BF1942 First Impressions
Posted 03 July 2004 - 09:43 PM
Posted 03 July 2004 - 10:05 PM
I can't think of any other place that sells mac games.
Strange. I live in Iowa and I bought my copy from CompUSA yesterday.
With the crap performance told about on 867 machines, I'm suprised about how well it runs on my 1ghz iMac, with resolution up and details cranked up. Online is great and really fun, but I need a joystick for the planes. I have a *slight* problem with the aim moving back, but only a little. Overall, a great port, IMO.
Posted 03 July 2004 - 10:57 PM
Excuse me, but gamers have been comparing first person shooters for a long time now. I did not mean to offend. I personally like the feel of COD's infantry better than Battlefield's infantry. On the other hand, Battlefields game play, with control points, is brilliant. Plus all the cool vehicles at your disposal. Except for the lack of joystick support (as of right now) this is an outstanding title.
Posted 04 July 2004 - 01:35 AM
I may have a solution to this. Do the following:
1. Start up Battlefield 1942.
2. Select your profile.
3. Go to the Options menu and select Video.
4. Check Alternative Spawn Interface.
5. Now try it and see if the problem persists.
What this does is it turns off background rendering when you're in the spawn selection menu. In other words you won't see the game environment playing in the background while you're selecting your player class and spawn point.
It's not very useful anyway. It's more of an eye candy feature than a necessary part of the game. So you might as well keep it off. With that out of the way you may run into fewer problems like the one you're describing. Give it a shot.
Posted 04 July 2004 - 03:49 AM
Posted 04 July 2004 - 07:42 AM
Posted 04 July 2004 - 08:01 AM
Anyway Kudos to ASPYR for getting this product to the Mac. You wouldn't believe how many PC users came over to me at the LAN party and commented on the fact BF1942 was not only running on a laptop, but a Mac laptop
Posted 04 July 2004 - 08:59 AM
Posted 04 July 2004 - 09:49 AM
Posted 04 July 2004 - 09:58 AM
Posted 04 July 2004 - 10:40 AM
My experiences inlcuded dying immediately and repeatedly on the Omaha beach map after getting stuck in the Higgins boat (Hit the "E" key again, moron!); flying Hellcats in a drunken manner with my mouse (feats include steering right into the carrier tower and diving into the drink), downing a couple of Zeroes with the carrier AA gun, killing one Japanese with my BAR; ugly crash to the deskop; and finally, telling everyone on my team I has just bought the game and didn't know what I was doing, which resulted in someone voting to kick me (I wasn't).
I agree the textures aren't very good, but that's to be expected from an older MMO.
I /could/ grow to love this game, but it'll take a) joystick and B) much more practice.
As I'm a n00b, the game consists of long bouts of tedium (dying, respawning, figuring out what the heck to do while trying not to die) interrupted by occasional moments of "Cool!"
Posted 04 July 2004 - 11:36 AM
Posted 04 July 2004 - 01:01 PM
I'm wondering if a better video card would help here, or am I limited by the processor?
Still awsome game. So glad that it made it to the mac side. DC mod installed like silk thanks to CannonFodders intall dmg. DC plays about the same.
Going to try on a pals G5 to see the difference.
thanks all ,
Posted 04 July 2004 - 01:21 PM
Posted 04 July 2004 - 02:33 PM
EDIT: Nevermind. The file name has 0.31 in it, so it's safe to assume it's the latest version.
Posted 04 July 2004 - 02:54 PM
128 ATI Radeon 9700 Mobility
1.5 GB RAM
Think this is enough over the minimum requirements to run it and have it look at least a little pretty? Can the game be run at 1280 x 854? Thoughts? Opinions?
Posted 04 July 2004 - 03:44 PM
Glad to hear you had no problems with the installer, though I didn't expect any after the testing it went through :)
As far as EoD goes, I made a DMG installer for that one as well, which includes the latest patches, but it hasn't shown up in as many places as it should have yet...
Posted 04 July 2004 - 05:28 PM
Posted 04 July 2004 - 05:35 PM
Posted 04 July 2004 - 05:44 PM
That's not nessasarily true. I've got two systems:
an Athlon 64 3000+ /9800 pro and a G4 933 /9800 pro.
Here's the skinny. Sure the Athlon is faster. It's to be expected becase it's newer. But when i first got my 9800 for the G4 I suspected that my performance over the stock 4MX was almost identical. I never "formally" tested it, but the simple benchmarking I did showed that performance in games where i ran the resolution under 1280X1024 was indeed, almost the same.
Point is we're severely CPU bound. The 9800 pro will give you 8X FSAA and 16X AF without thinking twice. What it won't do is raise you minimum framerates a bit. For example, I just played the CoD demo again, and the starting point where you run through the field was running at an average of 22 fps. My Athlon never drops below 60. Translation, a Radeon 9800 in a G4 gets to be one hell of a slouch.
That's the Quake engine. UT2003 exhibits the same difference with the PC performing 2 - 4 x better, averaging 100 fps with 12+ bots, compaired to my 933's 25.
Lat's just say that I'm glad i didn't buy the G4's 9800 for gaming reasons.
So if I were you I'd save the money, unless:
You need to run higher than 1280 X 1024
You need to have FSAA and AF
Wait and get a G5. Even they'll hold up the 9800 in most modern games, but not as bad, making thier cost justifiable.
PS, No, I DO NOT recommend a PC. Virus laden shi* boxes they are, all of em!