Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Technology Behind BF3

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: The Technology Behind BF3

    Like I said, I wouldn't know because it never caught my atention, when it came out it felt like Quake without the rocket launcher; nowadays I can't stand to play it because it feels too old for ME.

    But I still argue that it's a mainstay mostly because there is no CS2 of sorts; CSS is a remake mostly with prettier graphics and updated physics but still feels arcadey to me.

    you may call me a graphics whore and what not, but I feel Battlefield has been moving forward, over the many games it has dared to try new things, some you may like, some you may not; but you can't deny DICE has tried NEW things; that's not up to debate, the ability to find balance and better gameplay, however, is.

    Also I am not implying one game is better than the other; just that they are different and that in my opinion, CS gameplay is stagnated (you could also argue that they haven't been able to "ruin it" because there is no sequel to CSS) or at the very least, frozen in time.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: The Technology Behind BF3

      Also, I think CSS was basically a port of CS 1.6 to the source engine. It didnt have some of the things that condition zero added.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: The Technology Behind BF3

        CSS definitely isn't a port from 1.6.

        Major gameplay differences.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: The Technology Behind BF3

          Originally posted by Kylee!
          CSS definitely isn't a port from 1.6.

          Major gameplay differences.
          Like what?

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: The Technology Behind BF3

            Cs SUcks, were talking about battlefield here friends and cs if compared to any bf isnt even near its knees

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: The Technology Behind BF3

              Originally posted by Kylee!
              CSS definitely isn't a port from 1.6.

              Major gameplay differences.
              Wasnt it the removal of some unbalanced game modes such as VIP?

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: The Technology Behind BF3

                Originally posted by jimykx
                Cs SUcks, were talking about battlefield here friends and cs if compared to any bf isnt even near its knees
                LOL, Jimy, CS entered the discussion as a general analogy, so its OK

                Crunch
                Twitter: @CptainCrunch
                Battlelog/Origin: CptainCrunch

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: The Technology Behind BF3

                  Originally posted by Jonathan_Archer_nx01
                  Like what?
                  The recoil system is totally different (1.6 is harder to get used to), you can shoot through most walls in 1.6, you're more accurate while moving in Source, there are bigger hitboxes in source (most notably those on the head), and tons of other smaller differences.

                  Originally posted by jimykx
                  Cs SUcks, were talking about battlefield here friends and cs if compared to any bf isnt even near its knees
                  I consider CS to be on equal planes with Battlefield, but only the earlier BF's with more depth such as BF2 or 1942 (or BF3?), they're just different games. I still consider CS to be the best competitive multi-player shooter because of its simple format but heavy attention to gameplay detail. Sure its usually just a small map with two bombsites, but the capacity for growth of strategy and skill are the highest out of any infantry game ever, thats not even a matter of opinion.

                  Originally posted by 5t3v0
                  Wasnt it the removal of some unbalanced game modes such as VIP?
                  Uh, idk, I've never played VIP haha.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: The Technology Behind BF3

                    Originally posted by Kylee!
                    I consider CS to be on equal planes with Battlefield, but only the earlier BF's with more depth such as BF2 or 1942 (or BF3?), they're just different games. I still consider CS to be the best competitive multi-player shooter because of its simple format but heavy attention to gameplay detail. Sure its usually just a small map with two bombsites, but the capacity for growth of strategy and skill are the highest out of any infantry game ever, thats not even a matter of opinion.
                    .
                    And don't forget, there are no: "DOUBLE KILL! HEADSHOT! +9000001 points!" kill messages on screen for kills.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X