jmbbf1975 wrote:
K8Kommunist wrote:
Srsly.
Whoever designed the aircraft in BF2 must've been stoned. Every aspect of aircraft avionics and weaponry is simplified, bastardized or cheapened to a ridiculous level. No plane will remain in the air after two strikes from a stinger, there's no way any modern plane would not have an FCC controlling bomb release, you don't need a radar lock to use sidewinders, manuevers half as extreme as the moves most BF2 pilots make would cause blackouts, niether the MiG-29 or F-35B carries 600rounds of cannon ammo, the ROF on the cannon is about a third of what it should be, absence of any form of radar, etc. Goes on and on. I'm not sure why dice decided to re-skin the aircraft from BF1942 and call them modern day...
Dude, please. For one, I will say that, yes, it is "cheap" but this game cost $50 and not $50,000,000. It's a freakin game man.......
Those who want want reality and who want to bitch and moan about how this game sucks should balls up and join up with the USMC and go be a ground pounder in Iraq/Afganistan. REMEBER this is a GAME and only a GAME...
EA/DICE come up with a load of patches becasue of all of YOU who bitch and moan to them about how this aspect or that aspect suck.... JUST DEAL WITH IT!!!
Do you honestly think it costs more money to make a game that is realistic? To make a virtual gun fire faster costs EA money? To make weapons loadouts more accurate costs money? What the fuck are you thinking? To further my point unnecessarily, take a look at Falcon4.0: Allied Force. F4.0 costs half of what BF2 does and is widely regarded to be as close to reality as you can legally get barring joining the USAF. While I see how excessive unique flight modeling for each aircraft in the game would become prohibitively expensive, to say that I should have low expectations for a game because it costs $50 is stupid, especially when $50 is the top end of PC game pricing.
I want more realistic gameplay in BF2 because the way I see it aircraft are totally broken. They are easy to fly and superior to every other unit in the game. To make aircraft damage models realistic, along with weapons loadouts, would not only make the game more challenging and fun for pilots but also much more fair for the groundpounders. It's not practical in the BF2 engine, but some realism at least to the level of ground weapon realism should have been implemented in the design. After all, M16s have 30 rounds, as they do in reality(minus combat reload). Is it too much to ask that in-game F-35B loadout be equivalent to reality F-35B loadout, as it is with most other units in the game, to an extent?
Is asking for balance and thoughtful game design "moaning about how this game sucks"? I fail to see how "go to afganistan" is a sensible response to my post. By saying "this is a GAME and only a GAME" infer that realistic games are not, in fact, games? Because I know about 10,000 OFP fans who will argue with you vehemently. Grasp at straws much?
By the way, the day that EA stops releasing patches is the day gamers stop buying their products. If EA is producing patches solely on the behest of myself, I think you bitches owe me some thanks because otherwise you'd be swamped with even more bugs, and without your prized L96.
Speaking of which, I doubt EA releases patches to please the "bitchers and moaners". This vocal minority the self-proclaimed "adaptive gamers" accuse of complaining so hard that EA patches ridiculously insignificant aspects, is, well, bullshit. If you can see that this complaining group is a minority, don't you think EA would see the same? Especially considering half the people sporting this theory, such as yourself, are just above the 75 IQ line. EA makes patches to please the majority of it's users and there's no feasible deduction to the contrary.
