Thread is locked.

Why do people like air maps?

hrcn
DE Enlisted: 2011-10-27
2012-09-13 08:32
AUTh0rity said:
My suggestion to DICE/EA:
- Keep the Battlefield x games OLD SCHOOL!
- Continue the Arcade route for CoD/CS Fans with Bad Company x !

+1000000
34T3R
US Enlisted: 2011-10-24
2012-09-13 08:40
i never liked the Jets even in BF2, the flying enviorment is small , like flying in a shoebox.

on the otherhand the Helicopters are awesome, seem to be more suited for the small enviorments.

im a Novalogic veteran, they had huge maps suited for this. but they were limited by dx9 even though they paved the way for DDS.
- CPU: FX8350 4.4Ghz - GPU: 2 R9 280x Turbo Duo OC 1040/1500 stock - RAM: G.Skill Ripjaws 1866 - PSU: AzzA Titan 1000w - HDD: Western Digital - Motherboard: ASRock Fatal1ty Extreme Pro 990fx - Monitor: ASUS 24 inch 60hz
Jerhicco89
US Enlisted: 2011-10-29
2012-09-13 08:44
nO_d3N1AL said:
There are no "strategies".


I found your problem!
http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/en/forum/threadview/2832654489870017585/
Schmebi
DE Enlisted: 2011-10-30
2012-09-13 08:46
huge maps and relaxed and slow vehicle combat are for us old folks with slow reaction times n shit. young whelps like you can get all the action on CQ maps :P
Borned_Killa
GR Enlisted: 2011-12-22
2012-09-13 08:53
RaRaAv1s said:
Big maps = teamwork and tactics, Small maps = who has best aim and quickest finger.

Well from my pov they are.

This! Both can be fun... but when you play with team is always better.

@ OP: If you dont like you can fell free leave us and joing your friends in COD!
Guns don't kill people... I kill people with Guns!
Kid18120
Enlisted: 2011-10-27
2012-09-13 09:24
nO_d3N1AL said:
BF3 is probably the best-selling Battlefield game for many reasons, but for all those who played 1942 and BF2, why do you like having a massive map where it takes ages to find anyone? Don't you find it unbalanced and frustrating that there are planes, helis, tanks, jeeps and infantry all combined but very little action? If there was dogfighting or tank only then fair enough but I don't understand the appeal of large maps with lots of players and vehicles. Close Quarters is the Call of Duty killer in my opinion, but I just can't quite work out the mentality of someone who likes to have a score per minute of below 200. Bad Company was OK because there weren't jets and the maps weren't stupidly large, but any bigger and it would have sucked. Bad Company 2 seems to be more action packed than BC1 and BF3's large maps but from my experience Battlefield is an extremely slow game unless played on small maps with infantry and light armor only. Even playing 64 man Caspian Border is a ghost town. I'd rather have a 5v5 close quarters domination or search and destroy than the novelty of a "Battlefield".

Never heared of TACTICAL gameplay ?
We don't need to just run and gun ! for that pourpose we already have plenty of games (CS, UT, COD and so on) .
If you manage to squad up with someone who actually wants to play BF as it's meant to be plaied, you'll find yourself to have tons of fun.
It would be too long to explain what i mean here on the forums but, doing a summary:

- Spawn, 4 men squad.
- 1 pilot scout heli, 3 as passengers
- all suppressors on
- tactical flying on the objective, drop on roofs by landing
- scout heli dusts off and provide overlook/anti vehicle cover, the other 3 clear the area from infantry and cap the obj
- scout lands to pick up the others
- repeat
--- Hey badmins, how does it feel to know you just suck at the game ? --- ----------- This is my Premium signature! PREMIUM Master Race -----------
AUTh0rity
AT Enlisted: 2011-10-24
2012-09-13 11:12 , edited 2012-09-13 11:20 by AUTh0rity
34T3R said:
i never liked the Jets even in BF2, the flying enviorment is small , like flying in a shoebox.

on the otherhand the Helicopters are awesome, seem to be more suited for the small enviorments.

I love jets in BF2!
Challenging to learn but very rewarding when you own with them - same goes with Helicopters.

In battlefield 3 the flight mechanics are just dull - and so is maneuverability.

What I love the most in BF2 are the 2 seater Bombers. :D
Battle(non)sense: BF News, Infos and Explanations https://www.youtube.com/c/BattleNonSense |-| BF Machinimas - www.fear-productions.net |-| core i7 3770k |-| Zotac GTX970 always latest WHQL |-| 32GB RAM |-| Win 10 64bit |-| Framerate: 120FPS (limited) |-| Internet connection: fibre, 50MBit/5Mbit |-| Reached my "100 friends" limit - sorry guys! @Origin get rid of that limit! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-cO740RMYk
nO_d3N1AL
GB Enlisted: 2012-03-01
2012-09-13 12:38
DrexXxacK said:
IF youd PTFO youd meet enemies even on a AK-sized(bf2-sized) map with 24 players.. around the neutralized flags, around the flags being captured and along the battlefront... but obviously you didint even PTFO in bf2, else youd know better..

and its not (well, since bfbc(2) and bf3 a little more) a slaying-game, its a tactical teamplay-shooter; i personally am enjoying a long, explosive figth with less victims alot more that one short bombardement with 20 kills. A longlasting 1on1 starting with a helicopter, crossing ground-vehicles and finally get that prick with a knife can cost you 5 minutes but is more satisfacting than a c4-camping-quadkill...

theres a certain kind of understatement in this game, for the good players (intelligent players.. ) you probably should try to get in touch with.


edit: after reading some commentarys of the ThreadStarter: im sure you never tried to play the objective, killing is your goal. BF never rewarded farmers and campers with winning the round (almost, sometimes they had to patch, sometimes one team is so lame the others can win by camping).. but: MOST TIMES NOT HAVING an enemy around the next corner is EXACTLY what makes this game so interesting: you need to learn, to get instincts on what corner you should expect an enemy, and around wich corner its better to just run. You need experience. You need to listen to foosteps and explosions in the far. You definately need to use the minimap.. the real Battlefield is not too much action but alot of thinkin and using your senses.

You seem to be a COD-fan who likes CQ cause its no thinkin just hitandrun. Fragtime, Scoretime, remining me of Unreal Tournament (concerning the speed and the amount of brain needet to succeed).. you never seriously tried to play bf as it was thought classicaly, right?


In most online shooters I only kill when I see an enemy. I usually try to run as quickly as possible from one flag to the next. I don't know how you have come to this assumption. Oh and I never played BF2 if you look on my veteran status. Just because I want "action" it doesn't mean kills. I'd happily play a 4v4 on CQ domination because you can cap flags fast without running into a wall of campers.
AUTh0rity
AT Enlisted: 2011-10-24
2012-09-13 13:00 , edited 2012-09-13 13:13 by AUTh0rity
@nO_d3N1AL Run&Gun is everything that Battlefield was NEVER about. Well, until Bad Company came around.....

The Ultra Cap Speed CQ on CloseQuarter Maps is something I can just laugh about as this has nothing to do with the original Battlefield.

I would have highly appreciated if DICE had never brought this arcade gameplay to Battlefield x at all. They should keep that kind of stuff limited to Bad Company franchise. The BF Community seems large enough to have 2 different kinds of BF games. One for the realism, teamplay, tactical interested players (Battlefield x), and one for the fast paced, arcade folks (Bad Company x).
Battle(non)sense: BF News, Infos and Explanations https://www.youtube.com/c/BattleNonSense |-| BF Machinimas - www.fear-productions.net |-| core i7 3770k |-| Zotac GTX970 always latest WHQL |-| 32GB RAM |-| Win 10 64bit |-| Framerate: 120FPS (limited) |-| Internet connection: fibre, 50MBit/5Mbit |-| Reached my "100 friends" limit - sorry guys! @Origin get rid of that limit! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-cO740RMYk
Rifee
NO Enlisted: 2011-12-27
2012-09-13 13:45
nO_d3N1AL said:
crimsomrider said:
I see you don't have AK so I'll clarify. Battlefield is made for big maps with vehicles. It's a semi-realistic war game so you're supposed to move to the action instead of waiting for it. I don't know about your "Ghost towns" for Caspian, but I find it very action packed. Tanks, enemies all over the objectives. I'm not a camper, but always mobile so I don't know how you play. Also, the player who cares about his Score Per Minute is not a battlefield player obviously. I'm not playing for stats at all. I'm here to have fun playing BF so if I get 20 deaths and 4 kills I really don't care.

For example, I was looking at my stats and my Skill dropped by 120 after playing with a sniper soflaming so my teammates could use Javelins. But I don't really care. I helped my teammates win the match with those target designations and that's all that counts. Unfortunately m8, you're playing Battlefield wrong. BF is not for small maps, but big maps. :)
Again, people's obsession with "realism". I can't understand how spending minutes trying to get to the action can be "fun". BF3 would be better and have more teamwork if there was more than just domination for objective modes. I wouldn't mind Rush if the maps were smaller. CTF would be nice in close quarters too. I don't think anyone can play an online game without getting frustrated if they care about stats, but the mentality of a "Battlefield" player is a mystery to me. Where's the fun in spending ages getting to the flag when in CQ you can cap all three within a minute? Traditional Battlefield is far too slow. I don't get how anyone can like a slow paced game.



Isn't this the same as saying you can't understand why someone find chess or monopoly fun, because you like "whack a mole" better?
AUTh0rity
AT Enlisted: 2011-10-24
2012-09-13 14:32 , edited 2012-09-13 14:38 by AUTh0rity
When we complain about "realism" then this is not "We want to run longer until we get to the action". How did you come to that? Battlefield always was about a sandbox experience. It gave the players choice, and not forced everyone down one narrow road or 100m² of the map.

Touches of realism which were removed in Battlefield 3 (shortened list):
- Jets had limited ammo (Bombs, Rockets and rounds for the gun). Once you fired them, you had to return to your airfield/carrier, do a low altitude flyover to rearm and repair
- Helicopters had limited ammo (Rockets, TV Missiles, rounds for the gun). Once you fired them, you had to return to your helipad/carrier, land there to rearm and repair
- there were 2 seat bombers
- Jets and Helicopters had complex, challenging yet very rewarding flight mechanics
- no vehicle had autorepair!
- no soldier had autoheal
- you actually changed mags, not inserted single rounds into your weapon
- you could not sprint forever
- chain of command: Commander -> Squad Leader (with tactical planing/order options) -> Squad Member
- on every map you had many different tactical options to attack. There was nearly always a way to break out and turn the game
- weapons were much more lethal. i.e. the Linebaker was just scary.
- you could destroy the other teams commander tools, Artillery, SAT-Scan, UAV Trailer with the SpecOps class. The engineer could repair them.

What does it mean when Jets and helicopters have limited ammo?
- you have to aim more carefully
- you have to think before you fire
- you have to pull back to rearm which gives groundforces a break to push on
- flags with airfields and helipads become of MUCH more value

What does it mean when reloading your weapon triggers a true mag change?
- players have to think before they reload because if you have 8 rounds left in your mag, then you *loose* them on a mag change
- players fire more carefully
- much more tactical gameplay


There are many threads describing in detail how the gameplay and the experience in Battlefield 3 is much less diverse, rewarding and challenging than in Battlefield 1942, 2 and 2142.

Battlefield 3 became a game everyone can jump in and be good at without spending a lot of efforts.
While this is great for players who enjoy other games of that style, it is juts boring many of those who play Battlefield since 1942.
Battle(non)sense: BF News, Infos and Explanations https://www.youtube.com/c/BattleNonSense |-| BF Machinimas - www.fear-productions.net |-| core i7 3770k |-| Zotac GTX970 always latest WHQL |-| 32GB RAM |-| Win 10 64bit |-| Framerate: 120FPS (limited) |-| Internet connection: fibre, 50MBit/5Mbit |-| Reached my "100 friends" limit - sorry guys! @Origin get rid of that limit! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-cO740RMYk
Spartan31234
AQ Enlisted: 2011-11-17
2012-09-13 14:42
OP is trolling for sure
DusterFox
US Enlisted: 2011-11-21
2012-09-13 14:51
" but I just can't quite work out the mentality of someone who likes to have a score per minute of below 200."

How dare someone enjoy things different from my tastes!
nO_d3N1AL
GB Enlisted: 2012-03-01
2012-09-13 14:56
AUTh0rity said:
When we complain about "realism" then this is not "We want to run longer until we get to the action". How did you come to that? Battlefield always was about a sandbox experience. It gave the players choice, and not forced everyone down one narrow road or 100m² of the map.

Touches of realism which were removed in Battlefield 3 (shortened list):
- Jets had limited ammo (Bombs, Rockets and rounds for the gun). Once you fired them, you had to return to your airfield/carrier, do a low altitude flyover to rearm and repair
- Helicopters had limited ammo (Rockets, TV Missiles, rounds for the gun). Once you fired them, you had to return to your helipad/carrier, land there to rearm and repair
- there were 2 seat bombers
- Jets and Helicopters had complex, challenging yet very rewarding flight mechanics
- no vehicle had autorepair!
- no soldier had autoheal
- you actually changed mags, not inserted single rounds into your weapon
- you could not sprint forever
- chain of command: Commander -> Squad Leader (with tactical planing/order options) -> Squad Member
- on every map you had many different tactical options to attack. There was nearly always a way to break out and turn the game
- weapons were much more lethal. i.e. the Linebaker was just scary.
- you could destroy the other teams commander tools, Artillery, SAT-Scan, UAV Trailer with the SpecOps class. The engineer could repair them.

What does it mean when Jets and helicopters have limited ammo?
- you have to aim more carefully
- you have to think before you fire
- you have to pull back to rearm which gives groundforces a break to push on
- flags with airfields and helipads become of MUCH more value

What does it mean when reloading your weapon triggers a true mag change?
- players have to think before they reload because if you have 8 rounds left in your mag, then you *loose* them on a mag change
- players fire more carefully
- much more tactical gameplay


There are many threads describing in detail how the gameplay and the experience in Battlefield 3 is much less diverse, rewarding and challenging than in Battlefield 1942, 2 and 2142.

Battlefield 3 became a game everyone can jump in and be good at without spending a lot of efforts.
While this is great for players who enjoy other games of that style, it is juts boring many of those who play Battlefield since 1942.


So why not have a total simulation mode? Hardcore just removes HUD and gives you 60 HP. That's just an inconvinience, not realism. All I've heard is "strategy" and "realism". There should be a mode for all the poeple who want that and a more arcade style for all the newcomers to the series who only came here because of CoD's failure in the first place. It's very easy to please both by simply having different game modes, which DICE have tried to do but they should expand upon it to make it the shooter that has something for everyone. Close Quarters is just a start. I appreciate that all the loyal BF veterans are frustrated by many things in BF3, but you gotta understand that it's not CoD fans who ruined the game, it's EA's eyeballs being blinded by $$$ that have focused so much on capitalising on MW3's dissapointing show that they forgot to make the game similar to the previous Battlefield games. If you've noticed all CoD veterans tend to play non-vehicle maps so we don't care what you do on the big maps it can be anything you guys want we'll never play it. I will state this once more, the point of this thread was for me to find out THE APPEAL OF AIR MAPS. I wasn't complaining, I don't play them. But when I've tried I've never seen much teamwork or anything people say here because unless you're playing with people you know that doesn't really happen. A lot of people have been getting the wrong message that I want rid of them. I just wanted to see why people like them, not to change anything about it. The appeal of instant action is easy to understand. The appeal of slow paced large maps with vehicles isn't imo.
Bob369963
Enlisted: 2011-10-24
2012-09-13 15:34
nO_d3N1AL said:
Bob369963 said:
nO_d3N1AL said:
B_Sisko said:
There are plenty of arcade cod-style games out there. Not every game needs to fit that type of instant action mold.
CoD is more successful than BF because it has action, and greater variety in game modes. If MW3's online wasn't as bad as it is BF3 would have sold half of what it has done.
CoD is more successful because it has a larger base of players. Battlefield came from strictly PC gaming. CoD came from consoles and there are far more console gamers than their are PC players. I should clarify that statement. There are far more active console players than PC players. How many nieces, nephews, and I should say friends for you that are younger, have consoles? Many PC gamers have moved on and others just gave up. They see where the money is and they know the Devs know it too, so its a losing proposition for the original PC player that wanted something different. Something that takes skill, logic, and strategy to finish. Not some run and gun shoot-em-up. While that has it's place so does battlefield. My .02
You sound like a typical ignorant BF fanboy. You say CoD has no skill or strategy and only came from consoles. First off, Call of Duty originated on PC. It's true that most sales are from consoles, but you seemed to ignore that it was on PC first. Second, CoD is played competitively at tournaments, notably CoD2 was and CoD4 promod still is today. I completely agree that there is little skill in Call of Duty especially on consoles but a video game isn't there for bragging rights. It's there for entertainment. Call of Duty for one has more game modes, a camapign and split-screen. If you played Bad Company 1 demo you've seen the rest of the game, I was quite dissapointed with the finished product because I expected more than what was on the demo. And once again you talk about strategy and logic. It's not chess. BF players try to make themselves sound more intelligent than CoD because they stereotype all CoD players as those little kids who cream their pants when they see a 360 no scope cross-map killcam. People play (or used to rather) play CoD for reasons you wouldn't understand unless you actually played it at the time properly, not going off a few montages and stuff you read. I'm not expereinced with Battlefield so I'll grant you that it requires more strategy, but that doesn't mean it's a better game. There are many more things to judge a game by than its multiplayer. I guess, being a BF player and all, you don't really care about anything else.



You are correct and I apologize for the error in my statement. CoD did in fact originate on PC, although in my defense I don't know anyone who actually played it on PC . However I do know every single one of my nieces and nephews and all of their friends played it on consoles . You are incorrect in the fact that I did not say CoD takes no skill, what I said was "the original PC player that wanted something different. Something that takes skill, logic, and strategy to finish.". Please try to comprehend what you are reading. Many games are played competitively that means nothing. Hell Jeopardy is a game played every night. Whether or not the game is competitive, in your meaning, has no bearing to many. Game modes are part of the problem.

Entertainment? You are correct games are meant to be entertaining, and there-in lies the issue with this game. What is entertaining to me is not what entertains you. No help for either one of us there. Different strokes for different folks is all I can say to you. As for bragging rights, I'm confused. I'm not bragging to anyone. I personally like 32 Vs. 32 Conquest games where the overall objective is to win by defeating the entire other team and controlling the entire map, or the majority of it, for the duration of the play time. Not just figuring out how to kill one, two or more players in a game.

You mentioned you're not "experienced" with battlefield. I am and many others like me are. We played the entire series since the beginning and don't agree with the dumbing down of the game. We don't agree, for example, having many aspects done for us like the knifing animations or having an animation to jump over a rock. We can go on and on about that kind of crap. We don't like the fact that some aspects of the game have been removed or forgotten in order to accommodate console's. For instance did you know that one reason some aspects of game play are the way they are is because the PC player has to accommodate for the consoles in their lack of control functions. Meaning we have keyboards and mice with many control functions where the console gamepad (stock ones) are very limited.

You said "being a BF player and all, you don't really care about anything else". You are correct I don't care about any other game and I do only care about multi-player. Single player story mode is a another console aspect not needed or wanted in Battlefield by the majority of player's who have played the game since the beginning. It wasn't needed then and it sure isn't adding anything to it now. I guess you can feel better that you are driving people like me away from Battlefield. You have not played the game since the start and don't understand what many of us are saying since you haven't. I'll bet you could pick up the old games for cheap.Why don't you try them out and then see what were saying instead posting in these types of threads.
JaimemiaJ
ES Enlisted: 2011-10-26
2012-09-13 15:35
RaRaAv1s said:
Big maps = teamwork and tactics, Small maps = who has best aim and quickest finger.

Well from my pov they are.
Bob369963
Enlisted: 2011-10-24
2012-09-13 15:43
AUTh0rity said:
When we complain about "realism" then this is not "We want to run longer until we get to the action". How did you come to that? Battlefield always was about a sandbox experience. It gave the players choice, and not forced everyone down one narrow road or 100m² of the map.

Touches of realism which were removed in Battlefield 3 (shortened list):
- Jets had limited ammo (Bombs, Rockets and rounds for the gun). Once you fired them, you had to return to your airfield/carrier, do a low altitude flyover to rearm and repair
- Helicopters had limited ammo (Rockets, TV Missiles, rounds for the gun). Once you fired them, you had to return to your helipad/carrier, land there to rearm and repair
- there were 2 seat bombers
- Jets and Helicopters had complex, challenging yet very rewarding flight mechanics
- no vehicle had autorepair!
- no soldier had autoheal
- you actually changed mags, not inserted single rounds into your weapon
- you could not sprint forever
- chain of command: Commander -> Squad Leader (with tactical planing/order options) -> Squad Member
- on every map you had many different tactical options to attack. There was nearly always a way to break out and turn the game
- weapons were much more lethal. i.e. the Linebaker was just scary.
- you could destroy the other teams commander tools, Artillery, SAT-Scan, UAV Trailer with the SpecOps class. The engineer could repair them.

What does it mean when Jets and helicopters have limited ammo?
- you have to aim more carefully
- you have to think before you fire
- you have to pull back to rearm which gives groundforces a break to push on
- flags with airfields and helipads become of MUCH more value

What does it mean when reloading your weapon triggers a true mag change?
- players have to think before they reload because if you have 8 rounds left in your mag, then you *loose* them on a mag change
- players fire more carefully
- much more tactical gameplay


There are many threads describing in detail how the gameplay and the experience in Battlefield 3 is much less diverse, rewarding and challenging than in Battlefield 1942, 2 and 2142.

Battlefield 3 became a game everyone can jump in and be good at without spending a lot of efforts.
While this is great for players who enjoy other games of that style, it is juts boring many of those who play Battlefield since 1942.



Well said.
nO_d3N1AL
GB Enlisted: 2012-03-01
2012-09-13 15:52 , edited 2012-09-13 15:56 by nO_d3N1AL
Bob369963 said:
nO_d3N1AL said:
Bob369963 said:
nO_d3N1AL said:
B_Sisko said:
There are plenty of arcade cod-style games out there. Not every game needs to fit that type of instant action mold.
CoD is more successful than BF because it has action, and greater variety in game modes. If MW3's online wasn't as bad as it is BF3 would have sold half of what it has done.
CoD is more successful because it has a larger base of players. Battlefield came from strictly PC gaming. CoD came from consoles and there are far more console gamers than their are PC players. I should clarify that statement. There are far more active console players than PC players. How many nieces, nephews, and I should say friends for you that are younger, have consoles? Many PC gamers have moved on and others just gave up. They see where the money is and they know the Devs know it too, so its a losing proposition for the original PC player that wanted something different. Something that takes skill, logic, and strategy to finish. Not some run and gun shoot-em-up. While that has it's place so does battlefield. My .02
You sound like a typical ignorant BF fanboy. You say CoD has no skill or strategy and only came from consoles. First off, Call of Duty originated on PC. It's true that most sales are from consoles, but you seemed to ignore that it was on PC first. Second, CoD is played competitively at tournaments, notably CoD2 was and CoD4 promod still is today. I completely agree that there is little skill in Call of Duty especially on consoles but a video game isn't there for bragging rights. It's there for entertainment. Call of Duty for one has more game modes, a camapign and split-screen. If you played Bad Company 1 demo you've seen the rest of the game, I was quite dissapointed with the finished product because I expected more than what was on the demo. And once again you talk about strategy and logic. It's not chess. BF players try to make themselves sound more intelligent than CoD because they stereotype all CoD players as those little kids who cream their pants when they see a 360 no scope cross-map killcam. People play (or used to rather) play CoD for reasons you wouldn't understand unless you actually played it at the time properly, not going off a few montages and stuff you read. I'm not expereinced with Battlefield so I'll grant you that it requires more strategy, but that doesn't mean it's a better game. There are many more things to judge a game by than its multiplayer. I guess, being a BF player and all, you don't really care about anything else.
You are correct and I apologize for the error in my statement. CoD did in fact originate on PC, although in my defense I don't know anyone who actually played it on PC . However I do know every single one of my nieces and nephews and all of their friends played it on consoles . You are incorrect in the fact that I did not say CoD takes no skill, what I said was "the original PC player that wanted something different. Something that takes skill, logic, and strategy to finish.". Please try to comprehend what you are reading. Many games are played competitively that means nothing. Hell Jeopardy is a game played every night. Whether or not the game is competitive, in your meaning, has no bearing to many. Game modes are part of the problem.

Entertainment? You are correct games are meant to be entertaining, and there-in lies the issue with this game. What is entertaining to me is not what entertains you. No help for either one of us there. Different strokes for different folks is all I can say to you. As for bragging rights, I'm confused. I'm not bragging to anyone. I personally like 32 Vs. 32 Conquest games where the overall objective is to win by defeating the entire other team and controlling the entire map, or the majority of it, for the duration of the play time. Not just figuring out how to kill one, two or more players in a game.

You mentioned you're not "experienced" with battlefield. I am and many others like me are. We played the entire series since the beginning and don't agree with the dumbing down of the game. We don't agree, for example, having many aspects done for us like the knifing animations or having an animation to jump over a rock. We can go on and on about that kind of crap. We don't like the fact that some aspects of the game have been removed or forgotten in order to accommodate console's. For instance did you know that one reason some aspects of game play are the way they are is because the PC player has to accommodate for the consoles in their lack of control functions. Meaning we have keyboards and mice with many control functions where the console gamepad (stock ones) are very limited.

You said "being a BF player and all, you don't really care about anything else". You are correct I don't care about any other game and I do only care about multi-player. Single player story mode is a another console aspect not needed or wanted in Battlefield by the majority of player's who have played the game since the beginning. It wasn't needed then and it sure isn't adding anything to it now. I guess you can feel better that you are driving people like me away from Battlefield. You have not played the game since the start and don't understand what many of us are saying since you haven't. I'll bet you could pick up the old games for cheap.Why don't you try them out and then see what were saying instead posting in these types of threads.


I'll take your advice and give BF2 a shot but I don't know if there will be people online or if EA, being EA, will shut servers down since it's online only. Anyway I noticed that there aren't enough buttons on the controller for some functions that you get on PC but they're still in there on the PC version. They forgot about some things like making the USE key in co-op and camapign separate to the reload button, but it still works. Another thing I don't understand is that people say big maps like 32vs32 is more skillful and strategic, but if there's more players surely it's about who ended up with team players rather than actual outplaying and skill. For instance, in Gears of War it's a 5v5 always in different modes but because there's less players the true relative strength of each player is tested, whereas in 64 man server it's pretty much like playing an MMO where everyone does their own thing. Larger teams are harder to co-ordinate strategically whereas a 5 man team can just be 5 friends vs another 5 friends who all know each other and can use VOIP and their knowledge of each other's playstyles to beat the other team. As for "driving you away", I'm sure you're aware that I nor other CoD players can take responibility. We never requested or forced DICE into anything, and any attempts to make BF3 more CoDlike is purely from EA's vision for more sales and expanding the fanbase. However, it's good to know that BF2 vets get B2K and Armored Kill, and us CoD newbies can play Close Quarters in game modes like Gun Master or hectic domination matches. This game isn't CoD, it's still Battlefield, but the far more advanced game mechanics, balancing, graphics and fluent controls and gameplay attracted me to this game. And it's still enjoyable to play even on the more basic maps rather than grand scale matches. The most fun I've had on this game was actually playing two 1500 ticket 32 player conquest on Seine Crossing in a row and playing the objective. But the thing I like more about Close Quarters is that no matter how bad everyone else is you won't be frustrated or pinned down to a certain area of the map like you are in the normal maps. You can still play objective and make an effort, whereas even in infantry maps like Metro there comes a point where players just give up and sit back, which in turn makes objective players give up since no-one else is helping them. In CQ domination, one man is all it takes.
FPSVerenikin
KP Enlisted: 2011-10-29
2012-09-13 15:53
monkeyhunter2142 said:
By trying to take the red flag you run into plenty of enemies. Not on a cod scale but more then enough.
Unless you're on console...


This.
 
Thread is locked.
Thread is locked.