System Message

The forum store is down for maintenance and should reopen in the afternoon/evening (Central time). Thanks again to all the beta testers!
Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


Kibayasu posted:

I played BF2 immediately followed by 2142 a year or two ago during those couple months some crazy people got away with releasing the games for free and running multiplayer servers for them and it was shocking just bad BF2 was and how much better 2142 was. Guns you could actually reliably hit things with! Who could have imagined that would be important in a first person shooter?

Like I always remembered liking 2142 more than BF2 but the main thing I took away from playing BF2 again was "This was actually kind of a pretty bad game. How did the series survive this?" I wonder if 1942 would feel the same way, though I had probably at least 10 times more hours in Desert Combat than I did in vanilla 1942.

2142 actually killed the series. It's up there in being the worst Battlefields released on PC along side with Hardline and V, and only sold a few hundred thousand compared to the millions Battlefield 2 and the sequels sold. After 2142, there was no Battlefield game released on PC for 4 years.

I played 2142 beta, launch, and for several months afterward. The game had terrible gunplay, tons of lag, the buggiest experience that hasn't been matched in a Battlefield game since, the vehicles and guns sucked, and the map design was awful.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


Kibayasu posted:

I feel like a lot of that had way more to do with releasing just a year after BF2 than anything inherent to 2142 itself.

Battlefield 4 released 24 months after Battlefield 3 and sold like 80-90% as much. They are basically the same game, with a few big new features to Battlefield 4 and slight difference in unlock system. Battlefield 2142 was released 16 months after Battlefield 2 and sold roughly 10% as much, and was definitely much different.

The issue really stems from the fact that Battlefield 2142 was just a poorly made game.

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


ScootsMcSkirt posted:

where are you getting the sales numbers from?

I feel like theres no way BF4 has sold 80-90% as BF3. A ton of ppl still play BF4 and its had a much, much longer endlife than BF3. Maybe it sold 80% as much during the first month of launch, cause it was famously broken as poo poo, but it has been supported more than almost any other BF title. I doubt DICE would put that much post-launch support if it was less successful than Bf3, but I could be totally wrong on this since its just a gut feeling

http://bf3blog.com/2012/05/battlefield-3-ships-15-million-copies/

https://web.archive.org/web/20151215203336/http://bf4central.com/2014/05/battlefield-4-sells-7-million-2-still-playing

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


jisforjosh posted:

I remember bouncing off of 2142 rather hard because the guns in the demo/beta looked and felt like nerf guns and the in-game billboard advertising left a bad taste in my mouth.

Holy crap I forgot about that. Back in the late 2000s when games were having advertising built in.



I played Planetside and have "it's called drifting" line burned into my memory.

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


Dead Like Rev posted:

SOOOOOO It was kind of a weird system? You can hit Q and it pings basically anything and everything, Yes it seemed to also EXTREMELY briefly spot an enemy. But it more so slapped a pin down on the map in like a 3d overlay you could see that said "he's this way" And you could also use it to suggest to your team "Hey I wanna go this way" I don't think it was fully functional/working/implemented being as it was the technical test and as we've said it looked like an old as hell client (which DICE confirmed it was like a year old or more).

Maybe it'll have both. If you spot an enemy but the system doesn't think you're quite aiming at them, it'll place down a ping. If it does detect you can for sure see them, it spots the player. This would also make Q spamming less common since there is a visible annoyance to your squad mates, which could get you kicked or your friends to yell at you.

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


pro starcraft loser posted:

So stop having classes. Just have everyone be a medic/sniper/engineer/death robot whenever they need.

I cancelled my pre-order as this looks more and more just like BF4 (which was fun) with a little more. I'll see what people think on release.

Game still has classes.

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


PittTheElder posted:

I especially love it when somebody spawns into a jet instantly on round start, rides it across the map, bails out to camp on top of a building, and the jet slowly sails down to a landing to be captured by the other team.

This is the whole reason the pilot class was created for Battlefield 1.

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


drat, people get so butthurt over snipers. They're the easiest unit to counter if you're aware of them.

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


Grondoth posted:

As a Skylord, I had basically no competition for spawning in my vehicle of choice, the stealth jet.

Except for snipers. Who would grab that thing, fly it off somewhere and bail out so they could constantly miss their shots instead of doing anything useful.

Sniping is good in like, Arma, where you can line up a 800m shot and take it. In BF you're much better off fighting on the god drat point or even flying the UAV around so that your team knows where everyone is rather than trying to snipe.

PittTheElder posted:

Yeah I don't give a poo poo about snipers on the enemy team, I hate the snipers on my team. It is very funny to run them over with jeeps tho

Kibayasu posted:

People donít hate snipers because they get killed by them. Itís exactly the opposite.

Fallom posted:

By vote kicking your useless sniper teammates?

Raskolnikov2089 posted:

Snipers are hated because they drag the team down. They don't push objectives. They get maybe 5 kills a game. They take vehicles so they can fly/drive to the outer extremes of the map (that way they don't have to worry about anyone killing them as they go for sick long distance headshots), then don't even have the courtesy to drive the vehicles a few feet out of bounds so they'll respawn so someone can actually use them.

So it has nothing to do with sniping, just players being bad.


Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


Skyarb posted:

You just repeated yourself.

Not really. Everyone just said they didn't like snipers because they were bad at the game, as if being bad at the game is limited to sniping. Medics and support who are bad at the game are way worse. A friendly sniper off in the distance barely affects your gameplay, but a friendly medic who won't revive you? That's aggravating.

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


I hate irnv with a passion. I hope I can use flairs in BF 2042.

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


Irish's actor just died. RIP

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/michael-k-williams-the-wire-star-dead-at-54-1235009002/

Charles 1998 fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Sep 6, 2021

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


ethanol posted:

is 2042 going to be good

No. It's going to be great.

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


Kibayasu posted:

Planes will be able to shoot me with things and not get shot? This game sucks!

Spending $70 for a combined arms videogame means I do not want combined arms!

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


There's no way it can be worse than 2142, and people love 2142.

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


Chronojam posted:

Otamatone over fart noises is fine for the loading screen and initial menu, it captures the modern battlefield tone.

All instrumental music is fart noises.

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


It doesn't sound very good because we're not playing the game. Most game soundtracks sound like crap if you're not playing. Like Dead Space.

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


Skyarb posted:

Yeah I'm sure that abortion will sound great while queueing for their battle royale mode.

There is no battle royal mode in 2042.

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


Electronic fart music is way better than classical fart music. At least I can pretend it's not farts when it's distorted.

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


On other forums, people will post leaked Battlefield 2042 gameplay and the responses are usually negative. Am I the only idiot who thinks everything looks solid? From the gameplay, the sound, the visuals, even the characters sound great.

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


Inspector Hound posted:

It seems a little fast, and it's just a technical test but I think people are acting like that's what they'll be installing

I've heard that the leakers intentionally speed up the footage so that it doesn't get taken down as quickly. Maybe there's an in-game timer I can look at and see what speed the video is running at.

Edit: Nope, no visible clocks on the screen.

Charles 1998 fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Sep 12, 2021

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


Jokerpilled Drudge posted:

this game (BF 2200 or whatever) is going to be garbage

Played almost every Battlefield game on PC since the 1942 Wake Island demo, and I have a pretty good stinkdar. 2042 looks to be one of the better ones, if not the best.

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


And despite all that it ended up being the best Battlefield ever released.

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


kri kri posted:

No that was BC2

Abhorrent. BC2 worried most of the Battlefield fanbase since it was extremely consolfied. The closest to Call of Duty Battlefield ever got.

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


jisforjosh posted:

I mean the delays worked for Cyberpunk

Cyberpunk's flaws are not it's bugs, but core gameplay elements. You can't fix core gameplay issues with a few months of delays.

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


Why does OP say its releasing in October?

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


jisforjosh posted:

Because I'm loving lazy

Well pull your dick out of her and edit the op!

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


VulgarandStupid posted:

There is way too much gender assumption going on here

I only assumed their partner's gender, I didn't assume their gender.

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


Symetrique posted:

Just do ea play to get early access on the 12th and then unsubscribe when your mmo takes over your life

Battlefield 2042 won't be available on EA play.

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


Symetrique posted:

Ea play pro gets you the deluxe edition of the game.

Ah, that's a different thing from ea play.

Charles 1998 fucked around with this message at 10:00 on Sep 18, 2021

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


VulgarandStupid posted:

Something like Dark Zone in The Division. You go in looking for Intel, fight other people and try to extract. Inventories will probably be persistent.

I've heard so many wild theories. I don't even think it will have persistant gear.

I wanna believe it will be amazing and with tons of depth, but it's Battlefield. I doubt it will be anything too crazy for the masses to swallow.

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


Blue Raider posted:

Itís sounding like Hunt Showdown honestly.

Hunt Showdown has

  • Equipment that is purchased/looted and carried between rounds, that can also be lost
  • Currency system
  • AI Enemies of various difficulties that can killed or stealthed by
  • Being stealthy is hugely rewarded and allows ambushing of players
  • Limited ammunition
  • No forced closing circle or usual BR lameness
  • Huge variety of equipment that adds massive depth to the game while feeling extremely grounded

I am doubtful Battlefield would add all these, some of them are too "hardcore" for the generic audience. Or maybe not.

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


Hopper posted:

BR is not bad. It is just that squeezing an entirely different subgame into the main game costs resources, and even if it is another studio entirely it still costs money budgeted for the main game that gets diverted.

I would go so far as to say adding more and more modes could potentially lead to loosing focus on what kind of game you want to make, and Dice don't seem the greatest at remembering what made the last iteration of BF good and carrying that over into the next.

And if you want to do it properly I would imagine you have to rebalance weapons and do a whole lot of other changes for a BR type experience to work. So essentially you are either maintaining two completely different types of game or one part suffers. And again, this is Dice/EA, not a great track record with "balancing" either.

Anyway, as long as the core modes work decently well, we will all be happy I guess.

They diverted resources away from multiplayer for over a decade into the lovely and forgettable singleplayer. I couldn't be more excited that they diverted 100% of singleplayer's resources into another multiplayer game mode.

Also I've been playing Hunt: Showdown for over 3 years. The BR style game mode has immense staying power, and if it's good will make Battlefield have even more resources dedicated to it due to the increased player counts.

Charles 1998 fucked around with this message at 13:48 on Sep 22, 2021

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


Beastie posted:

How much mileage can we possibly get out of BR at this point. It's been what, 4 years?

8 years. Day Z Arma mod came out in 2013. All of Battlefield's game modes have been around longer, so I expect BR to die after Battlefield's game modes have.

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


Kazinsal posted:

Interesting thought experiment here: when will Battlefield as we know it die? CoD? Medal of Honor already ate poo poo, but the other two big AAA FPS franchises are evolving to stay current. When will they either stop receiving new releases or evolve past the point at which theyíre recognizable?

Iím not sure if Conquest is ever going to get boring as long as it gets shaken up every few years so maybe once weíre all crotchety there wonít be anyone left who remembers what a Battlefield game traditionally was and thatíll be the end of that.

Before conquest we had king of the hill, capture the flag, and team death match. Those modes suck for combined arms gameplay with lots of players on a large map. Conquest was made to facilitate large scale combined arms. If Conquest ever dies, it'll be because something better came about that works well with combined arms.

I don't think Battlefield will die unless a lot of horrible things happen. The fact that there's so many knockoffs and similar games and the series keeps evolving shows it has a ton of life left.

Charles 1998 fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Sep 23, 2021

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


ZeusCannon posted:

Roblox breaks my mind because i have NEVER seen an uglier game. I assume its got a lot of variety or something.

You should lookup Battleborn. One of the most horrible visual artstyles I've ever seen.

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


Thirsty Dog posted:

The hunt isn't a battle royale. It's twelve players max, for a start, which is barely a battle. Aside from that it has very little in common with BRs like Fortnite, Apex, Pubg, Warzone, etc, which all follow the BR formula with some differences.

And yeah, I'm someone who would enjoy Hunt and thinks BRs are unsatisfying and a lovely game mode that are inexplicably popular.

Hunt is pretty close to a BR. It's similarities are far greater than its differences. I'm hoping Battlefield Hazard Zone will be the same. They keep on saying it's not a Butthole Royal. (I don't like the Battle Royal genre but I love Hunt).

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


Mordja posted:


Thirsty Dog posted:

So, I've not played Hunt, but watched a bit of it back in the day and I thought I had a good handle on what sort of game it was.

A Battle Royale commonly does this:

1) "Hot drops" where you choose where you enter into a large zone
2) Large player counts, can be played solo or in a squad
3) You start unarmed and must scavenge weapons & items
4) You are funnelled into an ever-smaller area, either with the traditional "circle of death" that gets tighter and tighter, or with funky zone/quadrant destruction
5) The objective is simply to be the last person/squad left alive

How much of that does Hunt do? I don't want to argue from a position of ignorance!

Literally none of them lol, at least in the game mode people actually play

You are hot dropped into a random area on the edge of the map, which you can't select.
Instead of scavenging for weapons or supplies, you need to collect clues. So instead of starting out with no equipment, you start out with no information. You have to scavenge for information to reach the objective. You can also scavenge tons of stuff to help you out, such as health packs, traps, replacement equipment, and even guns. You can even bring in a person with almost nothing on him and deck him out with equipment you find around.
You absolutely do get funneled into a smaller area, but it's not a hard requirement. 95% of people that play choose to get funneled.
Every game results in the teams being widdled down until there's only one team remaining. Rarely there's more than 1 team that successfully evacs, but in over 90% of games that doesn't happen.

When you actually play you use a lot of Battle Royal tactics and phrases. Being loud puts you at a major disadvantage since players can ambush you from almost any angle on the wide open map, third partying, resources such as ammunition and equipment being in short supply, health doesn't fully regenerate, team mates being knocked out and having to spectate until their friends revive them or being permanently knocked out of the game, and probably more poo poo that makes it similar to most other BRs.

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


Jenny Agutter posted:

Frames Per Second/ MilliSeconds
so overall its like 30 fps and each frame takes 33ms to render. the next two lines are how much of that is being spend in the simulation thread and how much in the gpu context.
the bottom statistic looks like MegaPixels per Second, how many millions of pixels are being pushed to the monitor every second.

Imagine having to display the same exact number multiple times.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Charles 1998
Sep 27, 2007


Frog Act posted:

I've watched a bunch of videos of this and it really looks just like Battlefield 4, only with slightly newer graphics. It's just so lame that they decided to do a future game and then set it in such a near-future era it's basically indistinguishable from earlier iterations of the modern warfare battlefield games, instead of doing something distinctive and cool like 2142 with all it's unique modes, vehicles, weapons, etc. What am I missing? Are there any actual futuristic things that I just didn't pick up on in trailers?

Any games that aren't contemporary war have a lame setting. Battlefield 2, BC2, 3, and 4 are the best games of the series for very good reason.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply