http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2008/05/ … -cousins/2Ben Cousins wrote:
BT: Between the console-based Bad Company and the more casual, kind of accessible feel of Heroes, some hardcore fans may be worried that the once realistic, PC-only shooter is now...
BC: Changed?
BT: Yeah, like it’s going to suddenly become this casual, console-only shooter.
BC: Well, I’m the executive producer on the franchise. I’m really in charge of the entire Battlefield franchise and it’s very clear to me that there are three…well, we have to make this a three-pronged assault with the series really.
First, there are consoles. Consoles are really big, we can’t ignore them, we have to be on the consoles. Second, there’s this casual experiment we’re going with Battlefield: Heroes and the third prong is the hardcore PC gaming experience. We’ve made those in the past and we’ll continue to make them in the future. We aren’t specifically announcing anything, but we are still going to keep those hardcore gamers very happy.
A lot of people are confused when they see Heroes because they see it and assume that that is the future of Battlefield on PC, but it isn’t.
Cool! Although it will be a while as Heroes isn't even released publicly yet..
I've went from playing BF2 to BF1942 and am happier for it.
This bit-tech is almost a month old.
But yes, holding out for it as well.
But yes, holding out for it as well.
I posted that quote before in a thread once. Can't remember which thread though.
I predict a Spring '09 release for Battlefield 3.
Would make sense. A Q4 release of it seems way too early.
Would make sense. A Q4 release of it seems way too early.
Thank god
EA/DICE needs to stop making 3-5 battlefield games in a 4 year time span and spend all their time making one battlefield game that "really works". If BF: Bad company does worse than the previous BF games in the past, what a shame......
I still love BF2 bugs included.specialistx2324 wrote:
EA/DICE needs to stop making 3-5 battlefield games in a 4 year time span and spend all their time making one battlefield game that "really works". If BF: Bad company does worse than the previous BF games in the past, what a shame......
Last edited by sergeriver (2008-06-02 17:10:07)
Sweet, Sweet & Sweet!
I might do the same.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I've went from playing BF2 to BF1942 and am happier for it.
Completely depends how many people they have working at DICE, they would have needed around 50 people to produce BF:H and around 150-200 people on BF:BC, so unless they have another team working on BF3 I wouldn't expect it for atleast another 2-3 years.
I've tried that, but BF1942's infantry dissapoints me - lame ass strafe helps those 1942 pros to avoid half of my bullets...stupid engine..Sup wrote:
I might do the same.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I've went from playing BF2 to BF1942 and am happier for it.
Making a good game takes time, my guess is release in 2010 at the earliest for BF3 - i would be very disapointed if they release something that is just a makeover of BF2 ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Different teams for different games.specialistx2324 wrote:
EA/DICE needs to stop making 3-5 battlefield games in a 4 year time span and spend all their time making one battlefield game that "really works". If BF: Bad company does worse than the previous BF games in the past, what a shame......
i'm just afraid they're going to dumb down everything like in 2142.i don't give a shit about "balance".vehicles are supposed to be powerful,and they damn well better be powerful in BF3.
600 man years to produce a modern game.Varegg wrote:
Making a good game takes time, my guess is release in 2010 at the earliest for BF3 - i would be very disapointed if they release something that is just a makeover of BF2 ...
The 2142 maps were all to small, and the weapons seamed way too weak. The large open maps are why I have always been such a huge fun of BF2...
The tried to pack everything in so the whole map is a big fight...but the map should be bigger then the fight, there needs to be quite areas so you can sneak around/flank/exploit bad defense by taking flags they are no wear near and cannot get to fast enough to stop you.
Would be sweet if they could make BF3 even bigger, but I kind of doubt it...people don't seem to share the same view and they will probably keep the size down to keep things "action packed"
The tried to pack everything in so the whole map is a big fight...but the map should be bigger then the fight, there needs to be quite areas so you can sneak around/flank/exploit bad defense by taking flags they are no wear near and cannot get to fast enough to stop you.
Would be sweet if they could make BF3 even bigger, but I kind of doubt it...people don't seem to share the same view and they will probably keep the size down to keep things "action packed"
tbh weapons kill faster then vBF2 counterparts.VicktorVauhn wrote:
The 2142 maps were all to small, and the weapons seamed way too weak. The large open maps are why I have always been such a huge fun of BF2...
BF2's chinese maps sizes are okay, if they'll enlarge maps it will be boring as hell.VicktorVauhn wrote:
Would be sweet if they could make BF3 even bigger, but I kind of doubt it...people don't seem to share the same view and they will probably keep the size down to keep things "action packed"
Maps where large enough but it's those smaller ones that are more fun imo.VicktorVauhn wrote:
The 2142 maps were all to small, and the weapons seamed way too weak. The large open maps are why I have always been such a huge fun of BF2...
You obviously didn't play BF2142 that much if you think the weapons are weaker. Those Voss whores are pretty anoying. Just a short burst and they take you down this is within a split second of sight to. Then we have all the other powerfull weapons to. Engineers are far more powerfull vs tanks by shooting at the back with this Pilum which is far more deadly than Anti tank in BF2.
Shotgun and such have so much more power and Support is just another sniper rifle imo.
Still it's more fun than BF2.
Even if the maps are smaller there are a lot of more places to hide on which actually make the infantry combat far more fun than in BF2 where you practically knew all the places where snipers could possible be at.The tried to pack everything in so the whole map is a big fight...but the map should be bigger then the fight, there needs to be quite areas so you can sneak around/flank/exploit bad defense by taking flags they are no wear near and cannot get to fast enough to stop you.
If they make it bigger they need to increase the player count to. Imo BF2 maps where to large and the only battles you had where like mostly 4v4 or something, maybe 2v2 but never the entire army.Would be sweet if they could make BF3 even bigger, but I kind of doubt it...people don't seem to share the same view and they will probably keep the size down to keep things "action packed"
Everyone where so spread out it barely gave you a good fight. Only the later map Jalalabad or something was fun when you saw lots of those enemies come againts you.
Agreed. Although, I think many of you are missing the point that BF3 is on the same engine (or atleast a tweaked version) as bad company, as such the hard work was already done for bad company. Essentially, it's just map desing and networking that needs to be done for BF3. Though I have a nasty felling there just going to mod bad company maps for BF3 and call it 'new'. Still, I wanna see 100 man servers N blow shit up, literally!Poseidon wrote:
I predict a Spring '09 release for Battlefield 3.
Would make sense. A Q4 release of it seems way too early.
Martyn
Then EA must have about 6000000 programmers from china as they seem to pump out a new pile of turd every 20 minutes.Vilham wrote:
600 man years to produce a modern game.Varegg wrote:
Making a good game takes time, my guess is release in 2010 at the earliest for BF3 - i would be very disapointed if they release something that is just a makeover of BF2 ...
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Thank god
EA is primarily a publisher but they still employ thousands of people.Aries_37 wrote:
Then EA must have about 6000000 programmers from china as they seem to pump out a new pile of turd every 20 minutes.Vilham wrote:
600 man years to produce a modern game.Varegg wrote:
Making a good game takes time, my guess is release in 2010 at the earliest for BF3 - i would be very disapointed if they release something that is just a makeover of BF2 ...
lol no more wallhacks seeing as you can blow the fuck out of every building in sight