EPTBattlefield 3 - Page 423
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
rebdomine
6040 Posts
| ||
|
IveReturned
Turkey258 Posts
Look at this shit, calling battlefield nostalgia BattleFIELD is battlefield, not battleCoD! | ||
|
makmeatt
2024 Posts
I played a little of BF2, but I've spent more time raging at people shooting me from all angles without myself being able to spot them at all than actually enjoying the complexity of maps. BF3 seems already big for me and I love it, although I certainly feel several elements of its predecessor's gameplay have gone missing, which is only detrimental for the title, along the overall simplification of it. | ||
|
Shockk
Germany2269 Posts
On March 08 2012 20:43 JohnMadden wrote: Clear up something for me, did people play BF2 because there was little to no gunfighting involved? I played a little of BF2, but I've spent more time raging at people shooting me from all angles without myself being able to spot them at all than actually enjoying the complexity of maps. BF3 seems already big for me and I love it, although I certainly feel several elements of its predecessor's gameplay have gone missing, which is only detrimental for the title, along the overall simplification of it. Yes, people played BF2 because the gameplay promoted peaceful advances and treaties instead of gunfights. The point of large maps is to enable strategic gameplay. Flanks. A runby. Squad-wise advances with cover and suppresion. Vehicles and infantry actually covering each other, with air support sealing the deal. Teamwork. The downside was, obviously, that you had to learn to play the maps. It took some time to find the sweet spots, to know where enemies would probably be due to advantegeous terrain (and where they probably wouldn't be). And it promoted slower gameplay - running around without cover would get you killed. Just like the title said: Battlefield. A battlefield's no place to screw around, to just stand up and run or to advance without knowing what's in front of you. That was what set BF2 apart from other FPS games, and what DICE / EA seem to be intent on slaughtering for the sake of appealing to a broader audience. | ||
|
IveReturned
Turkey258 Posts
On March 08 2012 20:43 JohnMadden wrote: Clear up something for me, did people play BF2 because there was little to no gunfighting involved? I played a little of BF2, but I've spent more time raging at people shooting me from all angles without myself being able to spot them at all than actually enjoying the complexity of maps. BF3 seems already big for me and I love it, although I certainly feel several elements of its predecessor's gameplay have gone missing, which is only detrimental for the title, along the overall simplification of it. there was a lot of gunfights with strategical features like flanking, ambushes, defensive positioning with great ability of movement. now everybody fires and the maps are mainly turned into vehicular Deathmatch. nobody ever ptfo and squad system is worthless. | ||
|
Ushio
Canada868 Posts
On March 08 2012 03:58 Seiniyta wrote: Not to mention, didn't BF2 also had a more infantry focussed dlc/expansion/map-pack? Special forces was actually good, and armored fury/ european were quite good as well | ||
|
Dbars
United States273 Posts
| ||
|
Rob28
Canada705 Posts
On March 08 2012 21:36 Shockk wrote: The point of large maps is to enable strategic gameplay. Flanks. A runby. Squad-wise advances with cover and suppresion. Vehicles and infantry actually covering each other, with air support sealing the deal. Teamwork. The downside was, obviously, that you had to learn to play the maps. It took some time to find the sweet spots, to know where enemies would probably be due to advantegeous terrain (and where they probably wouldn't be). And it promoted slower gameplay - running around without cover would get you killed. Just like the title said: Battlefield. A battlefield's no place to screw around, to just stand up and run or to advance without knowing what's in front of you. That was what set BF2 apart from other FPS games, and what DICE / EA seem to be intent on slaughtering for the sake of appealing to a broader audience. BF3 maps where you can do exactly those types of things (and I do): Caspian, Firestorm, Oman, Sharqui, Karkand, Wake Island, Canals, Kharg Island Non-traditional BF3 maps (CoDish): Sienne, Metro, Bazaar, Davamand How dare DICE make 4 smaller-scale maps in a game they developed themselves at their own cost. So shameful of them to offer a variety of maps that offer different styles of gameplay, and then they have the audacity to put in a filtering system so you can opt to not play them if you don't want to. Really unacceptable to show the other dynamics of combat... the ones that aren't two big forces meeting in an open space to do battle. That never happens in real life! Why did the developers think people wanted to play a "realistic" combat game? How dare they try to make as many people happy as they can. /mockingofgrumpyhaterswithsarcasm EDIT: To the post above this one - There are more Xboxes than high-end computers at the average gamer's house. It's like saying "fine dining is dying because there are more McDonald's than Outback Steakhouses" | ||
|
DyEnasTy
United States3714 Posts
| ||
|
altered
Switzerland646 Posts
On March 08 2012 23:27 Dbars wrote: Its sad, the new DLC with small maps that encourage metro game play will ruin this game. The PC community is pretty much dead. 24k people online on weekends compared to the 70k of xbox. 1.4 million bought the game on pc, 5.5 million bought the game on xbox. So if that what you say is true, more people left the game on xbox. | ||
|
IveReturned
Turkey258 Posts
On March 09 2012 00:02 Rob28 wrote: BF3 maps where you can do exactly those types of things (and I do): Caspian, Firestorm, Oman, Sharqui, Karkand, Wake Island, Canals, Kharg Island NO the difference between firestorm and Paris map is that one is the same length with no walls | ||
|
Shockk
Germany2269 Posts
On March 09 2012 00:02 Rob28 wrote: BF3 maps where you can do exactly those types of things (and I do): Caspian, Firestorm, Oman, Sharqui, Karkand, Wake Island, Canals, Kharg Island Non-traditional BF3 maps (CoDish): Sienne, Metro, Bazaar, Davamand How dare DICE make 4 smaller-scale maps in a game they developed themselves at their own cost. So shameful of them to offer a variety of maps that offer different styles of gameplay, and then they have the audacity to put in a filtering system so you can opt to not play them if you don't want to. Really unacceptable to show the other dynamics of combat... the ones that aren't two big forces meeting in an open space to do battle. That never happens in real life! Why did the developers think people wanted to play a "realistic" combat game? How dare they try to make as many people happy as they can. /mockingofgrumpyhaterswithsarcasm EDIT: To the post above this one - There are more Xboxes than high-end computers at the average gamer's house. It's like saying "fine dining is dying because there are more McDonald's than Outback Steakhouses" I'm all for variety. Infantry combat has its place and I won't deny that I've played awesome rounds of Metro myself. Not every game of BF has to be tank warfare or air domination. But it's the part about "making as many people happy as they can" that's the problem. Battlefield's scope, vehicles and team-based play had set it apart from other FPS games, made it unique in a way that UT, CS or CoD could not rival. Now we've seen BF3 released with "complex" features conveniently gone missing, and we'll get a DLC that sets a clear precedent as an attempt to further appeal to a broader audience by increasing simplicity. If that's not enough, just take a look at BF3's single player campaign, and then tell me with a straight face that's it's not a blatant rip-off of MW3's style (the irony being that MW3's campaign actually is better than DICE's attempt at recreating something similar). EA has proven time and time again that they will not hesitate to transform and potentially ruin a franchise if there's potential for increased sales. Just take a look at what happened to the Command & Conquer series, to name an example that's not Mass Effect. This is what BF fans are afraid of; they're not against people enjoying variety, they're afraid of seeing their franchise going down the drain because executive businessmen wish to maximize their sales by dumbing down the game. | ||
|
Tennet
United States1458 Posts
On March 08 2012 20:05 RaLakedaimon wrote: Those of you that are active make sure to join our new platoon, my name in game is Mathew_1942 for those that don't know and I play quite a bit, only 3 of us got on last night but we had a blast. The last game of the night was hilarious and Tennet you missed out!  WakaDoDo was driving one of the IFV's and spotted a sniper like directly in front and asked what we should do about him and I walked up while he was even looking at me and burned him with my repair torch. haha edit-Oh and I also learned last night that 2 TL guys=no enemy choppers. Oh well, I needed to sleep so it's okay that I missed out. SOFLAM/Jav team is so good, it definitely can make a big difference in who wins. | ||
|
rwrzr
United States1980 Posts
On March 09 2012 00:02 Rob28 wrote: BF3 maps where you can do exactly those types of things (and I do): Caspian, Firestorm, Oman, Sharqui, Karkand, Wake Island, Canals, Kharg Island Non-traditional BF3 maps (CoDish): Sienne, Metro, Bazaar, Davamand How dare DICE make 4 smaller-scale maps in a game they developed themselves at their own cost. So shameful of them to offer a variety of maps that offer different styles of gameplay, and then they have the audacity to put in a filtering system so you can opt to not play them if you don't want to. Really unacceptable to show the other dynamics of combat... the ones that aren't two big forces meeting in an open space to do battle. That never happens in real life! Why did the developers think people wanted to play a "realistic" combat game? How dare they try to make as many people happy as they can. /mockingofgrumpyhaterswithsarcasm EDIT: To the post above this one - There are more Xboxes than high-end computers at the average gamer's house. It's like saying "fine dining is dying because there are more McDonald's than Outback Steakhouses" If Outback Steakhouse equals fine dining in your analogy I can see why BF2 fans are upset. (I get your point though) As for the PC community I feel that the same thing happened in BF:BC2. People played it, enjoyed it for the first 2-3 months, and then tried to compare it to BF2. It wasn't BF2 so they left and it died. | ||
|
altered
Switzerland646 Posts
On March 09 2012 00:47 IveReturned wrote: NO the difference between firestorm and Paris map is that one is the same length with no walls i dont understand what you mean | ||
|
Eisregen
Germany967 Posts
I love rolling in a tank together with my squad and be able to flank the enemy's position crushing them. BF isnt only about large maps, nor big maps. As long as there will be big maps released also in the next DLC, I am ok with it! | ||
|
Divine-Sneaker
Denmark1225 Posts
Before they even think of adding this DLC they need to simply fix all the broken shit associated with the game that makes everyone and their mother, including me, rage hard everytime we play. | ||
|
IveReturned
Turkey258 Posts
the maps and flag distances are still not big enough to have any tactical importance | ||
|
Chriscras
Korea (South)2812 Posts
On March 09 2012 03:59 IveReturned wrote: the maps and flag distances are still not big enough to have any tactical importance When they add helicopters and jets to Seine Crossing, I will add it to my map rotation. | ||
|
Vaelone
Finland4400 Posts
On March 09 2012 04:25 Chriscras wrote: When they add helicopters and jets to Seine Crossing, I will add it to my map rotation. Transport choppers in Seine do sound sort of awesome, was thinking that not too long time ago. Anyway one of the reasons I play Battlefield games is to avoid corridor and tunnel shooters which I do not enjoy, so it's a pity they are adding more of these maps, guess I can just not buy them but I'd rather had more proper maps. | ||
| ||
