Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
First Person Shooters (Games)

Review: Battlefield 2 565

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.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Review: Battlefield 2

Comments Filter:
  • umm when has 2 patches been numerous? Aside from no favorites list this game is great. it is all 1942 is and more.
    • The game is really great but.. veryy very unstable.

      I need to restart the game every time i host a multiplayer game, for instance. Then there are there frequent crashes to the desktop. Or the sudden extreme lags (on very recent GFX cards). And before you start screaming that I should patch my windows box: everyone in our 'clan' has the same trobles and we all have the original game (no warez bugs).

      The first patch had huge memory leaks and was quickly retracted. The second patch came weeks after but hasn't
    • by sgant ( 178166 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @03:22PM (#13116129) Homepage Journal
      Well, not really even 2 patches as within days of the first patch EA "recalled" it and suggested people just reinstall the game and NOT patch it.

      But that's neither here or there. I'm done with this game. It's just too tiring to play anymore.

      1. The voting system sucks...I've NEVER seen one vote ever go through. Ever. I'm sure there's someone out there that's seen a vote pass...but not me.

      2. The punish system just plain sucks. You kill someone by accident..like in a tank and you can't see behind you and you're not totally paying attention to the mini-map to see anyone near you and WHAM you run over your team mate cause they decided to just jump out in front of you. Do they forgive? Not a chance. Always get punished. Very rare do you not get punished. This just needs to totally go away.

      3. People never act like a team anymore. In the first few days of the retail release there were people that seemed to really want to win the game...but now it's just point whores that only care about how many points they can rack up...doesn't matter if their side wins or loses. The retard level is very high at the moment.

      4. Now we get into the people that rage the game. Like the myg0t morons and their ilk. The ones that go out of their way to run out in front of a jeep or tank so they CAN punish people on purpose. They'll jump on top of a chopper so they die when they take off, they'll run to a place that's about to be shelled so they can punish the commander. This is happening more and more.

      5. Random disconnects for no reason.

      I'm done. Guess it was a 50 dollar lesson in waiting a few months after release of a new game. EA should be ashamed of themselves releasing this bug-ridden crap. I may just go back and play the demo as that wasn't as bad.
  • by Gavin Scott ( 15916 ) * on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @02:11PM (#13115413)
    It amazes me that people keep suggesting that BF2 is this great example of what makes PC gaming better than console gaming.

    I am a PC gamer and while I own most of the consoles, I never turn them on because I prefer the PC experience and my high-resolution cutting-edge graphics to playing on a "tee vee".

    But Battlefield 2 was clearly designed from day one TO BE A CONSOLE GAME! Just look at the user interface. It's designed to be operated by a console-style game controller without any need for a keyboard, mouse, or any of the rest of the PC user interface.

    The primary communication interface consists of a button-triggered popup menu of canned messages, and keyboard-based chat looks like an afterthought.

    The user experience for this game will be identical in its console ports, and not because the consoles will be made to behave like PCs, but because the designers of this game went to a fair amount of trouble to make the PC behave just like a console.

    The game may look better on today's PCs when compared to today's consoles, but this is simply due to the more modern (and several times more expensive) hardware in a current gaming PC. There may be other reasons why PC gaming is better than console gaming, but BF2 presents no examples (that I can see) of why this might be the case.

    BF2 *is* a great game though, and is the first game of its type that actually convinced me to buy it.

    • I agree, BF2 is nothing compared Medal of Honor Allied Assault or Pacific Front. For that matter if you want to know what a real PC game is I would look at Diablo II.
      • what a real PC game is I would look at Diablo II

        Buggy, exploitable, virtual items sellable on Ebay, rampant pking, and no longer supported by the creating company?

        Even so, I do know where you are coming from. How many times should the "best game of the year" be nothing more then the "best game of last year" with a new paint job.

      • MOHAA was fantastic for a while, but it too was buggy, and let's face it, the door trick made the game stupid. The beach assault level was wonderful for a while, then became impossible because of the door campers.

        There was some truly wonderful objective levels in the game, and the sequels did pretty well, but alas, its time has passed.
    • by Blakey Rat ( 99501 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @02:21PM (#13115517)
      I am a PC gamer and while I own most of the consoles, I never turn them on because I prefer the PC experience and my high-resolution cutting-edge graphics to playing on a "tee vee".

      Wow, you are a savvy customer.
    • I think the 'rose style' canned message system is better than the original use of the f-keys (1942 and vietnam), if only because it leaves my hands in the postion they need to be in to move, run, jump, strafe, etc. While using the f-keys means moving the hand away the keyboard...
      • IMHO, the best implementation of "quick" chat items was in Tribes 2 -- three keystrokes, starting with "V", could express a huge variety of things quickly. Much quicker and less disruptive than the current BF2 system, and undoubtedly more efficient than using F-keys.

        However, I really DO like the ability to "spot" hostiles for your comrades via the rose. I wish people would use it more often...
    • OR...! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by quakeroatz ( 242632 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @02:21PM (#13115519) Journal
      PC Game makers are trying to lure in more of the console crowd?

      "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.
    • He's 100% wrong (Score:3, Insightful)

      BF2 was never meant to be a console game. It is a 100% PC product. BF2: Modern Combat (Xbox/PC title) is a completely different product. I've played the demo and the two are completely different in terms of units and maps. The similarity is the "house to house" high paced action combat apparently not found on consoles.
    • by Lightwarrior ( 73124 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @03:07PM (#13115977) Journal
      > But Battlefield 2 was clearly designed from day one TO BE A CONSOLE GAME! Just look at the user interface. It's designed to be operated by a console-style game controller without any need for a keyboard, mouse, or any of the rest of the PC user interface.

      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.

  • BF2 is a fun game which bears a striking resemblance in feel to Star Wars battle front.

    It is nice, that in this game, a sniper can actually do his thing and there is a chance (but not a 100% gaurantee) if the enemies noticing you the moment you poke your head out of the building.

    Great game...keep up the good job!
    • Another poster brought up something I forgot to mention. The controls have much to be desired. There are so many different control types, you can easily spend 20-30 minutes setting up just SOME of them. That and changing them is difficult. I would get a message telling me the desired control key is utilized in another section - but not which part of the section. I have the basics setup - but just barely.
    • Re:My Experience (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DeathFlame ( 839265 )
      I believe you're making the Battlefront creators seem like the ones innovating.

      BF2 is like BF 1942.

      SW Battlefront is like BF 1942.
  • PC Gaming... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by man_of_mr_e ( 217855 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @02:14PM (#13115439)
    PC Gaming excels at strategy games. Games like Battlefield 2 can easily be done on consoles, while a game like Civilization or even Warcraft are much more difficult (yes, I know they've made warcraft for consoles, but it basically sucks).

    The problem is not the console itself, but the control mechanism. Joysticks (or pads) suck for strategy games.
    • Not nearly as much as they suck for FPS games.
    • Re:PC Gaming... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Pxtl ( 151020 )
      Well, aiming is a limitation. Consoles lack pointing devices, which keeps them both out of strat and fps titles. The fps console titles have compensated by being lethargicly slow, or providing heavy auto-aim, in comparison to their PC counterparts. Remember the complaints about the sluggish pace in the PC port of Halo? That's because that's as fast as you can aim with a gamepad.

      BF2 can work on both because vehicles work fine with analog sticks, and BF2 infantry aren't as blazingly fast as, say, ut2k4 i
    • Which brings me to my most important discovery.

      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.
  • by th1ckasabr1ck ( 752151 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @02:15PM (#13115448)
    One of my favorite things that they changed from BF1942 is that after being killed you no longer get a view of where the fatal bullet came from.

    It's much more satifying to play as a sniper now that the game doesn't give away your hiding spot everytime you successfully take someone down.

    Also the spawn times of the vehicles should scale based on how many players are on the map. On maps with fewer players there are far too many vehicles to go around.

  • by Tebriel ( 192168 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @02:15PM (#13115451)
    But VGCats said it best. [vgcats.com]
  • ...because it is a great game, and all, but there's really not a lot here that's not possible on consoles. Indeed, the fact that the consoles don't offer a similar experience is entirely down to a dearth of similar games - and god knows Xbox Live could really do with a game that bridges the gap between traditional small, userhosted deathmatches (like Halo 2) and the large MMO style as well as Battlefield 2 does.
  • Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Golias ( 176380 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @02:16PM (#13115468)
    Pitched, high tension battles fought street to street and house-to-house are experiences that consoles just can't offer up yet.

    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.
    • Take a look at Morrowind for the Xbox and Morrowind for the PC--there's really no comparison. For the PC, a few choice mods yields far superior character models, new races to play and new monsters to fight, companions to aid you, pack animals to haul your lewt, new weapons and clothes, atmospheric sounds and music, new quests and storylines, etc.

      A game that embraces the mod community can rise above its flaws (and believe me, Morrowind has plenty of those) and prolong its life for many years to come. I
    • Re:Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by toad3k ( 882007 )
      Simulations that have more than 8 buttons worth of control. (mechwarrior and space sims like x-btf)

      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 con
  • "but you'll probably want to save it for LAN parties."

    Ah, with this ridiculous statment you dissolved all 10 small bits of credible information in your transparent review. If BF2 is anything, it is a online multiplayer FPS and calling it a LAN game shows that you've missed the plot completely.

  • Isn't 1940 versions prior to Battlefield 1942?

    Still better name than
  • Does Battlefield 2 include improved terrain/building damage? Indeed, such things will be the hallmark of future games.

    If you bump a tank into a building, the building should suffer from some sort of damage. Games like those in the GTA series do at least include rudimentary support for broken lamp posts, trees, fire hydrants, etc. But besides shattering some glass windows, you can't really cause true damage to your surroundings.

    Today's games lack such realism. But perhaps we will see such things in the ver
    • Does Battlefield 2 include improved terrain/building damage? Indeed, such things will be the hallmark of future games.

      No, unfortunately not.

      You can put a tank round into a gas station and get nothing.


      Anyway, the expansion which has already been announced is supposed to improve this somewhat, but in BF2 today there are only a handful of small items that you can actually damage.

    • They are getting there... you can bomb/C4 bridges in BF2 which offers you some tactical control over the map, blocking off vechicles from certain areas.

      They haven't reached the level of complexity where you can level any building. That would certainly be cool though.
      • And, the collapse of a building should damage or trap the tank, or cause the loss of a track. That would make driving a tank a job of some skill, and not turn them into building-destroying juggernauts.

        Save that for the OGRE MMORPG. ;)

    • The problem with what you are describing (not saying there isn't a solution) would be that alot of the good gameplay has to do with the several hot-spots around the map. Those spots are carefully planned and tested, and when you would have the ability to take key-spots down/remove or create key entries towards a point, it would hurt the flow of the map, and thus the gameplay.

      The Red Faction [redfaction.com] series have an almost unlimited ammount of freedom concerning your surroundings, but it still has its boundaries too.

  • 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

  • A.D.2 ? (Score:5, Funny)

    by SharpFang ( 651121 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @02:20PM (#13115512) Homepage Journal
    If Battlefield 1942 was fought in IIWW realia, shouldn't Battlefield 2 be located, say, in Roman Empire, the unrests caused by king Herod, barbarians' attacks from the north, this kind of stuff, when Jesus was a 2-year-old child?
  • Battlefield 2 (Score:2, Insightful)

    by cl0secall ( 449952 )
    I wrote my own review of BF2 [thelonegamer.info] on my offline-gaming centered website, which I named "The Lone Gamer [thelonegamer.info]". In addition to the experience I wrote down there, I also had the opportunity to try and get a co-op mode running at a LAN party last weekend.

    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

  • Only in the world of computers can a sequel to "BattleField 1942" be called "Battlefield 2" without anyone blinking an eye. Or is it just me that sees this and interprets the 'sequel' as being 1940 versions behind the original, or at the very least, set 1940 years prior? :-)
  • by d474 ( 695126 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @02:24PM (#13115554)
    "Armchair generals abound in the FPS world, but in practice few are anything approaching a virtual Colin Powell."
    True, not many Armchair generals in FPS world are liars. Cheaters, maybe. But liars? No. Good analogy.
  • How does this do on last gen systems? I have a 1800mhz duron and a Geforce FX5950, and don't really care to upgrade. What are my chances of being able to play this successfully?
    • If the requirements are the same as B1942, you should be fine. I have a 1.2GHZ system with a 2+ year old Radeon card and I've not seen any problems.
      • They are definitely not the same as BF1942.

        And if you don't see problems with an 1.2Ghz CPU, you are running it at 640x480, or enjoy your games at 10fps.
        • Neither. Running at 800x600 and getting 30fps or so. I have 512MB of RAM, don't play on-line, and do the obvious like disable the anti-virus software to free up those CPU cycles.
      • The requirements ARE NOT THE SAME.

        The video card must be DirectX9.0 compatable. That rules out most of the formerly "decent" video cards such as the gForce4 series and the Radeon 9000 class cards.

        Expect to use something like a nVidia 6600GT to get decent performance. For great performance and screenshots like you may have seen, expect to need a $400 video card.

        Likewise, a 2.8 gHZ or so CPU, and a Gig of RAM minimum.

        BF2 is a "buy a new system" game, not an "upgrade a single component" game for the aver
    • I have a 1800+ with 1 G of RAM and a 5800 video card, and it plays fine with most detail turned way down. The only problem is loading a map, it loads for about 30-45 seconds, then says "verifying client data" for 4-5 minutes. And it does that every time it loads a new map.
    • AFAIK, the game will simply refuse to install if you don't have at least a Radeon 8500 or FX5700 with 128MB memory. Your processor is just above the min. specs as well (1.7MHz Athlon ... so you'll be close).

      What is the big problem is RAM. It needs at least 512MB to load and many people with 1GB have been having trouble with swapping even at medium texture levels. Depending on how much RAM you have, you'll be lucky if you can run it on the lowest settings.
    • I play on a 1533MHz Athlon XP with a GF FX 5500, 768Mb PC2700, and it plays fine. 20-30 FPS in very intense battles, 40-50 normally.
  • by delus10n0 ( 524126 ) <delusion_@NOSpAm.pdsys.org> on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @02:26PM (#13115583) Homepage
    I've been playing since the game came out, and have the following hardware:

    P4 3Ghz with HT
    1 Gigabyte of RAM
    ATI X800 SE PCIE
    160gig Western Digital 8meg SATA Drive
    Soundblaster Audigy 2 (in 4 channel mode)

    The game runs like a dog in anything higher than 1024x786 resolution on that hardware. You have to leave all the settings at "medium", otherwise stuttering will occur (I've heard this is because higher settings require 256+ megs of video RAM, which I don't have.)

    The game easily consumes my gig of RAM, and starts forcing Windows to swap to disk. It gets so bad, that after exiting the game, I have to wait approximately a minute before I can use the PC again (from it swapping all the memory out of the disk.) This PC just has Windows XP installed on it, nothing else running in memory.

    The game will also randomly "crash" while loading a level. I'll complete a map online, and it will appear to start loading the next map, a black screen will appear, and then my desktop. Yay!

    There are also issues with the "aiming"-- I think it's a case of the server/client prediction being different. I can unload an entire clip of an MP5 at short range (5-10 feet), with crosshairs on someone, and somehow 90% of my bullets miss, and the guy goes into "prone" mode and stabs me up close. Huh? There's also this funky "jump and go prone" manuever, as well as the "jump from a building and fire accurately while falling" manuever. Things that shouldn't be happening, essentially.

    It's still an enjoyable game, it just has flaws and needs patching..
    • by stonedonkey ( 416096 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @02:57PM (#13115878)
      Soundblaster Audigy 2 (in 4 channel mode)

      As it turns out, there appears to be a serious problem with how DICE coded EAX handling, which is purported to be fixable by following the instructions in this thread [forumplanet.com].

      There's also a beta Audigy 2 ZS driver [creative.com] which is supposed to improve BF2 performance. (It's the second "Download Now" link from the top.)

      As for missing a lot with MP5 at short range, I've come to the conclusion that the game can have a lot of packet loss, even while the ping time is low. Mostly due to people trying to run servers on inferior hardware, and the game's problematic memory management.
    • Something is very wrong with your system. Im running at 1024 on high on a 9800pro, 1Gb DDR1 and an Athlon XP @ 2.3ghz. The game runs GREAT, over 50fps for the most part. Many servers are laggy but also many that aren't. Indicitive of hosters overloading thier bandwidth or servers.

      + I have played the demo since the first day and am hopelessly addicted. Not one crash, not a boot to the desktop, NOTHING. Quite possibly the most stable game I have ever played.

      And your shooting problems? Use bursts of fire not
  • by Junks Jerzey ( 54586 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @02:27PM (#13115596)
    There's nothing about BF2 that wouldn't work just as well on a console. It doesn't push any kind of graphical limits. It would work great with a typical console controller. It's a great game, yes, but that has nothing to do with it being a PC title.

    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 doesnt push any kind of graphical limits?

      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.

  • BF2: not bad.. (Score:2, Informative)

    ... Got it with my EVGA 7800GTX board (got sick of the SLI skitzing all over the place in WoW).

    This game is starved of RAM at 1GB if you play on uberhigh settings, you need 2GB. Yes, that's obnoxious.

    Also, where's the shooting range so I can practice with the iron sights?
  • I agree with the general assessment of the review, but I wouldn't characterize it as "numerous patches." There's only been one patch, then a hotfix.
  • The game is bugged beyond belief.

    Ignoring the fact that it won't run on Anything older than a 9x00 series ATI card or GF5x00 series nVidia card. It repeatedly drops to desktop on my old 9800 machine - the ATI support is terrible, presumably because nVidia is the way it's meant to be played.

    Then there's the problem that if the game ever crashes, I then can't start a single player game without deleting all my user config files from the game folder, otherwise it just loops on the "Start Server" screen.

    • the ATI support is terrible, presumably because nVidia is the way it's meant to be played.

      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
  • by Tassleman ( 66753 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @02:32PM (#13115628) Homepage
    ...I don't think DICE/EA QA'd this at all. At least with the 1.02 patch out it's a bit more playable.

    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
    • mod parent up! its SO true!

      If you run a guy over, and its your temmate.... its a teamkill, fine.
      if you collide with another vehicle and its your teams vehicle, one of 2 things happen:
      1. you die and its a suicide.
      2. you die because they killed you. and they get punished for a teamkill.
      3 the reverse happens, you kill them, die yourself but your punsished for a teamkill.
      ive seen guys go from best player on the team, to bumping a jeep full of guys accidentally, having it blow up (WTH??) and being punished, or
  • In B1942, even at the "hard" settings, all you have to do is get in a tank and sit outside an enemy spawn point at an ammo dump and blast away. It's even more effective if your an engineer and can fix your own vehicle. It's like shooting fish in a barrel, with 150+ kills possible on almost every map. The Berlin and Stalingrad maps are the most egregious offenders in this regard, I think.
  • My Impressions (Score:5, Informative)

    by jgoemat ( 565882 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @02:35PM (#13115665)
    1. Fierce firefights - great gameplay
    2. Good maps
    3. Well balanced classes - Medics and Engineers are of more use than before, anti-tank is actually useful now that it takes less than 3 hits to kill a tank
    4. Online play works well and is fun
    5. Graphics and sound are much improved over BF1942
    6. Quick commands is a great idea. Now you can point at an enemy and quickly mark them as spotted to your teamates, as well as call for a pickup, repair, healing, or ammo.
    7. New commander and squad abilities are neat, if you can figure them out
    1. The manual just plain SUCKS. There's not really anything in it to show you how to use the new Squad and Commander capabilities, and I couldn't find them on the web.
    2. No multiplayer coop - playing against a few friends at a lan party with bots for backup was one of my favorite things to do in BF 1942.
    3. Finding a server and getting on with my friends isn't as easy as it could be, why not connect with friends and be able to find servers that will let you join as a group?
    4. Creating an online account involved starting BF2 three times and exiting three times when clicking to view the agreements and privacy policies. Each took about 15 minutes to read.
    5. You need a new video card, not because you couldn't play without but because the designers just decided to use the new shader model. If you don't have an acceptable video card, the game just quits to the desktop with no information. There's a hack out there to enable play with older cards and they play fine but might not look quite as good, why didn't they include the capability at least in the game?
    6. Loading maps takes too long - there's a 'Client data validation' that takes over a minute on one of my computers (3gz P4) every time I connect to a map.
    7. You need the CD/DVD in the drive to play. I know this is standard, but I fail to see the reason when you have each install attached to a KEY too that I'm sure is checked when you play multiplayer. I like playing on my work computer and my home computer, why do I have to lug the DVD around? There's a NOCD hack already or I wouldn't have bought the game.
    • To add to your list (which I mostly agree with) and keeping in mind I've only played the demo:

      I found the best part of the game the commander interface. The abilities to call in artillery, support troops, and at least attempt to organize teammates with squad commands were amazing improvements over the original game.

      The drawback, and the reason I didn't buy it, was the 'mutiny' feature. While I understand the reason behind it, my experince was less than fun.

      To wit: I was voted in as commander, a bunch of
    • # No multiplayer coop - playing against a few friends at a lan party with bots for backup was one of my favorite things to do in BF 1942.

      This is actually not true. It does have it. You just have to trick it and you're restricted in functionality.

      1. Start a single-player game, which is effectively a single-client multiplayer (hence why it says "starting server" during load).

      2. Have the others launch an Internet multiplayer session, but click Connect To IP and enter the "server's" IP address. Tha
  • One thing that really bothered me about this game was the seemingly random difference in controls when compared to Battlefield: Vietnam.

    I can understand some of the motivation for removing the F1-8 chat, as it forces you to move your hand away from the actual game controls. The buttons to switch seats in a vehicle, though, are different for reasons that appear to be pointless. Other buttons for lesser commands are also different, again, seemingly at random.

    My biggest complaint: air vehicles, especially
  • Um, dude (Score:5, Funny)

    by brotherscrim ( 617899 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @02:42PM (#13115731) Journal
    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.

    Uh...the "Powell Doctrine" is one of overwhelming force. Maybe there's a few more eColins out there than you think ;)
  • BUGS! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dunkirk ( 238653 ) <david@davidkr[ ]r.com ['ide' in gap]> on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @02:43PM (#13115741) Homepage
    Look through any of the several forums dedicated to this game, and you will see many messages about the bugs. I can't play for any longer than about 30-45 minutes without a crash. That may seem short, but this has been after HOURS of trying all sorts of "fixes" that have extended this from 30-60 seconds. In fact, I *just* got finished trying the latest beta (77.76) of the nVidia drivers before seeing this article. The only things that have really helped have been "dumbing down" the video and audio settings. So much so, I MIGHT AS WELL BE PLAYING A CONSOLE!

    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.
    • I had my memory overheat for the first time while playing this game.
      I have a Windows installation with the latest drivers and BF2 and HL2 as the only games installed on it.
      I got freezes and some random reboots after a while.
      It seems that my 4 512mb Geil memory modules, got too hot inside their metal casing. I am not overclocking anything.
      I placed a small fan above the memory modules to see if that helped and it haven't frozen since. But it seems strange to me that i need special cooling for my memory. And I
  • Score 8 (Score:3, Funny)

    by Xaroth ( 67516 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @02:43PM (#13115745) Homepage
    With a score of 8/100, he must really hate this game.

    Or maybe, it's a score of 8/5, and he really, really, over-enthusiastically likes this game.

    Perhaps it's 8/Green, and it's abstract.

    (*cough* Attention editors: Do not give an arbitrary rating for a review without some indication of what the relationship is. Yes, we're all smart kids and can determine that you probably like the game from your review, so it should be 8/10, with 10 being the best, but it's considered shoddy work to omit the scale.)
  • They force these companies to release the game much earlier then it should be. Their QA blows. They released a patch that caused even more problems and then told everyone to REINSTALL the game because of their patch. There is so many bugs in the game its redic.
  • It's Painful.... (Score:2, Informative)

    Dice/EA hired on the Trauma Studios (Desert Combat) team for "consulting". Apparently they didn't listen much....

    The game has it's good points, but it feels massively rushed to production, and shipped with some glaring bugs. However, even with all the issues I list below, it's still FUN, but very frustrating at times. I figured this would bide my time until Call of Duty 2 comes out in October.

    • No COOP! Yes, you're screwed. There are hacks to help you out, but Dice/EA decided that COOP wasn't to be.
    • Ther
  • by Y-Crate ( 540566 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @03:04PM (#13115937)
    I've played PC (this includes Commodore 64, Amiga, x86 PC and Mac) games for years. Recently however, I've found myself paying more attention to console games because I simply cannot afford to pay for the hardware, the games and the hardware upgrades to keep playing new games.

    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?
  • by Dantelope ( 144810 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @03:06PM (#13115970)
    I've played both BF2 and America's Army, and while BF2 has the benefits of larger battlefields, more classes of soldiers, more classes of weapons, and vehicles you can commandeer, it lacks the essential ingredient that makes America's Army my favorite by a mile: realism.

    EA has consistently proven they think realism is in the graphics. It's not. It's in the game play. America's Army has much more realistic movement, reactions, lifecycle (coming back from the dead is not something that happens in real life, sorry psychic friends), etc.

    When I play BF2 I'm amazed by the realistic water, the great tank graphics, and the wonderful explosions. But I feel like I'm playing an arcade game.

    When I play America's Army, I'm amazed by the realism of the GAME itself, and I almost always become so immersed in the game that I need a few seconds after quitting to readjust to reality (scary, but true).

    So BF2 is an arcade game, and America's Army feels like a simulation in a game-like environment.

    In related news, the next version of AA -- due out this fall or winter, I believe -- will likely add larger maps and vehicles you can command, among other improvements.

  • If you guys have problems patching the game, then its debugging log might help to give clues. My log was in C:\Documents and Settings\FoolBoy\My Documents\Battlefield 2\dmp\patchlog.txt.
  • And I gotta say that a lot of things have improved. When it comes to PC games, I'm a cheap bastard and easily amused by something a few years old -- hell, I still enjoy Quake III Arena, and compared to BF2, it looks like a 2nd grader with ADHD drew the graphics with Crayolas. Or maybe it's just that I now have a decent video card. Or maybe I stopped using peyote.

    Anyway, what was I saying? Oh, right -- BF2 is an incredibly complex affair when you're used to run-around-and-shoot-people type FPS games. B

  • Well I love this game. My geforce 4200 wouldnt run it (aparently by design so you have to upgrade) but the 6800 gt256 is more than enough to handle that.

    Its tightly integrated with gamespy, so if your like me and hate that company to death your out of luck. You absolutly need to create a gamespy account to play online. Ripping the CD's to ISO's took a bit longer because of read errors but the game plays fine with the iso loaded with deamon tools. I have heard that if you crack the game for noCD, it will fa
  • The game is ok. It's a lot like BF1942 Vietnam, which is a turnoff IMHO. The game is too complex with the graphics and too realistic to the point where it's difficult to play. In BF1942 people are clearly outlined against their environment and with BF2 people blend in too well. Sure BF2 is more realistic but even with 64 people on a map you feel alone. BF2 has the feeling of so much empty space whereas BF1942 felt more accurate...even DC feels than BF2.

    I guess my complaints are:
    - The server select scr
  • by NeedleSurfer ( 768029 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @03:49PM (#13116422)
    Once you get in the game, I just can't argue, BF2 is incredible, the graphics, the gameplay, the adrenaline rush, it's all there. But, cause there is a but:

    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...
  • by sheldon ( 2322 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @03:51PM (#13116448)
    Frankly, my favorite of this genre is still RTCW. It seems like when they started trying to add vehicles to these games, they seriously screwed up the game balance.

    The game control is much improved from the old battlefield game. Unfortunately they seem to have a problem with balance. Namely with aircraft. Tanks and ground vehicles, no problem... if anything they're too easy to take out by infantry.

    Planes... nearly impossible to kill, unless you're in an AA gun vehicle. The stationary AA missiles don't seem to have the speed or range to nail them, and there's no way to hit them with small arms.

    But if you want to win, and you want to get a high score, with all the fame and fortune that goes with it... You have to play the Helicopter right.

    The Helicopter has a pilot, two gunners and four passengers.

    The pilot and two gunners should be medics. If anybody does get some small arm fire off onto your passengers, they'll get healed. The four passengers... Well there you want engineers. Why? Cause if you get hit by a missile, they'll fix the heli.

    With a good pilot, you can come down in on a flag, take the position by hovering for only about 5 seconds, and then move on.

    On the ground... it takes about 3 good hits of a bazooka or tank to take out a helicopter.. With the slow reload times, you can't do that in 5 seconds... so you have to have several players targetting the heli. But then you have those four engineers up there repairing...

    What this means is, essentially... the only way to take out the helicopter is to hit it with another aircraft like a plane or heli, or completely overwhelm it from the ground. It's hard... real hard... When President Bush said his job was hard, he obviously never tried to take out a heli in BF2.

    Meanwhile the guys on the ground are dodging fire from the heli, trying to hit the thing... And those guns are awesomely powerful. and when it leaves taking back the flag.(not always easy, now that it's a spawn point)

    Oh, I haven't tried this... but I think having one support player as pilot or gunner may mean the engineers will get rearmed. So when they aren't repairing they can drop mines and grenades all over the place. Fun fun!

    Essentially the game is a lot of fun if you're in that helicopter.

    Otherwise, the second most fun you can have is to take Special Ops. Find yourself a car... load it up with C4 packs, and then drive around getting all Yassir Arafat on the enemy tanks. That is... you ram 'em and everybody blows up! You, the car, the tank, and the occupant of the tank! Doesn't help much with your score, but it's still fun!

    Kind of reminds me of when RTCW was still in beta, and you could run down the hallway with the flame thrower without injuring yourself. Great fun, if you're the guy with the flame thrower.

    I'm hoping they fix the game with the next patch.

    BF2 Lance Corporal sodablue
  • by MmmmAqua ( 613624 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @04:17PM (#13116712)
    ... and I know what I'm talking about; from March '04 to March '05 I spent a year in an infantry company in Baghdad. So, here's my mini-review, with an eye towards comparing the game to its real-life equivalent.

    Battlefield 2's weapon characteristics are *nothing* like their real-life counterparts. In real life, I can hit a 3-ft. plastic target at 400m with a single round from my M249. I can put five out of seven rounds into a *real* person, much bigger than the target, at the same distance. In Battlefield 2, I'll be lucky to hit a guy with 3 rounds out of an entire 200-rd. box, at about the in-game equivalent of 100m, while laying prone. Hint to DICE: squad support weapons are not innacurate. None of the weapons portrayed in the game have the poor accuracy the game displays. If they did, real militaries wouldn't use them. Please don't artificially retard weapons to balance gameplay; instead, rework the levels. Terrain is often a deciding factor in real combat. Why should your game be different? Besides, the soldiers you're portraying in-game are not truck drivers, pay clerks, or light-wheel mechanics; they are combat arms soldiers. They are trained to move, think, and fight in combat, so how about you let them do that without imposing silly constraints on their ability to fight?

    Here's a thought: if you must artificially impose limitations on accuracy, base them on a player's in-game rank. That's quite a bit more realistic - I know I was calmer, steadier, and more accurate at month six in Baghdad than I was on day three.

    Here's another thought: one area where most games do not impose artificial constraints is the effect of suppression fire. This is the exception to the rule of arbitrary limits, and America's Army got it right: if someone is shooting at you, your accuracy suffers based on how close they're hitting. This is how it is in real life, and this is how it should be in game. The next time I see some lone wolf jump up and run right into a hail of .50-cal fire, kneel, and shoot the .50-cal gunner in the head, I'm going to punch my computer. Yes, this occasionally happened to great effect, in WWII, Korea, Vietname, etc., but the reason you hear about those cases is that they are extraordinary. 99999 times out of 100000, that guy is dead.

    All of these bitches seem to be about weapon accuracy, but, hey, that's a core bit of the game. So, next on my list... if I am riding around in a M1 Abrams tank, see somebody hovering over a flag in a Havoc or a Hind, and land a 120mm HEAT round right below their rotor shaft, what happens in real life is this: the chopper explodes, crashes to the ground, and everyone inside dies. It does not drift a little to the side, turn, fire some rockets, and then fly away. Modern HEAT rounds are made to penetrate upwards of 800mm of RHA - they're made to defeat main battle tanks. Modern attack helicopters are made to withstand 20mm cannon fire. Do the math.

    Support catastrophic kills on armored targets. If I land a round right on the turret ring of a T-80, the tank is going to explode, spectacularly. It's not going to turn, shoot at me, and then run away.

    Tanks are not anti-infantry weapons. They are anti-armor weapons. The coax machine gun, and turret gun, are effective against infantry *at range*, but pretty much useless up close. The main gun on a main battle tank can be used to great effect on infantry when they're hiding in buildings, but if you land a round close to an infantryman in open terrain, you're probably just going to scrape him up or give him a few burns. Sabot rounds don't fragment enough to have a grenade-like effect on infantry, and HEAT rounds dissipate energy too quickly to cause much harm when they strike anything other than a wall, armor, or other such material. And these are likely to be the only two types of rounds a MBT will load. Of course, *hit* someone with a 120mm round, and they're done.

    AT-4s, SMAWs, SRAWs, etc. etc. etc. probably w
  • by James_G ( 71902 ) <<gro.procagemlabolg> <ta> <semaj>> on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @04:48PM (#13116951)
    BF2 sucks mightily if you're an independant clan running your own server. EA have decided to add their global ranking shit, which isn't open to people like us. Consequently, non-ranked servers are a wasteland (apparently, people are very excited about their name appearing in a list of random internet people on a web page).

    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.

  • by Njall ( 132366 ) on Wednesday July 20, 2005 @06:19PM (#13118007)

    The reviewer failed to mention player based boycotts of Electronic Arts. Also there was no serious discussions of the flaws of the game. I know of one serious boycott of their already announced (follow the money!) expansion pack until Electronic Arts fixed the heinous flaws in BF2.

    In-game BF2 is tolerably good though you do need a considerable system to play it. However, everything external to the game is horrible. Mostly the problems result from a completely obvious money grab by Electronic Arts. Follow the money!

    The ranking system is designed to make money ONLY FOR Electronic Arts. It is NOT an anti-hacking system as EA claims. That is the purest form of sophist marketing tripe. It will take me, and I play 2-3 hours a day, probably 2 years to make 1st Lieutenant. I only have about 2000 game points. Yet, there are already people with over 300,000 points. Eh? We all got it at the same time! The ONLY reason for the ranking system is so that EA can require a fee to run a ranked server. Between $4-$8 per player per month. $250 per month for 1 server. Follow the money!

    Once you register you CANNOT change your nick without going through gyrations that would make a die-hard Rube Goldberg fan flinch. In game I'm R2N2. Out of the game, everywhere else Battlefield, I am PoW_Njall. I made a simple mistake with the demo and I'm hosed. Why? Follow the money!

    No one I know, and I play A LOT of BF2 and BF1942 uses GameSpy. Yet registration with GameSpy is required? Why? Follow the money!

    Electronic Arts says that modifying a Python configuration file is "hacking" and users caught "hacking" will be banned. Servers are not allowed to turn on all weapons thereby requiring players to play on "ranked" server in order to gain in-game access to upgrade weapons. Even if the players on the servers don't want to play for ranks. EA Games will "de-list" any server which opens the weapons. Why? Follow the money!

    Had I written the game server browser I would hide myself in absolute shame about how poor it is. It is slow, inaccurate, and without features. Yet, EA prevents other game browsers from working with BF2. Why? Follow the money!

    There is a LARGE list of problems that should have been found in testing. Why weren't they found? Follow the money!

    If you want to get a clear idea of what to expect in Battlefield 2 from people who LIKE Battlefield 2 check out http://www.totalbf2.com/ [totalbf2.com]

Exceptions prove the rule, and wreck the budget. -- Miller