mikey87144

I've come around on the damage thing. Taking less damage actually forces people to work together. Destroying an MCOM station takes at least 3 people. Yea maybe no one is watching it but when the charge is planted they get there pretty fast. Retaking usually takes a squad, especially if the other team is smart and they set up defense positions then arm the thing. I really want to try Conquest.

About 2 gigs I think

cybershinigami87

After playing a couple of rounds of 3 I think I can definitively say from this demo that this game sucks...

Just kidding. Been seeing that a lot. Anyway, aside from the map there is a lot of things I like. I like the new violence to the guns. Compared to Bad Company 2 and previous Battlefields the guns fire with a type of pop that you see in COD. Not as good but the inspiration is clear. The game looks better, not by much IMO, but better. The foliage provides better camo for sniping, stalking, and sneaking and the effects gun fire seems even more natural.

Things I don't like starts with the look of the opposing team compared to yours. There isn't as big of a difference as you would expect in a game were split second timing is necessary which is another problem I have. Battlefield games usually force you to work together because everyone's overall health is high compared to other shooters, most notably COD. Even if you get the jump on a couple of enemies you usually need another person with you to take them all down. (Before I here "You Suck" let me say that I have taken down entire squads by myself but it usually happens if I come through the room and their backs are turned to me). (Also let me say that I'm talking about on foot battles. Not in vehicles were killing squads happens semi frequently). My biggest complaint though is the choice of map. Battlefield, a game that promises tanks, jets, helicopters, buggys, and what ever else you can use to kill an enemy quickly, decides that it will showcase itself with a Rush map that someone from COD designed? I know it's a beta, which is just a glorified demo nowadays, but wouldn't you want the public's first taste of the game to be a true Battlefield map. Conquest mode with tanks at least?

Anyway I wish I could give my beta key away 'cause I won't be playing Battlefield again until it launches.

Remember it's a beta. I know the release date is around the corner but the game you're playing is probably not the final build.

@Bucketdeth said:

I recently bought the official Sony 7.1 surround sound headset, really great for a nice price.

Same here. Got it for $65.

I judge the person who took time out of their day to look for nudity in an M rated game about zombies. Seriously? Can't find better nudity on the internet? Girls don't like you 'cause you sound like a cartoon rapist?

Ughhhh. This sounds like the type of game a man your age could get arrested for playing. Be careful not caught up in a child protection sting and I'm only 1/4 kidding.

I'm just not into MMOs. As much as I want to like this game the MMO part is a turn off for me.

Personally speaking, I got tired of COD after MW2. The story was stupid and the multiplayer was ruined by dumb perks. MW3 doesn't look like it's going to change that. I could give two shits about the single player in Battlefield, (personally, more than likely I'll ignore it), but if the multiplayer is even half as good as the Battlefield games of old then it will be awesome. I'd go with Battlefield. Also, I played Bad Company 2 primarily on PS3 and the community and support was great so you will find plenty of people to play with.