To be fair there’s so many blind fanboys of this series now that I don’t think anyone is allowed to say anything bad about it anymore.
Considering the popularity of operation metro I don’t think I trust anyone anymore. If you claim to understand what battlefield is all about and at the same time enjoy playing that map, then you’re deluded.
(Not saying you do OP, just making a point)
that was the worst aspect of BF2 though.
not any more than any other class based shooter, and certain ly less than most class based shooters such as TF2 or Overwatch.
For those who don’t like the new setting or think the game is not identical or close enough to Battlefield 2 or even Verdum.
Then i’d suggest go and play those if you want something like BF2 wouldn’t it be better to actually play the game itself you want a BF2 go play BF2.
If you want a BF2 style with all the stuff that (supposedly makes it more skillfull) go play Project Reality.
That’s a ridiculous argument. That’s exactly the same as saying if you want a game that plays like Bf4 go play Bf4. Just because you want something to be like something else doesn’t mean you want a carbon copy of the original. People want the good aspects of older BFs fused with the improvements that have been made over the years.
It’s not an argument. He’s simply giving options.
And who’s to say they are not doing that you have seen one map with one mode in one EA showcase just to show the game off (that was it) pre- Alpha where everything you have seen can change and probably will.
Everyone is making assumptions that what they have seen is the final product (we all know it won’t be though)
PS: slow movement is not a good aspect of older Battlefield games.
For you yes, but for me no. Everyone experiences a game differently and sees different advantages and disadvantages in different situations. Best for everyone would be if the maps are designed with everyone in mind. And yes that is possible. And possibly different modes that include and exclude certain aspects of the game such as 3D spotting. Then everyone can find their mode that they wish to play.
Each class has their role to play on the Battlefield and should use their abilities to the best interest of his or her team. And it is up to DICE to design this system so that it is fun for players to do their role. (Else why are we bothering to play in the first place.)
THE SOLUTION
Make different game modes such as Normal, Classic and Hardcore.
Each community will be able to change and add what they deem necessary.
Adds to the game. People can find what suits them best.
No need to take each other out. We all are Battlefielders.
Battlefield FOR THE WIN!
High five. I agree.
Although I’m curious as to what “noob-friendly” features that are seen in BF4 and 3 you’re saying they let go. What are you referring to? Looks like it’s all about the same to me…(which I’m fine with). Also not seeing the ways they’ve “increased the skill-gap.” I have noticed they seem to have changed the point system a bit.
Haha…so because a large swath of the player base enjoyed a certain map they “don’t get battlefield?” Ya ok…you’re not the developer bro. Not every map has to be a massive sandbox nor should every map be. And not every game has to be a BF2 remaster.
Honestly, YOU’RE deluded if you think that your demographic is the only demographic in the Battlefield community. Sandbox maps, and Metro-like maps are both part of Battlefield. Neither of them are “more” or “less” Battlefield…as if you are the one that can decide that anyway.
I see you people dont understand that asking for a more historically accurate game doesnt mean demanding a realistic game, requesting a bigger role for the weapons that made WW1 famous (bolt rifles) wont affect your fullauto weps
If we actually wanted a realistic game we wouldnt even be in Battlefield forum
The reality is yall dont even bother to read what you talking about, you just giving away default replys that have nothing to do with the “complaints”
Let Battlefield be Battlefield not a milsim
Basically yes. Battlefield pre Bf3 didn’t have a single map that was just one long corridor with no vehicles. They put it in for the COD kids and if you have to change your formula that much for someone then clearly they’re not that much of a fan of your game.
I don’t think people with my mind set are the only ones who play Battlefield that’s kinda why I posted my comment. If that were the case people who enjoy BF for what it actually is wouldn’t have to put up with the plague of Metro/Locker lovers.
Also again, in case you missed it in my OP neither myself nor anyone else asking for a couple of features of older BFs is asking for a Bf2 remaster. That’s just exaggeration on your part.
I don’t have anything against smaller infantry focused maps. Zavod is one of my favourite maps as was Seine Crossing back in Bf3. There’s plenty of smaller maps that I like. The fact of the matter is that Locker and Metro are badly designed maps that people only enjoy because they’re a meat grinder (both literally and for stat abuse) and because they don’t allow the same sort of dynamic combat with the use of all the different gadgets and vehicles (people have to think less, because thinking is hard for people who enjoy this type of gameplay).
So basically yes, I believe that Metro and Locker are such awfully designed maps that go against everything that Battlefied normally tries to be, that if you genuinely enjoy playing on them then I would question how much you actually like BF at its core.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah