Battlefield 3 was an amazing game. Running right off the success of Battlefield Bad Company 2, it had a more complex and bolder engine, larger maps, and more team play you can shake an ACB-90 at. So how exactly could DICE top it? Well even though it was a fantastic game, guaranteeing hours of fun (or annoyance), it still had its flaws and missing bits. Being an avid Battlefield fan, I've played Bad Company 1 and 2, as well as 1943. I'm not an expert by all means, but Battlefield is by far my favourite game to play. In my opinion, DICE ticks all the boxes that other companies like Activision miss. It has more diversity, and better gameplay. It really stands tall against competitors, and DICE's latest rendition brought in a huge amount of players. It has also developed a free online counterpart to the game, dubbed 'Battlelog' in which videos and stats, and a huge forum section where DICE does what other companies seem to only say they do; They listen. But despite this, Battlefield 3 does have a few flaws. And it seems that someone up in EA accidentally wanted to keep the franchise fresh, as we already now know Battlefield 4 is on its way. Now I'm one of the people who was a bit disheartened at this; I had only just got used to the game, and right into the swing of it, purchasing Premium, and expecting it to be one of those game that lasts a while until people depart it. But it seems EA are following close to an annual release, but sugaring it by saying they are only doing a Battlefield game every two years. Still though, with the Beta being announced as a bonus to Medal Of Honor Warfighter, maybe it will be on this current generation, and maybe it will be the perfect battlefield game, which WILL keep people on.
Nick is a gamer, loving nothing more than to sit and play through a gripping story. He studies Media Production at College and is looking ahead to University, and a career in the Media Industry. He loves to pick peoples brains with a good debate, and he also loves to pick at a Ben & Jerry's with a spoon.