Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

They had prone in BF2 too.

Yeah, but you never had to worry about playing with/against a whole team of camping snipers with bf2 like you do with BC2.

At least BC2 tried to make it harder with the bullet drop idea. I'm sure some people got used to it really fast, but it was a decent attempt at balance.

Yeah, it was good and did make it a little more skillful, but regardless, if you're running for a capture point and have 4-5 snipers all shooting at you the odds are not in your favour. It just detracts from the whole teamwork concept, 99.9% of the time me and my friend play it were best squad as everyone seems to play it 'lonewolf' sitting in a bush up a hill. I cant play it without my clan anymore, it's too frustrating.

That's when you get the UAV or a tank and pay them a visit.

If it's on par with Battlefield 2 at the time, then it will be the king of modern shooters, at least in my eyes. CoD and Medal of Honor just aren't appealing, but Battlefield just seems to get something right.

ZeroSamurai wrote:If it's on par with Battlefield 2 at the time, then it will be the king of modern shooters, at least in my eyes. CoD and Medal of Honor just aren't appealing, but Battlefield just seems to get something right.

I think its the presence of a variety of vehicles. In CoD and MoH you're a foot soldier fighting other foot soldiers while in BF2 and even BC2 you can be a tanker fighting foot soldiers, air cavalry fighting foot soldiers, or foot soldiers destroying the tankers and air cavalry.

I really want a Battlefront 3 but it aint happening

also a 2143 would be nice too

but BF3 looks pretty good so far. Jets are back!

kenshin620 wrote:I really want a Battlefront 3 but it aint happening

also a 2143 would be nice too

but BF3 looks pretty good so far. Jets are back!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefront_3

I miss games like Battlefront and Battlefield, I know that a lot of people hate the vehicles but that's because they've been playing Halo, there's no balance with Halo vehicles.

Battlefield and Battlefront have balanced vehicles and that's what makes them amazing.

I am chomping at the bit for this one, yeh snipers always dominate the map slightly, but I am guessing better ACOG scopes for assault classes and more vehicles will balance it out, also if its anything like bad company the will be more than enough cover on most of the levels.

halonachos wrote:I miss games like Battlefront and Battlefield, I know that a lot of people hate the vehicles but that's because they've been playing Halo, there's no balance with Halo vehicles.

Battlefield and Battlefront have balanced vehicles and that's what makes them amazing.

How do you "miss Battlefield"?

I admit that I suppose BFBC2 was no BF to true fans and these days BF2 seems dead (no jets in BC) but it did surprisingly well. I always found the vehicle centric maps more enjoyable

Bit off topic but good to hear that battlefront 3 may survive! Although would they still play it safe with the 2 trilogies or would they branch out the EU? (including old republic)

kenshin620 wrote:

halonachos wrote:I miss games like Battlefront and Battlefield, I know that a lot of people hate the vehicles but that's because they've been playing Halo, there's no balance with Halo vehicles.

Battlefield and Battlefront have balanced vehicles and that's what makes them amazing.

How do you "miss Battlefield"?

I admit that I suppose BFBC2 was no BF to true fans and these days BF2 seems dead (no jets in BC) but it did surprisingly well. I always found the vehicle centric maps more enjoyable

Bit off topic but good to hear that battlefront 3 may survive! Although would they still play it safe with the 2 trilogies or would they branch out the EU? (including old republic)

I put Battlefield and Battlefield: Bad Company into two different franchises, BF is vastly different than BFBC.

Meh, it's just another modern set FPS game. Dunno, kinda feeling burnt out on them. After Homefront I'll be hoping for a good multiplayer sci-fi FPS game...

Melissia wrote:Meh, it's just another modern set FPS game. Dunno, kinda feeling burnt out on them. After Homefront I'll be hoping for a good multiplayer sci-fi FPS game...

One of the first modern set FPS games I might add, in fact I can't readily think of another modern FPS on the same scale as Battlefield before Battlefield 2.

Tom Clancy started the whole 'modern fps' genre with Rainbow Six(great game considering it was 1998) and then Ghost Recon. There was also SOCOM, still haven't beat the second one.

Battlefield 2 though, I would consider it the grandfather of the current 'modern fps' games. There was even Battlefield: Vietnam and for some reason they made a BFBC: Vietnam as DLC too.

Which means about nothing to me. Just because something started the trend doesn't mean it's the best at it (see: Starcrap). Besides, my complaint was that the subgenre is oversaturated and I'm getting bored of it.

Halo, Resistance, Gears of War, Crysis, Haze, Bioshock, Killzone, Borderlands, Alien vs Predator, Half-Life, Deus Ex, Singularity, Quake, Unreal, Dark Sector, Section 8, Fracture, Area 51, and Battlefield 2142...

Yes I can see why you want a game in a market that isn't oversaturated.

Did I mention Battlefield 2142? Developed by the people who developed Battlefield 2 and Battlefield Bad Company 1&2?

Battlefield is a great title, just because they choose to make a modern FPS in a market that has a lot of moderns FPS games in it doesn't mean you should cast it aside. Same deal when I look at Battlefield 2142, the sci-fi genre was saturated but they still made a great game.

If they made a game similar to Homefront I can guarantee that it would be better than Homefront.

halonachos wrote:Halo, Resistance, Gears of War, Crysis, Haze, Bioshock, Killzone, Borderlands, Alien vs Predator, Half-Life, Deus Ex, Singularity, Quake, Unreal, Dark Sector, Section 8, Fracture, Area 51, and Battlefield 2142...

Halo and Gears of War's latest iterations aren't available on PC. Killzone is a complete PS exclusive. Bioshock, Half-Life, Deus Ex, Singularity, and plenty others are pretty much just single player games, and even if they have a multiplayer section it's pretty much dead or the focus is definitely not on the MP. And a lot of them are 3PS games, not FPS games, which in general I'm not interested in (with rare exception, such as RF:G or the upcoming Space Marine game).

So no. It's not saturated to me.

And the modern FPS genre is despite the fact that its relatively new compared to the Sci-Fi genre. Think about it, Doom was one of the first FPS games and it was Sci-Fi.

halonachos wrote:And the modern FPS genre is despite the fact that its relatively new compared to the Sci-Fi genre. Think about it, Doom was one of the first FPS games and it was Sci-Fi.

I know that quite damned well. That doesn't stop the market from feeling saturated, because saturation of a market isn't necessarily dependent on the total amount of product ever released into the market, but about how much has been released recently.

Quake, Unreal, and Borderlands tend to focus on multiplayer, are available for PC, and are also first person. Section 8 is also multiplayer, available for PC, and first person.

Most of those are also first person, GoW and Dark Sector are the 3rd person games.

And then there's Battlefield 2142. So yes, its a saturated market.

halonachos wrote:Quake, Unreal, and Borderlands tend to focus on multiplayer, are available for PC, and are also first person. Section 8 is also multiplayer, available for PC, and first person.

Most of those are also first person, GoW and Dark Sector are the 3rd person games.

And then there's Battlefield 2142. So yes, its a saturated market.

I know what the feth these games are, stop acting like I don't. Quake's last release was in 2005 unless you count Quake Wars (which suffers from the "let's be more like halo" issue, despite an interesting building concept) which was in 07. Doom 4 is in a development hell and has been for four years now with no end in sight. Unreal 3 was likewise released in 07 and frankly has its own issues. So those three series haven't had a game in four years or more. Borderlands is basically an MMO and suffers from the same problems those do, it just has no appeal to me for that reason.

And no, the market certainly does not feel saturated compared to the plethora of recent modern setting multiplayer FPS games.

Melissia wrote:

halonachos wrote:Quake, Unreal, and Borderlands tend to focus on multiplayer, are available for PC, and are also first person. Section 8 is also multiplayer, available for PC, and first person.

Most of those are also first person, GoW and Dark Sector are the 3rd person games.

And then there's Battlefield 2142. So yes, its a saturated market.

I know what the feth these games are, stop acting like I don't.

And no, the market certainly does not feel saturated compared to the plethora of recent modern setting multiplayer FPS games.

Modern FPS in 2010

Call of Duty Black Ops.
Battlefield Bad Company 2
MAG
Sniper: Ghost Warrior
Medal of Honor
Battlefield Bad Company 2: Vietnam

Sci-fi in 2010
Mass Effect 2
S.T.A.L.K.E.R Call of Pripyat
Bioshock 2
Aliens vs Predator
Metro 2033
Lost Planet 2
Transformers: War for Cybertron
Singularity
Halo: Reach
Metroid: Other M
Star Trek: Online

Yes, yes I can see the saturation by modern shooters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wanna see 2011 so far?

Modern FPS
Battlefield 3
SOCOM 4(actually 3rd person but I'll put it in here)
Tactical Intervention


Sci-Fi FPS
Bioshock Infinite
Brink
Crysis 2
DOOM 4
Half Life 2: Episode 3
Portal 2
RAGE

Modern FPS for the PC in 2010
Call of Duty Black Ops.
Battlefield Bad Company 2
Sniper: Ghost Warrior
Medal of Honor
Battlefield Bad Company 2: Vietnam


Sci-fi FPS for the PC in 2010
S.T.A.L.K.E.R Call of Pripyat
Bioshock 2
Aliens vs Predator
Metro 2033
Singularity

Fixed. And that's only if you honestly consider Call of Pripyat or Metro 2033 sci-fi games, which is a bit of a stretch. Both of these aren't multipalyer either. And that doesn't include less famous games like Terrorist Takedown or Operation Wolfsburg, most of which are modern setting.

Modern for the PS3 in 2010
Call of Duty Black Ops.
Battlefield Bad Company 2
MAG
Medal of Honor

Sci-fi for the PS3 in 2010
Bioshock 2
Aliens vs Predator
Singularity
Transformers: War for cybertron
Lost Planet 2
Dark Void


So a game featuring mutated creatures in an apocalyptic world isn't sci-fi?

Look, I just set a group of parameters that means the sci-fi market is oversaturated! Face it the number of Sci-Fi FPS's made over all time far outweighs the number of modern FPSs ever made. People were tired of Sci-Fi or WW2 shooters so game companies decided to make modern FPSs in my mind the Sci-Fi shooter market is over saturated and the economy is balancing it out now with modern FPS games. Don't worry though, there's a large amount of Sci-Fi FPSs coming out next year to 'balance' out modern shooters. Get over it, its called supply and demand and recently people demanded modern shooters instead of the plain old Sci-Fi shooters. Now if you want a game market that isn't saturated I could recommend a FPS western to game developers. A western with no zombies or crazy quests. Either that or a Civil War FPS.

Ignoring your attempt to troll.

halonachos wrote:So a game featuring mutated creatures in an apocalyptic world isn't sci-fi?

It's post-apocalyptic, which does not necessarily indicate sci-fi. Certainly it's nowhere near as much sci-fi as, say, Halo. Hell, STALKER just ripped off a bunch of IRL weapons and gave them different names, and it's basically just a modern setting with an alternate take on history, same with Metro 2033 to an extent, and the upcoming Homefront.

Oh god, really?

I guess Godzilla isn't sci-fi either then?

Considering the presence of giant robots, aliens, genetic manipulation, futuristic weapons (a laser beam which freezes its target, for example), and so on in the series, yes, Godzilla as a whole is sci-fi.

But they also have modern(for the time) vehicles, weapons, and cities present so why is it still considered Sci-Fi?

Considering the MOGURA program and so many other incredibly futuristic fictional weapons utilized by Japan's government in an attempt to control the giant monster problem in the series, it's definitely misleading to claim that they use modern weapons. Basically, what I'm saying is that one can consider post-apocalyptic settings science fiction, but they're really their own category and just plopping them in the science fiction category is misleading and really does them a disservice.

Kinda like when Steam lumps all shooter games into the "action" category instead of giving them their own subcategory.