EA: "Battlefield 3 is designed to take Call of Duty down."

LordBag

New member
Jan 10, 2008
167
0
0
Needs more naval combat. For me Battlefield 1942 was the best as it had land, sea and air in full swing! I haven't kept up with the news on this one, but my guess is that, again naval combat is not going to appear. Sad times.
 

omega 616

Elite Member
May 1, 2009
5,883
1
43
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.
 

CardinalPiggles

New member
Jun 24, 2010
3,226
0
0
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!
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.
 

MercurySteam

Tastes Like Chicken!
Legacy
Apr 11, 2008
4,950
2
43
Fenreil said:
In sales? Almost definitely not.

In terms of quality? They've got that in the fucking bag.
If BF:BC2 is anything to go on then definitely.
 

JUMBO PALACE

Elite Member
Legacy
Jun 17, 2009
3,552
7
43
Country
USA
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.
 

jhlip

New member
Feb 17, 2011
311
0
0
Is it wrong that I don't want Battlefield 3 to upset COD? Cause it not being mainstream has lead to less jerk offs playing in the online community.
 

Goody

New member
Jan 2, 2011
142
0
0
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).
 

Fenreil

New member
Mar 14, 2010
517
0
0
Dr. McD said:
Fenreil said:
In sales? Almost definitely not.

In terms of quality? They've got that in the fucking bag.
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.

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.
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.

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.
 

ImprovizoR

New member
Dec 6, 2009
1,952
0
0
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.
 

mighty_wambat

New member
Jan 26, 2011
54
0
0
NLS said:
mighty_wambat said:
100 million that did not go to 64 players on the console.
It's not like you can just squeeze $ into an xbox or ps3 and make it play well with 64 players.
sure it could, just take out the destruction and graphics and put it into real game play.

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.
 

Platypusbill101

New member
Jan 2, 2011
100
0
0
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´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.
 

ImprovizoR

New member
Dec 6, 2009
1,952
0
0
Platypusbill101 said:
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´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.
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.
 

TheRightToArmBears

New member
Dec 13, 2008
8,674
0
0
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.
 

blazin419

New member
Apr 8, 2011
9
0
0
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.
 

nipsen

New member
Sep 20, 2008
521
0
0
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.
 

nipsen

New member
Sep 20, 2008
521
0
0
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.
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.

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.