Battlefield 3

By Crisp
in Gamers' Hangout

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

trag3dy

Posted
Posted

Bah... Let me guess, deathmatch, capture the flag, territory control, with new graphics? I don't understand why people buy these games for MP, it's always the same uninspired modes with different guns and graphics. I think Crysis has always been more focused on delivering a fascinating campaign than mp, it's not like we're talking about Battlefield or such MP-centric franchise.

This is the Battlefield 3 thread.. :unsure:

Anyways, count me as a scripted event hater. Bring on the multiplayer gameplay trailers.

Veteran

Frylock86

Posted
Posted

No, I'll join you in your boat for the war on SP scripted events. Yes it looked great, but lets be honest. None of us are here for the SP campaign, it's ALL about the MP.

Until I see some MP footage (beta or otherwise) I'm gonna keep my hopes down.

Um. I am! It's not ALL about MP.... :no:

Grand Master

TheLegendOfMart

Posted
Posted

None of us are here for the SP campaign, it's ALL about the MP.

Wrong, id take a fully fleshed out single player campaign than play on servers with overzealous admins and cod kiddies playing because their game is so broken and *****. I actually really enjoyed Bad Company 2 SP. I was playing BC2 last night and just like every night some idiot was sat on the AA gun on Heavy Metal at RUS base shooting his own choppers so they didnt blow up but the gun knocked the chopper so it would crash into the ground, someone thought i had done it and proceeded to follow me into every squad i joined, spawn on top of me then tk me then res me then shoot me once in the head so my vision went all red and distorted. People who run up and jump into vehicles youve been waiting 5 mins for, people who jump into vehicles you got out of just to repair, people twing, tking, griefing. But yeah its ALL about the mp..............

Proficient

gkl

Posted
Posted

Wrong, id take a fully fleshed out single player campaign than play on servers with overzealous admins and cod kiddies playing because their game is so broken and *****. I actually really enjoyed Bad Company 2 SP. I was playing BC2 last night and just like every night some idiot was sat on the AA gun on Heavy Metal at RUS base shooting his own choppers so they didnt blow up but the gun knocked the chopper so it would crash into the ground, someone thought i had done it and proceeded to follow me into every squad i joined, spawn on top of me then tk me then res me then shoot me once in the head so my vision went all red and distorted. People who run up and jump into vehicles youve been waiting 5 mins for, people who jump into vehicles you got out of just to repair, people twing, tking, griefing. But yeah its ALL about the mp..............

You talk like it's the norm in MP. It's not.

And if you don't like getting TKed, don't play HC perhaps?

Grand Master

Chasethebase Reporter

Posted
  • Reporter
Posted

Because there are so many posts I would reply to, rather than quoting them all I'll post a unique one as a generalised response.

So, as you can see from the majority of responses, people are saying 'I'll buy the game just for the MP.' This is the sad state of gaming today, in the past say, five years, how many games have had a truly spectacular single player campaign with multiplayer as well. There isn't many. What's needed is a game which can bring both an amazing SP campaign and good MP gameplay. Developers need to find a balance between the two, and it seems with BF3 this is what's being done.

Call of Duty has gone downhill for this exact reason, because it's all about the MP now. Give me this and HL2:Ep3 with a renewed HL2:DM anyday.

Grand Master

Singh400

Posted
Posted
Wrong, id take a fully fleshed out single player campaign than play on servers with overzealous admins and cod kiddies playing because their game is so broken and *****. I actually really enjoyed Bad Company 2 SP. I was playing BC2 last night and just like every night some idiot was sat on the AA gun on Heavy Metal at RUS base shooting his own choppers so they didnt blow up but the gun knocked the chopper so it would crash into the ground, someone thought i had done it and proceeded to follow me into every squad i joined, spawn on top of me then tk me then res me then shoot me once in the head so my vision went all red and distorted. People who run up and jump into vehicles youve been waiting 5 mins for, people who jump into vehicles you got out of just to repair, people twing, tking, griefing. But yeah its ALL about the mp...
Yes, but it isn't like that all the time. In fact I've never experienced that.
Because there are so many posts I would reply to, rather than quoting them all I'll post a unique one as a generalised response.

So, as you can see from the majority of responses, people are saying 'I'll buy the game just for the MP.' This is the sad state of gaming today, in the past say, five years, how many games have had a truly spectacular single player campaign with multiplayer as well. There isn't many. What's needed is a game which can bring both an amazing SP campaign and good MP gameplay. Developers need to find a balance between the two, and it seems with BF3 this is what's being done.

Call of Duty has gone downhill for this exact reason, because it's all about the MP now. Give me this and HL2:Ep3 with a renewed HL2:DM anyday.

SP = limited enjoyment, MP = unlimited enjoyment.

I might play through SP once or twice. And then it's all MP. MP is tons of fun with friends, and 10x better than any SP.

Collaborator

mounty

Posted
Posted

aye BF is all about the MP action, but I'd also be interested in the campaign mode if it has full co-op play available. According to co-optimus it has 'co-op specific content', but the single player campaign isn't listed as being available for co-op play. They might be guessing at this point, so I'll give the dev team the benefit of the doubt for now.

Grand Master

Yusuf M. Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

As I've said more than once before, the SP campaign is an added bonus. Traditionally, Battlefield games didn't have a well-made SP campaign. It wasn't until Battlefield: Bad Company that we were introduced to characters and various SP locales. I'm definitely going to play the SP campaign once or twice but to me, the true enjoyment of the game will come from MP.

Veteran

LingeringSoul

Posted
Posted

I really would not classify that as a Campaign. It had an option for one to play by themselves with Bots.

QFT. Some programmer probably whipped that together in an afternoon.

And good for Battlefield 3 for including what looks like a serious single-player game. Although I would be perfectly fine if the box only included the multiplayer game, there are plenty of people who need a single-player game as well in order for the overall package to be a good value proposition. If that additional bullet point brings more people into the party, I'm all for it.

Grand Master

Crisp

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Patrick Bach:

"Technically, we can go to 256, we?ve tried it. We play tested with 128."

Patrick Bach:

"and we?ve done substantial research into this and tested 128 and that it?s not fun. Most fun you can have is when it?s between 32 and 40 players."

Patrick Bach:

"Maybe we haven't done our design work good enough"

Source

This game could of been EPIC, with 128 players.

First they say in an interview that Commander Mode is a no no because people don't like it / use it, and now they say this. :no:

So it looks like once again DICE are mainly focusing all there effort into graphics than gameplay.

Grand Master

Singh400

Posted
Posted

I found the sweet spot for BC2 was 24 player (12v12). Anything higher that 64 would be stupid IMO. Increasing number of players doesn't increase the amount of fun by the same factor. If anything, it decreases. I still think 64 (32v32) is risky, but maybe that's because I come from games where I'm used to have a small tight knit team on a small map to do the work.

We need MP footage!

Grand Master

DirtyLarry Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

I played a game called Joint Ops back in the day on PC. I know a few people on these forums also did, but I also know it was not a tremendously popular game. IMO, they got 100+ players right, so I do believe it can be done. I do also remember the maps were insanely large, at least they were back when that game was out. There was nothing ever like it, and really has not really been since. So just not sure if BF is the series to do large scale MP like that ior not, and honestly I just do not think it would be feasibly from a technical standpoint with destruction added into the mix. I do think 64 players would be nice though, as that is often the player count I would play back in my BF2 days.

Grand Master

Crisp

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I found the sweet spot for BC2 was 24 player (12v12). Anything higher that 64 would be stupid IMO. Increasing number of players doesn't increase the amount of fun by the same factor. If anything, it decreases. I still think 64 (32v32) is risky, but maybe that's because I come from games where I'm used to have a small tight knit team on a small map to do the work.

We need MP footage!

Have you never played any other BF game except Bad Company? There's a reason for the low player count, because the maps are tiny, and bottlencked.

True BF maps are huge, and open.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing