Re: battlefield (3)
^lol pwnt...
But yeah put up a damn stick for any BF 3 fact or fiction.
^lol pwnt...
But yeah put up a damn stick for any BF 3 fact or fiction.
-
-
Re: battlefield (3)
I wish they give us something though. Its hard seeing the way other games have moved on with new technology e.g. Crysis and imaging what a new Battlefield would be like. I live in hope.:hmm:Comment
-
Re: battlefield (3)
hi,
thanks for your replies.
xrambox - i share your opinion. most classic games are devoloped for pc in historie... and that is where the roots are. we have too fight ;-)
alex - thanks for your answer, i can understand you in that point that you dont want to bore EA. but dont forget its about the main game of dice and it should be a big issue to them keep their baby still growing up... (and the community must push them gently and deep ;-) as xrambox said)
*FMJ*Power - he got his bann...Comment
-
Re: battlefield (3)
yeah, pc is the Battlefield way (insert Sam The Eagle voice here)
i'm really hoping to see good BF news this year, and i dont mean BF:H, dont get me wrong i love BF:H but we already know about that and alot of us even played the beta until we puked BF:H all over the floor (i did).
i dont even have any BF games installed on my pc right now.
we defenitly need a new BF. (just hoping it has more vehicles and better maps then BF2 and 2142)Comment
-
Re: battlefield (3)
One thing's for damn sure, I bet Battlefield 3 comes out before Duke Nukem forever.
I'll even give duke 2:1 odds, any takers?
Especially in the first-person shooter genre, but don't tell that to a console kiddy, they might snap.
I had a long argument with one about how consoles 'dumb down' shooters with the controllers. There is an unparalleled level of control with the mouse and keyboard when it comes to games like shooters, that consoles can't even come even remotely close to. Console kiddies who just dropped hundreds of dollars on their machine will surely disagree with you about that, but sit down and play Battlefield 2/Battlefield 2142 for a few hours, and then go play Bad Company. Bad Company feels like a bad dream compared to the PC counter parts. It's not to say BC is a bad game, it isn't, it's actually pretty damn good for console, but it's way too sluggish for a veteran of the battlefield franchise.
Dice is very good at making PC shooters, and is also very good at making mediocre console shooters (although to their credit, there are not a lot of decent exclusive console shooters).
Hopefully Dice returns to it's roots and develops more stellar PC titles, they should just stay where they belong, in the PC market.
PS. With games like BF2, piracy is relatively a moot point since a genuine/valid CD key is required to play on ranked/public servers. There's no real valuable single-player, so the only draw is to the online aspect. So at least on those grounds, Dice can't claim that the PC market is dried up due to piracy.
Piracy is NOT an issue to any good game that has a very solid online component. Unless you like playing on really crappy 'cracked' servers that usually have the lowest quality of players, you're pretty much forced to buy/get a genuine version of the game in order to be authenticated for most servers. Good Multi-player = Little to no piracy.Comment
-
Re: battlefield (3)
I don't necessarily think that the graphics will get that much better (I'm sure they will be improved though). However, there are still a lot of areas that could use substantial upgrading for the next game, mainly the net code. If Dice can really nail down the net code for BF3 and fix the majority of the hitbox detection issues from previous installments, we could easily see 128-player servers with larger maps and more buildings.
Oh, and they also have to design two separate 'styles' of levels for the next game. One style should be suited for the sprawled out vehicle maps in which most people play for the long-distance combat and the vehicle usage, the second style should of course be for infantry. Infantry styled maps that are smaller in area, but contain more buildings (including the ability to enter more buildings), more cover, better strategic points, squad play in mind, etc...
If they can cover off those things, Battlefield 3 will be just as good as BF1942 and BF2, which is a very tall order to follow if you ask me.Comment
-
Re: battlefield (3)
i'd love to see a new improved version of BF1942, all the armies, all the vehicles all the awesome maps, but with new graphics, netcode.
i think no BF game had as much content on it as 1942, the game was huuuuuuge, and thats what i loved about it, it wasnt just infantry 24/7 like happens with BF2 and most 2142 servers.
the large maps were good and there were enough vehicles to make epic vehicle battles.
i think i'm going to install it again :P
PS: yes there are alot of WWII games, but none is even close to the epic proportions of 1942.Comment
-
Re: battlefield (3)
Yea, BF1942 is still the best game i've ever played in my eyes.Comment
-
Re: battlefield (3)
Ok, I'll put up a BF3 confirmed facts thread. Y'all can add to it.Comment
-
Re: battlefield (3)
Battlefield 2 was pretty bad compared to 1942. Not once did I feel like I was in modern combat but some counterstrike game.
That's why 2142(regardless of your so-called noobish accusations), destroys Battlefield 2. The atomsphere was just there.
Battlefield 2 had a great graphics engine and gameplay that just needed to be better implemented.
Anyways, I will jump to the Battlefield 2142 side of the island before I get lynched by Air captains and armor pounders.Comment
-
Re: battlefield (3)
Ocular implants, of course. Kind of like that technology where jet pilots only have to look at a target and their gun aims in that direction by sensing the motion of the eye? Same kind of deal.
And to Wizardwarts and BIFF, QFT! There are a lot of people that I'm sure feel they wouldn't play another WW2 BF game (which I'm sure is just talk...you know who you are and you know you'd buy the next BF game even if it was WW2
), but I do long for the days of BF when there weren't commander spots and infantry scanners and UAVs all over the place. Remember in BF:V when you could sneak undetected through a thick part of the jungle with a couple teammates, plop down the spawn tunnel, and by the time the enemy knew anything about it your whole team was spawning at their airfield? With all the detection devices in BF2142, and even the all-seeing-eye commander and UAV in BF2, this is almost impossible to do. It's an aspect of the gameplay I really miss. That isn't to say that a possible WW2 BF wouldn't have something like a commander, but if they did it would certainly be harder to justify him being able to bring up a map of the area and spot individual infantry all over the place.
Plus, remember when AA/Flak was actually useful? And there were ships and shore defenses? And submarines? And the StG44? And when you couldn't bring people back to life or instantly heal yourself to full health? It's also nice to see (BIFF) that there are still some people besides myself who wish for more vehicle action instead of just 24/7 citymaps/infantry combat. :salute:Comment
-
Re: battlefield (3)
now that i have a 500GB drive and a 320GB drive on the store to get fixed, i'm installing all the battlefield games i have 1942+expacks, Vietnam, BF2, BF2142 (no expacks on BF2 and 2142)
WOOHOO!!Comment
-
Re: battlefield (3)
Desert Combat final on 1942 was the best ever
Followed by POE for BFvietnam:nod:
It was the fact 1942 engine was so balanced(no jet kings) it had flak cannons and good AA.
Yes a remake 1942 would rock:yay:
32 players is enough!they just need to make heaps of vehicles,game modes and building you can go in like bf42(first thing i missed when i install bf2)
NO stupd UAV or ARTY(arty like poe rocks)
just copy 1942 DC exactly and you cant lose:thumbsup:
infact i feel like reinstalling a 6 yr old game wow:p but i cant remember the epic patches order lol
Remeber the classic maps like el alimane,omaha,dust bowl ectComment
Comment