This month's Official US Xbox Magazine carries an early Xbox Live demo of the console iteration of Battlefield 2 and it's...not great, or at least, it's not great compared to it's PC big brother. I've only spent an hour or so with it so far, as it crashes pretty regularly, tho by all accounts it is very early code. In many respects, it plays similarly to the PC version, albeit more streamlined. You don't have squads or a commander etc, and there a few less character classes (the medic and anti-tank are gone, all rolled into the Support class). However, the maps are still large and expansive, you still have access to a wide range of vehicles and the objective is still to capture and hold as many spawn points as possible.
So what's gone wrong? The main problem is the graphics. The draw distances on the maps aren't anywhere near as large as on PC, and the low resolution means that picking out targets can be very difficult, let alone generally being able to tell what's going on around you in a wider sense. Worse, the inevitably in precise controls (even with a vague-lock-on function) mean that it's also too easy to die without ever even getting a clue of where you're being shot from. Adding to that, the demo seems to have curious weapon balance settings compared to the PC version. Tanks and rocket launchers seems far too powerful for their own good, and a lone foot solider has far less chance of surviving to fight another day, which is very much to the game's detriment, as through no fault of your own it's easy to spend far more timing watching the respawn countdown than actually playing the game.
Of course, it's understandable that Modern Combat would have to be cut down considerably from its parent title, but the reduction in complexity takes away a lot of the fun of the game. It's because Battlefield 2 is so tactically versatile that it becomes more than a simple free-for-all. On the strength of the demo at least, my hopes aren't high that Modern Combat will be able to stake a similar claim.
So what's gone wrong? The main problem is the graphics. The draw distances on the maps aren't anywhere near as large as on PC, and the low resolution means that picking out targets can be very difficult, let alone generally being able to tell what's going on around you in a wider sense. Worse, the inevitably in precise controls (even with a vague-lock-on function) mean that it's also too easy to die without ever even getting a clue of where you're being shot from. Adding to that, the demo seems to have curious weapon balance settings compared to the PC version. Tanks and rocket launchers seems far too powerful for their own good, and a lone foot solider has far less chance of surviving to fight another day, which is very much to the game's detriment, as through no fault of your own it's easy to spend far more timing watching the respawn countdown than actually playing the game.
Of course, it's understandable that Modern Combat would have to be cut down considerably from its parent title, but the reduction in complexity takes away a lot of the fun of the game. It's because Battlefield 2 is so tactically versatile that it becomes more than a simple free-for-all. On the strength of the demo at least, my hopes aren't high that Modern Combat will be able to stake a similar claim.
Comment