Poll: BC2 and BF3...

[Korten12]

Anyone else feel like BF3 is actually a downgrade from BC2?

The story in BC2 was a lot of fun, and way more colorful. While I normally don't mind Color in a game, I just feel that BF3 is probably the greyest game I have seen. Plus the story in BF3 was just... not fun to play. I can't remember any of the characters and once it got to the: "The russians got the nuke!" I just rolled my eyes.

Then onto the multiplayer side, I felt BC2 did this a lot better. Vechiles I feel truly made a different in combat. In BF3, I feel like Vechiles do almost nothing, sure they can get you to an objective faster, but I never feel like if I get in the tank that I can change the tide of the game.

On the weapons side, all the guns in BC2 felt different, while they were bigger they gave wieght and each shot differently and just shooting at a person the impacts even felt different. In BF3, I feel a lot of the guns feel the same, and none of them really have that kick that BC2 had.

Lastly, the maps. BC2 had a larger variety of maps, snowy towns, jungles, deserts, small Villages, and so on. While BF3 has, cities, a desert, a field, a mountian, and more cities. I just felt like when playing BC2 each of the maps felt different from one another, while in BF3 some of the maps can sometimes feel samey.

Edit: Last thing I forgot to mention. In BF3, I feel Destruction is really tone down. Sure in some maps you can destroy a whole building. But I feel like it was sooo much more useful in BC2 and more common.

Honestly, I wished they had made Bad Company 3 rather then BF3.

What's your guys opinion?

 

[Zhukov]

Well, the single player campaigns were both equally crap.

As for the multiplayer... honestly not sure. I would say BF3 by a long way, but it's so damn unstable. I can't go three matches without my game crashing. However, the inclusion of the prone function, some improved map design, removal of nade spam, better handling of melee attacks and more varied weapon customization still put it ahead of BC2.

 

[TheLoveableMuffin]

I agree with OPs comment on destruction and the map locations. I can't help but feel that DICE missed out on doing an incredible looking jungle or snow map. I also think they screwed up Wake Island. (It's just looks so dull and pale compared to 1943)

I also reckon BC2 did have a better story. After all they were all four returning characters with actual personalities as appossed to...whoever the BF3 lead was.

 

[Snotnarok]

I haven't played the story in either game very far (friends want to play multiplayer so it makes it hard for me to jump into single player). But I have to say I think that BF3 offers more than BC2 in terms of guns, the sheer amount of crap you can sling on a gun makes them handle more differently than they ever could in BC2.

I mean you can literally stick a sniper rifle scope on a shotgun and then stick slugs in the gun and use it as a moderately effective sniper rifle.

Also BC2 did the dumbest thing, giving the Assault both a grenade launcher and ammo packs, that just makes for gun-ho jackasses who never ever dropped ammo for you but would drop it when they needed it.

BC2 was by no means bad I loved the game, but I do think B3 does do a lot of things well.

 

[Vykrel]

i prefer BF3. it is much more fluid in terms of character movement and gunplay, and i actually use the vehicles in the game. i could not fly helicopters in BC2 (especially not in BC1) and i didnt really get in tanks all that often.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

Well, I prefer Bad Company 2. I played a bit of BF3 in the beta and it was such a clusterfuck, combine that with the Origin requirement and I didn't even purchase BF3.
So I guess I just prefer BC2 because I actually played it a lot and never even bought BF3. Not a fair comparison I suppose.

 

[Nightmonger]

I can see your argument and agree with them to some extent but I prefer BF3 purely because it allows you to play in so many varied and different ways

E.G I sometimes like using the bolt action snipers with iron sights for more of a mid range rifle

Or you can do truely ridiculous stuff like put a rifle scope on a shotgun also
Also I feel there is a good balance with the vehicles tbh they shouldn't be the trump card in a game and I'm glad infantry can take them out fairly efficiently also I've seen people when they actually cooperate in a vehicle dominate the map as you say they should e.g little bird heli with the two passengers just repairing it

The one thing i miss though is two seated jets from BF2 those things were awesome

 

[Lionsfan]

I liked the Bad Companies over the little that I've played of BF3

 

[TheSapphireKnight]

It is a complicated issue. I can understand some of the frustrations of Console only players, not only are the BF3 vanilla maps almost all terrible, but they don't even have the color and interesting enviorments of BC series(Though BC2 maps are still terrible too).

Things get better on the PC where most maps get bigger and uses more of the space on maps like Kharg and Caspian(so they are at least decent) but most of the others are crap. As far as maps are concerned B2K saved BF3.

As a long time BF fan I absolutely HATE alot of what they did with BC2. Its not a console or player count thing because I loved both BC1 and 1943. Most of the stuff I don;t like about BF3 are holdouts from BC2. Amoung these is the absolutely retarded sniper balance, dumbed down conquest(Only one type), chokeoint filled maps, vehicle specs(Which BF3 actually made worse in terms of gimping new players), Specs(which BF3 actually toned down, hooray for no magnum!), and worst of all the retarded class balance(which BF3 fixed...mostly).

ON the sniper balance they took a straightforward system and added in a bunch of stuff that was not needed. In BF games the balance has always gone like this:
*Bolt-Action: OHK to the head, 2 to the body, more accurate
*Semi-Auto: OHK to the head, 3-4 to the body, less accurate
In BC2:
*Bolt-Action: OHK headshot, 2Hk to the body at long range, and they gave them the ability to get a OHK to anywhere on the body up close(ghetto shotguns)
*Semi-Auto: Only OHK headshot uo close, 2 at any siginifiant range, 3-4 body shot, 2 HK body shot up close.

You tell me what the simpler and more straightforward system is... BF3 fixed the bolt-actions but since BC2 was released it has led to a bunch of idiots clamouring for OHK derp sniper rifles so they can use them at all ranges instead of using Semi-Autos or PDWs at close range.

In my opinion BC2 did far more damage to gameplay of BF games as a whole than it ever addded

 

[Angry_squirrel]

I prefer BF3, although I was saddened that they toned the destruction down

 

[coolman9899]

I can see your argument and agree with them to some extent but I prefer BF3 purely because it allows you to play in so many varied and different ways

E.G I sometimes like using the bolt action snipers with iron sights for more of a mid range rifle

Or you can do truely ridiculous stuff like put a rifle scope on a shotgun also
Also I feel there is a good balance with the vehicles tbh they shouldn't be the trump card in a game and I'm glad infantry can take them out fairly efficiently also I've seen people when they actually cooperate in a vehicle dominate the map as you say they should e.g little bird heli with the two passengers just repairing it

The one thing i miss though is two seated jets from BF2 those things were awesome

Holy crap! I was just talking to my buddy about how they fucked up with the jets, yay fellow Bf2 player!

 

[him over there]

While I'm inclined to agree with you, my one nitpick would be implying games that are grey/brown are inherently worse. In battlefields case this is fair since the game wasn't a gritty dark edgy bonanza, it was more like CoD. Even though it seems realistic on the surface the game itself has little notion of seriousness, atleast that's what I took away from it. But That doesn't mean grey brown should be total condemnation. But since it is coming off of bc2 which had colourful interesting environments I see where you are coming from. Consistency is nice in a franchise.

 

[Zenode]

BC2 had its fair share of problems Nade spammers with infinite ammo? (fuck those guys, seriously)

The few complaints I have for BF3 are as follows

- Seriously gimp new vehicles users (Flares are your first unlock instead of being given them straight away?)
- Crashing (BF has a history of this though, so im inclined to give it leniency)
- GIVE ME SOME DAMN COLOUR

Apart from that I prefer BF3 over BC2

 

[Musicfreak]

Anyone else feel like BF3 is actually a downgrade from BC2?

The story in BC2 was a lot of fun, and way more colorful. While I normally don't mind Color in a game, I just feel that BF3 is probably the greyest game I have seen. Plus the story in BF3 was just... not fun to play. I can't remember any of the characters and once it got to the: "The russians got the nuke!" I just rolled my eyes.

Then onto the multiplayer side, I felt BC2 did this a lot better. Vechiles I feel truly made a different in combat. In BF3, I feel like Vechiles do almost nothing, sure they can get you to an objective faster, but I never feel like if I get in the tank that I can change the tide of the game.

On the weapons side, all the guns in BC2 felt different, while they were bigger they gave wieght and each shot differently and just shooting at a person the impacts even felt different. In BF3, I feel a lot of the guns feel the same, and none of them really have that kick that BC2 had.

Lastly, the maps. BC2 had a larger variety of maps, snowy towns, jungles, deserts, small Villages, and so on. While BF3 has, cities, a desert, a field, a mountian, and more cities. I just felt like when playing BC2 each of the maps felt different from one another, while in BF3 some of the maps can sometimes feel samey.

Edit: Last thing I forgot to mention. In BF3, I feel Destruction is really tone down. Sure in some maps you can destroy a whole building. But I feel like it was sooo much more useful in BC2 and more common.

Honestly, I wished they had made Bad Company 3 rather then BF3.

What's your guys opinion?

The story in both games was complete shit to me but I would say overall the first was better. That's really not saying much at all though. I never once got a kick out of anything the characters in the first said, felt worried when they were in danger or sad when that guy who I can't even remember died.

You sure you aren't playing with people who don't know how to drive vehicles? I've played multiple matches where some idiot who has no idea how to drive a tank will drive right into the enemy base and get destroyed in seconds for like half a match. Then someone who understands a little bit about vehicle tactics will get in and single-handedly turn the match around and this isn't even remotely uncommon on matches I play on.

You sure you were playing BF3??? I don't even use some weapons because they're either ridiculously overpowered or way to weak. It was this way in BC2 also.

I'll agree with the last two points though. The maps could be slightly more varied and they definitely toned destruction down way to much.

Overall BF3 is the better multiplayer experience. I played the crap out of both and I can safely say that BF3 cut down some of the bullshit from the previous(helicopter circle strafing D bags) and added cool new things that generally work.

 

[Korten12]

While I'm inclined to agree with you, my one nitpick would be implying games that are grey/brown are inherently worse. In battlefields case this is fair since the game wasn't a gritty dark edgy bonanza, it was more like CoD. Even though it seems realistic on the surface the game itself has little notion of seriousness, atleast that's what I took away from it. But That doesn't mean grey brown should be total condemnation. But since it is coming off of bc2 which had colourful interesting environments I see where you are coming from. Consistency is nice in a franchise.

See normally I don't mind the lack of colors but I felt like in BF3 for the first time, they made it so I couldn't even tell the difference between some maps as they looked very similar.