Who expects to be disappointed?

[No Limit]

Well, I am looking forward to this game like I did to the 2 previous battlefield titles. The first one rocked my world at first as it was different. Once the buzz over the open enviroment and decent graphics went away all the bugs made the game play horrible. When DC came it saved the series for me and made me forget the problems the game had. So when Vietnam was annouced and I saw the concept renders I was blown away. After waiting and waiting the game finally came out and and I couldn't wait for the install to finish. Then after trying to connect to a server for the first time (and failing at least 5 times before I could finally play) I was extremely disappointed. The game play was unbalanced and it was more buggy than the original.

I have the same feeling about BF2 I originally had about Vietnam; hence why I expect to be disappointed in EA. I know the original DC team is working on this but I still have my doubts EA will do a good job. What do you all think?

 

[KoreBolteR]

Well, I am looking forward to this game like I did to the 2 previous battlefield titles. The first one rocked my world at first as it was different. Once the buzz over the open enviroment and decent graphics went away all the bugs made the game play horrible. When DC came it saved the series for me and made me forget the problems the game had. So when Vietnam was annouced and I saw the concept renders I was blown away. After waiting and waiting the game finally came out and and I couldn't wait for the install to finish. Then after trying to connect to a server for the first time (and failing at least 5 times before I could finally play) I was extremely disappointed. The game play was unbalanced and it was more buggy than the original.

I have the same feeling about BF2 I originally had about Vietnam; hence why I expect to be disappointed in EA. I know the original DC team is working on this but I still have my doubts EA will do a good job. What do you all think?

Join us. :cheers:

 

[AmishSlayer]

My expectations are based completely off hard facts that DICE has given us and videos.

The way I see it. DC is a lot of fun for me still. I see where the game needs improvement - teamwork, too vehicle-basd, bf1942 engine is buggy and annoying at times - not enough people play needed roles.

BF2 improves on every one of these aspects.
-With the addition of the chain of command style voip and squads, this will help a lot. The commander role only solidifies the general sense of a team.
-Every preview/review I've read says infantry combat feels a lot better and is more useful than before.
-Brand new engine looks great, runs smoothly, some physics implemented, no more getting hurt from walking down stairs or taking a mortally wounding 3 foot fall.
-With the new scoring system everybody can be what they want and succeed at doing so. Medics get pts for healing, engineers get pts for repairing, support get pts for giving ammo, etc. No longer will we see an over-abundance of anti-tank kits running around like in DC.

The only thing I have to worry about is balance. Previews/reviews never really take the time to play enough to talk about balancing.

Some think snipers will be too good right now because there is no scope sway and it's 2 hits to kill, 1 if it's a headshot.

I think it'll be fine. Sure people will wanna play sniper class because they could get kills easier...but that's not gonna win the game. While they're off sniping other players will be getting just as many or more points by capturing points and fending off assaulting players. Not to mention there is only one zoom, so making headshots could be difficult at certain distances. If you don't make your headshot, then your prey can sprint away to safety and from the looks of it it's hard to hit someone that's sprinting.

 

[Mr. Redundant]

the game can't fail this time around in my eyes, as Amish said, it's about teamwork in BF2.....

it's the first game that gives players the real tools they need to work as a team, even on public servers... I just don't see it being a let-down.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

BFV was done by a different DICE team (Canada I believe, rather than the European one) than BF1942.

The same team that did BF1942, plus stuff from Trauma Studios (DC) made BF2. Hence why I think it's going be good. That's also part of why it's Battlefield TWO and not three.

 

[J_Tweedy]

I think it'll be fine. Sure people will wanna play sniper class because they could get kills easier...but that's not gonna win the game. While they're off sniping other players will be getting just as many or more points by capturing points and fending off assaulting players. Not to mention there is only one zoom, so making headshots could be difficult at certain distances. If you don't make your headshot, then your prey can sprint away to safety and from the looks of it it's hard to hit someone that's sprinting.

Dont forget all the radar ther'll be in the game- it'l be pretty easy to spot a lone soldier away from the action (i.e. sniper) and take him out with a few guys in a blackhawk.

 

[AmishSlayer]

Dont forget all the radar ther'll be in the game- it'l be pretty easy to spot a lone soldier away from the action (i.e. sniper) and take him out with a few guys in a blackhawk.

Yep. People that are worried about the sniper seem to forget that the commander gets a full scan abil and UAV's to deploy. Snipers can be picked out of the crowd by simply watching people die around an area. Upon closer inspection the commander should be able to find the sniper via scans and UAV's. It seems that commanders will be best equipped to take down snipers.

 

[MilkMan12]

plus the snipers weak and can only shoot once every like 3 seconds
so you can easily run from a sniper. Look at every video and you will see the snipers had a tough time. It took em a hell of a lot of shots to kill moving targets. And not moving targets deserve to die no matter what you have (sway or no sway not moving targets gotta die) I think taking out sway was to make it balanced so that snipers can get at least some kills because how often do you see a soldier standing still for so long? Or how about standing still after the first shot cause remember it takes 2 to kill.

 

[Burn]

I think BF2 will be one of those games thats just a totally improvement, and hardly has any issues unless you nitpick.

 

[MilkMan12]

if its like that ritz then it will be the only one because there are no other games like that...except for maybe goldeneye 64, perfect dark 64, and conquers bad fur day 64.

I already have a feeling that Im going to have some problems with the weakness of the support class. I saw one ign vid where hes shooting at someone point blank for like 50 shots and he doesnt die.

 

[Foxtrot]

if its like that ritz then it will be the only one because there are no other games like that...except for maybe goldeneye 64, perfect dark 64, and conquers bad fur day 64.

I already have a feeling that Im going to have some problems with the weakness of the support class. I saw one ign vid where hes shooting at someone point blank for like 50 shots and he doesnt die.

But then when the support guy goes prone he is deadly accurate...deadly

 

[MilkMan12]

See i though that too, but in that same vid before he gets closer he goes prone and tries to kill with no success.

See if only games had aiming system like Americas Army. AA had no bullshit auto spreader for the bullets. It was all pure recoil and how much you shot at a time. But then CS:S comes along and just expands your cursor and you cant help it...all you can do is just shoot small bursts, you cant work against the recoil. In AA it was all skill to work against the recoil just right so you can keep your gun in a pretty centered area for a while. And it takes a long time to get the hang of it...and it doesnt work all the time because it does add the spread at the same time.

I dont like games forcing me to be innacurate which it looks like BF2 will have that same thing like cs:s did with just a little bit of recoil.

 

[AmishSlayer]

See i though that too, but in that same vid before he gets closer he goes prone and tries to kill with no success.

See if only games had aiming system like Americas Army. AA had no bullshit auto spreader for the bullets. It was all pure recoil and how much you shot at a time. But then CS:S comes along and just expands your cursor and you cant help it...all you can do is just shoot small bursts, you cant work against the recoil. In AA it was all skill to work against the recoil just right so you can keep your gun in a pretty centered area for a while. And it takes a long time to get the hang of it...and it doesnt work all the time because it does add the spread at the same time.

I dont like games forcing me to be innacurate which it looks like BF2 will have that same thing like cs:s did with just a little bit of recoil.

I'm glad they have a cone of fire in BF2 because if they didn't it would throw off the balance of the entire game. Every gun would have awesome accuracy. Fighting recoil would not be tough and I think overall, infantry combat would suffer because of it.

 

[satch919]

I wasn't disappointed when I played the game.(E3) It's lived up to all my expectations and I was only allowed to play for 5-10mins. There was so much that I wasn't able to try but in the small amount of hands-on time, I came away impressed and salivating for more.

 

[Shakermaker]

I don't expect to be dissappointed. I've been an avid player of both BF42 and BFV for the last two years. Of course there have been bugs and balancing issues in those two games, but they've all been ironed out over time. There must be something horribly wrong with BF2 for me not to like it.

 

[Lucid]

We'll be able to tell whether or not it's a success in 2 days, or 3 days for some.