BattleField 3/4

[KingCub]

Just wanted to know, does anybody here play BattleField 3 on the PC? If anyone does, do you think there should be a MLK clan up? I think it would be neat!

Also, anyone looking at buying BF4?

Thanks!

[Zeke]

PS3

And to answer your second question...YEAH! That game looks freaking ridiculous and awesome and I love the battlefield series. Just realistic enough to not allow cheap players and not too realistic to be frustrating.

[DGFone]

I am one of those rare people who actually doesn't quite like the Battlefield series.

As much as I love great looking detail on objects, what I love even more is a great draw distance. I play Halo 1 and even worse looking games: I can handle 5-polygon buildings. What I don't like seeing though, are random objects and details appearing out of nowhere just because I get close to them. If I were to design a game, I would concentrate on draw distance over individual detail, something we can all agree the Frostbite Engine doesn't do.

I saw a trailer for the engine itself earlier today, and there were some cool features that I saw. Having a 3D wave on an ocean that is the same for all players in the game at the same time is cool I guess.

But seriously, EA: Having great eye rendering a great story does not make. Having great graphics a great single player do not make. I thought you would have learned that with BF3, but I guess it's too much to ask for from EA...

Overall, I think BF4 is going to be another BF3: Looks great, but is still just another generic Modern Warfare shooter. Everyone will praise it for the graphics and multiplayer, it will get a ton of rewards, but even for most fans, it will still be lumped into the same category as, yes I will say it, Call of Duty. BF4 might also kill off BF3 as all the players migrate over to the newer game, making MF3 much worse than other "great shooters", even far older ones. If you want to see a great shooter still living up to its name, during non-peak hours, Halo 1 PC gets about 300 players. That's not bad for a game that came out in 2003.

Zeke: I personally find hyper-realism to be much better. Not only is the steep learning curve a great anti-noob tool (although one that can be easily abused), I never got the same feeling playing BF 2142 as I did in America's Army, where I will spend five minutes waiting for that perfect time when just one shot from my sniper rifle makes a huge difference to the team. You simply don't get that in BF or CoD.

TL/TR: Not what I consider to be a great game. My definition of great graphics is different than just about everyone else as well. In short, not my cup of tea.

[Zeke]

Every popular FPS does eventually turn into another Call of Duty (as far as gameplay goes) because of the players in it. I got this game when it first came out and the multiplayer was engaging as hell and teams would work together to get objectives accomplished. Now because Battlefield has become more popular, CoD noobs have migrated and started to turn the rush games into free for all deathmatches as they run around like chickens with their heads cut off firing grenade launchers in every direction. Good games do not last because of the people in them in my opinion. Lately I have attempted to play battlefield and it is swamped with noobs who can only succeed by firing rpgs and disregarding team objectives for their own sake. I am still waiting for the perfect shooter that cannot be abused and puts a prominent importance on teamwork instead of a free for all poop storm