Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

So... Battlefield Series.. Not what I expected..

Ivory Samoan

Liturgist
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
214
Location
Aotearoa
I've never really gotten into any FPS before (except for hybrids like SShock/DeusX etc), but fuck me with a rubber mallet, Battlefield is quite decent.

The teamwork / tactics / skill level required have gone past all my highest expectations for a game of this type.. (have only been playing Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 3 beta online, but they are great), question is : any of you lot hit the Battlefield at all?


:salute: :salute: :salute:
 

Steve

Augur
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
359
Battlefields have never had good teamwork or tactics in public games, unless you concider throwing boxes on the ground (mostly for yourself) is tactical.

If I want real tactics and teamwork I go play Project reality.
 

Erzherzog

Magister
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
2,887
Location
Mid-Atlantic
I find teamwork tends to center on game mode moreso than game.

TDM or Firefight = LOL

Territory/Capture the Flag/Capture the Base = Good enough

Objective based requiring the use of multiple classes working together = :love:
 

MetalCraze

Arcane
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Messages
21,104
Location
Urkanistan
Indy Sandbag Trick said:
The teamwork / tactics / skill level required have gone past all my highest expectations for a game of this type.. (have only been playing Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 3 beta online, but they are great), question is : any of you lot hit the Battlefield at all?

:lol:
I've heard tactics in CoDMW are just as great.
 

Trash

Pointing and laughing.
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
29,683
Location
About 8 meters beneath sea level.
Been having fun with the BF games since the first. They're no military sims or great teamwork games but they do excel in giving you the surroundings and toys to have a great time.
 

Destroid

Arcane
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
16,628
Location
Australia
Which one are you playing? I really like 1924/2/2142 and a few of the mods, BF3 hard to judge yet since it runs like a dog and only has one crappy map in the beta. Wasn't much of a fan of Vietnam.

But Natural Selection is better.
 

Trash

Pointing and laughing.
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
29,683
Location
About 8 meters beneath sea level.
The metro map was crap and didn't have anything that made the previous BF games so cool. The last weekend of the beta however they did what they should've done at the start and let people play on the Caspian Border map with 64 players. And voila, suddenly it's BF again. Racing around in buggies, rumbling tanks, armoured AA cars, choppers and jets and lots and lots of room to do it in. Plenty of stuff to criticize but at least I'm now sure it will be another BF.
 

monkeyboy7

Novice
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
3
Location
Toronto
Destroid said:
Which one are you playing? I really like 1924/2/2142 and a few of the mods, BF3 hard to judge yet since it runs like a dog and only has one crappy map in the beta. Wasn't much of a fan of Vietnam.

But Natural Selection is better.

I love NS to death, but there's no way in hell it's better than BF3. I've been playing the NS2 beta for months now, and it's basically just a rehash of the original mod. The teamwork aspect is certainly there, but I feel like the biggest improvement is just the graphics.

To be honest, both NS2 and BF3 run like a dog. Granted, I only have a 9800 GT, which plays a huge part in performance. But at least BF3 will be optimized for computers in the final release. The NS2 developers haven't even released the Onos yet!

My suggestion? Don't be afraid to try it out. Caspian border was epic and in how many games can you do something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szppZkO9PhE

BTW, anyone who's basing their decision on the beta should think again. I've heard that the beta build was more than six months old, and that all of the glitches have been fixed for release. DICE also knows what they're doing when it comes to production planning. Heck, Nvidia just released an updated set of graphics drivers to prepare players for BF3!
 

Destroid

Arcane
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
16,628
Location
Australia
By NS I meant the core gameplay, which I feel is superior to that of the BF series. You know, BF3 has no gameplay features that were not present in Frontlines: Fuel of War, a BF clone from 2008 (including remote control flyers, buggies and environment destruction). And all without the annoyance of 100 hours per class for full unlocks, or BF3s irritating UI.

I'll certainly try a demo or free weekend for BF3, but I won't by buying it based on what I've seen so far.
 

Sceptic

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
10,871
Divinity: Original Sin
Trash said:
The last weekend of the beta however they did what they should've done at the start and let people play on the Caspian Border map with 64 players. And voila, suddenly it's BF again. Racing around in buggies, rumbling tanks, armoured AA cars, choppers and jets and lots and lots of room to do it in.
My excitement for BF3 went sub-zero when the beta started, but this looks promising again. I'll still have to decide whether I want to deal with Origin though.

Destroid said:
I really like 1924/2/2142 and a few of the mods, BF3 hard to judge yet since it runs like a dog and only has one crappy map in the beta. Wasn't much of a fan of Vietnam.
I like Vietnam, the one I don't like is 2142 for some reason (but then I didn't play it much). My fav is probably still 1942 (and it's the one I played most back then), though BF2 was great fun as well.
 

Satan

Educated
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
635
1942 was fun in multiplayer, vietnam was even better. Since BF2 it was shit and I haven't bothered with them except from downloading demo versions for a day or two until I got bored.

This series is - just like CoD - below average with great hype.

However today I wouldn't recommend even 1942 or Vietnam, because there are better games anyway and amount of online players is really scarce.

I don't want to sound like skyway, but if you want multiplayer military shooter then ArmA2 is the best option. If just singleplayer then OFP or the very first Stalker.
 

Commander Xbox

Learned
Joined
Apr 25, 2011
Messages
277
Satan said:
I don't want to sound like skyway, but if you want multiplayer military shooter then ArmA2 is the best option. If just singleplayer then OFP or the very first Stalker.

No BF is the perfect mix between tactical gameplay and casual arcade style shooting. Shooters like Arma are for boring spergs and contrarian faggots
 

Fens

Ford of the Llies
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
1,899
Location
pitcairn
MetalCraze said:
For it to be a mix it needs to have tactical gameplay first.
it has... not on public servers, though... just like OFP/Arma
 

MetalCraze

Arcane
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Messages
21,104
Location
Urkanistan
It has with PR I agree (although I don't like PR). But vanilla where it's all about overflowing enemies until they run out of respawns - nah
 

Fens

Ford of the Llies
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
1,899
Location
pitcairn
there are quite a few ways to make the other team make wrong decisions (talking about '42, 2 and 2142 + some mods here, as i haven't played the other iterations), which can change the outcome of the game. that does need coordination, knowing what your team is good at and ppl who know what they're doing. if you have all that, zerg rushes only result in a quick victory for the defending side.
 

AlaCarcuss

Arbiter
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
1,335
Location
BrizVegas, Australis Penal Colony
Fens said:
there are quite a few ways to make the other team make wrong decisions (talking about '42, 2 and 2142 + some mods here, as i haven't played the other iterations), which can change the outcome of the game. that does need coordination, knowing what your team is good at and ppl who know what they're doing. if you have all that, zerg rushes only result in a quick victory for the defending side.

Exactly. The games give you the maps and all the tools you need to play it any way you want. It's up to the players to make of it what they will - be it tactical or herp derp cluster fuck.

Same as ArmA 2 actually - just without the realism (which, unlike skyway thinks - is not necessary to have a good time).
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom