PC Gaming has been getting a lot of flak lately. As the consoles edge ever more into what has traditionally been PC space developers will have to take steps to re-imagine what makes PC Gaming special. Battlefield 2 is a title that hard-core enthusiasts can point to if they want a great example of what separates console gaming from PC gaming. Pitched, high tension battles fought street to street and house-to-house are experiences that consoles just can't offer up yet. Read on for my impressions of Battlefield 1942's sibling.
- Title: Battlefield 2
- Developer: Digital Illusions
- Publisher: Electronic Arts
- System: PC (only)
- Reviewer: Zonk
- Score: 8
Battlefield 1942 has been one of the most popular First Person Shooters on the market since it was released three years ago. The solid graphics and wide open gameplay field of that title ensured that it was regularly in the mix with Counter-Strike and Unreal Tournament on lists of most played online titles. Combining the vehicular combat of Tribes and the team play of Halo, wrapped up inside a WWII packaging that had yet to lose its luster, Digital Illusions scored a sales coup. Their latest title, Battlefield 2, takes place in the near future. Instead of a historical setting, modern weaponry and level design is the order of the day. Helicopters, Jet Fighters, and sidearms familiar to anyone who has watched CNN make the battlefield an exciting place to be. CNN coverage, in fact, was likely an inspiration for the developers during the game's creation. The game pits American forces against vaguely terrorist middle-eastern stereotypes, in a topical tie-in to today's headlines.
So how do you improve on an already great title? The sequel to Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield Vietnam stays very close to the source material. So close, in fact, that it's hard to point to any fundamental change in the gameplay mechanics. The changes, instead, are quality of life improvements. The game's engine allows for lagless infantry combat and accurate vehicular strikes. A fantastic audio environment places you directly in the action, raising the heart rate as bullets whiz by your head. Graphical improvements allow for a beautiful setting to slay your enemies, and tight level design makes for surprisingly tense house-to-house fighting. Stripping away options in favor of enjoyment, BF2 only ships with the Conquest game type, which pits armies of varying size against each other in a bid to control a set of nodes scattered across a map. Though there aren't that many maps each of them scales from 16 to 64 players. This allows for each map to evoke a different feel, from squad on squad to army vs. army, depending on the battle's size.
The additions they've made to the Battlefield series instead changes the framework of the tried and true gameplay they're offering up. Players have several different kits they can outfit themselves with, as in the original titles, but new kits such as the special forces soldier add in some variety. Support characters, like medics and engineers, can also increase their effectiveness by entering vehicles. These vehicles become mobile support bases, with medics inside vehicles healing fellow players that stand near the unit. Players can form themselves into small squads, each of which has a dedicated voice chat channel. Squad leaders can issue orders via a push-button system or voice, and have their group act in unison. The squads on a particular side are in turn directed by a commander. The commander of a side has a very different perspective on the game, a top down map interface giving him a birds-eye view of the proceedings. The commander has several tools at his disposal, including a kind of enemy detecting radar and the ability to call down artillery strikes. When the entire system is working in unison, players acting in concert within their squads and in league with other units directed by a commander, the experience is something akin to poetry in motion.
Unfortunately, that frission of so many different players working together rarely happens. While gamers have adopted voice chat for everything from Massive games to UT Tourneys, they generally do so with people they already know. In playing online, very few individuals seemed willing to make their voices heard to strangers. The in-game text commands are easy to access and informative, but they're still no match up for a quickly uttered statement. While cohesion within squads does seem to be generally good, as there are only a few people to coordinate, the level of effectiveness is entirely dictated by the squad leader. One suicidal or absent-minded guy at the reins can meant that you and your comrades are in for one messy death after another. In the overall picture, the commander's role ends up less utilized than it could be. Armchair generals abound in the FPS world, but in practice few are anything approaching a virtual Colin Powell. The experiences I've had lead me to believe that overwhelming force will almost always win the day. Beyond the game itself, the frustration involved in getting into combat is often off-putting. It may seem like picking nits, but the glacial slowness and murky obscurity of the server browser is extremely frustrating to have to deal with when compared to the user interfaces offered by other games.
Battlefield 2, then, is an extremely competent first person shooter with a strong pedigree and a vision to improve the way in which the genre is played. It is hampered by the vagaries of online play with strangers, poor user interface decisions. On top of these issues, bugs have been a problem since the game was released. Numerous patches, some even more devastating than the bugs they were meant to fix, have not endeared the game to players. Despite all these problems, when a group of players clicks in a Battlefield 2 game it is unlike any other team-based FPS on the market. Fans of the previous games will be happy to get back into the game they love, no questions asked. Veteran FPS players should definitely consider picking up a copy, as it's highly likely that you're going to run across this title at your next LAN party ... but you'll probably want to save it for LAN parties. Players new to the PC FPS experience will find things to enjoy here, but may be intimidated by the amount of knowledge the game assumes on the part of the player. Overall, while not a disappointment, Battlefield 2 falls short of a dramatic reprisal of the Battlefield series.
numerous patches?? (Score:2, Insightful)
PC Gaming... (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is not the console itself, but the control mechanism. Joysticks (or pads) suck for strategy games.
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Take HALO engine.
2. Apply city-scape graphics.
3. There's no step three.
There are three things I can think of which set PC gaming apart, and none of them are "pitched, high tension battles fought street to street and house to house," which sounds to me like something that consoles would be great at.
What sets PC gaming apart is:
1. Mouse-driven FPS.
2. Keyboard-driven text chat.
3. Mods.
Pretty much everything else a PC game can do could also be done on a console.
Re:But it *is* a console game! (Score:2, Insightful)
Dangerously good game! (Score:2, Insightful)
Battlefield is just one of those games that you should never even open if you have a personality that allows you to get even slightly addicted to games. Hours can go by without even registering with me.
Personally, I like that there are few frills in this game. Simplicity is key in games like this. The depth and dimension comes from playing with other people.
The only thing I disagree with is that people are reluctant to use voicechat with strangers. Maybe this is more the reviewer's phobia coming through than an actual phenomenon. Sure, the first couple times you play with someone you only met through the game may be less conversational, but people remember good players and end up playing with the same "strangers," which erases this effect, if it ever existed in the first place.
OR...! (Score:4, Insightful)
"but this is simply due to the more modern (and several times more expensive) hardware in a current gaming PC. "
One word. Monitor.
Computers are not turning into consoles. Consoles are turning into computers.
Battlefield 2 (Score:2, Insightful)
Battlefield 2 is a great concept, but the reality of it is that it is a step towards a FPS game built on a MMORPG-style business plan. There are a lot of factors pushing users towards using the "ranked" servers -- it is the only way to "unlock" additional weapons. The licensing is scary as well, as you are agreeing to not use the game with third-party game locating software, forcing you to use the built-in gamespy browser, and thus agreeing to the GameSpy agreement.
All in all, you are paying much more than $50 for this game. It is a reasonably enjoyable experience, if you play by EA's rules. If not, it is going to be a giant mound of frustration.
Re:My Experience (Score:3, Insightful)
BF2 is like BF 1942.
SW Battlefront is like BF 1942.
Re:PC Gaming... (Score:3, Insightful)
BF2 can work on both because vehicles work fine with analog sticks, and BF2 infantry aren't as blazingly fast as, say, ut2k4 infantry.
Re:PC Gaming... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do strategy games suck on consoles?
- Mouse.
Okay, then why not use a "console mouse"?
- It's difficult to use a mouse when you're not in a 90 degree angle (siting on a chair with a table in front of you).
In conclusion, strategy games suck on consoles because it sucks to use a mouse while lying down on the couch.
Wow, what console-phobia! (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't understand why some people are so anti-console. Look at it this way: a console typically costs less than a flashy PC graphics card, so why not just get one and have fun with it? That doesn't mean you can't also play PC games. If you've been completely blowing off consoles, then you've been missing out on some wonderful gaming experiences.
It's a good game, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
This post could go on forever and I don't want that - so here's a list of the embarassing problems this game has. Not all of these are directly DICE/EA's fault, but they're all things DICE/EA could fix:
The Server Browser in the game has no "Favorites" functionality
Copy-Paste doesn't work, so if you want to play on a friend's server get your notepad out
Broken Tabstops all over the User Interface
Teamkill tracking issues too abundant to list
Ranked Servers not uploading their numbers to EAs master servers
Ranked Server Providers cramming so many hosts on single systems that VOIP functionality for in-game voice is non-functional
No anti-Bunnyhopping in the game
Jump-To-Prone is an exploit and should be removed from the game
Re:BF series=dumbness (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
And don't forget rtses. They may be played out on the pc, but it amazes me to think there may be a whole generation of gamers out there that have never had the joy of playing a starcraft-like game.
I've never understood why xbox doesn't have keyboard and mouse input jacks on their new system. People could provide the keyboards/mice they already have on their computers and it would essentially open their console up to games that could never exist on the other systems.
BUGS! (Score:3, Insightful)
Just for reference: MSI-based dual Athlon 2800+ MP, 1 GB buffered DDR RAM, GeForce 6600 GT, Sound Blaster Live! (note that this game does NOT support "hardware" audio for this card), and a 3ware SATA RAID card with striped 75 GB Raptors. It ain't the best these days, but it doesn't have much problem playing any of the other dozen A-list titles that I have loaded on it right now, and with a fair amount of eye candy.
I really want to play this game. In fact, my friends and I are thinking about a LAN party this weekend solely using this game. (At this point, I'm sort of resigned to just crashing every half hour or so.) The problem I see with a LAN party based on this game is that we don't have the bandwidth (either cable or DSL) for 6 of us to go outside a single residence to play on a server, but 6 isn't enough to make a LAN-only game interesting. This would be fine if there were bots in the dedicated server , but there aren't. At least, if there are, *I* can't find how to turn them on.
Re:numerous patches?? (Score:1, Insightful)
He's 100% wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:BF series=dumbness (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you sure you're playing the right game? My experience is that while the main gun doesn't have a lot of "splash" (nor should it), the 50 cal is extremely effective on infantry. The fixed weapons throughout the maps (woefully underutilized) are also extremely powerful. This game puts gameplay over realism, so it isn't of the single shot variety, but it's a fair compromise overall.
In fact one of my favourite things is using the jeep/buggy mounted machine guns to mow down enemies with ease. Of course then some moron hops in the driver's seat and starts driving me randomly around the map (after I carefully placed it in a defensive position near a flag). There's a lot of that sort of lameness. A lot of people who hop in APCs and then drive right past their teammates asking for a ride, dumping it near the enemy base so they can quickly be dispatched by a sniper.
I think the review was quite accurate, and he hit upon a core element of the game - your "success" and enjoyment in the game will vary dramatically based upon the quality and teamwork of your team. With a capable commander, and a team in squads that are doing their thing, it is really a wonderful experience. On most public servers, though, it's just a bunch of lone wolf random people running around the map, defending nothing and just hoping to come across enemy bases with on one in them. Of course because the opposition is the same, they're often successful in capping a flag for a minute. It's just random action where the winning team has better aim, with strategy meaning little. Too few times I've stumbled into a server with capable players and it's just the opposite, with a concerted push to attack specific positions, defense, and so on. Good stuff.
There'll always be bitchers, though. Was on a map last night where there are a number of linebackers on the Chinese side (Anti-Aircraft armoured vehicles), and some chopper guy complained that it was "unfair" (because he kept getting shot down). Apparently the lesson that it isn't a good map for choppers just failed to settle in.
Re:But it *is* a console game! (Score:3, Insightful)
However, I really DO like the ability to "spot" hostiles for your comrades via the rose. I wish people would use it more often...
Re:Wow, what console-phobia! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll take that as an indication that you have never played this game before. It can bring the fastest video card money can buy to it's knees and easily too.
A question in need of an answer (Score:3, Insightful)
More and more, I've become aware that many people are in the same boat as I am. Opting to buy a console that costs about as much as a video card once every 4 years as opposed to swapping out components on a regular basis.
Now this brings me to my point. We've all read how console gamers prefer "pick up and play" titles that are shallow and addictive, while PC gamers prefer "deeper" and more involving games.
With the statistics showing PC gamers spending more time on their consoles, does that indicate that they are necessarily endorsing the traditional console game stereotype and eschewing more complicated titles deliberately, or is the state of PC hardware with regard to gaming the primary motivator?
Is the image of what a console game is and is not valid any longer when you have a mass migration from the PC? Or does the presence of former PC gamers reenforce it?
In interviews and articles, I've read much on how many gamers want short, simple games that only require a minimal investment of time each play period. With schedules becoming more and more demanding these days, it is understandable, but we seem to be seeing a dearth of titles between the "Short and Simple" categories and the "Evercrack Level-Grind" style.
With the former style being the stereotypical console game, and more gamers moving to consoles, I would hope that developers do not simply abandon those of us who made the switch for reasons other than a desire to change our preferred game type.
The fact is, there are countless titles on consoles already (and in development) that cater to the "pick up and play" crowd. The rest of us have little to choose from. The casual market is being catered to quite nicely. Now for the rest of us platform immigrants.
We want our Deus Ex, Morrowind, etc level of complexity, depth and quality, but we don't want to spend hundreds keeping up with the PC hardware race.
This is why I bitch and moan whenever someone tells me that "such and such game gives you too much freedom and should be more on the rails" (which I get more than you might imagine). There are already tons and tons of games that suit the player who would find walking around Vvanderfell uninteresting. For those of us who like it, there isn't much to choose from. Let us have our games the way we like them and don't insist that every game conform to this new standard that is already saturating the market.
Will developers recognize that "streamlining" gameplay and making it more "accessible" (which usually means "make it more arcade-like and rip out the depth, no matter how much fun it is") could very well be turning off a segment of their potential market?
Re:But it *is* a console game! (Score:5, Insightful)
No offense, but it's pretty clear you haven't tried to play the role of the Commander. Without being able to accurately and quickly place UAV, Arty Strikes, and Supply Crates - as well as respond to Squad Requests, and give Squads orders - you're pretty much out of luck.
Because of the speed and accuracy required, a mouse is a necessity. Waiting for a thumbstick's cursor to sloooooowly reach an arbitrary map location certainly does not seem like "intended design for a console".
From the Commander's chair, BF2 is a quasi-hybrid of RTS/FPS (not unlike Savage, though much closer to FPSes). To a lesser extent, this applies to Squad Leaders as well - trying to issue an order on the game map with a thumbstick would be unreasonably cumbersome.
Just because they have a simple "radio command" interface, doesn't mean it's designed for consoles. It just means DICE can incorporate good functionality from other games/genres.
-lw
BF2= Awfull software, great game (Score:3, Insightful)
1-before you get on a map you will need to log in some server, which is local, so even if you don't have an internet connaction you still have to log in to a server. Computer grind to a halt, sound loops (P4 3.4Ghz, ATI800XT, 1GB ram, 10,000rpm SATA drive). (30sec-1min.)
2-Once on the server you need to select multiplayer, then another load starts, then the list of game servers appear, you'll need to reorder it so it reloads again. Sound loops, graphics freeze for a few second (10s-15s).
3-You select a server that looks interesting. Sounds loops, graphics freeze.(15s-20s).
3 a)-if in the meantime you select another server, when the computer starts showing signs of life again it rejams and step number 3 restart
4-Then you connect to the server (10s-15s).
5-The game starts loading all textures of the level you are going to play (40sec-1,30min)
5 a)- if you checked anything else than "application preferences" in your video control panel, because another game requires it, AA doesn't apply, you'll need to restart the game and do step 1-5 entirely.
5 b)- if you change anything about the graphics you need to reload all textures again (step 3-4-5 again), some changes requires step 1-5 again.
6- You actually have loaded textures and are to the point where you press "play" (or whatever the button says), the game loads something, again, (10s-15s).
7- you actually are in the game and have to select you type of soldier and spawn point then really really start the game and when you wanna get out of this map NEVER press esc, EVER, you go back to the menu; graphics feeze, sound loops, computer grind to a halt (5s-15s). You press esc again to go back to game and repeat the wait.
8- You selected your spawn point and have press the button to confirm it, the game loads something (5s-10s) and then you start playing.
9- if after 10 min you don't like the server you press esc, by now you know you'll wait, the menu loads and show you the server list, you double click one, the sound loops, the graphics freeze and 8-12 seconds later it tells you you need to disconnect first (can't do it by itself, see it can reproduce the physic of sand blowing under a bomb but not disconnect automaticaly...). You disconnect, 15 seconds later you reconnect to a server playing the same map, it reloads all textures again anyways and you know the drill...
This is by far one of the most awfull software I have seen in my life, great game if you have the dedication to reach the point where you actually play but i most often than not just quit out of frustration facing a totally stupid interface, I regret buying this game, just because of this, it pisses me off and thats not suppose to be the purpose of a game...
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:numerous patches?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Ironic (Score:3, Insightful)
1. "...that military action should be used only as a last resort and only if there is a clear risk to national security by the intended target..."
2. "...there must be strong support for the campaign by the general public..."
3. "...and there must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged."
~http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/teachers/les
Now put that into the perspective of the Iraq War, and it's obvious that Powell lost the internal fight to Rumsfeld.
Re:Sooo badly bugged (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that is an interesting point. I'll admit up front that I only buy ATI, but I think the lack of support for ATI cards by the people at EA is insane. Basically, they're alienating a very large section of their potiential customer base by effectively flipping the bird to anyone who doesn't have an nVidia card. I've heard from people that EA basically tells you that they don't support anything but nVidia cards.
You'd think these people would want as many happy customers as possible, but I think this "political" decision to only really support nVidia cards might come back to kick them in the nuts.
As a server operator.. (Score:3, Insightful)
So, for those of us who want to run our own server, the game is basically DOA. Our server is co-located at an ISP in Seattle with excellent peering, which means it has the lowest ping for probably half the players in the US and Canada (look for "CSM - Seattle - BF2" in your game browser, BF2 fans). Sadly, it's hardly ever filling up because it's not ranked.
Coupled with the major screwups (like a server which leaks 14K/s of ram which took a week to fix, laggy netcode, poor in-game balance, etc.), it has not taken off anything like the original BF1942 did.
Re:Realism is sorely lacking in BF2 (Score:2, Insightful)
If they made it as realistic as possible it would push away casual and new users. There is always a balance that has to be made. On the accuracy of the weapons I think you are correct. And it is maddening to have an idiot charge your 50 cal gunner position and kill you with a pistol.
However the difference between TOW versions should be muted in a game. Have one generic personal anti-tank weapon that is less realistic in operations, but use the catastrophic kills points like you mentioned. The tanks need to be vulnerable by non tanks units in some small way so they don't become leathal to infantry in the game.
I can see dumbing down the realistic abilities of the tank for game play. True, real tanks are designed to take out other tanks, but for game play sake they should have some effect on infantry. They had done this in BF1942 very skillfully and made sure most maps only had a couple key tanks for infantry support.
Games need to fudge some what on realism. Otherwise it is no longer fun, its more like a job.