BF2S Forums How did the beta change your opinion of purcashing BF3?

.:ronin:.|Patton wrote:

If the desert combat team made BF3 i'd shell out $4000 dollars for a computer to play it on.

$5 says you'll buy BF3.

Patton, why don't you try the game when it comes out. Before you bash it so heartily.

Fuck! I'm gonna be out working when this shit comes out and when my new computer comes in

Spark wrote:

UnkleRukus wrote:

Patton, why don't you try the game when it comes out. Before you bash it so heartily.

but then he wouldn't be able to play the uber-cool cynic

^

Reminds me of all the children on the battlelog forums. They make a thread complaining about 'how shit the game is' - 'how bright the flashlight is', 'how overpowered the weapons are' - then you look at their stats and it reads along the lines of:

Hours + minutes played: 0.20

K/D: 0.01

As for Pattons argument, well, he doesn't have one.

I remember looking at Fallout 3 and thinking: "This looks like a load of shit, no way am i buying it." I eventually come around to buying it and then realise just how f**king good the game actually is.

Don't judge a book by its cover/screenshots.

Uber cool cynics are

To answer OP:  playing Metro made me disgusted, but when Caspian went in to rotation I finally bit the bullet and pre-ordered.

And...

...we're on a web site dedicated to a fucking 6 year old game called Battlefield 2...so does anyone actually believe that someone who has posted on said website for 3+ years is NOT going to eventually buy Battlefield 3?  (Besides floppy...)

It's going to release, there will be the most activity this site has seen in years, and those same people will begin popping up in discussions of the game...("wait, what?  oh, you BOUGHT it?  Oh wow, I thought you said....")

I just hope it's worthy of the throne...

FloppY_ wrote:

I don't get everyone who bashes FO3... It was awesome fun, in some ways even better than FO:NV.

I never played the old ones because I'm not a big fan of turn-based games...

Because it was terrible... It was neither and RPG nor an FPS but trying to be both and failing hard on both accounts. It was slow, it was boring and it was ugly.

Last edited by DrunkFace (2011-10-20 10:15:33)

DrunkFace wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

I don't get everyone who bashes FO3... It was awesome fun, in some ways even better than FO:NV.

I never played the old ones because I'm not a big fan of turn-based games...

Because it was terrible... It was neither and RPG nor an FPS but trying to be both and failing hard on both accounts. It was slow, it was boring and it was ugly.

Also the story was shallow and predictable. Also, Metros.

DrunkFace wrote:

-CARNIFEX-[LOC] wrote:

so does anyone actually believe that someone who has posted on said website for 3+ years is NOT going to eventually buy Battlefield 3?

That's a bit presumptuous. There is nothing that DICE has released that has in any way swayed me to purchase their game and lots which has turned me off. The only improvement is graphics (and that's also debatable as they have huge negative effect on gameplay) and as graphics are about the least important part, I see no reason to purchase a sub par game when I have a perfectly good 6 year old one which is better in almost all aspects. I don't need the latest and greatest, I don't buy things solely based on titles or previous successes. If the exact same beta and trailers were released but were made by activision not DICE and named something different, would you be all over it like a dog in heat?

What I played of BF3 was a terrible disappointment, sure it was a beta and things will change. Will I give it another chance on release, maybe if I get the chance but I'm not going to go out of my way to try it as there were next to no redeeming features to give me any hope.

Well, I just think that the people who haven't bought it will still wind up doing so for numerous reasons.

First, it will be better than the beta.  Maybe not as epic as when BF2 dropped, but it will still be "good".  ("Great", hopefully...)  I think most of the news regarding the game since the beta closed has pointed to this fact.

But I think it primarily boils down to the fact that the need for something "new" usually outweighs the need for something "great".

I hope it's good, I hope everyone on here gets it, and that BF3s will rise from the ashes like a phoenix, serving to guide all of us towards a better, happier tomorrow in which we are all helplessly addicted to yet another Battlefield game

Ok so...

-I can spend a fuck load of money on a new computer (i have to get a new pc to play it fyi) to play a game that to be honest doesn't look that good/good at all IN MY OPINION. Then after spending > $1200 BUX LOL i can finally post my opinion on it so i dont get the "dont judge a book by its cover" response. Get my dick rode and +50 karma points by fanboys if i love it and ripped to pieces with "LOL U SUCK @ GAMES FEYGOT" if i don't like it.

-I can spend lots o hours watching gameplay videos of all different styles of play (Infantry, tanks, jets, helos, not snipers cuz i dont give a fuck about snipers unless its kidnapping/teamkilling/banning them) then compare the game to the qualities of past battlefield titles that i loved so damn much and see if this game lives up to what i expect from a game with the title to the sequel of my favorite game of all time. Ive already done this and I have come to the conclusion that this game is going to have 1/5 the lifespan of bf2 and it just sux cox n dix in general, get compared to $h1fTy of whatever his name is and say i have no valid argument from the same smurfs i used to roadkill on the essex with my J10 back in the day on wake. Get accused to being "too ub3r l33t fo4r bf3" sarcastically. Watch other like-minded dissenters get excommunicated from the BF2s DIKRYDERZ church.

Hmmm..i think i'll go with #2. Use the money to put 24's on my truck. Stuntin' while im shinin fully loaded while im grindin son!

Towelly wrote:

I'll be perfectly happy if it keeps me entertained until Diablo 3 finally gets released.

Diablo 3 is gonna be sick.

.:ronin:.|Patton wrote:

Ok so...

-I can spend a fuck load of money on a new computer (i have to get a new pc to play it fyi) to play a game that to be honest doesn't look that good/good at all IN MY OPINION. Then after spending > $1200 BUX LOL i can finally post my opinion on it so i dont get the "dont judge a book by its cover" response. Get my dick rode and +50 karma points by fanboys if i love it and ripped to pieces with "LOL U SUCK @ GAMES FEYGOT" if i don't like it.

-I can spend lots o hours watching gameplay videos of all different styles of play (Infantry, tanks, jets, helos, not snipers cuz i dont give a fuck about snipers unless its kidnapping/teamkilling/banning them) then compare the game to the qualities of past battlefield titles that i loved so damn much and see if this game lives up to what i expect from a game with the title to the sequel of my favorite game of all time. Ive already done this and I have come to the conclusion that this game is going to have 1/5 the lifespan of bf2 and it just sux cox n dix in general, get compared to $h1fTy of whatever his name is and say i have no valid argument from the same smurfs i used to roadkill on the essex with my J10 back in the day on wake. Get accused to being "too ub3r l33t fo4r bf3" sarcastically. Watch other like-minded dissenters get excommunicated from the BF2s DIKRYDERZ church.

Hmmm..i think i'll go with #2. Use the money to put 24's on my truck. Stuntin' while im shinin fully loaded while im grindin son!

I'm sure you could build something for under $1000 that would handle it quite well.

Patton has never killed me in BF2. The only TOP member to kill me was Nasty_Butler.

Regardless, that stuff is the past now. Just like 1942, DC, Forgotten Hope, Vietnam, BF2, SF. Why waste time trying to recreate that, when there are newer sometimes better things to experience.