Originally Posted by Heret|c
Battlefield games is something that gamers simply don't want by and large, except for a few nerds, no - one likes to have to drive on some truck for 10 miles just to find where the enemy is hiding.
Small maps, fast action is always the key to a succesful fps,
and COD isn't the first game to use this principle, it was succesfully implemented before
in games like Quake, UT and CS.
Dice has to understand: people just want to shoot the opponent, not waist time repairing some tank and driving some stupid vehicles, maybe then their games won't fail as much.
Do you think Counter Strike would become the most played game in the world if DeDust was 10 miles long and you had to drive a truck to get to a bombsite? I don't think so.
With 32-64 players, you had to drive to find an enemy? Yeah, stop failing at the game then? Simple. And it isn't called BATTLE FIELD for no reason. Hence: A field of battle
. Not some tiny, cramped, unrealistic alley where everyone is thrown together like a bunch of fat women at an endless buffet. Battlefield takes actual skill and co-operation. So I'm not suprised by your "having no skill at a FPS is where it's at, dawg!"
logic. CoD is for the lazy run & gunner / pray & sprayer / grenade baddie who wants stale repetition, and unprogressed gameplay. They release the SAME CoD game every year, under a different title. Sorry, but DICE isn't going to sell-out like that and spam
the SAME garbage under a different title every year. Next please...Edited by Diabolical999 - 3/2/11 at 8:33pm