GAMESPY_SUB.1sht4kills wrote:

I agree that people have their own opinions on what platforms they utilize. None of the PC/Consoles & accessories are any where NEAR the real deal nor any of the simulators we use (yes I am prior Army myself and have not only used your basic military weapons but ones that most soldiers don't get the opportunity to). I even worked as a Unit Armorer as well (worked on them) at one point.

Some games I prefer one platform over the other (I own a PC/PS3/Xbox 360/PS2/PS1..even the oldies of Artari 2600/VECTREX (if anyone knows what that is haha)/commodor +4 and 64/Sega and Dreamcast/Intellivision. So, yes I am a little older haha...but have experienced a whole bunch of different type of game setups.

BF2 is (to me) a better game in the long run than Bad Company and Call of Duty. Because I like the free roaming/squad abilities/different views/ and the different maps and such. You aren't having to follow one script or a story arc. You can play several different types of soldiers..medic/support and many others. Plus being able to get into a vehicle/aircraft whenever you want (well when they aren't already taken haha).

Can't wait for BF3 or even the new patch

Very true ! For me the thrill of BF2 hasn't been replicated yet. And I still don't get how people prefer controllers over mouse and keyboard (for shooters) lol. But I guess they haven't experienced it on the pc. Who need auto-aim, the mouse is more accurate than any controller out there. Using your thumb to locate a target doesn’t sound realistic to me. But anyway I've got an xbox360 and it's a great console for other games. Just bring the BF series HOME TO DADY!!!

omg, the game is coming to ALL platforms! Everybody deserves it! It will be The BEST Battlefield game ever! Can we stop argue? And maybe join forces and conduct a plan to supress the Trolls and Bacement dwellers, so they will not ruin our gameplay?

cem_ea_id.Evil_Paladin wrote:Before I start, remember this is controversy what all Im about to say. These are opinions stated by me and only me and Im asking to either be set straight or a friendly debate. Constructive critism on both parts are welcomed. When EA and DICE announce 1943 and BC 2 and later info were released on them. I notice PC fans mostly had a problem with it, degrading console games and console friendly games. They dogged EA and DICE and all EA DICE wants to do is make great games. Well the PC guys dont deserve it! Sure it started with them but cant they see now days consoles and PC can share the lime light.

But no, instead they want to hate on it. I have been talked down to by PC guys and watch my upcoming fav 1943 be dogged and I am mad as hell and Im going to stand up for it! Sure, DICE and EA want a profit but they want to also make good games. PC guys are always like if it isnt 64 players then Im not buying, without even giving it a second glance. Not all PC guys are like this but most of the ones I met are. They downgraded, spit in the face and hated on 1943 and BC 2 without knowing more info on BC 2. Im going to catch hell for this, but I got to speak up!

EA and DICE just focus on the console market because most of us appreciate what you do. Some of us but not all are later generation battlefield fans and we understand the need for new things. We are more accepting. If the PC community cannot get the picture, then maybe they dont deserve battlefield. Im a paying customer and I have a lot of respect for battlefield. I just want the PC guys to stop bashing the games and give them a chance, if you did that maybe I wouldnt post what I did!

Console gamers and PC gamers like different type of games. You can't make a game for console gamers and expect PC gamers to like it just as much. I'm pretty sure it will be a decent and fun game to play, even on the PC but it won't be what fans of the series, like about the series.

After all, wouldn't you be pissed if Halo or Gears of War (or whatever your favourite franchised was) was dumbed down and turned into a Wii title for casual gamers? This is what PC gamers see when they look upon Dice's recent entries into the battlefield series.

CC_SUB.noodlesocks wrote:
Console gamers and PC gamers like different type of games. You can't make a game for console gamers and expect PC gamers to like it just as much. I'm pretty sure it will be a decent and fun game to play, even on the PC but it won't be what fans of the series, like about the series.

After all, wouldn't you be pissed if Halo or Gears of War (or whatever your favourite franchised was) was dumbed down and turned into a Wii title for casual gamers? This is what PC gamers see when they look upon Dice's recent entries into the battlefield series.

EXACTLY!! You sir understand and can put it in correct words! lol Ports and games developed for all the platforms are just not the same quality, I wish they would be, but they are not. It's not about consoles vs. PC's it's about good quality games designed for their platform. BF series belong to the pc because that is where they had the best quality. And I don't even want Halo on the PC. It's a console title you guys keep it.

ps3.unit_one wrote:omg, the game is coming to ALL platforms! Everybody deserves it! It will be The BEST Battlefield game ever! Can we stop argue? And maybe join forces and conduct a plan to supress the Trolls and Bacement dwellers, so they will not ruin our gameplay?

He's got a point here, but PC gamers started to complain about it.

Anyway I wont be posting anything here anymore so that means no replys on my posts.

the best BF was the one for the original xbox, the 360 version sucked. then BFBC came out and it was decent, but took out what made BF a team game and made is a solo game. hopefully BFBC 2 will be more like the one for xbox but with better graphics more weapons and enviorments that blow up

Revenge has it right. Modern Combat on the Xbox was actually better than BF2 on the PC and BFBC. In BF2 on the PC, you alone didn't count for much, mainly because the game gave you a very restrictive and simplistic loadout no matter what class you chose. You ended up being hobbled by the game to keep you from being a threat by yourself. The soldiers were wearing full BDUs, they feasibly had space for more items but you were stuck with a primary weapon, a pistol and a secondary tool. There was no good reason to make Engineer and Demolition into two separate classes, same for medic and support. By consolidating the classes they gave players more options for what they could do. This was one thing that was brought over to BC, but along the way, they lost sight of something much more important. Large scale maps and matches that take more than 5 minutes to complete. Part of the fun of Modern combat was that no matter when you joined, as long as the teams were even, you had a chance to turn the tide in your favor. With the * poor version of conquest that was patched into Bad Company, these kind of matches disappeared, replaced by matches that were literally less than two minutes long.

As for PC vs Console, there's only one difference and it's answered by this question: What can you afford in the span of 5 years? A lump sum of 300-600 bucks or anywhere from 1200-5000 bucks with a more flexible payment schedule? When it all comes down to it, no matter what anyone says, a console is just a specialized PC made for nothing but gaming. Has all the same chips and components with the added bonus of not having to crack the thing open every couple years for upgrades. PCs can be more up to date (I'm not counting the people with more money than braincells who fully upgrade their computer every other month. They're not the typical PC gamer.) but every update means more money. Personally, I go for a compromise, every 2-3 years I either buy a console, or I throw together a 5-year comp.

cem_ea_id.XxKolchakxX wrote:Revenge has it right. Modern Combat on the Xbox was actually better than BF2 on the PC and BFBC.

These days a PC is not that expensive. If you already got a monitor and speakers, with 500 euro (I don’t know how much bux) you can make your pc handle any multiplayer game. Remember that multiplayer games are usually not that graphically advanced, as they also have to run on servers and simultaneously on many computers. And to me the main difference between a console and a pc is between OLYMPICS and PARALYMPICS (yes I’m gonna condition you with this metaphor). :p But essentially it comes down to the slow controller and limited accuracy.

But why I do not agree with you on BF2 and MC is because what you fail to notice is that BF2 did not force you to any combat style while MC did. Now this style might be the way you like it, but I find it boring at a certain point I want something more. And BF2 had this, because if you choose another class you have a different experience. In BF2 you could go and have air shootouts like dogfights, suicide attacks in jeeps , slow pace combat with the sniper or all out war with the spec-ops. As anti tank you are chasing vehicles and as a medic searching and hoping for the dead bodies. It is not forcing you to behave in a fixed manner. You can have many experiences within one game, that’s the reason why I still play it. Sure not everything was as well done as it should have been, but CoD4 MC should not be compared to BF2. MC is basically the same experience with every class just a different animated weapon with a slightly modified functions and sounds. But the experience of the game is EVERY time the same! It’s fun but not fore more than 6 months. That’s why they poop a CoD game every year.

You see it doesn’t matter whit what equipment you are making someone’s life bar go down (a shovel or a rocket launcher, the result is the same), in the long run it matters how many different experiences a game has to offer. In MC you just have much less to do. This is what seperates BF2 with cod4 MC. Also don’t forget BF2 is a much older game, so yes MC looks better, but the experience that MC provides has been done on the PC for decades. Counterstrike is the same game play basically. So this again proves my point how excited console gamers are with games that have been outdated on the pc for ages. As if they never seen any better.

BF2 was much better than MC. All I'm going to say about that.

PC version of this game will not be a port. So, there is really nothing else to say about this topic until more details about the PC version are released.

cem_ea_id.XxKolchakxX wrote:Revenge has it right. Modern Combat on the Xbox was actually better than BF2 on the PC and BFBC. In BF2 on the PC, you alone didn't count for much, mainly because the game gave you a very restrictive and simplistic loadout no matter what class you chose. You ended up being hobbled by the game to keep you from being a threat by yourself. The soldiers were wearing full BDUs, they feasibly had space for more items but you were stuck with a primary weapon, a pistol and a secondary tool. There was no good reason to make Engineer and Demolition into two separate classes, same for medic and support. By consolidating the classes they gave players more options for what they could do.

They limited you on purpose. You're not supposed to be able to do everything alone; the limitations of the kits are there to make you rely on your teammates to do what you cannot accomplish alone. I think they gave the console kits more individual power because they were trying to win over people used to to the "one man army" gameplay typical of shooters on the console. However, PC Battlefields are the real thing, no "one man army" kits, and the team is the most important element in winning.

ZERK16!!!! This message is primarily for you because you seem to be connected with EA/Dice

First of all, good job on bf2142, i liked the uniforms, the maps, the titans, the vehicles, etc., they all looked very well and the gameplay is very fun

however i have one criticism: if you ever make another futuristic fps, fire the designer for the weapons in bf2142 because the weapons (the guns for the soldiers i mean) were horrible looking, they were big,bulky, un-symmetrical, and just outright retarded looking

Second, pleeeeaaaaasee!!!!!!!! make a BF3, just like BF2 with modern everything but better, if you truly want to make an awesome game you must take a look a these points:

-good graphics, like Cod 4 good or better
-big maps, at least 64 players ( the more the better)
-customization of weapons
-many weapons, especially new ones or ones in development: XM8, G36 series, Bushmaster ACR/Masada Mapul, bullpup, SIG series, bullpup/AUG, Famas, SCAR series, ak-1xx series, etc.
-customization/upgrades to body armor,helmets, uniforms ( no one has done this yet and it would be awesome! if EA/dice did it)
-VEHICLES! at least trucks/jeeps, apcs, tanks, anti-air vehicles, and helicopters (extra points if you use cool looking ones).....planes would be nice but i wouldn't be too upset without them
-squad play (Cod4 was really lacking in this one)

So there you go, what I and i'm sure many others would like in a game (preferably BF3 :] ).....Cod 4 had the good graphics, lots of players, and customization which made it awesome.....but its small maps greatly detracted from it, it felt like playing in a shoebox, and after a while it became a little repetitive.....

BF2 was seriously the best fps shooter ever created for its time. period. In highschool i got a job at a supermarket and saved up for a year just to buy a computer to play it, it was that addicting... Bf2 has what cod4 seroiusly lacks: big maps, vehicles, squads.....The reason why bf2 was the best was becuase of the freedom and possibilities it offered:

you could take a tank out and devastate infantry in jeeps, you could hide on foresty hills taking potshots at other guys in the base below, you fly jets through the tunnel in the base of the kubra dam, drive a boat while trying to dodge and defend against a persueing helicopter, and then land and make a beach assualt on a flag

all these things made an exceptional game, whether you like to be in a squad, to be a lone wolf, or whatever, you could do it with bf2

the only thing cod4 had over bf2 was its graphics and customization. thats it. you suped up ur gun and played in a showbox just like counterstrike

If dice/EA could just combine the best elements of bf (big maps, many players, squads, vehicles) with customization and graphics at or above Cod4's level in a BF3 game i guarantee ull wipe activision/infinity ward off the face of the earth

So please! seriously consider these points/relay them to the EA/Dice team
We pc gamers need a BF3

Sincerely,
Elite Rebel

p.s. I like the destruction of buildings idea but watch out for noob tubers chaos, that's apparently what ruined the Frontlines Fuel of War game, which was very promising looking

I started to think, that They do not listen...and Zerk is not saying anything at all.

I'd buy BC2 for PC. I'd like a nice Single Player game.

I liked the first when I got to play it at community day but I don't own an xbox or ps3 and I wouldn't buy one for just one game.

ps3.unit_one wrote:I started to think, that They do not listen...and Zerk is not saying anything at all.

Maybe becuase this thread is pointless and there are plenty of others that are filled with comments asking for BF3 and other features (nothing wrong with that). There is an official feature request list in the feedback and help section that will be e-mailed to DICE later on. If you really want to be heard, that is the place.

cem_ea_id.Evil_Paladin wrote:.
Sure, DICE and EA want a profit but they want to also make good games.

I laughed at the bolded part. The only good game I've seen EA come out with last year was Dead Space, and I only played the demo to it. Even the Mirror's Edge demo was fun but the final game was short too. And don't get me started on Bad Company. DICE had a lot of problems on their hands and complaints when BC came out and the only crucial thing they fixed was the dog tag lag and release a few free maps. They never addressed the squads, the mics comms, or clan support. They ALWAYS gave the freakin run-around answer "We're looking into it" MONTHS after the game was out and interviewers were dogging them for responses.

Now DICE could've just came out and said, "We'll put it in the next Battlefield game" and an apology but they didn't. I'm sure there are quite a few people pissed at the lack of support they have gotten after the game came out. These forums are just as terrible as Ubisoft's. No communication with the developers, just your middleman community managers who spew propaganda.