Incoming: Incredibly long post:
TL:DR for all you illiterate fucks - Battlefield games have always been riddled with bugs. BF1942 had shitty connections, poor patching, lag etc. BF 'nam had more of the same. BF2 wasn't as bad, but BF2:Special Forces was a total clusterfuck. Some people didn't get it working at all. And BF2142? That game was fucking AWFUL for bugs. Absolutely dreadful. Lag issues, stats not being tracked, connections dropping, Punkbuster fuckups... and not to mention the in-game advertising that people irrationally hated. I'm not saying 'well what do you expect' - these games should work. People pay a lot of money and the Battlefield games make MILLIONS... but Battlefield games have always been buggy, and that was when they were only on PC. Now they're on five different platforms. Stop looking at old BF games with rose-tinted spectacles - they were nowhere near perfect.
Look up reviews for old Battlefield games. Guess what: It was bug ridden back then, too.
Other than some frustrating technical problems and bugs that should have been fixed before the game shipped, Battlefield 1942 is one of those games that actually lives up to most of the hype surrounding it. Realistically, you'll usually find servers capable of handling only 32 players, at most. Even with that reduced number, and even if you have the game's first patch installed, have a cable Internet connection, and get a ping in the 50s or 60s, there's a good chance you'll experience some lag or choppiness. Trying to shoot bazookas at tanks, which will suddenly appear elsewhere because of lag, isn't exactly enjoyable. [Gamespot]
Battlefield 1942: Secret Weapons of WW2 (retailed for $30 according to review):
Now Battlefield 1942 has been supplemented, yet again, by another expansion pack, Secret Weapons of WWII. The latest expansion adds a lot of interesting new features and an additional eight maps. What it offers should be enough to keep Battlefield 1942 fans playing, though it could have offered more. [Gamespot]
So the question is now that Battlefield Vietnam has been released, did it live up to all of our expectations of addition, innovation, and excitement? The answer, in short, is mixed and a little confused. I don't like Vietnam as much as I liked 1942. That isn't to say the game isn't fun. It is. But some of the maps don't seem as focused, there are some balancing issues that are seriously perplexing to me, and while the graphic improvements are certainly appreciated and the game looks good, this game seems more like an impressive mod or an expansion than an entirely new game. And of course, as you might expect, there are also some mistakes, bugs and issues here as well, which for the most part are small, but can cause some problems... ...It's probably no big surprise, but Battlefield Vietnam didn't ship without a few little problems as well. Little things such as running downstairs causing damage, five foot drops killing you, guns locking up (is this a design decision for the unreliable M-16?), and various other small bugs. However for the most part, things work and the experience has been smooth from a technical standpoint. [IGN]
And bemused people on a team-lead game just cause everything to grind to a halt. Talking about grinding to a halt, there's a few technical niggles. The server browser has a tendency towards sluggishness, not actually operating anywhere as well as you'd hope. Similarly, it's extremely spec hungry, with some nasty frame rate drops. Equally, there have been some complaints of serious lag issues. [Eurogamer]
Battlefield 2: Special Forces (retailed for $30 according to review):
It didn't take long for EA and DICE to turn out Battlefield 2: Special Forces, the expansion to this year's smash online action game. And judging from the teething problems that the expansion is having, it looks like EA and DICE Canada (the developer of Special Forces) didn't take long enough. That's because Special Forces is an excellent expansion that delivers more of the intense online combat that fans of Battlefield 2 adore, but it's also crippled by some potentially showstopping bugs. If you can get it running, though, you're in for a great time. Special Forces is plagued with bigger issues. There are a slew of issues that are hampering players from even installing the expansion. For instance, there's a required preinstallation patch that requires 3GB of free hard drive space in order to install, and this is affecting some players out there. We encountered a different error that prevented us from installing the patch on one machine, even though we had tons of free hard drive space. An even bigger issue involves EA's new digital distribution service--there's a CD key issue preventing some users from playing the game (EA has acknowledged this issue and is looking to fix it). But even if you manage to install the patch and then install the expansion successfully, you must install a second 280MB patch to get the game up to date. All of this makes this feel like a product that was rushed out for the holidays. [Gamespot]
While there have been grumblings about how DICE and EA have handled the franchise, there are already thousands and thousands of players competing across the frozen tundra of future earth in the newest addition to the franchise, Battlefield 2142... ...One of the major issues for any Battlefield game is the number of bugs associated with a launch. Battlefield 2142 is not without it's share of these. The most notable of bugs is in the stat tracking. At this point I've received a bunch of medals and awards in a match that never actually showed up in the stat tracker. There have been several points where the game has failed to reward me with a new unlock in a timely manner after the correct point total has been reached and even on ranked servers there have been times when it's been like I haven't played at all. The other major bug has been connectivity issues. The issues I was having at the time of my first impressions have dissolved. In fact, lag and connection issues have not been a concern at all over the last week except on Monday. Outside of regular connection issues, many are having problems with Punkbuster. I've only been kicked once at this point, but others are reporting being kicked even after updating Punkbuster. These issues are sure to be resolved, it's just a matter of how quickly. Fast is not something that DICE and EA generally do.
Some things I'd like to say:
(On Battlefield 2 - Eurogamer) As a multiplayer game which opened up its code to the community, inclusions in the latest edition are things we might have already seen (and become overly familiar with) in a mod capacity. If it wasn't for Desert Combat, the modern setting alone would be enough to make people queue up to reenlist in a Battlefield sequel. As it is, we're a little harder to impress. Basic limitations like a smallish selection of maps and that there's only one game mode included also makes hackles rise. It's lucky that the beauty of Battlefield is in the details.
They open up the source code to allow people to mod it, and then when they release new games or expansion packs, people are disappointed because 'they've already seen this in mods'.
Their expansion packs they released retailed for $30 each, and the booster packs (Euro Force and Armored Fury for BF2), and most games had 2 packs - 1942 had Road to Rome and SWofWW2, BF2 had Special Forces and Euro Strike. That's about the same as you're paying for Premium now, and you're getting roughly the same, usually less.
As an example, BF2 had Special Forces - with new tear gas and flash bang grenades, nightvision goggles, new weapons and gadgets and 8 new maps... for $30. Euro Force was $10, with 7 new weapons, 4 new vehicles. Armored Fury was 3 maps and 6 new vehicles.
I'm not defending EA or DICE. I'm not saying 'it's always been like this, what did you expect?'
I'm just saying the early Battlefield games we all hold in our memories and look back on with rose-tinted glasses were not perfect games - they were riddled with bugs that were just as frustrating then as the current bugs are to us now. DICE and EA have expanded - all the game reviews listed above were games released on just PC - Battlefield 4 was released on 5 different platforms. That's a lot.
I'm not saying this is acceptable or to be expected - it absolutely fucking SUCKS that the game is still so buggy, so long after release.
All I'm saying is, the early PC games were not perfect examples of gaming masterpieces... they were just Battlefield games. And I for one am having a lot of fun with Battlefield 4, despite the bugs.
Edit: Just wanted to add this, to counter anyone arguing that 'because now they're released annually, there's no time to fix them' - this is wrong. The release dates have stayed consistent throughout release. In fact there's been more time between the recent games (BFBC, BFBC2, BF3, BF4) than there was between the earlier games (BF1942, BF:V, BF2, BF2142)
2002: Battlefield 1942
2004: Battlefield Vietnam
2005: Battlefield 2 (introduction of new game engine)
2005: DLC Battlefield 2: Special Forces
2006: DLC Battlefield 2: Euro Force & Armored Fury
2006: Battlefield 2142
2007: DLC Battlefield 2142: Northern Strike
2008: Battlefield: Bad Company (introduction of new game engine)
2009: Battlefield 1943 & Battlefield Heroes (introduction of new game engine)
2010: Battlefield: Bad Company 2
2010: DLC Battlefield: Bad Company 2: Vietnam
2011: Battlefield 3 *(introduction of new game engine)
2011: DLC Battlefield 3: Back to Karkand
2012: DLC Battlefield 3: Armored Kill, Close Quarters, Aftermath,
2013: DLC Battlefield 3: End Game
2013: DLC Battlefield 4 (introduction of new game engine)
1 post • Page 1 of 1
I just came across this in a comments section on Reddit and wanted to share... I thought it was a good read and sort of brought things into focus for me regarding the game and the Battlefield franchise in general. Again, I didn't write this but thought it might lead to a discussion of sorts.