Re: The Technology Behind BF3
Like I said, I wouldn't know because it never caught my atention, when it came out it felt like Quake without the rocket launcher; nowadays I can't stand to play it because it feels too old for ME.
But I still argue that it's a mainstay mostly because there is no CS2 of sorts; CSS is a remake mostly with prettier graphics and updated physics but still feels arcadey to me.
you may call me a graphics whore and what not, but I feel Battlefield has been moving forward, over the many games it has dared to try new things, some you may like, some you may not; but you can't deny DICE has tried NEW things; that's not up to debate, the ability to find balance and better gameplay, however, is.
Also I am not implying one game is better than the other; just that they are different and that in my opinion, CS gameplay is stagnated (you could also argue that they haven't been able to "ruin it" because there is no sequel to CSS) or at the very least, frozen in time.
Like I said, I wouldn't know because it never caught my atention, when it came out it felt like Quake without the rocket launcher; nowadays I can't stand to play it because it feels too old for ME.
But I still argue that it's a mainstay mostly because there is no CS2 of sorts; CSS is a remake mostly with prettier graphics and updated physics but still feels arcadey to me.
you may call me a graphics whore and what not, but I feel Battlefield has been moving forward, over the many games it has dared to try new things, some you may like, some you may not; but you can't deny DICE has tried NEW things; that's not up to debate, the ability to find balance and better gameplay, however, is.
Also I am not implying one game is better than the other; just that they are different and that in my opinion, CS gameplay is stagnated (you could also argue that they haven't been able to "ruin it" because there is no sequel to CSS) or at the very least, frozen in time.
Comment