Re: Thanks for killing an unique part of the game!
Any changes in BF2 that removes the more "fantastic" elements of gameplay is an improvement. The unbalanced advantages the game was originally released with, appeals more to the Quake/UT crowd.
Fortunately the stable of BF-players, from BF1942 to BF2, prefer game-dynamics that are somewhat believable. No game can ever be "realistic" but it can be believable enough to sustain the illusion that youa re actually on a battlefield.
When you can jump over another soldiers' head, when you can run and then throw yourself, Jown Woo style, and fire more accurately with your light machinegun at an enemy who is standing still and aiming at you all the while, this illusion is disrupted.
Everything else in the game is designed to uphold the illusion of a battlefield - indeed the very name of the game is intended to suggest that it is. All the weapons and vehicles are simulation of objects that you can find in the real world.
How can it be a surprise to anyone that most players prefer something that is believable? How can it (still) be a surprise that EA is trying to meet the demands for believability for BF2?
I don't mind that the Quake/UT crowd joins the rest of us on the battlefield, but keep check your desire to make BF2 a Quake-clone at the door please.
Cheers :-)
Any changes in BF2 that removes the more "fantastic" elements of gameplay is an improvement. The unbalanced advantages the game was originally released with, appeals more to the Quake/UT crowd.
Fortunately the stable of BF-players, from BF1942 to BF2, prefer game-dynamics that are somewhat believable. No game can ever be "realistic" but it can be believable enough to sustain the illusion that youa re actually on a battlefield.
When you can jump over another soldiers' head, when you can run and then throw yourself, Jown Woo style, and fire more accurately with your light machinegun at an enemy who is standing still and aiming at you all the while, this illusion is disrupted.
Everything else in the game is designed to uphold the illusion of a battlefield - indeed the very name of the game is intended to suggest that it is. All the weapons and vehicles are simulation of objects that you can find in the real world.
How can it be a surprise to anyone that most players prefer something that is believable? How can it (still) be a surprise that EA is trying to meet the demands for believability for BF2?
I don't mind that the Quake/UT crowd joins the rest of us on the battlefield, but keep check your desire to make BF2 a Quake-clone at the door please.
Cheers :-)
Comment