Is EA trying to be Fair or Real?

[A$$a$$ination]

Re: Is EA trying to be Fair or Real?

Okay your saying there trying to be Fair

No they are trying to be FUN. As they^ said this is a game that is orientated towards FUN. It is not an army sim. They have tried to keep some authenticity and realism in the game but overall the game should be FUN. At some point more realism = less fun. If they wanted to make it realistic you would run around using the guns that you said but when you got shot, that's game over for you. No respawning, etc. your dead.

[FAST_Ray]

Re: Is EA trying to be Fair or Real?

LOL. Okay i see what your saying, but i wonder now who is going to buy the second game??? Are they gonna try to be real or Fun beacuse the trailers show more Realism instead of fun, same for BF2 trailers

[A$$a$$ination]

Re: Is EA trying to be Fair or Real?

I think you are talking about the expansion, i hope anyway. They show trailers that look realistic to capture your attention and imagination. At the end of the day games are entertainment and the majority of people aren't looking for a hardcore sim to entertain them. I think Dice have done a pretty damn good job of balancing realism with fun in this game.

[FAST_Ray]

Re: Is EA trying to be Fair or Real?

Okay i see your point but i think the consumers should get what they want, not what the producer wants!

[A$$a$$ination]

Re: Is EA trying to be Fair or Real?

I tend to think they have. Look at the sales. The fact is the majority of people like it the way it is. People who like sims are in a minority. Look at all the most popular on-line games over the past 5 years. How many of them have been sims.

[A$$a$$ination]

Re: Is EA trying to be Fair or Real?

Not counting one called 'the sims' of course

[CaptainPuffy]

Re: Is EA trying to be Fair or Real?

See its all about team work though....if the anti tank had a more powerful weapon it would be a uber class....the SMG is meant for self defense....it allows you to spray a large ammount of bullets reasonably accurate to take down enemies between you and your tank.....

Now the AT isn't that bad, if you switch the SMG to single fire and take your time you can land a number of shots on the enemy's upper body...which may not kill them....but it will wear them down for your assault troopers....I'd say the main AT's disadvantage would be its low ammo...which isn't that bad. Dont forget its the Assault's job to protect you from the infantry...its your job to protect the assault from tanks. Its the medic's job to heal first and shoot second...and same goes for the support....I'd rather have more assaults firing, with the support filling their ammo (Especially the AT's ammo) and when everyone is in a good ammo state, then the support lets the metal fly...with 3 assault 2 AT 1 support and 2 medic....nothing on the ground should be able to take you on in a head long battle especially if you communicate.

[[Tex]Headinjury]

Re: Is EA trying to be Fair or Real?

go get Americas Army noob

[CaptainPuffy]

Re: Is EA trying to be Fair or Real?

I sure hope you aren't talking to me...since I know for a fact that you've never seen me play...its a good idea to watch who you call a noob since you never know who might end up handing your ass to you.

[PsychoticPikachu]

Re: Is EA trying to be Fair or Real?

What they should have done (and all FPS for that matter) is have your movement affected by how much damage you've taken. If you get shot and have at least half your life taken, then your sprinting should be disabled. If you're in the red, then the most you should be able to do is slowly walk from your injuries.

That way, if you get shot with the M95, you're in the red and you're cripled. Sounds fair to me without being a one hit kill. Realistic too.

(Only drawback would be a lot more pleas for medics though...)

[A$$a$$ination]

Re: Is EA trying to be Fair or Real?

What they should have done (and all FPS for that matter) is have your movement affected by how much damage you've taken. If you get shot and have at least half your life taken, then your sprinting should be disabled. If you're in the red, then the most you should be able to do is slowly walk from your injuries.

That way, if you get shot with the M95, you're in the red and you're cripled. Sounds fair to me without being a one hit kill. Realistic too.

(Only drawback would be a lot more pleas for medics though...)

That's actually not to bad of an idea

[64K1]

Re: Is EA trying to be Fair or Real?

What they should have done (and all FPS for that matter) is have your movement affected by how much damage you've taken. If you get shot and have at least half your life taken, then your sprinting should be disabled. If you're in the red, then the most you should be able to do is slowly walk from your injuries.

That way, if you get shot with the M95, you're in the red and you're cripled. Sounds fair to me without being a one hit kill. Realistic too.

(Only drawback would be a lot more pleas for medics though...)

That idea's been tried in America's Army. The second you get shot, you're bleeding. Eventually you'll bleed out, unless you've got a good medic in your squad who's willing to risk his ass to come out and bandage yours up. There was also something about taking falls more than ten feet or so high. Land, your either dead, or you're severely injured, forcing you to limp around.

It is a good idea, really. Would make medics infinitely more useful on the battlefield AND would make things a little more realistic.

[FAST_Ray]

Re: Is EA trying to be Fair or Real?

Yeah AA is more realistic than BF2 but all those hackers you see, just puts your mind somewhere else!

[Solid Snake.pt]

Re: Is EA trying to be Fair or Real?

Realism does not automatically equal fun. Why must some people just want more and more realism? AAO might be realistic on some ends, but I gave it a shot again yesterday and got bored to death waiting in between rounds.

About the weapons -- no really, would you want to see ALL classes carry an M16/M4 (sniper aside)? Also, I'm rather surprised no one mention the USMC don't use the M24.

It's a matter of balance and variety. Anti-Tank is meant for... well, anti-tank purposes. :p It'd sort of defeat the purpose if you'd give them an assault rifle, they'd have a much bigger chance to defend themselves when not attacking a tank. The idea is for these classes to stick to their purposes and teamwork with the other combat classes.

I've seen the "cripple" thing in several games which I've played in the past, such as AAO, the Firearms mod for HL... Personally, I don't enjoy it that much. If you're in the open, you're pretty much defenseless. The idea of having the M24 and the M95 set to 95 damage is to give you a chance to take cover somewhere and get a medic, not to be a complete idiot and go prone and look for a sniper. It also causes a bit of boredom in those moments you got shot on some ass-end of the map and need to limp all the way back.

If BF2 is any indication of realistic combat, then USMC soldiers are well trained in the art of bunnyhopping.

[Redh3lix]

Re: Is EA trying to be Fair or Real?

Obviously BF2 was created as a more realistic combat sim in the first place, but sacrifices regarding the weapons within the game for each class must be made to maintain a decent balance for it's players. If you insisted on having the correct weapons for the correct classes, I'm sure you'll find BF2 unbelievably unbalanced.