[abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz]

(Original post by Keckers)
Unless I suddenly come into a significant amount of money I'm once again going to be playing the latest games on my xbox 360

Having only just started playing BFBC2 on 360 (and hating my friends for not introducing me to it earlier) I have to say it is by far the best online game I have played in a long time. (My favourite is still CoD1 on PC, so much love for rifle servers...)

if you like BFBC2, then BF2 is worth a look on PC - for 5 pounds you can't go wrong

[Tommyjw]

(Original post by abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz)
I dunno, i'm not convinced with the 4 class system

i think at least 6 classes were needed imo

i know BF3 won't be anything like cod, i'm just worried that it'll be more like BFBC3 rather than BF3

also one thing that MUST be reintroduced is the commo rose - BFBC2 was too dumbed down for my liking - most likely to please the cod fan boys

I see what you are saying, and i see how more classes could be better, but just saying i don't think it's that bad that it needs attention yet , shall have to see how they pan out

Trouble is that they are a business, they could make the 'best' fps game out there but it just wouldn't sell anyyytthinnggg like BF3 or MW3 will.

BF3 will steer a tiny bit towards pleasing COD players, just like MW3 is doing slightly to please BF players (bigger maps, destructible environment etc). As a 'true' (aka not COD fanboy) gamer we could list many things we would like in the next BF game. Some are probably already there, some may not be, but just have to remember that it is a hard job for EA to create an equal balance between maximizing the sales and pleasing BF fans as much as possible.

[Yaba's Turd]

Whens the beta coming out? Anyone know anything ....

[el moro]

omg how can any1 say that cod is better. its soooo repetitive!!! u cant blow up buildings, use vehiicles, be in squads....... BF3 is gonna seta new bar and i dont think modern warfare 3 is gonna be anywhere near it, and if one more person says that cod is better than battlfield to me, im gonna take a squad bike and tank so i can blow their house, or maybe use some c4.....

[abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
I see what you are saying, and i see how more classes could be better, but just saying i don't think it's that bad that it needs attention yet , shall have to see how they pan out

Trouble is that they are a business, they could make the 'best' fps game out there but it just wouldn't sell anyyytthinnggg like BF3 or MW3 will.

BF3 will steer a tiny bit towards pleasing COD players, just like MW3 is doing slightly to please BF players (bigger maps, destructible environment etc). As a 'true' (aka not COD fanboy) gamer we could list many things we would like in the next BF game. Some are probably already there, some may not be, but just have to remember that it is a hard job for EA to create an equal balance between maximizing the sales and pleasing BF fans as much as possible.

unfortunately, i guess that's true however i'm sure that BF3 would still shift millions of copies if they took BF2 and mashed it with all that was good in BFBC2 - alas we will never get what we want

I just hope that health regeneration is scrapped, squad hopping is stopped (so you can only spawn on the leader but within a team you can swap leaders when you die - but you can't swap squads when you die) and we get commo rose back, that's probably the few things i definitely want in this game

[Tommyjw]

(Original post by el moro)
omg how can any1 say that cod is better. its soooo repetitive!!! u cant blow up buildings, use vehiicles, be in squads....... BF3 is gonna seta new bar and i dont think modern warfare 3 is gonna be anywhere near it, and if one more person says that cod is better than battlfield to me, im gonna take a squad bike and tank so i can blow their house, or maybe use some c4.....

COD IS better than BF, for arcade style shooting.

BF is better for more strategy/tactical stuff.

Basically, they are different games, it is quite frankly stupid to say one is better than the other.

[el moro]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
COD IS better than BF, for arcade style shooting.

BF is better for more strategy/tactical stuff.

Basically, they are different games, it is quite frankly stupid to say one is better than the other.

so why do games have higher ratings than others....And i mean better as in graphics, quality and the effort put in

[Tommyjw]

(Original post by el moro)
so why do games have higher ratings than others....And i mean better as in graphics, quality and the effort put in

Firstly, it is completely biased depending on who reviewed it.

Secondly, they are clearly not the only factors. I'm assuming you don't read many reviews yourself? Very unpopular (just because of the genre) games can have very high ratings compared to a very popular game, let's say a sequel, which has fairly low reviews. It is all about basis for comparison, personal experience, the 'expectations' they had and things like that.

Look at this.
http://imgur.com/fFOpx

Explain that to me?

Or this.
Mount & Blade. Not a very wide known game, but 90% of people playing it LOVE it, i do too, it is simply amazingly unique, fantastic and still has a better multiplayer system than a lot of FPS systems. Two hours ago i was playing on a server with 134 people in it when i left.
http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/mountandblade/index.html

But it got a 6.0 score? a 7.3 average critics score?
But what's that? a 8.7 user score?

Basically, ratings + reviews are generally a load of BS and unless something is getting very low (like under 5) i generally ignore whatever they say.#

You should use reviews + ratings as a base standard. Take what they say with a pinch of salt.

Back to the point. MW3 & BF3 are different games at the end of the day, kinda ridiculous to really try and compare them in such ways some people do so.

[el moro]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
Firstly, it is completely biased depending on who reviewed it.

Secondly, they are clearly not the only factors. I'm assuming you don't read many reviews yourself?

Look at this.
http://imgur.com/fFOpx

Explain that to me?

its not really biased if there is a clear pattern which is usually the case. i never said they were, i just gave example that I think bf outclasses cod in. ok so that means that imagine party babyz is better than brink. brink didnt receive much praise from most reviews so i dont see whats wrong with having such low ratings on ign, and as for imagine part babyz, thats only 1 review so there is no clear pattern and in that case, the review may be biased

[abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz]

(Original post by Tommyjw)

Look at this.
http://imgur.com/fFOpx

Explain that to me?

guy who reviewed it was a peadophile

[TM94]

(Original post by el moro)
omg how can any1 say that cod is better. its soooo repetitive!!! u cant blow up buildings, use vehiicles, be in squads....... BF3 is gonna seta new bar and i dont think modern warfare 3 is gonna be anywhere near it, and if one more person says that cod is better than battlfield to me, im gonna take a squad bike and tank so i can blow their house, or maybe use some c4.....

[Jmzie-Coupe]

Yeah, I had battlefield 2 before the disc broke. BF3 looks very good, disappointing that it's not out til november though

[Tabris]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
Back to the point. MW3 & BF3 are different games at the end of the day, kinda ridiculous to really try and compare them in such ways some people do so.

This, so ****ing much.

Apart from sharing the same basic principles as arcade style shooters, they're completely different.

I don't know how people don't understand that a conquest based game can't be compared to a deathmatch based game.

It's dick hammering stupid that people keep on making the comparison.

It's almost as bad as people who think Battlefield or CoD are realistic

[StatusRed]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
Firstly, it is completely biased depending on who reviewed it.

Secondly, they are clearly not the only factors. I'm assuming you don't read many reviews yourself? Very unpopular (just because of the genre) games can have very high ratings compared to a very popular game, let's say a sequel, which has fairly low reviews. It is all about basis for comparison, personal experience, the 'expectations' they had and things like that.

Look at this.
http://imgur.com/fFOpx

Explain that to me?

Or this.
Mount & Blade. Not a very wide known game, but 90% of people playing it LOVE it, i do too, it is simply amazingly unique, fantastic and still has a better multiplayer system than a lot of FPS systems. Two hours ago i was playing on a server with 134 people in it when i left.
http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/mountandblade/index.html

But it got a 6.0 score? a 7.3 average critics score?
But what's that? a 8.7 user score?

Basically, ratings + reviews are generally a load of BS and unless something is getting very low (like under 5) i generally ignore whatever they say.#

You should use reviews + ratings as a base standard. Take what they say with a pinch of salt.

Back to the point. MW3 & BF3 are different games at the end of the day, kinda ridiculous to really try and compare them in such ways some people do so.

Yeah Mount and Blade is great but because it's not made by a big company it gets nowhere near the great reviews that the big games get. Maybe money has influenced the situation?

[Tommyjw]

'Battlefield 3 to have huge amount of voice over variations'

Largest in any FPS apparently.

The good points, even if small, just keep roollinnggg in

[Tom78]

I'm just wondering how it's going to be any different to Battlefield 1 and 2, both good games but the rediculously big maps and the lack of combat for half the time your playing make it a bit of a turn off.

[Tommyjw]

(Original post by Tom78)
I'm just wondering how it's going to be any different to Battlefield 1 and 2, both good games but the rediculously big maps and the lack of combat for half the time your playing make it a bit of a turn off.

Well i wouldn't call it a 'lack of combat' .. it always seemed fine to me.

It may be a turn off to some people, ofcourse. Just like COD is too much of a rape fest for me most of the time. I like the more tactical approaches associated with BF.

It's always going to be an 'each to their own' scenario between COD and BF (:

[Tabris]

(Original post by DH-Biker)
Plus, aircraft are back, aren't they!? That'll add a whole new level of tactical play.

More like a whole new level of base rape, as per.

[Apocalyptic Fish]

I really can't wait for Gears 3 and Battlefield 3. I'll probably get MW3 after I've played those for a while.

[2ndClass]

It depends on how long the campaign is. I'm not an on-line gamer so if it's another 5 hour campaign, I will wait for it to drop significantly in price.