Quote:
Originally Posted by m4a1mustang
I don't know if it rewards camping as much as it does playing proper offense/defense. If you play with the mentality of going out and killing as many people you can you don't really get very far (as far as winning matches goes). BC2 seemed to play "faster" to me.
|
I primarily play rush, so I can't really speak to conquest, but...
On defense, I have the most success finding a spot and sitting in it the whole round unless I'm in a vehicle. I find that pushing out at all is basically asking for a loss. In BC2, you could be way more aggressive on defense and still hold the sites, but that doesn't seem to be the case in BF3.
On attackers, I find that rushing is often a frustrating game of spawning. Take Damavand Peak, for example. 99% of the time I get the Humvee, I'll always nab the first set of bases, but if I don't get to it, I end up having to sneak through rocks past a thousand recon.
Part of the problem is that destruction is weak.
And yeah, BC2 did feel faster. BF3 is more methodical, for better or worse.
I also hate the stinger. It isn't overpowered, it's just stupid. There's no skill curve to it, so someone who picks up the game two years from now will be as good as someone playing since launch. I miss the AT4. Badly -- both as someone who was good with it, and as someone who likes to fly.
I don't know. Something about the game in general doesn't feel right to me. BC2 felt like a much more fluid game.