Poor BF3

[CptainCrunch]

Re: Poor BF3

There are problems with the game, I think we can all agree with that. The nerfing makes it hard to enjoy the game for what it is. One day your weapons work one way then the next, its very different.

The maps are something to be desired as well, though not all of them and B2K hasnt been the savior of the game like many of the BF 2.7 crowd thought it would be. I really think its because of the mechanics of the game. Air isnt the overpowered thing it was and you cant blow up a tank easily, yet people can survive tank shells.

Its so easy to say how BF3 isnt a true sequal. Its reminds me of those arguments Ive had with others about politics and in the end being called a "bleeding heart libral" or a "NRA carying diehard republican" ON THE SAME TOPIC!

But anyway, it is just a game, but I stand firm on there is no more or less teamwork than when I played BF2.

[Rambo]

Re: Poor BF3

Everyone used metro to rank up crunch.

when i look at your stats i think...

[MrChris_CJ]

Re: Poor BF3

BF2 and teamwork lol

its a game that provides the potential for teamwork, just like BF3 does, however would you find it as much in BF2...nooooooo, I know people love BF2, it was fun, but my god it had some GINORMIGANTUAN flaws that often just made it awful

one of the reasons I bailed out, and hit parachute over BF2142 when it was released

BF3 is ofc no different because it is as always dependent on the people who play the game, whereas in BF2 people often got the illusion that there was teamwork because a jet and heli could just face fuck everything on the server (oh that guy really cares about giving me air support, but you don't know about the 10 other players he just cheated on you with HMMM) more often than not it was just as much a smacktardfest as BF3 is, lots of medics yay, oh wait they were just doing that because they got a shitload of points and had the deadliest weapons in the game

I generally only play BF3 when friends are on, only a handful of times I have played it alone with randomers yet its still fun; some of the maps are awful yes (and so were some of the BF2 ones )

but it is all down to the players, they are the people that can revive but don't, can heal but don't (or take a pro tube), can drop ammo BUT DONT (AAARRRGGGHHHH) can't do all the thought process requiring things needed to make a successful team, like covering proper angles, using MAVs, mortars etc properly

but they don't, because they are dumb as shit

not because the game is noobified, codified

its just that the human race, or the tiny segment that plays Battlefield, has gotten way way way way way more stoopids

[CptainCrunch]

Re: Poor BF3

Everyone used metro to rank up crunch.

when i look at your stats i think...

I didnt use metro to rank up. I used it to get my assignments I wish there was a DVP on metro.

I guess youre still ranking up though.

[H3dgie]

Re: Poor BF3

I see you too wear the goggles

I fail to see how if I don't like something it means Im wearing goggles. By the same token, if I like something, I'm wearing goggles. It's just an observation that annoys me. If I have an opinion, it must be because Im blinded by something..

I also dont feel the hate is perfectly fine. What did you all expect? There was leaked alpha, news on it, an open beta, news on it, more news about it. Video coverage on it. Then the game is released and all we hear is "This isnt BF2!!!" Blinders full steam ahead!

I was on these forums pretty heavily during teh BF2 days, and I also kept tabs on BF3. All the news I read about BF3 was that it was going to blow everything away. I saw the video footage, the pictures. Then I stopped visiting here and eventually bought the game. Ive read since that, after release, they switched lead platforms to a console and didn't tell anyone about it. All the good things promised, didnt materialise the way many of the community had hoped. The only way to form an opinion about something is to buy and play the game. There is certain things about BF3 that is amazing. Everytime I'm running into battle I feel like it's the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan, the atmosphere is incredible. However, in a Battlefield game, I wanted more vehicle play than urban combat. This is urban combat centered, something I never read about. I'm not saying it wasn't said, just that I didn't see it during my lurking. It's similar if I were to buy a Command and Conquer game, expecting to be able to base build and pump units out like no mans business and get stuck with a game like Commandos. Both RTS, but completely different styles of the same genre.

I will still play the game, and it's not that I hate the game, I just feel let down by something that could and should have been better.

[Dronetek]

Re: Poor BF3

I see you too wear the goggles. BF2 had no more teamwork in it than BF3 does, or 2142, or BC2.

Actually, BF2 had way more team work. I'm a dedicated, hardcore Battlefield player and have been since 1942. I can assure you that whatever it was that made BF2 great for team play and competitive tournament play is gone. If it were, out tournament would be back to 8 armies with hundreds of players on each team.

With the friends I play with, we have convoys and go racing to flags and cause destruction and mayhem in BF3. We have a great time doing it.

Well you must just be easier to please. Some of us have higher expectations and more complex brains that require deeper game play. Doing the same thing over and over gets old after a while and that's EXACTLY what the previous Battlefield games avoided. They had almost endless possibilities and game play.

I do agree that the game tried to compete with CoD. Thats the thing with industries, you tend to mimic the leader of it and try to bring in elements of the game to draw in more of the crowd. Good or bad, it is what it is.

It's clearly bad. Battlefield 3 pretty much abandoned everything that made the BF games great in the first place.

I also dont feel the hate is perfectly fine. What did you all expect?

-6 man squads
-Commander
-Large maps
-A game built for the PC (as they promised)
-A functional map/mini map
-The ability to play without constant crashes

Just to name a few things...

There was leaked alpha, news on it, an open beta, news on it, more news about it. Video coverage on it. Then the game is released and all we hear is "This isnt BF2!!!" Blinders full steam ahead!

Because the devs lead us to believe we were getting a "built for the PC", true sequel to Battlefield 2. That's not what it is and you know it. If anything its a sequel to Bad Company 2.

[Anarchy1]

Re: Poor BF3

I have to say that BF2 had more teamwork than BF3 has. And I'm not really sure why. Of course, I had tons of games where there probably wasn't any teamwork, but in many games, there were. I will say that most of the teamwork took place on the smaller maps like Sharqi and Karkand, and on the larger maps like Dragon Valley, everyone in the squad would do their own thing and just use the SL as a way to spawn closer to flags. Depending on whether you played more larger maps or more smaller maps, you probably got a different experience regarding teamwork.

I played a lot of 24/7 Karkand and Sharqi in BF2. In almost every single game on these servers, I could join a squad with a squad leader who would communicate using VOIP and who would issue orders. Most of the squad would stick together (at least 4 of the 6), running around the map capturing flags. The SL would hang back so we could have a constant spawn. Is that present in BF3? Not really. First of all, there is no VOIP. Second, the "order" system is a pathetic attempt at pleasing players who wanted orders. But there are times when I have been in squads where everyone sticks together throughout the game. While there is no VOIP, while the SL may not be giving orders, the teamwork still exists. The potential is there.

How can the teamwork be improved in BF3? I think the best way is to increase the squads to 6 players. It's hard for a squad to work together when there are only two of them. Even in BF2, I would say only a little more than half of the players would work together. In BF2, that would equal 3 or 4 players. In BF3, that equals 2 or, if lucky, 3. Allow for more players to join and there is a larger pool of players for you to potentially work together with.

[K-16]

Re: Poor BF3

Actually, BF2 had way more team work. I'm a dedicated, hardcore Battlefield player and have been since 1942...

Could you please complete the link? I believe you already, but I figured if you wanted to make a reference to your profile then you should probably do so. Thanks in advance.

... Some of us have higher expectations and more complex brains that require deeper game play... They had almost endless possibilities and game play.

Interesting. Could you provide some examples of how your squad takes on a specified capture point in any map of your choice of any predecessor? By which I mean how many ways is there? Because I wouldn't mind giving that a try the next time I go to a LAN cafe or something.

-6 man squads
-Commander
-Large maps
-A game built for the PC (as they promised)
-A functional map/mini map
-The ability to play without constant crashes

Squads I can agree. Not sure why they fixed something that isn't broken. Commander... Is getting an overhaul. Large maps... Already available (I suppose the suggestion is that you want more)... Game built for PC, yeah that was disappointing, but consoles still lack the features PC has (uncapped frame rate, PC user interface, higher player limit per server) so you got that going for you. Functional mini-map... Well that was somewhat degrading over each installment of Battlefield to be honest... I think only Vietnam (for 1942) was an improvement before it just went downhill. But yeah, legitimate complaint. Constant crashes? Patches did nothing?

Because the devs lead us to believe we were getting a "built for the PC", true sequel to Battlefield 2. That's not what it is and you know it. If anything its a sequel to Bad Company 2.

Ok so the disappointment was legit, but I think the actual hate and flaming was in regards to teamwork itself, rather than the features of Battlefield 3. Teamwork involves the player's willingness to do so, and while there could have been better features to encourage such behaviour, the point is that the actual teamplay aspect can be the same as its more favored predecessors.

[LunaTiK TunaLiK]

Re: Poor BF3

The main thing that takes away from the team play people are complaining about is how easy it is to spawn on flags you don't own combined with the fact many maps are a little squished and not to leave out the auto health regen.

[Dronetek]

Re: Poor BF3

Could you please complete the link?

Fixed! :)

http://www.xfire.com/profile/dronetek

[RangerXML]

Re: Poor BF3

Sigh, BF2 had more team work, but in BF3 a good squad can break any match. In my old clan it was about teamwork based squads, you had your role and you did it, in this one too many of the people I'm playing with come from COD games and don't know the first thing about a dedicated role, but when you get a good squad you can cause some serious pain. You go into a server and you find that its mostly one squad has the top scorers and everyone else sorta mixed in below that. Also the good squads tent to have double the points then the next players down because of the way the game rewards helping your team. The only thing that is sorta off is the medic who can single handed get top score on an infantry metro map without a single kill, think halving the revive score would fix that. Besides the broken aspect of giving the Support the explosives and making the sniper useless even to the point where he can't really get that many points in his recon role is sorta funk (10 points for a SOFLAM kill, not cool). Support makes plenty of points with ammo, no need to give him Claymores and now no one can get in behind him when he is raining death, or as I like to do keep the armor from even leaving the enemy base by trapping them with an unending supply of C4 or Jihad Jeeps. I miss the Sniper/Recon/SpecOps class from BFs of yesteryear. I mostly play support like specops anyways (dressed all in Black, a PP-19, Silenced G18 and an unending supply of C4).

/end rant

[MrChris_CJ]

Re: Poor BF3

I'll agree that a lot of the UI stuff in BF3 is awful, like the freaking spawn map, do I understand where I am spawning half of the time, nope, and the diamonds above the minimap that represent flags' need the flag letters inside them etc etc luckily once the maps were learnt, less of an issue but annoying nonetheless

otherwise, a lot of people quote stuff like 6 man squads, commander etc as what "makes a great battlefield game" (oh yeh and the constant crashing, not sure which version of BF2 you were playing, but mine was more fond of the desktop than actually showing me levels)

1942 had NEITHER of those things and plenty of things that BF2 had it also did not have and it was a far better game and a much truer BF title at that

Battlefield games are not defined by BF2, it was also not the best BF title by a long shot

while some good things were lost; or more to the point, simple shit like a UI and map that I can actually look at; other things from BF2 I am fine with them being left out (derp-ommander)

otherwise, true BF game built on the PC...

I'm not quite sure what people expect here, the engine is quite clearly a PC creation, it is the platform on which Frostbite 2 excels

but then its like people on the EA forums explode when the guy says that half way through development they actually had to do some work on the console versions, oh look gameplay aspects that are going to be the same on all platforms, it doesn't matter which one you develop them on, best to do it on the consoles while you are actually making that souped up PC engine work on the breadbin and ecksbawks though

the only changes I really want to BF3, apart from refinements (UI etc) would be VOIP, not that I need that since I use TS but sometimes I would like to be able to SHOUT at some of the morons playing the game

some maps that are a lot more interesting and varied, something like Tampa or something new with more space, Clean Sweep would be nice as well but tbh better to make something new imo than go back to older games (if only we could have Shuhia Taiba )

some of the weapons need more spread and recoil, but like I said refinements...

then I would delete TDM and SQDM from the game and send them into a blackhole, automatically ban all 1000 ticket metro CQ servers and get Chuck Norris to hunt down all the baddies playing the game (the "we want more Metro" type people)

[*FMJ*Power]

Re: Poor BF3

then I would delete TDM and SQDM from the game and send them into a blackhole, automatically ban all 1000 ticket metro CQ servers and get Chuck Norris to hunt down all the baddies playing the game (the "we want more Metro" type people)

Then what would you have? 30 playable CQ servers near you, 28 of which aren't even streaming to any sort of ban list, weren't set up properly so their banlist was never updated and have no admin present with hackers raging about? If it weren't for TDM our server would be sitting empty with the other 85% of the population. There comes a time when you have to ask yourself, If 487,181 copies of the PC version were sold by October 29th then where the hell are all those players? Are you telling me that many player just stopped playing? or that many players just couldn't stomach the game?

I'm not saying players wont adjust but change is always a tougher pill to swallow, too large for some. TDM wasn't our first choice, it was the path we were forced to follow if we wanted to keep a server populated with less than 15 players willing to idle at all times, it's a unbelievably overpopulated server market to try to keep one populated in, If we didn't put the force squad and insane balancer plug in's on our server it would be empty as well, players will stack a team so bad it kills the server in no time flat and you had on average only 4 players on each team actually joining a squad and taking advantage of squad perks.

This is what BF has now become, it's what DICE wanted, a BFBC3 and COD hybrid to snag some of those "millions of players" but the pisspoor netcoding in this game cant provide proper twitchy TDM style gameplay like COD and for some reason players who desire TDM games do not want infantry only conquest, i dont understand it either. I cant even begin to tell you how many head shots i am awarded with when on my end i shot the guy in the torso, it happens so much it starts to make gameplay more of a crap shoot.

[Stev0esque]

Re: Poor BF3

I agree with many points there Chris, and I was one of the BF2 fanboys during the BF2v2142 days.

The trouble is, and most people forget, is that I (and I would of course guess the other people who believe similarly) Feel caught in the middle. There are people on one side saying that "Its too codified! The maps are too small! There is too much going on! not enough of the Battlefield 2 days is coming out!" and on the other hand "The maps are TOO big! Its too Booooring! I want my killstreaks! Vehicles suck! I want more urban maps!"

I hate how I get myself caught in the middle of arguments... ALL THE FUCKING TIME. I never can find an extreme, Im always the moderate... *Grumbles to self*

[jimykx]

Re: Poor BF3

bf2?!?! nope, bf2142 all the way.