BF 2142 Fileplanet Beta

wow i cant believe some of u guys went and paid to play the beta of BF2142. :eek:

To the rest of you guys planning to pay for the Beta. Save your money and put it toward the actual game or lapdances.
 
I keep a fileplanet account for easy access to stuff. I certainly wouldnt pay extra or go out of my way for this dreck.
 
For your Info..my Key was given to me...

Got it from PlanetBattlefield on IRC..

up to Corporal...and 2 unlocks...liking the game..and Mechs are wickedly the shit!!
 
Every server I try to connect too, I either can't connect at all or I get booted once im in game. What the hell is goin on?
 
I got the beta from my FP sub. I'm having a lot of fun playing with it. Being commander and driving the titan around with the 4 main guns blazing is a lot of fun. It has some bugs (especially on the server side, they crash) but it's still fun to play around with. Haven't decided whether or not I will get the full game yet. Maybe I'll wait for the final version demo (assuming there is one).
 
Yeah, let's just hope the people playing the beta are paying more attention to recording and reporting the bugs and such so DICE can fix them, rather than just going "OMGosh I get 2 play BF2123214 beta!!!" and then pissing and moaning about how broken the game is when it's released.

Perhaps. Maybe i'm just being silly - I know how we all love to whinge.
 
Wildace said:
its bf2 engine there is no official wide screen only the top and bottom cut off trick
Click to expand...

if this is true then won't the game have the same bugs that bf2 has now? or did dice take the time to fix the bugs
 
Well WS is also a cheat according to many. It gives an overall advantage over the one who are still in 4:3.

I saw the screenshoot difference in Counter-strike source and it's obvious that with WS you have a very large vision angle and can see ennemies comming you couldn't possibly see before.

EA really suck since their last few games, not that I didn't enjoy the game, but the fact that I actually had to pay or pre-order the game to play their !/$&*_ beta ! :eek:

I'd have much more prefered seeing a new game engine than a new WS support, but as both of them aren't a concern for EA ...
 
I paid for a fileplanet account yestruday so i could get the beta only to find out that fileplent was fuckign lying.... Such bullshit....
 
The game is pretty cool, its nice to run around without getting mauled with arty every 5 seconds.
 
fodder0 said:
after you signed up did you get an immediate acceptance email?
Click to expand...


It siad I was prescreened and accepted but that all beta slots have been filled and that I would be notified when it was my turn. However I never recieved any email whatsoever.....
 
This initial release of the beta was only for people that EA randomly selected AND had FP subscriber access. Next week the beta should be released to all FP subscribers.
 
Lack of widescreen support is annoying. Hell, Unreal Tournament, the original supports 1920x1200, and thats what7 years old?


BF2 still feels like beta, I cant imagine how bad 2142 will feel at this stage.
 
po134 said:
Well WS is also a cheat according to many. It gives an overall advantage over the one who are still in 4:3.

I saw the screenshoot difference in Counter-strike source and it's obvious that with WS you have a very large vision angle and can see ennemies comming you couldn't possibly see before.

EA really suck since their last few games, not that I didn't enjoy the game, but the fact that I actually had to pay or pre-order the game to play their !/$&*_ beta ! :eek:

I'd have much more prefered seeing a new game engine than a new WS support, but as both of them aren't a concern for EA ...
Click to expand...


Well the "many" are full of crap. Having a current gen vid card is a huge advantage over some guy 2 gens back. There is no level playing field when it comes to hardware.

You don't see people bemoaning the support of the latest video cards because it's unfair that the people that can afford them get higher FPS do you?
 
Is it really that hard to incorporate wide screen? I mean... they built a whole entire 3D engine and game from scratch, yet they have trouble putting in a few lines of code to allow a different resolution? Or is it just more difficult than I think?
 
jaguax said:
Is it really that hard to incorporate wide screen? I mean... they built a whole entire 3D engine and game from scratch, yet they have trouble putting in a few lines of code to allow a different resolution? Or is it just more difficult than I think?
Click to expand...

2142 IS the BF2 engine. They didn't make a new one. I have no idea how hard it is to code in widescreen, though.
 
YARDofSTUF said:
BF2 still feels like beta, I cant imagine how bad 2142 will feel at this stage.
Click to expand...

Well, BF2 feels remarkably polished after playing 2142 if that helps describe where the game is at today. It is a beta but I am shocked that a rework of BF2 could feel so poor in comparison, especially at this stage in the development timeline. I wonder how many people actually work on this stuff - it seems to me that there may be only one guy that does all the patch work. The infantry side I find to be in need of the most work. The movement is incredibly rubbery - far worse than BF2 and I consider UT & CS to be the gold standards in terms of infantry "feel." The tanks, on the other hand feel incredible; a massive improvement over BF2; very crisp with an appropriate amount of weight. I haven't had a chance to play a walker yet, but am anxious to do so. Theyre very imposing on the battlefield.

The weapon damage is ridiculously low; it takes far too many tank shells to kill anything and I was circle strafed by a helo/hoverthingy while in a troop carrier all the while being pelted by rockets and miniguns and took very little damage.

Graphically the game is very nice. Performance is very good, on par with BF2 which I know isnt saying much but I like to colors in the beta map; reminds me of Bocage in terms of setting and hue. I'm looking forward to some US servers being up tonight - perhaps my issues with the infantry play will be diminished with a ping under 170. ;)
 
Cabezone said:
Well the "many" are full of crap. Having a current gen vid card is a huge advantage over some guy 2 gens back. There is no level playing field when it comes to hardware.QUOTE]

Not really. Since they have no choice but to turn off all the pretty stuff, shadows, dynamic lights, particles and whatnot they actually end up having a much clearer view of the game than someone with a nice machine and settings all the way up does.

Try playing BF2 someday with all the settings turned down. It'll be ugly as sin, but noone is going to be able to hide frmo you in the shadows or behind grass.

-wil
Click to expand...
 
Ya you can see more with widescreen when its real widescreen, good for us widescreen peeps. You get cooler effects with physics cards for games that support that too and broadband people get better pings(typically).

Its just how it is.
 
Cabezone said:
You're missing the point. It feel much more natural to game in widescreen than it does in 4:3. For those of us that have become accustomed to widescreen in the latest games it feels constrained to play in 4:3. It's more noticable in RTS and MMORPG's than shooters, since those benifit greatly from the extra screen real estate. For FPS it's more for the natural feel of it.

It's also one of the easiest features to add to a game. It's not like adding in SM3 or something of that nature. It jsut requires a couple lines of code.
Click to expand...

if widescreen is something you had to grow accustomed to, then that contradicts your statement about it being more natural. widescreen is only more screen real estate if the developer decides it is so, its the same with 4:3.
 
pigwalk said:
Not really. Since they have no choice but to turn off all the pretty stuff, shadows, dynamic lights, particles and whatnot they actually end up having a much clearer view of the game than someone with a nice machine and settings all the way up does.
Click to expand...

I disagree, some higher graphic settings actually help gameplay. Shadows let you see people around corners. Better graphics cards in battlefield2 are able to not worry about drawdistance, either.

Regardless, both computers have the option to use lower settings and the newer graphics card will have higher frames per a second doing so. This is vital in battlefield 2. I have a 6800, but because of it's lower ram, it sometimes chugs when I turn around to shoot. My roommate's faster video card does not do this regardless of settings.

Bo_Bice said:
if widescreen is something you had to grow accustomed to, then that contradicts your statement about it being more natural. widescreen is only more screen real estate if the developer decides it is so, its the same with 4:3.
Click to expand...

He used the phrase "becomes accustomed to", which means for someone who frequently practices using a widescreen. This doesn't mean he had to adjust, he means that his frequent use of something which he states is more natural makes it harder to do something less natural.

Example: if I became accustomed to a car, it would be difficult for me to use an 18 wheeler. If I became accustomed to an 18 wheeler, I imagine it would not be as difficult for me to use a car, since it is more natural.
Or even: if I became accustomed to using a pen to write, it would be difficult for me to use an ink feather to write. If I became accustomed to an ink feather to write, I imagine it would not be as difficult for me to use a pen, since it is more natural.
 
16:9 is more natural as the human eye can see more easily side to side than up and down. It is hard to go back to 4:3 because it feels so constricted and less natural.

This really shouldn't even be an argument.

Any developer who can't add in a few lines of code to chain the field of view and add a resolution is just plain lazy.

The competitive argument is also silly. What about the people with high end headphones or 5.1 speakers? They can "see" behind them. What about people with better graphics cards who see things sharper and at a higher framerate? It is just more natural.

Most people who argue this are DICE !!!!!!s who will sadly believe some bullshit statement because the devloper is lazy/stuck in their ways. Or just people who can't afford widescreen and don't want to see people with that luxury because it makes them feel bad.
 
I'm not saying I would not like to have a 16x9 monitor with every single game supporting it ,I'm only telling facts. (and having a real one myself)

In some games turning off everything and playing @ultra LOW setting will help you as there's no real dark on the map (such as doom3 / quake 4 for example where the low-setting machine can see people hiding in the dark, etc)

In other games as in Source game it gives you an advantage to have a good computer because you can see people camping at every corner (God knows how many times some newbs cried "hacker" out loud during my frag night :p)

On the WideScreen Side:
Yes I'm sure it feels way better and natural to play on these res, but the fact that it let's you see people others don' see is unfair just as playing in low-setting in BF2 delete the grass where people like me are usually hiding to stab them in the back.
Both have an advantage over the other and I was just mentionning that fact

my monitor support WS even though it's a 4:3 CRT, but I have rectangular box on the top and buttom of my screenso that I don't like at all!)

But if I'm following you correctly it would make SENSE that we, with good computers, have a more long-range vision than what we have now ? After all our computer can handle it easily ... there's my point: All of those facts influence gameplay and developper try to keep the gameplay/visual with new tech at a level where both low-end and high-end player can enjoy the game.
 
Anyone able to confirm (*cough* beta *cough*) if it does or does not support widescreen res? From the sounds of things it won't but I'd like to know for sure.

Battlefield's gameplay is fun so I'm willing to put up with some bugs and even the BF2 load times but this is 2006 and the HDTV/widescreen monitor userbase is growing and growing and they NEED to support it. If not I'll probably skip this one.
 
Opie said:
Well, BF2 feels remarkably polished after playing 2142 if that helps describe where the game is at today. It is a beta but I am shocked that a rework of BF2 could feel so poor in comparison, especially at this stage in the development timeline. I wonder how many people actually work on this stuff - it seems to me that there may be only one guy that does all the patch work. The infantry side I find to be in need of the most work. The movement is incredibly rubbery - far worse than BF2 and I consider UT & CS to be the gold standards in terms of infantry "feel." The tanks, on the other hand feel incredible; a massive improvement over BF2; very crisp with an appropriate amount of weight. I haven't had a chance to play a walker yet, but am anxious to do so. Theyre very imposing on the battlefield.

The weapon damage is ridiculously low; it takes far too many tank shells to kill anything and I was circle strafed by a helo/hoverthingy while in a troop carrier all the while being pelted by rockets and miniguns and took very little damage.

Graphically the game is very nice. Performance is very good, on par with BF2 which I know isnt saying much but I like to colors in the beta map; reminds me of Bocage in terms of setting and hue. I'm looking forward to some US servers being up tonight - perhaps my issues with the infantry play will be diminished with a ping under 170. ;)
Click to expand...

If you ever played Vietnam, that isn't that shocking.

Are the maps just as bland and boring as BF2? Screenshots certainly havn't excited me.
 
powersurge said:
Anyone able to confirm (*cough* beta *cough*) if it does or does not support widescreen res? From the sounds of things it won't but I'd like to know for sure.

Battlefield's gameplay is fun so I'm willing to put up with some bugs and even the BF2 load times but this is 2006 and the HDTV/widescreen monitor userbase is growing and growing and they NEED to support it. If not I'll probably skip this one.
Click to expand...

There will be NO widescreen support built-in to BF2142. That is from EA on their forums.
 
kaddar said:
He used the phrase "becomes accustomed to", which means for someone who frequently practices using a widescreen. This doesn't mean he had to adjust, he means that his frequent use of something which he states is more natural makes it harder to do something less natural.

Example: if I became accustomed to a car, it would be difficult for me to use an 18 wheeler. If I became accustomed to an 18 wheeler, I imagine it would not be as difficult for me to use a car, since it is more natural.
Or even: if I became accustomed to using a pen to write, it would be difficult for me to use an ink feather to write. If I became accustomed to an ink feather to write, I imagine it would not be as difficult for me to use a pen, since it is more natural.
Click to expand...

its a nice thought, but not everyone agrees that widescreen is more natural despite what any pointless studies prove. many people convince themselves to like widescreen, because they tell themselves its more space on the sides, when in reality it could be less space on the top and bottom depending on the application.
 
Once you've moved past the 20" mark all thats left is widescreen displays. If you want more resolution there are no other options.

Why everyone complains about adding native widescreen support in both FOV and resolutions it is that it should be a relatively simple thing to add into the code. It would also be nice to have a non-stretched widescreen HUD as well, but thats kind of secondary.

The amusing thing is that widescreen users will have an advantage in all cases. Leave it as is and we have an advantage in infantry combat as all objects are ~20% larger when using widescreen res, add correct 16:10/16:9 FOV options and we will be able to see more horizontally. (they could let anyone use the wider fov, you'll get skinny people though)
 
squeezee said:
Once you've moved past the 20" mark all thats left is widescreen displays. If you want more resolution there are no other options.
Click to expand...

there were no options for the jews other than going to concentration camps during ww2, but that doesn't make concentration camps great places to go.

squeezee said:
Why everyone complains about adding native widescreen support in both FOV and resolutions it is that it should be a relatively simple thing to add into the code. It would also be nice to have a non-stretched widescreen HUD as well, but thats kind of secondary.

The amusing thing is that widescreen users will have an advantage in all cases. Leave it as is and we have an advantage in infantry combat as all objects are ~20% larger when using widescreen res, add correct 16:10/16:9 FOV options and we will be able to see more horizontally. (they could let anyone use the wider fov, you'll get skinny people though)
Click to expand...

no actually. if a game has support for true widescreen support, then widescreen will have the advantage and 4:3 monitors will have to settle for skinny looking things to see everything. if a game has no widescreen support, 4:3 people will be right at home, and widescreen users will have to settle for chopped off top and bottoms or fat looking things.

if a widescreen user wants to play a game where only 4:3 is supported AND doesn't want things looking weird, since the top and bottoms are cut off, you will be walking along and oops! a ninja was hanging from the ceiling and you didn't see him, and you die..or you are walking along and oh crap! little spiky caltrops are on the floor and you step on them and get hurt, but they are poisoned you eventually DIE.

but you would be right if you were comparing a widescreen monitor to a 4:3 monitor with the same height, but that would be an unfair comparison. therefore you must be exiled to the earths core forever
 
deathBOB said:
If you ever played Vietnam, that isn't that shocking.

Are the maps just as bland and boring as BF2? Screenshots certainly havn't excited me.
Click to expand...
I definately like the maps, well, map, better than bf2. It feels much more realistic. It's hard to describe. You just have to play it. Disregarding the server crashes (they're fixing this today supposedly), I'm having a lot of fun playing the beta.
 
WhyYouLoveMe said:
There will be NO widescreen support built-in to BF2142. That is from EA on their forums.
Click to expand...

Ah thats a bummer then. Dig the gameplay but there are many other good games comming this fall. Guess I'll skip this one then. :mad:
 
You should probably skip it alltogether. Even on domestic servers it sucks.
 
Bo_Bice said:
there were no options for the jews other than going to concentration camps during ww2, but that doesn't make concentration camps great places to go.
Click to expand...

Uh oh! Godwin'd!
 
Since people are playing this already.. where's the


THIS THREAD IS USELESS WITHOUT ANY SCREENSHOTS!!!!

come on guys I wanna see! please! :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top