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.

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...

Unbelievable Melissia, I have to say.

Lie to prove a vendetta against a game, pathetic.

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have an interview about what the creator thinks about how consoles are holding the game industry back, due to their outdated hardware.

Strimen wrote:

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

That shows where my head is.

You're right, it's EA not Activision. Activision controls the other crappy "multiplayer people get preferential treatment" franchise, Call of Duty.

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.

So, ignoring Karon's blatant trolling...

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.

Melissia wrote:BFBC2 is STILL more buggy than most FPS games out there on the PC.

So, so sad *shakes head*

Could have been a much better game if they'd packed on some more polish imo.

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.

Very much so looking forward to this game.

BFBC2 was excellent. (most people who complained about snipers aren't that great or played hardcore to much)

Vehicles fit perfectly in BC2, hope they stay the same way going into this one

Kanluwen wrote:
Considering they've already released a TV promo using that footage--I'd say it's not far from "the finished product".

Yea that's very true.

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.

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.

a fanboy because he enjoys the game? righto.

Murray wrote:a fanboy because he enjoys the game? righto.

No. "Fanboy" is a term used to describe someone who defends something, in spite of all evidence and opinion to the contrary.

Ex: A "George Lucas Fanboy" will defend Jar Jar Binks as a 'creative expression of the downfall of modern society' when in reality he's just dumb.

I should also add that it's an acceptable term to use when someone's response is usually "well if you don't like it, don't complain about it!".

Karon wrote: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?

Because the game is gak.

Meh. The game had good elements, but the bad elements of it ruined all of that.

If you play rush you can't be spawn camped.

If you get spawned in Conquest your team is terrible anyway and it happens.

Tanks can shoot from long distances, but they are still easy to kill them from far away if you do it right.

No prone is a good thing to me, glad it was never in the game.



Its a good game regardless, not perfect but good.

better then the modern warfare series thats camp.. get the nuke or whatever perk and /win.

Games that promote camping = bad

Seems the console vs pc debate is alive and well in this thread!

Spyder68 wrote:If you play rush you can't be spawn camped.

False, I've PARTICIPATED in spawn camping on rush.

Spyder68 wrote:If you get spawned in Conquest your team is terrible anyway and it happens.

Which means nothing to me.

Spyder68 wrote:Tanks can shoot from long distances, but they are still easy to kill them from far away if you do it right.

No they aren't. IF a tank lets itself be hit by a long range rocket, its driver sucks.

Spyder68 wrote:Games that promote camping = bad

So the BF series is bad?

Kanluwen wrote:

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:

Kanluwen wrote:

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.

Kanluwen wrote:
So a recon with a sniper rifle and uses the proximity sensor isn't a sniper?
Huh. Interesting.

Which is why smart players planning on camping with tanks place explosives on the turret spawn points.

Asum! You got it a recon using ball of DOOM isn't a sniper.

Exiting a tank to place explosives kinda ruines the idea of tanking.

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.