Battlefield 2 uses Frostbite, and Battlefield 3 uses Frostbite 2 which is the better game engine overall, which means more can be done with physics and graphics and what not. How shooters "feel" when you play them doesn't vary much between titles...COD has felt the same ever since it first was release, Battlefield has felt the same, Halo has felt the same, Forza has felt the same, Elder Scrolls has felt the same, Assassin's Creed has felt the same, etc. Any major franchise isn't going to dramatically change how their games work from title to title because they don't want to introduce a huge learning curve to the game that might deter their fans and potential new clients from continuing their support of the franchise if they get a reputation for creating a radically new experience from title to title.
EDIT: Past the game engine, story and maybe online capabilities and game modes, there is almost no significant difference between the two games.What are the differences between Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 3?
I don't even mess with Campaign or Co-Op...
but the graphics are way better,
it runs on Frostbite 2, (AWESOOOMMMEEEE),
and the maps are way bigger.
No comments:
Post a Comment