Should I get BF3?

D

davethedave123

First time out of the vault
I realize BF4 is just around the corner but I just bought gta 5 and don't want to buy another $60 game for a while. I used to have BF3 for the console and I really didn't like it as I felt it was far too slow, with too many campers, not enough combat and too much running. (please don't call me a COD fanboy because I thought the game was too slow, I just thought it would be more like BFBC2 which I had on the PC). I was just wondering if I should give it another try as I recently built a computer which could run it easily on ultra and it's currently priced at $20 on Origin. Is it that much different from the consoles? Should I give it another try even though I didn't enjoy it on the console?
 
What's the BF?
Big fuxxing (gun) ? :lol:

It was just joking.
My friend who owns both 3,4 said BF4 is far better then 3.
 
I was thinking the same thing, but it'd most likely be a waste since there is BF4
 
There was a sale not long ago that would give you the game for like 5$. If only you decided on this earlier :)

And i did not buy BF3 asap when it was launched and BF BC2 was still going strong when i finnaly did so i guess it is worth it depending on the price.
 
woo1108 said:
What's the BF?
Big fuxxing (gun) ? :lol:

It was just joking.
My friend who owns both 3,4 said BF4 is far better then 3.
Click to expand...

It is either Battle Field - or Butt Fuck...
 
If you are on PC, just try PlanetSide2 for free. If you find the right group it has much better teamplay and variety than the Battlefield games.
 
sea said:
You could just play a game that's actually good instead.
Click to expand...

Have you played battlefield?

I am a bit biased since I love the game and accumulated almost 900 hours ingame. If you felt the game is too slow, I wouldnt recommend it to you. Playing with 63 other people on huge beautiful maps with tanks, jets, helicopterd etc never gets old for me.
 
I got it during the Humble Bundle for a pittance, and lots of fun was had. I still prefer Team Fortress 2, but it's a very decent FPS and the community seems slightly less retarded than most.

But yeah, as Phil said there aren't that many vanilla servers. I guess you need a few DLCs if you want variety, and then the price goes up. Havent done it myself.
 
Yeah I got it for $5 in the Humble Bundle. Personally, I probably wouldn't buy it for any more.
 
You could buy Red Orchestra 2 and Rising Storm

http://store.steampowered.com/app/234510/

You buy Rising Storm, you get both games for just 18 bucks. At least, it costs 18 euro's, I don't know about dollars.

Red Orchestra 2 is some of the most intense and tactical fun I've had.

I don't know about any other game that gets your heart pumping as much when you narrowly manage to stab those two germans with your bayonet after you stumble into them after a corner in a ditch. I also haven't had experience straight out of war movies in any other fps like this. I sat inside a small house, and a teammate scurried over to my position as a mortar strike hit him dead on. That kind of stuff is amazing.
 
Akratus said:
I don't know about any other game that gets your heart pumping as much when you narrowly manage to stab those two germans with your bayonet after you stumble into them after a corner in a ditch. I also haven't had experience straight out of war movies in any other fps like this. I sat inside a small house, and a teammate scurried over to my position as a mortar strike hit him dead on. That kind of stuff is amazing.
Click to expand...
Why have I not heard of this game??? It sounda amazing!
 
sea said:
You could just play a game that's actually good instead.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly. When Battlefield was first created, other FPSs were still better (MoH, CoD, etc). Every time it released a new one, the situation has remained the same. Bad Company was a shameful pile of garbage compared to the glittering gem of perfection that was Call of Duty 4. Every subsequent BF game has simply been throwing in needless features while addressing glaring flaws in previous editions, while other FPSs are just trying new things to top themselves, since they're the ones getting everything right.

pyroD said:
BF is CoD, but for real FPS gamers. Not just raging casuals and children.
Click to expand...
Other way around, because what you're saying is just not true. Besides, even if that was the case, a game's audience is not the game. Children plague all games, and that doesn't make them all equally shitty. It may make their multiplayer equally unpleasant (and suggesting that there are no raging children in BF games is just absurd; I've suffered them CONSTANTLY) but the games themselves are still as good or as bad as they are. BF games are just not good, period. Weapons handling poorly, aiming being unreliable, including vehicles because "realism" that are just moving deathtraps aren't qualities that make them "better games" than their competition. They're just different for those reasons, and because those reasons are unpleasant, you'd need some serious screws loose to miss that they make them different in bad ways.

But back to the OP's question: don't buy either. BF as a series has always just been EA's answer to other FPS games being more popular and successful. It's never been the result of a creative team making a great game that they wanted to make. It's always been watered down rip-offs of sub-par quality. Buy better games with your cash. Whether you want Ghosts or Halo 4, just about anything else is better.
 
pyroD said:
Akratus said:
I don't know about any other game that gets your heart pumping as much when you narrowly manage to stab those two germans with your bayonet after you stumble into them after a corner in a ditch. I also haven't had experience straight out of war movies in any other fps like this. I sat inside a small house, and a teammate scurried over to my position as a mortar strike hit him dead on. That kind of stuff is amazing.
Click to expand...
Why have I not heard of this game??? It sounda amazing!
Click to expand...

I have a friend that only plays RO 1 and 2 + some online game. Even tho he is dedicated as fuck i would not have heard about it unless i used his steam once.

Seems like they didn't marked the game at all and people don't want the normal "trash" gamers comming to ruin their game :P


Edit:

Snap you got it all wrong.. So just to bug you untill i'm sitting at my pc instead of the computer at work..

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJIIgdSW6O4[/youtube]
 
Makta said:
Snap you got it all wrong.. So just to bug you untill i'm sitting at my pc instead of the computer at work..
Click to expand...
The only thing that bugs me is your use of some irrelevant video to "prove your point", only to come off looking like a tool, and you think the opposite. But you didn't prove me wrong, because I'm not wrong. BF has always been a knee-jerk series; making a title in response to the success of a competing title. It's been formulaic in production the entire time. COD in on the decline, but that's because it peaked early. COD4 was a masterpiece, and subsequent titles have strove to top it, and failed every time, so the reaction people have is that the series is stagnant. Uncharted had a similar dilemma, because U1 was a decent game, but nothing all that remarkable really besides a fascinating (but not unforeseen) twist near the end. U2, on the other hand, was an amazing game, and it captivated players for years with amazing gameplay, a great story, beautiful characterization, and enjoyable DLC (even if the DLC was just more online content). U3 had big shoes to fill, and the devs knew that, so they tried to top themselves, and they more or less failed. U3 is dogged on (no pun intended) by many because it doesn't measure up, in their eyes, to U2's greatness. U3 is still a fan-fucking-tastic game, and it beats the shit out of many other games that just try to copy the success of titles like its predecessor. BF is produced by EA to try and copy the success of COD, but games are not a Golden Goose and you can't just copy a method to recreate success. It's the same fallacy of thought that Infinity Ward itself made in repeating the "kill the player character" story move in subsequent games; unlike the visceral impact it had in COD4, they were just cheap copies in the sequels, and they became predictable knock-offs. The COD games that followed COD4 have not been nearly as great as COD4, so that makes them relatively "not good", but that's in comparison to an incredibly high bar set by its own series. BF set no such bar. Calling me wrong in suggesting that BF is not the clear superior to COD is just childish and shortsighted. I'm not parading around claiming the COD is saintly and that Ghosts will be liquid heaven, I'm merely stating that BF, as a series, is a woeful choice to spend your money on if you wanna enjoy a good FPS. Halo would be better money spent, although that's not saying very much; Halo was an excellent game.
 
Now I am the first to admit that BF has it share of flaws, but what the fuck. :D -

SnapSlav said:
When Battlefield was first created, other FPSs were still better (MoH, CoD, etc)
Click to expand...

So Battlefield was better than Medal of Honor, a game based on mostly the single player cinematic experience even back then while Battlefield 1942 was purely a multiplayer experience based on teamwork with vehicles, large maps and hundreds of players on one map. Ok... Battlefield also came out a year before the first Call of Duty, another game based off of a more cinematic single player experience with an ok-ish arcade multiplayer. Oh yes, that makes sense! :D



glittering gem of perfection that was Call of Duty 4
Click to expand...

:lol:



Every subsequent BF game has simply been throwing in needless features while addressing glaring flaws in previous editions, while other FPSs are just trying new things to top themselves, since they're the ones getting everything right.
Click to expand...

Yes, everything, especially the CoD Franchise is known for trying out completely new things and boldly going where no FPS has gone before. This is exactly what the series is known for. :clap:

Weapons handling poorly, aiming being unreliable
Click to expand...

As opposed to the laserbeam Call of Duty weapons? Can't handle a bit of recoil?

including vehicles because "realism" that are just moving deathtraps
Click to expand...

Sounds to me that you just suck with vehicles. They sure aren't death traps.


But back to the OP's question: don't buy either. BF as a series has always just been EA's answer to other FPS games
Click to expand...

Yes, because EA always owned the battlefield franchise.

All in all, nice troll post, 10/10, would read again.
 
Ilosar said:
I got it during the Humble Bundle for a pittance, and lots of fun was had.
Click to expand...

Same. I wouldn't pay $20 bucks for it alone, but it's not a bad game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top