Gaming Forums => General Gaming => Topic started by: Dirk Temporo on March 04, 2011, 05:06:36 PM
Title: Battlefield 3
Post by: Dirk Temporo on March 04, 2011, 05:06:36 PM
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!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: ymeegod on March 04, 2011, 10:07:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Enner on March 05, 2011, 07:02:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on March 06, 2011, 12:42:39 AM
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.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Chozo Ghost on March 07, 2011, 10:55:28 AM
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...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Enner on March 07, 2011, 05:39:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Chozo Ghost on March 08, 2011, 02:14:20 AM
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?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Enner on March 08, 2011, 04:21:07 AM
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.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Chozo Ghost on March 08, 2011, 07:19:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on March 08, 2011, 12:41:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: TJ Spyke on March 08, 2011, 03:19:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Enner on March 08, 2011, 08:46:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Chozo Ghost on March 08, 2011, 11:56:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Enner on March 09, 2011, 05:21:37 AM
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.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Chozo Ghost on March 09, 2011, 07:11:38 AM
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.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Enner on March 09, 2011, 05:21:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Dirk Temporo on March 09, 2011, 05:35:26 PM
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
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Enner on March 09, 2011, 10:22:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: ymeegod on March 12, 2011, 12:23:01 AM
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.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Dirk Temporo on March 15, 2011, 03:45:40 PM
The footage in my first post is FROM the single-player.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Enner on March 21, 2011, 06:29:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Dirk Temporo on March 22, 2011, 03:03:48 PM
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."
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Enner on March 23, 2011, 06:08:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Chozo Ghost on March 23, 2011, 07:24:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Enner on March 23, 2011, 11:26:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Enner on March 30, 2011, 03:13:14 PM
Looks like we'll be waiting until April 17 for the full ground wave. Ah, crawling in vents. Ever since Half Life, I couldn't imagine an FPS campaign where you don't craw through such enclosed spaces. This is just a personal thing but I hate quick button timing events. It displeases me that they're in the BF3 campaign. At least the animation looks nice. The big fight at the end has all the neat visual tricks and bells and whistles from Bad Company 2 looking and sounding better. The bright flash of orange and yellow from explosions caught my eye in particular.
All this SP stuff is very nice, but I hope we get to see the multiplayer in action soon. Oh, DICE is probably saving that for E3 2011.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Stogi on March 30, 2011, 03:33:24 PM
I think the most impressive aspect was the dust and concrete kicking up when he missed his target.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Enner on April 16, 2011, 02:54:45 PM
Battlefield 3 - Full Length "Fault Line" Gameplay Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zw8SmsovJc)
Ah, twelve minutes of single-player footage. This must be what was part of DICE's GDC '11 presentation. There are some rough details like infinite ammo on the LMG which is to be expected at such an early stage.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Stogi on April 17, 2011, 07:12:19 PM
So I can fly jets and take out baddies with a knife (probably)? Count me in.
This game just goes to show that we have hit a graphical barrier. I don't see any reason why we would need even better graphics than this.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Enner on April 17, 2011, 10:35:52 PM
Well, some textures look kinda bad if you shove the camera right at it. Also, aliasing jaggies still persist. I get what you're saying though; the little details in the trailer make it look quite nice.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Enner on May 17, 2011, 10:09:21 PM
Details of the Back to Karkand DLC that comes with pre-ordering the game. (http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/battlefield_bad_company/archive/2011/05/10/Back-to-Karkand.aspx)
Day 1 DLC sucks. This is somewhat mitigated by the fact that you can essentially get this for free. Compared to the Vietnam downloadable expansion for Bad Company 2, Back to Karkand reads like it will be more connected to the base game. I wonder how the link between the Battlefield 3 base game and the Back to Karkand expansion will play out. I hope it isn't anything potentially unbalancing.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Dirk Temporo on May 19, 2011, 04:51:27 PM
This game just goes to show that we have hit a graphical barrier. I don't see any reason why we would need even better graphics than this.
That's what they said about the N64. And then the Xbox.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NWR_insanolord on May 19, 2011, 07:11:28 PM
I don't remember anyone ever arguing that the N64 was the epitome of graphics technology.
There's no such thing as too fast a processor, or too much RAM. Developers will always find ways to use increased technical capabilities. We are starting to reach a point of diminishing returns, though, and that's why this generation is lasting longer than previous ones.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Enner on June 06, 2011, 04:42:32 PM
... and a massive battle with all sorts of infantry and vehicles. Overwhelming and crazy. Just what I like to see from Battlefield.
There's Playstation 3 footage of the cooperative mode at Gamescom 2011 so I hope that gets posted soon. I'm very curious to how the mode plays out.
Until then, there's more of the Operation Metro in this trailer: Battlefield 3: Paris Multiplayer Gameplay (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhBjBy5OOFY)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Stogi on August 16, 2011, 05:15:25 PM
So sick.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: TJ Spyke on August 16, 2011, 06:04:28 PM
I posted this in the deals thread, but will post here too. Right now anybody who pre-orders the game through EA's Origin store will get early access to the beta testing, and their choice of 1 of 3 free games:
Mass Effect 2 Medal of Honor Dead Space 2
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Enner on August 17, 2011, 09:26:48 PM
Found some footage of the co-op. It's about 2 and a half minutes in. Battlefield 3 Gamescom 2011 EA Press Conference Presentation (PC) (http://gamescom.gamespot.com/video/6329479/battlefield-3-gamescom-2011-ea-press-conference-presentation?hd=1)
Neat stuff. There's a glimpse of what looks like the main menu of the game where there are three big squares that read Campaign, Co-op, and Multiplayer. Below it must be the Battle Log feed.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Enner on September 20, 2011, 06:02:50 PM
Open beta to be available from September 29th to October 10 on Xbox Live, Playstation Network, and Origin (for PC).
And here's the PC requirements: MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS OS: WINDOWS VISTA (SERVICE PACK 2) 32-BIT PROCESSOR: 2 GHZ DUAL CORE (CORE 2 DUO 2.4 GHZ OR ATHLON X2 2.7 GHZ) MEMORY: 2 GB HARD DRIVE: 20 GB GRAPHICS CARD (AMD): DIRECTX 10.1 COMPATIBLE WITH 512 MB RAM (ATI RADEON 3000, 4000, 5000 OR 6000 SERIES, WITH ATI RADEON 3870 OR HIGHER PERFORMANCE) GRAPHICS CARD (NVIDIA): DIRECTX 10.0 COMPATIBLE WITH 512 MB RAM (NVIDIA GEFORCE 8, 9, 200, 300, 400 OR 500 SERIES WITH NVIDIA GEFORCE 8800 GT OR HIGHER PERFORMANCE) SOUND CARD: DIRECTX COMPATIBLE KEYBOARD AND MOUSE DVD ROM DRIVE
RECOMMENDED SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS OS: WINDOWS 7 64-BIT PROCESSOR: QUAD-CORE CPU MEMORY: 4 GB HARD DRIVE: 20 GB GRAPHICS CARD: DIRECTX 11 COMPATIBLE WITH 1024 MB RAM (NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 560 OR ATI RADEON 6950) SOUND CARD: DIRECTX COMPATIBLE KEYBOARD AND MOUSE DVD ROM DRIVE
Oh, my Radion 4870 only has 512 RAM. I hope it can run the game well and look very pretty.
Lastly, Xbox 360 footage of the single player level Operation Guillotine: http://www.battlefield.com/battlefield3/videos/360_op_guillotine (http://www.battlefield.com/battlefield3/videos/360_op_guillotine) Looking nice.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: pearlsparrow21 on September 22, 2011, 05:58:18 PM
Battlefield 3 is a game first-person shooter the Action video, developed at EA Digital Illusions CE and been published by Electronic Arts. The play is ready for publication on October 25, 2011 point to Microsoft Windows,EA Mobile confirmed a port for IOS deck. It is a direct continuation of Battlefield 2005 is 2, but the eleventh installment of Battlefield franchise.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Stogi on September 22, 2011, 07:20:34 PM
these fuckers are getting smarter
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Enner on October 01, 2011, 03:41:35 PM
The open beta has been out for the past couple of days. http://www.battlefield.com/battlefield3/1/beta
The game is still a first-person shooter in a modern day military setting so no surprises there. There are a bunch of unlocks spread out over your character rank, class/kit level, and individual primary weapons. A bit of an overkill. The one that annoys me the most are some class-defining gadgets (e.g. the assault class's defibrillator) that take 7000 points are so to unlock. In a given round, I might get 600-800 points towards leveling up one kit's level. This annoyance was in Battlefield: Bad Company 2 and I'm disappointed to see it repeated here.
The damage has been increased from Bad Company 2. You can down an enemy in 4-6 shots as opposed to Bad Company's 7-9. The increased damage combined with the prone position means you might be spending a lot of time staring at kill cams of people lying on their bellies. The destruction is more subtle in the beta map of Metro. You won't be able to bring buildings down, but you can blow up some walls and cover. Sadly, there are no vehicles in the official Metro map of the beta which is terrible mistake in showing what makes Battlefield different.
On the PC side, I was wrong in thinking Origin won't be needed to launch the game. Whether you join a server from the website or launch the game executable, EA's Origin needs to be on. Speaking of the website, Battlelog is the only way you will be able to launch the game (on the PC). The beta installs a browser plug-in that manages live updates, a friend list, and voice chat while on the Battlelog site. On the main page of Battlelog, you can press a button to quickly find a server to join, go to the server browser, or muck around in EA's Facebook for Battlefield 3. Unfortunately, there is no way to configure options and key bindings other than to spawn on the map. Joining a server has worked quite nicely so far and has been faster and easier to do compared to Bad Company 2's in-game server browser. Other players have been having problems and are rightfully complaining. Lastly, I can't shake the feeling that I'm playing some free-to-play Korean online game when I launch a game from Chrome.
Performance wise, I've been running the game at a steady clip with some dips on my system with an Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300, AMD Radeon 4870 with 512 MB VRAM, and 4 GB of DDR2 RAM. I've read that the video settings are locked to normal so I haven't seen what the game scales up and down to. Sound effects have been very good with all sorts of snaps, hisses, and bangs.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NeoStar9X on October 02, 2011, 11:13:01 AM
This "open beta" has been such a disappointment. As someone that has played a lot of Bad Company 2 I can' t help things are a step down in some areas. Graphics are better no doubt. Sounds are some of the best I've heard however the use of destruction is a disappointment compared to BC2. While it might be toned down so buildings don't get destroyed at the end of the Operation Metro map it's a disappointment in regard to other smaller objects.
Operation Metro is just a horrible map in general. I fully expect it to be taken out of rotation on the PC side when the game goes live. It's completely unbalanced and filled with chock points. It's simply not fun in the end.
In the end this "Open Beta" by EA/DICE was a mistake. This rush map is bad and doesn't help show what Battlefield can be like. At least not well. Rush mode is only as good as the map you're playing on I feel. The Conquest mode would be more ideal to show off the game.
However none of that matters due to the bug and glitch filled nature of the game on both consoles and PC. Word is this is an old build just how in the alpha we were laying an older build. That's stupid in the end. This is open beta is more then likely soured a LOT of people. There were going to be people that dislike the style of play the game has. It's good they got to see what it's like before buying but some had to be turn off at the level of polish. If there was a more current build that should have been used. Makes no sense to put out this build and allow this level of negativity and backlash. With the game about to go gold if it hasn't already I expect the retail client to be very similar to the open beta with perhaps a tiny bit of improvement. I also expect there will be large day one patch that won't fix as many things as people wish. There will be disappointment and it will be DICE's doing.
I think BF3 will do well and after being patched a lot will be very solid. However overtaking Call of Duty has just flown out the window with this open beta. EA can forget about that. They'll get a second chance with Medal of Honor 2 I think but that ship has sailed as far as Battlefield 3 is concerned.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Enner on October 02, 2011, 11:48:25 PM
I hear we're stuck with a month plus old build because the Microsoft and Sony certification takes a long time. The PC version of the beta probably has to follow suit because DICE doesn't want to put in more work for a beta whose main goal is to stress test game servers and Battlelog. I can only hope the retail client will be significantly more polished as the magic of crunch-time-to-gold works its way through DICE. Then again, Battlefield games have historically been buggy at launch.
While there has been public shouting matches from EA, I doubt the company realistically expected to sell more than Call of Duty. As a piece of advertisement, the public beta has served up some heavy disappointment. Maybe that's why Call of Duty has stopped doing public betas since Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Enner on October 24, 2011, 04:37:36 AM
Got the game preloaded and now I'm waiting for the release date. First was the 13 GB installer files and then a 472 MB update. Hopefully the day 1 patch for the console versions aren't too big. In the end, I have 11.4 GB of game that I'm waiting to play.
Some early reviews have trickled in. Nothing surprising; it's a very pretty first-person shooter. The single player campaign is a 7-9 hour shooting gallery with turret sections, nuclear threats, quick time events, a climax that tries to hard, and an ending that leaves room for a sequel. The co-op has cool moments and scenarios but has long missions with no mid-mission saves or checkpoints. The multiplayer has oodles and oodles of vehicles to blow up, people to shoot, and stuff to unlock. Lastly, it seems the game looks beautiful and sounds awesome.
I guess I shouldn't be too disappointed or surprised that the game doesn't do anything different and great with its offerings, especially for the single-player campaign. Still, it would've been nice.
Eager to start playing once the clock strikes 00:00 on the 25th of October.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Lithium on October 26, 2011, 06:08:15 AM
im downloading the game now, I'm Lithiumpowered on origin
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Chiramii on October 26, 2011, 07:54:49 AM
Preloaded and activated the game trough VPN and have been playing online since monday, haven't touched the SP yet. Maybe someone here have a good enough imagination to make a badass platoon for us here on the forums. :) I have a bad feeling that I'm the only person here playing it on PC ...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Enner on October 26, 2011, 02:02:39 PM
Oh, I got the PC version as well. On Tuesday, I tried messing around with the multiplayer. A third of the servers I couldn't connect to, another third I got in but later disconnected, and the last third went okay. This is pretty much what I was lead to expect from a DICE game.
EDIT: Forgot to add. My Origin ID is Eribuster.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Chiramii on October 26, 2011, 08:42:48 PM
I assume you have the same nickname on battlelog too. :) Added! (Pachirisu92)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Silenced on October 26, 2011, 08:50:21 PM
There's a lot of people saying "Oh, Battlefield 3 versus Modern Warfare 3, that's gonna be a big match-up". No, it's not. Looking at everything as it is now, BF3 is blowing Call of Duty out of the water. Which is always a pleasant sight. Never liked that series. Campaigns got shorter, more gameplay stressed all too much online multiplayer. Battlefield 3 may emphasize online multiplayer as well, but it looks a hell of a lot better. Hopefully this will be a wake-up call to the company who makes CoD: they've been living off of CoD and WoW for too long.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: broodwars on October 26, 2011, 09:15:22 PM
There's a lot of people saying "Oh, Battlefield 3 versus Modern Warfare 3, that's gonna be a big match-up". No, it's not. Looking at everything as it is now, BF3 is blowing Call of Duty out of the water. Which is always a pleasant sight. Never liked that series. Campaigns got shorter, more gameplay stressed all too much online multiplayer. Battlefield 3 may emphasize online multiplayer as well, but it looks a hell of a lot better. Hopefully this will be a wake-up call to the company who makes CoD: they've been living off of CoD and WoW for too long.
Eh, I don't know about that. I think all the reviews are letting this game off extremely easily for having an apparently weak Single-Player campaign. I don't know when it became OK to alienate half your audience with weak SP content, but I find it unacceptable how much reviewers aren't letting it factor into their scores.
For all the issues I have with Call of Duty, their SP Campaigns have gotten a lot better in the last few years. From the looks of it, Modern Warfare 3 will probably satisfy me more than Battlefield 3, because I really don't give a damn about the Multiplayer.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Stogi on October 26, 2011, 09:19:51 PM
I think your not doing yourself a favor in alienating yourself from MP.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Enner on October 27, 2011, 01:52:13 AM
Eh, I don't know about that. I think all the reviews are letting this game off extremely easily for having an apparently weak Single-Player campaign. I don't know when it became OK to alienate half your audience with weak SP content, but I find it unacceptable how much reviewers aren't letting it factor into their scores.
For all the issues I have with Call of Duty, their SP Campaigns have gotten a lot better in the last few years. From the looks of it, Modern Warfare 3 will probably satisfy me more than Battlefield 3, because I really don't give a damn about the Multiplayer.
Those reviewers are probably doing the same as most of Battlefield fans in that they are ignoring whatever single player content there is. By that same ignorance, I doubt the existence of the campaign alienates the audience. At least it won't by a whole lot. There will probably be a group with a grudge saying that the raw time, money, and talent spent on the lackluster campaign could have pumped out 2-3 more multiplayer maps. Or more cooperative missions than the current six. I've only completed two of the co-op missions but they are quite fun. One of them will allow you to practice your helicopter flying skills.
Unlike Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield 2, there are no bots to practice against. This is a disappointment because a bot match would allow a player to better learn the game. This is especially true of using the vehicles like the fighter jet. As it is in Battlefield 3, there is no way to practice flying the jet on your own. It seems even the empty servers have a minimum player requirement.
Even then, the jet practice might do you no good because the unlock system has critical functions like IR flares and heatseeking missiles locked away. To unlock them you have to get kills with the jet, but the only thing you can do with the jet at the start is fire the vulcan gun. This unlock trend extends to all of the game's vehicles and classes; the other prominent example being the assault class's defibrillator.
I don't mind unlock systems, but I do mind starting out at a terrible disadvantage. It would've been nice if DICE made the campaign worthwhile by having beating it give you some significant early multiplayer unlocks across all classes and vehicles.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Lithium on October 27, 2011, 02:01:06 AM
well as far as i know the battlefield games never had single player to begin with anyways (unless you count bots)
anyways depending how how many of us play BF3 on these forums maybe we could get a NWR platoon up
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Enner on October 27, 2011, 02:36:41 AM
For the PC-only entries, the only single-player content were bots until Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 3 came along. The console entries of Battlefield 2: Modern Combat and the Bad Company series had more significant single player offerings. Though, I think Modern Combat amounted to playing against bots.
As for forming a platoon, I think we only have 3 or 5 at the moment.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Lithium on October 27, 2011, 03:08:55 AM
hah i cant tell anyone apart in this game, just a bunch of pajamas running around
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Dasmos on October 27, 2011, 07:12:35 AM
Looking at everything as it is now, BF3 is blowing Call of Duty out of the water. Which is always a pleasant sight. Never liked that series.
In reality Battlefield 3 isn't going to beat Modern Warfare 3 in sales, no matter how much "better" it is. Call of Duty is probably, for better or worse, going to be around for a long time.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Silenced on October 27, 2011, 09:37:46 AM
Probably due to the large amounts of fanboys they've collected over the years.
Looking at a trailer, one of the reload animations is slappping the magazine that putting it back inside the gun. I don't think that works in a real war (he might have been going for the release button, but he missed it then).
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Chozo Ghost on October 27, 2011, 11:54:45 AM
For all the issues I have with Call of Duty, their SP Campaigns have gotten a lot better in the last few years.
Only the ones made by Treyarch. Black Ops has the best singleplayer campaign story in any COD or similar game I've ever played. MW2's singleplayer experience was garbage. The first level is a stupid tutorial which was so boring I lost all interest in the game and only finished the first two missions. Since MW3 is the sequel to MW2 I'm not expecting much out of it. Infinity Ward's COD games are garbage. Treyarch is the real pros.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: broodwars on October 27, 2011, 11:58:08 AM
For all the issues I have with Call of Duty, their SP Campaigns have gotten a lot better in the last few years.
Only the ones made by Treyarch. Black Ops has the best singleplayer campaign story in any COD or similar game I've ever played. MW2's singleplayer experience was garbage. The first level is a stupid tutorial which was so boring I lost all interest in the game and only finished the first two missions. Since MW3 is the sequel to MW2 I'm not expecting much out of it. Infinity Ward's COD games are garbage. Treyarch is the real pros.
Indeed, Black Ops is the best SP Campaign CoD has managed, though I wasn't all that fond of World at War's. It had the same problem Black Ops does: continually respawning enemies until you cross some invisible line. In Black Ops, I felt like there was enough freedom in the environment to overcome that, but it's just absurd in World at War to run into that, especially when they then spam you with never-ending grenade showers.
As for Modern Warfare 2's campaign, while I can't say that it was all that great, I at least had a lot of fun playing it with its absurd situations and the overpowered weaponry they let you use (the stage where you have to defend a Burger King with Predator Drones being a personal favorite).
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Chozo Ghost on October 27, 2011, 12:03:43 PM
Well, its no coincidence that both World at War and Black Ops are like that because both are made by Treyarch. The grenade spamming is a problem to overcome on Veteran, but the way to do that is use your smoke grenades and keep moving forward. You only get grenade spammed if you stay in one spot too long, which you shouldn't be doing anyway because this is war.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Dasmos on October 27, 2011, 12:49:15 PM
The best part about Black Ops is it has an option to completely skip the first menu and it instead goes straight to the multiplayer menu on start-up. I turned this on after the third time I played it and haven't looked back.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Chiramii on December 01, 2011, 06:23:01 PM
So how's it going guys? I've played this game way more that I thought I would before the end of the year and I'm really looking forward to the release of "Back to Karkand" this december. I've put 50+ hours into the MP now and it is as fun as it was the first few hours.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Lithium on December 01, 2011, 06:59:26 PM
lol i put a grand total of 3 hours and 53 minutes into BF3 since release. I didn't like it nearly as much as i thought i would.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Dasmos on December 01, 2011, 07:02:49 PM
I really need to get a better computer so I can run this. I played it on consoles and it's just dogshit.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Chiramii on December 01, 2011, 07:09:32 PM
Oh wow... I almost feel ashamed of how much I've played this game now, and I still suck, haha!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Chozo Ghost on December 01, 2011, 11:17:46 PM
My biggest gripe with Battlefield 3 is that the maps are huge huge huge and there are only so many players in a game so it takes some effort to even find opponents before you kill them, and odds are they are camping and waiting for you to come to them. So it gets frustrating... if Battlefield had some small ass maps like Nuketown from Black Ops then things could get interesting. :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Enner on December 01, 2011, 11:59:21 PM
There are close-quarters maps like Seinne Crossing, Tehran Highway, Operation Metro, and Grand Bazaar. Also, Damavand Peak is pretty small. There you have to contend with mortar spam.
Operation Firestorm, Caspian Peak, Norsharr Canals, and Kharg Island are quite big and not helped by the 24 player limit on consoles.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Dasmos on December 02, 2011, 12:06:29 AM
My biggest gripe with Battlefield 3 is that the maps are huge huge huge and there are only so many players in a game so it takes some effort to even find opponents before you kill them, and odds are they are camping and waiting for you to come to them. So it gets frustrating... if Battlefield had some small ass maps like Nuketown from Black Ops then things could get interesting. :)
Yeah, this is my main gripe with BF3 on consoles, 24 people is not enough to keep these levels interesting. At least most of the time you can spawn on someone in your squad, but at other times the trek takes like 15 minutes to see anyone. Another thing that annoys me is how people can essentially hidecamp in walls. Whoever at DICE thought that keeping this in all iterations of the Battlefield franchise is a complete idiot.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Chiramii on December 02, 2011, 12:52:45 AM
I'm playing on PC and I just have to say that conquest on Operation Metro with 64 players is insane and completely broken. The only thing people use is rpg/smaw & M320. You just see dead infantry flying all over the place, a dream come true for assault players. I can't find a reason to play support. Camping in US/RU spawn with mortar does not sound fun at all.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Chozo Ghost on December 02, 2011, 01:45:41 AM
They should have made the maps smaller for the console version of the games. Smaller maps forces more confrontations which means less camping which means more actual fighting and more fun for everyone. Huge maps would make sense if there were like 100 players or something, but with only 24 its obvious the maps are way too large. Its like playing hide and go seek in the grand canyon.
Maybe the 8th generation of consoles will solve this problem. More RAM in the consoles may mean more simultaneous players can be supported, so epic battles may be possible.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Enner on December 02, 2011, 01:09:55 PM
Another thing that annoys me is how people can essentially hidecamp in walls. Whoever at DICE thought that keeping this in all iterations of the Battlefield franchise is a complete idiot.
I don't understand your what you are trying to say. Are you referring to some sort of wall-hacking or players being prone and sticking out the other side of barriers? Is it players being prone in odd spots?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Chozo Ghost on December 02, 2011, 04:23:14 PM
Sometimes solid objects aren't quite so solid in games and players may try to exploit that in order to conceal themselves inside those objects. I haven't played BF3 long enough to really say I've seen anyone doing that so far, but if its possible I'm sure there are people who will take advantage of it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Dasmos on December 02, 2011, 05:08:57 PM
Another thing that annoys me is how people can essentially hidecamp in walls. Whoever at DICE thought that keeping this in all iterations of the Battlefield franchise is a complete idiot.
I don't understand your what you are trying to say. Are you referring to some sort of wall-hacking or players being prone and sticking out the other side of barriers? Is it players being prone in odd spots?
Pretty much. People going prone then backing up into a wall so only their head is visible. I'm not sure if you can do this with all walls, but it seems to be a lot of them.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Enner on December 02, 2011, 08:36:11 PM
Mm, I see. There is quite a lot of clipping in Battlefield 3. I've done my own testing and had my legs sticking out of a shutter gate.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Lithium on December 08, 2011, 03:42:31 PM
There are close-quarters maps like Seinne Crossing, Tehran Highway, Operation Metro, and Grand Bazaar. Also, Damavand Peak is pretty small. There you have to contend with mortar spam.
Operation Firestorm, Caspian Peak, Norsharr Canals, and Kharg Island are quite big and not helped by the 24 player limit on consoles.
for me its the opposite, i love the big maps with vehicles running and shooting each other, and i love how its possible to sneak into capture points because since i suck at this game I have no other choice but to be stealthy etc etc...
what i hate is the fact that this game has a serious camping problem and its amplified in small maps. It's why i couldn't get into Counter-Stike back in the day.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Enner on December 09, 2011, 03:58:08 AM
It would be hard to completely eliminate camping when you have teams in attacker and defender roles. On the player side, you would need a well-executed and well-coordinated team offensive to break a camper line. That's pretty hard, especially on the PC version where there is no easy and convenient VoIP solution. Good map design can help alleviate problems with campers. However, DICE isn't quite as good with map design as I would like.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Chiramii on December 12, 2011, 07:26:32 AM
Best thing yet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FOaGhE_sejI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FOaGhE_sejI)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Enner on December 12, 2011, 02:32:54 PM
The bazooka loop in 1942 has found a successor.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Chozo Ghost on December 12, 2011, 02:41:40 PM
Battlefield might benefit from something like the recon plane, or better yet the Blackbird killstreak from COD. With something like that people won't be able to hide and therefore camping is less lucrative.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Enner on December 12, 2011, 03:55:29 PM
Battlefield might benefit from something like the recon plane, or better yet the Blackbird killstreak from COD. With something like that people won't be able to hide and therefore camping is less lucrative.
The Recon class in Battlefield 3 has a mid-tier unlock called the MAV (Micro Aerial Vehicle) that you can use to fly high and spot enemies. It's up to your teammates to pay attention to the mini-map and on-screen indicators to take out the dug-in people.
You can also use it to ram and kill people.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Chozo Ghost on December 13, 2011, 12:50:48 AM
That's cool. It sounds like those little remote controlled helicopters from bad company 2. There was a trophy in BFC2 you get by ramming a helicopter (big or small) into an enemy and killing them with it, but I could just never get it right. I've crashed countless air vehicles before I threw in the towel. I hate trophies like that.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Enner on December 13, 2011, 01:15:25 AM
It's pretty much the successor to the Bad Company 2 UAV. There's no Hellfire Missile to call down, but spotting can help mortar persons. Sometimes I spend multiple rounds controlling the MAV high in the sky to spot targets with the thermal scope or detect enemies with the motion sensors.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Chozo Ghost on December 13, 2011, 02:26:25 AM
I like that Battlefield is about being a team player, unlike call of duty where every player is just a lone wolf and does whatever.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Bhollen76 on December 30, 2011, 05:03:39 AM
Says that there is a issue addressed in the next Battlefield 3 patch: Like, Flashlights will be more life-like and won't blind players at distances. I came across this report today - http://www.fastmr.com/prod/281080_nintendo_co_ltd_in_toys_and_games_world.aspx. I'm not familiar the publisher, but it looks pretty focused. Anybody here know the company?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ernesto1 on January 04, 2012, 01:18:40 PM
Battlefield 3 is all time favorite game because this game extreme war and it is in my routine to play this game and i suggest this to my friends and also to my forum friends.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Enner on July 13, 2012, 02:11:52 AM
Ah, it's been a while. Some new behind-the-scenes details on the Bandar Desert map in the upcoming Armored Kill expansion pack.
Ah, it really does look big. I probably wouldn't be playing the game for this long if it weren't for the group I run and voice chat with. The game is so much more fun working with your squad through Ventrilo or Mumble.
