• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

COD anyone?

#23
sloasdaylight said:
Yea, I guess I should have been a little more clear. I only play on PC, and mostly only on large scale servers, so its quite a bit different. 16v16 metro is a completely different map than 32v32 as far as how its approached.
Click to expand...

The thought of having that many guys running around on that little map blows my mind. I like Metro for the same reason Mohawk does, I play conquest pretty much exclusively, and after a few rounds of spending the entire round cross country running from objective to objective, getting in Metro and just blasting the hell out fools can be a nice change of pace. I got a buddy that has BF3 on PC and Xbox, and he says he prefers it on a console just because PC is just too crazy.

Stats & Progression - BAMKILLS - Battlelog / Battlefield 3
I play Xbox btw.
 
#24
Your buddy sounds like some one who didn't play any of the previous battlefield releases on pc. For me, personally, I find the whole idea of BF3 being released as a multiplatform irritating at best, because it meant sacrificing what made the previous BF games.so great, which is the large scale of the game.

It's not a CoD clone or really even a competitor, it's a completely different type of game, but EA and DICE had to try to compete with MW3.

Sorry, rant over.
 
#25
sloasdaylight said:
Your buddy sounds like some one who didn't play any of the previous battlefield releases on pc. For me, personally, I find the whole idea of BF3 being released as a multiplatform irritating at best, because it meant sacrificing what made the previous BF games.so great, which is the large scale of the game.

It's not a CoD clone or really even a competitor, it's a completely different type of game, but EA and DICE had to try to compete with MW3.

Sorry, rant over.
Click to expand...
I think from what he said it was more about the shock from going from console to PC since he just recently built one that could handle it, and the 2 seem to be 2 entirely different animals, which I think is understandable, and if my little HP laptop could handle it, I'd be playing it on PC too right now, even though I've always been a console player.
 
#26
ShredderMaximus said:
The thought of having that many guys running around on that little map blows my mind. I like Metro for the same reason Mohawk does, I play conquest pretty much exclusively, and after a few rounds of spending the entire round cross country running from objective to objective, getting in Metro and just blasting the hell out fools can be a nice change of pace. I got a buddy that has BF3 on PC and Xbox, and he says he prefers it on a console just because PC is just too crazy.

Stats & Progression - BAMKILLS - Battlelog / Battlefield 3
I play Xbox btw.
Click to expand...

It's one of these things where you have a flip side in that maps like caspian border are too big for 24 people!


sloasdaylight said:
Your buddy sounds like some one who didn't play any of the previous battlefield releases on pc. For me, personally, I find the whole idea of BF3 being released as a multiplatform irritating at best, because it meant sacrificing what made the previous BF games.so great, which is the large scale of the game.

It's not a CoD clone or really even a competitor, it's a completely different type of game, but EA and DICE had to try to compete with MW3.

Sorry, rant over.
Click to expand...

Some of the console levels are on par with those from BF2, which is still an awesome game!

Invalid Link Removed


Out of interest, surely, like BF2, the levels scale depending on the people on the server? So Metro for 64 players would be the entire map (ie all the sections from a rush game), but for 16 it would be only one?
 
#27
Nope, for conquest large rounds on metro you've got 3 objectives, the platform (Charlie), the ticket booth (Bravo), and the cafe (Alpha). Even if the map were longer, it still wouldn't really make a difference, because the map is just that, longer. It still doesn't leave much, if any room for flanking.

Metro is just a ****brained idea for a map imo. Even Damavand peak, on conquest mode is better because at least you can take a helo up over the tunnel to Alpha/Bravo or Delta/Echo.
 
#28
sloasdaylight said:
Nope, for conquest large rounds on metro you've got 3 objectives, the platform (Charlie), the ticket booth (Bravo), and the cafe (Alpha). Even if the map were longer, it still wouldn't really make a difference, because the map is just that, longer. It still doesn't leave much, if any room for flanking.

Metro is just a ****brained idea for a map imo. Even Damavand peak, on conquest mode is better because at least you can take a helo up over the tunnel to Alpha/Bravo or Delta/Echo.
Click to expand...

Maybe it should have had a player cap or something. It's a shame, because I think it's a great map when you have 24 folk!

This DLC is more for the COD type game player, but it should still be good:

Battlefield 3: Close Quarters Gameplay Premiere Trailer - YouTube

Noticed a few new weapons in the run through. DLC after that will have massive maps and new vehicles. Sweeeet :D
 
#32
Jonyak said:
Honestly, BF3 is an abomination to the battlefield series. I hate it.
Click to expand...

I've heard people saying that, but they seem to think it's Bad Company 3.

Battlefield 3 is a sequel to Battlefield 2, which predates the Bad Company series and was a PC-only job. BF3 is pretty much an update on BF2, better graphics, destructable terrain and a few different game modes. Sadly they dropped the commander position, but the game works well without it. Not seen any BF2 (or previous) players who haven't liked BF3.
 
#33
i_got_a_mohawk said:
I've heard people saying that, but they seem to think it's Bad Company 3.

Battlefield 3 is a sequel to Battlefield 2, which predates the Bad Company series and was a PC-only job. BF3 is pretty much an update on BF2, better graphics, destructable terrain and a few different game modes. Sadly they dropped the commander position, but the game works well without it. Not seen any BF2 (or previous) players who haven't liked BF3.
Click to expand...

I have been playing battlefield since BF1942.

BF3 is no battlefield game, nor is it a worthy successor.
 
#34
What makes it, not a battlefield game? I'm curious, as said, previously I've only seen people state that in comparison to the Bad Company games, which, while fun, certainly don't fit with the Battlefield lineage.

I've played them from 1942 aswell, to me, it fits in well as a post BF2. Infact, the only sore thumb in the BF line (for me) is 2142.
 
#35
i_got_a_mohawk said:
What makes it, not a battlefield game? I'm curious, as said, previously I've only seen people state that in comparison to the Bad Company games, which, while fun, certainly don't fit with the Battlefield lineage.

I've played them from 1942 aswell, to me, it fits in well as a post BF2. Infact, the only sore thumb in the BF line (for me) is 2142.
Click to expand...

I didn't like 2142 either.

For BF3 the maps are too small, gameplay is too dumbed down, I hate the whole unlock system, I hate the close quarters battles, They have ruined vehicles, no VOIP, they ruined the commorose, they took out commander, no mod tools and I generaly hate the pace of the gameplay.

I liked BF1942 and BFvietnam best out of all of them. I put hundreds of hours into bf2, and I can't even finish a round in BF3. I just don't find it fun at all. not even slightly.

I would say even bad company 2 is better than BF3.

A couple things they did get right: Graphic, gunplay and destruction.

I hate the maps, not a single map is any good. And they somehow ruined my favorite map in the series, Wake.

I think they focused too much on making the game fun for the most amount of people possible and not enough on making the best battlefield game they could.
 
#37
Jonyak said:
I didn't like 2142 either.
Click to expand...

Good :)


Jonyak said:
For BF3 the maps are too small, gameplay is too dumbed down, I hate the whole unlock system, I hate the close quarters battles, They have ruined vehicles, no VOIP, they ruined the commorose, they took out commander, no mod tools and I generaly hate the pace of the gameplay.
Click to expand...

Not all of the maps are small, infact, for 24 players (console) some of them are too large.

The unlock system has added a lot of extras, but there was (granted, much simpler) unlock system in BF2 for instance.

For the most part, I prefer vehicles in BF3 to the other battlefield games. It's harder to get kills with them, especially the air vehicles. Because of that, there is less of a rush to get them. I've not witnessed any queues of people standing around waiting for a heli or jet to spawn. But this means you don't have one guy running about in a vehicle dominating the game.

No VOIP, not a loss, even when playing other games online I never used in-game VOIP. Even with older BF games my friends and I always used Skype (or similar).

Commorose, I'll give you that. I do miss that feature.

Commander, I think the game works fine without. But it was a fun role to play.

I don't find the game pace any different. It's a bit slower than the CoD games, but that's not a bad thing in my books.


Jonyak said:
I liked BF1942 and BFvietnam best out of all of them. I put hundreds of hours into bf2, and I can't even finish a round in BF3. I just don't find it fun at all. not even slightly.
Click to expand...

I've got 150 or so hours on BF2 and about the same on Vietnam (which were my favourites in the series). And I'm hooked on BF3 :p


Jonyak said:
I would say even bad company 2 is better than BF3.
Click to expand...

Again, we differ here, I enjoyed the single player, but never really got into the multi. Even got the Vietnam add-on and only played a few rounds of that.


Jonyak said:
A couple things they did get right: Graphic, gunplay and destruction.

I hate the maps, not a single map is any good. And they somehow ruined my favorite map in the series, Wake.

I think they focused too much on making the game fun for the most amount of people possible and not enough on making the best battlefield game they could.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I guess we need to agree to disagree. Different strokes for different folks and all that. Will agree that Wake does seem quite a bit smaller on BF3 than previous incarnations.

But that is what they did with the other Battlefield games, and those were also pretty successful!
 
#39
i_got_a_mohawk said:
For me, that'd be Black Ops. Just never got into the multiplayer on that at all. BF3 is the first FPS game I've really enjoyed since COD4 (the last good one :hiding: ).
Click to expand...

I will add a disclaimer that this is all IMO and people are free to like the game as much as they want, its no skin off my back.

As for COD... never was into them at all either. But at least they give their hardcore fans what they really want.

Things change I guess, its just time for me to move on to another franchise.
 
#40
Jonyak said:
I can honestly say that IMO, BF3 is one of the worst games I have ever played.
Click to expand...

You must not play many games... ;)
But anyways, I'm pretty much a noob to the series, and to online gaming in general. BC2 was the first online MP game I played in any depth online, with BF3 being the second, but I love both of em. At first I was a bit skeptical about BF3 since I was used to BC2, but have grown to love it, and badco just almost seems almost arcadey to me now, if you know what I mean.:confused:
I just want to ask, how much time have you put into BF3 Jonyak? I've really found the more time I put into it the more and more I like it. Damavand Peak does tick me off sometimes, way to easy for the dominating team to push back the other team to their deployment to where there is no escape, and I always end up on the crap team for some reason.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back