FH for Battlefield:Vietnam -1 reply

Please wait...

Huffardo

Arrrr!

48,770 XP

29th November 2003

0 Uploads

4,632 Posts

0 Threads

#151 15 years ago

Not all of the pros with BFV mentioned here are really impossible to implement in bf1942, maybe harder than in BFV, but not impossible. Some other things as under- and overgrowth can't be done, but that's not that important? Less lag in BFV than in FH doesn't mean that FH:V would have less lag than FH:1942, that's things you can't know before you have tested it. Towable things without lag would be nice, but it might be possible with bf1942 too. (Since detachable towable vehicles are possible, they might be possible to reattach somehow. Not easy, and probably never as good as in BFV, but who knows if BG42 will have that feature one day.) At least AP mines should be possible in bf1942, maybe booby traps as well? Heat seeking missiles and good copters are not things I believe FH needs, and big buildings with a lot of furniture might be stuff that I could live without. Grass and such would be terrific, but if the system requirements look like that I wouldn't be able to play it. (If they are correct, I play bf1942 with 16MB crapcard too.) My 7500LE wouldn't even be enough! :( Why not port FH after releasing 1.0? Then everybody could play BFV (at least two years, people should have time to upgrade...), and the devs would have time to think about it and plan it well. And BFV would have time to become more stable and polished. BTW, how many days after the release of bf1942 was FH 0.5 released? ;) And still it has players... Don't suspect BFV getting a WW2 mod better than FH soon, if FH waits a few years and develops on bf1942 platform, then it would still be the best ww2 mod for BFV when releasing a BFV version. And they could jump over BFV and wait till BF:Starwars is released... it will have a much better engine. :)




Ohioan

Not Wise Shitashi - Cheston

50 XP

6th October 2003

0 Uploads

3,604 Posts

0 Threads

#152 15 years ago
'[SYN hydraSlav']Dice created the new graphic rendering engine, improved thier sound scripting, and added lots of new code to support some very innovative (compared to BF42) features. (Read this whole thread to find more then several dozen of them) M60-shit is a big nuisance and definatelly a mistake (i agree with you there), but do you really think that it was the whole of Dice that made that mistake? The whole of Dice was working on all the new features. Weapon parameters were probably entered by a single person. It can be changed by chaging a couple of figures in the code. Don't say that M60 making it through EA's quality-balance control is any indication that Dice neglected thier game. This is getting tiring. While the BF:V supporters keep listing more and more new features of BF:V, the anti-supporteres just keep repeating the same thing all over again. And it's easy to classify:
  • "Those who say they are not going to give EA any money because they hate EA." - Is your personal hate for them any reason why FH should not port? And what are you doing here in the first place
  • "Those who say they are not paying for something they already have." - If you have BF42, you don't have BF:V. There are too many changes, both graphic-wise and gameplay-wise to say that.
  • "Those who say that it does not work with ATI and has sound lag." - Sound lag is fixed with a single line in the config file. And the ATI is just a temp driver problem. Remember when the new Detonator (nVidia) drivers caused every mod to act like a wall-hack? And do you think that the money-hungry EA will not fix the problem in order to get more money?
All above are just EA/Dice haters. The go "anti-BF:V" because they have nothing else to talk about. They will say anything to prove to noone how much they hate EA. And no matter what the subject is, whether it's a new engine, new game, or balance, or mod problems, or thier computer problems, or thier personal life problems, they will just blame EA blindly, not taking about the issue at all.
  • "Those who say that BF:V has only grass and napalm as the new features." - Well, why don't you read the whole of this thread to find several dozen features present in BF:V.
  • "Those who say that BF:V's gameplay is exactly same as that of BF42". - Simply, no. Why don't you play the game before you say that.
  • "Those who say that BF:V's gamepay is same as that of CS". - Once again, no. Why don't you play the game before you say that.
All above never played the game, or played it briefly only to say that they have. The point is that they don't know what they bashing, cause they did not research it, nor played long enough to evaluate it.
  • "Those who say that Vietnam sucks and WWII is the only thing they want." - STFU cant-read-noobs, no one wants to have vietnam in the game, we are talking about making a WWII mod on the new engine, if you cant even understand that, don't bother saying anything at all.
  • "Those who wonder about performance issues." - This is actually one of the valid concerns. BF:V does require a better comp then vanilla BF, however, BF:V runs much smoother then FH over BF42. And if FH ports, it will illiminate a lot of overhead that causes it to lag on BF42, so FH over BF:V will lag less then FH over BF42.
  • "Those who say that it will take a lot of time to convert." - A lot of mods ported all thier models with the help of the MDK tools that were provided. A number of mods is going to keep both BF42 and BF:V versions for a while. Let the FH developers decide if it's going to be "too long", we are talking about "advantages" here.
  • "Those who say that FH will lose fans if they switch." - Firstly, a lot of hardcore fans said that they would gladly pay for FH is that's required. If FH switches to BF:V, they will pay and buy they game. Secondly, most of the "non-hardcore-fans" have already "upgraded" to BF:V as a logical next step. Lastly, BF:V is going to build more on BF42's fan-base and will gain new fans who never played BF42. BF:V is 2 years newer then BF42, so when BF42 dies out due to it's outdated engine, BF:V will still have about 2 more years. Swithing to BF:V is just an investment of all of developer's effort.

I respect your points and a lot of your opinions I do agree with, but I'd appreciate if some respect was given to my opinions as well. I've owned BF:V since it came out, I've played it a lot, and in my opinion, it DOES play like counterstrike. It dosen't offer all that much more then BF1942 (in many cases, less, given that vehicle combat is now a joke).

BF1942 Features!: 4 Theaters of battle (Desert, Europe, Pacific, Northern), featuring ships, planes, tanks, jeeps, MG positions, defguns, all sorts of wonderful things. Centered on all aspects of war.

BF:V Features!: 1.5 Theaters of battle (Jungle, or City), jets, tanks, jeeps, hellicopters, arty cannons. Centered on infantry fights with tanks there for good measure, and obligatory noob weapon hellicopters.

What have they added that we can use besides the graphics? Nothing. They have not made a true objective mode, they have put features into their game and called them advances, but those features (mobile spawn points) are readily availible in bf1942. They have not yet given any sort of flexibility in the code to allow FH to do many of the things people ask for. We'd be trading a Buick for an Oldsmobile. Essentially, the same thing, but better looking.

BF:V will not give FH any room to code new features, only to make current stuff look better -- that is, if you don't like clear textures, because the BF:V ones are blurry as all hell and most people with ATI cards have to set them to Low. I have no faith that drivers will fix this, this is a code error and a stupid oversight on DICE's part.

I don't bash DICE because they scored big time with bf1942, which is a great game. They had GOBS of feedback from the community on stuff the community, especially the MOD community, wanted to see in BF:V and they simply didn't do it. BF:V is a fun game, if you get past the poor balancing, but the engine it's built on isn't all that great. If FH is considering switching engines, why not wait until some better choices come around, like Soldner or HL2?




[SYN] hydraSlav

SYNERGY Member

50 XP

2nd October 2003

0 Uploads

2,372 Posts

0 Threads

#153 15 years ago

You are right to an extend - some things, even like undergrowth, can be done on BF42, however, it produces a lot of overhead (system lag) since each bush is rendered as an individual object. But in BF:V, this is already implemented, and is implemented at a better level (it renders undergrowth not as individual objects), thus no lag. This should also explain why FH:V would lag less then FH over BF42. Once again, missiles are choppers - noone cares about those! And honestly, you won't be able to run BF:V with a 16MB card. However, i doubt that you can actually play some FH maps with that card either. And compared to other "earlier" mods, FH has a very "tight" fan-base. If they move to BF:V not now but later, the community will be saturated with all the different mods for BF:V and FH will have to fight for it's users. But if they move now, they will capture the niche - that is WWII for BF:V. Anyone else having a Deja-vu feeling? How many times did i already explain this?




Huffardo

Arrrr!

48,770 XP

29th November 2003

0 Uploads

4,632 Posts

0 Threads

#154 15 years ago

Sorry, I only browsed through this when I was searching for info about those AP mines FH is supposed to have in som version, and felt like posting, so i didn't read everything that carefully, could you say the number of the post? (Or if you mean BFV pros in general, then I have seen them and you don't have to bother.) And all FH levels can be played with that 16MB ATI Rage 128 Pro, some sadly that bad that they almost aren't playable, under 10 FPS, and the graphics are UGLY, but the lack of coulours on the minimap is worst. (can't see flags etc...) If you play levels with a better computer before the 16MB crap, you remeber most parts of the level can orientate and have some chances. Most of the time it makes you loose close combat because of sudden FPS drops (to 1-2 FPS), but otherwise it is ok, if you don't need to have a top score. Sniping is not possible because of short view distance, but you can't get everything. Often I still manage to get average scores with it, but teamwork is almost not possible because of the minimap issue and the problem with text being readable only in the console. (->read it and die) Somehow I don't prefer to play online with it and therefore choose coop when the 7500LE-computer is occupied. I always tend to think about upgrading when reading what I have written about the Rage 128 Pro, but still never upgrade, it's not that bad as it might sound. Do you now understand why I don't care about the graphics of BFV? (and unoptimised vegetation etc...) Some of my opinions about BFV are subjective, but still most of BFV features could be done in bf1942, and I agree with Ohioan.




[SYN] hydraSlav

SYNERGY Member

50 XP

2nd October 2003

0 Uploads

2,372 Posts

0 Threads

#155 15 years ago
Ohioan

Here are translated quotes from the devs

  • ArminAce: as said, the graphics of bfv is not a reason to change to BFV. The engine is what interests us, and it's better. That would make it possible to make FH better too.
  • Major Hartman: The newest about FH and BFV. The biggest obstacle is gone *(Maybe using bf stuff in bfv?)*, and the new possibilities would justify a change to bfv, (a lot of them can't be realised by the ordinary player, but they would be nice for a coder). BUT we could probably only support one basis. It would take too much work to develop FH both to bf1942 and BFV. At the moment the dev team is not 100% united on their future, we will first complete 0.62 and then think more about it.

Source: http://www.gamingforums.com/showthread.php?t=118272&page=2 Note the bits i underlined and bolded. BV:V does not have any theaters besides the jungle because the Vietnam game did not need any others. That does not mean that FH will have to be in the jungle or only in a single theather. Look at that new FH map with yellow skys (forgot the name) ... that almost a theater of it's own. With all of MC's redone textures, FH can re-create all of those WWII theaters. And BTW, BF:V was developed by the Canadian Dice, while BF42 was done by the Swedish(?) Team. That would explain why "gobs of feedback" where not implemented, however, on a closer look, you can see that they did put in some features that people where asking for. I respect your opinion, however the reason for me arguing with you is because i used to have the same opinion: I did not like BF:V since i heard about it. For me, these "more lethal modern weapons" meant it was gonna be another spam-kill-fest like DC in early versions that did not require skills. I was even more sickened when i saw a couple of videos, one of them showing the M60 guy running and killing someone on the run with virtually no spray from the bullets. Then my clan decided to form a chapter for BF:V. I was trully against it, and i started fighting with all the leaders of that new chapter. I was using the same arguments that you use now: I was saying "most of these things can be done with mods", "the balance/gameplay is crap", and believe it or not, but i did say the exact thing as you did "the game plays like CS". This turned so ugly, that the clan leaders actually deleted all those posts :uhoh: Then i started to play the game thouroughly in order to find "more dirt" to spill out. It was at this time i started to realize the potential of the engine if mods would use it. It was at this time (while searching for "dirt") that i found all those small but important features. I still stand by my opinion that the Vietnam game is shit. The M60/LAW is bullshit, firing the M16 does feel like CS, the helicopters are just huge noob cannons that anyone can use. The Vietnamese helicopters are virtually unstoppable since US does not have any AA weapons, and so on. But this does not mean that the engine is bad. The engine is far better then that of BF42. It more modern, thus more advanced, it gives better performance, and it supplies a lot of new features, which can make the game far more realistic.




Huffardo

Arrrr!

48,770 XP

29th November 2003

0 Uploads

4,632 Posts

0 Threads

#156 15 years ago

My excellent translation! ;) That within ** is BTW my input, and it might be wrong, it's just a guess to make it easier to understand. Have you looked at the code at all, or do you believe what some BFV supporters claim to be true? I can't sadly look at it myself because I haven't BFV. If my system were better then I might buy it, but now it's not worth it. And as I am not a mod developer I don't think it would be worth it buying it only to look at the code. But I hope that the FH devs do that before they decide, or else we might get almost the same mod, only with minor graphical improvements. The fact that it's more modern doesn't mean it is better, those features might be useless or even exist in some form in the older engine. And making the game more realistic than the bf1942 engine can do, will IMO be a task after 1.0, realism is good, but the minor realism you get with BFV is not enough to justify a change of engine at this point.




Exel

The stubborn Finn

50 XP

26th March 2004

0 Uploads

542 Posts

0 Threads

#157 15 years ago
HuffardoWhy not port FH after releasing 1.0? Then everybody could play BFV (at least two years, people should have time to upgrade...), and the devs would have time to think about it and plan it well. And BFV would have time to become more stable and polished. BTW, how many days after the release of bf1942 was FH 0.5 released? ;) And still it has players... Don't suspect BFV getting a WW2 mod better than FH soon, if FH waits a few years and develops on bf1942 platform, then it would still be the best ww2 mod for BFV when releasing a BFV version.[/QUOTE] Waiting "a few years" would be fatal. BF42 will with utmost certainty die away in the eyes of the great public, and thus FH would lose most of its fan base - you must remember that most players jump around between mods and play each one only seldomly, at least from the perspective of a hardcore fan. Also, if you remember, FH wasn't all that big in the start. In the times of 0.5 FH wasn't by any means dominant WW2 mod, and BG42 and XWWII posed a serious "threat". It wasn't until 0.6 that FH issued the final blow and the other WW2 mods started to die away. If FH hadn't been the first one to be released, the outcome of that mod clash might have been different. So we can't just wait overconfidently that once FH does port to BFV it will sweep the floor with the other, already existing WW2 mods - even if it was better than them. There are other WW2 mods already in the works for BFV, and FH emerging as victor is not self-evident. [quote=Ohioan]If FH is considering switching engines, why not wait until some better choices come around, like Soldner or HL2?

What do you know about the engines of HL2 and Soldner? With every probability they will be hugely different from the BF series, and that would mean that the nature of FH would have to drastically change too. BFV is in the end very similar to BF42, and the amount of work needed to port from BF42 to HL2/Soldner/other is from another universe compared to the work needed to port to BFV. Just because the games feature nominally some same features - driveable vehicles, vast open landscapes - doesn't mean that they are even close to being similar with each other. And personally I wasn't all that impressed with Soldner. The screenshots portray, imho, worse graphics than in BF42 (!), and by the way it looks, it could just as well be another Novalogic Delta Force -series game to me. The last thing one should do is to wait for an unreleased "messiah" game/engine and evaluate it only by its hype. BFV is out there right now, HL2 and Soldner are not.