Earlier this month EA released news about "Ranked Servers"

"Ranked servers will be where the hardcore bump heads and clash knives. All Ranked Servers will be configured to provide the definitive competitive Battlefield experience."

"Ranked servers will be heavily administrated and have Punkbuster on. The integrity of the stats system is of paramount importance to EA (and of course to those participating in it) and so we will be monitoring things constantly. At the end of the day, Ranked servers will be a safe, regulated environment on which the most competitive players will be spending their time. If this environment doesn’t sound right for you, that’s great. That’s what Unranked servers are for."

That sounded like it made some sense... and they continue....:

"Unranked Servers
These servers are the wild cards – every one will be different, set to suit a specific part of our community (that part can be an individual player turned server operator, whole clans or even fan websites). The one thing these will all have in common, however, is the lack of pressure to meet the high standard of play we will expect on Ranked servers (i.e. don’t be a nuisance, don’t break EA’s Terms and Conditions and strive to be a team player)."


I have waited with every other BF guy to get this new game and have some excitement again, just like DC did for BF1942. But! Do you remember playing Battlefield 1942 or Battlefield Vietnam and remember thinking that your scores didn’t matter because EA was watching over them? Me neither. It seems EA with these statements is openly implying, if not admitting they think those of us who are more likely play mostly on "Unranked" servers are the less competitive or "hardcore" gamers than those that play ranked servers. In both of the games we have been playing for years you go to clan servers for the best games and you go to the EA servers if you are an a lost noob or you just want to feel better about yourself and waste a dozen or two of them. Why are they really doing this??? I predict that the EA “Ranked” servers are going to get all the guys that have only mastered the Cobra or gunships, that have small wood, and point to their individual scores for validation. Actually, if we could banish all the players like that to EA servers…


If you find your self, like I do, migrating to clan servers because your favorite mods is there and EA doesn’t play those, and the competitions are more challenging there, and the noobs are either getting trained or getting killed in a hurry there. We are the players that made the Battlefield series the success that it is today! Why are they isolating us? They give some sort of cooler UNLOCKABLE WEAPONS to those that decide to play on EA servers?

I hope the open source movement of some kick ass mod developers wins out over this,


Can’t Sleep

b3ak3r
http://www.firescore.com

We were going to run a tournament this weekend but can't get the scores out of BF2. Does anyone have additional info yet?

We have the following servers up for performance testing right now, please come to http://www.firescore.com to see what we have going on.

Battlefield 2 Server NOT THE DEMO

69.25.222.12
69.25.222.14
69.25.222.16
69.25.222.18
69.25.222.24
69.25.222.26
69.25.222.28
69.25.222.230
NOW PLAYING
Battlefield 2 DEMO - NEW

69.25.222.20
69.25.222.22

No Xbox emulators? Cxbx and Xeon are two that come to mind. I guess you've been under a rock for a long time. Granted the emulators might not do 100% of all the things an Xbox can, but it's close enough. Also, with a computer, like you said, I can emulate any other past-gen console. So even more flexibility there.

Now, I do know that there are couple of emulators out there for Xbox, but nothing like for a normal PC. (That's one of the things I like about the stuff being developed for PSP: the emulators being made for it)

I can play most console games thanks to the fact that many are cross platform and many of the others can be emulated.

I never said that higher resolution equals higher quality. I said 'higher AND quality.' Now, most consoles promise killer graphics and super advanced graphic cards. Well, in reality consoles, such as the Xbox (since it is what you seem to have,) only have video cards that are usually 6 months behind what's available on a PC. So, not only can you play many console games at higher resolution, you can play them at higher quality.

Now, I know you can play some media files but not nearly as many as a PC. You can't play movs, mkvs, oggs, or flash, to name a few.

Wow, I must have missed a bunch of technological updates lately. Since when did having open maps with 8+ land and air vehicles, and multiple character classes, depend on the version of PIXEL SHADER that your card can run, or on the video card at all?

Re: open air, Doom3 didn't but Quake 4 will. And I'll be able to run it.

I picked up my copy at GameStop today. I got it around noon and they were sold out. They had a pre-order drawer full of them and they were pulling more out of a box when I got there.

Doesn't look like sales will be a problem on this game.

---
EA = Game Nazis

edit - just realized I'd rather go play some games than argue
This comment was edited on Jun 22, 17:51.

$350 every five years, but look at how awful the PS2, and, to a lesser extent, the GC look.


I notice a huge difference between a monitor and HDTV, too. Most Xbox games look terrible HD, too many jaggies. Even MVP, one of the few *true* HD games, doesn't look great. But Fight Night... awful. Unplayable in HD. We turn the Xbox back to normal in order to avoid the aliasing.

Just to be clear, I *don't* smoke or drink, and I do enjoy my consoles just about as much as I enjoy my high-end gaming PC.

For one, I can emulate just about every other console out there.

Any console? Really? Tell me where to download a good xbox emulator. In reality, you can only reliably emulate past-gen consoles.

I can use it for work to program, do graphics, and such.

Agreed

I can play most games that come out on consoles and at better resolution and quality.

Most games? Doubtful. Many *major* games that come out for consoles are available cross-platform and for PC, but it's just not accurate to say that most console games are also available on PC. - And better resolution doesn't necessarily mean better quality. This is more subjective, but most of my xbox games on my HDTV from 6 feet away look just as good as something running at 1280x1024 viewing it from 16 inches away. I despise the generic "higher res means better graphics" argument.

I can play movies, music, and all kinds of other media.

Hmmm, last I checked, I could play movies and music on my Xbox as well.



Spread the O&A Virus on XM Radio!
http://www.opieandanthony.com
http://www.xmradio.com
This comment was edited on Jun 22, 14:17.

I don't know what you're smoking, but I usually only spend about $400 every 3 years or so.

Good for you. But to be on the high end of tech (as I was refering to), you'd have to upgrade yearly and the high-end vid cards alone start at $400 (not to mention other hardware upgrades). You might want to check what you're smoking as well.


_______________________________________________________________
Teamwork is essential... it gives the enemy other people to shoot at.

Hmmmm let's see... $350 every 5 years for console hardware or $800 (low-balling) every year for PC hardware. I wonder why the console market is growing so rapidly.

I don't know what you're smoking, but I usually only spend about $400 every 3 years or so. Do I spend more than a console? Sure. But then again, I can do WAY more with my PC than I can with my console.

For one, I can emulate just about every other console out there.
I can use it for work to program, do graphics, and such.
I can play most games that come out on consoles and at better resolution and quality.
I can play movies, music, and all kinds of other media.

In other words: PC for teh win!

This comment was edited on Jun 22, 12:14.

If you thought infantry was useless and slow, you obviously didn't play the game long enough to become good at it.

I was consistently in the top 3 out of 16-32 on my team, I'd say I was pretty good.

However, if you didn't have a vehicle you weren't going to capture a flag, takes too long to get too and fro. And if a vehicle is coming at you and you're not in one you're a bit screwed, unless you're either anti-tank, or he doesn't see you and you get your C4 on him.


Compared to vehicles infantry was slow and useless. Best way to play is hop in a buggy, go to a flag, hop out, capture while picking off anyone spawning, hop in the buggy, go to the next flag, have another squad defend the one you just captured, repeat.

BF2 37.99 at Fry's.

It won't be that low a price for a LONG time. If you are going to wait for it to come down consider that buying it today at that price would get you a price similar to waiting 6 months at least.

See you on the battlefield.

Unpaid Employee and Fanboy of DICE and anything BF2.

Yes I'm very stubborn, but if iD, Valve, and Crytek can do it, why can't EA?

Wow, I must have missed a bunch of games lately. What iD, Valve, and Crytek games supported large open maps with at 8+ land and air vehicles, and multiple character classes? Did I miss something? Crytek's Far Cry was beautiful (and large and open), but I don't remember more than one or two vehicles at a time in those levels. I also don't remember being able to play much more than 10 minutes in HL2 before the awesome graphics engine had to load a new level - and HL2DM couldn't be more vanilla or laggy. And Doom3...Doom3 didnt have large open maps OR vehichles.

BF2 is a great looking game for what it's pushing.

Spread the O&A Virus on XM Radio!
http://www.opieandanthony.com
http://www.xmradio.com

If you thought infantry was useless and slow, you obviously didn't play the game long enough to become good at it.

Mayor Dan
------------
"Take me Jesus, take me Allah, rape me in my room
Torch our days in paranoia while we gorge ourselves on gloom"

Its growing so rapidly because there are far more newb casual gamers. Enthusiasts stick to more complex PC games.

You know, if you game on a PC and think that you won't be spending a minimum of several hundred dollars on it AT LEAST every year and a half then you need to go buy a console. Oh wait, you won't be playing the newest games on that either because every few years you have to buy another console.

Hmmmm let's see... $350 every 5 years for console hardware or $800 (low-balling) every year for PC hardware. I wonder why the console market is growing so rapidly.

_______________________________________________________________
Teamwork is essential... it gives the enemy other people to shoot at.

A large part of that comes from infantry feeling useless and slow. Didn't appeal to me.

This is the reason bf1942 sat on my shelf practically unused. Installed for a total of around three weeks during the years I've had it.

Yet bf2 I'm having fun, solution: stick to 16 player servers. The maps are smaller with only land vehicles that don't become compulsory transport, but still large and diverse enough to keep it from feeling like dm or cs.

Whenever you feel like jets and choppers, join a 24 player server with the medium size map.

This could be a great game for me, it all depends on the other maps...

BF2 does NOT sport a spiffy new engine. It is the same '42 engine that has been modified.

Um, no, it is an entirely new engine from the ground up. Refer to any one of the many Q&A's with the developers, most recently the one done on Gamespy with the Exec. Producer

-DSR <---suicide c4 jeep master

Mine shipped yesterday, Fedex tracking says it will arrive in about 12 hours.

Ordered through EBGames.

BBBBBBFFFFFFFF22222!
This comment was edited on Jun 22, 01:40.

EA = Game Nazis

Nice sig. The funny part is that you're buying the game and therefore supporting the gaming nazi regime, right?

Mayor Dan
------------
"Take me Jesus, take me Allah, rape me in my room
Torch our days in paranoia while we gorge ourselves on gloom"