I would take that statistic with a huge pinch of salt reminds me of the train times, yes this month 97% of all trains ran on time. Really then I suppose the ones I took all belonged to that last 3% again.TwitchyGamer101 said:
Exactly, it shouldn't matter how much a game sells to determine if it's a good game. Which is why I'm baffled that people want Battlefield to replace CoD. Why? Is it really that big of a deal? They're two different games the main difference is that Battlefield is boring as shit...err I mean more realistic and alot of vehicles while CoD is all about being boring and as bland as shit....I mean close quarters combat.Calico93 said:
They're putting features back in people have been clamoring for, they have extended the weapon and class customization and added a lot to the vehicles as well..Warforger said:
Uhm.... mixed reviews?Ubermetalhed said:
Primarily graphically. The footage they advertised and promoted is nothing like what you get on consoles, it's probably on par with/if not worse than the recent Crysis 1 port. The graphics were the thing that got people going wow in the previews to see that that was a clever trick is disappointing.XaVierDK said:
YES Features that they took out in the Bad Company series.....XaVierDK said:
Because they're putting them in with the guise of newness but in fact they're just putting in things they took out previously. Of all the cheap tactics possible that's probably the worst one I've seen.XaVierDK said:
That's called modernizing and getting a bigger budget, that would be like if say Doom 1 was updated with the ability to aim up and down and id was showing off how much they "innovated" and added in "new" features.XaVierDK said:
Yah of course, they're fanboy's, they'd be glad to have the same game modernized. That's exactly what CoD has been doing for the last couple of years.XaVierDK said:
No I liked the vehicles a little, but it doesn't make me want to buy it. In fact I would've loved to play Caspian border but all that I had since I played on console was the shitty operation metro, which was all CoD type gameplay with none of the things that Battlefield is famous for. While I do hate the open space in the park since I have no idea how to find an enemy so I keep advancing and when I do they kill me, either that or they're doing CoD style of running around the map with their 100+ gametime hours knowing where to go and how to use the weapons while most people who are trying it out get mowed down. The metro was maybe a little better but again the problem of not being able to find anyone frustrated me.XaVierDK said:
There is no objective bad or good, it's all opinion. I just found BF3 boring and I don't intend to waste my money on such a boring not innovative game.However I do berate on it unfairly I admit since there are so many fanboy's who preach such retarded babble it makes me want to puke.XaVierDK said:
I might have been too quick out of the gate on that last paragraph, I did not intend to imply that you were one or the other... My point was simply that BF3 is a lot more versatile as an FPS game than some people think...Ubermetalhed said:
MicroSoft already tried with Bing. It didn't work at all. I remember MS tried to sue Google over that too.Mumorpuger said:
Yes, exactly. The Modern Warfare franchise won't be usurped until people grow sick of the same tired formula the series has been running into the ground, but regarding that I have more faith that Apple-users or Madden-players would come to their senses sooner than the typical MW fan.CardinalPiggles said:
