bfbc2 update - vietnam

Battlefield is Battlefield. The monikers they add after the colon don't matter to me.

Yeah sure, Vietnam wasn't my favorite either, but at least we were able to play the game competitively; ladders and leagues were very active right up until BF2 came out... and then we started all over again.

With BC2 we don't have that. Not because we don't want to compete, but because of what EA/Dice did to the game, and their utter refusal to cater to the competitive community even in the slightest ways... demo recorder anyone?

Simple stuff like that would have gone a long way to help the larger community as well... but... again, that rat's ass thing rears its head. Clans started dropping this game a long long time ago. That's pathetic for a multiplayer franchise as strong as Battlefield.

Try changing your system date to the 18th

If it works, I'll be blown away, but worth a shot lol.

mickey megabyte said:

Fumz said:

Battlefield is Battlefield. The monikers they add after the colon don't matter to me.

really don't agree with this statement. using the name 'battlefield' is just a marketing ploy - this bc2 is nothing like bf2. by your logic, are you saying that windows phone 7 is windows 95? you have to look at the whole name, not just focus on the first word you see.

personally i don't see bc2 as the successor to bf2 at all - that will be bf3, i do believe. i think of it more as a sort of stepping-stone between bf2 and bf3 - test and iron out frostbite engine (and other things) for the pc before they release the BIG game that i hope bf3 will be.

so it is not surprising that bc2 < bf2 in a lot of respects - it's a totally different game -they only called it battlefield for marketing/branding purposes.

i know it's kool to slag off ea/dice - but bear in mind that they are two different companies, with different agendas. also remember that dice released patch 1.5 for bf2 years after it was making any money in the shops. it was late, and it wasn't perfect (what is?), but my point is that they didn't have to do it at all. how does that compare to your rat's ass?

Whether or not you agree with the statement is irrelevant. To me, Battlefield is Battlefield. Agree, disagree; it doesn't change how I feel about the series.

I'm not really going to get into your take on my logic because I'm not comparing a video game to something that is not a video game. Suffice it to say your iPhone/OS analogy is a non sequitur. A more appropriate analogy would have been Win ME to Win 7. If you had, we could have then debated whether ME was a real OS or not; whether it was a natural successor to 98 or 2k, and we might have agreed that it wasn't (a real os that it).

Whether or not the term Battlefield is just marketing is debatable. I disagree. DICE has just made another in a series... a series I might add that began before BF2... and, in my opinion, BF2 wasn't their best effort either. That honor goes to the original, 1942.

That they, DICE, decided to also market the series to a burgeoning console market doesn't change the core of the game, or the series; it's still a big vehicle centric war game... that's how it differs from CoD and Red Orchestra. Maps are still open, unlike CoD and RO, where gameplay is dicated by predetermined paths... which make me feel trapped, like a rat in a maze.

It's your opinion that BC2 is "a stepping stone to iron out Frostbite"... that's fine by me. It's my opinion that we're dealing with Frostbite because on the console Frostbite works (it was developed for the console) and consoles are where the money is at. Like it or not, we're forever stuck with it... the rat's ass thing comes in because no matter what, from here on out all our PC titles will be crap console ports. There is no way they're ever going to get Frostbite to play well with the PC, and this is something both DICE and EA have known for a long time.

Given the realities of the gaming world, any DICE created Battlefield title is just that: another in the series. Whether we can play it on the PC or the console is irrelevant: it's still a Battlefield game as long as it has some aspects of the original... and to date, they all do, from 42 to Vietnam to BF2, to Bad Company to 2142 to BC2 to BF3... and whatever they happen to push out after that with the name Battlefield.

I'm fully aware that DICE and EA are two different companies... But that doesn't mean the parent company doesn't exert influence over the child company. EA owns DICE.

Yes, DICE and EA have been getting a lot of flack lately, but given events, they've brought it all on themselves. True, they didn't have to patch BF2 with 1.5, but since they weren't putting any energy into a PC game, someone with a really nice suit who spends his day counting money probably thought it might be a good idea.

The day a Battlefield game comes out that doesn't have vehicles and that doesn't let you go anywhere you want on the map... that's the day I'll agree that Battlefield isn't Battlefield.

mickey megabyte said:

your argument seemed to be 'something that shares the same first name as something else is that something else'. maybe i misunderstood you, but there it is.

I wasn't making an argument, I was simply giving you my opinion as to which of the games I considered part of the series. To me, all Battlefield games are just a continuation of the series.... not in an uber-geeky, let's dissect the story line and study the sub plots way... but in a, "oh yeah i get to kill b!tches!!!" type of way. I know it might seem like I've devoted some mental energy to this, but really... not much.

I feel the same way about the Call of Duty series. I don't care if it's 1,2, Modern Warfare or World at War... to me, they're all Call of Duty. Of course they're all a bit different, if they weren't, we wouldn't bother buying them.

mickey megabyte said:

... any software with the same first name as another, does not make it the same thing at all. it shows that they are made by the same company. i was trying to show that they are not necessarily upgrades neither are they the next in the series.

if bc2 is meant to be bf3, then they would have called it bf3. they didn't call it bf3 because it isn't - it's a different game - call it a sub-franchise if you will.

The hairs you're splitting are getting thinner and thinner. You must eat many carrots... however, you now seem to object to the word "series" itself. Let's face it, none of the games are a continuation, so by your logic, we can't label any of the games part of a series. No two games were anything alike, no two shared a name and no one game was a continuation of another... right. Details and devils.

mickey megabyte said:

... you seem to be complaining that bc2 hasn't got things that bf2 had. windows phone 7 hasn't got things that 95 had - even though they have surface similarities, they are different products, both branded with the successful windows name.

huh? Where am I complaining BC2 doesn't have things BF2 had?

mickey megabyte said:

... maybe i could have chosen a smarter analogy, but it was the best i could think of at the time. - maybe it's better to think of photoshop and photoshop essentials, or outlook and outlook express. slagging off essentials becasue it doesn't have all the features of daddy-photoshop would be silly. so would saying 'photoshop is photoshop, the monikers they add don't matter.' the monikers do matter.

the devil is in the detail.

Not only is it just my opinion, but it also has nothing to do with my point... please let it go. My "beef" was about BC2's lack of a competitive community... ie, the game doesn't have the legs the other titles in the (gasp) series had.