[So]MW3 url redirects to Battlefield 3 website

I feel more like vehicles are deathtraps in BC2 in a lot of situations. C4 is so prevalent among assault and sniper classes that you turn your back one time and you get blasted. As for helicopter domination, AT4 is unaffected by the smoke ability and insta-kills any helicopter. Takes skill but its not like there is a shortage of people with AT4 skills at this point.

BC2 does have problems with balance but its certainly not the vehicles. I think they did perfectly well with the vehicle balance on the majority of maps.
 
Skipperlipicus said:
it's impossible to noob up a cod game. there's nothing to that game - all you do is run and gun and try to get more kills than the other team while sharing bongrips with your homies and getting slimjim grease on your xbox controllers.

is it fun? it's ok, i mean i'd rather play it than fifa, but there are so many other shooters out there that put it to shame.
Click to expand...

I'll take that over a bunch of 40 year old military wannabees saying 'yes sir' to orders like 'go left' after sitting in some bushes for 5 mins and calling it strategy
 
|V| said:
I'll take that over a bunch of 40 year old military wannabees saying 'yes sir' to orders like 'go left' after sitting in some bushes for 5 mins and calling it strategy
Click to expand...

i've never played a game of battlefield that was in anyway similar to that...

...other than the 40 year old gamers, which is certainly a welcomed change from the whiny pre-pubescent kids flooding the console scene.
 
Skipperlipicus said:
I couldn't say, I'm not on the dev team and I never went to any E3 type things to demo the game.

But yeah, if you were getting raped in bf2, you'll probably be getting owned in bf3 until you figure things out. Knowing the maps, where vehicles spawn, and what capture points are needed to make them spawn is pretty crucial.
Click to expand...

i think it's not as much getting raped as what the gameplay focuses on

tribes 2 had a great balance (after classic where they made vehicles easier to kill, but increased the overall speed of the game)

bf series feels like a step back...
 
robr0 said:
Not the pace.

The physics of walking, shooting, running, jumping and aiming are all sludgy. It's just not smooth, and severely detracts from the gameplay.

For example

COD / CS = Tribes 1 physics
BF games = Tribes 2 base physics

Something is just terribly off about the physical experience
Click to expand...


Realism is a bitch I guess. Stick with your arcade shooters then, I'll go for simulated combat.

lol, kill streak awards.
 
If you want a solid tactical fps, check out ARMA2 or Operation Flashpoint.
I'm hoping for, and from what I've seen, is that bf3 will be a mix of run n gun and tactical game play.
I like the depth of the tactical shooters, but they fail to deliver the fun, and excitement of run n gun type games.
The obvious answer here is GIANTS!
 
Bad Company 2 isn't the latest iteration of first person combat on the Frostbite engine, Medal of Honor multiplayer is.

I would look to it as to how BF3 will play, with regard to how players move and you shoot your weapons, not Bad Company 2.
 
The CoD games feel tighter and more responsive but it's not even close to game breaking to me.

To suggest that is the primary reason CoD is a more popular franchise (as robr0 seemed to do on page 1) is laughable at best, honestly. They got to the consoles first, they marketed it better, and their games are a lot more simple to just jump into and fuck shit up.

People dramatically overstate how "tactical" Battlefield games are, but people also overstate how clunky the combat is. To me it's just different and slower and something to get used to.

To each his own...I don't own any Kid Rock albums and I'm not a fan of Natty Ice so I stick with Battlefield.

I hope EA doesn't think they're going to sell more copies than Activision this year...people are certainly becoming a bit more skeptical about CoD but they've already proven their fanbase is loyal and as I said before they got their brand out there for consoles a lot earlier. I do wish they'd take a year off and do some real improvements but that'd be like Madden or FIFA skipping a year at this point.
 
Last edited:
I love CoD, never played Battlefield.. The reason why i love CoD is because i can enter a server and just run around and SHOOT STUFF. I don't want to have to run to the other side of the map to find someone to shoot first. Also i like the fact that you are playing with maximally 8 vs 8, small games where I CAN BE THE SUPERSTAR.

But i will probably love the Battlefield series too, it's just that i really don't like vehicles in a game.. :/ BF 3 looks awesome though.
 
EA spends more time trying to shit talk the CoD franchise than actually working on their game. It's basically like free advertisement for Activision.
 
sehvi said:
I love CoD, never played Battlefield.. The reason why i love CoD is because i can enter a server and just run around and SHOOT STUFF. I don't want to have to run to the other side of the map to find someone to shoot first. Also i like the fact that you are playing with maximally 8 vs 8, small games where I CAN BE THE SUPERSTAR.

But i will probably love the Battlefield series too, it's just that i really don't like vehicles in a game.. :/ BF 3 looks awesome though.
Click to expand...

Battlefield 3 will have "infantry only" team deathmatch, probably without squads as well. The micro-destruction and dynamic lighting will bring something not found in CoD games though.
 
sehvi said:
I love CoD, never played Battlefield.. The reason why i love CoD is because i can enter a server and just run around and SHOOT STUFF. I don't want to have to run to the other side of the map to find someone to shoot first. Also i like the fact that you are playing with maximally 8 vs 8, small games where I CAN BE THE SUPERSTAR.

But i will probably love the Battlefield series too, it's just that i really don't like vehicles in a game.. :/ BF 3 looks awesome though.
Click to expand...

I think it's the speed factor that's the reason

that's the #1 thing I can point to when I think of with 'fun', same reason why i preferred tr and lt over base.. you spawn and you're back into the action in a few seconds

downtime is a waste of time
 
|V| said:
I think it's the speed factor that's the reason

that's the #1 thing I can point to when I think of with 'fun', same reason why i preferred tr and lt over base.. you spawn and you're back into the action in a few seconds

downtime is a waste of time
Click to expand...

You and sehvi probably also thought that fy_iceworld was the greatest map ever made for counter-strike.

I prefer a little thinking and sneaking, so i'd play maps like de_nuke, cs_docks, etc.

tweaks their own.
 
robr0 said:
Not the pace.

The physics of walking, shooting, running, jumping and aiming are all sludgy. It's just not smooth, and severely detracts from the gameplay.

For example

COD / CS = Tribes 1 physics
BF games = Tribes 2 base physics

Something is just terribly off about the physical experience
Click to expand...
framerate?

cod4 on console @ 60 fps feels ultra tight

bc2 on console @ 30 fps doesn't feel as good (but i'll sacrifice 30 fps for massive battlefields and vehicles)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top