1. Post #8401
    Gold Member
    Raidyr's Avatar
    February 2007
    23,345 Posts
    You seem to be forgetting that the Bad Company spinoffs weren't meant to be "true" Battlefield games. DICE made the first as a test bed for their new engine, and to see how well the game translates to smaller games and maps, and to start working on story development more. BC2 was made because BC was a massive success. But it was still a more fast paced, actiony, over the top shooter.

    You can't really compare the BC series to Battlefield as they aren't the same games. They have similarities, but they aren't meant to be each other.
    Nah, I don't buy that. They are open for criticism as every other Battlefield game is.

    Edited:

    Too convenient to say that the lowest points in the series don't count despite the fact that they have the name, the teams, and the massive advertising from EA.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  2. Post #8402
    Gold Member
    Meller Yeller's Avatar
    June 2010
    10,300 Posts
    Rush was better in BC2 because there were alot of maps that were actually specifically designed for Rush and were more open as well.
    Rush maps in BF3 are just "go forward in this tiny, limited space and hope to god you don't get shot"

    I didn't enjoy conquest in BC2 nearly as much however. A lot of times it felt like a larger team deathmatch with no tactics involved.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 12 (list)

  3. Post #8403
    Gold Member
    hexpunK's Avatar
    August 2008
    15,139 Posts
    Nah, I don't buy that. They are open for criticism as every other Battlefield game is.

    Edited:

    Too convenient to say that the lowest points in the series don't count despite the fact that they have the name, the teams, and the massive advertising from EA.
    The "lowest" points in the series are a spin-off series. Not the series. So they are going to be different. The Bad Companies were never trying to be Battlefield, they just shared traits.

    You cannot deny that they are a spin-off series. And that means comparing the two is harder because they weren't trying to be each other.

    Yes, they are open to criticism, but you can't criticise them for being something they weren't trying to be. Plus I'd hardly say they were the "lowest" points in Battlefield (that title goes to Play4Free I'd say), they were still good games. Just different.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Disagree Disagree x 2Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  4. Post #8404
    Gold Member
    Meller Yeller's Avatar
    June 2010
    10,300 Posts
    I agree that originally it was not trying to be Battlefield

    I mean if you remember, originally, BC1 didn't even have a Conquest mode which is BF's signature gameplay.
    It was totally centered around Rush which to me proves they wanted to do something different but with similar traits.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  5. Post #8405
    Gold Member
    jaybuz's Avatar
    May 2006
    5,516 Posts
    what exactly is similar in BC to BF? I can't think of anything.

    I think they just used the BF name to help sell it.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Mac United Kingdom Show Events

  6. Post #8406
    Gold Member
    hexpunK's Avatar
    August 2008
    15,139 Posts
    I agree that originally it was not trying to be Battlefield

    I mean if you remember, originally, BC1 didn't even have a Conquest mode which is BF's signature gameplay.
    It was totally centered around Rush which to me proves they wanted to do something different but with similar traits.
    Pretty sure BC just had Rush, and nothing else. Though BC had a really good implementation of Rush, large-ish maps and good progression. Plus the squad/ team chatter was a lot more interesting.

    BC/ BC2 was meant to be faster paced, smaller games. Something Battlefield certainly wasn't known for. BF3 only has that capability supported with TDM/ SQDM because BC was so popular.

    Edited:

    what exactly is similar in BC to BF? I can't think of anything.

    I think they just used the BF name to help sell it.
    The class structure, emphasis on working together, vehicle combat, larger maps than most MP games. That's about it really.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events

  7. Post #8407
    Gold Member
    Raidyr's Avatar
    February 2007
    23,345 Posts
    Nah.

    Edited:

    p funny how we can compare CoD to BF and bitch about things like graphics and no destruction but when someone mentions the worst part of the BF series all the sudden it's ~too different~ but w/e.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  8. Post #8408
    Zero Hour's Avatar
    July 2011
    810 Posts
    They kept trying to votekick me :c

    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Australia Show Events Friendly Friendly x 1 (list)

  9. Post #8409
    Gold Member
    Raidyr's Avatar
    February 2007
    23,345 Posts
    BF3 is more of an extension of BC2 than BF2. It's basically BC2 with rearranged classes and the only thing from BF2 being map sizes.

    Edited:

    So I don't see how it doesn't count as a Battlefield game when the newest biggest Battlefield release plays most similar to it.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United States Show Events Agree Agree x 5 (list)

  10. Post #8410
    Artifact's Avatar
    August 2009
    887 Posts
    Pretty sure BC just had Rush, and nothing else.
    .
    It got conquest a few weeks after release for free, as well as that golf course map
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events

  11. Post #8411
    Gold Member
    Meller Yeller's Avatar
    June 2010
    10,300 Posts
    what exactly is similar in BC to BF? I can't think of anything.

    I think they just used the BF name to help sell it.
    Are you joking? If you compare BF3 to BC2, at least on console, there's a lot more similar things than different. Actually, even on PC.

    The main difference is the larger maps are larger and the smaller maps are smaller plus more attachments on guns. Can't think of anything else right off hand.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  12. Post #8412
    Gold Member
    hexpunK's Avatar
    August 2008
    15,139 Posts
    It got conquest a few weeks after release for free, as well as that golf course map
    Ahh I wish I played the first one a lot more. I only played the Beta, the demo and a few games a week or so after release at a mates. I feel bad for not buying it as I enjoyed it.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events

  13. Post #8413
    Gold Member
    Meller Yeller's Avatar
    June 2010
    10,300 Posts
    Ahh I wish I played the first one a lot more. I only played the Beta, the demo and a few games a week or so after release at a mates. I feel bad for not buying it as I enjoyed it.
    The first one had better map design in my opinion than BC2 in both gamemodes.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  14. Post #8414
    FOSSILIZED SHIT MAGGOT INFERNO
    BLOODGA$M's Avatar
    August 2010
    2,667 Posts
    Manning the helicopter gunner seat and using the thermal optics addon might just be the most therapeutic thing ever

    how is it that weeks worth of bottled up stress and anger can be washed away in an instant by clicking at flickery white dots on a fuzzy screen?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 5Funny Funny x 2 (list)

  15. Post #8415
    wutanggrenad's Avatar
    September 2007
    1,197 Posts
    Manning the helicopter gunner seat and using the thermal optics addon might just be the most therapeutic thing ever

    how is it that weeks worth of bottled up stress and anger can be washed away in an instant by clicking at flickery white dots on a fuzzy screen?
    I use it in tanks also, zoom is great, but with thermal optics I can see all them sneaky bastards
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Canada Show Events

  16. Post #8416
    Liamhailhail2.0's Avatar
    June 2011
    1,121 Posts
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United Kingdom Show Events Funny Funny x 13Late Late x 1 (list)

  17. Post #8417
    Gold Member
    SataniX's Avatar
    May 2010
    5,635 Posts
    Setting your FOV high makes this game so much easier.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 1Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  18. Post #8418
    Gold Member
    Zeos's Avatar
    June 2006
    10,683 Posts
    "Level Five Laser Lotus" Made me chuckle.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Canada Show Events

  19. Post #8419
    Gold Member
    Akasori's Avatar
    August 2008
    4,082 Posts
    Setting your FOV high makes this game so much easier.
    You're right!







    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Finland Show Events Funny Funny x 10Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  20. Post #8420
    Gold Member
    Fhenexx's Avatar
    December 2009
    5,905 Posts
    Rush was better in BC2 because there were alot of maps that were actually specifically designed for Rush and were more open as well.
    Rush maps in BF3 are just "go forward in this tiny, limited space and hope to god you don't get shot".
    It's for this reason that I really dislike how DICE tried to make the maps "jack-of-all-trade" maps. That is, every map can be played on every gamemode. Basically, I really wish they decided to do what they did with BC2 and made some maps Rush only and some maps Conquest only and only made the maps that could be made well with both allowed to be used for both.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  21. Post #8421
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    June 2009
    6,496 Posts
    I disagree. It's a very fine entry in the Battlefield series and far better designed than that Bad Company crap they tried running for awhile. It still has some noticeable problems that DICE refuses to iron out but I have fun with it.
    I honestly think Bad Company 2 was better design-wise and Battlefield 3 is closer to Bad Company 2 than BF2 and I'm making a table to support my opinion right now
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1Useful Useful x 1 (list)

  22. Post #8422
    Gold Member
    snijboer's Avatar
    June 2005
    799 Posts
    Any good tips for the MP412 REX. I'm trying to get headshots with it from a pretty far distance and it's not easy.

    Oh and if i use it at far range do i need to aim above the head to get a headshot? Because all of the weapons have bulletdrops..the REX's iron sight is like it makes the bullet goes straight and not going to drop but that is truely false ofcourse.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Netherlands Show Events

  23. Post #8423
    Gold Member
    waxrock's Avatar
    October 2006
    3,162 Posts
    Aha. Oh wow. Apparently I'm going to get banned for stating my opinion on a clan's political subforum.

    http://www.digital-anarchy.com/showthread.php?p=132842

    Gem of the day:

    What did I get myself into.

    Apparently I got myself mixed up with a bunch of 40year old Republicans... Fuck.


    ANYWHO, how do people do jet strafing runs targeting infantry? I can't see jack until it's too late and a random tank shoots me out of the air.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Funny Funny x 10 (list)

  24. Post #8424
    Gold Member
    hexpunK's Avatar
    August 2008
    15,139 Posts
    I'm quite happy. I shot the pilot out of the helicopter at the third set of points on Rush Davamand, and stole his helicopter.

    Though I only got one kill in it before someone else shot me out of it (I made sure it crashed unlike the last guy). If I can't have it, nobody can.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Winner Winner x 3 (list)

  25. Post #8425
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    June 2009
    6,496 Posts


       I messed up, BC2 has free and paid DLC, oh well   

    battlefield is coming closer and closer to call of duty, although right now it's only got a few similarities there's a definite trend there

    I also preferred how classes were distinguished in Bad Company 2: Assault has all the bullets and a grenade launcher to punch holes in walls, Medic has a machine gun to suppress the enemy, Engineer has silenced small-magazined SMGs for defensive pew-pewing, and Recon has sniper rifles. It seems like DICE was more concerned with how many guns they could put in the game instead of what roles each class would fulfill with their set of guns. I'm also not liking how some weapons are DLC exclusive, there are at least 7 more guns coming with the next DLC and there'll be even more after that. Making them exclusive to those that pay $15 for them is bordering most free-to-play games' pay-to-win system: even if they aren't the most powerful weapons in the game, they're unique from the vanilla weapons and you have to pay even more than you already have for the privilege of accessing them.

    /rant
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 12Informative Informative x 1Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  26. Post #8426
    Gold Member
    waxrock's Avatar
    October 2006
    3,162 Posts
    The 100 repetitions is nothing like prestige...
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 4 (list)

  27. Post #8427
    Gold Member
    Thunderbolt's Avatar
    September 2006
    2,640 Posts

    battlefield is coming closer and closer to call of duty, although right now it's only got a few similarities there's a definite trend there

    I also preferred how classes were distinguished in Bad Company 2: Assault has all the bullets and a grenade launcher to punch holes in walls, Medic has a machine gun to suppress the enemy, Engineer has silenced small-magazined SMGs for defensive pew-pewing, and Recon has sniper rifles. It seems like DICE was more concerned with how many guns they could put in the game instead of what roles each class would fulfill with their set of guns. I'm also not liking how some weapons are DLC exclusive, there are at least 7 more guns coming with the next DLC and there'll be even more after that. Making them exclusive to those that pay $15 for them is bordering most free-to-play games' pay-to-win system: even if they aren't the most powerful weapons in the game, they're unique from the vanilla weapons and you have to pay even more than you already have for the privilege of accessing them.

    /rant
    Isn't that the whole point of DLC, paying for extra content? Especially if most of the weapons are sidegrades.

    And I don't understand how is it close to CoD, the gameplay isn't similar at all
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Poland Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  28. Post #8428
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    June 2009
    6,496 Posts
    The 100 repetitions is nothing like prestige...
    Extra levels with no gameplay value meant to show off how long you've been playing the game/how good you are

    it's not the same as prestige but it's got the same purpose
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 3 (list)

  29. Post #8429
    Gold Member
    waxrock's Avatar
    October 2006
    3,162 Posts


       I messed up, BC2 has free and paid DLC, oh well   

    battlefield is coming closer and closer to call of duty, although right now it's only got a few similarities there's a definite trend there

    I also preferred how classes were distinguished in Bad Company 2: Assault has all the bullets and a grenade launcher to punch holes in walls, Medic has a machine gun to suppress the enemy, Engineer has silenced small-magazined SMGs for defensive pew-pewing, and Recon has sniper rifles. It seems like DICE was more concerned with how many guns they could put in the game instead of what roles each class would fulfill with their set of guns. I'm also not liking how some weapons are DLC exclusive, there are at least 7 more guns coming with the next DLC and there'll be even more after that. Making them exclusive to those that pay $15 for them is bordering most free-to-play games' pay-to-win system: even if they aren't the most powerful weapons in the game, they're unique from the vanilla weapons and you have to pay even more than you already have for the privilege of accessing them.

    /rant
    The classes are still distinguished. It's just that the took the model from 2142 and expanded upon that.
    As for each class's set of guns, they all have pretty distinct roles with their respective strengths and weaknesses, so I don't know where you're getting that DICE is more concerned with the number of guns as opposed to their functionality.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  30. Post #8430
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    June 2009
    6,496 Posts
    Isn't that the whole point of DLC, paying for extra content? Especially if most of the weapons are sidegrades.
    I don't think it's fair to tell players they can't use the same weapons other players are using because they haven't paid for them. It'd be outrageous if that were the case with vanilla weapons, right? Hardly different.

    And I don't understand how is it close to CoD, the gameplay isn't similar at all
    Operation Metro. Nothing but hallways and bullets everywhere. A lot of the maps are corridors designed for medium-range gunplay. It's still much more team-oriented as long as you're playing Rush or Conquest, and vehicles obviously set the two series apart, but you can easily set up a match that emulates CoD.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  31. Post #8431
    Gold Member
    waxrock's Avatar
    October 2006
    3,162 Posts
    I don't think it's fair to tell players they can't use the same weapons other players are using because they haven't paid for them. It'd be outrageous if that were the case with vanilla weapons, right? Hardly different.
    Maybe if the DLC weapons were better than the vanilla weapons, but they're not.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  32. Post #8432
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    June 2009
    6,496 Posts
    The classes are still distinguished. It's just that the took the model from 2142 and expanded upon that.
    As for each class's set of guns, they all have pretty distinct roles with their respective strengths and weaknesses, so I don't know where you're getting that DICE is more concerned with the number of guns as opposed to their functionality.
    From my own experience, the Engineer's weapons are very similar to the Assault's weapons, and SMGs have been relegated to classless weapons. Being able to slap a suppressor onto almost any gun is also not helping diversity at all.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  33. Post #8433
    Gold Member
    waxrock's Avatar
    October 2006
    3,162 Posts
    Operation Metro. Nothing but hallways and bullets everywhere. A lot of the maps are corridors designed for medium-range gunplay. It's still much more team-oriented as long as you're playing Rush or Conquest, and vehicles obviously set the two series apart, but you can easily set up a match that emulates CoD.
    So it's typical CQC gameplay? How does that automatically equate to CoD?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  34. Post #8434
    Gold Member
    Meller Yeller's Avatar
    June 2010
    10,300 Posts
    Extra levels with no gameplay value meant to show off how long you've been playing the game/how good you are

    it's not the same as prestige but it's got the same purpose
    After a certain point, that's how BF2's ranks were.
    BF2 also had DLC exclusive weapons.

    Edited:

    So it's typical CQC gameplay? How does that automatically equate to CoD?
    I kind of have to agree there.

    I don't think EA having this "WE'RE BETTER THAN COD" campaign and introducing tiny maps like Metro is a coincidence.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  35. Post #8435
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    June 2009
    6,496 Posts
    Maybe if the DLC weapons were better than the vanilla weapons, but they're not.
    I haven't used the DLC weapons, it's just the concept of it that bothers me. If they can be used in the vanilla game why not give them to the vanilla players? Something that can be used regardless of map or gamemode is locked to a percentage of players until they pay for it. I had the same distaste for 2142's Northern Strike stuff, although it was worse then, since many of the gadgets were definitely upgrades.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  36. Post #8436
    Gold Member
    waxrock's Avatar
    October 2006
    3,162 Posts
    From my own experience, the Engineer's weapons are very similar to the Assault's weapons, and SMGs have been relegated to classless weapons. Being able to slap a suppressor onto almost any gun is also not helping diversity at all.
    From my experience, assault has far better range than engi weapons can ever hope to have. That and other minor things that set assault apart from other classes. How does the ability to customize your weapon diminish diversity? Doesn't it create diversity since people could now customize their weapons to their own liking?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  37. Post #8437
    Gold Member
    simkas's Avatar
    May 2005
    15,579 Posts
    I haven't used the DLC weapons, it's just the concept of it that bothers me. If they can be used in the vanilla game why not give them to the vanilla players?
    Because they didn't pay for them? You're paying for the DLC and you're getting content from it, why should other people get that content for free?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Lithuania Show Events

  38. Post #8438
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    June 2009
    6,496 Posts
    So it's typical CQC gameplay? How does that automatically equate to CoD?
    EA has been touting Battlefield as a CoD-killer and has been trying to steal players from CoD for ages. Like Meller Yeller said, they've introduced maps and weapons meant to be similar to CoD and its gameplay. There was almost no close-quarters fighting in BF2 as far as alleys or indoors areas go, even in the urban maps. Metro conquest is a clusterfuck of grenades and bullet spam, which is almost the opposite of traditional Battlefield gameplay.

    I'm going to slow down on replying to you guys, this is getting a little overwhelming.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  39. Post #8439
    Gold Member
    waxrock's Avatar
    October 2006
    3,162 Posts
    I kind of have to agree there.

    I don't think EA having this "WE'RE BETTER THAN COD" campaign and introducing tiny maps like Metro is a coincidence.
    I don't think BF3 expanding to include CQC on top of their already expansive combat is emulating CoD in any way, just broadening its horizons.

    To me, it sounds like you guys are saying something along the lines of CoD pretty much inventing CQC with the hallways and whatnot.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  40. Post #8440
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    June 2009
    6,496 Posts
    From my experience, assault has far better range than engi weapons can ever hope to have. That and other minor things that set assault apart from other classes. How does the ability to customize your weapon diminish diversity? Doesn't it create diversity since people could now customize their weapons to their own liking?
    The Assault and Engineer classes both get M4s and M16s and their Russian analogues iirc, and when only X class had Y weapon attachment it gave that class a very specific combat role. Now any class can fill any role, just by putting a silencer or scope on the right weapon.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events