BF 2142
Why hasn’t this game been put on EA Play yet?
Forum Discussion
Repost Reason:
Trying to correct spelling mistakes or re-add accidentally omitted words that you accidentally removed during cut and paste isn't fun. It's even less fun when you're doing it every few seconds of proof reading because the Preview button crashes your browser. Sorry EA Bots for the edit-spam.
I just want to address some of what you've said. (It's 4 in the morning when I started writing this so the order is not a concern).
@Modl My comment about Bf2 isn't based in nostalgia. I still play it online, and I think it's still the best Battlefield experience there is available. It's certainly the most complex Battlefield experience - for the better, IMO. I don't abuse or use bugs (dolphin diving was patched-out of Bf2 long before support for the game ended), and its dated graphics and (in select cases) mechanics don't mean it has bad or dated design, only dated graphics and (in select cases) mechanics.
In my view, it's straight-up a better-designed game than any other Battlefield: Six very different and interesting, but all playable and useable classes, the best and most varied maps in the series (the Bf3 and Bf4 iterations of them aren't as good as the originals) along with the most interesting flag placement, the most lethal and fun to control aircraft, the best team controls, the best Commander implementation, the most strategic and team-oriented gameplay in the entire series.
The amount of work put into a game doesn't directly correlate to how well designed a game is. If it did, the history of games would be filled with a lot better games than what it is. Technological evolutions mean graphics and some interactivity. But graphics aren't really a game design aspect, but graphics design. Regarding interactivity, Battlefield has lost some since Bf2, while gaining some in other places.
>> "With many of the new titles, we have received vastly new technological leaps alongside an increase in overall quality which was not possible in earlier generation titles. The Destruction 3.0 capabilities of the Frostbite engine are still vastly impressive. Greatly improved visuals have been leaping with new generations of technology. All that required a lot of work by Games Engine Programmers, Concept Artists, Environment Artists, Project Managers, Technical Artists and many many more. Games aren't getting inferior in design, they're simply getting so much more visually and logically intense that they will increasingly require more staff per technological leap to meet current Gaming Enthusiast and Consumer standards. "
Most of what you're talking about there isn't game design, but graphics design. Destruction in OK and nice to have, but it doesn't make or break any Battlefield game. I wouldn't trade the maps, flight controls, and teamwork of Bf2 for destruction in BC2, Bf3, or Bf4. I wouldn't even trade just the maps in Bf2 for the destruction in those later games.
The number of developers required to make a game is not related to how good a game's design is. As technology advances and becomes more complex, more people are required to build something using it. However, that doesn't mean a game's design has improved. And any number of developers could still create something that is not of good design. Also, the larger team numbers for modern games mostly comes down to the graphics and not gameplay design.
>> "Then there is the slowly dwindling single-player / offline experience. With the technology at hand in the Battlefield games we know of (BF4, BF:H, BF1 & BF5), it is going to be exponentially harder to create an artificial intelligence that can react in response to the ever-evolving battlegrounds on which a multiplayer server round takes place."
Battlefield has never been an offline game. So, I don't really know where this fits in. Battlefield 1942, Vietnam, and Bf2 are all online games. They have offline components, but those offline components are heavily limited in what they can do, and the full-sized versions of maps aren't available for them. I never played Battlefield offline, though.
>> "EA haven't made the classic games available because they are old, they simply cannot run on the modern hardware without additional support anymore. Even Battlefield: Bad Company 2 is starting to show it's age, sometimes no longer running for certain users. These older titles need first party support; it is not financially viable to take away team members from more important projects who actually know about the source code of these older titles and how to modify the source code to provide fixes that are desperately needed to create these fixes. Most of the experienced members who worked on these older titles are either senior developers and working on the newer titles where they are far more needed, working with new companies, retired from the industry or have passed away."
Battlefield 2, and even 1942, actually run just fine on modern PCs. And there are a lot more people still playing Bf2 online than there are people still playing Bf3 or BC2. Bf2 had continued support until just before Bf3 launched. And it plays as well for me as it ever did (and definitely a lot better than it would have before being patched many times).
>> "Hosting Servers itself isn't a problem, it's finding server hardware that are physically compatible with the original software that was written for these games; especially titles as old as Battlefield Vietnam and Battlefield 1942. These are hurdles of aging and slowly dwindling supplies of servers from that era. Server hosting will eventually come to a state where some games will no longer function properly (or at all), even if there are some examples of this not being the case (Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory as an example)."
That's not how server-hosting works. The ability to host one isn't dependent upon having particular hardware, so long as the OS the server is running on is compatible with the server software. And people are today running Bf 1942, Bf2, and Bf 2142 servers on fully-modern hardware.
>> "At this point it is just better for the fans to learn and patch it up themselves. Not only because EA will not take away from their spearhead teams on projects, but because these fans are willing and financially able to take the time to learn the internal workings of and patch up these older titles. They have the time, resources and willpower to go create the new server hosting and operate on compatible server racks that EA simply wouldn't be able to operate."
Fans have been doing that for many years. There was the Revive project, which unfortunately shut-down on the false assumption that EA had told them to (EA didn't, they old told Revive to stop distributing their client software, which wasn't necessary to do to keep Revive going). And there is also Bf2 Hub, which is still going with lots of people playing through it daily. And there are other Bf2 multiplayer projects going, like Play Bf2. And there's the Bf 2142 fan service that's been mentioned in this thread. There have been fan master servers for Bf 1942 for a very long time, and 1942 still gets plenty of daily players on them.
But none of that means it's better for fans to be doing this than for EA to host the games. EA has the resources to host these games, and to do so is not a massive undertaking. It's actually quite a low-costing one - in human-effort, time, and money.
Also, if EA's position were that it's better for the fans to carry-on and patch the game, then they probably wouldn't have sent a C&D to Revive, which was the biggest fan server service for Battlefield 2 and 2142. Clearly, EA wasn't simply wanting to not be involved itself in ongoing support for the games. EA also didn't want others to be providing all types of support for the games.
>> "As much as I might get backlash for saying this:
EA isn't being greedy this time, they're just doing what's best."
Based on what is very profitable for them, yes. Not based on what is possible and producing of lots of enjoyment for people who are interested in the classic games from the series, at little to no cost to EA.
>> "These titles are so far detached at times from modern technology that they are eventually going to be wholly incompatible from the leaps of processing power we will get. "
I don't get that comment. They all still run on modern PCs. And Windows 10 continues to be basically Windows Vista under the hood. So, while a lot of new features have been added to the OS Battlefield runs on, what's needed is still there. The classic Battlefields clearly aren't dependent on deprecated technology, as they still run on the latest Windows OS.
And what may happen to them at some unknown point in the future when some unknown shift in OS compatibility occurs isn't very relevant to the fact that they are playable now. Whenever such a seismic shift in OS support occurs, it could be that a lot of modern games suddenly stop being playable, too - and maybe that will even include Battlefield 6. That doesn't mean that EA shouldn't make Bf6 out of worry that something might change in the future that makes Bf6 not playable anymore.
>> "I do love these old titles just as much as any old-school Battlefield Veteran. They have a special place in my heart from my childhood but that is no means to disregard a logical assessment of the stakes of trying to create operational versions of them. For everything related to these old titles, there is a cost and a hefty one at that."
Actually, no, and not at all. The classic Battlefields are already fully operational. There might be some small fixes that could be done to them (that probably could've been done back when they were still supported, too), but they're running solidly on modern PCs and Windows versions. The server software, likewise, runs on moderns hardware and OSes - no special hardware is required to run it.
No offence, but it's clear that you don't understand what's actually involved in running the games, running the server (or any server) software, what the state of the games is, how hardware and OSes do / don't fit into the picture, how software code is organized and how which part of a program to address is identified, and how much work is involved for anything related.
>> "EA not adding these older titles to EA Play is an entirely reasonable option and it's the right call. Most of them don't have their replay value nowadays; they served their purpose and now act as gimmicky, old trophies from generations past, with each release coming closer to modern generations slowly building on what we know now. Fans already do everything that can be done to revitalize these old titles and give those who genuinely do love playing them the experiences they desire. There's not much for EA to do now except sell the titles outside of EA Play."
Huh? That's a pretty arrogant thing for you to claim. You don't even know EA's reason for not having the games available. And to say that they don't have replay value... what? I still play these games, and so, too, do a lot of people. There are far more people still playing Bf2 than there are playing Bf3 or BC2. In no way is Bf2 (or other classic Bf games) just "gimmicky, old trophies from generations past". That comment is very out-of-touch with what they actually are.
However, if EA were to sell the games on their storefront and other storefronts, that would be sufficient. But EA isn't doing that, and they've taken the games down from their storefront and from Steam, as well. That again shows that EA's interest isn't simply in being hands-off on the classic Battlefield games. They aren't even wanting to sell them without any support for them.
>> "I stand by everything I've said here and more; 1942, Vietnam, 2 and 2142 are too outdated. Bad Company, 1943 and Bad Company 2 are on the verge of being outdated themselves, with the former two being almost entirely outdated by today's standards and Bad Company 2 being the only 7th Generation Battlefield title worth maintaining."
How would a person stand by more than what they've said? If it's beyond what you've said, then it hasn't been put-forth to be stood-by or to be needing defending.
But calling those games "too outdated" is another very arrogant and pompous comment. And I think it reveals you haven't played any of those games in ages, if you ever did (I know some people in this forum choose to bluff about games they haven't experienced).
No, they aren't "too outdated". The fact that you assert that while myself and many other people still play the classic Battlefield games on fan servers while loving it means you're speaking subjectively. And if BC2 were the only older Battlefield game worth still supporting, then it wouldn't have far fewer people still playing it than does Battlefield 2.
Things are reading like you're defensive over my saying I don't agree with your previous assessment on why the games aren't currently available, and so are resorting to making things up to try to sound authoritative about the topic. But what you've been claiming in your responses here is simply not how anything works. Not even distantly close. I don't know why you've chosen to imagine up hypothetical reasons and then run with those imagined ideas as if they were true, when they're simply not.
I wish I could still play it online. It's in my top 3 bf games.
BF3
BF4
BF2142
BFBC2
BF1
Not that you guys care what my top 5 are.
@GrizzGolf You can still play it online.
There aren't many players active in it right now, though: 8 people in Europe, and 2 in the US.
But there are lots of people playing Bf2 right now, and this is just on one fan service: https://www.bf2hub.com/servers
I wouldn't say that people here don't care which Battlefields other like. It's interesting to see what people like, and lots of people share their favourite games.
I didn't get into Bf 2142, myself. I like the theme and visual style, but I think the maps are awful because they are generally small, narrow, corridor-based, and large not as visually interesting as those in other Battlefield games. And the maps heavily shape the gameplay.
- @Turbo_Nozomix you can play almost any bf you want via EA Play except BF2142 (even though other BF titles was on Gamespy and Gameranger) and these two services aren’t available on console.
Just the fact the amount of replies and the debate ongoing proves there’s a market for it Does that include Bf 1942 and Bf2? If so, that's cool. Do they have MP support?
@Turbo_Nozomix wrote:
@GrizzGolf You can still play it online.
There aren't many players active in it right now, though: 8 people in Europe, and 2 in the US.
But there are lots of people playing Bf2 right now, and this is just on one fan service: https://www.bf2hub.com/servers
I wouldn't say that people here don't care which Battlefields other like. It's interesting to see what people like, and lots of people share their favourite games.
I didn't get into Bf 2142, myself. I like the theme and visual style, but I think the maps are awful because they are generally small, narrow, corridor-based, and large not as visually interesting as those in other Battlefield games. And the maps heavily shape the gameplay.
@Turbo_Nozomix it's natural that BF2 has more players as 2142 wasn't all that popular when it was active...it was widely criticized and divisive l but had its players. I use Game Ranger to play BF2 and once every few years 2142 although as stated above there are other methods.
