BF1942 - AKA the resource Piggy

[f1oored]

Just had a Lan party this past Saturday. Everyone had fun and we tried a few new games out. One of the games we played together for the first time was Battlefield 1942. We were all running version 1.6 with desert combat 0.6.
I was astonished at how slow the game loaded and how poorly it ran. The only people who didn't have to wait 5 minutes to join a game were the people with a gig of ram.

My system must not be up to par for that game.
I only have...
2400+ OCed to 2.2ghz
512MB Corsair DDR3200
ATI 9600XT

Sweet mother of god! There isn't a single game requirment that I am not exceeding by at least 4 times! Still it runs like crap! It's a fun game once you are into it but you have to put up with so much crap just to play.
Here are my gripes listed in order

1) It seems like every other month there is another 250mb patch because the programers for this game couldn't stay off the bong long enough to write two lines of code without bugs. Windows 95 had less bugs than this game.

2) Load time! We also played CoD and Blackhawk Down Team Sabre and they both seemed to load within a reasonable time. By the time I actually got into the game on BF the war was over!

3) Even after releasing 2gigs worth of patches the game still likes to shutdown at random intervals. You might play one round and then the next thing you know your machine is restarting???WTF And you better pray the server doesn't go down because then everyone is screwed.

4) The graphics aren't anything special yet my 9600XT still likes to choke for the first few minutes of play.

I guess I just want to know why everyone is putting up with this game? I like to fly the planes and drive the tanks but is it really worth it?

[muno]

I only played the single player mode, and that was when the sound engine was so buggy it had to be played at 22khz - if you didn't want 5fps.

However, as the bots on my side were moronic, I gave it up. Well, in a way they acted quite human like, but I wouldn't want humans like that in my squad. You know, packing up in one defensive position when the mission is to attack, and eventually lose the mission because I am - and will never be - like rambo, who can take entire batallions and not even break sweat.

[SoSl0w]

I saw a marked difference between systems with 1G and those with 512. Whether running a server or not they managed to get into the game sooner, whereas other games I have played were not so lopsided.
I love the game play and thank god for Desert Combat, making the hell that the game is well worth it.

[RamonGTP]

BF1942 definatly has its shortcomings. They just need to re-vamp the entire code, or find a developer that knows how. I think the reason why this game uses so much more RAM than most games is that the maps are HUGE.

[f1oored]

Does anyone know if the new BF Vietnam is any better? Or did they just use the same crappy code to put out a crappy game as fast as possible?

[shawshank62]

1) It seems like every other month there is another 250mb patch because the programers for this game couldn't stay off the bong long enough to write two lines of code without bugs. Windows 95 had less bugs than this game.

Alright...whatever you say

2) Load time! We also played CoD and Blackhawk Down Team Sabre and they both seemed to load within a reasonable time. By the time I actually got into the game on BF the war was over!

Realize that BF1942 has to load a hell of a lot more than BHD or COD, the maps are bigger, with much more depth.

3) Even after releasing 2gigs worth of patches the game still likes to shutdown at random intervals. You might play one round and then the next thing you know your machine is restarting???WTF And you better pray the server doesn't go down because then everyone is screwed.

And if you were actually following this game from the beginning, many of these patches add new maps, fix sounds, etc. Would you rather have a game that has no support from its developer?

4) The graphics aren't anything special yet my 9600XT still likes to choke for the first few minutes of play.

Runs fine on my nvidia GF4ti4200, on medium details @ 1024x768

[Undeadlord]

I am gonna agree with Shawshank on this one, as a matter of fact last weekend I also had a LAN party where we played BF1942 with Desert Combat.

We all have later model Athlons with 512+ Ram and decent vid cards.

We never had hours of load time like your implying floored, never had any random shutdown across 5 systems for about 36 hours of straigt playing.
I have the graphics jacked all the way up on my ATI 9700 Pro and it runs smooth as silk.

Also about the large patches, my guess these are so large is becuase the developers are basically re-writing the game with every release, they are tweaking graphics, code, weapons, everything so yes the downloads are large, but like I said its bascially a new game everytime.


Undeadlord

[Optimus Prime]

" Alright...whatever you say"

That isn't helping at all.

"Realize that BF1942 has to load a hell of a lot more than BHD or COD, the maps are bigger, with much more depth."

No, CoD has much more depth than BF1942, depth means more atmospheric, interactive, detailed, etc, sure bf1942 has bigger maps, but not better

"And if you were actually following this game from the beginning, many of these patches add new maps, fix sounds, etc. Would you rather have a game that has no support from its developer?"

N/A

"Runs fine on my nvidia GF4ti4200, on medium details @ 1024x768"

Ran fine for me too, but not when I was a server.

[shawshank62]

That isn't helping at all.

And saying that the developers are smoking mind altering drugs is helping? I gave a half ass response, to a half ass statement.

No, CoD has much more depth than BF1942, depth means more atmospheric, interactive, detailed, etc, sure bf1942 has bigger maps, but not better

BF1942 is much more interactive than CoD, the detail is better in CoD since it is a small scale, they can add a lot of detail, where as BF, its more like a real battlefield, open range. "Sure bf1942 has bigger maps, not better" Thats your opinion....but i find them hard to compare since they are two totally different types of multiplayer.

[f1oored]

Originally posted by shawshank62

And if you were actually following this game from the beginning, many of these patches add new maps, fix sounds, etc. Would you rather have a game that has no support from its developer?

You know what? If they hadn't written the game so poorly in the first place, they wouldn't need to fix so many things. And don't talk about new maps because they don't take up that much space. I would rather have a game that didn't require tons of support from it's developer.

A game should run fine straight out of the box. If it is that buggy, don't release it. Hold onto it for a year and fix it. (HL2 comes to mind) And blackhawk down has maps that are larger than bf1942. You don't die in Blackhawk if you go off the map because there isn't an edge like in BF1942.

Shawshank62 what's the deal? Do you own stock in EA? The game code wasn't written well. It just wasn't. It doesn't really matter what you say, the code for this game is still crap and anyone who knows anything about games will tell you that. I didn't say it wasn't fun and I didn't say I didn't like it. All I said was that the code was poorly written.

EA broke new ground with BF1942 by adding vehicles. Maybe this new ground comes with the price of poorly written, buggy code, but just because it's new and different doesn't mean it's quality.

If I was the only person in my group having problems with this game I would have never started this thread. But the guy two seats down from me had a brand new AMD 64 machine with a fresh install of windows and a fresh install of BF and the game kicked him out at least half a dozen times over the 12 hours of play. Not a single member of our 9 person group made it through the entire night without some sort of problem.

Don't take things so personally. You act like I just insulted you mother. It's just a game buddy!