Battlefield 3 thread - Server details in opening post -

Status
Not open for further replies.
-Aura- said:
Just to keep this in thread, a question if I may?

I've never played any BF series games, always the COD fanboi. I like close quarters combat and had always heard that BF can be a little campy/long periods of time running about HOWEVER, I'm seriously contemplating BF3 but wondered about the single player ... does it follow a plot/storyline on from previous, or will I not even notice?

I realise the differences between the two but I would rather part with my cash to EA knowing that a small part of it may actually be used in the PC development of the next title in the series.
Click to expand...

Wait for the reviews. Don't lump on SP possibnly being good. It will not diminish in time like the MP experience will if you come in late.
 
BF2 never even had single player If i remeber right, just a sort of practice AI multiplayer. I didnt do the BC2 single player but I believe it was quiet good. The single player in BF3 is looking far and away miles better than anything before it and I dont think it follows a previous games storyline.

Bf3 pre loaded sooo neeeddd too be playing :D
 
-Aura- said:
Just to keep this in thread, a question if I may?

I've never played any BF series games, always the COD fanboi. I like close quarters combat and had always heard that BF can be a little campy/long periods of time running about HOWEVER, I'm seriously contemplating BF3 but wondered about the single player ... does it follow a plot/storyline on from previous, or will I not even notice?

I realise the differences between the two but I would rather part with my cash to EA knowing that a small part of it may actually be used in the PC development of the next title in the series.
Click to expand...

You're well catered to my friend. Rush modes and team deathmatch will help ease you into the experience, but when you're ready, giant 64 player conquest maps will be waiting for you :D

As far as SP, I'll be forcing myself to play it before the MP (while the server issues are being ironed out, much as they had to be with BC2. It's inevitable) and it looks fantastic. BC2 was good for SP, and I expect big things from BF3 having had some good SP experience under the DICE belt by now.

I'm preloaded and ready to jizz. Roll on the 28th!
 
-Aura- said:
Just to keep this in thread, a question if I may?

I've never played any BF series games, always the COD fanboi. I like close quarters combat and had always heard that BF can be a little campy/long periods of time running about HOWEVER, I'm seriously contemplating BF3 but wondered about the single player ... does it follow a plot/storyline on from previous, or will I not even notice?

I realise the differences between the two but I would rather part with my cash to EA knowing that a small part of it may actually be used in the PC development of the next title in the series.
Click to expand...

depends what map you play and what game mode

One of the most popular maps on BF2 was strike at karkand because all the capture points were very close together, and there were no jets or helicopters and only the odd armoured vehicles.

Some of the bigger conquest maps like Zatar wetlands would take you a good 5 minutes to drive across, let alone walk, so may not be your style

But the closer infantry maps will be much your thing.
 
MrLOL said:
One of the most popular maps on BF2 was strike at karkand because all the capture points were very close together, and there were no jets or helicopters and only the odd armoured vehicles.

Some of the bigger conquest maps like Zatar wetlands would take you a good 5 minutes to drive across, let alone walk, so may not be your style
Click to expand...

This did always dissapoint me. The point for me in the BF series was open spaces, big maps, variety of vehicles. That was what made a Battlefield game.

If I want to run around a close quarter city with not many vehicles, I'll play COD because frankly COD is a better, or was a better, pure FPS. The magic of BF was being feeling part of a larger war rather than just being a first person shooter.
 
[TW]Fox;20368152 said:
The magic of BF was being feeling part of a larger war rather than just being a first person shooter.
Click to expand...

That is something which greatly impressed me with Casian Border, not only is there lots of activity going on in the game, but the background environment is fantastic and really makes you feel, as you said like there is a war going on as well, it does it better than any other FPS i have played. Add the amazing sound to it as well and it is a great experience as a FPS. It is these touches that set it apart imo.
 
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;20368152 said:
This did always dissapoint me. The point for me in the BF series was open spaces, big maps, variety of vehicles. That was what made a Battlefield game.

If I want to run around a close quarter city with not many vehicles, I'll play COD because frankly COD is a better, or was a better, pure FPS. The magic of BF was being feeling part of a larger war rather than just being a first person shooter.
Click to expand...

Its strange

Because the PC gaming master race are the ones demanding that DICE not bow to the "console derp" and give them maps as big as Zatar wetlands, and give them jets and helicopters

And yet the BF2 server list is dominated by a map that has none of these.

L33 said:
He did the voiceover of overlord in COD:MW2 too :)
Click to expand...

he was the voice of Overlord wasn't he ?
 
Think its worth pre-ordering this just to get the DLC even though I wont have a pc capable of running it until Christmas (Worst case scenario). Just now I only have a Intel Pentium D 3.4 GHz and a 4670 :(. Or just wait till I get my new pc and wait for the DLC to be released.
 
tbh I'm looking to the inner-city infantry maps just as much as the vehicle maps. To say cod does close combat fighting better is rubbish.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom