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 arejettingrunning 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!
Bookmarks