The maps also have a lot to do with it, conquest sucked in both bad company 2 and BF3 compared to Rush.... because they designed them for Rush first, conquest second.FloppY_ wrote:
I think squad-leader spawn only, was one of the main contributing factors to keep squads working as a team in BF2 / BF2142Uzique wrote:
i think the main deficiency in all battlefield games since bf2 is that each one has had a greater focus on the individual player (basically turning the game into a personal unlock/achievement quest, very xbl) and has seen the disappearance of teamwork. thinking about it, save for the times when i play with some other guys on teamspeak, there is literally no teamwork in this game. the squad system is completely pointless, other than as a convenient roaming spawn-point (which really only benefits the individual again, allowing you to spawn closer to the action). i rarely ever see cohesive 4-man squads consistently spawning together and working together towards a point. that sort of thing seemed to happen almost without any need for communication in bf2. in every battlefield game since that it just seems to have lost focus.
If BF3's squads work anything like BC2's I can understand your frustration, the only time you saw a pub-server squad together was when they spawned, shortly after that they scatter to go do their personal things....
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Why Bad company 2 : Vietnam was the best BF since BF2
mhmm.
i don't know why everyone is harping on about 2142... the game sucked balls. it was in no way comparable to bf2. the shooting, weapons and maps were pretty boring and shitty. 2142 is my least played battlefield game - it was so simplified compared to bf2 and felt bulky and shit.
i don't know why everyone is harping on about 2142... the game sucked balls. it was in no way comparable to bf2. the shooting, weapons and maps were pretty boring and shitty. 2142 is my least played battlefield game - it was so simplified compared to bf2 and felt bulky and shit.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
1. the kits were well balancedUzique wrote:
mhmm.
i don't know why everyone is harping on about 2142... the game sucked balls. it was in no way comparable to bf2. the shooting, weapons and maps were pretty boring and shitty. 2142 is my least played battlefield game - it was so simplified compared to bf2 and felt bulky and shit.
2. titans were fun
The classes were much more fun for me. Nothing like getting a lambert carbine, cloak, and c4 and roaming around in the battlefield blowing up shit.Uzique wrote:
mhmm.
i don't know why everyone is harping on about 2142... the game sucked balls. it was in no way comparable to bf2. the shooting, weapons and maps were pretty boring and shitty. 2142 is my least played battlefield game - it was so simplified compared to bf2 and felt bulky and shit.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
I remember the Voss being subject of everyones hate at some point because it was so massively overpowered in close-quarters combat..War Man wrote:
The classes were much more fun for me. Nothing like getting a lambert carbine, cloak, and c4 and roaming around in the battlefield blowing up shit.Uzique wrote:
mhmm.
i don't know why everyone is harping on about 2142... the game sucked balls. it was in no way comparable to bf2. the shooting, weapons and maps were pretty boring and shitty. 2142 is my least played battlefield game - it was so simplified compared to bf2 and felt bulky and shit.
I actually have fond memories of infantry maps in BF2142, I had forgotten Battlefield had good infantry combat at one point
I remember the assault airblast rockets were amazing, set distance to what the enemy is hiding behind, add 1 metre and launch your rocket powered rape devices
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
You're forgetting 2142.Uzique wrote:
i think the main deficiency in all battlefield games since bf2 is that each one has had a greater focus on the individual player (basically turning the game into a personal unlock/achievement quest, very xbl) and has seen the disappearance of teamwork. thinking about it, save for the times when i play with some other guys on teamspeak, there is literally no teamwork in this game. the squad system is completely pointless, other than as a convenient roaming spawn-point (which really only benefits the individual again, allowing you to spawn closer to the action). i rarely ever see cohesive 4-man squads consistently spawning together and working together towards a point. that sort of thing seemed to happen almost without any need for communication in bf2. in every battlefield game since that it just seems to have lost focus.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
you're forgetting to readUzique wrote:
mhmm.
i don't know why everyone is harping on about 2142... the game sucked balls. it was in no way comparable to bf2. the shooting, weapons and maps were pretty boring and shitty. 2142 is my least played battlefield game - it was so simplified compared to bf2 and felt bulky and shit.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
didn't rate 2142 either.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Lambert Carbine was my rape gun, loved that thing. I honestly didn't give much of a fuck for Assault, I just unlocked the defibs and was done.FloppY_ wrote:
I remember the Voss being subject of everyones hate at some point because it was so massively overpowered in close-quarters combat..War Man wrote:
The classes were much more fun for me. Nothing like getting a lambert carbine, cloak, and c4 and roaming around in the battlefield blowing up shit.Uzique wrote:
mhmm.
i don't know why everyone is harping on about 2142... the game sucked balls. it was in no way comparable to bf2. the shooting, weapons and maps were pretty boring and shitty. 2142 is my least played battlefield game - it was so simplified compared to bf2 and felt bulky and shit.
I actually have fond memories of infantry maps in BF2142, I had forgotten Battlefield had good infantry combat at one point
I remember the assault airblast rockets were amazing, set distance to what the enemy is hiding behind, add 1 metre and launch your rocket powered rape devices
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
All classes were awesome to play in 2142War Man wrote:
Lambert Carbine was my rape gun, loved that thing. I honestly didn't give much of a fuck for Assault, I just unlocked the defibs and was done.FloppY_ wrote:
I remember the Voss being subject of everyones hate at some point because it was so massively overpowered in close-quarters combat..War Man wrote:
The classes were much more fun for me. Nothing like getting a lambert carbine, cloak, and c4 and roaming around in the battlefield blowing up shit.
I actually have fond memories of infantry maps in BF2142, I had forgotten Battlefield had good infantry combat at one point
I remember the assault airblast rockets were amazing, set distance to what the enemy is hiding behind, add 1 metre and launch your rocket powered rape devices
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
I didn't enjoy 2142 nearly as much as bf2
SEREMAKER wrote:
never got it
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Why Bad company 2 : Vietnam was the best BF since BF2