Screw Battlefield 3

[MysticToast]

and i might be in the minority again on this, i love bc2 multiplayer. the dust and bloom is there to make sniping less effective, keep in mind, in some the older bf maps, it often just ended up being sniper wars, i never found that to be fun. it gives the feeling of wide open maps with out giving pure dominance to snipers. and ofcorse the blowing up of buildings is a nice touch.

The problem with the dust thing is, assuming that was the goal, sniping became way TOO hard on certain maps.

I love BC2s multiplayer, but the dust thing in the game (campaign and MP) is ridiculous

 

[repeating integers]

...Bad Company 2's single player was so mind numbingly awful that I've ditched that particular branch forever.

Bad Company 1's, on the other hand, was amazing. I agree with the OP that Haggard was awesome.

Still looking forward to Battlefield 3.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Bad Company 2 was horrible, worst battlefield I've ever played

If bloom, 4 vehicles, tiny maps, bloom, no commander system, 32 players, bloom and CG spam is your thing then your opinion is stupid and you should feel stupid.

thankfully it's a different series from regular battlefield.

Look, I can't even support online multiplayer, so I was stuck with the single player.

Then Battlefield is not the series for you. Complaining about the single player in a Battlefield game is like buying a football and then complaining that it sucks when you try to play by yourself; it's a real "duh" moment.

 

[punkrocker27]

The whole branching game series thing confuses me, still I liked the Battlefield games from what I've played of them.

 

[Serving UpSmiles]

My favorite scene from bad company 1 is

"So you mean we're going to attack the bad guys now!"

"Hey it beats flipping burgers for a living" so true XD

Also by the looks of it Battlefield 3 doesn't even look like it has a story, yeah the presentation, and the action will be great, it just doesnt make any sense, only thing I've heard of is that the Americans are fighting in Iran.

 

[Aur0ra145]

Did anybody here ever play BF2?

It was like the greatest game developed for PC within the last 6 years when looking at the multi-player aspect and TEAMWORK.

Do I need to mention mods? Seriously, the mods you could get for the game were great. Stuff like PR and Forgotten Hope.

Also, I was on the dev team for Department Store Battles.

Jet engines on a parachute. Check!

Attach the Essex Gun to a DPV. Check!

http://bf2s.com/player/63934584/

Here's some video of the mod by some dude, anyways, he showcases alot of the stuff we made.


Also it should be noted that Battlefield titles don't have single-player campaigns. That was an advent of the Bad Company franchise.

 

[Danny Ocean]

Did anybody here ever play BF2?

It was like the greatest game developed for PC within the last 6 years when looking at the multi-player aspect and TEAMWORK.

It really was, too. I hope battlefield 3 does it justice. I should be in on the beta- a reward for playing MoH.

 

[Inkidu]

Bad Company 2 was horrible, worst battlefield I've ever played

If bloom, 4 vehicles, tiny maps, bloom, no commander system, 32 players, bloom and CG spam is your thing then your opinion is stupid and you should feel stupid.

thankfully it's a different series from regular battlefield.

Look, I can't even support online multiplayer, so I was stuck with the single player.

Then Battlefield is not the series for you. Complaining about the single player in a Battlefield game is like buying a football and then complaining that it sucks when you try to play by yourself; it's a real "duh" moment.

No see, I liked Bad Company 2's story. Mainly for the characters than any real narrative praise. Anyway, I don't even think I've ever played a FPS besides Metro that has just wowed me with story, and it gets a lot on atmosphere.

Halo: The universe is cool, but the story is Master Chief Blowing stuff up to save the world.
Modern Warfare: It had some good set pieces, but the narrative just kind of was their to facilitate said set pieces.
Doom: Yeah, Doom.

I want someone to make the 20 plus hour FPS epic, but it ain't ever going to happen with so many people paying for six hours of CoD. Why go further?

 

[L3m0n_L1m3]

...Bad Company 2's single player was so mind numbingly awful that I've ditched that particular branch forever.

Yeeeeah.... Though I played the multiplayer for quite a while.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Bad Company 2 was horrible, worst battlefield I've ever played

If bloom, 4 vehicles, tiny maps, bloom, no commander system, 32 players, bloom and CG spam is your thing then your opinion is stupid and you should feel stupid.

thankfully it's a different series from regular battlefield.

Look, I can't even support online multiplayer, so I was stuck with the single player.

Then Battlefield is not the series for you. Complaining about the single player in a Battlefield game is like buying a football and then complaining that it sucks when you try to play by yourself; it's a real "duh" moment.

No see, I liked Bad Company 2's story. Mainly for the characters than any real narrative praise. Anyway, I don't even think I've ever played a FPS besides Metro that has just wowed me with story, and it gets a lot on atmosphere.

Halo: The universe is cool, but the story is Master Chief Blowing stuff up to save the world.
Modern Warfare: It had some good set pieces, but the narrative just kind of was their to facilitate said set pieces.
Doom: Yeah, Doom.

I want someone to make the 20 plus hour FPS epic, but it ain't ever going to happen with so many people paying for six hours of CoD. Why go further?

Bad Company 2 may have had a decent story, but it was a story focused spinoff; the main series has been abut multiplayer and nothing else since the first installment, which managed to win numerous game of the year awards despite the fact that every single review knocked it for the terrible single player.

Edit:

You're also in a serious minority if you want 20 hours of modern FPS gameplay. For most people, they've thoroughly worn out their welcome by 10, multiplayer aside. It's why I finish so few games; if I can't finish it in a couple of sittings, I'm probably not going to, because I have other hobbies, other games within the hobby, and actual obligations to take care of. Multiplayer is excellent for people like me because you can sit down for a half hour and play two or three complete games; you don't get that with single player.

 

[Inkidu]

Bad Company 2 was horrible, worst battlefield I've ever played

If bloom, 4 vehicles, tiny maps, bloom, no commander system, 32 players, bloom and CG spam is your thing then your opinion is stupid and you should feel stupid.

thankfully it's a different series from regular battlefield.

Look, I can't even support online multiplayer, so I was stuck with the single player.

Then Battlefield is not the series for you. Complaining about the single player in a Battlefield game is like buying a football and then complaining that it sucks when you try to play by yourself; it's a real "duh" moment.

No see, I liked Bad Company 2's story. Mainly for the characters than any real narrative praise. Anyway, I don't even think I've ever played a FPS besides Metro that has just wowed me with story, and it gets a lot on atmosphere.

Halo: The universe is cool, but the story is Master Chief Blowing stuff up to save the world.
Modern Warfare: It had some good set pieces, but the narrative just kind of was their to facilitate said set pieces.
Doom: Yeah, Doom.

I want someone to make the 20 plus hour FPS epic, but it ain't ever going to happen with so many people paying for six hours of CoD. Why go further?

Bad Company 2 may have had a decent story, but it was a story focused spinoff; the main series has been abut multiplayer and nothing else since its first installment, which managed to win numerous game of the year awards despite the fact that every single review knocked it for the terrible single player.

Edit:

You're also in a serious minority if you want 20 hours of modern FPS gameplay. For most people, they've thoroughly worn out their welcome by 10, multiplayer aside. It's why I finish so few games; if I can't finish it in a couple of sittings, I'm probably not going to, because I have other hobbies, other games within the hobby, and actual obligations to take care of. Multiplayer is excellent for people like me because you can sit down for a half hour and play two or three complete games; you don't get that with single player.

Yeah, that's kind of my point. I've got no real gripes with the Battlefield games, I just like BC better. That's why I want more.

I'm not saying they were bad, I'm just saying which I'd rather have. I really wanted to play their future game, but the lack of a real single player killed me on that idea. Here's hoping it gets its own BC like spinoff.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Bad Company 2 was horrible, worst battlefield I've ever played

If bloom, 4 vehicles, tiny maps, bloom, no commander system, 32 players, bloom and CG spam is your thing then your opinion is stupid and you should feel stupid.

thankfully it's a different series from regular battlefield.

Look, I can't even support online multiplayer, so I was stuck with the single player.

Then Battlefield is not the series for you. Complaining about the single player in a Battlefield game is like buying a football and then complaining that it sucks when you try to play by yourself; it's a real "duh" moment.

No see, I liked Bad Company 2's story. Mainly for the characters than any real narrative praise. Anyway, I don't even think I've ever played a FPS besides Metro that has just wowed me with story, and it gets a lot on atmosphere.

Halo: The universe is cool, but the story is Master Chief Blowing stuff up to save the world.
Modern Warfare: It had some good set pieces, but the narrative just kind of was their to facilitate said set pieces.
Doom: Yeah, Doom.

I want someone to make the 20 plus hour FPS epic, but it ain't ever going to happen with so many people paying for six hours of CoD. Why go further?

Bad Company 2 may have had a decent story, but it was a story focused spinoff; the main series has been abut multiplayer and nothing else since its first installment, which managed to win numerous game of the year awards despite the fact that every single review knocked it for the terrible single player.

Edit:

You're also in a serious minority if you want 20 hours of modern FPS gameplay. For most people, they've thoroughly worn out their welcome by 10, multiplayer aside. It's why I finish so few games; if I can't finish it in a couple of sittings, I'm probably not going to, because I have other hobbies, other games within the hobby, and actual obligations to take care of. Multiplayer is excellent for people like me because you can sit down for a half hour and play two or three complete games; you don't get that with single player.

Yeah, that's kind of my point. I've got no real gripes with the Battlefield games, I just like BC better. That's why I want more.

I'm not saying they were bad, I'm just saying which I'd rather have. I really wanted to play their future game, but the lack of a real single player killed me on that idea. Here's hoping it gets its own BC like spinoff.

That's fair then; you seem to have edited your original post, which I remember being much more combative about it. The title doesn't exactly help...

 

[Jonny49]

DICE needs to go back to Bad Company 1 and continue that story, instead of doing stupid "Russian's are invading our shit!" plotline that they did in BC2.

Bad Company 1 was interesting, funny and fresh. Bad Company 2 was dull, boring, unfunny, short and a narrative mess.

 

[Inkidu]

Bad Company 2 was horrible, worst battlefield I've ever played

If bloom, 4 vehicles, tiny maps, bloom, no commander system, 32 players, bloom and CG spam is your thing then your opinion is stupid and you should feel stupid.

thankfully it's a different series from regular battlefield.

Look, I can't even support online multiplayer, so I was stuck with the single player.

Then Battlefield is not the series for you. Complaining about the single player in a Battlefield game is like buying a football and then complaining that it sucks when you try to play by yourself; it's a real "duh" moment.

No see, I liked Bad Company 2's story. Mainly for the characters than any real narrative praise. Anyway, I don't even think I've ever played a FPS besides Metro that has just wowed me with story, and it gets a lot on atmosphere.

Halo: The universe is cool, but the story is Master Chief Blowing stuff up to save the world.
Modern Warfare: It had some good set pieces, but the narrative just kind of was their to facilitate said set pieces.
Doom: Yeah, Doom.

I want someone to make the 20 plus hour FPS epic, but it ain't ever going to happen with so many people paying for six hours of CoD. Why go further?

Bad Company 2 may have had a decent story, but it was a story focused spinoff; the main series has been abut multiplayer and nothing else since its first installment, which managed to win numerous game of the year awards despite the fact that every single review knocked it for the terrible single player.

Edit:

You're also in a serious minority if you want 20 hours of modern FPS gameplay. For most people, they've thoroughly worn out their welcome by 10, multiplayer aside. It's why I finish so few games; if I can't finish it in a couple of sittings, I'm probably not going to, because I have other hobbies, other games within the hobby, and actual obligations to take care of. Multiplayer is excellent for people like me because you can sit down for a half hour and play two or three complete games; you don't get that with single player.

Yeah, that's kind of my point. I've got no real gripes with the Battlefield games, I just like BC better. That's why I want more.

I'm not saying they were bad, I'm just saying which I'd rather have. I really wanted to play their future game, but the lack of a real single player killed me on that idea. Here's hoping it gets its own BC like spinoff.

That's fair then; you seem to have edited your original post, which I remember being much more combative about it. The title doesn't exactly help...

I've not. I just thought it came off more jovial and fancy-free because my only point is Haggard.
My bad.

 

[Merkavar]

bad company was a massive step backwards for the battlefield series. atleast from a multiplay point of view. it was trying to be cod too much.

 

[ImprovizoR]

I'm tired of military shooters. That's why I'm hyped for Duke Nukem Forever and Call of Juarez: The Cartel. I don't care if I'm the only soul on the planet that would rather play those 2 games, I'm not a multiplayer guy anyway. I settle for a good single player experience. It's something military shooters just don't possess.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Bad Company 2 was horrible, worst battlefield I've ever played

If bloom, 4 vehicles, tiny maps, bloom, no commander system, 32 players, bloom and CG spam is your thing then your opinion is stupid and you should feel stupid.

thankfully it's a different series from regular battlefield.

Look, I can't even support online multiplayer, so I was stuck with the single player.

Then Battlefield is not the series for you. Complaining about the single player in a Battlefield game is like buying a football and then complaining that it sucks when you try to play by yourself; it's a real "duh" moment.

No see, I liked Bad Company 2's story. Mainly for the characters than any real narrative praise. Anyway, I don't even think I've ever played a FPS besides Metro that has just wowed me with story, and it gets a lot on atmosphere.

Halo: The universe is cool, but the story is Master Chief Blowing stuff up to save the world.
Modern Warfare: It had some good set pieces, but the narrative just kind of was their to facilitate said set pieces.
Doom: Yeah, Doom.

I want someone to make the 20 plus hour FPS epic, but it ain't ever going to happen with so many people paying for six hours of CoD. Why go further?

Bad Company 2 may have had a decent story, but it was a story focused spinoff; the main series has been abut multiplayer and nothing else since its first installment, which managed to win numerous game of the year awards despite the fact that every single review knocked it for the terrible single player.

Edit:

You're also in a serious minority if you want 20 hours of modern FPS gameplay. For most people, they've thoroughly worn out their welcome by 10, multiplayer aside. It's why I finish so few games; if I can't finish it in a couple of sittings, I'm probably not going to, because I have other hobbies, other games within the hobby, and actual obligations to take care of. Multiplayer is excellent for people like me because you can sit down for a half hour and play two or three complete games; you don't get that with single player.

Yeah, that's kind of my point. I've got no real gripes with the Battlefield games, I just like BC better. That's why I want more.

I'm not saying they were bad, I'm just saying which I'd rather have. I really wanted to play their future game, but the lack of a real single player killed me on that idea. Here's hoping it gets its own BC like spinoff.

That's fair then; you seem to have edited your original post, which I remember being much more combative about it. The title doesn't exactly help...

I've not. I just thought it came off more jovial and fancy-free because my only point is Haggard.
My bad.

It's cool; just be more careful in the future. This site is full of people who aggressively hate on multiplayer, so it's tough not to be a little touchy if you're one of the people who enjoy it.

 

[Frost27]

Thus far the first Bad Company is the only BF major release I have not played. I have actually toyed with the idea of getting it just to get my veterancy to 11 (because it's one more than ten).
I picked up BC2 on a friend's recommendation and absolutely loved the multiplayer. It just felt like the game was capable of so much more than CoD will ever be until it gets an entirely new engine and maps that aren't way too small for the amount of carnage going on.

I have noticed that over the last 10 years or so, I have seen fewer future releases pop up that I am honestly excited to get my hands on, BF3 is one of those few. I can respect those that don't like the series, it's not for everyone.

 

[Inkidu]

Bad Company 2 was horrible, worst battlefield I've ever played

If bloom, 4 vehicles, tiny maps, bloom, no commander system, 32 players, bloom and CG spam is your thing then your opinion is stupid and you should feel stupid.

thankfully it's a different series from regular battlefield.

Look, I can't even support online multiplayer, so I was stuck with the single player.

Then Battlefield is not the series for you. Complaining about the single player in a Battlefield game is like buying a football and then complaining that it sucks when you try to play by yourself; it's a real "duh" moment.

No see, I liked Bad Company 2's story. Mainly for the characters than any real narrative praise. Anyway, I don't even think I've ever played a FPS besides Metro that has just wowed me with story, and it gets a lot on atmosphere.

Halo: The universe is cool, but the story is Master Chief Blowing stuff up to save the world.
Modern Warfare: It had some good set pieces, but the narrative just kind of was their to facilitate said set pieces.
Doom: Yeah, Doom.

I want someone to make the 20 plus hour FPS epic, but it ain't ever going to happen with so many people paying for six hours of CoD. Why go further?

Bad Company 2 may have had a decent story, but it was a story focused spinoff; the main series has been abut multiplayer and nothing else since its first installment, which managed to win numerous game of the year awards despite the fact that every single review knocked it for the terrible single player.

Edit:

You're also in a serious minority if you want 20 hours of modern FPS gameplay. For most people, they've thoroughly worn out their welcome by 10, multiplayer aside. It's why I finish so few games; if I can't finish it in a couple of sittings, I'm probably not going to, because I have other hobbies, other games within the hobby, and actual obligations to take care of. Multiplayer is excellent for people like me because you can sit down for a half hour and play two or three complete games; you don't get that with single player.

Yeah, that's kind of my point. I've got no real gripes with the Battlefield games, I just like BC better. That's why I want more.

I'm not saying they were bad, I'm just saying which I'd rather have. I really wanted to play their future game, but the lack of a real single player killed me on that idea. Here's hoping it gets its own BC like spinoff.

That's fair then; you seem to have edited your original post, which I remember being much more combative about it. The title doesn't exactly help...

I've not. I just thought it came off more jovial and fancy-free because my only point is Haggard.
My bad.

It's cool; just be more careful in the future. This site is full of people who aggressively hate on multiplayer, so it's tough not to be a little touchy if you're one of the people who enjoy it.

I don't hate multiplayer, if I had high-speed internet I'd have it. I don't think a game should be designed solely for it, but I'm not going to tell corporations how to spend their money.