Electronic Arts
<div class="IPBDescription">I hope A stray missle hits their HQ</div> I hate EA, I cant belive the screwed so much up in such a short ammount of time (NFS HP2, 007 Nightfire, BF1942) they also got a hold of Westwood Studios so that means that Earth an Beyind will no longer be updated, and C&C Generals has a good chance of sucking ****.
The only good game they released recently was NHL2003 (no not for the PC that vwersion sucked major azz) the one for Game Cube
Sorry, I had to get that off my chest EA ruined my life <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
The only good game they released recently was NHL2003 (no not for the PC that vwersion sucked major azz) the one for Game Cube
Sorry, I had to get that off my chest EA ruined my life <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Comments
I don't play sports games
and the rest of their games are hideously popular
though I have no interest in them, BF is a very odd game for them, it realy dosn't fit with any of their other games, ho odd
oh oops, didn't know they did MOH
Now the games THEY made is a different story e.g. all their sports games. They mess with those because they oversee development on these. They generally leave their subsiduarys alone but give them plenty cash and reasonable deadlines.
They may produce crap games but all developers do from time to time so don't knock everything with a EA badge on it!
Honestly, any developer that makes a game that chugs at minimum settings on a 2ghz machine with 512MB of DDR and a GeForce 4 deserves to be slapped upside the head a few times. I refuse to buy the expansion because of this; instead, I'll be getting the much cooler Splinter Cell.
Still, BF is great fun when playing on my dad's uber-comp (names "Neo" on the network, as opposed to my "Mr. Smith"), and it very much deserved gamespy's Best Multiplay Game award. However, because of its total lack of any meaningful singleplayer and its insane system requirements, I don't think it deserved PC Gamer's overall Game of the Year award. I think that should have been given to a more singleplayer oriented game, such as NOLF2, WC3, or NWN (not the latter, as it is way too buggy, something PCG has never mentioned in any feature about the game).
2gig cpu, 512 DDr and GF4
well first up I wnat to know where you live so I can jump you for in
second up, I suggest you try tweaking it, we have BF running fine at lowish settings on much MUCH lower spec machines then you have, infact that you refer to another comp as 'uber' YOU SCARE ME I WANT YOUR COMPS (well their pieces atleast ;D)
hehe, we have BF set up on a Lan and periodicly we set it so that it is like 6:1 team ratio we all go one team and then try to wade through bots, its fn FUN
I love stealth games like Thief, and the SC demo was amazing, albeit short.
Honestly, any developer that makes a game that chugs at minimum settings on a 2ghz machine with 512MB of DDR and a GeForce 4 deserves to be slapped upside the head a few times. I refuse to buy the expansion because of this; instead, I'll be getting the much cooler Splinter Cell.
Still, BF is great fun when playing on my dad's uber-comp (names "Neo" on the network, as opposed to my "Mr. Smith"), and it very much deserved gamespy's Best Multiplay Game award. However, because of its total lack of any meaningful singleplayer and its insane system requirements, I don't think it deserved PC Gamer's overall Game of the Year award. I think that should have been given to a more singleplayer oriented game, such as NOLF2, WC3, or NWN (not the latter, as it is way too buggy, something PCG has never mentioned in any feature about the game). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I run fine on my P4 1.8 GHz, 256 MB RAM, Radeon 9000. I have Graphics and Effects quality on High and texture quality at 100% and get 30-50 FPS. Your problem is probably sound. If you have onboard sound/a crappy sound card, go to Start, click Run and type dxdiag.exe in the box. Go to Sound 1 and 2, and move the slider down to Basic Acceleration. It should work fine now. ALSO! Try to uninstall and reinstall Battlefield 1942 and patch it like this: 1.1 patch, 1.2 patch and 1.3 patch. Should improve FPS for some reason.
On another note, EA doesn't suck. They have a few bad games, yes, but then they have the developers like DICE that make great games.
Actually, I applaud developers who do this. I am really sick of game designers making games for the lowest quality PCs out there. I want games that actually push the limits, not fit in with 'requirements.' I don't want to have lower quality graphics so it will run on Poor Ol' Joes PC. I want POWER! I want the money I spent on a PC to actually be worth something, rather than just meaning I have some big numbers in my spec list.
I understand what you're saying, but think about it from my perspective.
The sooner that system can't run games at full detail, the sooner that system can't run games at low detail.
UT2003 did that. I ran on older PCs well and on super PCs really well.
Pity it got old really fast....
They hyped the game as a GREAT WW2 game. Just to give you a brief run down Ive played all the Close Combat games. So when I heard of 1942 I thought it was gunna be a FPS version of Close Combat. If you look at the publicity associated with the game they never mentioned the fact that it was gunna be "Arcade" style.
So I got 1942 installed it, and did what any Great gamer should always do. I set the game to the highest difficulty and began to play what they called "Campaighn" mode. I'm not even gunna get into how lame it was. The outcomes of your battles did not influance anything, it was a mission by mission repeat of the multiplayer maps. Win or Lose it did not matter. Secondly on the highest difficulty the AI survives sniper and Machingun hits to the gface, which is completely retarded.
Now to the real beef.
The physics of the game are a joke. You can kill a tiger tank with 2 hand grenades, the Tigers shells dont travel farther than 100m. The jeep is the ultimate weapon. Dont get me wrong, the game multiplayer is decent, but it was a major sellout. I dont want to shell out $50 for a game thats supposed to be played multiplayer.
And if you are still not convinced then comoare 1942 to Operation Flashpoint by codemasters, it was game based in the 1980's all the physics where correct, the weapons functioned properly, distance and time was done very well, fatigue affected aim and the game was desiged for single player, but had good multiplayer support.
EA relys on the fact that the initial sales of their games will make them money. Meaning they make back what it took to develop and market the game within the first sales period. So they dont need the games to be good, just profitable.
People dont realize that for a game to be Great it needs more thasn flashy graphics. Unreal Tourney 2003 being the prime example.
Anyway im getting btched at to get off the net, damn boss what does he think hes paying me for. Ill ellaborate some more on why other EA titles where bad, but all you have to do is read their forums and know what their users think
Enough said.
2gig cpu, 512 DDr and GF4
well first up I wnat to know where you live so I can jump you for in
second up, I suggest you try tweaking it, we have BF running fine at lowish settings on much MUCH lower spec machines then you have, infact that you refer to another comp as 'uber' YOU SCARE ME I WANT YOUR COMPS (well their pieces atleast ;D)
hehe, we have BF set up on a Lan and periodicly we set it so that it is like 6:1 team ratio we all go one team and then try to wade through bots, its fn FUN <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My dad writes 3D medical imaging software that takes CT scans and MRIs and turns them into three-dimensional models that can be used by doctors. He wanted to be able to do some work at home on the weekends, so he bought the fastest comp he could find:
3.06GHz
1024MB uber-1337 RAM (don't know hoe fast exactly, but it's FAST)
Radeon 9700 pro
etc.
So yes, it is quite uber.
BTW, the aforementioned 2ghz machine does have crappy sound capability, so that may be the problem. However, it still has issues on my 1.6ghz machine with a Live! 5.1 card. I just got all the display and sound drivers updated (which fixed some evil sound problems I had been having with the original UT and the Splinter Cell demo), but that has not helped much. I'll try your solution anyway.
was watching one of my friends beat down on the bots, and it looked realy nice ;D
Hey why would your dad buy a radeon for imaging? they arent designed to compile stuff like that. and he got pc1066 32bit RDRAM (prolly samsun or kingston)
my sys:
P4 2.4 (533)
Asus p4t533-c mobo (533)
512 RDRAM 16bit (533)
Creative Audigy Plat (sound)
IBM Deskstar RAID (2 60's)
Asus Geforce4 Ultra (4600)
I still had problems loading and playing that pice of **** 1942 game all of you are raving about. THey did a **** poor job coding it and I hope they burn in hell.
----------ANGER RIZING-------
<a href='http://www.desertcombat.com/' target='_blank'>Desert Combat</a>
<a href='http://www.battlefield1942.org/' target='_blank'>Codename Eagle</a>
<a href='http://esmod.bfcentral.com/' target='_blank'>Eternal Silence</a>
<a href='http://www.swbattlefield.com/' target='_blank'>Star Wars!!!!!!!</a>
just to name a few. I dont think EA gunna screw up anything.
Oh yeah. simcity 4 r0x0rs my b0x0rs!
Seriously ! I HATE EA, they can't do anything right. Look at Blizzard good graphics but it runs on all types of machines, plus you get the major gameplay pwnage.
Im so happy another person hates them. They destroyed bf1942, and can't even enjoy it because i can't run the good graphics, and i barely run medium with way too below decent FPS. EA simply sucks, they just make whatever and hope people buy it. BF1942 had soo much potential for being an amazing game, but now its simply good, or mediocre.
As I sidenote, I'd have to disagree with you there, somewhat. My reasoning is that before WarCraft 3, all the graphics in Blizzard games were premade. What I mean is that they weren't truly 3-dimensional - they were drawn pixel by pixel. It is in my opinion that graphics are made truly great when they can maintain the "Myst"-like quality, while still being 3D.
I also don't like Blizzard, so perhaps I'm biased.
Sirus:
Trust me you and I arent the only ones... everyoine who loved NFS Porche Unleashed
Absolutley HATED 'NFS HS2' retarded azz EA and dropping depth charges from helicopters... fargen BS
EASports has some fun games too, such as their NHL series. Hooray for 783 hits and 13 injuries in one game with 6 ejections!
EASports has some fun games too, such as their NHL series. Hooray for 783 hits and 13 injuries in one game with 6 ejections! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Holy crap, were you playing 20 min periods??
<!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->