Page 2 of 2

Re: What's wrong with Battlefield 1942?

Posted: 2009-06-01 04:35pm
by Mr Bean
Which is another funny thing when you consider that the most popular BF2 mods always have one thing in common. They make combat more deadly. Desert Combat & Forgotten Hope in BF1942, Point of Existence and Eve of Destruction in Battlefield Vietnam. Project Reality and funny enough Forgotten Hope 2 for BF2 where massively popular and they both... massively removed the amount of arcade feeling from the game.

And BF2142's most popular mod? Well nothing because BF2142 is not popular, it's a mod of BF2 after all on an even more restrictive engine.

Re: What's wrong with Battlefield 1942?

Posted: 2009-06-01 07:10pm
by Oskuro
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.
Unfortunately, EA/Dice are pandering to these types with each release. Wouldn't surprise me if BF1943 was set in small towns or indoor arenas. :x

Re: What's wrong with Battlefield 1942?

Posted: 2009-06-01 10:28pm
by SylasGaunt

Re: What's wrong with Battlefield 1942?

Posted: 2009-06-02 02:13am
by Executor32
Regarding the two weapon kits business, by 1.6 they mostly fixed that. In 1.5 they added Japanese-specific vehicles and weapons to the Japanese side, rather than recycling the German ones, as well as giving the Garand to the Americans in the Pacific Theater maps, and in 1.6 the Russkies got the same treatment. It's a shame they only had two maps with aircraft on them, flying the IL-2 was damn fun.

Re: What's wrong with Battlefield 1942?

Posted: 2009-06-02 04:47pm
by chitoryu12
Napalm(Which while buggy was just plain old FUN to use)
You mean the glowy stuff that I regularly walked through with no damage?

Re: What's wrong with Battlefield 1942?

Posted: 2009-06-02 06:05pm
by Mr Bean
chitoryu12 wrote:
Napalm(Which while buggy was just plain old FUN to use)
You mean the glowy stuff that I regularly walked through with no damage?
It had no persistence, once it hit it did a one-shot instant kill on infantry inside the cloud then was a pretty effect. something Eve of Destruction mod fixed by expanding the damage area(Which was smaller than the graphic) and having the damage run in six one hundred damage ticks(FYI infantry had 50 hit points in BF:V) so Napalm was a bad thing rather than just a pretty effect which often did nothing.

Re: What's wrong with Battlefield 1942?

Posted: 2009-06-02 07:12pm
by Uraniun235
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.
Seriously? Fucking god damn. Vehicles were what made BF fun to me at all - I thoroughly loathed slogging through maps on foot.