StarDestroyer.Net BBS

There's been BF:V, BF2, and even BF:2142, but both on LAN games or for online play, I keep going back to the original BF1942. I've been ejoying the ludicrously unstable DCX mod lately, for example.
I keep coming up with interesting mod ideas and ways to implement them on that aged engine.

The only thing I miss from the modern games is the ability to sprint, and the mechs. Why is this aged and somewhat uninspired game so appealing to me? Maybe because I care more for gameplay than graphics? (because, let's be honest, BF1942 has always looked like shit)

Spoiler

LordOskuro wrote:There's been BF:V, BF2, and even BF:2142, but both on LAN games or for online play, I keep going back to the original BF1942. I've been ejoying the ludicrously unstable DCX mod lately, for example.
I keep coming up with interesting mod ideas and ways to implement them on that aged engine.

The only thing I miss from the modern games is the ability to sprint, and the mechs. Why is this aged and somewhat uninspired game so appealing to me? Maybe because I care more for gameplay than graphics? (because, let's be honest, BF1942 has always looked like shit)

Because BF1942 was and still is one of the best mass mult-player large scope FPS's. BF1942 had it all, air, ground , sea side combat. Each side can fights the other and the three work together. And each side has multiple angles.

Ground is both armor and infantry, each fighting the other. Armor has excellent anti-infantry ability and can even damage lighter sea combatants but is highly vulnerable to air. Infantry have can fight each other, armor and with emplacement weapons they can fight sea and air at the same time.

The wonder of BF1942 is scale. BF Vietnam cut down the sea element and made air power more useless while BF2 killed the sea-element totally but for transports and made the air-element dominate. Trying to play infantry in BF2 is an exercise in frustration since everyone requires multiple bullets to kill and to many maps consist of .50cal snipers picking everyone off who's not in a tank. In fact of played classes currently most maps are entirely anti-tank or sniper or assault. Medics or engineers are rare in the extreme and the unlocked weapons are all more deadly than their vanilla counterparts.

Which is why I still look back at FH 1 for BF1942 as that shiny massive FPS on the hill for best all around combined armed FPS. And the even crazier FH Extended mod as the top point of that.

I think much of it is the tech level; like in other genres, WW2 lets you have 'better' balance between arms, with unguided bombs and MGs on planes, unguided at rockets and rifles on infantry, unstabilised guns on tanks, etc. The more 'modern' you become the more one-shot and automatic combat tends to become.

And personally I think BF1942 spends less time taking itself seriously. I only played it for a small window of it's loooong balancing effort, but it was a fun laugh wheras Vietnam is very limited.

The problem is that it's not Codename Eagle.

Sigh, too bad they decides to remove naval aspect in other battlefield games.

Battlefield Vietnam was fucking awesome when it came out as far as I’m concerned. Until Crysis showed up I never played an FPS which had a better representation of jungle combat and its still fairly good for clutter, though not texture quality of course. The mobile spawn point isn’t as good as a squad leader, but it was good in its own way. Not to mention the M60 + LAW class (until they killed it)let you be a one man Army, and when playing VC it was as easy as shooting an American in the head (SKS was accurate as fuck) and taking his M60 since 2/3s of the American side would have them. Balanced enough for me! I really cannot see what was ‘limited’ about that game that isn’t true of Battlefield 2 as well. The lack of naval units was certainly a hamper, but it’s the Vietnam War, a large naval component just wouldn’t have made sense since all the NVA ever had was a few torpedo boats and towed guns used as shore batteries.

The only real downside I ever saw was really just that as a transitional game out for only about a year before BF2 showed up so it didn’t have any staying power online or many mods.

I’m pretty sure BF2 killed the naval units for budget; and more importantly because that would just require maps that would be too big and take even absurdly longer to load. I’m three graphics cards and two computers past what I played it on originally, and its just not exactly quick to startup. They certainly could have done some decent warships and modern naval weapons the way the game was setup.

Sea Skimmer wrote: I’m pretty sure BF2 killed the naval units for budget; and more importantly because that would just require maps that would be too big and take even absurdly longer to load. I’m three graphics cards and two computers past what I played it on originally, and its just not exactly quick to startup. They certainly could have done some decent warships and modern naval weapons the way the game was setup.

Excuse me? How can a map devoid of structures (polygons!) or a ground mesh be hard on the system? I'm of the opinion that, had they wanted too, they could have added a decent naval component to all the BF sequels (or, to state it properly, not remove it), but I have the feeling they purposefully tried to focus gameplay on infantry, probably to cater to the Rambo wannabes, the Counter Strike crowd, or both. It's ironic how, despite the advance in technology, the later games feel more claustrophobic.

And I might forgive the exclusion of naval combat, seeing how it wasn't terribly popular (love it as I do), but the elimination of player-controlled artillery in favor of commander-activated airstrikes is a sin for wich they'll burn in hell for eternity.

I must concede, though, that the Jungles of BF:V where awesome, but that was pretty much it, well, that, and the brave attempt at a winch for the helicopters.

Stark wrote:I think much of it is the tech level; like in other genres, WW2 lets you have 'better' balance between arms, with unguided bombs and MGs on planes, unguided at rockets and rifles on infantry, unstabilised guns on tanks, etc. The more 'modern' you become the more one-shot and automatic combat tends to become.

The problem is, a combination of over-used design processes and faux-critic nerds have poisoned the well against that design setting. If a game is set in World War 2, it gets the 'zomg not another dubya2 game' treatment before anybody has even bothered to ask what kind of game it is. For whatever reason, they don't apply this same criticism to modern action games.

Of course developers haven't helped either. Using the same battlefields, from the same perspective, with the same weapons, with the same pathways, with the same objectives, with the same AI. They've done so well re-re-re-recycling the gameplay in their shooters they've actually convinced people it's the setting's fault they're out of ideas. I'm sorry, but WORLD War 2 didn't just consist of Pearl Harbor, Stalingrad, and D-Day. The Thompson wasn't the ONLY submachine gun in the world. And for fuck's sake, the Tiger wasn't the ONLY tank Germany operated.

CaptHawkeye wrote:

Stark wrote:I think much of it is the tech level; like in other genres, WW2 lets you have 'better' balance between arms, with unguided bombs and MGs on planes, unguided at rockets and rifles on infantry, unstabilised guns on tanks, etc. The more 'modern' you become the more one-shot and automatic combat tends to become.

The problem is, a combination of over-used design processes and faux-critic nerds have poisoned the well against that design setting. If a game is set in World War 2, it gets the 'zomg not another dubya2 game' treatment before anybody has even bothered to ask what kind of game it is. For whatever reason, they don't apply this same criticism to modern action games.

Of course developers haven't helped either. Using the same battlefields, from the same perspective, with the same weapons, with the same pathways, with the same objectives, with the same AI. They've done so well re-re-re-recycling the gameplay in their shooters they've actually convinced people it's the setting's fault they're out of ideas. I'm sorry, but WORLD War 2 didn't just consist of Pearl Harbor, Stalingrad, and D-Day. The Thompson wasn't the ONLY submachine gun in the world. And for fuck's sake, the Tiger wasn't the ONLY tank Germany operated.

Of course, most developers could only remember the major battles written in their school textbooks, and some generic history books that is good for casual readers, but not for research.

It will be really interesting if we ever played a world war 2 game set in 1939, the invasion of Poland and etc, as well as some pacific theatre battles, the Philippines, Malaya and etc.

I always had trouble reconciling how Japanese tanks in BF42 seemed to impossibly trash all opposition at times despite historically being so crappy heavy machine guns could wipe them out. There are some things I just can't ignore... Also because there were like only two weapon sets, German and British...fighting in the ruins of Stalingrad or charging up the landing at Iwo Jima with a Lee Enfield just didn't feel...right. And then there was the evergreen forest of Kursk, particularly jarring considering I was reading the hell out of a book on the Eastern Front at the time, also it felt really cramped, basically nothing like one would expect the grassland site of one of the largest tank battles in history to be.

Commander 598 wrote:I always had trouble reconciling how Japanese tanks in BF42 seemed to impossibly trash all opposition at times despite historically being so crappy heavy machine guns could wipe them out. There are some things I just can't ignore... Also because there were like only two weapon sets, German and British...fighting in the ruins of Stalingrad or charging up the landing at Iwo Jima with a Lee Enfield just didn't feel...right. And then there was the evergreen forest of Kursk, particularly jarring considering I was reading the hell out of a book on the Eastern Front at the time, also it felt really cramped, basically nothing like one would expect the grassland site of one of the largest tank battles in history to be.

Well, a large map does have its downside, considering how long it takes for people to meet each other even when the server if full.

A really fun world war 2 BF game requires more players in a server, definitely more than 64 players.

I think you missed the point, Kursk isn't about not being a large map, I wouldn't call a lot of the maps large but they at least don't feel cramped with the map being a rectangle only a few hundred meters wide bordered by mountains and they usually at least seem vaguely like what they're named after, even if they are downsized and with varying degrees of historical inaccuracy.

Kursk in reality is a large grassy plain and where the Germans launched an offensive against prepared Russian lines, Kursk in BF'42 is literally a pine forest with a logging camp in the center and perfectly equal forces on either side of the narrow rectangle map. It probably should've been more line Tobruk but with slightly different features and geography like less bunkers and razor wire, and more trenches and tanks.

The feeling that I get is that they did zero research beyond the name and the sides involved and just plopped a bunch of shit down that made it look like all the other Eastern European maps.

weemadando wrote:The problem is that it's not Codename Eagle.

Ironically, that's why I was extremely hostile to the game when it came out. CN:E was horribly broken, but it's by the same guys, doing the same thing. Just... broken. But with a cool setting!

BF:Vietnam was potentially good but pretty bug ridden in places, and there were some fun vehicles, but like other similiar games, getting some teamplay together to use them effectively was another thing. BF:V has the Monitor riverboat and the PBR but these were practically never used.

Vietnam had some changes I liked, like the traps, new weapons, playing music from vehicles, and especially letting passengers fire weapons from vehicles. It's unfortunate that nobody really played it compared to the other games in the series simply because of how quickly they released BF2.

Strangely, I seem to be unable to join most of the servers on 1942 when I reinstalled it last week. They keep telling me that I have the wrong version, but I've got it patched to 0.7, which should be the latest.

chitoryu12 wrote:Vietnam had some changes I liked, like the traps, new weapons, playing music from vehicles, and especially letting passengers fire weapons from vehicles. It's unfortunate that nobody really played it compared to the other games in the series simply because of how quickly they released BF2.

Strangely, I seem to be unable to join most of the servers on 1942 when I reinstalled it last week. They keep telling me that I have the wrong version, but I've got it patched to 0.7, which should be the latest.

There's a tiny little 3 meg patch update, check their main website for it.

ray245 wrote:Of course, most developers could only remember the major battles written in their school textbooks, and some generic history books that is good for casual readers, but not for research.

It will be really interesting if we ever played a world war 2 game set in 1939, the invasion of Poland and etc, as well as some pacific theatre battles, the Philippines, Malaya and etc.

There actually was such a game. It's called the Forgotten Hope mod for BF1942.

Try it in campaign mode and you start off in Poland, 1939. With actual 1939 Polish weapons, against the hardware Germany had in 1939 and not 1944. In other words, if you're an anti-tank infantry, you have a rifle, not a bazooka. Something they never did in BF1942.

It's fun, but it was designed primarily as a multi-player mod and so not all the maps include bot data. Plus it's almost impossible to complete some maps in single-player mode as the battles are more or less historically rendered, including all the handicaps that one side typically had. For example, while the Battle of Britain in BF1942 is a cakewalk for someone skilled at flying the German aircraft, the FH Battle of Britain is all but impossible for the Germans to win -- which was much closer to the reality of the situation.

The interesting thing now is whether they can actually pull off BF1943 properly. Since its much mroe limited in scope I'm really worried that it will lose some of the awesomeness of the early BF series but the fact that they are trying to incorporate the humor out of Bad Company and Heroes gives me some hope.

CmdrWilkens wrote:The interesting thing now is whether they can actually pull off BF1943 properly. Since its much mroe limited in scope I'm really worried that it will lose some of the awesomeness of the early BF series but the fact that they are trying to incorporate the humor out of Bad Company and Heroes gives me some hope.

It gives me no hope because they have increasingly decreased the scope of each of the games, while I do hold out hope for the Bad Company series the main BF series has gotten worse with each release as the engine gets paired down and down and mod-friendliness is removed from the system.

Fun Fact:Did you know, in Battlefield 2 the physical model does not include gravity for planes? Fly a BF2 jet right up and you accelerate the entire way until you hit the bounding box and fly out of the level and lose control. In BF1942 if you flew to high you lose more and more engine power until you could simply not go higher and thus never hit the bound box. In BF2, hold a climb a little to long and you start doing back flips until you die off the side off the map. Then you had BF2142 which removed planes all together, it was VTOL or nothing, and their "hover" tanks were utter shit and could as with so many other games be defeated by that greatest of foes..

The two foot tall white picket fence.

No I don't hold out hope for Battlefield, because it's become more and more arcade with each release. Heck for a long time the Desert Combat Mod was more popular for BF1942 than Battlefield 2 was. Then BF2 was balanced and changed until you got to it's present day inclination, that being guns shoot nerf balls, so everyone runs around with a support class so they have infinite ammo and spamming grenades(Which do kill people unlike the guns). Battlefield Vietnam was the last game to seriously expand the game aside from graphical updates to expand the system and the lackluster command system.. Boobytraps, Napalm(Which while buggy was just plain old FUN to use) and Helicopters and the winch system brought new dimensions to the game

Mr Bean wrote:Heck for a long time the Desert Combat Mod was more popular for BF1942 than Battlefield 2 was.

That is, until EA/Dice bought the studio behind it (Trauma) supposedly to help with development of BF2, and then unceremoniously closed them down.

Of course, former Trauma members went on to form Kaos and completely fucked up their chance at the big leagues by releasing Frontlines: FAIL of War.

The whole Battlefield series has given me much reason to hate EA.

I remember in BF:Vietnam using that winch to carry jeeps and drop them on other vehicles. I was great at bombing like that.

Agent Fisher wrote:I remember in BF:Vietnam using that winch to carry jeeps and drop them on other vehicles. I was great at bombing like that.

Now think about the greatness that was picking up a tank with someone in it as they fired on the enemy even as you did. Heck there was a mini-mod out there that removed the winch restrictions soon after the game was released, it was great fun to use your winch to grab onto an enemy helicopter and fling them into tree's, buildings, or just the ground.

Also fun, swooping in with the transport Huey, picking up a enemy tank and depositing it in the ocean.

i can agree with the scale of Battlefield 1942. Look at some of the maps like Coral Sea where you could control destroyers and Battleships. True, it was rare on the bog standard servers that you got the teamwork to that had people co-operating to use these assets. The same was true of the bombers on the Battle of Britain map, an effective team could make shooting down a bomber a risky proposition if all or most of the turrets were manned.

The Desert Combat mod brought in a load of stuff that expanded on that. The Basrah Nights maps had some good playability, and brought in missile boats in addition to the already present ships in the game.

I don't know what BF3 will bring, but I do fear that it will be a scaled down version of BF2. Regarding the comment about grenade spamming, when I had my old system it took an age to load a server, so I routinely stuck to servers that had a long map cycle. Unfortunately, most of these were Karkand only, and you could guarantee right at the start that there would be bunny hopping grenade throwing on both sides, something which really ruined the game.

Conservative nerds have been trying to convert the BF series into "yet another counter strike" since the day it hit the beaches in 2002. It was through their efforts that the "no vehicles" option for Battlefield's servers became not only present but widespread. Their overall goal is to demand a reduction of the series' scope until it's just CS with jeeps.

CaptHawkeye wrote:Conservative nerds have been trying to convert the BF series into "yet another counter strike" since the day it hit the beaches in 2002. It was through their efforts that the "no vehicles" option for Battlefield's servers became not only present but widespread. Their overall goal is to demand a reduction of the series' scope until it's just CS with jeeps.

Which is damned stupid, because vehicles was one of the draws of the series. Not just another cookie cutter infantry style game. In a way its a shame that Joint Operations didn't take off as it had some decent ideas.