I'll still probably buy and enjoy both. Although I think the money could be better spent on the game instead of an overblown ad campaign I'm not a business nut so I'll give the pro's the benefit of the doubt.
EA: "Battlefield 3 is designed to take Call of Duty down."
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
I don't know why EA has a fail marketing team. And really, I don't really care. EA is a money hungry company that creates deadlines for the developers to push out their games as soon as possible. A great example is the command and conquer series. A lot of those games had a large amount of issues when they came out, after Westwood was bought out by EA. I do have faith in DICE however, since they've been EA's cash cow for so long, EA has definitely cut DICE some slack in terms of deadlines. It's been a long time since Battlefield 2, and DICE now has a much bigger team than before.nipsen said:
I don't understand where people are getting the idea EA has been marketing solely on beating COD. As I said in my previous post, if you actually took the time to watch their "Fault Line" videos, you don't spray guns like you do in COD. There's vehicles, you don't run and gun like rambo, and your character doesn't look like a skinny 18 year old carrying a gun that's bigger than your torso. Also, no killstreaks, there's vehicles, you actually have to burst fire to hit people, and there's noticeable bullet physics. So, where's the similarity between BF3 and COD other than the fact they're both fps games?
For all the console players, don't you think EA would want to make money off the consoles too? It's not their choice that they are limiting the max player count to 24. You simply can't physically create a game like Battlefield 3 onto a 6-7 year old hardware. Unless console players want a severely watered down version of the game without any destruction, I would say the consoles are lucky to even get the game without being it PC exclusive.
Again, I want to emphasize how much Bad Company 2 was a piece of ****. IMO anyway, and if you're basing your expectations of BF3 off the bad company series, you're missing out. A LOT.
blazin419 said:nipsen said:blazin419 said:true, that. BF2 was fun. Not exactly very smooth gameplay, but large scale battles was a great concept (that clearly will never show up on 6-7 year old hardware
Point I made was that the actual game has potential. It can be played strategically and in an interesting way. But EA doesn't provide the necessary support for that to happen. Whether it is simply creating a good and slow-moving shooter, or if it's creating the server-structure necessary - or sacrificing bandwidth requirements and graphics over gameplay - it's not going to happen either way. Obviously, BF3 on consoles is going to be the same thing. And EA's locked server-model is going to make maintaining it a terrible pain.
But EA hq doesn't care about that. They care about the image as a common-looking action-shooter that engages man-children who swear a lot at the screen. And that's why the fairly grave problems with BC2 were not addressed. And it's also why the gameplay and the feel from the series is dropped as insignificant for the "major" releases on console.
Anyway.. the entire "blow an entire building to bits" thing.. how is that not going for the cheap thrills over promoting the actual game..?
nipsen said:blazin419 said:I wouldn't say the destruction part is only a visual thing. BC2 didn't exactly show me much destruction at all, and it didn't affect the gameplay much. Battlefield 3 will take place in cities, not just small generic houses. Not to mention even the ground is affected by destruction with earthquakes/shockwaves. Destruction is part of the "actual game". It's not a cheap thrill just to get people excited. Not having destruction means BF3 will not be any different from BF2 other than graphics which I don't care very much about. In a tactical view, it means that the battlefield will change over time, and there would be less places for snipers to hide in when jets start flying overhead and bombing the **** out of buildings. I also think jets will probably end up having to land to restock ammunition and repair, to make up for their massive firepower when in the air.nipsen said:blazin419 said:
Point I made was that the actual game has potential. It can be played strategically and in an interesting way. But EA doesn't provide the necessary support for that to happen. Whether it is simply creating a good and slow-moving shooter, or if it's creating the server-structure necessary - or sacrificing bandwidth requirements and graphics over gameplay - it's not going to happen either way. Obviously, BF3 on consoles is going to be the same thing. And EA's locked server-model is going to make maintaining it a terrible pain.
But EA hq doesn't care about that. They care about the image as a common-looking action-shooter that engages man-children who swear a lot at the screen. And that's why the fairly grave problems with BC2 were not addressed. And it's also why the gameplay and the feel from the series is dropped as insignificant for the "major" releases on console.
Anyway.. the entire "blow an entire building to bits" thing.. how is that not going for the cheap thrills over promoting the actual game..?
And this : "Point I made was that the actual game has potential. It can be played strategically and in an interesting way. But EA doesn't provide the necessary support for that to happen. Whether it is simply creating a good and slow-moving shooter, or if it's creating the server-structure necessary - or sacrificing bandwidth requirements and graphics over gameplay - it's not going to happen either way. Obviously, BF3 on consoles is going to be the same thing. And EA's locked server-model is going to make maintaining it a terrible pain." I have no idea what you're talking about.
This.SL33TBL1ND said:
That's what I'm trying to say! People are getting misunderstood by EA's retarded marketing and thinking that BF3 will be a clone to COD. I think DICE has worked very hard on this game, and it's been developed for what, 3 years? We'll see this summer. I have high hopes for BF3.
i'm actually tempted to get it. I've never been into COD but BC3 might be a good thing to get into, though if I'll have time to get into it is the question.
I'm not adding much to the conversation here, just wanted to say this is the funniest thing I've read in some time.Revrant said:
lolololvoltron.
Why does it seem like EVERYTHING is trying to be better than CoD?? It's not god's gift to gaming, although I do enjoy playing it and it has done really well. I don't think we need more shooters that just keep trying to outdo each other and I don't like the idea of games that began as other genres (looking at Mass Effect here) seeming to move in this direction. I don't want every game to be like or try to be better than CoD.
Shooting things is fun and all, but other things are fun too. Make more games about those other things.
Shooting things is fun and all, but other things are fun too. Make more games about those other things.
I'm not implying that BF3 will necessarily be so-so. I'm saying that the notion of making a game designed to bring down another game usually doesn't yield a result worth playing by its own merits. I liked BF2 quite a bit, but I'm afraid that BF3 will try to be like WoW-killers by trying to sell minor tweaks and updates as a full product, when it would be a patch anywhere else. Try making a game that is visually distinct and plays noticeably differently. BFBC2 was a bit too much like CoD with points popping up every kill, clunky movement, pool reloading, server problems and weaponry choices/mods. If BF3 is like that then I don't see why they cant just release an expansion pack for BFBC2.blazin419 said:
I agree. I'lll probably get both. I also don't see why me loving CoD means that:mr.mystery said:
1) I will pollute BF3 by my mere presence.
2) I have no grasp of tactics.
3) I am unable to work in a team (see complaints over Op Hastings early release).
4) I am an idiot.
I probably have a better grasp of sections of military tactics than most people who play Battlefield. Which would explain why I live longer generally.
They had that in the bag with their last few Battlefield games...Fenreil said:
OT: I don't see why they don't try just building their own audience without trying to take it from someone else... they're not going to win in sales period... CoDs fanbase is just too large...<.<