Welcome to the Home of Game Strategies and Stories
17 Jun 05
I admit I'm developing a bias against EA. They just don't seem to have the customer centered approach they used to. First there was the whole Xbox Live feud. There was the NFL exclusive license. That might have been ok if they hadn't immediately snatched up the ESPN, College Football and Arena Football League exclusive licenses. Then there were the reports of poor employee treatment that EA never effectively countered. Now we have these extreme system requirements for Battlefield 2. Oh, and let's not forget the blacklisting will continue on the server lists.
It's really too bad. EA has given me so many great games over the years. They obviously have some top developers working for them. In the past year, I've enjoyed Burnout 3 and Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath from EA. Battle for Middle Earth was one of the biggest titles out last year in the strategy genre. I can't even count all the times I've played Madden or NFL (or NBA) Street. The SSX series is in still another class by itself.
I really don't think I can support boycotting publishers. It really just punishes developers who've found a solvent funding source. To be consistent, I have to support developers who create good games regardless of their publisher. I'm willing to point out and decry poor practices wherever I find them, and I do. Perhaps the developers need to be the ones standing up to EA and demanding change because they are the ones hurt when the customers walk away.
I think I'll take a pass on Battlefield 2 for now. Maybe when I get a new rig, my perspective will be different. I was somewhat interested early primarily because of the commander mode. I got caught up in the pre release hype. Now reality is setting in. This game isn't enough up my alley to be worth the trouble for me. I'd be better off voting with my dollar elsewhere. To those who want to play, please enjoy it. I'll happily put up any After Action Reports you write. If you need me to host some screenshots, drop me a line. For now, I have SWAT 4 and Nexus to finish up.
Speaking of Nexus, did you see this article? Sometimes you don't want to be one of the few, the proud. You want good games to succeed. So get out there and buy Silent Hunter 3 (unless you're boycotting Starforce) and Nexus.
Jason
Read/Post Comments
16 Jun 05
Fortunately, my huge numbers of surge protectors helped me survive the brownout/surges/brownout/blackout without damage. Thank goodness I had my replacement Xbox power cord. The circuit breaker on the hair dryer like cord flipped saving me from losing anything on my Xbox. The only other problem went undetected for a while. The upstairs A/C unit had flipped its circuit breaker and needed to be reset. It would have been found sooner if I had remembered that the fan will run even if the condenser is offline.
I'm still thinking about Battlefield 2. I guess it just hits me how striking it is for a game not to even try to appeal to the whole market. On the one hand, I suppose it could be applauded as a bold strategy. They know the core of their market has the hardware to run it. Those on the edge they can push to upgrade. That will help them in the future for other games.
On the other hand, the commander mode just screams for a good strategy/tactical player. We might know a lot about games, but compared to the hardcore FPS crowd we tend to linger in the dark ages of technology. We were the ones yelling that quality strategy games don't need 3D. It's true, but eye candy is nice.
Then there are the kids who don't control the rig they play on. In fact, I'm pretty sure you can still buy new systems (admittedly not gaming centric systems) that can't play Battlefield 2. What about the proverbial Walmart customer who doesn't always check system requirements before buying. What are you going to say? Oops, sorry, no returns? Don't even mention laptop gamers.
I've looked at some of the recent games I have (including SWAT 4). I see minimum requirements in the Geforce 2 class. Wasn't it only a little over 2 years ago when a GeForce 4 Ti 4600 was the performance king? Or was it the Radeon 9700 (now the bottom line)? I suppose after all this complaining I should post the minimum requirements. Here's what you need:
- Operating System
Windows XP (32 Bit Version)
- CPU
Battlefield 2 supports the following processors:
Intel Pentium 4
Intel Xeon
Intel Pentium Extreme Edition
Intel Celeron D
AMD Athlon XP
AMD Athlon 64
AMD Athlon 64-FX
AMD Sempron processor
- Minimum Specification:
CPU: 1.7 Ghz
RAM: 512 Mb
Video Card: NVidia GeForce FX 5700, ATI Radeon 8500 or ATI Radeon 9500
with 128 Mb of RAM
- Recommended Specification:
CPU: 2.4 Ghz
RAM: 1 Gb
Video Card with at least 256 Mb of RAM
- Video Cards
Battlefield 2 only supports the following video cards:
Radeon X700 (PCIe)
Radeon X600 (PCIe)
GeForce 6600 (PCIe)
GeForce PCX 5900 (PCIe)
GeForce 5800 Series (AGP)
ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition
ATI Radeon X800 PRO
ATI Radeon 9800 Series
ATI Radeon 9600 Series
ATI Radeon 9550 (RV350LX)
ATI Radeon 9500 / 9700 Series
ATI Radeon 8500 Series
ATI Radeon X300 Series
NVidia GeForce 6800 Ultra
NVidia GeForce 6800 GT
NVidia GeForce 6800
NVidia GeForce FX 5950 Series
NVidia GeForce FX 5900 Series
NVidia GeForce FX 5700 Series
That's what you need from the readme. So tell me your thoughts.
Jason
Read/Post Comments
15 Jun 05
The night the lights went out in Houston. Ok, that's a bit melodramatic, but so am I. We were among the 100,000 people without power in 7 counties. Power has just been restored. I'll keep this short so I'm not sucking down power that could keep them from activating other grids.
Console Gold has the second part of their E3 strategy gaming report up Here.
There's a new downloadable expansion for Rainbow Six 3 for the PC. If you're a fileplanet subscriber, get your key Here. Download Here. Presumably it will go public at some later date.
Enjoy the juice that powers your toys. You never know when it might disappear.
Jason
Read/Post Comments
14 Jun 05
I wanted to follow up Friday's Home Theater Project article with a sort of wishlist/lessons learned article. Overall, I'm happy with my home theater upgrade. It ended up being a reasonable amount of money spent for the quality of the upgrade. Of course, there are always things that could be better.
The big impact of home theater is obviously the video. As prices come down, the strengths and weaknesses of each technology will become clear. My tube is pretty good as the technology is mature. The big weakness is the bulk. It won't be hanging from the wall. There's also some slight banding on high contrast images. This can be removed with video adjustments, but I find it leaves the picture too dark for my tastes. It seems to be most noticeable on upconverted images. The only time I've really picked it out is on static text in advertising, so it's not a major problem, but it does exist.
Then there's the question of native resolutions and input connections. I actually got lucky. I didn't ask my cable company enough questions. It turns out that the cable box likes to output a 1080i signal if possible and the HD channels are in 1080i. That's significant if you're shelling out the big bucks for a plasma with a native 720p. My TV also has some HDMI connections, but it doesn't have an optical out. The advantage of HDMI is uncompressed A/V signals over one cable. That's no excuse to lose your digital output. It the source can separate them, great or if your monitor will send the audio to a digital output, that's great too. HDMI cables run quite a bit more expensive than component, so that's a consideration too. Finally, on video, the option to support 1080p would be nice, but it's just coming on the market now. It's something to keep in mind for future purchasers.
On the audio side, I don't have too many complaints. It seems like we need quality wireless speakers, but whenever I consider the complications involved, it boggles my mind. There's no way to get around the fact that running cable sucks. Then no matter how many time you count connections to connections, you'll still end up short on cables. Always hook thing up at a time when Radio Shack/Best Buy/Circuit City is still open.
Switching is a problem. It would be nice to either have a remote supported component switcher or more component inputs on my receiver. Of course, there's still the problem of swapping disks and powering on the game consoles. I actually have to stand up. How am I supposed to keep up my slacker/lazy gamer image if I have to do all that moving around? Feel free to shoot any questions my way. If I'm not too lazy, I'll answer them.
Jason
Read/Post Comments
13 Jun 05
I know there's sort of a tradition of upgrading your rig for big game releases, but it's pretty rare for a game to demand it of a large chunk of their fan base. The Battlefield 2 demo came out on Friday. It doesn't support Nvidia's GeForce 4 series or below. That's a huge group to exclude.
I'm not sure I understand it either. Battlefield is supposed to be about smooth, tactical action that allows you to experience the ebb and flow of battle first hand. Eye candy is nice, but it's not the heart of the experience like a Doom 3 or Far Cry where the atmosphere defines the gameplay. And we're talking about online FPSers who will turn down all the graphics for any edge in a match.
Then there's the needs of the players. Your enjoyment of the game is directly tied to the quality and number of people you're playing with. It's also tied to whether people are playing when you have the time and the desire to play. All these things encourage the largest player pool possible, so why limit that pool in the name of graphics?
I'm all for games that push the high end. I like a game that can't be played with max video options on any card available at release (again Doom 3 and Far Cry come to mind). But the hallmark of PC gaming is scalability. The huge range of hardware is a headache, but it's also the strength of the PC. While you can always count on the hardcore to have the high end, the bulk of gamers are more casual. They want that PC to do its three years of duty before the next. They just want to have fun online, not worry about griefers, team killers or cheaters. They certainly don't want to worry about upgrading just to play one game.
I have seen the theory put forth that there is a simple reason for the eye candy and its entry bar. It's a little mod called Desert Combat. The theory goes that the online gameplay of Battlefield 2 doesn't feel significantly different from that mod. Sure there are more options, sides and the commander feature, but the feel is the same. So DICE is trying to wow you with the eye candy, so you don't have people turning the graphics down where it's hard to tell if your playing Battlefield 2 or Desert Combat. I have no way of knowing if there's any truth to that. I'll trust that there's not.
Oh, I added some X3 screenies to the site Here.
This week's game is another from the Total Gaming dot Net collection. It's Nexagon: Deathmatch (official site) from Strategy First. It's a realtime tactical game where you are a disembodied criminal intellect (how did they know?) controlling your thralls in bloody battle to try to win your freedom. Build your impenetrable base and assault your opponent's while defending yours with death pits in between. You earn credit to buy more powerful units. Your survivors gain strength with experience. You can even take control of some of your defenses manually when the thralls just aren't enough. Nexagon is available now.
Jason
Read/Post Comments
© Talk Strategy 2005