EA: "Battlefield 3 is designed to take Call of Duty down."
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
AKA battlefield 3 is going to be a COD clone. Were does the thinking "I know how we will beat the best selling game ever, make a game exactly like it" come from? Car desginers don't think like that.
Looks like I will be giving this one a miss, do we not have enough FPS games at the moment? The market is saturated with them.
Crysis 2, bulletstorm, black ops, battlefield 3, resistance 3, killzone 3, homefront, MOH, portal 2 (kinda), kane and lynch, deus ex, brink, Duke, operation flashpoint and socom are all out now or in the next few months ... GEEZUS! Every release seems to be an FPS at the moment, the only excpetion that springs to mind is motorstorm.
Looks like I will be giving this one a miss, do we not have enough FPS games at the moment? The market is saturated with them.
Crysis 2, bulletstorm, black ops, battlefield 3, resistance 3, killzone 3, homefront, MOH, portal 2 (kinda), kane and lynch, deus ex, brink, Duke, operation flashpoint and socom are all out now or in the next few months ... GEEZUS! Every release seems to be an FPS at the moment, the only excpetion that springs to mind is motorstorm.
greeeaaat, more ads all over the fucking place.
spend that money on making a great game for fuck sake.
spend that money on making a great game for fuck sake.
thats exactly why they will own many many different development teams and brands and franchise', and simply let them fight it out, in which case the competition will still be there, but they will be raking in every little penny that there is to be had, simply for saying, heres a mill make a game, and it better be good, or the money is getting cut down next time.Thedek said:
Absolutely. Battlefield 3 won't sell as well, but it will definitely be better. I'm looking forward to it wholeheartedly.Fenreil said:
They don't need to worry about it, MW3 will kill the CoD name anyway, it's being made by only a few of the true Infinity Ward and a bunch of newcomers, and they don't get to pick their own timeframe to make a good game, they release it when Activision tells them to (early november).
I agree that Bad Company 2 wasn't as good as BC1 in the story department. I really missed the lightheartedness of the first. The gameplay, however, was excellent. In any case, the Bad Company games were mostly experiments for DICE. They were testing out their new Frostbite engine and branching out into the console market.Dr. McD said:
I don't really know what you mean by your insinuations that BF3 is going to be more like CoD. The intent is for it to go in the opposite direction, closer to the original Battlefield games, which, I might add, have been around longer than CoD. Their main platform is going to be the PC, which will return to large maps, 64 person battles, and jets.
I'm very interested in Brink, by the way.
If EA would just stop doing that idiotic marketing shit they do. It's designed to take down CoD? How about it's designed to be original and innovative instead? Kinda sounds better doesn't it? Just stop talking EA, stop talking. They really need to reconsider their entire idea of marketing because they suck at it. And if they plan to spend a $100 million on marketing they better make every dollar count. As far as I'm concerned I'm getting this game. There is no way in hell that I'm gonna miss a new Battlefield game. But convincing all of those kids that BF is better than CoD is not an easy task, especially for someone who's so retarded at marketing as EA.
sure it could, just take out the destruction and graphics and put it into real game play.NLS said:
you think the destruction is going to be that much different from battlefield 2? its not, its going to be more particles and cooler graphics and realistic looking dust clouds better sound effects. more glitter, less gold.
its not going to change the strategy.
its not going to improve game play.
they could easily have had nice graphics in the single player and turned the graphics way down to get a higher player count online, just like resistance did.
if you buy this game on the console, you are rewarding there bad behavior.
It´s the same for pc and consoles except that pc has 64 players as opposed to the consoles´ 24. And I doubt they will have killstreaks.HerbertTheHamster said:
It won't be the same. PC will also support Dx11 of course and since the game is being developed primarily for PC it will preform best on PC. So if you have a PC capable of running new games you should get it for PC. I know I will.Platypusbill101 said:
Call of Duty isn't being taken down until it takes itself down, I doubt there will be a CoDkiller. If EA thinks this will come close to BlOps sales figures they're going to be sorely disappointed and I'll laugh like fuck when they come out with some carefully-worded press release.
I've been a COD and Battlefield vet since both these series first started. I don't think a lot of people here understand what he means when he says, "Battlefield 3 is designed to take Call of Duty Down". If you've been following the gameplay videos EA has been releasing every two weeks, Battlefield 3 will be NOTHING like COD other than the fact that they're both fps games. What he means by this is that he's confident that Battlefield 3 will be a true competitor to COD, and not that the game is built as an imitation to COD. EA is a publisher. And so they focus more on making money and their advertising than making a game. DICE is the creator of the Battlefield series.
Also, I'd like to mention that the Battlefield Bad Company series was a spin-off from the original Battlefield series, for the consoles. It was the biggest steaming pile of **** of a Battlefield game that I've ever played, and Medal of Honor was a pathetic imitation of COD in an attempt to make some money. You have to understand Battlefield 3 has been in development for a long time, and that it's a true sequel to Battlefield 2, which I think is still one of the best games ever made. I don't know about the console version of the game, but DICE has worked hard to satisfy the fans of the original Battlefield series and from the looks of it, I think they will do a superb job. Call of Duty has been an fps giant for too long, and they've milked the series to the point where I can't see the difference between the games in the series. They've been using the same engine for the last 4-5 COD games ffs. At this point, I highly doubt COD's next installment will succeed as much as Battlefield 3.
Also, I'd like to mention that the Battlefield Bad Company series was a spin-off from the original Battlefield series, for the consoles. It was the biggest steaming pile of **** of a Battlefield game that I've ever played, and Medal of Honor was a pathetic imitation of COD in an attempt to make some money. You have to understand Battlefield 3 has been in development for a long time, and that it's a true sequel to Battlefield 2, which I think is still one of the best games ever made. I don't know about the console version of the game, but DICE has worked hard to satisfy the fans of the original Battlefield series and from the looks of it, I think they will do a superb job. Call of Duty has been an fps giant for too long, and they've milked the series to the point where I can't see the difference between the games in the series. They've been using the same engine for the last 4-5 COD games ffs. At this point, I highly doubt COD's next installment will succeed as much as Battlefield 3.
Btw - fun facts:
1. EA's PR contacts don't respond to questions about their marketing push.
2. They also don't want to answer questions about the quality of the game in terms of lag, design-choices and so on.
3. They do not answer questions about BC2's server solution.
4. They do not answer questions about Crysis 2's server solution (it's the same one - same problems).
5. They have no comments on why they dropped the Crysis 2 demo early - and then deployed the game with the same server solution on retail.
6. They hilariously delete posts mentioning the marketing push on their forums.
But I'm sure EA marketing knows what they're doing, after all.. I'm sure they will do fine trying to push COD over an actually good game. And that lots and lots of people will prefer the nice marketing campaigns over a well developed game.
1. EA's PR contacts don't respond to questions about their marketing push.
2. They also don't want to answer questions about the quality of the game in terms of lag, design-choices and so on.
3. They do not answer questions about BC2's server solution.
4. They do not answer questions about Crysis 2's server solution (it's the same one - same problems).
5. They have no comments on why they dropped the Crysis 2 demo early - and then deployed the game with the same server solution on retail.
6. They hilariously delete posts mentioning the marketing push on their forums.
But I'm sure EA marketing knows what they're doing, after all.. I'm sure they will do fine trying to push COD over an actually good game. And that lots and lots of people will prefer the nice marketing campaigns over a well developed game.
Then why are neither developers, EA PR contacts, or EA otherwise interested in marketing this aspect of the game? Over very specifically including features that look like COD, and feel like COD. While making it clear that console-limitations - both physical and otherwise - are what will define the game the most.blazin419 said:
They're very obvious on that this is what they want - to market the game on familiarity alone, while ignoring the fact that their server-solution (for all their online games) is broken, for example.