Battlefield 3 General Discussion Thread

OFaceSIG said:
COD isn't even as polarizing as BF is. I can't understand it. BF3 isn't the blood sucking souless game COD is. Why all the hate?

I know it's not all mod friendly like the old ones were but come on. There are many many worse examples out there the BF3.
Click to expand...

The problem with Call of Duty is that its the same game over and over again, it started off as a PC game and now PC gets horrible ports and shitty repetitive gameplay. BF3 is just as bad because they've killed off what made the franchise great, and all in pursuit of being as close to a shitty COD clone as possible. They've sold their souls in aspiration of being as shitty as the game we all hate.
 
Dethred said:
BF3 is just as bad because they've killed off what made the franchise great
Click to expand...

Large scale combat with vehicles on the PC featuring fantastic sound and graphics?

Nope, that's all still in there. You must have other things your "made the franchise great" list.
 
eloj said:
Large scale combat with vehicles on the PC featuring fantastic sound and graphics?

Nope, that's all still in there. You must have other things your "made the franchise great" list.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but BF3 is really lacking from not having 6 man squads, in game VOIP (that worked really well in BF2), and commander mode
 
Dethred said:
The problem with Call of Duty is that its the same game over and over again, it started off as a PC game and now PC gets horrible ports and shitty repetitive gameplay. BF3 is just as bad because they've killed off what made the franchise great, and all in pursuit of being as close to a shitty COD clone as possible. They've sold their souls in aspiration of being as shitty as the game we all hate.
Click to expand...
BF3 is nothing at all like a COD clone other than they are both modern military shooters. Literally every other aspect is different, from the engine (Frostbite 2 versus Quake 3, lol) down to the maps, gameplay, etc. It's not even remotely comparable.
 
eloj said:
Large scale combat with vehicles on the PC featuring fantastic sound and graphics?

Nope, that's all still in there. You must have other things your "made the franchise great" list.
Click to expand...

There are a few persistant posters in this thread that seem to have done their best to shit on this game as much as possible....not naming names or anything...
 
LOL nah haven't seen anything like that

don't forget that liking anything about bf3 means you are a koolaid drinking lemming
 
haunter said:
LOL nah haven't seen anything like that

don't forget that liking anything about bf3 means you are a koolaid drinking lemming
Click to expand...

And if you don't love BF3 and praise it at every corner you are not allowed to post here. Damn this thread has become so useful!
 
Rizen said:
BF3 is nothing at all like a COD clone other than they are both modern military shooters. Literally every other aspect is different, from the engine (Frostbite 2 versus Quake 3, lol) down to the maps, gameplay, etc. It's not even remotely comparable.
Click to expand...

TBH, CS is more comparable to CoD. Small maps, small player count, no vehicles, similar setting, has many of the same gametypes (even has zombie mod), engine originally based off ID tech. :p
 
DeathPrincess said:
TBH, CS is more comparable to CoD. Small maps, small player count, no vehicles, similar setting, has many of the same gametypes (even has zombie mod), engine originally based off ID tech. :p
Click to expand...


You forgot the running and gunning since CS does not have ADS! :p
 
xIronCrossx said:
And if you don't love BF3 and praise it at every corner you are not allowed to post here. Damn this thread has become so useful!
Click to expand...

there is a difference between voicing concerns over things and constantly bitching endlessly about the same thing you dont like over and over or just posting THIS GAME IS A POS COD CLONE AAAAAAAAAAARGH

not saying YOU are doing that, but some posters have come close in the past
 
BF3 just feels wrong when playing.
its a huge step back for dice.
I dont expect BF4 to be any good either.
 
xIronCrossx said:
And if you don't love BF3 and praise it at every corner you are not allowed to post here. Damn this thread has become so useful!
Click to expand...

Not you, but a certain person has been posting the same comments since the freakin' alpha. In the 500+ page thread that was closed, prior to this 700+ one being opened.
 
Flopper said:
BF3 just feels wrong when playing.
its a huge step back for dice.
I dont expect BF4 to be any good either.
Click to expand...

i disagree I like bf3 a lot.

I liked bad company 2 a lot too although some of the rush maps were really really really poorly designed.

bf3 map design its spot on, rush conquest everything is dope. the game looks amazing and can be quite fun to play. unfortunately that last DLC didnt hold my attention for too long, but the next one looks INSANE
 
I'd like to add though that I think the BF4 thing so soon is kind of lame. Good development cant happen in a year. Give it a couple at the least. people can enjoy BF3 for over a year.
 
dremic said:
I'd like to add though that I think the BF4 thing so soon is kind of lame. Good development cant happen in a year. Give it a couple at the least. people can enjoy BF3 for over a year.
Click to expand...

I agree... And if anything is going to make the BF series go the way of COD, it's going to be having a CODish release cycle where you really don't have the time required to add anything of real value
 
RamonGTP said:
Does his name start with D and end with ethred? :D
Click to expand...

Careful Ramon, that's coming awefully close to flaming/name calling...which could get you a temporary ban:D

I actually thought he was calling me out :D

Though in defense, this thread is really just a continous cycle of the same issues people have. I was slightly skeptical though attempting to keep a positive outlook on Battlelog during its alpha and beta, and have continued to see it as a positive and there's probably other things that I continue to defend even though others have problems with it.

Being cynical and negative is incredibly easy, seeing the positive in a situation gets you further in life ive discovered. Not to say you should ignore the problems...but im sure many people have noticed complaining without a constructive resolution gets you nowhere...though these are forums that I doubt EA checks in on for constructive feedback:rolleyes:
 
RamonGTP said:
I agree... And if anything is going to make the BF series go the way of COD, it's going to be having a CODish release cycle where you really don't have the time required to add anything of real value
Click to expand...

Agreed as well. Now, if it was $50 day one with the same amount of content as BF3 Premium I would not mind too much assuming there are some improvements.
 
Flogger23m said:
Agreed as well. Now, if it was $50 day one with the same amount of content as BF3 Premium I would not mind too much assuming there are some improvements.
Click to expand...

it'll still use the same engine though, with very little iteration im sure which sucks. very similar trend to COD.
 
dremic said:
it'll still use the same engine though, with very little iteration im sure which sucks. very similar trend to COD.
Click to expand...

new MOH is already on an updated platform of FB I think

Bf4 can probably get away with it since well, its one of in not the best looking engine around, it can probably be usable for 4 years or so if they do update it some like they already are
 
dremic said:
it'll still use the same engine though, with very little iteration im sure which sucks. very similar trend to COD.
Click to expand...

I remember reading reviews in the past about how devs are able to get more out of their engine the second time around (can't remember what games even..just know ive read it in interviews, sorry) or how they're able to make changes to sections of the code allowing greater abilities ( IE Frostbite 1.5). They haven't even mentioned which engine they're using have they? Could be a similar situation where they make additions to Frostbite 2 allowing greater fidelity.

Who knows, maybe they've had a team working on a new engine in anticipation of this business model so while Frostbite 2 was completing they were already working on its successor...

Probably not though as Frostbite 2 is already pretty intensive on modern hardware.


Here he goes with the positivity again.... :rolleyes:
 
haunter said:
sorry it was the plane MOH that was FB 1.5 with BC2, no FB 2.5 yet
Click to expand...

yeah and no announcement yet for the iteration that BF4 will use.

even if it uses 2.0 it will still look amazing. its just annoying to buy what seems to be the same exact game. hahaha if it looks different im like fuck it its new!
 
yeah I have no doubt it will still look great.

hell I need xfire to run high settings so more GFX is not needed :p
 
haunter said:
yeah I have no doubt it will still look great.

hell I need xfire to run high settings so more GFX is not needed :p
Click to expand...

i just wish we could have higher player matches. 200+ would be dope for a DLC like armored kill.

I think the limitation there is CPU power unfortunately. . 64 player matches lower my frames not because of my 670 but because i havent overclocked my cpu
 
dremic said:
i just wish we could have higher player matches. 200+ would be dope for a DLC like armored kill.

I think the limitation there is CPU power unfortunately. . 64 player matches lower my frames not because of my 670 but because i havent overclocked my cpu
Click to expand...

yup. same issue

I will get lower frames on big 64 man servers like firestorm ETC and not because of my GPU's
 
dremic said:
i just wish we could have higher player matches. 200+ would be dope for a DLC like armored kill.

I think the limitation there is CPU power unfortunately. . 64 player matches lower my frames not because of my 670 but because i havent overclocked my cpu
Click to expand...

Mount and blade has 220 people team battles, but not as much "stuff" going on (muskets/archers only, so not as many projectiles, few explosions, basic engine) the server calls from 200 people firing full auto would affect lag, and 4x the player count might make things a little crowded in a BF setting (works in m+b because it's medieval etc. so people bunch up, go around as units (cavalry charges against cannons are fun :D), some of the maps are pretty small but it's not really noticable) without making the maps at least 2-3 times the size (could just fire artillery anywhere and get multikills).

Buuut there have been games with 1000 players, so it is possible. It's something that has been promised for so long, yet there are very few games with epic scale battles. :(
 
dremic said:
yeah and no announcement yet for the iteration that BF4 will use.

even if it uses 2.0 it will still look amazing. its just annoying to buy what seems to be the same exact game. hahaha if it looks different im like fuck it its new!
Click to expand...

Who cares, anyone still playing BF3 got their money's worth. I'm always amused when glancing at all the whiners on the Battlelog forums complaining that paid DLC = evil, Premium = evil, EA = evil, DICE = evil, etc and then you look at their profile and theyve got like 700+ hours into the game. Comedy gold.
 
USMCGrunt said:
Careful Ramon, that's coming awefully close to flaming/name calling...which could get you a temporary ban:D

I actually thought he was calling me out :D

Though in defense, this thread is really just a continous cycle of the same issues people have. I was slightly skeptical though attempting to keep a positive outlook on Battlelog during its alpha and beta, and have continued to see it as a positive and there's probably other things that I continue to defend even though others have problems with it.

Being cynical and negative is incredibly easy, seeing the positive in a situation gets you further in life ive discovered. Not to say you should ignore the problems...but im sure many people have noticed complaining without a constructive resolution gets you nowhere...though these are forums that I doubt EA checks in on for constructive feedback:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I don't mind Battlelog, I actually like it as well. I don't hate everything about BF3, but I mostly mention the things I don't like about it because I want to see them(at least some obvious ones like netcode) fixed.

I've actually had a little bit of fun again recently with the game while benchmarking. Some of it still feels really frustrating, but I think I could get back into, a few months break really does help :D
 
odditory said:
Who cares, anyone still playing BF3 got their money's worth. I'm always amused when glancing at all the whiners on the Battlelog forums complaining that paid DLC = evil, Premium = evil, EA = evil, DICE = evil, etc and then you look at their profile and theyve got like 700+ hours into the game. Comedy gold.
Click to expand...

who cares? obviously me :p

why should i buy a game that is identical to the one i play now? the only reason i will is because when bf4 comes out, nobody will play bf3. and i like battlefield.
 
dremic said:
who cares? obviously me :p

why should i buy a game that is identical to the one i play now? the only reason i will is because when bf4 comes out, nobody will play bf3. and i like battlefield.
Click to expand...

That's why I'm rather disappointed in the choice to stay modern. A sequel so close together that is based on the same time period? It's basically just going to be an expansion pack. New armies(or divisions), new vehicles, and some minor tweaks (missing pieces? Like VOIP). Those missing things used to be included in patches. Not a $49 rewrap.

I was really hoping for a return to WW2, where skill was a little more useful and all the assisting/aimbot devices the military uses now are not in play. Learning to precision bomb and dogfight with guns fits well.
 
Spidey329 said:
That's why I'm rather disappointed in the choice to stay modern. A sequel so close together that is based on the same time period? It's basically just going to be an expansion pack. New armies(or divisions), new vehicles, and some minor tweaks (missing pieces? Like VOIP). Those missing things used to be included in patches. Not a $49 rewrap.

I was really hoping for a return to WW2, where skill was a little more useful and all the assisting/aimbot devices the military uses now are not in play. Learning to precision bomb and dogfight with guns fits well.
Click to expand...

i feel like WW2 games are less likely because they offer less customization. cause they cant add on red dots and shit you know? but honestly Im dying for a new WW2 game. one that includes normandy beach and frostbite 2.0 graphics.
 
dremic said:
it'll still use the same engine though, with very little iteration im sure which sucks. very similar trend to COD.
Click to expand...

Engine I'm not concerned about. The game can look better in areas but it is fine graphically. I'm not the kind of person who enjoys getting 12 frame rates and having to upgrade my PC every year. When I say improvements, I mean in the gameplay. Fix the damage model, make the game proper from day one so it doesn't have to get "balanced" every patch, and make the animations sync with player actions and similar.

But I am sure it will be the same as BF3. 9 maps at launch, little content, but the same engine and whatnot.
 
Silverghost said:
That's an interesting package for anyone who hasn't bought BF3 yet .
Click to expand...

$70? How about I get the premium for $20 since I paid $50 for the game? lol

Oh well, I will get the premium whenever it is $20. Or not. I play Tribes and Skyrim more than BF3 now.
 
I really don't see why they think they can get away with making a new sequel so soon like COD. BF3 may be fairly popular, but it still isn't anywhere near COD popular. The only reason COD gets away with releasing sequel after sequel is BECAUSE of how popular it is. As it is, while BF3 may have a fairly significant player base, it still is hard to find servers with people in them many times, especially if you're looking for a specific gametype/map.

Do they really think BF fans will be as eager to go buy yearly sequels as COD fans? Sure seems like they're really jumping the gun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top