Battlefield 4 beta confirmed with Warfighter LE pre-orders
101 replies, posted
Pray for 2143
Why are you fucking always saying that Battlefield is dead now, or goodbye Battlefield? The release schedule has always been like this.
[QUOTE=Scot;36810523]Warfighter looks quite good anyway.
[editline]17th July 2012[/editline]
wait £40 for a PC game lol fuck off[/QUOTE]
Retail is £10 cheaper.
[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;36811117]Also it's pretty funny how people are just NOW noticing that BF games come only a few years apart.
They've only been doing that for what? A decade now?[/QUOTE]
A decade exactly if BF4 releases next year.
BF3 sucked
sure is opinions in this thread
[QUOTE=Raidyr;36810157]I preferred BF3 to BC2 because BF3 had hit detection.
p important in an fps to have your bullets work.[/QUOTE]
Meh they just made a different trade-off. In BF3 you have cases where you think you were well behind cover but you still get shot. I still prefer that to BC2's laggy prediction though.
A new Battlefield was to be expected. I just hope they'll spice it up, just like 2142 and Bad Company did.
It would be nice if BF4 worked like BF2. Especially a single player like BF2. It's the reason why BF2 is still alive today.
[QUOTE=Rocko's;36812462]It would be nice if BF4 worked like BF2. Especially a single player like BF2. It's the reason why BF2 is still alive today.[/QUOTE]
They either have to leave out the singleplayer entirely or they should build a singleplayer that teaches you actual skills you can use in the play the multiplayer. BF3's SP was a waste of budget.
[QUOTE=JerryK;36811920]BF3 sucked[/QUOTE]
only cool kids voice an unpopular opinion with no punctuation
Feels good to be right again for the third time. Glad I stuck with Battlefield 2, because Battlefield 3 was a terrible sequel. I swear it feels like a lot of people here that played battlefield has never heard of Battlefield before Bad company so they rate you dumb without arguing it.
I find it funny how everyone bashes me in this thread [URL]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1197901&page=5[/URL] yet in the end and only a few days later it is actually comfirmed.
[QUOTE=tesher07;36812770]Feels good to be right again for the third time. Glad I stuck with Battlefield 2, because Battlefield 3 was a terrible sequel. I swear it feels like a lot of people here that played battlefield has never heard of Battlefield before Bad company so they rate you dumb without arguing it.
I find it funny how everyone bashes me in this thread [URL]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1197901&page=5[/URL] yet in the end and only a few days later it is actually comfirmed.[/QUOTE]
1942 player reporting in to let you know that ratings don't matter and your opinion is wrong.
[QUOTE=tesher07;36812770]Feels good to be right again for the third time. Glad I stuck with Battlefield 2, because Battlefield 3 was a terrible sequel. I swear it feels like a lot of people here that played battlefield has never heard of Battlefield before Bad company so they rate you dumb without arguing it.
I find it funny how everyone bashes me in this thread [URL]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1197901&page=5[/URL] yet in the end and only a few days later it is actually comfirmed.[/QUOTE]
Hey there buddy! It looks like you've made a mistake in your post, the assumption that anyone cares that you don't like the game they are playing! Whoops!
[QUOTE=Raidyr;36813182]1942 player reporting in to let you know that ratings don't matter and your opinion is wrong.[/QUOTE]
Maybe I'm wrong maybe I'm right, all I know, is that it is my personal viewpoint on the subject and if your going to say that my opinion is wrong, you might as well back up why at least.
Arab $$$!
Please don't make it a modern combat FPS.
[QUOTE=tesher07;36813375]Maybe I'm wrong maybe I'm right, all I know, is that it is my personal viewpoint on the subject and if your going to say that my opinion is wrong, you might as well back up why at least.[/QUOTE]
Oh a challenge eh? I quite enjoy doing this;
Why BF3 is a better [B]game[/B] than BF2.
Bf2 isn't a great game to be honest. It's horribly broken, by today's standards it's archaic (it wasn't exactly top of the line when it launched), and the community that fills it is pretty aggravating to say the least.
So how is it broken? Well. The shooting mechanics aren't good. They just aren't. Actually hitting and killing someone effectively is an exercise in patience. Especially with the starting weapons the game gives you. The infantry combat is just unappealing today. Everything feels weightless, it's not all that immersive, and generally some of the features of the game are held back by server owners (why shouldn't a commander fight dammit, it's not like they can do both things at the same time constantly). The vehicle combat is equally broken, tanks decimate infantry, but infantry don't have much help fighting back (the AT launchers are pathetically weak, AT mines are all about if a driver is oblivious), which means air vehicles have to clean that mess up. Which leads me to jets. They control quite nicely actually, but again they dominate the shit out of everything, only stopping to re-arm. Again, there's not much to take them out with but stationary AA or a metric ton of teamwork thanks to flares being quite quick.
The ranking system is balls. If you want to get the unlock weapons and actually have a chance of besting someone or rivalling people with them you need to dedicate so much time to the game. There's no real gratification either. BF3 strikes a good balance of you earning things easily, but you still need to put the time in to become effective and have alternative gadgets (the most important part of you class). And it condenses the classes nicely. Anti-Tank was useless, Spec Ops was pretty useless. Assault, Medic, Engineer, Support and Recon at the most that were needed, if Engineer had the AT launcher too.
Sure, the modding capabilities are pretty cool, but nothing interesting outside of PR (horrible community) has really been shown. All the other mods I've seen are pretty much BF2 with new models, PR is the only one I know to push the game. The actual BF2 community is pretty shit too. For a community that emphasises teamwork to no end they sure don't like working in teams unless it's their friends and their friends only. If they really were true to their word, they'd do like I do and just straight up start commanding people in my squad, they usually listen.
BF3 on the other hand is quite a well rounded shooter. The shooting feels great, hitting targets is only a challenge if you don't account for ballistics and range, taking out a tank doesn't require an entire squad any more (tanks can defend themselves quite well too if the driver isn't blind). The unlock system is great, and allows you to specialise your classes more to your play style. Jets and helis are still a pain in the ass to kill, but you can do it a fair bit easier compared to BF2 if you persevere. The game is immersive as all hell, it's beautifully rendered, the sound effects are amazing, and it just feels nice to play with small details here and there. The community still sucks yes, that was a given. All gaming communities suck to some extent.
Your opinion is pretty wrong man. BF3 may lack some things BF2 had, but it's streamlined the game into something accessible, something enjoyable. They cut the fat, and left us a decent, team based shooter with open battlefields and vehicles to play with.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;36814579]Oh a challenge eh? I quite enjoy doing this;
Why BF3 is a better [B]game[/B] than BF2.
Bf2 isn't a great game to be honest. It's horribly broken, by today's standards it's archaic (it wasn't exactly top of the line when it launched), and the community that fills it is pretty aggravating to say the least.
So how is it broken? Well. The shooting mechanics aren't good. They just aren't. Actually hitting and killing someone effectively is an exercise in patience. Especially with the starting weapons the game gives you. The infantry combat is just unappealing today. Everything feels weightless, it's not all that immersive, and generally some of the features of the game are held back by server owners (why shouldn't a commander fight dammit, it's not like they can do both things at the same time constantly). The vehicle combat is equally broken, tanks decimate infantry, but infantry don't have much help fighting back (the AT launchers are pathetically weak, AT mines are all about if a driver is oblivious), which means air vehicles have to clean that mess up. Which leads me to jets. They control quite nicely actually, but again they dominate the shit out of everything, only stopping to re-arm. Again, there's not much to take them out with but stationary AA or a metric ton of teamwork thanks to flares being quite quick.
[B]How are the shooting mechanics bad, because shooting and killing some one did not seem like a task as a far as I know. How is the infantry combat unappealing? The game was highly touted as an amazing shooter which placed a large focus on actual teamwork and objectives unlike Battlefield 3 which focuses more on kills. If you saying the combat is unappealing compared to today's standards, I have no clue how it has changed. One of the great features of Battlefield 2 was the implementation of a commander. The use of a commander actually led to more emphasis on teamwork and objectives by allowing the commander coordinate the squads. I feel that you are trying to mistaken Battlefield 3 for Call of Duty because your arguments seem more focused on kills rather than a team based game. Since when should infantry have the advantage compared to a vehicle, that makes no sense. Infantry in Battlefield 2 has plenty of counter measure against armored vehicles such as (c4,at launchers, and mines) all of which are very effective. Your pointing out the same argument with the jets as you did with the tanks. Jets are meant to dominate more than any other vehicle yet the fact that you say they are a pain in the ass is a terrible argument. The way you see it, is expecting everything to come easy to you as if a pistol round should be able to destroy a tank.[/B]
The ranking system is balls. If you want to get the unlock weapons and actually have a chance of besting someone or rivalling people with them you need to dedicate so much time to the game. There's no real gratification either. BF3 strikes a good balance of you earning things easily, but you still need to put the time in to become effective and have alternative gadgets (the most important part of you class). And it condenses the classes nicely. Anti-Tank was useless, Spec Ops was pretty useless. Assault, Medic, Engineer, Support and Recon at the most that were needed, if Engineer had the AT launcher too.
[B]When I played Battlefield 3, it took minutes to rank up and I would be getting badges constantly which made the game become dull very quick. Battlefield 2 had it right because it made the player actually work for something rather than have it handed to them which made it much more gratifying. Battlefield 3's rank system is a joke and extremely familiar to that of the Call of Duty franchise. The implementation of gadgets into Battlefield 3 was also a terrible idea as it made the game feel less like a Battlefield game and more like COD. Not only that but it made players put less emphasis on teamwork and more on kills. Condensing the classes is arguable but I personally see it being a bad idea because it took away from the actual diversity of the classes. [/B]
Sure, the modding capabilities are pretty cool, but nothing interesting outside of PR (horrible community) has really been shown. All the other mods I've seen are pretty much BF2 with new models, PR is the only one I know to push the game. The actual BF2 community is pretty shit too. For a community that emphasises teamwork to no end they sure don't like working in teams unless it's their friends and their friends only. If they really were true to their word, they'd do like I do and just straight up start commanding people in my squad, they usually listen.
[B]Probably the most important factor to the Battlefield franchises success and long standing community is modding. The modding community for Battlefield 2 has delivered many great mods such as (Project Reality, Forgotten Hope 2, Allied Intent X, Operation Peacekeeper 2, Point of Existence, and Battlefield Sandbox). I have personally played all these mods and can say for a fact the communities where great especially with PR,FH2,and POE2. The reason mods are a great part of Battlefield 2 is because they provide a greater amount of diversity to the game its self compared to Battlefield 3 which becomes dull after a time.[/B]
BF3 on the other hand is quite a well rounded shooter. The shooting feels great, hitting targets is only a challenge if you don't account for ballistics and range, taking out a tank doesn't require an entire squad any more (tanks can defend themselves quite well too if the driver isn't blind). The unlock system is great, and allows you to specialise your classes more to your play style. Jets and helis are still a pain in the ass to kill, but you can do it a fair bit easier compared to BF2 if you persevere. The game is immersive as all hell, it's beautifully rendered, the sound effects are amazing, and it just feels nice to play with small details here and there. The community still sucks yes, that was a given. All gaming communities suck to some extent.
[B]Battlefield 3 did advance aspects of the game but your comparing a 7 year old game to Battlefield 3 which is like comparing Half-Life to Half-Life 2. Obviously your expected to improve on a game in different areas but the game was great for being what it was at the time and still is. People do not say that Half-Life, Quake, Unreal Tournament, Counterstrike 1.6, and others are shitty games even though it has been many years since their release. When you point out taking out a tank by yourself, that is the exact mentally of someone that plays Call of Duty. You feel that everything should revolve around solo play and killing rather than the actual objective. Yes Battlefield 3 did improve on many aspects especially in the visual department but it strayed away from what Battlefield 3 was.[/B]
Battlefield 3
-Lack of map variety
-Smaller maps compared to Battlefield 2
-Only 2 factions
-No Mod support
-No commander (brought emphasis on teamwork)
-Larger community of Call of Duty players because of EA's attempt to steal players.
-No in game VOIP (important for teamwork)
-No localized voices compared to Battlefield 2 which did and did a great job of at that
-Spawn on squad which aided in less teamwork and more whoring
-Shitty Squad management option compared to Battlefield 2
-4 class system compared to Battlefield 2's 8 class system which allowed for a greater amount of balance which led to classes actually having goals based on what they did.
-Driven by kills not objective
-Lack of Faction specific weapons (feels like Call of Duty)
-Lack of effort needed when ranking
-4 player squads compared to Battlefield 2's 6 player squads
-No Blackhawk
-Stat boosting on maps such as Metro
-Addition of all these guns and gadget unlocks caters to Call of Duty players
-Health Regeneration like Call of duty
Battlefield 3 caters to Call of Duty gamers with many of these things and in turn takes away from the actual Battlefield experience. If you enjoy Battlefield 3 though all the power to you, I just personally see it as a mix with Call of Duty which I guess many of you enjoy.
Your opinion is pretty wrong man. BF3 may lack some things BF2 had, but it's streamlined the game into something accessible, something enjoyable. They cut the fat, and left us a decent, team based shooter with open battlefields and vehicles to play with.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=tesher07;36815438][/QUOTE]
Bf2 is still better, and 2142 is better than both.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;36814579]Oh a challenge eh? I quite enjoy doing this;
Why BF3 is a better [B]game[/B] than BF2.
Bf2 isn't a great game to be honest. It's horribly broken, by today's standards it's archaic (it wasn't exactly top of the line when it launched), and the community that fills it is pretty aggravating to say the least.
So how is it broken? Well. The shooting mechanics aren't good. They just aren't. Actually hitting and killing someone effectively is an exercise in patience. Especially with the starting weapons the game gives you. The infantry combat is just unappealing today. Everything feels weightless, it's not all that immersive, and generally some of the features of the game are held back by server owners (why shouldn't a commander fight dammit, it's not like they can do both things at the same time constantly). The vehicle combat is equally broken, tanks decimate infantry, but infantry don't have much help fighting back (the AT launchers are pathetically weak, AT mines are all about if a driver is oblivious), which means air vehicles have to clean that mess up. Which leads me to jets. They control quite nicely actually, but again they dominate the shit out of everything, only stopping to re-arm. Again, there's not much to take them out with but stationary AA or a metric ton of teamwork thanks to flares being quite quick.
The ranking system is balls. If you want to get the unlock weapons and actually have a chance of besting someone or rivalling people with them you need to dedicate so much time to the game. There's no real gratification either. BF3 strikes a good balance of you earning things easily, but you still need to put the time in to become effective and have alternative gadgets (the most important part of you class). And it condenses the classes nicely. Anti-Tank was useless, Spec Ops was pretty useless. Assault, Medic, Engineer, Support and Recon at the most that were needed, if Engineer had the AT launcher too.
Sure, the modding capabilities are pretty cool, but nothing interesting outside of PR (horrible community) has really been shown. All the other mods I've seen are pretty much BF2 with new models, PR is the only one I know to push the game. The actual BF2 community is pretty shit too. For a community that emphasises teamwork to no end they sure don't like working in teams unless it's their friends and their friends only. If they really were true to their word, they'd do like I do and just straight up start commanding people in my squad, they usually listen.
BF3 on the other hand is quite a well rounded shooter. The shooting feels great, hitting targets is only a challenge if you don't account for ballistics and range, taking out a tank doesn't require an entire squad any more (tanks can defend themselves quite well too if the driver isn't blind). The unlock system is great, and allows you to specialise your classes more to your play style. Jets and helis are still a pain in the ass to kill, but you can do it a fair bit easier compared to BF2 if you persevere. The game is immersive as all hell, it's beautifully rendered, the sound effects are amazing, and it just feels nice to play with small details here and there. The community still sucks yes, that was a given. All gaming communities suck to some extent.
Your opinion is pretty wrong man. BF3 may lack some things BF2 had, but it's streamlined the game into something accessible, something enjoyable. They cut the fat, and left us a decent, team based shooter with open battlefields and vehicles to play with.[/QUOTE]
but bf3 actually sucked and wasn't better than bf2
That would be so much nicer if you understood how a quote tag works so I didn't have to copy things out of the post. But whatever. Some of your points are valid, others are just kinda ignoring what I said. I never said I expected kills to come easily, I never said anything about the game focusing more on kills (it has a slight focus yes, but teamwork still trumps it, you can top a match without firing a single bullet still).
For the infantry combat, the shooting is pretty broken. You can aim at someone, shoot a couple of shots and miss every single one because the hit detection is iffy. Even if you control your fire pretty well this happens. Even on single player where latency isn't an issue this happens. This is what I mean by infantry combat isn't as appealing today, it's just kinda hard to shoot things, something you really need to be able to do, though the support structures all work pretty well. From my experience the counter measures against tanks (well, mostly the AT launchers) don't actually do too much damage to the tanks. C4 and mines do, yeah, but both of those require either being near the tank, or having a tank run over it. Taking one on from a distance is a bit shit. my problem with jets is they dominate [B]too[/B] much, you can't shoot the damn things down with heat seeking weapons without amazing timing or a few other heat seeking users ready (teamwork, but good luck getting that on public games).
BF3 does rank quite fast in comparison. It's largely the lower levels though, as with almost every shooter with a rank system it grows each time you rank. The lower levels are all instant gratification, "here take this shit" levels to get you going. You don't get the truly good stuff for vehicles and kits unless you put hours into them. I don't see how gadgets make it feel like CoD, last I checked, CoD didn't have EOD Bots, Spotting devices, AT mines, etc. These are gadgets, flashlights, suppressors, etc. are attachments, and are quite a welcome addition to be honest. Being able to deck a gun out to that detail is pretty cool (and surpasses CoD easily, what's with all the fucking CoD comparisons?). You earn a ton of points for teamwork still, kills are encouraged, much like they were in BF2, by helping your victory by draining tickets obviously, but teamwork still awards you a ton of points. Most of my score is resupply bonuses.
8 classes in a game like this is fucking pointless to be honest. Sure it adds diversity, but it doesn't help balance much at all. Honestly, combining medic and assault into assault is a great idea, they were similar classes anyway in BF2, and in BF3 you just need to unlock the M320 to become a "BF2" assault again anyway. Combining engineer and anti-tank is also welcome as anti-tank was fucking useless in general. The only thing it brought to the table was AT launchers, which engineers bested with AT mines anyway. You can become a AT soldier by giving up the ability to repair anything in BF3. Combining recon and spec ops was also a good idea. Snipers were borderline slot wasters, sitting back isn't helping much. Spec Ops was assault with C4, not too useful unless you get to the enemy radar station really, maybe good for a tank kill or two. Smoosh them together and you get a lovely class that encourages moving forward with spotting devices and spawn points, but still retains some marksman ability to sit back and be useless.
There's not much to argue against mods. But that's an engine fault, so suck it up. Taking out a tank by yourself has always been possible in BF2 through C4, it just takes effort. The same is true for BF3, taking out a tank by yourself takes more effort than if you work together. Stop with the god damn CoD comparisons, the games aren't alike other than they both involve you shooting brown people. it has hardly strayed from what Battlefield is, merely redefined it in some aspects to make the game accessible to todays audiences, while still being fun for existing fans. I loved BF2 years ago, but after being treated so well by modern shooters, playing it is truly painful as it hasn't aged gracefully at all.
One last bit;
-Lack of map variety [B]- Pretty valid, only a few maps are worth playing, BF2 had this issue too though[/B]
-Smaller maps compared to Battlefield 2 [B]- Barely. The maps can get quite large, but as they are much more detailed, obviously not quite as large. Details is better anyway.[/B]
-Only 2 factions [B]- Nitpicking. This has no impact on the game play realistically.[/B]
-No Mod support [B]- Engine flaw. Deal with it.[/B]
-No commander (brought emphasis on teamwork) [B]- Squad leaders still exist, but commander was pretty useless except for supply drops. Squads can organise themselves easily en[/B]
-Larger community of Call of Duty players because of EA's attempt to steal players. [B]- Sorry, this is a fault of the game how? That was EAs publicity department, not the game.[/B]
-No in game VOIP (important for teamwork) [B]- There's the BattleLog VOIP, but it sucks. Most BF2 servers used Teamspeak anyway as BF2 VOIP was pretty ass too.[/B]
-No localized voices compared to Battlefield 2 which did and did a great job of at that [B]- Nitpicking, but I do miss localised team voices. An option would be nice like in BC2.[/B]
-Spawn on squad which aided in less teamwork and more whoring [B]- What? How? Are you actually reading what you are typing?[/B]
-Shitty Squad management option compared to Battlefield 2 [B]- It's uhh, it's pretty much the same thing man. Make squads, join squads, lock squads, leave squads.[/B]
-4 class system compared to Battlefield 2's 8 class system which allowed for a greater amount of balance which led to classes actually having goals based on what they did. [B]- Covered this earlier. Needless complexity.[/B]
-Driven by kills not objective [B]- Pretty objective driven from what I've been playing yo.[/B]
-Lack of Faction specific weapons (feels like Call of Duty) [B]- Okay now you're just fucking with me. Every kit has a faction weapon for their primary and secondary. Plus at least one gadget. All the unlocks are global, just like Bf2.[/B]
-Lack of effort needed when ranking [B]- At early ranks, sure.[/B]
-4 player squads compared to Battlefield 2's 6 player squads [B]- Partially valid complaint. Larger squads would be nice.[/B]
-No Blackhawk [B]- Oh boo hoo, they removed one vehicle.[/B]
-Stat boosting on maps such as Metro [B]- Metro sucks, any decent players will tell you that.[/B]
-Addition of all these guns and gadget unlocks caters to Call of Duty players [B]- Not really. It caters to making the game more diverse. Are you really typing this shit holy fuck.[/B]
-Health Regeneration like Call of duty [B]- "CoD HAS IT, IT MUST BE A COPY!!!!!" The health regen in BF3 is quite acceptable. it takes ages to start, and takes ages to finish. Med kits still play an important role, as to engineers.[/B]
Have you even played the fucking game? You have so many uninformed opinions, that I'm pretty safe to say you haven't.
[QUOTE=JerryK;36816674]but bf3 actually sucked and wasn't better than bf2[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure BF3 is a good game man. I mean, it works for one thing. And isn't dead. It wasn't even trying to be BF2, everyone just kinda expected it to be because, well I don't know, you're all stuck in the past?
[QUOTE=JerryK;36816674]but bf3 actually sucked and wasn't better than bf2[/QUOTE]
It was heaps more fun than BF2. (But personally I've always thought BF2 sucked)
It is a good game that's fun to play but is very uninspired, bland and is very very forgettable. BF3 got the looks and it's got the action, but it's mechanics and gameplay is boring, it just does things you expect a FPS to do and then it doesn't do more than that.
Its still far too early for a BF4, but a Bad Company 3 would be nice however.
Holy shit that post was longer than I thought. I guess that's the mistake of leaving a post half written and combing back to it later.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;36814579]
Sure, the modding capabilities are pretty cool, but nothing interesting outside of PR (horrible community) has really been shown. All the other mods I've seen are pretty much BF2 with new models, PR is the only one I know to push the game. The actual BF2 community is pretty shit too. For a community that emphasises teamwork to no end they sure don't like working in teams unless it's their friends and their friends only. If they really were true to their word, they'd do like I do and just straight up start commanding people in my squad, they usually listen.
[/QUOTE]
Forgotten Hope 2 - fucking world war 2, and 128 players
Alpha Project - weapon customization, better infantry combat, generally really fun
Allied Intent Xtended - extremely expanded singleplayer and LAN experience.
Point of Existence - i really just found this fun, disregard this if you must
and most importantly:
Battlefield 2 Sandbox.
I didn't know that Sandbox didn't push the game, you know, being able to build stuff, spawn any vehicle, stuff like that.
Everything else I agree on.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;36816705]I'm pretty sure BF3 is a good game man. I mean, it works for one thing. And isn't dead. It wasn't even trying to be BF2, everyone just kinda expected it to be because, well I don't know, you're all stuck in the past?[/QUOTE]
they tried to beat CoD and focused on nothing but that and failed
[QUOTE=WarRocker32;36816782]Forgotten Hope 2
Alpha Project
Allied Intent Xtended
Point of Existence,
and most importantly:
Battlefield 2 Sandbox.
I didn't know that Sandbox didn't push the game, you know, being able to build stuff, spawn any vehicle, stuff like that.
Everything else I agree on.[/QUOTE]
Keep forgetting BF2 sandbox. For some reason I keep imagining it in a different game :v: It was pretty cool, I wouldn't say it "pushes" that game. But it certainly adds a new level of fun to it. When I say "push" I mean bring truly new ideas to the game, and get the most out of the engine. From what I've seen, PR does that. But I've not played many of the other mods, or played them any time recently.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;36816705]I'm pretty sure BF3 is a good game man. I mean, it works for one thing. And isn't dead. It wasn't even trying to be BF2, everyone just kinda expected it to be because, well I don't know, you're all stuck in the past?[/QUOTE]
Everyone expected it to be BF2's maps, playercount and gameplay meets BC2's technical standards (graphics, physics, mechanics etc etc) which is basically what it is. It just didn't merge them in a particularly fun and memorable way.
The destructive environment is really fucking restricted in BF3 whereas in BC2 you could blow up anything that wasn't super critical in order to get through the map, which was basically 80% of what was on the map that wasn't ground.
Whilst there are big maps and many players it doesn't exactly feel like there are that many players, and most of the maps are also rendered unused as battlefields and are just walking space since control points and flags are usually grouped together very tight in comparison to how much space the maps has to offer. But of course spreading the points would just further increase the lacking feeling of there actually being 32 enemy players and 32 allies. But I think the maps are just made big for the sake of being big rather than trying to make it fun that they are big (it is not fun to spend 5 minutes traveling (because all vehicles are taken) only to get shot when you've almost or just reached your destination).
And the gameplay is just too standard, dull and uninspired, much because they're treating Battlefield like a competitor to CoD trying to make it compete by doing the same things as CoD rather than doing better things.
As for a complain that is unrelated to BF2 since I don't know if they did that: You can't make your own squads and they are too small. Want to play with friends? Fuck you sir, the squad leader is the first to join the squad and if the server is relatively full or people got in before you there may be no squad for your friends to join in on together.
There's only so much you can do with shooting mechanics in a modern warfare themed game. So again, how is comparing the combat to CoD any help to your argument? And again, they are nothing alike. CoD uses hitscans, instantly travelled bullets with damaged scaled. The feel of the weapons is usually quite weak, the recoil is mostly visual. BF3 uses simulated bullets, they drop, they take time to travel, they also scale damage. But the recoil and shit is actually something you notice and control.
Though I do agree that in a lot of the maps, the points are far too close to use the map well. Caspian Border has a few areas in the middle where nothing happens. Operation Firestorm has the entire border with nothing happening but a few recons being useless out there. And I do wish DICE had kept the Alpha destruction in, you could blow holes in damn near anything, it was pretty cool. It's a shame they made most of the buildings in the maps indestructible (held up by a stair case on the outside or something stupid).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.