Battlefield 2 Rant

[Chris_Redfield]

It's a perfectly valid argument as to why they have problems with poor hit registration.

In fact, the registration is not bad at all if you play PR which simply means it's cone of fire at work. BF2 also suffers the worst out of every game I have played from an increase in ping. The difference between 12ms and 60ms is insane.

It looks to work only if you slow the *snip* down. From what Ive read around, BF2 doesnt have a dynamic lag compensation. Its set to specific values and thats it. So that can also be of blame. Which is why you see some people give advice on inter/extrapolation and latency compensation value changes, which wont work for everyone the same.

BF2 is old, its infantry combat is crap. Case ends.

[Sloi sauce]

It's a perfectly valid argument as to why they have problems with poor hit registration.

In fact, the registration is not bad at all if you play PR which simply means it's cone of fire at work. BF2 also suffers the worst out of every game I have played from an increase in ping. The difference between 12ms and 60ms is insane.

Cut it any way you want, it doesn't change the fact that a full development team couldn't be bothered to fix it. I won't post about this anymore: it's not a valid argument, period. Stop trying to defend the inexcusable and perhaps they'll have a reason to start coding properly instead of releasing a poor excuse for an FPS.

It's a damn good thing the vehicle combat is fun, because otherwise, many would've moved to/back to CS or WoW. :P

[thissitesucks]

Why is no one responding to my post? Did i prove me point or what?

I wanna see you do that and not get killed.

you should come tango with me im usualy in first on search and destory maps.

[L3adcannon]

I wasn`t challenging you. I just wanna see you kill a target half across the map by spraying at him.

[Chris_Redfield]

The reason why youre being ignored is this

First thing what takes up more size or quality? both take up the same but look bf2 maps if u run on high settings it looks just about the same as cod4, cod4 has more renders in a small ammount of space( bushes, tree's etc) but bf2 has the same ammount spaced over if not 10x more bf2 also has water and if you know anything about vidoe graphics water is one of that hardest things to reproduce on a large scale and you go to wake island and tell me there is a small ammount water there. in quality bf2 totaly eats apart cod4 in SHEER MAP SIZE and quality if you run high settings. also 2 and a half years is alot bf2 was made in 2005 while cod 4 late 2007. Do not make me list what has happend in the last 2 years il state a few things. Multy core systems (duo and now quad core), DDR3 .

Complete and utter bullsh!t. Some might go and take this post apart, but you wouldnt learn nor accept anything now would you?

[camper.]

Cut it any way you want, it doesn't change the fact that a full development team couldn't be bothered to fix it. I won't post about this anymore: it's not a valid argument, period. Stop trying to defend the inexcusable and perhaps they'll have a reason to start coding properly instead of releasing a poor excuse for an FPS.

It's a damn good thing the vehicle combat is fun, because otherwise, many would've moved to/back to CS or WoW. :P

I'm actually explaining how we got to this and why BF2 is BF2, not why DICE didn't start from the ground up. DICE are about as understandable as women halfway through the month.

[ElFipso]

After having played the CoD4 Demo, I can say that the hit detection is pretty good when getting the iron sights up. The bullet goes right to where you aim. Using only crosshairs resulted in heavy spraying.
In BF2 shooting with crosshairs results in more or less spraying, depending on the weapon.
Iron sights up and you get a better accuracy.
I can't compare with RL weapons. I get pissed sometimes because of the bad hit boxes in BF2, but, hey, it's just a game. My enemies have the same issues in BF2. You can handle it or you can't. If you can't you have to decide if you can live with it. Most of the ppl on these forum have played BF2 for a long time spending hundrets of hours on the battlefield. I can't understand how some of these ppl are calling this game crap whe thay spend so much time playing and obviously enjoying it. Just because they released CoD4? Come on.
BF2 is still a great game. It's normal that some ppl find another game better because it suits them better in their style of playing.

As far as the "healing" concerns. None of the alternatives comes very close to RL. And that is how it should be. We are playing a computer game ladies and gentlemen. If you want RL go to war. You would not enjoy that.
Please don't complain about reality aspects of a game. I know there are thing that need to be fixed and I like a realistic feel and look in a game too.
But what would happen if you couldn't heal yourself that easy in CoD4, let's say it would work like in PR. You would be dead a lot. That's not fun. A game is made so that you have fun playing it and not dying every 5 seconds.

The medpack spamming in BF2 is only a problem on IO maps. You don't see many medpacks lying around on vehicle maps (except on the helipad, or carrier, lol).

For a "slow game" like BF2 its healing system is OK and for a "faster" game like Cod4 its healing system is OK.

FipZ

[waaah_wah]

Last time we had this conversation, and Sloi brought up the "hardcore mode" argument, you said you havent played the game "that much". Your general lack of arguments regarding COD4 online play pretty much proves how little your experience is with the game. Dare I say, youve only played the SP Demo.

I've played CoD4 for maybe 2-3 hours. Didnt like it

Field dressing doesnt fit into COD4 for the following reasons-
*COD4 is a much faster game, and in a much smaller scale, thus theres no room nor time for extra functions like patching yourself up. Those are useless and distract from the pace that COD4 plays by. If one wants realistic field dressing, hes obviously talking about a wrong game.
*If you want field dressings just for realisms sake, then you should know that it would take minutes and minutes to apply a proper cover to the wound and stop the bleeding. So why ask for realism if it wont be implemented anyway?

Because its IMO much better than magically healing yourself.

I dont think you understand how retarded that sounds, if we compare the pace and firefight dynamics in both games. Then again, since you havent played one of the games, you lack the necessary insight.

Right... And how exactly do you know that i havent tried CoD4?

Medic system currently implemented in various games? Dont kid yourself. Its as unrealistic as magical selfhealing. Go work in a hospital for a day, once you see gunshot wounds, and how they are treated, youll shut up and start thinking straight.

In order for a game to be fun, it doesnt need realism, it needs all of its parts to work in a synergy to offer the most fun.

It actually needs both.

How is that any different from the fact that you cannot patch up a busted artery, or brains or whatever there can be? "more realistic"? Please. If I shoot you in the leg, and hit the artery, youre dead. Now point me towards any "realistic game" that does that?

Why would you want to do a surgery in a game? That would take LOOOOOOOONG time and would be extremely unessessary. A medic on the other hand promotes teamwork.

.......

[thissitesucks]

The reason why youre being ignored is this



Complete and utter bullsh!t. Some might go and take this post apart, but you wouldnt learn nor accept anything now would you?

tare it apart then, anyone can say something is wrong but you prove it to me.

[Chris_Redfield]

I've played CoD4 for maybe 2-3 hours. Didnt like it

If youve played COD4 for 2-3 hours, how come youve become an expert at it?

Because its IMO much better than magically healing yourself.

IMO the health system should compliment the game. The best games in the world are as "free" and "fluid" and "dynamic", as humanly possible, sacrificing as little as possible to the shackles of real life. When it comes to videogames, inarguably the rule "fun over everything else" should apply.

Right... And how exactly do you know that i havent tried CoD4?

Because of your inability to accept two things. "Realism" as such in videogames is a very relative and subjective term and can be torn apart by anyone. And, every game works differently, if you cant accept that COD4 only works so well because of carefully designed regen, then its pretty obvious you either havent played the game enough to see how what works. Or you havent played the game at all (or only played the Demo).

It actually needs both.

No it doesnt. Youre applying your own limited and immature point of view as a standard to all games. Amusingly enough, games you recommend are played by less than 500 players each. While there are morethan 200000 PC FPS players online at a time. Needless to say, the general majority disagrees with you. But then again, youre 17, and "common sense" isnt filed in your vocabulary yet.

Why would you want to do a surgery in a game? That would take LOOOOOOOONG time and would be extremely unessessary. A medic on the other hand promotes teamwork.

Youre missing the point and the sarcasm. Youre the one crying after realism. So why not total realism? You know, Hideo Kojima wanted to actually design a game, at which when you die, you need to buy a new one (some Metal Gear title). Would be perfect for a "realism buff" like you. So what do you want? Realism or teamwork? Flawless fun or realistic shackles? Youre jumping from wall to wall, so you dont even know what you want yourself. And a class named "medic" hardly promotes "teamwork". SWAT4 doesnt have medics, and it has a very high level of teamwork. In CS, you can have a high level of teamwork, without "medics".

[Sloi sauce]

Hideo Kojima is one hardcore motherf*cker... I would pirate the hell out of that game though.

[Vreki]

First thing what takes up more size or quality? both take up the same but look bf2 maps if u run on high settings it looks just about the same as cod4, cod4 has more renders in a small ammount of space( bushes, tree's etc) but bf2 has the same ammount spaced over if not 10x more bf2 also has water and if you know anything about vidoe graphics water is one of that hardest things to reproduce on a large scale and you go to wake island and tell me there is a small ammount water there. in quality bf2 totaly eats apart cod4 in SHEER MAP SIZE and quality if you run high settings. also 2 and a half years is alot bf2 was made in 2005 while cod 4 late 2007. Do not make me list what has happend in the last 2 years il state a few things. Multy core systems (duo and now quad core), DDR3 .

Pick it apart you say? Ok, how about this: On my system I can run BF2142 in 1600x1200 no AA with settings on Medium/high

COD4 runs at 800x600 2xAA all low. Guess which game is most graphically intensive?

No matter what arguments you make about guns, animation etc. the fact is that COD4 requires more processing power client-side.

And "the same amount spread out" Doesn't hold water because BF does not render stuff outside your viewing distance.

Where you should be focusing your arguments is the server. That still has to account for the whole map and all players on it, while calculating hit detection for everything that happens.

Hit detection is the main factor i agree, in bf2 if your not aiming good and using your iron sights then your not going to hit anything. In cod4 the hit detection is just to strong you can be acorss the map put ur crosshairs and hold down the trigger and the player will be killed even when your not dircetly aiming at him. My main argument was cod4 the guns spray to much and in bf2 you need to be on target to much. In cod 4 the hit detection is so good that you do not need to even sue iron sights you just put crosshairs on a target and shoot. Now you try this tactic in real life and you will see you will miss EVERY single bullet you fire. the gun is useless without iron sights but on cod 4 its the same.

You are not talking about the console version are you? Because the PC version does not have aim assist.

And you are confusing two different things:

• How much the bullets deviate randomly, the spray factor
• Hit detection, which is about detecting when then bullets actually hit, regardless of how the arrived

The amount of deviation is part of the game design, you can hit accurately in BF too if you take your time.
But Hit Detection is not a matter of taste, if my bullet pass through a target then I want the game to notice it, otherwise it is faulty.


For those who are asking why we are bashing a game that we have played so much:
Battlefield is a great game. The design behind the game is sheer genius, and the game play is excellent.
But the actual implementation is at best average, with some examples of sub-standard code. The hit-detection is one of the sub-standard parts, and when you are comparing it with the aiming and hit-detection of another game it is natural to discuss how bad it is, even though the game itself is still great.

[Sloi sauce]

Thank you.

I didn't have the patience to write all of that out... glad to see someone did.

[Shask]

None of the games handles wounded soldiers even remotely realistic.
Realistic would be this:

• Wounded may take months to recover
• You may not recover at all, your solider being permanently crippled
• Getting killed means that the solider is permanently gone

Discussing "realism" is pointless as long as a soldier is combat ready again a short time after taking several rounds through the chest, it doesn't matter if he recovered by meditating in a corner or having a medic give him a healing suppository.

Battlefield is slower paced, so it makes sense to enforce teamwork by having team members heal and resupply each other.

But COD4 is a different game with smaller maps and a faster pace, so they have chosen another solution that fits better with that game.

Woohoo!! Mega realism FTW!!

Seriously though. Discussiing realism is not pointless, people like their games to be realistic, and although perfect realism will never be achieved, the games themselves can try to be as realistic as possible, simply making them better.

[Rugerdog]

the games themselves can try to be as realistic as possible, simply making them better.

Your so right thats why ARMA's sales are blowing COD and BF out of the water right now and PR has completely replaced vanilla BF2, even more than DC did for 1942. (sarcasm note for idiots here)