http://gamingtrend.com
December 20, 2014, 08:27:18 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: IGN Battlefield 2 Review...  (Read 1424 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Dreamshadow
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3038


View Profile WWW
« on: June 20, 2005, 04:34:05 PM »

Okay..I'm a little concerned about this review.  This is not because it's IGN, nor do I feel the review was poorly done.  I'm concerned about some issues that were brought up in it. The review is at http://pc.ign.com/articles/627/627218p1.html?fromint=1:


Quote
Twelve different locations make Battlefield's battlefields. Maps aren't as diverse as I would have liked them to be but are still pretty well thought-out. Some environments are better than others in terms of gameplay, while a few simply look cool. Strike at Karkand, for instance, is an excellent map. It combines fast-paced gameplay with good amounts of strategy in an urban setting. It's got a claustrophobic appeal that makes the experience much more intense. It's a perfect map for tightly grouped infantry combat, and I suspect it'll become a favorite of those that prefer a match without a ton of huge vehicles. On the other side of the spectrum is Kubra Dam, which I have a strong distaste for. While the dam does look really cool (particularly when flying around in a helicopter), this particular map is a huge pain in the ass to navigate without a vehicle -- enough so that it creates a vortex of fun so that those of us in the office who have been playing now have little faith that it'll get any better with time.

The rest of the maps offer a varying degree of good and concentrate on various parts of the game, but it's easy to want more distinct environments. The maps in 1942 were more impressively diverse in nature than Battlefield 2's. They covered areas like Stalingrad, Berlin, the Battle of the Bulge, Wake Island, El Alamein, Midway... They all had a very different feel; you were on a different map every time you played. It's not as diverse this time around. Some of the maps feel very similar to others and, in fact, even look very similar to others. When you've got a fictional war between three factions, it seems like you could do whatever you wished with the creation of maps. Jerusalem, Europe, Russia, Indonesia, and Taiwan all come to mind as potential areas of interest. I suppose some of the relative lack of variety comes from the need to create art for each of the areas, and considering the higher detail, it might be a bigger task than before. Still, what is available ranges from good to excellent.


Erk...I was hoping that with the different map sizes the measly 12 maps in the game would be better.  This does not bode well.  BF1942 base shipped with 18 maps initally, and there were (IIRC) three major settings that were used: Africa, Western Front, Pacific.  (My memory is a little rusty on this..it's been awhile).

Quote
While Battlefield 2 has certainly improved the series in many ways, it's surprising to see that the game has focused entirely on conquest mode again. This capture and hold game type really is an awesome mode of play, but unless the game has the right amount of people in each particular map, matches can turn into rounds of Whack a Mole. In less populated servers, players will simply run from flag to flag in circles without any hope of ever holding any of them. It's surprising then that a simple deathmatch mode isn't available. Honestly, I probably wouldn't use it, but I bet there are a bunch of people that would, now that kits are so much more expertly balanced. I suppose what I'm really sad about is that there aren't any objective modes like those found in the Return to Castle Wolfenstein games (modes where certain obstacles have to be overcome or destroyed before moving on in a level). These were always very interesting, and Battlefield 2 could have done an amazing job in implementing them.


Well...they could steal a page from Joint Ops and Onslaught Mode for UT.  Make it to where there are conditions for taking a flag.

Quote
Deathmatch and objective modes or not, BF2 does run very smoothly, given the right pipeline for bandwidth on the server side. Joining 64-player games doesn't really seem to create many problems, assuming that someone isn't trying to run the server on a DSL home line, anyway. I've certainly experienced some lag, but for the most part, it's pretty amazing how well the game runs.


What?  No capture the flag? Okay, I can't say this for sure as I have not seen a mode list.   I'm a conquest fan, and with the smaller maps, TDM or CTF isn't needed to fill the hole in the small lan parties.  Knowing that there isn't CO-OP mode though bugs me.



Quote
It would also be great if commanders could place movement waypoints for squads, in order to tell them which direction to attack from or which route to take. Also, being able to send out basic announcements about bases being attacked would be great as well. What it really needed was functionality closer to that of an RTS. As it is, the commander mode is definitely an improvement over no commander mode, but it could have been done better.

Finally, commanders should not auto-balance to the other side under any circumstance. Not only is it disorienting to the commander, but everyone else on the team is suddenly left leaderless and probably won't even know it for a while.


Having commanded during an online game...I agree.  A mechcommander style of waypoints and such would be great.  And that autobalance issue....here's to hoping for a quick patch.


All in all...I agree with almost all of the comments he made in the review.  I would have prolly given it an 8.2 to 8.5 based on our system due to issues that I have outlined above.  But he was pretty fair.  Any other comments?
Logged

Tom "Dreamshadow" Tjarks
Aunt Wu: Care to hear your fortune, handsome?
Iroh: At my age there is really only one big surprise left, and I'd just as soon leave it a mystery.
Eco-Logic
Gaming Trend Member
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3004


Gamertag: St0ckBroker


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: June 20, 2005, 06:35:45 PM »

No CTF is a big mistake in my opinion.
Logged

Wake up.
Calvin
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13895

President of G.R.O.S.S.


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: June 20, 2005, 09:10:01 PM »

I read that review. Not impressed. I thought they should have given it a higher score based on what they said. I hope I don't find their issues to be true, but I just don't see it being that much of a problem. Here is to hoping!
Logged
SuperHiro
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1199

Pants on Fire


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: June 20, 2005, 09:31:37 PM »

People play stuff other than conquest?

That review was shocking through and negative for an IGN article.  I know they absolutely love the Battlefield series which makes it even more surprising.

IIRC, those 12 maps have 3 different versions each; for 16, 32, and 64 people.  And apparantly, those 16-man maps are hella fun.
Logged

Just Hiro will do.
kathode
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2469



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: June 20, 2005, 09:47:44 PM »

My decision goes like this:
Am I having fun with the demo?  Yes.  Ok, guess I'll buy the game.

I don't know that IGN has ever really made a big impact on my purchasing decisions.
Logged
mikeg
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2549


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 20, 2005, 10:18:01 PM »

Anxious to hear if the retail version runs better than the demo.  Was not impressed.  My machine plowed through Half Life 2, so, this should be no problem.  Waiting for reviews from guys such you all to decide.  So, let em rip.
Logged

I am Xboxalot on Live.
naednek
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4741



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: June 21, 2005, 01:08:49 AM »

Who plays CTF.  

this sums it up perfectly
Quote
[17:38] Orpheo: heh
[17:38] Orpheo: they dumped deathmatch, etc
[17:38] Orpheo: and ctf
[17:38] Orpheo: good for them, nobody ever played that shit
[17:39] gellar|bidnez: BF had those?


And why you need a coop mode?  Maybe I'm understanding what you mean, but isn't this game basically coop, meaning you can team up with your friends and kill AI enemies or player controlled enemies
Logged
Calvin
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13895

President of G.R.O.S.S.


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: June 21, 2005, 01:49:55 AM »

Quote from: "naednek"
Who plays CTF.  

this sums it up perfectly
Quote
[17:38] Orpheo: heh
[17:38] Orpheo: they dumped deathmatch, etc
[17:38] Orpheo: and ctf
[17:38] Orpheo: good for them, nobody ever played that shit
[17:39] gellar|bidnez: BF had those?


And why you need a coop mode?  Maybe I'm understanding what you mean, but isn't this game basically coop, meaning you can team up with your friends and kill AI enemies or player controlled enemies


Word Naednek. Exactly how I feel. I think the three flavors of size for each map is why there are only 12, and I also think that playing the different sizes is going to create vastly different games-different tactics, choke points, hot zones, the whole nine yards. I am in like flint either way though.
Logged
Bulletpig
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 593


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: June 21, 2005, 02:06:50 AM »

Am I crazy or is the option when looking at what servers are open the Conquest is in a drop down?  What I mean is that if conquest is the only game play option then why is it in a drop down?

Also CTF was fun as a change of pace.  I had a blast with it in the Desert Combat MOD for BF1942.

Not something I would want to play all the time but still fun here and there.

Regards,
Pig
Logged
Dreamshadow
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3038


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: June 21, 2005, 03:02:33 AM »

Quote from: "Bulletpig"
Am I crazy or is the option when looking at what servers are open the Conquest is in a drop down?  What I mean is that if conquest is the only game play option then why is it in a drop down?

Also CTF was fun as a change of pace.  I had a blast with it in the Desert Combat MOD for BF1942.

Not something I would want to play all the time but still fun here and there.

Regards,
Pig


CTF was nice when you could only get a few people together for a lan party...same for Co-op.  Co-op is where the players are one team, and bots are the other team.  Both modes were a nice change of pace as well.
Logged

Tom "Dreamshadow" Tjarks
Aunt Wu: Care to hear your fortune, handsome?
Iroh: At my age there is really only one big surprise left, and I'd just as soon leave it a mystery.
Calvin
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13895

President of G.R.O.S.S.


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: June 21, 2005, 03:21:40 AM »

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/battlefield2/review.html?q=1&tag=gs_hp_flashtop_read

Gamespot says: We pwn you bitchez at IGN. 9.3 is our scores noobs!
Logged
Destructor
Special Project Group
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15987


▲▲▼▼◄►◄►B A Start


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: June 21, 2005, 03:33:23 AM »

Quote from: "naednek"
And why you need a coop mode?  Maybe I'm understanding what you mean, but isn't this game basically coop, meaning you can team up with your friends and kill AI enemies or player controlled enemies

Well, one advantage of coop is that you can get you and your friends into a nice team and fight off the bots for a while. Mindless fun, for lack of a better term.

The fact that they don't support it (and the fact that they actually have some decent bots this time around, unlike the morons in BF 1942), is insulting. What about UT2K4? The bots knew how to play, and could actually challenge some humans to a game or three. It was fun to team up against them.

But apparently EA doesn't give you that option at all in BF2.
Logged

"All opinions posted are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled."
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9018


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: June 22, 2005, 11:25:02 PM »

Quote from: "Rage"
Quote from: "naednek"
Who plays CTF.  

this sums it up perfectly
Quote
[17:38] Orpheo: heh
[17:38] Orpheo: they dumped deathmatch, etc
[17:38] Orpheo: and ctf
[17:38] Orpheo: good for them, nobody ever played that shit
[17:39] gellar|bidnez: BF had those?


And why you need a coop mode?  Maybe I'm understanding what you mean, but isn't this game basically coop, meaning you can team up with your friends and kill AI enemies or player controlled enemies


Word Naednek. Exactly how I feel. I think the three flavors of size for each map is why there are only 12, and I also think that playing the different sizes is going to create vastly different games-different tactics, choke points, hot zones, the whole nine yards. I am in like flint either way though.


Pretty much.  My IRC line from above is pretty telling, considering I've probably played more BF1942 and BF:V in the past 2+ years than any other game in my collection (except maybe WoW).

Conquest is where it's at yo.

gellar
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.186 seconds with 49 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.078s, 2q)