Battlefield: Bad Company 3 will happen, says DICE

@Zarkhaine @Shilleto

You must not have played much of bf3. not similar to cod in the least. Not to mention cod was the series who ripped off bf to begin with. BF2 was out before Mw. newbie

@Zarkhaine 1) The speed and movement of your animation doesn't correlate to the equipment you have. Try removing all the gear from yout inventory, or actually just go to an RP server where you don't have any gear, your animation and speed is the same regardless of weight. Even with all that equipment, in a real firefight your first goal is to find cover, you are trained to an extent to where carrying all that equipment barely affects you. Soilders can still jump, dive, and crouch quickly (I used to go to military training with my dad, the things they had to do in all that gear is intense.)

2) I never said anything about dying. Real-battles are always fast paced, sometimes you just get an easy break and can avoid or quickly take out a threat, other times your stuck in a long firefight.

3)Ok that's a part of being a sim. You can't be an 100% real or accurate sim without every factor.

4) (another military training thing with my pops :)) When I went to the shooting range with him the soldiers there could aim and hit a target in less than a second. It only took them about 5 to put down their primary and pull out a secondary. In Arma you're supposed to be a trained soldier, I don't expect them to be faster than the average soldier, but they aren't that slow either.

Not really sure what you mean by disagree, but these are factual things that add to the realism and would improve the accuracy of the simulation. Never said that BF3 was more realistic in every way. Arma is the definitive sim and BF is the definitive for action, both aren't perfect and can use tips from the other for some things in the realism dept.

@DIGN @Zarkhaine 1. yes, it takes longer. When you have 90lb+ of equipment on your back, your not just gonna be able to jump around like a Chinese gymnast. Plus the movement in Arma 3 is actually pretty responsive.
2. Arma is slower and more tactical yes, but that doesn't mean there aren't chaotic moments. Real war is about surviving and completing your objectives/missions. You do everything you can to avoid fire fights, but they are inevitable, and some of the most intense gaming moments i've experienced have come from small skirmishes and fire fights in Arma, cus you do everything you can to not get killed. In BF3 it doesn't matter if you get killed, cus you just respawn 5 seconds later.
3. Yes, destructible environments are much better on BF3.
4. Aiming is 'better' on BF3, but again, Arma's aiming is much more realistic. Aiming absolutely does take longer in real life than on BF3.

So overall, I have to completely disagree with your theory that BF3 is more realistic than Arma 3. In almost every way :)

@Zarkhaine @Shilleto COD, BF and Arma are all totally different games. COD aims for arcade shooting that's easy to just pick up, BF likes to go for bigger warfare with vehicles but not insanely hard and Arma just goes straight for realism. I don't see how they can even be compared other than being military shooters

@Zarkhaine I'm a fan of both, I own Arma II and III(demoed the first Arma, but I like II and III better.)

Real combat is fast paced RTS or slow RTS, and sometimes a mix of the two.

Battlefield's animation and movements are way more fluent and realistic. Do you honestly think soldiers transition from prone to standing that slow as in Arma?

Arma is a sim in which the goal is to give you complete control of a war environment in which you can take things slow and think it through. Real war is hell, everything can be destroyed so you aren't given much time to think out a strategy in which you can escape a flank or ambush. Arma doesn't have desructible environments, at least not on Battlefields scale.

Aiming in Battlefield is better, Arma III is a step up from Arma II's aiming. (Not talking about recoil.) ADS is very clunky in Arma II and on 3 it's smoother, but not as smooth as BF. It's also too slow on Arma, aiming doesn't take that long irl.

there are more, but this is just an at base look of things that are more realistic in BF.

@Zarkhaine @Shilleto thats what 64 player servers on pc are for

not sure what he is going on about with arma and bf in realistic stuff

@DIGN @Zarkhaine @Shilleto no dude, just no. Arma is a war simulation. BF3 is an arcade game. In what way is BF3 more realistic?

@Shilleto @Zarkhaine yeah, they're still big maps, but all the action takes place in small areas of the maps, making them feel much smaller.

@Zarkhaine @Shilleto Actually in many cases Battlefield is more realisitc than Arma. Calling Battlefield an 'arcade' shooter, it like calling Arma an arcade rts

@Zarkhaine @Shilleto to me the maps are much bigger in bf3 on pc anyway

bfbc3 will not be released next year, im 100% there has not been a yearly release of a battlefield game, its not going to happen regardless of what ea wants.

@mastaace46 @Shilleto bc1 wasn't on pc

@Shilleto well the opposite could be said about everyone I know except it was bc1 that we all started getting into it

@BrunoFurstBrito @Shilleto it doesn't have alot more then just the maps

@Shilleto @BrunoFurstBrito Because it doesn't have all the maps?