Battlefield 3 Endgame

[Grimnirsson]

all our guys went back to BFBC2

That was the superior game anyway. Even the destruction was better.

[RooksBailey]

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:



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.   ;)

[jomni]

BF2 had US vs China and Middle East.  That's more relevant.

[RooksBailey]

The first official cryptic BF4 teaser has been put online:

http://vine.co/v/bpeapQiWB3l

You tell me.... :-\

[Arctic Blast]

The first official cryptic BF4 teaser has been put online:

http://vine.co/v/bpeapQiWB3l

You tell me.... :-\

Tanks vs. Numbers?

[undercovergeek]

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:



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!!!

[RooksBailey]

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.

[FlickJax]

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.

[Yskonyn]

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.

[RooksBailey]

Some details have supposedly "leaked" about BF4. Some good stuff, some bad stuff:

The 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:

The 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/

[Arctic Blast]

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.

[undercovergeek]

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

[Yskonyn]

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. ;)

[undercovergeek]

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?

[Yskonyn]

I think it was yes, hence the discussion sometimes. :)