Yes indeed, in many servers you don`t see the ping.
Huh? Since the patch that added pings I have always seen the ping.
Upvote
0
Yes indeed, in many servers you don`t see the ping.
BF3 does what it aims to do very well. That it does not aim to be a milsim does not necessarily make it any less of a game or any less of a skillful game. By that logic, chess must be an easy, shallow game, as its rendition of a battle is laughable.
What's particularly funny about this thread though is that, coming from UT2K4, the last MP FPS I played extensively, it's pretty clear to me that BF3 and RO2 are slightly different takes on the same game.
If you wanted to argue Modern Warfare 2/3 vs RO2 (or BF3), that's easy, but RO2 is one mod away from being BF3 and vice versa.
RO2, on the other hand, had some very unpleasant surprises and feels different from what I was expecting, due to what I see as a failed attempt to "mainstream" the game while keeping it close to its origins at the same time, and failing to do both.
If everything wasn't so dumbed down
Whenever topics such as this get started in forums I frequent I find several things always seem to get ignored.
Games of today are being compared to games from years ago in terms of realism. That simply cannot work since in many cases what we might deem "realism" in older games was just a limitation in the old game engines. For instance the original Rainbow Six and Rogue Spear etc. Much of what one could label "realism" really was just game-engine limitation. You sprinted? Your crosshairs bloomed to fill 2/3 of the screen. Was that really realistic or just a mechanic used to force slower gameplay? Newer game engines introduced on-screen weapons with visible sway and "breathing" mechanics.
Ballistics, round lethality, penetration, environmental effects, positional sound-mapping have all been added to games lately and yet we argue new games aren't as realistic? Is that because we feel the artificial punishment imposed upon us by the older game's limited mechanics really was more realistic or just because the artificial punishment was more likely to force players to play each game a certain way?
In my opinion games just keep getting "better". That doesn't necessarily coincide with "realism" but it also doesn't mean the opposite. After everything is said and done however, they are all still games, even the new ones. Realism (the idea thereof) therefore must always be kept in perspective and fun factor (the reason so many of us actually play games) not ignored as a factor in new game design.
That's why most realistic games have clunky movement/ aiming dynamics.
Just try it yourself and you'll know instantly.
and wasn't ro series basically niche game with graw 2 pc , arma 2 pr style realistic movement?
Casual gamers will not like it as it's not polished nor shiny, good performing as bf or cod.
Serious crowds will hate it for being cheap arcady shxx.
That's why ro2 is being bashed countless times even by niche crowds.
It doesn't do anything right, it didn't become a fabulous arcade shooter nor serious tactical shooter.
No.....games have "clunky" movement because of crappy game engines.
No. Gamers dislike RO2 because it is buggy (ie. can't prone at the worst of times), hit-detection is abysmal, and performance is poorly optimised.
Again No. The "niche" crowd as you put it (elitist-I-automatically-oppose-evolution-crowd in my opinion) is bashing RO2 because it no longer uses ARTIFICIAL DIFFICULTY applied to different game mechanics in order to PUNISH those choosing not to play the game the way the "niche crowd" thinks such a game should be played.
Basically ro vets are ppl who like these kind of stuffs and when ro2 became same ol' arcady sxxx most of them just left as many new casual gamers do.
Some ppl find fun in hardcore games as ARMA2, falcon 4.0, A10c warthog, GRAW2 pc mp as they are torturing but also give the thrill like no other.
It's tough and stressful than run of the mill shooters but there's tense thrill that no other casual shooters even dare....to mimic.
Again, kid,..................