is anyone else finding BF3's Team Deathmatch not fun?

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Exactly. Although I find one thing interesting: You're saying BF3 still doesn't have decent gunplay? Because 1942's guns actually felt quite nice, and the bullets tended to go where you aimed them. BF2 introduced some glitches involving the iron sights, which is why the gunplay in that one felt off. It's kind of pathetic if three games later, they still haven't been able to fix the awkward gunplay.

Compared to call of duty the gunplay is terrible. Its not bad but it just does not compare at all to its main competitor in that regard. It just feels really choppy and off. To me it actually felt worse then bad comany 2s.

That's because CoD /isn't/ its main competitor; that would be something more along the lines of TF2. EA is trying to take down CoD with a game that really isn't similar enough to be called a direct competitor. I could just as easily say that CoD has terrrible gunplay compared to the original F.E.A.R. (and it does, that game had the best gunplay in any shooter I've ever played.) That doesn't mean it has bad gunplay, just that it's not as good as the gunplay in a game that it really isn't in direct competition with. Besides, the actual guns aren't even the main point of a battlefield game; they're just one of several means to an end, whereas in CoD, they're the only means to a much simpler end.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

The thing about Team Deathmatch for Battlefield 3 is that it was most likely put there to appease the legions of twitching Call of Duty players who can't go five seconds without hearing an explosion and have the patience and attention span of a common household toaster. TDM is basically Battlefield's answer to CoD's gameplay and if you're into that sort of thing it does its job very well.

Sure the spawn locations suck, and the using anything other than a submachine gun, rifle or shotgun puts you at a major disadvantage, but these are complaints that show up all the time for CoD games, so what's the problem?

You've still got a variety of other gametypes to choose from; Conquest for good old-fashioned Battlefield-ing with nothing missing, Rush for the tense objective-based excitement, Squad Rush for an extremely tight version of Rush where you really have to work with your squad and can't rely on a whole team to back you up, and Squad Deathmatch which is an interesting sort of hybrid between team-based TDM and free-for-all (4 teams of 4 each fighting it out, if anyone's unsure).

But yes. If you like CoD's gameplay then you'll probably be happiest playing Battlefield 3's Team Deathmatch. If you don't, give it a try anyway. It's still a fun little distraction from the other much better game modes, so long as you don't justifiably rage at it.

TL,DR: Team Deathmatch is Battlefield's answer to Call of Duty. If you like that sort of thing, play it. If you don't, play one of the other gametypes.

Cheers.

Just stop insulting CoD players. They like what they like, and we like Battlefield. Most people who are not a member of either group group the two together. The two fanbases are more similar than they are different. CoD personally doesn't really appeal to me for whatever reason, but I don't go around generalising all CoD players as twitchy, moronic ape-men. It's not fair for me to do so and just makes everybody look bad. Just agree do disagree.

See my above post. The games have similar window dressing in that they both feature a modern setting. Mechanically, though? They're completely different. So sure, the average person who isn't a fan of either game would think they're the same. That's because said average person isn't a gamer. It's like someone saying Dragon Age is the same thing as Skyrim because both are western RPGs that feature dragons. EA screwed themselves over when they decided that they needed to take on MW3 with BF3; they're just too different. EA's existing property that is best suited to direct competition with CoD is Medal of Honor, and they don't need to re-purpose Battlefield just because the latest entry in the MoH series flopped.

Edit: Also, he wasn't insulting CoD players. CoD is the modern "realistic" shooter equivalent of Quake III, while Battlefield is the modern "realistic" shooter equivalent of Tribes. They have a different focus, and recognizing that isn't "insulting" anyone.

 

[Furioso]

They only put TDM in there to appeal to the CoD fan base, completely missing the point of what draws people to CoD, just taking on a very poorly done TDM won't draw the crowd, maybe if they made it unique sure, but they just took an area, gave you random spawn points, took away the vehicles, and said figure it out

 

[SeeIn2D]

I have always hated TDM in any game. I just hate the spawn system and how it is always random and how that randomness always ends up screwing me over. I much prefer objective based game modes. For some reason I always loved Free For All however even though it's basically the same concept. I think that's because I like how if I lose it's my fault, not my terrible teammates'.

 

[natster43]

Wait, there is a Team Deahmatch mode? I thought there was only Rush and Conquest!

 

[Kamelmann]

I've only really had issues on a couple of maps.. as a whole its been pretty fun, good for unlocking attachments and leveling up your support class.. <___<

Some maps.. the port based ones and the one on the construction site... uuuuurgh.. the spawns are SO bad... its insane..

Example of the port map spawn system -> *spawns next to enemy - stabs, then gets stabbed, then spawns in the SAME place, restabs then gets rpg'd at pointblank*

<___<

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

That's because CoD /isn't/ its main competitor; that would be something more along the lines of TF2. EA is trying to take down CoD with a game that really isn't similar enough to be called a direct competitor. I could just as easily say that CoD has terrrible gunplay compared to the original F.E.A.R. (and it does, that game had the best gunplay in any shooter I've ever played.) That doesn't mean it has bad gunplay, just that it's not as good as the gunplay in a game that it really isn't in direct competition with. Besides, the actual guns aren't even the main point of a battlefield game; they're just one of several means to an end, whereas in CoD, they're the only means to a much simpler end.

Saying call of duty is not its main competitor is just being silly because it is. Battlefield is trying to compete with call of duty because they hold the same spot. They are very similar games. The only way you could possibly say they are not competing with each other would be because battlefield is not a threat to call of duty. It wants to be but it isnt.

If you take out the destructible buildings and vehicles they are extremely similar. The biggest difference between the two is that call of duty is more focused on team deathmatch and battlefield is more focused on rush and conquest.

Just saying, do you play either game? Battlefield's current biggest competitor is something like TF2 -- or, more to the point, it doesn't currently have a major competitor, but it will as soon as the new Tribes game comes out. CoD and Battlefield are hugely different, and there's more to it than just vehicles and destructibility. Battlefield can't compete with CoD on the stuff it does well, and CoD can't compete with Battlefield on the stuff it does well. They're different in pretty much every way but the setting; I wonder, would you be making the same claims if a new Star Wars: Battlefront game were coming out and trying to take down CoD? Because Battlefront is a Battlefield clone with Star Wars characters, and you'd have to be crazy to say it was similar to CoD. Gamers should be smart enough to look beyond the window dressing and tell whether or not two games have comparable underlying mechanics.

P.S.: Yeah, vehicles, conquest mode, and in the more recent games, destructible environments are important parts of what makes a Battlefield game a Battlefield game. Taking those out would make it something completely different, and if you can't see how big of a difference that, the relatively fixed classes (medic, engineer, and so on -- no "my class is whatever gun I choose" crap) the enormous maps, the voice chat system that sets up a defacto chain of command simply through the way it works, and the large numbers of players who are split into multiple squads makes to the way a game plays out, you really don't need to be talking about game design.

 

[GeneWard]

It's a blast on Operation Metro, Because the latter half of that map (Rush wise) plays like a CoD map. It also plays well in certain areas of Tehran highway, but only at those awesome flashpoint moments where it becomes an all out firefight, and these are rare.

 

[The Man With the Soap]

The thing about Team Deathmatch for Battlefield 3 is that it was most likely put there to appease the legions of twitching Call of Duty players who can't go five seconds without hearing an explosion and have the patience and attention span of a common household toaster. TDM is basically Battlefield's answer to CoD's gameplay and if you're into that sort of thing it does its job very well.

Sure the spawn locations suck, and the using anything other than a submachine gun, rifle or shotgun puts you at a major disadvantage, but these are complaints that show up all the time for CoD games, so what's the problem?

You've still got a variety of other gametypes to choose from; Conquest for good old-fashioned Battlefield-ing with nothing missing, Rush for the tense objective-based excitement, Squad Rush for an extremely tight version of Rush where you really have to work with your squad and can't rely on a whole team to back you up, and Squad Deathmatch which is an interesting sort of hybrid between team-based TDM and free-for-all (4 teams of 4 each fighting it out, if anyone's unsure).

But yes. If you like CoD's gameplay then you'll probably be happiest playing Battlefield 3's Team Deathmatch. If you don't, give it a try anyway. It's still a fun little distraction from the other much better game modes, so long as you don't justifiably rage at it.

TL,DR: Team Deathmatch is Battlefield's answer to Call of Duty. If you like that sort of thing, play it. If you don't, play one of the other gametypes.

Cheers.

Just stop insulting CoD players. They like what they like, and we like Battlefield. Most people who are not a member of either group group the two together. The two fanbases are more similar than they are different. CoD personally doesn't really appeal to me for whatever reason, but I don't go around generalising all CoD players as twitchy, moronic ape-men. It's not fair for me to do so and just makes everybody look bad. Just agree do disagree.

See my above post. The games have similar window dressing in that they both feature a modern setting. Mechanically, though? They're completely different. So sure, the average person who isn't a fan of either game would think they're the same. That's because said average person isn't a gamer. It's like someone saying Dragon Age is the same thing as Skyrim because both are western RPGs that feature dragons. EA screwed themselves over when they decided that they needed to take on MW3 with BF3; they're just too different. EA's existing property that is best suited to direct competition with CoD is Medal of Honor, and they don't need to re-purpose Battlefield just because the latest entry in the MoH series flopped.

Edit: Also, he wasn't insulting CoD players. CoD is the modern "realistic" shooter equivalent of Quake III, while Battlefield is the modern "realistic" shooter equivalent of Tribes. They have a different focus, and recognizing that isn't "insulting" anyone.

I'm just saying you don't need to insult the Call of Duty fanbase to get your point across. It just reflects poorly on you.

 

[Enslave_All_Elves]

I tried it and here's what annoys me

- No team spawn points. Spawn at a random location, quite often being killed before your character even brings up his damn gun. Makes it a chaotic mess in which you can't get a good battle or even a sense of a battle going.

- Why can't I spawn with my squad? Name me one good reason.

- How does cropping the the maps down to ludicrously small sizes and eliminating vehicles make this better?

I'm just saying you don't need to insult the Call of Duty fanbase to get your point across. It just reflects poorly on you.

Yes they should and no it doesn't.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

The thing about Team Deathmatch for Battlefield 3 is that it was most likely put there to appease the legions of twitching Call of Duty players who can't go five seconds without hearing an explosion and have the patience and attention span of a common household toaster. TDM is basically Battlefield's answer to CoD's gameplay and if you're into that sort of thing it does its job very well.

Sure the spawn locations suck, and the using anything other than a submachine gun, rifle or shotgun puts you at a major disadvantage, but these are complaints that show up all the time for CoD games, so what's the problem?

You've still got a variety of other gametypes to choose from; Conquest for good old-fashioned Battlefield-ing with nothing missing, Rush for the tense objective-based excitement, Squad Rush for an extremely tight version of Rush where you really have to work with your squad and can't rely on a whole team to back you up, and Squad Deathmatch which is an interesting sort of hybrid between team-based TDM and free-for-all (4 teams of 4 each fighting it out, if anyone's unsure).

But yes. If you like CoD's gameplay then you'll probably be happiest playing Battlefield 3's Team Deathmatch. If you don't, give it a try anyway. It's still a fun little distraction from the other much better game modes, so long as you don't justifiably rage at it.

TL,DR: Team Deathmatch is Battlefield's answer to Call of Duty. If you like that sort of thing, play it. If you don't, play one of the other gametypes.

Cheers.

Just stop insulting CoD players. They like what they like, and we like Battlefield. Most people who are not a member of either group group the two together. The two fanbases are more similar than they are different. CoD personally doesn't really appeal to me for whatever reason, but I don't go around generalising all CoD players as twitchy, moronic ape-men. It's not fair for me to do so and just makes everybody look bad. Just agree do disagree.

See my above post. The games have similar window dressing in that they both feature a modern setting. Mechanically, though? They're completely different. So sure, the average person who isn't a fan of either game would think they're the same. That's because said average person isn't a gamer. It's like someone saying Dragon Age is the same thing as Skyrim because both are western RPGs that feature dragons. EA screwed themselves over when they decided that they needed to take on MW3 with BF3; they're just too different. EA's existing property that is best suited to direct competition with CoD is Medal of Honor, and they don't need to re-purpose Battlefield just because the latest entry in the MoH series flopped.

Edit: Also, he wasn't insulting CoD players. CoD is the modern "realistic" shooter equivalent of Quake III, while Battlefield is the modern "realistic" shooter equivalent of Tribes. They have a different focus, and recognizing that isn't "insulting" anyone.

I'm just saying you don't need to insult the Call of Duty fanbase to get your point across. It just reflects poorly on you.

Again, where did I insult the CoD fanbase? All I've said is that CoD is a simpler game than Battlefield, being the modern equivalent of Quake III to Battlefield's Tribes. I like Quake.

 

[The Man With the Soap]

The thing about Team Deathmatch for Battlefield 3 is that it was most likely put there to appease the legions of twitching Call of Duty players who can't go five seconds without hearing an explosion and have the patience and attention span of a common household toaster. TDM is basically Battlefield's answer to CoD's gameplay and if you're into that sort of thing it does its job very well.

Sure the spawn locations suck, and the using anything other than a submachine gun, rifle or shotgun puts you at a major disadvantage, but these are complaints that show up all the time for CoD games, so what's the problem?

You've still got a variety of other gametypes to choose from; Conquest for good old-fashioned Battlefield-ing with nothing missing, Rush for the tense objective-based excitement, Squad Rush for an extremely tight version of Rush where you really have to work with your squad and can't rely on a whole team to back you up, and Squad Deathmatch which is an interesting sort of hybrid between team-based TDM and free-for-all (4 teams of 4 each fighting it out, if anyone's unsure).

But yes. If you like CoD's gameplay then you'll probably be happiest playing Battlefield 3's Team Deathmatch. If you don't, give it a try anyway. It's still a fun little distraction from the other much better game modes, so long as you don't justifiably rage at it.

TL,DR: Team Deathmatch is Battlefield's answer to Call of Duty. If you like that sort of thing, play it. If you don't, play one of the other gametypes.

Cheers.

Just stop insulting CoD players. They like what they like, and we like Battlefield. Most people who are not a member of either group group the two together. The two fanbases are more similar than they are different. CoD personally doesn't really appeal to me for whatever reason, but I don't go around generalising all CoD players as twitchy, moronic ape-men. It's not fair for me to do so and just makes everybody look bad. Just agree do disagree.

See my above post. The games have similar window dressing in that they both feature a modern setting. Mechanically, though? They're completely different. So sure, the average person who isn't a fan of either game would think they're the same. That's because said average person isn't a gamer. It's like someone saying Dragon Age is the same thing as Skyrim because both are western RPGs that feature dragons. EA screwed themselves over when they decided that they needed to take on MW3 with BF3; they're just too different. EA's existing property that is best suited to direct competition with CoD is Medal of Honor, and they don't need to re-purpose Battlefield just because the latest entry in the MoH series flopped.

Edit: Also, he wasn't insulting CoD players. CoD is the modern "realistic" shooter equivalent of Quake III, while Battlefield is the modern "realistic" shooter equivalent of Tribes. They have a different focus, and recognizing that isn't "insulting" anyone.

I'm just saying you don't need to insult the Call of Duty fanbase to get your point across. It just reflects poorly on you.

Again, where did I insult the CoD fanbase? All I've said is that CoD is a simpler game than Battlefield, being the modern equivalent of Quake III to Battlefield's Tribes. I like Quake.

"The thing about Team Deathmatch for Battlefield 3 is that it was most likely put there to appease the legions of twitching Call of Duty players who can't go five seconds without hearing an explosion and have the patience and attention span of a common household toaster."

How is that not insulting?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

The thing about Team Deathmatch for Battlefield 3 is that it was most likely put there to appease the legions of twitching Call of Duty players who can't go five seconds without hearing an explosion and have the patience and attention span of a common household toaster. TDM is basically Battlefield's answer to CoD's gameplay and if you're into that sort of thing it does its job very well.

Sure the spawn locations suck, and the using anything other than a submachine gun, rifle or shotgun puts you at a major disadvantage, but these are complaints that show up all the time for CoD games, so what's the problem?

You've still got a variety of other gametypes to choose from; Conquest for good old-fashioned Battlefield-ing with nothing missing, Rush for the tense objective-based excitement, Squad Rush for an extremely tight version of Rush where you really have to work with your squad and can't rely on a whole team to back you up, and Squad Deathmatch which is an interesting sort of hybrid between team-based TDM and free-for-all (4 teams of 4 each fighting it out, if anyone's unsure).

But yes. If you like CoD's gameplay then you'll probably be happiest playing Battlefield 3's Team Deathmatch. If you don't, give it a try anyway. It's still a fun little distraction from the other much better game modes, so long as you don't justifiably rage at it.

TL,DR: Team Deathmatch is Battlefield's answer to Call of Duty. If you like that sort of thing, play it. If you don't, play one of the other gametypes.

Cheers.

Just stop insulting CoD players. They like what they like, and we like Battlefield. Most people who are not a member of either group group the two together. The two fanbases are more similar than they are different. CoD personally doesn't really appeal to me for whatever reason, but I don't go around generalising all CoD players as twitchy, moronic ape-men. It's not fair for me to do so and just makes everybody look bad. Just agree do disagree.

See my above post. The games have similar window dressing in that they both feature a modern setting. Mechanically, though? They're completely different. So sure, the average person who isn't a fan of either game would think they're the same. That's because said average person isn't a gamer. It's like someone saying Dragon Age is the same thing as Skyrim because both are western RPGs that feature dragons. EA screwed themselves over when they decided that they needed to take on MW3 with BF3; they're just too different. EA's existing property that is best suited to direct competition with CoD is Medal of Honor, and they don't need to re-purpose Battlefield just because the latest entry in the MoH series flopped.

Edit: Also, he wasn't insulting CoD players. CoD is the modern "realistic" shooter equivalent of Quake III, while Battlefield is the modern "realistic" shooter equivalent of Tribes. They have a different focus, and recognizing that isn't "insulting" anyone.

I'm just saying you don't need to insult the Call of Duty fanbase to get your point across. It just reflects poorly on you.

Again, where did I insult the CoD fanbase? All I've said is that CoD is a simpler game than Battlefield, being the modern equivalent of Quake III to Battlefield's Tribes. I like Quake.

"The thing about Team Deathmatch for Battlefield 3 is that it was most likely put there to appease the legions of twitching Call of Duty players who can't go five seconds without hearing an explosion and have the patience and attention span of a common household toaster."

How is that not insulting?

Are you sure I'm the one who said that? That doesn't sound like me, at all. Hang on a minute...

Yeah, that was Frosty05. You've been arguing with the wrong person, man.

Edit: Besides, as a fan of Battlefield, I can vouch that explosions happen all the freakin' time on multiplayer anyway. It takes a longer attention span that CoD does, but the frequency of explosions isn't why -- or rather, it partially is, but it's because explosions tend to kill you, and the respawns aren't instant.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

I find TDM perfect for quickly upgrading my weapons. Since everyone spawns randomly and are in a very small map you rack up kills rather quickly. There are no vehicles, taking of flags, blowing up POIs, just killing. Its perfect to upgrade your weapon.

 

[Exocet]

Conquest is the best mode.
TDM is abysmal, especially the spawn points.
Rush is (ironically) packed with campers.

I stick with conquest personally.

Pretty much this.
Conquest and it's bigger brother,large conquest are the stars of the show.YOu can attack anywhere,from anywhere.And when you start seeing teamplay starting to pop up between players,you have the most fun of any game mode.

TDM is basically BF3 trying to cater to players who want to play CoD on a different game.At least that's my take on it.I don't understand the appeal,but I guess enough people do to warrant DICE making the damned thing.

Rush is hit or miss.Either you have a good team who will steamroll the objectives,only stopping to secure the base before moving on,or you get a bad team filled with players who don't care about winning,just making points.It's ridiculous because the only motive you have to win is a measly extra 200 xp,so some people would rather whip out their mortar and milk the defenders.

 

[The Man With the Soap]

The thing about Team Deathmatch for Battlefield 3 is that it was most likely put there to appease the legions of twitching Call of Duty players who can't go five seconds without hearing an explosion and have the patience and attention span of a common household toaster. TDM is basically Battlefield's answer to CoD's gameplay and if you're into that sort of thing it does its job very well.

Sure the spawn locations suck, and the using anything other than a submachine gun, rifle or shotgun puts you at a major disadvantage, but these are complaints that show up all the time for CoD games, so what's the problem?

You've still got a variety of other gametypes to choose from; Conquest for good old-fashioned Battlefield-ing with nothing missing, Rush for the tense objective-based excitement, Squad Rush for an extremely tight version of Rush where you really have to work with your squad and can't rely on a whole team to back you up, and Squad Deathmatch which is an interesting sort of hybrid between team-based TDM and free-for-all (4 teams of 4 each fighting it out, if anyone's unsure).

But yes. If you like CoD's gameplay then you'll probably be happiest playing Battlefield 3's Team Deathmatch. If you don't, give it a try anyway. It's still a fun little distraction from the other much better game modes, so long as you don't justifiably rage at it.

TL,DR: Team Deathmatch is Battlefield's answer to Call of Duty. If you like that sort of thing, play it. If you don't, play one of the other gametypes.

Cheers.

Just stop insulting CoD players. They like what they like, and we like Battlefield. Most people who are not a member of either group group the two together. The two fanbases are more similar than they are different. CoD personally doesn't really appeal to me for whatever reason, but I don't go around generalising all CoD players as twitchy, moronic ape-men. It's not fair for me to do so and just makes everybody look bad. Just agree do disagree.

See my above post. The games have similar window dressing in that they both feature a modern setting. Mechanically, though? They're completely different. So sure, the average person who isn't a fan of either game would think they're the same. That's because said average person isn't a gamer. It's like someone saying Dragon Age is the same thing as Skyrim because both are western RPGs that feature dragons. EA screwed themselves over when they decided that they needed to take on MW3 with BF3; they're just too different. EA's existing property that is best suited to direct competition with CoD is Medal of Honor, and they don't need to re-purpose Battlefield just because the latest entry in the MoH series flopped.

Edit: Also, he wasn't insulting CoD players. CoD is the modern "realistic" shooter equivalent of Quake III, while Battlefield is the modern "realistic" shooter equivalent of Tribes. They have a different focus, and recognizing that isn't "insulting" anyone.

I'm just saying you don't need to insult the Call of Duty fanbase to get your point across. It just reflects poorly on you.

Again, where did I insult the CoD fanbase? All I've said is that CoD is a simpler game than Battlefield, being the modern equivalent of Quake III to Battlefield's Tribes. I like Quake.

"The thing about Team Deathmatch for Battlefield 3 is that it was most likely put there to appease the legions of twitching Call of Duty players who can't go five seconds without hearing an explosion and have the patience and attention span of a common household toaster."

How is that not insulting?

Are you sure I'm the one who said that? That doesn't sound like me, at all. Hang on a minute...

Yeah, that was Frosty05. You've been arguing with the wrong person, man.

Edit: Besides, as a fan of Battlefield, I can vouch that explosions happen all the freakin' time on multiplayer anyway. It takes a longer attention span that CoD does, but the frequency of explosions isn't why -- or rather, it partially is, but it's because explosions tend to kill you, and the respawns aren't instant.

Whoops, my bad. You're right, I did have the wrong person.

 

[Arppis]

I like Team Deathmatch the most of all gamemodes in this game. I don't care for the tanks and planes, plus there is no spawn camping (even when you can get unlucky with the spawn)in it. Just intense combat without having to search for action for minutes, just to get shot by some sniper from distance. Atleast on consoles, because there you have smaller player limit and that sucks for the team-based modes in these huge maps.

Good adition, imo. Gives me something to do when I am playing the game alone. And I am most of the time, because Battlefield 3 just doesn't have good squad system. It's something they should copy from MW3 (ironicaly as that game isn't big about playing as a team). I HATE to get on wrong sides when playing with my friends, plus none of us can switch sides even when there is an option to do so. Too bad.

 

[AwkwardTurtle]

I really like playing Rush mode. :3 I tried playing the TDM mode but I got really bored since the focus was mainly on killing rather than objectives.

It seems that other people really hit the nail on the head when they say that the joy of Battlefield 3 is in the huge objective based maps.

Also the reason I often chose to play as Assault class is because I absolutely adore running around and just constantly reviving my teammates. It's strangely addicting. o-o' I don't often see others like me, but then I get annoyed when other Assaults steal my revives. >:3 Not all that much, but it's like "aww I can't revive them" sort of moment.