Jay wrote:
The game should be equal from a gameplay standpoint, yes. Two people meet, they have equal weapons, the person with the quickest reaction time wins. There's nothing wrong with that.
Yes there is a lot wrong in that. Let me guess: You liked Hardcore mode in CoD games?
When two people meet the one that has more situational awareness, the one that has thought of cover and the next 3 places he can take cover at already, the one that can aim and dodge, the one that is overall better should win. Not the one that can spray 2 hits faster.
Jay wrote:
The people that disliked BC2 and keep whining in this thread that they want BF2 again are the same people that spent a million hours playing BF2 and taking advantage of anything they could exploit in order to gain an advantage. BC2 made them play without those exploits so they fucking hated it. For once they were on a level playing field and they realized just how awful they really were outside of their little BF2 cocoon. They're going to hate BF3 even more because they've built up a boatload of expectations.
That last paragraph sums up the difference between people with skill vs talent. The talented don't really care what game you throw at them. They'll be good at it. Hell, they might even want whatever nerfs/buffs come at them because it means new stuff to learn. The conservative types, the types that spent a million hours learning to bash their keyboards in a certain pattern, are going to whine, bitch, cry and moan about everything, for good or ill. They're the type that tea bag and the type that scream at people over comms etc and they're the first to brag about their k/d like it means something. No one likes basement dwelling fags haibai. No one. They don't even like themselves.
Okay that was the biggest load of shit I've read for a while. I "spent a million hours playing BF2" and the reasons I hate BC2 have nothing to do with it being different than BF2. I dislike BC2 because it is a bad, uncompetitive console port that looks horrible, yet doesn't work properly on decent computers. It features heavy mouse lag that makes playing hard as it is. It features piped up map design with horrible chokepoints in most every rush map and overall unthoughtful building and unit placement in nearly every map. It features 3-minute-attention-span point-and-click weapons with no spread or recoil and to top that it is riddled with ridiculous explosives that provide a perfect easy-out for bad players that "don't think you should have to play 60 hours + to be good at a game". It has terrible netcode (yeah worse than BF2) that makes every game feel like you are playing with a ping of 200.
The only thing they did pretty good and is still enjoyable in the game is vehicles.
I was not bad in BC2, not at all. That is not why I dislike it. It just is not a good game. In the same way as MW2 or Blackops are simply not good when compared to older CoD games. Like BC2 they are stripped down console games that provide easy solutions for bad, casual players to abuse without ever actually achieving any level of skill. The thing is, if someone has the dedication to become good at a game, they should NOT be target for one click deaths from players that just got their first fps game. Might sound cruel but dumbed down training wheel games are generally just bad.
Your last paragraph kind of explains everything though. The fact that you even bring up stuff like tea bagging or KD bragging says a lot of you. You seem like the guy that gets mad at getting killed 10 times a row by someone that can actually play, then proceeds to call them a hacker, ragequits the game and goes on a forum to whine about bunny hopping and dolphin diving.
Last edited by DUnlimited (2011-04-19 20:26:49)