Battlefield 2 shipped with 14 maps 14 YEARS ago and had the biggest maps in the entire BF franchise!

Comments

  • V1k1n6-666
    70 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    BF2 was a MASTERPIECE!

    I agree that we live in different times but in BF2 you wouldn’t meet 16 enemies at the same flag because the flags were pretty spread apart, now you just get rushed in every flag. I feel that if we could make 32 slot servers the game would improve A LOT.
  • Marshennn
    312 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 2018
    Marshennn wrote: »
    There's absolutely no nostalgia circlejerking going on here, none at all.

    I love Battlefield 2 as much as the next guy and while Battlefield 2 did have giant maps and still hold some of the best maps of the series, they weren't all amazing, and they certainly weren't amazing because of their size but rather their design. If a map plays well on 64p, that's all that should matter. None of the BFV maps play poorly on 64p, because they're actually well designed. Some maps are more intense (Fjell), some have a slower tempo (Hamada), but none of them feel broken like Metro or Lockers on 64p. You don't need every map to be massive in order to be good.

    Also, the size of maps in BF2 was further accentuated by the extremely limited draw distance and the lack of unlimited sprint. Add these features to some of the recent maps and i can bet you they'd feel big as well. Just look at how small Sharqi Peninsula and Oman look in BF3/4 even though they're the same size as BF2. The draw distance in BF1942/2/2142 made it so that fights only happened within a limited distance and you had to move more to see more, so you get the feeling that the map is actually a lot more bigger.



    On the topic of what BFV (and the recent BFs) does better than BF2?
    - Netcode. Hit registration was ridiculously broken in BF2 and it still pretty much is\
    - Hit feedback in BF2 was atrocious
    - Movement in BFV is the best among any other titles in the franchise.
    - Gunplay and overall weapon/vehicle mechanics in BF2 are no match to the ones we've seen since BF3.
    - Better visuals and an actual feel of a 'living' environment that makes you feel completely immersed in the game.
    - Destruction. Wasn't present in any game before BC1, and has since gone on to become a core pillar of Battlefield without which the game
    just feels wrong.

    Sounds like you’re judging BF2 maps by their appearance in BF3/4, which is a mistake. They are smaller, and have fewer flags, in BF3/4. BF3 Karkand has an entire section cut out, and that section aline had 3 flags in BF2.

    Its not just the “size” of the map, it is the FLAG COUNT. BF2’s 64p maps had a minimum of 7 flags and most had 10. Ten! Now we get little 5 flag maps, with a token 7 flagger or two.

    I did not mention Karkand for that exact reason. Other than that though, the 3 other maps are pretty much the same. You can compare them yourself. The only difference is that the times have changed. Sprint speeds are probably faster in the frostbite games. There is no sprint limit and the render distance is pretty much infinite. There are mods in BF2 that enable unlimited sprint and increase the render distance. You can try it out and see how the gameplay changes.

    More than 7 flags is not an absolute necessity to have a good 64p experience. You can have a perfectly good 64p experience on 5-7flag maps if the design is good, which is indeed the case for BFV. You're basically arguing that a map that has less than 7 flags can not be good or isn't a "battlefield" map while I'm saying that design takes precedence over size and you can have a great 64p experience on 5flag maps without turning it into a huge fustercluck. I'm not saying I don't want gigantic maps either. I'd love to play on maps the size of Fushe Pass again someday, but I'm also completely fine with maps that are relatively smaller but are well designed.

    Also, to consider Battlefield 2 as this perfect game and to say that the recent Battlefields do NOTHING better than BF2 is laughable and cannot be taken as anything else than just rose-tinted opinions. Same happens with all the past games. I'm sure Battlefield 1 is now a masterpiece and BFV is literally the devilchild. It's happened since BF2142 and it will continue to happen as long as the franchise is around
  • -Antares65z
    1787 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    V1k1n6-666 wrote: »
    BF2 was a MASTERPIECE!

    I feel that if we could make 32 slot servers the game would improve A LOT.

    But you can make 32 slots servers for Conquest. Here is one that runs all the Frontlines maps and also a handful of infantry Conquest maps. https://battlefieldtracker.com/bf1/servers/pc/4089412890336


  • crabman169
    12848 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    crabman169 wrote: »
    ...The polygons difference alone. Do people just ignore those facts?
    Polygons aren't crafted by hand dude. (it's 2018 btw)
    ...It takes a lot more to make a game today than it did 14 years ago. You'd think that would be obvious.
    It's almost the opposite actually. With things like 3D and material scanners, motion capture, terrain generators, significantly more advanced editing tools, graphics engines with minimal limitations, easily affordable super fast hardware, games are easier to make now more than ever. BFV could ship with 20 maps if they really wanted to, content is staggered to create marketing opportunities and maintain customer interest. If it were more difficult now you would be seeing titles like BFV every 10 years.

    And the point went over your head.

    It took 6 map designers 13 months to make Devastation.

    But please tell us your insight having worked at Dice
  • focke2222
    26 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    A year and a month to make this large scale map?

    bfv-devistationdeployscreen.jpg.adapt.crop16x9.1455w.jpg
  • UteUncleBarryyyy
    543 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    trip1ex wrote: »
    crabman169 wrote: »
    ...The polygons difference alone. Do people just ignore those facts?
    Polygons aren't crafted by hand dude. (it's 2018 btw)
    ...It takes a lot more to make a game today than it did 14 years ago. You'd think that would be obvious.
    It's almost the opposite actually. With things like 3D and material scanners, motion capture, terrain generators, significantly more advanced editing tools, graphics engines with minimal limitations, easily affordable super fast hardware, games are easier to make now more than ever. BFV could ship with 20 maps if they really wanted to, content is staggered to create marketing opportunities and maintain customer interest. If it were more difficult now you would be seeing titles like BFV every 10 years.

    lol that's a lot of bs. DICE employs an army of artists today compared to when BF42 was made. IT takes an artist probably 10x as long maybe longer to model a weapon for BFV compared to one for BF42. So it's more time consuming than ever to make a BF game and the level of photo realistic graphical detail is a large part of it.
    As a paying customer it's in your own best interest to take the time to understand this isn't true, especially when you are giving money to a publisher that almost celebrates the fact that providing you the best value for your dollar has zero priority. And just to clarify, I'm talking about map development, though your 10x estimate on modelling a weapon is way off. Also asset reuse in games, especially battlefield, has always been a thing, BFV is definitely no exception.
    crabman169 wrote: »
    crabman169 wrote: »
    ...The polygons difference alone. Do people just ignore those facts?
    Polygons aren't crafted by hand dude. (it's 2018 btw)
    ...It takes a lot more to make a game today than it did 14 years ago. You'd think that would be obvious.
    It's almost the opposite actually. With things like 3D and material scanners, motion capture, terrain generators, significantly more advanced editing tools, graphics engines with minimal limitations, easily affordable super fast hardware, games are easier to make now more than ever. BFV could ship with 20 maps if they really wanted to, content is staggered to create marketing opportunities and maintain customer interest. If it were more difficult now you would be seeing titles like BFV every 10 years.

    And the point went over your head.

    It took 6 map designers 13 months to make Devastation.

    But please tell us your insight having worked at Dice
    I don't know whether to laugh or cry if you think that's true(yes I'm aware that is what dice said).
  • DrunkwoIf
    306 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    edited November 2018
    every time i see somebody say " bigger map is a walking sim " i know right away either they just hill humped all game in bf2 or just sucked at driving vehicles so they ran all over the place. BF2 had so many vehicles if you were walking everywhere then you were a noob and had no idea how to play the game.

    OR you never even played the game and are just making up BS. because in BF2 not only were there tons of vehicles in your spawn but guess what? flag points also spawned in vehicles unlike any of these new trash BF games.
  • 24OmniTactics24
    147 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Different time and different engine.

    It takes a lot more to make a game today than it did 14 years ago. You'd think that would be obvious.

    They also charge alot and nickel and time
    more then they use to.
  • PixelParadoxx
    26 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    focke2222 wrote: »
    Devon202 wrote: »
    Guys, we all have COD to thank for this ****.


    I would be willing to bet an entire years worth of my income, that none, NONE of the developers that worked on V have ever even seen the intro to BF2. And that is a damn shame and I true sign of **** developers.
    .

    Been thinking the same to be honest.

    Lars Gustavsson was the lead designer on Battlefield 2 and I believe the lead designer on BFV! Dice have some very passionate people there that love the franchise and would have played the games from the very beginning!

    Shall I give you my Paypal details? ;)

  • CHAMMOND1992
    1395 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Why the hell would anyone want bigger maps? You drive here cap a flag, drive there cap a flag, while seeing no one. The whole point of what makes a good game is confronting the enemy. The size of BF1 maps were perfect for 32 players.
  • skates15
    456 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Hamda is a huge map. You can stand on the ruins in the heights and actually watch the battle unfold in front of you which is super rare. It is epic in its scale and I'm sure DICE will tweak it further.
  • crabman169
    12848 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    focke2222 wrote: »
    A year and a month to make this large scale map?

    bfv-devistationdeployscreen.jpg.adapt.crop16x9.1455w.jpg

    It's funny because the spawn screen doesn't exactly represent the scale of the map. Devastation is actually bigger then it looks.

    Have you seen the level of detail in this map? How half way or thereabout during the map the Germans bombing run of the city starts up

    It's like comparing Stalingrad from 1942 to Tsaristyn from bf1

    Does the fidelity etc just not click or something? Is it just all about the amount of flags to you?

    Bigger isn't always better. Thing called balance and fun. No one finds it fun to run 5km only to die and do it all over again hence why mil Sims aren't near as popular as arcade shooters
  • Kalimar42
    20 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Bf 2 is way better than this ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, and the best of all is bfbc2. Just give us a reboot of these.
  • warslag
    1606 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    I think EA DICE believe that they have already remade or remastered BF2 with BF3. And, although I loved BF2 and played it for thousands of hours, my favourite maps since BF2 have been the Close Quarters map sin BF3.

    I know that Close Quarters was unpopular with the BF2 friends I played it with, and that they and many others caused a big stink on the forums about it, saying it wasn't Battlefield.

    This is probably how we got to where we are now where DICE says 'we are listening'. Because they have to juggle the expectations of the big-map-BF2 style-Battlefield-veterans with the fact that Battlefield is now cross-platform compared to BF2, and also the players that people refer to as CoD players or arena players etc who want complete immediacy in their FPS games.

    I loved BF2, as I said, but I also loved Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare which to me was the kind of real successor to BF2. During this period between BF2 and BF3 I played a few games but the stand-out ones were CoD 4 and Age of Conan which was a brilliant MMO.

    So I think you've got there a lot of players or potential customers who want conflicting things. Your most devoted customers, who probably did more to generate the hype for Battlefield than anybody else and made it the game it is (and who have a sense of entitlement to match), who want BF2esque maps and gameplay. Your console players who don't even perceive any of this BF2 stuff and just want a cracking game that is easily accessible. And then nut jobs like me who want both of those things (large open maps and close quarters maps) in the same game explicitly in the way they were in BF3.

    So I think DICE has tried to make a compromise between these groups and that's how we've ended up with maps like they are. Or in other words; they won't do massive maps because they upset the players who want fast-paced FPS games, and they won't do small maps because people will say it's not Battlefield like BF2 was.
  • TropicPoison
    2505 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Well the team now probably isn't nearly as passionate and hard working as the team 14 years ago, it's less effort more cosmetics for that air drops $$$ now.

    Plus it seems that the whole point of pushing the game back to "polish" it didn't work out too well either, there seems to be more problems than there was in the beta now.

    I'll still get it tomorrow as I don't really have anything else to play.
  • aphex182
    25 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    If they could implement the stamina bar, and slow the pacing down to BF2 standards, I might actually enjoy V. Atm, it's run and gun at a chaotic speed, just gave me a headache tbh.
  • Agente_Silva
    158 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    edited November 2018
    warslag wrote: »
    I think EA DICE believe that they have already remade or remastered BF2 with BF3...

    Au contraire my friend :pensive:

    BF3 was exactly the turning point to "CoDify" Battlefield. There were so many close quarters maps that made obvious the change of strategy from EA: Grand Bazaar; Damavand Peak; Metro; Reine Crossing; Theeran Highway. Even big maps were kind of "fake" like Operation Firestorm; Khaarg Island and Caspian Border clearly having a central core of flags cluttered in such immense space. That is why I tottaly loved Armoured Kill for it´s genuine large maps.

    I think it´s in BF4 they got the "perfect mix" for BF veterans and new comers - Lancang Dam; Rogue Transmission; Dawnbraker; Paracel; Shangai. DLC maps were even better: Altai Range; Silk Road; Dragon Pass; Whiteout; Operation Mortar; Kharellia; Hammerhead (in this one you have both close quarters and open field armored battles)... I could go on...

    BF4 also took the battle to the seas wich could and should be explored even further in BF1/5, but no.... the nerfing to CoD for da money money talks louder and it seems we will never see that great scope in BF games anymore.
  • Agente_Silva
    158 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member

    I'll still get it tomorrow as I don't really have anything else to play.

    Why not go back to single player? :) Have you tried Wolfenstein New Colossus? It is an amazing game with amazing and fun story telling :) Don´t let the online gaming scene kill what we always loved in single player games...

  • focke2222
    26 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member

    I'll still get it tomorrow as I don't really have anything else to play.

    Why not go back to single player? :) Have you tried Wolfenstein New Colossus? It is an amazing game with amazing and fun story telling :) Don´t let the online gaming scene kill what we always loved in single player games...

    But singe player was never part of the early battlefield titles.
Sign In or Register to comment.