Fighting for the Soul of Battlefield -TLTR-Warning

[swfwebmaster]

Fighting for the Soul of Battlefield

There is an on-going struggle:

DaciaJC
A Plea to DICE
5 AUG 2010

Dear DICE Sweden,

So you're developing Battlefield 3. We're all incredibly excited, and rightly so. But amidst all of this enthusiasm, there remains a considerable amount of concern.

You say that Bad Company was but a mere offshoot. Perhaps. Certainly many people feel that neither title measured up to the greatness of previous installments of Battlefield. And so it would appear as though you intend to make BF3 something of a sequel - another flagship title, if you will.

I ask only this of you, DICE: remember your roots. I cannot claim to have played BF2 or 2142, and I have only tasted 1942 and Vietnam; but it is clear that all of the true Battlefield titles have shared certain basics or fundamentals. I urge you to create BF3 with these principles as a foundation, DICE. Abandon them, and nothing will contain the outcry that will ensue; but treasure them, and you will be assured unbounded success. We understand that you want to provide us with innovative gameplay through Frostbite 2, but please do your utmost to ensure that we will be able to enjoy the same core Battlefield experience.

And though I am only a measly PS3 player who likely won't be able to afford a rig capable of running BF3 anyway, I beseech you to go for broke for the PC players. Features like mod tools and Battlerecorder don't provide entertainment simply for those playing on the PC but benefit the Battlefield community as a whole. Who among those that claim to be Veterans have not heard of the wonders that are Project Reality and The Pwned Life?

DICE, you have made it abundantly clear that sometimes the community falls short of its lofty status as a group of level-headed, thoughtful, and articulate players. That is but human nature, unfortunately. So even though some of us may devolve into boors from time to time (I include myself in this, too), please don't disregard us entirely. Our intentions are honest, our dedication to Battlefield pure. Always feel free to visit and ask for feedback during development - you'll find us to be very welcoming and bursting with fresh ideas. Take the time to incorporate the community's feedback into BF3, DICE, and you'll find your efforts to be well-rewarded in the long run.

We're with you, DICE. Never lose sight of the fact that there are millions of players waiting to have their faith reaffirmed. We have nothing but the greatest hopes for this Battlefield 3, and we are confident of your abilities.

That is all.

Kirkk0herra
The true essence of Battlefield games
5 AUG 2011

Hello,

I'd like to hear from you what is 'the thing' that makes Battlefield games so great and different? It kinda struck me just a few moments ago, it's the traveling. Let me elaborate.

With big maps like in BF Vietnam and BF2 you definitely need a ride to get from A to B. This makes the vehicles actually needed. They are not there just to have fun in, they actually serve a real purpose. And when you see an unselfish player acting solely as an airtaxi man you get a feeling of real gratitude. That's when you say THANK YOU and really mean it [psst Dice, commorose!]

Another thing is covering long distances on foot for example. I'm with my buddy on Teamspeak, we chat enjoyably. It's like a virtual holiday. The fighting can be far away and you walk an empty road in middle of woods, you hear the birds and everything. It's that moment of silence and safety, an enjoyable journey with your buddy before entering the fighting grounds.

I'm affraid the current trend is that these vast vacant areas 'are not needed' anymore and the maps are shrunk just to house the fighting grounds. Not only this destroys the immerison that you could actually go deep in the woods, sit there for 1 hour without seeing another player but it also renders the vehicles to toys, not tools to be used wisely.

Let me know what you think.

sfscriv
5 AUG 2011

Time & space are needed to coordinate. Bad Company 2 is a frantic mess.

- No functioning VoIP
- No Commo Rose
- Small linear maps with choke points
- Few control points
- Spawn on any squad member
- No Squad Leader
- No Commander
- Consolidated unspecialized kits/classes

Time & space are needed to talk to your mates and devise hasty plans. And yes, you do get an opportunity to hold a conversation on bigger maps with a reasonable spawn system. In BFBC2, players are too busy trying to survive and do not have the time & space to communicate effectively.

Teamplay was almost completely removed from Bad Company 2 and it looks like there maybe just a little bit more "Integrated Teamwork" in Bad Company 3.

The True essence of Battlefield is Teamplay. Bigger maps facilitate teamplay and add utility to vehicles.

Krystalmyth
17 OCT 2011

Originally Posted by 1LT_Orman
How intelligent of you. basing on how i behave based on a single JPG picture. very well done.

I still don't care for the opinions for the BF "veteren" overlords.

Then you shouldn't be getting so upset~ but I would prefer it if you actually discussed what it is you're in such conflict with rather than the originator of the ideas.

What about the general temperance of "veterans" do you dislike so much? What is it about their mindset that you dislike? Are you just arguing, just to argue? Do you get off on it? Does it bring you pleasure?

Most of the veterans in this series are the reason you're here now. They're the reason this series is successful, and they appreciated this game before the large market blitz. Before Call of Duty brought military shooters to the masses. They were watching this series grow since infancy.

And I do mean, infancy. I don't know if you've ever had a puppy, or a little bro or sis~ but it's quite a thing to watch something you've seen so young grow and mature to an older age. You want the best for it. You want it to remain unharmed.

You CARE about it.

So honestly, you can care little for those that care so much for the game. That's fine. It's okay. You're not the focus here. The game is. The game is all that really matters to the veterans. Feel free to ignore us, or dislike us, or not care for our opinions all you'd like.

In the end, it's going to be the people you seem to disdain that are going to put forth the effort to enjoy this game, and see it be a quality title. Like they have done before you ever even heard the name.

MorrisDance
17 OCT 2011

Originally Posted by wip3out_HR
1. so you think everybody would like to have less spawn points? i abuse it when my squad is full of idiots who run around looking to get a kill so its pretty helpful to have multiple spawn points (even when someone needs help with caping a flag). how will that in rush work? (sl dies and what now? ohh wait now i have to go spawn in the base..) believe me having a squad leader won't change anything in teamwork. (he's just the guy who has the most points).
seems like you want the game to be harder. *cough*playhardcore*cough*

I genuinely think that having fewer spawnpoints will make this game better. Why?

Well, for one thing it will keep squads together. The way it is now, squads get fractured because they can spawn anywhere. There is no cohesion, no sense of teamwork. It will also make the job of the Squad Leader more important as there is an actual job to fit his function other than just carrying around that big fat star over his head.

And yes, if you Squad Leader died, you have to respawn at a base, or wait until your SL does and spawn on him again. How is this bad, exactly? It allows a squad to regroup and rethink their strategy, as opposed to mindlessly throwing themselves into the crossfire time and time again. It also provides the so important contrast between full on action and lulls in the fighting. Without this contrast, the game is just constant fighting and that just loses its impact after a while.

It never once felt frustrating in BF2 or 2142 to have only your SL to spawn on. It promoted teamwork and kept squads together, as opposed to the fractured, non-cohesive sorry excuses for squads we saw in the BF3 beta.


As for you 'go play hardcore' argument... just no. I don't like having to deal with a lack of HUD and insanely low health just to have teamwork the way it's supposed to be. I have never liked Hardcore in any game because it just artificially increases the difficulty by lowering health and/or making weapons stronger. That's not the kind of difficulty I'm looking for, I want to be challenged intellectually and have to make decisions based on the current tactical situation. And the beauty of it is that this doesn't even need to affect casual players in the same server! They can lonewolf all they want, as long as I get to play it my way. I thought that was the whole point of DICE's slogan 'play it your way'?

Originally Posted by wip3out_HR
4.The game must be troll proof. if everybody had the power to change a squad name... (the words wouldn't be pretty)

Well, there's nothing stopping DICE from putting in some standard Squad names you can pick from a list or something. Or they can implement the same swear filter as on these forums, so in the squad list you see something like 'lalalalalasquad'.

---

And this hate towards 'veterans' by the 'laugh because MW3 is the same as MW2, cry because BF3 isn't the same as BF2'-crowd is starting to get to me. No, I do not want the very same game. It had plenty of downfalls and could do with many, many improvements.

However, the only things DICE appear to be improving are the graphics and the sound effects (which I will readily admit are absolutely phenomenal and above any current game standads in the industry). However, while the presentation of the game is improving, its gameplay appears to be degenerating, in particular the game's opportunity for teamwork.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for making the game more accessible for the casual gamer. The more people that play this game, the better. However, is removing vital gameplay elements from this title really the answer? Why do we need to fight for ingame squad management? Why do we need to fight for SL-only spawning? Why do we need to fight for the Commander... or even an SL with actual purpose? Why do we need to fight for a proper VOIP implementation? Why do we need to fight for large, epic maps with spread out flag placement?

How would it hurt casual gamers if any of these gameplay elements were implemented? If they don't want to use them, fine. I'm absolutely cool with that. But give us the option to play the game the way we want to, and the way we're used to playing it for years prior in the previous titles.

But instead, DICE (or maybe EA) seem to be completely focused on removing all options in the game and directing the way we get to experience it. As I said before, the complexity threshold is not being lowered, it's being completely removed. DICE's slogan is 'play it your way', but should be 'play it our way'.

And this hurts, because all of us were expecting a better game, one that would be true to the Battlefield series, one that would revolutionise the series... not degenerate it.

---

As I did with MW2, I will buy BF3 to see if I'm wrong. If I am wrong, I will gladly make a massive post/thread on how wrong I was and how awesome DICE are. But if I am right, I will do the same with BF as I did with MW... not ever buy a title from that series ever again. And I really don't want to, because BF always used to be so good.

Jayer
It almost brought a tear to my eye
15 OCT 2011

Our Titan had about an eighth of its health left when the enemy boarded it and destroyed the bottom consoles. The enemy titan still had its shields.

Another player and I grabbed our support kits and rushed down to set up a turret defense. Eventually only one enemy was still attacking the titan, so I left my teammate to defend and ran up to the hangar to grab a transport, in order to retake all of the silos that we lost. Using my gamepad, I was able to fly quickly and effectively.

When I reached silo 2, a teammate spawned in my transport, hopped out and helped me capture it. He then jumped back in and we headed to silo 5, which we also captured. I then hit my "T" commo-rose and saw that silo 1 would be launching in 48 seconds. Our titan looked like it had maybe 1-2 health left, so that couldn't happen.

We rushed to the silo, only to find another teammate approaching it on foot. The three of us capped the silo very quickly and the new guy hopped in without a second thought. We then proceeded to cap the rest of the silos.

The enemy shield was down in about a minute. A couple of our guys boarded the enemy titan and blew the bottom two consoles. Unfortunately, the enemy managed to, at the same time, take out our last two consoles and breach the core. However, one of my teammates was able to suppress them until I could get down there and setup a defense. Things got really heavy, so I used my "Q" commo-rose to call for backup. Another teammate came to help me and we pushed back the enemies. As enemy assaults fell, I'd grab their kits to use the Medpack to heal myself and my teammate.

By this time, the enemy had retaken two silos and I wasn't sure how our titan was still alive. Fortunately, the enemy had become so distracted with assaulting our titan that they had neglected their own. Within a couple of minutes, my teammates had breached the enemy core and destroyed it, possibly seconds before our own destruction at the hands of the missiles.

VICTORY.

The last thing we heard was our commander commending our squad for a job well done.

And that was on a server full of randoms.

-

BF3 is looking like a pair of very small feet trying to fill very large shoes.

DeltaHawk5
This Shit is Getting Depressing
15 OCT 2011

Every time I log into these forums to read about our beloved franchise, it seems like DICE has somehow manage to lalalala up the whole thing overnight for the past 4 months.

Some of it might be over-exaggerated, but the rest of the stuff is spot-on and DICE has continued to ignore a lot of it.

To make things better, every time there is some sort of official response, we get the Soon™ or the "We did market research ©" or the "We are waiting for feedback℠" my favorite one however is "We scratched it from the beginning®".

All this stuff simply makes me thing the disconnection between the hardcore base of the game keeps getting more and more distant and DICE seems to be the one pulling away because we keep trying to get closer. How can we expect DICE to respond to content in the final game when there are thousands of us sitting hopelessly pointing stuff out to them?

The interviews sound like an absolute copy and paste scheme and everyone is looking for the same answers we are but DICE keeps giving it the treatments mentioned above.

I'm sure BF3 will succeed financially, but at the end of the day, i find that it will be an absolute disappointment to the core player base than have been around for 12 years and I will blame no one but DICE.

We don't want BF2 HD, we want them to take what worked in previous BATTELFIELD games and improve it on, if something didn''t work well, remove it. The graphics engine is nice and shiny, destruction is cool, but I cannot tell this game apart from anything I've played before except Bad Coompany 2 and Call of Duty. Now it just seems like they are going back and forth between copying from the two of them and then changing back because they act like women at a clothing store who cannot make up their minds.

DICE, it's time for you to take a stand and build an alliance. Are you going to stick with the people that will leave in a month when Modern Warfare 3 comes out, or are you going to stick with the people that will be supporting you here 12 months down the road when the game reaches it's absolute final build?

SalvinValkyries
4 APR 2011

Sure was. Problem is, so many have been introduced to the Battlefield brand via BC, hardly any of these people have a clue of Battlefield's DNA. It's no one's fault. No one can blame them for not knowing the brand through and through. That said, those who voice their opinions and concerns over the direction BF3 seems to be taking, are conveniently branded as being "nostalgic." When in fact, for the most part, those are the very people who are actually in a position to be critical. It's a unique position simply because their experience spans the length and breadth of the Battlefield brand.

Which leades me to BF vs CoD. Much as I like to rip into the latter. It is what it is. An arcade shooter, who's focus is action, teamwork be damned. Conversly, I enjoy BF for what it is. A shooter that makes sits comfortably between arcade and simulation. Strategy and teamwork are it's heart. While combining the two games might seem like a great idea. It's not. MoH proved it. And to a lesser extent, so did BC2. Focus on what makes your game unique. Every shooter out there is trying to imitate either CoD or BF. Some do it by combing elements from both. And all have failed. Creating a game that plays to your strengths is the only way to ensure your place at the top. Diversity is a plus. More of the same only leads to homogenizing the genre.

Which leads me to the core of Battlefield. Innovation is indeed a beautiful thing. Ask any Battlefield veteran, they will tell you that they aren't against innovation. So long as it isn't in quotations. Why tinker with something that obviously works? Why reduce class size? Why reduce squad size? Why change squad spawning dynamics? Why strip out command structure? Each of these are absolutely valid concerns. And every Battlefield veteran should quiz DICE over it. Innovation takes us a few steps forward. Removing some of these features only turns it to "innovation."

Take for example prone . Never a problem in any previous Battlefield game. Especially after 1.5. All of a sudden deemed to be problematic in BC2. It's a problem, only if you make it a problem. If maps, classes and engines are designed with great care, niether prone or snipers would be an issue. Commander. Squad Leader. Prone. These are hallmark features of BF2 & 2142. Why remove them when you're making a sequel to one of these games? Is that truly innovating? Or simply realizing one has to lower the accepted standard in a vain attempt to capture some of your competitors audience. Which presents another problem. By trying to play the field, you end up alienating both sides.

If this were BC3. Would you support Commander, Squad Leader & Prone? In most cases, the answer would be a resounding no. Why should it be any different? Because that's what you know and love about the game. It's the same for every BF2 & 2142 veteran. Tweaking is one thing. That means one is refining on an already established and accepted model. Removing it entirely is akin to chopping off one of it's vital organs. It might go on to funtion without it, but it will never be quite the same.

sfscriv
3 MAR 2011

Previously, DICE stated they were providing a Battlefield 2 sequel. Now, DICE is saying, "This is not Battlefield 2, so people might not love all the choices that we've done"

Damn right, many Battlefield Veterans are not happy with trend toward Call of Duty, Bad Company 2, and consolitis. We want an improved Battlefield release with improved gameplay and not a generic First Person Shooter (FPS) with great video/audio/destruction.

Riksa_FIN
3 MAR 2011

If it really is a totally new game they should have given it some other name...

...Wouldn't you be upset at all if you had waited almost 6 years for a sequel to the best game you have ever played. A game that would be the new best game you have ever played, but then you will hear that the sequel won't have some of the features you and everyone else really liked and without which you know the game will be something totally different (in a bad way) not to mention that it will have features that you know you hate...

Being a sequel means that
A)Those features that were in the most inner core of the series shoudln't be taken out unless there is some extremely good reasons. For example commander has been in the most the inner core of the BF series since BF2 and now it is being removed for non-existant (commander not used) or small reasons (like letting more people to use commander toys. Note that in case of BC2 the solutions gave opposite results). Even if removal of commander would fix those small issues, there wouldn't be any coordination on the battlefield without commander-->Huge part of inner core of BF series would be gone without replacement.

B) Some less significant features, which aren't necessarily even broken can be taken out if they can't be fixed and there are better alternatives (but for example in the case of BC2 replacements were worse than the original versions. Just think of [communication]... rose of BF2/2142 compared to what we had in BC2)...

ChaK_
13 OCT 2011

My biggest concern isn't much the map size, caspian was alright (not good, just alright) in my book.

Though I don't want to go from B to C in 30 seconds, or from B to A in 45, flags are just so glued together it's not funny.

I mean it seems you're going for a "more action / less travel" battlefield, it's your choice, I'll try it, but I absolutly disagree with this vision. Instead of giving new players a chance to discover what the real Battlefield (FIELD, not corridor) is all about, you give your veteran something like that.

I've had a lot of fun with caspian, but I know for sure I'm disappointed on so many points that I might not play it for as long as I played BF2 maps.

You made your choice, I'm not sure it was the good one though. Appeal to mass market...

I went from an unquestionnable blind faith in you DICE, to something like buying the game only to play with my buddies. Your marketing is bad, seriously. We don't even know what maps we will have, what's their shapes, their numbers of flags, how commo rose looks like, what Team leader can do, how works mortar, and I could go on forever.

You need to restore faith ASAP zhinto, I'm not kidding.

Zeridian
13 OCT 2011

Originally Posted by zh1nt0
No not really.

The key here is to make sure that any player type can enjoy any map.
We had some maps in previous titels which focused quite a lot on only one type of playstyle.

We´re trying something different here. A formula that based on feedback as well as telemetry tells us it´s going to work

Sounds a lot less like you're trying to design for all classes/playstyles and more toward all (or one) types of people.

I understand trying something different, but why not in this case learn from others mistakes? It's obvious the current map design is meant to appease high-octane, adrenaline junky players who can't stand another second without getting to combat.

I think there is a failure here for you guys on the level of realizing the demographic that you are built up on, and have been buying your games for years, are the type of people who like tension and pacing in their infantry (let alone vehicle) combat. This is becoming more and more like a betrayal to these people and thus, consumer loyalty will decline. It's been done before and DICE shouldn't be experimenting with it's biggest title. Use Bad Company for that, that's why you made it isn't it?

Could probably go on, but I'm feeling it'll be pointless now since I know that DICE as a business is now committed to new customers. You can't please everyone but you gotta choose a solid group that you know you can, stick with them, build on them, then make that group a magnet for others to follow suit. That's how I think companies such as Valve have truly conquered the game industry.

/applyingicetoboilingblood

Mjolnir
15 OCT 2011

Honestly I think i have now reached the "acceptance" phase. I no longer have any faith in DICE and I am pretty sure the BF series reached its peak with BF2/2142. Ever since then the franchise has just been shedding features. DICE are clearly adapting the game to maximise profit, not to please their fans. Honestly, why would they? If they think they can make more money by going after Call of Duty fans then they have no reason to cater to us anymore. I don't like it and it is disappointing, but it seems that is the way it is now.

I guess we will have to look to smaller studios like Tripwire to provide us with quality, innovative games.

PVT_private
A letter to DICE from a fan
10 OCT 2011

This is simply my thoughts and concerns after playing the beta.Im not CoD fanboy or a battlefield hater.I'm a battlefield fan,thats why im going to be harsh on bf3 and DICE.I've played bf1942, Vietnam,bf2,bf2142,bc1,bc2,heroes and even p4f.I think I'm entitled to my opinion more so than someone who's just played bc2 or CoD.I've played a greater variety of battlefield and I think I know whats a good feature from playing it not what dice is telling you.If your going to cry elitist or fanboy then don't read.This is my opinion from what I've played and no one else's

There 3-5 big problems for me.I can also go on to aesthetics,map design,point system( a long range snipe worth more than a flag cap lalala!) and other issues but I think I'll let other people talk about that.This are what I'M going to talk about.
1 Teamwork
2 Vehicles

The biggest for me is teamwork.I love squad play and the feeling of being part of a bigger force.Battlefield 3 fails hard here.No commander,Squad leader is currently useless,I can't even manage squads.

The most controversial choice for DICE made may have been the commander.I think 50% of the people who agreed with DICE did so because of "enemy boat spotted" and the other 50% thought the commanders ability's would be given to squad leaders.DICE never said squad leaders they said it would be replaced by other tools and people assumed SLs would be the best place for that.The worst part of this was the explanations,they said they wanted to "lower the threshold" and that the commander was for only two people.Of course its only for two people thats the point of commanders.I thought the point of a sequel was to change and improve features not remove them.I'll admit the bf2 commander was far from perfect,but scraping it entirely seems like the easy way out.

Lets talk about squads,in the current state they are little more then spawn points and a +10 for your support actions.Its hard to get in a squad with friends but even then you don't have ingame VOIP, and have to rely and battlelog and that can be a pain in the butt sometimes.This probably will be fixed but is worth noting.I hate it when I join a game with 2 or 3 friends,but even if we are on the same team we are split into different squads.

While we are on the topic of squads lets go talk about the squad leader.Whats is his purpose exactly?Its just,"attack this" or "defend that"
Squads need SL spawning and the SL needs a better way to control the squad.Bring back the bf2/2142 SL rose,and map markers.Its so much better than the barely noticeable arrow thingies around the flag/m-com marker.

Now lets change topics and go onto vehicles,I'll start with the jets.At first I thought a jet nerft would be good,I liked when I heard there would be no dumb bombs and other news.After getting an hour or so of flight time I am very disappointed.The most annoying thing is the disable "feature",If i go below 50% I'm screwd,nothing I can do.Might as well just cut the jet Ho in half,whats the point of flying out of control for 20 more seconds?I would have accept if we could fly back to the airstrip and get some repairs,but no,we need an unlock for that.Vehicle unlocks in general are a poor design choice,at least how they are right now.The most glaring place of this is the jets.Its often not who's a better pilot but who's got the better unlocks.I fought a pilot with A2A missiles and I was at a major set back,good thing I unlocked flares or I'd be screwed.I fear for pilots who buy this game a few months late are going to be dominated before they can even unlock a single spec!But im not even done with me jet rant.I think they are too slow and too responsive IMHO.Its too easy to correct mistakes and easy to chase down other pilots,once your on their tail they are screwed.I used arrow keys to fly and I can easily take down pilots cause the handling is so forgiving I can follow every move he/she does.

Lets move on.

Choppers feel a bit weak.The handling is better than bc2 but still far worse then in bf2(bf2 doesn't even have the best chopper handling btw)
A reason for that I think is the open map design in Caspian allows for easy AAA fire and quick jet runs.I hope other maps have more interesting terrain.In Caspain its fly high,get whacked by AAA and jets,fly low get hit by stringers,tanks mgs some AA.I haven't spent that much time in the chopper but feels like we are easily spotted and fired upon.

Tanks feel a lot weaker than in bc2.The main cannon seems to have very little splash damage.Also this may just be me but the main gun has too much smoke,I can't see where my round lands so its hard to correct it.

Vehicles in general feel a bit too weak infantry.The 50% is a big factor in this.Another thing I should add is the jets can do almost nothing to infantry but infantry gets AA missiles.Instead off Rock beats scissors and loses to paper,its rock can beat scissors or paper,what it choices,but paper can never beat rock.
Now the vehicle imbalance may be "fixed" by unlocks but thats lala.A level 10 tanker will out perform a level 3 tanker even in they level 3 tanks is more skilled.
Before I leave the topic of vehicles I want to say something about armor regen.At first I dreaded the idea,I still do but I realize its almost necessary with the all the nerfs they have. Especially for air vehicles since they can't repair over the airfield. Also unlimited ammo is just plain dumb

But the worst part is,this is Battlefield 3.If this is the true successor to battlefield 2,whats the future of the franchise going to be?What is bc3 going to be?Or the next battlefield.

Anyway,call me a bf2 fanboy, elitist,QQer,crybaby,hater or what ever.I just wanted to write down what I thought of this game after playing the beta.Its still fun,but its heading in the wrong direction.

Sorry for bad grammar and spelling.

Orcacam07
DICE - We've hit Rock bottom
12 OCT 2011

I'm not necessarily speaking for myself here; more or less what I feel majority of the people here think about the current situation with Battlefield 3. If you're optimistic about the game, sorry if this lalalalaes you off, I'd just close this thread right now, because I'm about to go into detail and try to explain to DICE as to why we are so upset.

These past few days have been absolutley slammed with negativity, rightly so, in my opinion. Battlerecorder is not gonna be in on launch, Operation Firestorm is appearing to be linear with flag clusters, the beta ended leaving a bad impression on many, vehicle combat in the beta proved to be sub-par, etc, etc.

When you take everything that defined Battlefield - Large, open warfare, with a balance between vehicles and infantry that make a phenemonal game-and practically throw it out the window, then you have to understand why we are so upset.

Dont acuse me of being a pessimistic troll; I was arguably one of the most positive people about this game months prior to this. I was willing to accept the changes, but now, even I've noticed that you are slowly stripping away key elements that made this series so unique and so great, just to appeal to the CoD and casual crowd, the crowd that would completley DITCH you the instant a game comes out that has prettier graphics, as opposed to your dedicated fans, some of who have been playing your games for practically 10 years now.

I understand completley that DICE needs to appeal to more audiences now with the crowd they've brought in with BC2 - but that dosent change this lone fact: This is the sequel to BF2. To anyone who yells at BF2 vets, "LOL YOU ONLY WANT A CARBON COPY OF BF2." NO. Thats not what we want at all, but we DO want a game that builds up on the foundation of BF2 and all the other previous titles. This is where BF3 failed - All its done so far is take one step forward and two steps backwards.

This does NOT mean DICE can't redeem themselves, I'm saying this is the time they need to completley prove us wrong and blow us away again. Remember August 17th? The one day we were all happy and optimistic? The day the Caspian Border trailer was released?

“A Thank you, to DICE”

108 people were praising DICE that day.

Now look at this place.

DICE, this is the time to unveil you're biggest, best map in the game. Its needed now more then ever. And if you dont have that, or dont feel confident enough to show it, then all it tells us is that we were right, and that the quality of the game wont live up to our expectations.

You've made a great game so far DICE, and I can tell you've put a lot of effort into it. I just wish you would've put more effort towards which crowd you were trying to appeal to. I know the game isn't final and I dont have a lot to judge off of, but so far, we have a right to be unhappy.

If you're still optimistic about the game, dont let this thread ruin your opinion-believe me, I've been on the recieving end of that befre, and hell, giving into that may be the reason I'm making this thread. Get the game and enjoy it. Dont let the negativity, even this thread coming from myself, get to you. Play what you want to play.

sfscriv
14 OCT 2011

DICE, Please do not go too Casual.

Important Considerations

1. TEAMPLAY tools/features restored
2. More space between flags; Playable portion of map is too small
3. All vehicle physics need to be beefed-up or BF2ed. Standard issue equipment restored.
4. Removal of Casual Assist features (3D spot, killcam, regenerative health, scope glint, etc...)
5. Point/Award/Unlock system needs to be de-spazzed

TEAMPLAY
- Leader Positions
- Squad Leader (SL) spawn only with SL deployable spawn
- Commo Rose
- Full size overview map. Proper colors and clearly visible. Interactive; can make/see orders.
- Multiple functional VoIP channels. Squad internal channel, SL channel, vehicle internal channel, temporary Close Air Support (CAS) channel; Squad leader can temporarily talk to pilot of supporting aircraft, etc
- Order System. Absolutely not the failed BFBC2 socialize button. BF2 style system with more wavepoints than just a straight line. Orders show on mini-map. SLs only can see orders of other squads.
- Ridiculous star over enemy SL removed
- Customizable HUD. 3-zoom mini-map. Can see the name, kit type, health, VoIP icon, and ammo status of other squad members. Dual Screen support - able to piece together situational awareness modules on a second screen. VoIP icon would be crossed out if player does not have operational microphone and players VoIP icon would light up when they speak.
- Regenerative Health would be removed. Medic would be the primary health source for infantry. Engineer would be the primary repair source for vehicles.

.................................... Added ........................................

Has the fighting stopped? Are we still fighting for the Soul of Battlefield?

The potential of the Battlefield series is not measurable. The expectations of so many loyal fans. The energy that has gone into the Battlefield Community these many years.

Can we, collectively, sit back and watch our Battlefield series be handed over to a huge group of casual players who in the very near future will drop BF3 like a hot potato?

Citizens! Lend me your ears! We have so much to lose and everything to gain.

Together, we can stand up to big business and have our voice heard.

Battlefield soldiers, we must continue to fight for every inch in this hard-fought campaign. Can you stay the course? When the dusts settles, will you still be standing in defense of standard Battlefield features?

Unite the clans! - From Braveheart 1995

[pershainovitsh]

It's the beginning of the end of the Battlefield franchise. The next move towards CoD and away from BF. You can't deny it anymore.

Here's the Twitter message in case it gets deleted:
Alan Kertz
‏@demize99

So it seems Conquest: Domination is pretty popular already. What do you like about it? Would you play it on other maps? I'm just curious.

[sfscriv]

The title of the thread should read:

Fought for and Lost the Soul of Battlefield

Feb 18, 2012 16:48:36 GMT 1 pershainovitsh said:

...Just because the goalkeepers in football sucks in what they are supposed to do, doesn't mean goalkeepers should be removed from the game....

- BF2 was regular football on grass
- EA/DICE said BF3 would be improved football
- BF3 is a version of what was once football, but now is played on a wooden floor with a field half its size and without any goalkeepers or coaches
- EA/DICE lied multiple times for over a year before the release of BF3. It was a corporate-led deception campaign. They knew from day one that they were going to provide a lesser, casual console-port product.

Has the Battle Recorder arrived yet?
Can random players in the same squad easily talk to each other using integrated VoIP?

The PC audience was never the leading development focus for BF3. The PC community got the table scraps and were told by EA/DICE they were going to get to sit at the table and eat the best parts of the meal.

How's the view laying next to the table begging for the next table scrap?

[sfscriv]

Why was sfscriv so passionate about Battlefield?

Why is sfscriv so disappointed and hurt by what Battlefield has become?


After over twenty years serving in the military, my dream job was to work for DICE developing the next Battlefield.

Wow! What a mistake that would have been!! It would have been a disaster. I would not have taken part in or wanted to be associated with all the lies. I did not and do not share the Electronic Arts vision of Battlefield becoming a Call of Duty / HALO / Counter Strike spastic game.

It hurt to see what I loved destroyed.

[sfscriv]

I had to find a new home after EA/DICE burned my Battlefield house to the ground. Here is my view of my First Person Shooter (FPS) hobby:

The first number is my rating for each video game. In the parentheses are the Meta Critic (MC) game ratings.

For First Person Shooters:

9.5 (MC 91) - Battlefield 2
9.0 (MC n/a) - Project Reality
8.0 (MC 77) - ArmA 2
7.2 (MC 89) - Battlefield 3
7.0 (MC 87) - Bad Company 2
6.0 (MC 92) - Call of Duty 4

I would rate DayZ a 9.2... I may change my mind on this rating later.

Some negatives about DayZ:
It is not as easy to jump in and out of DayZ. There are times of monotonous gameplay. Being able to talk and work with random players is high risk.

My hope is that many of ArmA's issues will be fixed with ArmA 3. My concern is it will not be Battelfield. What Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 2142 did great was strike a balance between an arcade shooter and a military simulator.

What could ArmA do to make a better overall game?

Make a "Battlefield" game mode.



The "Battlefield" game mode is found in the Tier 3 portion of the image. The next image is my view of the “Operational Complexity” of each game.



We will progress from bottom of the image and will move up the chart.

The military First Person Shooter (FPS) video game segment of the industry has a number of successful games and we will discuss the gameplay attributes of Call of Duty (CoD), Bad Company 2 (BC2), Battlefield 3(BF3), Battlefield 2 (BF2), Project Reality (PR), and Armed Assault (ArmA). The unit of measurement for Operational Complexity (“Y” axis) is compilation of map size, player count, combined arms warfare, communication systems, and leader positions. These measured variables of Operational Complexity place Call of Duty in the lowest position and Arma at the highest.

Many games have altered their gameplay to copy the success of Call of Duty. The Battlefield franchise has dumb-downed its flagship game with its sequel to Battlefield 2. Battlefield 3 was developed for the console audience to be more like Call of Duty. Battlefield 3 has smaller maps, fewer communication abilities, and reduced number of leadership positions. The casual FPS portion of the market is over saturated. There is an absence of competition with the possibility to gain a number of fans in the “Opportunity” segment of the market. The Battlefield franchise abandoned the “Opportunity” segment to go after Call of Duty market share and in the process alienated a large share of their long-term fans.

Battlefield 2 (BF2) has maps around the 2 kilometer by 2 kilometer size. The Project Reality mod to BF2 has some 4 km x 4 km maps. A 5 km x 5 km bundle of maps would likely give the Battlefield fans, ArmA fans, and new players a compact higher action teamplay without sinking into the casual chaos of Call of Duty type gameplay. World of Tanks has done well. And with the success of a dedicated vehicle mode of gameplay, sprung World of Warplanes and World of Warships. Adding a vehicle mode game version within Tier 3 would improve the playability of the overall package.

[sfscriv]

Sorry to be resurrecting this topic and beating a dead horse. I got fired up when I started reading some of the older posts in the "Rate Your Top Video Games" thread.

It's part of my healing process.

[pershainovitsh]

I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to imagine your dream game, a perfect mix between Battlefield and Arma with features from both series, plus some of your own. The realism from Arma with the fun from Battlefield and teamwork from both.

The Project Reality team is working on Battlefield 2: Project Reality 1.0, and they will start making a PR mod for Arma 3. They have also said that they would make their own game (instead of a mod) named Project Reality 2. I haven't heard any official news about that, but some rumors I have. No matter how good it is, BF2:PR is limited by the Refractor engine. It has its floaty movement, weapons, tank turrets and feet clipping through environment, no lean, Punkuster issues (on my last computer I got constantly kicked out from servers for unknown PB related reasons), quite bad graphics due to having so big maps and so on. Worst of all in my opinion is the random deviation. I can't determine if I will hit the target when I'm aiming at it. Thankfully the team is working on it.

[wobblyone]

Where the hell is Planetside2 ;D

No harm in reviving old topics (and this is probably the most important of them all)
I am not saying anyone is right or wrong, this is just how I feel

I thought you would pick up on this Scriv, ha !

We all have our opinions and preferences for each of the BF series, and have committed years of playtime to them.
For me the journey has lasted around 5yrs:
BF2 2yrs (2500hrs)
2142 1yr
BC2 1yr
BF3 1yr
A couple of regrets for me are missing out on 1942 and not discovering 2142 earlier

I just think it does no good looking back or even comparing each game. They are all different and enjoyable in their own way.
I have loved all of them and was sad to leave behind each one, especially BF2 (even BC2 ).
Things move on (for better or worse). I just think if BF2 was the best we would still be playing it

As for BF3 I have always tried alternatives, just in case there was something better out there. But IMO nothing came close

Until now.(that reminds me of Jeremy Clarkson in Top Gear). This brings me back to my original statement.

PLANETSIDE2 !!!!

Yes, I know it is futuristic (so is Arma3 and BF3) I am really surprised not many guys have taken to this game.
I think it is the perfect combo of BF fun and ArmA complexity. Just what I thought we were all looking for .
I like the option to either spawn into the center of a battle and get stuck in (BTTF ;D)
or explore in a buggy and discover caves and climb mountains (Al ;D)

Oh well

Anyway, ArmA3 is looking good. Although it is no less complex (interface/controls) than 2 dam it !!!
This could be the future ;D

[pershainovitsh]

For me Planetside 2 is mostly a mountain climbing simulator... with jetpacks. Small fights are the best, where it's one man versus one man, one squad against another. In those huge fights it just gets too hectic. You spawn, there's dozens of friendly and enemy infantry and vehicles shooting at each other. Bullets and explosions everywhere. I don't like that. But the small-scale fights are more fun in my opinion. Do you remember those spec ops mission in the night where we landed in an enemy base with jetpacks, sabotaged their equipment and tried to take the capture points? That was fun too. Too bad the night doesn't last long and Esamir, my least favorite map, doesn't even seem to have night. It does have some very tough climbing challenges, but they don't offer any strategic advantages.

Forgotten Hope 2 reached the sweet spot for me when it comes to online shooters. Death comes quick, but it's mostly for a fair reason. Great maps, great vehicles, great weapons, and lots of them.

[sfscriv]

Mar 8, 2013 17:34:31 GMT 1 pershainovitsh said:

I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to imagine your dream game, a perfect mix between Battlefield and Arma with features from both series, plus some of your own. The realism from Arma with the fun from Battlefield and teamwork from both...

I applied for employment with DICE starting in 2009 and with Bohemia Interactive starting in 2012. As far as attempting to do develop on my own, I am not computer savy and am not interested in learning how to write script for a game. Creating a bunch of handle-held weapons from scratch and adjusting their performance characteristics would be unpleasant.

I would like to be involved in the idea-side of game development and refining the systems to improve gameplay. I can articulate and develop concepts of what I believe would improve gameplay.

In my opinion, people like to specialize in how they want to play the game and they want to be part of a winning team. I really enjoyed being the commander and the squad leader and being led by a competent leader. Being able to communicate with random players using orders, text, and VoIP is vital to effective teamplay. Understanding the status of your personnel, equipment and vehicles is important to sustaining the fight. The space between flags and the spawning system are key components.

[sfscriv]

Mar 8, 2013 17:34:31 GMT 1 pershainovitsh said:

1) The Project Reality team is working on Battlefield 2: Project Reality 1.0,...
2) and they will start making a PR mod for Arma 3.
3) They have also said that they would make their own game....

1) Good
2) Good
3) Good
All good. Gives us more options and competitive market in our area of interest.

[sfscriv]

Mar 8, 2013 18:47:46 GMT 1 wobblyone said:

Where the hell is Planetside2

Where the hell is BF2142 in my rating list?

I am not a fan of futuristic gaming. I appreciate the improvement in BF2142 with the infantry fighting and the Titan mode, but have a hard time getting into the game.

Mar 8, 2013 18:47:46 GMT 1 wobblyone said:

PLANETSIDE2 !!!!

Yes, I know it is futuristic (so is Arma3 and BF3) I am really surprised not many guys have taken to this game.
I think it is the perfect combo of BF fun and ArmA complexity. Just what I thought we were all looking for .
I like the option to either spawn into the center of a battle and get stuck in (BTTF ;D)
or explore in a buggy and discover caves and climb mountains (Al ;D)

Planet Side is great. It has a lot of the characteristics I like: big maps, combined arms warfare, specialized kits, decent spawning system, and complex objectives. I need to get more into Planet Side 2. A large gathering would likely catch the attention of many of the =SWF= Members.

Great Scenerios
1) Going behind enemy lines in one of those big flying troop tranports with a good assortment of different kits. Hit a base deep behind enemy lines and take it over/destroy it. Hit several bases and periodically stick around to defend it.
2) Tanks and a Sundry with Ammo resupply as an option
3) Infiltrating behind enemy lines with a fleet of ATVs and attacking rear enemy elements

[sfscriv]

[mcguirk2]

In answer to Wobbly, as to why more members haven't gotten into Planetside2 I can only speak for myself.
With me its more a case of limited time than it is dislike. I choose to spend my limited gaming time in the games I most enjoy, as do we all I suspect. When I find myself with extra PC time I venture out to the other games, lower down my list. I do, however have most if not all of the games, clan members are playing and stand ready to participate in clan events when they arise.

[wobblyone]

Apr 25, 2013 14:17:27 GMT 1 mcguirk2 said:

With me its more a case of limited time than it is dislike. I choose to spend my limited gaming time in the games I most enjoy, as do we all I suspect.

Yes, I know where you are coming from McGuirk

Although I spend more time gaming than I should, I tend to concentrate on one at a time.