|
On June 11 2011 13:08 LoLAdriankat wrote:Show nested quote +I'm not entirely sold on the vehicles though; vehicle killstreaks in CoD where I had to give up mobility and use a crappy launcher and risk getting killed by it or someone else while I was locking onto it was not fun, or even good gameplay. I guess it's better that your team has tanks too, but I don't put a lot of trust in my teammates usually...
Plus I'm worried about destroying cover with big, nasty tanks. I heard it was something you could do in BC2, and cover, to me, is a good thing. In BC2, walls basically evaporated into nothingness. It seems that in Battlefield 3, chunks of buildings will still exist after being hit by an explosion. So if you hit the third story of a building with a tank cannon, pieces of wall will come down on the ground and provide cover for troops on the ground level. So we won't have those moments like in BC2 where every building gets destroyed and everyone is looking at each other on a flat map and it's impossible for infantry to do anything 
But that is the best part of bc2. When a point becomes so hard to capture because all the surrounding cover has holes in it or the roof is blown off and theres endless airstrikes lol.
Anyways that isnt what broke BC2 it was medics with scopes that can revive each other endlessly.
|
On June 11 2011 13:32 T0fuuu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2011 13:08 LoLAdriankat wrote:I'm not entirely sold on the vehicles though; vehicle killstreaks in CoD where I had to give up mobility and use a crappy launcher and risk getting killed by it or someone else while I was locking onto it was not fun, or even good gameplay. I guess it's better that your team has tanks too, but I don't put a lot of trust in my teammates usually...
Plus I'm worried about destroying cover with big, nasty tanks. I heard it was something you could do in BC2, and cover, to me, is a good thing. In BC2, walls basically evaporated into nothingness. It seems that in Battlefield 3, chunks of buildings will still exist after being hit by an explosion. So if you hit the third story of a building with a tank cannon, pieces of wall will come down on the ground and provide cover for troops on the ground level. So we won't have those moments like in BC2 where every building gets destroyed and everyone is looking at each other on a flat map and it's impossible for infantry to do anything But that is the best part of bc2. When a point becomes so hard to capture because all the surrounding cover has holes in it or the roof is blown off and theres endless airstrikes lol. Anyways that isnt what broke BC2 it was medics with scopes that can revive each other endlessly.
Hopefully the ENTIRE map isn't destroyable. While not a major issue with the game, more so with map design, the destroyable cover can get annoying. Like in some maps in Bad Company 2 the entire defense side would be completely annihilated, ruining the game for that side.
This can be avoided though with better map design.
|
On June 11 2011 13:08 LoLAdriankat wrote:Show nested quote +I'm not entirely sold on the vehicles though; vehicle killstreaks in CoD where I had to give up mobility and use a crappy launcher and risk getting killed by it or someone else while I was locking onto it was not fun, or even good gameplay. I guess it's better that your team has tanks too, but I don't put a lot of trust in my teammates usually...
Plus I'm worried about destroying cover with big, nasty tanks. I heard it was something you could do in BC2, and cover, to me, is a good thing. In BC2, walls basically evaporated into nothingness. It seems that in Battlefield 3, chunks of buildings will still exist after being hit by an explosion. So if you hit the third story of a building with a tank cannon, pieces of wall will come down on the ground and provide cover for troops on the ground level. So we won't have those moments like in BC2 where every building gets destroyed and everyone is looking at each other on a flat map and it's impossible for infantry to do anything
Hopefully it isn't too random, but it probably will vary how the rubble falls.
Sounds a lot better though than having a large plain of people running around in plain sight.
|
On June 11 2011 12:50 RageOverdose wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2011 09:30 Hoon wrote:
Don't forget that CoD weapons have no recoil at all. In a regular FPS, if you hold down the 'shoot' button, you get no more than 2 shots before losing control of the weapon. In CoD, you can just get a semi-automatic weapon and kill people with a short burst, which brings "3-5 shots to kill" down to "1 quick burst", which is basically 1-2 shots.
That's not entirely true, but the recoil in CoD is easily manageable for must guns (they have different recoil patterns, and the 47 has the simplest as it only goes up). So in general, if using a gun in BF3 means I need to control it more to get good shots, I'm fine with that. I like the idea of not dying the second I get seen. I'm not entirely sold on the vehicles though; vehicle killstreaks in CoD where I had to give up mobility and use a crappy launcher and risk getting killed by it or someone else while I was locking onto it was not fun, or even good gameplay. I guess it's better that your team has tanks too, but I don't put a lot of trust in my teammates usually... Plus I'm worried about destroying cover with big, nasty tanks. I heard it was something you could do in BC2, and cover, to me, is a good thing. This suppression feature though, it's interesting. I'll have to see it in action to get a feel for if I like it or not. Show nested quote +On June 11 2011 06:48 Jswizzy wrote:How is it trolling to say that I don't consider COD to be a tactical shooter. Maybe we have a different idea about what makes a tactical shooter but to me games like ARMA, Rainbow Six(before Vegas), red orchestra, and America's Army are Tactical Shooters. Battlefield and COD don't play like those games at all. Sure you can use tactics but that doesn't make it a tactical shooter. Having open maps, realistic weapons with sway and recoil, realistic movement, ect make a tactical shooter. Anyways here is what Wikipedia says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_shooter If you want to argue this you can PM me, but I'm not actually talking about it from a pubbing standpoint anyway where things are a LOT different than competitively (it's almost a different game), as I don't pub CoD anymore (it makes me want to kill myself, metaphorically).
Have you ever heard of a game called Black? It is the finest FPS out there. The producer of Black once said "Modern FPS are bad because they purely based on taking cover and trading blind shots." And that's where BFBC1 and BFBC2 shine. You can't simply hide inside a house or camp behind a wall, because the enemy can just burn it down.
You shouldn't be worried about destructible scenario, you should thank it for removing a big part of the campers.
|
On June 11 2011 15:03 Hoon wrote:
Have you ever heard of a game called Black? It is the finest FPS out there. The producer of Black once said "Modern FPS are bad because they purely based on taking cover and trading blind shots." And that's where BFBC1 and BFBC2 shine. You can't simply hide inside a house or camp behind a wall, because the enemy can just burn it down.
You shouldn't be worried about destructible scenario, you should thank it for removing a big part of the campers.
I have played it (one of my favorite console games of that generation) and I had no idea he said that. I like him for it. 
I agree that camping is too crazily strong in CoD, and it's one of the reasons I want to stop playing it. Still, cover is important if you want to escape a fight you know you can't win right there. It shouldn't go away, but things should be tweaked to make camping weaker yet still an option.
Well, camping in the sense that you are holding a position down, not camping in that you are sitting in a corner all day and waiting for someone to just pop up in front of you (or nearby).
|
On June 11 2011 15:08 RageOverdose wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2011 15:03 Hoon wrote:
Have you ever heard of a game called Black? It is the finest FPS out there. The producer of Black once said "Modern FPS are bad because they purely based on taking cover and trading blind shots." And that's where BFBC1 and BFBC2 shine. You can't simply hide inside a house or camp behind a wall, because the enemy can just burn it down.
You shouldn't be worried about destructible scenario, you should thank it for removing a big part of the campers. I have played it (one of my favorite console games of that generation) and I had no idea he said that. I like him for it. I agree that camping is too crazily strong in CoD, and it's one of the reasons I want to stop playing it. Still, cover is important if you want to escape a fight you know you can't win right there. It shouldn't go away, but things should be tweaked to make camping weaker yet still an option. Well, camping in the sense that you are holding a position down, not camping in that you are sitting in a corner all day and waiting for someone to just pop up in front of you (or nearby).
Yeah, there are some maps in BFBC2 that allows the attacking team to just destroy the house where the objective is in and move on to the next target. Of course you get mad as a defender, but I think that it fixes the major "camping to get a high K/D ratio" problem. Specially because in a BFBC2 map, as an attacker, you need to destroy 6+ objectives and most of them can be defended strategically.
|
Xzibit in the end of Battlefield's E3 Day 2 & 3 video cracked me up.
|
On June 11 2011 13:32 T0fuuu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2011 13:08 LoLAdriankat wrote:I'm not entirely sold on the vehicles though; vehicle killstreaks in CoD where I had to give up mobility and use a crappy launcher and risk getting killed by it or someone else while I was locking onto it was not fun, or even good gameplay. I guess it's better that your team has tanks too, but I don't put a lot of trust in my teammates usually...
Plus I'm worried about destroying cover with big, nasty tanks. I heard it was something you could do in BC2, and cover, to me, is a good thing. In BC2, walls basically evaporated into nothingness. It seems that in Battlefield 3, chunks of buildings will still exist after being hit by an explosion. So if you hit the third story of a building with a tank cannon, pieces of wall will come down on the ground and provide cover for troops on the ground level. So we won't have those moments like in BC2 where every building gets destroyed and everyone is looking at each other on a flat map and it's impossible for infantry to do anything But that is the best part of bc2. When a point becomes so hard to capture because all the surrounding cover has holes in it or the roof is blown off and theres endless airstrikes lol. Anyways that isnt what broke BC2 it was medics with scopes that can revive each other endlessly.
The only thing wrong there were the obviously overpowered weapons back then. Today after all the balance patches, a squad of 4 medics is by no means the strongest setup you can have in many situations.
What on the other hand is still broken as fuck is the CG, and choppers being repaired from the inside.
|
I am SOOO ready for this game. The destruction is actually one of the main things that peaked my interested, because I play BC2 and the destruction is okay, but BF3 looks like it takes it to a whole new level.
As mentioned by others above, in BC2 there is more destruction then most other games, but there is still that "block" destruction feel. You can't just blow a lot of small bits out of things, they all seem to be big chunks at once. Battlefield 3 as of right now looks like you will be able to take little bits of things out, not just have to knock out the big chunks everytime.
Also the footage from the MP demo at E3 seemed to have run REALLY well, and it is pretty far from being released. I feel if they can get it to run really smooth, and execute everything really well, this will be one of the best shooters to be released for a long, long time.
|
|
|
Why ? Dont understand the reddit pages. It only says the title. Where is the content of the article ? Its all comments ......
|
Eh, such is business these days. DLC is just another word for expansion pack.
|
|
|
It's gonna be funny when all of the CoD playing 13 year olds who think they're l33t hardcore gamers switch to this (and I know it's going to happen because it's a better fucking game).
|
On June 13 2011 06:22 Xevious wrote:
It's gonna be funny when all of the CoD playing 13 year olds who think they're l33t hardcore gamers switch to this (and I know it's going to happen because it's a better fucking game).
Honestly I hope they don't but then again it happened in BC2 for the first two months so this time will probably be worse. I like the community that Battlefield has right now and would hate to see some of the guys that I had to deal with in MW2 and WAW come over to battlefield.
Edit: Also the DLC is nothing to worry about. It's just a ploy to undercut used game sells just like what EA did with ME2.
|
On June 13 2011 06:22 Xevious wrote:
It's gonna be funny when all of the CoD playing 13 year olds who think they're l33t hardcore gamers switch to this (and I know it's going to happen because it's a better fucking game).
Gamer elitism at its finest. If anything, it will be marketing that is going to switch all the CoD players to BF3. And seeing how mainstream CoD is, I doubt 13 year olds are the only ones that play it.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dSlaK.jpg)
Saw this on the [SFW] Random pics that make you laugh thread. Thought it was somewhat relevant to the above conversation.
|
On June 13 2011 10:07 Jswizzy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2011 06:22 Xevious wrote:
It's gonna be funny when all of the CoD playing 13 year olds who think they're l33t hardcore gamers switch to this (and I know it's going to happen because it's a better fucking game). Honestly I hope they don't but then again it happened in BC2 for the first two months so this time will probably be worse. I like the community that Battlefield has right now and would hate to see some of the guys that I had to deal with in MW2 and WAW come over to battlefield. Edit: Also the DLC is nothing to worry about. It's just a ploy to undercut used game sells just like what EA did with ME2.
The difference is that these are apparently weapons that you can only ever get if you pre-order in a multiplayer shooter which has to worry about balance unlike and RPG.
|
Can anyone clear up the DLC rage? Is it something that is going to effect the game or is it just a moral panic?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
