Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 9 Sep 2011.
It is a nice try but LAN support is not really needed nowadays.
If you want to play BF3 on a LAN with 64 players then you are going to be attending a big LAN like i44, which has the network structure to support 1000's of gamers playing on the internet.
But I guess as MW3 can only support what 20 odd players? then LAN support might be more important for them for smaller lan events.
Still LAN support being the ONLY +1 for MW3 over BF3's 1000's of +1's wont make me want to buy it any more.
bit-tech acting as flame bait for the entire forum community
The flame war EA started with Activision over these two games has done wonders for CoD's feature set, it's too bad EA has been messing it up with DLC and Origin shenanigans.
Let the trolling commence.
im going to be playing BF3 for its gameplay, but outside the game, MW3 ticks all the right boxes.
-user run dedicated servers
one more positive thing might even make me consider to buy MW3!
oh no, taken the bait
I guess it is an attempt to have a proper competitive gaming scene, nice to have but I don't think it will get close the likes of Counter Strike.
From what i have seen MW3 looks like its ticking all the boxes. I have BF3 preordered but i think i might get this at some point for some "michael bay" single player!
I love the way features we had ten years ago are coming back like they're new!
Steam is a positive, Steamworks is not, as the VAC system is less than useless
LOL. What nonsense.
Activision puts a feature back in that has been with the series from the start - a game which was always very popular in LAN environments with 4 or 6 players on a map - and that's somehow being compared to Battlefield, which is a concept entirely based around large teams of players - very much suited to being an online experience.
BT, I'm quite disappointed that you're actually writing articles which appear to have nothing more than the shallow intention of fueling an entirely pointless debate.
You might as well start writing that Battlefield doesn't let you trade stupid hats, or that World of Warcraft doesn't let you call in UAVs, if you're going to make daft comparisons.
Steamworks will also have saved-game/settings sync, Steam friend list integration and steam achievements. all a positive.
Always one to fly against popular opinion, but often a sane voice amongst the madness.
I agree with you Wuyanxu.
The COD series are a cash cow that is being well and truly milked. And I am not overly excited by its release. I am however aware it is a different game entirely, and could be a bit of fun. LAN support doesn't interest me much, but it shows that they are looking for ways to attract the PC crowd, and reassures me that Game Dev's are not only thinking consloes. We may be an after thought, but we are a thought at least.
Meh... I'll end up buying MW3 and BF3 anyway... It'll need to be extremely rubbish for me not to buy it just so I've got something different to play and not the same games.
BTW - Is it about time we had a different time zone for our fps'? I gotta admit, I preferred the WW2-era games for their focus and 'real-worldness' but should developers try and focus on a different setting now?
It's a good question...
Battlefield has seen WWII twice (1942/1943), Vietnam twice, present day multiple times across different platforms and even the future with 2142.
Plenty of games have done WWII as you say....I enjoyed them too, but it really has been done to death. Present day has been done by every man and his dog - some better than others - (remember Soldier of Fortune??) and there have been several futuristic games in the Ghost Recon range.
The conflicts in Afghanistan/Iraq haven't been done too badly by the latest Medal of Honor reboot (and slightly more badly, in my opinion, in Red River)......but as for finding a different setting it has pretty much all been covered.
Not that there aren't a thousand wars that haven't been done, but whether or not they'd introduce anything new would be a different matter.
I suggest we colonise a new planet...say, Mars, and see what turns up....oh, wait....Doom already did that.
For MW3 to be in anywhere near playable on a competitive scene it would need full mod support, which is unlikely. Even COD4, which was far more balanced than MW2, needed extensive modding before it was played competitively. And even then, it was still never as popular as CS.
Ha ha - what about Grunt of Duty - Stone-Age Warfare?
Flint Axes and Bows and Arrows???
Like Mount & Blade you mean ?
-This news has been on on most sites for several days already. If anything, bit-tech is late, as usual.
-Pointless debate on what? I'm pretty sure if this was bf3 getting lan support then your tune would be much different.
I was referring to the subtitle on the home page/news feed "Something BF3 doesn't have". Seems unnecessary considering BF3 isn't LAN orientated.
I wouldn't want LAN support for BF3 - there'd be no point whatsoever.
Separate names with a comma.