• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Battlefield 2 looks SICK!! New Video!

I'm afraid I'm going to have to lock this thread because it's EA

FIGHT THE ESTABLISHMENT

BUY VISUAL CONCEPTS STOCK

(downloading now)
 
I heard the ranking system that keeps track of your, well, ranks, from server to server for each particular class rocks :)
 
i kind of agree with the boring sentiment. I mean, I loved Battlefield, played it to death, but are they going to add something to really change gameplay and immerse the players more? Destructible environments would get my vote. With bigger badder vehicles it's gotta come to that. And I hope they don't lose their style they had for WW2 and Vietnam. These environments are a little, eh. But, it does LOOK amazing. I mean really amazing.
 
J2 Cool said:
i kind of agree with the boring sentiment. I mean, I loved Battlefield, played it to death, but are they going to add something to really change gameplay and immerse the players more? Destructible environments would get my vote. With bigger badder vehicles it's gotta come to that. And I hope they don't lose their style they had for WW2 and Vietnam. These environments are a little, eh. But, it does LOOK amazing. I mean really amazing.

IAWTP.
Although finding it boring probably has to do with the fact that I'm not playing... and that it reminded me of the "dead" levels of Secret Weapons and Road to Rome (yes, I own both :lol).
 
Every new video I see, I get less and less enthusiastic about this. Honestly, it looks like BFV with more polys and better smoke. A minimal step up from PoE.
 
J2 Cool said:
i kind of agree with the boring sentiment. I mean, I loved Battlefield, played it to death, but are they going to add something to really change gameplay and immerse the players more? Destructible environments would get my vote. With bigger badder vehicles it's gotta come to that. And I hope they don't lose their style they had for WW2 and Vietnam. These environments are a little, eh. But, it does LOOK amazing. I mean really amazing.

There is a certain level of destructability in the environments now. You can blow up bridges, cut crane cable on a construction site etc. I don't know how extensive it is though - doesn't look like you can blow up buildings, but that mightn't be desireable anyway..

This video looked very reminiscint of C&C to me, from a visual perspective, for some reason (and that's a good thing to me). With an EA partnership, and possible buyout going forward, I wonder what the odds are that we'll see a Battlefield game in the C&C universe?
 
There are destructable parts of the enviroments, I think. I heard that things like bridges can be destroyed and engineers can fix them again. Making everything destructable wouldn't work, in my opinion, you'd have bombers that could level the map before half the round is over.
 
gofreak said:
This video looked very reminiscint of C&C to me, from a visual perspective, for some reason (and that's a good thing to me). With an EA partnership, and possible buyout going forward, I wonder what the odds are that we'll see a Battlefield game in the C&C universe?

Well, elements of C&C are already included in BF2, because of the 'Commander' function. In online games, one person of both teams can be the commander and see the game from above and lead the troops. Also, he can place and fire artillery. The commander can see everything, except when the enemy destroys radars. Those radars can then be repaired by the commander's team of course.
 
SKluck said:
Every new video I see, I get less and less enthusiastic about this. Honestly, it looks like BFV with more polys and better smoke. A minimal step up from PoE.

Haven't watched this video, but the one thing about the recent videos was the level had tank artillery and AA artilery on the ground. Hopefully they've learned from the complete abandonment of BF:V that players don't want a f*cking helicopter game and every map will have ground defenses to keep them in check.

That's my biggest wish. Although after BF:V, I'm not sure I'll buy unless they release a demo 1st. I'm still so peeved about that game that I wanna see 1st hand that things have been addressed before they get my money again.

Edit: Oh brother. Should have read the last couple posts (Read most).
 
Coin Return said:
I never really liked the person to person combat in the Battlefield games, it always seemed...I dunno....clunky, I guess.

There's two main reasons that that infantry combat pretty much sucks in BF42 (never played BFV, so I don't know if it ever got improved)...

The first reason is that the game seems to use server-side hit detection, where each shot has to be verified with the server, as opposed to a game like UT or HL, which use client-side detection, which has the client reporting if an individual player's shot connected with something. This actually affects not only the infantry combat, but vehicular combat as well. If you're ever dogfighting with another player, you may have noticed that even though you can appear to be firing directly into their tail and doing tons of damage, with debris flying off and everything, you won't do any damage at all, but if you fire ahead of where you should be firing, you'll take them out pretty quickly. This is due to the fact that you have to lead to compensate for the time it takes for the server to verify your shots. The same applies in infantry combat. Even if your target is at point blank range, if they're moving at all, you need to shoot pretty far ahead of them to actually score a hit. This, combined with the second reason listed below, makes it actually easier to kill somebody at long range than it is at short range, which is exactly the opposite of what it should be.

The second problem with infantry combat (which is something I just discovered relatively recently), is the way the BF engine handles bullet spread and accuracy. As I'm sure you know, moving around increases the size of your crosshair, representing reduced accuracy. Even when accounting for this, you'd think that up close, the accuracy doesn't matter, as the shots should be going in a cone pattern. However, shots from the machine guns in BF spread out in a cylinder shape, with all the shots moving on parallel paths.

So basically, instead of every shot originating from the barrel of your virtual gun and moving outward in an increasing spread as your accuracy drops, the area the shots originates from expands as accuracy drops, yet the shots all travel in the same direction you're aiming. So basically, this also makes it so that the shot spread is just as bad at point blank range as it is at long range. This is why you can seemingly unload an entire clip into a stationary player at point blank range and not kill them. As soon as your accuracy drops, your shots are no longer coming from the barrel of the gun, and are most likely completely missing.

The best way to see exactly how it works is to download the Galactic Conquest mod. As a Star Wars-based mod, all of the infantry weapons have visible projectiles, so you can actually see the cylinder effect in action.
 
Vlad said:
There's two main reasons that that infantry combat pretty much sucks in BF42 (never played BFV, so I don't know if it ever got improved)...

The first reason is that the game seems to use server-side hit detection, where each shot has to be verified with the server, as opposed to a game like UT or HL, which use client-side detection, which has the client reporting if an individual player's shot connected with something. This actually affects not only the infantry combat, but vehicular combat as well. If you're ever dogfighting with another player, you may have noticed that even though you can appear to be firing directly into their tail and doing tons of damage, with debris flying off and everything, you won't do any damage at all, but if you fire ahead of where you should be firing, you'll take them out pretty quickly. This is due to the fact that you have to lead to compensate for the time it takes for the server to verify your shots. The same applies in infantry combat. Even if your target is at point blank range, if they're moving at all, you need to shoot pretty far ahead of them to actually score a hit. This, combined with the second reason listed below, makes it actually easier to kill somebody at long range than it is at short range, which is exactly the opposite of what it should be.

Thats because when you lead a target, you'll be hitting their engine(the weak spot) rather than their tail. Its like aiming for the head of an infantry rather than his leg.

I dont see whats wrong with leading an opponent. Makes it far more challenging, and wouldnt you have to lead a moving opponent in real life anyway?
 
Dr.Guru of Peru said:
Thats because when you lead a target, you'll be hitting their engine(the weak spot) rather than their tail. Its like aiming for the head of an infantry rather than his leg.

The thing is, even if you hit infantry in the leg, it does some damage. I'm not complaining about minimal damage, I'm complaining about zero damage. Quite often, before I learned that I had to compensate for the network speed, I would completely unload into another plane's wings or tail (which is really the only stuff you can hit if you're directly behind them, anyway), and the person wasn't going down, even though my computer showed me scoring hits via the debris flying off. After they ended up shooting me down, I asked them how much damage I actually did to them, and they told me that I hadn't scored a single hit. it's not a matter of hitting a weaker part of the plane, it's a matter of having to aim ahead to compensate for the way the game calculates hits.



I dont see whats wrong with leading an opponent. Makes it far more challenging, and wouldnt you have to lead a moving opponent in real life anyway?

As Parallax Scroll said, not when you're right on top of them. If somebody is a foot in front of me, moving to the left, I shouldn't have to aim five feet to their left just to hit them. The weapons in BF (aside from tank shells and such), are all hitscan, and as such, you shouldn't HAVE to lead those. Imagine the same thing happening in a game like Quake with the railgun. The gun would be pretty tough to use if you had to aim ahead of where the guy was going so he would be there by the time your shot registered with the server. It's one thing if it's part of the game engine, but it's pretty bad if it's a byproduct of the game's netcode.

I mean, it's pretty telling that before DICE implemented the crosshair hit indicator, there was absolutely no way to tell if you scoring hits at all, as you couldn't (and still can't) rely on the actual hit effects when playing online.
 
Vlad said:
The thing is, even if you hit infantry in the leg, it does some damage. I'm not complaining about minimal damage, I'm complaining about zero damage. Quite often, before I learned that I had to compensate for the network speed, I would completely unload into another plane's wings or tail (which is really the only stuff you can hit if you're directly behind them, anyway), and the person wasn't going down, even though my computer showed me scoring hits via the debris flying off. After they ended up shooting me down, I asked them how much damage I actually did to them, and they told me that I hadn't scored a single hit. it's not a matter of hitting a weaker part of the plane, it's a matter of having to aim ahead to compensate for the way the game calculates hits.

The joys of peer match gaming. The problem being that a more central location (server) isn't resolving combat hits is an annoyance of many online games where they implement 'fast' action.
 
About the network performance: There are times when I think this game has the best net performance out there, and then there are games where it's just plain unplayable (And I'm always looking for servers in the 50 range). As has been stated above, nothing's worse than flanking behind someone, unloading an entire clip into their back, and them not dying (And killing you while you're reloading).

The last game I ever played of BF:V I still remember. It was on one of the urban maps. I saw a tank in the distance that I knew would eventually roll my way. I ran down a side alley and set up my mortar (and tested so I knew the shell would have a low enough projectory to strike the tank when it drove past.) So this tank finially rolls down the main street, I let go with the mortar, the mortar scores a direct hit (Shit's flying off the tank in all directions), and what happens? The tank turns his turret down my alley, lets a shell rip my way, and my ass is thrown 20 feet into the air. I'm 99% certain a mortar destroys a tank at full strength, and this tank was visibly damaged (quite damaged actually). I turned off the game and on Ebay it went. The final straw for Vietnam. Still, BF2 seduces me... even though my mind is telling me to resist.
 
Heh. I obviously dont know what Im talking about. Still, BF1942 is my favourite game this gen and Ive learned to get used to the leading(I actaully consider myself quite good). Its not so bad on servers that I have a low ping on(around 50 isnt bad).
 
Vlad said:
There's two main reasons that that infantry combat pretty much sucks in BF42 (never played BFV, so I don't know if it ever got improved)...

The first reason is that the game seems to use server-side hit detection, where each shot has to be verified with the server, as opposed to a game like UT or HL, which use client-side detection, which has the client reporting if an individual player's shot connected with something. This actually affects not only the infantry combat, but vehicular combat as well. If you're ever dogfighting with another player, you may have noticed that even though you can appear to be firing directly into their tail and doing tons of damage, with debris flying off and everything, you won't do any damage at all, but if you fire ahead of where you should be firing, you'll take them out pretty quickly. This is due to the fact that you have to lead to compensate for the time it takes for the server to verify your shots. The same applies in infantry combat. Even if your target is at point blank range, if they're moving at all, you need to shoot pretty far ahead of them to actually score a hit. This, combined with the second reason listed below, makes it actually easier to kill somebody at long range than it is at short range, which is exactly the opposite of what it should be.

The second problem with infantry combat (which is something I just discovered relatively recently), is the way the BF engine handles bullet spread and accuracy. As I'm sure you know, moving around increases the size of your crosshair, representing reduced accuracy. Even when accounting for this, you'd think that up close, the accuracy doesn't matter, as the shots should be going in a cone pattern. However, shots from the machine guns in BF spread out in a cylinder shape, with all the shots moving on parallel paths.

So basically, instead of every shot originating from the barrel of your virtual gun and moving outward in an increasing spread as your accuracy drops, the area the shots originates from expands as accuracy drops, yet the shots all travel in the same direction you're aiming. So basically, this also makes it so that the shot spread is just as bad at point blank range as it is at long range. This is why you can seemingly unload an entire clip into a stationary player at point blank range and not kill them. As soon as your accuracy drops, your shots are no longer coming from the barrel of the gun, and are most likely completely missing.

The best way to see exactly how it works is to download the Galactic Conquest mod. As a Star Wars-based mod, all of the infantry weapons have visible projectiles, so you can actually see the cylinder effect in action.

Holy shit, is that why the infantry combat sucks in BF? Since day one I've been saying that combat in the game is very sloppy, and now I know why. Very interesting indeed.... but have they fixed it up with BF2? I know they didn't with Vietnam.

I'm so used to the awesome infantry combat of Counter-Strike that I absolutely hate Battlefield. I just wish someone would invent a game with land, air, and sea vehicles with the very same kind of combat in Counter-Strike.
 
that new video looks great. so, is this pretty much confirmed to be coming out for xbox 360 (xenon!)?
 
Top Bottom