Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BF2 vs. BF3 - By The Numbers

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BF2 vs. BF3 - By The Numbers

    I saw this posted on Battlelog and thought I would share. Interesting to see the the data behind the shift to less vehicles and flags. In no way am I trying to say more flags or vehicles equals more fun but it certainly gives more insight into the design for BF3. Personally I think 5 flags for 64 players is the sweet spot if you provide a good environment and spacing. Also big fan of combined arms map where everyone has a role to play be it in a vehicle or on foot. IMO DICE had the right idea, just poorly implemented the idea in the maps.
    http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3...4347718561928/

    As much as I've been enjoying Battlefield 3 the past few weeks, I couldn't quite shake the feeling that I was playing a game set on a much smaller scale than its incredibly successful prequel. This ate at me for a good while until I finally broke down today and pulled my Battlefield 2 and 3 strategy guides off the shelves to do some number crunching and comparisons. It was time to find out once and for all if my woes were a result of nostalgia for a game I'd once played for so many hours or if Battlefield 3 truly just didn't live up to the size of its prequel. I started with the statistics for the number of vehicles on each map. Please note that for both games, I took into account literally every vehicle that could possibly exist - even the ones that only spawned if a particular faction occupied a control point.

    ---------------------------------------------------
    BATTLEFIELD 2 - Number of Vehicles

    Dalian Plant: 35
    Daqing Oilfields: 51
    Dragon Valley: 50
    FuShe Pass: 58
    Songhua Stalemate: 42
    Gulf of Oman: 30
    Kubra Dam: 37
    Mashtuur City: 14
    Clean Sweep: 54
    Sharqi Peninsula: 19
    Strike at Karkand: 13
    Zatar Wetlands: 42

    MINIMUM: 13
    MAXIMUM: 58
    AVERAGE: 37
    ---------------------------------------------------
    BATTLEFIELD 3 - Number of Vehicles

    Caspian Border: 28
    Damavand Peak: 10
    Grand Bazaar: 6
    Kharg Island: 26
    Noshahr Canals: 25
    Operation Firestorm: 22
    Operation Metro: 0
    Seine Crossing: 4
    Tehran Highway: 10

    MINIMUM: 0
    MAXIMUM: 28
    AVERAGE: 14.5
    ---------------------------------------------------

    The first thing that stood out to me was the maximum number of vehicles you could possibly have on one map in Battlefield 2 in comparison to 3. The difference is absolutely staggering. In Battlefield 2's FuShe Pass, there are nearly 60 vehicles to drive or ride in! Obviously, all 58 of these vehicles won't exist at once because some only spawn if a control point is owned by a particular faction, but it's still an insanely high number. When you factor in the 64-player limit, this means that nearly every player on each team can have a vehicle to himself. Battlefield 3's answer, Caspian Border, features a measly 28 vehicles. That's literally fewer than half the players on a team in a full 64-man server. Intrigued by the stark comparisons with vehicles alone, I decided to do even more number crunching. This time, I went back and took note of how many capturable flags each game's maps had. Keep in mind that I did not count any uncapturable flags or bases for both games.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    BATTLEFIELD 2 - Number of Capturable Flags

    Dalian Plant: 6
    Daqing Oilfields: 7
    Dragon Valley: 10
    FuShe Pass: 8
    Songhua Stalemate: 8
    Gulf of Oman: 7
    Kubra Dam: 8
    Mashtuur City: 7
    Clean Sweep: 7
    Sharqi Peninsula: 6
    Strike at Karkand: 8
    Zatar Wetlands: 7

    MINIMUM: 6
    MAXIMUM: 10
    AVERAGE: 7.4
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    BATTLEFIELD 3 - Number of Capturable Flags

    Caspian Border: 5
    Damavand Peak: 5
    Grand Bazaar: 5
    Kharg Island: 5
    Noshahr Canals: 5
    Operation Firestorm: 5
    Operation Metro: 3
    Seine Crossing: 5
    Tehran Highway: 4

    MINIMUM: 3
    MAXIMUM: 5
    AVERAGE: 4.7
    ---------------------------------------------------------------

    Although these results weren't quite as shocking as those that came before, at this point it was clear to me that my feelings were not just fueled by nostalgia. Even taking into account the number of capturable flags, Battlefield 3 simply falls short in comparison to 2. It is here that I'll make my conclusion. As much as I enjoy Battlefield 3, I feel that DICE is still stuck in what I like to call "Bad Company" mode and is struggling to reproduce the same gigantic maps and experiences we once had. I don't know if it's a matter of being limited by the technology or catering to consoles, but I do know one thing: It's very disappointing to me that even the big, bad Battlefield 3 can't get us away from small-scale stuff when Battlefield has always been about huge maps with tons of vehicles and plenty capturable flags. One of DICE's employees made a statement earlier this year that Battlefield 3 features the "largest maps" they've ever created. I think these numbers speak for themselves and show just how misleading that statement really is. If these maps are the largest they've ever done, why are the average numbers of vehicles so down from Battlefield 2? And why are there nearly three fewer capturable flags on average in Battlefield 3, even with the flags clustered so closely together now?

    That being said, I hope that you enjoyed these comparisons and found them as interesting and shocking as I did. I also hope that this will open some eyes and perhaps lead the way for bigger, better Battlefield maps in the future - not just for Battlefield 3, but also its inevitable sequels. DICE is improving, there's no doubt about it, but Battlefield as we know it is far from what it used to be.
    Battlefield Samurai 'Banzaaaiii!!!

  • #2
    Re: BF2 vs. BF3 - By The Numbers

    Put into this type of perspective it's quite obvious the maps are smaller, the design is geared towards more infantry fighting and the entire feel of the game is geared towards intense fire fights over epic vehicle battles over large terrain. We all know why this happened and it has to do with the PC lesser cousin sitting in the living room.
    .
    "Young gamers assault while Older gamers flank."
    "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: BF2 vs. BF3 - By The Numbers

      The game was made for the lowest common denominator. Everyone else suffers.

      3) Support game play in a near-simulation environment. Where the focus of play would not be solely on doing what it takes to win, but doing so utilizing real-world combat strategy and tactics rather than leveraging exploits provided to players by the design of the game engine.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: BF2 vs. BF3 - By The Numbers

        I find that kind of funny personally. The sheer number of vehicles in BF2 is one of the things I disliked about the game. I literally almost laughed out loud when the guy says "nearly everyone on the server could have a vehicle" for two reasons. 1: it wasn't even true by his own math, when those vehicles couldn't all exist at once. And 2: how on earth is that a good thing? If I wanted to play World of Tanks with jeeps added in then I'd play World of Tanks. If everyone was in a vehicle I'd be off playing some other game.
        TG-3rd Special Forces is Active and Currenly Recruiting!





        Comment


        • #5
          Re: BF2 vs. BF3 - By The Numbers

          Here is a number,

          BF2 is six years old.

          BF3 is now.
          sigpic

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: BF2 vs. BF3 - By The Numbers

            I just thought it was interesting to see the difference. The only stat he did not provide was flag distances and such but that is hard to compare when all things are not equal in scale, speed, and terrain. For example the players are much faster on foot than in previous games which IMO makes the map size issue stick out more.
            Battlefield Samurai 'Banzaaaiii!!!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: BF2 vs. BF3 - By The Numbers

              nice write up. For me less vehicles is better:)

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: BF2 vs. BF3 - By The Numbers

                For me the difference in battle styles was what drew me into battlefield 2 or at least later Point Of Existence 2. Sometimes I wanted a very long map for being an F-35 or cobra pilot (Dragon Valley)..... other times I wanted a small wooded or city map for infantry fighting in a squad(strike at Karkand or POE2 Blackhawk down map)... finally sometimes I wanted to be a tanker on a giant armored field (POE2 matador) That was it's lure. Different size maps for different play styles. That has been lost and this game suffers for it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: BF2 vs. BF3 - By The Numbers

                  Less vehicles, I can understand being desirable at times.

                  However, I feel like most of BF3's maps need a couple more capture points, and a little more space. There are far, far too many choke points, even in conquest mode... and too many of the already few flags that can be captured by people spawning at another flag only 120 meters away (think of forest and hilltop on caspian border). This is okay if you have 10 capture points (literally, Dragon Valley BF2, 10 capture points) to have two points within 100 meters or so, but when there are only 5? You start seeing some pretty nasty spawn-die and spawn-cap situations.

                  More flags can seriously help to thin out the battle on a 64 player map. 5 flags, and we're averaging like 12 people per flag. That density is not always fun. This is why the designers of Battlefield 2 placed more flags. It allows for more strategic play. If you can't overcome the equipment brought to one flag, go to another. Many times in BF3, going to another flag is so close by that the same helicopter can guard both, and you're in danger of the same sniper at more than half the flags on a map.

                  More flags also means more than likely less chokepoints, and rush and conquest both are filled with too many chokepoints.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: BF2 vs. BF3 - By The Numbers

                    BF3 gameplay faster, younger, easier. I think I too old to play video games ...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: BF2 vs. BF3 - By The Numbers

                      Welcome to TG Judge and Quake. Join us on TS if you haven't already. Effective squad comms with TG players makes a world of difference.

                      Cheers.
                      sigpic
                      |TG-1st|Grunt
                      ARMA Admin (retired)
                      Pathfinder-Spartan 5

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: BF2 vs. BF3 - By The Numbers

                        I really think 5 flags is the the sweet spot when done right. By the numbers that is 1 six man squad per team per flag. The issue with "BF3" is the spacing and flow between flags mixed with the linear layout.
                        Battlefield Samurai 'Banzaaaiii!!!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: BF2 vs. BF3 - By The Numbers

                          Originally posted by burble
                          apparently my post was deleted, because pointing out the stupidity of a statement is against the rules.

                          i'll reiterate: that's stupid.

                          'well, this is the game they released, so i guess i have to play it....'
                          Feelings.

                          Hurt.

                          One may argue against the logic of a statement, but such diminutive comments are hardly necessary.
                          sigpic

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: BF2 vs. BF3 - By The Numbers

                            Originally posted by Tempus View Post
                            The game was made for the lowest common denominator. Everyone else suffers.
                            I disagree with this completely. This game is still an incredible tactical shooter that requires communication and strategy in order to be successful. Just because it does not include all of things we loved about BF2 does not mean it was made for the lowest common denominator.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: BF2 vs. BF3 - By The Numbers

                              Originally posted by burble
                              apparently my post was deleted, because pointing out the stupidity of a statement is against the rules.

                              i'll reiterate: that's stupid.

                              'well, this is the game they released, so i guess i have to play it....'
                              How about we aim for some constructive criticism here instead of insults?

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X