Battlefield 3

[Azazel]

Anyway, setting nostalgia aside. Can't afford the game at release and by the time it's affordable, the servers are haunted by guys who have learned all the tricks of all the maps months ago and not fun as a newbler. It's why I've stayed away from shooters since BF2.

You could easily pick up on BC2 next time it's on Steam sale. Until a few weeks ago, I hadn't played it since shortly unlocking everything a couple of months after release. There's heaps of new players on from the last set of steam sales. It's not like Counterstrike, nor is it like COD. It'll take a few rounds to get used to the maps, but I've basically relearned the whole thing in the last month, including quite a few new maps or new modes with different versions of older maps.

[Malakili]

http://bf3blog.com/2011/04/battlefield-3-launching-this-november-with-a-100-million-ad-campaign/

EA CEO John Riccitiello spoke at an ad conference in New York, where he revealed that Battlefield 3 will launch this November, and will be paired with a $100 million marketing campaign from EA in order to fight off Activision’s Modern Warfare 3. Riccitiello specifically called out Modern Warfare 3, and noted: “This game [Battlefield 3, ed.] is designed to take down that game [Modern Warfare 3, ed.].”

Thats quite a budget.  I don't even see these games as in direct competition for my time, MW3 is a twitch shooter, and Battlefield really isn't, the frostbite engine isn't really designed for that kind of game.  I guess most people just see army shooty shooty though.

[Mrbloodworth]

MW3 is a twitch shooter, and Battlefield really isn't, the frostbite engine isn't really designed for that kind of game.  I guess most people just see army shooty shooty though.

I don't understand.

[Malakili]

MW3 is a twitch shooter, and Battlefield really isn't, the frostbite engine isn't really designed for that kind of game.  I guess most people just see army shooty shooty though.

I don't understand.

Well throw out the engine bit if it makes it easier.  CoD is a series of twitch shooters; almost your entire success as a player boils down to how good you are at that one particular skill.  Battlefield is designed such that the gunplay is important, but not necessarily the most important thing by itself, the difference in gameplay is huge.

[Mrbloodworth]

I guess I don't see that. They have the same game play as far as I can tell. I mean, its not like its the difference in game play like Quake is to source.

[Malakili]

Well, maybe I'm the odd man out then, but they are different enough to me that I don't see any contradiction in owning both (I have both Blackops and Bad Company 2 and I don't see them as really competing for my game time).

[tgr]

I've no idea how MW2 or BO play compared to MW1, but the main difference I saw between MW1 and BC2 was that while MW1 had a small map and you played in short rounds, BC2 had a series of objectives you had to defend as long as possible, or capture as quickly as possible.

Ninjaedit: The actual twitch part I thought was more or less the same. vOv

[Mrbloodworth]

The part in his statement I did not understand was this:

MW3 is a twitch shooter, and Battlefield really isn't

Implying he was talking about the gunfire mechanics.

[Malakili]

The part in his statement I did not understand was this:

MW3 is a twitch shooter, and Battlefield really isn't

Implying he was talking about the gunfire mechanics.

Well, at the most basic level CoD uses hitscan, and battlefield uses bullet physics.  This leads to significantly different feeling gunplay in my opinion.

[Mrbloodworth]

True, yeah to a point. That I agree with.

[Malakili]

True, yeah to a point. That I agree with.

I think that, combined with the design differences in things like map size and vehicle use makes them different enough that they scratch different itches for me.

[stu]

Most players just seem to want to run and gun. I mean, players on MW2 maps sometimes look like they're on roller skates. You spawn, run around for sixty seconds. Die. Repeat. Twitch in MW2 is obvious because there isn't much to do besides fire your weapon and run around like a maniac. In BC2 you get rewarded for some planning and can even get decent scores without using your weapon much. The two franchises might as well be on different planets.

I just hope BF3 doesn't make me wait through startup screens. I get anxious waiting through the screens for BC2. The best thing about MW2 was being able to fast forward through that stuff.

[Mrbloodworth]

When I read "Twitch shooter". To me, it only refers to the method of shooting, in that case both games are twitch. Beyond that games can be different in game play but fall in the same category with me. That was my confusion with his statement.

[Malakili]

When I read "Twitch shooter". To me, it only refers to the method of shooting, in that case both games are twitch. Beyond that games can be different in game play but fall in the same category with me. That was my confusion with his statement.

I think how central a role the gunplay is to the experience matters as well.  There is nothing twitch shooter about following a tank around with a repair tool, for example.   The CoD series is fairly pure twitch gameplay through and through. 

[Sky]

As long as the EA behemoth wants the BF franchise to crush the CoD franchise, all hope of a solid sequel to BF1942 is lost.

Fuck, reward bunny hopping, plane-camping and snipers and you've got a hit!

[HaemishM]

I guess I don't see that. They have the same game play as far as I can tell. I mean, its not like its the difference in game play like Quake is to source.

Then you haven't played either one enough.

EDIT: And to address Sky, I really haven't seen a lot of bunny-hopping in BF: BC2, very little vehicle-camping and snipers... well, they can camp and snipe, but that doesn't often help their team win and the winning team gets bonus points.

[Azazel]

When I read "Twitch shooter". To me, it only refers to the method of shooting, in that case both games are twitch. Beyond that games can be different in game play but fall in the same category with me. That was my confusion with his statement.

I guess it's because we appreciate the work and thought that goes into the mechanics of the games more than you. 

[Speedy Cerviche]

A new low for EA...

http://pc.ign.com/articles/116/1167117p1.html

Announcing DLC pack long before the game even out.

Well ERTS finally climbing out of the basement thanks to fat margins on DLC, gotta keep that train chugging. It's getting very cynical now though, how long will gamers put up with it?

[NiX]

A new low for EA...

http://pc.ign.com/articles/116/1167117p1.html

Announcing DLC pack long before the game even out.

Well ERTS finally climbing out of the basement thanks to fat margins on DLC, gotta keep that train chugging. It's getting very cynical now though, how long will gamers put up with it?

Maybe you should read beyond "DLC"...

Today DICE revealed the first bits of info on an expansion pack coming to Battlefield 3 for those who pre-order the limited edition of the game: Back to Karkand.

[Speedy Cerviche]

So pro-order or pay for DLC...

Still gonna be cynically withholding content on release from normal buyers of the game.

[Sky]

I bet if you boycott BF3, that'll show 'em. Heck, you should probably pirate it to send a clear message.

[tgr]

I bet if you boycott BF3, that'll show 'em. Heck, you should probably pirate it to send a clear message.

[Mrbloodworth]

Then you haven't played either one enough.

When I read "Twitch shooter". To me, it only refers to the method of shooting, in that case both games are twitch. Beyond that games can be different in game play but fall in the same category with me. That was my confusion with his statement.

[Speedy Cerviche]

I bet if you boycott BF3, that'll show 'em. Heck, you should probably pirate it to send a clear message.

Im still prolly going to get it. Maybe even pre-order cuz to me it looks like the best BF game since 1942.

I am just thinking this kind of aggressive DLC flogging will backfire on EA if the title is less than a major a success, especially as there seems to be a lot of negative reaction to it on other forums.

[HaemishM]

No, it won't, and yes, this is the way of things going forward. You will be DLCed into submission.

[bhodi]

The DLC angle will fail unless it's cleverly bundled into other shit people want / will get by default.

If your multiplayer server switches to a DLC map and half the people log off, pretty soon that map is going to be out of the rotation. With it out of the rotation, no one will ever buy it.

A similar thing happened with Vietnam. There was an initial buzz as people bought into it, but less than a month later everyone was back to playing the default game.  DLC only works if it gives individuals more options while still letting them play with the rest, like the specact kit.

If the default game crowd can't play with the DLC buyers, that DLC will fail.

[Azazel]

No, it won't, and yes, this is the way of things going forward. You will be DLCed into submission.

This is actually the thing that's causing me to:
1) Not buy games at all
2) Wait a year for the all-inclusive GOTY/Gold edition


I love(d) the Burnout franchise, and while I wasn't exactly rapt with the open-world changes in Paradise, it had it's moments, but the amount of DLC there is just off-putting. Likewise I bought NFS Hot Pursuit based on it being a lot like Burnout. I played it for a bit, loved it, then got disappointed at the difficulty of the time trial races since I'm really casual and arcade in my driving games - and to play time trials is not why I bought the damned game. I checked out the DLC after the game kept telling me there was an update, and found about 4 million bits o DLC, including stuff like the Porsche 911.

Really left a sour taste in my mouth towards EA/Criterion. I won't be picking up the next Burnout on release.

Likewise, I'm waiting till Dead Space 2 is repackaged with all the DLC included at a discount price before I buy it. I've been waiting for not only the Assassins' Creed: Brotherhood all-in-one version (AKA Da Vinci Edition) but since it's a year old game now, I'm waiting for it to be cheap-ass as well as including all the DLC...

[HaemishM]

No, it won't, and yes, this is the way of things going forward. You will be DLCed into submission.

This is actually the thing that's causing me to:
1) Not buy games at all
2) Wait a year for the all-inclusive GOTY/Gold edition

With option 2, the "evil company" still gets your money. 

I don't see the opposition to DLC. Yes, some of it is nickel-and-diming you to death. But I think part of it is that we've been trained to expect shit like the DLC for free. We shouldn't. The Fallout 3 DLC all looks to be fairly solid expansion pack type stuff. The Battlefield Bad Company 2 DLC, Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age DLC also seems to be substantial enough that it's either worth buying or if not, worth ignoring. The video game market has been fucking itself for decades with the "must have big release or game is a failure" mentality. DLC at least lets developers keep a decent after-release revenue stream. The other options are subscription-based games and we've seen how badly MMOG's have fucked that up, to the point many are moving to F2P with microtransactions.

The trick is to make sure the DLC is cheap enough to be in impulse buy territory, worthwhile enough to feel like the gamer got some value for his dollars (i.e. not fucking horse armor) and also be almost completely optional to the original purchase. Will some companies do stupid things with it? Of course. EA is known for that sort of thing especially. Hell, a lot of their sports game DLC is almost completely worthless. But don't dog on DLC because a few guys don't know how to package it. Frankly, if EA would release weapons packs for BF:BC2 every 3 months, I'd be happy. Basically, you buy a pack, you get immediate access to 1 weapon per class, with 2-3 more unlockable weapons on top of that.

[WayAbvPar]

I see DLC as a good way for a company to keep pouring resources into a non-new game (and for me to continue to extract enjoyment from same). As long as it isn't too expensive or overboard (paying for individual in game items or the like), I like it for the most part. Day zero DLC is still pretty chickenshit though.

[Malakili]

The problem is, a good multiplayer game is going to be nearly infinitely replayable based on its mechanics, not based on what new guns I can get.   If a game isn't good enough without the DLC, I'm not going to care to buy the DLC in the first place.  I think something like Bad Company 2 Vietnam was very good.  I guess thats a little more in the expansion pack territory, but it added a bunch of new maps, and the game was different enough from BC2 that it offered new stuff to learn.

 I'd be interested in the new guns if they add something new to the game from a mechanics standpoint, but I don't need 3 new assault rifles that are only the slightest bit different from what is already there.  New maps can add a lot of replay value too, or at least freshen up a stale game that has strong mechanics to begin with.

The only problem with maps is that they become "necessary" because if you don't have the newest maps and the servers are running them, you're kind of hosed.  Its hard to strike a balance between worth buying and not necessary.

[Comstar]

Is the plot to Battlefield 2/3 better than MW2/3?


So some gaming site released pretty much the full plot of MW3 (though they said they kept SOME spoilers back. Which is pretty idiotic if you ask me).

I liked MW1's plot. MW2 sickened me. The entire No Russian level was stupid. But invading the US AND THEN HAVING THE HERO FIRE A NUKE FROM A RUSSIAN SUB OVER D.C and NOT end in the next game being set in the Capital Wasteland after the ICBM's fly is so bizarre it's offensive to think about it.

MW3's plot is amazingly WORSE than MW2. A plot that idiotic and not played for Cheese like Duke Nukem should not be rewarded.

[Malakili]

Is the plot to Battlefield 2/3 better than MW2/3?


So some gaming site released pretty much the full plot of MW3 (though they said they kept SOME spoilers back. Which is pretty idiotic if you ask me).

I liked MW1's plot. MW2 sickened me. The entire No Russian level was stupid. But invading the US AND THEN HAVING THE HERO FIRE A NUKE FROM A RUSSIAN SUB OVER D.C and NOT end in the next game being set in the Capital Wasteland after the ICBM's fly is so bizarre it's offensive to think about it.

MW3's plot is amazingly WORSE than MW2. A plot that idiotic and not played for Cheese like Duke Nukem should not be rewarded.

Battlefield 2 doesn't have a plot worth mentioning.   Battlefield 3 - who knows, I'll probably be buying it day 1 and never touching the single player.  It might be a decent single player for all I know, but my advice would be that you shouldn't buy these games for the single player and expect too much, generally speaking.

[Azazel]

With option 2, the "evil company" still gets your money. 

Yeaaaahh... you're missing my point, I guess. I'm not on a personal crusade to not buy games from EA or whatever or give a shit about "the evil company". My interest is to pay as little as possible for (new, not preowned) games and avoid having lots of bits of DLC on my consoles if there's an option to have them on the disc instead. I'm happy to wait a year or whatever because I have a large backlog, so it's not going to kill me if I play AC:B a year (or two) later than the Day-1 crowd.

I don't see the opposition to DLC. Yes, some of it is nickel-and-diming you to death. But I think part of it is that we've been trained to expect shit like the DLC for free. We shouldn't. The Fallout 3 DLC all looks to be fairly solid expansion pack type stuff. The Battlefield Bad Company 2 DLC, Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age DLC also seems to be substantial enough that it's either worth buying or if not, worth ignoring. The video game market has been fucking itself for decades with the "must have big release or game is a failure" mentality. DLC at least lets developers keep a decent after-release revenue stream. The other options are subscription-based games and we've seen how badly MMOG's have fucked that up, to the point many are moving to F2P with microtransactions.

The trick is to make sure the DLC is cheap enough to be in impulse buy territory, worthwhile enough to feel like the gamer got some value for his dollars (i.e. not fucking horse armor) and also be almost completely optional to the original purchase. Will some companies do stupid things with it? Of course. EA is known for that sort of thing especially. Hell, a lot of their sports game DLC is almost completely worthless. But don't dog on DLC because a few guys don't know how to package it. Frankly, if EA would release weapons packs for BF:BC2 every 3 months, I'd be happy. Basically, you buy a pack, you get immediate access to 1 weapon per class, with 2-3 more unlockable weapons on top of that.

It really depends on what we're calling DLC, and what it's priced at. Borderlands' stuff was alright for the price (especially since I bought most of it on sale). Undead Nightmare was a fully-fledged expansion pack, as was Gay Tony and LaTD. OTOH, 300 or 460MSP for a single car in a racing game can go and eat a dick. The Saints Row 2 DLC missions were ok., but overpriced for the amount of actual content.

I mean, my 360's 250gb HDD is pretty much full, and most of that is DLC. So I have no huge opposition to it in theory, but at the same time when I see a pattern that games from X publisher will be released in an all-singing, all-dancing, all-inclusive package in 14 months with all of the DLC mastered on the disc at 1/4 of the day-1 price. Well, fuck it, I'll wait since I have plenty to play right now and I'm in no need to rush. That applies to regular games as well, though - Portal 2? $50 today or $5 on sale this (or next) Christmas? I'll wait.

I actually think some of what EA is doing is smart - bonus content in the release-day "limited" edition, or some content for those who purchase new instead of pre-owned. I'll be buying/preordering probably 3-4 copies of BF3 with the Karkand pack, but that's because BF is my drug of choice. If it were pretty much any other game, I'd wait that year before buying. I do agree with WAP that day-0 DLC is bullshit. I'd hate to see them go down the CoD-styel of selling a million different map packs though. When I get on CoD:WAW on 360 occasionally, I always get booted off after 2-3 maps because I don't have the map packs. That doesn't make me want to buy the map packs. It makes me turn off WaW. At least Gears of War (which I have never played online) keep bringing out GoTY packs with all of the extra maps included.

[snowwy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UwOrl036_A

Single player tank mission. Looks nice, ok it looks freaking gorgeous

[Strazos]

Wow, I might have to pick that up, just for the SP.