Topic: Battlefield 3

[Dirk Temporo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uA378g_gD1I

Oh yes. It's coming, and when it does, it shall be glorious. Personally, I'm hoping the single-player campaign will have co-op functionality, because I'm not sure if I can slog through Epic Setpieces: Modern Warfare by myself. Naturally, I'm eagerly awaiting news and real information about the multiplayer, but my understanding is that the beta is starting up sometime soon, so I guess we'll know then!

[ymeegod]

Battlefied the series never really did have a strong 1st person campaign?  Bad Company series did but that was a spinoff and this is a sequel to the orginal series which was always MP action?  Could be wrong but I wouldn't get my hopes up for single player loving.

[Enner]

I should stop myself from getting too hyped for this game. I don't want my expectations to be as high as my hopes, less I be disappointed when the game is released. Regardless, I can't wait to stress my PC when Battlefield 3 comes out.

The main line Battlefield games had (pretty dumb) bots for single player content before the Bad Company games. You could always set up a comp-stomp session, if you so choose. I've played a bit of the Bad Company 1 campaign and it really made use of the Battlefield pillars of infantry and vehicle combat on across a large area. It was a big disappointment that Bad Company 2's single player campaign was much more corridor heavy yet lacking in CoD-esque crazy spectacle. Still, I thought it was a fairly entertaining romp from a developer known more for crazy big competitive multiplayer. Battlefield 3 will be the first time the main line of games includes a hefty single-player component. The early footage released thus far suggests script-heavy, corridor shooting, but that doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing. I would really love it if later levels open up more. There's a desert mission in Bad Company 2 that has you picking the order of your target destinations. It was essentially picking which corridor shooting gallery you would like to go through first, but I felt it really showed the scale Battlefield can play at.

The first two Bad Company campaigns didn't have cooperative play despite most of the levels has you with three other squad mates. There was co-op DLC released for Bad Company 2 called Onslaught, but that was just a Horde/enemy wave mode from what I've read about it. A co-op campaign in Battlefield 3 would be great but I don't expect it to be in the game. That said, fingers crossed!


Lastly, a small detail: The last reload in the trailer has the player not chambering in the new magazine and leaving an extra bullet in the rifle. This took a long time coming since even Bad Company 2 has you chambering a new round in to your firearm every time you reload a half-spent magazine even though a bullet from the old magazine should (realistically) still be in the gun.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Very excited about this, I loved the previous battlefields (Not a huge fan of the spinoff series though, could not get into those). BF2 is one of the few games where my hype level matched what I got.

[Chozo Ghost]

While I'm sure the game itself will be great, the business model EA pulled with BF2 where they charged for every little minor thing (including to even play it online at all) is a bunch of bull crap. I hope they don't pull that again with this game, but since its EA they probably will...

[Enner]

Battlefield 2 or Bad Company 2? The only price-gouging thing I can recall for Battlefield 2 are the numerous expansion packs that divide the player base.

Bad Company 2 doesn't have too much of the EA price-gouging. The $10 EA online pass is included with new copies of every game and you need that to access the free map settings and maps they released for Bad Company 2. Of course, that's not a thing to worry about on the PC since you are most likely buying a new copy of Bad Company 2 for that platform. There is the $10 co-op Onslaught DLC for the PS3 and 360 and the $15 Vietnam downloadable expansion for PC, PS3, and 360.

Speaking of expansions, EA and DICE are already talking about DLC for Battlefield 3. Day one DLC is messed no matter how you cut it, but at least we get advanced warning this time. Pre-ordering the limited edition of the game (i.e. EA's first edition of the game since the LE still costs $60) will net you the "Back to Karkand" digital expansion pack with remakes of weapons, vehicles, and four maps previously featured in Battlefield 2. Given that the expansion has unique rewards and new achievements and trophies, I think it's safe to assume that it will have a separate lobby ala the Bad Company 2 Vietnam expansion. While it's nice to give older players some nostalgia, I really question the decision to release such an expansion pack as soon as the game is released. Hopefully future details will emerge to push my worries aside.

[Chozo Ghost]

They charge you for minor things like special types of Camo and weapons. Granted, it was only like $1.99 each, but there were quite a few of those and they add up. The way I see it is stuff like that should either be free, or bundled in with some larger and more worthwhile DLC. Oh yeah, they charge you for "unlocks" too. You can unlock the stuff by playing the game for free, but for a price they will unlock it immediately for you. Its sad if people won't even play the game and instead just pay for their achievements. If you do that why are you even a gamer?

Need I also point out that there is a "Limited Edition" of BFBC2 which is exactly the same as the regular version except that it has those "unlocks"? So if you buy the Limited Edition you're getting the exact same thing as the regular version except that some stuff is unlocked immediately instead of you having to earn it. That's all the Limited Edition is... how can that be justified?

[Enner]

To be honest, I kind of hate the unlock business that has been in a lot of shooter multiplayer. I don't like how it can unbalance the game and rewards grinding. I also hate it that it does exactly what it is designed to do in making me play more of the game for one more unlock.

As for the paying to instantly unlock locked content, I'm slightly supportive of it. It's a sleazy option, but it is an option for a gamer to access content without grinding for it. For the gamer that has more money than video game time (a situation I cannot hope to understand at the moment), I can imagine this is a welcome alternative. Being a cheap person, this sort of micro transaction stuff seems like a bad deal for a game that I already paid for.

Compared to the above, I don't see EA's recent trend of Limited Editions to be too bad. It is a nice extra or incentive to purchase the game within the first month of its release and it costs the same as other new releases. It may also be a "thank you" from EA for buying the game so close to its release. Heh.
If a game is going to depoly unlock shenanigans, then I think its a clever ploy to use it to encourage day one purchases. That way you have less of the game to play.

[Chozo Ghost]

I don't even see the unlocks as a positive thing. I mean the point of unlocks is it gives you something to look forward to by earning them legitimately... its not very sporting if someone can just buy them without taking the time or effort to earn them.

[GoldenPhoenix]

While I'm sure the game itself will be great, the business model EA pulled with BF2 where they charged for every little minor thing (including to even play it online at all) is a bunch of bull crap. I hope they don't pull that again with this game, but since its EA they probably will...

Um, I know I haven't BF2 for awhile but you never had to pay to play it. Can't comment nor do I care about BFBC 1 or 2, could not get into the first one.

[TJ Spyke]

The $10 EA online pass is included with new copies of every game

Most, not all. It's been confirmed that Crysis 2 (which EA is publishing) will not include an online pass. Still, I know what you mean. I hate the idea of the online pass.

[Enner]

I don't even see the unlocks as a positive thing. I mean the point of unlocks is it gives you something to look forward to by earning them legitimately... its not very sporting if someone can just buy them without taking the time or effort to earn them.

It's not sporting for them to be locked in the first place. Or if a new player picks up the game months after launch and is up against players with varied and (sometimes) more powerful options. In the discussion of level playing fields, unlocks are horrible and arguing about how they are attained seems very moot.

The $10 EA online pass is included with new copies of every game

Most, not all. It's been confirmed that Crysis 2 (which EA is publishing) will not include an online pass. Still, I know what you mean. I hate the idea of the online pass.

Huh. That's interesting. I would figure such a high profile game from EA would have an online pass or VIP code. Then again, Crytek isn't owned by EA so this might be their decision as part of the EA Partners program. As for the idea of the online pass, I somewhat respect EA's goal to gain something from used game sales. I think it would be better if they partnered with Game Stop to have some certified pre-owned program. Oh well, I don't worry much about the online pass since I only have a Wii, a PC, and a PSP.

[Chozo Ghost]

I don't even see the unlocks as a positive thing. I mean the point of unlocks is it gives you something to look forward to by earning them legitimately... its not very sporting if someone can just buy them without taking the time or effort to earn them.

It's not sporting for them to be locked in the first place. Or if a new player picks up the game months after launch and is up against players with varied and (sometimes) more powerful options. In the discussion of level playing fields, unlocks are horrible and arguing about how they are attained seems very moot.

The guns are fairly balanced. Each player has their own preferences, but you can get by just fine with the default available guns. Its not like you start out with a BB gun and are forced to use that against players with M60s.

[Enner]

I don't even see the unlocks as a positive thing. I mean the point of unlocks is it gives you something to look forward to by earning them legitimately... its not very sporting if someone can just buy them without taking the time or effort to earn them.

It's not sporting for them to be locked in the first place. Or if a new player picks up the game months after launch and is up against players with varied and (sometimes) more powerful options. In the discussion of level playing fields, unlocks are horrible and arguing about how they are attained seems very moot.

The guns are fairly balanced. Each player has their own preferences, but you can get by just fine with the default available guns. Its not like you start out with a BB gun and are forced to use that against players with M60s.

True enough. However in Bad Company 2's case, DICE made the bad decision of locking the class defining gadgets for the four classes. Granted, they can be unlocked within a hour of multiplayer, but the Battlefield games have always valued teamwork and it really sucks that the tools critical to helping your team are locked. Hopefully, Battlefield 3 will have the ammo box, repair wrench, medic box, defibrillator, and motion sensors available from the start.

[Chozo Ghost]

I agree. If you're a Medic (for example) you should start out with some basic medical equipment. Now, of course that doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to unlock other types in the future, but you should have something at the beginning that can get the job done. But I don't believe charging players $1.99 in order to unlock that is the answer. If anything it should be unlocked for free by default. But if you're saying that all equipment should be immediately available I would have to disagree. Just start off with something basic and then go from there. The basic default equipment shouldn't be inferior to what can be unlocked later, though. Different of course, but still balanced to the point where even if a player has everything unlocked that default equipment is still something worth using for certain tasks.

[Enner]

It's now $19.99 for the all kits shortcut or $6.99 per class for Bad Company 2 . Blech.

I'm torn the issue of unlocks in first-person shooters. On the one hand that is coming from hours put in to Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament, I find them annoying. On the other hand that comes from playing JRPGs, I find them addictive. Outside of the class-specific gadgets, Bad Company 2's unlock progression is agreeable and fair for what it is. Hell, it seems that most recon users like using the starting sniper rifle the most. I expect Battlefield 3 to be the same.

[Dirk Temporo]

Need I also point out that there is a "Limited Edition" of BFBC2 which is exactly the same as the regular version except that it has those "unlocks"? So if you buy the Limited Edition you're getting the exact same thing as the regular version except that some stuff is unlocked immediately instead of you having to earn it. That's all the Limited Edition is... how can that be justified?

Because they want your money even if you buy used. That's what it boils down to. You buy the game new, you get all the additional content for free. Buy it used, you have to give EA ten bucks to access it. That's what Bad Company 2 did, and that's what Battlefield 3 is doing. I don't really see or have any issue with it, as buying the game new basically gives you free updates, something which has gone somewhat the way of the dinosaur over the last few years. And even if you buy it used, it's not like a one-time ten dollars for access to all the same additional content is exactly price-gouging.

None of the stuff that you're given access to in the "Limited Edition" is stuff you can unlock by simply playing the game. It's all extra content that you just don't get unless you pay for it either by buying new, or by buying a VIP code or whatever.

As to the potential for epic setpieces in the single-player campaign, I think this video answers that question pretty well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SQfNwyteFM

[Enner]

None of the stuff that you're given access to in the "Limited Edition" is stuff you can unlock by simply playing the game. It's all extra content that you just don't get unless you pay for it either by buying new, or by buying a VIP code or whatever.

As to the potential for epic setpieces in the single-player campaign, I think this video answers that question pretty well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SQfNwyteFM

I assume you mean Battlefield 3's pre-order extra of the "Back to Karkand" digital expansion. EA DICE hasn't actually gone over what's in the Limited Edition of Battlefield 3 if you don't pre-order it. I expect it will be something along the lines of Bad Company 2's Limited Edition where you get a few locked specializations and weapons unlocked.

As for the off-camera video, that quake wave looks absolutely amazing. I'm eager to see a direct-feed version of it. Hopefully it will arrive soon as it appears DICE chopped up the video in to episodic chunks for the Battlefield 3 website.

[ymeegod]

Anyhow back about the single player mode.  There's an article in GI and it does state it's going have a single player mode after all so I guess I was wrong.  The developer talks about how large his developement team is and that why they can bring both MP and SP modes out of the box. 

[Dirk Temporo]

The  footage in my first post is FROM the single-player.

[Enner]

http://www.ea.com/battlefield3/videos/faultline-episode-2

Second episode of a series of single-player campaign footage. I assume it will culminate in to the footage of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SQfNwyteFM.

It's still some heavily-scripted moments with some bullet time to boot. Fine stuff; I just hope that the whole campaign won't be like this all the time. I'm not holding my breathe though. The building blows up real good. I'm eager to see more of Frostbite 2.0's destruction capabilities.

[Dirk Temporo]

I'm fine with what we've seen so far. Granted I saw the whole 20-minute demo at PAX.

It's already a lot better than the Call of Duty campaigns, which are nothing but balls to the wall action 100% of the time. This actually bothers having downtime and slow parts. DICE have said that they're "trying to create a song, not a guitar solo."

[Enner]

I'm fine with what we've seen so far. Granted I saw the whole 20-minute demo at PAX.

Oh, I'm so jealous. I guess I'll have to wait as these episodes are slowly doled out. I really like the downtime as well. The few such moments in campaigns of recent Call of Duty games are some of the most memorable. I'm just hoping there are plenty of Crysis-like open sandbox moments along with heavily scripted sectons in the campaign of Battlefield 3. I hear Crysis 2 does this to some mixed success. Hopefully DICE will do better because it would be a shame to use the engine for just corridors in a single player campaign.

[Chozo Ghost]

It's already a lot better than the Call of Duty campaigns, which are nothing but balls to the wall action 100% of the time. This actually bothers having downtime and slow parts.

I'd rather have an action packed game than some soap opera for sissies.

[Enner]

It's already a lot better than the Call of Duty campaigns, which are nothing but balls to the wall action 100% of the time. This actually bothers having downtime and slow parts.

I'd rather have an action packed game than some soap opera for sissies.

Big, bold action is good. It's even better if there's plenty of context and preceding tension. Granted, a lot of lesser shooters bungle their attempts with boring cliches and groan-inducing plot points. It will be interesting to see if and how Battlefield 3's SP campaign finds the balance in pacing and plotting.