Hmm, I'm not so sure. I think Dice have actually (well, hopefully) paid a bit more attention to feedback this time, hence the announcements that prone and jets will be in BF3. It's all speculation of course but that does indicate to me at least that if they're including jets surely the other vehicles will have a look in too.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
It's my interpretation of the design. The central figure is highly detailed, standing out in (literally) sharp contrast to the blurred vehicles that are just a part of the background.
Compare to:
Vehicles figure heavily into most of these images. Admittedly, the cover for BF2 kind of breaks up the tradition by fading them out in the background, but it was still a PC game and the spiritual successor to the previous Battlefield titles. At that point, if you didn't already know there would be vehicles all over the place, then there was nothing they could do for you as a PC gamer.
The Bad Company series hopped in, took the Battlefield name and ripped out a great deal of what the series had built up. So at this point, I'm willing to go off of my experience with BC and BC2 when I say that BF3 will most likely focus on empowering infantry and nerfing vehicles as much as possible...despite the fact that the cover still has vehicles, however blurred...and in spite of whatever the developers might have to say about it.
inb4 uzique calls it subtly evocative
Topic closed
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Battlefield 3 »
- That Battlefield 3 Game Cover
awwwwwwww11 Bravo wrote:
it didnt start with IO.......
and yes you can suppress the vehicles but id rather spend my time playing a FIRST PERSON SHOOTER and not worrying about some annoying helo whore clan fags
was bf2 too difficult for you?
maybe we should take that airport level from codmod2 and you can just play that instead!
no...but i enjoyed IO much much more. no fags teamkilling eachother and crying at the helo pad or hangar like twatsHaiBai wrote:
awwwwwwww11 Bravo wrote:
it didnt start with IO.......
and yes you can suppress the vehicles but id rather spend my time playing a FIRST PERSON SHOOTER and not worrying about some annoying helo whore clan fags
was bf2 too difficult for you?
maybe we should take that airport level from codmod2 and you can just play that instead!
and i dont like cod
Last edited by 11 Bravo (2011-02-12 09:02:19)
vehicles are part of the game.
it's what made the battlefield series
if you're playing battlefield for IO, you should find some other games to play
it's what made the battlefield series
if you're playing battlefield for IO, you should find some other games to play
why? i just said i enjoyed IO..and im sure they will have that optionHaiBai wrote:
vehicles are part of the game.
it's what made the battlefield series
if you're playing battlefield for IO, you should find some other games to play
and i dont mind the use of vehicles in BC2
Last edited by 11 Bravo (2011-02-12 09:06:00)
The servers that are left are generally better monitored for crap like that. Maturity levels have skyrocketed.11 Bravo wrote:
no...but i enjoyed IO much much more. no fags teamkilling eachother and crying at the helo pad or hangar like twats
Perhaps it will be more like BF2 than BC2; I won't know for sure until I play it. It's just what came to mind when I saw the cover in the OP. I'm not going to pin my hopes on it being a true spiritual successor to BF2 only to have them completely shot out of the sky by dumbed-down BC2 stuff.Jaekus wrote:
Hmm, I'm not so sure. I think Dice have actually (well, hopefully) paid a bit more attention to feedback this time, hence the announcements that prone and jets will be in BF3. It's all speculation of course but that does indicate to me at least that if they're including jets surely the other vehicles will have a look in too.
Ok please give me an example of a better IO game to play, o wise polish guruHaiBai wrote:
if you're playing battlefield for IO, you should find some other games to play
main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg
come on, now, the movement and hitreg in bf2 hardly made it the most amazing IO game
cod1/cod2 were far far superior and contemporaneous
cod1/cod2 were far far superior and contemporaneous
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
what uzique said, codDUnlimited wrote:
Ok please give me an example of a better IO game to play, o wise polish guruHaiBai wrote:
if you're playing battlefield for IO, you should find some other games to play
actually, if you really think that bf2 is better then cod for infantry, it just means bf2 is that much better then cod because bf2 is not designed nor intended to be infantry only. however, that doesn't give you permission to bitch about vehicles
mtb0minime wrote:
Why would Game Informer break it down and go into detail about that shit? Oh wait, because it's a fucking gaming magazine for boner-for-military 12yo's.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 
This is true, but the range of engagement for BF2 is superior because the maps were designed with vehicles in mind. You only have to deal with grenade spam in bottlenecks or on flags. Even Delta Force 2 had bigger maps than CoD-anything, even if it was repeating terrain after awhile.Uzique wrote:
come on, now, the movement and hitreg in bf2 hardly made it the most amazing IO game
cod1/cod2 were far far superior and contemporaneous
in cod the maps are the size of a broom closet.HaiBai wrote:
what uzique said, codDUnlimited wrote:
Ok please give me an example of a better IO game to play, o wise polish guruHaiBai wrote:
if you're playing battlefield for IO, you should find some other games to play
actually, if you really think that bf2 is better then cod for infantry, it just means bf2 is that much better then cod because bf2 is not designed nor intended to be infantry only. however, that doesn't give you permission to bitch about vehicles
so no.
Then go play Counterstrike or something... BF has never been about the IO11 Bravo wrote:
in cod the maps are the size of a broom closet.HaiBai wrote:
what uzique said, codDUnlimited wrote:
Ok please give me an example of a better IO game to play, o wise polish guru
actually, if you really think that bf2 is better then cod for infantry, it just means bf2 is that much better then cod because bf2 is not designed nor intended to be infantry only. however, that doesn't give you permission to bitch about vehicles
so no.
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
where exactly are you drawing the implicit assumption from that a game needs big maps to be good at IO? big open maps often suck for IO. the larger maps in cod1 were perfectly sized for the range of weapons and infantry-abilities in the game. i sure as hell never thought "gee this map sure could use another bombsite" or "this map should be twice as big" when i was playing on maps like carentan or harbour. they were absolutely top-notch examples of map-design. hurtgen, pavlov, brecourt, rocket etc. all had a nice mixture of choke-points and open, long-range expanses, too. i really don't think you can criticize cod1/cod2 for map design. cod4-> onwards is a different story, albeit a story affected by many other factors than simple map-design in critiquing its spamminess (i.e. killstreak rewards, fully automatic weapons all round, kits, grenade spam).unnamednewbie13 wrote:
This is true, but the range of engagement for BF2 is superior because the maps were designed with vehicles in mind. You only have to deal with grenade spam in bottlenecks or on flags. Even Delta Force 2 had bigger maps than CoD-anything, even if it was repeating terrain after awhile.Uzique wrote:
come on, now, the movement and hitreg in bf2 hardly made it the most amazing IO game
cod1/cod2 were far far superior and contemporaneous
having said that, another FPS game with far better IO combat than bf2 is day of defeat (and to a lesser extent, dod: source). the kits and balance of that game are incredible, and the engine and shooting/movement mechanics work far better than in the bugged-out bf2 engine. people just worship bf2's IO combat as so much better than it actually was because the game arrived with so many 'wow' factors in its day, e.g. intensive stat tracking, massive range of playstyles, top-notch graphics, etc. the actual shooting and moving around sucked dick. this forum in its hey-day was daily-spammed with complaints about hitreg, rate/ping advantages, dolphin diving, bugged out movement etc. you can hardly call the simple, soldier-to-soldier infantry combat amazing. and again i don't see how having big maps makes a fucking difference. if the shooting sucks, the shooting sucks... i don't care if there's 5 square miles of playspace to get lost in.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
why would i go play CS when i said I ENJOYED BF2 IOFloppY_ wrote:
Then go play Counterstrike or something... BF has never been about the IO11 Bravo wrote:
in cod the maps are the size of a broom closet.HaiBai wrote:
what uzique said, cod
actually, if you really think that bf2 is better then cod for infantry, it just means bf2 is that much better then cod because bf2 is not designed nor intended to be infantry only. however, that doesn't give you permission to bitch about vehicles
so no.
I like IO. I don't mind vehicles but I'm not a fan of airmaps. I prefer BF IO to CoD or CS because of the teamwork aspect of BF IO that doesn't exist in those other games.
Airmaps are great. Loads of reasons why. I'll guarantee, if you have a collection of friends to play BF with and one is a decent gunner / pilot. Or one is a great teamplayer and is accurate with tracer (on BC2) that you'll enjoy airmaps. The potential for a K improvement is immense and team points with tracers / spotting choppas / armour assists etc is there to be taken.
However if you play assault on every fucking map, then you deserve to die on these maps.
Be adaptive and enjoy the game for what it is.
However if you play assault on every fucking map, then you deserve to die on these maps.
Be adaptive and enjoy the game for what it is.
try dod: source. it's not squad-based, per se, but the game-modes, map design and class set-ups make it extremely team-based.Macbeth wrote:
I like IO. I don't mind vehicles but I'm not a fan of airmaps. I prefer BF IO to CoD or CS because of the teamwork aspect of BF IO that doesn't exist in those other games.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
You're jumping to the wrong conclusion, here. I am not drawing an implicit assumption about anything. For the most part, CoD's maps are fantastic, creatively designed and fun to play, but it's not the only way to do things. Battlefield 2's maps were designed with vehicles in mind, and as such are often unsuitable for infantry-only, but there are cases where it does work successfully. Maps that are too large can be loaded in their 32 or 16 player incarnations, and the more popular maps (Karkand, Jalalabad, etc.) just naturally lend themselves to infantry combat, no matter what size. They have cover, multiple approaches and bottlenecks all working in their favor. Playing IO in BF2 is an apples/oranges difference when compared with close-quarters games like CoD,. DoD and CSS. If I want a fast-paced game, I'm not going to sign on and play Sharqi Peninsula 32. If I want a measured experience with squads and a semblance of a command structure, I'll play BF2 IO. If I want to play in slow-motion, I'll play PR.Uzique wrote:
where exactly are you drawing the implicit assumption from that a game needs big maps to be good at IO? big open maps often suck for IO. the larger maps in cod1 were perfectly sized for the range of weapons and infantry-abilities in the game. i sure as hell never thought "gee this map sure could use another bombsite" or "this map should be twice as big" when i was playing on maps like carentan or harbour. they were absolutely top-notch examples of map-design. hurtgen, pavlov, brecourt, rocket etc. all had a nice mixture of choke-points and open, long-range expanses, too. i really don't think you can criticize cod1/cod2 for map design. cod4-> onwards is a different story, albeit a story affected by many other factors than simple map-design in critiquing its spamminess (i.e. killstreak rewards, fully automatic weapons all round, kits, grenade spam).unnamednewbie13 wrote:
This is true, but the range of engagement for BF2 is superior because the maps were designed with vehicles in mind. You only have to deal with grenade spam in bottlenecks or on flags. Even Delta Force 2 had bigger maps than CoD-anything, even if it was repeating terrain after awhile.Uzique wrote:
come on, now, the movement and hitreg in bf2 hardly made it the most amazing IO game
cod1/cod2 were far far superior and contemporaneous
having said that, another FPS game with far better IO combat than bf2 is day of defeat (and to a lesser extent, dod: source). the kits and balance of that game are incredible, and the engine and shooting/movement mechanics work far better than in the bugged-out bf2 engine. people just worship bf2's IO combat as so much better than it actually was because the game arrived with so many 'wow' factors in its day, e.g. intensive stat tracking, massive range of playstyles, top-notch graphics, etc. the actual shooting and moving around sucked dick. this forum in its hey-day was daily-spammed with complaints about hitreg, rate/ping advantages, dolphin diving, bugged out movement etc. you can hardly call the simple, soldier-to-soldier infantry combat amazing. and again i don't see how having big maps makes a fucking difference. if the shooting sucks, the shooting sucks... i don't care if there's 5 square miles of playspace to get lost in.
That said, sometimes I like to leave the confines of small-map infantry games and play a game that actually lets me roam a bit, giving me more objective-approach choices than 'over the hill,' 'through the sewer' or 'inside the ruined building.' Also, I don't really seem to have much of a problem with the hitreg. Whatever I shoot at usually dies if I'm not wildly spraying at it. It could be bunny-hopping, dolphin-diving, ducking behind a mounted MG...whatever; doesn't really matter. But preference is fairly subjective. I can't imagine playing with high ping would be very fun.
t
l
;
d
r
l
;
d
r
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
Nobody said you had to.
The 3 is in the groin area of the guy. You want a 3 on the groin area?Cheez wrote:
Away from the rest of the title?War Man wrote:
The 3 needs to be in a different spot.
Gotcha.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
With the amount of spare time you seem to have, and the amount of time you spend on here, perhaps you should read it.FloppY_ wrote:
t
l
;
d
r
Yes. Yes I do.War Man wrote:
You want 3 on the groin area?
My state was founded by Batman. Your opinion is invalid.
True. All we can do is speculate at the moment, we have very little to go by. Hopefully at NAMM there is some early gameplay to be seen, and give us all a better idea of what's in store.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Perhaps it will be more like BF2 than BC2; I won't know for sure until I play it. It's just what came to mind when I saw the cover in the OP. I'm not going to pin my hopes on it being a true spiritual successor to BF2 only to have them completely shot out of the sky by dumbed-down BC2 stuff.Jaekus wrote:
Hmm, I'm not so sure. I think Dice have actually (well, hopefully) paid a bit more attention to feedback this time, hence the announcements that prone and jets will be in BF3. It's all speculation of course but that does indicate to me at least that if they're including jets surely the other vehicles will have a look in too.
Topic closed
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Battlefield 3 »
- That Battlefield 3 Game Cover