Battlefield 3 "Close Quarters - Ziba Tower" DLC Trailer - General

[QUOTE=simkas;35121097]If you don't plan to buy it and are not interested in it then why are you complaining about it?[/QUOTE] this.

[QUOTE=simkas;35121097]If you don't plan to buy it and are not interested in it then why are you complaining about it?[/QUOTE] So you're not allowed to give your negative opinions about things? This is dumber than I anticipated. So basically you're saying "you can't say out loud what you think about things you dislike, no negative criticism allowed ever, you should ignore everything you don't like, like it wouldn't exist". [editline]13th March 2012[/editline] This is some deviantart grade logic.

Corridors- The Game [editline]13th March 2012[/editline] Yawn. Wake me up when "Armored Fury" comes along

[QUOTE=SatansSin;35120860]nope I'm gonna get armored fury, maybe thats it not this close quarter call of duty shit no[/QUOTE] too bad CQC is nothing like COD in BF3. Another magical thing about this DLC is that you don't have to buy it. So stop complaining. Bf3 has TDM/Squad DM maps, but none of their maps really fits the feel of a DM map. And now they're releasing map packs to fit that feel. The fuck is the problem with that. They're supporting the community and you guys are bitching about it.

Who thinks a Conquest game in a multistory building would be awesome? just like the top 15 floors of a skyscraper. The many levels allow for more players, maybe with a second ajoined tower to allow two sides,

[QUOTE=Bound;35123198]too bad CQC is nothing like COD in BF3. Another magical thing about this DLC is that you don't have to buy it. So stop complaining. Bf3 has TDM/Squad DM maps, but none of their maps really fits the feel of a DM map. And now they're releasing map packs to fit that feel. The fuck is the problem with that. They're supporting the community and you guys are bitching about it.[/QUOTE] I'll try following this logic because trying to reason with it doesn't seem to work. There is this magical thing about negative opinions, you don't have to read them. So stop complaining about them.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;35123248]I'll try following this logic because trying to reason with it doesn't seem to work. There is this magical thing about negative opinions, you don't have to read them. So stop complaining about them.[/QUOTE] Well the problem with that is to even know there was a comment in the first place I'd have to read it or hear it. How about if you don't want to voice your opinion on the internet and have people disagree with your opinion, stop posting. :love:

[QUOTE=Bound;35123551]Well the problem with that is to even know there was a comment in the first place I'd have to read it or hear it. How about if you don't want to voice your opinion on the internet and have people disagree with your opinion, stop posting. :love:[/QUOTE] Well I came to this thread not knowing that I wouldn't like the dlc, maybe they shouldn't release things that might receive negative opinions? Or maybe you shouldn't go into threads that might contain negative opinions? And why are you saying that I don't want to voice my opinion? That's exactly what I want to do. You are the one saying that I shouldn't do it. This entire logic is stupid. Everybody has a right to voice their opinion on things. Even if they don't like it. It's not complaining.

[QUOTE=Uncle Bourbon;35120555]Because it's DLC. Nobody is forcing you to buy this. If you dislike close quarters combat, don't buy this DLC.[/QUOTE] Kinda irritating that people that buys this DLC gets a bunch of weapons we don't, i bet they're gonna be pretty good weapons too.

I never ended up gettting this game :\

I'll probably get it because I'm a sap for DLC; although I'll prolly never play these maps unless I'm wanting to level up weapons super quick. I'm not a big fan of clusterfuck maps because you tend to only live for a short time before you're sent back to respawn. I can see this being nothing but an RPG, M320, Claymore, Grenade, Frag rape-festival. I don't get what's up with the BF3 dev team and finding it necessary to create horribly annoying chokepoints in their maps.

There's one interview about the DLC where one of the devs says that metro showed that they could make CQ maps work in BF3, it made me laugh and cry because metro to this day is still an unbalanced clusterfuck.

[QUOTE=bobsynergy;35118145]Obviously no one means CoD in terms of that but that it's small maps for a small amount of players instead of actual battlefield maps, you know 64 player large maps. Don't make me laugh, from what I have experienced BF has a horrible respawning system compared to CoD, at least in CoD it moves the spawn point when there are enemies near by so you don't get spawn camped, in BF3 I have seen people surround an area where the enemy would constantly spawn and spawn kill them and I have seen enemies spawn right in front of me and I'll be in a room with my team then an enemy will spawn right in the middle of us and get spawn killed.[/QUOTE] I see you haven't played bf3. No matter what, you can always spawn in the deployment zones which are completely protected from being massacred upon spawn. It's possible for spawn camping to occur, but to an extremely lesser extent. You don't have to spawn at a point if you don't want to, the same applies to team mates. And no, CoD does not move the spawn point away from the enemy, it just moves it to where the enemies are less concentrated. Since cod is all close quarters, that means you still spawn in the middle of an active firefight. [editline]13th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;35118187]Add "terrible map design" and you have a pretty solid list of cons against BF3, because I experience all of those every time I play. It's still a fun game but it ain't perfect.[/QUOTE] Actually, BF3 has some amazingly made maps, much better than those in most other games of the same genre. The game mechanics themselves seem surprisingly balanced, and i've hardly noticed any flaws. The respawning system i've explain already, and hit detection is fantastic in this game. When someone knifes me they don't rubber band 5 feet to me and they don't get head shot if they shoot a foot to the left from my head. The game isn't perfect, i agree, but it's one of the better made ones that at least try to address many factors others don't and to a mostly successful degree. [editline]13th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Silly Sil;35118109]If I wanted to play a clusterfuck with tons of explosions in close quarters I'd buy CoD. This is not battlefield, this is not what I bought the game for. Why am I getting rated dumb? Battlefield is about huge maps with vehicles and 64 players, CoD is about shooting in close quarters, and close quarters tend to be clusterfuck, depending on the map. And players tend to abuse splash damage in close quarters. What exactly are you disagreeing with?[/QUOTE] If this isn't what you bought Battlefield for, then don't get this DLC. Even if it's free you can opt out of playing in servers that use the maps. Problem solved, stop complaining about something completely avoidable. [editline]13th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Silly Sil;35120685]uuuuuuuhhhhh..... I just gave you... my reasons why I'm not buying it?... The fuck is your point? You make no sense.[/QUOTE] His point is that you're complaining over something that is both optional and avoidable; making your original post defunct and pointless.

[QUOTE=Shoopiwoop;35123826]Kinda irritating that people that buys this DLC gets a bunch of weapons we don't, i bet they're gonna be pretty good weapons too.[/QUOTE] Actually, I think the weapons will be available for everyone but they'll most likely be unlockable through assignments.

[QUOTE=Shoopiwoop;35123826]Kinda irritating that people that buys this DLC gets a bunch of weapons we don't, i bet they're gonna be pretty good weapons too.[/QUOTE] If they're meant for close quarters then they will be horrible on traditional bf maps as long as you keep your distance. Plus as said above me, they'll probably be available for unlock anyway.

My birthday is in June and that's when I'm getting my new pc :dance:

[QUOTE=mysteryman;35125086]If this isn't what you bought Battlefield for, then don't get this DLC. Even if it's free you can opt out of playing in servers that use the maps. Problem solved, stop complaining about something completely avoidable. His point is that you're complaining over something that is both optional and avoidable; making your original post defunct and pointless.[/QUOTE] I just fucking said why I'm not getting it. The whole "don't like it don't buy it" makes no sense. It's like telling someone who said "I don't like the food at McDonalds, I prefer PizzaHut" to stop complaining and don't go to McDonalds. No. Fucking. Sense. He's not going there anyway, that's what he just fucking implied saying that he doesn't like it. Same as I was implying I'm not buying it. But, I can voice my fucking opinion on something. Just the same as you can say you like it. And that's what happens when you release something, people give their opinions about it. And some people will say that they don't like it, maybe even why. None of those people are complaining, it's called negative opinion. If I'd be like "I just wish DICE would stop making small maps" then yeah, maybe then you'd make an ounce of sense.

The only reason I prepurchased BF3 was because I was ignorant and dreamt that it would be some sort of BF2 V2

Can we uh...blow up the floor?

[QUOTE=Maximum Mod;35127212]The only reason I prepurchased BF3 was because I was ignorant and dreamt that it would be some sort of BF2 V2[/QUOTE] It turned out to be a "we're not sure what we're trying to make BF now" type of game. If people are playing battlefield for close quarters combat, they're playing the wrong game. Dice needs to stick to large scale vehicular warfare.

I have no strong feelings one way or the other.

It looks like dice is trying to please everybody making small and big maps.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;35130815]It turned out to be a "we're not sure what we're trying to make BF now" type of game. If people are playing battlefield for close quarters combat, they're playing the wrong game. Dice needs to stick to large scale vehicular warfare.[/QUOTE] Why does everyone seem to think of Battlefield as a vehicle combat simulator?

[QUOTE=Uncle Bourbon;35131533]Why does everyone seem to think of Battlefield as a vehicle combat simulator?[/QUOTE] Because vehicles in multiplayer and big battles were the things that made battlefield special? Those are the things that made people decide to buy this game and not other shooters? It's pretty easy to understand.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;35131946]Because vehicles in multiplayer and big battles were the things that made battlefield special? Those are the things that made people decide to buy this game and not other shooters? It's pretty easy to understand.[/QUOTE] Maybe so, but you've got your main product; as .. weird a hell a choice this is, it's pretty much a single, optional (and hopefully cheap) map you don't ever have to bother with or play if you don't want to, so it won't sully the whole point and experience of Battlefield. Considering Infantry Combat seems to be far more refined than the vehicles are, I say let DICE experiment and find out what works for them.

[QUOTE=RikohZX;35132150]Maybe so, but you've got your main product; as .. weird a hell a choice this is, it's pretty much a single, optional (and hopefully cheap) map you don't ever have to bother with or play if you don't want to, so it won't sully the whole point and experience of Battlefield. Considering Infantry Combat seems to be far more refined than the vehicles are, I say let DICE experiment and find out what works for them.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying that DICE shouldn't try to appeal to those who like close quarters, I mean this is exactly what they're doing. I don't care, nobody's forcing me to play it. I was only answering a question why people think of battlefield as vehicle combat simulator. [url=http://i.imgur.com/tbyIE.jpg]By the way I made thisfor you "don't like it don't buy it" people. I hope this is going to show you how weird you sound.[/url]

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;35130815]It turned out to be a "we're not sure what we're trying to make BF now" type of game. If people are playing battlefield for close quarters combat, they're playing the wrong game. Dice needs to stick to large scale vehicular warfare.[/QUOTE] Yeah let's just restrict our game to one specific thing and not try to make it more than just that. That would be pretty much doing the same as Call of Duty does.

BF3 massively improved the infantry combat if you compare it to BF2. It'd be a waste not to expand on that. We're still getting the Armored Kill DLC a bit later (which I'm also a bigger fan of), so no point in complaining.

The player Models Really don't suit where there fighting Should more like special forces I guess

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;35131946]Because vehicles in multiplayer and big battles were the things that made battlefield special? Those are the things that made people decide to buy this game and not other shooters? It's pretty easy to understand.[/QUOTE] No shit. That doesn't mean Dice can't improve infantry battle.