|The Aftermath map pack in BF3 has redeemed it slightly in my eyes - those maps and Alborez (?) Mountain come closer to the fun of BC2. Was the lack of destruction in BF3 to do with consoles not having the grunt or was it a design decision? Either way it was a retrogressive step. The whole joy of maps like Cold War was in firing RPGs through the sides of buildings and watching the whole thing come shuddering down **is nostalgic**|
Battlefield: Bad Company 2 (console version) • Page 527
Pageof 534 First / Last
/sues andy for libel
Yeah destruction is a big one, definitely need more of that. The smaller rush maps are great, you get a really good sense of a proper front line, team work becomes extra important for maintaining the line or momentum in attacking the line.
Conquest is alright but when it often involves one or two people capturing a point without any resistance I can't help but think the mode could be improved. I realise there's no real incentive to sit at a base and wait for someone to attack, that's boring. Perhaps more little capture points, maybe even as many as 10* but you can only capture ones adjacent to you own, so it creates a front line.
*well probably an odd number to avoid stalemates.
pinkpanzer wrote:Well obvious they had the grunt for it in BC2, I don't know the details since I don't work at DICE (one day perhaps ) but the most likely explanation is that consoles didn't have the grunt to do it AND all the fancy shiny effects. I hope that isn't the reason but it makes the most sense technically but the least sense in terms of good design. Gameplay should trump fancy effects even if it means releasing a 'gimped' version on consoles.
The Aftermath map pack in BF3 has redeemed it slightly in my eyes - those maps and Alborez (?) Mountain come closer to the fun of BC2. Was the lack of destruction in BF3 to do with consoles not having the grunt or was it a design decision? Either way it was a retrogressive step. The whole joy of maps like Cold War was in firing RPGs through the sides of buildings and watching the whole thing come shuddering down **is nostalgic**
The best conquest map I ever played on bc2 was harvest day. Think I was playing with triari, the game went on for nearly an hour as we couldn't break the deadlock. Because of where the capture points were located it was like having a frontline. The worst conquest maps are when you just run around in a circle, capturing points but facing no real opposition. Increased player count does improve this though
@Mr Brett. Yes that's pretty much what I thought must be the case. You could feel the engine almost pulling itself apart on the console just trying to run some of the original BF3 maps (especially the 'beta' of Metro). But the game feels a lot more locked down now, especially on the Aftermath maps. BF4 will presumably appear on the Durango and Orbis so maybe we can have destruction and eye-candy? But I still agree with the consensus - BC2 was just more fun.
I read the story on the front page, it makes it sound like BF is going to become a yearly franchise...
Tryhard 11,606 posts
Seen 9 hours ago
Registered 6 years ago
Good news if they do bring out BC3 with everything that made BC2 fun.
As to taking away Conquest, that is the most stupid thing I have ever heard about doing to a Battlefield game.BF3 was mainly designed for PC and BC2 was mainly designed for console,and the maps reflect that.
BC3 in my mind,should be full destruction of buildings,no guided lock on BS,no legs,they just get in the freaking way ,no jets.Maps scaled to amount of players for console and pc.
pinebear 8,564 posts
Seen 9 months ago
Registered 11 years ago
Did someone mention Harvest Day?
ComradePete 546 posts
Seen 37 minutes ago
Registered 8 years ago
Tryhard wrote:Yeah - stupid legs, who needs 'em!
no legs,they just get in the freaking way
/starts cutting through legs with butter knife
It pains be but it'll probably be BF4 they're talking about...BF3 brought in millions so they won't abandon that...
Now with MoH gone there'll be another franchise to alternate between them...My favourite new tactic now has become hiding next to enemy tanks...
It's like hiding behind a bulletproof wall...And if they know you're there they sometimes stupidly jump out to kill you at which point you just jump in...
Their premium model is great? Really?
What about if I fancy a quick go of BF3? I need to download about 16GB of stuff just to be able to have a game right now...Even if I don't want to play on any of the new maps...
What was wrong with the old way of free map packs every few months?
(that still had the download problem, but not these insanely bloated sizes)...
Buying the limited edition because that gave you access to the first map pack, then announcing a premium subscription, then announcing a premium version of the game...
Flourishing isn't a part of it as you'd have to invest hundreds of hours to unlock unnecessary stuff like a new decal pattern applied to the left side of the clip of a single gun...
I agree yearly updates would ruin the franchise and game quality, but the premium model is another horrible thing IMO...If BF4 will have the same premium shit I won't even bother trying it out...
I don't mind the premium model really, but I hate how they put the patch with the DLC. As long as the matchmaking is clever enough so you never end up in a server where there are maps you can't play, and the community is large enough to be split, then I have no problems. It's only annoying when you get kicked from the server every few maps as you don't have the required DLC.
The premium model won't really work with yearly iterations either, as you won't want to buy many map packs if the game will be replaced every year. A new game every 2+ years is far better IMO, otherwise they risk killing the franchise for short term profit
Edited by andytheadequate at 11:46:59 31-01-2013
@anthonypappa - the problem is that every player has to download the maps as a "patch" whenever the latest map pack is released, regardless of whether you buy them or not. I managed to pick up premium for around £7.50 on the PC and it's great value for that price. If it was around £20-25 instead of £35 then I'd be more in favour of it, but I don't think you save enough to warrant paying full price up front, especially seeing as though there is no guarantee of quality
Edited by andytheadequate at 11:55:05 31-01-2013
Premium gives 5 map packs (including Karkand) and a fancy black knife...It more than doubles the maps available...
The comment about the pick up and play is important I feel, as I won't even contemplate having a quick game as I'd be forced to download all map packs even if I don't have premium basically...
If the game is catered to the hardcore though they'd basically lose any revenue after the last map pack comes out (having invested players doesn't pay the bills), so no way they aren't thinking about releasing the sequel ASAP...
So it would lead to hardcore gamers being pissed off their game (that they paid a lot for) being supplanted so soon and casual gamers being put off by the piecemeal releasing of content...
That said I'm sure BF4 will break records...
@AcidSnake - Indeed, I imagine BF4 will sell by the tens of millions. I wonder what direction they will take with it, considering the success of 3. There has been so much criticism (a lot of it unjustified) from the "hardcore" on the Origin forums, but then again there is always a vocal minority who moan about everything.
Also, How was Blur?!
are people still playing this?
cba w/BF3 & premium and 300GB worth of downloads
@cozeny - me and Acidsnake still play a bit on the 360, generally quite late at weekends though.
It's £3.74 on Steam at the moment, I'm really tempted to buy it again...
I just need Acid to hurry up and get his pc!
Edited by andytheadequate at 19:32:42 05-04-2013
I'll get it!...
Oh and Cozeny is on my FL I believe, so if I see him on I'll join...
Decided to fire this up for old times sake today.
Very pleased to report that a) Its still awesome, and b) absolutely rammed full of people.
I jumped straight into a game of rush with two full squadrons of players, played for a straight hour with no drop outs or lack of replacements - it would seem that this game is still as popular as it should be.
Got bored of Battlefield 3 a while back and got rid of it, this game is miles ahead of it.
@Ultrasoundwave - do you have the VIP pass? My theory is that plenty of people still play it, just not with the VIP pass. I always end up in half full games, yet I know others don't have this problem...
onestepfromlost 2,557 posts
Seen 22 hours ago
Registered 10 years ago
I miss eggmilf, played bf3 for about a week. just didn't do it the same.
macmurphy 1,412 posts
Seen 5 minutes ago
Registered 10 years ago
I quite liked BF3 in the end. The final maps saved it, it ended up feeling like battlefield again. Still think there's no need for jets and that the reduced player count on consoles hurt the game, but I ended up liking it a lot. Also I agree, the destructive environments in the first were much better
Definitely not much of a Eurogamer community on it, also miss the MILF days. If anyone wants to play BF3 (including coop) I'm always keen - GT: Carpark karaoke.
We could try a BC2/EGGMILF reunion night?
Alastair 19,866 posts
Seen 7 minutes ago
Registered 15 years ago
I'd probably be up for that...
Although, there's a Double XP event on BF3 this weekend so I'll be playing that as much as possible!
I got much further with BF3 than I did with BFBC2, possibly because I came to BC2 quite late in the cycle..
Doesn't have to be this weekend
If enough people are up for it we could do maybe a day of the week?
Just like old times!
i'll be on most nights - do you guys play the regular MP or Vietnam?
I just play Vanilla...I detest Vietnam...No destruction, no cover, and badly designed maps...IMO...
Thank god, i also prefer the standard MP.
GT is The Big Mull
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.