I find a 3 year release perfectly acceptable. At least its not an annual thing.
I find a 3 year release perfectly acceptable. At least its not an annual thing.
What pisses me off is that they shat on Activision for the whole of last year, just to do the exact same thing they accused Activision of.
They're already milking BF3 shitless, now they're already planning the next game after only the second planned DLC's release?
Bitch please.
CEO of the Institution for People Against People Complaining About People Who Complain About Videogames.
In November of 2006, DICE introduced Battlefield 2... And it was a great game (proud of of legitimate copy)...
6 years on... And they introduced its successor, which is now hugely popular among the masses of gamers.
In a six year gap, they've really made an ENORMOUS change in how we (the player/s) are experiencing FPSs.
Having said that; I feel that... Given the technology we have in this day and age, another Battlefield in the series, in a 3 span should suffice. However, given another 5 years, Battlefield 4 should have a greater stance, greater definition and a lot more immersive than its current predecessor.
EA really shouldn't fall into the same pit Activision have so lovingly run towards. I would hate to see Battlefield going down the same path as Call of Duty has. IMO.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
