Dissapointed in new BF3 footage

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

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.

cyborg100000

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.

It looked good to me, but it is still going to be yet another modern military shooter. For this reason I think I can definitely wait to play it. Don't get me wrong, I still dig military shooters, there are just other games coming out around the same time that I am far more interested in. All in all, I think it will be great, but I really don't think it is going to be some holy grail of shooters or anything of the sort. I think it will be just another one, albeit a good one.

It'll be good but a lot of people are really over hyping this game.

the footage look fine to me :?

[QUOTE="cyborg100000"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

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.

-ArchAngeL-777-

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="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.

[QUOTE="-ArchAngeL-777-"][QUOTE="cyborg100000"]

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.

mitu123

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.

Ondoval

Nothing is like the grenade spam in BF2. As for the rockets we don't know their infantry killing abilities, I'll be you any money they'll be more like BF2 (where the at guyalso got 5 rockets).

As for the Mcom stations being blown I think what we saw was an assist, not an actually plant and kill. They are rewarding more for assists.

As fo the knife, the extended time it takes for a kill leaves you really open. If you've played Killzone 3 you know how that balances out. A knife is only sensible when you sneak up on the enemy. You won't be seeing insta-knifes across the map like you do in CoD and BC2 when it takes a few seconds to successfully kill somebody with a knife.

it's definitely not going to be a true successor to the masterpiece that was BF 2.

I too noticed the abundance of running and gunning/knife rushing/shotgun-exploiting, and noticed that most of that can be done with lack of actual teamwork, let alone a commander like in bf2.

I guess we should get used to it.

The commander was a great part of Battlefield. Just because you dont always get a good one, doesnt mean they should punt the idea. Its a great part of the game that makes it unique. You dont always get a good squad leader, but that doesnt mean you should get rid of them. If they get rid of the commander for BF3, then its noobed up for COD crowd. You talk about a tactical feel, but without a commander, that will be very limited. It will be just like BC2 with every squad doing its own thing and no one communicating. Like it or not, its part of what makes Battlefield...Battlefield. Without it, you have Bad Company. GG did the same with Killzone 3 and pissed people off badly...completely changed the gameplay. Tacticians could throw spawn grenades in Killzone 2. Of course you had some people that were terrible at it. GG decided to noob it up by making spawn points in KZ3 that Tacticians could capture...totally ruined the class and much of the gamplay.-ArchAngeL-777-

Commanders were far to much of an inbalance and a problem. I'm glad it was removed and the squad leaders have more power. It was extremely rare to find two squads working together in BF2 and BF2142, DICE saw this and saw the flaw with the commander system. So instead of trying to force a broken system they are adapting peices of that system into something new and hopefully more balanced.

Battlefield was Battlefield far before squads and a commander and it will continue to be Battlefield long after the commander has been taken out.

it's definitely not going to be a true successor to the masterpiece that was BF 2.

I too noticed the abundance of running and gunning/knife rushing/shotgun-exploiting, and noticed that most of that can be done with lack of actual teamwork, let alone a commander like in bf2.

I guess we should get used to it.

Dead-Memories

You're saying there wasn't a lot of running and gunning in BF2? Did we play the same game? Also there hasn't been a single video of a shotgun so far, so I don't know where that came from. Also knife rushing... i've only seen that happen when the players were all alone and one snuck up on the other. It's not like BC2 where somebody runs through a hail of gunfire to knife you in the face.

I think everybody here is overreacting with their nostalgia glasses for BF2 to realize how BF2 wasn't some masterpiece of shooting mechanics and balance.

most real BF fans agree its Bad Company 3, its not BF3 by any means, i was watching the vids aswell, looks so much like COD

ill just stick to Project Reality and get RO2 instead this year

most real BF fans agree its Bad Company 3, its not BF3 by any means, i was watching the vids aswell, looks so much like COD

ill just stick to Project Reality and get RO2 instead this year

HaloinventedFPS

What did you expect it to look like? I honestly curious. Did you want the horrible hit detection, lackluster weapons, and cone-of-fire to return?

[QUOTE="HaloinventedFPS"]

most real BF fans agree its Bad Company 3, its not BF3 by any means, i was watching the vids aswell, looks so much like COD

ill just stick to Project Reality and get RO2 instead this year

Wasdie

What did you expect it to look like? I honestly curious. Did you want the horrible hit detection, lackluster weapons, and cone-of-fire to return?

no, but i didnt want

-regen health

-bloody screen so real

-quick knife/ 1 hit kill from COD

-generic run and gun COD gameplay -promotion/points/levels/unlocks ripped right from COD -linear/small maps thanks to consoles- no commo rose thanks to consoles
-no real "Battlefield" teamwork thanks to all the casuals on console

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="HaloinventedFPS"]

most real BF fans agree its Bad Company 3, its not BF3 by any means, i was watching the vids aswell, looks so much like COD

ill just stick to Project Reality and get RO2 instead this year

HaloinventedFPS

What did you expect it to look like? I honestly curious. Did you want the horrible hit detection, lackluster weapons, and cone-of-fire to return?

no, but i didnt want

-regen health

-bloody screen so real

-quick knife/ 1 hit kill from COD

-generic run and gun COD gameplay -promotion/points/levels/unlocks ripped right from COD -linear/small maps thanks to consoles- no commo rose thanks to consoles
-no real "Battlefield" teamwork thanks to all the casuals on console

Health doesn't regen when in battles and only slowly when out of them. This takes out that annoyance from having 1 hp and being miles away from a fight. THere is no bloody screen until you die, then it's just red (you obviously haven't seen any of the gameplay). The knife kill takes a good 2-3 seconds leaving you completely open for attack while you're preforming the kill (so nothing like CoD). The genaric run and gun from COD? So what was BF2? Some master tactical shooter with no running and gunning? Not true at all. BF2 invented the promotions/points/levels/unlocks, it just never showed you getting them during a match.

The only map we have seen is the 32 player rush map Metro which takes place in a city. When outdoors it looks about the same size as the urban maps in BF2. Com rose has been replaced with context sensative stuff that works just as well. Squads have been rebalanced to bring back teamplay.

You're arguments show that you haven't watched any of the leaked gameplay videos, read any of the blogs, or any of that and are just jumping on the BF3 hate train.

Let me guess, you're also waiting for Red Orchestra 2.

[QUOTE="-ArchAngeL-777-"] The commander was a great part of Battlefield. Just because you dont always get a good one, doesnt mean they should punt the idea. Its a great part of the game that makes it unique. You dont always get a good squad leader, but that doesnt mean you should get rid of them. If they get rid of the commander for BF3, then its noobed up for COD crowd. You talk about a tactical feel, but without a commander, that will be very limited. It will be just like BC2 with every squad doing its own thing and no one communicating. Like it or not, its part of what makes Battlefield...Battlefield. Without it, you have Bad Company. GG did the same with Killzone 3 and pissed people off badly...completely changed the gameplay. Tacticians could throw spawn grenades in Killzone 2. Of course you had some people that were terrible at it. GG decided to noob it up by making spawn points in KZ3 that Tacticians could capture...totally ruined the class and much of the gamplay.Wasdie

Commanders were far to much of an inbalance and a problem. I'm glad it was removed and the squad leaders have more power. It was extremely rare to find two squads working together in BF2 and BF2142, DICE saw this and saw the flaw with the commander system. So instead of trying to force a broken system they are adapting peices of that system into something new and hopefully more balanced.

Battlefield was Battlefield far before squads and a commander and it will continue to be Battlefield long after the commander has been taken out.

most real BF fans agree its Bad Company 3, its not BF3 by any means, i was watching the vids aswell, looks so much like COD

ill just stick to Project Reality and get RO2 instead this year

HaloinventedFPS

Nope, most real BF fans would agree that this is a completely new game called Battlefield 3, and not a carbon copy of a 6 year old game or a sequel to Bad Company 2.

What you are thinking of is biased BF2 fanboys.... those are not real BF fans.

So the answer is to "problem" as you see it is to remove a feature that helped separate Battlefield from every other shooter on the market (other than MAG)? Take out a feature that was cool to have, cool to use, and added a different dimension to the game whether you had a good commander or not. Yep COD doesnt have that, so why should Battlefield? Heck people bought BC2 on PS3 even though the mics never worked in BC1 on PS3. Maybe we should get rid of those as well? Seriously though, the worst that can happen is you just dont get any help from your commander, and the other team does. I hate to tell you this, but that still will happen in this game if they make the commander assets usable by everyone. Just like in 1943 when someone sits in the bomber shack all game and doesnt send the bomber to the right targets.-ArchAngeL-777-

Commmander is the last feature that seperates BF from the rest of the pack. The whole class-based combat (which has been a staple of BF forever), focus on vehicles, large maps with 64 players, squad mechanics, and it's arcady approach to the battlefield have always stood it out from the crowd. Commander was a nice feature but is in by no way the only reason that BF2 stood out from comparable shooters in 2005.

Your argument of the mics is just silly and makes no sense. Commander had a direct negative impact on the gameplay when not used right (so did the bomber shacks in 1943). I'm sure they looked at ways of re-implementing the commander system but figured there was no good way of making it work and add any depth to the gameplay.

Again they took out one feature but are making up for it with others. The increased abilities of the squad leader for one is a major difference from BC2 and BF2. Where in BF2 squad leaders were used as the mobile spawn points and could give orders, they could only beg the commander for artillery support or UAV support. In BC2 there were no squad leaders, just squad mates. Now the squad leaders have the abilty to give the orders (which give you a bonus if you follow them btw) and are the mobile spawns. In addition they now can help out their squad and the surrounding squads. If what I hear is correct from the E3 gameplay the squad leader has a sort of a UAV recon or other things that can help the squads. This is unconfirmed of course.

You're not looking at this from a gameplay perspective, you're looking at this from your own personal experiance and from a nostoglia perspective. The commanders in BF2 were to large of a hit or miss. Entire sides would lose because their commander didn't work the controls right, how is that fair? A lot of commanders would abuse the hell out of the position too. Sure you could vote them out, but that took a large majority of your team to vote and usually people didn't even care.

You're just assuming DICE is doing whatever they can to screw over their fanbase instead of them taking an objective look at the gameplay found in BF2 and BC2 and trying to find some common ground to satisfy everybody who plays it as well as expand their playerbase.

[QUOTE="HaloinventedFPS"]

most real BF fans agree its Bad Company 3, its not BF3 by any means, i was watching the vids aswell, looks so much like COD

ill just stick to Project Reality and get RO2 instead this year

Red2k-

Nope, most real BF fans would agree that this is a completely new game called Battlefield 3, and not a carbon copy of a 6 year old game or a sequel to Bad Company 2.

What you are thinking of is biased BF2 fanboys.... those are not real BF fans.

it happens with any game...actually most games get a backlash from the core and praise from the new

it's just a gamble you have to take

And this guys is what happens when a franchise becomes successful. You CANNOT CHANGE IT. If any change is made, it's somehow worse than that long lost Title from 10 years before, that was always 10 times the game this new game can ever be. It has to be the exact same but with better graphics. No need to cater to a more diverse audiance than before, all we need is Conquest, screw Rush. We don't need any effen singleplayer, this series only does multiplayer! Nevermind those who like a decent single player experience alongside their multiplayer and that it adds life to the game as well as giving noobs a chance to learn. I swear I've heard these oldtimmey fans even complaining that Battlefield 3 shouldn't even have destruction, because Battlefield 2 didn't have it and that somehow allows for larger maps. This is also why I feel that massive hype is a bad thing, no game will ever live up to these demands. Anyways, I'm gonna have fun with the game and if there are any flaws WHEN I PLAY IT then I'll say so.

[QUOTE="-ArchAngeL-777-"] So the answer is to "problem" as you see it is to remove a feature that helped separate Battlefield from every other shooter on the market (other than MAG)? Take out a feature that was cool to have, cool to use, and added a different dimension to the game whether you had a good commander or not. Yep COD doesnt have that, so why should Battlefield? Heck people bought BC2 on PS3 even though the mics never worked in BC1 on PS3. Maybe we should get rid of those as well? Seriously though, the worst that can happen is you just dont get any help from your commander, and the other team does. I hate to tell you this, but that still will happen in this game if they make the commander assets usable by everyone. Just like in 1943 when someone sits in the bomber shack all game and doesnt send the bomber to the right targets.Wasdie

Commmander is the last feature that seperates BF from the rest of the pack. The whole class-based combat (which has been a staple of BF forever), focus on vehicles, large maps with 64 players, squad mechanics, and it's arcady approach to the battlefield have always stood it out from the crowd. Commander was a nice feature but is in by no way the only reason that BF2 stood out from comparable shooters in 2005.

Your argument of the mics is just silly and makes no sense. Commander had a direct negative impact on the gameplay when not used right (so did the bomber shacks in 1943). I'm sure they looked at ways of re-implementing the commander system but figured there was no good way of making it work and add any depth to the gameplay.

Again they took out one feature but are making up for it with others. The increased abilities of the squad leader for one is a major difference from BC2 and BF2. Where in BF2 squad leaders were used as the mobile spawn points and could give orders, they could only beg the commander for artillery support or UAV support. In BC2 there were no squad leaders, just squad mates. Now the squad leaders have the abilty to give the orders (which give you a bonus if you follow them btw) and are the mobile spawns. In addition they now can help out their squad and the surrounding squads. If what I hear is correct from the E3 gameplay the squad leader has a sort of a UAV recon or other things that can help the squads. This is unconfirmed of course.

You're not looking at this from a gameplay perspective, you're looking at this from your own personal experiance and from a nostoglia perspective. The commanders in BF2 were to large of a hit or miss. Entire sides would lose because their commander didn't work the controls right, how is that fair? A lot of commanders would abuse the hell out of the position too. Sure you could vote them out, but that took a large majority of your team to vote and usually people didn't even care.

You're just assuming DICE is doing whatever they can to screw over their fanbase instead of them taking an objective look at the gameplay found in BF2 and BC2 and trying to find some common ground to satisfy everybody who plays it as well as expand their playerbase.

No point in agruing with somebody who doesn't want to appreciate the game. Its like trying to feed a person who isn't hungry.

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

rich-sac

CoD is already dead

[QUOTE="rich-sac"]

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

Cloud567kar

CoD is already dead

I really think that the sales of Black Ops and the preorder numbers for MW3 tell a way different story.

[QUOTE="rich-sac"]

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

Cloud567kar

CoD is already dead

Com rose has been replaced with context sensative stuff that works just as well.

Wasdie

I seriously do not understand what DICE's problem is here. Especially since they can have both.
Quick press = context sensitive.
Hold for a second = menu.

The increased abilities of the squad leader for one is a major difference from BC2 and BF2. Where in BF2 squad leaders were used as the mobile spawn points and could give orders, they could only beg the commander for artillery support or UAV support. In BC2 there were no squad leaders, just squad mates. Now the squad leaders have the abilty to give the orders (which give you a bonus if you follow them btw) and are the mobile spawns. In addition they now can help out their squad and the surrounding squads. If what I hear is correct from the E3 gameplay the squad leader has a sort of a UAV recon or other things that can help the squads. This is unconfirmed of course.Wasdie

If it's using a context sensitive system I don't see how you could give orders more advanced than in BC2. Which were "Attack A", or if you were feeling particularly adventurous and crazy; "Attack B".

The thing is BF2 is an older game from a past generation that all games back then played slightly differently. The way games are made and how they're played changed a lot since it came out and DICE are proud of some of the things they did with the BC series. So its only natural they should keep some aspects of that series while bringing back parts from BF2 and still changing it and introducing new stuff. It was never going to be the exact same as BF2, just a true successor in the sense of the title and the overall composition of the MP. People are being wayyyyyy too critical of minor things. The destruction is my only caveat so far. Im hoping to see more of it come release

The thing is BF2 is an older game from a past generation that all games back then played slightly differently. The way games are made and how they're played changed a lot since it came out and DICE are proud of some of the things they did with the BC series. So its only natural they should keep some aspects of that series while bringing back parts from BF2 and still changing it and introducing new stuff. It was never going to be the exact same as BF2, just a true successor in the sense of the title and the overall composition of the MP. People are being wayyyyyy too critical of minor things. The destruction is my only caveat so far. Im hoping to see more of it come release

seanmcloughlin

I was noticing there was a lot less destruction. I'm hoping this is due to it being alpha right now...

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Com rose has been replaced with context sensative stuff that works just as well.

McStrongfast

I seriously do not understand what DICE's problem is here. Especially since they can have both.
Quick press = context sensitive.
Hold for a second = menu.

The increased abilities of the squad leader for one is a major difference from BC2 and BF2. Where in BF2 squad leaders were used as the mobile spawn points and could give orders, they could only beg the commander for artillery support or UAV support. In BC2 there were no squad leaders, just squad mates. Now the squad leaders have the abilty to give the orders (which give you a bonus if you follow them btw) and are the mobile spawns. In addition they now can help out their squad and the surrounding squads. If what I hear is correct from the E3 gameplay the squad leader has a sort of a UAV recon or other things that can help the squads. This is unconfirmed of course.Wasdie

If it's using a context sensitive system I don't see how you could give orders more advanced than in BC2. Which were "Attack A", or if you were feeling particularly adventurous and crazy; "Attack B".

Well if you don't like it, don't buy it. That's about as much as I have to say to people anymore.

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

The thing is BF2 is an older game from a past generation that all games back then played slightly differently. The way games are made and how they're played changed a lot since it came out and DICE are proud of some of the things they did with the BC series. So its only natural they should keep some aspects of that series while bringing back parts from BF2 and still changing it and introducing new stuff. It was never going to be the exact same as BF2, just a true successor in the sense of the title and the overall composition of the MP. People are being wayyyyyy too critical of minor things. The destruction is my only caveat so far. Im hoping to see more of it come release

Wasdie

I was noticing there was a lot less destruction. I'm hoping this is due to it being alpha right now...

Exactly what I said in the other thread :P But im guessing it is, I mean a lion statue didn't even break apart in the "destruction" playthrough. Fingers crossed anyway

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

This will clear up any concerns you have for the game.

You're not looking at this from a gameplay perspective, you're looking at this from your own personal experiance and from a nostoglia perspective. The commanders in BF2 were to large of a hit or miss. Entire sides would lose because their commander didn't work the controls right, how is that fair? A lot of commanders would abuse the hell out of the position too. Sure you could vote them out, but that took a large majority of your team to vote and usually people didn't even care.

You're just assuming DICE is doing whatever they can to screw over their fanbase instead of them taking an objective look at the gameplay found in BF2 and BC2 and trying to find some common ground to satisfy everybody who plays it as well as expand their playerbase.

Wasdie

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

The thing is BF2 is an older game from a past generation that all games back then played slightly differently. The way games are made and how they're played changed a lot since it came out and DICE are proud of some of the things they did with the BC series. So its only natural they should keep some aspects of that series while bringing back parts from BF2 and still changing it and introducing new stuff. It was never going to be the exact same as BF2, just a true successor in the sense of the title and the overall composition of the MP. People are being wayyyyyy too critical of minor things. The destruction is my only caveat so far. Im hoping to see more of it come release

Wasdie

I was noticing there was a lot less destruction. I'm hoping this is due to it being alpha right now...

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

The thing is BF2 is an older game from a past generation that all games back then played slightly differently. The way games are made and how they're played changed a lot since it came out and DICE are proud of some of the things they did with the BC series. So its only natural they should keep some aspects of that series while bringing back parts from BF2 and still changing it and introducing new stuff. It was never going to be the exact same as BF2, just a true successor in the sense of the title and the overall composition of the MP. People are being wayyyyyy too critical of minor things. The destruction is my only caveat so far. Im hoping to see more of it come release

lawlessx

I was noticing there was a lot less destruction. I'm hoping this is due to it being alpha right now...

It has to be. If DICE hype destruction so much and then deliver THAT atrocity at launch then it will be very disappointing toa lot of people. The rest of the game is shaping up very well though

[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.

Yea I'm with you on that one :)

if the only reason its not "the true successor to BF2" is that there's no Commander position then please stop whining, they have all ready said that many of the commands that the commander could give out are now available to the squad leaders..

So if that's you're only complaint then you are not a real BF fan, and should probably be playing ARMA2 or 3 when it comes out :)

Yea it gets worse and worse for me :(. Annoying animations, less destruction from what I am seeing, and the piss poor 2142 class system are just a few things I am not liking.

PS, quit telling people they aren't true fans of **** It's just lame.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

You're not looking at this from a gameplay perspective, you're looking at this from your own personal experiance and from a nostoglia perspective. The commanders in BF2 were to large of a hit or miss. Entire sides would lose because their commander didn't work the controls right, how is that fair? A lot of commanders would abuse the hell out of the position too. Sure you could vote them out, but that took a large majority of your team to vote and usually people didn't even care.

You're just assuming DICE is doing whatever they can to screw over their fanbase instead of them taking an objective look at the gameplay found in BF2 and BC2 and trying to find some common ground to satisfy everybody who plays it as well as expand their playerbase.

-ArchAngeL-777-

well a noob squadleade affects less players than a noob comander and if it like BF:BC people can just leave his squad and join a nother, if its the commander thats a noob you either have to leave the server or hope he would be kicked in a vote, so i cant se what people are crying about..

Yea it gets worse and worse for me :(. Annoying animations, less destruction from what I am seeing, and the piss poor 2142 class system are just a few things I am not liking.

PS, quit telling people they aren't true fans of **** It's just lame.

millerlight89

Not as lame as people crying on about how its not the true successor to BF2.

and the vids are from alpha its not the finished product, even the grenade throwing anim looks terrible, and I think DICE knows that too:)

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 hear more PC gamers talking about buying it than console gamers.

Because: "PC iz teh supirior ats everything!"

and the vids are from alpha its not the finished product, even the grenade throwing anim looks terrible, and I think DICE knows that too:)

tumle

Yea it gets worse and worse for me :(. Annoying animations, less destruction from what I am seeing, and the piss poor 2142 class system are just a few things I am not liking.

PS, quit telling people they aren't true fans of **** It's just lame.

millerlight89

What animations are annoying? :?

I like this class system a lot more. The thing I hated about BF2's class system was that every combo was already set out and there wasn't room for adjustment. I wish they'd set engineers apart with anti-tank again, but besides that I don't see a problem.

[QUOTE="millerlight89"]

Yea it gets worse and worse for me :(. Annoying animations, less destruction from what I am seeing, and the piss poor 2142 class system are just a few things I am not liking.

PS, quit telling people they aren't true fans of **** It's just lame.

ChubbyGuy40

What animations are annoying? :?

I like this class system a lot more. The thing I hated about BF2's class system was that every combo was already set out and there wasn't room for adjustment. I wish they'd set engineers apart with anti-tank again, but besides that I don't see a problem.

[QUOTE="tumle"]and the vids are from alpha its not the finished product, even the grenade throwing anim looks terrible, and I think DICE knows that too:)

millerlight89

ok I misunderstood then I thought you meant that the animations wasn't that good. So you want less animation??

I don't see a problem with the classes load out though, as long as they are balanced. I have not played much BF2142 (only the demo) so cant remember if that was how the classes were there. But I'm not gonna judge them before trying the game, if it was or if it wasn't a bad idea to change them.

the toned down destruction could easily be that it is an alpha build and they will ad more in later when they got the basics down. but maybe you're right, but we will have to wait and see :)

I am still wherry positive for the outcome of this game and I don't think we can agree about much, but that's OK :)

sorry if you are let down by the game nown hope it changes when you get to play it. :)

[QUOTE="millerlight89"]

[QUOTE="tumle"]and the vids are from alpha its not the finished product, even the grenade throwing anim looks terrible, and I think DICE knows that too:)

tumle

ok I misunderstood then I thought you meant that the animations wasn't that good. So you want less animation??

I don't see a problem with the classes load out though, as long as they are balanced. I have not played much BF2142 (only the demo) so cant remember if that was how the classes were there. But I'm not gonna judge them before trying the game, if it was or if it wasn't a bad idea to change them.

the toned down destruction could easily be that it is an alpha build and they will ad more in later when they got the basics down. but maybe you're right, but we will have to wait and see :)

I am still wherry positive for the outcome of this game and I don't think we can agree about much, but that's OK :)

sorry if you are let down by the game nown hope it changes when you get to play it. :)

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="millerlight89"]

Yea it gets worse and worse for me :(. Annoying animations, less destruction from what I am seeing, and the piss poor 2142 class system are just a few things I am not liking.

PS, quit telling people they aren't true fans of **** It's just lame.

millerlight89

What animations are annoying? :?

I like this class system a lot more. The thing I hated about BF2's class system was that every combo was already set out and there wasn't room for adjustment. I wish they'd set engineers apart with anti-tank again, but besides that I don't see a problem.

I would try the game out though before saying these things. You could end up loving it. If you don't want to then just don't buy. Very simple really.