BF2S Forums Battlefield 3 - Main Thread

BF2 you could run in and come out on top.

I found in BC2 with frostibite, you couldn't do this. You had to stratergise and move up and use your cover alot more strategically as your character, in a word, is "heavy". You're not light on your feet like in BF2.

Videos that are coming out of gameplay @ e3 are looking pretty much the same, and as expected.


When BC2 came out, I was not ready for this change, but I think my mind set has changed, and I'm definately more interested in the stratergy side of things now then I used to be. Perhaps it's come with age :s


tldr: My body is ready. Bring on BF3.

Ilocano wrote:

Kampframmer wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

While I'm getting this for PC and Console, hopefully on console they'll add private match modes (unranked) that requires less than 8 players.  One of the features that MW got right.

why get it on both systems?
Get bf3 for pc and mw3 for console

Console to play with my kids.  PC for when I want to play serious.

i mainly play console games for casual fun, because thats what most are. And for that i still prefer CoD. And why with the kids? afaik bf3 doesnt have split screen. MW3 had spec ops and now horde mode

Last edited by Kampframmer (2011-06-10 10:50:03)

Jaekus wrote:

Measuring it against a now six year old game is pointless

Why?

It is the sequel to one of, if not the best fps to ever be released. It is the benchmark for which it will be compared especially considering it comes from the same franchise. To not improve on a 6 year old game would be utter failure and changing key elements of what made BF2 so great doesn't make much sense. But if it works great, if it doesn't you have to ask some questions as to why change what isn't broke.

I don't want BF2 with better graphics, but I also don't want something worse then BF2 with better graphics. In fact I could not give 2 shits about the graphics, I would gladly play with BF2 graphics (or worse) if the gameplay and functionality was right.

tazz. wrote:

BF2 you could run in and come out on top.

I found in BC2 with frostibite, you couldn't do this. You had to stratergise and move up and use your cover alot more strategically as your character, in a word, is "heavy". You're not light on your feet like in BF2.

Videos that are coming out of gameplay @ e3 are looking pretty much the same, and as expected.


When BC2 came out, I was not ready for this change, but I think my mind set has changed, and I'm definately more interested in the stratergy side of things now then I used to be. Perhaps it's come with age :s


tldr: My body is ready. Bring on BF3.

Yeah I agree. With the addition of prone and big maps it *hopefully* should swing back towards the gameplay we're all hoping for. Not the same, but a few steps in the right direction.

The biggest gripe I have with BF2 is the shitty hitreg. It's enough these days to make me quit mid round.
BC2 has waaaaaaaay better hitreg, but the maps are too small to be a truly strategic game. It certainly feels limited in this regard.
BF3 will surely have neither of these issues. 128 player maps, is this for real?

Wait, they've gone up to 128?

11 Bravo wrote:

thats way too many.  gonna be like MAG which is a huge clusterfuck

Dunno. If the maps are HUGE it could work quite well. More jets, more armour, more flags to cap - could be quite a battle if two teams are well balanced in skill.

It was a while ago, I think it was a speculation that came from a couple tweets from developers. Nothing definite, but not completely ruling the possibility out just yet. I honestly don't think it will happen, but you never know.

ceslayer23 wrote:

Pretty sure it has been confirmed that it is 64 players max

e:

Things We Know About BF3 wrote:

Game Features:

    64 Player Multiplayer (PC) and 24 Player Multiplayer (Consoles) [5]

http://krazyxazn.wordpress.com/2011/06/ … ated-6811/

128 would be awesome nonetheless, but only if the maps properly support 128 players.

I'm imagining Karkand grenade spam with 128 people in the meat grinder *shudder*

Dilbert_X wrote:

War Man wrote:

Yes, but what would be the purpose of deploying the bipod of a bolt-action except for a m95 or anything heavy like that in  a video game. A semi auto at least makes sense as the bipod could be used to reduce or eliminate recoil, for .50 calibers it would be required to deploy in order to fire them but they are very damaging to make it worthwhile equipping them.

Its hard to know where to begin, have you ever fired a rifle?

I'd like to see steps to make it more 'real', either you have to take time to dial in the range or use the mil-dots to actually hit your target.
Plus sway, wind, dust signature on firing and so on to remove the ridiculous advantages snipers generally have in video games.

I'd also remove claymores, or require some realistic time to set them up, defined tripwire and so on.

If I want it to be fucking real, I'll play a fucking realism game. Games need to mainly be fun to be playable by me. A little bit of realism is fine, but you also gotta add in the fun element.

ಠ_ಠ