BF2S Forums Battlefield 3 - Main Thread

UnkleRukus wrote:

thepilot91 wrote:

GullyFoyle wrote:

joystiq.com - The Beta and Battlefield 3

I'm actually getting concerned reading this , I mean when I played the beta ; guys moving around were more vunrable then the camping ones , I'm not gonna express my opinions on that now and create a riot BUT what concerns me about the text is: It takes more shots to kill people , and in the beta I actually had quite a hard time getting kills with the PDW for example: weak and 21 rounds and lack of damage on range , but then they're gonna make it take even more hits to kill (yes I know there's ammo upgrades, but not without getting certain amount of kills first, and I want my supressor on )

Suppressor kills the ranged damage of a gun, plus why are you using the PDW at range. It's not built for that, you want ranged kills get a full size rifle.

yeah I know but I mean there's quite a difference in damage between spraying point blank and burstfireing ~50 meters and sometimes you actually end up in the situation where you need to kill someone a littlebit further away , but ofc. I prefer not to when using a 21round per mag. PDW , and that's why I use the supressor

legionair wrote:

The A W S M F O X wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

Oh god please no...

The BF2 ranking was horribly slow.. It took forever to get anywhere (I never even unlocked the last 2 weapons because of it )

2142 and BC2 were MUCH better, I hit the top rank in 2142 and after ~350 hours I'm almost lvl 49 in BC2...

Get fucked, BC2 was too fast, 2142 was ok. If I can reach 5> ranks every few hours of play, thats just silly. Rank in game is almost pointless now ( assuming it ever was), because it is attained too quickly to be of any significance. I agree BF2 was slow, but you really felt like a bigshot ranking up back in the day, and it was exciting because things werent popping up every fucking second you move the mouse or take a step.


BF3 ranking should be somewhere between BF2 and BC2, not too long and not too short.

Maybe that just me, but in BF2 when I saw a colonel waiting for plane I left it to him as I knew that he knows better how to fly (or vice versa), or when in chopper, everyone looked what rank you are because they didn't want to fly with someone who will be a kamikaze.

Of course, all that lasted till infantry only patch and while game was pretty fresh. Just that rank really was something which represented you in some way - it was to represent that you have been playing this game for hundreds of hours and logically that you have learnt how to play it properly.
To be honest I was proud as hell when getting promoted and every time there were people on server congrating you etc.
Now it is - meh, another promotion, hm, I havent even decided what to unlock first... you get zillions of points literally for nothing.

this!

and yeah that reminds me , in bf2 it actually showed everyone that you'd been promoted , because it was quite an honorable thing , and it should be

legionair wrote:

The A W S M F O X wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

Oh god please no...

The BF2 ranking was horribly slow.. It took forever to get anywhere (I never even unlocked the last 2 weapons because of it )

2142 and BC2 were MUCH better, I hit the top rank in 2142 and after ~350 hours I'm almost lvl 49 in BC2...

Get fucked, BC2 was too fast, 2142 was ok. If I can reach 5> ranks every few hours of play, thats just silly. Rank in game is almost pointless now ( assuming it ever was), because it is attained too quickly to be of any significance. I agree BF2 was slow, but you really felt like a bigshot ranking up back in the day, and it was exciting because things werent popping up every fucking second you move the mouse or take a step.


BF3 ranking should be somewhere between BF2 and BC2, not too long and not too short.

Maybe that just me, but in BF2 when I saw a colonel waiting for plane I left it to him as I knew that he knows better how to fly (or vice versa), or when in chopper, everyone looked what rank you are because they didn't want to fly with someone who will be a kamikaze.

Of course, all that lasted till infantry only patch and while game was pretty fresh. Just that rank really was something which represented you in some way - it was to represent that you have been playing this game for hundreds of hours and logically that you have learnt how to play it properly.
To be honest I was proud as hell when getting promoted and every time there were people on server congrating you etc.
Now it is - meh, another promotion, hm, I havent even decided what to unlock first... you get zillions of points literally for nothing.

Agree completely.  Remember in the early days in BF2 how hard it was to rank up?  Literally everyone was a private, maybe a few corporals, and sergeants were rare.  That was my favorite rank system.  They designed it so the "noobs", "casuals" and "hardcore no lifers" could all be easily distinguished.  It was hard, but MORE REWARDING.  Getting your first unlock actually felt like an achievement (and it was hard to pick, too)  Then they updated it obviously, and that pissed me off. 

It is all about instant gratification these days.  They give you a gazillion points for doing jack shit because the noobs like shiny objects and need to feel special for playing for an hour.  Noobs hate seeing other people with more stuff because they're better or they played longer, then they bitch and moan to the devs and they end up changing it.  Well, thats okay, but they arent going to be playing in 3 years (maybe not even in 3 months), and I probably will be.  For those of us who play a lot and maybe take some long breaks, it adds longevity.

GullyFoyle wrote:

joystiq.com - The Beta and Battlefield 3

by Arthur Gies on Oct 10th 2011 8:04PM

Last week, I spent some six hours with a not-quite-final-but-close version of Battlefield 3. I think EA and DICE would like for me to talk about the single player but really, I don't have anything more to say about it than I did a few weeks ago. I can't talk about most of the multiplayer maps I played with any specificity, other than the Grand Bazaar level, which, hallelujah, had a tank in it. But at this point, I feel confident in making the following statement:

... bla bla BC2 bla wut is BF2 bla bla bla ...
Quoting the whole article again makes my post too long.

Just another shit example of the people reviewing this title.
It seems that the memory span of the game industry and journalists doesn't go back further than a year or two.
This guy compares it to BC2 over and over.

So far i have seen 0 reviews/comments/videos/whatever, and i have seen/read quite a view, that compare BF3 to it's predecessor BF2. everyone compares it to BC2.
Now i know that this is more or less BC3 by the way it plays, looks and feels, but damn. Why hasn't anyone so much as mentioned that it is nothing like the great game that is BF2?

These fucking idiots probably don't even realise that there is such a thing as BF2 and just assume it's the sequel to BC2, since thats also a no. 2.

Last edited by Kampframmer (2011-10-11 10:41:06)

Kampframmer wrote:

GullyFoyle wrote:

joystiq.com - The Beta and Battlefield 3

by Arthur Gies on Oct 10th 2011 8:04PM

Last week, I spent some six hours with a not-quite-final-but-close version of Battlefield 3. I think EA and DICE would like for me to talk about the single player but really, I don't have anything more to say about it than I did a few weeks ago. I can't talk about most of the multiplayer maps I played with any specificity, other than the Grand Bazaar level, which, hallelujah, had a tank in it. But at this point, I feel confident in making the following statement:

... bla bla BC2 bla wut is BF2 bla bla bla ...
Quoting the whole article again makes my post too long.

Just another shit example of the people reviewing this title.
It seems that the memory span of the game industry and journalists doesn't go back further than a year or two.
This guy compares it to BC2 over and over.

So far i have seen 0 reviews/comments/videos/whatever, and i have seen/read quite a view, that compare BF3 to it's predecessor BF2. everyone compares it to BC2.
Now i know that this is more or less BC3 by the way it plays, looks and feels, but damn. Why hasn't anyone so much as mentioned that it is nothing like the great game that is BF2?

These fucking idiots probably don't even realise that there is such a thing as BF2 and just assume it's the sequel to BC2, since thats also a no. 2.

A lot of people think Battlefield 2 was Battlefield : Modern Combat.  Everytime I see someone say that a piece of my soul dies off.

*In the early days of BF2 of course.

twoblacklines wrote:

I really hope its good, but what with the BC2 patch reducing sniper rifles to shit to make the medic (who already has a fucking full auto machine gun, and first aid regeneration, and shock paddles) happy, I dont have much hope for it.

A good sniper can help out his team, if none of the enemy can get to the objective because mr sniper is there stopping them, then your team wins.

All the medics that complain how easy it is to be a sniper dont have a clue, you have to move around without being seen, countersnipe, all whilst helping your team, to get a great k/d is hard as fuck and much harder than just shock paddling people!

never not believin'!

It's sad that in 6 years all the battlefield series has achieved is shiny pretty fancy non-functional graphics, hit-reg that works, and the ability to blow up the walls of a building, the rest feels like a step backwards. If someone put BF2 and BF3 side by side I would still pick BF2, it's just more fun than BF3 in its current state.

Racoon_Flyer wrote:

It's sad that in 6 years all the battlefield series has achieved is shiny pretty fancy non-functional graphics, hit-reg that works, and the ability to blow up the walls of a building, the rest feels like a step backwards. If someone put BF2 and BF3 side by side I would still pick BF2, it's just more fun than BF3 in its current state.

jezus its a new game, get over the whole "omg, bf3 is not a copy of bf2 thing".

jord wrote:

aerodynamic wrote:

Racoon_Flyer wrote:

It's sad that in 6 years all the battlefield series has achieved is shiny pretty fancy non-functional graphics, hit-reg that works, and the ability to blow up the walls of a building, the rest feels like a step backwards. If someone put BF2 and BF3 side by side I would still pick BF2, it's just more fun than BF3 in its current state.

jezus its a new game, get over the whole "omg, bf3 is not a copy of bf2 thing".

he's saying it isnt as good as bf2, not that it isnt a copy of bf2. there are many ways to improve on bf2 and make a truly awesome game, and they've yet to do them.

What he's saying is valid, bf3 is playable, enjoyable somewhat, but that feeling I had when i first played bf2 isn't there. it's just not that... special.

People should base on the final product, not on a beta.
That is what pisses me off.

It's not like the release version will be any different from the beta except for a few balance tweaks...

BF3 should be an exact replica of BF2 with 2011 graphics, animation, special effects, etc.

Instead we get good graphics, shoddy gameplay, they have made flying harder and jerky!

twoblacklines wrote:

BF3 should be an exact replica of BF2 with 2011 graphics, animation, special effects, etc.

Instead we get good graphics, shoddy gameplay, they have made flying harder and jerky!

And a better netcode to fix the pisspoor hitreg and rubberbanding