Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Battlefield 3 out Fall 2011

YoungPanthers89

By YoungPanthers89,
in Huddle Lounge

Recommended Posts

C47 Newbie

C47

Posted
Posted

At least it's not like Halo where they force everyone to get the map packs after a certain point otherwise you can't even play 90% of the game modes.

Did they seriously do this??? I haven't touched Halo since Halo 3....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mattiekrome Rookie

Mattiekrome

Posted
Posted

Because every other game company doesn't charge for extra content right :rolleyes:....it's not just an EA thing it's a game thing....

Not a jab at EA/DICE, althought it probably did sound that way. Just frustrating that with the release so far away, they could easily incorporate the additional maps into the actual release instead of waiting for a month after release then charging extra for it. Just proof that game developers are no longer happy with charging $50-$60 for a game, now they want extra money above and beyond for additional content. Just sad to see the "new way" that devs think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zaximus Veteran

Zaximus

Posted
Posted

Not a jab at EA/DICE, althought it probably did sound that way. Just frustrating that with the release so far away, they could easily incorporate the additional maps into the actual release instead of waiting for a month after release then charging extra for it. Just proof that game developers are no longer happy with charging $50-$60 for a game, now they want extra money above and beyond for additional content. Just sad to see the "new way" that devs think.

Most games like CoD etc, have the maps for both map packs already complete mostly, before the game even ships. That's just how it works now, since DLC is in the financial model. Blame the consumers for being OK paying $15 for 4 maps twice after already paying $60. You can't fault the game companies, I'd do it too.

If they start charging "per month" I wonder if map packs are going to become free (since you pay monthly). They should be. I don't think people would mind paying $5 bucks a month if it mean a couple extra maps each month, maybe some new guns, and things like that. Improved patch process and anti-cheater/glitchers would have to be in that too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Montsta Rising Star

Montsta

Posted
Posted

Actually in BFBC2 I've seen guys at Arika Harbor or whatever that map is called snipe and lead the boards because they're sittin on that one mountain during a rush game and racking up HUGE points for super long distance headshots. That's about the only time though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SorthNarolina Newbie

SorthNarolina

Posted
Posted

Most games like CoD etc, have the maps for both map packs already complete mostly, before the game even ships. That's just how it works now, since DLC is in the financial model. Blame the consumers for being OK paying $15 for 4 maps twice after already paying $60. You can't fault the game companies, I'd do it too.

If they start charging "per month" I wonder if map packs are going to become free (since you pay monthly). They should be. I don't think people would mind paying $5 bucks a month if it mean a couple extra maps each month, maybe some new guns, and things like that. Improved patch process and anti-cheater/glitchers would have to be in that too.

i don't like that corporate model though. The games are being rushed to production and it really makes you wish they had more time to sort things out just right. I don't play a lot of video games, but I'd much rather play a really good game like half life 2, halo, or something of that sort than a decent call of duty every year. It just kind of sucks, i seriously would not want my hypothetical children playing CoD just because it sucks and it's not well made in a way that would make them think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Seamonk Explorer

Seamonk

Posted
Posted

Why does it seem like this game is just Homefront with better graphics.

I've never played a Battlefield game, but I hated Homefront and BF3 just gives that same feel.

Just tell me I'm wrong.

Hm. I've never played Homefront, but to generally put it, Battlefield games are more about team victories than 1 guy running around killing people. They are structured so that if you're a team player, you are rewarded more via points and usually set yourself up to get kills in the process. There is also no such thing as camping, the maps are too large for camping to be problematic since it's just not worth sitting in a corner with a shotty for 30 minutes hoping someone walks by.. ESPECIALLY since that corner can be blown up.

Simply put, a CoD fanboy can never play this game because it would require more patience and using your teammates to their advantage (since there are roles), and because it actually takes effort to kill someone.(I'm talking about you FAMAS and Cod4 M16). From playing both for extended periods of time, I've personally found it easier to transition from playing BF to COD and being successful, than from COD to BF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • tukafan21
      something to feel good about in the offseason..."could be something special brewing in Carolina"

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      Then don't tune in. It's really not a hard concept to understand, if your making your decision based on your own personal needs/feelings as opposed to what is best for the future of the franchise, then it's a you problem, not a Panthers problem. When the season is already lost, every fan should be rooting for the same thing.  The team plays hard until the final whistle of the season and keeps improving as a team and individually, but in the end, we still come up short and lose games, and preferably because the other team beat us, not because we screwed up and found a way to lose due to our own fault. Look at it this way... If we are up 1 or 2 points with 3 seconds left in the game and the other team is lining up for a FG.  Beyond the joy of victory or the disappointment of defeat, what impact does the other team making or missing the FG have on our team the following season? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING Except where we draft and what teams we play due to our finish in the division. The players and coaches on the team would have the exact same level of improvement and learnings about themselves individually and as a team whether the FG is made or missed.  The ONLY difference in the end is the record in the standings and if the win or loss number changes. If you want to argue if making the playoffs to lose in the first round or just missing them is better or worse, that's totally fair and I can at least understand the other side of it.  But in what is already a lost season, if you're not hoping your team plays well but ends up losing, then you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.  You're hoping for a moment of happiness at the detriment of the franchise's future, and in turn, you're basically then happy for a moment to only set yourself up for future further disappointment.
    • HaricotVert
      something to feel good about in the offseason..."could be something special brewing in Carolina"

      By HaricotVert · Posted

      If we’re eliminated I want the wins more.   The season is already a disappointment and if I’m not pulling for wins why bother to tune in?
    • tukafan21
      something to feel good about in the offseason..."could be something special brewing in Carolina"

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      Two things terribly wrong with this post. First is that not one time has myself or anyone else agreeing with me said that the team themselves should think that way or try and lose for positioning.  Never once have I suggested the team should purposefully lose games, ever.  I honestly can't understand why people keep saying this in posts, not one fan has ever said the players should or would purposefully try to lose. And second, is yes, that has happened and it's happened very recently.  The 2020 Bengals were 4-11-1 and then were playing in the SB the very next season.   And while it might have been 2 years later and they didn't quite get to the SB, the 2021 Lions were 3-13-1 and then the 2023 Lions were up 24-7 at halftime of the NFC Championship game. The season between those two? They finished 9-8 and only just missed the playoffs. Which is why I keep trying to compare us to the Lions in where we are at in our re-build.  Throw out Bryce's rookie year with the Reich staff who just didn't work out and he looked god awful.   This past season when we were 5-12 in Canales' 1st season is that 2021 season for the Lions and their 1st season under Campbell.  This year is their 2022 where they grew a ton and Campbell's culture building was clear, where I'm saying we'd likely be better off in the long run if we go 8-9 or 9-8 and just miss out on the playoffs (which is still a significant improvement from last year).  Then our 2026 is their 2024 when we have a chance to be a real contender after adding a few more pieces and our key players having another year of experience under their belts.
×
×
  • Create New...