Too bad this game can only be truly epic when it's a staged quality teaser trailer, in-game not so much.
[editline]1st February 2013[/editline]
but it's still a decent game, definitely bang for the buck. What was was it, like 60 dollars for all of it?
[QUOTE=aliensoldier;39427544]You do realize that this would be about the same costs, do you?[/QUOTE]
save 5$ and not waste it on on a pair of awful expansion packs.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39433211]save 5$ and not waste it on on a pair of awful expansion packs.[/QUOTE]
Oooor pay 5 bucks, get all the stuff premium users get, and get the three extra expansions that cost 45 dollars themselves total.
The stuff premium users get is worth the 5 bucks alone.
I'm basically saying, why pay 45 dollars to get the three good packs instead of paying 50 for 3 good packs (I myself think aftermath is decent, so that could count as four) plus a pack that isn't even out yet, plus the premium stuff.
You are basically fucking yourself over at that point.
[sp]And five bucks isn't that much in the long run[/sp]
I kinda stopped playing Battlefield 3 like two weeks after it came out. It was really dumbed down from previous PC titles. It was cool at first with the neat engine and ear candy, but the destruction is shit, like only two things actually get destroyed and it looks incredibly fake.
It'd be cool to see them do another future Battlefield game, like 2142 with the new engine. That'd be pretty neat.
[QUOTE=legolover122;39433282]Oooor pay 5 bucks, get all the stuff premium users get, and get the three extra expansions that cost 45 dollars themselves total.
The stuff premium users get is worth the 5 bucks alone.
I'm basically saying, why pay 45 dollars to get the three good packs instead of paying 50 for 3 good packs (I myself think aftermath is decent, so that could count as four) plus a pack that isn't even out yet, plus the premium stuff.
You are basically fucking yourself over at that point.
[sp]And five bucks isn't that much in the long run[/sp][/QUOTE]
You already get Karkand if you buy an ~LE~ edition, which I still see ~LE~ editions in shops, which if you didn't get it on release anyways you might as well wait till BF4 comes out later this year. So thats ~30$, and do you really wanna pay 20$ extra for a bunch of skins and strategy guides, and 2 really shitty close quarters map packs?
hahaha those infantry flag animations are on par with RO2s... and RO2 CTF IS A BLOODY MOD.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39433421]You already get Karkand if you buy an ~LE~ edition, which I still see ~LE~ editions in shops, which if you didn't get it on release anyways you might as well wait till BF4 comes out later this year. So thats ~30$, and do you really wanna pay 20$ extra for a bunch of skins and strategy guides, and 2 really shitty close quarters map packs?[/QUOTE]
All the DLCs excluding karkand = 60.
Lets say you play all except close quarters. You got 45 dollars worth from armored kill, aftermath, and the soon to be end game. Then you get the premium content which is mostly cosmetic.
So still. 5 bucks extra for 3 expansions (the two others being karkand and CQ). So you are essentially paying 5 bucks extra for the premium content, which is well worth it IMO.
I'm just saying, that if you are going to be buying 3 DLC packs, you would be fucking retarded to not pay the 5 extra bucks for premium stuff. The only time I wouldn't reccomend premium is if they hardly ever played. And if you are buying 3 DLC packs you probably already play a lot.
And it's 5 fucking dollars. That isn't much at all.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39433421]You already get Karkand if you buy an ~LE~ edition, which I still see ~LE~ editions in shops, which if you didn't get it on release anyways you might as well wait till BF4 comes out later this year. So thats ~30$, and do you really wanna pay 20$ extra for a bunch of skins and strategy guides, and 2 really shitty close quarters map packs?[/QUOTE]
Did you even play Aftermath? It's right up there with Karkand, but isn't over-saturated with prefab buildings. Also the only reason why CQB was a straight up failure is because it just turned into an alternative for Metro64, nose hair canals/Kharg Island. If every server wasn't running the CQB maps on 64 players, it would've been a half decent expansion.
[QUOTE=Mixed Sources;39426062]Can't wait for this!
I don't understand the dislike for battlefield 3 on this forum, It's constantly bashed yet its still a lot of fun and they keep releasing updates like this one which just look brilliant and keep things fresh.[/QUOTE]
It's EA, and their touch tends to corrupt things. People dislike it on principle because of them.
Damn it, now I [I][B]really[/B][/I] want to get BF3
For those who want to know why so many have a problem with Battlefield 3 I found this link a while back, a lot of the links in it are broken now but it's still a good read.
[url]http://www.mordorhq.com/showthread.php?3880-The-True-Story-of-Battlefield-3-the-Battlefield-Franchise-Its-Community-amp-EA-DICE[/url]
this is some hot shit guise
[QUOTE=Sharp_Shooter;39434593]Did you even play Aftermath? It's right up there with Karkand, but isn't over-saturated with prefab buildings. Also the only reason why CQB was a straight up failure is because it just turned into an alternative for Metro64, nose hair canals/Kharg Island. If every server wasn't running the CQB maps on 64 players, it would've been a half decent expansion.[/QUOTE]
CQ is a nice change of pace as long as you play it with 16 or less players. Otherwise I hope you brought lube.
Dice makes some pretty spectacular trailers although the air superiority was pretty lackluster.
Bf3 is one of those games that I keep coming back to. There's just something about it that makes every session (for lack of a better word) epic. It's got some essence of Bad Company 2 and some essence of the traditional Battlefield games which makes for a very replay-able online game.
I've had a few gripes here and there about bugs and lack of features but I can never find a solid reason to drop it. I find that most of the weapons are fairly balanced and the vehicles aren't overpowering when your team knows what they're doing. Having a decent team and decent players can give you some nail-biting matches that really get you going which I've yet to experience in any other game except maybe TF2.
I love the sound design in BF3, Fucking epic, I just cannot for the life of me get into the multiplayer though, I just found it boring and I hate unlocking stuff for a start
In my eyes, BF3 looks like an incredibly good game but with some terrible decisions made (others mentioned some of these), especially the way premium is handled. When the DLC packs were announced I thought I'd get close quarters and maybe aftermath or end game, depending on what they would be, aside from Back To Karkand which I got for pre-ordering deluxe edition. But then they announced premium, and suddenly it turns out that I get severely shafted if I only want one of the DLCs instead of the whole pack (only available after 3 weeks, loss of exclusive content, that kind of thing), but I didn't want Armored Kill (I just didn't, the vehicle combat didn't seem any appealing to me), wasn't sure I'd want Aftermath or End Game and I already had Back To Karkand. And I certainly didn't feel like paying 50 euros for 30 euros worth of stuff. The only people I personally know that got Premium got the Premium edition, which is like a massive slap in the face, telling you that the original game that you payed full price for is only worth like 10 euros.
Also, the permanent box-cutter knife replacer didn't help in making me want the pack. Also the massive dick-waving they did with advertising it.
I dunno, man. I had more fun with Bad Company 2 not because I like close quarters better, but I felt that Bad Company 2 knew what it was doing. Battlefield 3, I feel, is trying to appeal to two type of users at once and as a result has a less polished experience. I could be wrong, maybe. That's my opinion.
[editline]2nd February 2013[/editline]
I also liked the older Battlefield games more as well. Not just BC2.
[QUOTE=Zally13;39445899]I dunno, man. I had more fun with Bad Company 2 not because I like close quarters better, but I felt that Bad Company 2 knew what it was doing. Battlefield 3, I feel, is trying to appeal to two type of users at once and as a result has a less polished experience. I could be wrong, maybe. That's my opinion.
[editline]2nd February 2013[/editline]
I also liked the older Battlefield games more as well. Not just BC2.[/QUOTE]
BC2 gave you the maps for free too, now i wouldn't mind paying for those maps, but Premium made me hate the game with all those ads and the god damn queue priority.
Paid weapons were also a terrible decision, no matter how much you try to convince anyone that those weapons are "balanced" and therefore O.K, it doesn't matter, more choice equals advantage either way.
[QUOTE=FuzzyPoop;39446797]BC2 gave you the maps for free too, now i wouldn't mind paying for those maps, but Premium made me hate the game with all those ads and the god damn queue priority.
Paid weapons were also a terrible decision, no matter how much you try to convince anyone that those weapons are "balanced" and therefore O.K, it doesn't matter, more choice equals advantage either way.[/QUOTE]
I thought all weapons where unlockable through playing wether you had premium or not? There where weapons inclused in the expansion packs, But I always though premium itself just gave you extra camo for your soldier and guns and that acb knife which just looks different. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I still can't believe that the game doesn't have VOIP.
[QUOTE=Mixed Sources;39426062]Can't wait for this!
I don't understand the dislike for battlefield 3 on this forum, It's constantly bashed yet its still a lot of fun and they keep releasing updates like this one which just look brilliant and keep things fresh.[/QUOTE]
I played it a lot and it's a fun game but several things make it one of my least favorite BF games and left a bad taste in my mouth after every session.
First being all the frustration with Battlelog which, at least for quite a while, was almost unbearably unusable.
Then the small CoD maps that made up half the game at launch. The only difference between those maps and CoD maps being that the ones in BF3 were much more poorly designed.
Then even the larger maps didn't live up to the previous games. The Karkand pack was a nice breath of fresh air though.
[editline]2nd February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zally13;39445899]I dunno, man. I had more fun with Bad Company 2 not because I like close quarters better, but I felt that Bad Company 2 knew what it was doing. Battlefield 3, I feel, is trying to appeal to two type of users at once and as a result has a less polished experience. I could be wrong, maybe. That's my opinion.
[editline]2nd February 2013[/editline]
I also liked the older Battlefield games more as well. Not just BC2.[/QUOTE]
I agree, BC2 wasn't the same as the older ones, but it was still unique as a franchise and a solid, consistent experience.
And the maps themselves had variations of CQ and more open field combat. Proving you don't need two separate maps for each like people who constanly defend BF3 seem to believe.
As much as people complain about it, BF3 has one of my favourite audio/soundtracks in the last 10 years probably. Besides that probably the original Halo.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
