|
On January 07 2011 11:42 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 11:27 Taku wrote:On January 07 2011 08:54 RoosterSamurai wrote:
I can think of a couple things that might make BF3 a fun tactical shooter to play.
1) Implement squads and platoons as MAG had done. I know that BF and BC already has squads, but other than spawning in on them, they're kind of useless. Each squad should have it's own objective. It worked pretty well in MAG.
2) Killstreaks should be rewarded by giving command points to the commander that can be used on UAV, artillery, supply drops, etc.
3) Jets and Helicopters. They need to be fluid to fly, and they need to be balanced. If this can be achieved, then it would be a great addition to the game.
4) Don't make snipers overpowered like they were in medal of honor and BC2. Disagree. Well, it seems like you haven't played a lot of Battlefield. 1) Battlefield is based around control points and combat, with some CTF every now and then or objective maps like Battle of Britain or Coral Sea. Adding CoD/BC-type aspects would be a mistake imo. 2) Kill streaks, another cancer that is killing FPS, yet another thing BF has and can do without. 3) I see no problem with the Jets/Choppers in BF2, although I'd prefer Desert Combat-style controls instead  4) Were Snipers ever overpowered in the Battlefield series? =\ 1) It's going to have to be more than a capture the point type of game or it's just going to get overshadowed by MW3. You just have to be honest with yourself on that one. You can't say more players per match = better game. MAG had 256 players per match and it failed because of it's lacking graphics..
battlefield 3 overshadowed by MW3? wut?
Different player bases. Kids who want to spray and pray running around a 100x100 foot map with their golden desert eagles are different than those who want to play a team based FPS.
You dont need more than capture the point modes for bf3. Not sure why you think so.
PS - snipers werent overpowered in BC2. annoying yes, but not OP. Also, killstreaks arnt needed. Gamers dont need an abundance of instant gratification every time they do something in game. Well, i guess if your just some xbox kid or something you would, but team based games like battlefield, and even BC2, dont have them. Killstreaks make getting kills more rewarding than working efficiently as a team aka individualistic play.
|
i really wonder what theyre going to do in BF3 to make it worth being an "official" sequel to BF2. BF2 changed a shitload from the previous games (introduced squads, persitent character that ranks up and unlocks stuff, better class design, etc) and all BFs after that just sorta did the same formula with some tweaks. I honestly wont be that interested if it's just BC2 but with bigger maps and more players. But I dont really have any reason to believe that DICE wont deliver something new and exciting.
|
On January 07 2011 13:57 Ideas wrote:
i really wonder what theyre going to do in BF3 to make it worth being an "official" sequel to BF2. BF2 changed a shitload from the previous games (introduced squads, persitent character that ranks up and unlocks stuff, better class design, etc) and all BFs after that just sorta did the same formula with some tweaks. I honestly wont be that interested if it's just BC2 but with bigger maps and more players. But I dont really have any reason to believe that DICE wont deliver something new and exciting.
Give me Karkand with destructible terrain. No customizable weapons, no killstreak shit, just give me Strike at Karkand with frostbite2. Please don't mess this up Dice, just give me more of BF2 D:
|
On January 07 2011 14:10 Taku wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 13:57 Ideas wrote:
i really wonder what theyre going to do in BF3 to make it worth being an "official" sequel to BF2. BF2 changed a shitload from the previous games (introduced squads, persitent character that ranks up and unlocks stuff, better class design, etc) and all BFs after that just sorta did the same formula with some tweaks. I honestly wont be that interested if it's just BC2 but with bigger maps and more players. But I dont really have any reason to believe that DICE wont deliver something new and exciting. Give me Karkand with destructible terrain. No customizable weapons, no killstreak shit, just give me Strike at Karkand with frostbite2. Please don't mess this up Dice, just give me more of BF2 D:
Don't forget 128 players like Korea got in Battlefield Online 
But yeah.. I know theres pretty much no info on it at the moment but I really hope they go back to WWII with big maps but plus the good new features of BF2/BC series like squads, frostbite and the rush game type.
I'd absolutely love to see a 64v64 rush map that has varied objectives for people to complete.
Also CTF on the small DC "streets" map (name slips my mind) was the greatest thing in the world. It got so hectic with 32v32 with people hooning around in humvees getting spammed with bullets from all sides then jumping out at the last second to try set up a position in a house close to the enemy flag. That's what battlefield is to me. None of this TDM 16 players killstreak rubbish.
|
On January 07 2011 14:10 Taku wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 13:57 Ideas wrote:
i really wonder what theyre going to do in BF3 to make it worth being an "official" sequel to BF2. BF2 changed a shitload from the previous games (introduced squads, persitent character that ranks up and unlocks stuff, better class design, etc) and all BFs after that just sorta did the same formula with some tweaks. I honestly wont be that interested if it's just BC2 but with bigger maps and more players. But I dont really have any reason to believe that DICE wont deliver something new and exciting. Give me Karkand with destructible terrain. No customizable weapons, no killstreak shit, just give me Strike at Karkand with frostbite2. Please don't mess this up Dice, just give me more of BF2 D:
Give me Operation Blue Pearl wel destructable enviroments (Asides the bridge)
*Plant 4 C4 charges at the base of a construction building*
* Detonate*
*Kill the squad at the top of the construction site through building collapse.*
GLORIOUS!
|
On January 07 2011 14:10 Taku wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2011 13:57 Ideas wrote:
i really wonder what theyre going to do in BF3 to make it worth being an "official" sequel to BF2. BF2 changed a shitload from the previous games (introduced squads, persitent character that ranks up and unlocks stuff, better class design, etc) and all BFs after that just sorta did the same formula with some tweaks. I honestly wont be that interested if it's just BC2 but with bigger maps and more players. But I dont really have any reason to believe that DICE wont deliver something new and exciting. Give me Karkand with destructible terrain. No customizable weapons, no killstreak shit, just give me Strike at Karkand with frostbite2. Please don't mess this up Dice, just give me more of BF2 D:
Oh god. That would be glorious.
That is, by far, my favorite map. I used to play it on an infantry only server that I got a really good ping to and just...oh my god. I'd steamroll everyone the whole round.
I eventually got banned for knifing an admin one too many times, and I had 90 kills and less than 10 deaths. I don't remember the exact number. I just remember desperately wanting the 100th kill before the round would end.
I raged pretty hard when I got banned. T_T
|
Battlefield 2142 was the only FPS I ever played seriously. Titan mode was THE SHIT!!!!! While I usually could care less about any FPS, BF 2142 was such a good game that I might be interested in seeing how this comes out.
|
What exactly is titan mode?
I never played 2142 much, but I did play the demo. I just remember one mode having you try to get up to this floating platform to blow stuff up. It was fun going from outdoor combat to suddenly I'm inside a small building (effectively) fighting in hallways.
|
On January 08 2011 04:57 LazyMacro wrote:
What exactly is titan mode?
I never played 2142 much, but I did play the demo. I just remember one mode having you try to get up to this floating platform to blow stuff up. It was fun going from outdoor combat to suddenly I'm inside a small building (effectively) fighting in hallways.
thats titan mode
|
Titan mode was badass, as trying to assault the enemy Titan would always require team coordination because the other teams would camp their consoles with grenade spam and drones. Also, launching pods/jumping from helis, and killing people always give me the lulz. Too bad that moving Titans when the game was released got buggy and caused massive amounts of lag, would've helped the team aspect a lot more.
Strike at Karkand was a lot of fun, especially the 32 player version because there were several avenues of attack, rather than being cramped in 16 player versions, or somewhat too open in the 64 player version.
|
On January 08 2011 04:59 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2011 04:57 LazyMacro wrote:
What exactly is titan mode?
I never played 2142 much, but I did play the demo. I just remember one mode having you try to get up to this floating platform to blow stuff up. It was fun going from outdoor combat to suddenly I'm inside a small building (effectively) fighting in hallways. thats titan mode
Lol, figures.
|
On January 07 2011 13:36 Black[CAT] wrote:
Problem is no XP support. This aint good.
Finally I say. Long enough have games been held back by the DX9, because that's what the ancient consoles are limited to.
|
Another thing that came across my mind and which I'd like to see in BF3: More encouragement for teamwork.
I think BC2 has a nice balance between squad and team cooperation rewards and interaction and single soldiers possibly turning a battle. That's how it should be; less teamwork would turn it into MW, more would make it too hardcore for many players.
However, many players still fail to realize how important it is to throw that motion mine or drop that ammo box. Many also don't seem to check their map for the icons if a player asks for support. If it'd be made easier to work as a squad, teamwork could improve without making the game rely too much on it.
Example: A marker lighting up on screen, showing the player asking for support (obviously, ammo would only light up for assault, healing for medics etc.) and also showing direction and distance to that player.
|
Battlefield 2 is my favourite PC FPS of all time. Mainly because the maps were so big, it was fun working in little squads and exploring the map.
Didn't enjoy Bad Company 2 because the maps were too small and hectic.
|
So I get on Twitter on my phone since I just started using it yesterday, and I notice that EA's community manager posts on a the Battlefield community manager's Twitter:
EA_Goodman @zh1nt0 What could be SO secret that DICE has to cover it up? http://twitpic.com/3orvvk
The picture isn't very...good. I don't know what it is, but the comments are almost all about BF3.
Frankly, the tweet sounds a bit canned. I mean, the publisher is in the dark about the developer's progress? I think they're just trying to get some exposure.
Oh look, I guess it worked.
|
If its going to be released only one PC its gonna be great, otherwise if there will be an Console Version it going to suck.
|
On January 08 2011 05:40 Phelix wrote:
Titan mode was badass, as trying to assault the enemy Titan would always require team coordination because the other teams would camp their consoles with grenade spam and drones. Also, launching pods/jumping from helis, and killing people always give me the lulz. Too bad that moving Titans when the game was released got buggy and caused massive amounts of lag, would've helped the team aspect a lot more.
I thought Titans were an awesome idea that was terribly executed. Like, how do you start working on something like that and not realize til release that it's practically unplayable for anyone not on a high-end machine if you want to move Titans... which is kind of a very large tactical component of the game?
Titans became a nade spamfest at the end but it was kind of cool. It was always just so laggy though, no matter what you did
|
I really miss the fun I had in Rainbow Six3. I played that game so much and I miss the thrill of only having 1 life to get the job done.
Having re-spawns kills the fun for me because no one cares if they die and it makes things less exciting.
Is there and games currently popular that have a survival mode in them? BC2 is okay but they don't offer any 1 life game modes.
|
On January 11 2011 05:43 Saiwa wrote:
If its going to be released only one PC its gonna be great, otherwise if there will be an Console Version it going to suck.
Well this I'm not sure about.
They said they're doing something special for the PC, which implies there's something not special being done for other platforms.
If you remember, BF2 had a console version, but it was a slightly different game under a slightly different name.
As long as the PC version isn't a port from consoles, it'll be fine.
|
On January 11 2011 05:48 Hawk wrote:
I thought Titans were an awesome idea that was terribly executed. Like, how do you start working on something like that and not realize til release that it's practically unplayable for anyone not on a high-end machine if you want to move Titans... which is kind of a very large tactical component of the game?
Titans became a nade spamfest at the end but it was kind of cool. It was always just so laggy though, no matter what you did
I agree, though I do hope at a game mode such as Titan would be implemented in BF3, but unless BF3 takes a futuristic route like 2142, I doubt this would happen.
I think EA is making a conscious decision in not making the game for the XP, I wonder how much of today's gamers still use XP as their operating system, especially with a lot of computers having 4 GBs of RAM. However, I don't want that to happen since my system still runs on XP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
