569 replies to this topic

[Dr. Knickers]

First off,


This thread has taken an insanely long amount of time to scroll down to the bottom

Personally, I'm not entirely sure if I prefer Bad Company 2 or 2142. A lot of the effects just make me stop and stare with my mouth open, which is kinda distracting in a firefight. However, this is also in most of the newer games, so this is probably just me being used to older FPS games.

The gunplay is pretty similar too; takes me about half an assault rifle's clip to take down an enemy at average range, assuming I don't miss my target. I never noticed any of the range or hipfire penalties, because I usually try to close the distance and ADS whenever I can. Bullet drop on weapons like assault rifles is definitely new to me, however. Probably just not as noticeable, since most people don't try to snipe with an assault rifle or a pistol. I prefer 2142's class loadouts though; I want my rifle on my medic

Aircraft controls were always lousy with Battlefield games, and BC 2 is no exception. Nothing special here.

The knife delay is pretty nice, and you come to account for it with travel time when you're trying to knife enemies. Thankfully, it is NOT like MW2 where you can just run around at top speed and knife everybody before they can see you.

I actually prefer having this style of a killcam because it allows you to see where the enemy is going and to inform your squad so they can avenge your death. CoD's killcam just made me annoyed because of the lag or because the enemy doesn't even have you in his crosshair, yet killed you anyways.

The team switching thing has been in Battlefield for as long as I remember. I like it that way; the defenders now have to deal with wrecking their own strategies, and it makes the game a lot more interesting. I don't want to be stuck defending one match after another while the enemy team is full.

After playing Insurgency, I've gotten used to bullets and explosions blurring my vision and shifting my aim. Not only is it realistic, but it also discourages people from charging directly at their enemy.

If attackers just stay at their cliff and snipe you, then they're doing it wrong. From what I've seen when I played 2142, the first charge is the most important, because it doesn't allow the defenders to entrench themselves and it lets the attackers gain momentum for their next assaults.

It's all personal preference in the end. I've played Modern Warfare 2 for a bit, and though it was addicting for a short while, I soon turned away from it due to camping, lag, and a general impression of mindlessness from the game. With the Battlefield games, on the other hand, I've had a lot of fun working with my teammates and coordinating a strategy to take control of the different objectives in the games.

And yes, I realize that I just contributed to Long Post Syndrome for this thread

[Kalo]

Also, If you haven't destroyed one objective within the first five minutes you just failed horribly.

Edited by Kalo, 09 February 2010 - 03:11.

[deltaepsilon]

I'm not really one to make long and drawn-out posts (they tend to get a bit too rambling), so I'll get my impressions/opinions across as concisely as possible.

I'll start off by saying I really enjoy the teamwork/co-operation aspect of the game, because it's nice to have a game where you contribute to a single goal or objective rather than just running around the map getting kills. In regards to the gameplay however, e.g movement and gunplay, it does feel slightly muddy (though it might be due to low framerates - not as retarded as Bioshock's aiming). The way you aim and move isn't as snappy as precise as the COD games, e.g ADS deviation, but I guess maybe DICE wanted to even the playing field a little so that the people who can lock on to other player's heads on instinct don't have such a ridiculous advantage. Again, this is probably because they don't want the sole emphasis on it being a shooter where the winners are the one who move quickly and never miss; rather, the team who works together the best.

That focus on teamwork is what sells it to me. I can't say I've ever been particularly terrible at hardcore shooters like COD, but perhaps BC2 seeks to alleviate these aspects that you might experience. It's nice to have a break from it, frankly, it's a bit more relaxing to play a game where you aren't constantly on edge, anticipating some dude sprinting around the map ready to knife/spray you with his MP5.

To summarise, in case my point was lost within that semi-coherent post - DICE didn't make it a hardcore, arcadey shooter like MW2/COD because that's not the type of game they want to make, and they don't want to emphasise those aspects ever. They want it to be a game where you can have a lot of fun driving around vehicles and working with your team on completing objectives and goals. And in that regard, I believe it's quite successful.

Just my 2 cents (or equivalent value that you Europeans/Brits use)

[Wizard]

Tbh tpam has probably summed it up quite well. DICE didn't make it a proper shooter, hence why it's difficult for me and others to get into it. I for one am not saying this game is bad, it's just too different and distracting from what I like/am used to. I will probably try and stick with it a while, I suspect that once you get used to some aspects it probably feels fine, hence why so many people here are defending it and others not. Right now it's just not that much fun.

[Pav:3d]

Whats this not a real/proper shooter crap? Its just not CoD, if you dont understand how battlefield games work, dont play it.

[Wizard]

Read everything Chyros has said about how the aim of the game isn't about being a shooter, but a tactical game.

[Pav:3d]

Its both! Just L2P. This isnt trying to be America's Army or something.

[Chyros]

I think our definitions of "shooter" differ .

For me, a good "shooter" focuses everything on smooth gunplay. Obviously this isn't the case for Battlefield, even you can't deny that, with all the vehicles and physics and all .

[Pav:3d]

Chyros, on 9 Feb 2010, 11:15, said:

I think our definitions of "shooter" differ .

For me, a good "shooter" focuses everything on smooth gunplay. Obviously this isn't the case for Battlefield, even you can't deny that, with all the vehicles and physics and all .

Umm, no. Gunplay is perfectly smooth, just L2P. You will eventually find out roughly when the bullets drop, and how to compensate with shell-shock and other effects. Its a pretty deep game in that sense, its not just about unlocking the best guns and knowing where to camp. I dont see your problem with vehicles either, theyre an asset and can rack up a lot of kills if used properly, but can easily be taken out.

[TheDR]

I love playing this game with friends, we have a laugh. Yeah, it could do with some fixes (but that is the point of a Beta ) so just wait for it to be released.

Rather than saying BF isn't a "Shooter" (I'm sure thats a type of arcade game), it's just a different type of first person shooter. Its clearly not Call of Duty with vehicles and capture points and the battlefield series has never been that. There isn't one other game series that plays like CoD because if it did, it would be considered a CoD rip off these days. Stop looking for CoD in BF because you just won't find it, enjoy BF for what it is, a vehicular and infantry team based FPS with a hint of realism to create atmosphere and pull you into the world they have created. After enjoying BF, go back to CoD to enjoy the arcade twitch shooter, with lots of weapons, running around with rambo style shooting with the fastest finger wins game-style reminiscent of the classic FPS games like counter strike and the unreal series. They both are good games with equally good gameplay but it just depends on how you play them and who you play them with.

[Warbz]

Dr. Knickers, on 9 Feb 2010, 3:00, said:

I actually prefer having this style of a killcam because it allows you to see where the enemy is going and to inform your squad so they can avenge your death. CoD's killcam just made me annoyed because of the lag or because the enemy doesn't even have you in his crosshair, yet killed you anyways.

That's one thing I really hate. People using killcam to tell friends where the enemy is. It's metagaming. It's almost on par with cheating.

[Wizard]

Pav3d, on 9 Feb 2010, 9:17, said:

Just L2P.

Pav3d, on 9 Feb 2010, 13:04, said:

Umm, no. Gunplay is perfectly smooth, just L2P. You will eventually find out roughly when the bullets drop, and how to compensate with shell-shock and other effects.

And if you actually listened to what we've been saying rather than taking a fanboyishly defensive position to some constructive criticism of this game you'd know that, at least I for one, find it far more difficult to learn to play than other fps games due to the above numerously listed reasons. We're not saying CoD is a better game, far from it. If you played with us you'd hear the numerous outbursts at how horrendous the game can be at times. What we've been saying is that BF:BC2 has flaws that we don't like. You like em, fine, but some of us don't. Just because you've been playing it for ages doesn't mean that our points aren't still valid.

[Pav:3d]

Wizard, on 9 Feb 2010, 15:14, said:

Pav3d, on 9 Feb 2010, 9:17, said:

Just L2P.

Pav3d, on 9 Feb 2010, 13:04, said:

Umm, no. Gunplay is perfectly smooth, just L2P. You will eventually find out roughly when the bullets drop, and how to compensate with shell-shock and other effects.

And if you actually listened to what we've been saying rather than taking a fanboyishly defensive position to some constructive criticism of this game you'd know that, at least I for one, find it far more difficult to learn to play than other fps games due to the above numerously listed reasons. We're not saying CoD is a better game, far from it. If you played with us you'd hear the numerous outbursts at how horrendous the game can be at times. What we've been saying is that BF:BC2 has flaws that we don't like. You like em, fine, but some of us don't. Just because you've been playing it for ages doesn't mean that our points aren't still valid.

Im responding in a fanboyishly defensive way (as you put it, even though I have and used to enjoy MW2) like that since you and Chyros (and especially Chyros) reply in such a matter-of-fact, holier-than-thou way as though people who enjoy BC2 have no idea what makes a good FPS. I have listened and read your replies and thats how im replying to it. You are essentially saying "its a flawed game due to these features" and Im saying "its a good game because of these features".

[Wizard]

Which is where the difference of opinions is, clearly. Since the start of this 'argument' I have only ever said, these are the things that stop me from enjoying this game the way I want to. If I've responded to anything mater of factly it's due that is my opinion and experience so far. I just can't get into the game as I want to because of these factors. Some of the criticisms/experiences are quite major from where I am sitting, especially the physics as it literally makes my brain ache trying to get round them. I don't consider them to be horrendous for anyone else. Clearly people here like em. They just don't do it for me, or at least, don't yet anyway. I've bought the damn thing and I suspect I'll be lumbered with getting used to it when it comes out, I just hope that in that time I 'get used' to all this stuff, which, sadly I just wish I didn't have to. It'd be a good game without em as well.

[Chyros]

TheDR, on 9 Feb 2010, 16:19, said:

I love playing this game with friends, we have a laugh. Yeah, it could do with some fixes (but that is the point of a Beta ) so just wait for it to be released.

Rather than saying BF isn't a "Shooter" (I'm sure thats a type of arcade game), it's just a different type of first person shooter. Its clearly not Call of Duty with vehicles and capture points and the battlefield series has never been that. There isn't one other game series that plays like CoD because if it did, it would be considered a CoD rip off these days. Stop looking for CoD in BF because you just won't find it, enjoy BF for what it is, a vehicular and infantry team based FPS with a hint of realism to create atmosphere and pull you into the world they have created. After enjoying BF, go back to CoD to enjoy the arcade twitch shooter, with lots of weapons, running around with rambo style shooting with the fastest finger wins game-style reminiscent of the classic FPS games like counter strike and the unreal series. They both are good games with equally good gameplay but it just depends on how you play them and who you play them with.

Well that's exactly what I've been saying, it's a good game, but I just don't like the shooter side of it much. It definitely has its strong points but clearly not in the gunplay IMO.

Pav3d, on 9 Feb 2010, 17:28, said:

Wizard, on 9 Feb 2010, 15:14, said:

Pav3d, on 9 Feb 2010, 9:17, said:

Just L2P.

Pav3d, on 9 Feb 2010, 13:04, said:

Umm, no. Gunplay is perfectly smooth, just L2P. You will eventually find out roughly when the bullets drop, and how to compensate with shell-shock and other effects.

And if you actually listened to what we've been saying rather than taking a fanboyishly defensive position to some constructive criticism of this game you'd know that, at least I for one, find it far more difficult to learn to play than other fps games due to the above numerously listed reasons. We're not saying CoD is a better game, far from it. If you played with us you'd hear the numerous outbursts at how horrendous the game can be at times. What we've been saying is that BF:BC2 has flaws that we don't like. You like em, fine, but some of us don't. Just because you've been playing it for ages doesn't mean that our points aren't still valid.

Im responding in a fanboyishly defensive way (as you put it, even though I have and used to enjoy MW2) like that since you and Chyros (and especially Chyros) reply in such a matter-of-fact, holier-than-thou way as though people who enjoy BC2 have no idea what makes a good FPS. I have listened and read your replies and thats how im replying to it. You are essentially saying "its a flawed game due to these features" and Im saying "its a good game because of these features".

How is that, I've used the phrase "in my opinion" over one hundred million billion times (well at least more than is probably healthy for a normal person) and all I've said is that the game mechanics focus way too much on realism for me to enjoy it as a shooter, because these elements unnecessarily interfere with the gunplay IMO. How is that saying I'm holier than you at all?

[Pav:3d]

Chyros, on 9 Feb 2010, 16:10, said:

TheDR, on 9 Feb 2010, 16:19, said:

I love playing this game with friends, we have a laugh. Yeah, it could do with some fixes (but that is the point of a Beta ) so just wait for it to be released.

Rather than saying BF isn't a "Shooter" (I'm sure thats a type of arcade game), it's just a different type of first person shooter. Its clearly not Call of Duty with vehicles and capture points and the battlefield series has never been that. There isn't one other game series that plays like CoD because if it did, it would be considered a CoD rip off these days. Stop looking for CoD in BF because you just won't find it, enjoy BF for what it is, a vehicular and infantry team based FPS with a hint of realism to create atmosphere and pull you into the world they have created. After enjoying BF, go back to CoD to enjoy the arcade twitch shooter, with lots of weapons, running around with rambo style shooting with the fastest finger wins game-style reminiscent of the classic FPS games like counter strike and the unreal series. They both are good games with equally good gameplay but it just depends on how you play them and who you play them with.

Well that's exactly what I've been saying, it's a good game, but I just don't like the shooter side of it much. It definitely has its strong points but clearly not in the gunplay IMO.

Pav3d, on 9 Feb 2010, 17:28, said:

Wizard, on 9 Feb 2010, 15:14, said:

Pav3d, on 9 Feb 2010, 9:17, said:

Just L2P.

Pav3d, on 9 Feb 2010, 13:04, said:

Umm, no. Gunplay is perfectly smooth, just L2P. You will eventually find out roughly when the bullets drop, and how to compensate with shell-shock and other effects.

And if you actually listened to what we've been saying rather than taking a fanboyishly defensive position to some constructive criticism of this game you'd know that, at least I for one, find it far more difficult to learn to play than other fps games due to the above numerously listed reasons. We're not saying CoD is a better game, far from it. If you played with us you'd hear the numerous outbursts at how horrendous the game can be at times. What we've been saying is that BF:BC2 has flaws that we don't like. You like em, fine, but some of us don't. Just because you've been playing it for ages doesn't mean that our points aren't still valid.

Im responding in a fanboyishly defensive way (as you put it, even though I have and used to enjoy MW2) like that since you and Chyros (and especially Chyros) reply in such a matter-of-fact, holier-than-thou way as though people who enjoy BC2 have no idea what makes a good FPS. I have listened and read your replies and thats how im replying to it. You are essentially saying "its a flawed game due to these features" and Im saying "its a good game because of these features".

How is that, I've used the phrase "in my opinion" over one hundred million billion times (well at least more than is probably healthy for a normal person) and all I've said is that the game mechanics focus way too much on realism for me to enjoy it as a shooter, because these elements unnecessarily interfere with the gunplay IMO. How is that saying I'm holier than you at all?

You generally come across like that in your posts in this thread, particularly during the reload animation discussion, and I am not the only one to have found this

Kalo, on 23 Jan 2010, 19:28, said:

Stop making it seem as if I don't know what I like Chryos, or that I think things look good when they're not (which I assume was the point of the MP5 post).

[TheDR]

Chyros, on 9 Feb 2010, 16:10, said:

TheDR, on 9 Feb 2010, 16:19, said:

I love playing this game with friends, we have a laugh. Yeah, it could do with some fixes (but that is the point of a Beta ) so just wait for it to be released.

Rather than saying BF isn't a "Shooter" (I'm sure thats a type of arcade game), it's just a different type of first person shooter. Its clearly not Call of Duty with vehicles and capture points and the battlefield series has never been that. There isn't one other game series that plays like CoD because if it did, it would be considered a CoD rip off these days. Stop looking for CoD in BF because you just won't find it, enjoy BF for what it is, a vehicular and infantry team based FPS with a hint of realism to create atmosphere and pull you into the world they have created. After enjoying BF, go back to CoD to enjoy the arcade twitch shooter, with lots of weapons, running around with rambo style shooting with the fastest finger wins game-style reminiscent of the classic FPS games like counter strike and the unreal series. They both are good games with equally good gameplay but it just depends on how you play them and who you play them with.

Well that's exactly what I've been saying, it's a good game, but I just don't like the shooter side of it much. It definitely has its strong points but clearly not in the gunplay IMO.

Btw my post was aimed at both parties. I think that we are all jumping the gun a bit (pardon the pun ), Chyros likes FPS that play in the classic style rather than the Battlefield games which substitute the classic twitch shooter gameplay for some immersion and team based tactics. He isn't saying its a crap game, it's just not to his FPS tastes.

[Stalker]

Yeah, there are lots of different opinions on what a good shooter is.

Personally I have never seen better gunplay than in CoD. (Well, because Its the only game I'm really good at xD) Also the movement is very smooth.

On the other hand Battlefield's teamplay is far superior compared to CoD's (especially MW2)
Battlefield's Squad-based gameplay is something I haven't seen beaten by any other multiplayer shooter. You play together as team, where every class is needed and fun to play

Also Counterstrike, although it has awful bullet-physics (none), terrible collision detection and extremely repeating gameplay, is awesome and a Battlefield Rush or CoD SnD game will probably never replace a classic CS-de game.

I've played and loved all of these games, and each have its highs and lows.

In Theory a Team-oriented game with large maps and CoDish gunplay sounds awesome (to me), but I'm not sure if it would work.


And Multiplayer Betas/Demos tend to be very difficult for noobs because there is hardly any information.

BTW: What does the Recon class's strange grenade-thing do?

[Pav:3d]

Stalker, on 9 Feb 2010, 16:49, said:

BTW: What does the Recon class's strange grenade-thing do?

Mini-UAV, pretty damn useful when someones just armed one of your m-coms

[TheDR]

It's so much easier to just explode the M-Coms with some C4 instead of activating them. You do need the extra C4 upgrade and a Shotgun for an assault class though. You could use a Recon class and use the C4 but the ammo pouch can be quite useful for a refill.

[Kalo]

Pav3d, on 9 Feb 2010, 9:11, said:

Whats this not a real/proper shooter crap? Its just not CoD, if you dont understand how battlefield games work, dont play it.

Because I believe to them a "proper shooter" is this : No real focus on anything but getting kills and talking about how cool it was. Or at least that's how CoD played out with me and my clan buddies. If this is what a real shooter is I don't want to play another "shooter". Now I can understand why Wiz/Chyros likes CoD, it's extremely easy and it can be fun. Although I really disliked the gameplay as compared to the first one.

[Wizard]

Yeah that's exactly what this whole thing is about way to play the gaming elitist.

[BeefJeRKy]

To all here who've played BF2 and 2142, how different does it feel?
the beta is too big for me to download, so i'll likely just wait for the finished product.

[Kalo]

Wizard, on 9 Feb 2010, 21:14, said:

Yeah that's exactly what this whole thing is about way to play the gaming elitist.

If you think that's elitist there's something wrong here. It's just my observation. Because you're saying this isn't a shooter and CoD is. And that's what CoD is (But if you get into competition there is if course lots of teamplay )

JRK, on 9 Feb 2010, 21:59, said:

To all here who've played BF2 and 2142, how different does it feel?
the beta is too big for me to download, so i'll likely just wait for the finished product.

It feels like a Battlefield game. The Maps are structured very much like 2142s (Or atleast Valdez is, but you can check ultimateprestige and see similarities.) and are intense as all get out. Offers that wonderful Battlefield experience. In fact I just got done playing with 3 of my clanners and we won at least 60% of our matches. But I really do miss the "flexibility" of the soldiers. AKA being able to prone and jump without the game getting upset about it. And I miss Rapeicle/Vehicles.

Edited by Kalo, 10 February 2010 - 02:15.

[Wizard]

I think what we mean is, is that the fundamentals of the game aren't point and shoot. There is more to the game than just that. It's far more tactics based.

Anyway, I am beginning to see the appeal more, although I still f*@king hate the fact that you still don't always hit something you aim at in either ADS or from the hip and I've been killed by RPGs soo many times now.... It is growing on me, but still very slowly. Joining a server with a squad that thinks to stick together is better than winning the lottery atm.