Battlefield 3 - Official Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chris_B said:
Blog Update:

http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/bat...29/bf3-battleblog-1-multiplayer-overview.aspx
Click to expand...

For all the worriers id say this is the comment that caught my eye the most: "Most of all, I’m excited we are finally returning to the core Battlefield series after a six year wait. I was Lead Designer on Battlefield 2 back then, and with Battlefield 3 I think we have the ability and the tools to create something truly amazing."


Like iv said before, all the guys that created and were in charge of BF2 back then are in the same roles/positions now with BF3. I love the tweaks because as awesome as BF2 was, the HUGE maps that were FULLY open was ruff. I want HUGE maps, but like "Operation Metro" the idea of Huge to claustrophobic to huge again sounds perfect.
 
there is no reason for the devs to remove snipers. servers can be set up to disable certain weapons.

if you dont like snipers find a no sniper server.
 
Snipers are part of the game get over it already, god. If not snipers you guys would whine about something else. I mean what would make you happy...everyone running around as assault with m4's?
 
Savoy said:
Snipers are part of the game get over it already, god. If not snipers you guys would whine about something else. I mean what would make you happy...everyone running around as assault with m4's?
Click to expand...

BEST POST on this thus far. :D
 
Actually they should make you rebuild the destructible buildings after the fighting is all over. If you are going for realism go all the way.
 
Savoy said:
Snipers are part of the game get over it already, god. If not snipers you guys would whine about something else. I mean what would make you happy...everyone running around as assault with m4's?
Click to expand...

It's the unkempt masses of snipers that sit back and do absolutely nothing that annoy the average PC gamer, and for good reason - they aren't capping the point, and most of them aren't very good and don't even bother to spam Q when they spot (but don't hit) enemies.
 
bart1975 said:
Actually they should make you rebuild the destructible buildings after the fighting is all over. If you are going for realism go all the way.
Click to expand...

So one round of absolute mayhem, and then a subsequent 'clean up'? Bulldozers instead of tanks? Would the snipers be the foremen? :p
 
JaYp146 said:
It's the unkempt masses of snipers that sit back and do absolutely nothing that annoy the average PC gamer, and for good reason - they aren't capping the point, and most of them aren't very good and don't even bother to spam Q when they spot (but don't hit) enemies.
Click to expand...

I found the problem, you're playing on non-hardcore.
 
SUPERGT said:
So one round of absolute mayhem, and then a subsequent 'clean up'? Bulldozers instead of tanks? Would the snipers be the foremen? :p
Click to expand...

Maybe someone will make a parody game that forces you to rebuild everything. Best parody game I have seen so far is DutyCalls.
 
JaYp146 said:
It's the unkempt masses of snipers that sit back and do absolutely nothing that annoy the average PC gamer, and for good reason - they aren't capping the point, and most of them aren't very good and don't even bother to spam Q when they spot (but don't hit) enemies.
Click to expand...

That and not using the mortar strike, not even when they're being pounded by tanks in Conquest mode.
 
WhyYouLoveMe said:
What a ridiculous statement. That's disappointing. :confused:
Click to expand...

my bet is this game is really a port, but it's being touted as being built for the pc not consoles....MY ASS.

BC2 looks eerily familiar to BF3...with a tad more eye candy...
 
So we think it’s going to be too big of a challenge for people to make a mod.
Click to expand...
I see that as people being a bit full of themselves...I think the real motivation behind it is they dont have the time/money to develop the tools.

Though at least they've come out and said they arent going to release any instead of saying "we will look it into it" or "maybe after the launch".
 
My new theory for this game is as follows.

They are looking to broaden sales while not pissing off PC gamers ala Modern Warfare 2. To do so they realized they can claim it is PC primary, thus capturing the PC audience, while not upsetting the thumb monkey console player (they will buy anything with big explosions anyways).

Next, they decided they must strategically maneuver to avoid being "figured out". Logically, they decided to release details such as 64 players, prone, and a whole bunch of bullshit that should be considered mandatory for a sequel to BF2. In addition to those facts, they slowly trickle out the bad details in such a fashion that won't alarm the community at large (no commander, health regeneration, no magazines, etc). Meanwhile they dangle a few maps that should have been put into the game on launch day, and require you to pre-order to get them for free. Naturally, you go and pre-order and are locked into the purchase. As pr-order numbers begin to calm down, they are free to slowly reveal that the game is just BC3 with some half-chewed bones thrown into the mix to keep PC gamers from revolting.

Right now we are in the "let out info revealing it to be another console ported piece of shit" phase.
 
With every passing day I'm losing more and more hope I had for this game.

4 player squads, 3d spotting (ugh), no commander, tiny maps, no mod tools.....How is this a PC focused "true sequel" to Battlefield 2 again? Because it has 64 players, prone, and jets? LOL.

The most disheartening thing so far has deifnitely been the multiplayer footage that is out there. It is a carbon copy of Bad Company 2 except it's built on a newer engine.

3 months from release and there are almost no concrete details about multiplayer. It seems like DICE themselves aren't even sure how MP is gonna turn out. I get the feeling that the game is being rushed for release big time just so they can have a better chance of de-throning MW3. I'd rather wait an extra 6 months or more and get a complete and feature filled game.
 
Dethred said:
My new theory for this game is as follows.

They are looking to broaden sales while not pissing off PC gamers ala Modern Warfare 2. To do so they realized they can claim it is PC primary, thus capturing the PC audience, while not upsetting the thumb monkey console player (they will buy anything with big explosions anyways).

Next, they decided they must strategically maneuver to avoid being "figured out". Logically, they decided to release details such as 64 players, prone, and a whole bunch of bullshit that should be considered mandatory for a sequel to BF2. In addition to those facts, they slowly trickle out the bad details in such a fashion that won't alarm the community at large (no commander, health regeneration, no magazines, etc). Meanwhile they dangle a few maps that should have been put into the game on launch day, and require you to pre-order to get them for free. Naturally, you go and pre-order and are locked into the purchase. As pr-order numbers begin to calm down, they are free to slowly reveal that the game is just BC3 with some half-chewed bones thrown into the mix to keep PC gamers from revolting.

Right now we are in the "let out info revealing it to be another console ported piece of shit" phase.
Click to expand...

Pretty much what I just said as well.
 
I have no doubt its gonna have a BC2 feel to it. BC2 was the last game in the franchise they made and being that its a modern combat based game, BF3 is going to be an evolution of that formula, just as BF2 was of 1942 and so on.

I dont think they are trying to work the PC gamers over by releasing "bad" details here and there. It's kind of a side effect of developing a multi-platform game, decisions have to be made to allow consistancy across all platforms without alienating any single platform, otherwise you become a COD or a Crysis 2.

Also, of course you are going to release the big exciting features first and foremost when your trying to build hype for your game, and of course your going to NOT talk about the stuff some players aren't going to be happy about....your trying to promote your game.


@ superhuman: Im sure we can make due with 4 man squads, 3d spotting can be taken care of with playing hardcore mode, and how do you know the maps are going to be tiny? I haven't seen (not to say it doesnt exist) any information that says maps will be equivilent size of XXxXX miles. Yes, they have stated there will be rush modes which is a map cut up into sections you battle across...but thats rush mode...its how that is played. Im sure conquest will be quite large, even just the logistics of flying a jet. I know they said jets will have a larger flyable area than infantry can play in but seriously....it wouldnt be anywhere near as fun if infantry were confined to say...3 city blocks and jets could fly 10, that would ruin the immersion and pretty much screw you out of using ejection the majority of the time.

Multiplayer footage is of a map that doesnt involve jets, helicopters, or tanks. We've had a look at an APC and thats it, of course its gonna look more like BC2 since that map was similar in scope to BC2. Ever thought that DICE was giving a sneak peak of the game without giving away too much...possibily attempting to control information leakage?


People are gonna be critical and negative...human nature and as a modern generation pc gamer, I can't blame anyone, we've been screwed over with TONS of shit ass console ports and made the afterthought when we are the guys that made gaming what it is (no original pc gamers = no need for dedcated gaming machine). But DICE hasn't delivered a steaming pile of dog shit in that form yet, so I think we should give them the benefit of a doubt and reserve our judgements till the game is released and gotten some playtime (NOT review time)


P.S. Pre-orders can be cancelled....blows that theory of negative info phase out of the water.
 
lol @ the people expecting mod tools. Valve is supposed to be releasing the SourceSDK for free soon and there are lots of amazing source mods to play.
 
I do not think the game will suck. I just do not believe it will be an evolutionary descendant of BF2. More likely BFBC2-ish.

It is going to have strong console flavor to it. I like BFBC2 well enough though. Not a big issue to me.

No modding tools? RO2 is releasing tools. Hell, the Storm Rising mod has been in development using the new ROA2 engine as long as RO2 has been!
 
Ah man, didn't know 3d spotting was confirmed. That's the worst new addition that BC brought to the series imo. I know you can play hardcore, and I usually do, but there's definitely things I don't like about that mode too, such as hp just being too low for how easy guns are to shoot these days, and also having to pull up the full map to make spotting useful at all. Why the fuck couldn't they just keep minimap spotting? It's the best and only way it should be done imo, and they fucked with it.
 
Valshistixol said:
lol @ the people expecting mod tools. Valve is supposed to be releasing the SourceSDK for free soon and there are lots of amazing source mods to play.
Click to expand...

They were amazing when they came out 5 years ago. Now they just feel clumsy and awkward, since we got a hold of better stuff on crisper engines.
 
This is the problem I think some of you don't quite realize. BF2 was a pure PC game. It, to this day, signifies how much deeper and better a PC game can be over its console rivals. Some of us have been waiting for a successor to come along for 6 years!

Here we are, 6 years later, and that successor is going to be a stripped down consolized piece of shit. Is the game going to be fun? Most likely for a while. Is it going to be as fun as a true PC successor to BF2 and 2142? No way in hell.

What this signifies to many (thousands) of us Battlefield PC enthusiasts is the death of the brand. There will be no proper BF3 because this hybrid bastard is taking its place. I personally considered BF to be the last bastion of hope for true PC FPS games... and its going to be a console port yet again. And to rub salt into the wound, DICE is going to keep harping on the lie that this is being developed for PC and trimmed down for consoles. We're not stupid.
 
Dethred said:
rabble rabble rabble /snip.
Click to expand...

Clearly judging by every video and screenshot thus far, it is being built to take advantage of the power PCs can bring to the game. The gameplay can only be judged once it is available. Anything else is just much ado about nothing.
 
TwistedAegis said:
Clearly judging by every video and screenshot thus far, it is being built to take advantage of the power PCs can bring to the game. The gameplay can only be judged once it is available. Anything else is just much ado about nothing.
Click to expand...

+1 Clearly the engine on PC is going to be graphically way more demanding then the console version. To call it a true "console port" is not going to be accurate. I'll bite that removing commander, a feature which would be very hard to use on console, does water it down a bit. But in no way is this a "console port."
 
Jellylesg said:
They were amazing when they came out 5 years ago. Now they just feel clumsy and awkward, since we got a hold of better stuff on crisper engines.
Click to expand...

I'm really not concerned with the game engine but with gameplay. Dystopia and Source Forts are way more fun than 99% of the garbage that is released on a daily basis.
 
Superhuman said:
With every passing day I'm losing more and more hope I had for this game.

4 player squads, 3d spotting (ugh), no commander, tiny maps, no mod tools.....How is this a PC focused "true sequel" to Battlefield 2 again? Because it has 64 players, prone, and jets? LOL.

The most disheartening thing so far has deifnitely been the multiplayer footage that is out there. It is a carbon copy of Bad Company 2 except it's built on a newer engine.

3 months from release and there are almost no concrete details about multiplayer. It seems like DICE themselves aren't even sure how MP is gonna turn out. I get the feeling that the game is being rushed for release big time just so they can have a better chance of de-throning MW3. I'd rather wait an extra 6 months or more and get a complete and feature filled game.
Click to expand...

Same here.

I had faith they would deliver up until I saw the E3 footage. A lot of it looks like BC3 or something.
 
I am a big fan of spotting. Not sure what "3D" spotting means, but spotting encourages gameplay even without using voicecoms. Also, less game-ruining campers prone at 500 yards between someone else's asscrack.

BC2 is an amazing game. Better graphics, bigger maps, and more vehicles is all I would honestly add to it.

People look at BF2 with ridiculously rose-tinted graphics. For me, that game was nothing but an opportunity to point and laugh as I bombed the shit out of infantry and vehicles in my airplane with impunity, racking up 9:1 KDRs. I imagine that wasn't fun for anyone on the ground.
 
I am a big fan of spotting. Not sure what "3D" spotting means, but spotting encourages teamwork without even needing voicecoms - for casual play. Also, less game-ruining campers prone at 500 yards between someone else's asscrack.

BC2 is an amazing game. Better graphics, bigger maps, and more vehicles is all I would honestly add to it.

People look at BF2 with ridiculously rose-tinted glasses. For me, that game was nothing but an opportunity to point and laugh as I bombed the shit out of infantry and vehicles in my airplane with impunity, racking up 9:1 KDRs. I imagine that wasn't fun for anyone on the ground.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top