Can EA Combat Shooter Fatigue With Marketing?
EA is hoping you think the Medal of Honor and Battlefield series are drastically different so you'll buy them both.
BF3's destructability is just right 4 me. I don't want to play a map that after 2 minutes of gameplay becomes desert. BBC2 and BF3 are 2 different games for 2 different experiences. First one is for fun 'cause u can destroy ANYTHING! Second one was made for more equilibrated simulated tactical gameplay. Let's say that BF3 stays between BBC2 and MoH. So EA we're expecting BBC3 and BF4. I love both series. But BF3 is AMAAAAAAZIIIING!!! P.S. No comment on MoH....i have it, i play it, i like it, but....hate perks and killstreaks.
If Battlefield 4 is a next gen and they fix all the problems that would be a great idea. Only because it going to be a Next gen launch, but if it a next gen launch the Next gen will probable not be backward compatible just because Battlefield 4 is coming out way to early.
Battlefield 4 Ea's COD :| there just going to milk the franchises until there is noting left.
I still play badc2 cause it's just awesome ,it's "battlefield" ,and i own bf3 and well dont like it much, it's too codish for me .
it's sad really.
i play on console and I play on PC abit I get when they say games are developed for console gamers but those are unfortunately the generation of COD kids and I don't like being told that I'm a console gamer when they are referring to these retards that don't have the brain capacity to play RPGs and strategy games and single player games or don't play a wide variety of games, I'm a gamer I enjoying playing all sorts of games on every platform and I understand the pros and cons of PC gaming and console gaming. I can settle for lesser graphics because I don;t want to spend 800-1000 dollars to get graohics that are are better than xbox/ps3 but when gameplay is changed for "console gamers" that pisses me off like f#cking Dragon Age Origins they could have thought of a better control scheme or had seperate play syles and allowed console retards to play it like an action game and let poeple who enjoy RPGs play it strategically like PC, plus how many people who don't play RPGs are going to go out and buy DA:O on console, so why was it tallered towards a more action style audience. SKyrim looks great on the xbox, and if the xbox's ram wasn't garbage it could handle rendering the grass and trees and everything at further distances, it still wouldn't have mod support but they can be a pain in the ass to run and allot of them are so buggy.
People, incliding me, want online FPS shooters to play I prefer a more modern miliraty setting be it COD or BF or even a slightly futuristic setting like GR:FS ( mainly because I like military realated things) but a Battlefield 2142 remake would be sick and a new IP would basically be battlefield or MoH with a different name, hopefully not MoH because it 's not nearly as good. Althought I suppose they could break away from certain conventions from battlefield that we have come to be used to, like how you heal and resupply your team, game modes, how playing as a team rewards you, with sequels like COD and Battlefield they don't stray far from the previous titles because they know long time fans like familiarity, so they always just seem to be scared to change the game significantly and with a new IP they wouldn't have to worry about alienating fans of one series but they won't have that familiraity or fan base they know they can really one ot buy the game, even though a massive portion would buy a new military online focused shooter IP from DICE. At the end of the day for the big publishers like EA and Activison Blizzard it's just about money.
what this video said battlefield 3 has limited destruction? that is completely ridiculous and battlefield got better and not worse and that is obvious
EA needs to move the Battlefield/MoH release to late spring instead of trying to go head to head with CoD in the fall.
When you guys were showing how similar the games are to each other i though i was still looking at a Moh storyline , & as an opinion i think they should make a better story line for BF4
When is EA creating/releasing Bad Company3. I dont like BF3 in fact I absolutly hate it. I love the single player in BC as there is a lot of leeway to go where you want and the story doesn't seem to have followed the usual script of most single player stories. I also like the cartoony feel as it is a lot clearer and lines are more delineated.
Gees EA slow down on the series, you guys just made Battlefield 3, and your already making the 4th one? What ever happened to, take your time!? Also, they tend to make these games realistic, when the player can't even open a door in single player? Come on!? Also Medal of Honor needs the long campaigns again.
BF3 campaign was awesome. Sure it was heavily scripted, but it was very stylish and had some unforgettable moments like the Fighter plane mission and the one near the end where you parachute from a plane.....exhilarating, made you feel like you were there. With a good surround sound setup, it was just great fun. I don't mind that it was an on-rails experience, it's just different than open world.....both have their pros and cons.
When I got MoH Limited it cost $70 and came with BF3 beta access. After a disappointing and unsupported MP with an inconsistent and relatively short SP experience, I later found that PS Plus members got BF3 beta access a full week before my code permitted! Once bitten twice shy IMO. Why can't the MoH franchise get back to its roots with seriously long and hard campaigns that had an arguably larger sandbox than both MoH and BF3 SP have delivered. I don't need to ride roller coaster trikes, snow machines etc. BS, I want to be tested and have the adrenalin back! Battlefield Bad Company 3 please. I will pass on MoH:W until I can get a used copy for cheap and just for the SP AND only if the reviews are good. It's Last of US and Far Cry 3 for me until this crap sorts itself out. BF3 asks me to pay enough for a second game for its DLC... good luck! When the good DLC maps come out AND are demonstrated to be great, I might buy 1 or perhaps 2. Close quarters cluster f@#k?!?!? LOL
Dont care about any of their statements i'll still be buying their games.... And for the "De-evolution" less destruction i dont see that... BFBC2 has about the same amount as BF3... Ofc this is just me.... and i play both BF and MoH
I loved the last MOH, I know it wasn't all free roam, and it was not in any way a BF game, or even a COD game, but, it filled a want I had from a game. I wanted a game that took the military actions a little more seriously than COD, gave me a more cinematic experience than BF, and made me feel like a bad ass special operations soldier. It did all that... I will buy this one.
The designers of Rainbow 6 need to give these new developers a class on making good video games (Rainbow 6 pre 2010 games where you could create an execute ALL your own tactics and control your team)
Wanna know what the pc fans of the "battlefield" series think (not bad company) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9Huu8moEYg&list=UUqMJWBcSblLB-bLSiZDaEJw&index=105&feature=plcp pretty much everything this guy says on his channel. BF3 is the sequel to bf2 not bad company 2....so why does it have game modes from bc2 (which were designed with consoles in mind not 64 player pc games), why does it have a campaign (bf2 was a purely multiplayer game). why does it even have close qaurters dlc (not saying its a bad thing but its simply not battlefield, why not wait and release that dlc for medal of honor??) and why does the game have maps that simply cannot be used on 64 players (see metro 64 player videos) bf2 had large maps that they just scaled the boundaries back to fit the size of match. Lack of teamwork tools such as commander, the squad leaders don't have the tools they had in bf2 (see video link), and on pc no ingame voice chat means any team co-ordination on 64 players is non existant. So bf3 is a complete and utter devolution imho on what bf2 brought us in gameplay terms, the only improvements tbh are animation and graphics.
i thought that the Battlefield 3 campaign was the worst i had ever experienced, however i found Medal of Honor's campaign thoroughly engaging and enjoyable (despite its obvious flaws). Furthermore, having pumped over 200hrs into B3's multiplayer i can safely say that its my favourite multiplayer experience to date, and will likely be purchasing the next instalment of both franchises.
Come on EA!!! Stop with the bulls**t. You want people to buy Medal of Honor Warfighter so you add the Battlefied 4 beta to it. That a damn shame!!! But I hope MoH:WF will be the COD killer but.....that's not going to happen.
It's sad to see where Battlefield has gone. Bad Company 2 was probably the peak in terms of making a game that would satisfy both a console and PC audience. The change in tone for the campaign was also a refreshing change from the "this is super serious business" tone of ever other modern fps even if it was a little cartoony. BF2 is still my favorite out of all of them but it wouldn't translate well to consoles. I liked the emphasis on strategy and teamwork. Also loved the games that could go on for 2+ hours. I got bored with the BF3 singleplayer within the first two or three levels. Multiplayer was alright, but I would probably be just as well off with COD4.
Battlefield Bad Company 2 is the best game of the three. I liked Battlefield 3's multiplayer as opposed to Medal of Honor's. But I liked Medal of Honors campaign over Battlefield 3's. Bad Company 2's multiplayer and campaign, I thought, was better than both of them.
This really sucks, i just paid 50 euros for all the coming expansions of BF3 and now they're advertising BF4???? wtf
@Scottisme dude, there are so many things that you mentioned here that simply are not true. You say you don't want to pay 800-1000 dollars for a PC to get better graphics. Well, everyone needs to have a PC. I for example bought a laptop more than a year ago for 600$. yes a laptop not a desktop. and I runs all the new games that have been coming out on high with an average of 25 FPS and I never had the problem of not being able to run something because the games have not changed radically at all. Lets be honest, If i had payed that money for a desktop, I would have been able to get something that would last me atleast for 5 years without upgrading. My friend bought a gateway desktop for 680$ 3 years ago and still its a decent computer and is able to run everything very decently.
also, the quality of gaming on pc is unparalleled. I dont have to mention the modding forexample for a game like skyrim that you guys dont have and who are we kidding? mouse and keyboard vs a stupid controller for FPS? no question there. And the Games for PC are much much cheaper. Steam forexample has sales that the price of games drop 50-75% .
PC gaming is more of a hobby, they spend allot of time upgrading their pc and making it run smoothly and spend, , allot of time (or atleast allot more time than a console) getting games to run correctly or at all. It makes sense why in gernal PC gamers are allot more serious they spend allot of time and money on their PC(i'm not saying that they spend more time playing games just that they spend allot of time on other things as well, that on consoles you don;t have to worry about). Comapared to allot of console gamers who are given their console and tv and all they have to know is how to put a CD in the disk drive and slap some buttons. The majority of people who play COD on xbox when i look at there games played they pretty much have only played COD and a few other games and have a shitty gamerscore, allot of the retards you come across haven't even beaten the singleplayer on that respective COD. A gamer is a gamer, these people are not gamers.
@Isiaah0921 The original maps, had very limited destruction compared to the Bad Company games, and the map packs released later ( they didn't even update destruction for the original BF3 maps) which is pretty bad considering they were advertising the frostbite destruction 2.0 before game release.
My guess is that they didn;t add it because they rushed the game to get it out before MW3, which is apparent due to the bugs that took forever to sort out, most where minor but still unacceptable especially for a game that took millions to make
@Isiaah0921 In Bad Company 2 nearly every building in the game could be leveled to the ground.
@Isiaah0921 Not from BC into Bf3.
@Monsta1217 yeah the campaign was pretty sh#t on BF3, I f#cking hate on rail shooting, Bad Company 2 was ten times better than BF3's campaign, both were fun, but in the future I'd rather see the campaign playable in CO-OP and be open like Crysis 1 and Bad company than on rail shooting and really linear map design like COD/majority of the BF3 campaign, some parts have to be linear but they can add more ways do move around in that area, like various ways to go when in buildings and actually be able to drive vehicles not just scripted vehicle missions
@AeronomerBF3 on EVERY PLATFORM PC,PS3,XBOX is the ultimate online shooter. Nothing touches it.
@Aeronomer Red Orchestra, ARMA, Unreal Tournament 99, Quake and many others are better.
@sgldda Yeah I agree, I would much prefer a Bad company game, or atleast another BF with the same open map design for singeplayer and actaul memorable characters. Close quarters looks pretty lame and I don;t understand why poeple like it I guessed most poeple just bought it for the guns, I've had fun playing TD on BF3 but I only like it when every one snipes and it's on hardcore
@Borges2207 Did Activision say that each yearly COD edition is supposed to appeal to a different audience? They are made by different developers, but they are the same franchise. Here Gamespot is talking about 2 different franchises.
@Borges2207For starters, Aaron and I no longer play Call of Duty. I haven't picked up CoD since I logged 35 days of multiplayer in MW2 and vowed never to return. Second, we are Battlefield fans and wanted to engage the community about EA's claims and its marketing. Lastly, most people tend to agree about Activision's policies and behavior. They've also been more forthcoming/honest about their goals and direction. EA has arguably been dishonest at a time when the jury is still out on whether its practices are taking these games in the right direction. We kind of feel like there's still time to turn the car around for EA, where as Activision seems committed to its future.
@SiniStar121 Too complicated for people these days.
@revway every shooter single player is rail, in past , present and future as well
@twentymooseman I think BF2 is still my favorite pre-BC2 (although 1942 for its mod awesomeness is close). If you like those long matches in BF2, BF3 definitely has some of that to offer as well. I played a 90 minute match on Gulf of Oman that brought back some memories.
@sirmoein @Scottisme I custom ordered all of my pc components and built it myself a year ago...im about 700 bucks in and thats including 180 bucks on a 24 inch monitor... i can run Crysis 3 at on average 60 Fps...ur not gonna notice a performance difference if ur pc is running games at 24 fps...xbox and ps3 run most games at about 30...and yes keyboard and mouse is far more accurate than a controller
@hellomikie91your hilarious, good joke
@Succumbus too complicated for pre teens don't you mean
@anvilone The feel (essentially the soul of the game) has gone though, so you may get tiny moments of nostalgia like you mention but the teamwork has gone replaced with dumbed down run and gun consolitis gameplay (ala CoD or any of the other arena shooters but on larger maps). As for single player it really should not have come with a campaign at all, apparently its the sequel to bf2...bf2 had no campaign they wasted resources making it considering what we got (a project igi style campaign i would put up with)