Where should BF3 go?

[Refused]

Re: Where should BF3 go?

I'd like either WW2 or modern combat. As long as they leave this stupid rank/stats system out.

[Refused]

Re: Where should BF3 go?

USA/Random brown-skinned nation we have yet to "liberate in the name of Democracy (Democracy is ancient English for "OIL")

Oh, so true!

[Eddy01741]

Re: Where should BF3 go?

I'd like either WW2 or modern combat. As long as they leave this stupid rank/stats system out.

Ya, i like the 'unlocks' in BF2, but i think they should be available all the time, just to add more variety, and if they do have a ranking system, leave these 'unlocks/alternative weapons' out of the ranking system, it's not my fault that i don't play like 400 hours like the guys that have all the unlocks do.

[-{DFA}-Brak710]

Re: Where should BF3 go?

well they are gonna finishe the battlefield 2 with european forces...after that for Battlefield 3 its probably not gonna be like Galactic stuff but its going to be like 2080 gunz with lazers bahh i dont know..

But to me, thats not the battlefield series. I usually hate people that say they arn't going to play the next verion of a game, because I know that they are, And I may sound like a hippocrit but Battlefield is a realistic/arcade type warfare.

I really could care less for a FPS game thats a to far in the future. Thats why no one I know who is into serious FPS play plays Halo and Halo 2. They usually stop with Half-life 2.

Theres nothing more intense than a tank battle over the horizion where no one can see eachother. But it would suck if a lazer beam somehow could maraculusly bend over the curvature of the earth to destroy your tank. Not cool. :hmm:

[Hoppum]

Re: Where should BF3 go?

Battlefield 1943 FTW

[Futile]

Re: Where should BF3 go?

how about a game where the sides are NOT almost identical? like a chinese army that focuses more on mass infantry (maybe shorter spawn times but less vehicles?) i want to see mass infantry waves like in Korean war.
or have the mid east army be... less technological and more hit and run. give the MEC commander ability to create a temporary spawn point anywhere on map? it'll be tricky to balance but more variety and more fun to play...

(ooo, we can do korean war! helicopters + jets + amphibious tanks)

[Tenshi]

Re: Where should BF3 go?

Sounds alot like Generals, where all the sides are radically different but still balanced.



Im sick of WW2 games...if ww2 never happened, the games industry would be screwed.

Its been done to death.


I think bf3 could go into the future. Not too far...then it gets too abstract and will not be bf anymore. But i think they can work some subtle futuristic ideas in.

I think itll be a while before warfare changes drastically anyway. Maybe the tools will change but the overall jist will ramain the same for a while. So long as bf3 has some grounding in reality itll keep its edge.

Though if you think about it, bf2 has a way to go before it resembles modern combat: mainly because of the limits of our pcs.

I mean Karkan should be a city filled with civilians and be 5 times bigger..at least. Large groups of NPS, would add a whole new world of gameplay. You could have parts of cities designated as no-go areas.

Partly this is a processor power issues and partly its a networl bandwidth issue. When these bottlenecks are removed well se some cool things. Physics processors will help alot too.

[MrBenis]

Re: Where should BF3 go?

Anyone feel the Warhammer 40k jibe? Thats not just a thousand years to go, thats 40,000 years in the future. Too abstract? Hardly.

Dice will just need to be smart about what they're doing, is all.

[Shae]

Re: Where should BF3 go?

It should either go medieval or futuristic. Either way I am there. I'd love to see a game where we could storm a castle using siege engines, balistas, catapalts, knights, archers the whole medieval theme. OMG it would rock.

[Jofaba]

Re: Where should BF3 go?

There's already a 40K mod in development:

http://www.battlefield40k.com/forums/

[|D|-Max]

Re: Where should BF3 go?

how a about something like Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter in 2013

http://www.ghostrecon.com/uk/ghostrecon3/videos.php?video=5

http://www.ghostrecon.com/uk/ghostrecon3/videos.php?video=4

[Shae]

Re: Where should BF3 go?

Ideas:

1) Huge Maps
2) Epic Battles
3) Dynamic Weather Patterns
4) Time Of Day Cycle
5) Fully Destructible Environments
6) Emphethis On Land, Air, Sea Assault
7) Chain Of Command
8) Weapon Earn Points
9) Intertwined Gameplay
10) War Time Effort Moral Points
--------------------------------------------------------
Descriptions:

1) Full City Size. Basically 128-256 person maps. Battlefield 3 should also be exactly the same (possibly graphical differences of course) for all console machines and pc so that all can play on the same servers to get as many players as possible

2) Maybe you're allowed to spawn 5 times per battle, or there's a limit or objective base to how respawning takes place. I'm not a game dev so I can't really suggest how you'd balance this with the "fun factor", but I still think the end of a battle should make sense, not just a point base system like Football. Battles end in real life because of the actons of the battle, not because there's a referee keeping score.

3 & 4) Ala GTA San Andreas. As the battle progresses the sun should be tracking across the sky and the weather should be changing. This wouldn't just be a realism effect. It'd directly alter gameplay. Right now, every battle is pretty much the same. Karkand is Karkand. But what about random weather patterns? Karkand in a sandstorm, next round it's clear, next round it's raining, next round the sun is beating down so hard that visibility is affected and vehicles overheat, heat wave patterns make shooting difficult, etc.

5) If you shoot a building with tank, it should be damaged and stay that way for the rest of the game. If a tank rolls through the dirt, it should leave treadmarks.
EDIT: Also, bodies should stay for the whole game. Even if you respawn, and technically can pick out which bodies are yours, because you're not respawning as "you". You're respawning as reinforcements.

6) BF2 really doesn't have sea battle. Obviously most of us want this, and it should serve a specific purpose, and be busy enough to keep interest. Rocket attacks from battleships, etc. Air is addressed a little in BF2, but it's not very organized. It's too easy to go lone wolf and rape the field. In real life, a lone figher could get away with a few passes before being downed. It's safer and more effective to stay in formation, yet be able to do more than just drop bombs and shoot missles. There's got to be a way to make, for example, being a resupply pilot, or a refueling pilot, as vital and entertaining to play, as being a fighter etc.

7) All elections run like they currently do, based on earned rank. However there'd be an infantry commander (army), who'd have to answer to his commander (President for example). Same for Air and Sea.

8) Game starts and you've got regular weapons and amo. As you earn points (not points towards winning the game) through winning confrontations, special weapon options open up to your commander and his commanders. Maybe the larger weapons need to be approved by superiors for use. Nuclear, chemical, biological, as the largest and most destructive (and hardest to earn, basically you'd be lucky to earn the ability to use one once per game, and you'd have to choose which was best, thus the reason why you'd need approval of use), as well as more standard attack methods like airstrikes, flying drones out, etc. (And drones could be shot out of the sky) etc etc.


9) With the point system we currently have, most people are concerned about taking over flags and defending any of their own that are under attack. It's fun, but it should stay in BF2. BF3 should be designed so that no matter what you do, you're doing something important. So some people should protect bases, some should go off in small attack squads, some should center around huge battles. What should result, is several good sized battles in different places, some special ops groups working on taking out enemy transports, sabatoge, cutting off supply lines etc.

10) "Reporter's" (bots) would roam the battlefields. Some would be under the care of a squad (protect in order to not lose moral points). Inappropriate use of thngs like a nuclear bomb that kills too high a percentage of friendlies, would lower the moral score. The less moral, the longer the pauses between group spawns etc.

------------------------

Obviously a lot of you will disagree. These are simply my opinions of what a great game would be and the kind of stuff I look forward to in the future.

I want to play your game! That sounds totally awesome. I like the limited spawn counter. I have always been a huge proponent of limited spawns. It would make people play more carefully and make games more challenging that way.

[jpardo]

Re: Where should BF3 go?

go modern - market is already saturated...

[Braddock096]

Re: Where should BF3 go?

I'm fine with WW2, but it'll be kinda hard for EA to retain the 7 kits in BF2 for this BF3, cause it's kinda hard to find LMGs from all sides that are balanced, also if the LMG goes to the support class, what gun will the assault guys get, the Garand?

WW2 LMG's....

Russians; DP28?
Americans; 30. Cal
Brits; Bren/lewis gun
German; MG34/MG42
Japanese; Can't remember the name offhand.... 6.5mm LMG


WW2 is the era that really floats my boat, so i'd like BF3 to be back there with a new engine.

[Eddy01741]

Re: Where should BF3 go?

WW2 LMG's....

Russians; DP28?
Americans; 30. Cal
Brits; Bren/lewis gun
German; MG34/MG42
Japanese; Can't remember the name offhand.... 6.5mm LMG


WW2 is the era that really floats my boat, so i'd like BF3 to be back there with a new engine.

Problem, the MG34 would PWN all, teh MG42 would be even more pwnage.