Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Battlefield Vietnam

Author
Message
Trinity Pictures
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Nov 2006
Location: Leesburg, VA
Posted: 12th Jul 2007 02:29
Link
Hey, it battlefield vietnam supposed to have a campaign mode? In my version it only has instant battle and multiplayer. If it is supposed to have campaign, how do I get to it?

Artist/Modellor of Encrypto Studios
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Richard Davey
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Apr 2002
Location: On the Jupiter Probe
Posted: 12th Jul 2007 02:37
Link
It's a multi-player game only, so no it doesn't have a campaign (none of the Battlefield games do beyond the training missions)

Never trust a computer you can't throw out of a window
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Zaibatsu
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st May 2006
Location: Lost in Thought
Posted: 12th Jul 2007 03:03
Link
I wanna get Battlefield: Vietnam. I always found the Vietnam war an interesting time period. Would it be worth it for about 5-10 bucks?

"I admire its purity, a survivor, unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality"

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Gil Galvanti
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Dec 2004
Location: Texas, United States
Posted: 12th Jul 2007 03:44
Link
Quote: "Would it be worth it for about 5-10 bucks?
"

Yes, it's a pretty decent game, although the AI isn't great. BF2 is better, but of course a different time period.


Back to top
Profile PM Website
Trinity Pictures
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Nov 2006
Location: Leesburg, VA
Posted: 12th Jul 2007 06:04
Link
Quote: "(none of the Battlefield games do beyond the training missions)"

The original battlefield does.

Artist/Modellor of Encrypto Studios
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
dark coder
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Oct 2002
Location: Japan
Posted: 12th Jul 2007 08:47
Link
Quote: "The original battlefield does."


That was closer to having a LAN game with bots and when you win(rather easy) you can advance to the next map.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 12th Jul 2007 09:18
Link
Battlefield2 on the 360 and XBox has a campaign, a damn difficult one at that - not sure about the PC version though, I'm guessing that it might have the same thing.

Vietnam is pretty good fun, I certainly didn't regret getting it - but there are a couple of niggles that make BF2 a better prospect. In Vietnam I really like the vehicles, the helo's are damn good fun, especially if you grab a team mates jeep while they're manning the gun, you can grab them with a helo and swing them around the place. I've seen more madness in Vietnam than any other BF game.
My favourite was BF1942, I wish they would redo that rather than going all futuristic.

We're going down... in a spiral to the ground...
Back to top
Profile PM Email
El Goorf
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Sep 2006
Location: Uni: Manchester, Home: Dunstable
Posted: 12th Jul 2007 11:49
Link
get with the times.. 2142 now. go buy, so i can get your dogtags ty.

http://notmybase.com
All my base are not belong to anyone.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
MikeB
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Apr 2007
Location: My Computer, Shropshire, England
Posted: 12th Jul 2007 13:26
Link
2 looks better than 2142 in my opinion.

Mike

I used to be Eldest Dragon, but I asked for my name to be changed.

"Change is inevitable. Except from vending machines."
Back to top
Profile PM
El Goorf
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Sep 2006
Location: Uni: Manchester, Home: Dunstable
Posted: 12th Jul 2007 13:37
Link
i've played 2 and 2142... now i have 2142 i just find 2 so dull... :/

http://notmybase.com
All my base are not belong to anyone.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 12th Jul 2007 14:25
Link
Vietnam pisses me off. The AI can see through all the foliage! That totally defeats the point of vietnam, which is crawling through bushes and jungle. You can crawl as much as you like, but you'll still get shot in the face through 10 foot of grass. It's a different story multiplayer though, obviously.

As for 2 vs 2142, 2142 is great. In my opinion, it had to be done. Why people are so against futuristic games, I have no idea. We need variety rather than playing omaha beech over and and over and over with slighly better graphics each time.


Back to top
Profile PM
Matt Rock
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Mar 2005
Location: Binghamton NY USA
Posted: 12th Jul 2007 23:46
Link
BF1942 is imo the best in the entire series. BF Vietnam is a lot of fun to play online, especially with all of the nifty 60's and 70's music blaring out of your chopper, but I'm not down with BF2 or BF2142. I find BF42's Desert Combat to be far more entertaining than BF2, and I simply refuse to play BF2142 because I can tell from a single screenshot that I'll end up absolutely hating it. And why do I know that?

Quote: "Why people are so against futuristic games, I have no idea. We need variety rather than playing omaha beech over and and over and over with slighly better graphics each time."

For the hardcore BF42 fans, it isn't an issue of hating a futuristic game... it's a matter of the series going from historical conflicts (however un-realistic they might be) to an extremely silly outlook of the future. There were SO many places the Battlefield series could have gone that no other companies go near... say, World War I for instance. Or the American Civil War (or even the Revolution). Those would be better, to me anyway, because we actually know for a fact that the vehicles and weapons used in those wars actually existed, and the battles were actually fought. In 2142, even a very wild imagination couldn't see some of those weapons and vehicles existing. I fail to recognize the tactical advantage of a monsterous 4-story bipedal robot . I dunno... again, it's just my opinion (and the opinions of a number of BF42 buffs), but I say we leave the future to games like Halo, and let games like Battlefield stick to what it's good at: cartoony-action representations of historical and contemporary conflict/ warfare .


Text Adventure Competition 2007
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
The Nerd
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Jun 2004
Location: Denmark
Posted: 13th Jul 2007 00:05 Edited at: 13th Jul 2007 00:09
Link
I have BF 1942 with the expansion "The Road to rome". Then I have BF vietnam, BF 2 and BF 2142. Out of all of them I deffinately enjoy 2142 the most. Even though I started out by telling myself that I would not get it because it took place in the future And I love Titan mode Also, I just find the maps and wars to be much more intense. And I love the new way of unlocking weapons and so on.

Viberwars - top-down shooter game
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 13th Jul 2007 07:31 Edited at: 13th Jul 2007 07:32
Link
Quote: "Or the American Civil War (or even the Revolution)."


Well, considering a huge chunk of the audience isn't American, most of us could probably care less for a war that didn't involve anyone from the outside.

And there is nowhere in the title or franchise of BF that states it's based solely on wars that have happened. Are you also angry that the new Call of Duty is based on the future? I think it's good to change it up once in a while--- getting pretty sick of all the WWII shooters.

Besides, the WWII shooter that started the WWII shooter craze, Medal of Honour, is still rooted in WWII.

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Crazy Ninja
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2005
Location: Awesometon
Posted: 13th Jul 2007 09:18
Link
Quote: "Well, considering a huge chunk of the audience isn't American, most of us could probably care less for a war that didn't involve anyone from the outside."


If those wars had come out any differently, then I highly doubt that the world would be the same way it is now. The United States help spark off revolutions in quite a few places. A game based around the time period of the war of 1812 could do very well if they included battles in Europe and in America. Maybe not the Revolution though, that's going a little bit too far back.

Back to top
Profile PM
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 13th Jul 2007 09:27
Link
The thing is that with WWII and Vietnam, you have an actual historical realism to go for. The vehicles, weapons, and scenarios can be replicated and it feels more like your in an actual war.

With futuristic shooters your basically playing someone elses idea of what the future of war might be like, walking robots, space ships...
I just find games like CoD more immersive, plus I really like the look of WWII and Vietnam war stuff. Especially the Huey's, maybe it's all the issues of Commando and Eagle my grandad gave me as a nipper, or all those episodes of Tour of Duty I watched - still waiting on the definitive war game and I don't expect it'll be set in the future.

That's not to say that I don't have BF2142 or don't like it, and I'll definately be getting CoD4, but I still think there's a lot of life left in WWII, and we've barely scratched the surface with Vietnam games. Wouldn't a CoD Vietnam game be pretty cool.

We're going down... in a spiral to the ground...
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 13th Jul 2007 10:25
Link
It would be neat to play a Korean War game. Have any even been made?

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 13th Jul 2007 16:18
Link
I think WW2 is still the best theatre of war. So much happened across so many countries, including events that are often far more powerful than any game idea anyone could come up with (back to Omaha beach landing for example). The technology is spot on too - lots to play with, lots of variety, yet no computers, meaning everything is still based on skill, from staffing and bombing in planes, to manually aiming a tank gun etc. By far the best scenario in my opinion, so I can't see WW2 games ever going away.

The problem with wars like the American civil war is the technology is very poor. You don't have big amazing super structures, B29 bombers, damns, underground bunkers, rocket launchers, tanks etc etc. You have the odd gatling gun, and canons, but the player can only really hold a sword, a pistol and a rifle, and fight in mundane old town environments, or open landscape. I think the whole "theatre package" is weak. The same goes for WW1, although it is better, but still not great. Trench warfare in an FPS would get dull very quickly I reckon.

Sci-Fi is great because you can have any technology you want, but you do have to suspend your disbelief. If you're the sort of person who really has to believe in the environment you're in and relate to it, then obviously Sci-Fi will be tricky to get involved in. But I do find that a little odd, since you only need to allow yourself to have some imagination and it's fine. All the game elements in 2142 are really well balanced and make for awesome close quarters combat, better than any of the other BF games.


Back to top
Profile PM
Zaibatsu
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st May 2006
Location: Lost in Thought
Posted: 13th Jul 2007 17:07
Link
I've never been much of a WWII game person. The only one i like is DoD Source. I love Vietnam War games, and i think Modern war games are OK.

"I admire its purity, a survivor, unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality"

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 13th Jul 2007 17:23
Link
I get owned at 2142 every single time I play - so I tend to stick to BF2 on the 360, I'm pretty decent at that. I kinda hoped they would release 2142 on the 360 as well, most of the time it's a really fun game, strangely it depends on how many Australians are playing. Dunno what it is, but they seem to really get into it, I prefer games where people can have a laugh when you dunk a jeep in the river rather than throw a hissy fit - but still want to win the game. I played against an Oz clan once, got spread like vegemite all over the map.

Now GRAW/GRAW2, I a freakin surgeon on GRAW, especially on the co-op defense scenarios, most players get 60-70 kills, I usually get over 150.

We're going down... in a spiral to the ground...
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 13th Jul 2007 17:34
Link
I think with battlefield games you have to find out what you're good at. I hate all these infantry only maps that people always seem to want to play. I'm pretty lame with assault rifles. Piloting of and destruction of ground based vehicles is my thang. So I usually play Engineer, and you'll find me pwning everyone from my tank, or piluming people up the jacksie.

On infantry maps I really struggle. I think it's because I don't play many FPSs, and infantry combat favours the person with the most precise and controlled mouse movement. Vehicle combat favours the more tactical thinker who knows the strengths and weaknesses of vehicles and how to use them to his advantage. I think that's what makes 2142 great actually. Because it's set in the future, the vehicles can be quite wildly different and therefore used in different tactical ways, where as the tanks in a WW2 game are much of a muchness.


Back to top
Profile PM
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 13th Jul 2007 17:50
Link
I usually try and grab the APC and target helo's, it's pretty satisfying to take down a helo with a few guys in it. I usually go engineer as well, but tanks annoy me, I like to hide from them, then peek out with the rocket launcher and eat their lunch .

We're going down... in a spiral to the ground...
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 13th Jul 2007 17:52
Link
If you play long enough Van and unlock the Pilum, you just hide, let the tank roll by, and one shot up the backside does the job in fine style.


Back to top
Profile PM
Snowblind 44
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Sep 2006
Location: USA
Posted: 13th Jul 2007 18:06 Edited at: 13th Jul 2007 18:14
Link
Quote: "If you play long enough Van and unlock the Pilum, you just hide, let the tank roll by, and one shot up the backside does the job in fine style"

Or (like me) you could just unlock the demo charges and the Lambert SMG in the Scout class, it's worth it.(Especially when your blowing up the core in Titan mode.) But there's still no substitute for that big rocket launcher thingy that engineers have(Pilum, right? I almost never play engineer.)

Quote: "I usually try and grab the APC and target helo's, it's pretty satisfying to take down a helo with a few guys in it"

Obviously haven't been in a dropship when they're firing AA and rockets at you.(lol, 75% chance of being shot down.) The helo is a pretty satisfying hit, it gets kind of annoying when you're infantry and you're pinned by a tank or a chopper that's firing missiles and chainguns at you, with the risk of getting all shot up if you dive for whatever nearby can blow it up. Same for tanks.
Back to top
Profile PM
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 13th Jul 2007 18:54
Link
So I guess nobody has heard of a good Korean War game then? That was a pretty brutal war, with millions of lives lost. Plus it's pretty interesting historically.

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Matt Rock
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Mar 2005
Location: Binghamton NY USA
Posted: 13th Jul 2007 23:07
Link
Quote: "And there is nowhere in the title or franchise of BF that states it's based solely on wars that have happened. Are you also angry that the new Call of Duty is based on the future? I think it's good to change it up once in a while--- getting pretty sick of all the WWII shooters."

I guess it's just an expectation of a franchise. If Gran Turismo 5 were released with flying cars, I wouldn't go near it, because I've come to expect certain things while playing GT games. With games that have built up a strong root in historical combat, I have expectations that those franchises will continue along the beaten path and try to break new ground in their areas. I totally agree with Fallout in that the World War II theater hasn't really been opened up yet... there's still quite a bit to cover, and it's up to the studios making the games to come up with new features and whatnot.

When the first Medal of Honor was released on Playstation, my mom (a teacher at the time) thought it was fantastic because it tought players about World War II and made some kids take interest in history. I love that my young cousins know about the invasion of Sicily and the Battle of the Bulge... things they most certainly wouldn't know about or even care about if they hadn't played through them in games like MOH and COD. So in some weird convoluted sense, these games can be great teaching methods. But when they run off to some unrealistic future warzone, with giant robots and suits of body armor that look cool instead of serving practicality, you take away that potential learning (or at least inspiration to learn) experience. And shouldn't we be teaching about World War I, or the Korean war as Jeku pointed out, or even go further back in time to the Hundred Year's War or the Crusades? I dunno, that's how I think of it... then again, I'm nuts, lol.

Someone told me recently that there might be a World War I FPS coming out for PS3 and 360, but without knowing a title I can't look to see if it's any good. Has anyone heard anything about it, or know of a title that I can see the game at?

Quote: "It would be neat to play a Korean War game. Have any even been made?"

The only game I know of that takes place in the Korean War is Mig Alley, a F86 Sabre combat flight sim. The closest I've heard of otherwise is that Raging Tiger game, but that was set in "the near future." I totally agree with you, I think there should definitely be a Korean War game. There's so much history there that's going unnoticed. The same with World War I... Other than Flyboys and the 1980's (or maybe 1970's?) movie Gallipoli, there's hardly any mention of the conflict in modern media .


Text Adventure Competition 2007
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 14th Jul 2007 03:37
Link
But you're assuming everyone is like you and prefers games based on factual battles. This is not the case. AFAIK BF 2142 sold a crap-load of games, which is proof that there's a market for futuristic FPS'. Don't worry, just wait a few days and another WWII is bound to be released

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Matt Rock
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Mar 2005
Location: Binghamton NY USA
Posted: 14th Jul 2007 19:05
Link
LOL very true, and the worst part of it all is, the game will be extremely generic and won't break any new ground . I want a World War I game... the world's first tanks and combat-oriented aircraft, and Zeppelins, and trench warfare ... sooo much fun. I'm seriously thinking about making a WWI game now, lol.


Text Adventure Competition 2007
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-18 21:56:52
Your offset time is: 2024-11-18 21:56:52