What's The Current Deal With BF3?

[thm1223]

I'm considering purchasing it on Amazon right now for $10. However, Planetside 2 is generally my online FPS of choice. I'm curious how active its user base is, as well as how the game compares to BF2. Any opinions folks?

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

Compared to BF2 - you access the game's server browser through web browser, lower TTK, more accurate weapons (these are really the same point), blinding sun in many maps, lots of lock on weapons, vehicle customizations instead of vehicles carrying what they need at all times, that kind of thing. Additionally, there's VOIP but it requires jumping through hoops (or it did 8 months ago when I last played), squads are only 4 players and there isn't much for squad orders ( you can only order your squad to flags basically, you can't issue a move-to order to go kill a sniper behind that rock).

I'm sure someone will be along shortly to spin it in a positive light.

 

[Arkaign]

It is definitely a bit dumbed down compared to BF2. It's not all bad though, the air rape isn't even remotely as bad as it was in BF2. I have a lot of fun with it, have about 400+ hours or so, and feel I've definitely gotten my $ worth. For $10, it's definitely worth a look, or perhaps you can find someone willing to loan you their login for you to check out for yourself.

There are a ton of people playing it, I have no trouble finding the map I want to play with the game size/type that I want at any time of the day or night.

 

[thm1223]

It is definitely a bit dumbed down compared to BF2. It's not all bad though, the air rape isn't even remotely as bad as it was in BF2. I have a lot of fun with it, have about 400+ hours or so, and feel I've definitely gotten my $ worth. For $10, it's definitely worth a look, or perhaps you can find someone willing to loan you their login for you to check out for yourself.

There are a ton of people playing it, I have no trouble finding the map I want to play with the game size/type that I want at any time of the day or night.

How is it in relation to Planetside 2 out of curiosity? Obviously smaller battles, but what else?

 

[desura]

I really liked BF3's SP campaign.

Like, there were some genuinely epic moments in it when I just marveled at the graphics. It's one of the games that makes video gaming really worth it, and IMO Frostbite 2 is the *best* graphics/game engine out there. Much better than Unreal engine.

I don't like BF3's Multiplayer at all. you die a lot. Many times you don't even see the enemy. It's all too random.

 

[Arkaign]

How is it in relation to Planetside 2 out of curiosity? Obviously smaller battles, but what else?

I wish I could answer that but I can't, as I haven't played PS2 myself.

My brother plays both, but says that PS2 is better for in-depth strategy/teamwork, and BF3 perhaps better for fun with the random teammates you end up with. Sometimes you get a couple people on your team that seem like they like to work together, and it goes from there.

 

[Maximilian]

How is it in relation to Planetside 2 out of curiosity? Obviously smaller battles, but what else?

Ive played both and i liked PS2 better.

The scale and the sci-fi setting sold me on it, also being able to fly with jetpacks.

Cant comment on BF3's single player though, only played multiplayer.

 

[SharpHawk]

Once you get over the initial grind/confusion, PS2 is a better FPS than BF3. Both seem to have sacrificed solid gunplay mechanics for sheer scale, and PS2's scale is much greater. There's also a much greater, more frequent sense of teamwork in PS2.

$10 isn't a lot to lose even if you end up hating it, but don't be surprised if it doesn't live up to your PS2 experiences.

 

[darkewaffle]

I thought the scale in PS2 was much more of a drawback than an advantage personally. I far prefer BF3 because of the more granular, "the player matters" approach.

 

[Anteaus]

BF3 is good though it focuses too much on meat grinder gameplay. BF3 is all about bottlenecks. They tried to bump up the scale with DLC, but it doesn't change the fact that core balance is for shorter range. That said it's pretty good but its no BF2. Of course, I'm one of those that felt BF2142 was a step back and that the series was at its zenith with BF1942/DC and BF2 Vanilla. I'm looking forward to BF4 though.

Regardless, the entire Battlefield series is a step above the average team based shooters out there and any of them (including BF3) is easily worth $10-$20. BF3 still has legs and will stay popular until BF4 comes out at least.

 

[SharpHawk]

I thought the scale in PS2 was much more of a drawback than an advantage personally. I far prefer BF3 because of the more granular, "the player matters" approach.

I held the same opinion when I first played PS2. But now that I've played it more and have a better grasp of the tactics and strategies involved I'm far more likely to play a crucial part in the outcome of a battle. Things like destroying a sunderer, flanking a group of enemies, destroying a bunch of tanks, etc. completely turn the tides of an engagement. Of course having night vision (and a compensator/foregrip for infantry weapons) is pretty much a requirement for making this happen.