DICE certainly got me pissed with the shoddy online of Battlefield: Bad Company and Battlefield: Bad Company 2. They won't be getting my money again for a while now! Don't know if the Call of Duty games have more stable online, but I am willing to try...
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.
SPYDER0416
Some BC2 maps are terrible, but I do like a good amount of them to keep me playing, though some maps just aren't made for certain modes. Atacama Desert is terrible for Rush.
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.
Conquest Large on Metro is the worst thing ever, it just isn't a 64 player map, lol.
Battlefield just wasn't for me, which sucks, because I'm really into huge MP battles. The campaign seemed like they stole it right from every other current FPS (mainly the Call of Duty series), and the Multiplayer seems overly ambitious IMO. I know Call of Duty hasn't really improved their quality much, but I think there is something to be said for sticking with a formula that works. Pokemon still does it, MLB the Show does it, Halo did it until it ruined the MP in Reach, and Gears sure as hell did it too. All great series for a reason. They abided by the "If it aint broken, don't fix it" mentality.
DICE certainly got me pissed with the shoddy online of Battlefield: Bad Company and Battlefield: Bad Company 2. They won't be getting my money again for a while now! Don't know if the Call of Duty games have more stable online, but I am willing to try...Hexagon_777
[QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]DICE certainly got me pissed with the shoddy online of Battlefield: Bad Company and Battlefield: Bad Company 2. They won't be getting my money again for a while now! Don't know if the Call of Duty games have more stable online, but I am willing to try...wis3boi
BF3 =/= Bad CompanyIt's still by DICE. Why should Battlefield 3 be any different?
DICE never went into this thinking they would outsell MW3, so why would they be pissed? They made their game, it sold exceptionally well, new BF game in future practically confirmed. As far as awards, COD overall has a wider appeal, this will also be reflected in awards.
I dont think that DICE expected to beat that crap of a game MW3 in sales. But what they did do is show how a realistic shooter is suppose to look and play like. The game has converted many people from MW3 to BF3 and with that, i believe in their eyes, the game was a success. To be honest once people play BF3 i dont understand how they can go back to playing Modern Rehash 3.
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
The Multiplayer is worlds better. The campaign is a different story though.
You really think a developer is going to sit there leering over a metaphorical fence at the COD IP? What you need to do is spend less time in forum land, and more time actually taking a dose of reality in.
Log in to comment