BF2 is much better, period.

[5t3v0]

Re: BF2 is much better, period.

Um... What strike at karkand were you playing? Surely can't be the one with that massive choke point at the start where you can hold a whole round just there thanks to all the 'nade spam surely.

Well I guess we can all agree that certain things were rushed, but its not too late for DICE to implement them. Vehicle drops werent in the box but they were added during the 1.3 patch in BF2, so I'm fairly certain they can put in VOIP and Ping display in at a later date.

And if you want to see a game that rewards lack of skill, battlefield 3 is not the place to be. I played CoD over the weekend on Xbox. I now realise that I have a level of contempt for my Church friends I was playing it with. Balanced killstreaks my ass.

[Rambo]

Re: BF2 is much better, period.

Bf2 had linear maps lol ,what game where you playing?

Bf2 had the same 4kmx4km maps 1942 had

[DerStig]

Re: BF2 is much better, period.

Um... What strike at karkand were you playing? Surely can't be the one with that massive choke point at the start where you can hold a whole round just there thanks to all the 'nade spam surely.

Well I guess we can all agree that certain things were rushed, but its not too late for DICE to implement them. Vehicle drops werent in the box but they were added during the 1.3 patch in BF2, so I'm fairly certain they can put in VOIP and Ping display in at a later date.

And if you want to see a game that rewards lack of skill, battlefield 3 is not the place to be. I played CoD over the weekend on Xbox. I now realise that I have a level of contempt for my Church friends I was playing it with. Balanced killstreaks my ass.

Surely there were the chokepoints, but you could easily flank the enemy, cap bunch of flags behind the front lines and change the gameplay drastically.

[John Carr]

Re: BF2 is much better, period.

Dude, they were just as bad.

In Dragon Valley, everything went up and down those two roads....
In Karkand, same thing. Start at US base and work down to other flags.
In Operation Clean Sweep, everything flowed along the crescent shape of the island.
In Wake Island, everything flowed on the teeny little strip of land. you were forced to walk one way or the other (or swim)
In Operation Smoke Screen, you were forced to take the roads (can't climb hills)
On Operation Harvest all fighting always ended up at the bridges
on Operation Road Rage, everything went North to South.

I could go on.

I hope you get what I'm saying. While not as linear as BF3's tunnel maps, they still had their issues. Most were designed to have specific choke points and battle areas. And because of that, they all became prone to constant jet bombing and artillery. Only a few BF2 maps were spread out.

[bombebomb]

Re: BF2 is much better, period.

Maybe I am getting old but bf2 was amazing, I played it for a few thousand hours. I quit playing it in 2008ish.

I picked up bad company 2 not having played hardly any shooter since bf2, and I was very happy with the graphics, and the way the game felt.

I get ready for bf3, very excited about it, but the feel of the game is just horrid. I can't stand to play it for more than a few rounds if that. I am trying my best to get into it but I am not getting it

[DerStig]

Re: BF2 is much better, period.

Dude, they were just as bad.

In Dragon Valley, everything went up and down those two roads....
In Karkand, same thing. Start at US base and work down to other flags.
In Operation Clean Sweep, everything flowed along the crescent shape of the island.
In Wake Island, everything flowed on the teeny little strip of land. you were forced to walk one way or the other (or swim)
In Operation Smoke Screen, you were forced to take the roads (can't climb hills)
On Operation Harvest all fighting always ended up at the bridges
on Operation Road Rage, everything went North to South.

I could go on.

I hope you get what I'm saying. While not as linear as BF3's tunnel maps, they still had their issues. Most were designed to have specific choke points and battle areas. And because of that, they all became prone to constant jet bombing and artillery. Only a few BF2 maps were spread out.

I'm sorry but have you seen the metro map? How tight it is? Or the grand bazaar? The B flag in that map is insane!!! Sometimes there are 20 people in that tiny room in that flag! The davamank peak (or something like that) is identical with one giant tunnel! There is absolutely no way to flank in any of these maps. Of course there will be flow and direction, but you should be able to avoid that and strategize the way you want to. You could do that in BF2, you can't in BF3. BF2 maps were far bigger than BF3's, not to mention the distance between each flag was even bigger. The flags in BF3 are way too close to each other. Grand bazaar flags are closer to each other than the two spawn points in DE_DUST2 map in counter strike source!

[DerStig]

Re: BF2 is much better, period.

Read this, I couldn't have said it better myself:

http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/battlefield-3/1390504-dice-have-you-forgotten-integrated-teamwork.html#post19046463

[5t3v0]

Re: BF2 is much better, period.

Bf2 had linear maps lol ,what game where you playing?

Bf2 had the same 4kmx4km maps 1942 had

A lot of that was cut off by boundary or water. Linearity is a strong word that is often used too negatively. Maps were relatively in Battlefield 2, but that didn't make it bad apart from the Karkand-esque chokepoints. The only one I can think of that wasn't off the top of my head was Highway Tampa and the amoured fury maps.

Surely there were the chokepoints, but you could easily flank the enemy, cap bunch of flags behind the front lines and change the gameplay drastically.

Well there are still elements of that in battlefield 3's larger maps, and if Dice decide to turn destruction back up and make use of the fucking engine Forced chokepoints could indeed be a thing of the past. (I will admit, this may be a bit too optimistic)

Read this, I couldn't have said it better myself:

http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/b...l#post19046463

Wow... Sounds like a great game. Sadly I never saw that pubbing BF2 throughout my Online stretches. Its not a fault of the game, its a fault in the gamers. Commander rarely worked well for anyone, I would have LOVED to see it used correctly.

I think ITT we have all forgotten that humans are not to be overestimated. Battlefield 2 is one of my all time favourites, but It wasn't perfect. A lot of the features that were implemented werent used by people, and thats not the games fault. Neither are the current ones apart from the lack of Lan Play and VOIP.

Also, I say this again: The complainers obviously have not played recent CoDs... But I would not like to take that gift away from them...

Also, I seem to recall people having these discussions around BF2's Heyday about it not being like BF1942 enough, and how some of the features you guys are currently defending actually made BF2 worse...

[Anarchy1]

Re: BF2 is much better, period.

BF2 maps were linear, but they were linear on a different scale than the BF3 maps.

From how I see it, the BF3 maps force you into a confined area to fight. Example: Operation Metro. You either go through the massive bottleneck, or you sit in spawn. In BF2, you can decide to go through the bottleneck or you could attempt to flank around it. The bottleneck is really optional. And within the bottleneck, there were multiple ways to go. Example: Karkand. There was obviously a bottleneck at the first flag. But would you enter it by going down the street, through the alley, up the back road, down the waterside bit? Or even, would you try to flank by going the hill-side and sneaking around to Suburbs, would you run down the seaside path (or ground below it that was almost out-of-bounds) and capture a back flag, or would you attempt a sprint up the back street to the hotel?

Simply put, the linearity in BF2 was much more open (if you will) than the linearity in BF3. Another example? Damavand Peak vs. Sharqi Peninsula. What is your method of attack on Damavand? Through the tunnel with has two tiny, camper-prone hallways and an open area with vehicles, or over the tunnel when the rare helicopter spawns and is available (probably happens once every 100 spawns). The sad thing is that Damavand is extremely fun once a team captures one of the back flags while everyone is fighting in the tunnels. Unfortunately, this rarely happens in my experience. And then compare this to Sharqi's main bottleneck that I would consider the area around the left-most three flags. While the battle is still intended to be fought around this area, by no means is it required. Sharqi is a perfect example of a linear infantry map that has tons of flanking options around optional bottlenecks.

[DerStig]

Re: BF2 is much better, period.

BF2 maps were linear, but they were linear on a different scale than the BF3 maps.

From how I see it, the BF3 maps force you into a confined area to fight. Example: Operation Metro. You either go through the massive bottleneck, or you sit in spawn. In BF2, you can decide to go through the bottleneck or you could attempt to flank around it. The bottleneck is really optional. And within the bottleneck, there were multiple ways to go. Example: Karkand. There was obviously a bottleneck at the first flag. But would you enter it by going down the street, through the alley, up the back road, down the waterside bit? Or even, would you try to flank by going the hill-side and sneaking around to Suburbs, would you run down the seaside path (or ground below it that was almost out-of-bounds) and capture a back flag, or would you attempt a sprint up the back street to the hotel?

Simply put, the linearity in BF2 was much more open (if you will) than the linearity in BF3. Another example? Damavand Peak vs. Sharqi Peninsula. What is your method of attack on Damavand? Through the tunnel with has two tiny, camper-prone hallways and an open area with vehicles, or over the tunnel when the rare helicopter spawns and is available (probably happens once every 100 spawns). The sad thing is that Damavand is extremely fun once a team captures one of the back flags while everyone is fighting in the tunnels. Unfortunately, this rarely happens in my experience. And then compare this to Sharqi's main bottleneck that I would consider the area around the left-most three flags. While the battle is still intended to be fought around this area, by no means is it required. Sharqi is a perfect example of a linear infantry map that has tons of flanking options around optional bottlenecks.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I think we are all saying the same thing, the only problem is some "complainers/whiners" are giving us BF veterans bad rep causing this issue of us not accepting the revolution.

My only worry is, the CM (forgot his name z1hn0 or something) does absolutely nothing in terms of gathering feedback. Demize99 used to be more active, but obviously now he isn't. Even this last patch shows how unorganized DICE has become. So many things that they themselves said would be fixed (via their twitter pages) were not. ChatBox, flashlight, the incorrect spawns on dead soldiers/lost flags, IRNV bugs, these were the critical things that we, the community, have reported and they said they'd fix. Until the last day, they claimed these would be fixed, guess what, the patch came out, NONE of them were fixed. Can you imagine a company like DICE whereby the CM has no clue as to what's in a patch in a game like BF3.

I'm in software development business myself (far larger scale than a video game) and I know a thing or two about product management. What's going on in DICE right now is 90% of the dev team who worked on the core game play is already off to their new project, either BC3 or BF4 or whatever they want to sell next. Patches don't make any money to DICE, that's reality. Every man they have is a resource, their name is in an excel sheet in some manager's desktop. They all have a cost associated with that. The smaller the cost is for a patch, the better. Most likely they have some junior developers (at most 5-6) working on these patches with one senior person supervising them. And what happened is, they couldn't make the deadline as they weren't happy with the progress of the changes they made for these bug fixes. So all of us, thousands of people here are thinking that DICE, such a great and big company, must be working on this patch day and night, right? Well not so much, that's just how it is. They could care less about the patch, the only reason they are doing this is to keep our mouths shut just so that they buy enough time until the next game.

DICE wasn't like this though, greed is good like Gordon Gecko said, but this is idiotic and stupid. This isn't greed, if this were greed, they'd be smart enough to keep us happy, because they'd know it's us who will keep their payroll going.

[Elder]

Re: BF2 is much better, period.

I'm sorry, but BF2 didn't have linear maps. Not the 64 or 32 sizes at least. Remember Mashtuur City? Or Strike at Karkand? Or Gulf of Oman? Dragon Valley? Sharqi? I mean come on! That was one thing BF2 did great, map design! Who wins the wars depend heavily on the ability to plan and execute flanks, you know how to flank your enemy, you will win the war. I have spent over 3000 hours scrimming and playing in matches and LAN tournaments, I can tell you once your brain starts executing in that manner, online gameplay goes into a whole new level. Unfortunately you cannot do that in these maps in BF3. Simply because how each team have uncaps in all maps, nobody runs out of tickets, and how flags are so close to each other. There is simply no strategy involved, whoever manages to go from one flag to next faster wins. Well designed maps were one thing BF2 did great (and other BF games too like BF1942, BF2142, el alamein, berlin were all great maps). We can sit down here open up the maps and argue for hours on this one, this is where BF3 is in the thumbs down column of the comparison.

BF2 maps were too sporadic with flag placement and lacked a unified battle. In order for flanking to even occur, you need a front. BF2 never had linear choke points that created battle areas, it was simply playing musical flags (even with 64 people in a server). BF3 maps can be a little too linear on some game modes, but at least it guarantees some action rather then the BF2 alternative of running from flag to flag, killing maybe one person and then chasing the other team around to the next flag. 1942 had better maps than BF2 or BF3, but BF3 so far is still better than BF2.

BF2 was a game that rewarded skill.

Nope.

TV missiles are far too overpowered? Tough sh!t mate, TV missiles are hard to use, requires great expertise

Lol mega-nope.

TV guided missiles are supposed to be over powered, what BF3 could have done would be to making it too difficult to unlock them. I can agree with you on the J10 being overpowered, but J10 was overpowered with respect to F35B, so all they had to do was to nerf J10, instead they nerfed the entire air power, including helis, making them useless.

Air power needed a nerf, there was no counter to it at all. I'm not sure how you can defend this. They did overnerf the air a bit, but choppers are still devastating, and the recent buff to planes has made them at least more relevant. If you think heli's are useless maybe you should check out some of the top crews. The games been out maybe 2 months and I've already seen them do some amazing things and completely dominate scrims.

There was room for change and evolution was necessary for BF2, I agree with you on the fog of war, or destruction, they are great additions to BF3, but dumbing down the game modes, or core game play is a no go. They could have introduced evolution by adding new modes, or making over powered things more difficult to use rather than completely dumbing things down.

BF2 only had ONE game mode... How is adding more game modes "dumbing them down"? The new game modes are fun to play, specifically Rush. I wish they'd add CTF, but right now having conquest, rush, deathmatch, etc, is much better than just having conquest.

What was the point of leaving VOIP out? Can someone please answer this question? What logical reasoning was behind this? This was one thing that was necessary in a game like BF2 (and is in BF3), to play effectively as a team.

Never used it. It was awful quality, could almost never hear what your teammates were saying. TS/Vent/mumble work much better. I don't want to hear some retarded noob talk anyways. Talking to people you don't know is pointless, 9/10 of them won't cooperate anyways.

- What was the point of leaving PING out? This is just out right idiotic.
- Horrible user interface? The chat box? The squad management screens? Not to mention the key bindings and how you can't set different sensitivities for different type of vehicles? I mean who in their right mind expects you to use the SAME SENSITIVITY for both helicopters and tanks? I mean don't you see what's going on here? This has NOTHING TO DO with evolution, this is simply them DUMBING DOWN the game for consoles and remaking it for PCs, not the other way around! These are core FEATURES of the game, they are nothing to do with game play, they are not some game mode or fire mode or game physics. If BF3 were a computer that DICE designed from ground up, their approach to these things would be similar to removing the video cards completely and using a on-board video card built into CPU! That's how retarded this whole thing is.

Probably your only valid point, but we all know how console-like BF3 is already. All we can do is hope that with further patches, there will be more development on the PC interface. Almost every game that's released these days will be console focused, it's just the way the market is going and is unavoidable. It sucks being lied to by Dice, but

I can understand that there are some people who just out right don't want the change. I understand that type of mentality is not productive and not good for anyone, I completely agree. I am not sitting here and shrugging my shoulders and shaking my head and being like "no no no no!"

Pretty much exactly what you're doing.

The games different and nothing near perfect. But it's already better than BF2 could ever be.

42/DC>BF3>BF2.

BC1/BC2/BFV/2142 - Gay & irrelevant

[DerStig]

Re: BF2 is much better, period.

[Infernalis]

Re: BF2 is much better, period.

Yes BF2 had a lot of problems and some were never fixed (musical chairs battle, op air vehicles, horrible accuracy with weapons and some others I forgot) and BF3 is already better even though it suffer from others problems (meh maps) . As for VOIP yes it is useless 95% of the time in vanilla but it was really useful in mods (PR/FH2 and even sometimes in POE2), no mods in BF3 but it's still a plus.

BC1/BC2/BFV/2142 - Gay & irrelevant

Lol no, without them the "main BF" wouldn't be the same and most of them where on the same level as the core BF. The only weak ones were BC1 & 2 and even then they were still good games.

[jimykx]

Re: BF2 is much better, period.

BC1/BC2/BFV/2142 - Gay & irrelevant

I must mention that i found your opinion about bf2142 gay and irrelevant

[captqbec]

Re: BF2 is much better, period.

...for the simple joe's like me, BF3 is just a console game disguised as PC...most of my daughter's girl and boy buddies see it as that, and, although it's a dissapointment, they don't care because they all have xboxes and ps3's...

...for them, it's just another shoot-run-die-spawn thing...till the next hot shooter comes along.....

...just another dumb shooter for me as I'm a little older....duh...

...shoot-run-die-respawn...shoot...run...die....spawn....shoot...ru n....die...spawn....meh....heheh...

Personally, I will never buy a console for gaming, but will go to my kids bud's place to enjoy a "few minutes" of mindless shooting.