Battlefield 3!!!!??? [Archive]

slainwarrior

10-26-2011, 01:06 PM

I have it for PC and think its pretty epic.. I'm a cod fan as well but cod gets repetative after a few months its fun in the sense you can jump in a few quick matchs if thats all you feel like doing when it comes to cod.. but with battlefield if you give it a chance and take the little bit of time to learn some strategy your hooked especially if you have a few friends to form a squad with its awesome.. you and your buddies can all hop in a tank or helicopter manning different guns and blowing down buildings its badass!

lasher45

10-26-2011, 01:50 PM

After almost 3 years of waiting for this game my PS3 broke the day before launch. I got the normal Yellow Light of Death (5th time getting it, easy fix), but then when putting it back together I yanked out the data strip clip from the Blu-Ray player to the Mobo. Ended up doing some more damage trying to fix that problem. :mad: :mad: :mad:

Needless to say, it won't be going back together.

trailrider894

10-26-2011, 04:59 PM

Just wanna say to all of you COD fans... COD sucks compared to this... seriously though... this just started a new generation of 1st person shooters... Seriously, I've been through the real life training, and COD is so far from realistic that it isn't even funny... BF3 is of course over the top, but the weapons are realistic, you actually die after 2 shots, not 32 shots and two revives/hiding behind the crate waiting for the screen to go normal ( I'm refering to all the COD's ). In BF3 there is realistic ballistics, bullet drops, penetration, realist explosions, the grenades range of damage is way better than in COD, where you can survive a grenade hit in the same room as the grenade... etc.... I HATE COD!! GO BF3!!!

Kickstarts-suck

10-26-2011, 06:45 PM

Got mine yesterday. Pretty good. Taking me a while to get used to it compared to BC2. I think I need to set my sensitivity down and brightness up. When aiming its super twitchy the way it is now. Too dark alot of times to see enemys on some maps.

Sooo many unlocks. Kinda a PITA at times.

I wish Karkand and the other BF2 maps were up..

In BF2 I did 2v2 chopper comps and was so glad BF3 would have jets and choppers but I got in a jet and noticed you have to unlock weapons and all you have is a machine gun..

Im sure after a while playing ill get better and like it more though.

Im rank 7 so far.

89trx250r

10-26-2011, 09:29 PM

I agree with kickstart the aiming seems twitchy and its very dark but other then that its good im personally gonna buy it for pc i was playing at my friends who has it for xbox so hopefully ill be able to finetune my pc i loved bad company 2

madskrillz2

10-26-2011, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by trailrider894
Just wanna say to all of you COD fans... COD sucks compared to this... seriously though... this just started a new generation of 1st person shooters... Seriously, I've been through the real life training, and COD is so far from realistic that it isn't even funny... BF3 is of course over the top, but the weapons are realistic, you actually die after 2 shots, not 32 shots and two revives/hiding behind the crate waiting for the screen to go normal ( I'm refering to all the COD's ). In BF3 there is realistic ballistics, bullet drops, penetration, realist explosions, the grenades range of damage is way better than in COD, where you can survive a grenade hit in the same room as the grenade... etc.... I HATE COD!! GO BF3!!!

You can't say it sucks compared to it because they're not even the same kind of game. BF3's whole point was to make real life combat situations. COD is just supposed to be the more fun FPS. You really think they would add "perks" that make you sprint an unlimited amount of time, jump three stories out of a building and not die, or hip fire somebody from across the map, if they really wanted a real life shooter? I don't think so. If you're into things that are more realistic, you're obviously going to like BF3 a lot more. If you like games that let you go rambo on people, you'll like COD. Big difference.

lasher45

10-27-2011, 11:01 AM

I hate it when people say Battlefield 3 was supposed to be a "combat simulator". It was meant to be a direct sequal to Battlefield 2, which was not a combat simulation either.

They are just a different type of FPS and in no way are meant to be anything close to a simulation. If you want that go play ARMA. Battlefield is just a slower paced, more tactical shooter where Call of Duty is faster paced.

sexysilverado45

10-27-2011, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by trailrider894
Just wanna say to all of you COD fans... COD sucks compared to this... seriously though... this just started a new generation of 1st person shooters... Seriously, I've been through the real life training, and COD is so far from realistic that it isn't even funny... BF3 is of course over the top, but the weapons are realistic, you actually die after 2 shots, not 32 shots and two revives/hiding behind the crate waiting for the screen to go normal ( I'm refering to all the COD's ). In BF3 there is realistic ballistics, bullet drops, penetration, realist explosions, the grenades range of damage is way better than in COD, where you can survive a grenade hit in the same room as the grenade... etc.... I HATE COD!! GO BF3!!!

Wow hate much? Really though I could say bf3 sucks too and thats cause its too slow of a pace and the maps are ginormous. Cod is much faster paced and shoot it up game type that I find really exciting and fun in comparision to bc3 I dont believe the graphics will be that far apart. I saw a commercial for bc3 and they should be sued for false advertising cause the showed 25 seconds of HD army training and 5 seconds of actual game play.

lasher45

10-27-2011, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by sexysilverado45
Wow hate much? Really though I could say bf3 sucks too and thats cause its too slow of a pace and the maps are ginormous. Cod is much faster paced and shoot it up game type that I find really exciting and fun in comparision to bc3 I dont believe the graphics will be that far apart. I saw a commercial for bc3 and they should be sued for false advertising cause the showed 25 seconds of HD army training and 5 seconds of actual game play.

That was not false advertising at all. The trailer was too see if people could tell the difference between real life and in-game scenes to show how close they were in common.

And the MW3 graphics will be the same as MW2 with extremely minor updates. Same engine, just different weapon/character skins.

sexysilverado45

10-27-2011, 03:35 PM

Different engine if I remember right. So ya.

OldGuyonaQuad

10-27-2011, 03:47 PM

I will play Battlefield on my Pc only to hang with my online friends otherwise I find the maps to be way too big, takes forever to find action and the game is loaded wiith corner camping snipers. The hit boxes in ALL the BF series were the absolute worse compared to any other fps I ever played. It's the only fps I know of where you can sneak up on someone and if you don't get a HS they turn around and kill you.

I played COD for the same reason, to hang with my friends. If MW3 is going to have dedi's I will pick it up otherwise F that ported BS interface.

lasher45

10-27-2011, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by sexysilverado45
Different engine if I remember right. So ya.

BF3 runs on the Frostbite 2 engine which has been in development for 4 years.

Call of Duty run's on the IW 4.0 engine. Every Call of Duty since Modern Warfare has run on the same IW engine with just some basic upgrades each installment. Modern Warfare 2 used a beefed up version of the IW engine, but they like to think it was completely "new".

300ex#69j

10-27-2011, 05:59 PM

If you cant find a fight in bf3 something is wrong lol this is the first battlefield i have played and i love cod but i feel that battlefield just raised the bar. I can only hope cod will do the same. The maps are large but not in team deathmatch, and if the map is big hop in a vehicle and rip over to the battle! It is dark, but so is real war! Well anyways BF3 gets my vote and hopefully cod will be just as good.

trailrider894

10-27-2011, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by 300ex#69j
If you cant find a fight in bf3 something is wrong lol this is the first battlefield i have played and i love cod but i feel that battlefield just raised the bar. I can only hope cod will do the same. The maps are large but not in team deathmatch, and if the map is big hop in a vehicle and rip over to the battle! It is dark, but so is real war! Well anyways BF3 gets my vote and hopefully cod will be just as good.

Thank you!!!!

madskrillz2

10-28-2011, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by lasher45
BF3 runs on the Frostbite 2 engine which has been in development for 4 years.

Call of Duty run's on the IW 4.0 engine. Every Call of Duty since Modern Warfare has run on the same IW engine with just some basic upgrades each installment. Modern Warfare 2 used a beefed up version of the IW engine, but they like to think it was completely "new".

A "beefed up version". Really? So that's not completely new? You're really ignorant if you have played COD4 and you play MW2 or MW3 and think it's not completely different.

ikas

10-28-2011, 03:50 AM

Originally posted by madskrillz2
A "beefed up version". Really? So that's not completely new? You're really ignorant if you have played COD4 and you play MW2 or MW3 and think it's not completely different.
It is the same game engine that is refined, that is a fact. But it does not say that it is a bad game engine rather the opposite.

lasher45

10-28-2011, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by madskrillz2
A "beefed up version". Really? So that's not completely new? You're really ignorant if you have played COD4 and you play MW2 or MW3 and think it's not completely different.

I love how people throw the word ignorant around on the internet now. Usually the people using it are too "ignorant" to realize they're hypocrites.

Modern Warfare 1 ran on the IW 2.0 engine.

Modern Warfare 2 ran on the IW 3.0 engine.

Modern Warfare 3 will run on the IW 4.0 engine

All variations of the IW engine are the same, with just some small upgrades.

Bad Company ran on the Frostbite engine, and Battlefield 3 is running on Frostbite 2.0. So arn't they the same engine?

No, they are not. The Battlefield 3 engine has been in development since the first Bad Company was put in developement. They placed a team to the side with the task of creating a brand new massive engine that would be used for a true sequal of Battlefield 2.

DICE named it Frostbite 2 only because it has some very basic similarities. It was developed literally from the ground up over the course of 3 years or perhaps more.

The IW engine has been in use since Modern Warfare 1; actually Call of Duty 2 to be honest. However 2.0-4.0 are the SAME engine, just upgraded. In order for Activision to create a new engine it would take ATLEAST 3+ years. So tell me, how can it even be possible for them to make a new engine from scratch every game when they come out every year? They can't, it's the same thing, just more refined as each installment comes out.

Just wait till MW3 comes out. It will look almost exactly like MW2 did, just a tad bit better. They are at the limit of what the engine can do.

I've been following this game for years, don't tell me I'm the one who's ignorant.

trailrider894

10-28-2011, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by lasher45
I love how people throw the word ignorant around on the internet now. Usually the people using it are too "ignorant" to realize they're hypocrites.

Modern Warfare 1 ran on the IW 2.0 engine.

Modern Warfare 2 ran on the IW 3.0 engine.

Modern Warfare 3 will run on the IW 4.0 engine

All variations of the IW engine are the same, with just some small upgrades.

Bad Company ran on the Frostbite engine, and Battlefield 3 is running on Frostbite 2.0. So arn't they the same engine?

No, they are not. The Battlefield 3 engine has been in development since the first Bad Company was put in developement. They placed a team to the side with the task of creating a brand new massive engine that would be used for a true sequal of Battlefield 2.

DICE named it Frostbite 2 only because it has some very basic similarities. It was developed literally from the ground up over the course of 3 years or perhaps more.

The IW engine has been in use since Modern Warfare 1; actually Call of Duty 2 to be honest. However 2.0-4.0 are the SAME engine, just upgraded. In order for Activision to create a new engine it would take ATLEAST 3+ years. So tell me, how can it even be possible for them to make a new engine from scratch every game when they come out every year? They can't, it's the same thing, just more refined as each installment comes out.

Just wait till MW3 comes out. It will look almost exactly like MW2 did, just a tad bit better. They are at the limit of what the engine can do.

I've been following this game for years, don't tell me I'm the one who's ignorant.

I was impressed more with COD4 MW than any other game that Activision put out, except the first COD and the UO the expansion.

lasher45

10-28-2011, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by trailrider894
I was impressed more with COD4 MW than any other game that Activision put out, except the first COD and the UO the expansion.

I'm not saying I didn't like the games. I loved CoD4 and MW2. The only problem is they got too repetitive after that and the only reason I would buy MW3 is because I like the story.

madskrillz2

10-28-2011, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by lasher45
I love how people throw the word ignorant around on the internet now. Usually the people using it are too "ignorant" to realize they're hypocrites.

Modern Warfare 1 ran on the IW 2.0 engine.

Modern Warfare 2 ran on the IW 3.0 engine.

Modern Warfare 3 will run on the IW 4.0 engine

All variations of the IW engine are the same, with just some small upgrades.

Bad Company ran on the Frostbite engine, and Battlefield 3 is running on Frostbite 2.0. So arn't they the same engine?

No, they are not. The Battlefield 3 engine has been in development since the first Bad Company was put in developement. They placed a team to the side with the task of creating a brand new massive engine that would be used for a true sequal of Battlefield 2.

DICE named it Frostbite 2 only because it has some very basic similarities. It was developed literally from the ground up over the course of 3 years or perhaps more.

The IW engine has been in use since Modern Warfare 1; actually Call of Duty 2 to be honest. However 2.0-4.0 are the SAME engine, just upgraded. In order for Activision to create a new engine it would take ATLEAST 3+ years. So tell me, how can it even be possible for them to make a new engine from scratch every game when they come out every year? They can't, it's the same thing, just more refined as each installment comes out.

Just wait till MW3 comes out. It will look almost exactly like MW2 did, just a tad bit better. They are at the limit of what the engine can do.

I've been following this game for years, don't tell me I'm the one who's ignorant.

BF3 doesn't feel any different than BF2 so what kind of point are you trying to make? Even if it is a new engine it doesn't play much better. I realize IW runs on similar engines but you can tell they've improved. Same with BF3 but it still feels like the same engine. Lol and sorry ignorant was the wrong word to use. I had been drinking so I wasn't making a whole lot of sense. :chinese:

lasher45

10-28-2011, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by madskrillz2
BF3 doesn't feel any different than BF2 so what kind of point are you trying to make? Even if it is a new engine it doesn't play much better. I realize IW runs on similar engines but you can tell they've improved. Same with BF3 but it still feels like the same engine. Lol and sorry ignorant was the wrong word to use. I had been drinking so I wasn't making a whole lot of sense. :chinese:

Lol that's fine man. :D

Yes the IW engine has improved, but it's still the same.

And BF3 plays like BF2 because it was meant to be a direct sequal to it. Bad Company was just an off shoot meant to test the waters on the console market. Think of Bf3 this way: It's essentially an ultra suped up Bf2 with a brand new state of the art engine to run it on while MW3 is sort of a recycled/refurbished copy of past installments.

Ichoptop

10-28-2011, 06:09 PM

I am a huge Battlefield fan but I am about ready to go back to BBC2. This prone camping is really pissing me off.

But the maps are beautiful.

Kickstarts-suck

10-28-2011, 09:26 PM

I love BF3 now that im totally used to it.

Rank 14 so far.

One thing I dont like is the flash lights. Even in bright sun they still blind the chit out of me.

I loved prone on BF2 and hated that they took it away in BC. I like using it on BF3 but not when others do :p

muddy400EX

10-29-2011, 12:40 AM

ill be waiting for mw3. im not a die hard cod fan but i like it better than bf

ive never got as mad at a game as the bc games. it takes forever to kill someone, and the sniping really pissed me off

if you shoot someone in the chest, back, stomach etc with a high powered sniper, its game over for them. but in bf they just keep on running like nothing happened.

not to mention getting ran over by random vehicles. that drove me crazy too

YFZ-FoFiddy-TC

10-29-2011, 01:27 AM

BF3 SUCKS! I was so dissapointed. I think it's funny they hyped up to be the "COD killer" yet MW2 is better than BF3. What a terrible game this was.

muddy400EX

10-29-2011, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by YFZ-FoFiddy-TC
BF3 SUCKS! I was so dissapointed. I think it's funny they hyped up to be the "COD killer" yet MW2 is better than BF3. What a terrible game this was.

lol, that makes me feel better that im holdin off for cod

tbrackman84

10-29-2011, 08:51 AM

i saw someone complaining about it taking too many shots to kill in the COD games, thats why you gotta play hardcore, just 1 or 2 shots. MW3 should be awesome, i enjoy playing the COD games alot and the hype was always pretty exciting, but the videos and info they are releasing on MW3 really looks promising. Also i saw someone saw that they were playing black op to get ready for MW3, i'd say that you should play MW2 because it is sure to be much more of that game style that black ops..

kt1148

10-29-2011, 09:53 PM

sounds like some people need to go for a ride! Wow....

Wired

10-30-2011, 09:04 AM

I've liked every COD game ever made, can't see mw3 being anything less than amazing. I have bf2 and played the beta of bf3. Not a fan at all!

muddy400EX

10-30-2011, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by Wired
I've liked every COD game ever made, can't see mw3 being anything less than amazing. I have bf2 and played the beta of bf3. Not a fan at all!

i didnt like black ops much tho. i had it, and played it. but im ready for mw:devil:

ProspectorJim

10-30-2011, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by trailrider894
I was impressed more with COD4 MW than any other game that Activision put out, except the first COD and the UO the expansion.

COD:UO>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every cod after

rbgnwa45

11-02-2011, 01:33 PM

I thought I would be on the side of realism, and I am, but the overall feel is very different from MW2. it wasn't so far off, but it had me wanting to play mw2 again. you can't cook grenades in campaign.

I appreciate that you can re-load and have one in the chamber with a full clip (for 31 bullets instead of 30), in COD you can't do that.

the flashlights are way off - in bright day they wouldn't blind you, nor would a red laser sight blind you in any way, it wouldn't make your entire vision go red - completely UNREALISTIC!

the campaign sucked so much, but it was a lot harder than MW2, which was somewhat appreciated. it wasn't fun at all. mw2 takes the cake for overall feel & fun.

i havn't played it online cuz im a wanker.

the campaign of mw3 should be far more fun.

the graphics on bf3, without the 1.5 gb upgrade, are crap. with it, they are outstanding, everything looks very crisp. its GRRRRREAT on a huge HD TV.

it was annoying having all of these oddball guns like the A_94, AK-something, AK-something, another AK-797M something, just a bunch of AK varients. I really hate the PKM and PKP or whatever-type guns. In the campaign there isn't a sidearm for a pistol, which really pissed me off. You use a pistol like once or twice in the entire campaign and not as you'd like to.

enemies have such great accuracy that it's annoying & unrealistic, I'm talking about super long range without scopes, without single fire, in the dark of night, 1000 yards out or something, they'll hit you dead-on... you can't customize buttons. i was told the AI would be way better than MW2 but it isn't (basically, they still run around and get shot lol). stuff isn't as destructible as i was told it would be. I should mention that the maps and layouts of them are horrible. I feel like I could have done a better job with the design/layouts of the campaign maps.

realism: bf3
classic feel & fun of IW: mw3

the bf3 campaign will piss you off if you're expecting/wanting an IW clone, just because the replay value is so low. beat it once, its no more fun, if there was any at all.

online play is a different story.

anybody wanna trade forza 4 or mw3 for my bf3?