Well Steven Seagal really put his thinking cap on for this one...
I wish they would do more Bad Company that was some silly fun.
I wish they would do more Bad Company that was some silly fun.
Actually, I believe Iran is involved as well, seeing one of the multiplayer maps is their capitol.urilukin said:MARK MY WORDS the story is going to be shit! it is the same old cliché story of EVIL Russians giving nukes to Afghan terrorist to destroy the US.
You're thinking of Glenn Morshower, and that's who I am 99% sure the model and voice for that dude in the trailer is him. Funny thing is, he also does the voice of Overlord in the Modern Warfare series.NinjaDeathSlap said:I don't think so. I'm pretty sure he's being voiced (and modeled around) The guy who played that bodyguard in 24 (I can't remember his name).Jonny49 said:It looks intense to say the least, lots of cool action set pieces. I just hope it isn't too scripted.
Also, and I can't believe I've noticed this, but isn't that the same high-ranked military douchebag from Medal of Honour? The bald guy? I swear it's the same model and voice.
Well, we are talking about two distinctly multiplayer franchises here, especially in the case of Battlefield that didn't even have a singleplayer campaign to speak out throughout the main series. So yeah, saying "I just want a good single player experience that I think is good value for money" is somewhat similar to saying you just want a good multiplayer experience out of something like BioShock 2.-|- said:I enjoyed MW, but got burnt with MW2. Not so much the game-play, but the feeling of 'is that it?' when I got to the end. If you are right (and I hope you are) and this comes in at a decent length and reasonable reviews I'll give it a look. I can say the same for MW3 as well as I don't do multiplayer and so don't have any loyalty to either franchise. I just want a good single player experience that I think is good value for money - hopefully this isn't too much to ask.Vrach said:Pretty sure it will. MW2 received a lot of negative PR at 6-7 hours. First off, another 3-4 hours of gameplay over MW2 isn't hard to get. Second, I imagine DICE is smart enough not to repeat the same, very obvious to everyone, mistake.-|- said:I might buy this if the single player campaign gets into double figures (and I don't mean minutes). I'm not holding my breath though.
I don't disagree with anything you have said. I'm not really raging against either title - if they come out with lacklustre campaigns but great multiplayer then so be it - plenty of people will get enjoyment out of that, just not me but that's fair enough. I guess what I'm saying is that if we do get a good campaign out of both, I'll buy both, but I'm adopting a wait and see attitude rather than pre-ordering (a mistake I made with MW2).Vrach said:Well, we are talking about two distinctly multiplayer franchises here, especially in the case of Battlefield that didn't even have a singleplayer campaign to speak out throughout the main series. So yeah, saying "I just want a good single player experience that I think is good value for money" is somewhat similar to saying you just want a good multiplayer experience out of something like BioShock 2.
That said, I'm just saying that in reply to your "hopefully this isn't too much to ask" because it kinda is. Which doesn't mean both companies aren't working towards it anyway. My bet is we'll get a good campaign out of both, why? Because they've both got a lot at stake and they've both had a chance to learn from MW2 length complaints. But in all honesty, considering MW2 was a multiplayer title, I don't think all the raging against it was too fair, especially with all the added benefit of its co-op (and I'm not defending it as a fan, I'm not into MW multiplayer)
Yeah, just to clarify, wasn't saying anything about you, just stating my general attitude at the whole thing. And if you're into playing the singleplayer and singleplayer alone, waiting for reviews/more info on it is definitely the way to go, but yeah, personally, I'm optimistic and think we'll get a fantastic campaign out of Battlefield and probably a good one from MW too (less certain of MW merely because of the Black Ops, God that game was a fiasco in terms of singleplayer)-|- said:I don't disagree with anything you have said. I'm not really raging against either title - if they come out with lacklustre campaigns but great multiplayer then so be it - plenty of people will get enjoyment out of that, just not me but that's fair enough. I guess what I'm saying is that if we do get a good campaign out of both, I'll buy both, but I'm adopting a wait and see attitude rather than pre-ordering (a mistake I made with MW2).
Your optimism is infectious - now I'm looking forward to finding out what the campaign will be like. Come on BF3 don't let us SP'ers down!Vrach said:I'm optimistic and think we'll get a fantastic campaign out of Battlefield and probably a good one from MW too
Im guessing the campaign moves a bit around and doesn't stay in one country all the time. BFBC2 had single-player missions in Bolivia, Chile, Russia and Ecuador.The Gentleman said:So much for the realism approach...
Plus, when and where is this game taking place. the E3 conference demo was said to take place in Iran, but this trailer suggests that it is in Iraq.
Aside from the single player campaign, I think one thing you may also want to take into account is the co-op campaign (getting very favorable feedback from preview plays). Apparently, the replay value is fairly high since the placement and tactics of hostiles varies on each playthrough. Rather want to see more about it myself.-|- said:I enjoyed MW, but got burnt with MW2. Not so much the game-play, but the feeling of 'is that it?' when I got to the end. If you are right (and I hope you are) and this comes in at a decent length and reasonable reviews I'll give it a look. I can say the same for MW3 as well as I don't do multiplayer and so don't have any loyalty to either franchise. I just want a good single player experience that I think is good value for money - hopefully this isn't too much to ask.Vrach said:Pretty sure it will. MW2 received a lot of negative PR at 6-7 hours. First off, another 3-4 hours of gameplay over MW2 isn't hard to get. Second, I imagine DICE is smart enough not to repeat the same, very obvious to everyone, mistake.-|- said:I might buy this if the single player campaign gets into double figures (and I don't mean minutes). I'm not holding my breath though.
I'm not sure that's an accurate comparison. While DICE was off doing the Bad Company spin-off series, it's been 6 years since we've had a "true" Battlefield game. Comparatively, Call of Duty has been getting a new release every single year, and MW1, MW2 and Black Ops have all followed an incredibly similar formula.cyrogeist said:this site is funny...whenever something about BF comes out everyone drools over it and praise EA! and then something about CoD comes along and everyone jumps on the hate train
both games have been going on long enough where neither of them are doing anything different...
As much as I'm looking forward to BF3, I really wish that DiCE would let their stories have some fun again. The original Bad Company had a fun premise and funny writing; it didn't take itself too seriously, the characters were likable, and, above all, it was just really fun to experience. I'm not saying that BF3's story won't be enjoyable (far from it, by the looks of it), but I do miss the sense of humor and light-heartedness present in Bad Company.Mr.K. said:I wish they would do more Bad Company that was some silly fun.