Battlefield Vietnam

By vassil3427 ยท 64 replies
Mar 8, 2004
  1. Vehementi

    Vehementi TechSpot Paladin Posts: 2,704

    That's exactly the point I was going to bring up. The Battlefield series was masterful because it combined games like Rainbow Six with games like Unreal Tournament, it's both realistic and has an arcade game FPS sense to it. The difference between Battlefield and Unreal Tournament is that there is strategy in Battlefield, which makes it so much more immersive than games like Quake and Unreal. But, it's not as strategic as an RTS or something, that's why it's so good. It can be played either way, full-blown strategizing or just run-around-and-shoot-everyone-you-can madness. I'm not saying that's bad, but Battlefield will sure stay on my machine alot longer than games like Unreal. I still have 1942 installed, as well as Vietnam. I still like UT though, I'm gonna get it soon, it's fun while it lasts but it gets really old really fast.

    And the statement about Battlefield not coming with a map editor is completely false. Battlecraft Vietnam is included with Battlefield Vietnam, as well as a Mod tool and a couple other things that I can't remember.
  2. vassil3427

    vassil3427 TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 640

    I'm afraid UT2004, along with that entire series seems so pointless to me...I mean you run around shooting each other...there's really no point or strategy..its just chaos...

    I would much rather play BF Vietnam!
  3. Arris

    Arris TS Evangelist Posts: 4,730   +379

    I've played UT2004 and the vehicles didn't seem all that useful. They didn't seem to have that much armor in comparison to a player. There seem to be two schools of FPS. One is the realism/strategic school and the other is the mad frantic fragfest school. To be honest I had fun playing a little of the original UT and Quake3 was fun for a while but a lot of the time in a fight in Quake/UT etc. it comes down to who has the biggest weapon and who manages to run over the most health packs. I much preferred the Counter Strike gameplay where you can stealthily creep round a map with 1 hps left and take out 5 enemies. I can't put my finger exactly on what makes this type of play more appealing to me but it is. BF falls in between the two but is closer to the first school of FPS.
  4. lowman

    lowman TS Rookie Posts: 380

    I'm in agreement there - being a SOCOM I and II addict (and a veteran), I just can't get enough of those military style games...I do like Unrealing once in a while, and I think the idea of the iGib matches (no health, no other weapons, one shot and you're dead) level the playing field as far as playing online...but my PERSONAL preference is more in line with the military tactics style games...and as Vehementi said above - having the options of going full throttle and slaughtering everything you see, or spending 2 hours creeping 100 meters with a bit of health left to take out 4 or 5 me, that's a challenge and satisfying...I haven't played BF: Vietnam yet, but it looks awesome, and is at the top of my list to buy next...

  5. Masque

    Masque TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 1,058

    So are there any former Tribes/Tribes 2 enthusiasts here and who's waiting in the wings for Vengeance?
  6. lowman

    lowman TS Rookie Posts: 380

    Tribes 2

    I played Tribes 2 a few times Masque - but it was one of those situations where a buddy of mine had it, and I was immersed in several other games of my own at the time - and I never got around to picking it up for myself. Definitely cool though, from the few times I played it...any major improvments to the game\gameplay in Vengeance?
  7. Masque

    Masque TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 1,058

    Not sure but I hear they're using a whole new engine for it. I played both religiously but things waned for awhile once the script-kiddies started taking the game over. I am curious to see just how well they do with Vengeance. I guess I'll wait and see. For now BF '42 has got my attention with a touch of Call Of Duty.
  8. lowman

    lowman TS Rookie Posts: 380

    Sounds like a well rounded selection of games you have on your plate currently Masque...I'm definitely picking up BF '42 and BF: Vietnam soon...but I REALLY have to get my new gaming system built first...I was going to wait until the nextgen vid cards come out, but I'll go ahead and by one of the best cards I can for now , and then I'll just put it in one of my older machines when the new one's come out...

    PS...I started reading the lowdown on Sierra's site about Tribes: Vengeance, and it looks like it could be a pretty cool game...I'll have to check it out when it's released...
  9. ---agissi---

    ---agissi--- TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,978   +15

    Well I got Vietnam.... all around I perferr Desert Combat.

    The heli's in Vietnam suck, guns are way over powered.. its got lots of good improvments that needed to be done, and the maps+style of gameplay has a different twist to it.
  10. lowman

    lowman TS Rookie Posts: 380

    Perhaps I'll have to add Desert Combat to my list as well would you compare the gameplay between both of them? Anyting that Vietnam is better at than Desert Combat? Most of the posts I've read are from people who play both...
  11. olefarte

    olefarte TechSpot Ambassador Posts: 1,345   +13

    The one thing that sets Battlefield/Desert Combat apart from a lot of other games, is you don't just grab a gun and run around shooting people. To fly a helo well in that game takes a lot of practice, it's got to become second nature. Same goes for the planes. Even driving a tank is easy in itself, but to do it well you have to know where to hit your target to get the most out of your shooting. I think it takes as much or more skill than any game I have played.

    This game also invites team play, more that any game I have played yet. Although most people do run around on there own, you've got a lot of pilot and passenger types, (plus a parachute), that do more to take flags than anybody and therefore help there team. Also a lot of pilots just standby over a flag, protecting, while there team takes the flag and the points.

    I'm going to get BF Vietnam, but I think it'll be hard to beat Desert Combat.
  12. Rory7

    Rory7 TS Rookie Posts: 119

    I just got battlefield vietnam. I have a 9600XT. Now i know the game is optimized for Nvidia but is their any need for such crap graphics? I have to keep my settings on high unles they become unbareably bitty. Everything is just so bitty, sometimes so much so you carnt make out your comrades faces. Everything is just in little squares (pixelated) and the game just looks crap. I uninstalled/reinstalled, got the newest Ati drivers, all the usual stuff. What the hell is going on?
  13. ---agissi---

    ---agissi--- TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,978   +15

    The gfx are not that bad at all.. and defently not as bad as you describe them. Sounds like you need to chage your resolution in the game from 640x480 or get some AA turned on.
  14. vassil3427

    vassil3427 TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 640

    For some reason thinks look a lot more jaggedy when you turn all settings to max, at least thats my experience with my 9600...

    Change settings too
    1024x768 32bit
    Graphics Quality : High
    Geometry: Medium
    Texture: Medium
    Lightmaps: ON
    Shadows: On

    with these settings everything looks better to me than with full settings on(maybe my card just cant handle the higher powered stuff)
  15. acidosmosis

    acidosmosis TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 1,350

    Vassil, that is exactly how I have it set, and I also noticed that it looks better.
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.

Similar Topics

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...