Choze

Battlefield 3

Recommended Posts

Details online.

 

up to 64 players PC. 24 players consoles.

 

Console versions = Epic Fail /Bad Company 3.

 

No real details yet. You can go prone and you can mount guns(like MAG I guess if you equip bipods on some guns).

 

Jets also back.

 

According to EA they are taking on COD for the millionth time, crazy good engine, Activison killer etc.

 

bf3pcyurq.jpg

 

Teaser of MW3, oops i mean BF3:

Edited by Choze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Details online.

 

up to 64 players PC. 24 players consoles.

 

Console versions = Epic Fail /Bad Company 3.

 

No real details yet. You can go prone and you can mount guns(like MAG I guess if you equip bipods on some guns).

 

Jets also back.

 

According to EA they are taking on COD for the millionth time, crazy good engine, Activison killer etc.

 

 

Teaser of MW3, oops i mean BF3:

 

Sorry i didn't quite understand the amount of sarcasm in this post, Is it Bad Company 3 coz it only supports 24 people on the console version, I quite like Bad Company 2 so a third one would not be so bad? But it' is actually Battlefield 3 coming to the consoles?

 

And that video is it modern warfare 3 because it has a exploding helicopter in it.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game is called Battlefield 3 on all platforms. I'm guessing that Choze is suggesting that the console version is going to be bad because it supports less players. For a Flagship battlefield title though, the PC version is really going to be the version to play anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry i didn't quite understand the amount of sarcasm in this post, Is it Bad Company 3 coz it only supports 24 people on the console version, I quite like Bad Company 2 so a third one would not be so bad? But it' is actually Battlefield 3 coming to the consoles?

 

And that video is it modern warfare 3 because it has a exploding helicopter in it.....

 

It's 'Bad Company 3' because he's expecting it to be another console game ported over to PC.

 

It's 'Modern Warfare 3' because he's expecting some arcadey mess that promotes Rambo-style gameplay over teamwork.

 

Basically PC multiplayer gaming has been shat on in the past few years. Most games have sported multiplayer modes that are little more than enhanced versions of the ones found on consoles. Compare recent multiplayer FPS games to Battlefield 2 era games and there's a huge difference. The maps are far smaller, player count is way down and there's less incentive to work together. Many feel that this won't change and that the days of expansive multiplayer FPS gaming are over.

 

I'm not sold either way, and TBH I'll probably enjoy BF3 whatever way it goes. I liked Bad Company 2, it sat as a kind of mid-point between a proper Battlefield title and a 'Modern Warfare' style shooter. I'm pretty sure BF3 will be more expansive than that game, it has to be in order to differentiate itself from the competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Battlefield 2: Modern Combat is still my favourite FPS. I'm quite looking forward to seeing what this is like!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I haven't been excited for one of these modern war games since...well, CoD4. Only just got into the Battlefield series a few weeks ago. I hope there's a Bad Company 3, it's a genuinely brilliant campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm quite torn about Battlefield 3. I loved BF2, I very much enjoy BFBC2. I'm sure this will be great. Yet I feel hesitant. I guess I'm waiting for it to show or provide me with something the series and other military themed shooters haven't so far. I'll sleep on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy shit, the new gameplay video is absolutely stunning!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Holy shit, the new gameplay video is absolutely stunning!

 

No kidding! BF3 looks genuinely impressive. Visually it's stunning, audably it's as good as (if not better than) BC2 (which was already sublime in this area) and the game looks like it'll be more varied and interesting to play than that other big FPS series.

 

I think DICE are about to bring on the next generation of FPS. Everything since CoD4 has been evolutionary rather than revolutionary, something that looks about to change (hopefully!). Surely IW can't top this shiz?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree- DICE for me are genuinely poised to push for something new and bold while CoD is floundering.

 

The problem with Battlefield that I've found, however, is that people simply don't seem to understand it at all. The game rewards team play hugely - BC:2 gives you easily as many points for supporting your team as it does for kills etc, in many cases more points even, but time and time again I've seen highly ranked players completely ignore every kind of objective, support option and teamwork. It's absolutely extraordinary. Aside from the amazing tech, DICE need to find a way of dealing with that, though frankly I don't know what that might be as the tool tips, UI and audio cues in BC:2 are hugely informative and constructive to playing as a team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is anything they can do. The problem is some players see support players as inferior, topping the table as a medic is "cheap" and "for the noobz". They ain't about to change that. I just play as support and take the grief, if a few people follow suit you have a good team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only played 1943 and BC2. I loved 1943 and hated BC2. Which one is this more like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i agree- DICE for me are genuinely poised to push for something new and bold while CoD is floundering.

 

The problem with Battlefield that I've found, however, is that people simply don't seem to understand it at all. The game rewards team play hugely - BC:2 gives you easily as many points for supporting your team as it does for kills etc, in many cases more points even, but time and time again I've seen highly ranked players completely ignore every kind of objective, support option and teamwork. It's absolutely extraordinary. Aside from the amazing tech, DICE need to find a way of dealing with that, though frankly I don't know what that might be as the tool tips, UI and audio cues in BC:2 are hugely informative and constructive to playing as a team.

 

This gets up my snot and why I sold BC2, I loved it to bits, but I was sick to death of teams not trying to get the objectives, Snipers not even doing the simple task of spotting, gawwwd it's annoying. I'd be bouncing smoke around the targets and getting cut to ribbons trying to capture it, with no one there to back me up, very very annoying!!!

 

This does look pretty swish though, looking forward to it and it's going up against this years COD.

 

Looks more like BC2 to me than 1943

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think there is anything they can do. The problem is some players see support players as inferior, topping the table as a medic is "cheap" and "for the noobz". They ain't about to change that. I just play as support and take the grief, if a few people follow suit you have a good team.

 

People actually say that? That's...really depressing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad I'm not the only one to have had this issue with BC:2. It really spoiled the game for me. I played as medic but still got most of my points from capturing bases. The amount of people who seemed happy enough just sitting in one spot getting 1 kill every 5 minutes astounded me.

 

Hardly anyone seemed to want to go for any kind of objective. I know there was that mode where you push into the enemy base and admittedly everyone usually followed that, but I didn't enjoy that mode as much as the traditional catch all the bases style of game.

 

My favourite games of the series have been: BF1942, BF1943 and BF2142... it seems battlefield games have only really been good when there's been a date in the title. However, I am going to be following this release closely to see if it'll be worth getting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I see/read about this game, the more it seems like it's going to take a huge steaming turd on every other FPS out there.

It looks great!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i agree- DICE for me are genuinely poised to push for something new and bold while CoD is floundering.

 

The problem with Battlefield that I've found, however, is that people simply don't seem to understand it at all. The game rewards team play hugely - BC:2 gives you easily as many points for supporting your team as it does for kills etc, in many cases more points even, but time and time again I've seen highly ranked players completely ignore every kind of objective, support option and teamwork. It's absolutely extraordinary. Aside from the amazing tech, DICE need to find a way of dealing with that, though frankly I don't know what that might be as the tool tips, UI and audio cues in BC:2 are hugely informative and constructive to playing as a team.

 

I've seen attacking teams of Snipers...Not realising their own body count dwindles while the defenders have infinite, and consequently losing the battle because they don't attack.

 

I do wish sometimes a Team Fortress class limit would be introduced. So you could have no more than, say, 4 Snipers per team. It might motivate people to change class and actually help the team by being an Engineer or Medic. The fact you get as much points reviving and healing your own team as you do getting kills would suggest there's no need to sit and camp. Again though, it's the mentality of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i agree- DICE for me are genuinely poised to push for something new and bold while CoD is floundering.

 

This is amusing, since right now everything they have shown is a COD clone. For all the COD bashing they sure like to imitate. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

COD does a lot right, actually. For one thing, the audio visual feedback of the game is fantastic. That little crosshair blip and white noise pop they do for when you hit stuff is genius. And there's a reason their take on scopes and ADS shooting has become ubiquitious with the genre: It's absolutely fucking quality.

 

But beyond that, I think the series is dead in the water. The campaigns just seem to be sliding further and further in to non-game territory- puppet string crap that requires no player agency beyond moving forwards and triggering an arbitrary cutscene. It's just awful. And the MP is crap too- it rewards negative and boring play and only those who plough hours and hours in to it get all the best stuff.

 

Battlefield is coming from another, more compelling design background. It's a more complex game and it rewards play. Proper, thoughtful play that 'interactive movie' games have all but stamped out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is they put too much emphasis on the Kill/Death ratio. If they were to remove any evidence of this ratio from BF3, maybe players would be more willing to play as a team, rather than hiding away from any danger. Too many people are obsessed with it as a barometer of skill.

 

Team Fortress 2 seems to have deliberately not shown any Kill/Death ratios in any of the ingame statistics, and it is reflected in the amount of teamwork that I see in so many games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Team Fortress 2 seems to have deliberately not shown any Kill/Death ratios in any of the ingame statistics, and it is reflected in the amount of teamwork that I see in so many games.

 

Team Fortress and Battlefield are designed around teamwork though, whereas COD isn't really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was referring to Bad Company 2 Kill/Death ratios, not COD. I guess I didn't make it very clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B2K_5F00_Strike_5F00_at_5F00_Karkand_5F00_Concept.jpg

 

What does the Frostbite 2 engine and the Battlefield 3 gameplay bring to the reimagined version of Strike at Karkand?

-- From a gameplay perspective, destruction is the biggest addition compared to the original map in Battlefield 2 back in 2005. I remember this particular building by the square in the original where players could defend very effectively. Now, with the destructive power of Frostbite 2, someone can just RPG that building and expose the defenders within. At the same time, we need to be careful not to add destruction that breaks the tried and tested game flow of the map.

 

 

Looks and sounds nothing like Karkand given the details but we'll see. Either way its a significant bonus for those who preorder.

 

4 maps inlcuded Strike at Karkand, Gulf Of Oman, Sharqi Peninsula and Wake island.

 

Strike at Karkand in BF2 had no air vehicles yet was the most popular map by far. Which is worth pointing out to those new to the franchise. More playtime than the other maps combined. Sharqi Peninsula was also very popular and ony had a Helicopter Gunship on each side. Gulf of Oman and Wake island are the full works though with jets and carriers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites