Battlefield 3 Gameplay

[xDarc]

They didn't show any hip shooting because they don't want you to see how ridiculous the spread is. At 2:07 you can see several rounds go super high even when aiming down the sight. Always hated this about BF.

It's a game mechanic to level the playing field in the name of mass appeal; you have to stop to manage cone of fire- and limit yourself to slow bursts, ensuring some mouth breather has time to draw a bead on you. It's kill for kill gaming design.

Everyone gets kills and it sells copies.

Everyone gets kills? Not on me, they don't. I'm sorry that you disapprove of the fact that not every game opts to have the hilarious hitscan laser rifles found in Call of Duty, but merely disliking a game mechanic doesn't mean that those who know how to make it work in their favor are, in your words, "mouth-breathers" that would presumably tremble in awe at your skills in a "real" game. If you can't tolerate the idea that maybe taking slow, deliberate shots (as per the real-life handling of firearms, a pattern you'll see further reflected by the need to take bullet trajectory into account when aiming) should impact accuracy, as opposed to being able to snap up the sights and spray thirty rounds in the same 2" MOA spread in one burst, I suggest you find a game that takes the reflex-centric approach to gunfights as opposed to games that rely as heavily on tactical thinking as it does on marksmanship (and you're in luck, because that's almost all of them).

If you patiently move with cover, pick your battles wisely, flank your enemies, work with your teammates, play to your loadout's strengths, and generally play like a soldier instead of the usual angel-of-death-incarnate that most games cast you as, you will steamroll your enemies and cackle triumphantly. If you try to sprint down the middle of a street and play Clint Eastwood with everything you encounter, you'll get shot to pieces by those taking the precautions listed in the previous sentence. I'm not saying you have to like the way the game wants you to play, but don't accuse it of pandering to the unskilled when your usual methods yield poor results; that'd be like saying Gears of War's multiplayer operates on a kill-for-kill mechanic because your refusal to take cover gets you shot all the time.

Dying a lot doesn't mean the game was designed to let other players kill you with ease, it means you need to realize that shooters from different companies often play by different rules, and failure to abide by those rules and steadfastly sticking to a preferred playstyle in spite of its ineffectiveness within the game means that yes, you ARE going to die as often as you score kills, if not moreso. In an average BFBC2 match, my KDR hovers around 2:1 (and often better) even though I'm focused on the objectives, because I know what the game expects from me, and I adjust my playstyle accordingly instead of griping about how the developers must have intentionally crippled me since the way I want to play it gets me killed all the time.

You mentioned the specific approach needed to excel in these games, and listen to yourself, its fucking boring. People have the average attention span of a gnat, and even though we all know what these games want you to do- the reality is these mechanics simply serve as handicap for the average person.

Realism does not make for good gameplay. If you want to toss words like tactical around, why not go live out your war fantasy and join the armed forces. I hate these type of gamers that have polluted a genre that used to take great poetic license with mechanics. This is the only thing that really made games like Quake or UT shine.

The only reason I even bother to play them is for the challenge of trying to make run and gun work; and the fact that this garbage is all they make these days. Little choice. I do quite well at bending the rules, forcing oldskool style into these games, once I get the map patterns down. I work for a living when it comes to my kills.

You use CoD and BF to illustrate differences, but that just shows me your frame of reference comes from a very limited span of time and you are either young or forgetful. BF and CoD are more the same than they are different. And I'm sure the jaws of younglings everywhere are agape at that, but the principle workings behind the shooting are quite similar. CoD is not a run n gun game and neither is BF.

They stopped making those enitrely, FEAR was the last significant one in 2006, with the proliferation of the xbox360.

Coincidence?

Bring back real FPS gaming and let's see if you kids can hit a moving target and dodge bullets, realism blasphemy, I know- but fuck if it wasn't 20 times more fun than this turtle paced trash.

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

Snip.

I'm going to take all the condescension in stride and give you an instant replay:

1. You say Battlefield is for the unskilled masses because people kill you as often as you kill them.
2. I point out that your complaints are indicative of you playing incorrectly.
3. You insist that your way of playing is the best way, and the game is boring and sucky because it doesn't suit your personal preferences. Additionally, you state your belief that everybody who doesn't do things your way must be a dull-minded child who wouldn't be able to compete with you on your game of choice. Note that this is not unlike insisting that headbutting your way through a door and giving yourself brain damage is the "real" way to do it, and anyone that uses the handle doesn't understand or appreciate doors.

This is where I refer you to my original post, where I politely told you to stop making generalizations about games and their players just because you happen to like a different kind of game. Hopefully a re-read of it will inspire you to leave and play a game you actually enjoy, instead of launching into another hipster tirade about how oldschool you are, or coming up with even more roundabout ways of saying "I don't suck at the game, the game sucks at me".

 

[PlasmaFrog]

Heck, more campaign modes. So basically, we've got Bad Company 3 on our hands.

Looking at this from a positive and unbiased angle, it looks pretty good. Those gorgeous lighting effects are great as well, but will they compensate for the game-play? I'm just hoping that the multiplayer is a worthy predecessor of Battlefield 2.

Besides all of that, the campaign looks like another gritty war-shooter, not that it's a bad thing. But still, I've grown exhausted of these war-shooters lately. Maybe some Duke Nukem will be my remedy for that... Maybe *sniff*... Maybe.

 

[xDarc]

...

You just don't want to think about the truth.

These style of games, that require you to micromanage artificial shooting mechanics and restrictions, they really didn't take off until the console crowd took over the genre.

Since then, FPS has gone from a competitive and nerdy sub-culture to watered-down, mainstream, household product.

Personal preferences have nothing to do with it. FPS gaming would never have virtually taken over the US market without everyone and anyone being able to have a good time at it...

and thas a fack.