Battlefield 3 announced

Could not agree more. Metro is barely even acceptable with a very small player count. Yesterday we had a semi-amusing pump-shotgun-only match 5v5 on Metro, but that's the most fun I've ever had with it.

 

I'd pay $5 for built in voice. Come on DICE! This isn't like widescreen support back in the day where you have to pretend like people don't want it!

 

Metro in rush is bearable if you have at least one good squad. In conquest mode it's really about holding point B which with semi decent team is easy once captured.
This map would be a lot more engaging with proper in-game voice implementation for Squad and Team communication.

@Dresden: SQDM aren't bad if you play them in a good squad with voice communication. Me and my brother had on average 60% winning rate playing with 2 other random people in our squad (no voice to them). When I tried SQDM on my own my winning ratio felt to maybe 10%. This mode is called Squad DM not without a reason you know .

 

I think that is quite unfair. CoD is fast but certainly not a random spray fest. It's even worse, for CoD I need skills to get to the number 1 position on the list, while for Operation Metro in 64 player servers I don't.

Colleagues of mine said they liked Operation Metro alot and that it actually took skill. To prove the opposite I joined with them, went medic and did nothing else than revive people and throw grenades whenever they got restocked by support kits. By that last statement I meant I could throw about 6 grenades per minute and get random kills for almost each grenade without actually aiming at anything. To cut the story short, I finished as MVP #1.

No way I can acomplish that in CoD.

 

Be careful what you wish for...


The Battlefield series may one day offer a subscription service. EA Games executive vice president Patrick Soderlund told Venturebeat that the company is exploring such a model for its marquee shooter franchise.
GamesBeat: Do you think you'll eventually get to a subscription type of model? And do you also think you're going to take down Call of Duty?

PS: I think it's fair to say that we're looking at that. Like all other companies, we're looking at how we can maximize our investment in this and get the most out of our investment and get more people playing this product. That may take us to different places, but we're not really talking about where that is yet.

When it comes to taking Call of Duty down, you know what? I don't look at it like that. We are in this business because we want to make the best possible products. Call of Duty is a shooter, but it's a different shooter. And I think they have a market; we have a market. I'm fine with what I'm doing. I'm going to continue innovating and doing as best as I can with my teams. Hopefully that's going to lead us to more units [sold] and more happy consumers.

 

They do it in different ways, but the concept is the same: dumbed down skill curve to appeal to a wider variety of people. It's fine for that target market, but it actively sabotages the depth of gameplay. CoD was fun for a while, but I don't intend to ever play it again unless something drastic changes, because you hit an effective skill cap pretty quickly. BF3 metro is similar. In both cases there are far too few variables to allow the depth of gameplay that the real BF3 multiplayer maps enjoy.

It's a shame if the popularity of things like CoD force the industry to cater to the least common denominator at the expense of the experienced folks. BF3 has so far mostly avoided the trap (other than unlocks), but this first expansion pack direction does not inspire confidence.

 

PC version was $50 right? You can get voice chat version(s) for $60, so $10 more. Sorry, that is double your $5 budget

 

I was expecting a lot more vertical gameplay than it was shown on Ziba Tower. Heck, we already have more vertical gameplay on Kharg's Construtction flag and Sharqi.

I do agree with bigtabs that we don't need every map to be caspian/firestorm. OTOH I hope the remaining 3 maps in CQ will be much more open (even if indoors).

Also, built-in vcoms. yes. and arctic maps.

 

I agree as well. I'm totally fine with indoor maps and smaller maps if they provide some sort of compelling gameplay element beyond just aiming and pressing the trigger quickly. Hell I'm really good at that but it gets boring after the thousandth time My biggest concern is their comments over designing based on metro rather than anything fundamental about the map sizes (as long as the player counts keep the density low-to-moderate).

 

Funny that the console versions has voice chat but the PC one doesn't ! Why? It ain't really BF when u can't even talk to the guy next to you.

 

Had three worst matches on Metro and Grand Bazaar(the server kept loading Metro again n again and we were base raped royally ) and had a Awesome Conquest on Strike at Karkand at the Old Gus Gaming server ! I think I'll b playing this server more often !

Is it just me or Rush was the favourite mode in BF:BC1 &2 and Conquest is the only enjoyable one in BF3.

 

same for me...

 

Never liked Rush myself even in BC2. Seems more popular on consoles.

The concept is fine but the fundamental issue is that it is only "balanced" for some specific unknown number of players on each team. Too few players and it's too easy on attack. Too many and it's too easy on defense. That and I don't like the mechanic that there's no overall affect of winning a round at 100 tickets or 1 ticket... the next round you still have the same number. These two things combine to make rush almost never balanced and fun. I'd wager that if you took a look at the statistics the number of players in the game and the map would be very highly predictive of how far the attacking team gets, which just leads to boring gameplay.

 

Nope. $60. Thus the real kick in the balls.

I'd make a thread on EA forums but they have a nasty habit of banning people, along with their access to online play......

 

60 dollars for the PC version? I pre-ordered the Limited Edition a few days before release for 35 Euros. First pre-order ever for me but I might do it again. Still needs built-in voice coms though.

 

Its $30 in my country. But I bought the ps3 version first and was enjoying the voice chat. WIth my ps3 dead, I have no choice but to play on PC. The experience is much better on PC, but I have to play randomn people and on top of that, can't talk to my squad. and Matchmaking is much smoother on the console side. Getting into a game is so so much smoother on the ps3.

 

Because people would turn it off immediately No one would use it, because most players just use ventrilo/mumble/teamspeak for communication, also many servers host their own teamspeak servers.

 

Well, i have never used any of them. Have only used built in voice chat in games.

In other news, Has anyone chked if the patch is live for pc ?

 

Arrived from work, almost finished downloading but I won't be able to play until at least Saturday

 

These are piss poor reasons. Voice chat works amazingly well on Live. BF3 is ass backwards. No BS excuses needed.