Really? I have been a long time COD fan, since MW until Black Ops. I just recently picked up Battlefield Bad Company 2 and honestly, I think the gameplay is much better on Bad Company 2. I feel more like I'm in a battle. The only difference is that COD has more guns which is a huge plus.A visually stunning game but one that will ultimately be a disappointment if they don't make the multiplayer radically different to Bad Company 2. There's a reason why, even for all its flaws, more competitive fps players still play Cod.
Couldnt agree more.Really? I have been a long time COD fan, since MW until Black Ops. I just recently picked up Battlefield Bad Company 2 and honestly, I think the gameplay is much better on Bad Company 2. I feel more like I'm in a battle. The only difference is that COD has more guns which is a huge plus.
The gameplay better be reminiscent of other Battlefields, not bad company, this game should not be compared to bad company because bad company isn't a true Battlefield game, I've been playing Battlefield since the beggining of the series, Battlefield 1942, Battlefield Vietnam, Battlefield 2, Battlefield 2142, those are the real battlefield games, on PC with 64 players in a map with helicopters, tanks, and planes, that is what Battlefield is.A visually stunning game but one that will ultimately be a disappointment if they don't make the multiplayer radically different to Bad Company 2. There's a reason why, even for all its flaws, more competitive fps players still play Cod.
Totally, Cod has always seemed to be more about run n gun, and stats,which is fine, don't get me wrong. The BF series(minus BC) just feels more rewarding to strategic play imo, which is what drew me in in the first place. Hopefully the console versions can retain the essence of BF given that it will not support 64 players. (24 iirc)The gameplay better be reminiscent of other Battlefields, not bad company, this game should not be compared to bad company because bad company isn't a true Battlefield game, I've been playing Battlefield since the beggining of the series, Battlefield 1942, Battlefield Vietnam, Battlefield 2, Battlefield 2142, those are the real battlefield games, on PC with 64 players in a map with helicopters, tanks, and planes, that is what Battlefield is.
It's true that it feels more like an actual battle but there's a lot of garbage in there, too. For one thing, tanks and helicopters (especially the latter), cannot come free of killstreaks. That stuff is just dumb. The main battle used to be fought in your own squad's deployment zone: to see who could get in the helicopter first because if you knew how to fly them, they could dominate the whole map. There's also way too much camping in bfbc2 because there's no UAV/spy plane, so you can quite literally sit in corners or bushes at no real cost. Sometimes iit would take a whole clip just to kill somebody because they were sitting on a medic's health pack behind cover up to the chest. All of this stuff encourages camping an area and "digging in". The fact only recon units have throwable motion sensors says it all since most recons were snipers.Really? I have been a long time COD fan, since MW until Black Ops. I just recently picked up Battlefield Bad Company 2 and honestly, I think the gameplay is much better on Bad Company 2. I feel more like I'm in a battle. The only difference is that COD has more guns which is a huge plus.
Yeah, because running and gunning is just so fun.... This game is meant to be more realistic than Call of Duty is. You dont just run in the middle of the street spraying with a machine gun and getting kills. You better believe a snipers going to take you down. Thats how a Battlefield in real life is.What battlefield had going for it was the destructable environments but the maps were far too big and the long lines of sight just meant you got raped if you tried to rush like you can in Call of Duty. This meant everybody had to play so much more slowly and constantly hug cover due to random snipers pinging you from across the entire map, perched in such obscure places you could barely see them.
Dont see how thats a problem, they are easily taken down by RPGs. I've spent well over 50+ hours on the game online, and I have yet to see a helicopter doing enough damage to 'dominate the map'. Hell, they usually go down within first minute of lift off.It's true that it feels more like an actual battle but there's a lot of garbage in there, too. For one thing, tanks and helicopters (especially the latter), cannot come free of killstreaks. That stuff is just dumb. The main battle used to be fought in your own squad's deployment zone: to see who could get in the helicopter first because if you knew how to fly them, they could dominate the whole map.
I use to play 1.6 and then switched to Source. 1.6 is way harder IMO lolol.Will be getting this, fuck CoD.
And competitive FPS players are playing CSS/1.6.
It is actually but rushing is a lot more than just running around aimlessly and spraying your gun. Rushing is navagating the map as fast as possible but maintaining advantage in your gunfights all the way. You're just doing it at a fast speed. That's not possible in Battlefield because the maps have too many massively open spaces.Yeah, because running and gunning is just so fun....
Well, I've spent over 320 hours on the game (I don't hate it), and I know that a good helicopter pilot will circle my spawn almost endlessly, and as soon as he's shot down, he will wait for the helicopter to spawn again in his own deployment, and then it will be straight back to the rape. rpgs do not shoot helicopters down easily if they're being piloted correctly because a gfood pilot changes his flight path up while he's floating over your head firing rockets and whatnot at you. They completely dominate the game when played correctly.Dont see how thats a problem, they are easily taken down by RPGs. I've spent well over 50+ hours on the game online, and I have yet to see a helicopter doing enough damage to 'dominate the map'. Hell, they usually go down within first minute of lift off.
It's all the reasons I mention, dude. I can stick black ops in, set my killstreaks to blackbird, chopper gunner and dogs and get half a century of kills for less than double figures in deaths consistently just by playing somewhat intelligently and having fast target acquisition. I put Battlefield in and, in some games, I am getting raped by tanks and choppers straight off my spawn through no fault of my own. I can spend a whole game just trying to shoot this stuff down while being picked off by the men on the ground, too. If that's realistic or fun for some, good for them, I just hate being the punch bag for unskilled players because they're vehicle whoring or sitting in dark corners where their camo completely blends them in with the scenery so I don't know they're even there until I've been shot in the back...]As far as sniping goes, I do agree with you, there are more camping possibilities for snipers, and that there are more snipers than in Call of Duty, but thats just how the games played. Dont hate the game, hate the players. Besides, the whole medic pack thing, I didnt even realize that was viable... much less running into it online. You dont try to go head to head with a sniper, thats your fault. You sneak around cover to try and get close. You dislike this game because its more realistic than the overrated run and gun shooter like Call of Duty?
I think nuketown is a garbage map. Firing range, Summit and Grid are by far the best maps on Black Ops because they're the most balanced and you can't out and out hide on any of them.The maps are perfect for this type of gameplay anyways. They have to make it big because cover and buildings get blown to shit all the time. I prefer this so much more than stupid maps like NUKETOWN in Black ops where you just throw a god damned grenade and get kills.
A game like Battlefield needs some kind of killstreak system and more recon tools like spy planes would help you navigate the maps, and given the size of them, you really do need the help if you're a devoted foot slogger.the only thing I agree with you is no motion sensor, but then that would just mean you have to rely on your radar more often. Another realistic point. In Call of Duty, spy planes are often ignored, since people rack up that shit so easily and fast. I just usually go straight for the 5+ kill streaks.
I'm currently playing the game. You won't be disappointed. I hope the console versions hold up...A visually stunning game but one that will ultimately be a disappointment if they don't make the multiplayer radically different to Bad Company 2. There's a reason why, even for all its flaws, more competitive fps players still play Cod.
I hope you're right...I'm currently playing the game. You won't be disappointed. I hope the console versions hold up...
Great! Is it anything like Bad Company 2 or at least a bit similar? I am stoked for this game...... October couldnt be any farther away ...I've got the Alpha test right now and I really like it but I've got this feeling that it won't be as good as I expected to be but they still have some time left to fix it
I think Bad Company 2 does a far better job at map control and navigating them. How often do you run into helicopters anyways? Because by the way your talking, it seems that youre running into this pro pilot every game... I haven't even met 1 yet. If hes spawn camping you, just spawn at a different location, thats the beauty of Bad Company 2, you actually get to pick where you will be spawning next. One great addition is being able to spawn next to one of your teammates, which is a great move. However, there was 1 game I played where the opposing team took every single flag in Conquest, and we were forced to respawn back at our base, with their foot soldiers and tanks rolling up our front doors. It took us awhile to finally kill that damned tank, and the remaining soldiers (some of them respawning next to their team lol) but honestly, I think its quite fun that way. I felt all secretive when I ran into the city and climbed the building to the top to start picking off soldiers one by one. The satisfying feeling when that tank explode and they are retreating under fire is just awesome.It is actually but rushing is a lot more than just running around aimlessly and spraying your gun. Rushing is navagating the map as fast as possible but maintaining advantage in your gunfights all the way. You're just doing it at a fast speed. That's not possible in Battlefield because the maps have too many massively open spaces.
Well, I've spent over 320 hours on the game (I don't hate it), and I know that a good helicopter pilot will circle my spawn almost endlessly, and as soon as he's shot down, he will wait for the helicopter to spawn again in his own deployment, and then it will be straight back to the rape. rpgs do not shoot helicopters down easily if they're being piloted correctly because a gfood pilot changes his flight path up while he's floating over your head firing rockets and whatnot at you. They completely dominate the game when played correctly.
It's all the reasons I mention, dude. I can stick black ops in, set my killstreaks to blackbird, chopper gunner and dogs and get half a century of kills for less than double figures in deaths consistently just by playing somewhat intelligently and having fast target acquisition. I put Battlefield in and, in some games, I am getting raped by tanks and choppers straight off my spawn through no fault of my own. I can spend a whole game just trying to shoot this stuff down while being picked off by the men on the ground, too. If that's realistic or fun for some, good for them, I just hate being the punch bag for unskilled players because they're vehicle whoring or sitting in dark corners where their camo completely blends them in with the scenery so I don't know they're even there until I've been shot in the back...
If they made the battlefield maps more urban with many more streets and alternate routes which are in cover, that would be a massive benefit to the game. It's garbage that you have to get in a vehicle just to get from your deployment zone to within 200ft of the objective, or spend 5 minutes running across an open expanse with snipers and heavy machine guns looking to pick you off from across the entire map.
A game like Battlefield needs some kind of killstreak system and more recon tools like spy planes would help you navigate the maps, and given the size of them, you really do need the help if you're a devoted foot slogger.
I want to see Battlefield excel and be a far better game than Call Of Duty because I am tired of COD and some of the garbage stuff in that, but it's going to have to implement some of the things I am talking about to outdo Call of duty in my opinion. If the primary market is PC gamers, Battlefield 3 will suck. Console players should be your bread and butter.
My favourite map on bc2 is Arica Harbour. I think that's the one you mean.As for the maps, there is a map that is urban setting, I forget the names. Its a huge map, but awesome for conquest. Anyways, with Battlefield 3, there will be more urban fighting than Bad Company 2. Most of the time, you dont have to run that 200ft to your objective... Thanks to the respawning system, you can pick where you respawn, just do it near your objective or teammates. Kill streaks would make it too much like Call of Duty, however, a spy plane for a 3 killstreak would be decent... but nothing else besides that is needed. Or maybe no tanks or helicopters starting out, and make those killstreak vehicles. That might be a cool idea, that solves a lot of your problems.