Ahh, the humorous responses have begun.
Originally Posted by yoi
love your rant ...
but you are bashing BF3 like you know it , i would like to see your stats
... and the other thing , you pointed out some stuff , as if you had a base to compare them to ... what other game besides CoD , you are naming here ? because i dont see it , and dont try to pick games one by one , like .... Sniper Elite ... World of Tanks , ArmA ... try to find a complete package with all the stuff you are bashing from BF3 , and spit out this "better" BF3 game , in the end BF3 is the complete "package" , dont come up with nostalgic antique games either
do tell please , do tell Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
i bet you are going to pull the ArmA card
As if stats matter in a casual game, LOL. That is the funniest argument definitely... "your stats suck, thats why u bash the game!!" Anyway this just proves that you BF3 fanboys don't even understand the game or its purpose.
You want me to name a better, more complete PvP shooter than BF3? I can name three; Red Orchestra 2, Crysis, and Crysis Wars. These all offer much more content than base BF3 in terms of maps (but BF3 does have more equipment/toys), mod support, better level design, better teamwork emphasis, no horrible Origin/Battlelog requirement, no terrible balance issues, better hit detection.
Of course most of you will disagree for several reasons: this is a BF3 thread on a very active forum, RO2 is simply too challenging for the typical FPS player, most people don't understand the Power Struggle game mode of Crysis/Wars, most people automatically prefer a modern setting, and these games just aren't casual enough. I haven't played it, but BF2 seems more interesting than BF3 due to the mods available for it.
I wouldn't name ArmA because they're in completely different categories. Not many understand that of course, some of the funniest and most pathetic posts I've seen are those who compare ArmA 3 to BF3 and use this to show disappointment toward ArmA.
Originally Posted by Clam Slammer
Tee hee. He failed to touch the relative concept of fun, something where his strong opinion didn't touch, INB4 Arma, which can hardly be considered a game. After stalking his steam page, I see his three number one games are Skyrim, Fallout New Vegas, and Amnesia, that said, I don't really feel like it's appropriate to bash BF3 for being 'casual' or 'skilless,' when in reality it seems your taste in games leans more towards empowerment simulators.
Please enlighten me how 22 maps, 20 guns, and around a dozen new vehicles for 50 bucks is overpriced. Also, how does class based team multilayer entirely exclude teamwork?
All I did was address some of your silly points, and point out flaws in BF3. I didn't specify what BF3 should
be like, so I didn't fail to touch the relative concept of fun. What makes a game "fun" is different for everyone; clearly for the average gamer, fun is just running around shooting stuff, hence BF3 being so popular. For me, in a PvP shooter, rewarding strategic gameplay is fun, not casual garbage.
It's plenty appropriate to bash BF3 for being casual, seeing as how people actually convince themselves that there is a "skill ceiling" to it, and once upon a time Battlefield was not casual.
22 maps, 20 guns, dozen new vehicles, for $50 on top
of the base game, correct? lol, $110 for ANY game is ridiculous, especially a game with such little substance like BF3. In BF3, if you drove every type of vehicle, used every type of gun, used every class, and played on every map, you've done everything it has to offer. With the base game which is already $60, this doesn't take any more than 25-30 hours to do, if you include the short campaign and rushed coop missions.
You can get more out of ArmA 2: Free, a completely different game true, but we're just talking about how BF3 is overpriced. Seeing as how there are RPGs with almost unlimited playtime for much less than $60, it's just hard to justify $60 for any PvP shooter, much less an incomplete one like BF3. If BF3 + all of the DLC was $60, I wouldn't be complaining really. But as it stands, a large number of games offer more content than BF3 for less money.
However with all of the DLC, it's true that you have more content than any pretty much any other unmodded
PvP shooter, but again this is at $110. If you can justify that, good for you. I wouldn't be surprised if you can get more content with BF2 and already existing mods, and you certainly can for Crysis, Crysis Wars, and some others.
Regarding teamwork, as I said, it's possible to get teamwork in private servers with something like Teamspeak. The class based teams help with this, but if they really wanted to emphasize teamwork, they'd limit the amount of classes per team (e.g., you can only have three snipers, four medics, or whatever). So you can throw classes out the window, as you can have a team with only snipers, which I'm sure all of you have seen from time for time.
Teamwork is barely rewarded in the game either, and TDM's spawn system is far too random for teamwork to come into play, except for the horribly designed maps where you can organize a spawn camping fest (as if this is a good thing).
So teamwork is possible in BF3, but only really in private servers, and it is never emphasized. If you look at BF3 as a team-based strategic PvP game, there's LOTS of room for improvement.Edited by boredgunner - 3/28/13 at 10:44am