By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Is Battlefield 3 going to try anything new, or is it just going for better?

Lostplanet22 on 21 June 2011

If you like Free for all then Battlefield will be not your thing...

I tried Battlefield Bad company 2;..I enjoyed it for a few hours then gave up because it got annoying...Long matches 30-40 minutes and longer... Walking around two minutes in modes like Squad deathmatch before I reached an enemy;..A lot of campers..And in Battlefield campers are an horrible annoyance.



 

Around the Network
dsage01 on 21 June 2011

Okay guys there is a reason why Call of Duty is so popular and why battlefield can never achieve Call of Duty success.

-Plenty of hype

- They are beast at advertising

-Cod 4 came up with something new. The kill streaks were amazing and most mp games were not fast paced Call of Duty 4 changed that

-High reviews

-And now it's just brand. Cod can toss any shit together and make a game for example Black Ops and it will sell better than 99% of the games.



richardhutnik on 22 June 2011
Akvod said:
richardhutnik said:
kivi95 said:
Their is no reason to own MW3 just to own BF3. Buy quality game instead.

If there is no reason to own MW3, that still doesn't mean there is a reason to own BF3.  For simple FPS action, with a group of people together, I have Black Ops (bots, Dead Ops arcade, Zombies) and also MW2 (for the Spec Ops mode).  I see MW3 offers its own version of the hoard mode, and if it also supports 4 player split screen and hoard mode, then it is worth considering for me.

So, I am not interested in a Call of Duty replacement, unless it does every single thing I have now (I doubt BF3 does), but provides a justifiable reason to get it.  And that is the heart of the matter.  What is BF3 bringing to the table, that justifies it being owned by me on its own merits? 


Buy Bad Company 2, or Bad Company 1 (will be hard to find full, quality games at this point though) to find out for yourself.

I think you're looking too broadly. When you say "FPS action, with a group of people together" you should not buy any other game than Modern Warfare.

The way you should be thinking though, is what TYPE of FPS action does Battlefield offer?

1) Destruction and open maps.

2) Vehicles

Yeah, this is ending up becoming a wall of text, so I'll stop XD

Ok, I reduced what you wrote down to the section headers.

I HAD owned both Bad Company 1 and Bad Company 2.  I enjoyed the story of Bad Company 1, and felt they tried to go the direction Modern Warfare 2 did, because I guess it felt more epic.  I missed the humor of the original, and the entire going wrong and becoming mercenaries.  They threw that out.  UGH!    

Anyhow, there are reasons why I don't own either now.  Big one was the lack of four player split screen.  When all things are said and done, I would need an FPS to have four player split screen in the event that I would be doing a shooter with friends.  Bad Company lacks that.  I don't play online at all.  Black Ops gave me bots, which was a plus.  Bad Company 1, which I kept over Bad Company 2, ended up going in a purge of games I had, for store credit, so I could get more stuff.

So, in short, what you are saying is that it doesn't really extend the category with new modes, but happens to provide more, and attempts to do it better.



Akvod on 22 June 2011
richardhutnik said:
Akvod said:
richardhutnik said:
kivi95 said:
Their is no reason to own MW3 just to own BF3. Buy quality game instead.

If there is no reason to own MW3, that still doesn't mean there is a reason to own BF3.  For simple FPS action, with a group of people together, I have Black Ops (bots, Dead Ops arcade, Zombies) and also MW2 (for the Spec Ops mode).  I see MW3 offers its own version of the hoard mode, and if it also supports 4 player split screen and hoard mode, then it is worth considering for me.

So, I am not interested in a Call of Duty replacement, unless it does every single thing I have now (I doubt BF3 does), but provides a justifiable reason to get it.  And that is the heart of the matter.  What is BF3 bringing to the table, that justifies it being owned by me on its own merits? 


Buy Bad Company 2, or Bad Company 1 (will be hard to find full, quality games at this point though) to find out for yourself.

I think you're looking too broadly. When you say "FPS action, with a group of people together" you should not buy any other game than Modern Warfare.

The way you should be thinking though, is what TYPE of FPS action does Battlefield offer?

1) Destruction and open maps.

2) Vehicles

Yeah, this is ending up becoming a wall of text, so I'll stop XD

Ok, I reduced what you wrote down to the section headers.

I HAD owned both Bad Company 1 and Bad Company 2.  I enjoyed the story of Bad Company 1, and felt they tried to go the direction Modern Warfare 2 did, because I guess it felt more epic.  I missed the humor of the original, and the entire going wrong and becoming mercenaries.  They threw that out.  UGH!    

Anyhow, there are reasons why I don't own either now.  Big one was the lack of four player split screen.  When all things are said and done, I would need an FPS to have four player split screen in the event that I would be doing a shooter with friends.  Bad Company lacks that.  I don't play online at all.  Black Ops gave me bots, which was a plus.  Bad Company 1, which I kept over Bad Company 2, ended up going in a purge of games I had, for store credit, so I could get more stuff.

So, in short, what you are saying is that it doesn't really extend the category with new modes, but happens to provide more, and attempts to do it better.

So... essentially your big pull in for MW3/BF3 is single player and co-op, huh? *shrug* Battlefield isn't really that type of game in the first place, so your question isn't a matter of if Battlfield 3 will be "new", but "different". While Battlefield 3 is offering co-op and a good single player, almost nobody is buying it primarily for that.

The reason why most people are buying Battlefield 3 is because of the multiplayer, and the different gameplay style of it. I can flesh out my post more, and talk about the player count, and the class based gameplay of it, but it doesn't seem like you're interested in things like that.



richardhutnik on 22 June 2011
Akvod said:
richardhutnik said:
Akvod said:

So... essentially your big pull in for MW3/BF3 is single player and co-op, huh? *shrug* Battlefield isn't really that type of game in the first place, so your question isn't a matter of if Battlfield 3 will be "new", but "different". While Battlefield 3 is offering co-op and a good single player, almost nobody is buying it primarily for that.

The reason why most people are buying Battlefield 3 is because of the multiplayer, and the different gameplay style of it. I can flesh out my post more, and talk about the player count, and the class based gameplay of it, but it doesn't seem like you're interested in things like that.

Ok, got it.  The product is more of a refinement of the Modern FPS genre (modern here is also referring to time period).  So, for me, it sounds like a miss.  And yes, I do love the Frostbite engine.  Me, the essential element is multiplayer split screen local.  If I can get 4 players split screen and hoard mode for MW3, I would definitely consider that.  As of now, I feel I am pretty much set for things.



Around the Network
Akvod on 22 June 2011
richardhutnik said:
Akvod said:
richardhutnik said:
Akvod said:

So... essentially your big pull in for MW3/BF3 is single player and co-op, huh? *shrug* Battlefield isn't really that type of game in the first place, so your question isn't a matter of if Battlfield 3 will be "new", but "different". While Battlefield 3 is offering co-op and a good single player, almost nobody is buying it primarily for that.

The reason why most people are buying Battlefield 3 is because of the multiplayer, and the different gameplay style of it. I can flesh out my post more, and talk about the player count, and the class based gameplay of it, but it doesn't seem like you're interested in things like that.

Ok, got it.  The product is more of a refinement of the Modern FPS genre (modern here is also referring to time period).  So, for me, it sounds like a miss.  And yes, I do love the Frostbite engine.  Me, the essential element is multiplayer split screen local.  If I can get 4 players split screen and hoard mode for MW3, I would definitely consider that.  As of now, I feel I am pretty much set for things.

"Modern" is a setting, not a genre. Battlefield 3 is simply a refinement of Battlefield, of competitive FPS multiplayer.

I really don't see why you're looking at MW3 for split scren action though. Wouldn't a game like L4D2 be much better? Or are you tired of it already?



richardhutnik on 23 June 2011
Akvod said:
richardhutnik said:
Akvod said:
richardhutnik said:
Akvod said:

So... essentially your big pull in for MW3/BF3 is single player and co-op, huh? *shrug* Battlefield isn't really that type of game in the first place, so your question isn't a matter of if Battlfield 3 will be "new", but "different". While Battlefield 3 is offering co-op and a good single player, almost nobody is buying it primarily for that.

The reason why most people are buying Battlefield 3 is because of the multiplayer, and the different gameplay style of it. I can flesh out my post more, and talk about the player count, and the class based gameplay of it, but it doesn't seem like you're interested in things like that.

Ok, got it.  The product is more of a refinement of the Modern FPS genre (modern here is also referring to time period).  So, for me, it sounds like a miss.  And yes, I do love the Frostbite engine.  Me, the essential element is multiplayer split screen local.  If I can get 4 players split screen and hoard mode for MW3, I would definitely consider that.  As of now, I feel I am pretty much set for things.

"Modern" is a setting, not a genre. Battlefield 3 is simply a refinement of Battlefield, of competitive FPS multiplayer.

I really don't see why you're looking at MW3 for split scren action though. Wouldn't a game like L4D2 be much better? Or are you tired of it already?

I added that as a clarification, because saying "Modern FPS" implies now a certain game style, consisting of being able to carry only two weapons you can fire, and regenerative health.  

For myself, it was a case of wanting to have split screen in a Hoard mode, preferably with 4 players.  I have L4D2.  The idea is to have an FPS that is a bit arcade like where it never ends, but keeps getting harder and harder.  L4D2 is a game where you play through a campaign.  The ideal would be 4 player split screen, so Hoard mode could be played with 4 players at same time local.