[360, PS3] BF:BC2 and BF 1943 online

It is palpably obvious that an Infantry unit is going to struggle against a vehicle. This is the entire point of Battlefield and DICE has in the past has no qualms expressing such: the game is ruled by the Circle of Death.

Scout < Infantry < APC < Tank < Bomber < Fighter < AA Gun < Scout ... etc

So while you see it as overthinking (heh) I see it as realizing, "Wait, this isn't a simpleton shooter that just being 'good' is enough but I also need to be smart and change my strategy as the game progresses."

So yeah, if you want to just play infantry and are set on playing that role at every flag and in every game, yes, your game experience will be limited. But that is no different than any other game. If I only want to play with the AR in Halo 3 I am gonna get toasted in the majority of ranges.

As for dominating in BF games, outside of balance issues the games always offered a counter. If a couple helos are crushing your team it is a good sign a) you should get in an AA defensive role and b) if you cannot take them down you best STOP playing infantry run-and-gun all the time and master the other parts of the game. I know in 42 and DC people whined a lot about air craft but I never felt when I was on the flip side they were a problem: get on a turret, get in AA gun, pick up a stinger or RPG, take a machine gun in some cover & go prone and light it up, so on and so forth.

Yes, this requires some thought and learning how to use a lot of weapons well, but that is why the game is different and has its appeal. It isn't about who is great with that one gun and masters every spawn point and memorizes the map.

The BF games really don't need to expand their market in the traditional sense (e.g. 42 sold 4M copies). What they run the risk of is dumbing down the experience and alientating the fans (even if you are idiots who artificially enjoy what isn't there) while trying to take a piece out of the Halo/CoD pie and find themselves just another ran in a competitive sub-genre of titles.

If DICE is betting on appealing to gamers who look at the franchise like, "Game will still suck though, its Battlefield" then they should be ready to have another horrible 4th Q at EA. The dumbing down/milking of franchises is exactly what has killed a number of their properties. A strong, active core goes a long way. Just as Halo isn't everyone's cup of tea, neither is BF. And while Halo needs to progress and mature it can do so while remaining compelling. The same for BF.

As it stands there is nothing wrong with concept behind Circle of Death, Classes, Squads, Conquest/Objective driven scenarios, Teamplay, mixed vehicular/infantry combat, and so forth. The moved to modern combat, imo, obscured some of the stronger dynamics of the franchise as it became faster (less strategy) and the overall increase in power of all weapons was akin to making gun in Halo more effect at more ranges, obscuring the importance of various roles. The idea of returning to the core 1942 design elements with a new engine should have been exciting for the majority of the 4M people who bought the title. The fact they are making it a run-and-gun title to appease the sterotypical console gamer seems like a good way to make BF into Need for Speed.

 

Except a good helicopter pilot could still dominate, AA was hardly that that great against a good pilot. I think we'll just have to disagree on this one. I really do hate the series, but maybe its more out of resentment than anything.

 

I stopped playing 2142 before really knowing the game well, but there you had man-held AA, which I felt was a HUGE leap forward, but was it effective at all?. In BF2 the first thing a skilled helicopter pilot would do, especially if they saw the AA lock-on warning, was blow up the AA emplacement the make sure no one else got near it. Hell, AA was a source of free kills. AA tanks seemed rare enough that they hardly made any impact -- the only thing that seemed to bother helicopters were good fighter pilots.

I agree that these are changes for the better; maybe they make BF more like 'other games', but I think they'll help balance out some of the deficiencies and make PUG play much more tolerable. Unlike you I enjoyed BF, but I always thought it was a less technical RTCW, balanced disproportionately towards vehicles.

 

You mean balanced disproportionally towards *air* vehicles. Skrying is right. Aircraft dominated BF2. There really was no effective counter other than another aircraft.

Anyway, all this Battlefield talk got me all fired up so I started to play some BF:BC, and I was immediately reminded how terrible DICE's gunplay is. Just like BF2, the weapons are weak and innaccurate to the point of being ineffective. They just don't seem to be willing or able to get the guns right. COD4 really set an expectation level here that other devs should follow. It's not just the guns either, it's the entire "sluggish" control scheme (talking console version here). I think this is why I prefer BF games on the PC - it's harder for DICE to screw up mouse/kb controls. It's the area where the console versions of BF need a lot of work.

Now my anticipation for these new BF games is diminished somewhat. I swear, Frontlines: Fuel of War does just about everything better than BF: BC other than graphics. It's too bad that the game wasn't more popular.

 

the gun play in BF;BC took some time to get used to but once I got accustomed to the "weight" and momentum of the character it clicked. It also helps immensely to always fire while crouched as just as in real life, you are more accurate.

Now the number of shots fired required to dwon an enemy is exagerrated perhaps but that keeps the gameplay from being a spawn die, respawn fest that some CoD matches end up being plus at a close distance you get very quick kills where s distance kills require more due to missing the target.

So while I amost gavve u on BF:BC (coming form Halo 3 CoD4) I found, and still find the guns to be very rewarding.

Now it still is a little faster pace game play than I prefer and it desparately bneeds new maps and game modes.

 

The respawn fest in CoD4 is due to the nature of the game types generally played and the map structures. Generally very powerful weapons (read: realistic) can also act as a mechanic to slow the game down. In Counter-Strike with like skilled players it is a game of awareness and respect for the power. You must take your time, think ahead, and then act. In CoD4 it was simply more effective to constantly run due to the most popular game types rewarding this mindless play.

To suggest that the Battlefield games (I never played BC, have played all the others and expansions) were anything more than mad dashes to the vehicles is a bit insane to me. A skilled pilot could defend any position and be offensively aggressive, this was simply more obvious with the helicopter in BF2 since it could capture points better then anything as well. The series has never been close to balanced in any form.

 

I honestly never had the issues you express. Maybe it is because I am a pretty good pilot and if I was unble to muster teamwork or a decent anti-air weapon (heck, even RPGs work, especially against a capping helo!!!) I would just get in a bomber or fighter and take them out. Heck, even a tank can do the job if necessary Actually, a tank can be the prefered method if you handle it well enough and are *aware* of the general battle situation.

Alas no game is realistic and all of them fall back on some exploitive mechanic or pander to a skill or are a general spamfest that is unrewarding. The thing with BF is there is no one right way and it is up to the gamer to determine how to win--and winning isn't always about killing. I have had my fair share of matches where I was willing to die repeatedly to hold flags and use tactics other than what is common. But unless someone was just plain better across the board there is always some sort of recourse for any vehicle (the helos are flying coffins if you can remotely fly a jet), it is a matter of can you recognize it soon enough and find a winning strategy.

There are always better skilled players, but unlike a Halo or CoD where there is only a few ways to play sucessfully and you either have the skills required or not BF allows more problem solving in a team setting. Of course if you cannot muster a small squad and are on a crappy team you are going to lose... but that is no different from any other game.

Btw, the newbifying of 1943 is exactly along the lines of your complaint, which seems ironic to me.

In 1942 the Circle of Death was FAR more important. Each weapon had a purpose and role, and in that role it dominated. But each had a counter and was less than effective outside its role. BF2, for the worse IMO, has too much "power" where if a Halo pilot is giving me a problem I can snipe him with a heavy sniper, RPG him, flank with an APC, flank with a Tank, wear him down with small arms fire (esp. gunner positions), TOW, get in a fighter, get in a bomber, get in another helo, use an AA weapon, on and on and on. Better yet, do a combination of such with your squad mates and a good helo pilot will find his life difficult unless he has an equally dedicted team to keep him in the air.

1942 was more direct/clear. If I was an APC was going to fall back when I encountered a tank--unless we planned ahead and had a couple Bazooka class players or had reliable Arty / Bombers to protect us. A jeep, APC, AA, infantry, etc had no real hope outsde of very dedicated teamwork (e.g. a lot of nades under a tank could disable it--but that was hard to do if the tank had a gunner as well). You had options (as well as counter measures like sneaking past to one of their bases or hiding in buildings) but it didn't matter how good you were with shooting if you were unable to switch up your tactic to obtain the ultimate goal of holding more flags.

Hence people who were not always the best Quake players could do quite well and some great CoD players just plain sucked.

 

There was no Circle of Death. I'm sorry but a helicopter in BF2 was utterly dominate. Josh, I knew helicopter pilots who solo could take out many jets. That's insane!

As for 1942, a few dominate airplane pilots were all you needed. The game was simply not that deep. Which is really not my complaint with it, I'm just stating what is apparent fact to me. Removing that layer and making the game more direct (large scale battle) would simply make it more fun and potentially provide lesser players an ability to stay alive and extend there fun, while allowing the skilled players to continue and do what they do best.

The best players learn the exploits, not have the best aim. That's my entire point, a good player can quickly learn what repetitive task always wins (vehicles in the BF series) and never do anything else.

 

I think it applied to tanks too, on levels without helicopters. The 'repair aura' engineers could have while inside vehicles in BF2 was a singularly bad idea

 

Yeah, I guess tanks and APCs could be a problem at times, but there were also some pretty effective ways to take them out (AT mines, shoulder-fired rockets, C4, stationary rockets, aircraft, and of course other tanks/APCs). Aircraft on the other hand didn't have nearly that many counters.

Besides, DICE has already "fixed" the tank/APC problem in BF:BC - by making them impossibly difficult to control and maneouver. Add to this the fact two separate classes can call in artillery strikes and laser guided bombs means that armor isn't really a problem anymore. Helicopters on the other hand . . . .

 

That sucks they are going to 1943, that time is so played out it's just boring imho.

Bad Company 2 though is GREAT! It really kills COD and I have no doubt will be the best war game in 2009.

 

BC looks great as it is now so it wouldn't matter at all. I would be surprised if COD6 even looks as good as BC1.

 

If COD4 had vehicles and larger maps, no one would even care about the Battlefield games. My opinion, of course.

Speaking of BF:BC, I think the game plays smoother and with fewer graphical anomolies if you install it to the hard drive rather than running it off disk (360 version). It takes about 5.9 GB.

 

The only thing I didn't like about BC was the high availability of vehicles for such a low number of players. I still prefer the focus on infantry over vehicles. Just personal preference.

I still think BC had the best sound effects for weaponry over any game I've played before or since.

 

And why wouldn't anyone care?

If they made larger maps people wouldn't probably like it as much.COD is all about the small maps that is imo why people like it because you constantly get SIMPLE kills by just running in circles shooting people in the back.

 

Because for the gameplay that is common to both (i.e. Infantry combat), COD simply does it better.

 

Very very lame. Health management has always been an important part of the game and a great way to rack up experience as the medic

Goddamn DICE if they change so much of the fundamentals in Battlefield 3, and it better be PC only too! I don't want my BF being limited by such wimpy consoles!

As for how BF holds up against other games, I do think it's the deepest at it's core simply because it involves true teamwork to obtain the goal. I honestly can't think of another game where it's so utterly unpredictable much like real war itself. As for balance, yes there are some issues with BF2, but nothing game breaking in my opinion, as the team as a whole is responsible for relaying info to one another and acting accordingly. As for "exploits", isn't the nature of war and battle to find the weaknesses and exploit them whether that weakness is less experience, a weapon with less hitting power, range, or weaker optics, or just the unpredictable situation where you face a half dozen enemies as you pass around the corner? This is present in all competitive games, and I think BF2 does a good job of letting the player figure it out themselves instead of letting pure firepower always doing the job, including team work. It's amazing how your team in BF2 can win a match while holding a single control point, simply because your opposing team expended their tickets just trying to take you out. It's very much like real combat (makes me think of the Battle of the Alamo - 'cept they loss in the end) and this adds an element of like I said - team work and heavy collective intelligence as well as skill, which is in a way a reflection of intelligence thanks to training. BF2 is simply a more complicated conflict than what other FPS offer, therefore making it to many players, more satisfying and rewarding in the end, it's not a simple kill fest all the time. Think of it like Lock On Modern Air Combat in comparison to Ace Combat.

 

I don't agree.

I find BC combat better and has more options to go about killing.The destruction also puts it way ahead imho.

 

But that's a ridiculous claim. If RTCW had modern weapons weapons, vehicles and larger maps, no one would care about CoD. Vehicles and larger maps are exactly what make Battlefield Battlefield.

For that matter, I don't think CoD is the gold standard. RTCW or even CS (which I hate) offered much more technical gameplay. And I'm not even going into the really technical shooters, like UT* or the Quakes.

 

I actually agree, but that's Battlefield. Infantry are the things that get killed by vehicles. Anything else and you'd have a different game.