Battlefield 3 - Official Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
technically its farsi not arabic, but still the letters should be joined together. They did the same mistake on BF2 if i remember correctly. Someone else here also raised this. Iranians who will play this game might be turned off by that.
 
dioxholster said:
technically its farsi not arabic, but still the letters should be joined together. They did the same mistake on BF2 if i remember correctly. Someone else here also raised this. Iranians who will play this game might be turned off by that.
Click to expand...
Yes clearly they will be pissed by improper Farsi and not a game based on the invasion of their country.
 
Black Box said:
Yes clearly they will be pissed by improper Farsi and not a game based on the invasion of their country.
Click to expand...

no they will be happy their country is featured in the game ad they get to play in it. werent you excited when New york was announced to be in the game? Even though the idea of new york being attacked let alone invaded by a military force is extremely far fetched. Its why most stories usually use aliens instead for invasions because to most people that would be a more believable fear.
 
Last edited:
i just noticied, blood splatter actually looks like blood and not ketchup. and the gun recoils while using scope. its definitly way more realistic than BC2.
 
dioxholster said:
i just noticied, blood splatter actually looks like blood and not ketchup. and the gun recoils while using scope. its definitly way more realistic than BC2.
Click to expand...

Why are you still here? You have ragged on this game continuously. Go back to whatever hole you came from.
 
Now this is what I'm talking about!

I have true excitement for this one. Crysis 2 what?

This is where my money will be.
 
Motivator said:
Why are you still here? You have ragged on this game continuously. Go back to whatever hole you came from.
Click to expand...

i would have to say the same thing to you since you are being hostile. I still stand by what i think is not a good idea to have a new york map and no commander feature. All I've said was in support of my opinion. learn to deal. Battlefield is just a game not the bible.
 
bf311-thumb-640xauto-19916.jpg


that must be paris in the background.
 
Last edited:
timtheenchantor said:
Downright sexy. I echo everyone's comments about proper PC gaming. This is a rare gem nowadays. DICE did well with BFBC2 and Vietnam. Let's hope they continue the innovation and push the envelope for us PC Gamers.

Edit: Yes. I will need to save for this game. I want it all high quality.
Click to expand...

whhhaatt? "DICE did well with BFBC2 and Vietnam" you did not just say that. having less maps, smaller maps, no jets, poor helicopter controls, not to mention only a few maps even have helicopters and tanks. BF2 had far more content than BFBC2, how is that innovation? not to mention 64man servers and larger squads, plus commander
 
One would hope the destruction in Frostbite 2.0 will be that advanced, but I'm for some reason doubting it.

By the way, Diox... avoid stealing bandwidth by hyperlinking images.
 
LOL more single player gameplay. Enough already. Show me multiplayer. If I want single player, I'll play a COD game. This is Battlefield.
 
Gabe3 said:
whhhaatt? "DICE did well with BFBC2 and Vietnam" you did not just say that. having less maps, smaller maps, no jets, poor helicopter controls, not to mention only a few maps even have helicopters and tanks. BF2 had far more content than BFBC2, how is that innovation? not to mention 64man servers and larger squads, plus commander
Click to expand...

A year after BFBC2's release and people still don't get the point of it - it was designed for consoles and console players...the PC just happened to get a version due to enough demand for one.

Whinge, whinge, whinge.
 
dioxholster said:
i just noticied, blood splatter actually looks like blood and not ketchup. and the gun recoils while using scope. its definitly way more realistic than BC2.
Click to expand...

Exactly, god i loved it. It honestly seems like THE perfect FPS. Insane graphics, perfect interactive (destructible) environments, perfect detail, and like you said, the blood not looking like someone just threw strawberry jam at your LCD is great.
And thank Jeebus...that recoil/reloads/recoil when looking down the sights/bullet ejections and bolt reaction etc PERFECT! I saw that recoil when shooting with ACOG and got tingles. It is perfect and totally how it really is.
Im pretty sure i might as well sell all my FPS games when this comes out. I will be playing this exclusively non stop until BF4 comes out.

Plague_Injected said:
A year after BFBC2's release and people still don't get the point of it - it was designed for consoles and console players...the PC just happened to get a version due to enough demand for one.

Whinge, whinge, whinge.
Click to expand...

What your saying is that (like i was) not to be scared that BF3 will be like BC2, or that the PC version was ________< fill in complaint here. It was made for console, not just graphics or its code..but its PURPOSE was to be a console shooter. There was BF2 a exclusive PC title, and they (i assume) decided they wanted a spin off for consoles so they went to the drawing board (a new fresh blank one) asked what do we want to do that will be awesome on consoles but still have some heart of the Battlefield brand.
Now they have made BF3, where they didnt use the drawing boards of tips and ideas and plans of BC2, they went and grabbed the BF2 (PC) drawing boards that were in a mop closet, wheeled them into the conference room and asked what do people love about BF3, and we can we do to improve it for 2011.
 
Last edited:
dioxholster said:
i would have to say the same thing to you since you are being hostile. I still stand by what i think is not a good idea to have a new york map and no commander feature. All I've said was in support of my opinion. learn to deal. Battlefield is just a game not the bible.
Click to expand...

I don't really trust the bible either :D
 
The game? Back to the game?

I was sad to see the TV missile removed from BC2 so I hope that's back. I know BC2 wasn't a true sequel but there weren't many better feelings than to TV opposing choppers and unsuspecting F35s out of the air in BF2. :) The back and forth chopper TV battles were a lot of fun.
 
I really hope that in maps with carriers (if they give us carriers) they are full size Nimitz class carriers. Lol I want to be able to fly f18s off a deck! Amphibious carriers dotn work to well with them.

Infantry wise it looks like the gameplay is spectacular! I felt immersed just watching that short clip... I can't wait to play this awesomeness!
 
Someone mentioned a submarine, would that be in BF3? How about a jetpack? its set in 2014 which is when soldiers get jetpacks.
 
Now after watching the game play footage, I can see why the animations are so good. This game is going to have a lot of linear story missions. At least it's more than BF 2 had.
 
Just watched the latest trailer.

Gameplay mechanics look snappier than Bad Company 2 so I'm optimistic. I always thought BC2 feels like Killzone 2. I hated Killzone 2.
 
dioxholster said:
Someone mentioned a submarine, would that be in BF3? How about a jetpack? its set in 2014 which is when soldiers get jetpacks.
Click to expand...

Dear troll,

You have been here 7 months, you should probably /getfucked. Might I suggest the Crysis 2 demo for you instead of attempting to troll? You might have more fun, you will definitely make less enemies.

Signed,
[H]
 
People are mentioning destructible environments. I've heard about concrete chips flying but ... not about much more than that.
 
There's issues with implementing destruction like they did in BC2. Some maps are going to be much more city oriented (think Karkand if you've ever played BF2), and the amount of firepower is going to increase with more tanks/choppers and most importantly jets. How do you implement destruction so that jets don't destroy all cover in the first 5 minutes of a game, and both from a technical and gameplay perspective in cities. I'll say it right now, I wouldn't want every building in Karkand to be destructable in the same way that BC2 buildings were destructable.
 
You may also recall that Karkand never had jets or choppers - but I understand your point. I'm eager to see how they implement more destruction and balance it with more powerful weapons and vehicles.
 
Crash250f said:
There's issues with implementing destruction like they did in BC2. Some maps are going to be much more city oriented (think Karkand if you've ever played BF2), and the amount of firepower is going to increase with more tanks/choppers and most importantly jets. How do you implement destruction so that jets don't destroy all cover in the first 5 minutes of a game, and both from a technical and gameplay perspective in cities. I'll say it right now, I wouldn't want every building in Karkand to be destructable in the same way that BC2 buildings were destructable.
Click to expand...

I agree. I voiced those very same concerns towards the beginning of this thread.
 
The biggest issue with this game will be balancing the infantry with the destructible environments and vehicles. Could be disastrous if they botched the execution.
 
I just hope they don't underpower the engineer class like they did on BC2. If my team was getting raped by a t90, I would have to switch to a kit with c4, sneak around, and blow his shit up. I am tired of having to use up to six cg's just to blow up a tank. :mad:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top