BF3 fact sheet released

And I thought we finally got rid of you...



too bad I guess...

xALIENAx wrote:

I'm not even Upset that they're in- I'm upset at the Lack of a bunch of new stuff and return of lame "features". They could Mix it up with alot of different guns and varients and what not rather they are in use or not by the faction portrayed but imho reusing the same guns and models 3 games in a row is lazy as hell.

What would you suggest that they should add in? SCAR has yet to be adopted for widespread use.

Skreshavik wrote:

What would you suggest that they should add in? SCAR has yet to be adopted for widespread use.

Like they said, it doesn't have to be supper accurate to real life, just reasonable. SCAR, AK74, AK107, FAL, G3, MP5, MP7, etc. and their various variants and derivatives.

They have just done shit (a lot of it) that strikes me as lazy. Even MoH (even with it's shitty game play) had a nice mix of objectives in "combat mission" which BTW is basically rush any ways with the same attacker/Defender Linear style setup. But they at least mixed it up. Secure the crash site, destroy the roadblock, take out the AA gun, capture the airfield, etc.

BF3 looks like they replaced crates with an even more generic looking Soda-machine-looking objective. The guns are just another example of re-hash design.

Yes the brought back jets, Yay. They also excluded alot of things we wanted as a comunity (that already exist in earlier BFs) while bringing BACK shit everyone screamed murder about in BC1, 1943, and BC2. I just find it hard to feel any excitement about this game.

Guess ur not a battlefield player anymore then

RoninHo'in wrote:

Guess ur not a battlefield player anymore then

After 3 Disappointing titles in a row, with more of the Lame-Same to follow, not really.

xALIENAx wrote:

Like they said, it doesn't have to be supper accurate to real life, just reasonable. SCAR, AK74, AK107, FAL, G3, MP5, MP7, etc. and their various variants and derivatives.

They have just done shit (a lot of it) that strikes me as lazy. Even MoH (even with it's shitty game play) had a nice mix of objectives in "combat mission" which BTW is basically rush any ways with the same attacker/Defender Linear style setup. But they at least mixed it up. Secure the crash site, destroy the roadblock, take out the AA gun, capture the airfield, etc.

BF3 looks like they replaced crates with an even more generic looking giant fucking iPod objective. The guns are just another example of re-hash design.

Yes the brought back jets, Yay. They also excluded alot of things we wanted as a comunity (that already exist in earlier BFs) while bringing BACK shit everyone screamed murder about in BC1, 1943, and BC2. I just find it hard to feel any excitement about this game.

Fixed

HAHAH lol IPOD

I still play BC1 nonstop, best game evAR.

Aliena you're crazy. BF3 may not be the BF3 you were expecting, but times change. It's not 2005 anymore, you're not getting BF2.5 here, you're getting BF3.

I personally think it looks amazing despite a few nitpicks I have, my only concern is whether 24 players on consoles are gonna be enough for some good action-packed vehicle fights.

But they really went all out on this one, I was really disappointed with DICE with BC2: Vietnam and didnt even bother buying that, but they learned their lesson from BC2.

spacefox wrote:

Aliena you're crazy. BF3 may not be the BF3 you were expecting, but times change. It's not 2005 anymore, you're not getting BF2.5 here, you're getting BF3.

I personally think it looks amazing despite a few nitpicks I have, my only concern is whether 24 players on consoles are gonna be enough for some good action-packed vehicle fights.

But they really went all out on this one, I was really disappointed with DICE with BC2: Vietnam and didnt even bother buying that, but they learned their lesson from BC2.

I'm hoping big maps feature more vehicle fighting and less infantry fighting.

Big maps are about vehicles... wanna be infantry? Great, grab a quad... nobody should HAVE to walk on those maps with only 24 players.

RoninHo'in wrote:

spacefox wrote:

Aliena you're crazy. BF3 may not be the BF3 you were expecting, but times change. It's not 2005 anymore, you're not getting BF2.5 here, you're getting BF3.

I personally think it looks amazing despite a few nitpicks I have, my only concern is whether 24 players on consoles are gonna be enough for some good action-packed vehicle fights.

But they really went all out on this one, I was really disappointed with DICE with BC2: Vietnam and didnt even bother buying that, but they learned their lesson from BC2.

I'm hoping big maps feature more vehicle fighting and less infantry fighting.

Big maps are about vehicles... wanna be infantry? Great, grab a quad... nobody should HAVE to walk on those maps with only 24 players.

Word, BC2 didnt have enough light vehicles on most of the larger maps to get around with.

More tanks too though....

There should be enough ATTACK vehicles for EVERYBODY.

If you want a fast transport? Well there are those too.

Without 64 players you'll never have that epic large scale lots of vehicles and infantry feel.

You can have intense infantry, or intense infantry with a couple vehicles... or you can have intense vehicles (which goes good on these big maps)

we just don't have enough players for fuckin Heavy Metal with only 5 total Heavies (grand total), no Lights, and a cpl helos each.

True that.

But consoles has like a limit of vehicles. DICE always says, "It's more players or more vehicles". There's gotta be enough for everyone though, Heavy Metal had 1 buggy per base and Id always find myself stranded.

Anyways Aliena's complaints are just pointless bitching. She's still gonna get it and she's still gonna like it.

vehicles aren't that much harder then a player FFS.

AND they've done 32 players on console in house... it's just bandwidth that's the issue, not the rendering. Doubt a vehicle has that much added bandwidth really.

Yeah but I guess their point is, "We add more players and we also need to add more vehicles, but we wont have enough bandwidth for both"

They just better have enough vehicles for everybody. I wont accept less than 2 jets per team on every jet map.

spacefox wrote:

Yeah but I guess their point is, "We add more players and we also need to add more vehicles, but we wont have enough bandwidth for both"

They just better have enough vehicles for everybody. I wont accept less than 2 jets per team on every jet map.

should be 2 per team since they're 1 seaters....

also... I smell bullshit.

RoninHo'in wrote:

spacefox wrote:

Yeah but I guess their point is, "We add more players and we also need to add more vehicles, but we wont have enough bandwidth for both"

They just better have enough vehicles for everybody. I wont accept less than 2 jets per team on every jet map.

should be 2 per team since they're 1 seaters....

also... I smell bullshit.

Thats not a fuckin direct quote idiot I just pulled that excuse out of my ass because it makes sense. You add players > you need more vehicles to accommodate the extra players > vehicles also take quite a bit of bandwith although not as much as players obviously.

BC1 > BF3.

Nothing can ever compete w/ crouch walking battles.

spacefox wrote:

RoninHo'in wrote:

spacefox wrote:

Yeah but I guess their point is, "We add more players and we also need to add more vehicles, but we wont have enough bandwidth for both"

They just better have enough vehicles for everybody. I wont accept less than 2 jets per team on every jet map.

should be 2 per team since they're 1 seaters....

also... I smell bullshit.

Thats not a fuckin direct quote idiot I just pulled that excuse out of my ass because it makes sense. You add players > you need more vehicles to accommodate the extra players > vehicles also take quite a bit of bandwith although not as much as players obviously.

Yah, you add players, you need more bandwidth.

BUT you can add more vehicles without adding more players.

Get on chat fags.