This thread has done a wonderful job revealing to me the sheer level of blockheadedness and stoic obsession with tradition that a lot of gamers have on both the part of the milsim and FPS crowds.
RO2 and why I will play BF3 more
- Thread starter ChaoticRambo
- Start date
Yes I think the moderators need to put a lockdown on these BattleCrap3 forum posters, posting on the wrong freaking Forums. They are like a disease and we need the Moderators to be the cure.
"BF3 IS AWESOME!!!", so let me go and join TWI and forum post on the RO2 forums about how AWESOME BF3 IS "oh, I think I just wet myself!!!"...."no it was a seizure from all the freaking lights!!!!"
Last edited:
For those that claim to have played BF2 and or BF2142 and are "let down" by BF3, then you obviously have never played either. Because a true fan of the series would be able to understand that a small RUSH map is not going to be comparable to BF2 or BF2142 since those were all large CONQUEST maps. A true fan to the series would hold out their opinions until properly testing the large conquest maps for themselves.
I love battlelog. It is a great addition, very streamlined much easier to switch between servers and friends, multiple times better than slow in game server browsers that take forever to refresh and search.
Still don't know what graphics you guys are comparing. BF3 looks a hundred times better than RO2, when I first got into RO2 it felt like I was playing a game with old technology, which I figured made sense since it is a niche game. What really surprised me was how terribly it ran... 20-30 FPS on high. BF3 I get 50-60 FPS on high.
So I guess my options are to play a beta for a game that has not been released, or play a beta for a game that was released two weeks ago... Should probably play RO2 beta since it has game breaking problems where as the BF3 beta are some graphics issues.
I love battlelog. It is a great addition, very streamlined much easier to switch between servers and friends, multiple times better than slow in game server browsers that take forever to refresh and search.
Still don't know what graphics you guys are comparing. BF3 looks a hundred times better than RO2, when I first got into RO2 it felt like I was playing a game with old technology, which I figured made sense since it is a niche game. What really surprised me was how terribly it ran... 20-30 FPS on high. BF3 I get 50-60 FPS on high.
So I guess my options are to play a beta for a game that has not been released, or play a beta for a game that was released two weeks ago... Should probably play RO2 beta since it has game breaking problems where as the BF3 beta are some graphics issues.
Holy crap, this forum has a huge amount of cocky fanboys who think they own this place cus they played RO1.
it's gonna get you far when all you got left is 2 servers with people on it :/ Stop scaring people away cus they don't blindly agree with your very subjectives opinions.
Why o why don't they teach critical thinking anymore :')
it's gonna get you far when all you got left is 2 servers with people on it :/ Stop scaring people away cus they don't blindly agree with your very subjectives opinions.
Why o why don't they teach critical thinking anymore :')
Battlefield 3: 128 Player Hacked Server Gameplay - YouTube
seems bf3 beta is going rly well, server files that EA so wanted to keep private leaked and hacked, the beta is now full of servers like this
thats what you get for being greedy
seems bf3 beta is going rly well, server files that EA so wanted to keep private leaked and hacked, the beta is now full of servers like this
thats what you get for being greedy
Last edited:
No one cares if your PC sucks at Dx9 games but can run dx11 fine. Honestly, you sound like a broken record at this point. Since RO2 is dx9 it works on much much much more hardware configurations than BF3. Naturally, ppl will be complaining about the game that has the most compatibility...being a PC only game that has Higher Res Textures, More Detailed Maps, ect..this doesnt help much. I like both games alot, though Battlefield just feels a little more arcade like to me. RO2 just feels more mature, thoughtful and skillful..with a learning curve. I don't understand why your still on these forums telling us what game you'll play more like we actually care what you think.
Battlefield 3: 128 Player Hacked Server Gameplay - YouTube
seems bf3 beta is going rly well, server files that EA so wanted to keep private leaked and hacked, the beta is now full of servers like this
thats what you get for being greedy
RO2 has hackers too, and that's even with being a small niche game. Considering over 1.5 million people have pre-ordered BF3, there are going to be a few bad eggs.
how about the ppl who roam under the map exploiting kills? That stuff you only find in alpha's builds, pretty terrible if you ask me. Oh yeah I've played BF2 and the majority of people enjoyed the "infantry" maps and the "niche" play style was flying jets and helicopters because it had a learning curve and ppl who didn't use them got pwned. Obviously that "niche" player base is very well out spoken
I guess anything that requires tactics and skill is considered a "niche" market for pc gamers. There's a fan for every game even if its a piece of crap. The highest selling game is a piece of crap. This topic is pointless. Have a nice day
Last edited:
Well, when you have a game that has an environment that allows deformable ground, that sort of thing is possible to happen. No matter what stage of beta a game is in, problems are just problems, some fixes will cause more problems. If the game comes out and still has these issues, you are free to point and laugh as much as you wont, but until then, it is still a beta.
EDIT:
I would like to see some statistics that say people played infantry only maps more than maps with vehicles in BF2, because I don't buy that for one second, the second most popular map was Wake Island.
You might also look at the 4 maps that were chosen to be included from BF2 into BF3 that were the most popular, three of the four have jets and helicopters.
Just because you don't like how a game plays does not mean its a peace of crap. IMO a peace of crap is a game that has game breaking bugs of any sort once it is released. I personally cant stand the play style of the Civilization games, does that mean they are a peace of crap, absolutely not.
Last edited:
Then what was the first? Why must you always contradict yourself?
Last edited:
"You might also look at the 4 maps that were chosen to be included from BF2 into BF3 that were the most popular, three of the four have jets and helicopters."
So your saying that more people played Karkand than the next three maps combined?
I said more ppl played karkand. Though I hated Karkand and love the other maps. You sure you weren't playing Battlefield 2: Modern Combat for xbox?
Last edited:
Battlefield 3: 128 Player Hacked Server Gameplay - YouTube
seems bf3 beta is going rly well, server files that EA so wanted to keep private leaked and hacked, the beta is now full of servers like this
thats what you get for being greedy
Looks quite fun actually haha
I love Battlefield 3.
The reason for that is that I got to try Caspain Border. What a fun experience. Large open map, with tons of vehicles, and many places to ambush people. Just how I want a war game to be. In fact, that map, with the excellent Frostbite engine it actually felt a bit like Arma II.
Quite incredible, considering the BF games have never been much for realism.
BF3 reminds me more of RO1 than RO2. Big maps, lots of vehicles. Mg's actually work, and so do suppression. It dosen't feel as twitchy and fast as RO2 and it actually takes a while to get into combat. The firefights last longer also. You don't get instanly killed as soon as you are spotted. You get a few precious seconds to take cover, or return fire if you like.
Stats and XP also feels rewarding. With logical upgrades and so on. And you can actually tweak your weapon to your liking.
BF3 is for me what I wanted RO2 to be.
The reason for that is that I got to try Caspain Border. What a fun experience. Large open map, with tons of vehicles, and many places to ambush people. Just how I want a war game to be. In fact, that map, with the excellent Frostbite engine it actually felt a bit like Arma II.
Quite incredible, considering the BF games have never been much for realism.
BF3 reminds me more of RO1 than RO2. Big maps, lots of vehicles. Mg's actually work, and so do suppression. It dosen't feel as twitchy and fast as RO2 and it actually takes a while to get into combat. The firefights last longer also. You don't get instanly killed as soon as you are spotted. You get a few precious seconds to take cover, or return fire if you like.
Stats and XP also feels rewarding. With logical upgrades and so on. And you can actually tweak your weapon to your liking.
BF3 is for me what I wanted RO2 to be.
Dude are you High? Comparing BF3 to Arma2, you must be high. Hell, looking at that video posted by Raquel looks like Halo to me.