[QUOTE=hypno-toad;28409583]I don't see a lot of it here, but I hold resentment towards BC, because, for starters BC1 was consoles only. Considering the Battlfield fan base was predominantly PC at that point, I think the initial hate is palpable. BC2 was on the PC but was poorly optimized.
Second, theres the bastardized singleplayer campaign, and a multiplayer experience that falls vastly short in comparison to Battlefield 2; small maps and half the player numbers. generally games get better as they go on in time but Bad Company's scope of gameplay was quite limited compared to BF2.[/QUOTE]
Hence a lot of people not recognizing the Bad Company games as "true" Battefield games :colbert:
[QUOTE=Cree8ive;28409629]Hence a lot of people not recognizing the Bad Company games as "true" Battefield games :colbert:[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I consider it more of a spinoff, a mere setback on the Path to BF3
[sp]It is the Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel of the Battlefield franchise[/sp] :ironicat:
I found the BC games to be more of a satire. BC2 was still fun even though it was a lot more close combat compared to BF2
I'm considering upgrading my pc for this, but I haven't looked at parts in so long I don't have a clue what I should be aiming for. At the moment I have some Pentium dual core 2.5GhZ processor, and a GeForce 9800 GTS+ graphics card, what should I be looking for? any suggestions for parts?
I will have a heartattack when IGN inevitably charges that idiot Greg Miller to review BF3 and share his comparisons with CoD with the world.
[img]http://wiimedia.ign.com/wii/image/article/101/1017291/ign-invades-summerslam-20090822091102421_640w.jpg[/img]
This bum right here.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;28409583]I don't see a lot of it here, but I hold resentment towards BC, because, for starters BC1 was consoles only. Considering the Battlfield fan base was predominantly PC at that point, I think the initial hate is palpable. BC2 was on the PC but was poorly optimized.
Second, theres the bastardized singleplayer campaign, and a multiplayer experience that falls vastly short in comparison to Battlefield 2; small maps and half the player numbers. generally games get better as they go on in time but Bad Company's scope of gameplay was quite limited compared to BF2.[/QUOTE]
Ah, I see.
Thanks.
I only played Battlefield 1942 and the expansion (I think it was?) for it.
I loved it. I haven't tried BF2 though, so BF3 should be amazing for me.
I would pre-order. But I want it on Steam.
[QUOTE=Spetzaz;28407405]Anything in particular you guys want me to include in the next OP?
An all-around Battlefield OP (but mainly BF3, almost finished it already)[/QUOTE]
The part where you quoted me. I wrote to put in the SP section that it has reactive AI and pathfinding.
i.e.
[release]
[b]Single player:[/b]
The game will ship with an actual story-driven single player and co-op campaign, not unlike the Bad Company series.
Singleplayer AI will be reactive; AI pathfinding is present.
You can drag fellow players into safety and mount your weapon almost anywhere on the terrain[/release]
Remove "You can drag fellow players into safety and mount your weapon almost anywhere on the terrain" from the MP section and put it in the SP section.
Also, bullets (•) are your friend.
Also, where I said the profile system will be present, you should put that in the general info section.
[QUOTE=zeldar;28410026]I will have a heartattack when IGN inevitably charges that idiot Greg Miller to review BF3 and share his comparisons with CoD with the world.
[img_thumb]http://wiimedia.ign.com/wii/image/article/101/1017291/ign-invades-summerslam-20090822091102421_640w.jpg[/img_thumb]
This bum right here.[/QUOTE]
thank god it includes modern innovations like iron sights
I am rather bummed that you can't drag players in MP. I know it is kind of useless when you have a one hit revive, but it would be so damn cool.
Maybe if they had a double tap sort of thing where you get shot down and incapacitated, and are immune to damage for a bit and while incapped you can be revived, but then if you get shot a few more times you are dead for good. It would make dragging players into safety useful, and fucking cool.
[QUOTE=zeldar;28410026]I will have a heartattack when IGN inevitably charges that idiot Greg Miller to review BF3 and share his comparisons with CoD with the world.
[img_thumb]http://wiimedia.ign.com/wii/image/article/101/1017291/ign-invades-summerslam-20090822091102421_640w.jpg[/img_thumb]
This bum right here.[/QUOTE]
Is that the guy who wrote that shitty Dead Space 2 review? If so, he looks exactly like I imaged him.
[QUOTE=zeldar;28410026]I will have a heartattack when IGN inevitably charges that idiot
[img_thumb]http://wiimedia.ign.com/wii/image/article/101/1017291/ign-invades-summerslam-20090822091102421_640w.jpg[/img_thumb]
[/QUOTE]
He'll probably beat you to it.
[QUOTE=zeldar;28410026]I will have a heartattack when IGN inevitably charges that idiot Greg Miller to review BF3 and share his comparisons with CoD with the world.
This bum right here.[/QUOTE]
I haven't read any of his reviews (because I don't go to IGN), but reviewing a book/movie/game usually entails comparing it to the most popular book/movie/game of that genre.
[QUOTE=zeldar;28410026]I will have a heartattack when IGN inevitably charges that idiot Greg Miller to review BF3 and share his comparisons with CoD with the world.
[img_thumb]http://wiimedia.ign.com/wii/image/article/101/1017291/ign-invades-summerslam-20090822091102421_640w.jpg[/img_thumb]
This bum right here.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't matter what some idiot thinks, I'll be having fun in BF3
[QUOTE=Raidyr;28411997]I haven't read any of his reviews (because I don't go to IGN), but reviewing a book/movie/game usually entails comparing it to the most popular book/movie/game of that genre.[/QUOTE]
No, he compares the games in the worst way possible, i.e. fun game but not as good as CoD.
For [b]every[/b] action shooter.
[QUOTE=EliteGuy;28412112]It doesn't matter what some idiot thinks, I'll be having fun in BF3[/QUOTE]
Yeah in half a year lol
[QUOTE=zeldar;28412199]No, he compares the games in the worst way possible, i.e. fun game but not as [B]good[/B] as [B]CoD.[/B]
[/QUOTE]
Those two words do not belong in the same sentence.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;28412401]Those two words do not belong in the same sentence.[/QUOTE]
If CoD didn't have legitimately good design it wouldn't sell as much as it does.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;28412401]Those two words do not belong in the same sentence.[/QUOTE]
Dude, cod can be good. Cod can even be great if prepared properly. Delish' dish o' fish.
And also CoD can be good. CoD 1, 2 and 4 were great even IMO.
[QUOTE=Spetzaz;28412503]Dude, cod can be good. Cod can even be great if prepared properly. Delish' dish o' fish.
And also CoD can be good. CoD 1, 2 and 4 were great even IMO.[/QUOTE]
I should clarify, anything after CoD 4 is not and cannot be good. It ideally should have ended there, but they are still making money so it did not end there. The rest is sucks.
CoD 3 was only decent because it had splitscreen online.
It's not like the CoD games afterwards are incredibly different titles. My take on the CoD franchise is I ran down hallways spraying my Sten in CoD1, my Bren in CoD2, my Thompson in CoD3, my M4 in CoD4, my MP40 in WaW, my ACR in MW2, and my AK74U in Black Ops. Sure they have added a lot of stuff but the same thing that makes CoD a good shooter has been there since the very first game: A solid grasp of movement and gunplay.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;28412492]If CoD didn't have legitimately good design it wouldn't sell as much as it does.[/QUOTE]
MW2 sold well because it had legitimately bad design. Skilled players were constantly rewarded.
I enjoyed all CoD games (including the hated titles, 3, World at War and MW2) but I found MW2's multiplayer very unbalanced - Black Ops is a step in the right direction, though.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;28412534]
CoD 3 was only decent because it had splitscreen online.[/QUOTE]
I found CoD 3's online fabulous, it reminded me very much of CoD: UO (level-up system is match only, vehicles, pre-set classes, etc).
Lets talk about Battlefield, not Call of Duty.
OP should probably include the screenshots instead of saying 'none so far'.
Hope BF3 has elevators or other dynamic objects in mutliplayer maps. BF2: SF had them (I only remember them on Surge and the Iron Gator).
[QUOTE=EliteGuy;28412112]It doesn't matter what some idiot thinks, I'll be having fun in BF3[/QUOTE]
It matters when tons of people who would probably like it by playing on their own take his reviews as truth. I mean that preview on Duke was just fucking terrible, why must he deter people away from it. Why must he say not being like COD is a negative thing?
[QUOTE=spekter;28413300]It matters when tons of people who would probably like it by playing on their own take his reviews as truth. I mean that preview on Duke was just fucking terrible, why must he deter people away from it. Why must he say not being like COD is a negative thing?[/QUOTE]
Well, the lost sales are bad for DICE, but good for the community. To be honest the multiplayer community for BC2 was terrible mostly due to it being main stream.
Selfish, I know. But then again, less money = worse game next time?
[QUOTE=spekter;28413300]It matters when tons of people who would probably like it by playing on their own take his reviews as truth. I mean that preview on Duke was just fucking terrible, why must he deter people away from it. Why must he say not being like COD is a negative thing?[/QUOTE]
Again I don't follow this particular person, or IGN whatsoever in fact, but most of the previews for Duke Nukem Forever have been pretty poor. Sorry to break it to you.
ITT:Call of duty
:doh:
[QUOTE=Raidyr;28413427]Again I don't follow this particular person, or IGN whatsoever in fact, but most of the previews for Duke Nukem Forever have been pretty poor. Sorry to break it to you.[/QUOTE]
No they haven't.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
