First Strike Forums — 2142

Re: 2142

null@example.com (FSDev| Ulversial) — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 01:37:55 +0000

Bewilderbeast wrote:

Ulversial wrote:
as far as I know the only benefit we would have is getting the atst/atat to work much better. however if that is worth it, I'm not really sure. it would probably mean a lot of converting time, and I personally don't want to port over to bf2142 since I think that game is lost, and won't be much fun at all.
Hear Hear!
...
stealthy.

Since I've wrote that post I've learned more about the bf2142 engine, and I fully support the teams decision to switch engine.

The downside is you need to buy a new game to play our mod... apologies for that, truly!
the benefits of switching though greatly overshadows that, I mean we get a lot of technical problems solved for us that will make huge difference for feel and gameplay, and we got bigger chances of getting a larger playerbase (which is good for you fs-fanboys too, means you got some newbies to kill )

...

this is my personal thoughts only, but a minimod for bf2 without some of the cooler stuff should be possible. however it's not certain it's worth it... maybe as a demo feature? this is nothing that's been discussed in-team so leave it as a random thought

Re: 2142

null@example.com (galaticplayer) — Sun, 16 Jul 2006 00:23:00 +0000

gracias. I guess i'm prolly going to give in and buy 2124 for this mod too.

Re: 2142

null@example.com (MK4210) — Sat, 15 Jul 2006 02:26:56 +0000

It will take some more time to get definite answers to that question galacticplayer. So far this is what is stated:

They are roughly the same as for Battlefield 2. Here is what we got as official response from DICE:
CPU: 1.7 GHz
RAM: 512 MB
Video Card: nVidia GeForce FX 5700, ATI Radeon 8500 or ATI Radeon 9500 with 128 MB of RAM
But this is of course subject to change.

courtesy of BF2142.com

Re: 2142

null@example.com (ArcAngel227) — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 15:00:39 +0000

well that dosn't sound good...

Re: 2142

null@example.com (FSDev| General Un-Co) — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:47:26 +0000

The answer is it shouldn't.

but it most likely will. Honestly If you can play the bf2 bf2142 should be playable. It is after all the same graphics engine. The real question is did DICE confine to their poly guidelines? ANd how are titans divided up to stop lag?

Re: 2142

null@example.com (galaticplayer) — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:29:02 +0000

doesn't anyone have the answer to my question? will BF 2124 have higher graphic requirements?

Re: 2142

null@example.com (Bandu) — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 02:58:25 +0000

Its not delayed ,as such. For you to say it is delayed it would mean you knew the prospective release date if we were still making the mod for bf2

Re: 2142

null@example.com (galaticplayer) — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 02:47:55 +0000

will 2124 have higher requirements? I'm really bummed about it being delayed.

EDIT: The mod I mean.

Re: 2142

null@example.com (Bandu) — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 23:27:21 +0000

Indeed.

Re: 2142

null@example.com (Mr. Wookiee) — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 23:16:25 +0000

No, they are not pausing the mod developement. I could make a texture or model for an object in bf 1942 and use the same texture and model for an object on bf vietnam. BF 2 and BF 2142 use the same base engine so everything should be easy to transfer. This is why they say moving to BF 2142 will not delay the release because they are still working on it.

Re: 2142

null@example.com (Han Solo) — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 21:55:21 +0000

omfg why does everyone have to be so hateful toward the mod?
dont u freakin understand that bf2142 will make modding the walkable at-ats and crap easier?
and make the whole freakin mod more fun to play?
i understand that u guys are thinking that now the whole coding and texturing and stuff has been thrown out now that they're moving it to bf2142, but dont think that.All they are doing right now is pausing the game development for bf2142 to come out so they can go on with their modding.

Re: 2142

null@example.com (Bewilderbeast) — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 17:54:54 +0000

Heh, I like shooting people with the ak 101, but not being on the receiving end. Seems like it and the DAO 12 are the only guns that werent nerfed. G3 aint bad, but not as good as ak 101, thats for damn sure.

Lasers make a loud, distinctive sound however. In bf2 the sound of an ak101 is easily drowned out in a large map by the explosions, radio, etc etc going on.

I always hear people shooting at me, and have never been snuck up on.... so even louder lasers should be good.

Re: 2142

null@example.com (ArcAngel227) — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 13:45:13 +0000

I hate that weapon with every fiber of my bieng!

Re: 2142

null@example.com (FSDev| Ramseus) — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 06:19:50 +0000

Yeah and ak101's are loud but people don't seem to notice when they're getting shot at by one of them.

Re: 2142

null@example.com (Bewilderbeast) — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 05:02:48 +0000

Ulversial wrote:

as far as I know the only benefit we would have is getting the atst/atat to work much better. however if that is worth it, I'm not really sure. it would probably mean a lot of converting time, and I personally don't want to port over to bf2142 since I think that game is lost, and won't be much fun at all.

Hear Hear!

And dont assume that because theyre both technically sci fi the audience is the same.... I know many BF2 players who like me abhore the generic cash in sci fi crap they are making with 2142 and quake wars, but I really like star wars...

Remember, for every Star Wars, there is a galaxy of battlestars! (and quake, doom, bf2142, etc)

For every Beatles, a barrelfull of Monkees!

I agree with the last wookiee poster on SW lasers. Remember Galactic conquest? Believe me, I nailed quite a few people unsuspectfully from behind, the lasers are way too fast and deadly for them to react.

However, lasers make a lot of noise, so when fired close quarters they will alert people. Is there anything wrong with that? Absolutely not.... means you have to be smart enough not to fire your laser until youre going to hit the person....something anyone would figure out trying to be stealthy.