Battlefield 3

[Escaep]

It's painfully obvious they're trying to suck in the Modern Warfare crowd with these trailers (Riccitiello has admitted as much), so maybe they just hand-picked a section they thought would appeal to them, but I'm really tempted to think they've just stuck with the Bad Company 2 mold but "upped the ante" or whatever.

Well duh, they aren't going to be trying to suck in the World of Warcraft crowd. They are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into this game and they are going to have to do a lot of work to try and get the CoD folk to buy their game. DICE/EA is a business and they have to do whats in their best interests to sell the game, which means making some parts of the game CoD like to appeal to the CoD community.

 

[jimbo118]

the gameplay won't be pre-alpha, that won't be changing this late into development. the only alpha things about it are likely to be the scripting, environments, how the level plays out and maybe, at a push, the visuals.

also lolled at the ''black do this, black do that'' and had an even heartier chuckle at the fact they are looking for jacksons squad. jacksons, how goddamn cliche can you get? whats the ****ing chances that one of the squad members is hispanic and called ramirez?

 

[Lobster]

I do feel a little sorry for US troops, for always being portrayed in videogames as the kids from South Park. Screaming like obnoxious assholes everytime the slightest puff of smoke appears, unable to finish any line of bland dialogue without punctuating it at least twice with the word ****. I mean I swear as much as the next guy, but the whole thing just feels like its written from the viewpoint of how the average target gamer imagines conflict to be, rather than being a portrayal of reality.

But the multiplayer has always been the main purpose of Battlefield, so I am looking forward to it greatly. BC2 wasn't so bad when you could find a decent server to frequent, but I have missed the sheer scale of 1942 and BF2.

 

[Escaep]

The 12 min gameplay from earlier with developer commentary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgHb9gD7TDs

 

[Krynn72]

Jesus Christ, I've never seen a company milk one video so goddamn much before. RECORD DIFFERENT FOOTAGE.

 

[Ren.182]

That commentary was so pointless. He mentioned some of the technology in two or three cases (literally mentioned them) and the rest of the commentary was "There is a dog, don't shoot it please." "That was the first bullet that got fired in this demo." "That box to your right is a placeholder." "That sniper just shot a flower pot."

Was this a commentary for the blind or something? Was hoping the commentary would be way more in depth than that...

 

[Stigmata]

PR has always been DICE's weak point.

Well, that and multiplayer connectivity.

 

[Rico]

I really don't get all the negativity coming from people about the trailers. The gunplay looks really solid, which IMHo was a weak point for a lot of the BF games. Sure, the SP looks a lot like CoD, but CoD's SP was never atrocious, so long as you take it for what it is. Also, who the heck cares about SP in a battlefield game? They have always been about the multiplayer, so to see so many people picking it apart seems kind of random.

So far BF3 looks like a sure buy to me. Solid gunplay, pretty solid-looking engine... If the MP and the vehicles are anything like the rest of it, this game will sell like crazy, and I'll be first in line.

 

[Krynn72]

I really don't get all the negativity coming from people about the trailers.

Thats because you either didn't read people's posts, or read them and immediately forgot what they said. Everything you brought up has been addressed, multiple times, in this very thread.

 

[Bad^Hat]

So far BF3 looks like a sure buy to me. Solid gunplay, pretty solid-looking engine... If the MP and the vehicles are anything like the rest of it, this game will sell like crazy, and I'll be first in line.

You obviously have very high standards.

 

[Rico]

You obviously have very high standards.

Or my opinion of a decent game is different than yours, and you're too close minded to understand the concept. A horse is a horse, I don't go to a farm and expect to buy a nice car. Likewise, I don't go to Dice and expect flawlessly amazing SP experiences. I play their game for the multiplayer. My biggest gripe with them has always been with the foot combat. Perhaps you disagree, I don't know since your post revealed absolutely nothing about anything (sarcasm doesn't make you look as smart as you think it does, just immature), but I for one think that if they can give me CoD gunplay with BF maps/vehicles, I'm happy.


Krynn:

Sorry, read em, didn't see any real reasons other than "OMG ITS LIKE COD OMGWFT!!11".

Also, somewhere in the internet, your opinions, and all the others in this thread, have been addressed. Multiple times. So I guess we should abandon the forums? Nothing left to discuss anywhere, all opinions are just rehashes of words someone else said somewhere before...

No need to be aggressive, go outside if you get so pissy about other people's comments that you need to post things of this nature (that added nothing to this discussion). Perhaps you should bother reading the entirety of my post before you make some blanket statement dismissing it, as I explained my point further... a couple of spaces after your quote.

Jesus has HL2.net gone downhill since I joined up. I remember when this community was polite. Amazing.

 

[TwwIX]

I am still waiting on some proper multiplayer footage before i make any judgments. I have no interest in the singleplayer whatsoever. I couldn't care less how it turns out as long as they deliver on the multiplayer end.

 

[ray_MAN]

Thats because you either didn't read people's posts, or read them and immediately forgot what they said. Everything you brought up has been addressed, multiple times, in this very thread.

What a dick.

 

[Vegeta897]

Sorry, read em, didn't see any real reasons other than "OMG ITS LIKE COD OMGWFT!!11".

*claps* what a brilliant way to shoo off everything that was said. Let me give you the main theme of why we think what we've seen so far looks awful: On Rails. The game is looking to be another Homefront as far as the SP is concerned. Nobody is asking for a 'flawless sp experience' but that doesn't mean it has to be this bad. You wouldn't expect the BF franchise of all games to have its SP be so limited. BF was one of the first MP games to bring large open battlefields to FPS multiplayer gaming, and they're giving us an over-scripted rails shooter as the SP component? You'll excuse us if we find this disappointing.

Also, somewhere in the internet, your opinions, and all the others in this thread, have been addressed. Multiple times. So I guess we should abandon the forums? Nothing left to discuss anywhere, all opinions are just rehashes of words someone else said somewhere before...

Hahaha. Yeah, except Krynn wasn't talking about some other forum, or even some other thread. He was talking about this thread, this very thread you are posting in.

Jesus has HL2.net gone downhill since I joined up. I remember when this community was polite. Amazing.

;(

 

[Krynn72]

Ok, Rico, let me go ahead and sum up the whole thread for you, since you're having trouble comprehending it. I will do it in a multi quote format using your post and then giving a sample of the related posts that already addressed what you said.

I really don't get all the negativity coming from people about the trailers.

Like I have said, you don't get it because you didn't read the posts or you didn't understand them. Examples:

Also, who the heck cares about SP in a battlefield game? They have always been about the multiplayer, so to see so many people picking it apart seems kind of random.

Can someone tell my why they're justified in expecting this game's MP will be good? With evidence? Where is the MP footage? What are the new gameplay mechanics they're planning on adding in MP? What's the 'goal'?

The Battlefield series has always been about the MP, it is their strong suit, and the only reason anybody ever buys their games. Given that fact, why would they show us singleplayer footage first? If they wanted to hype up the game, they should show us something good. Something new that shows people how great the MP is in their game. THATS ALL ANYBODY GIVES A **** ABOUT. So why give us footage of a direct CoD rip-off singleplayer campaign? Its like they took all the wrong lesson's from CoD's success.

If the multiplayer was really something special, even a retarded marketing director would know to start showing multiplayer features to people first. This screams of mismanagement of the franchise, with the people in charge having no idea what their consumer base wants. They're just trying to go after the CoD fanbase, and they will fail at taking any of it away from Activision. I'm now starting to think that there will be little innovation to this game, and it will simply be bigger map versions of CoD with vehicles. If so, then count me out.

It's not about BF2's hardcore fans wanting to see multiplayer immediately, right now, god damnit **** the singleplayer SHIT. It's about them creating a more positive reaction overall by revealing things in a specific order. They've spent millions of dollars on the singleplayer alone speaking in time spent developing, so showing the singleplayer last could have a very real financial impact on the game's total profitability. DICE are doing the smart thing here. By the time you've seen the multiplayer footage, you won't give a shit that the singleplayer was shown first.

By the time I've seen the multiplayer footage I'll have been convinced by the shitty singleplayer footage to NOT get the game. You don't serve people turdsauce and then work up to delicious pasta sauce. The turdsauce ruined their appetite.

No, the problem is that their press approach suggests that the MP is either on the backburner, is so unremarkable that they aren't showing it, or both.

If those things are as good as they suggest, they should be showing us those things first to prove it, not hiding them. My point with your hl2 comparison, is that Valve did exactly what I'm saying. They talked about their physics gameplay and how great it was, then some of the first released footage was that physics system in action, to back up their statements. Something which EA/Dice are not doing, be it a bad marketing strategy or trying to hide the fact that its not as good as they're suggesting.

Thats all I'm going to quote. These are from 2-2.5 months ago, and we've had to repeat ourselves a few more times since then. If you still don't understand why we have a feeling the game will be mediocre at best, then I think you're just being willfully ignorant.

So far BF3 looks like a sure buy to me. Solid gunplay, pretty solid-looking engine... If the MP and the vehicles are anything like the rest of it, this game will sell like crazy, and I'll be first in line.

So all a company needs to do is give you a single video of a handful of cherry-picked, cenimatic sequences, chop it up into multiple teasers to stretch it out over two and a half months, and bam, you're sold? We've seen hardly any gameplay for you to garner any information from, ESPECIALLY about MP. The entirety of the footage we have seen suggests just another COD clone in the singleplayer, which leads to a fair assumption that multiplayer will be a COD clone + vehicles. BF3 should have been something better than a clone+.

What a dick.

I know right? He didn't even read the thread before posting the same bullshit "who cares about SP? I'll eat DICE's jizz happily because it will taste just like Activision's, which I've been enjoying for years now!" What a dick.

Spoiler

 

[Bad^Hat]

I for one think that if they can give me CoD gunplay with BF maps/vehicles, I'm happy.

Hey, at least someone is willing to admit it. I've been trying to make this point all thread and no one has been able to honestly reply to me.

 

[Ennui]

*claps* what a brilliant way to shoo off everything that was said. Let me give you the main theme of why we think what we've seen so far looks awful: On Rails. The game is looking to be another Homefront as far as the SP is concerned. Nobody is asking for a 'flawless sp experience' but that doesn't mean it has to be this bad. You wouldn't expect the BF franchise of all games to have its SP be so limited. BF was one of the first MP games to bring large open battlefields to FPS multiplayer gaming, and they're giving us an over-scripted rails shooter as the SP component? You'll excuse us if we find this disappointing.

Homefont sucks because the writing is terrible, not because it's linear. News flash: this is an FPS. The genre has been heading in an almost strictly linear direction for the past decade.

I like how everyone expects some kind of revolutionary, ground-breaking new take on FPS singleplayer from BF3 like the only way they could possibly enjoy it is if DICE flips the genre on its head and breaks all the rules to create the most awesome and unconventional singleplayer campaign EVER. In BATTLEFIELD style man, with TANKS and shit. I just wanna be another generic nameless soldier on the Battlefield, dude!!1111 How dare they add linear singleplayer campaigns to a game whose singleplayer component has traditionally been nothing more than the multiplayer maps populated with 32 retarded bots with 90s AI! Truly a travesty.

Someone ought to tell those Swedish ****s how stupid they are for attempting to compete in the mainstream FPS market. Assholes.

Oh, and god forbid someone come in this thread and act intrigued instead of chiming in on the cacophony of naysayers who apparently have nothing better to do than whine about how the gaming industry doesn't address their personal ethical values with respect to FPS design. It's absolutely adorable how butthurt people on the internet get over the idea that someone is going to try to sell them a video game the wrong way. Reading this thread is like listening to an 11 year old whine tearfully to his mother for hours about how he isn't spoiled enough.

We will be seeing multiplayer footage at E3 in June. BF3 preorders are also through the roof: 700% more BF3 preorders this year than copies of BC2 purchased last year. That's a lot of damn preorders.

Rico, if you want to talk about BF3 without having Krynn crawl up your ass and make himself comfortable there for daring to think the game might be decent, you might want to check out the site in my sig over this thread

 

[Dynasty]

It's DICE's strings being pulled by EA.

To be honest, I see DICE as being arguably the most consistently great developers around. I cant remember the last time they released a game or were involved in a game that sucked.

EA clearly want Battlefield 3 to have a SP element, so it can be compared to CoD, be seen as better than CoD, therefore sales will likely increase. If Battlefield 3 beats CoD in sales, we will never hear the end of it from EA. It will be their crowning moment.

DICE doesnt make all the decisions.

Publishers wants to sell what sold well yesterday. Battlefield 2 is ancient now in comparison to what else is on the market these days, and EA have probably seen Bad Company and Bad Company 2 as being the latest success from DICE, so they want more of the same, because both those games did pretty damn well.

Bad Company was great, it was refreshing, but the MP kinda sucked. More of a MoH flop.

Now we have Bad Company 2 which did VERY well, and still to this day is hailed by many as the best FPS MP experience around. And, well, it is. It's mature, it's slower paced, it's more tactical, and it's devoid of annoying kids.

Adults play Bad Company 2. Kids play CoD. That's what matters to me personally. Which is why I play DICE games over any over-hyped Halo or CoD any day.

Then there's Bad Company Vietnam, a simply AMAZING addition to DICE's list of awesome games. Entirely MP, it sold well as DLCs go.

EA have clearly seen this and want a mixture of everything DICE has proven to be good at, sees times are changing and wants to sell this product to as many people as possible. That is the only way to beat CoD, which they are adamant they will do; you need to sell as many units as possible.

Some customers want singleplayer only. Some want multiplayer only. Some want both. More money comes from meeting as many people's demands as possible. It's the EA way. MOAR MONIES!

 

[Bad^Hat]

Homefont sucks because the writing is terrible, not because it's linear.

No, that's not entirely accurate.

I'm not even going to touch the rest of your post. Is there a ****ing gas leak in this thread? Christ.

 

[Kadayi]

Graphically the footage looks amazing, but I'd like to see more of the SP game in effect. Personally not at all fussed about MP (I never have the time for that these days), but if the SP campaign is good I'll probably get it. As an aside personally I didn't think MoH SP was terrible. It had a few issues with scripting issues, but I liked the more downbeat gritty nature of it Vs the CoD MW games.

 

[Vegeta897]

Homefont sucks because the writing is terrible, not because it's linear.

Yeah, um, no. I have no idea about the writing in the game, all I needed to see was that one review video to get a good long look at the shitty gameplay.

News flash: this is an FPS. The genre has been heading in an almost strictly linear direction for the past decade.

Oh for f... Linear != on a rails scripted bullshit

Look at a game like HL2 and then compare one of its action sequences to the sniper teaser video for BF3. The player has zero freedom in one of them, I'll let you guess which.

 

[Qonfused]

Best thread on HL2.net right now.

 

[Stigmata]

Oh for f... Linear != on a rails scripted bullshit

Look at a game like HL2 and then compare one of its action sequences to the sniper teaser video for BF3. The player has zero freedom in one of them, I'll let you guess which.

I'll let you guess which game's on a rails scripted bullshit you're outright ignoring in order to make your comparison work. God, veg, the Fault Line trailer didn't tell you who to shoot, and it didn't make you crouch down by the truck that gets hit by an RPG. Except for the sniper, of course, but that reminds me of the scripted playing-catch bullshit from Black Mesa East. I mean come on, being FORCED to use the gravity gun, just so I can let Valve show off their lame physics engine and halfassed AI scripting and animation blending? As if you'd even play catch with the Combine searching for you. It's stupid. The player has zero freedom in it.

 

[PvtRyan]

which leads to a fair assumption that multiplayer will be a COD clone + vehicles

What exactly is a "CoD clone" and why would that be a bad thing?

Let's see what makes CoD annoying:
- Yearly easy cash-in sequel. Not applicable to BF3.
- Paid shitty DLC. Maybe, but this wasn't the case for BC2. At least not for a bunch of shitty maps, Vietnam was add-on worthy.
- Screwing over the PC community. Not applicable to BF3 as the PC is the primary platform.
- Dumb over-the-top storylines. Perhaps. BC2 was sort of like that, but still more enjoyable than most CoD campaigns. But that's singleplayer and we've long since established no one gives a shit about singeplayer in a BF game.
- Infinitely respawning enemies until you cross an invisible magical line. Again: singleplayer. And also not going to be applicable to BF3 most likely.
- Overly present point scoring system.
- The CoD "community".
- But most of all: Perks and killstreaks. Goddamn f[font="Verdana]u[/font]cking killstreaks. No reason to think they'll be present in BF3.

So what's left then that would make BF3 a "CoD clone" in multiplayer? I think all that's left is CoD's great gunplay and first-person feeling. I'll sign up for that, thankyouverymuch. BC2 already has that and it seems likely that BF3 will be a mix of BC2 and BF2, or more specifically: BF3 will be BC2 with a greater scale.

Overall, I've seen nothing that would indicate that BF3 multiplayer will take over the bad parts of CoD and the good parts it has already implemented in BC2. Which is a good thing because BF2's gunplay and feeling was shit, as was BF1942's and BF:V's.

So when you say that BF3 will be "CoD clone + vehicles" you really mean to say that BF3 will be BC2 with bigger maps and higher player counts and aircraft. That sounds good to me. How does that not make you jizz your pants?

 

[Krynn72]

Jesus christ, you people are so god damn forgetful. WE HAVE ALREADY DONE THIS DISCUSSION. WHY CAN'T YOU PEOPLE REMEMBER? We have already talked about how Dice could make a SP great without being a on-rails COD clone. We have already talked about the difference in scripting between BF3 and HL2. WE HAVE ALREADY DONE THIS SHIT GOD DAMNIT.

And Ennui, please, as if there has been no other person excited about the game in this thread besides Rico. If you want God to forbid something, God forbid people actually have different opinions on the game than you fanboys. Run off to your fanboy site where you don't need to have an actual reason for you going around screaming CUM IN MY MOUTH EA I LOVE COD+ GAEMS.

EDIT: Finally, a post bringing up a new topic.

What exactly is a "CoD clone" and why would that be a bad thing?

Let's see what makes CoD annoying:
- Yearly easy cash-in sequel. Not applicable to BF3. As far as we know. Do you honestly believe that EA won't follow suit if BF3 is as successful as they are hoping? If I had to bet on it, I would say they WILL do yearly installments, or at least yearly-ish.

- Paid shitty DLC. Maybe, but this wasn't the case for BC2. At least not for a bunch of shitty maps, Vietnam was add-on worthy. Again, you're giving too much credit to EA. EA is only a step down from the pure 100% A-grade fecal matter that Activision is. There is like a 2% impurity

- Screwing over the PC community. Not applicable to BF3 as the PC is the primary platform. Remains to be seen. It doesn't count if its "good considering how bad other other ports are." Its also not that important anyways. People can live with a shitty interface if the game is good, but not with a shitty game if the interface is good. Also, no mod tools.

- Dumb over-the-top storylines. Perhaps. BC2 was sort of like that, but still more enjoyable than most CoD campaigns. But that's singleplayer and we've long since established no one gives a shit about singeplayer in a BF game.I absolutely disagree. BC2's singleplayer is possibly the worst campaign I've ever played. I even played MW2's and like it better, and I absolutely hated MW2's SP.

- Infinitely respawning enemies until you cross an invisible magical line. Again: singleplayer. And also not going to be applicable to BF3 most likely. This one I agree with.

- Overly present point scoring system. Uh... did you not play BC2?

- The CoD "community". Uh... did you not play BC2? BF3 is going to be even worse. You don't go after COD's sales without going after COD's community.

- But most of all: Perks and killstreaks. Goddamn f[font="Verdana]u[/font]cking killstreaks. No reason to think they'll be present in BF3.Thank god for that.

So what's left then that would make BF3 a "CoD clone" in multiplayer? I think all that's left is CoD's great gunplay and first-person feeling. I'll sign up for that, thankyouverymuch. BC2 already has that and it seems likely that BF3 will be a mix of BC2 and BF2, or more specifically: BF3 will be BC2 with a greater scale. Forgive me if I wanted something better than COD's gunplay. They dropped many of the things that made BF2 good, and picked up many of the things that makes COD bad all in the name of COD's gunplay.

Overall, I've seen nothing that would indicate that BF3 multiplayer will take over the bad parts of CoD and the good parts it has already implemented in BC2. Which is a good thing because BF2's gunplay and feeling was shit, as was BF1942's and BF:V's. You've seen nothing that would indicate that because they've shown nothing about MP, instead focusing their marketing on their piece of shit SP that apparently nobody in the world, fanboy or not, gives a single shit about.

So when you say that BF3 will be "CoD clone + vehicles" you really mean to say that BF3 will be BC2 with bigger maps and higher player counts and aircraft. That sounds good to me. How does that not make you jizz your pants? Because BC2 was a decent game with a god awful SP, not a great game by any means. BF3 promised to be great, but its going to be a decent game with vehicles, and a god awful SP. I don't jizz for a decent game that comes with a side of feces.

 

[Escaep]

So all a company needs to do is give you a single video of a handful of cherry-picked, cenimatic sequences, chop it up into multiple teasers to stretch it out over two and a half months, and bam, you're sold?

So all a company needs to do is give you a single video of a handful of cherry-picked, cinematic sequences, chop it up into multiple teasers to stretch it out over two and a half month, and bam, you're not buying the game?

Run off to your fanboy site where you don't need to have an actual reason for you going around screaming CUM IN MY MOUTH EA I LOVE COD+ GAEMS.

Because Hl2.net is being TOTALLY objective right now....

 

[Krynn72]

So all a company needs to do is give you a single video of a handful of cherry-picked, cinematic sequences, chop it up into multiple teasers to stretch it out over two and a half month, and bam, you're not buying the game?

Uh, the natural state of a product is unsold. Its up to the marketing people to make me want to buy it, not the other way around. The video didn't make me want to not buy it, it simply didn't make me want to buy it.

Because Hl2.net is being TOTALLY objective right now....

My point is that we can discuss our opposing views. You guys act like me, vegeta, viper, knut and Bad Had are the only people in this thread, when there is, on the other side of the fence, you, Ennui, Rico, Stigmata, Pvt. Ryan, and others. Saying the thread is just a hatefest is to ignore more than half of the participants in the thread.

 

[Shakermaker]

Private Ryan: Paid shitty DLC. Maybe, but this wasn't the case for BC2. At least not for a bunch of shitty maps, Vietnam was add-on worthy.
Krynn: Again, you're giving too much credit to EA. EA is only a step down from the pure 100% A-grade fecal matter that Activision is. There is like a 2% impurity

If the Vietnam DLC for BC2 is anything to go by I'll gladly be defecated upon.

 

[Stigmata]

I would love to see more Vietnam-style DLC. It was a reasonably-priced, self-contained, well-made game (my hatred of BC2 Vietnam notwithstanding), and especially worth it considering that the PC version got a ton of free map updates.

 

[ray_MAN]

I love seeing Krynn rage right now. Did Dice and Infinity Ward collectively piss in your Cheerios this morning?

 

[Krynn72]

No, EA and Activision did. They pissed in everybody's cereal, but I'm one of the few who aren't used to the taste still.

 

[Darkside55]

Still not giving a fuck until I see more jets.

 

[Bad^Hat]

I'll let you guess which game's on a rails scripted bullshit you're outright ignoring in order to make your comparison work. God, veg, the Fault Line trailer didn't tell you who to shoot, and it didn't make you crouch down by the truck that gets hit by an RPG. Except for the sniper, of course, but that reminds me of the scripted playing-catch bullshit from Black Mesa East. I mean come on, being FORCED to use the gravity gun, just so I can let Valve show off their lame physics engine and halfassed AI scripting and animation blending? As if you'd even play catch with the Combine searching for you. It's stupid. The player has zero freedom in it.

This is stupid. Look, there's linearity, and then there's being led by the ****ing nose. The only sequences in that trailer where you weren't directly accompanied by a squad telling you where to go were the bomb defusal scene and the self-contained action setpieces which lay in between more being led around. But it's totally cool because you can choose who to shoot.

DAY. ONE. PURCHASE.

 

[Stigmata]

The only sequences in that trailer where you weren't directly accompanied by Alyx telling you where to go were the "fetch with Dog" scene and the self-contained action setpieces which lay in between more being led around. But it's cool because you can choose who to shoot.

[edit] It's ridiculous that we're arguing like this. We should just agree to disagree until E3.

 

[Viperidae]

The only sequences in that trailer where you weren't directly accompanied by Alyx telling you where to go were the "fetch with Dog" scene and the self-contained action setpieces which lay in between more being led around. But it's cool because you can choose who to shoot.

Zing! You're so right! I was told where to go the whole time by squad mates!

Oh wait, didn't I order them around at some point...? Weren't there lulls in the gameplay where I was allowed to explore...? What????????

 

[sixteenth]

Patrick Bach on scaling-down to consoles and scripted sequences..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8j0BhG-hxM&sns=em

 

[Stigmata]

Let me guess

"We will have a mix of both" means "the campaign is more scripted than a Shakespeare play"

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

Crap. "Master Sergeant Shooter Sergeant Important Person of Sergeants Extreme" time.

 

[Krynn72]

What exactly is a "CoD clone" and why would that be a bad thing?
- Paid shitty DLC. Maybe, but this wasn't the case for BC2. At least not for a bunch of shitty maps, Vietnam was add-on worthy.

Just noticed this on Ennui's site.

For those of you who don’t already know, Back to Karkand is a DLC expansion for Battlefield 3 that brings back four of the most popular Battlefield 2 maps (Strike at Karkand, Wake Island, Sharqi Peninsula and Gulf of Oman) along with a selection of BF2 weapons and vehicles, all re-imagined in the glorious Frostbite 2 engine. It is available on BF3?s release date for those who preorder the Limited Edition of BF3 and will be available for purchase a month later for everyone else.

ohboys

 

[Shakermaker]

Just noticed this on Ennui's site.

ohboys

Oh my gosh, old news. This was discussed extensively in this very thread three months ago.