Support NeoGAF

[Aselith]

Ok, lets get the "maps have to be huge" "more than 24 players" "dedicated servers" bullshit out of the way.

And let's remember a little game called MAG, 256 players, dedicated servers and maps the size of the entire BF2 PC map list. :lol

MAG maps are tiny compared to Battlefield 2 maps.

 

[shintoki]

BF1942 still shits on every BF game after it.

Represent! Some games are just more fun during a certain time period. I think it's bit like GTAIV and RDR. Once everyone has the full auto assault rifles, repeating snipers, more powerful vehicles, and dozens of fucking explosives. It killed a lot of the balance and enjoyment in the series.

 

[Spl1nter]

Represent! Some games are just more fun during a certain time period. I think it's bit like GTAIV and RDR. Once everyone has the full auto assault rifles, repeating snipers, more powerful vehicles, and dozens of fucking explosives. It killed a lot of the balance and enjoyment in the series.

2142 disagrees with this statement. Extremely fun game. Mechs, pods and cloak. I doubt BF3 will have that same fun factor that 1942 and 2142 had.

 

[vanty]

I'd die if they revealed BF3 was a WW2 game. It's the air vehicles that are the biggest problem with the games set in modern times. It took a few patches, but eventually the planes were perfectly balanced in 1942. Once you have choppers and jets, it all goes to shit. Oh and grenade launchers can never be done right. In fact everything in 1942 was perfectly balanced except for maybe the Japanese assault rifle being slightly overpowered.

I understand people not wanting more WW2 singleplayer games, but for multiplayer it's perfect.

 

[Pikelet]

I would love for another WW2 game too, but we all know it is going to be modern because that shit sells.

 

[The Faceless Master]

smh.

smh

 

[GeneralIroh]

Fuck you and your ww2 suggestions.
I'd rather have the setting take place during the korean war or the civil war.

 

[Naeblish]

Never played BF2, but loved BC2 to death. I just hope they support BF3 way better with new maps then BC2. You can only play 5-6 rush maps so long before you get utterly bored.

 

[Wiktor]

So what are PC players looking for from BF3 that wasn't offered by BFBC2?

At the moment I've seen:

• Jets
• Bigger maps
• 64 players

Project Reality

 

[Noisepurge]

Im just hoping the Commander and Squad mechanics return. Plus big citymaps! (all destructible plz)

If this can't be done on consoles make it a BF3+ on the PC-version.

 

[Mr Sandman]

2142 disagrees with this statement. Extremely fun game. Mechs, pods and cloak. I doubt BF3 will have that same fun factor that 1942 and 2142 had.

Is this fucking game ever going to come to Steam!? At this point I'd rather have that then BF3 to be honest.

 

[Spl1nter]

I'd die if they revealed BF3 was a WW2 game. It's the air vehicles that are the biggest problem with the games set in modern times. It took a few patches, but eventually the planes were perfectly balanced in 1942. Once you have choppers and jets, it all goes to shit. Oh and grenade launchers can never be done right. In fact everything in 1942 was perfectly balanced except for maybe the Japanese assault rifle being slightly overpowered.

What for how long did you play 1942. Who played assault. The medic class was way more powerful and overpowered. The Tommy gun destroyed everyone. The planes were dominant in the right hands. You could trap a team in its base with a dive bomber. 1942 wasn't perfectly balanced but it was still a great game. Once again 2142 shows that great balance can be achieved in a modern/futuristic shooter.

 

[slamskank]

According to your PC based point of view.

Yes. The view of console peasants doesn't count because they have been playing shitty, inferior shooters for years, rewarding greedy publishers for stagnating the genre by preordering whatever shit they shovel out. You guys should be ashamed.

PC gamers don't compromise on expectations.

 

[J-Rzez]

Yes. The view of console peasants doesn't count because they have been playing shitty, inferior shooters for years, rewarding greedy publishers for stagnating the genre by preordering whatever shit they shovel out. You guys should be ashamed.

PC gamers don't compromise on expectations.

Playing shooters on both PC and Consoles, I have to say, no. There has been great shooters on both platforms, and there has been shit on both too. The PC isn't immune to "stagnant" shooters neither. And no, it's not the consoles fault. While I love ZP, that skit was the worse thing he's ever done on it as not everyone knows it was a joke, and some people here actually take it serious. News flash, there's great games on both PC and Consoles.

And PC gamers don't compromise on expectations? Can't wait to see how SC2 bombs then since no one will buy it then considering all the bitching made about it with Blizzard removing features and such.

Anyways, BF3 info has been long overdue by now. I had a gut feeling that you'd need to buy MoH, add it to your Gunclub to get a beta invite to BF3.

 

[slamskank]

Playing shooters on both PC and Consoles, I have to say, no. There has been great shooters on both platforms, and there has been shit on both too. The PC isn't immune to "stagnant" shooters neither. And no, it's not the consoles fault. While I love ZP, that skit was the worse thing he's ever done on it as not everyone knows it was a joke, and some people here actually take it serious. News flash, there's great games on both PC and Consoles.

And PC gamers don't compromise on expectations? Can't wait to see how SC2 bombs then since no one will buy it then considering all the bitching made about it with Blizzard removing features and such.

Anyways, BF3 info has been long overdue by now. I had a gut feeling that you'd need to buy MoH, add it to your Gunclub to get a beta invite to BF3.

There is a key difference here vis a vis your sc2 reference. PC gamers expect certain things, whereas console gamers pay for stuff like xbox live so they can play over p2p and get barraged with advertising. Sure, people will buy sc2 no matter what. Sure there are bad games on all platforms but I think it's undeniably the fault of console limitations for the massive decline in quality of games across the board, but with shooters especially.

I guess I can't blame the developers for abandoning us. There is so much more blood sweat and tears that goes into a game like BF2 than something cut and pasted like BC2 or MOH. If they make more money and work less hard it only makes sense. Hopefully some developer out there will carry the torch, I just personally think games aren't nearly as good as they were 5 or 10 years ago.

 

[No_Style]

So what are PC players looking for from BF3 that wasn't offered by BFBC2?

At the moment I've seen:

• Jets
• Bigger maps
• 64 players

This is coming from both a PC and Console perspective. I didn't care much for BF1942, but I adored BF2. There were some issues with regards to focusing the gameplay though.

But let's get something out of the way. Battlefield games are not realistic. Period. So I'm coming from a gameplay perspective.

While Battlefield 2 offered 64 players, I've always felt the game played better at 32 players. Most 64 player map configurations tossed captured points in an effort to spread the battlefield, but it always felt arbitrary since the battle line was focused around the capture points of the 32 player configuration.

Jets are an excellent bullet point and awesome for dog fights, but they're in their own little world above the sky in Battlefield 2. It was so rare to see a jet actually engage ground forces or contribute to the overall game. This is why I wasn't sad to see them gone in BC2. At least choppers are capable of that air to ground interaction. Capping points via Blackhawk is awesome and possible. Capping points with a jet? Not so much.

If you BC2 only players hated the choppers in Atacama Desert Conquest or Port Valdez Conquest, imagine people flying high above the sky doing absolutely nothing for the game.

As for map size? 32 player versions fit BF2 and 24 player versions fit BC2 (yes, console). I think DICE has a handle on what size works for the player count. (except 64 player like I mentioned)

So what do I want to see?

• I don't want to see a bullet point "64 player" mode. I want a worthwhile one.
• I don't want to see jets for the sake of having jets, give them more options to contribute to the game.

Instead of jets, I can see gunships like the AC130s as viable alternatives.

Also, the PC elitism is so sad in this thread.

 

[J-Rzez]

There is a key difference here vis a vis your sc2 reference. PC gamers expect certain things, whereas console gamers pay for stuff like xbox live so they can play over p2p and get barraged with advertising. Sure, people will buy sc2 no matter what. Sure there are bad games on all platforms but I think it's undeniably the fault of console limitations for the massive decline in quality of games across the board, but with shooters especially.

I guess I can't blame the developers for abandoning us. There is so much more blood sweat and tears that goes into a game like BF2 than something cut and pasted like BC2 or MOH. If they make more money and work less hard it only makes sense. Hopefully some developer out there will carry the torch, I just personally think games aren't nearly as good as they were 5 or 10 years ago.

I would blame ALL gamers to be honest, as it seems enough of them bought into the "Hollywoodization" of these shooters. Enough people bought it up with CoD4 on PC and Consoles to further push that style with CoD6 as we saw. Now the real question is with consoles thrown into the mix is there going to be a focus on a SP campaign for BF3? I hope to hell not.

And not all gamers on consoles pay an individual company not related at all to the developer to play content on the disc that's supposed to be built into the games initial value. I know I haven't in years.

And finally, not all console games are stagnant. MAG is a good example of that. It needed a bit more polish, that is all. But it brought a lot of new concepts and features to console shooters, not to mention superb servers. Then again, Zipper isn't your traditional console developer obviously.

 

[Wthermans]

Yes. The view of console peasants doesn't count because they have been playing shitty, inferior shooters for years, rewarding greedy publishers for stagnating the genre by preordering whatever shit they shovel out. You guys should be ashamed.

PC gamers don't compromise on expectations.

MW2boycott.jpg

 

[Diablohead]

Any idea what Respawn are working on? would it be this battlefield?

 

[No_Style]

Any idea what Respawn are working on? would it be this battlefield?

The meltdowns would hilarious.

But seriously, they're working on their own IP.

 

[sflufan]

Any idea what Respawn are working on? would it be this battlefield?

Why would Respawn be working on something that's DICE's baby?

 

[Wthermans]

This is coming from both a PC and Console perspective. I didn't care much for BF1942, but I adored BF2. There were some issues with regards to focusing the gameplay though.

But let's get something out of the way. Battlefield games are not realistic. Period. So I'm coming from a gameplay perspective.

While Battlefield 2 offered 64 players, I've always felt the game played better at 32 players. Most 64 player map configurations tossed captured points in an effort to spread the battlefield, but it always felt arbitrary since the battle line was focused around the capture points of the 32 player configuration.

Jets are an excellent bullet point and awesome for dog fights, but they're in their own little world above the sky in Battlefield 2. It was so rare to see a jet actually engage ground forces or contribute to the overall game. This is why I wasn't sad to see them gone in BC2. At least choppers are capable of that air to ground interaction. Capping points via Blackhawk is awesome and possible. Capping points with a jet? Not so much.

If you BC2 only players hated the choppers in Atacama Desert Conquest or Port Valdez Conquest, imagine people flying high above the sky doing absolutely nothing for the game.

As for map size? 32 player versions fit BF2 and 24 player versions fit BC2 (yes, console). I think DICE has a handle on what size works for the player count. (except 64 player like I mentioned)

So what do I want to see?

• I don't want to see a bullet point "64 player" mode. I want a worthwhile one.
• I don't want to see jets for the sake of having jets, give them more options to contribute to the game.

Instead of jets, I can see gunships like the AC130s as viable alternatives.

Also, the PC elitism is so sad in this thread.

I can't say I agree with any of your points. Yeah the 64 player maps reused the 32 points and added a few more, but that allowed even more options for feints and those extra points could drastically alter the ticket counts making it so they could not be ignored. Not to mention the amount of vehicles it added to the map thereby making the game even more grander in scale.

As for jets not contributing to the fight, that comes down to the individual players. A good pilot would gain air superiority, do a few bombing runs and return to the enemy base to keep the enemy airpower grounded. Repeat. Saying that jets didn't contribute to the overall battle in a significant way is laughable. A good bomber/fighter duo could make the opposing team's life a literal hell and make it so the enemy team never had a chance of leaving their base. I find it hard to believe you never capped a point after a heavy bomber dropped a cluster of bombs to clear that point for you. I find it hard to believe that a laser missile didn't destroy the tank that was holding your squad down and making your advancement 10x harder than it should have been.

 

[Diablohead]

Why would Respawn be working on something that's DICE's baby?

If EA wanted Battlefield to rival the mammoth modern combat, i'd not be surprised

 

[No_Style]

I can't say I agree with any of your points. Yeah the 64 player maps reused the 32 points and added a few more, but that allowed even more options for feints and those extra points could drastically alter the ticket counts making it so they could not be ignored. Not to mention the amount of vehicles it added to the map thereby making the game even more grander in scale.

The 64 player configurations did add more and allowed for additional tactics, but like I said: in my experience people always clustered around the 32 player capture points.

As for jets not contributing to the fight, that comes down to the individual players. A good pilot would gain air superiority, do a few bombing runs and return to the enemy base to keep the enemy airpower grounded. Repeat. Saying that jets didn't contribute to the overall battle in a significant way is laughable. A good bomber/fighter duo could make the opposing team's life a literal hell and make it so the enemy team never had a chance of leaving their base. I find it hard to believe you never capped a point after a heavy bomber dropped a cluster of bombs to clear that point for you. I find it hard to believe that a laser missile didn't destroy the tank that was holding your squad down and making your advancement 10x harder than it should have been.

That's not the norm for a jet fighter though. I've seen choppers with their TOW missiles offer more support to infantry than jet fighters. Hell, thanks to skilled chopper fighters, a single pilot can use the TOW missile launcher by himself.

I guess I didn't clarify it properly, but my problem isn't with the addition of those things, but the implementation of them. They either didn't provide proper instruction or incentive to actually make them mesh with the game on a regular basis.

 

[Das-J]

MAG maps are tiny compared to Battlefield 2 maps.

Maybe if you include all the non-playable space around their maps, but I'm more than confident that our Domination environments are comparable if not larger where gameplay space is concerned.

 

[Wthermans]

The 64 player configurations did add more and allowed for additional tactics, but like I said: in my experience people always clustered around the 32 player capture points.



That's not the norm for a jet fighter though. I've seen choppers with their TOW missiles offer more support to infantry than jet fighters. Hell, thanks to skilled chopper fighters, a single pilot can use the TOW missile launcher by himself.

I guess I didn't clarify it properly, but my problem isn't with the addition of those things, but the implementation of them. They either didn't provide proper instruction or incentive to actually make them mesh with the game on a regular basis.

And the only reason someone could use the TV Missile in the Chopper (and solo with it) was because the jet pilots weren't keeping air superiority. Like I said, it's all in how someone utilizes the vehicle. As to the game not giving proper instruction on how to utilize the vehicles, I'd say that none of the vehicles did. Unless you had played a previous BF game, you were going to suck at flying (whether that's choppers or jets). There's a learning curve to the airpower in BF and if DICE wants to make that more accessible by lowering the skill required to utilize those weapons, then BF will never be the same to me. Yeah it took a lot of time to learn how to fly a chopper or jet, but they were a force to be reckoned with in the right hands and that's exactly how it should be.

 

[Spl1nter]

BF2 I think played best at 48 players for a number of maps. That seemed like a nice sweet spot for the game. On aircraft in 2142 the gunship were pretty easy to fly but to master them was extremely difficult and took a lot of practice and skill.

 

[ShikaTheReaper]

Bridge too Far ^_^

 

[The Faceless Master]

Yes. The view of console peasants doesn't count because they have been playing shitty, inferior shooters for years, rewarding greedy publishers for stagnating the genre by preordering whatever shit they shovel out. You guys should be ashamed.

PC gamers don't compromise on expectations.

mw2boycott.png

 

[Wthermans]

mw2boycott.png

Beat you to it.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=22648676&postcount=368

 

[The Faceless Master]

Beat you to it.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=22648676&postcount=368

you used an inferior low quality jpg

 

[Wthermans]

you used an inferior low quality jpg

Damn you graphics whores! :lol

 

[Chaplain]

Cool news update for B3:

http://www.pcgames.de/Battlefield-3...gaben-zur-geplanten-Veroeffentlichung-804750/

Electronic Arts recently indicated the release period for Battlefield 3: the release of the upcoming shooter Battlefield 3, according to John Riccitiello, CEO of Electronic Arts, is scheduled for the second half of 2011.

 

[grkazan12]

Cool news update for B3:

http://www.pcgames.de/Battlefield-3...gaben-zur-geplanten-Veroeffentlichung-804750/

Based God I give you thanks. So are we expecting summer release or a release in fall. Plus when does the beta begin?

 

[Chaplain]

Based God I give you thanks. So are we expecting summer release or a release in fall. Plus when does the beta begin?

I hope the beta will start in the Summer.

 

[demolitio]

Good to hear it's 2011. I was just on the BC2 forums when I noticed they have the BF3 forum up and running. Of course it's all speculation and people posting what they want in the game even if it's crazy, but at least it's officially up! :lol

 

[VibratingDonkey]

Greater chance of me being able to afford an upgrade before it starts. Goody.

2011 release of the game is starting to seem unlikely though. Seems DICE betas typically happen about 4 months before the game is out. So maybe I should put that upgrade on hold anyway.

 

[slamskank]

Reading back some of my posts in here, holy shit I was angry. Anyways, I tried BC2 again and it isn't THAT bad. I don't think it's the engine so much as the funneled maps that annoy me. If BF3 has the same scale of maps BF2 had, and brings back the full 6 classes, planes, and mod tools, I think I'd be happy with it.

 

[Josh7289]

Maybe it'll take place in the future again.

 

[B_Rik_Schitthaus]

Reading back some of my posts in here, holy shit I was angry. Anyways, I tried BC2 again and it isn't THAT bad. I don't think it's the engine so much as the funneled maps that annoy me. If BF3 has the same scale of maps BF2 had, and brings back the full 6 classes, planes, and mod tools, I think I'd be happy with it.

I agree,
BF2 is my Favorite stealth game the massive maps allowed for tons of different play styles.

 

[Anton Sugar]

Reading back some of my posts in here, holy shit I was angry. Anyways, I tried BC2 again and it isn't THAT bad. I don't think it's the engine so much as the funneled maps that annoy me. If BF3 has the same scale of maps BF2 had, and brings back the full 6 classes, planes, and mod tools, I think I'd be happy with it.

Did anyone say it was bad? Best online shooter of 2011.

 

[REV 09]

Oct seems likely to me. Gears and Resistance in Sept; uncharted and CoD in Nov. Plus MoH released in October.

 

[Arnie]

Can't wait. Me and my brother built a gaming rig back in the day for Battlefield 2 so it'll be strange playing it on console this time but I really can't afford a new PC right now. I hope they find a way to bring back 32 player matches on console at least, and I also hope Frostbite 2 allows for some full scale Urban combat maps such as Karkand, as BC 1 and 2 really lacked these. The new remake of Oasis has some dense Urban areas in it's final two sections but it's still well short of Battlefield 2.

One thing I would quite like, assuming it's set in modern day is a map similar to the one from Special Forces where you parachute into the dusty city. That felt great back in the day when you would make a stealthy descent into enemy lines.

Oh and I don't care about resolution DICE, bring back prone, on PC at least there is no excuse, just make sure to balance it so you can't dolphin dive.

 

[Hellcrow]

Can't wait. Me and my brother built a gaming rig back in the day for Battlefield 2 so it'll be strange playing it on console this time but I really can't afford a new PC right now. I hope they find a way to bring back 32 player matches on console at least, and I also hope Frostbite 2 allows for some full scale Urban combat maps such as Karkand, as BC 1 and 2 really lacked these. The new remake of Oasis has some dense Urban areas in it's final two sections but it's still well short of Battlefield 2.

One thing I would quite like, assuming it's set in modern day is a map similar to the one from Special Forces where you parachute into the dusty city. That felt great back in the day when you would make a stealthy descent into enemy lines.

Oh and I don't care about resolution DICE, bring back prone, on PC at least there is no excuse, just make sure to balance it so you can't dolphin dive.

I built a gaming rig for battlefield 2.

I said to myself that I would build a new one when battlefield 3 drops.

It is soon time.

 

[slamskank]

Did anyone say it was bad? Best online shooter of 2011.

I said it was bad. I feel I owe an apology however because I started playing again last night and I'm really enjoying it. Add the big conquest maps, 64 players, prone and all the other stuff bf2 had and it's a worthy sequel.

 

[Anton Sugar]

I said it was bad. I feel I owe an apology however because I started playing again last night and I'm really enjoying it. Add the big conquest maps, 64 players, prone and all the other stuff bf2 had and it's a worthy sequel.

I think it's disingenuous to compare it to Battlefield. It's not a sequel to Battlefield 2, it's a sequel to Bad Company. Apples to oranges.

 

[Nirolak]

I said it was bad. I feel I owe an apology however because I started playing again last night and I'm really enjoying it. Add the big conquest maps, 64 players, prone and all the other stuff bf2 had and it's a worthy sequel.

They did add a larger map with Heavy Metal that you might enjoy.

It's still three flags and 32 players, but it's quite large and has a vehicle count that you would expect from a bigger map.

 

[Anton Sugar]

They did add a larger map with Heavy Metal that you might enjoy.

It's still three flags and 32 players, but it's quite large and has a vehicle count that you would expect from a bigger map.

Yeah, Map Pack 7 has maps that feel very BF-ish. Wide open, multiple routes. Rare to get caught up in choke points.

 

[Sanjay]

No Battlefield on the PC for like 4/5 years then they swamp us with BC2 + 4 new maps, BC2 Vietnam and now they plan to release BC3 in one year and a bit from release of BC2. God damn DICE. I would be in heaven if they ever release Battlefield 1943 on the PC!

 

[subversus]

I don't think it's the engine so much as the funneled maps that annoy me.

I don't think this engine could annoy anybody except braindead people. It's one of the best in business.

As for maps they're certainly built to allow more infantry combat. I read the interview about 1943 where DICE said that old maps were too big for modern players because you had to run too much. So they shrank them.

Here it is:

How did you tweak Battlefield 1942 when you designed Battlefield 1943?

-- Something we did in general was to make the maps 20-25 percent smaller throughout, to make them fit the faster, modern gameplay better. The gameplay in Battlefield 1942 wasn't fast at all. For example, it only had walk and run, and walk is pretty much gone entirely in games today -- you either run or sprint! In 1942 you could spend too much time going from A to B. The pace would probably be perceived as unacceptably slow today.