ForumsGamesBattlefield 3

357 27993
GabrielLouis
offline
GabrielLouis
14 posts
Peasant

Comment about Battlefield 3, How is it in your opinion? Graphics, Vehicles, etc.....

  • 357 Replies
zonic98
offline
zonic98
549 posts
Peasant

Right, I tried it today in Ziba. It went so much better, 62 and 10.

BRAAINZz
offline
BRAAINZz
789 posts
Peasant

Apparently, there's a video for Aftermath out now.

There's A Crossbow!
It looks pretty good honestly, something to bring back some faith since Armored Kill. All I've heard other people say about it though is that there's a crossbow. Honestly, I could care less about the crossbow myself, and there's still a month and a half between me and the map pack.

zonic98
offline
zonic98
549 posts
Peasant

Yeah, the new gamemode seems interesting. But croosbow doesn't fit the game.

TheMostManlyMan
offline
TheMostManlyMan
5,487 posts
Herald

really BRAAINZz? you didn't like armored kill? i mean yeah the AC-130's were a bit overpowered but it's not too terribly hard to kill them if you have a stinger thingy

espadaxin2
offline
espadaxin2
492 posts
Scribe

Ive been using m16a4 with heavy barrel and im doing pretty well with it.

xiipe16
offline
xiipe16
5 posts
Peasant

premium for battlefield 3 is epicc

BRAAINZz
offline
BRAAINZz
789 posts
Peasant

really BRAAINZz? you didn't like armored kill? i mean yeah the AC-130's were a bit overpowered but it's not too terribly hard to kill them if you have a stinger thingy


This is why it wasn't good:

The AC-130 wasn't a problem for me, it's weapons were balanced and it was relatively easy to take out in a jet. The thermal optics worked nicely but it felt as though I was just in a Tank looking down at pesky little ants. It also had little anti-air capabilities where if you didn't have proper team-mates guarding you, you were going to die pretty quickly. I'd rarely get into it aside from a few quick kills to level my ratio.

What I really didn't like was the size of the maps. They were just a tad bit too large. Alborz was a good conquest map though and Armored Shield was very good for Tank Superiority, nothing else really seemed to work out. Bandar Desert was too large for even Tank Superiority as you had to adjust your shots from across the map. Also, in all of the maps, if you didn't have a vehicle, you were pretty much screwed in ways of transportation. Having to walk in any of the maps was just a pain. It was like running around in Skyrim with nothing between point A and B.

It could have also been better in new equipment. I understand that with a large map, there is going to be a large focus on vehicles, but with those vehicles, there should have been new ways to destroy them. Such as maybe an M72-LAW as a new launcher or something along those lines. Maybe even Semtex for the Support kit. Without those, it didn't feel worthwhile to play. In the first two MP's, you could take the stuff you unlocked and bring it to other maps, with Armored Kill, all the upgrades could only be used on the four maps.

All in all, a little more than disappointing.

But croosbow doesn't fit the game.


It does and it doesn't, it would certainly make stealth a lot better in my opinion.
zonic98
offline
zonic98
549 posts
Peasant

-a big post by Brainz-

Yeah, Armored Kill maps are big. Making big maps and new vehicles was the point of Armored Kill: I think the maps are good-sized if you have vehicles. If you don't, then why are you playing these maps? D:
GhostOfMatrix
offline
GhostOfMatrix
15,526 posts
Constable

They were just a tad bit too large.

When playing on consoles, yes. Those maps aren't very fun when you can only have 24 players in total.
chives1
offline
chives1
27 posts
Shepherd

It was like running around in Skyrim with nothing between point A and B.


Exactly, except with an AC-130 shooting at you while you run or a dune buggy trying to run you over.
BRAAINZz
offline
BRAAINZz
789 posts
Peasant

If you don't, then why are you playing these maps? D:


It wasn't that I didn't have them, well, sort of.

You have team mates jack them before you can catch up, they destroy them for their entertainment, they break them, or they end up getting hijacked. At least, the spawns should have been decreased for vehicles on a vehicle-based map, or at least at deployment.
vinster132
offline
vinster132
5,959 posts
Scribe

When playing on consoles, yes. Those maps aren't very fun when you can only have 24 players in total.

Agreed, on maps (Caspian Border, and Kharg Island conquest) with air vehicles, I can never find players on foot.
ninjanick
offline
ninjanick
180 posts
Farmer

It wasn't a very good console port. Bad co. 2 was a little more balanced in my opinnion.

GhostOfMatrix
offline
GhostOfMatrix
15,526 posts
Constable

Two jets and an attack helicopter that can hold two, so that leaves 8 possible ground troops, and on those maps there are usually two-four vehicles to drive. No wonder people complain about big maps. I only ever play them on conquest so I can get more unlocks for the jet/heli. If I can't get one, I leave. Not fun running around for 10-20 minutes for a 10 second firefight.

ninjanick
offline
ninjanick
180 posts
Farmer

plus who thought that making the anti-infantry class also the medic was a good idea?
Who that that buffing the starting assult riffles to god tier was a good idea?
and who thought that I would buy 5 seperate $20 map packs?

Showing 151-165 of 357