|
Thirsty Dog posted:I just assumed everyone in this thread started with the bf1942 Wake Island demo Took me days to download it over a 56k modem. Then to play with a ping of 200+ was incredible
|
# ? Sep 29, 2024 09:16 |
|
|
# ? Nov 4, 2024 11:37 |
|
Kibayasu posted:Battlefield won't be Battlefield again until I can beach an aircraft carrier. : Why would you want to drive the aircraft carrier?
|
# ? Sep 29, 2024 10:40 |
|
Does anyone have the image macro (way before we started calling them memes) of a completely beached carrier and "THERE SEEMS TO BE A PORBLEM" in impact font? Surely someone has that collecting dust on one of their drives.
|
# ? Sep 29, 2024 10:44 |
|
whaley posted:the chance of them reaching destruction that's as good as the finals is about zero It's the same game engine just another iteration. I thought the destruction in The Finals was cool and all but didn't seem that much of an improvement over battlefield. It's certainly not at Rainbow Six Siege levels which is what they said at earlier press conferences. And doing that well with 32-64 players is going to be interesting, I wonder how in the heck all the physics calculations work with all the player activity.
|
# ? Sep 30, 2024 02:41 |
|
Node posted:Does anyone have the image macro (way before we started calling them memes) of a completely beached carrier and "THERE SEEMS TO BE A PORBLEM" in impact font? Surely someone has that collecting dust on one of their drives. why do I still have this poo poo
|
# ? Oct 2, 2024 02:16 |
|
my teenage self thought i was such a badass in the zero
|
# ? Oct 2, 2024 02:22 |
|
You were a badass in that zero
|
# ? Oct 2, 2024 15:40 |
|
Eastbound Spider posted:You were a badass in that zero Indeed. I'm remembering you 20 years later, after all.
|
# ? Oct 2, 2024 15:50 |
|
People who were great pilots in OG Battlefield were badasses. Badasses who got their planes blown up the second they entered the cockpit on Wake Island while I camped behind the big hill near the runway and giggled.
|
# ? Oct 2, 2024 16:02 |
|
I've reinstalled BF2042 and have been playing on breakthrough bot servers with 12 other people and having a blast. it's a very strange feeling
|
# ? Oct 3, 2024 01:00 |
|
toggle posted:I've reinstalled BF2042 and have been playing on breakthrough bot servers with 12 other people and having a blast. it's a very strange feeling Been playing too, and it's been fun. 3 years to make a playable game
|
# ? Oct 3, 2024 01:26 |
|
kedo posted:People who were great pilots in OG Battlefield were badasses. This is usually what happened in any 1942 map that had planes: (another old rear end image)
|
# ? Oct 3, 2024 01:58 |
|
Node posted:This is usually what happened in any 1942 map that had planes: I wanted to post this but thought it lost to the sands of time
|
# ? Oct 3, 2024 02:03 |
|
more "classics" here: https://www.angelfire.com/hi3/flamethrower/Posters/Posters.html
|
# ? Oct 3, 2024 02:26 |
|
toggle posted:
Mods change my name to Smacktard (but don't)
|
# ? Oct 3, 2024 02:50 |
|
I miss Coral Sea. Such a shame that BFV couldn't accommodate it.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2024 03:27 |
|
I hope going back to 64 players doesn’t mean they’re still targeting last gen consoles. I wanna see the next big leap in destruction, not features limited to 2013 hardware
|
# ? Oct 3, 2024 07:25 |
|
kedo posted:People who were great helicopter pilots in fixed. One of my favorite memories of BF2 is still the mad rush to the Mi28 on Sharqi Peninsula, so that you could TV missle the Cobra as it was loading up atop
|
# ? Oct 3, 2024 17:53 |
|
Lube Enthusiast posted:I hope going back to 64 players doesn’t mean they’re still targeting last gen consoles. I wanna see the next big leap in destruction, not features limited to 2013 hardware The original idea for 1943 was huge 128-player battles with dozens of tanks simulating something like Kursk. Supposedly, it wasn't the hardware but without serious re-work Frostbite won't scale that far and EA didn't want to pay up for a new game engine. It looks like they're scaling it down to hopefully support better destruction. My only hunch is that since The Finals is basically the latest and greatest iteration of Frostbite... there are very little improvements when it comes to destruction especially if they're trying to make it like R6 Siege.
|
# ? Oct 4, 2024 01:34 |
|
The Finals is UE5 not Frostbite
|
# ? Oct 4, 2024 04:57 |
|
edit: ^ phone posting so I was slow but that was my impression too. Doesn't the Finals use UE5? Probably gussied up with whatever the ex-DICErs experience was with Frostbite's destruction and added onto. EA did show off some Finals-esque destruction... prior to 2042's release that obviously never materialized https://youtu.be/KD2Xe7K4mOs?t=25 And their latest investors day presentation didn't really show off anything impressive on that front either, just AI bullshit and pre-animated destruction with cardboard boxes https://youtu.be/hsvX8NMGUxI?t=7899
|
# ? Oct 4, 2024 05:15 |
|
Interesting, if it's still Frostbite it'll be interesting to see how they continue to improve upon it. It is nowhere near Rainbow Six Siege levels of detail.
|
# ? Oct 5, 2024 03:40 |
|
Gucci Loafers posted:Interesting, if it's still Frostbite it'll be interesting to see how they continue to improve upon it. It is nowhere near Rainbow Six Siege levels of detail. It's all but confirmed to be an updated Frostbite engine for the next BF title unless EA/DICE scrapped everything since this announcement in the Spring of this year. quote:We’re tremendously excited for Motive, as they are bringing their expertise with Frostbite and compelling storytelling to the fold, joining DICE, Criterion, and Ripple Effect in building a Battlefield universe across connected multiplayer experiences and single-player. jisforjosh fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Oct 16, 2024 |
# ? Oct 5, 2024 04:07 |
|
Is it normal to have 4 studios working on a single game? Seems like a lot of cooks in the kitchen
|
# ? Oct 5, 2024 13:24 |
|
Depends on the company and project, 4 would be a low number for ubisoft
|
# ? Oct 5, 2024 13:34 |
|
Gucci Loafers posted:The original idea for 1943 was huge 128-player battles with dozens of tanks simulating something like Kursk. Supposedly, it wasn't the hardware but without serious re-work Frostbite won't scale that far and EA didn't want to pay up for a new game engine. I'm legit fine with scaled down. I was excited for it in 2042, but it turns out 64 opposing players with guided missiles doesn't make for a fun time, just pain. Maybe it would have worked with better maps, I don't know, but I no longer care about larger than 64 player battles. Too much chaos.
|
# ? Oct 5, 2024 17:02 |
|
64v64 would've been interesting in BF1...if you were doing standard issue rifle settings or something.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2024 05:59 |
|
Aces High posted:64v64 would've been interesting in BF1...if you were doing standard issue rifle settings or something. The week or so where that was a playlist was easily my favorite time with bf1. It was so good and did wonders for the flow of the game
|
# ? Oct 6, 2024 07:10 |
|
There are still quite a few custom servers that rock that ruleset, and they’re consistently populated. It makes for some different gameplay compared to when practically everyone has a fully automatic weapon.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2024 14:49 |
|
I wished they bring back the destroyable objectives like the artillery and UAV trailer in BF2. Would be cool to have map objectives, like in Wolf ET or Quake Wars, while still capturing points.
|
# ? Oct 7, 2024 02:17 |
|
Maps that feature past games gimmicks. behemoths, one with levolution, one with 2042 cyclones that are actually scary and can whip around shipping containers & habs
|
# ? Oct 7, 2024 10:29 |
|
128 player games are dogwater. The scale is too big to feel like your squad is good enough to sway the game. It just feels big for the sake of being big
|
# ? Oct 8, 2024 20:41 |
|
It certainly wasn't big for the sake of compelling gameplay
|
# ? Oct 8, 2024 21:07 |
|
in bf3 we all played a lot of 16v16. i always thought that was a good size personally. i never even liked 64 that much. 128 therefore i never thought was a good idea
|
# ? Oct 8, 2024 21:14 |
|
In the older games, 48 players definitely felt good. Big enough to have ongoing fights but you could clear a point or flank effectively.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2024 21:16 |
|
oh yeah 48 was pretty good. i dont remember anymore, i think the 360 version of bf3 didnt even have 64 player servers did it. i was part of goon wave that bought PC again at the tailend of bf3 going into bf4
|
# ? Oct 8, 2024 21:18 |
|
You just have so little effect as a squad in 64v64. Unless the game mode has some way to naturally break up the fight into smaller chunks, the larger number doesn't really enhance the play. But if you're breaking up the fights, then why bother with so many players at once? I recall for an earlier BF developer had said their playtesting indicated 64v64 wasn't that great, I wonder if it were pushed into 2042 to match up the battle royales with 100 players.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2024 21:37 |
|
48 player Operations was perfect. 64 is a mess.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2024 22:37 |
|
Agreed, 48 was my sweet spot too. 64 was too chaotic and 32 felt barren, with 48 you could actually flank and take the enemy by surprise, with more than that there was always someone who would spot you. 32 was good for BC2, but the maps were designed for that player count.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2024 23:13 |
|
|
# ? Nov 4, 2024 11:37 |
|
Yeah, good maps are the thing. I just had a BF2042 128 player round on Arica Harbour. An absolute poo poo show. I do like 64, but 48 seems to be the goldilocks amount.
|
# ? Oct 9, 2024 03:11 |