just an observation

[jimykx]

Re: just an observation

Thats an interesting quote, considering that we are the ones who have embraced progress, while others have being sticking to a game that is half a decade old.

No worries, they will make a BF3. But the chances of it being a BF2-2 are miniscule.
I am sure that we will get larger maps and more vehicles, but dont expect DICE to roll the gameplay back 10 years. I get the feeling that they are pretty happy with the direction they have being taking it with first BF2142 and later BC2.

Now who do you think are going to like it the most? Those who adapted to BF2142 and BC2 and enjoyed them, or those who have been dismissing all changes with "Not BF2!!!!1!".

And about prone: If someone told you that they were skipping the whole BF series because it had no lean, you would think they were nuts. Try to put things a bit in perspective.

well i loved bf2142. i never understood why people didnt like it . that game with destruction would be a heck of a game. but what i was thinking was, why doing bf3 beeing so similarto bfbc2? then why would i buy it?i mean, if they are going to entitle the game bf3 i am hoping they make it something near the other bf's... what i allways thought of bf was of a war simulation. something between arma and cod, but not as fast as cod, and not as slow as arma, that is why i loved it. to me the game is turning into more cod with vehicles and teamwork, that is beeing lost in my opinion than keeping its track. but when i think of that i think of bfbc, and that bfbc is something diferent from bf, and that when they make a game entitled bf they actually make a bf not a bfbc.

So why not keeping the big warfare, keeping prone and planes, and the ability to actually say what you want to say by pressing q and selecting it. or atleast make it customizable, like noob/casual gamer-style and more pro/vet gamer style, were you would be able to have a simple working method like in bfbc2 were you point and press q, or were you would have your menu like in bf. still today . when i yell at people in bf2/2142 "hey i need a ride" , either it is in english , russian, chinese or mec , they will stop and come back for me 70% of the time, in bfbc i dont remember a single time that happening. the only time it happened it was my clan mate not another random joe.

to me, i see everything is possible, the use of jets, prone ...and so on. it just requires some balancing


i finded intresting what you said about the lean thing. it does not bother me in any way cause the only game i used lean was in swat4. probably cause i have born playing games like bf etc where i wasnt used to lean etc.. but it was intresting to see the cod vets wining about mw2 having no lean, were to me it didnt bothered me at all. guess its just what we are used to and grow up with. its a funny side of the human race.

still i do not see why not implementing great things from bf2 with bfbc2. that would be progress to me.

i fear for the very existence of Battlefield 3.

[troybob]

Re: just an observation

Desert Combat had a lot of offer back in the day. Being able to deploy your own small sand bag fortifications I truly miss.

The trouble is people don't know how good 1942 was. That was 8 years ago and the Halos, CODs and MOHs have dumbed down expectations of a FPS. Now they want it all Michael Bay, pretty, explosive with no substance just eye candy and action.

Read these and tell me if you agree:

http://www.totalgamingnetwork.com/entry.php?157-The-Troybob-Essay-Part-1-Battlefield-Diversification

http://www.totalgamingnetwork.com/entry.php?159-The-Troybob-Essay-Part-2-Maps-and-Strategies

http://www.totalgamingnetwork.com/entry.php?160-The-Troybob-Essay-Part-3-24-vs-64-players

[WolfAlmighty]

Re: just an observation

Thats an interesting quote, considering that we are the ones who have embraced progress, while others have being sticking to a game that is half a decade old.

No worries, they will make a BF3. But the chances of it being a BF2-2 are miniscule.
I am sure that we will get larger maps and more vehicles, but dont expect DICE to roll the gameplay back 10 years. I get the feeling that they are pretty happy with the direction they have being taking it with first BF2142 and later BC2.

Now who do you think are going to like it the most? Those who adapted to BF2142 and BC2 and enjoyed them, or those who have been dismissing all changes with "Not BF2!!!!1!".

Aside from graphics and (debatable) destruction, what part of BC2 could be considered 'progress'? Progress as it relates to Wolfenstein 3D or the original Quake, I'll give you, but just about everything else was a gigantic step backwards from BF2/BF2142. Fewer kits, smaller maps, fewer (and less dangerous) vehicles, lower player count, gimped squads just to name a few. I only got to play BF1942 online a few times due to my inadequate internet connection at the time, but I can see progress between it and BF2 (as well as a bit of regression and an equal amount of sidestepping...overpowered aircraft, non pilotable ships, overpowered medic class, etc.), but BC2 is far more than a simple 'step back' from BF2; it's a full-on regression. I'm all for embracing progress and would love to have called BC2 a game worthy of the 'Battlefield' name, but it's simply not so.

As troybob's essays (which I just now read for the first time...+rep to troybob :thumbsup: ) show, the last few BF games have been far more run-and-gun, quick-action games than BF1942 even pretended to be. Not saying it's bad or that people shouldn't play games like that, but there's already so many FPS like that today that it seems a shame to waste the 'Battlefield' moniker on it and with how popular BC2 is on PC (judging by the Hastings contest at least) given how far removed it is from the original vision of BF1942, it makes many of us wonder if perhaps we've already seen and played the last true 'Battlefield' game five years ago.

You can say that the 'new' style Battlefield games are more popular than the old style and can cite any number of sources or reasons why it is so, but to call it 'progress' is really a gross misuse of the word.

[Vreki]

Re: just an observation

You can say that the 'new' style Battlefield games are more popular than the old style and can cite any number of sources or reasons why it is so, but to call it 'progress' is really a gross misuse of the word.

First of all, It is an entertainment product which has become more popular. That is progress, even though we may not like the way they are doing it.

But what I consider progress since BF2:
The class system. BF2142 had perfected it, but BC2 is still better than BF2. I have no use for more kits if they are useless 95% of the time.
The kit customization. It allows you to customize your play style, without being ridiculous like certain other games.
No Bunny-jumping or Dolphin-diving.
No over-powered vehicles. In fact it is a generally well-balanced game.

The smaller map size and player count does not bother me, because the maps are designed around it. I see plenty of action, while BF2 and BF2142 have often dropped me out in nowhere, or in the middle of a 64 player chokepoint. I never liked 64 player maps anyway, all tactics vent out the window.

As for being worthy of the Battlefield name, consider BF2 with Infantry only Karakand, and BC2:Vietnam's operation Hastings with Helicopters, Tanks and Gunboats. Which one is a Battlefield?
BC2 actually has lots of vehicles if you chose the right maps.

But I do miss the commo rose.

ETA: It this not a Battlefield Moment (TM)?

[LunaTiK TunaLiK]

Re: just an observation

This is exactly why no Battlefield game from here on out will be any different. Give up on prone, get used to health regeneration, 3d spotting is here to stay.

And you know what? I like health regeneration. It means I don't HAVE to be a medic. God knows medics are too stupid to heal me. It's slow enough that it doesn't matter in that fight anyway. If someone killed you, it's not because he auto-healed during the fight. These were among the best jet pilots in the game.

I like the lack of prone, too. Camping and belly-flopping both irritate me in BF games. If they ever got their hitboxes right, insta-proners might not be that bad. But they never get hitboxes to line up, so it's a moot point.

No jets? No problem. Giving one player an "I win" toy that could realistically only be stopped by another jet sucked anyway. If one team had someone who knew how to fly and the other didn't, the game totally sucked. It wasn't "rock-paper-scissors." Jets were like that dickhead kid who would make up **** that always won. "My TNT beats your rock." "My napalm beats your paper." "My jet beats your everything, and ruins any kind of fun that anyone else on the battlefield could possibly have by interrupting everything and raping spawns and generally being lame."

Jets were not the "i win"
How many retards would wait on vehicle spawns played a much larger roll than how well the Jet pilots were doing.

I've seen 150-200 flag comeback on maps like daqing oil field with all jets stolen by the team with more tickets. Strategy owns air superiority. Having the extra troops on the ground can completely swing you the win by coordinating your land based flag assaults while staying under cover.

This just happens to be stuff you don't often see in pugs. I've seen a few communities able to achieve this on some level in pugging. Playing BF2 and previous titles in complete organized gameplay 30v30 was the best experience I've ever got from fps gaming.

While changing the games to compensate the average persons inability to use their brain is the smartest way to make money I will always hope I'll have 1 title to fall onto. (and I do mean dumb, I've also seen some very untalented people play extremely huge roles and even being the key player/s of the round in organized 30v30)

I believe that the FPS market is so saturated in similar games that a pc oriented battlefield titled that sticks to its previous gaming style will be bigger than ever.

I'll admit, I see you as a f'n virus.

[Vreki]

Re: just an observation

This just happens to be stuff you don't often see in pugs. .

But 9 out of 10 will be playing in pugs.
It makes no sense to f. u. the game for them to please a minority that will end up playing their own mods anyway.
The game needs to be balanced around the average player, not the dedicated clan on VOIP.

[LunaTiK TunaLiK]

Re: just an observation

But 9 out of 10 will be playing in pugs.
It makes no sense to f. u. the game for them to please a minority that will end up playing their own mods anyway.
The game needs to be balanced around the average player, not the dedicated clan on VOIP.

I believe that the FPS market is so saturated in similar games that a pc oriented battlefield titled that sticks to its previous gaming style will be bigger than ever.

[Vreki]

Re: just an observation

Where you see "previous gaming style" other see fundamental flaws that have been corrected in later games.
Admit it, you know the virus side will win. The virus is in the majority, and EA is well aware of that.

[LunaTiK TunaLiK]

Re: just an observation

I disagree that making an entirely different game based on console is correcting 'fundamental flaws'

Could BF2 have used more balancing? Of course.

Is there room for jets in a Battlefield line series that fly like they've flown in the past? Of course.
Helicopters? Of course (and no not the kind you find in BC2)
Traditional style of land vehicles? Most definitely.
Prone? absolutely!
PC based: More than EVER!

I'm 100% positive that a game prioritized for PC by DICE that plays similar to past games we've got from the BF series is worth production and could potentially be the largest FPS pc game ever. This doesn't mean that there can't be the spawns we have today that are prioritized for the console.

[jimykx]

Re: just an observation

I disagree that making an entirely different game based on console is correcting 'fundamental flaws'

Could BF2 have used more balancing? Of course.

Is there room for jets in a Battlefield line series that fly like they've flown in the past? Of course.
Helicopters? Of course (and no not the kind you find in BC2)
Traditional style of land vehicles? Most definitely.
Prone? absolutely!
PC based: More than EVER!

I'm 100% positive that a game prioritized for PC by DICE that plays similar to past games we've got from the BF series is worth production and could potentially be the largest FPS pc game ever. This doesn't mean that there can't be the spawns we have today that are prioritized for the console.

i wish you are correct. As mentioned before :

i fear for the very existence of Battlefield 3.

[Amaranthuse]

Re: just an observation

Seems like we have a very divided opinion on how BF3 will turn out or should turn out.

Even though DICE can only satisfy one group, the other group(s) will moan but will play it regardless.

I moaned at BFBC2 because it's suddenly a new play concept than BF2 and 2142, but enjoyed it later on.

[CptainCrunch]

Re: just an observation

Thats the thing with any games. Everyone has their own ideas and opinions on what makes a great game. This thread did really well, but there are many where the people just start trying to out-type each other with various ways of setting up their words to seem correct when its all personal preference anyway.

Whats really bad is how opinions change over time. As the gaming industry shifts and adds/removes things, the ideas shift as well. Prone is a great example of that. How no prone will ruin all games forever and everyone (and I mean 99.X% of everyone) was against removing it. Now its heatedly debated if it was a good move or not. This thread shows how people want aspects of BF2 and BC2 in BF3. Who knows what the outcome will be with console now in the mix of all the decision making.

Crunch

[WolfAlmighty]

Re: just an observation

First of all, It is an entertainment product which has become more popular. That is progress, even though we may not like the way they are doing it.

You and I obviously define progress differently. Just because a game is popular or sells more is not indicative of progress, it's indicative of mainstream opinion.

But what I consider progress since BF2:
The class system. BF2142 had perfected it, but BC2 is still better than BF2. I have no use for more kits if they are useless 95% of the time.
The kit customization. It allows you to customize your play style, without being ridiculous like certain other games.
No Bunny-jumping or Dolphin-diving.

These I'll give you. I always felt that seven classes was overkill. BF1942 had five, which was fine, and BF:V had four - each with two variations. That worked quite nicely as well. BF2142 had it best overall, though. BC2 is a step back from that, but still better than BF2's class oversaturation.

No over-powered vehicles. In fact it is a generally well-balanced game.

BF2142 didn't have overpowered vehicles either (well, I guess a case could be made for putting the APCs with their mortars on maps like Berlin and Belgrade), and aside from the aircraft neither did BF2. BC2's vehicles feel so gimped and fragile that I usually didn't even bother using them. Consider the tracer dart and seeking rockets, the fact that three out of the four classes can destroy vehicles, and the vehicles were essentially made out of papier mâché, this was clearly a game meant to be dominated by infantry. Infantry that felt they should be able to do everything themselves without ever having to switch kits or rely on teammates to deal with threats for which they were not equipped to do so. This goes back to the IO Karkand whiners who griped about tanks being overpowered because they kept respawning as medic or support at the Hotel and marching down nade alley where the tank was still waiting because they and the rest of their brain-dead point whore team didn't think to maybe spawn as AT at Square and get rid of the tank. BC2 is the perfect kind of game for them, which is why they should stick with it and leave BF3 to be made for the rest of us who would spawn AT.

The smaller map size and player count does not bother me, because the maps are designed around it. I see plenty of action, while BF2 and BF2142 have often dropped me out in nowhere, or in the middle of a 64 player chokepoint. I never liked 64 player maps anyway, all tactics vent out the window.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Sounds like you've never played a proper game of BF2 where people are squadded up and there are battles going on at every flag, or at least several smaller battles. BC2's maps are like a giant meatgrinder. Or if you were to take a handful of spiders and put them all in a fishbowl and let them duke it out. Like Thunderdome, with (gimped) tanks. In BF2, if one front is impenetrable due to too many defenders, then it means that another flag or front has few or no defenders and is an easy cap. Sure, if one team decides to make one flag a cluster**** and put their whole team there, the other team won't be able to take the flag, but guess which team will lose the map quite handily?

As for being worthy of the Battlefield name, consider BF2 with Infantry only Karakand, and BC2:Vietnam's operation Hastings with Helicopters, Tanks and Gunboats. Which one is a Battlefield?

Now Vreki, I know you're much smarter than those ninnies who cherry pick their arguments so I'm just going to pretend you didn't say this.

BC2 actually has lots of vehicles if you chose the right maps.

I haven't played since October 1 (if I'm reading my stats page correctly...sounds about right, though) and the only map I could even stand playing by the end of my 125(!) hours was Atacama Conquest. Rush mode was worthless on all maps so never mind that, and even Atacama was only about as much fun as a (non-IO) city map in BF2. Mashtuur was more diverse and open than Atacama, and that was an infantry-centric map. To say nothing of Dragon Valley, Oman, FuShe, Kubra, etc. I obviously haven't played the Vietnam pack but what I'm hearing is that it's more of the same so since I don't have a desire to play the base game it would be a waste of money to buy the expansion. So, while I can't comment directly on Hastings, I get the feeling that my sentiments towards BC2 in general would apply just fine to Vietnam.

Now again, you can say, 'Well you played it for 125h so you must have liked something about the game, right?', which is true, I don't hate the game (I may make it sound that way but most of that is sarcasm ) but it gets old. I played it for about 25h more that I really should have, hoping after a while it would get better but it never did. It was fun while it lasted, but in the end I went back to playing BF2 for my BF fix. Flawed though it may well be, it's still by far the superior 'battlefield' experience (I'd play BF2142 if you could show me a server running big open Conquest maps).

ETA: It this not a Battlefield Moment (TM)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze6nBbxWT_Y&feature=related

Take a look at that video of a game released in 2002 and compare it to your screenshot above and tell me again, where is this progress of which you speak? The picture is battlefield-ish. The video is a Battlefield.

[MrChris_CJ]

Re: just an observation

I think the vehicles in BC2 are close to ok, well helicopters would be fine in a more BF2 environment, e.g. they didn't have to stay 5 feet off the ground, had some space to move etc, flares built in without mods etc

as it is now on a lot of maps where you get helis, especially Rush you just get funnelled towards the AA, which mows you, as it should

just wish there was a bit more variation to AA

otherwise I think the tank balance is good but suffers from the same problem as above, I've no problem absolutely mowing endless amounts of people in a tank or APC in BC2 tbh however a lot of maps simply work against you and you are right that they are more infantry focussed, then again the whole game is, hopefully BF2 strikes a balance (no more ****ing Infantry only ball**** that ruined BF2)

man I have fond memories of mastering the 2142 gunships

I hope BF3 retains the BC2 UAV (for the lols) also a few maps like Valdez where you enter via parachute

that was one thing I absolutely loved about 2142 and that was aerial mobility was extended to the player via pods, podding around was immense, bit of aerial dropping is always good imo

[idontcare]

Re: just an observation

I have great memories about 2142, I wish the Saaw airtube wasnt such a turd, It was fun to get 3 guys with AA tubes to win the skys for your team. But I have to say there were some very good gunship pilots.