DICE has got to be pissed

I've played all of the BF games except for 2142, and I'm sorry to say that BF3 is a piss poor product. MW3 outclasses it in everyway, which is crazy to me, because last time around I was bashing CoD and praising BC2. After Black Ops and now MW3, I haven't even given the BF series another glance. That is until I bought BF3. I was so excited about it as was a CoD hating friend of mine. I pre ordered the LE and eagerly picked my copy up on launch day (even after playing that horrendous beta), and was shocked to see how terrible the game was. I had some minor issues with BC2 (mostly the tank nuking of M-Com stations on Rush), but nothing compared to what I have with BF3. For what it's worth, MW3 worked right out of the box for MP (granted there were issues with CoD: Elite), whereas I didn't get to play BF3 multiplayer until the next day after buying the game. I'll check out the Back to Karkand expansion, but other than that, I doubt I'll be playing much BF3 unless it's the rare time my friend wants to play (the only reason I'm keeping it), since he refuses to buy MW3. BF3 will be my last BF game though unless DICE decides to revisit the BC series and makes it more like BC2 and less like BF3. So should DICE be pissed? Yes, for putting out a sub par product instead of a great one like BC2 was because they were too busy trying to compete with CoD. FPSDad1161

You didnt say anything thats wrong with BF3, you just said its bad. Whats your reasons?

[QUOTE="FPSDad1161"]I've played all of the BF games except for 2142, and I'm sorry to say that BF3 is a piss poor product. MW3 outclasses it in everyway, which is crazy to me, because last time around I was bashing CoD and praising BC2. After Black Ops and now MW3, I haven't even given the BF series another glance. That is until I bought BF3. I was so excited about it as was a CoD hating friend of mine. I pre ordered the LE and eagerly picked my copy up on launch day (even after playing that horrendous beta), and was shocked to see how terrible the game was. I had some minor issues with BC2 (mostly the tank nuking of M-Com stations on Rush), but nothing compared to what I have with BF3. For what it's worth, MW3 worked right out of the box for MP (granted there were issues with CoD: Elite), whereas I didn't get to play BF3 multiplayer until the next day after buying the game. I'll check out the Back to Karkand expansion, but other than that, I doubt I'll be playing much BF3 unless it's the rare time my friend wants to play (the only reason I'm keeping it), since he refuses to buy MW3. BF3 will be my last BF game though unless DICE decides to revisit the BC series and makes it more like BC2 and less like BF3. So should DICE be pissed? Yes, for putting out a sub par product instead of a great one like BC2 was because they were too busy trying to compete with CoD. Cloud567kar

You didnt say anything thats wrong with BF3, you just said its bad. Whats your reasons?

[QUOTE="Cloud567kar"]

[QUOTE="FPSDad1161"]I've played all of the BF games except for 2142, and I'm sorry to say that BF3 is a piss poor product. MW3 outclasses it in everyway, which is crazy to me, because last time around I was bashing CoD and praising BC2. After Black Ops and now MW3, I haven't even given the BF series another glance. That is until I bought BF3. I was so excited about it as was a CoD hating friend of mine. I pre ordered the LE and eagerly picked my copy up on launch day (even after playing that horrendous beta), and was shocked to see how terrible the game was. I had some minor issues with BC2 (mostly the tank nuking of M-Com stations on Rush), but nothing compared to what I have with BF3. For what it's worth, MW3 worked right out of the box for MP (granted there were issues with CoD: Elite), whereas I didn't get to play BF3 multiplayer until the next day after buying the game. I'll check out the Back to Karkand expansion, but other than that, I doubt I'll be playing much BF3 unless it's the rare time my friend wants to play (the only reason I'm keeping it), since he refuses to buy MW3. BF3 will be my last BF game though unless DICE decides to revisit the BC series and makes it more like BC2 and less like BF3. So should DICE be pissed? Yes, for putting out a sub par product instead of a great one like BC2 was because they were too busy trying to compete with CoD. FPSDad1161

You didnt say anything thats wrong with BF3, you just said its bad. Whats your reasons?

But you say CoD outclasses it, so since its a CoD game with vehicles, shouldn't it mean

BF3>MW3 still? Its as you said, CoD game but with vehicles, so advantage.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

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.

DragonfireXZ95

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.

Metro is not my favorite map either, again for boring choke points... but I like the feel of the metro vibe, it just to bad... your mostly stuck underground for the middle choke point... there should be exists outside.

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

Zlychop

Rush mode in BF games just doesn't feel right, I've never liked that mode...

[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

The devs themselves probably care more about their proffesional pride as long as they have job security.

BF3 is one of the best looking games if not the best.

Bebi_vegeta

Crysis blows BF3 out of the water technical graphics-wise and practically every major PS3 exclusive from the past few years completely annihilate BF3 animation-wise.

I'd go as far as to say that even Killzone 2 altogether just makes BF3 look like total s*** IMO. Killzone 2's gun models + animations + lighting + postprocessing effects = complete eyegasm, while on the other hand there's really nothing all that attractive looking about BF3. The maps, the gun design, the characters, pretty much everything looks boring boring boring. It's a good game, don't get me wrong... I love the gameplay for the most part. But there's just something about the graphics that I hate. It's been the same for all of the Frostbite BF games I've played so far.

Killzone 2 >>>>>> BF3 graphics wise

[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.

Except that Modern Warfare has scored higher then Battlefield everywhere

I don't like the MP mainly because the of horribly designed maps. A dev said that a big chunk of the community would rather play on small maps. Which is complete BS since I haven't seen this chunk yet. Everyone expected the classic BF experience, instead we got CoD on a slightly bigger scale with vehicles. Even compared to Karkand in BF2 the vanilla maps in BF3 are small. Overall the game feels rushed as well. Lacks any of the authenticity DICE "use" to be all about.

The SP was a complete joke. Linear, mediocre, short, unoriginal as possible, heavily scripted, and nowhere near being authentic in almost any way. It's nothing more then a cheap interactive movie. I'm sorry but if actually liked the campaign or any other game similar you should be slapped around multiple times. That goes for Crysis 2 and Mw3. It's not fun "WATCHING" and playing through a linear scripted video game. There's no variety, options, or flexibility.

The modern military shooter, simplifying gaming since forever...

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

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

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.

Except that Modern Warfare has scored higher then Battlefield everywhere

Who cares about review scores. They don't account for the "Fun factor" in games. They score them objectively seen as they usually don't get as much time before writing a review to form a huge analysis

[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.

True on PC but no way that's true on consoles.

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

[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.

seanmcloughlin

Except that Modern Warfare has scored higher then Battlefield everywhere

Who cares about review scores. They don't account for the "Fun factor" in games. They score them objectively seen as they usually don't get as much time before writing a review to form a huge analysis

Oh ok, so you agree that reviews don't matter it's all about sales? I'm that way too

So let's see at last check Modern Warfare sold about 16 million compared to Battlefield's 7?

I could care less if MW3 won, BF3 is still a better game and MP though the SP really sucks.

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

MW3 will outsell any other game. Your point? Don't make any game other than MW?

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

Except that Modern Warfare has scored higher then Battlefield everywhere

Jaysonguy

Who cares about review scores. They don't account for the "Fun factor" in games. They score them objectively seen as they usually don't get as much time before writing a review to form a huge analysis

Oh ok, so you agree that reviews don't matter it's all about sales? I'm that way too

So let's see at last check Modern Warfare sold about 16 million compared to Battlefield's 7?

When did I say anything about sales?

I'm sure they're happy actually, their sales were great. No one was really expecting it to outsell CoD.

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

Who cares about review scores. They don't account for the "Fun factor" in games. They score them objectively seen as they usually don't get as much time before writing a review to form a huge analysis

seanmcloughlin

Oh ok, so you agree that reviews don't matter it's all about sales? I'm that way too

So let's see at last check Modern Warfare sold about 16 million compared to Battlefield's 7?

When did I say anything about sales?

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

Oh ok, so you agree that reviews don't matter it's all about sales? I'm that way too

So let's see at last check Modern Warfare sold about 16 million compared to Battlefield's 7?

BrunoBRS

When did I say anything about sales?

Now I remember.

Time to stop right there then :P

[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.

So he is delusional because he prefers how MW3 plays? I happen to prefer MW3s more fluid gameplay.

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

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

Who cares about review scores. They don't account for the "Fun factor" in games. They score them objectively seen as they usually don't get as much time before writing a review to form a huge analysis

seanmcloughlin

Oh ok, so you agree that reviews don't matter it's all about sales? I'm that way too

So let's see at last check Modern Warfare sold about 16 million compared to Battlefield's 7?

When did I say anything about sales?

Well you said that Battlefield failed to score higher from reviewers shouldn't matter so the only thing left to debate about the quality of a game is sales.

Battlefield failed in reviews and sales, now you say there's fun but Battlefield failed to be more fun then Modern Warfare, well except for you. You think that it's more fun and you're in the minority.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

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

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.

Except that Modern Warfare has scored higher then Battlefield everywhere

I think the only truly objective thing BF3 has over MW3 for me, is the improved tech and engine.

Gameplay wise, its a toss up, and both seem to excel at different things. MW plays better on consoles, has a much better single player and co-op, and is more focused on a more random and fast paced multiplayer. BF3 focuses on multiplayer first and foremost, with teamwork and strategy over skill based shooting, and more focus on the online aspect.

I actually prefer BF3 to MW3, but just slightly. I don't care for the MP in MW3 as much (its too similar to MW2's for me), but it has a much more memorable campaign, and the co-op is something I could spend hours on with a friend, which can't be said for BF3's co-op (unless I'm trying to unlock weapons). Otherwise though, the teamwork and strategy over individual skill and the use of vehicles and map variety really keep BF3's multiplayer at the top for me, and edge it out over MW3 for me (even if its just a part of the whole package, its a damn nice part).

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

BF3 is one of the best looking games if not the best.

Messiahbolical-

Crysis blows BF3 out of the water technical graphics-wise and practically every major PS3 exclusive from the past few years completely annihilate BF3 animation-wise.

I'd go as far as to say that even Killzone 2 altogether just makes BF3 look like total s*** IMO. Killzone 2's gun models + animations + lighting + postprocessing effects = complete eyegasm, while on the other hand there's really nothing all that attractive looking about BF3. The maps, the gun design, the characters, pretty much everything looks boring boring boring. It's a good game, don't get me wrong... I love the gameplay for the most part. But there's just something about the graphics that I hate. It's been the same for all of the Frostbite BF games I've played so far.

Killzone 2 >>>>>> BF3 graphics wise

Battlefield failed in reviews and sales

Jaysonguy

:lol:

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

Oh ok, so you agree that reviews don't matter it's all about sales? I'm that way too

So let's see at last check Modern Warfare sold about 16 million compared to Battlefield's 7?

Jaysonguy

When did I say anything about sales?

Well you said that Battlefield failed to score higher from reviewers shouldn't matter so the only thing left to debate about the quality of a game is sales.

Battlefield failed in reviews and sales, now you say there's fun but Battlefield failed to be more fun then Modern Warfare, well except for you. You think that it's more fun and you're in the minority.

Wait what? The only other thing outside reviews to debate is sales? I mentioned the fun factor which is the most important thing for any game to have.

It's far from a minority.

Also obligatory :lol: to your post

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

Battlefield failed in reviews and sales

BrunoBRS

:lol:

Indubitably *adjusts monicle and tophat*

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="Zlychop"]

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).

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

DarkLink77

[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.

I'm not saying that EA or DICE are innocent angels, but do not (and I repeat: DO NOT) put DICE, at least in the same category as Activision as far as morals go. At least DICE made attempts to fix BF3's slight unbalances, while as Activision just shrugs their shoulders at their community, and tends to their Elite crowd more. It's also nice to call DICE a "mediocre" developers while BF have made WAY more strides at technicalities within each iteration than any of the CoD games COMBINED.

[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.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

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

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="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

ermacness

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.

I'm not saying that EA or DICE are innocent angels, but do not (and I repeat: DO NOT) put DICE, at least in the same category as Activision as far as morals go. At least DICE made attempts to fix BF3's slight unbalances, while as Activision just shrugs their shoulders at their community, and tends to their Elite crowd more. It's also nice to call DICE a "mediocre" developers while BF have made WAY more strides at technicalities within each iteration than any of the CoD games COMBINED.

I will not defend Activision as I have already said, I have serious issues with the company, even if I still buy CoD games.

Thing is the CoD developers have actually been pretty good about fixing any issues within the games, whether it be through patches that have fixed bugs, or the way they have been gradually making the games better balanced between the iterations.

I mean seriously, if anyone tries and claim that the last two CoD games have NOT made some serious strides in the balance and fun department since the broken mess that was MW2, they have no freaking clue what they are talking about or they are a troll.

And BTW, it has been my understanding that the BF games haven't actually been making any real strides for a bit now, granted I can't say anything from experience seeing as I cannot get into that series as I find it completely unfun and dull.

DICE hardly deserves the praise and reward if they can't ship a half decent single player portion like everybody else.

Honestly, if you think DICE is pissed then you must have some unrealistic expectations.

Battlefield 3 became the fastest selling BF title, it has amazing review scores (89 on PC), and its something that put the series on the map as a legitimate threat to Call of Duty.

Trust me, DICE is not pissed at their success just because they have peers that happen to be more successful. They aren't jealous fanboys unlike so many of SW.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Mr_Cumberdale"]It just goes to show that gameplay > graphics.6yadayada9

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.

True on PC but no way that's true on consoles.

That's actually what I was thinking. The PC version of MW3 is just sort of "there", it doesn't do anything with the power or extra stuff they could have done before (like mod support). Dedicated servers are kind of a joke (unranked only), and it seems to be more about random fun then skill based or teamwork based gameplay. On the plus side, the console versions are MUCH better optimized then BF3 for consoles, with cleaner graphics and its much more polished, along with being meant a bit more for consoles with the engine and stuff like 4 player splitscreen that make it a series I play on Xbox or PS3.

BF3 is more for PC, even though I had fun on the PS3 beta, it really is for the PC audience first and foremost, and other then Battlelog's terrible interface (why do you show me all the empty servers first, Battlelog?), its a damn great game, and it works great for me. It doesn't really have any console exclusive features other then it being better on PS3 then Xbox in what it offers (which is sort of like the opposite of what CoD did for putting Xbox first), and it doesn't have any splitscreen and like with CoD on PC it just sort of "exists" on consoles. Though I will say that Origin is proof Satan is real, and he hates us, because downloading BF3 through that thing was a complete chore, and downloading the update through it is a nightmare or errors and resets.

[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.

A hole generation my ass. (and yes i played BF3 completely maxed out on my PC).

The BF3 graphics can be quite gorgeous but if you look at both games as a hole package they are pretty much the same.They are good at what they do but at this point its pretty generic military shooter gameplay.Nothing new at all. MW does its MW thing and BF does its BF thing (with the exception that it stole the SP from MW).

I'd rate both 7.5-8.

If there was one map though that they can bring back from BC2 to BF3 that would be Panama Canal....I know BFBC2 didn't have great maps, but man I wished Panama Canal would be in every game.

If there was one map though that they can bring back from BC2 to BF3 that would be Panama Canal....I know BFBC2 didn't have great maps, but man I wished Panama Canal would be in every game.

NodakJo2010

BC2 had a couple really good maps, Arica Harbour, there was one in Chile with a village in the middle which i enjoyed a ton aswell.

[QUOTE="NodakJo2010"]

If there was one map though that they can bring back from BC2 to BF3 that would be Panama Canal....I know BFBC2 didn't have great maps, but man I wished Panama Canal would be in every game.

razgriz_101

BC2 had a couple really good maps, Arica Harbour, there was one in Chile with a village in the middle which i enjoyed a ton aswell.

BC2 had a lot of great maps. They were all incredibly well balanced (rare for a BF game), and Atacama Desert is one hell of a fun Conquest map I'd love to play with 64 players. Its a damn good Rush map too once they added Rush in.

If they do add BC2 maps, I hope they don't have that weird repeating buildings thing, where you have the same 4 or 5 buildings in every map and they all have the same destructibility. Though at the same time, it would be nice for full on destruction to return a little better even if it does mean some repeating buildings.

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

[QUOTE="NodakJo2010"]

If there was one map though that they can bring back from BC2 to BF3 that would be Panama Canal....I know BFBC2 didn't have great maps, but man I wished Panama Canal would be in every game.

SPYDER0416

BC2 had a couple really good maps, Arica Harbour, there was one in Chile with a village in the middle which i enjoyed a ton aswell.

BC2 had a lot of great maps. They were all incredibly well balanced (rare for a BF game), and Atacama Desert is one hell of a fun Conquest map I'd love to play with 64 players. Its a damn good Rush map too once they added Rush in.

If they do add BC2 maps, I hope they don't have that weird repeating buildings thing, where you have the same 4 or 5 buildings in every map and they all have the same destructibility. Though at the same time, it would be nice for full on destruction to return a little better even if it does mean some repeating buildings.

Don't forget about White Pass I had good times doing rush there!

Now I feel like playing BFBC2 instead of BF3 lol....:P

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

[QUOTE="NodakJo2010"]

If there was one map though that they can bring back from BC2 to BF3 that would be Panama Canal....I know BFBC2 didn't have great maps, but man I wished Panama Canal would be in every game.

SPYDER0416

BC2 had a couple really good maps, Arica Harbour, there was one in Chile with a village in the middle which i enjoyed a ton aswell.

BC2 had a lot of great maps. They were all incredibly well balanced (rare for a BF game), and Atacama Desert is one hell of a fun Conquest map I'd love to play with 64 players. Its a damn good Rush map too once they added Rush in.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

BC2 had a couple really good maps, Arica Harbour, there was one in Chile with a village in the middle which i enjoyed a ton aswell.

mitu123

BC2 had a lot of great maps. They were all incredibly well balanced (rare for a BF game), and Atacama Desert is one hell of a fun Conquest map I'd love to play with 64 players. Its a damn good Rush map too once they added Rush in.

I think the irony is that even though its nice all modes work with all maps now in BF3, in BC2 DICE didn't do that because Rush and Conquest maps didn't necessarily work so well with eachother. So at launch it was nice and balanced, but some of the modes released for some maps later didn't do as well.

Still, I don't think any map will ever be less balanced then Conquest in Metro. I don't even know what DICE was thinking, did they even have a single Conquest match in that level before releasing it like that? Though I am guilty of playing it on occasion just to get some easy unlocks with all the killing going on.

Open your eyes guys. They both suck. It's all about Syndicate. Good ol Cyberpunk FPS.

Now I feel like playing BFBC2 instead of BF3 lol....:P

NodakJo2010

bfbc2 is a really great game. definitely one of my favorites, to many epic times on that game.

in all honesty, i was buying bf3 based off the hype i built from enjoying bc2 so much. i set myself up for disappoinment...