I'm a bit disappointed, I was thinking of finding a free BF2 but I've found a BF Heroes with different textures.
At least change the GUI a little more or is too similar to BF Heroes one
And PLEASE add the 16:9 screen, I stopped to play BF Heroes and got back to BF 2142 because 16:9 (and "unplayability without spending on battlefunds"...)
My first impression is it is exactly what they said( cross between BF2, BC2, BFH) just along way from being finished. All BF games have had their issues over the years, just look up the patches listed for each game. I will have to give this some more time to see more of what direction they are going than just parts of three different games thrown in a box. See how the sculpt it.
Got going a little earlier today.
Love the sounds - really immersive.
Graphics are nice and clean, but in places it felt a bit clinically clean. Some battle scaring or damage would add some nice touchs to the map.
However, lag was a big issue. I'd suddenly spin round, get warning messages about my connection (took me a while to just ignore those) and of course hits not registering..
2 things needed IMHO
-> toggle for crouch - I mean, do I really need to keep the key pressed down while strafing, shooting, etc..
-> swapping in and out of looking down sights is really really slow!
Looking forward to playing this a lot more over the next few days....
First off - it's not like BC2 and it's a great thing. Thank you.
Aside from bugs and lag I'm really disappointed that there are no squads.
Lots of things could get improvement (better weapon balance/ battle interface (BF 2142 style would be awesome)/ minimap shows icon over player that need ammo/heal/help/ etc).
Buggy graphics, can't go over med settings - too dark, can't even see iron sights.
Very impressed with vehicle balance - great job.
So far looks very promising if right decisions are made, keep up a good work.
Very positive so far.
I liked:
The graphical style and how well it scaled. The game played equally well on my i5 and 9800 as it did on my other am26800+ and 7600GS. The graphics aren't cartoonish, but aren't overly brown and bloomed out. I hope the color palates stay varied for different maps.
The way the upgrades work. I'm intrigued that extra abilities like coaxial machine guns or pilot training need to be unlocked. I have a point of concern that the license to fly or use the APC mounted TOW may transition to payed abilities, but that would depend on the pricepoint/length of time the license is valid for.
Vehicles. Lag and hitbox issues aside, it feels very good to get back into the latest version of the only true modern warfare franchise on the market today. They handle well, and are balanced well if your opponents team is composed equally. They are vulnerable if I am careless, and powerful if I am attentive, a very good way to handle it.
Concerned about:
The lack of cross-class abilities. As long as you cannot switch classes, there is a serious problem present, in that it's a very real possibility there will be no class X on your team. Already I have seen many matches with no engineers other than myself present, lending credence to the cries of vehicles being overpowered.
The out of game interface. The play now function is a hindrance, and frequently tries to connect players to full servers. In addition, whatever mechanism is present to determine team balance is insufficient to actually balance the teams. I assume it's merely player autobalance, not based on their scores or performance. If EA wishes to hold the master key to all servers, by all means, but giving players options to tweak their choices to better fit their play styles is extremely important.
Player numbers. Limiting the total player count to 32 is all well and good for a cordoned off section of Karkand, but once set up in larger maps, comparable in size to Gulf of Oman or Zatar Wetlands, will mean much lower intensity conflicts than the Battlefield franchise is so endeared for. As a BF2 mod mapper, I understand the delicate balance between mapsize, asset layouts, and player numbers, but I still feel the need to voice this concern.
Edit: I held back on the lack of nearly any encouragement for teamwork under the assumption that this beta is not aimed at testing fully implemented systems, rather just the framework upon which the game will be built. If there is any question, please tally up another voice requesting squads and the ability for friends to join each other and play together. The second request is a moot point if we're allowed to pick our own servers, but I thought I'd throw that in there.
Overall an extremely positive experience so far. My only truly nagging concern is that while the initial round of purchasable offerings may remain merely cosmetic, future updates will present two different games entirely, one for those with money, and one for those without.
I'm eager to hear from EA any news on how they're handling pricing or item dispensation/purchasing.
Lol i've been playing it for half an hour now, first I had to try to join a server 20 times before I got connected instead of getting server disconnected error. I also had to run it in windowed mode, because in fullscreen mode my arrow disappeared and the screen went black when connecting. Wile gaming there was some lag every now and then and people were moving over the ground ;O
So far I think the graphics suck, they definitely need to work on that, and I hate the weapon system. You need to chose if you wanna be assault or sniper etc when making the account, and after that you cant change the weapon ingame from for example machine gun to sniper. I often switched guns in BF2, so thats a huge disappointment for me. Also I hate matchmaking system, I hope that will change when the game releases so I can chose whatever server and map I wanna go in.
First off I need to confess that I am not a BF/BF2-player.
I do have them installed but my total combined game-play is less than an hour. I also have BF:BC2, which I bought during beta and thoroughly enjoyed in single-player mode but absolutely loathe in multi-player.
The main reason I despise BC2 is the lack of any realism when it comes to weapons balance. Unfortunately I'm experiencing the same thing with P4F.
I'm armed with a G3, which with it's 7.62 NATO round has a pretty good reach (even with iron sights) and a definite "umph", but I keep getting killed by players using SMGs in full auto from 100+ meters. Not realistic in the least. Also, if you really want to get a positive kill in this game - revert to BC2 and use your M9 or your combat knife instead of a GPMG or a battle rifle... Again, not realistic.
Since both sides use ballistic protection the M9 (or any handgun for that matter) should be severely limited in damage unless you go for headshots, armpits (ie where the torso is not protected by the vest) or the lower extremities (femoral artery anyone?). SMGs should also be limited in damage - especially if you engage an enemy with full-auto fire at more than 50 meters (and even that is pushing it).
In game-play weapons balance is my only complaint. In-game the screen is diagonally flashing when the game starts and I cannot see the cursor until the crosshairs appear during game-play. I do experience some lag, but that's something I'm sure the devs are aware of so it's not something I'm gonna female dog about (just noting it).
That's all for now
Graphics look terrible even though I run the game at 1920x1200 it looks like its running at 640x480 textures and fonts =\
(16-12-2010 11:00 PM)Farva-Radio Wrote: [ -> ]The main reason I despise BC2 is the lack of any realism when it comes to weapons balance. Unfortunately I'm experiencing the same thing with P4F.
I'm armed with a G3, which with it's 7.62 NATO round has a pretty good reach (even with iron sights) and a definite "umph", but I keep getting killed by players using SMGs in full auto from 100+ meters. Not realistic in the least. Also, if you really want to get a positive kill in this game - revert to BC2 and use your M9 or your combat knife instead of a GPMG or a battle rifle... Again, not realistic.
Since both sides use ballistic protection the M9 (or any handgun for that matter) should be severely limited in damage unless you go for headshots, armpits (ie where the torso is not protected by the vest) or the lower extremities (femoral artery anyone?). SMGs should also be limited in damage - especially if you engage an enemy with full-auto fire at more than 50 meters (and even that is pushing it).
I highly recommend the free Battlefield 2 mod
Project Reality. The G3 is in use by the MEC (the whole MEC. You have to go out and request the only one or two non G3 weapons in the entire faction, standardized weapons etc) is extremely powerful, only three or four torso shots, two or three extremity shots are required to bring down an enemy at any range you can hit them. The MP5 is used by the MEC for their crewman kit and is nearly entirely ineffective at ranges beyond 100m.
The mod also makes sweeping changes like requiring specific kits to operate some vehicles, removing parachutes from all non-pilot kits, slicing down the HUD to just a compass and a mag reserve/shot selector. Health isn't viewable, if you're below 85%, you bleed until you find medical aid or die. Ballistics and better penetration, nearly all new models/textures, bigger maps, kit requesting, etc. Shameless plug, but it sounds like your kind of game. It's not an arcade shooter and it's not a sim.
As for this game, keep in mind it's build to encourage the widest possible audience, and the widest possible audience hates the concept of realism within games. It is highly unlikely you'll see even semi-realistic weapon's balance implemented in P4F.
I personally like this game. Even though it's in beta. Still it's a great game.
BansheeOneOne, thank you for the intel - had not heard of Project Reality previously. I am aware that 100% realism will not ever be possible in a multi-player game, but I do think turning down the "volume" on the SMGs would be doable since they would not be affected in CQB (ie, if you play a huge map with a lot of wide open spaces leave the burp gun at home).
Good luck Farva, it's an overwhelming jump to make for most, but a rewarding one in my opinion.
Feel free to PM me here if you have further questions.
Ok First impression hey...i download it after waiting for ages and then it takes me an hour to find a game that actually runs.
and when i finaly get in its one hell of a let down, its buggy and really lowly textured, i was expection at least a LOT less bugs, sadly its a let down for me.
First Impression? It runs smoothly on my computer old computer. So that was good. I wish I could see the graphics like they are meant but, I got a good enough picture of the situation. I like what I see. I like it more than than BF:Heroes. I been looking for a more visually realistic FPS and this is it. Can't wait to see the aircrafts. I recently played BF:Vietnam, was in the passenger seat of a chopper. And I got to say, just being flown around was intense. Hopefully you can achieve something like that. Though maybe it was just how he was flying fast, low and through the trees. Anyway. Good job. Thanks for a FREE game. I appreciate it being a long time Battlefield player.
@Snezzey:
Seriously? They probably shouldn't be asking for our 1st impression on a BETA but you can see where they are going with this game. BUGS are part of a BETA test. At least the makers are actively looking for problems to fix. I've seen games released for sale and I swear they never did a BETA testing to catch the bugs before the game hits the market. This isn't even a DEMO. So we can't truly judge this game yet. Hopefully they can change your mind when the game is released.
My first impressions are as follows:
The game plays great! Although the rounds are rather short the time spent during those rounds can not be better spent on any other game!
The graphics are good for a Closed Beta game, although the G3 doesn't look quite as good as the other guns.
The pacing is spot on, never did i feel like it was going to fast or too slow.
The actual gameplay is extremely catchy and i actually like it better than the more "Known" FPS games.
The only thing lacking is a friend feature, i was trying to find a game with my friend but never even saw him
First Impression (after playing a total of 8 hrs or so
)
Pros:
-Great pace, nice fast tactical gameplay that depends on teamwork rather than solo play
-Rewarding gameplay, on-screen messages give a good sense of in-game achievement
-Considering this is a F2P game, the graphics are very nice and run smooth on my mediocre pc (on high setting)
Cons:
-Being a F2P game, it will attract a LOT of casual players that will go for fast kills, rather than teamwork. This is already evident in beta. This can seriously screw up the entire game.
-Jittery movement. Curbs, edges and low fences tend to interrupt your movement. (and it's not lag!)
-Grain effect is annoying.
-No option to choose spawnpoints or change class in-game (yet).
Overall, I'm having a blast playing the closed beta! Can't wait for it to go gold, with the shop up and running.
This game stands or falls with the functionality of the shop, imho. If there will be items that must be bought in order to stand a chance against players with $$$, I'm gone. No matter how much EA smooth-talked about earning VP to temporarily buy uberweapons in BFH, it completely took out the fun for me. Don't get me wrong, I will pay for customization, as long as it's not mandatory. I have yet to see a F2P game that understands this properly.
The game is pretty fun...only thing is connection issues and, please make it so we can get new weapons soon!
All around, considering 1 map. i think its pretty good, it is easy enough to figure out, the map is laid out really good imho.
the realm plays fairly smooth, everything looks great
thumbs up, +1
Well, after a few days of playing first I'd like to thank you guys for bringing battlefield to everyone. Battlefield series definitely are my priority one choice of MP shooter game, and it deserve to have more audience.
However as much as like the idea, I'd like to point out a few things that I'd like to think are missing or needs more work. That's why this place is and I believe that's why you'd prepare a community for open discussions, right?
First, there's a huge user interface problem of which lacks some certain options, one of which and most important of them all is region selection. If the game needs to be using match making mechanics, at the very least we should have the choice of selecting regions and changing them at will at anytime.
Game lacks a certain level of proper net coding I believe as I have too much lag and through other players in-game comment I'm sure I'm not the only one who has this issue.
my other major issue is that once we are in-game, we cannot change soldiers, equipment, weaponry and perks. In order to do all that we need to fist quit which will take time and one might experience problems connecting to another game, at least this was the problem that I had.
And somehow the game doesn't feel any close to it's final development stage, to me it's more like alpha or definitely pre-beta.
I can see the game is intended for much wider audience and I'm pretty sure this a game for much weaker machines, which is commendable but it lacks certain level of dept for veterans of battlefield series.
All in all I think you are on the right path and will make this better cause it has to live up to the standards that battlefield series set and at the same time satisfy those who intend to play it.
Need Prone position...Id rather go back and play BF2 at this point...
Out of bounds death penalty needs to be longer....died twice because of the 5 second BS.
Sensor ball needs major work.
Need a toggle crouch.
MANY connection problems......white strobe screen.....mouse icon gone...etc.
