Battlefield 3 - Official Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Love it! Haha. You guys were the ones I always TK'd! :p

Yeah the commo rose was way better then just hitting "Q." Faster or not, it was a lot more detailed and provided means of communication for those without a mic and did not type well. Havig members of your squad in BC2 without a mic is just frustrating...

Affirmative
Affirmative
Affirmative
Roger
Affirmative
Affirmative
Roger
 
Last edited:
When I last played BF2... people would not shut the fuck up on the radio. Holy god. Hopefully BF3 is less intrusive/annoying.
 
I got annoyed when the commander spammed the comma rose.

ENEMY INFANTRY SPOTTED!
ENEMY INFANTRY SPOTTED!
ENEMY INFANTRY SPOTTED!

Ok I get it, I see them, can you stop? I hope Bf3 isn't as annoying like that.
 
Plague_Injected said:
PS3 owners are whinging that the PS3 version doesn't look as good as the PC version...
Click to expand...

Because the PS3's graphics processing capabilities are about 1/20th that of a decent PC.

IllegalEagle said:
ENEMY BOAT SPOTTED.
ENEMY BOAT SPOTTED.
ENEMY BOAT SPOTTED.
ENEMY BOAT SPOTTED.
ENEMY BOAT SPOTTED.
Click to expand...

NEED A DISPENSER HERE.
NEED A DISPENSER HERE.
NEED A DISPENSE...oh wait.
 
VF31Tomcatters said:
I got annoyed when the commander spammed the comma rose.

ENEMY INFANTRY SPOTTED!
ENEMY INFANTRY SPOTTED!
ENEMY INFANTRY SPOTTED!

Ok I get it, I see them, can you stop? I hope Bf3 isn't as annoying like that.
Click to expand...

That was usually a good indication that you had at least a half decent Commander. You would really have to worry when you didn't hear anything from them.
 
PrincessFrosty said:
Because the PS3's graphics processing capabilities are about 1/20th that of a decent PC.
Click to expand...

I know...tell that to the millions of PS3noobs who believe every crack-induced delusion Kaz Hirai spins them. 360 fanboys are bad as well but they don't quite have the same "OMG my console was designed by God himself and can do anything!!!" mentality that the PS3 fanboys carry on with.

Another indicator of what we're dealing with when it comes to the console crowds: COD fans are whinging that BF3 will only be 720p when "COD is 1080p!" - yet COD on consoles is 600p...

One of the DICE guys commented about the backlash on his Twitter saying that if the PS3 graphics looked the same as the PC, it would mean they would failed with the PC version.
 
It's a myth that has gone on too long for the current generation.

In previous generations the PC simply left the consoles in the dirt, and everything about the world was right. In the current generation games have been made equal for all platforms for the last 5 odd years and so the average PC has been steadily growing in power with nothing to spend that on other than higher and higher resolutions and more AA/AF.

That's why I like BF3 so much, not only will it be an immensely awesome product in and of itself, but it's also going to shift the way games are made towards the old style of thinking, simply making the next CoD every generation will not be enough to compete with the big boys, I'm just as excited at what that shift will bring us.
 
I hope more devs follow DICE approach with BF3. Make game with PC capabilities in mind and then port down to consoles...it can be done! :eek:

Although I'm not holding my breath. :p October can't come soon enough...
 
Plague_Injected said:
I know...tell that to the millions of PS3noobs who believe every crack-induced delusion Kaz Hirai spins them. 360 fanboys are bad as well but they don't quite have the same "OMG my console was designed by God himself and can do anything!!!" mentality that the PS3 fanboys carry on with.

Another indicator of what we're dealing with when it comes to the console crowds: COD fans are whinging that BF3 will only be 720p when "COD is 1080p!" - yet COD on consoles is 600p...

One of the DICE guys commented about the backlash on his Twitter saying that if the PS3 graphics looked the same as the PC, it would mean they would failed with the PC version.
Click to expand...

PS3 has some damn beautiful games. Still, I'm a PC gamer first and foremost.
 
randomhero58 said:
I hope more devs follow DICE approach with BF3. Make game with PC capabilities in mind and then port down to consoles...it can be done! :eek:

Although I'm not holding my breath. :p October can't come soon enough...
Click to expand...


if anything even if they don't follow their approach i hope it makes other dev's realize just how much better the dx10/11 API's are and whats possible with them. that alone will benefit PC gaming the most i think. either way i think BF3 is a wake up call to the entire PC gaming industry.
 
RX3 said:
Nice info kettle! From what I have seen and heard, it will be more like BC2 than BF2
Click to expand...

Thats true. But classes are not the same.

I read somewhere some asked about the recoil and i notice was more recoil then BC2. It was now harder to control your fire then it was in BC2, specially the machine gun for the Support class i found quite hard to control the fire - dident really know how i best could use a good line of fire (?). You get now also points if you suppress enemy if you playing support.

Healing are now slower then it was in BC2.
 
PrincessFrosty said:
It's a myth that has gone on too long for the current generation.

In previous generations the PC simply left the consoles in the dirt, and everything about the world was right. In the current generation games have been made equal for all platforms for the last 5 odd years and so the average PC has been steadily growing in power with nothing to spend that on other than higher and higher resolutions and more AA/AF.

That's why I like BF3 so much, not only will it be an immensely awesome product in and of itself, but it's also going to shift the way games are made towards the old style of thinking, simply making the next CoD every generation will not be enough to compete with the big boys, I'm just as excited at what that shift will bring us.
Click to expand...

I also fear a new wave of "OMG UNOPTIMISED SHIT" with BF3, because some PC gamers have been so used to running every multiplatform game at 2560x1600 (or something more moderate like 1920x1200) with maximum AA and AF for years now, and they probably won't be able to do that with BF3.


SolidSnakeUS said:
PS3 has some damn beautiful games. Still, I'm a PC gamer first and foremost.
Click to expand...

I just don't see it. I look at Killzone 2 and I see painfully low-res textures everywhere, I look at Killzone 3 and Uncharted 2 and see oversharpened, jaggy messes. The best looking console games so far in terms of technicality (not artistic, that's a different debate) tend to be multiplatform (Crysis 2, BF3, RDR, maybe Rage).
 
Last edited:
Yes, very good point.

I hear there is a lot of DX11 optimization going in which should help mitigate the huge hit to frame rate we'll take running at max settings, but it's going to be a struggle. I've already shifted my expectations away from 2560x1600 to 1920x1200, my overclocked 5970 deals with BC2 quite well in 2560x1600 but it does have it's moments.

We're planning a LAN around the beta release for BF3, also plan to run it on my computer on 1080p and clone the output to my projector so the first look of the game is on the big screen. I can't wait.
 
Plague_Injected said:
I also fear a new wave of "OMG UNOPTIMISED SHIT" with BF3, because some PC gamers have been so used to running every multiplatform game at 2560x1600 (or something more moderate like 1920x1200) with maximum AA and AF for years now, and they probably won't be able to do that with BF3.
Click to expand...

That's what I worry about too. The amount of people who ignorantly claim "ZOMG CRYSIS/WARHEAD WAS SO UNOPTIMISED" because it did not run well on their crappy obsolete machines, but who then at the same time claim that Crysis 2 is optimized, is actually astounding.

The fact of the matter is that there is very little out there which has come close to offering what Crysis and Warhead did in terms of visual effects/fidelity in an hybrid sandbox environment, but some people just cant seem to rationalise this.

Plague_Injected said:
I just don't see it. I look at Killzone 2 and I see painfully low-res textures everywhere, I look at Killzone 3 and Uncharted 2 and see oversharpened, jaggy messes. The best looking console games so far in terms of technicality (not artistic, that's a different debate) tend to be multiplatform (Crysis 2, BF3, RDR, maybe Rage).
Click to expand...

Cannot say I disagree, but what I do notice is that the PS3 exclusive games tend to have far better graphics compared to multiplatform releases. Yes that's not saying much when you have PC visuals as the reference point, but they certainly do look better than other titles released on it, e.g. God of War 3 and Uncharted 1 & 2.
 
More rubbish being stirred up by journalists:

Battlefield 3′s awe-inspiring tank battle demonstration at E3 was run on a PC, and it wasn’t to make a statement about mouse-and-keyboard superiority. The game, according to developer DICE, will run at 60 frames per second on the PC—but 30 fps on the Xbox 360 and PS3.

Call of Duty‘s latest entries run at 60 fps, both PC and console, to deliver that smoove gameplay. Of course, Battlefield 3 is touting a higher level of visual detail, including fully destructible environments, larger maps, etc.

While 30 fps sounds pretty crap, this isn’t unprecedented; Crysis 2 ran at 30 fps on consoles. And Battlefield 3‘s PS3 demonstration, in Luke’s eyes, was still pretty good-looking.

To repeat, Battlefield 3 is 60 fps on the PC, which it had better goddamn well be. I don’t want to imagine the rioting if it were anything less. Such things matter intensely to the glorious PC gaming master race. Do they matter for the console peasants?
Click to expand...

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/06/console-battlefield-3-is-half-the-fps-of-modern-warfare-3/

Wow just wow....comparing a linear corridor game which has essentially remained unchanged from the past 3 iterations to another game which pushes boundaries in terms of physics and openness, and at the same time ignoring the multitude of console games with a 30 fps cap for the sake of sensationalism?

No wonder this industry is going down the fucking toilet in terms of moral hazard and integrity.
 
LOL @ Kotaku. It will only be 60fps on PC if players have the hardware to run it and/or are willing to run the game at lower settings and resolutions. What an idiotic analysis of the two versions.
 
No wonder there are so many misguided and uninformed users out in the world:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNnJqJ9hO4w"]YouTube - ‪The Best of GameTrailers‬‏[/ame]
 
defiant007 said:
No wonder there are so many misguided and uninformed users out in the world:
Click to expand...

Watching that was kinda retarded!

I mean, if people out there are this dumb to believe BS like that, I have no hope for humanity at all!
 
Crash250f said:
Sorry but it has to be said. If you're paying that much attention to k/d, maybe the BF series isn't right for you.
Click to expand...
Yes, after playing every BF game since 1942, maybe I should stop playing them now because they are console ported pieces of shit and almost every aspect is consolized.
 
Dethred said:
Yes, after playing every BF game since 1942, maybe I should stop playing them now because they are console ported pieces of shit and almost every aspect is consolized.
Click to expand...

Bad Company was never intended to be a replacement for the Battlefield primary line of games, so your argument isn't particularly relevant. If BF3 winds up being BC3, I'm sure we'll all be pissed.
 
Dethred said:
Yes, after playing every BF game since 1942, maybe I should stop playing them now because they are console ported pieces of shit and almost every aspect is consolized.
Click to expand...

Well that's a completely different statement than your original one. Initially, you said you were going to skip this game if being revived after a death didn't include a death in your score, much like it was in BF2 (the computer exclusive), and not like it is in BC2 (the console port).

I have no problem with you not wanting to play this game, but if you're listing inconsistent reasons on a forum I read, I'm going to question it. :)
 
saedrin said:
Bad Company was never intended to be a replacement for the Battlefield primary line of games, so your argument isn't particularly relevant. If BF3 winds up being BC3, I'm sure we'll all be pissed.
Click to expand...

It won't be BC3 but it will borrow quite a bit from BC2 (hopefully only the good stuff).
 
I hope it does, at least some of the hardcore mode aspects. I enjoy BC2 quite a bit, but I can't wait for 64 player maps and true Battlefield vehicle fighting.
 
Yeah. As much as I love the battlefield series and enjoyed BC2, there are a lot of elements I'm seeing the BF3 videos borrow from BC2. I really am clinging to nothing but hope that it will be closer to BF2 than BC2. I really hope it's just the UI they've taken.
 
defiant007 said:
More rubbish being stirred up by journalists:



http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/06/console-battlefield-3-is-half-the-fps-of-modern-warfare-3/

Wow just wow....comparing a linear corridor game which has essentially remained unchanged from the past 3 iterations to another game which pushes boundaries in terms of physics and openness, and at the same time ignoring the multitude of console games with a 30 fps cap for the sake of sensationalism?

No wonder this industry is going down the fucking toilet in terms of moral hazard and integrity.
Click to expand...


not to mention cod is ran on an engine thats 10 years old ie quake? LOL
 
Crash250f said:
Well that's a completely different statement than your original one. Initially, you said you were going to skip this game if being revived after a death didn't include a death in your score, much like it was in BF2 (the computer exclusive), and not like it is in BC2 (the console port).

I have no problem with you not wanting to play this game, but if you're listing inconsistent reasons on a forum I read, I'm going to question it. :)
Click to expand...

I was being facetious and yes, there are other reasons for skipping this game than one aspect. But everytime I delve deeper past the obvious bones they've thrown us (64 players, jets, and a couple more) it looks EXACTLY like a sequel to BC2.
 
I can't wait for this game, will buy it once it comes out. The graphics looking stunning, I wonder how my GTX 580's in SLI it fare under full settings.
 
So you're saying if you ignore all this other stuff it looks like BC2?

I could say that if I ignore all the BC2 stuff it looks like BF3.

It's going to be a mix of both, the engine is an improvement on one that BC2 uses so it's going to feel a lot more like BC2.

The thing is BC2 is actually a good game, a lot of PC gamers who loved the old BF series found it to be surprisingly good, while it has its failings it brought a new level of game play into the game where destruction actually mattered tactically.

I wouldn't want BF3 to be a straight re-make, I think it's good that they're mixing BC2 and BF2, smart move to get best of both worlds.
 
PrincessFrosty said:
So you're saying if you ignore all this other stuff it looks like BC2?

I could say that if I ignore all the BC2 stuff it looks like BF3.

It's going to be a mix of both, the engine is an improvement on one that BC2 uses so it's going to feel a lot more like BC2.

The thing is BC2 is actually a good game, a lot of PC gamers who loved the old BF series found it to be surprisingly good, while it has its failings it brought a new level of game play into the game where destruction actually mattered tactically.

I wouldn't want BF3 to be a straight re-make, I think it's good that they're mixing BC2 and BF2, smart move to get best of both worlds.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with this.

BC2 brought some pretty cool stuff to the table. As a matter of fact, if you took BC2, added more vehicles, increased map sizes and then upped the player max to 64, I'd be like a pig in shit.

BC2 had some consolitis, but all in all that aside, it was pretty damn good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top