Battlefield 2142?

(LeVortex) #21

The story sounds a bit too cliché. And yeah it is EA and this movie is rendered and isn’t they actually gameplay so they graphics and stuff will be much uglier then they are showing here

(jimb0) #22

Rumor has it that there’s a scan floating around with an article on the game and that the game is close to being finished.

(ayatollah) #23

Funny that…I thought it was FIFA 98: Road to the World Cup on N64…

I do believe EA have published some good, notable games, ie:
Black & White
Road Rash
SimCity
Command & Conquer
Burnout
and soon to be released Spore

But granted that is a minority and I hate Battlefield so…meh!

(B0rsuk) #24

Black & White makes a good impression at first, and is very dull afterwards. Certainly not made to last long.

C&C: I kinda agree, I like this kind of RTS much more than Warcraft, but their support is hideous. I mean, multiplayer balance was screwed in each c&c game. I still remember the orca bombers, once the game reached later stage you could do nothing to protect your base.Nod had no serious mobile AA, meaning you would be raped as soon as you leave your base. Sam sites semi-worked, but were very flegmatic. So, what did Westwood (developer) do ? Of course, they doubled power usage for sam sites. Way to go.
Multiplayer balance for their games kept going worse and worse from that point.

There’s exactly one EA published game I liked with no buts: Nox. Multiplayer ruled.

(LeVortex) #25

i think it is not a completly new game but more a mod on bf2 (just like bf:vietnam that was actually somekind of mod on battlefield 1942)

(CrazyGuy) #26

Command & Conquer Generals sucked more ass then an tapir taking a shit then eatin it.

(LeVortex) #27

Command & Conquer Generals sucked more ass then an tapir taking a shit then eatin it.

no C&C wasn’t really good but it was fun for a couple of weeks

Have someone played the Godfather (EA spent more theb 10 MILJOIN $$$ on that game) I have heard it looks ugly and that the controls are even worser… that’s a typical EA game, because the most of their games don’t have great graphics.
Oke graphics isn’t the importants of the game. The importants is the gameplay and that is mostly really bad

(carnage) #28

no C&C wasn’t really good but it was fun for a couple of weeks

yep, the novelty of building a base soon was great the first few times played but after that it was soon obvious that there wernt a realy varity of structures. And most just offerd a option to buy a power up. Every map realy required the same things and no real tatics other than build enough units to overwhelm your oponent. Generals just added some cheese to the unbalanced equation

(LeVortex) #29

yep, the novelty of building a base soon was great the first few times played but after that it was soon obvious that there wernt a realy varity of structures. And most just offerd a option to buy a power up. Every map realy required the same things and no real tatics other than build enough units to overwhelm your oponent. Generals just added some cheese to the unbalanced equation

Yeah that about the units is true in singleplayer, but in multiplayer/lan it was fun and you needed more tactics. That about power ups is true. Almost evrybuilding you could upgrade so that you could make something new. or that the building became stronger

(Lanz) #30

If it still has the same game play where you have to take 5-6 flags and keep track of tickets, then I know it’s not a game for me anyway. I find that extremly boring.

(LeVortex) #31

yeah but it is fun for online because the battles will mostly go about 1 spawnpoint and that will make it a massive fight, but yeah it is boring. AND offline bf2 isn’t even worth to play that AI is so bad that I just own all bots with 2 fingers in my nose and 1 finger in my ass

(SCi-Fi) #32

who cares as it will be a buggy game that you av to pay for patches and upgrades,
then blackmail you into paying extra for maps as you are only playing the same few over and over(ie…BF2), so no thx.

(carnage) #33

If it still has the same game play where you have to take 5-6 flags and keep track of tickets, then I know it’s not a game for me anyway. I find that extremly boring.

the core gameplay is flawed. the fact that any flag can be taken at any time just messes it up. Where when the best part of two teasm are going head on with a mixture of tanks and ground troops it can be a realy good battle. But just as one team pushes to the flag one member has take a jeep and driven all the way around the map to take an undefended flag. Total ruins the game, and splits up the teams baddly so it become more of a solo walk around rather then working as a team

i hope ETQW speed spot idea will stop this sort of gameplay from happening

(DarkangelUK) #34

I’m not a fan of speculation… so saying “it will be buggy, the gameplay will suck” holds no water at the moment. I thought it looked quite cool actually… if a bit too familiar looking.

(B0rsuk) #35

Actually, after playing a number of EA games myself, I have to say you need hard evidence that the game WILL NOT be buggy and the gameplay won’t suck. EA has long tradition of suckiness. What makes you think this game will be an exception ? The problem isn’t so much that the games are buggy, but that they don’t care enough to fix them. There are hardly any patches at all.

(Patt0n) #36

They bring out a fair few patches… but with each patch, they dont fix most of the bugs and usually, they create even more bugs. They dont take enough care with what there doing, and they dont care about their customers. They want money and nothing else, and thats all theyve ever wanted (and most likely all they ever will want). As mentioned before, they have a “long tradition of suckiness” and that will continue until money can no longer be involved (probably never).

(Gringo) #37

Salteh is the same weight as a duck, which makes him a witch. BURN HIM

I have no problem with bf rehash comin out again. It’ll make QW look even better when placed alongside it!

(kamikazee) #38

Yes, finally something new to compare it with.
So to the kiddies: ET:QW is NOT BF2, try again with BF2142 next time. (Ok, it’s still not the same at all, but we would finally hear something new)

(eva05) #39

The art direction doesn’t seem very creative at all, because if nothing else, the enviros in BF2 were made very nicely.

The gameplay in the BF games has never been my forte. I like that you can aim the weapons (optics or irons) and I really like the fatigue system. But they really have a lot of very weird game metaphors for something that looks so realistic…damage to vehicles, getting in and out of vehicles, the aircraft are essentially impossible to fly without controllers…

The gameplay itself has some cool elements, multiple objectives that can be dealt with in a non-linear manner, but the actual objectives of securing a flag are just tedious. No real emotional involvement like I had vested in RTCW and ET.

What’s worse, the actual sound of the guns is very…well not punchy or loud. I never get the sense that I am shooting a rifle in that game. Especially after the fantastic audio in Half Life 2 or more recently Black. It goes a logn way to making the experience that much better.

There’s also no real sense of how any of the weapons are zeroed. Perhaps I am the only one who gets a bug up his ass about this, but what the hell are the guns in BF2 zeroed at? 100 yards? 300 yards? I have no idea how to adjust my shots at longer ranges because I have no idea how the round will behave. Is it arcing? Is it a laser? Why didn’t I hit that guy? Is it lag. etc, etc.

j

(Lanz) #40

Yep that’s more or less what I meant. The game play reminds me of rtcw’s checkpoint mode, it was boring and almost no one played it. Bigger maps and some wehicles doesn’t make it more fun. Most people just wanted to capture flags but never wanted to defend them, which lead to games where one soldier could take the ungarded flag in the other end of the map. Ending with everyone just rushing around in the map trying to capture flags.