BF 1942, what's the big deal?

Reverend_Bel

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2001
14
0
18,510
will someon please explain to me what is so great about this game. I played the SP demo and thought it was annoying and boring. then I tried the MP demo and it was an assload of fun for 2 weeks. now I can't stand to look at it. I don't see anythign empressive about the graphics and although the vehicles are done well in some ways, most of the time they are rediculous and useless. I just really don't see what everyone is getting excited about or how this isn't just another lame team DM.

dead cute things are funny
 

NialM

Distinguished
Jan 7, 2001
194
0
18,680
WOW.....you can't see a diff. between BF1942 and quake2 ?
What kind of a system are you running ?

As for the engine, tell me one other game that can handle the LOD and scale of the levels. While you are at it tell me what is so bad about the net code.....I have no problem as long as I am on a dedicated server. You should also remember that the full ver has only just come out and that there will be patches and fixes as with any new game.

As for no team play..thats a user problem not a game design issue. There is always roger wilco or any of the other in game voise programs, but they are still not required to work as a team in the game. Most of that will prob disapear once peaple start playing with the full ver and there is not so many "kids" playing.

-N-

<b><font color=blue>Paramedics - Does this mean there is always two of them ?</font color=blue></b>

<b><font color=red><A HREF="http://www.nialm.com\rig.htm" target="_new">My Rig</A></font color=red></b>
 

Reverend_Bel

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2001
14
0
18,510
ok, quake 2 is a bad example. quake 2 actually looks like complete ass. and this game does look better than that. my system can handle the game fine too. the graphics are sort of a paradox. I haven't seen the engine do anything impressive, but then the setting of the game doesn't lend itself to doing anything nuts like plasma and explosions and crazy lighting, which is how games usually show off their effects (Q3 and UT). But what bugs me about the graphics is that it's always daytime in open areas. if there's at some point i see a night time map, where in the case of the island map from the demo, you can just see little lights coming from the buildings, then I might be impressed. what I fear is that this engine is a one trick pony, and can't do anything but big open battles at 4:00 in the afternoon on a clear day.

As for handling the LOD, have you SEEN the serious engine? that game is like 2 years old or something like that, and the levels are huge.

You may have a point with the people playing the full version. but what I don't like is that there is no order to the game. In the case of the demo, even though the teams technically have objectives, they way you carry them out is rediculous. I've never once seen anything close to an organised assault on a position. mostly it's the exact opposite. instead of massing troops for an attack, you see this stream of men on foor and empty APCs 1 by 1 heading for an enemy position. You think WW2 was fought that way?

if you are going to make a game that's supposed to simulate actual combat (maybe that's no what they wanted) then I think it needs some sort of structure, more than "go shoot stuff and kill the enemy." some sort of squad leadership would be interesting, and a way to stop people who just camp the planes and that sort of thing.

maybe what I am getting at is that in this game, there are no consiquences. and taht annoys me. when you get in a plane and crash it into 2 teammates, it doesn't matter, cause all 3 of you and the plane will respawn soon enough. and when you kill the enemy, it doesn't matter, cause he'll respawn right down the road soon enough too. and if you take a command point, it probably doesn't matter, cause somewhere else they are taking on of yours. there is this theme in games, and I first saw in in coutner-strike, when I saw it I stoped playing CS, that the whole game is merely a setting and no one really cares about the objectives or what happens, and all that anyone cares about is the little number by their name on the scoreboard.




dead cute things are funny
 

Flyboy

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
737
0
18,980
and no one really cares about the objectives or what happens, and all that anyone cares about is the little number by their name on the scoreboard.
Dude...I couldn't agree with you more. Some of these games like Battlefield 1942 might REALLY kick ass if people would adhere at least a LITTLE to teamwork. All they care about is that final score or Frag count.

I just bought B1942, and haven't played online yet. BUt if what your telling me is true then I won't be impressed with it much. I don't think there is a single pimple-ridden 12 year old in this WHOLE WORLD that will actually work together on a team...
 

BigBiggist

Distinguished
May 17, 2002
279
0
18,780
I have heard alot about this game. I just wasnt sure if it would be worth buying. Is it better than CS? if it is i will definately buy this game.
 

Rubberbband

Distinguished
Jul 9, 2001
867
1
18,985
I'm not that impressed with it either. I won't be buying a copy that's for sure. My bro-in-law did and he loves it. To each his own I guess.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done, and why. Then do it. MY RIG: <A HREF="http://www.btvillarin.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=327 " target="_new">http://www.btvillarin.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=327 </A>