Discussion in 'Battlefield (Public)' started by Reoh, Jun 28, 2011.
Here you go Buttersoft.
That movie just reminded me what is missing from the BF3 videos. The epic BF theme song.
P.S. 2142 was my fav as well.
Not really sure what you mean. BF doesn't have Killstreaks, doesn't allow you to rank up as quickly as COD, you can't prestige. COD doesn't have the ability to be "revived". The COD matches are much faster (as in time). I know in BF2142 you could play 1 match for 50 minutes. This doesn't happen in COD. The maps in BF are HEAPS bigger (mostly due to the vehicles)
So what are you looking for in a game? If you want a game you can play for an hour and get 6 matches in, then don't buy BF. If you want a game that DOESN'T require you to commit to 300hrs to unlock all the weapons, then don't buy BF. If you don't want to have to think about the bullet fall as it travels across the map, then don't buy BF.
I'm not suggesting that COD is better, not by ANY stretch of the imagination, I'm just saying it's different.
Edit: You should remember me from the 2142 days and my 1337 TK skills I'm a big fan of the BF series. I just don't think you can go comparing the 2 as easily as that.
In my ever so humble opinion, the COD franchise seems to cater more to the console type of play (quick maps, easy controls, fast progression through ranks) whereas the BF franchise seems to cater more to the pc, more controls at hand, more complex gameplay more realistic gameplay.
However, I haven't played BC2 on the PS3, so I could have it all wrong
argh .... now you've got it That's all I'm saying. Awesome way of putting it. They "cater to different needs".
well, the pretty logos and everything aside, the gameplay mechanic and features is what i was talking about. And there are maps in BC2 that never last long - Oasis for starters. As for things like revives, that's what i'm saying. Everything that makes CoD good is in BC2, but not the other way around.
For me what appeals for me in battlefield games is the strategy. People have hinted on it in references to teamwork, commanders, squadwork, vehicles etc etc, but not hit the nail on the head as far as explaining it to someone who hasn't played battlefield games before. So breaking it down even further, battlefield allows you do do so much that it caters for just about every player style imaginable. There is something for everyone in battlefield who likes fps games.
When I say strategy, the list is nearly limitless as to what you can do as far as different approaches go.
before you even start playing you need to consider the following choices. There are usually 4 or more completely different kits (Assault, Support, Engineer, Sniper / Recon) with completely different perks and guns available in each one. These perks and guns are then usually further customisable in itself.
So once you have that sorted you can go solo or as part of a squad. You can play aggressive and attach or be defensive. Every vehicle (humvee, quad bikes, anti personnel tanks, tanks, anti air vehicles, helicopters, jets, boats, jetskies, mounted guns, anti tank guns and others) is completely different to the next and each one takes time to master, even vehicles have selectable perks which again completely change the vehicles strengths and weaknesses.
As said, every kit / perk / vehicle / play style / gun etc etc has its strengths and weaknesses and each map requires a completely different approach to be successful. So considering that every player on both teams are all faced with the same choices before they even start playing you are always finding yourself in a wtf cinda situation purely from the number of variables, nothing in bf is consistent.
For example, you could have been aggressive in a squad of support players and pushed to the back of the enemy line to cause some havoc when suddenly an anti personnel tank starts shooting at you. Then you can only run and hide as nothing you have will damage a tank.
Or you are sitting in a tank covering half a map and dominating to the point that the entire enemy team is giving you a wide berth. Then some smart arse jumps out of a chopper, lands 2 metres behind the tank and blows it up with c4.
Nothing you can do in a battlefield game is a sure fire winner, there is always a weakness, the most fun you can have in a battlefield game is to find this weakness and extort it. Flank two squads who are well dug in and then shoot / knife them in the back and gloat about it on ts...
Chalk & Cheese ..... CoD is just a glorified shooter , run shoot die repeat, gets old fast. With BC2 every night I get those moments that leave me OMG that was f'in cool .... Sqauds moving into an objective , taking out key opponents , supporting each other with meds and ammo , achieving the objective and setting up a defensive line and almost silently moving out and setting up for the next push. TS support for unseen enemies ... saving your mates ass because his KD is as important to him as yours is to you.
takes more patience than CoD though. In BC2 all your individual combat skill can be reduced to nothing in the face of a stronger opposing team
The difference with BF2 versus BC2 in BF2 teamwork was far better mainly due to how the teams were organised , weapons / kits allowed , commander , squad leader comms , objectives etc... In BF2 you could go to any pub server and get a very good level of teamwork where as BC2 on the pubs you got a team full of snipers sitting on a hill if that was in BF2 they could be kicked out of squads and be left as lone wolves ...
While I agree with most of what people are saying here - I'd rate COD4 higher than Bad Company 2 as far as multi-player experience goes. It's much more pure, whereas BC2 felt to me to be more of a hybrid of Battlefield and Call of Duty.
BC2 is not a good example to use when describing Battlefield
It's Battlefield, but lite
EDIT: Totally agree with BN's last comment!
Spectre i think that was because COD 4 was made more for PC so more thought about the MP experience was put in ... and BC2 was a console port with a BF feel maybe trying to appeal to all platforms including ...
Yeah in battlefield 2 there hardly where any snipers, the players also had more skill and tactical insight
The sniper infestation is mainly a problem on the PC, for the simple reason that shooting is very easy with mouse and keyboard.
On the consoles its alot harder to get a headshot especialy against moving targets so you usualy won't find more then one or two snipers in the entire game.
In battlefield 2 snipers where easy to spot because of the shitty graphics at the time the levels where bold and barren and a sniper looked like a pimpel on a hill.
So when badcompany 2 was developed the graphics had improved alot, the levels wheren't bold and barren anymore but had shrubs and in vietnam even tall grass.
So Dice had the good idea to remove prone and add a kill cam, this was done to prevent players from becoming invisible.
Being Invisible is fun for the person that's invisible, but the person that got headshotted 20 times in a row has a different feeling about this.
But you can rejoice after PC BF2 community had moaned, cryed and whined long
enough you got prone back and they removed the kill cam.
So now you have invisible players, if you think that sniping was bad in BFBC2 that don't be surprised that of your 64 players 40 of them are snipers.
Like they say "be carefull what you wish for because you might get it"
Well, I played 2142, which everyone who played BF2 called a mod of BF2, and I'm not sure I support that view. Your team was only ever as good as your team. Once you'd played enough of the game that squad system didn't mean much outside the pubs. You used it because you had to, but the game mechanic itself, the classes, the vehicles and the objectives, were more important than the bureaucracy of who (theoretically) got to tell who what to do And they were also where the teamwork came from.
Still it was an awesome innovation at the time, and it certainly started people thinking about things differently. Probably a good place to start, but once you commit I think the squad system in BC2 worked much, much better. Being able to spawn on any of your squadmates was much smoother, esp in the pubs.
Commander i'm not sure about. We'll see what functions go where in BF3
One thing (in my opinion) that hampered good squad work in BC2, was the fact that you could spawn on anyone in your squad. Sure, it gives the players greater choice of where to spawn, but it also fractured the squad if the squad was split up across the map.
For example. You and your squad are engaged with the enemy at a particular flag in conquest mode. One by one your squad mates are killed. You may be hoping that they have the common sense to respawn back on you to assist you. Instead, they choose another squad member to spawn on who decided to spawn elswhere on the other side of the map, thus leaving you on your own, and the squad weakened as it has thinned itself out. There is no hierarchy in the BC2 squad system, thus this leads to squad members doing their own thing a lot.
The thing about BF2 and BF2142, is that you really had to make sure your squad leader was kept alive if you wanted to respawn back with the squad. I personally think this encouraged closer squad work.
If your stuck with a squad leader that insist on standing in front of the barrel of a tank the whole time your glad you can spawn on someone else with common sense.
maddog had it when spawning on a squad member who happened to be behind / out of all the action , teamwork aspect lost instantly as team gets split .. no decent comms to stop that happening , a commander overview was key to guiding squads so not sure how that will work..
Dragon the better part of sqauds was in BF2 cause you could kick / lock squads so you had a workable bunch if someone was just mucking around not helping squad boot and the weapon setup would not be unbalanced as the BF2 never really allowed that due to squad management any decent SL would organise squad to have a full set of classes to suit ...
That is why i thought BC2 was made for console not PC as it missed alot of the input from players dumbed it down ... Part of the game i liked was strategy , selecting the right kits / layout to achieve the job , listening to Commander , SL objectives etc..
Even something simple as a SL has heard from commander a enemy has snuck in behind you so orders your squad to get them can be a game changer ...
To be honest, I'm sad they haven't got the traditional commander role in BF3. It was really nice being able to help guide squads to small victories, being able to air drop supplies and vehicles, call in arty strikes.
I agree with maddog in BC2 it did seem to fracture the squad if you all weren't on voice comms (ie vent/TS/mumble) and actively following the lead from someone.
I am glad the commander role is out.
The commander seems like a good idea on paper but doesn't work in reality.
In reality you get stuck with some assclown that is calling in artillery on his own troops, or you have someone who stands with his dick in his hands and doesn't do shit.
so you have to start a kickvote and you always, always come up one vote short.
So i say good riddance to the commander.
I can see your point, if you get an asshat in the role, then it can be painful.
Thankfully I didn't get many games myself where that happened and I'm also pretty sure something like that wouldn't happen on a TOG server (I've only played BC2 with TOG, but their BC2 servers are a pretty nice gaming experience).
*sigh* is it October yet??!