bfbc2 update - vietnam

[Fumz]

The reload bug is old; thankfully I haven't seen it yet, because the "fix" was to disable tool tips, and my brother in law insists the cure is worse than the disease.

I noticed a few speedy reloads last night now that you mention it... a few times with my trusty ump, and a few times the rpg was just ready again, which I must admit came in real handy at the time,

 

[Everlong]

I wanna pre-order Vietnam, but for whatever reason the University proxy has started blocking connections to the Steam store. Pain in the arse. Need to wait for them to sort it out.

 

[mickey megabyte]

you can pre-order it at the eastore, with a 3-day headstart before the 18th december release - same deal as steam.

it doesn't have to be from steam - it will be linked to your ea account you logon with in the game.

i bought my vietnam on steam, even though my base bc2 is not steam - it was just an online shop.

 

[stormy13]

That and you already have Viet Nam as it was included in the last patch. All they do once it is released is send you the unlock code.

 

[LiquidSnak]

downloading the 2.4 gig patch :shock:

Good lord.

 

[mickey megabyte]

it's more than a patch - it's a minor bug-fix, a few new maps and the whole vietnam caboodle.

don't know why they're forcing the entire download on everybody. :huh:

 

[Fumz]

Because it's easier to get people to pay for it when they realize they already have it. Sure it will really piss people off (like me), but for some reason I don't think EA or Dice give's a rat's ass about us these days...

 

[mickey megabyte]

er, ea\dice have just given us a few free maps - better than a rat's ass in my opinion.

 

[Fumz]

Yes, the 4 new maps are nice; however, let's not forget our history. Map packs 1-6 were a slap in the face... the same maps in different game modes. At the same time, let's not forget they've denied us the ability to make our own maps, which is huge.

Since they didn't pack a lot of maps into the original game, and since they wouldn't let us make our own maps, it was clearly foreseeable that people would quickly getting bored with the game... and as it turns out, that's exactly what happened. This is the worst Battlefield game ever in terms of retention. I mean it just came out, relatively speaking, and already competition is pretty much dead... not that it ever really got off the ground, but that's another topic.

Now they come out with this underhanded crap... making us dl a 2.4GB patch when the "new" maps are only ~ 20MB each. The other 2.2GB's is all Vietnam. I say that's punkass.

I am happy I was able to play some new maps, and I did have a lot of fun last night, but that hardly makes up for what EA/Dice have been up to lately.

 

[Everlong]

you can pre-order it at the eastore, with a 3-day headstart before the 18th december release - same deal as steam.

it doesn't have to be from steam - it will be linked to your ea account you logon with in the game.

i bought my vietnam on steam, even though my base bc2 is not steam - it was just an online shop.

Thanks, I didn't think to look there.

That and you already have Viet Nam as it was included in the last patch. All they do once it is released is send you the unlock code.

It's all well and good saying I have it, but I still need a place to buy it.

Yes, the 4 new maps are nice; however, let's not forget our history. Map packs 1-6 were a slap in the face... the same maps in different game modes. At the same time, let's not forget they've denied us the ability to make our own maps, which is huge.

Since they didn't pack a lot of maps into the original game, and since they wouldn't let us make our own maps, it was clearly foreseeable that people would quickly getting bored with the game... and as it turns out, that's exactly what happened. This is the worst Battlefield game ever in terms of retention. I mean it just came out, relatively speaking, and already competition is pretty much dead... not that it ever really got off the ground, but that's another topic.

Now they come out with this underhanded crap... making us dl a 2.4GB patch when the "new" maps are only ~ 20MB each. The other 2.2GB's is all Vietnam. I say that's punkass.

I am happy I was able to play some new maps, and I did have a lot of fun last night, but that hardly makes up for what EA/Dice have been up to lately.

I wouldn't really class BC2 as part of the main franchise, considering the BC series started on console. If you are comparing it to the main Battlefield series, then I wouldn't go as far to saying it's the worst. I think Battlefield: Vietnam was a lot worse off than BC2, though each game has had their negatives.

And EA/DICE aren't the only company with this method of expansions. Mafia 2 was virtually a different game before it was released. Just before release they cut out a bunch of content, and then said they were giving this as DLC, including a free roam mode which was there in the first Mafia. What's worse is all the stuff they cut out is still there in the game.

 

[Fumz]

Battlefield is Battlefield. The monikers they add after the colon don't matter to me.

Yeah sure, Vietnam wasn't my favorite either, but at least we were able to play the game competitively; ladders and leagues were very active right up until BF2 came out... and then we started all over again.

With BC2 we don't have that. Not because we don't want to compete, but because of what EA/Dice did to the game, and their utter refusal to cater to the competitive community even in the slightest ways... demo recorder anyone?

Simple stuff like that would have gone a long way to help the larger community as well... but... again, that rat's ass thing rears its head. Clans started dropping this game a long long time ago. That's pathetic for a multiplayer franchise as strong as Battlefield.

 

[mickey megabyte]

Battlefield is Battlefield. The monikers they add after the colon don't matter to me.

really don't agree with this statement. using the name 'battlefield' is just a marketing ploy - this bc2 is nothing like bf2. by your logic, are you saying that windows phone 7 is windows 95? you have to look at the whole name, not just focus on the first word you see.

personally i don't see bc2 as the successor to bf2 at all - that will be bf3, i do believe. i think of it more as a sort of stepping-stone between bf2 and bf3 - test and iron out frostbite engine (and other things) for the pc before they release the BIG game that i hope bf3 will be.

so it is not surprising that bc2 < bf2 in a lot of respects - it's a totally different game -they only called it battlefield for marketing/branding purposes.

i know it's kool to slag off ea/dice - but bear in mind that they are two different companies, with different agendas. also remember that dice released patch 1.5 for bf2 years after it was making any money in the shops. it was late, and it wasn't perfect (what is?), but my point is that they didn't have to do it at all. how does that compare to your rat's ass?

 

[Golden]

Mickey,

Hows the Vietnam expansion mate? You recommend it?

 

[mickey megabyte]

i bought it, but can't play for a week or so until the content gets 'unlocked'.

it's not released until the 18th, but i think us pre-orderers get to play three days early.

why do they do this? i've got the code sitting here on my pc, why can't i play it?

 

[LiquidSnak]

Try changing your system date to the 18th

If it works, I'll be blown away, but worth a shot lol.

 

[mickey megabyte]

now why didn't i think of that.

i'll have to have a word with Doc Brown...

 

[Fumz]

Battlefield is Battlefield. The monikers they add after the colon don't matter to me.

really don't agree with this statement. using the name 'battlefield' is just a marketing ploy - this bc2 is nothing like bf2. by your logic, are you saying that windows phone 7 is windows 95? you have to look at the whole name, not just focus on the first word you see.

personally i don't see bc2 as the successor to bf2 at all - that will be bf3, i do believe. i think of it more as a sort of stepping-stone between bf2 and bf3 - test and iron out frostbite engine (and other things) for the pc before they release the BIG game that i hope bf3 will be.

so it is not surprising that bc2 < bf2 in a lot of respects - it's a totally different game -they only called it battlefield for marketing/branding purposes.

i know it's kool to slag off ea/dice - but bear in mind that they are two different companies, with different agendas. also remember that dice released patch 1.5 for bf2 years after it was making any money in the shops. it was late, and it wasn't perfect (what is?), but my point is that they didn't have to do it at all. how does that compare to your rat's ass?

Whether or not you agree with the statement is irrelevant. To me, Battlefield is Battlefield. Agree, disagree; it doesn't change how I feel about the series.

I'm not really going to get into your take on my logic because I'm not comparing a video game to something that is not a video game. Suffice it to say your iPhone/OS analogy is a non sequitur. A more appropriate analogy would have been Win ME to Win 7. If you had, we could have then debated whether ME was a real OS or not; whether it was a natural successor to 98 or 2k, and we might have agreed that it wasn't (a real os that it).

Whether or not the term Battlefield is just marketing is debatable. I disagree. DICE has just made another in a series... a series I might add that began before BF2... and, in my opinion, BF2 wasn't their best effort either. That honor goes to the original, 1942.

That they, DICE, decided to also market the series to a burgeoning console market doesn't change the core of the game, or the series; it's still a big vehicle centric war game... that's how it differs from CoD and Red Orchestra. Maps are still open, unlike CoD and RO, where gameplay is dicated by predetermined paths... which make me feel trapped, like a rat in a maze.

It's your opinion that BC2 is "a stepping stone to iron out Frostbite"... that's fine by me. It's my opinion that we're dealing with Frostbite because on the console Frostbite works (it was developed for the console) and consoles are where the money is at. Like it or not, we're forever stuck with it... the rat's ass thing comes in because no matter what, from here on out all our PC titles will be crap console ports. There is no way they're ever going to get Frostbite to play well with the PC, and this is something both DICE and EA have known for a long time.

Given the realities of the gaming world, any DICE created Battlefield title is just that: another in the series. Whether we can play it on the PC or the console is irrelevant: it's still a Battlefield game as long as it has some aspects of the original... and to date, they all do, from 42 to Vietnam to BF2, to Bad Company to 2142 to BC2 to BF3... and whatever they happen to push out after that with the name Battlefield.

I'm fully aware that DICE and EA are two different companies... But that doesn't mean the parent company doesn't exert influence over the child company. EA owns DICE.

Yes, DICE and EA have been getting a lot of flack lately, but given events, they've brought it all on themselves. True, they didn't have to patch BF2 with 1.5, but since they weren't putting any energy into a PC game, someone with a really nice suit who spends his day counting money probably thought it might be a good idea.

The day a Battlefield game comes out that doesn't have vehicles and that doesn't let you go anywhere you want on the map... that's the day I'll agree that Battlefield isn't Battlefield.

 

[mickey megabyte]

for what it's worth, i used windows 7 phone and windows 95 because they are software products that share the same first name. your argument seemed to be 'something that shares the same first name as something else is that something else'. maybe i misunderstood you, but there it is.

Battlefield is Battlefield. The monikers they add after the colon don't matter to me.

any software with the same first name as another, does not make it the same thing at all. it shows that they are made by the same company. i was trying to show that they are not necessarily upgrades neither are they the next in the series.

if bc2 is meant to be bf3, then they would have called it bf3. they didn't call it bf3 because it isn't - it's a different game - call it a sub-franchise if you will.

you seem to be complaining that bc2 hasn't got things that bf2 had. windows phone 7 hasn't got things that 95 had - even though they have surface similarities, they are different products, both branded with the successful windows name.

maybe i could have chosen a smarter analogy, but it was the best i could think of at the time. - maybe it's better to think of photoshop and photoshop essentials, or outlook and outlook express. slagging off essentials becasue it doesn't have all the features of daddy-photoshop would be silly. so would saying 'photoshop is photoshop, the monikers they add don't matter.' the monikers do matter.

the devil is in the detail. :devil2:

 

[Fumz]

your argument seemed to be 'something that shares the same first name as something else is that something else'. maybe i misunderstood you, but there it is.

I wasn't making an argument, I was simply giving you my opinion as to which of the games I considered part of the series. To me, all Battlefield games are just a continuation of the series.... not in an uber-geeky, let's dissect the story line and study the sub plots way... but in a, "oh yeah i get to kill b!tches!!!" type of way. I know it might seem like I've devoted some mental energy to this, but really... not much.

I feel the same way about the Call of Duty series. I don't care if it's 1,2, Modern Warfare or World at War... to me, they're all Call of Duty. Of course they're all a bit different, if they weren't, we wouldn't bother buying them.

... any software with the same first name as another, does not make it the same thing at all. it shows that they are made by the same company. i was trying to show that they are not necessarily upgrades neither are they the next in the series.

if bc2 is meant to be bf3, then they would have called it bf3. they didn't call it bf3 because it isn't - it's a different game - call it a sub-franchise if you will.

The hairs you're splitting are getting thinner and thinner. You must eat many carrots... however, you now seem to object to the word "series" itself. Let's face it, none of the games are a continuation, so by your logic, we can't label any of the games part of a series. No two games were anything alike, no two shared a name and no one game was a continuation of another... right. :devil: Details and devils.

... you seem to be complaining that bc2 hasn't got things that bf2 had. windows phone 7 hasn't got things that 95 had - even though they have surface similarities, they are different products, both branded with the successful windows name.

huh? Where am I complaining BC2 doesn't have things BF2 had?

... maybe i could have chosen a smarter analogy, but it was the best i could think of at the time. - maybe it's better to think of photoshop and photoshop essentials, or outlook and outlook express. slagging off essentials becasue it doesn't have all the features of daddy-photoshop would be silly. so would saying 'photoshop is photoshop, the monikers they add don't matter.' the monikers do matter.

the devil is in the detail. :devil2:

Not only is it just my opinion, but it also has nothing to do with my point... please let it go. My "beef" was about BC2's lack of a competitive community... ie, the game doesn't have the legs the other titles in the (gasp) series had.

 

[mickey megabyte]

yeah, let's let it go.

we aren't going to change each other's minds, so further debate is fruitless.

shame that we live in different continents, we could have sorted this argument/debate out like men, on the battlefield.