Battlefield 3 and What It Does Right

Today I would like to post about my anticipations for Battlefield 3 and what I think Dice has done wrong

First, I am looking forward for 64 player battles on PC as I have played Battlefield all the way back to 1942. Two other things that I am looking forward to is the awesome graphics, noticably some of the best so far on console and PC. The other thing is destruction. I enjoyed the destructible environments on the Bad Company games, but I feel they still could be improved. Battlefield 3 looks like it will come close to or surpass the realism of destruction that is in the Red Faction games.



I am excited for the return to being PC centered and while I love console shooters (Killzone 3, Homefront, and the Bad Company Battlefield games, to name a few) I have always played the Battlefield series on a PC because, well, until 1943 and the Bad Company games, the series has only been on PCs.

I am glad that Dice and EA finally got the idea that computer gamers aren’t the right people to back-stab, and although the Bad Company games were great on any system and were available for PC players, they were only half the scale of any of the earlier BF games being they were only thirty-two players on a computer and twenty-four on console. Map design and graphics were great and the destruction was awesome.

But if you were a BF veteran like me who has played all the way back to the original Battlefield, 1942, and has gotten used to huge (compared to consoles) battles of sixty-four players battling through deserts in BF: 2 and used escape pods as weapons and a means to fly through massive amounts of bullets (and missiles and lasers) on to the enemy’s giant Titan and landed on top with your teammates and went inside, brawled and kicked the s*** out of the people who tried to get in your way, blown the engines up and ran through the cargo bay to jump off the Titan while it blows up in 2142 or being a commander in either games (I won’t forgive Dice for deciding to still keep the commander feature out of BF3) and watching it all go down as you command your team’s Titan to go where you want and help your team with supply drops and artillery strikes or you could be like I was where I would be putting orders down for my team when I see and enemy on the map around the corner from me, close my map, and poke around the corner and blow his face off, then go back to sending artillery strikes and radar, then you probably were fairly disappointed when Dice practically said “no more big battles for you for a while (which we found out would be a fair amount of years), cute little PC player, so screw you. Go sit in the corner and be miserable or just keep playing 2142 for a while while we make a bunch of console-ized games where you can have one tiny team kill another tiny team. You can play if you want, and you get a few extra players, but you can’t have big battles like a big hardcore PC gamer no more, at least not for a while.”

That is how I feel about the three or so console-centric BF games. Now, even though I was quite pissed at Dice and EA turning their backs on us computer gamers who are the reason they ever had a succesfull franchise, that doesn’t mean I think there shouldn’t be Battlefield games on consoles, (I had a great time on Bad Company 2)and I think that going console-centric made a fair amount of money for them and brought in a whole new audience, but I don’t think it should come at the cost of the people who got you to the point where they can even make such a screwed up decision to betray the loyal players who have bought every installment (or maybe just some) of their great multiplayer game series.

This gets back to Battlefield 3 and why I think it will be the (or one of) best FPS games the world has seen so far. This time they are focusing once again on PC players, but it doesn’t look like they are making it where the console players get a totally crappy version, just it won’t be as large as PC. Look how great the game looks graphically. It’s absolutely gorgeous. And I know it still will look really good on consoles. But the point is that computers are a good deal more powerfull than any console on the market. But the big catchs are, not always but a lot of the time, that consoles are cheaper, and your friends have them. I think consoles are a lot better for some types of games such as platformer or top down shooters than a PC, and that by limiting the hardware for several years it allows developers to get more effecient and come to grips with new technology they might have invented, but until PC gaming becomes a really big thing again, I think advancement is slowed down a good deal. Nvidia and AMD are already making great GPUs that can take us far beyond the current capabilities of our XBoxs and PS3s.

I think that, even though I’m sure the new CoD (another series I’ve played since the original) will sell huge amounts of copies, I think that overall, Battlefield 3 will be a larger, more graphically intense and hardcore game.
~Dog G6

Please, share your thoughts on what you think about the new Battlefield in the comments below!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s