[QUOTE=Dirf;42013825]Why the fuck did metro get picked? It's a terrible map.[/QUOTE]
As a corridor shooter map it was pretty exciting. I really enjoyed playing it in rush mode on 24 player servers.
Though as a Battlefield map, it was kind of shit.
[QUOTE=Juniez;42017179]I don't understand why people have problems with being told that they're working on other things before the game is out. It's been going on forever but now it's a problem because you know about it? ridiculous[/QUOTE]
Personally I disagree with it because right off the bat they've divided the community into people who'll get the DLC and people who either can't or won't. That's really what I disagree with, I'm perfectly fine with them working on content before the game releases but it becomes a problem when it creates immediate rifts in the playerbase.
Where da fuq is bridge too far damnit
Mashtuur City with fully destroyable bridges would be great, just not enough tall buildings for their levolution destruction porn.
[QUOTE=Dirf;42013825]Why the fuck did metro get picked? It's a terrible map.[/QUOTE]
Most of BF3s maps are terrible.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;42017534]You're implying a game with massive engine updates (BF3 ran on frostbite 2, this is frostbite 3), massive UI updates, pretty heavy mechanics changes and an entirely original campaign would be a $30 expansion? Take off your rose-tinted glasses.
You're unironically one of those "Battlefield 3.5" people, aren't you?[/QUOTE]
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/95/Coduobox2.jpg/256px-Coduobox2.jpg[/img]
Get at me.
[QUOTE=gunguy765;42017594]Since they're adding Metro, can we dig 5 foot trenches outside with C4?[/QUOTE]
you used to be able to do that in the alpha lol
its kinda sad how the alpha was better (imo) than the version of bf3 we have today
[QUOTE=DarkZero135;42038222]you used to be able to do that in the alpha lol
its kinda sad how the alpha was better (imo) than the version of bf3 we have today[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IUT0O5yV6Q[/media]
yeah
[QUOTE=DarkZero135;42038222]you used to be able to do that in the alpha lol
its kinda sad how the alpha was better (imo) than the version of bf3 we have today[/QUOTE]
tbh it wasn't really.
digging holes was cool, but i'd prefer seamless movement over terrain.
the only other cool things the alpha had were like, the pip scopes and different knife animations
[QUOTE=Mr. Tripp;42017554]Karkand ruined everything.[/QUOTE]
I know this is said in jest (I think) but there is truth to this.
The reason Metro even [I]exists[/I] is because DICE noticed that half the servers on Battlefield 2 were Infantry Only Karkand. They concluded that what Battlefield players really want is a linear map with no vehicles. Now that Metro is the most popular map in BF3 for a combination of being easy to grind guns and fuck if I know why else its popular, they now have confirmation that that's what the majority of Battlefield players want.
[QUOTE=Why485;42038348]I know this is said in jest (I think) but there is truth to this.
The reason Metro even [I]exists[/I] is because DICE noticed that half the servers on Battlefield 2 were Infantry Only Karkand. They concluded that what Battlefield players really want is a linear map with no vehicles. Now that Metro is the most popular map in BF3 for a combination of being easy to grind guns and fuck if I know why else its popular, they now have confirmation that that's what the majority of Battlefield players want.[/QUOTE]
"Yes DICE, what Battlefield players actually want is Battlefield but not."
Please let them not bet this stupid
Please let them not bet this stupid
Please let them not bet this stupid
- snip -
I'm trying to find it now but having no luck. I think it was in a reddit Ask me Anything or a Battlelog forum post. I can't remember. I remember it being brought up in the Battlefield thread when it happened.
I never liked Operation Metro.
Sometimes your team could get spawncamped to no end, most of the people who play that map only play it to rank-up faster.
[QUOTE=Why485;42038348]I know this is said in jest (I think) but there is truth to this.
The reason Metro even [I]exists[/I] is because DICE noticed that half the servers on Battlefield 2 were Infantry Only Karkand. They concluded that what Battlefield players really want is a linear map with no vehicles. Now that Metro is the most popular map in BF3 for a combination of being easy to grind guns and fuck if I know why else its popular, they now have confirmation that that's what the majority of Battlefield players want.[/QUOTE]
I was being serious.
You fuckers keep complaining about how shitty BF3's maps are and then say stuff like "Metro sucks, bring back Karkand."
Karkand is what STARTED this shit. Karkand fucked up everything.
[editline]1st September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sgt. Nikolai;42038679]I never liked Operation Metro.
Sometimes your team could get spawncamped to no end, most of the people who play that map only play it to rank-up faster.[/QUOTE]
They need to remove rank and bring it back to the old days of Battlefield 1942.
Rank doesn't encourage teamwork, it encourages lone-wolfing. I bet if everything was unlocked for every class as soon as you started playing Battlefield 4, teamwork would increase.
[QUOTE=Mr. Tripp;42039262]
They need to remove rank and bring it back to the old days of Battlefield 1942.
Rank doesn't encourage teamwork, it encourages lone-wolfing. I bet if everything was unlocked for every class as soon as you started playing Battlefield 4, teamwork would increase.[/QUOTE]
Replayability would also decrease, as now there is nothing to work towards. No goal to get to. People would find the setup that suits them best and then there would be no variation anymore ever because verything is already there and everyone is already happy.
While I dislike progression systems quite a bit, I don't think removing them is the answer. I do think they should make it less about "the longer you play the better weapons you get" and make the starting weapons more equal though.
[QUOTE=Mr. Tripp;42039262]I was being serious.
You fuckers keep complaining about how shitty BF3's maps are and then say stuff like "Metro sucks, bring back Karkand."
Karkand is what STARTED this shit. Karkand fucked up everything.
[editline]1st September 2013[/editline]
They need to remove rank and bring it back to the old days of Battlefield 1942.
Rank doesn't encourage teamwork, it encourages lone-wolfing. I bet if everything was unlocked for every class as soon as you started playing Battlefield 4, teamwork would increase.[/QUOTE]
They could make it so certain things like capping flags, spotting, following orders, and other teamwork-related activities give you significantly more xp than getting kills or capping flags/objectives on your own do, I'm sure a lot more people would spot if doing it near your squadmates net you more xp than kills.
Also Karkand didn't "fuck up everything" - do you really believe that DICE wouldn't have considered infantry focused maps if Karkand didn't exist? If not Karkand, there would have been another map down the road that did the exact same thing.
This is the same as blaming Half-Life for the tightly linear shooters we get all the time.
[QUOTE=goon165;42038050][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/95/Coduobox2.jpg/256px-Coduobox2.jpg[/img]
Get at me.[/QUOTE]
While we're at it
[img]http://www.howlongtobeat.com/gameimages/Gothic2nightoftheraven_cover.jpg[/img]
[editline]1st September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;42040230]Replayability would also decrease, as now there is nothing to work towards. No goal to get to. People would find the setup that suits them best and then there would be no variation anymore ever because verything is already there and everyone is already happy.[/QUOTE]
During CS 1.5, 1.6, Source everyone also used only Deagle, Mp5, AK-47 and M4, plus AWP and Scout for ridiculous pros. I was quite skeptical for a long time about Global Offensive, but the very good thing about this installment is that almost all weapons are useful in some way. There aren't any "shotguns noone ever uses", "UMP noone ever uses etc". Somehow they made all the guns useful and appealing in one way or another. I think if DICE would look up on doing all the weapons correctly and finding perfect balance, then it wouldn't be as bad.
And finally, do you think BF1942 doesn't have replayability? As far as I remember, it still has a good community up and running in Multiplayer, 11 years in.
[QUOTE=Bloodshot12;42040275]If not Karkand, there would have been another map down the road that did the exact same thing.
This is the same as blaming Half-Life for the tightly linear shooters we get all the time.[/QUOTE]
This is a really fucking bad argument.
"Something else would have done the same thing." So? Does that mean I can't hate the thing that actually happened?
What if Karkand never existed and a different map came along later in the series that everyone would play that would change most of the maps from then on, am I not allowed to hate that either just because something else could have done the same thing?
Am I not allowed to complain about the NSA and what they're doing just because if they didn't exist, a different government organization would have done it?
[QUOTE=Odellus;42038233][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IUT0O5yV6Q[/media]
yeah[/QUOTE]
Yeah but the blowing holes in the ground was an awesome feature, it's just a shame that it seems to go like so at DICE: "We have this awesome feature, it causes some bugs, do we fix it or just be lazy and remove it entirely" And obviously they just remove it
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;42040230]Replayability would also decrease, as now there is nothing to work towards. No goal to get to. People would find the setup that suits them best and then there would be no variation anymore ever because verything is already there and everyone is already happy.[/QUOTE]
Go back and play Battlefield 1942 or a Battlefield 2/2142/Bad Company 2 server that has everything unlocked, you'll be surprised at how much more fun the game is.
Instead of grinding over and over to get one weapon or camo (Level 25 to get desert camo for Russians? What the fuck, DICE?) people try out different kits all the time and finds what suits them, it's a lot more fun because of how much more flexible the game becomes.
Maybe Metro will have an actual running train that you can crash
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;42040230]Replayability would also decrease, as now there is nothing to work towards. No goal to get to. People would find the setup that suits them best and then there would be no variation anymore ever because verything is already there and everyone is already happy.[/QUOTE]
if you're playing a game just to unlock shit then you shouldn't be playing it
[editline]1st September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=kill3r;42041242]Yeah but the blowing holes in the ground was an awesome feature, it's just a shame that it seems to go like so at DICE: "We have this awesome feature, it causes some bugs, do we fix it or just be lazy and remove it entirely" And obviously they just remove it[/QUOTE]
key word: seems
you don't know if they tried and simply couldn't fix it
Problem with Battlefield right now is that it's got this massive identity crisis.
Earlier games were mostly about vehicular combat with plain infantry combat not being particularly well designed and thus nobody felt like they have to do well outside a tank, being on foot was either looking for a vehicle or being stuck without any and having to make do with what you've got in your arms which, most of the time, was really nothing spectacular. Vehicles were fun to drive and shoot, they handled how you expected them to, and their lack of depth was counteracted by the fact that they weren't that much more shallow than anything else.
Come the Bad Company games and BF3, infantry combat improved MASSIVELY, with stuff like ironsights, attachments, unlockables, firemodes, and a large selection of weapons. I still stand by my statement that BF3 had easily the most enjoyable gunplay I've ever seen in an FPS. And that's good, you'd say, and it would be, but what improvements did vehicles get? Some poorly balanced unlockables which you have 3 slots for, and the boost button. That's it.
So you get the "true Battlefield" maps like Caspian and Kharg which are more or less built around vehicle combat, but the vehicle combat is incredibly uninteresting and imbalanced whereas the infantry combat is much deeper. Meanwhile, due to the fixation that "Battlefield is a combined ops game" there are only a few infantry centered maps where vehicles are non existent or only fill a support role, and those very same maps are terribly designed, with massive chokepoints ensuring you don't have any kind of fun.
TL;DR - BF3's infantry is awesome, vehicles are boring, maps don't use the fact that infantry is awesome, shoehorn vehicles in because "Battlefield", get a terribly balanced game that wastes all it's potential
[QUOTE=Satane;42041632]The difference between BF3 and BF4 (judging by the videos) is smaller than between HL2 and EP2. I'm not saying it should be an expansion pack, I'm saying it didn't receive "massive" engine updates.[/QUOTE]
i am a bit disappointed by lack of innovation in bf3 and see it as battlefield 3 point 5 myself, but your comparison is ridiculously stupid because the difference between HL2 and EP2, unless you start to nitpick every little detail, is next to none, apart from new maps for the storyline, and the storyline continuement, that is.
[editline]1st September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mastahamma;42042403]Problem with Battlefield right now is that it's got this massive identity crisis.
[/QUOTE]
More likely its trying to appeal to the COD audience, sadly.
[QUOTE=Mastahamma;42042403]
Come the Bad Company games and BF3, infantry combat improved MASSIVELY, with stuff like ironsights, [s]attachments[/s], unlockables, firemodes, and a large selection of weapons. I still stand by my statement that BF3 had easily the most enjoyable gunplay I've ever seen in an FPS. And that's good, you'd say, and it would be, but what improvements did vehicles get? Some poorly balanced unlockables which you have 3 slots for, and the boost button. That's it.
[/QUOTE]
Apart from "Attachments", everything else have been presented in BF2 (I've none the wiser about BF2142, never played it to its full extent apart from bot play).
[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;42042719]
More likely its trying to appeal to the COD audience, sadly.[/QUOTE]
If "making infantry combat not shit" (like it was in previous BF games) is appealing to the CoD audience then the CoD audience has pretty good taste and DICE should definitely appeal to them.
[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;42042719]
Apart from "Attachments", everything else have been presented in BF2 (I've none the wiser about BF2142, never played it to its full extent apart from bot play).[/QUOTE]
The entire feel of BF3 infantry combat was different from BF2.
[QUOTE=Mastahamma;42042403]
TL;DR - BF3's infantry is awesome, vehicles are boring, maps don't use the fact that infantry is awesome, shoehorn vehicles in because "Battlefield", get a terribly balanced game that wastes all it's potential[/QUOTE]
I don't even think the problem is with vehicles (other than the balance issues re: air vehicles, the stinger, javelins, etc) so much as it's the maps. Why Seine Crossing has tanks and APC's baffles me to this day.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;42043164]If "making infantry combat not shit" (like it was in previous BF games) is appealing to the CoD audience then the CoD audience has pretty good taste and DICE should definitely appeal to them.[/QUOTE]
infantry combat in BF2 was not shit, it was brilliant
snipers were total wank, so the number of morons running around being worthless was small, it also meant that actual firefights occurred because killing people was actually difficult rather than this twitch shooter tripe we have now
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;42043225]infantry combat in BF2 was not shit, it was brilliant
snipers were total wank, so the number of morons running around being worthless was small, it also meant that actual firefights occurred because killing people was actually difficult rather than this twitch shooter tripe we have now[/QUOTE]
most people would agree that absurd amounts of bullet dispersion coupled with [I]horrible[/I] netcode makes for an objectively bad infantry experience. if you preferred people dying slower than they do in BF3 that's cool but personally I like my weapons feeling powerful in a shooter game.
[editline]1st September 2013[/editline]
Also as a longtime Battlefield player I very much disagree with the assertion that the "number of morons running around being worthless" was ever small :v:
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;42043225]infantry combat in BF2 was not shit, it was brilliant
snipers were total wank, so the number of morons running around being worthless was small, it also meant that actual firefights occurred because killing people was actually difficult rather than this twitch shooter tripe we have now[/QUOTE]
I quite like being able to actually hurt people when I shoot them, and destroy tanks when I hit them without AT equipment.
Something BF2 never actually let me experience as an infantry soldier.
[editline]1st September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;42042719]Apart from "Attachments", everything else have been presented in BF2 (I've none the wiser about BF2142, never played it to its full extent apart from bot play).[/QUOTE]
BF2 (and 2142 by extension) did have iron sights, fire modes and a (fairly) wide variety of weapons. They got around the lack of attachments by making certain classes have the same weapon with different sights or underslung weapons on, which was total shit as most guns had awful irons.
Wait, people actually liked BF2's infantry combat?
Last time I played it was people doing crazy acrobatic moves, guns that felt completely unsatisfying and awful, and bullet sponge enemies. It felt like ARMA 2's clunkiness and Call of Duty's gameplay tried to have a baby.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.