[xXx]gh0st's view on Infantry Only (IO)

Re: [xXx]gh0st's view on Infantry Only (IO)

please read all of the pages here before you say it rocks :P

I have come to terms with it coming into our beloved game, but I think people are so resentful because it's not fixing the game. at all.

Heh, yeh it wasnt the most informed comment to be fair. Well its good to hear you accept it coming into the game, me and my friends think its a great idea and will encourage a new level of teamwork, but theres no need to repeat whats already been said.
I can see people being resentful over this 'patch' not really patching anything up, but i like to look at it in a more positive way; that we have a great game, and like all great things it may be flawed, but there are so many good things about it we keep coming back for more like sick puppies. And quite often the people who moan the most are also the people who play the most. I'm sure the gents responsible for the patch are doing their best to please a million different requests, but surely they cannot be expected to meet every need and whim of the massive fanbase?
Cool pic by the way.

Re: [xXx]gh0st's view on Infantry Only (IO)

please read all of the pages here before you say it rocks :P

I have come to terms with it coming into our beloved game, but I think people are so resentful because it's not fixing the game. at all.

Re: [xXx]gh0st's view on Infantry Only (IO)

Infantry Only ROCKS! anyone who disagrees with me can fight my dog!

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: [xXx]gh0st's view on Infantry Only (IO)

how about in compairson to dod, renfield?

LOL, Renfield.

Naw man, I dislike anything that is set pre-current time. That is, I dont like WW2 settings. regardless of how good the game may be. PLUS, I dislike pure shooters, everything CS type where you only have a gun a nade and you play TDM. Even it it varies a bit.

Thats why I stick to SWAT4 and BF2, and probably gonna check out them BF2 mods anytime soon.

As for how much skill does DOD demand, no clue. But from what I can tell- if you know that BF2 acts on random cone of fire and you know the principles of shooting, its easy, and too much luck is mixed in.

I love how VUG took the random cone of fire in SWAT4. You have the first shot at non-moving position which is almost dead-on. Depends on weapons of course. But mostly the first shot, non-moving, is a direct hit. Then, the recoil kicks the random cone of fire in, and you start missing, a LOT.

[Roger Smith]

Re: [xXx]gh0st's view on Infantry Only (IO)

word :)

Re: [xXx]gh0st's view on Infantry Only (IO)

perhaps. I'll admit I only played DoD:S for about 20 minutes lmao, but I thought it was basicly the same. I guess I'll check it out.

[Roger Smith]

Re: [xXx]gh0st's view on Infantry Only (IO)

i agreed with you from the start, i was just commenting on your tastes in games. as for you comment about dod:s being a rip off oc cs:s, those games have nothing in common, bullets actually hurt in dod, regaurdless of weapon, theres proneing, theres actual machineguns, bah, those games are crap in compairison to dod.

cheers :)

how about in compairson to dod, renfield?

[EyeofG]

Re: [xXx]gh0st's view on Infantry Only (IO)

Inf Only would be good with no Jeeps or Apcs o Tanks. But Inf Only could have ALOT of pistol and knife servers.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: [xXx]gh0st's view on Infantry Only (IO)

I personally dont play CS but i take the pi$$ out of some of my germans friends that do .., they ALL swear that aiming+ fireing your weapon in CS takes one helluva lot more skill than it does in BF2.

Obviously i personally cant confirm this but i thought it worth a mention, useful or not.

It does, absolutely no doubt. BF2 is like a n00bfest when it comes to weapon handling. Its different, granted, but its also a lot easier and forgiving. Tactics and outsmarting an opponent is an option in BF2. In CS, its only the case when you get someone COMPLETELT off guard and flashbang them...

[DarQraven]

Re: [xXx]gh0st's view on Infantry Only (IO)

Actually it does take more skill. After I bought CSS (and played it of course) my hit ratio in bf2 went up by 15%.
CSS is just way more fastpaced, the weapons are dead accurate when correctly used (so when faced with a skilled enemy, you die WAY quicker than in bf2), and the movement is different. Except for the weird bunnyhop/dolphindive thing is bf2, the movement is really predictable and slow, making it easier to hit someone. In css people can jump around like a madman (though NOT through exploits) and you'll find yourself having trouble to even hit them, let alone get headhots.

Re: [xXx]gh0st's view on Infantry Only (IO)

CS takes no skill?! I say BF2 is on 2, and CS is on 10, on the scale of demand for skills of FPS.

I personally dont play CS but i take the pi$$ out of some of my germans friends that do .., they ALL swear that aiming+ fireing your weapon in CS takes one helluva lot more skill than it does in BF2.

Obviously i personally cant confirm this but i thought it worth a mention, useful or not.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: [xXx]gh0st's view on Infantry Only (IO)

CS takes no skill?! I say BF2 is on 2, and CS is on 10, on the scale of demand for skills of FPS.

Re: [xXx]gh0st's view on Infantry Only (IO)

i have to say, your taste in fps are kinda arcadey. day of defeat/dod:s are much better ww2 shooters than any version of call of duty ever was. and counter-strike, man thats the most stale unskilled game out there. im not gonna suggest tom clansy games as a replacement because they are ultra realistic (more than realistic, which is bad) but cs rots your skills man, stop playing it!

I was just spitting out some names at the top of my head. I don't really play CS:S anymore, cept for the cool Goldeneye: Souce mod that's out. I was mainly refering to how popular it is and how well Valve has let the community have their way. Same as the Call of Duty series. People will make maps or mini-mods and they will be auto-downloaded to your PC for that specific server. It's great for the mod community and also prolongs the game.

I personally like CoD. It's solid, and well, I love WW2 and they have really good Single Player. DOD:S was meh, its just CS:S skinned.

Point is. What would be so fun in Playing BF2 Infantry Only when all of us here could in fact play Counterstrike/Day of Defeat, Call of Duty, Red Orchestra, Rainbow Six... see my point?

[Roger Smith]

Re: [xXx]gh0st's view on Infantry Only (IO)

If you want to play a real FPS, I would suggest games more fit for it's genuine playstyle like Counterstrike and Call of Duty. Those actually feel and play like a solid FPS.

i have to say, your taste in fps are kinda arcadey. day of defeat/dod:s are much better ww2 shooters than any version of call of duty ever was. and counter-strike, man thats the most stale unskilled game out there. im not gonna suggest tom clansy games as a replacement because they are ultra realistic (more than realistic, which is bad) but cs rots your skills man, stop playing it!

Re: [xXx]gh0st's view on Infantry Only (IO)

Well guess what, you just discovered a new side of the essence of battlefield games. If everyone thought like that, every single sequel would be the same game with better graphics

Have you even played BF1942/Vietnam?

If you have, I think you would undertand what you just said made no sense at all, whatsoever.

The "essence" worked fine back then, and it works fine now. Why change it?

Don't you realize that as far as a first person shooter; BF2 is like running around with rollerskates on. The FPS side of it is clunky and mediocre at best.

If you want to play a real FPS, I would suggest games more fit for it's genuine playstyle like Counterstrike and Call of Duty. Those actually feel and play like a solid FPS.

BF2 does not, however, and well, I think it's because the maps are huge and we have vehicles, but if you take those vehicles out, what do you have?

A sub-par first person shooter. Why would you want that?