BF2S Forums The "All Other Games" Chat Thread

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

no your words were "plus bf3 was a good game". no bf3 was not a good game. not a single redeeming factor about the whole thing. it was a graphics and engine demo. as i said before, an interactive michael bay film. destructible environments didn't add shit. the novelty got old in bad company. flash graphics and suppression effects didn't mean shit, except mostly annoyance / can't see shit factor. the movement and shooting wasn't even 1/2 as good as bf2's movement and shooting. it was all style, no substance. that is not a 'good game'. a good tech demo, maybe. a good-for-youtube experience, maybe. a shit game.

Mostly true! 

However, I do enjoy flying the choppers.  The choppers are one thing BF3 did not fuck up

air combat as a whole though was mostly retarded. it never had the same thrill and sense of learning curve as bf2. it was, again, either simplified or just plainly not fine-tuned enough.

The learning curve wasn't high at all on the helis, jets are another story. One round me and ig nearly got 100 kills on caspian in the helicopter and would have if the chopper didn't get stolen after we died at like 80 something kills.

Last edited by Roc18 (2013-03-22 16:36:08)

I like bf3

BF3 is a good game.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

thepilot91 wrote:

directionchangeabilety

manuverability?

everything in bf3 felt like it had input lag/release lag. it's all that 'next gen physx super realism' bro.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-03-27 04:40:19)

i think it's tied to the new engines more than the console controls. you 'move' through the newer engines like shit, like you're carrying a lot of baggage and weight. it's not really simplified console controls that cause that. compare the 'feel' of an early FPS game built on the quake/unreal engine to a game made using oMgz exPolIsionz frostbite engine. the frostbite engine feels like you're carrying a few people on your back. it's dumb.

FFLink wrote:

thepilot91 wrote:

No just console....ever since they started to make multiplayer fps for consoles fps have gone to shit

Strange thing to say.

actually it's one of the most standard lines in fps moaning, like, ever. most of the ire of the last 10 years has been directed at 'console ports' or 'games made for both platforms, and being great at neither'.

had a good twist at the end for its time

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

everything in bf3 felt like it had input lag/release lag. it's all that 'next gen physx super realism' bro.

They're just enhancing that same shitty feel you got from the previous BF games but played anyway because unlike BF3, they seemed awesome.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

i think it's tied to the new engines more than the console controls. you 'move' through the newer engines like shit, like you're carrying a lot of baggage and weight. it's not really simplified console controls that cause that. compare the 'feel' of an early FPS game built on the quake/unreal engine to a game made using oMgz exPolIsionz frostbite engine. the frostbite engine feels like you're carrying a few people on your back. it's dumb.

In some cases, this is a good thing. In WH40K: Space Marine, you move and turn like you're wearing a heavy suit of armor, but it's on purpose and feels right. There are a number of high-impact melee stuns and body slams that keep me playing more than BF3 with all its destructible buildings could ever hope to achieve.

for a competitive fps game: yes, i roundly agree. movement and shooting should be pure, uninterrupted tests of the players skills/movement/reactions. in games like source engine, quake engine and early cod games (an adapted quake engine), it was a pure mechanical combination of that players movement, aiming and recoil-control that led to their good play (as well as all the higher levels of teamwork, strategy, decision-making etc.) this is why bf2 wasn't REALLY a great fps game, in the classic sense: the movement and shooting were bunk. it just had a lot of other compelling things that brought it up to a playable level, i guess. in bf3, the movement and shooting are so far below-par, and all the 'extras' and 'incentives' are more like infuriating console add-ons.

most top-level players knew bf2 had shortcomings. that was never the point. why do you hold certain games up to be infallible and god-level? i think you have rose-tinted glasses on. these forums were full of complaints from pub players and competitive players about bf2. every patch that came out would provoke huge discussions about certain changes that altered the game-style dramatically, or removed/emphasized certain aspects of play. it was far from a perfect game. far from balanced, even, in certain ways (please tell me more about pkm and g36e whines). and the infantry combat (movement and shooting) was mostly a case of trying to do the best you could with the movement+hitreg the game offered. dolphin diving? you think that was designed as intended, in the same way that, say, conc jumping was designed and intended in TFC? please. you don't know what you're talking about. dice tried repeatedly to patch that feature OUT of the game, even when it was one of the defining characteristics of competitive inf-only play.

if every pro player i know had an entitled opinion and groan about bf2, i don't know why that makes it 'untouchable' for you. you were, what, 12 when that game first came out? it was your first fps you said, no? so yeah i'm really talking to someone here who can make worthwhile comparisons. just because it was your first serious fps game, doesn't make it perfect or free of criticism. get a brain in that little round head.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-03-29 05:22:47)

where am i saying patches ruined the game? i said patches altered gameplay and the style that was adopted at higher levels quite a lot. i.e. the game was constantly in flux. a work in progress. constantly adapting to changes. so how can you say it's perfect? or free of criticism? on that very basis that it was always being tweaked, surely it couldn't be perfect? perhaps you're just being a fanboy with rose-tinted glasses? hmm. cause i remember, in bf2's competitive and pro scene, it certainly wasn't all fawning and 'omg bf2 best game ever' then. there were lots of complaints and grumbles. it was far from a happy community. you just look back on it that way because you are nostalgic.

do i think bf2 was far better than bf3? without a doubt. but am i wrong to say that bf2 had shortcomings of its own, and was in some senses a downgrade on earlier-generation fps games when it came to movement/shooting? hell no. bf2 had infamously terrible hitreg compared to games that came before it. the netcode sucked ass. if you have a problem seeing that, you are out of your mind.