It's the same thing, BC's had a more 'comedic' campaign/charachters, but who the hell cares about that in a Battlefield game. Some things were indeed better in BC2 multiplayer but not cause it was BC.

Bf 3.5*

Nice... The game: 69.99€ and new graphics card to run it: 1099.99€ So new Battlefield will cost you 1169.98€

Yes. This is totally true etc.

Quote from HenkkaWRC :

Nice... The game: 69.99€ and new graphics card to run it: 1099.99€ So new Battlefield will cost you 1169.98€

In my case count in a new CPU and MB.

Quote from Boris Lozac :

It's the same thing, BC's had a more 'comedic' campaign/charachters, but who the hell cares about that in a Battlefield game. Some things were indeed better in BC2 multiplayer but not cause it was BC.

I care because the SP story mode in BC1 and BC2 were actually quite enjoyable to play through. They were funny and actually served a point, unlike (what I hear) the BF3 campaign which is literally "we had to have a single player that contained something".

Quote from HenkkaWRC :

Nice... The game: 69.99€ and new graphics card to run it: 1099.99€ So new Battlefield will cost you 1169.98€

why new gpu?
if u run bf3 with that gpu im sure u gonna run bf4 with same gpu

I'm really horrible at these new premium maps and modes... It's so bad it's not even fun anymore.

Quote from dawesdust_12 :

I care because the SP story mode in BC1 and BC2 were actually quite enjoyable to play through. They were funny and actually served a point, unlike (what I hear) the BF3 campaign which is literally "we had to have a single player that contained something".

I highly doubt they were better then COD campaign? You can hate that game but their sp is always a blast to play through if you really need to play one..

Quote from Boris Lozac :

I highly doubt they were better then COD campaign? You can hate that game but their sp is always a blast to play through if you really need to play one..

in what universe?
http://www.escapistmagazine.co ... -Call-of-Duty-Black-Ops-2

Last one I played was MW2, can't guarantee for the recent ones, but i'm sure they're doing it better then the BF which was always a MP game.

That's a good one: CoD SP being better than BF.

How can BF be better when they are blatantly copying Cod campaign? And failing.. Don't be a fanboy.

For a second I thought you were serious.

Both are prittey much garbage... Yeah they show a lot of BOOM but ewww... there is nothing more to it. I liked MW1 nice setting nice execution. I like BC1 because it was more consistent. It didn't take itself serious. All new ones are like: "War is shit" right after telling: "War is AWESOME!!!oneoneone"

But every newer campain is: meh leave the space for MP (or skip one or two and produce something worth buying)

Look at that: BF4 will be EXACTLY like BF3: Like 5 maps to start with. One an prittey much exact metro copy with french trains replaced with chinese trains. OMG so new

First DLC, B2K anyone? (Ignoring the fact that you could play those maps 10 years ago and can buy these now for 2€ with more maps, mod support, and most probably more servers in a year than BF3 will have in a year.)

And yeah, the will provide patches to game breaking bugs.... every 6 month because they wait for the DLC releases

Taking the nope train to f*ck this game

Quote from Boris Lozac :

I highly doubt they were better then COD campaign? You can hate that game but their sp is always a blast to play through if you really need to play one..

The bad company campaigns were better. They weren't super serious so the banter between you and your 3 squad mates was funny. It never tried to be anything super serious like CoD and its killing off of people during the campaign. Bad Company was just this comical ride through a madeup country.

Could be, I just could never be bothered to play them, it was always a feeling like i'm trying to play a Counter Strike campaign, pretty pointless.
CoD on the other hand, and their developers (what's left of the old ones) were first famous for the campaigns, and only recently for the multiplayer, so they have a little more expertise there, as cheesy as it is..

Quote from sinbad :

Heh I was having a laugh. Seriously though, I would prefer a game set in the low-tech era of World War 2.

Battlefield 1942 worked so well precisely because it was low-tech. Battlefield 2 was a ****ing disaster because it accurately portrayed how infantry are totally ineffective now, so on most maps you got six people fighting and 58 teamkilling eachother at the aircraft spawns, and when the Wake Island map came out it really drove home how ****ed the game was. BF3 they nerfed the air power a bit but it's still less interesting than BF1942 was, just prettier.

In short: I agree with you. But most of the people here won't remember BF1942 or how awesome it was. Now it looks like Battlefield is the new FIFA and we'll have constant churn and cash-grabbing in return for barely recognisable improvements.

Quote from Boris Lozac :

Could be, I just could never be bothered to play them, it was always a feeling like i'm trying to play a Counter Strike campaign, pretty pointless.
CoD on the other hand, and their developers (what's left of the old ones) were first famous for the campaigns, and only recently for the multiplayer, so they have a little more expertise there, as cheesy as it is..

It's a shame. They're probably one of the more enjoyable SP campaigns for a "Wargame" type FPS.

fak this racing shits around.
iv just preorder this awsome fps.


die bitches

wat

wat wat`?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUec2YR30LM

The part where the crane falls, it looks like real.

Also, nice to see new melee system introduced.

Quote from bmwe30m3 :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUec2YR30LM

The part where the crane falls, it looks like real.

Because it's real maybe?

But it says it's a game DLC (or something) on the name, must be true.