[QUOTE=Pandamobile;27349451]All I want from BF3 is to have graphics and [B]destruction [/B]akin to BFBC2, and the gameplay and [B]map design of BF2.[/B][/QUOTE]
That doesn't combine.
I wouldn't mind destruction as long as it is modified. Let there be holes in the ground and in the walls, but make it so that it takes one hell of an explosion to do so. Grenades can't blow up entire brick/concrete walls. Maybe make it so that there is small bit of cosmetic damage that builds up over time. Only vehicles and C4 should really be able to destroy walls.
Please don't be shit
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;27349237]It's going to. The game is on the frostbyte engine; which shows a huge emphasis on destruction. If BF3 has the same emphasis for destruction that BC2 had, it's going to be [I]exactly [/I]like Bad Company 2. It's an unpleasant thought, but try to combine BC2's destruction with the gameplay elements of BF2. It simply doesn't work.
First: with destruction, they're not going to have 64 player servers; everything would get destroyed far too quickly. This means they'll bump it down to 32 to save some of the terrain.
Second, think of all of the BF2 maps; how would those maps flow with destruction? Horribly; imagine Karkand with people leveling the first set of city streets. It would suck.
i hope to god that they do BF3 well but being a cynic is safer, gets rid of the disappointment[/QUOTE]
Well let's hope not everyone in DICE is shithead and they will tweak destruction so it's impossible to take down a huge house with 5 grenades.
When I imagine bombing some houses with Su-34 and watching the buildings collapse while gaining altitude I jizz.
Also, less than 64 would be a disaster. We had 64 6 years ago, now it's 2011, give us 64 or more.
[QUOTE=RivaGe;27349909]Well let's hope not everyone in DICE is shithead and they will tweak destruction so it's impossible to take down a huge house with 5 grenades.
When I imagine bombing some houses with Su-34 and watching the buildings collapse while gaining altitude I jizz.
Also, less than 64 would be a disaster. We had 64 6 years ago, now it's 2011, give us 64 or more.[/QUOTE]
We've had 128 for over 5 years now. Joint Operations: Typhoon Rising was released in 2004 and had 128 player MP.
[QUOTE=Edthefirst;27351415]We've had 128 for over 5 years now. Joint Operations: Typhoon Rising was released in 2004 and had 128 player MP.[/QUOTE]
It sucked, but that's a game disign problem, the networking capability is there.
[editline]11th January 2011[/editline]
Damn now you've gotten me all nostalgic.
[QUOTE=BmB;27347549]I wish they would stop using GDC as a second E3.[/QUOTE]
Or would you call E3 a second GDC?
[editline]11th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Profanwolf;27349465]That doesn't combine.[/QUOTE]
Never say never. I'd like there to be full destructability for small buildings and partial for large buildings but if they can't, I'd opt for the old map design rather than destruction. A massive city map with only two story high buildings would be terrible.
[QUOTE=markfu;27351579]Or would you call E3 a second GDC?
[editline]11th January 2011[/editline]
Never say never. I'd like there to be full destructability for small buildings and partial for large buildings but if they can't, I'd opt for the old map design rather than destruction. A massive city map with only two story high buildings would be terrible.[/QUOTE]
I would be fine with destructibility, there was some really cool moments I had because of it. What would not be cool is if every destructible building is a house or small building that look nearly the same. What I would want to see is a map exactly like Strike at Karkand, but destructible.
I hope it isn't too much like Battlefield: Bad Company 2.
The only thing I'm really hoping for is for some damn optimization in Frostbite2, BC2 was a disaster engine optimization wise. Since the beta till now, I haven't been able to play the game above lowest settings at 1280x720 without getting a slide show.
And I'm running 280 GTX SLI, quadcore 2.00 ghz core two duo, 4 gigs of ram.
Was really disappointed with this. Hope it doesn't happen again with this engine since it's being built from scratch apparently.
[QUOTE=theLazyLion;27353307]The only thing I'm really hoping for is for some damn optimization in Frostbite2, BC2 was a disaster engine optimization wise. Since the beta till now, I haven't been able to play the game above lowest settings at 1280x720 without getting a slide show.
And I'm running 280 GTX SLI, quadcore 2.00 ghz core two duo, 4 gigs of ram.
Was really disappointed with this. Hope it doesn't happen again with this engine since it's being built from scratch apparently.[/QUOTE]
Are you serious? It's probably the best looking FPS game and it runs perfectly on close to max settings on my 4670. And it's the first game I've played which allows you to change graphic settings on the fly without restarting.
I wish they'd take the best outta all the Battlefields and made it into one huge glob of epic
So it'd be like a 64 player+ multiplayer with naval battles with bombers flying overhead while choppers playing radio music ferry tanks on the deck of carriers while an epic ground battle ensues with infantry attempting to blow up a command center with C4 in the far end of the map like Titan mode
[QUOTE=Kill001;27354010]I wish they'd take the best outta all the Battlefields and made it into one huge glob of epic
So it'd be like a 64 player+ multiplayer with naval battles with bombers flying overhead while choppers playing radio music ferry tanks on the deck of carriers while an epic ground battle ensues with infantry attempting to blow up a command center with C4 in the far end of the map like Titan mode[/QUOTE]
That would be too amazing to handle :byodood:
Yeah, and to top that off, destructible buildings while toppling palm trees kill unsuspecting infantry and planes crashing through entrenched houses while the bombers level small city around the flag
it'd be sweet if it happened
I wonder if it's just going to be a direct sequel to Battlefield 2, with the US, MEC and PLA factions along with maybe a Russian Faction?
[QUOTE=Pandamobile;27349451]All I want from BF3 is to have graphics and destruction akin to BFBC2, and the gameplay and map design of BF2.[/QUOTE]
Those things don't go together, that's the thing. The destruction of the Frostbyte engine leads to a very fast paced shooter. Bf2 was not a fast paced shooter at all, it was rather slow, and about tactical movement and conquest.
adding destruction to the mix is what will destroy bf3, unless they pull off something fucking amazing
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;27354179]I wonder if it's just going to be a direct sequel to Battlefield 2, with the US, MEC and PLA factions along with maybe a Russian Faction?[/QUOTE]
It'd be really cool to see all of the factions from the expansions and everything back as well.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;27354348]Those things don't go together, that's the thing. The destruction of the Frostbyte engine leads to a very fast paced shooter. Bf2 was not a fast paced shooter at all, it was rather slow, and about tactical movement and conquest.
adding destruction to the mix is what will destroy bf3, unless they pull off something fucking amazing[/QUOTE]
I think what makes BC2 a "fast paced shooter" is the fact that the maps are small, not the destruction. I'm not sure how destruction can make something a "fast paced" anything.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;27354348]Those things don't go together, that's the thing. The destruction of the Frostbyte engine leads to a very fast paced shooter. Bf2 was not a fast paced shooter at all, it was rather slow, and about tactical movement and conquest.
adding destruction to the mix is what will destroy bf3, unless they pull off something fucking amazing[/QUOTE]
it could just be BF2 with destructibles
although I suspect Karkand would be hellish with Frosbite engine (nade spamming and tall buildings :downs:)
Oh and they better get rid of the small field of view and crappy gun origins that are on every console first-person shooter.
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;27354398]I think what makes BC2 a "fast paced shooter" is the fact that the maps are small, not the destruction. I'm not sure how destruction can make something a "fast paced" anything.[/QUOTE]
complete removal of cover makes it so that enemies are constantly in combat, ere people die significantly faster. there was always cover in bf2.
All it needs to have is everything it's said to have as long as it's up to par with bf2's gameplay or better, and MOD support.
All I would want is a BF:V weapons system
No need to unlock shit you get 2 guns for each class and each team has different weaponry
[editline]11th January 2011[/editline]
No russians with M16s and Americans with AK47
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;27354452]complete removal of cover makes it so that enemies are constantly in combat, ere people die significantly faster. there was always cover in bf2.[/QUOTE]
But I don't think that can be completely blamed on destructive environments. It would be balanced out with larger maps.
[editline]11th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Batmoutarde;27354564]All I would want is a BF:V weapons system
No need to unlock shit you get 2 guns for each class and each team has different weaponry
[editline]11th January 2011[/editline]
No russians with M16s and Americans with AK47[/QUOTE]
I don't mind an unlock system, just as long as one gun isn't better than another. Unlocked guns should be more situational, and less of an upgrade. For example, You can chose an AK-47 which has higher damage, but less accuracy over an M-16 which has less damage but higher accuracy.
Also, It's common knowledge that American's used AK-47s in Vietnam because their M-16s were shit.
[QUOTE=BmB;27347549]I wish they would stop using GDC as a second E3.[/QUOTE]
GDC is more of a game related expo than E3 is.
I hope there are more types of helicopters. Transport helicopters for vehicles, scout helicopters etc. Drivable battleships and planes as spawn points (not jets) would be awesome aswell.
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;27354636]But I don't think that can be completely blamed on destructive environments. It would be balanced out with larger maps.
[editline]11th January 2011[/editline]
I don't mind an unlock system, just as long as one gun isn't better than another. Unlocked guns should be more situational, and less of an upgrade. For example, You can chose an AK-47 which has higher damage, but less accuracy over an M-16 which has less damage but higher accuracy.
Also, It's common knowledge that American's used AK-47s in Vietnam because their M-16s were shit.[/QUOTE]
Common knowledge because of the loading screens in BFV haha
I love it already.
Every time I hear BF3 I laugh about the glitch one of the testers posted on Twitter about how a knife hit could blow up a tank :v:
Oh shit San Francisco I am so going.
It's open to the public right? It's not like E3 where it's all exclusive and shit?
[editline]11th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;27349237]It's going to. The game is on the frostbyte engine; which shows a huge emphasis on destruction. If BF3 has the same emphasis for destruction that BC2 had, it's going to be [I]exactly [/I]like Bad Company 2. It's an unpleasant thought, but try to combine BC2's destruction with the gameplay elements of BF2. It simply doesn't work.
First: with destruction, they're not going to have 64 player servers; everything would get destroyed far too quickly. This means they'll bump it down to 32 to save some of the terrain.
Second, think of all of the BF2 maps; how would those maps flow with destruction? Horribly; imagine Karkand with people leveling the first set of city streets. It would suck.
i hope to god that they do BF3 well but being a cynic is safer, gets rid of the disappointment[/QUOTE]
Frostbyte? Fuuuuck.
I hate frostbyte. It's so damn laggy. And I don't mean the internet connection, I mean the actual gameplay. Everything happens a second after you tell it to happen. Hit a tank with a missile, it blows up a second later, not right away. It makes flying a huge bitch too.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
