And BF3 continues to morph into CoD, this time with a Capture the Flag mode:
http://youtu.be/wK5f7az5dIY
Still, could be fun. :)
More details here: http://blogs.battlefield.com/2013/02/end-game-maps-overview/
While I believe I have gotten my premium edition money's worth from BF3, EA/DICE is really going to have to 'wow' me to get my money again with BF4. I know a lot of people like to complain about how CoD is more of the same with each new edition, but the truth is that the same could be said for the BF franchise lately. I was hoping that BF4 was going to be sci-fi, but with the announcement that it is going to be modern warfare again, I am not all that thrilled. It better be a really interesting "modern warfare" setting and not another bland US vs Russia deal set in the Middle East/Caucuses. Yawn. At least be a little daring like Black Ops 2 and give us a near future modern warfare setting, perhaps against a fresh opponent, like the PLA.
I think Vaas, one of the villains from Far Cry 3, summed it up nicely but allow me to paraphrase somewhat:
The definition of insanity is buying COD over and over, expecting things to change. Everywhere I look around I see gamers who buy COD games over and over and over and over again thinking, no no no no please, this time the game will be different.
Quote from: W8taminute on February 20, 2013, 11:49:50 AM
I think Vaas, one of the villains from Far Cry 3, summed it up nicely but allow me to paraphrase somewhat:
The definition of insanity is buying COD over and over, expecting things to change. Everywhere I look around I see gamers who buy COD games over and over and over and over again thinking, no no no no please, this time the game will be different.
I think most people who buy the new Call of Duty are just wanting...the new CoD. They like how it plays and they want more of it. If they wanted different, they would buy something else.
^Agreed. I'm not saying that the COD series is a bad game. I like it too but after buying 4 iterations I think I'm done. Looking for thrills elsewhere I guess. However why do so many keep buying the game and then complain it's the same thing as the last one?
Quote from: Arctic Blast on February 20, 2013, 03:03:08 PM
I think most people who buy the new Call of Duty are just wanting...the new CoD. They like how it plays and they want more of it. If they wanted different, they would buy something else.
Exactly. Whenever a new CoD is announced, it is always the "I haven't bought a CoD game in years" crowd who start complaining that CoD has yet to morph into an RTS/RPG or some other different type of game, while the rest of us continue to enjoy a the franchise as it is. ;D
EDIT: Just saw your second post W8: I think it is because kids seem to buy into the hype campaign and buy the latest version of the game just because everyone else is doing it. Then, when the hype wears off, they realize they just blew money on a game they shouldn't have purchased in the first place. ;D
Quote from: W8taminute on February 20, 2013, 04:34:48 PM
^Agreed. I'm not saying that the COD series is a bad game. I like it too but after buying 4 iterations I think I'm done. Looking for thrills elsewhere I guess. However why do so many keep buying the game and then complain it's the same thing as the last one?
I don't know that too many do buy it and complain it's the same. I think most buyers at this point are just picking it up for the multi-player.
Quote from: Arctic Blast on February 21, 2013, 01:13:02 AM
I think most buyers at this point are just picking it up for the multi-player.
this is pretty much my take on women at this point.
^Yeah but are you a spawn killing base camper or do you just run and gun.
a bit of both.
Launch trailer for the last bit of DLC:
Looks good! I guess now we move on to anticipating BF4? I just hope DICE doesn't just give us another BF3 disguised as BF4. I understand they are sticking with the tired "modern warfare" genre, but I hope they do something quite different within that setting. What? No idea. ;D Personally, I would love to see them do a near future setting like Black Ops 2. 8)
Endgame is out for the PC today! Anybody give it a try?
I haven't had much time to play it, but I did get to experience two maps:
Sabalan Pipeline is the new snow-themed map (I love snowy maps) and I have found it a little disappointing in that it really resembles a re-skinned Operation Firestorm oil-themed map, and a bit of Bad Company 2's Nelson Bay. I mean, it really resembles a mix of these two maps. >:(
Then I played on the Fall-themed Operation Riverside menu. This one I like. In fact, DICE did such a good job with the atmospherics that I can almost smell the Fall spice in the air. However, I am annoyed by all the shipping containers lying around. Please, game devs...no more shipping containers, especially in the middle of a forest. It makes nooo sense. ::)
Anyhoo, sort of makes me sad to see BF3 come to an end. I was initially critical of this version of the BF franchise for being so unimaginative and just an incremental upgrade to previous BF titles (particularly BC2), but all the map packs helped make this outing greater than the sum of its parts. Still, BF4 better really, really wow me if EA wants my money again (if I have to shoot one more Russian, I'll puke).
I used to play BF3 on the 360 a lot, it was my favorite shooter. When the game was released it was perfect, then they started 'patching' it and all the weapons handled differently, the tanks became paper panzers, one shot and out, suppression was overdone so you couldn't see anything when under fire etc.. The nail in the coffin was the decision to let players rent the servers...so at one point all servers were rented and the admins had their silly games with the 1500 tickets, no knife, no shotgun, don't use the jet because that is only allowed for the admin stuff and kicking players better than them. That completely destroyed the game for me and I stopped playing. The DLCs were the lame attempt to morph BF into CoD, but that doesn't work. CoD does what it does much better than BF could copy it and the idea was to have something different than CoD, something a bit more on the sim side, but these greedy bastards of EA/DICE killed a once great game series. BF4...if still with rented servers, no. And even if that is not returning (it will though) I will wait a long time to see what happens. I don't get fooled by the same guys twice...
is there any scraps on BF4 yet?
i played BF3 and burnt out, all our guys went back to BFBC2 which is yet to be surpassed for me
I'll eventually pick this up when it is on sale as I have all the others. I enjoy playing with a buddy of mine using voice chat but I rarely play solo.
On the PC I find BF3 to be the definitive version of BF so far, to be honest.
BF4's beta is slated for sometime late this year.
Quoteall our guys went back to BFBC2
That was the superior game anyway. Even the destruction was better.
Quote from: Yskonyn on March 13, 2013, 11:07:14 AM
On the PC I find BF3 to be the definitive version of BF so far, to be honest.
BF4's beta is slated for sometime late this year.
When I first tried BF3, which was shortly after CQ was released, I was disappointed. I loved BC2 and was expected to be blown away by BF3, but instead the game felt to me more like BC2.5. With the exception of blowing the pixel count out of the water, BF3 just did not seem that all that different. I was really disappointed in the game.
However, with the release of Aftermath, I felt DICE finally got off their backsides and delivered something that finally felt like it was epic in a fresh sort of way. This feeling has been reinforced with the release of End Game, the best map pack of them all, IMO. Unlike the earlier maps that all felt 'desert/ME generic', Aftermath and End Game feels really fresh as a setting. The devastated cityscape of Aftermath feels like a little Stalingrad - one complete with tremors no less (a nice touch, and something DICE should have been adding all along). Likewise, some of the new EG maps are equally immersive with their distinctive look (except for that reskin of Firestorm :P). In fact, they can be Skyrim beautiful at times:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi226.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd70%2FCrusaderScott%2FBattlefield%25203%2Fbf32013-03-1301-43-56-140_zpsdda05f2e.jpg&hash=39d02da9c4b8e130ec54ef703a628021d25cdca6)
So, looking back on the now completed BF3, I can say that they started weak and ended strong. With all the new vehicles, maps, unlocks, game modes (it took DICE far too long to get CTF in there!), bug fixes and balances added in and totaled, BF3 finally delivered the goods I was looking for. Now is the time to buy BF3. LOL!
Having said that, though, BF4 will need to really amp it up to get my fundage again. I am sick to death of BF unthinkingly defaulting to US versus Russians. Come on guys, it's not 1984 anymore. On the other hand, maybe a retro Cold War BF could be interesting if they want to stick with that theme? Personally, I would like them to follow BlOp2 with a near-future, Sino-American War type of situation. Anything but another contemporary US-Russia war scenario...or WWII for that matter. ;)
BF2 had US vs China and Middle East. That's more relevant.
The first official cryptic BF4 teaser has been put online:
http://vine.co/v/bpeapQiWB3l
You tell me.... :-\
Quote from: RooksBailey on March 18, 2013, 02:04:39 PM
The first official cryptic BF4 teaser has been put online:
http://vine.co/v/bpeapQiWB3l
You tell me.... :-\
Tanks vs. Numbers?
Quote from: RooksBailey on March 17, 2013, 01:03:45 AM
Quote from: Yskonyn on March 13, 2013, 11:07:14 AM
On the PC I find BF3 to be the definitive version of BF so far, to be honest.
BF4's beta is slated for sometime late this year.
When I first tried BF3, which was shortly after CQ was released, I was disappointed. I loved BC2 and was expected to be blow away by BF3, but instead the game felt to me more like BC2.5. With the exception of blowing the pixel count out of the water, BF3 just did not seem that all that different. I was really disappointed in the game.
However, with the release of Aftermath, I felt DICE finally got off their backsides and delivered something that finally felt like it was epic in a fresh sort of way. This feeling has been reinforced with the release of End Game, the best map pack of them all, IMO. Unlike the earlier maps that all felt 'desert/ME generic', Aftermath and End Game feels really fresh as a setting. The devastated cityscape of Aftermath feels like a little Stalingrad - one complete with tremors no less (a nice touch, and something DICE should have been adding all along). Likewise, some of the new EG maps are equally immersive with their distinctive look (except for that reskin of Firestorm :P). In fact, they can be Skyrim beautiful at times:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi226.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd70%2FCrusaderScott%2FBattlefield%25203%2Fbf32013-03-1301-43-56-140_zpsdda05f2e.jpg&hash=39d02da9c4b8e130ec54ef703a628021d25cdca6)
So, looking back on the now completed BF3, I can say that they started weak and ended strong. With all the new vehicles, maps, unlocks, game modes (it took DICE far too long to get CTF in there!), bug fixes and balances added in and totaled, BF3 finally delivered the goods I was looking for. Now is the time to by BF3. LOL!
Having said that, though, BF4 will need to really amp it up to get my fundage again. I am sick to death of BF unthinkingly defaulting to US versus Russians. Come on guys, it's not 1984 anymore. On the other hand, maybe a retro Cold War BF could be interesting if they want to stick with that theme? Personally, I would like them to follow BlOp2 with a near-future, Sino-American War type of situation. Anything but another contemporary US-Russia war scenario...or WWII for that matter. ;)
id really, really like them to try and promote squad play better without having to rely on the maturity of the other people in the squad. Within 15 minutes of my first ever game of BF3 i thought - this was frikking awesome, my colleagues, me and some other guys on the server all sneaking down the hill, it really felt like squad play at work until some c*** drove right through the group in a hmmv, crashed into the side of the base wall, blew up the hmmv, got out and got killed and then proceeded to moan that we werent playing properly. 2 minutes after its respawn someone who knew what they were doing used the hmmv to provide MG support as we sneaked into the base and picked off snipers trying to find us. I dont know how you would do it - penalize simpleton play somehow, restrict what a lone wolf can see and do, have a proximity penalty if youre not near the squad you cant do something they can - anything so that i can play a realistic squad based shooter and not have to put up with KD buffing arseholes who invite me to knife matches so they can get a stab - medal!!!
Quote from: undercovergeek on March 18, 2013, 05:03:42 PM
id really, really like them to try and promote squad play better without having to rely on the maturity of the other people in the squad. Within 15 minutes of my first ever game of BF3 i thought - this was frikking awesome, my colleagues, me and some other guys on the server all sneaking down the hill, it really felt like squad play at work until some c*** drove right through the group in a hmmv, crashed into the side of the base wall, blew up the hmmv, got out and got killed and then proceeded to moan that we werent playing properly. 2 minutes after its respawn someone who knew what they were doing used the hmmv to provide MG support as we sneaked into the base and picked off snipers trying to find us. I dont know how you would do it - penalize simpleton play somehow, restrict what a lone wolf can see and do, have a proximity penalty if youre not near the squad you cant do something they can - anything so that i can play a realistic squad based shooter and not have to put up with KD buffing arseholes who invite me to knife matches so they can get a stab - medal!!!
I hear you. It really is striking the difference a good squad can make in the gameplay. When you are lucky enough to have a bunch of guys working together, it feels great. People covering your back, providing suppressive fire, healing injuries...it all makes for a wonderful time. And then you wind up in a game where everyone is lone wolfing it. >:( Walk a few steps and get shot dead. Respawn, walk a few steps and get shot dead. Respawn, walk a few steps and shoot somebody else dead...and then get shot dead. LOL! It can be very frustrating. Really, it starts to resemble Call of Duty where it becomes about just surviving long enough to wrack up the most kills.
But like you said, there is little to do about it. Some players lock their squads so only friends can join, but other than that, or playing on locked servers...? Personally, I'd rather deal with the occasional frustration than start putting all sorts of restrictions on players. The idea of penalties or restrictions on certain types of players or styles of play would just kill the sandbox nature of the gameplay and make it not fun for the majority of people who just want to have some fun as they see fit. I remember some of the crazy restrictions on gameplay back in the day of CoD: MW - servers where you couldn't run, couldn't use a knife, couldn't use a RPG. Silly. Not surprisingly, those servers were usually empty. I did find one server in BF3 that allowed only three RPG kills before you get kicked. Again, I thought this was silly and haven't played on that server again (haven't seen it again either). Point is: I rather put up with the occasional bunny-hoping CoD refugee than start going down restriction road that just kills the gameplay altogether.
For Clan play you can't beat COD UO and COD 2 in my opinion, went downhill fast with CODMW. Battlefield again doesn't feel like a squad game to me.
Flix, I think you have it backward?
There is no way you win a round in BF if you haven't got at least a few squads working together well. Mind you, a squad is not a clan like a guild in MMO's where a ladder runs to rank them amongst eachother.
A squad in BF is an entity in the game itself consisting of max 4 soldiers. There are several squads per side in a round.
CoD is a much more individual game. Where the meaning of a squad is different.
Some details have supposedly "leaked" about BF4. Some good stuff, some bad stuff:
QuoteThe jump from Frostbite 2.0 to 2.5 is to be seen as a huge accomplishment. On the PC, the engine will feature DirectX 11 compatibility. Also the engine has been designed to include dynamic weather effects like rain, fog, sandstorms and the like. Of course not all weather arrangements will find their way into each map. The weather setups for each battlefield will be designed according to the environment.
Destruction 4.0 is back and it's back with a vengeance. Expect even more destructible environments and buildings than what we saw in Bad Company 2. The leaker noted that on the PC the destruction would be more realistic. Furthermore, all of the environment including water, terrain and characters/NPC would make use of the new tessellation technology implemented inside Frostbite 2.5.
The game is said to be set in 2020 and will feature China and USA as the main infantry factions. The single-player section is supposedly composed of only two campaigns and will last around 5-6 hours.
China for the win!
Now the bad stuff:
QuoteThe Commander system is back as well with various options to provide support to a team, including UAV detection, artillery and fire support. Micro-transactions are to be included in the game as well but it's unknown as to what players will be able to purchase. The leak notes that it won't affect the balance of the game. We assume weapons, vehicle skins to make their way into the store.
I never cared for commander mode because it always led to flame wars and fights over who should be in command and who was screwing up as commander. I hope DICE treads lightly here. And...microtransactions in a pay to play game?!? WTH?
http://segmentnext.com/2013/03/19/battlefield-4-leaked-details-speak-of-frostbite-2-5-dynamic-weather-destruction-4-0-and-more/
Well, BF3 technically had micro-transactions already. If you didn't want to earn your way through tiers and unlocks, you could just buy your way complete at any time.
i thought commander was a great role and idea - i hardly played it in the BF2 days but if done well i hope its a good thing returned
I was a big fan of the Commander Mode in BF2 and was a bit dissapointed it wasn't available in BF3.
In my experience there was *some* discussion sometimes about who would be the best to take the role, but in general it worked just fine. Especially when playing with people you know, but that goes for about anything in BF. ;)
Quote from: Yskonyn on March 20, 2013, 02:05:04 AM
I was a big fan of the Commander Mode in BF2 and was a bit dissapointed it wasn't available in BF3.
In my experience there was *some* discussion sometimes about who would be the best to take the role, but in general it worked just fine. Especially when playing with people you know, but that goes for about anything in BF. ;)
wasnt it done on a on screen vote basis between levels?
I think it was yes, hence the discussion sometimes. :)