News: Totalbiscuit Night Ops Footage!

[captainkapautz]

Can someone explain what makes BF2142 the Messiah and BF3 the Antichrist?

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by captainkapautz

Can someone explain what makes BF2142 the Messiah and BF3 the Antichrist?

The following is a description of why BF3 is the antichrist, but it's based on BF2. I haven't played 2142 enough to comment, so someone else would have to speak about that.

Annoying "immersion" features like vaulting that fails half the time even on 6 inch obstacles, explosions that rock you from 100 meters away, etc
Too low TTK
3D spotting, audio spotting, killcam
Disabling
Suppression
small meatgrind maps, flags packed tight
lack of in game VOIP
squads shrunk to 4, allspawning instead of leader spawning, and can only issue orders to go to flags, cannot issue waypoint orders to any other spot, and the squad menu is in the OPTIONS window instead of conveniently hitting tab
Jets were nerfed from BF2, and yet at the same time stingers are useless, but then we have the extremely unrealistic SOFLAM locking onto jets. Not that we have to have realism but SOFLAM should work like actual lasers, not be a deus ex machina. Angers both jet pilots AND infantry.
JAvelin lock on weapons instead of skill-use wire guided AT, angering tank drivers, but if the tank uses IR smoke, its reuse time is so short it renders all javelins useless(no matter how many are trying to lock), angering infantry
Health regen and vehicle regen
unlimited ammo
Minimap fire control system for mortars allowing solo use with no teamwork
Vehicle unlocks forcing things like basic smoke to be customizations, such things should be standard


Or you can just read this:
http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/b...d-council.html

[Mastachief]

..... Origin.

[MrBloodworth]

Planetside is about working with others on the squad, outfit and empire level to accomplish a goal.

Battlefield series is about playing alone, together, with little need for others to gain more kill counts. Then it resets.

One is in the vein of a strategic teambased shooter, the other is a thinly veiled death-match that resets.

The BF series are fantastic, but they are not Plantside. Very little, other than the quality level the BF has, should be used in a game based on the planetside franchise.

Its like turning a game of chess in to a game of dodge-ball.

[CuddlyChud]

I think for a large majority of players, aka the "zerg," Planetside was very much an individual game. It was individuals, even if they were in a pub squad, who acted towards the empire goal in the way they thought best giving it the illusion of mass teamwork. I think the teamwork aspect was more of a reality from those in organised outfits.

[captainkapautz]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

The following is a description of why BF3 is the antichrist, but it's based on BF2.

Gotta say some of those "issues" are bullshit, some are false (pretty sure you had "unlimited ammo" in BF2 as well), some are partially valid and some even true.

But I was asking why you (not you specifically, you PS1 vets) think why BF2142=Messiah and BF3=Antichrist.

Originally Posted by Mastachief

..... Origin.

That has nothing to do with actual gameplay, so doesn't really matter.

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

Planetside is about working with others on the squad, outfit and empire level to accomplish a goal.

Battlefield series is about playing alone, together, with little need for others to gain more kill counts. Then it resets.

One is in the vein of a strategic teambased shooter, the other is a thinly veiled death-match that resets.

The BF series are fantastic, but they are not Plantside. Very little, other than the quality level the BF has, should be used in a game based on the planetside franchise.

Its like turning a game of chess in to a game of dodge-ball.

Sorry, but you completely misread the question.


Edit:

Originally Posted by CuddlyChud

I think for a large majority of players, aka the "zerg," Planetside was very much an individual game. It was individuals, even if they were in a pub squad, who acted towards the empire goal in the way they thought best giving it the illusion of mass teamwork. I think the teamwork aspect was more of a reality from those in organised outfits.

Yeah, but it's the same, on a smaller scale of course, in BF, so I can not understand this blind hate.

Atleast hate CoD, that I could understand, but BF3 is, even after all the casualization, still more one of the better teamgames.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by captainkapautz

Gotta say some of those "issues" are bullshit, some are false (pretty sure you had "unlimited ammo" in BF2 as well), some are partially valid and some even true.

But I was asking why you (not you specifically, you PS1 vets) think why BF2142=Messiah and BF3=Antichrist.

Because 2142 is better in those aspects.

Also, have you even played BF2? There is no unlimited ammo. None of them are bullshit, if you happen to like Disabling for example that's great but I think most people are tolerant of it at best.

[captainkapautz]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Because 2142 is better in those aspects.

Also, have you even played BF2? There is no unlimited ammo. None of them are bullshit, if you happen to like Disabling for example that's great but I think most people are tolerant of it at best.

It's been literally years since I played BF2, and I had the hazy memory of dropping ammoboxes back then, too.

And disabling is really a none issue to me, actually do like it a lot.
It's a hell of a lot better then the sudden existance failure in other games.


P.S.: FYi, BF2142 had unlimited ammo.

[Athanasios]

It is not unbased why BF3 is called "Call of Battlefield 3"; EA just wanted a share of COD cake, and put many cod elements in bf (disclaimer: i loved cod4 - not the rest of course -, so, i'm not against cod), turning it more to a cod than bf.

The main issues is the removal of Commander and the removal of Squad Leaders. The MOST important is the Commander.

Other stuff such as hp regen, TDM maps, useless CommoRose and Minimap also add to the downhill of BF franchise; but the core gameplay, aka TEAMplay, was butchered by the removal of the Commander and the SLs.

2142 on the other side had everything polished; Commander functions, Squad Leader importance (with extra gadgets available only for him), tactical maps, the legendary TITAN mode that was a whole new object-oriented mode, classes done correctly... and if it wasn't overpriced (cause we're talking for a polished BF2), it would dominate up to date.

Truth to be told is that the majority of the current generation players are TDM console kids. And this is not personal biased opinion, it's a fact based on sales and the orientation of the developers/publishers.

Like it or not, the PC community that pushed the boundaries (technologically + gameplay) is currently the niche. I just hope PS2 stays true to our standards and from the look of it till now, it does.

[Algo]

2142 wasn't just overpriced, it ran like shit in the first weeks in Titan mode and it killed itself. I don't even know if that ever improved, you can guess why.

Also i clearly remember spamming grenades out of portable ammo boxes in BF2 for laughs but i might be misremembering.

[captainkapautz]

Originally Posted by Athanasios

It is not unbased why BF3 is called "Call of Battlefield 3"; EA just wanted a share of COD cake, and put many cod elements in bf (disclaimer: i loved cod4 - not the rest of course -, so, i'm not against cod), turning it more to a cod than bf.

BF3 is still a hell of a lot closer to BF in general than CoD.

And there was no CoD after 4, cause you can't really call the same game released like 4 times with miniscule differences a new game.

Originally Posted by Athanasios

The main issues is the removal of Commander and the removal of Squad Leaders. The MOST important is the Commander.

See, that's actually something I can agree with, the commander-part, but you still have squadleaders in BF3, granted so special gadgets though.

Originally Posted by Athanasios

Other stuff such as hp regen, TDM maps, useless CommoRose and Minimap also add to the downhill of BF franchise; but the core gameplay, aka TEAMplay, was butchered by the removal of the Commander and the SLs.

Saying that added content (TDM) is bad is kinda grasping at straws, noone is forced to play it.
Minimap as useless is a first for me.
And teamplay being "butchered", because of removed commander, is really pushing it.

Originally Posted by Athanasios

2142 on the other side had everything polished; Commander functions, Squad Leader importance (with extra gadgets available only for him), tactical maps, the legendary TITAN mode that was a whole new object-oriented mode, classes done correctly... and if it wasn't overpriced (cause we're talking for a polished BF2), it would dominate up to date.

Polished isn't the first word for me that comes to mind when thinking of BF2142.

Shit, I still remember when early on whenever the Titan moved that you couldn't even do anything on it anymore, because it would just fuck up.


Edit:

Originally Posted by Algo

2142 wasn't just overpriced, it ran like shit in the first weeks in Titan mode and it killed itself. I don't even know if that ever improved, you can guess why.

Also i clearly remember spamming grenades out of portable ammo boxes in BF2 for laughs but i might be misremembering.

I remember grenadelaunchers being pretty much the only weapon being use near the end.

[Athanasios]

Originally Posted by captainkapautz

See, that's actually something I can agree with, the commander-part, but you still have squadleaders in BF3, granted so special gadgets though.

SLs in BF3 are the little green star next to their names. Just that.

Originally Posted by captainkapautz

Saying that added content (TDM) is bad is kinda grasping at straws, noone is forced to play it.
Minimap as useless is a first for me.
And teamplay being "butchered", because of removed commander, is really pushing it.

I meant that all the maps are played as TDM, i was not referrring to TDM mode...

And i said removal of Commander + SLs butchered gameplay. There's no team orientation as of now, only TDM thinking (aka get kills), unless we're playing different games.

Originally Posted by captainkapautz

Polished isn't the first word for me that comes to mind when thinking of BF2142.

Shit, I still remember when early on whenever the Titan moved that you couldn't even do anything on it anymore, because it would just fuck up.

Polished in gameplay, not on technical level.

As for EVERY single BF, until you get 3-4 patches the game is still in beta.

[captainkapautz]

Originally Posted by Athanasios

SLs in BF3 are the little green star next to their names. Just that.

As a SL in BF3 I can give attack and defend orders, sure it's reduced compared to before, but saying that SLs got remove is a lie plain and simple.

Originally Posted by Athanasios

I meant that all the maps are played as TDM, i was not referrring to TDM mode...

And i said removal of Commander + SLs butchered gameplay. There's no team orientation as of now, only TDM thinking (aka get kills), unless we're playing different games.

That is just outright false thinking, it doesn't really matter if you have a commander or not, when people just don't care about it.
I stopped counting how often I joined matches were the commander was either nonexistant, a complete derp or was just a troll.
Same with playmode, if people play conquest and rush as TDM then it'll only end in their side losing, that isn't the fault of the game, especially not when it gives them a proper playmode to their tastes and they're just to retarded to use it.

P.S.: But I digress and this is getting totally OT. :/

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by captainkapautz

As a SL in BF3 I can give attack and defend orders, sure it's reduced compared to before, but saying that SLs got remove is a lie plain and simple.



That is just outright false thinking, it doesn't really matter if you have a commander or not, when people just don't care about it.
I stopped counting how often I joined matches were the commander was either nonexistant, a complete derp or was just a troll.
Same with playmode, if people play conquest and rush as TDM then it'll only end in their side losing, that isn't the fault of the game, especially not when it gives them a proper playmode to their tastes and they're just to retarded to use it.

The only thing that makes squad leaders a "lie" to say they were removed, is because the game technically designates a SL. Functionally, they were removed. "Reduced" makes it sound like the devastation was small, it was not, it was functional removal.

As for commander, well....that's why the FPS industry needs to go all out MMOFPS, so it can have such positions. You may not be able to find a good commander out of 32 players but out of 2000 I think you can.

Also, people play Conquest as TDM at least partly because of killcam, 3D spotting and audiospotting which weren't present in BF2, because those things are a constant reminder that push you to pursue players instead of objectives. And with no automatic VOIP it's difficult to organize random players to do anything but play TDM in conquest.

And those things are all the fault of DICE for putting them in, so yes, they are responsible for the increased occurrences of people playing TDM in Conquest.

[Athanasios]

Originally Posted by captainkapautz

As a SL in BF3 I can give attack and defend orders, sure it's reduced compared to before, but saying that SLs got remove is a lie plain and simple.

That is just outright false thinking, it doesn't really matter if you have a commander or not, when people just don't care about it.
I stopped counting how often I joined matches were the commander was either nonexistant, a complete derp or was just a troll.
Same with playmode, if people play conquest and rush as TDM then it'll only end in their side losing, that isn't the fault of the game, especially not when it gives them a proper playmode to their tastes and they're just to retarded to use it.

Being a SL and Clan Leader and having played ~100 matches in 2142 ladders, imho i have some experience to say whenever a SL actually exists or is a cosmetic thing. And having some hundreds hours of playtime in previous BFs, i can also imho say whenever a BF is no more a BF.

Of course, to the common 14-years old pub player who never actually played the game it was meant to be played... well, i might say "lies", we can agree on this.

Anyway, i rest my case mate, for me it's "RIP BF", i hope PS2 living up to *my* expectactions.-