From BF 1942 to BF 2...a step forward or backward?

[QWFreak]

Just now, I have reinstalled BF 1942. No major reasons, just too much leisure time I guess. In fact, I was thinking how many are playing BF 1942 one of these days given that BF2 has been out for a while. To my great amazement, there are still over 100 servers populated, punk-bustered, no-passworded and verion 1.61. What a robust game, I believe that BF 1942 wasn't made to write down its name in the history of Computer Video Games but rather, history comes to meet it.

I played on one of the servers, ping was a little less than 70 guess it was a pretty geographically closer server. Running @ 800x600@120 and other settings were defaulted. The frame rate was VERY good. It was a 64 players server with about 35 of us. It was just a moment I played and I got this very singular feeling. BF 1942 and BF 2 are both great games.

Surely, without doubts BF 2 improves very well in terms of gameplay and security. The global ranking subsystem is one brilliant invention if I may say so. Keeping your combat profile on a worldwide basis, and injecting more morale into your soul every now and then given the awards you have got and your ranking keeps up'g on the ladder. That is what drives me playing BF 2 and keeps me addicted to it. Team kills is punished is a also a very intelligent sub-system which prevents crazy souls fooling around, ruining a good game while others are enjoying it. In BF 1942, you can shoot anyone without being punished or banned. And you can use that Kangaroo jumpy trick to get around without getting killed.

However, an issue that both games don't address. Can one, in reality no matter how healthy one is, run without being exhausted? If we can add that in to both games, it will definitely change the entire landscape of the gameplay experience. Say in BF 1942, I can just keep move & jump in a circular manner taking the time to change to knive and then go prone and then stand up to kill the enemy in close quarter. This can go on for at least 2 ~ 3 minutes. Given the gear I have, my energy which has been consuming, this doesn't seem very realistic does it? Also when I am heavily wounded, I can still run and jump speedily as if I have never been wounded. In SWAT 4, if you are wounded, you can move only slowly.

BF 1942 and BF 2 are great games, but there are some more rooms for improvement to make it perfect.

[raceacontari]

Re: From BF 1942 to BF 2...a step forward or backward?

However, an issue that both games don't address. Can one, in reality no matter how healthy one is, run without being exhausted? If we can add that in to both games, it will definitely change the entire landscape of the gameplay experience. Say in BF 1942, I can just keep move & jump in a circular manner taking the time to change to knive and then go prone and then stand up to kill the enemy in close quarter. This can go on for at least 2 ~ 3 minutes. Given the gear I have, my energy which has been consuming, this doesn't seem very realistic does it? Also when I am heavily wounded, I can still run and jump speedily as if I have never been wounded. In SWAT 4, if you are wounded, you can move only slowly.

BF2 is not swat 4. Bf2 is not realistic. I'm not trying to flame you, but I am tired of people trying to make the game more realistic. Leave it alone...the game has suffered enough as it is though constant bombardment of patches...all I want them to do anymore is fix bugs...and stop messing with the gameplay

[JDUB]

Re: From BF 1942 to BF 2...a step forward or backward?

All I know is ... I felt a lot more compelled to play PoE for Battlefield:Vietnam than I do with BF2...

I'm hoping some mods will come out that bring back the fun of playing WITHOUT so much emphasis on rank. Mod communities are 10x better to play with and to converse with.

[Chickenhawk]

Re: From BF 1942 to BF 2...a step forward or backward?

If BF1942 maps and gameplay could be played with the BF2 graphics engine, I wonder how many servers would be running that?

[unununium]

Re: From BF 1942 to BF 2...a step forward or backward?

I guess it's typical with any community to bitch constantly about all aspects of a game in between 5 hour marathon sessions of playing it. But did you ever think that maybe EA/DICE know better than you about what makes a good game? Why do you think BF2 is one of the most popular games right now and is selling so well, despite all of its bugs? Because it's fun. It's like playing an action movie where you can run forever and operate any military vehicle you want. If BF2 turned into SWAT4 I would probably stop playing, because then it would be a slow-paced snooze fest. EA/DICE: fix the bugs, but I trust you on the gameplay.

[ShapeSh1fter]

Re: From BF 1942 to BF 2...a step forward or backward?

backwards definately. I feel QW has more of a chance to take a step forward than bf2142 has.

[Kayback]

Re: From BF 1942 to BF 2...a step forward or backward?

3 for the price of one. Thanks.

I definately enjoy the BF2 style of play.

While there are a whole heck of a bunch of changes I'd make (one little knife wound ANYWHERE kills instantly, but it takes 2 loads of 12 guage 00 buckshot to the chest to stop someone with a knife ?!?!?) I personally think that BF2 is a good evolution of the BF1942 game.

BF1942 also had its huge glaring mistakes. 5 shot Enfields? Umm, the came with 10 round mags. Everyone in creation carrying a BAR or STg44? Lets try semi auto 8 shot Garand and 5 shot Mauser K98. Both are still great fun.

However I don't like the idea of location specific damage. The number of times I've barely escaped around a corner with half a bar of health left is too numerous to count. Now throw in the fact that leg wounds slow you down and arm wounds make you shoot worse, how are you going to escape and then fight back?

If you want a SWAT 4 experience of open warfare, get yourself a copy of Operation Flashpoint.

Might be getting long in the tooth, but it sounds tailor made for what you want.

KBK

[$kelet0r]

Re: From BF 1942 to BF 2...a step forward or backward?

BF1942 also had its huge glaring mistakes. 5 shot Enfields? Umm, the came with 10 round mags. Everyone in creation carrying a BAR or STg44? Lets try semi auto 8 shot Garand and 5 shot Mauser K98. Both are still great fun.

these are not glaring mistakes because BF2 is not a simulation so they can what ever they want
the gameplay in BF2 is generations ahead of BF1942 - no argument
Those who think the problem with the game is that it takes one knife lunge but 2 sniper bullets to kill are missing the point completely

[sav112]

Re: From BF 1942 to BF 2...a step forward or backward?

I miss the hour long CTF games i used to play, seeing a jeep steal your flag drive off only for you to either chase him on a jeep or run to a plane and chase him down a road was fantastic fun.

Fun rating at times 10/10 very rewarding at times and the skill needed for 1942.

7/10 for bat Vet, i loved some of the moves you could do with the Heli's, hovering over a bridge two feet and shooting your rockets fantastic.

BF2 7/10 I moved on from Bat-Vet and its just about the same, great game but somthing is missing that i cant quite place. Mind it could be i'm just older and not as much into the game.

[Kayback]

Re: From BF 1942 to BF 2...a step forward or backward?

these are not glaring mistakes because BF2 is not a simulation so they can what ever they want

Actually, even though it is not a simulation when they go "here is a Lee Enfield rifle" and give you something that is patently NOT an Enfield, it is a glaring mistake.

Or just poor research. The US armies M1905 Springfield in .30-06 had a 5 round magazine, and was bolt action. Why not use that?

As i said in my post, I don't WANT BF2 to be a simulation. I'm pretty happy with how it is. I was pretty happy with BF 1942, and I really enoyed Vietnam.

The Support guy in Vietnam was just as over powered as the guy in BF2 is. M60 and a LAW? Take all commers.

How am I missing the point of 21st cwentuary battleground being dominated in CQB by KNIVES? And the pathetic little stabbing motion the guy does with his knife wouldn't hurt anyone anyway.

The firearms are meant to dominate infantry combat. That is how it happens, otherwise the US Army would be carrying large knives not M16's.

When I guy runs into a gunfight with a knife, and I shoot him center mass with my big assed guns, he shoudn't be able to stab me. It is wrong.

Although I do understand it's inclusion in gameplay, the fact that the only guarenteed one hit kill weapon besides the Erxy/SRAW is the knife is a little idiotic.

KBK

[QWFreak]

Re: From BF 1942 to BF 2...a step forward or backward?

backwards definately. I feel QW has more of a chance to take a step forward than bf2142 has.

Why then QW? Does it not relate your thoughts to Ghost Recon 3? Does it not relate your thoughts to Mechwariior 4? At least the Mech depicted in BF2142 looks like one of those once very popular Mechs in MW 4. I like GR3 and MW4. I would say BF2142 is EA answer to Ubi GR3. But then why 2142? Will human being survive up til 2142?

If BF2 turned into SWAT4 I would probably stop playing, because then it would be a slow-paced snooze fest. EA/DICE: fix the bugs, but I trust you on the gameplay.

Well..sorry to say that but I don't see any real bugs in BF2, SF and EF. It's quite rock solid as it came out. Maybe I am not a weapon expert so I can't say for sure that there are none about the weapon.

When I said SWAT4, I was trying to compare BF2 gameplay to any but not restricting to SWAT 4 only other FPS games. I know the trade off between arcadish and being snoopy. In fact, think for a moment about the previous infamous "Kangaroo Jump" trick which many took avantage to kill and survive. If you are wounded, your combat capability lessened; the game should re-consider the walking speed. This is not only about realism, this also affect the balance factor. Imagine when your enemy is wounded, he walks and runs slower and you can cook him much easier. That is the point I wanted to make, dude.

However I don't like the idea of location specific damage. The number of times I've barely escaped around a corner with half a bar of health left is too numerous to count. Now throw in the fact that leg wounds slow you down and arm wounds make you shoot worse, how are you going to escape and then fight back?
KBK

Put it this way, do you expect after you have been shot on the chest, thigh and elbow, you can still manage to dash around like Jacky Chen?

BF2 is not a simulation

All computer video games can be categorised as a kind of simulation. It is the modelling of its real-world counterparts. I hope I have made this clear to you.:)

Although I do understand it's inclusion in gameplay, the fact that the only guarenteed one hit kill weapon besides the Erxy/SRAW is the knife is a little idiotic.

KBK

The feeling of being killed by knives is BAD. But I also did that a few times myself, if you check my combat record. Sneak in enemy weakly defended base, find a chap manning a Anti-Tank turret, walked to him behind his back with stealth like in Splinter Cell, switched to knife, aim at his head precisely, press once on the left mouse-button, pufffff...poor chap is dead now!

[Kayback]

Re: From BF 1942 to BF 2...a step forward or backward?

I understand the argument for location specific hits, I just don't like them.

This is where the gameplay vs fun vs realism clashes in my mind. I'd love to have more realistic firearms in BF2, and nuke some of the other idiotic things like diving and hitting the deck shooting with 100% accuracy, but I accept them in the game, like I accept the fact I can take two rounds to the chest and still fight back.

Does this mean I lose some kills because they can fight back too? Yup. But it also means I get the chance to fight back.

Look at CS. The bullet sticky of the MP5's and the bigger guns makes it impossible to run away. Location specific damage would work like that. While you might score a couple more points, people would be killing you more as well.

I do love knifing people as well, but I don't do it often. I don't mind the walk up behind a person and shank them and they die, but what I find offensive is 1) The pathetic little slashing motion your guy makes. It looks like there is absolutely NO energy in it, and 2) the fact you can pathetic slash kill a person who's shooting you in the face with a machinegun.

KBK

[IVfluids]

Re: From BF 1942 to BF 2...a step forward or backward?

I think the engine itself has had alot of nice additions to it when they upgraded it. But, they never seem to have fixed bugs in the engine that have existed since BF42.

I feel the content of BF2 is lacking and makes the variety feel a bit shallow, something I didn't feel in BF42. It probably feels that way because BF42 shipped with 16 maps right out of the box, had a lot more variety in vehicles and 4 free maps with different vehicles/weapons that were included in update patches. Now I know some of you are thinking that 16-32-64 player maps makes 36 maps, it doesn't, it's the same sh*t regurgitated with the same terrain and buildings with a smaller (and different) vehicle loadout and smaller fighting quarters.

So in short, it is a great engine with alot of potential that isn't being put to use.

[QWFreak]

Re: From BF 1942 to BF 2...a step forward or backward?

The number of maps or more precisely, quantity does not necessarily hook up with quality, if you read me.

Alright, EA may give you even 32 maps, but majority of players find only 4 of them are the best. The way I see it is that a good map should contain elements which balance gameplay. And that demands a good and thorough geography design to which all weapons, vehicles and unit types are considered.

BF 1942 gives us bigger sea vehicles which BF 2 doesn't. I feel BF2 is more inclined to urban warfare. I like both of them. But I just want more realism on the human physics side. And my perspective is that any map pack would be a good add-on.

[IVfluids]

Re: From BF 1942 to BF 2...a step forward or backward?

Content and quality usually go hand in hand. The content is lacking if all the maps suck, even if there were 40 of them. The majority of the maps in BF42 were well liked, can't say the same for BF2, where only about 3-5 maps are liked (sharqi, karkand, mashtuur, oman and possibly wake).

The 36 maps, are all just regurgitated versions of 12 base maps. That doesn't really cut it for me, not when I have played the BF series (DC and PoE along with them) since they came out.

BF42 didn't just give you bigger sea vehicles, they gave you a bigger variety in vehicles in general. Not just one vehicle for each class (call it that for the sake of calling it something).