Battlefield 4 Beta?

I wanted Bad Company 3!!

So what do you think?Is it a mistake?

http://mp1st.com/2012/07/14/battlefield-4-confirmed-beta-access-through-medal-of-honor-warfighter-pre-oder-incentive/

I heard about it too......bleh.....are they really turning BF into a yearly franchise?eh.

>__> I still have yet to play the 1st MoH

JrTapia1991 wrote:I heard about it too......bleh.....are they really turning BF into a yearly franchise?eh.

>__> I still have yet to play the 1st MoH

No.

If this article has any truth to it, it will be released next year. That will have been two years after initial BF3 release.

I do want bad company 3 too

Rectal Tenesmus wrote:

JrTapia1991 wrote:I heard about it too......bleh.....are they really turning BF into a yearly franchise?eh.

>__> I still have yet to play the 1st MoH

No.

If this article has any truth to it, it will be released next year. That will have been two years after initial BF3 release.

Sadly enough, nearly every single comment in the section there is filled with stuff like that. And you only have a few people who realize it's not going to be a year, getting downvoted.

When you look at it, MoH 2010 came out in October of 2010. BF3 came out in October of 2011.

MoH WF is coming out in October 2012. BF4 ain't going to make it a yearly franchise unless the beta happens during launch of WF and the main game launches right after.

http://mp1st.com/2012/05/16/battlefield-bad-company-3-under-development-according-to-employee-resume/

BF4 should come out after the same difference in time between BF2 and BF3.

BF3 feels a lot like Bad Company to me.

BF main > Bad Company

they better bring back the chewbacca suits

BF3 feels nothing like BC to me and my opinion BC2 was by far the better game.Im hoping the next one will be as good.

Honestly I think you guys who preferred BC2 never really played a BF game before that. BC2 was NOT BF.

People who have been with the series since the beginning(like me) realize BF3 is a real BF game.

BC2 was totally consolized, dumbed down and not nearly as good as the main BF series to me.

Just something Ive noticed.

In my case youre right.BC2 was my first BF game and I know alot of you guys who have played them all say exactly what you say and after playing BF3 I can see the difference.BC2 is not a "real BF game",I agree and I like BC more.

Sym wrote:Honestly I think you guys who preferred BC2 never really played a BF game before that. BC2 was NOT BF.

People who have been with the series since the beginning(like me) realize BF3 is a real BF game.

BC2 was totally consolized, dumbed down and not nearly as good as the main BF series to me.

Just something Ive noticed.

I loved BC2 and it was my first BF game and I totally agree. That was a great game, but I knew it wasn't the full Battlefield experience and couldn't wait for the next full BF game the whole time.

Nothing wrong with liking BC2. Hell I loved it to, and played the shit out of it.

I just prefer BF3 by quite a margin.

Sym wrote:Honestly I think you guys who preferred BC2 never really played a BF game before that. BC2 was NOT BF.

People who have been with the series since the beginning(like me) realize BF3 is a real BF game.

BC2 was totally consolized, dumbed down and not nearly as good as the main BF series to me.

Just something Ive noticed.

Uh I have played every iteration of Battlefield except for Heroes and 2142.
I have owned ALL the expansion packs for everything, and I didn't get them in the 4 game bundles or whatever. I have bought and played each one dividually. I have spent probably around 300-400 dollars on the BF franchise buying everything brandnew. The only BF thing I have not bought aside from 2142, is Premium.

Why have I told you this? Because I can honestly say that BC2 is my favorite in the damn series, right beneath Vietnam.

Miles Edgeworth wrote:

Sym wrote:Honestly I think you guys who preferred BC2 never really played a BF game before that. BC2 was NOT BF.

People who have been with the series since the beginning(like me) realize BF3 is a real BF game.

BC2 was totally consolized, dumbed down and not nearly as good as the main BF series to me.

Just something Ive noticed.

Uh I have played every iteration of Battlefield except for Heroes and 2142.
I have owned ALL the expansion packs for everything, and I didn't get them in the 4 game bundles or whatever. I have bought and played each one dividually. I have spent probably around 300-400 dollars on the BF franchise buying everything brandnew. The only BF thing I have not bought aside from 2142, is Premium.

Why have I told you this? Because I can honestly say that BC2 is my favorite in the damn series, right beneath Vietnam.

< feels bad for you




I should have said MOST

I like BF3 better than BC2 >__> controls better for one.idk,it was fun for sure and one of my fav games ever but I like BF3 more.

I played a little BC1,mostly BC2 and BC2 Vietnam and alot of BF3

played some BF2 on the original xbox

wish I would of gotten into it sooner but the online is what really makes the games.I wanted it way back when BF2 came out on PS2 and everybody was in disbelief the PS2 could run it

JrTapia1991 wrote:I like BF3 better than BC2 >__> controls better for one.idk,it was fun for sure and one of my fav games ever but I like BF3 more.

I played a little BC1,mostly BC2 and BC2 Vietnam and alot of BF3

played some BF2 on the original xbox

wish I would of gotten into it sooner but the online is what really makes the games.I wanted it way back when BF2 came out on PS2 and everybody was in disbelief the PS2 could run it

Modern Combat was not BF2.

I don't even know why DICE did that.

So that's me, Storm, Sym, Art and now Soap who played the originals.

I didn't take you for a dirty jet bomber Soap. This is surprising.

Maybe it's the way classes are handled, but BF still feels like BC2.

that's true. I dislike only 4 classes.

Sym wrote:Honestly I think you guys who preferred BC2 never really played a BF game before that. BC2 was NOT BF.

People who have been with the series since the beginning(like me) realize BF3 is a real BF game.

BC2 was totally consolized, dumbed down and not nearly as good as the main BF series to me.

Just something Ive noticed.

"Real BF game" is such an arbitrary and elitist thing to say. what qualities make a game a "real" BF game or a "fake" BF game? You might say prone, jets, and high player count make it a
real BF game but those things arent necessarily good additions. BC2 was fine without these and many of the other things that the traditional battlefield games had

Just because BC2 is more different from BF2 than BF3 is doesnt make it any less good of a battlefield game. You could even argue that BF3 is the game thats been dumbed down with the faster ttk's, addition of so many lock-on weapons, and faster pace.

Zillah wrote:

Sym wrote:Honestly I think you guys who preferred BC2 never really played a BF game before that. BC2 was NOT BF.

People who have been with the series since the beginning(like me) realize BF3 is a real BF game.

BC2 was totally consolized, dumbed down and not nearly as good as the main BF series to me.

Just something Ive noticed.

"Real BF game" is such an arbitrary and elitist thing to say. what qualities make a game a "real" BF game or a "fake" BF game? You might say prone, jets, and high player count make it a
real BF game but those things arent necessarily good additions. BC2 was fine without these and many of the other things that the traditional battlefield games had

Just because BC2 is more different from BF2 than BF3 is doesnt make it any less good of a battlefield game. You could even argue that BF3 is the game thats been dumbed down with the faster ttk's, addition of so many lock-on weapons, and faster pace.

Yes Im an elitist.

Bad Company 2 was watered down in just about every way.....you obviously never played 1942, or BF2.

Sigh......

I'm gonna add to this instead making a new post.

Again I liked BC2 alot, it was a fun game. But these are the things changed from the previous and current BF games.

- Higher TTk
- Jets removed
- Smaller maps
- Focused on Rush, not CQ
- Smaller teams and player numbers
- Prone removed
- Less vehicles
- Console priority

These are all differences from the previous games in the series. To the credit of the BC series, we got the Frostbite engine though, which is awesome.

To me this made a huge difference in over all feel and scope of the game. And MOST people who played the older games tend to agree.

Doesn't make it any worse of a game, it had enough depth to keep the majority of people here playing for well over 500 hours.

For example, battlefield 1943 might be very simple but it's a really well balanced and enjoyable game despite getting old sooner than a full featured myltiplayer would.

Zillah wrote:Doesn't make it any worse of a game, it had enough depth to keep the majority of people here playing for well over 500 hours.

For example, battlefield 1943 might be very simple but it's a really well balanced and enjoyable game despite getting old sooner than a full featured myltiplayer would.

Thats totally subjective.....

I liked the game alot (again..) but it felt watered down, which my opinion. And alot of BF vets will tell you the same thing.

Thats all my comment meant....

Looking back, am I the only one that liked Bad Company 1 more then Bad Company 2?

Khfan60 wrote:Looking back, am I the only one that liked Bad Company 1 more then Bad Company 2?

I loved the SP and the MP maps were awesome, but no.

I do wish more games would be as open approach as far as their SP goes as BC1 was.

Bad Company 1 had way more interesting maps I think. Time to kill was way to high and travel time was way too high. Sounds effects for guns were also way better. Singleplayer was better. It was also way more funny.

I liked the BC1 story alot more than BC2s story

I thought it was cheesy how they jump off the ship into Nachodoches Tx which is like an hour from me,with huge mountains and shit in the background,when there's no mountains there...... east Texas is mostly flat forest.They got the redneck corn field right tho probably

Dave wrote:Bad Company 1 had way more interesting maps I think. Time to kill was way to high and travel time was way too high. Sounds effects for guns were also way better. Singleplayer was better. It was also way more funny.

The humour was the best part of the game. I can't think of many games other than BC1 that made me laugh out loud.

And the trailers were fucking hilarious.

Bc1 single player was the last FPS campaign that I actually finished.

I still have yet to even put the BF3 story disc in my xbox......

I wouldn't mind if they did MoH one year,then BF the next.

Zillah wrote:Bc1 single player was the last FPS campaign that I actually finished.

BC1 single player was the last FPS campaign I actually enjoyed.

that ain't no lie........Halo Reach's story was probably my 2nd fav in awhile.Others are largely forgettable

I've always disliked Halo.

yeah I was never really into spacey futuristic shooters so halo never really appealed to me either.

Don't get me wrong. I can enjoy a spacey futuristic shooter if it's done right.

But, Halo always had shit execution imo.

The only thing I liked in Reach's campaign was the mission when your flying the spaceship.