Latest Articles
572 views 12 comments

5 Things we want in Battlefield 3

by on 05/09/2011

Battlefield Bad Company 2 was the first Battlefield that I truly got into. Shooting games tend to be my forte although I love all genres, that is why I was happy to see a military shooter that didn’t involve people sprinting around with knives, dual shotguns, or dropping predator missiles on me because why not reward a player who is already scoring kills? Anyways the game isn’t perfect but it is still a huge hit and after seeing the game in action at PAX East it looks incredible, but here are some things we would like to see added or improved this fall.


DICE definitely went out to make a ranking system that didn’t reward you just for playing and handing you the maximum rank. They wanted you to earn it, and to hit a 50 in this game you need to work harder in this game than any other to date. I have over 140 hours played and have great statistics, yet I am only a level 37. I just pray that DICE doesn’t offer a reward for being a level 50 going into their next game, because that means I will be busting my ass to hit that 50.

Compared to ranking systems in games like Halo or Call of Duty this is definitely the most time consuming. I just think changes need to be made because as I said I am over 300 hours, and the end is nowhere in sight. Perhaps they can offer rewards throughout between 1-50, giving players incentives for continuing on this adventure to the top, lower the amount of EXP needed slightly so it doesn’t feel like an eternity between level ups, or allowing your experience to transfer over from doing campaign missions and onslaught modes.

I prefer their system, I just feel that incentives need to be offered to keep players wanting to play into the 500 hour mark.


Battlefield has the most realistic gun combat than in any game. Bullets dropping with distance is unheard of in other games and little things like that are amazing to experience and is almost an exclusive Battlefield feature. One of the things they don’t really focus on is gun recoil.

Now obviously it is present and for the most part there is no complaint…except when it comes to Medics and their LMGs. Now the Medic class is already a very powerful class, but with the LMGs in their hands they can be ungodly. I play as an assault class 90% of the time and have over 5 million points from my tenure, but when I play Medic I average over 4000 points a game and turn into a killing machine.

The reason for this lies in the recoil. I can run around the entire battlefield killing people at will and can keep myself kicking by dropping medpacks on me. The Medic class can easily be renamed the Rambo class because you turn into an unstoppable killing machine. I have a 4x scope on my weapon and have been able to headshot people from at least 200-300 feet away, that is saying a whole lot.

Now LMGs should be able to drop people with ease, but when you are fighting 1 on 1 down a street and both of you are moving, the light machine gunner shouldn’t be able to snipe you while he is moving around with his portable turret. His gun should be flying up towards the sky as he is trying to control it. Yet for some reason almost no recoil is present at all, I am pretty sure you could draw a straight line with this gun and only see a few bullets that went astray.

In conclusion, I would just like to see a little more realism to the recoil. I mean the medic class is extremely powerful and keep reviving players to begin with, the fact that they can also mow down an entire team gives them a slight advantage over everyone else.


I love customization in games. I, especially loved the customization in Rainbow Six Vegas which was the first game to really offer great customization in a shooter. Contrary to what RSV did, where you could choose how much armor you want and it affects your protection and mobility, I would prefer just aesthetic customization in a Battlefield game.

It is a not “Must-Have” feature but as I stated before with the amount of playing you have to do to reach a level 50, it would be nice to make myself look pretty. I mean EA’s Battlefield Play4Free is offering soldier customization options that aren’t huge but it could be a precursor to the future. It is nothing game changing it is just a nice addition for players.

On top of that though I believe that gun customization could be really good for this game. Brink has shown that gun options that can affect things like recoil,ammo, accuracy, etc. adds more depth in the game and makes every player unique. Offering a few options for scopes, stocks, barrels, et cetera could really impress some people. It would also be nice to hopefully not have to do that in-game every time (current players know what I am talking about.)


I understand that Battlefield is known for its vehicle combat. I do feel that they do a great job at realistic vehicle combat, I don’t feel like they offer enough vehicle counter measures.

With the heavy weight on vehicle spawns right now, players can keep waiting for vehicles after they get blown up and will get a new one momentarily. This is evident in maps like Atacama Desert where players will wait for their helicopter to keep spawning or even camp the enemy base in hopes of stealing theirs. Games shouldn’t be won or loss over who controls the vehicles. Making them more rare will make them worth more and should positively affect gameplay, with players not wanting to lose their tank they will be less likely to stomp down the battlefield firing like a madman just to be blown up and respawn and repeat.

You can always have your whole team switch to engineers and fire rockets at vehicles, but it takes away from the experience to have to switch classes just to keep the game moving. I think the simple fix for this would be offering vehicle takedown methods for all classes. There are dozens of times where I would be behind a tank that didn’t see me and having only a grenade launcher made me useless. Maybe they can offer a weapon for every class that can help take down vehicles or they could do something action movie-like.

Maybe they can allow smart players to jump onto the top of a vehicle like a tank, and pop a grenade through the hatch. Of course you would have to try and get on top of it similar to the way it works now, where you have to pray that there is something to stand on top of and jump down, but it would make it very epic to take down a tank.


It is obvious why squads aren’t larger in Battlefield. Obviously allowing you to spawn on three of your teammates is a huge advantage, so allowing you to spawn on 7 or 11 would be overkill. A system that allows you to maybe pick 3 players you want to spawn on for the entire match or simply doing it Halo- Invasion style where everyone gets a teammate to spawn on could go miles.

If you can’t tell I suggest this not because of the spawn advantage, it is more for teamwork and organization. When players aren’t in the same squad in BFBC2 it is damn near impossible to realize who exactly they are. Even worse is that if they are in your squad and are playing as the same class you can’t tell who you are following until you ask.

It seems primitive not to have something like a call-sign or a tag above a players head to identify them. If they did that, I don’t think the squad thing would be necessary (I am just offering both options for their ears :).) I just find it strange that a game that offer 12 v 12 multiplayer only allows you to really team with 4 players. Even if you team with a full party of 8 you can’t tell where the other team of 4 are.

That is why I feel that this is the most reasonable “want” for Battlefield 3.

Regardless of what EA and DICE decide to do come this Fall, from what I have seen the game is going to be incredible. I almost went deaf watching it in action at PAX East because they put us in a small room with surround sound and were in heavy firefights. I would gladly damage my hearing again to feel like I was right down in the Battlefield.

Leave a reply »

  • Anonymous
    05/09/2011 at 3:59 pm

    I want the same game play as BF2, with better graphics, destructible environment, and bigger maps. This is the only way to improve the battlefield series. I DO NOT want another COD in a different wrapper.

    • Anonymous
      05/09/2011 at 4:29 pm

      I’m similarly concerned. Watching the videos they’ve shown, it looks way to easy to shoot — just put your eye to the reticule and go full auto and nail everyone. No going to crouch or prone — just go full auto. Seems a bit arcade-y.

      I’m also disappointed with the apparent elimination of commander mode. Thar really did a lot for the game…

    • tensity1
      05/10/2011 at 12:16 am

      Yeah, I agree.

      Never played COD or BC2, so I won’t disparage their gameplay experience. I love BF2, and it should not be drastically changed gameplay-wise. Updates to gameplay, graphics, etc., yes, but change it into another game already out there, no. Then again, I may be pleasantly surprised.

      What I would really love is a merging of Joint Operations: Typhoon Rising (circa 2000) and BF2. Joint Ops was great with huge maps (up to 128 players) and more realistic weapons physics (thus corresponding tactics). It was always a thrill using rangefinding binocs on a hillside where fire was coming from, determining the range, then using either mortars or your M203 iron sights (which actually worked like the real thing) to drop a grenade on the enemy from 300 meters out. From what I remember, there was bullet drop, too. And you could play it on a 56K dial-up fairly smoothly, too.

      No commander mode? Pfft, what BS.

    • 05/10/2011 at 2:55 am

      I agree. Having some realistic recoil and some customization may be. The rest would be just turning a cool game into COD. Part of the game is to depend on teammates to do the job. And give a little strategy in the meantime..

    • Anonymous
      05/10/2011 at 12:38 pm

      Also you mentioned the ranking system. The ranking system you show is Bad Company 2. BC2 was just another COD and it sucked because it was made for consoles. This is the big boy game. This a PC game, which means bigger stronger better. I DO NOT want Bad Company 3. Battlefield 2’s ranking system was fine see here or here Maybe some minor improvements could be made, but it was fine.

  • 05/09/2011 at 6:18 pm

    I really dont agree with u on a lot of things.

    1st ranking is way too easy for HC players. If you dont play HC or are a pro gamer then ur ok with the current ranking. Im on lvl 50 for ages and i havent unlocked anything for a bit. So i am just platinuming it on every weapon. Ranking should be even LONGER!!

    2nd In HC there arent that many medics shooting wiht LMGs anyway. And u can try mowing down opponents but usually ull get ONE SLUG shotguned…. So maybe you should just play HC??

    3rd Vehicles are as good as the driver in them. Ferrari wont win the race by it self. If u know what customization u want ur more the GOD with a tank or heli.

    *******I guess i should write my whole list of ideas as well. I think PRESTIGE=lvl50 should be automaticly autobalanced if the people are not in friend list together. I hate TEAM STACKING all lvl 50 on one side and they think they good but they only good in NUMBERS!!!. This would solve a lot of servers beings empty all the sudden. If you brave to be prestige then u should be proud to autobalance and help the other team.

    Thats my 2cents.

  • Guest
    05/09/2011 at 9:56 pm

    @Irtman Remember, this is campaign mode. Campaigns are supposed to be dramatic. Multiplayer will probably be vanilla BF2 with a few more improvements to accommodate the destruction. And DICE mentioned, but not confirmed, that Commander mode instead gets split to the squad leaders (like requesting a supply drop, and then getting it based on current battlefield activity) so the experience across the systems are virtually the same, aside from graphics.

    05/10/2011 at 12:17 am

    They also need to add the ability to glance left or right while sprinting. Right now if you sprint you can only ‘look’ ahead of your character.
    I would also love to see peripheral vision along the very edges of the screen. It doesn’t need to be as sharp and obvious as the center of the screen but would allow a player to see movement to the sides and up&down. Right now it’s like you have full-time ‘tunnel vision’ and I get tired of constantly having to look left and right.

  • Kyub3y14
    05/10/2011 at 5:47 am

    tone down the Apaches and ill be a happy player…….who has his dart gun and Gustav ready :)

  • toodlez
    05/10/2011 at 8:10 am

    medics do not need to be changed at all because you can kick ass with any gun, xp bar does not need to be lowered because it divides the good ppl from the bad, good ppl being those who can hit lvl 40+ under 300hrs gameplay, and not every class needs an anti tank weapon…bcuz not in real life would every soldier be carrying an anti tank weapon, there are alrdy maps (arica harbour) where the majority of players play as engineers and the tanks more or less stay back and snipe

  • Potatoman
    05/10/2011 at 10:29 am

    More vehicle countermeasures? On top of guided rockets, other vehicles, helicopters and having to constantly keep an eye out for those anti-tank mines (only used by noobs) you want more countermeasures? It only takes three rockets to destroy a tank and any decent team will have it destroyed before it even gets a chance to fire back. Vehicles need to be more powerful

  • Fuglypump
    05/10/2011 at 5:25 pm

    keep player customization to a minimum, i don’t want it to increase load times or cause lag during gameplay, just look at battlefield play4free and you’ll understand.

You must log in to post a comment