Poll: Which Battlefield was better? Battlefield 3 or Bad Company 2?
- Thread starter Gorilla Gunk
- Start date
i dunno either, not a tech person. maybe it's the prone ;PSmashLovesTitanQuest said:
just look at that..and yes, alpha even looked better (and played much more fluent) than the release. and hit detection was still server side, like every major shooter. not client side like now, causing insanely bad hit detection and hilarious situations where one dies after being in cover already for solid three seconds..
No. Battlefield BC and 3 are not Battlefield games. I am so fricking disappointed by them. All the teamwork and fun was torn out to be replaced by CoD. I mean hell, Battlefield games never were meant to be insane action-packed singleplayer experiences. I have Battlefield 3 and I can tell you, I have played probably a few hours of the multiplayer. I could barely play the singleplay for a few hours before I said, "Fuck it" and turned it off.
You know what was the most fun ever in Battlefield?
My cousin would come around to my house, I would put Battlefield in my dad's, brother's, mine and his computers, we would all start it up and have a ton of fun, working together, against each other, helping set up ambushes and helping to defend bases. One example was my mate, brand new to the game. He was sitting on top of a building with no fucking clue what to do, and he was a engineer. We had the best fun with him running in the front, blasting and me covering him and securing the door.
My cousin and I in Spec Ops was the best time in the world. There was this one map called Warlord, and it was British SAS vs some terrorist group or something. Anyway, picture this. In a game where you are normally meant to just move along and fight, we turned it into Special Operations: SAT Team.
First of all, we air drop onto this courtyard. I land short with a sniper, and start covering my cousins landing. He lands and clears them out with his rifle. We both move up and take the square. Then, we move up along the edge of the map, avoiding the centre. We reach the side of the palace, and grapple hook our way in the windows. Once inside, we clear room by room. If in need of a quick escape, one of us flashbangs the corridor whilst the other jumps out one of the many windows or skylights. We infiltrated the fucking palace in a game that had no stealth.
Those days were the best spent hours of my life. I would pay tons of money to get Battlefield 2.5. I don't care if it doesn't "revolutionise" the series, it was a fucking good game. This kind of stuff just doesn't happen in the new "Battlefield" games. Don't get me started on the smaller maps...
You know what was the most fun ever in Battlefield?
My cousin would come around to my house, I would put Battlefield in my dad's, brother's, mine and his computers, we would all start it up and have a ton of fun, working together, against each other, helping set up ambushes and helping to defend bases. One example was my mate, brand new to the game. He was sitting on top of a building with no fucking clue what to do, and he was a engineer. We had the best fun with him running in the front, blasting and me covering him and securing the door.
My cousin and I in Spec Ops was the best time in the world. There was this one map called Warlord, and it was British SAS vs some terrorist group or something. Anyway, picture this. In a game where you are normally meant to just move along and fight, we turned it into Special Operations: SAT Team.
First of all, we air drop onto this courtyard. I land short with a sniper, and start covering my cousins landing. He lands and clears them out with his rifle. We both move up and take the square. Then, we move up along the edge of the map, avoiding the centre. We reach the side of the palace, and grapple hook our way in the windows. Once inside, we clear room by room. If in need of a quick escape, one of us flashbangs the corridor whilst the other jumps out one of the many windows or skylights. We infiltrated the fucking palace in a game that had no stealth.
Those days were the best spent hours of my life. I would pay tons of money to get Battlefield 2.5. I don't care if it doesn't "revolutionise" the series, it was a fucking good game. This kind of stuff just doesn't happen in the new "Battlefield" games. Don't get me started on the smaller maps...
Battlefield: Vietnam is where the action was. Nothing was more satisfying than killing your enemies to the tune of Vietnam-era classics like "I Fought the Law, "Somebody to Love", and "Fortunate Son".
I played BC2 so much and even after I bought BF3 and shortly after stopped playing, so I tried going back to BC2. But I could never find a game.
So yea, BC2 for me.
So yea, BC2 for me.
How in all that is holy can you think that BF3 was doing a CoD impression without thinking the same about BFBC2?
Hint: BFBC2 is a smaller game with less focus on vehicles, and more focus on shooting your primary weapon, and maps were designed to have choke points forcing alot of infantry combat. Hmm.
Contrast that with the heavier, more Battlefield -esque focus on vehicles we see in Battlefield 3, along with the more open maps (ignoring obvious exceptions like metro)
I'd also like to invalidate one of your points about playing on a map designed for 64 people, with 24 people.
Trust me, you aren't. The maps on the consoles have been reduced in size drastically in order to allow for that. Go play Battlefield 2 on PC on a 64 man map, and if you think a BF3 map on console is even close to being as large as that, come back to me.
Anyway, I'd like to think that most people who chose the 3rd option (myself included) chose it for BF2, and that if we were forced to pick between the other 2, we'd choose BF3. Because it is more like a real Battlefield game than BFBC2.
That isn't to say I didn't enjoy Bad company 2, but it wasn't a Battlefield game. It was Battlefield meets CoD
And now, my explanation as to why I chose BF2:
-More focus on vehicles
-Huge open maps that don't force chokepoints
-When large combat does occur it feels special as it occurs naturally and isn't forced
-Larger squads
-Heavier focus on teamwork
-Commander
-Key points (i.e. on most rounds there was a capture point that allowed the team that owned it control of an attack helicopter. This meant that even one small squad of 6 could turn the game around if they captured that point and allowed their team access to the helicopter. Pretty damn cool that 6 players can have that effect in a 64 man game.)
- The ability (and need) to destroy enemy commander assets (i.e. c4 the arty guns so your team stops getting blown to hell.)
And the most important point of all for me:
-The heavier use of tactics due to the fact that there was a hierarchy of command.
One player was the commander; who would issue orders to squads, call in UAV's, drop supplies, call in artillary, drop vehicles to stranded squads.
Next you'd have the squad leaders, who would issue orders to their squad, aswell as choosing whether or not to follow the orders of the commander. Good squadleaders with good squadmembers could turn a game around by capturing key points. Also, these were the only people squadmembers could spawn on. Not each other. Squadleader only. Again encouraging the squad to be one unit, instead of spreading out.
The best feeling I ever had in that game was when, as a squadleader, the commander would take notice of your squads ability, and start assigning you to key points and making sure you had enough supplies, and he'd uav your area etc etc.
Anyway, sorry about the wall of text.
TL;DR
BF2 > BF3 > BFBC2
Hint: BFBC2 is a smaller game with less focus on vehicles, and more focus on shooting your primary weapon, and maps were designed to have choke points forcing alot of infantry combat. Hmm.
Contrast that with the heavier, more Battlefield -esque focus on vehicles we see in Battlefield 3, along with the more open maps (ignoring obvious exceptions like metro)
I'd also like to invalidate one of your points about playing on a map designed for 64 people, with 24 people.
Trust me, you aren't. The maps on the consoles have been reduced in size drastically in order to allow for that. Go play Battlefield 2 on PC on a 64 man map, and if you think a BF3 map on console is even close to being as large as that, come back to me.
Anyway, I'd like to think that most people who chose the 3rd option (myself included) chose it for BF2, and that if we were forced to pick between the other 2, we'd choose BF3. Because it is more like a real Battlefield game than BFBC2.
That isn't to say I didn't enjoy Bad company 2, but it wasn't a Battlefield game. It was Battlefield meets CoD
And now, my explanation as to why I chose BF2:
-More focus on vehicles
-Huge open maps that don't force chokepoints
-When large combat does occur it feels special as it occurs naturally and isn't forced
-Larger squads
-Heavier focus on teamwork
-Commander
-Key points (i.e. on most rounds there was a capture point that allowed the team that owned it control of an attack helicopter. This meant that even one small squad of 6 could turn the game around if they captured that point and allowed their team access to the helicopter. Pretty damn cool that 6 players can have that effect in a 64 man game.)
- The ability (and need) to destroy enemy commander assets (i.e. c4 the arty guns so your team stops getting blown to hell.)
And the most important point of all for me:
-The heavier use of tactics due to the fact that there was a hierarchy of command.
One player was the commander; who would issue orders to squads, call in UAV's, drop supplies, call in artillary, drop vehicles to stranded squads.
Next you'd have the squad leaders, who would issue orders to their squad, aswell as choosing whether or not to follow the orders of the commander. Good squadleaders with good squadmembers could turn a game around by capturing key points. Also, these were the only people squadmembers could spawn on. Not each other. Squadleader only. Again encouraging the squad to be one unit, instead of spreading out.
The best feeling I ever had in that game was when, as a squadleader, the commander would take notice of your squads ability, and start assigning you to key points and making sure you had enough supplies, and he'd uav your area etc etc.
Anyway, sorry about the wall of text.
TL;DR
BF2 > BF3 > BFBC2
Battlefield 2 by far i just loved all the team work , the commander/squad leader coordination . Oh and the mad scramble for the 9 key when you wanted to pull your parachute none of that fancy same button as your jumping nonsense
I tried the beta and hated BF3, everything I have heard about it makes me glad I didn't buy it.
I also hated BF:BC2 for many reasons.
My favorite is probably either Battlefield Bad company(The first one) or 1943(The newer XBLA one). I found both of these to be a lot of fun, I played a lot of both and just found them to be a lot of fun and great shooters.
I also hated BF:BC2 for many reasons.
My favorite is probably either Battlefield Bad company(The first one) or 1943(The newer XBLA one). I found both of these to be a lot of fun, I played a lot of both and just found them to be a lot of fun and great shooters.
I agree, 2142 had to be my favorite out of all the Battlefields out there. I mean Titan mode was definitely the greatest game type I have played in a long time that made it a nice challenge with a mix of close quarters and control point capturing.FelixG said:
The good thing is that they are already teasing at 2143 the same way they had teased 2142. Some of the crates found on the airfield on Wake Island have 2143 stamped on them, just like in BF2 they had 2142 stamped on them. So let's hope!
Bad Company 2. Hands down.
Just something about it was superior to BF3. It was just... more fun!
Just something about it was superior to BF3. It was just... more fun!