Battlefield 3 Teaser

Destructible city’s its about time :D

Hope they go back to 5 or 6 classes, the 4 in bfbc 2 are very overpowered :(
 
"andy" said:
i take it your just looking for an argument

a teaser should tease and to tease you have to show 'something'

look at teasers from companies like rockstar or teasers from cinema.
Click to expand...

The teaser showed you enough to gleam information from it. Just because it has no gameplay does not mean it wasn't a teaser. If you wanted that, you should have waited for the trailer instead of complaining about a reveal teaser in advance of the imminently forth-coming GDC.

Can't help you here *shrugs*
 
mlbtheshow said:
I take it by that comment you haven't.

MAG is fantastic, underrated by the masses due to the ease of games like COD unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Actually I do and played it for a while..msot concured..huge number like that dont work in objective based missions.
 
Helicopters are fine, as long as there are reasonable counter measures in the maps. Never thought much of jets tbh.

What I want from BF3 is more focus on squads, transport choppers over Black Hawks - both can exist but everyone hates helo whores. They hate eachother ffs!

Also want less emphasis on kpd - they can remove that stat for all I care. What is needed is more rewards for team work. Squadding up and attacking the objectives, not camping with scoped noob tubes/RPGs
 
Air vehicles rock, and are a major part of what makes the the proper Battlefield games so good.

Stop whining :p
 
Zefan said:
Air vehicles rock, and are a major part of what makes the the proper Battlefield games so good.

Stop whining :p
Click to expand...

Grow up. Just because I want more from the next game doesn't mean I should be shouted down as a "muppet" and told to "stop whining" by those who want to maintain the status quo, especially when I air my criticisms in a thread obviously aimed at discussing the possible merits of the next game in the series.
 
Conscript said:
Grow up.
Click to expand...

I suggest you take your own advice, reacting like that to a post that was clearly meant in a friendly manner is a bit over the top and I find it pretty insulting.

I hear your concerns about the issues in BF2 and I agree, but that doesn't mean I don't want them at all for the next installment.

I stand by my statement that air vehicles are a big part of what make Battlefield what it is. You have BFBC for smaller scale infantry based combat, the original and what I think are the "proper" Battlefield games would feel like something was missing without them.
 
Zefan said:
I suggest you take your own advice, reacting like that to a post that was clearly meant in a friendly manner is a bit over the top and I find it pretty insulting.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that post was also aimed at the guy calling me a muppet, but I only quoted you as yours was the last post. I just find it annoying and insulting to come here and discuss the game in a serious fashion only to face shouts of "lol shut up, muppet" or whatever. I thought I'd be safe from that on OcUK, even on the console forum.

Zefan said:
I hear your concerns about the issues in BF2 and I agree, but that doesn't mean I don't want them at all for the next installment.

I stand by my statement that air vehicles are a big part of what make Battlefield what it is. You have BFBC for smaller scale infantry based combat, the original and what I think are the "proper" Battlefield games would feel like something was missing without them.
Click to expand...

If the maps are big enough, fine. But they would have to be seriously massive in order to have them incorporated properly, and it would have to be vastly more complex. Im sorry, but jets in BF2 just felt like they'd been chucked in because, hey, battles include jet planes sometimes, right?

The only game I've seen environments large enough for jet planes really is Operation Flashpoint. Like i said, flying a plane in BF2 always felt more like just circling around an arena taking potshots at tanks than proper air combat.
 
cu3ed said:
Actually I do and played it for a while..msot concured..huge number like that dont work in objective based missions.
Click to expand...

MAG is an amazing game I'm not sure what you're talking about, those numbers absolutely DO work. Maybe you were playing on your own and that's why you didn't enjoy it, I felt a little lost aswell but once you get a few mates into your squad it's a lot more fun you should seriously give it another try. As mentioned though, if MAG can do 256 I don't see why BF3 can't do 64.
 
Drunzer said:
MAG is an amazing game I'm not sure what you're talking about, those numbers absolutely DO work. Maybe you were playing on your own and that's why you didn't enjoy it, I felt a little lost aswell but once you get a few mates into your squad it's a lot more fun you should seriously give it another try. As mentioned though, if MAG can do 256 I don't see why BF3 can't do 64.
Click to expand...

Fair enough you could be right..perhaps I jsut got in with some crappy players..same with BF2 and BF:BC..if you had useless squad players you stood no chance really.

But yes techincally I see the point on numbers in games, Im thinking they feel that BF jsut works better in smaller numbers.
 
BF2 was good agreed.

I recently started playing BFBC2 and its ok.... winds me up sometimes I don't want realism but i want more than that had to offer.

BF3 i think will not evolve too far from BC2... its going to be disappointing i think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom