so... BF3's ending (spoilers)

Recommended Videos

PaganFury

New member
Aug 31, 2011
43
0
0
Vault101 said:
so he died in the end? well that sucks....

personally I find somthing terrible off putting about a "realistic" setting..only reason I got the game was for multi

seriously Im having doubts about console multi...it just seems to be "do whatever" rather than teamwork..or mabye i havnt played enough

No you've played enough.. There is little to no teamwork on console multiplayer games unless you bring your own team. Watch in awe as 23 players prone in some grass with a sniper rifle while 2 people fight over the objectives.
 

InfectedStar

New member
Jul 7, 2011
177
0
0
PaganFury said:
Vault101 said:
so he died in the end? well that sucks....

personally I find somthing terrible off putting about a "realistic" setting..only reason I got the game was for multi

seriously Im having doubts about console multi...it just seems to be "do whatever" rather than teamwork..or mabye i havnt played enough

No you've played enough.. There is little to no teamwork on console multiplayer games unless you bring your own team. Watch in awe as 23 players prone in some grass with a sniper rifle while 2 people fight over the objectives.
You hit the nail right on the head.
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,863
15
43
PaganFury said:
Vault101 said:
so he died in the end? well that sucks....

personally I find somthing terrible off putting about a "realistic" setting..only reason I got the game was for multi

seriously Im having doubts about console multi...it just seems to be "do whatever" rather than teamwork..or mabye i havnt played enough

No you've played enough.. There is little to no teamwork on console multiplayer games unless you bring your own team. Watch in awe as 23 players prone in some grass with a sniper rifle while 2 people fight over the objectives.
mabye lack of comunication has somthing to do with it, unlike PC you cant type, and it seems no one has a mic on PS3

anyway I dont know, I think generally people did the whole "objective" thing on capture the flag (conquest)
 

Skops

New member
Mar 9, 2010
820
0
0
bart56912 said:
now that i think about it the MP might be set during the 2007 war from bf2
Unlikely. BF2 was the USMC vs the MEC (Middle Eastern Coalition) and the People's Republic of China. The Special Forces expansion was the British SAS vs. Insurgents, Spetsnaz vs. Chechan Rebels, SAS vs. Spetsnaz, and USMC vs. MEC-SF. and the booster packs just added Europeon Union as a faction.

There's nothing to explain the MP scenario in BF3 of USA vs Russia. It just is. Quite frankly I think it's a cop out, and disappointed with MP factions set up or lack there of.
 

Luftwaffles

New member
Apr 24, 2010
776
0
0
Actually this raises an interesting point. I miss the map objectives.

In BF2 you had a small brief on the map and its strategic value, the reason why you are fighting there.

Bad company 2 had those little cutscenes when you win or lose a map (in rush). Loved the one where taking over the final stage = submarine pen getting demolished

But in Bf3 all you get is a stupid fade to blue with "you win/lose" message.

Sucks that they took out the voiceovers too =/
 

Gone Rampant

New member
Feb 12, 2012
422
0
0
According to the tie-in book (Which I think is better then the entire game) Battlefield: The Russian, which focuses on Dima and is really good, Blackburn stopped the nuke and was cleared of all charges.

I still prefer Bf2 multiplayer though. At least the health system actually works in that game.
 

Gatx

New member
Jul 7, 2011
1,458
0
0
strum4h said:
Because then there would be no multiplayer. Battlefield was meant to be a multiplayer game.
That doesn't make any sense, you don't need to justify the existence of multiplayer through single player. It doesn't take away anything if the multiplayer isn't "canon" or anything.