Last time I checked...

[Abyss_of_Borg]

Re: Last time I checked...

Never seen bf2 in a arcade, where can I play one?


Really though, I don't see why people say its "arcade" what does that mean these days?

Arcade means the opposite of realistic. The opposite of a sim. I don't know if BF2 is really arcade. I think it might be half and half. I think arcade is complete opposite of a sim and that would be something like Quake or Unreal Tournement more then it would be BF2.

[RocketChild]

Re: Last time I checked...

Sure, there are things that we all would like to see more realistic, like tanks that could move up a small bump, or a soldier that could actually scale a wall a bit better.

I think you just need to consider about the Jets and Helos, all these elements would be so far off they would not be fun to use. Considering the limits of gaming right now, they do not allow battlefields to be 50 miles square. Snipers are not shooting 1000 meters, hell there scopes cant go beyond 500 meters.

You are talking about arty being close to soldiers? I have to call bull**** on that. You know how close Army artillery get to the platoons? How about close air support bombing runs where they naplam or cluster bomb an area close to the lines?

People going prone? Well, I know it is a little gay, but ya, you look at people in firefights where there is no protection, ya, they are prone. It is called "hit the deck!!!"

Sorry, but hey, BF is a tongue-n-cheek war game. And like I said, there are several other titles out there that get better realism if taht is what you want.

[[MyIS]Spetsnaz]

Re: Last time I checked...

I think many are replying sort of "generically" here. I understand what this guy is saying ... obviously, you can't have everyone 100% 1/1 realistic. What he's saying is that the things are the most frustrating in the game are those that are unrealistic.

Most people bought the game because it's based on real world weapons systems and the like. Otherwise, we would have all bought Unreal Tournament or something of that nature -- since that genre caters more to the "its just a video game lets blow some stuff up" people.

Yes, I'll hop around. Yes, I'll dolphin dive. Yes, I'll do all of the things that the developers intended for me to do unless they take them out of the game. No point in me getting drilled by bullets just because in real life I would slowly crouched and aimed when I could sprint+strafe+jump+prone and avoid fire.

On the flipside, I played Project Reality and enjoyed it alot. Unfortunately, there just aren't enough players out there for a nice 64/64 game that we all have come to know and love.

Anyhoo, my comment here really has no point except that I've come to grips with one thing that I say over and over to all of my friends that don't like the unrealism aspect of the game:

To game developers: Just give the community a decent and moddable engine. Make it as unrealistic as you like so you can cater to the masses as long as the minority in this community can come in and change things up to fit our style of play. That's the case with BF2 now.

You guys just wait and see. Once POE/FH are released you will fall in love with this game like us BF veterans fell in love with BF1942.

I like to remind myself regularly that the developers and publishers of these games spend a massive amount of money on these games (sounds, textures, models, engine, etc) .. so much so that the video game industry will soon top Hollywood in money spent on production (if it hasnt already).

As long as they give the community the tools to customize the game to our liking, I feel content in the fact that they made their big bucks and we got hours and hours and hours upon hours upon hours and hours of a good time!

Eek.. I am so incapable of making short posts. Bleh.

[EyeofG]

Re: Last time I checked...

• When a Swat team enters an area they don't all drop to the floor prone.
• Aircraft don't float around in plain sight at low speed without being quickly shot down.
• Artillery is never used in areas with friendly troops. Israel won't drop arty in an area their ground troops are engaged in.

Everything can't be modelled realistically. But, reality should be used unless you have a good reason it can't. The best parts of BF2 are the most real parts and the worst parts are the most unreal. Sure, everything can't or shouldn't be made realistically. But, realism is awesome and you really should have a very good reason to stray away from it with games like BF2. Don't you think?

P.S. I haven't heard anyone being excited about the reduced damage option in 1.4. Making things less real doesn't seem to be a popular design choice.

I aguee, but EA sucks and they don't get their facts right.

[XmetallicaXguitarstX]

Re: Last time I checked...

LOL



arright...


you can have your "realistic" infantry fighting.









...








If I can have realistic jets and helicopters.






...





:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[RocketChild]

Re: Last time I checked...

LOL
arright...
you can have your "realistic" infantry fighting.
...
If I can have realistic jets and helicopters.

..

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

You know, I don't think people really want REAL JETS.


Or for an idea of what the damnage is...

http://www.footagehouse.com/explosions.htm

[Roger Smith]

Re: Last time I checked...

If you're looking for realism don't play BF2. Go play Ghost Recon which is slightly more realistic. But you can't expect a game to be 100% realistic especially one like BF2 which isn't even supposed to be realistic.

nobody was proposing it be 100% realistic, we just ask that it be realistic where fun can be perserved.

Even if there was a super realistic game people would still complain it wasn't realistic because they couldn't feel pain.

people only say this that dont understand what realism in games is.

I don't like people who play like this "Geez that prone spamming isn't realistic. Now when do I get tor respawn?"

its not a matter of realism, its a matter of poor game flow.

In rea life you think the MEC would actually stand a chance against the USMC using outdated Russian equipment?

i think any army in the world can defeat the us with any equipment. vietnam and iraq are good examples of this. no army is invincible, im positive that combinations of outdated equipment, resentment for us foriegn policy, lots of babys, and unconventional warfare could easily defeat america, saying otherwise would just be nieve.

If I can have realistic jets and helicopters.

you can hacve your real jets and helis, if we get real surface to air capabilities.

[imported_Bullet Magnet]

Re: Last time I checked...

You know, I don't think people really want REAL JETS.


Or for an idea of what the damnage is...
http://www.footagehouse.com/explosions.htm

On a side note, I've been in one of those (the B-1, not the little trainer), and I swear you must have to be a Lilluputian to sit in one of the defensive position seats or use the bathroom.

[Abyss_of_Borg]

Re: Last time I checked...

no army is invincible, im positive that combinations of outdated equipment, resentment for us foriegn policy, lots of babys, and unconventional warfare could easily defeat america, saying otherwise would just be nieve.

Yes but the way they are fighting in the game they would loose. Going head on in big armies. The MEC in the game are not guerilla fighters and the game doesn't encourage you to use unconventional methods as your main methods. You see T90s and M1 Abrams going head to head. Sure the MEC might kick the US out of their country or countries but they would never be able to invade the US like they did in AF. In BF2 it's more of a global war.

[Bizna]

Re: Last time I checked...

I'm not saying BF2 should be a 100% sim. But, I am saying that nothing in the game should be unreal for no good reason. If you take one small step backward and look at where the game diverges from reality you find some easy fixes. Car-artillery, etc.

Let me flip the question, is there anything in the game that is too realistic?

[Flanker]

Re: Last time I checked...

[LIST][*]When a Swat team enters an area they don't all drop to the floor prone.

Lol, I found this funny. It's sort of a good point. Imagine a SWAT team actually entering a room and all dropping to the floor. Lol...

[[B1]Creasy79]

Re: Last time I checked...

Lol, I found this funny. It's sort of a good point. Imagine a SWAT team actually entering a room and all dropping to the floor. Lol...

It would have even better seeing the swat team all dropping to the floor and dolphin diving.

[imported_Nefarious]

Re: Last time I checked...

I dont play video games, because they involve realism. I play them to escape realism.

[LahLahSr]

Re: Last time I checked...

It's an intersting notion - talking about "realism" in a wargame. If you look at the literal meaning of it, it's really an oxymoron - but then again, considering the way we use the English language, one more won't hurt...lol.

In games, what really should be the topic is the matter of "believability" as a pre-requisite for the feeling of "immersion".

Some of the issues the original poster is raising appear to be about how less "believable" certain dynamics in BF2 are. It is an opinion based on perception and not something anyone can really "argue" with. If that's the way a player feels, then that's just the way it is.

Fortunately hardly anyone here knows what "realism" is when it comes to the battlefield - and for that we should all be grateful.

Instead it's all about expectations. BF2 has brought a LOT of different FPS gamers together, from all sorts of venues. Those who came to BF2 from the Quake/UT type games have lower expectations of BF2 in terms of "believability" - they probably don't care too much about how "immersive" a battlefield-experience the game appears to be.

Other players - perhaps the Ghost Recon/Op. Flashpoint/Desert Combat crowd have other expectations.

Completely new players have other expectations yet again.

What it all boils down to is that we all have different tastes when it comes to games - EA never said that BF2 was for one type of player alone. BF2 is a MIX of utterly UNbelievable and somewhat believable dynamics oand components. The desire to force the game into a "classification" is a wasted one - all that matters is popularity, i.e. how many buyers there are.

As far as taste goes, I agree with the original poster. There are many components and dynamics in the game that detract from my feeling of "immersion". Dolphin diving, jumping, slow-moving bullets, fatiguing INaccuracy of small-arms, effortless artillery, overpowered and over-capable superweapons such as bombers, UAVs capturing individual infantry and submitting to everyone's radar etc. etc. all makes me feel that BF2 is inferior to Desert Combat.

But it is my taste in games that dictate my feelings about BF2. The BF2 formula is a mainstream formula - it caters to the lowest common denominator among FPS gamers. It's a "soft" FPS that can attract everyone from all branches - and that's why it's a succes.

Add to that the stats - this very effective "drug" that everyone seems to hooked on - and you have everything you need for a "Jerry Springer"-type of game that will please the most different people at one time.

Cheers :-)

[Roger Smith]

Re: Last time I checked...

Yes but the way they are fighting in the game they would loose. Going head on in big armies. The MEC in the game are not guerilla fighters and the game doesn't encourage you to use unconventional methods as your main methods. You see T90s and M1 Abrams going head to head. Sure the MEC might kick the US out of their country or countries but they would never be able to invade the US like they did in AF. In BF2 it's more of a global war.

good point, but thats just the sort of realism that isnt implemented, and thats fine, but just as well could be implemented and work just aswell.