Battlefield 3 - Official Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Game looks great. Won't pay 60$ for a PC title.. But im sure it will be cheaper near launch .
 
I know you guys have posted this stuff already, but for those who don't want to sift through last 5 pages...

Frostbite 2.0 Tech Demo. Some more BF3 footage in there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c5gLhMfq0Q&feature=player_embedded#at=11

Multiplayer footage. Operation Metro which takes place in Paris:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aPu7-LtLKmU

1239788892_jizz-in-my-pants.gif


Single Player level "Thunder Run" playthrough. Includes Tank play:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UwOrl036_A&hd=1


System Requirements:
http://bf3blog.com/battlefield-3-system-requirements/
Minimum requirements for Battlefield 3
OS: Windows Vista or Windows 7
Processor: Core 2 Duo @ 2.0GHz
RAM: 2GB
Graphic card: DirectX 10 or 11 compatible Nvidia or AMD ATI card.
Graphics card memory: 512 MB
Hard drive: 15 GB for disc version or 10 GB for digital version

Recommended system requirements for Battlefield 3
OS: Windows 7 64-bit
Processor: Quad-core Intel or AMD CPU
RAM: 4GB
Graphics card: DirectX 11 Nvidia or AMD ATI card, GeForce GTX 460, Radeon Radeon HD 6850
Graphics card memory: 1 GB
Hard drive: 15 GB for disc version or 10 GB for digital version

1726009-shut_up_and_take_my_money_super.jpg
 
GullyFoyle said:
Those systems requirements are total conjecture on their part. Bad Company 2 specs with the one known DX10/DX11 GPU requirement for Frostbite 2 tacked on.

I suggest you wait for further word from DICE on this.
Click to expand...

Those requirements are much higher than BC2.
 
Damn! The visuals in that trailer are just ****ing astoundingly realistic! Environment, effects... it all looks fantastic.

I think they're going to nail large-scale multiplayer completely at this point, and crush all other military shooters by far.

I've been playing BF since it's inception, and while I was expecting them to be "upping the ante", every vid I've watched proves to me they've upped it to a level that no one will soon be able to equal.

90,000 hours of BF3 will destroy my life, but I'll enjoy every minute of it, lol.
 
v0rtic3s said:
I've been playing BF since it's inception, and while I was expecting them to be "upping the ante", every vid I've watched proves to me they've upped it to a level that no one will soon be able to equal.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was expecting a decent increase in the game experience, something along the lines of 9/10 across the board, but this is straight 11's if you ask me.

Unless you're a developer willing to put the PC platform first, you will never beat what DICE are doing, you won't even come close. Time for PCs to shine again :D
 
PrincessFrosty said:
Yeah I was expecting a decent increase in the game experience, something along the lines of 9/10 across the board, but this is straight 11's if you ask me.

Unless you're a developer willing to put the PC platform first, you will never beat what DICE are doing, you won't even come close. Time for PCs to shine again :D
Click to expand...

QFT, on your whole damn post!

Yeah, they're knocking BF3 completely out of the damn park. It's like a damn cinematic experience, even the multiplayer. If it turns out how it's appearing to turn out, then BF3 is going to be the military shooter to beat for years to come.
 
v0rtic3s said:
Yeah, they're knocking BF3 completely out of the damn park. It's like a damn cinematic experience, even the multiplayer. If it turns out how it's appearing to turn out, then BF3 is going to be the military shooter to beat for years to come.
Click to expand...


Remember all that cenematic buzzword BS from 4-5 years ago that all the developers were spouting? I think it has arrived.

I never thought I would spend 60 bucks on a PC game. BUT the BF series from the beginning has been the the greatest value in entertainment I have ever spent my money on. Pretty sure I am pretty sure I am around 5 cents per hour on series so far.
 
Everyone is getting their panties in a bunch because of the graphics in this game. It's exactly like in the first Crysis. Everyone drooled for graphics, but then complained about the gameplay. Will be interesting to see what happens with this one. Graphics look very good indeed, but graphics do not make a game, otherwise Crysis and Metro 2033 would be the best games ever thus far...
 
Silus said:
Everyone is getting their panties in a bunch because of the graphics in this game. It's exactly like in the first Crysis. Everyone drooled for graphics, but then complained about the gameplay. Will be interesting to see what happens with this one. Graphics look very good indeed, but graphics do not make a game, otherwise Crysis and Metro 2033 would be the best games ever thus far...
Click to expand...

what are you smoking. look at the videos. the animations, game enviorments, destruicble world, authentic game sounds, impressive tank gameplay all have nothing to do with graphics.

people are praising the game for a thousand different reasons besides graphics.
 
Gameplay? Im more worried about the server browser. The .net code! If it has bad menu's I wont play, and will most likely file a civil suit.

But seriously, the BF series has consistently had awesome multiplayer gameplay. Of course there are nits to pick, but the franchise has consistently nailed the multiplay gameplay.

The single player mode is tacked on to keep you busy in the rare occurrence that your internet goes out.
 
Silus said:
Everyone is getting their panties in a bunch because of the graphics in this game. It's exactly like in the first Crysis. Everyone drooled for graphics, but then complained about the gameplay. Will be interesting to see what happens with this one. Graphics look very good indeed, but graphics do not make a game, otherwise Crysis and Metro 2033 would be the best games ever thus far...
Click to expand...

Well to be fair 2033 is one of the better games I've played.
 
jonneymendoza said:
what are you smoking. look at the videos. the animations, game enviorments, destruicble world, authentic game sounds, impressive tank gameplay all have nothing to do with graphics.

people are praising the game for a thousand different reasons besides graphics.
Click to expand...

Impressive tank gameplay from a single video ? You haven't even played it yet...you just saw a video...

Game environments ? A war scenario deserves to be praised in BF3, when it was done to death in hundreds of other games ?

As for the thousand different reasons, it's certainly not evident in this thread. People mostly praise the graphics. And there's no question it deserves it...for graphics. The rest is something we will know only when the game comes out. It seems some people are just setting themselves up for disappointment, when everything they see in front of them are graphics. With Crysis it was the same thing and even Crysis 2, where for some the graphics were the deal breaker, regardless of what it did or did not in terms of gameplay...
 
Silus said:
Impressive tank gameplay from a single video ? You haven't even played it yet...you just saw a video...

Game environments ? A war scenario deserves to be praised in BF3, when it was done to death in hundreds of other games ?

As for the thousand different reasons, it's certainly not evident in this thread. People mostly praise the graphics. And there's no question it deserves it...for graphics. The rest is something we will know only when the game comes out. It seems some people are just setting themselves up for disappointment, when everything they see in front of them are graphics. With Crysis it was the same thing and even Crysis 2, where for some the graphics were the deal breaker, regardless of what it did or did not in terms of gameplay...
Click to expand...


I saw you write a variant on this in that PC gaming is dead thread.

There's one important detail here: This game isn't being half lazily ported FROM the consoles.
 
Silus said:
Impressive tank gameplay from a single video ? You haven't even played it yet...you just saw a video...

Game environments ? A war scenario deserves to be praised in BF3, when it was done to death in hundreds of other games ?

As for the thousand different reasons, it's certainly not evident in this thread. People mostly praise the graphics. And there's no question it deserves it...for graphics. The rest is something we will know only when the game comes out. It seems some people are just setting themselves up for disappointment, when everything they see in front of them are graphics. With Crysis it was the same thing and even Crysis 2, where for some the graphics were the deal breaker, regardless of what it did or did not in terms of gameplay...
Click to expand...
You haven't seen the other videos. People in this thread have already told you to watch the other videos.
jonneymendoza said:
what are you smoking. look at the videos. the animations, game enviorments, destruicble world, authentic game sounds, impressive tank gameplay all have nothing to do with graphics.

people are praising the game for a thousand different reasons besides graphics.
Click to expand...

Frostbite 2.0 Tech Demo. Some more BF3 footage in there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c5gLhMfq0Q&feature=player_embedded#at=11
This is the key video you need to pay attention to. Since your so hung up on thinking everyone praises graphics, focus on everything they show in this video except the rendering part.


Multiplayer footage. Operation Metro which takes place in Paris:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aPu7-LtLKmU
On this video, pay real close attention to everything just beyond the crosshairs. Things like a mine going off and chucking thousands of chunks of asphalt into the air, or a missle hitting the side of a building and causing it to collapse.
 
Last edited:
Lord knows this game is going to have more under the hood than Crysis ever thought about. Features, depth, great gameplay.
 
Jellylesg said:
Well to be fair 2033 is one of the better games I've played.
Click to expand...

I wasn't being unfair in my post. I loved both games, but they are not the best ever for sure. There's a big deficit of story in Crysis, but it has tons of gameplay, while in Metro 2033 the story is there, but it's so confined that there's not much gameplay to be had and it's a typical cinematic shooter on-rails.
From what I've seen of Battlefield 3, the game will please for graphics only. The single player experience will most likely be mediocre (crappy story and most likely on rails), with multiplayer being its strong point, while not being revolutionary in any way, just fun for those that like modern warfare shooters.
 
Q-BZ said:
I saw you write a variant on this in that PC gaming is dead thread.

There's one important detail here: This game isn't being half lazily ported FROM the consoles.
Click to expand...

What ? What are you on ? Crysis was a PC exclusive...
 
Silus said:
I wasn't being unfair in my post. I loved both games, but they are not the best ever for sure. There's a big deficit of story in Crysis, but it has tons of gameplay, while in Metro 2033 the story is there, but it's so confined that there's not much gameplay to be had and it's a typical cinematic shooter on-rails.
From what I've seen of Battlefield 3, the game will please for graphics only. The single player experience will most likely be mediocre (crappy story and most likely on rails), with multiplayer being its strong point, while not being revolutionary in any way, just fun for those that like modern warfare shooters.
Click to expand...

The BF series has NEVER been about single player.
 
Silus said:
Impressive tank gameplay from a single video ? You haven't even played it yet...you just saw a video...

Game environments ? A war scenario deserves to be praised in BF3, when it was done to death in hundreds of other games ?

As for the thousand different reasons, it's certainly not evident in this thread. People mostly praise the graphics. And there's no question it deserves it...for graphics. The rest is something we will know only when the game comes out. It seems some people are just setting themselves up for disappointment, when everything they see in front of them are graphics. With Crysis it was the same thing and even Crysis 2, where for some the graphics were the deal breaker, regardless of what it did or did not in terms of gameplay...
Click to expand...

Yea and the video tells a few things mate. get off your horse bruv. This game looks and sounds great
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
You haven't seen the other videos. People in this thread have already told you to watch the other videos.


Frostbite 2.0 Tech Demo. Some more BF3 footage in there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c5gLhMfq0Q&feature=player_embedded#at=11
This is the key video you need to pay attention to. Since your so hung up on thinking everyone praises graphics, focus on everything they show in this video except the rendering part.
Click to expand...

Had already seen this. What is it I need to focus on ? And how can I NOT focus on the rendering path if that's the only thing seen in a video ? Animations are good looking, environments look great, but they are all related with the art style (realistic one at that) and texture work, which is related with graphics and how the engine treats them. Explosions look nice (again graphic related), bullets fly off guns being fired (nothing new here, but they do look nice...more graphics). The only thing not graphics related in that video, is the audio part, which indeed is nice.

CaptNumbNutz said:
Multiplayer footage. Operation Metro which takes place in Paris:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aPu7-LtLKmU
On this video, pay real close attention to everything just beyond the crosshairs. Things like a mine going off and chucking thousands of chunks of asphalt into the air, or a missle hitting the side of a building and causing it to collapse.
Click to expand...

Thousands of chunks of asphalt into the air and a missile causing a side of building to collapse is what ? Graphics/physics or gameplay/story ? That's just graphics/physics...yes it's impressive, I already said it, but that does not make a game...

My point was simple. Don't hype this up to the point of disappointment when it's released. If you just want these great graphics on a modern warfare game, then great! I'm sure BF3 won't disappoint. But if you're waiting for something else, then you're probably expecting it to be something it won't be, like "the best PC game ever" as I've seen many times in such threads.
 
Silus said:
From what I've seen of Battlefield 3, the game will please for graphics only. The single player experience will most likely be mediocre (crappy story and most likely on rails), with multiplayer being its strong point, while not being revolutionary in any way, just fun for those that like modern warfare shooters.
Click to expand...
I will not argue the single player argument, because that is one thing you are spot on about. However....
Have you ever played any of the Battlefield games on the PC at all? If you had, you would have seen the progression of the games and how much BF3 has progressed over BF1942, BF2/2142, etc. etc. "Other modern warfare shooters"? "Not being revolutionary in any way"? Are you fucking kidding me? Can you play a map in any other shooter game today and have that same map be completely demolished by the end of the round? Can you also do this while having tanks, infantry, planes, and helicopters on the map at the same time? Can you also do this while having 64 players on the server at once? Can you also do this while having the largest map areas of any game currently out? Name one other "modern warfare shooter" out there that can do all these things. I dare you. The only one that comes close is the previous Battlefield game, Bad Company 2...but the scale of that game was still less than even Battlefield 2 that came out 6 years ago.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Yea and the video tells a few things mate. get off your horse bruv. This game looks and sounds great
Click to expand...

I understand what he's getting at and it's caution worth putting out there although he can correct me if I'm wrong. ;)

Graphics aren't everything. I think we all agree on that and understand that. :)



As awesome as it looks and will probably be...people need to slow down for a moment and not get TOO ahead of themselves if they expect something completely ground breaking, revolutionary, and all the rest. A game that does that is a very rare and infrequent phenomenon in general.

I think we can agree on that. I would be hesitant to put THOSE lofty of expectations on this but hey, if that happens, great!



I expect this thing to kick ass.

I expect to see minimal maybe even NO consolitits simply because we know that EA/Dice is NOT doing the usual "develop on consoles and flip it off" concept with this. That should embolden a lot of hope right off the bat for this.


I expect the EA/Dice "tradition" of some cluster@#$$ technical issues for a week or two after the game has streeted. ;)


The past BF games single player basically was you and bots on the maps. That's fine with me but I can't see giving a rats ass about SP at all when I fire this up. That's not what this series has ever been about and that's not what this game is going to be about.


I'm hoping to see something evolutionary. I think that's a realistic expectation.

I'm hoping and am expecting to see something that's going to be a wake up call to a lot of people that have fallen into COD doldrums and have forgotten how much more can be done.


I don't expect this game to be perfect. All told: It can't get here fast enough for me and I think the PC version will be a glowing positive for PC gaming. :)
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
I will not argue the single player argument, because that is one thing you are spot on about. However....
Have you ever played any of the Battlefield games on the PC at all? If you had, you would have seen the progression of the games and how much BF3 has progressed over BF1942, BF2/2142, etc. etc. "Other modern warfare shooters"? "Not being revolutionary in any way"? Are you fucking kidding me? Can you play a map in any other shooter game today and have that same map be completely demolished by the end of the round? Can you also do this while having tanks, infantry, planes, and helicopters on the map at the same time? Can you also do this while having 64 players on the server at once? Can you also do this while having the largest map areas of any game currently out? Name one other "modern warfare shooter" out there that can do all these things. I dare you. The only one that comes close is the previous Battlefield game, Bad Company 2...but the scale of that game was still less than even Battlefield 2 that came out 6 years ago.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have! Played 1942 and BF2 for a while. Tried 2142, but didn't like it.

So your argument is that because it's better than previous BF games and it adds some elements that those didn't have, it's revolutionary ? Isn't that what sequels are all about ? Adding new stuff to previous versions ?
It's also your argument that since no other game now has all those elements from a game (BF3) that isn't even out, makes it revolutionary ? Sorry, but revolution means a totally new concept. The only point where I might see a "revolution" is in the destructible environments. I have not seen anything to prove that we will be able to destroy everything in a map (I doubt it by the way), but assuming that it's entirely destructible, that is indeed something new. But again, I doubt that is the case, especially in multiplayer.

I understand that you are excited about the game (I am too), but the point I was making and that it should be quite clear, is that people are hyping this up way too much. That's usually the sign for a big disappointment. I'm waiting to be blown away by graphics, but as for the game itself, I'm just waiting for a realistic modern warfare shooter. Waiting for something more IMO, is a mistake.
 
Silus said:
I wasn't being unfair in my post. I loved both games, but they are not the best ever for sure. There's a big deficit of story in Crysis, but it has tons of gameplay, while in Metro 2033 the story is there, but it's so confined that there's not much gameplay to be had and it's a typical cinematic shooter on-rails.
Click to expand...

That's what I'd contend about it. I definitely played it like that the first time and enjoyed it, but once I found out about the additional depth to the story/gameplay depending on my approach I enjoyed it even more. Agreed on Crysis though, those games are balls.
 
Silus said:
Had already seen this. What is it I need to focus on ? And how can I NOT focus on the rendering path if that's the only thing seen in a video ? Animations are good looking, environments look great, but they are all related with the art style (realistic one at that) and texture work, which is related with graphics and how the engine treats them. Explosions look nice (again graphic related), bullets fly off guns being fired (nothing new here, but they do look nice...more graphics). The only thing not graphics related in that video, is the audio part, which indeed is nice.



Thousands of chunks of asphalt into the air and a missile causing a side of building to collapse is what ? Graphics/physics or gameplay/story ? That's just graphics/physics...yes it's impressive, I already said it, but that does not make a game...

My point was simple. Don't hype this up to the point of disappointment when it's released. If you just want these great graphics on a modern warfare game, then great! I'm sure BF3 won't disappoint. But if you're waiting for something else, then you're probably expecting it to be something it won't be, like "the best PC game ever" as I've seen many times in such threads.
Click to expand...

IMO Arma 3 will be better then this game but thats just me. Arma 3 will provide more innovative features but after tonights E3 conference. that could easily change if DICE announce some epic gameplay modes and features for online play.

You tend to forget we know hardly anything about this game mate
 
Silus said:
Impressive tank gameplay from a single video ? You haven't even played it yet...you just saw a video...

Game environments ? A war scenario deserves to be praised in BF3, when it was done to death in hundreds of other games ?

As for the thousand different reasons, it's certainly not evident in this thread. People mostly praise the graphics. And there's no question it deserves it...for graphics. The rest is something we will know only when the game comes out. It seems some people are just setting themselves up for disappointment, when everything they see in front of them are graphics. With Crysis it was the same thing and even Crysis 2, where for some the graphics were the deal breaker, regardless of what it did or did not in terms of gameplay...
Click to expand...

Silus, have you ever played ANY BF game ever? Seriously, have you? Cause if you haven't then you owe it to yourself to play one, pick one , any one. Then come back to this thread and question whether or not Dice knows how to make a fun,engrossing, and addictive MP game, period. Seriously I think the last thing we need to question after 10 years is whether or not Dice will hit it out of the park with a mainly MP focused game. get real a minute please. How can anyone after 10 years really ask themselves if this game will be a good game, graphics aside. I'm really shaking my head at this....makes no sense.:confused: Wait and see? Comparing this to crysis and metro? Dice has a proven track record of making great MP games....you think on their biggest one yet they are gonna decide to just fuck it up now? Come on dude...seriously.
 
My Opinion:
The DICE/BF target audience does not buy a FPS for single player fun. (I still havent played through the BC2 single player. Bots are boring. If I want a story I will watch a movie.)

The target audience will always at any given time be playing SOME type of war based FPS. It is a genre, not an interesting game idea. (I played COD in the lull between BF2 and BC2) It not only doesnt matter that this is just the sound/vid/physics/environment enhancement of BF2. It is actually will be best received if they did NOT extensively mess with the gameplay of BF2 and just added the goodies.

Think about it like this, peanut butter has been done to death. But if they add glitter it will be even better. But either way there will be millions of people enjoying peanut butter with out ever reaching for the jelly.
 
jonneymendoza said:
IMO Arma 3 will be better then this game but thats just me. Arma 3 will provide more innovative features but after tonights E3 conference. that could easily change if DICE announce some epic gameplay modes and features for online play.

You tend to forget we know hardly anything about this game mate
Click to expand...

I don't know about this. At least in this it won't take me three steps to do something simple and mundane like picking up a box of ammo. ;)
 
jonneymendoza said:
IMO Arma 3 will be better then this game but thats just me. Arma 3 will provide more innovative features but after tonights E3 conference. that could easily change if DICE announce some epic gameplay modes and features for online play.

You tend to forget we know hardly anything about this game mate
Click to expand...

Arma 2 was pretty rough, I beat both campaigns, they were buggy and not very much fun.
 
jonneymendoza said:
IMO Arma 3 will be better then this game but thats just me. Arma 3 will provide more innovative features but after tonights E3 conference. that could easily change if DICE announce some epic gameplay modes and features for online play.

You tend to forget we know hardly anything about this game mate
Click to expand...

How am I forgetting it ? I've been saying that in almost EVERY post in this thread...we are only seeing the graphics in the videos. Gameplay wise all we see is it's a modern warfare shooter and we can drive tanks (and IIRC there's also a video with a small portion of an aircraft flight, but that's no surprise since in BF2 we could also pilot jet fighters, helicopters, etc)...

Anyway, people are way too hostile because I'm being cautious. Have fun hyping the game beyond realistic levels, just because it has great graphics. I'll stick with my cautious approach and will enjoy the game for what it will surely be: a modern warfare shooter with amazing graphics.
 
Looks like with the live demo having kicked off, the multiplayer embargo has lifted!

PC.IGN.com - E3 2011: Battlefield 3's Multiplayer -- Experience in Action

DICE puts 10 years and eight games of work into their latest multiplayer shooter.
June 7, 2011
by Anthony Gallegos

Battlefield 3 is developer DICE's eighth game in the franchise. With over a decade of experience in the multiplayer shooter space, Battlefield 3 represents its attempt to make their biggest, most inclusive shooter yet. Accessibility is a huge mandate for the studio (with the team focusing on making a game that appeals to both team players, lone wolves, console owners and the hardcore PC audience), but above all else, fun is king. From listening to the community, to examining the failings of their previous games, to making a title that takes full advantage of their new engine, Battlefield 3's multiplayer is a work in progress. Unpolished as it is, though, it's already a hell of a lot of fun.

The new, cheesy-sounding philosophy DICE is taking with Battlefield 3 is "Play it Your Way." While hollow PR babble on the surface, in practice it reflects their desire to make Battlefield as universally appealing to shooter fans as possible. To this end the levels will be varied, from giant stages full of jets and armored vehicles, to the more funneled stages like the Paris one I got to play. While there were armored personnel carriers in the level, it was largely a corridor stage, focusing first and foremost on player's gun skills as opposed to a cooperative effort of vehicles and soldiers. It may have started in an open park (which itself still felt relatively small since players were fenced in by walls and rivers), but within moments the level was small, 50 ft wide corridors and cramped hallways. The hope appears to be to create an experience that'll give the hardcore, long-time fans what they desire in a battlefield experience, but also to have stages that appeal to the more arena-style fans that play games like Call of Duty. Don't go abandoning hope and lamenting the end of the franchise, though, as I'm assured many of the levels we've yet to see will bring back the epic-sized conflicts the franchise is known for.

Classes have also been redesigned in Battlefield 3, giving players new ways to customize their load outs to suit their play style. Riflemen now double as medics, healing players and reviving those who are downed. The Support class is now equipped with a light machinegun and ammo packs, the sniper is a long-range and demolitions expert, and the Engineer is the master of destroying and repairing vehicles. With weapon attachments players can adapt the classes to how they want to play, with Riflemen choosing things like underslung grenade launchers in place of advanced medical equipment, for instance.

The Support class was super important in Battlefield: Bad Company 2 because it could heal, but they're given a new role in Battlefield 3:suppression. Shooting in an enemy's general direction is important in real combat, giving your own team a chance to move and gain position while the enemies are frightened into running for cover. Battlefield 3 takes this into account, and anyone firing a hail of lead near foes – something the Support class is especially good at, much more so with a fancy bi-pod attachment – will suppress the enemy. This not only garners points for the shooter, but dims and shakes the screen of those affected. Shooting to kill is an important role, but shooting to provide actual supporting fire is now emphasized as well.

Vehicles have also been tweaked in Battlefield 3, in hopes of making them more fun for both the operator and passengers. Vehicles regenerate small amounts of health when damaged, but in order to heal to full will need the assistance of an Engineer. Vehicles can also be immobilized right before destruction, forcing an Engineer to intervene to save it, and giving the passengers a chance to bail out. The hope is that this will alleviate a lot of the rage that comes from a team jumping into a humvee, only to be destroyed by one well placed rocket. Yes, the rocket might kill the person it blows up right next to, but the whole squad won't be punished for one crazy driver, or feel like vehicles are death traps.


Two tweaks that stood out during the time I played, and really show DICE's commitment to making the experience better and better, were the inclusion of prone and the ability to opt out of revive. Prone could be dangerous to the balance, as it makes players incredibly hard to discern at a distance, but to balance this DICE is finding new ways to make the cost match the benefits. You might be harder to see, but your lens will flash if a player looks at it, and getting up and laying down takes time that will cost you if someone is close. Revive was also something that players liked in Battlefield: Bad Company 2, but it was annoying when someone would revive you for points, only to do so when you were going to stand up right in an enemy's fire. Now you can opt out of a revive, looking to see how safe it is before you make a decision about whether a respawn at a different location would be more effective. It's a small change, and one of those head-slap inducing choices that seem obvious, but a testament to the time, experience and passion DICE has for making Battlefield 3 as fun and balanced as possible.

My playtime was entirely too short, but Battlefield 3 is following a proven formula that's been created by, refined and tweaked by one of the best first-person shooter developers in the world. If the single-player manages to live up to expectations, and the multiplayer keeps getting even better, it might not be long before there's a new king of modern warfare.
Click to expand...
 
Silus said:
Had already seen this. What is it I need to focus on ? And how can I NOT focus on the rendering path if that's the only thing seen in a video ? Animations are good looking, environments look great, but they are all related with the art style (realistic one at that) and texture work, which is related with graphics and how the engine treats them. Explosions look nice (again graphic related), bullets fly off guns being fired (nothing new here, but they do look nice...more graphics). The only thing not graphics related in that video, is the audio part, which indeed is nice.



Thousands of chunks of asphalt into the air and a missile causing a side of building to collapse is what ? Graphics/physics or gameplay/story ? That's just graphics/physics...yes it's impressive, I already said it, but that does not make a game...

My point was simple. Don't hype this up to the point of disappointment when it's released. If you just want these great graphics on a modern warfare game, then great! I'm sure BF3 won't disappoint. But if you're waiting for something else, then you're probably expecting it to be something it won't be, like "the best PC game ever" as I've seen many times in such threads.
Click to expand...

Your post here pretty much eliminates every aspect of a game except for storytelling...and if your looking for even just a good story from Battlefield, then your spot on, its gonna be a huge let down for you and anyone else that is anticipating such a thing from a Battlefield game.

We all (should) know by now after all these years and many iterations of the franchise that singleplayer has never been a focus for DICE. Though, if you go through each iteration and take a look at the singleplayer experiance from 1942 to Bad Company 2, there is a marked improvement in the experiance from a simple bot match on multiplayer maps in 1942 to a framework story in Bad Company 2 (though I havent played BC2 sp myself).

I fully agree that the chances of a FULLY destructible enviroment arent here yet and won't be with BF3. When I say fully, I mean bringing any and all buildings down to nothing but a pile of rubble, the resource demand would be massive. I know you can do that now with BC2, but DICE has brought destruction down to a much finer level in BF3 than it is in BC2.

Even with resource demand aside, imagine having all buildings completely destructable and then bringing airplanes into the picture. A single 500 lbs bomb would demolish a building and bring it down, a strafing run would shred the side of a building, so as a pilot, you could just systematically and strategically drop a building or two, reload, drop a building or two, rinse and repeat until the entire map is flattened, then dropping a bomb or a strafing run on basically an open field of enemy would lopside the game. Sure, ground forces will have AA capability, but whats the use of it if you can't get concealment when a plane drops through the clouds right on top of you and drops payload before you know he's up there.

Real world war rarely gets a revolution, WWI was the last time we've experianced that, so don't expect revolution from something that is imitating the real world but evolution, Battlefield 3 WILL be an evolution of modern war games for sure and I for one can't fucking wait.
 
Wow. I love the ideas in that article, thanks for linking it. Actual suppressing fire really should add a lot to teamplay and add a whole new layer to the game. Put down some smoke, then covering fire to go take an mcom...awesome.

Also, I LOVE that they're changing vehicles up a bit. HMMVs and other such vehicles were basically useless except as a quick transport out of spawn and ditched long before taking enemy fire. No, it shouldn't be a tank, but it shouldn't be as completely useless as it is now.

As for 100% destrutible maps, as cool as it would be technology wise that doesn't mean it would actually be good for gameplay. Does anyone build maps that are nothing but rubble with no cover? No, because it wouldn't be very much fun. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top