People say I post too much
12th February 2004
A. CSS doesnt lag out the servers and you can have loads of flying barrels/rubbish/wall panels saying that destroying walls, buildings and making craters would lag is an old wive's tale! They would just disappear and everything would be fine. B. It's the hype and broken promises that is pissing people off. C. AK is in denial.
El_DestructoA. CSS doesnt lag out the servers and you can have loads of flying barrels/rubbish/wall panels saying that destroying walls, buildings and making craters would lag is an old wive's tale! They would just disappear and everything would be fine..
Pretty much everything you describe there is a static object that just bounces around according to the game's physics. Not to mention, CSS doesn't have:
A. 64 players
B. Dozens of vehicles
C. Enormous maps
To try a game similar to BF2 (I.E, not CSS) for comparison, go buy/borrow/play Soldner, destroy everything in the server, and then come back and tell us again how destructable environments can work in this genre.
Dice wanted it to work, but it just doesn't. Call it a broken promise, or whatever you want. I wish people would wake up and realize it just won't work in a game like this until we all have T3 connections or better.
El_DestructoA. CSS doesnt lag out the servers and you can have loads of flying barrels/rubbish/wall panels saying that destroying walls, buildings and making craters would lag is an old wive's tale! They would just disappear and everything would be fine. B. It's the hype and broken promises that is pissing people off. C. AK is in denial.
A) Well for a start CSS has teeny maps, if you did the same in BF2, you would have thousands of dynamic models that would lag the game. Also if 1 player destroys a small building in the direct view of 64 players every player in the game gets a sudden mass of data update depending on where they are and what direction they are looking. If you have 64 players in a city all firing rockets and grenades and tank shells at in different directions and at different destructible buildings you get massive lag.
B) Quote a promise and not a desired feature list for me. BTW I agree with the hype bit, they did overdo it, but that's marketing for you, not game design. The marketers will ALWAYS overhype things, it happens with movies, games, cars etc.
c) I know more about computers, hardware and game design than you ever will. I have played a game that has 100% destructible environment, every tree, bush, phone pole, sign, building, every single item, including holes in the ground. If you really want that in a game why are you here and not playing Soldner? Simple answer, because Jowood couldn't get it to work well enough to make a playable game.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not in denile, I'm in Australia (LOL pun, hehe),I really would have liked BF2 to have a much higher count of destructible features, but knowing what I do about the current state of software and hardware I am guessing it wil be another year before it happens, til lthen BF2 will have do.
We don't want completely destructalbe environments, just something more than barrels, signs, and propane tanks. Yea bridges, but what about fences at least? We have C4 let us use it, damnit. That said...destructable environments could be alot more than BF2 has. Witness Gary's Mod for HL2. At full settings, online, andover 200 objects in a level, all moving at about the same time, slows down my pc a little. Also the physics make for more taxing fps. Yea the map was smaller, but the graphics are about 30x better. So either give us amazing graphics that are compatible with more systems or give us destructable environments. There is no reason for it, something is busted and falls, have it dissapear and maybe regenerate back to a fixed position later.
Man i really wanted that BFTV it looked awsome in that one movie on gamespot....But god theres EA for ya... they promise u tons of awsome stuff then u get shit.... Also another they took out was the Radio!!!! NOT TEH RADIO!!!!!! I could be listening to whatever songs i wanted to and crap! NOOOOOOOOEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSS!!!! WHY EA!? WHY!?
... They have BFTV .. its not a clientside thing its server side. At the end of the game, if they are recording, show where u can find the recording.
No! I'm Spamacus!
17th June 2003
You have to download the recording off a site?
Dont confuse BFTV with BattleRecorder. BFTV is same as HLTV - it allows the server to broadcast the match over the internet for the users to view in real-time. It did not ship with the retail version, but there have been talks about it being available later as download or patches (yeah, good job EA, cut the promised features out of the game, and then add them later as "free content download", then claiming that you "support" the community) BattleRecorder is what records the match, that you can then playback in your game-client. It must be configured on the server. The server admin must enable BattleRecorder, and set it up so that after it's recorded, the file is uploaded to a certain FTP server. If the server settings are configured correctly, then after you finish the map/round, there will be a small message saying "BattleRecorder bookmark saved". This means that your client received the correct information from the server on where to download the recorded file. Goto "Community Section" in the main menu of the game, and look for the bookmarks there. This will let you download the recorded file.