.

Agreed. The money I just spent on my PC will be the last upgrade I do, I can now play BF2 and I'll be able to get some additional mileage out of this old workhorse for future games. I had been thinking about getting a whole new PC, but after considering everything I put that money into an HDTV instead. Some kind of mouse setup for the new consoles will be the icing on the cake.

[Azazel]

1. I know.
2. I agree it has issues. The original BF1942 somehow managed to be a great game despite being a pile of unoptimised crap. I agree there's no reason why after such a long dev cycle and the amount of cash the opriginal pulled in that the sequel should suffer the same problems. Despite all this, it's still quite fun.
3. EA (corporate, at least) are fucknuts who are full of shit. But I enjoy the demo despite EA, not because of them.
4. Nope, I'm just having some late-night fun.  :-D  I enjoy this board when I get the time. The atmosphere of "fuck it, I'll say what I think, and say what I mean is enjoyable and liberating compared to some of the other boards I read where everyone has to play nicely so as to not inadvertantly offend anyone else. Also, it's with nerd who in general share my own broad nerd interests.


Addendum
- I personally find gaming at a desk more comfy than on the couch/floor/bed with the console. /shrug strokes for folks. I'm still too lazy/stupid to move the consoles to the computer room and hook them up to the monitors though
- yes, more HDD space is always your friend.
- I can't be arsed being an early adoptor anymore. I don't even know where my Saturn is, and the 3DO was a grand experiment that was too early. I'll probably end up getting all three, cos I'm stupid like that, but it'll be at least a year in and a few price drops before I start..

[Shockeye]

schild, go buy a 6600GT and be done with it.