Another 'Battlefield 3' - Page 2

Top Sgt · 2012-04-05, 03:14 PM

it cracks me up that dice can take out/Leave out so many PC specific things in BF3 that 5+ year old BF games had way back then.

Completely noob up the game and people think it's a marval and so well done lol

The game looks pretty but is a PC game bust. total console downgraded effort.. but the drones bought their selling pitch.

I think because this game will be PC only it'll be safe from being dummed down... but if it ever goes multiplatform.. it'll be another BF all over again.

IronMole · 2012-04-05, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Bags

Vehicle animations won't break the game, AMS are being replaced by Galaxy and I think most people are OKAY with this, and the sanctuaries is wait and see.

Regardless, the point is that people mind about those things...

IronMole · 2012-04-05, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by dm Akolyte

..... god I hate you guys.

Explain to me how BF3 was dumbed down. And I mean specifics. Streamlining gameplay, removing unnecessary clutter is not dumbing down. it is cutting the fat and distilling the actual GAME part of the game.

Console port, enough said.

Stardouser · 2012-04-05, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by dm Akolyte

..... god I hate you guys.

Explain to me how BF3 was dumbed down. And I mean specifics. Streamlining gameplay, removing unnecessary clutter is not dumbing down. it is cutting the fat and distilling the actual GAME part of the game.

3D spotting, audiospotting, killcam, no in-game VOIP unless you are a PS3 player, non-functional commo rose, small meatgrind maps with no true tactical or strategic aspects, watered down vehicle play, the list goes on and on.

dm Akolyte · 2012-04-05, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

BF3 is technically excellent, sure, although the blinding sun and blue hue everywhere are poor art design choices.

Also, balance isn't the only issue at stake here. The game is too fast paced and I'm not even talking about TTK, the teamwork tools are missing or castrated. Map size and design is bad. Immersion features such as screen blur, explosions that rock you even if they are too far away to hurt you, restrictive prone, etc, the irritation of these things outweigh the benefits of the immersion.

Different is not always better.

Okay, teamwork tools are a legitimate complaint, I'll give you that. The rest are YOUR personal preference. Calling it dumbed down is just stupid video game hipster bullshit. as people around here have been quoting "STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE"

Especially ironic is that those immersion features INCREASE the level of tactics in the game. There's actual suppressive fire. I have COVERED people's advances in that game by unloading a MG past someone's head to keep them suppressed.

BF3 went exactly in the direction they should have. They kept and modernized the features that the vast majority of BF players enjoyed about previous games. They can't please everyone--no game developer can--now stop saying they made a mistake for doing so.

Gonefshn · 2012-04-05, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by TOCS

I see I'm not among Battlefield fans here.

Essentially I'm talking about whether the game will be dumped down to a point that it's kind of irrelevant. I.e. do you think the game is catered towards Call of Duty players? Or will it maintain it's glory?

My opinion.

We can't know for sure whether or not it will truly retain it's glory but I have faith that it will. From what I have seen most everything they are doing is leading to bringing back the one thing that actually matters in PS. Large scale warfare with Infantry, Vehicles, and Air to capture massive facilities with hundreds and hundreds of players.

Some details like not being able to capture continents and TTK and iron sights might make it feel a little different. But if you stop picking on details about PS1 that are missing and just think about what the big picture was that made PS1 so fun, I believe it seems present in the new game.

Who agrees with me on this? Or do all those tiny details matter on a large scale?

Stardouser · 2012-04-05, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by dm Akolyte

Okay, teamwork tools are a legitimate complaint, I'll give you that. The rest are YOUR personal preference. Calling it dumbed down is just stupid video game hipster bullshit. as people around here have been quoting "STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE"

Especially ironic is that those immersion features INCREASE the level of tactics in the game. There's actual suppressive fire. I have COVERED people's advances in that game by unloading a MG past someone's head to keep them suppressed.

BF3 went exactly in the direction they should have. They kept and modernized the features that the vast majority of BF players enjoyed about previous games. They can't please everyone--no game developer can--now stop saying they made a mistake for doing so.

Saying that the things BF3 did is "modernizing" is also your own personal opinion. And I'm talking about gameplay design decisions, not graphics. Destruction is a modernization too, and I'm not talking about it, either. Different does not equal better. Different does not equal more modern. Bottom line is, they increased the pace of the game to CoD style and left Battlefield vets out in the cold. Is it a mistake? Not for sales, obviously. Does it leave a large group of the Battlefield community with no proper sequel? Absolutely.

BF vets like a game with a clear temporal gap between firefights. BF3 has moved us from that kind of play that we had in BF2, to a constant action game. I get it that you like it, and that's what matters, right? No one else should be able to fight for their kind of game? All games must convert to extreme fast pace games because anyone that prefers an emphasis on tactics and strategical play is too hardcore and there are too few of us to influence game design?

By the way, you might notice I specifically did NOT mention suppression in my list of bad features. Suppression actually is a tactic. When I mentioned screen blur, I was talking about screen blur that occurs for other reasons.

dm Akolyte · 2012-04-05, 03:28 PM

God you guys are retarded. Seriously. You think your personal preference for gameplay decisions are the smart choice and everything else is dumb. Neckbeard idiocy at its worst.

Originally Posted by Stardouser

3D spotting, audiospotting, killcam, no in-game VOIP unless you are a PS3 player, non-functional commo rose, small meatgrind maps with no true tactical or strategic aspects, watered down vehicle play, the list goes on and on.

3d spotting -- INCREASES tactical options available to the player
audiospotting -- wut
killcam -- what the FUCK does this have to do with dumbing down? Oh right, you're just butthurt that CoD is popular and mindless project your hate of that game everywhere else.
no in-game VOIP -- I'll give you this one.
non-functional commo rose -- This wasn't even useful in the other BF games. Especially if you actually were being tactical, because you'd use other methods of communication.
maps -- Oh right, the maps with actual CHOKEPOINTS and varied and planned firing angles? You know, features that INCREASE the tactical response necessary for playing them. It doesn't fit YOUR PERSONAL PREFERENCE.
Watered down vehicle play -- hahaha, you mean "less arcadey" vehicle play?

dm Akolyte · 2012-04-05, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Saying that the things BF3 did is "modernizing" is also your own personal opinion. And I'm talking about gameplay design decisions, not graphics. Destruction is a modernization too, and I'm not talking about it, either. Different does not equal better. Different does not equal more modern. Bottom line is, they increased the pace of the game to CoD style and left Battlefield vets out in the cold. Is it a mistake? Not for sales, obviously. Does it leave a large group of the Battlefield community with no proper sequel? Absolutely.

BF vets like a game with a clear temporal gap between firefights. BF3 has moved us from that kind of play that we had in BF2, to a constant action game. I get it that you like it, and that's what matters, right? No one else should be able to fight for their kind of game? All games must convert to extreme fast pace games because anyone that prefers an emphasis on tactics and strategical play is too hardcore and there are too few of us to influence game design?

By the way, you might notice I specifically did NOT mention suppression in my list of bad features. Suppression actually is a tactic. When I mentioned screen blur, I was talking about screen blur that occurs for other reasons.

Wow, are you intentionally missing my point or what? I'm not saying that you have to like BF3 or the direction it went in. I'm saying that you guys are projecting your own personal dislike for the direction it went (PERSONAL PREFERENCE) into attacks on the intelligence of its gameplay.

That's fucking STUPID.

Also I happen to know for a fact that MANY MANY BF vets absolutely LOVE battlefield 3. So your statement that DICE ignored their core fans is false as well.

TL;DR saying you don't like BF3 is fine, saying its "dumbed down" just makes you look like a retard.

Stardouser · 2012-04-05, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by dm Akolyte

God you guys are retarded. Seriously. You think your personal preference for gameplay decisions are the smart choice and everything else is dumb. Neckbeard idiocy at its worst.

3d spotting -- INCREASES tactical options available to the player
audiospotting -- wut
killcam -- what the FUCK does this have to do with dumbing down? Oh right, you're just butthurt that CoD is popular and mindless project your hate of that game everywhere else.
no in-game VOIP -- I'll give you this one.
non-functional commo rose -- This wasn't even useful in the other BF games. Especially if you actually were being tactical, because you'd use other methods of communication.
maps -- Oh right, the maps with actual CHOKEPOINTS and varied and planned firing angles? You know, features that INCREASE the tactical response necessary for playing them. It doesn't fit YOUR PERSONAL PREFERENCE.
Watered down vehicle play -- hahaha, you mean "less arcadey" vehicle play?

You don't get it do you? Every time you say something like "you think your personal preference for gameplay decisions are the smart choice and everything else is dumb", you are having exactly the same attitude about your own personal preferences.

You're right, 3D spotting increases tactical options...it avails you of the tactic of skipping using your eyes and just hitting Q to spot, and when others spot, skipping using your eyes and just placing your aiming sight on the triangle. This is the very definition of dumbing down. I'm sorry you can't see that.
Killcam is dumbing down because it tells you exactly where your killer is so you can go straight after him. It also waters down the gameplay because people focus on revenge instead of playing the objective.
Commo rose is useful, I guess since it doesn't fit your personal preference, that it must be useless no matter how many other people use it.
Do you even know what you are talking about for maps? BF3 maps are small, uncaps out of bounds which removes a lot of tactics, flat, less cover, and so on.
Vehicle play: Battlefield is not a realism sim. That said, vehicle play is more arcadey than ever, you apparently think that the disabling mechanic somehow counts as realism. It doesn't.

Originally Posted by dm Akolyte

Wow, are you intentionally missing my point or what? I'm not saying that you have to like BF3 or the direction it went in. I'm saying that you guys are projecting your own personal dislike for the direction it went (PERSONAL PREFERENCE) into attacks on the intelligence of its gameplay.

That's fucking STUPID.

Also I happen to know for a fact that MANY MANY BF vets absolutely LOVE battlefield 3. So your statement that DICE ignored their core fans is false as well.

TL;DR saying you don't like BF3 is fine, saying its "dumbed down" just makes you look like a retard.

I know this concept is going to confuse you, but calling something dumbed down is not an attack on the intelligence of anything. Dumbed down means less complex, more simple, more straightforward. Those are simple and accurate descriptions, they are not inherently pejorative. For example, when the maps are so small that your only option for fighting is a face first march into gunfire, that's called dumbing down. It's not an attack on the intelligence of anyone or anything, it's merely a reference to the simplification and removal of complexity.

The problem we are trying to avoid is this: Lovers of BF3's design decisions want these design decisions copied into every game that exists. Where does it end? When every game in existence is copying directly from BF3 and CoD?

And I happen to know for a fact that many many BF vets absolutely don't love BF3. Where is your large scale poll of people that proves your statement? Same place as mine, I don't have one and neither do you.

Gonefshn · 2012-04-05, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

You don't get it do you? Every time you say something like "you think your personal preference for gameplay decisions are the smart choice and everything else is dumb", you are having exactly the same attitude about your own personal preferences.

You're right, 3D spotting increases tactical options...it avails you of the tactic of skipping using your eyes and just hitting Q to spot, and when others spot, skipping using your eyes and just placing your aiming sight on the triangle. This is the very definition of dumbing down. I'm sorry you can't see that.
Killcam is dumbing down because it tells you exactly where your killer is so you can go straight after him. It also waters down the gameplay because people focus on revenge instead of playing the objective.
Commo rose is useful, I guess since it doesn't fit your personal preference, that it must be useless no matter how many other people use it.
Do you even know what you are talking about for maps? BF3 maps are small, uncaps out of bounds which removes a lot of tactics, flat, less cover, and so on.
Vehicle play: Battlefield is not a realism sim. That said, vehicle play is more arcadey than ever, you apparently think that the disabling mechanic somehow counts as realism. It doesn't.

I know this concept is going to confuse you, but calling something dumbed down is not an attack on the intelligence of anything. Dumbed down means less complex, more simple, more straightforward. Those are simple and accurate descriptions, they are not inherently pejorative. The problem we are trying to avoid is this: Lovers of BF3's design decisions want these design decisions copied into every game that exists. Where does it end? When every game in existence is copying directly from BF3 and CoD?

And I happen to know for a fact that many many BF vets absolutely don't love BF3. Where is your large scale poll of people that proves your statement? Same place as mine, I don't have one and neither do you.

I am riding the fence between you too on this discussion. For one, I am a long time Battlefield veteran since the first game and I absolutely love BF3, so if there was a poll I would be on the side of dm Akolyte. But I do agree with you Stardouser on most of your points you are making. 3D spotting is dumbing down the game in this way. Instead of being able to easily manuever around the map undetected, and only relying on your eyes as a tool. You can spam Q and spot people easily. This takes away from the "real war" immersion. The idea of spotting is to help players get to a firefight sooner. You know where they are so you have more to shoot at. Sure it has tactical advantages but overall it's just bringing the fight to you quicker. Old BF games had more patience involved, BF3 is trying harder to keep the guns blazing constantly. Also BF2 had the commander role, as well as custom squads with up to 6 players. Also, more classes offering even deeper combat roles. They removed these features from BF3 and consolidated the classes into 4. Simpler to understand, not as deep for sure. So I agree with Stardouser that it is a dumbed down BF game, but I personally like a lot of these choices and enjoy the new experience. I think it keeps what I love about BF for the most part and adds a more visceral gameplay element over it. good balance IMO.

Thats my 2 cents. more like 2 bucks but oh well.

IronMole · 2012-04-05, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by dm Akolyte

Wow, are you intentionally missing my point or what? I'm not saying that you have to like BF3 or the direction it went in. I'm saying that you guys are projecting your own personal dislike for the direction it went (PERSONAL PREFERENCE) into attacks on the intelligence of its gameplay.

That's fucking STUPID.

Also I happen to know for a fact that MANY MANY BF vets absolutely LOVE battlefield 3. So your statement that DICE ignored their core fans is false as well.

TL;DR saying you don't like BF3 is fine, saying its "dumbed down" just makes you look like a retard.

Hypocrisy at its best people?

dm Akolyte · 2012-04-05, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

You don't get it do you? Every time you say something like "you think your personal preference for gameplay decisions are the smart choice and everything else is dumb", you are having exactly the same attitude about your own personal preferences.

No. I'm really not. I don't think your personal preferences are dumb. I think they are your personal preferences.

I'm not the one accusing other games in the franchise of being "dumbed down." That would be you guys. In responding to specific points, I was illustrating how just because YOU or someone else dislikes a gameplay decision, doesn't mean it's a result of dumbing down.

I know this concept is going to confuse you, but calling something dumbed down is not an attack on the intelligence of anything. Dumbed down means less complex, more simple, more straightforward. The problem we are trying to avoid is this: Lovers of BF3's design decisions want these design decisions copied into every game that exists. Where does it end? When every game in existence is copying directly from BF3 and CoD?

"Dumbing down is a pejorative term for a perceived trend to lower the intellectual content of literature, education, news, and other aspects of culture."

So yes, actually, calling something dumbed down exactly IS an attack on the intelligence of something.

You don't like many of the decisions DICE made with BF3 and are upset that its become so popular, validating their divergence from your preferred gameplay. That's understandable--I get it.

What I'm objecting to is the MASSIVE undertone that you and your peers have that smart, REAL gamers will obviously prefer the gameplay of previous incarnations of battlefield, what that is simply not the case. Your attitude is extremely condescending, and if you actually hope to have people listen to your points, I suggest you fix it.

Duddy · 2012-04-05, 03:54 PM

I don't always argue about the merits of BF3,

But when I do I like to do it on a Planetside 2 discussion board.
(Albeit a thread named "Another 'Battlefield 3'")

JHendy · 2012-04-05, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by dm Akolyte

I really have no idea what you are talking about BF3 for, that game is a technical and gameplay marvel.

Technical, yes. Gameplay? No no no no no no bloody no.

No.

Originally Posted by dm Akolyte

WOAH. Battlefield 3 wasn't the exact same game as its predecessors?! Shocking.

There's a difference between the game being 'different' and the game simply being stripped of features.

Battlefield 3 was built up to be a "true successor to Battlefield 2" (DICE's words) so I think people were completely within reason to expect a similar game.