Could BFBC2 have been branded as BF3?

A

AMD_Gamer

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 20, 2002
Messages
18,287
I think BFBC2 is pretty awesome, i have not played a PC game this much in a long time, brings back the memories of the old BF2 days and how awesome that game was.

Aside from the lack of air support, no jets and not a lot of helicopter use, i think this could have been BF3, only makes me hope BF3 is way better.
 
No chance, if this was branded as BF3 many including myself would've felt some what betrayed.
 
AMD_Gamer said:
I think BFBC2 is pretty awesome, i have not played a PC game this much in a long time, brings back the memories of the old BF2 days and how awesome that game was.

Aside from the lack of air support, no jets and not a lot of helicopter use, i think this could have been BF3, only makes me hope BF3 is way better.
Click to expand...
I have not played either of the BC games. From what I understand though they are more Arcadeish, like Modern Warfare and Battlefield series is more realistic. Anyways, BF3 is in development as another game.
 
All I can say is if BF3 will be better than BC2, I'm going to be one SOB! BC2 is just the epitome of awesomeness for me right now, I'm so satisfied with this game.
 
BC2 uses Frostbite version 1.5

BF3 will be the first of DICE games to use version 2.0 of that engine. IMO, BC2 was meant to help them get money from console gamers while they finish up the greatness that will be BF3.
 
I think it's a mix of arcade style shooters and the open area / vehicle / tactical combat of BF2.

It's not meant to replace BF2... BF3 is... so BC2 is just a different style of game, but it's fun...
 
BC2 is just a filler until we can get BF3. BF3 should have bigger maps, fighter jets, and a better conquest mode.
 
If BF3 is going to have huge maps and jets it needs to be more than 64 players. Some of the BF2 maps were over sized and designed for people to play fight simulator in the jets.
 
Nah, it's a different beast, way less vehicles to play with and smaller maps, it's much more infantry based.

The game is a blast, I was really enjoying the infantry fights in some of the smaller maps, there's a rush map at night in a snowy forest which has some good confusing fights since its dark and the terrain is nice and varied, enemies end up slipping through even the best defences and before you know it you're fighting people on all sides.

There's another snow map, a small conquest one with 3 points, that's another fantastic infantry map, sitting in the buildings as a medic with the SAW having some really good exchanges of gunfire, sometimes the longer exchanges of bullets and grenades is more fun than the steamroller tanks.

Not that tanks aren't fun, being incredibly un-subtle in a tank is hilarious, too many people sit back with the tanks worried that they'll be blown up quickly, that's so boring! Sometimes you just have to drive your tank right into the enemy base, you dont even have to fire your main gun, just trundle through all their defences and start reversing into buildings like an 80 year old clumbsy grandma trying to park her car. I love the developer quote on this:

Or if you are in a tank and your path is stopped by trees, fences or even the side of a building - just drive through it all, no need for those puny objects to stop your big tank.
Click to expand...

Anyway BF3 is in the making and hopefully should redefine large scale warfare, I'd like to see at least 100 players, 128 would be nice, 64vs64, now that would be cool.
 
I've only played on a friend's PC but I am debating picking this up when I get a 5870 next week. My main beef is that it feels much more like COD than Battlefield. You guys who have played 1942 and BF2, what do you think? It just doesn't "feel" like a Battlefield game to be. It's so claustrophobic. The maps are so small and contain you to a small area and there are so few players (32 instead of 64). I'm used to an incredibly huge area that was impossible to navigate on foot. That's part of the charm of the series for me because it makes vehicles and team transport logistics so much more important. It seems they scaled everything down to make it more friendly for walking around.

It's JUST NOT BATTLEFIELD!
 
It is a mix of cod and bf. Beats any Cod game I have played though. Only true issue is the net code. Connectivity issues abound.
 
Spare-Flair said:
I've only played on a friend's PC but I am debating picking this up when I get a 5870 next week. My main beef is that it feels much more like COD than Battlefield. You guys who have played 1942 and BF2, what do you think? It just doesn't "feel" like a Battlefield game to be. It's so claustrophobic. The maps are so small and contain you to a small area and there are so few players (32 instead of 64). I'm used to an incredibly huge area that was impossible to navigate on foot. That's part of the charm of the series for me because it makes vehicles and team transport logistics so much more important. It seems they scaled everything down to make it more friendly for walking around.

It's JUST NOT BATTLEFIELD!
Click to expand...

I think you're right and that's everyone's point. It's not supposed to be BF3, it's a different kind of game set within the "Battlefield" brand. I think when BF3 eventually comes out it'll be obvious that BC2 was meant to be a different kind of game. I've been frustrated with the server issues, but I appreciate what they're trying to do... definitely makes me wish they'd hurry up with BF3- when that comes out I'll most likely spend a lot of time on both games, depending on what kind of "mood" I'm in.
 
It's amazing how many people expect BF3 to be different than BC2 and be more like BF2. I have a feeling BF3 is going to feel like BC2 on a larger scale. Bigger maps, more players, more vehicles that will probably be the only difference - which is fine by me!
 
I think BC2 is missing proper squad leading and commander. Without those 2 it has much less tactical team play then BF2 or BF2142. Being a squad leader is so demanding role and it is completelly taken out in BC2.

I mean as a Squad Leader you often decide not to fight but rather avoid enemies to let your squad members to do the work. It is , actually, extremelly rewarding :)
 
One of the things I hated about BF2 and 2142 is that the maps WERE impossible to navigate on foot.
 
It's apparent BC2 is a console game that was thankfully ported to the PC.
 
I feel like it is the little things that let you know that this is just a console version of the BF franchise.

The lack of spotting
No commander
Limited weapons
No way to call out for medic/ammo
No UAV/Scans
Small simplistic squads

helicopters are nerfed damage wise
Funky controls
Lack of anti air beyond mounted 50 cals and lucky anti tank shots.
Lack of prone (don't mind this one at all)

Just a lot of little extras that really distinguish betweenthe series. Not that I am complaining just something to think about.
 
PrincessFrosty said:
Anyway BF3 is in the making and hopefully should redefine large scale warfare, I'd like to see at least 100 players, 128 would be nice, 64vs64, now that would be cool.
Click to expand...

I hope so! Maybe even MAG size with it's 256 players. I've always been a fan of the larger servers and would love to see BF3 go even beyond the 64 limit that we've already seen.

Makes me remember the Joint Operations game with 100+ player servers. :D

SixtyWattMan said:
One of the things I hated about BF2 and 2142 is that the maps WERE impossible to navigate on foot.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
cnick79 said:
It's amazing how many people expect BF3 to be different than BC2 and be more like BF2. I have a feeling BF3 is going to feel like BC2 on a larger scale. Bigger maps, more players, more vehicles that will probably be the only difference - which is fine by me!
Click to expand...

I agree with you, with the addition of a more dynamic damage model.

One of the things I don't like about this game is the easy ability to capture the points first and just spawn rape the other side in conquest. I'm guilty of doing that for like 3 hours yesterday then I felt guilty.
 
Intel1317 said:
I feel like it is the little things that let you know that this is just a console version of the BF franchise.

The lack of spotting
No commander
Limited weapons
No way to call out for medic/ammo
No UAV/Scans
Small simplistic squads
Click to expand...

Spotting and calling for medic/ammo is now controlled by the push of 1 key. This is definitely related to a console port and the lack of keys on a controller. I hate trying to spot an enemy only to end up issuing an attack order because the flag or M-Com was near where you were looking. You're right, it is little things like that which feel console'ish.

I forgot about the Commander and UAV scans and supply drops. I don't think these where left out due to the consoles because they were first implemented (and only in) BF2. I didn't like the Commander role of BF2 and I'm glad BC2 doesn't have it.Calling in arty strikes was cool and UAV scans were helpful, but those features are still available in BC2. Recon can call their own mortar strikes and there is a UAV that somebody can actually control and will display enemy positions when you fly over them (if you equip V Elect mod).

BC2 is scaled down compared to past BF games. You have fewer players, smaller maps, less classes. The medic and heavy weapons class are basically merged into 1. Sniper and Spec OPs are now the same soldier. Everything seems to be simpler and understandably so. After all, this is the first PC game to use the Frostbite engine requiring more work getting the engine to work for the PC.

I'm hoping BF3 is being coded with the PC gamer in mind first, then porting to console. If that's not the case then we can expect BF3 to be alternatively called Bad Company 3.
 
One of the other things I just thought about was that instead of spwaning right on top of another squad mate, maybe spawning somewhere slightly out of sight would be better. it totally kills any realism when people just come out of other people..
 
Jhalf said:
One of the things I don't like about this game is the easy ability to capture the points first and just spawn rape the other side in conquest. I'm guilty of doing that for like 3 hours yesterday then I felt guilty.
Click to expand...

I thought BC2 handled spawn raping better than BF2. At least in rush mode you can't enter the other team's spawn area. In BF2 you could get in their base and really go to town after stealing their own tanks and aircraft.
 
I've been a little confused. The first Bad Company (I thought) was about a bunch of "misfits" so to speak. Almost comical in a sense. This one doesn't seem to be (from what I've seen) along those same lines. Or is it?
 
htpc_user said:
I've been a little confused. The first Bad Company (I thought) was about a bunch of "misfits" so to speak. Almost comical in a sense. This one doesn't seem to be (from what I've seen) along those same lines. Or is it?
Click to expand...

The single player campaign certainly is. They're more mature now, but still misfits of a sort.
 
Intel1317 said:
I feel like it is the little things that let you know that this is just a console version of the BF franchise.

The lack of spotting
There is spotting...
No commander
No arguing with this.
Limited weapons
This is an opinion
No way to call out for medic/ammo
Hit Q while aiming at an assault teammate and it will call for ammo
No UAV/Scans
There are UAVs and the sniper motion balls can scan small areas.
Small simplistic squads
If the squads were any bigger they would be impossible to take out since you can spawn on any squadmate. They would have to go back to only being able to spawn on a squad leader.

helicopters are nerfed damage wise
The only thing helis don't annihilate are tanks, everything else gets completely destroyed by helicopters and it's not even that hard to take out a tank with a helo since if both pilots have the alternate fire perk the gunner can tracer dart the tank and the pilot gets a right click missle
Funky controls
The controls are the same as every other PC FPS and they are funky... right.
Lack of anti air beyond mounted 50 cals and lucky anti tank shots.
50 cals, tracer darts, AA guns, tank/car MGs, and snipe the pilot out of his seat
Lack of prone (don't mind this one at all)

Just a lot of little extras that really distinguish betweenthe series. Not that I am complaining just something to think about.
Click to expand...

Derp
 
randomhero58 said:
I hope so! Maybe even MAG size with it's 256 players. I've always been a fan of the larger servers and would love to see BF3 go even beyond the 64 limit that we've already seen.

Makes me remember the Joint Operations game with 100+ player servers. :D

.
Click to expand...

Even though JO had horrible graphics it was one of the most fun to me. The main reason being the vehicles followed by the sniper rifles. Adjustable scopes? Check. Having to adjust for droppage? Check.

I think my furthest kill in that game was something like 600 yards.
 
Yes. I am having as much fun or more fun than I did with BF2. I actually do not miss the commander, prone, or jets. I do miss chopper T.V. missiles though.
 
BC2 is definatly a different game. I didnt like BF2 but I loved BF2142. I would much rather have a BF2143 thena BF3.
 
Last edited:
Spare-Flair said:
That was a feature for me ;)
Click to expand...

same here. more realistc. just like Arma 2. in real life, you think a warzone is the size of your back yard? more like the size of your local town mate.

Anyways i reckon BF3 will be a console port. i just dont see DICE/EA investing time and money making a pc only game due to them moaning about piracy.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Anyways i reckon BF3 will be a console port. i just dont see DICE/EA investing time and money making a pc only game due to them moaning about piracy.
Click to expand...

What's the point of making a new DX11 game engine and have it be console-focused?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top