Maybe I'll just stick with BFBC2 then or maybe start playing BF2 again as I've just found out about a mate that is playing it

What do you think is so CoD about it? it doesnt play at all like COD its more a bf2/bc2 hybrid

I think it's more I'm bored with the modern warfare theme that seems to be the in thing, not so much the play style.

The map I played felt really small, I like big maps. There was way too much cover. The whole thing just felt like they'd filled it with pretty stuff just for the sake of it.

Me and Spook tried going back to BF2. I think he enjoyed it more than me.

Too many niggles put me off:
-getting on the same side was a nightmare
-issues with running Teamspeak and BF2.
-dolphin divers
-more dodgy dolphin divers
-did I mention dolphin divers?

all that and some players are blatantly dodgy.

Let the moaning begin.................Come October and November when probably both games will fail to live up to the hype generated and both get below average reviews for the suppose 2 big blockbusters for winter 2011....

When was the last time you sat there Gob Smacked when loading a game up and thinking this is awesome................

Some people are going to think that Battlefield and MW3 are superb and others will moan and groan saying it the same as the previous game and it don't look that good and whatever................I'm hoping that its not me saying this and i hope both games keep us all happy regardless of what is your personal preference.

After watching a lot of footage of Dead Island i am more excited about this than both the for mentioned games.

Personally i'm a MW lover and prefer the faster pace that is a MW game,got nothing against Battlefield but i have tried and i do not generally get on with the game and quickly turn to MW for my FPS fix.

Hoping the next installment of Battlefields convinces me otherwise.

Edited by time2die (Fri 29-Jul-11 14:07:50)

Theres only 1 map at the moment and its rush and its 32 players.

TBH its not exactly the best showcase but the alpha isnt meant to be a showcase, its meant to see how it works on a wide range of configs and test the back end server stuff.

The map might feel small but IMO its a better rush map than most of BC2's it feels more "believable".

The perennial problem of joining a server that:

- isn't full
- has the map/size/mode of play (friendly fire/vehicles etc) you want
- is relatively local and playable
- isn't empty!
- and yes, getting on the same side!! Such a fundamental thing to want when playing with people you know
- isn't populated by a bunch of cheating twits
- doesn't crash or get owned by hackers every 5 minutes
- your computer/connection doesn't crash to desktop or drop out!

I am veteran of playing BF2 and BF1942 online and trying to hook up with mates is and always has been an absolute nightmare, to the point it is utterly futile if there's more than 2 of you or you're trying to shepherd a few newcomers onto the servers with you. The stress that creates is just silly, I bet it would be far easier to be an air traffic controller on a day with both tons of freshly fallen snow on the ground and a major Icelandic volcano eruption!

Well, we did play Wake mate. And that map is one of the worst for uneven gameplay depending on whether your team has the edge or not as the games always play out unevenly. It gets really frustrating if you can't even reach the island without being shot down by the flyboys. So much wasted effort it isn't even funny.

The best scenario for playing online is to settle on a server with a good map rotation and fall into a squad with a good bunch of guys who are communicative and committed to playing the game as it is meant to be played: ie, with a focus on capturing and keeping flags and not just for personal gain (finding a nice spot to do some spawn killing from).

I think some of the urban maps like Mashtuur City and Sharqi Peninsular have had the best battles for me but trying to find a decent server can be very challenging especially if you are looking for more than 2 empty slots.

Yeah, far too many niggles with playing this game with buddies. I don't know if there are any games that aren't a complete nightmare to co-ordinate some nice online play out there? Is it better with consoles I'm wondering? As that could make a huge difference if it was.

Counter Strike.

I say that because the game gives you the option of the team you want to play on, has radio commands with obvious objectives that people partake in.

BC2 did bring the fantastic 'join your mates squad' button which is like a godsend for a BF game. ^^

With Steam, there is the option of seeing servers your friends are on. Apparently Origin is trying to skip this step and bring the join friend outside of game.

This is worrying, EA are trying to run when they can hardly walk.
I'm betting BF3 needs Origin to work.

Noone can answer that question except some EA person, anyone who dares tries to comment on it from the alpha would be giving misguided and potentially highly flawed info

EA isn't just trying to run before it can walk, its trying to compete in the entire olympics before it can crawl properly. Their ambitions for Origin are too high and theyre pursuing them too aggressively.

Origin is going to end up being more of a sack of rubbish than it is now. Whilst i use steam on a regular basis and the the obvious comparison is there for them, Steam is in a league ahead of it, so is impulse, even xfire is ahead of it, the only one close to what Origin is GFWL or Ubisofts Uplay and we all know how much the world loves GFWL/Uplay.

In reply to a post by time2die:

Personally i'm a MW lover and prefer the faster pace that is a MW game,got nothing against Battlefield but i have tried and i do not generally get on with the game and quickly turn to MW for my FPS fix.

Hoping the next installment of Battlefields convinces me otherwise.

Sorry but I hope it doesn't
I like BF the way it is and don't want it to appeal to lovers of MW