I don't care at all.

I hated how in Battlefield BC 2 you could be an American soldier using a Russian weapon. I thought it made no sense.

Whenever I play BC 2 I always use weapons retaining to the faction team I'm on.

Meh. As long as each faction's exclusive weapons are roughly equivalent, I'm fine with it.

I dont care

Its not a big deal, but I prefer faction specific weapons. I just feel off playing as an opposing force such as Russia and using an m4. Of course the weapons have to be balanced. So dont bother if they aren't

One of the things that made counter-strike and all the BF games (BF2 and earlier) awesome was faction specific weapons that were different than the weapons on the other team. Developers don't like to do it because it takes them extra time to make extra weapons and also ensuring that even though they're different they're still balanced.

I prefer faction specific for realism, as long as it doesn't fu ck with the balance.
 
No cod 2 MP44, I have no idea what you are talking about.

you can still pick up AKs off dead mujaheddin right?

Realistic Faction Specific weaponry is something I drool over. Last time I checked, Russians don't use M4's, G36's, and M79 Grenade Launchers.

I'm extremely picky about what weapons I use. I straight up quit games if I'm put on a stupid team that has dumb AK47s.

I want to be able to choose my weapon, I don't care if it's not realistic. Neither are self repairing tanks.

I really don't see it adding anything to the game.  If you want some kind of logical continuity, then you probably shouldn't be playing a Battlefield game.

@Vinny_Says said:

you can still pick up AKs off dead mujaheddin right?

Yes.

Also I just read on the Battlefield Wiki that when you max out a specific class, you unlock all faction weapons for that class. Although it said it will take roughly 100 hours to unlock everything so I'm guessing 25 hours per class.

I find a weapon I like and stick with it for a while. Arbitrary faction designations impede that. I do believe they said you can unlock the other side's weapons at the end of the unlock trees, like Medal of Honor.

Always faction specific if possible. It makes the game look that much more polished- case in point, Battlefield 2.

In the og battlefield 2 some of the faction specific weapons I enjoyed better. Like the M4 for the americans on spec ops, but having the option to use your unlocks at that point it didn't matter which faction you were apart of and everyone rocking the sniper class was using a barrett lol

KILL DUDE, TAKEN GUN. WHERE PROBLEM?

Aslong as they can balance it.

From a realism point of view I don't see it make much of a difference. There is nothing stopping me from picking up the weapons of my dead enemies, and at the same time I won't be issued with an AK as an American soldier.

What does bother me is when you introduce gun specific leveling, and you're forced to use different weapons when playing for different factions. Say I enjoy the M4 and want to level that, if I'm forced to use an AK74 instead when on the Russian team that's gonna feel like a waste of time.

@Pinworm45 said:

I'm extremely picky about what weapons I use. I straight up quit games if I'm put on a stupid team that has dumb AK47s.

I want to be able to choose my weapon, I don't care if it's not realistic. Neither are self repairing tanks.

You run from a challenge? Glad I won't be playing with you much. I hate prima donnas when I play competitively. Play for fun and push hard. Don't ragequit because you can't get the weapon or vehicle you want.

Self repairing tanks are realistic. Military vehicles have failover systems and crews which often bring them back into semi working order (nav, controls, firing mechanisms) in the midst of battle and especially after firing has died down some.

It's a similar idea DICE did with Medal Of Honor 2010.    Taliban had russian made guns while Marines had the standard american weapons, it worked out fairly well.

I'm indifferent to it for the most part, but it is annoying some times. For example, having to level up the AK-74M and the M-16 in the BF3 alpha.

I'm completely fine with it if you unlock things for the equivalent gun on the other side as you unlock things for the side you are playing. However, they could just get rid of the bull-shit level up to unlock attachments thing, and it would be all good. I honestly hate that most shooters these days require you to level up to get access to weapons and attachments for them.

Every weapon in the entire game should be faction specific 

@Three0neFive said:

Meh. As long as each faction's exclusive weapons are roughly equivalent, I'm fine with it.

I'm with this guy right here. Expect internet rage about one side being over-powered because of supposed imbalance though

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Pinworm45 said:

I'm extremely picky about what weapons I use. I straight up quit games if I'm put on a stupid team that has dumb AK47s.

I want to be able to choose my weapon, I don't care if it's not realistic. Neither are self repairing tanks.

You run from a challenge? Glad I won't be playing with you much. I hate prima donnas when I play competitively. Play for fun and push hard. Don't ragequit because you can't get the weapon or vehicle you want.

Self repairing tanks are realistic. Military vehicles have failover systems and crews which often bring them back into semi working order (nav, controls, firing mechanisms) in the midst of battle and especially after firing has died down some.

Has nothing to do with the challenge. I'd rather play with a shit gun that looks modern and good than an overpowered AK. Which is kind of ironic, considering AK variants are traditionally the more powerful weapons (see BLOPS), so I have no idea at what point challenge entered into it at all.

Purely cosmetic.

Way to miss the second point. I guess regenerating health in games is explained too by the fact that our bodies have self healing mechanisms.

Everything is so serious

If a game forces me to have vastly different guns depending on whether I'm Red team or Blue team that is bad for gameplay, if it's just skins then it's alright. Also depends on gametypes.

If your game is going for pure realism sure, but if you'r going for a fun, but competitive multiplayer shooter, give everyone an even playing field.

@Pinworm45: This may not by 100% accurate, but in the BLOPS time period, the AK was the modern weapon.

@Arker101: The key is that we're not talking about vastly different weapons. The last place I saw this implemented was in Medal of Honor, and even though the guns were different and handled differently, they still worked in the same situations and I certainly never felt an imbalance. I can't really think of a game that has had faction-specific weapons that was hurt by it.

@RsistncE said:

One of the things that made counter-strike and all the BF games (BF2 and earlier) awesome was faction specific weapons that were different than the weapons on the other team. Developers don't like to do it because it takes them extra time to make extra weapons and also ensuring that even though they're different they're still balanced.

Yup, I agree with this entirely.

@Donos: I understand that we're not comparing a burst fire gun to a full auto F2000, but to me when you have statistically and visually different guns for different teams(even in a attack/defend asymmetrical environment) that skews the balance a bit. I know most will just yell adapt or die to my argument, but I'm one of the guys that I know when my team has the bad spawn or since we're red team on an ice map we're at a contrast based disadvantage, meaning we can't sneak around and it's easier to aim at us.

As long as there's a gun for every different environment there won't be a problem, but I know that there will always be the mindset "well since we're playing X team on this Y map we'll lose because the other teams weapons have Z advantage. Might as well quit out now."

Works for me, it'll encourage me to use some of the firearms I normally wouldn't.

Ill find what works and then stick with it.

Gameplay over realism. I like my guns. Faction specific guns suck.

@Pinworm45 said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Pinworm45 said:

I'm extremely picky about what weapons I use. I straight up quit games if I'm put on a stupid team that has dumb AK47s.

I want to be able to choose my weapon, I don't care if it's not realistic. Neither are self repairing tanks.

You run from a challenge? Glad I won't be playing with you much. I hate prima donnas when I play competitively. Play for fun and push hard. Don't ragequit because you can't get the weapon or vehicle you want.

Self repairing tanks are realistic. Military vehicles have failover systems and crews which often bring them back into semi working order (nav, controls, firing mechanisms) in the midst of battle and especially after firing has died down some.

Has nothing to do with the challenge. I'd rather play with a shit gun that looks modern and good than an overpowered AK. Which is kind of ironic, considering AK variants are traditionally the more powerful weapons (see BLOPS), so I have no idea at what point challenge entered into it at all.

Purely cosmetic.

Way to miss the second point. I guess regenerating health in games is explained too by the fact that our bodies have self healing mechanisms.

Everything is so serious

Overpowered AK? Where are you getting your ideas of what guns BF3 will have on offer?

@SeriouslyNow said:

KILL DUDE, TAKEN GUN. WHERE PROBLEM?

You take the whole kit in Battlefield.

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Pinworm45 said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Pinworm45 said:

I'm extremely picky about what weapons I use. I straight up quit games if I'm put on a stupid team that has dumb AK47s.

I want to be able to choose my weapon, I don't care if it's not realistic. Neither are self repairing tanks.

You run from a challenge? Glad I won't be playing with you much. I hate prima donnas when I play competitively. Play for fun and push hard. Don't ragequit because you can't get the weapon or vehicle you want.

Self repairing tanks are realistic. Military vehicles have failover systems and crews which often bring them back into semi working order (nav, controls, firing mechanisms) in the midst of battle and especially after firing has died down some.

Has nothing to do with the challenge. I'd rather play with a shit gun that looks modern and good than an overpowered AK. Which is kind of ironic, considering AK variants are traditionally the more powerful weapons (see BLOPS), so I have no idea at what point challenge entered into it at all.

Purely cosmetic.

Way to miss the second point. I guess regenerating health in games is explained too by the fact that our bodies have self healing mechanisms.

Everything is so serious

Overpowered AK? Where are you getting your ideas of what guns BF3 will have on offer?

Probably the list of guns that BF3 will have on offer.

@Infininja:I'm a serious BF player, but thanks for the advice. I'm sorry you didn't get my joke. That list shows two, possibly three AKs and none of them are overpowered.

If realism is what they are going for, then by all means. I've never seen American soldiers using AK-47s. Unless it's Rambo or something. Again, the height of realism.

@MooseyMcMan said:

If realism is what they are going for, then by all means. I've never seen American soldiers using AK-47s. Unless it's Rambo or something. Again, the height of realism.

It's Battlefield they're going for. Some Battlefield games have some faction specific weapons, others don't.

Ever heard the expression 'Rambo-Jesus'? Pretty sure the Battlefield 2 community invented that term for the medic class. Battlefield is a game where you can parachute out of a chopper/plane and drop dynamite/C4 on tanks below you. Where you climb in and out of vehicles at the push of a button instantly, without a fancy realistic animation.

Battlefield is less realistic than Halo in some ways, yet it feels a lot more authentic. It's physical. It's believable. It feels right. But Battlefield is certainly not realistic.

@Seppli: If I were feeling more ambitious, I would argue against even thinking that Halo is more realistic in some ways. IT IS NONSENSE!

But I don't feel ambitious.

@MooseyMcMan said:

@Seppli: If I were feeling more ambitious, I would argue against even thinking that Halo is more realistic in some ways. IT IS NONSENSE!

But I don't feel ambitious.

It emphasizes animation over gameplay - like climbing into vehicles with lenghty 'realistic' animations. For one.

Don't care as long as its balanced.

@Seppli said:

@MooseyMcMan said:

@Seppli: If I were feeling more ambitious, I would argue against even thinking that Halo is more realistic in some ways. IT IS NONSENSE!

But I don't feel ambitious.

It emphasizes animation over gameplay - like climbing into vehicles with lenghty 'realistic' animations. For one.

You're telling me that Battlefield doesn't have climbing into stuff animations?! No wonder those games suck! I counter with alien zombie monsters!

@MooseyMcMan said:

If realism is what they are going for, then by all means. I've never seen American soldiers using AK-47s. Unless it's Rambo or something. Again, the height of realism.

September 13, 2011: guess what most American soldiers use...

@Ocean_H: I didn't watch the video, so my statement is still true. I have never seen it. NEVER! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

@MooseyMcMan said:

@Seppli said:

@MooseyMcMan said:

@Seppli: If I were feeling more ambitious, I would argue against even thinking that Halo is more realistic in some ways. IT IS NONSENSE!

But I don't feel ambitious.

It emphasizes animation over gameplay - like climbing into vehicles with lenghty 'realistic' animations. For one.

You're telling me that Battlefield doesn't have climbing into stuff animations?! No wonder those games suck! I counter with alien zombie monsters!

You're not getting what I'm saying. I say unchecked 'realism' sucks. It gets in the way of fun and 'fair game' more often than not.

Oh - Earth is a unique snowflake, just like you... erm... wait... you're one in billions. Not that it matters. I always say, 99% of us just support the top of the pyramid (minus those unfortunate and unprivileged and uncivilized enough not to and those few that don't want to). Let them with choppers instead of cars for personal transportation care for such trivial things as alien tentacle monsters and Mexican donkey shows.

Peace, out!

@Seppli: I know. I was joking. JOKING! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

My ears were tingling--did somebody say "donkey show"?

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Infininja:I'm a serious BF player, but thanks for the advice. I'm sorry you didn't get my joke. That list shows two, possibly three AKs and none of them are overpowered.

I don't find jokes funny when they make no sense. Taking a whole kit isn't a solution when you just want the one gun. That's all. I don't think the AKs are overpowered either, especially not universally so as @Pinworm45 appears to be suggesting.

@Infininja said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Infininja:I'm a serious BF player, but thanks for the advice. I'm sorry you didn't get my joke. That list shows two, possibly three AKs and none of them are overpowered.

I don't find jokes funny when they make no sense. Taking a whole kit isn't a solution when you just want the one gun. That's all. I don't think the AKs are overpowered either, especially not universally so as @Pinworm45 appears to be suggesting.

The joke makes perfect sense. BF games are always centered around a specific gun, it's why the gun always shows on the ground.

Okay, this thread is all well and good, but nobody has mentioned the strategic value of faction specific weapons.

They make different sounds. It's just one more way to quickly form a conclusion about whether or not you're coming up on friendlies or the enemy. In my experience with faction specific weapons and a lack of radar/HUD elements, the sound of a weapon can be a great tool in this regard.

As an aside: Many times on Pavlov in Call of Duty 1, I'd be looking out the window with my Kar98k only to hear a Mosin Nagant being fired in the room next door. Alarm bells, man.