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:What in the nine bloody hells of Baator is with this bullshit lately?
What is *WITH* this THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE! Crap anymore? Is it insane greed or something? Is it hyper competitive stupidity where winning is the only thing that matters?
I understand that making games is in fact a business but these fat cat producer morons seriously need to remove their heads from their collective asses and stop being so confoundedly stupid.
You do not have to own the bleeding market to be doing well. In fact if you do it's bad for the customers because you will get really lazy due to being the only thing out there and stagnate. If that happens you will seriously piss off your customers. They then may well find something else to do even if they want to play that genre because of your bullshit. Possibly just to spite you.
THIS IS NOT GOOD FOR BUSINESS!
If BF:BC2 is anything to go on then definitely.Fenreil said:In sales? Almost definitely not.
In terms of quality? They've got that in the fucking bag.
Absolutely. Battlefield 3 won't sell as well, but it will definitely be better. I'm looking forward to it wholeheartedly.Fenreil said:In sales? Almost definitely not.
In terms of quality? They've got that in the fucking bag.
This. This a trillion times over.Fenreil said:In sales? Almost definitely not.
In terms of quality? They've got that in the fucking bag.
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:No, it hasn't, it would have had that in the fucking bag if Bad Company 2 didn't ape Modern Warfare 2, losing the light and humorous tone that made Bad Company 1 so great and failing to accomplish it's goal of having CoDs fast paced gameplay.Fenreil said:In sales? Almost definitely not.
In terms of quality? They've got that in the fucking bag.
And from what I've heard, the devs stated single player is supposed to be training for multiplayer, so that would likely mean the multiplayer is likely to be more like CoD's now, since there isn't really much more they can do to make Battlefield 3 more like CoD.
Another thing is that you can't beat a franchise by copying it. CoD didn't take the FPS crown from another modern day FPS it took it from Halo, the main reason people loved CoD4 (apart from the tight gameplay and very well-done story) was because it WASN'T the same as previous big FPS series, it wasn't WW2 and it wasn't in space this made it fresh. None of the Halo clones ever came close to beating Halo and no FPS that apes CoD will beat it.
So instead save your money for brink, because that game actually looks like it intends to actually introduce something new to the FPS genre.
sure it could, just take out the destruction and graphics and put it into real game play.NLS said:It's not like you can just squeeze $ into an xbox or ps3 and make it play well with 64 players.mighty_wambat said:100 million that did not go to 64 players on the console.
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:Does this mean it'll be a consolised piece of shit with killstreaks and 6v6 tiny maps?
This seems to be the ideal for games supposed to "beat" COD.
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: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:Does this mean it'll be a consolised piece of shit with killstreaks and 6v6 tiny maps?
This seems to be the ideal for games supposed to "beat" COD.
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: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.