It looks like Battlefield 3 is coming out in September this year. It looks amazing, looks like we are getting the new Frostbite 2 engine and will be able to fly jets. I just want to see what other people think, so throw down some comments.
The 12 Minute gameplay is below
Dunno. Looks rather meh and generic to me. Mind you, I've never really liked battlefield (or CoD or MoH for that matter, before anyone yells CoD fangirl like most BF fangits do) so I'm probably biased. Or maybe just very jaded.
If I got it, it'd not be for multiplayer for sure... battlefield's multiplayer hasn't ever been very good for me, especially not once they started to adopt the schtick of destructible terrain turning everything into a hideous stinking snipefest or a "camp in spawn and teamkill your way to a vehicle"... fest.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As a side note, at least the single player looks good, unlike BFBC2. Perhaps it's long enough to buy it for that by itself.
It looks fantastic personally. As far as the single player it looks good which is weird for a Battlefield game.
Vehicles have and always will be the biggest selling point for it, its not everyone's cup of tea though and unfortunately some people fail to accept the fact that there's no vehicle at the spawn point.
Spawn campers have a double meaning in Battlefield.
Makes me wish I got the Beta code from Medal of Honor, hell the Medal of Honor: Frontline download was worth it, too bad I didn't pick it up.
Great work on the shading and lights, it also looks like smoke comes from the gun when you fire it. Overall, good overhaul.
Oh, no. I like vehicles. I hate the way battlefield does them. Battlefield's failed attempts at doing vehicles is one of the primary reasons I dislike the series....
Looks stunning imo, have to disagree with pretty much everything Mel says
Spent many many hours in BF2 and BFBC2 and if they get this to run on your "average rig" without messing up the essentials of the series it'll be an autopurchase.
Melissia wrote:Oh, no. I like vehicles. I hate the way battlefield does them. Battlefield's failed attempts at doing vehicles is one of the primary reasons I dislike the series....
You are entitled to this opinion, but everyone I know who play BFBC2 believe that battlefield is the only game that has done vehicles combat correctly, especially for multiplayer.
An issue I have read about is that Windows cannot allocate more than 4gigs of RAM to battlefield, so they are going to have to optimize their coding while keeping that in mind. I have games that are considered "old" that take almost 4gigs of RAM already.
If you think that having half the team sitting around spawn fighting over who gets the next vehicle that teleported in is a GOOD design and not a hideous stinking design flaw, I doubtr we would have much to agree upon to begin with.
Melissia, you disagree with the majority of game reviewers.
Battlefield has and will always be known for its vehicles and its attempt to force squads to stay together(with the ability to respawn with your squad and such), it also attempts to force players together into transports which 8 year olds will often forgo for a tank or a helicopter which they will crash.
They try to create massive tank battles in certain maps because tank battles are amazing. Their vehicle system has been touted as the best one around. Its not their fault that impulsive 12 year olds also play the game.
halonachos wrote:Melissia, you disagree with the majority of game reviewers.
Which coincides about where I think the majority of reviewers' heads are firmly planted.
Which is a location that smells rather bad, and is on their own body. These are the same reviewers that give starcraft 2 a ten out of ten, mind, and plenty of other bizarre and nonsensical scores, so I have zero faith in the gaming industrys' reviewers.
Yes, but even a stopped watch is correct twice a day.
That and user reviews are off the charts for their gameplay style.
Players affect the gameplay more than developers do, you can design a map meant for close quarters, rapid gunfights and the players can turn it into a campfest. DICE had a lot of good intentions in their games and if I want a massive tank battle in multiplayer they're my only source. The destructable terrain is something that they need to get used to, if they managed to get Volition's level of physics in there it would be amazing. Imagine a tank rolling through a street only to have a guy with an RPG blow it up from the third or so floor of a building and then watching as a helicopter strafes the building to get him.
Now imagine the building being magic and stopping all of the bullets, then imagine pieces of the wall flying off and his cover being removed by the hail of bullets. That's what Battlefield tries to reach, the players on the other hand plow through the streets and get blown up by a mine while the players camp it out with sniper rifles and artillery to preserve their precious k/d ratio.
They did add the ability to damage choppers with light weapons fire in the Vietnam DLC for Bad Company 2 so I hope they decide to keep that in there and find a way to balance the fighters.
Not really understanding why a sequel to Battlefield 2 actually has a, uh, campaign. The Battlefield games have always been about boss-tastic multiplayer. 64-person servers FTW!
Oh well, they've got to do a campaign to keep up with the rest of the market.
Gavo wrote:Not really understanding why a sequel to Battlefield 2 actually has a, uh, campaign.
For my part, the campaign is the only thing drawing me to BF3... if the multi is more BFBC2 crap, then doubly so, because that game's multiplayer was even more unbalanced and poorly designed than black ops... and if it's MoH styled (they did work on the most recent one) then it'll just be another snipefest where all classes are snipers (I still don't htink they've addressed this issue yet). And if it's traditional BF styled, it'll be spawn camping for and with vehicles.
halonachos wrote:They try to create massive tank battles in certain maps because tank battles are amazing. Their vehicle system has been touted as the best one around. Its not their fault that impulsive 12 year olds also play the game.
It might be TOUTED as the best around... but it's not. While it might be caused by "impulsive players", a GOOD vehicle system would have a means to prevent this. Having them earn the vehicles Homefront style, for example.
Have to agree with Melissia - the BF games were all plagued by spawn camping, team killing morons. You can have the best game in the world but by definition if the players can utterly ruin the entire thing then it shows that the game isn't actually very well designed.
No game can survive +50% of your team fething over the other half, but at least in other games you can work around it.
In terms of multiplayer team based games, I'm looking forward to Brink far more than BF3. 8 player campaign coop, VS campaign, "select your own objective" system, etc...
I see so many little terms like "spawn camping" thrown around, when this hasn't happened once in the few days I have been playing BFBC2.
Like, seriously, if you don't play the fething game, don't comment on it.
Melissia, we know that you hate battlefield because you always seem to join the server with a bunch of tweens, and then generalize the whole game as such. Battlefield isn't a story-mode game, it will never be.
... because that IS what the game is, due to it being a poorly designed multiplayer game.
Yes, more mature players would make it better... but a good game understands how its players are going to act and compensates for it if these actions are negative.
Melissia wrote:... because that IS what the game is, due to it being a poorly designed multiplayer game.
Yes, more mature players would make it better... but a good game understands how its players are going to act and compensates for it if these actions are negative.
Melissia, you are impossible to argue with. You played the game, what, a few days? You got spawn camped a few times? You had a bad encounter with a 12 year old?
Like seriously, think of what you saying. Tell me how this game is poorly balanced. Don't give me "all the players are 12 year olds who do everything in their power to spite me"
Karon wrote:You played the game, what, a few days?
Seventy or so hours of multiplayer gameplay.
The results were consistent throughout.
The vehicle spawning is EXACTLY the problem I have with the game, if you don't think that's a good reason, I don't particularly care. If you don't think seventy hours is enough gameplay to judge a game, then I also don't particularly care about THAT opinion either...
Karon wrote:I see so many little terms like "spawn camping" thrown around, when this hasn't happened once in the few days I have been playing BFBC2.
So you've played a 'few days' and think it's extremely balanced?
You're not even actually getting what Melissia is saying. She's saying that players "camp" the vehicle spawns.
Which is true. Everyone wants the heavy tanks or helicopters so that they can zip around the map and get the highest score. It's inevitable in any game where you have static spawns for items rather than acquiring those items via deliveries or spawning with/inside of them.
Like, seriously, if you don't play the fething game, don't comment on it.
So if people don't like GW, Privateer Press, et al they shouldn't comment?
I love that idea!
Melissia, we know that you hate battlefield because you always seem to join the server with a bunch of tweens, and then generalize the whole game as such. Battlefield isn't a story-mode game, it will never be.
I've played at least a month or more worth of BFBC2.
It was crap. The BF games are highly overrated when it comes down to it.
Does that make them any less fun? No. It makes them "overrated" and "bad".
Yeah, right. So the majority of games you have played, you always had to fight over vehicles, always got spawn camped.
No, I played for a few months pretty actively when it first came out, and I'm just getting back into it now.
Kanluwen, why would you play a month of it when it is crap? Why did you play that long when you think the game is overrated and bad?
I think Battlefield games in general have the right concept down, in that they really encourage squad play. In this concept, I have a lot more fun when I play with my two mates, on the rare occasion we all have the time to do so.
Karon wrote:Kanluwen, why would you play a month of it when it is crap?
A game can be crappy and still be fun. I have no shame saying I spent at least 100 fun filled hours playing Too Human, and it doesn't get much crappier than Too Human.
I think BFBC2 is a bad game (Not for the vehicles though) and I still logged about 439 hours (according to steam) on it.
Karon wrote:Yeah, right. So the majority of games you have played, you always had to fight over vehicles, always got spawn camped.
No, I played for a few months pretty actively when it first came out, and I'm just getting back into it now.
Kanluwen, why would you play a month of it when it is crap? Why did you play that long when you think the game is overrated and bad?
Because I played it at launch. I was willing to give it a shot to see if things got better.
It didn't. I've played it a few times since on my brother's copy of it--and nothing more has been done to address the issues that were brought up.
I think Battlefield games in general have the right concept down, in that they really encourage squad play. In this concept, I have a lot more fun when I play with my two mates, on the rare occasion we all have the time to do so.
They don't "really encourage squad play" though.
"Squad play" doesn't mean everyone goes medic and you chain together support actions in between reviving or spawning on each other.
Battlefield supports teamwork in the same way that cholesterol supports good health-- only certain kinds of it and even then only in a very limited amount.
Karon wrote:Yeah, right. So the majority of games you have played, you always had to fight over vehicles, always got spawn camped.
Yes. Which is why I almost always refused to use vehicles in the game, it wasn't worth being teamkilled over-- the vehicles had gakky control schemes anyway.
Rarely see the majority of my team sniping/camping, yes it does occur but its a part of a game and is helpful in certain situations. Destructible terrain is a great feature, sniper in the window? blow up the house - classic american tactics. Only issue i had in the game is vehicles on some occasions (which was a result of poor team co-ordination, but hey it happens)
Melissia wrote:Destructible terrain just means some douchebag with a tank is going to go around destroying all your cover so his team can snipe you easier
I personally love deformable terrain, but it often goes the way of "shoot a building X times and it explodes", rather than being more realistic whereby the location of the shot determines the damage, and the damage stacks up (so if you shoot out part of the bottom floor the top floor above it will fall in). Also dislike buildings being quite so fragile
more of the lines of, get engineers to take out tanks with guided missiles/tracker pistol & if their whole team is sniping then they are not winning - then you can just sit back and relax
Murray wrote:more of the lines of, get engineers to take out tanks with guided missiles/tracker pistol & if their whole team is sniping then they are not winning - then you can just sit back and relax
Yeah, you just try to hit a tank that's sniping at you at max range with a rocket...
Gavo wrote:Not really understanding why a sequel to Battlefield 2 actually has a, uh, campaign. The Battlefield games have always been about boss-tastic multiplayer. 64-person servers FTW!
Oh well, they've got to do a campaign to keep up with the rest of the market.
Because they want console kids to buy the game, which means more emphasis on SP to draw them in. And because MP will be smaller and trimmed down for the consoles. They already have an interview about what the creator thinks about how consoles are holding the game industry back, due to their outdated hardware.
Gavo wrote:Not really understanding why a sequel to Battlefield 2 actually has a, uh, campaign. The Battlefield games have always been about boss-tastic multiplayer. 64-person servers FTW!
Oh well, they've got to do a campaign to keep up with the rest of the market.
Because they want console kids to buy the game, which means more emphasis on SP to draw them in.
Exactly!
Wait, what? Have you played any of the "campaigns" in the Battlefield or Medal of Honor games on consoles? They're nothing but an excuse to get some gamerpoints before you go into yawnfest multiplayer.
Developers, I'm going to let you in on a secret. This is from one of these "console kids" who want SP.
If you're going to include a campaign with your game--actually make it fething interesting and make people want to continue playing it.
I'm tired of renting games that advertise "an in-depth and epic campaign" only to be done with it in a 6 hour gaming session, on the hardest difficulty.
I'm tired of renting games with campaigns that I can solve the "twist" to faster than beating the first level.
And because MP will be smaller and trimmed down for the consoles. They already have an interview about what the creator thinks about how consoles are holding the game industry back, due to their outdated hardware.
Yeah, DICE isn't exactly doing so great at developing for the PC anyways. Keep blaming it on the "consoles holding them back".
If they didn't have the Battlefield name and EA to fall back on--they'd be dead and buried as a company in all likelyhood. If they were smart, they'd put their money where their mouth is and shut up and develop for the PC crowd.
They won't though, because the PC crowd doesn't like having to wait ages for PC games to get released.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karon wrote:Unbelievable Melissia, I have to say.
Lie to prove a vendetta against a game, pathetic.
And yet, it's far from a lie.
I've seen people do absurd things with vehicle mounted weaponry. Hell, I've done some absurd things myself.
I shouldn't be able to hit a sniper, lying prone, in the brush with an AT rocket from a helicopter at a distance farther than he can pop most infantry.
Why would a company that has EA in its name fall back on Activision (has DICE ever even published under Activison?)?
Otherwise agree. As I have long said. EA's business policy is to buy popular companies, then drive them into the ground until they're no longer profitable. Rinse and repeat
How about we form opinions when the game actually comes out. Honestly though the trailer is in the ALPHA stage, which is before Beta, then after the Beta comes the finished product. So really we are only seeing a rough copy of it.
Surfboard66 wrote:How about we form opinions when the game actually comes out. Honestly though the trailer is in the ALPHA stage, which is before Beta, then after the Beta comes the finished product. So really we are only seeing a rough copy of it.
Given the similarity of the previous titles, one can extrapolate
Surfboard66 wrote:How about we form opinions when the game actually comes out. Honestly though the trailer is in the ALPHA stage, which is before Beta, then after the Beta comes the finished product. So really we are only seeing a rough copy of it.
Considering they've already released a TV promo using that footage--I'd say it's not far from "the finished product".
Isn't it releasing November 2? If they're still in Alpha then the game really will suck
I always thought one of the biggest problems for BFBC2 was that the game was rushed to release because Activision (admnit now you have me doing it ) wanted to take advantage of the backlash concerning the dedicated server crisis of MW2. At least on PC, the game was really really buggy in a lot of the mechanics and networking (and game balance). Heck, the beta ran smoother than the finished product XD.
Kanluwen wrote:You're right, it's EA not Activision. Activision controls the other crappy "multiplayer people get preferential treatment" franchise, Call of Duty.
Heh.
I hope THQ develops a better single player for its Homefront sequel. While it was well written and well paced, it was just way too short at five hours to buy it for that, and I could never recommend it to my friends who wanted to play a single player FPS game...
And most of them are PC gamers I should note. Not console gamers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:Isn't it releasing November 2? If they're still in Alpha then the game really will suck
I always thought one of the biggest problems for BFBC2 was that the game was rushed to release because Activision (admnit now you have me doing it ) wanted to take advantage of the backlash concerning the dedicated server crisis of MW2. At least on PC, the game was really really buggy in a lot of the mechanics and networking (and game balance). Heck, the beta ran smoother than the finished product XD.
BFBC2 is STILL more buggy than most FPS games out there on the PC.
You can't go prone in BFBC2, Kanluwen, though you may be referencing BF2.
Melissia, let me get this straight.
You played for a very long time, and the MAJORITY of the games you played, you were spawn camped, and lost.
How does that even work? Unless you were playing on Hardcore mode, where this thing does happen very often, infamously with gatling-gun helicopters, this doesn't happen. I have never been spawn camped so viciously aside from a sniper or two taking pot shots outside of hardcore mode.
I play on a server where an admin is almost always on, and spawn campers are banned, and stealing vehicles and sitting in spawn and going AFK is bannable.
illuknisaa wrote:Why do people complain about snipers in BFBC2 when there aren't any snipers. I've played over 300 hours and I haven't met a single sniper in the game.
And if you think that vehicles are over-powered then you probably haven't noticed all the RPG's, AT-mines, C4 and AT-turrets filling your pockets.
Because people had a few bad encounters on a couple of servers, and then stereotype the whole game as this.
I always got annoyed more by the medics than the snipers. When that game first came out, I gave a lot of credit to snipers XD. Sniping at release was not easy to do.
illuknisaa wrote:Why do people complain about snipers in BFBC2 when there aren't any snipers. I've played over 300 hours and I haven't met a single sniper in the game.
I don't believe you.
And if you think that vehicles are over-powered then you probably haven't noticed all the RPG's, AT-mines, C4 and AT-turrets filling your pockets.
AT-turrets get brought down the second they're up, C4 can get shot at and destroyed by tanks--same with AT mines. RPGs don't do diddly against the heavy tanks that get spammed.
Karon wrote:
Because people had a few bad encounters on a couple of servers, and then stereotype the whole game as this.
Yes. Because 100+ hours is "a few bad encounters on a couple of servers".
Face facts. The game design is crap. The playerbase are gits and you're a fanboy.
illuknisaa wrote:Why do people complain about snipers in BFBC2 when there aren't any snipers. I've played over 300 hours and I haven't met a single sniper in the game.
I don't believe you.
And if you think that vehicles are over-powered then you probably haven't noticed all the RPG's, AT-mines, C4 and AT-turrets filling your pockets.
AT-turrets get brought down the second they're up, C4 can get shot at and destroyed by tanks--same with AT mines. RPGs don't do diddly against the heavy tanks that get spammed.
Karon wrote: Because people had a few bad encounters on a couple of servers, and then stereotype the whole game as this.
Yes. Because 100+ hours is "a few bad encounters on a couple of servers".
Face facts. The game design is crap. The playerbase are gits and you're a fanboy.
1. If you look at the class selection you can see four (not five) classes, assault, medic, engineer and the humble recon. If you looked very closely you can see there is no sniper class, sorry. Do not think that sniper and recon are the same. Those who use recon class for sniping are idiots, those you use it to throw the ball of DOOM are valuable assets to the team.
2. Do you see C4 when placed as a tank? In some cases C4 "sinks" to the ground making it impossible detect. Mines are pretty much the same. You are correct about an RPG being useless against heavy tanks but thats why you have RPGS. Get friends and tank goes poof. AT turrest are really powerful. Heavy takes two hit and light goes down after one hit. Sure you might die after shooting but you propably kill the tank too.
illuknisaa wrote:Why do people complain about snipers in BFBC2 when there aren't any snipers. I've played over 300 hours and I haven't met a single sniper in the game.
I don't believe you.
And if you think that vehicles are over-powered then you probably haven't noticed all the RPG's, AT-mines, C4 and AT-turrets filling your pockets.
AT-turrets get brought down the second they're up, C4 can get shot at and destroyed by tanks--same with AT mines. RPGs don't do diddly against the heavy tanks that get spammed.
Karon wrote:
Because people had a few bad encounters on a couple of servers, and then stereotype the whole game as this.
Yes. Because 100+ hours is "a few bad encounters on a couple of servers".
Face facts. The game design is crap. The playerbase are gits and you're a fanboy.
1. If you look at the class selection you can see four (not five) classes, assault, medic, engineer and the humble recon. If you looked very closely you can see there is no sniper class, sorry. Do not think that sniper and recon are the same. Those who use recon class for sniping are idiots, those you use it to throw the ball of DOOM are valuable assets to the team.
So a recon with a sniper rifle and uses the proximity sensor isn't a sniper?
Huh. Interesting.
2. Do you see C4 when placed as a tank? In some cases C4 "sinks" to the ground making it impossible detect. Mines are pretty much the same. You are correct about an RPG being useless against heavy tanks but thats why you have RPGS. Get friends and tank goes poof. AT turrets are really powerful. Heavy takes two hit and light goes down after one hit. Sure you might die after shooting but you propably kill the tank too.
Which is why smart players planning on camping with tanks place explosives on the turret spawn points.
But since we're making the assumption that every single BF player is playing with a group of brilliantly skilled players, then his teammates will have placed the explosives.
Kanluwen wrote:But since we're making the assumption that every single BF player is playing with a group of brilliantly skilled players, then his teammates will have placed the explosives.
Yes lets assume Indiana Jones wasn't raped by George Lucas and Steven Spielberg.
C4 is a weapon, Melissia, as is an Anti-Tank mine and Mortar-spotter device.
I won't defend BF3 anymore against either of your logics. I haven't spawn camped or been spawn camped except for roughly a dozen times in the many months I have been actively playing BFBC2.
I also have found a server with a group of level-headed people and a good crowd, so this doesn't happen anyways. If you want to switch to a different gakky random name server every time you play and not stick with one, then that is your problem.
Spawn Camping doesn't happen nearly as much as you say, and Sniping being as OP as you say it is isn't true either.
Call me any word you want, but I know that Melissia hasn't spawn camped or been spawn camped in 51%+ of the games she has played. Its very close to impossible.
But hey, I can't tell you what to say. If you want to exaggerate your experiences, you can all you want.
Melissia wrote:You don't know gak. Don't claim to know what my gaming experience has been, that's incredibly arrogant and I won't stand for that kind of pretentiousness.
Melissia wrote:I take it you haven't actually played BFBC2 then. That would explain this conversation.
Yes, quite.
Awesome 9 minutes of flying around in a drone, at least in battelfield the vehicles have a respawn time attached to them. Its not like they instantly reappear once the vehicle is destroyed it takes some time to respawn. Vehicles are an important resource, the UAV spots and kills enemies and once it goes down it doesn't matter if the player accrued a million points, the UAV is down for some time to let the other team get some reprieve.
As far as hitting things in Bad Company 2, they had a horrible glitch where UAV's were being used to hit a chopper's rotors and causing the chopper to crash. I had great experiences with battlefield and the series has some of my most memorable moments, CoD has some of them as well but nowhere near as great. Although a nice 33-2 match is edging into place right now.
The graphics look great, the guns emit smoke when they fire which is a cool feature, and the destroyable terrain is something I'll always enjoy. There is one major pet peeve I have though, the gun doesn't sway nowhere near as much when you sprint as it should. If you watch the guys running in front of you they move the gun a lot when they run and your guy is rocking it to sleep in his arms.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gavo wrote:Not really understanding why a sequel to Battlefield 2 actually has a, uh, campaign. The Battlefield games have always been about boss-tastic multiplayer. 64-person servers FTW!
Oh well, they've got to do a campaign to keep up with the rest of the market.
The console port of Battlefield 2 had a campaign, it was pretty decent what with a mission where you get to snipe from a moving helicopter and whatnot. I got the game used though and didn't get the manual so I died twenty or so times by plummeting to my death before looking it up online and learning that you're supposed to hold the triangle button. After that I spec ops dropped out of choppers and capped points like nobody's business.
Melissia wrote:And when you countered that position, I did not press the issue further, assuming that you were telling the truth about your experiences.
Regardless, I hope this game's single player is good enough to buy.
I doubt it will be. The campaign for the console version of Battlefield 2 involved stopping the launch of missiles by rogue factions( like in Modern Warfare, but it was an all out assault compared to a special operation). Battlefield 3 will probably have a campaign like Modern Warfare 2(the whole invasion by the russians thing) and will rely on its use of settings like Paris and other European cities among the tank battles in the middle east that it shows.
Melissia wrote:Battlefield supports teamwork... I loled.
Battlefield supports teamwork in the same way that cholesterol supports good health-- only certain kinds of it and even then only in a very limited amount.
Karon wrote:Yeah, right. So the majority of games you have played, you always had to fight over vehicles, always got spawn camped.
Yes. Which is why I almost always refused to use vehicles in the game, it wasn't worth being teamkilled over-- the vehicles had gakky control schemes anyway.
I agree and disagree with what youve been sayin so far Melissia, yes the vehicle controls can be as great as a drunk driver (except the tank, i loved the tank controls).
I never ran into the problem of team killing for vehicles when i played BFBC2 and i was on it for a good 3 or 4 solid months (what system did you use? the 360 seemed frightenly good for people not being idiots, which was odd)
Yes the "supports teamwork" if it can be called that only ever worked if you were playing with your friends. Hell i played with my paintball and military buddies so we were allways squaded together and kicking crap outa the other teams (saddly not everyone is lucky enuf to have buddies who go so in depth into tactics in a video game..... hell i was a crack shot with the artillery in chromehounds, but that is a diferent story for a diferent day)
The spawn camping could get anoying, yet i was lucky enuf not to encounter it that often, and when i did i could always kill the spawn camper (got to love RPGs )
The majority of games I played had people sticking together, but trying to stay farn enough apart to avoid being killed all at the same time. We had some matches where three assault guys and an engineer would get into a tank and roll to an objective. The three assault players used all of the weapons while the engineer hopped out to repair the vehicle when needed.
If I get into a chopper I provide air support for my team by marking targets, hitting enemy tanks, and ramming enemy UAVs. If I snipe, I mark enemy targets and tanks with the magnet dart. If I get medic I revive snipers and throw medkits to my team.
I've never once had a game where the entire team decided to run off to do their own thing and forgetting the rest of the team.
Another bonus point in Battlefield's cap is the ability to set up classes during the match. In Call of Duty you have classes that you set up during a match and if those classes are no good against the set ups the other team is using then you're messed over until the end of the match. In Battlefield if you notice that your sniper rifle isn't doing what you want it to, you can switch it to another rifle or add on a different scope or what have you when you die.
Personally, I am excited about this game. It is going to be one of the three games that I will really want to get this X-mas(the other two being ME 3 & Space Marine), though I never have played the Battlefield series, it looks great, complex, and just spectacular and destructive on a mass scale(that's what I like in my games).
If you don't mind me asking melissia, why did you play the game for ~100 hours knowing that the game is gak (in your view)? personally if i dislike a games multiplayer i usually only have about 10hours on it...
Murray wrote:If you don't mind me asking melissia, why did you play the game for ~100 hours knowing that the game is gak (in your view)? personally if i dislike a games multiplayer i usually only have about 10hours on it...
Possibly for the same reason people look at crashes as they drive past
Or because if you bought something you want to play it to feel like you didn't waste your money.
Id like to know some of peoples IGN names and if they play on PC or PS3 for the ones complaining to see how much they really played online, or how bad they are (to look at the stat sites to see)
Or if its just senseless talk just to flame a game.
Team Killing for vehicles doesn't happen in BC2, i think i would see 1 maybe 2 servers that actually used friendly Fire.
Only complaints i have are..
Going 55-0 and repair the tank and somone hopes in and takes off then dies and gets you killed, was hoping to hit 100 to match my old BF1942 game :(. (yes, it was on normal tickets)
People seemed to do this now and then..
People defending putting C4 on objective.
Suicide c4 objectives pre damage change to it.
Hopefully there is a month of open beta for BF3 to play like they did for BC2.
Murray wrote:If you don't mind me asking melissia, why did you play the game for ~100 hours knowing that the game is gak (in your view)? personally if i dislike a games multiplayer i usually only have about 10hours on it...
Because people kept saying it gets better, you'll find that one server that's good, yada yada yada.
I give games the benefit of the doubt. THe minimum I'll put into an FPS multiplayer game is usually around fourty hours before I give up on it...
Murray wrote:If you don't mind me asking melissia, why did you play the game for ~100 hours knowing that the game is gak (in your view)? personally if i dislike a games multiplayer i usually only have about 10hours on it...
Because people kept saying it gets better, you'll find that one server that's good, yada yada yada.
I give games the benefit of the doubt. THe minimum I'll put into an FPS multiplayer game is usually around fourty hours before I give up on it...
You should play it on console, its a lot better on console. There's less accuracy so snipers are somewhat diminished, team killing doesn't happen often, and of course no hacks(depending on console although I think they're pretty good at stopping hacks on the PC version as well). You do have to put up with kids, in which case team kill away because most of the other players will understand.
Or you could rent one or borrow it from a friend you know. Renting still exists and some places still rent consoles, I know my local Blockbuster does. Why is that whenever someone wants to try something out they buy it if they can rent it?
I went back and played some BFBC2 last night after a few months break.
Still dam fun especially Atacama and Panama canal.
Pity there arent anymore unlocks or upgrades for it.
DickBandit wrote:I just wanna clear something up after watching the video on the first page.
You can't shoulder fire a 240B accurately. Even if you do have the strength to do so, you may only get a couple shots off that fly in every direction.
Source: personal experience.
But it looks good.
I believe by 240b you mean m240 GPMG right? (not correcting you, just making sure were talking about the same weapon)
At first glance I thought it was a 249 Para (a SAW) but your right, it is a 240, although it does sound more like a SAW. You'll notice in the video even when mounted on the bipod, the weapon is still inaccurate as hell. But thats the beauty of battlefield games (as in 2, 2142, bf3) you cant just snipe people with assault rifles, you either have to hurl hundreds of bullets at them or take the time to burst fire to get results.
kenshin620 wrote:Cool little graphics before and after video. Is that jetfighting I see?
The PC version of Battlefield usually had jetfighting ability. The first one on the consoles to use planes was the new 1943 they released via download, this will be the first one that features actual jets in the console version.
I'm not sure how I feel about them adding prone back into the multiplayer, BF2 had people going prone and drop shotting people like no one's business. Bad Company didn't really have that, unless the PC version got that exclusively as well.
I enjoyed BFBC1 on console. I may rent this when I sort out my live problems since I enjoyed 1's multiplayer and from the sounds of it this seems similar.
Melissia wrote:Right, Bad Company had a legion of other problems, but no drop shotting.
What other problems? You mean making vehicles worth something by creating a respawn time for them instead of being able to buy them one after another after another?
You mean the ability to customize a class during a battle instead of in a pre-game lobby?
You mean the lack of killstreaks that cause players to focus on getting a killstreak instead of capturing an objective?
Melissia wrote:Right, Bad Company had a legion of other problems, but no drop shotting.
What other problems? You mean making vehicles worth something by creating a respawn time for them instead of being able to buy them one after another after another?
You mean the ability to customize a class during a battle instead of in a pre-game lobby?
You mean the lack of killstreaks that cause players to focus on getting a killstreak instead of capturing an objective?
Players not playing as a team (eg assault not giving ammo)
No voip among squads
not enough voice cammands ("follow me" and "cover me" would be nice)
halonachos wrote:What other problems? You mean making vehicles worth something by creating a respawn time for them instead of being able to buy them one after another after another?
Ahahaahahahah.
That doesn't make them worth getting. that just means people teamkill and camp at spawn in order to get their favorite vehicle. That's one of the worst game designs for vehicles out there.
The vehicle purchase scheme at least means you have to go out there and earn the damn thing as an infantry first, and therefor contribute to the team instead of sitting in spawn picking your ass waiting for the vehicle to respawn.
Melissia wrote:
The vehicle purchase scheme at least means you have to go out there and earn the damn thing as an infantry first, and therefor contribute to the team instead of sitting in spawn picking your ass waiting for the vehicle to respawn.
And then they be a huge D Bag by crashing the stupid things
Players not playing as a team (eg assault not giving ammo)
Surely that is more down to the playerbase/server you play on then the game and its development. People can be arseholes in any game/walk of life.
No voip among squads
Never found it an issue personnally, if with friends just use Skype/TS/Vent etc, if pugging? meh, having some inbred screaming down the mic at me isnt my idea of an enjoyable experience anyway.
not enough voice cammands ("follow me" and "cover me" would be nice)
Dont see the point really.
Snipers thinking they are snipers
See answer #1.
Laggy gunplay (compared to cod)
How so? I never experienced any lag ingame (low ping servers etc). If you're talking about the fluidity/style of gameplay, sure it isnt as fast/fluid compared to CoD but thats
A. they are two different game engines
B. thats ok
Multi monitor setups have ctds every 20 minutes
Cant comment.
Game is extremely laggy with dual core cpus
Never had a problem.
Patching takes forever
No worse then other games Ive experienced. Patching Pc games in general these days is a disgrace.
Updating your stats
How so? The stat crashing problems? Meh dont really care personnally.
Some rush maps suck
And some are excellent. Everything cant be perfect.
halonachos wrote:What other problems? You mean making vehicles worth something by creating a respawn time for them instead of being able to buy them one after another after another?
Ahahaahahahah.
That doesn't make them worth getting. that just means people teamkill and camp at spawn in order to get their favorite vehicle. That's one of the worst game designs for vehicles out there.
The vehicle purchase scheme at least means you have to go out there and earn the damn thing as an infantry first, and therefor contribute to the team instead of sitting in spawn picking your ass waiting for the vehicle to respawn.
And actually no, you sit and camp to get enough points to buy the vehicle. Homefront has overglorified killstreaks.
And after that you can spend 10 minutes of the game using UAV's, earning points to buy another UAV, losing the UAV, and then getting another one all while sitting comfortably in a corner somewhere on the map.
Constant UAV coverage cheapens its use compared to the UAV in BC2, it's predator missile takes about half a minute to reload and if its taken out the team as a whole has to wait two minutes before they can even try to use the UAV again. Tanks are about the same in time limit with helicopters being about 30 seconds faster.
If the UAV goes down you're losing quite a bit of offense for a whole two minutes.
Vehicles are mostly easy to take out with Recon being able to call in mortar strikes on camping vehicles, engineer tools can be used to destroy enemy vehicles along with their rockets, there are plenty of stationary weapons designed to take out the armor as well as tracer darts that allow rockets to seek the target.
The maps are mostly balanced; if the attacker has an attack helicopter the defense will have either an AA turret or an AA vehicle. If the attacker has a UAV(which is all of the time in Rush) the defender either has a lot of cover or some sort of air support.
I've never dealt with lag(find it less laggy than Black Ops) and the idea of bullet drop for the bullets is cool.
There are Rush maps that seem to always be won by the defending team, but there are maps that seem to favor the attackers while others are 50/50. I have yet to see a 'snipe fest' seeing as though sniping takes some time to get used to. I usually see medics, assault, and engineers in my games. Medic seems to be the most point garnering class because you don't have to kill someone to get the same amount of points as a kill and if you see some teammates camping you just toss them a medkit and watch the points add up. Hell I was getting 40 points a second with med kits one time. And when a guy dropped I got 50 for reviving.
The ability to customize classes in the middle of a game is a lot better than most other games out there. Don't like the gun you have? In CoD you have to switch to another premade class and if you don't have the weapon you like in a class then you're screwed, in BC2 you can switch the weapon the class uses(Halo is better at this because you find weapons in the battleground). Enemy is using a lot of choppers, switch your pistol out for a tracer gun and guide friendly missiles into it. Yeah, I prefer that over premade classes.
Killstreaks can be fun, but how many times have you seen a guy camping as an attacker in Sabotage or Demolition in CoD just to get a killstreak? Doesn't happen in Battlefield, if someone is camping in Battlefield they're usually watching an objective or waiting for a vehicle(much more profitable as an engineer to wait for a friendly vehicle to get damaged).
halonachos wrote:If the UAV goes down you're losing quite a bit of offense for a whole two minutes.
So instead of having someone sit in a corner with a UAV constantly, you have some people sitting in a corner for a whole 2 minutes contributing nothing
I do like custom classes each spawn but I dislike certain aspects of it like the fact that engineer SMG's really dont change compared to other class weapons
halonachos wrote:And actually no, you sit and camp to get enough points to buy the vehicle. Homefront has overglorified killstreaks.
Better than sittin' around pickin' yer ass and teamkilling while waiting for the vehicle to respond. Even when camping, you're still contributing something to the team to earn those points.
halonachos wrote:If the UAV goes down you're losing quite a bit of offense for a whole two minutes.
So instead of having someone sit in a corner with a UAV constantly, you have some people sitting in a corner for a whole 2 minutes contributing nothing
I do like custom classes each spawn but I dislike certain aspects of it like the fact that engineer SMG's really dont change compared to other class weapons
Most of the time people will ignore the UAV if it isn't up and running and I have yet to see someone actually wait for the UAV or any other vehicle for that matter. Now I have seen people without mics firing at a vehicle if they want to be picked up and sometimes its the only way to get the pilot's attention.
@ Melissia, equip a sniper rifle and climb up a hill near your base. If you're good you can still hit the enemy. I tend to wait for somebody else to get into the vehicle with me so that way I have a machine gunner to watch enemy engineers for me. If I'm waiting I blind fire with the tank and sometimes it works, having destroyed an enemy helicopter while it was in flight with the main cannon of a tank myself(while I couldn't see the heli), the misses are worth the rare hit.
What really sucks is when the enemy team coordinates and attacks your base at the same time while you scramble to get into a turret or something. But no they're too damn smart for that, you get into an AA turret and their snipers pick you off while their chopper buzz's the base unmolested. Thank god Vietnam increased the amount of damage weapons do to choppers.
halonachos wrote:@ Melissia, equip a sniper rifle and climb up a hill near your base. If you're good you can still hit the enemy
And then while you're sniping one of the othoer half-dozen people who are camping spawn takes the vehicle instead.
Or teamkills you so you can't take the vehicle when the vehicle respawns. Or one of any of a number of douchey griefing tactics used by people who are sitting there bored waiting for the vehicle to respawn (as opposed to, if it was a better game, going out and actually earning the vehicle).
That is a non-solution to one of the worst game design flaws of most FPS games with vehicles. It's a stupid design choice that encourages stupid or even griefing gameplay styles just so that one can have the enjoyment of driving a vehicle in a match.
Any game encourages griefing, even regular team deathmatch in CoD. If you don't like a guy you just throw a flashbang in front of him and blind him.
In hardcore you just shoot them, any game has griefing.
Black Ops tried to fix it by having a three strikes policy, but in hardcore it can get frustrating when you're using the Chopper Gunner or Gunship because enemies with Ghost Pro look like allies. Napalm strikes and B-52's are also difficult to use in hardcore because the target area isn't marked for your teammates and they can run into the line of fire.
Battlefield lacks a system for automatically kicking players who teamkill, but with high explosives flying everywhere that may be a good thing.
Personally, bfbc2 was my first ever fps, so amybe thats why i look on it so lovingly, but i really think its a good game, a good game with a few problems here and there, spawncamping is quite a problem, but there is usally at least one way out of your spawn uncamped(is that a word?), people waiting over vechiles does my head in, but i really dont care, its their loss and generally my squad of friends can easyily make up for them, i find sniping a pain when it happens to me, but i do snipe occasionaly. I respect those long range shots and those who use feildcraft in a game. All in all, its one of my favourite games and ill definatly be buyinf bf3.
assultmarine
Matrim wrote:In the thread : A bunch of people who have only played the Bad Company series, which was BF reaction to the recent COD fanaticals.
When you realise that Comparing Battlefield 3 to BF:BC2 is like comparing Burnout to Gran Turismo, I'm going to listen.
Your best bet will be Comparing BF3 with BF2. OH WAIT NAME SIMILARITES WHAT CAN THIS MEAN. It's not going to be like BC2.
lol@you.
Funny that, considering that there's not necessarily any evidence they'll "go back" to the original BF style THAT will have to wait until release, until one ahs played it or at least a demo, to truly find out if they'll go into the eternally fanwanked BF style.
Matrim wrote:In the thread : A bunch of people who have only played the Bad Company series, which was BF reaction to the recent COD fanaticals.
When you realise that Comparing Battlefield 3 to BF:BC2 is like comparing Burnout to Gran Turismo, I'm going to listen.
Your best bet will be Comparing BF3 with BF2. OH WAIT NAME SIMILARITES WHAT CAN THIS MEAN. It's not going to be like BC2.
I for one hope you are not talking about me.
The biggest difference between BF and BFBC was the inclusion of the campaign. My friend and I were discussing BF3 versus a BC3 and he said he would prefer a BC3 just to have the story continued instead of starting a new story with BF3(also this may be the first time an actual campaign is put into the PC version) because the multiplayer would be the same regardless. At first I thought that he was wrong, but after playing BC2's multiplayer again I realized that he was probably right. It doesn't matter if its BC or BF, the multiplayer would follow the same formula(different classes with different skills and vehicles) but the story would be continued.
If you had paid attention (you didn't), you would have notice that not a few posts before yours I had complimented an aspect of the game. So no, not all I do is "hate on it". There are aspects I like, and aspects I dislike.
The difference is, unlike the battlefield series' fangits, I don't think it's some perfect saint of a game series. I don't even think it's the best out there. Does that make me a hater? No, it just makes the people who think I'm a hater nonsensical for assuming that because I dislike certain aspects of a game I dislike all aspects of it.
Melissia wrote:If you had paid attention (you didn't), you would have notice that not a few posts before yours I had complimented an aspect of the game. So no, not all I do is "hate on it". There are aspects I like, and aspects I dislike.
The difference is, unlike the battlefield series' fangits, I don't think it's some perfect saint of a game series. I don't even think it's the best out there. Does that make me a hater? No, it just makes the people who think I'm a hater nonsensical for assuming that because I dislike certain aspects of a game I dislike all aspects of it.
Yes, it makes you a fangit for some other game. If you hate a game its because you love another one and spoil it while the unloved game sits in a cupboard under the staircase and can only eat the crumbs given to it and dream about a better life.
halonachos wrote:If the UAV goes down you're losing quite a bit of offense for a whole two minutes.
So instead of having someone sit in a corner with a UAV constantly, you have some people sitting in a corner for a whole 2 minutes contributing nothing
I do like custom classes each spawn but I dislike certain aspects of it like the fact that engineer SMG's really dont change compared to other class weapons
As a BC2 veteran, I can't say this behavior is really all that common. I would try to argue the point with you, but I'm not really motivated enough to try to change someones opinion, misguided as it may be.
Matrim wrote:In the thread : A bunch of people who have only played the Bad Company series, which was BF reaction to the recent COD fanaticals.
When you realise that Comparing Battlefield 3 to BF:BC2 is like comparing Burnout to Gran Turismo, I'm going to listen.
Your best bet will be Comparing BF3 with BF2. OH WAIT NAME SIMILARITES WHAT CAN THIS MEAN. It's not going to be like BC2.
This.
As for Melissa, (s)he is entitled to his/her opinions. (S)He is an equal opportunity hater, I don't think I've ever seen him/her post a comment to the effect of "its a good game" in reference to any game discussed in the past 6 months on these boards, so there is no 'fangitting' here, just someone thats keeping it real. No really... keeping it real. Yeah, I enjoy playing BF and BC, I dislike COD with a passion, but even I admit that the BF/BC series is pretty much the same damn thing in a slightly different package and that there is a general lack of originality in games these days.
agreed, i play alot of different games and tbh I deeply respect Mel's point of view here. there are spawn camper+general vechile whores. But i havent really encountered them. and if i have i dont really care because my squad will be organised and use tactics we have adapted from playing airsoft together. Mel is fully entitled to her opinion and tbh to accuse her of hating is a bit harsh and a 'fangit' is ott. Mels proved that she simply has a thing agaisnt bf games, the same way i hate colin mcrae or the elder scrolls. its opinion and forums are for sharing opinions and learning from otheres.
so bottom line is everyone here can have an opinion and theres no need to be a child and try to change others b weight of insult.
assultmarine
chaos0xomega wrote: Yeah, I enjoy playing BF and BC, I dislike COD with a passion, but even I admit that the BF/BC series is pretty much the same damn thing in a slightly different package and that there is a general lack of originality in games these days.
Ah yes, the truth! I'm getting tired of Modern Dirty Brown/Grey Everywhere "STOP THE RUSSIANS" looks these days
halonachos wrote:If you hate a game its because you love another one
Just because you're unwilling to read my posts and instead make assumptions pulled out of nowhere pleasant, doesn't mean you are correct. It means you're unwilling to read my posts.
For that matter, I never said BF3 is necessarily going to be a bad game. But I do know there will be aspects I don't like. But then, there's aspects of EVERY game I don't like. I certainly wasn't afraid of pointing out the flaws in Homefront to the developers on that game's forum, which caused people there to call me a hater (even as other posters called me a fangirl because I said I like the game... you know, like you're doing now).
halonachos wrote:If you hate a game its because you love another one
Just because you're unwilling to read my posts and instead make assumptions pulled out of nowhere pleasant, doesn't mean you are correct. It means you're unwilling to read my posts.
For that matter, I never said BF3 is necessarily going to be a bad game. But I do know there will be aspects I don't like. But then, there's aspects of EVERY game I don't like. I certainly wasn't afraid of pointing out the flaws in Homefront to the developers on that game's forum, which caused people there to call me a hater (even as other posters called me a fangirl because I said I like the game... you know, like you're doing now).
If you had continued to read my post(seriously Melissia you didn't even include an ellipses in the quote to show that there was more writing that followed the quoted words) you would see that it got a bit silly at the end meaning I was going for a silly post. Don't take things so seriously, seriously.
I like the game, its meant to be fun. By no means perfect, but feth it its fun
Skies filled with copters, tanks on the horizon, doing army talk with foreigners is fun, if you have 12 year olds in your game, change your server.
Claiming its a bad game just because of the people playing it is stoopid, donkey-caves play every game, play with different people
Dont like the gameplay? its standard FPS Dont like destrctible environments? then why did you even buy the game?
Dont like snipers? zig, and if they still kill you, zag
And whats wrong with the vehicles? NOTHING, 2-3 rockets and their gone
@ Mel, your entitled to your own opinion and everything, but trolling the thread telling people how wrong their opinions are and generally hating on anyone who says anything isnt going to make you any friends, you dont like the game, whatever.
halonachos wrote:What other problems? You mean making vehicles worth something by creating a respawn time for them instead of being able to buy them one after another after another?
Ahahaahahahah.
That doesn't make them worth getting. that just means people teamkill and camp at spawn in order to get their favorite vehicle. That's one of the worst game designs for vehicles out there.
The vehicle purchase scheme at least means you have to go out there and earn the damn thing as an infantry first, and therefor contribute to the team instead of sitting in spawn picking your ass waiting for the vehicle to respawn.
Honestly Melissia, I have never seen this happen in BFBC2 in my many hundreds of hours of game time. All these negatives about the player base seem to only happen to you. D:
At any rate, I'm sure it'll be better than BFBC3-- its fluid animations show that much. That part of the preview vids was certainly nice, as fluid animations that still work in the rigors of gameplay is something devs have been struggling to produce for decades.
If, of course, they manage it once they get out into the real world (instead of merely testing) as well as the videos seem to show.
) wanted to take advantage of the backlash concerning the dedicated server crisis of MW2. At least on 
