Topic: Battlefield 3

[broodwars]

There's a lot of people saying "Oh, Battlefield 3 versus Modern Warfare 3, that's gonna be a big match-up". No, it's not. Looking at everything as it is now, BF3 is blowing Call of Duty out of the water. Which is always a pleasant sight. Never liked that series. Campaigns got shorter, more gameplay stressed all too much online multiplayer. Battlefield 3 may emphasize online multiplayer as well, but it looks a hell of a lot better. Hopefully this will be a wake-up call to the company who makes CoD: they've been living off of CoD and WoW for too long.

Eh, I don't know about that. I think all the reviews are letting this game off extremely easily for having an apparently weak Single-Player campaign.  I don't know when it became OK to alienate half your audience with weak SP content, but I find it unacceptable how much reviewers aren't letting it factor into their scores.

For all the issues I have with Call of Duty, their SP Campaigns have gotten a lot better in the last few years.  From the looks of it, Modern Warfare 3 will probably satisfy me more than Battlefield 3, because I really don't give a damn about the Multiplayer.

[Stogi]

I think your not doing yourself a favor in alienating yourself from MP.

[Enner]

Eh, I don't know about that. I think all the reviews are letting this game off extremely easily for having an apparently weak Single-Player campaign.  I don't know when it became OK to alienate half your audience with weak SP content, but I find it unacceptable how much reviewers aren't letting it factor into their scores.

For all the issues I have with Call of Duty, their SP Campaigns have gotten a lot better in the last few years.  From the looks of it, Modern Warfare 3 will probably satisfy me more than Battlefield 3, because I really don't give a damn about the Multiplayer.

Those reviewers are probably doing the same as most of Battlefield fans in that they are ignoring whatever single player content there is. By that same ignorance, I doubt the existence of the campaign alienates the audience. At least it won't by a whole lot. There will probably be a group with a grudge saying that the raw time, money, and talent spent on the lackluster campaign could have pumped out 2-3 more multiplayer maps. Or more cooperative missions than the current six. I've only completed two of the co-op missions but they are quite fun. One of them will allow you to practice your helicopter flying skills.

Unlike Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield 2, there are no bots to practice against. This is a disappointment because a bot match would allow a player to better learn the game. This is especially true of using the vehicles like the fighter jet. As it is in Battlefield 3, there is no way to practice flying the jet on your own. It seems even the empty servers have a minimum player requirement.

Even then, the jet practice might do you no good because the unlock system has critical functions like IR flares and heatseeking missiles locked away. To unlock them you have to get kills with the jet, but the only thing you can do with the jet at the start is fire the vulcan gun. This unlock trend extends to all of the game's vehicles and classes; the other prominent example being the assault class's defibrillator.

I don't mind unlock systems, but I do mind starting out at a terrible disadvantage. It would've been nice if DICE made the campaign worthwhile by having beating it give you some significant early multiplayer unlocks across all classes and vehicles.

[Lithium]

well as far as i know the battlefield games never had single player to begin with anyways (unless you count bots)

anyways depending how how many of us play BF3 on these forums maybe we could get a NWR platoon up

[Enner]

For the PC-only entries, the only single-player content were bots until Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 3 came along. The console entries of Battlefield 2: Modern Combat and the Bad Company series had more significant single player offerings. Though, I think Modern Combat amounted to playing against bots.

As for forming a platoon, I think we only have 3 or 5 at the moment.

[Lithium]

hah i cant tell anyone apart in this game, just a bunch of pajamas running around

[Dasmos]

Looking at everything as it is now, BF3 is blowing Call of Duty out of the water. Which is always a pleasant sight. Never liked that series.

In reality Battlefield 3 isn't going to beat Modern Warfare 3 in sales, no matter how much "better" it is. Call of Duty is probably, for better or worse, going to be around for a long time.

[Silenced]

Probably due to the large amounts of fanboys they've collected over the years.
 
Looking at a trailer, one of the reload animations is slappping the magazine that putting it back inside the gun. I don't think that works in a real war (he might have been going for the release button, but he missed it then).

[Chozo Ghost]

For all the issues I have with Call of Duty, their SP Campaigns have gotten a lot better in the last few years.

Only the ones made by Treyarch. Black Ops has the best singleplayer campaign story in any COD or similar game I've ever played. MW2's singleplayer experience was garbage. The first level is a stupid tutorial which was so boring I lost all interest in the game and only finished the first two missions. Since MW3 is the sequel to MW2 I'm not expecting much out of it. Infinity Ward's COD games are garbage. Treyarch is the real pros.

[broodwars]

For all the issues I have with Call of Duty, their SP Campaigns have gotten a lot better in the last few years.

Only the ones made by Treyarch. Black Ops has the best singleplayer campaign story in any COD or similar game I've ever played. MW2's singleplayer experience was garbage. The first level is a stupid tutorial which was so boring I lost all interest in the game and only finished the first two missions. Since MW3 is the sequel to MW2 I'm not expecting much out of it. Infinity Ward's COD games are garbage. Treyarch is the real pros.

Indeed, Black Ops is the best SP Campaign CoD has managed, though I wasn't all that fond of World at War's.  It had the same problem Black Ops does: continually respawning enemies until you cross some invisible line.  In Black Ops, I felt like there was enough freedom in the environment to overcome that, but it's just absurd in World at War to run into that, especially when they then spam you with never-ending grenade showers.

As for Modern Warfare 2's campaign, while I can't say that it was all that great, I at least had a lot of fun playing it with its absurd situations and the overpowered weaponry they let you use (the stage where you have to defend a Burger King with Predator Drones being a personal favorite).

[Chozo Ghost]

Well, its no coincidence that both World at War and Black Ops are like that because both are made by Treyarch. The grenade spamming is a problem to overcome on Veteran, but the way to do that is use your smoke grenades and keep moving forward. You only get grenade spammed if you stay in one spot too long, which you shouldn't be doing anyway because this is war.

[Dasmos]

The best part about Black Ops is it has an option to completely skip the first menu and it instead goes straight to the multiplayer menu on start-up. I turned this on after the third time I played it and haven't looked back.

[Chiramii]

So how's it going guys? I've played this game way more that I thought I would before the end of the year and I'm really looking forward to the release of "Back to Karkand" this december. I've put 50+ hours into the MP now and it is as fun as it was the first few hours.

[Lithium]

lol i put a grand total of 3 hours and 53 minutes into BF3 since release. I didn't like it nearly as much as i thought i would.

[Dasmos]

I really need to get a better computer so I can run this. I played it on consoles and it's just dogshit.

[Chiramii]

Oh wow... I almost feel ashamed of how much I've played this game now, and I still suck, haha!

[Chozo Ghost]

My biggest gripe with Battlefield 3 is that the maps are huge huge huge and there are only so many players in a game so it takes some effort to even find opponents before you kill them, and odds are they are camping and waiting for you to come to them. So it gets frustrating... if Battlefield had some small ass maps like Nuketown from Black Ops then things could get interesting.

[Enner]

There are close-quarters maps like Seinne Crossing, Tehran Highway, Operation Metro, and Grand Bazaar. Also, Damavand Peak is pretty small. There you have to contend with mortar spam.

Operation Firestorm, Caspian Peak, Norsharr Canals, and Kharg Island are quite big and not helped by the 24 player limit on consoles.

[Dasmos]

My biggest gripe with Battlefield 3 is that the maps are huge huge huge and there are only so many players in a game so it takes some effort to even find opponents before you kill them, and odds are they are camping and waiting for you to come to them. So it gets frustrating... if Battlefield had some small ass maps like Nuketown from Black Ops then things could get interesting.

Yeah, this is my main gripe with BF3 on consoles, 24 people is not enough to keep these levels interesting. At least most of the time you can spawn on someone in your squad, but at other times the trek takes like 15 minutes to see anyone. Another thing that annoys me is how people can essentially hide camp in walls. Whoever at DICE thought that keeping this in all iterations of the Battlefield franchise is a complete idiot.

[Chiramii]

I'm playing on PC and I just have to say that conquest on Operation Metro with 64 players is insane and completely broken. The only thing people use is rpg/smaw & M320. You just see dead infantry flying all over the place, a dream come true for assault players. I can't find a reason to play support. Camping in US/RU spawn with mortar does not sound fun at all.

[Chozo Ghost]

They should have made the maps smaller for the console version of the games. Smaller maps forces more confrontations which means less camping which means more actual fighting and more fun for everyone. Huge maps would make sense if there were like 100 players or something, but with only 24 its obvious the maps are way too large. Its like playing hide and go seek in the grand canyon.

Maybe the 8th generation of consoles will solve this problem. More RAM in the consoles may mean more simultaneous players can be supported, so epic battles may be possible.

[Enner]

Another thing that annoys me is how people can essentially hide camp in walls. Whoever at DICE thought that keeping this in all iterations of the Battlefield franchise is a complete idiot.

I don't understand your what you are trying to say. Are you referring to some sort of wall-hacking or players being prone and sticking out the other side of barriers? Is it players being prone in odd spots?

[Chozo Ghost]

Sometimes solid objects aren't quite so solid in games and players may try to exploit that in order to conceal themselves inside those objects. I haven't played BF3 long enough to really say I've seen anyone doing that so far, but if its possible I'm sure there are people who will take advantage of it.

[Dasmos]

Another thing that annoys me is how people can essentially hide camp in walls. Whoever at DICE thought that keeping this in all iterations of the Battlefield franchise is a complete idiot.

I don't understand your what you are trying to say. Are you referring to some sort of wall-hacking or players being prone and sticking out the other side of barriers? Is it players being prone in odd spots?

Pretty much. People going prone then backing up into a wall so only their head is visible. I'm not sure if you can do this with all walls, but it seems to be a lot of them.

[Enner]

Mm, I see. There is quite a lot of clipping in Battlefield 3. I've done my own testing and had my legs sticking out of a shutter gate.