I always found late "reviews" kinda funny in a way
[QUOTE=rndgenerator;51870846]I always found late "reviews" kinda funny in a way[/QUOTE]
It's more-so a review of how it compares now to modern games. Also since it's a free game now more people are going to want to try it.
Only having had played just a tiny bit of this game when it was released (I was too young back then, couldn't understand shit), going back to this in 2016 actually surprised me how it still felt kind of same as the modern Battlefield games. Most of the maps were more smaller and linear than I assumed this game would have, not unlike in recent games.
What I miss, though, is the athmosphere this game had. The desperate fight to survive in the desolate world.
2142 is the best Battlefield hands down and one of my favourite games period, I don't see that changing any time soon. In combination with the setting and atmosphere, it's how the game's design, objectives and classes necessitate actual teamwork, and how it does little to reward and a lot to punish lone wolves. It's very much rock-paper-scissors-y, if you're a lone Assault you can't do shit to armour, if you're a lone engineer you're p much fucked in a shooting match against infantry of other classes, if you're Support you're fucked if you're not in your comfort zone as dictated by your gear. Put them together though, and you can make short work of any target - A support EMPs a tank that's followed up with an AT round up its arse, a pair of assaults can out-damage/out-heal a sniper at distance, an MG support can do harrassing damage and suppress enemies while assaults and shotgunners flank etc.
I disagree with what the guy says in the video about Walkers though, they're very much the king of vehicular combat. They have an AA/EMP turret combo that can shred air transports and (poorly piloted) gunships, the driver can perforate infantry and out-maneuver tanks to hit them in the side/rear with rockets - Other than the emergent gameplay with gunships (Seat switching, flipping to boost), it's the one vehicle that you can get by in without relying on other players so long as you know how to compensate for its vulnerabilities.
But yeah, it's the way all the equipment and vehicles and their specialisations interact with one another that make 2142 so much more interesting than any of the BFs that have followed. Everything in 3 and beyond is so much more granular, everyone and everything is more or less a jack of all trades.
One of my most memorable multiplayer gaming experiences ever was from 2142 when I was alone on a point and I saw a transport "chopper" coming my way so I hid behind some boxes. It landed almost right next to me and a whole squad of dudes got out and ran to the point. I threw some C4 on their vehicle and ran back behind the boxes. They captured it, hopped back in, and took off. I let them get real far away before I blew them up. I liked to think they had hope for the future.
I went back and played this after the revive servers came out and was amazed at how well it aged. It was cool because I had played the game for hundreds of hours when it originally released but I played the revival with a friend who had never played a Battlefield game prior to Bad Company 2 and we both enjoyed it. I think we only stopped playing when Battlefield 1 came out.
When I played the revive servers, I was really unimpressed with the gunplay. I played a lot of BF2 as a kid and have very fond memories of it, but coming back to it, it just really felt bad, compared to newer class based shooters. Guns felt ineffective, inaccurate, and the gameplay was just slow. I also haven't played a newer battlefield game in years, so I can't make a good comparison, but compared to newer shooters like TF2 and Overwatch, it was really not a great experience.
I know how much hate it would get, but I want another futuristc battlefield, I just love the factions in this game.
I was one of those few people who got super bummed out when BF1 was announced. I really wanted to play a modern titan mode. Oh well, maybe in another 10 years.
I really enjoyed BF2142... one of the games I wouldn't mind dice revisiting (i.e. shameless reboot)
Lore wise, the US didn't actually join the EU. They formed the North American Union with Canada, Mexico, and everything in the Caribbean. Still, I love BF2142. Wasn't my introduction to the series, as that goes to 1942, but god damn, it just feels right.
[QUOTE=MiX-A;51876092]I was one of those few people who got super bummed out when BF1 was announced. I really wanted to play a modern titan mode. Oh well, maybe in another 10 years.[/QUOTE]
Especially after they teased a lot of 2142 stuff in the Final Stand expansion pack for BF4.
[QUOTE=discodude;51875930]When I played the revive servers, I was really unimpressed with the gunplay. I played a lot of BF2 as a kid and have very fond memories of it, but coming back to it, it just really felt bad, compared to newer class based shooters. Guns felt ineffective, inaccurate, and the gameplay was just slow. I also haven't played a newer battlefield game in years, so I can't make a good comparison, but compared to newer shooters like TF2 and Overwatch, it was really not a great experience.[/QUOTE]
If you're coming into any battlefield game with the expectation of ultra-arcadey shooting mechanics, of course you're going to be disappointed. Moving fucks your accuracy. Going prone fucks your accuracy. Full-auto fucks your accuracy. If you want to score hits, semi-auto and crouching are your friends. Take a split second after bringing up your sights to let the cone of fire tighten (Or a full 1-2 if you've just gone prone).
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51876908]If you're coming into any battlefield game with the expectation of ultra-arcadey shooting mechanics, of course you're going to be disappointed. Moving fucks your accuracy. Going prone fucks your accuracy. Full-auto fucks your accuracy. If you want to score hits, semi-auto and crouching are your friends. Take a split second after bringing up your sights to let the cone of fire tighten (Or a full 1-2 if you've just gone prone).[/QUOTE]
It's not just the game design though. From a purely technical perspective the pre-frostbyte engine Battlefield games have not aged well at all.
[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;51876941]It's not just the game design though. From a purely technical perspective the pre-frostbyte engine Battlefield games have not aged well at all.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, Refractor is shit even by the standards of the time. Project Reality highlights its flaws the most - weird horribly floaty and slidey movement, fuckery with hitboxes between different stances, ancient cone-of-fire mechanics, awful vehicle physics and collision detection (Driving over the wrong bump at the wrong speed = explosion), and good luck registering a hit on any moving target with a ping above 50. The same mechanics translated to a more modern engine that can handle all that shit better, eg frostbyte, would be a godsend. I just wouldn't trust DICE not to fuck it into the ground with mechanics that favour accessibility over depth.
I would buy a 1:1 remake of 2142 on a modern engine in a heartbeat.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51877367]Yeah, Refractor is shit even by the standards of the time. Project Reality highlights its flaws the most - weird horribly floaty and slidey movement, fuckery with hitboxes between different stances, [B]awful vehicle physics[/B] and collision detection (Driving over the wrong bump at the wrong speed = explosion), and good luck registering a hit on any moving target with a ping above 50. The same mechanics translated to a more modern engine that can handle all that shit better, eg frostbyte, would be a godsend. I just wouldn't trust DICE not to fuck it into the ground with mechanics that favour accessibility over depth.
I would buy a 1:1 remake of 2142 on a modern engine in a heartbeat.[/QUOTE]
I'm going to have to strongly disagree on one specific point. The vehicle physics are [I]awful[/I], and are the biggest problem I have with the Frostbite Battlefield games. Nothing behaves in a remotely sensible way with vehicles slipping around as if they were on ice, magic self-righting forces, [I]horrendous[/I] rubber banding whenever a vehicle comes in contact with anything too hard, and really dumb flight physics.
Vehicle movement in the Refractor games was all very physics based in a way that it's never felt in Frostbite. Hell, planes back then flew because they had wings defined in physics and turned because those little wings (i.e., the flaps) were set rotate. The game was a bit harsh when it came to collisions, but it wasn't unreasonable because the situations where that happens are the equivalent of tryingt to drive over an 8 inch curb at 60 miles per hour. Between that and the vehicles actually having physics where they can roll over, you actually had to pay attention while driving and not just mindlessly hold Shift+W off a cliff because it's physically impossible for your vehicle to roll over or take damage.
This has been one of my the bigger peeves of Battlefield games since the switch to Frostbite, but in terms of the engine itself, it's the biggest one.
To be fair, BF1 is the first Frostbite game where the vehicles don't rubberband like all the previous Frostbite games. It still happens, but it's much rarer than it used to be and BF1 is a good step in the right direction when it comes to vehicles. BF1 is also the first Frostbite game to bring back the good old "standing on vehicles" thing, and in an even better way than it's ever been.
Also worth mentioning is that the netcode of BF4 (as it is now) and BF1 is by far the best the netcode has ever been and anybody who says otherwise is insane.
[QUOTE=discodude;51875930]When I played the revive servers, I was really unimpressed with the gunplay. I played a lot of BF2 as a kid and have very fond memories of it, but coming back to it, it just really felt bad, compared to newer class based shooters. Guns felt ineffective, inaccurate, and the gameplay was just slow. I also haven't played a newer battlefield game in years, so I can't make a good comparison, but compared to newer shooters like TF2 and Overwatch, it was really not a great experience.[/QUOTE]
You go from modern arcade shooters that have very little recoil with guns etc into a battlefield game and then complain about the inaccuracy and ineffectiveness of the guns?
The guns are fine as long as you shoot them properly
"Or are being lead by BuzzCutPsycho, you can do it."
Now THERE'S a name I wasn't expecting to hear on a random review
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
