Well, it's 2 in the morning, friends are passed out on the couch, and I can't get to sleep, so i've decided to rage about a game I know nothing about, other than it existing, and that it is now multiplatform. I'm talking about Battlefield ****ing 3.
You've probably heard by now that the Battlefield 3 beta was announced by EA the other day and in the announcement they basically confirmed multiplatform development, which is really disappointing to me. This blog is not just aimless crying for the sake of crying or because i'm some *** hole PC elitist who doesn't wanna share. There have been very few PC franchises that went multiplatform and were not effected negatively in one way or another. The only way this would be a win/win situation would be if there were two versions in development; A console version, and a PC version. Otherwise, I fear we'll just be getting Bad Company 3, because DICE aren't magicians and a full fledged Battlefield game would not work on consoles. It just can't live up to it's potential on such outdated hardware.
Don't get me wrong, the Bad Company games are fun. They're good games. But they're not the type of Battlefield games I fell in love with, or what I envisioned for the future of BF games. The point of the Bad Company series was to be a Battlefield game that worked on consoles (DICE has said this plenty of times). Which meant many mechanics from the PC Battlefield games were ommitted. Things like 64 player matches, commander c1ass conquest mode, comma-rose, jets, etc. Bad Company 1/2 are both very simplified and down-scaled in scope compared to BF2. DICE could rerelease BF2 on their new Frostbite engine, slap BF3 on the box, and it would be a much improved sequel to Bad Company 2, aside from the outdated gunplay.
Even if by some miracle DICE managed to make what Battlefield 2 was doing work on consoles, that's still not what I was hoping for for BF3. I don't really want BF2 with new maps and nicer graphics. I want the next evolution of the franchise, a true 'next-gen' sequel to Battlefield 2. A larger scale more interactive BF game. I think that's what every BF fan wants. The truth is, the X360 and PS3 just don't have the the amount of RAM and processing power needed for this. It was the same case with Crysis. Even on low, Crysis was taking up a gig of ram, and the HD consoles only have 512MB to work with.
Think about what a BF game taking full advantage of the PC would be like. Actually, you don't have to, just read this post made by mrbojangles25 on the PC boards.
I think 128-person maps would be slick.
I dont know if it is a hardware thing or not, but I remember playing Joint Operations (a highly overlooked gem released by Novalogic) back in the day with 150-person maps and it was insanely fun.Make big maps, multi-stage objectives, and 128+ player capacity with airplanes, helicopters, tanks, landing craft, etc. Sounds ambitious, but its totally within reason.
Imagine spawning as a marine on a ship and piloting an LCAC loaded with tanks and troops right up to Objective A and storming it while you got AH1 Cobra gunships providing cover fire for Hueys and Blackhawks
mrbojangles25
That'd be ****in' epic.
Battlefield is my favorite multiplayer series. We haven't had a TRUE Battlefield game in 4 years, and I was I really hoping for BF3 to take full advantage of the PC and live up to BF2, but now i'm worried it won't. I really wouldn't mind it being multiplatform if it meant that the gameplay experience would not suffer. I really wouldn't. I'm all for more people playing this series. They're amazing games.
Ok, I think I have covered everything. Again, I know literally nothing about this game, except that it exists. I just felt like bloggin' bout mah fears and overly early judgements.
Oh, and just to be clear, I'm not saying DICE owes me anything or that i'm entitled to a PC exclusive battlefield game.
