Does anyone else like the direction BF3 is headed?

I've been looking around the forums and it's been getting a lot of hate, which is kind of weird since people have played it before at E3 and had positive reactions. I think maybe some people here hold such a grudge against anything COD related that just because they tweaked the controls a bit, they start comparing it to MW, which is unfair, because there's many differences - the maps in BF3 are still way bigger (and I'm sure Operation Metro is one of the smaller ones), the guns have very noticeable recoil that makes burst-firing a necessity to kill at long range, and there is still a big emphasis on teamwork (I really like the idea of suppression assists).

I like the new controls because they still have a feeling of weight yet aren't stiff like previous Battlefield games, and although you can't take down entire buildings, did anyone else think that while previous Battlefield games were fun, they felt a bit arena-ish? This one doesn't, and the action is much more intense, I find. It's pretty epic when your screen goes fuzzy from suppression fire and your cover is being chipped, while you hear bullets whizzing by and more gunfire in the background. I think this will help the campaign and co-op missions too. People say this was a bad map choice for the beta, and while I see where they're coming from, I think this map was picked to help familiarize players with the new features and pace of the game, as well as try to get COD players into the fanbase. I've heard PC players say that Caspian Border was much better and more Battlefield style, and there's a lot of destruction in that map. Search it up on YouTube.

Edit: Here's a video if you're too lazy to find it yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9ndz13zUms

I've been looking around the forums and it's been getting a lot of hate, which is kind of weird since people have played it before at E3 and had positive reactions. I think maybe some people here hold such a grudge against anything COD related that just because they tweaked the controls a bit, they start comparing it to MW, which is unfair, because there's many differences - the maps in BF3 are still way bigger (and I'm sure Operation Metro is one of the smaller ones), the guns have very noticeable recoil that makes burst-firing a necessity to kill at long range, and there is still a big emphasis on teamwork (I really like the idea of suppression assists).

I like the new controls because they still have a feeling of weight yet aren't stiff like previous Battlefield games, and although you can't take down entire buildings, did anyone else think that while previous Battlefield games were fun, they felt a bit arena-ish? This one doesn't, and the action is much more intense, I find. It's pretty epic when your screen goes fuzzy from suppression fire and your cover is being chipped, while you hear bullets whizzing by and more gunfire in the background. I think this will help the campaign and co-op missions too. People say this was a bad map choice for the beta, and while I see where they're coming from, I think this map was picked to help familiarize players with the new features and pace of the game. I bet you'll be able to take down buildings in the bigger maps.

UnchartedZone

As for the map, just like BC2, they picked an awful map to show off Battlefield and of course, they choose Rush mode instead of Conquest or at least offer Conquest as an option. No vehicles, nothing that shows off the destructive capabilities of the engine, nothing that makes me look at it and go "Oh yeah, that's Battlefield!" As for helping players familiarize themselves with the new features, I ask "What new features?" They haven't really done anything that hasn't been done before. Suppression? That's nothing more than an annoyance because a) you can't tell if you are supressing someone unless they get killed and b) the person being suppressed is just annoyed more than anything. As for the pace of the game, are you talking about how much slower it is because they made it that guns kill instantly? Yeah, that'll definitely take adjustment for people who actually enjoy a fun game that has a flow to it.

I'm sorry but they've dumped tons of money into this game for what I'm lead to believe has been a few years in development and this is what they have? I don't care if it is a month old, it's a very poor showing imo. And for those that love to use the phrase "It's just a beta", listen up. It's not going to be a very informative beta for the devs if it's less than a month off from the game's launch. Just think about how long it took to fix the issues Bad Company 2 had and then, think all about all the issues this has. As well, my complaints with this game lie less with the straight up broken aspects of the beta and more with the core gameplay itself. Alright, that's the end of my ranting on this game.

Modern military shooters in general have just been to be losing all steam for me, marginal differences between and releasing essentially the same game over and over. I'm out. I don't need to waste my money on this anymore.

[QUOTE="UnchartedZone"]

I've been looking around the forums and it's been getting a lot of hate, which is kind of weird since people have played it before at E3 and had positive reactions. I think maybe some people here hold such a grudge against anything COD related that just because they tweaked the controls a bit, they start comparing it to MW, which is unfair, because there's many differences - the maps in BF3 are still way bigger (and I'm sure Operation Metro is one of the smaller ones), the guns have very noticeable recoil that makes burst-firing a necessity to kill at long range, and there is still a big emphasis on teamwork (I really like the idea of suppression assists).

I like the new controls because they still have a feeling of weight yet aren't stiff like previous Battlefield games, and although you can't take down entire buildings, did anyone else think that while previous Battlefield games were fun, they felt a bit arena-ish? This one doesn't, and the action is much more intense, I find. It's pretty epic when your screen goes fuzzy from suppression fire and your cover is being chipped, while you hear bullets whizzing by and more gunfire in the background. I think this will help the campaign and co-op missions too. People say this was a bad map choice for the beta, and while I see where they're coming from, I think this map was picked to help familiarize players with the new features and pace of the game. I bet you'll be able to take down buildings in the bigger maps.

anime_gamer007

As for the map, just like BC2, they picked an awful map to show off Battlefield and of course, they choose Rush mode instead of Conquest or at least offer Conquest as an option. No vehicles, nothing that shows off the destructive capabilities of the engine, nothing that makes me look at it and go "Oh yeah, that's Battlefield!" As for helping players familiarize themselves with the new features, I ask "What new features?" They haven't really done anything that hasn't been done before. Suppression? That's nothing more than an annoyance because a) you can't tell if you are supressing someone unless they get killed and b) the person being suppressed is just annoyed more than anything. As for the pace of the game, are you talking about how much slower it is because they made it that guns kill instantly? Yeah, that'll definitely take adjustment for people who actually enjoy a fun game that has a flow to it.

I'm sorry but they've dumped tons of money into this game for what I'm lead to believe has been a few years in development and this is what they have? I don't care if it is a month old, it's a very poor showing imo. And for those that love to use the phrase "It's just a beta", listen up. It's not going to be a very informative beta for the devs if it's less than a month off from the game's launch. Just think about how long it took to fix the issues Bad Company 2 had and then, think all about all the issues this has. As well, my complaints with this game lie less with the straight up broken aspects of the beta and more with the core gameplay itself. Alright, that's the end of my ranting on this game.

Modern military shooters in general have just been to be losing all steam for me, marginal differences between and releasing essentially the same game over and over. I'm out. I don't need to waste my money on this anymore.

Well, you can get more points performing support actions than actually killing people, just like in previous games. One revive will get you the same amount of points as a kill. Honestly, the main reason half of your complaints exist is because many people who downloaded the beta are COD players and haven't played a Battlefield game before. Yes, there are campers in the bushes for the first pair of M-COM stations, but people who've played Battlefield before know that there's no advantage to camping in this game, because like I've said before, you actually get more points when you stick with your team.

Also, again, this map was designed more to appeal to COD players, and if you want to see a map that feels more like classic Battlefield, go on YouTube and search up Caspian Border gameplay on PC. There's destruction, there's a lot of vehicles, and much more open spaces, which brings me to my next point. You say you die instantly in this game, but that's not the case. You do die faster at close ranges, but there's a lot more recoil so killing at range is a lot harder than in previous games. I could kill people from across the map with an assault rifle in BC2. Here, no. And you said if you get suppressed, it'll be annoying - um, isn't that obvious? You're being pinned down so you can't leave your position and other enemies can flank you, which is the whole point of suppressing fire. It's a valid tactic. If you die, you'll probably be annoyed as well. So?

Well, you can get more points performing support actions than actually killing people, just like in previous games. One revive will get you the same amount of points as a kill. Honestly, the main reason half of your complaints exist is because many people who downloaded the beta are COD players and haven't played a Battlefield game before. Yes, there are campers in the bushes for the first pair of M-COM stations, but people who've played Battlefield before know that there's no advantage to camping in this game, because like I've said before, you actually get more points when you stick with your team.

Also, again, this map was designed more to appeal to COD players, and if you want to see a map that feels more like classic Battlefield, go on YouTube and search up Caspian Border gameplay on PC. There's destruction, there's a lot of vehicles, and much more open spaces, which brings me to my next point. You say you die instantly in this game, but that's not the case. You do die faster at close ranges, but there's a lot more recoil so killing at range is a lot harder than in previous games. I could kill people from across the map with an assault rifle in BC2. Here, no. And you said if you get suppressed, it'll be annoying - um, isn't that obvious? You're being pinned down so you can't leave your position and other enemies can flank you, which is the whole point of suppressing fire. It's a valid tactic. If you die, you'll probably be annoyed as well. So?

UnchartedZone

Also, about suppressive fire, seems to me that it's another example of DICE comprising fun gameplay for the sake of realism. I'm not gonna try to convince what you think is wrong, I really don't care enough either way. I'm just representing my own thoughts here, which is really all I can do. So as far as the topic question goes: No, I don't like the direction Battlefield 3 is headed.

[QUOTE="UnchartedZone"]

Well, you can get more points performing support actions than actually killing people, just like in previous games. One revive will get you the same amount of points as a kill. Honestly, the main reason half of your complaints exist is because many people who downloaded the beta are COD players and haven't played a Battlefield game before. Yes, there are campers in the bushes for the first pair of M-COM stations, but people who've played Battlefield before know that there's no advantage to camping in this game, because like I've said before, you actually get more points when you stick with your team.

Also, again, this map was designed more to appeal to COD players, and if you want to see a map that feels more like classic Battlefield, go on YouTube and search up Caspian Border gameplay on PC. There's destruction, there's a lot of vehicles, and much more open spaces, which brings me to my next point. You say you die instantly in this game, but that's not the case. You do die faster at close ranges, but there's a lot more recoil so killing at range is a lot harder than in previous games. I could kill people from across the map with an assault rifle in BC2. Here, no. And you said if you get suppressed, it'll be annoying - um, isn't that obvious? You're being pinned down so you can't leave your position and other enemies can flank you, which is the whole point of suppressing fire. It's a valid tactic. If you die, you'll probably be annoyed as well. So?

anime_gamer007

Also, about suppressive fire, seems to me that it's another example of DICE comprising fun gameplay for the sake of realism. I'm not gonna try to convince what you think is wrong, I really don't care enough either way. I'm just representing my own thoughts here, which is really all I can do. So as far as the topic question goes: No, I don't like the direction Battlefield 3 is headed.

Well, I'm getting this game on PC anyway; I just wanted to see what people here thought since I play on PS3 often. I do agree with you about Killzone 3, though.

I'm just really excited even though we haven't even seen vehicles yet because in my opinion, the infantry combat has been greatly improved. Again, I thought it felt a bit stiff in previous games, and maybe other people don't like the map because it shows off this aspect, but I really like it.

[QUOTE="UnchartedZone"]

I've been looking around the forums and it's been getting a lot of hate, which is kind of weird since people have played it before at E3 and had positive reactions. I think maybe some people here hold such a grudge against anything COD related that just because they tweaked the controls a bit, they start comparing it to MW, which is unfair, because there's many differences - the maps in BF3 are still way bigger (and I'm sure Operation Metro is one of the smaller ones), the guns have very noticeable recoil that makes burst-firing a necessity to kill at long range, and there is still a big emphasis on teamwork (I really like the idea of suppression assists).

I like the new controls because they still have a feeling of weight yet aren't stiff like previous Battlefield games, and although you can't take down entire buildings, did anyone else think that while previous Battlefield games were fun, they felt a bit arena-ish? This one doesn't, and the action is much more intense, I find. It's pretty epic when your screen goes fuzzy from suppression fire and your cover is being chipped, while you hear bullets whizzing by and more gunfire in the background. I think this will help the campaign and co-op missions too. People say this was a bad map choice for the beta, and while I see where they're coming from, I think this map was picked to help familiarize players with the new features and pace of the game. I bet you'll be able to take down buildings in the bigger maps.

anime_gamer007

[QUOTE="anime_gamer007"]

[QUOTE="UnchartedZone"]

... to kill at long range, and there is still a big emphasis on teamwork (I really like the idea of suppression assists).

I like the new controls because...

DEVILinIRON

I don't think the poster is blaming the game, per-se, but more pointing out the type of bugs that're getting attracted to the porch light. There's this huge To-Do about this and the other game coming, and I think a lot of it is smoke and mirrors to get people revved up because both know what they're offering is half-baked or leftovers in reality. I don't think either will offer a refreshed game - Certainly nothing to charge $60 over that couldn't just get tagged onto the current editions of either series - Look, I'm not a fan of one series more than the other, but I can tell you that in the case of BF3, I'm looking at (and playing) something here with the beta that doesn't excite me - Namely, the campers and the gawkers and the video-hipsters riding the next leaderboard wave in to the shore bringing every mouth-breathing two-bit dirt head with a filthy mouth and a racist attitude with them. This beta is not "Battlefield", it's more CoD than anything, and if you can't see that while playing the beta you're delusional. Of course there's more to the game out there as far as the other maps (surely there is), but with a release date less than a month away those discs have been printed and begun to ship. If they have to make over-haul patches to clean up and enliven the graphics, clarify the gameplay, straighten out the connectivity and server issues, and try to dev up some bleed-em-dry DLC by the holiday season, then good luck to em, but not with my cash or HDD space just because they needed to get the fighter in the ring by second bell to meet MW3.

If Dice was trying to capture a larger chunk of the audience by the changes they've made to the game then I would hazard that early congratulations are in order... Because I saw a LOT of BLOP-ish behavior in the games I played. Mission: Complete.

Greeeaaat.

:P

Yeah, I don't see why there's all the hate for the game all of a sudden. I played the beta and find it to be rather good. After reading how it just copied COD I was a little worried, but after playing I really don't see it. Sure, there's guns and a modern setting, that doesn't equal COD. I imagine when the actual game comes out there will be better teamwork (which I was already part of in the beta) since BF fans will be more likely to buy it at first. It's hard to tell from the beta since rush mode isn't overly exciting (conquest mode is where it's at). After seeing the footage of the pc beta I'd imagine consoles didn't get it simply because of the amount of data that would've had to be downloaded (the ps3 beta was rather small in size which also came through on the size of the map).

I'm actually more excited for BF3 after playing the beta.

...MonkeySpot

Yeah, I don't see why there's all the hate for the game all of a sudden. I played the beta and find it to be rather good. After reading how it just copied COD I was a little worried, but after playing I really don't see it. Sure, there's guns and a modern setting, that doesn't equal COD. I imagine when the actual game comes out there will be better teamwork (which I was already part of in the beta) since BF fans will be more likely to buy it at first. It's hard to tell from the beta since rush mode isn't overly exciting (conquest mode is where it's at). After seeing the footage of the pc beta I'd imagine consoles didn't get it simply because of the amount of data that would've had to be downloaded (the ps3 beta was rather small in size which also came through on the size of the map).

I'm actually more excited for BF3 after playing the beta.

blueboxdoctor

Who the hell plays BF with no harriers/choppers/vehicles/tanks/etc. What makes this beta crap is that fact. It puts player vs player in a fast attempt to get to the objectives. Your "rushing" to get to the objective in a small map. Yes its bigger than COD's map but face it, all the action revolves around the "objective" which limits the map, making it smaller, because everyone is there to take the objective. This equates to fast pace action shooting mechanics. That sound familiar? Yea fast pace shooting is COD. It's king at it. So like I said, if DICE wanted to release a beta, at least release a beta that is actually BF like.Dice is trying to feed the MW fans. If i wanted to play COD i'll play COD. This is BF.

[QUOTE="blueboxdoctor"]

Yeah, I don't see why there's all the hate for the game all of a sudden. I played the beta and find it to be rather good. After reading how it just copied COD I was a little worried, but after playing I really don't see it. Sure, there's guns and a modern setting, that doesn't equal COD. I imagine when the actual game comes out there will be better teamwork (which I was already part of in the beta) since BF fans will be more likely to buy it at first. It's hard to tell from the beta since rush mode isn't overly exciting (conquest mode is where it's at). After seeing the footage of the pc beta I'd imagine consoles didn't get it simply because of the amount of data that would've had to be downloaded (the ps3 beta was rather small in size which also came through on the size of the map).

I'm actually more excited for BF3 after playing the beta.

cdragon_88

Who the hell plays BF with no harriers/choppers/vehicles/tanks/etc. What makes this beta crap is that fact. It puts player vs player in a fast attempt to get to the objectives. Your "rushing" to get to the objective in a small map. Yes its bigger than COD's map but face it, all the action revolves around the "objective" which limits the map, making it smaller, because everyone is there to take the objective. This equates to fast pace action shooting mechanics. That sound familiar? Yea fast pace shooting is COD. It's king at it. So like I said, if DICE wanted to release a beta, at least release a beta that is actually BF like.Dice is trying to feed the MW fans. If i wanted to play COD i'll play COD. This is BF.

well that's why i said I wasn't really judging the game mode since I don't like rush for the reasons you stated. I'm basing it off the fact that I liked what I played in the relatively limited beta, and the freedom of choice in the pc beta footage which I'm assuming will be on the disc for the ps3 version. The outdoor areas still felt less constrictive than COD. It's difficult to judge since, again, rush isn't a good mode in BC2 and apparently isn't that great in here either (again, just my opinion since I prefer to have the whole map to play with in conquest mode). I see this game really shining in conquest mode and playing it on hardcore for online.

I gave Dice the benefit of doubt about what they intended to do with Battlefield 3. Unfortunately I find it to less than what I expected and I'm a bit disgusted by the terrible beta they presented, first impressions can determine wether will buy it or not, with all the negative reactions, BF3 sadly may lose sales that were intended since it was built all around hype and the whole fanism of hating COD.

Its laughable to see myself fall off of a map, see purple screens, and suddenly unable to aim down the sights. Makes no sense to give us an old build when we should be testing the latest and give more accurate feedback. I feel that this may be another MOH which I'm a bit dissapointed because I had the thought of buyin BF3, looks like I'll be saving money for october and just get Arkahm City.

I was totally hyped for BF3 since it was announced. And since I play the beta I'm even more hyped. Can't wait for the day when the vehicles join this masterpiece of multiplayer military shooters.

just to clear this up for people, because everyone seems to be missing this very simple fact.... The level given in the beta, Operation Metro, is NOT the same Operation Metro map that is in the full game. IT IS ONLY PART OF THE MAP. Go on the PS store. Download the 'gameplay footage' of operation metro. You can cearly see that vehicles are included in this map. Do we have vehicles? no, we dont. So many people are judging the game from a Beta map. Its not even funny. Play it with veicles, in the full game. Then judge. PC players are saying that caspian border is immense, and laughing at the fact we got a muted map. The beta is no indication of the direction the FULL GAME YOU HAVE NOT PLAYED YET is going to take. BibiMaghoo

pretty much this. it kind of makes sense since the download size would've been quite a bit larger, and since most people have wireless connections for their ps3 it would've taken quite a bit of time. Plus, isn't the beta confirmed to be several months old? Granted, I don't get why we didn't get a demo, but people are ignoring this. Just look at footage of the pc beta and it's pretty easy to tell the game will be pretty awesome. The best thing the beta is doing is weeding out the "fake" fans, and leaving a better player base for the release of the game.

Just one questionk I read somewhere that jets aren't in the console version of the game, but the beta shows jets as part of vehicle stats. Can anyone confirm that we'll get jets for the console release?

i love the beta, so im sure i will love the game :P

just to clear this up for people, because everyone seems to be missing this very simple fact.... The level given in the beta, Operation Metro, is NOT the same Operation Metro map that is in the full game. IT IS ONLY PART OF THE MAP. Go on the PS store. Download the 'gameplay footage' of operation metro. You can cearly see that vehicles are included in this map. Do we have vehicles? no, we dont. So many people are judging the game from a Beta map. Its not even funny. Play it with veicles, in the full game. Then judge. PC players are saying that caspian border is immense, and laughing at the fact we got a muted map. The beta is no indication of the direction the FULL GAME YOU HAVE NOT PLAYED YET is going to take. BibiMaghoo

I stopped caring what PC people say about anything as it relates to consoles a long time ago, but truncated or not, this is largely what the game is as it will be on PS3. The colors, and most of the textures of the map are going to be as you see them now on a PS3 for that map. We haven't seen all of the maps and I think anyone who's played "Battlefield" before knows that there will be more to other kinds of games, but they're clearly courting the CoD crowd, and they've definitely not lived up to the promotions when it comes to the PS3 version in a lot of people's minds. If you like it that's cool, but you need to allow others to have their opinions as well.

Please don't imply we're wrong for not liking it by saying that by not having vehicles and only having one mode we can't possibly judge the game, no one is criticizing you for what you like about it when they point out what they don't like about it. So ease up a tad.

As far as what I've seen in the beta as far as the game's graphics, mechanics, and the play it is centered around, my interest has dipped sharply. It doesn't look as vibrant to me as other established games I'm playing right now - R3 struck me the exact-same way, by the way, so it's not just BF3 that I think is sub-par in recent or coming releases...

... But in my budget, $60 is a fair investment in a game. So I'm going to weigh that decision pretty well when it comes down to it - With so many games coming out at once, and my time to play them in a given week, I gotta make some harsh cuts. Right now, and for the future, I'm not bothering with it. It doesn't look or play that well to me and I hope they get it all fixed in a timely fashion. But don't let it stop you, if you don't see the faults in it that we do at this time. Just, right now, it's going to stop a few of us from moving any further than we had maybe previously intended.

Feel free to play what you like, and try not to get too bent out of shape over what anyone says in these forums.

Including me!

;)

We'z all gamers here.

Can't really believe how ridiculous the complaints for the beta are. Isn't the beta a few months old? I heard a while ago that the betas that devs show the players are "old betas" and most of the glitches in these old betas have mostly been fixed up. I think the point of this beta is (a) Show off some of the basic new features, (b) get alerted to glitches that weren't recognized before, and (c) get people hyped. I, for one, am EXTREMELY hyped. Love the direction BF3 is headed, and this is just player versus player, can't wait 'till they show off all the vehicles and fully unveil the destruction. That's when the real fun will get started.

[QUOTE="BibiMaghoo"]just to clear this up for people, because everyone seems to be missing this very simple fact.... The level given in the beta, Operation Metro, is NOT the same Operation Metro map that is in the full game. IT IS ONLY PART OF THE MAP. Go on the PS store. Download the 'gameplay footage' of operation metro. You can cearly see that vehicles are included in this map. Do we have vehicles? no, we dont. So many people are judging the game from a Beta map. Its not even funny. Play it with veicles, in the full game. Then judge. PC players are saying that caspian border is immense, and laughing at the fact we got a muted map. The beta is no indication of the direction the FULL GAME YOU HAVE NOT PLAYED YET is going to take. MonkeySpot

I stopped caring what PC people say about anything as it relates to consoles a long time ago, but truncated or not, this is largely what the game is as it will be on PS3. The colors, and most of the textures of the map are going to be as you see them now on a PS3 for that map. We haven't seen all of the maps and I think anyone who's played "Battlefield" before knows that there will be more to other kinds of games, but they're clearly courting the CoD crowd, and they've definitely not lived up to the promotions when it comes to the PS3 version in a lot of people's minds. If you like it that's cool, but you need to allow others to have their opinions as well.

Please don't imply we're wrong for not liking it by saying that by not having vehicles and only having one mode we can't possibly judge the game, no one is criticizing you for what you like about it when they point out what they don't like about it. So ease up a tad.

As far as what I've seen in the beta as far as the game's graphics, mechanics, and the play it is centered around, my interest has dipped sharply. It doesn't look as vibrant to me as other established games I'm playing right now - R3 struck me the exact-same way, by the way, so it's not just BF3 that I think is sub-par in recent or coming releases...

... But in my budget, $60 is a fair investment in a game. So I'm going to weigh that decision pretty well when it comes down to it - With so many games coming out at once, and my time to play them in a given week, I gotta make some harsh cuts. Right now, and for the future, I'm not bothering with it. It doesn't look or play that well to me and I hope they get it all fixed in a timely fashion. But don't let it stop you, if you don't see the faults in it that we do at this time. Just, right now, it's going to stop a few of us from moving any further than we had maybe previously intended.

Feel free to play what you like, and try not to get too bent out of shape over what anyone says in these forums.

Including me!

;)

We'z all gamers here.

MoH 2.5

MoH 2.5

TheKoreanZombie

[QUOTE="TheKoreanZombie"]

MoH 2.5

robbie80

[QUOTE="robbie80"]

[QUOTE="TheKoreanZombie"]

MoH 2.5

DEVILinIRON

All you naysayers have is the bugs really. To think that they will remain in the game unfixed and unpatched is naive, if not bordering on denial. This game is going to rock. If you want to judge it on one map without vehicles, be my guest. But you are going to be hurting when the real game comes out. I promise you. I can't believe you want the same old tired formula that is the Modern Warfare series over something, which, if you have been paying any attention at all to the Caspian Border map videos, is going to be a step in the right direction to say the least. If you think MW3 is going to outshine BF3, I feel very, very sorry for you.

All you naysayers have is the bugs really. To think that they will remain in the game unfixed and unpatched is naive, if not bordering on denial. This game is going to rock. If you want to judge it on one map without vehicles, be my guest. But you are going to be hurting when the real game comes out. I promise you. I can't believe you want the same old tired formula that is the Modern Warfare series over something, which, if you have been paying any attention at all to the Caspian Border map videos, is going to be a step in the right direction to say the least. If you think MW3 is going to outshine BF3, I feel very, very sorry for you.

DEVILinIRON

[QUOTE="robbie80"]

[QUOTE="TheKoreanZombie"]

MoH 2.5

DEVILinIRON

Lol.

I was a Level 50 in BC2 and I'm a Warrant Officer In BF3. I love battlefield, it just feels like MoH 2.5

[QUOTE="DEVILinIRON"]

All you naysayers have is the bugs really. To think that they will remain in the game unfixed and unpatched is naive, if not bordering on denial. This game is going to rock. If you want to judge it on one map without vehicles, be my guest. But you are going to be hurting when the real game comes out. I promise you. I can't believe you want the same old tired formula that is the Modern Warfare series over something, which, if you have been paying any attention at all to the Caspian Border map videos, is going to be a step in the right direction to say the least. If you think MW3 is going to outshine BF3, I feel very, very sorry for you.

anime_gamer007

[QUOTE="DEVILinIRON"][QUOTE="robbie80"]Yea this Battlefield seems dead on consoles anyways and graphics seem worser than mw3.The gameplay to fast paste now feel like your playing cod not Battlefield.I don 't know if i should cancel my preorder now there no point in owning two cod games.

TheKoreanZombie

Lol.

I was a Level 50 in BC2 and I'm a Warrant Officer In BF3. I love battlefield, it just feels like MoH 2.5

[QUOTE="anime_gamer007"][QUOTE="DEVILinIRON"]

All you naysayers have is the bugs really. To think that they will remain in the game unfixed and unpatched is naive, if not bordering on denial. This game is going to rock. If you want to judge it on one map without vehicles, be my guest. But you are going to be hurting when the real game comes out. I promise you. I can't believe you want the same old tired formula that is the Modern Warfare series over something, which, if you have been paying any attention at all to the Caspian Border map videos, is going to be a step in the right direction to say the least. If you think MW3 is going to outshine BF3, I feel very, very sorry for you.

DEVILinIRON

[QUOTE="DEVILinIRON"][QUOTE="anime_gamer007"][QUOTE="DEVILinIRON"]That's irrelevant when the baseline gameplay is going to be just as frustrating. Sure, there's vehicles but in Battlefield 3 I can see them being more of a nightmare than a dream. You just die so fast to regular guys, I can't imagine what it'd be like when a tank rolls up. Also, I believed you skipped over the part where I said "Same s***, different game". Yeah, there's vehicles, guess what also had vehicles? Bad Company 2 and every other Battlefield game before it. Not sure what your definition of same tired old formula is if Battlefield 3 doesn't apply to it by now. It's like you assume everyone's only played the CoD games and that's there only point of reference. I loved Battlefield, specifically the Bad Company games and have disliked CoD since World at War. BF3 just seems like it's driving too hard towards that CoD audience. Having guns that kill instantly in an objective based game is an exercise in insanity.

anime_gamer007

well i played the beta and didnt find anything so groundbreaking to make it any better than MW. it was good but not amazing. maybe its just me (im not much of an FPS player) but it seems to be the same as BFBC2

[QUOTE="MonkeySpot"]

[QUOTE="BibiMaghoo"]just to clear this up for people, because everyone seems to be missing this very simple fact.... The level given in the beta, Operation Metro, is NOT the same Operation Metro map that is in the full game. IT IS ONLY PART OF THE MAP. Go on the PS store. Download the 'gameplay footage' of operation metro. You can cearly see that vehicles are included in this map. Do we have vehicles? no, we dont. So many people are judging the game from a Beta map. Its not even funny. Play it with veicles, in the full game. Then judge. PC players are saying that caspian border is immense, and laughing at the fact we got a muted map. The beta is no indication of the direction the FULL GAME YOU HAVE NOT PLAYED YET is going to take. BibiMaghoo

I stopped caring what PC people say about anything as it relates to consoles a long time ago, but truncated or not, this is largely what the game is as it will be on PS3. The colors, and most of the textures of the map are going to be as you see them now on a PS3 for that map. We haven't seen all of the maps and I think anyone who's played "Battlefield" before knows that there will be more to other kinds of games, but they're clearly courting the CoD crowd, and they've definitely not lived up to the promotions when it comes to the PS3 version in a lot of people's minds. If you like it that's cool, but you need to allow others to have their opinions as well.

Please don't imply we're wrong for not liking it by saying that by not having vehicles and only having one mode we can't possibly judge the game, no one is criticizing you for what you like about it when they point out what they don't like about it. So ease up a tad.

As far as what I've seen in the beta as far as the game's graphics, mechanics, and the play it is centered around, my interest has dipped sharply. It doesn't look as vibrant to me as other established games I'm playing right now - R3 struck me the exact-same way, by the way, so it's not just BF3 that I think is sub-par in recent or coming releases...

... But in my budget, $60 is a fair investment in a game. So I'm going to weigh that decision pretty well when it comes down to it - With so many games coming out at once, and my time to play them in a given week, I gotta make some harsh cuts. Right now, and for the future, I'm not bothering with it. It doesn't look or play that well to me and I hope they get it all fixed in a timely fashion. But don't let it stop you, if you don't see the faults in it that we do at this time. Just, right now, it's going to stop a few of us from moving any further than we had maybe previously intended.

Feel free to play what you like, and try not to get too bent out of shape over what anyone says in these forums.

Including me!

;)

We'z all gamers here.

You're going ot jump down MY throat telling ME to be peaceful when all you do is tell people their opinions aren't valid? SPIN, pal. There's obviously NO "peace" with you unless I change my mind about buying a game I find to be sub-par and not to my taste. P.O.

[QUOTE="BibiMaghoo"][QUOTE="MonkeySpot"]

I stopped caring what PC people say about anything as it relates to consoles a long time ago, but truncated or not, this is largely what the game is as it will be on PS3. The colors, and most of the textures of the map are going to be as you see them now on a PS3 for that map. We haven't seen all of the maps and I think anyone who's played "Battlefield" before knows that there will be more to other kinds of games, but they're clearly courting the CoD crowd, and they've definitely not lived up to the promotions when it comes to the PS3 version in a lot of people's minds. If you like it that's cool, but you need to allow others to have their opinions as well.

Please don't imply we're wrong for not liking it by saying that by not having vehicles and only having one mode we can't possibly judge the game, no one is criticizing you for what you like about it when they point out what they don't like about it. So ease up a tad.

As far as what I've seen in the beta as far as the game's graphics, mechanics, and the play it is centered around, my interest has dipped sharply. It doesn't look as vibrant to me as other established games I'm playing right now - R3 struck me the exact-same way, by the way, so it's not just BF3 that I think is sub-par in recent or coming releases...

... But in my budget, $60 is a fair investment in a game. So I'm going to weigh that decision pretty well when it comes down to it - With so many games coming out at once, and my time to play them in a given week, I gotta make some harsh cuts. Right now, and for the future, I'm not bothering with it. It doesn't look or play that well to me and I hope they get it all fixed in a timely fashion. But don't let it stop you, if you don't see the faults in it that we do at this time. Just, right now, it's going to stop a few of us from moving any further than we had maybe previously intended.

Feel free to play what you like, and try not to get too bent out of shape over what anyone says in these forums.

Including me!

;)

We'z all gamers here.

MonkeySpot

You're going ot jump down MY throat telling ME to be peaceful when all you do is tell people their opinions aren't valid? SPIN, pal. There's obviously NO "peace" with you unless I change my mind about buying a game I find to be sub-par and not to my taste. P.O.

I like it so far.

Not really, I mean you just run around trying to find someone to kill and when you do you get killed and have to wait for like 5 seconds to respawn. I don't think BF 3 is going to be anything special in campaign eitehr. Say what you want about COD but atleast it's fun....

BibiMaghoo

What's "fail" about yours and my tastes not lining up? The way I look at it, at least by not buying the game we'll never have to deal with each other. Sounds like a win to me. You keep saying that it's going to be great like I give a rat's fat ***, and the ONLY thing I have said is "It's not for me because I don't like what I see". You seem to think that anything that dribbles from your maw is going to prove me wrong for not liking it, so if anyone's "fail" here, it's you m'friend... but really, why do you care what I say? Buy the game. Play it 24/7. At least it keeps you out of a game I might be playing.

Enjoy.

[QUOTE="BibiMaghoo"]

MonkeySpot

What's "fail" about yours and my tastes not lining up? The way I look at it, at least by not buying the game we'll never have to deal with each other. Sounds like a win to me. You keep saying that it's going to be great like I give a rat's fat ***, and the ONLY thing I have said is "It's not for me because I don't like what I see". You seem to think that anything that dribbles from your maw is going to prove me wrong for not liking it, so if anyone's "fail" here, it's you m'friend... but really, why do you care what I say? Buy the game. Play it 24/7. At least it keeps you out of a game I might be playing.

Enjoy.

I am a hUGE battlefield fan and this is not battlefield... it is Mw3 2.0

Not really, I mean you just run around trying to find someone to kill and when you do you get killed and have to wait for like 5 seconds to respawn. I don't think BF 3 is going to be anything special in campaign eitehr. Say what you want about COD but atleast it's fun....

ShadowMoses900