<Electric-Spock> wrote on Sep 21, 2016, 00:30:

Slick wrote on Sep 20, 2016, 22:36:

thecakeisalie wrote on Sep 20, 2016, 22:24:

RaZ0r! wrote on Sep 20, 2016, 20:34:
Nothing has matched Rush in Bad Company 2 to date for me. BF3 and BF4 both had it but it just wasn't the same and I'm not really sure why.

Bad Company 2 was, by far, my favorite Battlefield. You earned everything. There was no "I'm too lazy to just play the game" cash shop and no obnoxious "Season Pass" bullshit. I couldn't get into BF3 and I gave BF4 a miss completely.

Loving something like a grown up requires recognizing what was good and bad about them. No prone-ing, no strafing while sprinting, servers capped at 32 players, there was a lot that the Bad Company series left to be desired if you're being honest.

And furthermore, do you actually know a single human being who's actually purchased a weapons upgrade pack? I don't. And If I did I wouldn't hate them for it, just feel bad for them that they obviously don't have enough time to enjoy unlocking things as per normal. Either way, it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the game one bit.

And BC2 kinda sucked because it only had one DLC, it was a GREAT one however, but only 4 maps. I had a lot of love for BC2, and would have wished that they'd support it with additional content. After BC2 Vietnam got stale, there was a void in my FPS playtime that wasn't really being filled with anything.

Supporting a game with extra content isn't a bad thing, I know this is a crazy notion. It's giving the people who love the game more stuff to love. And if you don't love the game, then you're not missing out. How is there still a discussion about this? People act like the 3-4 times that console games included DLC on the vanilla game-disc is the norm, and that any additional maps were just "cut" from the vanilla game. It's a strawman argument. Expansion packs have been around for literally decades.

Loving something like a grown up? Ease up Dr. Phil...

Many of us grown ups here grew up with the battlefield series. However, there are plenty of gamers out there that feel battlefield didn't grow up with them and they site BC2 as the last official offering.

BC and BC2 helped the frostbite engine enter the game. I would imagine hardware and their engine optimizations at the time would have made it more difficult to do a full blown large scale BF, so they made a small and tight game. What they did right is focus on gameplay and they nailed it, it was fun. This was the last game where DICE pretty much had full control of their game.

Next, EA has fully bought out DICE and controls the next development cycle. Since then, many of us feel the series has taken too much of a casual approach.

A solution for this would be mod tools. How about BF 2 mechanics, with maps being 2-3 times larger in scale and 100 people? How about a Project Reality HD remake? So much potential with the Frostbite engine, so little explored.

Mod tools would ensure every man and child had their respective gaming needs met.

So the total spin-off series was the "last official offering"?

-no commander
-4 man squads
-servers capped at 32
-conquest was an afterthought
-no prone-ing
-no jets
-no parachutes
-reviving "brought back in BC2" after being absent in BC1

Nothing about that sounds like an "official" battlefield offering, if you compare it to BF1942, BF2, 2142, BF3 and BF4. Also, frankly, it all sounds WAY more casual.

I'm not saying they weren't fun, they were great fun, but if you're saying that the game that brought us the Gustav wasn't casual, and BF3 and BF4 with their standard BF features like commanders, 64-man servers, conquest as a focus, jets, parachutes, prone, bigger squads, and reviving IS casual? Then I don't think that even Dr. Phil could help you.