[QUOTE=ThePutty;31285705]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.[/QUOTE]
You'd be killed instantly in BF2 because the infantry combat sucked.
Dolphin diving aside, close combat on foot was nowhere below average in BF2. I don't see where people are getting this from.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;31290204]Dolphin diving aside, close combat on foot was nowhere below average in BF2. I don't see where people are getting this from.[/QUOTE]
It kinda was. It usually took a whole mag to kill someone and most of the time your shots wouldn't hit the enemy if you were right in their face and was firing full-auto.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;31246562]Doesn't really look innovating over previous Battlefield titles, only thing that's been majorly improved is the graphics. At the moment it looks like they merged Battlefield 2 and Bad Company 2, and improved little things here and there. That's pretty much it, no major innovations.
I'm probably going to give this a pass. After all, I'm not going to be buying something similar to a Bad Company 2 copy paste.[/QUOTE]
fine, don't buy it.
but when it comes down to "modern" warfare games (no pun intended) BF3 has most to offer I believe.
Even if it "sucks" or is not as innovative or groundbreaking as it's been hyped out to be. to me it looks alpha right now, without the final touch and enabled graphics and the solidness and the finish
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;31290204]Dolphin diving aside, close combat on foot was nowhere below average in BF2. I don't see where people are getting this from.[/QUOTE]
A common strategy I discovered for my enemies was that instead of shooting me they were more likely to bunnyhop around me throwing all of their grenades at my feet.
Oh and snipers will just run at you and throw a claymore at your feet, instead of using their sidearm.
Bunnyhopping is just as common in BC2.
I liked the way grenades could be used in BF2 (both defensively and offensively), though I admit it would've been better if their carrying capacity was lower.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;31294140]Bunnyhopping is just as common in BC2.I liked the way grenades could be used in BF2 (both defensively and offensively), though I admit it would've been better if their carrying capacity was lower.[/QUOTE]What games are you playing? I saw maybe someone bunny hopping once or twice in BC2 in my 70+ hours of playing online and when they did, it didn't even work like they hoped where in BF2 it's every other person plus some. Grenades were also bullshit in BF2. You know the infantry combat is shit and exploitable when every time you come up on an enemy they don't shoot you but instead they hop around like an idiot lobbing all their grenades at you. Not to mention that if you didn't have a near perfect connection, your hits wouldn't register half the time. Now if you could find a good server you might not run into these problems but that's more trouble than it's worth.
[editline]23rd July 2011[/editline]
BF 2142 improved on quite a few of these things though
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;31294140]Bunnyhopping is just as common in BC2.
I liked the way grenades could be used in BF2 (both defensively and offensively), though I admit it would've been better if their carrying capacity was lower.[/QUOTE]I've never in my time playing BC2 seen a bunny hopper. The most present issue is wooks, and even then people just make fun of them by saying, "More cooks, less wooks"
This is the only non-Steamworks title I care about. Weird when you think about it. Too bad EA had to go all anti-Steam.
[QUOTE=Generous Feller;31294230]What games are you playing?[/QUOTE]
I'll have to return that question back to you...? I played BC2 today for around an hour and I had 3-4 encounters of enemies bunnyhopping around the flags trying to avoid my fire while reloading. I recognize the grenade spam in BF2 but it is nowhere standard strategy, rather something done by those few crap players who frequent the bottom half of the scoreboard and are more a burden to their team. That's more of a problem with the community as opposed to the game.
However, yes I did spend some time testing out servers to find the most suitable ones, namely those with low latency and good players.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;31297508]I'll have to return that question back to you...? I played BC2 today for around an hour and I had 3-4 encounters of enemies bunnyhopping around the flags trying to avoid my fire while reloading. I recognize the grenade spam in BF2 but it is nowhere standard strategy, rather something done by those few crap players who frequent the bottom half of the scoreboard and are more a burden to their team. That's more of a problem with the community as opposed to the game.However, yes I did spend some time testing out servers to find the most suitable ones, namely those with low latency and good players.[/QUOTE]If the community is able exploit things like that with the grenade spam then the game itself has a problem. I've put at least 50+ hours into both these games and BF2 is easily the most exploited. It had an advantage because of the larger player cap and maps and the more focus on teamwork but BC2 more often feels like people play it the way the developers intended people to play it. Plus the infantry controls just feel smoother and better to play with.
I'm owrried their big maps are just going to be like "Heavy Metal" and that other big map from BC2. This feels like BF3 was developed, and then simplified.
[QUOTE=Sean C;31298419]I'm owrried their big maps are just going to be like "Heavy Metal" and that other big map from BC2. This feels like BF3 was developed, and then simplified.[/QUOTE]Just because they showed one map that was small doesn't mean every map is small. BF2 and all the rest had its mall maps too, it's just that a small map would probably have been best to video because it would be faster paced.
Heh, I always see complaints about BF3 in The News Thread and Video Thread.
[QUOTE=Soda;31282160]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]
I've been saving this image for a damn long time...
[img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1467131/BOMBSAWAY.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;31300105]I've been saving this image for a damn long time...
[img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1467131/BOMBSAWAY.gif[/img][/QUOTE]
Should have been boxes
I'm not going to judge BF3 until they show a map other than Metro, it seems to be a more closed in, urban map, i hope to see a large variation in maps, so it pleases both BF2 and BC fans.
lol people who are complaining are gonna end up playing it and loving it.
[QUOTE=MenteR;31302055]lol people who are complaining are gonna end up playing it and loving it.[/QUOTE]
Yes but what's at stake here isn't if I'm going to play it.
It's for how long.
They should change the interface. It looks to bad comnapish.
[url]http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/07/26/battlefield-3-videos-show-multiplayer-load-out-options-and-operation-metro-map/[/url]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuoU7uBNvP0[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LILgS-M2xo[/media]
More clips
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
