battlefield 3

Started by rtil, April 12, 2011 10:30 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

|

cipher

So apparently the beta starts in like a week.

I guess that'll be one way to test how it runs on my laptop and compare it the console version of the beta

rtil

Quote from: Sinitron on September 20, 2011 04:09 PM
we're bored because they're literally all the same thing ever since like medal of honor or whatever came out years ago

i miss games like doom, quake 2 and half-life which were all hyperactive and bouncy crazy

i hope the new tribes is good
i wouldn't know, before bc2 i hadn't played a battlefield game since 1942. the premise is the same, but i still enjoy it. i'm not sure what you mean by hyperactive and bouncy crazy, but the titles you listed certainly don't remind me of those things. a bc2 online match between two even teams can be pretty intense though.

Quote from: Sinitron on September 20, 2011 04:10 PM
also BC2 is just white

all of it

a bit like how doom 3 was all black

space marine is a lot more fun in MP even though its really hit and miss because of the shitty p2p hosting

if it had dedi servers and more maps it would kick ass
there are some bright levels, but there are also some set at night. it's definitely never near blackness though. i don't see how that's a huge deal though, unless recon had nightvision his class would be rendered near useless

Sinitron

you've never played any of them online then, because they were way more hectic than anything released in recent years

bc2 struck me as fairly slow-paced with a lot of footslogging, and it's also REALLY FUCKING BRIGHT in the desert and snow levels

it's not even so much that it's a bad game it's just not really that good and bf3 is going to be more of the same so i'm not going to bother getting it since it would involved setting up origin which isn't worth it for one game i don't want in the first place

on the bright side though they're actually TRYING to do something that at the very least looks slightly different unlike MW3 which is the same recycled garbage as past installments

i like how the EA guy was like "fuck you your game is shit" and the activision gay was like "uh let's behave like mature adults" but as it turns out the EA game is actually superior

rtil

#43
i wasn't aware anyone ever played half-life online

i actually did play quake online quite a bit as a kid. it was fun but fairly basic as far as online fps goes. bc2 has a lot more variables to it, i find it more exciting and honestly less generic.

the only bad thing about bc2 is much like any other multiplayer environment for fps and that is the lack of matchmaking. it's fairly difficult to get into the game and find a server where you won't die every 2 seconds to level 50's who play the game 8 hours a day. you're kind of made to fend for yourself.

the fact that you think it's 'too bright' doesn't really play into the quality of the game, it's just a personal preference. the sun reflects off of sand and snow in the daylight, its' going to be bright. and sure, some of the maps are too large to run across but that's why there's vehicles.

afaic the generic war game series is call of duty, and the killstreak rewards is probably the dumbest thing i've ever witnessed in an fps.

BluPhoenix

Quote from: cipher on September 20, 2011 08:35 PM
So apparently the beta starts in like a week.

I guess that'll be one way to test how it runs on my laptop and compare it the console version of the beta

thursday the 29th
[12:59 AM] elm: yea honestly if you dont want to cum on elmer fudds bald head whats wrong with you
[07:49.46] <+slack> cum erupts from the dick at an alarming rate
[07:49.59] <+slack> it will blast off and slap the wall at like 40 mph

Sinitron

yeah quake didn't have cover, vehicles, or huge outdoor maps, making it more fast-paced and brutal

too bright plays into the graphical aspect of the game, in a desert or snow i could wear protective goggles and not get blinded

the maps that are too big also suffer from not having enough vehicles, when i played someone REALLY BAD would always get the chopper first and crash it

and no, cod, moh and bf are all long-running series with a lot of entries of varying quality, bf is just slightly more respectable than the rest of them

rtil

slightly? if you ask me bf series is a league above cod

Sinitron

nah not by much

bf3 will be better than mw3 though but mw3 will probably have a less nonsensical campaign if bc2 is any indicator

Gladius

▬ஜ۩☆۩ஜ▬ ---★☆★☆★ DONALD TRUMP 2016 ★☆★☆★--- ▬ஜ۩☆۩ஜ▬

cipher

Not sure what's weird about 0:23, aside from the tree falling (a common occurrence in bad company 2 and I'm sure in this game). Anyways:

Minimum System Requirements:

OS: Windows Vista (Service Pack 2) 32-Bit
PROCESSOR: 2 GHz Dual Core (Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz or Athlon X2 2.7 GHz)
MEMORY: 2 GB
HARD DRIVE: 20 GB
GRAPHICS CARD AMD: DirectX 10.1 compatible with 512 MB RAM (ATI RADEON 3000, 4000, 5000 or 6000 series, with ATI Radeon 3870 or higher performance)
NVIDIA: DirectX 10.0 compatible with 512 MB RAM (Nvidia GeForce 8, 9, 200, 300, 400 or 500 series with Nvidia GeForce 8800 GT or higher performance)
Sound Card: DirectX Compatible
Keyboard and Mouse
DVD ROM Drive

Recommended System Requirements:

OS: Windows 7 64-bit
PROCESSOR: Quad-Core CPU
MEMORY: 4 GB
HARD DRIVE: 20 GB
GRAPHICS CARD: DirectX 11 compatible with 1024 MB RAM (Nvidia GeForce GTX 560 OR ATI Radeon 6950)
SOUND CARD: DirectX Compatible
Keyboard and Mouse
DVD ROM Drive

Sinitron

cipher you need to watch it again and pay more attention

(noob)

rtil

Quote from: Sinitron on September 21, 2011 12:45 PM
nah not by much

bf3 will be better than mw3 though but mw3 will probably have a less nonsensical campaign if bc2 is any indicator

if you think people play these games for the campaigns you're kidding yourself

Sinitron

well call of duty is hacker infested and battlefield sucks dog dick unless you play with an organized team of people so imho a decent campaign is the least they could do

rtil

you just join a squad if you're playing alone in bf, not that hard really

most people are buying the game for the multiplayer and don't give a shit about the campaign

cipher

Quote from: Sinitron on September 21, 2011 11:30 PM
well call of duty is hacker infested and battlefield sucks dog dick unless you play with an organized team of people so imho a decent campaign is the least they could do

I've played a TON of bad company 2. While the game is more teamwork oriented, claiming you need an 'organized' group to have fun is a load of crap honestly

billy

sinitron hates every game because he thinks it makes him cool

Gladius

nah he just has good taste
▬ஜ۩☆۩ஜ▬ ---★☆★☆★ DONALD TRUMP 2016 ★☆★☆★--- ▬ஜ۩☆۩ஜ▬

Sinitron

Quote from: billy on September 22, 2011 11:23 AM
sinitron hates every game because he thinks it makes him cool

"starcraft 2 is just a clickfest i've never played it" GG TROLL

to put it in the words of an SA goon, "battlefield isn't a game for pubbies", just playing with 4 friends in a squad and talking over teamspeak or skype is a vast improvement to the experience but since the rest of the team is still fucking gay and are too busy cramming vehicles up their nostrils to do anything useful it's still not really ideal

really, any game with more than one seat in any vehicle pretty much demands that you play with someone who has the same goals and objectives as you

rtil

sorta, but if the tank/av/heli pilot is good, they're going to take you somewhere where you're going to kill things. same with people in your squad - if they're fighting where the action is you can spawn on them and everyone can help eachother - be it with health, ammo, cover, or whatever.

if they're bad, then join another squad and don't get in vehicles they drive because they're gonna crash 'em. yeah, a bad player will be detrimental to the team, but a whole squad of friends who are equally bad is even worse.

bf multiplayer is fine for 'pubbies', just as long as you're a competent player. i play it by myself all the time and rank near the top of team lists full of random people i don't know and we win games through teamwork because the game is just designed that way.  you don't need to know everyone on the team to have the same objective, everyone already does have the same objective , and that's to win the fucking round. and most people are intelligent enough to know what needs to get done to accomplish that.

if your argument is that the game sucks without playing with friends w/ voice chat, then every team-based fps is exactly the same way. i can't think of one fps where it's more fun to play alone than it is with friends. but i still think it's just fine to play alone, and there's a system in place in the game to make playing alone easier to deal with (squads). team sucks? switch teams or go to another server.

cipher

Yeah sin, you're under the impression that 95% of the player base is retarded, but in reality it's basically the opposite.

Although there are some pretty shitty helicopter pilots out there

|