Be honest: Isn't BF:V a bit crap?

Agent Orange

In fairness folks - isn't Battlefield Vietnam a bit on the crap side?

My typical game goes like this:

I spawn. No-one is around. I head to the nearest enemy flag. If I hear anyone coming I hide in a puddle. I continue my march towards the enemy flag. Some dude puts a bullet in my forehead from half a mile away. Repeat ad nauseum.

There seems to be little teamwork going on in any game I've played, unlike say UT2004 Onslaught where teamwork is necessary.

I played the multiplayer demo of BF1942 and I quite liked it. But BF:V isn't a patch in comparison. Not only is it horribly buggy, but the graphics engine doesn't look half as good as BF1942 and it's twice as slow.

Also, hiding in puddles and traipsing through swamps isn't my idea of fun.

Admit it... isn't BF:V a wasted oppurtunity?

Hellrazer

Agent Orange wrote:

In fairness folks - isn't Battlefield Vietnam a bit on the crap side?

Nope-Its not crap!!!!



Join the TIG server some night when theres a few on and you`ll have a bit of craic.

Big Nelly

Agent Orange wrote:

Admit it... isn't BF:V a wasted oppurtunity?

Have to disagree with you here mate! played BF1942 a few times in LAN parties but that was about it! only really got into it on BFV and really enjoying it! maybe try and join a clan and then you have to have team work! see website in my sign for NRG.....always have a gud laugh!! also TIG's server is usually a gud laugh as well!

Jim

Teamplay is necessary in BF:V aswell. Just tards on public servers don't realise this.

the_syco

Agent Orange wrote:

I spawn. No-one is around. I head to the nearest enemy flag. If I hear anyone coming I hide in a puddle. I continue my march towards the enemy flag. Some dude puts a bullet in my forehead from half a mile away. Repeat ad nauseum.

If you get hit, try a different route. It isn't like you have to got through X corridor to get to Y point. I've gotten sniped the odd time, so I'd go a different route, and try to kill the sniper.

Agent Orange wrote:

There seems to be little teamwork going on in any game I've played, unlike say UT2004 Onslaught where teamwork is necessary.

Never played UT2004, so I wouldn't know.

Agent Orange wrote:

I played the multiplayer demo of BF1942 and I quite liked it. But BF:V isn't a patch in comparison. Not only is it horribly buggy, but the graphics engine doesn't look half as good as BF1942 and it's twice as slow.

The graphics engine is way better in Vietnam. You can hide in the grass, etc, or put mines in the grass & puddles so the enemy doesn't see them, till its too late :cool:
As for the slowness, it may just be your machine

Agent Orange wrote:

Also, hiding in puddles and traipsing through swamps isn't my idea of fun.

Better not go to nam then, eh? If you were expecting desert's amd palm tree's, download the PoE mod for vietnam. PoE is set in the deserts, mainly.

suppafly

i personally love the game and find it alot better than DC or bf1942. On alot of public servers there is no team work at all but u find the odd few that have it, and alos the tig server when we're all on is good

Woden

Agent Orange wrote:

In fairness folks - isn't Battlefield Vietnam a bit on the crap side?

My typical game goes like this:

I spawn. No-one is around. I head to the nearest enemy flag. If I hear anyone coming I hide in a puddle. I continue my march towards the enemy flag. Some dude puts a bullet in my forehead from half a mile away. Repeat ad nauseum.

There seems to be little teamwork going on in any game I've played, unlike say UT2004 Onslaught where teamwork is necessary.

I played the multiplayer demo of BF1942 and I quite liked it. But BF:V isn't a patch in comparison. Not only is it horribly buggy, but the graphics engine doesn't look half as good as BF1942 and it's twice as slow.

Also, hiding in puddles and traipsing through swamps isn't my idea of fun.

Admit it... isn't BF:V a wasted oppurtunity?

for a start nam looks a lot better than 1942 but does require a good rig to run it an a gig of ram is essential for short loading times. same for DC though there. teamwork for nam is necessary or it can be difficult to take a flag otherwise with you sitting there for 30 seconds praying to the respawn god that some one doesnt' just respawn behind you and rape you.

marching towards the enemy flag is not necessary the way forward either a nice slow flanking maneourve way coming in off a line way of the beaten track is.

with regards to nam itself the game play suits me much more then the sprawling maps of 1942 as its more infantry based then vehicles and i prefare this. i also like the element of sneakiness inducded with mobile spawns

data

koneko

I still prefer DC to Vietnam, but it isn't crap by any means. The problem is people on public servers just can't be bothered to play properly, either they can't hack team work or they want to hog all the kills. Find a good server and it's a pretty good game.

Horsefumbler

I tend to agree

tba

Horsefumbler wrote:

I tend to agree

with who?

Horsefumbler

first guy, who said it was crap.

Maybe if i could actually fly helicopters instead of just doing a few back flips and then plummeting :rolleyes:

Irish_Kamikaze

LMFAO! Horse played it once and the reason he hates it is because me and Val were hunting him with our nice little pocket knife! As for it being Crap i totally agree. Its by far the worst game out on the PC. I hate the game but only when playing public! Clan matches are so much fun. Thing is it sounds like to me, that your new to the game and being killed is annoying. But when you get better you last longer. Take supperfly he can last ultimatly forever untill he get squatted by ME. But the real thing is that you have to be willing to put the effort in to get anywhere!

But i do agree that BF:V sucks i think IS82 or BF1942 are much better!

Deadwing

BF:V is one of the better online games imo. As data said i think its alot better than 1942, 1942 i always found to be a colossal pain in the swiss roll, because most rounds apart from the urban ones (like stalingrad & berlin which rocked) youd just find yourself wandering around a huge map getting reamed by planes every 2 seconds. BF:V is alot more pick up and play, and tbh it just sounds like youre starting out with the game and need to play it a bit more.
As for UT2004, it was good but full (more) tards than most bfv pub servers, all dumass kids being like OMFG UT OWNZ!! I DO A TEAMKILL!! ROFL!!!!

Irish_Kamikaze

Good point An1m4l. Kidz and noobz always accuse people of cheating. Then some1 informs them about PunkBuster. And the damn noobz wreck my head callin ya a cheater. HACKER the most used word that people say to me!

how annoying it becomes!

Jim

The fact exists that cheats are there, they are used by people, can they can bypass Punkbuster.

magpie

I've got to agree with the thread starter here. For my money 1942 was way better. The huge maps leant themselves to more tactical play, you had room to manoevre, room to form up into formations, time to develop attacks (with the exception of the crappy city maps). In other words it was more of a war game and less of a shoot-em-up.

It seems though that most people prefer the quake-style gameplay of running around like a blue arsed fly with a full-auto weapon blasting anyone who stumbles into your firing line. And DC is an even worse culprit. The beauty of 1942 was the limitations of the weapons and vehicles.

ssh

I don't think it's that BFV is a bad game. What it tries to do, it does well. It's just that jungle warfare is somewhat more random and less tactical than the desert or city maps of 1942 or DC.

Look at it this way: I don't play it any more. I still play DC.

the_syco

ssh wrote:

I don't think it's that BFV is a bad game. What it tries to do, it does well. It's just that jungle warfare is somewhat more random and less tactical than the desert or city maps of 1942 or DC.

Look at it this way: I don't play it any more. I still play DC.

Play POE! Its DC for BFV, and it rules :cool:

LoLth

the_syco wrote:

Play POE! Its DC for BFV, and it rules :cool:

ahhhh how many abbreviations can one man use in a sentence!!!!!

bizmark

the_syco wrote:

Play POE! Its DC for BFV, and it rules :cool:

The jets in poe destroys the game homeing missles all over the shop you cant move out side your own base before being blown away by some homing missle fired from miles away that pritty much never miss.

i miss the simple days of dc where you might MIGHT just live through a jet/chopper attack

the_syco

LoLth wrote:

ahhhh how many abbreviations can one man use in a sentence!!!!!

Don't tempt me...

=-=

Bizmark; use a tank. If I get shot repeatly, I get the mobile AA Gun, and rape the enemies air power :cool:

zilog_jones

I also prefer BF1942 to 'Nam. There wasn't enough variety in the maps in 'Nam, neither where there much variation in the maps themselves. You have the choice between jungles with pissy little islands, or cities. NOTHING ELSE!!! In 1942 you had cities, European countrysides, beaches, deserts and Pacific islands. WWII is just a much better war to make a game out of because of this large variety.

Also, one thing I got really used to when I got BF1942 (after playing 'Nam) was the engineers - their explosive packs and semi-auto rifles is a kick-ass combination! In 'Nam some of them have crappy SMGs and the NVA have stoopid booby traps and other fiddly crap - basically, they ruined my favourite class!

I'm really starting to not like 'Nam now.

Though saying all this, I've never played any of them online - only LAN games and against the dumb-ass bots. I've been waiting THREE MONTHS for broadband but those tools at eircom won't install it because our account supposedly doesn't exist. Aaarrrg!

And Dataisgod, you don't need that good a PC to play 'Nam. I'm using it on a Pentium 3 933 (the minimun requirements on the box!), with half a gig of RAM and a GF2 Ti 64MB and it plays competently (damn site better than San Andreas on the PS2 anyway! ) on the lowest settings @ 640x480 with highest drawing distance. Though 1942 runs about twice as good, but it only requires a 500MHz CPU.

bizmark

the_syco wrote:

Bizmark; use a tank. If I get shot repeatly, I get the mobile AA Gun, and rape the enemies air power :cool:

I was in a ficking t72 tank it blew up so easy from the raptors missles

the_syco

bizmark wrote:

I was in a ficking t72 tank it blew up so easy from the raptors missles

Try a different route. These guys usually aim at exists A and B, so I make an exist C; right over the mountain :cool:
If all else fails, get into a Humvee, and boot it to the nearest base, and lay down a few mines.

Woden

zilog_jones wrote:

And Dataisgod, you don't need that good a PC to play 'Nam. I'm using it on a Pentium 3 933 (the minimun requirements on the box!), with half a gig of RAM and a GF2 Ti 64MB and it plays competently (damn site better than San Andreas on the PS2 anyway! ) on the lowest settings @ 640x480 with highest drawing distance. Though 1942 runs about twice as good, but it only requires a 500MHz CPU.

i was just referring to load times, they are substantially different with more ram, we had a guy using 256 for a while, then guys using 512 and then guys with a gig and up. you can see the difference straightaway. even when you do load then with lower ram for the first while it also seems to access the hdd and you get machine lag and stuff which is enough to get you killed.

nam as a game suits me more then 1942 that a matter of opinion though such is the way things

p.s are you the chap from the darkside lan last week?

Deadwing

Bah humbug. 1942 has some good maps, and i do like it, but compared to bfv its just so damn boring. The maps are TOO large. You can wander around maps like el alamein for ages before even seeing another player, bollocks to it being tactical, its just damn boring. Like i said it is a great game, and lately ive played the ww2 mod for bfv more than actual bfv, but still..gimme nam any day over 1942

suppafly

like animal says some of the maps r really big and its more of a vehicle game. I like nam cuz u don't need to be in a vehicle, u can run around yurself. I really did love CTF in BF1942 and miss it in BFV.