BF3 sucks

[The Ghost808]

yup

[TEKNIC]

All these are from BC2 but its the same engine so they will most likely be present in BF3

Pretty ******g far from being the same engine.

And as far as gameplay, expect it to be alot closer to BF2 than a BC title.

[The Ghost808]

Not really the core engine is still the same just the amount of fancy things it can do.

And BC2 is pretty much as close to BF2 as you can get without outright remaking BF2.

I really want BF3 to be a good game but the more I play through all the unfixed(and reported mind you) BS of BC2 i get worried about whether DICE will get lazy after a month or 2 and stop fixing glitches and balancing out things.

And I still stand by taking out destruction on consoles or toning it way down to add 8 more people so the Assault class doesn't feel so pointless.

[TEKNIC]

And BC2 is pretty much as close to BF2 as you can get without outright remaking BF2.

I'm not quite understanding this statement. BC2 is absolutely nothing like BF2. Even one of the executive producers said something along those lines. Edit: found it Series associate producer Barrie Tingle has said, “Battlefield Bad Company 2 is NOT a sequel to Battlefield 2 or 2142; it is a sequel to Battlefield Bad Company and as such the list of features matches that of the original game and not that of past Battlefield games.”

And as far as the engine being the same, they've been developing a brand new DX11 engine optimized for 64-bit. Unless you're talking about a console version. Consoles only do DX9, so its possible they would reuse BC2 for it.

[The Ghost808]

Explain to me what about the Bc2 gameplay is different from bf2, aside from destruction which is in bf3? I only play conquest in BC2 and its exactly the same as BF2 except the maps suck. And yes Im talking about the console version not gonna invest in a new pc to play a game that might have some glaring issues.

Ive played bf2 for around 3 years everyday and still play sometimes with my friends but I fail to see exactly how its so much different from BC2. BC1 yea but not 2.

[TEKNIC]

No commander and tiny maps are the biggest issue. And you're obviously not gonna find 32v32 battles on BC2, which was BF2's bread and butter. Really without these things, it's not the same game.
I won't use dedicated servers as an argument as it seems that no game in the world will ever use them again.

[The Ghost808]

BC2 has dedicated servers and yes those things wont be on the consoles but Im only talking about consoles here. But those things really dont impact the gameplay all that much. Yes more players is always better but in the end conquest on bc2 plays exactly the same as bf2.

And commander mode was godawful boring anyways.

I really do want Bf3 and barring some extreme crap in the beta Ill buy it day one but I have to play devils advocate here since every hyped game since mw2 has fallen flat for me. Most recent being Brink and Homefront.

[BoyEngland]

I agree with you on the air vehicles and melee but nothing else. Bad Company 2 was and still is a great game but as already said, Battlefield 3 isn't meant to reflect the Bad Company games it's not fair to compare them before the game is even out.

[Jimdalf]

I think it is fair enough to make assumptions based on the past form of the developer... isn't pretty much everybody saying MW3 will be ****e, many basing their argument on their intense dislike of Black Ops? It is made by another developer, but that seems to work for them. BF3 is essentially replacing BC.

Talking about an anti-aircraft weapon... I would like to see a change in BF's class system. Have assault, engineer and support classes, then 3 special classes, with only one player allowed to play as each of them. Sniper, anti-aircraft and enhanced anti-tank, with a more sophisticated, vehicle lock-on only weapon. Cut down on the damned snipers anyway.

I think the fear that there won't initially be sufficient server quality is a genuine one. And this being EA, these servers will be retired. Some of their games have been neutered while still in their infancy- LOTR Conquest lost its online ability pretty soon after launch. I tell a lie- it lost its online soon after launch. It never actually had anything you could even misapply the word "ability" to.

[Irish Kin]

Putting my responses in bold

All these are from BC2 but its the same engine so they will most likely be present in BF3

1. Hit detection - its abysmal. You can be inside someone and shotgun them and never hit them once. Takes 2-3 stabs sometimes to kill someone
I would agree here, unless me and Moo are in a helicopter, in which case the other team usually doesn't get out of their spawn.

2. Being hit by bullets - Game doesnt tell you your being hit until 2-3 shots have already hit you. So basically you die in one shot by the time the game alerts you.
This sort of goes into one of my biggest complaints between beta and launch. You took more shots in the beta which meant it took more skill to be good. In the retail version I felt like I died way too fast.

3. Servers- Im in the US my friends and in the US I want to play in the US.
Lag was another major issue I had with BC2

4. Servers #2 - There will be too few at launch and too many several months later leading for half full games.
I imagine EA will put up a lot of servers, but it still won't be enough. BF3 has way too much hype around it

Some things in BF3

5. Auto M16a4- It cant do auto IRL lazy developing if that is their idea of balancing it.
Auto M16 won't bother me as long as it isn't as accurate (if it is...smh). M16 excels at mid-long range, make it so and then nerf it at short range

6. Tanks Regenerate health- nothing else to say
Just retarded. Let the engineers fix the tanks. And even then they still shouldn't be able to restore full health.

Back to BC2

7. Air vehicles are impossible to destroy BF3 needs lock on launchers to balance them.
Back to me and Muk heloraping

8. Maps - If they are super skinny like 99% of the BC2 maps they will be terrible. No way to flank.
Agreed. Seemed like too many of the BC2 maps forced you into a small area, really made ambushing too easy. Flanking was either non-existent or being miles from the action

9. Vehicle spawns are too quick - Tank has respawned by the time the driver has
I'm fine with fast respawns on transport vehicles (IE 4-wheelers) since BF is supposed to be bigger. Tank after tank after tank gets annoying. Only so many people will play to counter tanks and it sucks when I have to constantly change my play style to get tanks out of my face.

10. Too many Vehicles - Avg Map: 1 Tank(2 ppl) 2 light tanks(2ppl each avg) 1 Helicopter(2ppl) = 8 ppl avg out of a 12 man team way too much not enough infantry.
Enough 4-wheelers to fit a full team. Other than that vehicles do need to be limited. In BC2 either everyone was in a vehicle or everyone was sniping

Just my opinions.

[Focus]

7. Air vehicles are impossible to destroy BF3 needs lock on launchers to balance them.

As much as I'd want this you gotta realize lock on launchers would TOTALLY favor the players not in the choppers and ****. It would be so easy just for me to see someone coming at our base in a chopper, pull out my launcher and shoot it down..combined with 1 or 2 other people for multiple launcher hits? The chopper would be gone right away. The only way a chopper would destroy is if the other team is stupid enough to not have any engineers for that stuff.

[TheSaintlySinner]

I, admittedly, do not have much experience with the Battlefield brand outside the 1942 rendention so what I say can be easily dismissed. Having said that though, I offer to you, Focus, the experience I had with non lock launchers in Homefront. I understand we're talking about two completely different games here but the fact that Homefront didn't have a lock on launcher pretty much meant that if anyone spawned an Apache, you, as a ground unit, were pretty much gauranteed multiple minutes of aggrevation due to an armored chopper flying in your spawn zone with no sure fire way to bring it down due to the fact it was so easy to miss with the launcher AND due to the flares the chopper had available. It really was a horrible balance issue within that paticular game.

Considering Homefront had available flares for the chopper, bringing one down with a "proximity" based launcher was a real pain in the ass. I get it, if you're in an armored flying vehicle you should have an advantage. Not taking that away from you. That advantage should NOT be without risk though. I suppose that's my major gripe. There are ways you could still give me as an Infantry unit options without making it so that people will not even want to get into an air (or ground for that matter) vehicle.

Again, I'm not saying I should have no fear of a vehicle if I'm choosing to be a foot soldier. What I am saying is that, in the interest of gaming, there does need to be some semblence of balance at play here.

Other than that, the only thing I have to say is that I agree with Irish in that the Engineer class is your solution to the "regenerating health" comment for land vehicles.

[Jimdalf]

BF3 is going to have jets. RPGs and tank shells have traditionally been usuable against helicopters in Battlefield games, but they have no chance against jets, so there will have to be a more effective solution. I daresay the jets already have missile countermeasures, or else the aerial combat is going to be pretty weak, so giving ground units lock-on missiles would give both sides a chance. Alternatively there could be dedicated anti-aircraft vehicles such as this bastard which some of you may recognise from earlier Battlefield games.


One thing I would like with the helicopters is if shooting them down was different. Rather than continuing to fly perfectly until completely exploding, I think it would be cool if they lost capabilities as they get damaged, and after a certain amount of damage the crew are unable to bail out. It is infuriating to work hard in order to destroy a helicopter, then the pilot jumps out just before it explodes and kills you. I would prefer it if the pilot had a chance to crash land the helicopter in the most favourable way he can, and then he gets out of the wreckage with an appropriate amount of health. If he spins backward into a building, he is obviously dead. If he slams into the ground, he is nearly dead, while if he brings it down under control he can get out with most/all of his health. It is always really good fun trying to fly damaged aircraft. I think it was Mercenaries which kept you in the helicopter all the way to the ground.

[Focus]

I, admittedly, do not have much experience with the Battlefield brand outside the 1942 rendention so what I say can be easily dismissed. Having said that though, I offer to you, Focus, the experience I had with non lock launchers in Homefront. I understand we're talking about two completely different games here but the fact that Homefront didn't have a lock on launcher pretty much meant that if anyone spawned an Apache, you, as a ground unit, were pretty much gauranteed multiple minutes of aggrevation due to an armored chopper flying in your spawn zone with no sure fire way to bring it down due to the fact it was so easy to miss with the launcher AND due to the flares the chopper had available. It really was a horrible balance issue within that paticular game.

Considering Homefront had available flares for the chopper, bringing one down with a "proximity" based launcher was a real pain in the ass. I get it, if you're in an armored flying vehicle you should have an advantage. Not taking that away from you. That advantage should NOT be without risk though. I suppose that's my major gripe. There are ways you could still give me as an Infantry unit options without making it so that people will not even want to get into an air (or ground for that matter) vehicle.

Again, I'm not saying I should have no fear of a vehicle if I'm choosing to be a foot soldier. What I am saying is that, in the interest of gaming, there does need to be some semblence of balance at play here.

Other than that, the only thing I have to say is that I agree with Irish in that the Engineer class is your solution to the "regenerating health" comment for land vehicles.

I wasn't saying it should stay the same way it is in BC2, I was just pointing out the fact that auto-lock missiles would greatly favor someone on the ground...and in a roundabout way saying there needs to be some sort of balance. As for that balance I don't know what could be done.

[The Ghost808]

Bf2 had lock on stinger sites id be happy with those they were balanced since all air vehicles had flares.