Battlefield 3- Premium announced; 4 new expansions

[quote name='AlphaPanda']Maaaan, you can't just play BF3 for a week. I've had the game since October and I'm still having a blast.[/QUOTE]

So true...
 
[quote name='ChernobylCow']I am really enjoying this singleplayer campaign. It has no real soul but man it's visceral and engaging. The tank level is :drool:[/QUOTE]

How???? I had to force myself to complete the SP in BF3, it was horrendous. DICE still can't make a game with a "Great" SP experience, they're only somewhat good one was Bad Company 2
 
[quote name='xtreme_Zr2']I loved the SP. I don't understand all the hate it got. There is a pretty good story there, although it bounces back and forth.[/QUOTE]

Where is there a "pretty good story" in BF3?!

While you are at it, could you point out the pretty good story in the Twilight franchise as well? I don't seem to get that either!
 
[quote name='Kia-Tiaph']While you are at it, could you point out the pretty good story in the Twilight franchise as well? I don't seem to get that either![/QUOTE]

One is a gay vampire... and the other is a really ugly chick. They were made for each other. TWILIGHT
 
[quote name='xtreme_Zr2']I loved the SP. I don't understand all the hate it got. There is a pretty good story there, although it bounces back and forth.[/QUOTE]

The entire SP experience was ripping off of COD from story to gameplay, and completely failing at it, ignoring the aspects that made the Bad Company 2 SP good. There was too much scripting that was easily broken, it was too linear, friendly AI is retarded while enemy AI are super-sharpshooters, it was too short (luckily), the jet section was just boring on-rails shooting, lack of a good use of destruction, dumb quick time button pressing, was ridiciosuly difficult (sometimes you'd die without even knowing where the bullets were coming from, even on the lowest difficulty), a ripped of horrible story from COD, and the list goes on and on. BF3 SP should have kept the Bad Company 2 SP gameplay, and expanded on that, instead of trying to be exactly like COD, and epically failing at it.
 
[quote name='AlphaPanda']Maaaan, you can't just play BF3 for a week. I've had the game since October and I'm still having a blast.[/QUOTE]

Agreed, but I'm kind slowing down this days because I can't stand playing with those people using their Overpowered Usas-12 (w/ explosive frag rounds), that thing is a tank in the form of weapon
 
[quote name='MrPiggles']The entire SP experience was ripping off of COD from story to gameplay, and completely failing at it, ignoring the aspects that made the Bad Company 2 SP good. There was too much scripting that was easily broken, it was too linear, friendly AI is retarded while enemy AI are super-sharpshooters, it was too short (luckily), the jet section was just boring on-rails shooting, lack of a good use of destruction, dumb quick time button pressing, was ridiciosuly difficult (sometimes you'd die without even knowing where the bullets were coming from, even on the lowest difficulty), a ripped of horrible story from COD, and the list goes on and on. BF3 SP should have kept the Bad Company 2 SP gameplay, and expanded on that, instead of trying to be exactly like COD, and epically failing at it.[/QUOTE]

$$$$a please. The single player game wasnt that great but neither is Call of Duties. They are both equally shitty rip offs of the most popular topic of the last 10 years....middle easterners at may or may not be terrorist.

Now, I also disagree with keeping with the Bad Company story, those SP games were complete shit with no qualities that are worth mentioning. At least this one attempts some type of coherent plot.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']$$$$a please. The single player game wasnt that great but neither is Call of Duties. They are both equally shitty rip offs of the most popular topic of the last 10 years....middle easterners at may or may not be terrorist.

Now, I also disagree with keeping with the Bad Company story, those SP games were complete shit with no qualities that are worth mentioning. At least this one attempts some type of coherent plot.[/QUOTE]

I didn't think BF3's campaign was as awful as everyone else, but you're high out of your mind if you think that it can compare to any MW game's campaign.
 
MW's campaigns may not have made any sense logically and they may have been overblown, but they were fun. Something BF3's campaign severely lacked.
 
If by high out of your mind you mean being extremely truthful then yes. COD SP, (and this is coming form a guy who only bought the game for the SP) is pure shit. It might be high polished shit but its still pure shit. Nothing about it is any good. Other than the first MW they have all been crap.
 
I stopped playing this for nearly 3 months because I was addicted to MW3. Now I'm off that shit train and back on this and having an absolute blast so far.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']$$$$a please. The single player game wasnt that great but neither is Call of Duties. They are both equally shitty rip offs of the most popular topic of the last 10 years....middle easterners at may or may not be terrorist.

Now, I also disagree with keeping with the Bad Company story, those SP games were complete shit with no qualities that are worth mentioning. At least this one attempts some type of coherent plot.[/QUOTE]

Nobody plays modern day FPSs primarily for the story or plot, that'd be like watching a porno movie just for the story :roll:. I play RPGs whenever I want a game with a good storyline, but whenever I play the SP of a modern FPS game, I focus primarily on the gameplay. I found the MW3 SP gameplay pretty damn enjoyable, with doing something new every mission and being well paced and exciting. Now I found the BF3 SP gameplay to be a complete drag, with nonsensical AI, dumb design choices. Like I said, the BF3 SP gameplay experience was trying really hard to be a super cinematic COD-like gameplay, instead of keeping the enjoyable BC2 gameplay.



P.S. And to download Karkand, assuming you redeemed the LE online pass, it should display as free in the "Store" tab off the BF3 main menu
 
[quote name='MrPiggles']Nobody plays modern day FPSs primarily for the story or plot, that'd be like watching a porno movie just for the story :roll:. I play RPGs whenever I want a game with a good storyline, but whenever I play the SP of a modern FPS game, I focus primarily on the gameplay. I found the MW3 SP gameplay pretty damn enjoyable, with doing something new every mission and being well paced and exciting. Now I found the BF3 SP gameplay to be a complete drag, with nonsensical AI, dumb design choices. Like I said, the BF3 SP gameplay experience was trying really hard to be a super cinematic COD-like gameplay, instead of keeping the enjoyable BC2 gameplay.



P.S. And to download Karkand, assuming you redeemed the LE online pass, it should display as free in the "Store" tab off the BF3 main menu[/QUOTE]

Shut up fool. That is a statement that is very typically of mindless COD dumbass. There are MANY FPS that are story based, ever heard of Half Life, Portal, Halo (the story there sucked but they still put a lot of time and effort into it) Mirrors Edge, Fall Out, Bioshock, Fear, Condemned?

Are you serious? Just because you only play MP based FPS doesnt mean that no one in the modern area does.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']Shut up fool. That is a statement that is very typically of mindless COD dumbass. There are MANY FPS that are story based, ever heard of Half Life, Portal, Halo (the story there sucked but they still put a lot of time and effort into it) Mirrors Edge, Fall Out, Bioshock, Fear, Condemned?

Are you serious? Just because you only play MP based FPS doesnt mean that no one in the modern area does.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps I may have been to broad. Most modern day FPSs are advertised and focused onto gameplay, especially CoD and BF, so no-one should really expect too much from them story wise. I think that for me, and most people out their, playing SP in a FPS game, if the gameplay was god-awful (for example, let's say a modern day game (no game in particular) that had AI worse than Doom, heavily unbalanced weapons and environments, broken scripting, etc), that game would get no higher than 6 or 7 in our heads, no matter how good the story was, while if it had amazing immersive addicting gameplay but a lackluster story, we'd easily give it an 8 or 9 in our heads. For games like Half Life and Bioshock (both of which I've played) that have great stories, but the gameplay for both of those are mainly what "made" them popular, Bioshock for it's tonic and special abilities, and Half Life, with its interesting puzzles, environment, and level design. A good story feels more like an added bonus to SP FPS game experiences nowadays, and both Half Life and Bioshock what have still sold fairly well if their stories were complete shit (which they aren't). You even mentioned Halo having a completely bad story, but you still considered it a good FPS. Why? For the gameplay I'm guessing. Look at it this way, how many SP FPS games that have done well and are popular and sold well have either A). really good stories, and complete crap gameplay, or B). have a complete shit story and a really good gameplay. You'll see the balance heavily tipped into the latter's favor. Basically, for SP in FPS games, gameplay is more important and significant then the story, and while ideally a game should have both a strong story and gameplay, gameplay should be a higher priority than story. And you even misunderstood what I originally posted too. I never even mentioned Multiplayer anywhere in my original post, it was talking strictly about SP in FPS games, that gameplay should valued greater than the storyline in SP FPS games. And please be a little more civil, your speech sounds like the CoD fanboys you so seem to detest.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Did I just see Fallout, Portal, Mirror's Edge, and FPS mentioned in the same sentence? Just because it's first person and you can shoot something doesn't make it a FPS.
 
[quote name='MrPiggles']Perhaps I may have been to broad. Most modern day FPSs are advertised and focused onto gameplay, especially CoD and BF, so no-one should really expect too much from them story wise. I think that for me, and most people out their, playing SP in a FPS game, if the gameplay was god-awful (for example, let's say a modern day game (no game in particular) that had AI worse than Doom, heavily unbalanced weapons and environments, broken scripting, etc), that game would get no higher than 6 or 7 in our heads, no matter how good the story was, while if it had amazing immersive addicting gameplay but a lackluster story, we'd easily give it an 8 or 9 in our heads. For games like Half Life and Bioshock (both of which I've played) that have great stories, but the gameplay for both of those are mainly what "made" them popular, Bioshock for it's tonic and special abilities, and Half Life, with its interesting puzzles, environment, and level design. A good story feels more like an added bonus to SP FPS game experiences nowadays, and both Half Life and Bioshock what have still sold fairly well if their stories were complete shit (which they aren't). You even mentioned Halo having a completely bad story, but you still considered it a good FPS. Why? For the gameplay I'm guessing. Look at it this way, how many SP FPS games that have done well and are popular and sold well have either A). really good stories, and complete crap gameplay, or B). have a complete shit story and a really good gameplay. You'll see the balance heavily tipped into the latter's favor. Basically, for SP in FPS games, gameplay is more important and significant then the story, and while ideally a game should have both a strong story and gameplay, gameplay should be a higher priority than story. And you even misunderstood what I originally posted too. I never even mentioned Multiplayer anywhere in my original post, it was talking strictly about SP in FPS games, that gameplay should valued greater than the storyline in SP FPS games. And please be a little more civil, your speech sounds like the CoD fanboys you so seem to detest.[/QUOTE]

Argh wall of text. Anyway honestly it's a matter of opinion, the atmosphere and backstory that Bioshock presented was what drew me in and immersed me for hours upon hours. The various abilities and upgrades, while interesting, did not really contribute to how much I enjoyed the game.
 
After my friend and I were sick of MW3 last night, we put this in (haven't played it together in a long time) and we had a blast.

I forgot how much fun this game can be.

Now if only he had the Karkand maps :(
 
[quote name='Tsel']Did I just see Fallout, Portal, Mirror's Edge, and FPS mentioned in the same sentence? Just because it's first person and you can shoot something doesn't make it a FPS.[/QUOTE]

The fuck? "Yeah and its not a car...its a race car."

FPS is the category title it doesnt define specifics you only need twp things to qualify, being in first person perspective and some type of shooting gameplay.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I always pay attention to the story in any game I play. If it ends up sucking I'm disappointed but sometimes I can be surprised: Bioshock 1/2, Halo etc...
 
I love listening to COD fans talk about games. They always have that aura of trying to convince themselves that what they say was far more epic than what it really was. Then I am never surprised to find out that 90% of their time is spent playing solely COD type games.

All I can say is if you think COD (aside from the first one) has a good story let alone good gameplay (for the SP) then you should really play more games. COD (like battlefiends sp) was extremely generic and pretty shitty overall filled with huge plot holes that you can drive a semi through. Let me remind you that the game driving point is Russia some how invading EVERY OTHER COUNTRY ON THE PLANET SIMULTANEOUSLY. For fucks sake half the game is spent on rails!!?!?! Now if you liked it...high five to you. I am not here to tell you what you can and can not like but just because you liked it doesnt make it any less shitty. I loved Alpha Protocol but I fully admit that game was broken beyond repair.

Now I will eagerly await the standard justification to a shitty SP game..."waaa well its a MP game no one cares about the SP" Oh wait that was already said.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']Shut up fool. That is a statement that is very typically of mindless COD dumbass. There are MANY FPS that are story based, ever heard of Half Life, Portal, Halo (the story there sucked but they still put a lot of time and effort into it) Mirrors Edge, Fall Out, Bioshock, Fear, Condemned?

Are you serious? Just because you only play MP based FPS doesnt mean that no one in the modern area does.[/QUOTE]

He's right. Not only do you mention games that aren't really FPS games (not comparable to COD/BF3 anyway) but some of them don't even have MP.

[quote name='Soodmeg']I love listening to COD fans talk about games. They always have that aura of trying to convince themselves that what they say was far more epic than what it really was. Then I am never surprised to find out that 90% of their time is spent playing solely COD type games.

All I can say is if you think COD (aside from the first one) has a good story let alone good gameplay (for the SP) then you should really play more games. COD (like battlefiends sp) was extremely generic and pretty shitty overall filled with huge plot holes that you can drive a semi through. Let me remind you that the game driving point is Russia some how invading EVERY OTHER COUNTRY ON THE PLANET SIMULTANEOUSLY. For fucks sake half the game is spent on rails!!?!?! Now if you liked it...high five to you. I am not here to tell you what you can and can not like but just because you liked it doesnt make it any less shitty. I loved Alpha Protocol but I fully admit that game was broken beyond repair.

Now I will eagerly await the standard justification to a shitty SP game..."waaa well its a MP game no one cares about the SP" Oh wait that was already said.[/QUOTE]

I played every game you mentioned aside from Fear, and I can safely say that I thoroughly enjoyed the MW series campaigns. I liked the characters and I'm fine with the Russia invading the US story even if it is ridiculous. COD does six hour action packed campaigns with epic moments, and no other game really does it better. There's a reason it gets good review scores every year. There's a reason BF3 was criticized for its campaign. There's a reason why COD sells the way it does.

Maybe you're in the minority.
 
Trak I cant even take what you say seriously, you are so over the top in your love/ hate/ love again/ its the worst thing ever yet is simultaneously being the greatest thing ever of COD that I cant process your bias.

Also, no one is comparing any game to any other games....FPS is a category title there is no debate there....it seems only COD fans think that FPS = COD type game. Again, its like say a monster truck is not a truck because it has big tires. No matter how much you like it doesnt magically become anything else then a truck. Although I agree trying to compare it to a F150 is pointless.

All of the games I mention are indeed FPS as there isnt much needed to become one.


Lastly, again dude, I cant take anything you say about COD seriously because you tend to strawmen a lot of your points when it comes to comparison. For example you just compared BF3s campaign to COD overall score???? Seeing that a vast majority of COD players dont even play the SP thats kind of a moot comparison and more of an apple to oranges type of thing.

And didnt MW3 Dev beg for the metactic score to be change? How did you get the impressions that it does something better than every other game? Although I am pretty sure that I read something that said that COD3 logs about 40 percent more hours played than BF3 http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/121/1212113p1.html
 
You were the one who brought those games up. You mention Portal, a puzzle game, just because it's in first person?

My point about BF3's campaign is that it was knocked pretty consistently in every review while COD games aren't usually critiqued for bad campaigns. People know what they're getting and they like them.

I don't know what you don't get about my stance on COD. The MP is love/hate most of the time, as it is with most people. It's actually like that for me and any game. I have no problem calling out bullshit. Right now, there isn't a better shooter out there than COD. That being said, each COD since MW2 has been inferior.
 
Again, do you guys not understand category labels? Alright since I am not getting, Trak you define what a FPS is then.

Also Trak, your stance flip flops more than then shoe of the same name. I stopped trying to debate you on this topic a long time ago. I will say this, the Netcode alone makes it impossible to considered of the best games ever....you can have a god damn fiber line and it will still play like you are in a library.
 
You are right dotcody, although to answer your question its because COD fans really cant handle knowing someone doesnt like their game. So they meet in mass to prove otherwise and talk about its EPIC GAMEPLAY THAT BEATS ALL GAMES!!!!! (ECHO ECHO ECHO)

I kid I kid but we should stop.
 
I stopped caring about Single Player and it's story. I played the MW3 Campaign they day it came out and I didn't know what the hell was going on. I beat like 5 Missions and had no idea what's happening besides the US being attacked. I just only jumped and shot. Jumping and shooting. Most FPS stories are generic and bland. BF3 started the Campaign OK, with the main character running away and getting captured (a la Black OPS). During these segments IDK what the fucks going on. One minuet im running and gunning, the next I'm in a damn Jet. I haven't beat either campaign and I don't own MW3. I prefer BF3's Multiplayer, but thats just me. The only way I'm ever buying another COD game is if they include zombies!!!
 
[quote name='Rosterking']I stopped caring about Single Player and it's story. I played the MW3 Campaign they day it came out and I didn't know what the hell was going on. I beat like 5 Missions and had no idea what's happening besides the US being attacked. I just only jumped and shot. Jumping and shooting. Most FPS stories are generic and bland. BF3 started the Campaign OK, with the main character running away and getting captured (a la Black OPS). During these segments IDK what the fucks going on. One minuet im running and gunning, the next I'm in a damn Jet. I haven't beat either campaign and I don't own MW3. I prefer BF3's Multiplayer, but thats just me. The only way I'm ever buying another COD game is if they include zombies!!![/QUOTE]

Did you just skip all the cutscenes, cause while both storylines weren't the best, they both were both pretty easy to follow.
 
[quote name='MrPiggles']Did you just skip all the cutscenes, cause while both storylines weren't the best, they both were both pretty easy to follow.[/QUOTE]
Nope, I don't skip anything I haven't seen. Besides, I haven't played either game in over 2-3 months.
 
[quote name='Rosterking']Nope, I don't skip anything I haven't seen. Besides, I haven't played either game in over 2-3 months.[/QUOTE]

If you didn't skip cutscenes, then I don't really see how you could have not gotten either MW3 or BF3 stories. Neither of them were very complex, and were both clearly presented through the cutscenes and dialogs
 
[quote name='dotCody']Do you honestly take IGNorant seriously? Didn't they give MW2.1 nine out of ten or something? And why are you guys arguing about other games? I thought this was the Battlefield 3 thread...[/QUOTE]

I should have noted the comments to that article as well. There are pages and pages pointing out what you just did.

Everyone knows why IGN gives COD games 9+ every year while giving other games 7's for "not doing anything new". Everyone knows why, but nobody wants to say it outloud.

Advertising Revenue
 
In case anyone didn't see there's supposed to be an EA conference or something next week and they are announcing DLC for BF3 most likely.
http://www.videogamer.com/xbox360/b...nnouncement_coming_next_week_in_new_york.html



Well to be fair, Modern Warfare gets such high scores because of many factors including: hype, consistency, advertising, and it is a solid game. Personally I think it sucks ass. They've convoluted it so much and bogged it down, but at its core it still plays really damn well. Therefore the scores it gets as a game are deserved to a point. Has there been any innovation since cod 4? Hardly. And most of the stuff they've added has only made the game worse. So while it may not deserve high 9's and 10's it should still score in the 8's and low 9's. Unfortunately the COD franchise set the standards so people let it slip by for not doing anything new.
 
Really? That shit happened constantly to me in Bad Company 2 - Vietnam. I eventually stopped playing because I never knew when my stats would return, if they'd all be there, etc.

Seems like something that should've been fixed long ago.

It has never happened to me in CoD or Gears or Reach.

EDIT - This was for not2worried (duh)
 
[quote name='not2worried']Ah... got on today and my "solider" was reset to 0 rank, same with my brother in law....
Anyone see this or know whats going on??[/QUOTE]

That would regularly happen to me on BF:BC2, and only once on BF3. It's a glitch on the EA side; it would return to normal after a round or two.
 
Wow, I read some guy's comment on the BF3 blog about how to take advantage of some glitch in Operation Metro...crazy. The opponents could not hold C and you can clearly see it drove them crazy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top