I'm not entirely sure why everybody's screaming ITS NOT BATTLEFIELD when I've been comparing his playstyle to the same style I'd use whilst playing regular old BF2, and they're not far off.
I really like where they're going with this. I hope they keep it up!
I hated BF2's gun mechanics, every weapon felt inaccurate as fuck. Which is probably why grenade spam was such a huge issue.
And when you [B][I]know[/I][/B] anti-tanks are more likely to shoot you with a rocket launcher than their actual gun, thats when there's a problem
[QUOTE=RaxaHax;31264904]I hated BF2's gun mechanics, every weapon felt inaccurate as fuck. Which is probably why grenade spam was such a huge issue.
And when you [B][I]know[/I][/B] anti-tanks are more likely to shoot you with a rocket launcher than their actual gun, thats when there's a problem[/QUOTE]
who the fuck shoots a tank with a gun?
[QUOTE=geoface;31265169]who the fuck shoots a tank with a gun?[/QUOTE]
Who said anything about being in a tank? :confused:
[QUOTE=G12-A5;31255527]The game play in general is completely different, its like saying Bf 1942 is exactly like bf1943. Sure they are based same concept same company but COMPLETELY different gameplay styles.
BC2 is more fast paced infantry based combat with big clunky guns and controls with tight maps. Its movement is so chunky and heavy it feels like i'm a 800 pound gorilla sliding on ice. While bf2s movement is like walking a tightrope with very sensitive and precise control
Bf2 is a more large map oriented vehicle based combat with very precise controls and movement.[/QUOTE]
You lost me somewhere at the "BF2.... very precise controls".
The on-foot movement is a little smoother in BC2 but that's about it.
And a little more on topic - I'm getting tired of seeing close quarter combat and middle range combat everywhere, the whole point of this being hyped so much is the come back of large scale combat, and I'm yet to see any ingame footage of that yet. It's even more "frightening" because of how they always focus on the close combat and it's details. It's almost as if the large scale combat is still something they hold as a target for the release but have none of it yet.
[QUOTE=Generous Feller;31263727]Elitists expecting the sequel to play like a game from 2005[/QUOTE]
When EA claims they're making a true sequel to the original series and listening to what PC/core players want, we damn DO expect a game to be less like the 2010 version.
[QUOTE=geoface;31263679]Wtf is bad company gettin so much shit from you guys, it is my favourite of all the Battlefields(well 1943 is pretty awesome and simplsitic)
Bad Company is a brilliant game, so what the fuck is the problem? Is it because the pc version sucks ass r sumthin?[/QUOTE]
Because Bad company is not a true Battlefield game. Alot of things from 1942/BF2/2142 are missing - instead it was a dumbed down console version of battlefield.
[QUOTE=Generous Feller;31263727]Elitists expecting the sequel to play like a game from 2005[/QUOTE]
When they say it is a sequel to the original games, they should. There should be things such as vehicle ammo, commanders, commo rose...simple things which defined battlefield, yet they aren't ingame.
[QUOTE=scotland1;31247521]"looks like BC2"
oh gee maybe because its a battlefield game[/QUOTE]
You obviously never played BF2
I think it looks cool, but they should've called it Bad Company 3.
[QUOTE=Thaard;31265697]I think it looks cool, but they should've called it Bad Company 3.[/QUOTE]I disagree. This is everything I've wanted from battlefield and even more. Just no mod tool, but they will find a way, just like they did with BF2.
Gee maybe it plays like BC2 because its RUSH?
This image is needed...
[img]http://i.imgur.com/TgswJ.png[/img]
From the Battlefield 3 in GGD
Well that certainly doesn't look as good as I thought it would.
Where is the global illumination? Shadows shouldn't be pitch black like that.
Um, how exactly is this anything like "Bad Company 3"? The Bad Company games basically took the small-scale infantry gameplay from BF2 and made it a shitton better. Of course this looks like BC2, because it's, you know, A SMALL-SCALE INFANTRY BATTLE MAP. We still haven't seen any gameplay from any actual big maps and almost any vehicle gameplay. I'd say that the fact that infantry gameplay looks like BC2 is actually a really good thing, since the infantry gameplay in BC2 was great and it was much better than what the same stuff would have been in BF2.
[editline]22nd July 2011[/editline]
Did everyone expect them to make no improvements past BF2 and keep the infantry battle the same as it was in BF2? Because the infantry gameplay in BF2 was not that great.
[editline]22nd July 2011[/editline]
I mean, go and try playing a small-scale infantry map in BF2 and you'll see that BC2 is pretty much exactly like that, only much better.
The weapon handling looks really awesome, but the rest doesn't.
The white patches on the ground from bloom are making me sick. It's just too much. It only reminds me of how badly the bloom can blind you in BC2 when you try sniping in certain maps, or flying. Sure you can turn it off with a bit of configuration, but it shouldn't have to be that way in the first place. I'm not saying it's a bad game either. I certainly think it'll be a much more welcome game than its competitor.
But graphically, despite all the praise for it, I do not find it impressive just yet. Otherwise, everything else seems pretty nice.. At least for an early version like this.
[QUOTE=The golden;31271220]Or maybe it plays like BC2 because: It looks the same, the gun handling looks the same, most of the animations are the same (death animation for example), and the combat looks the same. The only new things I saw in that video are the handling of grenades/knives and the improved destruction. That's it.
All the need to do is add a dust storm and I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.[/QUOTE]
All those things you named are good. BF2's ground/infantry combat was garbage while BC2's was silky smooth.
[QUOTE=The golden;31271220]Or maybe it plays like BC2 because: It looks the same, the gun handling looks the same, most of the animations are the same (death animation for example), and the combat looks the same. The only new things I saw in that video are the handling of grenades/knives and the improved destruction. That's it.
All the need to do is add a dust storm and I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.[/QUOTE]
What does it take to satisfy you people.. Sounds like you guys want something like P4F.
[editline]22nd July 2011[/editline]
Seriously, even Valve reuses content and I see none of you complaining about that. And why exactly should the combat change dramatically?
I seriously don't see all the complaining going on here. BF2 was a fun game, sure, but do you expect DICE to make no changes to the next installment at all?
I'm surprised that you don't complain about BF2 because it isn't anything like BF1942.
The close-quarters ground combat was not what made BF2 good. It was far from garbage, but was only really relevant when it was mixed with vehicle combat. In all honesty; without it's massively pronounced vehicle portion (and the maps to match it) BF2 would have been a mediocre online shooter. The combination of the two created a nice game pace and a rarely-seen "rock-paper-scissors" style balance which made for excellent game flow.
Who knows, it might be just a strange coincidence that we've seen so little multiplayer vehicle combat so far in the game. I hope it is.
[QUOTE=The golden;31271739]I would prefer a game that actually differed from the one before it. I'm not saying it's bad, I'm just saying it looks the fucking same.
So? Why should I drop $60+ on this game when nothing has changed since the last game I bought?
Being a butthurt fanboy and spamming me with boxes doesn't change this.[/QUOTE]
You expect them to rebuild a new engine from the ground up because it has similar gameplay mechanics? If you're disappointed in this having similar gameplay to BC2 then you've never played a sequel in your entire life.
I mean it's a new campaign, larger maps, 64 player cap, improved Frostbite destruction and for a game of the same franchise that comes out only a year or two, that's pretty damn good.
I've also seen you complain about SR3 and a bunch of other games that have been looking great. You'd probably have a lot more fun if your standards weren't absolutely ridiculous.
I just got a pre-alpha key this morning. Might as well see hands on :dance:
[QUOTE=The golden;31271739]So? Why should I drop $60+ on this game when nothing has changed since the last game I bought?
Being a butthurt fanboy and spamming me with boxes doesn't change this.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, since Bad Company 2 had A LOT of large-scale maps with tanks and jets and everything.
[QUOTE=rosthouse;31271878]I seriously don't see all the complaining going on here. BF2 was a fun game, sure, but do you expect DICE to make no changes to the next installment at all?
I'm surprised that you don't complain about BF2 because it isn't anything like BF1942.[/QUOTE]
Gonna say it again, I'm not complaining about what I see, because this kind of detail in the small scale combat is a great addition to a large scale battle in my opinion, it's just that... where's all the large scale battles EA was talking about? So far there's only rambling about their super awesome small scale battles, with the larger scale battles being more like "Yeah, aha, of course we have that too" and none to be seen aside from some concept art pictures.
[QUOTE=STeel;31274630]Gonna say it again, I'm not complaining about what I see, because this kind of detail in the small scale combat is a great addition to a large scale battle in my opinion, it's just that... where's all the large scale battles EA was talking about? So far there's only rambling about their super awesome small scale battles, with the larger scale battles being more like "Yeah, aha, of course we have that too" and none to be seen aside from some concept art pictures.[/QUOTE]
Getting a small-scale infantry only map to a state where you can actually show it takes less time then getting a large-scale map with various vehicles to that state. They just haven't finished those parts yet.
Holy shit DICE, chill your nuts with the fucking map borders.
A lot of the video was the guy getting a nice countdown in his face for trying to shoot someone on the other side of it.
yeah sorry but if you liked bad company(which is what this shit is) you're pretty much the equivalent of a CoD fanboy
small scale infantry gamemodes/gameplay are fucking bad(and BC2's attempts at larger-scale sucked dick), rush is an abomination, and I'm definitely going to wait for video of 64-player gulf of oman conquest before I think about buying this.
[QUOTE=n0cturni;31277498]Holy shit DICE, chill your nuts with the fucking map borders.[/QUOTE] Apparently thats all going to be removed later on and its just there for testing.
[QUOTE=Political Gamer;31282418]Apparently thats all going to be removed later on and its just there for testing.[/QUOTE]
They better, map borders shouldn't be in arbitrary places like that
Use the map itself to hide borders
The problem I think is the fact that they seem to be focusing less on teamwork. Maybe it won't play like this, but it feels very "one man army", and your guy can do anything and you don't need to rely on your team for anything much unlike BF2 where if you attacked a point by yourself you'd get killed pretty much instantly. I can't really judge it through video, but that's the vibe I'm getting and it would make sense to broaden the market to CoD fans, to the horror of the BF fanbase.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
