Calm down the hype...

#1 Edited by Mikemcn (6996 posts) -

I understand most of you are pumped for a true battlefield sequel, I am too, but the hype is too damn much, we are setting ourselves up for disappointment. 
 

  • DICE hasn't made even a PC oriented game since BF2142- Bad Company 2 was a PC port through and through, the models weren't changed in any way to accommodate different resolutions, for the first few weeks the game was out the server browser was so broken it had to be completely revamped and for many it still does not work, it didn't allow for any sort of save system in the singleplayer other than the one autosave you had and the mechanics of the shooting were simplified even beyond what Call of Duty was doing. (No leaning, no prone, simple things that simply weren't implemented.) It lacked support for Voice chat except in very rare cases (In 100 hours of play, ive heard maybe 3 people with mics in-game, and fromw hat I hear it doesn't usually work for anyone.) and the friends feature was almost non existent on PC. also the dedicated server feature was still under EA's direct control. Continually in the ad's leading up to Bad Company 2, they said they were making a push to impove the game for the PC audience, but they didn't, i guess multiple monitor support was kinda cool for the 4 people who have them.
  • EA never got it's COD killer, and you can bet that they still want it- Medal of Honor was a bust, and although Bad Company did well on PC it did worse on consoles, the exact market EA needs to be able to break into with an FPS of their own. A pure Battlefield sequel on a console could work from EA's perspective to steal some of Activision's audience. DICE is the only developer they have actively working for them that could possibly counter Call of Duty. Also, its been said that DICE has "set their sights on Call of Duty"
  • $60 dollar, multiplayer only games do not work- EA would be out of their mind to release a full priced cross platform game without a single player experience, if there is a singleplayer experience the multiplayer will ultimately suffer for it. I am of the belief that Bad Company 2 had the worst singleplayer campaign of the last few years. We are the only people who would pay full price for a game with just multiplayer, the average and somewhat informed consumer (The one who plays Call of Duty) will want more than just an online experience. It will either cost forty bucks and be multiplayer only or it will be full price and have both. 
  • The console is where the money is- I love PC gaming, and it is by no where near dead, but there are alot of dudes with xbox's and PS3's, Bad Company 2 only did as good as it did because its been so long since a Battlefield game was on a PC and MW2 had turned away a fair number of PC players. Taking another swing at the console market after Bad Company 2 would be well worth the effort. Infinity Ward was a PC developer not too long ago...
  • You people want too damn much- Seriously, this is the biggest issue with all the hype, you people are out of your minds, i've seen so many posts about what each person wants to see in this game that it doesn't seem imaginable, your unending wishlists of what should happen don't coincide with anything a large modern developer would create, it has to cater to everyone, not just PC players and without making 2 separate games all the complexity we want and all the simplicity consoles demand cannot coexist beneath the same brand name. Raising the player cap, adding unlocks, new maps as well as your favorite maps from games past, support for all your PC inputs and friends lists and a million different vehicles, lots of different guns, destructibility, multiple player classes, the ability to dig a hole with a grenade launcher: these are some of the things ive seen, including all of them would mean this game wouldn't come out for a very long time.
 
I really hope im wrong on every single point above, but it just doesn't seem realistic for BF3 to be anywhere near what we truly want. I see 3 options, one, we are truly disappointed, two, BF3 is just BF2 HD (starcraft 2 style), or three, they pull a civ 5 and simplify the game, keeping much of the complexity for some people but clearing out most of it in favor of more approachability.  
 
Don't fuck up DICE. 
#2 Posted by Guyzea (816 posts) -

Slow down Your Neighbors.

#3 Posted by MrKlorox (11209 posts) -

DICE made 2142 after BF2 and it was PC only. Not to mention awesome. But yeah, fewer expectations = less disappointment.

#4 Posted by kishan6 (1914 posts) -
@Mikemcn: @MrKlorox said:
" DICE made 2142 after BF2 and it was PC only. Not to mention awesome. But yeah, fewer expectations = less disappointment. "
this 
it always annoys me how people just completely forgot about 2142... truth is it was a really good game even if not quite as good as bf2
#5 Posted by Mikemcn (6996 posts) -
@kishan6 said:
" @Mikemcn: @MrKlorox said:
" DICE made 2142 after BF2 and it was PC only. Not to mention awesome. But yeah, fewer expectations = less disappointment. "
this it always annoys me how people just completely forgot about 2142... truth is it was a really good game even if not quite as good as bf2 "
Fixed! Thats the one I didn't play..... 
#6 Edited by KaosAngel (13765 posts) -

...if this game only has 32v32 for PC, we'll know if they really care about PC gamers.  Also, if they don't have jets...people will flip shit. 
 
EDIT:  We shall find out tomorrow if DICE is keeping their word when they said BF3 was built for the PC.

#7 Edited by MrKlorox (11209 posts) -
@Mikemcn:  You totally should once it hits Steam (after patch 1.51 is finalized) when they stop selling the Northern Strike booster pack. Or if you can find just the regular version for $10 or so, you'll get the deluxe version automatically with the 1.51 patch if you don't mind it not being on Steam. I still don't understand why you weren't able to activate your copy of BF2 with the EA downloader.
 
edit: BF2 is only 10 on EA Store but 20 on Steam. Perhaps it would be cheaper to buy 2142 from EA after all.
edit2: Ah it's regular versus complete versions, which the only difference is the SF expansion. The boosters, however, are included in regular BF2. EA probably stopped selling regular 2142 when they decided to include the booster in 1.51.
#8 Posted by NateR (29 posts) -

The only thing I disagree with is when you say people won't pay 60 bucks for a MP game. Most people online in ALL the major shooters haven't played campaign.

#9 Posted by awesomeusername (4207 posts) -
@Mikemcn: It says on GameInformer that it will have a single player campaign and also, you can count the people who actually care about single player in COD.
#10 Posted by MrKlorox (11209 posts) -
@awesomeusername said:
" @Mikemcn: It says on GameInformer that it will have a single player campaign and also, you can count the people who actually care about single player in COD. "
Got a link? All the previous real battlefield games had a "singleplayer" option, and it was anything but a campaign. It was just bots on the smallest incarnations of the maps for the sake of training. Did it actually use the word "campaign"?
#11 Posted by ColinWright (741 posts) -

Medal of Honor may have been a critical bust, but it sold just fine.

#12 Posted by gamb1t (965 posts) -

Well the reason we are hyping it cause WELL HAVE YOU EVER PLAYED BATTLEFIELD FUCKING 2. Still to this day i can hop on and have a grand ol fucken happy fucken meal time.

#13 Posted by gamb1t (965 posts) -
@Mikemcn said  btw you can prone in COD etc. They took it out of BC2 because ????? prob just lazy cause its a console game.
#14 Posted by awesomeusername (4207 posts) -
@MrKlorox said:
" @awesomeusername said:
" @Mikemcn: It says on GameInformer that it will have a single player campaign and also, you can count the people who actually care about single player in COD. "
Got a link? All the previous real battlefield games had a "singleplayer" option, and it was anything but a campaign. It was just bots on the smallest incarnations of the maps for the sake of training. Did it actually use the word "campaign"? "
Oh, nope. I figured since it said singleplayer, it'd be a campaign. I never played a battlefield game(besides bc1) so I wouldn't know. here it is though:  http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/02/03/march-cover-revealed-battlefield-3.aspx
#15 Posted by quantumshift5 (415 posts) -

There's a hype, where the hell was I:P
#16 Edited by Jayross (2365 posts) -

The fact that BF3 is going to be on consoles automatically makes it worse than what it would be if it was a PC exclusive. I'm not saying it will be bad... it will just be less than what it could be. 
 
@MrKlorox said:

" @awesomeusername said:

" @Mikemcn: It says on GameInformer that it will have a single player campaign and also, you can count the people who actually care about single player in COD. "
Got a link? All the previous real battlefield games had a "singleplayer" option, and it was anything but a campaign. It was just bots on the smallest incarnations of the maps for the sake of training. Did it actually use the word "campaign"? "
oh SHITCAKES! 
 
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/02/03/march-cover-revealed-battlefield-3.aspx  
 

  You'll have to read the magazine to get the dirt on what DICE has in store for the single-player and multiplayer modes, but check back here and visit the  official Battlefield 3 site  tomorrow to watch the premiere teaser trailer and glean a few more key details. 

sonofabitch
#17 Posted by MrKlorox (11209 posts) -

You'll have to read the magazine to get the dirt on what DICE has in store for the single-player and multiplayer modes, but check back here and visit the official Battlefield 3 site tomorrow to watch the premiere teaser trailer and glean a few more key details.

Frequent the Battlefield 3 hub throughout the month of February for more exclusive features about the highly anticipated shooter coming to the PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, PC.

 Hmmmmm...... perhaps they expanded upon the implied training in the earlier games and made an actual training mode for the sure-to-be-many first time big boy BF players.
#18 Posted by Jayross (2365 posts) -
@MrKlorox: I hope so... but at the same time I can't really imagine EA releasing a multiplayer-only game on the consoles. Seems crazy...
#19 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -

that just totally shat all over my soul and fucked the spirit out of it.. 
so sad yet so true.. 
 
 
so im never gonna have the BF3 ive dreamed of for years and its just a thing of the past? ok ....

#20 Edited by PhatSeeJay (3322 posts) -

Why should we calm the hype down???? If anything we should vamp it up so there's no mistake in what we want!  If there's no hype, then why would they put effort into making it the awesome sequel to BF2 that we have waited for?  If we don't give them endless lists of wishes, then why should they even bother to make BF3 in the first place since everyone apparently was satisfied enough with BF2?  I say pump the hype up instead. Show DICE and EA that the PC version is still a force to be reckoned with.
 
Also I still think EA sit on their COD contender with MOH. It wasn't as much of a bust as you claim. It has sold 5 million copies and I'm pretty sure that's enough for them to have a second go at it and sort out the problems.
Heard Danger Close is hiring people so that has to be a sign if anything. 
 
I don't know I just can't give EA the investment bash just yet until I've seen more details. They've worked with DICE for so long now and they've not thrown out bad games together. Average sure, but not bad. Bad Company 2 on the PC hasn't exactly been a bad investment either. When looking at BFBCS and the registered accounts they have there, the PC version only trails after the 360 version with 200k players while the PS3 version is a good 500k behind. Whether you personally think the game is terrible or not is up to you, but it's certainly not a game that hasn't been popular on the PC.

#21 Posted by ZeroCast (1869 posts) -
@Mikemcn said:

" I understand most of you are pumped for a true battlefield sequel, I am too, but the hype is too damn much, we are setting ourselves up for disappointment. 
 

  • DICE hasn't made even a PC oriented game since BF2142- Bad Company 2 was a PC port through and through, t he models weren't changed in any way to accommodate different resolutions, for the first few weeks the game was out the server browser was so broken it had to be completely revamped and for many it still does not work, it didn't allow for any sort of save system in the singleplayer other than the one autosave you had and the mechanics of the shooting were simplified even beyond what Call of Duty was doing. (No leaning, no prone, simple things that simply weren't implemented.) It lacked support for Voice chat except in very rare cases (In 100 hours of play, ive heard maybe 3 people with mics in-game, and fromw hat I hear it doesn't usually work for anyone.) and the friends feature was almost non existent on PC. also the dedicated server feature was still under EA's direct control. Continually in the ad's leading up to Bad Company 2, they said they were making a push to impove the game for the PC audience, but they didn't, i guess multiple monitor support was kinda cool for the 4 people who have them.
It might have been a port but it was a good damn port when considering that they needed time to develop the Frostbite engine on PC. After 2142, DICE set out to seek the console crowd first, hence BC1 was never released on the PC and promised players that the next iteration of Bad Company will be on that platform and it did. Now sure, it was nothing close to its BF2 counterparts, no Jets, prone was gone, it was stripped from a lot of components that made BF2 a success but even then it still is a great First Person Shooter with solid modern mechanics that was accepted among Battlefield fans regardless of the issues that plagued the game when it first launched. Time and time they released patches to fix these issues until it reached to a stable version that is playable to a great degree and still is. Also, the Voice Over IP in-game chat is really a non-issue specially when most PC gamers opt to use Ventrilo or TeamSpeak while playing. 
 
I understand your concerns, you have every right to be, but now that some information have been released I still have high hopes that DiCE won't screw this up and will try their best to create an experience just like its previous title while adding new features. Whether they might or might not be welcomed remains something that we have to wait and see in the upcoming months :D.
#22 Posted by Asrahn (552 posts) -
@Mikemcn:  
 
And there OP goes, and adds to the hype.
#23 Posted by ChillyUK7 (283 posts) -
@Mikemcn: I don't think people are asking too much of BF3. From most of the forums etc ive seen people aren't wanting many changes from BF2, sure they wan't 64 player or more on PC, new weapons, maps, unlocks etc but that's standard for a sequel especially after 6 years (although not 6 years of development). The biggest new additions that people seem to want are destructability and DICE have had 2 full games + 2 expansions worth of experience with it. Im not saying that the game won't be ambitious or that it won't be a difficult game to make especially since it's going multi plat but I do think your overexagerating DICE's inability to deliver a game that will probably stay fairly close to the formula laid out by BF2/BFBC2.
#24 Posted by withateethuh (726 posts) -

Don't tell other people what to do. Just because you are really picky and demanding doesn't mean other people can't be excited for something. And you won't stop most people from ultimately enjoying the game when it comes out, regardless of how much you bitch and moan.

#25 Posted by Tennmuerti (8134 posts) -

GET HYPE!!!

#26 Posted by Killroycantkill (1414 posts) -
@Mikemcn: Welcome to the internet, I would think that you would know that this is how everyone acts for any big title game they're excited for... 
 
There's nothing wrong with being hyped for a game, I've never had an experience where I hyped up a game in my mind so much that it was a disapointment. Unless you're expecting the game to use the center ring to give you a handy or something.
#27 Posted by floodiastus (1262 posts) -

Hype is a good thing, gets investors juices flowing and gets feedback to DICE.  If you do not want hype, you are lowering the chances of BF3 being better.....
 
Your post seems@Mikemcn said:

    

 
 
#28 Posted by endless_void (706 posts) -

This better not be a lousy game. I have high hopes.....
 
:(

#29 Edited by teh_pwnzorer (1482 posts) -

BFBC2 looked beautiful on the PC and played better with mouse, keyboard and dedicated lag-free servers.  I own the PS3 and the PC version.  The only thing that sucked (until they added maps from BFBC1) was the lack of open maps.  Everything was cramped.  ...the (EDIT) two broken things about the PC version were the support for 64 bit XP which they never intended to add, as well as broken gamepad support (which would be nice for vehicles and such).

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.