[Game] Battlefield 3

[Pectus]

Right Pectus, because the only reason one would poke fun at their ridiculous "new" features list would be, of course, being a rabid RO fanboy. Your logic is flawless.

Either you didnt read my post carefully, or you truly are a RO fanboy.

Care to explain what is it that you find ridicilous in the feature list ?

 

[Reddog]

I want to see more details before passing judgement, but am quietly optimistic.

 

[Hirmuinen]

64 players + bigger maps sounds great. One of the main problems to me in BFBC2 is the tiny maps that offer little variety on how you play them. All they need to do now is offer mod support, no BF has kept me interested for very long without mods.

 

[DraKon2k]

What has me optimistic are the confirmed locations(USA->NY; Middle East->Teheran; Europe->Paris). Maybe that means there will be some new factions for once. I'd love to play as Iran, Germany or France instead of fighting as US Marine for the 59483th time and against clich

 

[Harb]

I always feel as though I'm floating just above the ground whenever I play BF games. Horrible movement mechanics, from not being able to strafe whilst sprinting to a lack of prone it always feels like a struggle.

I'll reserve final judgement until I actually play the new one as I'm hopeful they might get around to figuring out the basics by the 6th or so instalment.

 

[Reddog]

What I hope for as well is each faction having their own weapon set ala BF2. The 'every side has the same gear' BC2 style bores me.

 

[Zennousha]

BC2 was somewhat fun, a good time killer. Some of the features they've listed so far makes me expect a somewhat better product this time around (though I won't reserve judgment until I've seen some beta gameplay). So HoS, Skyrim, BF3... I'm pretty pleased.

 

[UncleDrax]

Ahh, gotta laugh at all the hating here from RO fanboys. You affraid bf3 will steal HoS's show ? I'd imagine the reason to list prone as an feature is because it was missing from bfbc2, and due to that, there was quite a lot *****ing on the bfbc2 pc forums about it.

64 players, destructible enviroments, awesome sounds(i'd assume since they were epic in bc2 already) it will definetly give HoS a run for it's money.

Well, sadly, I'm sure BF3 will have way more players then RO2, because EA has the sorta multi-million-dollar-advertising budget to get major TV/Radio and promo events.

I think the reason alot of people hate on BF/DICE is because they have been basically rehashing the same formula ever since BF42.. and frankly, the only thing I think they've innovated since then is the Radial-Menu (further improved in BC2 to just "hit the button", which works better then half the time imo, but still needs some tweaking).
Since they, they have just been tweaking their original formula over and over again, re-adding things they ALREADY HAD and calling them features is a bit.. lame.. maybe they are 'trying to get it right', but they need to invest alot of time into other things, like a server browser that works from the release of their friggen $60 product....

Also, you have got to realize alot of the people here from RO/KF and the like, are here because they appreciate a fairly-open, helpful, mod-friend company that doesn't appear to just be about milking their customers.. of which EA/DICE is.. not.

That said, I really enjoyed BF:BC2 for what it was.. I think RO2 will be a more 'fullfilling' experience though.. they are similar games, but not the same, as most everyone knows. I actually even more greatly liked BF:Heroes because it didn't pretend to be anything more then a casual BF-like-game (heavily centered on micro-payments mind you..).

 

[Apos]

So they announced 64 players multiplayer, jets and prone. I guess I have seen it in Battlefield 2, 6 years ago.
I'm not saying it won't be good game, but It's obvious for me, that next release should have something new. What's more EA/DICE has tons of $$$ to research new features...

 

[Zetsumei]

Will see how it goes, i personally think that BF2 was quite innovating in a lot of features. Sadly it wasn't really my style of game.

Although it releasing in fall could mean that its close to the ROHOS release. Lets hope that HOS manages to get its pr going and releasing before it gets cought in the wind of their marketing campaign.

I think a lod of battlefield fans could end up loving RO, but there should be a sufficient gap between the titles to get Battlefield fans to tryout RO and possibly stick with it.

 

[kapulA]

Either you didnt read my post carefully, or you truly are a RO fanboy.

Care to explain what is it that you find ridicilous in the feature list ?

I find it ridiculous that each one of the listed "new" features has been done before. And not done before in the general sense, but done before in the Battlefield series. But what would I know, not like I played all of them up to 2142, I'm obviously an RO fanboy...

 

[Zips]

And nobody ever said they were "new" features. You guys are inserting that word in there constantly to try and justify whatever it is you're trying to justify.

BF fans wanted a new BF. They got exactly that. BC2 doesn't count since it was in the Bad Company realm of Battlefield games, an off-shoot of the main series. BF3 continues in the line of BF2 and 2142 proper and includes the same damn features that those games had plus whatever extras that DICE and EA have yet to announce.

 

[Uurastaja]

Good for them to support the good old features and hopefully modding aswell, but the whole output is so predictable, uninspired and cheesy it completely bores me. The mainstream gaming industry seems like a total joke right now, couldn't they come up with anything original than the same old modern borefare setting and orange/blue contrast?

Besides, BC2's replay value last only about 30 hours for me due to the console limitations and I have a feeling that BF3's PC version will have its share of multiplatforming issues, too.

 

[Rak]

I like how every mainstream FPS gets insta-hate from certain guys in this forum. The more you hate, the cooler you are guys!

Judging from BC2, BF3 will be awesome in every way. BC was meant to be faster paced, that's why they removed the prone and forced people to be on the move. The emphasis on "prone position" just confirms they're going back to the roots and not the BC way.

I can't wait for 64 player destruction carnage with awesome sound effects.

 

[EvilAmericanMan]

This just feels like the CoD situation...what more can they do that is new? That will make me want to buy the game? I get bored pretty quickly now the few times I play Black Ops. And vanilla Battlefield has always been pretty garbage, especially before patches. I can't imagine a thing EA will do to reverse my thinking. I bought BF2 for about $15-$20 a while ago just to play PRM. I dawdled in BF2 a little too, got dolphin dived to hell (thought they fixed that, must have heard wrong). Bleeeeeeh.

 

[Reise]

And nobody ever said they were "new" features. You guys are inserting that word in there constantly to try and justify whatever it is you're trying to justify.

Nobody said they were new, but there's no denying that these features are being advertised as core draws to the game.

 

[PUTZ]

And that's somehow a bad thing?

 

[Nenjin]

Welcome to Modern Video Gamers.

BC: "What? They took out prone? You unrealistic mother****ers. There's not even any jets! And what is this 32-player server ****?"

BC2: "Seriously, still no prone? Way to go Dice Ward. And thanks for the vehicles, which still suck. And still 32-players. Go to hell."

BF3: "Prone? Way to rip off HoS. And thanks for the jets, you assholes. And for bumping the servers back up to 64-players. Assholes."

I'm not saying I'm super thrilled or hopeful. But the irony of so many people *****ing about features they *****ed about MISSING in the other games.....god damn, will nothing make you people happy other than HOES? If so, caring enough to say anything about a game other than HOES is about as productive as throwing **** at a wall and arguing which way it will fall off.

At the very least, there will be a co-op campaign. I'm happy about that. Based on the cover art, I'm hoping for a lot of dense urban warfare, and very little of the Heavy Metal/Open Harvest/maps with 1,000 meters of no cover.

 

[illinifan]

prone isn't a "feature." doesn't matter how you cut it, its not a feature

and yes, im a TWI fanboi. doesn't mean i dont like other games. i LOVED ut2k4, and am really looking forward to duke nukem and bulletstorm(zomg multi plat!!!). I just don't happen to be a fan of quasi-realism games like BF or **** games like cod

 

[Fedorov]

But the irony of so many people *****ing about features they *****ed about MISSING in the other games.....

I never *****ed about it, cause I really never cared about them. What I hate about it, is the same thing I hate about all of them: modern setting. And I'll keep *****ing about them as long as they keep making them. As I said earlier this thread, I'd gladly buy a battlefield game if they actually did something new and interesting, like something WW1, medieval or renaissance.

The fact that its got some good things makes it worse, because the more it has, the less good things you can say about HOES without an idiot pointing at BF3.

America is dominate!