Battlefield 3 to be revealed

shootermacg

I think we'll see which is more popular when it comes out. It's always nice to have the options, depending on my mood i like different modes.

mozattack

I never played BF2 so I don't know but I think Rush is without doubt the best aspect of a FPS I have ever come across. I am not sure why one of the previous posters expressed negativity towards it cos its ingenious.

Conquest is kinda boring and lacks co-ordination.

With Rush a good squad of 4 can make a big difference to the game whereas the impact is limited in CQ making the "teamplay" seem a little pointless. CQ is a lone-wolf-fest

Dublin_Gunner

mozattack wrote: »

I never played BF2 so I don't know but I think Rush is without doubt the best aspect of a FPS I have ever come across. I am not sure why one of the previous posters expressed negativity towards it cos its ingenious.

Conquest is kinda boring and lacks co-ordination.

With Rush a good squad of 4 can make a big difference to the game whereas the impact is limited in CQ making the "teamplay" seem a little pointless. CQ is a lone-wolf-fest

Rush can be kinda fun depending on the map. Its definitely a mode that suits the 'console kiddies' more than the BF vets.

Conquest is an excellent game mode, and as its part of what should be a team orientated game (unlike BC2) teamwork is paramount to winning a conquest map.


Your comments are perfectly suited to a CoD / non-BF player.

Its a pity you never played BF2, you would think differently I'd say.

Auvers

mozattack wrote: »

I never played BF2 so I don't know but I think Rush is without doubt the best aspect of a FPS I have ever come across. I am not sure why one of the previous posters expressed negativity towards it cos its ingenious.

when you play the larger maps with Jets and Choppers and proper squads where you can only spawn on the squad leader you will see the true strategic squad based play that the previous Battlefield games have been lauded for


but then again I hated Bad Company 2 so my view is kind of slanted towards the fully fledged proper Battlefield games

AIR-AUSSIE

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Rush can be kinda fun depending on the map. Its definitely a mode that suits the 'console kiddies' more than the BF vets.

Conquest is an excellent game mode, and as its part of what should be a team orientated game (unlike BC2) teamwork is paramount to winning a conquest map.


Your comments are perfectly suited to a CoD / non-BF player.

Its a pity you never played BF2, you would think differently I'd say.

Pretentious PC gamer is pretentious.

Dublin_Gunner

AIR-AUSSIE wrote: »

Pretentious PC gamer is pretentious.

And you're going to tell me BC2 wasn't created to try win over the CoD / Console gamers?

Not pretentious at all, merely talking the truth.

1942, BF2 and BF2142 were PC exclusives. The PC exclusive features have now been removed since moving the series to console. Not exactly a coincidence.

But then again, being a console gamer you wouldn't miss them like BF veterans do.

Auvers

I was going to post something similar DG

but using his teenage internet lingo

obvious Troll is obvious (did I get that correct)

Spear

Auvers wrote: »

(did I get that correct)

No, you didn't, since you don't get to accuse others of trolling. If you believe there's an issue with a post then report it. But no-one gets to start calling others trolls, and includes accusations of pretentiousness or elitism. Language such as console kiddies doesn't help, even if it's not targeted at specfic individuals. You're free to discuss the merits of console and PC versions, but do so without having a go at each other.

TheFairy

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

And you're going to tell me BC2 wasn't created to try win over the CoD / Console gamers?

Virtually all new games will be built for consoles first, and that probably includes BF3. Consoles represent a bigger cash cow to developers than the PC market does, period!

Average gaming PC cost is probably around £800, not including peripherals. A console will cost less than £300, and is ready to roll. Look at today's market and all it spells is consoles.

Outside the arena that is your average PC Nerd / Enthusiast, PC gaming is a no go unfortunately. I'd love to think BF3 will deliver what its promising, however dollar is king, and Developers will tell you what ever you want to hear, so don't be surprised if we are shat over again.

merc.ie

Battlefield 3 has the potential to sell very strongly on the PC (ala Starcraft and Halflife). So they should really give PC users the extra complexity they expect and remove these elements from the console versions if it's unworkable there.

6 years on from BF2's release and it seems like key gameplay elements are just being dumbed down or removed. Would it kill them to give the option to go above 64 players?

shootermacg

Well all i can say is, when consoles bring out an aiming device anywhere near as good as the mouse, then it may become a viable option for RTS and FPS games.
Until that happens we PC gamers will continue to play a better game.
That's the reason they don't have platform independent servers.

As far those two game types are concerned, PC gamers are so far beyond console gamers, they shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence, I'm sure I'll get some console kiddie ranting about his mad skillz about 0.0005 seconds after this post goes live. To you I say watch a tier 4 quake match and tell me you could do better.

shootermacg

merc.ie wrote: »

Battlefield 3 has the potential to sell very strongly on the PC (ala Starcraft and Halflife). So they should really give PC users the extra complexity they expect and remove these elements from the console versions if it's unworkable there.

6 years on from BF2's release and it seems like key gameplay elements are just being dumbed down or removed. Would it kill them to give the option to go above 64 players?

Agree totally, I could imagine a commander mode working with a controller, they made BC2 imba by trying to offload the commander mode to the bloody snipers,
commander mode, I can't believe how much I miss it.

The Freeman

if ya start using phrases like 'console kiddies' etc, your looking for an argument tbh. not sure why a few on this Battlefield side of boards bring it back to a console v PC war every ten posts or so.

The Freeman

shootermacg wrote: »

Well all i can say is, when consoles bring out an aiming device anywhere near as good as the mouse, then it may become a viable option for RTS and FPS games.

They have, its called a Frag FX Shark and its a much cheaper and handier way of playing than throwing 300e at your desktop which i used to do every second year.:)

dreamers75

The Freeman wrote: »

They have, its called a Frag FX Shark and its a much cheaper and handier way of playing than throwing 300e at your desktop which i used to do every second year.:)

jaysis thats a deadly looking thing.


http://www.splitfish.com/index.php/en/products/fragfx-shark

jesus_thats_gre

AIR-AUSSIE wrote: »

Pretentious PC gamer is pretentious.

Inexperienced console gamer is....... hasn't played a decent team focused FPS game in his life.

shootermacg

The Freeman wrote: »

if ya start using phrases like 'console kiddies' etc, your looking for an argument tbh. not sure why a few on this Battlefield side of boards bring it back to a console v PC war every ten posts or so.

I wasn't referring to all console owners, I have a ps3 admittedly rarely play on it.
I was referring to the contingent that think a controller is a better aiming device. Not gonna say you took this personally althought it looks like you do.:eek:

grizzly

Multiplayer info from the blog;

• Biggest maps that we have built
• Ability to temporarily disable vehicles (This sounds boring?)
• Team Death Match mode
• Battlefield 3 Battlelog web destination – featuring powerful social tools, feeds and detailed player stats. Battlelog also lets you manage your friends lists, squad up, create platoons, use voice chat and follow your friends’ progress in real-time, and more. Battlelog will be available for the monthly fee of (drum roll)... zero dollars. (A dig at CoD Elite :P)

link

Headshot

Do ye think they'll have a mp gaming option of no vehicles ?

The Freeman

shootermacg wrote: »

I wasn't referring to all console owners, I have a ps3 admittedly rarely play on it.
I was referring to the contingent that think a controller is a better aiming device. Not gonna say you took this personally althought it looks like you do.:eek:

I wasn't making reference to you dude, it wasn't you that made that statement.

grizzly

It would be nice to have a few smaller/medium sized maps without vehicles. My favorite maps have no air and just light armor.

Auvers

Spear wrote: »

No, you didn't, since you don't get to accuse others of trolling. If you believe there's an issue with a post then report it. But no-one gets to start calling others trolls, and includes accusations of pretentiousness or elitism. Language such as console kiddies doesn't help, even if it's not targeted at specfic individuals. You're free to discuss the merits of console and PC versions, but do so without having a go at each other.

fair enough, well said, hands are well held up :cool:

a bit of being stuck in the office and venting while stuck to the ****1n screen while it was sunny outside, on reflectional I was rather arseholish

Apologies

Spear

Headshot wrote: »

Do ye think they'll have a mp gaming option of no vehicles ?

I would expect so, they'd have it in BF2 and BC2.

Spear

Just in case any doubted BF3 was at E3.

/Stolen from the EA forums.

hal9000

im guessing the big plastic sheeting outside is for the queueing/drooling bf3 fans

merc.ie

Want >64 players

merc.ie

Brief multiplayer trailer already up @ http://www.origin.com/uk/

Looks remarkably like BC2 gameplay wise :mad:

KilOit

Looked sweet, was nice to see a small confined map, can't wait to be able to smash up all those buildings.
Guess they just wanted to attract some cod fans wanting smaller more action oriented maps.

shootermacg

omg that looks good enough to eat ^^!!

Headshot

me want beta