bf isn't known for its campaign so that wont matter to much... And i guess I am okay with 24, I atleast wanted 32 but w/ebf3 better have a good story or it will flop.
ZoomZoom2490
Battlefiled 3: looks like PC users win
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="ZoomZoom2490"]bf isn't known for its campaign so that wont matter to much... And i guess I am okay with 24, I atleast wanted 32 but w/ebf3 better have a good story or it will flop.
smokingsbad
Im not ok with 24 players its to low for Bad company and will be to low for BF3 they need to raise it up to 32 . DICE confirmed though 24 isnt the set player number yet so we still have hope ... and yeah to the guy up top BF is and will never be know for its campaign its all about multiplayer and always has been .
bf isn't known for its campaign so that wont matter to much... And i guess I am okay with 24, I atleast wanted 32 but w/e[QUOTE="smokingsbad"][QUOTE="ZoomZoom2490"]
bf3 better have a good story or it will flop.
SpArKs424
Im not ok with 24 players its to low for Bad company and will be to low for BF3 they need to raise it up to 32 . DICE confirmed though 24 isnt the set player number yet so we still have hope ... and yeah to the guy up top BF is and will never be know for its campaign its all about multiplayer and always has been .
How do you know it'll be too low for BF3? You've played the game?
That's what we've been saying all along, 360 holds back all games. MAG could do it even more than Battlefield.
Blame the piece of dinky toy for gimping your game on the PS3.Locutus_Picard
MAG could do even more what? Player count is all I can think of.... anything else that made MAG more demanding of a game?
LOL you should be thankful your getting this game at all consolelites, The proper BF series is a PC game and nothing else, you can have bad company, so stop complaining
[QUOTE="Locutus_Picard"]
That's what we've been saying all along, 360 holds back all games. MAG could do it even more than Battlefield.
Blame the piece of dinky toy for gimping your game on the PS3.Mystic-G
MAG could do even more what? Player count is all I can think of.... anything else that made MAG more demanding of a game?
Mag looks like **** one reason it can hold 256 players and has no destruction so much goes on in a BF game . and how do i know 24 players is low well technically yes i have played the game ive played every single BF in my time . 30 or more is needed to have a good game as i stated 24 is to few even in Bad company .Which is one reason im gonna get on building up my PC i need a new Graphics card and motherboard and ill be set to go .LOL you should be thankful your getting this game at all consolelites, The proper BF series is a PC game and nothing else, you can have bad company, so stop complaining
OB-47
What a load of crap. We're not getting the game out of the goodness of DICE's hearts; we're getting it because there's money to be made. Your preconceived notion of "proper" doesn't enter into it.LOL you should be thankful your getting this game at all consolelites, The proper BF series is a PC game and nothing else, you can have bad company, so stop complaining
OB-47
[QUOTE="OB-47"]What a load of crap. We're not getting the game out of the goodness of DICE's hearts; we're getting it because there's money to be made. Your preconceived notion of "proper" doesn't enter into it.LOL you should be thankful your getting this game at all consolelites, The proper BF series is a PC game and nothing else, you can have bad company, so stop complaining
lowe0
Well we have Battlefield 1942 that had 64 players and huge maps.
Then we had Battlefield: Vietnam that had 64 players and huge maps.
Then we had Battlefield 2 that had 64 players and huge maps.
Then we had the very awesome Battlefield 2142 that had 64 players and huge maps.
Then we got Bad Company 2, 32 players, no jets, small maps.
Now we're going to get Battlefield 3 with 64 players, huge maps, jets, and prone.
Of course any notion of proper doesn't fit into it but make no mistake, Bad Company 2 wasn't a proper Battlefield game.
i don't get it..is this the next game from Bad company 2 or battlefield 2 the old PC title? soapandbubbles
It is the sequel to Battlefield 2, the PC game from....2006?. I think DICE already said that Bad Company will be its own series from now on.
i don't get it..is this the next game from Bad company 2 or battlefield 2 the old PC title? soapandbubblesThis is the successor to BF2, not Bad Company 2. The single player has no bearing on the Bad Company story line from what I can tell.
[QUOTE="soapandbubbles"]i don't get it..is this the next game from Bad company 2 or battlefield 2 the old PC title? Ragingbear505
It is the sequel to Battlefield 2, the PC game from....2006?. I think DICE already said that Bad Company will be its own series from now on.
BF2 came out in early 2005
What a load of crap. We're not getting the game out of the goodness of DICE's hearts; we're getting it because there's money to be made. Your preconceived notion of "proper" doesn't enter into it.[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="OB-47"]
LOL you should be thankful your getting this game at all consolelites, The proper BF series is a PC game and nothing else, you can have bad company, so stop complaining
Ragingbear505
Well we have Battlefield 1942 that had 64 players and huge maps.
Then we had Battlefield: Vietnam that had 64 players and huge maps.
Then we had Battlefield 2 that had 64 players and huge maps.
Then we had the very awesome Battlefield 2142 that had 64 players and huge maps.
Then we got Bad Company 2, 32 players, no jets, small maps.
Now we're going to get Battlefield 3 with 64 players, huge maps, jets, and prone.
Of course any notion of proper doesn't fit into it but make no mistake, Bad Company 2 wasn't a proper Battlefield game.
I enjoyed BFBC2 far more than the horrible broken and inbalanced BF2. The hit detection in BF2 is just crap (if you think BC2 is bad, go play BF2 again), the nade spam was gamebreaking, and the jets were the single most overpowered weapon I've ever seein in a video game.
BF2 had a lot of great moments, but I always found it very difficult to play it for long periods of time when I just couldn't kill anything depsite being dead on with the accuracy and being taunted by kids flying the jets constantly not giving you a chance of surivial. I've never seen a game where people could go with a 50/1 K/D ratio and people wouldn't complain about it. How is that even remotly balanced?
BC2 had pacing, had much better infantry play, had more dynamic environments (though BF2 did not have the destruction), and for the most part, everything is balanced out. People say the LMGs are a bit OP because the guy can also heal himself at the same time, I would agree but nothing was as inbalanced as the jets in BF2.
BC2 sure wasn't as big as BF2, but I found the action to be more intense while there still being a heavily reliance on teamwork. I think people were far to quick to forget all of the major shortcomings of BF2.
[QUOTE="Ragingbear505"]
[QUOTE="lowe0"] What a load of crap. We're not getting the game out of the goodness of DICE's hearts; we're getting it because there's money to be made. Your preconceived notion of "proper" doesn't enter into it.Wasdie
Well we have Battlefield 1942 that had 64 players and huge maps.
Then we had Battlefield: Vietnam that had 64 players and huge maps.
Then we had Battlefield 2 that had 64 players and huge maps.
Then we had the very awesome Battlefield 2142 that had 64 players and huge maps.
Then we got Bad Company 2, 32 players, no jets, small maps.
Now we're going to get Battlefield 3 with 64 players, huge maps, jets, and prone.
Of course any notion of proper doesn't fit into it but make no mistake, Bad Company 2 wasn't a proper Battlefield game.
I enjoyed BFBC2 far more than the horrible broken and inbalanced BF2. The hit detection in BF2 is just crap (if you think BC2 is bad, go play BF2 again), the nade spam was gamebreaking, and the jets were the single most overpowered weapon I've ever seein in a video game.
BF2 had a lot of great moments, but I always found it very difficult to play it for long periods of time when I just couldn't kill anything depsite being dead on with the accuracy and being taunted by kids flying the jets constantly not giving you a chance of surivial. I've never seen a game where people could go with a 50/1 K/D ratio and people wouldn't complain about it. How is that even remotly balanced?
BC2 had pacing, had much better infantry play, had more dynamic environments (though BF2 did not have the destruction), and for the most part, everything is balanced out. People say the LMGs are a bit OP because the guy can also heal himself at the same time, I would agree but nothing was as inbalanced as the jets in BF2.
BC2 sure wasn't as big as BF2, but I found the action to be more intense while there still being a heavily reliance on teamwork. I think people were far to quick to forget all of the major shortcomings of BF2.
I saw one guy that was so good with the jets, he went almost 100-1 on his K/D ratio with a jet. I was flabbergasted. Anyway, I agree, BC2 didn't have dolphin diving, bad nade spam(cause there is a little, but it's not horrible), DID have better hit detection and have destructible environments, etc. It was just an overall better game, imo.
But, you know in Vietnam, that the helicopters are now overpowered. If someone good is flying those, I see them go 50-1 also. Because there's not a good way to take them down, you can shoot them with guns but it takes forever(and they can just repair) and the RPG can't hit them worth crap, they move too fast.
I enjoyed BFBC2 far more than the horrible broken and inbalanced BF2. The hit detection in BF2 is just crap (if you think BC2 is bad, go play BF2 again), the nade spam was gamebreaking, and the jets were the single most overpowered weapon I've ever seein in a video game.
BF2 had a lot of great moments, but I always found it very difficult to play it for long periods of time when I just couldn't kill anything depsite being dead on with the accuracy and being taunted by kids flying the jets constantly not giving you a chance of surivial. I've never seen a game where people could go with a 50/1 K/D ratio and people wouldn't complain about it. How is that even remotly balanced?
BC2 had pacing, had much better infantry play, had more dynamic environments (though BF2 did not have the destruction), and for the most part, everything is balanced out. People say the LMGs are a bit OP because the guy can also heal himself at the same time, I would agree but nothing was as inbalanced as the jets in BF2.
BC2 sure wasn't as big as BF2, but I found the action to be more intense while there still being a heavily reliance on teamwork. I think people were far to quick to forget all of the major shortcomings of BF2.
Wasdie
I think that you are also quick to forget how hard it was to actually be efficient with the jets and how not many were able to do what you described. Also if they engaged with another jet in air combat they usually wouldn't last long since usually two and three manuvers and you were out of the map and die, that's if they didn't killed themselves doing the manuvers in the first place. A proficient jet pilot in one team against another team without a good pilot was totally unbalanced, even more in certain maps, but such a thing was never that usual.
If your stick to measure balance in a BF game is K/D ratio the only thing I can do is this.:roll:
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]
I enjoyed BFBC2 far more than the horrible broken and inbalanced BF2. The hit detection in BF2 is just crap (if you think BC2 is bad, go play BF2 again), the nade spam was gamebreaking, and the jets were the single most overpowered weapon I've ever seein in a video game.
BF2 had a lot of great moments, but I always found it very difficult to play it for long periods of time when I just couldn't kill anything depsite being dead on with the accuracy and being taunted by kids flying the jets constantly not giving you a chance of surivial. I've never seen a game where people could go with a 50/1 K/D ratio and people wouldn't complain about it. How is that even remotly balanced?
BC2 had pacing, had much better infantry play, had more dynamic environments (though BF2 did not have the destruction), and for the most part, everything is balanced out. People say the LMGs are a bit OP because the guy can also heal himself at the same time, I would agree but nothing was as inbalanced as the jets in BF2.
BC2 sure wasn't as big as BF2, but I found the action to be more intense while there still being a heavily reliance on teamwork. I think people were far to quick to forget all of the major shortcomings of BF2.
glez13
I think that you are also quick to forget how hard it was to actually be efficient with the jets and how not many were able to do what you described. Also if they engaged with another jet in air combat they usually wouldn't last long since usually two and three manuvers and you were out of the map and die, that's if they didn't killed themselves doing the manuvers in the first place. A proficient jet pilot in one team against another team without a good pilot was totally unbalanced, even more in certain maps, but such a thing was never that usual.
If your stick to measure balance in a BF game is K/D ratio the only thing I can do is this.:roll:
I don't know about you, but 2 years ago every single server I played was plauged by either the massive nade spam of the infantry only servers, or the completely overpowered jets and helos. It wasn't hard to master that jet. Do you have a joystick? Well if you do congrats, you'll win 99% of the time.
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]
[QUOTE="Ragingbear505"]
Well we have Battlefield 1942 that had 64 players and huge maps.
Then we had Battlefield: Vietnam that had 64 players and huge maps.
Then we had Battlefield 2 that had 64 players and huge maps.
Then we had the very awesome Battlefield 2142 that had 64 players and huge maps.
Then we got Bad Company 2, 32 players, no jets, small maps.
Now we're going to get Battlefield 3 with 64 players, huge maps, jets, and prone.
Of course any notion of proper doesn't fit into it but make no mistake, Bad Company 2 wasn't a proper Battlefield game.DragonfireXZ95
I enjoyed BFBC2 far more than the horrible broken and inbalanced BF2. The hit detection in BF2 is just crap (if you think BC2 is bad, go play BF2 again), the nade spam was gamebreaking, and the jets were the single most overpowered weapon I've ever seein in a video game.
BF2 had a lot of great moments, but I always found it very difficult to play it for long periods of time when I just couldn't kill anything depsite being dead on with the accuracy and being taunted by kids flying the jets constantly not giving you a chance of surivial. I've never seen a game where people could go with a 50/1 K/D ratio and people wouldn't complain about it. How is that even remotly balanced?
BC2 had pacing, had much better infantry play, had more dynamic environments (though BF2 did not have the destruction), and for the most part, everything is balanced out. People say the LMGs are a bit OP because the guy can also heal himself at the same time, I would agree but nothing was as inbalanced as the jets in BF2.
BC2 sure wasn't as big as BF2, but I found the action to be more intense while there still being a heavily reliance on teamwork. I think people were far to quick to forget all of the major shortcomings of BF2.
I saw one guy that was so good with the jets, he went almost 100-1 on his K/D ratio with a jet. I was flabbergasted. Anyway, I agree, BC2 didn't have dolphin diving, bad nade spam(cause there is a little, but it's not horrible), DID have better hit detection and have destructible environments, etc. It was just an overall better game, imo.
But, you know in Vietnam, that the helicopters are now overpowered. If someone good is flying those, I see them go 50-1 also. Because there's not a good way to take them down, you can shoot them with guns but it takes forever(and they can just repair) and the RPG can't hit them worth crap, they move too fast.
DICE has always messed up air power. Even in BC2 the helos can be pretty deadly with the right pilot. AAA is still pretty much useless as the person using it is still extremely venerable to fire and explosions.
I'm really hoping that they have learned their lessons with BF3 and give us very good counters to the air power.
I saw one guy that was so good with the jets, he went almost 100-1 on his K/D ratio with a jet. I was flabbergasted. Anyway, I agree, BC2 didn't have dolphin diving, bad nade spam(cause there is a little, but it's not horrible), DID have better hit detection and have destructible environments, etc. It was just an overall better game, imo.
But, you know in Vietnam, that the helicopters are now overpowered. If someone good is flying those, I see them go 50-1 also. Because there's not a good way to take them down, you can shoot them with guns but it takes forever(and they can just repair) and the RPG can't hit them worth crap, they move too fast.
DragonfireXZ95
Yeah but that is probably just the technology of the game. In BF2 if you wanted to go to certain place by foot you had to take a designated root, and obviously all the nade spammer lovers knew this routes. On BC2 you can make alternative routes by your own in many places so spammers just aren't that efficient anymore. In the places that they can still use the spamming they use it, that will probably never change.
[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"]
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]
I enjoyed BFBC2 far more than the horrible broken and inbalanced BF2. The hit detection in BF2 is just crap (if you think BC2 is bad, go play BF2 again), the nade spam was gamebreaking, and the jets were the single most overpowered weapon I've ever seein in a video game.
BF2 had a lot of great moments, but I always found it very difficult to play it for long periods of time when I just couldn't kill anything depsite being dead on with the accuracy and being taunted by kids flying the jets constantly not giving you a chance of surivial. I've never seen a game where people could go with a 50/1 K/D ratio and people wouldn't complain about it. How is that even remotly balanced?
BC2 had pacing, had much better infantry play, had more dynamic environments (though BF2 did not have the destruction), and for the most part, everything is balanced out. People say the LMGs are a bit OP because the guy can also heal himself at the same time, I would agree but nothing was as inbalanced as the jets in BF2.
BC2 sure wasn't as big as BF2, but I found the action to be more intense while there still being a heavily reliance on teamwork. I think people were far to quick to forget all of the major shortcomings of BF2.
Wasdie
I saw one guy that was so good with the jets, he went almost 100-1 on his K/D ratio with a jet. I was flabbergasted. Anyway, I agree, BC2 didn't have dolphin diving, bad nade spam(cause there is a little, but it's not horrible), DID have better hit detection and have destructible environments, etc. It was just an overall better game, imo.
But, you know in Vietnam, that the helicopters are now overpowered. If someone good is flying those, I see them go 50-1 also. Because there's not a good way to take them down, you can shoot them with guns but it takes forever(and they can just repair) and the RPG can't hit them worth crap, they move too fast.
DICE has always messed up air power. Even in BC2 the helos can be pretty deadly with the right pilot. AAA is still pretty much useless as the person using it is still extremely venerable to fire and explosions.
I'm really hoping that they have learned their lessons with BF3 and give us very good counters to the air power.
This seems like a good case for a need for more than 4 classes. AA installations are nice, but predictable and easily destroyed or avoided. If you have a unit dedicated soley to the AA role (with something like a stinger) air units have a wild card to look out for.
Just glad I'll be playing this on PC. I don't think I can stand playing another FPS on consoles. After playing through Killzone 1 and 2 recently, I've realized how much I hate it. bleehumIs it the controller you hate?
[QUOTE="bleehum"] Just glad I'll be playing this on PC. I don't think I can stand playing another FPS on consoles. After playing through Killzone 1 and 2 recently, I've realized how much I hate it. MushroomWigIs it the controller you hate? Yep, and I do fine with aiming; I do pretty well online. I'm just tired of playing FPS's with a controller.
[QUOTE="MushroomWig"][QUOTE="bleehum"] Just glad I'll be playing this on PC. I don't think I can stand playing another FPS on consoles. After playing through Killzone 1 and 2 recently, I've realized how much I hate it. bleehumIs it the controller you hate? Yep, and I do fine with aiming; I do pretty well online. I'm just tired of playing FPS's with a controller. I know what you mean, a mouse seems perfectly suited for a first person shooter, although I'm having quite a lot of fun using the move controller for Killzone 3.
[QUOTE="dunl12496"]
Probably a made up story by a pc fanboy. Console users do it too. At least my ps3 wasn't $2000. Just saying :P.
most PC's aren't $2000 either if you decided to build it yourself. but consolites don't really know anything about that do they?
lool a $600 pc would slaughter both consolesPlease Log In to post.
Log in to comment