Dissapointed in new BF3 footage

Although it seems that everyone is focusing on grahics and discussing about it I can't get enjoyment out of the vids for a whole different reason. Gameplay. Seems like BF3 will be BC2.5. Again the 3D spotting is in, mindless gameplay. Every vid is run and gun. No BF3 features like Communication Rose. IMO BF3 should have the same or even more features than BF2, else it's not a SEQUEL! It should not be a damn stripped version. The game seems to made totally for the CoD/Console crowd. Hope the 64 player Conquest maps can save it or else this game will only stay in the shadow of previous --read-->real Battlefield games. The ultimate question: Why is DICE marketing BF3 as a true sequel to BF2 while it clearly isn't a true sequel?forthelulzzz

It is the Rush mode on one of the smaller maps, with only 24 players maximum.... Of course it is going to look like BC2. In this particular case, it is designed to play like BC2. However, you get 64 player Conquest and a huge map and it won't seem like BC2.5 anymore, it will seem like BF3.

And the new footage isn't "marketing," it is leaked Alpha footage coming from people who are breaking an NDA.... The Alpha test is to strain the netcode and get some good feedback on the community features in before the beta comes.

Battlefield series are so over-rated. The gaming world is just to desperate for a COD killer....

There has yet to be a video that shows an entire match...

I honestly think people's expectations are too high for this game. Either that, or they desperately seek something to dethrone COD, therefore they go ape**** with excitement/hype.

It is still Battelfield. The game will play very similar to Bad Company. Anyone assuming differently were fooling themselves. Or, just assuming since there have been great leaps in technology, there would automatically be great leaps in gameplay design (which is not the case). DICE is making some cool improvements and additions. It's gonna be the best BF game ever, for me most likely. I'm expecting a beautiful game with refined, familiar gameplay, not innovation.

[QUOTE="forthelulzzz"]Although it seems that everyone is focusing on grahics and discussing about it I can't get enjoyment out of the vids for a whole different reason. Gameplay. Seems like BF3 will be BC2.5. Again the 3D spotting is in, mindless gameplay. Every vid is run and gun. No BF3 features like Communication Rose. IMO BF3 should have the same or even more features than BF2, else it's not a SEQUEL! It should not be a damn stripped version. The game seems to made totally for the CoD/Console crowd. Hope the 64 player Conquest maps can save it or else this game will only stay in the shadow of previous --read-->real Battlefield games. The ultimate question: Why is DICE marketing BF3 as a true sequel to BF2 while it clearly isn't a true sequel?KingsMessenger

It is the Rush mode on one of the smaller maps, with only 24 players maximum.... Of course it is going to look like BC2. In this particular case, it is designed to play like BC2. However, you get 64 player Conquest and a huge map and it won't seem like BC2.5 anymore, it will seem like BF3.

And the new footage isn't "marketing," it is leaked Alpha footage coming from people who are breaking an NDA.... The Alpha test is to strain the netcode and get some good feedback on the community features in before the beta comes.

I'm looking forward to the prepared footage DICE/EA releases. The thing is, I'm not expecting anything WAY better than what was shown the leaked vids. Just major texture improvement, and showcasing vehicles.

BF3 is going to be an amazing game don't get me wrong but... it keeps sounding less and less like the true sequal to BF2 :( walkingdream

You can't exactly make a true sequel to a PC exclusive and bring it to consoles.

[QUOTE="walkingdream"]BF3 is going to be an amazing game don't get me wrong but... it keeps sounding less and less like the true sequal to BF2 :( ChubbyGuy40

You can't exactly make a true sequel to a PC exclusive and bring it to consoles.

Yeah its not like BF3 is bringing back all those requested features the "true" BF3 should have. Its not like it has Jets and 64 players and prone and proper optimization and super high Max benchmarks or anything.

Oh wait...

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="walkingdream"]BF3 is going to be an amazing game don't get me wrong but... it keeps sounding less and less like the true sequal to BF2 :( SPYDER0416

You can't exactly make a true sequel to a PC exclusive and bring it to consoles.

Yeah its not like BF3 is bringing back all those requested features the "true" BF3 should have. Its not like it has Jets and 64 players and prone and proper optimization and super high Max benchmarks or anything.

Oh wait...

Commander.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

You can't exactly make a true sequel to a PC exclusive and bring it to consoles.

ChubbyGuy40

Yeah its not like BF3 is bringing back all those requested features the "true" BF3 should have. Its not like it has Jets and 64 players and prone and proper optimization and super high Max benchmarks or anything.

Oh wait...

Commander.

Yes, because getting team killed while I was commander until I relinquished and got replaced by a 12 year old (who did a terrible job and also got tk'ed repeatedly) was such an amazing part of BF2. Sign me up for the "bring back this terribly thought out feature" campaign, sign me right up.

The game isn't even out yet and it's already bad. omaigahd....

Battlefield series are so over-rated. The gaming world is just to desperate for a COD killer....

rich-sac

Oh God... I bet you played 5 minutes, or better yet... you've only seen video and now your making comments about the game.

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Yeah its not like BF3 is bringing back all those requested features the "true" BF3 should have. Its not like it has Jets and 64 players and prone and proper optimization and super high Max benchmarks or anything.

Oh wait...

SPYDER0416

Commander.

Yes, because getting team killed while I was commander until I relinquished and got replaced by a 12 year old (who did a terrible job and also got tk'ed repeatedly) was such an amazing part of BF2. Sign me up for the "bring back this terribly thought out feature" campaign, sign me right up.

Commander is a great feature... are you telling me because you got tked as a commander, it's not a good feature?

i'm not a battlefield veteran, I never played BF1 or BF2 properly. I started playing the series on the Bad Company series. So, if BF3 plays like BC2, won't be a problem since I love BC2 more than anything else and for me its the best online fps ever.

Altought I must point that i'm not very excited on some new stuff, like the squad system being diferent from BC2 (only the leader spawn on squad mates, squad mates respawn on leader only) especially on huge maps. And that flanking crap feature DICE mentioned (don't remember the name of it) do not look very promising either.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

Commander.

Bebi_vegeta

Yes, because getting team killed while I was commander until I relinquished and got replaced by a 12 year old (who did a terrible job and also got tk'ed repeatedly) was such an amazing part of BF2. Sign me up for the "bring back this terribly thought out feature" campaign, sign me right up.

Commander is a great feature... are you telling me because you got tked as a commander, it's not a good feature?

You're passing judgement on a game based off of leaked alpha footage that was done in order to test how the game plays so far?.SoraX64

Battlefield series are so over-rated. The gaming world is just to desperate for a COD killer....

rich-sac

Bad Company 2 is a COD killer. I did play over 800 hours at BC 2 and barely 125 hours in Black Ops. But BF3 is expected to be a BF 2 enhancement and not a new iteration of BC.

And despite my love for BC 2 BF3 seems that does some hgameplay design just poorly:

-You need to select the knife and grenade before to use it, which means = useless in my agenda.

-The HUD pop-ups messages just IN THE CENTER of your crosshair just as in Medal Of Honor multiplayer (done by DICE) which is an absolute HORROR due obstructs your aware about the combat situation.

-Assault no longer exists: the lost the ammo box so smoke grenades are now very limited and frag grenade launchers are weak (due people crying), so now everyone will use the medic root.

-Paris Metro is a m0ronic map in a absurd gameplay mode to show BF3 to the world: EVERYONE is expecting HUGE, multi-MILES map in CONQUEST mode with 64 players and at least A DOZEN of flying choppers, jets and the same amount of tanks and heavy vehicles.

Electronic arts just screw the whole marketing.

[QUOTE="rich-sac"]

Battlefield series are so over-rated. The gaming world is just to desperate for a COD killer....

Ondoval

Bad Company 2 is a COD killer. I did play over 800 hours at BC 2 and barely 125 hours in Black Ops. But BF3 is expected to be a BF 2 enhancement and not a new iteration of BC.

And despite my love for BC 2 BF3 seems that does some hgameplay design just poorly:

-You need to select the knife and grenade before to use it, which means = useless in my agenda.

-The HUD pop-ups messages just IN THE CENTER of your crosshair just as in Medal Of Honor multiplayer (done by DICE) which is an absolute HORROR due obstructs your aware about the combat situation.

-Assault no longer exists: the lost the ammo box so smoke grenades are now very limited and frag grenade launchers are weak (due people crying), so now everyone will use the medic root.

-Paris Metro is a m0ronic map in a absurd gameplay mode to show BF3 to the world: EVERYONE is expecting HUGE, multi-MILES map in CONQUEST mode with 64 players and at least A DOZEN of flying choppers, jets and the same amount of tanks and heavy vehicles.

Electronic arts just screw the whole marketing.

[QUOTE="Ondoval"]

[QUOTE="rich-sac"]

Battlefield series are so over-rated. The gaming world is just to desperate for a COD killer....

ocstew

Bad Company 2 is a COD killer. I did play over 800 hours at BC 2 and barely 125 hours in Black Ops. But BF3 is expected to be a BF 2 enhancement and not a new iteration of BC.

And despite my love for BC 2 BF3 seems that does some hgameplay design just poorly:

-You need to select the knife and grenade before to use it, which means = useless in my agenda.

-The HUD pop-ups messages just IN THE CENTER of your crosshair just as in Medal Of Honor multiplayer (done by DICE) which is an absolute HORROR due obstructs your aware about the combat situation.

-Assault no longer exists: the lost the ammo box so smoke grenades are now very limited and frag grenade launchers are weak (due people crying), so now everyone will use the medic root.

-Paris Metro is a m0ronic map in a absurd gameplay mode to show BF3 to the world: EVERYONE is expecting HUGE, multi-MILES map in CONQUEST mode with 64 players and at least A DOZEN of flying choppers, jets and the same amount of tanks and heavy vehicles.

Electronic arts just screw the whole marketing.

I honestly think people's expectations are too high for this game. Either that, or they desperately seek something to dethrone COD, therefore they go ape**** with excitement/hype.

It is still Battelfield. The game will play very similar to Bad Company. Anyone assuming differently were fooling themselves. Or, just assuming since there have been great leaps in technology, there would automatically be great leaps in gameplay design (which is not the case). DICE is making some cool improvements and additions. It's gonna be the best BF game ever, for me most likely. I'm expecting a beautiful game with refined, familiar gameplay, not innovation.

TREAL_Since

i honestly cant agree with you more in the italic, its so sad just play the games you'll like to play and enjoy them

[QUOTE="ocstew"][QUOTE="Ondoval"]

Bad Company 2 is a COD killer. I did play over 800 hours at BC 2 and barely 125 hours in Black Ops. But BF3 is expected to be a BF 2 enhancement and not a new iteration of BC.

And despite my love for BC 2 BF3 seems that does some hgameplay design just poorly:

-You need to select the knife and grenade before to use it, which means = useless in my agenda.

-The HUD pop-ups messages just IN THE CENTER of your crosshair just as in Medal Of Honor multiplayer (done by DICE) which is an absolute HORROR due obstructs your aware about the combat situation.

-Assault no longer exists: the lost the ammo box so smoke grenades are now very limited and frag grenade launchers are weak (due people crying), so now everyone will use the medic root.

-Paris Metro is a m0ronic map in a absurd gameplay mode to show BF3 to the world: EVERYONE is expecting HUGE, multi-MILES map in CONQUEST mode with 64 players and at least A DOZEN of flying choppers, jets and the same amount of tanks and heavy vehicles.

Electronic arts just screw the whole marketing.

JangoWuzHere

[QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"][QUOTE="ocstew"] Selecting grenades and knife is used to prevent weapon spamming. This also allows nade cooking.ocstew

Although it seems that everyone is focusing on grahics and discussing about it I can't get enjoyment out of the vids for a whole different reason. Gameplay. Seems like BF3 will be BC2.5. Again the 3D spotting is in, mindless gameplay. Every vid is run and gun. No BF3 features like Communication Rose.

IMO BF3 should have the same or even more features than BF2, else it's not a SEQUEL! It should not be a damn stripped version. The game seems to made totally for the CoD/Console crowd.

Hope the 64 player Conquest maps can save it or else this game will only stay in the shadow of previous --read-->real Battlefield games.

The ultimate question: Why is DICE marketing BF3 as a true sequel to BF2 while it clearly isn't a true sequel?forthelulzzz

I can't say I know exactly what they would've needed to do for me to consider this a worthy successor, but what I've seen so far is not it. This is an alpha and it is a highly infantry focused Rush map. But it's not just the map that's giving me BC2 deja vu. Now I'm basically expecting BC2 with bigger maps and more players. Not the most terrible thing in the world. I like BC2. But the legacy brought up my expectations to a higher level than that. BF1942 blew my mind and BF2, while removing a bunch, also introduced a lot of significant new and different elements. This is just...the additions and improvements shown so far aren't as big and significant. The similarities to BC2 are more striking than the differences.

In the end I'm sure I'll like it just fine, it just probably won't be as grand as I was hoping.

The game got overhyped, like call of duty every year. So disappointment because people's extremely high expectations weren't met is inevitable.

The game is Battlefield 3, not Battlefield 2 and not Bad Company 2.5 or whatever you want to call it.

BF2 came out 6 years ago, of course BF3 is gonna change! Every forum I go to there is someone whining about how it's not a true sequel to BF2. 1942 and BF2 were also very different, but nobody complained about that! What do people want? A new Battlefield game or a BF2 copy?

If BF3 is not a true sequel to BF2, then BF2 was not a true sequel to 1942 either!

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Yeah its not like BF3 is bringing back all those requested features the "true" BF3 should have. Its not like it has Jets and 64 players and prone and proper optimization and super high Max benchmarks or anything.

Oh wait...

SPYDER0416

Commander.

Yes, because getting team killed while I was commander until I relinquished and got replaced by a 12 year old (who did a terrible job and also got tk'ed repeatedly) was such an amazing part of BF2. Sign me up for the "bring back this terribly thought out feature" campaign, sign me right up.

[QUOTE="Ondoval"]

[QUOTE="rich-sac"]

Battlefield series are so over-rated. The gaming world is just to desperate for a COD killer....

ocstew

Bad Company 2 is a COD killer. I did play over 800 hours at BC 2 and barely 125 hours in Black Ops. But BF3 is expected to be a BF 2 enhancement and not a new iteration of BC.

And despite my love for BC 2 BF3 seems that does some hgameplay design just poorly:

-You need to select the knife and grenade before to use it, which means = useless in my agenda.

-The HUD pop-ups messages just IN THE CENTER of your crosshair just as in Medal Of Honor multiplayer (done by DICE) which is an absolute HORROR due obstructs your aware about the combat situation.

-Assault no longer exists: the lost the ammo box so smoke grenades are now very limited and frag grenade launchers are weak (due people crying), so now everyone will use the medic root.

-Paris Metro is a m0ronic map in a absurd gameplay mode to show BF3 to the world: EVERYONE is expecting HUGE, multi-MILES map in CONQUEST mode with 64 players and at least A DOZEN of flying choppers, jets and the same amount of tanks and heavy vehicles.

Electronic arts just screw the whole marketing.

Does grenade spam still exists? In Battlefield 2 the assault soldier was able to carry 4 grenades along with the G3, but in BC 2 the grenade limit is 1 for everyone, and the ammo box respawn is slow, and also in most of modern shooters grenades prompt warnings in the HUD, that show you the location, distance and time to explode. Is hard to figure HOW wiith all those helps to rookie players the grenades could still be conceived to a source of abuse.

What we have now, instead, is people carrying 6 Carl Gustav using that RPGs as the f****** Quake III Arena Rocket Launcher... are you more happier with the Gustavs instead of a grenade rain? At least the grenades require skill to aim and catch the targed instead of having a insta-kill 1.7 mts lethal radius with a fast fly and ground contact detonation.

Making mandatory to relect the grenade or knive just before their use just turn both weapons into useless and ultimately damages the gameplay. Their use just will be filled with the use of other weapons as C4 or RPGs. Notice that the weapon change was also enormously reduced.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

Commander.

Mystic-G

Yes, because getting team killed while I was commander until I relinquished and got replaced by a 12 year old (who did a terrible job and also got tk'ed repeatedly) was such an amazing part of BF2. Sign me up for the "bring back this terribly thought out feature" campaign, sign me right up.

oh it did happen on some servers..was pretty common on 2142..Or if you werent catering to some little chump who wouldnt squad up would initaite a mutiny vote on you cause you were doing a bad job for the team whilst he lone wolfed like an utter idiot.

Was a great feature when used correctly but a lot of abuse went on with it.

I like it that way because BF2 sucked. BF3 feels like a sequel to BC2 with bigger maps and prone.

I like it that way because BF2 sucked. BF3 feels like a sequel to BC2 with bigger maps and prone.

Harisemo

More like a prequel of BC 2: in BC 2 you can respawn in any of your 3 squad teammates, in BF3 only the leader can be used as mobile respawn point. The weapon change is also more slow (to prevent that skillfull players that empties the magazine could easily kill incompetent players with his side handgun).

[QUOTE="ocstew"][QUOTE="Ondoval"]

Bad Company 2 is a COD killer. I did play over 800 hours at BC 2 and barely 125 hours in Black Ops. But BF3 is expected to be a BF 2 enhancement and not a new iteration of BC.

And despite my love for BC 2 BF3 seems that does some hgameplay design just poorly:

-You need to select the knife and grenade before to use it, which means = useless in my agenda.

-The HUD pop-ups messages just IN THE CENTER of your crosshair just as in Medal Of Honor multiplayer (done by DICE) which is an absolute HORROR due obstructs your aware about the combat situation.

-Assault no longer exists: the lost the ammo box so smoke grenades are now very limited and frag grenade launchers are weak (due people crying), so now everyone will use the medic root.

-Paris Metro is a m0ronic map in a absurd gameplay mode to show BF3 to the world: EVERYONE is expecting HUGE, multi-MILES map in CONQUEST mode with 64 players and at least A DOZEN of flying choppers, jets and the same amount of tanks and heavy vehicles.

Electronic arts just screw the whole marketing.

Ondoval

Does grenade spam still exists? In Battlefield 2 the assault soldier was able to carry 4 grenades along with the G3, but in BC 2 the grenade limit is 1 for everyone, and the ammo box respawn is slow, and also in most of modern shooters grenades prompt warnings in the HUD, that show you the location, distance and time to explode. Is hard to figure HOW wiith all those helps to rookie players the grenades could still be conceived to a source of abuse.

What we have now, instead, is people carrying 6 Carl Gustav using that RPGs as the f****** Quake III Arena Rocket Launcher... are you more happier with the Gustavs instead of a grenade rain? At least the grenades require skill to aim and catch the targed instead of having a insta-kill 1.7 mts lethal radius with a fast fly and ground contact detonation.

Making mandatory to relect the grenade or knive just before their use just turn both weapons into useless and ultimately damages the gameplay. Their use just will be filled with the use of other weapons as C4 or RPGs. Notice that the weapon change was also enormously reduced.

It really doesn't take that long to press a number key and press the mouse one button. It basically takes almost the same amount of time if you know how to control a FPS...

The hype does seem to be getting out of hand. Whatever though, I'm keeping my expectations low. Military shooters were never my thing anyway, and I'd rather be pleasantly surprised than massively disappointed.

It really doesn't take that long to press a number key and press the mouse one button. It basically takes almost the same amount of time if you know how to control a FPS...

JangoWuzHere

It does, because to use the knife in BC 2 you just need to press a key, whereas in BF 3 you need one press to equip the weapon, other for using it and another to revert to the original weapon.

Don't try to compare 1 key stroke against 3, mathematically just doesn't work and in terms of time and availability is even worse. The new controls are just a mesh.

People............
Play the game the first. Yea you can make a preview impression but hold that it in for when your done playing the beta.

Battlefield series are so over-rated. The gaming world is just to desperate for a COD killer....

rich-sac

I bet you never played BF, COD is overrated too, but BF is different and gameplay is better.

People............
Play the game the first. Yea you can make a preview impression but hold that it in for when your done playing the beta.

fusionhunter

Is important to take the feedback about such small things about the game due the gaming press will never care a crap about it. They just will take a look about the AAA status title, the money that EA will spent in promotion and just will put either a 8.5 and a 9.5 in the review score and will tell you "buy it" despite the existence of flaws.

At the release data of BF 3 I'll be very busy trying to figure how to play at the same time BF 3, Skyrrim and the Diablo III beta, so is important to me to be sure that the game worths my money.

I'm not dissapointed at all. The gunplay is much improved over BF2. The communication rose would be nice, but it's kind of unnecessary when context sensitive stuff works to the same extent without busying up the UI. Also goodbye "enemy vehicle spotted" spam. The gameplay is run and gun, just like BF2. Only now there seems to be no grenade spam, the dynamic lights really influence the battlefields, deploying bipods and suppression effects will pin people down, and snipers have been reduce back down to a recon role.

We haven't seen footage of a vehicle focused map yet, only a 32 player Rush map. I'm sure the idea behind this is to show off something that resembles CoD to try to hook in that audience. People were saying how the E3 tank trailer was boring, imagine showing them a 64 player match on a large map. They would be so bored they would never consider buying the game. Rigth now it's all marketing.

As a pretty die-hard fan of BF2 and BC2 I am happy to see them coming together. From the leaked gameplay I've seen BF3 is much slower paced than BC2 so it's more in-line with BF2 however the gunplay looks much improved over BF2 in every single way resembling something more like BC2. A perfect combination of the two it looks like. A lot of the nice UI features of BC2 are coming back which also is a welcomed return.

Same, too bad my pre ordered is already paid for. Would have loved to put that money towards MW3.

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Yeah its not like BF3 is bringing back all those requested features the "true" BF3 should have. Its not like it has Jets and 64 players and prone and proper optimization and super high Max benchmarks or anything.

Oh wait...

SPYDER0416

Commander.

Yes, because getting team killed while I was commander until I relinquished and got replaced by a 12 year old (who did a terrible job and also got tk'ed repeatedly) was such an amazing part of BF2. Sign me up for the "bring back this terribly thought out feature" campaign, sign me right up.

[QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"]

It really doesn't take that long to press a number key and press the mouse one button. It basically takes almost the same amount of time if you know how to control a FPS...

Ondoval

It does, because to use the knife in BC 2 you just need to press a key, whereas in BF 3 you need one press to equip the weapon, other for using it and another to revert to the original weapon.

Don't try to compare 1 key stroke against 3, mathematically just doesn't work and in terms of time and availability is even worse. The new controls are just a mesh.

Actually all of your complaints are pretty much coming to the conclusion that you want BF3 to be like CoD with bigger maps. Well that's not the case. They don't want insta-knifing or quick grenades, they want the classes to be more balance and force teamwork, and overall they want the game to move slower than BC2 to bring it back to the more tactical pace of BF2.

The enhancements to the squad system (only being able to spawn off of the squad leader) will also bring the gameplay back to more BF2 rather than BC2. Also I must be the only one in the world who doesn't miss commander. I thought it was a neat idea but it never works out right in the end. Both BF2 and 2142 had it and both could have easily done without it. Most of the time it was useless, the other part of the time would put the power of the team in the hands of one of the 32 players and often they wold mess it up. Sure people always say "but there were so many good moments when you had a good commander and a good team" but the flaw there is you have to get both a good commander and good team and that was rare. Why have a gameplay mechanic in a game that has a much higher failure rate than a success rate? The idea of giving the squad leader more power (apparently squad leaders now can call in some basic support without having to through a commander) is a much better decision.

The game got overhyped, like call of duty every year. So disappointment because people's extremely high expectations weren't met is inevitable.

LustForSoul

I'm not dissapointed at all. The gunplay is much improved over BF2. The communication rose would be nice, but it's kind of unnecessary when context sensitive stuff works to the same extent without busying up the UI. Also goodbye "enemy vehicle spotted" spam. The gameplay is run and gun, just like BF2. Only now there seems to be no grenade spam, the dynamic lights really influence the battlefields, deploying bipods and suppression effects will pin people down, and snipers have been reduce back down to a recon role.

We haven't seen footage of a vehicle focused map yet, only a 32 player Rush map. I'm sure the idea behind this is to show off something that resembles CoD to try to hook in that audience. People were saying how the E3 tank trailer was boring, imagine showing them a 64 player match on a large map. They would be so bored they would never consider buying the game. Rigth now it's all marketing.

As a pretty die-hard fan of BF2 and BC2 I am happy to see them coming together. From the leaked gameplay I've seen BF3 is much slower paced than BC2 so it's more in-line with BF2 however the gunplay looks much improved over BF2 in every single way resembling something more like BC2. A perfect combination of the two it looks like. A lot of the nice UI features of BC2 are coming back which also is a welcomed return.

Wasdie

Finally someone who speaks sense. Tired of people hailing BF2 as the perfect game never to be lived up to, acting as though it was flawless. Or seeing BC2 only as consolized crap.

[QUOTE="LustForSoul"]

The game got overhyped, like call of duty every year. So disappointment because people's extremely high expectations weren't met is inevitable.

eboyishere

[QUOTE="Ondoval"]

[QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"]

It really doesn't take that long to press a number key and press the mouse one button. It basically takes almost the same amount of time if you know how to control a FPS...

Wasdie

It does, because to use the knife in BC 2 you just need to press a key, whereas in BF 3 you need one press to equip the weapon, other for using it and another to revert to the original weapon.

Don't try to compare 1 key stroke against 3, mathematically just doesn't work and in terms of time and availability is even worse. The new controls are just a mesh.

Actually all of your complaints are pretty much coming to the conclusion that you want BF3 to be like CoD with bigger maps. Well that's not the case. They don't want insta-knifing or quick grenades, they want the classes to be more balance and force teamwork, and overall they want the game to move slower than BC2 to bring it back to the more tactical pace of BF2.

The enhancements to the squad system (only being able to spawn off of the squad leader) will also bring the gameplay back to more BF2 rather than BC2. Also I must be the only one in the world who doesn't miss commander. I thought it was a neat idea but it never works out right in the end. Both BF2 and 2142 had it and both could have easily done without it. Most of the time it was useless, the other part of the time would put the power of the team in the hands of one of the 32 players and often they wold mess it up. Sure people always say "but there were so many good moments when you had a good commander and a good team" but the flaw there is you have to get both a good commander and good team and that was rare. Why have a gameplay mechanic in a game that has a much higher failure rate than a success rate? The idea of giving the squad leader more power (apparently squad leaders now can call in some basic support without having to through a commander) is a much better decision.

They don't want grenade spawn but all soldiers starts with 2? Man the first thing I'll do in any map is to throw those nades, and then, due engineer now starts with 5 rockets will lone-wolfing and rocketeeng people. They just designed the game to play it like Quake III Arena; I have a pretty decent teamwork numbers in BC 2 but BF 3 seems oriented to deathmatch carnage so far (at least based in all the stuff released).

You known that now destroying the M-COMS only provide 200 points instead of 250 like in BC 2? And killing people was raised from 50 to 100 points (even 300 if is a knife kill!!!)... if those are changes to encourage teamwork and objective-based teamplay I must be blind.