BF3 and why I will play RO2 more

[Blahman]

All in all, so far I'm not really impressed with BF3, and I wasn't expecting to be honestly after seeing MP vids from the alpha. Destruction seems pretty limited so far, the Metro map reeks of CoD and the dumbing down of the UI, squad system, no commander, no Commo Rose, no in-game VOIP (I guess it's through Battlelog or something) etc, is very disappointing.

The Battlelog thing would be fine if it was simply an alternative to an actual in-game menu and server browser, but it's required to even launch the game which is a terrible decision. Makes for a very cheap feeling experience.

Once you get into the game and set up it's fun, but there are some glitches (whenever I try to bind 'Zoom' to Alt it doesn't take, and my mouse cursor disappears until I exit options) and having to alt-enter to re-fullscreen after every map is idiotic. What do squad leaders get? Seems like there is no point to being one, and not like you have much choice. You can't even choose which squad to join let alone create one. Not being able to go into Options unless you are in-game and alive is just mindboggling. Who thought that was a good idea? I thought the PC was supposed to be their premier platform? Everything about the PC side of it is weak, and all that's left is watered-down, CoD-style gameplay.

One thing that would make Metro better is if the bushes in the first stage would move when people are walking through them. As it is you can pretty much completely conceal yourself moving through them which I have been exploiting to much lulz, but ultimately would like to see changed for realism's sake. Also there should be an overland route into the second stage, fighting through completely linear tunnels gets old. No smoke grenades that I have seen so far.

Maybe 64-player conquest maps with vehicles will be its saving grace but guess we'll have to wait and see.

Also, I keep trying to use RO2's cover system and leaning in BF3 but it doesn't work

RO2 is the better game if you care about teamwork, tactics, realism and authenticity. Not to mention a server browser actually built into the game. *shocker*

 

[vyyye]

Oh snap, I was looking for the Red Orchestra 2 forum. How did I end up at Battlefield 3's forum?

 

[BlackScore]

Yeah, i got you. I realy loved the BF-Series, but BF:BC2 was my last one.

 

[Rak]

Also, I keep trying to use RO2's cover system and leaning in BF3 but it doesn't work

RO2 is the better game if you care about teamwork, tactics, realism and authenticity. Not to mention a server browser actually built into the game. *shocker*

I've been missing RO2's cover system in BF3 as well. Though, it would slow down the game too much. BF has it's standart pace and it's never been slow. They even debated much whether if they should add prone or not. I'm missing the ammo check feature of RO2 too, it has become an instinct for me.

I disagree with the last paragraph. RO2 has barely any room for teamwork, it's hard to move as a team(clunky squad leader spawning, laser sharp aiming and sway) and target enemies, classes don't have much synergy with each other compared to BF3 and these contribute to squads being utterly useless except the occasional squad leader spawn, if it works.

Tactics are barely useful because of RO2 level design and high accuracy weapons, which punishes you for taking alternate routes. It all comes down to individuals taking risks(like an MG trying flank repeatedly and succeed) and who gets to better cover faster.

Realism and authenticity are what make RO2 shine over BF3. The incredible weapon and player animations, cover system, wounding system, mind blowingly detailed maps and good graphics. Sadly, these aspects are hampered by incredibly stupid design choices to attract mainstream players(loadouts, unlocks, faster pace of the game with reduced ADS time and precise aim, wounding system being useless).

So now, if I had to compare two games(I have 45 hours of RO2 and only 3hours of BF3), right now I'd say RO2 comes on top overall when it comes to gameplay. RO2 has many more toys to play with for the gameplay (cover, bandaging, weapons sighting and other small details). Though, BF3 provides a superior teamwork experience out of the box and a balanced gameplay. Also, firefights in BF3 are much more fun because they last than 1 seconds unlike RO2 and constant stream of unlocks makes the game interesting the more you play. My opinion can change as I progress and have more varied gameplay toys(unlocks) and more maps.

I like RO2, I think it was what we I wanted from the beginning. It's not RO 1.5 we all wanted but RO2. The foundations are strong(graphics, animations, gameplay) it's just these stupid design choices I mentioned(small config changes) that ruin the gameplay. Seriously TWI, look at RO1 and think why it was successful. Not BF or CoD.

Just my 2 cents about this whole "BF3 vs RO2" debate.

 

[zvukoper]

RO2 is BF3 killer

RO2 is BF3 killer

BF3 looks amazingly beautiful, sounds just awesome! Effects, design, style - top of the top. But it feels fake same as Modern Warfare 2. It was flashy, fresh and astonishing, but ended up empty illogical and nothing but flashy graphics. Judgin by the beta I played much recently, BF3 is almost the same, except they inserted a lot of awesome features and detail to the game. Optic sights blink reflections in darkness and you can spot snipers, lasers leave red dot on object and blind you, this partial destruction... many many great ideas...

But, guyz, all this beuty will soon get old and the only thing what would reamin - the big, deep, logical, well-thought comlete idea of it's gameplay... which I fail to see so far in BF3. No leaning, no smoke grenades? It's stupid joke. Thay developed this game for 6 years and forgot about smoke and leaning? No, it's deliberately implemented arcade commercial b***sh**t So that "people not get tired of too many tactical feauters and pay moar attention to our graphics and buy moar...". It all seems very commercial and not worth spending time in multiplayer. I'll sure get a torrent to gasp at singleplayer... but so far, multiplayer is a simple cod-clone which was extended by vehicles and silly defibrillators which you can use even running wiithout even sitting down

Fun - yes. Realistic - no, sorry.

RO2 beats BF3 in every single way you name, except stability, fps and top-graphics.

And I was surprized when saw above "RO2 has barely any room for teamwork". I even smiled because I mainly adore RO2 for it's amazing teamplay balance. If you want, I'll explain in detail... but in short, RO2 is useless if there's no teamwork, but when you have a Teamleader, 4 squad leaders who report back arty coords and a dozen of brave soldiers not ignoring objective markers - RO2 shines and glistens like pure genuius of combat shooters. But I can agree, good team is hard to find randomly.... so people shall organize in squads and play together... consolidate the fanbase and the community ...But it's another story.

Someday TWI will get rid of an issue with FPS, fix stats, bring more tanks, polish the balance and gameplay and RO2 will become a new religion for many hardcore players.

P.s. Sorry for wall of text and loud words I just love RO2 and wanted to love Bf3 because I waited so long, but it ruined my expectations.

 

[[TORO]Patosentado]

After trying to get some kills with the shotgun at blankpoint range and seeing the pleople survive that, I decided to call it a day and uninstall de Beta...
As a comment, the SV-98 and the Mosin are more than suspectedly similar (check the mechanism box and bolt in both) but is rare to get a 1shoot kill in BF3 as you do in RO/RO2...

 

[shaqism]

Soon as the mighty Red Orchestra modding community puts some modern combat into Red Orchestra people wont touch battlefield anymore

 

[The Algerian]

BF3 is great.
RO2 is great.

Also I just tried Ghost Recon Online Beta.
Guess what, it's great too. It even plays quite like RO2, cover system, tactical gameplay. etc

 

[Lauch]

Soon as the mighty Red Orchestra modding community puts some modern combat into Red Orchestra people wont touch battlefield anymore

This.

BF3 gameplay is pretty generic. RO2's isnt.

 

[killuh]

hmm

hmm

well i just tried the bf3 beta and i think it does a lot of things great for sensory awareness.

that said i didnt play more than two minutes before i x'ed out and came back to ro2. having to shoot a guy a friggin thousand times and NOTHING happens is just contradictory to shooting games. im exagerrating of course but cmon wth!

i didnt play a lot of ro1 but i have to say the series in general is very satisfying when it comes to what i said above NEVER happening.

i wonder what free dlc's ro2 is planning. i heard something about half tracks. anyway cheers! i know ill be playing a lot of ro2.

 

[seb1890]

I know this is not a BF3 forum but people are forgetting that this is a sequel to BF 2 which came out in 2005. I could care less for the Rush game type in the Beta. I'm getting it for the 64 player maps with the vehicles aka, tanks, apcs, helos, and jets. Don't get me wrong I'm still going to be playing RO2 haha. This game is too damn good to put down.