Battlefield Tri-hard

[Warsaw]

No it was not. DICE switched to console-centric development about half-way through. Get informed.

BF3 plays absolutely NOTHING like BF2. Most people in BF3 are jetting running and gunning and getting away with it, or camping in some dark corner. In BF2, as infantry, you could take out a tank with two or three rockets, faster if hit from behind. In BF2, you got more than five capture points. In BF2, you could fire and maneuver because the map size and shape, combined with the number of players, allowed it. In BF2, if you just sat in one spot and sniped, you found a barrage of 155mm shells coming down on your head. In BF2, a single anti-tank round was enough to blast a Humvee or Vodnik into pieces. In BF2, you could see what you were doing because there wasn't this god-awful black aura around the screen and the sand didn't blind you. In BF2, jets had a purpose other than killing the opposition's jets. In BF2, the maps had an ebb and flow that made sense and wasn't completely arbitrary. In BF2, there was no bullshit god-scope that highlighted all of the players on the map while blocking out any distractions. In BF2, you had a commander who was watching enemy motion, properly using a UAV, and dropping support onto squads in the field. BF3 is not about team work, it's about trying to compete directly with Call of Duty. It succeeds fantastically in that regard. Unfortunately for EA, that's not what I want in a Battlefield game.

No. You are flat-out wrong. You need to go back and play more BF2, because this atrocity of a sellout has nothing on it. I appreciate the effort they put into it to make it more action-oriented and give it less aimless walking, but they fucked up. Plain and simple. It's BF: BC2.5, not a sequel to BF2. For fuck's sake, we only get four classes! Four classes that, when combined with the weapon customization system, overlap each other to a gross degree!

[Cortexian]

Wow, the console version you're playing sounds really horrible. You can't run and gun on a server with any decent players on PC.

The map systems work fine, except for the infantry-centric maps like Operation Metro. Flanking is no problem for a player with half-a-brain, because most of the people playing are dimwit CoD converts that probably rage-quit every time they get killed from behind.

Granted there are still some balance issues, but they are trying to work them out (see the latest patch). They've also dumbed down the command system significantly as well but the game is still fun and that's all that really matters isn't it. Commander seemed to cause more problems than he solved in my BF2 experience.

[Warsaw]

Like I said, I believe my experience has something to do with the fact that I am stuck on 360. That doesn't excuse DICE though, because BC2 was fan-friggin'-tastic on all platforms. BF3 is middling on the consoles at best. I'm not having fun with the game. I'm raging at it and restraining myself from tossing my controller through the screen. I use my head all the time and I get killed for it, so the only way to win is to do like all the other peons and camp with an IR scope. Problem? I have to slog through shit just to get an IR scope on ONE gun. I would rather deal with magnum ammo and shotgun slugs, thank you very much. As for Commanders, they were hit and miss. However, they added a higher level of game play to Battlefield, because a good commander could turn the tide of a pitched battle with a well-placed air drop or by informing the people on the ground which direction fire was coming from.

As for the maps, I don't think most of them were designed with any particular gameplay strategy in mind. I play Conquest only (Rush on console is a vain effort), so keep that in mind. Caspian Border is just a cluster of flags in the middle of the map with no choke points or controllable areas to give a team incentive to hold. Operation Metro...well, do I really need to go there? Tehran Highway's flags are nicely placed, but the nature of the map (big and open but with shitloads of hiding spots) makes it hard as balls to do anything on foot except snipe or mortar. Seine Crossing is literally a clusterfuck, with everyone just blending into the rubble and sitting tight with their IR-equipped machine guns and assault rifles. Damavand Peak is somewhat passable, with the main strategy revolving around keeping your tank alive. I like that. Tunnel warfare kind of blows, though. Kharg Island is awesome, with classic Battlefield gameplay and a great combined-arms synergy with infantry and armour; it doesn't have the Gulf of Oman feel, though, but that's literally on the way. Operation Firestorm is in the same vein as Kharg, and even with loose teamwork can be fun. There is a definite flow to both of those maps that I just can't put my finger on, but it works well. Canals, well...yeah, the helicopters and LAV-25 camping make that map generally un-fun, but it's one of the more passable maps.

Back to Karkand cannot come soon enough.

[Cortexian]

Back to Karkand cannot come soon enough.

This we can agree on.

I'm pretty sure BF3 was rushed out the door to compete with and beat the launch of CoD: Latest Iteration.

[Warsaw]

Everything about BF3 seems to be made to compete with CoD: Modern Letdown 2 3. I hope the next game continues the Bad Company campaign (it was better) and goes back to BC1 style campaign play. It had its own identity and was awesome. As for multiplayer, all they had to do was take BC2, make five classes (Assault, Medic, Recon, Support, and Engineer), put in a commander, nerf flares, make legitimately bigger maps for combined arms play, and give us jets. Seriously. I would have been totally content with that, and that actually probably would have been cheaper for them to develop for. It likely would have had better results on console as well.

Oh, and that 24 player limit feels bogus. 32 or bust.

[Amit]

Dude. I don't think DICE cared much about what the console version is. They just wanna pack as much shit in as they can before overloading and saying not to blame them for not putting big maps and vehicles in it. PC is where the shit comes together. Seriously, get a PC that can run the game. You'll enjoy it. Shit ain't expensive these days, except hard drives. But you know that already.

[Warsaw]

I'm waiting on certain...conditions. I have $1400 lined up and ready to go, but new graphics cards are supposed to start coming out on 7 December. HD7970 anyone? Do want. Unless the HD7000 series does what Bulldozer and Sandy Bridge-E do...that would make me upset.

As for DICE: they are doing it wrong.

Remember I am a PC gamer first. There just isn't any excuse for a game sucking on any platform when it was intended to be multi-platform from the start.

[ThePlague]

Thoughts?

Personally, i'd move the squad thing to where it was in BC2, instead of making a full page dedicated to it. Have it all as one thing.

[Warsaw]

Yeah, I agree. I'd also add the weapon attachments into that blank, unused area rather than also making them a separate screen.

Is that what BF3 looks like on PC, or is that a BC2-like mock-up? It looks nothing like that on 360. The map takes up the entire right hand with the weapons being on the bottom. The menu text takes up the left side of the screen.

[Donut]

how would BC2's class system work with a support class added in? unless you take away medic's LMG, it seems like there would be an overlap in the "on-paper" purpose of each class. and if you take away medic's LMG, what would you give him?
E: @ plauge's post: i dont mean to be biased toward BC2, but that screen really is great. all it needs is the score added in like bf3's and it wins completely. i know we discussed this before, but i still think the weapon attachments screen should be just like BC2's. i remember someone said it probably wasnt made like that because each weapon has its own unlockable attachments, but why not just do what BC2 does when you select a shotgun or thompson or something and remove the button to add a scope if a weapon is selected that the scope isnt unlocked for? a couple lines to visually organize whats going on with the loadout would help, but after attempting to customize a weapon on the fly in bf3, i can very safely say i absolutely prefer BC2's loadout system over bf3.