Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Battlefield 3- Premium announced; 4 new expansions


  • Please log in to reply
2325 replies to this topic

#31 MillerTime2523

MillerTime2523

    JIMMER TIME

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 05 February 2011 - 10:05 PM

Pretty excited for this. Used to play the absolute shit out of BF2 for PC, never really got into the BC series though. I picked it up and was overall disappointed in it, got raped every time and ended up trading it. It's only $20 now though, so I'll probably give it another go in anticipation for BF3.

cavs1-sm.gifrangers2-sm.gifcle1-sm.gif
Now Playing

:360: FIFA 14


#32 Trakan

Trakan

    Mark IV Style Motherfucker!

  • Super Moderators

Posted 05 February 2011 - 11:25 PM

As stated before me by bigdaddybruce, it is a team game. If you have one/two engineers that wont happen. See my mine kills. The squad I play with I play engineer, they play assault and medic... we do just fine on offense/defense, etc.


Right, that's obvious. This game is flawed though. Most matches this isn't a problem, but you can only do so much for a team as a squad. I shouldn't have to run the engineer class just to have some sort of defense against tanks while the other 8 people on the team snipe. Sometimes even working as a squad of four engineers it's hard to deal with tanks because of the other 8 people on the team you have to carry. It is insanely easy to be the top squad in this game.

At the beginning, yes the Medic was broken. Now the Medic is just fine. It never had the highest damage or close to it... people just prayed and sprayed i.e. more bullets = faster kill. The pray and spray method doesn't work as well any more. Accuracy is down too. Cons include ZERO defense against vehicles, short range tough to run with; long range gimped now, outfit makes them stand out.

The medic is still broken. Even in Vietnam, the RPK is king. There's really no reason to use anything else. It does have the highest damage still, even if it is tied with some assault rifles. Spraying and praying has nothing to do with it. I can single shot an M60 and kill someone in 3 bullets across the map. That's broken. I never have a problem short range. Outfit makes them stand out? I can't say that they are any different from the engineer or assault in that regard.

Granted this is all moot as other classes work way better. From mortar strike onslaughts by four snipers (recon) to unlimited grenade tosses (assault) to a tank going all match (engineer; see any of my games)... all the classes have something crazy you can work with them. In current environment, the strongest setup is a g3 with 4x scope, which all the classes can use. Granted, I keep things fun by going down the roster on what I need to platinum instead as I with that setup is just unfair. If you are good at the game, none of this bothers you because you still will rape.

Mortar strike is a contender with 4 snipers running it, I agree, but how often does that happen? Grenades are useless in this game. I could piss on someone in real life and it would do more damage than the grenades do. I don't know about the G3 but I don't really care to use it either.

No I have not. I have played Battlefield 2 a long time ago on PC though. It was a great game but Bad Company 2 is also a great game. In Bad Company 2, I don't think I am good... I know I am good. Anyone who has played with me can attest to that. I and my squad is ALWAYS in the top 5 on our team if not in the entire match because unlike most people we work as a team and worry more about providing cover/support vs being the guy with the most kills. Again like bigdaddybruce stated, this portion has no baring on how good Bad Company 2 is.

Back to my point from earlier, this game is flawed and it is not hard to be in the top squad. Not only does nobody play this game as a squad, but you have 8 random teammates. What I mean by this is, rarely do 4 guys actually jump on in a squad together from what I've seen. Sure, people join up and let the game put them in squads, but it's mostly randoms and people with no mics. They need to make it so you can play with 12 guys if you want to and at least talk to the other team members.

#33 lordopus99

lordopus99

    Training for the silver

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 06 February 2011 - 12:17 AM

Right, that's obvious. This game is flawed though. Most matches this isn't a problem, but you can only do so much for a team as a squad. I shouldn't have to run the engineer class just to have some sort of defense against tanks while the other 8 people on the team snipe. Sometimes even working as a squad of four engineers it's hard to deal with tanks because of the other 8 people on the team you have to carry. It is insanely easy to be the top squad in this game.


Hard to deal with tanks? :lol: Again, mines (which no one uses, don't know why) don't allow any tanks to be anywhere close to an area of action. Even on Vietnam I stop tanks way before they come anywhere close to the action. I place one in the road and one on the off road around it. Every time they hit it. It's actually quite fun seeing a jeep flying in the area and saying "oops I did it again". If you are trying to use rockets, then yes it could be tiresome without someone else helping. Rockets to me are only effective against copters and people/buildings.

As for team play, I can't help what randoms without mics can do when they join. Every online game has this flaw because this is something the developer can't control. They can only hope to point them in the right direction about how the game SHOULD be played.

The medic is still broken. Even in Vietnam, the RPK is king. There's really no reason to use anything else. It does have the highest damage still, even if it is tied with some assault rifles. Spraying and praying has nothing to do with it. I can single shot an M60 and kill someone in 3 bullets across the map. That's broken. I never have a problem short range. Outfit makes them stand out? I can't say that they are any different from the engineer or assault in that regard.


I will agree with you that Vietnam is broken. The maps are too small for conquest. Weapons are not balanced. Totally agree. As for M60, it isn't as strong as you perceive in today's world; maybe you are thinking HARDCORE mode, in which ALL weapons are one shots to the head. I don't play that shit as it promotes camping. The outfit deal is the hat sticks out on every map. Engineers and Assaults... the outfits are all similar in color so they don't stand out.

Mortar strike is a contender with 4 snipers running it, I agree, but how often does that happen? Grenades are useless in this game. I could piss on someone in real life and it would do more damage than the grenades do. I don't know about the G3 but I don't really care to use it either.

Prior, it use to happen every game. Quite annoying as most buildings would be destroyed i.e no cover. Since alot of the non-BF players moved into Reach/Black Ops, this hasn't been happening as much due to people actually playing other classes than Recon. It also has hurt this occurrence with lots of people going the shotty/c4 route with recon class (months ago). As for grenades, on some maps I can position myself and unload with the grenade launcher. It's like a mortar strike that just doesn't stop when you throw a kit under yourself but a couple second pause. With a click of a button, I can switch over and kill anyone coming towards me. Trust me it can be a pain when used properly. In addition, I can't count the amount of times I blind fired a cooked grenade and taken out multiple people since it happens pretty frequently. But yes, against vehicles they aren't too useful.

Back to my point from earlier, this game is flawed and it is not hard to be in the top squad. Not only does nobody play this game as a squad, but you have 8 random teammates. What I mean by this is, rarely do 4 guys actually jump on in a squad together from what I've seen. Sure, people join up and let the game put them in squads, but it's mostly randoms and people with no mics. They need to make it so you can play with 12 guys if you want to and at least talk to the other team members.


Over time if you play it or any game for that matter, you meet people who play the way you play and you play together. When I play, I normally at least have 3 (myself in that number) if not the full 4. There have been times where we have so many we have use party chat. But back to the randoms... there are a lot of good players in the game, now that most of the non-good/ME players are out of it since moving to Reach/Black Ops. Like you, I wish there was an option to only play with mic'd players. Unfortunately this does not exist in this game or any other game (that I am aware) so all we can do is work with it and hopefully meet people through random encounters or via sites like CAG.

#34 NinjaPenguin777

NinjaPenguin777

Posted 06 February 2011 - 02:34 AM

I guess Trakan and I will agree and lordopus and biddaddybruce will just disagree.

We aren't saying the Bad Company games were bad, we are saying they aren't battlefield games live up to past standards. No need to defend them. They are good games but they could of been much better. That's all.

And just to clarify, I said look at how many maps have ALMOST no vehicles. Having three humvees is not battlefield. A lot of the conquest maps were a joke. 2 Humvees and a tank on city streets and thats it.


"Kill Streaks? Nope. Fast matches? Nope. Cheating/Mods? Nope. Work by yourself? Nope. Yeah... I see nothing that says Call of Duty. Essentially, the Battlefield Bad Company series is a series that focus' on the soldier."

Uhhhh thats completely opposite from a Battlefield game. Battlefield games aren't supposed to focus on the soldier. They are vehicle based games. I didn't say they were Call of Duty clones. I said they were basically Call of Duty with vehicles.

Formerly known as slickkill77


#35 lordopus99

lordopus99

    Training for the silver

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 06 February 2011 - 06:45 AM

And just to clarify, I said look at how many maps have ALMOST no vehicles. Having three humvees is not battlefield. A lot of the conquest maps were a joke. 2 Humvees and a tank on city streets and thats it.

You must not be playing the same game. I mostly play Rush (which I think the vehicles are set up just fine) but the few times I play conquest I get in these games.
Heavy Metal - helicopter dog fights, tanks battles below, level too big to walk anywhere
Atacama Desert - helicopter dog fights, tank battles below, level too big to walk anywhere
Panama Canal - tank battles galore
Port Valdez - helicopter battles, tank battles
Of course, these games require teams to be fair. When they aren't, it usually ends up one team controlling all vehicles from both sides.

Uhhhh thats completely opposite from a Battlefield game. Battlefield games aren't supposed to focus on the soldier. They are vehicle based games. I didn't say they were Call of Duty clones. I said they were basically Call of Duty with vehicles.


Again, it is NOTHING like CALL OF DUTY.

#36 thenexus6

thenexus6

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 06 February 2011 - 11:53 AM

Very excited, was never really into the BF series but when I got the first Bad Company I loved it. With that, the sequel, 1943 and Vietnam BF is right up there now as one of my favourite shooter series.

Plus, this isn't "Bad Company" 3, which will be a new experience to me!

Blade_Runner_2-1.jpg


the-nexus6.png


PSN the-nexus6 | Xbox Live Ken the Wizard
https://twitter.com/saunderscowie


#37 NinjaPenguin777

NinjaPenguin777

Posted 06 February 2011 - 07:22 PM

Ok I'll give you a perfect example. Conquest on Oasis from Bad Company 1. Do you remember that? Oasis was a cool map for rush and for conquest they literally made the map a straight line and cut everything else out. That's not battlefield. We'll just agree to disagree. Bad Company was created to compete with Call of Duty whether you want to accept that or not. It still had some resemblance to a Battlefield game but nowhere near what it could have, or should have been.

Formerly known as slickkill77


#38 lordopus99

lordopus99

    Training for the silver

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 06 February 2011 - 07:54 PM

Ok I'll give you a perfect example. Conquest on Oasis from Bad Company 1. Do you remember that? Oasis was a cool map for rush and for conquest they literally made the map a straight line and cut everything else out. That's not battlefield. We'll just agree to disagree. Bad Company was created to compete with Call of Duty whether you want to accept that or not. It still had some resemblance to a Battlefield game but nowhere near what it could have, or should have been.


I guess we will as there is no way this should be mentioned alongside Call of Duty. As for competing, the same could be said that they are competing with Halo, Bioshock, <insert any FPS online>. Halo was the original online quality console shooter so everyone would be chasing them, not Call of Duty. Bad Company was just the evolution of the Battlefield game. From watching old videos on youtube, I personally don't see much difference outside jets, prone, giant ass maps, and terrible graphics (of course it should as it is an older game). Personally, I can't stand prone (promotes camping) and big ass maps (where it takes forever to get to action). Heavy Metal just takes way too long to finish in current.

I prefix stating I never played BC1 online. Oasis on BC2 has plenty of tank battles (including one spot for heli battles). Normally my team on offense runs with 2-3 tanks through 3 positions (com stations). This is in Rush. I have not played this on Conquest so I can't talk for it. Oasis is actually my favorite map.

#39 fatmanforlife99

fatmanforlife99

    I TRAIN UFC BRO

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 February 2011 - 12:41 AM

http://www.joystiq.c...ork-down-to-24/

Black Ops SUCKS!!!

 

 


#40 Necrozilla

Necrozilla

    meeeeeeeeeeeeep

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 February 2011 - 04:58 AM

That tech demo reel was not impressive in the slightest and aren't we over "lighting tech" since 2007?

(()) wOOpwOOp That's the sound of a trade: >>CML<< (())

PS3 & 360 games @ ☆ Want Halo 4 ☆ plz
10% CAG discount Vs. ebay listings!


#41 htown01

htown01

Posted 08 February 2011 - 07:36 AM

That tech demo reel was not impressive in the slightest and aren't we over "lighting tech" since 2007?


I believe that the lighting is one of many important aspects of a game; it sets the ambiance of the levels we experience. The demo didn't blow me away either but after reading a little about radiosity, it is not used in many game engines because it is resource intensive.

Supposedly, this is only a small glimpse of what Frostbite 2.0 is capable. My opinion is if it can handle radiosity (resource intensive) what else can it do? :-k

#42 Bazylik

Bazylik

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 February 2011 - 03:07 PM

Bad company games bare Battlefield in the forefront of the title and that makes it a part of the Battlefield franchise. Those guys who compare Bad Company to BF2, and even BF1942 are right, BD series is shitty in comparison. It does stand on its own and is pretty good but not next to BF2. It's an indisputable fact. I'm not sure about consoles but PC version of BF3 will stomp all over BC2 on PC.

I'm just not yet sure how destructible environments will work with the Karkand DLC map.

#43 lordopus99

lordopus99

    Training for the silver

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 February 2011 - 04:45 PM

I'm not sure about consoles but PC version of BF3 will stomp all over BC2 on PC.


I would hope so. It's a game that came out March 2010 vs a game that is scheduled to come out Fall of 2011; that's over a year and half difference.

Though, I am scared until I see actual gameplay since DICE's last online (MoH) was pretty bad.

#44 NinjaPenguin777

NinjaPenguin777

Posted 08 February 2011 - 05:52 PM

I wouldn't hold any light to MOH. They were probably given that project but it wasn't something they wanted to do. BC 1, BC 2, and MC were all fine other than some first day lag.

New Scans....
http://www.ps3blog.n...-looks-amazing/


Whole game informer article
http://translate.google.it/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.4news.it%2F6782-battlefield-3-gli-scans-dal-numero-di-marzo-di-gameinformer.php&sl=it&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

Formerly known as slickkill77


#45 Necrozilla

Necrozilla

    meeeeeeeeeeeeep

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 February 2011 - 07:19 PM

M.o.H. multiplayer h.u.d. makes me worried.

Singleplayer looks like the original Bad Company concept.

(()) wOOpwOOp That's the sound of a trade: >>CML<< (())

PS3 & 360 games @ ☆ Want Halo 4 ☆ plz
10% CAG discount Vs. ebay listings!


#46 Bazylik

Bazylik

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 February 2011 - 07:43 PM

I would hope so. It's a game that came out March 2010 vs a game that is scheduled to come out Fall of 2011; that's over a year and half difference.

Though, I am scared until I see actual gameplay since DICE's last online (MoH) was pretty bad.

It's not always the case. Crysis 2 looks worse than Crysis 1, and the time disparity is much larger.

Medal of honor MP was slapped on the game like a strap on to screw some player into thinking there is much more than a short single player. Which obviously over 4 million people fell for this trick.

#47 lordopus99

lordopus99

    Training for the silver

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 February 2011 - 08:47 PM

It's not always the case. Crysis 2 looks worse than Crysis 1, and the time disparity is much larger.


Completely different scenario. It's a game that was originally built for PC exclusively (with max settings at the time; most people couldn't run it) vs a game that is made with consoles in mind. Crysis 2 final product hasn't released so who knows what it will end up like.

Medal of honor MP was slapped on the game like a strap on to screw some player into thinking there is much more than a short single player. Which obviously over 4 million people fell for this trick.


Slapped on... ha. Beta started 6/21 (game released 10/12); four months to enhance an already developed enough product. It was DICE's attempt at trying to modify it's Battlefield chops into Call of Duty's fast pace matches. Graphically it looked nice but gameplay wise failed miserably. Bazylik, Nice try though.

I wouldn't hold any light to MOH. They were probably given that project but it wasn't something they wanted to do. BC 1, BC 2, and MC were all fine other than some first day lag.


I hope they took the feedback to heart but I wont know until I see actual gameplay footage. As for the second line, DICE isn't going to purposely screw over their name just because they wanted the paycheck. They attempted to modify their interface from Battlefield to Call of Duty in order to try and pull more users in.

#48 HydroX

HydroX

Posted 08 February 2011 - 08:50 PM

I thought this thread was made for Battlefield 3? Not "Come bash Bad Company 2, all of you CoD hacks!!"

#49 Bazylik

Bazylik

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 February 2011 - 09:32 PM

Completely different scenario. It's a game that was originally built for PC exclusively (with max settings at the time; most people couldn't run it) vs a game that is made with consoles in mind. Crysis 2 final product hasn't released so who knows what it will end up like.


Different scenarios, similar output. Even crytek themselves said Crysis 2 will have better graphics than Crysis, looks like it's not the case. Marketing mambo jambo. People still can't run Crysis full blast on their PCs but I digress. The bottom line is that Bad Company games are inferior to BF2 in every way, besides maybe graphics. Though, personally, I much prefer BF2's look to BC2. I didn't mention that in my previews post but I quoted you because I am worried that DICE, even though the PC is the lead platform, will dumb it down to cutter to the console market.

Slapped on... ha. Beta started 6/21 (game released 10/12); four months to enhance an already developed enough product. It was DICE's attempt at trying to modify it's Battlefield chops into Call of Duty's fast pace matches. Graphically it looked nice but gameplay wise failed miserably. Bazylik, Nice try though.


I still think it was just a trick. Most of the BF2 community knew back then that DICE was deep in BF3 and they just put together that small MP for MoH because EA had no one to turn to. I played the MoH PC beta and all the bugs from the beta found their way into the game. That is why I think it was a nice trick to fool people. And it worked. Difference of opinion here we will only have. Won't know for sure what really happened, will we? :D

#50 NinjaPenguin777

NinjaPenguin777

Posted 08 February 2011 - 09:43 PM

I thought this thread was made for Battlefield 3? Not "Come bash Bad Company 2, all of you CoD hacks!!"


Lol. It is BF3. We're just hoping they stay away from the BC mold. Plus we didn't have much to go on so why not speculate and rant :D.


So glad we are getting dedicated servers and jets for the consoles. I can't wait to see this in motion and of course hear the music.

Formerly known as slickkill77


#51 Necrozilla

Necrozilla

    meeeeeeeeeeeeep

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 February 2011 - 09:53 PM

Dedicated servers exist for Bad Company on all platforms. Do you mean the ability to view server/room lists?

(()) wOOpwOOp That's the sound of a trade: >>CML<< (())

PS3 & 360 games @ ☆ Want Halo 4 ☆ plz
10% CAG discount Vs. ebay listings!


#52 kingkiller33

kingkiller33

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 February 2011 - 10:04 PM

I'm still pissed that they didn't support Battlefield 1943. Not one damn DLC added to that game. I played the crap out of Battlefield 1942. I would love to see a remake. I want to snipe Nazis again!

#53 NinjaPenguin777

NinjaPenguin777

Posted 08 February 2011 - 10:34 PM

Dedicated servers exist for Bad Company on all platforms. Do you mean the ability to view server/room lists?



No I'm just saying that I'm glad they are sticking with dedicated servers. Excellent choice imo

Formerly known as slickkill77


#54 mannysgoldglove

mannysgoldglove

    NooB KilleR

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 09 February 2011 - 03:09 AM

No I'm just saying that I'm glad they are sticking with dedicated servers. Excellent choice imo


Yes, way better that way

#55 htown01

htown01

Posted 09 February 2011 - 05:53 AM

I wouldn't hold any light to MOH. They were probably given that project but it wasn't something they wanted to do. BC 1, BC 2, and MC were all fine other than some first day lag.

New Scans....
http://www.ps3blog.n...-looks-amazing/


Whole game informer article
http://translate.goo...en&hl=&ie=UTF-8


Thanks for the links :) I think I have 1 more issue left; what a way to end a subscription. I'll dig into this in the meantime :D

#56 KingNothing09

KingNothing09

    Where's your crown?

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 09 February 2011 - 10:01 AM

I loaded up BF2 after a year or two of not playing it recently and when I saw the BF3 ad I almost creamed myself...I didn't realize they were really working on it, I thought it was just a rumor. I would love to play this on my PC but damn I would need some major upgrades...think I'll have to go with the 360 version due to lack of funding

#57 KaneRobot

KaneRobot

    The Profit$ of Doom

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 09 February 2011 - 02:13 PM

Have you played Modern Combat? Just curious.


I own Battlefield 2 on the PC...only played the Modern Combat demo on the 360.

BFBC2 is not "shitty." It was different. And I'll take BFBC2 over any other Battlefield game out right now in a heartbeat.
Posted Image

#58 lordopus99

lordopus99

    Training for the silver

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 09 February 2011 - 02:17 PM

Different scenarios, similar output. Even crytek themselves said Crysis 2 will have better graphics than Crysis, looks like it's not the case. Marketing mambo jambo. People still can't run Crysis full blast on their PCs but I digress.

Again, Crysis 2 so far is a multiplayer console BETA i.e. not finished/final product. Wait and see the Crysis 2 single player before making such a claim. Then do your comparison... apple for apple...PC for PC. For all we know, they could be creating a PC version simultaneously with a Console version.

I still think it was just a trick. Most of the BF2 community knew back then that DICE was deep in BF3 and they just put together that small MP for MoH because EA had no one to turn to.


Man DICE must have been superhuman with a huge ass staff in order to churn out MoH multiplayer, BC2 Vietnam, starting Battlefield Play4Free, in addition to current BC2 support with VIP map packs and patches, and then to do BF3 all at the same time... what a load of crap theory. Prior to MoH, all they had was BC2 support. If they had been "Deep" since BF2, we would have more than 2 screenshots showing the actual game. We would have a full scale beta instead that is far off. My guess based on the timeline for scheduled releases is that they started on the project somewhere in December (if not January) once Vietnam was released and Battlefield Play4Free was being beta tested.

I didn't mention that in my previews post but I quoted you because I am worried that DICE, even though the PC is the lead platform, will dumb it down to cutter to the console market.


Well won't you be happy. In an article, they stated the PC is the lead version. Though the bad news, rumor is there will be no modder tools due to frostbite 2.0 complexity.

#59 Bazylik

Bazylik

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 09 February 2011 - 04:31 PM

Again, Crysis 2 so far is a multiplayer console BETA i.e. not finished/final product. Wait and see the Crysis 2 single player before making such a claim. Then do your comparison... apple for apple...PC for PC. For all we know, they could be creating a PC version simultaneously with a Console version.


We actually do know the tools to create Crysis 2 are all the same for consoles and PCs, there was a demonstration about a year ago on how fast and easy it is to create games simultanously using those tools.

I make such a claim because there are numerous screenshots, trailers, and gameplay videos that suggest that Crysis 2 is not even close to Crysis in graphics dept. Crytek at one point said themselves that Crysis 2 will look better so I will compare it Crysis 1. If you don't like it, well, you can eat your apples.


Man DICE must have been superhuman with a huge ass staff in order to churn out MoH multiplayer, BC2 Vietnam, starting Battlefield Play4Free, in addition to current BC2 support with VIP map packs and patches, and then to do BF3 all at the same time... what a load of crap theory. Prior to MoH, all they had was BC2 support. If they had been "Deep" since BF2, we would have more than 2 screenshots showing the actual game. We would have a full scale beta instead that is far off. My guess based on the timeline for scheduled releases is that they started on the project somewhere in December (if not January) once Vietnam was released and Battlefield Play4Free was being beta tested.


If you really knew how big DICE is I bet you wouldn't even make that comment. You give me BC Vietnam and Play4Free as an examples. lol. Give me a break. Valve announced HL2 and they released it 9 months later, that doesn't mean they only worked on HL2 9 months, does it?
Because you didn't hear anything about BF3, it doesn't mean DICE hasn't been working on it. And since DICE does indeed have a huge ass staff, they could afford to have some staff deviate towards different projects (moh MP and BC2 Vietnam). Don't bring up Play4Free anymore please, that just makes you look silly. Have you even played that pos? And why do you sound so angry? You don't have to be always right with your assumptions, take it easy dude.


Well won't you be happy. In an article, they stated the PC is the lead version. Though the bad news, rumor is there will be no modder tools due to frostbite 2.0 complexity.


Yes I do have my worries because all games that are on both consoles and PC, feel consolish on PCs no matter what the lead platform was. It worries me that they chose to say that the lead platform is the PC platform. I would be less worried if they said that they have two dedicated teams working on each version. I wonder what they said about BC2, I have both console and PC versions, PC version has this consolish feel.

#60 NinjaPenguin777

NinjaPenguin777

Posted 09 February 2011 - 05:53 PM

Again, Crysis 2 so far is a multiplayer console BETA i.e. not finished/final product. Wait and see the Crysis 2 single player before making such a claim. Then do your comparison... apple for apple...PC for PC. For all we know, they could be creating a PC version simultaneously with a Console version.



Man DICE must have been superhuman with a huge ass staff in order to churn out MoH multiplayer, BC2 Vietnam, starting Battlefield Play4Free, in addition to current BC2 support with VIP map packs and patches, and then to do BF3 all at the same time... what a load of crap theory. Prior to MoH, all they had was BC2 support. If they had been "Deep" since BF2, we would have more than 2 screenshots showing the actual game. We would have a full scale beta instead that is far off. My guess based on the timeline for scheduled releases is that they started on the project somewhere in December (if not January) once Vietnam was released and Battlefield Play4Free was being beta tested.



Well won't you be happy. In an article, they stated the PC is the lead version. Though the bad news, rumor is there will be no modder tools due to frostbite 2.0 complexity.


Read the GI article. They've been working on BF 3 for a long time. Its say they started honing ideas for BF 3 back in 05 and they started working on the BF 3 engine after Bad Company 1 wrapped up. Dice is a really big studio. They've released a game(s) or expansion every year since BF 2 was released.
http://en.wikipedia....usions_CE#Games

Formerly known as slickkill77