How CoD Players Ruined the Battlefield Franchise

DrZoidberg1000 May 2, 2012

People have debated, since the start of BC1, whether or not Battlefield as we knew it was dead. Fans blamed the console focus, the casualized features, the lack of content, and the blatantly obvious appeals to players outside of the actual Battlefield fanbase. And somehow, the most important change that has ruined Battlefield was none of these. It has been ignored for years, but no longer. The biggest change that killed Battlefield is that it became a reflex based shooter. First, consider the gameplay changes from 1942 until 2142. In both 1942 and Vietnam, there were no iron sights. While some weapons were obviously more accurate than others, a scout with a sniper rifle didn't beat a medic with a machine pistol at range because he was more "coordinated"; he won because the weapons were balanced in his favor. If you look at the game balance, it was obvious where certain weapons would and wouldn't dominate. Generally, scouts/snipers won at range, engineers/heavy assault at mid range, and assault/medics at close range. Granted, we also had anti tank classes and some unusual class fusions in Vietnam, but on the whole, we had clearly defined classes that simply did or did not function outside their primary purposes. BF2 first brought the iron sight to Battlefield, and while 2142 did not have any, it did have scopes on all the weapons that functioned similarly to them. These games expanded on the class structure further, by taking the 5 classes of 1942 and the 4 of Vietnam and dividing them first into 7 in BF2, and then into 4 with separate trees that basically worked like 8 classes in 2142. Again, the roles were very clearly defined, and while there was a lot of room for the player to change how he approaches the game by choosing a different class, the ability to bend the class to his needs was not really present. The body armor of 2142, which was liquid unlike its BF2 counterpart, showed that a single class can fulfill multiple roles so long as those roles are still

clearly defined and not mixed together.

Even BC1, the console exclusive, managed to maintain this balance of classes by going back to 5. However, BC2, and especially BF3, blew this class balance out of the water, to the point where the classes weren't really any different at all. Now, we have 3 classes who are near equally effective at the most common combat ranges, and the only place where Recon is king is so far removed from the map that they might as well not even be counted as a real player. Most people, at this point, would say I attribute these failures of the current games to the number of classes. This would be a red herring, as it completely ignores a very basic assumption I made earlier that, shockingly, nobody has ever asked to be explained. Earlier, I stated that, in general, certain classes did or didn't work in certain ranges. There is no way in hell an Anti Tank could beat a Recon at 100m in BF2. An NVA scout with an M91 didn't have to worry about an American Assault with a CAR-15 counter sniping him even at ranges as close as 30m. Go back and play any past BF game pre-BC2, and you will realize that even if you aimed through a sight and had perfect accuracy, you would often miss. Even if you introduced ballistics, you would miss. The very system that enabled this, random bullet spread, is the very system being hated on by the newer COD community that lacks the fundamental understanding of how Battlefield plays. This is the biggest thing that BF3 and BC2 lacked, and it's the newer community who only cares for a twitch shooter that is begging for less and less of this. If you know anything about gunplay in past games, you would know that the spread when standing or moving was so high that you would have to be a madman to shoot like that the moment you see your opponent. I will use BF2 as an example, since it seems to be the most well

remembered of the past games. Ignoring the frag grenade tactics, eventually infantry encounters featured gunplay. When shooting, most players would go prone if they wanted any chance of hitting their opponent. Sometimes, hipfire seemed more viable than using an iron sight, but often times the shooting itself didn't seem to work. You aimed correctly, you were coordinated, but you lost the gunfight. This is the chief complaint the current playerbase has about suppression, as most players have no knowledge about what makes this spread increase so valuable to Battlefield. While I can't say that the system always worked, I can make this general claim about what DICE has tried to do since 2002. Battlefield is not about who the more coordinated player is. DICE does not care if you can do a 180 and aim at your opponent a second faster. DICE tried to make a game where proper teamwork, correct positioning, and better tactics would reward the player instead of simply being more coordinated. The reason the gunplay is so inaccurate is because DICE does not want to reward you for simply having better reflexes. They tried, and in some cases succeeded, in making a game where other elements outside of coordination determined the winner in a gunfight. If you had a squad of 6 with you, and you appropriately spread out your roles, you might have the opportunity to suppress an opponent. Maybe you'll have a scout/recon snipe the enemy for you. Maybe a spec ops/specialist/recon will be able to flank the opponent and easily beat them up close. Maybe a vehicle will give you the upper hand in firepower. These are all maybes, because an individual cannot control the outcomes. Players were required to work together if they wanted to win. A single player's ability to aim "better" was not the sole determinant as to who would win. Despite being an FPS, Battlefield managed to be something more than a mere shooter.

This is what Battlefield is really all about. Sure, the system failed in a lot of respects throughout past games. Having to go prone to decrease spread often punished players who properly utilized cover. The dominance of frag grenades often made gunplay a non factor in a battle. However, I did not write this to debate what DICE did right or wrong in the past in respect to gunplay. What I am here to explain is what this current COD community cannot understand unless they play the older games. It is imperative that every new player be taught what Battlefield really is, as DICE has utterly given up to try and teach them. The core message is that Battlefield was more than an FPS. You did not win for simply being more accurate. The philosophy behind this series was that a shooting encounter could be more than a battle of mouse control and lag, and this philosophy is what was abandoned in recent years due in part to the EA purchase of DICE and the inevitable takeover and destruction of their ideals. Battlefield 3 lacks a lot of features that past Battlefield games had, but even if you added them all back in, it still wouldn't be a real one unless the design philosophy of old was reintroduced. DICEA and this community wasted so much time being "better" than COD2 mod 6/7, to the point where nobody seemed to care anymore about simply being a good Battlefield game. Get a clue, you fucking COD kids. We want you out. You have made it very clear that you do not believe in this design philosophy. You are not welcome here.