[Game] Battlefield 3
- Thread starter Ralfst3r
- Start date
Well, at least it's in. That's good. I hate it in BC2 when you are being shot at and can't get into cover cuz you can't prone.
Upvote
0
Yeah I really hope that this game actually innovates. Not that I have a ton of confidence in that. But 64 players and prone is more than I had thought we would get. So we'll see where this goes.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Thoughts of some of the issues being discussed around here...
1. Prone: DICE did not come out and go "We have this awesome new feature that will blow you guys away! It's called...prone!" They simply stated it's in, along with 64 players, and jets. Would you have preferred them not mention it all or have them make you wait for gameplay footage which you inevitably would have picked out as a major topic of conversation anyway?
2. TWI Fanboyism: Implying Battlefield 3 should be less successful to make HOES look better is nonsensical. Rational people who like both games will play both games. If HOES was the only fps to come out in the next year, the kinds of people who don't like the style of RO will still not like RO.
3. Announced features: We now have confirmation of 3 of probably the 4 most anticipated features: prone, 64 players, and jets which implies big maps. Altogether, this is extremely promising news. That leaves mod support unconfirmed. With this information then, the biggest knock or source of apprehension about the game the fact that it is not PC exclusive. Whether that is a big issue or not is still not determined since there has been absolutely zero gameplay footage. However, the fact that DICE is trying to tackle the issues of prone, 64 player battles, and huge maps (probably) which typically don't bode well for consoles, is a good sign.
4. Theater: People still complaining about the theater aren't being very rational. A WWI game, as has been discussed a million times, would make no sense for a Battlefield game. BF never was realistic and to make a proper WWI game it would have to be slow paced (sitting in trenches/sludging through mud) which they will never attempt. This also goes for a Civil/Revolutionary/Napoleonic setting. Furthermore, setting it in medieval times would be such a massive upheaval of what BF is that it would no longer be a BF game, it would be a new series. That leaves a handful of conflicts left, most all of which have been covered so inevitably it's going to be a repeat. Also, keep in mind they have most likely been developing this game for years. When they chose this setting there weren't as many modern shooters saturating the market.
All in all this will probably not be revolutionary but it does look like there is a good chance it is shaping up to be a worthy successor to BF2. All the news about it so far hasn't been perfect of course but it is already exceeding many of our expectations feature wise. So with that I ask some of you guys to tone down the negativity, appeal to the logical part of your brain, and take this for what it is.
EDIT: Mounting your gun on terrain and carrying enemies, eh? More evidence DICE is headed in the right direction.
1. Prone: DICE did not come out and go "We have this awesome new feature that will blow you guys away! It's called...prone!" They simply stated it's in, along with 64 players, and jets. Would you have preferred them not mention it all or have them make you wait for gameplay footage which you inevitably would have picked out as a major topic of conversation anyway?
2. TWI Fanboyism: Implying Battlefield 3 should be less successful to make HOES look better is nonsensical. Rational people who like both games will play both games. If HOES was the only fps to come out in the next year, the kinds of people who don't like the style of RO will still not like RO.
3. Announced features: We now have confirmation of 3 of probably the 4 most anticipated features: prone, 64 players, and jets which implies big maps. Altogether, this is extremely promising news. That leaves mod support unconfirmed. With this information then, the biggest knock or source of apprehension about the game the fact that it is not PC exclusive. Whether that is a big issue or not is still not determined since there has been absolutely zero gameplay footage. However, the fact that DICE is trying to tackle the issues of prone, 64 player battles, and huge maps (probably) which typically don't bode well for consoles, is a good sign.
4. Theater: People still complaining about the theater aren't being very rational. A WWI game, as has been discussed a million times, would make no sense for a Battlefield game. BF never was realistic and to make a proper WWI game it would have to be slow paced (sitting in trenches/sludging through mud) which they will never attempt. This also goes for a Civil/Revolutionary/Napoleonic setting. Furthermore, setting it in medieval times would be such a massive upheaval of what BF is that it would no longer be a BF game, it would be a new series. That leaves a handful of conflicts left, most all of which have been covered so inevitably it's going to be a repeat. Also, keep in mind they have most likely been developing this game for years. When they chose this setting there weren't as many modern shooters saturating the market.
All in all this will probably not be revolutionary but it does look like there is a good chance it is shaping up to be a worthy successor to BF2. All the news about it so far hasn't been perfect of course but it is already exceeding many of our expectations feature wise. So with that I ask some of you guys to tone down the negativity, appeal to the logical part of your brain, and take this for what it is.
EDIT: Mounting your gun on terrain and carrying enemies, eh? More evidence DICE is headed in the right direction.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I wonder what relevance dragging your friends to safety will have. Are they going to totally re-do medics?
Again, I question how they would present information in a way that doesn't insult you guys. There were literally 3 bullet point features on the main page, worded as mildly and truthfully as they could possibly be. Do you guys require like, a foreword begging your forgiveness for talking about features you already expect?
Seriously, how could they describe the features in a way that you guys find acceptable. Other bending over backwards to agree with you that, whatever they're doing, you won't like it because it's not "different enough."
Again, I question how they would present information in a way that doesn't insult you guys. There were literally 3 bullet point features on the main page, worded as mildly and truthfully as they could possibly be. Do you guys require like, a foreword begging your forgiveness for talking about features you already expect?
Seriously, how could they describe the features in a way that you guys find acceptable. Other bending over backwards to agree with you that, whatever they're doing, you won't like it because it's not "different enough."
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Certainly, those who like both will play both and those who only like one will play one, but thats not the issue. The issue is that the fuzz BF3 is gonna make, will make HOES slip under most peoples radars. So is not really a matter of whether they like it or not, but more like whether they'll hear about it or not.
The flashy orange-blue and explosions will catch all the attention. And without the further need of a good FPS, I can tell that there'll be a huge tons of people that won't even look at RO. Thats where the problem resides. I don't even blame BF3 for this, I blame the timing.
I know that they won't change the setting, I just say thats what it would take to make me feel interested in one.
Upvote
0
It's the same as with journalism and headlines. Regardless of your stance about the subject (E.G. love\hate\curious\don't care\YMMV\or so about BF3), the choice of words and placement of the headline seems to be mocking even when it's unintensional and occasionally pretty damm hilarious. Let's presume we have a title called: "Battlefield 3 ships Fall 2011", I'd probably read it through and keep an eye out for the game due mild interest. Now let's go for the title: "Battlefield 3 ships Fall 2011 -- includes jets, prone, and 64 player multiplayer!"
Now as much as it's fun to include few pieces of hype in some of the stuff, it almost makes me question my own reading comprehension and basic intelligence when I read the other half. "New Volkswagen [insert fancy model here] -- now with tires!", "Raid gunshop, find weapons!", "RO2 preview -- you can attach bayonets to rifles!"
Upvote
0
Will they be one of the few modern FPSs to not have LMGs being used like assault rifles? Because that is really, REALLY annoying.
Upvote
0
Weapon bracing seems like signs are pointing to yes.
That was the big thing about LMGs in the last PC Battlefields. They were useless on the move, didn't get fancy optics, and required prone for maximum accuracy.
The LMGs in the console ones have almost no downsides, despite fire-on-the-move penalties.
That was the big thing about LMGs in the last PC Battlefields. They were useless on the move, didn't get fancy optics, and required prone for maximum accuracy.
The LMGs in the console ones have almost no downsides, despite fire-on-the-move penalties.
Upvote
0
BF3 is slated for Fall and RO2 is assumed to come out by early summer at the very latest, no? That seems like a pretty good window for RO2 to make it's push to that iffy element of players.
It's not like every time an RO2 article is published EA will come punch it in the face, kick it into the trash can, and then scream look at me instead! At least I hope not.
I think it's realistic to expect the combined force of TWI's marketing campaign and the support of the fanbase to make more than enough of a voice to get the players into RO2 that would have gotten into it had BF3 never existed.
Upvote
0
BF3 is slated for Fall and RO2 is assumed to come out by early summer at the very latest, no? That seems like a pretty good window for RO2 to make it's push to that iffy element of players.
It's not like every time an RO2 article is published EA will come punch it in the face, kick it into the trash can, and then scream look at me instead! At least I hope not.
I hope you are right, but with TWI's silence lately, I'm getting less and less optimistic about HOES release date. I'm starting to think late 2011 or even 2012.
Upvote
0
Going off topic here...
But am I the only one who liked BFBC2 more than BF2? While it is certianly better than the CoD games online, BF2 was very underwhelming in almost every way aside from map size and graphics.
I am not sure why they are including jets in BF3 either. They where awful in BF2 and really make no sense in a game of such scale. Just put more tanks/APCs in and work on making them better.
But am I the only one who liked BFBC2 more than BF2? While it is certianly better than the CoD games online, BF2 was very underwhelming in almost every way aside from map size and graphics.
I am not sure why they are including jets in BF3 either. They where awful in BF2 and really make no sense in a game of such scale. Just put more tanks/APCs in and work on making them better.
Upvote
0
Thoughts of some of the issues being discussed around here...
1. Prone: DICE did not come out and go "We have this awesome new feature that will blow you guys away! It's called...prone!" They simply stated it's in, along with 64 players, and jets. Would you have preferred them not mention it all or have them make you wait for gameplay footage which you inevitably would have picked out as a major topic of conversation anyway?
2. TWI Fanboyism: Implying Battlefield 3 should be less successful to make HOES look better is nonsensical. Rational people who like both games will play both games. If HOES was the only fps to come out in the next year, the kinds of people who don't like the style of RO will still not like RO.
3. Announced features: We now have confirmation of 3 of probably the 4 most anticipated features: prone, 64 players, and jets which implies big maps. Altogether, this is extremely promising news. That leaves mod support unconfirmed. With this information then, the biggest knock or source of apprehension about the game the fact that it is not PC exclusive. Whether that is a big issue or not is still not determined since there has been absolutely zero gameplay footage. However, the fact that DICE is trying to tackle the issues of prone, 64 player battles, and huge maps (probably) which typically don't bode well for consoles, is a good sign.
4. Theater: People still complaining about the theater aren't being very rational. A WWI game, as has been discussed a million times, would make no sense for a Battlefield game. BF never was realistic and to make a proper WWI game it would have to be slow paced (sitting in trenches/sludging through mud) which they will never attempt. This also goes for a Civil/Revolutionary/Napoleonic setting. Furthermore, setting it in medieval times would be such a massive upheaval of what BF is that it would no longer be a BF game, it would be a new series. That leaves a handful of conflicts left, most all of which have been covered so inevitably it's going to be a repeat. Also, keep in mind they have most likely been developing this game for years. When they chose this setting there weren't as many modern shooters saturating the market.
All in all this will probably not be revolutionary but it does look like there is a good chance it is shaping up to be a worthy successor to BF2. All the news about it so far hasn't been perfect of course but it is already exceeding many of our expectations feature wise. So with that I ask some of you guys to tone down the negativity, appeal to the logical part of your brain, and take this for what it is.
EDIT: Mounting your gun on terrain and carrying enemies, eh? More evidence DICE is headed in the right direction.
They left out one big ****ing awesome feature - Controllable Battleships and Aircraft Carriers :IS2:
Bring back some of that good old BF1942 magic
Last edited:
Upvote
0