Battlefield 3 - Main Thread

2011-02-14 18:35:12

#1176

FloppY_: +1,010|6544|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

1942 & Vietnam had to fit historically obviously...
---

afaik BF2 had no story at all as to why you were fighting?

2142 made it a struggle for survival, fighting for the food & resources your people needed to survive the iceage...

I like that noone was the obvious bad guy....

Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me

2011-02-14 18:39:04

#1177

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7029|PNW

Doctor Strangelove wrote:
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I would like to see a western power portrayed as an aggressor for once. Could be simply accomplished with a North American civil war.
Nah, I like how in the modern-era BF games, it doesn't go into detail about how the war began. If they make one country clearly the aggressor, then it could alienate players from that country. Also being forced to play as the bad guys would make the game feel less heroic for the player, like "congratulations, you won! GO TYRANNY FUCK YEAH!"

Call of Duty 4 did it without too much issue. Both sides were depicted as aggressors, and to quote Yahtzee, the Americans 'screwed the pooch.' It was an excellent contrast to the dripping nationalism of the early maps.

Even Battlefield 2 stated war goals for particular maps, but I suppose it never did explain how things got rolling. What I don't want to see is more 9/11 idolatry.

2011-02-14 18:41:07

#1178

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6726

unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Doctor Strangelove wrote:
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I would like to see a western power portrayed as an aggressor for once. Could be simply accomplished with a North American civil war.
Nah, I like how in the modern-era BF games, it doesn't go into detail about how the war began. If they make one country clearly the aggressor, then it could alienate players from that country. Also being forced to play as the bad guys would make the game feel less heroic for the player, like "congratulations, you won! GO TYRANNY FUCK YEAH!"
Call of Duty 4 did it without too much issue. Both sides were depicted as aggressors, and to quote Yahtzee, the Americans 'screwed the pooch.' It was an excellent contrast to the dripping nationalism of the early maps.

Even Battlefield 2 stated war goals for particular maps, but I suppose it never did explain how things got rolling.

Well with CoD4, the bad guys were terrorists, and the normal Russians were the good guys. In MW2 though the Russians are all like "Let's invade America because they suck and they attacked our airport even though basic police work would find out it was this Makarov dude." that's the kind of shit I don't want.

2011-02-14 18:44:02

#1179

FloppY_: +1,010|6544|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

Doctor Strangelove wrote:
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Doctor Strangelove wrote:

Nah, I like how in the modern-era BF games, it doesn't go into detail about how the war began. If they make one country clearly the aggressor, then it could alienate players from that country. Also being forced to play as the bad guys would make the game feel less heroic for the player, like "congratulations, you won! GO TYRANNY FUCK YEAH!"
Call of Duty 4 did it without too much issue. Both sides were depicted as aggressors, and to quote Yahtzee, the Americans 'screwed the pooch.' It was an excellent contrast to the dripping nationalism of the early maps.

Even Battlefield 2 stated war goals for particular maps, but I suppose it never did explain how things got rolling.
Well with CoD4, the bad guys were terrorists, and the normal Russians were the good guys. In MW2 though the Russians are all like "Let's invade America because they suck and they attacked our airport even though basic police work would find out it was this Makarov dude." that's the kind of shit I don't want.

"USA, is dominate" - Duty Calls final boss

Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me

2011-02-14 21:31:21

#1180

KuSTaV: noice; +947|6769|Gold Coast

AussieReaper wrote:
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I would like to see a western power portrayed as an aggressor for once. Could be simply accomplished with a North American civil war.
Invasion of Cuba from the perspective of the Cubans.

That doesnt appeal to 14 year old American kids.

Killing waves of Russians, does.

noice

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/awsmsanta.png

2011-02-14 21:44:35

#1181

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6411|what

KuSTaV wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I would like to see a western power portrayed as an aggressor for once. Could be simply accomplished with a North American civil war.
Invasion of Cuba from the perspective of the Cubans.
That doesnt appeal to 14 year old American kids.

Killing waves of Russians, does.

Russia? As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right next to, they are right next to our state.

omg set BF3 in Alaska!!

2011-02-14 21:48:53

#1182

RTHKI: mmmf mmmf mmmf; +1,741|6995|Cinncinatti

you mean BC3 m8

2011-02-14 22:03:13

#1183

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5436|Sydney

AussieReaper wrote:
KuSTaV wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:

Invasion of Cuba from the perspective of the Cubans.
That doesnt appeal to 14 year old American kids.

Killing waves of Russians, does.
Russia? As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right next to, they are right next to our state.

omg set BF3 in Alaska!!

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/52172/Bf3-pc-cover%20palin.jpg

2011-02-15 00:26:46

#1184

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7029|PNW

I think we're missing out on something that could work, here...merge Battlefield with Red Alert!

ENEMY ZEPPELIN SPOTTED.

2011-02-15 10:28:42

#1185

Trotskygrad: бля; +354|6257|Vortex Ring State

best plot... Iranian Terrorists blow shit up in Russia like 9/11 scale.

Russia invades, citing the US's response to Iraq and A-Stan as a precedent.

Then same terrorists blow shit up in the US...

shit goes down

2011-02-15 12:38:13

#1186

globefish23: sophisticated slacker; +334|6581|Graz, Austria

Trotskygrad wrote:
best plot... Iranian Terrorists blow shit up in Russia like 9/11 scale.

Russia invades, citing the US's response to Iraq and A-Stan as a precedent.

Then same terrorists blow shit up in the US...

shit goes down

Then the Holy See declares war on them all, resurrecting all the Saints from the dead as a massive army with secret Vatican wizardry and using the Second Coming of Jesus as their super weapon.

The single player part will have the player recovering the lost scriptures needed to resurrect the Saints from the ship Sangre del Toro in Jerusalem beneath the Temple Mount.

2011-02-15 13:02:01

#1187

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7029|PNW

Super Mecha Death Christ 2000.

2011-02-15 14:13:47

#1188

Trotskygrad: бля; +354|6257|Vortex Ring State

Trotskygrad wrote:
best plot... Iranian Terrorists blow shit up in Russia like 9/11 scale.

Russia invades, citing the US's response to Iraq and A-Stan as a precedent.

Then same terrorists blow shit up in the US...

shit goes down

singleplayer campaign has the player following the parallel US invasion of Iran, which eventually leads to the Russia declaring war on the US after the simultaneous discovery of the Ark of the Covenant in the former site of Desert 2 (That's why the MH-53s failed, ZOMFG)

Russia then invades Europe in a counterstrike after NATO's invasion of russia fails (because the french can't fight and the germans are too deteethed to do shizzle), getting all the way to paris.

Then in big motherfuckin container ships Russia invades the US, World in Conflict (remember that game? yeah) style...

the sad part is, this plot is probably more plausible than whatever DICE will cook up

2011-02-15 16:02:37

#1189

RTHKI: mmmf mmmf mmmf; +1,741|6995|Cinncinatti

Sounds like Bad Company 4

2011-02-15 20:11:31

#1190

Trotskygrad: бля; +354|6257|Vortex Ring State

RTHKI wrote:
Sounds like Bad Company 4

totally

2011-02-16 06:40:01

#1191

FFLink: There is.; +1,380|6949|Devon, England

Who cares, I just want it to be as bad-ass as BF2.

I was playing last night and one thing that really brought it all back was seeing a colossal amount of enemy players show up in your UAV range and just thinking "That's a fucking lot of people."

No game other than BF2 has that effect. As long as I can squad up with my friends, avoid God-knows what vehicles and masses of infantry, cap flags and defend them, I will be happy.

2011-02-16 22:18:21

#1192

Evil_Black_Fox: Member; +18|5739

I'm just wondering, why doesn't BF3 have it own area yet? Also will this site be changed to BF3s when it comes out?

2011-02-16 22:19:07

#1193

11 Bravo: Banned; +965|5495|Cleveland, Ohio

Evil_Black_Fox wrote:
I'm just wondering, why doesn't BF3 have it own area yet? Also will this site be changed to BF3s when it comes out?

lol

2011-02-17 00:20:52

#1194

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7029|PNW

If there were a point to giving ~three whole active threads their own section, I'd be all for that and shoving Starcraft 2 back to AoG.

2011-02-17 00:28:31

#1195

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5436|Sydney

Makes more sense to have its own forum once the game is released though.
But at the moment it's not like we're going to discuss gameplay, tactics, hardware specs, patches etc. etc. etc. when we haven't even seen any actual game footage.

2011-02-17 01:48:28

#1196

globefish23: sophisticated slacker; +334|6581|Graz, Austria

I think we need a BF3 box cover sub-forum.

2011-02-17 02:10:53

#1197

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5436|Sydney

lol @ this

Miggle wrote:
M.O.A.B wrote:
Miggle wrote:
Jaekus wrote:
BF3 has been announced as an independant game, seperate from BC2 in an interview about BC2. So the claim that BC2 is BF3 is simply incorrect.
"What the PC version is going to be" He's talking about the PC version of BFBC2. He inaccurately refers to it as BF3, perhaps BF3 was an early working title for BFBC2?
Or perhaps its because BF3 is going to be released on all platforms? As was rumoured? You know, like Crysis 2 is going to be?
I have no doubt that EA/DICE will release more battlefield games, and most will probably be released on all platforms. I simply doubt that they will ever release another true PC battlefield game. I'm also almost completely sure that guy was talking about BC2.

2011-02-17 07:53:31

#1198

Camm: Feeding the Cats.; +761|5226|Dundee, Scotland.

i'm honestly like a little kid waiting for christmas. I want it so bad. And I want it to be FUCKING AMAZING.

for a fatty you're a serious intellectual lightweight.

2011-02-17 09:14:38

#1199

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6879|London, England

There's still like zero details on this game. Most of it is vague or nothing new. The only thing that's different is the reintroduction of Jets and 64 players for PC.

I can't see what the hype is about for a game we know nothing of.

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2011-02-17 09:15:03)

2011-02-17 09:25:37

#1200

NooBesT: Pizzahitler; +873|6727

Camm wrote:
i'm honestly like a little kid waiting for christmas. I want it so bad. And I want it to be FUCKING AMAZING.

You'll be so disappointed.

BF2S Forums Battlefield 3 - Main Thread

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

KuSTaV wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

KuSTaV wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

RTHKI wrote:

Evil_Black_Fox wrote:

Miggle wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Miggle wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Camm wrote:

Board footer