IGN - Five Innovations Battlefield Gave the World

IGN - With the launch of Battlefield 3 almost here, IGN pays tribute to this outstanding series for the fresh ideas it has brought to combat gaming.

[Canary]

That almost makes me want to give the series another shot. Tried some of the earlier games, but felt they were clunky as hell. Tried the demo for that LoTR clone a year or two back, controls felt just as bad.

[blumatt]

Battlefield is just so awesome. The realistic sounds and huge open environments makes for such an immersive battle experience. You can actually drive vehicles and there's actually damage to the environments/buildings. When someone's camping in a building, you just put some C4 on it and blow it down. haha Wish some other games would do that.

I'm sure on the next consoles, Call of Duty will start doing vehicles and damage.

[PRHB HYBRiiD]

already did ..call of duty 3 and world at war.
tanks , jeeps and bikes

[Elwenil]

Clunky? That would be the last word I would use to describe Battlefield games. I'm not sure if you are just trolling or are clinically insane.

[Hufandpuf]

Comparing the bad company series to other shooters, yeah bad company was a little stiff. But the older Battlefield games, the PC ones just came down to how well you played.

[Canary]

I think it was the very first Battlefield game (on PC). I know a lot of people don't notice (or don't care) about floaty controls (where there's a delay between the input and action on screen) but they're a big turn-off for me. I like everything crisp and direct.

I also didn't have much fun with the multiplayer--it was too chaotic for team-based combat. But, like I said, that was a while back. Personally, I think that for games like these to work well, there need to be special "commander" roles for players online--a role that does NOT involve controlling a character and moving around on the map. Think of it like an RTS role, where the commander could set waypoints, issue orders to individual units, use special abilities (like air strikes, NPC reinforcements, crap like that).

I'm not commenting at all on recent Battlefield games. I'm just saying that I didn't much care for the first one, and the little I've seen of newer titles doesn't make it seem like much has improved (or changed). If you think that's trolling, you must be one die-hard Battlefield fanboy.

[Hufandpuf]

I love battlefield, and I know exactly what you are talking about. You mentioned a role where there should be a commander telling the troops where to go and what to do, well they did make that EXACT thing. It was In battlefield 2 (2005). One player from each team (usually the highest rank) could apply to command the team. They would set waypoints for the squad leader (the squad leader tells the squad members what to do) and the commander could even drop supplies and even lay down artillery. All of this was realtime.

There is structure in battlefield, just the older ones like bf2, and bf2142.
And there was a commander mode, they are just debating whether to implement it in BF3.

[13lackDeath]

Beautiful

[Agent-86]

IGN forgot a couple of other innovations. Persistent stat tracking and unlockable weapons were both introduced in BF2 and are now staples of the FPS genre.