| Battlefield 2 | 93% | 93% - 93 | ||||
| Bad Company 2 | 7% | 7% - 7 | ||||
| Total: 100 | ||||||
What games besides call of duty, copies call of duty on a yearly basis?-Sh1fty- wrote:
Fuck everybody who thinks authenticity is a game killer. I'm just asking for Battlefield 3, not Call of Duty. I'm so fucking tiered of every game copying COD. Ever since MW2 every game that comes out from a major company is a copy-paste with different graphics.
Battlefield
not call of fucking duty
Last edited by Jaekus (2011-02-12 20:20:40)
says the guy who thinks ejection ports on the wrong side of a gun model is a game killer-Sh1fty- wrote:
Fuck everybody who thinks authenticity is a game killer.
Yeah, but if anything the argument you should be presenting here is that now there aren't as many IAR requirements nor really time consuming awards (like the War College Ribbon, any expert medal, etc) it makes it easier for the casual gamer to be on par with the more dedicated or skilled gamers. How hard was it to get 18 kills IAR with a pistol? Dunno about you guys but it took me years till one night I finally cracked it. These days it is less of an achievement to essentially complete similar goals.-Sh1fty- wrote:
An XP system, ranks and rewards is just like everything else in the world. It's good in moderation!
BF2 had awards and ribbons that didn't give you any points. I liked that because it was more of a personal goal than feeling obligated to complete for XP to rank up faster.
Then there's games like CoD and now the newer Battlefields where you rank up very quickly. I like when it's a slow process and you really need to earn the rank, again without XP boosts. I guess my issue is that I think the rank should be earned and not just given to you so easily.
I see your point though.
BF2 wasn't all that realistic, either. I think giving squad leaders some sort of independent asset calling is a good idea (with your populated squad modifier), but the commander slot is still fun. It gave you the opportunity to do something for your team that nobody else other than your enemy counterpart is doing. Commanders who abuse this power by spamming, being dicks, just giving themselves everything and generally not paying attention to their job usually get mutinied or kicked.War Man wrote:
I said in another post in this thread that you need a certain amount of members in a squad to do so. I can even further the idea where the squad with the most members becomes the command squad, unless 2 squads have equal numbers.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
That's fair, but the commander could still be useful. Give him the ability to distribute assets beyond the minor ones squad leaders can come up with and still coordinate squads as usual. I don't think squad leaders instant access to the entire set is a good idea, because you'd have everybody making locked squads with themselves in charge just to abuse the power.War Man wrote:
Still, I'd say having squad leaders replacing commanders(with some limitations to prevent commander abilities being used every second). Having more people being able to act as a commander will be fun and will make people happy. Coordination and cooperation between squad leaders and the squad would be better as it'd everyone feel more equal among eachother, don't have to be pissy if your 1 commander is a total retard and you can't mutiny him.It is not a true RTS feel, therefore it doesn't quite please RTS gamers. Not every fucking game needs to be fucking realistic shifty.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Don't fix what isn't broken.
Bf2 minus bad hit-boxes, instant health/ammo = fine game
What was great about BF2 and 2142 is that you've got the commander, that pleases RTS gamers; the squad leaders add that extra responsibility and leadership that appeals to other players; squad members that are those who CBA to lead but want to play as a team and win, and lone wolves who like to solo.
I can't think of a better system than that.
Well to be honest with you, I don't remember if I said that it was a game killer. It just annoys me, because I know it's wrong. It doesn't really impact gameplay so if I had previously mentioned that I was wrong or misunderstood.DUnlimited wrote:
says the guy who thinks ejection ports on the wrong side of a gun model is a game killer-Sh1fty- wrote:
Fuck everybody who thinks authenticity is a game killer.
You do make an excellent point. However, does it not bother you that every breath you take gives you some type of reward? To me it feels as stupid as me crossing the street IRL and some idiot comes up to me to give me a Crossed the Street Safely badge.Jaekus wrote:
As for levelling up faster, I have no qualms about that. The better player will still gather more points and get the unlocks quicker than the newbie. Making the awards and unlocks there in the first place are incentive to play the game some more. Not the main goal, but every now and then you might think "today I'm going to go for x badge or award".
Last edited by -Sh1fty- (2011-02-13 00:15:38)
Because all that airsoft experience has given you a great understanding of gun mechanics.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Well to be honest with you, I don't remember if I said that it was a game killer. It just annoys me, because I know it's wrong. It doesn't really impact gameplay so if I had previously mentioned that I was wrong or misunderstood.DUnlimited wrote:
says the guy who thinks ejection ports on the wrong side of a gun model is a game killer-Sh1fty- wrote:
Fuck everybody who thinks authenticity is a game killer.
Probably not. I think most of my gun knowledge came from my dad's 40+ guns that he would have me take apart and reassemble or clean, etc. He didn't clean his guns as often as he should though.AussieReaper wrote:
Because all that airsoft experience has given you a great understanding of gun mechanics.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Well to be honest with you, I don't remember if I said that it was a game killer. It just annoys me, because I know it's wrong. It doesn't really impact gameplay so if I had previously mentioned that I was wrong or misunderstood.DUnlimited wrote:
says the guy who thinks ejection ports on the wrong side of a gun model is a game killer
Last edited by -Sh1fty- (2011-02-13 00:17:17)
Ranking up in BF2 was fucking horrible... Slow ranking only serves the purpose of e-penis wankery tbh...-Sh1fty- wrote:
An XP system, ranks and rewards is just like everything else in the world. It's good in moderation!
BF2 had awards and ribbons that didn't give you any points. I liked that because it was more of a personal goal than feeling obligated to complete for XP to rank up faster.
Then there's games like CoD and now the newer Battlefields where you rank up very quickly. I like when it's a slow process and you really need to earn the rank, again without XP boosts. I guess my issue is that I think the rank should be earned and not just given to you so easily.
I see your point though.
Last edited by FloppY_ (2011-02-13 03:35:36)
slow ranking was the best thing about bf2. it gave it a lifespan and gave you a REAL incentive to play. what's the fun when everyone is max rank and has all the unlocks within 2 weeks of release, like it was in call of duty 4 and mw2? boring. it just becomes a shitfest then where everyone has the same kit layouts, uses the same 2-3 guns and rocks the same 2-3 perks and kit set-ups. wow what a varied and exciting mix! in bf2 (especially for the first year or so) you were actually impressed and felt a sense of accomplishment/respect for people that were high rank and had 'earned' their bread. i want a person of the officer rank to have actually PLAYED the game for, say, 400+ hours - to have 'earned' that rank and the associated prestige. staggering weapon unlocks is a good thing, too, for 99% of people that aren't little 'give me everything on a plate!' bitches like you. instant gratification is a crappy play-reward mechanic; the game gets boring in < 3 months. you should be motivated to carry on playing to unlock the exclusive weapons... not put off becaause 'ooh wah wah!' it takes longer than a weekend to get your hands on every single fucking thing in the game.FloppY_ wrote:
Ranking up in BF2 was fucking horrible... Slow ranking only serves the purpose of e-penis wankery tbh...-Sh1fty- wrote:
An XP system, ranks and rewards is just like everything else in the world. It's good in moderation!
BF2 had awards and ribbons that didn't give you any points. I liked that because it was more of a personal goal than feeling obligated to complete for XP to rank up faster.
Then there's games like CoD and now the newer Battlefields where you rank up very quickly. I like when it's a slow process and you really need to earn the rank, again without XP boosts. I guess my issue is that I think the rank should be earned and not just given to you so easily.
I see your point though.
Especially when you factor in that weapons took forever to unlock, I have yet to try two of them since I haven't unlocked the P90 or MP7...
And BF2 awarded kills where BC2 awards (and thereby encourages) teamwork (That's the point of all those XP awards and Badges you muppet) and it's not a "cod" thing either..
Oh sorry I thought we played games for fun...Uzique wrote:
slow ranking was the best thing about bf2. it gave it a lifespan and gave you a REAL incentive to play. what's the fun when everyone is max rank and has all the unlocks within 2 weeks of release, like it was in call of duty 4 and mw2? boring. it just becomes a shitfest then where everyone has the same kit layouts, uses the same 2-3 guns and rocks the same 2-3 perks and kit set-ups. wow what a varied and exciting mix! in bf2 (especially for the first year or so) you were actually impressed and felt a sense of accomplishment/respect for people that were high rank and had 'earned' their bread. i want a person of the officer rank to have actually PLAYED the game for, say, 400+ hours - to have 'earned' that rank and the associated prestige. staggering weapon unlocks is a good thing, too, for 99% of people that aren't little 'give me everything on a plate!' bitches like you. instant gratification is a crappy play-reward mechanic; the game gets boring in < 3 months. you should be motivated to carry on playing to unlock the exclusive weapons... not put off becaause 'ooh wah wah!' it takes longer than a weekend to get your hands on every single fucking thing in the game.FloppY_ wrote:
Ranking up in BF2 was fucking horrible... Slow ranking only serves the purpose of e-penis wankery tbh...-Sh1fty- wrote:
An XP system, ranks and rewards is just like everything else in the world. It's good in moderation!
BF2 had awards and ribbons that didn't give you any points. I liked that because it was more of a personal goal than feeling obligated to complete for XP to rank up faster.
Then there's games like CoD and now the newer Battlefields where you rank up very quickly. I like when it's a slow process and you really need to earn the rank, again without XP boosts. I guess my issue is that I think the rank should be earned and not just given to you so easily.
I see your point though.
Especially when you factor in that weapons took forever to unlock, I have yet to try two of them since I haven't unlocked the P90 or MP7...
And BF2 awarded kills where BC2 awards (and thereby encourages) teamwork (That's the point of all those XP awards and Badges you muppet) and it's not a "cod" thing either..
Last edited by Hurricane2k9 (2011-02-13 06:26:14)
Hurricane2k9 wrote:
BF2 awarded whores
where have i said the long ranking wasn't "fun"? i just argued exactly why it IS fun to have to play a long time to unlock everything.FloppY_ wrote:
Oh sorry I thought we played games for fun...Uzique wrote:
slow ranking was the best thing about bf2. it gave it a lifespan and gave you a REAL incentive to play. what's the fun when everyone is max rank and has all the unlocks within 2 weeks of release, like it was in call of duty 4 and mw2? boring. it just becomes a shitfest then where everyone has the same kit layouts, uses the same 2-3 guns and rocks the same 2-3 perks and kit set-ups. wow what a varied and exciting mix! in bf2 (especially for the first year or so) you were actually impressed and felt a sense of accomplishment/respect for people that were high rank and had 'earned' their bread. i want a person of the officer rank to have actually PLAYED the game for, say, 400+ hours - to have 'earned' that rank and the associated prestige. staggering weapon unlocks is a good thing, too, for 99% of people that aren't little 'give me everything on a plate!' bitches like you. instant gratification is a crappy play-reward mechanic; the game gets boring in < 3 months. you should be motivated to carry on playing to unlock the exclusive weapons... not put off becaause 'ooh wah wah!' it takes longer than a weekend to get your hands on every single fucking thing in the game.FloppY_ wrote:
Ranking up in BF2 was fucking horrible... Slow ranking only serves the purpose of e-penis wankery tbh...
Especially when you factor in that weapons took forever to unlock, I have yet to try two of them since I haven't unlocked the P90 or MP7...
And BF2 awarded kills where BC2 awards (and thereby encourages) teamwork (That's the point of all those XP awards and Badges you muppet) and it's not a "cod" thing either..
Games shouldn't be stretched by a "you can't have this yet" policy.. they should be stretched by quality and good post-release support tbh...
Uzique... Games are about PLAYING THEM... The gameplay is what is supposed to be fun... not the fucking unlock treeUzique wrote:
where have i said the long ranking wasn't "fun"? i just argued exactly why it IS fun to have to play a long time to unlock everything.FloppY_ wrote:
Oh sorry I thought we played games for fun...Uzique wrote:
slow ranking was the best thing about bf2. it gave it a lifespan and gave you a REAL incentive to play. what's the fun when everyone is max rank and has all the unlocks within 2 weeks of release, like it was in call of duty 4 and mw2? boring. it just becomes a shitfest then where everyone has the same kit layouts, uses the same 2-3 guns and rocks the same 2-3 perks and kit set-ups. wow what a varied and exciting mix! in bf2 (especially for the first year or so) you were actually impressed and felt a sense of accomplishment/respect for people that were high rank and had 'earned' their bread. i want a person of the officer rank to have actually PLAYED the game for, say, 400+ hours - to have 'earned' that rank and the associated prestige. staggering weapon unlocks is a good thing, too, for 99% of people that aren't little 'give me everything on a plate!' bitches like you. instant gratification is a crappy play-reward mechanic; the game gets boring in < 3 months. you should be motivated to carry on playing to unlock the exclusive weapons... not put off becaause 'ooh wah wah!' it takes longer than a weekend to get your hands on every single fucking thing in the game.
Games shouldn't be stretched by a "you can't have this yet" policy.. they should be stretched by quality and good post-release support tbh...
i think it's the complete opposite of 'fun' to be given everything for zero-effort/skill; it's bland, boring and short-lived.
well what about making it optional? if you want to work towards little pixel awards then fine. if you dont and just want to play the game you paid for then ok.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
I'm with zeek on this one. It was much more fun to work toward a goal (getting an award). It made me actually play as certain kits I may never have played as (cough assault cough). Hell it made me play the shit out of Euro Force to get that stupid EU Service Medal. And the amazing thing is you didn't even get anything for those awards except for pretty JPEGs.
Last edited by Hurricane2k9 (2011-02-13 06:40:58)
Last edited by Hurricane2k9 (2011-02-13 06:45:32)