It seems like everytime I go this forum there's one of two posts. One of them is complaining about a certain game mechanic or player, for example snipers, bunnyhopping, cartillery and thousands of others. The other is telling people to stop moaning and just play.
In both sides there is one common theme though - "in real life you don't jump around/ survive 30 bullets/ not kill a tank with one sraw" and so on. Which beggars the question: Do you guys consider this to be a game (and by distinction a sport) or a simulation?
If we follow the first side of things, and call this a game then we're supporting the opinion that calls gaming a form of sport. After all, we have cyber athletes and BF is a competitive game with rankings. Why shouldn't it have a similar standing to sports? In this case we need only look at sport for a solution to our problems. When you go out and have a kick around with friends at the park the rules are a little more lax, but there's always an inherent sense of friendship and fairness. If a few of your friends are faster or stronger then you balance the teams - yet in Battlefield the only balance is in numbers. Which results in some ridiculous matches involving entire sides made of Lieutenants and Sergeants against Privates, with a token couple of Sergeants. If you were playing in the park, and the team you were up against was composed of Premier League footballers would you call that fair?
Not only that, but there's less of a fuss about the rules when you play with friends. But this still has a limit - for example, you may ignore stuff like offsides, or if you're playing pool and a friend slips and knocks a ball you let him retake a shot - after all, you're friends (and usually in my case, you slipped because of the seven or so pints you've just had). There are limits though, and it's these limits that need to be better policed. There's no obvious solution here sadly, as it's one thing to referee a football match, but when it's a Battlefield 2 level that's equivalent to 5 or 6 football pitches with obstacles everywhere it is harder. Even so, it's up to the players themsevles to realise that you play fair and everyone is happy. We all enjoy ourselves and we keep new players in the game - which is something we all fail to realise. Namely that we're losing the top ranked players all the time, everyone gets bored sometime and there needs to be someone to replace them.
Anyway, if this is a simulation it makes it all much easier:
1) Single shot takes you out of the game.
2) Mouse aiming is made drastically different to reflect the fact that we're all weedy guys in real life and a gun is heavy
3) Driving a tank requires 3 people, driving a heli or jet requires several years of training - in REAL TIME.
In retrospect, if we're talking a clan match or something that's the equivalent of a World Cup match in BF2 terms, then yes it's pretty much alright to do whatever it takes to win. But in small games, it's about everyone having fun, not winning at all costs. And whatever anyone says, this game is not and never will be real war. If you guys want real war, sign up to the army and go make a difference somewhere else.
Ideas chaps (mainly on the first part, not the second).
In both sides there is one common theme though - "in real life you don't jump around/ survive 30 bullets/ not kill a tank with one sraw" and so on. Which beggars the question: Do you guys consider this to be a game (and by distinction a sport) or a simulation?
If we follow the first side of things, and call this a game then we're supporting the opinion that calls gaming a form of sport. After all, we have cyber athletes and BF is a competitive game with rankings. Why shouldn't it have a similar standing to sports? In this case we need only look at sport for a solution to our problems. When you go out and have a kick around with friends at the park the rules are a little more lax, but there's always an inherent sense of friendship and fairness. If a few of your friends are faster or stronger then you balance the teams - yet in Battlefield the only balance is in numbers. Which results in some ridiculous matches involving entire sides made of Lieutenants and Sergeants against Privates, with a token couple of Sergeants. If you were playing in the park, and the team you were up against was composed of Premier League footballers would you call that fair?
Not only that, but there's less of a fuss about the rules when you play with friends. But this still has a limit - for example, you may ignore stuff like offsides, or if you're playing pool and a friend slips and knocks a ball you let him retake a shot - after all, you're friends (and usually in my case, you slipped because of the seven or so pints you've just had). There are limits though, and it's these limits that need to be better policed. There's no obvious solution here sadly, as it's one thing to referee a football match, but when it's a Battlefield 2 level that's equivalent to 5 or 6 football pitches with obstacles everywhere it is harder. Even so, it's up to the players themsevles to realise that you play fair and everyone is happy. We all enjoy ourselves and we keep new players in the game - which is something we all fail to realise. Namely that we're losing the top ranked players all the time, everyone gets bored sometime and there needs to be someone to replace them.
Anyway, if this is a simulation it makes it all much easier:
1) Single shot takes you out of the game.
2) Mouse aiming is made drastically different to reflect the fact that we're all weedy guys in real life and a gun is heavy
3) Driving a tank requires 3 people, driving a heli or jet requires several years of training - in REAL TIME.
In retrospect, if we're talking a clan match or something that's the equivalent of a World Cup match in BF2 terms, then yes it's pretty much alright to do whatever it takes to win. But in small games, it's about everyone having fun, not winning at all costs. And whatever anyone says, this game is not and never will be real war. If you guys want real war, sign up to the army and go make a difference somewhere else.
Ideas chaps (mainly on the first part, not the second).
