STATIC3D
08-05-2005, 02:23 AM
I know Battlefield Vietnam has been out a while, but, I just recently picked up a copy (on the cheap...woohoo) and now I gotta biotch a bit...lol.
Okay, so after my experiences with EA/Dice in reguards to their "let's cash in with sequals rather than fix the game" methods in Battlefield 1942 (BF1942), I refused to purchase Battlefield Vietnam (BFV) on the new market. Don't get me wrong, BF1942 was a great game that brought a lot of good things together. However, EA/Dice's lack of support for offline/LAN players, via releasing new maps with NO AI, along with the previously mentioned issue, caused me to lose faith in their ability to release anything more than a slightly tweaked version of what was already out.
All of this meant that I would have to wait until I found a copy on the used market at a price I was willing to pay. I recently found a used copy for only $5. Figuring that I probably couldn't go wrong for just $5, I picked it up. I installed the game, downloaded/installed the latest patch and headed for battle. While I knew the graphics engine was updated from the previous BF1942 engine, I decided to drop the graphics quality down some in order to limit the impact on performance and thus gameplay (since my PC isn't the fastest thing in the world).
The game comes out of the box with 14 maps that can be played singleplayer (offline) or multiplayer (online/LAN). Unfortunately, 2 of these maps are the SAME map with only the control points having changed hands from one side to the other. While perhaps "historically" accurate (as is part of the aim of the game) it's a bit of a cop out from a gameplay perspective (kinda like backtracking used in many games to lengthen the gameplay).
In any case, there are more detailed graphics, new weapons, new vehicles, new sounds...all based around the Vietnam war era. One of the newest, and more interesting, additions to the game are the helicopters. While there was a "type" of helicopter in the BF1942 Secret Wars expansion, it was far from realistic. The copters in BFV are designed more to mirror their real world counterparts (much like the planes in BF1942 did). This works as a pro as well as a con.
On the pro side, it's pretty kul to be able to hover and take out targets, unlike planes that must make passes. The ability to land, pick up some people, take off again and continue the battle is neat too. The ability for some copters to be able to pick up and haul other vehicles (jeeps, boats, etc.) into other areas of the map adds a new type of dynamic to the battles (similar to a moble spawn point type of thing). You would think with all of these features, there wouldn't be much bad that could be said about the copters....keep reading.
The down, or con, side of the copters in BFV is the fact that they are DAMNED hard to fly. I have a joystick with twist handle as well as throttle capabilities and I still found it a pain to fly them sometimes. The problem comes from the fact that unlike the planes in BF1942 (as well as the jets in BFV), the copters in BFV use a MUCH more realstick flight model. A lot of the fun found in flying the planes/jets in BF1942/BFV came from their semi-arcade like flight models. Unfortunately, the helicopters are MUCH closer to a realistic flight model, which takes a LOT more effort to learn to fly well.
Perhaps it's just a "challenge" sort of thing. But, from my perspective, this was just one of those good aspects from the previous game (BF1942) that seemed a bit lost in this version (BFV). Even within the same game (BFV) there is a HUGE difference between the level of arcadish-ness to the controls of the jets and copters. The jets in BFV act essentially JUST like you would expect them to based upon how the prop planes in BF1942 handled. The copters are a WHOLE different story that just don't feel "right" when compared to flying the jets. (*side note: the jets almost seem to fly too slow when you consider how much space is being covered and the speed at which most jets must travel during flight...which makes the difference between them and the copters even that much more strange).
One of the biggest complaints I heard, and had, in BF1942 was the quality of the AI when playing offline/LAN (Co-Op) style play. Basically, the AI was often completely lopsided with or against you as the human player. For some reason, it was completely random, which could lead to not being able to use the same tactic as when you previously played a map (or, requiring you to do everything while the AI just sort of wandered around into battle). Another "interesting" example of AI would be when an enemy AI could be in the machine gunner position of a tank and take the plane you were piloting out of the sky in one single pass. Yet, when any of your AI were in a machine gunner position (say when you were driving the tank) they would often fail to do little (if any) damage to enemy planes flying over (giving them that many more opportunities to bomb your tank).
In any case, this was one area of BFV that I was really interested to see how, or if, it had been addressed. As it turns out, it seems as if little to NOTHING was done different with the AI in BFV. I found that 90% of the time the enemy AI was STILL focused COMPLETELY on me (even if my friendly AI was closer). I can understand this sort of thing happening once in a while. But, when you can notice it within the first 5 to 10 mins of gameplay...come one...geez. And, just like my previous example, the enemy AI often seem WAY more adept at being able to take out my forces than mine were able to do.
Let's just say that on a map with 5 control points (flags), the match can VERY easily go from owning 4 of the points (which took a while to capture) to only owning 1 in a matter of a few seconds or a couple of minutes. While this could happen online with good tactics/etc., it's COMPLETELY insane to see this sort of thing happening when it's AI vs AI (especially when it happens time and time again on the same initially balanced map).
All in all, I have to say that I am VERY glad I didn't go out and purchase a new copy of BFV thinking it was going to be a good extension of the BF(1942) universe/gameplay. Little to nothing beyond the graphics have been updated that make any real difference to the gameplay. Sure, you are fighting in dense jungles. But, when the AI can see THRU the foliage you are unable to, it's just not worth it.
Speaking of foliage/etc., the maps in BVF consist of dense jungles, small hills with water ways, rice patties, a small island and building to building bombed out cities. However, so many of the maps are designed so lopsided towards one side or another, there is little opportunity for true tactics to own a map. It basically breaks down to who can control one little choke point for the majority of the battle. While that may be a bit "realistic", it can also be boring to spam (or be spammed) the same damned point for the entire fight. That's not to mention it leaves very little room for actual tactics to win the battle.
And, after seeing what was done with the game, it's no wonder why BF1942 STILL has more players online than BFV. I don't know if it's the ability to more properly define the "good guys" from the "bad guys" in BF1942 (as compared to BFV) or the quality of the maps, but there is just something, even with the shortcomings of the game's AI/etc., that makes BF1942 a better game than BFV. It's games like BFV that just reinforce the reasons why I purchase most of my games on the used market.
*side note:
There is also the little fact that EA/Dice STILL released new maps in a patch for BFV that contained ABSOLUTELY NO AI SUPPORT. This just means no offline or LAN/online Co-Op play on ANY of the newly released maps...JUST like BF1942. Smooth move j@ck@sses.
Allow me to expand on that. Say a game sells 500,000 copies. Out of those 500,000 copies there will be a certain percentage of players that will play online all the time. Let's say that's 25%. Another portion of that 500,000 will play online every once in a while, perhaps some times online, sometimes offline (against the AI). Let's say that's 25%. The next portion of players may play the game online once or twice, just to check it out, but will spend all the rest of their time with the game playing offline (or in a LAN/Co-Op) way. Let's say that's 25% as well. That leaves a remaining 25% that will NEVER play the game online. Perhaps they play the game offline ALL the time, or, they play the game and don't find it fun enough to go online (perhaps trading it in for credit or selling it on eBay). In any case, you can see that overall there is a MAJORITY of people that are playing offline vs those playing online.
It would seem pretty simple to figure out if you are failing to support the majority of your audience, you are making a bit of a mistake. Even if you discount my entire previous example, it's REAL simple to figure out where the majority of a game's audience is...take the number of copies sold and compare it to the number of copies that are played online regularly. If the MAJORITY of the copies are not played online regularly, tada, it's not hard to figure out where most of the people are playing the game...(duh, offline or LAN/Co-OP).
I know I went off a bit about this game. But, it's junk like this that makes me realize how stupid some companies can be. I have to say that it makes me a bit happy to see that the previous game (BF1942) STILL is doing better online. I just wish companies would learn from crap like this and stop trying to simply "cash in" on the popularity of something by throwing a new coat of paint and expecting us to think it's something better. Anywho, I found about 3 of the maps in BFV that I would go back and play on a regular basis (as being truely fun). Not bad for $5, glad it wasn't $50...hehe.
Okay, so after my experiences with EA/Dice in reguards to their "let's cash in with sequals rather than fix the game" methods in Battlefield 1942 (BF1942), I refused to purchase Battlefield Vietnam (BFV) on the new market. Don't get me wrong, BF1942 was a great game that brought a lot of good things together. However, EA/Dice's lack of support for offline/LAN players, via releasing new maps with NO AI, along with the previously mentioned issue, caused me to lose faith in their ability to release anything more than a slightly tweaked version of what was already out.
All of this meant that I would have to wait until I found a copy on the used market at a price I was willing to pay. I recently found a used copy for only $5. Figuring that I probably couldn't go wrong for just $5, I picked it up. I installed the game, downloaded/installed the latest patch and headed for battle. While I knew the graphics engine was updated from the previous BF1942 engine, I decided to drop the graphics quality down some in order to limit the impact on performance and thus gameplay (since my PC isn't the fastest thing in the world).
The game comes out of the box with 14 maps that can be played singleplayer (offline) or multiplayer (online/LAN). Unfortunately, 2 of these maps are the SAME map with only the control points having changed hands from one side to the other. While perhaps "historically" accurate (as is part of the aim of the game) it's a bit of a cop out from a gameplay perspective (kinda like backtracking used in many games to lengthen the gameplay).
In any case, there are more detailed graphics, new weapons, new vehicles, new sounds...all based around the Vietnam war era. One of the newest, and more interesting, additions to the game are the helicopters. While there was a "type" of helicopter in the BF1942 Secret Wars expansion, it was far from realistic. The copters in BFV are designed more to mirror their real world counterparts (much like the planes in BF1942 did). This works as a pro as well as a con.
On the pro side, it's pretty kul to be able to hover and take out targets, unlike planes that must make passes. The ability to land, pick up some people, take off again and continue the battle is neat too. The ability for some copters to be able to pick up and haul other vehicles (jeeps, boats, etc.) into other areas of the map adds a new type of dynamic to the battles (similar to a moble spawn point type of thing). You would think with all of these features, there wouldn't be much bad that could be said about the copters....keep reading.
The down, or con, side of the copters in BFV is the fact that they are DAMNED hard to fly. I have a joystick with twist handle as well as throttle capabilities and I still found it a pain to fly them sometimes. The problem comes from the fact that unlike the planes in BF1942 (as well as the jets in BFV), the copters in BFV use a MUCH more realstick flight model. A lot of the fun found in flying the planes/jets in BF1942/BFV came from their semi-arcade like flight models. Unfortunately, the helicopters are MUCH closer to a realistic flight model, which takes a LOT more effort to learn to fly well.
Perhaps it's just a "challenge" sort of thing. But, from my perspective, this was just one of those good aspects from the previous game (BF1942) that seemed a bit lost in this version (BFV). Even within the same game (BFV) there is a HUGE difference between the level of arcadish-ness to the controls of the jets and copters. The jets in BFV act essentially JUST like you would expect them to based upon how the prop planes in BF1942 handled. The copters are a WHOLE different story that just don't feel "right" when compared to flying the jets. (*side note: the jets almost seem to fly too slow when you consider how much space is being covered and the speed at which most jets must travel during flight...which makes the difference between them and the copters even that much more strange).
One of the biggest complaints I heard, and had, in BF1942 was the quality of the AI when playing offline/LAN (Co-Op) style play. Basically, the AI was often completely lopsided with or against you as the human player. For some reason, it was completely random, which could lead to not being able to use the same tactic as when you previously played a map (or, requiring you to do everything while the AI just sort of wandered around into battle). Another "interesting" example of AI would be when an enemy AI could be in the machine gunner position of a tank and take the plane you were piloting out of the sky in one single pass. Yet, when any of your AI were in a machine gunner position (say when you were driving the tank) they would often fail to do little (if any) damage to enemy planes flying over (giving them that many more opportunities to bomb your tank).
In any case, this was one area of BFV that I was really interested to see how, or if, it had been addressed. As it turns out, it seems as if little to NOTHING was done different with the AI in BFV. I found that 90% of the time the enemy AI was STILL focused COMPLETELY on me (even if my friendly AI was closer). I can understand this sort of thing happening once in a while. But, when you can notice it within the first 5 to 10 mins of gameplay...come one...geez. And, just like my previous example, the enemy AI often seem WAY more adept at being able to take out my forces than mine were able to do.
Let's just say that on a map with 5 control points (flags), the match can VERY easily go from owning 4 of the points (which took a while to capture) to only owning 1 in a matter of a few seconds or a couple of minutes. While this could happen online with good tactics/etc., it's COMPLETELY insane to see this sort of thing happening when it's AI vs AI (especially when it happens time and time again on the same initially balanced map).
All in all, I have to say that I am VERY glad I didn't go out and purchase a new copy of BFV thinking it was going to be a good extension of the BF(1942) universe/gameplay. Little to nothing beyond the graphics have been updated that make any real difference to the gameplay. Sure, you are fighting in dense jungles. But, when the AI can see THRU the foliage you are unable to, it's just not worth it.
Speaking of foliage/etc., the maps in BVF consist of dense jungles, small hills with water ways, rice patties, a small island and building to building bombed out cities. However, so many of the maps are designed so lopsided towards one side or another, there is little opportunity for true tactics to own a map. It basically breaks down to who can control one little choke point for the majority of the battle. While that may be a bit "realistic", it can also be boring to spam (or be spammed) the same damned point for the entire fight. That's not to mention it leaves very little room for actual tactics to win the battle.
And, after seeing what was done with the game, it's no wonder why BF1942 STILL has more players online than BFV. I don't know if it's the ability to more properly define the "good guys" from the "bad guys" in BF1942 (as compared to BFV) or the quality of the maps, but there is just something, even with the shortcomings of the game's AI/etc., that makes BF1942 a better game than BFV. It's games like BFV that just reinforce the reasons why I purchase most of my games on the used market.
*side note:
There is also the little fact that EA/Dice STILL released new maps in a patch for BFV that contained ABSOLUTELY NO AI SUPPORT. This just means no offline or LAN/online Co-Op play on ANY of the newly released maps...JUST like BF1942. Smooth move j@ck@sses.
Allow me to expand on that. Say a game sells 500,000 copies. Out of those 500,000 copies there will be a certain percentage of players that will play online all the time. Let's say that's 25%. Another portion of that 500,000 will play online every once in a while, perhaps some times online, sometimes offline (against the AI). Let's say that's 25%. The next portion of players may play the game online once or twice, just to check it out, but will spend all the rest of their time with the game playing offline (or in a LAN/Co-Op) way. Let's say that's 25% as well. That leaves a remaining 25% that will NEVER play the game online. Perhaps they play the game offline ALL the time, or, they play the game and don't find it fun enough to go online (perhaps trading it in for credit or selling it on eBay). In any case, you can see that overall there is a MAJORITY of people that are playing offline vs those playing online.
It would seem pretty simple to figure out if you are failing to support the majority of your audience, you are making a bit of a mistake. Even if you discount my entire previous example, it's REAL simple to figure out where the majority of a game's audience is...take the number of copies sold and compare it to the number of copies that are played online regularly. If the MAJORITY of the copies are not played online regularly, tada, it's not hard to figure out where most of the people are playing the game...(duh, offline or LAN/Co-OP).
I know I went off a bit about this game. But, it's junk like this that makes me realize how stupid some companies can be. I have to say that it makes me a bit happy to see that the previous game (BF1942) STILL is doing better online. I just wish companies would learn from crap like this and stop trying to simply "cash in" on the popularity of something by throwing a new coat of paint and expecting us to think it's something better. Anywho, I found about 3 of the maps in BFV that I would go back and play on a regular basis (as being truely fun). Not bad for $5, glad it wasn't $50...hehe.