Weekly Poll Results - Which of these would you most want in Battlefield 3?

Please wait...

This article originated on the original FileFront

Formatting may be lacking as a result. We apologize for this inconvenience. If this article is un-readable please report it so that we may fix it.

 

Which of these would you most want in Battlefield 3?

Bad Company style destruction. 40.3% (486)
pr1.gifpr2.gifpr3.gif
s.gif
The ability to see your feet. 15.4% (186)
pb1.gifpb2.gifpb3.gif
s.gif
Crysis like graphics. 11.2% (136)
pb1.gifpb2.gifpb3.gif
s.gif
Nuclear strikes. 11.2% (136)
pb1.gifpb2.gifpb3.gif
s.gif
Ability to throw back grenades. 9% (109)
pb1.gifpb2.gifpb3.gif
s.gif
Hijacking vehicles driven by the other team. 4.6% (56)
pb1.gifpb2.gifpb3.gif
s.gif
Other (Please mention in comments) 3.4% (41)
pb1.gifpb2.gifpb3.gif
s.gif
Regenerating health. 2.6% (32)
pb1.gifpb2.gifpb3.gif
s.gif
Weapon filters. 1.9% (23)
pb1.gifpb2.gifpb3.gif
s.gif
Total: 1205
Start: 08-27-2008 03:05
Last: 09-06-2008 10:02



 #1 - Posted by: lamadre (Member) on 08-27-2008 at 03:40

how about the ability of choosing more than one?

 #2 - Posted by: W4rbird (Member) on 08-27-2008 at 05:08

Nuclear Strikes should do it.

 #3 - Posted by: peregrineeagle (Member) on 08-27-2008 at 05:25

THE FEET...ITS SO SIMPLE WHY ARENT THEY THERE?

 #4 - Posted by: RussianComrade (Member) on 08-27-2008 at 06:35

Destroying stuff in Bad Company is always entertaining. I'll have more of the same, thanks :)

 #5 - Posted by: FekleyrTarg (Member) on 08-27-2008 at 07:17

Because I want everything listed on the poll, I voted for "other".

 #6 - Posted by: chavcrucifier (Member) on 08-27-2008 at 08:14

It needs a bit of destruction, but only a bit like crates and stuff such as in half life. it really NEEDS the ability to see your feet, that helps soo much in fps games and its the one main thing that BF2 misses (thats what i voted for) Not too bothered about graphics, but BF2 was designed SOOO cheaply and quickly i'd say. Take games like half life 2 or counter strike source for example. Much better graphics than BF2, can run on almost anything with a graphics card, and whilst BF2 may be 20-40fps on medium settings, HL2 or CSS will be upto 120fps max graphics and resolutions. Point proven >.<

 #7 - Posted by: imtheheadhunter (Member) on 08-27-2008 at 11:31

where are my legs?! I can walk, yet, i have no legs! :confused: when they get me my legs, then they could start by fixing the bugs, then fixing the rest of the bugs, then have decent graphics. then probably fix even more bugs.

 #8 - Posted by: GenRommel (Member) on 08-27-2008 at 11:46

How about Crysis style destruction? Crysis has much better physics than Bad Company.

 #9 - to #6 - Posted by: DemonAlucard (Member) on 08-27-2008 at 12:06

the reason why HL2 and CSS looks better than BF2 is because it uses less objects than BF2. BF2 has massive maps comparing to HL2. For example...do the noclip cheat in hl2...start "flying" upwards and you will noticed that you will see thru walls and roofs... MY point is BF2 uses alot of objects and it needs more "Graphics" than HL2.

 #10 - Posted by: Nitronumber9 (Staff) on 08-27-2008 at 12:36

As long as it doesn't have that dam HP regeneration system I'm happy no matter what. The Hp Regen system will completely kill the medic class.

 #11 - Posted by: kamikaziwatermelon1234 (Member) on 08-27-2008 at 13:20

destruction, destruction is what makes bc so much fun online for those of you stuck on pc sucks for you you have no idea on the multiplayer experience you are missing out on. its crazy fun

 #12 - Posted by: BulletmagnetBME (Member) on 08-27-2008 at 13:41

All of the above besides regenerative health, but mostly destruction

 #13 - Posted by: greenfire07 (Member) on 08-27-2008 at 14:08

i want pretty much everything there except for regenerating health, and nuclear strikes .(if they could just use a jdam(pr) size missile that would be cool). so i picked other

 #14 - Posted by: stalecookie (Member) on 08-27-2008 at 17:28

"destruction, destruction is what makes bc so much fun online for those of you stuck on pc sucks for you you have no idea on the multiplayer experience you are missing out on. its crazy fun" Hey thats not very nice im a PC'er and i have great fun even though BC looks so fun. But some people cant afford xbox's

 #15 - Posted by: skyray (Member) on 08-27-2008 at 18:00

i would be pissed if they did call of duty style health!

 #16 - Posted by: starwarsfan1 (Member) on 08-27-2008 at 19:19

Other- All of the above.

 #17 - Posted by: RuhigSein (Member) on 08-27-2008 at 19:37

Same as #16, Other - All of the Above!

 #18 - Posted by: superlamario (Member) on 08-27-2008 at 20:39

Hijacking vehicles is fun,but it's a double edged sword because I don't want people hijacking me oho.

 #19 - #11 - Posted by: chavcrucifier (Member) on 08-27-2008 at 22:45

I'd rather play pc anyday. More network possibilities, more gaming, mods, easy access to anything, and much better gaming. More keys for more possibilities (apart from the simple minded amung us..) Take COD4 for example. On the 360 its a maximum of 12? mabye 16 players? And the only way to choose what map you want is to click on a game mode and hope for a good map. PC, maximum of 64 players (MUCH better for online gaming), you get a list of many servers displaying what map is running, and the game mode (TDM, S&D...etc) And why buy a console when you can have better than everything in one place =]

 #20 - Posted by: katanamies (Member) on 08-27-2008 at 23:17

All of the above and at missiles that have a bossibility to take out tanks

 #21 - Posted by: ke200 (Member) on 08-28-2008 at 05:26

I don't want Bad Company-style destruction... I want Crysis-style destruction - Bad Company was waaaaay too limited.

 #22 - Posted by: Kirabaka (Member) on 08-28-2008 at 06:46

anythng except for the health thing it would ruin it.

 #23 - Posted by: MetallicSlayer666NL (Member) on 08-28-2008 at 06:58

other ALL OF EM :rock:

 #24 - Posted by: dunk999999 (Member) on 08-28-2008 at 06:58

Battlefield 1942 remade with Battlefield 2 style gameplay. That's what I want. It would be awesome to play Hellendoorn during world war 2 in squads and better graphics engine. That's why I voted other.

 #25 - Posted by: georege (Member) on 08-28-2008 at 09:17

lol iwould love to see my feet on bf2:D

 #26 - Posted by: XDragon5 (Member) on 08-28-2008 at 10:16

I would like to see a nice, flexible engine.The BF2 engine is very limited and modding it can be a pain. I want the engine to be at least HALF as flexible as Source. That would be so much better.

 #27 - Posted by: Big_Daddy (V.I.P. Member) on 08-28-2008 at 12:36

A remake of BF1942 please.

 #28 - Posted by: muggunner (Member) on 08-28-2008 at 13:09

Fh2 is like a remake of bf1942, but better :) :D

 #29 - Posted by: MatmanDude (Member) on 08-28-2008 at 16:31

One question... what the hell is a vechiles? LOL. Sorry I had to say something. :mepimp::thumbsup::mepimp:

 #30 - Posted by: DerRelienT (Member) on 08-28-2008 at 21:49

An open-source engine :D

 #31 - Posted by: vfn4i83 (Member) on 08-28-2008 at 22:18

grafics(unfirtubetely not like Crysis) and procedural destruction; all coming with the new engine, like lots of bugs, unprecise weapons and heavy CSSish arcade style (directly copy, but worst). But... But what I ask is make BF franchise fun again. make the game more mod friendly, not for full modifications, but server mods, that one, can allow such custom weapons such Nuclear Strikes, realism servers, Xgore, ... and most important is the ability to play custom maps and all of this in ranked servers, thats my complain, because BF2 can be much boring before a few days of playn in the same maps and players(rankiofilics boys)

 #32 - Posted by: Sof_Flashpoint (Member) on 08-29-2008 at 05:18

i would like thirdperson view

 #33 - Posted by: PvtFoley (Member) on 08-29-2008 at 07:55

None of the above. I want realistic weapon ballistics, weak spots on armour, REAL WEAPON AVAILABILTY AND AVAILABLE AMMO. Mostly the last part, which would mean more strategy, and less people emptying magazines on one person, besides, if you tried that in real life your weapon will most likely jam or overheat.

 #34 - Posted by: Mattressi (Member) on 08-30-2008 at 23:32

Anything but regenerating health! It's what ruins CoD4 :(

 #35 - Posted by: JiiM (Member) on 08-31-2008 at 10:37

Please, people that want to see their feet, give me your server address as soon as It features it, I wanna comme to your server and easily kill your poor little a** while you're looking at your feet, lol, what good is that going to bring anyways... Unless you can unlock the shoe tie move and have insurgents trip over because their shoes were tied... At least it made me laugh quite a bit. Cheers

 #36 - Posted by: Porkweep (Member) on 08-31-2008 at 12:57

I agree with # 33, they need to work on the mechanics of the weapons, and the amount of damage taken by them. For instance I've fired off at least 15 to 20 rounds from a SAW ingame online at a player no more then 10 feet away, and he don't die. He just turns around and fires a quick burst and I'm dead, very unrealistic. When making a military based game the makers should be consolting with the military about the weapons and vehicals. Also more realism with the vehicals, for instance the tanks. In the gulf war an squad of US M1A2 Abrams, which is 3 i believe, took on an entire armored collum of T-52 and T-72's and had no losses. Also I would like to see an introduction of a new class, the pilot. He should be the only class that can fly. Making for more stratigy. These are just a few improvements that would make BF3 that much better.

 #37 - i want to c aBFG!!1!!! - Posted by: joeb (Member) on 08-31-2008 at 14:31

what i want :rock:BFG XD

 #38 - C4 = Big Hole In Anything - Posted by: The_User (Member) on 08-31-2008 at 16:29

I want all that stuff listed....and the ability for C4's to blow holes in buildings and stuff. That is one thing ALL FPS's have as a drawback....AND IT'S SO UN-REALISTIC! In Christ, The_User

 #39 - Posted by: superbob281 (Member) on 08-31-2008 at 23:19

Nuclear strikes would prove entertaining. As long as it was a controlled option. Such as you can only use one every map, one per team that is. Or maybe every 300 tickets you get a new one? Maybe the explosion is a third as big as the El Alamein map from 1942. Man that sounds cool. Of course, so does seeing your feet!

 #40 - Posted by: Wess212 (Member) on 09-01-2008 at 09:27

i agree with #33 and #36 more realism overall.

 #41 - weapon jams - Posted by: wookie (Member) on 09-01-2008 at 12:39

weapon jams, this is modern combat not star wars (even though luke's blaster jammed in A New Hope)

 #42 - #36 - Posted by: EvilBunny (Member) on 09-02-2008 at 06:39

That example about the Abrams in the gulf war is a bit cloudy, it does depend on the superior training of the american tank teams too, hell, i've read about T55's taking on a superior number of Merkavas (don't know the model, probably 3) in a war, wich i don't remember. But i agree with you, for sure.

 #43 - Posted by: FoodMongol (Member) on 09-03-2008 at 16:32

I agree all the way with 33 and 36. For example, I hate it when a guy with a fully automatic machine gun, i.e. RPK, can take me out from a long way from me, like 20m away, or something like that. Realistic weapons and physics, I say, all the way. (Also, I dont want to take three bombs from a plane to take out a tank, thats ridiculous.)

 #44 - Posted by: greenfuzz (Member) on 09-04-2008 at 06:06

Listen up. The new battlefield a remake of the underdog of the bf series ofcourse BF Vietnam. New Maps intense jungle warfare shiny choppers ,Vietnam music, this must be done i love Bf vietnam mostly Operation Irving and Hastings But there wasn't put much effort in the game that sucks so i say Make a new Vietnam game. Modern warfare we have seen it WW2 we have seen it Spaceship bf blergh Just do Vietnam ,Iif you put effort in it will come outgreat

 #45 - Posted by: greenfuzz (Member) on 09-04-2008 at 06:07

the vibe people the vibe

 #46 - Posted by: T90rocks (Member) on 09-04-2008 at 10:31

Hey. How about Korea? Or, you know, some conflict that doesn't feature America. Israel has been in a dozen wars, maybe a chronicle of them, so you have all weapons from all different times.

 #47 - Posted by: superbob281 (Member) on 09-04-2008 at 16:47

Israeli Wars sound pretty cool. They always win in like 4 days though. lol And Evil Bunny, I agree that a superior crew in an inferior tank can take on an inferior crew in a superior tank, but when it all comes down to it, a T-72, for example, has not a snowballs chance in hell against an Abrams, and especially not against the British Challenger or Challenger 2. But then again, if we gave the Abrams and Challenger 20X as much hit points, there would be no point in having the T-72 for it is a knife in a gun fight. But even then, to my understanding, you can take out the engine of almost any tank with an RPG or two, rendering the tank useless until repair. It would encourage some strategy for the team opposing NATO or the Coalition or whatever you want to call it. Real weapon physics etc. actually is a great idea. Shooting center-mass with a sniper-rifle will only injure your enemy and alert them of your presence and give them time to find cover. And head shots aren't excessively easy shots to make. So making realistic damage would also encourage tactics and not run and gun circle strafe bullcrap.

 #48 - Which of these would you most want in Battlefield 3? - Posted by: whisperz59 (Member) on 09-04-2008 at 17:11

Let's see.........How about better Support from EA on "THEIR" server issues and Game glitches........A HUGE discount for Upgrading from BF2 for their HEADACHES such as being disconnected during a HOT BATTLE! This list can go on forever! :furious:

 #49 - Posted by: PvtFoley (Member) on 09-05-2008 at 01:05

OK, I'm not too sure that I made my point clear. Realism is great, but seriously any game with realism in terms of 'better verse worse' won't sell good. What I meant by my point, was to have realistic weaponry, but keeping it balanced. So as an example, M1A1 vs a T-72. In the real world, either has just as much chance of taking each other out. Though the M1A1 has odds on its side, and the T-72 doesn't. What I meant was, the armour is strong in the front, strong on the sides but weaker in the rear or where there's thin armour. Which brings me to another point, vehicles should be more realistic and have a better systems model. I'd love to see the developer add in a 'skill' option instead of some shitty 'unlock' or medals. I get so sick of people online who grab a tank, jet or what ever, go a certain distance then hop out and leave it, or end up getting destroyed. BF really needs to have a the skill option, where you actually have to work to earn the right to use equipment, and do it properly as well. Much like what the game Americas army has, you aren't allowed to do certain thing unless you have trained and are certified to use/do that certain thing.

 #50 - Posted by: dunk999999 (Member) on 09-05-2008 at 05:54

The problem with having a Pilot class is that everyone would go as Pilot and there would be no ground troops, I think it is better to start with an arcade shooter, and then let modding teams create their own realism mod. Apart from the fact you can't use server side mods, I prefer Battlefield 2 as it is.

 #51 - Posted by: Smith_ (Member) on 09-05-2008 at 13:59

I would like to see PR sized maps/gameplay with RO tank physics. I would like to see this with crysis style destruction and graphics. The ability to lean around corners too, that better happen in the next BF series game. I think they should make it as moddable as the source engine too. How about the ability to download custom maps off a server? A new code structure so they don't have to be 70mb per map.

 #52 - Posted by: williebrown (Member) on 09-06-2008 at 05:39

Project Reality Gameplay!

Comments on this Article

There are no comments yet. Be the first!