lol nade spam, as if that adds any lag to a game
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Battlefield 3 »
- Battlefield 3 - Main Thread
DICE's team must be absolutely gigantic now.HaiBai wrote:
Battlefield 3 Planned for Holiday 2010?
A site called Tech Fragments claims to have some additional information on Battlefield 3 stating they have been tipped off it will support 40 players per team, 24 vehicles, and 17 weapons with unlocks. They also seem to have heard it will be out in the 2010 holiday season with a free 1 map playable beta a few months before possibly in summer 2010.
Many are speculating this appears to be the same "leaked" info from October 2007 just the date has been changed.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
We have also gotten information from a tipster that Battlefield 3 will be similar to Battlefield 2 and will support up to 40 players per team. There will also be 24 different vehicles that you can choose from and 17 different weapons. Like Battlefield 2, the game will also feature unlockable equipment.
So when will Battlefield 3 be released? The time isn't known but EA says not this year. We also heard that it would be the holiday season in 2010, however like with many of the other Battle field installments we'll probably get an early one map beta that can be played free a few months before. We're speculating that we'll see a Battlefield 3 Beta download in the Summer of 2010. However, nobody knows for sure.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TechFragments.com
BFBC2, 1943 and Battlefield 3 all at the same time?
Wikipedia wrote:
Employees 200+
Not to mention BF Heroes they was working on, and the 1.5 patch.Poseidon wrote:
BFBC2, 1943 and Battlefield 3 all at the same time?
I think they're doing too much and too many games, why BC2, 1943 AND BF3?
I think they should just stick to 1 game- BF3 and release it on console like they did with BF2 that way they could spend all their time on it and make it the best game ever
BF 1943 , I was so excited when I first saw the trailer , then I saw the ingame footage , a real big let down , looks like a cartoon game like battlefield heroes , i'll pass on those two , sick of BF2 , need a new game now , come on DICE , make a good BF game
Last edited by nibiru2012 (2009-07-05 11:34:54)
I dont understand why their even making 1943, people went mental over cod4 then waw came out and everyone thinks its shit cos its set in older times and wish they had modern guns and that, same will happen with 1943, why play that if everyone wants bad company 2 and bf3 in modern day times, and what will be better out of BC2 or BF3? Im guessing BF3 will be by far the best, it's annoying that their bringing out all these games at pretty much the same times because they are so similar and they are all battlefield games- bad company 2 and BF3 are the main 2 I dont understand- why not just make 1 modern day game?
Fair enough a lot of people liked 1942, but that was until BF2 came out, and people liked BF2 more because it's modern and more realistic, and it's whats going on in real life today, so it's what people want
Imagine if they had all the people working on BC2 and 1943 together working on Bf3- would mean bugs could get sorted sooner, the game would be out a lot quicker, more people to add features etc all they have to do is look at how popular BF2 is and how much people love it and they know Bf3 will be one of the biggest games ever made, I can just imagine BF3 making 1943 and BC2 pointless so I don't see the point in making them if everyones going to be on BF3
Fair enough a lot of people liked 1942, but that was until BF2 came out, and people liked BF2 more because it's modern and more realistic, and it's whats going on in real life today, so it's what people want
Imagine if they had all the people working on BC2 and 1943 together working on Bf3- would mean bugs could get sorted sooner, the game would be out a lot quicker, more people to add features etc all they have to do is look at how popular BF2 is and how much people love it and they know Bf3 will be one of the biggest games ever made, I can just imagine BF3 making 1943 and BC2 pointless so I don't see the point in making them if everyones going to be on BF3
Last edited by H3RB4L ABU53 (2009-07-05 12:27:14)
I guess people dont know how amazingly bad BF2: Modern Combat was? Its good theyre keeping BC2 and BF3 separate, I just wish they wouldnt have waited so long
Well apart from the most logical reason that it provides a lot of titles for the company to make money from, it also provides different games to cover more people.
WaW, despite what a lot of people seem to think of it, sold a hell of a lot of copies and WW2 is still one of the most popular war periods in a media sense.
I'd actually rather have a number of games to play, for different experiences and so on, then just one every four years or so.
WaW, despite what a lot of people seem to think of it, sold a hell of a lot of copies and WW2 is still one of the most popular war periods in a media sense.
I'd actually rather have a number of games to play, for different experiences and so on, then just one every four years or so.
well its time to save up a load of fucking cash again (upgrades)
hope its worth it 1943 dont look 2 impressive .
heroes sucks my big fat BALLS
i aint gettin any console crap
So BF3 Better Be Good
hope its worth it 1943 dont look 2 impressive .
heroes sucks my big fat BALLS
i aint gettin any console crap
So BF3 Better Be Good
I think BF3 should have everything that made the franchise good in it, especially the variety that is in the original 1942. I also think they should take 2142 as an example for the the point and rank system, as well as its buddy and server browser all were superior to their Bf2 counterparts. I would also like for it to e playable on lower end systems to give the games availability to a wider audience. They also need to 100% concentrate on BF3 since the main Battlefield audience is on PC not console.
Might have sold alot of copies, because the title includes ''Call of Duty''. However the game as a multiplayer is a total failure, atleast on the PC. Xfire ranking is only at 500.000 minutes today, while CoD4 still managed to get 5.7 million.M.O.A.B wrote:
Well apart from the most logical reason that it provides a lot of titles for the company to make money from, it also provides different games to cover more people.
WaW, despite what a lot of people seem to think of it, sold a hell of a lot of copies and WW2 is still one of the most popular war periods in a media sense.
I'd actually rather have a number of games to play, for different experiences and so on, then just one every four years or so.
Never played it MP, same with CoD4, didn't really play the MP.RDMC wrote:
Might have sold alot of copies, because the title includes ''Call of Duty''. However the game as a multiplayer is a total failure, atleast on the PC. Xfire ranking is only at 500.000 minutes today, while CoD4 still managed to get 5.7 million.M.O.A.B wrote:
Well apart from the most logical reason that it provides a lot of titles for the company to make money from, it also provides different games to cover more people.
WaW, despite what a lot of people seem to think of it, sold a hell of a lot of copies and WW2 is still one of the most popular war periods in a media sense.
I'd actually rather have a number of games to play, for different experiences and so on, then just one every four years or so.
M.O.A.B wrote:
Never played it MP, same with CoD4, didn't really play the MP.RDMC wrote:
Might have sold alot of copies, because the title includes ''Call of Duty''. However the game as a multiplayer is a total failure, atleast on the PC. Xfire ranking is only at 500.000 minutes today, while CoD4 still managed to get 5.7 million.M.O.A.B wrote:
Well apart from the most logical reason that it provides a lot of titles for the company to make money from, it also provides different games to cover more people.
WaW, despite what a lot of people seem to think of it, sold a hell of a lot of copies and WW2 is still one of the most popular war periods in a media sense.
I'd actually rather have a number of games to play, for different experiences and so on, then just one every four years or so.
So whats the deal with BF3, is it PC only? I assume we arent hearing much about it since it would detract from BC2, but I have done some googlazoring, and I cant help but think it's hot air. Shhhhhhhhhurley, they wouldnt ignore the consoles?
- globefish23
- sophisticated slacker
- +334|6539|Graz, Austria
Nice!
And seeing that it won't be out anytime soon, I still have time to get the ~4000 points for the last two unlocks in BF2.
And seeing that it won't be out anytime soon, I still have time to get the ~4000 points for the last two unlocks in BF2.
Why so soon? Can't they wait until 2012? I hate game developers creating a game in the franchise a year after the next and shit. I had to give up bf2 in order to play bf2142 because of that.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
They've said literally nothing about Battlefield 3 other than acknowledging that it is in production.Bell wrote:
So whats the deal with BF3, is it PC only? I assume we arent hearing much about it since it would detract from BC2, but I have done some googlazoring, and I cant help but think it's hot air. Shhhhhhhhhurley, they wouldnt ignore the consoles?
Than that means Dice wants everyone's attention focused on BC2 and 1943 in the meantime.Spidery_Yoda wrote:
They've said literally nothing about Battlefield 3 other than acknowledging that it is in production.Bell wrote:
So whats the deal with BF3, is it PC only? I assume we arent hearing much about it since it would detract from BC2, but I have done some googlazoring, and I cant help but think it's hot air. Shhhhhhhhhurley, they wouldnt ignore the consoles?
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
Or you could just, I dunno, not play 2142 and play BF2?War Man wrote:
Why so soon? Can't they wait until 2012? I hate game developers creating a game in the franchise a year after the next and shit. I had to give up bf2 in order to play bf2142 because of that.
You're not forced to play the new game, but at the same time you're not forced to complete the old one.
I wanted to try 2142 and it turned out better than bf2 in my opinion. I liked the unlock system, customizable kits(they need more games like this, mw doesn't count), you could pick your explosives up, etc.Finray wrote:
Or you could just, I dunno, not play 2142 and play BF2?War Man wrote:
Why so soon? Can't they wait until 2012? I hate game developers creating a game in the franchise a year after the next and shit. I had to give up bf2 in order to play bf2142 because of that.
You're not forced to play the new game, but at the same time you're not forced to complete the old one.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
I would stop playing MW2 and all other games to play BF3. BF:BC I might rent for a night or two, but I'm not planning on buying anymore Battlefields until I get something close to BF2 with better graphics. BF:BC was so watered down I could only tolerate the single player. The multiplayer was not fun at all imo. I want BF3 and will not settle for anything less than 2010 version of BF2. It should be PC based only, if not then the console versions should be keyboard and mouse compatible with dedicated servers instead of the crap host system console game developers love.
The console version should only be referred to as Battlefield 2, not BF2 since it sucked so much.Wallpaper wrote:
I guess people dont know how amazingly bad BF2: Modern Combat was? Its good theyre keeping BC2 and BF3 separate, I just wish they wouldnt have waited so long
Last edited by Evil_Black_Fox (2009-12-08 10:40:36)
Fricken people thinking bf3 will be just be like bf2 with better graphics.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
Why wouldn't it, more to the point, why shouldn't it? I'd MUCH rather have BF2 sexy than BF:BC2, 2.War Man wrote:
Fricken people thinking bf3 will be just be like bf2 with better graphics.
Ooh ambitious eh, I'm sure publishers would love to have someone like you onboard.Finray wrote:
Why wouldn't it, more to the point, why shouldn't it? I'd MUCH rather have BF2 sexy than BF:BC2, 2.War Man wrote:
Fricken people thinking bf3 will be just be like bf2 with better graphics.
To be fair, it's almost the same as BF2 in terms of core gameplay, the only truly massive major change is the destructive environments.
Capture the Flag and Objectives in the scale of BF2 would be awesome too if they add those modes.
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Battlefield 3 »
- Battlefield 3 - Main Thread