Lets be realistic now fellas.

  • 127 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Posted by Beaudacious (916 posts) -

Have you played bf:bc2?
 
If so, have you experienced; 
-the horrible hitboxes, 
-the horrible lag, 
-the terrible map design
-The fact that to this very day this game has numerous bugs, still has horrible joystick control, and every update adds more bugs?
 
Now imagine increasing that player count to 64, adding more aircrafts, cars, tanks. Now ponder the lag, the bugs, the hitboxes. The problem with Battlefield is that environments/eye candy/flare took precedents over game play when we entered the frostbite era. Now i highly doubt this will stop anyone from buying the game, including myself. But i thought we should ponder about the hypetrain we are boarding, since Dice has not done anything to warrant any kind of faith/hype in the last few years. 
 
I started thinking about this a couple weeks ago when GB was doing the quake, and unreal TnT's. Those games were so amazing because they had such solid gameplay, and they were brilliant fun. Now it seams modern fps's are aiming for more lens flare, , more online services, and completely ignoring gameplay.
 
I can't wait for the window sniper camping wars in bf3, while everyone new to the frostbite engine rage quits because they die instantly in open ground, and go buy MW3. Hopefully this new CS:GO brings back some arcade fun, along whit some solid gameplay, and if anyone can do it its Valve.
 
Rant over.

#2 Posted by Sjupp (1901 posts) -

Have you played the BF3 Alpha?

#3 Posted by Irvandus (2643 posts) -

You seem to know a lot about how BF3 is going to be, are you from the future?

#4 Posted by BulletproofMonk (2712 posts) -

I have not experienced any of those things.

#5 Edited by Fluxxed (81 posts) -

Counter-Strike is known for it's arcade fun.

#6 Posted by pornstorestiffi (4905 posts) -

I will let my self out.

#7 Posted by allworkandlowpay (874 posts) -

I've not experienced any of the things you claim to have experienced in BC2.

#8 Edited by Meteora (5787 posts) -

I've experienced lag on some servers but for the most part everyone never has less than 100 ping so it all evens out somehow. I have a feeling the ping is misleading on the PC. Hitboxes are fine as it is. Map design was definitely a problem but that's because BF:BC2 was developed for consoles so almost all the maps were linear and that created chokepoints (so yes terrible maps were bound to happen). Joystick control does also suck monkeyballs, it feels like I'm drunk driving when I use my 360 controller flying a helicopter on the PC, which wasn't really the case on consoles. 
 
Eh. We'll see. Also everything I mentioned about was BF:BC2. I have not played the alpha.

#9 Edited by Contra (247 posts) -

-No.
-Occasionally.  I usually then just change servers.
-Not overly.  There are a few horrible spots; and Heavy Metal isn't worth a damn thing; but in general I like it.
-Other than issues with EA's interface and how they manage the stuff in general.  Also I play with PC and mouse. 
 
Quake Unreal and all those other games have their selection of terrible maps.  There were just usually so many maps that they were removed from peoples servers.  Must like you can with the PC's servers; the bad maps end up being removed from rotation or you just find one without it.

#10 Posted by damnboyadvance (4054 posts) -

Weird. For a game that has so many problems, so many people liked it, and so many websites, including Giant Bomb, rated it very highly. 
 
Maybe it's just you.

#11 Posted by hoossy (932 posts) -
@Irvandus said:
You seem to know a lot about how BF3 is going to be, are you from the future?
this   
 
-------------------- 
 
and I liked BF: BC2.  Mapping, controls, and connections worked just fine for me
#12 Edited by Rockanomics (1150 posts) -

I don't think this is anything new, I feel like the BF series has always had a form over function ideal.

Not in terms of graphics but just stuffing in every possible gameplay idea no matter how janky it feels or unneeded it is.

Which I'm mostly for, it's why the series is special, you can do things that no other game offers.

#13 Posted by hoossy (932 posts) -

wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait....... 
 
 are you Activision CEO Bobby Kotick?!?! 
 
HA! you sure got us Mr. Kotick!  you rascal you!

#14 Posted by ElBarto (272 posts) -

BF:BC2 = BF3 duh guys!

#15 Posted by Pinworm45 (4088 posts) -
@Irvandus said:
You seem to know a lot about how BF3 is going to be, are you from the future?
I don't necessarily agree with OP, but this makes no sense. He clearly made his deductions from past games by the same company, that's literally what he said.
#16 Edited by RandomInternetUser (6788 posts) -

  • No, hitboxes have never struck me as a problem at all.
  • No, unless my family is downloading shit or watching HD videos I never get lag.
  • They aren't terrible (a few spots are pretty bad), they are just mediocre for the most part.
  • I haven't experienced many bugs in my 65 hours on PC and at least 20 hours on both consoles.  Definitely nothing game-breaking.  Joy-stick control wasn't as good as other games, but keyboard movement feels like some of the best I've ever felt.
I would argue that the infantry gameplay has greatly improved since the Frostbite era.  Battlefield 2 infantry weapons never felt particularly great and if you weren't using semi-auto or very small bursts on a rifle or carbine, the iron sights were more like a guess.
#17 Posted by PillClinton (3284 posts) -

I still like bc2 more than mw2 and black ops so...

#18 Posted by BabyChooChoo (4038 posts) -
@Sjupp said:

Have you played the BF3 Alpha?

SNAP
#19 Posted by BadOrcLDR (178 posts) -

I seem to be able to run BF2 pretty much without lag [server choices do in fact matter, after all] and I've had relatively low issues with bugs or hit boxes. Dare I say, BC2 has been my favorite games of the last year. I think I've logged more hours into that game than any other in my Steam collection, which admittedly does mean I'm biased as all hell.

#20 Posted by Infininja (881 posts) -

I'm not saying BC2 is perfect, but I put over 500 hours into it because I like it so much.

#21 Posted by BraveToaster (12590 posts) -

Aircrafts... really?

#22 Posted by Zajtalan (1153 posts) -

^ lol

#23 Posted by Management (596 posts) -

Hey Ahmad_Metallic. Check this thread out.

#24 Posted by the_OFFICIAL_jAPanese_teaBAG (4307 posts) -

this is all i gotta add here
  

#25 Posted by ze_ro (181 posts) -


- Y_ES

- Sometimes

- In Vietnam yes

I'm hoping for the best but I kinda fear the hitboxing is going to be BS.

#26 Edited by Liber (647 posts) -

I played BF3 alpha , that game is fucking awesome.

also , Strike on Karkand ... like ... the BEST map ever made ?

#27 Posted by mano521 (1202 posts) -

what bad company 2 have you been playing. there might be an occasional laggy game once every month or so, but hitboxes are fine, and i love the levels. so honestly i dont know what youre talking about

#28 Posted by alternate (2655 posts) -

sounds awfully like another "this was designed for consoles so is going to be shit" post.  As long as they open it up for mods on PC like the original battlefield games (that is "if") then there is very little that can't be fixed.

#29 Posted by chrissedoff (2041 posts) -

the only thing that pissed me off about battlefield 2 was how jets seemed to be impossible to fight from the ground

#30 Posted by AlisterCat (5399 posts) -

I think I have heard every complaint in this thread leveraged against every other shooter or multiplayer game there is, making it entirely meaningless. I played the Alpha, it is totally fine aside from the technical issues.

#31 Posted by wickedsc3 (1046 posts) -

I out of here before all the battlefield defenders come in here. There is never anything wrong with battlefield it crushes MW!!!!!!!! RAGE!!!!!!

#32 Posted by Klei (1768 posts) -
@Beaudacious said:
Have you played bf:bc2?  If so, have you experienced;  -the horrible hitboxes,  -the horrible lag,  -the terrible map design


Um, what? You're entitled to your opinion, but you shouldn't try to poison anybody with it.
#33 Posted by KarlPilkington (2656 posts) -

LOUD NOISES

#34 Edited by MrKlorox (11186 posts) -

It's just like every other battlefield game. Troll harder, dildo.

#35 Posted by Vinny_Says (5630 posts) -

You and I haven't been playing the same Bad Company 2.....

#36 Posted by Vodun (2365 posts) -

@Beaudacious:

#37 Posted by Donos (1193 posts) -

no, no, occasionally, no.

#38 Posted by Bouke (1401 posts) -

Bad Company 2 was one of my favorite games last year and probably the game i´ve spent the most time with online. And i never ran into the "problems" you mention...
#39 Edited by Seppli (9744 posts) -

Realistically, it's the second most played game franchise of my life thus far, behind World of Warcraft. Currently it is my favorite gaming poison.
 
I'm still playing BF:BC 2 regularly. True, It is flawed. In some ways worse than it's direct predecessor, but overall - Battlefield has no equal. Often, when playing other/lesser games, I ask myself why I waste time on those, instead of achieving a flawless combat high in a Battlefield game.
 
Most games are just games. Battlefield is different. Battlefield defines my gaming hobby. That's what it is to me - realistically.

#40 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -
@Beaudacious:  Well.. two things 
 
First, don't waste your time trying to discuss the flaws of a popular game. If the game is super popular, the flaws are overlooked and adapted to and even LIKED, and you'll be called crazy for calling a trainwreck of a piece of software such as BC2 broken. Most people on giant bomb are people who see no problem with the aimbot panic knife or the messed up death animations or any of those vomit-inducing cheap gameplay flaws. They adapt to them and enjoy them. 

And secondly, certain technical shortcomings have always been the tax Battlefield games have to pay for being so motherfucking innovative and cutting edge. Battlefield 2 had a shit hit reg and a ton of glitches and bugs, but the overall experience was so god damned amazing that people waited for years until DICE started fixing it up well enough.  And i really have faith in Frostbite 2 fixing most of these major problems in addition to adding perfect recoil and weight to the gameplay 
Lag doesn't happen on PC when you're running the game on a high end machine, have a solid internet connection and are connected to a relatively close server 
 
I'm not worried about the technical stuff, DICE seem to have tackled that shit hardcore and fixed the fuck out of it. The alpha was technically astounding.. The only concern of yours that i find valid is the map design. 
 
If the Battlefield 3 64-player Conquest maps are the same bullshit meatgrinder camp fest chokepoint fuck maps like those of BC2 (jesus do i loathe that game), the game to me is a disgrace and a failure. If DICE manage to give us the real sandboxy conquest (which i find impossible since the BF3 core gamplay = BC2 core gameplay), then its a success.
#41 Posted by Jeffsekai (7017 posts) -

I liked the maps in BC2.

#42 Posted by Witzig (326 posts) -

Red Orchestra 2 Heroes of Stalingrad for everyone hurray!!!!!! No BF3 look cool I guess no mods though and if Ahmad Metallic is right about it being a fucking meat grinder then fuck BF3.
#43 Edited by Seppli (9744 posts) -
@Jeffsekai said:

I liked the maps in BC2.

In comparison to BF:BC 1, I found them disappointing. It's very telling that Oasis and Harvest Day are amongst the community's favorites - both being BF:BC 1 maps.
 
For me, DICE hit the perfect blend of more focused directed maps and the classic Battlefield sandbox freedom in BF:BC 1's larger Rush maps such as Oasis and Harvest Day and End of the Line and Valley Run.
 
That was also before the grievous overuse of 'out of bounds', which began with BF:BC 2. I'm really hoping DICE is moving away from that.
#44 Posted by Tim_the_Corsair (3065 posts) -

Man, if you want to be taken seriously, commenting that one of the most difficult to master, skill intensive games of all time is "arcade fun" is not the way to do it.

#45 Posted by Azteck (7447 posts) -

I also hear that it's a lot of fun

#46 Posted by krazy_kyle (716 posts) -

Things like "Terrible map design" is really a matter of opinion. I thought many of the maps were fun, except heavy metal, DAMN CHOPPERS!
 
Things like lag, hitboxes etc I didn't really have a prob with. Lag was a prob at the games release but afterwards things started to settle nicely.
 
64 players was done before in Battlefield 2 I thiiiink. not too sure but as long as there are dedicated servers, we should be fine :)

#47 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -
@Witzig said:
Red Orchestra 2 Heroes of Stalingrad for everyone hurray!!!!!! No BF3 look cool I guess no mods though and if Ahmad Metallic is right about it being a fucking meat grinder then fuck BF3.
I didn't say it is, i still have hope that the 64 player conquest will be the glorious CQ we've grown to play and love in 1942, BF2 and 2142 (huge landscape where you must utilize vehicles to travel and arrive at firefights, tension in the air, sandbox feel, flanking routes and multiple attack strategies)
 
It's just extremely doubtful that a game that seems to be centered around your weapon customization, your KD/R, fast paced action, health regenerating, 3-tap death (high bullet damage), triangle shooting across the map (Bad Company)
and  
no communication tool, no command interface for the squad leader to actually serve a purpose, small squad player number (Battlefield
 
Will be anything like real Battlefield. I mean how is it possible to be mute headless chickens like we are in BC2, running towards objectives in a chaotic manner, and still manage to communicate on vast landscape with 32 people on each time? Math tells you that that doesn't make sense. And the logical conclusion is that BF3 CQ will not require us to communicate or give/receive orders, which means it'll be the aligned-flag chokepoint fest of BC2 CQ.
#48 Posted by Infininja (881 posts) -

@mano521 said:

what bad company 2 have you been playing. there might be an occasional laggy game once every month or so, but hitboxes are fine, and i love the levels. so honestly i dont know what youre talking about

@alternate said:

sounds awfully like another "this was designed for consoles so is going to be shit" post. As long as they open it up for mods on PC like the original battlefield games (that is "if") then there is very little that can't be fixed.

They already said no mods.

#49 Edited by Shotaro (820 posts) -

Could it be (and I'm just offering out theories here) that the OP is just not very good at Bad Company 2 and needs some cheese to go with his whine? BC2 has physics on the bullet - if you are trying to shoot a guy from the other side of the map you need to aim above him slightly since the bullet droops after a certain distance.

EDIT: Please Note: I am not trying to troll the OP and no offence is intended - just a friendly jab y'know, but still the post reeks of sour grapes more than anything else. I do not mean to besmurch your character Beaudacoius - excellent pun in the name btw!

#50 Edited by Seppli (9744 posts) -
@Ahmad_Metallic said:

 
I'm not worried about the technical stuff, DICE seem to have tackled that shit hardcore and fixed the fuck out of it. The alpha was technically astounding.. The only concern of yours that i find valid is the map design.  If the Battlefield 3 64-player Conquest maps are the same bullshit meatgrinder camp fest chokepoint fuck maps like those of BC2 (jesus do i loathe that game), the game to me is a disgrace and a failure. If DICE manage to give us the real sandboxy conquest (which i find impossible since the BF3 core gamplay = BC2 core gameplay), then its a success.

You should really play some Operation Hastings and Phu Bai Valley Conquest. Definitely the best and most Battlefield-y Conquest maps in BF:BC 2. The Vietnam expansion is grievously underrated.
 
Whilst I agree that DICE overdid it in BF:BC 2 with imposing direction by map design via stringent restrictions, it definitely is the right idea. Maps like 'El Alamein' just don't work on PUB servers. Hell - many players can't even do the right thing if there's just a handful options.
 
I have recently started to bellow commands via in-game chat and randoms actually heed my commands more often than not. It seems like they're too stupid to understand basic concepts on their own, but they can follow instructions. A simple 'PUSH PAST BRAVO, GAIN GROUND NOW!' when a team of nubs is cowardly camping behind a decisive capture point instead of keeping up pressure - it can win games.

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.