Battlefield 3 - Official Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
lol that interview proves just how much he doesn't give a rats ass about the PC gaming community. really if your sole arguement in how you would beat BF3 with MW3 is that you have demo'd the console version but shown absolutely no PC game play then why do you even bother releasing a pc game at all? no one want's your out dated consolized bullcrap kotick, go the hell away!
 
To be fair they did state that the development is still pre-alpha, must be hard to answer questions when things are still in a state of flux.
 
defiant007 said:
To be fair they did state that the development is still pre-alpha, must be hard to answer questions when things are still in a state of flux.
Click to expand...

Well then whats the point of putting this on? It was only 30 minutes and 4 questions. Waste of time really.
 
After looking at a bunch of reaction videos I have decided that DICE has pulled a masterful publicity stunt. Also, console players are idiots, as well as anyone who was mesmerized at some of the features which have literally been around for 9 years in BF games (OMG 64 players is awesome!).

Take away a dozen or so of the core gameplay features from BF2 in the release of BC2. Reintroduce half of those features in BF3 with some better graphics and the public goes crazy over it. Maybe BF4 will come full circle and be an improvement upon BF2. The DICE douches were adamant that proning wouldn't work well with frostbite just 14 months ago, and now it is introduced as a feature in BF3? Today they are saying the Commander role doesn't work well anymore, which means they will bring it back in the next game and everyone will celebrate such a great feature being added to the BF series... again.

Its like stealing a kid's ice cream cone, giving it back after eating half of it, and getting a big hug of gratitude. Am I the only one that doesn't feel like Rainman?
 
Dethred said:
After looking at a bunch of reaction videos I have decided that DICE has pulled a masterful publicity stunt. Also, console players are idiots, as well as anyone who was mesmerized at some of the features which have literally been around for 9 years in BF games (OMG 64 players is awesome!).

Take away a dozen or so of the core gameplay features from BF2 in the release of BC2. Reintroduce half of those features in BF3 with some better graphics and the public goes crazy over it.

Its like stealing a kid's ice cream cone, giving it back after eating half of it, and getting a big hug of gratitude. Am I the only one that doesn't feel like Rainman?
Click to expand...

I love hearing people say "OMFG 64 PLAYERS WITH JETS??!!"

All I can think of is bf1942.....
 
Dethred said:
After looking at a bunch of reaction videos I have decided that DICE has pulled a masterful publicity stunt. Also, console players are idiots, as well as anyone who was mesmerized at some of the features which have literally been around for 9 years in BF games (OMG 64 players is awesome!).

Take away a dozen or so of the core gameplay features from BF2 in the release of BC2. Reintroduce half of those features in BF3 with some better graphics and the public goes crazy over it. Maybe BF4 will come full circle and be an improvement upon BF2. The DICE douches were adamant that proning wouldn't work well with frostbite just 14 months ago, and now it is introduced as a feature in BF3? Today they are saying the Commander role doesn't work well anymore, which means they will bring it back in the next game and everyone will celebrate such a great feature being added to the BF series... again.

Its like stealing a kid's ice cream cone, giving it back after eating half of it, and getting a big hug of gratitude. Am I the only one that doesn't feel like Rainman?
Click to expand...

Ignore every gameplay and game engine improvements they've made and call it BC2 with jets.
 
Last edited:
I almost feel bad for every other FPS developer at E3, Battlefield 3 makes them all look like jokes. Interviews with other FPS developers where BF3 is mentioned just makes me feel like, "wow dude don't say the B word in front of them" *cringe*

ARMA3 could be nice, though almost a completely different genre from other FPS games.
 
Superhuman said:
This.

Plus, I read a hands-on review from someone who played it yesterday and they said you can only spawn on the squad leader or the team's regular spawn site.
Click to expand...

/phew

Squad spawning in BC2 was a huge negative for me. I'm glad DICE decided to keep the BF2 squad leader spawning system from BF2.
 
Dethred said:
Its like stealing a kid's ice cream cone, giving it back after eating half of it, and getting a big hug of gratitude. Am I the only one that doesn't feel like Rainman?
Click to expand...

Yes I get what you're saying, and I made the same kind of point myself about the CoD franchise where black ops boasted dedicated servers, I said that we shouldn't be too elated about them giving us features that they specifically removed in previous iterations.

Your analogy is that there is no improvement, or even a drop in quality and while that may apply to something like CoD because every game is the same milking more money, there is a clear and distinct difference between BF2 and BF3, every single area of the game has been improved except for maybe player count.

Compare BF3 with BF2 directly and you'll see there's massive improvement between the 2, destruction being the primary addition, but obviously every aspect of the game has been improved.

You also have to keep in mind that Bad Company was originally a console only IP and BC2 was more or less ported to the PC, that is the cause of most of the feature drop from BF2 to BC2.

BF3 is the beautiful love child of all the best points from BC2 and BF2. To some BC2 was a dip in the road, personally I really loved the game and am grateful it came along, had it never been realised for the PC we may have never seen such an improvement in BF3.
 
It does feel BF3 is closer to BC2 than BF2...Honestly I would be happy if they just updated the graphics of BF2 with this new engine and kept the classes, commander, squads..etc the same.
 
That's the problem - you don't actually want a proper sequel, you just want the same game with better graphics. We criticise COD for never changing but when another game threatens to change the slightest things like fucking squad-size, people act hysterical.

The game has far more in common with BF2 than BFBC2 juding from the information we currently have...having a bunch of console-only people playing an 8v8 game in a Bad Company game type is what's obscuring that. EA probably didn't want to pony up for having 64 high-end PCs available for a full demo.
 
Vehicles regen health? Also WTF is this?

"Vehicles can also be immobilized right before destruction, forcing an Engineer to intervene to save it, and giving the passengers a chance to bail out. The hope is that this will alleviate a lot of the rage that comes from a team jumping into a humvee, only to be destroyed by one well placed rocket."

WTF!?
 
Plague_Injected said:
That's the problem - you don't actually want a proper sequel, you just want the same game with better graphics. We criticise COD for never changing but when another game threatens to change the slightest things like fucking squad-size, people act hysterical.

The game has far more in common with BF2 than BFBC2 juding from the information we currently have...having a bunch of console-only people playing an 8v8 game in a Bad Company game type is what's obscuring that. EA probably didn't want to pony up for having 64 high-end PCs available for a full demo.
Click to expand...

U do have a point but COD is more repetetive then a BF2 being done on FB 2 engine. why? because cod gets released yearly with the exact same shit but BF2 to BF3? massive gap their.

Anyways one thing you ALL should know is that EA is going to turn BF into COD iterations. what does this mean? expect a new BF game ever 2 years and a new MOH every 2 years, similar to how they have two different developers releasing COD every year, MOH/BF will be released every year too
 
TheToE! said:
Vehicles regen health? Also WTF is this?

"Vehicles can also be immobilized right before destruction, forcing an Engineer to intervene to save it, and giving the passengers a chance to bail out. The hope is that this will alleviate a lot of the rage that comes from a team jumping into a humvee, only to be destroyed by one well placed rocket."

WTF!?
Click to expand...

I read that with emphasis on the "can be". I don't think that's going to be the case 100% of the time. Hopefully it means they have damage dependent on area - an RPG to the tracks will immobilise it, for example.
 
Aside from the eye candy the big difference between BC2 and BF3 is the gameplay.

BC2 is the "arcade" version of the BF series. It was presented as such and anyone who has played the series can immediately recognize this. No prone, basically dumbed down console like control and gameplay. I can only speculate but I am hope that BF3 is a return to the BF2 style of gameplay. No commander fuction is troubling, but until I play it I wont know.

At the end of the day it will likely be the FPS that I play for the next 3 years.
 
Jellylesg said:
I read that with emphasis on the "can be". I don't think that's going to be the case 100% of the time. Hopefully it means they have damage dependent on area - an RPG to the tracks will immobilise it, for example.
Click to expand...

Yea, we need more clarification. I've got a bad feeling I know what it means though...:(
 
To be fair, I havent played BF2 in a few years and have been on BC2 for awhile. I can say that I honestly dont really care either way if commander is in the game or not. Was a fun concept but honestly, it feels outdated. If you play with friends or are part of a team with Vent or TS it makes no difference IMO. Every player can spot the enemy and have every other teammate see it on their screen, its easier to get resupplied by teammates than having to run to a massive crate that likely is poorly concealed or worse on TOP of a building you cant get to.

Essentially every role performed by a commander has been integrated within the 4 classes.
 
Plague_Injected said:
That's the problem - you don't actually want a proper sequel, you just want the same game with better graphics. We criticise COD for never changing but when another game threatens to change the slightest things like fucking squad-size, people act hysterical.

The game has far more in common with BF2 than BFBC2 juding from the information we currently have...having a bunch of console-only people playing an 8v8 game in a Bad Company game type is what's obscuring that. EA probably didn't want to pony up for having 64 high-end PCs available for a full demo.
Click to expand...

QFT.
 
ebeattie said:
To be fair, I havent played BF2 in a few years and have been on BC2 for awhile. I can say that I honestly dont really care either way if commander is in the game or not. Was a fun concept but honestly, it feels outdated. If you play with friends or are part of a team with Vent or TS it makes no difference IMO. Every player can spot the enemy and have every other teammate see it on their screen, its easier to get resupplied by teammates than having to run to a massive crate that likely is poorly concealed or worse on TOP of a building you cant get to.

Essentially every role performed by a commander has been integrated within the 4 classes.
Click to expand...

Not to be a prick, but it would be even easier to just have unlimited ammo. I get your point, but the commander offered another level of complexity to the game. I liked BF2 because it was a tad more complex then an arcade shooter that you would find on a console.

Speaking of which I hope vehicles have limited ammo.
 
If the squad commander feature was in people would scream it's COD-inspired killstreak bullshit (UAV + mortar strike + supply drop). Even though we all know it was in BF2, you know full-well people would scream it from the rooftops anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top