What is the latest game you have gotten?

[Vy'drach]

Eh, I much prefer BF3 to any other BF. I just can't handle it on my PC anymore. Building a new one this summer and I'll get back into it.

I refuse to play it on consoles.

But sure, everyone's entitled to their own opinion. It's fine that you like BC2 better.

Jets, more maps, better ranking/upgrading system, PRONE, etc, etc, so many things that BC2 didn't have are all in BF3 and it's so much fun.

…I just can't play it.

Although, there are some things I like better about BC2. The maps are… slightly more fun, but BF3's are fun too. Back to Karkand is full of awesome because… well, it's Back to KARKAND.

BC2's game map, interface, maps, and stability/compatibility, etc, are better, but BF3 just does so much more that it's okay.

Keep in mind there was a very intentional and important reason BC and BC2 didn't have prone. Call of Duty. Or rather, the problem Call of Duty had with prone, which would be it completely fucking the other person's aim up, and not because your hitbox was smaller, but because it would manually drag their aim into the ground. This led to a bunch of people that my group of friends calls the "CoD pussy diving bitches," though you could also just call them typical CoD players, in that they jump dive around corners because they know it will fuck over the aim of anyone that is there. I've seen plenty of people that will not go around corners without jump diving, and if they go down a hallway and someone steps out, their first and only reaction is to go prone, then they'll try and shoot them. That and prone has a tendency to fuck over the hitbox entirely in games, even without slamming the enemy's aim into the ground. That's why prone was left out of those games.

Then they put it back in, and the problems came back. It can screw over your aim, and the hitbox gets screwed in a game that already has poor hit detection, to the point where you can empty a clip into the back of someone's head while they aren't moving, and they'll turn around, kill you while you're reloading, and have 75% health left. And that's not an exaggeration or lag. 75% seems to be the magic number, and if you die to someone like that because of lag, when you get revived you'll find out you only fired four or so bullets, despite emptying the gun on your screen (P.S. the lag is another big problem in BF3, since they don't reset their servers). You get revived after death to hit detection, and your gun is still empty.

And of course, they completely forgot what guns are or how they work.

My biggest grievance, giving the AN-94 a lower fire rate on two-round burst than fully-automatic. If you're unaware, the two-round burst on the AN-94 has a cyclic rate of 1800 RPMs, while the full-auto mode (not counting the first two shots, which also fire 1800 RPMs), has a cyclic rate of 600 RPMs.

Then the frag rounds for the shotguns, which lets you 1-2 hit anyone with any shotgun, 3 hit if you don't actually directly hit them with it.

Giving the Mk11 MOD 0 sniper a higher fire rate than the other two, while keeping the same damage as the SVD and the M14 (M39), which is bullshit in two ways. One, they are semi-auto, give them the same fire rate or don't limit their fire rate. Second, the 7.62x54mmR is considerably more powerful than the 7.62x51mm NATO, with it being about as powerful as the .30-06 Springfield round.

From left to right, 7.62x54mmR, 7.62x51mm NATO, and 7.62x39mmR

May not be much difference in length, but the bulk of the brass is considerably wider than the 7.62x51mm NATO.

Know what, from here, I'm just gonna say all gun statistics in the game, with no thoughts on balancing them. M16A3 having no real recoil and some of the most damage per bullet of the assault rifles (but the G3 gets nerfed when the M16A3 can beat it easily in game), then the FAMAS comes along with it's higher damage and rate of fire, while having less recoil, being a rape-o-matic death machine.

Bipod mounted snipers are affected worse by suppression than one that isn't, despite being on a bipod should ideally remove any of the suppression effects except for blurred screen.

LMGs having significantly more recoil for the most part, despite their heavier weight actually serving to reduce it in real life (way to actually emulate this in a game, first few rounds are incredibly accurate, but the bullet spread gets worse as extended firing goes due to the weight of having to balance the weapon, as well as having to compensate for the recoil that is there, but it works the exact opposite for the belt fed LMGs, inaccurate at first, but tends to get more accurate as it fires, the M27 and RPK-74 work opposite of eachother as well, with the M27 having more recoil than the M416, but a bigger clip, and the RPK-74 has less recoil than the AK-74).

Shotguns. Fuck frag rounds, fix hit detection so slugs aren't entirely useless, and up the damage on the slugs a bit so it doesn't take three to the chest to kill someone. It is a solid piece of metal that is .729 inches across. It can hurt, a lot. Also remove it randomly shooting on the X axis, I've tried to snipe someone with the shotgun slugs only to notice that it randomly decides to what side the shell will travel (which it didn't do this in the beta, as my friend could actually consistently snipe people with the M1017 with slugs).

PDWs, the stats on these are pretty much just made up. Actually learn what they are capable of, EA/Dice. It's not hard.

Every pistol should not have NEAR the stopping power of the .45 ACP (which also shouldn't be affected by suppressors as the .45 ACP is already subsonic, but I digest). Especially not the ones with such ridiculously high magazine capacity or the fully automatic Glock 11s.

All of the Battlefields before had decent weapon stats, nice and balanced (maybe not at release, but they balanced things that needed nerfing, like the M60 and PP-2000 in BC2, buffed things that needed it a bit, like the MG3 in BC2). Balancing in BF3, nerf the things that need buffs or are fine the way they are, and leave the Jesus guns alone. Also, don't fix glitches/exploits or anything like that.

Weapons being unrealistic is fine when they're balanced, as the MG3 in BC2 has the lowest damage per bullet despite firing the 7.62x51mm NATO like the M60, but when you just make shit up, it's bad. They may as well add a fully automatic, man portable tank gun. Oh wait... they have two of those, the USAS-12 and Pancor Jackhammer (A weapon that only at most five were made of, only two confirmed) with frag rounds.

Ok, ummm, how about fully automatic sniper rifles. Oh wait, they have those too, they're called every assault rifle in the game except the G3.

Alright, ummm... how about sidearm shotguns. Oh wait, the equivalent to those exist as well, with the grenade launchers loaded with 40mm shotgun shells, and for everyone else, the Glock 11 or the Glock 11 suppressed.

Only thing that is missing is tank killing primary weapons, and laser death rays that kill the entire enemy team per shot.

Due to the technical and balancing issues, BF3 pisses me off something fierce. Still, due to the fact that it could be worse (lolMW3), I can say I have had fun on it on occassion.

And if this comes off as someone being butthurt over being bad at the game, unspoiler my signature and you can see my BF3 stats, and that I am far from bad at it.

Oh yeah, also, sound. They completely fucked sound in the game, where as BC2 had excellent sound. I'd rather a game sound good than look good, since sound is way more important than "omg shiny dirt!" I doubt the people ever even heard the guns in the game fired.

Sorry, I just needed a good cathartic rant about BF3.

[Icy]

Eh, DICE puts a LOT of care in their games. Your comment about them never even hearing a gun fired? Not at all. They sent out their sound crew to a training battle and got their clips from there. IMO, BF3 has the best sound an FPS has ever had. BC2's was also exceptional.

See, I don't care about CoD and its prone jump dive whatever. Prone was in Battlefield 2. Prone is a HUGE tactic in real wars. Taking it out was just a stupid idea. Snipers got maybe one shot out before someone saw them crouching out there and killed them. (In BC2) They're supposed to blend in and support their team. (Granted, most snipers are just noobs looking for kills, but if you get a TEAM player sniper, then things are gonna go very well)

Not just snipers. Other classes too. You're suddenly under fire. PRONE. Get into cover, into the grass, whatever. Tank looking at you? Prone around a corner.

Prone is as close to walking behind cover as we're going to get. Crouching is not enough in BF3 or BC2 or whatever. The cover is too short so your head sticks out. It's a video game so we can't really specify how high/low we want to stand. Prone helps.

I don't care about hitboxes or whatever. Sure, people may abuse prone for that, but it's not my problem. I don't, so whatever. A lot of people go prone when I walk into a building and they kill me before I can even get a shot on them. That may be abusing the feature but it's not my problem.

As for all the gun balancing, I didn't read it all (I read SOME, not all) because I don't really care. I respect all the time you put into making the post but I don't really want to read it all. :

I don't care about balance either. If something's over powered, oh well! In a real war, when someone uses a weapon the enemy does not have, and completely annihilates them (let's say a bomber) do we hear the enemy crying out "That's OP NERF IT NAO‎" No……… x_x

Do the people who design these guns, their bullets, etc, put careful thought and consideration into "will this be balanced compared to all our other guns??" I'm sure they want to make them as...OP as possible.

There are going to be more powerful weapons than others. I don't care about it in TF2 either. An OP weapon may be OP and may be used by "noobs" and you may get killed by it way more than other weapons, but whatever! Not my problem. I just want to play a game.

There's really only one thing I really dislike about BF3. No bombs on the jets. That was one of the most fun things about Battlefield 2. If your team/squad was having trouble with a flag/point, you get someone to fly over and bomb the place. It completely changed the game. Also, jets with multiple seats. Some of my best times/memories with BF2 are sitting in the gunner's seat in a jet and letting them have it while an expert pilot flies around. So much fun.

Anyway, gun balance? They tried to make them as balanced as they could. Then they had the beta, found out a few weapons (UMP-45??) were very OP so they nerfed them in the final release. This October (a year from the release) I'm sure they will have patched it so much that there will hardly be anything OP anymore.

And come on, really. A tank vs infantry ‎(with just an ordinary gun, no AT weapon)… in a wide open field. Who's going to win? The tank. Does that make it OP? Yes. Overpowered to an infantry guy. Not to the entire battle. Same goes for a USAS-12 vs M16A4 at close range. USAS-12 (a little OP in BF3, I admit) will win. But that doesn't do anything to the overall battle, at least, not in BATTLEFIELD 3. A video game. They can just respawn…

*sigh* I don't know what I'm getting at really, I just don't think you're right about a few things.

I was watching the developer's Twitters from March of last year and on until well after the release (still am). I read every interview, watched every video, listened to every interview, etc. I know they put A LOT of care into this game and if there are things that don't feel right, they will in time.

Now I just wish I could still play it.. I get about 30fps average, as low as 18 in huge firefights, on LOW settings. When it first came out I got 45fps on medium. I just don't know what happened, but my computer is very dated. So yeah.

I'm sure you still think they messed up BF3, so let's just agree to disagree.

And your stats are very impressive. I've looked at them in detail before. They blow mine away, that's for sure.

[Vy'drach]

Eh, DICE puts a LOT of care in their games. Your comment about them never even hearing a gun fired? Not at all. They sent out their sound crew to a training battle and got their clips from there. IMO, BF3 has the best sound an FPS has ever had. BC2's was also exceptional.

Too bad they apparently didn't use the sounds then, since every gun in the game sounds like a toy from the $.99 store. And that's not just my opinion, but the opinion of every person I play BF3 with.

Every.

Single.

One.

BC2 had great gun sounds, because they took the time to learn what the guns sound like. SOCOM: Confrontation did this as well, because they tested the weapons. Video actually starts at 0:30.

Where as BF3 has every gun sounding like a plastic toy, and the vast majority of them sound identical.

See, I don't care about CoD and its prone jump dive whatever. Prone was in Battlefield 2. Prone is a HUGE tactic in real wars. Taking it out was just a stupid idea. Snipers got maybe one shot out before someone saw them crouching out there and killed them. (In BC2) They're supposed to blend in and support their team. (Granted, most snipers are just noobs looking for kills, but if you get a TEAM player sniper, then things are gonna go very well)

Did you miss the part about it not working right? If something makes someone bullet proof because the hitbox is ten kinds of fucked up to the point that an entire clip in someone's torso doesn't even hurt them, you take it out. BC and BC2 were fine with the lack of prone (and BF2 had issues with the prone breaking the hit box often as well, fyi), because it didn't matter unless you were an idiot about it. And those snipers you mentioned that died after one shot, yeah, I know the type. Those'd be the idiot snipers that I would shoot in the face with my sniper rifle because they were in idiotic and obvious spots. I honestly had no issue with repeatedly dying as a sniper in BC2 due to the inability to crouch. Not once. The ones that did were the same people that pressed up against windows like idiots rather than staying back where they can crouch out of incoming fire.

Not just snipers. Other classes too. You're suddenly under fire. PRONE. Get into cover, into the grass, whatever. Tank looking at you? Prone around a corner.

Prone is as close to walking behind cover as we're going to get. Crouching is not enough in BF3 or BC2 or whatever. The cover is too short so your head sticks out. It's a video game so we can't really specify how high/low we want to stand. Prone helps.

I don't care about hitboxes or whatever. Sure, people may abuse prone for that, but it's not my problem. I don't, so whatever. A lot of people go prone when I walk into a building and they kill me before I can even get a shot on them. That may be abusing the feature but it's not my problem.

You do realize that both your camera and your weapon in BF3 are at the highest point on your character's head, correct? If you duck behind something and you can not see over it, the enemy can not see you. Also, you can specify how high you want to stand in games that take the time to add it in, once again, SOCOM: Confrontation had it. You tilt the controller forward to duck lower, and tilt it back to raise up higher than normal. And actually, it is your problem because if you fire at someone and are on target, but the bullets don't register because DICE and EA can't make a working game, then you just got bullshitted.

As for all the gun balancing, I didn't read it all (I read SOME, not all) because I don't really care. I respect all the time you put into making the post but I don't really want to read it all. :\

I don't care about balance either. If something's over powered, oh well! In a real war, when someone uses a weapon the enemy does not have, and completely annihilates them (let's say a bomber) do we hear the enemy crying out "That's OP NERF IT NAO‎" No……… x_x

Do the people who design these guns, their bullets, etc, put careful thought and consideration into "will this be balanced compared to all our other guns??" I'm sure they want to make them as...OP as possible.

It's a video game, not realistic. The reason even a semi-automatic sniper rifle isn't a one-hit headshot is balancing. However, balancing doesn't work if you don't do it, namely the M16A3, the F2000, the M416, the FAMAS, the M27 IAR, y'know, basically any gun with a high rate of fire since they did the incredibly genius thing of giving them the same or higher damage than the weapons with a lower rate of fire. But the problem with those isn't just the damage, it's the lack of recoil. The weapons do not recoil correctly at all. A lot of them just don't recoil perioud. And the argument about weapon designers wanting the most overpowered weapon design might hold water, if the weapons in BF3 behaved anything like their real life counterparts, but they sadly, do not. A weapon being overpowered because that is how it is in real life and it is acting correctly in game is one thing, but a weapon being overpowered because the developer has no idea what he's doing and no idea how the weapon is in real life, is another. Once again, back to SOCOM: Confrontation. The weapon characteristics in that were perfect. There were several "OP" weapons, but they were OP because they behave like they do in real life.

USAS-12 actually had a 20 round magazine, and light/medium armour didn't stop the damage of them, because shotgun pellets aren't affected by kevlar. FN P90 has the stopping power of a .45 ACP, recoil of a 9mm Parabellum, and armour penetrating bullets. MP7 also hit like a truck with low recoil. M14 was fully-automatic and could kill someone with a maximum of four shots. .50 BMG could damage someone without actually physically hitting you. AN-94 actually had the 1800 RPM two-round burst. AK-47 was just a rape machine since it was decently accurate as long as you could control the recoil, it hit almost as hard as the 7.62x51mm NATO assault rifles, and held 30 rounds. The Bizon was the most accurate SMG, the L85A2 was the most accurate assault rifle on semi-auto, AK-74 was the most accurate on fully automatic. The CETME Ameli had a 1250 RPM cyclic rate. On the flip side, the M16 was garbage, the M4 was meh at best (was just light is all), the Uzi was garbage. The Mk. 16 mod 0 (SCAR-L) was mediocre, just highly customizable. Why? Because the that's what the guns are like in real life.

Anyway, gun balance? They tried to make them as balanced as they could. Then they had the beta, found out a few weapons (UMP-45??) were very OP so they nerfed them in the final release. This October (a year from the release) I'm sure they will have patched it so much that there will hardly be anything OP anymore.

UMP-45 wasn't overpowered in the beta. Don't know where people keep getting that idea. Granted it's strong, but not overpowered, and hasn't been. Also, DICE and EA themselves said that the only point for the beta was to test the servers, not to test weapons. Which is why the M16A3 was the Jesus gun until the FAMAS came out, and frag rounds beat almost everything.

And come on, really. A tank vs infantry ‎(with just an ordinary gun, no AT weapon)… in a wide open field. Who's going to win? The tank. Does that make it OP? Yes. Overpowered to an infantry guy. Not to the entire battle. Same goes for a USAS-12 vs M16A4 at close range. USAS-12 (a little OP in BF3, I admit) will win. But that doesn't do anything to the overall battle, at least, not in BATTLEFIELD 3. A video game. They can just respawn…

Don't even know what relevance this message has.

I was watching the developer's Twitters from March of last year and on until well after the release (still am). I read every interview, watched every video, listened to every interview, etc. I know they put A LOT of care into this game and if there are things that don't feel right, they will in time.

Too bad their track record for this game of horribly made-up weapon statistics and horrendous bugs and glitches speak otherwise. Back to Karkand has been out over three months, but you still can't use some of the BTK weapons on BTK maps, or else your game either crashes, or if it doesn't, you hold the weapon over your head, and when you try to aim down your sights, you get a lovely zoomed view of your bicep. My friends and I believe they've given up on the game since they haven't fixed bugs that have been there since release. Game breaking bugs.

[CrypticQuery]

Alright, Icy & Vydrach; I know you've got a valid sub-topic going on at the moment, though it would help if you didn't post impressive walls of text in a thread related to something completely different. Make a separate one or even take things to PMs please. :P

[Vy'drach]

Figured this thread was about games you recently got and discussions about them.

Guess not.

[CrypticQuery]

Figured this thread was about games you recently got and discussions about them.

Guess not.

I don't mind discussion about the games, but when they take up the majority of the page and you actually have a solid foundation behind your argument I'd prefer they would go in another, separate thread. This is actually a good debate IMO; should developers stick as closely to realism or should they bend the rules a bit in the name of fun?

[Vy'drach]

Actually wasn't the point of the debate, more that EA and Dice can't fix their bugs or understand the concept of balanced or realistic weapon statistics.

Though I wouldn't mind that debate.

[CrypticQuery]

Actually wasn't the point of the debate, more that EA and Dice can't fix their bugs or understand the concept of balanced or realistic weapon statistics.

And that question can also be brought into a separate topic for its direct purpose; it fits so many other games as well. Look at Skyrim and other Bethesda games; why can't they put out a game without a significant amount of bugs? Why do FPS games strive for realism yet bend the rules?

I don't want to crowd up this topic too much, especially since Icy's and your posts could fit well in their own thread. :P

[sniper]

just went on a video game buying spree and got Kingdom Hearts 1 and 2, Sly Cooper 1, Metal Gear Solid 2, Battlefield Bad Company 2, and Bioshock 2. So far all of them have been wonderful!

[someguy63-]

Sonic 1 & 2, streets of rage, altered beast, golden axe, and comix zone (a $20 value for free, thanks PS Plus)

[Icy]

All the Deus Ex: Human Revolution DLC! It's on sale on Steam atm so time to go wild. :D

[Prince Elite]

Sonic 1 & 2, streets of rage, altered beast, golden axe, and comix zone (a $20 value for free, thanks PS Plus)

Hell yeah!

Socom 1. Truly an awesome game.

[Thundercracker]

The Collectors Edition of Madden '09 or the PS3, and Grand Turismo 5 Prologue, also for the PS3.

But I haven't touched them yet, still been dominating on Transformers WFC, until I meet a hacker.

[ThePointingMan]

Kid Icarus for the 3DS! I didn't know what to expect when I bought it, as I had not researched it all but MAN that game is good!

[Sarita]

I'm finally playing Angry Birds. I are cool iPhone user now.

[slimshady1289]

The latest game I got was Legend of Zelda Phantom Hourglass for the Nintendo DS

[Thundercracker]

I'm finally playing Angry Birds.

Angry Birds is an amazing game. Good for you.

[Icy]

The latest game I got was Legend of Zelda Phantom Hourglass for the Nintendo DS

Good game. Most Zelda fans hate it but it is an exceptional little game for the DS. It has a good atmosphere too. ^^

[Thundercracker]

Most Zelda fans hate it

I didn't think there was such a thing as a bad Zelda game? I thought every one of them just got better and better.

[Icy]

I didn't think there was such a thing as a bad Zelda game? I thought every one of them just got better and better.

Maybe for you, (and me) but the whiny Zelda "fans" are always complaining. Phantom Hourglass, Spirit Tracks, Wind Waker (to an extent) Twilight Princess (to an extent) and now Skyward Sword. There will always be haters. It's just usually unanimous among Zelda fans that Phantom Hourglass was boring and stupid and "too easy!!11" etc.

Personally, of course, every Zelda game is amazing. ;)

[Thundercracker]

...the whiny Zelda "fans" are always complaining.

There will always be haters.

Personally, of course, every Zelda game is amazing.

I can't stand whiny fans. It's just the whiny Sonic fans, ever since they stopped at Sonic 3, excluding Sonic 4, no game was good enough and they had to keep on complaining until SEGA finally gave in and made Sonic 4, which is a pretty good game, but I don't like side scrollers. I honestly think every Sonic game has been great, but that's just me.

Every Zelda game has been great, I always get stuck on them and never get finished, but they're great until that point. Skyward Sword was supposed to be better than OoT, but that's just what the GameStop guy said. It's either true or he was just trying to lead me to buying the game.

[CrypticQuery]

At the moment, I'm sorely tempted to pick up Yakuza 4 on PS3; I've always been a huge fan of the beat em' up genre, and because Sega of America was hit with massive layoffs, this may just be the last Yakuza game to be localized in the United States. It'll be either that or some Mafia II DLC. :lol:

[Thundercracker]

...and because Sega of America was hit with massive layoffs

Yeah, why was that anyways?

[CrypticQuery]

Yeah, why was that anyways?

http://kotaku.com/5898026/sega-of-america-walloped-by-layoffs-western-publishing-reduced-to-sonic-and-three-others

Judging by the article, they apparently were hit by a massive profit shortfall and are now only focusing on "core" IPs [sonic, Aliens, etc].

[Thundercracker]

...and are now only focusing on "core" IPs [sonic, Aliens, etc].

Right. Hopefully another Sonic game will be announced this year, the canon has been totally thrown off since Generations. Or I'm looking at it wrong, take your pick.

But yesterday, I got Killzone 2, but have yet to play it. I heard it was a pretty good game, plenty of gore, that's basically what I look for in a game.