|
On June 09 2011 09:20 udgnim wrote:there's still going to be plenty of CoD players crying about BF3 not playing like CoD
People say that CoD gameplay is better because they are used to casual games. BF is still kind of casual, but it requires much more strategic thinking than CoD.
CoD players are used to getting a one-shot perk with unlimited ammo and ridiculous quick health regen and just shoot point blank and getting ridiculous kill-streaks.
MW storyline is pretty cool tho, the singleplayer has a lot of engaging cutscenes that sucks you into the game.
But anyways, I'm upgrading my desktop just to be able to play this BF3. :D
|
On June 09 2011 13:34 Hoon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2011 09:20 udgnim wrote:there's still going to be plenty of CoD players crying about BF3 not playing like CoD People say that CoD gameplay is better because they are used to casual games. BF is still kind of casual, but it requires much more strategic thinking than CoD. CoD players are used to getting a one-shot perk with unlimited ammo and ridiculous quick health regen and just shoot point blank and getting ridiculous kill-streaks. MW storyline is pretty cool tho, the singleplayer has a lot of engaging cutscenes that sucks you into the game. But anyways, I'm upgrading my desktop just to be able to play this BF3. :D
The question I have is: Do I die slower in BF in general to CoD? Medic aside, dying fast before you have a chance to react is a frustrating thing.
I like the tactical FPS games like CoD (I mean, if health was a concern I could just play Quake obviously), but CoD's lack of health is annoying, and the biggest factor to it's noob-friendliness.
BF3 will be my attempt to transfer myself from CoD to BF. Hopefully I don't need to upgrade too much.
|
It would be awesome if BF3 can be balanced enough to become a competitive game.
|
On June 09 2011 14:25 skp wrote:
It would be awesome if BF3 can be balanced enough to become a competitive game.
Agreed it could be super awesome to watch like 16 vs 16 pro's playing and stuff. I might drool imagining it ^_^
|
On June 09 2011 14:18 RageOverdose wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2011 13:34 Hoon wrote:On June 09 2011 09:20 udgnim wrote:there's still going to be plenty of CoD players crying about BF3 not playing like CoD People say that CoD gameplay is better because they are used to casual games. BF is still kind of casual, but it requires much more strategic thinking than CoD. CoD players are used to getting a one-shot perk with unlimited ammo and ridiculous quick health regen and just shoot point blank and getting ridiculous kill-streaks. MW storyline is pretty cool tho, the singleplayer has a lot of engaging cutscenes that sucks you into the game. But anyways, I'm upgrading my desktop just to be able to play this BF3. :D The question I have is: Do I die slower in BF in general to CoD? Medic aside, dying fast before you have a chance to react is a frustrating thing. I like the tactical FPS games like CoD (I mean, if health was a concern I could just play Quake obviously), but CoD's lack of health is annoying, and the biggest factor to it's noob-friendliness. BF3 will be my attempt to transfer myself from CoD to BF. Hopefully I don't need to upgrade too much.
The reason why you feel like CoD doesn't give so much health is actually because the weapons do A LOT of damage.
In BF, you die quickly because there are 32 players killing each other with tanks and helicopters, so you actually get killed by the explosions. If you play BF in a straight up fight with no vehicles and no medics, you will notice that it takes much more shots to kill someone. Also, the health regen system is not as forgiving as CoD's, so you can't just keep running and shooting like a madman.
I think that if you take some time to learn how to play BF, you'll love it and you'll never play CoD anymore. You still play CoD because the game feels much more awarding.
+ Show Spoiler +Also, quick scope is retarded.
|
On June 09 2011 14:18 RageOverdose wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2011 13:34 Hoon wrote:On June 09 2011 09:20 udgnim wrote:there's still going to be plenty of CoD players crying about BF3 not playing like CoD People say that CoD gameplay is better because they are used to casual games. BF is still kind of casual, but it requires much more strategic thinking than CoD. CoD players are used to getting a one-shot perk with unlimited ammo and ridiculous quick health regen and just shoot point blank and getting ridiculous kill-streaks. MW storyline is pretty cool tho, the singleplayer has a lot of engaging cutscenes that sucks you into the game. But anyways, I'm upgrading my desktop just to be able to play this BF3. :D The question I have is: Do I die slower in BF in general to CoD? Medic aside, dying fast before you have a chance to react is a frustrating thing. I like the tactical FPS games like CoD (I mean, if health was a concern I could just play Quake obviously), but CoD's lack of health is annoying, and the biggest factor to it's noob-friendliness. BF3 will be my attempt to transfer myself from CoD to BF. Hopefully I don't need to upgrade too much.
COD is not a tactical FPS game it's an arcade shooter.
|
I love how Regenerating Health works in this game. It's how it SHOULD work. No regen if you are being fired upon (suppressed) or enemies directly nearby.
EDIT: Just watched their E3 tank thing at the conference, did he say you can get BF3 for FREE on their Origin website or whatever?
|
To be honest, I've always hated BF's high health.(I play Hard-core mode for this reason.) In BC2 I honestly lost all my will to play when they increased health in Hard-core mode. I understand that you need some health, medics need love too, but I maintain that you should never survive more than 2-3 shots. Ever. (Perhaps a pistol at long range).
As long as in BF3 hard-core mode is implemented, and it's only 1-2 shots to kill someone, I'm happy. I just hate the, "Yeah bro, I just took a .50 cal bullet in my arm. No, no it's fine, my arms only been ripped apart. Nah, Just give me a second, I'll be good to go man." attitude of these modern shooters. =(
|
Not sure what you mean, it always takes on sniper shot to kill me in Hardcore on BC2.
|
Hmm, generally takes me 2 shots. That's without magnum ammo however. It's not un-heard of to get a one shot, but unless it's in your head, or top half of your torso, it's always 2. Which is really frustrating when you pull off a cross map, .8 second of bullet delay shot and they don't go down. (magnum ammo negating this of course.)
That said however, I'm still extremely excited about this game. =) Looks amazing.
|
On June 10 2011 01:10 Warsaurus wrote:
To be honest, I've always hated BF's high health.(I play Hard-core mode for this reason.) In BC2 I honestly lost all my will to play when they increased health in Hard-core mode. I understand that you need some health, medics need love too, but I maintain that you should never survive more than 2-3 shots. Ever. (Perhaps a pistol at long range).
As long as in BF3 hard-core mode is implemented, and it's only 1-2 shots to kill someone, I'm happy. I just hate the, "Yeah bro, I just took a .50 cal bullet in my arm. No, no it's fine, my arms only been ripped apart. Nah, Just give me a second, I'll be good to go man." attitude of these modern shooters. =(
The problem with low health is that it removes much of the skill of a shooter out of a game and allows campers to hide somewhere and get a lucky shot off from their hiding hole. I prefer the 3-5 shot requirement with head shots decreeing that amount by 1-2 shots. That gives you just enough time to have a gun fight in which the player with the better aim has a good chance of winning and not just the guy who was covering a ridge or corner.
|
On June 10 2011 01:28 Jswizzy wrote:
The problem with low health is that it removes much of the skill of a shooter out of a game and allows campers to hide somewhere and get a lucky shot off from their hiding hole. I prefer the 3-5 shot requirement with head shots decreeing that amount by 1-2 shots. That gives you just enough time to have a gun fight in which the player with the better aim has a good chance of winning and not just the guy who was covering a ridge or corner.
I will definitely give you that most gamers prefer that style. But I will counter that skill argument with, a skilled player will not turn corners without either back-up, or knowledge that someone isn't there holding a gun waiting for him. (Or that he knows where the guy is hiding).
I suppose I personally am a little strange, but I don't think camping is as 'nooby' as most imply. Sure, I hate when someone sits in one place for the entire game and gets a score of like, 10-1. But then again, why shouldn't the person sit there and wait for his opponent to turn the corner? If someone wants to turn the corner screaming like a banshee, more power to him, but he shouldn't be surprised when he drops with a bullet in his brain a second later.
And then again, there are ways of dealing with campers. Grenade Launchers (This is actually their intended use.), flash-bangs,(I hope to see them in BF3, don't know if they'll make it or not) alternative routes, grenades in general, and of course, your teammates.
I'll say again, this is my personal preference. I understand that most won't agree with, or like this style of play, but I just hope BF3 includes a small little niche in the hard-core bracket for fans of the game like myself. =)
|
Battlefield 3 will probably be moddable unless they said otherwise so any Cod types of things will surely be removed in any mods.
|
hmm no XP support  .
I guess I finally have a reason to upgrade too windows 7 now...
I can't miss out on this game haha
|
On June 10 2011 02:52 Jakkerr wrote:hmm no XP support . I guess I finally have a reason to upgrade too windows 7 now... I can't miss out on this game haha
Well it's a, what, 11 year old OS? About damn time someone moves on.
Besides, Win 7 is superior in every way.
|
On June 10 2011 02:04 Warsaurus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2011 01:28 Jswizzy wrote:
The problem with low health is that it removes much of the skill of a shooter out of a game and allows campers to hide somewhere and get a lucky shot off from their hiding hole. I prefer the 3-5 shot requirement with head shots decreeing that amount by 1-2 shots. That gives you just enough time to have a gun fight in which the player with the better aim has a good chance of winning and not just the guy who was covering a ridge or corner. I will definitely give you that most gamers prefer that style. But I will counter that skill argument with, a skilled player will not turn corners without either back-up, or knowledge that someone isn't there holding a gun waiting for him. (Or that he knows where the guy is hiding). I suppose I personally am a little strange, but I don't think camping is as 'nooby' as most imply. Sure, I hate when someone sits in one place for the entire game and gets a score of like, 10-1. But then again, why shouldn't the person sit there and wait for his opponent to turn the corner? If someone wants to turn the corner screaming like a banshee, more power to him, but he shouldn't be surprised when he drops with a bullet in his brain a second later. And then again, there are ways of dealing with campers. Grenade Launchers (This is actually their intended use.), flash-bangs,(I hope to see them in BF3, don't know if they'll make it or not) alternative routes, grenades in general, and of course, your teammates. I'll say again, this is my personal preference. I understand that most won't agree with, or like this style of play, but I just hope BF3 includes a small little niche in the hard-core bracket for fans of the game like myself. =)
who cares? The whole argument is still invalid based on the sole reason that you can't have something else being greatly realistic, but the other don't
What I am talking about is of course weapon handling, you can't move and sight or even shoot that accurately so having low health is retarded, going in ''without backup'' is the guy who plays alone argument, heard it many times before and its dumb, what does it even mean?
Going trough a door with many still gets everyone killed. No at extreme low hp's its retarded due to the fact that you can shoot accurately and react so quickly that the other team doesn't have a chance to react themselves. Camping is not noobish, I am an old cs player where patience is everything. But so is skill, it takes skill to get that headshot rather then pound the enemy body.
I rather have a tactical shooter then an arcade shoother where people go ''lulz'' weapon damage is so realistic when it actually isn't in anyway close to reality.
|
^ Well, at this I believe we can respectively disagree with each other. =)
Low HP and high HP are two completely different play-styles. I prefer low HP game-play myself. It takes very high skill in it's own way. This isn't the same skill that a high HP game takes, no, but I maintain that the skill level remains the same, it's just evident in different areas of the game-play (stealth vs twitch reactions, awareness of surroundings, vs quickly navigating terrain.) [You need both for each, but some take precedence] And I like to use parenthesis way too much. =)
|
Canada13422 Posts
On June 10 2011 04:55 Warsaurus wrote:
^ Well, at this I believe we can respectively disagree with each other. =)
Low HP and high HP are two completely different play-styles. I prefer low HP game-play myself. It takes very high skill in it's own way. This isn't the same skill that a high HP game takes, no, but I maintain that the skill level remains the same, it's just evident in different areas of the game-play (stealth vs twitch reactions, awareness of surroundings, vs quickly navigating terrain.) [You need both for each, but some take precedence] And I like to use parenthesis way too much. =)
Yeah low health gameplay for the win. Thats definitely my favourite. I like being careful and aware ans slowly killing enemies as opposed to running around extremely quickly and bunny hopping
|
On June 09 2011 12:14 T0fuuu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 21:08 Divine-Sneaker wrote:
I don't agree with the regen, but the fact that you don't instantly die because some random idiot charged into enemy crossfire, trying to assault a heavily fortified position seems nice. Happens way too often. But that is what makes battlefield so hilarious to play! Like when you get in a chopper with someone that cant fly it! Its so hilarious!
However fun it might be the first time your friend manages to barely hit a seemingly invisible branch of a tree with the tail of the chopper, and thereby flip it over completely, the novelty wears off directly after that.
Retarded and ignorant teammates will always be the bane of online play, it's just that much more apparent when they happen to take 100% control of movement for you.
|
You know what'd be cool? If instead of "low" or "high" health setups, instead they opted for a sort of damage-impairment set up.
Like if you get shot in the leg, you cant run until a medic patches you up... or a shot to the hand means you cant switch weapons as fast or go to ADS fast if it also hits your arms...
or one thing I've always felt shooters needed: helmets that actually deflect a bullet one and a while rather than being just a fancier version of hair... and like maybe your vision blurs a bit after a hit to the noggin or something...
That'd be awesome for a hardcore mode.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
