This topic is locked from further discussion.
Hmm even after all these patches and DLC, theres just something about BF3 that turns me off.... I don't know if its just nostalgia but the scale of BF2 and BF1942 made the game so much more grand, even if they had their share of problems.
I mean the shooting in both games were awful, but the vehicle and infantry dynamic were much better. Plus the maps aren't clusters like Metro. I hope Planetside 2 will be what I'm looking for. What do you guys think?
One of the worst unlock systems to grace a video game.skrat_01
Can you expand on that? I happen to think its the best and most addictive unlock system I've experienced, so curious to hear your opinion.
For me, being a HUGE fan of the BF franchise (by far my favorite series in gaming), I consider BF3 the best in the series far and away. I think CLose Quarters just made me appreciate the game even more. With CQ it has a totally different feel, a more twitch type FPS that is far superior in gunplay and gameplay to the likes of COD. At the same time, it can be a fantastic objective-based game with Rush, and can be the epic large-scale masterpiece we expect on Conquest with maps like Caspian Border. For me its a testament to the engine they created- it does everything well and can adapt itself to many differnt gametypes and modes.
As an FPS, I think the shooting is the best and most satisfying out there right now. Also each vehicle in BF3 is so finely tuned and outstanding that each could be its own individual game. I would play a helicopter game based on the game's Heli gameplay. I would play a game based solely on the Jet gameplay. I would also play a game centered around the tank gameplay. All of the facets of the game are so outstanding that they could stand alone and be great games.
For me, its the best in the series, and I can't see myself stopping any time soon. Totally addicted.
Sure To unlock everything for a class is a grind. To unlock each item for each gun is a grind. To unlock items of vehicles is a grind. Those items have strong mechanical implications to the gameplay, and can effect a players ability to play, especially against players who do invest time. At the end of the day the player who timesinks into BF3 will have the advantage. The most beautiful example is hopping into a plane, taking to the skies and not having countermeasures or missiles unlocked. So you're obliterated by other players in planes or anti air with unlocks. The only way you can obtain those unlocks is by grinding through flying. So you're stuck in a paradox. It's similar for the classes, though they don't have just horrible mechanical implications as this (to the degree that dice patched in countermeasures for starting); and it's quite possibly one of the worst examples of disgustingly padding a games length; the tacking on of microtransactions to unlock kit you have paid for also reflects on this. Its atrocious, this is something that would be at home in a free to play game, not a full price retail shooter.Can you expand on that?.
lockjaw333
Battlefield 3 fixes a lot of issues with Battlefield 2. The infantry play is excellent, jets are much more well balanced, there is no grenade spam, everything feels more complete. The game also has fantastic production values, awesome destructible levels that actually change how you play the level as time goes on, reworked vehicle mechanics that change up the dynamics of vehicles, and way more equipment to play with expanding gameplay options.
However it took a major step back with teamwork and coordination. Smaller squads, less communication options, lack of squad orders or commander position. I undestand removing the automated functions like the UAV and artillery and replacing them with player controlled devices, but the lack of the ability to communicate between squads through a commander, small squad size, and no VoiP on the PC really cut into teamwork. If you can get 5-10 guys together on a VoiP channel in Teamspeak or Vent, then Battlefield 3 becomes 100% more fun. It's just bad that they make it such a hassle to play as a team when the other games encouraged it with every single mechanic.
I like the maps. While some of them are a bit small, Caspian Border, Kargh Island, Operation Firestorm are the perfect size. Not to big where you end up spending more downtime running around like you could do in previous games, but large enough where vehicles play a very important role. The B2K maps are also excellent additions. The CQ pack is fun for what it is, but it's not traditional battlefield. The new Armor Kill pack looks awesome but it will be interesting to see how the dynamic of the game changes when you get maps that big. Playing Wake Island right now is a total different beast than playing any of the other maps.
Overall it's a great game. It's a real big evolution of the series for better or worse. I would love to see them re-implement the teamwork functions that they blatently left out in Battlefield 4 or whatever is next. It's obvious that those features are not coming in with any of the DLC, we can just hope that DICE has listened to the community and finds a way implement those features into the current formula.
I just think its a little buggy with the lag. I fall from 1000 feet, hit the ground, walk around for a second, then die.
But compared to call of duty its amazing.
[QUOTE="lockjaw333"]Sure To unlock everything for a class is a grind. To unlock each item for each gun is a grind. To unlock items of vehicles is a grind. Those items have strong mechanical implications to the gameplay, and can effect a players ability to play, especially against players who do invest time. At the end of the day the player who timesinks into BF3 will have the advantage. The most beautiful example is hopping into a plane, taking to the skies and not having countermeasures or missiles unlocked. So you're obliterated by other players in planes or anti air with unlocks. The only way you can obtain those unlocks is by grinding through flying. So you're stuck in a paradox. It's similar for the classes, though they don't have just horrible mechanical implications as this (to the degree that dice patched in countermeasures for starting); and it's quite possibly one of the worst examples of disgustingly padding a games length; the tacking on of microtransactions to unlock kit you have paid for also reflects on this. Its atrocious, this is something that would be at home in a free to play game, not a full price retail shooter.Can you expand on that?.
skrat_01
Fair enough, though I don't find it as much of a grind as you do. Maybe it is padding the gameplay length, but I find it gives me incentive to play with different weapons, kits, etc. I like to see that little bar fill up until I eventually unlock something.
I will agree that the unlock system for vehicles is a bit unfair. I think the mistake they made was not giving the player even the most basic unlocks in vehicles at the start. You're right, flying Jets was near impossible in the beginning because you didn't even have flares, so it was basically a game of putting the time in and getting dominated until you unlocked them and could finally defend yourself. Its similar with tanks, where you are pretty weak and useless at first. People with the "reactive armor" perk still dominate, and that is one of the later unlocks that takes serious time to get (I still don't have it). So I would agree with you that the unlock system for vehicles is a bit unbalanced. I would rather it have been just different unlocks and abilities that are sort of horizontal leaps, as opposed to unlocks that are clearly superior.
I still find the unlock system to be the best of any FPS ever. Particularly the class specific unlocks that really allow you to play to that class' strengths. I also find the attachment unlocks for guns satisfying in that each gun behaves differently, and diffferent attachments have different impacts on all of the different guns, so you can really tailor a gun to your game style.
Right now its fun and I'd say its the best multiplayer Battlefield title yet. The issues it has can easily be fixed with patches, and much like a Bethesda title the polish issues are the only real problems. Hardcore and Vanilla make sure the game caters well to different people, and there is a crap ton of content and variety in the multiplayer offerings and levels. Anything from small and chaotic infantry matches, to giant land, sea and air warfare battles, to teamwork focused Rush matches.
I have to say though, the polish issues REALLY bring it down. Bad Company 2 had its issues, but not on this level (though you could argue it didn't have as much content and didn't come out of the gate with a brand new engine). I'd say its a shame they didn't use this engine on another title first, because it would have been much easier on DICE otherwise, and we would have Battlerecorder instead of having to rely on FRAPS and its framerate killing for saving anything cool.
I also have to agree with C_rule here, in a game where they accept that bullets and explosions only hurt you if they are from the otherside, I don't understand why I have to deal with blinding flashlights from teammates or laser sights that have some magic eyeball lock on ability (which in theory should help you know someone is aiming at you, but in practice it does that AND it blinds you giving said aimer a double advantage in his improved accuracy).
Most fun I've had in an online FPS game. BUT there are a lot of syncing and network/hit detection issues that annoy the balls off me. Getting shot behind walls, shots not registering, having all the guys machine gun rounds register at once seemingly one shotting you with a cluster of bullets. I know from their POV it's not like that and that's why it needs to be fixed. These types of lag and delays in things are detremental to the fun of the game and makes a lot of it luck based on the new smaller maps. If anything they highlighted these problems the most, it's as if the game can't keep up with what you're doing and registers things late. And no it's not my connection because lots of people have had the problems.
Last thing is that god damned suppression. I was trolling yesterday with an auto shotgun but even at point blank range suppression prevented me from landing buckshots. That's not right at all. the suppression system is so spastic and seems almost random at times
Right now its fun and I'd say its the best multiplayer Battlefield title yet. The issues it has can easily be fixed with patches, and much like a Bethesda title the polish issues are the only real problems. Hardcore and Vanilla make sure the game caters well to different people, and there is a crap ton of content and variety in the multiplayer offerings and levels. Anything from small and chaotic infantry matches, to giant land, sea and air warfare battles, to teamwork focused Rush matches.
I have to say though, the polish issues REALLY bring it down. Bad Company 2 had its issues, but not on this level (though you could argue it didn't have as much content and didn't come out of the gate with a brand new engine). I'd say its a shame they didn't use this engine on another title first, because it would have been much easier on DICE otherwise, and we would have Battlerecorder instead of having to rely on FRAPS and its framerate killing for saving anything cool.
I also have to agree with C_rule here, in a game where they accept that bullets and explosions only hurt you if they are from the otherside, I don't understand why I have to deal with blinding flashlights from teammates or laser sights that have some magic eyeball lock on ability (which in theory should help you know someone is aiming at you, but in practice it does that AND it blinds you giving said aimer a double advantage in his improved accuracy).
SPYDER0416
Do you remember how Battlerecorder in BF2 worked? You still would need FRAPS. Battlerecorder in BF is not like the ones found in CoD.
I actually really like the suppression. I think it adds something to the game. Its more useful when you are playing on large maps and can use suppression as a support class to help friendlies advance. On Close Quarters its just a suppression fest, but I sorta like it- makes it feel more chaotic. Its better than COD where you can land a sniper shot across the map while getting shot.lockjaw333
The latest patched really fixed up suppression. It was a bit much for awhile, now it's really good. You actually have to work to suppress targets, not just shooting in their generaly direction once or twice.
If it didn't have the stupid unlock system and the "hey duder, you should totally buy premium!" reminders being shoved in my face constantly, it'd be pretty awesomesauce for the most part.
As is I don't use other weapons because I'm not going to sit there and grind scopes for it, and all the "buy premium" stuff being shoved in my face is just making me want to play the game less, reminds me of a damn free 2 play game.
Haha
"HEY MAN YOU CAN BUY SPECIAL GOLD FOR 30 DOLLARS AND PURCHASE THIS LASER RIFLE THATS TOTALLY BETTER THEN ANYTHING YOU CAN UNLOCK ON YOUR OWN.
Battlefield 3 fixes a lot of issues with Battlefield 2. The infantry play is excellent, jets are much more well balanced, there is no grenade spam, everything feels more complete. The game also has fantastic production values, awesome destructible levels that actually change how you play the level as time goes on, reworked vehicle mechanics that change up the dynamics of vehicles, and way more equipment to play with expanding gameplay options.However it took a major step back with teamwork and coordination. Smaller squads, less communication options, lack of squad orders or commander position. I undestand removing the automated functions like the UAV and artillery and replacing them with player controlled devices, but the lack of the ability to communicate between squads through a commander, small squad size, and no VoiP on the PC really cut into teamwork. If you can get 5-10 guys together on a VoiP channel in Teamspeak or Vent, then Battlefield 3 becomes 100% more fun. It's just bad that they make it such a hassle to play as a team when the other games encouraged it with every single mechanic.I like the maps. While some of them are a bit small, Caspian Border, Kargh Island, Operation Firestorm are the perfect size. Not to big where you end up spending more downtime running around like you could do in previous games, but large enough where vehicles play a very important role. The B2K maps are also excellent additions. The CQ pack is fun for what it is, but it's not traditional battlefield. The new Armor Kill pack looks awesome but it will be interesting to see how the dynamic of the game changes when you get maps that big. Playing Wake Island right now is a total different beast than playing any of the other maps.Overall it's a great game. It's a real big evolution of the series for better or worse. I would love to see them re-implement the teamwork functions that they blatently left out in Battlefield 4 or whatever is next. It's obvious that those features are not coming in with any of the DLC, we can just hope that DICE has listened to the community and finds a way implement those features into the current formula.WasdieThe nade spam on Karkand in BF2 is legendary but you could throw nades much further(and C4 :() but if you remember when BF3 just came out, before restrictions on explosives and the huge explosive nerf, there was a ton of nade spam on Metro especially since at that time players didn't know the game well enough to get past B flag on either side. I think the issue is that too many people want to play as a team but don't want to play in a competitive clan, when you play in scrims there is no issue of anyone not being on voip along with the fact that these aren't even random players, generally these are players who do very well in pubs makes it so it becomes jet vs jet, heli vs heli, and ground vehicles vs ground vehicles and inf vs inf which you don't always get in pubs or you can ask some GS'ers what it was like to squad up with me and a few of my TS/Skype buddies :P
Commander mode not only will not return, but cannot return however we can expect in-game VOIP and squad sizes will be assigned according to what future titles are designed around. Wake Island really emphasizes the issues with older BF maps, I mean within just 7 minutes I got kicked while gunning in heli(Smiert flying) http://tinypic.com/r/6nq9l5/6 As far as full vehicle + inf combat goes Caspian Border and Kharg Island clearly seem like the maps DICE put the most work into, Operation Firestorm is alright for air vs air but the terrain is a bit too flat although a lot of tank drivers seem to like it. Wake Island on LCQ or even Rush mode is ridiculous for chopper duos, especially on the US team for chopper duos that know how to watch C and D flags.
2 words:
Dumbed Down.
dav2693
Because tedium cased from overly complex mechanics is fun right?
While BF3 doesn't have the teamwork elements that previous games do, it has far more gameplay options to the individual player. The game is far more broad than it used to be. Each role is even more specialized now with the equipment and has a bigger impact on the game, especially if you play the class well. Stuff isn't spread out along 7 classes anymore thinning out its effectiveness. Things like the commander's artillery and UAV have been replaced with player controlled equipment.
The maps aren't as large that is true, but large maps do not make deep and involved game play. Besides, BF3 has plenty of maps that are large enough for both the infantry and the vehicles to play side-by-side without either of them being totally gimped. In BF2, the infantry was worthless on a good chunk of maps and vehicles were rendered useless with the blatantly OP air. BF3 is actually well balanced compared to BF2.
The lack of teamwork controls is regrettable and I hope we get them back in the next game, but the restructuring of the classes, more broad gameplay, better vehicle and weapon balance, and the dynamic levels makes up for that. Dismissing BF3 as dumed down is to ignore the majority of the game and focus on the elements that are not just like BF2.
There are areas for improvement such as integrated squad voice, but all in all, I think it's miles better than the alternative FPS (Tribes, COD, Blacklight, etc.). And since I normally play with friends and use voice chat in secondary programs, even that doesn't really bother me too much. If anything it gives us an edge because randoms wont be able to communicate.
Also there is a good range of small map / big map gamemodes, so it really makes games such as MW3 useless. I prefer small maps on BF3 over COD spamfests, and the larger BF3 maps are way better than going back and playing BF2 which is ancient and has worse gameplay mechanics
The maps aren't as large that is true, but large maps do not make deep and involved game play.WasdieThe thing is that in BF3 the airspace is much larger than the ground space and that in BF2 the flags are more spreadout unlike in BF3 where flags are centralized and clustered together on the map, you have a lot of space to move around, but the thing is, there is no action out in the boonies in BF3 unless you're in an air vehicle. Also BF3 1 v 1 jets is about as deep as gameplay gets in shooter games, the jet physics make it so speed control takes a lot more skill than in other games with flight while making it easy to switch on pursuers or get switched on and still allowing the use of more than two dozen distinct flight maneuvers which you didn't have in BF2.
2 words:
Dumbed Down.
dav2693
How so? It improves on a lot of key areas. The infantry combat is much better, vehicles handle more rea;istically and the jets don't whizz around like missiles
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]The maps aren't as large that is true, but large maps do not make deep and involved game play.ZubinenThe thing is that in BF3 the airspace is much larger than the ground space and that in BF2 the flags are more spreadout unlike in BF3 where flags are centralized and clustered together on the map, you have a lot of space to move around, but the thing is, there is no action out in the boonies in BF3 unless you're in an air vehicle. Also BF3 1 v 1 jets is about as deep as gameplay gets in shooter games, the jet physics make it so speed control takes a lot more skill than in other games with flight while making it easy to switch on pursuers or get switched on and still allowing the use of more than two dozen distinct flight maneuvers which you didn't have in BF2.
One of the problems of BF3 is trying to work realism and cool scenery into the maps as well as fun for gameplay. Most maps like Damavand and Metro you can clearly see are more for Rush and that's fine but they tried to work realistic settings into the game which stops a lot of the sparse gameplay and focuses it more. I still think Caspian Border is the best designed BF3 map. CQ on it is the best out of all the maps
Compared to what's available RIGHT NOW, Battlefield 3 is the best shooter on the market. Hands down. Especially on the PC.
I still think Caspian Border is the best designed BF3 map. seanmcloughlin
I would even go one step further and say its the best BF map of all time. That takes a lot for me to say, as I absolutely love some of the maps in BF2. I just really think Caspian is the best map they've ever made, in terms of looks and gameplay.
Caspian Border is the best designed BF3 map. CQ on it is the best out of all the mapsseanmcloughlinCaspian Border is the most well designed BF map, DICE put a lot of effort into making sure of this, but Kharg Island comes in at second place easily and unsurprisingly it's the other map DICE was mentioning a lot.
Still thinkin' BC2 is way better than BF3, not that I've played BF3 much (and I'm not saying its a terrrrrible game) but the community there is really damn braindead and the game isn't really anything too new.
[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]Caspian Border is the best designed BF3 map. CQ on it is the best out of all the mapsZubinenCaspian Border is the most well designed BF map, DICE put a lot of effort into making sure of this, but Kharg Island comes in at second place easily and unsurprisingly it's the other map DICE was mentioning a lot. i hate kharg island. i really do.
[QUOTE="lockjaw333"]I actually really like the suppression. I think it adds something to the game. Its more useful when you are playing on large maps and can use suppression as a support class to help friendlies advance. On Close Quarters its just a suppression fest, but I sorta like it- makes it feel more chaotic. Its better than COD where you can land a sniper shot across the map while getting shot.Wasdie
The latest patched really fixed up suppression. It was a bit much for awhile, now it's really good. You actually have to work to suppress targets, not just shooting in their generaly direction once or twice.
really? i still get like 5 suppression ribbons per match, and unless i'm using squad cover, i'm suppressed by someone on the other side of the room being shot.I'll still take CSS over any BF or COD game. The gunplay just isn't up to par in those games imo.Compared to what's available RIGHT NOW, Battlefield 3 is the best shooter on the market. Hands down. Especially on the PC.
airshocker
[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]Caspian Border is the best designed BF3 map. CQ on it is the best out of all the mapsZubinenCaspian Border is the most well designed BF map, DICE put a lot of effort into making sure of this, but Kharg Island comes in at second place easily and unsurprisingly it's the other map DICE was mentioning a lot.
Something about Kharg I don't like and I can't put my finger on it. It can be fun though. Caspian is definitely king though. It has everything you could want in a map and is the perfect map to show off what BF is all about
[QUOTE="Wasdie"] The nade spam on Karkand in BF2 is legendaryZubinen
Rofl yes! The staging area between hotel and the US base was just a death zone. I remember climbing up that ladder on that little platform infront of hotel as support, planting an ammo bag and spamming nades. I went like 80-3 one round just by doing that. I really wish I had taken a screen shot of the global chat. Good times.
Also I agree with the previous post about the unlocks. Such a derpy way of doing things. Strangely enough, I actually preferred Black Ops unlock system in that you could just pick and choose what you want rather than just having to grind (BF2142 also had a similar way in that you could pick the unlocks from a class) or perhaps once you had already unlocked the scopes they should be usable across all weapon platforms (or at least that class). In the first release, the unlocks for jets was abhorrent (so did they fix this now where you at least actually start with something other than cannon for jets)?
Personally I really don't like what BF3 became so it will be my last purchase from the battlefield series (I learnt my lesson with COD that when they start going down hill, they probably aren't going to get any better). I got about 100 hours out of it but in comparison to BF2, 2142 and even BC2, that's just a drop in the ocean.
[QUOTE="dav2693"]
2 words:
Dumbed Down.
seanmcloughlin
How so? It improves on a lot of key areas. The infantry combat is much better, vehicles handle more rea;istically and the jets don't whizz around like missiles
Because in real life, jets can slow down to walking speed at 5 metres above ground level and then go straight back to mach 1 and 1000 feet:P (well who knows, maybe they actually can:? )
The jet mechanics are horrible compared to BF2. They go so slow and their ability to pretty go stationary to kill targets is messed up. The reason why jets were so insane in bf2 wasn't so much their speed but the lack of any decent AA in the majority of maps i.e. stinger missile placements have virtually zero range so a jet can pretty much sit in orbit and cannon the placement to death before coming down to low to take things out.
Because in real life, jets can slow down to walking speed at 5 metres above ground level and then go straight back to mach 1 and 1000 feet:P (well who knows, maybe they actually can:? )
The jet mechanics are horrible compared to BF2. They go so slow and their ability to pretty go stationary to kill targets is messed up. The reason why jets were so insane in bf2 wasn't so much their speed but the lack of any decent AA in the majority of maps i.e. stinger missile placements have virtually zero range so a jet can pretty much sit in orbit and cannon the placement to death before coming down to low to take things out.
October_Tide
Yes jets in real life are incredibly agile and can do those things. But you said first they go mach 1 in no time yet the line after you said they are so slow. Make up your mind.
And most people who played both enjoyed the fact that they go slower so you can stay in the fly zone more and not shoot over the entire map in a second. You also have to realise the maps are smaller than they were in BF2 so if the jets were the same speed as before they would shoot passed the whol fight in 2 seconds making them useless
Caspian Border is the most well designed BF map, DICE put a lot of effort into making sure of this, but Kharg Island comes in at second place easily and unsurprisingly it's the other map DICE was mentioning a lot.[QUOTE="Zubinen"][QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]Caspian Border is the best designed BF3 map. CQ on it is the best out of all the mapsseanmcloughlin
Something about Kharg I don't like and I can't put my finger on it. It can be fun though.
proliferation of obnoxious pilots.I'll still take CSS over any BF or COD game. The gunplay just isn't up to par in those games imo.FPSfan1985
There is no gunplay in CSS. It's point, shoot, rabbit jump with an AWP and that's it. There is no strategy, no tactics. You come off as more of a troll than anything with that comment.
Compared to what's available RIGHT NOW, Battlefield 3 is the best shooter on the market. Hands down. Especially on the PC.
airshocker
I'd say maybe not best shooter, but easily best multiplayer.
The biggest issue is the wasted potential and seemingly minor issues. Things like in game VoiP, Battlerecorder, improved attachment balance (in regards mainly to the flashlight and laser sight blinding teammates and enemies alike regardless of where or when you aim), etc. Minor things keeping it from perfection, as well as the polish issues like frequent stuttering and iffy hit detection.
Honestly, if they completely ditched the crapp single player I imagine so much of this could have come true. Hopefully they can try and implement some of this in patches, I'm not too hopeful for VOIP or Battlerecorder with what they've said sadly, but I'll have some hope.
[QUOTE="airshocker"]
Compared to what's available RIGHT NOW, Battlefield 3 is the best shooter on the market. Hands down. Especially on the PC.
SPYDER0416
I'd say maybe not best shooter, but easily best multiplayer.
The biggest issue is the wasted potential and seemingly minor issues. Things like in game VoiP, Battlerecorder, improved attachment balance (in regards mainly to the flashlight and laser sight blinding teammates and enemies alike regardless of where or when you aim), etc. Minor things keeping it from perfection, as well as the polish issues like frequent stuttering and iffy hit detection.
Honestly, if they completely ditched the crapp single player I imagine so much of this could have come true. Hopefully they can try and implement some of this in patches, I'm not too hopeful for VOIP or Battlerecorder with what they've said sadly, but I'll have some hope.
you forgot the new "going prone and crawling your way inside of objects, so you can shoot while nearly invisible".[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"][QUOTE="airshocker"]
Compared to what's available RIGHT NOW, Battlefield 3 is the best shooter on the market. Hands down. Especially on the PC.
BrunoBRS
I'd say maybe not best shooter, but easily best multiplayer.
The biggest issue is the wasted potential and seemingly minor issues. Things like in game VoiP, Battlerecorder, improved attachment balance (in regards mainly to the flashlight and laser sight blinding teammates and enemies alike regardless of where or when you aim), etc. Minor things keeping it from perfection, as well as the polish issues like frequent stuttering and iffy hit detection.
Honestly, if they completely ditched the crapp single player I imagine so much of this could have come true. Hopefully they can try and implement some of this in patches, I'm not too hopeful for VOIP or Battlerecorder with what they've said sadly, but I'll have some hope.
you forgot the new "going prone and crawling your way inside of objects, so you can shoot while nearly invisible". That's not really an issue unless you play BF3's non-objective focused game modes.DICE needs to bring back teamwork. I nearly shat my pants when I saw the footage of the AC-130, but then they ruined it by saying that you can't pilot that huge behemoth. Although, it's not a bad thing that it will add strategic importance to flags... a MAJOR flaw with BF3's vanilla maps. I don't know how anyone can say that BF3 maps are good when they're fundamentally broken. There's no strategic value to any flags, at all, so you find yourself running towards the nearest flag then back to the previous flag that the enemy captured while you were capturing their flag.
Good thing they had the Karkand map pack, but that didn't solve the fundamental gameplay issues revolving around teamwork, squads, voip, etc. While playing karkand maps, I often find myself actually planning a strategy instead of running and gunning towards the nearest objective. Some flags off more strategic assets or key spawn points, which makes them more important to hold (broadcast station on sharqi). This concentrates the action around several flags, so instead reducing the flag count or clustering the flags around a small area (and wasting 90% of the map), they can simply add strategic value to certain flags to increase the action. That way any game can range from intense battles around the important flags to slow paced tactical gameplay around the outer flags.
you forgot the new "going prone and crawling your way inside of objects, so you can shoot while nearly invisible". That's not really an issue unless you play BF3's non-objective focused game modes.[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"][QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]
I'd say maybe not best shooter, but easily best multiplayer.
The biggest issue is the wasted potential and seemingly minor issues. Things like in game VoiP, Battlerecorder, improved attachment balance (in regards mainly to the flashlight and laser sight blinding teammates and enemies alike regardless of where or when you aim), etc. Minor things keeping it from perfection, as well as the polish issues like frequent stuttering and iffy hit detection.
Honestly, if they completely ditched the crapp single player I imagine so much of this could have come true. Hopefully they can try and implement some of this in patches, I'm not too hopeful for VOIP or Battlerecorder with what they've said sadly, but I'll have some hope.
Swiftstrike5
DICE needs to bring back teamwork. I nearly shat my pants when I saw the footage of the AC-130, but then they ruined it by saying that you can't pilot that huge behemoth. Although, it's not a bad thing that it will add strategic importance to flags... a MAJOR flaw with BF3's vanilla maps. I don't know how anyone can say that BF3 maps are good when they're fundamentally broken. There's no strategic value to any flags, at all, so you find yourself running towards the nearest flag then back to the previous flag that the enemy captured while you were capturing their flag.
Good thing they had the Karkand map pack, but that didn't solve the fundamental gameplay issues revolving around teamwork, squads, voip, etc. While playing karkand maps, I often find myself actually planning a strategy instead of running and gunning towards the nearest objective. Some flags off more strategic assets or key spawn points, which makes them more important to hold (broadcast station on sharqi). This concentrates the action around several flags, so instead reducing the flag count or clustering the flags around a small area (and wasting 90% of the map), they can simply add strategic value to certain flags to increase the action. That way any game can range from intense battles around the important flags to slow paced tactical gameplay around the outer flags.
how is it not an issue? you can defend a base/MCOM forever if you can't be killed, or even spotted to begin with.
I disagree. I still think Red Orchestra 2 is a better multiplayer shooter, especially balance wise. The unlock system in BF3 is atrocious and simply unfair when it comes to vehicles and aircraft. No VOIP and no teamwork. Not only is RO2 way better when it comes to teamwork, the community seems to be more mature (keyword seems. I obviously haven't played with every there is to play with) It's not a K/D whore game like BF3 is. BF3 is a fun game to casually play from time to time to have some fun madness. I'd never play the game hardcore though, too many problems.Compared to what's available RIGHT NOW, Battlefield 3 is the best shooter on the market. Hands down. Especially on the PC.
airshocker
[QUOTE="Swiftstrike5"]That's not really an issue unless you play BF3's non-objective focused game modes.[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"] you forgot the new "going prone and crawling your way inside of objects, so you can shoot while nearly invisible".BrunoBRS
DICE needs to bring back teamwork. I nearly shat my pants when I saw the footage of the AC-130, but then they ruined it by saying that you can't pilot that huge behemoth. Although, it's not a bad thing that it will add strategic importance to flags... a MAJOR flaw with BF3's vanilla maps. I don't know how anyone can say that BF3 maps are good when they're fundamentally broken. There's no strategic value to any flags, at all, so you find yourself running towards the nearest flag then back to the previous flag that the enemy captured while you were capturing their flag.
Good thing they had the Karkand map pack, but that didn't solve the fundamental gameplay issues revolving around teamwork, squads, voip, etc. While playing karkand maps, I often find myself actually planning a strategy instead of running and gunning towards the nearest objective. Some flags off more strategic assets or key spawn points, which makes them more important to hold (broadcast station on sharqi). This concentrates the action around several flags, so instead reducing the flag count or clustering the flags around a small area (and wasting 90% of the map), they can simply add strategic value to certain flags to increase the action. That way any game can range from intense battles around the important flags to slow paced tactical gameplay around the outer flags.
how is it not an issue? you can defend a base/MCOM forever if you can't be killed, or even spotted to begin with.Well once one person dies, the killcam would pretty much immediately show them, while you also know the direction you got killed from so anyone could piece together where somebody is hiding, especially if they don't lone wolf it.
My favorite tactic was to use other teammates as bait. Go to a hotzone, then wait for someone else to enter. When they got shot I could rush in and destroy the attacker as he reloaded or expected to be unseen, if he got blown up I'd ambush the C4/Claymore planter when he had his pants down and his explosives equipped.
Of course the complete lack of VOIP is almost unnacceptable. So many games emphasize teamwork, while its a blast with friends, you have to rely on the chat and cannot coordinate with strangers, which turns the game into a much bigger series of either following some random group like a bunch of lemmings, sticking with the chat and hoping somebody reads it to try and execute a plan, or just lone wolfing it.
Of course with friends its a blast, some of these tactics I've tried just completely tore the team up thanks to good communication with us. Without the ability to coordinate with non friends and other squad members, its way too easy for vital holes in a defense to be exploited or for a major massive turnover to go unnoticed. DICE really dropped the ball with that, I don't know why they couldn't put it on their priority list in a game where they want to make teamwork the focus and the fact that not everybody has his friends on all the time to play with him.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment