In my area, at least, there's been a big debate about which is better and which to get. Since they come out around the same time, and both are the third in their series promising to be the best military FPS yet. So which will be better, and the one that you get?
Dude... no hating on abbreviations. I can type as fast as the next man, but I don't want to get ninja'd. That would suck. Its just easier to communicate quicker with them.
If you want, I can edit them. It's an easy fix. Please, though- don't be hatin'.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Plus, most people know the meanings in this forum.
I must say, I'm actually not pumped for the next COD this time.
My entire being will be spent on Skyrim, which I know will be better than MW3, even though I enjoy the series.
And I may actually get BF3, because its not 'Bad Company' anymore. God those games were awful.
Normally I'm not, you know, a grammar nazi who hates abbreviations, but I'm not gonna lie - I came in here hoping this would be about Mechwarrior and I'm leaving disappointed :(
Wow... many of these post are on the Space Marine game. I added that as a 'just for fun' option.
If it's really troubling everyone, I can change the poll and title out of abbreviations. However, MW3 should stay in the poll. If you don't know what THAT is; you're not interested in this thread.
Asgeirr Darkwolf wrote:if you don't know what THAT is; you're not interested in this thread.
I was when I thought it was a Mechwarrior thread!
That being said I doubt either one of these games will do absolutely anything new for the genre. Every shooter is essentailly the same. I like shooters and will likely play both, but aside from say... Half-Life and Bioshock, I can't think of a single shooter that didn't redo what Doom did, just slightly better.
I picked BF3...I have been a big fan of the BF series since 1942, so it seems like a natural progression.
I'm a little bummed about the lack of the commander feature in BF3, but then when I reflect back on my experiences with BF2, I realise that it was very rare when all of the elements of the game came together (compentent commander, players that actually joined squads and listened to orders, etc). The few times that happened were AWESOME, but I think the developers were probably right that the feature wasn't used enough to justify keeping it.
I think that battlefields main innovation is the adaptability of destructable terrain. Before; you only blow up certain things in certain ways; just really changing the cover. Now, like in the subway level, you can blow out lights to make the stage darker. That sounds like it could lead to some really cool scenarios. Plus, Squad Combat is always a great thing.
purplefood wrote:You know something is wrong when a person buys a game over another game because it has "yet to destroy their opinion of it"...
Something is wrong when someone buys a game over another because the later has disappointed said person with the last two entries?
It actually seems rather reasonable
I have little faith in the future of MW/CoD at this point (now they're edging themselves towards charging monthly fees). That last two games weren't fun and were plagued with problems and horrible game balance. Battlefield hasn't given anywhere near as negative an experience in the BF game's I've played (yet I also have not played many BF games hence my statement that my opinion of it isn't ruined). But then BFBC2 wasn't a flawless little baby either.
I know il be going for BF3 first since this is my first time hearing about MW3, will probably pick up MW3 sometime after. (Both games will have to wait for Skyrim and the computer upgrade though)
You'll enjoy Space Marine then. But that's not the point... I think there may be some co-op, and I hope so. Bad company wasn't that bad; it really encouraged squad based combat (not co-op, but close).
I only complain about Bad Company because of a few key reasons:
1. Medic spam. Lets slap overpowered lmgs on medics who can HEAL THEMSELVES AND THEIR OTHER MEDIC BUDDIES, BY LEAVING HEALING PACKS ALL OVER ARRGGGHHHH
2. 50 round Assault rifle clips. The feth? (also, 15/20 round smg clips)
3. Vehicles. normally its fine, but those few maps that one team can get to a chopper fast and ruin the other teams vehicles...
4. (this one is mainly BC2) No other game I have ever played game every single level ahead of you such a massive advantage. Oh joy, I got to level x, and get this sweet m1911 *guy who is level x+1 runs over with a FULLY AUTOMATIC pistol and wastes me* or *guy who is x+ about 5, has EXTRA ARMOR and takes TWICE as many shots to kill
5. I almost never get a 'good' team-working squad
Never played against a team of 90% medics? You are VERY lucky I know my pistol thing is an exaggeration, but each higher level gets a new epic piece of gear, its unfair.
The medic class used to be the support class you know, the difference being as the support class they had; LMG, Mortar Strike, Med-Kit, and grenades.
The sniper class had a laser designator that sent a homing missile after the target, which was really good for messing over choppers although there were times when you could see the missile just circling the chopper for awhile.
The medic class itself is not something I see a lot of, I'm usually the only medic in my squad and sometimes my entire team(50 points for killing or 50 points for reviving, reviving is much easier.), I do see a lot of recon classes though, sometimes its enough to make me break out my recon and put them to shame.
Well, I dont know how you feel about this, but BF3 move the Medic from the support class to the assault soldier class, so now the "basic" soldier will also be a medic. It kinda makes sense in a way, when you consider that every (US) soldier receives very basic medical training, and the assault kit is more in line w/ what a medic would be loaded out with.
in all fairness, the 1911 was king in bc2, i could go full matches using just it, engineer was a sweet loadout, 870, 1911 and an rpg kept me happy for a looooong time.
purplefood wrote:Games should have co-op as a standard...
I do love co-op games...
Seconded. Let's write off to the King of Games and see if he'll decree it.
I'm probably going to end up buying MW3 for the co-op experience, as MW2's co-op brought my friend's and I hours of fun. I'd like to see variable numbers in it though, 2-4 rather than just 2.
chaos0xomega wrote:Well, I dont know how you feel about this, but BF3 move the Medic from the support class to the assault soldier class, so now the "basic" soldier will also be a medic. It kinda makes sense in a way, when you consider that every (US) soldier receives very basic medical training, and the assault kit is more in line w/ what a medic would be loaded out with.
Not sure what to think about that. I always felt the specialist deserved to have some sort of healing
Modern Warfare 3 developer Sledgehammer has warned gamers against lower framerate competitors.
Sledgehammer co-founder and General Manager, Glen Schofield, has said that Modern Warfare 3's 60FPS performance gives it the edge over "competitors".
Although no direct competition was mentioned it is obvious that his remarks were aimed at Battlefield 3 and EA after it was revealed that the game would only run at 30FPS on console.
Schofield told AusGamers;
"You can go out and name your engine and call it whatever you want, right,"
"You know, I've done that before, I've seen that trick and the bottom line is, this game will run at 60 frames a second. Not sure any of our competitors will."
"Not sure I've seen any of our competitors on the console, especially running at 60 frames a second, and I'd be a little scared at this point - in June - if I was looking forward to a particular game that wasn't on the console and running at 60."
"I think 60 is our competitive edge and you just don't throw that away. You don't ship an engine, you ship a game,"
True and if the only defense for MW3 is that they have a better frame rate then I would be rather worried about the quality of the content and just go ahead and get BF3.
Yeah, most people wont really be able to notice a difference in framerate anyway, and unless they are changing something (which I doubt), MW3 is going to end up a lot like MW2, maybe with zombies added in... I.E. - I'm not really that interested in an arcade shooter, thank you.
The FPS is meaningless. The Human eye can't notice FPS higher than 40. 30 is unlikely to negatively impact gameplay. Most people probably won't notice there's a difference at all.
The Graphics dragoon has now evolved into the FPS dragon. Intriguing.
johnscott10 wrote:Have to agree, if the FPS is all they can use to say their game is better then its a tad worrying.
Especially when they've again dropped Dedicated (This is for the PC war), will likely just recycle the gameplay from the last three CoD4 clones, and will most likely be plagued by hackers and horrible game balance. Go get um MW3!
johnscott10 wrote:Have to agree, if the FPS is all they can use to say their game is better then its a tad worrying.
Especially when they've again dropped Dedicated, will likely just recycle the gameplay from the last three CoD4 clones, and will most likely be plagued by hackers and horrible game balance. Go get um MW3!
It depends on which system is used, iv heard of a crap load of hacks for PS3 and PC, but for the xbox there is none that iv witnessed.
XBox will always have a degree of protection because Live is a paid service, offering incentive for Microsoft to do everything they can to combat hackers. I've seen no where near as many hacks on XBox/360 as on PC.
PSO being free will always have trouble. There's no real incentive financially to protect it, and going to a pay service along the lines of Live will take away one of Sony's advantages in the console war.
PC can't use the Live system. It won't fly Microsoft has already tried.
Hackers are a fact of gaming, but in PC where they are most easily obtained and uses, PtP systems are especially vulnerable. MW2 suffered horrible user attrition because of the high number of hackers who played it without consequence (VAC doesn't protect anything, neither does PBBans).
MW2 suffered heavily, and BLOPs barely fared better. Of course, BFBC2 also had a problem because the admin controls sucked.
johnscott10 wrote:Have to agree, if the FPS is all they can use to say their game is better then its a tad worrying.
Especially when they've again dropped Dedicated, will likely just recycle the gameplay from the last three CoD4 clones, and will most likely be plagued by hackers and horrible game balance. Go get um MW3!
It depends on which system is used, iv heard of a crap load of hacks for PS3 and PC, but for the xbox there is none that iv witnessed.
Thats the opposite of what I've observed. PS3 has next to nothing in the way of exploits, while PC and Xbox are filled with it.
Largely because attempts to hack/crack the PS3 itself (different from the Playstation Network) have been largely unsuccesfsful due to its entirely different operating system/coding requirements, etc., versus the xbox which might as well be a PC with a modified operating system in play. The only advantage that Xbox has over the PC is that being a pay to play service, microsoft has access to more user data, as well as a tightly controlled feedback system that allows them to deal with people that do cheat/hack in a more effective manner.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Thats the opposite of what I've observed. PS3 has next to nothing in the way of exploits, while PC and Xbox are filled with it.
Largely because attempts to hack/crack the PS3 itself (different from the Playstation Network) have been largely unsuccesfsful due to its entirely different operating system/coding requirements, etc., versus the xbox which might as well be a PC with a modified operating system in play. The only advantage that Xbox has over the PC is that being a pay to play service, microsoft has access to more user data, as well as a tightly controlled feedback system that allows them to deal with people that do cheat/hack in a more effective manner.
Whats a modded controller?
Ok yea there is the modded controller, which iv never seen used while playing Black Ops, alot of people run with burst or fully automatic weapons anyway. Maybe iv just been lucky.
The PS3 is like the Mac. It's not immune to hackers. Hacking other platforms is just easier. Eventually, the hackers will hit the PS3, or PS4/PSwhatever.
The lack of hackers is a reality of its nature but does not remove the vulnerability as the recent hacking of PSO shows. (Really, stopping hackers is a pipe dream. All you can do is minimize the damage).
halonachos wrote:The PSO isn't a piece of coding like the PS3 system itself though, they probably used a windows operating system or something.
A modded controller is a controller that changes how the guns work in-game. Such as people walking around with fully automatic pythons.
As in they mod the controller so that holding down a button will send signals equivalent to pressing the button faster than any human possibly could simulating a fully automatic weapon? Im not sure how that works, since (IIRC) there is usually a built in inter-fire time (for lack of a better term, basically a hard-wired time that limits how often a weapon can be fired), at least I seem to recall that existing in BC2.
BF3 is going to shred MW3, hands down, in terms of graphics, scale, destructibility, vehicles, map size etc etc.
Iv'e been following this game so closely because Iv'e been waiting years for it, and it looks spectacular in everyway. Call me a fanboy but I used to play MW2 religiously. Then they just kept re-releasing the same clone game over and over again with minor tweaks and expensive add-ons.
Also whats with Call of duty Elite service costing money? Battle Log is where its at.
The COD loyalists (which is a large community) won't switch. You'll have to forgive them, they are ignorant and unwashed. They don't know that they are playing a terrible terrible game, to them, the over-glorified run and gun arcade shooter is awesome-sauce... You can always tell who the COD switchovers are in a BF game, because they try to play it like COD, running out in the open, bunny hopping etc. thinking they can get away with run and gun, they get maybe a kill or two if they are lucky, before they get totally fragged, and no doubt nerd rage to nobody in particular.
For games that are visually quite similar (I couldn't tell you which one was MW3 or BF3 based on graphics alone), its amazing how different gameplay is. COD rewards players that run around like rambo, blasting anything that moves, whereas BF3 caters to a more thoughtful, methodical, and tactical team player.
Asgeirr Darkwolf wrote:BF3 ends up in a mix of infantry and tank warfare, based on the map and situation.
And air, and in the older games sometimes even water.
Shooms wrote: BF3 is going to shred MW3, hands down, in terms of graphics, scale, destructibility, vehicles, map size etc etc.
Iv'e been following this game so closely because Iv'e been waiting years for it, and it looks spectacular in everyway. Call me a fanboy but I used to play MW2 religiously. Then they just kept re-releasing the same clone game over and over again with minor tweaks and expensive add-ons.
Also whats with Call of duty Elite service costing money? Battle Log is where its at.
Elite is just a glorified clan service, instead of creating and paying for your own website you can make a facebook equivalent web page for your clan. I would say that its about even in terms of price of actually making your own webpage, but then again I've never owned a web page.
The COD loyalists (which is a large community) won't switch. You'll have to forgive them, they are ignorant and unwashed. They don't know that they are playing a terrible terrible game, to them, the over-glorified run and gun arcade shooter is awesome-sauce... You can always tell who the COD switchovers are in a BF game, because they try to play it like COD, running out in the open, bunny hopping etc. thinking they can get away with run and gun, they get maybe a kill or two if they are lucky, before they get totally fragged, and no doubt nerd rage to nobody in particular.
haha, great stuff.
Also holding out for BF3, previews from the alpha test vids look incredible.
Dogfights *drool*
I've been a MW person for the first two iterations but honestly I don't know which one I'll get for this round. I only need one modern shooter and I tend to play it in spurts (a season on, a season off) so I don't follow the yearly release schedule that both EA and Activision are harping. I haven't tried the BF series simply because I've been happy with the features and innovations in the MW series but am undecided at the moment. Most of the people I know locally play BF (although I have plenty I know on XBL that play MW2) and the mass exodus last year from Infinity Ward has me worrying about the quality of this MW. I'll be busy with Gears of War 3 and Space Marine so I'll probably wait until the reviews come out for both and after I see who got what on my friends list.
LordofHats wrote:The FPS is meaningless. The Human eye can't notice FPS higher than 40. 30 is unlikely to negatively impact gameplay. Most people probably won't notice there's a difference at all.
The Graphics dragoon has now evolved into the FPS dragon. Intriguing.
You are right, but at the same time you are completely wrong. What the game needs to ensure is that it has a locked framerate above 40 in order for the direct user to not notice any framing issues. However, most games have frame rate spikes which cause screen tearing which humans are suprisingly adept at seeing especially with their perhipheral vision. On top of that the user needs to be using a screen that doesn't use a progressive scan technology otherwise the FPS needs to match a refresh rate over 80htz otherwise the viewer will again notice framing/tearing issues. So idealy if you want to be safe on all screen types sold today and for most humans you need to acheive a locked 90fps in order for no one to notice any frame/tearing issues.
Otherwise, you will still be covering some but not all your bases. Heck just to prove the point, for XBox the minimum is 30fps but they want developers to be at 60fps whenever possible.
chaos0xomega wrote:Thats what happens when the script writers use wikipedia as a source of jargon.
Civilians act like the military uses this complex language littered by incomprehensible hand gestures, every word being spoken in acronyms like a slowed internet monkey, and speaking in math equations to describe where the enemy is located.
I'll let y'all in on a little something.
First off with the movie movie Battle LA:
"WE NEED TO GET BACK TO THE *EFF-OH-BEE!!!"
...No, just no. I'd punch you if you said that. FOB is simply pronounced as it looks. Say "bob" but with an F
Modern Whorefare
"We're OSCAR MIKE!!"
Oscar who?
"OSCAR MIKE"
You did what to Mike?
"OSCAR MIKE"
You stole my bike?
...Just say "We're moving" or "We're leaving"
Y'all want to know the most commonly used word in the US Military?
The F word. I'm serious. It describes everything. Start dropping F Bombs and I will instantly know what you're talking about.
LordofHats wrote:The FPS is meaningless. The Human eye can't notice FPS higher than 40. 30 is unlikely to negatively impact gameplay. Most people probably won't notice there's a difference at all.
The Graphics dragoon has now evolved into the FPS dragon. Intriguing.
I could care less about FPS, I just want my game to run smoothly and have good mechanics. If either can do that, I'm sold. That said, I will still, with the new info, pre-order BF3.
I only came to Battlefield 2 recently, I played CoD before. At the moment I have to say that I prefer CoD over Battlefield when it comes to playing the main game, HOWEVER, I definitely prefer Battlefield Online. I feel it plays better, no just a group of players running around shooting each other. I don't if it's just me, but the scenery in CoD seems to of been designed to not give proper cover. You hide behind something and be protected from one angle, but any other angle and you're wide open.
Asgeirr Darkwolf wrote:I could care less about FPS, I just want my game to run smoothly and have good mechanics. If either can do that, I'm sold. That said, I will still, with the new info, pre-order BF3.
And no sense was made that day. You don't care about FPS but you want the game to run smoothly?
Asgeirr Darkwolf wrote:I could care less about FPS, I just want my game to run smoothly and have good mechanics. If either can do that, I'm sold. That said, I will still, with the new info, pre-order BF3.
And no sense was made that day. You don't care about FPS but you want the game to run smoothly?
As in he doesnt care whether it runs at 60 or 30fps, just aslong as it doesnt jump around, and tbh I agree with him.
That's not quite what he said. He wants the game to run smoothly, but doesn't care about FPS. I think he would care once it started to "jump around" due to low FPS.
Wolfstan wrote: I don't if it's just me, but the scenery in CoD seems to of been designed to not give proper cover. You hide behind something and be protected from one angle, but any other angle and you're wide open.
Correct. The designers in their diaries specifically made MW2 more vertical so that you have to watch multiple angles even when behind cover. There are relatively few "safe" spots without placing claymores. Incidentally, they're changing that back in MW3. They said they want more gun on gun action as opposed to getting killed from a hidden camping spot halfway across the map or with a killstreak.
Wolfstan wrote: I don't if it's just me, but the scenery in CoD seems to of been designed to not give proper cover. You hide behind something and be protected from one angle, but any other angle and you're wide open.
Correct. The designers in their diaries specifically made MW2 more vertical so that you have to watch multiple angles even when behind cover. There are relatively few "safe" spots without placing claymores. Incidentally, they're changing that back in MW3. They said they want more gun on gun action as opposed to getting killed from a hidden camping spot halfway across the map or with a killstreak.
Now hold a second, in the favela map in MW2 there is a leaf that will grant you cover against bullets.
Call of duty really makes me rage quit the game most of the time, I spend more time getting mad at the players and how much I suck that I rarely have fun in CoD's multiplayer. I may pick it up to finish the campaign, but if the multiplayer makes me rage quit again like usual, I'm selling it
Battlefield 3 looks very promising. but I've never liked the feel of Battlefield, I don't play a lot of shooters on the computer so that should explain that.
I'm going to buy space marine ASAP, I want the collector's edition too
chaos0xomega wrote:Thats what happens when the script writers use wikipedia as a source of jargon.
Civilians act like the military uses this complex language littered by incomprehensible hand gestures, every word being spoken in acronyms like a slowed internet monkey, and speaking in math equations to describe where the enemy is located.
I'll let y'all in on a little something.
First off with the movie movie Battle LA:
"WE NEED TO GET BACK TO THE *EFF-OH-BEE!!!"
...No, just no. I'd punch you if you said that. FOB is simply pronounced as it looks. Say "bob" but with an F
Modern Whorefare
"We're OSCAR MIKE!!"
Oscar who?
"OSCAR MIKE"
You did what to Mike?
"OSCAR MIKE"
You stole my bike?
...Just say "We're moving" or "We're leaving"
Y'all want to know the most commonly used word in the US Military?
The F word. I'm serious. It describes everything. Start dropping F Bombs and I will instantly know what you're talking about.
You don't spend enough time around civvies then, it really is a different language if you're talking bout military related things. Trying to carry out a conversation with my friends in the military while around civs is next to impossible, having to pause next to every third or fourth word to explain some sort of acronym or term.
And lets not forget the weird look you get when you say hooah/oorah.
Really the only difference between hollywood and real life is that hollywood overuses everything. Whereas you might here someone use one of the numerous slang terms, etc. every once in a blue moon in real life, its every third word in a movie or game... the only exception to this is hooah, which can be and is used in almost every sentence by some.
Melissia wrote:Boring Bland Generic Modern-Military First Person Shooter or Boring Bland Generic Modern-Military First Person Shooter?
Take a third option: SPACE MARINE!
Luckily the latter is coming out first! I only need one modern military shooter every 2 years and don't jump on the COD/BF madden release schedule BOTH publishers are pushing. My friends seem like they're leaning towards BF but the seasonal news of EA closing down servers that don't actively make them money (like even the '10 sports games!!!) is not encouraging. I want MORE than 2 years of multiplayer out of my game as I tend to play shooters for a few months and then come back to them cyclically 6-8 months later. As a side note, the multiplayer Space marine details are being released tomorrow.
iproxtaco wrote:There has been Battlefield every year for the last 9 years? That's new to me.
Then you're not paying attention too closely.
From the Battlefield wiki page...
Battlefield release timeline
2011 Battlefield 3
2011 Battlefield Play4Free
2010 Battlefield Online
2010 Battlefield: Bad Company 2: Vietnam
2010 Battlefield: Bad Company 2
2009 Battlefield 1943
2009 Battlefield Heroes
2008 Battlefield: Bad Company
2007 Battlefield 2142: Northern Strike
2006 Battlefield 2142
2006 Battlefield 2: Armored Fury
2006 Battlefield 2: Euro Forces
2005 Battlefield 2: Modern Combat
2005 Battlefield 2: Special Forces
2005 Battlefield 2
2004 Battlefield Vietnam
2003 Battlefield 1942: Secret Weapons of WWII
2003 Battlefield 1942: The Road to Rome
2002 Battlefield 1942
Some of the earlier ones are expansions but there is a proper game released in the series roughly every year averaged out and both companies have publicly stated in the past few years that they want to monetize their respective series on a yearly basis.
I find the one Problem with Battlefield 3 is that in BF2, BF2142 (awesome game) and the Bad Company series people were cruel and heartless about reviving you already but now you must first drag the dead guy to cover... people are not going to do that. Oh and if BF3 requires you to HAVE an online account to play At all, does NOT have an instant action option and does not have a nice and easy LAN option than i'm not gonna get it. I looking forward for MW3 cause I love the Campaign in MW2 and CoD4 but BFBC2 campaign Sucked... it just SUCKED!!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Is Battlefield 1943 every coming to PC? I like those classic WW2 games that have been remade
Nightfall wrote:I find the one Problem with Battlefield 3 is that in BF2, BF2142 (awesome game) and the Bad Company series people were cruel and heartless about reviving you already but now you must first drag the dead guy to cover...
I'll do it (if I'm playing soldier class). That was one of the main reasons why I (and many others) rarely revived people, its the middle of the firefight, I shock the guy and he's dead again within seconds. Generally if you're in the 'back' and theres a medic nearby they would rev you pretty quickly because you weren't going to get shot again instantly.
I'll get both, but BF3 is bringing much more to the table, MW3 will be the same old, same old, which is fine I guess since it's extremely popular as it is and people will buy anything with Call of Duty written on it.
MrH wrote:I'll get both, but BF3 is bringing much more to the table, MW3 will be the same old, same old, which is fine I guess since it's extremely popular as it is and people will buy anything with Call of Duty written on it.
Like what? It's not like its vehicles are anythign new, other games have done THAT better. It's the same old settings, too.
Sadly, I have a PS3, so Gears is not an option to me. But I feel, Mellissa, that the improvements to squad combat and better tank warfare will be innovations- there's hardly any roomleft for invention!
Asgeirr Darkwolf wrote:Sadly, I have a PS3, so Gears is not an option to me. But I feel, Mellissa, that the improvements to squad combat and better tank warfare will be innovations- there's hardly any roomleft for invention!
Ahh that stinks. I work in the gaming industry so I can give you a little sight into both games without revealing too much. I'd say it truly depends on what you plan on geting the game for. Battlefield 3 will be GREAT. Especially if you plan on playing it on PC. The console version will also be awesome but the PC version will be good as well. Modern Warfare 3 is going to be GREAT as well. But you get a different COD just about every year. I expect some great innovations out of the new one but I still think this year is all about Battlefield 3.
Asgeirr Darkwolf wrote:Sadly, I have a PS3, so Gears is not an option to me. But I feel, Mellissa, that the improvements to squad combat and better tank warfare will be innovations- there's hardly any roomleft for invention!
The tank combat in the battlefield series is actually one of its bad aspects. Tanks just appear out of nowhere to be grabbed by the nearest moron or fought over by a pair of morons, often involving teamkilling to try to get in the vehicle first.
Say what you will about Homefront, but it makes you earn your vehicles, and you don't fight over who gets them because you purchase them with in-game battlepoints earned through supporting the team. Its vehicle implementation is better than battlefield's likely ever will be.
Asgeirr Darkwolf wrote:Sadly, I have a PS3, so Gears is not an option to me. But I feel, Mellissa, that the improvements to squad combat and better tank warfare will be innovations- there's hardly any roomleft for invention!
The tank combat in the battlefield series is actually one of its bad aspects. Tanks just appear out of nowhere to be grabbed by the nearest moron or fought over by a pair of morons, often involving teamkilling to try to get in the vehicle first.
Say what you will about Homefront, but it makes you earn your vehicles, and you don't fight over who gets them because you purchase them with in-game battlepoints earned through supporting the team. Its vehicle implementation is better than battlefield's likely ever will be.
They fixed that aspect for Battlefield 3. Look it up online. They only appear ever so often so you as the player are pretty much forced to fight.
hmm, have to say i disagree, in many of the tank maps, there are quite often tanks that arent even used, the tank is not quite as strong as i would like. team killing however is something i rarely if ever see. this is from 300 plus hours experience but again on PS3 and not on hardcore mode
assultmarine: Vehicles easily dominate maps in my experience, and so people fight over them all the time, often just sitting in spawn waiting and doing nothing until one appears, contributing nothing until they get the specific vehicle they want.
Spartan 117 wrote:They fixed that aspect for Battlefield 3. Look it up online. They only appear ever so often so you as the player are pretty much forced to fight.
Melissia wrote:assultmarine: Vehicles easily dominate maps in my experience, and so people fight over them all the time, often just sitting in spawn waiting and doing nothing until one appears, contributing nothing until they get the specific vehicle they want.
Spartan 117 wrote:They fixed that aspect for Battlefield 3. Look it up online. They only appear ever so often so you as the player are pretty much forced to fight.
Ah, so by fixing it they made it WORSE.
How is that making it worse? If you sit back and wait for it to spawn the other team is going to destroy you while you are waiting. If your truly inclined about a proper k/d you would go out and get kills. Battlefield 3 is suppossed to also reward people that go get the kills so it makes perfect sense.
Spartan 117 wrote:If you sit back and wait for it to spawn the other team is going to destroy you while you are waiting.
Why would that stop people? They want to play with tanks. And the only way to do that is by sitting at the tank spawn waiting for it to spawn, and being first to get in it. With tanks being rarer/taking longer to spawn, they just have to wait longer and fight dirtier to get their tanks.
The vehicle spawn system will always be a failure like that.
Asgeirr Darkwolf wrote:Sadly, I have a PS3, so Gears is not an option to me. But I feel, Mellissa, that the improvements to squad combat and better tank warfare will be innovations- there's hardly any roomleft for invention!
The tank combat in the battlefield series is actually one of its bad aspects. Tanks just appear out of nowhere to be grabbed by the nearest moron or fought over by a pair of morons, often involving teamkilling to try to get in the vehicle first.
Say what you will about Homefront, but it makes you earn your vehicles, and you don't fight over who gets them because you purchase them with in-game battlepoints earned through supporting the team. Its vehicle implementation is better than battlefield's likely ever will be.
Your posts are always amusing anytime someone mentions Bad Company 2.
you complain every time about team killing for tanks.
Sorry but its hard to even find a server that has friendly fire on to make that true.
btw.. homefront is a terrible game compared to the battlefield series.
Even if there's no friendly fire on, they'll still fight over vehicles.
Spyder68 wrote:btw.. homefront is a terrible game compared to the battlefield series.
Homefront's far superior to battlefield in terms of game design, especially its vehicle balance.
In that it actually HAS vehicle balance. In Battlefield you're rewarded with a tank for sitting on your ass waiting for it to spawn. In Homefront ,you're rewarded with a tank for actually DOING something.
Melissia wrote:assultmarine: Vehicles easily dominate maps in my experience, and so people fight over them all the time, often just sitting in spawn waiting and doing nothing until one appears, contributing nothing until they get the specific vehicle they want.
Spartan 117 wrote:They fixed that aspect for Battlefield 3. Look it up online. They only appear ever so often so you as the player are pretty much forced to fight.
Ah, so by fixing it they made it WORSE.
Then you obviously haven't played at any high level. Tank's are often useless, an engineer (my favorite!) or recon with explosives can easily take them out, especialy on Urban maps they are sitting ducks.
As for vehicle balance.. The other team get's the same amount on conquest maps.
The only vehicle that's made of awesome are the light tanks. I love me some autocannon's :3
In the end, like with any good FPS game, it truly get's good when you play with groups of friends/clans.
I have to say, I've never seen anyone waiting around their base for a tank. Helicopters on occasion, but they are taken by someone within a matter of seconds.
Melissia wrote:Even if there's no friendly fire on, they'll still fight over vehicles.
Spyder68 wrote:btw.. homefront is a terrible game compared to the battlefield series.
Homefront's far superior to battlefield in terms of game design, especially its vehicle balance.
In that it actually HAS vehicle balance. In Battlefield you're rewarded with a tank for sitting on your ass waiting for it to spawn. In Homefront ,you're rewarded with a tank for actually DOING something.
BF makes you wait for tanks and so they are a precious comodity, when you are forced to use battlepoints(fancy name for killstreaks) then they become less valuable seeing as joe-schmoe with the AT UAV will blow it to hell and you're forced back into camping for more battlepoints. I have never once seen anyone TK for a tank, and I have to agree that there are times when tanks sit unused even in vehicle heavy maps like Heavy Metal. I have seen videos of people camping to get higher killstreaks in Homefront. Face it Melissia, Homefront is CoD except that they use points instead of kills.
halonachos wrote:BF makes you wait for tanks and so they are a precious comodity
lol ,that doesn't make them precious, it just means the noob quickest to take it after it teleports onto the battlefield is the one who gets it. That's certainly precious, but not in the way you meant it.
Face it, Battlefield is basically CoD with vehicles. Two can play that game.
halonachos wrote:BF makes you wait for tanks and so they are a precious comodity
lol ,that doesn't make them precious, it just means the noob quickest to take it after it teleports onto the battlefield is the one who gets it. That's certainly precious, but not in the way you meant it.
Face it, Battlefield is basically CoD with vehicles. Two can play that game.
They're precious commodities because of the fact that noobs will get them destroyed, you get one good tank driver or helicopter pilot/gunner team and you'll see what you can do to the enemy. Battlefield lacks an automatic healing system, lacks killstreaks, encourages squad work through bonuses for healing squadmates(80 instead of 50pts. Note 50pts=1 kill), and allows you to customize your class during the game instead of just in a pre-game lobby.
Homefront is just a terrible FPS version of Freedom Fighters.
halonachos wrote:They're precious commodities because of the fact that noobs will get them destroyed
lol, no. They're still things which are just first come first serve instead of actually EARNED. Precious indeed, I agree, but I'm not using the same definition as you. Rare, sure-- but in the end, they're just grabbed by whatever halfwit noob was patient enough to wait by vehicle spawn long enough.
You know, as opposed to someone who has talent and actually knows how to use the vehicle and has supported the team. Noob gets in chopper, crashes it, then gets out saying "oops" and your team is now at a disadvantage because of a crappy game design choice making you either have to sit in spawn yourself waiting for it to spawn or depriving you of a chopper period, while your enemy team doesn't have said problem.
halonachos wrote:They're precious commodities because of the fact that noobs will get them destroyed
lol, no. They're still things which are just first come first serve instead of actually EARNED. Precious indeed, I agree, but I'm not using the same definition as you. Rare, sure-- but in the end, they're just grabbed by whatever halfwit noob was patient enough to wait by vehicle spawn long enough.
You know, as opposed to someone who has talent and actually knows how to use the vehicle and has supported the team. Noob gets in chopper, crashes it, then gets out saying "oops" and your team is now at a disadvantage because of a crappy game design choice making you either have to sit in spawn yourself waiting for it to spawn or depriving you of a chopper period, while your enemy team doesn't have said problem.
Or both teams have the same problem. Maybe the noobs eventually learn that they're better at other things. Maybe a game that has more than just one option for playstyle has some flaws that can be overlooked because they don't happen en masse as some believe they do.
I learned that I'm no good in tanks so I avoid tanks, I learned that I make an awesome gunner in choppers so I'll sometimes choose to be gunner. I learned that I can repair a blackhawk from the inside so I repair the blackhawk from the inside. People learn, except for maybe PC users I guess.
This isn't an attempt to instigate any sort of argument, but what do you think makes Halo's vehicle system work? It's pretty much the same, having a specific spawn point on the map.
iproxtaco wrote:This isn't an attempt to instigate any sort of argument, but what do you think makes Halo's vehicle system work? It's pretty much the same, having a specific spawn point on the map.
I haven't played enough of Halo to judge, sadly. I only have played it on a friend's console. Maybe when they finally release Halo Reach on the PC I'll have an opinion.
Simply because it seems to work on the same system. Vehicles spawn on a spot on the map, any person can jump in them. The system seems to work quite well.
iproxtaco wrote:Simply because it seems to work on the same system. Vehicles spawn on a spot on the map, any person can jump in them. The system seems to work quite well.
Given the amount of complaints I've read about the Halo series having the very same problem I have with the BF series, I doubt that.
iproxtaco wrote:Simply because it seems to work on the same system. Vehicles spawn on a spot on the map, any person can jump in them. The system seems to work quite well.
Given the amount of complaints I've read about the Halo series having the very same problem I have with the BF series, I doubt that.
Melissia do you subscribe to PGM? Pessimist Gamer Magazine is awfully negative in all of their reviews. Although I will say one thing, Halo did good work with creating weak spots on the vehicles.
iproxtaco wrote:Simply because it seems to work on the same system. Vehicles spawn on a spot on the map, any person can jump in them. The system seems to work quite well.
Given the amount of complaints I've read about the Halo series having the very same problem I have with the BF series, I doubt that.
Sorry? I haven't heard a single one, and I follow everything about Halo that I come across. From the upwards of 7000 games I've played I haven't even encountered the issue that often. There doesn't seem to be a major issue of people waiting for vehicles. Granted I've encountered people waiting for the game-changing vehicles, like the Banshee, a flyer, with a one hit kill weapon, but those people are few and far between they usually get killed whilst waiting, have low kill counts or only wait for a few minutes. Camping isn't as viable a tactic. One solution is the fact that even the Scorpion tank, the most heavily armoured vehicle in the game can be immobilized by a few shots with a sniper rifle, I know for a fact the Banshee dies in a mere six shots. Many vehicles also require multiple players to function, and there are 101 ways to tale them out. They're all far from invulnerable killing machines.
Rant over. No more about Halo in this thread from me, unless someone wants to start an argument.
I rarely use tanks in Battlefield games, unless there is one right there. ANd with hardcore mode off. THere's just too many easy ways to kill tanks, you need all positions filled to be effective.
iproxtaco wrote:Sorry? I haven't heard a single one, and I follow everything about Halo that I come across. From the upwards of 7000 games I've played I haven't even encountered the issue that often. There doesn't seem to be a major issue of people waiting for vehicles. Granted I've encountered people waiting for the game-changing vehicles, like the Banshee, a flyer, with a one hit kill weapon, but those people are few and far between they usually get killed whilst waiting, have low kill counts or only wait for a few minutes.
You must be playing a different halo series than I've played since 2005. There are plenty of people that camp and wait for the snipe/rocket/tank/banshee/etc and will even kill you for it. With Reach, they tended to just drop your shields constantly if you did the same hoping the enemy would take that single shot and do the same (Reach initially had a *VERY* easy to trigger ban on friendly fire). They're douches and they're quit common... the underlying game when you play without those types is pretty darn good though.
They're few and far between in my games. When you put something like that on the map for anyone to use then of course some people wait around, and I'm not denying it isn't there. I'm simply saying that from my perspective, it doesn't seem to be a problem. Maybe because they get taken fairly quickly, and die fairly quickly, I don't know, it seems that Battlefield and Halo have a similar vehicle system, whilst noobs are a big problem in the former (allegedly) and not in the latter.
That gif looks nice, I especially like the way that the guy runs when he turns. The way he sways seems incredibly realistic and if that's multiplayer, that's a whole hell lot of attention to detail.
halonachos wrote:That gif looks nice, I especially like the way that the guy runs when he turns. The way he sways seems incredibly realistic and if that's multiplayer, that's a whole hell lot of attention to detail.
I find it kinda funny, I find it kinda sad, that everyone who sees this is like "Holy crap, he leaned!"
Yes, it's cool, I'm rather impressed by it as well, but it just reminds me of Fable 1, where everyone was nerding out about See Through Windows
Its the first time I've seen that kind of attention being given to a multiplayer facet of the game. You see that stuff in singleplayer but never in multiplayer. Like in Black Ops when they had gibbing in single player but not in multiplayer. Smoother game overall but I wanted to see chunks of people everywhere.
halonachos wrote:That gif looks nice, I especially like the way that the guy runs when he turns. The way he sways seems incredibly realistic and if that's multiplayer, that's a whole hell lot of attention to detail.
I find it kinda funny, I find it kinda sad, that everyone who sees this is like "Holy crap, he leaned!"
Yes, it's cool, I'm rather impressed by it as well, but it just reminds me of Fable 1, where everyone was nerding out about See Through Windows
Meh. It will take more than just that to impress Mr. Command.
halonachos wrote:That gif looks nice, I especially like the way that the guy runs when he turns. The way he sways seems incredibly realistic and if that's multiplayer, that's a whole hell lot of attention to detail.
I find it kinda funny, I find it kinda sad, that everyone who sees this is like "Holy crap, he leaned!"
Yes, it's cool, I'm rather impressed by it as well, but it just reminds me of Fable 1, where everyone was nerding out about See Through Windows
Meh. It will take more than just that to impress Mr. Command.
What if I told you that they had rainbows? And did you see the amount of attention they put into the bottom of the guys' boots?
Karon wrote:Yeah, but only like ~20ish, and the same people every time.
Not really sure why I got it, but I did. Battlefield 3 is pretty sweet, even if it is laggy as gak because its in Alpha.
My biggest question for you would be about character customization and to the extent it goes. What classes are currently available for you to choose from, oh player of the alpha?
Right now, Character Customization is pretty limited in the Alpha. You have your standard guns, and you get different ones as you level up.
Customizing on your weapons seems to be expanded, you have an Optics slot for customization, a Primary slot, and a secondary slot, all on one firearm. I'm not high enough level currently to know what exactly, but I've seen heavy barrels, reinforced barrels, sights, etc.
The classes are Assault, Engineer, Support, and Sniper
Assault is just that, Assault class with a automatic rifle. However, the Assault class has the Defibs now, there is no medic class.
Engineer carries around a submachine-gun, the one that is default unlocked is the AKS-74U. They have a RPG, as well as their repair tool.
Supports are the dedicated HMG users now, which is my favorite class by far. They lay down ammo-boxes now, but instead are pretty basic.
Snipers look pretty basic, I haven't tested that class yet because I'm terrible at sniping, but right now all I have unlocked default is a SVD, and a pistol.
Knifing is fething sweet though. You don't hold an actual knife anymore, its like Call of Duty where you pull it out of your ass and swing it. The kills are excellent though, if you are being stabbed, you are turned around by your assailant and stabbed in the chest a couple times.
I'm not sure what you mean, Soladrin. Most of everything is breakable, but I haven't been killed by a flying toilet yet. Rockets don't blow up boulders or anything.
The only map we have right now is called Metro, and its spread across a park area of a city next to a lake. There is a bunch of gak above ground, and then a whole subway station level underground.
For me... Honestly... BF has only been fun for me when im a sniper. I'm really good at sniping ayone on a map even pilots but eve then it gets boring. Cod has been my thing since it first started but after time and time again its just the same game, just sugar coated. I'm a firm believer when it comes to game drag ons... Cod has run it's course as Bf and halo have. But game designers are to lazy to make up new games and corporates just wantto milk every last cent imo. Hell even mario and zelda have taken their course. Pokemon for sure has overstayed its welcome. Idk to me all FPS are the same thing. Thats why im a fan of 3rd person shooters aka. Gears, Space Marine, etc. I like seeing my character and i like actually using cover and such. Im also a big RTS fan. So in the end i voted space marine, 1 because it will bring out my inner astartes and 2 because the other choices on this poll are just glorified chumps. The only FPS i plan on buying is the new ghost recon. but as a whole my gaming hours will be spenton space marine, gears 3, kingdom underfre 2, and dawn of war.
Bloody hell, I hate Defibs. Nothing beats mowing down four guys, getting killed by a Sniper in the back, he picks up the Medic's Loadout and revives all four guys I just shot in the head. That's like applying Aloe Vera to the forehead for a Foot injury...
I don't like the fact that they added defibs to the assault class, they should've kept them with the support class. They did it in BF2, and in Bad Company 2 which works. I guess they think that by removing the defibs from the LMGs people will be more willing to heal others or something along those lines.
I would imagine that the thinking behind giving the defibs to the Assault class would be they they are at the very front of the fighting, whereas Snipers and Support can both be pretty far away with their weapons.
Definitely shaping up to be a good game, too bad I won't be able to play for a couple days, I'm taking my girlfriend to Disney World.
halonachos wrote:I don't like the fact that they added defibs to the assault class, they should've kept them with the support class. They did it in BF2, and in Bad Company 2 which works. I guess they think that by removing the defibs from the LMGs people will be more willing to heal others or something along those lines.
Part of the problem is that the use of an LMG and a defib are pretty much diametrically opposed. The LMG should be in the backfield laying suppressive fire, the medic should be up front with the assaulters.
Battle Brother Lucifer wrote:I must say, I'm actually not pumped for the next COD this time.
My entire being will be spent on Skyrim, which I know will be better than MW3, even though I enjoy the series.
And I may actually get BF3, because its not 'Bad Company' anymore. God those games were awful.
As It mentions, It doesn't really bother me because im not the biggest Steam fan. I'd say the main reason behind the decision is competition between Steam and Origin.
But it doesn't have the addictiveness of Search and Destroy. This is what I play with my buddies every single night in the summer. It never gets boring
I'm going for BF3 now, cause I got a new PC, it will run it going for BF3!! I'm going to buy MW3 so I know the BLOODY END of the story. you just can't end anything with the line, "ya I know a place".... NOOOO!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh I hope BF3 has RUSH game mode from BFBC2... I only played RUSH in BC2... only
Nightfall wrote:I'm going for BF3 now, cause I got a new PC, it will run it going for BF3!! I'm going to buy MW3 so I know the BLOODY END of the story. you just can't end anything with the line, "ya I know a place".... NOOOO!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh I hope BF3 has RUSH game mode from BFBC2... I only played RUSH in BC2... only
I personally prefer how BF3 is much more then MW3 will be. Partly and mostly because they have vehicles in the game as well. Also from a graphics standpoint I think MW3 looks like any other COD game. It seems the graphics havent really improved much in any of their yearly games. But BF3 looks like a major improvement from Bad Company 2.
Sadly I have to agree. All they did was add guns to zombie mode really for that. Or you can just call it hoard mode from Gears of War.
Did you watch the end?
There is about 5 seconds of multiplayer teaser.
It reveals several things, the least of which are cycleable killstreaks and new guns/streaks.
One big thing is that "killstreaks" have become "point streaks" the difference being that, apparently, the scoring will be in points, not kills (at least for some game modes). This
rewards objective players much more than previously, as you will get points for capping flags, etc. This will help change CoD (hopefully) from a game of screaming, trolling 9 year olds with mics into
a game that rewards tactical and inteliigent play and less of the run-and-gun that has become synonymous with the CoD franchise.
Hopefully, anyways.
On a side note, I am really excited for both games, and I plan to buy both if I can afford it.
Yeah, one can always hope. I HOPE that MW3 is the last hurrah instead of a clone of MW2. I HOPE that BF3 is as epic as it looks... and it looks AWESOME, especially with the new trailer.
Man, I've got a lot of games on my list to get, but not Skyrim.... sadly.
BF3, MW3, Space Marine, Rage, Arkham City, and Uncharted 3 all look so promising...
stompydakka wrote:
It reveals several things, the least of which are cycleable killstreaks and new guns/streaks.
One big thing is that "killstreaks" have become "point streaks" the difference being that, apparently, the scoring will be in points, not kills (at least for some game modes). This
rewards objective players much more than previously, as you will get points for capping flags, etc. This will help change CoD (hopefully) from a game of screaming, trolling 9 year olds with mics into
a game that rewards tactical and inteliigent play and less of the run-and-gun that has become synonymous with the CoD franchise.
I doubt it, Modern Warfare 3 will attract the Modern Warfare 2 crowd which includes screaming kids. The game modes already reward people who do the objectives, ever notice in non-deathmatch games you only get 50 for each kill? You get 100 points for capping and 50 for defending on top of the 50 for killing the guy. Search and Destroy is the closest thing that comes to tactical for the franchise, its a fun mode, but its the only one. The game looks like it hardly changed, and then you'll have people camping to get the 'pointstreaks' anyways. Overall, killstreaks/pointstreaks tend to encourage camping.
Alright I know this has probably already been said but I don't have time to read through it all.
I am definately going with Battlefield3 on this one. The Dice team is always thinking of how to improve their multiplayer through balancing the classes and knowing how to concentrate all the action on a large scale battlefield.
Look at gold rush for example in Bad Company, I actually felt like a useful part of the team by sniping the defenders, barging through defenses with my tank or being more of a noob and sitting on the artillery destroying key targets. I know that some people like being a lone wolf in Modern Warfare but it doesn't appeal to me at all.
Moving on to the visual aspects of both games, Battlefield wins this one by a mile. Buildings crumbling around you, cover chipping away as the enemy blast away at you and the beautiful sound effects of weapons create a very intense and realistic gaming experience. Not to mention DICE have been working on BF3 for sometime using BC2 and Medal of honor to fine tune their next installment.
Modern Warfare on the other hand is not going to offer you anything worthy of being called new. At the most you will get a few more weapons, poor AI, some perks and achievements. I will only rent MW3 for the storyline and probably won't bother with the multiplayer.
I'm going to buy both... but play neither. Its just going to go on the pile with Black Ops, Dragon Age, Dead Space, The Witcher, Modern Warfare 1, Modern Warfare 2, etc. ...all the while doing mediocre work on miniatures.
I would have said battlefield but I am still waiting for the feature where idiots who spend all game waiting at heli pads for chopper spawns spontaneously combust.
I would have said battlefield but I am still waiting for the feature where idiots who spend all game waiting at heli pads for chopper spawns spontaneously combust.
+1, but suprisingly I haven't seen too many of those in BFBC2. It helps that your spawn moves, so waiting forever don't help. Plus, the fact that idiots are easily killed by sneaking back helps. Why would you even play in hardcore mode, where all those idiots are?
Battlefield. MW 2 wasn't bad, the people were. Noob tubes, camping, THE SQUEAKERS. With that and black ops every other game sounded like Skaven were calling each other gay or splurging 'your mom' comments.....
up is all you really need in a game...
.
