Battlefield 3 - Read the Whole Game Informer Coverstory

  • 95 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by Seppli (10250 posts) -

Screenfilling readable scans have popped up...

 
Here are the links...
 
Page 1&2
Page 3&4
Page 5&6
Page 7&8
Page 9&10
 
Wonder how much of this stuff we'll be seeing on March 1st at GDC. I'd love to get the whole singleplayer presentation. Like 10-15min directfeed HD footage of the same stuff Game Informer saw. Sounds superawesome, especially with that earthquake ripping the city asunder at the end. Hopefully they'll have a hands-on multiplayer session too and no embargo in place, so the press can start writing about it immediately.
 
Anyways - if you're hardcore enough to read the whole article, you'll certainly be happy with these links. Enjoy!
#2 Posted by UberExplodey (942 posts) -

Thanks dude, 'preciate it

#3 Edited by PhatSeeJay (3322 posts) -

The only piece of reading that bothered me was his explanation of the Commander position and how it was good that, in BC2, you could call UAV's and the likes without a chain of command.
He didn't specifically say what they're doing but I get a feeling there won't even be a squad leader, even if he did say that they have a lot in store for how the player is suppose to play with his friends!

At GDC I'm personally more interested in more show and tell about the multiplayer in general. The singleplayer is what it is and this article more or less only mentions specific details about SP so I'm content with that for now.

#4 Posted by s7evn (1072 posts) -

Thanks for the scans. I'm pretty excited to see what they show off at GDC.

#5 Posted by easthill (351 posts) -
@PhatSeeJay said:
" The only piece of reading that bothered me was his explanation of the Commander position and how it was good that, in BC2, you could call UAV's and the likes without a chain of command. He didn't specifically say what they're doing but I get a feeling there won't even be a squad leader, even if he did say that they have a lot in store for how the player is suppose to play with his friends! "

God BF3 needs a squad leader, felt the squad system in BC2 boiled down to a bunch of different spawn points. There were never a need to keep together and make sure the squad leader survived. Now you got me worried...
#6 Posted by boj4ngles (287 posts) -

Still no confirmation on player count for console?
#7 Posted by easthill (351 posts) -
@boj4ngles:
Top left corner on page 1. 64 for PC, 24 for consoles.
#8 Posted by boj4ngles (287 posts) -
@easthill said:
"@boj4ngles:Top left corner on page 1. 64 for PC, 24 for consoles. "

RRRAAAAAAGGGEEEEEE
#9 Posted by easthill (351 posts) -
@boj4ngles:

Though I kinda understand why, BF3 has a lot more information being sent between clients than other games on consoles with more players. 

I finally have an excuse to build a new PC, been looking forward to this game since Battlefield 2.


#10 Edited by Seppli (10250 posts) -
@boj4ngles: @easthill: 
 
True that. Also - Microsoft and Sony have bandwidth restrictions setup, which would be exceeded by a higher playercount.
 
Also, I don't believe they can improve the presentation further and increase player cap. They're already more or less memory capped with BF:BC 2 on consoles. Don't know how much more they can do with optimization, especially since most Frostbite 2.0 optimizations are DX11 specific.
 
24 player games are enjoyable now and they'll be in BF3 too. I'm just glad I've a DX11 rig. I'll end up getting a console and PC version eventually. PC version at launch though.
#11 Posted by boj4ngles (287 posts) -
@Seppli:
I'm just pissed because the console version is going to basically be BFBC3.  The maps will probably be too small for jets, and a diversity of vehicles in general.  I'm sorry, but they basically aren't changing anything!  I really like the BF series but I am not going to to throw down a grand just so I can get the "real" version.  And then DICE says they aren't going to implement more than 24 players because they haven't gotten complaints from the console community.  Bullshit!!  Absolute Bullshit!!
#12 Edited by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -

reading now, thanks bud. 
 
edit: 

"This isnt just another new Battefield game, either. it's the long awaited true successor of the legendary PC exclusive that players still enjoy today." 


which is ? why didnt he name it ? saying that in an interview without naming the game sounds odd !
#13 Posted by Afroman269 (7387 posts) -
@boj4ngles: You have to be silly to expect them to fit in the stuff they are going to have on PC into the console versions. I'm not sure why this is even a complaint. The PC version has always been the version of BF to get. Be glad that BF 3 is going to consoles instead of just keeping Bad Company as the console version of BF.
#14 Edited by boj4ngles (287 posts) -
@Afroman269:
Why is it a complaint?  Because MAG had frickin 164 players and DICE, the company which perfected large scale online shooters is setting up 24.  When they said they were putting BF3 on the consoles (not BFBC3, but BF3), there was an automatic expectation that it was not going to be just another Bad Company sequel.  No, I'm allowed to be pissed, especially since DICE could simply have bumped the player count to 40 or so and that would have fixed it.
#15 Posted by mosdl (3258 posts) -
@boj4ngles said:
" @Afroman269: Why is it a complaint?  Because MAG had frickin 164 players and DICE, the company which perfected large scale online shooters is setting up 24.  When they said they were putting BF3 on the consoles (not BFBC3, but BF3), there was an automatic expectation that it was not going to be just another Bad Company sequel.  No, I'm allowed to be pissed, especially since DICE could simply have bumped the player count to 40 or so and that would have fixed it. "
Console makers I believe limit the max bitrate you can send through the network - perhaps sony gave MAG an exception?
#16 Posted by OverLord00 (173 posts) -

Or perhaps MAG itself was dumbed down on the network side, to fit into the limitations that Sony had set.  Idk though, I'm just guessing!

#17 Posted by tariqari (431 posts) -

Okay only because so many people are talking about Commander...
 
Commander sucked.  It was a gimped "subclass" that didn't event let the commander fight on the frontlines with reasonable action.  Instead the commander hid in the back of the map safe and sound while both teams got pounded by UAVs, constant spotting, and worst of all artillery strikes practically every 10 seconds (okay not literally but you know what I mean).
 
If included in BF3 it should be entirely revamped, probably renamed, and hopefully just left out completely.  Yes, battlefield is strategic.  That's the whole point why it stands out amongst FPS.  But it's still an FPS.  It should incorporate strategy into the FPS framework, not the other way around.  Let the battle be on the field not on a grid.

#18 Posted by KaosAngel (13765 posts) -
@tariqari said:
"Commander sucked.  It was a gimped "subclass" that didn't event let the commander fight on the frontlines with reasonable action.  Instead the commander hid in the back of the map safe and sound while both teams got pounded by UAVs, constant spotting, and worst of all artillery strikes practically every 10 seconds (okay not literally but you know what I mean). "
...do Generals during combat go out into the front lines or direct stuff from the back base?
#19 Posted by Mikemcn (7018 posts) -

I keep reading coverstory as controversy, I think im losing it, or maybe not, is anyone up in arms about this particular cover story? Maybe someone really disliked the font they chose?

#20 Posted by withateethuh (726 posts) -
@KaosAngel said:
" @tariqari said:
"Commander sucked.  It was a gimped "subclass" that didn't event let the commander fight on the frontlines with reasonable action.  Instead the commander hid in the back of the map safe and sound while both teams got pounded by UAVs, constant spotting, and worst of all artillery strikes practically every 10 seconds (okay not literally but you know what I mean). "
...do Generals during combat go out into the front lines or direct stuff from the back base? "
Is this real life?
#21 Posted by easthill (351 posts) -
@boj4ngles:

But mag didn't have heavy destruction and multiple vehicles whos network information need to be transmitted, without delay to all clients in realtime. It would suck if you blew up a wall, but the guy behind the wall couldn't be shot because the wall hasn't blown up on his client yet... And by the sounds of it, they have upped the destruction in BF3, so upping the playerlimit from BC2 would be quite a feat.

@tariqari:

Commander didn't suck, a good commander could win the battle, as long as the team were alert and roughly followed some instructions. Granted, you didn't see much of that, and I agree it needs to be revamped - but I don't think it should be removed.

#22 Posted by IcySandman (474 posts) -
@Mikemcn: I thought it said controversy too, we're all going crazy I believe...some form of disbelief of BF3's release gone extreme :O
#23 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4878 posts) -
@KaosAngel said:
" @tariqari said:
"Commander sucked.  It was a gimped "subclass" that didn't event let the commander fight on the frontlines with reasonable action.  Instead the commander hid in the back of the map safe and sound while both teams got pounded by UAVs, constant spotting, and worst of all artillery strikes practically every 10 seconds (okay not literally but you know what I mean). "
...do Generals during combat go out into the front lines or direct stuff from the back base? "

Rangers lead the way.
#24 Posted by B0nd07 (1701 posts) -
@tariqari said:
"Commander sucked.  It was a gimped "subclass" that didn't event let the commander fight on the frontlines with reasonable action.  Instead the commander hid in the back of the map safe and sound while both teams got pounded by UAVs, constant spotting, and worst of all artillery strikes practically every 10 seconds (okay not literally but you know what I mean)."
The commander hid in back because he was important.  He controlled the UAV placement (which no one was pounded by, since they only spotted in a small radius and were not offensive at all), artillery strikes (useful for softening the other team's defense or defending a flag), vehicle drops, and supply drops (back when you didn't regenerate health, these were very important; they often meant the difference between holding a point and losing it).
#25 Posted by Cold_Wolven (2293 posts) -

Those are the best scans I've seen posted on the net yet, the game's graphics are quite good and I hope Battlefield 3 will be the shooter to knock Call of Duty of its throne.

#26 Posted by Redsox44 (487 posts) -

So if I go on their forums and start complaining to raise the console player count to at least 32 or 40 do you think it can happen? I mean I at least want to feel like the scale is bigger than bad company or else there's no point in getting it except for revamped visuals and animations. Pretty much just BC3...

#27 Posted by DarkTravesty (329 posts) -
@boj4ngles:  but you've also got to take into account while a decent game mag looks like shit. thats probably why they were able to sustain such a high player count.
#28 Posted by KaosAngel (13765 posts) -
@DarkTravesty said:
" @boj4ngles:  but you've also got to take into account while a decent game mag looks like shit. thats probably why they were able to sustain such a high player count. "
BF3 from screen shots doesn't look like shit.  Which is why it's looking good.  It's not Crysis level but I guess we can live with the fact that we won't get Crysis quality graphics until the PS4 and Xbox 3 become standard.  >.>
#29 Posted by MrKlorox (11209 posts) -
Thanks for the scans. I was almost about to buy a copy just for this. That's why I'm almost certain these are against the forum rules. 

@IcySandman said:
" @Mikemcn: I thought it said controversy too, we're all going crazy I believe...some form of disbelief of BF3's release gone extreme :O "
You guys aren't the only ones. No clue why there's no space between  the words.
#30 Posted by Azteck (7449 posts) -
@Mikemcn said:
" I keep reading coverstory as controversy, I think im losing it, or maybe not, is anyone up in arms about this particular cover story? Maybe someone really disliked the font they chose? "
Nah, I did the same thing.
 
Or does that mean that I'm going insane as well?
#31 Posted by RsistncE (4496 posts) -
@boj4ngles said:
" @Afroman269: Why is it a complaint?  Because MAG had frickin 164 players and DICE, the company which perfected large scale online shooters is setting up 24.  When they said they were putting BF3 on the consoles (not BFBC3, but BF3), there was an automatic expectation that it was not going to be just another Bad Company sequel.  No, I'm allowed to be pissed, especially since DICE could simply have bumped the player count to 40 or so and that would have fixed it. "
Dude, consoles use hardware that's nearly 5 years old and wasn't even top of the line at the time they were released. I wouldn't even be able run BF3 on a PC with similar hardware, let alone at anything higher than low settings with any more than a few players. You should be happy that the game will look decent and run with 24 players on the consoles. If you want 64 players with the level of visuals DICE is promising then you're going to have to build a PC.
#32 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -
 Ok so, no commander because you want to give everyone those 'powers' , and the squad talk made me feel uneasy.. like its not structured and organized, just 4 player squads with no leader again.. 
 So Battlefield 3 is devoid of any form of leadership... yup im not gonna complain anymore, i'll just take it. dont wanna ask for a key asset of the Battlefield games (fucking leadership) and be told im 'bitching'

 
@B0nd07 said:
" @tariqari said:
"Commander sucked.  It was a gimped "subclass" that didn't event let the commander fight on the frontlines with reasonable action.  Instead the commander hid in the back of the map safe and sound while both teams got pounded by UAVs, constant spotting, and worst of all artillery strikes practically every 10 seconds (okay not literally but you know what I mean)."
The commander hid in back because he was important.  He controlled the UAV placement (which no one was pounded by, since they only spotted in a small radius and were not offensive at all), artillery strikes (useful for softening the other team's defense or defending a flag), vehicle drops, and supply drops (back when you didn't regenerate health, these were very important; they often meant the difference between holding a point and losing it). "
wham bam thank you ma'am 
#33 Posted by easthill (351 posts) -
@Ahmad_Metallic:
Where did they say they would only have 4-player squads? The only part I could find in the article about squads was basically "We're not ready to talk about that yet."
#34 Posted by B0nd07 (1701 posts) -
@Ahmad_Metallic said:
"  Ok so, no commander because you want to give everyone those 'powers' , and the squad talk made me feel uneasy.. like its not structured and organized, just 4 player squads with no leader again.. 
 So Battlefield 3 is devoid of any form of leadership... yup im not gonna complain anymore, i'll just take it. dont wanna ask for a key asset of the Battlefield games (fucking leadership) and be told im 'bitching'
I hear ya.  BF3 is sounding more like a Bad Company game, but with more players.  I mean, come on; no one calls in a UAV in BC2.  Its a station in the middle of the map somewhere that's easily disabled.  Let's hope there's a comm system that's involves more than mashing Q.
#35 Posted by boj4ngles (287 posts) -
@RsistncE said:
" @boj4ngles said:
" @Afroman269: Why is it a complaint?  Because MAG had frickin 164 players and DICE, the company which perfected large scale online shooters is setting up 24.  When they said they were putting BF3 on the consoles (not BFBC3, but BF3), there was an automatic expectation that it was not going to be just another Bad Company sequel.  No, I'm allowed to be pissed, especially since DICE could simply have bumped the player count to 40 or so and that would have fixed it. "
Dude, consoles use hardware that's nearly 5 years old and wasn't even top of the line at the time they were released. I wouldn't even be able run BF3 on a PC with similar hardware, let alone at anything higher than low settings with any more than a few players. You should be happy that the game will look decent and run with 24 players on the consoles. If you want 64 players with the level of visuals DICE is promising then you're going to have to build a PC. "

Look, I understand that there are arguments for why anything above 24 players is impossible.  On the one hand, there are bandwidth limits imposed by Microsoft that limit player count.  On the other hand, the amount of stuff happening in the Frostbite engine means that there are technical limitations on the consoles. 
 
I want to point out that DICE brought up neither of these issues as explanations when asked about player limits.  They simply say that the console community never asked for this.  That is BS because (and I admit there are no grounds for me to speak for the entire console community) we rightly assumed that BF3 would have larger maps, more players, jets, and the other staples that separated BF2 from the Bad Companies.  We never complained and asked for it because we knew that the Bad Companies were designed as a watered down version of BF with less players, less classes, less vehicles, and smaller maps.  Until this article came out, DICE was not suggesting that BF3 was going to adopt the major features of Bad Company (4 classes, 4 man squads, no leaders) and instead suggested BF3 would be a return to form for both pc and consoles.
#36 Edited by Make_Me_Mad (3113 posts) -

I keep misreading this as "Controversy" and coming here to see a fight.
Edit: Reading some of the thread now, I clearly was not the only one.

#37 Posted by Seppli (10250 posts) -
@MrKlorox said:
" Thanks for the scans. I was almost about to buy a copy just for this. That's why I'm almost certain these are against the forum rules. 

@IcySandman said:
" @Mikemcn: I thought it said controversy too, we're all going crazy I believe...some form of disbelief of BF3's release gone extreme :O "
You guys aren't the only ones. No clue why there's no space between  the words. "
I'm Swiss. Cut me some slack. My native tongue is Swiss German. That's not even regular German. It's German ran through a meat grinder made out of hard 'K's and a lot of 'umlaut' vocals.
#38 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -
@easthill said:
" @Ahmad_Metallic:Where did they say they would only have 4-player squads? The only part I could find in the article about squads was basically "We're not ready to talk about that yet." "
when you tell him that 4-player squads are troublesome for alot of players and he says "yes, we're working on enhancing yada yada yada, we wanna make it more accessible and take it further, yada yada" that means they're still trying to please everyone and not give power to one man in the squad 
if there there 6+ man squads with squad leaders, which the PC crowds want, he would have said it without any of the diplomatic embellishments.. 
 
another indicator of that is them removing the Commander position because they want the players to feel equal with their access to things like UAV.. that shows you that they wanna give everyone a big dick ingame and not have any sort of leadership.
#39 Posted by Azteck (7449 posts) -
@Ahmad_Metallic said:
" @easthill said:
" @Ahmad_Metallic:Where did they say they would only have 4-player squads? The only part I could find in the article about squads was basically "We're not ready to talk about that yet." "
when you tell him that 4-player squads are troublesome for alot of players and he says "yes, we're working on enhancing yada yada yada, we wanna make it more accessible and take it further, yada yada" that means they're still trying to please everyone and not give power to one man in the squad if there there 6+ man squads with squad leaders, which the PC crowds want, he would have said it without any of the diplomatic embellishments..  another indicator of that is them removing the Commander position because they want the players to feel equal with their access to things like UAV.. that shows you that they wanna give everyone a big dick ingame and not have any sort of leadership. "
I never actually played BF2 (Never had a PC adequate for it, and now I don't even want to try getting into it) but I, too, realize that giving a UAV to anyone could potentially be pretty.. bad. I enjoy the thought of only someone who actually KNOWS how to use their things get those sorts of powers. It was one thing I enjoyed in 2142, having a directive and going there, full squad to take care of the objective.
#40 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -
@Azteck said:
" @Ahmad_Metallic said:
" @easthill said:
" @Ahmad_Metallic:Where did they say they would only have 4-player squads? The only part I could find in the article about squads was basically "We're not ready to talk about that yet." "
when you tell him that 4-player squads are troublesome for alot of players and he says "yes, we're working on enhancing yada yada yada, we wanna make it more accessible and take it further, yada yada" that means they're still trying to please everyone and not give power to one man in the squad if there there 6+ man squads with squad leaders, which the PC crowds want, he would have said it without any of the diplomatic embellishments..  another indicator of that is them removing the Commander position because they want the players to feel equal with their access to things like UAV.. that shows you that they wanna give everyone a big dick ingame and not have any sort of leadership. "
I never actually played BF2 (Never had a PC adequate for it, and now I don't even want to try getting into it) but I, too, realize that giving a UAV to anyone could potentially be pretty.. bad. I enjoy the thought of only someone who actually KNOWS how to use their things get those sorts of powers. It was one thing I enjoyed in 2142, having a directive and going there, full squad to take care of the objective. "
yeah man you'd be running with thirty other people around you in six man squads, pushing the fight to the next area and looking out for mines in the dirt and tanks around the bend and enemy jets above your heads, with one man stationed somewhere, dropping supplies around you and providing UAV over the point you're heading to (which ALWAYS felt so good, like a christmas present, like the angels came down from the sky to give you this supernatural view of nearby enemies only for a couple of minutes) 
 
you get there, scatter around the flag as the enemy defends it, die and respawn and die again, until it goes a little quiet and you hear the Artillery cannons whistling in the distance, only to have the shells shower around you and allow you to sneak your way to the flag and secure it before the enemies know what hit 'em ..  
not to mention the occasional commander spotting that alarmed you when you had an enemy car fleeing from the action or something. 
 
And ofcourse, since Battlefield is all about countering the enemy attack, nothing felt better than to have a brave soldier on your team make his way to the commander's headquarters undetected and blow up his equipment, allowing you to cripple the enemy's eye in the sky and strike back after you've been getting the artillery treatment for a while, while the enemies try desperately to fix their tools AND keep an eye out for your undetected attacks 
  

Nobody fucking wants that colossal battle feel anymore. everyone is so immature and impatient that they all want big dicks ingame and wanna have everything at their disposal.. so i dont really blame DICE for turning a man game into children's play, i blame this new age of gamers who got spoiled by Call of Duty
#41 Posted by easthill (351 posts) -
@Ahmad_Metallic:

I think you've taking the quote a bit out of contest, though the wording in the article is a bit ambiguous.

"It was great to be able to squad ut in the pre-game lobby, but limiting it to the four people in one squad was troublesome for larger groups who wanted to play together. Are you changing your approach for Battlefield 3?"
Well, yes. It's actually a very crucial part of the game. We're thinking a lot about squads and team play - making that even more accessible."

That reads to me as they're revamping the squad-system, not confirming 4-player squads. I'm with you with wanting bigger squads, squad leaders and commanders, and in a 64-player game I think the game needs them, and I hope DICE realizes that too. However, I won't damn them until proven otherwise.

Another thing is that the article doesn't specify if they're talking about PC or consoles, and I would think the squad system need to be different from 24 players to 64 players.

#42 Posted by Mikemcn (7018 posts) -
@Seppli said:
" @MrKlorox said:
" Thanks for the scans. I was almost about to buy a copy just for this. That's why I'm almost certain these are against the forum rules. 

@IcySandman said:
" @Mikemcn: I thought it said controversy too, we're all going crazy I believe...some form of disbelief of BF3's release gone extreme :O "
You guys aren't the only ones. No clue why there's no space between  the words. "
I'm Swiss. Cut me some slack. My native tongue is Swiss German. That's not even regular German. It's German ran through a meat grinder made out of hard 'K's and a lot of 'umlaut' vocals. "
Its ok, just a little confusing. 
#43 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -
@easthill said:
" @Ahmad_Metallic:

I think you've taking the quote a bit out of contest, though the wording in the article is a bit ambiguous.

"It was great to be able to squad ut in the pre-game lobby, but limiting it to the four people in one squad was troublesome for larger groups who wanted to play together. Are you changing your approach for Battlefield 3?"
Well, yes. It's actually a very crucial part of the game. We're thinking a lot about squads and team play - making that even more accessible."

That reads to me as they're revamping the squad-system, not confirming 4-player squads. I'm with you with wanting bigger squads, squad leaders and commanders, and in a 64-player game I think the game needs them, and I hope DICE realizes that too. However, I won't damn them until proven otherwise.

Another thing is that the article doesn't specify if they're talking about PC or consoles, and I would think the squad system need to be different from 24 players to 64 players.

"
you do have a point, but after the comment concerning the commander, allow me to already have my worries
#44 Posted by easthill (351 posts) -
@Ahmad_Metallic:
I'm with you on the commander issue, so that's a worry we very much share. I'm looking forward to them revealing the multi-player, hopefully it will lay all our worries to rest. :)
#45 Edited by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -
@easthill said:

" @Ahmad_Metallic:I'm with you on the commander issue, so that's a worry we very much share. I'm looking forward to them revealing the multi-player, hopefully it will lay all our worries to rest. :) "

he pretty much said that they regret ever implementing the commander position, like, even in Battlefield 2, so there's nothing to be laid to rest ! 
he said only 2 people use it ? what is he nuts ? i played Battlefield 2 for 3 years and there were ALWAYS commanders filling the position, 80% of which did an amazing job and got frequent "thank you" commands from the players.. so i dunno what BF2 that guy played! 
 
Edit: hmm yeah i guess he meant that only 2 people played as commander during a round. well, either way, what i said still stands : it was very popular and many people did it well, and the rest of the players appreciated the commander's efforts continuously 
#46 Posted by yinstarrunner (1238 posts) -
@Ahmad_Metallic:  I'm right with you, man.
 
Battlefield 1942 had no team structure.  It was crazy, chaotic, but very fun for its time.
 Then Battlefield 2 came out with this crazy awesome structure, with squad leaders and commanders, that made playing as a team feel very, very tight and cohesive.   The structure was there to take things to the next level.
 Now, instead of shooting for the moon again in Battlefield 3 and doing something crazy, DICE has taken the easy route by removing the commander completely.  There probably won't even be squad leaders, because "boohoo casual players might feel left out."
 
I LOVED playing the Commander role, though I mostly did it in 2142 as opposed to BF2.  It was a great change of pace and it really, really felt like I was helping my team as I gave my squads objectives and dropped supplies and things.  Surely, there was lower breadth of players that knew the intricacies of playing the role, but that really helped instill a pseudo chain-of-command that added to the Battlefield feel.  Sure, less people could play the role at once, but that doesn't mean it wasn't appreciated from a strategic and a practical standpoint.  Ask all those soldiers that I dropped vehicles/supplies for.
#47 Posted by easthill (351 posts) -
@Ahmad_Metallic:

Think he meant that only two players where able to utilize it in a single game.

It's true a lot of people used it, but I don't agree most were good at it - most weren't even competent. I can't count how many times I've seen a commander in the heli/jet-queue, or running around as a regular soldier with UAV at his own disposal. If they are to keep the commander, he needs a big overhaul. True you could mutiny the commander, but none ever cared enough to vote yes - which maybe is an indication that they didn't really care about him at all.

#48 Posted by Gabriel (4081 posts) -
@KaosAngel said:
" @tariqari said:
"Commander sucked.  It was a gimped "subclass" that didn't event let the commander fight on the frontlines with reasonable action.  Instead the commander hid in the back of the map safe and sound while both teams got pounded by UAVs, constant spotting, and worst of all artillery strikes practically every 10 seconds (okay not literally but you know what I mean). "
...do Generals during combat go out into the front lines or direct stuff from the back base? "
Good ones.
#49 Posted by DrPockets000 (2859 posts) -
@Azteck said:
" @Mikemcn said:
" I keep reading coverstory as controversy, I think im losing it, or maybe not, is anyone up in arms about this particular cover story? Maybe someone really disliked the font they chose? "
Nah, I did the same thing.  Or does that mean that I'm going insane as well? "
Holy crap, I also read "controversy".  
#50 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -
@easthill said:
" @Ahmad_Metallic:

Think he meant that only two players where able to utilize it in a single game.

"
um.. yeah that makes sense :/ editing my post now lolz

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.