Oh wow. Words escape just how freaking horrible that is.Hammeroj said:I love how map packs out the ass are regarded as "support" now. And on the topic of those...
![]()
HOW MUCH FARTHER WILL YOU SINK, EA/DICE?!? HAVE YOU ANY HONOR, ANY AT ALL?
Oh wow. Words escape just how freaking horrible that is.Hammeroj said:I love how map packs out the ass are regarded as "support" now. And on the topic of those...
![]()
Strange huh? No.2002 Battlefield 1942
2003 Battlefield 1942: The Road to Rome
2003 Battlefield 1942: Secret Weapons of WWII
2004 Battlefield Vietnam
2005 Battlefield 2
2005 Battlefield 2: Special Forces
2005 Battlefield 2: Modern Combat
2006 Battlefield 2: Euro Forces
2006 Battlefield 2: Armored Fury
2006 Battlefield 2142
2007 Battlefield 2142: Northern Strike
2008 Battlefield: Bad Company
2009 Battlefield Heroes
2009 Battlefield 1943
2010 Battlefield: Bad Company 2
2010 Battlefield: Bad Company 2: Vietnam
2010 Battlefield Online
2011 Battlefield Play4Free
2011 Battlefield 3
2011 Battlefield 3: Back to Karkand
2012 Battlefield 3: Close Quarters
No, the campaign is a total disappointment. Forget it.Sober Thal said:-snip-
I've got a couple of hundred hours in BF3. There is no single player, Battlefield games don't have singleplayer. There is aparently a Quicktime Event that you can mess with but nothing you would actually recognise a a campaign. At least on PC I don't have to worry about servers ending.Sober Thal said:Can anyone here actually recommend Battlefield 3 only for it's single player campaign? Same for that Homefront game?
Just askin, they are probably cheaper now, so I might want to check them out. I'm a fan of Halo and CoD single player campaigns, but notCrysis, so take that for what it's worth ; )
(console versions)
OT: There needs to be a set time game companies support their product. I don't imagine most will be on par with Halo 2, but we need to set a timeline before the multiplayer heads commit to a game.
Sure, it depends on when the next iteration of the game comes out, but also on it's fanbase. Take Ultima Online (please) as an example. They have a lasting fanbase, while run by Origin, so they should be (and are) supported.
I think games like CoD are the long running flashes in the pan type. But if a game (I'm sure people here are aware of them) is driven by online play, they need a disclaimer on the box stating the minimal time servers will be up and running by the company.
But then again, I fucking hate multiplayer games, so I don't really care. But I think what I said makes a little sense, kinda. Eh?
'Long running flashes in the pan'... lol
I own it but haven't even touched it. You should stick with Bad Company (specifically 1) for the single-players since that was the reason that spin-off was created to begin with.Sober Thal said:Can anyone here actually recommend Battlefield 3 only for it's single player campaign? Same for that Homefront game?
No, we were spoiled by different flavors of Battlefield which DICE attempted to churn all their experiences into one game. The anticipation of Battlefield 3 was something magical but now it's gone thanks to the end result and that 4 is coming out in the next year or two.NLS said:I think people are forgetting that DICE has been releasing Battlefield games on an almost yearly schedule since Battlefield Vietnam. Yet this new game is released 2 years after the last game.
Strange huh? No.2002 Battlefield 1942
2003 Battlefield 1942: The Road to Rome
2003 Battlefield 1942: Secret Weapons of WWII
2004 Battlefield Vietnam
2005 Battlefield 2
2005 Battlefield 2: Special Forces
2005 Battlefield 2: Modern Combat
2006 Battlefield 2: Euro Forces
2006 Battlefield 2: Armored Fury
2006 Battlefield 2142
2007 Battlefield 2142: Northern Strike
2008 Battlefield: Bad Company
2009 Battlefield Heroes
2009 Battlefield 1943
2010 Battlefield: Bad Company 2
2010 Battlefield: Bad Company 2: Vietnam
2010 Battlefield Online
2011 Battlefield Play4Free
2011 Battlefield 3
2011 Battlefield 3: Back to Karkand
2012 Battlefield 3: Close Quarters
Mods DLCs are shit and does not evne rise to the "Shit mod" level anyway.Matthew94 said:Because you know a lot of people will also be playing and it will count for ranking up.Absolutionis said:Moddable games don't sell DLC too well.Matthew94 said:If they made it moddable it could live for much longer like BF2 did.
Unless the developer has a reputation like Bethesda (where people are accustomed to bugs), why would people pay money for something when they can get something better (and buggier) for free?
Also, most mods are shit and only a few rise to the top so people will still pay for quality.