Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BF2 is much better, period.

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

  • BF2 is much better, period.

    Not even a month has gone by since BF3 was released, I'm already rank 45, have all of the relevant unlocks in infantry and vehicles, and I can't play for more than 30-45 minutes without being bored. Everything I have said previously about this game (funny how CaptainCrunch and others were flaming me for judging too early) came true. It is a shallow game made simply to steal COD fan base. Instead of improving what they do great, which is "teamwork oriented large multiplayer battles with massive gameplay variety", DICE tried to nerf the game down to a point that all the COD crowd would be interested.

    Well guess what, they failed. Not only the game sucks as a COD competition, with a miserably boring single player (COD's single player is years ahead of BF3's and everyone knows that), they also managed to drove all of their PC fan base away, the fans who put them to where they are right now 10 years ago now most likely won't buy another game from them. They outright lied about PC being the lead platform, they obviously underestimated it and midway they realized that they can't have the best of the both worlds, so they made everything console like.

    I have played BF2 the other day, that game is so much better. Its so fulfilling, after playing it for 3 hours, you want to play more and more. You don't care about your rank or your unlocks, its teamwork. Its that feeling of success that makes you want to play more. It's all about the guy in your squad, helping him, giving orders, working as a small squad accomplishing great things in the game.

    This on the other hand is boring as counter strike. It dumbs down the game to the point, you simply don't need any teamwork. Even if you wanted to, there is absolutely no way to have it. There is no VOIP, how are you supposed to communicate without one? Are these people for real? Not everyone is in a clan with 100 other people who share battle log friends lists or team speak servers, for a lot of us who just want to join good/reputable servers, we want to be able to effectively communicate with our squad members. Why is this so hard? I am in a firefight, I have 2 enemy soldiers in front of me, I have 0/0 bullets left, I got a support guy a few hundred feet away, I need to ask him "GIVE ME AMMO", and I CANNOT! I type 3 times in the chat, he doesn't event see it probably, given how ridiculously stupid the chat box is, the commo-rose is completely useless, it doesn't have basic things like "Need medic" or "Need ammo"! Why were such fundamental features were removed from this game?

    Where is the ping? You claim that your lead platform is PC, yet you remove one fundamental feature from it, one that all games, dating back to 1998, have had it, it's called the PING! How hard is it to put it there? How are we supposed to know how good our connection is? Sometimes you end up spending 10 minutes in a server only to realize the reason why you aren't getting any kills is because of bad connection.

    This game is a massive failure, if BF2 was Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan, this is that joke movie twilight saga. It's that massive of a difference between the two.

    Disappointing.

    The worst part is? All those COD fanboys whom DICE tried to steal are now playing COD, COD sold millions of copies more, so all for this were for nothing.

    DICE, we don't want some new functionality in this game. We don't want you to come up with features that didn't exist before. We want CORE features that have been part of all Battlefield games previously in this game.

    - VOIP.
    - Ping.
    - Maps that are not linear and don't promote choke points for success.

    How hard is it?

  • #2
    Re: BF2 is much better, period.

    Stig, we all know you wanted a BF2 replica. It was going to be a failure for you no matter how the game was made. Go back to BF2 and enjoy it. There is nothing wrong with that. It wasnt a land of milk and honey at all, but whatever, you like it and thats all that matters to you.
    Twitter: @CptainCrunch
    Battlelog/Origin: CptainCrunch

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: BF2 is much better, period.

      Originally posted by CptainCrunch
      Stig, we all know you wanted a BF2 replica. It was going to be a failure for you no matter how the game was made. Go back to BF2 and enjoy it. There is nothing wrong with that. It wasnt a land of milk and honey at all, but whatever, you like it and thats all that matters to you.
      I have lowered my bar.... Where have I said in my post I want a replica of BF2? The things I complain about are fairly reasonable, don't you think? VOIP? Ping? Are those also part of the "evolution" of Battlefield series? Come on now. You just want to shoot me down, that's all. We all know you work for DICE in some shape or form, not once I have seen you critique this game, but even then, you are being unfair. DICE have screwed it up, they have screwed it up big time. Rolling a Battlefield game without VOIP? Without Ping? Linear maps? That's insane! If I wanted to linear map, they have a game for that, it's call Call of Duty.

      What made Battlefield games so different was the maps, don't you agree? Look at all of the previous maps from BF games? El Alamein? Karkand? Berlin? You can see some serious thought process went into designing them. You can always out flank your enemy if you play smart. There are choke points, but they don't dictate who wins or loses. Then look at operation metro, what a joke, or the seine crossing. You have got snipers and IRNV noobs camping in one, and mortars in the other one. And you call that a style? Give me a break.

      Stop with "you want BF2 replica", I don't. I want something reasonable, this isn't. And I'm not the only one thinking this way. There are far too many people complaining about this game than there was in BF2. The complaints in BF2's time were "bugs/over powered guns" related. The net code, the blackhawk mini gun, and so on were what people complained about the most. There weren't so many people questioning the direction DICE took with the core gameplay.

      Argue all you want, we all know the truth and it's obvious you are just saying what you are saying for obvious reasons.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: BF2 is much better, period.

        I pretty much agree most maps are horrible, I'm waiting for the 1st patch and Karkand because I don't have the strength to play more than 10 minutes. It's really bad we won't see mods anymore.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: BF2 is much better, period.

          yeah the maps are bad and the lack of VOIP or a decent commo rose is noticeable. i have to admit that after playing for about an hour i tend to go play world of tanks or (gasp) homefront. i also must say bc2 was far more enjoyable and i could play that game all day long. the strike at karkand dlc will help, but it might be too little too late.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: BF2 is much better, period.

            Originally posted by CptainCrunch
            Stig, we all know you wanted a BF2 replica. It was going to be a failure for you no matter how the game was made. Go back to BF2 and enjoy it. There is nothing wrong with that. It wasnt a land of milk and honey at all, but whatever, you like it and thats all that matters to you.
            Now now don't jump on him so quick. I actually have to agree with everything he said. I like the game and I'm fine that it isn't a BF2 replica (I didn't want a BF2 replica ever), but I'm upset with a lot of things with the game. I haven't played it significantly since Skyrim came out because, frankly, it just isn't deep enough, like DerStig says. For some reason, I just can't find myself sitting down for long periods of time playing the game. I haven't had a sitting longer than an hour for some time.

            I'm going to agree with DerStig and say that a huge problem is the lack of teamwork. I don't play with a clan, I don't have friends to play with (), and I join random servers. This is obviously not a recipe for successful teamwork. Still, in BF2, and even BC2, I could join random servers and join a random squad and have some resemblance of teamwork. I don't care about organizing flanking crap and whatever, I just like being in a squad that inherently sticks together and works with each other. For some reason, that is just missing in BF3. There weren't many teamwork features in BC2, but it was there. No one used the VOIP and SL's did issue orders (the only two possible teamwork methods), but the squad play was still there for some inexplicable reason. I have found BF3 to be much more of a lone-wolf kind of game. Squad members are really just mobile spawn points now. Squads are spread out over the entire map with each member doing his own thing. I can't say I've ever had a round where my squad stuck together without one of my friends in my squad.

            So yeah, there is a lack of teamwork IMO, and teamwork is what made the BF games enjoyable. You ever had that feeling where you have to leave, but you don't want to because you don't want to let your squad mates, who have you been playing with for a few rounds, down, even though they are just random dudes you were automatically put into a squad with? For me, that's one of the big things that makes me keep playing, but it isn't in BF3.
            Battlelog/Origin ID - Hurricane043

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: BF2 is much better, period.

              Acoording to Wiki, they were still patching the all-mighty BF2 4 years after its release, so I guess we should have avoided it untill then?
              As has been implied before, nobody who has played the same old game constantly since 2005 are going to be happy about anything that deviates the slightest from the orignal.

              Personally I dumped BF2 as soon as the BF2142 beta was out, and I have never looked back.

              BF3 has flaws and suffer from consoleitis. But give us a decent commo-rose, a few more Conquest Large maps, and maybe a balance pass or two, and the game will be ready to stand as the current BF game in its own right. Regardless of how ancient ancestors did it.

              Comment


              • #8

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: BF2 is much better, period.

                  Originally posted by Anarchy1
                  Now now don't jump on him so quick. I actually have to agree with everything he said. I like the game and I'm fine that it isn't a BF2 replica (I didn't want a BF2 replica ever), but I'm upset with a lot of things with the game. I haven't played it significantly since Skyrim came out because, frankly, it just isn't deep enough, like DerStig says. For some reason, I just can't find myself sitting down for long periods of time playing the game. I haven't had a sitting longer than an hour for some time.

                  I'm going to agree with DerStig and say that a huge problem is the lack of teamwork. I don't play with a clan, I don't have friends to play with (), and I join random servers. This is obviously not a recipe for successful teamwork. Still, in BF2, and even BC2, I could join random servers and join a random squad and have some resemblance of teamwork. I don't care about organizing flanking crap and whatever, I just like being in a squad that inherently sticks together and works with each other. For some reason, that is just missing in BF3. There weren't many teamwork features in BC2, but it was there. No one used the VOIP and SL's did issue orders (the only two possible teamwork methods), but the squad play was still there for some inexplicable reason. I have found BF3 to be much more of a lone-wolf kind of game. Squad members are really just mobile spawn points now. Squads are spread out over the entire map with each member doing his own thing. I can't say I've ever had a round where my squad stuck together without one of my friends in my squad.

                  So yeah, there is a lack of teamwork IMO, and teamwork is what made the BF games enjoyable. You ever had that feeling where you have to leave, but you don't want to because you don't want to let your squad mates, who have you been playing with for a few rounds, down, even though they are just random dudes you were automatically put into a squad with? For me, that's one of the big things that makes me keep playing, but it isn't in BF3.
                  I guess "part" of the teamwork problem, or lack of it more or less, is due to the fact that unlocks are so powerful that people don't need any teamwork to succeed. In most maps in BF2, you needed teamwork to succeed. Your individual skills could take you only so far, that you had to have the help of your squad mates. In BF3, with the 4x scopes, and "grips" and the IRNV, you simply don't need anybody else. The game's class/kit/weapon system is designed in such a way that, any noob, from any background, with any level of commitment to the game, can be the #1 guy in any server, if he/she knows how to exploit the game or in other words, if he/she has the right unlocks.

                  Try the F2000 + IRNV + Grip + Ammo perk combo in any infantry map. You will OWN the entire server if you know what you are doing. I can constantly be #1 in all grand bazaar/seine crossing maps no matter where I am, which team I play with or against. I can get ridiculous KDRs like 4.0 (got 65 kills 12 deaths the other day, ridiculous!). In BF2 on the other hand, you still had great unlocks, they were still overpowered, like the G36C, but you wouldn't be able to dominate the entire server, 64 players full of it, with just relying on unlocks. Give the G36C to an entire side of the server, 32 players of it, have them play against the other side who plays in proper squads with stock guns, the unlocks won't stand a chance against them, and you know what I'm talking about.

                  CaptainCrunch,

                  I'm not sure why you are the way you are, constantly defending BF3, you are so single-minded that, if BF3 were as bad as MOH, you'd still find something to defend it and I don't think that's good. We all have given up the elitist thinking of how BF3 wasn't a proper sequel to BF2, we have let it go long time ago, we are asking for basic things, like balanced maps that require teamwork to play, VOIP, ping, better squad management, nerfed unlocks (get rid of that IRNV for example). We don't have a problem with the core BF3 game play and overall the engine. THAT is the evolution and we are ready to accept that.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: BF2 is much better, period.

                    Meh.

                    BF3 is a new flavor, and it's ok. It's not huge, and it doesn't have the sheer variety (c'mon...ziplines! quad-bikes! night maps!) of BF2 in all it's glory, but it is what a lot of folks wanted. If you remember at launch w/BF2, you would have had to play for about 17 years* straight to unlock everything. I am hoping they do up the ante with the maps in BF3...I'm paying good money for the next expac. They went more towards a casino/slot-machine model--that gratification of "Ping! Unlock!" every few rounds, or EVERY round, starting off--and it is what casino's use for a reason.

                    BF2 is still a great game, if that's your cup. I'll give them the same sort of time to *fix* what is unpopular with BF3, before I buy something else...for a while longer

                    I bought a lifetime vent server for the group I play with in an MMO, and some of us use it in BF3. My suggestion would be to get in a group with a vent (or TS or what have you) server and use that until they implement a squad voip function in BF3. It does make a world of difference, and yes--you are absolutely right--it was A MASSIVE oversight not to build basic voip functionality into BF3. It would be damn near inexcusable, if I didn't have an out and a way to enjoy the game otherwise.

                    Posting on their forums might get a bit more attention, but I'm not sure they pay attention to anything besides $$ signs!

                    I passed on COD/MW/every other fps between BF2, SF, AF, EF and BF3 so I'm certainly no authority on who's copying whatsits markets. Just for full disclosure.

                    *plus or minus 15 years. hey, it's the internets, and we haz made up numbers!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: BF2 is much better, period.

                      Originally posted by DerStig
                      CaptainCrunch,

                      I'm not sure why you are the way you are, constantly defending BF3, you are so single-minded that, if BF3 were as bad as MOH, you'd still find something to defend it and I don't think that's good. We all have given up the elitist thinking of how BF3 wasn't a proper sequel to BF2, we have let it go long time ago, we are asking for basic things, like balanced maps that require teamwork to play, VOIP, ping, better squad management, nerfed unlocks (get rid of that IRNV for example). We don't have a problem with the core BF3 game play and overall the engine. THAT is the evolution and we are ready to accept that.
                      Im single minded? All you want is BF 2.7. You got it, go play it. MOH was garbage, BF3 is not. You didnt give up any "elitist" thinking, look at your post, keep on comparing it to BF2. Youre not ready to accept anything. You wont even wait for a DLC that is a BF2 remake. Its YOUR way or the game sucks. IRNV, sucks. No ingame voip, sucks. No six man squad, sucks.

                      All EA/DICE has to do to make you happy is remove all the extra features, make jets overpowered and AA not work and add the following:

                      Commander
                      Commander assets
                      6 man squads
                      In game voip
                      battle recorder
                      Some other commo rose than what was installed
                      Mod support
                      Get rid of Origin
                      Get rid of Battlelog
                      Add an ingame browser that looks like BF2s.

                      So just do all those things and you'll be good to go.

                      Also, you dont know anything about teamwork. What it was like in BF2 and how you do it in BF3.
                      Twitter: @CptainCrunch
                      Battlelog/Origin: CptainCrunch

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: BF2 is much better, period.

                        Originally posted by anton2k
                        peace!
                        http://csnation.net/showthread.php?3...3-Will-Be-Like
                        Twitter: @CptainCrunch
                        Battlelog/Origin: CptainCrunch

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: BF2 is much better, period.

                          Originally posted by CptainCrunch
                          Why the link CC? I watched the breakdown vid and it more or less supports what I said previously. The bottom line is there are allot of unhappy battlefield gamer's, head on over to EA's battlefield forums if you don't believe, thousands of posts and unhappy customers... WE ARE THE 99%

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: BF2 is much better, period.

                            Originally posted by CptainCrunch
                            Im single minded? All you want is BF 2.7. You got it, go play it. MOH was garbage, BF3 is not. You didnt give up any "elitist" thinking, look at your post, keep on comparing it to BF2. Youre not ready to accept anything. You wont even wait for a DLC that is a BF2 remake. Its YOUR way or the game sucks. IRNV, sucks. No ingame voip, sucks. No six man squad, sucks.

                            All EA/DICE has to do to make you happy is remove all the extra features, make jets overpowered and AA not work and add the following:

                            Commander
                            Commander assets
                            6 man squads
                            In game voip
                            battle recorder
                            Some other commo rose than what was installed
                            Mod support
                            Get rid of Origin
                            Get rid of Battlelog
                            Add an ingame browser that looks like BF2s.

                            So just do all those things and you'll be good to go.

                            Also, you dont know anything about teamwork. What it was like in BF2 and how you do it in BF3.
                            You are making stuff up, I don't want any of those things, what else do I need to say here to convince you that I don't want a BF2 replica? Do you want it in another language? I have accepted many of the things this came came up with, battlelog, 4 man squads, origin, no mod support, battle recorder, I'm fine with all of that. To be fair, I actually liked battle log a lot and origin is nice as well. I'm a software architect myself and many people don't realize how cool battle log is, it allows you to play BF3 "any time", without having to stay and wait in the game. It's pretty nice if you ask me.

                            VOIP and Ping and Maps are major problems which have nothing to do with evolution. How hard is it to understand that? Are you really going to sit there and repeat yourself like a broken record? What did DICE achieve by leaving VOIP and Ping out? They have overlooked it, or they simply underestimated it and didn't have time to do it. That's it. These are key features that have nothing to do with the underlying game architecture and all multiplayer FPS games should have them in my opinion. I cannot believe we are sitting here and fighting about how VOIP is or isn't necessary for this game, in fact, you are probably the only person I have come across who thinks it isn't necessary.

                            The maps problem is even worse. It affects fun and gameplay. A tiny bit of intelligence that was required to play battlefield games is now not even required, any imbecile with a way of clicking a mouse can play it. That's just wrong. I am not asking for giant maps that are miles and miles long, not like Project Reality game play that you had to spend 20 minutes to coordinate before someone fired the first round, no, certainly not. I am talking about variety and teamwork. Two aspects of the core game play. Take sharqi peninsula for example. Think about all of the combinations and variations of small fights that can take place in that map. Each flag has its own place, each requires a different tactic to fight, yet they are not far away from each other, the map has vehicles, but can easily be played without them. Why couldn't DICE stick to that? I could understand making the maps smaller, but that doesn't mean they had to be LINEAR, do you not see the difference?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: BF2 is much better, period.

                              I dont want you to say anything. Every time you do you prove yourself wrong.

                              So, see you around. Not on BF3 Im sure.
                              Twitter: @CptainCrunch
                              Battlelog/Origin: CptainCrunch

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X