Battlefield games are incredibly overrated.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

So the general consensus is if you took a team of BF players, and a team of CSS players and threw them both into a quake live instagib match the BF players would win handedly?

Iantheone

it makes sense, in that fps ability does translate, especially with the mouse... since everything is 1:1.

The aiming portion of the fps will be consistent across all games.

similiar to how spending time with halo helped me aim on other console fps, spending time with quake helped me aim better on other PC fps.

Things like map and gameplay knowledge dont translate from fps to fps... but things like aiming ability and aiming speed do.

[QUOTE="Iantheone"][QUOTE="markinthedark"]

So the general consensus is if you took a team of BF players, and a team of CSS players and threw them both into a quake live instagib match the BF players would win handedly?

markinthedark

it makes sense, in that fps ability does translate, especially with the mouse... since everything is 1:1.

The aiming portion of the fps will be consistent across all games.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

I probably couldnt because i dont know what arming a crate is. I mostly sat bad and racked up sniper kills when i had BC 2.... but it was alot easier than any other game i was used to.

I feel like at best BF could be COD lite. Vehicle maps on halo are noob maps.... I only play them if the people im playing with want to. I dont find them challenging.

It just seems like out of every fps ive played BF has the least importance on aiming.

But most BF maps are built on vehicles, and you don't find the jets in BF2 and Apache and Blackhawk hard to take down? Or maps with bunch of tanks and play as a non take out vehicle class?

Trying to play BF2 without aiming is impossible, LOL. And then there's the bullet drop where they can drop depending on how far they go.

I dont know the objectives, but i know racking up kills is much easier on a BF game than any other fps game.

but alot of fps games have objective maps.

Im not saying you dont need to know how to aim in BF, im just saying the ability to aim seems to have less emphasis than other fps games.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="Iantheone"] This makes no sense.Iantheone

it makes sense, in that fps ability does translate, especially with the mouse... since everything is 1:1.

The aiming portion of the fps will be consistent across all games.

I was pretty crappy at COD, and by pretty crappy i mean real crappy. But after playing alot of halo. I was alot better at COD... i went from constantly being negative K/D when i run and gun to actually being positive. Physical skills translate, less in the console world since every game has a different take on aim. But especially in the PC world because every game has 1:1 mouse accuracy.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"] Sounds like you don't understand the objective of Rush, which is to arm crates if you can't blow them up with explosives which always take longer but is doable. Oh, another Recon player, there are lots of Recons that don't do teamwork, and it'll be virtually impossible for a Recon to take on a whole team without teamwork.

But most BF maps are built on vehicles, and you don't find the jets in BF2 and Apache and Blackhawk hard to take down? Or maps with bunch of tanks and play as a non take out vehicle class?

Trying to play BF2 without aiming is impossible, LOL. And then there's the bullet drop where they can drop depending on how far they go.

gaming25

I dont know the objectives, but i know racking up kills is much easier on a BF game than any other fps game.

but alot of fps games have objective maps.

Im not saying you dont need to know how to aim in BF, im just saying the ability to aim seems to have less emphasis than other fps games.

the aiming is the same, because the aiming in all PC fps is the same.... there is just less emphasis on the aim... since there are a bevy of other objectives.

and the effectiveness of your aim relies alot on what vehicle you are sitting in.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

I probably couldnt because i dont know what arming a crate is. I mostly sat bad and racked up sniper kills when i had BC 2.... but it was alot easier than any other game i was used to.

I feel like at best BF could be COD lite. Vehicle maps on halo are noob maps.... I only play them if the people im playing with want to. I dont find them challenging.

It just seems like out of every fps ive played BF has the least importance on aiming.

markinthedark

But most BF maps are built on vehicles, and you don't find the jets in BF2 and Apache and Blackhawk hard to take down? Or maps with bunch of tanks and play as a non take out vehicle class?

Trying to play BF2 without aiming is impossible, LOL. And then there's the bullet drop where they can drop depending on how far they go.

I dont know the objectives, but i know racking up kills is much easier on a BF game than any other fps game.

but alot of fps games have objective maps.

Im not saying you dont need to know how to aim in BF, im just saying the ability to aim seems to have less emphasis than other fps games.

As for kills, you die even faster in COD, so shouldn't that be easier to get kills along with the killstreaks?

I don't understand how a slower paced shooter with recoil, bullet drop and numerous shots to kill someone doesn't require you to aim.

[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="markinthedark"]

I dont know the objectives, but i know racking up kills is much easier on a BF game than any other fps game.

but alot of fps games have objective maps.

Im not saying you dont need to know how to aim in BF, im just saying the ability to aim seems to have less emphasis than other fps games.

markinthedark

the aiming is the same, because the aiming in all PC fps is the same.... there is just less emphasis on the aim... since there are a bevy of other objectives.

The aiming is not the same. Guns handle differently in different games. Also, when I play BC2 I have a total of something like 14 bullets to use. And no, I dont play as a recon.

And unlike you I actually have played these games long enough to know what im talking about.

http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197985179134

http://bfbc2.statsverse.com/stats/pc/Sharp%20Claws/

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"] Sounds like you don't understand the objective of Rush, which is to arm crates if you can't blow them up with explosives which always take longer but is doable. Oh, another Recon player, there are lots of Recons that don't do teamwork, and it'll be virtually impossible for a Recon to take on a whole team without teamwork.

But most BF maps are built on vehicles, and you don't find the jets in BF2 and Apache and Blackhawk hard to take down? Or maps with bunch of tanks and play as a non take out vehicle class?

Trying to play BF2 without aiming is impossible, LOL. And then there's the bullet drop where they can drop depending on how far they go.

mitu123

I dont know the objectives, but i know racking up kills is much easier on a BF game than any other fps game.

but alot of fps games have objective maps.

Im not saying you dont need to know how to aim in BF, im just saying the ability to aim seems to have less emphasis than other fps games.

As for kills, you die even faster in COD, so shouldn't that be easier to get kills along with the killstreaks?

I don't understand how a slower paced shooter with recoil, bullet drop and numerous shots to kill someone doesn't require you to aim.

I buy alot of games ok, when i first played CS because it was the hot new internet sensation i didnt care for it. Only played a few matches.

Im not the best gamer in the world... im not even sure im above average. Im probably below average. But i have played ALOT of FPS in my day, and been gaming for longer than most folks here have lived. And when i play BF games i feel like my personal skill is alot less of an issue than when i play other FPS games.

But the thing is, i dont care if i lose. When i play halo, i dont touch the sword, shotgun, grenade launcher, rocket launcher etc. I play games for the challenge, and the challenge alone. And my feeling is that BF provides less of a challenge than most games out there.... because it doesnt seem like my aim matters. Whereas most other fps games, i feel like my aim is of critical importance.

I've been gaming for nearly 20 years and I found COD worse IMO for needing to aim, because it seems easier than BF for me.

But we are all different though.:)

I've been gaming for nearly 20 years and I found COD worse IMO for needing to aim, because it seems easier than BF for me.

But we are all different though.:)

mitu123

because the gameplay doesnt require it, or because the people that played it are so bad?

there is a distinction, because quake and UT in terms of gameplay are much harder than CS (imo)... but the guys who play CS are so devoted they are freaks of nature.

The problem is you all are basing this off pugs. No FPS requires skill in pugs, yet they all require skill in clan matches.i5750at4Ghz

just forming a team that large with committed players seems almost impossible.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

I've been gaming for nearly 20 years and I found COD worse IMO for needing to aim, because it seems easier than BF for me.

But we are all different though.:)

markinthedark

because the gameplay doesnt require it, or because the people that played it are so bad?

there is a distinction, because quake and UT in terms of gameplay are much harder than CS (imo)... but the guys who play CS are so devoted they are freaks of nature.

The problem is you all are basing this off pugs. No FPS requires skill in pugs, yet they all require skill in clan matches.i5750at4Ghz

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

I've been gaming for nearly 20 years and I found COD worse IMO for needing to aim, because it seems easier than BF for me.

But we are all different though.:)

mitu123

because the gameplay doesnt require it, or because the people that played it are so bad?

there is a distinction, because quake and UT in terms of gameplay are much harder than CS (imo)... but the guys who play CS are so devoted they are freaks of nature.

hrmm i still dont think im ready to give up on the issue.... but ide be willing to call it a draw. You have some sort of sickly weird charm i cant resist. I would be willing to accpet COD = BF considering i have limited knowledge in both franchises.

They are kind of like the halo vehicle maps where its a good time for messing around, but not in the least bit competitive.

I always hear about this fabled teamwork... but mostly it seems to boil down to if if anyone is willing to play as a medic and click on dead teammates (which isnt some sort of massive skill feat).

Its not played as a competitive esport, and if you listen to the radio chatter on something like 4v4 halo tournaments, the teams are infinitely better at communicating.

Battlefield is probably the most casual of all the fps games, i dont know why people think its some amazingly competitive online game... its slow, and overpopulated to the point where half the time you are killing someone that doesnt even know you are there. I have done my best to try to understand the love affair and watch youtube incredible skill videos (which dont exist). But half the time the people that are being shot at dont know whos shooting them because there are just so many enemies on screen.

Its not some sort of fps, where you need to be vigilant with your sound cues, super quick with your aim and in constant communication with your teammates to succeed.. Its easily the most casual of any fps game in recent memory.

markinthedark

it's obvious you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Battlefield is probably the most casual of all the fps games, i dont know why people think its some amazingly competitive online game... its slow, and overpopulated to the point where half the time you are killing someone that doesnt even know you are there. I have done my best to try to understand the love affair and watch youtube incredible skill videos (which dont exist). But half the time the people that are being shot at dont know whos shooting them because there are just so many enemies on screen.

markinthedark

It's just a different type of play that you just don't like. And you're right, it doesn't really require much teamwork in public servers other than people putting down ammo boxes and health packs and going at the same time to attack.

for the record mitu owned me in quake.... alot.

for the record mitu owned me in quake.... alot.

markinthedark

They are kind of like the halo vehicle maps where its a good time for messing around, but not in the least bit competitive.

I always hear about this fabled teamwork... but mostly it seems to boil down to if if anyone is willing to play as a medic and click on dead teammates (which isnt some sort of massive skill feat).

Its not played as a competitive esport, and if you listen to the radio chatter on something like 4v4 halo tournaments, the teams are infinitely better at communicating.

Battlefield is probably the most casual of all the fps games, i dont know why people think its some amazingly competitive online game... its slow, and overpopulated to the point where half the time you are killing someone that doesnt even know you are there. I have done my best to try to understand the love affair and watch youtube incredible skill videos (which dont exist). But half the time the people that are being shot at dont know whos shooting them because there are just so many enemies on screen.

Its not some sort of fps, where you need to be vigilant with your sound cues, super quick with your aim and in constant communication with your teammates to succeed.. Its easily the most casual of any fps game in recent memory.

markinthedark

Bad Company is actually pretty good but same cant be said about the turd that is BF2 so I would say some BF games are indeed overrated but not all

I stopped at halo

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"]The problem is you all are basing this off pugs. No FPS requires skill in pugs, yet they all require skill in clan matches.markinthedark

just forming a team that large with committed players seems almost impossible.

Okay, I just finished reading through this whole thread finally.

First off: Dear God, do you even READ what you say before hitting "Submit?" For the above bolded statement, I'd like to remind you about MAG. Yeah, sure, I know. "LOL FLOP BAD GRAFFIX!" Whatever. The fact is that it's a game that supports up to 256 players on a console AND it actually has people on mics and utilizing teamwork and running different flanking tactics. Does it get ridiculous at times with that many people on one map? Sure, but it's a controlled kind of chaos.

I'll agree that the fewer people there are, the easier it is to coordinate. But that's the reason for squads and then giving those squads individual objectives. 32 players become 4 squads of 8. Now you have 4v4 with 8 guys trying to cover one objective. THAT'S how team based games are supposed to work.

Also, thanks for pointing out that you're one of the guys hanging out away from objectives in Rush that I've had to kill simply for annoying me. And I guarantee that getting kills in BC2 was easy for you. For two reasons: 1) You were sniping and 2) everybody that wasn't you was trying to blow up M-COMS or CAPTURE FLAGS because THAT'S HOW YOU WIN.

On a final note, if you wanted to compare BF players "l33t a1m1ng sk1llz" then why didn't you just play "Squad Deathmatch" in the first place? It's 16 players, 4 squads of 4, all against each other. It's basically team deathmatch with 4 teams instead of 2. I don't think you'll find it quite as easy to get kills when the people you're killing because they're chasing down vehicles and objectives are working on a new objective: Putting bullets in your face. ;)

Shooting someone on BF games actually requires experience with that particular weapon, they all feel and work differently, thats the skill part of the game your missing. Its not like COD where you just put the cursor on someone and hold down the fire button. Most weapons you have to tap, tap, tap, the trigger fast or slow depending on the situation and distance from the enemy and judge bullet drop.

.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Doh ho ho ho. Call BF a casual series then say Halo and COD take more team work and skill. Oh you.i5750at4Ghz

Not sure what gun your using, but the assault rifles im currently ranking up have insane recoil. The AN-94 is a sick gun, but the recoil is out of control. Thas one of the biggest positives about BF that COD doesnt have is recoil, there literally is no recoil on anything at all in COD and almost every gun in BF recoils like a little girl is trying to shoot it.

[QUOTE="campzor"][QUOTE="percech"] Problem?tommyas

controls...

They are kind of like the halo vehicle maps where its a good time for messing around, but not in the least bit competitive.

I always hear about this fabled teamwork... but mostly it seems to boil down to if if anyone is willing to play as a medic and click on dead teammates (which isnt some sort of massive skill feat).

Its not played as a competitive esport, and if you listen to the radio chatter on something like 4v4 halo tournaments, the teams are infinitely better at communicating.

Battlefield is probably the most casual of all the fps games, i dont know why people think its some amazingly competitive online game... its slow, and overpopulated to the point where half the time you are killing someone that doesnt even know you are there. I have done my best to try to understand the love affair and watch youtube incredible skill videos (which dont exist). But half the time the people that are being shot at dont know whos shooting them because there are just so many enemies on screen.

Its not some sort of fps, where you need to be vigilant with your sound cues, super quick with your aim and in constant communication with your teammates to succeed.. Its easily the most casual of any fps game in recent memory.

markinthedark

Why am I not surprised you created this topic? Especially after showing your "dissapointment" in another topic that BF3 is PC focused!

its slow, and overpopulated to the point where half the time you are killing someone that doesnt even know you are there. I have done my best to try to understand the love affair and watch youtube incredible skill videos (which dont exist). But half the time the people that are being shot at dont know whos shooting them because there are just so many enemies on screen.

Its not some sort of fps, where you need to be vigilant with your sound cues, super quick with your aim and in constant communication with your teammates to succeed.. Its easily the most casual of any fps game in recent memory.

markinthedark

Incredible skill videos which don't exist? Ever seen Sgt Enigma? or Fyshiokid? Pretty easy videos to find, so I don't think you put much effort into this. So what if the game is slow? Isn't CS 1.6, the biggest FPS esport, slow? And you do use your ears a lot. I've located enemies by just hearing a little hint of footsteps , or located the source of a shot by listening. I also need to be "super quick" with my aim if I play aggressively, especially with the recon class.

I agree that most of the public matches are easy, but they are easy in every FPS, no matter how "competitive" the game is. If you want competition, find a clan and sign up for some clan wars.

Battlefield games still involve more skill and teamwork than COD or Halo though, in comparison to CS it involves more teamwork. Your supposed to play BF like a team game, a team of skilled players who doesnt use teamwork will lose to a team that uses teamwork which is good, we dont want a cod where ppl can go lonewolf. Also even the vehicles involve more skill that halo's vehicles. People complain about some chopper or jet pilot that decimates them, but they would never be able to do the same thing.