He also has that very same phrase in the written review.NpPro93 said:
Funny really - you'd think that something like that would have been spotted somewhere down the line.
Battlefield 3 Review
- Thread starter Slycne
- Start date
Funny really - you'd think that something like that would have been spotted somewhere down the line.
And that's exactly why the franchises are so different - vehicular combat. Vehicles mean larger battle zones and the lack of it creates smaller, tighter levels.CoD and BF scratches very different itches.dantoddd said:
(Talking about multiplayer here obviously.)
Ha ha! Well put.Doom-Slayer said:
I love the game itself, but it's not that Battlefield 1942 or 2 feeling anymore. And I really hate Origin, they should've made it more like 1942 speaking in interface-terms. I don't want to go to website in my browser just to start a game which is installed on my HDD anyways.
The problem "Origin" should have been mentioned more in this review! Because (in short) this thing is basically Spyware, that tells EA what OS, hardware, software, ... you are using and what files you have on your hardrive etc.Worr Monger said:
This is a "NO BUY" condition for me!
This is a good reason why platform specific reviews should be used...
On the PC version, event the multiplayer has a lot of flaws, and while many can be patched a few are intrinsic to the game.
A player adopting the game now and joining a server would not experience the joys of using various vehicles and infantry combat. The new player would lack the majority of vehicle equipment needed to actually be effective ( silly things like countermeasures, and missles on the jets ), would be put at a significant disadvantage no matter which role the player tried to play in due to the lack of equipment the player must unlock...
... how do you unlock this equipment? By playing in the roles, but for example you cant revive a teammate as the medic assualt until you unlock the defibulators, but as you only have the iron sights to use with your basic assualt rifle you will be outgunned by even a Engineer and his SMG at long range... good luck assualting anything.
The basic equipment on all roles and vehicles puts you at such a substantial disadvantage versus players who have put a lot of hours into the game to unlock the equipment, its frustrating and not fun at all until you somehow manage to grind a few levels out to get some equipment... yes you read that correctly, grind because thats what it is... a grind trying to get the needed number of kills on a basic weapon with iron sights only to unlock some better sights, or equipment.
In short: New players are given a potatoe gun and a plastic knife and need to battle other players who have unlocked much better equipment and out gun and out range the new player, AS WELL as have the advantage of being familiar with the maps and mechanics.
I wonder if BF 4 will make you unlock bullets to go with your gun ?
On the PC version, event the multiplayer has a lot of flaws, and while many can be patched a few are intrinsic to the game.
A player adopting the game now and joining a server would not experience the joys of using various vehicles and infantry combat. The new player would lack the majority of vehicle equipment needed to actually be effective ( silly things like countermeasures, and missles on the jets ), would be put at a significant disadvantage no matter which role the player tried to play in due to the lack of equipment the player must unlock...
... how do you unlock this equipment? By playing in the roles, but for example you cant revive a teammate as the medic assualt until you unlock the defibulators, but as you only have the iron sights to use with your basic assualt rifle you will be outgunned by even a Engineer and his SMG at long range... good luck assualting anything.
The basic equipment on all roles and vehicles puts you at such a substantial disadvantage versus players who have put a lot of hours into the game to unlock the equipment, its frustrating and not fun at all until you somehow manage to grind a few levels out to get some equipment... yes you read that correctly, grind because thats what it is... a grind trying to get the needed number of kills on a basic weapon with iron sights only to unlock some better sights, or equipment.
In short: New players are given a potatoe gun and a plastic knife and need to battle other players who have unlocked much better equipment and out gun and out range the new player, AS WELL as have the advantage of being familiar with the maps and mechanics.
I wonder if BF 4 will make you unlock bullets to go with your gun ?
the damn dirty lens affect annoyed me to no end during that escape sequence! the Rat QTE was comical XD Single player is completely throw away. I was pissed when the only flying sequence in the game was on RAILS! wtf man!
(im pretty sure the SP was outsourced kinda like Deus Ex's boss fights were outsourced.)
This game is the only game i want to play on Multiplayer, and for that they did the Battlefield franchise right!
(im pretty sure the SP was outsourced kinda like Deus Ex's boss fights were outsourced.)
This game is the only game i want to play on Multiplayer, and for that they did the Battlefield franchise right!
That's Battlelog, not Origin.Hanzo Hattori said:
Yeah I know, they could've made both products a lot better, but in the end, the game itself is a blast.
This review is based on the 360 version, so there's no Origin involved. Also, Origin makes all the info anonymous upon sending it to EA, so no, they won't know shit about you as an individual.Geisterkarle said:
I think you're being too fatalistic here, to paraphrase the great Jeremy you may not be pro but you can train and then you'll still just be a trained noob but at least you'll be able to beat all the other noobs. Or in less retarded terms practice makes perfect.Warforger said:
In my opinion unless you're a 40+ year old who has difficulty comprehending and navigating 3 dimensional space mapped on to the 2D plane that is your TV/monitor then there's no wall preventing you from enjoying the game. (E.g. My dad can't get past the starting village of Twilight Princess because he can't steer the horse, nor can he walk around in TF2 on an empty server). You just have to like the game enough to still have fun when you're getting dominated.
This especially true for Battlefield in my opinion since it's perfectly viable to get points by healing, repairing, piloting armour and aircraft etc. So essentially if you can't beat the quickscoping 13 year old in reaction times you can go grab a tank and turn him into red mist.
*Fanboy mode activateddantoddd said:
You say updated engines like it's nothing at all. Immersion, scale and the scope of player-environment interaction have been given a massive shot in the arm since the days where an inch think piece of plywood would function as cover against an LMG. That all counts for quite a bit in terms of how good the experience can be.
Non-trivial destruction for instance in my opinion should have been as big a game changer as GoW's cover system and I think it would have been if it wasn't so hard to do right. First you need an engine that can support it, then you need level designers to balance maps that will change dynamically as the game progresses.
Finally I ask you this, how much has any other AAA genre diversified in the last decade? For that matter to what degree have non-FPS franchises evolved? To use one of the most anticipated non-FPS games at the moment, it looks to me like I'll have as much fun in Skyrim as I did in Oblivion or Morrowind (i.e. not much). You're still pressing X to stab a guy with a sword and relying on him having less health than you. At least they've progressed from Morrowind where I walked up to some retarded grub thing, started stabbing it and had lots of fun watching it come up with misses over and over again.
The sad point is, if you want revolutionary changes to a genre you'll probably have to look to the indie scene. In my mind the big corporate structures of EA and Activision are only good for refinement of an already good idea.
Battlefield is an objective based game. In TDM the objective is to kill more of the opposition then they do of you, so in many ways camping becomes viable but is also set in stark contrast to the general perception of TDM as something that's fast and fluid.Tin Man said:
Other game modes require people to get out of their ditch and capture a point or arm/disarm an Mcom station in order to win. Furthermore people expect there to be defenders at those points and Mcoms so they're less inclined to rage about being ambushed by all the "campers".
Oh sorry, my fault! But I think you know what I mean. You're right, the game is great fun but everything around it seems a little unreasonably, why not just make the stat tracking like in Battlefield 2?NLS said:
Still not even touched the single player yet, but Battlefield is probably the only series I ever buy solely for the multiplayer, and after 39 hours of MP madness and more to come, I can safely say that I've definately gotten my £35 worth of entertainment out of it.
BF3 will make you want to break the disc or sell it back for many reasons. Too many Campers, level 50's already who practically have nuclear weapons and slaughter the battle field of players who can't level it quickly because they can't win a game. Tanks have upgrades for higher level players, need i say more? You get shot once in the foot from a level 50's sniper riffle and you fall over after shooting him 4 times with your sniper riffle. I swear i meleed this guy in the back 5 times and the animation didn't activate for the kill.
Helicoptor "hopping" from base to base is the best way to win Conquest on the big maps.
This game literally makes me want to rent Modern Warfare 3 to see if that will be any better when it comes out. I doubt it though. Thank God Skyrim is coming out next Friday!
Helicoptor "hopping" from base to base is the best way to win Conquest on the big maps.
This game literally makes me want to rent Modern Warfare 3 to see if that will be any better when it comes out. I doubt it though. Thank God Skyrim is coming out next Friday!
While I'm not sure about the 360 version, it is worth noting that the PS3 servers have had a bad case of the gremlins for a while now.
The squad system is still broken, even after the latest patch, and the voice chat servers are still wonky.
Generally I would excuse this for the first couple of weeks of release, but these were both open, and closed beta issues.
For a game that stress teamwork, those are some things you'd expect to have fixed by now, yes?
The squad system is still broken, even after the latest patch, and the voice chat servers are still wonky.
Generally I would excuse this for the first couple of weeks of release, but these were both open, and closed beta issues.
For a game that stress teamwork, those are some things you'd expect to have fixed by now, yes?
It's not an idea, it's a precedent:Doom-Slayer said:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/reviews/2445-Call-of-Duty-Black-Ops-Video-Review
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/reviews/2447-Call-of-Duty-Black-Ops-Multiplayer-Overview
I'm merely wondering why they didn't follow it as it's obviously the better route of doing it. The point is not two reviews, it's giving enough time to review an element. If you prefer, you can keep it in one review and make it twice as long or as long as necessary to actually explain what the game is about, the ups and downs and generally, just give an actual review that informs whoever's watching it.
First off, Battlefield games never had a singleplayer. They had a bot match through all the maps with a small historical description while the map was loading. The Bad Company spin off series has had SP, but I wouldn't regard it as great.Doom-Slayer said:
I'm not saying "people only play this for MP". I'm saying "people who buy this will finish the SP in 6 hours, then spend 100s of hours on the multiplayer - so how can you spend an equal amount of time reviewing both?". Though again, equality isn't the issue, not giving the multiplayer its due review is (which is not surprising considering the whole review is some 5 minutes long and giving a review in half that time is not really reasonable). And again, not saying this as a fanboi because "YOU DIDN'T SAY HOW AWESOME MULTIPLAYER IS!!!11!11!", merely observing the fact the review is not at all informative, of the multiplayers good and bad sides.Doom-Slayer said:
For the record, no, it's not ok that BF3's singleplayer is meh. I was quite disappointed with it as the launch trailer really pumped me up and made me hopeful they'd make a game that has a good singleplayer. It wasn't my number one concern, but I was looking forward to it and am rather disappointed on that end. I don't regret buying the game because of it - not by a long shot. I knew going in that this is a multiplayer game, that's why I was buying it and the singleplayer would only be a bonus. But it's sad nonetheless because the singleplayer trailer made it look like it had potential and I always hate to see wasted potential.
