BF3 and why I will play RO2 more

[MissionMaximus]

Love the thread. I find it ironic that most of the BF3 Loverboys are so quick to hate on your thread here. I mean they love BF3 so much that they come on RO2 forums to talk about BF3.

BF3 is YET ANOTHER Modern Warfare ripoff, Console port. Give me BF2 with the updated graphics and of course without all the freaking lights, then I would probably be happy with it. Heck, it looks like a Halo game.

All in All I prefer more realistic, complex games than what the kiddies play. I'm a PC gamer afterall. I like the feeling when I shoot someone in the chest that they die and it doesn't take 5-10 bullets, then they turnaround shoot me in the head, throw a medic pack down and regenerate their health.

 

[MissionMaximus]

>Quote from BF3 forum member.<
"I just hate it when I get killed by a single shot to the torso from a SVD (when I have full health). Isn't that supposed to be a bug? Otherwise, it is fine besides the lag. I don't know how many times I have got hitmarkers from shooting somebody, but they then end up killing me with 100% health. Also, the 0% health thing is back from BC2. I also believe there were a few times where the hit detection just completely failed on me (no hitmarkers at all), or it may have been invisible objects blocking my shots."

This is what will be playing BF3.

 

[hrvatski]

Tough to argue that one.

Actually, it's not. His suggestion would be a fallacy as apples do not equal oranges. Let me lay it out for you:

BF3:
Enormous development team
Streamlined multi-platform game (see: dumbed down for consoles)
A small army of bug testers working for DICE
No modding considerations

RO2:
Development team the size of your family
Built specifically for PC implementing larger variety of features
Uh, we are the only bug testers they have
And full SDK modding support from the ground up


The two games are entirely different as mentioned time and time again, yet you lot insist on comparing the two.
Post-release support from Tripwire (as always) will blow DICE's out of the water. Tripwire will continue to take fans into consideration while DICE will ignore the vast majority of suggestions then release map packs that cost extra money.

Like a few of you RO2 can be buggy, but when you're getting sometimes 2 patches released PER WEEK how could anyone possibly complain? It took Tripwire all of two weeks to restore my game to perfect order, and now I have absolutely zero concerns. Peformance is great, gameplay is great, and it's only going to get better.

 

[Alperce]

Actually, it's not. His suggestion would be a fallacy as apples do not equal oranges. Let me lay it out for you:

BF3:
Enormous development team
Streamlined multi-platform game (see: dumbed down for consoles)
A small army of bug testers working for DICE
No modding considerations

RO2:
Development team the size of your family
Built specifically for PC implementing larger variety of features
Uh, we are the only bug testers they have
And full SDK modding support from the ground up


The two games are entirely different as mentioned time and time again, yet you lot insist on comparing the two.
Post-release support from Tripwire (as always) will blow DICE's out of the water. Tripwire will continue to take fans into consideration while DICE will ignore the vast majority of suggestions then release map packs that cost extra money.

Like a few of you RO2 can be buggy, but when you're getting sometimes 2 patches released PER WEEK how could anyone possibly complain? It took Tripwire all of two weeks to restore my game to perfect order, and now I have absolutely zero concerns. Peformance is great, gameplay is great, and it's only going to get better.

This. RO2 is actually a work of art and the result of an impressive effort if you take into account the history behind it.

BF3, IMO, seems pretty disapointing, and I'm not saying this as an RO fanboy because I was really looking forward to a new Battlefield that carried on the direction of the original series, finding an upgraded BC2 instead.

RO2 has bugs, has problems, and had a very rough release. However, it's being ironed out at an incredible speed, and if you check the size of the team working on it, how they got where they are now, and the resources/conditions they have when compared to DICE, and being that both companies had pretty much the same time to work on the game (not counting the Bad Companies, just the original Battlefields), you'll find that RO2 is much more of an acomplishment than BF3.

 

[hrvatski]

Though I gotta admit, BF3 is a really, really funny game..

Battlefield 3 Vehicle Bug from Caspian Border Map Hillarious! - YouTube


God this is hilarious, and to think it's the exact same bug from BF1942 blows my mind. LOL

I really want to play BF3, I really do. But it's obvious that the game is more similar to Bad Company than it should be. I just can't justify spending my money on it, and i've tried. I LOVED BF1942 and what I have played of BF2 was a blast..

Alas, my money goes to Tripwire and I do not regret it.

 

[LHeureux]

The BETA is a 3 months old build, they still have 25 days to fix the main bugs, wich are already dealt with, because it's a 3 months old build. The vehicle bug is quite hilarious, never encountered it though .

 

[LHeureux]

Also, BF3 kits management is based off BF2142 wich was really good because you can change and customize your kits, so you can be a Support wich C4s, or get a UMP and bam! you're spec ops.

If you didn't play Caspian Border I can understand, but once you play it you know that you're playing the true sequel to BF2, and the infantry combat is way better than in BF2 that had the nade spam and all the bunny + dolphin diving.

 

[hrvatski]

Also, BF3 kits management is based off BF2142 wich was really good because you can change and customize your kits, so you can be a Support wich C4s, or get a UMP and bam! you're spec ops.

If you didn't play Caspian Border I can understand, but once you play it you know that you're playing the true sequel to BF2, and the infantry combat is way better than in BF2 that had the nade spam and all the bunny + dolphin diving.

Yes, if by true sequel you mean large maps and more vehicles. That's really about it.

 

[LHeureux]

Yes, if by true sequel you mean large maps and more vehicles. That's really about it.

What else did you want? Ok yes commander and 6 man squads. But what else?

 

[DeltaElite121]

Love the thread. I find it ironic that most of the BF3 Loverboys are so quick to hate on your thread here. I mean they love BF3 so much that they come on RO2 forums to talk about BF3.

BF3 is YET ANOTHER Modern Warfare ripoff, Console port. Give me BF2 with the updated graphics and of course without all the freaking lights, then I would probably be happy with it. Heck, it looks like a Halo game.

All in All I prefer more realistic, complex games than what the kiddies play. I'm a PC gamer afterall. I like the feeling when I shoot someone in the chest that they die and it doesn't take 5-10 bullets, then they turnaround shoot me in the head, throw a medic pack down and regenerate their health.

This is why most people don't get to play betas simply because they ASSUME things instead of being constructive. That rush map is a POOR example of BF3 and it's roots. To be equally fair, that's like me giving you a demo of RO2 and saying "you only get to play deathmatch". Everyone knows Territory is a blast to play, but you'd never know that if all you saw was TDM (especially in it's current state). If I made the same assumption as you, of course the game would suck.. but that's not the case. The mere fact Karkand and Sharqi are coming back should be evidence alone.

Case and point: assuming things based on what you/we don't know is silly. You have ONE map to base a whole game and all of it's gametypes upon. That's just a little ridiculous, don't you think? Now with all that being said - when the game goes live... fire away with what you've got to say about it because it's fair at that point.

 

[MissionMaximus]

The BETA is a 3 months old build, they still have 25 days to fix the main bugs, wich are already dealt with, because it's a 3 months old build. The vehicle bug is quite hilarious, never encountered it though .

I don't understand why you would release a BETA to work out some bugs of a game about to be released, that's a 3 Months old build? Maybe I've heard that about a Demo being of an older build but a Beta? Sounds like excuses to me.

 

[MissionMaximus]

Though I gotta admit, BF3 is a really, really funny game..

Battlefield 3 Vehicle Bug from Caspian Border Map Hillarious! - YouTube


God this is hilarious, and to think it's the exact same bug from BF1942 blows my mind. LOL

I really want to play BF3, I really do. But it's obvious that the game is more similar to Bad Company than it should be. I just can't justify spending my money on it, and i've tried. I LOVED BF1942 and what I have played of BF2 was a blast..

Alas, my money goes to Tripwire and I do not regret it.

I told you it reminded me of HALO.

 

[DeltaElite121]

What else did you want? Ok yes commander and 6 man squads. But what else?

6-man squads was a cool idea, but a horrible one when implemented for balance. Ever see what happens when you go into a pubserver and you've got a competitive team stacked into one squad? It doesn't end well for the other team because that ONE squad alone will never lose momentum. That and the idea of commander is stupid. Why on earth would I want some random person laying on the ground the entire time? The only time commanders were remotely useful were if they did their job right AND were moving around killing things on the field. That rarily happened because if you were up against a decent team (and decent commander) you really needed to be looking at the map the entire time.

 

[DeltaElite121]

I don't understand why you would release a BETA to work out some bugs of a game about to be released, that's a 3 Months old build? Maybe I've heard that about a Demo being of an older build but a Beta? Sounds like excuses to me.

Assuming their architecture for server/client is the same, there's a lot that can be learned from an old beta. Chances are they already worked the glaring bugs/glitches out in the private testing and alpha play. More than likely they're doing stress testing and optimization is my guess. Anything else they haven't figured out yet would go to the QA testers, as that is what they are paid to do... indepth analysis on testing/glitching/clipping/etc. From there, they most likely have an updated client at their studios for further testing on those occurances as well as fixes and updating before the game is retailed.

 

[LHeureux]

I don't understand why you would release a BETA to work out some bugs of a game about to be released, that's a 3 Months old build? Maybe I've heard that about a Demo being of an older build but a Beta? Sounds like excuses to me.

Wait, are you ****ing joking? What about RO2 that released a BETA 2 weeks before the release? The BETA they released is to mainly test servers.

EDIT : Also what about RO2 releasing a BETA AFTER the game has been released lol?

I personnaly will be playing BF3 untill mods and new things come out for RO2.

 

[Krobar]

Also what about RO2 releasing a BETA AFTER the game has been released lol?

What about TF2 releasing a beta after it was released? It's to test patches and new ideas on a smaller scale before releasing them completely. To have only 20% of the player base say stuff about bugs instead of EVERYONE.

 

[Inuki]

Bugs will be fixed


certain developers prideful decisions on making every player a god like marksman will not unless people want to make a change in the game.

Waiting for Mod team to rectify that problem then I'll come and play RO2 for some proper firefights which last more than 0.1 seconds =0

 

[Raquel]

The BETA is a 3 months old build, they still have 25 days to fix the main bugs, wich are already dealt with, because it's a 3 months old build. The vehicle bug is quite hilarious, never encountered it though .

Not 3 months, less than 1 month. Anyway like i said for me and many people the bugs arent the problem, the problem are all the dumb design decisions, DICE killed what made Battlefield great just so they can cater CoD players and win the EA vs activision war that has been going on ever since bf3 was announced, this just isnt Battlefield (neither was BC2), check the EA forums and u'll see many REAL veterans (not people that started playing battlefield on consoles) agree, its just a huge disappointment, and i wont even talk about how much of the game was simply copypasted from MoH and BC2

Oh and yes, i did play caspian, not impressed.

 

[hrvatski]

Bugs will be fixed


certain developers prideful decisions on making every player a god like marksman will not unless people want to make a change in the game.

Waiting for Mod team to rectify that problem then I'll come and play RO2 for some proper firefights which last more than 0.1 seconds =0

You're not playing it right.

Oh and have you ever fired a gun? They're accurate, dude. Really accurate. Bullets travel where you aim them for the most part.

 

[MissionMaximus]

Not 3 months, less than 1 month. Anyway like i said for me and many people the bugs arent the problem, the problem are all the dumb design decisions, DICE killed what made Battlefield great just so they can cater CoD players and win the EA vs activision war that has been going on ever since bf3 was announced, this just isnt Battlefield (neither was BC2), check the EA forums and u'll see many REAL veterans (not people that started playing battlefield on consoles) agree, its just a huge disappointment, and i wont even talk about how much of the game was simply copypasted from MoH and BC2

Oh and yes, i did play caspian, not impressed.

I agree, I don't see how anyone who liked Battlefield when it was PC only can like this console route. I remember the Devs (Dice) claiming the PC version wouldn't be a port but that's what PC gamers got.