Battlefield:vietnam

[S_Z 0]

Yes, but it gets annoying when the only games out are "fun" and none are simulations..

Yes I would also like to see more realistic tactical shooters but the fact is they don’t sell as well as these more arcade style games. What’s the point in talking trash a about another game and comparing it to tactical shooters like OFP when this game is not suppose to be anything like that? It's a totally different game.

I play realistic games like Swat3,OFP,RvS and simulators like Steel Beasts and Flanker2 (and hopefully soon LO-MAC since the demo seems to have been released BTW) but I can enjoy a fast game of BF too.

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

Yeah Bf was kinda fun sometimes. And speaking of Swat 3, witch is a classic too (i kinda lost the cd though) So if i'd buy a new cd, would there be ppl still playing it online?

[ThruYerStErNuM 0]

Well the graphics just aren't any noticeable improvement over BF1942, which is just as important a factor today as is gameplay among those just out for arcade style play.

If you compare it to Men of Valor screens you can see arcade style gameplay doesn't have to look arcade style.

*Shudders while remembering how BF1942 butchered WW2*

[BoonieRat 0]

You can't compare apples and oranges and then slam one of them cause it don't taste like cheese. Don't forget BF is a multiplayer game, designed for big 64player battles while it's SP is basic. OFP is the opposit, a SP paradise with MP that is basicly SP with cooperation...

Y'know I actualy loved playing BF1942. I would of loved a garand, and conflict specific troops and *edit*vehicles*edit* weapons, but hey, that's what the mod comunity is for. How aweful were/are BIS basic models and textures? remember bouncing, sliding tanks, aweful buildings with clipping zones from the silentmovie era and bowlegged soldiers(is that little man with the binoculars taking a crap?!) with laughable animations anyone?(plus formation marching in the extreme!.The list goes on). Guess what people? A game is what you make it...

Being a mindless fanboy is the worst kind of hipocrasy, and going with the flow is just spinelessness. If you actualy don't like a game (or aspects) fair enough, but "ohh thats sooo shite but OFP is sooo good"? C'mon people! ...

[BoonieRat 0]

You can't have a 'realistic' shooter. It would involve 48 hours of cleaning your weapon and sleeping then 20mins of hiding in a ditch spraying bullets over the edge at an unseen foe, then a 1shot kill/die scenario which would be 90% more luck/stray~bullets than marksmanship...

I would like to see 'one shot kill' (two at most) ratios in more games though...

[Tibby595 0]

in bf1942 you can do things SO MANY TIMES

plus you can airwalk and do loop ala loopies!!!

which makes it good

oh

it's got napalm and knives!!!

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

You can't have a 'realistic' shooter. It would involve 48 hours of cleaning your weapon and sleeping then 20mins of hiding in a ditch spraying bullets over the edge at an unseen foe, then a 1shot kill/die scenario which would be 90% more luck/stray~bullets than marksmanship...

I would like to see 'one shot kill' (two at most) ratios in more games though...

I am fed up of this bloody arguement from other forums. YES you can.

'Realistic' doesn't mean 100% realism, it means simulating chosen parts of real life in a manner consistent with the gameplay and with real life physics, attributes etc. It does NOT mean that it has to be a sleeping in a ditch simulator.

[BoonieRat 0]

So which bit's do you dictate are 'realistic' and which not? And what happens when Corporal throwthroughbum starts bitching that the bit's he thinks should be 'realistic' are'nt 'realistic' enough, or even at all...

Realism is all in the eye of the beholder, to the boy just finished playing pacman, donkeykong was reality incarnate. You can make something more realistic than the last. But you'll never make a realistic game...

Realistic is just an unrealistic term to use. You should just stick with better ...

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

You can apply everything you just said to 'better' instead of 'realistic.' Better to stick to a word that actually describes the game.

[BoonieRat 0]

Quote[/b] ]Better to stick to a word that actually describes the game.

Which you think 'realistic' does? It's just not a good choice. You can make a game authentic but you'll never make it anyway near realistic unless you wire your bollox up to the mains for a jolt every time you get hit, you'd have some 'realistic' fear involved then ...

Making certain bits realist produces 'a game with realistic bits' NOT 'a realistic game'

I'd like to see a multiplayer battle mod that actualy wipes out the losing sides PC's with a really nasty virus, make it a nuclear armagedon scenario maybe?...

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Rubbish. Your word against mine, and mine is more commonly accepted (which is why companies use 'realistic' to describe games)

You don't get an electric shock when you get shot, how is that realistic?

Quote[/b] ]Making certain bits realist produces 'a game with realistic bits' NOT 'a realistic game'

No, I think you'll find that it does actually make a realistic game, as long as the realistic parts outweigh the unrealistic.

[BoonieRat 0]

Rubbish is exactly what the companys talk!, that is why they use such far fetched terms like 'realistic'...

Quote[/b] ]You don't get an electric shock when you get shot, how is that realistic?

I never said it was realistic, I said the fear involved would be...

Quote[/b] ]No, I think you'll find that it does actually make a realistic game, as long as the realistic parts outweigh the unrealistic.

So a Cow is all black, as long as there is more black than white? Anyway!, again!, it all depends on what the individual considers realistic. What you would (from your posts) obviously swallow as 'realistic', I would scoff...

You can make an ingame firefight seem authentic:

"You'd take 'this' stance, that would happen, and so & so would react in such a way"

but you'll never make it realistic without a few ounces of fear and lead, and serious loss of hearing. Oh yeah!, you can make it more realistic in comparison to something lesser! But 'more realistic' will still only ever be a 2% shadow of reality. Never realistic in comparison to the true event!. So saying that 'X game is realistic' is (IMO) pure BS! Saying 'It's as realistic as it gets' is as close to the truth as it'll get..

Quote[/b] ]Rubbish. Your word against mine, and mine is more commonly accepted

What?!, your mom agrees with you?!! . This is about as far as I'm willing to take a topic O\T when this kind of (IMO) 'lame flame bait backed up with BS' retort is the reply...

Peace, and have a nice day ...

[Blake 0]

Now they are just cashing in on the same game format with small improvements to the engine but virtually same gameplay.

This could be made as a free mod, but some people will be stupid enough to pay for same engine again and again.

[Sith 0]

So a Cow is all black, as long as there is more black than white?

A cow that is mostly black, with some white spots, will be refered to as a "black cow", just like a largly white cow with some black spots will be indicated as "white".

Quote[/b] ]but you'll never make it realistic without a few ounces of fear and lead, and serious loss of hearing. Oh yeah!, you can make it more realistic in comparison to something lesser! But 'more realistic' will still only ever be a 2% shadow of reality. Never realistic in comparison to the true event!. So saying that 'X game is realistic' is (IMO) pure BS! Saying 'It's as realistic as it gets' is as close to the truth as it'll get..

Putting all properties on which to judge something down to their relativity, according to your opinion one would never be able to call something "beautiful", "tasty" or anything outside of "A is more ... in objective comparison to B"

Sorry for taking this even further offtopic. Ontopic: I will save my judgement on this game till after I've played it. From the first look, I'd say DICE like to play along the old rule, "If it ain't broke ..."

[The Frenchman 0]

Bah! I will stick with the Sebnam pack 2 and then OFP2!

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Battlefield 1942 sucks, not necessarily because of its lack of realism, but because of its sloppy design, almost-arrogant disregard of history, and extremely boring gameplay. Let's just say that it's a good sign that a game sucks when you have more fun running your teammates over with a jeep and blowing up your own airplanes then, I don't know, achieving your objectives. Face it: the actual gameplay itself is boooring. Everything is so cartoonishly done that any sense of mission, urgency, or even that you're fighting in the bloodiest war of all time is completely lost. So you're a Soviet grunt, fresh off the railroad and thrown into the meatgrinder at Stalingrad. What do you do? Why, toss some dynamite under a friendly jeep, capture the flag and then pwn those goddam Nazis in their spawn, of course. That's how they did it back during the Great Patriotic War.

So what does it have, if not realism? Surely a tight, snappy combat system, a la Counter-Strike, that would be vital to a game that doesn't have anything else going for it, right? Wrong! Instead, you get a system where combat is a function of Y=ammunition expended/(circle strafing x bunnyhopping). If Y>1, you've won.

And the planes- ahh yes, the planes. Well. I know I've seen an SBD Dauntless make a full chandelle at 90 mph inside of 50 yards, haven't you? Of course, that's if you can make it off the ground (with friends like these, who needs enemies?).

And of course the tanks are great- wait, what's that? They fire explosive beachballs? We'll skip tanks, then.

Which brings us to the really fun part: drive a jeep into a Higgins boat, take it over to the aircraft carrier, and then see who can get the most distance off the launch ramp. That's how the battle of Midway was decided, you know- our best driver valiantly gave his life to get that little bit of extra speed needed to pass the Japanese mark of 170 feet. Poor bugger's shoelace got stuck on the clutch as he tried to roll out the side... *sniff*.

And of course another fun thing is to grab an airplane, fly over the enemy installation, bail out, and then proceed to chuck dynamite at the enemy's plane campers. Sounds good, until you realize that back at your base is the corpse of the pilot you ran over to get that plane. He could've used it to soften the enemy's forward positions in preparation for a crushing combined arms assault... Just kidding. He was planning on doing touch and go's on the village's main street- still, the potential was there. The point is that the actual assault didn't happen because, as we already established, combat in BF1942 is actually a little less fun than doing Algebra. At any rate, the plane's toast, so is the your teammate, and you will be as well when you run out of TNT. That's gameplay right there.

So... yeah. That's BF1942 in a nutshell. A game whose only redeeming qualities are derived from doing things completely outside the realm of what the developers had in mind. Toootally worth the money. Heh.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

On a sidenote: watch the BF:Vietnam trailer, but turn down the music while you're watching. Without CCR to boost it along, how do you feel about the game's ambience, potential, or quality? Watch it a couple more times like that if my point needs to sink in.

[CosmicCastaway 0]

@ Sep. 30 2003,00:17)]Battlefield 1942 sucks, not necessarily because of its lack of realism, but because of its sloppy design, almost-arrogant disregard of history, and extremely boring gameplay. Let's just say that it's a good sign that a game sucks when you have more fun running your teammates over with a jeep and blowing up your own airplanes then, I don't know, achieving your objectives. Face it: the actual gameplay itself is boooring. Everything is so cartoonishly done that any sense of mission, urgency, or even that you're fighting in the bloodiest war of all time is completely lost. So you're a Soviet grunt, fresh off the railroad and thrown into the meatgrinder at Stalingrad. What do you do? Why, toss some dynamite under a friendly jeep, capture the flag and then pwn those goddam Nazis in their spawn, of course. That's how they did it back during the Great Patriotic War.

So what does it have, if not realism? Surely a tight, snappy combat system, a la Counter-Strike, that would be vital to a game that doesn't have anything else going for it, right? Wrong! Instead, you get a system where combat is a function of Y=ammunition expended/(circle strafing x bunnyhopping). If Y>1, you've won.

And the planes- ahh yes, the planes. Well. I know I've seen an SBD Dauntless make a full chandelle at 90 mph inside of 50 yards, haven't you? Of course, that's if you can make it off the ground (with friends like these, who needs enemies?).

And of course the tanks are great- wait, what's that? They fire explosive beachballs? We'll skip tanks, then.

Which brings us to the really fun part: drive a jeep into a Higgins boat, take it over to the aircraft carrier, and then see who can get the most distance off the launch ramp. That's how the battle of Midway was decided, you know- our best driver valiantly gave his life to get that little bit of extra speed needed to pass the Japanese mark of 170 feet. Poor bugger's shoelace got stuck on the clutch as he tried to roll out the side... *sniff*.

And of course another fun thing is to grab an airplane, fly over the enemy installation, bail out, and then proceed to chuck dynamite at the enemy's plane campers. Sounds good, until you realize that back at your base is the corpse of the pilot you ran over to get that plane. He could've used it to soften the enemy's forward positions in preparation for a crushing combined arms assault... Just kidding. He was planning on doing touch and go's on the village's main street- still, the potential was there. The point is that the actual assault didn't happen because, as we already established, combat in BF1942 is actually a little less fun than doing Algebra. At any rate, the plane's toast, so is the your teammate, and you will be as well when you run out of TNT. That's gameplay right there.

So... yeah. That's BF1942 in a nutshell. A game whose only redeeming qualities are derived from doing things completely outside the realm of what the developers had in mind. Toootally worth the money. Heh.

The couple of places I only ever play Bf1942, try any of those things you mentioned and have yourself nicely banned.

It's a fun multi-player experience, but it's not for everyone.

Personally I thought it was quite well put together, providing a nice venue for large multi-player, land, sea and air battles. The unecessary butchering of the historical aspect was a shame. But hey, the mod community made up for that.

If you had the bad luck to play on a server full of numpties, no doubt your view of the whole experience would be somewhat tarnished.

[BoonieRat 0]

Quote[/b] ]The couple of places I only ever play Bf1942, try any of those things you mentioned and have yourself nicely banned.

Ditto!...

Quote[/b] ]A cow that is mostly black, with some white spots, will be refered to as a "black cow", just like a largly white cow with some black spots will be indicated as "white".

I'm not talking about reference, I'm talking about WHAT IT IS (which is a black and white cow by the way ), you are talking about opinion. Go sit on a battlefeild in full swing, then tell me how 'realistic' you find war games (does OFP give you a 1000yard stare?) War is a very spiritual thing, and I find the term realistic offensive(which explains my persistance )...

You seem to think I need reality to think a game good?, I dont, I love most 'good' games regardless of cartoon graphics or photo 'realism'. I just hate seeing people slam perfectly good games, because they think OFP is some kind of 'war simulator' that drips reality. If OFP is what you BASE your idea of reality, then you have pretty base tastes (and yes I love OFP glaring defects and all)...

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Games don't have to be realistic to be good. However, BF1942 is not good, never mind the realism.

[CosmicCastaway 0]

Games don't have to be realistic to be good.  However, BF1942 is not good, never mind the realism.

Each to their own. I would disagree. I find it to be the most fun I've had in quite a while.

[BoonieRat 0]

Quote[/b] ]Games don't have to be realistic to be good.  

Then why slag them off for being unrealistic like it's the crucial factor?! (personaly I binned halflife cause the headcrabs did'nt have the blue spots on the male versions knees! Let alone Gonarchs missins sac hairs!, and Kinpin!, where were the crack pipes and 13year old prostitutes!! )...

Quote[/b] ]BF1942 is not good, never mind the realism.

Yes that's your opinion, stating it over and over won't make it so in other peoples eyes though. That takes rational arguments (IE: Longer than one liner blurbs) What exactly is 'no good' about it?...

[Heatseeker 0]

The point is... Why simplify war to such simplicity and stupidity has BF does Specialy considering WW2 and vietnam are some of the most dramatic conflicts of modern history why not do something intelectualy more demanding, something that would require a bit more thought, tactic or at the very least do a little more research to import a real life event into something more acurate and/or maybe educational instead of the cheap cash in these companies do.

Lets drop the realism crap and focus on the word "serious", i think OPF is far from being realistic or simulation but atleast it aproaches war in a more serious way, its not always fun to play flashpoint and sometimes we get to feel some tention and fear for virtual death, atleast i do. Do you think its educational and respectfull to release these crap simplistic games about something so serious has WW2 to kids, shouldnt they aproach such serious conflicts in a more acurate way, something that would remind the old and teach the young about the drama and horror of such wars?

I say if they want to do a simplistic fun game they shouldnt base it on real life conflict, keep it fictional or futuristic like that UT crap, i find it disgusting and disrespectfull that todays ppl are having mindless entertainment with something based on dark periods of mankind where so many inocents lost there lifes, i believe games based on such important and sad events should be far more serious and atleast educational.

Im starting to get pissed with this money hungry gaming industry, their going way over the limits with this .

[ran 0]

*applauses*

finally somebody who shares the same views with me

and + it's worded a lot better than it would have if i had written such a comment

I agree 100% with heatseeker

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Quote[/b] ]Then why slag them off for being unrealistic like it's the crucial factor?! (personaly I binned halflife cause the headcrabs did'nt have the blue spots on the male versions knees! Let alone Gonarchs missins sac hairs!, and Kinpin!, where were the crack pipes and 13year old prostitutes!! )...

Are you not a little guilty of double standards here? not seeing the other guy's opinion?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]BF1942 is not good, never mind the realism.

Yes that's your opinion, stating it over and over won't make it so in other peoples eyes though. That takes rational arguments (IE: Longer than one liner blurbs) What exactly is 'no good' about it?...

Gaming, at the highest level, is about suspension of disbelief, about stimulating emotions, about fun.  BF1942 does not provoke any of these things to a great extent.  Having huge historical inaccuracies, deathmatch style physics, stamina, weapons and respawning, all detract from the 'immersion' factor.  Half life was incredibly immersive, because the game world was consistent.  BF1942 is not consistent - an extremely large calibre machine gun does the same or less damage than a pistol round, for example.  See the rest of this thread for hundreds of other 'immersion' problems it has.  It's not a matter of being historically accurate, its a matter of having a consistent level of realism (however low or high that is) - it doesn't.

The gameplay is the worst kind of simplified, arcade, pandering to the lowest common denominator (CS noobs, as people now call it), badly-coded (the first release had huge problems with hits not registering) crap.  It's 'pop' gameplay.  Its sterile, boring,insipid and uninspired- like 'pop' music*.

The community is, on most pub servers, 99% arseholes and Tkers.

The weapon models are really bad (although thats probably an engine limitation so I dont really blame the modellers)

*as a genre, not a definition