Battlefield 2: Graphics and Gameplay - bit-tech.net Forums

The_Pope · 24th Jun 2005, 15:14

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2005/..._review/1.html

Quote:

hop online and have yourself the best multiplayer blast since, well, CS 0.7.

Dinh · 24th Jun 2005, 15:20

Very Well Written!

Though some ranked servers are getting hammered bad, so i can't play now

Da Dego · 24th Jun 2005, 15:45

On your apples to apples comparison at 1280x and 2xAA, I don't see quality settings referenced anywhere...?

The_Pope · 24th Jun 2005, 15:47

doh - such are the pitfalls of still working past midnight. Medium detail was used - I'll add that back to the article

Da Dego · 24th Jun 2005, 15:54

Good good. But as is mentioned in the article, 1024 is the res most people will be using...so since you already recognize this, perhaps the best framerate graph would be the different cards at 1024x, 2xAA, and high quality?

That sounds to me like the setting most people would WANT to run, and you could quickly identify whether your card is above or below that.

The_Pope · 24th Jun 2005, 16:08

It's a toughie really: the BF games are pretty fast-paced kill 'em all type games. As such, most players would probably sacrifice some pretty grass for smoother gameplay. If we were talking about the difference between Low and Medium, then I would agree. But I'd suggest the benefits of 1280 over 1024 far outweigh pretty grass

TBH, Wil wrote the review and thinks 1024 is about right - he's in meetings all day, so isn't able to explain this position. Tim, bless his cotton socks, spent time this morning running a *second* set of figures (the ones you see) since I rejected the first set at the Editing stage because it was Apples vs Oranges and wasn't that helpful.

I suggested 1024, as per your logic, but he chose 1280: I guess anyone on a 17" TFT will favour their native resolution of 1280, and there won't be many CRT gamers who can't play at 1280... if you bench at 1024 you have TFT gamers interpolating / upscaling to fit their screen and 1024 isn't too crispy on a CRT either.

Yes, you could test both, but we have to draw a line *somewhere*: if Tim spends all day benchmarking BF2, he won't finish his review for a certain NDA that expires on Monday. Don't forget that each time we change resolution, there are FIVE different cards to swap in & out of the machine, and each benchmark is played very carefully, by hand, a total of five times to get a realistic, real-world gameplaying average. A 30-second timedemo this ain't.

You won't find many other game reviews that give you the technical & performance data we deliver, so if we haven't covered a setting you'd like to see, download the demo and try it out for yourself - there's often no better yardstick for judging a potential game purchase than the hands on

Darkedge · 24th Jun 2005, 16:14

apple and apples - at last a sensible way of displaying the performance on opposing cards.

Good article guys.

Da Dego · 24th Jun 2005, 16:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Pope

I suggested 1024, as per your logic, but he chose 1280: I guess anyone on a 17" TFT will favour their native resolution of 1280, and there won't be many CRT gamers who can't play at 1280... if you bench at 1024 you have TFT gamers interpolating / upscaling to fit their screen and 1024 isn't too crispy on a CRT either.

Makes sense.

I just figured that since you guys really gave a "recommended" resolution/setting, that would be what you tested for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Pope

Yes, you could test both, but we have to draw a line *somewhere*: if Tim spends all day benchmarking BF2, he won't finish his review for a certain NDA that expires on Monday.

Oooooooohhhh....What nda!?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Pope

You won't find many other game reviews that give you the technical & performance data we deliver, so if we haven't covered a setting you'd like to see, download the demo and try it out for yourself - there's often no better yardstick for judging a potential game purchase than the hands on

Now, now, Geoff...I've been here long enough that that type of comment isn't necessary!

Was just making a suggestion. Honestly, though, I'm at work right now, so I can't download the demo. And I don't have 5 cards at home to swap in and out to evaluate whether I'd like to buy one of them, so I can't really do that, either. That's what I have you guys for!

adidas · 24th Jun 2005, 16:38

On a more 'gameplay-oriented' note, I'm worried about forking out good money on a game where the ammount of fun will be directly linked to the 'good behaviour' of players. I didn't play WOW for that very reason, with griefers pretty much running (and ruining) the show.

So.. how is it like so far? Do players use tactics? Are there many TKers?

Kipman725 · 24th Jun 2005, 16:43

looks like I need an upgrade my monitor looks so crap at bellow its top res (1280x1024) so it looks like my 5950ultra might have some trouble doing that smothley at over low...

starts saving pennies for SFF Sli...

RotoSequence · 24th Jun 2005, 17:06

Damn, I suppose my 9800 pro just isnt going to cut it anymore on my 19" CRT if I want to play this game, is it?

Darkedge · 24th Jun 2005, 17:32

adidas - it's great not many tkers and loads of protection or ways to stop people tking anyway.. However it came out TODAY so only time will tell if this works.
The good servers as usual will be good (eurogamer has a nice server..)
Players using tactics is essential and no other game has the squad system plus VOIP for working together - buy it, damn good game (my preorder arrived yesterday

Leeum · 24th Jun 2005, 17:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by RotoSequence

Damn, I suppose my 9800 pro just isnt going to cut it anymore on my 19" CRT if I want to play this game, is it?

I run 1280 x 1024 all high settings with no AA or AAF, gives me ~40 FPS with my 9800 Pro flashed to XT. Only thing I dislike is the long loading time, it says i've updated my display settings each time I go onto a server

Tim S · 24th Jun 2005, 19:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leeum

I run 1280 x 1024 all high settings with no AA or AAF, gives me ~40 FPS with my 9800 Pro flashed to XT. Only thing I dislike is the long loading time, it says i've updated my display settings each time I go onto a server

That must lag pretty badly.... I was getting hitching on a 7800gtx sli when all details were set to high.... I guess it depends on your definition of playable though.

the section used for the apples to apples comparison is relatively cpu limited on 7800gtx - i would expect 100fps+ at 1600x1200 too. it is not representative of 'real-world' game play, so do not take that as a settings guide - it's merely to show 'which is fastest' at the chosen setiings. 7800gtx will pull away when you increase details/graphics intensity.

// smart phone + stylo cheesecake

mobius9 · 24th Jun 2005, 20:48

I've been running the full game since monday at a lan, here are my results so far.

We tried to run a non dedicated server with 4 players on a evga 6800gt, 1gig mushkin 3200 and an athlon 64 3000, and it lags.

Then we ran a dedicated off of a duron ~1ish ghz, 512 pc2100, and a radeon 8500 ghetto card. ran it smooth as butter... then again we didn't have more than 6 people on at one time.

I can run this on low settings in single player mode, or on lan - 800x600 just fine on my setup - athlon 2000+, geforce 5600u, 512mb pc3200.

It would not run on the old geforce ti series because I think that they don't support direct x 9 or something.

Hope this helps some people

- mobi.

Sea Shadow · 24th Jun 2005, 21:01

Regarding the TK thought. If someone does start tking there are 2 possible outcomes, both of which are bad for the tker. Either the TKer is kicked, or if the kicking for TK is disabled you can make the life of the TKer a living hell (untill they leave the server).

My brother plays predominantly as a medic, one game a TKer blasted the planes as soon as team members got in. so he ran over and shot the guy. He then proceeded to call over a few of the guys who had been TKed a few seconds earlier. He revived the TKer and then the others exectued the TKer. He then revived the guy again, who was then shot again. Most of the guys went back to war but one of them stayed and continued to shoot the TKer. This process of reviving and shooting went on for almost 5 min before the guy left the game.

Da Dego · 24th Jun 2005, 21:04

hahahaha...there needs to be more of that vigilanteism in those types of games.

I like your brother's style.

rupbert · 25th Jun 2005, 00:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Da Dego

Oooooooohhhh....What nda!?

The new ATI card?

infered101 · 25th Jun 2005, 00:34

Hmmm thinking my comp with its 512 ram and 9600xt wont cut it. Me tinks i will be getting my new comp a bit earlier then planed.

The_Pope · 25th Jun 2005, 03:27

Rupbert: I *could* tease you with comments like "I'm not allowed say" but I'm not that cruel - it's NOT the new ATI card...

Infered101: dude, if you're on broadband, just download the demo and try a bunch of settings for yourself.

24th Jun 2005, 15:20	#2
Dinh Hypermodder Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Houston,Texas Posts: 810	Very Well Written! Though some ranked servers are getting hammered bad, so i can't play now __________________ AMD 64 X2 3800+ 1GB Corsair XMS ASRock Dual SATAII BFG 6600GT SoundBlaster Audigy! SE

24th Jun 2005, 15:45	#3
Da Dego Brett Thomas Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Cleveland, OH USA Posts: 3,906	On your apples to apples comparison at 1280x and 2xAA, I don't see quality settings referenced anywhere...? __________________ "Frankly that seems overkill. iluvtrees2 arguing with spec is the intellectual equivalent of a bunny rabbit taking on a pissed-off lion." - Nexxo

24th Jun 2005, 15:54	#5
Da Dego Brett Thomas Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Cleveland, OH USA Posts: 3,906	Good good. But as is mentioned in the article, 1024 is the res most people will be using...so since you already recognize this, perhaps the best framerate graph would be the different cards at 1024x, 2xAA, and high quality? That sounds to me like the setting most people would WANT to run, and you could quickly identify whether your card is above or below that. __________________ "Frankly that seems overkill. iluvtrees2 arguing with spec is the intellectual equivalent of a bunny rabbit taking on a pissed-off lion." - Nexxo

24th Jun 2005, 16:43	#10
Kipman725 When did I get a custom title!?! Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: UK Posts: 1,753	looks like I need an upgrade my monitor looks so crap at bellow its top res (1280x1024) so it looks like my 5950ultra might have some trouble doing that smothley at over low... starts saving pennies for SFF Sli... __________________ Sn45g game server mod My Electronics Site Hardware: 3400+ Sempr0n, 1GB RAM, 1.28TB local storage, x1950pro,Razer Viper,M$ comfort curve 2000,L70S + 17", Fujitsu 17" CRT Audio: HD-650's, PE congress amp, Sound Blaster AWE64, Soundblaster 24bit

24th Jun 2005, 17:06	#11
RotoSequence Lazy Lurker Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: 'States Posts: 4,529	Damn, I suppose my 9800 pro just isnt going to cut it anymore on my 19" CRT if I want to play this game, is it? __________________ Technology Schmecnology

24th Jun 2005, 15:47	#4
The_Pope Geoff Richards Moderator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: UK Posts: 2,089	doh - such are the pitfalls of still working past midnight. Medium detail was used - I'll add that back to the article

24th Jun 2005, 16:08	#6
The_Pope Geoff Richards Moderator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: UK Posts: 2,089	It's a toughie really: the BF games are pretty fast-paced kill 'em all type games. As such, most players would probably sacrifice some pretty grass for smoother gameplay. If we were talking about the difference between Low and Medium, then I would agree. But I'd suggest the benefits of 1280 over 1024 far outweigh pretty grass TBH, Wil wrote the review and thinks 1024 is about right - he's in meetings all day, so isn't able to explain this position. Tim, bless his cotton socks, spent time this morning running a second set of figures (the ones you see) since I rejected the first set at the Editing stage because it was Apples vs Oranges and wasn't that helpful. I suggested 1024, as per your logic, but he chose 1280: I guess anyone on a 17" TFT will favour their native resolution of 1280, and there won't be many CRT gamers who can't play at 1280... if you bench at 1024 you have TFT gamers interpolating / upscaling to fit their screen and 1024 isn't too crispy on a CRT either. Yes, you could test both, but we have to draw a line somewhere: if Tim spends all day benchmarking BF2, he won't finish his review for a certain NDA that expires on Monday. Don't forget that each time we change resolution, there are FIVE different cards to swap in & out of the machine, and each benchmark is played very carefully, by hand, a total of five times to get a realistic, real-world gameplaying average. A 30-second timedemo this ain't. You won't find many other game reviews that give you the technical & performance data we deliver, so if we haven't covered a setting you'd like to see, download the demo and try it out for yourself - there's often no better yardstick for judging a potential game purchase than the hands on

24th Jun 2005, 16:14	#7
Darkedge Supermodder Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: UK Posts: 334	apple and apples - at last a sensible way of displaying the performance on opposing cards. Good article guys.

24th Jun 2005, 16:38	#9
adidas Multimodder Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Richmond, Surrey Posts: 72	On a more 'gameplay-oriented' note, I'm worried about forking out good money on a game where the ammount of fun will be directly linked to the 'good behaviour' of players. I didn't play WOW for that very reason, with griefers pretty much running (and ruining) the show. So.. how is it like so far? Do players use tactics? Are there many TKers?

24th Jun 2005, 17:32	#12
Darkedge Supermodder Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: UK Posts: 334	adidas - it's great not many tkers and loads of protection or ways to stop people tking anyway.. However it came out TODAY so only time will tell if this works. The good servers as usual will be good (eurogamer has a nice server..) Players using tactics is essential and no other game has the squad system plus VOIP for working together - buy it, damn good game (my preorder arrived yesterday

24th Jun 2005, 20:48	#15
mobius9 Supermodder Join Date: May 2004 Location: San Diego, Projects: 4 Posts: 347	I've been running the full game since monday at a lan, here are my results so far. We tried to run a non dedicated server with 4 players on a evga 6800gt, 1gig mushkin 3200 and an athlon 64 3000, and it lags. Then we ran a dedicated off of a duron ~1ish ghz, 512 pc2100, and a radeon 8500 ghetto card. ran it smooth as butter... then again we didn't have more than 6 people on at one time. I can run this on low settings in single player mode, or on lan - 800x600 just fine on my setup - athlon 2000+, geforce 5600u, 512mb pc3200. It would not run on the old geforce ti series because I think that they don't support direct x 9 or something. Hope this helps some people - mobi. __________________ Boompack Crimson - Mini Project Log Boompack micro - mini project log Boompack mini project log mobius9.com

24th Jun 2005, 21:01	#16
Sea Shadow Supermodder Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: USA Posts: 459	Regarding the TK thought. If someone does start tking there are 2 possible outcomes, both of which are bad for the tker. Either the TKer is kicked, or if the kicking for TK is disabled you can make the life of the TKer a living hell (untill they leave the server). My brother plays predominantly as a medic, one game a TKer blasted the planes as soon as team members got in. so he ran over and shot the guy. He then proceeded to call over a few of the guys who had been TKed a few seconds earlier. He revived the TKer and then the others exectued the TKer. He then revived the guy again, who was then shot again. Most of the guys went back to war but one of them stayed and continued to shoot the TKer. This process of reviving and shooting went on for almost 5 min before the guy left the game. __________________ Eagles may soar, but weasles don't get sucked into jet engines. I have re-organized my files on the FTP that I use, so if any pictures of my works are little red X's please PM me.

24th Jun 2005, 21:04	#17
Da Dego Brett Thomas Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Cleveland, OH USA Posts: 3,906	hahahaha...there needs to be more of that vigilanteism in those types of games. I like your brother's style. __________________ "Frankly that seems overkill. iluvtrees2 arguing with spec is the intellectual equivalent of a bunny rabbit taking on a pissed-off lion." - Nexxo

25th Jun 2005, 00:34	#19
infered101 Supermodder Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Florida Posts: 551	Hmmm thinking my comp with its 512 ram and 9600xt wont cut it. Me tinks i will be getting my new comp a bit earlier then planed. __________________ BLANK

25th Jun 2005, 03:27	#20
The_Pope Geoff Richards Moderator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: UK Posts: 2,089	Rupbert: I could tease you with comments like "I'm not allowed say" but I'm not that cruel - it's NOT the new ATI card... Infered101: dude, if you're on broadband, just download the demo and try a bunch of settings for yourself.