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

[repi]

A lot of good discussions here, the game & franchise is very wide & dynamic so everyone has their own opinion of "what is the best". Which is why you are getting multiple games

I do not personally work on the BFBC2 or BF1943 teams but I do know the devteams read a lot of forums for comments on the material & information that was just released, so keep it coming.

There are quite a few more previews & videos from various sites as well, see PlanetBattlefield

 

[Tap In]

needs translation

a few new? pics here


new destructibility model?

 

[Cornsnake]

Here are a few key points from that interview.

There are going to be on-rails shooting section in the SP.
They are trying to make the environments a lot more varied this time around.
There is a new focus on squads for online play.
You can rank up as a squad. (no details on how that works)
And you can finally create clans.
The weapons are going to be more realistic.

 

[Tap In]

thanks cornsnake

 

[deathindustrial]

Here are a few key points from that interview.

There are going to be on-rails shooting section in the SP.
[snip]
The weapons are going to be more realistic.

I hope they don't over do it with the on rails sections, I for one thought that BF:BC was just about perfect as is and I like having plenty of free roaming options. Realistic weapons do not necessarily mean fun weapons so again, I hope they do not go too far that way.

Cheers

 

[obonicus]

The weapons are going to be more realistic.

What does this mean? Quicker kills? More real-life modelling? I hope realism doesn't become 'you can't hit anything with an MG'.

 

[Cornsnake]

I hope they don't over do it with the on rails sections, I for one thought that BF:BC was just about perfect as is and I like having plenty of free roaming options. Realistic weapons do not necessarily mean fun weapons so again, I hope they do not go too far that way.

Cheers

According to the interview, they still haven't decided how many on rails sections there are going to be. They say it allows them to do things that won't be possible otherwise, and make for some dramatic scenes. And that taking away some freedom momentarily would make you appreciate it more when you get it back.

All they say about the weapons is that they should respond closer to how they would respond in real life. And there should more diversity the arsenal.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

What does this mean? Quicker kills? More real-life modelling? I hope realism doesn't become 'you can't hit anything with an MG'.

Hopefully it will mean that the guns accuracy is somewhat reflected upon realism, not the BS setup that was in BFBC where your assault rifles couldn't accurately hit a building from 100metres.

 

[Spaceman-Spiff]

Apparently the Frostbite engine is going to support DX11 too: http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6...y-ported/News/

 

[Tap In]

Hopefully it will mean that the guns accuracy is somewhat reflected upon realism, not the BS setup that was in BFBC where your assault rifles couldn't accurately hit a building from 100metres.

If you kneeled when firing you could get plenty of quick, on target kills with the assault rifle. Although many shots still missed, they were barely missing.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

If you kneeled when firing you could get plenty of quick, on target kills with the assault rifle. Although many shots still missed, they were barely missing.

The inaccuracy of the guns in BCBF is what turned me away from it. I could have ironsight\crosshair pointing directly at some guys head, and my shots kepts on missing (even stationary targets - so not lag).

I shouldn't have to kneel down in order to fire a single shoot accurately if i aim. Its not like theese games take into account bullet projectory ballistics or anything like that, if i aim at someones head, bullet should hit.

The fact that not even the sniper rifles where accurate just ruined the whole thing even more.

 

[Acert93]

The game demands 4 player coop!!

If you kneeled when firing you could get plenty of quick, on target kills with the assault rifle. Although many shots still missed, they were barely missing.

Yeah, but the concept of slowing down and kneeling is far too PC The dynamic of more stabiliy = better shots should be a no brainer and encouraged in this series, as it formerly was.

 

[Tap In]

I never had a problem with it... see an enemy, drop to a knee with one button (there was the delay while you raised your rifle while running anyway) and start firing, You also made yourself a smaller target in the process... win win... most people IRL will say that you are more accurate kneeling anyway so it is fairly realistic IMO

 

[Cheezdoodles]

I never had a problem with it... see an enemy, drop to a knee with one button (there was the delay while you raised your rifle while running anyway) and start firing, You also made yourself a smaller target in the process... win win...

Its far from win win, kneeling = stationary target. Which means easy to kill. Doesn't matter if you make yourself a smaller target, the fact that your stationary makes it much more riskier (ofcourse, due to the fact that nobody is accurate at all when standing -> it might be a win - win in this particular game)

most people IRL will say that you are more accurate kneeling anyway so it is fairly realistic IMO

While i agree that kneeling might give you (the person) better accuracy, the weapon accuracy is not impacted by your stance. The weapon is just as accurate regardless of how you stand - of course you (the person) might have a harder time aiming in some stances than others (aspecially if you have a fullyautomatic gun), however as long as i aim correctly (in a game this means ironsight or crosshair pointing at wherever i want to hit) i should hit, regardless of stance. Recoil might impact the following shots, but not the first one.

My problem with BFBC is simply that even if your aiming correctly, bullets will miss because of some invisible accuracy reticle in game. Which is total bs. I could understand if they had bullet ballistics implemented that a bullet fired would not hit where my ironsights point because of gravity, but since there is no such thing in this game, bullets should freaking hit where my ironsights point.

End result is that player skill has less impact on the outcome of the game, while randomness plays a bigger part. This is rather annoying for players that are semi-good (like me).

 

[NRP]

Yeah, all this talk of BF:BC's weapons being adequate is perplexing to me. In my experience, they just aren't accurate enough, regardless of whether you're crouching or not. Far too many times have I shot first yet couldn't kill an enemy either before he escaped or turned and killed me. Didn't matter whether or not I was crouched. It's totally lame an unacceptable for a shooter in my opinion. That is why I wish the weapons behaved more like COD4, where if you had position/advantage and shot first you could almost always get the kill regardless of the weapon you chose to carry.

In BF:BC, I felt like all shooting accomplished was getting the enemy's attention, which then devolved into a random spray fest. And since BF:BC's vehicles are totally gimped, there is nothing left in this game that feels like a Battlefield game to me.

 

[Tap In]

oh I agree that I welcome some improvement in that area!

It's just that it did not hamper me from enjoying the game once decided to stick with it and found a strategy that worked. At first I thought it was ridiculous but enjoyed everything else so well.

 

[obonicus]

More accuracy is fine, but when I think of 'realism', I think to people talking about Counterstrike ten years ago, where realism meant 'terrible accuracy', so let's see how this works.

Yeah, all this talk of BF:BC's weapons being adequate is perplexing to me. In my experience, they just aren't accurate enough, regardless of whether you're crouching or not. Far too many times have I shot first yet couldn't kill an enemy either before he escaped or turned and killed me. Didn't matter whether or not I was crouched. It's totally lame an unacceptable for a shooter in my opinion. That is why I wish the weapons behaved more like COD4, where if you had position/advantage and shot first you could almost always get the kill regardless of the weapon you chose to carry.

I disagree, actually. There are guns that will score kills from different ranges -- if all guns were guaranteed kills at close range, for instance, there'd be no place for the SMGs or the shotguns. I agree that headshots were somewhat discouraged by the random accuracy, and that could be annoying -- it made guns with more steady fire like the SMGs or even the M16 more valuable at range. The assault rifles were middle-grounds for mixed close/long range. In general, it's not something I mind terribly -- a respawn timer combined with a lack of healing and points given for assists made the system work somewhat. And helped mitigate the BF 'spawn into an explosion' syndrome somewhat by not making gunfire as lethal. And letting you turn the tables if your opponent picked the wrong gun for a confrontation, or just can't handle the recoil. And hey, at least the close combat is slightly better than the mess that was BF2's hitboxes.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

I disagree, actually. There are guns that will score kills from different ranges -- if all guns were guaranteed kills at close range, for instance, there'd be no place for the SMGs or the shotguns.

Not true. SMG's would simply have superior recoil.


Making guns inaccurate on perpus (for no apparent reason - its certainly not realism) is just stupid. It just adds randomness and makes player skill a less decicive factor

 

[obonicus]

Not true. SMG's would simply have superior recoil.

Sure, but there's diminishing returns. The advantage of the SMGs is that you can fire them off the hip with full accuracy(which is just as well, as the iron-sights are useless). But if you can score a guaranteed kill with an assault rifle, the SMG's added accuracy is mostly wasted.

Making guns inaccurate on perpus (for no apparent reason - its certainly not realism) is just stupid. It just adds randomness and makes player skill a less decicive factor

Sure, but at the deepest level that's true of all games short of Quake/UT. CS certainly is the biggest offender when it comes to random recoil and still it's a far more skill-based game than almost every console game.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Sure, but there's diminishing returns. The advantage of the SMGs is that you can fire them off the hip with full accuracy(which is just as well, as the iron-sights are useless). But if you can score a guaranteed kill with an assault rifle, the SMG's added accuracy is mostly wasted.

The lower recoil on the SMG gives it an advantage in terms of how accurate you can fire in full auto. Even thought your assault rifle might be more accurate, once you fire that first shot, you have to deal with significantly more recoil.

Sure, but at the deepest level that's true of all games short of Quake/UT. CS certainly is the biggest offender when it comes to random recoil and still it's a far more skill-based game than almost every console game.

I have heard this statement a lot of times, that CS is supposed to be more skill based than blah blah blah. This is simply not true. There is nothing special about CS, and in no circumstance does it require more "skill" than your average fps.

I have yet to heard a single good argument as to why CS supposedly requires more skill than say, CoD4.

Games that are significantly more skill based than your average fps games, are very fast paced games that allow very high sensitivity, for example Q3:A\UT. elite Q3:A players would destroy elite CS players 1vs1 simply because they have learned to aim accurately at much higher paces than CS offers (given that the Q3:A players get enough time to learn maps etc in cs)