We take an in-depth look at Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora and tell you why it should be heavily on your radar!
Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora - a Deep-Dive into its Potential
Range-wise, the ROG Rapture GT6 is phenomenal, and it's ideal for all gaming and non-gaming-related tasks.
ASUS ROG Rapture GT6 WiFi 6 Mesh System Review
The GeForce RTX 4060 is out this week, and NVIDIA let us check out the new mainstream GPU early to see what DLSS 3 brings to Cyberpunk 2077 and the still-gorgeous Night City.
GeForce RTX 4060 Preview - Cyberpunk 2077, RT, and DLSS 3!
On emergent gameplay, canon, era and period and on Kay and Nix's relationship, among much more!
Star Wars Outlaws - The Big Massive Interview
Post by nachosjustice @ 08:03am 10/06/11 | 7 Comments
Earlier this morning, we posted a news story about EA having some big plans for taking on the dominance of sci-fi series Halo and Gears of War with a new title Respawn Entertainment is working on. Perhaps more interestingly, the same article from Gamepro also makes mention of EA’s plans to alternate new Medal of Honor and Battlefield releases every year.

While Medal of Honor still has a way to go to earn back its street cred (check out our less-than-sparkling review here), the Battlefield franchise is directly competing with Activision’s Call of Duty juggernaut. And what seems to be one of the most important factors in why Battlefield 3 is generating more buzz than Modern Warfare 3, is that it’s not restricted to a two-year development cycle. Although the Frostbite 2-powered Battlefield 3 is looking amazing, I’m wondering whether this more stringent ‘quantity over quality’ approach will negatively affect the reputation of future Battlefield titles.

e3 2011battlefield 3medal of honor

Latest Comments
Posted 08:37am 10/6/11
why Battlefield 3 is generating more buzz than Battlefield 3

proofreading is your friend.
Posted 08:43am 10/6/11
Battlefied 3 more buzz than Battlefield 3?
Posted 08:48am 10/6/11
Well it'd be OK as long as they deliver a quality product and don't remove features from the wish list because they want the game to 'die' after 2 years.
Posted 08:49am 10/6/11
2 years isn't exactly a short amount of time now that they have their tech sorted out.
Posted 08:53am 10/6/11
Proofing and early-morning wake-ups rarely go hand in hand. Corrected.
Posted 09:42am 10/6/11
so pretty much continue doing what they've been doing for the last 10 years with battlefield series?
Posted 09:54am 10/6/11
Yeah, don't really see a problem there. And especially if they are including dedicated servers, you can easily go back and enjoy older games, unlike COD, where no one barely plays MW2, and when MW3 comes out, everyone will kill off their "servers" that they are renting in Black Ops. A 2 year cycle is fine, gives everyone a heap of enjoyment. It's when it becomes every 6-12 months a new release is being made, then there are problems.
Commenting has been locked for this item.