Let BF2S speak!
Poll
What should Battlefield 3 be more like?
| Battlefield 2 | 93% | 93% - 93 | ||||
| Bad Company 2 | 7% | 7% - 7 | ||||
| Total: 100 | ||||||
Neither. Want it to just bring in the good things from the previous games, take out the bad things, and bring in new cool stuff. Too bad it pretty much won't happen.
Edit: And to the votes of Battlefield 2, seriously. I don't like buying the same fucking game if all it brings is just better graphics.
Edit: And to the votes of Battlefield 2, seriously. I don't like buying the same fucking game if all it brings is just better graphics.
Last edited by War Man (2011-02-08 22:17:01)
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
I don't want man points.
and the question is what should it be MORE like...and of course it should be more like bf2... because it is bf3 and not bfbc3...
and the question is what should it be MORE like...and of course it should be more like bf2... because it is bf3 and not bfbc3...
...
More like BF2, but BC2 has some valuable additions as well.
Bad Company 2; great game, awesome mechanics, perfect balance. I still play it these days. Did you honestly think I was going to vote for the facepalm points and not the man points? Silly newbie.
Last edited by mtb0minime (2011-02-08 23:27:25)
WarMan is right. BF2 did allot of things right, but it did way more shit wrong than any of you morons want to admit.War Man wrote:
Neither. Want it to just bring in the good things from the previous games, take out the bad things, and bring in new cool stuff. Too bad it pretty much won't happen.
Edit: And to the votes of Battlefield 2, seriously. I don't like buying the same fucking game if all it brings is just better graphics.
BC2 also, it did allot of shit wrong, but yet again, it did allot of shit right also.
With what limited info we have, it seems like DICE is trying to both advance the series, bring back some depth and placate as many "BF2 was the best game ever and BF3 should be identical" losers as possible.
Oh come on, if there was a HD remake of BF2, I bet you'd buy it anyway. Anyway, there's 'more like' and then there's 'same game as.' One's not necessarily the other. There's more cool stuff to bring in from 1942 - 2 than there is from BC2, except for destructible cover, great audio and good (by recent standards) graphics.War Man wrote:
Neither. Want it to just bring in the good things from the previous games, take out the bad things, and bring in new cool stuff. Too bad it pretty much won't happen.
Edit: And to the votes of Battlefield 2, seriously. I don't like buying the same fucking game if all it brings is just better graphics.
In this respect, I think BF2's model is the superior one. Large games, vehicle oriented (unless disabled) teamplay with working VOIP, individual squads and a commander slot for the RTS lovers. Anything you can tack onto it, like new maps, new gear, new engine, graphics, audio, physics...all of that is just icing on a cake dried out by BC/BC2's attempts to cater specifically to the console crowd.
BF2 did have its issues. They nerfed shit that didn't need nerfed while ignoring larger problems (I can't believe the MEC chopper still has that gunner seat of infantry doom after they killed the Blackhawk). But I'm pretty much going to restate what I've already said:Doctor Strangelove wrote:
WarMan is right. BF2 did allot of things right, but it did way more shit wrong than any of you morons want to admit.
BC2 also, it did allot of shit wrong, but yet again, it did allot of shit right also.
With what limited info we have, it seems like DICE is trying to both advance the series, bring back some depth and placate as many "BF2 was the best game ever and BF3 should be identical" losers as possible.
I don't want BF3 to be BF2, but I would far rather see them orient BF3 for the enjoyment of the BF2 crowd than cater to lame traditions set by the Bad Company series. It's going to be the spiritual successor to one or the other, but sadly it looks like it's going to be BC2.
Why isn't there an option for both?
Because the best of both worlds wouldn't really root out what people want BF3 to be a spiritual successor to. BF2 and BC2 may share the same Battlefield name, but are hardly similar.
War Man wrote:
Neither. Want it to just bring in the good things from the previous games, take out the bad things, and bring in new cool stuff. Too bad it pretty much won't happen.
Edit: And to the votes of Battlefield 2, seriously. I don't like buying the same fucking game if all it brings is just better graphics.
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
I want:
- Vehicles that handle appropriately (Think, BF2 aircraft handling + BF-BC2 vehicle handling).
- Authentically modeled weapons (No more ejection ports on the wrong side and all that fucking scumbag dev bullshit)
- Good maps, this means BF2 maps, no more of that BC2 funneling bullshit because consoles can't handle more players so they concentrate the action.
- No regenerating health, the BF2142 health and ammo system was perfect.
- No perks, that's for Call of Duty, keep it fun and simple
- Quit the ridiculous amounts of XP rewards for dumb things. I feel like a fucking kid that needs to be given a candy for everything I accomplish.
- Ranking system unlocks weapons, period.
- Walking pace when not sprinting
- Headshots from any primary weapon (not pistol) are insta-kills from any distance.
I hate how games are taking this pussy-pleasing path to rewarding children for getting two or three kils without dying with a big message saying MULTI-KILL and giving them a ton of XP. Everything is becoming easier, movement is faster, no more crouching, etc.
I voted for BF2. Bf2 was a near-perfect game bar a few gameplay issues.
- Vehicles that handle appropriately (Think, BF2 aircraft handling + BF-BC2 vehicle handling).
- Authentically modeled weapons (No more ejection ports on the wrong side and all that fucking scumbag dev bullshit)
- Good maps, this means BF2 maps, no more of that BC2 funneling bullshit because consoles can't handle more players so they concentrate the action.
- No regenerating health, the BF2142 health and ammo system was perfect.
- No perks, that's for Call of Duty, keep it fun and simple
- Quit the ridiculous amounts of XP rewards for dumb things. I feel like a fucking kid that needs to be given a candy for everything I accomplish.
- Ranking system unlocks weapons, period.
- Walking pace when not sprinting
- Headshots from any primary weapon (not pistol) are insta-kills from any distance.
I hate how games are taking this pussy-pleasing path to rewarding children for getting two or three kils without dying with a big message saying MULTI-KILL and giving them a ton of XP. Everything is becoming easier, movement is faster, no more crouching, etc.
I voted for BF2. Bf2 was a near-perfect game bar a few gameplay issues.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
How about:-Sh1fty- wrote:
- Headshots from any primary weapon (not pistol) are insta-kills from any distance.
Sniper rifles & heavy munitions: 100% chance of headshot kill
Shotguns within roughly 3 meters: 80% chance of headshot kill
Assault rifles, LMG's, SMG's and similar 'medium-caliber' weapons: 40% chance of headshot kill
All other firearms: 20% chance of headshot kill
Where 'headshot kill' = remaining health bypassed. Of course, damage will still be done if the roll fails.
To counter this, I would also like to see a little shove applied to anyone shot in the torso with a firearm, which in a split second could make the safer shot a bit more rewarding. Chance for knockdowns for non-lethal anti-materiel hits, perhaps, or for people getting shoved hard enough and still somehow living. Nearby explosions from vehicles, bombs and other ordnance apply. Might also quell some of that "WHERE'S THE SNIPER" whining.
I'd also like to see 'burning' aircraft lose control and spin out for epic cinematic crashes, if they don't blow up in mid-air. Blowing a rotor on a helicopter would be pretty satisfying, and the warning bells inside the cockpit would be awesome.
A head shot from any bullet firing weapon at close range should be a one shot kill, regardless. At medium range, pistols and sub machine-guns take two+ shots, while everything else remains 1 shot. At long range, limit one shot kills to medium and heavy machine-guns and sniper rifles.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
How about:-Sh1fty- wrote:
- Headshots from any primary weapon (not pistol) are insta-kills from any distance.
Sniper rifles & heavy munitions: 100% chance of headshot kill
Shotguns within roughly 3 meters: 80% chance of headshot kill
Assault rifles, LMG's, SMG's and similar 'medium-caliber' weapons: 40% chance of headshot kill
All other firearms: 20% chance of headshot kill
Where 'headshot kill' = remaining health bypassed. Of course, damage will still be done if the roll fails.
To counter this, I would also like to see a little shove applied to anyone shot in the torso with a firearm, which in a split second could make the safer shot a bit more rewarding. Chance for knockdowns for non-lethal anti-materiel hits, perhaps, or for people getting shoved hard enough and still somehow living. Nearby explosions from vehicles, bombs and other ordnance apply. Might also quell some of that "WHERE'S THE SNIPER" whining.
I'd also like to see 'burning' aircraft lose control and spin out for epic cinematic crashes, if they don't blow up in mid-air. Blowing a rotor on a helicopter would be pretty satisfying, and the warning bells inside the cockpit would be awesome.
But hitting a blackhawk's tail rotor with a RPG and watching it spin out of control would be epic.
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
I always chuckle when I get a headshot with an RPG/CG/GL
That actually makes more sense, but since it's a game, I'd still like a wild card. How about something like this:ROGUEDD wrote:
A head shot from any bullet firing weapon at close range should be a one shot kill, regardless. At medium range, pistols and sub machine-guns take two+ shots, while everything else remains 1 shot. At long range, limit one shot kills to medium and heavy machine-guns and sniper rifles.
But hitting a blackhawk's tail rotor with a RPG and watching it spin out of control would be epic.
Rocket, tank/apc shells, & other largish ordnance - 0% survival, period
Sniper shot, 0% survival, period
(<1m) - 0% survival vs any non-rocket projectile
(1m<3m) - 0% survival vs shotgun, 0% survival vs primary weapons, 10% survival vs sideearm
(3m<9m) - 30% survival vs shotgun, 5% survival vs primary weapons, 20% survival vs sidearm
(9m<30m) - 60% survival vs shotgun, 10% survival vs primary weapons, 25% survival vs sidearm
(30m<50m) - 95% survival vs shotgun, 15% survival vs primary weapons, 50% survival vs sidearm
(50m<100m) - 100% survival vs shotgun, 20% survival vs primary weapons, 75% survival vs sidearm
(100m<) - 90% survival vs primary weapons, 100% survival vs sidearms
Again, failed insta-kill does not affect actual damage. Making a hit zone for the helmet as well as the head would be pretty silly.
Or how about... a Headshot does 3x normal dmg.
No, just no....-Sh1fty- wrote:
I want:
- Authentically modeled weapons (No more ejection ports on the wrong side and all that fucking scumbag dev bullshit)
- Quit the ridiculous amounts of XP rewards for dumb things. I feel like a fucking kid that needs to be given a candy for everything I accomplish.
- Ranking system unlocks weapons, period.
- Walking pace when not sprinting
- Headshots from any primary weapon (not pistol) are insta-kills from any distance.
Who cares about if a gun has the port on the wrong side..
Those "ridiculous" rewards are there to keep people playing as a team rather than play TDM...
2142 unlock system ftw
Fuck no, march/slow running when not sprinting or it will be fucking horrible on big maps. go play PR if you want a walking simulator...
Oh god no, insta-kills are rediculous in a game with as laggy infantry combat as BF
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
Pretty much ^^
I'd rather they make all the guns made from rainbows and unicorn taints and get the game right than worry about insignificant detail like gun ejection ports and have shit hitreg.
I'd rather they make all the guns made from rainbows and unicorn taints and get the game right than worry about insignificant detail like gun ejection ports and have shit hitreg.
Actually sounds about right.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
That actually makes more sense, but since it's a game, I'd still like a wild card. How about something like this:ROGUEDD wrote:
A head shot from any bullet firing weapon at close range should be a one shot kill, regardless. At medium range, pistols and sub machine-guns take two+ shots, while everything else remains 1 shot. At long range, limit one shot kills to medium and heavy machine-guns and sniper rifles.
But hitting a blackhawk's tail rotor with a RPG and watching it spin out of control would be epic.
Rocket, tank/apc shells, & other largish ordnance - 0% survival, period
Sniper shot, 0% survival, period
(<1m) - 0% survival vs any non-rocket projectile
(1m<3m) - 0% survival vs shotgun, 0% survival vs primary weapons, 10% survival vs sideearm
(3m<9m) - 30% survival vs shotgun, 5% survival vs primary weapons, 20% survival vs sidearm
(9m<30m) - 60% survival vs shotgun, 10% survival vs primary weapons, 25% survival vs sidearm
(30m<50m) - 95% survival vs shotgun, 15% survival vs primary weapons, 50% survival vs sidearm
(50m<100m) - 100% survival vs shotgun, 20% survival vs primary weapons, 75% survival vs sidearm
(100m<) - 90% survival vs primary weapons, 100% survival vs sidearms
Again, failed insta-kill does not affect actual damage. Making a hit zone for the helmet as well as the head would be pretty silly.
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
I guess you didn't like hardcore mode on CoD4, either. I think headshot instakills are actually a good idea, but only if it's a wildcard chance.FloppY_ wrote:
Oh god no, insta-kills are rediculous in a game with as laggy infantry combat as BF
There was a game awhile back called IGI 2. Played the demo ALL the time online, and it was reasonably popular. No vehicles, but you moved at a reasonable speed. Anyway, random stuff like turning around and getting a completely random Deagle headshot from across a river at a guy you hardly knew was there is VERY satisfying, and should be shared (within reason) with the BF series.
Also, the movement speed in BF2 was good enough for me. If I didn't like it, I joined a smaller map, a more populated server or simply took a car. You only have to do a ton of running around if you're camping an airfield, get killed a lot or are playing 24/7 karkand infantry only.
I especially don't like having it a random chance..unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I guess you didn't like hardcore mode on CoD4, either. I think headshot instakills are actually a good idea, but only if it's a wildcard chance.FloppY_ wrote:
Oh god no, insta-kills are rediculous in a game with as laggy infantry combat as BF
There was a game awhile back called IGI 2. Played the demo ALL the time online, and it was reasonably popular. No vehicles, but you moved at a reasonable speed. Anyway, random stuff like turning around and getting a completely random Deagle headshot from across a river at a guy you hardly knew was there is VERY satisfying, and should be shared (within reason) with the BF series.
Also, the movement speed in BF2 was good enough for me. If I didn't like it, I joined a smaller map, a more populated server or simply took a car. You only have to do a ton of running around if you're camping an airfield, get killed a lot or are playing 24/7 karkand infantry only.
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
Most of Shifty's points are pretty good tbh.
The main things I like about BFBC2 are destructible environments, the ability to customize which add-ons you have for guns (that could be expanded just a bit...silencers perhaps...), and the land/sea vehicle handling actually feels pretty good.
Similar to BF2, I would prefer larger-scale, non-linear map design, air vehicles that feel more maneuverable, and more emphasis on conquest-style gameplay...that just feels more "Battlefield" to me.
I really hope that the stuff included in Special Forces makes its way into BF3 (nightvision for night maps that are actually dark, ziplines and grappling hooks, etc.)
I'm not sure about how that would be balanced in, but I think it would be cool if the game kept the 4 kit layout, but included enough gear to essentially make 2 completely different styles for each kind of kit:
Assault: Either a firepower-heavy kit ala BFBC2, with resupply capability and the heaviest armor in the game; or perhaps an assault kit layout that focuses on rapid mobility, with a grapple setup, etc, as in Special Forces, with medium armor but the same weapon selection, etc...also, both assault kit layouts should have flashbangs available.
Engineer: Explosive firepower-centered to focus on directly removing enemy armor in a quick manner, with limited repair abilities; or more defensively-oriented and have enhanced repairing abilities (for the vehicle whores), and make weapon emplacements that you're using slightly stronger (10-20 percent maybe). Medium armor for both.
Medic: A better healer, with medic packs and a defib kit and also a "painkiller" shot that adds an instant 50 health, but recharges 2 or 3 times slower than the defib., with maybe an SMG or shotgun; or a more limited healer, with only medic packs and the painkiller shot, but include a limited array of assault/battle rifles to their weapon selection (more like the BF2 medic, but without the revive-spam). Medium armor for both.
Recon: Your classic lame-ass sniper, complete with laser-designated targeting device, several (destructible!) claymores ::shudder::, and the lightest armor in the game (in the form of a ghillie suit); or a layout more akin to the Spec-Ops kit, with C4, access to every gun (!), a single claymore, a grapple, access to flashbangs, and also light armor (but not a ghillie suit)....basically, a true jack-of-all-trades kit.
The main things I like about BFBC2 are destructible environments, the ability to customize which add-ons you have for guns (that could be expanded just a bit...silencers perhaps...), and the land/sea vehicle handling actually feels pretty good.
Similar to BF2, I would prefer larger-scale, non-linear map design, air vehicles that feel more maneuverable, and more emphasis on conquest-style gameplay...that just feels more "Battlefield" to me.
I really hope that the stuff included in Special Forces makes its way into BF3 (nightvision for night maps that are actually dark, ziplines and grappling hooks, etc.)
I'm not sure about how that would be balanced in, but I think it would be cool if the game kept the 4 kit layout, but included enough gear to essentially make 2 completely different styles for each kind of kit:
Assault: Either a firepower-heavy kit ala BFBC2, with resupply capability and the heaviest armor in the game; or perhaps an assault kit layout that focuses on rapid mobility, with a grapple setup, etc, as in Special Forces, with medium armor but the same weapon selection, etc...also, both assault kit layouts should have flashbangs available.
Engineer: Explosive firepower-centered to focus on directly removing enemy armor in a quick manner, with limited repair abilities; or more defensively-oriented and have enhanced repairing abilities (for the vehicle whores), and make weapon emplacements that you're using slightly stronger (10-20 percent maybe). Medium armor for both.
Medic: A better healer, with medic packs and a defib kit and also a "painkiller" shot that adds an instant 50 health, but recharges 2 or 3 times slower than the defib., with maybe an SMG or shotgun; or a more limited healer, with only medic packs and the painkiller shot, but include a limited array of assault/battle rifles to their weapon selection (more like the BF2 medic, but without the revive-spam). Medium armor for both.
Recon: Your classic lame-ass sniper, complete with laser-designated targeting device, several (destructible!) claymores ::shudder::, and the lightest armor in the game (in the form of a ghillie suit); or a layout more akin to the Spec-Ops kit, with C4, access to every gun (!), a single claymore, a grapple, access to flashbangs, and also light armor (but not a ghillie suit)....basically, a true jack-of-all-trades kit.
Last edited by -CARNIFEX-[LOC] (2011-02-10 11:27:12)
Without linear map design the whole thing turns to a mess because there's never enough organisation going on. It's better when there are front lines and stuff (dictated by the map). Still room to flank and do all sorts of manoeuvres, but not so stupid that you've capped all the flags and are fighting for the last one, only for someone to cap the first flag right at the back. It's a good tactic to do that, but it's lame for the gameplay.
The best is if maps have sets of flags/capture points. You have a set of three flags. You can take them in any order, then you move up to the next set once you control all three. Or something like that. Gives enough room to move around and not have the entire battle choked on one area, and do good things, whilst not being overly lame/sparse/confusing like alot of BF2 games on the big spread out maps used to be like.
It would be like a merry go round in BF2, cap a flag here. Enemy caps flag there. You go there. Enemy goes elsewhere. Everyone just running around capping flags. Whilst the vehicles just get raped by the aircraft as they try to move along. And the snipers set up camp shooting at any infantry. There wasn't much gameplay in the wide open maps in BF2.
The best is if maps have sets of flags/capture points. You have a set of three flags. You can take them in any order, then you move up to the next set once you control all three. Or something like that. Gives enough room to move around and not have the entire battle choked on one area, and do good things, whilst not being overly lame/sparse/confusing like alot of BF2 games on the big spread out maps used to be like.
It would be like a merry go round in BF2, cap a flag here. Enemy caps flag there. You go there. Enemy goes elsewhere. Everyone just running around capping flags. Whilst the vehicles just get raped by the aircraft as they try to move along. And the snipers set up camp shooting at any infantry. There wasn't much gameplay in the wide open maps in BF2.
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
Battlefield 2
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
...show me the schematic