| Forums-> Main forum-> New Battlefield: Bad Company screens: 1 2 >> |
| Author | Message |
| sogge Since 1511 Days |
2007-06-20 10:54:16 New Battlefield: Bad Company screens Looking really good! http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/713/713943/imgs... |
| Sath Missed the hay Since 1403 Days |
2007-06-20 11:37:00 I saw them in GameReactor I got like 2 days ago, man it looks amazing. --- |
| Bingham67 Since 1154 Days |
2007-06-20 15:11:52 Nice :) |
| mt_sabao Since 967 Days |
2007-06-20 16:27:34 oh my! o.O |
| mt_sabao Since 967 Days |
2007-06-20 16:33:44 i just hope they don't let multiplayer in second plane, and that it maintains the complexity and infinite level of fun as the other previous versions (Bf2, Bf2142). Will surely be looking forward to this single player, but i really look forward is to a good multiplayer experience on the xbox, because since i switched from the pc some months ago, nothing as really been as fullfiling as the multiplayer Battlefield (2, 2142) on the PC (and no, definitely not Halo 3 :/ ...) |
| Acert93 Mr. Bad Cop Since 1507 Days |
2007-06-20 16:45:52 If you're a Battlefield fan, you may be wondering what the fuss is over a single player game. That isn't what the series has traditionally been about. DICE isn't looking to ignore the online game. Instead, it is expanding the game in an attempt to draw in new players that don't see a multiplayer focused game as worth picking up. We were assured that everything we saw for the single player game would exist in the 24 player online modes. --- |
| Acert93 Mr. Bad Cop Since 1507 Days |
2007-06-20 17:00:37 In reply to mt_sabao (2007-06-20 16:33:44) Posted by mt_sabao i just hope they don't let multiplayer in second plane, and that it maintains the complexity and infinite level of fun as the other previous versions (Bf2, Bf2142). Will surely be looking forward to this single player, but i really look forward is to a good multiplayer experience on the xbox, because since i switched from the pc some months ago, nothing as really been as fullfiling as the multiplayer Battlefield (2, 2142) on the PC (and no, definitely not Halo 3 :/ ...) That said the Xbox/PC are getting some good MP games outside of Halo 3, at the tip of my tongue are Quake Wars (BF like game from Splash Damage, makers of the first Enemy Territory), Team Fortress 2 by Valve, Call of Duty 4 by Ininity Ward, and Brother in Arms by GearBox. Those are going to be some good-to-killer MP games. --- |
| Inflatable Since 2174 Days |
2007-06-20 18:03:44 In reply to Acert93 (2007-06-20 16:45:52) Posted by Acert93 SOLD. 24 is not 64 (which tend to be too laggy imo), but with all their tech I can live with 24 if well designed. --- |
| deftangel Hot stuff! Since 1404 Days |
2007-06-20 18:22:10 Some of those screens were in the latest issue of Edge which also ran a feature on the game. Must say looks like it's coming along and it certainly piqued my interest in the game. A good read if you can get a copy. |
| Acert93 Mr. Bad Cop Since 1507 Days |
2007-06-20 18:46:34 In reply to Inflatable (2007-06-20 18:03:44) Posted by Inflatable 64 players doesn't have to be laggy at all.. It works perfectly on the PC.. But it requires dedicated servers, and that's something XBL doesn't offer.. Maybe the PS3 version will.. I have ran a number of BF, 42 and 2, servers and the resources necessary to get a smooth experience on all of their offerings... yeah, not pretty. Most *dedicated* BF servers in facillities that host 64 player games are laggy (be it insufficient outbound/inbound bandwidth, insufficient memory or proc cycles, etc). Having played for years and frequently a variety of clan TS channels I would say this is nearly universally the experience of everyone I have played with. We tested quite a few server facilities (interestingly I used to work in the data center industry in the US) for our clan and the cost for getting a solid 64 player server in regards to system resources as well as server/datacenter connectivity was high due to the limited number of folks able to deliver such. Of course you live in Europe so that may substantially different. But by tracing your IP/Network I can see that you would have a horrible time in my area of the East Coast getting access to a solid server, let alone a 64 player one (not just a horrible ping, but also very erratic packet loss). I am *not* saying it is impossible. I have played on some nice 64 player LANs. I have also, on rare occassion, found servers that were geographically close and resource adequate and ran well. But that would be the point: in the US (by far the biggest market for this) this scenario is rare. There are far more crappy 64 player servers out there than good ones. Dare I say most server admins tend to lean toward more people versus capping at the right level for a smooth experience (i.e. the server tanking as it becomes full). On BFBC, I do wonder how they will be handling dynamic destruction online. If it is truly dynamic they will need to do the damage server side then send the clients the resultant data. Being dynamic if I shoot a wall with a rocket, and send that contact data to 64 clients, it will be different 64 times in terms of fracture points and such. Anyway they do it they are talking about a significant increase in server processing as well as data tranmission--you have 24 players + all their weapons being fires + [now!] all the building "states and status" as well as the debris. I wouldn't be surprised if they were requiring ded servers. I definately don't see how the Xbox 360 is going to handle this game, with 24 players, on most US connections. While downstream bandwidth is growing, upstream data transmission is the pits in most areas. Most of us are on cable or DSL -- and in many cases most would struggle to serve 12 players of most online games -- so 24 with complex/dynamic environments is going to be interesting to see. @ Deft: DICE was independant until EA threatened a hostile takeover. So is it fair to call them an EA product? :| --- |
| alimokrane Since 1466 Days |
2007-06-20 18:59:41 I hate to be a party pooper but like any EA game this would end up looking less impressive than those screens but EA is more than welcome to prove me wrongf. We will see but I aint getting excited yet. /crosses fingers! --- |
| Acert93 Mr. Bad Cop Since 1507 Days |
2007-06-20 19:19:23 In reply to alimokrane (2007-06-20 18:59:41) Posted by alimokrane I hate to be a party pooper but like any EA game this would end up looking less impressive than those screens but EA is more than welcome to prove me wrongf. We will see but I aint getting excited yet. /crosses fingers! --- |
| GriftGFX He can also ban your ass! Since 1536 Days |
2007-06-20 20:25:00 I'm not a big fan of the console BF games, but this is looking pretty good. BF2 would never work on consoles.. so they're doing something different. That's okay with me. |
| Phaethon360 Mr Pant Since 1382 Days |
2007-06-20 20:46:29 Do want! --- |
| mt_sabao Since 967 Days |
2007-06-20 22:40:32 In reply to GriftGFX (2007-06-20 20:25:00) Posted by GriftGFX BF2 would never work on consoles.. so they're doing something different. That's okay with me. |
| GriftGFX He can also ban your ass! Since 1536 Days |
2007-06-20 23:56:51 In reply to mt_sabao (2007-06-20 22:40:32) Posted by mt_sabao Care to elaborate? Lack of the speed of the Kb/m? Can't see why. It would me much slower i guess, is that what you mean? Quake Wars and Frontlines will probably be a bit more suited to console schemes since they were both being developed with that in mind from the beginning. After played ETQW I do think movement will be a bit clunkier on the pad.. but it'll probably work. |
| mt_sabao Since 967 Days |
2007-06-21 09:35:32 let' see then, let's see. |
| anm8rjp Since 2233 Days |
2007-12-19 05:02:01 Great looking tech video showcasing the destructible environments in Battlefield Bad Company. |
| KORNdog Since 940 Days |
2007-12-19 05:45:40 visually its very nice, but from what i've seen of the gamplay it seems to play like modern combat...which isnt great, everything looked very "big" and clunky....its hard to explain. it lacks fluidity i guess, and i dont mean from a technical standpoint like framerate (although its not looking very slooth there either) it just looks cumbersome to me. i dunno, we'll see. |
| GriftGFX He can also ban your ass! Since 1536 Days |
2007-12-19 05:58:52 Well, it is Modern Combat 2. It just has a campaign, some character, and destructible environments. Oh, and hype. |
| Milhouse Since 941 Days |
2007-12-19 10:20:29 In reply to GriftGFX (2007-12-19 05:58:52) Posted by GriftGFX Well, it is Modern Combat 2. It just has a campaign, some character, and destructible environments. Oh, and hype. And BF MC has had a campaign. Just there were not as many cut scenes as in CoD4 or there were no pseudo squad doesn't mean there were no campaign at all. One of the main features of the MC campaign was that you can play all your team-mates by transfering control from one character to another. So you have to make choices how to best utilize all you team-mates to complete the objectives. |
| GriftGFX He can also ban your ass! Since 1536 Days |
2007-12-19 10:50:50 In reply to Milhouse (2007-12-19 10:20:29) Posted by Milhouse What hype are you talking about? Compared to CoD4 there is virtually no hype at all. And BF MC has had a campaign. Just there were not as many cut scenes as in CoD4 or there were no pseudo squad doesn't mean there were no campaign at all. One of the main features of the MC campaign was that you can play all your team-mates by transfering control from one character to another. So you have to make choices how to best utilize all you team-mates to complete the objectives. What matters (to me) is that the class model closely resembles BFMC, and that it lacks the things that made BF2 a leap forward for the franchise. Bad Company should please fans of Modern Combat, or people looking for a simple approach to class based FPS on consoles.. but I'm waiting for DICE to reveal the goods on BF3 myself. |
| Inflatable Since 2174 Days |
2007-12-19 11:59:50 In reply to Acert93 (2007-06-20 18:46:34) Posted by Acert93 Dedicated servers alone aren't even sufficient as 64 player servers are in need of not only high system resources but also great up-/down- stream bandwidth as well as sufficient "access" via the backbone (e.g. a high speed connection in boonsville Montana isn't going to be nearly as good as one in Chicago, New York, Dallas, Atlanta, Seattle, or LA -- all major hubs where there is major convergence of carriers). So I don't know what hardware or connections the servers you ran were on, but 64 players lagfree shouldn't be a problem at all if you have the right resources, and all the players on it are not to far away.. For XBL that's where proper matchmaking should come in, searching the best local server possible.. --- |
| Milhouse Since 941 Days |
2007-12-19 12:14:56 In reply to GriftGFX (2007-12-19 10:50:50) Posted by GriftGFX There's plenty of relative hype, compared to the first installment in the series. And I think it's pretty obvious that the campaign here is more of a focal point than it was in the first Modern Combat.. they're dressing it up with loads of character and I would imagine a better story to back it up. Those Bad Company videos reflects this issues on a very ironc way. It's all relative--compared to Halo 3--Call of Duty has virtually no hype at all. It doesn't mean that there's no hype. What matters (to me) is that the class model closely resembles BFMC, and that it lacks the things that made BF2 a leap forward for the franchise. Bad Company should please fans of Modern Combat, or people looking for a simple approach to class based FPS on consoles.. but I'm waiting for DICE to reveal the goods on BF3 myself. |
| GriftGFX He can also ban your ass! Since 1536 Days |
2007-12-19 15:55:58 In reply to Milhouse (2007-12-19 12:14:56) Posted by Milhouse Well, wherefrom you know that the class model will be not improved compared to Modern Combat? Maybe it's like Modern Combat, maybe not. ETQW also comes to consoles and would be the first FPS of the NextGen consoles that provides the most complex class model (on consoles). So, it could be possible that the class model will be improved to be competive. Posted by Milhouse I don't agree. CoD4 was THE game on E3 2006, it was more hyped than HALO 3 or Killzone 2. HALO 3 may have a bigger advertising campaign, but i wouldn't say the hype is bigger than CoD4. Maybe a little more, but not really worth to mention. |
| Forums-> Main forum-> New Battlefield: Bad Company screens: 1 2 >> |
You have to be logged in to post in this forum!
Log in
- 7 Final Fantasy XIII trailer
- 7 Splatterhouse bloody images
- 4 Ryu Ga Gotoku 4 trailer
- 3 Darksiders weapons trailer
- 20 Crackdown 2 images
- 16 Bayonetta: Transformations
- 3 Avatar multiplayer video
Top stories
About
- Copyright 2007-2009 Gamersyde SARL