Battlefield 3?

[montypython]

I just want someone to do justice to FPS multi-player campaigns instead of the same-old deathmatch plays et al.

[Ryan Thunder]

I think they should do a Battlefield 2242, myself. But hey, that's just me.

Or even better, Battlefield 1842.

[ray245]

How can you say modern combat games are stale when there's a dearth of WW2 first person shooters (not even counting strategy games here)? I think Call of Duty 4 is a breath of fresh air for FPS games and that another Battlefield game in WW2 is only interesting in as far it's capturing points instead of being a one man army.

If you're pointing out "booster packs" or whatever for Battlefield 2, well 1942 had two as well. Oh and then the mod for Battlefield: Vietnam (except nobody likes to talk about the forgotten sequel).

Oh please...tell me there are how many GOOD pacific front FPS? Other than battlefield 1942.

And I mean FPS...

Didn't Medal of Honour have one?

I mean a good one..pacific assault isn't. I never liked the MoH series anyway..prefer the call of duty series.

[Commander 598]

Well, if you're waiting for the FH2 mod why would you bother to want another horrendously inaccurate 1942?

Erhm, maybe because I liked BF1942's hokey action movie WW2 gameplay too?

When a single Sherman can outlast multiple German tanks, including a Tiger, while attacking from the front, while the US GI's, armed with Lee Enfields, charge to victory, it goes WAAAAAAAAY beyond "hokey" and straight into "WTF Land". (See also: Lack of Nagant and Ppsh for Russians, ships that require so much firepower to sink that it's a complete waste of time that will lose you a game to bother trying, and Japanese tanks that were so horrible the underarmored Shermans were photographed carrying them like battle trophys.)

Now, despite the massive inaccuracies that you could drive a carrier battle group through, I kind of liked it, when I was able to overlook them that is.

Since then I've moved to Red Orchestra. Technical accuracy and big maps FTW!

[chitoryu12]

ships that require so much firepower to sink that it's a complete waste of time that will lose you a game to bother trying,

When was the last time you tried? I play Midway often and sinking battleships and even carriers is a common occurance. If a destroyer sneaks up on a battleship, it will sometimes take less than a minute to sink the battleship if the destroyer is quick on the draw and stays out of the guns' view.

If the battleship wins? The destroyer is sunk in seconds.

[CaptHawkeye]

Since then I've moved to Red Orchestra. Technical accuracy and big maps FTW!

Careful with that "Technical Accuracy" thing when talking about RO. Tank combat is pretty arcady in that game. The mod also makes the player take into account things he actually shouldn't have to care about. For instance, the placement of your bullets in your gunsight will actually change as the weapon fires since the magazine is depleting and hence changing the weapon's center of gravity. But the devs seem to have forgotten one critical aspect of this, i'm not actually holding the fucking gun. In World War 2, a soldier would be so used to the gun's weight change he would subconsiously compensate for it anyway. But since we aren't actually holding the weapon, we can't do that.

That's something that tends to anger me about realism oriented games, they often tend to take into account factors that a person can affect and control in real life, but they disregard the difficulty of controlling them through a mouse and computer screen. Games which claim to be very realistic often end up unrealistic.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

When a single Sherman can outlast multiple German tanks, including a Tiger, while attacking from the front, while the US GI's, armed with Lee Enfields, charge to victory, it goes WAAAAAAAAY beyond "hokey" and straight into "WTF Land". (See also: Lack of Nagant and Ppsh for Russians, ships that require so much firepower to sink that it's a complete waste of time that will lose you a game to bother trying, and Japanese tanks that were so horrible the underarmored Shermans were photographed carrying them like battle trophys.)

Now, despite the massive inaccuracies that you could drive a carrier battle group through, I kind of liked it, when I was able to overlook them that is.

Since then I've moved to Red Orchestra. Technical accuracy and big maps FTW!

While yes, the original BF1942 was pretty... um, well, like you said, I really don't think that would be an issue in any theoretical follow up. BF:Vietnam and even BF2 did a complete 180 there. Everyone had the proper equipment which all behaved reasonably believably while still being arcadey. I suspect a "BF1943" (lolz get it) would iron out most of those issues and you'd see a reasonably sane spread of Garands, Thompsons, grease guns, Springfields, BARs, carbines, and so on.

As for things like ships taking too much damage... well, we're talking about a game where a tank can be repaired by a few seconds of using a wrench on it.

[Commander 598]

...even BF2 did a complete 180 there...

Not so sure about that...even though I only played the demo of that one I do recall T72s eating Abrams and I believe I heard something about the Barret M99 having absolutely pathetic damage for a weapon that fires bullets the size of your hand.

It certainly can't be as bad as 42 was, but that is more of a factor of the world than DICE doing a better job. This time the opposition actually is armed completely with same hardware 99% of the time and most everything has pretty minimal performance difference when compared to it's closest counterpart on the "other" side.

As for things like ships taking too much damage... well, we're talking about a game where a tank can be repaired by a few seconds of using a wrench on it.

As they currently are/were they only serve the purpose of a semi-mobile spawn point that may spawn aircraft and has some decent supressive abilities, unless there's a wall in the way. Beyond that they're kind of ignorable considering that it would possibly take the entire round to actually sink one. The worst that could happen is you have set back your takeoff for a minute while the planes respawn or it actually sinks, in which case see above for too short of a spawn point for giant hulking battleship.

When was the last time you tried? I play Midway often and sinking battleships and even carriers is a common occurance. If a destroyer sneaks up on a battleship, it will sometimes take less than a minute to sink the battleship if the destroyer is quick on the draw and stays out of the guns' view.

If the battleship wins? The destroyer is sunk in seconds.

Really? While I never actually played MP due to my lack of anything better than 56k at the time, I never recall seeing damage effects like that even while dicking around on the big MP fleet maps by myself.

Careful with that "Technical Accuracy" thing when talking about RO. Tank combat is pretty arcady in that game. The mod also makes the player take into account things he actually shouldn't have to care about. For instance, the placement of your bullets in your gunsight will actually change as the weapon fires since the magazine is depleting and hence changing the weapon's center of gravity. But the devs seem to have forgotten one critical aspect of this, i'm not actually holding the fucking gun. In World War 2, a soldier would be so used to the gun's weight change he would subconsiously compensate for it anyway. But since we aren't actually holding the weapon, we can't do that.

I'm not totally sure what you're talking regarding weapon center of gravity and all that... If you mean the general recoil, you have to realize that there are just some weapons that aren't all that controllable beyond short bursts, and that still doesn't seem to affect some people's ability to use them...as I have unhappily discovered upon entering many a room...

As for tanks being "arcady", having [presumably] accurate "bullet drop" and shells that bounce off based on penetration algorithms generally makes things somewhat unarcady.

Edit: Quote tags.

[Stark]

Careful with that "Technical Accuracy" thing when talking about RO. Tank combat is pretty arcady in that game. The mod also makes the player take into account things he actually shouldn't have to care about. For instance, the placement of your bullets in your gunsight will actually change as the weapon fires since the magazine is depleting and hence changing the weapon's center of gravity. But the devs seem to have forgotten one critical aspect of this, i'm not actually holding the fucking gun. In World War 2, a soldier would be so used to the gun's weight change he would subconsiously compensate for it anyway. But since we aren't actually holding the weapon, we can't do that.

That's something that tends to anger me about realism oriented games, they often tend to take into account factors that a person can affect and control in real life, but they disregard the difficulty of controlling them through a mouse and computer screen. Games which claim to be very realistic often end up unrealistic.

When INF was being made in the late 90s, there was a lot of debate about this sort of thing. Many people (usually those who were familiar with firearms) wanted a game where the avatar did the things a skilled shooter would do, whereas the nerdy guys wanted a 'soldier simulator', making the player look after all these trivial things that would be second nature to a skilled shooter.

Then again, INF was much more organically 'realistic' than RO. Fun, though. Needs UT3 INF.

[CaptHawkeye]

I'm not totally sure what you're talking regarding weapon center of gravity and all that... If you mean the general recoil, you have to realize that there are just some weapons that aren't all that controllable beyond short bursts, and that still doesn't seem to affect some people's ability to use them...as I have unhappily discovered upon entering many a room...

Nope, that's not it. It's mentioned somewhere in the RO forums and Shep mentioned it in a topic a few months ago.

It's also mentioned somewhere in the official forums, but I can't find the topic right now.

As for tanks being "arcady", having [presumably] accurate "bullet drop" and shells that bounce off based on penetration algorithms generally makes things somewhat unarcady.

Edit: Quote tags.

The game also depicts the tanks shells flying at speeds much slower than they would in real life. It also arms the player with "AP" and "HE" shells alone. Even though most tanks also came with an assortment of tungsten core and HEAT rounds. And worst of all, it forces crewing.

"But zomg Hawkeye real WW2 tanks were crewed!" Yeah, but real WW2 tank crews also had the benefit of training together. By the end of their training a good tank crew would know their trade so well they would essentially act as a single entity. This simply cannot be done over the internet with two people who have never met eachother. And one manning a multi crew tank is a pain because you have to switch positions and break your concentration to do anything. This is why I favor one man tanks like Forgotten Hope has. By making some concessions over realism, FH is actually MORE realistic than RO in some ways.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

"But zomg Hawkeye real WW2 tanks were crewed!" Yeah, but real WW2 tank crews also had the benefit of training together. By the end of their training a good tank crew would know their trade so well they would essentially act as a single entity. This simply cannot be done over the internet with two people who have never met eachother. And one manning a multi crew tank is a pain because you have to switch positions and break your concentration to do anything. This is why I favor one man tanks like Forgotten Hope has. By making some concessions over realism, FH is actually MORE realistic than RO in some ways.

Not to get too off topic, but you know, I'd never actually considered that before and now that you mention it I think you're right. It immediately brought to mind an incident in PR several months ago. We were playing Ejod Desert and our squad was an Abrams and three infantrymen. I was driving and the gunner had command of the tank, and we were trying to move the squad from one side of the city to the other, essentially (whose bright idea it was to maneuver an Abrams through cramped urban terrain, I don't remember). A sniper and various infantry elements kept our infantry pinned down while sporadic AT fire kept us in the tank back, but definitely in view of the sniper as our AA machine-gunner got plinked in short order.

That left myself and the gunner. Cue about 20-30 seconds of frantic, stressed VOIP chatter as we tried to maneuver hopelessly and elevate the main gun enough to locate and kill the sniper, after which the crazy bastard ordered me to leave the driver seat and get on the AA MG (I play(ed) on a server that enforces the chain of command). I protested at first, knowing it was a completely stupid idea in every possible way, instead trying to maneuver the tank so as not to die from infantry AT, but the guy kept demanding over VOIP that I switch, so eventually I did. Sure enough, before I could even move my hand from the function keys back to the arrow keys, I was dead.

I think it's a perfect example of the issues with multiplayer tank crews, even with VOIP. And it's not as if the squad was made up of random pub-tards either, it was a dedicated Tactical Gamer squad (IIRC, though it may have just been a VOIP squad, though those boast high teamwork as well).