Battlefield 3- Multiplatform

It's time to RAGE ABOUT A GAME I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!

Baranga

Battlefield games belong on PC.

This is a stab in the back. And it WILL be dumbed down. Look at BC2.

1. No mod tools.

2. No player hosted servers.

3, No lean.

I will not be buying Battlefield 3 now, atleast not a full price.

I wouldn't mind if BF games were on consoles but the fact is the devs always dumb down the game because of them. BC2 is a good game but look at it less players, less maps, no mods, poor optimization for pc, less features etc. If console users only had a clue of what they were missing they would be in arms but most of them are content with just getting a game. Companies can blame poor PC sales on piracy if they want but sales will obviously be poor when you put out inferior product.

should have kept the bad company series on consoles and bf on pc.

[QUOTE="Baranga"]

It's time to RAGE ABOUT A GAME I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!

morrowindnic

Battlefield games belong on PC.

This is a stab in the back. And it WILL be dumbed down. Look at BC2.

1. No mod tools.

2. No player hosted servers.

3, No lean.

I will not be buying Battlefield 3 now, atleast not a full price.

Exactly.

Well if anybody still wants to play the REAL battlefield games, see BF 1942, BFV, BF2, BF2142. Otherwise, don't touch the BF series.

It's sad that DICE has turned into such a **** company. It used to be good with providing modding tools and such. Well w/e, another dev will come by soon to replace DICE and their retarted products.

Couldn't care less, did you guys seriously expect it to be a PC only release? [QUOTE="with_teeth26"]

As long as the PC is the lead platform i don't care. BC2 was pretty good but the maps were a bit small, I hope they return to the huge maps and large player counts of the earlier battlefield games.

rmfd341

should have kept the bad company series on consoles and bf on pc.

TheShadowLord07

???? you seriously expected a "PC exclusive" from a thrid party developer like DICE?? this is not in 2002 anymore, all old PC exclusive developers need get their mouth feeded first, even ID software and crytek, and this is a news to....????

It was expected...

****ing consoles ruined my favorite series!

Console limitations will guarantee that this won't live up to BF2.

???? you seriously expected a "PC exclusive" from a thrid party developer like DICE?? this is not in 2002 anymore, all old PC exclusive developers need get their mouth feeded first, even ID software and crytek, and this is a news to....????

GameFan1983

I just want to ask for an opinion.

Do you think Battlefield 3 will run using the FrostBite Engine?

I just want to ask for an opinion.

Do you think Battlefield 3 will run using the FrostBite Engine?

ExESGO

I just want to ask for an opinion.

Do you think Battlefield 3 will run using the FrostBite Engine?

ExESGO

I agree. We need Point of Existance, Project Reality and such in Battlefield 3!

@Evz0rz: True. DICE did what like the IWEngine (is that what they call the Marathon Warfare 2's engine?), they didn't optimize it for PCs.

Doubt ill be buying it then. I know its not out yet and noone knows what it is going to be like but even if the PC version is the lead platform there are still going to be limitations in place for it to work on console when they do port it down. I cant see them going all out to make a kick ass PC version with 64+ players 60 different vehicles HUGE maps and decent graphics wich is what the fans expect from a sequel to a BF game and then have to make smaller maps and half the rest for it to work on consoles. I doubt we will see a game with the scale of the original BF games with BF3.

Same as with Crysis 2 and The Witcher 2, ill keep an eye on it but im not getting my hopes up.

???? you seriously expected a "PC exclusive" from a thrid party developer like DICE?? this is not in 2002 anymore, all old PC exclusive developers need get their mouth feeded first, even ID software and crytek, and this is a news to....????

GameFan1983

Im expecting a multiplat akin to a valve multiplat. It will be on console, but the true experience will be pc.

Im expecting a multiplat akin to a valve multiplat. It will be on console, but the true experience will be pc.

TerrorRizzing

The poor performance of the Frostbite engine is what worries me most. Let's say BF3 will be a true sequel on PC. Can you imagine the monster requirements?

Unless there's a overhaul on the engine for PC, I can only assume it'll eat up and spit out gaming PCs like nothing.

The poor performance of the Frostbite engine is what worries me most. Let's say BF3 will be a true sequel on PC. Can you imagine the monster requirements?

Unless there's a overhaul on the engine for PC, I can only assume it'll eat up and spit out gaming PCs like nothing.

Mystic-G

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"]

The poor performance of the Frostbite engine is what worries me most. Let's say BF3 will be a true sequel on PC. Can you imagine the monster requirements?

Unless there's a overhaul on the engine for PC, I can only assume it'll eat up and spit out gaming PCs like nothing.

TerrorRizzing

This is also not to mention that a true BF3 would be much larger in scale so it would most likely be even more demanding.

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/110/1109659p1.html

So much for Dice giving us the true sequel to battlefield 2 :(

Evz0rz

And whats the problem? I liked BF 2 but I find Bad Company 2 much better in any aspect, specially gameplay, and I'm mainly a PC player.

Dice Games:

BF1942: great pc

BF1942 expansions: good pc

BF Vietnam: meh pc

BF2: Awesome As Sauce pc

BF2142: good pc

BFBC: okay 360,ps3 (when consolization of series starts)

Mirrors Edge: okay pc,360,ps3

BFBC2: goodish (but a bit meh at times tbh and only goodish on pc, okay on consoles) pc,360,ps3

MOH beta (online): meh

ever since DICE went to consoles it seems as if the quality has been lacking, but thats just my opinion. With BF3 on consoles I dont see it being nearly as good as BF2 and more arcady. hopefully i eat my words

Dice Games:

BF1942: great pc

BF1942 expansions: good pc

BF Vietnam: meh pc

BF2: Awesome As Sauce pc

BF2142: good pc

BFBC: okay 360,ps3 (when consolization of series starts)

Mirrors Edge: okay pc,360,ps3

BFBC2: goodish (but a bit meh at times tbh and only goodish on pc, okay on consoles) pc,360,ps3

MOH beta (online): meh

ever since DICE went to consoles it seems as if the quality has been lacking, but thats just my opinion. With BF3 on consoles I dont see it being nearly as good as BF2 and more arcady. hopefully i eat my words

tutt3r

[QUOTE="Baranga"]

It's time to RAGE ABOUT A GAME I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!

morrowindnic

Battlefield games belong on PC.

This is a stab in the back. And it WILL be dumbed down. Look at BC2.

1. No mod tools.

2. No player hosted servers.

3, No lean.

I will not be buying Battlefield 3 now, atleast not a full price.

4. Rush mode, squad death match mode etc.

Seriously these modes were so inferior to Conquest mode it made me cry.

Dice Games:

BF1942: great pc

BF1942 expansions: good pc

BF Vietnam: meh pc

BF2: Awesome As Sauce pc

BF2142: good pc

BFBC: okay 360,ps3 (when consolization of series starts)

Mirrors Edge: okay pc,360,ps3

BFBC2: goodish (but a bit meh at times tbh and only goodish on pc, okay on consoles) pc,360,ps3

MOH beta (online): meh

ever since DICE went to consoles it seems as if the quality has been lacking, but thats just my opinion. With BF3 on consoles I dont see it being nearly as good as BF2 and more arcady. hopefully i eat my words

tutt3r

Factual fact is a fact.

note: I don't see anything wrong with no lean (was there even lean in the first place?) or the other gamemodes in Bad Company 2.

yay BF3 has already blown PC users :P No modding = no buy badtaker

Ha. I can't agree with all this angry against BC 2. For me the game was better than BF 2 in five critical points:

1-Controls. BC 2 lest you to remap all the hotkeys, whereas in BF 2 most of them were blocked. Battlefield 2, a PC game? Seriously? The controls in BF 2 and the key customization was so bad that was by far the shooter in which I had my worst k/d ratios ever, due I was unable to reorganize the hotkeys as I wanted.

2-Gunplay. Damage per weapon is lower in BC 2, but the fire dispersion is much smaller, more close to the way that weapons works in real world. In BF 2 the combination between wide spread of fire and the lethaly of the headshots (any assault rifle headshot was insta-kill) made the game absolutely random, except for sniple rufle campers, single shot PKM campers and G36R ubermedics.

3-Balance. Bad Company 2 has much better balance between soldier specializations and weapons than Battlefield 2. All 4 soldiers in BC 2 are useful; in BF 2 special ops and assault soldiers were almost useless. And weapons? BF 2 was all PKM, G36E an a couple of sniper rifles. Rest of weapons was trash compared against these ones.

4-Interactive environments. BF 2: a M1 Abrams ramming at 60 mph stopped by a wood fence, or something. How not to see how much the Frostbite engine help to enhance the gameplay in BC 2.

5-Teamplay.Spotting and 3 teammates to respawn alone made more for cooperative work than any of the missed features from Battlefield 2. Not a tear cryed here.

So, the main complaints against BC 2 so far are: smaller maps, no jets (logical decision related to smaller maps), no commander, no private servers or edition tools. Sorry, isn't enough to made BF 2 better game to me. Battlefield 3 must be a BC 2 with larger maps, more urban environments, jets and a couple of extra touches -like lean and prone- but to me the base and core of the game must come from BG 2, not for a spray & pray umbalanced shooter with no custom key configuration and terrible balance between soldiers as BF 2 was.

4. Rush mode, squad death match mode etc.

Seriously these modes were so inferior to Conquest mode it made me cry.

Priapus101

I barely touch any game mode aside from Rush in BC 2. Conquest is a team deathmatch, which lacks in deep or sense of accomplishment compared to real cooperative game modes as the ones from Quake Wars or Power Struggle in Crysis.

[QUOTE="Priapus101"]

4. Rush mode, squad death match mode etc.

Seriously these modes were so inferior to Conquest mode it made me cry.

Ondoval

I barely touch any game mode aside from Rush in BC 2. Conquest is a team deathmatch, which lacks in deep or sense of accomplishment compared to real cooperative game modes as the ones from Quake Wars or Power Struggle in Crysis.

Also, Rush has a nice, but not obvious tactical thing to it.

For example, one time me and 6 or 7 other guys were assaulting this MCOM (or whatever) site with no armor support. Once we reached the area, all the Recon guys used their mortars to cover us while the bomb counts down. Where in God's name do you see that kind of behavior in Conquest?

Why BFBC2 pales in comparison to BF2

-you can spawn on any person in your squad meaning squad leaders are pointless

-lack of commander along with artillery, supply, vehicles drop

-lack of jets

-Spray and pray is now more beneficial than picking shots

-a smg can shoot a sniper across the map with no bullet drop, but only a sniper has to aim above the head

-reloading after every shot instead of picking shots b/c you could reload w/o losing magazines

-no health bar, but regen health means they gave in to COD

-only small maps

-spotting is now on one button and is used to spot enemies that you cant see

-combining classes allows people to be more lone wolf and not rely on teammates

-no prone

-smaller player cap

-infinite sprint (marathon much?)

- LAG is horrendous considering only a few players on each map

-the weighted controls are a bit meh IMO

-perks that only promote spray and pray and lone wolf gameplay (COD again)

-having to unlock medic, engi, and soldier items that promote teamplay

-the medic revive and heal is still just as glitchy as bf2 was

why bfbc2 is better than bf2

-sound

-graphics

-destructable enviornments

-not a grenade spam fest

(all things that should come with a 4 year older game)

Really teamwork has taken a huge hit and despite what DICE says they copy COD quite a bit especially campaign side of things. also skilled soldiers arent rewarded, and a more run and gun mentality is chosen. BF3 will probably be the same seeing as how they dont want to lose console players money.

Oh, I remember the SMG sniping, fun thing to do if you want to piss someone off in a server (same goes for shotty sniping).

For lag, never had any (I live in a "third world" country mind you), you must be using the horrendouse "Play Now" button.

Prone is a heavy cause of campers.

Also, nice for you to point out that BC 2 isn't a nade spam fest like BF 2 (anyone remember the opening minutes of Strike of Karkland? Wall of grenades from the US side)

Why BFBC2 pales in comparison to BF2

-you can spawn on any person in your squad meaning squad leaders are pointless

You can check the view of any of your teammates to evaluate the best location to respawn, so is more tactical to me.

-lack of commander along with artillery, supply, vehicles drop

And BF 2 lacks mortar strikes, UAVs, spottin and motion mines, so the teamwork is even more solid and relevant in BC 2-

-lack of jets

Due smaller maps, makes sense.

-Spray and pray is now more beneficial than picking shots

What? Weapons accuracy is much higher in BC 2, I almost never go full auto in my fights, no matter the gun I use. You don't known the gunplay mechanics in both games, is just in the other way.

-a smg can shoot a sniper across the map with no bullet drop, but only a sniper has to aim above the head

But makes low damage, whereas in BF2 ANY assault rifle or lmg was able to kill in a single shot at ANY distance.

-reloading after every shot instead of picking shots b/c you could reload w/o losing magazines

I agree with this, is a consolization, and was wrong.

-no health bar, but regen health means they gave in to COD

You don't need the health barr, the blood warnings are more than enough, and in hardcore isn't any regeneration. Anyway, a lot more balanced than BF 2 insta-full health medpacks.

-only small maps

Laguna Presa, Panama Canal and Port Valdez are large enough, but I'll concede that I miss Mahstur, Sharqui and Road To Jalalabad.

-spotting is now on one button and is used to spot enemies that you cant see

Spotting is the best idea implemented in the fps landscape in five years. Really works and really is useful and encourages the teamwork.

-combining classes allows people to be more lone wolf and not rely on teammates

Better 4 functional classes than 3 of 7 being useless, and now no one is useless: even lone wolves can be used as respawn points.

-no prone

I agree here, the lack is a mistake.

-smaller player cap

As with the jets, makes sense to the size of the maps.

-infinite sprint (marathon much?)

But much slower bunny hopping, that compensates this. If you want a sim, you have ArmA II.

- LAG is horrendous considering only a few players on each map

I haven't experience any relevant lag .

-the weighted controls are a bit meh IMO

Not sure, aside from UT/Quake I couldn't call any better.

-perks that only promote spray and pray and lone wolf gameplay (COD again)

Yeah, the smoke grenades, enhanced ammunition/healthpack boxes, autospotting, trazer dart gun and so are perks for loners, no?

-having to unlock medic, engi, and soldier items that promote teamplay

Man, you will be able to unlock the basic stuff in a couple of gaming sessions, and the ranking progression is much faster than in BF 2.

-the medic revive and heal is still just as glitchy as bf2 was

But in BF 2 ubermedics had access to instant full-health medpacks and had the best weapon in the game (G36E) and currently they still gain more points than any other soldier in the game, so stop tho whine about "life of medics is so cruel and hard".

why bfbc2 is better than bf2

-sound

-graphics

-destructable enviornments

-not a grenade spam fest

(all things that should come with a 4 year older game)

Really teamwork has taken a huge hit and despite what DICE says they copy COD quite a bit especially campaign side of things. also skilled soldiers arent rewarded, and a more run and gun mentality is chosen. BF3 will probably be the same seeing as how they dont want to lose console players money.

tutt3r

[QUOTE="Ondoval"]

[QUOTE="Priapus101"]

4. Rush mode, squad death match mode etc.

Seriously these modes were so inferior to Conquest mode it made me cry.

ExESGO

I barely touch any game mode aside from Rush in BC 2. Conquest is a team deathmatch, which lacks in deep or sense of accomplishment compared to real cooperative game modes as the ones from Quake Wars or Power Struggle in Crysis.

Also, Rush has a nice, but not obvious tactical thing to it.

For example, one time me and 6 or 7 other guys were assaulting this MCOM (or whatever) site with no armor support. Once we reached the area, all the Recon guys used their mortars to cover us while the bomb counts down. Where in God's name do you see that kind of behavior in Conquest?

Either way Conquest should be the focus as 64 players in Rush mode would not work as it would be way too chaotic. It only works well now as vehicles are lacking when compared to previous Battlefield installments.

If you inserted the BF2 playstyle and physics into Rush mode, the side with the better pilots would always win. Then again that was usually the case in BF2 conquest mode but at least you had more options...

Either way Conquest should be the focus as 64 players in Rush mode would not work as it would be way too chaotic. It only works well now as vehicles are lacking when compared to previous Battlefield installments.

If you inserted the BF2 playstyle and physics into Rush mode, the side with the better pilots would always win. Then again that was usually the case in BF2 conquest mode but at least you had more options...

Priapus101

Overall teamwork doesn't scale well with mass population. This was the reason which Quake Wars was limited to 12 vs 12 players, but if you take a look over the Splash Damage game, and how the infantry, vehicles and deployable defenses worked in a balanced way in a sort of rock-paper-scissors but with much more deep and complexity than any BF game without turning into a chaotic experience you could learn that a teamwork focused shooter can be fun without putting 64 players in each map. Quality > quantity, everyday.

But ther's more examples: in UT XMP and Power Struggle the maps had more than a single kind of location to take and control; instead of limiting your team to capture flags in order to have advanced respawn points and vehicles the addition of the control of another resources -as energy, in both examples- made the game more tactic.

Is a thing that I would love to see: a fusion between rts concepts -as to take control and deploy units, vehicles and installations, as in Dawn Of War series- but played in the first person perspective as in BF/BC series.

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"]

The poor performance of the Frostbite engine is what worries me most. Let's say BF3 will be a true sequel on PC. Can you imagine the monster requirements?

Unless there's a overhaul on the engine for PC, I can only assume it'll eat up and spit out gaming PCs like nothing.

TerrorRizzing

I'm sure this will be fun for a few weeks, but RIP BF-series.

Sigh, consoles ....

Sure BC2 is fun, but its no BF2 or BF2142.

Wasdie

seems to me the frostbite engine is quite scalable and can run even on a low end gaming pc just fine. You wont see me complaining about them supporting high end gaming machines either. Some pc gamers have some disease where every game has to be max settings and 60 fps, if it isnt then its called an unoptimized mess... scalable or not.Swiftstrike5

Your statment doesn't make sense, Sir. The BF2/2142 engine was able to move huge landscapes with heavy wireframe at high fps, but most of structures were "fake" cubes simulating buildings in which you didn't be able to enter. Was not a single building in Strike at Karkand map in which you can do a **** aside from up to the roof. The same with almost all buildings in all the maps.

On the other hand, the maps in BC 2 are smaller, but the buildings, cahracters and vehicles are more detailed, higher wireframe, and you can enter inside the buioldings, you can made holes in the walls, you can destroy the roofs and you can completelly collapse most of the buildings. This is way more complex than to render huge scale not-interactive maps as in previous battlefield games. Not to say also that the latest PC iteration from the Frosbite engine is capable to render hundreds of real time light sources, as the CryEngine 3. I can't see the need of a new engine, Frostbite is able to run the scale from BF 2's Dragon Valley maps with destrutible environments and good framerrate. I'm sure: current Laguna Presa Rush map and Port Valdez Rush are big maps. Maybe not large enought to jets, but I'm confident that BF 3 will have maps as big if not bigger as in BF 2.

I can't see the need of a new engine, Frostbite is able to run the scale from BF 2's Dragon Valley maps with destrutible environments and good framerrate. I'm sure: current Laguna Presa Rush map and Port Valdez Rush are big maps. Maybe not large enought to jets, but I'm confident that BF 3 will have maps as big if not bigger as in BF 2.

Ondoval

It just can't handle the same scale with the same number of vehicles, buildings, and infantry. If they were to take Karkand, for example, and turn it into a BC2 map, they would have to reduce the number of buildings drastically to maintain performance. That's because there's so much more to each building. Maybe client side it can, but servers are struggling just to handle 32 players on smaller maps because of the destruction engine and whatever else is going on (notorious rubberbanding, ridiculously high pings ingame, etc). In short, if they want BF3 with 64+ player maps and destruction, they will need to get to work on seriously buffing up the frostbite engine or working on a new engine. I would prefer the later and that it be designed for PC, but I doubt either of those will happen.

That's horrible. :( I liked Bad Company 2 as a one-off, but it has nothing on BF2.

I don't see why this is a big deal. It's not as if the fact it's going to be multiplatform will affect the quality of the game. BFBC:2 is multiplatform, but it's still good.

I don't see why this is a big deal. It's not as if the fact it's going to be multiplatform will affect the quality of the game. BFBC:2 is multiplatform, but it's still good.

BluRayHiDef

I don't see why this is a big deal. It's not as if the fact it's going to be multiplatform will affect the quality of the game. BFBC:2 is multiplatform, but it's still good.

BluRayHiDef

[QUOTE="Priapus101"]

Either way Conquest should be the focus as 64 players in Rush mode would not work as it would be way too chaotic. It only works well now as vehicles are lacking when compared to previous Battlefield installments.

If you inserted the BF2 playstyle and physics into Rush mode, the side with the better pilots would always win. Then again that was usually the case in BF2 conquest mode but at least you had more options...

Ondoval

Overall teamwork doesn't scale well with mass population. This was the reason which Quake Wars was limited to 12 vs 12 players, but if you take a look over the Splash Damage game, and how the infantry, vehicles and deployable defenses worked in a balanced way in a sort of rock-paper-scissors but with much more deep and complexity than any BF game without turning into a chaotic experience you could learn that a teamwork focused shooter can be fun without putting 64 players in each map. Quality > quantity, everyday.

But ther's more examples: in UT XMP and Power Struggle the maps had more than a single kind of location to take and control; instead of limiting your team to capture flags in order to have advanced respawn points and vehicles the addition of the control of another resources -as energy, in both examples- made the game more tactic.

Is a thing that I would love to see: a fusion between rts concepts -as to take control and deploy units, vehicles and installations, as in Dawn Of War series- but played in the first person perspective as in BF/BC series.

The true Battlefield series has always been about large quantity of players. Reducing that number can make it a better experience but thats not Battlefield. War involves many..

That said your idea sounds good but its nothing but a pipedream for now.

I don't see why this is a big deal. It's not as if the fact it's going to be multiplatform will affect the quality of the game. BFBC:2 is multiplatform, but it's still good.

BluRayHiDef

I don't see why this is a big deal. It's not as if the fact it's going to be multiplatform will affect the quality of the game. BFBC:2 is multiplatform, but it's still good.

BluRayHiDef

At look at BC2,

1. 32 players, BF is suppose to have 64

2. No mods, or player servers.

3. No custom maps.

4. No lean

5. No prone,

It's not a real Battlefield game, and I bet Battlefield 3 won't be either.

[QUOTE="TerrorRizzing"]

Im expecting a multiplat akin to a valve multiplat. It will be on console, but the true experience will be pc.

ExESGO

Yeah how come Valve is the only dev that knows how to make the pc version of their multiplats actually FEEL like pc games. Look at all the consolized recent pc games gone multiplat that feel awkward and consolized both control and design wise. Fear 2, Far Cry 2, BC2, probably Crysis 2 (the videos show that it is) I could go on.

Meanwhile the Half Life episodes and the rest of orange box feel great on pc and take full advantage of pc within the limitations of source engine. And they're multiplats.

Ha. I can't agree with all this angry against BC 2. For me the game was better than BF 2 in five critical points:

1-Controls. BC 2 lest you to remap all the hotkeys, whereas in BF 2 most of them were blocked. Battlefield 2, a PC game? Seriously? The controls in BF 2 and the key customization was so bad that was by far the shooter in which I had my worst k/d ratios ever, due I was unable to reorganize the hotkeys as I wanted.

2-Gunplay. Damage per weapon is lower in BC 2, but the fire dispersion is much smaller, more close to the way that weapons works in real world. In BF 2 the combination between wide spread of fire and the lethaly of the headshots (any assault rifle headshot was insta-kill) made the game absolutely random, except for sniple rufle campers, single shot PKM campers and G36R ubermedics.

3-Balance. Bad Company 2 has much better balance between soldier specializations and weapons than Battlefield 2. All 4 soldiers in BC 2 are useful; in BF 2 special ops and assault soldiers were almost useless. And weapons? BF 2 was all PKM, G36E an a couple of sniper rifles. Rest of weapons was trash compared against these ones.

4-Interactive environments. BF 2: a M1 Abrams ramming at 60 mph stopped by a wood fence, or something. How not to see how much the Frostbite engine help to enhance the gameplay in BC 2.

5-Teamplay.Spotting and 3 teammates to respawn alone made more for cooperative work than any of the missed features from Battlefield 2. Not a tear cryed here.

So, the main complaints against BC 2 so far are: smaller maps, no jets (logical decision related to smaller maps), no commander, no private servers or edition tools. Sorry, isn't enough to made BF 2 better game to me. Battlefield 3 must be a BC 2 with larger maps, more urban environments, jets and a couple of extra touches -like lean and prone- but to me the base and core of the game must come from BG 2, not for a spray & pray umbalanced shooter with no custom key configuration and terrible balance between soldiers as BF 2 was.

Ondoval

I was too lazy to type a wall of text to tell them they are wrong, but now you said pretty much everything I wanted to say, thank you(you could've mentioned ranking and upgrade system too :) )

I still peeing my pants laughing at these comments try to made BF2 sound like what it was not.