Project Reality Forums

Well, at least they stick to the same watchtower statics They at least look the same.

This does looks a lot like Heros. The intro when the island came into veiw I was like Ooooo good looking!! Then the planes rolled in and fruity explosions poped up, and mad rushing tanks, and people walking like rubber, and blah blah blah.

I hope CRF you are right, but I hope they improve on the sillyness that this 1943 thing is going to be... I see no need to pick it up (or my bad 'down it up') if PR is fitting me just fine

This is like those silly Disney movie sequels that are released on video instead of the bigscreen...

BATTLEFIELD BAD COMPANY 2 ON PC, BATTLEFIELD 1943 ON PC... so... P.R. 2.x on the mind dev ???

ONLY 24 player support..

Garack wrote:ONLY 24 player support..

NickO wrote:I'm starting to suspect that the frostbite engine might only support 24 players.. T_T

:d uh:

The frostbite engine can support upto 96 players. No player numbers have been announced for BFBC2, which is the game that is being released.

It looks like BF1943 ( which has the 24 player limit ), is basically going to be a free demo to download, and wont be released as a full game.

It will be interesting to see if BFBC2 is basically BF3 - and also if they plan to release frostbite to allow modding - Im sure we'll find out soon.

NickO wrote:I'm starting to suspect that the frostbite engine might only support 24 players.. T_T

For consoles, probably. I couldn't find anything written in stone. But, I found that for the PC, the Frostbite engine could theoretically support 96 players to a side...

Here is a PDF slide presentation detailing key features: http://developer.amd.com/assets/Anderss ... ssion).pdf

Looks like BF1943 isnt going to be free

GameSpot Video: Start/Select 05/02/09

The interview suggests it will be the cost of an average arcade download on xbox, which is about $10-$15.

I really have trouble believing that EA will release a PC version of the upcoming BF titles with anything less than 64 players. Maybe they haven’t nailed down the exact number for the PC so they just posted the console specs. Even if 1943 has limited players, it’s just a glorified tech demo for BF BC2, which I really can’t believe will have less than 64 player support on the pc. EA wants to maximize its return on investment, and they know that adding support for 64+ players to the PC is an easy way to achieve that. Subsequent releases of video game series generally expand features with each release, it doesn’t shrink them.

As far as EA making a PC only BF3 title, I’m not sure. I know that Heroes will be PC only, but I just don’t see EA focusing on the PC exclusively when they can expend a little more effort and expand their profit opportunities from one platform to three. The most likely way I see EA creating a PC only BF3’esque title is if it is a monthly subscription, MMOFPS.

Btw, I barely know how to turn my computer on, let alone the amount of work that goes into creating one game for multiple platforms, but my assumption is that the cost of doing it is far less than the benefit from releasing a game on three platforms versus one. This is the basis for my argument that we might not see a PC only BF3 type game, but I hope I’m wrong.

Anyway, these are just my thoughts.

Guess this means PR will not move to a new BF game anytime soon

I don't care if the game only takes 24 players, or if frostbyte can take up to 96 players.

All i care is that they make an easy to mod game engine, in which even the number of players can be chosen by the modders.

honestly i wouldnt waste any money on the BF1943 as it is going to be something like BF:heroes but with B companies graphics and all. and honestly i wouldnt get B company2 for ps3 as the number of players online will more than likely be below 32 players. so, if i upgrade my computer (which btw has difficulties running PR on medium-low settings...LOL) by the time B company2 is released (2010 maybe?!) i would definitely buy it. also, there is a possibility that it would be moddable, and what do you know, maybe by 2012 we would have "Project Reality a Battlefield: BC2 modification"

Sw1ss+A1R+F0RC3 wrote:This does looks a lot like Heros. The intro when the island came into veiw I was like Ooooo good looking!! Then the planes rolled in and fruity explosions poped up, and mad rushing tanks, and people walking like rubber, and blah blah blah.

Aside from slightly cartoony looking soldiers, the game otherwise has some very nice visuals. The explosions are pretty much copy-pasted from BFBC, and mad rushing tanks are in every BF trailer. I mean, the BF2142 trailer has everyone(walkers and tanks included) just firing their weapon into the air for the lulz. You see about 1 guy actually aiming, and then 10 running past spraying full auto. I've come to expect stuff like that in a BF trailer.

I knew EA is full of fail, but this amount of fail. :O

Dr2B Rudd wrote:They've probably played a beta of OFP2 and ArmA2 and just thought "screw it, we can't beat that" or something

Dr2B Rudd: You have a point, but on the other hand, no one expects a Battlefield game to be on the level of realism of ArmA2 (in reality, Operation Flashpoint 3 ).

A Battlefield game is expected to have good overall graphics, some fairly realistic details and touches here and there (mostly visual stuff) and great gameplay with a heavy emphasis on action and lots of fast fun. There's plenty of room in the PC game world for both ArmA2 and BF3. I hope they make BF3 soon, it's been too long since we've been able to look forward to a new Battlefield game.

Cobhris wrote:Aside from slightly cartoony looking soldiers, the game otherwise has some very nice visuals. The explosions are pretty much copy-pasted from BFBC, and mad rushing tanks are in every BF trailer. I mean, the BF2142 trailer has everyone(walkers and tanks included) just firing their weapon into the air for the lulz. You see about 1 guy actually aiming, and then 10 running past spraying full auto. I've come to expect stuff like that in a BF trailer.

well to be honest, thats kind of how 2142 worked, you grab your voss, you fire wildly at a door while charging at it, making the enemy duck for cover and then rush in and kill him.
2142 was (or at least i thought so) always more fastpaced than the other bf games.

wookimonsta wrote:well to be honest, thats kind of how 2142 worked, you grab your voss, you fire wildly at a door while charging at it, making the enemy duck for cover and then rush in and kill him.
2142 was (or at least i thought so) always more fastpaced than the other bf games.

I wouldnt flame 2142 as it did at least two major improvement/fix over BF2 - 2142 got rid of dolphin diving and made aimless spraying ineffective (exept for Voss, but Voss fails at anything further than 10-15 methers).

Longbow* wrote:I wouldnt flame 2142 as it did at least two major improvement/fix over BF2 - 2142 got rid of dolphin diving and made aimless spraying ineffective (exept for Voss, but Voss fails at anything further than 10-15 methers).

Set to single and take your time and you'll do better than a sniper rifle

Tirak wrote:Set to single and take your time and you'll do better than a sniper rifle

First of all, Voss' damage suck.
Second, I dont use Voss anyways as it:
a) is overpowered in CQB
b) fails at range

Longbow* wrote:First of all, Voss' damage suck.
Second, I dont usse Voss anyways.

Aim for the head, two shots and they're dead. Deviation while scoped in is nothing, it doesn't wobble and there's no recoil. Couldn't ask for a better gun, though the Lambert takes a close 2nd.

2142 was damn good, if it had been set in the present it would have been made of win.

This looks okay, but all we need is good modding, and these DEVs here to get us Realism fools sorted