Battlefield 1943 and Bad Company 2 confirmed for PC (+ HD consoles) - by EvaUnit02
gunsmoke on 20/2/2010 at 16:35
Quote Posted by Sulphur
I'd wait until Nvidia bring their GF100 line to the market, if I were you. Those 58xx cards are priced a leeeetle high at the moment. AMD's enjoying being the sole DX11 presence in the market right now. Once Nvidia releases its answer to the RV870, prices should get more competitive all 'round.
Oh, I know. The videocard is always the last thing I buy, and it won't be for ~ 3 months. Thanks though. Any advice on processors? I'm 99% sure I am going intel for the first time in 8 years. PM me, if you don't wanna fag the thread.
My new PSU is 200W more than my old one, with a ton more amps on the 12v rail. It gives me 10% better performance in Fallout 3. I must have been pushing my old one HARD. It was 400W Antec. 2 HDD, optical drive, video card (that needs 2 molex connectors itself!) couple fans, and the cpu/mobo.
mgeorge on 20/2/2010 at 17:15
I have a question about the original BF 1942. Is the single player really that bad? I was at my local Gamestop one day and the guy said it was a great deal for the complete collection for 10 bucks.
I'm not normally into WW2 games but figured I'd give it a shot not realizing that it was basically an online game, which I'm not into. It's been sitting at my desk for about a month now, but think I can still bring it back if the SP is that sucky.
gunsmoke on 20/2/2010 at 17:20
It has offline bots. Nothing special. There are probably still people playing it online, though. Tons of mods, too.
june gloom on 20/2/2010 at 20:24
There's definitely still BF42 players, but they're all a bunch of miserable, diseased little bastards who ban you for cheating because you did something that's described in the manual. Add to that the fact that the game has basically no atmosphere, and takes way too long to load for a game that ugly, and you're better off playing something else.
Fragony on 21/2/2010 at 07:59
Quote Posted by mgeorge
I have a question about the original BF 1942. Is the single player really that bad? I was at my local Gamestop one day and the guy said it was a great deal for the complete collection for 10 bucks.
I'm not normally into WW2 games but figured I'd give it a shot not realizing that it was basically an online game, which I'm not into. It's been sitting at my desk for about a month now, but think I can still bring it back if the SP is that sucky.
Don't bother with it then, do give the MP a chance though. It isn't a hyper-twitch bunny-hopping rocket-jump affair like most (older) pc-shooters, you might like what you find, if you do like it it will last you a long time.
Thirith on 21/2/2010 at 11:11
Quote Posted by mgeorge
I have a question about the original BF 1942. Is the single player really that bad? I was at my local Gamestop one day and the guy said it was a great deal for the complete collection for 10 bucks.
I thought that the
BF1942 singleplayer was a nice enough diversion. The environments are fun and you still get the impression of being part of a larger battle. The AI's pretty dumb, but if you're looking for a diversion rather than for a challenge. Then again, I also enjoyed the single player in
UT2K4, so YMMV.
Aerothorn on 28/2/2010 at 18:55
Looks nice, though (singleplayer aside) I'm still unclear as to what the big leaps are over Battlefield 2 (or 2142, if you prefer). Better graphics, obviously, and destructable environments, but what else? Just better shooting mechanics?
I think a 32-player game can be perfectly fun but I can't help but feels its a step backwards - It puzzles me how, 8 years later, we have half the player size. And it seems like MAG has blown the "consoles can't handle more than 24 players" excuse out of the water.
Also, the video claims native support for 4:3 and 16:9 monitors. What about 16:10? I'm REALLY hoping that is was just an omission - it would be massively dumb not to support the latter resolution, though it sounds like it would at least be easy to tweak in.
Ostriig on 28/2/2010 at 19:55
Regarding the aspect ratios, it's quite possible it's not an omission - DICE did the same thing with Mirror's Edge, with which I had my 1680x1050 display a 16:9 aspect image, with black bands on the top and bottom of the screen. It was, really, a move that I'm having trouble finding a reason for aside from laziness reaching ridiculous proportions, but I have to be fair to them and admit I didn't find it bothersome.
Now, what I do find bothersome, for instance, is the way my PS3 outputs Heavy Rain at 16:9 only and my monitor helplessly squashes the image into the 16:10 aspect ratio. Thankfully, that won't be the case with DICE, I'm sure.
Jason Moyer on 28/2/2010 at 21:19
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
Looks nice, though (singleplayer aside) I'm still unclear as to what the big leaps are over Battlefield 2 (or 2142, if you prefer). Better graphics, obviously, and destructable environments, but what else? Just better shooting mechanics?
More/better game modes and a singleplayer campaign are two biggies off the top of my head.
Singleplayer campaign + hardcore rush mode = purchase for me.
