Re: From an Old 2142-er

**Misnomer** · 06-26-2012, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by CrazySob

That is a very good point. And I think we have all seen it over the last few years but nobody is willing to admit it. Its a shame :/. I guess my opinion is yes... Just because it has been a lot of fun. But I know im only playing it to pass the time. Its not battlefield... By any real stretch of the imagination, its COD with tanks and aircraft. That is the feel I get from it and it makes me sad ;(

-Crazy

It isn't unique to TG. The market is flooded. Back in the day with 2142, it was really that Quake Wars or maybe COD2? Not nearly so many options...or if there were that many options people didn't know about them. Steam, the rise of COD, and high bandwidth making frequent digital download feasible have changed the game quite a lot.

I belong to a smaller sized European clan and we have quite a bit of trouble populating anything. We had players who refused to play MW2 and players who refused to play BC2 and the clan split. Even before that we had players who refused to play COD:W@W. We started as an Insurgency mod clan and moved on to COD4 when it was clear Insurgency was mired. COD4 lasted a few years, but those of us who liked more objective play got bored as we couldn't get our tactical mod server populated. Nowadays, we have people playing RO2, BLOPS, MW3, BF3, DayZ, BC2. and countless racing games, rpgs, simulators.

BF3 is the only one that draws enough players for us to pretend it is a clan game. So we pay for two servers for that and hope we can recruit more people there.

I would say that MW2 was the death knell for fps clans. Activision actually sought to destroy us by pushing PC gamers into little groups of 4 players like console players do. BF3 continued this with no voip and the battlelog party system. It is probably more profitable, but it is very painful to the communities we had built previously. Those who say just play ArmA 2 or RO2 are living in the past too. Those games are massively buggy (even compared to BF3) and very hard to draw new players to just in terms of learning curve and enjoyment of the game for all and not just a few veterans.

Anyway, I am a little off topic. I would say 2142 was brilliant for teamwork/communication infrastructure and weak when it came to actual in game mechanics. BF3 has solid in game mechanics (barring the rocket launchers I mention in the other thread).... and pathetic teamwork/communication infrastructure. So as others here have said, BF3 can be quite fun if you can find a substitute for that communication.

**MrMojay** · 06-26-2012, 12:28 PM

You may be able to pick the game up for cheap somewhere, but you also have to consider spending another 50 bucks for the Premium service.

http://www.battlefield.com/battlefield3/1/premium

**Ven** · 06-26-2012, 02:22 PM

origin just had a special, the game and premium for like 80 bucks

**Misnomer** · 06-26-2012, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by Ven

origin just had a special, the game and premium for like 80 bucks

BF3 itself is often on sale for $30 if you keep aware. I tend to use the Shacknews weekend sales (e.g. http://www.shacknews.com/article/744...us-ex-bargaina) story to check for anything cheap. I think it was on Gamefly for $30 a couple weeks ago too. So that plus the $50 for the Premium would be $80 for both. Eventually it may be cheaper...but maybe not before September with Armored Kill out then.

**BigGaayAl** · 06-26-2012, 09:14 PM

You know guys what I was saying about BF3, what most people in this thread are saying about it...

I was saying this before release, in discussions across different topics. I knew in advance that the communication problems would be totally fatal to teamwork. I nearly got banned from the forum I believe. Now I see the same people write exactly what I said in advance.

In this case, it is sad to be right tbh. But I'm very happy that I am not in danger of getting banned anymore for speaking the truth, for trying to warn people.

I chose RO2, which has many flaws and limitations. But it has squads, it has three voip channels (squad/team/global).

I hope to play with many many TG players again in the future, in a game that offers these sine qua non features. It is the only way to keep reaching the level of teamwork that we were spoiled with in the revolutionary BF2 interface.

**sc1ence** · 06-26-2012, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by BigGaayAl

You know guys what I was saying about BF3, what most people in this thread are saying about it...
I was saying this before release,

I see varied opinions here and in other threads on the forums. You make it seem like we all agree with your negative assessment of bf3. I would say the concensus is that bf3 is not as awesome as we hoped, but it is still pretty good. That is not anything like what you were or are saying. you were/are saying:

Originally Posted by BigGaayAl

that the communication problems would be totally fatal to teamwork.

This is BS. We have plenty of teamwork in bf3. It may not be of the same high calibre as 2142, but it is certainly not dead. Bf3 is not only alive and well at TG - it is flourishing.

**BigGaayAl** · 06-27-2012, 04:28 AM

I was indeed generalizing to save time, and exaggerating as I always do as it is my style of humor.

Secondly, I guess it all depends on what kind of teamwork one desires.

I can see it is still a very emotional subject and I have said what I wanted to say to the people in this thread say so,
good day sir! /subscribe

**Brainhurts** · 06-27-2012, 04:37 AM

Team work is very much needed in BF3, It just doesn't require or have the depth of previous games.

It is mostly, lets go take this flag, Repair my tank/helicopter, There is a sniper up on that hill lets go kill him.

You rarely have to sit back defend a point, Maybe where the armor spawns, Teamwork in a tank/heli is mostly spotting/repairing each other.

**Misnomer** · 06-27-2012, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by Brainhurts

Team work is very much needed in BF3, It just doesn't require or have the depth of previous games.

It is mostly, lets go take this flag, Repair my tank/helicopter, There is a sniper up on that hill lets go kill him.

You rarely have to sit back defend a point, Maybe where the armor spawns, Teamwork in a tank/heli is mostly spotting/repairing each other.

Perhaps only from a lack of creativity. Last night the squads I was in (yes I finally joined on your TS) did quite a bit of defending, strategically cutting off tanks, and performing massive flanking maneuvers.....just the 3 of us toward the end.

The only thing that is missing from 3rd party work arounds to communication like Teamspeak Sync is that team voice chat. I guess we could type in the team chat, but it can be a bit of a pain. It would have been good to be able to say....look bravo squad, we will defend this, how about you go take that point. The commander interface in 2142 direct this kind of behavior.

Quite honestly, someone in an MAV with Commander access to the channels could effectively do the 2142 commander role (it is actually a funny exercise in group behavior sometimes when you are the only MAV to lead the team around by the nose by spotting....people will follow the minimap doritos). Having someone who takes out SOFLAM, battles other MAVs, and does spotting for the team every map would not be such a bad thing...but without the interface of 2142 not many do it. I played an entire round of Wake Island that way. Not sure if I contributed to my team's eventual victory, but I would like to think that my 4000 points and 7 spotting awards had something to do with their situational and target awareness. Granted it works best in the high ceiling maps, but if you find yourself in a 1 man squad sometime... I would recommend trying it.

**Skud** · 06-27-2012, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by BigGaayAl

I was indeed generalizing to save time, and exaggerating as I always do as it is my style of humor.

Secondly, I guess it all depends on what kind of teamwork one desires.

I can see it is still a very emotional subject and I have said what I wanted to say to the people in this thread say so,
good day sir! /subscribe

How many hours do you have with BF3?

Zero?

Really, you have to stop this. You can disagree with the game from an observers view, but do not make claims about how the actual game works/plays.

**Iamthefallen** · 06-28-2012, 11:00 AM

It seems like we're back on track once more to just rehash grievances with BF3. Let's not do that.

And yeah, that's the official heads up that we're heading for a thread lock real quick like.

Merkov, it's a very different game from BF2142, but a lot of people have a lot of fun with it. I would suggest enjoying the game for what it is rather than focusing entirely on what it isn't, or could have been, or should have been. It's about $35 on Amazon to try it, and there's many hours of entertainment in it.

And, for what it's worth, DocGuo who made it clear that you shouldn't play the game, still has over 300 hours in it...

**Kwalc** · 06-28-2012, 12:19 PM

And I have over 600 hours, Fallen. However I play it so much because there is nothing else to play, not because of the game itself.

**Iamthefallen** · 06-28-2012, 12:43 PM

If you feel compelled to play BF3, or any other game, but you really don't enjoy it, I seriously would suggest seeking psychiatric help. Not kidding.

**Kwalc** · 06-28-2012, 12:49 PM

While I thank you for medical advice, I think i'll trust a docter with that. As to the game, I play for competition, which in turn gives me some excitement, which makes me happy. I cant "not play" otherwise I will suck at comp play

**Iamthefallen** · 06-28-2012, 12:55 PM

So, playing the game is fun for you?

Either the game is hundreds of hours worth of fun, or people feel compelled to play. The latter is cause for concern.

(This is a very silly thread at this point btw, I hope Merkov got what he was looking for)