Could Battlefield 3 have the same problems as MW2?

[Spookimitsu]

I saw more camping in Bad Company 2 then I ever saw in Modern Warfare 2.

These are two totally different games though.
There is also a definitive offensive vs. defensive in Battlefield. The only mode where this didnt apply was Team Deathmatch, which was usually underpopulated. In Rush mode, (as I said in another thread) it really isn't 'camping' when you are on defense, but rather you are holding the line. To call this camping is pretty much the same thing as going to a football game, watching the safety make a tackle and you say he was camping. "I hate Green Bay, their defensive back are always campin'.."In the Bad company(s) you could only spawn at places YOUR faction occupied, given that, you are always going to spawn in defense more or less, if it is an area that can be captured.

CoD you are really just looking out for a kill count, it doesn't really call for what would be called a "defense" Unless you are talking about S&D (even then you have a narrow timer and one life to live. why throw it away recklessly). You also can't choose where you spawn either. Everytime you respawn, you run the risk of being in or near hostile territory, and you must either go on the immediate and narrow offense to secure some breathing room, or waiting and observing to see if anything will happen. Therefore, players acting defensive when there is *no* actual defense, is known as camping.

 

[SamStar42]

I saw more camping in Bad Company 2 then I ever saw in Modern Warfare 2.

The difference being that you blow up the wall though honestly it happens in almost every game so i don't know why mw2 get raged on so hard for it

Because MW2 was played by more than four people and a budgie, which apparently makes it bad on the interwebs

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

This is entirely possible to happen again, and it's due to forums like this bitching and moaning about good games (seriously, people who call MW2 'the worst game of all time' are retarded) and championing false prophets.

Haha. That bit made me laugh. "Someone disagrees with my tastes, so the only logical explanation must be an unfortunate birth defect, that makes them not as intelligent as me."

Narcissism much?

OT: That said, I think you're right about Battlefield 3. I think the Hype train will crash into the terminal.

However, I ALSO think Modern Warfare 3 will turn out to be inane, lazily-made garbage that will still sell like Army-semen-covered-hotcakes.

Either way, both Activision and EA will make a lot of money, so they win. And we lose.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

"unbalanced and buggy (but somehow, still very fun). Now, is it at all possible this could happen with BF3?" ... what battlefield game wasn't buggy and unbalanced. if you played battlefield from the beginning 1942 on release day up until the most recent installment you would know the bf series is a buggy mess on release day and takes a few months of patches to be somewhat fixed. heck bf2 still isn't totally fixed... check the forums and prepare to be amazed. and let's not forget bfbc2 which has so many bugs it's a joke

The only bug I ever encountered with either game near the release day was simply a problem of there being too few servers. This seems less a bug and more that EA simply has no capacity to judge the popularity of the series. As far as bugs later along, in spite of having played ever battlefield game made thus far, I have rarely encountered any significant bug that alters gameplay. I've seen questionable design decisions (for example, having a helicopter that can literally move so very fast in a circle that it is immune to all significant anti-aircraft fire, a move exacerbated by the fact that in Bad Company 2 the helicopters were immune to most weapons fire) of course, and even seen problems with the boundaries on maps being exploited, but never anything consistent and game breaking.

I didn't dislike Modern Warfare 2 as a game. What made me stop playing was simply that there were bugs that fundamentally altered the way the game was played. The moment one was stamped out, it seemed like I was simply given another to deal with until I simply decided it wasn't worth playing the game any longer.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I saw more camping in Bad Company 2 then I ever saw in Modern Warfare 2.

The difference being that you blow up the wall though honestly it happens in almost every game so i don't know why mw2 get raged on so hard for it

I think it is largely because there is a fundamental difference of defending an objective and camping. In Battlefield, it is generally expected that some portion of the team will defend an objective. In the rush mode, that portion generally consists of the entire defending team. On the attacking side, if one is going to make progress, it should be expected that they will defend certain points until bombs explode.

Another part of it is simply that there are more tools at a player's disposal - mortar strikes, rockets, grenades, tanks, armored personnel carriers, air strikes, etc. These things mean that, in most circumstances, one's capacity to defend any particular location indefinitely faces serious challenges

The last part is that maps are far, far larger. If someone is camping inside of one building, I can simply choose to never enter that building and, most of the time, am not even inconvenienced by this choice in any way.

So, in short, the reason you see less rage is that defense is a natural and expected part of the game, there are more tools available for dealing with a static defense, and level design ensures that a static defense of most points is relatively ineffective because the opposition can choose to go somewhere else.

 

[IamSofaKingRaw]

Battlefield 3 will have two betas. One going on right now to check server stability,, and one on consoles and PC later to get gameplay bugs out of the way. COD will once again not ahve any beta testing an once again be totally garbage on the PS3. (The 360 version will play slightly better for some reason, but it'd still be plagued by terrible hit detection and host migrations)

 

[ZeZZZZevy]

Different teams doing different projects. An entirely separate team made BFBC2 (correct me if I'm wrong)

so yes it could have the same problems, but I'm not going to go into the million possible what ifs? that could lead to the game being bad. I'm perfectly content to just look forward to it.

I'm confused as to why people can overlook the problems of Battlefield, but are willing to scrutinize everything in a CoD game. Smacks of hypocrisy.

I didn't say there weren't any problems, and if there were I would look over them. I said that I'm not going to become paranoid about a game that hasn't even come out yet. If BF3 has the same level of problems that CoD has, I will not overlook that.

Also, people scrutinize popular games (especially extremely popular games such as CoD) more than anything else, which is why some games are let off easier.

 

[Lawlhat]

For me, Modern Warfare 2 was a letdown because I expected it to top the awesome that was Call of Duty 4, and it didn't quite do that. By no means was it horrible, but BC2 appealed just enough more to me to get me to move over to Battlefield for the moment. I've enjoyed both series on PC since early in their days (CoD since 2, and BF since Vietnam) and don't see why one has to be better than the other. They service different subaudiences within the fps genre.

 

[Raziel_Likes_Souls]

Probably, but bullet drop gets in the way of BF3 becoming like MW2.