BF2S Forums Armored Fury Interview with Tom Galt

I vote:

C) All of the above...

Mj.Blindfisch wrote:

IGNPC: Are there any surprises we can expect in Armored Fury?

Tom Galt: There are a few surprises tucked away here and there, but I don't want to give them away yet. We'll leave them for the players to find!

Yup,I'm sure the players will find a ton of new bugs which f*ck up the gameplay.

So more "Beta Testing" by the players then? 

voltage wrote:

Nothing about 64-player support.

?
i thought BF2 WAS a 64 player game...

Dieselbrad wrote:

This article is complete Biased Bullshit...

Want a decent FPS Multiplayer ... save your money for QuakeWars
BF1942 was refreshing.... BF2 is a nice Game.. but not a fricken industry standard...

Give me a break.. Luckily I'm not in the mood to Rant... I vote C!

What do you expect them to say?

Honestly?

Does any company give out information that ISN'T biased bullshit?

btw, I thought these forums were for people who actually liked to play BF2.  Hmm.

It's funny how people complain about a video game company when real life corporations are doing shit thats twice as worse.

Last edited by Spearhead (2006-06-03 21:05:09)

voltage wrote:

ilyandor wrote:

voltage wrote:

Nothing about 64-player support.

?
i thought BF2 WAS a 64 player game...

Well, EF didn't have 64 player support, so you can't be sure.

ORLY?

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

I bought SF the day it came out, and I've played it for like two hours...just didn't care for it, last time I fired it up was back in March, and that just to do some framerate checking.  Granted, I do make regular use of some of the weapons unlocks in regular BF2...so in my case you could say I spent $30 to unlock five weapons.   I still don't feel "ripped off"...I really like those new weapons. 

But I played EF quite a bit when it was released, several hours more than I did SF, and still jump in on EF maps when I see one come up in rotation.  I think I got my $10 worth out of that booster, and I expect I'll get my $10 out of AF when it comes out.

And unlike the vocal majority in this thread and others, I've generally had no problems with the patches (other than the server browser hiccup with 1.3), and agreed with or at least understood the reason behind most of the gameplay changes. 

So I feel no need to go grab a noose and string EA/DICE up....I've gotten almost a solid year of fun gaming out of BF2 and both released add-ons.  That's a pretty damned good gaming value, with the hours I've played, that works out to something like $.02 per hour. That kind of money won't even feed a starving kid in Africa. 

No other game I've bought in the last two years (and I've bought a LOT) has lasted me this long, nor gave so much value for the buck.  Hard to get my panties in a bunch about patches and a few bugs when MY experience to date has been good.

Croak wrote:

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

I bought SF the day it came out, and I've played it for like two hours...just didn't care for it, last time I fired it up was back in March, and that just to do some framerate checking.  Granted, I do make regular use of some of the weapons unlocks in regular BF2...so in my case you could say I spent $30 to unlock five weapons.   I still don't feel "ripped off"...I really like those new weapons. 

But I played EF quite a bit when it was released, several hours more than I did SF, and still jump in on EF maps when I see one come up in rotation.  I think I got my $10 worth out of that booster, and I expect I'll get my $10 out of AF when it comes out.

And unlike the vocal majority in this thread and others, I've generally had no problems with the patches (other than the server browser hiccup with 1.3), and agreed with or at least understood the reason behind most of the gameplay changes. 

So I feel no need to go grab a noose and string EA/DICE up....I've gotten almost a solid year of fun gaming out of BF2 and both released add-ons.  That's a pretty damned good gaming value, with the hours I've played, that works out to something like $.02 per hour. That kind of money won't even feed a starving kid in Africa. 

No other game I've bought in the last two years (and I've bought a LOT) has lasted me this long, nor gave so much value for the buck.  Hard to get my panties in a bunch about patches and a few bugs when MY experience to date has been good.

i agree,my only gripe with the game is the new patch,it refuses to patch correctly and its been cuasing server issues with me as well.

I think if I was interviewing any EA person related to bf2 it would be more like interrogation by a bad cop.

Last edited by alpinestar (2006-06-04 20:38:04)

Well said Rumfuddle.  I couldnt agree more.  If EA were truly serious about making this a game for all combat tastes, they would have a much diverse system of maps specific to certain types of warfare instead of a bunch of infantry here... a couple of tank there.

They could really have gone indepth so different players could go different directions as far as flyboys or tankers or pounders would opt in order with their own preference.

Myself? Pounder through and through.  Sure a LAV or tank may be the occasional bonus, but it someone else wants it, they're free to take it.  Im at my best with a rifle in hand 

Rumfuddle wrote:

I love BF2 but the direction of the game with EF and AF alienates me.  Don't like the big generic open maps dominated by vehicles.  Not my cup of tea.  To me BF2 is defined by and at its best when infantry combat is the focus, not a column of tanks or flyboys.  If I want a dose of sci-fi gimickry in my battlefield I'm more likely to give the Quake Enemy Territory boys a try for variety's sake and sit out 2142 for a while.

BF2 is ALL about vehicles and big maps.  Not infantry.  I wouldn't play this game if it wasn't for the vehicles to fly and drive.  If i wanted infantry battles I'd play CS:S or DOD:S.  Your playing the wrong game man.

Do you not realize though it takes infantry to cap flags you have a purpose just fill it.  The jet whore doesnt win a map its the men on the ground.

Last edited by Colfax (2006-06-05 14:13:57)

Colfax wrote:

BF2 is ALL about vehicles and big maps.  Not infantry.  I wouldn't play this game if it wasn't for the vehicles to fly and drive.  If i wanted infantry battles I'd play CS:S or DOD:S.  Your playing the wrong game man.

Do you not realize though it takes infantry to cap flags you have a purpose just fill it.  The jet whore doesnt win a map its the men on the ground.

There are a ton of Karkand, Sharqi, Mashtuur, Warlord, and Ghost Town fans who'd disagree with you.  I'm expressing my opinion, you're TELLING me what to do.  Uncool. 

There's also a thing called BALANCE.  HAVING to be in a vehicle to avoid quick and rapid deaths is not what interests me.  Check out my stats, I have no allergy to vehicles but all vehicles all the time does not equal my idea of a fun BF2 session.