Kohe321

Great article from one of the best writers in the business - Alex Navarro! Keep it up.

Nah, this looks insanely good. Some of the games presented, like watch dogs and that dragon dungeon crawler thing, looks to be just a big leap as the PS2 to Ps3. Or that face and skin technology. Seriously, imagine an RPG with that stuff.

So no, this doesn't seem like a minute improvement with diminishing returns. Far from it.

Is this thing going to go full circle now, with Rich back at giantbomb under Cnet? Haha that would be epic.

Then we'd just need Greg Kasavin to get his ass back as well.

Bill Burr, Joe rogan, bill hicks, eddie murphy, richard pryor

Yeah it's going to be fine. :)

If there was a "like" button I could press on the original post, I'd press it.

Going to copy paste my youtube comment on the gamespot video, as that is all that I have to say about this: If giantbomb is allowed to be giantbomb, with all the absolute insanity that entails, without any corporate bullshit censoring, then this is just a positive thing that will lead to better content.

I'm positive this will all turn out okay, and this is coming from a day-one member, who has been supporting financially non-stop since it was first introduced, and added wikicontent. Non-subscribers are of course allowed to voice their concern, but any word on them "selling out" should be ban-worthy, especially from someone who never did anything but signing up.

Yup, Metro is a terrible map and the gunplay feels more like MoH than battlefield. DICE went and messed it all up.

@TrueEnglishGent said:

Haven't played it yet, but heard two mates bitching about it already. Though I know one of them went into BF3 beta expecting it to be identical to Call of Duty so can't say I'm shocked by the fact that he's bitching about it.

Looking forward to experiencing it myself to be honest. Total Biscuit seems really down on it to though and I know he played his fair share of Battlefield so something must be off. It's a beta after all.

Yeah, I watched this video from totalbiscuit and I completely agree with him. He nails exactly the stuff I dislike about it. It feels more like medal of honor than battlefield. Sorry guys, but it's true.

@XII_Sniper said:

Wow, I'm glad it's not just me that feels like the game feels "off". Those complaints aren't exaggerations... the game feels downright weird, not very much like I'd want or expect from a battlefield game. All in all, this isn't a great demonstration of the game either, no vehicles, so the engineer is kinda useless. Plus the map is something out of COD. Just doesn't fit the Battlefield style. It feels a lot like the multiplayer for the MoH game that Dice did.

Oh and don't get me started on the browser-based launcher. It feels awful and sluggish, and I am completely unable to use the quick match feature. Half the servers I join plain don't work, and it's a very clunky way to join matches.

The fact that you can't change graphics or controls options until you are in a match and alive is retarded. I was literally interrupted from changing my options from dying. Dying. Then I couldn't continue changing them until I spawned again. Who designed this crazy game?!

Yeah. Only being able to access the menu while spawned and ALIVE is beyond silly. Who would design it that way?

For people saying "use cover" and "play smart". Believe me, it's not that simple when you're being forced into a crossfire if you want to advance through the map at all. Try it for 30 minutes and you'll most likely agree with me that the shooting, and getting shot, feels really weird and confusing. This rediculous damage just encourages camping, which is the opposite of what you want in an objective based game like the battlefield series.

I play on PC, by the way, and I still haven't figured out a way to join different squads...