Battlefield 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'll be using server browsing for entering matches with the most players and best ping. I hate getting thrown into a losing team only because they had slots open because they are quitting because they are losers.
 
I'll be using server browsing for entering matches with the most players and best ping. I hate getting thrown into a losing team only because they had slots open because they are quitting because they are losers.


lol. I hate that.
 
More smack talk from EA aimed at Activision.

Love this stuff.

"Welcome to the big leagues Eric," EA spokesperson Jeff Brown said in a comment issued to Kotaku but adressed to Eric Hirshberg, CEO of Activision and the man who said in Germany this week that EA's expressed hopes that his company's Call of Duty will "rot from the core" are harmful for the industry.

"I know you're new in the job," Brown continued, "but someone should have told you this is an competitive industry. You've got every reason to be nervous. Last year Activision had a 90 share in the shooter category. This year, Battlefield 3 is going to take you down to 60 or 70. At that rate, you'll be out of the category in 2-3 years. If you don't believe me, go to the store and try to buy a copy of Guitar Hero or Tony Hawk."
 
I agree. Activision is going to be forced to change things up after this year. Once they see their share take a massive hit they will realize they cant just churn out the same game year after year. Hopefully that means we'll get a game that is comparable to Modern Warfare in terms of how fresh it felt, then forcing EA to work even harder on their next big shooter, thus the gamers win.
 
I don't see server browsing having any place on the console, since the servers are pretty much magic, invisible things we don't have to worry about... Unless the game is lagging, in which case you blame them just because you can.

If they are infact dedicated servers, it would be very nice to not have to worry about a great game dropping because some kid who the game auto chose to host the game ragequits because he's awful.

I support the idea of actual servers over player hosted servers any day, it most certainly has a place on the console.
 
Most of the games i'm looking forward too are from small teams that probably wont even break a million units. Some of them, such as Red Orchestra 2 have very cool idea's that problably wont ever be used in game like Modern Warfare or Battlefield just due to the fact that it's a small game aimed at a specific rather than mainstream group. The guy is citing Fifa as an example. Already from playing the alpha of Battlefield 3, it does have a same-same feel to Bad Company 2. I can imagine if they do that ten times over in a Fifa manner. It's not really something I'd want to cheer. Call Of Duty is already anoying as **** as it is.
 
TBH, most of the people I talk to are more excited for BF3 than MW3. Even some of my friends who are just casual gamers are way more stoked for BF3.

I don't know if it'll be quite as dramatic as EA hopes, but I think it'll definitely give Activision a run for their money.
 
TBH, most of the people I talk to are more excited for BF3 than MW3. Even some of my friends who are just casual gamers are way more stoked for BF3.

I don't know if it'll be quite as dramatic as EA hopes, but I think it'll definitely give Activision a run for their money.


I hear the same thing on a daily basis at work. I mean dont get me wrong, CoD is still getting a lot of preorders, but Battlefield outweighs it. I also believe thats company wide(Gamestop).
 
Syncos said:
If they are infact dedicated servers, it would be very nice to not have to worry about a great game dropping because some kid who the game auto chose to host the game ragequits because he's awful.

I support the idea of actual servers over player hosted servers any day, it most certainly has a place on the console.

That's not what I was talking about, BFBC 2 already had dedicated servers, so this one isn't anything new. It's awesome, but not new to console.
 
Enter this code, EMCYTZT688, at Newegg.com and get the Limited Edition of BF3 for $47.99/free shipping. It's good for PS3, 360, and PC. :up:
 
Last edited:
Why not get both? They offer unique gameplay besides the fact that they're both military shooters.
 
I'll probably end up with both, also. I want to finish the MW story, but I want BF3 for the multiplayer.
 
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/...r-doesn-39-t-see-need-for-annual-sequels.aspx

In a recent interview, Battlefield 3 executive producer Patrick Bach suggests that it's better to expand a game that's already on the market than to continually pump out annual sequels like some other developers do.
Speaking with Rock Paper Shotgun, Bach reiterated that DICE drastically underestimated how long gamers would play Bad Company 2 – a mistake they don't plan on repeating with Battlefield 3. The interview primarily focuses on the studio's plans for unlocks in Battlefield 3, but the most interesting quote from Bach comes when RPS asks if DICE considers the timing of potential sequels when developing a game.
"But maybe you don’t have to build the new game, do you?," Bach asks. "If people like the old one, then keep fixing that one, update it and make it even better. I think sometimes it turns too mechanical when people release new games every year, and just focus on ‘how can I sell another copy, another copy, another copy?’ Of course companies need to make money to survive, but you can actually provide for the title you already have out on the market. You don’t have to leave it, just because you’ve shipped it. ...Of course you can always plan for the big next step, but if that’s in two years, or three years, five years…"
Bach's comments can be viewed as a simple continuation of the criticisms that have been going back and forth between the Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3 camps, but that doesn't make the design philosophy any less appealing to gamers, and heavily-supported games like Valve's Team Fortress 2 have received no shortage of praise from fans. Will Battlefield 3 offer gamers more than a few map packs after its release? Will gamers still be playing it in three years? Something tells me we still have a while before we find out DICE's post-release plans.

SIMON-COWELL-HAPPY-GIF.gif
 
Another example of DICE kicking ass. Activision/IW/Treyarch/WhoTheHellEver, you gotta be nervous. They have to see that their strategy of flooding the market can't last.

If it weren't for BF3, id prob continue on with BC2, since i have zero desire to even play, MW3, let alone own it.
 
Eh I couldn't care less about TF2. I wouldnt continuesly play that game if it was given to me.
 
http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=349149&page=28

Meanwhile, Team Fortress 2, about $10. 4 years on, still updated without forcing a dime.

Team Fortress 2 is free.

Eh I couldn't care less about TF2. I wouldnt continuesly play that game if it was given to me.

You should. It's a great game with CONSTANT updates, great humor, strong fanbase, tons of items, and terrific servers. Really a great game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,481
Messages
22,116,416
Members
45,906
Latest member
DrJonathanCrane
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"