|
-
I know this is going to sound fanboyish, which is furthest from the truth, but honestly, I'm getting sick of everyone who is advocating Battlefield 3 thinking that it will be the second coming and will reinvent the entire FPS genre.
IT WILL NOT. Sure, it may be bringing in things that are cool, but most of that has to do with aesthetics, honestly. Not a whole lot to change up the gameplay aside from enhanced destruction.
In the end, it may pull a lot of players away from Call of Duty, but a good amount of still going to buy CoD, enjoy it, and I can guarantee that people are going to try BF3, not like it and go back.
It's definitely not going to be a CoD killer like DICE wants it to be and everyone's going around claiming. At this point, the only thing that can do that is CoD itself.
I'm not saying it's going to be bad, but there's no way in hell, unless every single CoD player skips out on MW3 that BF3 will kill it. And we all know that won't happen.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilyich Valken
I know this is going to sound fanboyish, which is furthest from the truth, but honestly, I'm getting sick of everyone who is advocating Battlefield 3 thinking that it will be the second coming and will reinvent the entire FPS genre.
IT WILL NOT. Sure, it may be bringing in things that are cool, but most of that has to do with aesthetics, honestly. Not a whole lot to change up the gameplay aside from enhanced destruction.
In the end, it may pull a lot of players away from Call of Duty, but a good amount of still going to buy CoD, enjoy it, and I can guarantee that people are going to try BF3, not like it and go back.
It's definitely not going to be a CoD killer like DICE wants it to be and everyone's going around claiming. At this point, the only thing that can do that is CoD itself.
I'm not saying it's going to be bad, but there's no way in hell, unless every single CoD player skips out on MW3 that BF3 will kill it. And we all know that won't happen.
Agreed.
Even though I am pro-BF3, to the max, I definitely do not think that it will kill off CoD (yet), as aforementioned by Ilyich.
However, if Activision and their fellow developers don't pull their fingers out their holes soon though, then in a few years time this unlikely scenario could be an eventuality, for sure.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhmmz
Agreed.
Even though I am pro-BF3, to the max, I definitely do not think that it will kill off CoD (yet), as aforementioned by Ilyich.
However, if Activision and their fellow developers don't pull their fingers out their holes soon though, then in a few years time this unlikely scenario could be an eventuality, for sure.
Totally. It's more than likely not going to happen this year, but maybe 2-3 years down the road, definitely. I've even heard they're going to try alternating MoH and BF every other year to try and compete.. I don't know how well MoH is going to do, though.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilyich Valken
Totally. It's more than likely not going to happen this year, but maybe 2-3 years down the road, definitely. I've even heard they're going to try alternating MoH and BF every other year to try and compete.. I don't know how well MoH is going to do, though.
There hasn't been a good MoH on the PC since Allied Assault, and there hasn't been a good MoH on the console since Rising Sun.
MoH Airborne had the potential to be amazing, even more so for me considering I have an obsession with WWII history and the 101st Airborne, but when my pre-order copy came I was deeply disappointed that they messed up the texture rendering (which made most PCs melt inside, when set to maximum graphics) and released the game with mass-bugs and errors, along with a fail-train multiplayer.... *sigh*
They created MoH Allied Assault, which is one of the most successful and most popular fps multiplayer games of all time... so why did they feel the need to change it all and fail so hard?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhmmz
I'm doing my latest website magazine article on why I think Battlefield 3 will be better than Call of Duty, if Activision's developers don't pull their socks up to challenge EA DICE.
So, I need opinions for my research :)
I have included a poll, and I would like you to state your reasons specifically telling me which game will be better than the other, and why. Please make it as constructive as possible for me to work with, as I will be quoting you :)
Thanks.
bf3 will win because mw3 is the same as mw2
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by awwnziikte
bf3 will win because mw3 is the same as mw2
and mw 2 was the same as mw and still people bought it.;)
@ Jay, I liked Moh pacific assault in the single player campaign.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by paecmaker
and mw 2 was the same as mw and still people bought it.;)
It wasn't, though.
And neither will MW3. If you actually look at MW and MW2, they're nothing alike aside from the core gameplay. And everything I've heard about MW3 says it's not going to be the same as MW2, core gameplay aside.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by paecmaker
Have you heard how they gonna help solve the camping problem that follows every fps. The small thing that light can be reflected from the snipers scope showing it as a small bright flash for the other players. These small things that when they come you wonder, why not earlier because they can change the gameplay completely.
The scopes in COD2 and MOHA were reflecting light, so BF3 won't be the first game to feature this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paecmaker
Another thing is that(Ive heard) in the dark flashlights is not used only to light up the surroundings but can also blind the opponent if aimed to his eyes(but if you overuse it they will proably get used to the light).
That sounds cool. I've always wanted to see that in an fps, but it might as well become overused and make the game imbalanced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhmmz
There hasn't been a good MoH on the PC since Allied Assault, and there hasn't been a good MoH on the console since Rising Sun.
IW created Allied Assault, and that's why it was so good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhmmz
MoH Airborne had the potential to be amazing, even more so for me considering I have an obsession with WWII history and the 101st Airborne, but when my pre-order copy came I was deeply disappointed that they messed up the texture rendering (which made most PCs melt inside, when set to maximum graphics) and released the game with mass-bugs and errors, along with a fail-train multiplayer.... *sigh*
They created MoH Allied Assault, which is one of the most successful and most popular fps multiplayer games of all time... so why did they feel the need to change it all and fail so hard?
MOHA was an amazing game (and you were with the 82nd btw). It offered a great singleplayer experience (as for the multiplayer, it was you own fault to expect a good multiplayer from a MOH game). The same goes for Pacific Assault - great SP, bad multiplayer.
But when compared to COD or BF, MOH is a terrible game. Medal of Honor 2010 was an awful game, and in my opinion, the MOH franchise is going to fall pretty damn soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paecmaker
@ Jay, I liked Moh pacific assault in the single player campaign.
+1 on Pacific Assault's campaing.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shooter99
That sounds cool. I've always wanted to see that in an fps, but it might as well become overused and make the game imbalanced.
Yeah, that is something Im a little worried about too.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shooter99
That sounds cool. I've always wanted to see that in an fps, but it might as well become overused and make the game imbalanced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paecmaker
Yeah, that is something Im a little worried about too.
It won't be a feature in Multiplayer. Do you really think EA DICE are that stupid? They have said that they're sticking to the roots of the Battlefield series, so they won't be adding stupid **** like that to the Multiplayer.
|
» Site Navigation
» Friends
» Recent Threads
» Sponsors
|
