[IdreamofHIME]

BC2 was the better game for console players for sure. I hate how most of BF3's sales come from console owners, yet the maps were designed around playing on a PC.

[bitoriginal]

At first I agreed with you. But I've played a lot of BF3 and I now disagree.

[zephervack]

For some reason BF3 never clicked, even after 40 hours, BC 2 clicked with me after 10 hours and I couldnt put it down.

The classes in BF3 are just wrong, Engi in particular is OP.

For example in BF3 as a recon you have no role, in BC2 Recon was my most played class, gameplay just felt more balanced in BC.

[Horse Armour]

In BC2 you're actually able to play on vanilla servers so it wins by default. I would do anything to play BF3 with vanilla settings but DICE for some reason won't let us.

[vixlar]

If they had given both demos at the same time, I would chose BC2 a thousand times over BF3. Wow, BC2 demo must be the best demo in history. I even remember that glorious post, I dont remember who the poster was, but it finished like "...you're not supposed to be this fun. You are only a demo!"

At first, when I played BF3, I was complaining about why it didn't do things like BC2, (btw, BC2 and BF3 are the only Battlefields I ever played). Why I can't see the enemies, why the tanks are so resistant, why the RPG can't kill people, why I can't destroy buildings, why the tactical lights blind me so much, why planes are so powerful, why I die when I fly a plane... and as I played and played I realized that I couldn't stop playing.

Both games are great, and both are different. I like that. I can't say I wouldn't return to BC2 only because I like BF3. I like both and my friend and me are constantly switching between games.

Now, if you want a list... I would compare BF3 vs BC2 (xbox360)

+ Game Mode rotations: Now the map rotation include game modes too. It is relaxing to play Norshair TDM after a stressing Metro Rush.

+ DLC included in rotation: In BC2, if you wanted to play Vietnam, you only played Vietnam.

+ TDM: Yes, I think is not the best option, but as I previously said, it is relaxing.

+ Chose your server: Now, there's no need to pray for a good server, you can look for it and even chose it as a favorite. 300% tickets metro only servers are personal (and dumb) choices.

+ Chose your squad. I really like this option.

+- Camo: I liked that in BC2 the camouflage was given depending on the map. But many people would rather use their own camo.

+ All maps: Actually, there were only 3 maps missing on each mode on BC2, but I'm glad BF3 has all game modes on all maps since day 1. (original maps, I would like to play assault conquest on classic maps and conquest on all Karkand maps)

+ Weapon customization: Some people hate it, but I'm glad how you can customize your weapons in this game.

- Carl Gustav: Where is my beloved Carl Gustav? Without this, the engineer is a little useless in infantry maps.

+ UAV: I hated the UAV. It was supposed to be a recon tool and instead was a killing machine. Yes, I know it was fragile and blablabla, but infinite and powerful bullets in a device that small? Please. I think the MAV is a better option for this game.

- Motion Sensor Mines: We have the T-UGS, great tool as defensive. But the magic balls are fantastic for offensive.

+ Gravity for all weapons. Now you must be close to the opponent for kill him with a handgun.

- Tracer dart: A great choice for medics as they didn't have any weapon against vehicles but had a lot of bullets.

+ Grenade launcher. Now you can chose the GL even if you don't equip an assaul rifle.

- Destruction 2.0 Blablablalbla

+ Vehicle customization: Now you don't need to worry about if you could chose an helicopter or a tank. You can chose its specs for separate. Even, you can chose heli pilot and gunner specs.

+ No magnum bullets and ceramic armor: Game breakers.

- No more orginal voices: I really miss the russian voices. And even on the american side, there's not as much feeling on the phrases. "Sniper spotted, over" vs "THERE'S A FUCKING SNIPER!!!"

i play with some friends, they don't own a xbox, so we take turns playing with my character. When they played BF3 at first, they were complaining about the same things all people complain here and everywhere... but now, they beg me for coming to my house to play BF3 (and even one of them loves Metro)

[1-D_FTW]

BC2 was the better game for console players for sure. I hate how most of BF3's sales come from console owners, yet the maps were designed around playing on a PC.

Don't see it. I've admittedly only played the BF games on PC, but I don't see this complaint at all. Shit design is shit design. And that's the issue with BF3. Not that the PC was the focus (because I don't see that at all), but the fact the levels are pure shit (even when they're larger 64 player maps).

[Tokyo Rain]

Battlefield 1943 on XBOX 360 code up for grabs:

6CYCJ-3RWG4-KKDYR-6CCW7-WYJTZ

[samus4ever]

Don't see it. I've admittedly only played the BF games on PC, but I don't see this complaint at all. Shit design is shit design. And that's the issue with BF3. Not that the PC was the focus (because I don't see that at all), but the fact the levels are pure shit (even when they're larger 64 player maps).

Well, the bigger maps are boring, really boring when you have 12 v 12. 2 people on the team is up in the air. 3 More people are in vehicles. So it's basically 4 people walking to around capping flags non stop with little action at all.

[SapientWolf]

For some reason BF3 never clicked, even after 40 hours, BC 2 clicked with me after 10 hours and I couldnt put it down. The classes in BF3 are just wrong, Engi in particular is OP. For example in BF3 as a recon you have no role, in BC2 Recon was my most played class, gameplay just felt more balanced in BC.

I think all of the classes get some neat toys to play with. A squad with a SOFLAM and javelin team is a huge problem for vehicles. Engis aren't nearly as effective without ammo drops from Support. And you're almost guaranteed to be squad wiped unless there's at least one Assault doing revives.

BF3 rewards teams with a diverse skill set. There's no uber class.

[The Faceless Master]

+ All maps: Actually, there were only 3 maps missing on each mode on BC2, but I'm glad BF3 has all game modes on all maps since day 1. (original maps, I would like to play assault conquest on classic maps and conquest on all Karkand maps)

CQ Valparaiso
CQ Isla Inocentes
CQ Cold War

RUSH Panama Canal
RUSH Laguna Alta
RUSH Heavy Metal

SR Arica Harbor
SR Isla Inocentes
SR White Pass
SR Nelson Bay
SR Heavy Metal

SDM Port Valdez
SDM Atacama Desert
SDM Valparaiso
SDM Laguna Alta


as for assault vs head on, the maps have to be designed for it...

[MajorPain]

Yes - especially the campaign.

[Dyno]

I had more fun with BC2. I played it longer and unlocked everything.

There seems to be less destructability, which is a huge part of BF. As well I had the HUD in BF3. In some modes you have huge symbols in the centre of your screen that completely destroy the FPS experience.

It's a real shame because I was so hyped for BF3.

[patapuf]

I think all of the classes get some neat toys to play with. A squad with a SOFLAM and javelin team is a huge problem for vehicles. Engis aren't nearly as effective without ammo drops from Support. And you're almost guaranteed to be squad wiped unless there's at least one Assault doing revives. BF3 rewards teams with a diverse skill set. There's no uber class.

BF3 definetly needs more effort for teamplay to be effective than BC2 did (it was also a lot easier to lone wolf and be successful in BC2), especially the recon class needs good communication with squadmates to maximise their potential, so does the suppression mechanic.

what they screwed up a bit is not the effectivness of the tools but the points you are awarded for using them correctly. Especially the recon class gets to few points for using their teamplay tools well.

This doesn't matter if you play with friends but it makes teamplay between people without a mic less likely .

[graboids]

yes. BC2 was more fun to play and the maps were better. Although BC1 was better than both of them for me.

[staticneuron]

At first I preferred BC2 but the more I played bf3 the more I understood the differences . In bc2 I felt like it was much easier to be a lone wolf while in bf3 if your team is on point you feel like apart of a really brutal movement. I never really got that feel from bc2.

[pvpness]

I had more fun with BC2. I played it longer and unlocked everything. There seems to be less destructability, which is a huge part of BF. As well I had the HUD in BF3. In some modes you have huge symbols in the centre of your screen that completely destroy the FPS experience. It's a real shame because I was so hyped for BF3.

The destruction is pretty new for Battlefield. It's neat, but we got along just fine without it before BC. You can also turn off the hud stuff if it gets in your way.

I enjoyed BFBC1/2 immensely at the time, but BF3 gets back to what I feel is actual Battlefield so I prefer it. A lot of the maps do leave something to be desired though.

BF3 definetly needs more effort for teamplay to be effective than BC2 did (it was also a lot easier to lone wolf and be successful in BC2), especially the recon class needs good communication with squadmates to maximise their potential, so does the suppression mechanic. what they screwed up a bit is not the effectivness of the tools but the points you are awarded for using them correctly. Especially the recon class gets to few points for using their teamplay tools well. This doesn't matter if you play with friends but it makes teamplay between people without a mic less likely .

That's really what Battlefield is all about too. You should be okay going it alone, but it should be infinitely better when you run with a squad that knows what they're doing and actually communicates. I can see how this would be counter-intuitive for many console players though. I really would have loved the Commander window to make a return in BF3 on consoles but I'm not sure how well it would go over on those platforms. Doesn't seem to be enough willingness to coordinate.

[Silly.Mikey]

I dunno, BF3 just seems off to me. What kills it for me are the vehicles. Its so hard to kill vehicles in this game that its just taken the fun out of the game for me. All every match is now is vehicles raping everyone on the ground, try to lock on, he flies 50 miles up in the air or shoots an endless amount of flares.

I just don't have fun playing anymore. Its a shame cause it had so much potential.

[blackprophesy]

Definately on consoles, I can't stand it on PS3 compared to BC2.
However I love it on PC.

[Dark FaZe]

Man...BC2 maps/design with supression, prone and fence jumping...

sooooo good

BF3 map design is just...unbelievably, unbearably bad.

The destruction in BC2 actually added to the strategy in a good way as well. You could be winning via infantry but if you slept on the vehicles you'd end up with the bases falling on the cases.

Conquest continues to suck in both though.

[BigWeather]

Very much prefer BC2. World seemed more destructible, support classes felt better, maps just seemed more fun (on the 360).

However, DICE's best game on the 360 was Battlefield 1943. Criminal that they never did anything beyond the three (well, and Coral Sea) maps. I'd seriously pay $100 for all of the 1942, Road to Rome, and Secret Weapons maps.

[patapuf]

That's really what Battlefield is all about too. You should be okay going it alone, but it should be infinitely better when you run with a squad that knows what they're doing and actually communicates. I can see how this would be counter-intuitive for many console players though. I really would have loved the Commander window to make a return in BF3 on consoles but I'm not sure how well it would go over on those platforms. Doesn't seem to be enough willingness to coordinate.

Oh i agree, i rarely play alone, way too frustrating. Especially vehicles are a pain to put down as infantry without help from your squad/other players. That's how it should be imo but i see why it can turn people off.

[Avinexus]

Conquest continues to suck in both though.

Conquest is the only thing I can even play. Team Deathmatch is way too easy and Rush is just an awful gamemode.

[1-D_FTW]

I dunno, BF3 just seems off to me. What kills it for me are the vehicles. Its so hard to kill vehicles in this game that its just taken the fun out of the game for me. All every match is now is vehicles raping everyone on the ground, try to lock on, he flies 50 miles up in the air or shoots an endless amount of flares. I just don't have fun playing anymore. Its a shame cause it had so much potential.

Which is why 1942 was the best BF game. A uber skilled pilot could still make hey, but it was rare. Planes were just part of the ambiance.

That said, the Desert Combat mod had great balance with aircraft. So in the hands of competent developers, it can be done. It's just Dice being Dice. They got really lucky with 1942 and have gotten steadily worse with every release.

[MetalFearSolid]

Yup, absolutely. Arica Harbor FO LIFE

This. Conquest on this map is amazing, this map became the only map I played for awhile when I played BC2.

I played BF3 and BC2 on PS3, and I prefer BC2 more. But I enjoyed BF3 on PC.

[goodfella]

I think BC2 is better, but I never said it as I was afraid every one would hate me.

Wow, now I have that off my chest I can start living life.

[sp3000]

BC2 was the better game for console players for sure. I hate how most of BF3's sales come from console owners, yet the maps were designed around playing on a PC.

Battlefield is a PC game. It was Bad Company that was originally console. You should be glad you get a Battlefield 3 at all.

Thank goodness DICE didn't cater to the crappy console hardware when making maps.

[patapuf]

Battlefield is a PC game. It was Bad Company that was originally console. You should be glad you get a Battlefield 3 at all. Thank goodness DICE didn't cater to the crappy console hardware when making maps.

actually they did (partly). it's pretty obvious which maps are too small for 64/32 players and wich are too big for 24 players, even in the small version.

good thing the karkand pack is great.

[macfoshizzle]

im with you on this. i do like bc and bc2 more than bf3. bf3 is a completely different game to me. one thing i like it more is it felt a lot more clean. a lot more simple, fun, and more of a sandbox game than bf3. bf3 although is still fun, it feels like it tries to hard.

do people still play bc2? anyone recently been on the multiplayer lately on live?

[TUSR]

BF2>>>>>BF3>BC2 in my opinion

how does being lonely feel

[AHA-Lambda]

Oh God yes! I loved BC2 and for the longest time it was my go to multiplayer shooter. BF3 on the other hand to me was the biggest disappointment of last year.

[SapientWolf]

Which is why 1942 was the best BF game. A uber skilled pilot could still make hey, but it was rare. Planes were just part of the ambiance. That said, the Desert Combat mod had great balance with aircraft. So in the hands of competent developers, it can be done. It's just Dice being Dice. They got really lucky with 1942 and have gotten steadily worse with every release.

Jets aren't very effective against ground units in BF3 because they lack bombs, and they're a hard counter to helicopters. The ground AA vehicle is more than capable against both. If anything, air was much more of a problem for infantry in 42 because they were capable of carpet bombing and they were slow enough to strafe the ground.

[Marleyman]

In some parts. I really liked the feel of the Vietnam expansion the most.

This is how I feel as well. I think Battlefield 3 blows away BC2, and I loved BC2 and BC. I am on the xbox, if that matters.

[Doc Holliday]

I dunno, BF3 just seems off to me. What kills it for me are the vehicles. Its so hard to kill vehicles in this game that its just taken the fun out of the game for me. All every match is now is vehicles raping everyone on the ground, try to lock on, he flies 50 miles up in the air or shoots an endless amount of flares. I just don't have fun playing anymore. Its a shame cause it had so much potential.

It's a tank! You shouldn't be able to take it out with a sniper rifle and some grenades ;)

[Silly.Mikey]

It's a tank! You shouldn't be able to take it out with a sniper rifle and some grenades ;)

No but it shouldn't take 3-4 rockets either. I javelin-ed that shit all the time and they always have the time to repair and go on. Or ill shoot 3-4 rockets on it and its still not dead. I mean, come on.

[1-D_FTW]

Jets aren't very effective against ground units in BF3 because they lack bombs, and they're a hard counter to helicopters. The ground AA vehicle is more than capable against both. If anything, air was much more of a problem for infantry in 42 because they were capable of carpet bombing and they were slow enough to strafe the ground.

It seemed like the maps were so brilliantly designed, though, that it wasn't an issue. Most maps had AA guns that could keep them honest.

Maybe that's the real issue. Maybe I'm just blinded by how good the maps were in 1942, it colors my opinion.

That and the fact I'm not a level upper. My piss shooter against endless flares = me moving onto a game I actually enjoy. If a game needs constant level ups to prove entertaining, it's just not for me.

[Marleyman]

No but it shouldn't take 3-4 rockets either. I javelin-ed that shit all the time and they always have the time to repair and go on. Or ill shoot 3-4 rockets on it and its still not dead. I mean, come on.

That isn't always the case, at least in my time with the game.

[Mister Negative]

Yup, completely agree. Maps seem better, guns felt WAY better (guns feel like crap in BF3), and the destruction was way better.

I'm hoping BC3 (if it's not cancelled) will be closer to BC2 than BF3.

[The Faceless Master]

No but it shouldn't take 3-4 rockets either. I javelin-ed that shit all the time and they always have the time to repair and go on. Or ill shoot 3-4 rockets on it and its still not dead. I mean, come on.

ok, if it's a tank, and you javelin it and they repair faster than you damage it, that means either you're taking too long between shots or they have more than 1 person repairing it. in both cases, why should you win that match-up?

[Mister Negative]

I also saw some hate for 1943 earlier on in the thread, but I thought 1943 was a BLAST. It wasn't so much the game that was great, the gunplay was kind of terrible, but I had so much fun playing it it didn't matter.

[Silly.Mikey]

ok, if it's a tank, and you javelin it and they repair faster than you damage it, that means either you're taking too long between shots or they have more than 1 person repairing it. in both cases, why should you win that match-up?

That phrase is exactly whats wrong with this game.

The fact that they can repair a javelin shot damage or rocket launcher damage with a guy and a wrench before i can get another shot out is the problem. Not to mention the smoke that protects it too. Then not only are they getting fixed, but you cant even lock on. Why make them so powerful and so strong at the same time? I shouldn't have to rely on someone else on my team to help destroy any vehicle if i have a god damn rocket or javelin on me. Are you serious?

[The Faceless Master]

That phrase is exactly whats wrong with this game. The fact that they can repair a javelin shot damage or rocket launcher damage with a guy and a wrench before i can get another shot out is the problem. No to mention the smoke that protects it too. Then not only are they getting fixed, but you cant even lock on. Why make them so powerful and so strong at the same time? I shouldn't have to rely on someone else on my team to help destroy any vehicle if i have a god damn rocket or javelin on me. Are you serious?

if one guy can easily beat a tank with two people, why have tanks in the game. they're working as a team, why should you win?

[Silly.Mikey]

if one guy can easily beat a tank with two people, why have tanks in the game. they're working as a team, why should you win?

I can kill a tank in Halo for example on my own. Easily. It just takes a rocket launcher, or lazer. Dead within 1 shot, 2 maximum. And they don't have shit like smoke to protect them or can be repaired. Doesn't make them useless or weak cause ive (and others) also very much owned with those same tanks. It not a problem in other games, so why make them so much stronger in this one?

In games with less people, the tank should be less powerful. I can understand in a 64 player game why it would need to be strong since odds are, more people are shooting at you. But when it stays consistently that strong in smaller games too, its a problem.

[Mister Negative]

I also thought the class balance was better in BC2. I hate how everyone just picks assault in BF3 because it's also the medic.

[Darklord]

I agree. I liked BC2 a lot more than BF3. I just didn't enjoy the maps as much and the unlock system was too annoying.

[SapientWolf]

I can kill a tank in Halo for example on my own. Easily. It just takes a rocket launcher, or lazer. Dead within 1 shot, 2 maximum. And they don't have shit like smoke to protect them or can be repaired. Doesn't make them useless or weak cause ive (and others) also very much owned with those same tanks. It not a problem in other games, so why make them so much stronger in this one? In games with less people, the tank should be less powerful. I can understand in a 64 player game why it would need to be strong since odds are, more people are shooting at you. But when it stays consistently that strong in smaller games too, its a problem.

In BF3, teamwork is OP. That's just how they designed it.

I mean, just look at this Javelin/SOFLAM video. Just ridiculous. But no one in the pubs works together so this never happens.

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

The answer is yes.

But neither can compare with 1943. One of my favorite games ever.

[The Faceless Master]

I can kill a tank in Halo for example on my own. Easily. It just takes a rocket launcher, or lazer. Dead within 1 shot, 2 maximum. And they don't have shit like smoke to protect them or can be repaired. Doesn't make them useless or weak cause ive (and others) also very much owned with those same tanks. It not a problem in other games, so why make them so much stronger in this one? In games with less people, the tank should be less powerful. I can understand in a 64 player game why it would need to be strong since odds are, more people are shooting at you. But when it stays consistently that strong in smaller games too, its a problem.

you can kill a tank in Battlefield on your own easily too. it's called C4.

Battlefield isn't Halo, the difference in weapon damage, lack of hitscan, bullet drop, splash damage on explosives, etc are all huge indicators of that.

seriously, your complaint is you don't need teamwork to compete with teamwork in another game? really? REALLY?

[patapuf]

I can kill a tank in Halo for example on my own. Easily. It just takes a rocket launcher, or lazer. Dead within 1 shot, 2 maximum. And they don't have shit like smoke to protect them or can be repaired. Doesn't make them useless or weak cause ive (and others) also very much owned with those same tanks. It not a problem in other games, so why make them so much stronger in this one? In games with less people, the tank should be less powerful. I can understand in a 64 player game why it would need to be strong since odds are, more people are shooting at you. But when it stays consistently that strong in smaller games too, its a problem.

many mechanics in BF3 are designed around at least 2 people cooperating. And 2 people cooperating should be considerably stronger than a lone wolf.

aditionally: the hard counters to a tank are planes and choppers. a compentent pilot will kill a tank in 1 run.

with the correct positioning a tank can be killed with 2 RPG shots as well. It makes sense that you have to at least flank a tank to be effective at taking him out

[Shorty11857]

I had a lot more fun with BC 2 than I have had with BF 3 (on consoles anyway), everything about BC 2 just felt better and more fun to play. Although the latest patches have improved BF3 a lot but still I prefer BC2

[Mister Negative]

I think the general consensus in this thread so far has been that console users prefer BC2, while PC users prefer BF3.

In a way, I'm not surprised. Wasn't BC developed with consoles in mind?