Rooster90

I think most of your expectations will be happily met. Two things I doubt will happen though: 1) PvE. I haven't heard anything about bots at all, and if I'm not mistaken I think DICE may have already stated that there will be no bot/SP element to BF3 outside of the campaign. 2) 4-6 player coop. I know for sure there is coop, but I'm not sure they've specified how many people can participate. At most I would think there would be 4, since BF3 has 4-player squads. But I'm guessing it will just be a 2-player coop, but we'll wait and see I suppose.

@ Viper I'm not entirely convinced you read my whole post. BF3 will inevitably feel like you're playing BC2. It's running on essentially the same engine, just better. It looks very similar. From what was developed so far, the squad system is the same as BC2, except you now have a squad leader and you can only spawn on him/her, or a chosen spawn point (like BF2). The classes got swapped around a tiny bit, but it all feels rather familiar. Far better than BF2's classes. We were playing it the other day and it was annoying swapping between Anti-Tank and Engineer classes. Just makes sense for all of those classes to be condensed into 4 classes. We were also playing a Rush-mode map, with a max of 32 players in a server. Honestly though, thats where the similarities with BC2 end. It all feels misleadingly similar to BC2 until you really get into combat. Weapons are deadly, but actually have some recoil. You can switch between different fire-modes. Cover and concealment is paramount. Moving and coordinating with your squad is extremely important. If you get caught in the open or try running and gunning on your own, you'll be dead before you're within 100 feet of the enemy. The suppression system works surprisingly well. It's subtle, but it makes you feel like you're being shot at and are about to die. Your screen blurs and you get a little tunnel-vision and sounds start to muddy. You drop prone and hope a squadmate can eliminate or suppress that MG before you're torn to shreds. And did I mention the sounds? My goodness. Those videos don't even do them justice. Far and away the BEST, most realistic soundscape for a military shooter, ever. This game is not CoD. And it's not really BC2 either. The similarities end in the aesthetics of the game. It's not a tactical gamer's wet dream like Project Reality, but its a natural progression from BF2.

This is not all that uncommon, UK or otherwise. People don't really watch the news anymore, nor do they care. It's very easy to become absorbed in our own lives to not notice what is happening around us these days. Despite the advancements in technology and the nearly instant communication of news stories, most of this technology is used for our own selfish means. The important things get buried in a mess of unimportant distractions. http://www.amazon.com/Shallows-What-Internet-Doing-Brains/dp/0393339750/ref=pd_ybh_11?pf_rd_p=280800601&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_t=1501&pf_rd_i=ybh&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=16ESQ0J3N9KJC203GWC5

The alpha was pretty fun. There's still some bugs to be squashed and some annoying movement-related things, but overall the game felt and played really good. It was much more fluid than past games. It kind of tricked me into treating it like Bad Company 2, but you CANNOT play it like that game at all. This is a game that, while intense and fast-paced, also requires a lot of patience and thought. Getting caught in anywhere even remotely open, you're dead. This game requires some serious teamplay and cover in order to stay alive and be effective. More than any game I've played, BF3 makes you fear vehicles as an infantrymen, and fear well-placed MG's. Sniping is also much more difficult, a welcome change indeed. Now if only they remove 3D spotting.... From what I've played, it's a cross between BF2 and BC2. You're once again limited to 4 classes and squads of 4 like BC2, but the classes are better organized and make more sense. It's also deadly and difficult like BF2. Being in the top 3 of the scoreboard is no easy task. Also, the hit registration feels dead-on. Very important improvement over BC2.

Tbh, I didn't even know there was a crowd for PvP in Diablo. I only dueled once and thought it was boring. I'd rather just unravel the epic story and dungeon crawl for hours with friends. To me, that's what Diablo is all about. I don't like too much WoW influence coming into this cherished title. They already put me off by the bright colors and cutesy artstyle, but I'm trying to look past that and accept it as the best Diablo yet.

But see, that's completely different. You're talking about a competitive/PvP game being imbalanced due to somebody having more cash. Diablo isn't inherently a competitive or PvP game, so there's no real balance issues to cope with. Simply the bragging rights of having cool gear, which is pretty harmless imo. I don't complain when people buy Gold tanks in World of Tanks. The Lowe is a prime example of this, but it doesn't utterly ruin the game at all (granted, thats a F2P game, but whatever). There's nothing to imbalance in D3 with little to no competitive/PvP scene. Plus they stated that every item has a level cap to reach before you can even purchase them. So you still have to play the game to reach the level of good items. You can't just buy and equip the best items right off the bat. It's also a feature that you (and likely most people) will completely ignore, thus not ruining your game experience at all. It's a choice to use it or not, so I don't see how this will bother the vast majority of average players that likely wont use it. I honestly don't see how this will affect the game at large. The small group of niche players that want the best (and play the most) will buy it and play with other like-minded hardcore gamers. The world at large may buy a nice item here or there or nothing at all. Me personally though, I ask myself what's cooler: bragging that I bought a rare item, or bragging that I fought in an epic battle and acquired an awesome item through blood, sweat, and virtual tears? Also, mods are forbidden in most online-based EA games(BF3). That's a different argument though, not one I'm addressing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOPWD0pfFdk You're welcome PC bros.

All Blizzard is doing is providing a legal way to do the same things Diablo players have been doing for years through eBay and illegitimate places. I don't think this will change much from before.

Except Diablo isn't really a PvP-oriented game. Very rarely have I ever just pubbed with random people, thats dumb in Diablo. I always just play with friends. So none of that really applies at all. I agree with JHunter. I know I likely wont ever use it and none of my friends will. So I have nothing to worry about or tempt me.

Annoying, yes. But when I think about it, I never liked playing Diablo on my own. I pretty much never played it unless I had a friend or 3 to play it with. And I don't have a laptop. So the online requirement doesn't bother me as much as it does most people.

Also: An auction house that players can offer up items for real world money (within their respective regions). Full story: http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/08/01/diablo-3-will-let-players-buy-and-sell-items-for-real-money/

PUMPED!

Crackas represent, WHAT-WHAT??!!

I've had to use Origin for the BF3 alpha testing. It's not HORRIBLE, but it's still pretty buggy. Had to reinstall on my C drive just to make BF3 recognize that I had it. Plus I need to create a new EA ID practically for every game. It's not so much Origin itself thats bad, it's the tactics used to force players to use it. That's what gets me hot and bothered. If EA would just be honest with everybody and say "Hey, we want to dominate the PC market and take it from Valve, so we will no longer be selling games we publish on that platform." it would be a lot better than lying through their teeth and trying to deflect and hide their agenda (which they do very poorly).

HA! True story? Or just a well thought out joke? Funny read Medic.

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/07/27/dragon-age-2-has-vanished-from-the-steam-store/ And so the exodus continues. This is what I fear most about this whole debacle. The problem with this whole (fake) controversy that EA has created, is that EA is the largest publisher of games in the entire world. What this means is that at some point in the not so distant future, EA simply will not allow their developers' games to be sold on Steam. That is to say, a very LARGE percentage of games will no longer be available from the worlds biggest, best, and proven PC gaming service. Instead, it will create forced/unwanted "competition" in the digital market for consumers. And what that really means is that there will be no competition, since EA will be selling it directly from themselves at whatever price they choose (likely full price with nary a sale for new games in sight for years). And since they're the publisher, they have the final say on price when other digital stores want to sell their games as well. This is not healthy competition. This is a funneling of the market to start a true monopoly based on greed alone. True competition would be to sell their product everywhere, but provide better service and prices at their own store. To call this competition is almost insulting to my intelligence. Valve started humbly and alone and grew based on the merits of its service. EA is starting big and wants to end with it all.

It makes it worse knowing BF3 is just on the horizon. XD

I was hoping they'd do something entirely different/new with the reboot, but it looks like almost an exact copy of the original, just a bit darker. And the CGI is awful, I hope thats not in the final movie. The CGI in the original is what turned me off to those as well. If it's gonna be that heavy on CGI, you might as well make Zach Snyder direct it and have the whole movie look like a graphic novel. We'll see, but I'm not entirely impressed by the new trailer.

LOL. So true.

I was a hater of Steam for many years. I was an early adopter, a little while before HL2 came out. It bogged my computer down, the Friends system only worked half the time (if you were lucky), downloads were slow and errors/crashes ran rampant. Now-a-days Steam runs as light as whipped cream on my computer. Barely uses any resources at all. I don't notice any difference when it's running and when its not. The community features are fantastic, the Store is notoriously awesome, and the Steam Overlay (with a built-in web browser) eliminates the need for me to ever alt-tab. Valve proved to us over 10 years that they were dedicated to making a service by gamers, for gamers. It's rare that downloads ever get below 1.5 MB/sec and I haven't encountered a bug or crash for nearly 3 years. It's become so much more than just a download manager. It is bar-none THE central gaming hub for PC gamers everywhere. I'm sorry you had such a poor (and extremely rare) experience by losing your account. You're quite honestly the first person I've ever heard that had something like that happen. Origin makes a half-assed attempt at doing anything it does offer correctly. It's 10 years late to the game and it's nothing more than a re-skinned EA Downloads Manager, a horrible piece of software that has plagued EA's PC games for years. And Valve is a developer, not a publisher. They only own games that Valve makes. EA on the other hand, is the largest gaming publisher on the planet. They own hundreds of development studios across the globe (and thus, all of their games as well). Valve is hardly a drop in the bucket for competition (money-wise). That's why this decision makes zero sense beyond them being the greedy bastards they are. They're doing this only because it benefits themselves, not the consumer. There's no price competition going on here either, Origin has the same exact prices as Steam does (hell, some of them are even more expensive), so that argument is completely moot. They didn't even think twice that maybe, just MAYBE, 30 million PC gamers love and use the Steam service every day and that they like having their products all in one convenient place. Instead, they shove a dick in their ass and tell them to beg for their games at their own store, or stores of their discretion. As EA would say to the average PC consumer, "Fuck em! And fuck you too! I piss in yo faces."

Agreed with Watchman's clutter point. It's yet another service on my computer clogging up space, another login/password to remember, and more data about me ready to get hacked. Hacktivists hate EA as much as most gamers do, so they are certainly a big target. I understand your point about the game being the game, regardless of distributor. But it's a convenience thing. I like having all of my eggs in one basket (if I can). What EA did was inconvenience thousands, perhaps millions, of potential Steam buyers. Not a smart move on their part, considering the already staggering amount of resentment most gamers have towards them. "but why would\should a company be forced to use Steam with all the drawbacks that may be and lose all the profits" First, what "drawbacks"? You have the largest community/audience of PC gamers at your disposal with Steam. All it takes is your game to be on the front page of Steam for a day or two and you'll likely go from zero to hero (as an indie dev). I don't think EA needs to worry about advertising BF3 though, pretty sure everybody who knows anything about video games has probably heard about it already. As for "lost profits" I can't imagine Valve taking any more than 30% of a sale. And considering that EA doesn't have to pay for manufacturing, shipping, or retail cuts and are still selling the game at full price, I'm sure they're already poised to make loads more than a physical copy. But EA said that wasn't good enough and that they want 100% of the profit, and STILL charge full price for it on their own service. No pre-order discounts, nothing. Instead you get a pre-order "fee" on top of the game itself. Sure, they have every right to do so as a business, that doesn't mean we should support that kind of behavior. It really comes down to business ethics/practices for me. EA has a history of conducting themselves in a way to only help themselves and their shareholders and not giving two shits about the consumer. Whereas Valve has a history of generosity, care, and love for the PC platform and indie developers. This recent story just adds to their long track record of support: http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/07/25/how-project-zomboid-was-saved-by-steam-desura-and-fileplanet/ These decisions for both BF3 and SWTOR are simply a continuation/worsening of EA's practices and it's something I won't support. I'd rather see them lose money on physical copies than make money on digital ones. It would've been one thing if DICE was selling the game digitally straight from them (the actual developer of the game), but its a whole 'nother thing when EA (their publisher) steps in and takes the reins on the whole thing and shits all over it.

As neat as that looks, I'm sure its all rather flimsy and cheap. And the bed looks like a prison bed, lol. I'll stick with a queen-sized sleep number bed and nice hardwood furniture, thanks. Pretty cool what people can come up with though.

I think this response is applicable. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8vzMQojehs

Couldn't have said it better Hajimoto. Having more than one Digital Download/Library managers completely defeats the purpose. To date, no other service has a snowball's chance in Hell to compete with Steam's AAA reputation as a one-stop, all-in-one program. Retail + shortcut to Steam = solution.

Another reason I'm gonna get a boxed copy for BF3 is download speeds. Even Steam, with all the download servers they have across the states (even one less than 20 miles from me) got bogged down by the Black Ops and Bad Company 2 releases. What normally would've been a 1 or 2 hour affair took 4-5 hours. I can't imagine what Origin will be like on release day with even less infrastructure and stress testing than Steam.