DICE has got to be pissed

They made a whole new engine with some of the best graphics and physics whereas MW3 is a rehash.

BF3 got outsold and will probably get out awarded.

Dice has gotta be pissed :lol:

They made a whole new engine with some of the best graphics and physics whereas MW3 is a rehash.

BF3 got outsold and will probably get out awarded.

Dice has gotta be pissed :lol:

Zlychop

Dude let it go. Its not about sales

They made a whole new engine with some of the best graphics and physics whereas MW3 is a rehash.

BF3 got outsold and will probably get out awarded.

Dice has gotta be pissed :lol:

Zlychop

Yeah and they both scored AA when BF3 fanboys act like it's worlds better. Both are bad and I'm mad I'm stuck with BF3, at least I got to get some of my money back for MW3.

DICE doesn't care. They were not the ones cnstantly bashing COD unlike EA and what I seen from MW3's campaign is stil pretty linear and the multiplayer is still the same thing.

[QUOTE="Zlychop"]

They made a whole new engine with some of the best graphics and physics whereas MW3 is a rehash.

BF3 got outsold and will probably get out awarded.

Dice has gotta be pissed :lol:

Inconsistancy

It just goes to show that gameplay > graphics.Mr_Cumberdale

If you think that Mw3 plays better than BF3 you're just being delusional.

It's not even a contest. BF3 feels like a whole generation ahead of MW3.

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

[QUOTE="Zlychop"]

They made a whole new engine with some of the best graphics and physics whereas MW3 is a rehash.

BF3 got outsold and will probably get out awarded.

Dice has gotta be pissed :lol:

Grawse

[QUOTE="Mr_Cumberdale"]It just goes to show that gameplay > graphics.Wasdie

If you think that Mw3 plays better than BF3 you're just being delusional.

It's not even a contest. BF3 feels like a whole generation ahead of MW3.

Why aren't you locking this crap? :cry:

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Mr_Cumberdale"]It just goes to show that gameplay > graphics.seanmcloughlin

If you think that Mw3 plays better than BF3 you're just being delusional.

It's not even a contest. BF3 feels like a whole generation ahead of MW3.

Why aren't you locking this crap? :cry:

I can't. New rules :(

They made a whole new engine with some of the best graphics and physics whereas MW3 is a rehash.

BF3 got outsold and will probably get out awarded.

Dice has gotta be pissed :lol:

Zlychop

It's VGA bro....

Eh, it's their own fault. BF3 isn't that good.

Yeah and they both scored AA when BF3 fanboys act like it's worlds better. Both are bad and I'm mad I'm stuck with BF3, at least I got to get some of my money back for MW3.

Grawse

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

If you think that Mw3 plays better than BF3 you're just being delusional.

It's not even a contest. BF3 feels like a whole generation ahead of MW3.

Wasdie

Why aren't you locking this crap? :cry:

I can't. New rules :(

God damn it :(

These new rules were like opening the trolls playpen and letting them roam free

[QUOTE="Mr_Cumberdale"]It just goes to show that gameplay > graphics.Wasdie

If you think that Mw3 plays better than BF3 you're just being delusional.

It's not even a contest. BF3 feels like a whole generation ahead of MW3.

I can't. New rules :(

Wasdie

This doesn't count as one of those LOLOLOL threads?

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

I can't. New rules :(

ChubbyGuy40

This doesn't count as one of those LOLOLOL threads?

Not really.

Is TC trolling against DICE with a BC2 avatar? :?

Is TC trolling against DICE with a BC2 avatar? :?

seanmcloughlin

[QUOTE="Grawse"]

Yeah and they both scored AA when BF3 fanboys act like it's worlds better. Both are bad and I'm mad I'm stuck with BF3, at least I got to get some of my money back for MW3.

StrongDeadlift

Seriously, I have no idea how COD series can get so high scores.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

Why aren't you locking this crap? :cry:

seanmcloughlin

I can't. New rules :(

God damn it :(

These new rules were like opening the trolls playpen and letting them roam free

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

I can't. New rules :(

Jebus213

God damn it :(

These new rules were like opening the trolls playpen and letting them roam free

Any time I got modded was for stuff that was against the ToU so I can't complain

[QUOTE="Zlychop"]

They made a whole new engine with some of the best graphics and physics whereas MW3 is a rehash.

BF3 got outsold and will probably get out awarded.

Dice has gotta be pissed :lol:

Inconsistancy

There's no way they can expect to take on a game with as much cultural inertia as Call of Duty. Anyway, I've never played Battlefield 3 and never will, but I get the impression that many of their design choices pissed people off, in which case they only have themselves to blame for having a subpar reception.

I don't think they are, at least I hope not.

DICE made a great game, but they should be happy for the successes of their peers. They'd want the same thing right?

Besides, it should be a humbling experience that pushes them to make a better game. Hopefully they can get a little more time and money on the next BF, and focus on the co-op and campaign instead of tacking them on.

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

[QUOTE="Zlychop"]

They made a whole new engine with some of the best graphics and physics whereas MW3 is a rehash.

BF3 got outsold and will probably get out awarded.

Dice has gotta be pissed :lol:

Click_Clock

Activision bring it in anyway they can

DICE try to bring it in by making a good game that's for the fans

Vastly different approaches. DICE don't screw you out of your money. I feel like a prostitute if I buy a CoD game

They made a whole new engine with some of the best graphics and physics whereas MW3 is a rehash.

BF3 got outsold and will probably get out awarded.

Dice has gotta be pissed :lol:

Zlychop

So any dev who makes a new engine should be pissed cause they were outsold...?

[QUOTE="Click_Clock"]

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"] I don't think Dice is that shallow of a dev, I think they just want to make a better game.

seanmcloughlin

Activision bring it in anyway they can

DICE try to bring it in by making a good game that's for the fans

Vastly different approaches. DICE don't screw you out of your money. I feel like a prostitute if I buy a CoD game

This post is so ridiculous! :lol:

Dice was trying to bring it on by belittling the competition this round and their ad campaign has turned around to bite them in the ass.

They started a war they had no freaking chance at winning. I really have no idea what they were thinking.

Now they just look stupid after the fact.

Activision isn't exactly the greatest company in the world (and in all honesty I have some serious issues with the company as they have ruined at least one great series in the past), but good Lord people really need to stop putting Dice on such a freaking pedastal.

They are just devs (mediocre ones at that) and devs want money. They have no higher moral standard, This whole BF3 Vs. CoD is a testament to that.

Also, the CoD franchise has such a unique and SMART business plan I can't understand why other companies haven't tried to mimick it. They get out yearly games while still having a two-year developement cycle which is a decent amount of dev time.

Uh huh they must have been pretty pissed with their millions of sales they've attained.

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

Is TC trolling against DICE with a BC2 avatar? :?

Zlychop

What are you talking about... BC2 has nothing on BF2 or BF3.

BF3 did exactly what he should of done, I don't understand what you were expecting.

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="Click_Clock"]DICE main intention like every other company is to bring in sales, for that they doing poorly compare to Modern Warfare 3.

LostProphetFLCL

Activision bring it in anyway they can

DICE try to bring it in by making a good game that's for the fans

Vastly different approaches. DICE don't screw you out of your money. I feel like a prostitute if I buy a CoD game

This post is so ridiculous! :lol:

Dice was trying to bring it on by belittling the competition this round and their ad campaign has turned around to bite them in the ass.

They started a war they had no freaking chance at winning. I really have no idea what they were thinking.

Now they just look stupid after the fact.

Activision isn't exactly the greatest company in the world (and in all honesty I have some serious issues with the company as they have ruined at least one great series in the past), but good Lord people really need to stop putting Dice on such a freaking pedastal.

They are just devs (mediocre ones at that) and devs want money. They have no higher moral standard, This whole BF3 Vs. CoD is a testament to that.

Also, the CoD franchise has such a unique and SMART business plan I can't understand why other companies haven't tried to mimick it. They get out yearly games while still having a two-year developement cycle which is a decent amount of dev time.

Not DICE, EA and some of DICE.

Infinity Ward says they're good chums with some of DICE's developers, and DICE has mostly been nice towards IW and CoD as well.

EA is the one making a trailer that is 90% Call of Duty one up attempting, and 10% actual Battlefield, and considering they had Medal of Honor (lol) as their supposed CoD killer, EA just wants to beat CoD. DICE just wants to make Battlefield.

[QUOTE="Zlychop"][QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

Is TC trolling against DICE with a BC2 avatar? :?

Bebi_vegeta

What are you talking about... BC2 has nothing on BF2 or BF3.

BF3 did exactly what he should of done, I don't understand what you were expecting.

Well he likes BF2 also, so... yeah.

Anyways, I'd say BC2 does have a lot of things over BF3. The destruction wasn't as incredibly selective (oh great, I can blow up this wall with a grenade, but tank shells and C4 do nothing to this one?), the game was MUCH better optimized on consoles, it launched at a smoother state, Rush is MUCH better more balanced and less camp happy, Conquest wasn't as good as in BF2, but BF3's Conquest isn't as good as BF2's Conquest either, and in general I think BC2 was more of a fun surprise.

BF3 was hyped ever since it as announced, so it came out disappointing in comparison, and the campaign/co-op are totally tacked on jokes, while the multiplayer arrived in a bit of a rouch state and could use some work.

I love BF3, but BC2 was fantastic and BF3 disappointed me a bit.

[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

Activision bring it in anyway they can

DICE try to bring it in by making a good game that's for the fans

Vastly different approaches. DICE don't screw you out of your money. I feel like a prostitute if I buy a CoD game

SPYDER0416

This post is so ridiculous! :lol:

Dice was trying to bring it on by belittling the competition this round and their ad campaign has turned around to bite them in the ass.

They started a war they had no freaking chance at winning. I really have no idea what they were thinking.

Now they just look stupid after the fact.

Activision isn't exactly the greatest company in the world (and in all honesty I have some serious issues with the company as they have ruined at least one great series in the past), but good Lord people really need to stop putting Dice on such a freaking pedastal.

They are just devs (mediocre ones at that) and devs want money. They have no higher moral standard, This whole BF3 Vs. CoD is a testament to that.

Also, the CoD franchise has such a unique and SMART business plan I can't understand why other companies haven't tried to mimick it. They get out yearly games while still having a two-year developement cycle which is a decent amount of dev time.

Not DICE, EA and some of DICE.

Infinity Ward says they're good chums with some of DICE's developers, and DICE has mostly been nice towards IW and CoD as well.

EA is the one making a trailer that is 90% Call of Duty one up attempting, and 10% actual Battlefield, and considering they had Medal of Honor (lol) as their supposed CoD killer, EA just wants to beat CoD. DICE just wants to make Battlefield.

Ah yeah that would make sense there. Never really thought about how much say Dice might actually get in the marketing....

Well in that case, tis EA who should be embarassed. The whole BF3 ad campaign was pretty damn ridiculous...

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="Zlychop"] No, BF3 actually did not live up to the hype. This is coming from a BF2/BC2 fan.SPYDER0416

What are you talking about... BC2 has nothing on BF2 or BF3.

BF3 did exactly what he should of done, I don't understand what you were expecting.

Well he likes BF2 also, so... yeah.

Anyways, I'd say BC2 does have a lot of things over BF3. The destruction wasn't as incredibly selective (oh great, I can blow up this wall with a grenade, but tank shells and C4 do nothing to this one?), the game was MUCH better optimized on consoles, it launched at a smoother state, Rush is MUCH better more balanced and less camp happy, Conquest wasn't as good as in BF2, but BF3's Conquest isn't as good as BF2's Conquest either, and in general I think BC2 was more of a fun surprise.

BF3 was hyped ever since it as announced, so it came out disappointing in comparison, and the campaign/co-op are totally tacked on jokes, while the multiplayer arrived in a bit of a rouch state and could use some work.

I love BF3, but BC2 was fantastic and BF3 disappointed me a bit.

I think BC2 had the worst maps of all the series... with retarted choke points.

Destruction wise, BF3>B2C, atleast looks less prefined destruction.

For console, I don't really care (weak hardware is weak)... BF3 is one of the best looking games if not the best.

Way more customization in BF3.

There's absoltly no surprise in BC2... common. I'm sorry did you say less camp happy. woah woah woah, did you play the game?????????

When playing a game in single player when it's obviously a recommended mulltiplayer game. Atleast there's COOP mode in BF3.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

This post is so ridiculous! :lol:

Dice was trying to bring it on by belittling the competition this round and their ad campaign has turned around to bite them in the ass.

They started a war they had no freaking chance at winning. I really have no idea what they were thinking.

Now they just look stupid after the fact.

Activision isn't exactly the greatest company in the world (and in all honesty I have some serious issues with the company as they have ruined at least one great series in the past), but good Lord people really need to stop putting Dice on such a freaking pedastal.

They are just devs (mediocre ones at that) and devs want money. They have no higher moral standard, This whole BF3 Vs. CoD is a testament to that.

Also, the CoD franchise has such a unique and SMART business plan I can't understand why other companies haven't tried to mimick it. They get out yearly games while still having a two-year developement cycle which is a decent amount of dev time.

LostProphetFLCL

Not DICE, EA and some of DICE.

Infinity Ward says they're good chums with some of DICE's developers, and DICE has mostly been nice towards IW and CoD as well.

EA is the one making a trailer that is 90% Call of Duty one up attempting, and 10% actual Battlefield, and considering they had Medal of Honor (lol) as their supposed CoD killer, EA just wants to beat CoD. DICE just wants to make Battlefield.

Ah yeah that would make sense there. Never really thought about how much say Dice might actually get in the marketing....

Well in that case, tis EA who should be embarassed. The whole BF3 ad campaign was pretty damn ridiculous...

Yeah EA really made DICE look awful on the run up to BF3. With all the DLC and LE stuff along with not giving PS3 people BF1942 and forcing us to use Origin. None of that was DICE's fault really

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

What are you talking about... BC2 has nothing on BF2 or BF3.

BF3 did exactly what he should of done, I don't understand what you were expecting.

Bebi_vegeta

Well he likes BF2 also, so... yeah.

Anyways, I'd say BC2 does have a lot of things over BF3. The destruction wasn't as incredibly selective (oh great, I can blow up this wall with a grenade, but tank shells and C4 do nothing to this one?), the game was MUCH better optimized on consoles, it launched at a smoother state, Rush is MUCH better more balanced and less camp happy, Conquest wasn't as good as in BF2, but BF3's Conquest isn't as good as BF2's Conquest either, and in general I think BC2 was more of a fun surprise.

BF3 was hyped ever since it as announced, so it came out disappointing in comparison, and the campaign/co-op are totally tacked on jokes, while the multiplayer arrived in a bit of a rouch state and could use some work.

I love BF3, but BC2 was fantastic and BF3 disappointed me a bit.

I think BC2 had the worst maps of all the series... with retarted choke points.

Destruction wise, BF3>B2C, atleast looks less prefined destruction.

For console, I don't really care (weak hardware is weak)... BF3 is one of the best looking games if not the best.

Way more customization in BF3.

There's absoltly no surprise in BC2... common. I'm sorry did you say less camp happy. woah woah woah, did you play the game?????????

Yes, just accuse me of not playing the game because I say its more camp happy.

Get off the fanboy train man! BF3 was a bit overrated, and was definitely not the CoD killer super best BF game ever it was hyped to be. Its an amazing game, but a lot of things it did, BF2 and BC2 did before, and the new things weren't that great. The destruction is even worse then BC2's since only a few things can be destroyed, in an even more obvious manner, and if you've spent more then 5 minutes in Operation Metro in literally any game mode, you'd see just how bad the camping is.

As a whole, the game just has "rush job" written all over it, where BC2 got a few extra months from its supposed December release date to be fixed up, BF3 had a set date and came out in not the best state.

The maps are not designed that great, with Conquest flags being way too close together for the big 64 player matches to feel as epic as they should, and Rush is just a major campfest in 90% of the maps with people sticking in indestructible chokepoints (thanks for removing some destruction DICE!), and the split between 64 players on PC and 24 players on console meaning maps that are too big for consoles, and too small for PC.

It also lacks a lot of polish. Some PC players are having some huge problems even being able to play the damn thing, there are balance issues with jets, vehicles and weapons that were seriously overlooked, weird ground sinking issues for some vehicles and many players, and just a weird host of issues BC2 and BF2 didn't have.

Its a really great game, and I think I personally enjoy it more then Bad Company 2 and BF2 online (which is dated by now anyways), but its got a lot of issues, and its easy to see how some of the things BC2 did better would make BC2 a more enjoyable game. As I mentioned before, the campaign and co-op modes aren't even above average, they just sort of exist and don't do anything different or better from the competition.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Well he likes BF2 also, so... yeah.

Anyways, I'd say BC2 does have a lot of things over BF3. The destruction wasn't as incredibly selective (oh great, I can blow up this wall with a grenade, but tank shells and C4 do nothing to this one?), the game was MUCH better optimized on consoles, it launched at a smoother state, Rush is MUCH better more balanced and less camp happy, Conquest wasn't as good as in BF2, but BF3's Conquest isn't as good as BF2's Conquest either, and in general I think BC2 was more of a fun surprise.

BF3 was hyped ever since it as announced, so it came out disappointing in comparison, and the campaign/co-op are totally tacked on jokes, while the multiplayer arrived in a bit of a rouch state and could use some work.

I love BF3, but BC2 was fantastic and BF3 disappointed me a bit.

SPYDER0416

I think BC2 had the worst maps of all the series... with retarted choke points.

Destruction wise, BF3>B2C, atleast looks less prefined destruction.

For console, I don't really care (weak hardware is weak)... BF3 is one of the best looking games if not the best.

Way more customization in BF3.

There's absoltly no surprise in BC2... common. I'm sorry did you say less camp happy. woah woah woah, did you play the game?????????

Yes, just accuse me of not playing the game because I say its more camp happy.

Get off the fanboy train man! BF3 was a bit overrated, and was definitely not the CoD killer super best BF game ever it was hyped to be. Its an amazing game, but a lot of things it did, BF2 and BC2 did before, and the new things weren't that great. The destruction is even worse then BC2's since only a few things can be destroyed, in an even more obvious manner, and if you've spent more then 5 minutes in Operation Metro in literally any game mode, you'd see just how bad the camping is.

As a whole, the game just has "rush job" written all over it, where BC2 got a few extra months from its supposed December release date to be fixed up, BF3 had a set date and came out in not the best state.

The maps are not designed that great, with Conquest flags being way too close together for the big 64 player matches to feel as epic as they should, and Rush is just a major campfest in 90% of the maps with people sticking in indestructible chokepoints (thanks for removing some destruction DICE!), and the split between 64 players on PC and 24 players on console meaning maps that are too big for consoles, and too small for PC.

It also lacks a lot of polish. Some PC players are having some huge problems even being able to play the damn thing, there are balance issues with jets, vehicles and weapons that were seriously overlooked, weird ground sinking issues for some vehicles and many players, and just a weird host of issues BC2 and BF2 didn't have.

Its a really great game, and I think I personally enjoy it more then Bad Company 2 and BF2 online (which is dated by now anyways), but its got a lot of issues, and its easy to see how some of the things BC2 did better would make BC2 a more enjoyable game. As I mentioned before, the campaign and co-op modes aren't even above average, they just sort of exist and don't do anything different or better from the competition.

Get off the fanboy train? Maybe, try openning your eyes? I'm a BF fan series... B2C was a damn camp fest. The worst maps ever made with choke points that made the game boring when teams were a little unbalanced. The game got boring real fast because the maps were boring and you knew them all after a few minutes of playtrough.

If you were waiting for a whole new FPS game, there obviously you were over hypping it. It's obviously going to share things from BF2 and BC2... don't you think MW3 has lots of things in common with it's predecessor?

Not everything was desctuctable in B2C too.

There's been balance issues with avery BF games... holly crap, I can't beleive your saying your a BF fan series.

64 player maps are just fine, so are 32... the worst thing about BF3 is probably origin. You complain about BF3 maps, how can you even stand B2C maps...

I play the PC version, had 0 major issues with it.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

I think BC2 had the worst maps of all the series... with retarted choke points.

Destruction wise, BF3>B2C, atleast looks less prefined destruction.

For console, I don't really care (weak hardware is weak)... BF3 is one of the best looking games if not the best.

Way more customization in BF3.

There's absoltly no surprise in BC2... common. I'm sorry did you say less camp happy. woah woah woah, did you play the game?????????

Bebi_vegeta

Yes, just accuse me of not playing the game because I say its more camp happy.

Get off the fanboy train man! BF3 was a bit overrated, and was definitely not the CoD killer super best BF game ever it was hyped to be. Its an amazing game, but a lot of things it did, BF2 and BC2 did before, and the new things weren't that great. The destruction is even worse then BC2's since only a few things can be destroyed, in an even more obvious manner, and if you've spent more then 5 minutes in Operation Metro in literally any game mode, you'd see just how bad the camping is.

As a whole, the game just has "rush job" written all over it, where BC2 got a few extra months from its supposed December release date to be fixed up, BF3 had a set date and came out in not the best state.

The maps are not designed that great, with Conquest flags being way too close together for the big 64 player matches to feel as epic as they should, and Rush is just a major campfest in 90% of the maps with people sticking in indestructible chokepoints (thanks for removing some destruction DICE!), and the split between 64 players on PC and 24 players on console meaning maps that are too big for consoles, and too small for PC.

It also lacks a lot of polish. Some PC players are having some huge problems even being able to play the damn thing, there are balance issues with jets, vehicles and weapons that were seriously overlooked, weird ground sinking issues for some vehicles and many players, and just a weird host of issues BC2 and BF2 didn't have.

Its a really great game, and I think I personally enjoy it more then Bad Company 2 and BF2 online (which is dated by now anyways), but its got a lot of issues, and its easy to see how some of the things BC2 did better would make BC2 a more enjoyable game. As I mentioned before, the campaign and co-op modes aren't even above average, they just sort of exist and don't do anything different or better from the competition.

Get off the fanboy train? Maybe, try openning your eyes? I'm a BF fan series... B2C was a damn camp fest. The worst maps ever made with choke points that made the game boring when teams were a little unbalanced. The game got boring real fast because the maps were boring and you knew them all after a few minutes of playtrough.

If you were waiting for a whole new FPS game, there obviously you were over hypping it. It's obviously going to share things from BF2 and BC2... don't you think MW3 has lots of things in common with it's predecessor?

Not everything was desctuctable in B2C too.

There's been balance issues with avery BF games... holly crap, I can't beleive your saying your a BF fan series.

64 player maps are just fine, so are 32... the worst thing about BF3 is probably origin. You complain about BF3 maps, how can you even stand B2C maps...

I play the PC version, had 0 major issues with it.

[QUOTE="Mr_Cumberdale"]It just goes to show that gameplay > graphics.Wasdie

If you think that Mw3 plays better than BF3 you're just being delusional.

It's not even a contest. BF3 feels like a whole generation ahead of MW3.

If you're playing it on the PC? Yeah, definitely. I cannot say the same for the console versions.

The maps in BF3, espcially for rush are horribly designed.

[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Not DICE, EA and some of DICE.

Infinity Ward says they're good chums with some of DICE's developers, and DICE has mostly been nice towards IW and CoD as well.

EA is the one making a trailer that is 90% Call of Duty one up attempting, and 10% actual Battlefield, and considering they had Medal of Honor (lol) as their supposed CoD killer, EA just wants to beat CoD. DICE just wants to make Battlefield.

seanmcloughlin

Ah yeah that would make sense there. Never really thought about how much say Dice might actually get in the marketing....

Well in that case, tis EA who should be embarassed. The whole BF3 ad campaign was pretty damn ridiculous...

Yeah EA really made DICE look awful on the run up to BF3. With all the DLC and LE stuff along with not giving PS3 people BF1942 and forcing us to use Origin. None of that was DICE's fault really

I hate when publishers pull that crap.

Even though I still play CoD games, I really don't care for Activision with how they have treated developers.

They freaking murdered the GH series, granted at least there the developer had been smart enough to get out of Dodge when they could and they ended up creating an even BETTER franchise in it's place.

The maps in BF3, espcially for rush are horribly designed.

Zlychop

Definitely. Its weird, it seems like BF3 tried to put equal focus on Rush and Conquest and kind of flubbed it.

Conquest isn't as epic or big as it was in BF2, and the issues of player size means that its too big on consoles, and too small with close together flags on 64 Conquest on PC.

Rush is a joke, its WAY too linear, and some maps have incredibly exploitable weaknesses (such as the Dock map where the defenders can set up camp on shore and prevent the attackers from ever getting through if fast enough).

They probably should have waited until they had a proper balance before releasing maps meant for Rush for Conquest, and vice versa (Conquest in Metro is a joke for the US team if the Russians aren't completely terrible).

[QUOTE="Zlychop"]

The maps in BF3, espcially for rush are horribly designed.

SPYDER0416

Definitely. Its weird, it seems like BF3 tried to put equal focus on Rush and Conquest and kind of flubbed it.

Conquest isn't as epic or big as it was in BF2, and the issues of player size means that its too big on consoles, and too small with close together flags on 64 Conquest on PC.

Rush is a joke, its WAY too linear, and some maps have incredibly exploitable weaknesses (such as the Dock map where the defenders can set up camp on shore and prevent the attackers from ever getting through if fast enough).

They probably should have waited until they had a proper balance before releasing maps meant for Rush for Conquest, and vice versa (Conquest in Metro is a joke for the US team if the Russians aren't completely terrible).