• xx_CaPTiiN_SpAiiN_zz - July 17, 2012 11:18 a.m.

    And we still get people complaining about call of duty even though it isnt as shameless and this pile of rubbish. while call of duty has kind of split up into two companies and games the people at ea completely fucked medal of honor to have the same gameplay as battlefield now its worse than both. the difference between black ops and mw2 is bigger than that of bad company 2 and bf3. and again before you knock activision LOOK AT EA FIRST.
  • KnowYourPokemon - July 17, 2012 11:38 a.m.

    Spoken like a true apologist. Call of Duty is shit. Activision is shit. Battlefield 3 is shit. EA is shit. Done and done.
  • xx_CaPTiiN_SpAiiN_zz - July 17, 2012 1:15 p.m.

    treyarch a good company at least they keep doing new things to the series which is more than inifity ward have ever done lol. and the apologist thing are you an atheist or something? :P
  • KnowYourPokemon - July 17, 2012 3 p.m.

    I meant the whole "Call of duty isn't that bad just look at battlefield and EA" defense and yes Treyarch actually do try. It doesn't make the Black Ops campiagn any less linear and dull though or make the multiplayer all that more exciting :P Black Ops 2 is showing to possibly be the exception to this but only time will tell.
  • avantguardian - July 18, 2012 2:35 a.m.

    i agree with you about bc2 and bf3 being essentially the same game. i would even go further, as to say that bc2 is the superior product. i personally find all of the cod games to be quite different, in that i play them all in a different way.
  • xx_CaPTiiN_SpAiiN_zz - July 18, 2012 6:32 a.m.

    exactly you understand what i have been trying to say for a long time on this site :D finally someone awesome!
  • aberkromby - July 17, 2012 11:17 a.m.

    So basically, the hype ball is going to get rolling, they're going to milk Battlefield 3 for all it's worth, then release BF4 prematurely for milking of more cash. Let's all go ahead and admit it: The Battlefield franchise is absolutely fucked.
  • gazzc - July 17, 2012 10:15 a.m.

    So what can it offer new at this point? In 2013 graphics would not have moved on massively, you are hardly likely to see the same difference in visuals as can be seen between BF2 and BF3. What else can they offer apart from new weapons and maps? They could take it to the future like BF2142 but by next year it will just become the same thing CoD did a year earlier.
  • Tronto13 - July 17, 2012 9:24 a.m.

    What happened to the we don't want to be like other games with a yearly or even bi-yearly releases...
  • ParagonT - July 17, 2012 9:06 a.m.

    Last time didn't the "Beta bonus" only give you two days ahead of the open beta? On another note, there was this big guessing game on how much development time went into Battlefield 3 just last year, so this seems pretty horrendous. A year of development? Or is Dice's branch really just that big? Because even CoD games get at least around a year and a half to two years of development. Warfighter comes out on October 23rd this year I believe, but if you tag that with the 12-18 month of content statement, and then average the release of DLC in 2-3 month increments, that means that the beta could be around April to March. Since they pretty much have the players money that are Premium members, that means they really don't have to wait to announce the Beta that much later than the DLC, because in all honesty, people sorta already bought it. . . . Which is why (on a seperate note) I'm sort of against it to be honest. You may pay what? Ten dollars less, but its guaranteed money in case you get tired of the game, Console breaks, run out of Live, hate the DLC pack, and if the DLC pack (Armored Kill for example) will not be as great as if it were on the PC counter part. Once they have your money, they no longer need to impress you with awe inspiring DLC. Spend the extra ten dollars to keep consumer control for goodness sake, it helps the industry. - End rant. I understand that they probably released BF3 along beside the Frostbite 2 engine so there are bound to be things that they missed, didn't develop correctly, or pushed out, but it's a bit ridiculous to think that there is going to be that much more added and changed in one year. I know that EA always wanted Battlefield to become their cash cow, but this seems more like a deliberate attempt to destroy consumer faith and the IP. Same could be said for many games although (not pointing fingers).
  • larkan - July 17, 2012 9:03 a.m.

    Welcome to the future, where sequels are released every year, they leave out half the content so you can buy the rest as DLC, and you can pay a premium to unlock all items/weapons and "reserve" spots on your favorite servers. Oh, and lazy developers that have "Day 0" patches and a "we'll patch that problem later" attitude. AND in the case of any new Blizzard game "play it our way or suck it, the only thing you bought from us is permission to play OUR game". Hate to say it, but interwebs killed the gaming industry.
  • antiAntag0nist - July 17, 2012 8:22 a.m.

    I might be alone in this, but I would much rather see a Bad Company 3 than Battlefield 4. BC 2's ending was a bit of a cliffhanger and I would like to see how DICE will conclude the story. I know multiplayer is the central focus for Battlefield titles but I have enjoyed the campaigns for the BC 1 & 2. Also, it seems a bit early for news of BF 4. After all, there is still DLC coming, and MoH: Warfighter is coming out this year.
  • lewis-barclay - July 17, 2012 9:04 a.m.

    I haven't played bc1 or 2 but I agree when you say its too early. I have bf3 premium and dlc is still coming out for it for a whole nother damn year. Lolz these game companies need to chill out sometimes. Let us enjoy the damn product we spent so much on.
  • ThatGamerDude - July 17, 2012 10:31 a.m.

    I really wished this was Bad Company 3 too and not Battlefield 4 mainly because I loved Bad Company 2 more than I do Battlefield 3. Though I still believe Bad Company 3 is still on the horizon. Maybe once Danger Close finishes up with MoH Warfighter, DICCE could hand the development of Bad Company 3 over to them while they work on Battlefield 4.
  • aberkromby - July 17, 2012 11:21 a.m.

    Battlefield 3 is basically Bad Company 3. It's far too watered-down to be considered a true sequel to Battlefield 2.

Showing 21-32 of 32 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.