Battlefield 3- Premium announced; 4 new expansions

slickkill77

slickkill77

CAGiversary!
Feedback
78 (100%)
17042.JPG
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I cant wait for this! This will be my first 'true' Battlefield experience, since I've only ever played 1943, BC2, and Vietnam on my 360.
 
Can't wait!

Does this mean they're done with the BFBC stuff?

EDIT: Or is this BFBC, but just titled Battlefield...hmm
 
At least there's a campaign (even if DICE underperform in that part). The promo art gives me too much Bad Company 2 deja vu so I'm skeptical if it's going to look and feel anything more than just Bad Company 2.5.
 
It's going to take a lot for me to drop Bad Company 2 for another Battlefield sequel, since I've yet to play a better shooter on the 360.

Hope it can live up to what the hype will surely be.
 
[quote name='KaneRobot']It's going to take a lot for me to drop Bad Company 2 for another Battlefield sequel, since I've yet to play a better shooter on the 360.

Hope it can live up to what the hype will surely be.[/QUOTE]

Have you played Modern Combat? Just curious.

---

If MW3 drops this fall as well, expect EA to delay the shit out of this.
 
[quote name='Trakan']Have you played Modern Combat? Just curious.

---

If MW3 drops this fall as well, expect EA to delay the shit out of this.[/QUOTE]

I don't know man, according to Major Nelson, Bad Company 2 was the #5 most played game of 2010. EA & DICE will still rake in the dough for this game.
 
[quote name='slickkill77']Nope this is a true battlefield sequel. This is not a shitty bad company spin off[/QUOTE]

Cool! Shitty? Really?
 
[quote name='HydroX']I don't know man, according to Major Nelson, Bad Company 2 was the #5 most played game of 2010. EA & DICE will still rake in the dough for this game.[/QUOTE]

Please note that the rankings are based on the games’ first seven days of activity on the Xbox LIVE service and only include games released in 2010.
Click to expand...

That whole list is kinda bullshit.

[quote name='jaredstorm']Cool! Shitty? Really?[/QUOTE]

Shitty. Yes.
 
[quote name='Trakan']Have you played Modern Combat? Just curious.

---

If MW3 drops this fall as well, expect EA to delay the shit out of this.[/QUOTE]

They aren't going to delay it. This franchise still makes its money on the PC (sales plus servers) and the fanbase there is still incredibly strong. This game will sell like crazy on just that platform alone and all the others will just be gravy.

Also it is unfair to compare this game to Modern Combat. That shit was based on last generation technology.
 
Bad Company 1 and 2 were fun but they paled in comparison to Modern Combat and Battlefield 2. This will be a true battlefield game.
 
I have played both Bad Company 1 and 2 and Modern Combat on the PS2 and 360. What is going to be different in this game? Jets? More players in a match? Just curious, never played BF2.

EDIT:I read the spoiler tags and it answered my questions. Looks like the PC people will be happy, sounds like it will be better on the PC.
 
[quote name='Puffa469']I cant wait for this! This will be my first 'true' Battlefield experience, since I've only ever played 1943, BC2, and Vietnam on my 360.[/QUOTE]

I can't either :D I'm in the same boat as you except I've only played BC1/BC, Vietnam and Battlefield Play4Free.

[quote name='Necrozilla']At least there's a campaign (even if DICE underperform in that part). The promo art gives me too much Bad Company 2 deja vu so I'm skeptical if it's going to look and feel anything more than just Bad Company 2.5.[/QUOTE]

The cover does look similar to BC2, but this is BF3, a whole different game as I've read around. Except the soldier on this cover does not look "cartoony". (Comparison)

I honestly can't remember the last time I felt very excited about a video game :D
 
Excited for this, but not a fan of people talking poorly of the Bad Company series. Sorry, but they are both great games. You might not like them, but oh well. That's your opinion. Calling them shitty is going way too far. Both were well-reviewed, especially the sequel, and as someone else mentioned, Bad Company 2 was well-received by gamers, as well, as the 5th ranked game on the XBL in 2010.
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']Excited for this, but not a fan of people talking poorly of the Bad Company series. Sorry, but they are both great games. You might not like them, but oh well. That's your opinion. Calling them shitty is going way too far. Both were well-reviewed, especially the sequel, and as someone else mentioned, Bad Company 2 was well-received by gamers, as well, as the 5th ranked game on the XBL in 2010.[/QUOTE]


They were good games no doubt, but they were shitty excuses for Battlefield games. They were basically a Call of Duty game with vehicles. They were nerfed beyond belief. Look at how many maps had almost no vehicles. That's not Battlefield. The only good thing to come out of the BC series was the destruction and bullet drop. We didn't want a single player but DICE insisted and the multiplayer suffered for it. Plus they took things out like the artillery strike and replaced them with stupid stuff like the mortar strike. The classes were chopped up and reduced way too much. Who knows what they were thinking with the helicopters. The maps were no where near the quality of BF2/MC. BC1/BC 2 had maybe 5 good maps. Modern Combat alone had that many: Backstab, Bridge Too Far, Full Frontal etc. Then they tried getting rid of Conquest in Bad Company 1. What were they thinking there? The conquest they gave us was a let down as well. The maps were smaller than the rush maps. DICE made the Bad Company series to satisfy people that wanted single player and people like Call of Duty rather than keeping Battlefield true to its Multiplayer madness roots.

I put in over 200 hours on the 360 version of Modern Combat, 50+ hours on the demo, and 200+ hours on the xbox version. I didn't put anywhere near that much time in on Bad Company. I suspect that will change with BF 3
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's fine. They were not the usual Battlefield games. That's why they weren't part of the main Battlefield series. But to call them shitty games is a bit silly.
 
Awesome.

I loved BC2 and the Vietnam expansion - if everyone is saying this is going to be better than that, it's going to be amazing.
 
[quote name='slickkill77']They were good games no doubt, but they were shitty excuses for Battlefield games. They were basically a Call of Duty game with vehicles. [/QUOTE]

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.

They were nerfed beyond belief.
Click to expand...

Nerfed. Not sure where you are going with this comment.

Look at how many maps had almost no vehicles.
Click to expand...
You must not be playing Rush or Conquest at all or you focus just on Vietnam.
All maps have a vehicle in them. There are only 2 maps I can think of that only has 1 spot is White Pass and Nelson Bay. As for the rest, there are vehicles galore. In fact the latest map pack (#7) contain maps that are essentially tank and helicopter battles.

We didn't want a single player but DICE insisted and the multiplayer suffered for it.
Click to expand...
I like a single player experience with my games. Yes, the single player for Bad Company series was sub par at best. But multiplayer in Bad Company 2 is hands down still the best FPS online multiplayer experience. After seeing the Crysis 2 and Bulletstorm demos, I don't see it falling anytime soon. So to say it "suffered" is really a huge stretch.

The classes were chopped up and reduced way too much.
Click to expand...

I think the classes for the most part were set up just fine.

I think personally you probably just get worked in the new game vs the old game so you feel to trash a very quality multiplayer experience.
 
Bad Company 2 was by far one of the best games I've ever played on the 360. Hell, I ended up buying it twice -- once at launch and again after missing having a satisfying multiplayer experience after trading it for Crackdown 2 (what a mistake THAT was, haha).

I do get sick of it from time to time, but second only to Left 4 Dead, Battlefield: Bad Company 2 is one of a few games that I've spent playing months at a time without removing it from my console.
 
Yeah, I would definitely agree that Bad Company is not some Call of Duty clone. That's the whole reason I love the series, because I really don't like CoD's multiplayer at all. I have loved the Bad Company MP, though, basically for the reason that it doesn't feel like CoD to me.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']Nerfed. Not sure where you are going with this comment.[/QUOTE]

Smaller maps, no jets, no prone.

I think the classes for the most part were set up just fine.
Click to expand...
The classes were horribly unbalanced. First of all, every class that isn't the engineer is super fucked by any sort of vehicle. You can get by with the sniper with C4, but any decent tank driver will prevent that from happening.

The medic is ridiculous. That class got the gun with the highest damage, the best accuracy, the biggest clip, the ability to heal people, and the ability to revive people. Not only that, but there is no cons to using the medic, either - iIt still has unlimited sprint at the same speed. Broken.

I think personally you probably just get worked in the new game vs the old game so you feel to trash a very quality multiplayer experience.
Click to expand...
Have you ever played Modern Combat? Every person I've ever played BF with has preferred it to the BC series. I think you think you're better than you actually are.
 
[quote name='Trakan']Smaller maps, no jets, no prone.[/quote]

Which again is why the games are called Bad Company and not part of the main Battlefield series. They were trying different things, which obviously worked, considering both games were reviewed well and sold well.

The classes were horribly unbalanced. First of all, every class that isn't the engineer is super fucked by any sort of vehicle. You can get by with the sniper with C4, but any decent tank driver will prevent that from happening.
Click to expand...

It's a team game. If no one plays an engineer, you're going to get destroyed by a tank. If a couple of decent people do, you'll be fine.

I think you think you're better than you actually are.
Click to expand...

Don't really see what that has to do with anything at all.
 
[quote name='Trakan']Smaller maps, no jets, no prone.[/quote]

Again, it is a spinoff. I actually for one am very happy for no prone. I can't stand camping and anything that promotes it.

The classes were horribly unbalanced. First of all, every class that isn't the engineer is super fucked by any sort of vehicle. You can get by with the sniper with C4, but any decent tank driver will prevent that from happening.
Click to expand...

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.

The medic is ridiculous. That class got the gun with the highest damage, the best accuracy, the biggest clip, the ability to heal people, and the ability to revive people. Not only that, but there is no cons to using the medic, either - iIt still has unlimited sprint at the same speed. Broken.
Click to expand...

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.

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.

Have you ever played Modern Combat? Every person I've ever played BF with has preferred it to the BC series. I think you think you're better than you actually are.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Limited Edition to include Battle of Karkand DLC
According to the poster, the LE version (all first-run copies of the game) will include "Back to Karkand" DLC "at no additional charge." The add-on includes four maps from Battlefield 2 "re-imagined with Frostbyte 2," the upcoming sequel's new engine, in addition to new Achievements/Trophies, unique rewards, and weapons from the previous title. Those that don't get the LE will be able to buy Karkand "approximately one month after the game's release."
Click to expand...
-joystiq

That's cool. It will be cool to play all the old maps.
 
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.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
[quote name='Trakan']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. [/quote]

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='slickkill77']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.[/quote]
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.
Click to expand...

Again, it is NOTHING like CALL OF DUTY.
 
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!
 
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.
 
[quote name='slickkill77']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.[/QUOTE]

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, . 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.
 
[quote name='Necrozilla']That tech demo reel was not impressive in the slightest and aren't we over "lighting tech" since 2007?[/QUOTE]

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? :whistle2:k
 
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.
 
[quote name='Bazylik']I'm not sure about consoles but PC version of BF3 will stomp all over BC2 on PC.
[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']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.[/QUOTE]
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.
 
[quote name='Bazylik']It's not always the case. Crysis 2 looks worse than Crysis 1, and the time disparity is much larger. [/quote]

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.
Click to expand...

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.

[quote name='slickkill77']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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']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. [/QUOTE]

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.

[quote name='lordopus99']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.[/QUOTE]

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top