BF3 compared to PS2

Z

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
11,307
I just built a new system for myself last month, system in sig :) Old system was four years old, and couldn't handle new games, so I waited till I got it setup, before I bought and played new games. I love big multiplayer shooters like Battlefield and Planetside. Here is my brief opinion, what do you think ?

I run both games @ 2560 x 1600res with the Highest/Ultra settings in-game, and 4xAA + 16xAF.

Graphics;
BF3 does have a better engine, the game seems to have high res textures, and just looks better than PS2, but not a ton better. And BF3 for being a better higher detailed looking game, actually runs faster and much smoother on my system than PS2.

Sound;
Sound engine is really good in BF3, and way better than PS2. My Sound Blaster Recon 3D card really sounds awesome in BF3, I can hear jets wiz behind me, bullets come from front to rear speakers. In PS2 it doesn't sound that detailed.

Gameplay;
I like the big open maps and scale of PS2, but it seems a little lost, or hard to understand what's going on. BF3 conquest maps which I prefer have a more defined objective, and easy to follow whats going on. The buddy system and seeing your friends in game is much easier in BF3 than PS2. I lose my buddies or find it difficult to see my friends in PS2.

Overall I like both games a lot, only playing them a couple weeks now. But BF3 feels more polished and complete. but then again it's been out a year already, where as PS2 is brand new, so not fair to compare.
 
Zorachus said:
I just built a new system for myself last month, system in sig :) Old system was four years old, and couldn't handle new games, so I waited till I got it setup, before I bought and played new games. I love big multiplayer shooters like Battlefield and Planetside. Here is my brief opinion, what do you think ?

I run both games @ 2560 x 1600res with the Highest/Ultra settings in-game, and 4xAA + 16xAF.

Graphics;
BF3 does have a better engine, the game seems to have high res textures, and just looks better than PS2, but not a ton better. And BF3 for being a better higher detailed looking game, actually runs faster and much smoother on my system than PS2.

Sound;
Sound engine is really good in BF3, and way better than PS2. My Sound Blaster Recon 3D card really sounds awesome in BF3, I can hear jets wiz behind me, bullets come from front to rear speakers. In PS2 it doesn't sound that detailed.

Gameplay;
I like the big open maps and scale of PS2, but it seems a little lost, or hard to understand what's going on. BF3 conquest maps which I prefer have a more defined objective, and easy to follow whats going on. The buddy system and seeing your friends in game is much easier in BF3 than PS2. I lose my buddies or find it difficult to see my friends in PS2.

Overall I like both games a lot, only playing them a couple weeks now. But BF3 feels more polished and complete. but then again it's been out a year already, where as PS2 is brand new, so not fair to compare.
Click to expand...


frostbite might be better looking but that doesnt make it a better engine.

PS2 I have miles of visible terrain and hundreds of people on screen with a playable frame rate. id say that beats bf3. even if bf3 beats it in terms of graphical quality. you should separate engine and graphics
 
I prefer BF3 as well. Others will disagree. For me though, I think PS2 is too large scale for my play style and preference. Graphically, BF3 looks much better to me as well.
 
Maplehamwich said:
I prefer BF3 as well. Others will disagree. For me though, I think PS2 is too large scale for my play style and preference. Graphically, BF3 looks much better to me as well.
Click to expand...

I had trouble getting into PS2 when I first started. Playing with friends help. I am starting to get more into being able to solo play and not get owned. Not sure if you tried playing with some friends or forum members but you should give it a shot if still interested.
 
dremic said:
frostbite might be better looking but that doesnt make it a better engine.

PS2 I have miles of visible terrain and hundreds of people on screen with a playable frame rate. id say that beats bf3. even if bf3 beats it in terms of graphical quality. you should separate engine and graphics
Click to expand...

I heard one complaint on the PS2 graphics engine, with more players on screen, the engine scales down the view distance ? Guys would be sniping away at a far range, then when 100 more players showed up, the engine scales back the view distance, and you couldn't snipe those same people anymore, because they disappeared off the screen, due to distance being scaled back ?
 
PS2 has recieved exactly 0 of the probably 100 optimization patches it will receive over the course of the next 5 years. The game has been out for 2 weeks, you can't compare these games, its dumb to try.
 
I think PS2 is better in every way. I think the graphics are more immersive. Yes, under some lighting and certain conditions it looks like BF2142 for brief moments... but the lighting and fog effects dwarf BF3. They went with immersion over textures, which is more appropriate for this kind of game.

Sound is relative. You have 500+ players in one area, so You're going to only have so much sound quality. Bring in actual working in-game voip across the entire factions and it's a technical achievement Battlefield failed so miserably at.

As for gameplay I thought BF3 was a crime. It tried to bring COD and BF2 together and to a certain extent failed at both. If you want instant action, press INSERT. If you spend a few minutes to watch the official tutorial videos, then you should have no problem constantly being in the action. No bullshit lag making you die after running around a corner 2 seconds earlier.


If you play alone or in a non-cooperative squad, there are going to be some moments of boredom, but you'll still see more teamwork than BF3.

As for performance, download and run "cpu unpark". Most people will see a 25-50% fps increase. My setup plays the game at 60-100fps with everything custom set to ultra (no pop-in or disappearing players). It's a massive game, like playing every BF3 map at the same time. Hundreds of dynamic lights and shadows with ambient fog and sunshafts from epic sunrises...


Yeah fuck BF3.
 
I will admit, that PS2 looks awesome at dusk/night setting. The lighting effects at night time look amazing :eek: Shooting rockets at night time, looks so cool, you can see the trail of light off the rocket glowing off the ground or nearby structures. Very impressive.
 
I think PS2 is better in every way. I think the graphics are more immersive. Yes, under some lighting and certain conditions it looks like BF2142 for brief moments... but the lighting and fog effects dwarf BF3. They went with immersion over textures, which is more appropriate for this kind of game.

Sound is relative. You have 500+ players in one area, so You're going to only have so much sound quality. Bring in actual working in-game voip across the entire factions and it's a technical achievement Battlefield failed so miserably at.

As for gameplay I thought BF3 was a crime. It tried to bring COD and BF2 together and to a certain extent failed at both. If you want instant action, press INSERT. If you spend a few minutes to watch the official tutorial videos, then you should have no problem constantly being in the action. No bullshit lag making you die after running around a corner 2 seconds earlier.


If you play alone or in a non-cooperative squad, there are going to be some moments of boredom, but you'll still see more teamwork than BF3.

As for performance, download and run "cpu unpark". Most people will see a 25-50% fps increase. My setup plays the game at 60-100fps with everything custom set to ultra (no pop-in or disappearing players). It's a massive game, like playing every BF3 map at the same time. Hundreds of dynamic lights and shadows with ambient fog and sunshafts from epic sunrises...


Yeah fuck BF3.
 
I have noticed in BF3, a lack of teamwork. But I have only been playing on public servers so far. Guys jump in a Tank or Helicopter immediately, without waiting for the secondary gunner and they just drive away. Seems very haphazard and crazy, and extremely fast paced, almost like the old Quake multiplayer games.

Where as PS2, I do see more teamwork, and people waiting for planes or vehicles to load up, and then go off to attack the nearby base.
 
Zorachus said:
I have noticed in BF3, a lack of teamwork. But I have only been playing on public servers so far. Guys jump in a Tank or Helicopter immediately, without waiting for the secondary gunner and they just drive away. Seems very haphazard and crazy, and extremely fast paced, almost like the old Quake multiplayer games.

Where as PS2, I do see more teamwork, and people waiting for planes or vehicles to load up, and then go off to attack the nearby base.
Click to expand...

Seems you get placed on the loosing team in BF3 a lot.

Teamwork is usually the difference between the winning team and the loosing team in BF3. I am part of the problem in that game though as I mostly solo Sniper. Though I'll get a high score and KDR I don't really help the global agenda, and I don't really care about winning or losing I just want to shoot face.
 
view distance in PS2 may be nice and far, but players dont get rendered until a retarded 400m
 
I concur, not much teamwork in BF3 unfortunately. Really, it was the same in BC2; I can't remember as far back as BF2, but I don't recall being "wow'ed" by pub teamwork in any way. Really, it's to the point now that a single squad working well together, with just decent players, will find a way for their team to win 8-9 times out of 10.

The one thing I really, really hate about hardcore is spawns being locked to the squad leader. In public games, which is what the game is primarily about, it hurts teamwork quite a bit IMO. And it usually works out somehow that the one person you can spawn on, the squad leader, is some retarded sniper out in the middle of nowhere. (Note: I understand snipers can be hugely valuable teammates. It's just most of them aren't.)

EDIT: Oops, sorry forgot this wasn't the BF3 thread. :p
 
drastically different in so many ways, good and bad, mostly good in PS2's case. I played PS2 since the first closed beta, but stopped before release due to lack of time. I've also got about 500hrs into BF3 but quit that around summer along with most of the original player base.. PS2 is definitely more methodical, slower paced (until a firefight anyway), a lot more waiting around (capping or people getting back into your Galaxy) and overall requires more patience but the upside is practically no mouthy COD kids gumming up the game because the pace makes their ADHD brains go into fits and they uninstall.

I'm not sure how and if PS2 has changed since release in the social aspect but people were on average pretty polite over comms whereas BF3 tended to always have shit talking chatspam nonstop, and battlelog forums, forget it. You still have griefers in PS2 driving around trying to run teammates over but its a microfraction of the children that clog up BF3 and other arcade oriented shooters in that regard.
 
Last edited:
bf3 > ps2 in every way imo. even taking into consideration dice cheesing things up cod style and the new crossbow bs.

ps2 in my book is pay for an advantage - the whole endeavor is designed for it, period. and it's just as clunky as it was back in 2003 as if the devs hadn't touched a single FPS in all that time. it felt like i was playing battlefield 1942 all over again, but even that one had the ability to go prone... no thanks.
 
Maybe I need to tweak my settings in the CFG, but when I first jumped in PS2 with all high settings, I was disappointed with the graphics; in fact I thought for the most part it looked pretty terrible. That being said, I do realize the tradeoffs with scale. I was just hoping for something a little more I guess.

Honestly I will say that despite them both technically being FPSs, they're completely different genres. The persistent, large-scale nature of PS2 makes comparisons with any other FPS difficult, outside of directly comparing how manuevering your character/firing your weapon feels.
 
TwistedAegis said:
The persistent, large-scale nature of PS2 makes comparisons with any other FPS difficult, outside of directly comparing how manuevering your character/firing your weapon feels.
Click to expand...

they both have the same persistence. the only difference is maps change and load in bf3, ps2 its just there. unlocks, ranks, all the same persistence there. all that taken together, i'd rather play the one that feels more fluid. my opinion anyways.
 
Last edited:
Banyan said:
they both have the same persistence. the only difference is maps change and load in bf3, ps2 its just there. unlocks, ranks, all the same persistence there. all that taken together, i'd rather play the one that feels more fluid. my opinion anyways.
Click to expand...

Err, no? Your character is persistent in both, but the world in PS2 is persistent. BF3 is maps on a time/ticket rotation. That's a huge, fundamental difference.
 
I don't really like either but ps2 is a much better game in every way. Ps2 encourages team work on a massive scale. Bf3 encourages soloing and grinding on metro just get the most basic equipment. 10 hours of bf3 and I still have to pick up other peoples weapons to have a chance while I have had zero problems with ps2 default loadout.
 
I play with my wife quite a bit, and we end up doing really well. She isn't very good at large maps be it TDM or Conquest, but she is an excellent support -

126072657-4.jpg


As you can see, it is definitely possible to do well in BF3 as a team. Now you can't blame because the players decide to be selfish. The developers gave us the tools, we need to be able to use them.
 
At first it was hard to get that into PS2, trying to figure out what I was supposed to be doing and where the action was but now since the launch and after watching a few tutorials its great. I have a really hard time even playing 10-20 minutes of BF3 anymore. (plus the entire clan I played with is now switched to PS2)

BF3 may look a little better graphically but PS2 is just epic in its scale and ability to maximize and reward teamwork. So many things BF3 should've done better, that PS2 does very well.

The best part is that it JUST came out! Give the devs time and patches and its only going to get better.
They seem to listen to the community more and respond to players input.

Aftermath looks terrible IMHO and is trying to hard to be another COD. BF4 better be something special to drag me away from PS2.
 
Zorachus said:
I heard one complaint on the PS2 graphics engine, with more players on screen, the engine scales down the view distance ? Guys would be sniping away at a far range, then when 100 more players showed up, the engine scales back the view distance, and you couldn't snipe those same people anymore, because they disappeared off the screen, due to distance being scaled back ?
Click to expand...
This is true, and a huge PITA for me, as I mostly snipe as an Infiltrator from very far away. It's really annoying and is something I hope they fix. I'm not sure how confident I am that they will fix it, and this was one of the big problems with GW2 in WvW.

stevedave said:
Seems you get placed on the loosing team in BF3 a lot.

Teamwork is usually the difference between the winning team and the loosing team in BF3. I am part of the problem in that game though as I mostly solo Sniper. Though I'll get a high score and KDR I don't really help the global agenda, and I don't really care about winning or losing I just want to shoot face.
Click to expand...
You sound like me.. I have no idea where I get it - people usually contribute it to "CoD kids", but I've played less than an hour of CoD (all of them combined). Maybe CS? Stopped playing BF3 when I hit the 3.0 KDR, and currently sitting at a 4.5 KDR in PS2. Shooting face and improving my stats is fun for me. Both games I played sniper, and was an AWP whore in CS, too.
 
Dethred said:
I think PS2 is better in every way. I think the graphics are more immersive. Yes, under some lighting and certain conditions it looks like BF2142 for brief moments... but the lighting and fog effects dwarf BF3. They went with immersion over textures, which is more appropriate for this kind of game.

Sound is relative. You have 500+ players in one area, so You're going to only have so much sound quality. Bring in actual working in-game voip across the entire factions and it's a technical achievement Battlefield failed so miserably at.

As for gameplay I thought BF3 was a crime. It tried to bring COD and BF2 together and to a certain extent failed at both. If you want instant action, press INSERT. If you spend a few minutes to watch the official tutorial videos, then you should have no problem constantly being in the action. No bullshit lag making you die after running around a corner 2 seconds earlier.


If you play alone or in a non-cooperative squad, there are going to be some moments of boredom, but you'll still see more teamwork than BF3.

As for performance, download and run "cpu unpark". Most people will see a 25-50% fps increase. My setup plays the game at 60-100fps with everything custom set to ultra (no pop-in or disappearing players). It's a massive game, like playing every BF3 map at the same time. Hundreds of dynamic lights and shadows with ambient fog and sunshafts from epic sunrises...


Yeah fuck BF3.
Click to expand...

Ah, a hardcore fanboi post, lets explore just a couple of the things that are 100% bullshit about what you have said.

1) You say basic lighting and fog makes PS2 superior graphically, you completely ignore that at close/medium range, textures in PS2 look like they came straight from a console.

2) You say VOIP is what makes PS2 better when it comes to sound, completely ignoring every other aspect of sound in the game and try to justify it by saying it is "relative."

3) You say BF3 game play was a crime, yet PS2 is just one big zerg capturing one point after a another 80% of the time. You also completely ignored the fact that there are plenty of complaints on the PS2 forums complaining of lag and dying after going around corners.

4) More team work then BF3? I would say they are equal, join a squad in PS2 and count how many are even on the same continent.

5) The game does not look like BF3, it is actually impossible considering the PS2 engine is only DX9, so while it has features that look nice, it isn't even in the same league. Lets not forget that the engine is so unoptimized that most people have to play at greatly reduced settings. I have a 6870, and whether I have my settings on low, medium, or high, I am CPU limited, I know this because the first thing I do is enable the FPS monitor when I play.

You statement about "no disappearing players" is 100% a lie, the server decides how far the view distance is based on how many players are in an area, not you computer settings.

I have played over 30 hours of PS2, the game has a ton of potential and I keep playing it, so it isn't like I am just trying to bash the game, I am not going to pretend the major flaws in the game doesn't exist though.

People like you are doing a major disservice to the PS2 community. If someone took your post at face value, they are going to be very disappointed with their first impression when actually playing the game.
 
BF3 definitely wins in the graphics department IMO, but PS2 can be pretty awesome looking during nighttime battles. They're both pretty good on sound, and I don't do much with teams, so I can't comment on teamwork. Gameplay wise, PS2 just reminds me of an epic-scaled BF3. I really enjoyed BF3, and am also really enjoying PS2.

darkstarcow said:
You statement about "no disappearing players" is 100% a lie, the server decides how far the view distance is based on how many players are in an area, not you computer settings.
Click to expand...

Yep. I completely missed this part of his post, but like I posted above you, player culling is a huge issue. He may not notice it if he doesn't do much flying or sniping, but I definitely notice it as I'm on a perch shooting enemies, and a zerg runs/drives underneath the rock I'm on top of, and the enemies are starting to disappear into thin air. They're not running away, they're disappearing. Then they take a couple steps forward and re-appear back into view. Really frustrating at times when there's a huge battle. Or when I shoot just as they step back and the shot doesn't registered since they aren't rendered on my screen. Plenty of YouTube videos showcasing this as well.
 
You can always play BF2 instead. Its on PS2 as well. Looks better in firefox though imo.
...Have I gotten things mixed up?
 
almalino said:
Developers didn't give us VOIP in BF3. Amin
Click to expand...

Well, there is always mumble, team speak, skype. Also Battlelog has a voice chat function. Never tested it myself, but its still there.

I do agree though. VOIP would have been absolutely amazing.
 
Playing more BF3 this weekend, and yes it is a great game. I just bought the Premium package, downloading now, can't wait to see the other maps + expansions.

The graphics are top notch, and this game set to Ultra max settings @ 2560x1600, plays smooth as butter. And the sound engine, is awesome, some of the best sound effects ever in a game.
 
Droc said:
view distance in PS2 may be nice and far, but players dont get rendered until a retarded 400m
Click to expand...

This happens to me all the damn time. So annoying when you're trying to get an airbus full of troops on a platform lined up at a Bio Lab, only to find that it is so well defended a mosquito couldn't sneak by.

That being said, I prefer BF3 over PS2 graphically for the most part. The night battles in PS2 are what even keeps it in the discussion for me.
 
Just bought the BF3 Premium pack, all the expansion maps, etc... I have to say BF3 is a very solid game, the larger maps in the AK expansion are awesome, and the new After Math ones are really well designed, very impressed. Weird thing between both games is the performance and smoothness.

BF3 is using a high end DirectX11 engine, and I play it at Ultra max settings, 4xAA/16xAxAF @ 2560x1600 res. and BF3 is smooth as butter, game has zero chop, zero lag, just runs prefect. And the graphic detail in BF3 is awesome, very good looking game.

Now PS2 uses an old DirectX9 engine, and the game can be choppy or inconsistent for me, some times I play PS2 and it's fine and smooth, other times I get this weird lag or chop, when I swing the mouse to look around 180 degrees quickly, it gets choppy. for a few seconds. That's my biggest performance gripe, turning around quickly, the game gets laggy for like 3 seconds.
 
Zorachus said:
Now PS2 uses an old DirectX9 engine, and the game can be choppy or inconsistent for me, some times I play PS2 and it's fine and smooth, other times I get this weird lag or chop, when I swing the mouse to look around 180 degrees quickly, it gets choppy. for a few seconds. That's my biggest performance gripe, turning around quickly, the game gets laggy for like 3 seconds.
Click to expand...

For me it gets laggy when there is a lot of objects on the screen. Look at the base with al these buildings, explosions etc around = lagfest, turn around and look at the field with a couple of trees - smooth as butter :)

I still love PS2 to death and hope they will improve the performance as time goes. BF3 is on the shelf now collecting the dust.
 
BF3 is still new to me, just bought the game couple weeks ago, and the Premium pack yesterday, so it's very fresh to me. I am liking it a lot. And it plays smooth as butter Ultra max settings, and looks great.

PS2 I just started playing around Thanksgiving, it is also new and fresh to me, and I love the huge open maps, and massive battles. And the graphics looks best at the duck/night/dawn setting, not liking it as much sunny midday graphics. At night shooting a rocket, and seeing the light reflect off objects is cool :cool: But the game needs optimization, that lag I get when turning around quickly is annoying. Or look up in the sky, and then back down real quick, I get a 2 second lag / chop. I hope that can be ironed out ?

I have to say I play both BF3 and PS2 equally, I like them both in different ways.
 
BF3 is everything bad about the battlefield series and nothing of the good. I've seen/experienced the progression since 1942 and I'm not a happy camper. It keeps transforming further and further into COD with tanks/helicopters.

Planetside 2 is a breath of fresh air, it reminds me of Deltaforce games back in the day :). I'm personally enjoying it quite a bit and appreciate that I don't have to dedicate a lot of time to it.
 
Zorachus said:
BF3 is still new to me, just bought the game couple weeks ago, and the Premium pack yesterday, so it's very fresh to me. I am liking it a lot. And it plays smooth as butter Ultra max settings, and looks great.

PS2 I just started playing around Thanksgiving, it is also new and fresh to me, and I love the huge open maps, and massive battles. And the graphics looks best at the duck/night/dawn setting, not liking it as much sunny midday graphics. At night shooting a rocket, and seeing the light reflect off objects is cool :cool: But the game needs optimization, that lag I get when turning around quickly is annoying. Or look up in the sky, and then back down real quick, I get a 2 second lag / chop. I hope that can be ironed out ?

I have to say I play both BF3 and PS2 equally, I like them both in different ways.
Click to expand...

while yes i 100% agree with you on the optimization part of PS2, there are a few tricks you can do to cut down on some of it. the one thing i found was going into the ini file and changing the render distance down to 4000 meters. default renders everything in view though the game automatically sets everything past 3000 meters i think it is to low res to cut down on render lag.

to do this go to your game root folder (program files/planetside 2/) go to the useroptions.ini and under render distance change it from the default to what ever number you want under 9999.99. just don't go under 1500 meters otherwise you won't be able to snipers and lib bombers firing at you from long range. this should help you out a lot though.
 
As has been mentioned above, the disappearing player thing is the most terrible thing I've ever encountered in a game, except maybe hackers, which apparently PS2 has plenty of already. Whoever said they've never seen it or it doesn't happen is lying or hasn't played the game long enough to get in a big battle. Assaulting or defending The Crown will show you this in about 10 seconds. Hundreds of players in the area and you can't see enemies 30 yards away. It is fucking ridiculous.

I've played, according to steam, 26.4 hours of PS2 and I am warming up to it but the persistent world and the zerg rush tactics are dumb. I've not had good luck with teams, like mentioned above, join a squad and maybe 3 or 4 are on the same continent the rest are so meaninglessly scattered around its obvious they're not working as a team either.
Whereas BF3 has real benefits to being in a squad, spawn points, and squad perks. By being able to spawn on your squad mates you're guaranteed to be near them whenever you like.

The perk system is pretty rough too IMO. You can't buy perks which is great, but 130 kills to unlock 2 things? BF3 has tons of guns, TONS! And yet 10 kills will get you going. Another 10, going a little more, and so on. Once you hit 130 kills with one gun You've unlocked 11 things for your gun. BR will unlock new guns. The perk system is just a ploy to get people to either play forever to unlock good guns or pay to unlock. I really thing BF3s unlock system is pretty great.
Paying for perks IMO would be pay to win, which as it stands with just paying for gun unlocks isn't really. Most guns are really similar. Sadly also, at least on the VS side, they all look exactly the same for each class. Seems like a real lazy ass cop out on the developers side. Just model some different guns.

And something else I noticed in PS2. Guns seem to get progressively worse as I use them. Usually its the other way around. Use a gun more, get more proficient and get better at it. I've noticed the opposite. When unlocking a new gun the gun destroys all comers, but the more I use it the less effective it becomes. Maybe its just me though. I'm not great but I'm certainly not bad.
 
Caelum Atra said:
As has been mentioned above, the disappearing player thing is the most terrible thing I've ever encountered in a game, except maybe hackers, which apparently PS2 has plenty of already. Whoever said they've never seen it or it doesn't happen is lying or hasn't played the game long enough to get in a big battle. Assaulting or defending The Crown will show you this in about 10 seconds. Hundreds of players in the area and you can't see enemies 30 yards away. It is fucking ridiculous.

I've played, according to steam, 26.4 hours of PS2 and I am warming up to it but the persistent world and the zerg rush tactics are dumb. I've not had good luck with teams, like mentioned above, join a squad and maybe 3 or 4 are on the same continent the rest are so meaninglessly scattered around its obvious they're not working as a team either.
Whereas BF3 has real benefits to being in a squad, spawn points, and squad perks. By being able to spawn on your squad mates you're guaranteed to be near them whenever you like.

The perk system is pretty rough too IMO. You can't buy perks which is great, but 130 kills to unlock 2 things? BF3 has tons of guns, TONS! And yet 10 kills will get you going. Another 10, going a little more, and so on. Once you hit 130 kills with one gun You've unlocked 11 things for your gun. BR will unlock new guns. The perk system is just a ploy to get people to either play forever to unlock good guns or pay to unlock. I really thing BF3s unlock system is pretty great.
Paying for perks IMO would be pay to win, which as it stands with just paying for gun unlocks isn't really. Most guns are really similar. Sadly also, at least on the VS side, they all look exactly the same for each class. Seems like a real lazy ass cop out on the developers side. Just model some different guns.

And something else I noticed in PS2. Guns seem to get progressively worse as I use them. Usually its the other way around. Use a gun more, get more proficient and get better at it. I've noticed the opposite. When unlocking a new gun the gun destroys all comers, but the more I use it the less effective it becomes. Maybe its just me though. I'm not great but I'm certainly not bad.
Click to expand...

i dunno the unlock system in BF3 bored me way to fast.. i had every gun/addon for all the guns unlocked in about 2 weeks. it just turned into another BFBC2 where the only thing i had was trying to reach 1000 kills on every weapon and i really didn't feel like doing that all over again after doing it in BFBC2 so i just quit playing BF3. only time i go back is when they release more weapons just so i can waste a day to unlock them all and then quit playing again. there really isn't a challenge to BF3. which is why i like PS2, i actually have to work my ass off to get unlocks for stuff even though for infantry fighting i find the free weapons to be the best.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top