First Strike Forums — Battlefield 3

Re: Battlefield 3

null@example.com (Lance Haith) — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 20:05:37 +0000

I went back to playing BF 2 and damn I really have to dissagree that BF 2142 is just a mod that shouldn't have been paid for. BF 2142 is so much better on balance and atmosphere and it isn't just plain annoying like BF 2 is most of the time. I'm gonna check out PRMM and definately get FH 2 if it ever comes out but after playing BF2 I wouldnt mind if they revisited the modern world (with new guns, vehicles, larger maps, and better gameplay mechanics). Oh yeah and give us a new mode...

Re: Battlefield 3

null@example.com (DrEvuul) — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:00:47 +0000

generalrievous wrote:

If they were smart they would make it a WW1 based game but that wont happen of course....

I with you on this one - "the great war" is one that has not been very well developed in FPS gaming.

RagNoRock wrote:

WW1 does not have enough vehicles or exciting enough gameplay to make a good game IMO. "Lets sit in this trench for 30 minuts and see if anyone jumps out of there trench!" "Oh snap! They got a tank, the americans have a tank, they win." "I fly one of 2 types of planes and dont have a parashut!"

Have to disagree with you on vehicles - both sides had tanks - Germans had captured British ones at first, followed by their own designs. Their were various trucks, cars pressed on to service by both sides. There was even armoured cars - literally cars, armoured and fitted with a machine gun.

Only 2 types of plane and dont have a parashut? BF2142 has a transporter and a gunship - hmmmmm, only 2 as well !!! WW1 planes, there were several types of biplane and triplane, fighters / bombers - ZEPPELIN'S !! observer's balloon's (great for snipers, only other snipers or aircraft could attack someone in a balloon ). As for parachutes, in most engagements, either the pilot was killed, or the engine was disabled and they glided into land / crash. Because of the relative low speed of these crash landings, they often would survive - why would you need a parachute?

As for trenches, yep you could stick in a trench, but you won't see the enemy coming unless you stick your head up - in which case a sniper or MG could get you. Also good map design with cover from destroyed buildings and shell holes could help you get across, especially if they have smoke and gas attacks, just like they did in WW1.

Edit: new thought : What about Horses as a vehicle?? Gives a faster rate of mobility while on horseback, and a new weapon - the cavalry sword.

Re: Battlefield 3

null@example.com (Terrorek) — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:34:07 +0000

Hmm... A time-traveling setting? Where different maps can be *anywhere* in the world, with possibly completely different armies battling each other...? You could play a battle with Alexander's forces going into the Fertile Crescent, with the Persians defending... or drop in some time-traveling bad guys on one side who've already taken Babylon, but only have one plasma generator... UFOs attacking Atlanteans over the skies of Giza while the pyramids are still unfinished... Teams of lost longbowmen trying to survive on the mean streets of Compton vs. Crips/Bloods... United Earth Space Marines back in time to 1938 to stop the Martians from launching an attack on Grover's Mill... Deep Ones rise from the oceans to attack Fort Sumter...

Battlefield 3: Infinity

Oh, the possibilities...

Re: Battlefield 3

null@example.com (Stardestroyersarecool) — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:55:07 +0000

Or 180 AD Romans.

Re: Battlefield 3

null@example.com (Vreki) — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:30:45 +0000

Stardestroyersarecool wrote:

here is an idea 2142 AD - 1242 AD

Battlefield 1042: Vikings

Re: Battlefield 3

null@example.com (herbanator3) — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:27:15 +0000

i dont really like the idea of battlefield 3 but some of the things they are including i do like though, like battalions and that in game talking thing. modern day type of games aare getting annoying though (IMO)

Re: Battlefield 3

null@example.com (Stardestroyersarecool) — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:11:52 +0000

here is an idea 2142 AD - 1242 AD

Re: Battlefield 3

null@example.com (yultemsee) — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:03:32 +0000

you know what i would like to see. Battlefield Mars.

Re: Battlefield 3

null@example.com (Carbon) — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:45:00 +0000

TY2D2 wrote:

Carbon wrote:
BF2 is set in 2042.
Oh yea? Where did you hear that?

I think it's in the manual, too lazy to go check. Not like story matters much in BF2 anyway

Re: Battlefield 3

null@example.com (smokemeakipper) — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:41:36 +0000

Carbon wrote:

BF2 is set in 2042.

And they still use the M1 abrams and M16 rifles............

Re: Battlefield 3

null@example.com (smokemeakipper) — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:39:27 +0000

yeah BF1942 2 would have been great, 80 players per server, ffs EA and Diced can hardly even sort out 64player titan maps

Re: Battlefield 3

null@example.com (FSDev| JayBiggS) — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 07:14:37 +0000

The thing that I think was missing from BF2 was sea battles, large maps, and historical relevance.

I remember before 1942 released their demo, it was so groundbreaking for me to see the video clips on their site with player controlled planes flying overhead, tanks, jeeps, destroyers, submarines, all in a first person perspective, and online. Then I tried the demo. It was history from there. No more would I settle for limited, corridor muscle man on speed, shooting rockets at 1000mp/h gameplay in a multiplayer setting. In a sense, BF1942 ruined online gaming for me because anything less than what it offered was just drab and repetitive. Of course I realized it was the perfect platform for a Star Wars based game, and it got me into mod development.

Now it seems it is becoming more and more like the games before it. Each iteration removes things that made it unique and its heartbreaking tbh.

I wont judge the game based on these so called rumors, but at the same time I wont hold my breath.

Re: Battlefield 3

null@example.com (Peter12378) — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 06:45:27 +0000

I just give up onn Battlefield. 2142 was good enough, and now FS...

How could you heretics even think of buying the 3rd one!:P

Re: Battlefield 3

null@example.com (TY2D2) — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 05:08:32 +0000

Carbon wrote:

BF2 is set in 2042.

Oh yea? Where did you hear that?

Re: Battlefield 3

null@example.com (Carbon) — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:07:24 +0000

Safe-Keeper wrote:

I am about as wary of people who presume to know 'everyone's opinion as I am of people who presume to somehow know hamsters's will

There are about a billion mediocre to good WWII games out there, we don't need any more.

Lance Haith wrote:

You know what.... lets do something drastic... lets group up as a collective, figure out what we will be willing to pay for, and tell Dice to include it in BF3 as a collective. A petition if you will....

Haha, you think Dice makes the decisions? No, EA says make something, they make it. EA doesn't care about thirty people or so, they'll do whatever they feel like.

Maybe they could give us a BF set in 2042 which bridges the gap between BF: 2 and BF: 2142. It would have near future devices already invented, an unstable national body (fuel crisis, modernizing countries, maybe a missile shield), and best of all a massive global civil war!!!

BF2 is set in 2042.