Back to Karkand!

I'm a big fan of BF, but the destruction in BF3, on the main maps, was underwhelming. Now, with the "Back to Karkand" DLC, the Frostbite engine is really put to use. If it wasn't better than MW3 before, it certainly is now.

Any thoughts?

 

Discussion Info


Last updated July 4, 2018 Views 0 Applies to:

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.

BF3 is on my christmas list so I might be able to answer it then.   But from what I played of the campaign the destruction was not good at all.  Wasnt much in the beta either.  Very very disappointing and massive false advertisement.   I am guessing most of the destruction is hopefully somewhere in the full multiplayer.  Or as you said maybe in "Back to Karkland".

Camaro you might have to pay 15$/1200ms for Back to Karkand because it was free for those who pre-ordered the game.

Previously known as Win7Xbox 360

I'm looking forward to checking it out tonight!

Anyone who bought the LE will get the DLC for free. I don't think the LE is limited. :P

I've seen copies of the LE in stores as recently as a week ago

It was the same thing with BC2.

I am extremely underwhelmed from the standard maps in BF3.  Out of the all the matches & hours I put into it I saw 1 building, just ONE, crumble.  And it was the worst animations i've seen.   Most of the maps are big warehouses that won't crumble.  They really dropped the ball on the whole "we got destructible environments"......  none-sense.

I had a blast playing BC2, maps like Cold War, Heavy Metal, White Pass, & Harvest Day were all amazing fun with blowing up buildings.

I will be playing the "new" maps soon & hopefully they impress me.  

DICE really needs to step it up big time if they ever want to get even remotely close the #s COD does.

Yeah, Destruction in BF3 is really kinda pathetic compared with BC2. Really good intense Matches in BC2 would leave the entire area looking like a Battlefield. I was hoping the new Maps would use a little bit more Destruction.

I was disappointed in the lack of destruction as well. The only positive I can come up with is not having to worry about people tank-whoring and destroying buildings (and MCOMs) from afar.

Nelson Bay was crazy sometimes with people who would dedicate themselves to destroying every tree so that snipers guarding the base could almost completely suppress any advancement by attackers.

[quote user="StrictlyDigital"]Nelson Bay was crazy sometimes with people who would dedicate themselves to destroying every tree so that snipers guarding the base could almost completely suppress any advancement by attackers.[/quote]

That was great fun. It completely "rewrote" the Map and changed everything the Attackers thought they new about that Map. First thing was let the smurfs hold them back for a while on the first set of Crates while I and a few Friends destroyed every tree and bush in the next. It was a "desert", wasteland, turkey shoot after that and the Attacking Team really needed some serious Game-plan to advance or get shut out.

Too bad so much innovation was left out of BF3. Oh look, this wall gets destroyed by C4 but this one doesn't? Oh look, indestructible tree even from a Tank Round?! And Dice is probably scratching their head wondering why BF3 didn't get GoTY?!

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.