Battlefield 3

[morgs]

So what you guys are saying is that BF3 is ruined

No one is saying it's ruined or wont be any fun, they're just discussing what they'd like to see. Stop being so overly defensive and let people have an opinion.

 

[Ennui]

I will admit that there is a strong likelihood I was responding only partially to your specific post and partially to the tone of your past comments and to my knowledge of you as a person

My point still pretty much stands though. You seem to be condemning the game for relatively minor reasons. How about I won't get hyperbolic about your posts if you don't call me a fanboy (like that's even an insult on a Half-Life 2 forum). I can get touchy about this because I spend pretty much all of my free time working on my site and I hear more shit and criticism of the game than you could possibly comprehend, 95% of which is based on misinterpretation and/or falsehood rather than being legitimate criticism. It makes my fuse kind of short, I'm sorry for getting intense.

edit: (that was at vegeta not you morgs)

In other news, I am probably going to be playing the alpha VERY soon, so I'll have a lot better understanding of the gameplay/pace and be able to clarify just how things are ingame better than just watching a vid of someone (assuming I'm allowed to talk about it at all).

 

[FrostedxB]

It looks like an improved BC2 and nothing more.

 

[Vegeta897]

I will admit that there is a strong likelihood I was responding only partially to your specific post and partially to the tone of your past comments and to my knowledge of you as a person

Next time I'll post my ideas under an alt account

My point still pretty much stands though. You seem to be condemning the game for relatively minor reasons.

Eh, I don't consider it minor. Infantry combat seems to be a lot more focused this time around. I guess I am kind of ranting because I know they're not going to change the game to be like what I described, because it really would be pretty drastic of a change compared to what I've seen.

How about I won't get hyperbolic about your posts if you don't call me a fanboy (like that's even an insult on a Half-Life 2 forum).

I'm sorry about that, but it was all I could think of to explain what you were doing.

I can get touchy about this because I spend pretty much all of my free time working on my site and I hear more shit and criticism of the game than you could possibly comprehend, 95% of which is based on misinterpretation and/or falsehood rather than being legitimate criticism. It makes my fuse kind of short, I'm sorry for getting intense.

I understand, it's cool bro. You really shortened my fuse bringing up Arma and stuff though, seemingly ignoring everything I said. Stig especially.

 

[Krynn72]

Unlimited sprint with no effect on aiming will actually ruin a lot of the tactical gameplay, because there is no reason to not just rush around everywhere like that guy was doing. A guy running around a corner at full speed is going to have just as much a drop on you with perfect aim as you will on him, assuming you're looking roughly in that direction. Covering flanks wont mean shit when a guy and just sprint right into the middle of your group and aim perfectly. The guy in the video did that several times to people who knew he was there. He runs over a rock and kills a dude without missing a shot basically. He rapid fire shoots his pistol and every round is on target even when he just sprinted up to the guy. The Knife kill system is going to promote this "get in close asap!" style gameplay too, since it looks like its just a insta kill animation.

BC2 was like this as well, and its the primary reason I stopped playing it. There is no benefit to to not rushing. A guy sprinting down an alley can shoot you through a window across the map, making overwatch positions pointless, and in fact, deathtraps. I'm almost positive the game will be entirely RUSH RUSH RUSH all the time, with almost every kill being an "ambush" kill against someone who didn't even see you. There won't be any point where you're pinned down by someone in a good position, there wont be any point where you can stop to think about the situation and how to get around it, because when you do someone will jump over the rock you're hiding behind, or sprint around the corner past you and whip around going full auto on your head. Which is fine for people who want that kind of game, but makes it less unique, and less BF2.

 

[Stigmata]

I and others tend to disagree with you here.

That's great, but you guys are collectively wrong.

I didn't say anything about 'a stability system' Where do you come up with this shit?

Come to think of it, I can't really recall where I would have gotten the notion that you sa

I think the combat should have an emphasis on cover and stability. Running around dodging bullets should destroy your ability to aim, as well as sap up a lot of stamina.

You can minimise it all you want by begging the question of our intellectual capacity for game mechanics, but you said what you said.

BF2 already had a stamina system, and rightly so. It's to prevent people from sprinting around constantly. And all I meant by stability was that using up your stamina should greatly affect your ability to shoot accurately. What is so ****ing complicated and 'milsim' about this? It's a simple mechanic that would slow the pace from the current deathmatch-looking frantic fragfest. Me saying that it looks closer to real life combat was just a side note. The important thing I was trying to emphasize was the pace of it all, not to mention being more original.

A stability system (I refuse to refer to it as "stamina" as this system is independent of stamina, as you stated) on its own is not "milsim". But the total sum of your issues with and desires for this game, is.

 

[Ennui]

Unlimited sprint with no effect on aiming will actually ruin a lot of the tactical gameplay, because there is no reason to not just rush around everywhere like that guy was doing. A guy running around a corner at full speed is going to have just as much a drop on you with perfect as as you will on him, assuming you're looking roughly in that direction. Covering flanks wont mean shit when a guy and just sprint right into the middle of your group and aim perfectly. The guy in the video did that several times to people who knew he was there. He runs over a rock and kills a dude without missing a shot basically. He rapid fire shoots his pistol and every round is on target even when he just sprinted up to the guy. The Knife kill system is going to promote this "get in close asap!" style gameplay too, since it looks like its just a insta kill animation.

BC2 was like this as well, and its the primary reason I stopped playing it. There is no benefit to to not rushing. A guy sprinting down an alley can shoot you through a window across the map, making overwatch positions pointless, and in fact, deathtraps. I'm almost positive the game will be entirely RUSH RUSH RUSH all the time. Which is fine for people who want that kind of game, but makes it less unique, and less BF2.

I'm guessing there is some delay on bringing your gun up after sprinting (although it does seem pretty small/minor). I did always dislike how in BC2 you can be sprinting and basically start shooting instantly if you run into someone going around a corner or whatever. I'm not so sure as you guys that the game is doomed to be fast paced rush deathmatchfest though... we haven't even seen conquest maps, which are supposed to be several orders of magnitude larger than a little 32 player rush map like Op Metro which is designed for tight corridors and near/mid range shootouts.

For the knife, I believe it's actually not entire instakill like BC2. From what I understand, you only kill in one hit and get their dogtags when you sneak up and knife them from behind. Otherwise I think what I remember hearing is that the knife won't kill in one hit (so you can't just charge into someone and knife them while they are shooting at you, like happens in BC2). Knife is also equippable as its own weapon in addition to the quick knife button you see being used in some of the vids.

Also again I really caution against drawing too many gameplay conclusions from these vids. Bear in mind they were recorded within hours of the alpha going live... nobody knows the map, nobody knows what to expect, and most of them are more interested in sightseeing and dicking around with the engine and weapons than they are about playing tactically and metagaming. Which is part of the reason I'm so pumped to play the alpha, because I know I'm just gonna stomp all over everyone's face. What you're saying about vantage points and flanking and stuff is mostly due to the people being flanked sucking at FPS and not covering their flanks properly, not due to the game design itself. I know it's easy to see the speed and just think about Terminal or Nuketown or other hyperpaced shooting frenzy deathmatch maps in COD, but have just a teeny bit of faith

 

[Vegeta897]

That's great, but you guys are collectively wrong.

Oh! Silly me. I actually gave reasons for why I think it would fit with Battlefield. You simply call me wrong without any explanation.

A stability system (I refuse to refer to it as "stamina" as this system is independent of stamina, as you stated) on its own is not "milsim". But the total sum of your issues with and desires for this game, is.

Um, no. All I said in my post was talking about stability and cover. Don't start bringing up old shit like Ennui did. I'm allowed to change my views on what I'd like to see in the game considering media is constantly being released, and I was specifically referring to a video that had just been released. Most of my old posts were about the SP anyway, which has nothing at all to do with this current discussion.

Krynn's post very beautifully demonstrates the problems I see in the game and what I think should be done about them. If you think that it sounds like a milsim, then you are collectively wrong.

Also again I really caution against drawing too many gameplay conclusions from these vids. Bear in mind they were recorded within hours of the alpha going live... nobody knows the map, nobody knows what to expect, and most of them are more interested in sightseeing and dicking around with the engine and weapons than they are about playing tactically and metagaming.

Honestly I don't really think it has anything to do with what actually happened in the video. More what could happen. There are no mechanics in the game to prevent people from doing the things Krynn said. There is no reason for people to behave in the way that you said you'd like to see them behave other than to feel cool and tactical. This is the problem. It has nothing to do with how the people in the video actually acted, it's the features in the game that we can clearly see.

And I may be going out on a limb here, but there's even less of a reason to expect people to behave tactically and utilize cover/fire support/flanking when all the recent military shooters have practically conditioned gamers to behave in the exact opposite way, and with the way the game is designed, they'll fit right in. I think you're expecting way too much from the current FPS crowd.

 

[Krynn72]

Also again I really caution against drawing too many gameplay conclusions from these vids. Bear in mind they were recorded within hours of the alpha going live... nobody knows the map, nobody knows what to expect, and most of them are more interested in sightseeing and dicking around with the engine and weapons than they are about playing tactically and metagaming. Which is part of the reason I'm so pumped to play the alpha, because I know I'm just gonna stomp all over everyone's face. What you're saying about vantage points and flanking and stuff is mostly due to the people being flanked sucking at FPS and not covering their flanks properly, not due to the game design itself. I know it's easy to see the speed and just think about Terminal or Nuketown or other hyperpaced shooting frenzy deathmatch maps in COD, but have just a teeny bit of faith

Basically conquest maps are my only hope for a slowed down pace, but I am skeptical. It could just be a "take humvee and RUSH RUSH RUSH" thing. I have a strong feeling the game is going to be ALL about movement, and actions in it are going to be reactionary rather than thought out.

One thing that I'm just confused about in the videos, now that you mentioned it, is the knife as a separate weapon. Whats the point? It looked to me like every time it was equipped as a separate weapon, it got insta kill. That could be because he attacked from behind every time, but in at least one of them, it looked like the guy turned around and got insta'd from the front. The quick knife thing still insta-killed from behind it looked like, but unless the equipped knife does insta kill from the front while quick knife doesn't, then I don't see the point of it. Do you know if the equipped knife has other features?

 

[Ennui]

I think they're the same... the insta knife is just for people who are used to that sort of thing from COD or BC2 or whatever, and the equippable knife is just for those folks who like to run around with a knife in their hand. I don't think there is any difference in function or damage... I think zh1nt0 tweeted a while back that they are functionally identical. If anything I'd expect it would just increase movement speed by a tiny bit with knife equipped, but I think probably there will be no substantive difference between equip knife and quick knife.

I still like that though because I am just conditioned to hit "3 + click" to quickly switch to knife and melee, rather than just hitting a melee button. The latter might be a bit more efficient but I'm just super used to the alternative after a decade of Counterstrike and similar stuff, and I find whenever I bind quickknife to F or middle mouse or whatever I tend to lose focus when using it because it feels counterintuitive to me.

 

[Stigmata]

Oh! Silly me. I actually gave reasons for why I think it would fit with Battlefield. You simply call me wrong without any explanation.

I shouldn't have to explain why Battlefield 1942/Vietnam/2/2142/BC/BC2 have a history of arcadey gameplay. It's self-evident. It's like you trying to argue that 2+2 sometimes is 5, and then getting mad when I don't pull an np-complete proof to support the fact that your reasoning is based on imaginary facts.

Um, no. All I said in my post was talking about stability and cover. Don't start bringing up old shit like Ennui did. I'm allowed to change my views on what I'd like to see in the game considering media is constantly being released, and I was specifically referring to a video that had just been released. Most of my old posts were about the SP anyway, which has nothing at all to do with this current discussion.

I was only responding to your one post. Your one post that said you wanted a stability system that affected accuracy based on movement and stamina.

Krynn's post very beautifully demonstrates the problems I see in the game and what I think should be done about them. If you think that it sounds like a milsim, then you are collectively wrong.

He only demonstrated one problem, and in such a way that made it seem quite easy to fix. Increase the post-sprint weapon draw speed, problem solved.

 

[Wanted Bob]

I agree the infantry combat looks more like BC2 instead of BF2, but I actually think its for the better. I havent played BF2 in a while, but looking back at some old videos there is pretty much no recoil on the guns, and the run speed actually looks about as fast as it did in those BF3 videos.

However, I do think they should have kept stamina in to prevent people from sprinting around all the time (hopefully they increase the delay of bringing the gun up to compensate for this). Fortunately, if the beta releases on time it wont be long until we get to try it for ourselves! We can only judge so much by how it looks, but how it feels when we control it is going to be the deal maker/breaker.

 

[Vegeta897]

I shouldn't have to explain why Battlefield 1942/Vietnam/2/2142/BC/BC2 have a history of arcadey gameplay. It's self-evident.

BC and BC2 are not the same things as Battlefield. This is why they are not called BF3 and BF4, and why this game is. And no, I do not agree with you that this kind of combat fits in with BF. BF has tactical assets and vehicles. These must be used effectively in order to win a game. They are not meant to just be snatched up by the closest player, and be rushed into battle only to get blown up after 10 seconds. This is the way in which BF is not an arcade game. The combat style that we want isn't far from arcadish. It certainly doesn't make the game milsim. And I don't want BF3 to be milsim either. Not only that, it's something different than the same games we've been seeing over and over. How about something unique or original?

I was only responding to your one post. Your one post that said you wanted a stability system that affected accuracy based on movement and stamina.

Um,

A stability system on its own is not "milsim". But the total sum of your issues with and desires for this game, is.

So, where are the other posts in this 'total sum' if you were only responding to my one post that talked about the one thing you yourself said did not make the game milsim?

He only demonstrated one problem, and in such a way that made it seem quite easy to fix. Increase the post-sprint weapon draw speed, problem solved.

That's getting there, but it's not quite enough. You know they're not going to fix this in such a way that prevents the combat style that emulates every other popular military shooter out there. Mainstream gamers want fast rush combat, and that's what's going to make money. It's the sad truth.

 

[Unfocused]

I don't feel like multiquoting, so I'll just touch on two points that were brought up here.

1. BF2 is slower paced than BC2. I'm not sure, maybe you run faster in BF2, as Ennui said, but when we talk about how fast-paced a game is, we're talking about the general experience, no? Yeah, maybe if BC2 had BF2 sized maps it would be slower and if BF2 had BC2 sized maps it would be faster, but that's not the case. So BC2 is basically constant action, while BF2 seemed more tactical with lulls in the action when you set up a defence or prepared for an assault on a new objective (though admittedly it was boring sometimes, especially when the server was only half-full for example). One could argue that it only *seemed* more tactical but in the end it's the experience that matters and how satisfying the game is for you.To each his own of course. I just think that if the game is called Battlefield 3 and not Bad Company 3, it implies a return to the roots of the franchise - a false implication it seems. If the game indeed is similar to BF2 then I have no idea why they are marketing it using single player footage and a small MP map.

2. Stigmata, do you claim that BF2 is a milsim? Because you ridicule what Vegeta said by seemingly spotting a contradiction and then list a number of elements that are present in BF2, as if they consituted a milsim. BF2 has slower combat, a stamina system and I really don't understand why does a stability system (present in BF2), meaning you shoot more or less accurately depending on your stance and movement, seem so outlandish to you.

- You don't want a milsim
- But you want slower combat
- You want a stamina system
- You want a ****ing stability system that determines your accuracy in tandem with movement, stamina, stance, and god knows what else
- This stability system makes the combat better "Because it's closer to what real life combat is like."
- BF3 doesn't put emphasis on cover

 

[Ennui]

They haven't shown us conquest because that's the real meat and bones and they are saving that for much closer to release so they can hype everyone up into a total frenzy just before the game comes out. Devs have insisted several times in various interviews that they are committed to providing an authentic and relatively classic 64 player Conquest experience with maps that are bigger than BF2 maps and even bigger than 1942 maps which are the largest in the whole series (although I sort of doubt this claim, I think it might have been sort of an off the cuff remark months ago by a dev that some magazine overplayed the significance of... cuz some 1942 maps are ****ing gigantic).

Their marketing strategy is pretty standard... they are slowly ramping up the PR to the stuff that everyone actually cares about, spoon feeding us and milking every little thing they can for hype and buzz before giving us the next scraps. I know that annoys a lot of you, but it's how things work, especially with such a high-budget AAA game like this that's marketed at console gamers in addition to the hardcore PC battlefield fanbase who will buy it regardless.

 

[Stigmata]

And no, I do not agree with you that this kind of combat fits in with BF. BF has tactical assets and vehicles. These must be used effectively in order to win a game. They are not meant to just be snatched up by the closest player, and be rushed into battle only to get blown up after 10 seconds. This is the way in which BF is not an arcade game.

And what, in leaked gameplay of one of the smallest maps in the game, designed specifically for infantry play, being played by idiots constantly in the throes of a new-game-gasm, leads you to believe that this won't be the case? You basically said "People have the opportunity to play the game stupidly, therefore it's bad". You can say that about any game, ever.

The combat style that we want isn't far from arcadish. It certainly doesn't make the game milsim. And I don't want BF3 to be milsim either. Not only that, it's something different than the same games we've been seeing over and over. How about something unique or original?

fffffffffffffffff. "Unique and original." How many times have you used that in this thread as an open-ended, nebulous critique? You know what, just list everything you wish was and was not in the game. Do it in point form, so there's no opportunity for either of us to get confused or mince words. Let's get this argument over with.

[edit] I want to make it clear that this argument is stupid on both our ends, I'm taking this far too seriously.

 

[Vegeta897]

And what, in leaked gameplay of one of the smallest maps in the game, designed specifically for infantry play, being played by idiots constantly in the throes of a new-game-gasm, leads you to believe that this won't be the case? You basically said "People have the opportunity to play the game stupidly, therefore it's bad". You can say that about any game, ever.

Your reading comprehension is staggeringly poor. I don't even know how to put this any other way so that you don't misinterpret it again.

I was giving reasons as to why BF2 is not an arcade game. You do well in the game by not playing it arcade-style. You do well by intelligently utilizing the assets available, and by working as a team. This was what I said.

You confused this point with another point of mine, in which I was talking about the game having mechanics that let people treat it like a super fast rush deathmatch. And there's nothing that's going to prevent people from doing so, when there so easily could be. Krynn and I have reiterated it plenty of times already. Which brings us to ...

fffffffffffffffff. "Unique and original." How many times have you used that in this thread as an open-ended, nebulous critique?

Nebulous? Jesus man. We couldn't be more specific about what the problems are and what could be done to fix them. Exactly what we said is what would make the game unique. There are no other implied feature sets or mechanics that we're not elaborating on. There is no amount of ambiguity here.

 

[Wanted Bob]

BC and BC2 are not the same things as Battlefield. This is why they are not called BF3 and BF4, and why this game is. And no, I do not agree with you that this kind of combat fits in with BF. BF has tactical assets and vehicles. These must be used effectively in order to win a game. They are not meant to just be snatched up by the closest player, and be rushed into battle only to get blown up after 10 seconds.

I take issue with this point because the effectiveness of the vehicles in the BF series as a whole is entirely dependent on the players. Regardless of whether its BF2, 2142, or the Bad Company series, vehicles that are used well can push a certain team to victory. By the same token they can be wasted by the players and leave a team at a severe disadvantage. I personally havent seen a huge difference in the importance of vehicles between BF and BC, so if anything it boils down to the player bases of each game.

 

[Ennui]

So I hate to change gears away from this wonderful poop throwing session we've all been having today, but here's some funny and relatively off topic happenings from the world of the BF3 community. Earlier today we (Battlefieldo) posted some screenshots in 1080p from the latest trailer (that came out this morning... and has 41,000 views on our youtube channel already, jesus christ). Basically my partner Erik just used VLC to snag a bunch of snapshots from the minute long trailer which we took from the super high quality true 1080p version of the trailer which we got from the EA press-only media distribution mechanisms.

This kid starts flaming us on twitter about how we stole his screenshots. Apparently he took some screenshots too and posted them on his godawful attempt at a fansite and since both of us took similar shots (it was a 60 second trailer) he is convinced we stole his media without attribution. Now, not even touching the fact that he doesn't own a couple of crappy youtube screenshots he took of an official trailer... check this out.

Here's his screenshot: http://sitesmartgaming.com/images/alpha-paris/alpha22-paris-8.jpg

Here's ours: http://battlefieldo.com/wp-content/gallery/metroscreen/vlcsnap-2011-07-21-15h22m59s38.png

Now, anybody with eyes can clearly see that our screenshot is NOT a copy of his... ours is higher resolution (1920x1080 vs 1600x900) and you can clearly see that our screenshot is sourced from a significantly higher quality video as it's easier to see details and the colors aren't as washed out as whatever youtube quality source file he used.

When presented with this info, though, he just called us "liers" and continued his Twitter rage, and posted this on his site:
http://sitesmartgaming.com/forums/f50/battlefieldo-lying-thieves-779/

So Erik and I were having a nice laugh about this on skype, and then we notice something even better: he's been stealing news from our site. Check this news post on his site out, posted yesterday: http://sitesmartgaming.com/forums/f44/battlefield-3-alpha-system-specs-emerge-773/

Look familiar? Yeah, because it's word for word 100% copied from our news post from hours earlier: http://battlefieldo.com/bf3-alpha-and-system-specs-emerge/

My only guess is that he's like 13 years old or something... judging from how myopically retarded he's being about the whole thing and how viciously he butchers English spelling and grammar on his site. Just was pretty amused by it so I thought I'd lighten the thread up a little.

 

[Vegeta897]

rofl at that kid.

And good lord what an awful site that is.

He even took out the "Photo courtesy of AndriesVDB" from your article. What a shameless dick.

 

[Krynn72]

That flash banner for their steam community, the one with the green, scrolling matrix numbers... damn that's high class. Makes perfect sense too. The Matrix is badass, and so is his community.

The sad part is that he's got a Donate button up top there, and I guarantee you someone's given him money.

EDIT: lol, you have to get approved to register on the forum. That means I'm going to get banned/deleted immediately when I post.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Man those last few pages were painful to read.

I'm not gonna stick my oar in much except to restate once again that EA/DICE are doing a terrible job of marketing their game to people like me, and evidently several others here. Granted, the alpha (urgh) wasn't "intended" to be seen by the larger public, but... come on, they knew this was getting leaked. NDAs don't mean shit to your average neogaffer/whatever and never have for closed betas. So which map do they pick to preview their game to the PC crowd, who they've been so adamant with about a return to form of the previous Battlefield games? The smallest, most infantry-focussed map, the one most conducive to CoD-style rushing, and in a game type introduced by Bad Company no less. How reassuring! Seriously, I'm still on the fence about the game, but unless they feel like catering to me in more ways than just some nebulous (what a fun word~) interview or twitter quotes, I'm not sold on it in the least.

That said, I kind of come down on Ennui's side when it comes to the combat in general. In close quarters sprinting might win the day a lot, but the accuracy and deadliness of the weapons will probably keep rushers at bay in mid range exchanges. Coming from someone who knows the Modern Warfare games inside-out: it's not nearly as similar as it seems, and thankfully so. The one-hit knife kills don't bother me in the least as the protracted animation will more than balance it out in encounters where you're facing more than one enemy. Otherwise, if you had the jump on a single opponent anyway, it's not exactly imbalancing that you're able to kill them so easily. Just so long as face-to-face knife kills aren't instantly lethal as Ennui said, it'll be fine.

But yeah there definitely needs to be a delay between sprinting and your weapon coming up. For comparison's sake, CoD actually has a perk which reduces this delay. :v

 

[Escaep]

Prior to release I think one of the best ways to see whether it is more like BC2 or BF2 is to show a long video of someone playing on one of the BF2 maps such as Karkand and seeing how the game plays out on it.

 

[morgs]

The one-hit knife kills don't bother me in the least as the protracted animation will more than balance it out in encounters where you're facing more than one enemy.

It's actually much the same in BC2 which I was quite happy with, while the animation is playing out you're pretty much immobilized. Screw this uber quick knife swinging on the move crap.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Yeah, it was actually much quicker in BC2 even and I can only remember a very few instances where I was actually able to pull it off.

Then again I sucked pretty bad.

 

[Krynn72]

I could knife like nobody's business in BC2. I once killed three guys in a row, while they were clustered together and shooting frantically at me as I sprinted circles around them. Against the last guy I felt like he was going to end up getting me so I ran around the corner of the building we were outside of, so he though I was running away. I then immediately turned around and sprinted back around the corner and knifed him.

That made me laugh, but then when I realized I could do this pretty often, I stopped doing it because I felt it was cheap and broken. The length of the animation should solve that, assuming you're not invincible while doing it. Still, the quick knife doesn't look like it triggered the animation the few times I saw it done in the videos, which thus, doesn't solve it.

 

[Unfocused]

I'm wondering, with the knife not neccessarily being a one-stab-kill, will there be a difference between the quick knife and the equippable one? Or is equipping a knife pointless, because you can press one button anyway and be done with it?

 

[Bad^Hat]

That's confusing me as well. I feel like there should be a point to switching to the knife instead of just "because people are used to it."

 

[jimbo118]

Any vids of the supression mechanic, yet? Interested in seeing that.

 

[15357]

I think I saw a few vids of that in this thread. Check a couple of dozen pages back.

 

[Anthraxxx]

Usamaftw is uploading a 10 minute video, so hopefully we'll see some suppression and flashlight footage.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Is this it?

Haha, check out from about 3:10. Pops up, instantly starts blazing dudes, pops back down at a moment's notice. Yeah, forget what I said before, **** that.

 

[FrostedxB]

Is this it?

Haha, check out from about 3:10. Pops up, instantly starts blazing dudes, pops back down at a moment's notice. Yeah, forget what I said before, **** that.

Yea he got up and back down way too fast, should've been killed honestly.

 

[Krynn72]

I liked the parts (yeah, multiple) where he just proned right in front of a doorway and hosed 3+ people who were there.

The only thing I liked that this new vid showed off, was that vehicles can be disabled in addition to full on destroyed.

 

[Unfocused]

I liked the parts (yeah, multiple) where he just proned right in front of a doorway and hosed 3+ people who were there.

But lets also remember that the videos are edited, so he probably included his best moments; doesn't necessarily mean that happens all the time. Plus he seemed a decent player skill-wise, while some other players seemed pretty mediocre.

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

13:05 -- Dat subway rocket lighting.

 

[unozero]

Any MoH owners get their e-mail yet?

 

[Krynn72]

Any MoH owners get their e-mail yet?

Don't know why you posted this here, it'd be faster just to pm him.


Or were you thinking that more people beyond you and BHC bought the game?

 

[Acepilotf14]

Did they just port the same sounds from BC2 over?

 

[Unfocused]

Did they just port the same sounds from BC2 over?

I was thinking the same thing :|

I mentioned the MCOM siren, but then I realised that I there's probably the same sound playing when you receive points and possibly when you receive a ribbon (except BC2 didn't have those few notes of the BF theme played afterwards).