Where should BF3 go?

[Blades]

Re: Where should BF3 go?

Parachuting from a jet to a Boeing, hijacking it and smashing the two towers.

Imagine a score of 2000 withen a few seconds. :p

You little ****ing insensitive immarture twerp. You are an idiot. "20000 points" F*cking idiot.

[Blades]

Re: Where should BF3 go?

you americans gonna defend that or what..

I think everyone should defend that, even if they are not american.

[ConscriptVirus]

Re: Where should BF3 go?

anything before wwi will sortof be pointless like the civil war..itll be like...bang (firing ur rifle)..reloading.........2 minutes later.....bang and the guns will be so inaccruate that itll just be frustrating to play, and sword fighting online is harder to do, not as much skill would be needed

[Thirdeyez]

Re: Where should BF3 go?

yes mass murder is funny...what a ****, I hope a major terrorist event happens in your country so you can feel the effects

[Keith Maniac]

Re: Where should BF3 go?

Hehe. You Americans are so uptight :laugh:

[|D|-Char-ley_Killa]

Re: Where should BF3 go?

world war 1 fighting in the treches would be cool

[Eddy01741]

Re: Where should BF3 go?

I say modern day, like BF2, maybe like 5-10 years ahead of BF2, so teh F-22A and the PAK-FA are inside. Also, i wouldn't mind if it's in the same era as BF2, as long as it has more features, like better voip, more variety of kits (my favorite, it would be AWESOME if BF3 had like 10 kits). The future is also alright, but then i wouldn't know the names of any of the guns and vehicles an di couldn't criticize EA at this forum that the tank is too underpowered compared to real life, or if a gun should be better like in real life.

[sackynut]

Re: Where should BF3 go?

they havent even fixed bf2, how are they gonna make bf3? i can imagine where they are gonna go: compatible with only the nvidia geforce :53984009 series and the ATI radeon xxx187727734 series (pixel shader 9.0 only)

[Eddy01741]

Re: Where should BF3 go?

they havent even fixed bf2, how are they gonna make bf3? i can imagine where they are gonna go: compatible with only the nvidia geforce :53984009 series and the ATI radeon xxx187727734 series (pixel shader 9.0 only)

I dunno, they didn't completely make BF:V and they made BF2. They didn't even make one expansion pack for BF:V, but that was mostly cause BF:V was so similar to BF:1942, they just added more weapons, better graphics, but no squads or anything like that. Anyways, EA doesn't have to completely fix BF2 to make BF3.

[Hu.Z_of_PLA]

Re: Where should BF3 go?

i think BF3 should be somewhat along the line of Quake War, that is, put human against aliens, aliens have futuristic technology, and human has current technology.

for example, a zerg/protoss/human set up

human vehicles: battlecruiser
tactical nuke artillery
starfighter

alien: carrier, advanced starfighter, heavy dragoon

alien2: various melee attacking creatures.

additionally, battlefield will reign in land, air, and space. take a map like oman, for example, in BF3 you should be able to fly into space and participate in space battle, and cruisers in space should be able to come down.

[imported_BeeF_driPPings]

Re: Where should BF3 go?

i thought you guys would have more ideas then this. the next gen fps would have to have a time generator. where you can have all wars in one game. from world war one, two, modern. this game should also have a weather generator where the host of the server can pick time of day and the weather.
we have to get back to tactical war instead of mass point harvesting. we should be able to have full scale war and a realistic chain of command. the rank and score system would have to be as such to allow only qualified people to be officers and not just whores. it should be set up to where there could be expert battles where only certin ranks could join and play. this would prevent n00bs from screwing up good battles. there is so many things they could do. but they will not because they can make each idea a different game and sell it by itself.
If they were true gamers and not just money whores they would make one great game. but it shall forever lay unseen in the shadow of greed.
-BeeF

[Jofaba]

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.

[vbl]

Re: Where should BF3 go?

world war 1 fighting in the treches would be cool

Ugh, no it would not.

[Boss_HoggHB]

Re: Where should BF3 go?

i think they should make a whole country and have an online war or something where you can join one army and help it through a whole war in stead of just one battle , and this can be any country or region in any time but i prefer modern weapons or at least after wwII

[megamanfre]

Re: Where should BF3 go?

you americans gonna defend that or what..

Isnt there a 5 year rule? If its a huge disaster, you can joke about it 5 years after its happened?

Thats how I always thought about it.

Dont bitch at me either, I did lose someone in one of the towers, but its been long enough that Im not super sensitive about it any longer.

Besides, I think most of us realize that the war we are currently in, isnt the war we initially thought it was for. Its not a war against terrorism, it was a war against Sadam.

I like the guys offer of Battlefield Caveman too!