BattleField 1942 should it be ported?

Discussion in 'Games' started by ChoMomma, Feb 24, 2003.

  1. ChoMomma macrumors 6502

    ChoMomma

    #1
    Okay, let's see what we can say here.


    - Do you want BattleField 1942 to be ported to Mac OS X??



    Lets here from you all!!
    :D :D :D :D :D :D
     
  2. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #2
    uh hell yeah. i am playing it right now. i love that game. it wont be ported though, they arent giving up their code to anyone.

    iJon
     
  3. Das macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    #3
    No, I hate excellent games! I don't want the number one, game of the year, PC game on the mac. I want a new sims expansion, not the best multiplayer war game ever made. You hear me EA?!?! I want to dress my dog in a new costume, not embark in the most fun FPS ever!!!!
     
  4. TEG macrumors 604

    TEG

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2002
    Location:
    Langley, Washington
    #4
    I would love to see BF1942 Ported, but if it happens it will be a long time. It has so many millions of lines of code, that it would take Westlake about a year to recode (Although if they did it would be better that the PC version.
    (Better Graphics, support for Apple Talk Net Play, Only require a 400 Mhz G3+ and 128MB/256MB (OS9/X)) It would be so sweetto kick the seats of my contemeraries at College at something other than War/Starcraft.

    TEG
     
  5. springscansing macrumors 6502a

    springscansing

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2002
    Location:
    New York
  6. howard macrumors 68020

    howard

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2002
    #6
    never heard of that game, i'll go check it out now... but i'm always in favor of more ports to mac!
     
  7. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #7
    400 g3? dont know which battlefield your talking about. You have to have probably a ghz g4 to actuall enjoy this game. and to play it good you have to have at least 128 mb video card. and i highly doubt it would be better than the pc version, because i yet to see someone make mac version than its pc counterpart.

    iJon
     
  8. ddtlm macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2001
    #8
    Everyone (except iJon) should calm down here, this game is heavy-duty and will crush Macs until the arrival of something like the PPC-970. OK, maybe you can take your 1.0ghz G4 an play well on a mid-20-player server, but you can't come play with me on 64-player servers. On those, I can see the chop on my friend's ~1500mhz Athlon, sporting full DDR and an overclocked 128mb GF4Ti.
     
  9. ddtlm macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2001
    #9
    iJon:

    Actually I've seen 64mb cards do fine. Battlefield seems more CPU-bound than graphics-bound, since my 2.17ghz Athlon with 64mb GF4Ti easily outperforms my friend's ~1.5ghz Athlon with it's higher-clocked 128mb GF4Ti.
     
  10. biscool macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2002
    #10
    Uhhh, no. My brother's 1ghz athlon/512mb/64mb Gefore4mx windows box can easily handle it. Is your friend on 56k? Our connection is 1.5/256....
     
  11. ddtlm macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2001
    #11
    biscool:

    I don't know what "easily handle" means to you, but I've seen systems about that speed try to take those servers, and it hasn't been pretty to my eyes. We've got way more bandwidth than a modem of any sort, we've got good pings (usualy 50 to 80), and my buddy's machine has specs well above you're brother's machine. I've also played with a GF4mx (64mb, 440) in my machine and it was fine, but that was just a test and I didn't do anything heavy-duty.

    There was an Athlon 700 with GF4Ti around here for a while and it was totally unplayable on larger servers.
     
  12. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #12
    its a hard arguement to talk about. i have a 2ghz, ti4400, 512 pc 2100, yada yada yada. the game use to be kind of slow but load time have gotten really quick with 1.3. cpu really does make a difference. my friend and i will play over the phone and i will be finished loading and already killed two people before his 1.2ghz athlon loads the level. i have to heard the game runs pretty well on older cards, but since i justh avea pc for games, i maxed mine out at the time, so i like to get the best out of my graphincs. but we shouldnt bother with a mac version, because i already emailed asypr and they said they looking into it but dice didnt want to give over their code, i mean they already cancelled the xbox version.

    iJon
     
  13. ddtlm macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2001
    #13
    iJon:

    I think loading speed is mostly a combo of disk speed and quantity of RAM, since my machine which is quite fast has a really old, slow disk :eek: and is beaten at loading by slower machines with better disks.

    I know a guy with a 64mb GF2mx, Athlon 1533, DDR-RAM system and it doesn't play very well.
     
  14. ChoMomma thread starter macrumors 6502

    ChoMomma

    #14
    It plays very well on my 2.4Ghz P4 with 512MB RD ram/ Geforce 3 Ti 500 64MB DDR/ 60GB 7200RPM WD HD.. :D

    want to trade? for your G4?

    and uh.. pings of 50 -80 are too high for me.. I only play on like 10 -30 ping servers ;) .. 50 -80 is always too choppy.

    =========
    If DICE isn't interested in porting their code or whatever.. how about Aspyr or Omni Group doing up a BF1942 game using the ID Software game engine :D Do it for Mac OS X and Linux? Windows?
     
  15. TEG macrumors 604

    TEG

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2002
    Location:
    Langley, Washington
    #15
    Ummm No....

    Your systems must be weak. I play it occassionally on a 700Mhz Athlon, 256MB, Win2K, And a 16MB TNT2 Videocard. And it has no problems. No jumping, or skiping, around 45fps, 1024x768, on a 32 player server at full load. Its a great game, and has so many revisions built in, that the Mac version wouln't need them, just the full game without aborted code.

    TEG
     
  16. ddtlm macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2001
    #16
    TEG:

    You apparently have low standards, because I can assure you that all the systems (9 machines within walking distance alone) I have seen significant amounts of BF1942 played on, as well as the systems that I played the game on myself, have demonstrated a consistient performance pattern, which I already described.

    ChoMomma:

    Yeah, I could go for some lower pings, but it's possible to be very compeditive with 50-80.
     
  17. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #17
    Wow, thats hard to believe, please tell me what settings you ahve set. i would really like to know.

    iJon
     
  18. TEG macrumors 604

    TEG

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2002
    Location:
    Langley, Washington
    #18
    I don't currently have the machine. Its a School Computer, in Flint, MI. As where I am at work in Portland, OR. So it would be alittle diffucult currently.

    TEG
     
  19. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #19
    its gotta be at all low, there is no way you could play that on a tnt 16 unless it was all low. you should play it on my machine, you will see battlefield the way it was meant to be played.

    iJon
     
  20. TEG macrumors 604

    TEG

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2002
    Location:
    Langley, Washington
    #20
    My former Roomates were also running it on A) PIII 933 (Or what ever it is there), 32 MB Geeforce MX, and 256MB. b) 1.8Ghz P4, 64Mb Video Card, 256MB.

    1) The PIII beat the P4
    2) The "crappy" Athlon Dominated the PIII with pings of about 10-15.

    TEG
     
  21. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #21
    arent pings more to do with your internet connection, not whats under the hood.

    iJon
     
  22. TEG macrumors 604

    TEG

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2002
    Location:
    Langley, Washington
    #22
    True, they are lag on the network. However there have been studies to show that pings can be an accurate measurement of CPU & VPU Power.
    TEG
     
  23. mattmack macrumors 6502a

    mattmack

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Location:
    San Francisco Area
    #23
    Reality Check

    This game will not be ported to mac because Aspyr has already approached the devlopers offering to port it and they were DENIED.
    Oh well maybe in three years when its an old game we can have threads on this like CS:rolleyes:
     
  24. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #24
    but wouldnt the computer barely help or hurt the connection. If i am playing on 56k ill have a ping about 200. if i play withdsl or cable i could have 50. any networking experts out there care to hop in and clear things up.

    iJon
     
  25. ddtlm macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2001
    #25
    TEG:

    Hmmm, studies? Well anyway, ping time is mostly network-based... some of it is in the game but probably not much. The only time that ping says much about computer performance is if the computer is too slow to respond to the network in a timely matter... by that point the gameplay will probably be crappy.
     

Share This Page