



EA Announces Battlefield 2, Console Versions 32
Thanks to GameSpy for its interview with Electronic Arts exec Scott Evans regarding the official announcement of a PC sequel to the popular team-based FPS, Battlefield 1942, hot on the heels of the recent news of a separate PlayStation 2-based follow-up, Battlefield: Modern Combat. This title is "bringing modern-day warfare to the series as well as a completely new engine", and Evans notes: "Each side will bring military hardware to the battle appropriate to their nationality. For example, the Chinese forces have a really cool mix of Soviet and homebrew technology that much of the world knows nothing about." He ends by addressing bias concerns: "It's important to remember that Battlefield is politically neutral... It's not just a game about the U.S. versus a Middle Eastern coalition."
Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe not, but you can be pretty sure that most of the mods will be.
Re:Really? (Score:1)
Desert Combat has a U.S. versus Middle East theme.
Mmmm... Chinese Homebrew (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, if that homebrew technology is as tasty as eggdrop soup or Kung Pao Chicken then I'm ready for a wok on the wild side.
Re:Mmmm... Chinese Homebrew (Score:1)
Re:Mmmm... Chinese Homebrew (Score:5, Funny)
...but your chicken is delectable!
Re:Mmmm... Chinese Homebrew (Score:2, Interesting)
This is the Counterstrike of BF1942 (Score:5, Informative)
EA mentions the Middle Eastern thing because DC had the Americans fighting the Iraqis.
Re:This is the Counterstrike of BF1942 (Score:2)
just hope that they get the thing out and get something new to it..
-
Re:This is the Counterstrike of BF1942 (Score:2)
Re:Battlefield 2? (Score:3, Interesting)
A perfect analogy, I feel, would be Grand Theft Auto 3 and GTA: Vice City. Vice City was sort of GTA3.5 rather than a brand-new GTA4. Battlefield: Vietnam added a lot to the gameplay of the original bf1942, with helicopters (infinat
Re:Battlefield 2? (Score:3, Interesting)
You mean "infinitely dumbed-down"?
When I first played DC, I couldn't even fly straight UP. I'd push the throttle, and fly over and die. I tried, keyboard, keyboard+mouse, joystick, joystick+keyboard.. I couldn't fly the things. Finally I just gave up and decided I'd be a tank driver.
I tried again later, and after some practice, I got the hang of it. DC copters aren't simulations of real copters, but they are FUN, RESPONSIVE, and have a physics model th
Re:Battlefield 2? (Score:2)
I'd meet you haveway, and say that they took out DC's unnecessarily difficult heli flying, compromising by making it slightly less "do-anything"able. I, like you, spent much time learning to fly the helis. It shouldnt take that long. The BF:V fly fine, IMO, and now can transport tanks, which is sweet.
Re:Battlefield 2? (Score:2)
Re:Battlefield 2? (Score:1)
You know what would be interesting. If they made a toggle, (in the options, or something that requires a reset, so you couldn't just flip back and forth.)
They could have one that says "Alternate flight physics." One of them would be easy for level flight/ hovering, but you sacrifice speed and manuverability. And the other would be the opposite.
I actually think the 'harder the better.' People can always struggle through and learn to fly, but if it's too 'restricted' to m
Re:Battlefield 2? (Score:2)
Even after I got the hang of it, it still felt like you were wrestling a live eel as you tried to control it. The only good part about th
Online? (Score:1)
The oddball side (Score:1)
So in other words : "We're going to use the Chinese side to put outrageous ideas and weapons into the game and hope the public doesn't realize theres no such thing as a dual cannon tank that fires depleted uranium tank rounds or a light vehicle armed with a giant gatling gun mounted on it with unlimited rounds while maintaining unerring accuracy to shoot both ground and air ta
Re:The oddball side (Score:1)
While similarities are going to be drawn between the Generals and Battlefield 2 "setup," they are made by two different studios (EA Pacific and DICE, respectively) despite having the same publisher (EA).
Generals never laid claim to being a "realistic" RTS. The Battlefield series never claimed to be a "realistic" FPS, either. With the exception of being in an actual world setting (Generals even claims to be set in the near future to include the more fictional/exot
Re:The oddball side (Score:1)
Gameplay? No, content.
Comanches? Yes, that was being developed in real life, with the same name. RPGs, AK-47s, Flashbangs, Armor Piercing bullets, Technicals, Patriot Missle System? Yes, yes, and more yes'es. All real life things. Bomb Trucks, Terrorists, and Tunnel Networks? Again yes.
I never said they didn't try to make realistic gamepla
No more DC? (Score:3, Insightful)
Knowing EA, those bastards are probably looking for a way to charge for it.
Hopefully (Score:1)
Politically Neutral - China is next threat (Score:1)
Whilst I can laud the reality based imagination of the writers in finding the largest army in the current world, I don't like the way the lines in the sand are being drawn up.
We have already had Bush's Axis of Evil (not dictatorship or human right abuses but downright Evil), but
Battlefield: Modern Combat (Score:1)
This would bring a first to the consoles: modification development for a console game. That hard-drive should be used for something, so how about making your mark known and actually allow us to do this?
Desert Combat was such a craze on the BF1942 engine, BFV is great on the PC, why not