Battlefield 3

seeing as there are no threads about it....
anyone have any ideas if it will go back to its roots or be like bad company 2 and have a story line?

Bad Company 2 had a story?

hey i thought battlefield badcompany 2's storyline was entertaining to say the least. i enjoyed the jokes where they made fun of modern warefar 2 mostly

"Snowmobiles are for sissies!"
"dont call HQ they are just going to send some jackasses with heartbeat sensors on their guns to storm some mountain base or something"

I get early beta access with Medal of Honor (of which I regret buying )

Battlefield 2 looked REALLY freakin' awesome. I never got the chance to play it so Battlefield 3 sounds great to me. Especially sence it is coming to console.

I have yet to play BFBC2, I was enraged by the demo and it made me not want the game.

Hope B3 is like 2142 without the lag

Nocbl2 wrote:Hope B3 is like 2142 without the lag

and not being very mediocre....

Bad Company's stories are really good... they're just painfully slow sometimes. I'm hoping they figure out a way to pick up the pace without sacrificing the story and gameplay.

wait a third???? i havent played the first 2 yet!!!

I think it is probably pretty important to denote the inherent difference between Battlefield 3 and Battlefield: Bad Company 3, which is the same difference between Battlefield 2 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2. That is, Bad Company can go fuck itself.

Of course, this difference might not be as pronounced, since DICE is still doing this native console shit that has already angered many of its more loyal fanbase.

bad company fixed all the problems in BF2

Neither Bad Company can compare to Battlefield 2. Both Bad Companies were mediocre at best.

Rotaretilbo wrote:That is, Bad Company can go fuck itself.

No u.

Some of us enjoy the Bad Company series. And for those of us, like myself, who aren't so lucky as to have a PC to play games that capture the scale & madness of a more "realistic" and massive multiplayer shooter experience, Bad Company fills that void. (me personally)

It may be taken down a notch from the beast that spawned it but none the less it's still great. Perhaps they should have done more and better to the PC version of the 2 games. What you say made the difference between B2 and BC probably should have been left to stay in the PC version for those veterns of the series. I wouldn't mind that at all as a Console buyer of the game, because it would make sence.

Dear God, you could buy the cheapest pre-built at BestBuy, and it would probably be able to run Battlefield 1942, Battlefield Vietnam, and Battlefield 2. Maybe even Battlefield 2142. It isn't like these games are brand spanking new. I mean, fuck, my first computer, which we bought back in 1995, could run Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield Vietnam! The fucking thing wasn't even Windows XP!

Us PC gamers have waited six long years for another Battlefield game on PC, and the shit they give us is Bad Company 2, which is supposed to be Battlefield 2 but with destructible environments. But it was trying so damned hard to be Modern Warfare 2 that I expect DICE forgot entirely about us PC gamers.

Rotaretilbo wrote:Dear God, you could buy the cheapest pre-built at BestBuy, and it would probably be able to run Battlefield 1942, Battlefield Vietnam, and Battlefield 2. Maybe even Battlefield 2142. It isn't like these games are brand spanking new. I mean, fuck, my first computer, which we bought back in 1995, could run Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield Vietnam! The fucking thing wasn't even Windows XP!

Calm the fuck down Rot! I realize all of this. I didn't say it was impossible for me to play them. But, right now I'm going on 1 part time job at the mall. So I don't exactly have the best income for buying a PC for games right now. Plus, my mind set is the xbox is doing just for me right now. And like I said earlier, BC2 is filling the void of...well, what I decribed earlier. So there is really no need for me personally to go out and buy a PC for games. Even if it is cheap, but believe me, I would. There are lots of games I would buy if I had one.

Rotaretilbo wrote:Us PC gamers have waited six long years for another Battlefield game on PC, and the shit they give us is Bad Company 2, which is supposed to be Battlefield 2 but with destructible environments. But it was trying so damned hard to be Modern Warfare 2 that I expect DICE forgot entirely about us PC gamers.

Which is why I said that it would make more sence for them to keep what was missing in the PC version. Like I said, I wouldn't have a problem with it because the game originated on PC so it only makes sence for them to do that. Take care of your own first. Your own being the PC verterns that stuck to the series from the beginning.

Of course sadly, they didn't do that.

In other words, I pretty much agree with you, except for the whole BC2 fucking itself thing.

i was playing 2142 earlier.....
i got tired of being the only person trying to take control of the silos in titan

Rotaretilbo wrote:Dear God, you could buy the cheapest pre-built at BestBuy, and it would probably be able to run Battlefield 1942, Battlefield Vietnam, and Battlefield 2. Maybe even Battlefield 2142. It isn't like these games are brand spanking new. I mean, fuck, my first computer, which we bought back in 1995, could run Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield Vietnam! The fucking thing wasn't even Windows XP!

Us PC gamers have waited six long years for another Battlefield game on PC, and the shit they give us is Bad Company 2, which is supposed to be Battlefield 2 but with destructible environments. But it was trying so damned hard to be Modern Warfare 2 that I expect DICE forgot entirely about us PC gamers.

I liked Bad Company 2

I'm just bitter because DICE is native developing on console and then porting to PC, meaning, while the game might look like steak to the starved eyes of console gamers, it's hardly a bone to the well fed eyes of us PC gamers.

And seriously, the graphics card I bought six years ago to run Battlefield 2 isn't even as good as the integrated card in my friends refurbished computer he just bought. The computer you're posting on right now could probably run Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield Vietnam.

Rotaretilbo wrote:The computer you're posting on right now could probably run Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield Vietnam.

Probably. But, in the end, there are two key facts to keep in mind about that. Well, for my situation personally anyways...

#1. It's a laptop (not sure if that matters but it's a laptop with no upgardes as far as sound or graphics cards.)

#2. It's not my computer.

Rotaretilbo wrote:while the game might look like steak to the starved eyes of console gamers, it's hardly a bone to the well fed eyes of us PC gamers.

Is that supposed to be an insult to console gamers?

PC is great, and xbox is great, thats why they should make one game that is some how for bolth (no not the same disk but the same game on a different disk) and i hope is is eather like 1942 (not 1943 like some retards mistake it for) or s sequil to BF2, cuz that shit was AWSOMELY EPIC!

Gauz wrote:Is that supposed to be an insult to console gamers?

It isn't console gamers' fault that multiplayer FPS on console is almost in all instances inferior to multiplayer FPS on PC.

No.

It's called personal preference.

I assure you, it is not. First person shooter games made exclusively for PC will always be better than first person shooter games made exclusively for console (exceptions made for purely single-player shooters like BioShock). This is why, whenever a half-baked, mediocre FPS like Modern Warfare 2 comes out on console, the entire console shooter community jizzes all over itself in excitement, while the PC shooter community tries to figure out why the hell the console shooter community is so excited.