Originally Posted by Malorn
The problem with prone is how it changes the gameplay style.
Compare BFBC2 to BF3.
BFBC2 had a lot more action, more attack, more movement. Since there was no prone in BFBC2 cover was higher and facilitated attack & move style gameplay. Hiding was harder and it encouraged more assault and thus more action. Camping in corners while making yourself small as possible wasn't an issue.
Gameplay with BFBC2 was quite awesome, fast paced, and fun.
BF3 had less cover (because of prone), more camping (because of prone), and less action (because prone rewards camping), and attack was discouraged due to prone putting attackers at more of a disadvantage. The targets shooting at them were smaller, harder to hit, and harder to spot.
Prone made the battlefield franchise worse. It isn't needed in PlanetSide 2, there's no reason to add it, and the game will be much better off without it.
|
And BF2, the greatest game of all of them in the franchise, used it to great effect with outstandingly positive feedback from the community. BC2 was heavily criticized for omitting this feature and it was a feature DEMANDED by the audience for BF3. And so it was put in. I'm not sure where you're getting this false notion that it made the franchise worse? This must be your misinformed opinion. This is one of the most beloved features of the BF series.