To kick this of, let me say that I loved BF2 - played it thousands of hours.
Now, just because I loved it doesn't mean it's perfect, it's actually far from it.
Seeing as we are looking forward to BF3, let's take a look at what BF2 improved over its predecessor, BF1942 (Not Vietnam, that's like saying BF3 is a sequel to 2142.) And how BF3 could improve over BF2. As always, my opinion.
- The map sizes were pretty much the same.
- The player count were exactly the same.
- The same types of vehicles, only they broke the air combat.
- Removed the submarine, controllable aircraft carriers and battleships and the stationary artillery.
Wait, what did they actually add?
- 2 more kits, the only useful kits were still medic and anti-tank.
- The squad system and the commander.
- The helicopters.
- Broken-as-all-hell net code
- Streamlined the communication tools. (let's call making it more ACCESSIBLE, or DUMBED DOWN FOR THE CASUALS. Gasp!)
These things are what I want to talk about. With nostalgia being such an amazing thing, all these features were PERFECT! Right?
No, they wasn't.
Let me start with the kits, or classes if I may.
Spec Ops, Sniper, Assault, Support, Engineer, Medic and Anti-Tank.
- Spec Ops had a weaker gun than everyone and C4. C4 was fun for a while until DICE patched it all to hell, removing the 'chucking' technique. Thus making it a useless class compared to the Anti-Tank.
- The sniper with his fancy wookie costume. Who the fuck plays snipers? Claymore-whores. Suicidal lunatics tossing claymores right infront of you hoping to kill you. Fuck that class. Fun fact, the most useful thing a sniper didwas teamkilling for choppers. See, with the M95 you could shoot through the glass - the 'noob-ejector' was born.
- Assault, a medic with a tiny bit more health, the introduction of the 'noob-tube' and no healing kit or shock paddles. Why would I play this rather than the medic?
- Support. Will block out the sun with nade-spamming. Not really a useless class, but I have never in my thousands of hours ran out of ammo...
- Engineer. The wrench was usefull, sometimes.
- Medics were fucking invincible, escpescially teamed with an Anti-Tank or two. 'Nuff said.
- Anti-Tank - essential when dealing with vehicles. Also fun sniping with the SRAW and ERYX.
As you clearly can see, 2-3 classes is all that is needed - so how is 4 too few? Escpecially when you can customize the class... With BF3 on the doorsteps people raged over the news that there would only be 4 classes. That is a stupid and narrow minded way to look at it. 4 customizble classes is more than 7 useless static classes. BF3 ain't necessarily upping the stakes on everything as much as it is refining them.
The Squads.
The squads was a great idea, it really was. Made it easier to organize a small functioning fire team consisting of medics and anti-tanks. Heres a breakdown for you.
Each squad consisted of 6 players maximum. One dedicated squad leader, and the rest measly squad members. Squad members could spawn on the squadleader, the squadleader had to spawn at a base/flag. At least that was how it was supposed to work. But when the squad leader died, he could rejoin the squad and spawn on the new squad leader. Thus, in practice making it just like Bad Company 2. The only difference was only the skillfull players knew about and exploited this, making it kind of a big advantage - unkillable squads and all that. Now everybody can do this.
Another thing is 6 players working together could pretty much overrun anything they faced on a regular public server, thus making it a tiny bit unbalanced.
I understand the 4-player limit of BF3, and stand fully behind it. Tell me how wrong I am.
The commander.
Fuck that guy, won't miss him.
Should probably explain a bit. Every asset the commander has can be placed elsewhere. Artillery, UAV and supplies. BC2 did a fine job with this, and BF3 could only do it better. Why this is a problem I can't fathom.
The Airforce.
Excuse me for a while, this paragraph doesn't have very much to do with BF3, other than this: They can't possibly make it worse than BF2.
Ah, the helicopters. How I love and loathe thee.
I was an all around helicopter whore. The most lethal weapon on the Battlefield.
Three words for you. Sharqi Peninsula Massacre. Three more, Mashtuur City Massacre.
I don't think they playtested this one bit. The blackhawk in 1.0 was fucking invincible. Pilot, 2 gunners, 2-3 three engineers. Each gunner could get upwards of 100 kills each round - sometimes more, meaning 100 assist for everyone in the heli, the engineers repaired as madmen, also earning assists for everyone. The pilot was squad leader and a medic - healing and a mobile spawn point. I went one round with 192-1 in K/D, the one death came from the stuping pilot ramming a building.
No fucking way DICE play tested this. After I while they nerfed it, but I'll allways miss those glorious days of chopper whoring on Mastuur. After the nerfing the blackhawk became useless, an empty shell of its previous self.
Tell you one thing that wasn't nerfed? The Mi-28 Havoc on Sharqi Peninsula. Went plenty of 150-0 rounds in that one too. Broken as all hell. You see, at the beginning it was impossible to shoot down aerial vehicles seeing as the Anti-Air was busted, due to the net code - which I'll talk about now.
I don't need to talk about the J-10, anyone who's ever played Wake Island know what I'm talking about. The dog fighting in BF2 was tragic compared to 1942 and Desert Combat. Based not as much as skill and reflexes as which plane you happen to be in. The F-35b was the worst, with the MIG-29 coming second behind the J-10, a space ship from the future, dodging missiles while flying in a straight line. As I said, they can't possible fuck it up more.
One thing they can't replicate is the dog fights from 1942, just because modern combat has jets. Not cool planes. With just cool machine guns. And no lame rockets.
The netcode.
The netcode is largely still kind of janky. Making some players nigh unkillable if they knew how to move. The hitbox you see, was a slow fuck, allways lagging behind you, making you die after you actually passed that corner and dove to safety - but no, the hitbox was still behind you making those bullets do a 90 degree turn. I've seen Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops get hate for their net code, but never BF2. MW2 is fucking perfect compared to BF2.
When you headshot someone in BF2, a white cloud of dust appears to signal you that infact, that was a headshot. Now, most weapons kill in one headshot. The M16, M4 and MP5 pretty much being the exceptions. So when you see those clouds appear, you should have killed that sucker. But no.
And there was this handy thing called 'usersettings.con', which if edited correctly made you pretty much unhittable. Balanced, yo.
The other thing was the Ground to Air missiles, the Air to Air missles, the pretty much every missile. SRAWs would often pass right through enemy vehicles, even when standing still. The A2A and G2A missiles would never hit, making it pretty easy to stay alive in the skies.
I can't imagine them not doing a better job in BF3.
Epilogue.
Now, before you chew my balls of - I still love BF2, wouldn't have played it so much if I didn't. But I'm not brainwashed by nostalgia either. Also remember that this is my opinion.
Compared to the transition from 1942 too BF2, this transition looks a hell of a lot more exciting. Nothing seems to be cut, like the big vehicles from 1942. But rather refined and added.
So what was the point of this post? I don't really know, it got lost somewhere. But I want people to remember BF2, not with rose tinted glasses. But what it was. A fantastic game, being brilliant and broken at the same time. BC2 was also a fantastic game, smaller scale than BF2 sure, but a better game. If DICE can take what they learned with BC2 and apply it too BF3 - we're in for a treat.
So, the future. I've seen the trailers to the game. A couple of leaked gameplay clips. I wont see more. It's Alpha. Things will change. I don't have a mental image of what the game should be, or will be when It's out. I'll buy it, I'll play it and if past experiences is an indication - I'll love it. The last thing I'd do is berate the game before playing it.
I do know what I don't want, another BF2.
No, what I want is a better BF2, and I have no doubt in my mind that DICE is the right people for the task. Call me optimistic and naive, but DICE know what I want - hopefully, and I have faith in them to deliver. I'm not the only fan of this franchise, I don't expect them to tailor the game to me and me alone, unlike some other people....
So I ask. Is it possible to look forward to a game without threads like "Biggest dissapointment ever" and "Total Joke"? There's so much anger.
Log in to comment