Battlefield 2 Rant

[L3adcannon]

I like HQ but most of the servers, at least the ones I happen to join, let you respawn when you`re defending your HQ, which I`m not really fond of. I don`t remember that option being in CoD1 or 2. If there was, very little used it.

[Chris_Redfield]

Don't dare put words in my mouth. Quote me where I said "realistic games are good, non realistic games suck".

ROFLMAO!

Realism makes games better. That's my opinion.

And you said it here again! :laugh:

The same applies to literature - maybe you like reading un-realistic, childish fiction, but personally I believe realism makes it better.

And here, again. You cry because people belittle your love for realism, while you belittle others for liking fiction.

*Looks at age, notes that theres much to grow before one sees the hypocrisy in his words*

I like HQ but most of the servers, at least the ones I happen to join, let you respawn when you`re defending your HQ, which I`m not really fond of. I don`t remember that option being in CoD1 or 2. If there was, very little used it.

That is just retarded... HQ gives at least some options for a worse team to come out on top if they focus on the objective. But this?

[MrChris_CJ]

CS relies on features such as hlxstats for stat tracking and even then it has to be running on a server and will only track for that single server. CS' success has been down to its addictive gameplay which has kept people playing it for years and years and years...

If battlefield could replicate this in some sort of way they it would be brilliant, when I first got BF2 I thought it was immense, I bought it release day after similarly drooling over the pre release videos. Over time however a few things became very clear for example EA's influence upon the games release as a product, Dice not able to patch and complement their own game that they had been developing for years and last but not least the stats system...

Whatever way you look at it Stats helped to drag down the gameplay, arguably this was done already with an engine that barely deserved the name and the overall inbalance of certain vehicles and weapons. Don't get me wrong i thought the stats were great too, I still think its a good idea for obvious reasons but as expansions and addons were released it seemed more and more the stats were the focus of the game and nothing else.

TF2 has a nice stats system, it focusses on positives, there are no leaderboards, but then again TF2 is a whacky fun filled game, far from the grainy reality (lol) emulation of battlefield.

I pray to god BF3 has a decent engine (frostbite looks ok so far) has decent netcode, is balanced (and hasnt succumbed to all the IO whores) and last but not least a stats system that would complement the game and not encrouage every twat and smacktard on the internet to do fa for his team because he wants the most points or more badges

I have only a few ideas to do this, COD4s multi also has some good ideas, but I think stats need to be truly worked into the game rather than nailed to the side in order to retain player numbers. Then again i never got bored of the game, even if there were stats I would still be playing it; it was the instability and constant bs from EA/Dice that put me off.

[Shask]

ROFLMAO!

Gotta love these fantastic debating techniques :laugh:

And you said it here again!

Is english your native language? As far as I can tell, you don't seem to be able to grasp simple english concepts.

You cry

Quote me where I cried.

because people belittle your love for realism,

This is what you don't seem to be able to grasp. I do not have a love for realism. I believe that realism makes games better. Can you not spot the difference? Guess not, which is why I'm seeing such pathetic arguments put up against me.

while you belittle others for liking fiction.

I hardly belittled anyone - I stated my reasons for not liking fiction.

Judging by your logic, a person who says "I do not like racism - it is harmful and unnecessary" is belittling racists. Whilst that person is going against their views, it is in no form belittling. Understand? Good.

*Looks at age, notes that theres much to grow before one sees the hypocrisy in his words*

Ah, fantastic "age-insult", used by many when they realize their argument has pathetically little in the way of evidence, or indeed, intelligence.


Anyway, glad we sorted that out Chris.

I'll re-iterate. Realism makes games better.

Now, by saying that above statement, does not mean that realistic games are fantastic, and non realistic games are poor, which is what you seem to have in your head.

[Chris_Redfield]

Gotta love these fantastic debating
techniques :laugh:

This wouldnt be half as funny without you having no idea what "debate" is.

Is english your native language? As far as I can tell, you don't seem to be able to grasp simple english concepts.

Enlighten me then, please. Because as far as I can tell, this line here looks similar to "ure stoopid because, uhm, u r!" You got caught contradicting yourself, backpedaling is not an option anymore.

This is what you don't seem to be able to grasp. I do not have a love for realism. I believe that realism makes games better. Can you not spot the difference? Guess not, which is why I'm seeing such pathetic arguments put up against me.

I wasnt able to grasp what? Sarcasm? Oh wait...

"I prefer realism!"
+
Sarcasm
=
You love realism?

Judging by your logic, a person who says "I do not like racism - it is harmful and unnecessary" is belittling racists. Whilst that person is going against their views, it is in no form belittling. Understand? Good.

It makes sense, but here we have a teen on raging hormones after people disagree with him on a simple issue of realism in videogames. And while your example would suit the case, thats not what you wrote, or which method you used to describe your point, now is it?

Let me help you.

maybe you like reading un-realistic, childish fiction

1. Fiction does not mean automatically "unrealistic", in a way, every novel except for those based on real life events, can be considered as "fiction", if their setting is based on what we can see, touch and grasp both mentally and physically. But...

2. You used the word "childlish" to describe fiction. Which opposes your own, rather gentle example. You would have been more accurate in saying- "Racism is pure f**gotry!", which is belitteling, just like your comment on fiction. Because some of us believe in fiction bringing balance to dreadful realism, and youre saying its childlish when its not.

Understand? Good.

Ah, fantastic "age-insult", used by many when they realize their argument has pathetically little in the way of evidence, or indeed, intelligence.

Check your blood pressure, its not your fault when people point out obvious holes and inconsistencies in your posts, aswell as contradictions in your character. Posts written out of emotion often come off as stupid, so I wont hold any grudge against your mistakes.

Anyway, glad we sorted that out Chris.

Me too, you can now continue with your rage.

I'll re-iterate. Realism makes games better.

Now, by saying that above statement, does not mean that realistic games are fantastic, and non realistic games are poor, which is what you seem to have in your head.

So what does it mean? What does it say?

[thissitesucks]

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.




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.

I do not feel like arguing any more but il say this. I run the same ammount of fps on both games in skill factor bf2 is way bigger i played cod4 for 5 mins and i already on top. bf2 it took me months to get the game on locks and i played CSS prior to bf2. IN game quality cod 4 looks better but the maps are TINY comparted to bf2 and when bf2 is in the rendering stage even more of the map is still shown then cod4 when its preloaded, while in bf2 the games is streaming im pretty sure. In hit detection bf2 has some issue but in cod 4 they are to strong. i can spray and the bullets automaticly hit. In the iron sights argument in cod 4 you do not need to sue them just shoot and u will pop someone in the head. in bf2 you need to soom or you will not hit them one time. And to finish off in

Game skill - Bf2
Game quality - Cod 4
Game fun - Bf2
Game lan capabiltiy - Cod4
Time to get good - Bf2 ( the longer it takes the better )
Most spraying and praying - Cod 4


Say what you want i have played both for a while cod4 for about 160+ hours and bf2 for 300+ hours. In cod 4 im lvl 55 i got it within 24 hours. In bf2 im at 70000 points. i have 130000 more to good. Thats says alot in game's life spand.

People who want the game more realistic are just those who die too much and are looking for something they can blame their lack of skill on. Aside from the jumping 6 feet high and all the jet imbalances and glitches the game is at a preety good point between fun and realisim.

I don't see what the big deal is with the hit detection it seems to work fine for me.

Thats true, dont get me wrong im not bad at neither i just wanted to point out the issues of the game i have massive k/d in both games but i agree.

[Chris_Redfield]

I run the same ammount of fps on both games in skill factor bf2 is way bigger i played cod4 for 5 mins and i already on top.

Lie detector says: You didnt pass. How could you be on top in COD4 in 5 minutes? Were you playing in LAN server by yourself? Unless you were damn good at COD2, or CS, you wouldnt have been on top in COD4 unless you played with complete newbies who were AFK.

bf2 it took me months to get the game on locks and i played CSS prior to bf2.

Since when does the time to get all unlocks determine the quality of the game? If anything, its the RPG part of games that distracts the most. I wouldnt have anything against a game that didnt have any unlcking system and had everything up for you for grabs. In COD4, you can get all weapons and unlocks in under 24 hours, and that can be considered both good or bad. I think its good, because those 24 hours will settle you in and introduce you your equipment so you can focus on whats most important- playing the damn game.

IN game quality cod 4 looks better but the maps are TINY comparted to bf2 and when bf2 is in the rendering stage even more of the map is still shown then cod4 when its preloaded, while in bf2 the games is streaming im pretty sure.

Its not just the looks of the map. Really, jump into the spectator view and ascend the map, youll instantly see that the maps are technically pretty big. Besides the point, the maps are not only detailed, but the functionality of walls, ceilings and floors is changed. And if a sniper is in the grass half across the map, hes actually hidden in the grass. BF2 only looks "purdy" in your immediate surroundings. The game looks fascinating, but frankly, Im running COD4 on all MIN, and it looks better than BF2 at MED/HIGH. Except for the lighting in certain maps, but thats just nitpicking.

In hit detection bf2 has some issue but in cod 4 they are to strong. i can spray and the bullets automaticly hit.

:laugh:, Im sure you can. In fact, make a FRAPS video to prove it, please. Show us how you "spray" and the bullets "automatically hit".

Game skill - Bf2

- arguable

Game quality - Cod 4

- inarguable

Game fun - Bf2

- very arguable

Game lan capabiltiy - Cod4

- very arguable

Time to get good - Bf2 ( the longer it takes the better )

- very arguable

Most spraying and praying - Cod 4

- inarguably wrong

At the distance past (!) 30 feet, it takes more bullets in BF2 to kill someone, than to kill someone in COD4 and in CQB, it takes less time to kill someone in COD4, than it is in BF2. You can easily see the difference in frag videos, but most importantly its how people are engaged from a "camping spot". The difference is, in COD4, a player only has to have a few inch field of vision to kill anyone in that field. In BF2, a player generally needs a lot more "room" and "time" to kill someone. And this is not because of the difference in skill demand, its the difference in cone of fire and hit registration. Bottomline, in COD4, guns are like rail cannons and they are reliable, as such, newbies pay for their tactical mistakes more, than they do in BF2. Which is why theres an illusion of COD4 being newbfriendly and BF2 isnt. One has to overcome and accept the truth that if you see someone in BF2, you cant kill them, and thats the hardest part. In COD4, a player can get straight to killing if he even sees a foot, from 300 yards away.

Say what you want i have played both for a while cod4 for about 160+ hours and bf2 for 300+ hours. In cod 4 im lvl 55 i got it within 24 hours. In bf2 im at 70000 points. i have 130000 more to good. Thats says alot in game's life spand.

Ive been playing BF2 infantry for about 300-500 hours, Ive also been playing COD4 for about 50 hours now. It didnt take me that little time in COD4 to have an average 1:1 KDR because the game is pisseasy. It took me so little time because the game rewards me for my tactical superiority, one which I can create and maintain if needed. And in the same time, it punishes me hard for my mistakes, one which I can jump away from in BF2.

[Shask]

*snip*

Now, back on track:

In my opinion, realism makes games better.

Anyone care to disagree?

[Chris_Redfield]

I'll come clean right now and admit I have no idea what the relevance of a kettle is.

Its merely to demonstrate that youve missed something. If you need a map, just ask. hi:

Seriously, enough of my nonsense.

I agree, lets move on.

As for people disagreeing with realism making games better. Many people have already put down their opinion, why not answer to them. Or is it that you need to masquerade your offtopic post with something on topic?

[Rugerdog]

In COD4, a player can get straight to killing if he even sees a foot, from 300 yards away.

How the hell are you going to see a foot that far away in the first place, much less shoot it? I don't think there is that kind of straight line distance in COD anyway. I assume that is an exaggeration.
edit: BTW lol at the kettle

[Shask]

Its merely to demonstrate that youve missed something. If you need a map, just ask.

Jesus christ. I've already admitted that I did not know the meaning of the kettle. Go on big man, take advantage of this rare moment where you're in a position of superior-knowledge to me. Aren't I stupid? Yes I am!

Editing my post was smart of you too, take a pat on the head.

As for people disagreeing with realism making games better. Many people have already put down their opinion, why not answer to them.

Because I'm going to bed. Night-night, have a good sleep, try not to have nightmares about embarrassing yourself on the forums :laugh:

[Chris_Redfield]

How the hell are you going to see a foot that far away in the first place, much less shoot it? I don't think there is that kind of straight line distance in COD anyway. I assume that is an exaggeration.

G36C, ACOG sights, kill from the the hilltop behind that small cabin that leads to the underground tunnel, to the train wagon behind the B bomb plant. Granted, the "300" is an exaggeration, however, the distance is long, to say the least.

Jesus christ.

Subconsciousness re-analyzes the emotions felt throughout the day, which would be your dreams. Considering how awfully emotional your posts have been, I suggest cold water and some mild music. Indeed, those nightmares can be awful. Thanks for providing me the laugh. :laugh:

[waaah_wah]

"In my opinion, realism makes games better.
Anyone care to disagree?"

Nope, why do you think BF2 is more popular than 2142?

[proto]

Because 2142 is a terrible game?

Oooooh Yeah...

Halo isn't very realistic...but it's a best-selling game/franchise.

Guitar Hero isn't very realistic...but it's also a best-selling game/franchise.

This industry capitalizes on good and original ideas. Not the games that the minority will enjoy. Realism = the minority, a niche group.

America's Army? Hardly a huge hit, due to lack of marketing, really.

WoW isn't too realistic. Or Silkroad, or Runescape...but millions of people play every day.

My point: people generally play video games because it's NOT real.

[thissitesucks]

Lie detector says: You didnt pass. How could you be on top in COD4 in 5 minutes? Were you playing in LAN server by yourself? Unless you were damn good at COD2, or CS, you wouldnt have been on top in COD4 unless you played with complete newbies who were AFK.



Since when does the time to get all unlocks determine the quality of the game? If anything, its the RPG part of games that distracts the most. I wouldnt have anything against a game that didnt have any unlcking system and had everything up for you for grabs. In COD4, you can get all weapons and unlocks in under 24 hours, and that can be considered both good or bad. I think its good, because those 24 hours will settle you in and introduce you your equipment so you can focus on whats most important- playing the damn game.



Its not just the looks of the map. Really, jump into the spectator view and ascend the map, youll instantly see that the maps are technically pretty big. Besides the point, the maps are not only detailed, but the functionality of walls, ceilings and floors is changed. And if a sniper is in the grass half across the map, hes actually hidden in the grass. BF2 only looks "purdy" in your immediate surroundings. The game looks fascinating, but frankly, Im running COD4 on all MIN, and it looks better than BF2 at MED/HIGH. Except for the lighting in certain maps, but thats just nitpicking.



:laugh:, Im sure you can. In fact, make a FRAPS video to prove it, please. Show us how you "spray" and the bullets "automatically hit".

- arguable
- inarguable
- very arguable
- very arguable
- very arguable
- inarguably wrong

At the distance past (!) 30 feet, it takes more bullets in BF2 to kill someone, than to kill someone in COD4 and in CQB, it takes less time to kill someone in COD4, than it is in BF2. You can easily see the difference in frag videos, but most importantly its how people are engaged from a "camping spot". The difference is, in COD4, a player only has to have a few inch field of vision to kill anyone in that field. In BF2, a player generally needs a lot more "room" and "time" to kill someone. And this is not because of the difference in skill demand, its the difference in cone of fire and hit registration. Bottomline, in COD4, guns are like rail cannons and they are reliable, as such, newbies pay for their tactical mistakes more, than they do in BF2. Which is why theres an illusion of COD4 being newbfriendly and BF2 isnt. One has to overcome and accept the truth that if you see someone in BF2, you cant kill them, and thats the hardest part. In COD4, a player can get straight to killing if he even sees a foot, from 300 yards away.



Ive been playing BF2 infantry for about 300-500 hours, Ive also been playing COD4 for about 50 hours now. It didnt take me that little time in COD4 to have an average 1:1 KDR because the game is pisseasy. It took me so little time because the game rewards me for my tactical superiority, one which I can create and maintain if needed. And in the same time, it punishes me hard for my mistakes, one which I can jump away from in BF2.

im not going to wast my time first off your a moron i said i had the game ON LOCK sorry added an s though you could figure it out. They are NOT arguable they are 100% right dont give me your stupid 30m statistics about shotting int he game i will run you in both games. Cod4 it is PURE spray and pray play on hardcore and you will see you rarly die from face to face combat mostly from people just guessing where you are. Sorry im getting pissed off at you trying to shoot down every argument infavor of bf2. I can also clearly see your to far up the *** of cod4 to get the bf2 point of argument. Cod4 is to easy the game is a joke i rush every round and either get killed by a noob camping of get 30+ kills in a search and destory 10 rounds. Belive me or not but when i wa sin my prime of bf2 playing in the war is hell server i was top 3 every map when i saw someone they died i rarly got killed in front to front. I dont have time to camp i work and have other things to do i want to play a nice and fast game face to face gun fights and the better aimer wins in cod 4 you can not get that. IT IS NOT arguable.