Uh-huh. It couldn't be that I have a different opinion than you and hate most of the crappy FPS's they churn out nowadays. Nope. Gotta be some ulterior motive. And why would I care if E3 (something I've never taken seriously) gave awards to it? Huge shocker, FPS's are mainstream.

Neither as I don't have a 360 or a PS3

So I don't care either way what comes out and when unless it is on PSP

In that case: Final Fantasy Type-0

Wow. You are such a hipster.

I hate the crappy FPS's that come out these days also, what makes you think BF3 is one of those?



"FPS's are mainstream."

Are you kidding me? How is Skyrim not "mainstream"? That is the single stupidest thing I have ever read on this forum. Like I said, you are trying to sound like one of those pretentious "informed" gamers. But you aren't one.

You're just like that kid who always talks about listening to "real" music, when he doesn't even know what real music is. I have enough of you guys at my school.




Skyrim will be epic, and I know that way more people are looking forward to it than BF3 on this forum. But please don't make ignorant assumptions on a game you haven't played.

Keep on getting all kinds of angry at opinions that aren't your own. It's a pretty hilarious read when people get all up and arms about a game they like.

"GRRR! YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT LIKE! HIPSTERRRRR! GRRR!". Really man, tone it down. :thumbsup:

I usually dislike FPS's but even so I know that BF3 isn't just "Another generic FPS" *cough COD cough*. Don't judge a game (or anything really) by it's genre. There's a reason it won all those awards, cause it's gonna be an amazing game. Saying "FPS's are mainstream" just shows you're bashing things that are mainstream for being mainstream, in which case go right ahead and bash every Bethesda games in these past years since they're all known to the general public and sell millions.

Eh well his fact's aren't wrong. Calling BF3 another crappy FPS is like calling Skyrim another crappy RPG.

I'm not angry at your opinion. There are plenty of people here who hate FPS games and anticipate Skyrim much more than BF3. That's their opinion, to each his own.

I'm angry at your ignorance, and your desire to come off as a hipster, informed gamer when your not.

I'm angry at your application of a smiley face to seem like the bigger man in a situation.

I'm angry at how you you make ignorant assumptions of a game you haven't played.

I'm mostly angry because you said this:

"FPS games are mainstream"

My understanding of Battlefield 3 is that its gameplay consists entirely of just plain shooting in contained maps... with the online component that just seems to vital to modern games. I'm sure it will excel at what it does, given the hype surrounding it, but what it does seems highly repetitive, content-lacking, and all-too-similar to what has been supersaturating the game market for years, so I personally don't have any interest in the game and I certainly am not anticipating it more than Skyrim. I literally cannot comprehend why anyone would anticipate Battlefield 3 more than Skyrim and that lack of understanding has certainly been much to my detriment given what is the most popular game genre in existence, at the moment, as I just cannot relate to those who enjoy said genre.

Also jets, helicopters, tanks, huge maps with 64 players. And developed with PC as primary plattform.
You don't know fun until you've piloted an aircraft with a sweet joystick in a Battlefield game

Welp, the best advice I could give is to take a step back from the forums. Perhaps reevaluate why some random stranger on a forum is getting you so peeved.

I have played Battlefield, Battlefield 2 to be exact. And yes it was just another FPS and even worse than that, it didn't have a storyline to play through or anything of the sort =.= just a few maps and 3 levels of difficulty and some online play.

And even if you throw in a few fancy gimmicks and a storyline it's still just going to be "another FPS" unless they add some heavy free exploration and quests and character relations with stats. Wait, that does sound familiar... :fallout:

Maybe I'd play it if I got it for free but if it comes to money I may as well just load up a game of CSS or just play BF2, doubt they can do too much for it that hasn't been done before without turning it into Fallout.

Edit: Just wanted to mention that personal opinions do play a part in how you perceive a game. To me perhaps a new BF won't look too different from the last one but after seeing people (even myself) go heads over heels about slight changes in certain games I can understand it if some minor changes may seem a lot larger to someone else. Perhaps you'd like to point out in particular what makes BF3 so much more superior to the last BF installment.

Skyrim, I'm more of a RPG fan than an FPS fan. But I do plan on getting BF 3. On the Xbox though, I don't like PC FPS games.

I should note that I'm basically gonna be getting it for the multi-player. Which is really the only reason I like playing FPS games to begin with.

Also Ellert no BF before had air to air (and ground?) battles mixed with on ground fighting by vehicle and footmen. So that right there might be a reason to get the game.

If they did that, the game wouldn't be an FPS. Like you said, it would be Fallout Your basically saying that for a game to not be a generic crappy COD fps, it has to be an RPG which is not true.

Battlefield is the only FPS of its kind. Read my response to the guy below.



I see. Thats a valid argument but trust me, BF3 is much more than plain shooting. And if your calling the maps contained you might as well call Skyrim contained because the maps are HUGE. You can't implement jets in a game that isn't huge.

Battlefield 3 isn't about getting headshots. It's not about "quickscoping". Believe it or not, it's not even about getting kills.

It's about emulating and immersing you in a real Battlefield environment. There is nothing like the feeling of being with your squad and being cornered by an enemy tank, while suppressing infantry, and finally seeing your buddy come flying in with a jet, forcing the enemy to fall back. Battlefield isn't about cheap action thrills. It's about immersing you in a world/situation, much like what Skyrim does. I know as an RPG fan it's hard to grasp that an FPS can be anything more than a gimmick for cheap fun, but it is possible.

Right. It's plain shooting in contained maps with 64 total players doing the shooting and some vehicles to shoot with and from, as well and it's going to sell especially well because the PC gaming community likes the graphics and full grasp of their hardware... much like the reason any exclusive (I know it's not an exclusive, but for PCs, it is of the technical quality similar to that of an exclusive) sells well. Something I never understood about hardware-pushing games (which are typically exclusives) are why they can never be something more substantial, content-packed, and deeper than a shooter this generation. Uncharted games, Crysis, Metro 2033, Battlefield 3, Killzone games, Gears of War games, Halo games, Resistance games, etc. are all almost pure shooters.

Read my above reply to your post

Ask a Call of Duty fan why he/she likes Call of Duty and the answer is almost bound to contain something about being "realistic".

You should maybe look at it the other way around and ask why "content packed" games can't bother to push hardware themselves

And what's wrong with shooters? I enjoy them just as much as I enjoy RPGs or turnbased strategy games, whatever I feel like, I can appreciate the quality in a good game no matter the genre. And Battlefield 3 is shaping up to be a very good game in its genre.

Every Battlefield game on the PC had land, air and sea combat. The Bad Company's were the only games to have ground only battles.

I didn't quite get such an immersive feeling while playing the 2nd game myself but that is actually a very good answer to why the game would be so popular and I raise my cup to you for writing it.

I′m just afraid said cup contains tea that just isn't for my tastes.

Doesn't make my opinions invalid though, it just throws me into the "personal preferences about the whole genre and what it's supposed to achieve cause me to dislike this game" group.



Actually Battlefield 2, a game from 2005, had both aerial and naval vehicles, the naval ones were perhaps not all too impressive but they were there.

Well in retrospect, RPG's are that way too. Just killing monsters and questing. That's the basics, right down to it. Battlefield is shooting and completing objectives with your team (or without it if you're a console player haha).



Oh..hmm. Well in that case, I don't see what's so new about BF 3 doing it, other than the graphics.

What relevance does that have to what I said haha?

F.Y.I, those COD players aren't defending themselves. They actually think COD is realistic, which is really sad.

What I said earlier was not BS. Battlefield really is that deep of an experience.

Most people are annoyed by ignorance. Cause as already stated saying BF3 is another generic FPS truly is like saying Skyrim is another generic RPG. And it most definitely is not :stare:

New game modes (campaign, two player co-op), better overall gameplay feel, more realistic (for lack of a better word) physics and graphics, etc. Just making a modern entry into the Battlefield series. Pretty much the same reason Bethesda is making Skyrim, instead of quitting game design and letting us play Oblivion for the rest of our lives.

I know some think they're gun experts because they play COD <_< but I have a few COD addicted friends (god I was with a friend's cousin the other day...now that's being a really devoted fan, still a nice guy though ) and they know that's not war but they don't play BF because they don't want realism, they wan't fun (not that BF isn't fun, but what's fun is based on someone's opinion so :shrug: ) and doing trickshots and what not. I couldn't care less and while they can spend horus watching COD montages I think they're all pretty much the same :shrug:

Okay, I'll bite. How is Skyrim mainstream? Because shooters are currently http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream, specifically Call of Duty.

Take a look at http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-J7u6V3a_iXI/TZIttoKB9vI/AAAAAAAAACs/Kfc4NnZX6y0/s1600/fps+comparison.jpg out of the five screenshots, Halo is the only one that doesn't look almost exactly like the others. Now take a look at http://www.justpushstart.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/battlefield_3_6.jpg Sure it's pretty, but otherwise it's pretty similar to pretty much every other FPS. The only thing that Battlefield does differently is their selection of vehicles/map size. Which is great, but not that revolutionary. I'd pick Battlefield over Call of Duty any old day, but they really aren't that much different when it comes down to it.

That being said, I'm getting both, but look forward to Skyrim more.