Battlefield 3 to be EA's Biggest Launch of All Time
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Not to be a steam whore, but I do really want to know, will it be on steam? That program just makes my life a whole lot easier when I'm trying to play my games.
Actually its EA's job to. EA is the publisher, they have to knock down COD. Dice is the developer of the game, they're the ones doing all this stuff such as making the amazing frosbite 2 engine and going to military operations. Also EA's really been helpful in the sense that DICE is suing EA's ANT animation system from EA sports games to mesh what would happen in cutscenes into the gameplay insteadMarik2 said:
Yeah well they said that about Bad Company 2 as well, and all it did was mean that a whole lot of stupid singleplayer ideas from COD now found thenselves shoved into Battlefield.
It's called BattleFIELD for a reason, not Battle-along-a-narrow-corridor-pathway.
It's called BattleFIELD for a reason, not Battle-along-a-narrow-corridor-pathway.
No bro theyre making for PC that DICE's primary audience. Its going to be even better if you buy that one!
What's the opposite to gold? Lead? Well, then EA have a lead touch. For every success, they have three disappointments. I like BF2, I liked CoD4 and I've disliked everything that's followed. They bought out Westwood, makers of the massively popular and well designed C&C series: what do they do with it? Make RA3, a sequel to RA2, one of the best-balanced RTSes since SC, and literally take the pi- mickey. So what about the other half of the C&C franchise - they finally drag it into this century graphics-wise with the awesome C&C3, then kill it off with a game which barely rates as a strategy game.
I liked BF2, i think even today its one of the best FPS games on the market. Is it possible BF3 will be better - yes, if unlikely. Is it possible it's look all shiny, but actually have pretty average or poor gameplay - fairly likely. We'll just have to wait and see.
Personally I really hope they just use the same copy protection as BF2 had. Serial codes
I liked BF2, i think even today its one of the best FPS games on the market. Is it possible BF3 will be better - yes, if unlikely. Is it possible it's look all shiny, but actually have pretty average or poor gameplay - fairly likely. We'll just have to wait and see.
New engine, they can hardly redo all the graphics and add gameplay changes like destuctible environment by patching BF2. There are a lot of things you cant easily patch into an existing game, it's why they bring out new ones as opposed to 15-odd games on one engine (valve).tehweave said:
Personally I really hope they just use the same copy protection as BF2 had. Serial codes
Now that is how to make a joke.Paragon Fury said:
Not joking.ThorUK said:What's the opposite to gold? Lead? Well, then EA have a lead touch. For every success, they have three disappointments. I like BF2, I liked CoD4 and I've disliked everything that's followed. They bought out Westwood, makers of the massively popular and well designed C&C series: what do they do with it? Make RA3, a sequel to RA2, one of the best-balanced RTSes since SC, and literally take the pi- mickey. So what about the other half of the C&C franchise - they finally drag it into this century graphics-wise with the awesome C&C3, then kill it off with a game which barely rates as a strategy game.
I liked BF2, i think even today its one of the best FPS games on the market. Is it possible BF3 will be better - yes, if unlikely. Is it possible it's look all shiny, but actually have pretty average or poor gameplay - fairly likely. We'll just have to wait and see.
New engine, they can hardly redo all the graphics and add gameplay changes like destuctible environment by patching BF2. There are a lot of things you cant easily patch into an existing game, it's why they bring out new ones as opposed to 15-odd games on one engine (valve).tehweave said:
Personally I really hope they just use the same copy protection as BF2 had. Serial codes
Now that is how to make a joke.Paragon Fury said:
I hate, hate keyboard controls for shooters. I can stand it for other genres, but shooters it absolutely drives me up the wall. I doubt there are many shooters out there that wouldn't benefit from being mapped to a controller.
Hell, I'll even say I dislike the mouse for shooters. The aim may be more sensitive by a bit, but the motion for driving and flying does not feel right at all (the keyboard doesn't help), it has no ability to be pressure sensitive on the buttons (like triggers on controllers do), and I can't play with just one hand one the PC.
And using an Xbox controller just doesn't cut it. For most games, the mapped over controls SUCK, and they don't get the joystick movement right IE: Battlefield 2142.
A few small reasons that I'm excited about BF3:
Prone is back! Woop!
Jets are back! Semi-woop!
Proper anti-air is back! MAJOR WOOP (especially with jets)
ATTACK ON KARKLAND (arguably the most fun BF2 map, and now with destructable terrain...)
I loved BC2 loads, and while it added the awesome destructable terrain and the vietnam maps were pure win, it felt like it was missing a little bit of its soul that BF2 had. I hope it gets it back with BF3, combining the best bits of BF2 and BC2 together to make the best game yet. Although I am still keen to see some actual multiplayer footage. All this single player stuff is great and all, but I didn't buy BF2 or BC2 for the single player content
As for all the comparisons between COD and BF... they're different enough that I'd say they don't directly compare. One is a twitchy FPS, the other is a slightly more realistic combined arms FPS. COD is about quick reactions and killstreaks, BF is more on the tactics and teamwork side of things, combining your air, foot and armoured players to capture objects.
Prone is back! Woop!
Jets are back! Semi-woop!
Proper anti-air is back! MAJOR WOOP (especially with jets)
ATTACK ON KARKLAND (arguably the most fun BF2 map, and now with destructable terrain...)
I loved BC2 loads, and while it added the awesome destructable terrain and the vietnam maps were pure win, it felt like it was missing a little bit of its soul that BF2 had. I hope it gets it back with BF3, combining the best bits of BF2 and BC2 together to make the best game yet. Although I am still keen to see some actual multiplayer footage. All this single player stuff is great and all, but I didn't buy BF2 or BC2 for the single player content
As for all the comparisons between COD and BF... they're different enough that I'd say they don't directly compare. One is a twitchy FPS, the other is a slightly more realistic combined arms FPS. COD is about quick reactions and killstreaks, BF is more on the tactics and teamwork side of things, combining your air, foot and armoured players to capture objects.
Well I'd rather have them trying their best and not specifically calling it a 'COD-killer' because there are far too many teenagers/kids who only buy products that have the three words 'call', 'of' and 'duty.'
Nevertheless it is going to be better in every single way[sub]except in the way that COD is different obviously.[/sub] It's time for a come-back!
Nevertheless it is going to be better in every single way[sub]except in the way that COD is different obviously.[/sub] It's time for a come-back!
Just going to point out that BF:BC2 is on Steam... I would be very, very, very surprised if BF3 doesn't come to Steam. Aside from the fact it'd be a stupid move, EA know the power of Steam. They've even recently relented and released The Sims 3 on it. It'll be on there, I'm 99% sure of it.Kalezian said:
I think DICE have to be a bit careful here in that they need to make sure they're not being CoD. I know Battlefield has been around a lot longer, but it's really only a household name to PC gamers, even after the Bad Company spin-offs. Medal of Honor (2010, of course) seemed to be a direct attack on CoD, yet failed. I suppose the fact it was a schizophrenic game with two engines didn't help, but still.
Battlefield 3 will do immensely well on the PC, I'm sure of it, but I'm not sure if it'll ring true for consoles.
While I sincerely believe that this game won't kill COD in terms of sales, I can grantee you that it will obliterate COD in terms of quality.
Seriously, if BF2 is any indication about BF3... Well let's just say that I STILL play BF2 regularly.
Seriously, if BF2 is any indication about BF3... Well let's just say that I STILL play BF2 regularly.
Seeing as one of the main designers for BF3 said that "you don't take down cod by making another cod, you take down cod by making a better game", which in my eyes they already succeded with BC2 and even then there are elements I find rather luckluster me being one of these rabid PC gamers.
What they should be reminded of isn't that BF3 is meant to be a cod killer, it's meant to be the best battlefield game to date! And seeing as the BF games are some of the best FPS's I've ever played... it'd make BF3 the best FPS to date.
Hopefully DICE has pulled their stuff together and really focus on making an awesome game and if it happens to kill off cod, perfect. If it only rivals cod, good enough. JUST DON'T MAKE COD.
What they should be reminded of isn't that BF3 is meant to be a cod killer, it's meant to be the best battlefield game to date! And seeing as the BF games are some of the best FPS's I've ever played... it'd make BF3 the best FPS to date.
Hopefully DICE has pulled their stuff together and really focus on making an awesome game and if it happens to kill off cod, perfect. If it only rivals cod, good enough. JUST DON'T MAKE COD.
IMO.
COD4 was a BF2 killer. Since then, EA has been releasing subpar games. Battlefield IS a PC title. Transferring it to consoles has been like transferring the study of history from University to high school - its dumbed it down. I enjoyed the depth of BF2 - a depth glaringly absent from BC:2!
I'll give Activision one thing - when they have a winning formula - they stick with it. I enjoyed COD4 immensely. I still do. And MW:2 and Black Ops is just more COD4, with new guns and new maps - and that is why its a huge success. They don't fuck with the fundamental mechanics of a game that makes shit loads of money. And why does it make more money than God I ask? Because people love it. And, I'll give Acitivision another thing: COD4 was on consoles, but it still had a great tactical depth. I had a hell of a lot of fun scrimming COD4.
I expect large amounts of fail in BF3 unless they return to the depth of game play in BF2... and since it is being released on console, I don't think this will happen. I want to see 6 man squads again. I want to see a commander. I want squad leaders. I want large expansive BATTLEFIELDS with tanks, armour, choppers, fighters and bombers. I want communication roses. I want to thank the guy who dropped me health or ammo. I want to be able to yell "Follow me!". I want helicopters that are challenging to fly and require team work to use efficiently. I want a game that is designed with competitive play in mind. I want dedicated servers with a server browser that isn't broken. (Admittedly with this one, EA has been pretty consistently good... while Activision has failed amazing hard.) I want to Prone. I want this, because this is what I had in BF2.
I don't want overcrowded maps. Maps designed quite nicely for 20 players (or less) on console, but filled to the brim with at 32p and overcrowded on PC servers. I don't want hax snipers that with the slightest skill can shut a game down. I don't want uber ammo or armour to be unlocked at later levels. BC:2 has to be the most beginner unfriendly game I have ever played. Thats the sort of shit that stops a game from expanding. It isn't right that a player who has experience, also has better guns, better armour, with better ammunition and more grenades with more explosive power, against some poor fello trying to learn how to play the game and doesn't start with so much as am ammo or health hub. I don't want a game that lowers its depth and complexity to appease the more casual console gamer at the expense of the more committed PC gamer.
And you know why I don't want these things... ? Because I know EA can do better. I've seen it, played it, and lost hundreds of hours doing it. I just expect EA to fail this time. I'm expecting the worse. Contemporary game design has made me a cynic.
/rant... kind of got carried away there.
COD4 was a BF2 killer. Since then, EA has been releasing subpar games. Battlefield IS a PC title. Transferring it to consoles has been like transferring the study of history from University to high school - its dumbed it down. I enjoyed the depth of BF2 - a depth glaringly absent from BC:2!
I'll give Activision one thing - when they have a winning formula - they stick with it. I enjoyed COD4 immensely. I still do. And MW:2 and Black Ops is just more COD4, with new guns and new maps - and that is why its a huge success. They don't fuck with the fundamental mechanics of a game that makes shit loads of money. And why does it make more money than God I ask? Because people love it. And, I'll give Acitivision another thing: COD4 was on consoles, but it still had a great tactical depth. I had a hell of a lot of fun scrimming COD4.
I expect large amounts of fail in BF3 unless they return to the depth of game play in BF2... and since it is being released on console, I don't think this will happen. I want to see 6 man squads again. I want to see a commander. I want squad leaders. I want large expansive BATTLEFIELDS with tanks, armour, choppers, fighters and bombers. I want communication roses. I want to thank the guy who dropped me health or ammo. I want to be able to yell "Follow me!". I want helicopters that are challenging to fly and require team work to use efficiently. I want a game that is designed with competitive play in mind. I want dedicated servers with a server browser that isn't broken. (Admittedly with this one, EA has been pretty consistently good... while Activision has failed amazing hard.) I want to Prone. I want this, because this is what I had in BF2.
I don't want overcrowded maps. Maps designed quite nicely for 20 players (or less) on console, but filled to the brim with at 32p and overcrowded on PC servers. I don't want hax snipers that with the slightest skill can shut a game down. I don't want uber ammo or armour to be unlocked at later levels. BC:2 has to be the most beginner unfriendly game I have ever played. Thats the sort of shit that stops a game from expanding. It isn't right that a player who has experience, also has better guns, better armour, with better ammunition and more grenades with more explosive power, against some poor fello trying to learn how to play the game and doesn't start with so much as am ammo or health hub. I don't want a game that lowers its depth and complexity to appease the more casual console gamer at the expense of the more committed PC gamer.
And you know why I don't want these things... ? Because I know EA can do better. I've seen it, played it, and lost hundreds of hours doing it. I just expect EA to fail this time. I'm expecting the worse. Contemporary game design has made me a cynic.
/rant... kind of got carried away there.