The GT250 on the other hand, is just a rebadged 9800GT, so maybe that's where you got confused :P
Satsumomo on
0
CarbonFireSee youin the countryRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
Yeah, can't blame you. Both graphics card companies use such mind-bendingly confusing numbering schemes that its nearly impossible for an average consumer to know what they're actually getting.
and yes, the GTX 260 (216 in my case) is better than any 9800 by a non-trivial margin.
Would this be the wrong place to ask if there was a Battlefield 2 or Battlefield 2142 PA server or a server where you guys seem to congregate on? Should I go ahead and find the forums for such and ask?
The GT250 on the other hand, is just a rebadged 9800GT, so maybe that's where you got confused :P
Ah yes, thanks for that man. I knew I wasn't crazy
Snowblindvictim on
0
pyromaniac221this just might bean interestin YTRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
I have an HD4870 1gb which I guess will do the job. I experience a bunch of pop-in in games and I have no idea if that's tied to my graphics card or what
But maybe it's just me, or the promotional videos look like practically a different generation than the beta. Or maybe it's just that the aliasing is that bad
What I can see helping battlefield out so much is the fact that it is not just an infantry deathmatchy game. What really slows down MW2 is that it basically boils down to variants on deathmatch. If you kill everyone you bump into, you will win where as BF2 was way more team and target oriented. You actually had to plan out your attacks across this big ass map because it would never play the same any two times. Sometimes its good to hop into tanks and blow buildings up.
But maybe it's just me, or the promotional videos look like practically a different generation than the beta. Or maybe it's just that the aliasing is that bad
No, it's not just you. I saw several videos, and as soon as I launched the PS3 beta, I was appalled at how bad it looks there.
Satsumomo on
0
pyromaniac221this just might bean interestin YTRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
I'm pretty sure that the promotional videos are from the PC version running at max settings because there's almost no aliasing in the videos and the framerate is much higher than in the beta.
pyromaniac221 on
psn tooaware, friend code SW-4760-0062-3248 it me
0
-Loki-Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining.Registered Userregular
I've been playing MW2 on a friend's account, and my conclussion is that the game's success is pretty much based on the whole level up/unlocking system.
I've been playing MW2 on a friend's account, and my conclussion is that the game's success is pretty much based on the whole level up/unlocking system.
"Just one more level for stuff/kill for attachment/headshot for camo"?
I've been playing MW2 on a friend's account, and my conclussion is that the game's success is pretty much based on the whole level up/unlocking system.
Pretty much. It was the reason I loved BF2142, its the reason I loved CoD4, and its the reason that I like MW2.
I hope BC2 has a decent system as well. BC's system was kinda bunk/boring.
I can't wait. I loved Battlefield 2 and nearly crapped myself when i found out about Battlefield Bad Company for the xbox (sucks there was no PC version). Full destruction is going to be so sweet and a major plus for the game play. While i really like CoD i end up hatting the levels cause they are so restricting, action always happens in the same spots every round. In Battlefield the levels are so huge, add destructible environment, and you will have a different fight almost every round. I can't wait!!!! damn you xbox live for not having the Beta...i blame Microsoft
Edit: oh yeah...how about those vehicles! Vehicles > only infantry any day in my book
Luckily, there will be a PC version for this, and more importantly, a PC beta sometime early next year. As fun as the PS3 version is, all it's doing is making me want to play it on the PC more. Especially since I'm kind of an AA snob, and it's pretty bad in this game with all the straight lines and stuff
Spoit on
0
pyromaniac221this just might bean interestin YTRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
The aliasing doesn't bother me as much as the screen tearing and pixellated shadows
I know as a rule we usually don't talk about the newsposts, but today's one about how BC (2) lacks the 'feel' of war compared to MW2 is just pure unadulterated bullshit. I mean, from Frostbite's sound engine alone...
I mean, heck, with how small and unfocused some matches in MW2 are, stumble around trying to find someone to shoot just to get killed imediately after spotting them and having a teammate shoot your killer in return, it wouldn't be out of place for yaketty sax to be playing in the background.
Spoit on
0
pyromaniac221this just might bean interestin YTRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
Just read that. Maybe its because he's under the impression that war is just people sprinting around and unloading clips of bullets into things? I don't really see where he's coming from
I know as a rule we usually don't talk about the newsposts, but today's one about how BC (2) lacks the 'feel' of war compared to MW2 is just pure unadulterated bullshit. I mean, from Frostbite's sound engine alone...
I mean, heck, with how small and unfocused some matches in MW2 are, stumble around trying to find someone to shoot just to get killed imediately after spotting them and having a teammate shoot your killer in return, it wouldn't be out of place for yaketty sax to be playing in the background.
This is exactly why I didn't enjoy MW1 and didn't even bother purchasing MW2. I think I have enjoyed every battlefield game I played, so I'm definitely looking forward to this one.
ghost_master2000 on
0
CarbonFireSee youin the countryRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
I actually agree with most of Tycho's assessment, though he's expressing mostly Gabe's views on the series. Battlefield is generally more "floaty" than COD, though I thought Bad Company (and 1943) felt more solid than previous iterations. COD is very visceral, very solid and immediate, but it comes at the expense of having to run on maps which are almost an order of magnitude smaller than a typical Battlefield map.
For many people who would consider themselves more casual FPS player, COD is right up their alley. Run around with little regard to any overarching goal, point gun at mans, shoot mans. The single player is practically a rail shooter, and the multiplayer is (again) housed in tiny maps where it's nearly impossible to get lost or away from the action for any significant length of time. Contrast that with Battlefield, with its sprawling maps, objective-focused gameplay, and plentiful vehicles that diminish the success of the "run around spamming bullets" play style. You have to think about what you, your teammates, and your enemies are doing almost constantly in Battlefield to be successful.
Basically COD allows you to have fun without thinking too hard, which to a large portion of its audience, is exactly what they're looking for. I'd say Gabe falls into that category, which is why he wants nothing to do with Battlefield.
Note: I'm not saying that COD games don't have strategy or that all people who play COD : MW2 do so with their brains turned off. On the contrary, COD games usually have very deep and meaningful strategies buried within their user-friendly facades. But I highly doubt that is why most people glom onto the franchise year after year, or why it has garnered such wide appeal.
I actually agree with most of Tycho's assessment, though he's expressing mostly Gabe's views on the series. Battlefield is generally more "floaty" than COD, though I thought Bad Company (and 1943) felt more solid than previous iterations. COD is very visceral, very solid and immediate, but it comes at the expense of having to run on maps which are almost an order of magnitude smaller than a typical Battlefield map.
For many people who would consider themselves more casual FPS player, COD is right up their alley. Run around with little regard to any overarching goal, point gun at mans, shoot mans. The single player is practically a rail shooter, and the multiplayer is (again) housed in tiny maps where it's nearly impossible to get lost or away from the action for any significant length of time. Contrast that with Battlefield, with its sprawling maps, objective-focused gameplay, and plentiful vehicles that diminish the success of the "run around spamming bullets" play style. You have to think about what you, your teammates, and your enemies are doing almost constantly in Battlefield to be successful.
Basically COD allows you to have fun without thinking too hard, which to a large portion of its audience, is exactly what they're looking for. I'd say Gabe falls into that category, which is why he wants nothing to do with Battlefield.
Note: I'm not saying that COD games don't have strategy or that all people who play COD : MW2 do so with their brains turned off. On the contrary, COD games usually have very deep and meaningful strategies buried within their user-friendly facades. But I highly doubt that is why most people glom onto the franchise year after year, or why it has garnered such wide appeal.
Pretty good summation. I think people like Gabe were the one's clamoring for the Infantry Only mode in BF2. Something I always thought was a strange idea given the way the game was constructed. I understand some peoples hatred of planes. But that was more because they could be a little dominating in the right hands. I think many didn't like having to deal with being in a situation where the only option was to run and hide because you didn't have the equipment to deal with something.
A lot of the same element, I imagine, were constantly asking for a "supply line" mode were you had to take points in a certain order. I think a lot of people like the idea of hold this point or attack this point until taken and then repeating that. The nature of the Battlefield games I think is maybe to "sandboxy" for some.
That being said, BC2 has a perfect mode for those kinds of people. The Rush mode, at least if the map I played in the beta is like the rest, has only one point at time that you battle over. Each point has two bomb points, similiar to CS, that need to be activated before the point is taken. This gives some tactical flexibility but keeps the game contained in a relatively small area so everybody knows where to be.
The biggest unbalanced factors in Battlefield 2 were the inaccuracy of weapons and jets.
In 2142 and BadCompany there were no jets. Just choppers ("Fighters" in 2142) and they didn't have bombs which were the worst thing about Jets.
The choppers and attack fighters were exponentially easier to handle.
You missed quite a lot. Battlefield 2 suffered a lot of problems because everything hard countered each other. There was no soft counters. I made this chart to make it easier to explain.
The only thing that could counter an Airplane was another Airplane. Which the games came all down to who had the best pilots on their team. A team with the best pilots controlled the game. You might say "But Waffen, what about the AA Vehicles and SAM Sites?" Good pilots knew where every SAM Site was in a map. If they pinged in that area they would more than likely chaff, 180 around and dive bomb you. It took four missiles from a SAM to bring down a plane. The most you'd hit him with is two before dying. Then all he would have to do is fly around base twice to get repaired and continue raping. After getting tired of the plane crap I switched to the non jet maps only (Sharqi, Karkaand and Mashtuur City mainly)
The other major problem was net code and hit boxes. BF2 was a lag sensitive game. A ping greater than 100 in this game meant you were at a terrible disadvantage. You couldn't hit crap. Speaking of that, I did mention hit boxes. Don't even get me started on those. I had a sniper once bunny hop, 360, and then dolphin dive into the ground. I loaded a full 30 bullets into him, yet not a single shot counted. As soon as I ran out of F2000 rounds I switched to my 9mm. Shot at him some more, ran out. He stops his nonsense, and rapid fire SVDs me down. At that point I just exited the game.
Just saw the topic so thought I'd throw it out there but anyone in the beta want to play together? I like just jumping in and playing a few but I'd like to try to play a few matches with a more "squad" feel to it.
All in all, my friends are actually interested in Battlefield, FINALLY.
I can't wait to pilot them around in my tank and or/ Blackhawk. I've only played with pubbies in Bad Company 1 so I'm excited to see how I do with teammates I actually give a shit about.
The only thing that could counter an Airplane was another Airplane. Which the games came all down to who had the best pilots on their team. A team with the best pilots controlled the game. You might say "But Waffen, what about the AA Vehicles and SAM Sites?" Good pilots knew where every SAM Site was in a map. If they pinged in that area they would more than likely chaff, 180 around and dive bomb you. It took four missiles from a SAM to bring down a plane. The most you'd hit him with is two before dying. Then all he would have to do is fly around base twice to get repaired and continue raping. After getting tired of the plane crap I switched to the non jet maps only (Sharqi, Karkaand and Mashtuur City mainly)
Man, fuck BF2 jet pilots. Some of those assholes timed the respawns of AA and SAM and just bombed them as they respawned. It was ridiculous.
I will say that BF 1943 is the most fun I've had since any online shooter since battlefront 2. It's just so balanced. There's no guys running around with akimbo shotguns, there's no guys getting 5 kill streaks that turn into 12 kill streaks because of a freaking jet, and if someone is camping in a corner, you blow right through the wall with a rifle grenade. I actually feel useful in BF 1943. While everyone is fighting at one flag I can flank and take two, helping my team and gaining me points. In MW2, even in domination, there is no flanking, no matter where you go, someone is always going to be there. The deaths also feel fair in 43, if I get a jump on a dude and start firing, he's going down, unlike in MW where he'll just turn around after I've been hitting him for two seconds and shoot me.
I've barely touched the Bad Company 2 beta, but if it's just as good as 1943, I'll be playing it for a long time.
I'll have to disagree with that. Planes > Anything that isn't a plane. What frustrates me is the fact that a good pilot can kill a soldier in an AA gun without even entering its range. That makes no freakin' sense. Let's make a gun that's meant to destroy planes, but make it so that a pilot can kill said soldier in AA without even entering it's range. And the fact that the Transport boats are pretty much made of paper mache, which is not helped by the fact that not only is it the size of a bus, it handles like one too. I'd love to take a group of three or four guys in one but I know for a fact that the longer I allow the enemies planes to get into the air, the lower my chances are of survival. So I'm pretty much one of those assholes who simply take a transport boat and drive off, but what other choice do I have? Wait for it to fill and let an enemy just sink us? Unlikely.
I've found planes to pretty useless. There's very few matches where a plane where make a difference from what I've seen. On Guadacanal both flags by the bases have AA guns, on Iwo you have Suribachi and the airfield. Wake I can agree gets pretty ridicolous at the beginning. But once thngs get going, their contribution is pretty small. For each person in a plane trying to bomb or dogfight, that's one less person on the ground. I use planes for quick transport to flags, and 9 out of 10 times, you will catch the enemy with their pants down. It's especially useful at the beginning, especially on Iwo and Wake where you can capture the airfields. It's funny how no one watches the rear and how enemy pilots will see your parachute over one of their flags and do absolutely nothing about it.
Posts
What? No.
The GTX260 has lower clocks in fact, it uses a different core, and it has just a lot of bandwidth.
Comparo
Edit: Forgot to mention, the GTX260 quite better than the 9800GT.
and yes, the GTX 260 (216 in my case) is better than any 9800 by a non-trivial margin.
Ah yes, thanks for that man. I knew I wasn't crazy
Do the matches still fill up for the first one on Live? If so, I'll play a bit between now and release date to stay in practice.
They're still running. I've yet to find empty servers.
No, it's not just you. I saw several videos, and as soon as I launched the PS3 beta, I was appalled at how bad it looks there.
I still wish 'em the best though, if only because of my dislike of Kotick and his company's antics.
"Just one more level for stuff/kill for attachment/headshot for camo"?
Pretty much. It was the reason I loved BF2142, its the reason I loved CoD4, and its the reason that I like MW2.
I hope BC2 has a decent system as well. BC's system was kinda bunk/boring.
Edit: oh yeah...how about those vehicles! Vehicles > only infantry any day in my book
I mean, heck, with how small and unfocused some matches in MW2 are, stumble around trying to find someone to shoot just to get killed imediately after spotting them and having a teammate shoot your killer in return, it wouldn't be out of place for yaketty sax to be playing in the background.
Vehicles are a plus for me.
If the hitboxes are solid then I think BC2 will edge out as the superior game.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
The hitboxes were pretty solid in Bad Company. I don't know why they'd regress when enhancing the engine.
This is exactly why I didn't enjoy MW1 and didn't even bother purchasing MW2. I think I have enjoyed every battlefield game I played, so I'm definitely looking forward to this one.
For many people who would consider themselves more casual FPS player, COD is right up their alley. Run around with little regard to any overarching goal, point gun at mans, shoot mans. The single player is practically a rail shooter, and the multiplayer is (again) housed in tiny maps where it's nearly impossible to get lost or away from the action for any significant length of time. Contrast that with Battlefield, with its sprawling maps, objective-focused gameplay, and plentiful vehicles that diminish the success of the "run around spamming bullets" play style. You have to think about what you, your teammates, and your enemies are doing almost constantly in Battlefield to be successful.
Basically COD allows you to have fun without thinking too hard, which to a large portion of its audience, is exactly what they're looking for. I'd say Gabe falls into that category, which is why he wants nothing to do with Battlefield.
Note: I'm not saying that COD games don't have strategy or that all people who play COD : MW2 do so with their brains turned off. On the contrary, COD games usually have very deep and meaningful strategies buried within their user-friendly facades. But I highly doubt that is why most people glom onto the franchise year after year, or why it has garnered such wide appeal.
Pretty good summation. I think people like Gabe were the one's clamoring for the Infantry Only mode in BF2. Something I always thought was a strange idea given the way the game was constructed. I understand some peoples hatred of planes. But that was more because they could be a little dominating in the right hands. I think many didn't like having to deal with being in a situation where the only option was to run and hide because you didn't have the equipment to deal with something.
A lot of the same element, I imagine, were constantly asking for a "supply line" mode were you had to take points in a certain order. I think a lot of people like the idea of hold this point or attack this point until taken and then repeating that. The nature of the Battlefield games I think is maybe to "sandboxy" for some.
That being said, BC2 has a perfect mode for those kinds of people. The Rush mode, at least if the map I played in the beta is like the rest, has only one point at time that you battle over. Each point has two bomb points, similiar to CS, that need to be activated before the point is taken. This gives some tactical flexibility but keeps the game contained in a relatively small area so everybody knows where to be.
Combined arms, people! Combined arms!
In 2142 and BadCompany there were no jets. Just choppers ("Fighters" in 2142) and they didn't have bombs which were the worst thing about Jets.
The choppers and attack fighters were exponentially easier to handle.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
fuckin' shit
fuck
You missed quite a lot. Battlefield 2 suffered a lot of problems because everything hard countered each other. There was no soft counters. I made this chart to make it easier to explain.
Infantry < Jeeps/Humvees < Tanks < Helicopters < Airplanes
The only thing that could counter an Airplane was another Airplane. Which the games came all down to who had the best pilots on their team. A team with the best pilots controlled the game. You might say "But Waffen, what about the AA Vehicles and SAM Sites?" Good pilots knew where every SAM Site was in a map. If they pinged in that area they would more than likely chaff, 180 around and dive bomb you. It took four missiles from a SAM to bring down a plane. The most you'd hit him with is two before dying. Then all he would have to do is fly around base twice to get repaired and continue raping. After getting tired of the plane crap I switched to the non jet maps only (Sharqi, Karkaand and Mashtuur City mainly)
The other major problem was net code and hit boxes. BF2 was a lag sensitive game. A ping greater than 100 in this game meant you were at a terrible disadvantage. You couldn't hit crap. Speaking of that, I did mention hit boxes. Don't even get me started on those. I had a sniper once bunny hop, 360, and then dolphin dive into the ground. I loaded a full 30 bullets into him, yet not a single shot counted. As soon as I ran out of F2000 rounds I switched to my 9mm. Shot at him some more, ran out. He stops his nonsense, and rapid fire SVDs me down. At that point I just exited the game.
I can't wait to pilot them around in my tank and or/ Blackhawk. I've only played with pubbies in Bad Company 1 so I'm excited to see how I do with teammates I actually give a shit about.
Man, fuck BF2 jet pilots. Some of those assholes timed the respawns of AA and SAM and just bombed them as they respawned. It was ridiculous.
Same. I can appreciate BC2 on the PS3, but I much prefer intense FPS's on the PC. And if prone is in the PC version, I will be in love.
NintendoID: Nailbunny 3DS: 3909-8796-4685
I've barely touched the Bad Company 2 beta, but if it's just as good as 1943, I'll be playing it for a long time.
I'll have to disagree with that. Planes > Anything that isn't a plane. What frustrates me is the fact that a good pilot can kill a soldier in an AA gun without even entering its range. That makes no freakin' sense. Let's make a gun that's meant to destroy planes, but make it so that a pilot can kill said soldier in AA without even entering it's range. And the fact that the Transport boats are pretty much made of paper mache, which is not helped by the fact that not only is it the size of a bus, it handles like one too. I'd love to take a group of three or four guys in one but I know for a fact that the longer I allow the enemies planes to get into the air, the lower my chances are of survival. So I'm pretty much one of those assholes who simply take a transport boat and drive off, but what other choice do I have? Wait for it to fill and let an enemy just sink us? Unlikely.