Battlefield 3 - Official Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Savoy said:
Metro 2033? Metro2033 hasn't sold anywhere near where BF3 will sell. That was made by some russian developer(if I'm not mistaken) and their target audience isn't the same as EA/Dice's. EA plans for this to be a massive release in scope and sales. EA knows thats not how you maximize sales. Hell I would never EVER make a game like Crysis1 or metro 2033 if I were running a dev house. I want to sell to as many people as possible since it's a business and in a business you want to make as much money as possible. You can't do that if your target audience is 10% (at best) of the Pc gaming market.
Click to expand...

that's the point of making a scalable graphics engine. there's a fine line between maximizing your consumer base and losing sales due to 'outdated graphics', as some would see it.

Savoy said:
trust me when I tell yout this, they will NOT make a retardly graphically demanding game no matter how much you wish for it. It's simply not smart business and it's not in the cards. Sorry to let you down.
Click to expand...

you're not 'letting anyone down' because you have no idea if what you're claiming is true. you're just speculating at this point.
 
Porter_ said:
that's the point of making a scalable graphics engine. there's a fine line between maximizing your consumer base and losing sales due to 'outdated graphics', as some would see it.



you're not 'letting anyone down' because you have no idea if what you're claiming is true. you're just speculating at this point.
Click to expand...

It is speculation of course it is. This speculation is based on years of watching the industry and common sense. I'm not just pulling this info out of my ass or taking a wild guess. They want to sell as many copies of this game as possible and common sense says you can't do that if you game runs like shit on the majority of gamers systems out there. Scalability only goes so far and metro 2033 was a bad example since the game is a niche product at best. It hasn't and never will sell anywhere near what bf3 will sell.
 
PrincessFrosty said:
From what little you can make out it looks good so far, hopefully they will fix some of the areas where BC2 is lacking such as it being a bit consolized still and lacking any real dynamic lights, in fact having pretty bad lighting in genral. But keep the good things, the weapon handling with bullet drop and bullet travel time, expand out the destruction and size to 64 players, put prone back in.

Man...I think I'm leaking, time to go clean up.
Click to expand...

so im the only one who wants the commander feature? i dont use it but i like someone planning the strategy instead of just random movement.


Savoy said:
It is speculation of course it is. This speculation is based on years of watching the industry and common sense. I'm not just pulling this info out of my ass or taking a wild guess. They want to sell as many copies of this game as possible and common sense says you can't do that if you game runs like shit on the majority of gamers systems out there. Scalability only goes so far and metro 2033 was a bad example since the game is a niche product at best. It hasn't and never will sell anywhere near what bf3 will sell.
Click to expand...

I agree, the visuals will be console-style eye candy but with better animation & sound.
 
dioxholster said:
so im the only one who wants the commander feature? i dont use it but i like someone planning the strategy instead of just random movement.
Click to expand...

I want that feature in dude. I like to command sometimes and thought it was very cool since it had never been done in any fps before.
 
Snappshoota said:
The part that brought a grin to my face, was that when an explosive detonates, anything hit with the shock wave will also take damage. I.E. Windows shattering from the shock wave of an rpg through the side of a building. Attention to detail for the win!
Click to expand...

This is in effect for the SP campaign but not the MP portion. I can't remember where the link was that said that... It might be in this thread from a tweet from one of the devs or something.
 
dioxholster said:
so im the only one who wants the commander feature? i dont use it but i like someone planning the strategy instead of just random movement.
Click to expand...

I think they could so some really cool stuff with it, but I don't think it's likely that they will. I'd like for them to have a commander rank that would be visible during commander selection so that I could actually be confident that listening to the commander will be worthwhile.

Then again, if they make the commander role that serious, it would be tough to log in and do your own thing, which I know a lot of BF fans will say isn't the way the game should be played, and I mostly agree, but it can be nice to do your own thing from time to time. It has potential, but I think it would be hard to implement just right.
 
dioxholster said:
so im the only one who wants the commander feature? i dont use it but i like someone planning the strategy instead of just random movement.
Click to expand...

I abso-fucking-lutely want the commander position. I think the game will lose a good amount of the BF2 feel if it's completely missing...
 
I hope the unlocks are handled less idiotically than when DICE made medics unlock defibrillators (BFBC2) and made snipers unlock scopes (MOH).
 
Plague_Injected said:
I hope the unlocks are handled less idiotically than when DICE made medics unlock defibrillators (BFBC2) and made snipers unlock scopes (MOH).
Click to expand...

those were indeed bad decisions by DICE. nothing like running around the battlefield as a medic without the ability to revive teammates.
 
I would like to be sniping at the top of a building and have the building collapse from underneath me but still be given enough warning to parachute off the roof.
 
kuyaglen said:
I would like to be sniping at the top of a building and have the building collapse from underneath me but still be given enough warning to parachute off the roof.
Click to expand...

Are they keeping parachutes? If so, i want the ability to shoot the parachutes so they fail....:D
 
Savoy said:
Metro 2033? Metro2033 hasn't sold anywhere near where BF3 will sell. That was made by some russian developer(if I'm not mistaken) and their target audience isn't the same as EA/Dice's. EA plans for this to be a massive release in scope and sales. EA knows thats not how you maximize sales. Hell I would never EVER make a game like Crysis1 or metro 2033 if I were running a dev house. I want to sell to as many people as possible since it's a business and in a business you want to make as much money as possible. You can't do that if your target audience is 10% (at best) of the Pc gaming market. trust me when I tell yout this, they will NOT make a retardly graphically demanding game no matter how much you wish for it. It's simply not smart business and it's not in the cards. Sorry to let you down.

Yes, it will look good and yes it will advance the BF genre but it's not gonna be zomg the new crysis for graphics. they wanna sell millions of copies and fast along with tons of DLC to everyone. Not just sell to a small percentage of gamers.
Click to expand...

You do realize of course that graphic settings can be turned down, yes? So if only 10% can run it at max, then the rest can just turn down settings. I think what it comes down to is spoiled gamers wanting to play everything at max, but don't want to pay to do it.

Don't give me that bullshit "only 10% of gamers can run it", no what you meant to say is "only 10% of gamers can run it at max". Well, lucky for them, extra FPS is only a slider away.
 
Ryan711 said:
You do realize of course that graphic settings can be turned down, yes? So if only 10% can run it at max, then the rest can just turn down settings. I think what it comes down to is spoiled gamers wanting to play everything at max, but don't want to pay to do it.

Don't give me that bullshit "only 10% of gamers can run it", no what you meant to say is "only 10% of gamers can run it at max". Well, lucky for them, extra FPS is only a slider away.
Click to expand...

I'm actually surprised this concept escaped people for this long.

When Crysis came out, how many computer were able to max it out? Pretty close to none, though a lot of people still played fine.
 
Ryan711 said:
You do realize of course that graphic settings can be turned down, yes? So if only 10% can run it at max, then the rest can just turn down settings. I think what it comes down to is spoiled gamers wanting to play everything at max, but don't want to pay to do it.

Don't give me that bullshit "only 10% of gamers can run it", no what you meant to say is "only 10% of gamers can run it at max". Well, lucky for them, extra FPS is only a slider away.
Click to expand...

QFT
 
Ryan711 said:
You do realize of course that graphic settings can be turned down, yes? So if only 10% can run it at max, then the rest can just turn down settings. I think what it comes down to is spoiled gamers wanting to play everything at max, but don't want to pay to do it.

Don't give me that bullshit "only 10% of gamers can run it", no what you meant to say is "only 10% of gamers can run it at max". Well, lucky for them, extra FPS is only a slider away.
Click to expand...

QFT x 2
 
Volkum said:
I abso-fucking-lutely want the commander position. I think the game will lose a good amount of the BF2 feel if it's completely missing...
Click to expand...

It's already confirmed by DICE that the commander position is not in the game
 
Ryan711 said:
You do realize of course that graphic settings can be turned down, yes? So if only 10% can run it at max, then the rest can just turn down settings. I think what it comes down to is spoiled gamers wanting to play everything at max, but don't want to pay to do it.

Don't give me that bullshit "only 10% of gamers can run it", no what you meant to say is "only 10% of gamers can run it at max". Well, lucky for them, extra FPS is only a slider away.
Click to expand...

QFTx3

And of course if you give your engine lots of headroom for advanced graphics settings then it continues to look good for years, much like Crysis, which means it sells steadily and keeps the game attractive as it ages, people who skipped over the game initially are more likely to buy the game from the bargin bin because it's still going to look good 3 years down the line.

It's The fabled max settings all over again.
 
Savoy said:
... They are not, I repeat NOT, going to make a game and alienate a shit ton of gamers with low to mid end gaming rigs just so those of us who find money as no object for our hobby can have a state of the art graphical experience heh. The game will look as good or better as BC2 (probably better) but it will run almost as good imo. Let's not forget it has to run on consoles as well. Yes, I know on a smaller scale and with less graphical detail but still the engine is the engine. Let's keep it in the proper perspective. You won't need an uberwtfpwnubbq rig to max the game out, trust me.
Click to expand...

In all of this discussion on their target spec, no one brought up the fact that they are dropping support for anything under DX10, and therefore, Windows XP. That is a pretty bold move on their part. A decision obviously not made by their marketing department...

On the other hand, I see this as a move FOR your argument that it will run OK on a mid range system. Dropping support for DX9 likely means the engine is optimized to run better on the systems that it does run on.
 
Ryan711 said:
You do realize of course that graphic settings can be turned down, yes? So if only 10% can run it at max, then the rest can just turn down settings. I think what it comes down to is spoiled gamers wanting to play everything at max, but don't want to pay to do it.

Don't give me that bullshit "only 10% of gamers can run it", no what you meant to say is "only 10% of gamers can run it at max". Well, lucky for them, extra FPS is only a slider away.
Click to expand...

QFTx4
 
I would like take cover in a fox hole thats actually a crater caused by mortar/artillery fire.
 
I hope BF3 is a damn sight better than BF2. I've been playing that all night and it was intolerable. Terrible gunplay, terrible hit detection, terrible iron sights, terrible interface/server browser/menus, every dickhead spamming grenades...the only good things about the game are the bigger maps and bigger player counts.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Plague_Injected said:
I hope BF3 is a damn sight better than BF2. I've been playing that all night and it was intolerable. Terrible gunplay, terrible hit detection, terrible iron sights, terrible interface/server browser/menus, every dickhead spamming grenades...the only good things about the game are the bigger maps and bigger player counts.
Click to expand...

Ah, the memories. I love that game....
 
Why should I get a generic FPS game that has no commander feature? The gameplay will totally suffer, how will players know where to go in a big map? BFBC2 has that map restriction thing will that be in BF3 as well? forcing you to head towards the same specific objective everytime you play on that same map? boringgggggg, i want strategy and a real commander who plays the whole thing like a chess game. And not just some race to the finish a la BFBC2.
 
Last edited:
dioxholster said:
Why should I get a generic FPS game that has no commander feature? The gameplay will totally suffer, how will players know where to go in a big map? BFBC2 has that map restriction thing will that be in BF3 as well? forcing you to head towards the same specific objective everytime you play on that same map? boringgggggg, i want strategy and a real commander who plays the whole thing like a chess game. And not just some race to the finish a la BFBC2.
Click to expand...

lol u'd be lucky to have a single squad listen to the commander's orders, let alone having the entire team under his control like chess pieces.
 
The lack of commander position is a bummer. Many times the difference between a winning team and a losing one is how good your commander is. That said, i'm still confidant it will be a great game and this detail does not make me think twice about whether or not I will be buying.
 
eon said:
lol u'd be lucky to have a single squad listen to the commander's orders, let alone having the entire team under his control like chess pieces.
Click to expand...


make them get more points or something for following orders and from my experience hardcore gamers did follow commands and they are the ones who carry the game and win the round for us.
 
fallguy said:
Im just glad Wake is in. Gulf of Oman too.
Click to expand...

I thought this was supposed to be the successor to BF2? Had you guys told me its an update to Bad Company 2 i wouldve been very happy. All I want is BF2 is today's graphics, it was perfect.
 
It would be nice if the entire point system takes into account what's currently going on. Make the entire points/experience system a dynamic thing. Giving bigger rewards to actions which contribute more to the team/squad. This would definitely motivate me to help the team out.

i.e. if you are loosing a flag, then kills around that flag should be worth more than a kill at a random spot in the map.


(in my head a Kill at a flag you are loosing/taking over is worth more than a random kill at the edge of a map)

I guess this would be a hard game model to sync-up. But well done could add to the game-play.
 
dioxholster said:
I thought this was supposed to be the successor to BF2? Had you guys told me its an update to Bad Company 2 i wouldve been very happy. All I want is BF2 is today's graphics, it was perfect.
Click to expand...

It was fun for its time but hardly perfect. Your looking through rose colored glasses like we all do at times. The game by today's standards is nasty. Nasty looking, handling and sloppy. For it's time it was a blast but wasn't perfect even back then. Let's call it what it is heh. Bf3 is looking good from what we're hearing so far.
 
Druneau said:
It would be nice if the entire point system takes into account what's currently going on. Make the entire points/experience system a dynamic thing. Giving bigger rewards to actions which contribute more to the team/squad. This would definitely motivate me to help the team out.

i.e. if you are loosing a flag, then kills around that flag should be worth more than a kill at a random spot in the map.


(in my head a Kill at a flag you are loosing/taking over is worth more than a random kill at the edge of a map)

I guess this would be a hard game model to sync-up. But well done could add to the game-play.
Click to expand...

That already kind of happens. In BC2 you can kill someone by a flag and you get the typical +50 and then a +20 or 30 for "flag defense." I think the same goes for M-com's too.
 
Druneau said:
It would be nice if the entire point system takes into account what's currently going on. Make the entire points/experience system a dynamic thing. Giving bigger rewards to actions which contribute more to the team/squad. This would definitely motivate me to help the team out.

i.e. if you are loosing a flag, then kills around that flag should be worth more than a kill at a random spot in the map.

I guess this would be a hard game model to sync-up. But well done could add to the game-play.
Click to expand...

BC2 employs a system like this. if you kill an near a flag or mcom you get something on the order of 30 extra "flag defender points". also if you resupply, heal, or repair a squad member you get additional points than if you did those for a non-squad teammate. you also get points for issuing an order to your squad (defend flag B, etc.) so long as they actually carry out your order. you don't get those points if your squad ignores your order. i think they did a decent job promoting teamwork in BC2.
 
Savoy said:
It was fun for its time but hardly perfect. Your looking through rose colored glasses like we all do at times. The game by today's standards is nasty. Nasty looking, handling and sloppy. For it's time it was a blast but wasn't perfect even back then. Let's call it what it is heh. Bf3 is looking good from what we're hearing so far.
Click to expand...

In terms of the elements and core principles it was perfect. And its still the best, although BF2142 did introduce a new dynamic to gameplay and I think it was under-rated then. A blend of these two with Bad Company 2 would be great. Already im not liking the NY or Paris settings, I think thats unrealistic, you dont see ARMA doing that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top