I understand what the TC means..sort of. Its kind of like how watching an old movie (or a movie that is set in the distant past) looks weird on a 120hz or higher hdtv. I watched HBOs Band of Brothers on my cousins 240hz samsung and I really hated the way it looked. Would rather watch it in SD

I was in the middle of a BF3 match when they started the maintenance. I was just about to finish sniping a Fighter Pilot from 500 yards away while falling from a building and spinning in mid-air...now there will be no record of it..darn PSN!! :x

As a result of all these biased and unfair reviews I think its time for the 99% (everyone who thinks these flops are better than gamespot does) to OCCUPY GAMESPOT!!

It seems as if they get over-ambitious and have too many ideas for their games and forget about polishing them. Oblivion was the first and only Elder Scrolls game Ive played and I loved it, up until the point where I couldnt play for more than a half hour before I couldnt use any spells and/or the game would just crash and not register any saves...really quite frustrating.

Luckily all those reused buildings in BF3 wont be intact long enough for anyone to really notice because they can all be destroyed...Where as in CoD you can barely even shoot glass and have it shatter

I dont understand why BF3 fans wold be upset about MW3 releasing..all this means to me is that there will be less "lone wolf" gamers playing bf3 like its CoD. The CoD fans get the fast paced, run & gun twitch fest they love and the BF3 gamers get the slower paced, team-work oriented gameplay we love. Everybody wins!

[QUOTE="BlancoBX"]

[QUOTE="MyopicCanadian"] Of course. But what happens when you get to those objectives? Chances are you need to do some killing to be able to cap it. No one's talking about camping objectives, the point is that pretty much every mission in this game goes better when you're killing enemies, and thus do not have a bad K/D.MyopicCanadian

what happens if you get to an objective with your squad and you suppress the enemies there, but someone else on your team finishes them off before you? You get the points for kill assist, and the points for taking an objective but no kill gets notched to your stats. Have that happen a handful of times and get killed at a normal rate and your K/D ratio goes to $.h.i.t, but your point total, and overall contribution to the team will be high.

What if you are engineer class and you are constantly disabling enemy vehicles that are about to take an objective, but dont get the kill?

I understand what you are saying, but there can be plenty of times where you are too far, or in a bad position to get the killing shot when you are with your squad. The basis of what im saying is is that k/d ratio isnt as important in BF3 as it is in other online FPS shooters. I have played matches where I can go 35-5 with less points then when I go 3-8. So team success and a victory isnt as reliant on your k/d ratio as you seem to think it is imo

edit: and also what if you are assault class and you are constantly reviving people, handing out med pacs to keep your team members alive, but not really killing many enemies? BF3 is more about doing your job on the battlefield than it is about having a good k/d ratio. The medic who revives 30 people in a match is more important to the teams success then someone who goes 20-5 and has a good k/d ratio

double edit: The only class that K/D ratio is important would be recon class. Because if you are a sniping from long range and you are dying more often then you are getting kills then you are not doing your job

Nothing is really "milked." It doesn't matter how long a series or franchise has existed. Nothing is forced on anybody. There may be people that stop liking CoD after MW3, but there will be people that get onboard CoD with MW3. It's moreso really as long as the userbase is there, the games will keep coming, which could be said for many other game series.

I wouldn't concern myself with the existance of CoD. I'm not a CoD person myself, but I can't tell people to change their opinions. It's popular, but it doesn't mean you have to like it or concern yourself with it. You would lose that battle.

Valiant_Rebel

Its not so much the game itself, but the effect that it is having on the industry. A game that has been running on the same engine for 5 years with minimal changes is bad for gaming. These games are money in the bank for Activision, and it wont be long before every other company decides to do the same thing to maximize their profits, much to the detriment of us gamers who like originality, change and innovation.

[QUOTE="gaming25"]Sometimes you need to run to a objective agressively, due to many factors such as time, distance, and other factors. You can sometimes in certain circumstances get more done running to an objective 3 times in 40 seconds, than someone who will stay at the same place for the same amount of time.MyopicCanadian

what happens if you get to an objective with your squad and you suppress the enemies there, but someone else on your team finishes them off before you? You get the points for kill assist, and the points for taking an objective but no kill gets notched to your stats. Have that happen a handful of times and get killed at a normal rate and your K/D ratio goes to $.h.i.t, but your point total, and overall contribution to the team will be high.

What if you are engineer class and you are constantly disabling enemy vehicles that are about to take an objective, but dont get the kill?

It's sad that there are actually people who think that CoD is the best online game ever made. That's like saying Transformers is the best movie ever made just because you had a lot of fun watching it.

Wasdie

/thread

I dont think there was ever a more apt comparison. Touche sir