Battlefield 3 - CONFIRMED

[knut]

that's what i'm saying with the whole vice versa console to PC thing. whilst BC2 has some errors and broken, yet-to-be fixed elements, it took all of the things that sucked in BF2 and made them better and playable. i realize this is going to get shot down by the fact that - god forbid! - it isn't 64 players and the maps are linear, but take away those, add the things that do work that didn't in BF2 and BC2 is easily the more successful product. what i meant earlier is that they made it for console and translated it to PC very well, the only problem is PC users are too stuck in the past and demanding more more more instead of realizing that more ****ing sucked. 64 players? is that REALLY all what people want? go and load up strike at karkand and go to the first flag cap and tell me that 64 people throwing grenades is fun.

all i'm really saying is think about all the problems with BF2 and then think about what's going to happen in the future when they try to make a BF3 that isn't anything to do with BC2. i'm sorry, but i can see it being flawed to ****, unless of course they do take a note out of BC2's book but then PC users have NO right to enjoy after getting in an ''outrage'', because all the things that were done so well were done for console first. that's all i'm saying. i'll happily be proven wrong if it means BF3 is actually a welcome change, as i believe BF2 had potential.

 

[PvtRyan]

I played the BF2 demo back in the days, enjoyed it, but didn't buy the full game.

Bought BF2 a short while before BC2 because it was super cheap on Steam, played it for a little bit and it didn't age well, it was pretty bad. I played BF1942 religiously, but the infantry combat has always been awful in BF games, just awful. But BC2's combat is great, very tight and can easily match MW2's feeling when shooting. If that's "consolized", I'll take the "consolized" version over the classic BF any day.

That said, I wouldn't mind a BF3 with a 64-player limit and big maps with more focus on vehicles, with the feeling of BC2.

 

[Stigmata]

Ideally BF3 would have BC2's combat with 1942's airpower balance. And Wake Island.

 

[Shakermaker]

Wake, seriously? I never understood why that was always re-made. I've had about enough of that map. It is not that I'd mind a couple of remakes though. I'd be a very happy camper if El-Alamein, Coral Sea or Gazala were re-made. Or Sharqi if it has to be a BF2 map.

 

[PvtRyan]

Ideally BF3 would have BC2's combat with 1942's airpower balance. And Wake Island.

Unfortunately, unless BF3 is set during WW2, we'll get jets which are way too fast to be any fun. I hope they don't add planes but instead focus more on choppers. Or if they do add them, I hope that they slow them down to unrealistic levels. The planes in BF1942 were fun, but jets are lame.

 

[Qonfused]

If you don't like Wake Island you can ****ing die.

 

[Cancer]

Wake Island is meh. Pretty annoying map and way too easy to hold the majority of the points.

 

[Krynn72]

Wake Island is Battlefield's Avalanche (from Day of Defeat). Its a great map, but way, WAY overplayed.

Also, lol @ Knut's "PC gamers don't care about improvements so long as big maps hurr" generalization.

 

[knut]

it's a generalization outside of this thread, sure, but in here it does seem to be mostly ''it was lacking big maps and felt consolized'' and as pvtryan rightly said, if that consolization is an improvement to BF2's broken mechanics, then so be it. there isn't much else to say on the matter - it's a console game that has rightly fixed some of the major flaws the franchise had, and yet here people are getting up in arms about a possible BF3 coming to consoles when it seems to be that because of the bad company games on a console that the mechanics have become much, much better.

that's all i'm really saying. i don't think it fair for pc folk to say ''BC2 rocks!'' but also say ''whoa wait battlefield on a console waaaait a second!"

 

[Krynn72]

I don't think its fair either (as I have pointed out several times in this thread), though I don't agree with your reasoning. I don't see how making a game for consoles inherently fixed the issues with the series. Consolization isn't what improved the game. The term consolized has always refered to the very fact the games need to be computationally limited by the old hardware in the systems. What people here are concerned about is DICE limiting map size to cater to the console hardware. Limiting features to those that console hardware can utilize (only so much you can do with a gamepad compared to keyboard). GUI almost always ends up sucking on PC ports since the games are usually designed for gamepads, so I imagine thats some concern as well, since BC2's gui was quite shit, even in spite of it being custom designed for PC its was clearly hindered by the engine's architecture. Thats something with which I've had personal experience dealing with on a game I worked on. Its an enormous pain in the ass to get decent functionality with both controllers, and you always end up having to favor one over the other.

Your argument is that the game coming to consoles is what made them adjust the gameplay to be more concise and polished, but that doesn't really hold up. The technological limitations imposed on them by consoles may have been what spurred them to making such gameplay changes, but that could have been done even without the console. They just needed to rethink the gameplay. Even if that weren't the case, it certainly doesn't mean that they should settle with a pc port of a console game when they can incorporate their newfound gameplay with the broadened capabilities of modern PC hardware. The fact remains that software designed for both console and pc will always be limited in function by the lowest common denominator, which is always the console. Whether or not the creative thinking required to work within such limitations yields positive results is rather irrelevant, since any catalyst for such thinking would do. It doesn't have to be the console's confinements.

 

[knut]

eh, maybe. it's coulda woulda shoulda when you say they could of done it without making a console game and that it could of been done already with a battlefield title that went straight to PC. i guess BF3 will be the decider on whether they can rethink what they did wrong. the way i see it? too many players, too many vehicles, too larger maps and such forth are what made the game so broken, and scaling it down was the right thing to do, as proven. if they decide to take all the good things with BC2 and implement them into a new battlefield, great - i said i'd be happily proven wrong if this is the case as i want the game to do well - but not so great on console players if they tease us with all the fixes to the franchise, then take them away and give them to one specific platform later on down the line.

you might not see it the same way i do, but i saw it as a shitty unplayable, unfun and unbalanced game made fun, playable and balanced when it was scaled back and made specifically for consoles ala bad company 1. you're absolutely bang on correct about why games get 'consolized' and why they get scaled down, i'm not disputing or insinuating anything different - i'm saying that it's that downgrade that trimmed all the things that made battlefield 2 such a chore to play and for that i'm thankful. i guess that is, afterall, just my opinion, though.

 

[Krynn72]

I accept your apology.

 

[jimbo118]

I just hope this guy is back:

KUMBULA DUKRANEEYA!

actually, I just hope all the MEC guys are back. Epic beardage!

 

[Shakermaker]

That dude simply has to come back. The MEC heavy weapons guy ftw!

 

[xcellerate]

Please let it be more like BF2 than Bad Company.

Not that I dont love BC2, I just want a game which is like BF2.

especially the vehicles. The helicopter in BF2 was awesome and the one in BC2 is terrible. Also....where are my jets and heat seeking missles?!?!?

 

[Ren.182]

especially the vehicles. The helicopter in BF2 was awesome and the one in BC2 is terrible. Also....where are my jets and heat seeking missles?!?!?

Yeah I used to LOVE the Cobra in BF2. Was so fun to fly Used to be able to dodge everything in that baby

I like the improvements they've bought out for the choppers in BC2, they feel a lot closer to BF2's choppers now.

 

[Gargantou]

especially the vehicles. The helicopter in BF2 was awesome and the one in BC2 is terrible. Also....where are my jets and heat seeking missles?!?!?

There are multiple helicopters in BC2, you are aware of that, right?

 

[SpotEnemyBoats]

There are multiple helicopters in BC2, you are aware of that, right?

I think he means the functionality of the choppers?
Remember the TV guided missiles? Instead in BC2, we get weak 25mm auto-cannon that can barely take down a Bradley and over heats after 2 bursts. If your a secondary pilot... oh well!

Personally I hope they put in a pilotable A10 Thunderbolt II, a battle ship (with modern gadgets and weapons - while being able to drive it and can be destroyed) and an aircraft carrier (that's also drivable, but can be destroyed). Also, there needs to be some aircraft only type maps (like Battle of Brittan was for BF1942 and No Fly Zone was for DC).

 

[knut]

secondary pilots aren't designated anti-tank gunners, that's the functionality of the pilot himself. chopper co-pilots/gunners should be aiming for infantry as they pose the biggest threat to pilots.

there's a good reason why it's like that: balance, something BF2 didn't have.

 

[Escaep]

I think if they had the "feel" of the BC2 choppers guns and the feel of BF2's choppers, I'd be sold. The choppers in BF2 seemed so much easier to control and were a blast to fly.