Raa Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 I remember buying BF3. I haven't even played it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crisp Posted March 20, 2013 Author Share Posted March 20, 2013 I remember buying BF3. I haven't even played it... You're not missing out on much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperAFK Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 They should just make a new 2142. I would loooveee a new 2142 game so much. titan mode was amazing, and with today's more powerful hardware they could make a truly epic titan mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sava700 Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Battlefield died for me after BF2...I thought I had enough of "stats and ranks" in BF2 to make me puke. I'm so tired of people playing the game for virtual medals and such instead of playing to win, good game play, team work etc is all tossed on the window the second they add that which you know they will. I'm not about to load anything else to run the game either which is why I never bought BF3..I refuse to buy into that kinda crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iascoot Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 doubt i will be getting this, BF3 was a letdown. pre-ordered and hardly played it. preferred Bad company 2 to BF3 Jan and kawasabi 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattmatik Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 I need to wait and see what they are going to do with this. Didn't get into BF3 as much as BC/BC2, and definitely not as much as BF2. I did put in a few hours on PS3 before getting it for PC - won't be doing the console thing again. Few of my friends and I are getting into PlanetSide 2 right now and depending on what SOE does with that I just don't think BF4 will be worth it for me. I'm hoping...hoping...DICE comes up with some things to reinvent the FPS genre instead of gravitating toward CoD-style but I have my doubts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PsychD Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Why? Some people play the game on multiple systems and don't want to unlock all the crap two or even 3 times. And besides that, it has absolutely no affect what so ever on your own game so why do you care who has what unlocked? I would not care if the unlocks were shared between systems - No problem with me, that would be fair! But the problems with these packages is that I worked to unlock everything relatively early, I had to do my very best to unlock the recon class, which I'm terrible at playing it, so it took training and time to get it all unlocked. I don't believe in rewarding slack and I'm against any kind of micro transactions that modifies the "strength" of a player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dotdot Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Dont see why this needed a new thread. Seems like it was created to start the usual COD/BF hate campaigns, some folk are intent on furthering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trag3dy Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 I would not care if the unlocks were shared between systems - No problem with me, that would be fair! But the problems with these packages is that I worked to unlock everything relatively early, I had to do my very best to unlock the recon class, which I'm terrible at playing it, so it took training and time to get it all unlocked. I don't believe in rewarding slack and I'm against any kind of micro transactions that modifies the "strength" of a player. Here's the thing. If you could not see a players rank you would never know they paid to unlock their kits unless they told you. It's completely transparent in that it only affects the people that pay for the unlocks because you don't get anything exclusive for paying to unlock them. And then there is the fact that the game has been out for so long now and people have already maxed out everything so from a competitive stand point there is no argument that's valid there, either. Unless we're talking BF4, in which case it will only matter for about the first 2 or 3 weeks after the game is out. Which it's not likely they will sell unlocks in that time frame. They didn't for BC2 or BF3. Personal preference aside there is absolutely no reason why people shouldn't have the right to pay to unlock kits. Some people just want to play the game and not worry about unlocking stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PsychD Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Here's the thing. If you could not see a players rank you would never know they paid to unlock their kits unless they told you. It's completely transparent in that it only affects the people that pay for the unlocks. And then there is the fact that the game has been out for so long now and people have already maxed out everything so from a competitive stand point there is no argument that's valid there, either. Personal preference aside there is absolutely no reason why people shouldn't have the right to pay to unlock kits. Another reason I'm against unlock kits, is that I see this being a day one Micro transaction in BF4, which is something I find worrying even though it's not even confirmed or denied. I should clearly have been more clear about this. But with BF3 it first came 4-5? months later, which I still think is unfair to those people that spend time and skill to get all unlocks, with the time I had to play for those months leading up to release of the unlock kits, I was still struggling to unlock all, but I managed without buying a single kit. Why should someone who couldn't manage to shoot anyone with one of the less attractive rifles get access to a beast (SV98 and the road to M98B springs to my mind). Through DLC's players got acces to a number of fine weapons, which are easy to obtain and in my mind better than some kits starting weapons and early unlocks. But I doubt we will ever agree about this "issue", so I'll just say that you have some valid points, though I don't entirely agree with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyLarry Veteran Posted March 20, 2013 Veteran Share Posted March 20, 2013 Here's the thing. If you could not see a players rank you would never know they paid to unlock their kits unless they told you. It's completely transparent in that it only affects the people that pay for the unlocks because you don't get anything exclusive for paying to unlock them. And then there is the fact that the game has been out for so long now and people have already maxed out everything so from a competitive stand point there is no argument that's valid there, either. Unless we're talking BF4, in which case it will only matter for about the first 2 or 3 weeks after the game is out. Which it's not likely they will sell unlocks in that time frame. They didn't for BC2 or BF3. Personal preference aside there is absolutely no reason why people shouldn't have the right to pay to unlock kits. Some people just want to play the game and not worry about unlocking stuff. I tend to agree. I have only played BF3 a total of almost 18 hours since it was released. On PC at least. I barely have anything unlocked as I just switch kits as needed for whatever the situation at hand may be. I only play Conquest. I like tanks. My point being when I share the above is if the game was unfair against anyone, it would be me, and I had a few rounds I was Top 3 player on the team. Barely any unlocks, no kits, and anything I did get with premium, I never even knew about or used. If BF3 was unfair with unlocks I would be the first to say so. I just do not feel it is. But I also do not play the game competitively, so I am not looking at the nuances of every weapon, etc., so maybe there are some things that certain people feel make one weapon better then the other, but as someone who has been playing the series since the beginning with 1942 on PC, it is pretty much the same BF it always has been IMHO, just modernized (for better and for worse) over the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+SOOPRcow MVC Posted March 21, 2013 MVC Share Posted March 21, 2013 http://www.battlefield.com/battlefield-4 - Real time weather effects? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crisp Posted March 21, 2013 Author Share Posted March 21, 2013 http://www.battlefie...m/battlefield-4 - Real time weather effects? http://bf3blog.com/w...200withlogo.jpg Black hawks with search lights for BF3!! Oh wait... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BeanZ_ Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 http://bf3blog.com/w...200withlogo.jpg Black hawks with search lights for BF3!! Oh wait... True, but there's a difference between one small detail of a piece of artwork, and a major design choice that they use as a feature/gimmick of a teaser site and include in all of the currently released information (excluding the Vine teaser). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crisp Posted March 21, 2013 Author Share Posted March 21, 2013 *Yawn* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLegendOfMart Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 If BF3 was unfair with unlocks I would be the first to say so. Weapon wise no, but weapon unlock wise is the worst kind of forced leveling, it annoys me when you have to unlock the same freaking sights for each weapon, they are all designed to fit a standardized rail system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lamp0 Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 ...the problems with these packages is that I worked to unlock everything relatively early, I had to do my very best to unlock the recon class, which I'm terrible at playing it, so it took training and time to get it all unlocked. I don't believe in rewarding slack and I'm against any kind of micro transactions that modifies the "strength" of a player. Oh come on! Games aren't supposed to be work. They're entertainment. If you want to "work" to unlock stuff then you're doing it because YOU want to. Playing the game should be fun & being successful should be the reward. You shouldn't just be forcing yourself to play through aspects of a game just to get some silly unlock or achievement & say it's unfair when other just buy the dlc. It's all pointless, it doesn't mean anything. Personally I think the rank & unlock meta-game has grown to be one of the worst aspects of online games. I often catch myself playing with this class & that weapon, just to unlock the next "bit", which I'll probably never use. And really, I think it goes against the team work aspect that BF is supposed to be about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spaceelf Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Personally I think the rank & unlock meta-game has grown to be one of the worst aspects of online games. I often catch myself playing with this class & that weapon, just to unlock the next "bit", which I'll probably never use. And really, I think it goes against the team work aspect that BF is supposed to be about. I think they're annoying when overdone, but fun when they aren't. BF3 overdid it massively IMO. Warfighter toned it down a lot and made it approachable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+SOOPRcow MVC Posted March 21, 2013 MVC Share Posted March 21, 2013 Naval combat! I hope it is, at the very least, as extensive as BF1942! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicane-UK Veteran Posted March 21, 2013 Veteran Share Posted March 21, 2013 Interesting... interesting.... looking forward to the reveal next week :) :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dead.cell Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Another reason I'm against unlock kits, is that I see this being a day one Micro transaction in BF4, which is something I find worrying even though it's not even confirmed or denied. I should clearly have been more clear about this. But with BF3 it first came 4-5? months later, which I still think is unfair to those people that spend time and skill to get all unlocks, with the time I had to play for those months leading up to release of the unlock kits, I was still struggling to unlock all, but I managed without buying a single kit. Why should someone who couldn't manage to shoot anyone with one of the less attractive rifles get access to a beast (SV98 and the road to M98B springs to my mind). Through DLC's players got acces to a number of fine weapons, which are easy to obtain and in my mind better than some kits starting weapons and early unlocks. But I doubt we will ever agree about this "issue", so I'll just say that you have some valid points, though I don't entirely agree with them. Wouldn't the compromise to this solution would be to have some stuff accessible only via unlocking through gameplay? This way, the diehard dedicated to the game itself can stand out? I would have thought this to be the case. (I haven't been on in a while due to school) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirEvan Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 How is it ridiculous? I heard you have to be constantly online to play multiplayer! /s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crucify Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 If it still uses Punkbuster, it wont be worth the trouble. The script kiddies will have it hacked up on day one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trag3dy Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 So will it have a completely forgettable single player campaign again? While BF3's wasn't exactly bad it wasn't anywhere near good either. I hope DICE don't waste their time on it and instead choose to give us 2 or 3 more multiplayer maps at launch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spaceelf Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 So will it have a completely forgettable single player campaign again? While BF3's wasn't exactly bad it wasn't anywhere near good either. I hope DICE don't waste their time on it and instead choose to give us 2 or 3 more multiplayer maps at launch. me too, that'd give me a game to skip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts