battlefeild 3, PS3....worth getting?

[Vault101]

ok this most likley seems like a silly/obvious question, however I thourght I'd ask anyway

I thourght I might give the multiplayer thing a proper try, though Im not sure right now as Its quite a bit of money and I havnt heard great things about the single player

1. the platform: I figured PS3 is a better choice than the xbox, no I dont think my computer could handle it and Id want to get the most out of it, visuals included

2. the comunity: am I going to struggle to find a game after a few months..or at all? I mean its a multiplayer focused game so I assume it will have more logetivity in that regard

 

[The Gatherer]

I'd say get battlefield bad company 2 and play that online for a while. If you can get into it I suggest you get b3. The replay factor is immense. Unlike cod or halo where its just brainless running and gunning, battlefield is more tactics oriented, you can have unlimited fun putting your own squad together and devising strategies based on your weaknesses and strengths untill you dominate all.
As for the community thing, I was playing bbc2 earlier and even tho b3 is out today there's still loads of people on, and i cant see why b3 will be any different in a few months. Also its true, there are a lot less knobheads on the ps3. so yeah, I reckon you go for it

 

[mikey7339]

I'd say get battlefield bad company 2 and play that online for a while. If you can get into it I suggest you get b3.

I don't think that's a good suggestion. That was nothing at all like BF1942 or BF2. If you have a good computer that can run it, get it for that. You get to have more players in a game at once.

 

[Vault101]

I'd say get battlefield bad company 2 and play that online for a while. If you can get into it I suggest you get b3. The replay factor is immense. Unlike cod or halo where its just brainless running and gunning, battlefield is more tactics oriented, you can have unlimited fun putting your own squad together and devising strategies based on your weaknesses and strengths untill you dominate all.
As for the community thing, I was playing bbc2 earlier and even tho b3 is out today there's still loads of people on, and i cant see why b3 will be any different in a few months. Also its true, there are a lot less knobheads on the ps3. so yeah, I reckon you go for it

battlefeild 2 bad company still has players? well if thats the case mabye so, and It would be cheaper

thanks for the advice!

 

[MercurySteam]

I'd say get battlefield bad company 2 and play that online for a while. If you can get into it I suggest you get b3. The replay factor is immense. Unlike cod or halo where its just brainless running and gunning, battlefield is more tactics oriented, you can have unlimited fun putting your own squad together and devising strategies based on your weaknesses and strengths untill you dominate all.
As for the community thing, I was playing bbc2 earlier and even tho b3 is out today there's still loads of people on, and i cant see why b3 will be any different in a few months. Also its true, there are a lot less knobheads on the ps3. so yeah, I reckon you go for it

battlefeild 2 bad company still has players? well if thats the case mabye so, and It would be cheaper

thanks for the advice!

I'd hope so. BC2 was (and still is) a great game in it's own right (the multiplayer, anyway). Be warned however that BF3 and BC2 look, play and feel very different to each other.

 

[Ganthrinor]

ok this most likley seems like a silly/obvious question, however I thourght I'd ask anyway

I thourght I might give the multiplayer thing a proper try, though Im not sure right now as Its quite a bit of money and I havnt heard great things about the single player

1. the platform: I figured PS3 is a better choice than the xbox, no I dont think my computer could handle it and Id want to get the most out of it, visuals included

2. the comunity: am I going to struggle to find a game after a few months..or at all? I mean its a multiplayer focused game so I assume it will have more logetivity in that regard

I've tried several iterations of Battlefield 3, and as long as you know you're only getting it for the MP content and do not mind supporting EA a little bit then sure, go ahead. It is a very visually and audibly beautiful game... but that's about it. It plays okay, nothing new and earth-shattering about the controls. Just don't expect much (or anything at all, really) from the single player. It's a rail shooter at it's worst. The story is uninspired and boring, many parts of the game are glorified quick-time events where you are literally forced to just sit there and push two buttons for long periods at a time.

Just another MMS, only slightly prettier than last time.

 

[MercurySteam]

No.

You really don't have much of on opinion here, do you?

 

[Ganthrinor]

No.

You really don't have much of on opinion here, do you?

I edited my post for content, but no, I don't really have much good to say about the game and rather than treat everyone reading this thread to another one of my hate-inspired rants against EA and DICE, I figured I'd keep it simple =)

 

[MercurySteam]

rather than treat everyone reading this thread to another one of my hate-inspired rants against EA and DICE, I figured I'd keep it simple =)

Aww, how generous of you. Now if you'll excuse me, BF3 awaits!

 

[Joccaren]

I was wondering too. Since strategy is such a big part of the game, how do you get organization and teamwork among mostly random partners? Does it just devolve in to a bunch of goofballs running around very often?

Depends. Mics help a lot if you've got a dedicated squad. No idea if it works like that on Consoles, but on PC just boot up skype and chat. From there, the spot function tells your teammates where enemies are with the press of a button, the squad spawning causes your squad to stay somewhat close together, at least in the first few moments after spawning. From there, you learn how to play as a team and end up being able to do it largely without talking.
But yes, there are a lot of goofballs running around, and they are usually on the one team vs the good players until the Auto-Balance kicks in. It is quite amusing to watch.

OT: Eh, IDK. Personally I'd upgrade your PC and play it on that. The cost of the upgrade required to run it would only be about 2-300 (Prices may vary dependant on region), and you'll get a better experience out of most games from it. Granted it won't run full settings, but for that your looking at a more expensive build...

I'd probably get it for PS3 over Xbox though. The bluray is an advantage that the Xbox don't have, and that is why you need to DL a HD patch on the Xbox if you want it to look like it does on the PS3 normally, or the PC on low settings.

And no, there will not be empty servers after a couple of months.

 

[The Gatherer]

I was wondering too. Since strategy is such a big part of the game, how do you get organization and teamwork among mostly random partners? Does it just devolve in to a bunch of goofballs running around very often?

If you play with randomers it can do, but when people get to grip with it you will obviously be able to have better games. But what i suggest is to get a bunch of mates who are committed to playing tactically into a squad and just play with them. Headsets are vital to. This way you can get the most out of the online experience and stops it becoming stale

EDIT: Or you could just listen to this guy ^