Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'PC Gaming' started by moonbogg, Jul 17, 2012.
Since about 1988, when $50 was worth $100 in 2012 dollars.
This is going to be BF 3.5.
I would rather get an add-on (like BFBC2:Vietnam) than a sequel.
Let a couple of years of PC graphics evolution go by before dropping a big one.
I would love a BF 2143. Anyway, fall of 2013 is so damn far away, who cares anyway. Personally looking forward to the big vehicle map expansion coming up.
Really hoping for a 2143. Maybe this BF4 is actually has a future setting. One can dream.
Can we get rid of the "art" that made the color, shadows, sun all look like shit? Without having to use some external program.
But seriously the time between bf2 and bf3, then this time between bf3 and bf4.
I wish I had hope that they would add commander, SL that means something, larger squads, all sorts of other things missing that were in BF2 that helped catch hackers, and match play. I am going to wait and see, but I am not going to be expecting much, maybe they can surprise me.
Late 2011 -> Late 2013 / Early 2014 isn't 2 years?
Since when do sequels need to take more than 2 years between titles?
Damn it, you had to remind me about how great Bf2 really was. I forgot about commander. That was such a huge part of the game. Artillery strikes were totally sick and strategic. Why in the hell they would not include that in BF3 is way the hell beyond me. Vehicle drops were badass. I might install BF2 again just to relive the glory that none of us will ever experience again.
Well BF2142 came out only a year after BF2, and BF Vietnam only came out a year before BF2. If you take a look at the release schedule on the BF wiki, you'll see that their release cycle has been like this for a long time.
But I agree that the gameplay has shifted to a COD-esque format. It's far less tactical than it used to be and the smaller scale is disappointing. Personally this is why I think this release schedule isn't great - it seems DICE are obviously keen to carry on using the mechanics introduced with BF3 with BF4, rather than give them a rethink and release a significantly reworked game that uses BF2 and 2142 as a foundation.
It's not because the classes are different, and the overall balance was very different. Although the vehicles in the two games have similar HP, tanks were much more of a threat because of the class balancing meant there was generally a lot less anti-tank infantry on the field, whereas in BF3 about 75% of all players play as engineers on the non-urban maps.
That's what I would like to see too, but with the gameplay changes introduced with BF3 I wouldn't like to see the sublime gameplay of 2142 bastardised into something that didn't encourage as much teamplay as the original did.
What I noticed is that the standard of player in BF3 compared to those I played with and against in 2142 is far lower. People join squads but don't play as one, nor do they really go for objectives, it's mainly about getting the kills.
In a lot of ways. No commander. No artillery, radar, or command trailer to take out. Everyone and his brother carrying revive around with them. Cramped maps with many more chokepoints.
But in some ways it still is like BF2: ridiculous hit-boxes and insanely overpowered air are two of them.
Its just going to be a modified version of the last iteration of FrostBite that they used in BF3, minimum requirement will only increase slightly, like 9600GT to 9800GT. BF3 isn't CPU limited either, its basically entirely on the GPU once you have an i5-2500K. Tom's actually conducted a test about this: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graphics-performance,3063-13.html
that was a single player test I think. Multiplayer is much different and several of us have bent over backwards to demonstrate this clearly, especially with dual card setups. Single cards don't suffer but duals do at 1080p.
They should do another WW2 game, but they probably won't since you can't hang 10lb of tacticool shit off of WW2 guns so there'd be nothing to unlock :hmm:
Ah, you're right. I still don't think that in one year DICE has improved the FrostBite engine so much that no CPU will be able to handle it.
DLC's are bullshit for any true PC gamer.
air was less OP before they nerfed the crap out of stingers/javs
Wtf, the expansion packs for 3 aren't even out yet...
I will not buy the Expacks now, and I will move away from this franchise.
Smells like EA finally got up DICE's ass, fully.
Yea, who the hell wants new content on one of the best game engines to date? Screw that, I want the same redundant maps with no chance of updates or I'm not paying.
The Stingers/SAs are just farking ridiculous now. I played a match on Wake the other night where things went poorly and our team ended up pinned at A, and this guy in an Apache just orbited the base raping and pillaging. You could only rarely get a lock on, and when you did he'd pop another of his endless supply of countermeasures. Eventually people just stopped spawning. I think he ended up with 70+ kills against single-digit deaths. I realize that he was a good pilot, but you could be as good as possible at any other role in the game and never see those numbers.
Pretty much every match I play on the big, air-friendly maps these days goes the same: top of the ladder on both sides stacked with pilots with high k/d ratios. It was like this in BF2, so I shouldn't be surprised, but I though they'd actually improve the balance for BF3. If anything it's worse.
This is what made Battlefield Battlefield to me. They even removed squad voice overs in BF3. If you are going to give us a game that has tactical elements at least give us the tools to use those elements.
I guess I really don't care about this franchise anymore. I want something new brought to the table. Shit, let's have a turned-based FPS or something. Skill selection each round, movement selection on a grid, maybe something in essence of a 'play book' that a commander can use to give an overall battle strategy or something. I don't care, I'm not a game designer, but I'm done with re-hashed game mechanics. Not buying into it.
Agreed. I still play BF3, but the strategic co-op aspect that made BF2 great is totally dead. Really scratching my head about no commander, no automatic squad VOIP.
yea a good heli pilot running ECM + below radar is pretty much invincable vs infantry
You sound like a horribly bad BF3 player.
And you sound like a pilot.
I'd also add that the wider availability of revives and spawning on any squad member help to negate the strategic and cooperative aspects as well. Really weird design decisions from my perspective. Having to move as a unit, cover each other, take out rear-area enemy assets, that was the stuff that made BF2 different from all the other nade-spamming shooters out there.