Is Battlefield 3 better than Battlefield 2?

I know it the best shooting game currently but it still does not have that same feeling to me as when I first heard about Battlefield 2. I'm still as hell that it made it way onto the console.

Battlefield 2, Vietnam, and 1942 made my Jaw drop and I waited anxiously until those games came out.

Battlefield 3 on the other hand did not have the same effect.

Battlefield 3 seem like a console version of BF2 where there are one less faction, less vehicles (only 2 tanks), three less classes, and less map.

The graphics are great, but I felt that in general that BF2 maps were better design, and some of the train cart and other stuff that I didn't like was carry over from Bad Company 2, which was one of the worst shooting game I have ever play.

For those who consider themselves a Battlefield veteran and have played all the past series of this franchise, would you recommend BF3, and what were things you like about it and didn't like about it? Also feel free to share your experiences as well.

Thanks

 

I haven't tried the final product (very busy at the moment) for BF3 but based on playing the Beta, I felt like it was too CoD/BC2-ish is game play. I really think the mechanics enacted in BF2 were better for this kind of FPS gameplay.

So I guess I will agree with you that BF2 is still better in feel of play than BF3 will ever be. However, no one plays BF2 anymore so...

 

The beta was CoDish because Operation Metro is the worst Battlefield map they could have picked for an open beta.

 

BF3 does not feel like BF2, it definitely feels like it's BFBC3. Plus all the bugs, glitches, lagging, rubberbanding. It's atrocious.

 

I think BF3 today is basically too buggy to even valuate. I imagine my impressions will change for the better over the next several weeks as bugs get worked out.

There is a little hint of magic in BF3, but the bugs are ruining the experience for a lot of people.

Something about BF3 feels spot on. It's the movement, environment interaction, and the gunplay. The rubber banding does not help. Not all servers have it, but there are definitely some serious issues on EA's end.

 

Playing retail version tonight.

Played the 64 player map with all the vehicles in beta (caspain?) and there was definitely that old school battlefield 2 feeling.

Was bordering on canceling my pre order up until that map opened up.

 

Not even close. BF2 had more factions, more weapons, and more vehicles types. It certainly made you feel the scale and involvement of the battle more than BF3.

 

Yes, it's a better game. It doesn't do certain things as well, as post #7 says. Everything came together in BF2, the sense of scale magnified by the commander role I think, it just felt a bit bigger.

But I love BF3, as a whole I really enjoy it. There are certain maps, canal I think it's called that feels good, others like Metro feel terrible and nothing like battlefield.

Definitely worth the buy.

Then I'm again I'm not an angry, bitter, cynical, lonely PC crusader who decries everything.

 

I guess I'll just wait for the Karkand expansion to come out with the old school favorites. Really looking forward to Wake Island. Will they introduce a new VTOL type aircraft other than F-35?

But yeah, I hope it all just "comes together" like BF2 did. I don't know though. BF2 was simply spectacular in every respect. It needed things *added* but very little in the way of bugs, and the ones it did have you learned to live with it as part of the game.

 

I managed to not have a gaming PC from the time BF2 came out all the way through the time BC2 game out, so I've never played the "original"

I thought the Karkand expansion was already out... if not then what did I pre-order for?

 

The hit detection and player movement in BF3 are better, but the maps from BF2 were far more superior.

So far, neither game is better than the other, but BF2 does do many things that BF3 doesn't, and so on.

 

While the engine and graphics are amazing in Battlefield 3, almost all the game features are either missing or lacking compared to Battlefield 2. To name a few:

• You can't make custom squads rather you're given a couple of prefabricated/arranged squads to jump into. This is troublesome for real team gameplay, because the squads have almost no value. You can't make a specific asset or clan squad and you can't choose who the squad leader is because random people are always occupying a squad. This is a huge downgrade from BF2 where you could make your own squads and decide who you want the squad leader to be.
  
  
• No true team play system. Basically there is no squad management screen giving the player an appropriate map or tools to issue orders. You're stuck aiming at large IN YOUR FACE icons for each objective displayed in your 3D HUD and abusing the Q button to give automatic orders to either attack or defend (depending on the status of the flag/objective). This is a true downgrade from BF2 where you had a big detailed map you could easily point and place specific orders of your choice anywhere on the map for all your squad-mates to see.
  
  
• Ow yea, you can't disable the 3D HUD using Alt, so you always have tons of large notifications in your face (promoting ADD?).
  
  
• You can now spawn on everybody in your squad (YAY!) which is again a step backwards against true squad play. In BF2 you only spawned on your squad leader which meant that you usually ended up being where he was. This made the squad leader more distinguishable lending him some responsibility to survive and manage the squad. Now people just spawn on one another much like any other spawn point and go around lone wolfing.
  
  
• Much like the Bad Company series the voice over IP is abandoned and useless. The present system of integration into Battlelog sucks and people are way too busy running around doing their own thing, specially since the game lacks many of BF2's team aspects to encourage communication.
  
  
• No commander which wouldn't be a big deal if they had a proper squad management system.
  
  
• All vehicles have unlimited ammo and automatically regenerate health. With the exception of burst and overheating, all the vehicles have unlimited ammo that never runs out which along with regenerative health leaves no reason to go back to base. This is absolutely STUPID and backwards as it also cripples team play. In BF2 the air vehicles had to go back to base, land on the helipad(for choppers) or land on the runway to rearm and resupply while teammates could also assist on the repair or hop on. This at least made it challenging for players to make a conscious choice and retreat back to base in an attempt to survive. Now you have to chase an enemy aircraft all around the map and shoot at it constantly hopping they wont automatically repair in the air. This also means that a good/lucky player could fly around the map for an unlimited time without risking a landing for repair or rearm purposes.
  
  
• The majority of map sizes are not appropriate for aircraft's as there are way too many threats in such a condensed battlefield to try avoid or engage without being taken out.

I'm sure there are a couple of more rants in regards to all the features that are missing in BF3 compared to BF2, but they don't come to mind at the moment nor do I care, cause this is no true sequel.

 

Hit detection better in BF3? lolwut? I've run an RPG straight through a friggin chopper hovering stationary and nary a hit. That's a wide berth for error.

Cheeseman +1! Glad to see another true vet of BF2 understands and is frustrated as well.

Is BF3 a bad game? No. But it's definitely more arcade than BF2 in many respects (most of which you've given) and is a step backwards. I mean really, build on BF2 as it stood, implement some elements from BFBC2 that worked better (I like how ammo and health packs work), and leave it at that.

Regenerative armor on vehicles is just plain dumb. This does not encourage teamwork either, and undermines the engineer's role. I hate when people take vehicles that aren't engineers or don't take an engineer with them. I understand if you have the chance to snag a tank in the heat of battle, do so, but don't take it if there's a half dozen engineers waiting to take one at the main base.

 

If BF2 had 3 way fights, that would have been something. Although there were 3 factions, all the matchups were set up for 2 teams, there were no 3 way fights, so it doesn't make a difference for me.

3 way battles (20 vs 20 vs 20) would be pretty amazing though.

As far as the weapons, BF3 has more any way you spin it, plus BF3 has an extensive customization system with weapon attachments. Even more importantly, the gun physics has had massive improvement, even over more recent BF titles.

Vehicle types, I don't think there are more in the original BF2. All together with all the expansions, MAYBE, but BF3 still has a lot of vehicles. More importantly, the vehicle PHYSICS has improved TREMENDOUSLY, even over recent titles like BC2.

I agree that the way the game is currently, you don't have a lot of VOIP opportunity. Solid VOIP would eliminate a lot of the teamplay problems. Saying "move on A" to give a general squad command is better than pulling a map or hitting Q with your crosshairs pointed at A. Everyone can also give very detailed information on the fly and work together with VOIP. There is a lot of *room* for that in the game. In other words, the mechanics of the game do seem to allow for a lot of teamplay, but with the squad system broken and limited VOIP options, it's a no go. Fortunately, these things are fixable. Hopefully, they will be fixed, and soon. In the meantime, hop on with your friends, set up VOIP, and hope everyone ends up being able to join the server and same squad. It's a pretty tall order to get that far. But, if you do, the game is great.

 

I agree with the regenerating vehicle armor...I thought someone was joking when they told me about it.

I can deal with regenerating health...but that's just too much.

Is it disabled in HC mode?

 

I bought it, I hope I don't regret it. We may never see another old school shooter fps like BF2 and Joint Ops and if you don't get BF3, then you won't have a shooting game on PC.

I blame everything on console. I too hate those popup on screen all the time, remind me more of ghost recon then battlefield 2.


Thanks for the input guys.

 

3 way battles? I think I said it the wrong way. Basically, there were more nations involved, and lots of conflicts around the world. So the map variety was splendid. I mean, BF3 just has one city setting and many desert settings.

I take back about what I said on the weapons, I forgot we aren't in a beta anymore.

IMO, the "booster packs" and SF expansion pack for BF2 didn't really add anything new that would give the game more stuff. I barely even played SF. Maybe not enough vehicles were available in BF3 compared to BF2, (everyone in one map could hop into a raft and start going from seas to rivers).

 

I miss maps like Zatar Wetlands and Kubra Dam for air combat. Zatar for the HUGE map so lots of opportunities for dogfights, and Kubra Dam for all the fun flight obstacles such as cranes, pipes, rebar, etc. Made it so that if you were able to get a decent amount of kills that you were truly worth your salt. Many lives were lost due to pilots not knowing the map as well as they thought.

I haven't had too much of a chance to fly jets, but is it just me or are they slow as all hell?

Regenerating armor is dumb. I hadn't noticed it until someone mentioned it to me. Why is there even an engineer class if the armor takes care of itself?

The squad system totally blows. Seriously, did they think that the PC, the LEAD platform for this game, would not benefit from a communications system similar to BF2?

 

I think map variety is important. The conflict nation choices aren't as important imo, I think we pretty much agree. I may be the dissenting opinion, but I have found all the BF3 maps to be very appealing so far.

Ah, yes. There is a special thing that happens in BF2 that doesn't in BF3. At the start of the map, everyone spawns on the carrier, etc. and you either hop in a raft and push towards land with a gunner in front, and you most likely passenger, or passenger on a transport chopper. The critical thing was, you often weren't the only vehicle on the journey. That's a special BF2 moment that hasn't been recaptured in this new game. Agreed.

 

Hah, no. It's not even better than BC2. Still enjoyable though and there's still room for improvement.

 

I think a lot of people are operating on the idea that BF2 was better than BC2, at least in some particular ways.

BF3 has some amazing graphics, and, more importantly, captures a very visceral and heavy feel. All the vehicles handle really solid. In all prior BF games up to and including BC2, the vehicle physics was really awkward.

The major things that need work are the easiest to work on, thankfully.

 

Well, at least tanks can actually go over obstacles and up hills, something you couldn't do in BF2!

 

I can't play online, help?

 

Try using a different browser.

Don't forget the set it to default browser.

 

Of course it's better.
Why else would people by hyping over it?

 

If you think it's "better" then please refer back to page 2 and read my list.

 

Requiring the use of Origin and a browser to access Battlelog automatically make it worse.

 

A newer game can never live up to the original(considering both the new and the original are good games). BF3 is in no way a bad game, probably the best multiplayer experience since CoD 4(the fast paced multiplayer and the unlocking system was good when it was new, now it is just irritating), UT3 etc... I was not a big fan of BC2. It was okay but not that good. Now I am not really a BF2 vet but i used to love that game but never put too many hours into it. During the time of BF2 people playing online multiplayer used to believe in a thing called teamwork, but due to recent games encouraging lone wolfing the trend is opposite nowadays. So that is not really the games fault, blame the community for that. Yes by having a few things differently it may have encouraged more teamwork but still i wont blame the whole no teamwork thing on the game. And the point is that most the people here today would rather play BF3 than BF2. Does not mean that BF3 is better but just that BF3 is currently the best shooter out there, is it exactly what BF2 fans wanted, no because if it would have been that not many people would buy it(just look at Counter Strike, each new game is exactly what fans want, but then again only fans buy it).
The market has changed considerably due to recent shooters and DICE had to design a game taking that into account, they did a great job in pleasing both newcomers and fans(that is what they had to do). Yes they could have done some things differently but lets just get on with it and play the game which we all know is pretty awesome and we are all gonna play no matter what.
tl;dr BF3 cant be exactly like BF2 but it is still a great game and def worth playing

 

BF3 is by no means as good as previous BF games. I never owned BF2 because by the time I had a good enough computer to play it BF2142 was out, so I got that (up until that time I had been playing BF1942). The most glaring issues with BF3 that CAN'T or WON'T be easily fixed are those with squads.

For PC, squads NEED to have 6 people in them for any sort of teamwork to happen. The past few weeks I went back to playing BF2142 a bit, and the amount of teamwork that arises from that squad system is so high above that in BF3 that it might be a different game. Squad leaders are actual leaders and can put down spawn beacons and give specific orders easily.

Squad leader only spawning is actually a server setting. However, most people don't even know that they are the squad leader so there is very little leadership actually going on. In BF2 and 2142 there was an entire robust squad menu that could be accessed easily at all times by pressing caps lock. If you clicked "create squad" you were the squad leader and could invite people into your squad, kick them out, lock the squad, or give it a custom name. You could also give orders from the map, which is what most squad leaders did. If DICE were TRULY developing BF3 for PC first, then they would have kept this robust system. As they were actually developing the game for consoles, the lowest common denominator, they took out most of the squad features and made squads basically just a way to spawn on random teammates as they were in BC2.

If they truly wanted this to be a sequel to BF2 and not BC2 then they should not have made the squad system EXACTLY like in BC2, only more confusing. Instead of only populated squads showing up ALL of them do, and joining a squad can be quite confusing (forget about figuring out if you are the squad leader or not).

The other BIG issue with the game is the maps. They were clearly NOT designed for 64 player conquest. The small maps are way too small (seine crossing I'm looking at you) while others are laughably linear (damavand peak) and result in the EXACT SAME standoff in the middle every single time. Canals, kharg island, and Operation Firestorm are the only Battlefieldesque maps, but Firestorm is not that big (in terms of playable area) and is a complete joke compared to something like Highway Tampa, which was around the same size but had points scattered all over the map.

If DICE added a few more features to the squad menu and made some REAL conquest maps, the game would be pretty good. Or, they could give us MOD TOOLS or a MAP EDITOR so WE could make them ourselves; I completely trust that the community would come out with some excellent conquest maps for BF3.

Also the vehicles are not really powerful enough; in a tank versus infantry battle the infantry almost always wins if he has ANY sort of AT weapons or explosives; the disabling is neat but makes tanks pretty useless and completely unrealistic. The main cannon also needs to be more powerful.

 

It's weird on my system, the game status for game loading is kinda borked than it was in beta. It likes to lie that I'm loaded and ready to play status but when it auto-load or manually clicking in. I'm still loading the level still. Oh well.


It's a shame, I couldn't use the disks to install. Some reason they didn't work so I had to waste 10 mins to download and install.

 

Battlefield 2 > The newer BF games.

BF2 did have it share of issues but at the end of the day Battlefield is about huge multiplayer and good teamwork.
I mean support dudes in BF3 doesent even bother to even trow you a ammo bag. D;

 

I won't quote everything you typed but I agree. But beyond just some squad menus, they need to make squads a mini-team, like BF2142 as you stated. Nobody plays team so far that I've found in bf3 other than to spawn. No squad VOIP is a complete joke. No squad commands is a complete joke too. What's the point of having a stupid squad!?

Plus a good friend of mine and I tried to join some games today and we created a party, but it never started us in the same squad even though the server was like 17 out of 32 full. There's no way to join a specific squad either which is dumb. You can choose "find squad" and it does it for you automagically and hope you get in the same squad. Dumb.

Yeah that is a huge pet peeve of mine too. I mean I'm standing right behind the guy, Q'ing him to death "Ammo!" "I need ammo!" "Throw me some ammo!" ... I even type to team "HEY {username} GIVE ME SOME AMMO!" ... he just stands there, duuuuh, then runs off.

 

Why default browser? Both Google Chrome and Internet Explorer don't work. What I do now? It just said match maxing on the dumb website, but nothing else happen.

 

I'm not sure what you mean, can you provide a screenshot?

You got couldn't connect cause the server is full?

Try set filter to 5+ empty slot and join servers that have a ping readout.
Avoid those who got - ping on list.

 

It work now.

Anyway just play it, it the biggest waste of $51 dollars ever. All of the cool mechanic and features of past BF games are missing. EA, and will never support such tool of a publisher ever again.

Sign (go to hell EA) and Console GAMER everywhere!!!!

 

I have about 1200 hours playtime in BF2. I was backup chopper pilot for the Swedish 12v12 "national" team, and spent so many hours playing that game.

I kind of like the cinematic action 'arcade' like style in Single Player. For me, SP is about impressions and awe. I like it when there's a good story to it (Not necessarily action packed clichéd, but still overall performance).

The things I don't like about BF3 multiplayer is how simplified everything got compared to BF2. There was this great feeling in BF2 when you had competent SL (Squad Leaders) and a good Commander. Especially when SL and COM worked together. Having spent about 230 hours as a commander, I can tell you it's a great feeling when you're working closely together with your SL's and seeing how the enemy tickets start ticking down.

Sadly I remember that it took a while (and lots of flame) before I kind of figured out how being a commander worked, since there wasn't any tutorial, but more through trial and error. Same thing with the Jets/Choppers, I started out crashing a lot trying to do maneuvers but after a while, you got this feel to it and could do more and more stuff.

I think it's sad that EA always try to speed up releases, and it's quite obvious that their targeting the younger kids (parents wallets) here because of all the simplifications. I feel the learning curve in BF3 is more about finding "good" spots while in BF2 it was more about "sticking to your squad and doing what you're told", which for me was the better overall BF experience; Working together for a common goal.

- Is BF3 overall a good game?
Yes (IMHO)

- Is it worth your money?
Yes (If you got a somewhat decent graphic card so you can enjoy all the gorgeous eye candy)

- Is BF3 better than BF2?
Depends, I think the great visuals are a big plus here. The "slow/heavy" jets and choppers kind of make it meh. Infantry fighting is awesome.

If BF3 had a commander (with extensive SP tutorial/training) and a more advanced Squad Leader options, then it would be the true successor to the BF2. I kind of think it's more of a Bad Company 3 hybrid.

My 2 cents.

 

^ I think thats the best post so far.

Im not a BF2 vet, (BC2 vet only @_@) and in bc2, I have had countless games where I had to solo the map (the game couldnt pair me with a squad) and so thus those games sucked major a$$.

I was so happy when I found that youll always have a squad to spawn with in BF3.

Yes I agree with that things can go better, maybe they'll introduce some big patches later. I mean come on, its only first couple days in the game and you guys act like someone insulted your mother.

Ive seen my brother play BF2 and I play BC2. It is more of a hybrid to which I think is to accomodate more CoD players as well.

I can only fall back on that argument to make sense of why DICE did whatever attrocity you guys think they did just so they can increase in sales and decimate MW3 while holding to some of the roots of BF2 and BC2.

my 2 cents.

 

Not the same games. BF3 is just BC2 with jets. Or as you said, it's a console game with jets. PC First? Nope it wasn't. The gameplay, UI, etc were all for consoles. And GFx technology is also for console so consoles can run the game with decent framerate.

BF3 is probably the most amusing "PC" game with PC gamers celebrating there is a PC first game. All I can say is, DICE/EA marketing is 2nd to none.

Personally I don't get why people got excited over BF3 when they already own BC2... And spent over a year complaining about how BC2 not a very good console port... I suppose the 2nd to none marketing really really worked.

 

BF3 is not BC2 with jets. Why are you so friggin negative all the time? We get it, you don't like multiplayer shooters. Congratulations.

 

Oh lawdy, now you done it.

-secures helmet and fastens seatbelt-

 

I played demo, looks okay. The released version should have a better experience in multiplayer mode.

 

The problem isn't even the bugs, I know (or expect/hope) the will get ironed out. But it's missing features that would be hard to add later, like the commander position.

 

Sadly, I think the odds of a Commander role being added in the future are slim to none. It would ruin more than it did good because of all the kids playing. You'll see fighting commanders, bad arty, stupid UAV etc.

They could fix to a certain degree that with having a mandatory commander tutorial and having to be rank 30 or something.

Still, console porting aside/BC3 with jets aside. It's not gonna change, I think for what it's worth it's still a good game, and well worth the money spent. It just wasn't what I expected, but that's another story.

If you don't like it, don't play it. Just don't knock on us who actually try to enjoy it.

 

I didn't see where anyone here was "knocking" on BF3 players. We all play it, just not satisfied with the outcome. Plus it's clear EA was lying when they said it was a "PC first" platform, seems for graphics only. As well as saying it would live up to the Battlefield 2 gameplay, which it is clearly lacking.

To be honest, I'd gladly pay $100 for a game developed independent of the console version to make it more unique to the PC and more "hard core", but alas that didn't happen.

 

Well said. Glad there are some players who still don't just accept the bare minimum efforts and can distinguish between a console and PC FPS game

Personally I think for people who love BF2, that game will be populated for a while still. And will remain popular. Maybe the modding community to bring that game up to snuff without compromising the gameplay.

 

I really think there are some great things with Bad Company 2 that they should have, and have, brought forward like destructible environments, ammo and med packs, gadgets... but they basically just added on to Bad Company 2 and took very little from BF2 which has a very astute following. BF2 is still going strong in the online community six years later even. The fact that the Comm-Rose was added at the last minute, and not even a useful Comm-Rose at that, is just one indication of its failings and lack of BF2 influence.

 

no commander shouldn't be a surprise. that was confirmed well before game launch. imo, it's not that big of a deal. Only 2 players can be commander, so even if you *loved* playing that role, you wouldn't get to do it very often. There are some logistical issues - primarily that it's very hard to get people to use the role correctly. Artillery strike functionality is still in the game, but more accessible via the recon class. Overall, I think it makes more sense for this type of game to omit the commander.

As far as PC vs. console, it's really hard for me to accept bashing the developers for not doing enough when the engine they made runs surprisingly well and looks better than any big multiplayer game today. I can't think of anything comparable that has the same level of detail in the environment, animation, vehicle physics, etc.

I can knock the devs for battlelog. The fact that exists at all, or at very minimum for the fact that battlelog is buggy at the moment. The game itself is pretty amazing.

I'd like to see some more integration related to the comma rose and the minimap. I'd like to see some fixes to the squad system. I'm really happy they fixed the spotting system. It's pretty awesome now.

 

Anyone who honestly believes BF3 graphics were designed for console's first and then PC is on crack or has not played both versions.

Even in beta it was obvious (at least graphically) BF3 was designed for PC first.

I downloaded and played both (side by side) and I the console version looked like utter shiat compared to the PC.

 

Maybe read the comments here. We all agree that graphics are superior to consoles, that's not the issue. The issue is with the gameplay elements.

And with Commander, sure there's only two, but make it an earned perk as someone else mentioned, like after level 30. Plus you can bounce in and out of role of commander so multiple people can take the role in the course of one round. In BF2 even though there was one commander, I took the role pretty frequently because nobody else was there. The opportunity is there, and it worked before without much complaint. I hear more people missing it than those that think it would be bad.

And you don't HAVE to play with a commander, but having one is an advantage for your team.

 

I did.
My post was in response to this one (my fault though I should have quoted to start with):