EA Games is really placing massive focus on their much anticipated war shooter Battlefield 3 to make a dent on competitor Call of Dutys following. The game is slated to demo at E3 2011 in June and be... More...
Well, we'll believe it when we see it. I'm hoping for a long 10 hour campaign but I highly doubt that would happen but am going to be happy settling between 6 - 8 hours. Even that is asking too much apparently these days seeing how Battlefield: Bad Company 2 was about a 5 hour campaign experience and games like Homefront is finished in around 3.5 - 4 hours .... Personally 32 players is enough for me, I know there's people who love the 64 player battles but seriously, the BF2 maps for those were too big and took forever to go from point A to point B as I've stated in the past. If they fixed that then I'm all for it. If not, I'll stick to 32 player servers. deltatux
I think EA/DICE should stop comparing their game to the COD series and focus on making BF3 >>> BF2. Battlefield's game play is very different to COD hence they should no even compare it with COD. They are focusing so hard on making a better game than COD that they might end up with an COD game. COD's game play is so boring (especially blops) so please please DICE focus on making a better battlefield game!!!!
They're not comparing - they want the end user to buy it, and become the biggest selling FPS franchise. The games themselves aren't comparable. In the online FPS arena, the 2 main players are BF & CoD. CoD currently holds the marketshare title - EA & DICE want to get BF to the top. It is in now way a comparison to the 2 games, its all about the bottom line.
"we have the superior game engine, superior development studio and a flat out superior game" Superior game engine - most likely (haven't seen mw3's yet but likely to be an only slightly improved mw2 engine.) Superior development studio - for realism yes, but for wider, market appeal no. Superior game - cant tell as haven't seen any of mw3 but tilting slightly towards a no, because like EA's other recent shooters BC2 and MOH have looked decent in trailers and previews but the final games have been disappointing and unable to get close to knocking COD of its perch so Im hesitant to say that BF3 will be different.
its all sales talk. they have the best of everything, you would be a fool not to buy the game. atleast thats what they are saying. personally i havent pre-ordered the game, i will without a doubt buy the game though, since i love a good FPS. but i dont think it will be good like they said. the 12 minute video showed more flaws , due to the video (which they showed in a teaser) was full size, not downsized to a basic youtube vid. (making the vid more crisp, and make it look better). it looks ok, not mindblowing.
BF3 will hopefully be more like BF2, but I feel it will be a mixture of BF2 and BC2. While these types of FPS don't appeal much to the console kids (particularly BF2) they are VASTLY superior in every respect to CoD. Name something CoD does better? (actually, I'll give you game modes in multiplayer, but that's it). CoD already had a HUGE console fanbase, that's the only reason its the 'No. 1 FPS'. DICE /EA are trying to take over that market. BC2 sold extremely well, and BF3 will do a LOT better. Oh, and please do not mention MoH and BF in the same sentence. That's blasphemy. (talking about the new MoH that is). It is, by a country mile [even in the video's], without a doubt the best looking shooter I have ever seen. BC2 currently holds that perch IMO but BF3 will be even better. Considering how incredible it already looks from the video's of gameplay released, this will look incredible on your own screen. BC2 comes damn close to Crysis in graphical detail, but actually has excellent performance. BF3 will be even better, but will probably perform better (at similar settings) due to their out and out use of DX11 for Frostbite 2.
BFBC2 was amazing, but the lack of proper AA really irritated me and in places, the game could look rather average (due to all the jaggies) If the new engine supports it, i will be very pleased indeed.
Need to see Multiplayer game play!! I want to see more vehicles and weapons than what BF2 had but make it so I can blow up a few sand bags with a tank blast damnit!!!
Hahahah. Yeah, after playing BC2 and it's epic destruction, it's hard to go back to a normal game without it, where a tank round just stops dead in it's tracks if you're behind even the thinnest of covers. Like you said, in BF2 you can hide behind a sandbag and have a tank round hit you dead on and you're 100% OK. Destruction needs to start being implemented in all games. It's one way to radically change FPS games due to no longer being able to hide behind everything.
It's also one way to make FPS games completely unfun. Don't get me wrong, the scenario you described brings up a good point. But when things start getting too realistic the balance and pace of the game is lost. Make tanks able to level everything and everyone wants to be in a tank. Make tanks weak to infantry fire and suddenly tanks aren't very rewarding. I mean I'm sure DICE is capable of balancing it (i hope) but I'm strongly against companies adding stuff because it's "cool" or "realistic" and not taking game design/balance into thought.
Are you kidding me? It's awesome in BC2 to hide inside a building only to hear the structure weakening and have it fall down on you while you try to escape. It's very epic.
Epic and balance are completely different things. If the devs behind Counterstrike focused on epicness it wouldn't be the most played game on steam still. If Blizzard focused on things being Epic in Starcraft 2, they would have left the beta Mothership in the game, and we wouldn't be having $100k+ tournaments being run in North America. I'd rather have a game be competitive, balanced, and well designed then just being built because it looks cool. I mean sure, you can do both at the same time, and some have, but the vast majority fall into the realm of "OH LETS DO THIS BECAUSE ITS AWESOME" and not "lets do this because it makes the game more balanced".
Complete bull imo. It means you have to play with a bit of intelligence. There are classes to combat tanks plus your own tanks. It helps encourage teamwork and not everyone being the same class. I beat tanks 1 on 1 when Im engi all of the time. Just be smarter than most noobs in the tanks. Balance is fine.
Denial, games are designed to be fun. I'm so sick of every gamer wanting to be "pro" or competitive. I wish that attitude was never brought to gaming, but it can't be undone. If you're having fun, and it's epic, cool, and great to play, that's all that matters. I so wish StarCraft hadn't been ruined by the E-Sports crowd. You cannot play that game these days without people flipping the **** out on you, or taunting the **** out if you if you win. Do a team battle, and let's say you're not as good as one of your team mates? Be prepared to get insulted and screamed at until they quit or something. Counter-Strikes community is a joke in the gaming world... Complete destruction adds a whole level of skill to the game. It reinvigorates the tired FPS genre.
While I agree with Denial a little it's just that, a little! They will need to keep balance but ya gotta extend the real effects some. I do want to see the rag doll effect stay with the players so if you get blasted by C4 then you're going to fly! I also want to see the minor destruction effects such as blasting sand bags with a grenade or tank round etc etc.. you get the idea. Crysis had it pretty good with being able to destroy most objects but not full buildings which is what we need here in BF3. Everyone is waiting for Multiplayer game play though cause without showing that off Battlefield really isn't Battlefield anymore. Don't add in Ranks, don't add in stats..just give us a game to build from and enjoy good team work with as it was with BF1942 and Vietnam!!
lol, ye I get tired with the whole APM thing on Starcraft. As for competitiveness, that reminds me of those really stupid "crouch" servers in Black Ops. If you don't "crouch" you're kicked. In reality, who in the real world crouches throughout a battlefield? Oh and no running because they want to keep "competitiveness and realism" *sigh*. They're playing CoD and they want realism? Play ArmA for f**k's sakes. Both Denial and MKilbride have points ... realism is good as long as there's a semblance of balance. Personally BFBC2 has way too many snipers ... in reality there aren't that many snipers on the battlefield, and usually snipers go in pairs (yes I know if they did this no one would want to be in the sniper class as that would be annoying lol). However, there's really too many snipers, I think the game needs to discourage people to be a sniper. Personally, I choose classes based on the need of the situation and usually I'm Assault, Engineer (to get rid of tanks) or Recon. deltatux
but its both epic and balanced, hows destructable buildings unbalanced? :3eyes:, campers go die. I care 0 about competitive gaming, no1 gives a crap about that in my country and i stopped playing that way, its spoils part of the fun when you play for ranks
You have to play with intelligence in a lot of games that don't have destruction. Like I said, it's cool to have it, if they can also keep the game balanced. Completely disagree. Number one, the reason why Starcraft still has a strong presence after 10 years is because of e-sports. In Starcraft 2 they are running tournaments where over 100,000 people watch it live. Hell WCG managed to fill an entire stadium in Korea. That's what keeps gaming/games alive and pushes developers like Blizzard to spend time developing quality games and not crap. It also is why companies like Nvidia/Razer/AMD/Intel/etc, drop thousands of dollars on leagues, sponsoring players, creating special editions of peripherals. The more money spent on gaming, the better it is for us. I also can't see how you can't have fun playing the games either. There are tons of side-games in Starcraft/Starcraft 2 and even my friends who are completely terrible at SC2 enjoy playing 2v2's with random people. The ladder system matches you with players at your skill level, I guess SC1 didn't have that ability, but in SC2 if you're bad you're going to play with bad people. In Counter-Strike it's the same ****. Game is hella years old and yet it's still the most played game on steam. I wouldn't necessarily call that a joke community, but in fact a very strong one. Everyone I know that plays games competitively has fun doing so, or else they wouldn't be doing it. A game can be epic and yet still very competitive, SC2 comes to mind. Watch matches with like HuK when he mothership rushes and thousands of people watching start cheering. Or just recently Nestea vs sCfOu game 5 @ GSL which was probably one of the most exciting epic SC2 games played to date. In fact every single sport, Football, Baseball, Basketball, etc. All highly competitive but are also very entertaining and fun. There is no one that loves destroying **** in video games more than I. All I'm saying is that when you're building a multiplayer game, you should never sacrifice game design for graphics/effects, ever. Destructible buildings changed the mechanics of the game. How it leads to balance design is an extremely complicated topic. There are hundreds of interactions and scenarios that are now different because the building you're in can collapse on top of you, or the cover you're behind can be destroyed. For instance in Halo, when they added full health/shield regeneration, it completely changed the scope of the game. You were no longer punished for being out in the open. In Halo one, a shot of a sniper rifle removed your shield and reduced your health slightly. By reducing your health and it not regenerating, you're taking a penalty for being shot and thus the other player is rewarded by having an advantage over you. In later Halo's (i know in the latest one they reverted back) all you had to do is crouch behind cover and you were no longer penalized for your poor choice. As a result a bunch of things shift in the meta of the game though. People are more likely to be out in the open because they aren't penalized as much for it, etc etc.
