Forgotten Hope Public Forum

Off-Topic => Gaming => Topic started by: Alakazou on 10-06-2009, 22:06:19

Title: Battlefield 3
Post by: Alakazou on 10-06-2009, 22:06:19
Battlefield 3 is in devellopement.
http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/696413/Electronic-Arts-Confirms-Battlefield-3-In-Development.html
I'm not happy, but I'm not sad.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Captain Pyjama Shark on 10-06-2009, 22:06:42
Kind of yay.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 10-06-2009, 22:06:04
Oh shit...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Fuchs on 10-06-2009, 22:06:01
Aye mates, theres is no hope ahead. Although I am sure we will be disappointed it's better then nothing.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Niam on 10-06-2009, 23:06:17
I wonder what scenario they gonna chose...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Alakazou on 10-06-2009, 23:06:12
Modern... I guess.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Niam on 10-06-2009, 23:06:18
Modern... I guess.

Mhh, the fact that they're doing BF1943 points to it too. Pity...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Cory the Otter on 10-06-2009, 23:06:53
Now i'm pissed...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Captain Pyjama Shark on 10-06-2009, 23:06:30
I'm almost glad that it's modern, it would be painful to see the Second World War after what I know now.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Tiemann on 10-06-2009, 23:06:21
God help them if the player limit is less than 64. On the other hand they would win my respect if they increased it, think of the possibilities.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 10-06-2009, 23:06:58
The cold war would have been a nice theme........

And if EA was smart, they would made tanking a bit like current FH2 tanking..

And ofcourse many and many diffrent kinds of vehicles, not just one tank, APC, SPAAG per army

But then again, it is and still is And remains EA
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Tiemann on 10-06-2009, 23:06:40
The cold war would have been a nice theme........

And if EA was smart, they would made tanking a bit like current FH2 tanking..

And ofcourse many and many diffrent kinds of vehicles, not just one tank, APC, SPAAG per army

But then again, it is and still is And remains EA
They had Multiple tanks in 42, the reason that they dont in bf2 is because the usa only uses one MBT so if they were to make say a cold war game there is the possibility of at least 2 tanks per nation.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 10-06-2009, 23:06:30
I'm Excited, long time fan, and I will not hesitate to buy this, even if it sucks. Hell I bought their PS2 iteration, and that sucked, but I still have it. I own every battlefield game to date. Why stop now?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 10-06-2009, 23:06:07
The cold war would have been a nice theme........

And if EA was smart, they would made tanking a bit like current FH2 tanking..

And ofcourse many and many diffrent kinds of vehicles, not just one tank, APC, SPAAG per army

But then again, it is and still is And remains EA
They had Multiple tanks in 42, the reason that they dont in bf2 is because the usa only uses one MBT so if they were to make say a cold war game there is the possibility of at least 2 tanks per nation.
More please

Soviets= T-64   T-72   T-80
USA=M48    M60    M1

If a cold war really erupted, in the end, it would probaly look like this

Old types like the Pattons or Even T-62 would be pressed into service(Since they where built so massivly)

If EA makes a new Battlefield, i hope they do this

-Way more vehicles and Vehicle types
-Re-introduction of mannable Artillery
-Diffrent types of Ammo
-Decent Balance between Anti-tank vs Tank and Anti-air vs Air( Bf2 was horrible on the last one..)
-128 players
-This time, Decent support(Doubt it)

If it is modern or Cold war(I prefer cold war though ;D), all fine by me, but no more World war 2 please. Let us stick to Forgotten hope for this
Then again, only hopes.......But im defiantly buying it
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 10-06-2009, 23:06:23
I'm Excited, long time fan, and I will not hesitate to buy this, even if it sucks. Hell I bought their PS2 iteration, and that sucked, but I still have it. I own every battlefield game to date. Why stop now?

Oh Christ...

 :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Tiemann on 10-06-2009, 23:06:00
I'm Excited, long time fan, and I will not hesitate to buy this, even if it sucks. Hell I bought their PS2 iteration, and that sucked, but I still have it. I own every battlefield game to date. Why stop now?

Oh Christ...

 :P
I dont understand why people hate on the battlefield franchise so much, most of the games are pretty good actually. No they are not perfect but this is reality, out of all the games ive played bf2/1942/2142/BC have better replay value then most games out there.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: 508th PIR Hawkeye on 11-06-2009, 00:06:27
As long as they increase the player size, make fastroping possible and still give out mod tools I am a happy person
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 11-06-2009, 00:06:22
There's also this (http://www.digitalbattle.com/2007/10/09/breaking-battlefield-3-leaked-info/) old rumour that was met with the usual "no comments" from EA & DICE that would suggest modern setting for BF3.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Niam on 11-06-2009, 00:06:12
I would love Cold War, especially if they would choose the Korean War period (WW2 hand weapons, Sabres and T-34s make me drooling  8) ).  But in the end it's EA, therefore I would be quite surprised if they choose so. 
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: jumjum on 11-06-2009, 02:06:57
And in 18 months we're going to be waiting for FH3 to come out, bitching about how DICE somehow managed to make a crappy engine three times in a row. 
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: The Crimson Major on 11-06-2009, 03:06:28
If this is a PC exclusive, it might actually be good. But I doubt it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: General_Henry on 11-06-2009, 03:06:35
I would love Cold War, especially if they would choose the Korean War period (WW2 hand weapons, Sabres and T-34s make me drooling  8) ).  But in the end it's EA, therefore I would be quite surprised if they choose so. 

Korean war wouldn't be playable, how would you suppose to take out an American Pershing without any HEAT weapons. The Chinese volunteers don't have any tanks, any AT guns...all they got are satchel charges or perhaps captured bazookas, The Korean armies are all jokes.

Unless you mean there are only 40 people in UN side and 70 people in the Communist side.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Niam on 11-06-2009, 04:06:51
Actually, I meant a "Cold War gone hot" scenario with US vs. USSR, using the equipment available during the early 50's.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Anthony817 on 11-06-2009, 04:06:08
Well I'm just about the biggest Korean war buff I know..... The NK used T-34 tanks and had Russian pilots in MiG-15's to battle the sexy F-86 Sabre and there were so many times the Americans/UN came across T-100's Tank hunters and T34 against the M26 Pershing. Don't forget that the Chinese had the Tommy guns that the Americans gave them in WW2 and had many soviet and left over German guns/copies that they made themselves.... Don't underestimate the NK and Chinese from that era...that was 3 years of horrible fighting bro, my grandpa was there and he saw many bad things happen. ;)

Have you guys not heard about the BFKorea mod? :P

http://bf-korea.de/
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Captain Pyjama Shark on 11-06-2009, 04:06:45
We have, and many have helped actively supported/even worked on it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Anthony817 on 11-06-2009, 05:06:47
Hehe, well actually I was referring to General_Henry & Niam, I know that the FH2 team have helped out some along the way. However the BFK team does appreciate the help when its given. (HINT, HINT)  ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: General_Henry on 11-06-2009, 05:06:22
Actually, I meant a "Cold War gone hot" scenario with US vs. USSR, using the equipment available during the early 50's.

that's cool enough. T34 as a "recon" tank!.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Meadow on 11-06-2009, 08:06:43
It'll be modern, let's face it. I don't mind that much, I do actually enjoy a big modern battle once in a while. I just hope they have more armies than the USA, China and 'MEC' from the start again - obviously the Brits would be nice, or the Germans, but I'd settle for the 'EU' again, like in BF2: Modern Combat.

In terms of player numbers, it needs to be at least 64. And I have a feeling this will indeed be a PC exclusive, as BFBC2 seems geared towards the console market, freeing the PC team up to produce a more taxing (but inherently better) BF game for PCs. So here's hoping.

Oh, and I still think that PDF from 2007 was bullshit. So much stuff on there was what everyone was predicting and DICE themselves blew it out of the water when they said 'we don't comment on rumours and speculation' - practically stating that it was just speculation.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paavopesusieni on 11-06-2009, 09:06:25
I'm Excited, long time fan, and I will not hesitate to buy this, even if it sucks. Hell I bought their PS2 iteration, and that sucked, but I still have it. I own every battlefield game to date. Why stop now?
I have them all aswell, i even have the WWI one that looks so horrible.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Hockeywarrior on 11-06-2009, 09:06:29
I'm Excited, long time fan, and I will not hesitate to buy this, even if it sucks. Hell I bought their PS2 iteration, and that sucked, but I still have it. I own every battlefield game to date. Why stop now?
(http://will.incorrige.us/facepalm/picard.jpeg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: GooGeL on 11-06-2009, 09:06:08
Give Vietnam!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 11-06-2009, 10:06:35
I'm Excited, long time fan, and I will not hesitate to buy this, even if it sucks. Hell I bought their PS2 iteration, and that sucked, but I still have it. I own every battlefield game to date. Why stop now?
I have them all aswell, i even have the WWI one that looks so horrible.

There is no WWI Battlefield game  ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: FatJoe on 11-06-2009, 10:06:05
I'm not going to form any special opinion until I see/know more of it.. but from what I've heard from here and there, I'm interested.

Although I'd love to see a hot cold war, I really doubt we'll see that. And I've heard something about it being planned for a PC, and perhaps ported to consoles instead of the other way around, like with BFBC, BFBC2 & BF43. Exclusive for PC? I doubt it..
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: BUNNY on 11-06-2009, 10:06:51
Give Vietnam!

Fucking A!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paavopesusieni on 11-06-2009, 10:06:35
I'm Excited, long time fan, and I will not hesitate to buy this, even if it sucks. Hell I bought their PS2 iteration, and that sucked, but I still have it. I own every battlefield game to date. Why stop now?
I have them all aswell, i even have the WWI one that looks so horrible.

There is no WWI Battlefield game  ;)

You know a game called codename eagle? The great grand father of Battlefield 1942. Its kinda like WWI with biplanes and so on.

Awsomely fun game even though its old.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtUrwcRF0PA&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtUrwcRF0PA&feature=related)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Moku on 11-06-2009, 11:06:30
I really hope its a PC only so they are burdened by the consoles... Although I do fear its not going to be that way as consoles are so much bigger market these days. :(
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Fuchs on 11-06-2009, 11:06:54
Give Vietnam!
Yes! I fully support this. This era is underdone and from all Vanilla BF games I enjoyed Vietnam the most.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 11-06-2009, 11:06:46
I hope they have 128 players or more support and that it wil be full of ...... zombies !!! :o
What is up with all those zombies games these days.
It seems even Alan Wake is turned into a zombie kinda of game and I was really hoping a Twin Peaks style.

But this thread is about BF3 so enough about the zombies rant. I am really looking forward to this, curious to see what new features will be implemented.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kubador on 11-06-2009, 11:06:00
Don't keep your expectations high until they list game features.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: lt_FJ on 11-06-2009, 11:06:23
what people should be really hoping for is that DICE and EA make better and easier modding tools than those they distributed with BF2.
I recall many of the devs said development was slow at first because of the tools they had (and lack of support) and the limitations they were trying to bypass constantly.
Also, keeping it PC exclusive helps a lot.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 11-06-2009, 11:06:21
what people should be really hoping for is that DICE and EA make better and easier modding tools than those they distributed with BF2.
I recall many of the devs said development was slow at first because of the tools they had (and lack of support) and the limitations they were trying to bypass constantly.
Also, keeping it PC exclusive helps a lot.

I'm afraid that's whishfull thinking.
Afaik they won't produce another editor.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kev4000 on 11-06-2009, 12:06:55
what people should be really hoping for is that DICE and EA make better and easier modding tools than those they distributed with BF2.
I recall many of the devs said development was slow at first because of the tools they had (and lack of support) and the limitations they were trying to bypass constantly.
Also, keeping it PC exclusive helps a lot.

BF2 modding tools are surprisingly a lot better then BF1942's, and faster then 90% of other games out there. We got nothing to complain about really, even though there are things which would help. For example not having to reboot editor every time you want to reload an animation. Atleast we don't have to load BF2 each time we want to test just a minor change to a tank, which we had to in 1942.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Tiny on 11-06-2009, 13:06:56
So where does this put BF Heroes, BF 1943 and foremost Bad Company 2?...I mean, where is their focus...

Anyways, I would like it to be PC only and Cold War or WW1.

Maybe...just maybe...BF3 will be PC exclusive, then BF 1, 2 and 3 are all PC exclusive. And all the other crap mentioned above will be food for the console people.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: von.small on 11-06-2009, 13:06:06
BF3 is for consoles, it's a single player orientated pile of stinking shit, the frostbite engine still does not work on 90% of PCs, it will be another 3-4 years before the average hardware of the PC owner can run the destructble environment that BF1943 offers, then another 8-10 years before the average internet connection can support that environment in multiplayer modes.  Even then, without proper testing who knows what "every noob scrambling for a plane and throwing everything they have at the hillside to destroy every tree in the first 30 seconds of gaming" will do.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 11-06-2009, 13:06:14
Destructible environments have to be the most overrate gameplay elements ever.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 11-06-2009, 13:06:13
I bet it´s made to work on consoles, so the player number will be low and I´m quite sure they go for some no-so-far-future theme with pimped up guns and stuff like in Host Recon Advanced Warfighter. A "Cold War gone hot"-scenario with 128 players would be awesome, but we´re talking about EA....
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: von.small on 11-06-2009, 13:06:49
Destructible environments have to be the most overrate gameplay elements ever.

(  ;) ) yeah I totally hate it when the fence on Bardia gets blown! And the wall is breached on Supercharge, major suckage!  ;D


I bet it´s made to work on consoles, so the player number will be low and I´m quite sure they go for some no-so-far-future theme with pimped up guns and stuff like in Host Recon Advanced Warfighter. A "Cold War gone hot"-scenario with 128 players would be awesome, but we´re talking about EA....

? Did you even look at the link, it's based in the Pacific 1943.  US vs IJN forces.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: 508th PIR Hawkeye on 11-06-2009, 13:06:20
Have you guys not heard about the BFKorea mod? :P

http://bf-korea.de/

That mod is dead  :'(

Don't keep your expectations high until they list game features.

Or they make one of those shiny EA trailers  ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ionizer on 11-06-2009, 13:06:46
Destructible environments have to be the most overrate gameplay elements ever.

(  ;) ) yeah I totally hate it when the fence on Bardia gets blown! And the wall is breached on Supercharge, major suckage!  ;D

Small things like the stuff in FH2 are good for gameplay.  When in moderation and specifically made to enhance the gameplay experience, its good.

Shooting 1,000,000 round straight down so you can bore a hole into the Earth's core: Not so great and not helpful to gameplay.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 11-06-2009, 13:06:07


? Did you even look at the link, it's based in the Pacific 1943.  US vs IJN forces.
Excuse me, but where does it say that?
The screen on the top is from the other Battlefield game "Battlefield 1943", not from BF3. Two different pairs of shoes AFAIK.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 11-06-2009, 13:06:54
Destructible environments have to be the most overrate gameplay elements ever.

(  ;) ) yeah I totally hate it when the fence on Bardia gets blown! And the wall is breached on Supercharge, major suckage!  ;D

If having destroyable stuff on a map means a major reduction in player numbers as in BFBC2 where they go down to 32p or less, then I don't give a rats as if you can blast a fence or not.
  
There is a good reason why FH2 has only few of those objects! More players more epic WW2 fun!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Fuchs on 11-06-2009, 13:06:52
Yeah guys, Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 1943 are both not Battlefield 3. Confirmed by the big boss of Battlefield.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ltn.Charles on 11-06-2009, 14:06:22
I say Vietnam era, Battlefield Vietnam was truly an awesome game, and i still play it!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Captain Pyjama Shark on 11-06-2009, 14:06:33
I agree, I never got the chance to try BF Vietnam, but by far it looked like the best vanilla BF.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 11-06-2009, 15:06:22
Comes no surprise to anyone when I say I didnt enjoy BFV that much. It was fun for a moment but then I got bored with it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kev4000 on 11-06-2009, 15:06:26
Destructible environments have to be the most overrate gameplay elements ever.

Not if done properly, which no game has to this point afaik. We'll probably not see well made destructable enviroments for a good time into the future.
Problem is, with today's methods, destructable environments require to much manpower for a modification to make. Basically you'll need half the development team working on it. This is true for game studios aswell, but they can hire extra staff or outsource it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: CBC on 11-06-2009, 15:06:36
all I can say is "WOW"'

I really think that DICE has shifted their concentration to consoles, with games like Bad Company series and 1943.

Since they said Battlefield 3 and something about seriousness, hardcore and all that, I beleieve it's for PC only, because Bad Company and upcoming 1943 are no where near hardcore. Talking about the time the game takes place, there is almost no doubt about Modern Day (or at least the Cold War, it would be super awesome if it's the REAL WWIII, not some resource war in BF2)

What I really want in that games are the following:
1. Please, more player, 128 will be good.
2. enhance that squad/commander system, that's one of the biggest selling points of BF2, don't downgrade it to the cheesy Bad Company style!
3. ADD SUPPORT FOR NAVAL VESSELS!
4, Weapon customizations, more kit gadgets.
5. It's fine to keep the jets.. I suggest three types, Air Superioty Fighter (with different types of missiles), Fighter bombers (good against both air and ground, but doesn't dominate neither), and a CAS plane (heavy weaponary, low speed, vunerable to AA and enenmy jets),
6. Finally, more vehicle types. For the vanilla game, I think MBT, Medium Tank, IFV, APC, light and heavy transport should be there. For air, see #5, and for sea, real aircraft carriers, guided missle destroyer(maybe cruiser for US- ;D), PT boat, and some sort of landing craft. Helo wise, I would like to see a World in Conflict layout, Heavy Attack Helicopter (AH-64, Mi-24), Medium Attack Helicopter (AH-1, Mi-27), Scout Helicopter (AH-6), and transport helicopter..
7. One more thing, I would love to see more people in a vehicle, like in a black hawk, a full chalk of 12 men, 2 pilots, and 2 crew chiefs and the sweetest.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sir Apple on 11-06-2009, 15:06:51
I'd be looking forward to this game provided it doesn't look stupid like the battlefields after 2142 do.

Yeah... thats pretty much it - they look stupid.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Von Tiger on 11-06-2009, 16:06:07
Maybe some allies for USA (it surely will be in). British, Israel?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Tiny on 11-06-2009, 16:06:23
Time will tell...

Hopefully they will get the hitbox working this time around as well.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Nerdsturm on 11-06-2009, 16:06:05
Destructible environments have to be the most overrate gameplay elements ever.

Not if done properly, which no game has to this point afaik. We'll probably not see well made destructable enviroments for a good time into the future.
There have been games where it has implemented well, just not any FPSs. For instance the destructible environments in CoH create some interesting situations gameplay wise and don't seem too unrealistic up until tanks come along and crush everything on the entire map.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Tiemann on 11-06-2009, 16:06:21
Maybe some allies for USA (it surely will be in). British, Israel?
Well someone had a link to a "leaked info" page. Not sure if it was true or not but it mentioned NATO as one of the factions.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Tiemann on 11-06-2009, 16:06:12
There's also this (http://www.digitalbattle.com/2007/10/09/breaking-battlefield-3-leaked-info/) old rumour that was met with the usual "no comments" from EA & DICE that would suggest modern setting for BF3.
ahh here it it, sorry for double post(hint click :this:)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 11-06-2009, 16:06:29
I bet it´s made to work on consoles, so the player number will be low and I´m quite sure they go for some no-so-far-future theme with pimped up guns and stuff like in Host Recon Advanced Warfighter. A "Cold War gone hot"-scenario with 128 players would be awesome, but we´re talking about EA....

  Let us not throw all consoles under the bus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHML9SpH8NY

256 players online.  You may not see it on shit systems like the WII or 360 but it can be done.  There is hope!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 11-06-2009, 16:06:40
BF3 is for consoles, it's a single player orientated pile of stinking shit, the frostbite engine still does not work on 90% of PCs, it will be another 3-4 years before the average hardware of the PC owner can run the destructble environment that BF1943 offers, then another 8-10 years before the average internet connection can support that environment in multiplayer modes.  Even then, without proper testing who knows what "every noob scrambling for a plane and throwing everything they have at the hillside to destroy every tree in the first 30 seconds of gaming" will do.


Did you just wake up from a bad dream or something? what are you even talking about, please stop  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: von.small on 11-06-2009, 16:06:53
heres the offical soundtrack revamp from EA, "I'm totally totally serial"

YES YOU HAVE TO LISTEN TO IT!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTjgKLRg5p4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTjgKLRg5p4)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eat Uranium on 11-06-2009, 18:06:14
Hmm.  The phrase "whoop-ti-do" comes to mind.  Maybe I'll buy this, probably I won't.  Of course you can all speculate about features you want, and you can all retort things with the old one liner "its EA we're talking about here", but really there is no point in coming to a decision untill atleast some concrete info is released.

So when the features are announced and a trailer video is out, can someone call be and ask me for my opinion please.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Anthony817 on 11-06-2009, 21:06:07
Have you guys not heard about the BFKorea mod? :P

http://bf-korea.de/

That mod is dead  :'(

Not true...... :'(
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sir Apple on 11-06-2009, 21:06:21
Have you guys not heard about the BFKorea mod? :P

http://bf-korea.de/

That mod is dead  :'(

Not true...... :'(

To put it forward, I'm the most active BFK dev - and I'm not even doing any work for BFK anymore.

Maybe the Summertime will bring new light  :P.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Anthony817 on 11-06-2009, 21:06:29
Well I can only hope so Apple, but who knows? ::)

Okay back to topic. Yes I would love to see a cold war Battlefield but I don't see it happening anytime soon.I can hope that 1943 can be modded SOMEHOW but with no proper mod tools or SDK I have no idea how ppl would go about modding 43......or BC2 for that matter. :(

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 11-06-2009, 22:06:50
Well I can only hope so Apple, but who knows? ::)

Okay back to topic. Yes I would love to see a cold war Battlefield but I don't see it happening anytime soon.I can hope that 1943 can be modded SOMEHOW but with no proper mod tools or SDK I have no idea how ppl would go about modding 43......or BC2 for that matter. :(



Just because a game has no mod tools or SDK doesnt mean it will not be modded. Experts in the modding community have been making their own tools for decades. Just look at Editor 42, or RFA Extractor, both are 3rd Party tools made by modders for bf1942.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kev4000 on 11-06-2009, 23:06:09
Well I can only hope so Apple, but who knows? ::)

Okay back to topic. Yes I would love to see a cold war Battlefield but I don't see it happening anytime soon.I can hope that 1943 can be modded SOMEHOW but with no proper mod tools or SDK I have no idea how ppl would go about modding 43......or BC2 for that matter. :(



Just because a game has no mod tools or SDK doesnt mean it will not be modded. Experts in the modding community have been making their own tools for decades. Just look at Editor 42, or RFA Extractor, both are 3rd Party tools made by modders for bf1942.

Actually all the tools are 3rd party in a way. They were all first developed independantly, then EA hired Rexman and the battlecraft guy so they could stick their logo on it. Dice used a completely different set of tools to make BF42. So it stands true that Dice never intended for BF42 to be modded, and the community alone made it possible. So even if BF3 doesn't come with mod tools, it could still be modded. May just take some more time. On the other hand, I don't see why Dice wouldn't release the exporter and editor for frostbyte, they'd loose nothing.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Anthony817 on 12-06-2009, 03:06:03
Well that's all true and valid points you made Kev. I will only get BF43 if modders can add more maps and give it more realism. I t would be kool if someone made a mod like their was for bfvietnam where all the maps/weapons/models were converted to the newer game engine and you even got a flamethrower kit. That would be friken epic guys.  8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: General_Henry on 12-06-2009, 04:06:52
Destructible environments have to be the most overrate gameplay elements ever.

imagine FH2's environment being destructable, a few commander arty call = a town wiped out. Who would need to fight over those towns in supercharge?


my imagination is to have super-big and super detailed maps if things really become destructable, and a totally revised spawn system and fighting concept. Well i guess that isn't easy, if not impossible...wait till 2050 !
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: azreal on 12-06-2009, 04:06:46
For example not having to reboot editor every time you want to reload an animation.

You don't have to Kev. Just hit the "populate animation tree" button. Then go find your animation, and play it. Go back to max, do some tweaks, re-export it, then go back into editor. Choose like the animation directly above your edited one, then select your edited animation and walah! It should have updated.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Captain Pyjama Shark on 12-06-2009, 04:06:05
I believe the term is "Voila!", not "Walah!".
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Anthony817 on 12-06-2009, 04:06:53
Lol oh how many times have I seen ppl spell it that way on the interwebz.......Funny thing is, they all spell it exactly the same "Walah" hehe. ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Alakazou on 12-06-2009, 05:06:59
It's Voilà with an à not an a
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Anthony817 on 12-06-2009, 05:06:53
Perhaps American kb's have no special letters? :'(
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Hockeywarrior on 12-06-2009, 05:06:40
BF3 is pretty much the only chance EA/Dice has to regain any respect from me. They've delivered crap for such a long time (mainly for consoles, and meh ports for PC) that this is their only opportunity to make any good on all their mistakes.

My hope is that this is a purely PC targeted game, without any "dum-downs" and real innovation when it comes to graphics and gameplay. I'm tired of getting watered down console games -- give us a REAL Battlefield sequel, assuming you guys even know how to do that anymore!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: 508th PIR Hawkeye on 12-06-2009, 13:06:53
Not true...... :'(
Then why aren't there any updates or forum posts?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Fuchs on 12-06-2009, 13:06:43
Theres alot happening backscreen Hawkeye. They are making progress but with around 3 devs who are all inactive you can't expect a weekly update as with FH2 and their 25 man team.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: 508th PIR Hawkeye on 12-06-2009, 14:06:34
Theres alot happening backscreen Hawkeye. They are making progress but with around 3 devs who are all inactive you can't expect a weekly update as with FH2 and their 25 man team.

I know, I just check their site every once in a while and I always get that 2008 update.  :-[
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ts4EVER on 12-06-2009, 16:06:06
There are two trends in the FPS industry they will probably follow:

-gritty look (á CoD5)
-upgradable weapons and kits

Especially for the last one a modern or future scenario is the best bet.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Captain Pyjama Shark on 12-06-2009, 16:06:43
Perhaps American kb's have no special letters? :'(
I ain't no Yankee, you fool, I'm English!  And forgive me, I always forget the accenty thingys. 
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Mspfc Doc DuFresne on 12-06-2009, 20:06:10
Special Letters?! You have a keyboard with letters like that?!

Over here in the states it is agonizing typing something in a foreign language, desperately remembering which combination of vowel, apostrophe, shift, alt, spacebar, control, and in what order, in order for MS Word to put in a funky symbol. For spanish class I modified it so that the special letters all work by holding down control + alt+ letter + shift (for capitals).

My mos special letter on my keyboard is the ~
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ts4EVER on 12-06-2009, 20:06:05
I have ä, ö, ü and the french á thing can easily be done, as well as â and €.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Alakazou on 12-06-2009, 21:06:29
€ means Euro not é. And â isnt a french letter.

éêèàù
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ts4EVER on 12-06-2009, 21:06:37
I know that € means Euro. I only meant á as a french letter.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Alakazou on 12-06-2009, 21:06:50
We have 2 A. A and À not á
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Tedacious on 12-06-2009, 21:06:57
å ä ö ñ õ ü û â î á à é è ú ù ÿ
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 12-06-2009, 21:06:36
FatJoe, we need you and your silly letters.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Anthony817 on 12-06-2009, 22:06:10
Theres alot happening backscreen Hawkeye. They are making progress but with around 3 devs who are all inactive you can't expect a weekly update as with FH2 and their 25 man team.

I know, I just check their site every once in a while and I always get that 2008 update.  :-[

Yes, you must remember to look in the workbench threads if you are to see anything new. :P


Perhaps American kb's have no special letters? :'(
I ain't no Yankee, you fool, I'm English!  And forgive me, I always forget the accenty thingys. 

Aye mybad, but you guys must know that we dont have a need for such characters in the new world.....Which is utter rubish. I have a hard time writing Deutsche because I have no umlates.... ::)

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kubador on 13-06-2009, 00:06:37
ą ć ę ń ó ł ż ź ś sz cz dż rz

And tho are no mere actents but seperate letters. Hah!

This is going fancy off-topic.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Anthony817 on 13-06-2009, 07:06:27
Super-Duper-Off topic! Nicht mehr bitte? ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Torenico on 13-06-2009, 07:06:55
You're noob.

Common start IL2 Already!  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Anthony817 on 13-06-2009, 07:06:56
Well, can we play IL2 1946 Korean war mod?  F-86 Sabres and Mig-15's FTW?

http://forum.bf-korea.com/thread.php?postid=14875#post14875
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Admiral Donutz on 13-06-2009, 16:06:18
What has an American keyboard got to do with the (easy) ability to type accents on letters?

In the Netherlands we use a US (International) keyboard, you're normal QWERTY keyboad. But the language setting is "Dutch". Which means that if you press down the ' key (just left of the enter key ad right of the ; key) and then a vowel key like a/e/o/u/i you will get á/é/ó/ú/í. Same with the ` (just left of the 1 key) which results in à/è/ù etc.  The ^ key (shift+6) with â/û etc.

Other options are the double quote key (shift + ' , they key which is left oft he enter key and right of the ; key)  and a vowel: ä/ö/ü etc.

Or ctrl-alt key combinations:

ctrl-alt-` =   nothing
ctrl-alt-1 = ¡ (upside down exlimation mark)
ctrl-alt-2 = ²
ctrl-alt-3 = ³
ctrl-alt-4 = ¤
ctrl-alt-5 = €
ctrl-alt-6 = ¼
ctrl-alt-7 = ½
ctrl-alt-8 = ¾
ctrl-alt-9 = ‘
ctrl-alt-10 = ’¥
ctrl-alt-- = ¥
ctrl-alt-= = ×

ctrl-alt-q = ä
ctrl-alt-w =  å
ctrl-alt-e = é
ctrl-alt-r = ®
ctrl-alt-t = þ
ctrl-alt-u = ú
ctrl-alt-i = í
ctrl-alt-o = ó
ctrl-alt-p =  ö
ctrl-alt-[ = «
ctrl-alt-] = »
ctrl-alt-\ =  ¬

ctrl-alt-a = á
ctrl-alt-s = ß
ctrl-alt-d = ð
ctrl-alt-f =   nothing
ctrl-alt-g =     nothing
ctrl-alt-h =   nothing
ctrl-alt-j =   nothing
ctrl-alt-k =   nothing
ctrl-alt-l = ø
ctrl-alt-; = ¶
ctrl-alt-' = ´

ctrl-alt-z = æ
ctrl-alt-x =      nothing
ctrl-alt-c = ©
ctrl-alt-v =     nothing
ctrl-alt-b =    nothing
ctrl-alt-n = ñ
ctrl-alt-m = µ
ctrl-alt-, = ç
ctrl-alt-. =     nothing
ctrl-alt-/ = ¿ (the same key which gets you a question mark so that's why)

ctrl-alt-shift-1 = ¹
ctrl-alt-shift-4 = £
ctrl-alt-shift-= = ÷
ctrl-alt-shift-A = Ä
ctrl-alt-shift-s = §
ctrl-alt-shift-d = Ð
ctrl-alt-shift-l = Ø
ctrl-alt-shift-; = °
ctrl-alt-shift-' = ¨
ctrl-alt-shift-z = Æ
ctrl-alt-shift-c = ¢
ctrl-alt-shift-n = Ñ
ctrl-alt-shift-,  = Ç

You can change the keyboard (ea tell our computer the type of keyboard connected to your computer, if it's a US one, French one, Dutch one [very rare to see a Dutch kayout keyboard!] etc.) and language settings for your keyboard (which language it should apply to the keyboar input: English, Dutch, French etc. Playing around with this cna result in very funny outcomes on what happens if you press a certain key. It can be found under windows XP in :control panel > Countrysettings (image of a globe) or in Dutch windows XP "Configuratie scherm > Landinstellingen". Ofcourse not all language versiosn of windows may have this feature.

Picture of the control panel option for language input:
(http://www.pcleek.com/images/stories/functionaliteitxp/toetsenbordinstelling1.gif)
(http://www.tweakers.net/ext/i.dsp/1124822573.png)


^ As you may guess, I care very little about BF3. Perhaps if it is a cold war based settin but of ti's a modern war game again I'll go meh.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 13-06-2009, 17:06:58
This is officially the most boring conversation I've ever seen.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Torenico on 13-06-2009, 17:06:29
This is officially the most boring conversation I've ever seen.

+6

Gotta admit it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: FatJoe on 13-06-2009, 18:06:58
FatJoe, we need you and your silly letters.

ÞþÆæÐð

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Captain Pyjama Shark on 13-06-2009, 18:06:47





Ooh, that's useful, looks a lot better than ":p"
I mean really, whose tongue is that far to the side?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Admiral Donutz on 13-06-2009, 19:06:07





Ooh, that's useful, looks a lot better than ":p"
I mean really, whose tongue is that far to the side?
Indeed, I'll use ctrl-alt-t much more often now (never used it in the past to except once or twice... :þ).

Does ctrl+alt+KEYHERE work in Swedish/Icelandish/... windows?

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Tedacious on 13-06-2009, 19:06:08
This is officially the most boring conversation I've ever seen.
to be honest it was donutz that made it boring. he overdid it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paavopesusieni on 13-06-2009, 19:06:31
No the ctrl+alt+t combination doesn't work, atleast here in Finland and i think other nordic countries windows have the same problem. BOOO, well this one looks even better  :P .

Oh and one letter is still missing -> ï.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Torenico on 13-06-2009, 20:06:59
Guys seriusly, this is a damn Battlefield 3 thread, not a keyboard one.


ÑÇ¡¡¿¿
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 14-06-2009, 03:06:27
ßØ×☼ᗔ㳆҅卐
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zero on 14-06-2009, 06:06:13
if it wasn't for þat damned gutenburg preß ƿe'd still have þorn in english! (printed "ye olde englisch" ƿas ƿritten by hand "þe olde ænglisch" and pronounced the same as modern "the old english")
so from now on i will only post with þorn(thorn). and also eð(eth), æsh(ash), yoȝ (yogh), and ƿynn(wynn) to counter act the damage done by norman scribes in england ƿith their latin fetish(not to mention "never ending with a preposition" is gone as ƿell. more latin savagery). also i ƿill borrow the "sharp S"(ƿhy streß, erszett?), because it is just cool.
perhaps even i will bring back the "long S"(i ƿill be ſucceſsfull, yes), U/V dyslexia(it is nauȝt euil!), and borrow umlauts and diæreses(it's not reëngineering a language).  ƿhile ƿe're at it let's bring back the nominative "ye" (ye know you love it). or our beloved "þou" form(thou knowest thee lovest it, more).
indubitably, more language reforms(i prefer "revertisments") to follow after i have sat and pontificated and hypothicated further. infractions will be punishable by DEAÐ (on an FH2 server of course).

ÞþÆæÐð


(i knoƿ i can count on þat joe guy's support.)


----------------------------------------------------
on a side note, bf3+modern=blegh
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Gl@mRock on 14-06-2009, 06:06:45
€ means Euro not é. And â isnt a french letter.

éêèàù

Off topic

"â" exist in french. Pâtes (pasta) takes an "^" on the A.  ;)

/Off topic
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Alakazou on 14-06-2009, 19:06:40
€ means Euro not é. And â isnt a french letter.

éêèàù

Off topic

"â" exist in french. Pâtes (pasta) takes an "^" on the A.  ;)

/Off topic


Damn right. Sorry I made a big mistake.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: azreal on 04-01-2011, 08:01:09
Bump! I bought the new Medal of Honor slightly so that I could have access to the BF3 beta, so I'm happy at the thought of a beta in the opening months of summer (hopefully).

http://www.totalgamingnetwork.com/content.php?3836-Riccitiello-Battlefield-3-out-in-%E2%80%9Csecond-half%E2%80%9D-2011
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 04-01-2011, 08:01:50
Bump! I bought the new Medal of Honor slightly so that I could have access to the BF3 beta, so I'm happy at the thought of a beta in the opening months of summer (hopefully).

Don't tell me you got duped into that scam... poor Az...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 04-01-2011, 08:01:32
derp

Don't tell me you got duped into that scam... poor Az...

I thought it was Natty that said that for a moment xDD
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: im_a_lazy_sod on 04-01-2011, 08:01:11
The only good Medal of Honor was the original Medal of Honor - same title, different game

If BF3 comes with an SDK I'll eat my hat  :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 04-01-2011, 08:01:13
Ohh please you stupid cunts.....If he gets the beta and it is full of modible files then we might have some hope.  Let us sit and wait......
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 04-01-2011, 08:01:14
Ohh please you stupid cunts.....If he gets the beta and it is full of modible files then we might have some hope.  Let us sit and wait......

Sober up you drunkard. ^^ I then just hope that he bought the correct version of MoH. ;) They even tried to fool people there into buying the expensive version. I was quite disgusted to be frank. ^^
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: im_a_lazy_sod on 04-01-2011, 08:01:42
Hahaha

Just had a look on the BF3 site and they have a section for mods both on the main page and in the forum

Promising much?  Will be interesting to see if they do have an SDK - AFAIK BFBC2 didn't have a mods section in the forum

Fingers crossed  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 04-01-2011, 08:01:31
It's all PR, I will only believe it once they release an editor. The mod section can be deleted by the press of a button and then they're like: "What? Mod-support? No one ever mentioned that! No not us!" ^^
It's like the rumour about BF3 being designed for a PC release before the consoles.... yeah right and I shit gold nuggets after my morning coffee... ^^
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: im_a_lazy_sod on 04-01-2011, 08:01:19
Yeah I'm not holding my breath until something is finalised

Here's hoping though >.<

On an unrelated matter:

I am still hoping for 2k to use the Mafia II game engine for Hidden & Dangerous 3 (nothing has been announced in any way shape or form thus far for H&D3 but one can only hope)

the game engine is very, very nice and would no doubt run better with smaller maps and all the elements for HD3 are already there (bar the first person shooter aspect which is probably the biggest problem of all)

It already has stealth, cover, vehicle driving, using mounted weapons + a whole host of ww2 weapons (m1 Garand, Colt1911) and already has a ww2 level featuring a Wespe (the only game other than BF1942 that I know of to use one), Willys Jeep and Sherman + both Italian and German weapons such as the Breda SMG, Mp40, Mauser pistol
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Gezoes on 04-01-2011, 13:01:06
It's all PR, I will only believe it once they release an editor. The mod section can be deleted by the press of a button and then they're like: "What? Mod-support? No one ever mentioned that! No not us!" ^^
It's like the rumour about BF3 being designed for a PC release before the consoles.... yeah right and I shit gold nuggets after my morning coffee... ^^

There could also be NO mod section at all. Only thing we really know for sure is that it will not support XP.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: kummitus on 04-01-2011, 14:01:18
What I really think is not that big thing to be missed anyways.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 04-01-2011, 14:01:37
Guys, until EA officially drops the bomb and says "no mods", they will say "it is not yet decided", so naturally they keep the "Mods" heading there.

On the other hand, I place much more belief in that DICE guy who went on to explain in painstaking detail why modding tools for Frostbite1/2 or any other "too modern" engine are not likely to happen ever, and then inserted the legally required "I have not been informed whether there will be mod support or not for BF3".
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 04-01-2011, 21:01:59
Guys, until EA officially drops the bomb and says "no mods", they will say "it is not yet decided", so naturally they keep the "Mods" heading there.

On the other hand, I place much more belief in that DICE guy who went on to explain in painstaking detail why modding tools for Frostbite1/2 or any other "too modern" engine are not likely to happen ever, and then inserted the legally required "I have not been informed whether there will be mod support or not for BF3".

They exist you know? I saw a leaked pic of the frostbite editor, and it was like the rest. Its probably most likely they dont want to release them because it will mean less sales from the "DLC".
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zeno on 04-01-2011, 21:01:08
Guys, until EA officially drops the bomb and says "no mods", they will say "it is not yet decided", so naturally they keep the "Mods" heading there.

On the other hand, I place much more belief in that DICE guy who went on to explain in painstaking detail why modding tools for Frostbite1/2 or any other "too modern" engine are not likely to happen ever, and then inserted the legally required "I have not been informed whether there will be mod support or not for BF3".

They exist you know? I saw a leaked pic of the frostbite editor, and it was like the rest. Its probably most likely they dont want to release them because it will mean less sales from the "DLC".

maybe you want to share this picture?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 04-01-2011, 22:01:48
maybe you want to share this picture?

I've seen it posted dozens of places.  Sure thing they have an editor, how else should their mappers make maps, it's called FrostEd last I heard, but afaik the legal issues with releasing that editor aren't up for discussion.

Here is a link where you can see it at work: http://developer.amd.com/media/gpu_assets/Andersson-Tatarchuk-FrostbiteRenderingArchitecture%28GDC07_AMD_Session%29.pdf
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 05-01-2011, 11:01:47
Quote
“I’d be shocked if we didn’t take a notch out of [Activision],” he continued.

Riccitiello added that BF3 would be “designed to be the one that is the big leap forward; the one that is going to help a lot” in competing with CoD.
- http://www.totalgamingnetwork.com/content.php?3836-Riccitiello-Battlefield-3-out-in-%E2%80%9Csecond-half%E2%80%9D-2011


This isn't the first time I've seen someone from EA/DICE claim BF3 is gonna blow us all away, and I'm starting to get the impression that it's not just hype...

Think about it, most Battlefield fans would rather play BF2 (or one of it's mods) than BC/BC2, and I can almost guarantee that the sales figures for both games combined (incl. console sales) don't come anywhere near BF2.

EA have been getting fucking smashed by Activision in FPS sales for years, and I can't imagine them being happy with that....


They've got something up their sleeve, and we'll know soon enough whether it's a masterstroke or an abject failure.


Christ, they could just remake BF2, adding BC2's destructible environment and shiny GFX, and it'd probably sell like crazy. I know I'd fall over my self in my rush to buy it... :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 05-01-2011, 15:01:58
Any word on the total players amount?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 05-01-2011, 15:01:55
They exist you know? I saw a leaked pic of the frostbite editor, and it was like the rest. Its probably most likely they dont want to release them because it will mean less sales from the "DLC".

explain "like the rest" please :-\
Mikael Kalms wrote you a long thread why they can't make a pubbie FrostEd, if that is not reason enough for you, I don't know.... I wonder if you read that thread  ::)

http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/battlefield-bad-company-2-pc/1350772-so-how-about-modtools.html

The thread even shows up as 2nd hit on google for "bf3 mod tools"  :-*

http://www.google.se/#hl=sv&biw=1405&bih=805&q=bf3+mod+tools&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=3070ff9985c9f8e1
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Nerdsturm on 05-01-2011, 16:01:06
Quote
“I’d be shocked if we didn’t take a notch out of [Activision],” he continued.

Riccitiello added that BF3 would be “designed to be the one that is the big leap forward; the one that is going to help a lot” in competing with CoD.
- http://www.totalgamingnetwork.com/content.php?3836-Riccitiello-Battlefield-3-out-in-%E2%80%9Csecond-half%E2%80%9D-2011


This isn't the first time I've seen someone from EA/DICE claim BF3 is gonna blow us all away, and I'm starting to get the impression that it's not just hype...

Think about it, most Battlefield fans would rather play BF2 (or one of it's mods) than BC/BC2, and I can almost guarantee that the sales figures for both games combined (incl. console sales) don't come anywhere near BF2.

EA have been getting fucking smashed by Activision in FPS sales for years, and I can't imagine them being happy with that....


They've got something up their sleeve, and we'll know soon enough whether it's a masterstroke or an abject failure.


Christ, they could just remake BF2, adding BC2's destructible environment and shiny GFX, and it'd probably sell like crazy. I know I'd fall over my self in my rush to buy it... :)

I dunno. I don't like the implications of a game being in competition with the CoD series, as that means there will be a degree a similarity between the games.

Moreover, the free-to-play version of BF2 in development makes me more nervous. If Dice was making BF3 to be an improved version of BF2, no one would play the BF2 game they have in development.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: RoniSaysWoot on 05-01-2011, 16:01:51
I dunno. I don't like the implications of a game being in competition with the CoD series, as that means there will be a degree a similarity between the games.

Moreover, the free-to-play version of BF2 in development makes me more nervous. If Dice was making BF3 to be an improved version of BF2, no one would play the BF2 game they have in development.

The Free 4 play is not developed by Dice, it's a "game" made by the same guys who made the bf:
Heroes, so it uses basicly a updated version of the refractor engine what bf2142 uses what is the newer version what bf2 uses. The Free 4 play is already done project but they haven't yet released anything else than beta version of it to test how it runs and to see how much bugs there is to fix.

I hope Dice does as much work on the bf3 than they did for bf1942 and bf2, I don't want to see a updated version of bfbc2, well it is a good game but it isn't anything close to the older Battlefields.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 05-01-2011, 17:01:56
Moreover, the free-to-play version of BF2 in development makes me more nervous. If Dice was making BF3 to be an improved version of BF2, no one would play the BF2 game they have in development.

First of all:: BFP4F isnt a free version of BF2.. but it's understandable you think that since the map in the beta is Karkand..
Second:: BF3 is not "an improved version of BF2"...it's a new game.. do you know how much has happened in the gaming world since 2005?
Last:: BF3 and BFP4F are catering towards two different markets, so need to worry about who will play the games. ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 05-01-2011, 18:01:31

explain "like the rest" please :-\
Mikael Kalms wrote you a long thread why they can't make a pubbie FrostEd, if that is not reason enough for you, I don't know.... I wonder if you read that thread  ::)

http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/battlefield-bad-company-2-pc/1350772-so-how-about-modtools.html

The thread even shows up as 2nd hit on google for "bf3 mod tools"  :-*

http://www.google.se/#hl=sv&biw=1405&bih=805&q=bf3+mod+tools&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=3070ff9985c9f8e1


Because I had been on BC2 and BF3 UK EA forums hearing their bullshit.

"Tools too complicated"

Then the excuse changed to "You need super machines to run it"

And then it was "We cant share any information on it"

Then that leaked pic; what I meant its like any editor, simple to use, load objects, fx and test.

If BF3 doesnt have mod tools, then no buy for me bye bye BF and hello RO2 with mod support and a company that really deliver what they promise.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Fuchs on 21-01-2011, 22:01:31
Let's bump this one to the top, someone leaked screenshots. It's not that thrilling but it shows the destruction of houses in Battlefield 3. Looks alot like Bad Company 2 but oh my, what a sexy normal map.

http://www.games.lt/g/blogai.irasas/298779.8067
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sgt.KAR98 on 21-01-2011, 23:01:58
Battlefield series been getting worse at every release.

If BF3 doesn´t have great maps and feature real nice armies,like Russia x US war,it will be disappointing.

And if you cant mod...pull the flush.It´s crap.Like many other EA games...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Neighbor Kid on 22-01-2011, 00:01:33
Im still waiting on this to be said.. im hoping so much for mod tools.. well sorry not hoping but crossing fingers.. guess its teh same thing... dam it.. fucking EA.. stop fucking the mod community over.. and 100+ players.. god mods would be epic with 100+ players.. with frostbite.. .. i can imagine the awesome sauce IF Fh went to BF3 withj 100+ players.. on teh BFE WAW tournament.. yea i dream big.. but everyone know EA will shoot it down cause hell if i know.. they fucked up the BF fanchise for the PC's only for money.. go figure right? well guess we will know for sure if we get tools and how many players will be playing ona server together march 1st... they say PC is gettign special attention.. WTF DOES THAT MEAN.. graphics? how much better can they get?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 22-01-2011, 01:01:42
I really enjoy the gameplay in Battlefield Bad Company 2. I play it many times during the day and a lot at night on my Playstation 3. Its got solid concepts, and a great balance, I just wish there were more players on each map. However at the same time I can understand the lowered player numbers.

Ironically enough while complaining about these player numbers I found that the 24 - 32 player count worked very well for the maps they delivered, all of them fun, and challenging, and furthermore there is a large emphasis on teamwork in Bad Company 2. I can't point to a single round where a lone soldier has ever destroyed all the MCOM stations, or captured every flag without the help of his team and his squad. In-fact there is a large number of points to be gained by performing squad and team maintenance tasks such as spotting targets with the Back or Select buttons on the controller, healing teammates, repairing vehicles, passing out ammunition, supporting your friends in a firefight with savior kills and squad points.

You receive extra points when you designate an objective on the map as your squads goal, and then successfully complete that objective.

Really the only negative comment I have about Bad Company 2 as a game is concerned, is that it is still flooded by tons of people who think that being a recon class immediately qualifies them as an expert marksman and asset to the team. Sometimes it becomes really saddening to the see the level of intelligence associated with the players of the game. It becomes discouraging to watch Recon's get spawn camped by a T90, only to watch them respawn time and time again as a recon and attempt to plant C4 on the vehicle. Honestly...change to an engineer...kill the tank, and return to your previous duties. You offer no help to the groups of Assaults Engineers and Medics who are trying to advance by not making the necessary change, or by not engaging vehicles at all.

So many people talk down to the Bad Company games, and the Frostbite engine as a whole, but so far with my heavy play in Bad Company 2, I am rather pleased by all the successful changes that were made from Bad Company 1, and the Frostbite engine, aside from being a very good looking Engine, gives Bad Company a dirty luster that is all its own. When you get into a heavy firefight with tracers flying back and forth, Mortar strikes dropping on your line, as buildings are collapsing and chunks of stone and rock are flying around from all angles, large spires of dirt are firing up from the ground in front of you, and your listening to some of the most amazing Audio you've ever heard in a game, including the rants and raves of the Avatars in-game "SOMEBODY DROP THAT MOTHERFUCKER", you become very immersed in Bad Company's world, and the game is very, very, intense.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Wilhelm on 22-01-2011, 01:01:04
They exist you know? I saw a leaked pic of the frostbite editor, and it was like the rest. Its probably most likely they dont want to release them because it will mean less sales from the "DLC".

explain "like the rest" please :-\
Mikael Kalms wrote you a long thread why they can't make a pubbie FrostEd, if that is not reason enough for you, I don't know.... I wonder if you read that thread  ::)

http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/battlefield-bad-company-2-pc/1350772-so-how-about-modtools.html

The thread even shows up as 2nd hit on google for "bf3 mod tools"  :-*

http://www.google.se/#hl=sv&biw=1405&bih=805&q=bf3+mod+tools&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=3070ff9985c9f8e1


I just saw this post.  Thanks for the link, Natty...that sets the record straight and now I understand the situation.  It is too bad, but at least it is reasonable. :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Dukat on 23-01-2011, 00:01:38
Where does this picture come from?
(http://files.g4tv.com/ImageDb3/150233_S/Battlefield-1943-Hands-On-Preview.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Tedacious on 23-01-2011, 00:01:47
battlefield 1943

Had almost forgot about that installment.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Wilhelm on 23-01-2011, 00:01:55
Where does this picture come from?
(http://files.g4tv.com/ImageDb3/150233_S/Battlefield-1943-Hands-On-Preview.jpg)

BF1943

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OagKmfWDw8
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 23-01-2011, 04:01:21

BF1943

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OagKmfWDw8

Yup, it has been delayed like 5 times already.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]I.Kluge on 23-01-2011, 04:01:34

Yup, it has been delayed like 5 times already.

Huh?

It has been out for a while now, as a DLC for the 360 and PS3. It is not going to be released for PC.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Neighbor Kid on 23-01-2011, 04:01:24
i like what you say achi, but i think they should finally progress up to more that just 64 players. if they truely have optimized frostbite. then i dont see why its not feasable..
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Desertfox on 23-01-2011, 06:01:57

Yup, it has been delayed like 5 times already.

Huh?

It has been out for a while now, as a DLC for the 360 and PS3. It is not going to be released for PC.

It was supposed to be, but I have no idea what happened to it. They said they were trying to make a "proper" version for the PC. That apparently means nothing, at least from what I have seen so far.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 04-02-2011, 03:02:41
Quote from: =Romagnolo= on the PR forums
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9e/Logo-dice.png)


David Goldfarb is Lead designer & writer in DICE. Lead designer of Battlefield 3.

Quote from: David Goldfarb
You guys ready for tomorrow? You sure? Really really sure? #BF3

Quote from: David Goldfarb
Trend this shit. Tomorrow. #BF3

Quote from: David Goldfarb
Quote from: Fersis
Not until you promise it wont be just a CG trailer about the BF3 logo.... >8(

we don't do CG.


his Twitter (http://twitter.com/#!/locust9)


(http://media.funlol.com/content/img/shit-just-got-real.jpg)




Edit:


gameinformer, which is not just a simple game website, posted this:

(http://media1.gameinformer.com/imagefeed/featured/electronic-arts/battlefield/battlefield3/cov_215_l.jpg)




please, please, please, please have a mod tools!

xD

soo... tomorrow trailer ?

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 04-02-2011, 03:02:03
Should be interesting.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 04-02-2011, 04:02:56
Dice sets its sights on Call of Duty?  I hope they mean market share and not shitty game play.  :-\

Ahh anyway.....I can't wait.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: buddycole46 on 04-02-2011, 06:02:15
poor poor DIC... :(
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 04-02-2011, 07:02:07
That poster would make me believe that it is going to be a BFBC3 and not a BF3 which would be the final slap in the face for all Battlefield fans.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Priestdk on 04-02-2011, 08:02:49
Though i am wery interessted in this i have a feeling we get somthing like this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tghR38F7qpI

Witch dos not really show anything at all, what so ever.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 04-02-2011, 09:02:57
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQpr3lphAfk&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQpr3lphAfk&feature=player_embedded)

Teaser leaked. Modern Warfare again. But jets and helis.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 04-02-2011, 09:02:03
BC2 also had Jets and Helis.
Modern Warfare...  :-X
(http://www.rcsky.de/images/smilies/smiley_emoticons_kotz.gif)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 04-02-2011, 10:02:34
might buy it if it DOESNT play like BF BC2
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paavopesusieni on 04-02-2011, 10:02:16
Dammit if it's BC3 and not BF3 with smaller maps and airplanes that "everyone can fly".
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Torenico on 04-02-2011, 10:02:51
might buy it if it DOESNT play like BF BC2

BC2 is fun :/


And, thats all? a Crappy ass "Trailer"?...

DICE Im Dissapoint.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 04-02-2011, 11:02:18
...
And, thats all? a Crappy ass "Trailer"?...
DICE Im Dissapoint.

It's a teaser. :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 04-02-2011, 11:02:35
might buy it if it DOESNT play like BF BC2

BC2 is fun :/


And, thats all? a Crappy ass "Trailer"?...

DICE Im Dissapoint.
I want the good ol' battlefield gameplay back  ;)

BC2 was fun, but i just now wanna see the old roots back
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 04-02-2011, 11:02:59
Stopped reading the ad at "Call of Duty". *barfpukeyuckbleurgh* >:(
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 04-02-2011, 11:02:25
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQpr3lphAfk&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQpr3lphAfk&feature=player_embedded)

Teaser leaked. Modern Warfare again. But jets and helis.
(http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/attachments/transformers-fan-art/27148063d1267389496-optimus-prime-fsjal-fsjal_by_jeffrey_dicker.gif)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 04-02-2011, 11:02:54
Something we all have been waiting for! TODAYS military hardware!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 04-02-2011, 12:02:47
BC2 also had Jets and Helis.
Modern Warfare...  :-X
(http://www.rcsky.de/images/smilies/smiley_emoticons_kotz.gif)
BC2 has jets? Oo
"Modern warfare" is quite a generic term. I Wonder if it'll Be a realistic scenario or a fantasy "MEC vs US"-scenario... 
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 04-02-2011, 12:02:42
BC2 has jets? Oo
...

They promised them and had 'em in their videos....
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 04-02-2011, 12:02:38
BC2 also had Jets and Helis.
Modern Warfare...  :-X
(http://www.rcsky.de/images/smilies/smiley_emoticons_kotz.gif)
There were no jets (you could fly) in BC2.

Sofar: 64 players, jets, prone, all good good news.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Tedacious on 04-02-2011, 12:02:14
Way to go being innovative Dice!

...sigh...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 04-02-2011, 13:02:27
Way to go being innovative Dice!

...sigh...

Well there isn't much new things you can bring in FPS games...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Tedacious on 04-02-2011, 13:02:33
Perhaps doing another era than what they have been doing since BF:V (Excluding BF2142). Maybe a BF:V remake? I don't know, they get payed to come up with this stuff, they should find a new era.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 04-02-2011, 13:02:54
i was more exited about the 128 players in PR than this TBH ><
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zeno on 04-02-2011, 13:02:08
http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/battlefield-3/1388971-dragging-fallen-comrades-weapon-mounting-naval-vehicles-confirmed.html

well they didnt fuck "everything up"

multiplayer actions ranging across diverse locations from around the globe including Paris, Tehran and New York

-drag your fallen comrades into safety

-mount your weapon on almost any part of the terrain

-explosions throw you to the ground

-land, air and sea vehicles.




other info confirmed by DICE blog

-Prone

-JETS

-64 players
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 04-02-2011, 13:02:00
http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/battlefield-3/1388971-dragging-fallen-comrades-weapon-mounting-naval-vehicles-confirmed.html

well they didnt fuck "everything up"

multiplayer actions ranging across diverse locations from around the globe including Paris, Tehran and New York


-mount your weapon on almost any part of the terrain





OK

NOW that IS SOMETHING i wanna see!

*deploying M249 or even M240
NOW ITS COWARD KILLING TAIME


okay, im giving BF3 a chance
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zeno on 04-02-2011, 13:02:36
i love that they implemented explosions and bullets affection you instead of the retarded "red jelly" like in mw2/black ops
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 04-02-2011, 13:02:37
Ye your right, i have to say this sounds impressive
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 04-02-2011, 13:02:59
No modding tools
No dedicated servers
No melee weapons
To kill someone you have to fire several rounds in their head... with an AA gun
Say hello to "breathe in cover until you're fully healed" (durr, the dragging of fallen)
Single ammo type on tanks
Mirror balance
Maps the size of postage stamps because consoles would run out of memory otherwise
"Perks" and "bonuses" from "kill sprees" etc.
Add in DLC and/or micropayments, and...

kthxbai

/troll
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Tedacious on 04-02-2011, 13:02:04
I'm disappointed of the choice of era. But i'm not gonna judge the game until I get to see more.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 04-02-2011, 13:02:07
No modding tools
No dedicated servers
No melee weapons
To kill someone you have to fire several rounds in their head... with an AA gun
Say hello to "breathe in cover until you're fully healed" (durr, the dragging of fallen)
Single ammo type on tanks
Mirror balance
Maps the size of postage stamps because consoles would run out of memory otherwise
"Perks" and "bonuses" from "kill sprees" etc.
Add in DLC and/or micropayments, and...

kthxbai

/troll
oh ye, forgot about those things
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 04-02-2011, 14:02:49
Hmm, while I dont get the dissapproval of the game (its a teaser ffs), Im just wondering how many things will be struck off the above list before the game is released (or even demoed) :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 04-02-2011, 14:02:31
BC2 has jets? Oo
...

They promised them and had 'em in their videos....
Didnt knew that, thanks for the info.
I also Hope that they add real "Battlefield"-maps, instead of those Small-type BC ones.
Also: You only se. The outlines of what appears to Be US soldiers but a definate timeframe of the game wasnt Published yet. My Hopes are up for a Desert Storm scenario, basically a Remake of the BF42 mod "Desert Combat". Jeez, that'd Be awesome!
But unless more Info will Be released I'll neither damn nor glorify BF3. Time will Tell if EA finds back to their roots or if we'll get a pseudo-CoD, console fuck-up that is repetitve and becomes boring After a few weeks. 
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eat Uranium on 04-02-2011, 14:02:39
No modding tools A slight chance there will be
No dedicated servers Where does it say this
No melee weapons Does it matter that much in a fast game? To kill someone you have to fire several rounds in their head... with an AA gun Probably will have hardcore mode
Say hello to "breathe in cover until you're fully healed" (durr, the dragging of fallen) and this is much different to magic health bags how?
Single ammo type on tanks Do you expect anything more?
Mirror balance Do you expect anything more?
Maps the size of postage stamps because consoles would run out of memory otherwise If only PC is going to have 64 players, chances are they will make you some nice bigger maps to go along with it.
"Perks" and "bonuses" from "kill sprees" etc. essentially in BF2
Add in DLC and/or micropayments, and... Only thing I can't really argue with you

kthxbai

/troll

Quoted from the 'other' forums:
Quote
Anyhow, it sounds at the moment to be slightly better than I was expecting, but much worse than I was hoping. Still, I've never been one to heap down hellfire on something I've not actually seen yet, so call me when they put out gameplay vids or a trailer.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Neighbor Kid on 04-02-2011, 14:02:26
give me FUCKING MOD TOOLS.....

my feelings.. well disappointed... still cant take anything in right now.. look at what they said for Bf2.. 128 players.. did we get that? no..  ill save my breathe for when the game comes..  64 players? cool n all but you think we the day we live in they couldnt give more players in a server.. looks like someone from PR is gonna have to try 128 server again rofl!

just want mod tools dam it.. mod fucking tools.. * kicks rock

you know whats funny.. they mayber perhaps will finally have the mounting of weapons on any surfaces.. but now.. no mod tools or havnt been confirmed as being in or not.. yea it would be nice to mount a BAR or M1919 in a god dam window..

/rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Gezoes on 04-02-2011, 14:02:23
64 players, ye of little faith. Good, still expected a bit more though. The rumored command level between squads and commander is off the table then? Maybe the PR128 thing gets the ball rolling. All vehicles, good. Expected no less, it's BF not BC which I consider a spin-off to the series. No different ammo? Where does it say that? I think they can't get around that.

Eight maps is a bit low, but they better not fit on the back of a matchbox. Destructive environments, thumbs up. I can now setup an MG in that window? Great. Draggin' people, awesome. I was an awesome medic in PR once  ;D

No melee? I can't imagine us not having a knife or two. I hope they stay the true course and release a kick-ass demo, just like when BF1942-Wake hit. Still wary, but so far it looks ok. No mod tools is a sad thing, but modders will find a way I'm sure. One of the many reasons I hate consoles, no files to edit. It's all data, they will find a way.

I hope they stay the BF course, while looking at BF-mods, past and present, and release a demo that will surpass BF1942-Wake when the net slowed down to a crawl hehe.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 04-02-2011, 14:02:42
i like the 64 players part(confirmed?). Means my FPS days arnt over yet!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Neighbor Kid on 04-02-2011, 15:02:01
64 players, ye of little faith. Good, still expected a bit more though. The rumored command level between squads and commander is off the table then? Maybe the PR128 thing gets the ball rolling. All vehicles, good. Expected no less, it's BF not BC which I consider a spin-off to the series. No different ammo? Where does it say that? I think they can't get around that.

Eight maps is a bit low, but they better not fit on the back of a matchbox. Destructive environments, thumbs up. I can now setup an MG in that window? Great. Draggin' people, awesome. I was an awesome medic in PR once  ;D

No melee? I can't imagine us not having a knife or two. I hope they stay the true course and release a kick-ass demo, just like when BF1942-Wake hit. Still wary, but so far it looks ok. No mod tools is a sad thing, but modders will find a way I'm sure. One of the many reasons I hate consoles, no files to edit. It's all data, they will find a way.

I hope they stay the BF course, while looking at BF-mods, past and present, and release a demo that will surpass BF1942-Wake when the net slowed down to a crawl hehe.

no mod tools hasnt been confirmed yet.. over the time of people yellling about them in BC2 they have said its a maybe.. no one has said no yet... and i said yet.. hopefully we woudl know soon.. cause id hate to get my hopes up... and if we get mod tools.. i say first thing.. 100 player cause MOAR MOAR MOAR..  rabble rabble

oh and.. fh3

spam the forums that we want mod tools! spam spam spam!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 04-02-2011, 15:02:43
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfvnf2PAJo1qbhybp.gif)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]I.Kluge on 04-02-2011, 15:02:58

You can prone, kill 64 men, and eat your jet at the same time. (http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/Default.aspx##)
Just a teaser... :P

Apparently is going to be an all platform release.

And in the blog below.

Quote
We know some of you eagerly have been awaiting Battlefield 1943 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 Onslaught on PC. I’m sad to say that these two titles are now officially cancelled.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Torenico on 04-02-2011, 16:02:34
Now, i might save some money for this...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 04-02-2011, 17:02:11
i was more exited about the 128 players in PR than this TBH ><
I'd rather have 64 players in a game with some action. But this thread might not be suitable for PR fanboys.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 04-02-2011, 18:02:26
Well at least this now gives me a reason to desperately update my PC for this game.

Straight from BF Blog:

"Battlefield 3 is the true successor to Battlefield 2. Beyond our signature multiplayer, we have also included a full single-player campaign and a co-op campaign – all straight out of the box. As for fan favorite features, how does the return of jets, prone, and 64-player multiplayer (on PC) sound?"


Finally 64 players again!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 04-02-2011, 18:02:07
Lets hope they keep up to there promise
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 04-02-2011, 18:02:41
Don't ruin my dreams just yet. Yes its a present-future game, where you fight with modern weapons in some fictional World War 3 scenario, but you know what. Hinging on their experiences with Bad Company 2 and others, the actual quality of there balancing, and overall feeling to the games has been improving.

Every time I play Bad Company 2, I never feel like I can't hit my target, which was the feeling that Vanilla BF2 gave me because in order to fire accurately in that, its a lot of wait around and fire short bursts. So overall, the level to which they make weapons inaccurate and vehicles perform has vastly improved and made for a much more intense game-play experience.

Quite frankly I have no reason to doubt the 64 player idea, because I believe that things like BF2's promised 128 player limit were more victim to corporate pressure than the developers not wanting them.

Besides, some of the alleged features by many magazines and others sound great. It sounds like DICE is trying to work with EA's marketing strategy of making fun of Call Of Duty for its unrealistic representation of combat, it sounds to me that DICE is trying to make their game semi-realistic and fun at the same time, to finally put the nail in the coffin on the Call of Duty crowd. I think there's going to be some hilarious ads for this game that hint on that marketing strategy. I also believe there is going to be some good follow through on it too. BF:BC2 was a great leap up from ridiculousness of COD, despite the fact that there were still lots of snipers.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Viktor2a5 on 04-02-2011, 20:02:53
Quote from: enterbf3.com
Medic
Expected to be a sub machine gun. Expected to carry a knife, pistol, grenades, morphine, and patches.

Who said no melee? I see a knife right there.

And Morphine and patches...? No magic healing...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 04-02-2011, 20:02:53
Quote from: Tim270-PR FORUMS-
Yeah, this game is going to hurt the wallet :(.

I lol'd reading their 'new' features. 64p, prone, aircraft errrr yeah, its not like bf1942/bfv/bf2/bf212 did not have any of them.... Bf1942 came out in 2002 and its feature list sounds pretty much the same! RO has had weapon stabilisation since about 5 years ago, body dragging was in Arma 1....... I am hoping they will have actually done something creative in the years since BF2...

Dont get me wrong I love BF2. Most likely my favourite game I own, but I am losing faith in DICE.

xD

also, remeber when bf2 was anounced, and it was supose to have 128 players, but ended having 64? now they say 64 players, would we end having 32? =3
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 04-02-2011, 20:02:03
possibly

anyway, PR showed that 128 players is possible  ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Torenico on 04-02-2011, 23:02:33
Lets talk about BF3.....

...a Game i will buy for sure.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sarry on 05-02-2011, 04:02:42
*looks in awe*

It looks great, and seems to have a lot of potential. Sadly, I think I am gonna wait a while after its release before I buy it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: ebevan91 on 05-02-2011, 05:02:19
Quote from: enterbf3.com
Medic
Expected to be a sub machine gun. Expected to carry a knife, pistol, grenades, morphine, and patches.

Who said no melee? I see a knife right there.

And Morphine and patches...? No magic healing...

Do you have the exact source for that? The bolded part. I see enterbf3.com but it would take forever to find that off that website.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paavopesusieni on 05-02-2011, 10:02:40
(http://drh.img.digitalriver.com/DRHM/Storefront/Site/eaemea/pb/images/battlefield_3/container_bgr_EN.jpg)

Ah well that sucks that you have to buy limited edition to get all maps.

Good news is that they are going to have good old BF2 maps! Yeah can't wait! Also that is PC cover they have there in the picture not Xbox 360!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 05-02-2011, 10:02:54
I still don´t get why the soldier is glowin orange. Burning flare? Activated flashlight with an orange filter?  ???

Really too bad you have to preorder the limited edition, especially since not much of the gameplay has been shown yet. If I´m honest I wasn´t too happy with BF2 gameplay (defi spam, voice spam, 1 million bullets needed to kill an enemy, xp and rank whoring etc.) and it couldn´t satisfy me for long. Nowadays I mainly play BF2 mods, such as FH and PR because they´re atleast IMO better than the main game, so unless DICE won´t confirm modding tools or work on the points that annoyed me in BF2 I probably won´t buy BF3.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eat Uranium on 05-02-2011, 11:02:02
I still don´t get why the soldier is glowin orange. Burning flare? Activated flashlight with an orange filter?  ???
It's so that the box art complies with the blue/orange divide (look it up) ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 05-02-2011, 11:02:47
I don't get the fixation with 128 players some people have. Personally I find the vanilla BF gameplay is not suitable for 128 players, it's hard enough playing a good round with just 64 people. I'd rather have destructible terrain like in BC2 than 128 players.

Of course 128 players could be very interesting for mods where people generally have a different mindset but modding will probably not be possible for BF3.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 05-02-2011, 12:02:54
I hope they keep Hardcore-mode from Bad Company 2. It's the only thing I ever play.

-Higher damage (or lower health ::))
-No 3D spotting
-No minimap spotting
-No HUD elements
-No crosshairs
-No kill-cam

And friendly fire: on, of course.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Seth_Soldier on 05-02-2011, 12:02:47
box art is so crappy, i can't expect the game to be better.
It reminds the meme about modern warfare games cover art :
You always have:
- a chopper
- a vehicules
- some soldier in the background
- a soldier walking/running on the front with some special effect like smoke or explosion.

I guess bf3 will be a bf2 with frostbite with some feature that already exist since decennies ...
Dice didn't even get the guts to go on with future warfare, they hit again in the modern warfare.

I'm sure bf2 will be well sold, but it will be just an other disappointment
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Gezoes on 05-02-2011, 15:02:42
Yeah, the box art sucks, so the game must be horrible. Future war? Did you miss BF2142? Didn't quite work out. You also forget that a lot of people never played with the Frostbite engine because they've never played the Bad Company spin-offs.

Sounds a bit like you have a shelf of abandoned FPS console games but that's not EA or DICE's fault ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: djinn on 05-02-2011, 15:02:24
I dont get why people are griping. Unless it changes its tune, it will be as it says on the box - and its bad form to add drastically different gameplay elements to a sequel. Dont blame the company, blame the generation of FPS we are in. Ironsights, medics, prone etc are kinda where we are currently. All the other things, stabilization, adjustable sniper scope etc are specific to realism games. Battlefield has always been a mainstream title. More realistic than COD 4 and its ilk, sure. But only just.

That said, I think there would have been room for some features such as picking up other weapons to replace a weapon of equal weight, making heavy infantry slower moving, tanks with insides and animated internal actions, and even gun jamming and some dud grenades and shells.

Would also love to see an advanced communication rose to support suppression/ flanking, hand signaling and perhaps whisper vs shout vs radio over, maybe even amputations.

All within allowable range. Generally though, its bad form to change things too much. Bad for the following.

Sure wish its the same characters from bad company in this one. Would make sense considering it being a little beyond modern warfare.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Neighbor Kid on 06-02-2011, 05:02:04
I don't get the fixation with 128 players some people have. Personally I find the vanilla BF gameplay is not suitable for 128 players, it's hard enough playing a good round with just 64 people. I'd rather have destructible terrain like in BC2 than 128 players.

Of course 128 players could be very interesting for mods where people generally have a different mindset but modding will probably not be possible for BF3.

128 players adds a whole new element to the game.. maybe vanilla it wouldnt make SUCH a difference but in mods yes.. it would.  even so that many players would be awesome. and for mod tools.. neither confirmed nor denied yet.. so i mean.. we will see it was said it was a possible chance a WHILE ago but who knows.. it would be great now wouldnt it?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 06-02-2011, 05:02:13
box art is so crappy, i can't expect the game to be better.
It reminds the meme about modern warfare games cover art :
You always have:
- a chopper
- a vehicules
- some soldier in the background
- a soldier walking/running on the front with some special effect like smoke or explosion.



All FPS game cover's are the same. You have always a dude waving a gun in the front with something like explosions and vehicles blowing up.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hankypanky on 06-02-2011, 05:02:30
box art is so crappy, i can't expect the game to be better.
It reminds the meme about modern warfare games cover art :
You always have:
- a chopper
- a vehicules
- some soldier in the background
- a soldier walking/running on the front with some special effect like smoke or explosion.



All FPS game cover's are the same. You have always a dude waving a gun in the front with something like explosions and vehicles blowing up.

lol most people are not going to give a shit about the box art because they are going to buy an electronic copy.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 06-02-2011, 05:02:32
lol most people are not going to give a shit about the box art because they are going to buy an electronic copy.

Besides judging a game for the cover is stupid. In the BF3 UK EA forums we had dudes saying since BF3 cover has that orange glow like in the BC2 cover then the game would be a console port with 32 players, no jets and prone. The next day, DICE made the announced of 64 players, prone and jets...some people are fucking morons.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Torenico on 06-02-2011, 23:02:25
 Mod Tools (http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/battlefield-bad-company-2-pc/853309-mod-tools.html#post11950412)

Looks like DICE finally heard people calling for Mod Tools, and they would work on them after release.

I dont give a shit when they'll be released, a year or  two, but give us modtoolz!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 07-02-2011, 00:02:43
Its a trap!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: kummitus on 07-02-2011, 00:02:37
15 months old thread?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Tedacious on 07-02-2011, 00:02:05
15 months old thread?
So? BF3 still exists.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Torenico on 07-02-2011, 00:02:19
15 months old thread?

Yeah i know, but they said "Currently our work with simplifying the tools are for Frostbite 2 and future games, not for BC2." And BF3 is Frostbite 2.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 07-02-2011, 05:02:29
Mod Tools (http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/battlefield-bad-company-2-pc/853309-mod-tools.html#post11950412)

Looks like DICE finally heard people calling for Mod Tools, and they would work on them after release.

I dont give a shit when they'll be released, a year or  two, but give us modtoolz!

I will gladly pay for them, its best than those stupid dlc's scams.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Torenico on 07-02-2011, 05:02:00
If its a Scam, then why millions of people play these DLCs?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 07-02-2011, 07:02:27
If its a Scam, then why millions of people play these DLCs?

People are stupid.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sgt.Radman on 07-02-2011, 08:02:34
I have yet to pay my first DLC that will actually be a game (BC:Vietnam). If it's a DLC then it's content for the game OF the game. So that is what you get when you buy the game. I'm not paying for more stuff for my original game.

Just like it's stupid to pay monthly fees to play an online game.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: silian on 07-02-2011, 12:02:28
Spotting confirmed.
Dolphin diving out.
Friendly fire in.
Tehran-set map/s confirmed.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-02-07-dice-battlefield-3-has-3d-spotting

Paris and New York rumoured.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 07-02-2011, 12:02:46
Let's say for the sake of argument mod tools are there 2 months after release of the game.
What would you rather have BotB and Eastern Front within the time limits of one year on FH2 or the DEVS start anew with Africa being the first theather to be released in FH3?

I know my choice would be to enjoy FH2 with all it's diversity. Play a little BF3 once in a while and over a few years, who knows, there might be mod tools, they might be easy enough to use without having to revert to Cloud server leasing at Amazon  ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Aggroman on 07-02-2011, 12:02:47
Spotting confirmed.
Dolphin diving out.
Friendly fire in.
Tehran-set map/s confirmed.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-02-07-dice-battlefield-3-has-3d-spotting

Paris and New York rumoured.

Yay! Friendly Fire! \o/
Now seriously, why do they announce such a thing? Is it something special nowadays to have friendly fire in the game?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 07-02-2011, 13:02:30
One could ask himself why they release stuff anyway :o
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Neighbor Kid on 07-02-2011, 14:02:39
Let's say for the sake of argument mod tools are there 2 months after release of the game.
What would you rather have BotB and Eastern Front within the time limits of one year on FH2 or the DEVS start anew with Africa being the first theather to be released in FH3?

I know my choice would be to enjoy FH2 with all it's diversity. Play a little BF3 once in a while and over a few years, who knows, there might be mod tools, they might be easy enough to use without having to revert to Cloud server leasing at Amazon  ;)

hmmm... i would love to see Fh3, so yea, and i think at one point of the devs realized that it was a mistake going all out with maps and everything that the best thing to do to start would be weapons player models and vehicles on maps they already have from the base game to hasten releases... but you do pose a good question. but at the same time i think Fh would be superb ( even though it is now) on the FB. imo.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 07-02-2011, 14:02:43
Mod tools? Holy third-party physics engine, brix were shat. However, what you can do with them, and how complicated they will be is another question.

If there's a "hardcore" mode and dedicated servers, I might even be slightly interested.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LHeureux on 07-02-2011, 14:02:56
For the friendly fire, it's just an option like in BF2. You can have it or not on your server or in other modes.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Neighbor Kid on 07-02-2011, 14:02:28
what i think would be a big plus with BF3.. IF mod tools came out and FH moved to it,  i think the crowd here would grow immensely... this would also open up to other people who can mod, if you have a bigger player base there would be more people interested in helping create a mod and if they god talent then BAM.. you got your self a revived mod.  

honestly just looking at BC and what BF3 will have like destructible environment, or the fact that when you hit tanks shit flies off of them leaves me to think well for one vehicle combat might be able to be changed with .. maybe even tracks flying off or the gun being destroyed etc.. the audio god i love the audio i crank my surround sound up when i play when your driving up hill the tanks engines know that you are going up a hill and drop the gear down thus the RPM gets higher and the engine is hella louder.. god i woudl love to hear how a tiger is going up a hill with this engine or even a sherman for that matter.  the start up sounds of vehicles sounds fabulous.. just sounds in general are awesome.. the special effects like when you fire a M1 abrams the dust comes off the tank or the effect of it.

graphics are vastly improved.   there is no hiding behind cover any more and no not every noob shoots and destroys everything even a noob knows that his allies need cover to run too.. well yea if theres a panzershrek hiding behind that wall im going to blast it before he blasts me..

might i add something else to this.. the pacific would be awesome.. if you have the NCO kit as an idea or perhaps an officer pick up kit..  in BC theres a stupid bullshit function of calling mortars down if your a sniper.. its rtarded and broken, but if you have it severely limited i think it would be cool.. and on pacific maps and island hoping you could get away with this and call it artillery support from the cruisers and battleships off shore..
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paavopesusieni on 07-02-2011, 17:02:57
It would take like 2-3 years before FH3 would come out if they moved to BF3...

IMO if FH ever moved to BF3 (though will probably never happen) they should do it bit by bit so it wouldn't take so long.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Graf_Radetzky(CZ) on 07-02-2011, 18:02:57
Let's say for the sake of argument mod tools are there 2 months after release of the game.
What would you rather have BotB and Eastern Front within the time limits of one year on FH2 or the DEVS start anew with Africa being the first theather to be released in FH3?

I know my choice would be to enjoy FH2 with all it's diversity. Play a little BF3 once in a while and over a few years, who knows, there might be mod tools, they might be easy enough to use without having to revert to Cloud server leasing at Amazon  ;)

FH3, because i love Africa  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Nissi on 07-02-2011, 19:02:30
Clearly FH3: But don't take Africa again first... too few people like it. (I do.)

Would be cool if there are cool Modtools. Still hope that the stuff could be ported but this hope & thought is silly.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Tedacious on 07-02-2011, 19:02:21
Stop even hoping. Total conversion mods are dying.

Now i'm not a modder, but modding and creating destructible enviroments, and with these better graphics, it's too time and energy consuming for people to do on their free-time and not get paid.

A team of, say 20, people is not enough. and IF they would attempt it it would take more than 2 years for the first release. It took 2 years for fh2 to come out.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: azreal on 07-02-2011, 19:02:45
If (and hopefully) there are mod tools, who says we have to create destructible environments for an installment of FH on the FB 2.0 engine? I would rather see faster releases with more content, and a few tactically important statics that are destroyable, rather than an FH version with 100% destroyable environment. 
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 07-02-2011, 19:02:08
true that, if FH moves to BF3 ( IF!!!!) i would rather see small relaeses with incremental updates, than waiting 3 years for a first version :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Graf_Radetzky(CZ) on 07-02-2011, 20:02:50
Exactly my thoughs azreal & sicario, would be wonderfull.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Neighbor Kid on 07-02-2011, 20:02:48
agreed with the releases, like i said hit player models weapons and vehicles first then hit up bigger stuff.. imo.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 07-02-2011, 20:02:54
If (and hopefully) there are mod tools, who says we have to create destructible environments for an installment of FH on the FB 2.0 engine? I would rather see faster releases with more content, and a few tactically important statics that are destroyable, rather than an FH version with 100% destroyable environment.  

Well with any luck, the editor would be intuitive like UDK, with something like Fracture built in, where you can define a mesh to go underneath the static, say a buildings supports, and then define the static mesh to be actually destroyed by Frostbite, and choose the extent to which it is to be destroyed, and if certain pieces are invincible, what pieces represent the support structure, and so on. If that is how the editor works, destruction could be quite simple.

I also feel that if most of the primary assets have been held onto in their raw form, in whatever program they were created. Reexporting them to a new engine would take little time.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 07-02-2011, 20:02:25
Video showing off some of the capabilities of the Frostbite engine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foXVF7q035Y&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foXVF7q035Y&feature=player_embedded)

And I finally understand why the soldier glows. It´s a chemlight! (http://images.bf-games.net/news/2011/02/10044_1.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Neighbor Kid on 07-02-2011, 21:02:12
cross fingers for mod tools.. fh3.. pr 2.. etc.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 07-02-2011, 21:02:44
cross fingers for mod tools.. fh3.. pr 2.. etc.

BF Pirates. Destructible boats for the win .. Yarrr
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 07-02-2011, 21:02:17
cross fingers for mod tools.. fh3.. pr 2.. etc.

BF Pirates. Destructible boats for the win .. Yarrr

Amen to that...BFP needs to make a comeback
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Neighbor Kid on 07-02-2011, 21:02:56
oh man BFP that was awesome sucks it died in BF2.. i thought it was fun as hell
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 07-02-2011, 21:02:03
oh man, destroyable galeon, destroyable fortress !!!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 07-02-2011, 21:02:30
Imagine, giaraboob, your squad is walking past a wall, and the sound of a wild guido is heard in the distance.
Luckily, one of your squadmates picked up the special Thompson/No.69 kit. You all back up, and he lobs the grenade, blowing up the wall and ambushing an italian squad.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: azreal on 07-02-2011, 21:02:58
cross fingers for mod tools.. fh3.. pr 2.. etc.

there already is a PR2.
http://www.realitymod.com/pr2.html
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 07-02-2011, 23:02:01
cross fingers for mod tools.. fh3.. pr 2.. etc.

there already is a PR2.
http://www.realitymod.com/pr2.html

Somebody is sharp today  ;)
By the way how many topics can there be created from here till Fall this year in the BF3 section of the EA-UK forums. I was reading some there and I was like, holy shit guys you still got 9 months left till this baby is born, save some for later.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 08-02-2011, 02:02:45
New scans of the Gameinformer article on BF3:

(http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn290/gajason143/DSCF1871.jpg)
(http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn290/gajason143/DSCF1870.jpg)
(http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn290/gajason143/DSCF1869.jpg)
(http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn290/gajason143/DSCF1868.jpg)
(http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn290/gajason143/DSCF1867.jpg)

New info:

-Aiming for CY Q4 2011 release
-Concept for BF3 has been in the works for years, waiting on proper tech to seamlessly come together
-Frostbite 2.0 is the culmination of this tech, entirely re-written
-Lighting sounds neat; one "probe" contains more lighting information than an entire BFBC2 level.
-Level destruction is going to be "believable" but basically everything is destructible.
-Character animations powered by ANT, what EA Sports uses.
-AI characters and multiplayer characters have different animation sets
-No more "gliding" animations that look off, animation realism is a focus
-Captured their own war audios (bullets, tanks, helicopters, etc) at different distances to ensure realism
-Better audio cues for certain actions, more easily able to listen for threats
-Plan on better, more immediate post release content
-More unlocks than BFBC2
-Dice trying to find a good balance between customization of your character and not having "pink rabbit hat(s)"
-4 classes
-Will talk about squads "later"
-Looking into a theater mode but can't talk about it
-Will have co-op
-There will be a kill-cam but it can be turned off
-Prone with no dolphin diving
-No BC2 elements such as motion sensors, tracer darts...
-BF3's team is almost twice as big as the team for BFBC2
-They want the pacing of the single player mode to be balanced, with highs and lows. Makes the comparison to a song vs a guitar solo.
-Part of the single player mode takes place in Sulaymaniyah - Iraqi Kurdistan.
-"F**k" will be used often, so M rates for sure
-Significant narrative that goes with the SP mode
-More than one setting, you're not in the middle east for the whole game
-PC version is lead version
-Why 64 players for PC only? No complains from the console crowd.
-No mod tools at release. Maybe none down the line either. Frosbite 2.0 is complex and mods tools would have to be dumbed down, so does Dice really want to put their time to that or would it be better spent elsewhere?

This part was sad :S I hope they change their minds. I really want some mod tools! I will even pay for them!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Lightning on 08-02-2011, 02:02:51
Ha! You call me a dreamcrusher, but at least I don't give you false hope by making ambiguous statements like
"maybe no mod tools".
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Mayhemic.MAD on 08-02-2011, 02:02:29
-No mod tools at release. Maybe none down the line either. Frosbite 2.0 is complex and mods tools would have to be dumbed down, so does Dice really want to put their time to that or would it be better spent elsewhere?

This part was sad :S I hope they change their minds. I really want some mod tools! I will even pay for them!
Might be much money, if you need like a few thousand dollars for just the tree generation software of modern games.. http://www.speedtree.com/sales/#sdk (http://www.speedtree.com/sales/#sdk)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 08-02-2011, 03:02:11
Well the game looks beautiful to say the least.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Hockeywarrior on 08-02-2011, 03:02:53
It's encouraging to hear them say that PC is in fact the "lead version." Not sure it's worth a grain of salt, given that Frostbite is fundamentally an engine designed for consoles.

Still, there is definitely hope that this will be a worthy successor to BF2. The first person shot with the M4 looks like it has a very PC-like field of view!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Neighbor Kid on 08-02-2011, 03:02:42
* starts stomping around madly... IOHUIHGKJSNUIB:WONIO:WENJ{VH@:WRJ{ H GOD DAM IT EA.. TWIO:HJNVHWOHFPUV NO MOD TOOLS FUCK FUCK FUCK... * heart attack falls dead.. thump...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Alakazou on 08-02-2011, 06:02:11
http://planetbattlefield.gamespy.com/fullstory.php?id=164286


Maybe I will have again faith in dice. But I want the SDK :D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 08-02-2011, 06:02:20
Edit:

Follow the link above, it has so much more resolution. Enjoy!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Priestdk on 08-02-2011, 08:02:27
Bedst line of the day!

-No BC2 elements such as motion sensors, tracer darts...


Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 08-02-2011, 10:02:38
I'm betting that the "mod tools" will at most allow you at most to make new uniforms, weapons and vehicles, and create maps based on existing statics. Why?

Player models - use third-party animation tool.
Destrutible objects - use third-party physics tool.

So PR3 might theoretically be possible, but total conversions such as FH3 or Pirates are unlikely. And at any rate, I doubt that even the PR team would have the manpower, time, interest, etc. to create destructible objects or player models on the level of detail shown in that article.

I'm saying FH2 is "good enough", the gameplay is satisfactory, it does not look too bad, and what with the elusive 64 player limit about to fall (provided the serverside hack as tested by PR is shared among the BF2 community), I would say that the dev team should focus in bringing out the Eastern Front instead of switching engines. And anyway, the release is still 9 months away and mod tools, if they arrive at all, even farther away.

Sure, in hardcore mode with killcam off the vanilla BF3 MP might be fun but for SP I'm getting MW2 vibes from the article, and that's not a good thing. Considering this is meant to go against as-of-yet unannounced MW3 on the Christmas market, that's hardly unexpected, but still. Oh well, one can always ignore the SP as it is over in one night anyway and rarely worth replaying, unlike MP.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paasky on 08-02-2011, 11:02:59
Other than "zomg graphics" and "zomg physics" and "zomg sounds", that article didn't have much. Just "we've got a lot of cool things planned which I can't tell about but are awesome". Where have I heard that before.... Oh yes, Mafia 2 and Civ 5, the other new games I was really looking forward to.

Yes, both had great graphics and were fun to play, once. Then the second time... well meh. Especially this "easy-to-play-from-the-get-go" mantra is becoming old. Too often it means simple and dumbed down gameplay.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 08-02-2011, 11:02:38
4 classes?

Thats it?

let me guess, medics with machine guns?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Viktor2a5 on 08-02-2011, 11:02:19
4 classes?

Thats it?

let me guess, medics with machine guns?


Assault
Expected to include an assault rifle with grenade launcher attachment. The kit is also expected to include a knife, pistol, and grenades.
Spec-Ops
Probably a sub machine gun or variant and possible silenced. Also will include a knife, pistol, grenades, and C4 explosives.
Medic
Expected to be a sub machine gun. Expected to carry a knife, pistol, grenades, morphine, and patches.
Engineer
A shotgun or sub machine gun. Also carries a knife, pistol, grenades, mines, RPG, and wrench.
Sniper
A scoped rifle. Also carries a knife, pistol, grenades, laser desegnator, and claymores.
Support
Machine gun such as a PKMs. Also carries a knife, pistol, and grenades.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: kummitus on 08-02-2011, 11:02:25
badnwitdh exceed :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 08-02-2011, 11:02:05
4 classes?

Thats it?

let me guess, medics with machine guns?


Assault
Expected to include an assault rifle with grenade launcher attachment. The kit is also expected to include a knife, pistol, and grenades.
Spec-Ops
Probably a sub machine gun or variant and possible silenced. Also will include a knife, pistol, grenades, and C4 explosives.
Medic
Expected to be a sub machine gun. Expected to carry a knife, pistol, grenades, morphine, and patches.
Engineer
A shotgun or sub machine gun. Also carries a knife, pistol, grenades, mines, RPG, and wrench.
Sniper
A scoped rifle. Also carries a knife, pistol, grenades, laser desegnator, and claymores.
Support
Machine gun such as a PKMs. Also carries a knife, pistol, and grenades.
hmm.....   acceptable
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kev4000 on 08-02-2011, 12:02:57
You'll find the scans at http://planetbattlefield.gamespy.com/

As for mod tools, take a look at BF1942. No mod tools at all. Then some geniuses in the community managed to "crack" the BF42 file formats, RFA and standardmesh, resulting first in the Kubelchopper and Parallel World, and from there on Desert Combat. Dice quickly noticed its success and hired these community members to make "official" mod tools. Basically they just ran the same mod tools by quality control and had some user friendliness added. As well as BF42 v1.2 ( ? ) adding support for custom mod folders.
The reason this couldn't be done with BFBC2 is that the content is compiled to binary format for fast on the go loading among many other limitations in the engine itself (no dedicated server files, backend stuff mostly).
If BF3 uses uncompiled content, or includes the uncompiled content + compiler, together with a relatively unrestricted backend, then modding may be possible even without official mod tools.

So basically, we can't predict how the modding scene will be for BF3 until we actually get a look at its files. Could be earlier than expected, could be never, or somewhere inbetween.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paavopesusieni on 08-02-2011, 13:02:47
This game sound so damn awesome. Finally BF3 have been waiting this for so long and the new features sound really good.

I really trust that DICE can pull this off. Need to upgrade my rig though.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zeno on 08-02-2011, 22:02:36
i see a lot of people whining about no mod tools.

people should know that the current editor needs a whole studio of servers.

i cant realy imagine any community modder having a full 20 000+ dollar studio avaliable at hand ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Torenico on 08-02-2011, 23:02:57
Well, i can live without mod tools, but the game must be badbass then.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Hockeywarrior on 08-02-2011, 23:02:04
4 classes?

Thats it?

let me guess, medics with machine guns?


Assault
Expected to include an assault rifle with grenade launcher attachment. The kit is also expected to include a knife, pistol, and grenades.
Spec-Ops
Probably a sub machine gun or variant and possible silenced. Also will include a knife, pistol, grenades, and C4 explosives.
Medic
Expected to be a sub machine gun. Expected to carry a knife, pistol, grenades, morphine, and patches.
Engineer
A shotgun or sub machine gun. Also carries a knife, pistol, grenades, mines, RPG, and wrench.
Sniper
A scoped rifle. Also carries a knife, pistol, grenades, laser desegnator, and claymores.
Support
Machine gun such as a PKMs. Also carries a knife, pistol, and grenades.
Errr where did you come up with this stuff? The BF3 guys said clearly in those magazine scans that there are FOUR CLASSES. You listed 6.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 08-02-2011, 23:02:37
My .02€: spec-ops and sniper to be combined. Engineer has to choose between MG and AT, assault and grunt as is.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paavopesusieni on 09-02-2011, 08:02:20
I hope they do it like in BF2142 where you could customize your class a lot. Assault could be medic or just assault, support could be well support with different stuff, recon was able to choose between sniper rifle or assault carbine and Engineer was AT and engineer put together.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sgt.Radman on 09-02-2011, 10:02:39
I hope they do it like in BF2142 where you could customize your class a lot. Assault could be medic or just assault, support could be well support with different stuff, recon was able to choose between sniper rifle or assault carbine and Engineer was AT and engineer put together.

Ye i would like that too. But 2142 was futuristic so they COULD do something like that. Don't think they will apply that to BF3. < We need customization, Vietnam style character selection, 2142 loadout and classes, and BC2 graphics, sounds, maps and objectives.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Viktor2a5 on 09-02-2011, 10:02:01
Errr where did you come up with this stuff? The BF3 guys said clearly in those magazine scans that there are FOUR CLASSES. You listed 6.

http://enterbf3.com/
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 09-02-2011, 12:02:22
I hope they do it like in BF2142 where you could customize your class a lot. Assault could be medic or just assault, support could be well support with different stuff, recon was able to choose between sniper rifle or assault carbine and Engineer was AT and engineer put together.
I totally hated it. It's one of those things that puts me down on 2142. When I spawn I want all my gear with me, not having to micromanage my inventory before  I get to the field ...

Obviously, I hope the bf3 spawns will be more bf2.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 09-02-2011, 13:02:27
I hope they do it like in BF2142 where you could customize your class a lot. Assault could be medic or just assault, support could be well support with different stuff, recon was able to choose between sniper rifle or assault carbine and Engineer was AT and engineer put together.
I totally hated it. It's one of those things that puts me down on 2142. When I spawn I want all my gear with me, not having to micromanage my inventory before  I get to the field ...

Obviously, I hope the bf3 spawns will be more bf2.
Yep, having to unlock nades and medic shock paddles = fail.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 09-02-2011, 13:02:59
Having to unlock your gear sucks. Unlocking weapons is OK, as long as the weapons you start out with are a) fun to play with b) as good as the unlockables

Personally, I think it's great to customize your kit before spawning. If you don't like it, then just pick your favorite load-out and never change it. It'll stay the same every time you join a server (it does in BFBC2 at least).
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 09-02-2011, 14:02:41
having to unlock gear is indeed bad. Because it also limits your playability at the beginning of the game for all your classes
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Bravo3945 on 09-02-2011, 17:02:04
having to unlock gear is indeed bad. Because it also limits your playability at the beginning of the game for all your classes
I agree I haven't liked what they'e done with BF2142 and BFBC2. :-\
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 09-02-2011, 19:02:38
You all act like it was impossible to unlock basic kit items in 2142  ::)

2142 gave you an unlock tree which you could then choose to commit to for a certain class. Sure you could spend unlocks unlocking 1 kit item at a time, or you could go down the list of a specific kits unlocks and get all of those before moving onto other kits. Hell I think Shock Paddles and Grenades are like the first two unlocks on the Assault list.

And I can't really see what the big deal is taking a few extra seconds to double check your kit, to make sure your set up for what your trying to accomplish.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 09-02-2011, 19:02:21
You all act like it was impossible to unlock basic kit items in 2142  ::)

2142 gave you an unlock tree which you could then choose to commit to for a certain class. Sure you could spend unlocks unlocking 1 kit item at a time, or you could go down the list of a specific kits unlocks and get all of those before moving onto other kits. Hell I think Shock Paddles and Grenades are like the first two unlocks on the Assault list.

And I can't really see what the big deal is taking a few extra seconds to double check your kit, to make sure your set up for what your trying to accomplish.

Kit Customization I could handle (the BC2 unlock i think more of as abilities more than equipment) but the one thing I cant handle is working towards something that I should already have.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: djinn on 09-02-2011, 20:02:57
Best system, Battlefield Vietnam.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paavopesusieni on 09-02-2011, 20:02:35
Also I didn't say anything about the unlock system but the customization options, how can you make your class, choose equipment and so on...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Hockeywarrior on 09-02-2011, 22:02:16
You all act like it was impossible to unlock basic kit items in 2142  ::)

2142 gave you an unlock tree which you could then choose to commit to for a certain class. Sure you could spend unlocks unlocking 1 kit item at a time, or you could go down the list of a specific kits unlocks and get all of those before moving onto other kits. Hell I think Shock Paddles and Grenades are like the first two unlocks on the Assault list.

And I can't really see what the big deal is taking a few extra seconds to double check your kit, to make sure your set up for what your trying to accomplish.
YEAH seriously. The absolute worst case of this was Medal of Honor Airborne where one of the "upgrades" for the K98 was a stripper clip and one of the "upgrades" for the Thompson was a muzzle break. Seriously?

It's also laughable to think that those and some of the other upgrades could even have been "field upgrades" to weapons. Hell, it was bad enough that they used the wrong type of Thompson and stuff like that in the game.

Kit Customization I could handle (the BC2 unlock i think more of as abilities more than equipment) but the one thing I cant handle is working towards something that I should already have.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: 16floz470ml on 10-02-2011, 00:02:25
There is a new article in the March 2011 Game Informer about BF3.  They talk to the developers.  It is the most info that I have seen yet. 
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Viktor2a5 on 11-02-2011, 12:02:53
(http://enterbf3.com/images/bf3-menu.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paasky on 11-02-2011, 12:02:03
I'm going to seem petty for this, but am I the only one who dislikes these "electronic" menus?

Meanwhile, looks like BF2 but just dumbed down. Without knowing anything about the gameplay it looks boring & more of the same ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: kummitus on 11-02-2011, 12:02:27
That pic looks like it could have been taken from graw
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Viktor2a5 on 11-02-2011, 12:02:23
Its says BF3 menu on url.

I posted it, to show, that medic isnt MGgunner

I could be wrong...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 11-02-2011, 12:02:33
I sure hope that screenie is fake! god that looks even more dissapointing than i originally had on anticipated
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sgt.Radman on 11-02-2011, 12:02:26
So Medics and Engineers are gonna be Assault?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 11-02-2011, 12:02:19
Great all assault players will also be medics wich can revive themself

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paavopesusieni on 11-02-2011, 13:02:32
F*ck yeah! It's like in BF2142, except that engineer has shotgun instead of an SMG.

Yeah exactly what I wanted, or it seems so far. I hope it's not fake.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 11-02-2011, 13:02:58
Great all assault players will also be medics wich can revive themself



Most players use medic in the bf series as an assault anyway.

Why would you pick assault if you almost get the same gear with medic + the ability to heal ?
I almost never pick assault.It makes sense that if there are only 4 classes, spec ops and assault would have to go...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 11-02-2011, 13:02:45
(http://enterbf3.com/images/bf3-menu.jpg)

That looks like a cheap MoH port.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paavopesusieni on 11-02-2011, 13:02:56
Even though it's alpha it look better than any other game I have seen. I like plain clear look, though that might be fake.

Just compare it to BF2, that is so much better it is.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 11-02-2011, 14:02:34
I sure hope that screenie is fake! god that looks even more dissapointing than i originally had on anticipated
It's a menu lol.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 11-02-2011, 16:02:58
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/02/11/dice-interview-building-battlefield-3.aspx

Quote
We are usually using one game engine as a minimum and for BF3 we are using the PC

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: ebevan91 on 11-02-2011, 16:02:07
LOL if you think that screenshot is real (of the menu/kit selection screen)

It's a dead giveaway that it's fake.

1. The background (behind the menu) is the same screen that's in the magazine.

2. Those weapon images have been on the internet for a good while now (I saw them years ago)

3. Medic, Recon, Support, Engineer... that's another giveaway that it's fake.

4. The text looks like crap

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: bjack on 11-02-2011, 16:02:17
LOL if you think that screenshot is real (of the menu/kit selection screen)

It's a dead giveaway that it's fake.

1. The background (behind the menu) is the same screen that's in the magazine.

2. Those weapon images have been on the internet for a good while now (I saw them years ago)

3. Medic, Recon, Support, Engineer... that's another giveaway that it's fake.

4. The text looks like crap



I agree that it looks fake.

Per Bad Company 2, Medic = Support.  Perhaps they could change that, but I doubt it.

Also, no Assault class?  Where did the grenade launcher go?

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 11-02-2011, 17:02:29
I sure hope that screenie is fake! god that looks even more dissapointing than i originally had on anticipated
It's a menu lol.

Doesnt matter, its still dissapointing.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 11-02-2011, 17:02:03
(http://enterbf3.com/images/bf3-menu.jpg)

Thats a fake; just a pic from the magazine article with a pasted menu. It was posted on the BF3 UK EA forums and they already labelled as a fake.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paavopesusieni on 11-02-2011, 17:02:23
Damn I knew it!  :-X
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 11-02-2011, 18:02:31
As if you are going to get as detailed multiplayer maps like it shows in the map.  ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 11-02-2011, 18:02:47
nevertheless, I think this spawncomposition is the most likely : assaultmedic, support , sniper, antitankengy, if only 4 classes are provided
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 11-02-2011, 18:02:32
Probaly the same as BF 2142
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 12-02-2011, 07:02:30
Most players use medic in the bf series as an assault anyway.

Why would you pick assault if you almost get the same gear with medic + the ability to heal ?...
Assault has a more powerful gun, a smoke grenade, and heavy body armor... ;)



I reckon the BF2 class system works ok as is, but if they do cut the number of classes back to 4, there must be a good reason for it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 12-02-2011, 21:02:36
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/02/11/dice-interview-building-battlefield-3.aspx

Quote
We are usually using one game engine as a minimum and for BF3 we are using the PC


Look closely and you might be able to see Natty.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hankypanky on 13-02-2011, 03:02:37
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/02/11/dice-interview-building-battlefield-3.aspx

Quote
We are usually using one game engine as a minimum and for BF3 we are using the PC


Look closely and you might be able to see Natty.
Does Natty work for dice?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 13-02-2011, 05:02:40
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/02/11/dice-interview-building-battlefield-3.aspx

Quote
We are usually using one game engine as a minimum and for BF3 we are using the PC


Look closely and you might be able to see Natty.

Mopping the floors........... :-)
Title: Battlefield 3 PC to be lead platform; mod tools might not be released
Post by: Ajs47951 on 13-02-2011, 23:02:54
Battlefield 3 PC to be lead platform; mod tools might not be released

As expected, info from this month's Game Informer cover story on Battlefield 3 is making its way onto the internet. A post on the NeoGAF message board has some bullet points on what was revealed in the article which gives the first details on developer Digital Illusions' next first person shooter.

The article states that the PC version of the game is the lead platform which is good news for people who might have been afraid that we would be getting a dumbed down console port. We won't reveal too much more about the bullet points in the post but one that is mentioned is that the game might not get mod tools with the post stating that the new Frostbite 2 engine is so complex that any mod tools would have to be dumbed down. "We know what its really is the don't want COD getting Frostbite 2 engine so they can F**& it up!."The post hints that DICE might not want to put in any resources for that to happen.

http://news.bigdownload.com/2011/02/08/report-battlefield-3-pc-to-be-lead-platform-mod-tools-might-no/ (http://news.bigdownload.com/2011/02/08/report-battlefield-3-pc-to-be-lead-platform-mod-tools-might-no/)
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Battlefield-3-DICE-Frostbyte-2-64-player-PC-gaming,12154.html (http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Battlefield-3-DICE-Frostbyte-2-64-player-PC-gaming,12154.html)

I don't know if this is in the right spot so if is not plz move then.


anyway look at the bright-side on the 22 this month Fallout New Vegas dead money DLC comes out for pc! :o ;Dlol
Title: Re: Battlefield 3 PC to be lead platform; mod tools might not be released
Post by: Ajs47951 on 13-02-2011, 23:02:49
also
The GI article reveals that the Battlefield 3 concept has been in the works for years, however DICE decided to wait on proceeding with development until the proper technology was made available. DICE said that its new Frostbyte 2.0 engine is the "culmination" of the tech, re-written from scratch.

As for content, Battlefield 3 will reportedly offer 4 classes--info in regards to squads will be discussed at a later date. Other notable features include a "Killcam" that can be turned off, a theater mode, and the use of the work "f**k throughout the game, undoubtedly landing it an "M" rating when it hits retail shelves.

Confirming previous reports that the game will take place in New York, Paris and Tehran, the article revealed that the story will feature more than one setting, focusing on other territories other than the Middle East. That said, players will visit Sulaymaniyah, Iraqi Kurdistan sometime during the campaign.

Previous reports also indicated that the PC version would provide 64-player multiplayer support. The console versions won't be quite so dramatic, cranking out support for 24-player multiplayer sessions.

Here are a few more details yanked from the article:

    * Character animations will be powered by ANT and focused on realism.
    * Level destruction will be "believable."
    * AI characters and multiplayer characters have different animation sets
    * Captured their own war audios (bullets, tanks, helicopters, etc) at different distances to ensure realism
    * Better audio cues for certain actions, more easily able to listen for threats
    * Better, more immediate post release content
    * More unlocks than BFBC2
    * A good balance between customization of your character and not having "pink rabbit hat(s)"
    * Will have co-op
    * BF3's team is almost twice as big as the team for BFBC2
    * Balanced pacing in single-player mode, with highs and lows.
    * Significant narrative that goes with the SP mode
    * Original story, not based on Bad Company.

Battlefield 3 is slated to hit the Windows PC, Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 this fall.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 13-02-2011, 23:02:36
Merged. Next time search before making a thread.

And use Modify button. It is there for a good reason.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ajs47951 on 13-02-2011, 23:02:01
Merged. Next time search before making a thread.

And use Modify button. It is there for a good reason.
lol sorry I will next time

thanks for the Merge!  :D :D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Bruno_gg on 14-02-2011, 00:02:46
LMAO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9bn22k2FL8&feature=player_embedded
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ajs47951 on 14-02-2011, 01:02:00
Thats why im a PC gamer :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: djinn on 14-02-2011, 01:02:17
Pitty. Kinda liked Marlow n crew. Although, the rest sound simply delicious.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 23-02-2011, 15:02:45
Big news Battlefield players  ;D

First trailer!

http://www.ea.com/battlefield3/videos/gameplay-debut

Be wary though, some heavy traffic.

And as a bonus I leave this.

New Gamestar magazine article summary.

http://planetbattlefield.gamespy.com/fullstory.php?id=164377

New pictures:

http://planetbattlefield.gamespy.com/fms/Image.php?image=http://pnmedia.gamespy.com/planetbattlefield.gamespy.com/images/news3/gs-bf3-1.jpg

And as an extra, extra bonus.

Lars Gustavsson reveals the design documents from BF 1942 with many features that were cut in the final version and some extra details.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2011/02/23/battlefield-origins-designing-1942.aspx

ENJOY!!!!!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paavopesusieni on 23-02-2011, 15:02:48
Yeah saw those, looked awesome.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-02-2011, 15:02:23
hmmmm

i dunno, what do you guys think?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 23-02-2011, 15:02:22
why advertize a battlefield game with singleplayer cut scenes? ><

altrou it looks fantastic, i dont think all those motions will be avalible in MP, hope im wrong.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paavopesusieni on 23-02-2011, 15:02:26
"At a screen there were four classes with five slots for equipment. No further word about the details of the equipment is given"

Yeah definitely BF2142 -style class system.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-02-2011, 15:02:09
IF all those things are added in MP, that would be really awesome.

"At a screen there were four classes with five slots for equipment. No further word about the details of the equipment is given"

Yeah definitely BF2142 -style class system.
Well it wassent a bad class system.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paavopesusieni on 23-02-2011, 15:02:49
It was best class system... and I am glad it's back.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-02-2011, 16:02:06
The only thing that botherd me was that all assault kits had revive shock paddles

oh well, i can life with it. This system works very good with 64 players.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: ebevan91 on 23-02-2011, 16:02:01
The only thing that botherd me was that all assault kits had revive shock paddles

oh well, i can life with it. This system works very good with 64 players.



It was like 2142, which was set up fantastically.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-02-2011, 16:02:32
well it was great. I hope BF3 will have more things to unlock then BF2142 though. More diffrent weapons for example.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: FatJoe on 23-02-2011, 16:02:32

Lars Gustavsson reveals the design documents from BF 1942 with many features that were cut in the final version and some extra details.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2011/02/23/battlefield-origins-designing-1942.aspx

ENJOY!!!!!

Oh god, that's like someone reading from the original bible or something, for a religious Christian.
I want that printed copy! :O
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Stefan on 23-02-2011, 16:02:34
prepare to have windows 7 64bit installed by then and to have a DX10/11 card
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: von.small on 23-02-2011, 16:02:43
prepare to have windows 7 64bit installed by then and to have a DX10/11 card

^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^

And as I have posted on EA, please next time you do a hype video - please please please can we have less game footage and more Logos, ads, ratings, logo, logo, copyright, ad, rating, release text.  Theee-anks.

[EDIT - which was promtly removed by and admin, so I posted it again... and again]

EA marketing and legal depts -Fucking waste my time, I'll waste yours.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 23-02-2011, 17:02:34

Lars Gustavsson reveals the design documents from BF 1942 with many features that were cut in the final version and some extra details.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2011/02/23/battlefield-origins-designing-1942.aspx

ENJOY!!!!!

Oh god, that's like someone reading from the original bible or something, for a religious Christian.
I want that printed copy! :O

I want those features in it! Factories spawning tanks, hell yeah! :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-02-2011, 17:02:21
prepare to have windows 7 64bit installed by then and to have a DX10/11 card


EA marketing and legal depts -Fucking waste my time, I'll waste yours.
(http://images2.memegenerator.net/ImageMacro/2835363/son-I-am-proud.jpg?imageSize=Large&generatorName=The-Most-Interesting-Man-in-the-World)


I will however, be waiting the reviews first before i am getting this.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paavopesusieni on 23-02-2011, 17:02:04
prepare to have windows 7 64bit installed by then and to have a DX10/11 card

IMO this is really good thing that XP isn't supported. FINALLY PC games are evolving again!
Consoles have really made the advancement slower.


I will however, be waiting the reviews first before i am getting this.

I wont I already pre-ordered, even if it sucks I am happy I finally got BF3!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 23-02-2011, 17:02:11
No word yet whether EA is going the way of Activision and making BF3 multiplayer pay-to-play as is rumoured to happen with MW3?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 23-02-2011, 17:02:22
God i hope not!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 23-02-2011, 18:02:47
That would probably kill it ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Dukat on 23-02-2011, 19:02:43
Am I the only one who is totally disappointed?
Modern setting:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_cQF9Si3yAmc/TIqR4hUwRSI/AAAAAAAAAEI/Ekr0iuoZTjk/s1600/thumbs-down.jpg)

4 classes only:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_cQF9Si3yAmc/TIqR4hUwRSI/AAAAAAAAAEI/Ekr0iuoZTjk/s1600/thumbs-down.jpg)

Shock paddles for everybody:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_cQF9Si3yAmc/TIqR4hUwRSI/AAAAAAAAAEI/Ekr0iuoZTjk/s1600/thumbs-down.jpg)

If they manage to design the maps as crappy as in BF2, with too many flags, gameplay will be below believe again. Just another BF2 clone with updated graphics won't be enough.
Currently I expect nothing good from this game, but my hope will die at last. Durgh, I'm too old for teenager games, I guess thats it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 23-02-2011, 19:02:39
nothing wrong with modern.. and WW2 doesn't sell anymore (as much).
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 23-02-2011, 19:02:13
Currently I expect nothing good from this game, but my hope will die at last. Durgh, I'm too old for teenager games, I guess thats it.

Just stick with Bridge then, grandpa.

But seriously, you didn't enjoy BF2 at all?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-02-2011, 20:02:59
nothing wrong with modern.. and WW2 doesn't sell anymore (as much).
not if every WW2 game contains the same stuff it wont.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Dukat on 23-02-2011, 21:02:31
But seriously, you didn't enjoy BF2 at all?

Not that much. Maybe a picture will help you with your memories:

(http://www.spass-am-zocken.de/bf2/bf2-maps/Operation_Clean_Sweep/gpm_cq_64_menuMap.jpg)

The map design was just screwed on almost all maps. You could watch the rear flags, kill 1 guy during the entire round and win the map. If you didn't watch it, you lost because that single guy kept it and rolled everything up. Maybe BF2 was good for rank, personal score or whatever. But the mapdesign never allowed for the common goal of winning a map.

As far as I remember BF2 marked a serious change. We had skilled and expirienced players, A full WOLF BF2 server of veterans, which were all driven away within 6 month. On the long term the game cannot offer anything to keep you playing for years. The game mechanics are further developed but they are not evolved. The maps were disposable and would have never made it into BF1942. They got great statics, but poor design. And PR was never an alternative for a skilled and expirienced player. I don't really need a random squadleader telling me what to do, despite I know better.

The result was the rise of city combat in BF2, like karkand. But that is a different pair of shoes compared to the titles of the battlefield franchise before. City combat is no Battlefield-uniqueness, but common among many titles. You actually don't even need an engine capable to run large maps. Therefor the things that made Battlefield unique, like the large maps and landscape got lost. Since then I abstain. The game isn't the same anymore, though the name stayed. And those Bad Company games are straight forward first person shooters, sorry, that is something totally different as well. So, hooray for BF3, the successor of BF2. Back to the primitive. ::)


*
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 23-02-2011, 22:02:19
On the long term the game cannot offer anything to keep you playing for years. The game mechanics are further developed but they are not evolved.

After 6 years I still enjoy every round of BF2 I play. There's so much to do, so much to screw around with. If you're bored of playing seriously grab a jeep and go troll some friendly tanks. If you're too honest just go touring with a blackhawk or something. There's endless possibilties.

My xfire account shows I've played BF2 for 2000 hours. And within those 2000 hours, I haven't been bored for a minute.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-02-2011, 22:02:00
battlefield 2 was great. No doubt

but then i discoverd FH2.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Tim270 on 23-02-2011, 22:02:23
Heh I still love vanilla as well. Might have to book a few days of work when bf3 comes out, then spend the next few years playing the hell out of it :p
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 23-02-2011, 22:02:44
Teaser trailer was like meh .. just there to keep up the hype. Since having seen the Dead Island trailer everything else is sub par.
If EA/DICE manages to make an action packed equivalent of that trailer I'll will buy two pink tutu's, fly to Iceland and take a picture of me and FatJoe wearing them.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: FatJoe on 24-02-2011, 01:02:14
If EA/DICE manages to make an action packed equivalent of that trailer I'll will buy two pink tutu's, fly to Iceland and take a picture of me and FatJoe wearing them.

Be careful of what you threaten when you mention Pink tutu's.. it has the habit of turning true in my case.. and yeah, that reminds me.. I still owe you guys a pink tutu picture -_-

I am personally looking forward to BF3, as much as I was in BF2. I don't doubt for a moment that I'll enjoy it :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Hockeywarrior on 24-02-2011, 02:02:41
I have a hard time believing that no mod tools and DAY ONE DLC is a coincidence.

C'mon DICE, seriously.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Bravo3945 on 24-02-2011, 05:02:26
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9SCWClN4Ic&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9SCWClN4Ic&feature=player_embedded)

Did anyone see this? If it's been posted already then... You can watch it twice.... :D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 24-02-2011, 08:02:26
The map design was just screwed on almost all maps....

sorry for quoting just one paragraph^ but I read the whole post and didnt want to flood with quotes.

Ofcourse maps can be judged by taste, just like music or movies can. Maybe you simply did not have fun on BF2 maps, but to say that they were poorly designed is just... "wrong".
BF2 has among the absolute best level designs in any retail shooter to date, hands down.

By "best" we can argue for years ofcourse, but Im looking at it purely objective. bf1942 sure had fine maps, and in 2002 they were more original than what the BF2 maps might have been in 2005, but every single BF2 map is way better designed than every bf42 map, easily.

The fact that BF2 became such a favorite clan-match game is just one proof of this. Clans dont play on badly designed maps/games. It's all about balance, flow and stability in clan matches. BF2s maps also are all completely original, just study maps like Dragon Valley, FuShePass, Karkand, Kubra Dam, Gulf of Oman... these are giants within the "level design world", add to this also Cerbere Landings and Camp Gibraltar from 2142, and Operation Harvest from the boosterpacks.. this is leveldesigns to study and teach at schools.

The things you mention about how the maps "But the mapdesign never allowed for the common goal of winning a map." this is not a flaw in map design, it's the game mode that is fuzzy.
Conquest is actually a weird game mode, not many players understand what it's all about. On one hand you have a pool of points you need to drain to zero to win, but you can do this by holding X amount of flags (how many? no one knows. For how long? no one knows) but you can also do this by fragging.
On the other hand you have a bunch of flags you must take, but why? sure you get spawnpoints and vehicles there, but why do you really win by holding flags? and which flags? how many?

If you ask 10,000 BF2 players how fast the tickets go down and which flags they need to hold to make this happen on any map, less than 1% would give you a correct answer. And this is the core of the game mode!

This confuses players, and many just go for the kills, while others only go for flags, and some try to do everything. The actual "ticket bleed" never made sense to common players. What happens is that players in BF2 aren't actually playing the game mode, they drive and run around doing whatever they feel like in the sandbox world - and it's awesome, fun and cool, so it works anyway.. But the game mode is just this other thing that goes on on the side of the action.

In contrary to BC2 rush where the game mode is primary and on everyones focus.
If you ask 10,000 BC2 players how to win on a Rush map, 99% would tell you how to do that. And that is the core of that game mode

So if some rounds in BF2 (and FH2 as well ofcourse) feels weird or as if something just "happened" without no one really knowing what it was, it's not because of the map design. It's the game mode that isn't clearly enough communicating the "common goal" to the players.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paavopesusieni on 24-02-2011, 09:02:47
BF2 was an awesome game. I was totally blown away when I first played it. I have played that game 1000 hours it was so awesome back then.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: von.small on 24-02-2011, 10:02:17

Can I say this without being slapped a racist, it's nothing of the sort...

I fucking hate fighting in the middle east, I really don't like it, it's topical enough in RL, every fucking FPs shooter is going there, just like the buying-masses are supposedly bored of WW2 shooters, I am pig sick and fucking piss bored of seeing US vs Middle east.

Now, this Paris thing in BF3, if there's a whiff of Middle eastern terrorism about it my retrebution will be Thor like and swift.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 24-02-2011, 10:02:24
You don't like the Middle East scenery or the usage of terrorism as a background. The first I can agree on, although Africa maps are still among my favourite.
The second part is just a reason for the fighting and it's still hot and topical and all the cool kids digg it  ;)

What I would like to see a Cold war gone hot scenario which weaponry from the seventies and eighties, guys wearing faux pas moustaches, Duran Duran playing in the background and the ability to end one round with a frigging nuke!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 24-02-2011, 11:02:02
Cool video, too bad they only showed 13 seconds of ingame footage... ::)

Still looks good though. I'm gonna go and preorder it this weekend methinks.


Quote
# Sound: DICE is working with a revised system for the sound that enables players to detect from where a vehicle or enemy soldier is coming. Every object (aka tank, helicopter) has up to 80 soundchannels with different sounds from different angles.
My X-Fi soundcard and 5.1 speaker setup do that already... :P


Quote
# Singleplayer: there will be Quicktime-Events where you have to push the mouse buttons to win a fight. The example here: an enemy tries to stab you with a knife and you have to defend you (knock him down / kill him).
::)



@Natty: I see Conquest as a Deathmatch/Capture-the-flag hybrid, which gives you the flexibility to play it one way or the other, or a bit of both.



...I fucking hate fighting in the middle east, I really don't like it, it's topical enough in RL, every fucking FPs shooter is going there, just like the buying-masses are supposedly bored of WW2 shooters, I am pig sick and fucking piss bored of seeing US vs Middle east...
Ditto. I've had a gutful too.

Considering it's all fictional anyway (just who the hell is the MEC supposed to be?), why not set it in North Korea? Or how about a war between Europe and the 'States? South America? NZ? Iceland? Zimbabwe?

Anywhere but the effing Middle East... :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 24-02-2011, 11:02:05

Can I say this without being slapped a racist, it's nothing of the sort...

I fucking hate fighting in the middle east, I really don't like it, it's topical enough in RL, every fucking FPs shooter is going there, just like the buying-masses are supposedly bored of WW2 shooters, I am pig sick and fucking piss bored of seeing US vs Middle east.

Now, this Paris thing in BF3, if there's a whiff of Middle eastern terrorism about it my retrebution will be Thor like and swift.
It was fun at first, with BF2. But then like 500 games came out with modern warfare AND with frakking Americans AND with frakking Middle east


25% of all people who go airsofting are dressed up like bloody yanks in Middle east. With there fancy M4's pimped out....

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: FatJoe on 24-02-2011, 13:02:14
Considering it's all fictional anyway (just who the hell is the MEC supposed to be?), why not set it in North Korea? Or how about a war between Europe and the 'States? South America? NZ? Iceland? Zimbabwe?

haha, Iceland.. I like that.. could have a relevant backstory as well where Iceland refuses to pay Icesave, and Holland and England invades. However would probably feature only 1 unbalanced map with angry Icelanders armed with knifes and hunting rifles on one side, and England and Holland with tanks and armed infantry and all, on the other. ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paasky on 24-02-2011, 13:02:42
You don't like the Middle East scenery or the usage of terrorism as a background. The first I can agree on, although Africa maps are still among my favourite.
The second part is just a reason for the fighting and it's still hot and topical and all the cool kids digg it  ;)

What I would like to see a Cold war gone hot scenario which weaponry from the seventies and eighties, guys wearing faux pas moustaches, Duran Duran playing in the background and the ability to end one round with a frigging nuke!
Have you played World in Conflict?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfx7aVA7Pc8
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 24-02-2011, 13:02:18
WoC is a great game! :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sgt.Radman on 24-02-2011, 13:02:56
If that trailer is REALLY from BF3 I just MIGHT have to upgrade my proccessor. Graphics card will hold together for the next 1 year. (currently running a 2.2GB Pentium E5400 DualC and GTS 250 PALIT-NVidia base)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: AlexS66 on 24-02-2011, 13:02:09
Its awfully sad, but im gonna have to run this on my xbox. i simply do not have the capability to run this on my pc
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 24-02-2011, 14:02:06
... (currently running a 2.2GB Pentium E5400 DualC and GTS 250 PALIT-NVidia base)

What is a 2.2GB Pentium E5400 DualC?  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: FatJoe on 24-02-2011, 14:02:44
... (currently running a 2.2GB Pentium E5400 DualC and GTS 250 PALIT-NVidia base)

What is a 2.2GB Pentium E5400 DualC?  ;D

it means it's from GreatBritain..

..

I have to agree with modern desert warfare. I'd love to see battles from elsewhere in the world, in a more grand scale like WWII. I really liked how in BF1942 you played as American vs German, British vs German, American vs Japanese, Soviet vs German. I liked how you fought in Europe, North Africa, Russia & The Pacific. The variety was right there in the first release. In BF2 this was reduced to America vs MEC and America vs China. and you fought in Middle east and China.

I hope, but don't expect, BF3 to give me more of that BF1942 variety. But I'm looking forward to getting more information, and a confirmation of other maps, and I'm also already looking forward to playing BF3. It at least looks good.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 24-02-2011, 15:02:59

# Sound: DICE is working with a revised system for the sound that enables players to detect from where a vehicle or enemy soldier is coming. Every object (aka tank, helicopter) has up to 80 soundchannels with different sounds from different angles.
My X-Fi soundcard and 5.1 speaker setup do that already... :P

Rumor has it that with this game you XI-Fi soundcard will be picking it's nose while you play BF3.

You don't like the Middle East scenery or the usage of terrorism as a background. The first I can agree on, although Africa maps are still among my favourite.
The second part is just a reason for the fighting and it's still hot and topical and all the cool kids digg it  ;)

What I would like to see a Cold war gone hot scenario which weaponry from the seventies and eighties, guys wearing faux pas moustaches, Duran Duran playing in the background and the ability to end one round with a frigging nuke!
Have you played World in Conflict?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfx7aVA7Pc8

Hehe nice video. Yep I liked WiC. Now we need a FPS in those settings with shiny graphics and moustaches.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: von.small on 24-02-2011, 16:02:53
Ok, quick OT: I like the Way Joe has put "Great" in front of Britain, to me that's an archaic empire word that has long since passed.  In reality it should be "Nerf Britain", "WTF Britain" or even "SNAFU Britain".  In fact, I'd go with the last one...

BACK OT:
Yeah like Alex mentions, I am not/will not be upgrading to a Win7 for a game, I did this for BF2, so I'll be a console bitch.  Yay, 8 vs 8... sigh.

RE: Fighting in the middle east - I don't mind the desert, or Africa, it lends itself to tank/plane warfare suberbly.  It's the psychology behind it.  Modern warfare games are just done to death right now.  I can even speak some arabic because the vocal saturation is now so deep I can go into my local newspaper shop and tell them I am about to throw a grenade, or there is an enemy spy plane above.

However, there isn't really anything I'd like to see, so my arguement falls short, - I want WW2, or a game that encompasses all War, like you start in the middle ages with mele weapons and then some maps are musket and cannon like the crimea, then WW1, WW2, korea, vietnam, and perhaps I'll let a bit of modern warfare in.  That game would be super epic.  Make it so.


Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Dukat on 24-02-2011, 17:02:45
battlefield 2 was great. No doubt

but then i discoverd FH2.

Heh I still love vanilla as well. Might have to book a few days of work when bf3 comes out, then spend the next few years playing the hell out of it :p

Just let me take this as proof of my statement: You came most likely to FH2 from BF2. As FH2 is a mod based on BF2 and its gameplay principles. But there is a fundamental difference between the early titles of the Battlefield series and the later titles. And BF2 marks the breaking point that exchanged the playerbase for a mod like FH2. A change of generation. FH2 is only by name the successor of FH1, but the playerbase had to be rebuild almost from scratch.

Now, I'm one of those waiting for the return of the old Battlefield franchise, though that is probably in vein.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Fuchs on 24-02-2011, 17:02:59
Considering it's all fictional anyway (just who the hell is the MEC supposed to be?), why not set it in North Korea? Or how about a war between Europe and the 'States? South America? NZ? Iceland? Zimbabwe?

haha, Iceland.. I like that.. could have a relevant backstory as well where Iceland refuses to pay Icesave, and Holland and England invades. However would probably feature only 1 unbalanced map with angry Icelanders armed with knifes and hunting rifles on one side, and England and Holland with tanks and armed infantry and all, on the other. ;D

Mmmmm. I like that. Let's see if your president is still so stubborn when a tank blasts his house.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 24-02-2011, 17:02:04
Re the various environments, without inventing a scenario where the EU decides to collect its loan payments from Greece in the form of territory (much as it would amuse EU (tax)p(l)ayers), there's plenty of other places besides Middle East & Afghanistan where the excrement could hit the ventilator with only a little imagination:
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Dukat on 24-02-2011, 17:02:04
  • North Korea. Durp.
  • Kuril Islands. Suppose the Russia and Japan decide big words are not big enough.
  • Burma. Suppose a foreign intervention (China might join teh party on Burmese side if push came to shove), or instead, clandestine SF support to anti-junta guerillas.
  • Colombia. Between the drug cartels, FARC, and unauthorized vigilante groups, there's potential for conflict with either Venezuela or Ecuador. Suppose US involvement in any case, potentially China-Venezuela alliance.
  • Belarus. Lukashenka starts massacring protesters, EU intervenes, Russia joins the party.
  • Zimbabwe (darn, already mentioned). Assume South Africa and/or African Union decide to oust Mugabe before the instability spreads to neighbouring countries, leading into an even more frakked-up situation.
  • Kashmir. Well, there has been a low-intensity conflict going on there for decades.

What? No U.S. forces? Screw you!

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_dSZ36A0-GBI/TBoh52KHutI/AAAAAAAADMk/LGpJwh5oWMc/s1600/fat_soldier.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 24-02-2011, 22:02:50
Some news.

With the preorder you get this:

Back to karkand, wake island, gulf of oman and sharqi peninsula.

Disgusting wake really, Im tired of that stupid map. Its silly that even today people want it back and it was a ww2 battle. Today is just a puny piece of land.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 24-02-2011, 22:02:51
Because it's still one of the best Battlefield maps ever.

Hmm, actually I want Liberation of Caen for BF3!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 24-02-2011, 22:02:37
It was awesome in BF1942. In BF2 it sucked because of the static carrier. If they use moving carriers or something this time it'll be awesome once more. :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 24-02-2011, 22:02:04
Disgusting wake really, Im tired of that stupid map. Its silly that even today people want it back and it was a ww2 battle. Today is just a puny piece of land.

shooting from the hip, my guess is that they couldn't care less about if it was a ww2 battle or what it is today, but instead pay more interest in to how awesome it is to fight on it in the computer game they play.

But that's just a wild n crazy guess ofcourse
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 24-02-2011, 22:02:21
Wake island started getting repetitive after BF1942 multiplayer demo :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: AlexS66 on 24-02-2011, 22:02:30
I agree put wale to rest. I always preferred iwo jima, letters from iwo jima is just inspirational. As much as I enjoy 1943 I need an updated iwo jima!

I will never forget suribachi. One word that will never leave me
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: HadrianBT on 25-02-2011, 00:02:01
Modern warfare games are just done to death right now.  I can even speak some arabic because the vocal saturation is now so deep I can go into my local newspaper shop and tell them I am about to throw a grenade, or there is an enemy spy plane above.

Lol, I actually tried to do that multiple times with some arabian guysand they told me it is not perfect but comprehendable.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 25-02-2011, 20:02:11
New interview:

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2011/02/25/battlefield-3-producer-dissects-the-fps-genre.aspx
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Comrade Roe on 27-02-2011, 18:02:34
Firstly, we need more Korean War stuff. Not nuff Korean war games. You do Vietnam, WW2, modern era, and no Korean war? What about wars America was never involved in?? Six Day War, etc. Sigh. Well, BF3 looks interesting, the only interesting feature I've never seen though in the entire game I've seen so far, is the dragging corpses behind cover for a medic. Only interesting detail making the game extra worth buying.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 27-02-2011, 19:02:07
http://www.bf-korea.de/eng/index.php  ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: AlexS66 on 27-02-2011, 19:02:45
Looks pretty alright.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 27-02-2011, 19:02:40
Vaporware...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 27-02-2011, 23:02:41
What about wars America was never involved in??

Wouldn't sell enough. FH2 nearly died because there wasnt USA in.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 01-03-2011, 18:03:30
New BF3 pics and a talk of the SRAA of the Frostebite 2 engine.

http://anteru.net/projects/research/subpixel-reconstruction-antialiasing/

Also tomorrow, stay hooked to the official EA UK forums where most of the info of today event at Game Developers Conference in San Francisco where new BF3 info will be revealed to the public.

http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/battlefield-3/

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 02-03-2011, 08:03:12
NEW SP TRAILER!

http://www.ea.com/battlefield3/videos/faultline-ep1

3 new screens:

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x80/cowboyw54/BFSS2.jpg
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x80/cowboyw54/BF3SS1.jpg
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x80/cowboyw54/BFSS3.jpg

New IGN interview:

http://pc.ign.com/articles/115/1152917p2.html
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 02-03-2011, 09:03:30
Nice vid. Don't like the enormous weapon and narrow field of view though. Same with Crysis 2. Looks too much like console stuff.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 02-03-2011, 10:03:03
Mmm...BF3 *drools*
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 02-03-2011, 10:03:54
Nice vid. Don't like the enormous weapon and narrow field of view though. Same with Crysis 2. Looks too much like console stuff.

Its pre alpha dude.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: IrishReloaded on 02-03-2011, 11:03:39
why is our soldier the only one with a scope. The others dont even have their ironsight on  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 02-03-2011, 11:03:35
That video does look good.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paavopesusieni on 02-03-2011, 11:03:24
"According to Bach, dragging bodies will not be a feature in the multiplayer component."

Meh...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Beaufort on 02-03-2011, 11:03:37
Will dogs be a feature of the multiplayer ? ^^
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eat Uranium on 02-03-2011, 11:03:33
"According to Bach, dragging bodies will not be a feature in the multiplayer component."

Meh...
What would be the point?  You can just use the zappy-paddles.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 02-03-2011, 11:03:08
"According to Bach, dragging bodies will not be a feature in the multiplayer component."

Meh...
What would be the point?  You can just use the zappy-paddles.

And then watch the medic train, then you and the medic gets killed because the dumb fuck didnt thought about reviving you in a safe place (Dragging you into a house for example).
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paavopesusieni on 02-03-2011, 11:03:12
"According to Bach, dragging bodies will not be a feature in the multiplayer component."

Meh...
What would be the point?  You can just use the zappy-paddles.

It's fun? What's the whole point of playing BF3. New features are always cool and make game unique.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 02-03-2011, 13:03:26
Nice vid. Don't like the enormous weapon and narrow field of view though. Same with Crysis 2. Looks too much like console stuff.

Its pre alpha dude.
Doubt it's subject to change. It's the recent trend in most FPS games. Luckily you could simply adjust the FOV in BFBC2, hopefully this is still possible in BF3. Especially for MP it's important.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: FatJoe on 02-03-2011, 15:03:43
"According to Bach, dragging bodies will not be a feature in the multiplayer component."

Meh...
What would be the point?  You can just use the zappy-paddles.

It's fun? What's the whole point of playing BF3. New features are always cool and make game unique.

I think it's one of those things that sound good, and works good in theory, but like so many other things in BF, ends up being silly or downright creepy in a multiplayer round.. I can imagine players dragging bodies around the whole battlefield, spelling their names with dead comrades forming the letters or symbols. Or that one strange player with disarranged Fibonacci numbers in his nick that collects bodies in a pile and then sits on top of it, shouting out "DERP DERP" and shoots anyone who tries to revive someone in his pile.

Video looks cool though, looking forward to seeing more, preferably MP battles :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kev4000 on 02-03-2011, 15:03:38
Something I noticed, is that all weapons shoot tracers :(
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 02-03-2011, 15:03:41
Battlefield trades in realism for faster actioned gameplay. Dragging bodies is just too much stuff for a nice FPS game.

Reviving in PR (throw smokes, use CPR and epipen, heal in safe spot) feels pretty nice but it slows down gameplay way too much. The fast reviving in BF2 was one of the best features the game had as it allowed quick gameplay and teamwork in epic assaults or defenses.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zeno on 02-03-2011, 15:03:34
why is our soldier the only one with a scope. The others dont even have their ironsight on  ;D

because its alpha and they know about it. one of the devs posted on twitter that it will be fixed for release
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: AlexS66 on 02-03-2011, 17:03:39
Something I noticed, is that all weapons shoot tracers :(

yeah. kind of unrealistic =P arnt they illegal in some area's? (slightly off topic sorry)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 02-03-2011, 17:03:05
=P arnt they illegal in some area's? (slightly off topic sorry)
Why should they be illegal? o0
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Michael Z Freeman on 02-03-2011, 17:03:05
"According to Bach, dragging bodies will not be a feature in the multiplayer component."

Meh...
What would be the point?  You can just use the zappy-paddles.

It's fun? What's the whole point of playing BF3. New features are always cool and make game unique.

I think it's one of those things that sound good, and works good in theory, but like so many other things in BF, ends up being silly or downright creepy in a multiplayer round.. I can imagine players dragging bodies around the whole battlefield, spelling their names with dead comrades forming the letters or symbols. Or that one strange player with disarranged Fibonacci numbers in his nick that collects bodies in a pile and then sits on top of it, shouting out "DERP DERP" and shoots anyone who tries to revive someone in his pile.

LOL!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: AlexS66 on 02-03-2011, 19:03:41
=P arnt they illegal in some area's? (slightly off topic sorry)
Why should they be illegal? o0

Im not sure i coulda sworn i heard they were illegal in some states or something. anyway no matter.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Nissi on 02-03-2011, 20:03:44
Let's just still hope that it will be modable...  ;D

The vid looks really cool. I just imagined to fight under the Streets of Stalingrad in a nice FH3... *oh yeah*  :P
Oh I should stop dreaming, but well, let's pray everynight.  :D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 02-03-2011, 20:03:40
Oh I should stop dreaming
Yeah, you definitely should.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Dukat on 02-03-2011, 21:03:04
Looks like Bad Company. I thought this is supposed to be a multiplayer shooter.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Alakazou on 02-03-2011, 21:03:23
=P arnt they illegal in some area's? (slightly off topic sorry)
Why should they be illegal? o0

Im not sure i coulda sworn i heard they were illegal in some states or something. anyway no matter.
Illegal for civilian maybe, not for army force :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hslan.GN_Angrybeaver on 02-03-2011, 23:03:08
am i the only one who is not a single bit impressed by the video?

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Hockeywarrior on 02-03-2011, 23:03:18
So yeah, it is confirmed that BF3 is going to have semi, burst, and auto fire modes for the guns for which it applies (all three for M16), and if you watch that vid you'll notice that there are different reload animations for inserting completely emptied vs partially emptied magazines like there should be. Oh and after he reloads after a partial mag, notice that there are 31 rounds total available.

I'm not saying that these things are ground breaking features or are back-of-the-box bullet points, but it's nice to see that they're not cutting corners like with the Bad Company games when it comes to weapon mechanics.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 02-03-2011, 23:03:59
am i the only one who is not a single bit impressed by the video?



No, you are not the only one.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Hockeywarrior on 02-03-2011, 23:03:40
am i the only one who is not a single bit impressed by the video?



No, you are not the only one.
It would have taken one of Rawhide's "Babe Thread" babes to stop by Flippy's house to give him a BJ while he watched that trailer in order to impress him.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Alakazou on 02-03-2011, 23:03:19
Dirty. :D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 03-03-2011, 00:03:52
=P arnt they illegal in some area's? (slightly off topic sorry)
Why should they be illegal? o0

Im not sure i coulda sworn i heard they were illegal in some states or something. anyway no matter.
Illegal for civilian maybe, not for army force :)

I own a bunch...They are not illegal.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Alakazou on 03-03-2011, 01:03:26
=P arnt they illegal in some area's? (slightly off topic sorry)
Why should they be illegal? o0

Im not sure i coulda sworn i heard they were illegal in some states or something. anyway no matter.
Illegal for civilian maybe, not for army force :)

I own a bunch...They are not illegal.

IIRC, it's not legal everywhere. I've heard there are not legal in California.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kev4000 on 03-03-2011, 03:03:19
=P arnt they illegal in some area's? (slightly off topic sorry)
Why should they be illegal? o0

Im not sure i coulda sworn i heard they were illegal in some states or something. anyway no matter.
Illegal for civilian maybe, not for army force :)

I own a bunch...They are not illegal.

IIRC, it's not legal everywhere. I've heard there are not legal in California.

They're illegal due to fire hazards, not due to wounds such as dum dum bullets.
In other words, they're legal in military context. But they don't want a bunch of hippies going off into the woods shooting tracers during the California summer season.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Alakazou on 03-03-2011, 03:03:52
Thank you, I didn't know that.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: VonMudra on 03-03-2011, 04:03:12
I'm not impressed by the video either  :-\

Also, Kev has it correct.  Tracers are legal in most states, but states like California ban them (at least from firing them in a non-controlled environment) because of the major fire hazard.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Bravo3945 on 03-03-2011, 04:03:39
I thought BF3 was supposed to be like bf2? Multiplayer only and with bots... that looks like a campaign... Or maybe it's coop mode? ???
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Priestdk on 03-03-2011, 08:03:54
am i the only one who is not a single bit impressed by the video?



Well in the start i was not either Beaver, but lately i have to say im getting more and more impressed with the slow but steady amount of info being released also a feew major things in my eyes have been released about the game that i was kinda expecting but not sure to be in the game.

Like 64 players
Jets/choppers
prone
Greate and uniqe grafic really nice light settings, im quite impressed bye the Frostbite 2 engine. the trailers are suposivly arcording to a offical Dev on a blog or whas it twitter actul gameplay from the single player.


The last 3 things i really wanner know about is the are the maps are they going to be open and give the freedom you feldt you hade wile moving around in BF2 or are we going to get the narrow 10 meter across crap i really dont like from like BFBC2 Vietnam were you run into a wall of bullets at some places were the maps are as narrow as perhabs 10 meters across and you cant do anything then nade spam and create you own wall of bullets.

And 2 i wanner see the destruction i wanner know if a plane bombs a building especialy on of the really tall buildings already shown in the trailers (perhabs even the hotel building) is it going to be destroyed then.

Last but not least i wanner see som Multi player fighting ingame etc.

And Bravo3945 they already said there will be single player in BF3 meny times, one of the good neews is though that i read somwere in a interview or perhabs it whas a video interview that there are 2 different teams working on BF3 one on single player and one on Multi player. I dont think anyone really knows yet what kind of gameplay modes will be ingame like other then single player and Multi player,and il bet we will see regular conquest aswell ho knows what else Dice is cooking, but coop would indeed be a welcome addition.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Fuchs on 03-03-2011, 10:03:43
Nice graphics! Never really impressed with trailers, not even the Dead Island one. Entertaining watch.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Priestdk on 03-03-2011, 10:03:42
Nice graphics! Never really impressed with trailers, not even the Dead Island one. Entertaining watch.

Indeed but theese grafics are what you get doing gameplay, its been stated that this is howe the game will look doing gameplay even better seeing it also states under the trailer at the official homepage its alpha version.

So basicly what you see is what you get, and not like Dead island were they have stated its a cinematic trailer.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Fuchs on 03-03-2011, 12:03:36
So? I don't care about that, I'll probably end up owning both games anyways. I can pick games without trailers.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 03-03-2011, 12:03:48
I'm gonna await to see the vehicle combat first
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Priestdk on 03-03-2011, 12:03:15
So nothing i whas trying to point out to you that it was also actual game play and not just a trailer, you made it sound like you were not impressed because it whas just a trailer and its NOT its also gameplay.
like i said you get what you see here you dont get what you see in the dead island trailer.
And you used Dead Island as and excample witch was perfeckt because that whas just another trailer no more no less.
Im not telling you what to care about or not, you can pick what ever you like, i actualy dont care. ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 03-03-2011, 14:03:23
I dont understand why people want the games straight away. Do like me and wait till it sells for half the price  ;D. Wouldnt be able to play this game but my guess is in 2 years ill have it. Probably can borrow it from friends than anyway. And no im not cheap, just not really that much of a gamer is guess?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Michael Z Freeman on 03-03-2011, 16:03:22
It was awesome in BF1942. In BF2 it sucked because of the static carrier. If they use moving carriers or something this time it'll be awesome once more. :)

Lions Roar mod (http://www.battlefieldsingleplayer.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=10493&view=findpost&p=169797) has moving frigates in it, and I've seen a moving aircraft carrier test in BF2 on youtube.

am i the only one who is not a single bit impressed by the video?

No, you are not the only one.

Me too.

EA are like accountant pirates in one of the Monty Python films. I have a theory. They burn through developers just like they are doing with DICE until they find one willing to play with their DoD/Pentagon/CIA/PsyOps/Propaganda agenda. I'm entirely convinced that one day they will be revealed as having no interest in games whatsoever. On that day I expect to be rewarded with a flying egg sandwich.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 03-03-2011, 16:03:06
Tell us more about the egg sandwich, please.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Michael Z Freeman on 03-03-2011, 17:03:43
Child prodigy of the once famous in his day flying spaghetti monster. Enjoys food fights.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Tim270 on 03-03-2011, 17:03:02
This thread is making me way more hungry than it should be.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 03-03-2011, 17:03:27
EA are like accountant pirates in one of the Monty Python films. I have a theory. They burn through developers just like they are doing with DICE until they find one willing to play with their DoD/Pentagon/CIA/PsyOps/Propaganda agenda. I'm entirely convinced that one day they will be revealed as having no interest in games whatsoever. On that day I expect to be rewarded with a flying egg sandwich.

thinking that about EA is soooo last decade dude... you need to refresh your knowledge about game publishers...  ::)

EA is a cure little friendly puppy compared to Valve and Activision, the true money greedy evils in the game world now.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 03-03-2011, 18:03:53
at least valve listen to the comunity and releases free DLC every month or two ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 03-03-2011, 18:03:48

thinking that about EA is soooo last decade dude... you need to refresh your knowledge about game publishers...  ::)

EA is a cure little friendly puppy compared to Valve and Activision, the true money greedy evils in the game world now.

Yep, check out what happened to BFH!   ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Michael Z Freeman on 03-03-2011, 18:03:22
EA are like accountant pirates in one of the Monty Python films. I have a theory. They burn through developers just like they are doing with DICE until they find one willing to play with their DoD/Pentagon/CIA/PsyOps/Propaganda agenda. I'm entirely convinced that one day they will be revealed as having no interest in games whatsoever. On that day I expect to be rewarded with a flying egg sandwich.

thinking that about EA is soooo last decade dude... you need to refresh your knowledge about game publishers...  ::)

EA is a cure little friendly puppy compared to Valve and Activision, the true money greedy evils in the game world now.

Read my words please. I didn't say anything about money.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 03-03-2011, 18:03:34
at least valve listen to the comunity and releases free DLC every month or two ;)
I have to agree with this.

Valve might be also a big nazi company like EA, but there have been many occasions where Valve did listend to its fanbase community or that furfilled promises they made.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Fuchs on 03-03-2011, 20:03:35
Valve is not really a big 'nazi' company. Google and count the amount of employees, then compare to other multimillion gaming companies.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 03-03-2011, 20:03:32
Im sorry, please forgive me

Ye in terms of companies, Valve beats EA on everything. Better games, better listning to community.
Pretty much every Valve game i have, i am say money well spend

Cant say the same about EA games
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 04-03-2011, 15:03:41
new gameplay

http://multiplayer.it/video/battlefield-3_a-per-pc/battlefield-3-gameplay-gdc-2011.lo/

at the end, you can see tank and plane combat
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 04-03-2011, 16:03:07
links broken
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 04-03-2011, 16:03:49
Looked exactly like Call of Duty.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 04-03-2011, 16:03:41
wow, that was fast, link is already gonne.

i have the video loaded in my page, and im afraid to refresh the page xD

how do i save it to the hard disck?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 04-03-2011, 16:03:42
youtube link to the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UAEZsRTq8o
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paavopesusieni on 04-03-2011, 16:03:48
Looked exactly like Call of Duty.

Looked like first person shooter, I don't think it looks any more CoD than CoD look like BF2.

Looks awesome. Somehow it reminds me of BF1942 DC mod. The tank and plane gameplay especially.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 04-03-2011, 16:03:39
youtube link to the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UAEZsRTq8o
Closed lol.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 04-03-2011, 17:03:01
MU link

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ZNQNL0MV

there are a lot of videos on youtube, but  they get close way to fast to post them xD

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 04-03-2011, 18:03:34
Looks good  :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Bravo3945 on 04-03-2011, 19:03:00
That building falling is awesome though I do realize it is the Campaign and it's probably a simple scripted action I hope MP has buildings that fall according to a physics engine.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Damecos on 04-03-2011, 23:03:44
Looked exactly like Call of Duty.
Looked only vaguely like Call of Duty. Simply because it's a war-based FPS with a cinematic campaign, which is common among most titles in the genre these days. The superficial details (eg. graphics and sound) are far superior.

Importantly it's only a small pre-alpha taste of singleplayer, nothing regarding multiplayer.



Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zeno on 16-03-2011, 16:03:04
http://www.ea.com/uk/battlefield3/videos/battlefield-3-fault-line-episode-2

The best PRE-ALPHA footage i have seen ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 16-03-2011, 16:03:23
Looked exactly like Call of Duty.

you know what?

It didn't  8)

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 16-03-2011, 16:03:58
http://www.ea.com/uk/battlefield3/videos/battlefield-3-fault-line-episode-2

The best PRE-ALPHA footage i have seen ;D
IS THAT a M240 aka FN MAG at 1.05?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 16-03-2011, 16:03:57
So where is all this "Battlefield" Im supposed to see? Only thing I see is something that looks exactly like CoD/MoH. Getting no Battlefield vibes out of these videos at all.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 16-03-2011, 16:03:53
Not to mention the launching of AT4 without aiming down the sight and watching how there is little recoil


ooh dear
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Musti on 16-03-2011, 16:03:38
IS THAT a M240 aka FN MAG at 1.05?
Yup thats M240.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paavopesusieni on 16-03-2011, 16:03:45
Not to mention the launching of AT4 without aiming down the sight and watching how there is little recoil


ooh dear

Still trying to figure out where this recoil thing is coming from, like BF2 would have had any recoil... (or BF42 or BFV

Well it looks really good can't wait for this and Skyrim.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 16-03-2011, 16:03:57
a bit of shaking i mean when you launch that thing

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zeno on 16-03-2011, 16:03:16
Its Pre-alpha ffs. ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 16-03-2011, 16:03:56
Its Pre-alpha ffs. ::)
JUST SAYING FFS

Now shut up and let me enjoy the view of that M240!!!  ;D ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 16-03-2011, 17:03:47
Only thing I see is something that looks exactly like CoD/MoH.

exactly the same?  ;D
you is funny

(http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/104/1043366/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-2-20091109113914386.jpg)

(http://www.gamereactor.se/media/75/battlefield3_nteaser_237586b.png)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 16-03-2011, 17:03:45
Exactly same. Stop being so daft and ignorant to those who dont hail and bend over for DICE. It has nothing BF so far, except the title.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 16-03-2011, 17:03:33
They are miles apart! If you look closely, you'll notice that the palmtrees are slightly thicker in BF3.



(http://www.gamereactor.se/media/75/battlefield3_nteaser_237586b.png)

(http://www.videogamesblogger.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/call-of-duty-4-modern-warfare-screenshot-big.jpg)

There, argument settled.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 16-03-2011, 17:03:28
in one way this looks awesome

but i was always more of a content man, not a graphics one

-Wich factions will be in BF3? Will it as usual be US army vs some other army? If Russia's in, thats nice. but still
-Will it be like CoD?
-Vehicles. I wanna see how first how this will be
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 16-03-2011, 18:03:55
not very impressed ><.

MP when??
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kradovech on 16-03-2011, 19:03:11
Ok I as never hyped for bf3, all I know about it is based on these 2 videos, that a friend pointed me to. I haven't even read this thread, apart from the last page.

Only thing that kinda got me excited was the backblast mentioned. Maybe they are throwing some other features and possibilities like this in there as well. If thats true, I might actually get this in a few years, when some reality mods start to pop up. What about multiplayer?Is there going to be more than 64 players or are they sticking with the less players is more fun theory?

And yes, it does look like COD. If it wasn't for the logo in the beginning and at end, I would never have taken it for a battlefield game, whereas bf2's intro video for example clearly has a distinctive "battlefield feeling" to it. More videos coming I assume, so this all might change.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 16-03-2011, 19:03:23
this is not the bf3 intro  ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kradovech on 16-03-2011, 19:03:12
Yeah, thats why i said this feeling might change. I honestly don't remember the first bf194 and bf2 trailers, to make a comaprison.

The point was, these 2 videos lack the battlefield feeling, that veteran players are familiar with.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 16-03-2011, 19:03:39
It lacks the Battlefield feeling, because old BFs didn't have real single player. Old BF fans consider single player as "CoD"
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 16-03-2011, 19:03:27
It lacks the Battlefield feeling, because old BFs didn't have real single player. Old BF fans consider single player as "CoD"
This, very much this.

I want a great Battlefield multi player game, not another BC2/CoD SP campaign that you can finish in five hours.

That being said, I have heard mainly only good things about those games, and I have enjoyed the ones I have played. I absolutely loved the SAS missions in CoD4.

But come on, give me a real Battlefield game!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kradovech on 16-03-2011, 19:03:43
I don't know, for me battlefield equals combined combat with massive amount of players. Tanks, APC's, Airforce, Naval combat, none of that was present in these videos. Even putting the single player elements showcased aside, there was nothing that couldn't be CoD. Also, getting compared to COD is not a bad thing really, no need to take it personally. And again, battlefield moments should be present in some of the next videos, at least that's what I would if I was trying to sell bf3.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 16-03-2011, 20:03:49
Same like everyone else said. Don't really care about the SP. These videos are nice for showing of the engine but when some MP gameplay gets released we can tell if it's a genuine BF title or not.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 16-03-2011, 20:03:14
It lacks the Battlefield feeling, because old BFs didn't have real single player. Old BF fans consider single player as "CoD"
This, very much this.

I want a great Battlefield multi player game, not another BC2/CoD SP campaign that you can finish in five hours.

That being said, I have heard mainly only good things about those games, and I have enjoyed the ones I have played. I absolutely loved the SAS missions in CoD4.

But come on, give me a real Battlefield game!
^this aswel

Battlefield was the first real FPS multiplayer experience i ever got. Singleplayer was more to practise the ways and weapons, the vehicles and the maps.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 16-03-2011, 22:03:30
There is something like seven months from now untill release BF3. To build up the tension they are slowly releasing trailers and teasers.
You begin with the small stuff. Single player showing the possibilities of the engine.
And you end with a big multi orgasm demo of total combined multiplayer warfare as we would like to see it.

Haven't you guys and girls heard of foreplay  ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LHeureux on 16-03-2011, 23:03:22
BF feeling is really strange to feel.

There's always humor in all the BFs. I mean the way then animations are, the way people talk, actions they do.

For exemple in FH2, seeing a guy saying "Schnell, luss!" and then running away from you and stopping, looking in a direction and then say the retreat voice of germans and running back at you is priceless.

Or I like the way the vehicle like apc and tanks looks alive in BF, or idiots lol. Sometimes they behave like animals, that's really funny. That's the BF feeling,
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 16-03-2011, 23:03:45
I know what you mean. The smacktards are half the battlefield.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LHeureux on 16-03-2011, 23:03:43
I know what you mean. The smacktards are half the battlefield.

Totally.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: sn00x on 17-03-2011, 00:03:52
Same like everyone else said. Don't really care about the SP. These videos are nice for showing of the engine but when some MP gameplay gets released we can tell if it's a genuine BF title or not.

this this this this one more time, THIS!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: HadrianBT on 17-03-2011, 00:03:33
I recall I was once alone in a Grant in Mersa Matruh and a German was trying to place a mine underneath my tank. Every time I managed to escape (didn't have enough time to actually man the upper cannon and was out of HE for main gun). But he kept running towards me and shouting "Warten Sie mich!" :)
I laughed my ass off.
And I agree, some vanilla animations were just awesome. Like the medic shaking his Medpack to hear what's inside. Or the knife animation "come to papa". Or the sniper's finger getting stuck in the little ring handing on the Barett.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LHeureux on 17-03-2011, 03:03:53
I recall I was once alone in a Grant in Mersa Matruh and a German was trying to place a mine underneath my tank. Every time I managed to escape (didn't have enough time to actually man the upper cannon and was out of HE for main gun). But he kept running towards me and shouting "Warten Sie mich!" :)
I laughed my ass off.
And I agree, some vanilla animations were just awesome. Like the medic shaking his Medpack to hear what's inside. Or the knife animation "come to papa". Or the sniper's finger getting stuck in the little ring handing on the Barett.

Yes exactly this kind of thing with the grant hahaha. Or a thing on Brest, a guy look me, and say "Roger that!" then he sprints like hell in the middle of the street running at the PZIV and start jumping around the gun, everybody in the squad laughed hahahaa
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 17-03-2011, 07:03:57
It lacks the Battlefield feeling, because old BFs didn't have real single player. Old BF fans consider single player as "CoD"

yea, but you hear how silly it sounds if DICE would use that as an argument for not making a singleplayer to their games right? That a bunch of old players consider single player to be "cod"...  ::)
This is the new battlefield. Old players dont know anything about this game, so they will need to change their old dogmas and accept the fact that the old game they used to play in 2002-2005 has been updated.  8)

There is something like seven months from now untill release BF3. To build up the tension they are slowly releasing trailers and teasers.
You begin with the small stuff. Single player showing the possibilities of the engine.
And you end with a big multi orgasm demo of total combined multiplayer warfare as we would like to see it.

Haven't you guys and girls heard of foreplay  ;)

EXACTLY^  :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 17-03-2011, 11:03:36
and now we have games that lower the threshold  aka dumbed down ^^
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 17-03-2011, 20:03:51
what "threshold"?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 17-03-2011, 22:03:24
IDK, ask DICE, they said that in an interview.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Dukat on 18-03-2011, 00:03:15
The market isn't diversified enough, IMHO. We have games 6+, 12+, 14+, 16+ and 18+. They concentrated on the young ones, while they now deal the elders who had no expirience at all. But where are the games for people aged 20 and above that are actually expirienced? Good games are rare in this segment.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 18-03-2011, 19:03:55
Concerning FPS i totally agree
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Vicious on 19-03-2011, 20:03:43
*Possible Spoiler Alert*

Did anyone notice at the end of Fault Line Pt. 2 that he was tossed the AT-4? Anyone think that means we'll see that feature in multiplayer? Need a patch? Grenade? hell, AT-4? just toss it to your buddy.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zeno on 19-03-2011, 20:03:42
^ Scripted singleplayer
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Vicious on 19-03-2011, 20:03:16
well maybe it opens the doors for modding to be done with that.

so let me get this straight... I can blow up a building... but I can't hand you my knife? lol
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zeno on 19-03-2011, 20:03:55
You obviously dont know alot about gamedevelopment..

same as i can fly a multimillion helicopter with 0 hours training but i cant crawl under this tree ( Bad company 2 referance )
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Vicious on 19-03-2011, 23:03:24
You obviously dont know alot about gamedevelopment..

same as i can fly a multimillion helicopter with 0 hours training but i cant crawl under this tree ( Bad company 2 reference )

no your right, how the hell would I? all I know is that it seems out of scale that you can blow up a building but you can't hand someone something. all i know is that other games have these features so it's not like were hitting a real wall in physical demand on the cpu like you get with things like huge destructible graphics and 128-256 player servers. it's only code.

in the single-player trailer the main thing that gives it away is the animation in his direction. for multi-player the animation could not exist and things could simply drop like PR already has, or just appear in your inventory, like a give feature found in resident evil.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 20-03-2011, 10:03:49

 it's only code.


nope, it's design. If the designer dont want you to be able to hand someone a knife, you wont be able to do that. But if he wants you to be able to blow a hole in a wall, you will be able to do that.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: samnadine on 20-03-2011, 15:03:47
Battlefield 1942 was a very innovative game, outside the market. BF2 kept a bit of its style, a game without singleplayer and full warfare battle scale. However BF3 introduces many of the market trends. Doesn't mean it's bad at all, but it's not anymore the market leader in developing new concepts. It's BF2 adding new cinematic features.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 20-03-2011, 16:03:28
BF2 had a fair few innovations as well like squad play, unlockable equipment, a battlefield commander and persistent stats.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 20-03-2011, 16:03:22
And an new spotting system

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kalkalash on 20-03-2011, 17:03:05
Let's just hope they bring something new to the genre.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 20-03-2011, 19:03:08
as long as they keep automatic knife,granade and ammo pool out, i will consider buy it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 30-03-2011, 20:03:40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbW98JYSjos

Awesome! Deployable machine guns!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 30-03-2011, 21:03:55
"Back To Karkand" expansion pack? So wait your going to charge me MORE money for a completed part of the game that you are not going to include at release?

*face palm*

im giving up on games
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 30-03-2011, 21:03:51
"Back To Karkand" expansion pack? So wait your going to charge me MORE money for a completed part of the game that you are not going to include at release?

*face palm*

im giving up on games

You won't have to pay any more than other people, you just have to preorder it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 30-03-2011, 21:03:49
Steam always gives better Pre-order deals
Like the epic free Metro 2033 i got for preordering homefront
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 31-03-2011, 16:03:45
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbW98JYSjos

Awesome! Deployable machine guns!


Confirmed for MP too?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 31-03-2011, 16:03:09
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbW98JYSjos

Awesome! Deployable machine guns!


Confirmed for MP too?
ooooh good one mate! Good one!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 31-03-2011, 19:03:54
"Back To Karkand" expansion pack? So wait your going to charge me MORE money for a completed part of the game that you are not going to include at release?

*face palm*

im giving up on games

it even says in big orange letter "at no extra charge"  ::)
http://www.ea.com/battlefield3/blog/bf3-pre-order

and limited edition of games does usually cost more or, are limited so only those who buy fast get that copy. They also usually include other exclusive items.
"unique rewards, new achievements/trophies, and more."

This is how marketing of products work.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 31-03-2011, 19:03:19
The rest of us will probably get the expansion in a later patch or something.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Fuchs on 31-03-2011, 19:03:52
"Back To Karkand" expansion pack? So wait your going to charge me MORE money for a completed part of the game that you are not going to include at release?

*face palm*

im giving up on games

it even says in big orange letter "at no extra charge"  ::)
http://www.ea.com/battlefield3/blog/bf3-pre-order

and limited edition of games does usually cost more or, are limited so only those who buy fast get that copy. They also usually include other exclusive items.
"unique rewards, new achievements/trophies, and more."

This is how marketing of products work.

Pre-ordering is an extra charge in my opinion, just look at how damn expensive new games are these days. I happily pay 35 euros, few games can get me to pay 50..
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 31-03-2011, 19:03:20
"Back To Karkand" expansion pack? So wait your going to charge me MORE money for a completed part of the game that you are not going to include at release?

*face palm*

im giving up on games

it even says in big orange letter "at no extra charge"  ::)
http://www.ea.com/battlefield3/blog/bf3-pre-order

and limited edition of games does usually cost more or, are limited so only those who buy fast get that copy. They also usually include other exclusive items.
"unique rewards, new achievements/trophies, and more."

This is how marketing of products work.

Yes, and then a month or two later the Karkand expansion is released for an extra 15 - 20 bucks. Im not preordering, I dont preorder any game. Thats just stupid.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 31-03-2011, 19:03:28
(http://www.jpgdump.com/files/7389)

the reallity of gaming today D:
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 31-03-2011, 19:03:30
+1 Sicario
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 31-03-2011, 19:03:04
My Point exactly Sicario.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 31-03-2011, 20:03:04
Thats just stupid.

no, it isn't. If it was, people wouldn't do it  ;) pre-ordering is getting bigger and bigger every year, and more and more design and production planning can be involved in it.

that mona lisa picture had one truth in it: it's not 1999 anymore, times are changing.  8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 31-03-2011, 20:03:29
that mona lisa picture had one truth in it: it's not 1999 anymore, times are changing.  8)

Indeed, people are becoming more and more stupid (to pay full price for an unfinished game, and then pay even more to get it finished)  :-\
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 31-03-2011, 20:03:44
of course time change! we get less content for bigger prices! isnt this wonderfull??
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 31-03-2011, 20:03:58
Thats just stupid.

no, it isn't. If it was, people wouldn't do it  ;) pre-ordering is getting bigger and bigger every year, and more and more design and production planning can be involved in it.

that mona lisa picture had one truth in it: it's not 1999 anymore, times are changing.  8)

Man, DICE has really swung the corporate hammer of you hasn't it there Natty?

Preordering only gets bigger because people are becoming idiots, it forces you into the companies big opening day sale along with whomever else may go and buy it on the day it comes out, so that the company can make an instantaneous huge amount of profit, and then later benefit even MORE from those people that didn't buy into their little corporate trick, by charging them 15 dollars for content that should have been included in the release version of the game, and then designing their multiplayer so that you get filled with constant annoyances, and eventually become bored of it, so that you WILL purchase it.

Brilliant to make money, stupid to those of us not dumb enough to buy into it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 31-03-2011, 20:03:28
Indeed, people are becoming more and more stupid (to pay full price for an unfinished game, and then pay even more to get it finished)  :-\
Why is it stupid to pay for something you want? And the game isn't unfinished, you just don't get the extra cool stuff you get in pre-order. Becuase that's what it is extra, exlusive stuff that you don't get if you don't pre-order. Very simple logic. Even the "stupid" people that buys pre-preder gets it  :D

of course time change! we get less content for bigger prices! isnt this wonderfull??
you get less content in BF3 than what you did in BF2? ok.. wait... LOL!

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 31-03-2011, 20:03:59
In terms of expansions? yes

Sorry natty but the picture is correct

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 31-03-2011, 20:03:19
Preordering only gets bigger because people are becoming idiots
wow, deep analysis from you there.. ok, I guess people are "idiots" for buying a game they have waited for for years.. sure.

as I stated; logic is simple, here is how it works:

A) go to the store on release day and buy a box - get the full game
B) buy it months ahead, get the full game + get access to cool stuff you only get in pre-order.

That's it. Trying to brand people that does it unintelligent is quite useless, subjective and immature, and really doesn't make any difference to anyone else than yourself.  ;)

About the "brainwashing" remark. My answer is: "wow, teh interwebz must really have swung the conspiracy theory hammer on you, hasn't it there?"
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 31-03-2011, 20:03:13
Preordering only gets bigger because people are becoming idiots
wow, deep analysis from you there.. ok, I guess people are "idiots" for buying a game they have waited for for years.. sure.

as I stated; logic is simple, here is how it works:

A) go to the store on release day and buy a box - get the full game
B) buy it months ahead, get the full game + get access to cool stuff you only get in pre-order.

That's it. Trying to brand people that does it unintelligent is quite useless, subjective and immature, and really doesn't make any difference to anyone else than yourself.  ;)



hahaha oh boy. Just when I thought Natty couldn't get any better xD Peace out everybody.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 31-03-2011, 20:03:18
yep, as usual you failed to make any sort of point.... that people are... stupid? or that EA is a money hungry evil corporation that uses brainwashing techniques to suck people for money.. wow.. way to credit those people and pretty much label everyone except yourself as idiots.

I Lol'd  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Leopardi on 31-03-2011, 20:03:21
IM so glad torrent exists xD
so you can tell DICE that PC as lead platform in the future is not worth it?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 31-03-2011, 20:03:37
IM so glad torrent exists xD
so you can tell DICE that PC as lead platform in the future is not worth it?

^ this ^ ... dont worry Leo, I dont think this is a can we want to open... I think it will smell inside.  :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 31-03-2011, 20:03:13
Everybody just ignore Natty and he'll go away. He is totally cuckoo and out of whack.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 31-03-2011, 20:03:28
yep... completely nutter.... I mean, thinking pre-ordering is a sweet offer for games, what cuckoo madness!

 ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 31-03-2011, 20:03:23
IM so glad torrent exists xD
so you can tell DICE that PC as lead platform in the future is not worth it?

if they wanna develope for PC they have to realize that pc players have higher expectations for games...at least i do. i brought games that are worth playing, red orchestra,minecraft, bf42, hl2, etc. If people wanna fall for "pay us now before playing the game so you can have maps that later will cost you moar" then go ahead, preorder. i wouldnt give them a single € until i know for sure what im buying.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 31-03-2011, 20:03:51
thanks for this evenings interwebz lulz  8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 31-03-2011, 20:03:51
Pre-ordering its a double edged weapon, even if one edge gives you gift that the other wont have. I rather wait out till I know how the game is, before buying.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paavopesusieni on 31-03-2011, 21:03:04
IMO I am want DICE to take my money as they are making PC lead platform and making battlefield 3 (as I am die-hard battlefield fan). DICE TAKE MONEY!! ;D

(http://gomademascar.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/1520931-take_my_money_super.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Dukat on 31-03-2011, 21:03:50
I believe DLCs are another reaction of the content industry on filesharing. They are squeezing those who are willing to pay even more.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 31-03-2011, 21:03:44
Its like apple products
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 31-03-2011, 22:03:31
of course time change! we get less content for bigger prices! isnt this wonderfull??
You have to admit though that game budgets have increased alot. Games are alot more realistic and developing assets takes alot more manpower. I don't believe prices have increased that much, 5 years ago I paid 50 euros for a game as well if I went to a regular game store.

DLC is a way to recoup some of the development costs although I admit that the practices of companies like Activision/IW are ridiculous in this regard.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Chadoi on 01-04-2011, 00:04:17
of course time change! we get less content for bigger prices! isnt this wonderfull??
You have to admit though that game budgets have increased alot. Games are alot more realistic and developing assets takes alot more manpower. I don't believe prices have increased that much, 5 years ago I paid 50 euros for a game as well if I went to a regular game store.

DLC is a way to recoup some of the development costs although I admit that the practices of companies like Activision/IW are ridiculous in this regard.

That sure is true. I can remember paying £50.00 for Metal Gear Solid from Woolworths in 1999.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 01-04-2011, 00:04:25
Sigh .. this discussion again. I shall repeat it again in case you missed it last time.
Games in 1990 cost 50 euros (110 Guilders in those days). 20 years later, a whole lot of inflation later and bigger game budgets later ... the games are even cheaper!

I take 10 seconds to google a price comparison site, I preorder from the cheapest site and I buy a game for 35 euros !!! A new game for 35 euros.
Then comes the DLC .. Oh dear I must buy this otherwise my life has no meaning ..... NO I don't.
It's a nice thing to have a choice. You have the core experience and get to choose of you want the side crap on your dish.

I've been playing games for twenty+ years now and it only got cheaper and better.

When I was playing Warlock on the C64 I could only dream of games like Battlefield 2, Mass Effect, Baldur's gate, Half Life. Speaking of Half Life when the bloody hell is the next episode coming? I've almost forgotten the whole story line.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Vicious on 01-04-2011, 01:04:24
speaking the truth NTH, my parents paid $50 for Mortal Kombat 2 on my 10th birthday, almost 15 years later games are only an extra $10, sure I'll preorder.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 01-04-2011, 01:04:48
Natty was in rare form today I see
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 01-04-2011, 08:04:38
Games in the EU are rediculously expensive, here in NL they used to be 50 gulden which' currency was worth about 2 euros. Instead of making prices 25 euros, they just switched the money icon... I never bought a game since then unless it was totally worth it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zoologic on 01-04-2011, 08:04:19
NTH, you should explain more about how inflation rate works.

IMO, games improve overtime in many different directions.

There are those who go straight upwards (like Gran Turismo series), with more contents, better quality, smarter computer opponent AI, more realistic, more customization, interface, interaction, and multiplayer capability.

There are those who aim for the specifics. Battlefield series totally dump singleplayer, sea warfare, etc for more graphics, multiplayer, interaction, customization, etc... however they are sure to be improving.

In short, there must be some improvement in BF3, and some people are willing to buy it, even though they sacrifice several aspects that "used to be" cool in previous series.

Games in the EU are rediculously expensive, here in NL they used to be 50 gulden which' currency was worth about 2 euros. Instead of making prices 25 euros, they just switched the money icon... I never bought a game since then unless it was totally worth it.

Are you sure they are legit version?

FYI, in Singapore, before they drive away illegal/pirated software out of street market, it used to cost SGD 10 a title for pirated version, the legit version is around SGD 60-90. Since people used to buy pirated games most of the time (due to the price), they simply feels the price is increasing overtime when piracy is slowly driven away overtime.

In Indonesia, the pirated software used to be IDR 8,000 (CD), then currently at IDR 25,000 (DVD) each. The legit ones is rated at IDR 480,000-700,000. They are both still sold side-by-side, if you want MP, you buy the licensed ones, if you are not so concerned about IP rights stuff, then you can save for the morale.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 01-04-2011, 08:04:13
In short, there must be some improvement in BF3

it's safe to say there is, yea...  ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 01-04-2011, 09:04:57
  BF3 will be the cats ass.  If it is the awesome modifiable game I buy for PC is another question.  I am going to hand EA money either way.  The big question is rather I play this only on the console or on the PC as well.   
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 01-04-2011, 09:04:34
Between now and End 2011 i have no other games looking forward to, so i'll take BF3 aswel.

Something tells me it just wont be "another Cod game" i dont know what it is.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Priestdk on 01-04-2011, 09:04:27
The only thing that really bugs me about this preorder extra thingy is that from the start you will already see the servers/players devidet, if you havent pre ordert the game you will end up getting kicked from the servers that play the pre order extra maps if you dont have it. It is like in the old days of battlefield 2 just from the start of the game, were people that did not bye an expansion played on a server if the server ran those maps people would get kicked automaticaly. I remember that sins i newer baught Euroforces expansion.

So instead this will happen from the start now seeing the pre order people will be able to play aditionaly 4 maps remade for BF3.

I just hope we can eventualy pre order on steam that is the only electronic game portal i use, to bye games over the net if not i will get a hard copy from a shop, with means no pre order maps.

Unless offcaus the rest will get them later in a patch relativly fast after release.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 01-04-2011, 12:04:21
This is what concerns me:
Quote
Pre-order Battlefield 3 to receive the digital expansion pack Battlefield 3: Back to Karkand at no extra charge!...
- http://www.ea.com/battlefield3/blog/bf3-pre-order
WTF does that mean?... >:(

The DVD version of the game's gonna include a voucher/coupon for the EA Store that lets me download it for free?



Regarding price, I remember paying about 60-70 bucks for Overdrive (by Team 17) on the Amiga in '93-'94, and the last new release/"full price" game I bought was Civilization V, which cost me 90 bucks... :)



Between now and End 2011 i have no other games looking forward to...
Really? All the cool kids are looking forward to seeing this guy again... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5svP9Wu0nk

 ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 01-04-2011, 12:04:14
*Dives into a bunker, and peeks his head out the hatch just before closing it=
I never played duke nukem
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 01-04-2011, 13:04:53
cannonfodder, we have auto updaters now  ;) ever since BF Heroes, you dont need to download anything, the game does everything for you when you start it. The game also know if your profile has access to the limited stuff.

Technology 2011  8)

@Priest: you don't need to worry about players being divided.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 01-04-2011, 13:04:18
Between now and End 2011 i have no other games looking forward to, so i'll take BF3 aswel.

Something tells me it just wont be "another Cod game" i dont know what it is.

check out red orchestra 2 ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 01-04-2011, 13:04:16
Games in the EU are rediculously expensive, here in NL they used to be 50 gulden which' currency was worth about 2 euros. Instead of making prices 25 euros, they just switched the money icon... I never bought a game since then unless it was totally worth it.

Sander, that's just plain wrong. Games were around 110 Guilders depending on the game. Here you can see Zoo tycoon, not an Triple A game, for 99 guilders --> http://www.gamersnet.nl/nieuws/200110/zoo_tycoon_aangekondigd/ (http://www.gamersnet.nl/nieuws/200110/zoo_tycoon_aangekondigd/)
They have been this price in the days of the Amiga and they have been in the days when PC games were upcoming.

Let's take Crysis 2 and Shift 2: Unleased for example.
Just out and I can buy them from 35 Euros. Throw some discount coupons, Freebees, Fuel saver or whatever and I am buying a brand new game for 30 euros.

@Zoo
General price inflation, more competitors due to Webshops, quality of Product inflation(this one is very subjective) and Production cost inflation, all went up while prices of games actually went down.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 01-04-2011, 13:04:33
@THeTA: Duke's been kickin' around since the early '90's, although I've only ever played Duke Nukem 3D.

The best video game character ever, he's just a complete piss-take of your stereotypical Hollywood action hero...and he talks like Dirty Harry. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Nukem_%28character%29

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Duke_Nukem



You miss my point Natty. I'm aware of auto-updaters (Civ V does it through Steam), my problem is having to download, at my expense, these so-called free maps.

If they want to encourage people to pre-order the "Battlefield 3 Limited Edition" on DVD, the least they can do is go to the effort of actually making one (with the maps included), as opposed to taking a standard copy and sticking a coupon inside... :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 01-04-2011, 13:04:11
Games in the EU are rediculously expensive, here in NL they used to be 50 gulden which' currency was worth about 2 euros. Instead of making prices 25 euros, they just switched the money icon... I never bought a game since then unless it was totally worth it.

Sander, that's just plain wrong. Games were around 110 Guilders depending on the game. Here you can see Zoo tycoon, not an Triple A game, for 99 guilders --> http://www.gamersnet.nl/nieuws/200110/zoo_tycoon_aangekondigd/ (http://www.gamersnet.nl/nieuws/200110/zoo_tycoon_aangekondigd/)
They have been this price in the days of the Amiga and they have been in the days when PC games were upcoming.

Let's take Crysis 2 and Shift 2: Unleased for example.
Just out and I can buy them from 35 Euros. Throw some discount coupons, Freebees, Fuel saver or whatever and I am buying a brand new game for 30 euros.

@Zoo
General price inflation, more competitors due to Webshops, quality of Product inflation(this one is very subjective) and Production cost inflation, all went up while prices of games actually went down.
Not to mention steam

I payed 50 euro for Homefront, i recieved metro 2033 for free, and in retail Homefront costs between 55 and 60 euro
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Fuchs on 01-04-2011, 14:04:35
Steam is actually being a bitch on Europeans as they rate the Euro and Dollar as equal value..
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 01-04-2011, 15:04:43
Steam is actually being a bitch on Europeans as they rate the Euro and Dollar as equal value..

This... Also 50 to 60 € is way too much for a game in a country where an average monthly salary is around 750 € (my country).
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 01-04-2011, 15:04:59
It's a tough decision to buy this game are not...if it doesnt have mod tools every hope for playing this game for years will end, just like BF2. Probably EA will not let release mod tools because it will hurt their DLC sales. Now that I think it, it would be a good idea to have those tools as DLC.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 01-04-2011, 17:04:28
Let's hypothetically say they did release mod tools, Yustax, which mod would you see starting with BF3?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 01-04-2011, 17:04:20
Cold war mod


I give everything for battlefield Cold war game with realistic penetration values, shell balistics, all Cold war vehicles(as much as possible), many nations (US, UK , Germanies, france, japan vs Russia, warsaw pact nations vs CHIINNAA and India and ofcourse 128-256 players on a map, infantry combat between BF2 and PR(aka FH2 style)
And everything to make COMPLETE armies

THE THOUGHT= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GHX8dvuFUQ
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kradovech on 01-04-2011, 18:04:12
Let's hypothetically say they did release mod tools, Yustax, which mod would you see starting with BF3?


Well, if someone managed to pull of a few simple changes, the result could be quite nice and make it worth getting bf3. Stuff like increased damage done by all projectiles, making the backblast more powerful for handheld AT weapons, removal of any unnecessary commander tools or some unrealistic features, reduced damage done to the destroyable environment by grenades for example, reduced tank turret speeds, limiting AT kits and such by making them pickup kits only. I could probably come up with more, if the full feature list in bf3 had been released. In general, little stuff to slow the gameplay a bit down and make the use of tactics possible, instead of just "run-around-and-click-on-the-enemy".

Or of course the exact opposite could be done by someone, who would prefer to change the gameplay in that direction.

This seems like something that could be done even without mod support, or am I wrong? Because I very well may be wrong :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zoologic on 01-04-2011, 18:04:12
@Zoo
General price inflation, more competitors due to Webshops, quality of Product inflation(this one is very subjective) and Production cost inflation, all went up while prices of games actually went down.

LOL I believe more in wealth creation theory.  ;D

More people are having real productive jobs nowadays, making some real money, therefore we have to print more money to represent the growth. Because of the increasing quantity of money in the market, the value of the money would decrease accordingly over time while the value of things remains the same (it can be considered cheaper if you believe in the "quality of product inflation").

The preorder bonus is a common marketing tactic. Generally investors wanted to see early returns from the project and gain as much as possible at the shortest period, while the value of the investment (because of the trend factor, freshness, coolness, and such) is still at the maximum. This is called maximizing sales.

My advise is for you to simply question yourself: do you really think one extra good map compels you to buy the game? (Assuming the new Karkand map would be a wonderful one). People like Lainer is good for the economy, he is a conscious spender:

Quote
BF3 will be the cats ass.  If it is the awesome modifiable game I buy for PC is another question.  I am going to hand EA money either way.

He is going to buy one has budgeted for one.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 01-04-2011, 20:04:55
@Krad
Kind of like a hardcore mode, stuff like that.

@Zoo
Maximizing sales? That might be so, depends on the investment deal that is struck, if any.
Since games are published by a publisher, like EA or Ubisoft, I believe the ROI is of course important, but they won't cut the margins just to get the quick fix.
There is no continuity in the long run if you do business like that.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zoologic on 02-04-2011, 05:04:27
That's why it is only for the pre-order versions of that game.

I'll just wait to see the others playing and post a review of it. I cannot be be persuaded by Beta-version review or even release version sneak-peek reviews. They contain too many promotions for sure.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: mopskind on 16-04-2011, 19:04:47
12 Minutes gameplay- mostly known stuff but also some new scenes.

http://www.gamestar.de/index.cfm?pid=1589&pk=18074

Sound and graphics are stunning, but the AI..meh. I hope they will work on that
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 16-04-2011, 19:04:29
Also, as pointed out by Barth:
Quote
Just saw it seems the cartridges aren't moving on the HMG mounted on the pick-up when firing! For a modern game like BF3, that's strange, even on BF42 it was "moving" (well, you see what I mean).
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 16-04-2011, 19:04:45
*awaits the ITS STILL ALPHA excuse
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 16-04-2011, 19:04:10
Also, as pointed out by Barth:
Quote
Just saw it seems the cartridges aren't moving on the HMG mounted on the pick-up when firing! For a modern game like BF3, that's strange, even on BF42 it was "moving" (well, you see what I mean).


We finally get animations for entering vehicles in the BF series and THAT'S what you noticed in that scene?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: -Svea-Livgarde- on 16-04-2011, 19:04:50
I dont like the coloring of the game, a bit too dull and dim. And to make it more realistic, they should remove ammo HUD indicator. But it looks amazing, and I will probably buy it. Maybe last game before its children making time.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 16-04-2011, 19:04:24
I dont like the coloring of the game, a bit too dull and dim. And to make it more realistic, they should remove ammo HUD indicator. But it looks amazing, and I will probably buy it. Maybe last game before its children making time.

Or rather, have it show only number of magazines and the weight/estimated amount of rounds left.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Gezoes on 16-04-2011, 20:04:13
12 Minutes gameplay- mostly known stuff but also some new scenes.

http://www.gamestar.de/index.cfm?pid=1589&pk=18074

Sound and graphics are stunning, but the AI..meh. I hope they will work on that

I hope they don't. MP is the ****  ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 16-04-2011, 23:04:04
12 Minutes gameplay- mostly known stuff but also some new scenes.

http://www.gamestar.de/index.cfm?pid=1589&pk=18074

Sound and graphics are stunning, but the AI..meh. I hope they will work on that

I hope they don't. MP is the ****  ;)
Euhm Battlefield is all about singleplayer
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: General_Henry on 17-04-2011, 06:04:44
I am not going to spend money on this because my computer simply cannot handle it.

And I am not going to spend money on a new computer, since this still worked very well.

If I really managed to get a new computer this this game is moddable, I'll consider buying it, else...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 17-04-2011, 08:04:10
Quote
"The game is still early in development, but I can tell you that Battlefield 3 will have the largest maps we have ever made" - Patrick Bach, DICE
- http://bf3blog.com/2011/04/dice-bf3-will-have-the-largest-maps-weve-ever-made/

I find this a bit strange considering they aren't increasing the player count, add a couple more flags and most full-size BF2 maps could easily handle another couple of dozen players.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 17-04-2011, 09:04:49
Well that statement can go both ways; the maps in BC2 were as big as BF2's but they had huge red zones... Eventually the actual playing field was rather small. Could be the same for BF3, could be that they figured out how to compensate. (ie vehicles were moving rather slow in BF2 so more realistic speeds should compensate already)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: mopskind on 17-04-2011, 10:04:13
12 Minutes gameplay- mostly known stuff but also some new scenes.

http://www.gamestar.de/index.cfm?pid=1589&pk=18074

Sound and graphics are stunning, but the AI..meh. I hope they will work on that

I hope they don't. MP is the ****  ;)
Euhm Battlefield is all about singleplayer

You have a point there ;) But i reckon that if you want to do something, do it right!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 17-04-2011, 12:04:49
indeed true mopskind


btw also no commander for bf3
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hankypanky on 17-04-2011, 18:04:55
indeed true mopskind


btw also no commander for bf3

That is fine in because in BF2 most commanders sat in main and whored arty.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Dukat on 17-04-2011, 22:04:08
Still got the impression that I could be very disappointed.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ajs47951 on 17-04-2011, 22:04:46
12 Minutes gameplay- mostly known stuff but also some new scenes.

http://www.gamestar.de/index.cfm?pid=1589&pk=18074

Sound and graphics are stunning, but the AI..meh. I hope they will work on that
ever know a BF game to have good AI?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hankypanky on 18-04-2011, 07:04:02
12 Minutes gameplay- mostly known stuff but also some new scenes.

http://www.gamestar.de/index.cfm?pid=1589&pk=18074

Sound and graphics are stunning, but the AI..meh. I hope they will work on that
ever know a BF game to have good AI?


BF2 with mods is pretty good imo. Look at what single player PR/FH2 have done.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 18-04-2011, 08:04:16
ever know a BF game to have good AI?

I think they did a good job with BC and BC2, and I expect nothing less from BF3..

BF2 mods? that's not "real" SP.. it's just conquest MP with bots instead of humans.

Real SinglePlayer modes should have its own maps, story, voice commands, animations, cutscenes, events, game modes, HUD etc.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 18-04-2011, 17:04:23
O my that trailer looks good. Ima prob going to buy a new pc anyway round release period. Changed my mind, will prob buy ( ifive a new pc) as a nice little start up game. 8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 18-04-2011, 17:04:23
ever know a BF game to have good AI?

I think they did a good job with BC and BC2, and I expect nothing less from BF3..

BF2 mods? that's not "real" SP.. it's just conquest MP with bots instead of humans.

Real SinglePlayer modes should have its own maps, story, voice commands, animations, cutscenes, events, game modes, HUD etc.
i have to agree that there was a huge gigantic improvement in Bc and BC2
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LHeureux on 19-04-2011, 03:04:51
you guys have seen this?  :o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgn2PaLsiO8&feature=fvst
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 19-04-2011, 11:04:15
The short tank scene as a high-quality .gif:
(http://img01.imagecanon.com/_upload/img/29/tnk.gif)

Looks simply stunning!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zoologic on 19-04-2011, 11:04:48
That is pure total awesomeness.

I'm slightly bought!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 19-04-2011, 12:04:45
I'll buy it....Fuck it my PC will be upgraded and i will buy it no matter what!!!!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 19-04-2011, 12:04:14
The short tank scene as a high-quality .gif:
<snip>

Looks simply stunning!
Holy crap. Now that is incoming.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 19-04-2011, 12:04:08
hope thats a MP map, looks huge !!


PD: also hope thats not the final tank HUD, looks awful xD
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 19-04-2011, 12:04:01
Well when  BF2 was released, it was one of the most requiring games of them all

Maybe BF3 will also be like that?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zoologic on 19-04-2011, 13:04:16
I hoarded savings just for my new PC, so I'm prepared for THIS!!!!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: AlexS66 on 19-04-2011, 13:04:04
I woulld also like to see a high quality jet scene gif. if anyone knows how that could be done?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 19-04-2011, 20:04:22
I'll buy it....Fuck it my PC will be upgraded and i will buy it no matter what!!!!

That's it mate, this is they way to get the Greek economy out of the crisis.
The full trailer look yummie, now I want to be blown away with multiplayer footage.

I hope we get to see something before the E3.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: azreal on 19-04-2011, 21:04:26
DICE seemed pretty clear about no MP footage before E3. And I mean, I don't like that, but it makes sense marketing-wise. It's probably the one of the biggest video-game conferences coming up in the next few months. Lots of US viewers.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 19-04-2011, 22:04:06
My money says that the INCOMING! clip is VERY scripted event and that air strikes in MP won't look like that.

Also, based on the trailers, a lot of the game's visuals are achieved through clever use of filtering and lighting rather than complex geometries or detailed textures. Compared to Crysis (Warhead) tweaked beyond "very high", it does not look that much more advanced. Slightly more realistic, yes, because of pronounced blur and anisotropic filtering. But again, looking at the lifeless faces and at times awkward movements of the soldiers gives away the fact that this is still a game.

---

Though, if somebody manages to hack back the 256 player mode in it, I would happily play even vanilla BF3. :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Nerdsturm on 20-04-2011, 02:04:18
My money says that the INCOMING! clip is VERY scripted event and that air strikes in MP won't look like that.

Hey, I don't care, so long as there's multiplayer maps with that view distance.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ajs47951 on 20-04-2011, 02:04:07
something tells me my 9800gtx2 1 gig may need some help playing this on max!   :D
"And by help I mean some OCing" ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 20-04-2011, 08:04:09
Also, based on the trailers, a lot of the game's visuals are achieved through clever use of filtering and lighting rather than complex geometries or detailed textures. Compared to Crysis (Warhead) tweaked beyond "very high", it does not look that much more advanced. Slightly more realistic, yes, because of pronounced blur and anisotropic filtering. But again, looking at the lifeless faces and at times awkward movements of the soldiers gives away the fact that this is still a game.

I cant comment on the "complexities" of the geometry as I have no idea how complex they are compared to crysis warhead, but I played both Crysis and WH and I think they, instead of using complex geometries, just used ultra high-res textures to achieve their result... question is; which is harder: create a light engine as frostbite 2 or just add a bunch of photographies to the game?  ;)

Results are reached by different methods in all games, I dont think it matters if you use ultra-big photographies as textures, ultra-high poly models or an ultra-strong light engine. What matters is if the players get immersed or not.

In BF3s case, it's quite logical to use perhaps less ultra high-poly models, as they can all be destroyed, and instead of ultra-big photos, use the awesome light engine. Since you know when frostbite destroys geometry, the new geometry needs to be lighted in real time.

So compared to Crysis:WH I think BF3 is lightyears away in pretty much all cases.. sure CryTek uses insane textures and the quality of each photo is also very good, but did you play Crysis in MP anytime? I sure didn't.... BF3 is made for both SP and MP, and with 64 guys running around wreaking havoc, it might not be valid to use 2048x2048 textures for a chair or flowerpot if you see what I mean... Especially if the chair and flowerpot can be destroyed.

Sure Crysis had "destruction" as well, but the fake kind, and let's be honest, did you believe the way the shantytown sheds and wooden walls collapsed in Crysis? I often lol'd out loud when the pieces of the shit I blew up tried to find its place to the ground...

I have installed, but not yet playd Crysis2 though, from what I heard their urban environment is mind-blowing, cant wait to check it.. I mean blow it out.  8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 20-04-2011, 09:04:34
well...EA learned alot from BF2 MP and from Bc and BC2 singleplayer.

Who knows, this might be the real "Battlefield" wich combines both

Personally i wouldnt mind if there is only a Multiplayer...but a single player would be nice
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zeno on 20-04-2011, 13:04:19
new trailer or remix of previous trailers:

http://www.youtube.com/user/Battlefield

and a nice pic of air combat:

(http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/207831_163909150332695_147737735283170_381244_3495767_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 20-04-2011, 13:04:33
cockpit of F-15E strikeeaglle btw
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 20-04-2011, 14:04:31
And more lensflare than ever since the first 3D accelerators became available and every game had to be full of them. ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 20-04-2011, 14:04:41
How many times are they going to cut and mix up again that 13:00m trailer lol.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kradovech on 20-04-2011, 14:04:51
A small rant: I hate it how ever since destructible environment made its entrance to the games, th developers have to go overboard with it. It seems like they want every player to be able to destroy everything. Take these videos for example, something I would consider solid cover against small arms fire, gets destroyed so easily taht it seems every weapon is using the .50 cal ammo. Not to mention grenades entirely destroyng cover entirely. I know a thing or two about explosives and regular grenades should do practically no damage to cover. And dont get me started on that riddicullous AT-4 scene.

/End rant.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 20-04-2011, 14:04:51
Kradovech is right. A hand grenade does little damage to those things
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Neighbor Kid on 20-04-2011, 14:04:46
im excited to play but i am not excited that it seems to be the end to battlefield modding.. time for FH to makes its own game dam it!.. lol ... any way.. the game looks great but idk how long it will keep me tied down.. BFBC2 only kept me for maybe a month then i lost interest.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 20-04-2011, 14:04:52
Just look at that cockpit.......Please god if you are true make all the vehicles be as awesome as they are portrayed in these two pictures and then i shall believe in you blindly.....
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zoologic on 20-04-2011, 15:04:58
Oh Faaaaake cockpit!!!!

....wait, this shouldn't be a simulator.

Well at least make it like the real one.

(http://www.howitflies.com/files/photos/wikiexport/b/bc/F-15e_cockpit.jpg)

another photo (http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/McDonnell-Douglas-F-15E/0643339/M/)

To explain the stuff:
The left monitor usually shows navigation display or radar display or in this photo the FLIR view.
The right monitor usually shows the weapon system, the go/nogo system list, and sometimes TV feed from the weapon's on board cam.
The middle bottom monitor is the fixed ADI (Attitude and Direction Indicator) that artificial horizon instrument.

BTW, where is the RWR? Oh forgot about that... you don't have to make everything like a sim, but just do "real but fake" impressions. You know, like what they do with the tanks, an Abrams tank in-game but cannot do what the real Abrams can. So here you present real cockpit but without all its functionality, just to give you the impression of being in a real one.

The BF3 screenshot Zeno showed looks like a Russian stuff.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 20-04-2011, 15:04:23
Its a flanker alright. But wich one..
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zoologic on 20-04-2011, 15:04:05
Actually, it is more like Fulcrum-F (MiG-35)

(http://toad-design.com/migalley/wp-content/gallery/equipment/mig29sniper-cockpit.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 20-04-2011, 15:04:51
And dont get me started on that riddicullous AT-4 scene.
Obviously, DICE are big Sledge Hammer! fans and want to pay homage to the pilot episode. In it, Sledge drives by a police scene where an urban sniper is taking potshots from a derelict office block. Deciding to help his fellow officers, Sledge grabs a LAW from the trunk of his car and fires it at the building, collapsing it. Situation over. ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Torenico on 20-04-2011, 16:04:15
There could be a mega big Ammo storage inside that Building ^^
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: General_Henry on 20-04-2011, 19:04:04
If they'd ever make MP a more realistic game (more FH-like), with 128 players, I guess this would be played really good.

But still I don't have the intention to buy it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 20-04-2011, 19:04:32
FH more realistic than BF3, lol  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 20-04-2011, 19:04:11
PR more realistic than BF3, lol  ;D
Fixed
(http://api.ning.com/files/xXHg*Lq*7d4wXshreyqNo6x0l6*rgEHtCLdfHt9Ly76jYQ7-FjuoynDVKS8P*uCvnnd*bCdRhgLuVmcHQyIcCSQk9qJD-c6H/dancing_trollface.gif)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Fuchs on 20-04-2011, 19:04:55
FH more realistic than BF3, lol  ;D
Ban this troll already. Sometimes he really makes me puke. Or that's the easter chocolate.

Just ban him.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 20-04-2011, 20:04:07
http://www.thisisxbox.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=972:exclusive-battlefield-3-q-and-a&catid=35:news

Quote
Lone players like you say enjoy the Single player campaign but can also, without caring about Teamplay or responsibility for others, just have a great time in multiplayer.


ohh DICE, you make me love you more everyday  ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Comrade Roe on 20-04-2011, 23:04:07
 >:( No mod tools for BF3... No mods... And my soon-to-be-favorite game with mods already being developed before the game is released, doesn't have pilotable aircraft. WHAT IS WRONG WITH GAMES TODAY?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LHeureux on 20-04-2011, 23:04:19
>:( No mod tools for BF3... No mods... And my soon-to-be-favorite game with mods already being developed before the game is released, doesn't have pilotable aircraft. WHAT IS WRONG WITH GAMES TODAY?

Ho, I see that you talk about RO2 here  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 21-04-2011, 12:04:33
>:( No mod tools for BF3... No mods... And my soon-to-be-favorite game with mods already being developed before the game is released, doesn't have pilotable aircraft. WHAT IS WRONG WITH GAMES TODAY?

They suck... Now go back to FH2!  8)


*disclaimer* The author of this post does not really think that new games suck, only that they lost their soul */disclaimer*
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Graf_Radetzky(CZ) on 21-04-2011, 12:04:42
>:( No mod tools for BF3... No mods... And my soon-to-be-favorite game with mods already being developed before the game is released, doesn't have pilotable aircraft. WHAT IS WRONG WITH GAMES TODAY?

Well it shouldnt be big problem to code aircraft, ships etc., as far as i know.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 22-04-2011, 05:04:26
http://www.thisisxbox.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=972:exclusive-battlefield-3-q-and-a&catid=35:news

Quote
Lone players like you say enjoy the Single player campaign but can also, without caring about Teamplay or responsibility for others, just have a great time in multiplayer.


ohh DICE, you make me love you more everyday  ::)
From the same article:

Quote
15. Will a demo coming before the release?

Yes! :-)

The wait just got shorter... :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 22-04-2011, 07:04:19
Not to deflate your hopes, but that article is about the Xbox Version of BF3.
A demo for the PC has yet to be announced.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: AlexS66 on 22-04-2011, 13:04:14
This is why i always have an xbox, on standby
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 22-04-2011, 22:04:37
For those who are sure they want buy BF3. This easter weekend "Limited"edition for 22 Euros. It's a digital version.

Use the coupon code I4250 and go to EA store here http://www.ea.com/battlefield3 (http://www.ea.com/battlefield3)

Just bought it, price actually is 22,50 euro:

(http://i51.tinypic.com/5dngbr.jpg)

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 23-04-2011, 09:04:50
Very odd, here in the store that I can access they still charge 60€ for the limited edition DL.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 23-04-2011, 11:04:34
Very odd, here in the store that I can access they still charge 60€ for the limited edition DL.

Same here..
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Seth_Soldier on 23-04-2011, 11:04:29
FH more realistic than BF3, lol  ;D
This doesn't make me laugh ...
You're the one who always dumb down FH gameplay to arcade rather than realism ...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 23-04-2011, 12:04:15
Very odd, here in the store that I can access they still charge 60€ for the limited edition DL.

Same here..

Did you use the coupon code? I know from peeps in the UK that they could use the coupon code without any issues.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 23-04-2011, 14:04:17
I'm in the Netherlands, all the page does when I enter the code is refresh.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 23-04-2011, 15:04:42
I'm in the Netherlands, all the page does when I enter the code is refresh.

Same here in Finland. Price is still 50 euros.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 23-04-2011, 17:04:45
Special discharges in the EA Store usually only apply to released games, so I guess it was some kind of mistake that BF3's preorder was on sale and I guess they fixed it already.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 23-04-2011, 22:04:59
I dunno were that rumor came from Sander, but I received an email from I3d about this offer.

edit: Just saw on their site that the offer was only valid for one day, a bit short imho :(

http://i3d.nl/news-article.php?news=565 (http://i3d.nl/news-article.php?news=565)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 23-04-2011, 23:04:39
That's it guys. Get the pitchforks.
(http://leblow.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/angry-mob-simpsons.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Fuchs on 23-04-2011, 23:04:34
You had to put them on fire.. Now they lost their purpose.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: AlexS66 on 24-04-2011, 15:04:17
I always read into these too late. Darn
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 24-04-2011, 18:04:55
Ah well, bit of a stupid promo anyway, but congrats to those how got in there. Turns out im paying £35 for the LD.
Edit: turns out the place im buying it from were trying to charge me extra for fuck all. Reordered + some reward points = £20.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Jimi Hendrix on 18-05-2011, 06:05:29
 I just watched the 12 minute BF3 video "Fault Line" and im just totally amazed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zw8SmsovJc


 When i saw the dog i immediately though about FH3 with German Shepherds....


I can dream cant i..........

 :-*
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paavopesusieni on 18-05-2011, 08:05:22
A bit old video isn't it?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Jimi Hendrix on 18-05-2011, 08:05:59
A bit old video isn't it?
Its about a month old.

 :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 18-05-2011, 10:05:47
Regarding the old AT4 vs building discussion

It might be possible this is the HEDP 502 or AST(anti-structure Tandem warhead) AT4.
Quote
HEDP 502 (High Explosive Dual Purpose)[16]
For use against bunkers, buildings, enemy personnel in the open and light armor. The projectile can be set to detonate on impact or with a slight delayed detonation. The heavier nose cap allows the HEDP projectile to penetrate light walls or windows and then explode, or "skipped" off the ground for an air-burst. For use against light armor, there is a smaller cone HEAT warhead with 150 mm (5.9 inches) of penetration against RHA.

Or it might be DICE and there multi-killing warheads again like in the other battlefields  ;D

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kradovech on 18-05-2011, 21:05:26
Regarding the old AT4 vs building discussion

It might be possible this is the HEDP 502 or AST(anti-structure Tandem warhead) AT4.
Quote
HEDP 502 (High Explosive Dual Purpose)[16]
For use against bunkers, buildings, enemy personnel in the open and light armor. The projectile can be set to detonate on impact or with a slight delayed detonation. The heavier nose cap allows the HEDP projectile to penetrate light walls or windows and then explode, or "skipped" off the ground for an air-burst. For use against light armor, there is a smaller cone HEAT warhead with 150 mm (5.9 inches) of penetration against RHA.

Or it might be DICE and there multi-killing warheads again like in the other battlefields  ;D

HEDP grenades penetrate the bunker/building wall with kinetic energy and then explode inside,thats all. AT4's HEDP warhead doesn't produce this kind of effect. So its the ladder.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3xsMqHu56g&t=2m14s
At 2:14 you can see AT4 cs ast, a slightly more powerful than HEDP. Still nothing more than a round penetrating the wall and exploding inside.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paavopesusieni on 19-05-2011, 09:05:18
Well that hotel ain't bunker but normal middle eastern building with lot's of windows. I you shoot a house like that with high explosive the windows will brake and it's highly possible that thin wall like they build over there blows up to pieces.

Also, just in case, you don't need to tell me how weapons work.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kradovech on 19-05-2011, 18:05:43
I cant comment on if the AT4 blast wave is powerful enough to destroy window glasses  away from the blast area, as with all the blasting I have done, it was made certain there was no glass nearby that could be breaking.

On the wall, it looks like a carcass building to me. If this is true, the hole is at least 3-4 times too big. And if it was the HEDP round or CS AST, the hole should be much smaller, with a small initial entry hole, after which the wall of the room the round explodes in might get pushed out, leaving still a rather small hole.

Referring back to my video, you can see the round penetrating the wall after the sandbag bunker clip, and if you go back to 2:00, you can see the same round (same amount of explosives) in a different mode. That can give you an idea on the amount of explosives used in the round and on its destructive capabilities. (I failed to find the amount of explosives in these rounds on google)

I'm not trying to explain to you how weapons work, I just like to back up my claims, hence the video.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 19-05-2011, 18:05:46
A bomb exploded nearby the Athens courts.

(http://news247.gr/incoming/article737290.ece/ALTERNATES/w620/riakour2.jpg)

And all these windows were destroyed by an explosion ON THE GROUND...Imagine one near them were the power goes through them.So just the sound blast is enough for windows. I do not know for anything else though.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kradovech on 19-05-2011, 18:05:24
AT4 round is not a bomb. Your average bomb has much more explosives, hence why its common for windows to get destroyed. Also, there was probably clear "line of sight" between the bomb and the windows.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zeno on 19-05-2011, 18:05:26
jeez... most likely a big weapon cache inside that blew up when the AT4 hit... stop discussing this stupid stuff now ::)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOV8sJJDE1A

imagine this but only inside an hotell :o
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 19-05-2011, 18:05:00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiDb0n9_Md0

Here...No need to Argue anymore :D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kradovech on 19-05-2011, 19:05:10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiDb0n9_Md0

Here...No need to Argue anymore :D
Well that only partly proves my point to be fair. Thats only one type of round, it can be argued that other rounds would do some more serious damage.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 19-05-2011, 22:05:13
Guys, scripted event that looks awesome for ignorent players. What's not to get?
Like you would be able to see the fallout/blast radios of a nuclear bomb... But it looked cool in MW1.

In BC2 the LATs could only destroy one wall or window section (and without doing too much damage to a person behind it). I doubt the devs have suddenly made LATs shoot nuclear rockets (in MP).

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 20-05-2011, 11:05:42
Speaking of unrealistic damage...

At about 4:30 in the full 'Faultline' vid, the player shoots at a hostile on a balcony, he shoots him through the balcony wall and leaves a hole around a meter in diameter... ???

Either that wall is made out of fibro, or that rifle packs one helluva punch.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: AlexS66 on 22-05-2011, 13:05:18
i cant believe people argue about this stuff. Its fun to have god powers. Want realism? Join the army.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 22-05-2011, 13:05:02
Realism and army sucks. ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 22-05-2011, 13:05:58
i cant believe people argue about this stuff. Its fun to have god powers. Want realism? Join the army.

I did join the army. You want God powers? Go play Battlefield Heroes.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: AlexS66 on 22-05-2011, 15:05:46
This isn't the point im making. Its great if you joined the army, really, im sure you did a wonderful job. But games are games, they arnt supposed to be like that.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 22-05-2011, 15:05:58
says who?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 22-05-2011, 15:05:08
says who?

The majority of the buyers who don't give horse crap about realism and just want a cool game.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 22-05-2011, 15:05:15
says who?

The majority of the buyers who don't give horse crap about realism and just want a cool game.
^this

For me, i am still waiting for a game that has MP like FH2.

A combination of realism, accuracy and arcade
It just works out the best

There is simply a reason, why there are FEW well popular Realism games. And i mean actuall realism.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kradovech on 22-05-2011, 17:05:15
Well as far as I'm concerned the discussion wasn't about bf3 anymore, I personally am just discussing the destructive capabilities of the AT-4. Some people claimed that this was how the round round would work in reality as well, I disagreed. I'd expect you to be used to this kind of arguements on a forum, where the tiger model having  the incorrect amount of wheels can be the source for 3 pages of discussion.

If you want to discuss the game? I dont have much to add here. You think its fun for any class to inflict the amount of damage of an artillery round and I can respect that, you'll probably enkoy this. I find this boring, as every battle plays out exactly the same - destroy the cover, kill the guy. I need more depth in my games, with the element of tactics needed as well as the elemnt of skill, so I'm gonna get RO2 instead of this. So thats that.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 22-05-2011, 17:05:17
Well as far as I'm concerned the discussion wasn't about bf3 anymore, I personally am just discussing the destructive capabilities of the AT-4. Some people claimed that this was how the round round would work in reality as well, I disagreed. I'd expect you to be used to this kind of arguements on a forum, where the tiger model having  the incorrect amount of wheels can be the source for 3 pages of discussion.


All i was saying, is that there are multiple rounds for the AT4. including a HE

But if it seems that this is the standard HEAT version, it is just a screwup off DICE
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 23-05-2011, 18:05:05
So, DICE continuing with the trend of addind DLC before showing the basic gameplay, has released this
(http://i54.tinypic.com/2rdbxv9.png)

if you pre order, you get an mg, fletcher ammo, supressor thingy, and unlock right away the DAO-12 =9
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Fuchs on 23-05-2011, 19:05:29
DAO-12 gives some sweet memories.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paavopesusieni on 23-05-2011, 19:05:41
i cant believe people argue about this stuff. Its fun to have god powers. Want realism? Join the army.
You clearly know nothing about the army... no offense.

Though I agree on gameplay > realism, I want authenticity though.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-05-2011, 19:05:05
So, DICE continuing with the trend of addind DLC before showing the basic gameplay, has released this
(http://i54.tinypic.com/2rdbxv9.png)

if you pre order, you get an mg, fletcher ammo, supressor thingy, and unlock right away the DAO-12 =9
This personally seems attractive. Do i preoder the game retail?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 23-05-2011, 19:05:04
I might consider pre-ordering, if I knew anything about the game.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 23-05-2011, 19:05:27
This personally seems attractive. Do i preoder the game retail?

Attractive? Are you insane? More DLC, more exclusive content. And Demize stated that there wont be any damage modifiers because they disgust him, then why the hell do we need flechette rounds?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 23-05-2011, 20:05:33
I might consider pre-ordering, if I knew anything about the game.

This. Oh God this.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paasky on 23-05-2011, 20:05:44
It has pretty graphics and Fifa-style crawling. Not good enough for you?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 23-05-2011, 20:05:23
It has pretty graphics and Fifa-style crawling. Not good enough for you?

Oh lawds, take my money already!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: AlexS66 on 23-05-2011, 20:05:33
I clearly know nothing about the army, you should win an award for that perceptive knowledge, im 16. My point is simply that this thread is about a game not about how many bricks a certain AT4 round can knock out.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 23-05-2011, 20:05:01
I clearly know nothing about the army, you should win an award for that perceptive knowledge, im 16. My point is simply that this thread is about a game not about how many bricks a certain AT4 round can knock out.
Let it be then? Best way to keep a thread on its tracks is to.. stop posting off topic stuff. :E
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-05-2011, 20:05:48
This personally seems attractive. Do i preoder the game retail?

Attractive? Are you insane? More DLC, more exclusive content. And Demize stated that there wont be any damage modifiers because they disgust him, then why the hell do we need flechette rounds?
oh i thought it was a bonus if you preorderd

forgive me
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: AlexS66 on 23-05-2011, 20:05:47
Of course im very sorry Thor. Ah well the DLC looks nice, the idea of weapon modding seems incorporated there and ammo types, will be very awesome.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 23-05-2011, 20:05:16
oh i thought it was a bonus if you preorderd

forgive me

Its actually if you pre-order. But the thing is, that many people are disgusted that those who pre ordered will get a clear advantage over those who didnt. Like in MOH, ugh.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 23-05-2011, 21:05:41

Its actually if you pre-order. But the thing is, that many people are disgusted that those who pre ordered will get a clear advantage over those who didnt. Like in MOH, ugh.

Then... preorder it? Doesn't cost more and you can do it one day before the release. I don't see much to whine about.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 23-05-2011, 21:05:58
if the game is good, I preorder. so far, i dont know anything about the game .
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: samnadine on 24-05-2011, 00:05:15
I might consider pre-ordering, if I knew anything about the game.

Good point, but you should wonder how many people already preordered...

Anyways, these companies know that there is a 20% of the gamers who will bitch in forums (usually hardcore gamers), however they aim to the 80% that doesn't complain. At the end that 20% will buy the game anyways. Profit.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 24-05-2011, 01:05:22
Then... preorder it? Doesn't cost more and you can do it one day before the release. I don't see much to whine about.

Those won dont preorder the game will not get access to those items at all; you cant unlock them either. That's pretty much horseshit from DICE.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kev4000 on 24-05-2011, 03:05:36
Then... preorder it? Doesn't cost more and you can do it one day before the release. I don't see much to whine about.

Those won dont preorder the game will not get access to those items at all; you cant unlock them either. That's pretty much horseshit from DICE.

Protest then. Don't buy it at all.

Continue playing FH2 instead ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 24-05-2011, 15:05:36
It has pretty graphics and Fifa-style crawling. Not good enough for you?

Oh lawds, take my money already!

You can also see your own feet!!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 24-05-2011, 15:05:00
I'm not a feet person.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 27-05-2011, 12:05:20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXaFw7aC9GE&feature=player_embedded#at=184

Just gonna leave this here
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 27-05-2011, 15:05:46
Most interesting part about the clip is how that girl manages to look interested in what the Dev have to say.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 27-05-2011, 15:05:52
Most interesting part about the clip is how that girl manages to look interested in what the Dev have to say.
Maybe someone finally realised, that it would be good thing to have an interviewer who is actually interested in the subject. :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 27-05-2011, 16:05:28
When do we get a preview of her?

I'd pre-order dat ass.

I sense an expansion coming... and it's in my pants!

Those lips weren't made for interviewing.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Moose on 27-05-2011, 17:05:22
I'd let her Spawn on me.

I'd let her be the leader of my Squad

I'd let her defibulate me back to life

I'd let her ride my hind

I'd let her suck my cock.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 27-05-2011, 18:05:05
I'd let her Spawn on me.

I'd let her be the leader of my Squad

I'd let her defibulate me back to life

I'd let her ride my hind

I'd let her suck my cock.
Like a boss
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 28-05-2011, 01:05:45
Ok, now ill have to watch it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: AlexS66 on 28-05-2011, 13:05:05
Now this game looks fluid and brilliant. MW3 doesnt have a chance
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Alakazou on 29-05-2011, 09:05:46
(http://static.bf2s.com/files/user/25930/1306503929011.gif)

(http://static.bf2s.com/files/user/25930/1306503712106.gif)

(http://www.abload.de/img/bf3-2c8pk.gif)

Just for fun :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 29-05-2011, 10:05:32
I would be far more impressed if...

1) That was from the cockpit of a Typhoon, overlooking the carnage at Falaise Pocket

2) That was a DAK soldier charging british lines

3) Katuysha battery firing their rockets by the outskirts of Stalingrad
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 29-05-2011, 14:05:40
Give it another 4 years, it might be :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Dukat on 29-05-2011, 23:05:07
(http://static.bf2s.com/files/user/25930/1306503929011.gif)


Seems to me like the scale of smoke is finally correctly displayed.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Musti on 30-05-2011, 00:05:47
(http://static.bf2s.com/files/user/25930/1306503712106.gif)
Selective fire?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Stefan on 30-05-2011, 00:05:45
when is forgotten hope 3 being released???????
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zrix on 30-05-2011, 01:05:45
Selective fire?
Was confirmed in some dev video.

Edit;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylU8M5KwI3o&t=4m20s

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Alakazou on 30-05-2011, 01:05:12
when is forgotten hope 3 being released???????
When it's done :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zeno on 30-05-2011, 01:05:14
Selective fire?
Was confirmed in some dev video.

Edit;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylU8M5KwI3o&t=4m20s



there will also be different ammo types^^
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kev4000 on 30-05-2011, 01:05:41
Damage and Accuracy.
Accuracy - should be able to get 50% hit ratio out to 125m.
Damage - 3 shot M16, 2 shot AK47. Naturally exceptions if they're using a more complex damage system.
Only game that got this good so far: Battlefield Vietnam.

But Battlefield 2 damage system, just meh.
M16 requires 4 body shots vs regular people, 5 shots vs ppl with body armour.
The AK101, which uses the same caliber, only needs 3 vs regular ppl!

Hopefully their "military advisors" have advised them on what bullets do to the human body.
And hopefully they haven't been testing weapon accuracy with those airsofts in the background there. As is so obvious with Battlefield 2.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 30-05-2011, 08:05:51
And hopefully they haven't been testing weapon accuracy with those airsofts in the background there. As is so obvious with Battlefield 2.

no, they did not test accuracy with airSoft guns for BF2. lol  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Musti on 30-05-2011, 15:05:35
After playing BF2 i was certain they did! but if you say so.
If BF3 doesn't have random deviation when aiming through sights (or VERY little) I'm definitely going to buy it!
If it does then i wouldn't be so sure that i do
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Stefan on 30-05-2011, 18:05:05
After playing BF2 i was certain they did! but if you say so.
If BF3 doesn't have random deviation when aiming through sights (or VERY little) I'm definitely going to buy it!
If it does then i wouldn't be so sure that i do

i thought i was the only one thinking it was weird that bullets came out at a 30 degree angle and did less damage than an airsoft rifle as you say.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: General Tso on 01-06-2011, 19:06:44
Demize99 was a BF modder, right?  POE? Desert Combat? 
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 03-06-2011, 19:06:09
http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/battlefield_bad_company/archive/2011/06/03/bf3-goes-to-e3.aspx

Good news  ;D

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 03-06-2011, 19:06:06
Quote
Battlelog will be available for the monthly fee of (drum roll)... zero dollars. We look forward to providing more information on these features in the near future!

I loled !
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 03-06-2011, 19:06:44

But Battlefield 2 damage system, just meh.
M16 requires 4 body shots vs regular people, 5 shots vs ppl with body armour.
The AK101, which uses the same caliber, only needs 3 vs regular ppl!

Keep in mind, that there is a huge diffrence between the 5.45x39mm and the 5.56x45 NATO round

The 5.45x39 had a slightly shorter range, but damage wise, it is far deadlier then the 5.56
There is a tiny hole at the tip of the bullet, once the round hits a target, the bullet tilts vertically and has an unusual, but damaging pattern of causing flesh trauma. that way, causing a much huger wound then with a 5.56mm nato round

NATO doesnt use such a round, because it is forbidden.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 03-06-2011, 19:06:32
Hollow points. Gotta hate them.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 03-06-2011, 19:06:11
Hollow points. Gotta hate them.
A sort of yes, but the principle is the same
The bullet however, keeps the penetrating capacity of a .223 remington
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 05-06-2011, 05:06:29
Quote
...The multiplayer map, “Operation Métro,” available for press to play on the show floor...

 - http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/battlefield_bad_company/archive/2011/06/03/bf3-goes-to-e3.aspx


I guess that means we'll be flogging the crap out of 'Op. Metro' very soon... ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 05-06-2011, 08:06:40
That means that after the obvious french surrender, the USMC came and saved the day. Wonder against who we'll fight.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: mallow234 on 05-06-2011, 08:06:35
That means that after the obvious french surrender, the USMC came and saved the day. Wonder against who we'll fight.

Probably either Russians or some sort of Communist/Dictatorial State.
Probably these PLR Chaps we've been hearing about.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 06-06-2011, 18:06:22
E3 streaming live today, stay tuned.

6 JUN 2011, Monday, 12:30PM PDT, Electronic Arts Game Changers

7 JUN 2011, Tuesday, 8:30AM PDT, GameTrailers multiplayer mode with Patrick Bach.

7 JUN 2011, Tuesday, 1:30PM PDT, IGN Coverage of Battlefield 3

7 JUN 2011 Live Booth Video Feed

Here's a link where you can watch the E3 event live, enjoy! I'll post the info as soon as I can when the trailer and new pics goes online!

http://www.gametrailers.com/netstorage/e3/e3-live.html
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 06-06-2011, 18:06:04
(http://www.freewebs.com/jtbman/stormtrooper.gif)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 06-06-2011, 19:06:58
New leaked video, perhaps for the presentation opening.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6512279/battlefield_3_new_video/
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Moose on 06-06-2011, 19:06:01
E3 streaming live today, stay tuned.

6 JUN 2011, Monday, 12:30PM PDT, Electronic Arts Game Changers

7 JUN 2011, Tuesday, 8:30AM PDT, GameTrailers multiplayer mode with Patrick Bach.

7 JUN 2011, Tuesday, 1:30PM PDT, IGN Coverage of Battlefield 3

7 JUN 2011 Live Booth Video Feed

Here's a link where you can watch the E3 event live, enjoy! I'll post the info as soon as I can when the trailer and new pics goes online!

http://www.gametrailers.com/netstorage/e3/e3-live.html


My dad is working at E3 right now
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 06-06-2011, 20:06:12
well it looks nice(confused this thread with i went on sie internets)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 06-06-2011, 21:06:56
New leaked video, perhaps for the presentation opening.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6512279/battlefield_3_new_video/

Jeez what's with the unrealistic destruction...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paavopesusieni on 06-06-2011, 21:06:45
New leaked video, perhaps for the presentation opening.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6512279/battlefield_3_new_video/

Jeez what's with the unrealistic destruction...
Much better than other games, or games that have none...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 06-06-2011, 22:06:43
http://www.gametrailers.com/netstorage/e3/e3-live.html

EA E3 ... NFS:run and some other games like Starwars and a snowboarding have been introduced...Hurry up for BF3 :D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paavopesusieni on 06-06-2011, 22:06:47
http://video-cdn.ea.com/bc/46412909001/46412909001_976407488001_origin-bf3-e3operationmetro-esrb-web.mp4?pub-id=46412909001&cb=1307376164 (http://video-cdn.ea.com/bc/46412909001/46412909001_976407488001_origin-bf3-e3operationmetro-esrb-web.mp4?pub-id=46412909001&cb=1307376164) <- Multiplayer.

That E3 thing fucking sucks only shit stuff and no BF3, damn assholes, and I have work tomorrow.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 06-06-2011, 22:06:09
I love you.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 06-06-2011, 22:06:16
Just saw the gameplay demos and multiplayer trailer live. I think BF3 might just be a buy.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 06-06-2011, 22:06:52
Just saw the gameplay demos and multiplayer trailer live. I think BF3 might just be a buy.
Agreed. October 25th folks, mark it in your diary.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LHeureux on 06-06-2011, 22:06:38
http://video-cdn.ea.com/bc/46412909001/46412909001_976407488001_origin-bf3-e3operationmetro-esrb-web.mp4?pub-id=46412909001&cb=1307376164 (http://video-cdn.ea.com/bc/46412909001/46412909001_976407488001_origin-bf3-e3operationmetro-esrb-web.mp4?pub-id=46412909001&cb=1307376164) <- Multiplayer.

That E3 thing fucking sucks only shit stuff and no BF3, damn assholes, and I have work tomorrow.

Again, too much HUD elements, scrap the immersion.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 06-06-2011, 22:06:24
Will probably have hardcore mode that removes the HUD, among other things.

Tank video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngwKcPZQpUc
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 07-06-2011, 07:06:11
Watched far more of E3 then I am proud to admit.   :-[

BF3 looked great...That little multiplayer video they showed made the game look like asshole though.  I still have faith in you BF3!  Beyond BF3 being a must buy I like what was shown of Far Cry 3, Resistence 3, Uncharted 3 and Bio Shock umm....yeah 3.  Not really into the whole Mass Effect franchise but it does have a "3" in it as well so I will give it a hard look.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: KoOk13 on 07-06-2011, 15:06:26
I'm quite excited about BF3. been a long time player of that franchise, way back starting with BF1942. The physics and graphics look stunning.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: bjack on 08-06-2011, 02:06:51
According to Planet Battlefield, there are bipod-equipped machineguns that can deploy on any surface.   Also there is a suppression system that reduces a target's effectiveness.  Very interesting!

Also, the assault class is the medic, and the support class is the MG/ammo guy.  So it is similiar to the Bf2142 4 class system in that regard.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 08-06-2011, 03:06:50
i just read they have 4 man squads, heal regen and tank regen. also, no mention on comand rose and SL spawning is not confirmed, some E3 employee said the spawning system is like the BC2 one, but the screen shown when someone died you could only see 2 spawn points.

also, invisible walls in a battlefield game?? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRevhUTLp44#t=50s

so far, not liking what im seen ><
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LHeureux on 08-06-2011, 03:06:20
Wow.

And the way you die, like BC series. BF2 way to die was just perfect.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 08-06-2011, 04:06:27
Thats probably the one pang of disappointment ive felt so far. The HUD and some of the mechanics look very similar to BC2   :-\
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Lupin on 08-06-2011, 05:06:00
heal regen and tank regen.

Seriously? I'm getting sick and tired of these games putting training wheels on for the casual gamers.

When I get shot I want to worry about it. Not just hide behind a corner for 2 seconds and autoheal to 100%.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 08-06-2011, 05:06:25
  Prey for hardcore!  Anytime I join my PSN buddies in a game of BFBC2 and find them playing kiddie mode I usually tell them off and send them a nasty PM.   ;D  WASTEING MY FUCKING TIME AGAIN BITCH!?!!?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Lupin on 08-06-2011, 05:06:17
I'm also getting tired of each new battlefield game having less content than its predecessor.

Battlefield 10 will probably take place in a 1 x 1 fightcube with only one class, the ubernator, that does everything, has 999 health, and heals 25% of it per second.

Oh, and it takes place in afiraqiranistania. Phun.

Sorry, I'm extra-belligerent today.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LHeureux on 08-06-2011, 05:06:27
I totally understand your point, regen is F*CKIING BAD! Wtf, in BC2 you had to get heal no? What were heal packs for? BF2 sequel my a**

And tank regen? wow.

Hello Red Orchestra 2
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Moose on 08-06-2011, 07:06:25
  Prey for hardcore!  Anytime I join my PSN buddies in a game of BFBC2 and find them playing kiddie mode I usually tell them off and send them a nasty PM.   ;D  WASTEING MY FUCKING TIME AGAIN BITCH!?!!?

haha you dick, I like kiddie mode, I do better and don't get as frustrated!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 08-06-2011, 08:06:36
Wow.

And the way you die, like BC series. BF2 way to die was just perfect.

yeah flying around like a fucking punched radgroll WOOHOO!!
If you have said the way of BF1942 then it would be fine by me too.

As for health and tank regeneration...Well the tank regeneration is bad, i was waiting eagerly for something like having to RTB to get repairs...Health regeneration , that is actually what i like.Because medics are not used right...But still for tournament/organized play this feature is a co-operation killed.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 08-06-2011, 09:06:17
Health regeneration!? And for tanks as well!?  ::)

I guess the fact that you can still heal teammates and repair vehicles means it must regenerate quite slowly (or healing/repairing is really fast), otherwise what's the bloody point?... :-\


Personally I don't like the sound of it, but you won't catch me judging a book by it's cover, and even if it turns out to be a bad thing, what's one con in the face of a tidal wave of pro's?... :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: KoOk13 on 08-06-2011, 09:06:23
one word.. beta
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 08-06-2011, 10:06:37
one word.. beta
Isn´t it even a pre-Alpha?
Anyway, sofar it looks indeed more like BC2. I really hope they´ll improve more stuff and "get back to the roots" (=BF1942 style). I´m not too happy wih that "Modern Warfare" scenario and if they´ll turn this game into another random "WW3" shooter I won´t buy it...atleast RO2 will be released, soon.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 08-06-2011, 11:06:45
Too much of a BC2 influence. With 64 players on PC a 4 player squad is way too small. Don't get me started on the MP footage. Tunnelcombat right...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: S1lv3rWolf on 08-06-2011, 11:06:32
I quite honestly don't believe the E3 demo did any justice, it only looks like BC2 because they chose a small closequarters map for showcasing, and there's probably a max of 24 people playing it (i am of course talking about the streams that showed people playing it).
It just looks like Battle of Brest(16) played with 32p.

I'm not sure where they got the idea for tank regen, but the health regen system they had in BC2 worked well enough for medics to feel like they're actually doing something, said regen is actually quite slow and the medipacks accelerate the rate, nothing more. (http://denkirson.xanga.com/722757523/bad-company-2/)

As for the spawn points, I think only the SL will be spawnable, after all, SLs will all have little stars, and by their own words "cut off the head and the rest falls apart".

I'm not entirely sure about the animated knifing, I think it is better than the COOOOMMAAANDOOO (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9sPJrwjI5A) I sometimes have with BC2 and CoD, maybe if I had a PS3 and Killzone 3 I could at least make a comparison or the such, replacing the knife entirely with an animation makes it feel like it has more use in a panicked or stealthy environment.

I like the BF2142 class layouts, at least you can't complain about medics using LMGs anymore, I don't see anything wrong with squad members (more squad leaders, more spawns, more action, the better right? Right?), and the absence of the commander is, at least to me, not good nor bad, it WAS a Battlefield 2 element, but look at the rules behind that element placed by the community, commander can be fun, but at the end of the day I would want to be where the action is and not staring at a map for the entire round.

in the end, as cannonfodder said, can't really judge a book by its cover, we'll do that on the September Open Beta. ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 08-06-2011, 12:06:43
I'm not entirely sure about the animated knifing, I think it is better than the COOOOMMAAANDOOO (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9sPJrwjI5A) I sometimes have with BC2 and CoD, maybe if I had a PS3 and Killzone 3 I could at least make a comparison or the such, replacing the knife entirely with an animation makes it feel like it has more use in a panicked or stealthy environment.

What I like more about is that it takes a lot of time, so you will have to use it with care instead of the banzai stuff in BC2 because (so I hope) you'll be able to get shot when you're having a knife fight.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Galslacht on 08-06-2011, 13:06:38
Too much of a BC2 influence. With 64 players on PC a 4 player squad is way too small. Don't get me started on the MP footage. Tunnelcombat right...
Exactly.
Imo, BC1 and 2 were both respectable in their own genre, but they were no near the BF-feeling.

Not to mention the faults and imbalances in gameplay that DICE created in BC2 and BF1943 (DICE made a half-product with 1943, cancelling it for PC). Did I mention the huge list of bugs and glitches in the BC2 gold version? + the huge list of bugs and glitches that were introduced with the patches?

DICE is doing a bad job at game-making. Sure, they can build engines, but gamemaking is more than that. DICE last good game was BF2. After that, it went all downhill looking through Battlefield-eyes.

I dont think BF3 will be good, as in worth the money.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 08-06-2011, 14:06:57
From Planet Battlefield

Quote
Before we were allowed to play Battlefield 3, DICE's Lars Gustafsson, BF3 Lead Multiplayer Designer briefed a small group of us about the game. We'll have our impressions of the game later!

- Tank footage show at EA press conference is possibly the first mission in the game
- New suppression system -
- Operation Metro - rush gamemode, close combat, play as U.S. Marines, take on Russian forces in heart of Paris, infantry focus
- Operation Metro objective is to take back Stock Exchange
- Team Deatchmatch, Conquest, Rush gamemodes confirmed
- Battle Log - hub for social Battlefield experience
- 4 classes tuned for teamplay - Assault (medic abilities), Engineer (anti-vehicle, repair), Support (give ammo, suppressive fire), Recon (main focus supplying intel)
- Heavily focused on unlocks, more than any Battlefield game, customization key
- Engineer has flashlight under-slung on weapon for lighting up area, blinding enemy
- Every weapon has 3 customization slots (barrels, etc)
- Support solider has bi-pod - placed on any surface in game (more accuracy)
- New feature called Suppression - all the bullets you fire at an enemy affect them regardless if you hit them or not. All the bullets you fire that get close enough will start to reduce their combat efficiency. Squad can then flank the enemy and you will receive a Suppression score.
- Jets, boats, tanks, helicopters confirmed
- LAV-25 Light Armored Vehicle confirmed, also in Operation Metro
- Dog tags - fully customizable, dynamically updated, only obtainable from knife kills in the back
- Knifing system more dramatic, spectacular

Quote
- On the death screen it now displays statistics of how many times you have killed the person who killed you and how man times they killed you (e.g. 2-1)
- When deployed it displays on the bottom of the screen a countdown of when a squad member can spawn on you, and when they spawn who it is
- Most of the rifles that we played with had 3 fire mode : automatic, semi-automatic, and single shot
- After you are killed the health of the person who killed you is shown as a heath bar over their head
- When your in a vehicle and stopped the camera begins to shake from the rattling of the engine
- Flashlight can blind you momentary if someone points it directly at you
- 100 points for killing someone, 10 extra points for a headshot, 100 points for reviving
- In order to revive you must hover over the dead body and hold down left mouse button while your character rubs the paddles together and charges them before the player is revived
- 2 grenades were given by default
- In order to knife in this build of the game you need to press “f” to do “quick knife”. When pressed you enter into an animation that will pull you close to your enemy and you will grab their head and execute them by slitting their throat
- You can only obtain an enemy’s dog tag if the “quick knife” command is done when you are behind your enemy
- The knife seems more like a switchblade than the classic knife we are used to
- Commo rose is not in the build we played. EA wouldn't give us a firm yes or not when asked if it would be in the final version of the game

Overall the game was very smooth for something that is pre-alpha. We never notices any framerate loss while we were playing. The game has a Battlefield: Bad Company 2 feel, but it's a lot more than that. If you try to jump over something you don't just simply jump, you see an animation of your solider leaping over. It's Bad Company 2 on crack with mind-blowing graphics, more intense gameplay, amazing weapon customization, superb animations, and most important of all it's the most fun we have had playing a Battlefield game.

What were you all saying?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: kummitus on 08-06-2011, 15:06:31
That the 3-hour livestream can be fitted in 3 minute speech.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 08-06-2011, 17:06:54


Quote
- 4 classes tuned for teamplay - Assault (medic abilities), Engineer (anti-vehicle, repair), Support (give ammo, suppressive fire), Recon (main focus supplying intel)
Kinda liked this from BF2142
Quote
- Heavily focused on unlocks, more than any Battlefield game, customization key
Large amount of content in a EA game? is NOT possible!
Quote
- Every weapon has 3 customization slots (barrels, etc)
Now this would be very awesome. You know, allowing you to use Longer and shorter barrels
Quote
- Support solider has bi-pod - placed on any surface in game (more accuracy)
+1
Quote
- New feature called Suppression - all the bullets you fire at an enemy affect them regardless if you hit them or not. All the bullets you fire that get close enough will start to reduce their combat efficiency.
SO thats where FH2 supression system went to!


Quote
- When your in a vehicle and stopped the camera begins to shake from the rattling of the engine
Very nice

Quote
- 2 grenades were given by default
Well...It issent 4 grenades from BF2
Quote
In order to knife in this build of the game you need to press “f” to do “quick knife”. When pressed you enter into an animation that will pull you close to your enemy and you will grab their head and execute them by slitting their throat
Nice no more knife running bastards like on MW2 with perks and such

Quote

What were you all saying?
that in soviet russia, you rip off EA!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LHeureux on 08-06-2011, 17:06:44
Wow.

And the way you die, like BC series. BF2 way to die was just perfect.

yeah flying around like a fucking punched radgroll WOOHOO!!
If you have said the way of BF1942 then it would be fine by me too.

As for health and tank regeneration...Well the tank regeneration is bad, i was waiting eagerly for something like having to RTB to get repairs...Health regeneration , that is actually what i like.Because medics are not used right...But still for tournament/organized play this feature is a co-operation killed.
Having a ragdoll death and looking at the sky is way better then a death where you see your hand falling on the ground in a no-ragdoll animation. This death has no momentum, you just stop and die.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 08-06-2011, 17:06:08
Exactly like you would if you were shot by a guy. Not flying backwards 1000 miles,Not doing an awesome-death-on-my-knees-begging-for-forgiveness-by-the-one-true-God cinematic style or a i-am-an-angel style of death.You die a dogs death, alone, with your hand being raised for help.......But it won't come...




Unless there's a medic  :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LHeureux on 08-06-2011, 17:06:44
Look at 0:37, it's even worse when you die on surfaces.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4t1QyLc2yk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4t1QyLc2yk)

Now compare to BF2 way to die, 1:37 :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FecLFziLTI4&feature=related
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 08-06-2011, 17:06:49
Thats BC2 :\ I guess they will have something for it in BF3
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LHeureux on 08-06-2011, 18:06:30
Wow.

And the way you die, like BC series. BF2 way to die was just perfect.
Quoting myself, I said BC series, and if you look in the BF3 video, when he dies it looks exactly like BC way to die :/

In that video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRevhUTLp44#t=50s

Look at 2:31
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 08-06-2011, 18:06:38
And what exactly is wrong with that?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ajs47951 on 08-06-2011, 18:06:04
wow that really makes me mad.

I love playing as a engineer or medic! ;D I think its fun just to runaround the battlefield just to repair a tank and to heal one of my team mates. I may only get 1 or 2 kills :P but hay I think its fun knowing that im helping do my part to help my team win

if any of you can remember me from 128 "my name was king_Ajs or something with Ajs in it" that's all i did was run and help repair tanks! 8) hell i even got number one on 2 or 3 maps with no kills ;D just by repair my team mates tanks.

 some people my think its not fun but I like it we the are different class so everone has to do there part ;D 
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: S1lv3rWolf on 08-06-2011, 18:06:38
Wow.

And the way you die, like BC series. BF2 way to die was just perfect.
Quoting myself, I said BC series, and if you look in the BF3 video, when he dies it looks exactly like BC way to die :/

In that video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRevhUTLp44#t=50s

Look at 2:31


Unlike BC2's "camera only", you actually have your arm out and visible, dropping to the ground.

so yeah, what exactly is wrong with that?

Also: http://youtu.be/3edP79plgsA
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paavopesusieni on 08-06-2011, 20:06:36
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLHYLIl-q6s&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLHYLIl-q6s&feature=player_embedded) <-- nice MP footage though the image quality sucks.

http://www.gamereactor.eu/previews/7607/Battlefield+3 (http://www.gamereactor.eu/previews/7607/Battlefield+3) <-- Nice read, I like that rocket can kill the driver and immobilize the vehicle but the passengers can survive. The regenerating vehicle health sounds odd though it might be for the good, you know tank can die faster if ambushed but can't be killed too easily with bazooka sniping.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 08-06-2011, 22:06:16
Thats probaly the reason Paavo.


IRL you can "Bazooka snipe" but the weapons operate much and much more difficult
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LHeureux on 08-06-2011, 22:06:19
And what exactly is wrong with that?

Ok exemple how it's bad :

You are sprinting, you get kill. No momentum, you just stop and die.

It's unreal.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Galslacht on 08-06-2011, 22:06:51



Quote
- New feature called Suppression - all the bullets you fire at an enemy affect them regardless if you hit them or not. All the bullets you fire that get close enough will start to reduce their combat efficiency.
SO thats where FH2 supression system went to!



No man, EA just copied the surpression system from Darkest Hour, and now EA is like *look what we have invented*.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 09-06-2011, 00:06:12



Quote
- New feature called Suppression - all the bullets you fire at an enemy affect them regardless if you hit them or not. All the bullets you fire that get close enough will start to reduce their combat efficiency.
SO thats where FH2 supression system went to!



No man, EA just copied the surpression system from Darkest Hour, and now EA is like *look what we have invented*.

FH had it before DH.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 09-06-2011, 00:06:44
  I don't think either mod had what EA is talking about...Sounds like your deviation actually increases when you get suppressed.  Shame we can't do that with FH.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 09-06-2011, 09:06:14
...DICE is doing a bad job at game-making. Sure, they can build engines, but gamemaking is more than that. DICE last good game was BF2. After that, it went all downhill looking through Battlefield-eyes...
You left out BF2142. Just because the futuristic setting wasn't popular doesn't mean it wasn't a good game, in certain respects it was better than BF2... ;)


For the last 5 years, DICE haven't been making bad games, they've just been putting their flagship (BF) first. It's the reason why they pulled the pin on BF1943, finishing it would've delayed BF3.

Aside from 2142, I think it's safe to say all these "offshoots" (BC, etc.) are really nothing more than gap-fillers between BF2 and BF3, serving the dual purpose of keeping the Battlefield brand on the shelf (to keep Activision honest) and serving as a test bed for the Frostbite engine.

Keep in mind that they've been working on the FB engine for years, and as it's one of the first true next-gen engines (optimized for 64-bit, full DX11 support, etc.), I think they can be forgiven for releasing a few, as we BF purists might call them, duds... :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 09-06-2011, 10:06:51
  I don't think either mod had what EA is talking about...Sounds like your deviation actually increases when you get suppressed.  Shame we can't do that with FH.

And you get rewarded (points) for suppressing the enemy. Hopefully this will encourage teamplay a bit.

If this stays in you can bet there will be heated discussions on the amount of suppression in BF3. In the same way we had the discussions on these forums which cause the suppressing effect to be toned down.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: von.small on 09-06-2011, 11:06:27
Sorry if this is a repost

E3 trailer of Thunder Run level - photorealism, fooooook

http://youtu.be/9UwOrl036_A
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Galslacht on 09-06-2011, 11:06:54
...DICE is doing a bad job at game-making. Sure, they can build engines, but gamemaking is more than that. DICE last good game was BF2. After that, it went all downhill looking through Battlefield-eyes...
You left out BF2142. Just because the futuristic setting wasn't popular doesn't mean it wasn't a good game, in certain respects it was better than BF2... ;)


For the last 5 years, DICE haven't been making bad games, they've just been putting their flagship (BF) first. It's the reason why they pulled the pin on BF1943, finishing it would've delayed BF3.

Aside from 2142, I think it's safe to say all these "offshoots" (BC, etc.) are really nothing more than gap-fillers between BF2 and BF3, serving the dual purpose of keeping the Battlefield brand on the shelf (to keep Activision honest) and serving as a test bed for the Frostbite engine.

Keep in mind that they've been working on the FB engine for years, and as it's one of the first true next-gen engines (optimized for 64-bit, full DX11 support, etc.), I think they can be forgiven for releasing a few, as we BF purists might call them, duds... :)
Well, I'd give DICE the benefit of the doubt with BF3. I'm curious how the release will unfold. How the reactions will be to the game in the first few months after release. DICE has been notorious about the large amount of bugs, unbalances and glitches in it's products so I will see where BF3 will go to.

BF2 had some gamehalting issues after all after the release, and patches didnt solve it but augmentated the problems :D
It took literally years to get a good working at least reasonable balanced product. I noticed the same thing happening with BC2, but DICE seem to have abandoned BC2 with the patchmaking, which is a shame.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paavopesusieni on 09-06-2011, 13:06:16
And what exactly is wrong with that?

Ok exemple how it's bad :

You are sprinting, you get kill. No momentum, you just stop and die.

It's unreal.



You're saying BF2 dying is realistic? lol.

Thats probaly the reason Paavo.


IRL you can "Bazooka snipe" but the weapons operate much and much more difficult
Yeah I know that, I know how stuff works I am RDF soilder you know. :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LHeureux on 09-06-2011, 13:06:40
Yes BF2 dying is realistic.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paavopesusieni on 09-06-2011, 13:06:03
Yes BF2 dying is realistic.

Flying 20 meters backwards at 100 km/h after M95 headshot, flying 300 meters up in the air by arty shot, hanging on the stairs from your finger tip and shake on the ground like mad man on ruff ground. Realistic, BF2 death animations sucked and have always sucked, one of the things that was never really fixed.

Those deaths are not realistic.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 09-06-2011, 15:06:51
E3 trailer of Thunder Run level - photorealism, fooooook
Human faces are still the tricky part ;) What really impressed me though was the BRAAAAP BRAAAP of GAU-8/A 8)

Having grown up on M1 Tank Platoon, though, the sudden scripted appearance of enemies at point-blank range makes me...

...realize that this is not a simulator but another "ghost train" shooter (as far as single player is concerned). :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 09-06-2011, 16:06:52



Quote
- New feature called Suppression - all the bullets you fire at an enemy affect them regardless if you hit them or not. All the bullets you fire that get close enough will start to reduce their combat efficiency.
SO thats where FH2 supression system went to!



No man, EA just copied the surpression system from Darkest Hour, and now EA is like *look what we have invented*.

FH had it before DH.
This ^

Now to see what weapons will be implented. If it is AK FOR EVERYONE, RPK, RPG -18 and such, PK ill buy it

I dont give a ratshit about US weapons

minus the Minimi and MAG the US adopted."OH HEY LETS ADOPT A BELGIAN WEAPON BECAUSE WE CANT MAKE A SINGLE PROPER MACHINE GUN, CHANGE 2 THINGS AND CALL IT 100% AMERICAN!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 09-06-2011, 16:06:39
M60 is a great example that they can't make own LMG:s.

Tbh. I don't care if americans can spawn with AKs and such in MP. I just want them to do more damage than in BF2 or BC2.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 09-06-2011, 17:06:35
This ^

Now to see what weapons will be implented. If it is AK FOR EVERYONE, RPK, RPG -18 and such, PK ill buy it


And RO had it before FH.


I´d really love to see appropriate weapons for each faction. US Guns for the USA and Russian weapons for the Russians. Inappropriate weapons are really annoying and a thing I didn´t like in BFBC2 and BFBC2V. Nothing destroys immersion as seeing US GIs running through a jungle with a wild hotchpotch of Americans/Eastern Bloc weapons. :/
I also hope they give the Russians modern stuff. Unlike COD that uses AK47s with crazy attachments, even though they´re replaced by more modern guns, for years.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 09-06-2011, 17:06:46
This ^

Now to see what weapons will be implented. If it is AK FOR EVERYONE, RPK, RPG -18 and such, PK ill buy it


And RO had it before FH.


I´d really love to see appropriate weapons for each faction. US Guns for the USA and Russian weapons for the Russians. Inappropriate weapons are really annoying and a thing I didn´t like in BFBC2 and BFBC2V. Nothing destroys immersion as seeing US GIs running through a jungle with a wild hotchpotch of Americans/Eastern Bloc weapons. :/
I also hope they give the Russians modern stuff. Unlike COD that uses AK47s with crazy attachments, even though they´re replaced by more modern guns, for years.
DU bist dare to Defy forgotten hope! Verrader! schweinhund!  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yeah. If its AK 74's and AK 103's. And some AK-200's(since its 2014) and such, sure i am intrested.

But no AK47's and AKM"s. AKM's are only used by a few reserve troops at the moment
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zoologic on 09-06-2011, 17:06:00
GAU-8 needs more humming noise than mechanical BRAAAP.

Michael Bay failed in Transformers, and I am happy a game designer decided to be more realistic than Hollywood smartasses.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 09-06-2011, 17:06:41
Yeah. If its AK 74's and AK 103's. And some AK-200's(since its 2014) and such, sure i am intrested.

But no AK47's and AKM"s. AKM's are only used by a few reserve troops at the moment

Well, BF2 already had AK-101 for MEC so I bet they will use that. Or AN-94s/AEK-971s like in BC2.

What I hate most in these modern games (COD and BC2) is that russian army uses so many different weapons... in MW2 they have weapons like TAR-21 and F2000 and even some M16s. Why is it so hard to make just AK74... or AK200.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LHeureux on 09-06-2011, 17:06:31
Yes BF2 dying is realistic.

Flying 20 meters backwards at 100 km/h after M95 headshot, flying 300 meters up in the air by arty shot, hanging on the stairs from your finger tip and shake on the ground like mad man on ruff ground. Realistic, BF2 death animations sucked and have always sucked, one of the things that was never really fixed.

Those deaths are not realistic.
I agree on the arty side of it and for being stuck in stairs and such it's physic bugs not the way to die.

By the way to die I mean, the back on the ground, facing the sky and seeing your view going backwards when you die. And no you don't fly 20 meters backwards lol, go play some solo against bots.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 09-06-2011, 17:06:17
Speaking of which. Are there any plans for artillery or gadgets?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: S1lv3rWolf on 09-06-2011, 18:06:31
Yeah. If its AK 74's and AK 103's. And some AK-200's(since its 2014) and such, sure i am intrested.

But no AK47's and AKM"s. AKM's are only used by a few reserve troops at the moment

Well, BF2 already had AK-101 for MEC so I bet they will use that. Or AN-94s/AEK-971s like in BC2.

What I hate most in these modern games (COD and BC2) is that russian army uses so many different weapons... in MW2 they have weapons like TAR-21 and F2000 and even some M16s. Why is it so hard to make just AK74... or AK200.


They said that "Back to Karkand" is supposed to be a proper expansion pack like BC2:Vietnam, which means you might actually see most if not all of BF2's weaponry and armor, so AK-101 might come up there.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: IrishReloaded on 09-06-2011, 19:06:13
anyone ever tried making karkand into a french town for fh2:D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zeno on 09-06-2011, 19:06:16
anyone ever tried making karkand into a french town for fh2:D

that would be awsome to see how would play out^^

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: elander on 09-06-2011, 21:06:27
anyone ever tried making karkand into a french town for fh2:D

that would be awsome to see how would play out^^



Indeed! Haha :) I started a map for Battlefield Pirates 2 "Karkand 1742" with a Venice styled city with ships and all ;) then i realised the playercount for bfp2 was like 0 :p
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: kummitus on 09-06-2011, 22:06:34
Pirates  :'(
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 10-06-2011, 00:06:38
Speaking of which. Are there any plans for artillery or gadgets?

In the UK forum a dev said that there would be artillery tanks. It could be that the ol' self propelled artillery is making a comeback or he doesnt know shit when it comes to name vehicles.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hslan.GN_Angrybeaver on 10-06-2011, 02:06:04
anybody seen the new south park episode?
thats what i see when i see bf3.
still not impressed.......not at all
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Moose on 10-06-2011, 04:06:59
anybody seen the new south park episode?
thats what i see when i see bf3.
still not impressed.......not at all

That episode is signifying that they are bored of SP and want to end it
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 10-06-2011, 10:06:47
...DICE has been notorious about the large amount of bugs, unbalances and glitches in it's products so I will see where BF3 will go to...

...DICE seem to have abandoned BC2 with the patchmaking, which is a shame...
I won't argue with that...my favourite BF2 imbalance is AA vs Jets, the AA range improved noticeably after 1.5, but it's still nowhere near good enough... ::)


I don't think you'll see any more patches for any pre-BF3 games, not now that BF3 is in production.



They said that "Back to Karkand" is supposed to be a proper expansion pack like BC2:Vietnam, which means you might actually see most if not all of BF2's weaponry and armor, so AK-101 might come up there.
I'd put money on it:

Quote
...You were also Lead Designer on last year’s expansion pack Battlefield: Bad Company 2 Vietnam. Do you see any similarities between that and Back to Karkand?
-- Certainly from the perspective of scope and ambition, they are very similar. This is no simple map pack. Back to Karkand will also include iconic Battlefield 2 vehicles, weapons to bring back to the base game, new unlocks and persistence, and more content that we will talk about later. They are also similar in that they are both strongly themed....

Quote
Anyone who preorders Battlefield 3 will receive our first themed expansion pack at no extra charge.

 - http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/battlefield_bad_company/archive/2011/05/10/Back-to-Karkand.aspx


My only question is: what's BTK's theme? BF2?... :-\
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 10-06-2011, 13:06:05
(http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.ImageFileViewer/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles.battlefield_5F00_bad_5F00_company/B2K_5F00_Strike_5F00_at_5F00_Karkand_5F00_Concept.jpg_2D00_550x0.jpg)

Anyone seeing some similarity between this and the alpha footage of BF2?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paavopesusieni on 10-06-2011, 14:06:52
That is only concept arty though and the none of the maps will looks like that, well you can see the art style. So the devs said.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kalkalash on 10-06-2011, 19:06:45
Some news from E3:

According to EA, there will be a new Battlefield and Medal of Honor game every other year (new MoH next year, new BF in 2013, and so on). DICE will be doing the Battlefield series and Danger Close will be working with MoH. Both companies will have two years two develop a new game.

One of the reasons for this is that EA wants to take full advantage over big technology investments, such as Frostbite 2. So probably, the Medal of Honors will be using Frostbite 2 as well.

Full article (http://www.develop-online.net/news/37956/EA-Battlefield-and-MOH-games-in-annual-rotation)

So apparently Battlefield and DICE have been dragged too into the "let's make a slightly different version of the previous game every year" -idea
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 10-06-2011, 19:06:53

So apparently Battlefield and DICE have been dragged too into the "let's make a slightly different version of the previous game every year" -idea

Of course they are... Making unique blockbuster games has become really expensive and time consuming... Better to milk the cashcow - CoD style!

EDIT: Maybe we'll even see a WWII title comeback on FB2!  ;)  But, still I wouldn't get my hopes up...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 10-06-2011, 19:06:05
Well I can't except them to make a new and better engine every two years. But new content and concept, that'll do.
If they were smart they make sure it backwards compatible with the other games. Meaning that it won't split the player base over multiple games.
So one moment you are playing BF3, the next moment the server switches to a Medal of Honor II map.
Something like that.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 10-06-2011, 19:06:14

So apparently Battlefield and DICE have been dragged too into the "let's make a slightly different version of the previous game every year" -idea
Yeah, milk every damn Dollar from each sucessful game series!

Well done EA! You´re about to turn a classic game series into just another "Meh"-series, like CoD or FIFA. Atleast we still have good and gamer-friendly publishers, such as Valve or Tripwire Interactive...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: S1lv3rWolf on 10-06-2011, 19:06:57
In terms of engines, Frostbite 1 was made in 2008 and evolved into Frostbite 2 now in 2011
Call of Duty's engine however is older, the biggest change was probably Call of Duty 4 which was in 2007, the engine was pretty much the same since then with small changes. Working hard, or hardly working?


The mentality between MoH and BF2 being released every two years is the same as Call of Duty's indeed, but the thing is, there's been a Battlefield every year since '08 with Bad Company and this system isn't related to a single franchise, but two different ones, in the end, we'll see how it goes...


My only question is: what's BTK's theme? BF2?... :-\
I can't see why not, BF2's timeline (early 21st century) is quite a bit before Battlefield 3 (set in 2014), so there'll still be quite a few differences.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ajs47951 on 10-06-2011, 20:06:57
i would likie to see a ww2 with the Frostbite 2

"You can see it now Tiger driving throw a house like Men of War! :D :D :o"

"No more camping because all you have to do is get a Junkers Ju 87 and blow up the hole house! 8)"

just think how killer it would be! :D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: KevinWad on 10-06-2011, 21:06:42


Anyone seeing some similarity between this and the alpha footage of BF2?
Notice it says "Back to Karkand" in the bottom of the picture, that means it's part of the Back to Karkand expansion pack which includes several BF2 maps.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 10-06-2011, 21:06:56


Anyone seeing some similarity between this and the alpha footage of BF2?
Notice it says "Back to Karkand" in the bottom of the picture, that means it's part of the Back to Karkand expansion pack which includes several BF2 maps.
Yep, and Im referring to BF2 alpha footage footage seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv1qbuNA1ys


Yknow, the stuff that was out before the game was released, where it look completley different.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paavopesusieni on 10-06-2011, 23:06:20
A new BF has always come at least in 2 years. BF42, BFV, BF2, BF2142, BF:BC, BF43, BF:BC2 and so on. Nothing new. BF4 probably won't come for some time but some sort of BFV/BF2142 correspondent for BF3.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 10-06-2011, 23:06:14
i will always hearty welcome a new BF2142
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 11-06-2011, 14:06:57
BFV for the world! I still play the game every friday night with mates. I wish theyd make a remake of it, just the exact same concept with better graphics and more air maps.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Arc_Shielder on 11-06-2011, 16:06:01
BFV for the world! I still play the game every friday night with mates. I wish theyd make a remake of it, just the exact same concept with better graphics and more air maps.

Hm, I take you will play PR:V like a mad man once it's released?

I'm not looking forward to BF3 despite being initially impressed with the teaser. Some good titles in E3 completely overshadowed it to me.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Nerdsturm on 11-06-2011, 19:06:48
They haven't really shown anything of substance about the multiplayer yet(which is what the series is all about, after all), so I'll withhold judgement for now. However, I must admit the graphics in the tank mission they showed were pretty impressive, and of the sort that actually has an impact on gameplay rather than just making the game look prettier. If they have tank combat focused maps like that mission in multiplayer there is definitely potential for them to be a lot of fun.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 11-06-2011, 20:06:49
BFV for the world! I still play the game every friday night with mates. I wish theyd make a remake of it, just the exact same concept with better graphics and more air maps.

Hm, I take you will play PR:V like a mad man once it's released?

I'm not looking forward to BF3 despite being initially impressed with the teaser. Some good titles in E3 completely overshadowed it to me.

Will see will see, we will defenitly hop in a few choppahs and shoot some m16's.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 11-06-2011, 20:06:22
I would like to see how they handle entering/exiting vehicles tbh. Again, not enough MP shown so I guess we will have to wait a little longer.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 12-06-2011, 07:06:10
To start with Natty is obviously trolling....While FH2 is a re-skinned BF2 PR has enough nifty little game mechanics to make it a whole other experience.  People don't play PR because it it the most awesome first shooter experience out there.  They play it for the forced tactical based team play.  Same reason I play it once and a while.  Great fun with a bunch of mates.  When I want a great frag some d-bags FPS I play BFBC2 on my PS3....If for some reason I want to hang around my PC I play the Battlefield Play for Free mod for the same LOL factor.  FH2 to me is all about immersion...And as wonderful as all the stuff in FH2 is that immersion gets broken when I get into a firefight.  It then becomes a COD WaW game for me.  More dependent on nice ping and twitch factor CS aiming then real teamwork.  But each to his own.  Speaking of COD and BF3..LOL

http://www.1up.com/news/bobby-kotick-denied-chance-play-battlefield-3
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 12-06-2011, 12:06:16
If they have tank combat focused maps like that mission in multiplayer there is definitely potential for them to be a lot of fun.

Would be cool indeed to have MP styled maps like this, having half a team in tanks making an assault on a fixed base with the other half as infantry in APCs behind them that have to secure the flags.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 13-06-2011, 00:06:46
I would like to see how they handle entering/exiting vehicles tbh. Again, not enough MP shown so I guess we will have to wait a little longer.

Animation in single player, none in multiplayer.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: RAnDOOm on 06-07-2011, 02:07:54
http://www.cadred.org/News/Article/151935/

"As of now, we are not going to make any modding tools. If you look at the Frostbite engine, and how complex it is, it’s going to be very difficult for people to mod the game, because of the nature of the set up of levels, of the destruction and all those things… it’s quite tricky. So we think it’s going to be too big of a challenge for people to make a mod."


What a retard....    :D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 06-07-2011, 02:07:55
Give it 6 months. Never underestimate a substaintial community. Also, people seem to forget the basics of BF games:


Its buggy on release.
and
There is never any mod tools on release.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 06-07-2011, 02:07:21
I still think the final sentence is a bit condescending. There are tons of talented folks that would dedicated their time and energy to learning Frostbites inner nooks and crannies. But nevertheless, I wasn't expecting mod tools for BF3, and I highly doubt there will be any in the future.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 06-07-2011, 11:07:09
People need to remember something. They have never released any significant mod tools. The mod tools for BF42 and BF2 were made mostly by the modders themselves.
Title: Apparantly, you modding guys just arent smart enough for BF3 modding.....
Post by: Defibkiller on 06-07-2011, 11:07:20
...so, no FH3 on BF3...


http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-07-06-why-you-cant-mod-battlefield-3

Quote
"EA has explained why Battlefield 3 does not feature modding tools.

"As of now we are not going to make any modding tools, no," EA senior vice president Patrick Soderlund confirmed to German website GameStar.de.

Why? Because Battlefield 3 is so complex, creating a mod would be too hard.

"If you look at the Frostbite Engine and how complex it is, it's going to be very difficult for people to mod the game," Soderlund explained.

"Because of the nature of the set-up of levels, the destruction, it's quite tricky.

"So we think it's going to be too big of a challenge for people to make a mod."


I know there were probably no plans to move FH2 over to the new BF3 engine anyway, but the option would have been nice.

so,do you stupid mod makers feel patronised enough by the pricks in suits at EA.?

Title: Re: Apparantly, you modding guys just arent smart enough for BF3 modding.....
Post by: THeTA0123 on 06-07-2011, 11:07:03
its not that

lets say BF3 gets released with mod tools

FH team comes in and makes an Epic WW2 mod

Then EA cant make a WW2 game on the same engine
MEANS NO MONEY FOR EA's dagobert duck SAFEHOUSE
Title: Re: Apparantly, you modding guys just arent smart enough for BF3 modding.....
Post by: IrishReloaded on 06-07-2011, 11:07:23
DLC sell better then mods. thats all. its all about money
Title: Re: Apparantly, you modding guys just arent smart enough for BF3 modding.....
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 06-07-2011, 11:07:23
its not that

lets say BF3 gets released with mod tools

FH team comes in and makes an Epic WW2 mod

Then EA cant make a WW2 game on the same engine
MEANS NO MONEY FOR EA's dagobert duck SAFEHOUSE
Bingo.
DICE, under the influence of EA is turning the BF franchise into a cow from which they want to milk as much money as possible.
The BF franchise was always about mods and gameplay innovation, right back to BF42. Up to that game no other multiplayer shooter offered what BF42 offered and with an active modding community the game had a longer playtime and much, much more variety than, lets say CoD1 (just think about all those great BF42 mods, like FinnWars, OPK, BF1918, Desert Combat, FH1 etc. etc.). Just look at player numbers, even today people are playing 42, and even a good number of its mods.
But instead of remaining true to the community, DICE jumped on the DLC/modern warfare/"You play what WE want you to play!"/fancy grahpics, hollow gameplay-bandwagon. Atleast TWI knows the positive effect of a modding community (hell, they even support 3 mods before the release of ROHOS!) and stays true to it´s origins.
Screw BF3, ROHOS will be the game of the year for me!
Title: Re: Apparantly, you modding guys just arent smart enough for BF3 modding.....
Post by: Thorondor123 on 06-07-2011, 12:07:35
DICE has never released mod tools so it's nothing new really.

Let's continue in the BF3 thread.

Edit: Actually, I'll just merge the threads.
Title: Re: Apparantly, you modding guys just arent smart enough for BF3 modding.....
Post by: Kubador on 06-07-2011, 12:07:45
Mod tools require a development team. Such development team needs money and doesn't produce any income - not directly anyway. Less and less people stick to one game long enough to wait for a mod development, provided they even realize mods existance.

There are many valid reasons (from producer's PoV) not to create any mod tools.
Title: Re: Apparantly, you modding guys just arent smart enough for BF3 modding.....
Post by: Natty on 06-07-2011, 12:07:45
DICE has never released mod tools so it's nothing new really.
They released mod tools for bf42, BFV and BF2... And they are 100% correct in their statements as well. 8)
so,do you stupid mod makers feel patronised enough by the pricks in suits at EA.?
We think it is awesome that they allowed us to mod BF2 in the first place. We "stupid modders" wouldnt exist if EA didnt give us the opportunity to mod the game in the first place.

No go troll a tree  :-\
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 06-07-2011, 12:07:59
DICE has never released mod tools so it's nothing new really.
They released mod tools for bf42, BFV and BF2... And they are 100% correct in their statements as well. 8)

I might have chosen my words poorly. The have indeed released mod tools, but most of those tools were made by the modders.

Battlecraft: Made by modders.
RFA Extractor: Made by modders.
Editor42: Made by modders.
3dsmax scripts by modders.
3ds max BF2 exporters by modders.

Title: Re: Apparantly, you modding guys just arent smart enough for BF3 modding.....
Post by: RAnDOOm on 06-07-2011, 12:07:04

We think it is awesome that they allowed us to mod BF2 in the first place. We "stupid modders" wouldnt exist if EA didnt give us the opportunity to mod the game in the first place.



Well... by saying "So we think it’s going to be too big of a challenge for people to make a mod."" they are indeed calling you stupid.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 06-07-2011, 12:07:06
he works for DICE, dont expect him to be neutral on this :P.

but yeah, poor excuse. they should have said "we want to sell DLCs, so no mod tools"
Title: Re: Apparantly, you modding guys just arent smart enough for BF3 modding.....
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 06-07-2011, 13:07:28
...so, no FH3 on BF3...

Did you honestly think so even for a second?
Title: Re: Apparantly, you modding guys just arent smart enough for BF3 modding.....
Post by: atikabubu on 06-07-2011, 13:07:24
...so, no FH3 on BF3...

Did you honestly think so even for a second?

I did, lol. ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: IrishReloaded on 06-07-2011, 13:07:23
great first post ^^

MOD EDIT: Great spam!!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 06-07-2011, 17:07:42
Yeah, milk every damn Dollar from each sucessful game series!

Well done EA! You´re about to turn a classic game series into just another "Meh"-series, like CoD or FIFA. Atleast we still have good and gamer-friendly publishers, such as Valve or Tripwire Interactive...

You trolls are so funny  ::) on one hand you're whining that dice arent sticking to the "real" BF with BF3 (a.k.a. just making bf42 alloveragain..) and on the other you're saying that they do just make the same game over and over again... this contradiction is proof that you really dont know what you want, or what they're doing... Face it; dice is all about quality and innovation. They have consistently released high-quality games, which all have brought new innovations to players. It's quite obvious that they are not just making another "meh" series as you so deeply and insightfully put it ( :-\) but that they are indeed, creating an all-out new innovation for you to enoy for years to come.
And you will  8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 06-07-2011, 17:07:54
We....All..Just....want...the...damn...modders..to....continue. Dont tell me you dont understand the emotions involved with all the negative responses the community gets after asking for mod tools. I like the Bttlefield series, but i would never ever had played it as many hours as i did without mods for it, without mods it gets boring after a few weeks, if your not 13 that is. So you can "defend" Dice as much as you like, but the glorious days of endless gameplay are still to fresh in the memory.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 06-07-2011, 17:07:27
We....All..Just....want...the...damn...modders..to....continue. Dont tell me you dont understand the emotions involved with all the negative responses the community gets after asking for mod tools. I like the Bttlefield series, but i would never ever had played it as many hours as i did without mods for it, without mods it gets boring after a few weeks, if your not 13 that is. So you can "defend" Dice as much as you like, but the glorious days of endless gameplay are still to fresh in the memory.

Natty defends DICE because he is DICE. Now, stop fighting with him, everyone. Best result you can get from that is in my signature.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 06-07-2011, 17:07:28
defending..? against what?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 06-07-2011, 17:07:12
Haterz
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 06-07-2011, 17:07:02
naah, im not defending.. no one is under any sort of "attack" so defense isn't needed... what Im doing is informing 8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 06-07-2011, 17:07:45
naah, im not defending.. no one is under any sort of "attack" so defense isn't needed... what Im doing is informing 8)
Calling people trolls because they don't share your opinion is not informing.

Now we get back on topic and discuss BF3 in a civilised manner, or heads will start to fall. 8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 06-07-2011, 18:07:03
I'd love to lock this thread.




 8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 06-07-2011, 18:07:01
You trolls are so funny  ::) on one hand you're whining that dice arent sticking to the "real" BF with BF3 (a.k.a. just making bf42 alloveragain..) and on the other you're saying that they do just make the same game over and over again... this contradiction is proof that you really dont know what you want, or what they're doing... Face it; dice is all about quality and innovation. They have consistently released high-quality games, which all have brought new innovations to players. It's quite obvious that they are not just making another "meh" series as you so deeply and insightfully put it ( :-\) but that they are indeed, creating an all-out new innovation for you to enoy for years to come.
And you will  8)

The last "true" BF was BFV to me. BF2 started that highly-annoying stat- and ranking-system where everyone was just whoring for points in order to get a higher rank, just like we see it in BFBC2, the newer CoD games and will see it in BF3.
Sure, BF3s graphics are fancy, but apart from that I don´t see, as someone who´s paycheck does not come from DICE, why BF3 will be an "all-out new innovation" to enjoy. Most of the features are already in other games (such as supression, which strangely only a machine gun has) or aren´t that ground-breaking (pulling your fallen teammate into cover) and kinda feel half-baked (if you want to make players use covering fire, why doesn´t a rifle or a pistol produce supression, either? And what´s the point of pulling your team mate into cover? Are you kinda trying to simulate combat first aid?). And also what´s the point in creating such "all-out new innovations" if you plan to release just another BF in two years?
DICE was indeed all over quality and innovation. BF42 blew my mind when I played it for the first time, since NO other online game offered such vast multiplayer maps. Combined with epic mods it was definately a game worth its price. But now, looking at BF3 I can´t find many reasons why I should spend 60 Euros of my hard-earned money on it. AND pay even more, just for some small DLC to come.
Further, I can´t understand why you think that I´d contradict myself? I never stated that DICE is creating another "true" BF game, quite the contrary. My point is clear:
The BF franchise has lost it´s uniqueness and originality. DICE is trying to jump onto CoDs bandwagon and no fancy graphics will cover up the shallowness of BF3.
Oh, and please refrain from calling me a "Troll". I´m not calling you an "arrogant prick", either. Insulting your opponent in a discussion shows a certain lack of manners and maturity...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 06-07-2011, 18:07:52
Now if a single person continues this useless fight, I lock the whole goddamn thread.

Mod tools will never come and you have to live with that. Most of you have already said your opinions. Don't say it's a bad game before playing it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: RAnDOOm on 06-07-2011, 18:07:02
Now if a single person continues this useless fight, I lock the whole goddamn thread.

Mod tools will never come and you have to live with that. Most of you have already said your opinions. Don't say it's a bad game before playing it.

Im sorry but your wrong.

Nobody said that mod tools will never come, it was said that they wont be released in the beginning.

Just a correction.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: IrishReloaded on 06-07-2011, 18:07:37
so you really think that they will relaise a modding tool instead of 5 DLCs?

Actually the booster packs for BF2 were the first test of DLCs. But they came quite late iirc. Now the guys od Dice are smarter and start making DLCs when the game is not even finished.
Karkand will only be available via DLC iirc
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 06-07-2011, 18:07:28
so you really think that they will relaise a modding tool instead of 5 DLCs?

Actually the booster packs for BF2 were the first test of DLCs. But they came quite late iirc. Now the guys od Dice are smarter and start making DLCs when the game is not even finished.
Karkand will only be available via DLC iirc
Which will be free on release (for PC anyway).
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: IrishReloaded on 06-07-2011, 18:07:40
that make sense...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 06-07-2011, 18:07:16
a bunch of subjective stuff
oh, ok, I thought we were talking about the actual games... not what they were or did to you, personally 9 years ago when you played bf42 the first time, or which Bf games you consider "real" and whatnots.
Sorry, I will double check that discussions are about facts and objectivity before commenting again.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 06-07-2011, 19:07:56
^We´re talking about actual games. BF42 was a revolutionary new game with a great new concept (64 players fighting on large maps with air, ground and naval assets) when it came out, BF3´s announced features aren´t as revolutionary as you try to "inform" us. I would hardly call half-baked "features" creating an all-out new innovation...and after browsing through some BF forums it seems like I´m not the only one with that oppinion.


It´s actually interesting to know that there are already six pre-order versions for BF3.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 06-07-2011, 19:07:45
BF3´s announced features aren´t as revolutionary as you try to "inform" us.
How do you know that they aren't? perhaps you should stop reading on forums about what BF3 "is" (i.e. what public forum regulars think it will be), and instead listen to the developers of the game when they explain to you what the game actually is.
 8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Fuchs on 06-07-2011, 19:07:13
Oh yes because the person trying to sell it is completely neutral in his opinion.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 06-07-2011, 19:07:59
There´s a pretty good German news site about the BF franchise and I read their news daily, so I can say that I´m quite informed about the upcoming title and its features. I won´t repeat myself and just advise you to read my post on why I believe that the announced features are in my oppinion half-baked and far from revolutianary...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 06-07-2011, 19:07:20
why I believe
believe, being the key-word here  8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 06-07-2011, 19:07:49

believe, being the key-word here  8)
Enlighten me then, oh great DICE employee and tell me which of the revealed features are creating an all-out new innovation. I read basically about all of the announced features and none of them are creating an all-out new innovation.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 06-07-2011, 20:07:17
We'll be back when people learn to listen moderators and stop spamming and fighting over something stupid.

Now, behave.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ajs47951 on 09-07-2011, 07:07:18
Battlefield 3 system requirements revealed
Minimum

    Hard Drive Space: 15 GB for disc version or 10 GB for digital version
    OS: Windows Vista or Windows 7
    Processor: Core 2 Duo @ 2.0GHzRAM2GB
    Video Card: DirectX 10 or 11 compatible Nvidia or AMD ATI card

 
Recommended

    Hard Drive Space: 15 GB for disc version or 10 GB for digital version
    OS: Windows 7 64-bit
    Processor: Quad-core Intel or AMD CPURAM 4GB
    Video Card: DirectX 11 Nvidia or AMD ATI card, GeForce GTX 460, Radeon Radeon HD 6850





Just in time for my new PC well new Gfx cards 2 Nvida 560 Ti  in sli (YAAA Fermi cards!!).... better then my old 2 9800gtx2s in sli
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Tuco on 09-07-2011, 08:07:57
So looks like my 5850's gunna struggle abit with this one huh.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 09-07-2011, 13:07:58
yeam, seems like I really am gonna have to replace my 5770 with something like 6870... and buy some quad core instead of X3

there goes my money earned from the job I'll have later this vacation. damn BF3 ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 09-07-2011, 13:07:00
My computer is just on recommended..

AMD Athlon x4 and Geforce 460..

I had same with GTA4 and old computer.. Turned out I could barely play it with low graphics.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 09-07-2011, 13:07:53
would a phenon II x6 with a 6870 be able to run it? i heard mixed reviews about the phenon, been not as good even with all those cores
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eat Uranium on 09-07-2011, 13:07:10
I'm just about on minimum.  8000 series being the first dx10 cards.

:-\
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: kummitus on 09-07-2011, 14:07:31
So looks like my 5850's gunna struggle abit with this one huh.

5850 is little more powerful than 6850 so we should be fine :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Turkletoon on 09-07-2011, 15:07:35
would a phenon II x6 with a 6870 be able to run it? i heard mixed reviews about the phenon, been not as good even with all those cores

a phenon II x6 should have no problem with it. I got one that's clocked @ 3,8 ghz and it's performing excellent in games, even though I mostly use my computer for 3D modelling and animating.

I will surely get BF3 thought  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 09-07-2011, 16:07:44
    Hard Drive Space: 15 GB for disc version or 10 GB for digital version
DRM takes 5 GB of disc space? /troll
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ajs47951 on 09-07-2011, 18:07:49
would a phenon II x6 with a 6870 be able to run it? i heard mixed reviews about the phenon, been not as good even with all those cores

a phenon II x6 should have no problem with it. I got one that's clocked @ 3,8 ghz and it's performing excellent in games, even though I mostly use my computer for 3D modelling and animating.

I will surely get BF3 thought  ;D
yep i have a AMD Phenom II X6 3.3 GHz (OC to 4.1GHz)   8gigs of DDr3 ram and 2 Nvida 560 TI in Sli 
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 09-07-2011, 18:07:34
yep i have a AMD Phenom II X6 3.3 GHz (OC to 4.1GHz)   8gigs of DDr3 ram and 2 Nvida 560 TI in Sli 

Quote
yep i have a

That's as far as I understand that sentence lol.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: siben on 09-07-2011, 18:07:47
Damn, my intel I7 2600 3,4Ghz wont even cut it for recommended...
Same with my HD 6700 series card...

I really thought i had a decent computer .... :(
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 09-07-2011, 19:07:40
Damn, my intel I7 2600 3,4Ghz wont even cut it for recommended...
Same with my HD 6700 series card...

I really thought i had a decent computer .... :(
What? i7 2600 is quad-core so should do just fine. HD6700 is the bottleneck on your system.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Turkletoon on 09-07-2011, 19:07:01
yep i have a AMD Phenom II X6 3.3 GHz (OC to 4.1GHz)   8gigs of DDr3 ram and 2 Nvida 560 TI in Sli 
What kind of cooling do you have, water?
I didn't manage to go beyond 3.9 ghz. But mine was originally clocked at 3.2 ghz.
And what PSU do you have?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ajs47951 on 09-07-2011, 20:07:17
yep i have a AMD Phenom II X6 3.3 GHz (OC to 4.1GHz)   8gigs of DDr3 ram and 2 Nvida 560 TI in Sli 
What kind of cooling do you have, water?
I didn't manage to go beyond 3.9 ghz. But mine was originally clocked at 3.2 ghz.
And what PSU do you have?

nope no water thats a wast of $$$. its on air useing a Cooler Master Hyper N520 but on top of my case i have a Rexus Rexflo250mm Blue 250mm Blue LED Case Fan  and 2 120mm fans in front for my hard drives and a 120mm fan on the side of my case.

my psu CORSAIR Professional Series Gold AX1200 (CMPSU-1200AX) 1200W ATX12V v2.31 / EPS12V v2.92 SLI Certified 80 PLUS GOLD Certified Modular Active PFC Power Supply
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ajs47951 on 09-07-2011, 20:07:42
   Hard Drive Space: 15 GB for disc version or 10 GB for digital version
DRM takes 5 GB of disc space? /troll
Ya DRM is a fucking joke its  supposed to stop piracy.... but thats one reason why a download cracks so i don't have to put up with that and Steam.... I hate Steam....      and It really dose nothing to stop piracy

(http://www.digital-digest.com/images/teaserimage/DVDGuy_drm_doesnt_work.png)
"Good Old Games specialises in allowing people to buy retro, discontinued games, and so they know a thing or two about the gaming business. Andhaving to frequently deal with DRM systems that are no longer supported by publishers, they know a thing or two about DRM too.

Which is why they've come out attacking DRM, and saying, quite clearly, that it not only does not work in stopping people from pirating games, DRM actually drives people to pirate the games.

Speaking to bit-tech, Good Old Games' PR and marketing manager, Lukasz Kukawski attacked the usefulness of DRM, saying that the actual deterrent effect is "None, or close to none."

"What I will say isn’t popular in the gaming industry," added Kukawski, "but in my opinion DRM drives people to pirate games rather than prevent them from doing that. Would you rather spend $50 on a game that requires installing malware on your system, or to stay online all the time and crashes every time the connection goes down, or would you rather download a cracked version without all that hassle?"

Kukawski then refers to recent games, such as Crysis 2, being leaked before the game is even released, complete with DRM stripped, and rightly questions just how is DRM supposed to be effective when this kind of thing is happening all the time.

Kukawski also feels that many gamers, who are paying for full copies of games, are still turning to pirating tools and DRM cracks as a way to properly enjoy games, and "That’s not how it should be"."
from http://www.digital-digest.com/news-62968-GOG-DRM-drives-people-to-pirate-games.html
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 09-07-2011, 20:07:21
The more you try to prevent something, the more people will try to break it

The more companies invest to prevent people from pirating games, the more it will actually be pirated

Like spore. EA said they invested tonnes of cash in protecting the game from being pirated

2 days after the release, the game got cracked and illegaly downloaded a million times. i mean hackers just say=Challenge accepted

Its like guns. The more stricter you make a gunlaw, the more people buy guns on the blackmarket, and the more things get out of control
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 09-07-2011, 21:07:56
The most effective DRM I've seen lately was FADE for ArmA 2. I was wondering why I couldn't shoot straight in the pirated version, only to learn that it was part of the anti-piracy programs that slowly and steadily decreased the playability of the game. Needless to say, after being annoyed and not able to shoot straight...I bought the game just so I could try it properly.

$45 well spent I might add.

Ultimately if I pirate a game and love it, I will buy it though, for various reasons.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ajs47951 on 09-07-2011, 22:07:00
Ultimately if I pirate a game and love it, I will buy it though, for various reasons.
same here Support the companies, which software you actually enjoy!           
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kradovech on 10-07-2011, 15:07:41
I also like TF2's way of doing it: release small updates every 2 weeks. It must have been a pain for anyone playing the pirated version, surely you would get tired of the constant cracking needed.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 10-07-2011, 15:07:48
Back then anyway. Now it doesnt matter anymore when it comes to TF2.

But that ARMA FADE thing sounds very interesting.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 11-07-2011, 03:07:44
Support the companies, which software you actually enjoy!  (http://Support the companies, which software you actually enjoy!)

Yea right.... ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kev4000 on 11-07-2011, 03:07:57

But Battlefield 2 damage system, just meh.
M16 requires 4 body shots vs regular people, 5 shots vs ppl with body armour.
The AK101, which uses the same caliber, only needs 3 vs regular ppl!

Keep in mind, that there is a huge diffrence between the 5.45x39mm and the 5.56x45 NATO round

The 5.45x39 had a slightly shorter range, but damage wise, it is far deadlier then the 5.56
There is a tiny hole at the tip of the bullet, once the round hits a target, the bullet tilts vertically and has an unusual, but damaging pattern of causing flesh trauma. that way, causing a much huger wound then with a 5.56mm nato round

NATO doesnt use such a round, because it is forbidden.

Just read this now. You're thinking of the ak74. The ak101 is an ak74 in 5.56x45 NATO.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 12-07-2011, 02:07:25
Looks like my computer pulls through on the specs  :)

Probably gonna upgrade my ram from 3 gigz to 4 or more. 

And maybe my graphics card from the Nvidia Geforce 9800GT to something a bit more powerful :I

Not totally sure if I'll be getting BF3 though. It looks ok, but ehh. I'll wait till after a few reviews from some of the forumers on here before I buy it, if it gets positive ratings.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 12-07-2011, 11:07:15
Don't get too excited kids...the system specs that were posted are false:
Quote
Alan Kertz, BF3's Senior Gameplay Designer, recently confirmed the false leak by Tweeting, "We have not annouced any specs."

 - http://attackofthefanboy.com/news/dice-puts-battlefield-3-rumors-to-bed/



...I hate Steam...
Amen... :)


Speaking of, it appears quite possible that BF3 won't be available on Steam.

Nothing confirmed yet, but it appears EA has to choose between higher sales figures for BF3 or pushing their Origin platform.

 - http://gnews.com/ea-edge-closer-to-keeping-battlefield-3-off-steam-14201115071611/



I went and pre-ordered it today, getting the Physical Warfare pack (with the Type 88, Fletchette ammo, etc). And I'm getting the PW pack for no other reason than, it was 2 bucks cheaper than the normal BTK version...go figure.  :)



LOL, nice one EA... ;D

 - http://www.ripten.com/2011/07/11/ea-buys-moderwarfare3-com-directs-users-to-bf3-website/
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 21-07-2011, 22:07:17
http://gamerant.com/battlefield-3-multiplayer-trailer-2-case-96869/

What we've been waiting for, some MP.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 21-07-2011, 22:07:30

But Battlefield 2 damage system, just meh.
M16 requires 4 body shots vs regular people, 5 shots vs ppl with body armour.
The AK101, which uses the same caliber, only needs 3 vs regular ppl!

Keep in mind, that there is a huge diffrence between the 5.45x39mm and the 5.56x45 NATO round

The 5.45x39 had a slightly shorter range, but damage wise, it is far deadlier then the 5.56
There is a tiny hole at the tip of the bullet, once the round hits a target, the bullet tilts vertically and has an unusual, but damaging pattern of causing flesh trauma. that way, causing a much huger wound then with a 5.56mm nato round

NATO doesnt use such a round, because it is forbidden.

Just read this now. You're thinking of the ak74. The ak101 is an ak74 in 5.56x45 NATO.
you sir

are 100% correct

Have a theta dollar
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 21-07-2011, 22:07:54
And in 18 months we're going to be waiting for FH3 to come out, bitching about how DICE somehow managed to make a crappy engine three times in a row. 

Soon enough we'll see if jumjum's prophesy will come true. ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 21-07-2011, 22:07:32
Place your bets now gentlemen.


Frankly, the one thing that always makes me laugh is, there is always a 'but', in this game, plus alot of other games at the moment.

For example:
We have this awesome engine with all these bells and whistles and so many things and it will BRING A NEW DAWN IN MUTLIPLAYER GAMING....

BUT

You cant destroy buildings, fully, because it'll ruin the gaaaaaaaaaaaaaameplaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay

You cant destroy all of the lights in the underground, because it'll ruin the gaaaaaaaaaaaaaameplaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay

You cant have mutli crewed tanks, because it'll ruin the gaaaaaaaaaaaaaameplaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay

You cant one hit kill people with high calibre weapons like IRL, because it'll ruin the gaaaaaaaaaaaaaameplaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kubador on 22-07-2011, 00:07:45
Soooo many awards and the game is not even out yet...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 22-07-2011, 02:07:09
http://www.youtube.com/profile?feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_112725&user=UsamaFTW#p/u


Guys been uploading BF3 vids all day, watch them all before it gets removed :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Musti on 22-07-2011, 02:07:05
Looks nice
BUT....
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 22-07-2011, 03:07:07
From the videos ive seen from him so far:

1. Turns out only some of the buildings are destructable, yknow, the ones you can enter. Like BC2, basically.
2. the G36C makes a reappearance! Fuck yes. RPK-74M used as russian default LMG (it seems).
3. The guy really doesnt give a fuck if people find out who he is. Or hes really that stupid.
4. Lightings nice.
5. Vehicle combat is 'ok' from what I saw w/ the APC footage on metro.
6. YOU'VE GOT LEGS! (we know that already, but still)
7. Pistol running animation is a bit herp derp, looks like he should be walking, however when hes walking it looks like he should running!
8. Might have seen it, but I clocked an M27 IAR in the kill screen. MP-7 seen on killscreen.
9. Usual alpha stuff, sound dropping out, lag/memory spikes, etc.
10. SV98 and M1014 Shotgun confirmed (shotguns sound is like a dart gun though...). M1911 confirmed. perks such as Sprint and Ammo boosts are confirmed.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Musti on 22-07-2011, 04:07:07
i don't like the running/sprinting sound.
even BF2 had better sounds. Here it looks like he's making millions of steps per second.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ubba on 28-07-2011, 16:07:33
Been playing the alpha today and honestly it feels like it's something between MoH and BC2 :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 28-07-2011, 18:07:20
Been playing the alpha today and honestly it feels like it's something between MoH and BC2 :)
you first said BC3


RPK74-M?
NICE
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 28-07-2011, 18:07:09
Technically labelled RPK, but yeh its that.

Anyway, weapon damaged is nice (dont see your attacker most of the time though).
Weapon upgrades are CoD-esqe i.e. acquired for each individual weapon.
LMGs are feeble at everything but defence.
Marksmen rifles double as semi-auto assault rifles.
Most of the weapon-specific upgrades are naff (probably be better in hardcore mode).
BC2 spotting system is back, and is annoying.
G36C is the only select fire weapon if seen so far (probably overlooked some). Has multiple firing modes, but I havent found the button for fire select yet ಠ_ಠ

Usual alpha stuff, sound dropping out, screen tearing in the middle of the screen, etc alot of crashing which is mostly fixed by downloading quatro driver.

Metro gets boring after a while. Seen the end of the map (the district iirc), nothing special.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ajs47951 on 28-07-2011, 18:07:15
all I can say is WOOT NO SHIT DRM!!!!! now I don't have to torrent it just to bypass it
may just buy 2 game for that  :D


unlike this

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/07/28/ubisoft-our-drm-is-a-success/?mtc=comment-106014#comment-106014
Ubisoft: our DRM “is a success”....really..... for that im happy that I have torrent-ed all most all your last games made just for have that DRM "thanks for not caring about  people with bad internet"
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zoologic on 28-07-2011, 19:07:03
Yeah, despite increased sales (due to new titles), they still losing money. Probably the cost of DRM or not selling that much?

Activision also went down, I think I'll give a hats off to EA. Will buy BF3 for sure.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ajs47951 on 28-07-2011, 19:07:53
Yeah, despite increased sales (due to new titles), they still losing money. Probably the cost of DRM or not selling that much?

Activision also went down, I think I'll give a hats off to EA. Will buy BF3 for sure.
what really got me is when I seen that "BF3 will not be on Steam" that right there just gave them my money
I love  game that don't use Steam
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 28-07-2011, 19:07:32
I hate games who don't use Steam. I hate using xfire.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hslan.GN_Angrybeaver on 28-07-2011, 19:07:42
just watched the videos...still awefull crap.will not buy.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 28-07-2011, 20:07:29
all I can say is WOOT NO SHIT DRM!!!!! now I don't have to torrent it just to bypass it
may just buy 2 game for that  :D


unlike this

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/07/28/ubisoft-our-drm-is-a-success/?mtc=comment-106014#comment-106014
Ubisoft: our DRM “is a success”....really..... for that im happy that I have torrent-ed all most all your last games made just for have that DRM "thanks for not caring about  people with bad internet"
The game only starts running once your loading into a server, from there on its all from your browser, of which you need to download plugins for to run the game.

Yes, fuck you very much Battlelog. Only thing thats handy is i can immediately select the forums tab to tell them how fucking stupid the system is.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 29-07-2011, 02:07:39
wait, so it works like BF Heroes/P4F? ???
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: black_pepper on 29-07-2011, 14:07:57
but I havent found the button for fire select yet ಠ_ಠ



You can switch firemodes from V button.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Torenico on 30-07-2011, 03:07:07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e_cLfMjsQk

Wow, good job DICE.


I rather call this Game Battlefield: Bad Company 3

And wtf, 100pts for Killing a dude?? I guess repairing/resupply/heal are just 10?

Whats this shit all about? WHERES BF2 IN THIS?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 30-07-2011, 12:07:02
Guys who played it all said it feels more like BF2 than BC2. So if you haven't played it, stop judging the game regarding BF2/BC2.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 30-07-2011, 13:07:32
Anyway
What kind of RUSSIAAANNNN weapons are in?

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hslan.Grim on 30-07-2011, 16:07:44
Guys who played it all said it feels more like BF2 than BC2. So if you haven't played it, stop judging the game regarding BF2/BC2.

I may damn hope so! Since BC2 sucked donkey balls.

And I want (more) MP aerial combat footage! Know!!!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 30-07-2011, 16:07:12
Guys who played it all said it feels more like BF2 than BC2. So if you haven't played it, stop judging the game regarding BF2/BC2.
Its better than BC2 for sure, but its nowhere near BF2 excellence. Guess we'll have to wait before we make judgement. Using rush mode in the alpha test was a fucking goof and a half.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hslan.Grim on 30-07-2011, 18:07:57
I just want conquest. Dont gave a shit about CTF, Rush or King of the Hill stuff. Thats for consoles! I need epic big open maps with every militairy equipment possible!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 30-07-2011, 18:07:25
Well, the one thing that has me exicted for BF3 is the weapon list. But i might wait a day before i buy this.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 30-07-2011, 18:07:07
[natty] You mean the one that only has 3 confirmed weapons?  ;) [/natty]


I wish games had the M40 as a sniper rifle every once in awhile. M24 is too generic now. They're almost the same thing, but I prefer the M40!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LHeureux on 31-07-2011, 02:07:47
Well, the one thing that has me exicted for BF3 is the weapon list. But i might wait a day before i buy this.
Some really nice one :D. But the sounds are so FREAKING bad :( .
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 31-07-2011, 02:07:34
Natty, if you're reading this, for the love of all that is good, put abc lines or sometihng to prevent base campers.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 31-07-2011, 05:07:43
thats not his call :p
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 31-07-2011, 12:07:23
Natty, if you're reading this, for the love of all that is good, put abc lines or sometihng to prevent base campers.
ok, Im a designer in the Easy studios and I work with Battlefield Heroes and Battlefield Play4Free, I have absolutley nothing to do with the Battlefield 3 project.
I would suggest using any of the main channels to communicate with the BF3 community managers & designers;
http://www.facebook.com/battlefield
http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/battlefield-3/

I did add "ABC" lines for the Battlefield Play4Free game mode (and in a few BFHeroes maps), and it works very well there, it's not impossible that you could convince the BF3 team to add a similar spawnkill prevention there. I suggest creating very clear pictures with drawings on what you want and why. "ABC line" is not a universally known design term.
Good luck.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 31-07-2011, 20:07:45
I figured you might be the most direct at passing the word along channels! I havn't seen many developer teams take notice of the forums or the suggestions on them (cough cough WoT stands out), but I suppose I will have to give it a try.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Neighbor Kid on 01-08-2011, 03:08:37
alpha testing is awesome.. i love playing bf3 alpha..it even have vehicle disabling.. like stopping/ slowing vehicles down.. realy wish they have mod tools coming for bf3... =(
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ajs47951 on 01-08-2011, 03:08:05
WE'RE SORRY - YOU DON'T MEET THE CRITERIA TO ENTER THIS SITE.

....rrrrr :'( O well cant wait to play it when it is done ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 01-08-2011, 08:08:35
I figured you might be the most direct at passing the word along channels! I havn't seen many developer teams take notice of the forums or the suggestions on them (cough cough WoT stands out), but I suppose I will have to give it a try.
DICE keep a very good look on what the community thinks and feels about their games  ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 01-08-2011, 08:08:52
the problem is EA
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kradovech on 05-08-2011, 21:08:06
Someone mentioned a "hardcore" mode. Has there been any info released on what it is going to be like?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 05-08-2011, 21:08:20
Someone mentioned a "hardcore" mode. Has there been any info released on what it is going to be like?

Limited hud, no crosshair, weapons more deadly.. basically.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kradovech on 05-08-2011, 21:08:46
Will the destructible environment be changed for that gametype in any way? And will there be any changes to the kit layouts as well? Was any of this in BC? (I believe there is such a gamemode in that game as well)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 06-08-2011, 00:08:12
Nope.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 07-08-2011, 13:08:38
been watching some videos......god this looks so much like Cod.........
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 07-08-2011, 13:08:56
been watching some videos......god this looks so much like Cod.........
Yes, shallow analyses of games will make them look like each other. Try looking deeper  ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 07-08-2011, 17:08:26
been watching some videos......god this looks so much like Cod.........
Yes, shallow analyses of games will make them look like each other. Try looking deeper  ::)
Constant running around with sprint..Easy aiming and shooting while on the move....Sounds like Cod to me
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 07-08-2011, 17:08:21
dont forget the regen health and the 3derp spotting :P. also infinite ammo for vehicles
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 07-08-2011, 17:08:12
dont forget the regen health and the 3derp spotting :P. also infinite ammo for vehicles
aaah good one my friend
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 07-08-2011, 18:08:17
(http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e285/Natty_Wallo/natty-4.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 07-08-2011, 18:08:50
BF2 dint had health regen

Runing sideways while shooting messed up your aim alot in BF2..This doesnt seem the case here
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 07-08-2011, 18:08:27
BF2 dint had health regen

Runing sideways while shooting messed up your aim alot in BF2..This doesnt seem the case here

But you can't run sideways in BF,it seems more like walking to me. Or am I missing something?

OT: BF 3 looks great. And that's about it... Nothing "ZOMG totally new and revolutionary". But we'll see it when it comes out how it will turn out.

P.S. It has dinosaurs!  :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 07-08-2011, 20:08:13
Anybody else here who thinks that the Back to Karkand DLC thingy for Pre-Order gamers boils down to extortion?
I mean come on, if I want to wait for a decent review, I'll have to pay 12€ extra?!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 07-08-2011, 21:08:57
Anybody else here who thinks that the Back to Karkand DLC thingy for Pre-Order gamers boils down to extortion?
I mean come on, if I want to wait for a decent review, I'll have to pay 12€ extra?!
It will most likely be standard for every PC version anyway. These incentives are clearly means to earn some cash from the second hand market which only exists on the consoles. In BC2 every PC player got all the mappacks for free as. Console gamers who bought it second hand had to buy a VIP code to get them.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 07-08-2011, 21:08:29
Anybody else here who thinks that the Back to Karkand DLC thingy for Pre-Order gamers boils down to extortion?
I mean come on, if I want to wait for a decent review, I'll have to pay 12€ extra?!

You can still pre-order one day before release and the content will be free on the PC anyways. You'd just have to wait a month.

They're just trying to boost their pre-orders for whatever marketing reasons but they're not out to rip anyone off.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kradovech on 07-08-2011, 21:08:12
You can always wait a year or so, and get some BF3 full pack with all the DLC at a cheaper price....
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 07-08-2011, 22:08:12
You guys fail to see the point.
On my last info, they said that the Back to Karkand DLC will be on sale for 12€ as a mappack after the release... also on PC.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 08-08-2011, 08:08:40
Anybody else here who thinks that the Back to Karkand DLC thingy for Pre-Order gamers boils down to extortion?
I mean come on, if I want to wait for a decent review, I'll have to pay 12€ extra?!
Good point, but IMO the whole DLC thing is getting out of hand.

Anyway, they got me, I pre-ordered it just so I don't have to pay even more for the BTK maps (I'll have to pay extra for them anyway, because I doubt they're included on the disc... ::))
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 12-08-2011, 03:08:20
Total bullshit. Any intentions I had of buying BF3 are certainly gone.

No matter where you buy it, except maybe other online retailers, you will be forced to install and run DICE's steam copy "Origin" for the game to launch.

http://gamerant.com/battlefield-3-requires-origin-mole-99670/
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zeno on 12-08-2011, 03:08:20

P.S. It has dinosaurs!  :P

(http://i.imgur.com/SGiEQ.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ajs47951 on 12-08-2011, 03:08:08
are there going to be any bots In BF3? ???
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 12-08-2011, 04:08:19
http://www.destructoid.com/e3-about-that-dinosaur-in-battlefield-3--203466.phtml
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 12-08-2011, 04:08:47
Old as of 3 months ago.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 12-08-2011, 09:08:27
Total bullshit. Any intentions I had of buying BF3 are certainly gone.

No matter where you buy it, except maybe other online retailers, you will be forced to install and run DICE's steam copy "Origin" for the game to launch.

http://gamerant.com/battlefield-3-requires-origin-mole-99670/
So?

How does that differ from being forced to use Steam to play certain games?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: kummitus on 12-08-2011, 12:08:05
some don't want to install other community software for just one game.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 12-08-2011, 13:08:51
I'm not against community softwares. I hate playing alone and getting friends in battlefield games is really hard if you don't use game related forums or irc channel.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 13-08-2011, 02:08:33

So?

How does that differ from being forced to use Steam to play certain games?

I've already got Steam, why add another?  ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 13-08-2011, 07:08:36
some don't want to install other community software for just one game.
Well that'll end up being their loss because BF3 isn't the first, and won't be the last, "Origin-only" game.



I've already got Steam, why add another?  ::)
I see your point but that doesn't answer my question.

I don't want to use Steam or Origin, yet I have to if I want to play Civ 5 or BF3.


While I'm not a fan of digital distribution, what better way for EA (not DICE) to grow the Origin user-base than to force people to sign up for it...just like Steam does.  ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 16-08-2011, 17:08:48
whiners and doubters are welcomed to check out the MP trailer just shown at gamescom.
Add drumroll, open curtain.  drool ;D

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 16-08-2011, 17:08:36
Natty, where is it?!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 16-08-2011, 17:08:46
See it appearing on YT shortly. Short coop demo with a nice 64p conquest on 'caspain border (iirc)', and some nice footage of jet combat. What intrigued me most though, Natty, was, what the hell was that bomb disfusal bot all about? :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 16-08-2011, 17:08:19
I watched it live, will probably be on YT in matter of minutes.

Search for "Caspian Border" BF3 Multiplayer
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 16-08-2011, 17:08:51
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDDfPxF3EFE
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 16-08-2011, 17:08:39
epic scene which reminds me of the Flashpoint-85  :o

(http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e285/Natty_Wallo/Untitled-1-83.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ts4EVER on 16-08-2011, 17:08:19
I wonder if the burning forest is a  background vista or a gameplay area.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Lightning on 16-08-2011, 17:08:19
Ok, I have to admit, graphically, that looks very nice.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 16-08-2011, 17:08:48
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDDfPxF3EFE

Megaton. Still not a big fan of the infantry combat, but the map looks very pretty.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 16-08-2011, 18:08:20
Was that trailer done in 2x speed? Damn the movements are like on speed....
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kradovech on 16-08-2011, 18:08:28
Graphics are very nice, but thats about it. Not much interesting gameplay was shown IMO, more of the same old-same old. It was however hard to analyse the gameplay fully as the camera was jumping all over the place, so maybe they're still holdingh off with the good stuff.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 16-08-2011, 18:08:39
Saw it live during the press conference. I wasn´t really impressed by the coop mode. Animations and everything look nice, but infantry combat looks far from "revolutionary" and "immersive". Weapon handling looks not really different from CoD, either and I can´t really see why Andy McNab was casted as a "weapon expert". The guns don´t really have realistic behaviour and can I see auto-heal and orange doritos? Meh...Oh, and why did they show the coop mode on the PS3? Ego-shooters on consoles are just crap and you could clearly see that they had problems aiming properly with a console controller...
The Caspian Border trailer looked good, too. It achieves the feeling of fighting on a "real" battlefield instead of walking through one long "hose", but you can´t really see the actual map size, so I´m eagerly waiting for a mini-map. Finally we could see jets in action and that little EOD robot was kinda funny, too.
But so far I still can´t see why BF3 will be the FPS of the year and unless I´ll see reasons that´ll convince me otherwise I won´t preorder it.
EDIT:
Here´s the minimap. (http://images.bf-games.net/news/2011/08/10245_14.jpg) Not as big as I hoped :/
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 16-08-2011, 19:08:47
This looks great, but I still don't know jack shit about how it plays...  I only see people being all RAMBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...

What I wanted to see is more info about the suppression system, deployable MGs, destructible environment (i don't want that crap with SMGs suddenly taking down whole houses  :P) and stuff like that.

Still, I have to admit that this will beat the crap out of MW3...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 16-08-2011, 20:08:26
Yeah it is obvious that this will be better then MW3...but still


anyway
http://planetbattlefield.gamespy.com/fullstory.php?id=165281

still uncomplete list though
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kradovech on 16-08-2011, 20:08:11
Yeah it is obvious that this will be better then MW3...but still


anyway
http://planetbattlefield.gamespy.com/fullstory.php?id=165281

still uncomplete list though

Tanks regain health? OH MY GOD! I thought you guys were only kidding... Why on earth would they do that, how is this better? I'm just speechless.

Only 4 classes seems like a downgrade as well.

Suppression system and ability to deploy weapons is a nice surprise though
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 16-08-2011, 20:08:24
Yeah it is obvious that this will be better then MW3...but still


anyway
http://planetbattlefield.gamespy.com/fullstory.php?id=165281

still uncomplete list though

Why would you list Coax MG as a specialization, I thought that those are standard issue nowadays... /troll
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 16-08-2011, 21:08:24
What is up with that ear rape of a "music" ?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 16-08-2011, 21:08:22
Yeah it is obvious that this will be better then MW3...but still


anyway
http://planetbattlefield.gamespy.com/fullstory.php?id=165281

still uncomplete list though

Why would you list Coax MG as a specialization, I thought that those are standard issue nowadays... /troll
Wait for it
Wait for it

Call of       ;)    DUTY
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 16-08-2011, 21:08:51
Yeah it is obvious that this will be better then MW3...but still


anyway
http://planetbattlefield.gamespy.com/fullstory.php?id=165281

still uncomplete list though

Why would you list Coax MG as a specialization, I thought that those are standard issue nowadays... /troll
Wait for it
Wait for it

Call of       ;)    DUTY

No call of duty but bad company 2. (there it is a specialization)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 16-08-2011, 21:08:41
Yeah it is obvious that this will be better then MW3...but still


anyway
http://planetbattlefield.gamespy.com/fullstory.php?id=165281

still uncomplete list though

Why would you list Coax MG as a specialization, I thought that those are standard issue nowadays... /troll
Wait for it
Wait for it

Call of       ;)    DUTY

No call of duty but bad company 2. (there it is a specialization)
Call of duty world at war ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 17-08-2011, 02:08:24
 :-\

Auto-regen tanks. Wow. Whats the point of a engineer now? No use giving a drill or w/e to someone now. Engy is only good for AT now. Might as well give all classes AT rockets and lower the classes to 3.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 17-08-2011, 04:08:19
:-\

Auto-regen tanks. Wow. Whats the point of a engineer now? No use giving a drill or w/e to someone now. Engy is only good for AT now. Might as well give all classes AT rockets and lower the classes to 3.
Well, I played in the alpha, and APC was so much of a fucking RPG magnet it didnt last very long, so I never really noticed any 'health regen'. I did however notice when the vehicle got disabled, which was kinda good.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 17-08-2011, 12:08:35
Still this means any class can enter a vehicle, start killwhoring, Vehicle Down? jump out and keep spewing lead!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 17-08-2011, 12:08:00
Still this means any class can enter a vehicle, start killwhoring, Vehicle Down? jump out and keep spewing lead!
No, it doesn't, the game is designed more clever than what you can summarize in a shallow forum sentence  ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 17-08-2011, 12:08:45
Still this means any class can enter a vehicle, start killwhoring, Vehicle Down? jump out and keep spewing lead!
No, it doesn't, the game is designed more clever than what you can summarize in a shallow forum sentence  ;)
Then please, explain yourself and i will withdraw that shallow forum sentence ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 17-08-2011, 13:08:29
designed more clevere doesnt mean played more clever ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 17-08-2011, 13:08:22
designed more clevere doesnt mean played more clever ;)
hehehe plus 1
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Chadoi on 17-08-2011, 13:08:52
Does the health regen whilst the vehicle is empty? Or does it have to be occupied for it to heal?

It doesn't seem fair that a tank driver could jump out, take out the attacker with his own weapon then jump back into an automatically healed killing machine.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 17-08-2011, 14:08:45
:-\

Auto-regen tanks. Wow. Whats the point of a engineer now? No use giving a drill or w/e to someone now. Engy is only good for AT now. Might as well give all classes AT rockets and lower the classes to 3.
I'm not big fan either but it doesn't regenerate during a firefight as far as I know. Maybe there is a hardcorde mode as well which removes all these silly features.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 18-08-2011, 09:08:21
Regen is only up till a certain point, probably enough that it will explode after one more hit. Like Drew experienced in the Alpha.
You have to repair the vehicle to restore full health.

Commo rose is confirmed back in. As is a hardcore mode for all the "realistic military" dudes out there  ::)

Here are some spec sheets about weaponry (I love mah A-10 Thunderbolt):
(http://pnmedia.gamespy.com/planetbattlefield.gamespy.com/images/news3/fact_sheet1.jpg)

(http://pnmedia.gamespy.com/planetbattlefield.gamespy.com/images/news3/fact_sheet2.jpg)

(http://pnmedia.gamespy.com/planetbattlefield.gamespy.com/images/news3/fact_sheet3.jpg)

(http://pnmedia.gamespy.com/planetbattlefield.gamespy.com/images/news3/fact_sheet4.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 18-08-2011, 09:08:13
Even with "hardcore mode", I doubt BF3 will live up to PR/FH community's expectations. What people seem to expect is "PR lite". What they will (most likely) get is pimped-out vanilla BF2. I doubt that even the "hardcore mode" would have different ammo types for tanks, penetration/damage dependent on angle, etc.

That said, the editor's column in the local gaming magazine, speculating on the basis of recently announced titles, such as the second Halo trilogy, that sci-fi shooters would be the next pandemonium in the gaming industry, made me think whether the next BF title after BF3 would actually be a follow-up to BF2142 (along with the next CoD being "Future Warfare"). Which would mean that FH2 would remain the premier WW2 shooter for several years, since no new commercial WW2 shooter would be there to replace it due to big gaming companies focusing on sci-fi titles.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 18-08-2011, 10:08:12
Regen is only up till a certain point, probably enough that it will explode after one more hit. Like Drew experienced in the Alpha.
You have to repair the vehicle to restore full health.

aah now that is nice

and i already posted that NTH ;)

It also appearntly has been confirmed, that artillery will be ingame. But i see now on 2 diffrent sites, the one confirms rocket artillery, and the one confirmes gun artillery
with another confirming Mobile artillery :/

EA wont do that, EA doesnt add that much content  ;D impossibru!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 18-08-2011, 10:08:31
Caspian Border:

(https://s3.amazonaws.com/BF3/content/caspian-border-layout.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 18-08-2011, 10:08:37
game will be american biased methinks  ;D ;D ;D

*ducks for cover
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 18-08-2011, 10:08:27
There´s also an iPad version that can be tested during Gamescom.  ::)

The fact sheet is an interesting read. Tons of weapons of course and also tons of perks. I´m not too happy with the big number of vehicle perks, as it doesn´t make much sense that in an environment of standardization vehicles differ so much. Most of the announced features, such as disabled vehicles, weapon costumization, supressive fire (why for the MG only, btw?), deploying machine guns, unlocking virtual ranks and perks, multiple firemodes or quick reloads can already be found in other games and mods, so DICE took what they though would fit BF3s gameplay, included it and now they try to sell it as "innovative" and "immersive".

There´s (http://videos.pcgames.de/video/3936/Battlefield-3-PC-und-iPad-Gameplay-Gamescom-2011) also a short video from a German PC magazine about a guy who already played BF3 on Gamescom. Nevermind him talking, as he´s a PS3 consolero who knows not much about BF (he claims that respawning in vehicles is a new feature  ::) )but you can see some gameplay footage and also the iPad version.

The minimap interesting. The map isn´t as big as it seems, check (http://h5.abload.de/img/battlefield-3-4rjaa.jpg) this out (http://h5.abload.de/img/10245_144jct.jpg). It seems like all of the flags are pretty close together, so it seems like it´ll end in another CQB massacre.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 18-08-2011, 11:08:43
Regen is only up till a certain point, probably enough that it will explode after one more hit. Like Drew experienced in the Alpha.
You have to repair the vehicle to restore full health.

aah now that is nice

and i already posted that NTH ;)

It also appearntly has been confirmed, that artillery will be ingame. But i see now on 2 diffrent sites, the one confirms rocket artillery, and the one confirmes gun artillery
with another confirming Mobile artillery :/

EA wont do that, EA doesnt add that much content  ;D impossibru!

A pro tip: If possible post pic's instead of links. People are more inclined to read that then a link.
And I am really curious about arty, there might be something to do for me after all in BF3.  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 18-08-2011, 11:08:02
The minimap interesting. The map isn´t as big as it seems, check (http://h5.abload.de/img/battlefield-3-4rjaa.jpg) this out (http://h5.abload.de/img/10245_144jct.jpg). It seems like all of the flags are pretty close together, so it seems like it´ll end in another CQB massacre.
From the looks of it, I'd say 1km x 1km at most. Of course, consoles will only have 24p multiplayer, so for them such a small map would make sense, but if this is PC, I have the suspicion that the destructible environment at such a high detail comes with a cost, and that is the size of a map (because "Requires 16 GB RAM, 32 GB recommended" would kinda cut down the sales quite a bit). The singleplayer (?) demo of the armour attack would confirm this suspicion - the map does look bigger there but is noticeably sparsely detailed and combat takes place at point-blank distances against enemies spawning right next to you.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 18-08-2011, 11:08:20
The minimap interesting. The map isn´t as big as it seems, check (http://h5.abload.de/img/battlefield-3-4rjaa.jpg) this out (http://h5.abload.de/img/10245_144jct.jpg). It seems like all of the flags are pretty close together, so it seems like it´ll end in another CQB massacre.
From the looks of it, I'd say 1km x 1km at most. Of course, consoles will only have 24p multiplayer, so for them such a small map would make sense, but if this is PC, I have the suspicion that the destructible environment at such a high detail comes with a cost, and that is the size of a map (because "Requires 16 GB RAM, 32 GB recommended" would kinda cut down the sales quite a bit). The singleplayer (?) demo of the armour attack would confirm this suspicion - the map does look bigger there but is noticeably sparsely detailed and combat takes place at point-blank distances against enemies spawning right next to you.

Assuming the grids on that map are the same size as on FH2 I'd say it's bigger then for example Meuse river.

Meuse river is 8 by 8 grids.

(http://i56.tinypic.com/311w1v7.jpg)

 This map is 8 by 10. The amount of playable area is roughly the same. I expect you will need vehicles to get anywhere from the mainbases or enjoy a nice long walk..
So not really a small map as could be expected for a map that has planes. The planes are confirmed to be slightly faster then in BF2.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 18-08-2011, 12:08:01
One grid on the Caucasian Borders is around 100m if the A-10 is correctly scaled. Most of the flags would be in a 300x200m square, while "E" flag would be the furthest away.
SL respawns work in ground vehicles and air vehicles, so except if your team has no flags at all and your SL is dead, it won´t take that long to get into combat again.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ts4EVER on 18-08-2011, 13:08:17
It looks like a decent sized combined arms map. The flags are nicely grouped from what I can see, although the terrain is kinda hard to make out. Since the average engagement distance will probably be a tad smaller than Fh2 the map will probably seem very big.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 18-08-2011, 13:08:15
One grid on the Caucasian Borders is around 100m if the A-10 is correctly scaled. Most of the flags would be in a 300x200m square, while "E" flag would be the furthest away.
SL respawns work in ground vehicles and air vehicles, so except if your team has no flags at all and your SL is dead, it won´t take that long to get into combat again.

Yes that would seem the most likely course once the first stage of the map is over. First stage being, getting out of the main base to the flags.
What we don't know is if all flags are to be captured from the start or if some already belong to your team.
By the way I thought you could spawn on all members of your squad not just the SL.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ts4EVER on 18-08-2011, 13:08:28
What I find interesting is that large strip of open land running through the middle. I wonder if it is some kind of nomansland representing the "border"
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 18-08-2011, 14:08:39
Hmm that would make sense. Would be cool too see border posts and checkpoints. Would make an interesting choke point between
Flag B and D. And between Flag E and C.

Edit: Having looked again at the multiplayer trailer you can see it's a wide ditch representing a border. You can see something like a small border post at a bridge across the ditch. Check out the footage of the comm tower (Flag E), you can see it clearly from there.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Priestdk on 18-08-2011, 16:08:49
Only thing i dislike in the list you posted NTH is when i saw Vihicles regenerate health bye them self now O_o lol wut, so you put 2-3 rockets in the tank die come back after respawning and he did move because he can camp now even more, and does not really have to fear you comming back to finnishing him off, it selv repairs now talk about removing team play out of a game. I doo hope it is but slow and that it is not to powerfull a selv repair.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 18-08-2011, 16:08:26
I'm going quote myself here.

Regen is only up till a certain point, probably enough that it will explode after one more hit. Like Drew experienced in the Alpha.
You have to repair the vehicle to restore full health.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Battlefieldfan45 (CroPanzer) on 18-08-2011, 17:08:28
considering to get preorder with expansion
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 19-08-2011, 01:08:44
Don't see any difference between a tank that repairs itself (at the cost of another valuable 'perk') out of combat instead of hopping out and doing it yourself. It's not more silly than having a guy with a screwdriver repair an entire tank in the first place because they both simply represent the same thing (a full tank or repair crew at work) brought down to simple arcadish FPS style. 

I highly doubt the thing will automatically repair at a high rate at the midst of combat. It'll be fine.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 19-08-2011, 13:08:35
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNBxiAXXMZg

So much detail on the maps. Looks amazing.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 19-08-2011, 14:08:18
Don't see any difference between a tank that repairs itself (at the cost of another valuable 'perk') out of combat instead of hopping out and doing it yourself. It's not more silly than having a guy with a screwdriver repair an entire tank in the first place because they both simply represent the same thing (a full tank or repair crew at work) brought down to simple arcadish FPS style. 

I highly doubt the thing will automatically repair at a high rate at the midst of combat. It'll be fine.

I was just about to write that exact post  ;D You are correct: having to exit the tank and dry-hump it with some 3d model is not different from just sitting inside and repair. It's more fun to be able to still operate the tank while repairing as well, and by no means is the exit and wrenching adding to any "realism" or "immersion"

Allthough, it is kind of exciting to do it when risking that another tank discover you :) Finding a good "repair spot" has always been somewhat thrilling in BF games.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 19-08-2011, 15:08:57
Yea thats the only negative thing ive to say about it. Compared with the auto regen for the players this seems quite light and subtile. Still think the auto regen shit for players is bullshit and a non kind of battlefieldish feel. Nothing better than knowing you hit a certain player and finishing him off with one pistol shot. Now your constantly fighting against a clock, nice for the game flow, terrible for a relaxed paced game wich bf42<-- was, yes im a fanboy.
(and play cod on xbox)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kradovech on 19-08-2011, 17:08:34
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNBxiAXXMZg

So much detail on the maps. Looks amazing.
I only watched a minute of that, but something cought my eye. I would have expected them to figure out how to make vehicle entry animations by now... I know, a minor thing, but it fealt so strange in the middle of all those updated graphics. Maps are indeed nice from what I have seen, their experience really shows off in that field.

Now I know this game isn't aimed at me and all but I still feel the need to comment on the auto healing feature.

Firstly, yes Natty, it's probably more fun for the tanker. It is not more fun at all however for anyone trying to kill him. In fact, it feels like something really frustrating.

Secondly, there is a major difference between having to bail the tank and repair it and having it repair itself. To do it manually you have to find a very safe place back from the actual battle where there is minimal risk of infantry finding you. Because of this, it doesn't happen that often and people are forced to go down with their tanks. If it's automatic you can pull behind a corner after taking a hit and wait rather safe from infantry. If someone hits once during that time, not that big of a deal: You will still be alive (You wouldn't be if you had been out of the tank) and you can retaliate with your main gun. Not to mention you can observe the surroundings and move your tank accordingly to avoid taking hits. Also you will be able to advance straight away after taking out an enemy tank, while healing on the move.

My point being, this is actually worse with the tanks than the infantry IMO.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 19-08-2011, 17:08:47
I was just about to write that exact post  ;D You are correct: having to exit the tank and dry-hump it with some 3d model is not different from just sitting inside and repair. It's more fun to be able to still operate the tank while repairing as well, and by no means is the exit and wrenching adding to any "realism" or "immersion"

Allthough, it is kind of exciting to do it when risking that another tank discover you :) Finding a good "repair spot" has always been somewhat thrilling in BF games.

It might even be an improvement, because I was scared to death in BC2 to repair my tank because of brainless tards running around thinking it was an empty tank and drove off with it.
I've had that happen more times than I care to remember and it was a reason for me to only play on servers with teamkilling enabled so I could send a rocket up their arse. It really ruined my vehicle experiences in BC2.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 19-08-2011, 18:08:25
never a problem in bf2, I always used to drive the tank to an empty spot, repair it and go back to the battle. another reason to do less thinking ingame and more pewpew.

meh.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 23-08-2011, 03:08:02
http://gamerant.com/battlefield-3-team-deathmatch-24-players-no-vehicles-trung-101083/


(http://chocolatereisted.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/my-mind-is-full-of-fuck.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Musti on 23-08-2011, 03:08:59
They've got a point there.
If TDM was 64 players and vehicles what would be the point of it? why not just play conquest(or whatever its called).
Now you have conquest 64 or pure 24 shootout without points and all that crap(basically something for COD retards).

If I understood that correctly
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 23-08-2011, 04:08:15
I don't mind the vehicles thing, but tbh I think 32 would have been a better number
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 23-08-2011, 04:08:59
Its not true deathmatch, thats why. Its Squad Deathmatch like they had in Bad Company 2. While there was a single APC in each BC2 map, basically the maps collapse into six squads of four, and you compete for the highest score.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 23-08-2011, 10:08:37
This gets my vote for the 'Least important BF3 news update' award.


For quite some time I struggled to understand just what it was about BF2 that kept dragging me back to it...

Then I played a deathmatch-only map in AIX and was blown away by how unbelievably fucking boring it was (even with all those sexy guns)... :o

And there it was, Conquest is the addiction. Rather odd considering I was never a fan of capture-the-flag, but there you have it.



TDM in BF2 is just TDM (tedium)... :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-08-2011, 10:08:07
Quote
The logic behind that decision was to allow players to concentrate on more fast-paced infantry gameplay (i.e. Call of Duty).

But we dont WANT another fucking lame superfast paced SHOOTER for fuck sakes...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 23-08-2011, 11:08:07
Quote
The logic behind that decision was to allow players to concentrate on more fast-paced infantry gameplay (i.e. Call of Duty).

But we dont WANT another fucking lame superfast paced SHOOTER for fuck sakes...

Who are "we"?

"We" the Belgians?
"We" the history buffs?
"We" the FH community?

or "we" the 16-year-old COD-lovers who dominate the market of first person shooters i.e. DICE's core audience?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-08-2011, 11:08:12
Dont stretch it to far my friend  ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 23-08-2011, 11:08:42
never a problem in bf2, I always used to drive the tank to an empty spot, repair it and go back to the battle. another reason to do less thinking ingame and more pewpew.

meh.
Driving a tank to an empty spot is thinking?  ;D wow.... just wow..... No dude... staying in constant battle having to dodge infantry with nasty RPGs, other tanks, time your health regenerator with the enemies movements, knowing when to do micro-fallbacks and when to assault, keeping the action-pressure constant... welcome to 2011-styled vehicle combat  ;) retreating 300m back to an empty spot and walk out and drill the tank with the holy wrench of universal repair is, as you said, BF2 and earlier game play.
 This is BF3  8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 23-08-2011, 12:08:57
yeahh, not interested :]
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Fuchs on 23-08-2011, 12:08:43
The more Natty shouts how the game is a gift from god, the more I puke and never want to play it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 23-08-2011, 12:08:57
The more Natty shouts how the game is a gift from god, the more I puke and never want to play it.

+1

Plus I don't like this flood of modern shooters... I mean, it was fun 2 years ago, but now it's time to move on...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Graf_Radetzky(CZ) on 23-08-2011, 12:08:50
+1

In my honest opinion, RO2 will be the game of the year (even with some its minor flaws).
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-08-2011, 13:08:40
Lets see if EA fails in this, if EA succeeds, i will defiantly! DEFIANTLY buy it!

Natty

http://gamerant.com/battlefield-3-weapons-vehicles-equipment-trung-100768/

Is this the full list of equipment?
Because=
-I see a javelin, but not a russian counterpart (its counterpart would be 9K115-2 Metis-M)
-I see a SMAW but not a russian counterpart
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Battlefieldfan45 (CroPanzer) on 23-08-2011, 13:08:12
the thing is I want Javelin
and I don't care 'bout anything else (except  T-90 <3333333333333333333333 )
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 23-08-2011, 13:08:33
Lets see if EA fails in this, if EA succeeds, i will defiantly! DEFIANTLY buy it!

Natty

http://gamerant.com/battlefield-3-weapons-vehicles-equipment-trung-100768/

Is this the full list of equipment?
Because=
-I see a javelin, but not a russian counterpart (its counterpart would be 9K115-2 Metis-M)
-I see a SMAW but not a russian counterpart

Im pretty sure all sides will be using the same weapons, and will have access to all.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-08-2011, 13:08:32
Lets see if EA fails in this, if EA succeeds, i will defiantly! DEFIANTLY buy it!

Natty

http://gamerant.com/battlefield-3-weapons-vehicles-equipment-trung-100768/

Is this the full list of equipment?
Because=
-I see a javelin, but not a russian counterpart (its counterpart would be 9K115-2 Metis-M)
-I see a SMAW but not a russian counterpart

Im pretty sure all sides will be using the same weapons, and will have access to all.
soo...

this means US soldiers can spawn with Russian weapons?
Like in call of duty where you can use all nations weapons in MP?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Battlefieldfan45 (CroPanzer) on 23-08-2011, 13:08:55
unless it's the base weapon which is dependant on the side
All upgradeable weapons are avaliable for everyone (when you unlock them)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 23-08-2011, 13:08:20
unless it's the base weapon which is dependant on the side
All upgradeable weapons are avaliable for everyone (when you unlock them)

Meaning just like it was in BF2?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-08-2011, 13:08:30
Aaah okay, thats more like it

I was reffering to the Base weapons. Like US troops capable of using AK-74M and Russian ones M16
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 23-08-2011, 20:08:53
Aaah okay, thats more like it

I was reffering to the Base weapons. Like US troops capable of using AK-74M and Russian ones M16

I could see that, but I honestly think it'll probably be the same for everyone. In Bad Company 2 for instance, every soldier starts off with the AK-74 variant, and then progresses upwards. BF3 might be different, but that's what I'm expecting, not faction specific guns.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 23-08-2011, 20:08:56
Aaah okay, thats more like it

I was reffering to the Base weapons. Like US troops capable of using AK-74M and Russian ones M16

I could see that, but I honestly think it'll probably be the same for everyone. In Bad Company 2 for instance, every soldier starts off with the AK-74 variant, and then progresses upwards. BF3 might be different, but that's what I'm expecting, not faction specific guns.

Yeah, me too. But I hope it will be like in BF2.. Faction specific guns for every class and others can be unlocked.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 23-08-2011, 20:08:05
It has been confirmed BF3 will be using a simular kit system as BF2: base weapons are faction locked (m16/m4 etc for US, AKs for RUS) and all unlockable weapons will be available to either side. I'm not sure about the rocket launchers though.

Could also be that Javelin is singleplayer only and just happened to be in the files.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-08-2011, 21:08:21
Well that is Very nice to hear, now i give BF3 a chance again

Because if BF3 dint had faction locked weapons, then No thanks..
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eat Uranium on 23-08-2011, 21:08:12
I would have preferred faction locked unlocks too.  Still, at least the basic stuff is covered.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-08-2011, 21:08:29
I am rather dissapoint that you have unlock javelin for both sides yeah. The russian counterpart is so epic, but again american bias.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 26-08-2011, 20:08:05
I pre ordered it today.

It's the first pre order  I've ever made in my life, and I'm not even that hyped for this game (I don't even like modern warfare).
But I was lured with special edition for the price of a regular + free headset, and I was planning to buy it anyway :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 26-08-2011, 21:08:10
What kind of headset?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 26-08-2011, 22:08:24
you get a Jabra bluetooth headset, value of 20 euro
(http://static.bartsmit.com/1303117892/data/products/screenshots/JABRA-bluetooth-headset.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Schneider on 27-08-2011, 00:08:11
The more Natty shouts how the game is a gift from god, the more I puke and never want to play it.

+100

I can't remember the last time I could so fucking intensely relate to another guys post.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: bjack on 01-09-2011, 22:09:51
http://www.bluesnews.com/s/125145/dice-on-releasing-bf3-mod-tools-we-are-considering-it

Well, just to give us a false hope, DICE has teased that there is at least a small chance we will see mod tools.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Alakazou on 01-09-2011, 22:09:26
Haaa I love MW3. ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 01-09-2011, 23:09:52
http://www.bluesnews.com/s/125145/dice-on-releasing-bf3-mod-tools-we-are-considering-it
Well, just to give us a false hope, DICE has teased that there is at least a small chance we will see mod tools.
How exactly is this "different" from any of their previous statements? Game will not ship with mod tools, we might reconsider it, FB engine too hard to mod even for modteams, there's the licencing issue for physics tools, there's the game experience and most importantly, players playing mods will not pay for DLC, ie. dream on.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 01-09-2011, 23:09:41
The more Natty shouts how the game is a gift from god, the more I puke and never want to play it.

except that I never once have said a single word about how BF3 is... You need to read more carefully what people write on the interwebz before you start rage-puking for no reason  :-\
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 01-09-2011, 23:09:06
Ive figured it out.

Its not that natty has this set opinion and is trying to sell us the game (well you are a bit natty :P), its that has has no opinion at all. Its like talking to a fax machine :D nay, cleverbot!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 02-09-2011, 00:09:46
ofcourse I have opinions. I just don't bother with either pointless fanboyizm, or mindless whine about things I yet don't know.
Im more of a janitor, tidying up the confusions and misconceptions. :P

 I hope BF3 will be fun, and I believe that the very talented people behind it will pull it off. That's all.

Our opinions, are pointless.. 2011.10.25 the game releases, some will like it, some won't. There is nothing more to it than that. No need to quasi-analyze DICEs decision on the interwebz... about as much point as complaining about the weather.
('darn, it didn't have to rain today.. It could just as well have been sunny! if that cloud-system just would have passed 100 miles to the east)  :-\
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Fuchs on 02-09-2011, 00:09:35
Oh of course you didn't. Then just let me rephrase; the more you defend the holy gift of god that is DICE, the more I puke and don't want to buy anything from their workforce ever again.

Counter-argument in 3, 2, 1.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 02-09-2011, 01:09:38
How's people's gaming rigs? I know I need a new rig to be capable of dealing with it (and RO:HoS)
My four year old computer can hold it's ground, but not against those games.

my current
CPU: E8400
2x ATI hd4870 crossfire
8 DDR2 RAM
a crappy MB from Foxconn.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 02-09-2011, 07:09:13
Come on Fuchs, stop trolling an old man.
Anyhow, I'd like to know what you guys think of the EULA that comes with Origin.
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/battlefield-3/news/6330914/ea-origin-eula-sparks-privacy-concerns
That's the only thing preventing me from a purchase at the moment.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 02-09-2011, 09:09:57
How's people's gaming rigs? I know I need a new rig to be capable of dealing with it (and RO:HoS)
My four year old computer can hold it's ground, but not against those games.

my current
CPU: E8400
2x ATI hd4870 crossfire
8 DDR2 RAM
a crappy MB from Foxconn.

I'd say you'll be able to play RO (albeit without crossfire as it seems right now the game doesn't like it, not that you need it anyways as the 4870 is as strong as the recommended 5770)... Upgrade to a quad core and you're prolly good for BF3 too...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 02-09-2011, 09:09:29
Quote
..."You agree that EA may collect, use, store and transmit technical and related information that identifies your computer (including the Internet Protocol Address), operating system, Application usage (including but not limited to successful installation and/or removal), software, software usage and peripheral hardware, that may be gathered periodically to facilitate the provision of software updates, dynamically served content, product support and other services to you, including online services," Section 2 reads...

Quote
...The addition of the "software, software usage" verbiage could be interpreted as including the ability to monitor any installed program, regardless of its provenance. EA's Origin EULA also adds the right for the publisher to share whatever it finds with anyone it chooses...
- http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/battlefield-3/news/6330914/ea-origin-eula-sparks-privacy-concerns


Sneaky bastards. I'd like to know how them knowing what's on my HDD is going to help improve "services"... :-\
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 02-09-2011, 09:09:42
The more intrusive spyware they force-feed gamers in the form of DRM and/or digital distribution, the more will acquire their copy from Piratebay instead. Further, any and all copy protections have been cracked or will be cracked, it's just a nuisance that alienates paying customers, nothing more. Of course, if EA Origin is indeed what the EULA claims, that steps way, way over the line.

I really hope someone challenges the provisions of that EULA in a court of law here in Europe - we already have had several cases where a US-written EULA has been declared by a court to be null and void outside the US when it comes to conditions prohibiting reselling, modifying, reverse engineering, etc. Demanding the rights equivalent to a police search warrant in exchange to allow the use of a software is certainly unreasonable. Unfair terms and conditions are automatically voided, so all it takes is one brave individual who can prove that the EA spyware snoops around his computer and takes this to a court, and at least us Euros will probably get a toned-down version of EA Origin as a result.

By the way, how does one differentiate "illegally downloaded material"? There once was a lulzy software that was distributed by the local arm of the copyright mafia, advertised to parents concerned of their children's net usage. What the program did was to simply uninstall all p2p programs (because, you know, torrenting eg. FH2 must be illegal) and then proceed to delete all sound and video files not protected by DRM (this was before even iTunes started selling, whaddyaknow, unprotected mp3's).

---

That said, I cannot understand why I should be forced to install bloated spyware on my computer if I purchase a physical disc copy of a game. So far, my honestly purchased Duke Nukem Forever has been laying in my bookshelf because it tries to force-feed me the Steam. Oh well, maybe I'll just download a pirate copy that certainly does not require Steam.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 02-09-2011, 11:09:27
@Fuchs, I lost interest in what you were talking about... what was it again?

@Cannonfodder... don't youhave Steam? Same thing there, it also "spies" on you and informs Steam about what you do and have on your HDD. (ex; what browser you're using etc)

In the old days, you could buy games on some floppy disk, and read directly from them!
In the not-so-old days you could buy games on CDs and install them, and then play
In the last generation you could start downloading games directly to your computer and play.

Now, games are such complex and big services that it isn't enough with just the games, for the companies to manage their customers. That's the reason you need extra applications. You aren't complaining that you need an Operative System, right? Or that you need a Web browser? Same thing here.
You can ofcourse, continue playing old-school games which don't require anything, but then you will miss out on all the cool stuff that new games & gaming services can provide you.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 02-09-2011, 12:09:21
Yes Natty, but why is everyone so up in arms about it?

AFAIK Steam does not have such an extensive wording in it's EULA, restricting it's 'spying' only to programs used by steam and asks you every single time when you share something with it's service.
That's a big difference to the Origin EULA. What happened to the good old account servers and CD-Keys? That's all the info IMHO that a company needs to prevent pirating of it's software. They'd just have to invest a bit more in good CD-Key encryption software and not just print the bloody things in one go with one algorithm...

Anyone who wants the goodies can still access them via webpage. God knows how many web pages I had to register with and how many accounts EA has from me now. Why force an extra program on me that doesn't help with that?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 02-09-2011, 12:09:13
His answer will probaly be=Piracy


The more you attempt to prevent something from being pirate, the More the thing is actually pirated

Like Spore. Remeber how much money EA poured in it to prevent it from being pirated? in 3 days it was the most pirated game ever with 1.5 million times being downloaded illegaly
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 02-09-2011, 12:09:38
What happened to the good old account servers and CD-Keys? That's all the info IMHO that a company needs to prevent pirating of it's software.

Keyword here being "opinion"^ :) But apparently it isn't all the info they need? If so they wouldnt have made Origin... or Im not sure what the discussion is about, really? That EA developes a platform only for the sake of forcing you to install it? I don't see any reason discussing it... If you refuse to get Origin, play other games... Just like you need iTunes if you want to use an iPod... you can get other mp3 players which dont require iTunes. Im sure Apple could also develop the iPod so you can just get it as an external drive and drag n drop tunes to it. But they didnt, they want you to use iTunes, so that's what you need to do if you want to use their products.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 02-09-2011, 12:09:40
@Natty: Yes i do, good thing I don't use it that often.


I see your point, particularly if we're talking online gaming, but I don't agree with not being given the option (short of piracy) to not use these services.

Perfect example is Civilization V, this isn't what you'd consider an online game, yet I'm forced to have Steam running in the background because it won't work without it.

There is no service Steam can provide me for this game, short of automatically patching the game...but then I'm not entirely useless, I can DL patches myself.


As such, my use of this extra application does absolutely nothing for me or my gaming experience, but it gives Valve the opportunity to wave DLC under my nose.


And speaking of DLC, if they couldn't be bothered putting a proper expansion pack together and putting it on a disc, I couldn't be bothered opening my wallet...:P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 02-09-2011, 13:09:57
Keyword here being "opinion"^ :) But apparently it isn't all the info they need? If so they wouldnt have made Origin... or Im not sure what the discussion is about, really? That EA developes a platform only for the sake of forcing you to install it? I don't see any reason discussing it... If you refuse to get Origin, play other games... Just like you need iTunes if you want to use an iPod... you can get other mp3 players which dont require iTunes. Im sure Apple could also develop the iPod so you can just get it as an external drive and drag n drop tunes to it. But they didnt, they want you to use iTunes, so that's what you need to do if you want to use their products.

You are twisting it around.
I would accept a DRM type of program (like Steam), I could live with that (I don't use any of this iCrap on my PC, WinAMP does quite fine on its own). I just mean, why do they have to try to make an extra buck out of my private data when I cash out 50-60€ while buying their game? EA had a Downloader/Online Store for their games, but it failed and now they are forcing it on me because of their buisness plan.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for competition in a free market and someone has to come in to break steams monopoly, BUT WHY do they need that special passage in their EULA? I want to play and enjoy their game without having to think about what they are reading and scanning in my private files. Yes they say they will only give them away anonymised, but it's already bad that they have my data.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 02-09-2011, 13:09:44
What else happens with your scanned data? Will they delete accounts because users have "suspicious" software, such as P2P programs or programs that can create ISO files that could be used to pirate software? There´s no way to find out what´s going to happen with your data and that´s pretty dangerous.
Another thing that makes Origin pretty unalluring is that you need to be online all the time. Steam atleast has an offline mode, but you can´t play BF 3 (not even the singleplayer mode) without an internet connection.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 02-09-2011, 13:09:52
In the old days, you could buy games on some floppy disk, and read directly from them!
In the not-so-old days you could buy games on CDs and install them, and then play
In the last generation you could start downloading games directly to your computer and play.

Now, games are such complex and big services that it isn't enough with just the games, for the companies to manage their customers. That's the reason you need extra applications. You aren't complaining that you need an Operative System, right? Or that you need a Web browser? Same thing here.
You can ofcourse, continue playing old-school games which don't require anything, but then you will miss out on all the cool stuff that new games & gaming services can provide you.
Ha ha ha.

I wonder why the very same "cool" games can be played on consoles? Also, at least I can choose my web browser and I certainly wouldn't use one that scans my hard drive for "inappropriate" content. Likewise, an operating system would certainly not be allowed to send a report of your computer's contents to anyone, whether you gave a "permission" for that or not. What exactly is this "cool stuff" that could not be implemented with a combination of in-game menus and web browser? I have not seen that in any games yet and don't expect to see one in my lifetime. Downloading updates? Entirely possible to do that in-game. Downloading extra content? Entirely possible to do that in-game as well. Integration with social media? Entirely possible to do that in-game or with game-launched browser session. Charging customers for even the tiniest piece of new content, eventually even updates, and making everything pay-to-play? Yes, for that a new platform is useful. Making it impossible for customers to play an older title when a new title in a franchise is released? Yes, for that "experience" an external application is also very useful. Revoking license for bought games if a single pirated title is found on the computer? Yes, for that an external application is also very useful.

"Managing customers" is thinly veiled excuse for "spying customers so we can target them with commercials and/or tell about them to copyright organizations for a reward". The most appalling thing is that EA already got caught once for the former, got punished, and now they're trying it again? Like I said, US-written EULA is only good for toilet paper in the EU, from a consumer point of view it is unreasonable if a game starts to track what websites I visit, what music I have stored on my computer, etc. Not only is it unnecessary, but it violates privacy in a way that cannot be justified.

The abominable iPod & iTunes combo is a good example of how separate applications are not required except for marketing purposes, intrusion of privacy and censorship. Most other MP3 players do appear as regular USB memory sticks, if proprietary software is not used, and they work very well nevertheless. Somehow, most other webstores also can sell music without installing anything on your computer. But then again, we're talking about Apple here - I wouldn't be surprised if the next generation of Macs would be forced to use AppStore. That would be only logical and historically in line, because free software development and release for the Mac is a recent phenomenon anyway (which is also one of the main reasons why "IBM compatibles" came to dominate the personal computer market since the 1980's will do so for the foreseeable future).

The only kind of digital distribution channel that I approve of is the way Good Old Games are selling games - there's no DRM and no mandatory spyware involved.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 02-09-2011, 14:09:36
Impressive post Kelmola, I fully agree with you.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 02-09-2011, 14:09:32
the EULA may be reworded now, but my BF3 preorder still hangs in the balance. The last thing I want to do is to pay for spam and other such bs while EA makes a tidy buck on my details.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eat Uranium on 02-09-2011, 15:09:55
the EULA may be reworded now, but my BF3 preorder still hangs in the balance. The last thing I want to do is to pay for spam and other such bs while EA makes a tidy buck on my details.
As does mine.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 02-09-2011, 15:09:35
The more I see the things shoved down the throats of players excited to play BF3, like said EULA, having to use Origin, having to use battlelog and etc., the more I am revolted and pushed away from purchasing BF3.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 02-09-2011, 15:09:31
So... many.... posts... with
(http://phogue.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/WALL_OF_TEXT.jpg)

@LuckyOne. Yeah new quad would have been fine, but my MB is not capable of it. I am moving out of the house anyway, leaving the computer. I think I will buy a gaming laptop.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Knitschi on 02-09-2011, 15:09:54
If the EULA doesn't get changed it is no BF3 for me.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 02-09-2011, 15:09:16
Here is a great article from RockPaperShotgun.com which highlights the differences between the Steam EULA and what EA has planned:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/08/24/eas-origin-eula-proves-even-more-sinister/

Creepy.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 02-09-2011, 16:09:25
Here is a great article from RockPaperShotgun.com which highlights the differences between the Steam EULA and what EA has planned:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/08/24/eas-origin-eula-proves-even-more-sinister/

Creepy.
That is SICK. Why, god! Why is DICE under EA? EA just show their true face with that
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 02-09-2011, 20:09:20
O come on, you guys will buy it anyway. You dont give a crap about the privacy and just go with the flow. Atleast mister Natty seems to know whats going on, and Kelmola takes an impressive stance.
Im just here for the ride.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 02-09-2011, 20:09:30
I think the usage of said rights is far different than what people make it out to be. Just as when Google collects information on what websites you visit, and what products you search when you visit those websites. Google AdSense will then display advertisements based around that collected information. For instance I bought a power supply, and later that same day it was advertised by AdSense to me on every webpage I visited.

I don't think Origin will be much different. Origin sounds like Steam in all way shape and form. Just as games like Empire Total War are entirely reliant on Steam to run, so too won't future titles from EA, but that does not mean that Origin will be strictly limited to just EA products, I'm sure, like Steam, Origin will sell games from a wide range of publishers.

The idea is that they collect information about the software on your computer, the websites you visit, and then sift through them to find out which services and products involving gaming appeal to you most. So say I had then entire Battlefield franchise (except for 3) installed on my PC. Well then when I open Origin, I might expect it to display Battlefield 3 advertisements to get my attention to buy that game, because it thinks I have interest in that series.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Musti on 02-09-2011, 20:09:39
I know i won't. I do care about privacy.
Guess Im weird or something.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 03-09-2011, 10:09:10
O come on, you guys will buy it anyway...
Already have, doesn't mean I have to install it though... ;)



Quote
...And then even more creepily, they say they intend to take such information, combine it with personal information about you, and use it to advertise directly to you...

 - http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/08/24/eas-origin-eula-proves-even-more-sinister/


I wonder what we get in exchange for giving them that right? Oh I know, it must be the privilege of using a product we've already paid for... ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 03-09-2011, 10:09:45
I think the usage of said rights is far different than what people make it out to be. Just as when Google collects information on what websites you visit, and what products you search when you visit those websites. Google AdSense will then display advertisements based around that collected information. For instance I bought a power supply, and later that same day it was advertised by AdSense to me on every webpage I visited.

Well yes, but here you can choose to use programs that prevent this (NoScript, AdBlocker et. all just to name a few) and you can delete your cookies... with origin you can only choose to play BF3 or not.
For me that equates to blackmail.

I don't think Origin will be much different. Origin sounds like Steam in all way shape and form. Just as games like Empire Total War are entirely reliant on Steam to run, so too won't future titles from EA, but that does not mean that Origin will be strictly limited to just EA products, I'm sure, like Steam, Origin will sell games from a wide range of publishers.

Steam at least lets you choose when you take part in a 'survey' and only monitors the programs you have in Steam and no where else. That is a huge difference to origins live monitoring as it is laid out in the EULA.

The idea is that they collect information about the software on your computer, the websites you visit, and then sift through them to find out which services and products involving gaming appeal to you most. So say I had then entire Battlefield franchise (except for 3) installed on my PC. Well then when I open Origin, I might expect it to display Battlefield 3 advertisements to get my attention to buy that game, because it thinks I have interest in that series.

Well again, they will/cannot only advertise you stuff that concerns them, but could also do that for other products. Like free porn and heart ache pills, depending on how your emails read out for them. ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 03-09-2011, 14:09:21
I still think you are over reacting, many companies gather information about their customers. Supermarkets do surveys, phone service desks record your calls, companies higher analysts to ponder over thousands of documents of collected data to have trends pointed out, this evil EULA is no different, and most likely you have already agreed to similar rights in previous EA titles you've purchased.

Its data collection for profit gain. EA wants to know what games I have installed on my computer? Fine, whatever, as long as I get to play Battlefield 3.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hitm4k3r on 03-09-2011, 15:09:53
Another thing, that most people don't realize that much IMO and the more important problem: things, that are written in an EULA and what is done in reality are two different things. I am not a friend of stystems like Steam or Origin, because I have no real view about, what kind of information are messaged and how much. Ofcourse Steam can pretend to be nice and ask for permission. But do we really know, what they are doing? Who controlls it, whether they accept the privacy and play by the rules? History tells something different concerning this topic and I think, this will never change. Sadly I need Steam to play RO/DH, an experience I don't want to miss, but when I don't play it I switch off Steam. People who want to play BF3 will take this anyway, but for me it always will be a negative point. I won't buy BF3, because it offers me nothing special or new (besides shiny graphics and fantastic sounds). But my decision is not dependent, whether they use Origin or not. When I play the game, I stiwch it on, when not - I switch it off. Nevertheless it is still negative and I am a littlebit worried concerning the privacy. I simlpy don't want anybody to scan my PC, because it is a part of my privacy. So to say: "I don't care about it" - is a littlebit strange. :-\
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 03-09-2011, 15:09:37
I am not a friend of stystems like Steam or Origin, because I have no real view about, what kind of information are messaged and how much. Ofcourse Steam can pretend to be nice and ask for permission. But do we really know, what they are doing? Who controlls it, whether they accept the privacy and play by the rules?
Illuminati. And the lizard-people.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Gezoes on 03-09-2011, 16:09:46
It's the 'well, what do you have to hide'? principle. But that's the world upside down, so that doesn't fly.

It's nasty but for such a big title, we'll probably get it anyway. Don't like this 'shove it down your throat' blackmail policy, more minus points for DICE/EA. Suits and $$$ at work, bet the dev's don't like it either. It's handy to know hardware and rigs, but why this total Borg attitude. That's just wrong.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 03-09-2011, 17:09:05
If this shit doesn't change, I won't buy it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 03-09-2011, 22:09:03
Hahaha all the privacy lovers that are playing BF2  ;D Go read the Punkbuster EULA and then come back here and we will talk some more. And stop using Google while you are at it.

If you can live with PB scanning your RAM, your Application data and what have you, you can live with Origin doing the same.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 03-09-2011, 23:09:30
Well yes it scans you RAM and active processes, but:
Quote
Is PunkBuster a spyware?
PunkBuster does not collect or maintain any personally identifiable information regarding players. It does not track web surfing habits or log instant messaging conversations either.
Any information that the PunkBuster client uses is mangled in a one way hash so that upon transmission it is completely meaningless.

Source: http://etui.kashu.fr/punkbuster.html

Origin does this as well, but sends the data to EA, where they only state that they will sell your data anonymised, not that they collect it without personal information. Quite an open EULA wording if you ask me. And you can run BF2 without punkbuster contrary to BF3 without Origin.

But hell what do I know...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 04-09-2011, 00:09:33
Part 1

"You agree that EA may collect, use, store and transmit technical and related information that identifies your computer (including the Internet Protocol Address), operating system, Application usage (including but not limited to successful installation and/or removal), software, software usage and peripheral hardware, that may be gathered periodically to facilitate the provision of software updates, dynamically served content, product support and other services to you, including online services."

Nothing revolutionary here, a bunch of programs do this, and a lot of games too. They want to know what my IP address is, what sort of system, including hardware identification that im running, they want to know which pieces of software I have installed so they can then market to me better, and they want to know which software I use most. All of this is designed to help them advertise to me, provide support such as technical support, where an EA representative might be able to easily identify my system and help me troubleshoot, to know where things go so that the program can effectively update, and other such things. Nothing disgusting here, its all typical.

Part 2

"EA may also use this information combined with personal information for marketing purposes and to improve our products and services. We may also share that data with our third party service providers in a form that does not personally identify you."

This part is just telling me what all other Electronic Arts EULA's tell me. When I register with Origin I am giving them my name, address, and other types of personal information to be a part of it. They will then use this information to send me magazine subscriptions, news letters, coupons, or more likely, emails.

The other sentence tells me that they want to be able to share this information with their third party providers, since there is a lot of hands that go into making these games. But the info shared with them wont be personally identifiable, which means I wont be getting advertising from a million different companies. Again, nothing here that's privacy obstructing in any way.

Part 3

"IF YOU DO NOT WANT EA TO COLLECT, USE, STORE, TRANSMIT OR DISPLAY THE DATA DESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION, PLEASE DO NOT INSTALL OR USE THE APPLICATION. This and all other data provided to EA and/or collected by EA in connection with your installation and use of this Application is collected, used, stored and transmitted in accordance with EA’s Privacy Policy located at www.ea.com. To the extent that anything in this section conflicts with the terms of EA’s Privacy Policy, the terms of the Privacy Policy shall control."

This is telling me to say no if I don't want Origin to collect data, but, if I do agree, then all the information collected abides by the Electronic Arts Privacy Policy on their primary page, and if any information is collected which violates that Privacy Policy, then it shall be the ruling document on the proceedings. The EA Privacy Policy is again, something you've already agreed to elsewhere most likely, and again, there is nothing here that seems out of line.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 04-09-2011, 07:09:27
This is telling me to say no if I don't want Origin to collect data, but, if I do agree, then all the information collected abides by the Electronic Arts Privacy Policy on their primary page, and if any information is collected which violates that Privacy Policy, then it shall be the ruling document on the proceedings. The EA Privacy Policy is again, something you've already agreed to elsewhere most likely, and again, there is nothing here that seems out of line.

Not only to say no, but not to use their product.
True, but the data collected, which they didn't do before to this extent, is still collected in this invasive way. And sold for marketing purposes all in accord with EA's second policy which isn't a contract with you and which can be changed without your consent.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 04-09-2011, 14:09:39
This is telling me to say no if I don't want Origin to collect data, but, if I do agree, then all the information collected abides by the Electronic Arts Privacy Policy on their primary page, and if any information is collected which violates that Privacy Policy, then it shall be the ruling document on the proceedings. The EA Privacy Policy is again, something you've already agreed to elsewhere most likely, and again, there is nothing here that seems out of line.

Not only to say no, but not to use their product.
True, but the data collected, which they didn't do before to this extent, is still collected in this invasive way. And sold for marketing purposes all in accord with EA's second policy which isn't a contract with you and which can be changed without your consent.

I still don't get what your getting at, if I say no to any EULA for any game it wont let me install it. How is this any different than any of those? "To this extent"? Programs have been gathering information like this for ages.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 04-09-2011, 14:09:32
I was hinting at the EULA for Punkbuster, you can run the game without punkbuster, but not without Origin.

Which game/program do you know, that check your browser history, your Registry/mails and who knows what else and then sends them home to the respective company?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 04-09-2011, 14:09:28
I was hinting at the EULA for Punkbuster, you can run the game without punkbuster, but not without Origin.

Which game/program do you know, that check your browser history, your Registry/mails and who knows what else and then sends them home to the respective company?

Like, its not that I like the idea of needing Origin to run the game, but I fail to see how what you are agreeing to is so terrible.

Just because it says it will collect data, doesn't mean it specifies how. Just as when you sign up for something like Playstation Network or Xbox Live you need to give them your personal information, I don't doubt that Origin will be any different.

Where did it say that they can check your emails? Your just becoming paranoid and finding ridiculous things for it to collect, it says no where that Origin is going to steal your passwords, login into your Email and read them. Browser history? There are plenty of programs, like Google AdSense (that even though you can block it with 3rd party software) collect that information and use it for advertising, Facebook, and plenty of other websites do this. There is nothing revolutionary here, and nothing you havn't agreed to elsewhere.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 04-09-2011, 15:09:11
Adsense runs on homepages that you browse to and which you can effectively prevent from tracking you.
Origin runs on your PC. That's the main difference here.

The EULA is very open as to what they will be 'evaluating'. I just want to raise some peoples conscience here that you are getting a bit more with your candy (BF3) than just 'another' Steam-like platform.
The bit with the mails was exaggerated of course, but that's what will come next. Yahoo has gone that step last month, just like Google-mail does as well. (both programs, that I would never want to use for anything important!)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 04-09-2011, 15:09:01
Adsense runs on homepages that you browse to and which you can effectively prevent from tracking you.
Origin runs on your PC. That's the main difference here.

The EULA is very open as to what they will be 'evaluating'. I just want to raise some peoples conscience here that you are getting a bit more with your candy (BF3) than just 'another' Steam-like platform.
The bit with the mails was exaggerated of course, but that's what will come next. Yahoo has gone that step last month, just like Google-mail does as well. (both programs, that I would never want to use for anything important!)

It really sounds to me like your blowing this whole thing way out of proportion. I read the EA Privacy Policy and this supposed evil clause and see no reason to be angry at Electronic Arts. There is simply nothing included in them that I have not agreed to a hundred different times.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 04-09-2011, 17:09:53
I'm just concerned. I mean why would big gaming-sites and IT-News-sites report about it if it were so commonplace and usual?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DaWorg! on 04-09-2011, 17:09:41
Next will be cars, which will track where are you going with them to better advertise to you shops along the way to your work   ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 04-09-2011, 19:09:11
Next will be cars, which will track where are you going with them to better advertise to you shops along the way to your work   ;D

They've already gone there. When you use Google Latitude on your Android Smartphone you are giving Google the possibility and rights to do just that. ;)

Anyhow, I'd still like to know why the news-sites featured it so predominantly when it's something usual and not new?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 04-09-2011, 20:09:18
Well yes it scans you RAM and active processes, but:
Quote
Is PunkBuster a spyware?
PunkBuster does not collect or maintain any personally identifiable information regarding players. It does not track web surfing habits or log instant messaging conversations either.
Any information that the PunkBuster client uses is mangled in a one way hash so that upon transmission it is completely meaningless.

Source: http://etui.kashu.fr/punkbuster.html

Origin does this as well, but sends the data to EA, where they only state that they will sell your data anonymised, not that they collect it without personal information. Quite an open EULA wording if you ask me. And you can run BF2 without punkbuster contrary to BF3 without Origin.

But hell what do I know...

My dear reporter, at least EA is up front with what they are going to do and how they are going to do it. Punkbuster I have to believe on their "pretty blue eyes". Just like Google claims to do "No evil"

Know this, the moment you plug your PC/Smartphone/tablet on the Internet there is no such thing as privacy.
Google know the stuff you are doing, FB or other social media sites knows a shit load of things about you and even in forums like this I can find lots of personal details about people. And let's not forget the thousands of trojans out there waiting to infect your PC.

The point is that armed with this knowledge you must think about how much you are will to divulge of yourself. You think your computer is personal? Then think about the amount of personal details that you are sharing everyday on the Web, willingly and unwillingly.

And don't take it personal it just that suddenly everybody is screaming blood hell and murder on various fora, while in their signature I see their XBox live tag, PSN ID and Facebook link. It just facepalms me to think about it  :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 04-09-2011, 21:09:09
So it's just me and my outdated feeling for privacy?
As I stated before, what information you give away online is clear and somewhat under your control.
Now I personally am just a bit reserved about giving away that bit of control as well. I really looked forward to BF3 but this is still a pain in my side...

I don't think that a software like PB would have survived as long as it did if they'd really not stick to the MD5hash feedback. Especially as they aren't as 'up front about it' as EA. ;D

Is it really just me having problems with that? I guess I'll just set up a new System for BF3 on a SSD.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 05-09-2011, 10:09:15
No no you're feelings for privacy is correct, only your notion that Origin is more "evil" then the current applications that you have is misguided in mine opion.
But let's contest this when the game is out, if it really scans all your installed software, upload all your files in My Document, My pictures, etc, to EA, it truly will be evil  :).

Like I wrote earlier, if you have private, sensitive data that you do not want to share with the world, please do not put it on a PC connected to Internet or at least be aware the things do get hacked.

LUZSec showed how anoying this can get with the PSN hack. If tommorow someone would hack PB, they would have a nice way to get access to millions of PC's.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 05-09-2011, 14:09:51
Ah well, I bought a SSD today and I'm going to set up a nice clean system for BF3's beta now.
Not a solution for people with little money, but I always wanted to try a SSD based system, so this is the perfect pretext. ^^
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paasky on 05-09-2011, 17:09:28
After I replaced my laptop HDD with SSD, it's become faster than my desktop at certain things, like opening windows (~20sec) and programs, also tasks which require a lotr of I/O obviously.
Ex:
My laptop was faster at converting open street maps to a format my map app could read. France was 1.2gb, Germany 890mb. Laptop converted France in ~20h, desktop converted Germany in ~26h.

Laptop has 1.3GHz Core2 Duo & 4GB 1066MHz DDR, desktop has 3GHz AMD Athlon II triple core & 8GB 1333MHz DDR.

When I installed win7 from a usb-stick it took 12 minutes ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Alakazou on 05-09-2011, 20:09:31
Ah well, I bought a SSD today and I'm going to set up a nice clean system for BF3's beta now.
Not a solution for people with little money, but I always wanted to try a SSD based system, so this is the perfect pretext. ^^

I love my SSD when I use it with FH2 :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 06-09-2011, 16:09:34
After I replaced my laptop HDD with SSD, it's become faster than my desktop at certain things, like opening windows (~20sec) and programs, also tasks which require a lotr of I/O obviously.
Ex:
My laptop was faster at converting open street maps to a format my map app could read. France was 1.2gb, Germany 890mb. Laptop converted France in ~20h, desktop converted Germany in ~26h.

Laptop has 1.3GHz Core2 Duo & 4GB 1066MHz DDR, desktop has 3GHz AMD Athlon II triple core & 8GB 1333MHz DDR.

When I installed win7 from a usb-stick it took 12 minutes ;D

Hey that's sound great Paasky which one did you buy and how large is it. I've never tinkered around with a laptop before, is it easy to replace the HDD?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 06-09-2011, 16:09:29
Hey that's sound great Paasky which one did you buy and how large is it. I've never tinkered around with a laptop before, is it easy to replace the HDD?

Since I've just bought one, I'll take over if it's ok. :)
You can get a nice and fast (ranked 6. OCZ-VERTEX 2) SSD from OCZ with 120GB for 144€.
Replacing HDDs in Laptops is a dream (I do it quite often at work), just unscrew the cover and pull it out. The SATA Connectors only allow one way to be plugged in, so you can't really do anything wrong at that bit. :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paasky on 06-09-2011, 17:09:04
Mine is a 96 GB Kingston SSDnow v100+, got it for 104 € IIRC.

If you also buy a USB-SATA cable you can use your old HDD as an external movie/picture/music drive ;) I bought this one: http://www.dealextreme.com/p/usb-2-0-to-sata-adapter-cable-for-2-5-sata-hdd-80cm-cable-37385 Payed with PayPal and it arrived about 2 weeks later, works perfectly. You might want to dish out a bit extra for this though http://www.dealextreme.com/p/dual-usb-to-sata-adapter-cable-with-2-5-plastic-sata-hdd-case-29984

I made my HDD case with my dad from old plywood ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 06-09-2011, 19:09:29
Hmm this sounds very interesting. I'll have to check which drive is faster, Paasky's or Reporter's
Next question, did you guys migrate the OS and data to the new drive or just went for a fresh install ?
Nevermind the question, I found a site with a good explanation --> http://blog.laptopmag.com/help-me-laptop-how-do-i-move-windows-7-to-my-new-ssd

And good tip on the SATA to USB cable, at least I will have a cheap external disk that way.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: siben on 06-09-2011, 19:09:28
A bit of topic, but buy something like this:

http://www.pixmania.be/be/nl/2729631/art/freecom/extern-dockingstation-har.html

You connect it with USB and just stick your HDD in, some models take multiple and even laptop hard drives.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 06-09-2011, 20:09:54
I've got an Esata port, but unfortunately you can't get faster speed using Esata.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Stefan on 06-09-2011, 21:09:13
note i wouldnt use SSD without WIN7 cause of trim support, and fresh install does wonders.

personally installed several intel 320 series SATA2 drives, all run flawless and fast.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paasky on 07-09-2011, 00:09:35
I made a fresh install, and had all of my data ready on my new external drive ;) But I did also move all the music/pictures/documents/savegames onto my desktop, then formatted the old HDD. I also inserted a 16gb SD-card I had into the card reader as my music drive, so in effect I constantly have 96+16gb disk space + my external drive for movies & as my backup drive for important stuff.

My laptop doesn't have a dvd-drive, so I had to download a win7 home premium torrent, extracted the image onto a usb-stick and just used the product key under my laptop. It took about an hour to install win7, sp1 & drivers. Usually that takes about 2-3h :)

If you do get a sata-usb thing, make sure it has both the data & power coming from the usb, it's really annoying if you need a separate power supply as usb has enough power to operate a laptop hdd.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 07-09-2011, 07:09:40
Oh by the way, if you are planing on using the SSD as your main system disc, think about redirecting your User folder to another HDD. Having it on your SSD will lead to it's quicker demise since SSD's only have a certain number of read/write operations before they die. They have a limited number of P/E cycles. Also don't forget to switch off Win7's auto defragmentation, as this also has an effect on the P/E cycles.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Stefan on 08-09-2011, 01:09:53
Oh by the way, if you are planing on using the SSD as your main system disc, think about redirecting your User folder to another HDD. Having it on your SSD will lead to it's quicker demise since SSD's only have a certain number of read/write operations before they die. They have a limited number of P/E cycles. Also don't forget to switch off Win7's auto defragmentation, as this also has an effect on the P/E cycles.

add temp folder and page file also to the list.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 08-09-2011, 14:09:20
Oh by the way, if you are planing on using the SSD as your main system disc, think about redirecting your User folder to another HDD. Having it on your SSD will lead to it's quicker demise since SSD's only have a certain number of read/write operations before they die. They have a limited number of P/E cycles. Also don't forget to switch off Win7's auto defragmentation, as this also has an effect on the P/E cycles.

This is good practice even without having a SSD. I try to keep my system drive as small as possible. I am currently trying to find how I can see if my Esata port is powered. Like Paasky said I don't want to have another power cable.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 09-09-2011, 20:09:47
Night map:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5eLbPQt_Pk&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5eLbPQt_Pk&feature=player_embedded)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 09-09-2011, 21:09:37
Singleplayer though. Would be cool to have a MP night map, the lighting engine will reallly shine.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 09-09-2011, 21:09:18
It looks beautiful and life-like, no question about that. It'll be interesting to see how it plays when they release a demo, and let's hope this Origin ordeal isn't as bad as it sounds at the moment.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zeno on 20-09-2011, 22:09:25
so beta is comming 29 september, anyone ready?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 21-09-2011, 00:09:57
I probably wont be able to run it well, but I will be playing the beta.  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 21-09-2011, 08:09:51
No conquest map in the beta? Are they kidding me?!  ???
The CQ was just a PR gag to get all the preorders of the BF2 fanbase...  :'(
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 21-09-2011, 10:09:37
I hope that doesn't mean what I think it means...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 21-09-2011, 11:09:28
Won´t be able to run it, don´t want to bother with Origin, don´t care about modern warfare-pimp-your-gun-stuff, no 64- player Conquest maps and basically the Alpha with a new name: No thanks.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 21-09-2011, 11:09:55
they dont need to run 64 players maps to test their game, 32 does just fine, testing server stabilities etc.

64p on one map wouldnt help in balancing/design purposes.. they handle that fine by themselves.. beta is mostly for stabiliy/connection issues, where 32 works just as fine.

beta is not for you to play and have fun. it's a last check before release.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 21-09-2011, 12:09:18
True, but since there is no sign of a Demo for BF3, it would have been nice to see if this aspect of the game lives up to what it promises.

Forgive me, but I don't take comments made by payed news-sites and devs for face value any more. I've been disappointed way past that sentiment.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 21-09-2011, 12:09:07
I think it is a bit disappointing there wont be a true 64 conquest map in the public beta, since, that's one of these figure head features they are championing. However, I'm excited to play regardless of the match size or game type, I wanna know how BF3 is going to play out.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 21-09-2011, 12:09:13


Forgive me, but I don't take comments made by payed news-sites and devs for face value any more. I've been disappointed way past that sentiment.
Seconded...

Homefront...
remeber mothafailing homefront
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 21-09-2011, 13:09:26
they dont need to run 64 players maps to test their game, 32 does just fine, testing server stabilities etc.

64p on one map wouldnt help in balancing/design purposes.. they handle that fine by themselves.. beta is mostly for stabiliy/connection issues, where 32 works just as fine.

Yeah, that's probably what RO 2 guys thought, too. Look what happened to them...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 21-09-2011, 13:09:06
they dont need to run 64 players maps to test their game, 32 does just fine, testing server stabilities etc.

64p on one map wouldnt help in balancing/design purposes.. they handle that fine by themselves.. beta is mostly for stabiliy/connection issues, where 32 works just as fine.

Yeah, that's probably what RO 2 guys thought, too. Look what happened to them...
^THIS
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 21-09-2011, 14:09:20
The only thing that needs to be stress tested is the front end. Of all the previous BF games I haven't had any problems with instability when playing. The problem was mostly related to the account servers, friend lists and server browsers.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 21-09-2011, 15:09:02
Im pretty sure someone said the Caspian Border map was going in aswell.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 21-09-2011, 16:09:18
The only thing that needs to be stress tested is the front end.

hehe, not really... there's quite a lot of things that gamers arent aware of, that needs testing.Things you don't see as a player.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 21-09-2011, 17:09:58
Im pretty sure someone said the Caspian Border map was going in aswell.

Quote
I SEE THERE ARE SERVERS UP FOR A SECOND MAP ON PC. CAN I ACCESS AND PLAY THIS MAP?

No. THIS MAP IS ONLY FOR INTERNAL BACK-END TESTS.

From the official BF3 Beta FAQ (http://www.battlefield.com/battlefield3/1/beta). So Op Metro only, no other maps.




And a statement by zh1nt0, DICEs community manager about why they chose Op Metro and its game mode:
Quote
Stepping a bit further into development and closer to launch, this is a very good way for us to try out all the bits and pieces we have added in and changed since the Alpha.

The Alpha was very important from a server side of view. Now we´re in Beta. Not only does the server side need to be tested but also the complete game client.
What this means is that we pick one map:

Metro: We have already showed this map and made some big changes to it to enhance gameplay as well as get it more fluent than in the Alpha.

Lots of new things have been added in closer to launch. Our rank progression system as well as customizations have made their way into the beta and it´s very important for us to test these things before we launch.

That is the purpose of the Beta as well as combining it with Battlelog and all of the features there.

If you feel that this isn´t the right map for you, then perhaps we don´t really agree on what maps we want to see. Other than that, I do hope people will have a great time playing it and will enjoy the Beta smile.gif

Oh, I also think it´s kind off odd, that TWI managed to get all of their maps into their 2 weeksBeta, so people could try them out and find bugs and performance issues, yet DICE doesn´t want that/isn´t able to do that. o0
So, it´s basically more a "battlelog" Beta than a gameplay Beta, right?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 22-09-2011, 10:09:06
It is announced as Beta, but the public will pick it up as a demo and treat it as such.
For me this is about getting a first look at the gameplay,engine and let's not forget the sounds!

By the way no bombs on jets. Only rockets, don't know if there are air to ground missiles.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 26-09-2011, 15:09:45
One of the cheapest sites I've found: BF3 is only 24 euros and the limited edition is 29.
link (http://www.cjs-cdkeys.com/search.php?mode=1&search_query_adv=battlefield+3&brand=11&searchsubs=ON&price_from=20&price_to=30&featured=&shipping=1)

Site might look a bit spoofy but guys checked at the EA chat and it has been confirmed that it works safely. It gives you a code you can then verify on Origin.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 26-09-2011, 15:09:58
From what i have heard, these guys purchase CD keys in Gigantic amounts in one time, thus the low price.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 26-09-2011, 16:09:35
By the way no bombs on jets. Only rockets, don't know if there are air to ground missiles.

This might have been a mix-up, because now they're saying that jets will not have dumb bombs. So it's not definitive: they might have smart bombs (which will need lazes from infantry) by standard layout, or you need to use a special unlock/perk to carry LG bombs, or they're simply talking about the ground attack aircraft.

Either way, the jets seem to have been completely overhauled compared to BF2's system which IMO seems to be great. We'll have to just wait and see for the final results.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 26-09-2011, 16:09:14
I hope so, you have to admit planes in BF2 where OP. AA defenses where weak....
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 26-09-2011, 16:09:34
Oh, I also think it´s kind off odd, that TWI managed to get all of their maps into their 2 weeksBeta, so people could try them out and find bugs and performance issues, yet DICE doesn´t want that/isn´t able to do that. o0
So, it´s basically more a "battlelog" Beta than a gameplay Beta, right?

right. DICE doesnt need much "game play beta" allthough it's good to see public behaviour. Mostly beta's is stability, connectivity etc.. things that players dont really understand.. it's a way of testing what the system can handle and not handle.

RO2 is a tiny little game compared to the frostbite/BF3/battlelog system, you cant compare the two at all.... If dice needed to test all their maps in public before release, they would.
Keep in mind we live in D2C (Direct-to-consumer) times now, meaning, a game can be patched virtually every day since the automated updaters will send you data eachtime you start the game, so any issues regarding gameplay or so can be fixed on-the-fly.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hslan.Grim on 26-09-2011, 17:09:13
As long as planes don't have OP rockets I am happy
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: HadrianBT on 27-09-2011, 00:09:19
Well, the jets were very powerful in BF2, but they should be so. And their spawnrate was about two times slower than that for armor and APC. So when you die, you had to wait double the time plus stand among many other seagulls shouting "Mine!" :)

Also, it was the more rewarding when you get a jet down with a crappy stationary AA. You just need to be smart (hide nearby and jump in only when you know the jet is already passing by, launch the missles and hide again).

The only problem I have with flight physics of BF2 - helicopter barrel rolls. Which are not possible in real life. Although, I have to admit, they were extremely effective when dodging TV missles. And then, even PR had this unrealistic feature...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 27-09-2011, 00:09:57
It is possible. Just ask Turkey.  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: HadrianBT on 27-09-2011, 01:09:35
Turkey? And there is absolutely no aerodynamic moment to keep a heli in air when it is tilted 90 degrees.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 27-09-2011, 02:09:58
Turkey? And there is absolutely no aerodynamic moment to keep a heli in air when it is tilted 90 degrees.

Explain those then:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=413EyCwUDCw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7qCjs-AzXs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us18o7qOXjI&feature=related

It is very possible IRL...  (Not with every helicopter though)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: HadrianBT on 27-09-2011, 05:09:40
Nice, videos, thanks. Ok, Lynx and Red Bull helicopters can do a barrel roll (I have seen the one with Lynx about a year ago). Apache did a loop only, which I was not arguing about (thus the third video is not applicable), as well as most common attack helicopters I know.

There is just too little momentum for a helicopter to do a barrel roll. You need to have enough speed to do that, so very agile lightweight helicopters should be fine, i.e. littlebird etc, but not the heavier ones.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 27-09-2011, 09:09:52
Those choppers were performing aileron rolls and loops. No barrel rolls in sight. And as much I would like to ask HadrianBT to give us some concrete evidence to back up his claim, I must remind you that this is a Battlefield 3 thread.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 27-09-2011, 09:09:12
The Ground-to-air game play is alot better in BFP4F than in BF2... Why is that relevant to BF3? I dont know!  :o But maybe because 2005 and 2011 is 6 years in between, 6 years of progress in design, technology, art, maybe DICE and EA is better at making games now, than in 2005? omg, what a revelation! Maybe it could even be applied to other speculations and comparisons between a 2005 game and a 2011 game, who knows ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 27-09-2011, 16:09:44
Relax Natty, people are actually positive about these little tidbits of news. Time for me to go home, check if my Beta key is in the mail and rock on in Paris  ;D

Don't forget, if you are participating in the Beta, there are drivers out from NVIDIA and AMD that boost performance in BF3, or so they claim:

NVIDIA: http://www.geforce.com/Drivers/Beta (http://www.geforce.com/Drivers/Beta)

AMD: http://support.amd.com/us/Pages/AMDCatalyst1110Previewdriver.aspx (http://support.amd.com/us/Pages/AMDCatalyst1110Previewdriver.aspx)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: azreal on 27-09-2011, 18:09:00
Just got my beta key after coming back from class! So excited to start playing.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 28-09-2011, 08:09:52
This game is way too noobified...sniper glint like a flash light attached to their scopes that can be seen from everywhere. Derp spotting (3d spotting) acts like a wallhack following everyone, even through bushes and rocks. You have a squad leader that doesnt do anything special just to call airstrikes and that's it. Everyone can spawn in everyone like BC2 (a fail system). Bullet damage is way too high, way too high. The recon has a mobile spawn, where the enemy can automatically spawn behind your back and nobody notices it because it's too goddamn small and people dont even know what it is.

And they even removed the LAV-25 from the map, and their promise of "everything unlockable" was a lie. The mortar for example cant be unlocked.

Also, the killcam is the worst thing to come to BF, after derp spotting. I dont have high hopes for this game yet. The community has way too long said this things to DICE and they stubbornly dont listen, they prefer to attract the noob and cod community.

And I dont think we will ever get mod tools, so prepare for a massive dissapointment with this game.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 28-09-2011, 09:09:44
It's still quite rough and with 1 Month left before they plan on releasing this game, I'm a bit set back.
-The animations look like they've been ripped directly from other Dice games, namely Mirror's Edge, where every small ledge you try to jump over results in a full-out joust over said ledge (most of the times, sometimes the collisions do register and make you climb over it).

-Collisions still feel a bit odd and the destruction 2.0 is rather a step back from BC2, the scripted bits falling off of walls and stiff tree physics are more apparent than ever before.

- Textures are ok, but (IMHO) you can see that the details were toned down to run on the consoles. (I'm playing with everything on high and it still looks a bit worse than BC2 (which is strange, as that was also made with Consoles in mind)

- The gameplay feels like BC2 on speed which is almost too fast for my taste.

- Origin.... oh my god Origin... now DICE is innocent on this part, but by god, how can you fuck around and produce a program like this? It is everything but consumer friendly... You have to start Origin, then press start BF3 there, then your browser opens and you can choose a server via battlelog, then Origin starts again and loads up BF3 and then the browser tells you that the game is ready to play and you can finally join up the game from there (if it doesn't decide to drop you into some Queue in the last second.  ;D

- Oh and the worst bit of BC2 is back for more... you still can't open the score tab and the options while being dead! I like to change my keys and view my score while being dead, not while someone can still shoot at me. Also you can't exit the game, you always have to wait to respawn to disconnect... come on people! ^^

- As Yustax said, the Deathcam is bad... plain and simple. Like above, I want to view my score when dead and not stare at the ugly face of my killer from 5" away. It's especially painful when you see the errors in the animations from that distance. Who thought that this was a good game-mechanic?! ^^

Other than that, finding a server isn't as bad as it was with BC2s beta... that's good, although the amount of servers available is quite conservative, hope they up that number by another x thousand for Friday. ^^

Ah well, let's say it's still the beta, so all will be well in 1 month.  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yeah right...^^
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 28-09-2011, 10:09:06
TotalBiscuit takes a look at the BF3 beta:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0POAnWAmV0w
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 28-09-2011, 10:09:27
Raises some good points. Especially not being able to change any settings without joining a server. Ridiculous. Some issues I still have is regarding squad play, 4 player squads are too small, squads no longer have callsigns as far as I can tell which makes teamwork between squads difficult to say the least and squadleader only spawning was much better than spawn on every squad member.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 28-09-2011, 10:09:21
hm

not sure if BF3 is worth it
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 28-09-2011, 11:09:29
At the moment I would still prefer RO2. ^^
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 28-09-2011, 12:09:34
This game is way too noobified...

I won't judge until I play it, but it certainly sounds like it... ::)

I'm not a fan of either jets or snipers in BF2, but the way they've nerfed the jets (by removing the bombs) is ridiculous and comes across as laziness.

And making snipers easy to see kinda defeats their whole purpose, without the ability to hide they're nothing more than a soldier with a long-range rifle.


It's just not Battlefield if you don't get sniped and blown into orbit at least once a round... :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 28-09-2011, 12:09:56
7-minute Caspian border HD Beta gameplay (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO2hrjKeMY0&feature=player_embedded).
Btw, didn´t DICE say they´d change the "enemy spotted doritos" so that they´d disappear after you lose visual contact with the spotted enemy and yet we see that feature in-game. Oh, and what about the COM-ROSE, is it already in-game?
Another thing that makes me cringe and a little bit destroys immersion for me (and probably makes me sound like some nit-picking nerd) is seeing the player models constantly having their index finger on their guns trigger, while running, reloading or just standing around.
With all those advises and "inside knowledge" DICE got from Andy McNab to make the game "absolutely immersive" I kinda find it odd to see that in-game, since it´s a basic rule of firearms safety...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Gezoes on 28-09-2011, 12:09:12
This doesn't sound good to be honest...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 28-09-2011, 12:09:08
Caspian Border map is what we need. I do not like the Rush game mode.

Haha just noticed the jets taking off from a dirt strip.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 28-09-2011, 14:09:39
I wonder if they decided to bring out the beta with mostly medium textures and ultra setting not working to prevent mass Internet complaining about bad peformance.

Tonight I finally have some time to check it out myself.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 28-09-2011, 14:09:29
Why the hell is that Caspian Border gameplay video giving me the "this video is private" crap? When I have the link I should be able to watch it, no? :-X
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 28-09-2011, 14:09:13
Would be a strange reason. After all, betas and demos are supposed to get people interested enough to buy the game, and great-looking visual do sell games for the casual gamer. For comparison, practically nobody had the hardware to run FarCry or Crysis on maximum settings when they were released, but that did not stop Crytek releasing demos with maximum details allowed.

Also, since betatesting is supposed to reveal problems in the game, shouldn't the max settings be included just to see what happens to the game when a client runs out of resources - does it cause warping, lag for others, what?

Oh well. Maybe they think that if a max-detail beta is released, too many people will get enough of vanilla BF3 before ever buying the retail version, so they hold the full visuals back as an incentive to buy it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: mopskind on 28-09-2011, 14:09:00
Try this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwJK1KedEPs
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 28-09-2011, 16:09:02
(http://i55.tinypic.com/34t4f1x.jpg)
soon...
U mirin brah?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 28-09-2011, 16:09:19

Btw, didn´t DICE say they´d change the "enemy spotted doritos" so that they´d disappear after you lose visual contact with the spotted enemy and yet we see that feature in-game. Oh, and what about the COM-ROSE, is it already in-game?

They say so, but playing the beta...and it's the same thing, the same doritos going through rock and bushes and everything. C-Rose is not in the beta perhaps full game.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 28-09-2011, 16:09:12

Btw, didn´t DICE say they´d change the "enemy spotted doritos" so that they´d disappear after you lose visual contact with the spotted enemy and yet we see that feature in-game. Oh, and what about the COM-ROSE, is it already in-game?

They say so, but playing the beta...and it's the same thing, the same doritos going through rock and bushes and everything. C-Rose is not in the beta perhaps full game.
Doubtful.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 28-09-2011, 17:09:54
since Ro2 i have doubts with "Beta's"
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 28-09-2011, 17:09:42
They say so, but playing the beta...and it's the same thing, the same doritos going through rock and bushes and everything. C-Rose is not in the beta perhaps full game.
Doubtful.
[/quote]
Didn´t they promised to add the COMMO-ROSE atleast to the PC version, after a fierce protest of fans?
I´m not sure if I´ll ever get this game. From what DICE has released and from what I´ve read/seen in reviews this game looks more and more like some bland hotch-potch of "great" features and less like a unique and "true" Battlefield game...
It´s just so much stuff, like BC-styled spotting, all that unlock-rank-insignia-madness, small-ish maps, removal of bombs from jets, slow flying jets, auto heal, no mod and map support and that Origin with its rather creepy  EULAs...I think I rather safe my money for something else.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 28-09-2011, 18:09:23
yay! another "dice promised" post  ;D should make that lol-collage some day

more "they promised" lulz: http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/search.php?searchid=4112109
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 28-09-2011, 18:09:08
more "they promised" lulz: http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/search.php?searchid=4112109

Quote
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

    You are not logged in. Fill in the form at the bottom of this page and try again.
    You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
    If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

That link was worth a click.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 28-09-2011, 18:09:20
just log in with your EA account  ::)

if you can't be bothered, Ill sum it up: it's a collection of funny threads that contain the phrase "dice promised", some of them are very amusing to read, in their own little naive cutyness
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 28-09-2011, 18:09:45
What is an EA Account? Is it the same thing I use to log into BF2?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: kummitus on 28-09-2011, 18:09:05
Quote
EA™ Forum Message
To use these boards, please create a new account at http://profile.ea.com/.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 28-09-2011, 19:09:23
What is an EA Account? Is it the same thing I use to log into BF2?
universal profile for using any of EAs online services, like logging in to games, forums, stores etc..
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 28-09-2011, 19:09:20
Just answer my question. Is it the same I use to log into BF2? Stop with the eyerolling. Not all of us use something like that so you shouldnt take it for granted.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 28-09-2011, 19:09:15
What eye-roll? I answered...
https://profile.ea.com
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 28-09-2011, 19:09:34
just log in with your EA account  ::)

That eyeroll. It made you look very arrogant, as if you think everyone uses something like an "EA" account. And no, you didnt answer my question. I asked you wether it is the same I use to login to BF2 and all I got was

Quote
universal profile for using any of EAs online services, like logging in to games, forums, stores etc..

when I could have just needed a yes/no answer. And I still dont know if "games" include BF2. Not that this matters since I am not going to login to it anyway.

Thanks for making this complicated.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 28-09-2011, 19:09:34
What eye-roll? I answered...
https://profile.ea.com
No you did not! READ THE QUESTION AND STOP TROLLING FOR ONCE! ::)

It is NOT the account you log in to BF2 with. It's the one you use for example in BC2.

This pointless discussion ends HERE. I will delete everything if you try to continue that arguing. Back to BF3.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 28-09-2011, 20:09:07


Anyways. Starting up the Beta now. I fear I will be "Dice i am disappoint", but I have to hope for the best. My other fear is that my comp will explode.. on http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri/ I just barely peak over "Minimum" :/


*You cheeky little... ;D *
- Thorondor
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 28-09-2011, 20:09:42


Anyways. Starting up the Beta now. I fear I will be "Dice i am disappoint", but I have to hope for the best.

Right now I'm dissappoint :( It does not have the Battlefield spirit. I do not feel it is a Battlefield game. Maybe because I am too conservative, or maybe because of my rig that gives me 30 fps. I want hundreds of full Battlefield 1942 servers again :/

Edit: It's no doubt a good game, but a IMHO a Battlefield game? naah
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 28-09-2011, 21:09:34
Look now; ultra high bullet damage, few hits and you're dead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCJGFN9zyRA
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 28-09-2011, 21:09:38
Right now I'm dissappoint :( It does not have the Battlefield spirit. I do not feel it is a Battlefield game.

ROFL... 41 minutes later and you make that analysis?  ;D


"ok"  8) let's see what you say after having played the full game a few months instead.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 28-09-2011, 21:09:24
Let's hope so :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: FatJoe on 28-09-2011, 21:09:12
How does one participate in this open beta? I'm lost :|

Also.. I propose that we remove the sunglasses smiley and the eye rolling smiley.. I think it will help Natty look less arrogant..
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 28-09-2011, 21:09:24
"ok"  8) let's see what you say after having played the full game a few months instead.

So nowadays we're supposed to buy a game first and only then determine whether or not it was worth its money?
I miss the good old days when a demo or beta actually tried to represent the game and tried to deliver a great first experience to make people buy it.  ???


Anyway, has anyone played Caspian Border and tried the helicopters? I'm very curious as to whether they fly normally like BF2 or like BC2's degrated console/noob system.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 28-09-2011, 21:09:41
Omg this game is nothing like Codename Eagle I wantz mah meoney back .....

Damn EA borked my beta key, I did have time to watch Total Biscuit review, that was nice.

@Pink Tutu
Wait till tomorrow, then everybody is supposed to get access.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 28-09-2011, 21:09:57
Another HD Caspian Border video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1PBeCMPNQA&feature=player_embedded#!), showing some tank footage etc. The tank 3rd person view looks uncanily familiar. o0
And telephone poles work perfectly fine as tank traps. ^^
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 28-09-2011, 21:09:48
TotalBiscuit plays BF3 - Caspian Border:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9ndz13zUms

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4ZL0Z3oiK8&feature=feedu
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: FatJoe on 28-09-2011, 22:09:09
@Pink Tutu
Wait till tomorrow, then everybody is supposed to get access.

HAHAHA
good lord I miss you guys..

good, thanks for the info :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 29-09-2011, 01:09:58
TotalBiscuit plays BF3 - Caspian Border:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9ndz13zUms

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4ZL0Z3oiK8&feature=feedu
He has a good point! And turned my frown upside down. That looks like a Battlefield game! That gameplay looks amazing, unlike the mediocre gameplay I have had on Operation Metro. Why do we get MoH gameplay in a Battlefield game? I have searched for Caspian Border servers, but all of them requires a freaking password. That sucks a big fat one. I hope Caspian becomes unlocked for all of us when the Beta is released for everyone..
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ajs47951 on 29-09-2011, 01:09:24
does beta have SINGLE PLAYER AND LAN?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 29-09-2011, 01:09:00
does beta have SINGLE PLAYER AND LAN?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvdf5n-zI14
Nope.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 29-09-2011, 10:09:01
Nice parking action  :D

(http://i.imgur.com/ddPYs.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 29-09-2011, 12:09:26
I don't understand why they bother getting a public beta instead of giving us a proper demo. I guess the gaming industry has changed last couple of years. Demo's seem to be regarded as  a waist of time...

Also there have been very few innovating games since the financial crisis. I guess publishers want to play safe and milk out their popular franchise. 
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 29-09-2011, 12:09:40
I don't understand why they bother getting a public beta instead of giving us a proper demo. I guess the gaming industry has changed last couple of years. Demo's seem to be regarded as  a waist of time...

Also there have been very few innovating games since the financial crisis. I guess publishers want to play safe and milk out their popular franchise. 

First: They can end beta whenever they want. That makes people buy the full game if they like it. BF1942 and BF2 demos still have a shitload of players.
Second: If something is wrong, they can say "it's just a beta".
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 29-09-2011, 13:09:20
Yeah, it is basically a demo, not a "proper" beta. The most important testing carried out during the open beta is most likely server stress testing and such.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 29-09-2011, 13:09:18
Is it open for everyone yet?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 29-09-2011, 13:09:54
Should open at 1 PM GMT.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 29-09-2011, 13:09:39
im still doubting if i should go for the beta...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 29-09-2011, 13:09:23
im still doubting if i should go for the beta...
I´d dowload it for shits and giggles, because I´d really like to try it out for myself, still kinda hoping it might turn out atleast enjoyable, but Origin with its uncanny EULAs is the main reason why I hesitate to take part in the Beta.... :/
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 29-09-2011, 13:09:49
im still doubting if i should go for the beta...

Go for it, it will cure your needs and give EA a nice look at your PC data. ^^
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 29-09-2011, 13:09:42
im still doubting if i should go for the beta...

Go for it, it will cure your needs and give EA a nice look at your PC data. ^^
well i dont have any cracked or hacked games

BUT VAT ABOUT MAH P000RRRNNNN?????
 ;D ;D ;D

UND my secret waffel recipe!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 29-09-2011, 13:09:54
..
BUT VAT ABOUT MAH P000RRRNNNN?????
 ;D ;D ;D
UND my secret waffel recipe!

Belgian Porn? God no, not even EA wants that... the Waffel recipe on the other hand... hmmm
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 29-09-2011, 13:09:18


Belgian Porn? God no, not even EA wants that... the Waffel recipe on the other hand... hmmm
How did you avoid EA spying on your data via Origin? Did you go for the SSD harddrive solution?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 29-09-2011, 14:09:52
I don't understand why they bother getting a public beta instead of giving us a proper demo. I guess the gaming industry has changed last couple of years. Demo's seem to be regarded as  a waist of time...

Also there have been very few innovating games since the financial crisis. I guess publishers want to play safe and milk out their popular franchise.
Yes the gaming industry has changed the last couple of years... ;) you did realize that now right? It is very different from 2002 or 2005... very... you don't need to worry about what the official naming of the file is.. beta, demo.. it doesn't really matter. It's purpose is to break the system. Basically get as many players in to the system so they can see when it breaks, then close it down, update it, put it back up, break it again. This is how you build a stabile gaming platform.
It's not like bf3 is just a bunch of servers running the beta which you connect to and test it and see if you "like it".. It's the entire system that needs testing, and the only way to do that is by flooding a lot of people in to it.
Basically a beta/demo is not about letting players try the game, it's about letting the creators trying it.

Maybe for small games like RO2 it is about allowing people to get a pre-taste to see if to buy it or not.. that's not the case here.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 29-09-2011, 14:09:47
Yeah game industry changed alot

Todays games are crap

Next to a few good ones
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 29-09-2011, 14:09:35


Maybe for small games like RO2 it is about allowing people to get a pre-taste to see if to buy it or not.. that's not the case here.
Nope, the RO2 closed beta was for people who had already bought the game and the purpose was to get a larger test group to eliminate max number of bugs before the release. And they did fix a number of bugs.

BF3 open beta is a demo which is also being used as a stress test.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 29-09-2011, 14:09:56
Open beta has arrived, prepare to be invaded by EA Spyware  ::)

Caspian border is in the demo, without password, prepare to be teamkilled for jets  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 29-09-2011, 14:09:42
Origin... What the hell EA? Did you REALLY have to fuck up every single thing about it?

No, I don't want my games to program files, I installed the software into my games partition, not my bloody windows partition.

Oh, I have to download the game and then install it? Some other software handles it differently but... wait.. you actually broke my installation!?

OK, let's verify the game cache and... hmm, I cant? I have to re-download the whole game?

At least I have a fast internet so... wait, did you seriously just freeze?

The Steam beta in 2003 was quite bad. I wish Origin would be at least on that level.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 29-09-2011, 15:09:54
Way to go EA, "You must be logged in as an administrator to continue." that pops up when I try to install the beta isn't really helping in convincing me to buy the game... Jesus fucking christ if you have to copy something, at least do it RIGHT.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 29-09-2011, 15:09:13
So I did some research and found out about this "Origin" thingy:

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/960869-battlefield-3/60145714

Apparently it scans your entire ProgramData folder, but at the moment it doesn't seem to relay any significant info to EA's servers.

However it's ability to scan stuff on your computer can be stopped by using the program called Sandboxie which allows you to run it in a secluded environment:

http://www.totalbantercommunity.com/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=632&start=0
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 29-09-2011, 16:09:03
Has anyone found a Caspian Border server without password. I will NOT play anymore Operation Metrosexual..

This comforts me.

EA/DICE... seriously... this is lalalalaing awesome. THIS is what Battlefield is all about. I immediately felt and heard the intensity that a Battlefield game is supposed to have. Why are you lalalalaing around with Operation Metroll in this beta? You can blow your audience away with Caspian Border, which is a true Battlefield experience. I was very disappointed when playing Operation Metroll, but Caspian Border has made me a happy person again. If you really want to redeem yourself, I suggest you put up more Caspian Border servers, and open them up to the public. Well done. Now go, and do what you gotta do.

 Edit: To those who aren't able to play Caspian Border, you will not be disappointed.


http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/battlefield-3/1431209-playing-caspian-border-right-now.html
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Turkletoon on 29-09-2011, 17:09:56
Origin don't work for me. Have installed it but the store doesn't work. I get page load error
so I can't even download the game :(
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 29-09-2011, 17:09:39
Origin don't work for me. Have installed it but the store doesn't work. I get page load error
so I can't even download the game :(

I had some problems with it as well, but mucked about with it until I managed to get it working. I just don't know how I did it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Turkletoon on 29-09-2011, 17:09:33
Now it seems like it's working. Guess the servers is running quite busy :P
I hope it works...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 29-09-2011, 17:09:18
I love programs tellin you that you have to run them as an admin and they won't let you continue, while, in fact, I'm the ONLY admin. That is hilarious.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 29-09-2011, 17:09:15
Origin... What the hell EA? Did you REALLY have to fuck up every single thing about it?

No, I don't want my games to program files, I installed the software into my games partition, not my bloody windows partition.

So is was there a way to get it not to install to my windows partition?  I had a couple cocktails when I installed Origin and just assumed I fucked up.  When I finally got the beta downloaded it gave me an error because it ate up all the room on my SSD.   >:(  I was able to shuffle some stuff around to squeeze the beta on there but for the full game I will be boned unless this is fixed.

I did try Caspian the other day for and for those wondering if it has that BF2 vanilla feel the answer is a big YES.  I hope they adopt the BF2 squad system of 6 guys and the ability to leave and join squads of your choosing in the final version.  4 man throw me in whatever fucking squad was fine for some loltastic Rush gameplay but for Caspian I thought it sucked and really missed the old system.   
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 29-09-2011, 17:09:55
Origin... What the hell EA? Did you REALLY have to fuck up every single thing about it?

No, I don't want my games to program files, I installed the software into my games partition, not my bloody windows partition.

So is was there a way to get it not to install to my windows partition? 
Yes, you can change it from the settings somewhere.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 29-09-2011, 18:09:54
Has anyone found a Caspian Border server without password. I will NOT play anymore Operation Metrosexual..

Afaik the password for CB servers should be ''videokilledtheradiostar'' now.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 29-09-2011, 18:09:24
Origin + that server browser: Literally worse than Hitler.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Turkletoon on 29-09-2011, 18:09:43
I hate this...
it's installed now, but this god damned server browser won't seem to work. It's been on "joining server" for ages.
Why couldn't they have created a normal server browser IN-GAME and not on the WEB
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 29-09-2011, 18:09:57
I hate this...
it's installed now, but this god damned server browser won't seem to work. It's been on "joining server" for ages.
Why couldn't they have created a normal server browser IN-GAME and not on the WEB

1 word: money (they get paid for advertising stuff in your server browser, and they can advertise their own games for free as well).
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 29-09-2011, 19:09:05
For those with problems loging in do this:

1) Go to the location where Origin installed battlefield. This folder is called: "Beta Battlefield 3" (grave accent on first e). Now this is the problem; the Windows registry system can't cope with the 'e' with the grave accent, so change it to a normal 'e': "Beta Battlefield 3".

2) Next press the Windows key + r on your keyboard and enter "regedit" (without the "), press enter. Now navigate to: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE -> SOFTWARE -> Wow6432Node -> EA GAMES. Click on 'Bf3 Beta'. On your right you see a row of information where the 3rd and 4th row are filepaths, and there the annoying 'e' is back! Change the e's with the grave accent to normal 'e' in both filepaths and close the registry editor.

I had the same problem and now it works. I work with win7 64 bit so for the 32 bit windows the path is slightly different.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 29-09-2011, 19:09:23
Quick first impressions after four hours of installing it:

+ It is definitely better than BC2. Even the small rush map metro beats the BC2 rush maps.
+ Caspian Border will be awesome.
+ Step towards the good ol' Battlefield.
- Origin and the web based server browser. Worse than Hitler.

I'm planning to build a new PC at some point, so I will most likely buy BF3 at least then.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paasky on 29-09-2011, 20:09:12
Quick first impressions after four hours of installing it:

+ It is definitely better than BC2. Even the small rush map metro beats the BC2 rush maps.
+ Caspian Border will be awesome.
+ Step towards the good ol' Battlefield.
- Origin and the web based server browser. Worse than Hitler.

I'm planning to build a new PC at some point, so I will most likely buy BF3 at least then.
What I get from this is, the cracked version will be a superior gaming experience. Hurray for EA!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 29-09-2011, 20:09:23
Quick first impressions after four hours of installing it:

+ It is definitely better than BC2. Even the small rush map metro beats the BC2 rush maps.
+ Caspian Border will be awesome.
+ Step towards the good ol' Battlefield.
- Origin and the web based server browser. Worse than Hitler.

I'm planning to build a new PC at some point, so I will most likely buy BF3 at least then.
What I get from this is, the cracked version will be a superior gaming experience. Hurray for EA!

It won't start without origin or battlelog (which also requires origin and ea account). Sorry :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: RAnDOOm on 29-09-2011, 20:09:37

It won't start without origin or battlelog (which also requires origin and ea account). Sorry :P


All games can and will be cracked. Sorry.   :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 29-09-2011, 20:09:36

It won't start without origin or battlelog (which also requires origin and ea account). Sorry :P


All games can and will be cracked. Sorry.   :P

In all cracks there can be gamed. Sorry  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 29-09-2011, 20:09:34
Let's stop spamming or you will be sorry :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 29-09-2011, 21:09:40
Let's stop spamming or you will be sorry :P

Speaking of sorriness... "We're sorry, an error has occurred We are unable to connect to EA servers to activate Battlefield 3 Open Beta on this computer using your account. Please try again later."

Well fck you Origin, I'm not letting you see my shit on MY computer...

Oh God now it's spamming errors in Polish too.. (or Russian, but I think it's Polish)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 29-09-2011, 21:09:06
Oh God now it's spamming errors in Polish too.. (or Russian, but I think it's Polish)
IN SOVIET RUSSIA, GAME CRACK YOU
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Lightning on 29-09-2011, 21:09:58
(or Russian, but I think it's Polish)
Russian and Polish don't even use the same script.  :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Stefan on 29-09-2011, 22:09:58
my dual core @3.6ghz stuttering with 100% usage.... time for AMD bulldozer
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 29-09-2011, 22:09:15
Just finished a round on Caspian Border! FUUUUAAARK! That was something else that Operation Metroll. Recorded 19 minutes of gameplay if anyone wants to watch! Will upload vid soon.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 29-09-2011, 22:09:33
Just tried it on the PS3 and I have to say I think I loved it even more over there (at least for the rush bit).  Despite having the most pimped PC money can buy and running it all silky smooth on high I really have to give Dice credit for putting out a damn fine game on 2006 tech (also seemed less glitchy on the PS3). 
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 29-09-2011, 22:09:38
Played it at a friends place

hm

its better then BC2. Much
Quick first impressions after four hours of installing it:

+ It is definitely better than BC2. Even the small rush map metro beats the BC2 rush maps.
+ Caspian Border will be awesome.
+ Step towards the good ol' Battlefield.
- Origin and the web based server browser. Worse than Hitler.

I'm planning to build a new PC at some point, so I will most likely buy BF3 at least then.
^Everything thorondor said is what i want to say

I also need a better PC, once i have it, i will get BF3. Its a good step back towards the good old battlefield.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 29-09-2011, 23:09:10
For those with problems loging in do this:

I had the same problem and now it works. I work with win7 64 bit so for the 32 bit windows the path is slightly different.

Thanks a bunch! Game works fine now thanks to this fix.  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 30-09-2011, 00:09:12
OK I played Operation Metrololol for a few hours and here's my impressions:

PROS
- Sounds are awesome (when they work that is, more on that later) although they don't seem really too realistic and sound like they were enhanced and added some bass to make the guns have more "oomph"
- deployable spawn points - something we always wanted (although horribly implemented in the way that you can spawn right under your enemy's nose, or into a crossfire, or keep spawning helplessly while they spawnkill you
- Overall feel, it feels(and looks) somewhat like BC 2 but enhanced and with a little bit slower pace, I like the emphasis on teamwork
- Suppression is done correctly, it's not easy to return accurate fire while suppressed.
- Bipods - they can be quite useful and you can finally use that MG correctly without looking silly
- concealment is nicely done and you can hide in that bush quite effectively

CONS
- I don't know if it's just me but the sound keeps dropping all the time... You can find yourself in a battle and suddenly you can't hear shit.
- The noobtubes - they are everywhere and everyone seems to have them - COD much? Also people carry a primary weapon, a sidearm, a knife/blowtorch, AND a mothafucking RPG with 3(!) rockets... and can still sprint like Usain Bolt on steroids (yes I know I'm exaggerating).
- Unlockable stuff and perks - not generally bad, but really annoying when there are lasers and flashlights shining IN YA FACE all the time. Also perks are a bit unfair IMO but you are limited to 1 specialization I believe so they are okay I guess.
- Still quite buggy - seeing through ground, animation bugs (like dead bodies wielding guns through some woodoo magic and the old bug from BFH where it looks like people are trying to imitate an airplane with their arms). Also FPS drops from time to time.
- lack of some features that are considered basic in some games like the ability to LEAN
- Running and gunning - it seems that bunny hopping and dolphin diving are back... sigh... also no need to quickscope as you get crosshairs with the marksman rifle too.
- Only 4 classes and 4 man squads... They are dumbing this down too much
- Origin... IT' S CRAP... when it works it would be okay I suppose (if it didn't collect all the stuff about you I guess  :P)... and that stupid web based server browser.
- It almost killed my PC! My CPU temperature skyrocketed - guess I need to replace that stock cooler/ make a new hole in my case...


I have yet to try out Caspian Border gameplay so I can judge a bit more.

BTW if someone wants to add me on this crappy Origin for a few rounds go ahead, my username is TheLucky0ne
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 30-09-2011, 00:09:23


CONS
- I don't know if it's just me but the sound keeps dropping all the time... You can find yourself in a battle and suddenly you can't hear shit.
- The noobtubes - they are everywhere and everyone seems to have them - COD much? Also people carry a primary weapon, a sidearm, a knife/blowtorch, AND a mothafucking RPG with 3(!) rockets... and can still sprint like Usain Bolt on steroids (yes I know I'm exaggerating).
- Unlockable stuff and perks - not generally bad, but really annoying when there are lasers and flashlights shining IN YA FACE all the time. Also perks are a bit unfair IMO but you are limited to 1 specialization I believe so they are okay I guess.
- Still quite buggy - seeing through ground, animation bugs (like dead bodies wielding guns through some woodoo magic and the old bug from BFH where it looks like people are trying to imitate an airplane with their arms). Also FPS drops from time to time.
- lack of some features that are considered basic in some games like the ability to LEAN
- Running and gunning - it seems that bunny hopping and dolphin diving are back... sigh... also no need to quickscope as you get crosshairs with the marksman rifle too.
- Only 4 classes and 4 man squads... They are dumbing this down too much
- Origin... IT' S CRAP... when it works it would be okay I suppose (if it didn't collect all the stuff about you I guess  :P)... and that stupid web based server browser.
- It almost killed my PC! My CPU temperature skyrocketed - guess I need to replace that stock cooler/ make a new hole in my case...
I have yet to try out Caspian Border gameplay so I can judge a bit more.

BTW if someone wants to add me on this crappy Origin for a few rounds go ahead, my username is TheLucky0ne
Agreed on most of those cons. Its a bit to Codish
And origen is absolutely horrible...its like

you buy a car. The car has to remain at the car dealer. if you need it, the car dealer will give you the keys, if he is in the mood.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 30-09-2011, 00:09:22
Played it for few hours. Awesome rounds. Defending the objectives from a good position, you don't have to run and jump all around to stay alive, but you can just find a good spot and hold your positions. Same with attacking; we moved as a squad, flanking under the bushes and having long fire-fights with the enemy. No need to bunny-jump straight to the objective.

Bloody hard to join the same squad with your friend, though.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 30-09-2011, 00:09:21
Yeah a serious pain in the ass. The game itself is decent good. It could still be better and more in the classic BF2 way, but they could have easily turned this in a fully Cod 8 game.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Moose on 30-09-2011, 01:09:15
I like the slower pace and the fact that I can actually move up through cover and not get fucking slaughtered like in BC2. I have the same issue with sounds, but it is a beta. Also it is super fun when they cap an objective in Rush to hide and wait for them to move to the next one then come behind them, i got like 8 kills in a row doing this. Sniping is very COD-ish, but is still fun. I like the feel of the firefights. There is a lot of rpg spamming though, but as of yet, it's not killed me much. I like the Metro map, something about shooting up France is awesome. All in all, not bad so far.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 30-09-2011, 02:09:23
The game grows on me. Had some freaking fun rounds on Metroll.

Me wantz:

-Own medic kit
-Squads being able to do something with.

One of my issues are that it is really retarded to have Assault and medic as one. Bring back BF42 style where the medic has an SMG! The way it is now is too arcadish. And second is SQUAD WITH SQUAD LEADERS ISSUING ORDERS! The squad work is non existant. The only bonus is three more spawn points.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eat Uranium on 30-09-2011, 05:09:45
I'll just leave this here:

Battlefield 3 comparation PC vs. Playstation3 Split Screen  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGbo50Ar420)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 30-09-2011, 05:09:54
How to start on this. My first impressions of this game were, well, poor. I had a hard time jumping through the loops to get this game running.

It wasn't so much Origin, as it was the need to travel to my Internet Browser to join a game. My first thought as I saw the server browser wasn't negative, it was quick, and worked fine. However, it was when I started to try and join games that my disgust for it started to grow. To summarize how Battlefield 3's Server Browser works:

One finds a server on the list, and must click the large "Join Game" button to join it. A small window appears in the bottom left hand corner, that lists the map, the name of the server, and how many people are playing on it, and this screen goes through a series of texts that tell you what its up to. After a moment of trying to join, one begins to hear sound effects through ones headphones. However, you are not in the game yet, no you have to travel back to your internet browser, find the small window in the bottom left hand corner, and click the "Go To the Game" button that is now there.

I find it also quite annoying that, even though I was able to play this game without them, that it seems necessary to download the customized drivers for Battlefield 3 to even run the beta. While I will probably do it in the next few days, it just seems like a very unnecessary thing. In addition, having to download browser plugins to even use the Server Browser was a bit annoying, though over quickly, its more software on my PC that I really shouldn't need, after-all, the Server Browser should be in-game.

Once the game is actually started, it doesn't start in full screen mode, it starts in windowed mode, at the resolution the player has selected, and then the player must use Alt+Enter to bring the game to full screen. Again, not a difficult task, but it seems like yet another meaningless task to perform just to even start playing.

If however, this server browser was instead incorporated into Origin, joined a server, and then the game started in full screened mode, I would have far less of a problem with it. As is though, there is a lot of hoops to jump through to even start playing.

The beta is plagued by a plethora of bugs, which have probably all been well documented by now, so I wont even bother commenting on them.

I was disappointed to see no servers playing the large Caspian Border map, and so I spent my time searching for an East Coast server, that wasn't full, and was playing Metro. Metro starts out nice, a large open area, with trees, a pond, and plenty of room to move around in. However, I found it plagued by snipers, and men who somehow magically could spot me from long distances. Battlefield 3's graphical improvements alone made it very difficult for me to even see a lot of my enemies, let alone engage them with my gun bouncing around on screen and the recoil blasting away.

Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed the immersion of the game. Every bullet, every bomb, every falling tree limb, and hole in the ground made it all seem very desperate. Made it very real. The recoil of the guns makes shooting a bit more of a challenge than I expected, with many games becoming rail shooters these days it was excellent to see Battlefield 3's weapons kick and recoil when I was engaging targets, and then for that to only increase if fire was incoming at me as well. Weapons are very effective too, deadly, and with a few placed shots in the right places enemies drop fast.

I'm still in the midst of a debate with myself whether adding prone back to battlefield was a good idea. While there's really no way to take advantage of it like in the past, sometimes prone men look like dead bodies, and its difficult sometimes to tell if that immobile figure is about to pull a trigger on you, or is dead, and especially in the subway parts of the map, prone players hiding in subway cars, on top of escalators, behind invincible trash cans, and in nooks and crannies in every part of the Metro made the assault very difficult, and an absolute blood bath.

However the game grows on you, and it is very fun once it does. I find that Battlefield 3 requires you to take a much slower approach to many of your objectives. Where as in Bad Company 2 I was charging at full sprint from cover to cover to avoid the overwhelming number of snipers with magnum ammunition, Battlefield 3 makes me think a little more before I move, and I found that our Squad was much more effective moving up slowly than it was just blindly charging down the subway tunnels or across the fields.

The spotting system has been improved. As far as I can tell, recon kits are the only ones that can actually create the 3D Spotting Icons, while all other kits can only simple Q spot on the map. I think that works well, and gives the Recon kit an added bonus.

I also noted that large amounts of points were rewarded for team efforts, such as kill assists, squad members spawning on you, squad or team members killing an enemy you had suppressed, giving out health kits and ammunition. It all seemed to be getting me far more points than the kills did, even if every kill is worth 100 points. However, despite this, there is a relative lack of teamwork in Battlefield 3. Hapless squads of four men are unable to communicate properly, there is no 3D Hud icons which any member of the squad can place, and every member of the squad is very quick to run off on his/her own. This inevitably is why playing with friends is crucial, even as difficult as that is in Battlefield 3. I hope that getting my buddies into a Squad of our own will be much improved before November.

I believe that Metro needs a bit of a rework. Its a very large, very long bottle neck, that sends waves of attackers into the well prepared light machine guns and sniper rifles of enemies who only have a few tunnels and hallways to watch in order to hold down the whole kit and caboose. Just sitting with an assault rifle as a defender, firing in single-shot mode I was picking off waves of American attackers storming up the escalators while my buddies fired RPG's into the waves like a zombie apocalypse. One area in particular only gives players two options to reach the objectives, and both objectives are positioned in open areas with nothing but panes of glass between them and the entirety of the room. Which makes defending those bomb sites extremely difficult as the respawning waves of defenders come storming in a counter attack (bum rush) to defuse it.

Many players don't understand too what the siren and the flashing icon on the map really means. The number of people I saw rushing to try and defuse the planted bombs while I was playing defense was few and far between. I think some sort of incentive, or reminder of what those warnings mean needs to be placed in broad sight for all the people that evidently have never heard a siren before and thought "That must be bad!"

Battlefield 3 isn't stellar by any means, but I will reserve my true comments on the game until I get to play the full retail version this November, and get my hands on some 64 player conquest.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 30-09-2011, 06:09:49
The worst element I have ever seen in a video game:

(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c49/Yustax/sniperlighthouse.png)

and men who somehow magically could spot me from long distances.

It's called derp spotting...or doritos.

Another disgusting feature.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 30-09-2011, 06:09:16
I was gonna ask if the Dorito spotting was still in.
Didn't have to look any further by the looks of it
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 30-09-2011, 08:09:12
More shitty details.

This whole crap about regenerating vehicles it's complete bullshit, just hear this spec that let's you do this:

When you go under 49%, you press X (flare button pretty much) and it repairs your jet instantly (with the magics ) up to 60% or so and you keep going.

I hate this weird shit about vehicle perks, I plain hate them. This game it's absolutely the worst gameplay aspects I have ever seen combined into a turd. I really hope they release mod tools, hell, I'll even pay 30 bucks for them.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 30-09-2011, 09:09:18
as it was the need to travel to my Internet Browser to join a game.

welcome to the future ;) you'll like it here once you get used to it  8)
but I will reserve my true comments on the game until I get to play the full retail version this November, and get my hands on some 64 player conquest.
at least someone got it
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 30-09-2011, 10:09:04
I'll just leave this here:
Battlefield 3 comparation PC vs. Playstation3 Split Screen  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGbo50Ar420)
I have nothing but loathing towards PS3, but this video almost made me buy one. The game looks so much more attractive on it. ;D
The worst element I have ever seen in a video game:
This was also the part I hated in FarCry.
welcome to the future ;) you'll like it here once you get used to it  8)
" If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." With the exception that now we don't have to imagine anymore, we can experience it ourselves.

Some argue though that the only thing in the world you cannot get used to is an icicle up yours, because it will melt.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 30-09-2011, 10:09:18
I was very very worried about the browser based solution for joining games/server browser. It is still very rough around the edges but personally I can see a ton of potential. Sofar it has served me well in selecting good servers even during the busiest times. It's fast and let's you connect without hassle with the server, takes less than 30 seconds. From clicking join to spawning in the game. Of course the party system is very convenient as well, it's something consoles have had a for a long time and the PC didn't as far as I know. Of course it needs some work because half the time it doesn't work because a server has filled up before a party is able to join. Will have to do with the number of people playing and the amount of server available I reckon. Compared to the old server browsers in BF games this is amazing stuff and it reminds me of All Seeing Eye to be honest. Which is only a good thing in my book.

Two things that I miss the most but will be fixed in the final version I hope are no squad management tools aside from leaving and joining a random squad and no commorose.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 30-09-2011, 10:09:34
There's a button for using the commorose, so that's probably just unavailable for the Beta.

My problem with BF3 is that the movement feels very sluggish and weird. I've tried messing with the mouse sensitivity and toggling the "raw feed" setting on and off, but so far - nothing. Still feels like I'm trying to move a marionette.

Second problem is my computer shutting down after a couple of minutes of playing, probably due to overheating. I'll have to lower the graphics, I guess. It's annoying having to join a server and spawn before being able to change any settings, though.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 30-09-2011, 11:09:58
It's annoying having to join a server and spawn before being able to change any settings, though.

+1

And yeah I also hate the health regeneration... I mean I just shot a guy with a sniper and he killed me with 0 % health, presumably because of this "regeneration" nonsense. And also wounding a guy just to get mowed down by him a couple of seconds later cause he spent some time in "cover".
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 30-09-2011, 11:09:37
Lowering the gfx settings helped, which in turn made the game less sluggish. I'm getting into it more now, but some things just feel... weird. Might just be that I don't really enjoy the Metro map all that much.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 30-09-2011, 12:09:50
Aww you need a beta key
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 30-09-2011, 12:09:31
Aww you need a beta key

For what?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 30-09-2011, 12:09:08
For nothing, it's an open beta. Just download it from Origin.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 30-09-2011, 12:09:14
Lowering the gfx settings helped, which in turn made the game less sluggish. I'm getting into it more now, but some things just feel... weird. Might just be that I don't really enjoy the Metro map all that much.
Just played a few rounds on Caspian Border. Definately feels like battlefield. Rush is too much of a meatgrinder for my taste.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 30-09-2011, 12:09:18

welcome to the future ;) you'll like it here once you get used to it  8)


does the future include forcing you to join a server if you want to change your graphics settings and been unable to select the squad you want ingame.

oh early 00's , how I miss you.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 30-09-2011, 12:09:20
What other maps except for Op metro and Caspian Border have been revealed so far? I seem to recall that, except for the content of the "Back to Karkand"-DLC and these two maps DICE hasn´t shown us the rest of the stock maps, yet. Or am I missing something?
Just checked it myself, these maps are the only ones revealed so far.

I wonder how many of the unrevealed maps will run with 64-players CQ mode. It´d be a great disappointment if we´d see more Rush mode maps, than "real" Battlefield maps with 64 players...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 30-09-2011, 12:09:19
For nothing, it's an open beta. Just download it from Origin.

Alright thx.
I heard some people have problems installing it in a certain folder. Should i just install it in prog files win x86?<--where all my games are installed in.
 Or should i create another folder for it?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 30-09-2011, 12:09:37
For nothing, it's an open beta. Just download it from Origin.

Alright thx.
I heard some people have problems installing it in a certain folder. Should i just install it in prog files win x86?<--where all my games are installed in.
 Or should i create another folder for it?
If your games are in program files, the mistake is already happened, so go ahead. Origin in all its wisdom most likely already set the games folder there, so just click download.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 30-09-2011, 12:09:45
Ive been smart enough not to install origin yet. So, in all your wisdom, where should i install it?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 30-09-2011, 13:09:52
On a completely different partition from Windows. I would recommend keeping the OS on its own little HD or partition, and installing everything else on another partition. But, that might be too much hassle right now so just install Origin in the default location that it offers.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 30-09-2011, 13:09:36
Ok ok, thx though. Ill just go with the installer.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 30-09-2011, 14:09:28
It's annoying having to join a server and spawn before being able to change any settings, though.

+1

And yeah I also hate the health regeneration... I mean I just shot a guy with a sniper and he killed me with 0 % health, presumably because of this "regeneration" nonsense. And also wounding a guy just to get mowed down by him a couple of seconds later cause he spent some time in "cover".

Don't think there is health re-gen.  In the beta 0% is good to go -1% and under equals dead.  I saw that last night after running through a hail of lead.  I looked down at my health and it was exactly at 0%.   ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 30-09-2011, 15:09:38
hmm
Quote
You agree that EA may collect, use, store and transmit technical and related information that identifies your computer (including the Internet Protocol Address), operating system, Application usage (including but not limited to successful installation and/or removal), software, software usage and peripheral hardware, that may be gathered periodically to facilitate the provision of software updates, dynamically served content, product support and other services to you, including online services. EA may also use this information combined with personal information for marketing purposes and to improve our products and services. We may also share that data with our third party service providers in a form that does not personally identify you. IF YOU DO NOT WANT EA TO COLLECT, USE, STORE, TRANSMIT OR DISPLAY THE DATA DESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION, PLEASE DO NOT INSTALL OR USE THE APPLICATION.

Soo
does this also includes movies and music you downloaded?
It feels like i am about to install communism and facism on my PC
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 30-09-2011, 15:09:27

Don't think there is health re-gen.  In the beta 0% is good to go -1% and under equals dead.  I saw that last night after running through a hail of lead.  I looked down at my health and it was exactly at 0%.   ;D

I'm pretty sure it is, as long as you aren't under fire... Will have to double check that though...

Anyway after playing some more I'm starting to see more and more potential flaws in this game... The spawn system is really awkward... Sometimes you spawn next to your mate and you both end up dead... Or you shoot a guy but his mate instantly pops up out of thin air and shoots you dead.

The map glitches... don't get me even started on this one... People falling through the ground... shooting through the ground... being invulnerable while under ground...

And then the sniper spam... When half of your team is camping with their long range rifles in a friggin 2x2 square meters Metro....
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 30-09-2011, 15:09:40
The map glitches... don't get me even started on this one... People falling through the ground... shooting through the ground... being invulnerable while under ground...

It's beta ffs. That would happen for you in fh2 too, if we let you play beta.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 30-09-2011, 15:09:02
Quote
It´s been 3 days full of win!

Thank you everyone who participated in testing Caspian Border with us during the Open Beta. We of course cherish and appreciate the time you have put into supplying is with good feedback. We will of course read it through and discuss it internally.

Testing has now been completed and we are shutting down the Caspian Border servers.
DICEs chief community manager zhinto aparently posted this on the Battlelog blog. Source (http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/gate/?returnUrl=|bf3|#!/bf3/devblog/view/2826551894086251181/) (gotta log in to read it aparently).
Seems like the Open Beta for PCs now solely consists of Op Metro.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 30-09-2011, 15:09:54
The map glitches... don't get me even started on this one... People falling through the ground... shooting through the ground... being invulnerable while under ground...

It's beta ffs. That would happen for you in fh2 too, if we let you play beta.

Yeah I know it is... I just figured out they would have fixed the more obvious bugs by now during the alpha...



Seems like the Open Beta for PCs now solely consists of Op Metro.

Awww I didn't even get a chance to try it out... The servers were always full..
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Moose on 30-09-2011, 15:09:39
Well ps3 and Xbox beta is just metro, so makes sense PC would be restricted to it as well.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 30-09-2011, 15:09:12
Why..? Consoles are not getting 64 player maps anyway. Not even 32 player maps, actually :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 30-09-2011, 15:09:37
Quote
It´s been 3 days full of win!

Thank you everyone who participated in testing Caspian Border with us during the Open Beta. We of course cherish and appreciate the time you have put into supplying is with good feedback. We will of course read it through and discuss it internally.

Testing has now been completed and we are shutting down the Caspian Border servers.
DICEs chief community manager zhinto aparently posted this on the Battlelog blog. Source (http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/gate/?returnUrl=|bf3|#!/bf3/devblog/view/2826551894086251181/) (gotta log in to read it aparently).
Seems like the Open Beta for PCs now solely consists of Op Metro.
£10 they are closing it because they cant be arsed changing the password every 3 hours  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 30-09-2011, 17:09:12
hmm
Quote
You agree that EA may collect, use, store and transmit technical and related information that identifies your computer (including the Internet Protocol Address), operating system, Application usage (including but not limited to successful installation and/or removal), software, software usage and peripheral hardware, that may be gathered periodically to facilitate the provision of software updates, dynamically served content, product support and other services to you, including online services. EA may also use this information combined with personal information for marketing purposes and to improve our products and services. We may also share that data with our third party service providers in a form that does not personally identify you. IF YOU DO NOT WANT EA TO COLLECT, USE, STORE, TRANSMIT OR DISPLAY THE DATA DESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION, PLEASE DO NOT INSTALL OR USE THE APPLICATION.

Soo
does this also includes movies and music you downloaded?
It feels like i am about to install communism and facism on my PC

No it does not. If it did I wouldn't want to touch BF3 with a ten foot pole. Sofar I have net seen any processes reading data of my disk that shouldn't be.
And believe youz me that are smarter people then the boths of us wearing theirs tinfoil hat to seez if it comes with a free bonus rootkit.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: evhgear on 30-09-2011, 20:09:24
I just tried the beta on Xbox... sucks hard, add the killcam and you play Call of Dicks... Forget that shit game, return to FH2 :D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LHeureux on 30-09-2011, 20:09:24
I just tried the beta on Xbox... sucks hard, add the killcam and you play Call of Dicks... Forget that shit game, return to FH2 :D
Joue sur PC, jeu parfait.
Play on PC, perfect game.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: evhgear on 30-09-2011, 20:09:40
Joue sur PC, jeu parfait.
Play on PC, perfect game.
Mon PC est pas assez puissant :'(
My computer is not enough powerfull to run it...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 30-09-2011, 20:09:07
I just tried the beta on Xbox... sucks hard, add the killcam and you play Call of Dicks... Forget that shit game, return to FH2 :D

Yeah the kill cams looks weird. The angle from which you are looking in the killcam makes it look like a early 00's FPS game.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 30-09-2011, 21:09:43
Ok ive played it for three rounds and im not entirely convinced. Fristly because i quited after having played it for maybe an half hour, secondly because.. well, ive played bfbc2 and it feels like.. the same.
It seems like it will be a good solid game though, but i dont know if its my type of game yet.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LHeureux on 01-10-2011, 00:10:54
Ok ive played it for three rounds and im not entirely convinced. Fristly because i quited after having played it for maybe an half hour, secondly because.. well, ive played bfbc2 and it feels like.. the same.
It seems like it will be a good solid game though, but i dont know if its my type of game yet.
Wait till you play Caspian Border. I played like 10 rounds on it before they remove it. It's BF2, but an EVOLVED BF2. You truly get the BF feeling on that map, with the random and epic moments  ;D. Like 2 jets colliding in the air <3
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paasky on 01-10-2011, 00:10:13
Ok ive played it for three rounds and im not entirely convinced. Fristly because i quited after having played it for maybe an half hour, secondly because.. well, ive played bfbc2 and it feels like.. the same.
It seems like it will be a good solid game though, but i dont know if its my type of game yet.
Wait till you play Caspian Border. I played like 10 rounds on it before they remove it. It's BF2, but an EVOLVED BF2. You truly get the BF feeling on that map, with the random and epic moments  ;D. Like 2 jets colliding in the air <3
What if you never really liked BF2 and only bought it for FH2?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LHeureux on 01-10-2011, 00:10:04
Quote
What if you never really liked BF2 and only bought it for FH2?
It feels more like Crysis 2 while being BF2. It's awesome.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: evhgear on 01-10-2011, 00:10:18
I finally was able to try it on my computer... my computer seems to rush a little bit, but servers are quite laggy... seems also better than on Xbox
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 01-10-2011, 01:10:06
Wait till you play Caspian Border. I played like 10 rounds on it before they remove it. It's BF2, but an EVOLVED BF2. You truly get the BF feeling on that map, with the random and epic moments  ;D. Like 2 jets colliding in the air <3
Yes, if "Battlefield" means jets colliding in mid-air to you BF3 might be your game, but if "Battlefield" means
-game innovations (massive combined arms battles that are set in innovative theatres for example);
-mod and map support so you have tons of fun with it even years after you´ve bought the vanilla game (what would the BF franchise be without mods?);
-easy and fun game mechanics (you play with what you have and don´t have to bother with extra crap such as shiny "medals", virtual "ranks", tons of weapon unlocks that make game goals unimportant because in the end only your virtual rank and the tons of shit you´ve unlocked for your guns and vehicles count);
-balance (hardcore grinders seem to have an advantage over the casual player, for example in vehicles);
-no extra "social" platforms that promote e-penis comparisons even more";
-no extra online platform with highly dubios EULAs (users agree not to take part in class-action lawsuits against EA (speaks for itself); Origin is allowed to scan your whole computer, what hardware you use, what software you have installed, what software you deinstalled etc. and even sell your data so they can make even more profit with it by using it for advertisements);
then you might get disappointed with BF3. There´s a reason why every official BF3-FB post has tons of complaints and a good number of Battlefield "vets" in different BF communities canceled their preorders or are even highly sceptical of what DICE/EA will present us.

Don´t get me wrong, I´d love to play BF3, but DICE/EA presented no "innovative" features for the game that convinced me to buy it and with all the facts we´ve seen so far it doesn´t deserve to be called a "BF2 sucessor" because things that made the Battlefield series so unique to me have been removed or spoiled with stuff I´d expect in CoD or MoH but not in a "Battlefield" game.
Also keep in mind that except for the "SaK"-mappack and the two beta maps we haven´t seen any other maps yet, so who says we´ll see many 64-players CQ maps?
But these are just my two cents as someone who questions what he´s being presented with. I´m sure someone very special (someone really special)will now call me a troll again, but seeing the communities reactions on FB, in this forum and on other homepages I feel like I´m not the only one who looks past shiny graphics.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Dukat on 01-10-2011, 01:10:06
It feels more like Crysis...

I'm not sure whether that is actually a plus. After I had played the Crysis demo, I had decided not to buy it.

I viewed some of the beta videos, and it mostly reminded me how horribly annoyed I was after about 6 month with BF2. Then came Special Forces, and it was a waste of money at all.

Curreently BF3 looks like BF2 with improved graphics to me.

What I laughed about most, were the dials in the sight. You could probably hide an elephant behind those dials.

Enemy ahead! - Where? - Ahead, open console, type Hud_0! - Damn, I can't see shit.
[You've been killed by an enemy hidden by dials]

(http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/c95e7.jpg)


But maybe you can be glad it doesn't look like this:
(http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/790ca.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 01-10-2011, 01:10:21
^ Yes but the graphics.... and the medals... they are so shiny....  ::) (like those flashlights and lasers that blind you...  :P)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 01-10-2011, 09:10:23
I´m sure someone very special (someone really special)will now call me a troll again
Nope, I won't :) because this thread is maybe the most sensible thread you've written. At least you listed down specific feature and want to discuss them. Except that you twist and skew all the things in that list so it just becomes "troll-biased", I guess because you want to shine a negative light on the game and its features, if that makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside, then good for you.

The whole "Battlefield means" argument, the thing you seem to miss, is that all that is now re-newed. What Battlefield "meant" for people 6 years ago is different now. Updated, enhanced, because the leap in design- and tech evolution this game brings. Or should I say, this experience brings. as BF3 is more than a just a "game".

Yes, if "Battlefield" means jets colliding in mid-air to you BF3 might be your game, but if "Battlefield" means
-game innovations (massive combined arms battles that are set in innovative theatres for example);
BF3 has quite a lot of real game innovations, the fact that you list "innovative theatres" as an innovation is a bit funny. Im not going to list all the innovations in BF3, you know them already. At least what dice revealed or what you saw in the beta

-mod and map support so you have tons of fun with it even years after you´ve bought the vanilla game (what would the BF franchise be without mods?);
It would be just as fine a franchise as it is now. In case you wonder, only 3 years of the 10 years of Battlefield have had "mod support". Only 3 games out of 8 (PC games) had mod support ;) shocking news? BF franchise isnt a "moddable" gaming franchise, only bf42, BFV and BF2 were. The last Mod tool was released in 2005... 6 years ago.. still people think that that's a core BF thing?

-easy and fun game mechanics (you play with what you have and don´t have to bother with extra crap such as shiny "medals", virtual "ranks", tons of weapon unlocks that make game goals unimportant because in the end only your virtual rank and the tons of shit you´ve unlocked for your guns and vehicles count);
OK, now you forgot what to write. What does "easy and fun game mechanics" have to do with the persistence system? :) Game mechanics is what you do ingame lik running, driving, shooting, the game mode etc.. persistence is the meta system, which DICE now integrated in to a social platform as welll. DICE is very nice towards their players, because players want persistence in their games today, so they went the extra mile and created the richest system made.
Listen to the producers themselves, why they gave you this system: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC7EHaJZtMQ

-balance (hardcore grinders seem to have an advantage over the casual player, for example in vehicles);
Name a game where grinders don't get an advantage? Especially explain how people can grind without also develop skill & knowledge, and how those are not advantages in other games, and why they shouldnt be ;)

-no extra "social" platforms that promote e-penis comparisons even more";
So you are asking people in the year of 2011 if they'd prefer a game without leaderboards and social platforms? "ok" ;) no comment.. just.. wow :) I guess you wonder if people want the game to be just the game? you play it, close it, and nothing gets stored anywhere. The only value, is what happens hear & now when you play? Or how did you see this game? this "pure" game of yours, without social platforms? And if you watched the persistence system explanation video I posted ^ also explain why the game would be better without all the new ways for players to interact with eachother and join eachother, as that's going to make things like clan-wars and tournaments easier. don't you... want players to play together with friends? Or is it best that we do it like in 2005, we install 3rd party VoIP systems and send eachother the IP numbers to what server to join? :)

-no extra online platform with highly dubios EULAs (users agree not to take part in class-action lawsuits against EA (speaks for itself); Origin is allowed to scan your whole computer, what hardware you use, what software you have installed, what software you deinstalled etc. and even sell your data so they can make even more profit with it by using it for advertisements);
Tinfoil hat crew will agree with you, the rest will just lol and say "get over it"
Let me give you an example: You ever been to a vacation in another country? Well, if you go, by plane, you need to go through airport security, this can be a tough experience (if you're paranoid), you need to remove your belt, empty your pocket, they X-ray your bags, you need to go through metaldetector etc..
All this, is a price you pay to be able to fly plane to Bahamas, Mallorca, Asia or South america. :) you can choose to stay home, but then you're missing out on the sun and beaches. Same thing here; You need to install Origin to "fly" to BF3. Look at it as the travel-agency, airport and airline, all wrapped up in one. The actual resort is the game, all the rest is the platforms that take you there.

There´s a reason why every official BF3-FB post has tons of complaints
that is because fans of computer games dont bother with positive feedback ;) if they dont have anything negative to say, they dont say anything. And how big percentage of the total playerbase are making negative FB comments? id say 0.001% (guys like you)
and a good number of Battlefield "vets" in different BF communities canceled their preorders or are even highly sceptical of what DICE/EA will present us.
You're so transparent it's almost cute  :-* You've read in a bunch of other BF forums, and you've picked up a few comments which you can use as argument as people being "sceptical".... this is bonafide forum trolling what you're doing. I can go to any BF forum and pick up negative comments, it's easy.. there are always some who dont like a game. When you read these comments here and there, do you believe that they are a good representation of the overall player opinion, or do you believe that it's just them, a couple of dudes on some forum? Im overly excited in what you will answer on this. :)
How many are we talking btw? 20?.. 40?... Sad that the so-called "vets" dont bother more with reading up on what the game actually intendes to deliver, and instead just blindly head in to it, expecting it to be exactly as "they" imagined it. (these "vets" are probably the same people making those funny lists in the BF3 forum) If they were open to new designs and innovations, they'd have a much greater experience :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 01-10-2011, 10:10:44
we are open to new designs and new innovations. problem is, todays games rarely have them.

If you call a few better graphics and some destroyable buildings wich where already in other games, innovations...

Todays games designed by big companies like EA=
the company and people who get payed to say this=HEY GUYS TRULY THIS GAME WILL BE AWESOME REALLY INNOVATING THIS AND THAT

then you get the game, and you realise=
-it takes things from other games
-it playes like motherfrakking COD(like homefront)
-A few better graphics
-Less and less content then the previous games
-A crappier storyline

Or in the case of blackops=
-A much and much and MUCH improved storyline
-A lighning fast paced Multiplayer of wich even COD players will say=Well screw that...this aint fun
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 01-10-2011, 10:10:05

BF3 has quite a lot of real game innovations, the fact that you list "innovative theatres" as an innovation is a bit funny. Im not going to list all the innovations in BF3, you know them already. At least what dice revealed or what you saw in the beta

The only real innovation I saw was the lasers and flashlights shining in you FACE all the time... The rest all existed in some form in some other game. Oh and you can count that horrible Battlelog idea too (my friend totally agreed on this being horrible... he feels it's becoming like Facebook).


It would be just as fine a franchise as it is now. In case you wonder, only 3 years of the 10 years of Battlefield have had "mod support". Only 3 games out of 8 (PC games) had mod support ;) shocking news? BF franchise isnt a "moddable" gaming franchise, only bf42, BFV and BF2 were. The last Mod tool was released in 2005... 6 years ago.. still people think that that's a core BF thing?

Yes because the modding community made this game into a success... BF 42 probably would not become that popular if it weren't for the mods... Hell I bought BF 2 just to play FH 2! (And I'm sure lots of people did the same, whether for PR or some other mod)

OK, now you forgot what to write. What does "easy and fun game mechanics" have to do with the persistence system? :) Game mechanics is what you do ingame lik running, driving, shooting, the game mode etc.. persistence is the meta system, which DICE now integrated in to a social platform as welll. DICE is very nice towards their players, because players want persistence in their games today, so they went the extra mile and created the richest system made.
Listen to the producers themselves, why they gave you this system: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC7EHaJZtMQ

I kinda agree on this with you, game mechanics don't have a lot in common with persistence... I don't mind the meta system but I don't want the social platform... (another one... sigh)



Name a game where grinders don't get an advantage? Especially explain how people can grind without also develop skill & knowledge, and how those are not advantages in other games, and why they shouldnt be ;)

Yes hardcore grinders get knowledge and skill... But add a lot of "buffing gadgets" on top of that and you have a very unpleasant game experience for a newcomer...(assuming they don't fix the matchmaking - a problem in every BF game that features it)


So you are asking people in the year of 2011 if they'd prefer a game without leaderboards and social platforms? "ok" ;) no comment.. just.. wow :) I guess you wonder if people want the game to be just the game? you play it, close it, and nothing gets stored anywhere. The only value, is what happens hear & now when you play? Or how did you see this game? this "pure" game of yours, without social platforms? And if you watched the persistence system explanation video I posted ^ also explain why the game would be better without all the new ways for players to interact with eachother and join eachother, as that's going to make things like clan-wars and tournaments easier. don't you... want players to play together with friends? Or is it best that we do it like in 2005, we install 3rd party VoIP systems and send eachother the IP numbers to what server to join? :)

Like I said, I don't mind the leaderboards, but the new "social platform system" couple with the crappy squad system means that it's almost impossible to enjoy a game with a friend (trust me I tried yesterday... when I managed to join him in a server without disconnecting, I ended up in a totally different squad with no option to choose... And the built-in VOIP was not working (at least for me). Again, I'm sure they will fix it... someday.


Tinfoil hat crew will agree with you, the rest will just lol and say "get over it"
Let me give you an example: You ever been to a vacation in another country? Well, if you go, by plane, you need to go through airport security, this can be a tough experience (if you're paranoid), you need to remove your belt, empty your pocket, they X-ray your bags, you need to go through metaldetector etc..
All this, is a price you pay to be able to fly plane to Bahamas, Mallorca, Asia or South america. :) you can choose to stay home, but then you're missing out on the sun and beaches. Same thing here; You need to install Origin to "fly" to BF3. Look at it as the travel-agency, airport and airline, all wrapped up in one. The actual resort is the game, all the rest is the platforms that take you there.

Yes but the airport security won't check out your computer... watch your private photos, documents (digital ones) or try to sell your personal information to make more money! So your argument is flawed... Besides they could have made the game work just fine without that resource hog, but I have a feeling they will use it to spam you with advertisements.



You're so transparent it's almost cute  :-* You've read in a bunch of other BF forums, and you've picked up a few comments which you can use as argument as people being "sceptical".... this is bonafide forum trolling what you're doing. I can go to any BF forum and pick up negative comments, it's easy.. there are always some who dont like a game. When you read these comments here and there, do you believe that they are a good representation of the overall player opinion, or do you believe that it's just them, a couple of dudes on some forum? Im overly excited in what you will answer on this. :)
How many are we talking btw? 20?.. 40?... Sad that the so-called "vets" dont bother more with reading up on what the game actually intendes to deliver, and instead just blindly head in to it, expecting it to be exactly as "they" imagined it. (these "vets" are probably the same people making those funny lists in the BF3 forum) If they were open to new designs and innovations, they'd have a much greater experience :)

Yes it might be a tiny amount of people... But there's a lot of them that simply don't have the time or will or see it pointless to write on the Internets on the flaws of a game. I'm sure if EA releases a survey about the beta they will get a lot of negative (as well as positive feedback) which will help to improve the game.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 01-10-2011, 10:10:46
Yes because the modding community made this game into a success...
Nope.avi
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 01-10-2011, 10:10:26
Nope.avi

OK I'll rephrase that: Because the modding community made the game into an even bigger success, and improved the longevity of the game. (But I don't think EA is concerned about the longevity anymore).
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 01-10-2011, 11:10:59
Fancy-pancy propaganda speech.

"I wont play any beta, if they upload a proper demo Ill might check it out, otherwise Ill wait for reviews from people who actually can analyze and review games, it's not like what you say would make me download or not download a demo lulz.  8)"

Sounds familiar, right? You wrote that in the RO2 thread and now it fits right into my view of BF3.
In the end every discussion with you about that game is pointless. I stand to what I said and no matter how much propaganda you spit out I won´t bother with this game, especially when it comes with such arbitrary EULAs.
Call me a tinfoil hat fanatic, but I won´t give my computers data into the hands of some faceless corporation that can do whatever they want with it and even sell it so they can make more money after I´ve paid them the full price for the game. If that´s the "future of gaming", then no thanks. I won´t "book this flight" and rather take "other destinations" without bothering about your Orwellian EULAs that make a TSA security check seem less unbearable.
Kelmola used a nice quote of Orwells 1984, which I´ll re-use again:
" If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." With the exception that now we don't have to imagine anymore, we can experience it ourselves.







Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 01-10-2011, 11:10:48
Oi aslong as they fuck off from my essays and stuff im totally fine with them reading my game info. Doesnt Steam do exactly the same?
Its one of the reasons why i waited so long with 3e party stuff, but without it im lost now.

Ok Bf3 btw is an enjoyable shooter, but just one more wich isnt worth 50€. 25, 30€ might be a better price.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 01-10-2011, 11:10:17
Interesting read (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/08/24/eas-origin-eula-proves-even-more-sinister/) about the differences between Steam and Origin EULAs.
I´d take this article more serious than some biased guys opinion who tries to sugercoat this issue with improper analogies.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: djinn on 01-10-2011, 11:10:01
I don't know about you guys, but you may over-anticipate games.

Like movies, there are ALOT of regualr games, and only a few revolutionary ones that come like once in 3 years...

If you spend so much time reading game articles, you'd buy into the crap that the next game coming out will change the face of gaming forever...

I await BF3, not because I expect it to live up BF42 and Bf2, its a diffeent time. A very different time. We could mod games then, the engines were simpler. We can't now for the most part. Its like carts versus cars. Once upon a time, you could build your own carriage/ cart... Now you must buy a car. No DIYs

I'm waiting for BF3 for storyline and experience - Fullstop. I play, I enjoy the witty dialogue, I enjoy the twists, I hope the gameplay is fun enough for me to keep enjoying the game, and if it is fun enough, I play it once or twice more.

And maybe, I may go online to play there too...

But I enjoy it like I would a COD game, or just another romantic comedy. For its duration. Then I say, that was nice and look for the next best thing

If the next revolutionary game comes along, so be it... But I am not waiting for another Avatar, Gladiator, Lord of the Rings (Movie references), COD1, BF42 (Game ref:s) any time soon.

That's how you get disenchanted.



Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 01-10-2011, 12:10:26
Interesting read (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/08/24/eas-origin-eula-proves-even-more-sinister/) about the differences between Steam and Origin EULAs.
I´d take this article more serious than some biased guys opinion who tries to sugercoat this issue with improper analogies.

No, im sorry but the writer of this artivle is speculating.

Quote
You agree that EA may collect, use, store and transmit technical and related information that identifies your computer (including the Internet Protocol Address), operating system, Application usage (including but not limited to successful installation and/or removal), software, software usage and peripheral hardware, that may be gathered periodically to facilitate the provision of software updates, dynamically served content, product support and other services to you, including online services..

Thats something different than what the autor wrote:

Quote
What you’re agreeing to is for EA to have a free pass to scan your PC and gather absolutely anything it wants.

They specifically state "related" information. If they cross this invicible line it would be dealed with within privacy law.
Whatever this related information is though, is the shady part. We as customers are not aware of what sort of information they are after and gather.

Quote
they say they intend to take such information, combine it with personal information about you, and use it to advertise directly to you. However, when selling on this free-for-all on your computer’s contents, they’ll at least remove personally identifying information.

He/she makes it sound like theyre checking when and with you your having sex with. Whilst the agreement is aiming at online game behaviour, system specifications and what not.
I bet steam is doing this aswel.


I'm not saying i agree with these terms and what its going to be in the future, but its not yet as bad as people make it sound.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 01-10-2011, 12:10:21
They specifically state "related" information. If they cross this invicible line it would be dealed with within privacy law.
Whatever this related information is though, is the shady part. We as customers are not aware of what sort of information they are after and gather.
Related to what? See, the point is, these EULAs are so wide-ranging that it is hard to draw the line. What keeps them from scanning things that are not game related? They didn´t say that they´ll only collect "BF3 related information", but instead their EULAs say that they can have access to your whole hardware and software.
The "invisible line" you´re talking about isn´t really a "line" anymore, but merely gets blurred and grey, since there´s no restriction.
Steam on the other hand collects data, too, that´s correct. But they clearly state in their EULAs that they need a users permission to handle personal information and if a user declines the data won´t be used (for example the surveys, Steam does from time to time). Additionally Steam limits itself to Steam related data (as the article says, and as the Steam EULAs say), whereas Origins EULAs are general. That´s the main difference.

Quote
He/she makes it sound like theyre checking when and with you your having sex with. Whilst the agreement is aiming at online game behaviour, system specifications and what not.
Of course they´re not spying into their costumers bed rooms and I know that services, such as Amazon and Google already send you personalized advertisements, but they do that because of your shpopping/browsing behaviour (passive use of user submitted data) and not because they scan your harddrive, find out that you like certain things because of what you´ve got stored on your HD and use this actively collected data to send you advertisements. I hope you understand the difference and how Origin´s shady EULAs can actually intrude into your privacy.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 01-10-2011, 12:10:37
I await BF3, not because I expect it to live up BF42 and Bf2, its a diffeent time. A very different time. We could mod games then, the engines were simpler. We can't now for the most part. Its like carts versus cars. Once upon a time, you could build your own carriage/ cart... Now you must buy a car. No DIYs

Except that there are people who can build cars on their own... And pretty good ones, too... So your analogy is invalid. And making games has nothing to do with cars IMO... Cars are physical things... Games are intellectual properties... You don't need raw materials to make them... just programs... Besides nobody talks about making them, just modding existing ones... Like Natty once said... FH 2 is just a "skin" for BF 2... When you play it you play 90 % BF 2 and 10 % FH 2. So I don't think that making a "skin" for newer games would be that harder... Just more time consuming.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 01-10-2011, 13:10:25
Quote
I hope you understand the difference and how Origin´s shady EULAs can actually intrude into your privacy.

You read what you want to read. I havnt read anything wich gives them the legal right to look in to your entire hard disc.
Isnt there anyone who has traced down everything Origin actually checks? To swap from speculations to hard facts.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 01-10-2011, 13:10:44
You read what you want to read. I havnt read anything wich gives them the legal right to look in to your entire hard disc.
Isnt there anyone who has traced down everything Origin actually checks? To swap from speculations to hard facts.

Quote
...operating system, Application usage (including but not limited to successful installation and/or removal), software, software usage and peripheral hardware,...

Now go ahead and tell me where they´d have to stop? Application usage, software and software usage can mean basically anything and the reason why I lift more than one eyebrow is that these EULAs are so general. There´s no clear distinction what exactly thy´re going to collect and what exactly they´re going to do with that data and that´s odd, because EULAs (and other contracts) are usually very clear.

It´s not necessarily about private photos or an extensive porn collection users should be worried about, I just think it´s strange that Origin messes with programs it shouldn´t have anthing to do with. Why would they want to know which programs I run on my computer anyway? What will happen if I´d have software on my HD that you could use to rip CDs, read ISO files or download Torrents? Will they delete my account because these programs *could* be used for piracy? Will they simply ignore it?

See, there´s no "clear line" in these EULAs and AFAIk there wasn´t any statement from EA (except that they changed the EULAs again, so users have to agree that they won´t take part in class-action lawsuits against EA) and I´d really, really love to see the clear and straight facts, together with a statement from EA what they´re going to do an where they´ll stop.
But neither has happened to my knowledge so I´m not "reading what I want to read" (I´m not that stubborn) but rather wait untill we´ve got clear results and hard facts that can disprove my doubts.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 01-10-2011, 14:10:49
homer, you're not Michael Jackson, no one cares about your computer

(http://www.samtycke.nu/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/20110118_tin_foil_hat.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Beaufort on 01-10-2011, 14:10:44
Then why EA wants to scan everything in it ?  :(

I was a fan of Battlefield but this plus no mod tools means I simply won't buy it. And don't tell me they need this shit, they did perfectly well so far without it. Good for them they dont care about taking the Modern Warfare fanbase and loosing their own, I guess they don't have pride or something ...

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 01-10-2011, 14:10:50
ever heard of Steam?  ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Beaufort on 01-10-2011, 14:10:09
Yes i have.

Quote
* Steam doesn’t link the software/hardware survey results to the Steam account.

* Steam doesn’t check the software/hardware survey results at each boot or at anytime (exception : if you’re randomly picked again). It is a complete hoax.

* Steam doesn’t sell the software/hardware survey results to third parties.

* Steam software/hardware survey results are displayed publicly, available to anyone at this page : http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

... and btw I dont like steam either.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 01-10-2011, 14:10:48
then dont worry about Origin, lol  ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 01-10-2011, 14:10:01
homer, you're not Michael Jackson, no one cares about your computer

http://www.samtycke.nu/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/20110118_tin_foil_hat.jpg (http://www.samtycke.nu/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/20110118_tin_foil_hat.jpg)
I´d like to see the hard facts and hear that from EA themselves (best would be changed EULAs) and not from some DICE-guy who´s going all Baghdad-Bob in order to "defend" his companies product.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 01-10-2011, 14:10:05
Just played Metro 1 hour straight and im really into it right now. Not that i enjoy playing the same map over and over so 1 hour is the max.

Now.. where would be the cheapeast place to buy this game ;D.. anyone?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 01-10-2011, 14:10:00
They did change some of it after a lot of people got upset. I think it was the part about selling the information to 3rd parties.

Can't be arsed to check it right now.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 01-10-2011, 15:10:30
dice guy?.. "defend product"?... lol, you need to get out from your bubble dude... that tin foil hat must be squeezing really tight  ;D

Newsflash: Im no dice-guy, and what relevance does it have what I do for a living? what do you work with? making foil-hats and sell on www.conspiracies.com?.. Im also not "defending" any product, why would I do that? to brain-wash you?

just.. LOL  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 01-10-2011, 15:10:21
They did change some of it after a lot of people got upset. I think it was the part about selling the information to 3rd parties.

Can't be arsed to check it right now.
Yeah, just checked it, they changed the point where they could sell users data for marketing reasons, the rest about checking users hardware, software etc. wasn´t changed, though.
Source (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/battlefield-3/news/6331203/ea-changes-origin-eula)

Natty-Bob, being concerned about EULAs that can be abused to such an extent doesn´t have anything to do with being "paranoid". You wouldn´t sign a contract which you have doubts about, right?
You´re profile says you´re 34, but you have the argumentation style and writing skill of a 12 year old, you might want to work on that. ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 01-10-2011, 15:10:42
"being abused"  ;D yea.... you know what, it's not like I have the time, interest or energy in to writing posts here well. It's not worth it.  I know you try hard, but the more you try, the less sense you make. You simply "haven't got it"

Just look at your post... "abuse".... EA, one of the largest game publishers in the world, about to launch one of the biggest shooter games ever... and you, worry that they will abuse their platform?  ;D it's laughable, really... pathetic even.. What do you think is going to happen? I mean.. really, what's the extent of this potential "abuse"?.

Just accept the fact that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about and we can move on. Trust me, you'll feel a whole lot better. In the meantime, Ill happily link back to this conversation a few weeks after the retail game is out, so you can read your posts again. At least then, you will realize how silly you sounded, with the conspiracies and paranoid anti-Origin propaganda. you know when the world didn't end, and EA didn't empty everyones bank-accounts or stole their identities.

If you want to keep using my job or age as insults because you lack arguments, please do so, it only makes you look smaller in all this  :-* making things personal is always the first step toward losing an argument, please continue doing that.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 01-10-2011, 15:10:51
OkOk, but i saw a link somewhere wherre they sold bf3 for the magical price of 23 pounds. Is it trustworthy and wich site is it :p.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 01-10-2011, 15:10:58
*snip*

I´m looking forward to it.

Quote
If you want to keep using my job or age as insults because you lack arguments, please do so, it only makes you look smaller in all this  :-* making things personal is always the first step toward losing an argument, please continue doing that.
"What comes around, goes around".
You were insulting and ridiculing people with other opinions all the time (see either this thread, the RO2 thread or basically any other thread where you try to "lecture" people why their ideas and suggestions are wrong), so it actually shouldn´t be a surprise that they start ridiculing you, too. Your "clashes" with other moderators and forum members clearly show that...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 01-10-2011, 15:10:15
OkOk, but i saw a link somewhere wherre they sold bf3 for the magical price of 23 pounds. Is it trustworthy and wich site is it :p.

Here you go:
CJS Cdkeys (http://www.cjs-cdkeys.com/search.php?mode=1&search_query_adv=battlefield+3&brand=11&ISSelectReplacement_category%5B%5D%5B%5D=22&ISSelectReplacement_category%5B%5D%5B%5D=13&category%5B%5D=22&category%5B%5D=13&searchsubs=ON&price_from=&price_to=&featured=&shipping=1)

It's a trustworthy site. People checked and the EA Chat confirmed. You will receive a mail with the scan on release day (oct 23rd). The only drawback is that (I think) you don't get the BTK pack.

Edit: nvm;
Quote
Battlefield 3 limited edition includes a 'Back To Karkland' map pack,

So, buy limited edition for half the price and no drawbacks at all! :D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 01-10-2011, 16:10:05
You were insulting and ridiculing people with other opinions all the time
yea... I insult people on the internet... yup.. that's me...riiiight...  ::)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 01-10-2011, 16:10:28
Thanks a lot Sander. How does it work though, do i get a link to the download of fullgame ? Or...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 01-10-2011, 16:10:46
Why don't you people stop bitching and start playing some more. Even though the beta map does not feel much like Battlefield but more like Medal of Honor, as in infantry only and the infantry combat feels similar. There are so many good new features added. Some things we have wanted for ages from battlefield, like a proper suppression system, deployable bipods, great animations for movement and traversing objects (although still wonky sometimes). Some features have been sacrificed to make the game more suitable for the mainstream gamer. Well it happens for every game and it's something you just have to live with if you want to play the game.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 01-10-2011, 16:10:43
well Eglaerinion, this certain dude seems to have made it his mission in life to preach to the world how rotten and evil all big gaming companies are, and that they will "spy" on you  ;D those dudes are a dime-a-dozen though, and I cant help to try and talk sense in to them, usually they get it.. but there's always that one dude...  ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 01-10-2011, 16:10:22
Thanks a lot Sander. How does it work though, do i get a link to the download of fullgame ? Or...

They buy a retail copy for you at stock price, which they will then simply scan. You can then read the Cd-key / code off this scan and use it to activate the game on Origin.
You'll be able to download it as if you had bought it on Origin itself. ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Fuchs on 01-10-2011, 16:10:23
Actually there's these two guys Natty, both just keep bitching and bitching. If one would stop.. Hey, then it would be over!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 01-10-2011, 16:10:33
Quote from: Nattylink=topic=1046.msg226090#msg226090 date=1317478385
yea... I insult people on the internet... yup.. that's me...riiiight...  ::)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4
Congrats, just a quick look at your post history in this forum shows that it´s actually "you". Inner examination is the first step towards self improvement, so go ahead.  ;)
And another small hint that it´s not just "one dude":
http://www.facebook.com/battlefield (http://www.facebook.com/battlefield)
A quick look at the comments will show that there´s a good number of people who aren´t happy with what EA/DICE have presented so far. So either all of them are "stupid dudes" or somethings wrong.
And a little bit more (http://www.reddit.com/comments/hy24b/battlefield_3_preorder_dlc_boycott_coordination/). The community seems to be split...50% doesn´t really look like a one-guy-partisan action to me.
TheCyncialBrit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db7-m0YuNU8&feature=channel_video_title) has some interesting points aswell. See, Natty, it´s not me against the world, it´s more complicated than that.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 01-10-2011, 16:10:38
I have seen many people dissapointed a bit

My mate couldnt understand the Fuss about this game. It is a slightly better BC2 with deployable MG's and jets...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Musti on 01-10-2011, 17:10:40
blocking origin spying - check!
stupid regen health - harcore mode fixes that.check!

So, thing i don't like about BF3? Battlelog. WHY!? why can't i just click the icon, game starts up, select "multiplayer" choose the server i want and play? I don't mind Origin in the background (blocked ofc) but this website thing is pure bullshit.
at least give me a choice. Is it really that hard to make both website based and In-game server browser?
like in BF2? with ability to change options? . I mean i can click "Team Fortress 2" icon, Steam starts up without even disturbing me
i click "server browser" select the server i want and play. WHAT was wrong with that?

I bet that in next battlefield (4? BC3?) that are going to advertise "revolution in gaming! you can select server, and check your stats without having to fire up your internet browser!"  just like they were showing off with ability to go prone.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 01-10-2011, 17:10:25
So, no way of creating a squad in game, oohhhh shit, goes from bad to worse.  What the hell are you doing DICE?!?!?!??!

https://twitter.com/#!/zh1nt0/status/120072134226751488

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: kummitus on 01-10-2011, 17:10:14
What I wonder why they didn't put the website thingy into the origin. Steam's store is basically a regular  web browser, I guess origin is not that far from it so should be more than possible to do.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 01-10-2011, 18:10:11
What I wonder why they didn't put the website thingy into the origin. Steam's store is basically a regular  web browser, I guess origin is not that far from it so should be more than possible to do.

That's what the community is suggesting. But will DICE listen? Nah, they're that stubborn.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: bjack on 01-10-2011, 18:10:32
The beta is a blast despite only playing one map.  The suppression system is great.  Bipods are a nice addition.  The gunplay in general feels great.  You don't have to unload an entire assault rifle clip to kill someone.  I am quite pleasantly surprised the weapons aren't weak, nerfy toys!  Plenty of gadgets to add to your weapons.  Great stuff imo. 

I just wish I was able to play more than a half hour on Caspian Border, aka the real Battlefield map.

Downsides so far are:  dorritos all around,  tanks don't come with a coax MG as in BC2.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 01-10-2011, 18:10:31
tanks don't come with a coax MG as in BC2.

The tanks never came with a coax in BC2, it was a stupid perk.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 01-10-2011, 19:10:24
That's what the community is suggesting. But will DICE listen? Nah, they're that stubborn.
yes lol, because the community is such great designers (lol!)  ;D
The tanks never came with a coax in BC2, it was a stupid perk.
brilliant perk.. it's the same in bfp4f.. it's great to keep coax as an unlock. It makes vehicle skills matter more, and makes vehicle behaviour less predictable. Players love it.

desperately grasping for links to help me seem less confused
yea, the world outside your tinfoil island is big dear and scary homerjay.. there are many many people in the world, and since bf3 is such a big big product with millions and millions of fans, isn't it flat-out amazing that some of them dont like it?  :o

I mean.. here I was, fully expecting 100% of all the people in the world to love it unconditionally... man, so wrong I was.... wait a minute, you tell me that people on facebook actually have something negative to say? my world is shattered, we need to call Time magazine, this is front page stuff!

Don't you have more random links to sites where people say negative things about games or other forms of entertainment?  I so wish to read it, it really enlightens my life  ::)

To summarize this little freakshow: Bf3 is soon released, You need Origin to play it, the end.
What you think about it, matters so little in the world, Im sure that if I take a spit in the atlantic, and I wait 1 week for it to dissolve, my spit will be more visible from the moon than what you think about bf3 has had any impact on the interwebz. funny thing is, you will buy BF3, you will play it, you will like it, you will complain about things, but 6months from now, when you fully have realized exactly why and how things work in this new online experience, you'll look back at this thread and think quietly for yourself "ooooh.... that is what he meant...."

See you then, kthxBai :-*

(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQaxXJfQyPqUQLiS3CRBMu8gbDJ4upcDOePDYyHvw1MJySggj9O7A)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 01-10-2011, 19:10:42
Not this time Natty

Not this time

I bought every battlefield from day 1 of release(exept BF1942 i never heard of it before, bought it a year after release)

BF3, origen, your little marketing speech just over there. Has made me doubting this game very much
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 01-10-2011, 19:10:34
yes lol, because the community is such great designers (lol!)  ;D

It's called feedback. Origin fails, end of the story. You require internet to play, you need to do everything through origin, and it fails to connect sometimes saying that you should check your connection but the connection it's fine.

The community "whining" can help to make decisions, like when they didnt want to include commorose, and now is for the full game.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kradovech on 01-10-2011, 19:10:45
The beta is a blast despite only playing one map.  The suppression system is great.  Bipods are a nice addition.  The gunplay in general feels great.  You don't have to unload an entire assault rifle clip to kill someone.  I am quite pleasantly surprised the weapons aren't weak, nerfy toys!  Plenty of gadgets to add to your weapons.  Great stuff imo. 

I just wish I was able to play more than a half hour on Caspian Border, aka the real Battlefield map.

Downsides so far are:  dorritos all around,  tanks don't come with a coax MG as in BC2.
I have to admit, a suppression effect and the bipod thing are a nice surprise, something I would not have expected from this game. But all those damn downsides....
Any news on any mods? Or rather, is there any way to even slightly change the core game, maybe server side? . I'm assuming that changing weapon recoil for example is too much to ask, but would it be possible to change the damage done by different weapons or remove certain features?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 01-10-2011, 19:10:30
Plus, all in all, there is truly NOTHING NEW whatsoever about BF3...
Can you name me one thing that BF3 has what other games dont have?

Exept origen ofcourse
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 01-10-2011, 19:10:45
Making himself look like a ridiculous child.
Once again.
Well done, well done. You´ve shown once again that it´s impossible to discuss things in an intelligent and reasonable way with you.

In the end I won´t change a thing, but that´s not even my intention. I merely stated which "features" of the game make me reconsider buying BF3, yet you damn each and every of my posts as the rambling of an "immature, big agency fearing, conspiracy-loving dude".
Even though I get "support" from other forum members, who feel the same as I do, you keep me in your crosshairs and try to make me look ridiculous, without going into the critized points others posted as well. You basically ignore the others while you hand out insults and mockery. Kudos!

Your "tactics" of making the other party of a discussion look bad and "stoopid" might work when 10 year olds do it ("I´m right and you stink, hahaha lolz!", "no you stink!"), but it´s a damn shame seeing this behaviour coming from a more or less educated adult who has spent some years on this planet.

I won´t go into details why a 50-50 "like/dislike"-mix by 32000 members of a closed community actually does matter (you might want to check out how poll forecasts work), since you will try to insult me with "tinfoil hat"-pics once more, but I´m fairly sure that there´s a good number of others here and in countless other forums (even in the EA forums, where complaints-threads are being closed fairly quick, so much to being open for criticism) who see this whole monkey business, too.

In the end it´s a win-win situation anyway. EA/DICE can milk their cow because enough people will buy the game and I save 50 Euros I can spend otherwise, without missing anything.
And that´s the important point, which needs no further discussion. So unless you have anything constructive to say about the game´s mechanics in a civilized manner I´m out of this discussion. Have fun at whatever you do, l´ll do this thread a favour and from now on simply ignore what you say and see you being torn appart by other forum members. To use your "internet slang": KTHXBAI!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 01-10-2011, 19:10:27
It's called feedback. Origin fails, end of the story.
"fails"... really? does EA know? maybe you should call them and tell them this, Im sure they'll be delighted to get that information. Maybe they will hire you as senior platform producer, so you can make it right.

j/k... millions of players will be using Origin to play BF3. is that "fail"?.. I think not.

@homerdude.. I didnt read your last post.. i scrolled past it, because tbh.. Im bored with you now, you were amusing in the beginning, with your links and attempts to gather a "posse" (we who unite against the evil of EA and origin  :D) but now you're just zzzzz repeating yourself and will never, ever, get any point across. Goodnight.  8)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD5GtohtRYU&feature=player_detailpage#t=42s
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 01-10-2011, 20:10:19
brilliant perk.. it's great to keep coax as an unlock. Players love it.
(http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/7484/wtfreading.png)
funny thing is, you will buy BF3, you will play it, you will like it, you will complain about things, but 6months from now, when you fully have realized exactly why and how things work in this new online experience, you'll look back at this thread and think quietly for yourself "ooooh.... that is what he meant...."
Unless mod tools are released and until quality mods are available, I will not buy BF3, I will not play it, I will not like it as vanilla no matter what, and this "new online experience" translates to "silly COD-like shooter for ADHD kids".
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Musti on 01-10-2011, 20:10:35
Pity. This game is looking really good. Some brilliant things i saw there. Yet its all ruined by stupid things like Origin, Battlelog thingy and such. For the first time ever i really hope a game gets "yarred"
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 01-10-2011, 20:10:34
j/k... millions of players will be using Origin to play BF3. is that "fail"?.. I think not.

It's an awful way to start the game. Origin sometimes crashes, you need to CREATE an MANAGE squads, in battlelog! Not in game! You need to alt+tab, the game to even change the settings! You dont have a menu anymore, not even a serverbrowser but just origin and battle fail log. And sometimes, even the PLAY NOW button is buggy. Battlelog/Origin at the very least should be integrated INTO the game, like STEAM is, and it works excellent.

Unless mod tools are released and until quality mods are available, I will not buy BF3, I will not play it, I will not like it as vanilla no matter what, and this "new online experience" translates to "silly COD-like shooter for ADHD kids".

Exactly my thoughts as well. BF3 has too nobofied features, too many to count and the core gameplay values are being stripped away. No mod tools, no buy from me.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 01-10-2011, 20:10:59
Get on with it then? :P

EA/DICE has never released their own mod tools, the BF42/BF2 mods were made with tools made by the modders.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 01-10-2011, 20:10:05
j/k... millions of players will be using Origin to play BF3. is that "fail"?.. I think not.

The fact that players will be enforced to use it to be able to play doesn't mean it can't be shitty. Your argument holds no value whatsoever lol.

The concept is rather good and modern and I like it. The way it works right now however, is simply shit.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 01-10-2011, 20:10:26
The fact that players will be enforced to use it to be able to play doesn't mean it can't be shitty. Your argument holds no value whatsoever lol.

apparently it isnt so shitty, if millions are using it, lol. ofcourse a few wont like it, and QQ on facebook about it. does it matter? they still need to use it to play the game, the end.

@Thorondor: EA didnt release the bf2 editor we used to make Fh2? who did it then?

@Yustax: ever been in a beta before? if you havent, let me enlighten you.. things get better
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 01-10-2011, 20:10:21
Let's see...

Battlecraft: Made by modders.
RFA Extractor: Made by modders.
Editor42: Made by modders.
3dsmax scripts by modders.
3ds max BF2 exporters by modders.

BF2 editor... Yeah, this actually might be from EA. Gotcha.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 01-10-2011, 20:10:34
Good thing EA/DICE has some time to make it stable.

Personally I'd rather see a regular in-game browser.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 01-10-2011, 20:10:04
Get on with it then? :P

EA/DICE has never released their own mod tools, the BF42/BF2 mods were made with tools made by the modders.

And Im well aware of this fact. However they said in an interview that they are "thinking of releasing mod tool", but not at release. Hell, I'll pay 30 bucks for them as DLC.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 01-10-2011, 20:10:59
Apparenly server files have been leaked and there are now servers with up to 200 players online. Also it seems like the 64 player CQ version of Op Metro is running as well (Check out this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYZgSfh37mQ)) on several servers. AFAIK server files are also needed in order to run mods, so this is rather interesting. Maybe there is some hope left.
Another video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RHBXbokxQA&feature=related)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kubador on 01-10-2011, 20:10:57
I have managed to resist buying BFBC2 and I think I can manage to postpone with buying BF3 and most certainly I will not recommend it to anyone until I play it. In time I'll probably buy it but as of now it seems the main reason will be to check out the frostbite engine instead of actually enjoy the game.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 01-10-2011, 21:10:26


apparently it isnt so shitty, if millions are using it

coz they are forced if they want to play? the moment is cracked (and it will be) you can espect TONS of people leaving the stupid piece of software that forces you to install itself in the windows partition and doesnt let you do BASIC things game had since the dawn of man like changing your settings before joining the game or , you know, been usefull. =9
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 01-10-2011, 22:10:31
Let's see...
Im baffled.... amazed really... how can you lose track of a conversation this fast?

Let me help you... You stated first that dice havent done any mod tools for battlefield games, ok.
I corrected you and explained that, yes, they have. They made mod tools for bf42 for bfv and for bf2, ok.

Then you make a little list of community made tools?.... like... what does that have to do with anything?
I never said the community never done any tools, they made a bunch of tools, some even very useful. that doesnt change the fact that dice did their own mod tools....

really, lol... they made all their own editors (despite what deluded modders say) they also were kind enough to release all the needed apps and tools for bf42 modding in the "Mod Development Toolkit 2.75" where modders could extract rfa files, use 3Dsmax, tweak menu's etc etc.... a very nice pack back in the days.

It's funny you enter in to a discussion about mod tools with me :) Ive spent the last 9 years modding battlefield games, using every single tool and application there is, perhaps not really wise of you. I know some modders come dragging with some old crap about some dude making a tool and then get hired by dice a million years ago and yarda yarda, but that was just a small part of it.. designing and making an Editor requires a team, you need programmers, artists, designers.. just like when making a game, and  fact is; EA/DICE made and released their tools, not the community. The end.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 01-10-2011, 22:10:44
apparently it isnt so shitty, if millions are using it, lol. ofcourse a few wont like it, and QQ on facebook about it. does it matter? they still need to use it to play the game, the end.

You can repeat it a thousand times, your argument is still invalid. If people had a choice whether they could play the game normally, or play it via Origin, the vast majority would choose the first. Not because Origin's concepts aren't nice, but because it just sucks the way it works right now.

Sometimes I truly wonder if you get paid to say these ridiculous things. Once more, I don't care about Origin and although it works slower than a normal game, I quite like it. But it's BS to say that it rocks, and it's especially BS to say it rocks because so many people use it while they're being enforced to.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 01-10-2011, 22:10:35
so aprantly is true , sever files from bf3 got leaked , YAY =D.

a caspian border server with 127 players was spotted, mods at the EA forums are closing threads with information, DICE manager is treating players that get into those servers will get banned from the beta.

this is loking good :3
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 01-10-2011, 22:10:41
If people had a choice whether they could play the game normally, or play it via Origin, the vast majority would choose the first.
1. how do you know they would choose that? You did marketing research? More than what the EA marketing analysists and public relations team has? wow.... how did you afford that? those things costs millions.

2. Even if that was true, they dont have that choice... You have two choices, play bf3, or not. That's it.. wanna play? Say hi to Origin. ;)

@sicario... say hello to next week, it's nice there.  :-*
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 01-10-2011, 22:10:03
I think its blackmailing towards users to bend over and take it up the rear in order to satisfy curiosity towards BF3. I for one *would* at least try it, but I dont want spyware.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 01-10-2011, 22:10:37
Quote
ou have two choices, play bf3, or not

or play without origin ;).

half life can be played without steam, bf3 could too, you just need patience and a web browser =9
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 01-10-2011, 22:10:44
I think its blackmailing towards users to bend over and take it up the rear in order to satisfy curiosity towards BF3. I for one *would* at least try it, but I dont want spyware.

These are new times :) you no longer just install a game and "go".. this is new tech, new designs... you cant play with XP, you even get special gfx drivers, you need Origin, you get battlelog.. game and social networks are integrated.. "gaming" is redefined.

sure is scary and new, and the buzz and hype is making some tinfoilhatgeeks trembling in fear of all this new and unknown.. but as with all great and solid designs, you just take comdfort in that people do adapt, and get used to it.... Just look at facebook.. remember the internet before facebook?
What was that? lol.. people communicating with e-mail or msn  ;D FB was a leap in social internet interaction, it literary changed human behaviour,  spread to mobile phones, TV etc.... it's integral in everything we do on the internet... in one way, it is the internet... :o.
 This is what bf3 is, a new era in gaming. It will make people look at their games as something more than just shooting dudes on a server.. they get more real value. In 6 months, well look back at how we play games now and go "lol!, how did we endure that boredom flat, non-interactive game experience?"

@Sickareyou, ok fine.. someone might haxx origin some day, if that makes you happy? Im not sure what you are trying to achieve here... who cares?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LHeureux on 01-10-2011, 22:10:34
Mmh Origin is a nice marketing tool I love it.

Also, what the FUCK with the 128 and more server slots? Are EA/DICE cutting the server slot like they did with BF2 wich was supposed to be 128 players again? EA are pushing too fast again or what?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 01-10-2011, 22:10:39

1. how do you know they would choose that? You did marketing research? More than what the EA marketing analysists and public relations team has? wow.... how did you afford that? those things costs millions.

Let's see...if I go into hundreds of threads in one day about players hating battlelog and origin about not wanting it, because it sucks and because it's filled with problems vs EA marketing shitface making this kind of decisions but still players hating every second of it vs what? Marketing research? Since when EA or DICE even cares what the community thinks? And then they plainly lie into our face, "oh we care what the community says, it's very important to us"

They do anything? Nope.

Admit, you dont have any argument, Origin and Battlelog are shit, sucks and if players could get their server browser and complete start up a game like it always has been, they would chose the latter, not dumb battlelog and origin.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ajs47951 on 01-10-2011, 22:10:04
I would rather have Origin installed then  that shit they call Steam   "Steam has found pirated software on your PC"wow like NO WAYYYYYY I did not know :D... ......I don't remember telling Steam they could scan my fucking PC

but so far Origin is a hell of allot better then Steam is on a 125kb download speed internet like mine
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 01-10-2011, 22:10:17


@Sickareyou, ok fine.. someone might haxx origin some day, if that makes you happy? Im not sure what you are trying to achieve here... who cares?

wrong, someone "will" :P

im not trying anything, just correcting you, you are not limited to origin, there is always choises :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 01-10-2011, 22:10:48
wrong, someone "will" :P

im not trying anything, just correcting you, you are not limited to origin, there is always choises :P

My good man, that would make the game better. Especially when someone figures out how to now MAKE SQUADS INTO THE GAME, and not using that trashy battlelog.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 01-10-2011, 22:10:47

What was that? lol.. people communicating with e-mail or msn  ;D FB was a leap in social internet interaction,

Yeah, a leap backwards  :P.

it literary changed human behaviour,  spread to mobile phones, TV etc.... it's integral in everything we do on the internet... in one way, it is the internet... :o.

Yep it indeed did change it... now we have people who can't spend 2 freaking minutes without checking there Facebook for statuses/ pictures/ stuff I don't even want to know about... They have to carry it everywhere and they freak out if their cell phone/laptop battery dies...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LHeureux on 01-10-2011, 22:10:46
I would rather have Origin installed then  that shit they call Steam   "Steam has found pirated software on your PC"wow like NO WAYYYYYY I did not know :D... ......I don't remember telling Steam they could scan my fucking PC

but so far Origin is a hell of allot better then Steam is on a 125kb download speed internet like mine
Got pirated "content" and have no problem with Steam about that.

Also! Good news! :

http://twitter.com/#!/zh1nt0/status/120215241916284928

It's comming from a community manager. Don't base all on that.

What was that? lol.. people communicating with e-mail or msn  ;D FB was a leap in social internet interaction,

Yeah, a leap backwards  :P.

it literary changed human behaviour,  spread to mobile phones, TV etc.... it's integral in everything we do on the internet... in one way, it is the internet... :o.

Yep it indeed did change it... now we have people who can't spend 2 freaking minutes without checking there Facebook for statuses/ pictures/ stuff I don't even want to know about... They have to carry it everywhere and they freak out if their cell phone/laptop battery dies...
Yeah. And FB also helped many people rassembling to drive dictators off their country this year.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Lightning on 01-10-2011, 22:10:13
I love Origin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_(software)), I use it for plotting all my graphs.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ajs47951 on 01-10-2011, 22:10:14
I love Origin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_(software)), I use it for plotting all my graphs.
lolol nice ;D ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 01-10-2011, 22:10:39

Also! Good news! :

http://twitter.com/#!/zh1nt0/status/120215241916284928

Im sorry, but since the devs lurk the UK forums more and Im there all day. Zh!nt0 has been know to either troll or say that they're listening but they wont do shit, because he doesnt pull the shots.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 01-10-2011, 23:10:42
bla bla bla
Yustax, you are a known BF3 forum troll, you're only making yourself look more lame now.. anyone can just go to the BF3 forum and read your posts... aaaalways the saaaame oooold boooring rants about dice and ea and how they dont do all the things you want... really, doesnt it get old for you too? Before you sit down and write your 103rd anti-dice post, dont you like.. think, at least a little bit "why am I doing all this?"  :D

You're reading hundreds of threads.. yea, made by the same 20-30 dudes... you all have a very nice little group of back-padding trolls, high-fiving eachother and giving eachother broners by spamming remarks or point out bad things with Ea's games or services.

For what worth? People buy and enjoy the games anyway. less than 1% of players even bother with forums.. no one hear you  ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 01-10-2011, 23:10:43

Yustax, you are a known BF3 forum troll, you're only making yourself look more lame now.. anyone can just go to the BF3 forum and read your posts... aaaalways the saaaame oooold boooring rants about dice and ea and how they dont do all the things you want... really, doesnt it get old for you too? Before you sit down and write your 103rd anti-dice post, dont you like.. think, at least a little bit "why am I doing all this?"  :D



But I have never made topics or threads about DICE or EA rants, ever in my life. You could check my historial in my EA UK BF3 forums. Great, apart from being an irrespectful individual, you now accuse without even having the facts. In fact here's the link to my account, check it yourself.

http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/members/393674-yustax.html

Do you like to stroke your ego looking superior to others? Sorry mate, but you fail.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Beaufort on 01-10-2011, 23:10:51
bla bla bla
Yustax, you are a known BF3 forum troll, you're only making yourself look more lame now.. anyone can just go to the BF3 forum and read your posts... aaaalways the saaaame oooold boooring rants about dice and ea and how they dont do all the things you want... really, doesnt it get old for you too? Before you sit down and write your 103rd anti-dice post, dont you like.. think, at least a little bit "why am I doing all this?"  :D

You're reading hundreds of threads.. yea, made by the same 20-30 dudes... you all have a very nice little group of back-padding trolls, high-fiving eachother and giving eachother broners by spamming remarks or point out bad things with Ea's games or services.

For what worth? People buy and enjoy the games anyway. less than 1% of players even bother with forums.. no one hear you  ;)

Lol ... Still saying you are not insulting anyone Natty ? :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Lightning on 01-10-2011, 23:10:48
Yustax, you are a known BF3 forum troll, you're only making yourself look more lame now.. anyone can just go to the BF3 forum and read your posts... aaaalways the saaaame oooold boooring rants about dice and ea and how they dont do all the things you want... really, doesnt it get old for you too? Before you sit down and write your 103rd anti-dice post, dont you like.. think, at least a little bit "why am I doing all this?"  :D
Replace "Yustax" with "Natty", "BF3" with "FH2" and "anti-DICE" with "pro-DICE" and ask yourself the same question.  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 01-10-2011, 23:10:57
In 6 months, well look back at how we play games now and go "lol!, how did we endure that boredom flat, non-interactive game experience?"
"I'm standing here in pieces and you're having delusions of grandeur!" or "Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed."
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 01-10-2011, 23:10:15
But I have never made topics or threads about DICE or EA rants, ever in my life.
Here are some whine/rants/call it what you will.... there were a lot about a year ago, Im not wasting time digging these up... the overall theme in your post is that you seem to sit on ultra awesome solutions to everything, as if you know better than dice how to make games. That is the genera style/tone of pretty much all you write, and that, is the reason I call you a troll, since that is obviously not the case. I mean all the endless rants about how weapons "should" work, especially your recoil whine... where do you get the energy? You havent got a clue, dude.
(text in black is yustax whine)
Dice...what the hell did you do this time? That's just awful, who was the damn lalala who thought about this lalalala?
---------
"t's not whining, is just a complete outrage. The features that made BF gameplay core so different from other games is dissapearing and it's being replaced by simplified and worst gameplay additions."
---------
"Those who voted no are trolls."
---------
"In BC2:
Oh this is a beta, this is a beta, please understand that it's a beta, and the game will be patched and better in release"

What happened when the game released? Absolutely and barely nothing was changed. Hell, the beta was better than the full game. "

(I LOL:ed on that one ;D)
---------------
"I dont want high damage, I want NORMAL damage. Learn to FPS? I have been playing since I was 5, and DOOM and Duken Nukem were my first FPS games. And actually you're laughable, high damage is for noobs that kill in 2 or 3 shots with an assault rifle and go run and gunning. Like you sir, now run along noob"

nice one^ ::)
---------------
"That's just as cheap as the dorito. It's a SHOOT HERE sign. The glint is just moronic. Now recons cant even shoot at good targets because oh, look there's a lighthouse let's shoot there.

And even better under a tunnel, nice job DICE, listening to the BC2 whiners. "
---------------
Because of the idiocy with unlocks and they are flying turtles. I post it before and I say again, vehicles SHOULD come with what they have in real life, everything should be DEFAULT. Now, if I would like to see things like changing weapons and using different configuration for jets like different weapons and so on, then it's good. But not like the lalalala of DICE is doing.

---------------
They need to put their lalalala together and stop focusing on goddamn infantry.
---------------

I can go on and on....You are a regular, generic forum troll, nothing else. btw, "lalalaala" means Yustax got so excited when whining he had to swear, but the EA forum is blocking it, replacing it with "lalalala"...

PWNED. 8)

@Lightning, I am not pro-dice.. Im neutral  ;) I would never "pick a side" in something as silly as discussion about a game. Im only helping some dudes understand some things... why? for teh lulz ofcourse, what else? It is fun to help people, especially those who struggle so hard trying. ;D

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 01-10-2011, 23:10:54

PWNED. 8)

Not really. I may be expressful in my posts. But clearly I am not the only one who think what I think, and no, it isnt just some 25 or 30 dudes, they are hundreds of them making the same complains. Now, dont quote me here, Im tired of the "internet discussion" whatever you think Im not trying to make games and I dont say that I can make games better than them. Likewise, we as the community are complaining about the GAMEPLAY wise decisions in game. That's all, yes you're right, I could express myself better and with less anger, but it angers me that, the core gameplay aspects are being stripped away. You may be comfortable with for example, the social button of BC2, where all the commands were simplified, it didnt work as expected, then for BF3, DICE wanted to remove commorose all together, the community answered, and then they decided to make their decisions.

If you dont make your voice hear, then you're doomed to follow the same river, simple as that.

Then again, I am not a troll, just a worried fan of the series, and Im seeing how all the classic aspect of the game are changed or simplified. Cant I be angry because of it? Cant I being pissed off at all those changes that make the core gameplay more simplified for new scrubs? Im sorry, but I cant take it. And since I know that DICE will barely hear our opinion as the community, then simple as that, I will not buy the game...

However, if they make mod tools or the community do their own mod tools, then I'll buy it.

Now stop quoting. Whatever you win, let's make a party  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: HadrianBT on 02-10-2011, 00:10:04
+100 to Lightning!
How did they dare to call this "Origin". Origin (graphs) is my favorite software of all time (except that version 6.1 is still much better than version 8.0 and above).

2Natty:
Imagine somebody would say, isn't sales tax awesome? Come on, millions of people pay it. I think they just love it!
Well, you said exactly the same about Origin. I'm sure if you can avoid paying this tax, you would by just buying online. Yet, it is not possible to avoid Origin. Which is no way a reason to declare that the idea is great.
You are completely entitled to defending Origin (if fact, you probably should do this, if you are a loyal employee, even if not directly enforced by the company), as well as every other person is entitled to the right to declare Origin shit.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Dukat on 02-10-2011, 00:10:54
As there is lack of support for 128 players, I actually believe dice is on the wrong track once more. Walking in the footsteps of John Carmack, slowly getting old. Meanwhile getting paid by the console industry for not raising any standards.

Well, the CoD kiddies will buy BF3 either way.

As there is no support for Windows XP, I'm outta this anyway. Could be worse. The only thing I would be interested in is the destructible environment.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: kummitus on 02-10-2011, 00:10:14
2Natty:
Imagine somebody would say, isn't sales tax awesome? Come on, millions of people pay it. I think they just love it!

Irony.

For this some odd reason if mainland finns orders something that's under 44 and something euros from Aland we don't need to pay sales taxes. You can fit into that category almost any game for any platform.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 02-10-2011, 01:10:13
As there is lack of support for 128 players, I actually believe dice is on the wrong track once more. Walking in the footsteps of John Carmack, slowly getting old. Meanwhile getting paid by the console industry for not raising any standards.

Well, the CoD kiddies will buy BF3 either way.

As there is no support for Windows XP, I'm outta this anyway. Could be worse. The only thing I would be interested in is the destructible environment.

I think it's time to update  ;) And well, files were leaked...let's see what release brings.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 02-10-2011, 01:10:42
aparantly , now everyone can create a server , just like old times

oh DICE, you made us think you were gridy and only allowing us to paid if we wanted a sever!

how wrong we were =D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 02-10-2011, 01:10:16
Btw:

Quote
Originally posted by SWIZZ=kettcar=
looks like the bf community take what they need :D


(http://www.abload.de/img/server4uqq.jpg)


(http://www.abload.de/img/bf32011-10-0122-41-28-48p1.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LHeureux on 02-10-2011, 01:10:07
Yup, no HUD on the hacked servers, and you might get banned of the BETA if you join them.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 02-10-2011, 02:10:28
NOW i want to play that ;p
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 02-10-2011, 03:10:17
had this happen to me today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFVIpQ2rff4
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 02-10-2011, 04:10:38
Yup, no HUD on the hacked servers, and you might get banned of the BETA if you join them.
http://twitter.com/#!/zh1nt0/status/120182322803900416 (http://twitter.com/#!/zh1nt0/status/120182322803900416)
Be careful. EA/DICE don´t like what the community does. Apparently only BF/DICE-sanctioned-content is "real" content, while the rest is a blasphemy.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 02-10-2011, 04:10:30
God forbid you use community created content
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: General_Henry on 02-10-2011, 06:10:17
I don't have any interest in BF3 but 128 players make me so curious that I can't resist to download it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 02-10-2011, 07:10:42
aparantly , now everyone can create a server , just like old times

oh DICE, you made us think you were gridy and only allowing us to paid if we wanted a sever!

how wrong we were =D

Just a question.... are you even aware of the fact that they aren't playing BF3...? it's a beta, not the final product... ofcourse you can hack and change stuff in beta's, it's not final. You ever played any beta before? this kind of lulz is common in betas. ::)

You are so naive it's almost cute, you actually believe, that the hacker managed to break the server program, so that anyone can run a BF3 server... just lol.... release is a few weeks away, say bye to hacked servers then... and even if some godly miracle the producers still allow content to be hacked, and you can run an unranked hacked bf3 server... who wants to play on it?  :P would you play with those players...? Is that the kind of person you are? nice to know.

ofcourse only EA content is real, it's their game... it's the same with our mod, just because someone makes a custom map at home for fh2, doesnt make it an FH2 map. Only things we release officially inour mod is real, the rest is labeled as custom.

And about what someone said about negative comments on the battlefield facebook page... seriously.. *facepalm*... do you even read that? that page has 1,5 million followers.... most of those dudes dont even understand that it's a beta they play.. I just scrolled through some of the comments there, you guys don't see what happens there? It's just a flood of comments, way too many to even be noticed, it's like chatter on a street, it drowns immediately in the massive flow. Some time there is some dude who tries to explain to the others that "it's just a beta" but no one reads that... So if you take that as actual negative opinions about the game, then you simply don't understand how the internet works  ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: sheikyerbouti on 02-10-2011, 08:10:51
 I was in on the Bf42 Alpha and Beta's and they didn't have any community hacks.

 Sometimes you treat us like we don't know shit Natty and it is terribly insulting to the very people who gave you your job in the first place. (as a modder, you should have much more respect for community drriven content).

 As an aside, this game of Fh2 would be a hell of a lot more fun if you guys stopped using the douchebag argument that only your stuff is 'official'.

 Officially, the most fun that I have had in this mod for a long while has come from the very generous contributions of the WaW mapping team. Maybe they should become more 'official' and you should become less 'anal retentive'.

 Nuff said, I love this game but arrogance is just that, a demonstration of your so-called superiority over the people who keep your beloved game alive. Sow us some respect and stop acting like you are the be-all and end-all to this game.

 This creation is kept alive by the fan's, not by your so called masterplan/game design...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 02-10-2011, 09:10:55
I never said community made stuff is always bad. I said it's not official. It was a respons to that waw dude's comment "Apparently only BF/DICE-sanctioned-content is "real" content, while the rest is a blasphemy." where I explained that ofcourse only EA content is "real", everyone understands that :)

This is a BF3 thread, not FH2 thread, but in short I can just let you know this: you haven't a single little clue what you're talking about :) We are trying hard to get more custom/community content in to FH2, f**k, we even spend time looking at things, giving suggestions to how it can be better etc... we WANT more community stuff in to our mod, but the fact remains: very few can produce what we want.

So before you go on some rampage about why FH2 doesnt have more community-made stuff, check the facts, every one on the dev team reads your post and just facepalms, since you made it apparent that you have no clue about this  ;)

"insulting to the very people who gave you your job in the first place" just get out of here with that bullshit, I reported you to the admins now, more of this and it's bye bye. I got my job from hard work and study, not from "you", LOL!  :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 02-10-2011, 10:10:51
This thread is golden

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_251mNXJ7J3o/TCvw4dQ_eWI/AAAAAAAAADM/Mf4NUAcO1io/S374/coke_popcorn.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paasky on 02-10-2011, 10:10:45
Yup, no HUD on the hacked servers, and you might get banned of the BETA if you join them.
So if I play on a 33-128 player server, EA might not like it and won't give me shiny medals to make my e-penis grow?

What a threat...

So once it's actually released, I can either a) play on official EA servers using the devil-spawn that is Origin, get shiny medals and unlocks after playing for tens if not hundreds of hours, on 32-64 player servers, using the stuff where Dice has decided what is best.

OR, I can b) play the cracked version, not require Origin, play on 64-128 player servers with all unlocks and perks unlocked from the get go, with changed load-outs and weapon stats.

I wonder which one I'd choose.

Yes, this won't happen immediately after the release. But I'll give you a few examples: Il-2 Sturmovik, Mafia, GTA SA, Mafia II, GTA IV, and pretty much any game ever released.

None had _any_ mod tools. The files were all packed in strange formats, but people always find out how to unpack them, and how to edit them. It WILL happen. Not as total conversion mods like FH2, but as sillyness mods, texture packs, realism mods, etc. A mod doesn't need to be 10 new maps and 50 new vehicles. Just good old texture & setting tweaks are enough to start with.

As for the probable "That's not how they've made the game, the devs have tested and tested and tested and tested, they know best." No. If I buy a game, I own it, and can do whatever the hell I please with it. Unfortunately I live in Europe where I still have that right as a consumer. No matter what a EULA says (which are void anyway, as the only contract that binds a customer is one he signs before buying the product). If you buy a designer lamp, and change the shade, the designer can't start suing you because you changed something you own.

As a final note, I'm not saying BF3 sucks. After watching TotalBiscuit play it, it actually looks very good. Especially the infantry weapons seem to actually do damage unlike vanilla BF2. Grenades are ridiculous though, almost no damage even from up close, and tanks never seemed to be much of a threat to anyone.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 02-10-2011, 10:10:41

You are so naive it's almost cute

thanks!, I feel like someone now =]


 who wants to play on it?  :P would you play with those players...? Is that the kind of person you are? nice to know.

of course!, I have been playing in unranked servers with "those players" since bf42 ;), then in PR, then in FH2. 

ofcourse only EA content is real, it's their game... it's the same with our mod, just because someone makes a custom map at home for fh2, doesnt make it an FH2 map. Only things we release officially inour mod is real, the rest is labeled as custom.

Oh, my dictionary was wrong with the definition of real then... aparantly anything that is not real is custom, good ^^.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 02-10-2011, 10:10:51
Let me know when theres BF3 up for grabs that doesnt need Origin. :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 02-10-2011, 10:10:49
*Takes egg

This is your brain when playing regular games

This is your brain when you play a game with Origen

*trows egg on the ground

Any questions?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: HadrianBT on 02-10-2011, 11:10:00
+1 to THETA, but that is obvious (about the popcorn pic).

+100 to Paasky, though.
From the looks of it, BF3 should be a very nice game. I am very happy about the bipods, prone, supression, 64 players, helicopters and planes, etc. etc. Even more with the graphics and destructible environments.

On the other hand, it is up to potential buyers to voice their opinion on what they do not want to see in a future game. Because if they don't do that, the next game will require a 1$ bill inserted into a 3.5 floppy drive (I have heard somewhere they do pull them in) every time you start it or something worse. Look at Spore. A pretty nice game, which nevertheless failed due to the limited installations possible and some other critical flaws. This led to almost immediate hacks. Which means the gamers DO HAVE the power to change things on the market.

I am honestly quite surprised that nobody has noticed the fact that BF3 for PC is EXACTLY the same price as for Xbox and PS3. Console games always cost more as they give a large portion of that money to the manufacturers of the consoles, who sell them below price to start with. So why is the PC version effectively more expensive? Simply because they can get away with it! They know that an average BF3 PC gamer has the money to buy a powerful rig to be able to play it on or those kids who want to play the game so much they'd pay anything to get it. So they charge more and do get away with it. Heck, if they knew they could get away with charging 100$ and still have the same amount of people buy the game, they would definitely do it. But most likely what will happen in such a scenario is that ppl would get annoyed and angry and would buy nothing or MW3. Same mechanism with Origin. The more people get angry here, the faster will EA realize the problem and change the Eula. I will even state this - I would forgive EA for this extra 10$ if this means no Origin on my PC.

To conclude, I do honestly think that EA would benefit form relaxing the EULA right now. This might give them even more supporters than if there wouldn't be any Origin to start with. How did Activision rack up so much cash on their MW franchise? They did things that gamers wanted to see. And they keep their promise. So should EA do to succeed. Why should they fall back on such strategies for extra cash gains such as Origin, when the game is interesting and nice all by itself? Because they want EVEN more, apparently. Well, time will tell if they were right here, quoting Einstein from Red Alert.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 02-10-2011, 11:10:06
I'm not trying the beta, but I don't expect the initial PC release version will be all that different to the console versions (except for more players/bigger maps) due to it being a multi-platform game.

Looking at it from the other side of the fence, I'm sure DICE is more concerned with making sure everything is running smoothly for all platforms at launch rather than worrying about what the die-hards are saying about the beta.

Once it's all up and running, then they'll implement platform-specific (read: PC-specific) changes based on the community's feedback relating to the release version of BF3.

Also, don't forget how different BF2 was compared to it's beta... ;)



Quote
...How did Activision rack up so much cash on their MW franchise?...

Easy, by charging full price for old games.

Example: COD:MW2 still retails for almost 90 dollars in stores.

While you can usually find it on sale for half that (probably cheaper online), I do not think it is acceptable to be charging top dollar for a copy of a game that was released almost two fucking years ago!!!... >:(

In fact, I find the COD cash-grab so offensive, I'll think long and hard before buying another Activision product.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kradovech on 02-10-2011, 11:10:35
This thread is golden

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_251mNXJ7J3o/TCvw4dQ_eWI/AAAAAAAAADM/Mf4NUAcO1io/S374/coke_popcorn.jpg)
Yeah, came back here to get an answer to a question, and found quite an amusing discussion.

In one corner we have a guy who hates a certain company so blindly he is miles away from being objective.
And in the other corner someone, who blames the other of using the same techniques that he himself has been using as the basis of his counterarguments for years. :D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 02-10-2011, 11:10:23
of course!, I have been playing in unranked servers with "those players" since bf42 ;), then in PR, then in FH2.
Bf1942 didn't have ranks, so I guess you played on pirated servers with hacked key-gens then? Nice to know  ::) Why don't you want to support the makers of the games?

And you seem to not understand the difference here....I can explain:
 "unranked" servers have been available for all battlefield games, it's just normal servers, which arent connected to the rank system. Usually because they are passworded, or have changed settings that aren't allowed within the ranking system. Ranking systems (or "persistence systems") are carefully designed and planned, and have a virtual economy. This is tuned so that no matter what server you play on, you will always earn the same amount of points/scores. No player should be in  dis- or advantage by playing on a certain server. That's done to prevent abuse or stat-padding, so the game becomes fair and balanced.

Now, what you're talking about for BF3, is pure piracy. Hacking files and setting up an unranked, and also hacked server. That's totally different. BF3 will have normal unranked servers as well, I am sure you can set tickets and time and password etc as you wish on those, but you need to pay to run them.

You are nothing but a parasite if you encourage people to play on hacked servers, and it's beautiful that you are unable to hide this fact :) now we know this, and this shines a weird light on many of the posts you also make about FH2. You seem to have no respect for integrity of creators of content. You're a scavenger, who considers everything to be "free", just because it's on the internet and not in the real world? or what is the deal here? Do you also have a problem with authority? Cant take orders from the boss at work, or what.... having to make up for it on the internet by excerising your "free will"  :-\
It's good to know, because now when you make statements about FH2, we know from what angle you come in, the fuck-all angle, the "do-as-I-want" angle. I wonder, when you cross the line and get banned from forum, do you then wander off to the next one, and start draining away the patience of the owners of that site too, until they also ban you? what will you do when there are no more forum owners to piss off, no more communities or games to scavenge?

We don't allow piracy on this forum, so if you continue to encourage people to use hacked cd-keys or pirated games, you will be banned. Consider that first warning.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 02-10-2011, 11:10:45
hold on a minute, I never said anything about piracy, you said I played on unranked server , I said is true, you should have said Pirated servers instead ;).

for the record, i own bf42, bf2 and bf2142, but yes, i used to play bf42 in a "cracked"(not hacked) server in my early days of gaming :P, now i can afford to buy games, so I do!. SO basicaly that invalids 80% of your post :P.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 02-10-2011, 11:10:47
Consider that first warning.

Arent us moderators the ones who dish out warnings?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 02-10-2011, 11:10:31
Oh Natty you are starting to get very amusing. First saying that the community doesn't mean shit to developers and then saying that the community should worship those developers. I suggest you stop pretending to be god and admit you're wrong on some points before your posts start containing nothing but this two-sided nonsense.  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kradovech on 02-10-2011, 11:10:15
If you want to fight piracy, the most effective way would be to make the "not-hacked" servers better than the "hacked" ones. Shouldn´t be too hard to achieve for a major game developer.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 02-10-2011, 11:10:12
SiCaRiO u entered in to a fight you cant win, just let it go. You showed your true self, now you can't "unshow" it. Please continue to encourage people to play on hacked/illegal BF3 servers, just do it  ;)

Unranked legal Bf3 servers will be available, as I said, but this betafiles that were hacked is pure software piracy, something we do not allow here on this forum, just as we don't allow links or talks about no-cd key .exes or other violations. @Flippy: this isnt a mod thing.

Back on BF3: the game is out in a few weeks, I think cannonfodder made the absolute most clever post in this discussion yet, read it and then understand that these last 90 pages were more or less waste of bytes  ;D

Looking at it from the other side of the fence, I'm sure DICE is more concerned with making sure everything is running smoothly for all platforms at launch rather than worrying about what the die-hards are saying about the beta.

A-men.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 02-10-2011, 11:10:41
@Flippy: this isnt a mod thing.

Suits me fine. The "warning" doesnt mean anything.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 02-10-2011, 11:10:49
SiCaRiO u entered in to a fight you cant win, just let it go.

wat? was this a fight? :O

You showed your true self, now you can't "unshow" it. Please continue to encourage people to play on hacked/illegal BF3 servers, just do it  ;)

Do I have your blessing? =D
I'll drop it now, its getting boring :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Musti on 02-10-2011, 11:10:19
Why don't you want to support the makers of the games?
Because apparently when I do they start throwing in Origin, Battlelog and other shit like that.
i cant support THAT
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 02-10-2011, 12:10:58
Suits me fine. The "warning" doesnt mean anything.
'it means he gets banned if he promotes piracy of battlefield games, yes.

Because apparently when I do they start throwing in Origin, Battlelog and other shit like that.
i cant support THAT

What do you need to do to get onboard this plane?
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTPnUziiP_LcWxrodMxVyLJdmDfCHXFrywb9W0Z-uduu3_yECgH)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 02-10-2011, 12:10:17
'it means he gets banned if he promotes piracy of battlefield games, yes.

Are you the one who bans him then?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 02-10-2011, 12:10:06
So, who likes bf3?
I do.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 02-10-2011, 12:10:31
I wouldn't use an Airline if I knew I had to get a cavity search each time I used their planes.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 02-10-2011, 12:10:16
So, who likes bf3?
I do.

I do.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 02-10-2011, 12:10:39
I'd like to try it. :)

EDIT: After seeing what kind of a circus this thread is, I can only think of a song by Irving Berlin. "After you get what you want, you don't want what you get."
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 02-10-2011, 12:10:57
I like it o/
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Knitschi on 02-10-2011, 12:10:32
So has anyone more information about the >64 player thing? Will it be in the official version too at some point?
I will buy the game if it will be in it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 02-10-2011, 12:10:05
So has anyone more information about the >64 player thing? Will it be in the official version too at some point?

No.

And Natty, people are mad because there is only this "small" rush map in beta.. 99% would be happy if there was conquest 64p Caspian Border for open beta. Just sayin', I won't continue after this.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 02-10-2011, 12:10:43
Natty, message by message you sound more and more like Comical Ali. "Who would play on those severs".... hmm, I dunno, maybe those hundreds of players already playing there who want 200+ player action when that is clearly supported by the game even without extensive hacking like in BF2's case. (That the crack also acts as a mini-reality mod by removing the HUD is a lulzy bonus.) "Impossible to crack", yeah sure. All such copy protection schemes have been broken, sometimes in a matter of hours.

What EA is going to have is a split community. The other enjoys 200+ player matches with those silly unlocks already opened, perhaps with reality mods, and without the most awkward thing since when, ie. Origin. The rest can have their bunnyhopping consolefest with bundled malware for all I care. Too bad that EA/DICE had the chance to serve both crowds, it would have just been a matter of adding those settings into the retail version (at the cost of making a server unranked), but decided not to. Oh well. It just makes me sad that the average age of a video game player is nowadays closer to 40 years, yet the games themselves are aimed at immature 12-year olds.

I might be bothered to download the game if hacked servers, unlocks and reality minimods really do become availalble. And I do not feel the slightest bit of guilt: had those been available as official options, I could have bought it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 02-10-2011, 12:10:00
I'd like to try it. :)
Me, too. I´d really love to "board that plane" and play it with the same passion as I played BF42 and BF2, but the "TSA security checks" (Origin; Battlelog) are hard to accept and in my honest oppinion I expected a different "plane". I rather thought I´d get something like an "A380" which I can "take for a months long joy ride" but now it feels more like a "small city liner which drops you off at the ground after a few hours".
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 02-10-2011, 12:10:41
Its a nice game. I honestly cannot wait to make plane fanboys cry with LAV-AD and Tuguska <3
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eat Uranium on 02-10-2011, 13:10:33
OK.

This stupid argument will end here and now.  No final comebacks, no parting remarks, no winners - just losers.

Further posts will bring the future of this thread into question.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Musti on 02-10-2011, 13:10:18
Ok, anyway, apparently you can mount bipods on assault rifles. Is there any info about G3 + bipod?
also Is the drum magazine available  for RPK?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 02-10-2011, 13:10:26
I hear people comlaining about unlocks and rankings.
I love it, i love it in COD i loved it way back in DF:LW.
Its like a role playing game, you develop your character, you put time and energy in unlocking the weapon you want and try to achieve the rank with the coollest look. I am aware its on a very low level and for some completely unappealing but it works for me.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 02-10-2011, 13:10:39
Yup Smiles :) 99% of the players want that, and obviously, as publisher and owner of a game, EA wants to please these. The "forum crowd" is a dying breed. (who also state that they are the "true" fans) Soon we will no longer have "forums" anymore, where players "give their opinions" to the left and right. Forums are just chat-boards (remember they used to be called "boards") that companies open up just to make it easier for players to get to know eachother, for it is a fact that a fanbase that know eachother, stays fans longer  ;)

However, with Battlelog, the forums become obsolete, and players will interact and communicate with eachother in different ways... Actually, the "forum" format has been dead a while, there are only maybe 50 really active dudes on the BF3 forums, always the same dudes, ranting the same things... 

It will truly open up new ways for players to interact where it matters - in the game, about the game - not in some -90's styled "forum" making posts in "threads" where everyone just wants their opinion to be read, so they get "noticed by the admins" kind of deal...   8)

btw; do you know that on the official BF3 forum, the so-called "vets" actually piss down on people with low post-count  :-\ if you see someone with a low post-count say something that the fanatics dont like, they say stuff like "what do you know, with your 10 posts, lol!"... I mean... how pathetic is that...?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 02-10-2011, 13:10:37
How 'bout you lead the way and remove yourself from these obsolete forums so we obsolete retards can chat in peace about the games we like and don't like. Because you obviously think we are insignificant bunch of forum whiners, whose opinion should, and will not matter.

Eat Uranium warn not to continue the argument. I will lock the thread is the discussion don't stay on purely BF3.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: S1lv3rWolf on 02-10-2011, 13:10:02
Musti: There's no extended mag unlock for the RPK, you can check the available attachments for each gun on their respective pages, through your stats screen.

Apparently you unlock attachments that would belong to one side, after enough kills you just unlock the equal attachments that would be more common for the opposite side, kind of odd, but it gets to be user preference I guess.

I honestly love using the RPK, ever since I got the Foregrip for it I've just been using it as what it is: an AK with a heavy barrel and larger mag. ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 02-10-2011, 13:10:36
*ahem*

So, yeah.

The recoil has been upped compared to for example BFBC2, which is good in my opinion. However, I seem to have a hard time killing two targets when I run into them. I guess it comes down to experience. I have a problem with the map, though, as it really doesn't show anything, due to being so zoomed in.

Wish I could've played Caspian border instead of Metro.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 02-10-2011, 14:10:10
I hear people comlaining about unlocks and rankings.
I love it, i love it in COD i loved it way back in DF:LW.
Its like a role playing game, you develop your character, you put time and energy in unlocking the weapon you want and try to achieve the rank with the coollest look. I am aware its on a very low level and for some completely unappealing but it works for me.

Sounds ok.

Any more information on this ? Are the unlocks more bf2 style or more 2142 style where you have to manage inventory ? I really didn't like the latter.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 02-10-2011, 14:10:40
I hear people comlaining about unlocks and rankings.
I love it, i love it in COD i loved it way back in DF:LW.
Its like a role playing game, you develop your character, you put time and energy in unlocking the weapon you want and try to achieve the rank with the coollest look. I am aware its on a very low level and for some completely unappealing but it works for me.

Sounds ok.

Any more information on this ? Are the unlocks more bf2 style or more 2142 style where you have to manage inventory ? I really didn't like the latter.

Closer to 2142 style.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 02-10-2011, 15:10:05
The fact that yet again you have to unlock defibs (even though it is alot easier this time around) is retarded. However the revive time is alot shorter than BF2 for example, so you really have to put yourself out there to revive someone because more often than not, your paddles wont work first time and the guy will die in those 2 seconds.

Again, this may be a beta problem. However I doubt it will get fixed as its a minor problem.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 02-10-2011, 15:10:23
Also, after you have been revived, you can choose to join the fight or get back to the spawn screen.
I wont get yelled at after reviving someone in a wrong place ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 02-10-2011, 15:10:03
Ok, anyway, apparently you can mount bipods on assault rifles. Is there any info about G3 + bipod?
also Is the drum magazine available  for RPK?

No drum for the RPK. The bipod for G3 however (can't check it b/c stats page for G3 is bugged) is very likely as all other assault class weapons have it, and even the engineer class's SMGs have them.

In the meantime I've only been playing with my M16A4 and it's halfway through the unlock tree. I'm really getting used to using the flashlight and laser pointer properly, which are of great help when you point them in the enemy's face.

I currently use M16A4 Acog/IRNVx1 with foregrip, LP/FL and extra ammo along with M9 tactical.  ;D

In a map like Metro however, I would've liked the option to change kits/setups when you enter a new stage. Right now I have to die before I can fix my M16 to fit combat in the dark metro section.. Then again once you get into the upper station etc..
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 02-10-2011, 15:10:12
whaddaya mean NO DRUM FOR RPK?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 02-10-2011, 15:10:12
whaddaya mean NO DRUM FOR RPK?

He means no drum for the RPK.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ts4EVER on 02-10-2011, 15:10:15
whaddaya mean NO DRUM FOR RPK?

But the G3 gets a bipod... GERMAN FUCKING BIAS
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 02-10-2011, 16:10:39
My biggest issue right now is with the defusing of the bomb. Every time a new player walks up to the station and hits E, the defuse meter resets, even if somebody was almost finish defusing. In Bad Company 2 every player simply had their own defuse bar and it was whoever defused it first.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 02-10-2011, 16:10:19
My biggest issue right now is with the defusing of the bomb. Every time a new player walks up to the station and hits E, the defuse meter resets, even if somebody was almost finish defusing. In Bad Company 2 every player simply had their own defuse bar and it was whoever defused it first.
Had a moment yesterday when 4 people tried to defuse a bomb, and because each of them were hammering away at their E keys, they failed. Quite the facepalm moment.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 02-10-2011, 16:10:18
My biggest issue right now is with the defusing of the bomb. Every time a new player walks up to the station and hits E, the defuse meter resets, even if somebody was almost finish defusing. In Bad Company 2 every player simply had their own defuse bar and it was whoever defused it first.

This is the kind of thing that should be reported.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 02-10-2011, 20:10:11
Am I the only one experiencing lag? I play on local Dutch servers, but once things start flying around the performance drops a lot. Animations go weird, bodies fly away when people die while running, hitboxes/registration are way off, my sound has an echo etc. Movement is also tricky sometimes.

Ping in serverbrowser is around 20. I can't imagine is because of the graphics because I now play on low with the same results, while my PC should be able to run medium/high. I first thought it was just serverlags like there were in the early days of BC2's beta but after seeing lots of youtube in which people didn't seem to have any trouble I'm very confused... Anyone?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 02-10-2011, 21:10:28
Alright so far, the feedback is divided between these points:

-3d spotting (Also known as derp spotting or dorito) DICE said that you need a complete line of sight for the dorito to appear, but so far, in the pc beta, you get the doritos through bushes, rocks and sometimes even walls. What the community is suggesting because it's obvious that DICE will not remove the feature.

Community: Add it as a server option, so you dont need to go to HARDCORE servers to play freely of 3d spotting. Option 2, tweak the dorito, so it appears especifically in a single point where the player/vehicle was spotted but doesnt follow the player/vehicle.

-Squad system: Many, many players have raged about the decision to include squad making not available in game, you need to alt tab and then select the players to create a squad, then alt tab again for the game.It's a slow process, and the community is raging.

Community: They want it to be IN GAME feature, like in BF2 games, since it's a step backwards and the process is way too slow. In my opinion, it should be integrated to the game instead of Battlelog.

-Battlelog: Many are divided between this. Many like it, many dont like because of the problems it has, especially conection issues and that you need to do everything through battlelog.

Community: They are asking for a way to INTEGRATE Battlelog into the game, rather than an internet browser, so you dont need to alt tab and you can do everything there, in game like it should be. And I agree. I know that battlelog isnt going anywhere. However, if battelog was integrated to the game itself it would be more efficient.

-Scope glint: Probably one of the worst gameplay additions I have seen in a video game; please dont quote me on this, it's my personal opinion. And since this game is plagged by BC2 players that think that recons ruin the game, and is sincerily the fault of DICE for wront balancing and wasnt a problem in BF2.

Community: They want it removed completely from the game. It's funny, because it appears like a flashlight or a lighthouse attached to their scopes, even in the dark tunnel of "Operation Corridor". So they are asking for the removal of it since it's a terrible idea, of course, DEMIZE said that they will "tweak it" so it'll be smaller, but this wont stop the silliness of it, because it's a flashlight.

-Kill cam: Still a problem, it follows and shows specifically where is the killer, it's a bad feature to come from BC2 and it's still a problem in BF3. I dont like it, the community doesnt like it.

Community: They are asking for the removal OR a server option to include it or not, without having to come to the HARDCORE servers.

-Base damage for weapons: So far, everyone is divided between damage. Many think that it's too high, some think that it's perfect, others prefer to give it some tweaking. And I prefer the latter.

Community: They want a more balanced damage system; in my opinion I would prefer some...less damage. Because it's funny that an UMP45, in 45acp can kill you in 4 shots, but a M4A1, in 5.56x45mm can kill you in 9 shots. That isnt balancing to me, should be backwards. For me the balance should be done per caliber, and not for "weapon kind" (smg, pistols, rifles...)

Recoil: The recoil is way too low, you can spray and pray as you run freely, without any penalties whatsoever, granted, the game is a more less phased shooter, but you can still run and gun, that it's essencially a bad gameplay.

Community: They are asking for a better recoil system, a system that doesnt allow you to fire a whole mag and kill everyone because you dont have any recoil to control. Also, I have noticed that the problem isnt just about the recoil, but auto center. When you fire, the weapon "recoil" and automatically stop at the spot where you were aiming. If they remove the auto center and add more recoil, then it'll reward skill and patience, instead of run and gun.

Jets and tanks: Regarding these vehicles; since we have a spec system that it's sinceraly kind of ridiculous. The jets are stripped from everything they have, you just have a 20mm machine gun, no missiles, no flares, no everything. The tanks come in the same way. Also the jets are still flying turtles and the tanks are slow and cant even go up a hill like in BC2.

Community: They are asking for more jet speed, flares or at least bombs attached to the jets. For the tanks, they are asking for more speed and more traction, so you can go up hills. What I would recommend; add more speed for jets/tanks. Add flares as default for jets and that's something for starters, add a spec that allows you to mix air/ground missiles having 3 of 3 for each type. For tanks, add more speed, have coaxial and smoke as default, add HE rounds as an unlock, but you can have ap and he rounds.

And those are the most important concerns right now of the forums. Thanks for reading.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 02-10-2011, 22:10:38
Hmm is it true the rocks are a little bit bugged in the beta? I have the feeling i get shot through rocks a lot..
O yea, i dunno for sure if a headshot is a 1s1k. Ive had mutiple occasions in wich i thought i had a perfect shot to the head, but my victim didnt die :o.

Still like it even though its not my map.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 02-10-2011, 22:10:56
I agree with most things accept:

Scope glint: im sort of OK with this, but thats just a personal vendetta against snipers on that particular map.

Jets: I agree with the speed increase, but im far against giving jets LGBs or even dumb bombs right away. Missiles, certainly, but not bombs. I dont want another repeat of BF2s air-to-ground combat :P


Also one thing I've noticed is the player collision with one another and with the ground. There's just some bits off the terrain where I seem to get stuck on all the time. As for the player collision, I'm sure there's plenty of people how have had problems with it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 02-10-2011, 22:10:45
Yeah, I fell into a hole between the ground and a static and could see through the entire map. Also, the killcam repeatedly goes into the ground, where you'd see the entire map from underneath.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 02-10-2011, 22:10:19
9 shots to kill someone? Auto center after recoil? Flashlight sniper scopes? Killcam? Only guns on jets? Tanks can't go uphill? Making squads IN A FRAKKING BROWSER?

On the second thought, even if cracked 128+ servers without Origin appear, I ain't gonna touch this even with a ten-meter pole unless it gets HEAVILY modded, and even that won't probably t get rid of the issues with the engine itself (spotting, squads, battlelog).
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 02-10-2011, 22:10:39
9 shots to kill someone? Auto center after recoil? Flashlight sniper scopes? Killcam?
Not in the BF3 I played.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 02-10-2011, 22:10:04
9 shots to kill someone? Auto center after recoil? Flashlight sniper scopes? Killcam?
Not in the BF3 I played.
So what BF3 is Yustax playing then? ???
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 02-10-2011, 22:10:35
9 shots to kill someone? Auto center after recoil? Flashlight sniper scopes? Killcam?
Not in the BF3 I played.
So what BF3 is Yustax playing then? ???
No idea, but if it takes 9 shots to kill someone, he should definitely change the game to better one.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 02-10-2011, 22:10:42
No idea, but if it takes 9 shots to kill someone, he should definitely change the game to better one.

No, No. I dont mean weapon damage that takes 9 bullets, it depends actually. But I've seen gameplay vids where a M4A1 can kill you in 5 to 6 shots, and some 9. And yes, the game has auto center, and yes, it has a ridiculous glint that shines more than the sun, even in the subway part. But the rest of the points are true.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 02-10-2011, 23:10:54
Ok, I downloaded the game and now it doesn't want to start  >:(

"there's a problem with your game setup, please reinstall"  >:(
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 02-10-2011, 23:10:14
Ok, I downloaded the game and now it doesn't want to start  >:(

"there's a problem with your game setup, please reinstall"  >:(

 ;D The magics of Origin and Battlelog.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ts4EVER on 02-10-2011, 23:10:37
Haven't played it myself, but fromt he footage I have seen the assault rifles kill about as fast as FH2 9mm smgs.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 02-10-2011, 23:10:02
Haven't played it myself, but fromt he footage I have seen the assault rifles kill about as fast as FH2 9mm smgs.

Lol, see vids of the UMP 45, they kill even faster, even though it fires 45 acp. And barely, barely recoil.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ts4EVER on 02-10-2011, 23:10:35
.45 deals more damage in FH2 too, or what was your point?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 02-10-2011, 23:10:18
.45 deals more damage in FH2 too, or what was your point?

Yeah but 5.56 or 5.45 should kill faster than .45
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 02-10-2011, 23:10:35
;D The magics of being a beta product
*fixed*  8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 02-10-2011, 23:10:45
Yeah but 5.56 or 5.45 should kill faster than .45

Exactly my point, it should kill faster. Many things needs to be changed, especially the recoil model, you can barely feel it.

*fixed*  8)

Perhaps. I still think that Battlelog should be integrated into the game rather than a browser, it would be more efficient.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 03-10-2011, 00:10:31
Haven't played it myself, but fromt he footage I have seen the assault rifles kill about as fast as FH2 9mm smgs.

Lol, see vids of the UMP 45, they kill even faster, even though it fires 45 acp. And barely, barely recoil.
You need to fire in controlled bursts, however. It has quite a large cone of fire over distance.

PP-2000 however...

Only downside is the 20 round magazine. Thats it. Equip that badboy with a PK-A or PK-As and you cant give snipers a run for their money.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 03-10-2011, 00:10:20
I found the recon kits to be the most useful thus far. The long range rifles, with or with out optics, the low amount of hits needed to kill someone, and the ability to drop a mobile spawn point, make the recon kits the most useful in my opinion. Not only can they be good at both short and long range, but by placing their spawn beacon in the right position, always give their defending squad or assaulting squad a good place closer to the action to enter the fight.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 03-10-2011, 00:10:19
Just unlocked smoke grenades for the tube, very convenient when you are attacking.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ts4EVER on 03-10-2011, 00:10:26
.45 deals more damage in FH2 too, or what was your point?

Yeah but 5.56 or 5.45 should kill faster than .45

Depends on what kind of gameplay you are going for.
Anyway, fromt he vids I saw it looks decent. I really fail to see what is so horrible about that operation metró map, doesn't look more spammy or limited than say Hurtgen Forest or Falaise Pocket. However I noticed several "walls that look like you can jump over them but then you can't", which is something we beta testers are told to look out for in FH2 maps, as it sucks ass, and I even spotted one "dead end" which is a beginners mistake as any half competent mapper will tell you.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 03-10-2011, 01:10:39
Anyway, fromt he vids I saw it looks decent. I really fail to see what is so horrible about that operation metró map, doesn't look more spammy or limited

There's a reason why the community call it "Operation Corridor"  ;D It's just go forward, barely flanking points and a whole infantry map. Oh! And the conquest version? First area removed.

US side spawns in one flag, 3 flags to take, then the russians spawn in the other side. Fail design.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 03-10-2011, 10:10:48
There's a reason why me and my friend call it "Operation Corridor"
*fixed*

Perhaps. I still think that Battlelog should be integrated into the game rather than a browser, it would be more efficient.

here's a question: if it would be more efficient that way, why do you think they didn't make it like that then?  ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 03-10-2011, 10:10:19
Because EA wants to know our private details and want to know whats in our PC's
They want to share this with other companies to make more money

Thats why

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 03-10-2011, 11:10:25
lol  ;D so predictable it's cute

(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTr8kKWYj23GSRfsSCVO5zEjqs68GOyY1zlCdUKMbFtbQfFBJuk3Q)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Gezoes on 03-10-2011, 11:10:28
It's not untrue. I would.

In other news: Code broken for 128 players  :D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 03-10-2011, 11:10:53
To bring this thread back on track, apparently the statement of DICEs community manager about how squads and VOIP will be handled has caused quite an uproar among the BF community. There´s even a thread running in the EA.UK forum (http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/battlefield-3/1434355-petition-get-fully-working-game-squad-management-poll.html) where members can vote to get a squad system in the game, basically like in BF2.
It seems like DICE is reacting now (looks like "forum whiners" can have an influence on the semi-gods of DICE) as their community manager said:
Quote
Maximilian Navarro
@butteredwaffles Maximilian Navarro
@zh1nt0 Mr. Matros, I know all you @ DICE have heard the backlash of in-game squad management. Please address the issue, for better or worse

Quote
zh1nt0 Daniel Matros
@
@butteredwaffles Seen it and discussing it. Thanks :)

Who knows, maybe they might really change it. We´ve seen that a "complaining crowd" can influence game developers before, too, when a community boycott on BC1 has forced EA to cancel their "in-game shop system" and when they made DICE to include the commo rose and tone down "dorito spotting" (even though not in the Beta).
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 03-10-2011, 11:10:04
Ok I downloaded this fucktard 3 times now, starting with the fourth now.

If it doesn't work now, I give up. Origin always wants to redownload after the game has been installed.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: S1lv3rWolf on 03-10-2011, 12:10:27
In other news: Code broken for 128 players  :D

And people are getting banned for joining them.

(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/18785738/Responses/slow-clap.gif)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 03-10-2011, 12:10:35
lol  ;D so predictable it's cute

(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTr8kKWYj23GSRfsSCVO5zEjqs68GOyY1zlCdUKMbFtbQfFBJuk3Q)

In other news: Code broken for 128 players  :D

And people are getting banned for joining them.

(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/18785738/Responses/slow-clap.gif)

Yes EA is such a good company
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 03-10-2011, 12:10:37
There's a reason why all the bf players call it "Operation Corridor"
*fixed*

fixed =D.

btw, finally got a chanse to play operation corridor on the ps3, is not bad actually, reminds me a lot the big maps of MW2 and BLOPS, even the invisible walls and everything :], its fun to play for about 20 minutes, picking up snipers hiding behind the solar flares of their rifles,and the 3d spoting actually help because the lack of resolution makes really hard to see enemys at the short/medium distances of this hallwaymap. Everything is straight foward, controls feel smooth and there is basicaly no other thing to do than to advanse and fire .

its good for a console game, hope the mods come quick for the PC version ^^
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 03-10-2011, 13:10:35
That must have been the all-time worst attempt at trolling since the internet was born. Even you know that, but you can't edit your post now, as that would be admitting that you also felt ashamed for posting it, tough luck  :P
Quote from: [WaW
hOMEr_jAy link=topic=1046.msg226401#msg226401
Who knows, maybe they might really change it.

omg! in that case that must mean your life just peaked, right?  :o This is the things you can tell your grandchildren about, the day you and your online crew managed to send so much feedback on a beta software, that the developers actually implemented changes influenced by it. Front-page news everybody!

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 03-10-2011, 14:10:04
Hello and welcome to the official Forgotten Hope forum.

To ensure that everyone's stay here is enjoyable, we have set up a few rules we expect everyone to follow:
- Please be considerate in your posting and treat other users with respect. 'Flaming' and insulting other users does not solve any problems and it does not make your arguement any more valid.
- Listen to forum staff and follow their instructions. Even though something you did wasn't mentioned explicitly as forbidden in these rules, it doesn't mean that it's always allowed.


I'd like to keep this thread open, but to do so, it seems that I have to start banning people. Is it really so?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 03-10-2011, 14:10:38
ok, now I managed to get the previous error to disapear.

Now I have a new problem. As soon as the game tries to launch, bf3.exe crashes  >:(

you guys use the nvidea beta drivers or the normal one ?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 03-10-2011, 17:10:47
ok, now I managed to get the previous error to disapear.

Now I have a new problem. As soon as the game tries to launch, bf3.exe crashes  >:(

you guys use the nvidea beta drivers or the normal one ?

I've seen in the corner of my eyes here and there that BF3 practically requires the new drivers in order to work. Don't quote me on it though.

If you're running Win7, make sure to do this as well to prevent further problems:
Quote
1) Go to the location where Origin installed battlefield. This folder is called: "Beta Battlefield 3" (grave accent on first e). Now this is the problem; the Windows registry system can't cope with the 'e' with the grave accent, so change it to a normal 'e': "Beta Battlefield 3".

2) Next press the Windows key + r on your keyboard and enter "regedit" (without the "), press enter. Now navigate to: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE -> SOFTWARE -> Wow6432Node -> EA GAMES. Click on 'Bf3 Beta'. On your right you see a row of information where the 3rd and 4th row are filepaths, and there the annoying 'e' is back! Change the e's with the grave accent to normal 'e' in both filepaths and close the registry editor.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 03-10-2011, 17:10:12
I use vista. Got it to work finaly by editing the registry.

What a fuck up by EA though. Also just played it, you don't need the beta drivers, works fine on the old one.

Played it. Is ok, but I was far more impressed by the BF1942 / bf2 demo's in the days they where released
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 03-10-2011, 18:10:19
Discussion still outgoing with squads made in game. I really wish that they change their minds. And also, integrate battlelog in game.

http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/battlefield-3/1434355-petition-get-fully-working-game-squad-management-poll.html

Here's a link...and I wonder who voted no.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LHeureux on 03-10-2011, 20:10:53
You can shoot through rocks right now, it's a known bug by the devs.

3D Spotting is bugged/not working properly in the BETA. Normally once you spot a guy and that he disappears behind an object you won't be able to see the spot.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 03-10-2011, 21:10:10
You can shoot through rocks right now, it's a known bug by the devs.

3D Spotting is bugged/not working properly in the BETA. Normally once you spot a guy and that he disappears behind an object you won't be able to see the spot.

And grenades get stuck in bushes.. died a few times when throwing a grenade when sitting in (the deadliest) bush.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 03-10-2011, 22:10:46
You can shoot through rocks right now, it's a known bug by the devs.

3D Spotting is bugged/not working properly in the BETA. Normally once you spot a guy and that he disappears behind an object you won't be able to see the spot.

And grenades get stuck in bushes.. died a few times when throwing a grenade when sitting in (the deadliest) bush.

Happened to me as well. Total 'Oh shit!' moment. :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 03-10-2011, 23:10:34
The worst thing is... I never remember that bug and end up running away from my (the deadliest) bush all the time :D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 04-10-2011, 01:10:45
Might not be a bug since it's quite realistic you can't throw a grenade through a bush?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 04-10-2011, 01:10:57
TotalBiscuit about bf3 modding scene and DLC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErVs_y2lq4A
 
I recomend watching it all, but if you want to hear only about bf3 here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErVs_y2lq4A&t=7m54s
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 04-10-2011, 06:10:26
Might not be a bug since it's quite realistic you can't throw a grenade through a bush?

Depends on the bush. Grenades are pretty heavy and go through leafs and small branches easily.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 04-10-2011, 10:10:05
...
its good for a console game, hope the mods come quick for the PC version ^^

It's been officially stated that there will be no mod support and no editor releases for BF3.
Forget Mods for the PC. You'll get to buy DLCs if you want something extra.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 04-10-2011, 13:10:44
well, no need for official mod support, the leaked servers files already showed the possibility of modding to a degree, changing the hud, and even making severs with 128 players at once.

We may not get the tools, but modding seems doable.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 04-10-2011, 13:10:16
I believe he was referring to conversions and extra content, not code modding.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 04-10-2011, 13:10:54
Depends on the bush. Grenades are pretty heavy and go through leafs and small branches easily.

Grenades fired from a GL sure, but throwing one? Most bush are pretty dense and will stop a lot or at least slow it down considerably. I think it's a nice feature even though it might be accidental.

Makes you have to use grenades more tactically instead of just spamming them like a CoD kid.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 04-10-2011, 13:10:22
The longer I'm playing the happier I am with battlelog. Compared to the crappy server browsers we had in BF games in the past. The only downside I can think of is the squad management, party's or players that join do not end up in the same squad. But this should be easily added in game seeing you can already leave and join a squad ingame. Apparently DICE is "discussing" this at the moment.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 04-10-2011, 13:10:35
Give me proper squad system and I'll pre-order the game.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 04-10-2011, 14:10:27
Depends on the bush. Grenades are pretty heavy and go through leafs and small branches easily.

Grenades fired from a GL sure, but throwing one? Most bush are pretty dense and will stop a lot or at least slow it down considerably. I think it's a nice feature even though it might be accidental.

Makes you have to use grenades more tactically instead of just spamming them like a CoD kid.

Still depends on the bush.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 04-10-2011, 15:10:27
Discussion still outgoing with squads made in game. I really wish that they change their minds. And also, integrate battlelog in game.

http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/battlefield-3/1434355-petition-get-fully-working-game-squad-management-poll.html

Here's a link...and I wonder who voted no.

Hmm I rather not want to have the current way of starting up a game before I can select a server to play. I've always used external server browsers like the All Seeing Eye and Q tracker. So I was quit happy when I heard about Battle blog.
You click on the server you want to join, do some Internet brwosing and a minute later I can join the game.

Squad management should also be done in game instead of only outside the game.

And what is wroing with the scope reflection on sniper rifles (Unless it happens in a dark area without daylight). This was done because snipers can go prone now, being totally 
invisiblein vegetation.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 04-10-2011, 15:10:16
...
And what is wroing with the scope reflection on sniper rifles (Unless it happens in a dark area without daylight). This was done because snipers can go prone now, being totally 
invisible in vegetation.

No worries, to counter this problem we have our other friends who play on low graphics. ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 04-10-2011, 17:10:06
I'm also quite happy with Battlelog, I just don't understand that (after adding it in BC2 and BF:H) they once again forgot to include an auto-join function.

Also, if you don't like the scope glance while being a sniper, just put a normal infantry scope on it. An ACOG or any other 3,4x/4x scope won't have any reflection. I really like the addition although I agree it's a little too bright right now. But it stops snipers from just hiding in a bush and camping, and makes them join the fight more.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 04-10-2011, 18:10:49
If you dont want snipers to camp than you shouldnt add them at all.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 04-10-2011, 18:10:46
If you dont want snipers to camp than you shouldnt add them at all.
on Rush gamemode, if the attackers get wiped out a any one time, there defenders will always advance and try to camp out the attackers to win. It always happens on Rush gamemode. This is why I hate it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 04-10-2011, 19:10:13
If you dont want snipers to camp than you shouldnt add them at all.

The way they're added right now resembles the Designated Marksman role instead of sniper, which was kinda the point I guess. Instead of camping in a bush and doing useless sniping, they move up with their team, and provide accurate medium/long range support against dug in enemies and they cover their team. The recon system is WAY better than BC2's and I like it.

Combined with awesome tools like the mobile spawnpoints, recon are now actually a usefull teamplay class instead of the kill stealing campers they've always been in previous BF series without removing the class altogether.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LHeureux on 04-10-2011, 19:10:54
I'm happy because snipers are not wookies anymore. So I don't feel violated if I see a sniper killing me in close combat. It was so immersion killer to see a ghillie suit guy killing you with a pistol and jumping around quikscoping.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 04-10-2011, 22:10:34
Community wins, now we can do squads IN GAME  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


"Musica said:
Honestly a lot of people are already cancelling pre-orders etc. because of this issue. I know it is not you who is explaining what the squad system is but honestly it is worrying that it is taking over 4 days to come up with a response for which really is a simple question can we swap squads mid game and make new squads or join empty squads. I know you want to make sure what you announce to the public is 100% and no one can misinterpret it or twist it against you but this is really one of the top concerns of the player base.


Dev:In short answer form, yes you can browse and join squads through the squad screen and make private squads. The full form will be available later."
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 04-10-2011, 23:10:07
I hope squad screen means squad screen ingame, not squad screen in battlelog or something like that :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 04-10-2011, 23:10:53
I hope squad screen means squad screen ingame, not squad screen in battlelog or something like that :P

No dude, it means IN GAME. Lol.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LHeureux on 05-10-2011, 02:10:02
Quote
and no one can misinterpret it or twist it against you

Dev:In short answer form, yes you can browse and join squads through the squad screen and make private squads. The full form will be available later."


Looks like the DEV did exactly what the community member said, he twisted it against the asker.

Nothing is said that it's IN-game
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 05-10-2011, 11:10:38
Except that 'the squad screen' in in-game.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Gezoes on 05-10-2011, 13:10:25
That fact that this is even a debate is ridiculous. Did the devs that played BF1942 and BF2 ran out? Did they lose their memory? How can they release anything with this basic stuff unchecked? Oh my. I'll wait some more.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 05-10-2011, 14:10:19
to be fair, they havent release it yet, its just a beta.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 05-10-2011, 17:10:19
On a slightly unrelated note:

http://www.gamefront.com/why-eas-origin-can-eat-sht/

This.
A completley personal prespective, but honestly I share the guys' opinion.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 05-10-2011, 17:10:35
^He´s got some good points.
There´s also a good article about Origins EULAs by a German online magazine about how these EULAs aren´t only shady, but also have clauses that are downright illegal in Germany. I can´t speak about others countries laws concerning contracts, but here´s the Google translation of said article (http://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcgameshardware.de%2Faid%2C841674%2FEULA-fuer-EA-Origins-Kommentar-zu-kritischen-Datenschutz-Klauseln-und-weiteren-Fallstricken-fuer-Battlefield-3-und-Mass-Effect-3-Erinnerung%2FInternet%2FNews%2F&act=url) for those who care.
It´s a bit odd that such a large company as EA which probably has a professional law department has so many loopholes and shady clauses in a "contract" (EULAs are void in Europe, but that´s another story). That shows that they´re either incompetent or have some odd intentions...the fact that these points weren´t ironed out yet leads to some unsettling conclusions...
/inb4 "tinfoil hat conspiracy idiot!"
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: evhgear on 06-10-2011, 05:10:34
You enjoy WWII games ?

You love unscopped Bolt-Action rifles ?

You like long range fighting ?

You want to add more epicness in your Bf3 gaming ?

You want that other players remember you because of your epicness ?

You would like to play FH2 and Bf3 at the same time ?


Well,
















I HAVE THE SOLUTION FOR YOU !! YES YOU!!!
(http://jeuvideal.com/licence_upx/wp-content/uncle-sam.jpg)
















THE UNSCOPPED SV98!!!
(http://resource.mmgn.com.s3.amazonaws.com/images/PC/bf3rec4.jpg)
INCREDIBLE!!!

With this, you can now enjoy the best of both worlds !!!

Don't waste your time with a BORING scoped Mk11 or SVD and transform your gameplay in PURE EPICNESS IN A FEW SECONDS!!!



You just need to follow theses steps :

1. Unscope your SV98

2. have FUN


This epicness is not sold it store, so you can have it for FREE!!!*

BUT, if you do it now, we'll pay for your shipping and handling !!  No Credit card needed !!

Do it now

IT'S ABSOLUTLY FREE


DON'T DELAY!!   DO IT TODAY!!!



*you actually need to unlock the SV98
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSqKT0D8OnQF6yqEI6qzOs1oQO_9yOa2yo3GmaLZOxwQwI00Q9SM0XiKBY)

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 07-10-2011, 13:10:04
Caspian Border availabe to all players untill the end of beta (oct 10th), starting tonight! (~7.00 CET)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 07-10-2011, 13:10:42
Caspian Border availabe to all players untill the end of beta (oct 10th), starting tonight! (~7.00 CET)

Aw, balls. I uninstalled as soon as the news of Metro being the only allowed map came out.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 07-10-2011, 14:10:21
Caspian Border availabe to all players untill the end of beta (oct 10th), starting tonight! (~7.00 CET)
Plenty of servers are already up.

/me must resist faking illness.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 07-10-2011, 15:10:06
Played few rounds on caspian border.. tried helicopters, tanks and jets. Jets are awesome. :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 07-10-2011, 16:10:56
Played few rounds on caspian border.. tried helicopters, tanks and jets. Jets are awesome. :)
Apart from the pain in the arse squad system, it really felt like true battlefield. Jets... the scenery was magnificent from up there, but my success as a pilot was rather limited; stinger target and ramming that bloody radio mast ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 07-10-2011, 16:10:16
Airdefense

i will so be a full time air defenser on BF3
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 07-10-2011, 17:10:00
Played few rounds on caspian border.. tried helicopters, tanks and jets. Jets are awesome. :)
Apart from the pain in the arse squad system, it really felt like true battlefield. Jets... the scenery was magnificent from up there, but my success as a pilot was rather limited; stinger target and ramming that bloody radio mast ;D
You need to unlock a lot of stuff before you can be effective. For tanks as well btw.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zeno on 07-10-2011, 19:10:00
Played few rounds on caspian border.. tried helicopters, tanks and jets. Jets are awesome. :)

how was heli physics? mostly like bf2 or the retarded BC2 physics?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 07-10-2011, 19:10:53
how was heli physics? mostly like bf2 or the retarded BC2 physics?

Bit of a combo. But they have autohover and don't have advanced flight physics. Guess the noobs on consoles wouldn't be able to handle it and DICE has been too lazy to make seperate PC physics.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 08-10-2011, 08:10:18
Airdefense

i will so be a full time air defenser on BF3

Does this mean you tried it and it actually works?

If so, why did they nerf the jets?...Oh yeah I forgot, console kids... :P



Quote
...DICE has been too lazy to make seperate PC physics.

Well if we complain about it enough, I'm sure they'll rectify that problem in a patch... :)



There's a new driver out for ATI cards which improves performance in BF3 (and RAGE... :-X):

Quote
AMD Catalyst™ 11.10 Preview Driver Features:

    Improves performance in Battlefield 3 Open Beta release for both non-Anti-Aliasing and application enabled Anti-Aliasing cases on single GPU configurations using the AMD Radeon™ HD 6000 and AMD Radeon HD 5000 series of products.
    Improves performance in Battlefield 3 Open Beta release for both non-Anti-Aliasing and application enabled Anti-Aliasing cases on AMD CrossFire™ configurations using the AMD Radeon HD 6000 and AMD Radeon HD 5000 series of products.
    Improves performance in Rage on single GPU configurations using the AMD Radeon HD 6000, AMD Radeon HD 5000 Series and AMD Radeon HD 4000 series of products.
    Reduces intermittent crashing seen loading levels in Rage
    Resolves flickering of NPCs in Rage
    Enables automatic Vsync for Rage
    Enables support for AMD Eyefinity 5x1 display (portrait and landscape) configurations  using the AMD Radeon HD 6000 and AMD Radeon HD 5000 series of products.
    AMD Vision Engine Control Center: User Interface enhancements have been implemented for the AMD CrossfireX™, GPU AMD Overdrive™ and Information Center pages.

 - http://support.amd.com/us/kbarticles/Pages/GPU122AMDCat1110PreDriverV2.aspx
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 08-10-2011, 10:10:35
For some reason every driver after 10.4a fudges up my computer :/
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 08-10-2011, 19:10:18
Does anyone else have very short blue flashes during a game?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 08-10-2011, 19:10:39
Does anyone else have very short blue flashes during a game?

Yes. It's probably because of origin in-game feature
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: S1lv3rWolf on 08-10-2011, 19:10:38
Does anyone else have very short blue flashes during a game?

Yes. It's probably because of origin in-game feature

I'm having them, and I turned the feature off, so it's probably something else.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kwiot on 09-10-2011, 12:10:27
Damn, I jizzed in my pants when I saw this!  ;D (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UwOrl036_A&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fresults%3Fsearch_query%3Dbattlefield%2B3%26aq%3Df&ytsession=uxYqWZUwQhOTsEOtLumoHTavipSCwF-ypRKeTC5V6qdoPRRvb_m1X7UL0bcpdhqQ2Cq4OJmTj78xL2vVKLEi-_G0eSK0Z003c6sfgzCP7bnjk8h6CwAz9Ai8yfCzYoGXLgQmnIfhVsZ0y_ruYEOGy3-Y_2kMcHIKMcOPcCCK-fDkZ1tmSvpAxkStSNYTt1k1JBNeX8bEYIZ4tfMitBF1ndsgi7a0k9i1ONLWpE-NpfzP_cB4Dcv6fU3H1jqy3W7pFSf1ch6UHAKPJPp4gP97qnFE5a_XzxcqZC5GCWRvvpA&has_verified=1)

Now I need to get money for the new PC somehow....  ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 10-10-2011, 00:10:40
Caspian Border is such a brilliant map. Right up there with Gulf of Oman. So much detail on every flag, not too many flags and a good mix of vehicles.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 10-10-2011, 12:10:55
Beta over.

(http://www.abload.de/img/clipboard02uuk0.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 10-10-2011, 14:10:00
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo :'(
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 10-10-2011, 18:10:03
FH2 is still here. Come back home guys!  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 10-10-2011, 19:10:44
Honestly, i do not know if i can yet :-[.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Moose on 10-10-2011, 22:10:49
Shit I was addicted as hell to this on my ps3.... I don';t want it to be done :(
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 10-10-2011, 22:10:46
Shit I was addicted as hell to this on my ps3.... I don';t want it to be done :(

Yeah me as well...It was just so much more fun on PS3.  First game I ever pre-ordered.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 10-10-2011, 22:10:25
Have fun on your 24-player maps ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: evhgear on 11-10-2011, 03:10:38
Have fun on your 24-player maps ;)
^This

Because of no 64players on Xbox I will buy the game on computer, even if he is limit to run the game :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 11-10-2011, 03:10:12
Ohh I will probably get it for PC at some point when the price drops.  But looking back on the Beta I played it a great deal more on the PS3 and had a better time to boot.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Moose on 11-10-2011, 05:10:16
I just played BC2 again because I missed bf3...but I really think BF3 is better, the infantry combat just fells closer and more real. I reall like it
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 11-10-2011, 05:10:52
Vehicles still suck. Jets suck, tanks still cant go up a hill. And even the A10 30mm canon doesnt do crap to infantry  :P This game needs lot of patching and tweaking.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 11-10-2011, 05:10:44
I just played BC2 again because I missed bf3...but I really think BF3 is better, the infantry combat just fells closer and more real. I reall like it

Get out of my head!  Yeah my little brother just got BFBC2 so I played half a round before yelling "fuck this shit!" and rage quitting.  I used to love that game.....BF3 what have you done to me?!?!? :'(
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Moose on 11-10-2011, 14:10:49
Same I rage quitted BC2 as well after not seeing people and spending my time chasing them up buildings. Metro just had an awesome feel to it
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 12-10-2011, 05:10:03
Bad news, BF3 wont have VOIP and wont ship with battlerecorder.

http://twitter.com/#!/GameSpy/status/123956771961315329
https://twitter.com/#!/zh1nt0/status/123892438690574338
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Moose on 12-10-2011, 06:10:36
Why would they take out VOIP when it was in the beta?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 12-10-2011, 08:10:58
they're only saying it wont launch with those features.. might come back later.

They didnt "take anything out" of the beta, they are  "not including it" in the game. (probably because they didn't want to release it yet) There's a huge difference between those two.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 12-10-2011, 09:10:27
Promises made are promises broken...  :-[
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 12-10-2011, 13:10:51
yea well... if it isn't perfectly working, it's quuuiiite understandable they arent shipping with it
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 12-10-2011, 13:10:24
in-game VOIP usually sucks anyway.

wtf happened to my post? who removed word VOIP?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 12-10-2011, 14:10:26
VoiP via battlelog works but most people I know prefer mumble/teamspeak/ventrilo.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 12-10-2011, 14:10:47
precisely. clan people and others will find alternate means of communication. For the rest, it's better to have no Voip than a broken / not finished Voip. Same goes for battlerecorder.. not really needed at all, but a "nice" if they get it done later.

+ reviewers arent voip-type players  ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 12-10-2011, 14:10:15
Dedicated VoIP programs usually feature a much wider range of settings, making them superior to in-game counterparts.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 12-10-2011, 15:10:29
Yes ofcourse... they're developed by companies that has specialized in those products...  Thing is, most players dont want to bother with external applications, they just want to press "play" on the game and go.

what is funny though, is that when it comes to voip etc, some players have no problem with external apps like skype, TS or ventrilo, but when the game requires a 3rd party app to run (Origin, Punkbuster) there's immediately whine  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 12-10-2011, 15:10:25
People whine about PB? Thats a new one. I thought that wouldnt cause much of whine due to it being part of the installation process (optional as it may be, but most of the times _required_). I can understand having to download extra and going through trouble to get to the subject you were trying to reach causes a lot of unwanted and not-needed rage. Programs such as Steam and Origin.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Leopardi on 12-10-2011, 16:10:03
By far the single biggest problem in BF3 in one picture:

(http://i.imgur.com/bCY5u.png)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 12-10-2011, 16:10:51
Now you are just being delusional.

Criticise as you wish but please try the game before you come up with something like that.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 12-10-2011, 17:10:57
Leopardi, those comparison images would have a much greater impact / relevance if you added both actual distances in meter, as well as the scale vs speed ratio between the games. 20meters in BF2 might not be the same as 20meter in BF3 if you add size of models, speed of movement, destruction, Field of View etc etc....

Just paint-paste one map on top of the other without any of these facts^ included, only makes the post look like tr ::)  lling.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 12-10-2011, 17:10:51
Leopardi, those comparison images would have a much greater impact / relevance if you added both actual distances in meter, as well as the scale vs speed ratio between the games. 20meters in BF2 might not be the same as 20meter in BF3 if you add size of models, speed of movement, destruction, Field of View etc etc....

Just paint-paste one map on top of the other without any of these facts^ included, only makes the post look like tr ::)  lling.

Actually. The map is gigantic. In all versions, the problem however is that DICE cut down the playable area. For example, in Operation Firestorm; you have a gigantic and a very, very big map. However; the playable are is very small, with....all the flags concentrated in the center. I really dont know why DICE would do this, instead of giving us the majority of the map to play.

The same happens in Caspian Border; you have much more of the map to play but it's an unplayable area. I just wonder why  ???
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 12-10-2011, 17:10:28
All aboard the "super fast paced Gameplay where kills mather" train?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Leopardi on 12-10-2011, 17:10:01
Leopardi, those comparison images would have a much greater impact / relevance if you added both actual distances in meter, as well as the scale vs speed ratio between the games. 20meters in BF2 might not be the same as 20meter in BF3 if you add size of models, speed of movement, destruction, Field of View etc etc....

Just paint-paste one map on top of the other without any of these facts^ included, only makes the post look like tr ::)  lling.
Look at the runways! And considering the fact that you can with much slower jets than BF2, be flying over enemy main base within 10 seconds, this comparison seems very correct. The distance between BF3 flags are made so you can reach them by sprinting a few seconds, think about how much you would have to run in Highway Tampa to reach another flag on foot?

It's basically only one big clusterf*** in the middle, and jets flying away from the battle area because they can't do anything to infantry even if you hit them directly and infantry can shoot them down with stingers.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 12-10-2011, 17:10:52
All aboard the "super fast paced Gameplay where kills mather" train?

I'll take the train any day instead of riding the "Let's turn this game into Hide&seek" wheelchair.
On a more important note, when are you going to send my some Mattetarten ?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 12-10-2011, 18:10:28
Leopardi, those comparison images would have a much greater impact / relevance if you added both actual distances in meter, as well as the scale vs speed ratio between the games. 20meters in BF2 might not be the same as 20meter in BF3 if you add size of models, speed of movement, destruction, Field of View etc etc....

Just paint-paste one map on top of the other without any of these facts^ included, only makes the post look like tr ::)  lling.
Look at the runways! And considering the fact that you can with much slower jets than BF2, be flying over enemy main base within 10 seconds, this comparison seems very correct. The distance between BF3 flags are made so you can reach them by sprinting a few seconds, think about how much you would have to run in Highway Tampa to reach another flag on foot?

It's basically only one big clusterf*** in the middle, and jets flying away from the battle area because they can't do anything to infantry even if you hit them directly and infantry can shoot them down with stingers.
Dude you barely even played the beta if you're posts are anything to go by.  ::)

 
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Leopardi on 12-10-2011, 18:10:18
Leopardi, those comparison images would have a much greater impact / relevance if you added both actual distances in meter, as well as the scale vs speed ratio between the games. 20meters in BF2 might not be the same as 20meter in BF3 if you add size of models, speed of movement, destruction, Field of View etc etc....

Just paint-paste one map on top of the other without any of these facts^ included, only makes the post look like tr ::)  lling.
Look at the runways! And considering the fact that you can with much slower jets than BF2, be flying over enemy main base within 10 seconds, this comparison seems very correct. The distance between BF3 flags are made so you can reach them by sprinting a few seconds, think about how much you would have to run in Highway Tampa to reach another flag on foot?

It's basically only one big clusterf*** in the middle, and jets flying away from the battle area because they can't do anything to infantry even if you hit them directly and infantry can shoot them down with stingers.
Dude you barely even played the beta if you're posts are anything to go by.  ::)
Vehicles are like an afterthought in the game. Even A-10 can't do anything but scratch infantry, and all of the planes sound & fly the same. With tanks you have to directly hit to kill an infantry dude. Theyre so weak that as an engineer you literally hope an enemy tank would come for an easy kill  :-\
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 12-10-2011, 18:10:47
Dude you barely even played the beta if you're posts are anything to go by.  ::)

Actually, he's right. Flags are too close to each other; and jets cant hurt infantry with their cannon. Even the 30mm fell short on damage. Not even a direct hit will kill them.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 12-10-2011, 18:10:07
Dude you barely even played the beta if you're posts are anything to go by.  ::)

Actually, he's right. Flags are too close to each other; and jets cant hurt infantry with their cannon. Even the 30mm fell short on damage. Not even a direct hit will kill them.
- Distances between flags seemed fine, didn't notice any difference between BF2 and BF3 mainly because in Caspian Border there weren't like 10 freaking flags.
- Jets are faster than in BF2. Damage against infantry was weak but we know the damage model was buggy to say the least so who knows what happens to it.
- Everyone and their mother had unlocked stingers because of the metro map, no one had unlocked flares until a few days of Caspian. At first planes were shot from the sky in a matter of seconds, near the end pilots ended up high on the scoreboard.
- At least in BF3 you can have plenty of space for attack runs and dog fighting which was barely possible in BF2.
- You need at least two minutes of full sprint to reach a single control point in a direct line.
- With proper teamwork you can destroy the enemy team when in a tank. Driving into a very detailed build up area alone in your tank means death like it should.

I've played plenty of hours in the beta and in BF2 to know what I'm talking about.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 12-10-2011, 18:10:25
Dude you barely even played the beta if you're posts are anything to go by.  ::)

Actually, he's right. Flags are too close to each other; and jets cant hurt infantry with their cannon. Even the 30mm fell short on damage. Not even a direct hit will kill them.
- Distances between flags seemed fine, didn't notice any difference between BF2 and BF3 mainly because in Caspian Border there weren't like 10 freaking flags.
- Jets are faster than in BF2. Damage against infantry was weak but we know the damage model was buggy to say the least so who knows what happens to it.
- Everyone and their mother had unlocked stingers because of the metro map, no one had unlocked flares until a few days of Caspian. At first planes were shot from the sky in a matter of seconds, near the end pilots ended up high on the scoreboard.
- At least in BF3 you can have plenty of space for attack runs and dog fighting which was barely possible in BF2.
- You need at least two minutes of full sprint to reach a single control point in a direct line.
- With proper teamwork you can destroy the enemy team when in a tank. Driving into a very detailed build up area alone in your tank means death like it should.

I've played plenty of hours in the beta and in BF2 to know what I'm talking about.
True that actually

BF2...planes where difficult to fly but also Overpowerd. BF3 seems to do this fine, altough flares should be faster unlockable

And perhaps Stinger and IGLA should do a bit less damage or a bit less range
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 12-10-2011, 18:10:04
Jets are way too slow in BF3.

Also another problem is the disabled vehicles. At 50% you already do that; should be close to 15-10.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 12-10-2011, 18:10:29
I wonder why some seem to think that running 120m from flag-to-flag is less "battlefield" than doing a jeep-race 250meters... you can have a great sense of scale even with shorter distances between flags. And most players don't want to spend most of their game time just travelling.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 12-10-2011, 19:10:45
By far the single biggest problem in BF3 in one picture:

(http://i.imgur.com/bCY5u.png)

actually, acorting to demize, distance from one edge to the other is 1400 meters, so its more like this:

(http://i.imgur.com/gjeUY.jpg)

still cramped and with less space to maneouver , but at least maps can be big, something mods can work, if they ever let dice show their servers in battleblog
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 12-10-2011, 19:10:29
I wonder why some seem to think that running 120m from flag-to-flag is less "battlefield" than doing a jeep-race 250meters... you can have a great sense of scale even with shorter distances between flags. And most players don't want to spend most of their game time just travelling.

That's the problem. Nowadays, many players are guys who want constant action and action and action. It's not like in FH2; you take your time, you defend, you attack and flank. And can plan strategies. And even though it's like that, you can be out of action for 1 or 2 minutes. And then suddenly there's two tanks and 3 squads attacking your position. It's a feeling that I never experienced in other games.

Sadly, BF3 cant deliver that.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 12-10-2011, 19:10:10
Sadly, BF3 cant deliver that.

it will  8)

but the things you describe is player's behaviour. Not game design. There will always be players who prefer to play slower, not rush, stay still some minutes, communicate, "plan" their moves, act more "tactical", maybe even apply semi-real military movements (advance & cover) etc... these guys always exists, and they have a tendency to be able to apply this playstyle on almost any type of map anyway. (It's in their nature to adapt, to "make their own rules")
But many or most players won't do that, even with far distances between the flags.. what happen there, is that you just get an uncontrolled/unfocused "sandbox" mayhem, with jeeps driving around in circles, people racing around and let's face it; a circus. Is this more desireable?

Freedom/openeness comes with a price -> it gives players a greater incentive to ignore the game mode, to just "fool around"... i don't think this is the BF legacy at all. Sandboxes are fun, sure, but what creates the best experience is when players fall naturally in to a pattern and a focused fight.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 12-10-2011, 19:10:22
euhm it IS game design. Especialy map design.
Stick FH2 on a equally sized map...Tunis!  and you get the same fast action stuff you see in every game these days
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Leopardi on 12-10-2011, 20:10:48
By far the single biggest problem in BF3 in one picture:

(http://i.imgur.com/bCY5u.png)

actually, acorting to demize, distance from one edge to the other is 1400 meters, so its more like this:

(http://i.imgur.com/gjeUY.jpg)

still cramped and with less space to maneouver , but at least maps can be big, something mods can work, if they ever let dice show their servers in battleblog
No that's completely out of scale. The US runway is not much (if at all) longer then the MEC runways , and when you compare the size by the runways you get a better idea, it's much smaller.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 12-10-2011, 20:10:11
there is an A10 in the map, use it to meassure the distances.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 12-10-2011, 20:10:12
tbh, I really think that the unlocks on vehicles is big bullshit. Noobs should be given the same opportunities then the 14 year old that play this game everyday
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 12-10-2011, 21:10:36
tbh, I really think that the unlocks on vehicles is big bullshit. Noobs should be given the same opportunities then the 14 year old that play this game everyday
agreed
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 12-10-2011, 21:10:20
tbh, I really think that the unlocks on vehicles is big bullshit. Noobs should be given the same opportunities then the 14 year old that play this game everyday

Yea, although i love unlocking shit, its annoying you really have to unlock everything. It could be a little more beginner friendly.
And i abbbsoolutely agree on the tanks, jets and choppers. flares either should be unlock nr 1 or usable from minute one. And wtf, unlocking ZOOM? lol.
Still loved it though. But those things annoyed me a little.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 12-10-2011, 22:10:24
VOIP, Commo Rose, advanced jet options uncertain at launch - Battlefield 3 (http://bf3blog.com/2011/10/voip-commo-rose-advanced-jet-options-uncertain-at-launch/)

Battlefield 3 PC servers and anti-cheat details revealed  BeefJack - The Gamer's Sauce (http://beefjack.com/news/battlefield-3-pc-servers-and-anti-cheat-details-revealed/)

Battlefield 3 PC dedicated servers will charge extra.. for every single player  BeefJack - The Gamer's Sauce (http://beefjack.com/news/battlefield-3-pc-dedicated-servers-will-charge-extra-for-every-single-player/)

dont you just love modern game industry? =D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 12-10-2011, 22:10:17
What is it these days with half finished games being released?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 12-10-2011, 22:10:57
The server pricing is just there to ensure that people will migrate into Battlefield 4 when it comes (in two years at most), instead of staying with the old version. They do not want to repeat the BF2 mistake where people play the vanilla game and mods long after the "best before" date without paying extra.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 12-10-2011, 23:10:15
they just want the community to hack it and go illegal, don't they ?

128, here I come (and prolly much cheaper then EA's 64 player 'server')

Quote
What is it these days with half finished games being released?

(http://www.mitchelaneous.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/yellow-coin.png)

It's much more profitable to release a half assed game and then charge people when you install "fixes" and "extra content trough DLC. In the old days, you bought entire games. These days you buy the frame of the game, but you have to fill it in with extra €€€
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 13-10-2011, 00:10:30
Is it "pounce on BF3 day" today? Are you really nagging about the pricing concept of two providers? Please guys save something for when you go to your retirement homes.

Here some indication of prices per month, don't tell me you are shocked to hear that a 64 players server costs more then a 32 player:

http://www.i3d.net/battlefield-3-ranked-game-servers.php (http://www.i3d.net/battlefield-3-ranked-game-servers.php)


Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 13-10-2011, 02:10:22
tbh, I really think that the unlocks on vehicles is big bullshit. Noobs should be given the same opportunities then the 14 year old that play this game everyday
I concur.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 13-10-2011, 05:10:18
@Leopardi: You're scaling the BF3 map down using the runways as a reference, but how do you know they're the same length?

Seems to me that if the BF3 jets are that much slower, they're obviously going to need more runway to get off the ground.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: HadrianBT on 13-10-2011, 07:10:11
The speed of jets is irrelevant to the length of the runway. It just depends on how you code to pull-up characteristics of a plane. So it can be longer or shorter.

However I agree with the idea of scaling with A-10 model. So the second picture actually seems about right. Although I still would like it to be bigger. As a final note, Tampa was released several years after the initial release. Maybe we will see much bigger maps later on (with DLC or, you never know, sponsored by Intel like Tampa or completely free with no ads like Jalalabad).

So far , EA has been quite reasonable with add-on pricing. I bought all of them (green, blue and orange) and I think it is quite fair. Let's hope they keep with that...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 13-10-2011, 10:10:55
you cant fly a plane in Bf3 and time it and think it covers the same distance at that "same" plane in Bf2.
it doesnt work like that.

also, what difference does it matter what the servers cost? it's not like anyone here is planning on hosting a server anyway, or? and if there is, whining about prices? really? It's business, you gain about as much complaining about server prices as you do complaining about gas prices.. wanna drive? buy gas. wanna run a bf3 server? buy months from the R.S.P.s.. Simple.
Would it be better for you if they were 50% cheaper? duuuh.... yea?

Also: unlocks/perks etc have proven to be the best way to keep players interested in games, that is why simply: the more stuff to unlock (earn) by playing, the better.
Players whined complained on BC2 that they reached end-game too fast. That's why DICE is now setting the one-year goal for you to reach end-game state. Pretty cool eh? listening to players requests and giving it to them  8)


Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 13-10-2011, 11:10:57


Also: unlocks/perks etc have proven to be the best way to keep players interested in games
Explains why a game from 1999 with no unlocks has more players than any other FPS ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 13-10-2011, 11:10:30

Players whined complained on BC2 that they reached end-game too fast. That's why DICE is now setting the one-year goal for you to reach end-game state. Pretty cool eh? listening to players requests and giving it to them  8)

I understand that fully.

The problem for me is that vehicle's basic stuff like co-axial MG, sights (zoom), smoke screen and flares are in my opinion not supposed to be unlockable. Extra armor - sure, depleted uranium ammunition - go for it, tank "radar" - why not. However, co-ax MG and flares etc. should really be available from the start.

If you Natty looked at it from your personal view point, would you rather have some of the stuff already unlocked or like it currently is? Even though you work for the same company and understand the ideas behind many of their decisions, you must still have some things you'd like to see different, right?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 13-10-2011, 11:10:34
You mustn't forget nostalgia in that equation. Without it, I doubt that the numbers would be the same. I tried said game a while back and it just didn't live up to what I expected...

Ranks and wanting to be honoured are something deeply rooted in the human psyche.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Leopardi on 13-10-2011, 12:10:20
I wonder why some seem to think that running 120m from flag-to-flag is less "battlefield" than doing a jeep-race 250meters... you can have a great sense of scale even with shorter distances between flags. And most players don't want to spend most of their game time just travelling.
The greatest battles I remember have happened way outside of flag areas. With 64 players you can afford having distances because there naturally will be battles everywhere. Low number of flags like El Alamein makes sure there will be enough players between the flags throughout the map.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 13-10-2011, 12:10:57
Damn I'm siding with Natty... all these discussions must have made my brain melt. ^^
On Caspian Boarder I actually had quite a few battles outside of the flag zones, which was very BFish and nice. True the flag layout could be optimized, but nevertheless, the map had a BF feeling to it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Leopardi on 13-10-2011, 12:10:57
Damn I'm siding with Natty... all these discussions must have made my brain melt. ^^
On Caspian Boarder I actually had quite a few battles outside of the flag zones, which was very BFish and nice. True the flag layout could be optimized, but nevertheless, the map had a BF feeling to it.
nowhere near El Alamein feeling... caspian is supposed to be one of the biggest maps. It's more like Bocage, but with all outer areas that could be used for unseen flanking closed.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 13-10-2011, 12:10:03
The speed of jets is irrelevant to the length of the runway. It just depends on how you code to pull-up characteristics of a plane. So it can be longer or shorter...

Of course. I'm just assuming the only major change is the speed, and if that's been lowered, I'd say the rate of acceleration is lower too.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 13-10-2011, 13:10:55
Explains why a game from 1999 with no unlocks has more players than any other FPS ;)

wow, as predictable as winter... you troll pretend to believe that it still has many players because it doesn't have a persistence/unlock system?.. lolz.

CS 1.6 is popular because it's one - if not the - first FPS games.. it has had 12 years to gather up an audience. it's also cheap (if not free?) so for the millions and millions of FPS fans world-wide who cant upgrade their computer or buy a 50$ game, it's the most obvious choice... Add to this; it's a Vegas slot-machine perfectly simple reward system which is compatible with pretty much anyone who wants fast action on their PC :) tha's the reason people play it, it has nothing to do with it not having a persistence system, as I know you, you try to insinuate that all those players "stand above" things like unlocks and perks, and are playing "purely" for the fun of it.... as if adding a deep persistence system to CS wouldnt make more players play it.. lol  8) fail. Imagine all the Russian/Hungarian/Ukrainian/Chinese/Romanian/Brazilian counter-strike players, you dont think they would flood to CS 1.6 if it offered unlocks & perks?  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 13-10-2011, 13:10:48
CS 1.6 is popular because it's one - if not the - first FPS games.
CS the first FPS? HURR DURR

Check your definitions, please. It might be the first "tactical shooter" designed for a large number of players over Internet, but then again, before it was born as a Half-Life mod, it could trace its lineage to Action Quake 2, a mod of Quake, which in turn was the first "real" online (Internet) FPS. Not to mention that Duke Nukem 3D and Doom had already offered LAN multiplayer, and of course, Wolfenstein 3D started it all (although it had only singleplayer).
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 13-10-2011, 14:10:55
Well it's a point of definition. I'd say it is safe to state that CS was the first MMO-FPS.
Everyone has played it at least once in his life (i.e. if he belongs to the generation of gamers that is older than 20 atm).
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 13-10-2011, 14:10:52
Come on Kelmola.. dont aspie out on me here... I obviously dont mean it that literary (the first fps)  ::) Im pretty sure you know that... + what DLFReporter said there.^
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 13-10-2011, 17:10:10
Here's my feeling on having to unlock stuff for vehicles, most of which came as standard in previous BF titles (again, my personal opinion):

It makes me not want to play them. Why would I play a vehicle when you have guys that play them exclusively will have every single bell and whistle you could possibly fit on it? And when and if i decide to use a tank I am completely inferior to the opponent. That effects the balance of the game, when it really shouldnt be a problem.

Using the argument 'oh well since he's using it more of course he's going to be better anyway' is even worse: he will have every single gadget available in the game which I wont have, plus the fact he has the experience required to earn those perks and knows how to use them and the tank altogether, as if that wasnt enough of an advantage.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 13-10-2011, 17:10:56
Here's my feeling on having to unlock stuff for vehicles, most of which came as standard in previous BF titles (again, my personal opinion):

It makes me not want to play them. Why would I play a vehicle when you have guys that play them exclusively will have every single bell and whistle you could possibly fit on it? And when and if i decide to use a tank I am completely inferior to the opponent. That effects the balance of the game, when it really shouldnt be a problem.

Using the argument 'oh well since he's using it more of course he's going to be better anyway' is even worse: he will have every single gadget available in the game which I wont have, plus the fact he has the experience required to earn those perks and knows how to use them and the tank altogether, as if that wasnt enough of an advantage.
Exactly

This whole perk crap comes from! CALL OF DUTY !(well and BC2...)
AS WE DINT HAD ENOUGH OF THOSE SAME GENRE GAMES

Admitted...BF3 is not completly like Cod. but you can sure see it goes on the same HUGE PROFIT low content train

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zeno on 13-10-2011, 18:10:05
Holy sheeeeet!!!

http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/battlefield_bad_company/archive/2011/10/13/battleblog-13-from-the-streets-of-paris-to-the-outskirts-of-tehran-battlefield-3-multiplayer-map-reveal.aspx

(http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/battlefield_5F00_bad_5F00_company/OperationFirestorm_2D00_2_2D00_550.jpg)
(http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/battlefield_5F00_bad_5F00_company/OperationFirestorm_2D00_1_2D00_350.jpg)
(http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/battlefield_5F00_bad_5F00_company/OperationMetro_2D00_2_2D00_550.jpg)
(http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/battlefield_5F00_bad_5F00_company/OperationMetro_2D00_1_2D00_350.jpg)
(http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/battlefield_5F00_bad_5F00_company/MP003_2D00_1_2D00_550.jpg)
(http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/battlefield_5F00_bad_5F00_company/MP003_2D00_350.jpg)
(http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/battlefield_5F00_bad_5F00_company/DamavandPeak_2D00_3_2D00_550.jpg)
(http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/battlefield_5F00_bad_5F00_company/DamavandPeak_2D00_1_2D00_1280.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 13-10-2011, 18:10:42
Here's my feeling on having to unlock stuff for vehicles, most of which came as standard in previous BF titles (again, my personal opinion):

It makes me not want to play them. Why would I play a vehicle when you have guys that play them exclusively will have every single bell and whistle you could possibly fit on it? And when and if i decide to use a tank I am completely inferior to the opponent. That effects the balance of the game, when it really shouldnt be a problem.

Using the argument 'oh well since he's using it more of course he's going to be better anyway' is even worse: he will have every single gadget available in the game which I wont have, plus the fact he has the experience required to earn those perks and knows how to use them and the tank altogether, as if that wasnt enough of an advantage.

Exactly. DICE, yet again, crippled vehicles. Infantry dont fear jets, they dont fear tanks. They dont run away in fear or take cover like it happens in FH2. Now, people just go and take to quick shots at a jet with a stinger to disabled it, and tanks are just shot 3 tanks at the sides and you blow them up so easily. DICE designed BF3 around infantry and whiners. And that's why the game gameplay is awfully balanced.

Holy sheeeeet!!!

http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/battlefield_bad_company/archive/2011/10/13/battleblog-13-from-the-streets-of-paris-to-the-outskirts-of-tehran-battlefield-3-multiplayer-map-reveal.aspx

(http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/battlefield_5F00_bad_5F00_company/OperationFirestorm_2D00_2_2D00_550.jpg)
(http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/battlefield_5F00_bad_5F00_company/OperationFirestorm_2D00_1_2D00_350.jpg)
(http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/battlefield_5F00_bad_5F00_company/OperationMetro_2D00_2_2D00_550.jpg)
(http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/battlefield_5F00_bad_5F00_company/OperationMetro_2D00_1_2D00_350.jpg)
(http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/battlefield_5F00_bad_5F00_company/MP003_2D00_1_2D00_550.jpg)
(http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/battlefield_5F00_bad_5F00_company/MP003_2D00_350.jpg)
(http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/battlefield_5F00_bad_5F00_company/DamavandPeak_2D00_3_2D00_550.jpg)
(http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/battlefield_5F00_bad_5F00_company/DamavandPeak_2D00_1_2D00_1280.jpg)

So what? The maps will be gigantic, but the play area will be very small. Like it happens in operation firestorm; very giant map, but short play distance.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 13-10-2011, 19:10:51
This whole perk crap comes from! CALL OF DUTY !(well and BC2...)

oh re-he-he-eally?... there were no unlocks in bf2? 2142?.... "ok"  ::)

we all want this, it's just you and a few other whiners who dont want a persistence system. The rest, we go yaY!! when the game gives us things as sign of progress

@maps:  :o awesome maps indeed, cant wait.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 13-10-2011, 19:10:36
Sure. you'll love all the flags bundled together and the gigant maps...but very small play area. Enjoy them  ; 8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 13-10-2011, 19:10:45
This whole perk crap comes from! CALL OF DUTY !(well and BC2...)

oh re-he-he-eally?... there were no unlocks in bf2? 2142?.... "ok"  ::)

we all want this, it's just you and a few other whiners who dont want a persistence system. The rest, we go yaY!! when the game gives us things as sign of progress

@maps:  :o awesome maps indeed, cant wait.
yep, next bf we should unlock the wings for planes and wheels for vehicles, just to have a better percistance and for the hell of it.

the more unlocks the better rite?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 13-10-2011, 19:10:51
yep, next bf we should unlock the wings for planes and wheels for vehicles, just to have a better percistance and for the hell of it.

the more unlocks the better rite?

Careful! You'll be dubbed as a troll for complaining! We need billions of unlocks to progress! And less features from other games! COD players dont need commo rose anyway! And vehicles?! Let's use tanks and jets as taxis. Also I cant live without unlocks, I CANT!!!

And I dont wanna walk to a flag ok?! I prefer it's just next to the other, yeah it's easier.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Mayhemic.MAD on 13-10-2011, 19:10:19
I also don´t like the whole "unlock" concept either.
I think shifts the players focus from caring about the current game and winning the map with his team to just an egocentric "I don´t care what´s happening around me, I just want work towards my pistol upgrade now.." attitude.
It´s not really helping to establish a good teamplay experience when many players around you are "farming" points to get the next unlock instead of properly attacking a flag with you :/
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 13-10-2011, 20:10:35
yep, next bf we should unlock the wings for planes and wheels for vehicles, just to have a better percistance and for the hell of it.

the more unlocks the better rite?

Careful! You'll be dubbed as a troll for complaining! We need billions of unlocks to progress! And less features from other games! COD players dont need commo rose anyway! And vehicles?! Let's use tanks and jets as taxis. Also I cant live without unlocks, I CANT!!!

And I dont wanna walk to a flag ok?! I prefer it's just next to the other, yeah it's easier.
YEAH!
AND Why release a finished game anyway? It is much cooler to see an unfinished game being sold!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 13-10-2011, 20:10:42
naah, I have grown a thick skin. The trolling doesnt affect me anymore, unless it has a comical punch, then I might laugh a bit.. the last 4 posts only made me *yawn*

@Mayhemic.MAD, it's already proven and verified that these persistence skills (perks) you get, indeed encourages teamplay :) as it allows players to play more uniquely - custom his style - than in the old games.. like FH2 where you just grab a kit and "pretend" to be an engy, sniper etc.. when in reality, you aren't any different from any other player.

You'll see more teamplay in BF3 in any other game you ever played, including the "RPG-solutions" found in some mods. As soon as players have started to realize all that is possible with battlelog, the persistence system etc.. it will be awesome, and truly give a meaning to playing the game, something that has been lacking previously.... "playing to win" the round, is old stuff... monkey-business... Bf3 will open your eyes to new ways of looking at the game. enjoy
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 13-10-2011, 20:10:39
Its just way to easy how you defend BF3

How much is your montly paycheck from EA?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 13-10-2011, 20:10:08

oh re-he-he-eally?... there were no unlocks in bf2? 2142?.... "ok"  ::)

we all want this, it's just you and a few other whiners who dont want a persistence system. The rest, we go yaY!! when the game gives us things as sign of progress

@maps:  :o awesome maps indeed, cant wait.

you misunderstand :

1) those games did not have unlocks for vehicles.

2)The options given usually where an alternative for standard equipment, not an "upgrade". There always was a tradeoff in range/accuracy/firepower. In bf3 it are true upgrades meaning that noobs get nothing, hardcores get everything. Maybe good for WoW , but not soo good for an FPS...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 13-10-2011, 20:10:09
LOL @ the last few pages. Some of those attacks against BF3 are starting to be so absurd that I actually have to take Natty's side for a while.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 13-10-2011, 20:10:19
Its just way to easy how you defend BF3

How much is your montly paycheck from EA?

how much is your IQ?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 13-10-2011, 20:10:34
Its just way to easy how you defend BF3

How much is your montly paycheck from EA?

how much is your IQ?
you are avoiding the question.

105 a year ago on a test. I failed the math questions but succeeded the technical ones.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 13-10-2011, 20:10:03
BF 3 will be THE next step in gaming history, best FPS EVAH, all the cool kids will play it, you suck etc.

And yet I see nothing revolutionary about that game... just cutting down on a lot of stuff that used to be standard (and bringing some back - see prone), bunch of shiny flashlights, a social network wannabe implementation, and an overhyped persistence system that certainly won't keep me playing that game any longer...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ts4EVER on 13-10-2011, 20:10:53
I like the idea for Operation highjump. After all these kind of jumps from buidlings were always done in BF games for the lulz so making a map out of it seems interesting. Let's hope they have a similar parachute system like Fh2, otherwise it would be pretty pointless if everyone just opens the chute 5m fromt he ground.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LHeureux on 13-10-2011, 20:10:23
They open the chute 5m from the ground lol  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sir Apple on 13-10-2011, 21:10:36
I love Bf3. Its so fresh, mannn. 8)

People to picky. Judging by this thread's direction, I am late to the punch to post my thoughts. But I've visited forums the past few days. But my thoughts are simple, I had lots of fun in the beta. Maybe my thoughts are simple because I spent time having fun instead of making a list of things too hate on... just saying.

I don't even get why people got so mad at the glitches (not even just here, all over the internet people were raging about them). It was beta. Besides, I thought they were super funny and they gave me a good laugh!  :)

All in all I really enjoyed the beta, great game to kick back with some devs and friends and just have fun.

Apple
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 13-10-2011, 21:10:19
Nobody is complaining about the glitches. It's expected, they happen all the time.

People are complaining about DICE direction with the game, lack of past features that made the game great. And also the map design decision of clustering all flags in a straight line or in a tight circle.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 13-10-2011, 21:10:37
you are avoiding the question.
you think EA pay people money to make you, like their games?... lol... ease off on the hubris dude.. it doesnt matter if you dont like the game, or buy it.. millions of real battlefield fans will do it anyway, you sit and preach how bf42 had all the best features if you want, we others dont care, because we all know that BF3 has about 1,000 more features than that game...
you always come dragging with the same old mantra

there are probably more of these awesome "features" from bf42 you want, go ahead and list them again please... maybe it's time to make a cardboard box, sit at the edge of the highway and preach with a long beard, maybe someone will see you on their way to work. the end is near, isnt it?
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ0wwFOFPPZbITvCQ2JbzU3M57YEaE0_vMXiFs7i0Vzw_ixGJUn)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sir Apple on 13-10-2011, 21:10:31
Nobody is complaining about the glitches. It's expected, they happen all the time.

People are complaining about DICE direction with the game, lack of past features that made the game great. And also the map design decision of clustering all flags in a straight line or in a tight circle.

But does that make the game bad, or different? Maybe I am less picky, I don't know. I played both levels that were released and I really didn't have a problem with flag placement. On Caspian, I thought it was nice how forest and hill flags were very close, and others weren't to ridiculously far. But they were a good distance to allow different types of fighting going on e.g infantry in one area, and vehicle combat in another (and of course air in the sky). Its clever.

I just have trouble understanding why not including everything the past games had, make the game inferior to some people? I'd rather them be creative, with new ideas like they did in bf3 then follow the same thinking call of duty devs do, and create a "new game" every year which implements the same exact gameplay. Bf3 gives a fresh feel to fps, both console and pc. In my opinion, if its looked at more like a new game, rather then something trying to follow in suit with Bf2, 2142 and etc. then its much better.

I guess its just taste really, cause there are multiple ways to look at it. Nobody is at fault for liking or disliking certain aspects of Bf3, of course  :)

But for me; I'm glad Bf3 feels like Bf3, because its Bf3.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 13-10-2011, 21:10:47
Tell me, Apple, what do you think about having to unlock flares for jets and co-ax mg for tanks?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 13-10-2011, 21:10:10
I can live with coax MG unlock, it was in BC2 too.. Tank cannon was more deadly though, maybe it changes in hardcore mode. Well, tanks have always been useless in vanilla BF versions. Nade-spammed in BF1942, killed by jets and AT-guns in BF2 etc.

If flares are unlocks in jets, they should be first unlock. Otherwise they are FINE. I have no problems with jets being slow. I love flying in that game, if you don't count stingers. Flying in FH2 for example sucks donkey balls.

I just wish they went more into faction unlocks... so no M416 for russians or AEK971 for US for example. But you can't get everything.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sir Apple on 13-10-2011, 21:10:11
Tell me, Apple, what do you think about having to unlock flares for jets and co-ax mg for tanks?

Well I don't fly or tank much so it doesn't bother me, but with that biased statement aside...

The only issue I'd see is, if someone new is to the game, he won't have certain aspects e.g coax mg, while veteran players will. But having a teammate in tank (which I loved being the gunner in a tank, the few times I did it), or focusing more on vehicle combat rather then direct infantry combat would be an easy way to level up. I don't think that the developers would have done without testing the sensibility of it, at least to some degree.

Similar for the flares for jets. But these are small aspects to a jet or a tank. They are small assistance's to piloting a jet or driving a tank, I can't see them making or breaking the enjoyment of either.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 13-10-2011, 21:10:22
you are avoiding the question.
you think EA pay people money to make you, like their games?... lol... ease off on the hubris dude.. it doesnt matter if you dont like the game, or buy it.. millions of real battlefield fans will do it anyway, you sit and preach how bf42 had all the best features if you want, we others dont care, because we all know that BF3 has about 1,000 more features than that game...
you always come dragging with the same old mantra
    -mod tools
    -free dedicated servers
    -naval warfare
    -maps that are gigantic where you can lol around where you want
    -all weapons available to everyone (no unlocks)[/li]
there are probably more of these awesome "features" from bf42 you want, go ahead and list them again please... maybe it's time to make a cardboard box, sit at the edge of the highway and preach with a long beard, maybe someone will see you on their way to work. the end is near, isnt it?
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ0wwFOFPPZbITvCQ2JbzU3M57YEaE0_vMXiFs7i0Vzw_ixGJUn)
[/quote]

Just wow...wow. I cant even express in words how much of lost are you. These are the games that introduced you to the series with all the great features. Now? You're being carried like sheep, accepting everything in the sense of "update" and the "new generation". You cant just accept what DICE is doing with their games...seriously. No mod tools in this game would mean dead to me, no commo rose same thing, no battle recorder, no proper squad leader, tons of useless unlocks and bad balanced gameplay. An that includes the tight circle flags.

What if we turn FH2 like that uh? How will the game play out for you?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 13-10-2011, 22:10:10
Over half of the FH2 maps have their flags closer to each other than those on Caspian Border. Get over it already. I bet you didn't even try it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 13-10-2011, 22:10:55
Over half of the FH2 maps have their flags closer to each other than those on Caspian Border. Get over it already. I bet you didn't even try it.

Some maps, mostly the infantry maps. And the big gigantic vehicle/infantry maps have proper flag placement and distance. Saw the new pics of the new BF3 maps? Same tight circle flag placement.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 13-10-2011, 22:10:09
Over half of the FH2 maps have their flags closer to each other than those on Caspian Border. Get over it already. I bet you didn't even try it.

Some maps, mostly the infantry maps. And the big gigantic vehicle/infantry maps have proper flag placement and distance. Saw the new pics of the new BF3 maps? Same tight circle flag placement.
I saw the pic posted in this thread, and none of them showed any kind of flag placement.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Musti on 13-10-2011, 22:10:34
I like how you guys argue about it.You know its not like its the only game out there? There are tons of FPSs. There's very good and FREE Team Fortress 2, and  this weird thing called Forgotten hope 2(whatever that is).
Just accept it, BF3 will be the way it will be.I think its not that good. Lack of proper squads, battle log and separating everything puts me away from it, if DICE won't fix it. I will not buy it, simple.There's no point in whining about it on forums, cause they won't change it.
Bf3 is not a "revolution". in 2 years we will have Bf4 and that also is going to be "revolution", in another few years we will have Bf5 and thats also going to be "revolutionary game", pure marketing. Wanna play a good game? check RO2. Sooner or later there will be tons of mods for it. and it will be brilliant (I'm sure of it). And what is this crap about "millions of players"? you don't need "millions" all you need is a full server every evening, and even FH2 manages to do that."millions of players" are for fanboys to argue on the internet which game is bigger.

What there is left to do is hope for DICE to get sober and fix the game, If not, there's still chance someone will "yarrr" it. But what i REALLY hope for is that someone will finally grow some balls, and take on BF3 and MW3.Make a good game, with big maps and vehicles.

I mean, how hard can it be?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 13-10-2011, 23:10:35
Face the facts: BF3 and FH2 cater to two different crowds. What Natty says is probably true for the former. Most likely not true for the latter.

---begin rant
BF2 vanilla can has unlockz? I played that bunny-hopping supersoldier-fest all of five minutes before ragequitting and loading FH2, and never looked back.

Let's say: would any of you play IL-2 if you had to "unlock" turbocharger, methanol injection, cannons, rear view mirrors, everything? Sure as heck, at least I wouldn't. Well, the consolified travesty "IL-2 Birds of Prey" has a single-player "campaign" mode where you get more advanced planes as the war goes on, but even that still does not throw you right in the beginning into the middle of a full Geschwader of Me262's with most of your own gear disabled.

Now, getting bling-bling, not very advantageous but otherwise groovy equipment, virtual medals, getting to brag about your stats, that kind of "unlocks" I wholeheartedly approve. Getting something that gives you an unfair advantage? No.

If I play an online shooter with, I won't frakking want to lose because some aspie has sunk 1000+ hours into it and has mad gear, I want to lose because he has better skillz, it does not matter if he has sunk 1 or 10 or 1000 hours to acquire that skill. Funnily enough, both the above mentioned Counter-Strike (well, at least in the form I played it ages ago) and my other currently favourite online shooter (or mod) besides FH2, MechWarrior: Living Legends, have players start from scratch every time and earning their equipment through skill. Once they have proved their skill in the round, then they can get the mad gear to roflstomp everyone, which they deserve by then. (MWLL goes even further and does not allow you to retain any gear between maps!)

Right now, the "unlock" system(s) in COD and COD wannabes is about as fun as a MMO (which I avoid like plague) where level 80 grinders with all the best and exclusive items just wait to pounce on unsuspecting noobs, and that would be the entire content: no PvE, no dungeons, just that. At the very least any FPS trying a "persistent" system should have "tiers" (which MMO's reportedly have) - you would encounter players with similar level/gear/amount of perks/whatever.

Another example: I last played Elite about 20 years ago. Well, that game is strictly single-player, but it does have the "persistent stats" - your ship is intentionally crippled at the start and you must earn better equipment in RPG style. However, the enemies you are likely to encounter at the start are also very poorly equipped (unless you intentionally jump into an Anarchy system or glitch yourself into Witchspace to fight the Thargoids). In the present time, I found Oolite, an excellent remake. Now, while my skills were back after a few hours, my equipment was of course not. Fortunately, the other "players" (ie. AI-controlled ships) had not levelled up in the meanwhile and started out as poorly equipped - only skill mattered. However, if this had been a "persistent unlock" multiplayer game with no "tiers", everyone would have had military laser, military shield, energy bombs, and whatnot and pwn3d me to Riedquat and back.

---

I won't even try to start to argue about "design", ie. making every game and map a "ghost train" or "rail shooter". At least the rail shooters of the 80's & early 90's (Operation Wolf, Operation Thunderbolt, and the like) didn't even pretend that they would have offered freedom of movement. I think the middle ground in "design" where I would like to stand on is somewhere between CODification and "sandbox". But whenever someone mentions weasel words like "channeling" I get nerd RAEG. I am addicted to FH2, yes, but I would still like to have much more FREEDOM! in many of its maps. However, since I'm not fond of the strict role-playing aspects of PR, I will keep on fueling my FH2 addiction and daydream about the day when most of OOB areas are opened for tactical movement. But Lords of Kobol forbid if retarded CODifications like "coaxial MG is now an unlock" are ever introduced into FH2. (But by the power of Grayskull, even in that case, I won't ever get into RO/RO2: I'm not that desperate.)

---end rant

tl;dr: Please alert me when there is a mod for FH3 that unlocks EVERYTHING, removes "wanker panting" (thanks to a certain Finnish game journalist for this term) regeneration especially from vehicles, allows as many players as the engine will support (128 at least, maybe even more?) on a proper PC (unlike on memory-impaired consoles), actually gives useful ordnance to the jets, makes infantry die horribly when hit with a 30mm cannon, allows to run the game without starting Origin to launch a website from which to launch the game, etc.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 13-10-2011, 23:10:19
(http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/8192/74866821.jpg)

bf3 command rose =3
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Nerdsturm on 14-10-2011, 02:10:08
I don't like grinding. No one likes grinding, else it wouldn't be called grinding. Thus, I don't understand why companies continue to put so much grinding in games that have no need for it.

Granted, giving the player options to customize their loadouts is a fine idea, but you shouldn't have to play hours with a loadout you don't like just to get to the fun part. At the very least, start players with enough gear to fill all their perk/accessory slots so the fact they're at a disadvantage is at least a little less obvious. Its a huge pain to join a BFBC2 server as a new player, see practically every other person using magnum ammo, and realize you're not going to be able to compete on even ground until you slog through 20 hours of gameplay(which is far more than I ever put into most games).

I think its just some weird cognitive dissonance thing, people play for a long time because they want to be able to play the full game, and convince themselves along the way that their having fun just to explain why they're doing it. There isn't any sort of character development or specialization, like you'd see in an RPG, so there's absolutely no reason not to just have everything unlocked from the start. I don't think anyone actually enjoys the fact they have to start out with a handicap when they first start playing.

I probably won't be getting BF3 for other reasons, unless it gets mods, but this general unlock trends seems to have seeped into most FPSs now, and has gone completely over the top, to the point were even basic vehicle functions(seriously, there's a coaxial on the tank, I can see it, why can't I fire it?) are removed. I don't have time to play every game I like for 40 hours, and I feel like when I start one I have to just focus on getting unlocking basic functions and equipment just so I can have fun later. Needless to say, I just get bored and go back to playing games where I can enjoy myself.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Moose on 14-10-2011, 03:10:28
I love grinding.....I played BF bc2 until I got all the unlocks then stopped. I love having to unlock things.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Nerdsturm on 14-10-2011, 04:10:12
But why? Lacking equipment when you start doesn't make the game more fun, I'm sure you'll agree. Why make a game less fun when a player first starts play, so it somehow makes it feel more fun in comparison later on or something?

I honestly don't see what it adds.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sir Apple on 14-10-2011, 05:10:04
Unlockable content attracts players, and keeps players coming back. Which equals a very nice player base. Gives players more to work for, and very commonly gives the sense of reward. Look at so many games now that do this. This may not be you, but its the truth for millions of gamers, it really is a method to the magic.

Unlockable content...face it, its the trend of the times  :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LHeureux on 14-10-2011, 06:10:56
If it's not as bad as WoT then all grinding is all right  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 14-10-2011, 06:10:50
Unlockable content attracts players, and keeps players coming back. Which equals a very nice player base. Gives players more to work for, and very commonly gives the sense of reward. Look at so many games now that do this. This may not be you, but its the truth for millions of gamers, it really is a method to the magic.

Unlockable content...face it, its the trend of the times  :)

Yes but in the case of BF3. It brings imbalance; with vehicles for example.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 14-10-2011, 08:10:29
I also don´t like the whole "unlock" concept either.
I think shifts the players focus from caring about the current game and winning the map with his team to just an egocentric "I don´t care what´s happening around me, I just want work towards my pistol upgrade now.." attitude.
It´s not really helping to establish a good teamplay experience when many players around you are "farming" points to get the next unlock instead of properly attacking a flag with you :/

The simplest way to reduce this would be the additional requirement of teamwork points to access the higher level unlocks.

It wouldn't take long for people to start playing as a team once they realize they can't unlock the really good stuff unless they're in a squad, actively attacking/defending flags or supporting their teammates.


I get the impression DICE want people to play as a team, but if there's no reward for teamwork it's simply going to be a repeat of the online fuck-fest that is BF2.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 14-10-2011, 10:10:29
ha ha... the irony of interwebz logic... you guys have admitted without saying it now, that what you want, is a working BF Heroes matchmaking system.. But no no.. you want a server browser, right? You want to be able to choose the server you join. So explain then, how is the game going to put you in a server with equally levelled soldiers, if everyone can choose the server himself?

Let me tell you why BF:heroes did it so great. NO server browser. The game has a working matchmaking.. you are level 8? then you are assigned a range of available servers, perhaps from level 3 to 10 (I dont have exact numbers).. you are level 14, you might end up with some level 11 guys but also some level 18 guys.

This works, beautifully. A game of Heroes - once you get up a bit in level, say above 15 - is always a game of skillz, even though pretty much every single dude is geared up from top to toe with weapons, gadgets and stuff.... imbalance? sure, but you can re-balance that yourself.

But if BF3 offered this system, the torches&pitchforks emokidz would be marching down the street chanting the -modtools-serverbrowser-dedicatedservers-bigopenmaps- mantra til kingdom come.

You want to be able to join whatever server you want, do whatever you want to do on that server, and have no differences between the players?.. wow... sounds so stiff and dead, that game.... Remind me again, why would players bother playing a game in 2011, if they didn't get anything from it? Why should a tanker who put in 150 gaming hours in a tank, not have more stuff/gadgets than some n00b who just grabzed himself a tank and went out on a lol-ride?...
Many players find it cool and awesome, that not everything is the same in games.. that you can be surprised and find an opponent who has customized his equipment and playstyle, and is using the environment (map) in a new and exciting way.. This, is what gives long life to a game... new experiences.
When some "mod" changes the rules and laws of the game, is different... that isnt giving new experiences to the game, it's more like trying to make a sub-game.

Bf1942 was so successful, partly because it was so open and non-controlled, that the chaos-generator that is 64 dudes, always moved and behaved in a way so that you often saw new things/events happen and went "wow, this is a real war!".... but scratch a bit on the surface... take El Alamein as example... watch the map and you can literary see the ant-trail of players movements... you always took the same route between these 3 bases. You knew pretty much exactly where enemy tank would appear in the fog, you knew exactly at each base where the greying infantry was hiding, you knew where the mines were, planes insta-killed your tank easily.. it was predictable as well, despite the freedom and openness.

Destruction and customized inventory have replaced openness and size, it can create new experiences which are as exciting. It also gives more power to the player to influence the battle. You just need to get in to the game to do it. Learn the tactics, learn the gear, get the gear. I look at it abit like a "mission" you set for yourself, you know you're a grunt/n00b in the beginning, but if you just work hard enough, you'll climb in rank and will be offered more cool things as reward.
The so-called "vets" they dont like this, because they want to be cool right out of the box. They want to install a new game and be awesome immediately, just because they have played 1,000 hours of another game. They think that just because some dude on the server has managed to unlock more stuff before him, it's an "imbalance", and that just because he has played many other FpS games, he "deserves" to have all that stuff him too. But when he himsef gets those unlocks, he never once stops and reflects if those things makes him imbalance, or if his "skillz" makes him imbalanced to players that haven't grinded 1,000 hours of fps games.. he ignores the fact, that "skillz" are grinded just the same way as game tech can be grinded...
.. such simple is the ego of the player, and that simpleness is a key factor that powers a persistence system.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 14-10-2011, 11:10:55
ha ha... the irony of interwebz logic... you guys have admitted without saying it now, that what you want, is a working BF Heroes matchmaking system.. But no no.. you want a server browser, right? You want to be able to choose the server you join. So explain then, how is the game going to put you in a server with equally levelled soldiers, if everyone can choose the server himself?
The matchmaking is required for unlocks to work; however, that won't change it that I hate game-changing unlocks. Period. End. Costumes and stuff I can accept grudgingly. Given a choice between unlocks and matchmaking and no unlocks and free server selection, I will always pick the latter, thank you.

But if BF3 offered this system, the torches&pitchforks emokidz would be marching down the street chanting the -modtools-serverbrowser-dedicatedservers-bigopenmaps- mantra til kingdom come.
What exactly are you doing in FH2 modding team if you consider these to be a bad thing? Trying to make FH2 as much COD-like as is possible on Refractor engine?

You want to be able to join whatever server you want, do whatever you want to do on that server, and have no differences between the players?.. wow... sounds so stiff and dead, that game.... Remind me again, why would players bother playing a game in 2011, if they didn't get anything from it? Why should a tanker who put in 150 gaming hours in a tank, not have more stuff/gadgets than some n00b who just grabzed himself a tank and went out on a lol-ride?...
Apparently, you described FH2, remind me again, why players are playing it in 2011?

Many players find it cool and awesome
Wikipedese for "I think". Also, different kind of games for different kind of people. It will be a sad day indeed when all FPS games are clones of each other.

that you can be surprised and find an opponent who has customized his equipment and playstyle, and is using the environment (map) in a new and exciting way... This, is what gives long life to a game... new experiences.
How excatly would giving the choice of equipment from get-go prevent this? How do unlocks affect in any way or form how you use the map/environment?

you always took the same route between these 3 bases. You knew pretty much exactly where enemy tank would appear in the fog, you knew exactly at each base where the greying infantry was hiding, you knew where the mines were, planes insta-killed your tank easily.. it was predictable as well, despite the freedom and openness.

Destruction and customized inventory have replaced openness and size, it can create new experiences which are as exciting.
So if players tend to use certain routes, your logic says to use OOB zones to prevent anyone using anything else. Also, destruction and inventory can never replace openness and size. Except for those who prefer COD over FH2.

The so-called "vets" they dont like this, because they want to be cool right out of the box. They want to install a new game and be awesome immediately, just because they have played 1,000 hours of another game. They think that just because some dude on the server has managed to unlock more stuff before him, it's an "imbalance", and that just because he has played many other FpS games, he "deserves" to have all that stuff him too.
If I know that a tank in real life has a coax MG, but in-game I will have to "unlock" this, it's not a game I want to play, ever. If push comes to shove, I will choose "military simulators" (ArmA etc.) over these "experiences", thank you. Now, as far as I have understood, FH2 tries to be more realistic than vanilla BF2.

Getting "extra" gear through unlocks is silly, but borderline acceptable. Not getting even the basic equipment without unlocking, you can keep this "experience" all to yourself.

I just hope that you are not trying to force-feed the FH2 dev team your concepts of what makes a game "fun" (read: COD clone).
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Beaufort on 14-10-2011, 11:10:15
Yeah Natty why don't you make a mini WWII mod for team fortress or something if its only FUN you are looking for, seriously ?  :-\
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eat Uranium on 14-10-2011, 12:10:37
Now it looks to me like the personal attacks are beginning again.

So: either behave or don't play at all.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 14-10-2011, 12:10:39
I love grinding.....I played BF bc2 until I got all the unlocks then stopped. I love having to unlock things.

and this, ladies, gentlemand and DICE employies , is why there is unlocks in their current form in modern games. companies want you to stop playing their first game and start playing their newer game that has brad new unlocks, over and over again.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 14-10-2011, 12:10:52
that's ok Eat U, I can handle it.. this is nothing compared to what Im used to  8)

About the "why do u fh2 if u dontz like it"... My Answer: Because I am competent enough to differ game from game. FH2 and BF3 are not the same, period. End. Our players want certain things, a certain way, and we like to give certain things, a certain way to them. It's not like designers have one solid set of rules (a bible) they apply to everything and every game they encounter (ONE DESIGN, UNDER GOD, SO SAY WE ALL)

No no.. you need to be able to look at the game itself and what goal it has, what audience it has, what the design aims to deliver for that game.

@Beaufort: We can make this in to a theory of fun discussion if you want, but it will probably get too complex for some, and instead turn ugly. Let me end it with; you also want, only FUN. That is your goal when you press the power-button on the PC, log in to windows, and then log on to a game. How that FUN materializes for you, can differ ofcourse, but there is no other goal here, no other desire than to be entertained. All games entertain (provide fun) in different ways, be it TF2, ArmA, BF3, FH2 or MineCraft, all delivers an experience, and if we like the game, we have "fun" playing it. Period, The end.

What is "fun" then? Well, I read somewhere what I picked as the so-far best definition. It is something that makes us feel good - gives us pleasure (neurological; makes our brains produce Adrenaline, and Dopamine) - but it cant be too repetitive or predictable, it needs an element of surprise, (or our brains will adapt too fast, thus not producing dopamine or Adrenaline, thus diminishing the "kick") to keep us interested - on our toes. So, Fun is pleasure, with surprise.

"Many players find it cool and awesome" I said, and Kelmola edited me and pointed me to wiki "I think"... I pass the glowing hot charcoal piece back - Many players find it cool and awesome, the end. They do, it is not what I think, it is not a theory. Not all do, but many do. Period, the End.

Now we've reached the state in the discussion where the last and only argument from is "u wanna turn it in to a Cod clone?".... How could this be done? really?... Are we talking Modern Warfare 2 here?... How on earth could I or we, even if we wanted to, make FH2 in to a "CoD clone"?... what is that even? It's such an abstract and loosely defined term or phrase, it can't be anything but ignored... Please describe it to me, because to me -"Turn a BF2 ww2 mod in to a Call of Duty "clone"- is impossible to imagine, different engine, different game modes, weapons, maps, design.. everything is different. How could we even get close to anything, that would resemble Call of Duty?

(Add to this.. why is this hypothesis relevant to a dicussion about BF3?... propose I do have this secret little agenda, to turn a bf2 mod in to another retail game... why do we chat about that in a BF3 thread?)

[back on topic]
Kelmola: "How excatly would giving the choice of equipment from get-go prevent this? How do unlocks affect in any way or form how you use the map/environment?"

It's obvious, if everyone has all the stuff from the beginning, you are less likely to run in to guys who hasn't got all the stuff, simple eh? If everyone on the server has access to 100% of the assets, every round will be more similar to the next round, compared to if there is a total mix of assets.
Unlocks/perks/skills are designed to be used in different situations, so ofcourse you'll see players adapting certain playstyles in certain areas to his equipped skills/gadgets etc. that's what they're there for in the first place - to create interesting combat situations.

Kelmola "Also, destruction and inventory can never replace openness and size. Except for those who prefer COD over FH2."

How do you know it can't? And what makes it sure only people who prefer "cod over fh2" can like this?

Look at your statement again - it kind of symbolizes interwebz logic and reason in one sentence:

"Also!, Destruction and inventory (unlocks, gadgets etc) can never replace openness and size. You mean for you, right? You, can never have more fun with destruction and unlocks, than the fun given to you by large open maps. "ok", let's go with that.. But here comes a funny addition - remember we are talking about BF3 still: Except for those who prefer COD over FH2." ....

 ???

So.... designing BF3 with destruction and unlocks instead of large open maps, will never make the game more fun, except for those players who prefer another retail game (CoD) over a.. BF2 mod???....

I....totally....do not..see..the logic.....

Kelmola: "If I know that a tank in real life has a coax MG, but in-game I will have to "unlock" this, it's not a game I want to play, ever.

Well, then don't do it :) I personally love the coax MG as unlock. It's in BFP4F and it's awesome, as you can never see on an enemy tank if he has it or not. It feeds in to that thing about -keeping you on your toe- the surprise, the less predictable game. Unlocked coax or not, stimulates the dopamine production more than if everyone has it. Which in turn, makes us more addicted to the game, because just face it. We are junkies who use the game as a distributor of body-drugs. Nothing more, nothing less. We enter the 3D world on our monitor + headphones so that it can stimulate our neural response system and our brains produces those drops of natural narcotics. That is the fun, and no matter if you get it from shooting Angry birds, building lego-castles, levelling up a wizard or fragging someone with a special forces assault rifles - it's all-in-all, biologically, the same stuff.

have a nice weekend all  8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 14-10-2011, 12:10:28
(http://www.feministe.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/WALL_OF_TEXT.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 14-10-2011, 13:10:24
If only Natty used as much time and effort to modding than he does to this pile-of-a-shit thread, we'd be at pacific by now.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 14-10-2011, 13:10:40
(http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/8192/74866821.jpg)

bf3 command rose =3

Hehe lol. I would be nice if they add a "Stay Frosty" and "Callsign Actual" to it.

 That TEHRAN HIGHWAY map looks insanely detailed. I've yet to see a map that looked better details wise.
Today they will reveal the other maps.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eat Uranium on 14-10-2011, 13:10:05
that's ok Eat U, I can handle it.. this is nothing compared to what Im used to  8)
I was being pre-emptive.
Quote
It's in BFP4F and it's awesome, as you can never see on an enemy tank if he has it or not. It feeds in to that thing about -keeping you on your toe- the surprise, the less predictable game.
Is this not exactly the same (or at least very similar) to the reason that you gave for not having the suppression shader?  Because that sure does sound like bad feedback to the player...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Beaufort on 14-10-2011, 13:10:10
@Beaufort: We can make this in to a theory of fun discussion if you want, but it will probably get too complex for some, and instead turn ugly. Let me end it with; you also want, only FUN. That is your goal when you press the power-button on the PC, log in to windows, and then log on to a game. How that FUN materializes for you, can differ ofcourse, but there is no other goal here, no other desire than to be entertained. All games entertain (provide fun) in different ways, be it TF2, ArmA, BF3, FH2 or MineCraft, all delivers an experience, and if we like the game, we have "fun" playing it. Period, The end.

By "fun" I meant "having a laugh"...  :P

Kelmola had good points, the features we'd like for BF3 that you find lame ("modtools-serverbrowser-dedicatedservers-bigopenmaps" + no difference between players) are the one that makes FH2 great. Either they aren't lame, or you have to start a new mod somewhere ...


Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 14-10-2011, 14:10:14
I'm getting sick and tired of the same people constantly complaining about the same things. If you don't like it fine. Don't drag this thread down with your constant whining, thank you very much.

In the mean time the multiplayer embargo has lifted and some impressions (console only, tdm/rush game mode) have been posted.

Nowgamer.com (http://www.nowgamer.com/features/1086719/battlefield_3_multiplayer_map_by_map_guide.html)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 14-10-2011, 14:10:54
If you don't like it, then vote with your wallets. It's pretty simple.
Don't like Mondern Warfare and COD type gameplay? Then don't buy BF3 and MW3.
If enough people do this, then the next time round the managers at EA/IW will try something different. I promise you that. Hell, BF42 might even make a comeback on the new engine should BF3 and MW3 go belly up.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 14-10-2011, 14:10:26
Let me tell you why BF:heroes did it so great. NO server browser (probably the reason why so many people left, especially clan scene). The game has a half-finished, half-working matchmaking ... you are level 8? then you are assigned a range of available servers, perhaps from level  3 to 10 (I dont have exact numbers, so it could be anything).. you are level 14, you might end up with some level 1 guys but also some level 30 guys.

This works, beautifully (sometimes). (In reality you'll end up with your lvl 30 on a server with a bunch of < lvl 10 noobs, that if you don't get kicked for some stupid class limits which aren't even accounted in the matchmaking or on a vehicle map server only when  you wanted an infantry one). A game of Heroes - once you get up a bit in level, say above 15 - is always a game of skillz cash, even though pretty much every single dude (with a credit card) is geared up from top to toe with weapons, gadgets and stuff.... imbalance? sure, but you can re-balance that yourself (by spending a ridiculous amount of money on weapons and "widgets" i.e. unfair advantages or on renting a server where you can make up your own rules to enjoy the game properly... except it will be empty most of the time.)

But if BF3 offered this system, the torches&pitchforks emokidz would be marching down the street chanting the -modtools-serverbrowser-dedicatedservers-bigopenmaps- mantra til kingdom come. (they sure would and they would have all the rights to do so).

You want to be able to join whatever server you want, do whatever you want to do on that server, and have no differences between the players?.. wow... sounds so stiff and dead, that game.... Remind me again, why would players bother playing a game in 2011, if they didn't get anything from it? Why should a tanker who put in 150 gaming hours in a tank, not have more stuff/gadgets than some n00b who just grabzed himself a tank and went out on a lol-ride?... (maybe because they know they can still beat him easily without extra help from all the cool gadgets" because the "noob in the tank" is new to the game and lacks the experience to use the tank effectively).

Many players find it cool and awesome, that not everything is the same in games.. that you can be surprised and find an opponent who has customized his equipment and playstyle, and is using the environment (map) in a new and exciting way.. This, is what gives long life to a game... new experiences.
When some "mod" changes the rules and laws of the game, is different... that isnt giving new experiences to the game, it's more like trying to make a sub-game. (agreed, but that doesn't mean that you have to implement "unlocks" which give direct advantages over the starting equipment. Another way to generate surprise would be if you LET the players attack from whatever direction they want, and REALLY surprise the enemy.)

Bf1942 was so successful, partly because it was so open and non-controlled, that the chaos-generator that is 64 dudes, always moved and behaved in a way so that you often saw new things/events happen and went "wow, this is a real war!".... but scratch a bit on the surface... take El Alamein as example... watch the map and you can literary see the ant-trail of players movements... you always took the same route between these 3 bases. You knew pretty much exactly where enemy tank would appear in the fog, you knew exactly at each base where the greying infantry was hiding, you knew where the mines were, planes insta-killed your tank easily.. it was predictable as well, despite the freedom and openness.
(that is probably due to the fact that the maps were barely detailed, there where only a few reasonable hiding spots, and the problem is even more pronounced today in the games like CoD where maps are usually small. Throwing grenades over the same wall over and over again just because you know the enemy will come from there, as he doesn't really have a choice)

Destruction and customized inventory have replaced openness and size, it can create new experiences which are as exciting. It also gives more power to the player to influence the battle. You just need to get in to the game to do it. Learn the tactics, learn the gear, get the gear. I look at it abit like a "mission" you set for yourself, you know you're a grunt/n00b in the beginning, but if you just work hard enough, you'll climb in rank and will be offered more cool things as reward. (you already knew that in the old games, and the reward was the improvement of your personal skill not some "skill" in the form of a more powerful, faster reloading, totally better gun.


The so-called "vets" they dont like this, because they want to be cool right out of the box. They want to install a new game and be awesome immediately, just because they have played 1,000 hours of another game. They think that just because some dude on the server has managed to unlock more stuff before him, it's an "imbalance", and that just because he has played many other FpS games, he "deserves" to have all that stuff him too. But when he himsef gets those unlocks, he never once stops and reflects if those things makes him imbalance, or if his "skillz" makes him imbalanced to players that haven't grinded 1,000 hours of fps games.. he ignores the fact, that "skillz" are grinded just the same way as game tech can be grinded... (but if you add the "skill grinding" to the "equipment grinding" you have a very unbalanced FPS if you let the players choose their own server, thus getting us to the fact that unlocks as upgrades are totally unnecessary in a FPS that has that feature).

.. such simple is the ego of the player, and that simpleness is a key factor that powers a persistence system. (the key factor that powers the persistence system is RAGE. You RAGE because when you get in the game you get pwned by all the grinders with unlocked gear, thus you start unlocking that gear, grinding your way to counter them, which leads to all the newcomers RAGING about them getting pwned by you with your top gear, and the circle continues. In the end nobody enjoys the game and after a while of playing with all things unlocked getting bored of killing the noobs again and again you quit and start looking for a "better game". Or you join some clan and play hardcore only.)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ts4EVER on 14-10-2011, 15:10:00
Over half of the FH2 maps have their flags closer to each other than those on Caspian Border. Get over it already. I bet you didn't even try it.

Some maps, mostly the infantry maps. And the big gigantic vehicle/infantry maps have proper flag placement and distance. Saw the new pics of the new BF3 maps? Same tight circle flag placement.

You probably refer to all these super popular 2.0 desert maps ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Beaufort on 14-10-2011, 16:10:19
Over half of the FH2 maps have their flags closer to each other than those on Caspian Border. Get over it already. I bet you didn't even try it.

Some maps, mostly the infantry maps. And the big gigantic vehicle/infantry maps have proper flag placement and distance. Saw the new pics of the new BF3 maps? Same tight circle flag placement.
You probably refer to all these super popular 2.0 desert maps ;)

Yeah, the ones that rock with 128 players ... :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Nerdsturm on 14-10-2011, 16:10:31
... Why should a tanker who put in 150 gaming hours in a tank, not have more stuff/gadgets than some n00b who just grabzed himself a tank and went out on a lol-ride?...

I'm curious about your logic here. Why exactly should an experienced player have more gadgets on a tanks?

I certainly agree that experienced players should have an advantage over new players. However, that advantage should come from skill, not arbitrary buffs. Playing Counter Strike I'm lucky to get 1-2 kills a map, yet its not because everyone else has better weapons, its because they've been playing the game for like 10 years and have gotten exceedingly good at it. If a player plays BF3 for 150 hours, they'll know every aspect of every map, vehicle and weapon, which is more than enough of an advantage over a new player who has to consistently check his map just to figure out where a flag is. Good players should be defined by their skill, not the amount of time they've put into a game.

There's not really an realistic argument for it either. If there were still a commander/SL positions, prioritizing high ranking players for these roles would actually be kind of cool, but vehicles and even infantry equipment are relatively standardized. It's really, really strange that a player can jump out of a tank, and a different player can get in, and the tank will have changed in the meantime.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 14-10-2011, 19:10:54

Playing Counter Strike I'm lucky to get 1-2 kills a map, yet its not because everyone else has better weapons, its because they've been playing the game for like 10 years and have gotten exceedingly good at it.[...]Good players should be defined by their skill, not the amount of time they've put into a game.


But didn't you just say that skill comes with time being put into the game? And its the only logical solution apart from EA guys coming to your house watching you play and evaluating you on your success of failure.

Just doing the devil's lawyer here, as always.


So far about BF3 i am thinking of buying it but currently I've spent all my money so it might take a while since i also need to upgrade my PC.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 14-10-2011, 19:10:22
But didn't you just say that skill comes with time being put into the game?

No he did not, he meant that in normal games the reward for playing a lot is gaining skill. Instead of just getting even better weapons to kill newbies with.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: HadrianBT on 14-10-2011, 20:10:10
In my opinion, DICE has hit the nail on the head in BF2. I liked the unlocks there, really. But not only you could choose the unlock yourself, i.e. if you really wanted the L96 sniper rifle and not the Barett, you would choose it instead, because they were balanced for two completely different playing styles/missions (like killing a heli pilot, for example).
Moreover, they were never unbalanced. Take the MEC medic. You would pick L85A2 for long combat, G36E for medium-long, but, regardless of whether you had the unlocks, you would choose Ak101 for close combat. Thus the hypothetical "noob" always had to option to choose AK101 and have the same chanced wearpon-wise, as a long-time player with all the unlocks. Even just several months ago, when I last played vBF2, I could see the vets running with Ak101, because they wanted to get the good kit for the situation.
Why not do the same thing in BF3? I mean, a noob gets his coax MG, but a vet can swap it for extra armor, better HE or AP shells, IR camera, zoom, etc. Swap, but not get an EXTRA advantage, as it is supposed to be in BF3 (which is yet to be released and patched).
This option surely would suit both sides. I can even remember one or two noobs saying "you guys all have the cool unlocks", and then the whole server would tell them that the unlocked wearpons are not better, they are just DIFFERENT. I could see literally 99% of the vBF2 players loving the system. Not the same thing with BF3, where it could be as low as 80% or even less.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 14-10-2011, 21:10:41
There will be boats  ;D

http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/battlefield_bad_company/archive/2011/10/14/multiplayer-map-reveal-part-ii.aspx (http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/battlefield_bad_company/archive/2011/10/14/multiplayer-map-reveal-part-ii.aspx)

(http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/battlefield_5F00_bad_5F00_company/BF3_5F00_SeineCrossing_5F00_550.jpg)
WORKING TITLE> PARIS
DICE INTERNAL DESIGNATION> MP011
SUPPORTED GAME MODES> ALL
BRIEF> VEHICLE/INFANTRY COMBAT IN DOWNTOWN PARIS

FICTION> THE AMERICAN INVASION OF RUSSIAN OCCUPIED PARIS IS IN FULL MOTION. THE UPSCALE AREA IN THE 7TH DISTRICT OF PARIS SERVES AS THE BATTLEGROUND.

DESIGN THOUGHTS> Seine Crossing has two sections of Paris split in the middle by the river Seine. Seine Crossing has a number of larger roads for vehicles to patrol, while infantry can sneak through tight alleyways and climb staircases to reach second or third levels inside buildings to reach a better tactical position – unless the enemy takes down the building facades. The final M-COM stations in Rush are placed inside a bank building, which is the largest indoor environments of this map and forces the attackers to slightly

(http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/battlefield_5F00_bad_5F00_company/BF3_5F00_GrandBazaar_5F00_550.jpg)
WORKING TITLE> BAZAAR
DICE INTERNAL DESIGNATION> MP001
SUPPORTED GAME MODES> ALL
BRIEF> TIGHT URBAN COMBAT

FICTION> THE BATTLE FOR CENTRAL TEHRAN HAS REACHED ITS SECOND WEEK, AND WHAT WAS EXPECTED TO BE OVER WITHIN DAYS NOW CONTINUES AS RUSSIAN AND U.S. FORCES CLASH FOR CONTROL OVER THIS ANCIENT CITY.

DESIGN THOUGHTS> We knew we wanted to do something very urban in the city center of Tehran. The fiction has you coming in two weeks after fighting started, so the tight and narrowly built city has a great deal of destruction already when you spawn into the game. Grand Bazaar is a classically mirrored map where both sides have very similar pathways, sideways, and possibilities to traverse heights to get a better view of the action. It’s a very short range close quarter combat map where shotguns tend to be favored.

(http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/battlefield_5F00_bad_5F00_company/BF3_5F00_CaspianBorder_5F00_550.jpg)
WORKING TITLE> FOREST
DICE INTERNAL DESIGNATION> MP007
SUPPORTED GAME MODES> ALL
BRIEF> VEHICLE WARFARE IN LARGE VALLEY

FICTION> A RECON RUSSIAN FORCE HAS SET UP CAMP ON THE TURKMENISTAN SIDE OF THE IRANIAN BORDER AND PROCEEDED TO TAKE OVER THE HEAVILY BUILT UP BORDER CHECKPOINT.

DESIGN THOUGHTS> Caspian Border was meant to encapsulate the classic Battlefield all-out vehicle warfare gameplay, and also to be a lush and green contrast to the more urban and desert maps in Battlefield 3. The border control splitting the map in two was introduced to add an interesting break both visually and gameplay wise in the otherwise beautiful and open landscape. Caspian Border is one of the obvious map choices if you are after the full vehicle experience, as base distances are generally too long to cover by foot. Pretty much every type of vehicle is available in this map.

(http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/battlefield_5F00_bad_5F00_company/BF3_5F00_NoshahrCanals_5F00_550.jpg)
WORKING TITLE> CANALS
DICE INTERNAL DESIGNATION> MP017
SUPPORTED GAME MODES> ALL
BRIEF> MIXED COMBAT IN INDUSTRIAL SETTING

FICTION>  U.S. MARINES LAUNCH A STRIKE ON A MAJOR HARBOR BY THE NOSHAHR CANALS ON THE IRANIAN COAST. THE STRATEGICALLY IMPORTANT PORT ALLOWS FOR DEEP WATER VESSELS TO OFFLOAD ESSENTIAL MATERIALS.

DESIGN THOUGHTS> When we set out to do Noshahr Canals, we wanted to contrast the urban and rural with something more industrial. So we set Noshahr Canals up as an industrial harbor, featuring a mix of infantry, land vehicle, and boat gameplay. The attackers in Rush start out on an carrier ship and can reach the beachhead by amphibious vehicles, boats, and helicopters. All of the bases on the map have an industrial theme but still have different styles, like a train yard, dry dock, or airfield. Compared with the larger vehicle maps in the game, this allows for tighter infantry combat.
(http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/battlefield_5F00_bad_5F00_company/BF3_5F00_KhargIsland_5F00_550.jpg)
WORKING TITLE> KHARG
DICE INTERNAL DESIGNATION> MP018
SUPPORTED GAME MODES> ALL
BRIEF> AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT

FICTION> KHARG ISLAND IS IRAN’S BIGGEST OIL EXPORT TERMINAL. IF THE U.S. CAN STAKE CONTROL OVER THIS ISLAND, IT WILL DENY THE RUSSIANS CRITICAL ACCESS TO IRANIAN OIL RESERVES.

DESIGN THOUGHTS> Kharg Island is our second map with boat gameplay. Thematically it’s representing an assault against Kharg island in the Persian sea, an industrialized island not far from the Iranian coast. The map is slightly more focused on vehicles with longer distance between flags than for example Noshahar Canals. In the Rush game mode, the beach assault begins on the coastline with a well-defended beach you need to break through to create a beachhead for further attacks on the island, before it opens up wider in the later part of the map.


THIS IS HOW WE DO IT
Creating levels at DICE is a democratic affair, and a process that is ruled in equal amounts by art and gameplay design. This in order to not only get a balanced mix of gameplay variations in the game, but also a variety of visual impressions.

At the start of the design process, the artists mocked up a number of creative briefs together with level designers Inge Jøran Holberg, Diego Jimenez and Niklas Åstrand. These briefs explain the gameplay type and idea, story and visual theme. Everyone on the Battlefield 3 development team was encouraged to vote for their favorites among the briefs and also add ideas of their own. From there, prototypes of the favorite levels were produced in so called “pods” -- pairs with a level designer and artist per map -- so the team could play them to see which ones were the most promising.

Then, the team as a whole weighed the maps against one another to see which ones would make the most compelling and diverse package to ship the game with. We finally ended up with the 9 cherry-picked multiplayer maps you can read all about here today and in yesterday’s blog post. They’re the best of the best, the maps that shone the brightest in our playtests, and the ones that combined bring out everything we want both veteran and new Battlefield players to experience in Battlefield 3 multiplayer.

Oh, and did you know there's a sand castle on one of our maps in Battlefield 3? This classic easter egg has been present in many Battlefield maps through the years. See if you can find it!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 14-10-2011, 22:10:00
(http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/battlefield_5F00_bad_5F00_company/BF3_5F00_NoshahrCanals_5F00_550.jpg)

Get out of here STALKER!

That reminds me of Rostok (Wild Territory) in Shadow of Chernobyl.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 15-10-2011, 09:10:36
Damn it...

Now I have to try and resist the urge to read about the maps...for almost two whole weeks. :P


Although I did read far enough to see this:

Quote
Caspian Border:
...It’s quite simply one of the biggest multiplayer maps we’ve ever played in an FPS, or any genre for that matter...

 - http://www.nowgamer.com/features/1086719/battlefield_3_multiplayer_map_by_map_guide.html
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 15-10-2011, 13:10:47
*deletes posts*

Yustax is banned from posting to this thread until he has played the game.


OK have fun!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 16-10-2011, 02:10:55
Alright, I cleared stuff with thorondor.

How mortars work:

Source: http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/621026-battlefield-3/60633542?page=1 

"Yeah it's pretty cool...Once you select it and it's set on the ground, a mini-map shows up on the bottom left of your screen and you can easily select where you'd like the mortar round to go. Almost seemed a little too easy actually lol."

"The underwhelming splash damage was definitely still there : / I felt the same way when I played the Beta, but maybe if you equip that explosive damage perk it'll make more of an impact? (I forget what that perk's called)"

"One more thing about the mortar other than what I mentioned above, it REALLY leaves you open to gunfire and snipers depending on where you set it down. The animation of getting out of the mortar took a little more time than I would have liked it to, but I suppose that's in there to balance it out?"

"It's not really like the BC1 artillery guns, your view doesn't really change : / Rate of fire was pretty slow, and coupled with the animation of getting into and out of it, I wonder how many people will stop to use it..."

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 16-10-2011, 04:10:23
Like one of those guys there, I to was underwheled by the splash damage of rockets. They take out one piece of rubble like im launching fucking cannon balls instead of HEAT rounds.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 16-10-2011, 05:10:05
Geez. Thanks for such a good compliment. And Im just angry that it doesnt feel like BF, that's all.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: HadrianBT on 16-10-2011, 07:10:14
There shouldn't be a huge explosion in case of HEAT. Sure, if you load a HE rocket into your RPG-7 (PG-7VYa, OG-7V), you are supposed to get a nice explosion. HEAT round is just a narrowly-shaped jet stream of very hot combusting materials. In a way, you can think of it as a regular AP shell, i.e. you get a hole, that's it. I can't say much about other HEAT charges, which can be coupled with regular HE to disrupt the active explosive armor on the tanks.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LHeureux on 16-10-2011, 07:10:47
And Im just angry that it doesnt feel like BF, that's all.
You didn't play it no?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 16-10-2011, 08:10:29
You didn't play it no?

It feels like another game. And yes; I did play the beta in a friend house since my pc is sucky in where I am right now. Feels different, I dont like vehicle unlocks, some basic features like the map was broken, squads and all. Also, you still have the basic features that were toned or changed down for casuals.

But that's just me, depending on the changes they do for the final game and the "features" that are still yet to come, not on release actually, then maybe I'll buy the game...but I really wish that the community make their own mod tools, would be amazing.

Well I'll stop talking here, feel free to keep posting, I wont be doing any complaining.

BTW, third seat in tanks it's confirmed to be a tank commander; he has infrared vision, I dont know if smoke grenades and he can zoom too.

Check the latest op firestorm gameplay to see it.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 16-10-2011, 11:10:38
you forgot  to mention third seat is unlockable  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 16-10-2011, 12:10:33
BTW, third seat in tanks it's confirmed to be a tank commander; he has infrared vision, I dont know if smoke grenades and he can zoom too.

Check the latest op firestorm gameplay to see it.

Got a link? There's a ton of firestorm gameplay videos.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 16-10-2011, 18:10:57
Got a link? There's a ton of firestorm gameplay videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sq-0dQGUNf8

2:17
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 16-10-2011, 19:10:41
you forgot  to mention third seat is unlockable  ;D
I didnt know that there was going to be another seat but i knew about the NV unlock. This is where I border on what things should be unlockable and what this should come as standard.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 16-10-2011, 19:10:29
I'll be whoring them tanks on Caspian until everything is unlocked.

Has it been confirmed that vehicle unlocks are on a per vehicle class basis or is it the same as hand weapons where you need to unlock shit for every weapon separately?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 16-10-2011, 19:10:40
Per vehicle class.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 16-10-2011, 19:10:31
Battlefieldo posted a write up of some of their impressions of what is most likely the final build.

Quote
Oct 15th
NVIDIA LAN 6 Podcast Recap + Video

Today we hosted our first real podcast with [20ID]Daskro + Friends and DCRUColin. Both of these guys are at the Nvidia Geforce LAN 6 this weekend where Battlefield 3 is playable with 5 maps, Operation Firestorm, Grand Bazaar, Damavand Peaks, Operation Metro and Caspian Border. The podcast lasted around an hour and give some amazing insights to what we can expect to see in under two weeks for the Final release of Battlefield 3. Here are the key points.

Hit Registration Improved

The server at the Nvidia LAN was setup in Los Angeles, 5 hours away from the event. The hit registration and net code have been fixed from the beta. Now you will be able to know exactly when and where you are getting shot from rather then falling and thinking you got “one shotted” like in the Open Beta.

Tons of Vehicles

Operation Firestorm (The desert Oil field map) is much larger then Caspian Border. Each team gets 6 Main Battle Tanks at start + the ones from spawn points. This map has diversity of two story factory buildings with 500m or more between control points on conquest mode. This map is vehicle focus rather then infantry. We personally can’t wait to roll with our friends in a 6 M1-Abrams deep armor column.

Mini / Full map is back

The full blown mini-map is back like the original battlefield, when you open up you can see your teammates as well as spotted enemies

Mortar for kicking Ass

Many have wondered what the Mortar unlock would be like. When you mount it, the minimap appears with a crosshair of where to drop your mortar round down on. This is a sign that DICE will probably implement more artillery items in the future.

3D Spotting is Tweaked

Now the 3D Spotting works properly. You will lose track of your enemies when they got out of view be it in a bush or around a corner.

Manage your Squad

Squad Management is back with up to 8 Squads. In this build the commorose wasn’t enabled so you were forced to use Q (spotting key) to place squad orders. Our guess is once commorose is implemented, a squad order system much like battlefield 2 will be brought back.

If you hated the Beta, all has changed

From what we’ve heard from everyone at the NVIDIA LAN event, this build is very polished and has made those with doubts really quite excited for Battlefield 3. It really looks like this game is the true sequel we are waiting for. Thanks to DICE for working so hard on this to get it in our hands in just under 2 weeks. We will be sure to keep you posted if we learn any more details on teh conquest version of Damavand Peaks. We know you are all eager to hear about that base jumping segment!
http://battlefieldo.com/nvidialanbf3/
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 16-10-2011, 19:10:41
These vehicles unlocks are starting to get stupid. Why would you want to unlock a third seat...shouldnt that be standart  ???
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 16-10-2011, 19:10:05
of course not! this is modern game, the more unlocks the bettah!

BTW:

this guy: http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/battlefield-3/1440626-played-battlefield-3-ea-preview-event.html

says there are quite a few changes in the beta, mainly, SL only spawn, buff in vehicles and a confirmed map with 7 flags in PC.

true, false?? dont know, sounds WAY to good to the true tbh.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 16-10-2011, 19:10:18
I'm waiting for Simon and Lewis' impressions from the BF3 LAN, but I'm afraid they had something else in mind ;D

Well, what can you expect. Set an astrophysicist and chemist loose on a WWII aircraft-carrier full off Apollo 11 stuff, including the command module. They will concentrate on something else than gaming ;)
Enjoyable videos still, though.

But yeah, those changes seem really really great.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 16-10-2011, 20:10:35
Has it been confirmed that vehicle unlocks are on a per vehicle class basis or is it the same as hand weapons where you need to unlock shit for every weapon separately?

Both factions share the same unlock progression, but it is limited to vehicle class. So for example the M1 Abrams and the T90 (as MBTs) share unlocks, but other vehicle classes like choppers have their own unlock tree.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 17-10-2011, 04:10:49
I'm waiting for Simon and Lewis' impressions from the BF3 LAN, but I'm afraid they had something else in mind ;D

Well, what can you expect. Set an astrophysicist and chemist loose on a WWII aircraft-carrier full off Apollo 11 stuff, including the command module. They will concentrate on something else than gaming ;)
Enjoyable videos still, though.

But yeah, those changes seem really really great.
And it took a retired teacher to tell simon to stop calling the USS Hornet a battleship.

Anyway, the changes sound good, but the proof will be in the pudding, as they say.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 17-10-2011, 09:10:20
Why would you want 7 open flags at the same time? It only creates flaghopping and a random combat. Unless it's designed linearly/progressively, which you would also whine against (too constricted! too CoD! QQ)

I guess all maps should be like this image then... no rules, no constrictions, just lol around and frag as you wish.. kiddies style.

(http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e285/Natty_Wallo/Untitled-1-94.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 17-10-2011, 09:10:18
I've always been for more flags with pushmode. :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 17-10-2011, 10:10:10
Kiddies style?

One could say BF2 style instead considering you've just summed up the general design theory behind most of it's maps with one simple picture... ;)


I assume that's what Rush is all about; providing a more focused, or serious, alternative to CQ.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 17-10-2011, 12:10:58
Well, well seems that the "small insignificant group of forum whiners" won this time...  ::)

Now if only we could get rid of Origin and make them release some modding tools some day...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 17-10-2011, 12:10:40
More flags is not better in my opinion. 5 is the maximum for me to be honest, especially since there is no push system in BF3.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 17-10-2011, 12:10:06
Battlefield Conquest, and its best Flag Layouts:

Five Flag Diamond

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j242/Archimonde0_0/5-3.jpg

Four Flag Diamond

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j242/Archimonde0_0/4-4.jpg

Linear

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j242/Archimonde0_0/3-7.jpg

Three Flag Triangle

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j242/Archimonde0_0/2-9.jpg
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 17-10-2011, 13:10:49
I assume that's what Rush is all about; providing a more focused, or serious, alternative to CQ.
Yes... that is the purpose of Rush  ;)

Well, well seems that the "small insignificant group of forum whiners" won this time...  ::)
What are you talking about, "won"?
---

@Archimonday, kind of yes.. except the four flag diamond layout has the two middle ones tighter together, so it shapes a diamond, not just an angled square. Most BFHeroes maps use classic 4-flag diamond to much success. The reason why the two center flags usually is pressed together a bit is to create a nice infantry fight between them, and if one team controls both center flags, they get a sort of "we own it" feeling, and the other team needs to "break in"

Buccaneer Bay
(http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/4659/newmap.jpg)

The 3 flag one is nice, and I regret not having used it more in FH2... it worked sweet in classic maps like Berlin, El Alamein, Kharkov etc...

About the linear, I would say you can have pretty much as long linear line as you want, but mostly they arent that straight as you painted it. Consider one of the best maps, Karkand and it's bended linear flag layout, allthough it does offer 2 "off flags" where players can deviate from the main assault line. It's a sexy formation and the success is undeniable. I also like the harmony of distances in it, where first you have two close flags, then quite a large gap until the next one (at the bottleneck), it allows attacker to get some room to breathe once they've cleared the first two (hotel + square).. I wonder how Karkand would play out with a sequantial Push system... probably nice.. well, we will see in BF3 and its Rush variation.

(http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e285/Natty_Wallo/187574-strike_of_karkan_64copy-1.jpg)


Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 17-10-2011, 13:10:50
I'd agree with you. As long as the basic groups of flags are kept in these basic shapes, one could have as many flags as one wanted and you could create a map of epic proportions.

If I made a Three Flag Triangle map, I could ten take each of the corners of that Three Flag Triangle, and make another set of flags, closer together, that form another shape, such as another Three Flag Triangle, or a Five Flag Diamond, etc. As long as the clusters of flags have one of the basic shapes, they will always flow good.

@BF Heroes: Good Point about the central flags. Don't take my picture though as sort of the "how they have to be" if you look at some of BF2's maps you'll see Five Flag Diamonds that are stretched at one corner, and other things. Its just meant to represent the basic shape.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 17-10-2011, 13:10:26
If I had time, I would make a map looking like this for FH2

very rough, but you get the idea.. a long progressive map that takes player through all kinds of environments (fields, forests, mountains, streams, villages, town etc).. a bit like a Valve map actually.. with a big climactic ending in some cool scenery. I think it would be cool to focus on one type of battle per "stage", even have planes in some stage, tanks in some, inf-only in some, long distance fire in some. The whole route could be as long as possible, with up to ~20 flags.
you get the idea..

(http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e285/Natty_Wallo/Untitled-1-95.jpg)



Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 17-10-2011, 16:10:33
so, aparantly the rumors were right, everytime you shot an unsupressed weapon, you get spotted in the enemy minimap as a red dot, sounds familiar?.

oh and the previus rumors about SL only spawn was just that, rumors, there is still the derp spawn from bc2.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 17-10-2011, 16:10:50
BC2 spawnsystem was awesome, I enjoyed it a lot more than the silly SL in BF2.. having to wait for him to be alive sucked, and what about all the times he was a n00b and wasnt in any good spot?

Naah, having the option to select what squad member you want is far superior, and creates much more interesting and dynamic tactics than just this one guy to spawn on.. I mean, why him? He isnt any "leader" at all, just a dude. Can just as well spawn on the next dude.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 17-10-2011, 16:10:57
BC2 spawnsystem was awesome, I enjoyed it a lot more than the silly SL in BF2.. having to wait for him to be alive sucked, and what about all the times he was a n00b and wasnt in any good spot?

Naah, having the option to select what squad member you want is far superior, and creates much more interesting and dynamic tactics than just this one guy to spawn on.. I mean, why him? He isnt any "leader" at all, just a dude. Can just as well spawn on the next dude.

It worked with 32 players. Hopefully it'll work just as well with 64 players.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 17-10-2011, 16:10:08
BC2 spawnsystem was awesome, I enjoyed it a lot more than the silly SL in BF2.. having to wait for him to be alive sucked, and what about all the times he was a n00b and wasnt in any good spot?

Naah, having the option to select what squad member you want is far superior, and creates much more interesting and dynamic tactics than just this one guy to spawn on.. I mean, why him? He isnt any "leader" at all, just a dude. Can just as well spawn on the next dude.

It worked with 32 players. Hopefully it'll work just as well with 64 players.
Worked on Caspian Border.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Beaufort on 17-10-2011, 16:10:23
Do you realy have to support every single thing about this game Natty ? You would be much more believable if you weren't. How can spawning on everyone can create any tactic ? You kill 5 guys but it was pointless because they are going to spawn on the sixth anyway. Get out of here.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 17-10-2011, 16:10:00
I dont "support" anything.. Im saying what I think. Not like I care what you "believe" either.
Spawning on all the squad members create alot of interesting tactics and game play moments, you will understand later on in case you don't already. Or if you ever played BC2 in hardcore servers with tight clan-like play, you'd know how hard and serious the guys fight to eliminate the entire squad, since as you say "they are going to spawn on the last" unless the entire squad is dead. It also makes military styled "advance + cover" movements possible even in insanely "hot" areas (with lots of deaths / killls)

Maybe it is too hardcore for you, and you prefer to have only one little spawn-gnome squatting in a bush that you can run around looking for? Get out of here you too.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 17-10-2011, 16:10:53
BC2 spawnsystem was awesome, I enjoyed it a lot more than the silly SL in BF2.. having to wait for him to be alive sucked, and what about all the times he was a n00b and wasnt in any good spot?

Naah, having the option to select what squad member you want is far superior, and creates much more interesting and dynamic tactics than just this one guy to spawn on.. I mean, why him? He isnt any "leader" at all, just a dude. Can just as well spawn on the next dude.

meh, you end with 3 guys somewhere on the map and 2 other guys in a corner, creating hoping of locations, you die here? try here, dead too?move back here !.

oh wait, I guess thats the reason why all the maps are flag clusters ans corridor shooters, canalize the spawn and movement of the player with invissible walls and out of bounds areas!. thats also why the squad size got reduced, with 4 you can have so much split and less options to spawn.

it all make sense now.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Beaufort on 17-10-2011, 16:10:55
I dont "support" anything.. Im saying what I think. Not like I care what you "believe" either.

Pff great, and I dont care what you care about either. /flame

Spawning on all the squad members create alot of interesting tactics and game play moments, you will understand later on in case you don't already. Or if you ever played BC2 in hardcore servers with tight clan-like play, you'd know how hard and serious the guys fight to eliminate the entire squad, since as you say "they are going to spawn on the last" unless the entire squad is dead. It also makes military styled "advance + cover" movements possible even in insanely "hot" areas (with lots of deaths / killls)

Maybe it is too hardcore for you, and you prefer to have only one little spawn-gnome squatting in a bush that you can run around looking for? Get out of here you too.

Right, Ill understand AFTER I pay for the game of course. Yes I have played BC2 vietnam with this feature and it was nothing more than a run and gun shooter with NO tactic. And you prefer running after six guys than one ? How's that ?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 17-10-2011, 17:10:40
I can't help but notice the hypocrisy of people....6 man squads, with orders and a commander to guide them all right? That was the recipe to success and a real tactical element in BF2


Question is...WHO THE F*** USED IT RIGHT?

Went to play BF2 a week ago and guess what. The same shit is up that was 3-4 years ago. Commander spamming the "spotted", 3 squads of which 2 are 2 buddies who have locked their squad and 1 squad of which all are scattered all over the place.No coordination, no sense in it whatsoever. Only reason squads are good in BF2 is because of mods that use it well.

Talking about realism...We got 2 squads irl meeting each other. 1 squad kills all of the other but one guy. Are they gonna just move on to the "flag" (objective) or clear out the final one who got spotted by the squad(too much like the minimap spot to you) ,who could very well be a machine gunner or a radio man who could very easily thwart their plans, before moving on? And about that too, i'd prefer having to look on the minimap or have something on my hud to tell me there is infantry nearby than people spamming "ENEMY INFANTRY SPOTTED,ENEMYINFANTRY".

Flag clusters and corridor shooter maps? Uhhmm that huge map called Caspian border or something, i think that one is pretty fucking huge.



Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 17-10-2011, 17:10:37

Flag clusters and corridor shooter maps? Uhhmm that huge map called Caspian border or something, i think that one is pretty fucking huge.

yep, its pretty fucking huge, with a pretty fucking huge out of bounds area, and a pretty fucking tight flag emplacement :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 17-10-2011, 17:10:08
Do you realy have to support every single thing about this game Natty ? You would be much more believable if you weren't. How can spawning on everyone can create any tactic ? You kill 5 guys but it was pointless because they are going to spawn on the sixth anyway. Get out of here.
It keeps people playing together. Size of squads is reduced which makes it easier to eliminate an entire squad and also fixes the stupid SQL switching that occurred in BF2. Not a single player from the squad will have to sacrifice their enjoyment to function as a spawn point by lying somewhere in a bush. It worked pretty well in the beta, even with random joe's.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 17-10-2011, 17:10:11
Do you realy have to support every single thing about this game Natty ? You would be much more believable if you weren't. How can spawning on everyone can create any tactic ? You kill 5 guys but it was pointless because they are going to spawn on the sixth anyway. Get out of here.
It keeps people playing together. Size of squads is reduced which makes it easier to eliminate an entire squad and also fixes the stupid SQL switching that occurred in BF2. Not a single player from the squad will have to sacrifice their enjoyment to function as a spawn point by lying somewhere in a bush. It worked pretty well in the beta, even with random joe's.


And for once it actually keeps the squad together even if its completely mandatory and not coming from the player.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LHeureux on 17-10-2011, 17:10:26
Wtf Sicario? There's only 2 maps that are tight corridors, Metro and Bazar, both of them have open spaces.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 17-10-2011, 17:10:12
i didnt said corridors,  i said tight flag emplacement, as in, the playable are in caspian and oilfield is the size of the last 2 flags in fusshe pass
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Beaufort on 17-10-2011, 17:10:40
Do you realy have to support every single thing about this game Natty ? You would be much more believable if you weren't. How can spawning on everyone can create any tactic ? You kill 5 guys but it was pointless because they are going to spawn on the sixth anyway. Get out of here.
It keeps people playing together. Size of squads is reduced which makes it easier to eliminate an entire squad and also fixes the stupid SQL switching that occurred in BF2. Not a single player from the squad will have to sacrifice their enjoyment to function as a spawn point by lying somewhere in a bush. It worked pretty well in the beta, even with random joe's.

Yeah squad leader lying in a bush ... Cliché much ? A squad leader HAS to be on the move with its squad or he gets busted when his teammates spawn. Well, at least in FH2. ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 17-10-2011, 17:10:50
Well I must agree with Natty on this one, I prefer squad spawn over squadleader spawn. How I hate in FH2 to have an endless stream of enemies coming your way because somewhere in a bush there's a squadleader functioning as mobile spawnpoint. Instead of action, it turns into hide and seek gameplay.

In BC2, and in BF3, the squad always has all members actively attacking or at least supporting. Without giving someone the specific role of squadleading, everyone just joins the fight. Surely the system has flaws as well, but it's the lesser of two evils.

IMO I wouldn't mind though if there was a limitation based on enemies being nearby. How I got tired of being spawnkilled in the beta... and how frustrating it was to be shooting one guy and then suddenly having another dude spawning next to him when you ran out of bullets.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: evhgear on 17-10-2011, 18:10:08
I liked the fact that you can spawn on everybody in the squad, no more SL hidding for spawn. But I really hated that the SL have lost all his importance and strategy he had. Now, everybody are mobile spawnpoints, you simply choose where you prefer to spawn and do what you want. IMO, it simply split more the squad and no teamplay at all. Maybe it looks like, since on metro all the 32 players are in a 300meter radius, but no real teamplay. For the hole time I've played the beta, I never felt I was in a squad, since everybody do his little Rambo, and if he dies he still have the choice to spawn in combat, it happens really rare that you have to spawn at a flag. SL are no more important IMO, simply a "decoration" that some players have written on his screen.

I don't think the BF2 system is the best system, since the SL is simply a spawnpoint in a bush, or in a building like a church. With a squad doing that(hidding SL) on a push map, this little squad can stop the hole enemy team, wich can be really frustrating sometimes(SL in church in PeB). But the main advantage of this system is that the hole squad is fighting togetter. Yeah sometimes everybody are running everywhere, but a wise player will stay with his SL, and make a good squad teamplay.

Both systems have interresting advantages, but big flaws, so none of those 2 are really great IMO, maybe a  mix of those 2 could be quite interresting. Example : You can only spawn on 1 player of the squad(SL), but if he dies, you spawn on the "Assistant-SL", if the Assistant is also dead, you spawn on the third one, etc. until the SL have spawned on one of the players of the squad. So with this system the SL is not obliged to hide in a bush, and the hole squad spawn at the same place. It's my opinion, but I think that it could be an interresting alternative of both systems.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 17-10-2011, 18:10:08
In the alpha it worked like this: the squad leader can spawn on everyone BUT, the squad members could only spawn on the squad leader. I think it's a better system than derp spawning of BC2.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Beaufort on 17-10-2011, 18:10:59
Now THAT is cool.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 17-10-2011, 18:10:57
Yes, the derp spawning is simpler and more effective in keeping the squad together, but it doesn't mean it promotes proper teamplay... It also has flaws (such as enemies popping up in the middle of a firefight). On the other hand the BF 2 SL spawn when used in a lame way (hiding in a hard to reach position) is bad too... BUT you can have those epic moments where a whole squad is defending a specific house or a point and suddenly the SL is shot dead. Then everybody realizes that their position is probably going to be overrun and either fight to the last man or try to retreat to fight another day (sometimes the SL switch tactic is used which is kinda similar to that BF 3 feature except that the guy has to actually leave the squad).

In the end neither system is perfect, one provides constant squad action, the other one provides that interesting situations when a squad gets cut off and eliminated just by killing the most important guy in the squad. I kinda like the way that RO 2 uses (although it provides no feedback when spawn is restricted), you can spawn on SL but you always spawn a bit back from his position, thus simulating reinforcements that actually arrive (not pop out of thin air next to the SL). Maybe adding this feature to the current derp spawning would make it a bit better.

^ The Alpha version sounds interesting too.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 17-10-2011, 20:10:00
so, aparantly the rumors were right, everytime you shot an unsupressed weapon, you get spotted in the enemy minimap as a red dot, sounds familiar?.
FarCry and CrySis (and Crysis Wars), amirite? Those had the AA searchlight attached to every sniper scope as well.

FC was notorious for having only the "assault" gamemode (in addition to deathmatch and team deathmatch) which in the end devolved into a team of suicide bombers running headfirst into defenders firing from the hip (due to the other mechanics involved as well). Someone would no doubt call it "making players work together" and "exciting experience" and "making it possible to form defensive lines" and so on, I would call it "repetitive" and "limited". It also had those kind of "spiraling" maps Natty suggested (although on a smaller scale - most servers were 16p with only a few running 24p or 32p), with supposedly impassable walls channeling everyone into a pretty little ghost train - that is, until you learned to glitch your way over those obstacles and began to rain death on unsuspecting enemies; most of the stock maps had a way, even after several updates. Also, the underslung grenade launchers were at first frowned upon in MP due to nobody using anything else if playing as a "grunt" (the other two classes were sniper and medic/engineer aka the suicide bomber), later they were removed serverside (even though they were horribly nerfed in the later updates).

CW was not better, now everyone had cheat codes activated (ie. strength/armour/stealth mode) even though it offered capture the flag. But even though the visible range was HUEG, all the flags were clumped tightly together. Had been playing FH2 for 2+ years when I tried that, did not bother (I bought Crysis Maximum Edition just to be able to play MechWarrior: Living Legends) further.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 17-10-2011, 22:10:54
So BF3 has been leaked: LEAK (http://www.dsogaming.com/news/battlefield-3-pc-leaked-12-days-before-official-release/)

Seems Singleplayer is playable. Is it already gold then ? I thought there was some ironing out to do, or is that just for a day zero patch.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 17-10-2011, 23:10:43
sure Kelmola, but really - and with no intention for flaming or bitching here - isn't assaults more fun?

I mean... really.... Isn't attack-vs-defence game modes / map designs simply more fun to play?

My thesis is that when BF42 came out, people had been drilling and squeezing themselves through labyrinths/corridors and "boxes" for almost 10 years (Doom -> Quake -> HL -> CS -> MoH) so the openness was obviously much welcomed... but now? How fun really are these vast open spaces where you can circle around in cruise-control and just pretend there isn't a game going on over there?

I think the success of push in FH2, Rush mode in BC2 speaks for itself a bit here.. Having a clear target - a "mission" or "goal" leads to better game play.
Im just saying... Having the 5-6 open flags and just "ok now fight" can often feel pointless and dead to me. I dont know what it is about the area Im fighting for that's so important. In progressive maps, you understand that you need to take A to reach B, to reach C, but in FFA maps, it's like A,B and C are equally worth, and therefor also equally worthless.
And if you analyze players, and your own playstyle, how often do you really, excersice these "freedoms" at all? Aren't you mostly slipping in to the natural stream of attacks-defenses anyway? that's my point about limiting off / sculpting out the best and most fun combat areas, then block off / delete the rest, and it can work just as nicely... Look at BF:Vietnams leveldesigns.. they did that quite nice in many maps actually. People never complained about BFV maps being too constricted, even though maps like the two HoChiMinh Trail maps, Landing Zone Albany and all the town maps were pretty limited.

I personally much rather play a game with focus and clear objectives, even if it sometimes rob me off my birth-given "freedom", than to have an unfocused random lol-game where anyone at any moment can just decide to stop caring about the game and do some circus drive with a jeep or hop around flags with no purpose. That stuff is just getting old.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 17-10-2011, 23:10:16
So BF3 has been leaked: LEAK (http://www.dsogaming.com/news/battlefield-3-pc-leaked-12-days-before-official-release/)
Seems Singleplayer is playable. Is it already gold then ? I thought there was some ironing out to do, or is that just for a day zero patch.

lol what do you think?! The beta we played was said to have been behind by one Month. So not really a lot of time to fix stuff. ^^ This and with the list of things that they promise to send in after the release, day one to day 20 patches are already assured. ^^
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ts4EVER on 17-10-2011, 23:10:25
Fully agreed. There is a good reason why Hurtgen was voted the most popular of 2.4 maps, it is just awesome to play, even though or perhaps even because your choices are limited. Then count the times you have been standing alone int he middle of beautiful scenery on bastogne or advanced to the next flag only to have someone in a jeep back cap the one behind you.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 17-10-2011, 23:10:13
I like Hürtgenwald mostly because of the visuals, the gameplay only really kicks in after the Americans cap the second flag in one of the corridors and the fight moves into the non-restricted forest. On a gameplay basis, I prefer big open maps like Bastogne, Cobra and Gazala. Pushmode does not necessarily mean that there should be a narrow tube. Yes, there should be focus. But there is a compromise between a totally sandbox mode and "scripted singleplayer" equivalent. Also, different styles of maps; a meatgrinder is sometimes nice, but if every map were like Hürtgenwald, I would have ragequit long ago.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ts4EVER on 17-10-2011, 23:10:34
Yeah imo Fh2 needs "playground" style maps too, like totalize or Cobra, where you can use all the thousands of different tanks... but the maps that stick with people are the specialised ones that are about something. I bet more players, even without ww2 knowledge, remember "that map where you climb the cliff" or "that map with the creepy forest and hte bunkers", but not so much "that map with the french village and the many tanks". Considering how mcuh time the devs and testers invest in each map, I think a move to the first kind is in order, even though there should always be that one vehicle playground per theatre.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 17-10-2011, 23:10:50
So BF3 has been leaked: LEAK (http://www.dsogaming.com/news/battlefield-3-pc-leaked-12-days-before-official-release/)
Seems Singleplayer is playable. Is it already gold then ? I thought there was some ironing out to do, or is that just for a day zero patch.

lol what do you think?! The beta we played was said to have been behind by one Month. So not really a lot of time to fix stuff. ^^ This and with the list of things that they promise to send in after the release, day one to day 20 patches are already assured. ^^

I thought gold was 1 week before release. I did read from the BF 3 USS Hornet event that most stuff that was buggy in beta was fixed.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Musti on 17-10-2011, 23:10:09
Hurtgenwald is the map i hate the most in FH2. Don't know what people see in it.Camping as a German in a bush, being killed by invisible hiding Germans as American.3 stupidly narrow corridors.
Anyway, had anyone seen any vids/pics of Beretta M93R? I hope they didn't just copy model from BC2.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 17-10-2011, 23:10:26
Yea it's a crazy world we live in :) what one guy hates the most, the next one loves the most... I personally alt-tab to the desktop and go to facebook or some forum whenever El alamein comes up, same thing with Alam Halfa.. I just don't feel anything when playing those maps, a game of WordFeud on my girlfriends phone is more exciting to me.. still, others have their prime moments rolling around in tanks on those maps, but when maps like Anctoville, PeB, Pdh, Ramelle, Lebisey, Hurtgen, Sidi Rezegh comes up, the game immediately catches my attention again and I continue to care about what happens on the server.

Good thing we can offer all kinds of experiences in fh2... Im sure DICE wants to do the same. So it's IMO very nice and cool that we can choose between Rush and Conquest on all maps. I also think the TDM in BC2 was really nice... for just a 20-30min game session, it was sweet to just hop in and get some fragz, with all the "game mode stuff" stripped away... just you, some dudes and some weapons. Like a round of paintball. Hope we get that in BF3 also.  :)

The more ways you can use a game, the better. you could call it a TransProduct usability. (Many different ways for the user to interact with the product) Even if you can manage and do stuff while not ingame (Battlelog) is nice, dress your guy or buy/change gear. Maybe a lunchbreak you just do this kind of stuff, so the next time when you want to get some action, you're all geared up and ready to go. Or what would be nice would be if your teammate could call for an airstrike, and you get a message on facebook or MSN or Battlelog, then you control a web-based bomber plane (simple graphics) that drops the load in-game for your friends. 30sec interaction right there. Stuff like that
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 18-10-2011, 00:10:40
So BF3 has been leaked: LEAK (http://www.dsogaming.com/news/battlefield-3-pc-leaked-12-days-before-official-release/)

Seems Singleplayer is playable. Is it already gold then ? I thought there was some ironing out to do, or is that just for a day zero patch.

if BF3 is anything like most multiplataform games, the game gets a frezze some months before release for all plataforms and has to go trough some "paper work" to get liscense or things like that for the diferent plataforms (xbox, ps3), wich basicatly means that the PC version stops to wait for the console version to get ready, therefore not much work is done in the last month/s, therefore the reason for day1 patches. the Beta was obviusly older thant what they said
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 18-10-2011, 12:10:31
Some retailer showed a picture of his received bf3 copys.
7days left!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 18-10-2011, 14:10:18
Trying to keep this thread clean from off topic, flamming and offensive posts. Would be a shame to lock this thread again.

Edit:

Or, you can send me this and get banned:

Quote
Guess what ? That's FUCKING NOT GOOD ENOUGH !!!

I'VE TAKEN YOUR GESTAPO SHIT FOR TOO FUCKING LONG !!! I DONT SEE WHY I SHOULD WORK MY ASS OFF FOR ASSHOLES LIKE YOU WHO CANT DO A SINGLE THING RIGHT !!! I M SO OUT OF THERE !!!
See you around, Beaufort.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: RAnDOOm on 18-10-2011, 15:10:09
Posting private messages in public reveals a big lack of caracter....
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 18-10-2011, 15:10:56
Posting private messages in public reveals a big lack of caracter....

Now nobody is questioning WHY he was banned.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 18-10-2011, 16:10:17
Now nobody is questioning WHY he was banned.
not the least.

Now back on topic: leaks suck big time, and I hope the damage weren't too great on the title. CryTek experienced something similar prior to Crysis 2 release.. one can always hope/consider that people that download leakz, arent potential customers either. So sales might not hurt from it.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 18-10-2011, 16:10:30
If somebody cracks multiplayer then there will be a more then potential hit in sales.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 18-10-2011, 16:10:02
Correct. Plus bear in mind the Crysis 2 leak wasnt massively damaging (considering it was very much broken). What was damaging was the reviews of it on PC :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 18-10-2011, 16:10:02
Every game is leaked sooner or later. For games focussed on MP (like Battlefield) it's not such a big issue.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 18-10-2011, 17:10:11
I hoped BF3 would leak personally, so I can play the SP before release. Because of the (vehicle)unlocks, you will have to start grinding immediately if you want to keep up.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 18-10-2011, 17:10:59
I hoped BF3 would leak personally, so I can play the SP before release. Because of the (vehicle)unlocks, you will have to start grinding immediately if you want to keep up.
It's really not as bad as some of you guys make it out to be. You can do fine with the standard equipment.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 18-10-2011, 18:10:37
sorry but aircraft with only cannon, tanks without coax??

thats like given the soldiers just pistols and unlocking the main rifle after certain level...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 18-10-2011, 18:10:00
no it isn't, don't be silly.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 18-10-2011, 18:10:07
The way it's meant to be played.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQR49JGySTM

sorry but aircraft with only cannon, tanks without coax??

thats like given the soldiers just pistols and unlocking the main rifle after certain level...
Big deal. You unlock those after a few kills, easy to get. It's not like you have to spend hours in a vehicle to unlock anything. One round of Caspian in a tank and I unlocked IR smoke and COAX.  Making mountains out of molehills again.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 18-10-2011, 18:10:42
The way it's meant to be played.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQR49JGySTM

sorry but aircraft with only cannon, tanks without coax??

thats like given the soldiers just pistols and unlocking the main rifle after certain level...
Big deal. You unlock those after a few kills, easy to get. It's not like you have to spend hours in a vehicle to unlock anything. One round of Caspian in a tank and I unlocked IR smoke and COAX.  Making mountains out of molehills again.
Which you shouldnt need to do in the first place. Im guessing you played the entire round in the tank? or most of it at least?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: azreal on 18-10-2011, 19:10:16
Woah woah woah, aircraft start only their cannon?! Wow, kinda a big balance issue there I think. Seems like DICE should have made another WWII-based Battlefield game if they wanted that kind of air combat. Such a shame too, since I've always been a flyboy within the BF community.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 18-10-2011, 19:10:06
Its hurting for the people, like me, who dont reach the max level after one week of gaming. In the Beta i really lacked behind because i had way less game hours to spend than some of the hardcore dudes.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 18-10-2011, 19:10:02
The way it's meant to be played.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQR49JGySTM

sorry but aircraft with only cannon, tanks without coax??

thats like given the soldiers just pistols and unlocking the main rifle after certain level...
Big deal. You unlock those after a few kills, easy to get. It's not like you have to spend hours in a vehicle to unlock anything. One round of Caspian in a tank and I unlocked IR smoke and COAX.  Making mountains out of molehills again.
Which you shouldnt need to do in the first place. Im guessing you played the entire round in the tank? or most of it at least?
I love driving tanks in the vanilla BF games, so yes like most rounds on Caspian I spend it in a tank. I simply don't see the problem. I explained how easy it is to unlock COAX to ease some concerns about the game being unbalanced beyond the experience of the player because of vehicle unlocks.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 18-10-2011, 19:10:33
You guys make a hen out of a feather. Just play the game normally and the unlocks will naturally appear for you and you can use them. No need to get all high-blood-pressure just because there are guys who can do things you can't. Sooner or later, you too, will be cool and have all the toys  8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 18-10-2011, 19:10:29
Woah woah woah, aircraft start only their cannon?! Wow, kinda a big balance issue there I think. Seems like DICE should have made another WWII-based Battlefield game if they wanted that kind of air combat. Such a shame too, since I've always been a flyboy within the BF community.

the worst part is, the cannon rounds are like paintball amunition, just at a guy on the ground, and you have to almost hit him directly 3 times to kill him, thats just.... just, no words really.

same as the rockets, almost no splash damage, its like they made sure air vehicles dont bother ground anymore xD

The way it's meant to be played.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQR49JGySTM

sorry but aircraft with only cannon, tanks without coax??

thats like given the soldiers just pistols and unlocking the main rifle after certain level...
Big deal. You unlock those after a few kills, easy to get. It's not like you have to spend hours in a vehicle to unlock anything. One round of Caspian in a tank and I unlocked IR smoke and COAX.  Making mountains out of molehills again.

then why made them unlocks if you can have them anyway with 1 hour of gameplay?? ohh thats right, unlocks are c00l and kids love them ^^.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: General Tso on 18-10-2011, 20:10:50
What I don't like about unlocking stuff on vehicles is that you have to choose (at least in BC2) between coax MG or smoke.  (Unless I was doing something wrong).  Both would be useful, obviously.

It took me about 10 hours to unlock the coax MG on BC2, never got to do it in BF3.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 18-10-2011, 20:10:24
then why made them unlocks if you can have them anyway with 1 hour of gameplay??
do you take everything literary?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 18-10-2011, 20:10:28
http://twitter.com/#!/Thylander/status/126267841811988480

Bad news people. We wont be getting a giant map to play with. Apparently OP Firestorm is the biggest map in the entire game. But the play area is very small...I dont know about you guys, but expanding the boundaries and playing in those mountains would be very cool...it would be nice to expand those boundaries a lot.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 18-10-2011, 20:10:24
then why made them unlocks if you can have them anyway with 1 hour of gameplay??
do you take everything literary?

sounds familiar?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 18-10-2011, 20:10:59
Did you guys know that now if you fire a weapon you'll get a dot in the mini map? Like in COD. You can only avoid this using a supressor...I dont know who makes this terrible, terrible gameplay decisions. I will really pay 30 bucks for mod tools as DLC.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 18-10-2011, 21:10:10
BF3

its indeed looking more and more like CODBC3
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 18-10-2011, 21:10:27
And let's not forget the skulls in the minimap when a teammate is down; it removes stealth from the game.

Playing the game in hardcore seems like the only good solution now. The problem is that the damage is already high enough and then in HC it'll be even higher, that even a sniper rifle shot in the toe will kill you.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ts4EVER on 18-10-2011, 21:10:00
What is so bad about that red dot thing? At least it makes camping harder and rewards using silencers in a direct way.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 18-10-2011, 21:10:04
What is so bad about that red dot thing? At least it makes camping harder and rewards using silencers in a direct way.

Are you serious? We need more indicators? What happened with the old days where you had to rely on your ears to detect the enemy? Like I do in FH2. Now I need more indicators to point where the enemy is at?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ts4EVER on 18-10-2011, 21:10:24
What is so bad about that red dot thing? At least it makes camping harder and rewards using silencers in a direct way.

Are you serious? We need more indicators? What happened with the old days where you had to rely on your ears to detect the enemy? Like I do in FH2. Now I need more indicators to point where the enemy is at?

I seem to remember everybody and his mother complaining about "Wookies" in BC2. So I guess DICE listened to audience feedback, hence stuff like red dots and glinting scopes. See a problem, come up with something to fix it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 18-10-2011, 21:10:33
The way it's meant to be played.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQR49JGySTM

sorry but aircraft with only cannon, tanks without coax??

thats like given the soldiers just pistols and unlocking the main rifle after certain level...
Big deal. You unlock those after a few kills, easy to get. It's not like you have to spend hours in a vehicle to unlock anything. One round of Caspian in a tank and I unlocked IR smoke and COAX.  Making mountains out of molehills again.

then why made them unlocks if you can have them anyway with 1 hour of gameplay?? ohh thats right, unlocks are c00l and kids love them ^^.


Exactly. It simply works that way. Why does it bother you so much? It's just a game.
http://twitter.com/#!/Thylander/status/126267841811988480

Bad news people. We wont be getting a giant map to play with. Apparently OP Firestorm is the biggest map in the entire game. But the play area is very small...I dont know about you guys, but expanding the boundaries and playing in those mountains would be very cool...it would be nice to expand those boundaries a lot.
It doesn't have to big to be enjoyable. I have had plenty of fun on the vanilla BF2 maps and I can't really say they are big.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 18-10-2011, 21:10:21
i can name quite some vannila BF2 maps wich where big and fun to play

Sorry but i do not want a blackops 2. The playable areas where RIDICULOUS SMALL
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 18-10-2011, 21:10:25

Exactly. It simply works that way. Why does it bother you so much? It's just a game.


unlocks do not bother me, ridiculus cripled vehicles BECAUSE of unlocks do.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 18-10-2011, 21:10:50
I seem to remember everybody and his mother complaining about "Wookies" in BC2. So I guess DICE listened to audience feedback, hence stuff like red dots and glinting scopes. See a problem, come up with something to fix it.

If DICE didnt listen to the whiners...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 18-10-2011, 22:10:28
unlocks do not bother me, ridiculus cripled vehicles BECAUSE of unlocks do.
If you play well enough, you'll be rewarded by the ability to use more things in the game  ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 18-10-2011, 22:10:41
But that shouldnt be the case. Now the guy with the most time will own people who just got started because they dont have the unlocks; crippling the balance.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 18-10-2011, 22:10:54
But that shouldnt be the case. Now the guy with the most time will own people who just got started because they dont have the unlocks; crippling the balance.
^eeeeeeeeyup

BF2 had unlocks, but they dint ruined the game.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 18-10-2011, 23:10:46
Oh please, the unlocks ruined BF3 before you even played it? :P

"See you at launch."
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 18-10-2011, 23:10:17
I dont need to play it to know that they cripple balance. At least from my standpoint, vehicles unlocks like the ones cripple balance. Jets only starting with mg, no counter measures; tanks just having the main gun and the secondary seat mg...and an unlockable third seat? Who get such ideas.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 18-10-2011, 23:10:49
I dont need to play it to know that they cripple balance.
Okay, prophet.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 18-10-2011, 23:10:18
Lol, I said that I played the beta in a friend house. Besides, with the promises and information that DICE has released to the public; plus the feedback of the community. Is clear enough that crippling vehicles and making them very, very weak is bad.

In conclusion; would you rather be owned by a guy who has the same vehicle but has experience and is a pro using it. Or the guy who just has more time in the game and have an unlock that auto locks on your vehicle and fire.

Examples? Heatseekers missiles for jets unlock. Tanks needed to unlock coax or there's even an auto lock missile fired from the main gun.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 18-10-2011, 23:10:43
Unlocks should be upgrades, like getting a HMG on your tank instead of the standard LMG. Or having 4x AA missiles on the jet instead of 2x. Just like the unlock weapons in BF2 were: you could still play with the stock weapons because they were merely a different style but just as good (with a few exceptions).
Not complete gamechangers.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 18-10-2011, 23:10:18
BF3

its indeed looking more and more like CODBC3
What were you expecting? From day 1, they were going to go head-to-head with COD:ModernLulzware3. Everything between BF2142 and this - BC, BC2, MOHReboot's multiplay - was just practice for the main event.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 18-10-2011, 23:10:06
I'll keep saying it; I'll buy mod tools dlc for 30 bucks.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 18-10-2011, 23:10:42
BF3

its indeed looking more and more like CODBC3
What were you expecting? From day 1, they were going to go head-to-head with COD:ModernLulzware3. Everything between BF2142 and this - BC, BC2, MOHReboot's multiplay - was just practice for the main event.
Ye when i first tried BF3 Beta i was like=hm maybe this issent so bad

but counting it all up

Just another frakking Cod styled game with BC2 elements
With propaganda payed persons claiming this game will be the best game ever
I have seen other game forums with such people
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 19-10-2011, 00:10:47
With propaganda payed persons claiming this game will be the best game ever
I have seen other game forums with such people

It must be really great believing that you are so important that companies would pay people money to convince you to like their games. Maybe they're having crisis-meetings in the EA HQ where today's #1 topic is "how to make THeTA0123 like our game!"
That you believe that I am such person is also very amusing, people that read those posts are all having quite a laugh about that every time you propose it  ;D You've done it like 3-4 times in this thread already.

@Yustax: Im sure you'll be able to unlock some weapons, don't worry.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 19-10-2011, 00:10:25
Re the unlock system. Just bought Forza Motorsport 4.

Sure, if you want to go through the "career" mode tailor-made for aspie otakus, then you do have to "purchase" the cars and unlock the tracks one by one. I almost returned the game to the store. But wait, what is this? You can quick race with any car on any track, even in splitscreen? But this is 2011, surely no one would want to play such a game? ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 19-10-2011, 01:10:11
Who said people wouldn't play such a game?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 19-10-2011, 01:10:54
(http://i.imgur.com/XmT6j.jpg)

xD

on a completaly unrelated note:

http://bf3blog.com/2011/10/battlefield-3-weapons-and-equipment-3d-renders/

3d renders from most weapons/vehicles in bf3 :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 19-10-2011, 01:10:29
Careful dude, here they dont like those kind of pics, even though it is the truth  ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 19-10-2011, 01:10:51
Damn. I'll seriously reconsider buying BF3, doesn't quite look like what I wanted. Too much CoD in there...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ts4EVER on 19-10-2011, 01:10:57
Hmmm...

(http://images.bf-games.net/bf42/maps/tactical/el-alamein.jpg)

(http://www.bf-games.net/images/bf42/maps/tactical/gazala.jpg)

(http://www.bf-games.net/images/bf42/maps/tactical/guadalcanal.jpg)

(http://www.bf-games.net/images/bf42/maps/tactical/market-garden.jpg)

(http://www.bf-games.net/images/bf42/maps/tactical/bocage.jpg)

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 19-10-2011, 02:10:45
How the fuck can you compare CoD and BF3?

There might be some CoD-ish elements in BC2, but... seriously.

If you have decided to hate BF3, please try to come up with something better that the utterly moronic "HURR, ITS LIEK COD xDD!"

This thread is getting just way too stupid.

Edit: Looks like Ts4EVER got a point there.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 19-10-2011, 02:10:21
Hmmm...
*pics that make me wanna reinstall bf42*

now the bf3ing of those maps:

(http://i.imgur.com/yNwtd.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/tE4Lc.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/SlOPW.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/Zvpyn.jpg)

and I forgot to remove the flag from guadalcanal :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 19-10-2011, 02:10:45
There's some elements from COD in BF3 too. To site some examples; the dots in the mini map when you fire an unsupressed weapon. And the skulls in the minimap when one of your teammates die. If I buy the game is purely hardcore for me...but I cant stand that a sniper rifle will kill you in one shot to the toe and that damage is way, way more higher.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ts4EVER on 19-10-2011, 02:10:05
(http://i.imgur.com/tE4Lc.jpg)

And how is that worse? All the other dead space up there serves no purpose except eye candy for planes. All it does is siphon players away fromthe actual action. I mena what are you going to do in there? Setting up a fortress with your squad and hoping someone equally bored as you will come along?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 19-10-2011, 02:10:44
(http://i.imgur.com/tE4Lc.jpg)

And how is that worse? All the other dead space up there serves no purpose except eye candy for planes. All it does is siphon players away fromthe actual action. I mena what are you going to do in there? Setting up a fortress with your squad and hoping someone equally bored as you will come along?

How about flanking?  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 19-10-2011, 02:10:31
Oh i dont know, maybe flanking?

edit: nvm :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 19-10-2011, 02:10:22
Besides that map design is useless. Spread those flags apart, dont concentrate action in the center. That's why FH2 combat is so damn epic in the biggest maps, which are my favorite.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ts4EVER on 19-10-2011, 02:10:17
So every day people whine in here about back capping and sl spawn ruining matches by pooping out people after sneaking to a flag, but suddenly you want open space? You get to a flag by fighting your way there. What you call "flanking" I call "driving through an area where noone is for good reasons".
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 19-10-2011, 02:10:48
So every day people whine in here about back capping and sl spawn ruining matches by pooping out people after sneaking to a flag, but suddenly you want open space? You get to a flag by fighting your way there. What you call "flanking" I call "driving through an area where noone is for good reasons".

what you call "driving trough an area where noone is for good reasons"  i call "attacking the enemys from ways they dont espect and cant counterfire with 100% effectiveness".

and people complain about lonewolfes backcapping, make flags requere 3 players and you will actually see teamwork to capture objectives far behind enemy lines
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 19-10-2011, 02:10:42
Absolutely. Why flags should all be thrown together in a straight line or in a circle? In FH2, with my squad, I can protect those "driving through an area where no one is for good reasons", because my team can be full of noobs. Flanking is the greatest assault tactic ever, especially when the team isnt spread out completely and it can mean victory or death. That's why, again FH2 maps are epic. A team that concentrate their forces in the front, will suck. Why? Because I can just run around their positions, take the back flags and now my teammates can spawn behind them and take front in two directions.

See? Tactics.

With flags bundled together or in a straight line, nobody have a brain. It's just chickens going forward.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 19-10-2011, 02:10:40
Hey I loved that "dead space" on Bocage!


Anyway, to elaborate on my worries a bit.

1) It's the killcam. I never liked the idea, of being able to scan the dude who just killed you, what he's wearing, his health % and his weapon. in BF you just died, in CoD you died and analyzed your killer.

2) It's the graphics. I admit, the weapons and characters look REAL, it's amazing, but I have the impression everything else is a bit too digital... and ofc the stains on my screen what the hell? Those "Looks like I'm wearing glasses" sun reflections of tiny waterdrops and/or dirtspecks.

3) From what I've heard, in this thread particularly, small map scale. I like free (dead) space where I can do whatever I want. Especially when you have tanks and planes in the game nothing prevents you from widening the playable area.

4) The "unlock everything" system, annoyed me since Play4Free. I mean at least let me get a stock MG in my tank, if coax MGs are standard issue then why can't I have one? Same with planes and choppers and what not. I'd support BF2's unlock system, but not this.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ts4EVER on 19-10-2011, 02:10:23
So you feel smart by figuring out that nobody will be in a completely useless area and then driving through it without fighting anyone? Face it, you are not. It is just dum map design that takes focus away from the objectives and fighting. Figure out how to outmaneuvre some actual enemies and I would call you smart. well maybe.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 19-10-2011, 02:10:56
I dont need to be smart. Following the map design; I just need to keep pew pewing people and going forward. Why? The flags are just 100 meters from each other. And in some cases, less than 50 meters away. What a wonderful design, those meat grinders.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ts4EVER on 19-10-2011, 02:10:46
So the actual combat in BF games has no tactics at all? The only tactics you need to use are the ones that allow you to avoid combat? Doesn't seem very smart to me.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 19-10-2011, 03:10:27
You misunderstood me. Tactics are best employed when the map designs are best. Besides, when was a stealth attack a bad tactic?

Of course, defending and attacking, are important. But, travelling with your squad, and doing something that nobody expect you to do are great tactics. Outrunning the enemy is also one. And in this game you cant just kill and kill. You need to think...at least in FH2.

But the map design philosophy changed this. Now is all the flags in a tight circle to provide constant action, and open areas...just to say that the map is big. And just now snipers or vehicles venture there, why the infantry stay in the center. Now you cant have infantry travelling and working with tanks.

Again, I sit examples of FH2, because it provides the most immersive scales of battle that I have ever witnessed in games without losing any fun.

Right now, my worst qualm with this game are the map designs. And Im estranged to see that developers are praising small and focused maps instead of the open warfare maps that Im so used to it in FH2.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 19-10-2011, 11:10:32
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-10-18-battlefield-3-multiplayer-preview (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-10-18-battlefield-3-multiplayer-preview)

A preview from the Damavand Peak map. Sounds like a cool map to play on.
Sorry I don't have the time to draw little red lines on the map it to show how small it is  ;)

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 19-10-2011, 12:10:23
Haha, this is just awesome! :D
First people whine how bad Caspian Border is, because the lags are in their opinion to close to each other and the are around the map is empty. Now they see a picture of a BF42/FH map, where flags are much closer to each other and the surrounding area is empty. This time it's genius map design that allows players to flank and whatnot.

To site some examples; the dots in the mini map when you fire an unsupressed weapon. And the skulls in the minimap when one of your teammates die.
Oh my god. You are right. It's obviously a CoD clone!
Where does this information even come from? It surely didn't work like this in the beta.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 19-10-2011, 12:10:07
Sicario, you are ridiculous, you know why?

You arent making the point you want to make  ;) You think we don't know about these maps? you think we will go "ooooh.. that's right! that IS exactly what's happening! damn dice!!!"

You just painted the areas where 99% of all players played on those maps in bf42... did you ever play bf42?

So, your point is actually just "this is the area that was used in bf42" Thx, we know. Nothing new.

And when Yustax makes this sentence "Right now, my worst qualm with this game are the map designs." really... what is that? What is "Yustaxs" qualm with DICEs BF3s leveldesign? Id love to hear... Im sure it is a deep and insightful qualm which will blow our minds away. Fire away please.

I love how that sentenced finishes btw --> "And Im estranged to see that developers are praising small and focused maps instead of the open warfare maps that Im so used to it in FH2."
wait... in FH2??????.... what the ¤%""¤%&/#""!" does the BF3 maps have to do with FH2?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 19-10-2011, 12:10:13

And how is that worse? All the other dead space up there serves no purpose except eye candy for planes. All it does is siphon players away fromthe actual action. I mena what are you going to do in there? Setting up a fortress with your squad and hoping someone equally bored as you will come along?

Because you can't do this:

(http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/6162/te4lcv2.jpg)

But of course a few minutes out of action to outmanouver your opponent is unwanted by the new generation of gamers... (at least according to EA/DICE).

And of course the bunched up flags provide an excellent opportunity for camping tankers. I witnessed that in the Beta... A few M1 Abrams tanks sitting just outside the US main firing away, pounding the poor Russians on the hill across the map... With nothing to stop them (As planes start out with potato guns that are as lethal as trying to kill a tank by throwing sticks at it...)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 19-10-2011, 12:10:47


And how is that worse? All the other dead space up there serves no purpose except eye candy for planes. All it does is siphon players away fromthe actual action. I mena what are you going to do in there? Setting up a fortress with your squad and hoping someone equally bored as you will come along?

Because you can't do this:

Yes you can. Have you played he fucking game or not?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 19-10-2011, 12:10:09
So you feel smart by figuring out that nobody will be in a completely useless area and then driving through it without fighting anyone? Face it, you are not. It is just dumb map design that takes focus away from the objectives and fighting.
So the Germans felt smart in 1940 by figuring out that nobody will be in a completely useless area such as the Ardennes and then driving through it without fighting anyone. Face it, they were not. It just took their focus away from the objectives and fighting... wait, what? :P

Attacking enemy from an unanticipated direction, avoiding the obstacles and defences he has built: I would call that tactics. Avoiding combat until you can engage on favourable terms, I would call that tactics. Ignoring deadlocked trench warfare where opponents try to bleed each other out, and going for the objectives that matter instead, I would call that tactics.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 19-10-2011, 13:10:27
in a completely useless area

wrong, not useless.

its as simple as this: fragspaming in the middle of the map, stalemate, spend 3 minutes driving trough empty land, end in the read of the flag, with players looking at the other direction, tanks offering you their sweet sweet aluminium armor, spend the next 30 seconds cleaning the flag and capturing it without much of the problem, result? stalemate broken, vistory to your team if you are somehow competend .

Sicario, you are ridiculous, you know why?


why thanks you, i do my best ^^


Yes you can. Have you played he fucking game or not?

have you played the fucking bf3 to know you can ?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 19-10-2011, 13:10:28
I don't like out of bounds, I never did. I've always been an advocate of making flags open, with good flow for infantry and vehicles alike. There are too many objectives, in too many games, that are too close to an out of bounds area, that limit the retreat of defenders, or the possible flanking of the attackers. I still feel like the majority of players, regardless of their age or intention, especially with a progressive unlock system, focus on the objectives primarily. Giving them space to choose how they attack it is just the next step in making the battle that much more fluid and interesting.

However, Battlefield has always suffered from one big thing: rear flag capture. While it wouldn't be an annoyance if, say, a large group of enemy infantry and a tank appeared on our rear and took the flag, it has, and will always remain annoying when Pvt. LoneWolfSniper, sneaks around the entire army and takes the rear flag by himself, only to digress back into the woods and never be seen again, reappearing later in the round to do the same exact thing all over again.

I feel like DICE's enclosure of their maps is a response to this annoyance, which undoubtedly thousands of Battlefield players have complained of at one point or another. While mods like Forgotten Hope used a "Push Code" and multiple man caps to avoid this, the reasoning is the same. One could say to oneself that DICE could use Multiple man caps to solve the problem, and long cap times, but what then is the limit? 2 men? 3? 12? If an entire army is positioned forward of a rear flag, and three stealthy players manage to take the flag to their rear, the annoyance is still the same.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 19-10-2011, 13:10:02

have you played the fucking bf3 to know you can ?
Yes? There was open beta. It had Caspian Border in it.

The map that people are talking about in this thread at the same time when they praise the BF42 map with similar setup. The difference between those maps being that Caspian border's flags are on a larger area, not so many choke points, and you can actually flank the enemy because it has vegetation and other cover, unlike BF42 maps.

Even Operation Metro is a better map than BF42's Bocage, to be honest. Bocage had one (two if you used the far, far way bridge) route to advance. Metro at least has some cover.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 19-10-2011, 13:10:31
I love it when people are so fixed on "the other is wrong!" that they don't notice when they start contradicting themselves.

*nudges Sciario*
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 19-10-2011, 13:10:44
Did you guys know that now if you fire a weapon you'll get a dot in the mini map? Like in COD. You can only avoid this using a supressor...I dont know who makes this terrible, terrible gameplay decisions. I will really pay 30 bucks for mod tools as DLC.
If it's only on the minimap I can live with it. Seeing as there already systems available for modern military units that can locate snipers/shooters when they fire a rifle.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 19-10-2011, 13:10:42
I love it when people are so fixed on "the other is wrong!" that they don't notice when they start contradicting themselves.

*nudges Sciario*

yes! wait..wat? this statement is wrong!

no but srsly, where did I contradict my self ?:P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 19-10-2011, 14:10:07
However, Battlefield has always suffered from one big thing: rear flag capture. While it wouldn't be an annoyance if, say, a large group of enemy infantry and a tank appeared on our rear and took the flag, it has, and will always remain annoying when Pvt. LoneWolfSniper, sneaks around the entire army and takes the rear flag by himself, only to digress back into the woods and never be seen again, reappearing later in the round to do the same exact thing all over again.

While this can be annoying sometimes, I find it a life saver most of the time.

Take the map Atacama desert in BFBC2 for example.

(http://wikicheats.gametrailers.com/images/1/19/BC2_AtacamaDesert_Rush.jpg)

What usually happens is that one team is so much better than the other that they capture all three flags and form a perimeter around the enemy main base and start firing away. After this we have two outcomes:

1. The Attackers keep spawning and dying until their last 500 tickets have run out.
or
2. An ATV or Helicopter rushes/sneaks past the front line all the way to the last flag and captures it.

If 1. happens, then the Attackers get frustrated and bored and a lot of the Defenders get frustrated and bored.

If instead 2. happens, then the game continues as the enemy now has a new spawn point and don't have to spawn in their main base where they get raped. Whether it is "a whole army" or Pvt. LoneWolfSniper who captures the flag makes no difference whatsoever.


/edit: mixed up the numbers
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 19-10-2011, 14:10:25
One could say to oneself that DICE could use Multiple man caps to solve the problem, and long cap times, but what then is the limit? 2 men? 3? 12? If an entire army is positioned forward of a rear flag, and three stealthy players manage to take the flag to their rear, the annoyance is still the same.

3 stealthy players on a 32 vs 32 player map is almost ten percent of the entire army portrayed on that map. Pretty big deal imo  ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 19-10-2011, 15:10:41
OK this has gone too far... I was about to write a long and deep analysis of the two things this thread has been about the last 10+ pages

- Persistence System
- Map design

But you know what? It wouldnt matter, because instead I can just boil it down simpler for you,  here it goes:


That's it. Nothing more to say about that. You might not enjoy it, sure. Who cares? I probably see two movies per week that I don't enjoy. Do I feel the need to go online and post pictures and diagrams of the scenes i don't like, and how they (in my opinion) could be made better. No I don't, wanna know why? Because first of all, no one cares, and second of all: it wouldn't change the movies.

Design is a big and complicated profession. There's a reason why not any random dude is a designer, and why companies look all over the world for the best ones and hire them. There's a reason why the shelves are flooded with FPS games but in reality, only a handful have any big playerbases.
The reason is; it's fucking hard to make a good game. And it's the designers job to deliver the experience they want their audience to have.
That, is the answer to all your questions and opinions.
_____________________________________________

Now for LuckyOne's silly image of Bocage up there.. did you ever play that map? I played it thousands of times, not ONCE did I use those blue areas you painted. That's waaaay too far away from the fun and action, not even snipers went there.

bf1942 had huuuuge combat areas because the game didnt differ Land from Air vehicles. That's the only reason you can lol around half the world in a kubelwagen, pretending you're "free".

The cutest thing about this "free" bizniz is also; you seem to believe that you have figured out a way to play the game like no one else know. That when everyone else is fighting for flags in the middle, you, the cunning elite troop will "flank around" and "surprise" the enemy, or take a position and snipe/spot in like no one expected you to.... You never stop to think for a second, that you're doing exactly what the designer planned you would do  ;)

This playstyle is commonly refered to as roamer or explorer, it's a very predictable behaviour, all games have those players. That's why there are elevated hills around flags in bf42, just to give you a place to behave just as the designer knew you would. And in that case, wanted you to do.

In short, games are designed in a way so it provides the experience the designer want the player to have. Nothing else. Just like a movie is written/directed in a way that the director/producer want.

You might still clinge to the notion that - but games are interactive, we (the players) control the story.
Sure, you can interact with the experience, but you aren't controlling it.
Many of you (with you, I mean you who just want freedom and no "design") seem to actually belive, that while the rest of the players are over there, playing that designed crap, you sneak / flank around totally free and liberated from constraints.
You also seem to think that a game is just mechanics, and that it's you, with your tactical skills and know-how, who creates the experience. That BF3 infact, should just be a sandbox of towns/fields/rivers/villages with an open-for-all arsenal of weapons, and that you will make sure action and experience fall in to place.

Boy, how wrong you are :)

Why are you wrong? Because you aren't the director of this "movie". You're an actor. You do, say and think what the director (designer) tells you to. No matter if you want to or not, when faced with a decision in the game, you're limited to what the design offers you. Even if say, you had a flat 1000x1000m open space and could walk in any 360degrees direction, there would be something that made you pick one direction to walk in. When playing El Alamein in bf1942, you aren't free, you don't play by your own rules there, you do any of the numbers of options that the designer have given you.
Unless you start to see these options, or choices, for what they are, you will have a problem understand and enjoying games. If you look at a wall and think why can't I go there? instead of thinking, what's best for me, go left or right?, you will always be out-of-experience (un-immersed). That's fine ofcourse, it is in the roamer / explorers nature to try and tear down the fabrics of reality, to break the illusion for himself, but what does he gain from it? Does anyone else care about it?

Designers can't completely safety-net themselves against people who want to break the game. It's just not possible. But why should they spend time and energy trying to prevent a behaviour which feeds on attempts to prevent it? They much rather focus on making the experience for those who want to enjoy the game better.
- Do you follow this logic? if not, stop me and tell me what it is you don't understand about it

So will all maps cater towards roamers and explorers? certainly not. But I am sure there are areas where they can do that, even though it doesn't matter where you end the fgame space, there is always someone who will walk to the edge of the world and ask what's beyond there?. It's a deep human urge to know what is behind the forest, or across the sea. Thing is, BF3 isn't an explorer game, it isn't a game about discovering the world. There are other games for that.
It is also a bit annoying for a designer to always have to deal with those dudes that refuse to play the game mode, who always wants to be outsiders, be on a rooftop with sniper rifle for example, or take a joyride with a jeep around. bf1942 was filled with this, dudes who just hopped in a jeep, raced to the backflag or mainbase, hopped in a tank and giggled as he saw the flow of the map break.

Sure was fun and exciting. anyone playing Tobruk in bf1942 as attacker and raced back to the last flag, stole a tank and just waited to watch the stream of enemies flow back to retake it, will remember it as awesome! Absolute fun. But many others also complained and whined about it.

To summarize a bit here.. Maps arent about creating a balance, or give absolute tactical freedom to you. Maps are designed to provide an experience that the designer wants. Nothing else. If he wants that the experience should be doing big circles around the enemies when they arent looking, and back-cap flags, then you will do that. If the intended experience is you need to push the enemies back a narrow corridor through a number of bottlenecks, then that is what you will do. What you think about it, is just personal taste. And to be honest, people on the internet aren't so interested in reading about your personal taste.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 19-10-2011, 16:10:19
Here is what bf1942 market garden would have looked, if the plane and land combat area could be split up like in BF2/BF3

(http://i0.simplest-image-hosting.net/168bf183b2abe8bc9188aacc163dd507/maps-1620copy.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 19-10-2011, 16:10:50
I'll leave this here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRqfFfuVuNE
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 19-10-2011, 17:10:57
Yea, that video should shut up any doubter or whiner. What you see there IS Battlefield, in its most pure and absolute form. If you do not like what you see, then this game just ain't for you  8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 19-10-2011, 17:10:27
Yea, that video should shut up any doubter or whiner. What you see there IS Battlefield, in its most pure and absolute form. If you do not like what you see, then this game just ain't for you  8)

You can always like something, but also wish for improvements to make it even better. :)

Beautiful video, no doubt.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 19-10-2011, 17:10:06
Nice comparison pic with a before and after destruction on Karkand:
(http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/6596/blegh.jpg)

Trailer was very nice.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eat Uranium on 19-10-2011, 17:10:49
I personally thought it was a useless video.  I mean, what's the point of showing something if you keep cutting to a new scene before the watcher can even process what they are seeing?

Also, that trailer is full of the one thing I hated most about BC2: stupid view obscuring smoke and random lens flares that I suppose are meant to make it look 'nice and real*' but end up just making it really annoying.

*Lens flare is an unholy spawn of Satan that can and should be eliminated in digital media since it is nothing more than a result of diffraction in the lens of the camera.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 19-10-2011, 17:10:03
I mean, what's the point of showing something if you keep cutting to a new scene before the watcher can even process what they are seeing?

One of the most legendary people in the entertainment business formed that notion many years ago,

"Always leave them wanting more"

/Walt Disney

That's the point. :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 19-10-2011, 18:10:45
I didnt say it was a COD clone, just some COD features.

From the same twitter of developers or gameplay.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tJyTIgTX80Q#t=206s

As for the firing an unsupressed weapon, it was cleared out just today that you didnt appear in the mini map when firing an unsupressed weapon; my apologies. There was a big threat all about it in the uk forums.

However, there's still the skull problem.

Im going to buy the game...but playing just hardcore. I dont like indicators, gameplay turns too easy.


Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 19-10-2011, 18:10:37
And the problem is actually... what?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 19-10-2011, 18:10:54
"COD features"

I lol'd  :-\
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 19-10-2011, 18:10:52
And the problem is actually... what?

You just killed someone behind the flag, and you're about to take it down, waiting until your squad spawn on you. Suddenly you're killed. Why? Because their teammates dying just appeared in the minimap of the enemy. Pointing right there, in the direction that you killed that someone, easy finding you.

That's the problem.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 19-10-2011, 18:10:09
I liked the whole "shoot out the supporting beams to collapse the highway" thingy on Tehran Highway. --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRqfFfuVuNE&feature=player_detailpage#t=68s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRqfFfuVuNE&feature=player_detailpage#t=68s)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 19-10-2011, 18:10:36
Whats with all that ear rape they have in the official bf3 vids? Hate to view these things with sound very low.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 19-10-2011, 19:10:10
And the problem is actually... what?

You just killed someone behind the flag, and you're about to take it down, waiting until your squad spawn on you. Suddenly you're killed. Why? Because their teammates dying just appeared in the minimap of the enemy. Pointing right there, in the direction that you killed that someone, easy finding you.

That's the problem.
Why this is not problem for me:

1) It does not give out my position.
A) If enemy sees it on their radar, they are already pretty close to the flag and would come there anyway when they notice that someone is capping it. (If they are further away than the normal radar range, they can't get to the flag in time and would notice the control point going down anyway.)
α) They can pretty easily alarm their squadmates via chat anyway.
(http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080329144614/starwars/images/thumb/f/fe/Aurek.svg/250px-Aurek.svg.png)) Capping flag an getting killed? Standing there like a bloody idiot...* of course there is a chance that enemy will come; face up, make your stand.**

* TF2 sniper
** Adrian Smith
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 19-10-2011, 19:10:51
Oh well. Dont complain next time when I 3d spot you and there's a skull pointing at your direction  ;) Whatever it is.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 19-10-2011, 19:10:38
Unlikely, for I didn't even notice that kind of feature in the beta anyway :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 19-10-2011, 19:10:48
because it was not in the beta, it was in the build played at the lan party in that aircraft carrier.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 19-10-2011, 20:10:56
uh,  yea, well.. the designer of BF3 probably know a bit more what is best for the game than you, Yustax  :-\ or do you think that you have found some flaw in the design that they haven't thought about?

@Flippy: that's the audio signature of the game. It's a digital distortion of the classic BF theme which ties together with the art direction of the game. Makes total sense.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 19-10-2011, 20:10:07
Sure it does. I like getting my ears raped.


(What a load of horse shit.)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 19-10-2011, 20:10:26
What do you mean "horse shit"?... You think art direction and audio signatures to promote games is horse shit?
or don't you just believe / like what Im saying...  ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 19-10-2011, 20:10:14
Yustax  :-\ or do you think that you have found some flaw in the design that they haven't thought about?

Well...I wouldnt call it design flag, more like way too easy. It's more of an indicator. Dont we already have enough of those? We have 3d spotting, grenade spotting, 3d spotting for vehicles, UAV of the recon for spotting and now the skulls in the mini map?

They are all are: Shoot here for free kills sign.

Hard core for me, because it doesnt have indicators. What's up with gamers now? They all want the easy stuff. The only qualm of hard core right now is the exagerated damage. The damage is already high how it is, I hope they dont make it even higher; or better yet. A customizable option of the HC servers to choose vanilla damage or HC damage to make everyone happy. I dont see why not.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 19-10-2011, 20:10:19
What do you mean "horse shit"?... You think art direction and audio signatures to promote games is horse shit?
or don't you just believe / like what Im saying...  ::)
He doesn't like the sound. It sounds rubbish. And I kinda agree, white noise is not something that I listen to for fun.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 19-10-2011, 20:10:49
What do you mean "horse shit"?... You think art direction and audio signatures to promote games is horse shit?
or don't you just believe / like what Im saying...  ::)

Horse shit as in it sounds bad in my ears. I DO NOT like how it sounds. A clear indication I do not like it is because I will either mute the video or lower the sound a lot just to avoid having my ears hurt by this... noise.

Now that you asked me if I think audio signature to promote this game is horse shit, I say yes, that is indeed my OPINION about this particular noise. Oh but yes, in Natty-land theres no personal opinions, theres only Natty Law. So Im by default at wrong here when I voice my opinion.

Reply to this post and you are out from this thread.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 19-10-2011, 20:10:57
You mean the new BF fart music?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 19-10-2011, 20:10:23
You mean the new BF fart music?

The ear molestation that you hear when the BF3 soldier walks towards the camera and the game title appears.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 19-10-2011, 20:10:36
What was wrong with the pam pam pam pa pam pam of the classic theme? Everyone loves that one.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kwiot on 19-10-2011, 20:10:16
You mean the new BF fart music?

The ear molestation that you hear when the BF3 soldier walks towards the camera and the game title appears.

But I like this sound!  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 19-10-2011, 20:10:50
You mean the new BF fart music?

The ear molestation that you hear when the BF3 soldier walks towards the camera and the game title appears.

But I like this sound!  ;D
I like my ears more.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Musti on 19-10-2011, 21:10:56
Hard core for me, because it doesnt have indicators. What's up with gamers now? They all want the easy stuff. The only qualm of hard core right now is the exagerated damage. The damage is already high how it is, I hope they dont make it even higher; or better yet. A customizable option of the HC servers to choose vanilla damage or HC damage to make everyone happy. I dont see why not.
Why are you complaining then? We will have hardcore mode so whats the problem?
Easy stuff is... easy, playable for everyone therefore "sell-able" to everyone.You can play on hardcore mode and don't give a shit bout anything else.

About the sound, call it "art" or whatever you want. Watching trailers., listening to cool explosion and guns just to get raped like that at the end.Terrible, especially when wearing headphones.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 19-10-2011, 21:10:28
The soundtrack is great up until the last part where it sounds like my speakers breaking.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 19-10-2011, 21:10:23
yeah

One soundtrack/intro will always remain with me, the last real battlefield=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk4wEAO07hM
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 19-10-2011, 21:10:55
Re "director" - I think even I can agree with the fact that if you want pre-thought cinematic moments, then placing more limitations allows these to happen with almost certainty, as opposed to free-flowing gameplay. For "assault" or "rush" or whatever you call it, you then define a relatively narrow path, maybe a little wider than in singleplayer, give an advantage to the attackers, and voilá - you will have the defenders desperately holding onto their positions until they are overrun and the focus shifts on the next flag, with the tactics limited to how you can apply the given terrain and situation to your advantage.

Also, I haven't seen anyone wanting a completely objectiveless "search and destroy the enemy, no flags to cap" sandbox gamemode, but rather a halfway; there are still objectives, but you can choose how and where to defend the flags, or how and where to assault them. Mind you, even PR and ArmA have objectives. Even in the grandfather of sanbox genre, the GTA series, you can wander freely, but most will want to complete the missions. Now, some of these are very loosely defined, you can freely choose the way of doing them. This is the "halfway". Some missions are very strictly defined set-piece cinematic battles: this is the "rush". However, modern FPS's are increasingly focused exclusively only on the "rush", leaving "halfway" out altogether, and it this that is annoying some players.

But I think that both freedom-lovers and movie-like experience hunters agree that "soft" or "natural" limits are better than "hard" or "artificial" limits; instead of OOB or invisible walls, I would say that many players prefer impassable terrain, walls or minefields or something like that. For example, in FH2, Miteriya Ridge on El Al is mostly impassable, but it does not feel as restricting as the minefields on Hürtgen, which don't feel as restrictive if there were only arbitrarily defined OOB's instead.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 19-10-2011, 21:10:23
Why are you complaining then? We will have hardcore mode so whats the problem?
Easy stuff is... easy, playable for everyone therefore "sell-able" to everyone.You can play on hardcore mode and don't give a shit bout anything else.

Im just saying that I dont like indicators, and HC servers provide no indicators...but Im worried about the damage. I just want an HC but with vanilla damage. Someone mentioned in the UK forums that you could modify BC2 HC settings to have vanilla damage. Is this true?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 19-10-2011, 21:10:52
What was wrong with the pam pam pam pa pam pam of the classic theme? Everyone loves that one.
It's not supposed to be pleasing to the ear. This particular audio cue is not created for the listener to go "oh, nice, I like this song!" and pop it in to his iPod and listen to it on the bus.

It has one purpose, and one purpose only; To make the person hearing it think about the game.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 19-10-2011, 21:10:25
.....
What?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 19-10-2011, 21:10:39
.....
What?

The same thing happened through my mind. The classic theme does the same thing and it doesnt rape my ears and it's good and exciting to hear.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 19-10-2011, 21:10:57
The Battlefield Theme: Dubstep Remix ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 19-10-2011, 21:10:08
More like fart remix.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Dukat on 19-10-2011, 22:10:42
What you see there IS Battlefield, in its most pure and absolute form.

Yeah, I agree. It looks like Battlefield 2 and CoD Modern Warfare. Will you wake me up when you continue the Battlefield 1942 series, please?

Edit:// I'm a bit sorry to see the Battlefield series competing with CoD. Never liked CoD that much, but why is it that all these titles jump on the bandwagon of modern combat though they got their roots in World War II?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 19-10-2011, 22:10:31

Edit:// I'm a bit sorry to see the Battlefield series competing with CoD. Never liked CoD that much, but why is it that all these titles jump on the bandwagon of modern combat though they got their roots in World War II?

Because 13 year old kids form large part of the market and don't know anything about WWII or could ever handle its antique weaponry. They need spray guns and grenade launchers. WWII games are for the elite, which is a market sadly most companies no longer aim for.

I would kill someone to get a new BF WWII game with modern graphics but I doubt it's ever going to happen.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 19-10-2011, 22:10:45

Edit:// I'm a bit sorry to see the Battlefield series competing with CoD. Never liked CoD that much, but why is it that all these titles jump on the bandwagon of modern combat though they got their roots in World War II?

Because 13 year old kids form large part of the market and don't know anything about WWII or could ever handle its antique weaponry. They need spray guns and grenade launchers. WWII games are for the elite, which is a market sadly most companies no longer aim for.

I would kill someone to get a new BF WWII game with modern graphics but I doubt it's ever going to happen.
Word

and BF3 has hopped on to that bandwagon aswel

Imagine if we ever saw a battlefield korea. Or an alternate reality battlefield-Cold war
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 19-10-2011, 22:10:19
pfff modern warfare shooters are the new WWII shooters.

Remember the period 2000-2004 ? FPS was synonym for WWII shooter.
Today it is synonym for modern warfare setting . But It must end soon, it has been on the throne for too long ...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 19-10-2011, 22:10:14
WW2 shooters back then wherent as milked out as the modern warfare genre is today. And it is not even done properly. Every single Modern warfare game=US USA USMC M4 YEAH OORRAAH

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zeno on 19-10-2011, 22:10:42
all this complaining makes me wanna play Battlefield 2142, such a cool game that wasn`t afraid of call of duties or anything like that.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 19-10-2011, 23:10:15
The same thing happened through my mind. The classic theme does the same thing and it doesnt rape my ears and it's good and exciting to hear.

aha ok, you dont understand. that's ok, maybe you will sometime in the future. I wont waste time explaining. Most people understand this. Oh and to add; public feedback on the modern BF theme has been insanely positive, so...  ;) both the BFP4F metal version, as well as the BF3 digital distortion version. both do their jobs perfectly
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 19-10-2011, 23:10:08
If Battlefield 3 were my project, I'd of themed the main music around a single-player campaign that was very touching, and exposed the sides of war that society likes to ignore, Kind of like Medal Of Honor did in some of its content. I think it'd be great to get to know characters, see that they have families, see that they have lives, that this "World War" is effecting them all, and then to see some of them die, to a slow touching version of the theme sung by a choir or a singer. Watch them go through hell, only for one single instance in their time in this war render all their successes insignificant.

As far as the theme goes though, I love Bad Companies versions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVjCZZWnKBA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCGmWqXonck&feature=related
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 19-10-2011, 23:10:12

Edit:// I'm a bit sorry to see the Battlefield series competing with CoD. Never liked CoD that much, but why is it that all these titles jump on the bandwagon of modern combat though they got their roots in World War II?

Because 13 year old kids form large part of the market and don't know anything about WWII or could ever handle its antique weaponry. They need spray guns and grenade launchers. WWII games are for the elite, which is a market sadly most companies no longer aim for.

I would kill someone to get a new BF WWII game with modern graphics but I doubt it's ever going to happen.

Nein Sander, it's more your age that form a large part of the market.


I searched the internet for what the average age is of a FPS player. It is 18.1 years old.  Link (http://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.94.6256%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&rct=j&q=average%20age%20fps%20player&ei=8UWfTo38KMLs-gagjNmDDQ&usg=AFQjCNEp2JcVa1EEOE_NrDum-milEY6u0Q&cad=rja)

And don't underestimate the learning capability of thirteen yeards olds.
They are highly trained and educated by Pokemon and Yo-Gi-whatever-the-hell it is called in granularity.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Pascucci the Whiner on 19-10-2011, 23:10:01
What was wrong with the pam pam pam pa pam pam of the classic theme? Everyone loves that one.
It's not supposed to be pleasing to the ear. This particular audio cue is not created for the listener to go "oh, nice, I like this song!" and pop it in to his iPod and listen to it on the bus.

It has one purpose, and one purpose only; To make the person hearing it think about the game.

Now when I think about the game, I think about it having constipation.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 19-10-2011, 23:10:47
eeewww Archi... you serious? It made me immediately think about the cheese-covered goo that was Brothers In Arms: Hell's highway's story segments...

Naah, I think Battlefield shouldn't venture in to that stuff.. this is raw, fierce, punch-me-in-the-gut action, stripped away of the sentiments. Battlefield is not an actual place, an actual world. It's that place - or moment - players have in the heat of action. Not a geographical, or physical place.

That is why they chose this brutal and overwhelming theme (someone just admitted he felt "raped" by it ;), ) no one will ever hear that sound without thinking about Battlefield. Very clever audio/art direction in the presentation of the game

oh, and add to that. This, the final blow:

(http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e285/Natty_Wallo/Untitled-1-96.jpg)


Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DaWorg! on 19-10-2011, 23:10:41
I read somewhere, that you have to unlock coax for tank like in BF play4free. Is it true?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 19-10-2011, 23:10:23
eeewww Archi... you serious? It made me immediately think about the cheese-covered goo that was Brothers In Arms: Hell's highway's story segments...

Naah, I think Battlefield shouldn't venture in to that stuff.. this is raw, fierce, punch-me-in-the-gut action, stripped away of the sentiments. Battlefield is not an actual place, an actual world. It's that place - or moment - players have in the heat of action. Not a geographical, or physical place.

That is why they chose this brutal and overwhelming theme (someone just admitted he felt "raped" by it ;), ) no one will ever hear that sound without thinking about Battlefield. Very clever audio/art direction in the presentation of the game

oh, and add to that. This, the final blow:

(http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e285/Natty_Wallo/Untitled-1-96.jpg)

Battlefield seems to take place in the modern world, especially BF3, they've placed it in Post Modern Iran, which, is pretty real.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 20-10-2011, 00:10:33
That is not what I meant. They've chosen locations from the real world in some of the games, or named them so, but Battlefield, is not the real world  ;) The Battlefield universe, does not exist in a real world, it exists only in mind of the player when he experiences the action. That's when he is "in Battlefield", or "in the zone" so to speak. That is the beauty of creating game worlds, you can choose if you want it to be located in a place, or in a moment, or even in an emotion.

People have already admitted it here! in this very thread.. "I didnt get the Battlefied feel" they have said. Or, "it felt very Battlefield" What did they mean? They weren't saying "I didn't get the feel of fighting a modern combat in Iran". They weren't taken to Battlefield, which meant they weren't mentally transported to that feeling.
This will ofcourse happen to some, since not everyone can be tuned in to the exact same emotion, or open enough to allow themselves to be taken to the new Battlefield. It's just their loss I guess.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eat Uranium on 20-10-2011, 00:10:02
Well, the fact remains that the Battlefield hook will always to me bring forth the BF2 intro video.  This new one seems monotone and harsh.

But when you down to it, all that has happened here is a Star Wars problem.  On the one hand you have the Refractor 2 BF games representing the original trilogy, and the Frostbite BF games representing the prequel trilogy.  So you have people who defend the original films and feel that the newer ones never captured the magic the older ones have, and there opponents (though this second option is entirely hypothetical since I've never met anyone who thought Ep1/2/3 were better than 4/5/6).

The game you first played out of all of them will ultimately be the main factor in what the concept of a "Battlefield" game is to you.  Since my first was BF2, that is what I consider the archetype (to me BF42 seems primitive, BC2 seems needlessly flashy).  Sure you can say that BF3 is the 'new Battlefield', but in my mind I say 'well, it's no BF2'.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 20-10-2011, 01:10:24
Nein Sander, it's more your age that form a large part of the market.

And don't underestimate the learning capability of thirteen yeards olds.
They are highly trained and educated by Pokemon and Yo-Gi-whatever-the-hell it is called in granularity.

Mwah, still, having that special connection with WWII that we have is special. To have any historical interest or even sense is becoming very rare. I remember tests showed that many people don't even know who Hitler was etc. Sadly WWII is fading, and so are games about it.

Imagine if we ever saw a battlefield korea. Or an alternate reality battlefield-Cold war

World in Conflict turned into an FPS game, I can hardly imagine things that would be more awesome.  :o
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LHeureux on 20-10-2011, 01:10:10
Answer to this everybody :

1. Do you like 3D spotting in BF3?

2. Did/do you like BF2142?

If you answer "No" the #1 then you can't answer "Yes" to #2.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 20-10-2011, 01:10:38
Answer to this everybody :

1. Do you like 3D spotting in BF3?

2. Did/do you like BF2142?

If you answer "No" the #1 then you can't answer "Yes" to #2.

Yes, and Yes
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 20-10-2011, 02:10:50
1. No, but apparantley that has been changed.

2. Apart from the titan mode, no. The unlock system was retarded.

Also another thing I just remember that I should bring up: when people dropped out of games (mainly because of their internet) their stats for the entire game were wiped. I wonder if this will be fixed or mybe we have to purchase some prayer beads and hope to god that your not doing well when you internet drops out, because hell hath no fury like a guy how has suddenly lost 2500 points in a completley experience/stat driven game.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 20-10-2011, 03:10:08
(http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/8505/1019201163717pm.jpg)

These are the famous skulls I was talking about. I was wrong; it's not in the mini map...it's in the screen.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: azreal on 20-10-2011, 04:10:12
Who here is up for creating our own game studio?!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LHeureux on 20-10-2011, 06:10:35
I asked those questions because there was 3D spotting in 2142, and it's worse than BF3's one.

BF2142 3D spotting was like BC2, followed you behind buildings and you didn't even had to spot the enemy, just aim him.

BF3 3D spotting, go behind any object and no more 3D marker, so if you liked 2142 you can't complain about 3D spotting in BF3.

BF2142 is still the best Vanilla BF for me.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 20-10-2011, 09:10:33
Wow. The pointless whining in this thread has degenerated to shit like "Boohoo, the intro music makes my ears hurt"... ::)



IMO the dead teammate indicators should be limited to the minimap, but you do realize these same indicators are in BF2?


If anyone feels it (or anything else) ruins the game experience, I'm sure you'd be better off telling someone who cares:

Complaints Dept. - http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/battlefield-3-pc/
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 20-10-2011, 10:10:04
But guess what?  ;D It isnt in the minimap, it's right there in the screen. Along with the grenade indicators, 3d spotting and the billions of other indicators.

Indicators, indicators everywhere.jpg.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LHeureux on 20-10-2011, 10:10:41
Wow. What indicators are new in BF3 from BF2?

Grenade
Enemy 3D spotting
Skull

You had 3D spotting in BF2142
You had broken hearts signs when medic in BF2

So basically what is new to the franchise is the Grenade marker.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 20-10-2011, 11:10:16
This is so silly. People are making stuff up only to make BF3 look bad. If you want to be critical, please criticise real points... Not something someone not knowing anything about the game made up.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 20-10-2011, 11:10:00
Om my God this is just confirmed.

You cannot dig latrines in BF3 without first spotting the location. This is so retarded. DICE screw you you're not getting my money!!
And the sound the toilets makes when it flushed.. God-damned we all be wearing earpieces for the rest of our life.
COD3Clone, Small maps, no Mod Tools, EA Money grubber, BF2 is better. bla blah blah.
I am the 99% percent of the Battlefield community.

Did I miss anything  ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 20-10-2011, 14:10:29
Ha lets all counter them and jump on the 'i wanna play bf3 now" bandwagon!

I want to play bf3 now!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 20-10-2011, 14:10:05
Anyone wanna try FH 2 on this? :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=nQR49JGySTM

I wonder how it feels when you get blown up by a tank...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 20-10-2011, 15:10:12
Semi confirmation that commo rose is in the Day 1 patch.

Optiskilled Pinget Rémi
@zh1nt0 Hi mister Matros. Can you confirm Commo-rose at launch on PC?
2 hours ago
in reply to ↑

@zh1nt0
Daniel Matros
@Optiskilled Not on launch but in the 1st day patch.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 20-10-2011, 15:10:33
(http://www.abload.de/img/vlcsnap-2011-10-19-15hl0am.png)
Squadmates are green. Squad of 4. Why 5 green guys on screen? Squadleaders also green?

Wild thought. An ingame console returns but will addPlayerToBuddyList return as well?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 20-10-2011, 16:10:24
I almost forgot its going live next week.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zeno on 20-10-2011, 16:10:00
I almost forgot its going live next week.

me to ::)

i cant fucking wait! so close but yet so far!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zeno on 20-10-2011, 22:10:45

(http://www.pressfire.no/image/screenshots2/0/402/404/ss42.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Dukat on 20-10-2011, 22:10:01
Got myself a copy of vista. Too lazy to install. I guess sooner or later I'll find out whether BF3 is worth buying. Until then, I'm not in a hurry. If it is really good, it will be worth buying even a year later.

Edit:// However, if I buy, it will probably not be for singleplayer. When I got my hands on Bad Company 2, I aborted the game after 5 minutes, never started it again. I was like: OMG, no, thanks.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 21-10-2011, 02:10:21
Check the latest Activision campaign to kick BF3 out of the scope  ;D

(http://i52.tinypic.com/2zpibvb.png)

Source:

http://www.gamestop.co.uk/

This is insane. Activision sells MW3 for 99p for used copy of BF3.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: HadrianBT on 21-10-2011, 03:10:19
A very smart move by Gamestop, which has a great benefit for them. However here everybody wins, as EA gets cash for the BF3 copy, the player can choose MW3, if he likes it more (and, let's face it, console players always leaned towards MW more than to BF) and, as already said, Gamestop gets more hesitant buyers to spend some cash with such an incentive.

I doubt this has anything to do with Activision. This is a two-sided situation, which can both benefit or harm it. What if a gamer, who could have bought MW3 otherwise, buys BF3 and he likes it more? He keeps it, thus harming Activision.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 21-10-2011, 12:10:23
uh, you don't know how that works... gamestop is buttraping the publishers. They sell BF3 for 99p as well if you trade in any game from a list of like 10 games.
This is not some clever move by either AW or GS, it's simply Gamestop cannibalizing on the industry that provides them with the products they're selling.

Digital distribution needs to kill physical retail to prevent this.

check the facts, before stating it's a "smart move" by gamestop
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 21-10-2011, 12:10:19
uh, you don't know how that works... gamestop is buttraping the publishers. They sell BF3 for 99p as well if you trade in any game from a list of like 10 games.
This is not some clever move by either AW or GS, it's simply Gamestop cannibalizing on the industry that provides them with the products they're selling.

Digital distribution needs to kill physical retail to prevent this.

check the facts, before stating it's a "smart move" by gamestop
Hear hear, this I can sign.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eat Uranium on 21-10-2011, 12:10:31
gamestop is buttraping the publishers
How?  Surely the ones here making the loss are Gamestop.  Unless the publishers are selling the game at a loss to GS of course...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 21-10-2011, 12:10:38
gamestop is buttraping the publishers
How?  Surely the ones here making the loss are Gamestop.  Unless the publishers are selling the game at a loss to GS of course...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDu9sirEBMw#t=1m05s

~1:05 - 6:10
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 21-10-2011, 12:10:04
Wait, what? Reselling a legally purchased product is "stealing" and "killing the industry"? How about game companies actually making products people would want purchase and to hold on to, or how about making renting vidya gaemz as in the 80's and 90's a realistic alternative again?

Second-hand trade and retailers must prevail to keep game prices in check. With no competition - offering a game digitally only through their own DRM malware "shop" - there's nothing to prevent publishers hiking the prices further up, making any purchase valid only for a set amount of time (until the publication of a sequel, "subscription" crap, etc.)

BRB, gotta go and drop a few of my X360 games that were clearly misinvestments at a nearest GameStop and see what they offer in exchange. ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 21-10-2011, 13:10:17
How?  Surely the ones here making the loss are Gamestop.  Unless the publishers are selling the game at a loss to GS of course...

uhm... no? They are taking advantage of the biggest titles of the year to drive people to their stores... more people = more sales (simple facts of retail). add to this the fact that these retailers are getting copies sent to them prior to release, and what do they do? turn it in to a free advertising tool for themselves.

Second hand market on physical game copies is a huge problem. Kelmolas "keep the prices in check" is pure bullcrap, games costs money to make, so you will pay money to play them. That's like saying piracy must prevail to keep cinema ticket prices in check. If more people bought digital copies, then the prices would go down on games. But people still want to buy physical copies in many countries (with slow or bad internet) or in cultures where physical ownership of a product is a tradition (Germany), but face the facts; gigantic parts of the physical products market thrive purely on second-hand retailers cannibalizing on the games. Now they even abuse their privileges of getting copies prior to release.

If there is to be a 'bonus deal' on new games, it should come from a publisher-defined pre-ownership, such as owning Red Orchestra 1 gives you discount on Red Orchestra 2, not as in; if you trade in Brothers In arms, you get RO2 for .99p (and will most likely walk out of the store with 2-3 other 2nd hand games in the bag as well)

You have to keep in mind also that this MW3 vs BF3 deal isn't a trade in of DVDs or boxes, it's pre-order. It's not a god-given right for retailers to be able to sell pre-orders. Only a few chosen partners can do that, and when they do an 180 and backstabs the publisher by allowing people to trade-in those pre-orders, how can that not be a pure business-deal violation - if not illegal under certain trading laws?

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eat Uranium on 21-10-2011, 13:10:02
I'm sorry, but I really don't follow your argument.  All I'm seeing here is a company running a loss leader to attract sales to their store.

Also, I can see few problems with a resale market - they have existed for cars for many years now (resale outside of dealerships I mean here) and yet I've never heard of 'car piracy'.  Surely car-boot sales and antique fairs and auctions must be congregations of the world's worst criminal scum ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 21-10-2011, 13:10:11
Its a problem with intellectual property in every branch. Its affecting game developers too and honestly i dont care, prices are to high up in the sky.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 21-10-2011, 13:10:48
Prices would go down? Hah. Pressing of a CD cost a fraction of pressing a LP, prices went up. Digital music was even cheaper to publish than on CD, prices went up again. I've seen enough examples how digital copies of games end up having higher price than the physical copy. GoG and the occasional sale on Steam are the only exceptions to this.

Screaming how game resellers are killing the industry is like saying that public libraries are killing literature. Or second-hand bookstores. No, wait, some authors have actually been on a crusade against these (especially the latter). How about "used car salesmen are killing the automotive industry"? EDIT: EU beat me to this.

So let's see. DRM mafia gets their wish and resale of physical property is forbidden.*) What happens is that sales prices most certainly won't drop, but sales figures will, and piracy will skyrocket. Lots of people now buy a "disposable" game such as CoD only because they know they can resell it and get some of their money back. Denied the chance, they will no longer buy it. Who's the winner now?

If the industry cannot adapt to the reality, and tries to change the reality instead, it deserves to die. Like I said, the industry could try to rethink its business model eg. through a rental business, or making games with loooooong lasting singleplayer (instead of COD-standard five hours) and/or multiplayer that's going to be around for years instead of being replaced the next year (COD), people would feel such games to be a much better investment than something that's forgotten the next week.


*) It's going to be tough or rather impossible in the Europe - the US with its lulzy "Mickey Mouse Act" that retroactively extended copyrights longer than anywhere else in the world might be a different case - because publishers have already went all the way to the EC Courts of Appeal with such cases (concerning books, comics, DVD's) and lost each and every one. Once you distribute something to the public within the EU, you (fortunately!) have no legal way of preventing them trading it among themselves, even if the traders were companies. The same courts have also declared that any EULA preventing things like that is null and void in the EU as far as private consumers are concerned (software sold to a legal entity as the first end user is a different matter, they are not "consumers"), but again, the EULA does not prevent a company from buying it from a consumer and reselling it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 21-10-2011, 14:10:18
Hehe that would be funny, buying a product wich looses its value from the moment the transaction has been made.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 21-10-2011, 15:10:11
I'm sorry, but I really don't follow your argument.  All I'm seeing here is a company running a loss leader to attract sales to their store.

No, they arent making a loss at all. Keep in mind that they're selling all those BF3 copies that people trade-in. If they can sell those with a slight margin over the prices they get from AW on MW3 pre-orders, well.. ca-$hinnng!

@Kelmola: I need to both digest and dissect that post a bit, bear with me.

"Pressing of a CD cost a fraction of pressing a LP, prices went up"
Because of currency index raise, yes. an LP in Sweden costed 78kr in 1987, a CD costed 199kr in 2000, but that's because of inflation and index. Naturally CDs costs more now than what LPs did in late 80's.
Also, you can't compare pricing differences of two physical copies with pricing differences of one physical VS one digital product. (CDs still had to get sleeves, boxes, packed, transported, unpacked, price-tagged, scanned, put on the shelves etc.. trust me I have worked in this retail from 1996-2004, margins on CDs were scarce! simply because the publisher had to keep the prices high because of all the extra logistics involved)

"I've seen enough examples how digital copies of games end up having higher price than the physical copy"
Say Hi to evil monopolizing systems such as Steam :) I am not saying DDs is the messiah over PGs, not if there is only one DD operator (Steam). Monopoly will never be good for the customer.

"Screaming how game resellers are killing the industry is like saying that public libraries are killing literature"
uh.. is it? Last time I checked a library have about 1 copy per book, which 1 person can borrow for 1 week. Your analogy would only make sense if libraries had warehouses filled with copies of the same books, that people could borrow for 1 year. All the libraries in the UK combined won't be able to lend out as many "2nd hand" books as one high-street bookstore can sell of new books.
BTW I think you can lend Xbox and PS3 games in the libraries too can't you? In Sweden I believe you can. At least DVD movies you can. This is because the libraries bought the right to do that.

"Or second-hand bookstores"
Same thing. Add up all the second-hand books stores in the UK and they together can not sell as many copies of a second hand book as one Gamestop store can sell of 2nd hand BF3 copies. Did you watch the total biscuit clip Thorondor posted? ^ He makes a good point about comparing books/movies/music 2nd hand market VS games 2nd hand market. Watch it.

"How about "used car salesmen are killing the automotive industry"?"
*overruled* comparing cars with games? Cars are a product built for an intended use life-time of 10,15,20, 30 years! Games aren't. You simply can't compare a transport vehicles market with a software media market, c'Mon.

"resale of physical property is forbidden"
I don't think anyone wants that. Media products have always had some sort of 'collectors value' (which can be measured in dollars, such as an original copy of the first StarWars VHS tape, or a 1st edition of a book) but more importantly; it's important to sustain the 'pride' of owning a media product. Having games/books/movies/records in the shelves create an external connection between the user and the product. This is why the games industry should actually be more able to encourage physical products and merchandise around them. Things like key-rings, T-shirts, Action-figures, movies, magazines, websites, books (as in the case of Andy McNab and BF3) etc all create so-called "cross-media" relationships to the product. Indeed, such markets also have a second hand market, which in the long run can create long-term fanbases connected to the media (such as in the case of Star Wars, or Pokemon, or He-man, or lately Blizzard games).
But; so far games have about only one source of income: selling of instances of games. So sure you can blame EA for not making a huge market around Battlefield and sell cross-media items to make up for loss from the 2nd hand market, but let's face it, we aren't there yet. Maybe in 20-30 years a game will generate as much cross-media as a movie does. The movie industry generates billions of dollars on things semi-related to the movie, such as Lord of the rings merch, or a Toy Story happy meal on Mc Donalds, but that's a media that has over 100 years in the making. Games are new kidz on this block, and currently the re-selling of 2nd hand games even before release, ia severely hurting this industry.

"Lots of people now buy a "disposable" game such as CoD "
*dismissed* there is no official term for "disposable" games. what do you mean by it? it sounds more like some personal subjective term than actual market reality.
You are also stating that people would not buy CoD games if they couldn't re-sell it. That is also a complete assumption, ofcourse they would.

"If the industry cannot adapt to the reality, and tries to change the reality instead, it deserves to die"
Says you, yes. But not the industry. They can set their own terms for when they deserve to die. If you make a bad game that doesn't sell, or if you market it wrong or manage it wrong, sure it can fail, and this happens all the time. They deserve to learn from that sure. But in the case of 2nd hand re-selling, it's not the game-makers themselves that are the cause, it's the 2nd hand re-sellers that interfere with the industry. Literary cannibalizing on the customers.

"Like I said, the industry could try to rethink its business model eg. through a rental business"
They do that. In the case of WoW for example, they completely designed-away 2nd hand market. The EAsy team that makes BFHeroes and BFP4F also designed away this possibility, and there are loads of other examples where the industry is setting the terms of how its market should work, as opposed to being a victim to it. But again; this is media entertainment. Physical copies has always been a part of it, even since the first parchments of stories were written in ancient Egypt, people have had an emotional connection to owning the media (sitting close to a shelf full of your books make you feel nice, just by being near the books. Having a shelf full of records make you feel as if the records have a part in your life, even if you barely listen to them).
I don't think the gaming industry should be pushed to annihilate this physical relationshiop between user-product. It would be sad.

"or making games with loooooong lasting singleplayer (instead of COD-standard five hours) and/or multiplayer that's going to be around for years instead of being replaced the next year (COD), people would feel such games to be a much better investment than something that's forgotten the next week."
This is speculative. Do you honestly think that there is a connection between how long playtime a singleplayer game has, and its potential to end up on the 2nd hand shelf? Prove that connection please, I belive it to be completely wrong.
The same thing goes for so-called long lasting multiplayer. Generally, people don't play games for years and years, actually the majority play the game less than a year, then they play another game. Only the few so-called 'hardcore fans' stick to one title only. And how could a game ensure that people would play their game - and their game only - for years? No possible. Ofcourse they will play BF3 for some time, and if they know that they can just go to the "library" and trade it in for MW2 or MW3 or GoW2 or GoW3, they'll just do that.

The gaming world is not primarily made out of the PC playing hardcore fan that sticks to one franchise only, that, is a fact. 2nd hand retail is obviously hitting hardest on console games, and the only thing I see happening in the future is the relationship between retailers and publishers growing worse, perhaps ending in some retail chains not being allowed to sell certain titles. Or; games go all-out digital, thus killing that physical relationship fans get with the games... Maybe games end up just being temporary entertainment, like a trip to the theme park or to the movies. You dont keep stamps or tickets from these experiences, you just rememeber them (for some time). That is maybe when games stop being a product alltogether, and just becoming an experience.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 21-10-2011, 15:10:09
This could continue forever, a very good discussion, but..

this thread is about Battlefield 3
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 21-10-2011, 16:10:55
e: thanks Biiviz, I was so much in awe I totally forgot to add that this is BF3 launch trailer ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7GVSx7yMaA

****, I'm sold... and GOD FORBID ORIGIN NOT LETTING ME INSTALL THIS MOV-.. GAME LIKE IT DID IN BETA!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 21-10-2011, 16:10:02
The Phantom checks the plot summary from Wikipedia before purchasing it for the singleplayer (old jungle saying).

From what I see, it has the potential to be either something that could be taken seriously, or something like MW.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 21-10-2011, 17:10:55
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7GVSx7yMaA

****, I'm sold... and GOD FORBID ORIGIN NOT LETTING ME INSTALL THIS MOV-.. GAME LIKE IT DID IN BETA!

To be clear, this link is the Battlefield 3 Launch Trailer. For some reason McCloskey left out that part.


Did anyone else notice what I noticed?
The BF3 soundtrack has the same great parts as the original BF1942 soundtrack. Awesome!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 21-10-2011, 17:10:52
Omg who cares about the singleplayer!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: evhgear on 21-10-2011, 18:10:37
Not you, but a lot of people cares about it, since single player is in the Bf series since BF1942. Plus now single player have a story, wich it's quite interresting, I don't see I should not care about it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 21-10-2011, 19:10:03
BF1942 had single player just as much as Counter-Strike had single player. ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 21-10-2011, 19:10:16
Ok. Fine ive played singleplayer too on 42 and 'nam, but wasting 50 euros on it? naaaaaah...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: RAnDOOm on 21-10-2011, 19:10:23
Omg who cares about the singleplayer!

I actually might get this game only to play single player.

 Not interested in the multiplayer at the moment.... seems to be too much ModernWarfare hud firework color festival for me...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 21-10-2011, 19:10:19
Hardcore mode removes most of the HUD elements. In BFBC2 it removed the ammo count, health meter, cross hairs and incoming grenade icon.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 21-10-2011, 19:10:05
And in BF3, the dumb skulls and the idiotic 3d spotting. It basically removes all indicators...now how the hell I know who needs ammo?

Still, my only worry is the damage. The damage is high enough as it is, I dont want even higher damage.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 21-10-2011, 20:10:13
Ok. Fine ive played singleplayer too on 42 and 'nam, but wasting 50 euros on it? naaaaaah...
No you didn't. Those games didn't have real single player. It was just the multi player game mode with bots instead of humans.

BF3 has single player campaign the way Half Life 2 or Call of Duty: Modern Warfare has Single player, see the difference?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 21-10-2011, 20:10:23
And in BF3, the dumb skulls and the idiotic 3d spotting. It basically removes all indicators...now how the hell I know who needs ammo?

Still, my only worry is the damage. The damage is high enough as it is, I dont want even higher damage.

Lol.. damage is way too low at least in non-hardcore version.. takes like 10 hits to kill a person..
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 21-10-2011, 20:10:43
e: thanks Biiviz, I was so much in awe I totally forgot to add that this is BF3 launch trailer ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7GVSx7yMaA

****, I'm sold... and GOD FORBID ORIGIN NOT LETTING ME INSTALL THIS MOV-.. GAME LIKE IT DID IN BETA!
Dat graphics.  :o
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 21-10-2011, 20:10:18
Lol.. damage is way too low at least in non-hardcore version.. takes like 10 hits to kill a person..

Low? Assault rifles kill in 8 bullets, fired in a second. That's fast and high damage. Look at the UMP45, it kills in 5 to 6 shots.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 21-10-2011, 20:10:05
Don't worry Yustax, they know what they're doing  ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: HadrianBT on 21-10-2011, 20:10:05
Hell, this is a good argument from Natty for once. Gamestop is not being nice to EA in this instance, true. Why? Because it can! Going back to my earlier post, EA is not being nice to PC players when they charge 10 extra dollars for a retail copy of a PC DVD (in comparison with consoles, which take a share of the profit from game manufacturers, thus price for a PC DVD should be lower than that for a console DVD for the game-maker to get the same profit).

Why? Because they can! And face it, most PC gamers will succumb to this. Me included. Am I happy about it? Not really. Still, did I pre-order BF3 for PC - yes, I did.

So don't tell me about the poor EA.

Second point, raised by Kelmola and others - reselling and game DVD pricing. As a person with a PhD in Polymer Science, I know pretty damn well that an industrial stamping of a polycarbonate CD cost ~3 US cents in 2004, but the production of the stamping matrix was about 10k. So the price of a DVD effectively goes down with the number of copies sold. So after you make >10300 stamps from one, your DVD price is less than one dollar. I know, today is 2011, so these prices could be about 50% more.

Now we come to developmental costs, advertising and such. In early 2000-s, most LEGAL copies in Russia cost less than 10$ shortly after release. Why? Because most Russians could not afford to pay 50$ for a new game. Did they make a profit? Sure they did, along with expanding their playerbase greatly.
Just a wonderful example for you. Valve was selling legal HL1 copies in Russia for 1 (as in "one" dollar) five years ago. My friend even bought one for me, but I could not use it, as Steam told me that it is "region-restricted" (can be played in Russia/India). They were not loosing money even there, although the margins were a mere couple cents per a physical copy. And NOBODY resold a single disk, because WHY BOTHER as it is so affordable anyway.

Gone are the times when making a few dollars on a DVD copy was good for a company. They need to show "growth" to shareholders, so they can make them happy. And some of the modern CEOs don't care if the new policies harm both the customers (who have to buy more expensive games) and the company itself (which becomes so vulnerable to second-hand sales, according to Natty).
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 21-10-2011, 20:10:40
Don't worry Yustax, they know what they're doing  ::)

Im not. It's just that the better gameplay is in HC, because it doesnt have indicators. Im just worried that the high model damage that already exist in vanilla it's way, way higher in HC. Like in BC2, where a bolt action hit you in the toe and you died.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 21-10-2011, 20:10:33
e: thanks Biiviz, I was so much in awe I totally forgot to add that this is BF3 launch trailer ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7GVSx7yMaA

****, I'm sold... and GOD FORBID ORIGIN NOT LETTING ME INSTALL THIS MOV-.. GAME LIKE IT DID IN BETA!
Dat graphics.  :o

wow that was just too much  :o screw MP, I cant wait to play the SP in this  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 21-10-2011, 20:10:43
The trailer does indeed look great. With any luck the game-play sequences between these wonderful moments will be jam packed with good challenges and surprises, and will be longer than six hours like Modern Warfare 2 was.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ts4EVER on 21-10-2011, 22:10:56
About the whole resale argument: I own the license to play the game after paying for it. So why shouldn't I be able to sell that license to somebody else? After all I can't play it anymore after that. the license is not copied or multiplied or whatever. EA saw money for it when they sold it to me and now I pass it on.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 21-10-2011, 22:10:08
The trailer does indeed look great. With any luck the game-play sequences between these wonderful moments will be jam packed with good challenges and surprises, and will be longer than six hours like Modern Warfare 2 was.

I don't think it will last longer then six hours, it's not an RPG like the Elder's Scrolls series. I can't remember an FPS that was longer then six hours and still interesting.
The trailer was fapping awesome by the way. I just hope you can control the jet taking off the carrier, car chase in Paris not just being a cut scene.

I just preloaded BF3, ready to start the single player ...

Hehe that would be funny, buying a product wich looses its value from the moment the transaction has been made.
Buy a car and you will find out.

@HadrianBT
There are several reasons why there are different price policy per country.
Welfare of a country is one, the lack of effort against production of illegal copies (digital or physical), want to penetrate a new market with a low prices policy.
The fact remains that those region that can pay for it are the ones that will pay for R&D, marketing and all the other fixed costs.
Now due to stiff competition among retailers since the rise of the webshops, prices have dropped immensely compared to ten years ago.

I can now buy BF3 for 35 euros for the PC. Let's forget about price and product inflation and BF3 is still cheaper to buy then let's say Baldurs Gate ten years ago.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 21-10-2011, 22:10:29
Expansion confirmed. No details about what though.

http://www.psu.com/Golden-Joystick-Awards-results,-new-Battlefield-3-expansion-confirmed--a013369-p0.php
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 21-10-2011, 22:10:10
Battlefield 3: Special Forces


Your heard it here first folks.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 22-10-2011, 00:10:08
Maybe a WW2 expansion?  The 25th can't get here soon enough!  Shame I am working Tuesday.   :-\  Going to make sure the wife has the car though so she can drive to the post office and snag my amazon pre-order.  Not leaving anything to chance. ;)

I kinda liked the damage system in the beta actually.  It sucked dick on the PC.  I did not dare even expose a pixel on there because 5 people would light me up with leet mouse accuracy.  But on the PS3 it was very satisfying the lack of a super precise aiming device made for nice firefights with bullets that still killed people.  Looks like the consoles damage is getting dulled down to appeal to the PC kiddies (intentional troll).  Matters little to me anyhow...Should all balance out with hardcore mode.  Despite the 120+ pages of bitching about how Dice is a bunch of dumb cunts I think they will patch this baby up until it is perfect.  It may not be the game that appeals to all of us but for what they are shooting for I think they will do right by the community at large.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LHeureux on 22-10-2011, 00:10:02
Mmmh, I thinking about Battlefield 2142 expansion, like they did with BC:Vietnam. Alot of people requested a remake of BF2142 or a new game/expansion related to it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 22-10-2011, 09:10:12
Mmmh, I thinking about Battlefield 2142 expansion, like they did with BC:Vietnam. Alot of people requested a remake of BF2142 or a new game/expansion related to it.

Well, DICE confirmed a continuation to 2142. But nobody knows if it's an expansion or full game.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 22-10-2011, 10:10:30
(http://eacom.s3.amazonaws.com/BF3_Caspian_BorderWP_1920x1080.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 22-10-2011, 12:10:35
Pre-ordered the limited awesome edition of pwn. Let's talk about how awesome I am.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 22-10-2011, 12:10:08
Pre-order it for me too and then you level up to pwnsome.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 22-10-2011, 12:10:43
@Töris: Is the limited edition incl. back to karkand @ launch? and will BTK be available later for those who dont have the Ltd?

I also wantz to be awesome, allthough even when you and flippy both have reached pwnsome, you'll still be lacking the ultimate skill of pwnification that I possess. 8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ts4EVER on 22-10-2011, 12:10:45
I'm afraid you lost a level for the Lewis sound.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 22-10-2011, 13:10:42
@Töris: Is the limited edition incl. back to karkand @ launch? and will BTK be available later for those who dont have the Ltd?

The limited awesome edition of pwn ships with Karkand at launch. Others will be able to get Karkand in a month or so.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 22-10-2011, 13:10:09
I had to preorder too. Don't let me down, DICE :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 22-10-2011, 13:10:42
@Töris: Is the limited edition incl. back to karkand @ launch? and will BTK be available later for those who dont have the Ltd?

The limited awesome edition of pwn ships with Karkand at launch. Others will be able to get Karkand in a month or so.

For free or as DLC?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 22-10-2011, 13:10:56
What about the content of that "Physical Warfare Pack"? Is it pre-order only or can the content be unlocked later? It´s rather inconvient if you have to decide between unique items that improve weapons and a map-pack...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 22-10-2011, 13:10:46
Quote
Quote from: Smiles on 21-10-2011, 13:10:18
Hehe that would be funny, buying a product wich looses its value from the moment the transaction has been made.
Buy a car and you will find out.
Wrong example, sometyhing entirely different.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 22-10-2011, 13:10:20
What about the content of that "Physical Warfare Pack"? Is it pre-order only or can the content be unlocked later? It´s rather inconvient if you have to decide between unique items that improve weapons and a map-pack...
Those are just few of the earlier unlocks, as far as I know. It comes with the limited awesome edition of pwn. And maybe with some other version too, I do not know.
@Töris: Is the limited edition incl. back to karkand @ launch? and will BTK be available later for those who dont have the Ltd?

The limited awesome edition of pwn ships with Karkand at launch. Others will be able to get Karkand in a month or so.

For free or as DLC?
According to BF3 blog, it will be around 7€. Not a bad price for four maps (Wake!) and ten new guns (L85!). The blog also mention new vehicles, but I have no idea what those are.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 22-10-2011, 15:10:17
Hope I can get ma handz on a box of pwness then
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: evhgear on 22-10-2011, 16:10:35
Bad Company 2 had a DLC pack on Vietnam, do you think Dice will do something similar with BF3 ?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 22-10-2011, 16:10:22
I dont think it'll be Vietnam. I think that 2142 is more likely. But it will probably be a map pack or something else. Maybe a WW2 version? But I doubt that, they already have 1943.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 22-10-2011, 17:10:39
..for effin consoles only. >:(
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: evhgear on 22-10-2011, 19:10:40
Could be awesome if it's Korea  ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 22-10-2011, 19:10:58
According to BF3 blog, it will be around 7€. Not a bad price for four maps (Wake!) and ten new guns (L85!). The blog also mention new vehicles, but I have no idea what those are.

  Nice...I did not know I would get free guns on top of the 4 maps.  Being the medic whore that I was in BF2 the L85 was my bread and butter for the 6 months I played vanilla (until I said "fuck this crap" and went back to FH1  ;D)

The whole idea behind 2142 did not appeal to me at all when it came out.  Futuristic BS with stupid mech things roaming about seemed like the height of gay non-imersive gameplay to me at the time it came out.  But with FH2 and RO2 out there I have a feeling a WW2 expansion for BF3 would just fall short in my eyes.  And I have certainly had enough of the modern warfare shit.  So bring on 2143!  My credit card is at your service Dice, just give me a sign!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 22-10-2011, 21:10:50
e: thanks Biiviz, I was so much in awe I totally forgot to add that this is BF3 launch trailer ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7GVSx7yMaA

****, I'm sold... and GOD FORBID ORIGIN NOT LETTING ME INSTALL THIS MOV-.. GAME LIKE IT DID IN BETA!
1080p @ 30fps download of trailer (http://www.gamersyde.com/download_battlefield_3_launch_trailer-24362_en.html)

Watched it like five times already. The team that made this trailer did an excellent job in selling BF3 to the SP enthusiasts.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 22-10-2011, 22:10:47
New TV commercial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eedRhcpOsuU
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 22-10-2011, 22:10:40
Launch trailer was better.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 22-10-2011, 22:10:03
Anybody else think that the man at the end of the Single Player Trailer sounds like Billy Bob Thornton?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 22-10-2011, 22:10:26
that SP trailer almost made me want to buy this game.

almost :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 22-10-2011, 22:10:07
Anybody else think that the man at the end of the Single Player Trailer sounds like Billy Bob Thornton?

Pretty sure that first guy was Aaron from 24.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 22-10-2011, 23:10:06
Yea he is, hes the guy that plays the navigator in Black Hawk Down as well. But that other guy, I swear thats Thorntons voice.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 22-10-2011, 23:10:41
VA's are here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1954263/ Thornton is not listed to be featured in BF3 (EA would have made a big deal out of that) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000671/

btw, am I the only one that thinks the guy being briefed in the beginning looks like producer Patrik Bach  :D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LHeureux on 23-10-2011, 00:10:12
Yustax, source for the 2142 expansion? Because if they do it DICE are totally awesome.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 23-10-2011, 01:10:02
Yustax, source for the 2142 expansion? Because if they do it DICE are totally awesome.

I didnt say expansion, I said sequel  8)

http://n4g.com/news/811896/eas-representative-confirms-plans-for-battlefield-2142s-sequel
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: EverettWV on 23-10-2011, 02:10:46
New TV commercial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eedRhcpOsuU

The machine guns must not be to powerful. They're shooting blanks! lol. at 37 second
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 23-10-2011, 04:10:41
Server administration docs available.

http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/battlefield-3/1443231-battlefield-3-server-administration-docs-now-available.html

Here's some of the good features :D

vars.serverName controls the name of the server, as seen in the server browser.
vars.gamePassword - if set, players must enter this password when connecting to the server.
vars.friendlyFire – when set, people can inflict damage on others in the same team.
vars.killCam – when set, a killed player gets to see a close-up of his/hers killer for a few seconds.
vars.miniMap – when set, a minimap is available in the bottom-left corner of the screen during play.
vars.hud – when set, the hud is present.
vars.crossHair – when set, guns have crosshairs in the center of the screen.
vars.3dSpotting – when set, spotted targets are marked with icons in the 3D world.
vars.miniMapSpotting - when set, spotted targets are marked with icons on the minimap.
vars.3pCam - when set, 3rd person vehicle cameras are enabled.
vars.nameTag – when set, nametags are rendered over players’ heads in the 3D world.
vars.regenerateHealth – when set, health regeneration is enabled.
vars.vehicleSpawnAllowed – when set, vehicles will spawn in-game.
vars.vehicleSpawnDelay – controls the delay between vehicle spawn; specified in percent (100% = normal).
vars.soldierHealth – sets maximum soldier health, specified in percent (0-100%; 100% = normal).
vars.playerRespawnTime – controls player respawn delay; specified in percent (100% = normal).
vars.playerManDownTime - controls player man-down time; specified in percent (100% = normal).
vars.bulletDamage – controls bullet damage; specified in percent (0-100%; 100% = normal).
vars.onlySquadLeaderSpawn – when set, players can only spawn on the squad leader.
vars.roundStartPlayerCount – when the server is in pre-round, it waits for this many players to be present until it proceeds to start the real round.
vars.roundRestartPlayerCount – when a round is going, if the number of players drops under this number, the round will be aborted and the server moves back to pre-round.

Ranked and unranked servers
Currently, unranked does not work correctly. All game servers will have to run ranked.
Our goal is to make unranked game servers allow full customization of the set of available weapons, regardless of the individual player progression.


So this means finally good gamplay without indicators!!! Woooo hoooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: HadrianBT on 23-10-2011, 06:10:04
^ There is some pretty good functionality right there.

So somebody could tinker with
vars.soldierHealth
vars.bulletDamage
And get a one shot one kill combat. Just a thought :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 23-10-2011, 06:10:08
^ There is some pretty good functionality right there.

So somebody could tinker with
vars.soldierHealth
vars.bulletDamage
And get a one shot one kill combat. Just a thought :)

Custom options are unranked right now. And with good reason. But perhaps they could later tackle servers to make 'em ranked. I so wanna play with vanilla damage, no soldier-vehicle regen, grenade indicator, friendly fire on, 3d spotting off and vanilla damage. Plus no kill cam.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: HadrianBT on 23-10-2011, 06:10:17
Same for me, but not the
"grenade indicator"

Do you know then what settings does a hardcore server have?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 23-10-2011, 06:10:45
I guess that you can make a custom server with HC presets. Indicators suck. Spot grenades and hear them landing at your feet like in FH2  8) Old school gaming ftw!!!!!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 23-10-2011, 07:10:03
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV-gnh1En6E

Can't wait for 2017
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 23-10-2011, 11:10:27
that actually sounds pretty good, and THAT makes wanna buy the game =9, if the server options include the removing of the flash indicator thingy from granades then, im all in :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 23-10-2011, 14:10:04
hm what? I think that's a great design. Nades never contributed much to game play.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-10-2011, 14:10:03
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV-gnh1En6E

Can't wait for 2017
my ears
hm what? I think that's a great design. Nades never contributed much to game play.
COD Feature.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 23-10-2011, 17:10:40
hm what? I think that's a great design. Nades never contributed much to game play.

Indicators arent a great design, and guess what? That already exist in COD. And grenades are a "make you run away weapon" and to clear out rooms and corridors, maybe they arent for you. But to me are very awesome weapons.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-10-2011, 19:10:11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wiLmmorUgKk#t=254s


keep your eyes on the plane
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 23-10-2011, 20:10:52
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wiLmmorUgKk#t=254s


keep your eyes on the plane

Cant watch that vid, fps drops are annoying as hell. What happens?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 23-10-2011, 20:10:25
Jet flies into the ground and a tree. The tree gets stuck to the jet as it flies away.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paasky on 23-10-2011, 20:10:26
Ridiculous physics bugs are as big a part of Battlefield as horrible hit detection.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 23-10-2011, 20:10:28
Jet tree cutter?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 23-10-2011, 20:10:04
Heh, reminds me of a story in Hans-Ulrich Rudel's book, when he had to do bit of low-altitude flying and ended up landing with bits of birch still stuck in his wings. That is bit over the top though ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Wilhelm on 23-10-2011, 21:10:05
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV-gnh1En6E

Can't wait for 2017

Don't forget to change your flight controls!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=il-7z85lABo&feature=relmfu
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Dukat on 23-10-2011, 22:10:13
Next dice project please:
- Battlefield 1944, WWII setting
- 128 players
- 4+ factions
- large maps
- naval combat, air combat, combined arms, infantry combat
- deployable/towable guns
- possibility for large smoke screens, realistically amount of smoke covering battlefield, realistically airflow
- striking voice commands, both environmental and radio
- destroyable environment
- excessive tactical options
- realistically medical and supply system
- target audience: aged 27,3 years

kthnx, bye
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 23-10-2011, 22:10:37
Remember, no linear maps  :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-10-2011, 22:10:45
Next dice project please:
- Battlefield 1944, WWII setting
- 128 players
- 4+ factions
- large maps
- naval combat, air combat, combined arms, infantry combat
- deployable/towable guns
- possibility for large smoke screens, realistically amount of smoke covering battlefield, realistically airflow
- striking voice commands, both environmental and radio
- destroyable environment
- excessive tactical options
- realistically medical and supply system
- target audience: aged 27,3 years

kthnx, bye
Guy goes to EA, and explains it to the boss
Boss=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Dukat on 23-10-2011, 23:10:47
Well, there is so much in my mind. What about additional reserved slots for side missions, adding to the immersion? Like:

- medical missions. No, participation in combat but salvaging (dead) bodies from the battlefield.
- Courier missions. Getting points for bringing documents from point A to B?

The 'battlefield' (quoting natty) is so much more than soldiers fighting each other.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 23-10-2011, 23:10:13
Remember, no linear maps  :P

Shame, Yustax, you come to our forums to make fun of us yet we are the trolls ;D

See the rest of this at http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Q7GVSx7yMaA#t=19s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Q7GVSx7yMaA#t=19s)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 23-10-2011, 23:10:52
I came to this forum for the awesomeness that is FH2. But BF3 maps...nah. The spice is missing, and many conquest maps are linea. And just because the community complained about the flag placement, DICE listened.

I keep saying it, 30 bucks for mod tools DICE, as DLC, I'll pay!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: HadrianBT on 24-10-2011, 05:10:20
Lol, Yustax, I actually thought you wanted the grenade indicator ON, hence my reply. No I definitely want it the "old school way". Or the Bf2 way if you wish. Never bought BFBC as it felt too arcadey for me.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 24-10-2011, 05:10:07
I dont like indicators. I dont like the "shoot here signs" like scope glint, 3d spotting, grenade indicators and killcam. At least with the server options, we can disable them.

Now...we need an editor to make better maps. Did you guys saw the Damavand peak map? 300 meters between the first and last flag in conquest; you cant jump from the peak either. And it has helicopters...that's a fail of map design. And none of you cant defend this. Game ships in less than 2 days, but you'll see tons of complains about the map design.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 24-10-2011, 09:10:36
OOoooowww mmyyy gaaaawwwwd dude, your sooooooooow annoying right now ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 24-10-2011, 09:10:52
OOoooowww mmyyy gaaaawwwwd dude, your sooooooooow annoying right now ::)

It's a forums and I have the right to express myself. Like you're doing right now. And you still havent proved that the maps are going to be a total success. In my opinion; they should expand the boundaries. They have too much unused space. I like gigantic maps; it's what brought me to the series.

Also; something like BF2 could work. Have 16, 32 and 64 size version of the maps. If you want a small map with big players, use 16 size and play with 64 players, easy.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 24-10-2011, 11:10:28
Now...we need an editor to make better maps. Did you guys saw the Damavand peak map? 300 meters between the first and last flag in conquest; you cant jump from the peak either. And it has helicopters...that's a fail of map design. And none of you cant defend this. Game ships in less than 2 days, but you'll see tons of complains about the map design.

Who do you mean by "we"? "We" need an editor  ??? you and your secret clan of ultra talented level designers?
Seriously, this might come off rude but, just shut up Yustax. You're continous whining about exact same things for months, even YEARS, is getting old and boring.
This is me having enough of your whine.

Some info:

- "The community" can not make better maps than DICE. They can make some playable maps that appeal to a small audience, but not for millions of players playing the game for months or years.

- Indicators are a part of games, most players want them because it makes playing more fun

- Listening to players is only a part of design. You make it up as if there is some sort of "argument" that one side "wins". If something is changed in a game, it's because the designers see that it's better for the game. Sometime this obviously coincidences with what the "hottest topic" is on the forums as well.

- The weapons designers of BF3 have it all figured out, if you want 1s1k game, go play a mod or hardcore games that appeal to ~100 players

- Before you actually learn to make mods or maps, stop considering yourself part of a mod team. We in FH2 can not make better maps than DICE and don't claim to be able to. Install Editor and prove to us that you know what a "great map design is", then post pictures of your work and compare them to BF3, and explain why yours are better. Do this, or stop pretending you know how it should be done.


That's it, I know most people consider this a too honest / personal lash-out, but really, your posts are ridiculous, and many agree with me on this one (obviously Im the only one saying it out loud)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 24-10-2011, 11:10:18
You dont have the right to speak like that. Never, ever, ever I called people names; and you can search the whole thread for it. It was just an opinion. And it isnt whining it's just the honest fact.

Also no, indicators dont make the game fun, they make it easy and for people that want shoot here signs. Thankfully DICE included server tools.

And no Natty. Im not agreed with your statement that DICE can make better maps. If that was the case; then we wouldnt have such bad map designs like the one given of davamand peak. Where there's a 4x4km map, but, only 15% is available to play and just 300 meters between the first and last flag. I dont call that a good map design; I call it a meat grinder.

Now, now; Im not saying that there isnt people who dont love cqc maps, but there should be more variety. And you know I am right in this one. What brought many people to BF games where the big and open maps and it's what most of us like. DICE needs to add more variety in all maps. That's all I am saying.

For example, OP Firestorm. Look at those beautiful mountains right there. Why cant we have expanded boundaries and add 3 more flags?

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 07-11-2011, 12:11:33
on a different note:

(http://i.imgur.com/bMlYW.jpg)

 ???
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Musti on 07-11-2011, 15:11:01
Wow. If you don't like action RPGs then why you play them?
If you don't play them then why complain? They fucked up a game, not first and not the last one for sure, just get over it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Capten_C on 07-11-2011, 15:11:28
Should I start a "BF3 Technical problems" thread?  :-\

I've had catastrophic problems trying to play this game. It just won't load.  :'(
I've updated drivers, used different web browsers, re-installed it completely & repaired. Still no joy.
Only thing that works, but is a bloody annoyance is deleting a file and restarting every time I want a game:
Quote
Battlefield 3

C:\ProgramData\Electronic Arts\EA Services\License

Error Upon launch an error message appears stating "Could Not Activate"

Possible Solution One workaround is to delete the BF3 license file to to force a license update.

Workaround Steps:

1. Exit Origin completely. You can do this by right-clicking Origin in your system tray (near the clock) and selecting "Exit"

2. Open Internet Explorer (this will only work with Internet Explorer, not other browsers). Enter the following address into your address bar and press "Enter/Return"

C:\ProgramData\Electronic Arts\EA Services\License

3. Delete the file named either 71067.dlf or 70619 or 71069.dlf

4. Restart your machine.

5. Launch Origin and login to your Origin account.

6. Attempt to launch Battlefield 3

There are thousands of players with the same problem. HELP!  ???
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: ajappat on 07-11-2011, 18:11:37
Harharhar I am natty.

"Shut up Capten C, you are just minor group of players who whine on forums."
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 07-11-2011, 20:11:01
There are people here who were concerned about Origins more than dubious EULAs and there was a certain person who said these people would be "conspiracists" who should "take off their tin foil hats" and just don´t worry about the EULAs because they´re not "Michael Jackson" and after all this will be, like, the future and in the end represent a stupid loudmouthed minority.

Well, I´ll just throw the Amazon.de rating (http://www.amazon.de/product-reviews/B004M17DVM/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1) for Battlefield 3 into this thread.
Most people don´t complain about the game itself, but use Amazon.de as some sort protest platform against Origins uncanny EULAs (which are illegal in Germany, that´s a fact).

3.431 1 star-ratings versus 211 5-star-ratings speaks a clear language IMHO and the fact that even big multi-media stores, such as Media Markt take back sold and opened copies of BF3 are a straight "up yours!" into EAs "face".

But don´t mind these people, afterall they´re just loud-mouthed trolls.  ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: IrishReloaded on 07-11-2011, 21:11:49
"3.431 1 star-ratings versus 211 5-star-ratings speaks a clear language IMHO and the fact that even big multi-media stores, such as Media Markt take back sold and opened copies of BF3 are a straight "up yours!" into EAs "face"."

I took it back, after one week, and they gave me the 45euros back.

BF3 is ok, didnt like it though, but Origin sucks.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Rustysteel on 07-11-2011, 21:11:08
It sounds like there's so much bullshit to get it working on a PC I'm glad I got it for the 360. I'm really enjoying it, it feels more like playing Medal of Honour(the new one) than BC2 which is a good thing imo. Wasn't too sure about the vehicle unlock system when I heard about it, but I gotta say it works pretty well rewarding those who put the time & effort into it rather than pimping a rifle with twenty attachments.

It doesn't take that long to unlock the basic stuff like smoke/flares either so you don't feel handicapped for very long. Vehicles do seem underpowered though, very easy to take them down on your own on foot(even air) which is dissappointing it's not a gamebreaker but it can get irksome.

I think the thing that surprised me most was co-op. Really well done except for a few glitches/blunders, but on the whole super enjoyable mode. Me and a buddy were playing the co-op vip extraction mission which will postively make you feel badass as you headshot/stab your way through the building with your team mate shooting out the security cameras at the same time, great fun! Just a shame it got ruined on the PC as that would have been my platform of choice, still will enjoy it on the 360.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 07-11-2011, 21:11:15
Vehicles are TOTALLY underpowered.

This is no longer vehicles with infantry support like the last games ; It's now infantry with vehicle support.
And could they over power the engy's even more ? repair + AT rockets + AA rockets + mines. Also I don't like it that MG gunners get C4. There should have been an explosive specialist class IMHO.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 07-11-2011, 21:11:43
Just a shame it got ruined on the PC as that would have been my platform of choice, still will enjoy it on the 360.
It wasn't, actually.

I think I'll go and have few rounds on my 64 player maps with superior graphics and non-silly controls. ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Rustysteel on 07-11-2011, 21:11:22
You go have fun then thorondor :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 07-11-2011, 22:11:38
Why are the Germans so angry about Origin? I am not hearing the rest of the world making a fuss about it.
Is there some evidence that EA is sending private information from your PC to their servers?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 07-11-2011, 22:11:21
I read somewhere something (cant remember both) that Germany in general has been more than reluctant towards end user agreements.

BF3 release totally failed for me. I had 2 different errors, firstly battlelog didnt recognise my copy wich i had to solve through EA chat support (took me 2 hours). The dude fixed it but another error appeared, i couldnt join a single server. Ea chat support fixed it (after 2 hours) and i was capable of playing. Now i have randon crashes, memory crashes, start up crashes and blablabla lags. Nothing related with my setup(as ive seen maybe a hundred topics on the bf3 forums with the same problems but different recommended specs.
I like the game, but im started getting bored already. But than again i was bored quite fast in bf2 too, so maybe its just me.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: silian on 07-11-2011, 22:11:06
Vehicles are TOTALLY underpowered.

This is no longer vehicles with infantry support like the last games ; It's now infantry with vehicle support.
And could they over power the engy's even more ? repair + AT rockets + AA rockets + mines. Also I don't like it that MG gunners get C4. There should have been an explosive specialist class IMHO.

Vehicles are fine. Engineers can have an AT launcher or MANPAD + Blowtorch or AT mines, not all at once.

MBT + Autoloader + Coax HMG + Zoom optics = win

Had a CQ match on Seine Crossing and we were getting raped by the enemy Abrams (with IR optics and proximity scan), it took dozens of SMAW round hits and took out three T-90's, basically it was crewed by a squad of engineers, two manning it and another following on foot. After about five deaths i managed to flank it through an alleyway, fired one RPG into the engine bay, disabling it, the guy on the aamg spotted me as i sprinted towards the tank, luckily he missed i dove for cover behind it, and fired my last RPG...

KABOOM!!!!...             Triple kill + suicide.  :D

Anyway i'm really enjoying the new tank mechanics, tanking is certainly a more cerebral activity than in previous iterations.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 07-11-2011, 22:11:39
Why are the Germans so angry about Origin? I am not hearing the rest of the world making a fuss about it.
Is there some evidence that EA is sending private information from your PC to their servers?
Many people here, especially those who belong to the "internet and computer generation" are quite concerned about protection of privaty. For example there was quite an uproar when Google sent its Streetview cars through German towns and only after quite some protests Google added the possibility of censoring houses etc. I guess it´s a German (and maybe Austrian, too) thing to be highly concerned about the state and private companies violating privacy rights.

There were screenshots and videos showing Origin allegedly scanning tax and other programs, though these "evidence" are to be taken with a grain of salt.
Origins EULAs though are quite general and allow the program to perform things that seem rather dubious.
Here´s (http://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gamestar.de%2Fspiele%2Fbattlefield-3%2Fartikel%2Fanalyse_zur_eula_von_ea_origin%2C45612%2C2561554.html) the translation of a news article of a German gamer magazine that shows how Origin not only violates German data privacy laws, but also consumer rights.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 07-11-2011, 22:11:42
Vehicles are TOTALLY underpowered.

This is no longer vehicles with infantry support like the last games ; It's now infantry with vehicle support.
And could they over power the engy's even more ? repair + AT rockets + AA rockets + mines. Also I don't like it that MG gunners get C4. There should have been an explosive specialist class IMHO.
It's either AT rockets or AA rockets and either mines or repair tool. Creating classes for a single weapon seems silly as well. You can pretty much customise the hell out of the 4 standard classes giving you plenty of options.

Sofar I've enjoyed BF3 alot, in two weeks I've played it more than BC2 in it's entirety. The singleplayer of BF3 was an utter borefest but MP feels like Battlefield and not BC.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zeno on 07-11-2011, 22:11:17
well there is a crack out there that enables you to play without Origin made by Razor1911  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Rustysteel on 07-11-2011, 22:11:55
Has anyone got the EOD bot yet? That thing is a good laugh trying to sneak up on MCOM stations, I like to wait beside them with it in a dark corner when defending as well. No one seems to notice it and they rush up to the MCOM to place a charge while I drive up behind him with the bot and stick the repair tool in their back ;D ah so many ways to be a bastard in this game :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 07-11-2011, 23:11:43
I dont enjoy rush. the 64 version is utter chaos and not well designed (wich can be solved with some patches as ive seen people suggesting very plausible fixes). Ive tried the bot once in conquest but didnt have a vlue what i had to do with it but to drive it on a mountain.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Dukat on 08-11-2011, 01:11:45
It sounds like there's so much bullshit to get it working on a PC I'm glad I got it for the 360.

So they release this game both on the consoles and the PC and all they changed were the graphics? What did I miss? Did the consoles made a huge leap forward in performance? Or is the PC version just a downgrade with lots of opportunities given away? And why does nobody even complain anymore about console clones ported to the PC these days?

well there is a crack out there that enables you to play without Origin made by Razor1911  ;D ;D ;D

Rumors say that you might get banned from Origin/Battlefield 3 someday for using it. It seems it is much more easy to simply block Origin using a conventional firewall.

english: Play Battlefield 3 without Origin(Legit) http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?p=4151416
german: Battlefield 3 ohne Origin-Client spielen http://www.golem.de/1111/87527.html


Some info:
- "The community" can not make better maps than DICE. They can make some playable maps that appeal to a small audience, but not for millions of players playing the game for months or years.

- Indicators are a part of games, most players want them because it makes playing more fun

- Listening to players is only a part of design. You make it up as if there is some sort of "argument" that one side "wins". If something is changed in a game, it's because the designers see that it's better for the game. Sometime this obviously coincidences with what the "hottest topic" is on the forums as well.

- The weapons designers of BF3 have it all figured out, if you want 1s1k game, go play a mod or hardcore games that appeal to ~100 players

- Before you actually learn to make mods or maps, stop considering yourself part of a mod team. We in FH2 can not make better maps than DICE and don't claim to be able to. Install Editor and prove to us that you know what a "great map design is", then post pictures of your work and compare them to BF3, and explain why yours are better. Do this, or stop pretending you know how it should be done.


That's it, I know most people consider this a too honest / personal lash-out, but really, your posts are ridiculous, and many agree with me on this one (obviously Im the only one saying it out loud)

Would you hand over some of that cocain from your table?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 08-11-2011, 01:11:16
It sounds like there's so much bullshit to get it working on a PC I'm glad I got it for the 360.

So they release this game both on the consoles and the PC and all they changed were the graphics? What did I miss? Did the consoles made a huge leap forward in performance?
In addition of better graphics, the PC version has bigger maps and 64 players, where the console versions only have 24.

And no, it doesn't really seem to have any more problems than any other new PC release :E
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 08-11-2011, 01:11:08
PC didnt get bigger maps, just more players, maps are the same.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Dukat on 08-11-2011, 01:11:28
Oh, well then.

Here is a comparison between consoles and PC:

http://video.golem.de/games/6250/battlefield-3-grafikvergleich-(pc-xbox-360-ps3).html?q=high
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 08-11-2011, 03:11:39
  Yeah they did some amazing work on shit hardware from 2005/2006.  I built my PC this spring just to play this game and this game alone but after playing the beta on PC and console both I decided to buy it for the PS3.  The fact that it runs and looks so nice on a system with a 1/16th of the ram and a fraction of the CPU power my 2600k puts out is a testament to the great work the code monkeys at Dice did.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 08-11-2011, 06:11:48
I found running Origin in a sandbox is great. Can't search anything and I still get to run the game
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: djinn on 08-11-2011, 07:11:43
I love this game. Review to follow shortly. Watch this space  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 08-11-2011, 10:11:07
  Yeah they did some amazing work on shit hardware from 2005/2006.  I built my PC this spring just to play this game and this game alone but after playing the beta on PC and console both I decided to buy it for the PS3.  The fact that it runs and looks so nice on a system with a 1/16th of the ram and a fraction of the CPU power my 2600k puts out is a testament to the great work the code monkeys at Dice did.
The only thing they can't get fully over with code monkeying is the available memory for textures (and available memory for terrain, especially destructible). Otherwise, an impressive feat, considering the X360 GPU is essentially a Radeon X1xxx (R500 series), comparable to Geforce 6 or 7 series. (The PS3 GPU is for all intents and purposes a Geforce 7xxx.)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 08-11-2011, 10:11:07
I'll be brief (this is cutting into my BF3 time :P)...


CONS:

 - The fuck-around involved in getting onto a server (Origin + Battlelog, but mainly Battlelog).

 - Finally getting onto a server only to find it's severely stacked... ::)

 - Having to wait for the BTK maps... :(

 - Not knowing what the final score was...How did they miss that? I could check the battle report, but I want to know when the round ends, not 2 hours later. I mean did we just win/lose by 10 tickets or 100??

 - And the biggest con (in both senses of the word) of all?...WHERE IN FUCK'S NAME ARE THE BOTS?!?!?!?... >:(

*sigh*



PROS:

 - Everything else... :D



On a side note: I heard them advertising it on Sydney radio today, which I find a little odd. I guess EA's going to milk it for all it's worth.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 08-11-2011, 10:11:17
My final vedict is this:

Passable singleplayer, with a decent multiplayer, let down by stupid technicalities on its lead platform (seriously, theres no need for battlelog/origin).

*cue Obi-wan 'You were the chosen one!' speech*


Splendid graphics. Still better than BC2/MW2-BLOPS.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Knitschi on 08-11-2011, 16:11:28
I caved in and bought it despite the Nazi-Eula. I will only talk about the multiplayer.

First of all i think it is a high quality game. You can see that they put alot of work and thought into it. The gameplay is very arcady, but that is what one would expect from dice. But praising the stuff that is good is no fun, so I will flame about the few things that anoyed me.

Battlelog and the ingame menues are unclear and I always found it hard to find the stuff i want. Maybe this was because i smoked some pod but damn it anoyed me. Then why can I only custumize my stuff while I am in the spawn window. Why can't I do it between the map changes or in battlelog? (or can I?)
The custumize menue has to many levels I have to click through. All the information would have fitted one screen. But now i have to click for and back all the time (AAARRGGHGHGHGHGH)

But I guess i will play it for about 100 hours and than go back to mother fh2.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Neighbor Kid on 08-11-2011, 17:11:24
Great game, i feel as if im playing in a movie the whole time with my 5.1 around me..   I just wish there would be mod tools =(
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Moose on 09-11-2011, 05:11:47
Went and bought it finally. Don't know how you can't like this if you like FH. It plays so damn nicely. Nice balance, amazing sounds and visuals
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 09-11-2011, 07:11:13
What else should it be but balanced. It has mirrored maps, mirrored weapons and mirrored playermodels. ^^
I really hate the map design by now. So many useless and forced chokepoints on many maps, that just kill any kind of tactical idea you could come up with.

Anyhow played FH2 again yesterday and had a blast. Nothing beats a game where you have to THINK! ^^
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Dnarag1M on 09-11-2011, 12:11:36
For anyone from the FH community who wants to join up along likeminded people :

Forgotten Hope Alliance (FHA) is active in BF3.

We are a clan of friendly, cool people that used to play FH1/2 and World of Tanks. We now focus on BF3 exclusively (although a bit of FH2 is encouraged  8) ).

We're actively looking for FH players that are playing BF3, to keep this community together! Among our players you can find FH2Hi, Siben, G_Drew, Sander93, VF101Grimreaper, Corvi and several others - even Humbug is upgrading his PC to play BF3 (ARENT YOU!!!).

We have our own dedicated Teamspeak host and quality forum (SMF), and will run our own BF3 server with an extra clanwar mini-server starting Back-2-Karkand pack in december.

Every evening and in the weekends we form multiple platoons, having great fun and teamplay. This is much more fun than playing alone, I can tell you :)

If you want to join us, look for the ForgottenHope Alliance (yes, without space in the first two words) on Battlelog, or just join our teamspeak in the evening - forgottenhopealliance.net:9988 ! Be patient so we can give you rights.

If you have questions, contact me on battlelog (dnarag1m) !

So, to recap :

Battlelog main contacts : dnarag1m, TA3K
Battlelog clan : ForgottenHope Alliance
Number of members currently : 20
Teamspeak3 : forgottenhopealliance.net:9988
website : www.forgottenhopealliance.net
forum : www.forgottenhopealliance.net/index.php (register!)

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Rustysteel on 09-11-2011, 16:11:44
It sounds like there's so much bullshit to get it working on a PC I'm glad I got it for the 360.

So they release this game both on the consoles and the PC and all they changed were the graphics? What did I miss? Did the consoles made a huge leap forward in performance?
In addition of better graphics, the PC version has bigger maps and 64 players, where the console versions only have 24.

And no, it doesn't really seem to have any more problems than any other new PC release :E

Why are you two trying to turn this into a platform fanboy argument? I never said the console was actually better all I said was I was glad to get it for the 360. You can harp on about your big maps and 64 players but that has nothing to do with the point I was making. Origin/Battlelog is fucking this game up for a lot of people if its not for you, then great have fun.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 09-11-2011, 16:11:07
It sounds like there's so much bullshit to get it working on a PC I'm glad I got it for the 360.

So they release this game both on the consoles and the PC and all they changed were the graphics? What did I miss? Did the consoles made a huge leap forward in performance?
In addition of better graphics, the PC version has bigger maps and 64 players, where the console versions only have 24.

And no, it doesn't really seem to have any more problems than any other new PC release :E

Why are you two trying to turn this into a platform fanboy argument? I never said the console was actually better all I said was I was glad to get it for the 360. You can harp on about your big maps and 64 players but that has nothing to do with the point I was making. Origin/Battlelog is fucking this game up for a lot of people if its not for you, then great have fun.
Stating facts makes me a fanboy. So be it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 09-11-2011, 17:11:27
I cant play it on PC since Im still on XP on my desktop. That's why Im getting it on PS3, so at least I can play it on the TV in the couch, a bit relaxed. At least the SP campaign... then when I have Win7 I can frag and lol on the PC as well  :D

Thinking of that... I need a new TV as well, a 30" CRT tv isnt so awesome for games  :(
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Battlefieldfan45 (CroPanzer) on 09-11-2011, 18:11:57
Oh Dnar is now recruiting on the FH2 forum ^^
Gonna get it soon... I hope, damn obligations :(
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Moose on 09-11-2011, 19:11:42
My name is elche130 on the PS3...add me please. I really am liking this game
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 09-11-2011, 20:11:12
Lainer130 here.....Would like to try some of those co-op missions with my fellow FH'ers.  Tried playing with a couple random types online and they seemed to be fucking idiots.

BTW: Do you have Kluge and Switzer added Elche?

http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/user/Lainer/
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: RAnDOOm on 09-11-2011, 20:11:04
Singleplayer is alright. Not top notch tho. Too much "press this to do that".  Could have been alot better.
The sounds are just amazing, the best part of the game in my opinion.

MP is not my coup of tea. Too much clusterfu#$ in the hud.
Ill wait a month or two to see if they have improved the maps.

Till then there are alot of good games coming out and the good old FH2 still does the trick.   ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 09-11-2011, 21:11:04
Heard Hardcore removes most of the HUD.. (havent tried it yet)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 09-11-2011, 21:11:09

Ill wait a month or two to see if they have improved the maps.


Three words: Back To Karkand.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Moose on 09-11-2011, 22:11:59
Lainer130 here.....Would like to try some of those co-op missions with my fellow FH'ers.  Tried playing with a couple random types online and they seemed to be fucking idiots.

BTW: Do you have Kluge and Switzer added Elche?

http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/user/Lainer/

I've got kluge, but not switzer, hit me up if you wanan do coop. I'll be on a lot in the next week or so. Trying to get new weapons. That one level where you start up top then parachute off during rush all the way to the village. AMAZING
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 09-11-2011, 23:11:38
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/4948-Battlefield-3

oh, how much trueness can a video contain?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 09-11-2011, 23:11:24
I'm Yassu91, add me everyone :F
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: General_Henry on 10-11-2011, 04:11:34
What else should it be but balanced. It has mirrored maps, mirrored weapons and mirrored playermodels. ^^
I really hate the map design by now. So many useless and forced chokepoints on many maps, that just kill any kind of tactical idea you could come up with.

Anyhow played FH2 again yesterday and had a blast. Nothing beats a game where you have to THINK! ^^

When soldiers think ... things become dangerous. You're not allowed to think as a soldier, soldier!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 10-11-2011, 07:11:35
I'm Yassu91, add me everyone :F

Don't add Ciu! It will really fuck up your K/D when you end up in the wrong team. ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 10-11-2011, 16:11:55
(http://i.imgur.com/GYqeN.jpg)

who likes this HUD better than the current crappy one ingame?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 10-11-2011, 16:11:27
I like it. Can't wait for a patch that gets rid of that box. Ideally though, Id like the choice in the options to turn the chat on/off, and the kill messages too.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: djinn on 10-11-2011, 16:11:31
Battlefield 3 Review...

Pros
The graphics and animations are A-mazing
The Voice acting is EXCELLENT
After a dime-a-dozen modern warfare titles, its refreshing to have a plot worth uncovering.
Gameplay and sound effect is on point.
Screw BC2, damage system here is how it should be...
64 players on PC... I will take one DVD please...
Waiting to see what I can drive, what I can shoot, how people play, who I can kill
I foresee a spinoff of this engine being used for WWII and Vietnam as remakes of BF42 and BFV EASY
A more realistic enemy count
Some really engaging scenarios... Recall the sniper bit? Or the plane section?
Multiplayer...looking forward to playing THAT!

Cons
Its modern warfare... bORING!
Really short singleplayer
Extremely linear storyline
Awkward mission triggers, that you sometimes can accidentally bypass causing bots to stand about
Bots are almost as stupid as CODMW2, just less aggressive
Lacks dismemberment... Should have had
Not that interesting character faces... Apart from yourself and one 2 others.
death animation... I am spoiled for CODMW death styles.
Plot leaves you hungry. Realistic, sure... But still lacking CODMW awesomeness
BIG NEGATIVE, COOP  is like CODMWs and not sandbox?

Score
8/10

Final Word
I really felt for the 3rd in the series should have had EVERYTHING captured from BF42 and BF2, including a free-for-all cap the flag type deal rather than human-vs-bot missions, and I think it would have been worth something if you could use vehicles more freely in singleplayer like you can in MP, just so you get the Battlefield-ness...
Finally, the AI was painful! However, the gameplay, like Medal of Honor Reboot and BFBC before it, gameplay rules the day... and after playing it, I feel CODMW3, which i am yet to get, will simply have a stronger storyline, but as painful a singleplayer experience as ever...

all in all, I rate this game higher than CODMW-anything, because it at least kept the title going. CODMW-anything, simply causes me to plead 'No more, please no more- You've killed COD enough as is'



Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 11-11-2011, 07:11:50
btw; we had a guessing game a few months back about metacritics BF3 vs RO2,

current state:

BF3 --> http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/battlefield-3 (struggling hard to reach the magical 90!)
I predicted 93 so Im 4 off so far... let's see if it gets raised after some patches...
RO2 --> http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/red-orchestra-2-heroes-of-stalingrad
I predicted 75 so only 1 off!

Let's add MW3 as well --> http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3
81? really?.. that's 5 below MW2, whereas BF3 is only 2 behind it's prior game, which had a gap of six years, whereas MW only had two years between...

Keep in mind these numbers will change a bit as at least 2 of those games are recently released.

+ 1 for the fun discrepancy between metacritic and user rating on MW3, lol  :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 11-11-2011, 07:11:38
1 up for paid reviews. ^^
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 11-11-2011, 08:11:03
tin-foil hat?

that's not how it works...  ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 11-11-2011, 08:11:46
tin-foil hat?

that's not how it works...  ::)

Remember IGN and their fanboyism towards COD ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 11-11-2011, 09:11:35
tin-foil hat?
that's not how it works...  ::)

Oh come on Natty. Next you'll tell me that the Pope is still a virgin.  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: djinn on 11-11-2011, 10:11:32
Choir boys dont count - He IS a virgin :)

But really, I dont get the tin foil thing... What did DF say so wrong?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 11-11-2011, 10:11:57
Well maybe reviewers dont get payed directly, but they certainly get thjeir benifits by hyping games >:(
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 11-11-2011, 12:11:52


But really, I dont get the tin foil thing... What did DF say so wrong?
It's an expression Natty likes to use to make other oppinions look ridiculous and as if they'd come from Black Helicopter fearing paranoids.
I know, you'd expect more in a debatte from someone who's 30+, but I guess that's how he rolls. ::)
Fortunately game magazine ratings aren't everything, especially if you look at their details (=WHY a game got said rating and what "type" of gamers a Game tries to please). Also keep in mind that some Games are being produced and sold by "Big fish" while others have a more humble background.
Just posting scores of two games from ONE reviewer source doesn't say much, except for "Troll much!"...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 11-11-2011, 12:11:56


But really, I dont get the tin foil thing... What did DF say so wrong?
Just posting scores of two games from ONE reviewer source doesn't say much, except for "Troll much!"...
Natty? That was metacritic, the BF3 score for example is the weighted average of 48 reviews.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 11-11-2011, 12:11:48
Just posting scores of two games from ONE reviewer source doesn't say much, except for "Troll much!"...
Natty? That was metacritic, the BF3 score for example is the weighted average of 48 reviews.
Ah, I see. I wasn't aware of that fact, thanks for correcting me there.
Still, a thorough analysis of the reviews would Be more usefull than just posting the numbers. Preferences, details, such as bugs and the audience a magazine tries to attract are quite important factors, especially if you try to compare games like RO2 and BF3.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 11-11-2011, 18:11:07
uh, no? Metacritic is the only thing that matters... it's what the industry care about anyway.. ofcourse you can find obscure fanzines rating a no-name game 100/100, but in the long run, metacritic is the average rating a game gets from all sources in the world. as I said, the games are so new, so only a few sources have been added.. Just look at BF2.. 91 score and that's the average score from all these sources:
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/battlefield-2/critic-reviews

That's more or less impossible for a shooter to top, at least whoever does that, will surely have made a game which will revolutionise the market/genre. CoD4MW did it in 2007, getting an amazing 92.

So you can't say "metacritic doesnt matter, there could be someone who rates it higher" because that's just obvious. It's the average score a game gets from sources that matters.

Then again, PC is only a part of the games, just look at all three platforms and you get this

BF3: 89 + 86 + 84 = 259
MW3: 89 + 81 + 88 = 258

So across all three SKU's, BF3 is leading with 1!  :o I have no idea why MW3 has been so trashed by PC reviewers, but then again, only 9 critics have been added for the PC version, I expect it to rise a couple of points, whereas BF3 already have all the main sources added, it will be hard for it to move now... if you do the math, another source for MW3 giving it a 99 would give us 9 x 81 + 99 = 828 / 10 = 82.8 so that would boost them to 83, where as if BF3 received another 99 critique, their score would hardly move a single point. (already 48 sources added to the pool of points)

this is how it works, and this is what games are measured in. It's a fair system and even if the tinfoilhat conspirators think that publishers pay reviewers for high score, just do the math and you realize that that money is wasted, when you get over 50 sources that all contribute to your end score.. you cant really pay them all, can you? Just look at what sources we're talking about here... giants within the industry, incl: IGN, GameZone, PC Zone UK, 1UP, Edge Magazine, GameSpot, PC Gamer, GameSpy, Level etc.... These companies make their living on people trusting their knowledge and analysis of games. Do you think they would risk their entire existence on a simple bribe from EA or Activision? Impossible, even if EA offered 200 million dollars for a good score for BF3, it wouldn't be worth it, as all of those companies are worth more than that. and you'd need to bribe all of them for the metacritic to change. It would also mean that EA would have to knock off those billions on revenue, making the EA stock go down, which in term would hurt them more than a low metacritic score.

So simply put: there are no shortcuts except to make a kick-ass game.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 11-11-2011, 18:11:48
Lol wut? Do you honestly need to ask yourself why MW3 has been trashed on pc? I think the answer i very obvious.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 11-11-2011, 18:11:45

So simply put: there are no shortcuts except to make a kick-ass game.
And who´s the god-like authority that defines what a kick-ass game is?

Does a meta critic score count more than having a small company being in the black and making enough profit to finance their other games, including a successor to their first game?

If a game is tailored to a certain group and still achieves its makers goals, is the game less kick-ass?

What if a minority of gamers (compared to "blockbusters" other big developers) is enough for the creators to make enough profit thinks the game is kick-ass, does it make the game less kick-ass?

In other words, can´t small independent movies be as good (or mabye even better) than a multi-million Hollywood blockbuster?

Tastes differ a lot. You as game designer should know that different people have different tastes, so going so far and judge games by their meta score alone and saying that only games with a high score are allowed to be called "kick ass" is quite short-sighted....


Btw, Natty, remember posting this?:

Just accept the fact that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about and we can move on. Trust me, you'll feel a whole lot better. In the meantime, Ill happily link back to this conversation a few weeks after the retail game is out, so you can read your posts again. At least then, you will realize how silly you sounded, with the conspiracies and paranoid anti-Origin propaganda. you know when the world didn't end, and EA didn't empty everyones bank-accounts or stole their identities.


Aw snap, looks like I´m not the only tin foil hat wearing madman in Germany (record for 1-star-ratings on Amazon.de; negative news coverage on big German newspapers and TV news; loud public outcries; an official petition for our parliamant whcih around 11.000 people have signed so far). Your oppinion on this? :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 11-11-2011, 19:11:07
we werent talking about taste, we were talking about metacritics   ::) so all your questions are dismissed.

I am surely not saying that metacritics is the only thing that matters either, I was refering to the notion that publishers buy reviewers score, and dementing that, and saying that to achieve really high metacritic scores, you need to make a kick-ass game.

That is not the same thing, as saying only games with high meta-critic can be kick-ass. Chew on that for a while, and let me know if you don't understand what I mean.

About the stuff you wrote about Origin, what is your question? Do all people like Origin, certainly not, what does a 11,000 petition matter, when the game sold 5million copies? Ofcourse some games get low scores by some magazines, that's standard stuff, I dont know what to comment on it. It's irrelevant when you look at the big picture (which I do)

One thing I do agree about: If your project sets out to please a certain demographic, and you do that by making ends meet (get back all the money it cost to produce the game) then you win, yes. Then you reached your goal, if that was the goal. It wasnt the goal for BF3 but maybe for TripWire. Did they get back all the money for producing RO2? I dont know. But what I do know is, 76 MC is not OK in their book. They would most likely have been more happy to get 86. And do I believe 86 would have meant more sold copies? Indeed, as it means many big reviewers would have given them 90+ score, meaning more hype, meaning more money added to marketing budget, meaning more exposure = more sales.

Do I think that more MC + more sales would have made TWI happier? sure, and I also believe that if they knew what things/features/designs would have given them that, they would have done that. Even if it would have made the game less pure and holy in your eyes, I totally believe they would have sacrificed that to reach a higher sales + score.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 11-11-2011, 19:11:50
funny bf3 video :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj_17Uvfwes
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 11-11-2011, 19:11:46
That's battlefield for ya. ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 11-11-2011, 20:11:26
we werent talking about taste, we were talking about metacritics   ::) so all your questions are dismissed.

Metacritics are influenced by taste. Games not tailored to the "standard market" might get lower scores. Not all game reviewers are totally unbiased and what some might see as "kick-ass", others might see as "lame". After all these scores are made by human beings...

Quote
That is not the same thing, as saying only games with high meta-critic can be kick-ass. Chew on that for a while, and let me know if you don't understand what I mean.
If your shitty arguments lead to the conclusion that high meta critics make a kick-ass game then it´s not my fault..

Btw, please answer my question:
How do you define a "kick-ass game"? After all it comes down to personal taste, again and is no variable you can simply read off of a display. So much for dismissing my argument too early...you should know better.

Quote
About the stuff you wrote about Origin, what is your question? Do all people like Origin, certainly not, what does a 11,000 petition matter, when the game sold 5million copies? Ofcourse some games get low scores by some magazines, that's standard stuff, I dont know what to comment on it. It's irrelevant when you look at the big picture (which I do)

Oh please...it´s not a bunch of fat, nerdy guys wearing Guy-Fawkes-masks protesting against "eeevil EA". If you´d understand the German people better you´d know that it´s actually a big deal, if even big newspapers, such as Der Spiegel report about it and if the data protection commissioner of "Land Nordrhein-Westfalen" is doing official investigations, because Origins EULAs clearly violate German consumer and privacy laws. But yeah, you´re looking at the big picture.  ::)
5 Mio. copies of BF3 were sold. And how many of these on PC? Console versions come without Origin, so of course there is no uproar....it´d be pretty interesting to know the number of cancelled and returned PC copies. It´s also an interesting fact that big electronics chains, such as Media Markt accept to return opened copies, something they´re usually not doing. And they even put up signs to warn their costumers that Origins EULAs are dubious and if they don´t want to accept them, they shouldn´t buy the game.

Quote
Do I think that more MC + more sales would have made TWI happier? sure, and I also believe that if they knew what things/features/designs would have given them that, they would have done that. Even if it would have made the game less pure and holy in your eyes, I totally believe they would have sacrificed that to reach a higher sales + score.
Would a higher score make them more happier? Would they have sacrificed features for a higher score?
Who knows, we don´t know the TWI guys, so we can only make assumptions and these are not worth much unless we know things, such as sold copies, copies they´ll sell in the future, playerbase etc.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ts4EVER on 11-11-2011, 20:11:39
About the campaign: I am not asking much from videogame story lines, but imo they could at least try to bring it to Uncharted or Half Life 2 level.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 11-11-2011, 20:11:37
There's already tools to launch the game without origin and also to have a simple ya know, a screen to select options, multi, single player and so on.

Here's a link to a thread, they have multiple tools as well to apply some hidden options as well:

http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/battlefield-3/1452391-realmwares-bf3-tools-bf3-settings-editor-bf3-borderless-battlelog-standalone.html
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 11-11-2011, 20:11:04
I really don't see what people are hating on BF3's campaign for. I mean what are the 'standards' we are going by for a singleplayer experience nowadays? Certainly you can't tell me that any Call Of Duty game is very different, because the length and overall feeling of the story lines are similar. You can't tell me that Battlefield 3's campaign doesn't touch upon emotions, cause there are moments in the campaign when you are taken aback, surprised, and frustrated, and there are characters which you are thinking about. Sure, are those characters as engaging as Uncharted, or Half Life 2 characters in their banter and personalities? No, but these are two games, especially one in particular, which are now more known for their multiplayer aspects than their singleplayer ones. This actually being the first full Singleplayer campaign that a true Battlefield title has ever encompassed, far separated from the antics of any game like Bad Company, and if you ask me for a first try this is damn good.

I hold high respect for BF3 and Medal of Honor 2011's Campaigns, because they touch upon the human aspect of soldiers more than any Call of Duty game in the last few years has. While I'm running around as the stoic, invincible Captain Price, or the quiet, emotionless 'Soap' character, in Battlefield 3 and Medal of Honor my characters, whoever they may be have faces, voices, identities, and in BF3's case at least one of the primary characters has a family, which he never gets to see again. I will never forget Medal of Honor 2011, and its scenes at the very end of the game, where my comrades, who I had just spent the majority of the single-player campaign fighting with, are continually waking me up from blackouts, insisting that I keep my eyes on them, that I retain my consciousness because my character is bleeding out due to a severe wound suffered. You sit there and listen as they become livid over the radios with the medevac who tells them first that they are too far away, and then that the closest surgeon is too far as well.

In BF3 I sit tied to a chair in a dark room, while the main enemy walks around with a toy dinosaur belonging to my son, and then as the player I have to watch as my throat is cut on camera to make an example of me for the Western Media. I'm sorry, but Call Of Duty, comes no where CLOSE to that level of interaction with its characters, and anyone hating on Battlefield 3 for having a similar storyline to previous Call of Duty titles is being ridiculous.

What is one of the number one things in the Western Worlds mind right now? Terrorism. What is the biggest idea that we all have of the worst case scenario? Terrorists detonating a nuclear device. What is the chance that we will see WW3 in our lifetime? High. BF3 isn't copying another game, its simply helping relay the realities of our modern society.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ts4EVER on 11-11-2011, 20:11:46
Oops I thought this was the Call of Duty thread. I haven't seen the BF3 campaign yet (or the MW3 campaign so maybe it is better, although I doubt it)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hitm4k3r on 11-11-2011, 21:11:31
I want to interupt this discussion a littlebit.

First: To use these metacritics of some game reviewers as an indicator for the quality of a game isn't a valid argument. Maybe for you Natty as a part of a company, that is still producing negative financial balances over the time. Every guy who has something to do with economics and especialy statistics will tell you, that calculating with average values - as you did it - isn't a good idea to reflect the situation. That's said on a side note.

Second: For me the quality of a game and the success is calculated in a different way. Just look at the player count of a game after several years and you will see which game is better. Very important is to seperate between consoles, hendheld and PC, since in different regions of the world the tastes for different systems are different and on consoles and hendheld the players tend to leave a game earlier.
Simple example - numbers of BC2 of today at 20:30: PC 10530, XBox 3212,PS3 5521. Hendheld not included. No exact value for BF2 but it is over 14000 atm. Also some interesting numbers
http://store.steampowered.com/stats/
Counter-Strike with 55000 players on the PC compared to the so called kick ass game MW3 with 70000 players on PC - lets see how the numbers are for MW3 in 10 years  ;D. That says something and it is a fair comparison - but numbers like these don't get a notification in gaming magazines. Btw C.S. 1.6 is not my type of game.

At the end BF3 may have sold more copies, but that is not that difficult. More and more advertisement is done by the companies and more and more people have the possibility to get in contact with the product (growing population and globalistation + speed of consume gets faster and faster). At the end it will be very interesting to see, whether BF3 will also have 14000 players on the PC in 5 or 6 years. That's the best indicator, whether the game is Kick-Ass or not. My two cents ...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hitm4k3r on 11-11-2011, 21:11:54
I really don't see what people are hating on BF3's campaign for. I mean what are the 'standards' we are going by for a singleplayer experience nowadays?

Have you played the Brothers in Arms titles? There you see, what could be done in a FPS campaign. I started playing the BF3 campaign but stoped after several missions because it was damn boring and bad designed (AI bugs, pathfinding, unchalenging game mechanics, too many QTE and invisible level borders). It was just boring. I don't hate the game, but DICE did it better in BC2 for example especialy with the BF in mind. Only BF moment in the BF3 campaign was the thunder run mission. All in all, many things are stolen but done worse. People like me simply know, that it could be done better.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 11-11-2011, 21:11:42
I really don't see what people are hating on BF3's campaign for. I mean what are the 'standards' we are going by for a singleplayer experience nowadays?

Have you played the Brothers in Arms titles? There you see, what could be done in a FPS campaign. I started playing the BF3 campaign but stoped after several missions because it was damn boring and bad designed (AI bugs, pathfinding, unchalenging game mechanics, too many QTE and invisible level borders). It was just boring. I don't hate the game, but DICE did it better in BC2 for example especialy with the BF in mind. Only BF moment in the BF3 campaign was the thunder run mission. All in all, many things are stolen but done worse. People like me simply know, that it could be done better.

Okay, but in contrast the Brothers in Arms series takes place during and actual war, with actual true stories, and therefore is easily better regardless of the way in which its put together. Reality will always be stranger than fiction.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 11-11-2011, 21:11:41
Personally i find BiAs stories and campaigns to be crap, just covered in cliché sentimentalism.. I even stopped playing BiA HH after too many of the lame cut scenes. And the game play is just a very simple puzzle game disguised as a "tactical shooter" but after just a few levels, the puzzle-pattern is just so transparent and predictable, killing those bots in X order just gets old.

Commandos from 1997 or when it was, had better puzzles.

As for wawhomer... you again derailed  ::) we were talking about MC, not taste. I said that only making kick-ass games will give you high MC, nothing else. I never said a game can't be kick-ass and at the same time have a low MC.
I think it's simple to judge a good game from a mediocre or bad game, but if you want to add taste to the discussion all the time, it wont work. For me, taste and quality are two different things. A good game can be boring, and a bad game can be fun. That's irrelevant, I dont care much about taste.

As for reviewer having taste, of course they do. But they are professionals, if you read my post earlier - it's their job to convince people that they can analyze games well. Basically all the games media does, is telling people about games, and people buy their magazines and visits their websites to get a piece of that information. So obviously, a big site like IGN or a big magazine wont hire a bunch of public forum geeks who cant differ quality from taste. Ofcourse many games are reviewed by people who dont like that game, but being objective, they can still get high scores.

overall, it doesnt matter if reviews reflect 100% the reviewers taste, it all mixes up and you're left with one number to rule them all which is the gaming industries grade that they slap on the game and tell the maker "you did this good", or "this games kicks/sucks this much ass".

It's not rocket science, it's just statistics. In the end, it doesn't matter for the individual, but saying that MW2 is a bad game is ignorant. Saying I dont like it, but I understand why so many play it and like it is being insightful.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hitm4k3r on 11-11-2011, 22:11:32
Personally i find BiAs stories and campaigns to be crap, just covered in cliché sentimentalism.. I even stopped playing BiA HH after too many of the lame cut scenes. And the game play is just a very simple puzzle game disguised as a "tactical shooter" but after just a few levels, the puzzle-pattern is just so transparent and predictable, killing those bots in X order just gets old.

Commandos from 1997 or when it was, had better puzzles.

You are right about the comparison between Commandos from 1997 and FPS from nowadays - this game was difficult as hell and more challenging and interesting than modern games. But reading your post I come to the conclusion that you never played BiA RtH 30 and Earned in Blood wich were in deed very challenging games with a deep story. I can still remember the names of the characters of the game. In BF3 ... hmmmm
And BiA HH was indeed the worst game of the BiA series. And regarding your reasons to stop playing BiA HH I think you also stoped playing BF3. Yes I know, in BF3 are no Cutscenes except a whole mission with very difficult puzzles like press "E" or hammer down on your space bar. And the never ending spawn of bots in BF3 ...
Do you know how they make advertisement for BF3. They call it the most realistic military shooter ;D
I think BiA is more a tactical shooter than BF3 "the most realistic military shooter".

@Archi: I think the problem is not the scenary. Also fantasy games can have a very interesting story. Mostly RPG's. The other way around WWII shooters can be very boring conercing a SP campaign. I don't know, whats so difficult about telling a good story instead of shooting tons of bots. Atm. I am playing Amnesia - The Dark Descent. Give it a try and you will know what I mean.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 11-11-2011, 23:11:05
funny bf3 video :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj_17Uvfwes

Damn that convinced me... I might buy that just for the amount of LULZ it can provide...

EDIT: They should have called it the most realistic arcade knifing simulator... :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 12-11-2011, 00:11:25
All of that guys 'Op' videos are brilliant.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 12-11-2011, 02:11:34
i like this one the most :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BADJhIXiS4g&feature=related
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 12-11-2011, 08:11:35
...At the end it will be very interesting to see, whether BF3 will also have 14000 players on the PC in 5 or 6 years...

No chance.

I'd say we'll have at least two more BF games by then, maybe more.

The fact they've decided to make it an online game only (and no, the campaign doesn't count) has greatly reduced it's longevity.


In my case, once BF3's "Wow" factor wears off in another month or so, I'll be playing as much BF2 as BF3 thanks to this "no offline" bullshit, which is fucking ridiculous... ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 12-11-2011, 09:11:56
Jihad Jeep from the beta.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clDpZIaU3-Q

Doesn't happen a lot ingame though, don't think I've ever been killed by a Jihad Jeep.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 12-11-2011, 09:11:32
But reading your post I come to the conclusion that you never played BiA RtH 30 and Earned in Blood

sure I did, at least the first one, but I didnt finish it, I simply didnt care enought about what would happen in the "story"... They advertised that game as so 'tactical' and deep as well, I just felt it was "ok".. I mean I liked the initial levels, but just as sooo many other SP shooters, the game simply did not offer a well balanced interest curve. CoD1 offered a way better curve IMO.

I haven't played the BF3 sp yet so can't comment on that. And I also can't think of a more realistic shooter than BF3 either, if by realistic we're talking visuals. At least I think DICE refers to this, since talking about realistic game play is just irrelevant, game play never is supposed to be realistic, only fun & challenging.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 12-11-2011, 09:11:52
I've only seen a few bomb buggies (no MEC, no jihad ;))...


The first time I saw one, the idiot came around a corner and drove straight at my tank, he was only about 10 metres away when I nailed him.

I momentarily thought he must've been blind, then I score all these points for destroying enemy explosives and the penny dropped... :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 12-11-2011, 11:11:55
*snip*

I fear you don´t quite get my point.
I agree with you that game reviewers need to be professionals and (mostly) are. But is there a neutral checklist that says a game is "kick-ass" or not?
Is a game "kick-ass" when it looks fancy or has great sounds? Or is it "kick-ass" when it contains a certain game feature? Or when it has x number of players in MP? How do you define "kick-ass"?

The game reviewers need to have a certain standard to rate games and aside from the technical aspect that can only leave "taste" (or personal preferences if you´d like to call it like that) as test variable. How come RO2 for example has such varyiing scores, ranging from really low to really good? All these game testers used the same versions, so there aren´t any technical differences (like version A has more bugs than version B etc.).

Since game tests aren´t made by "logical thinking" machines but by human beings it´d be more than naive to disregard "personal preferences/taste" because it IS an important factor in testing a game/reviewing a movie or a new track from Rammstein. Some might see the game as "kick-ass", some might not because they view one feature as good or as bad.


A nice high overall score is be nice for marketing reasons because the publisher can slap it onto the case and use it to sell the game (or they could just use the highest score their game got and do the same with that  ::)), but measuring a games overall success only with one number is again quite shortsighted.

Other factors have an influence, wether the game is "successful" or not. Free-to-play-weekends, free DLCs with additional content and modding tools can have a big influence on wether a game is successful on the long run, or not.
High meta scores are helpful, too to a certain degree, but I wouldn´t be so quick and call that score the single-most important factor.

5hitm4k3r has made a really good post about that, you might want to read it. But unfortunately you´re as stubborn as a lobotomized donkey and only what Natty says is correct. :/

Quote
And I also can't think of a more realistic shooter than BF3 either, if by realistic we're talking visuals. At least I think DICE refers to this, since talking about realistic game play is just irrelevant, game play never is supposed to be realistic, only fun & challenging.
I bet there are people who´d beg to differ.  ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 12-11-2011, 12:11:11
Do you really have any interest in agreeing what a "success is"? I doubt it.

If I had to define it myself, we would need to consider the following criterias

1. Sales - the game make back the money it cost to produce & market it + some earnings. The larger the budget was, the larger the earning needs to be. Making a game for 1 million $ meets the criteria if it makes back 1.1 million. A game costing 20 million needs to make back 22 millions etc.. This is simplified, but you get my point.

2. Feeling of content in the studio/company - As long as workers are proud and happy with the game they made, low sales doesn't need to mean the end of the world. A good organisation will learn from the mistakes, and be more motivated to do a new better game. Domestic love for the product is essential for a success of a game (studio), getting high scores obviously can make workers start to doubt their own dislike in the game, potentially even start making them love the game again.

3. Scores & Rating aka metacritics - Simply receiving good ratings from the world of games. A game that sells bad and is disliked by the makers of it, gets an objective "you did well" label by the audience.

4. High user scores - If the game sells bad, gets low reviews and if the workers are unpleased with the game, a feeling of accomplishment can still be had from high user scores and strong community support. It might not guarantee funding for a new game, but will at least raise the feeling of content in point 3. a bit.

5. Spin-off effects - A game that sells bad, gets low scores, is unliked by the people that made it and didn't really get support from the ones that did buy it can still in some instances make way for other games, a rings-on-the-water-effect if you will. For ex; games that prototypes new tech, or new business models, or new interfaces, storing devices, controllers and what-have-you, can still inspire and promote new, better designed games that improves on them.

Ofcourse there can be more factors, but if you look at these as a chain of criterias for success, I think they work ok. All games might not aim for full score in all of these, and as long as it hits on the things it aims to succeed in, no one can take away its own feeling of success.

If some public forum dude says a game is "fail" because he doesnt like it, or that all his other forum buddies are ganging up and form an anti-clan is obviously irrelevant, as in the case of "yustax" who calls MW2 and MW3 fail games ("all CoD fans stopped at CoD4"; actual quote) just because he spends too much time reading and believing the words of other forum geeks with the exact same closemindedness as himself.


Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 12-11-2011, 12:11:02
^Nice wall of text, explaining the obvious.

Remember what you said?

uh, no? Metacritic is the only thing that matters... it's what the industry care about anyway..


So simply put: there are no shortcuts except to make a kick-ass game.

Atleast you admitted now that MC aren´t the most important things anyway, but merely a part of the overall picture and I agree with you there. A "successful" game is more than just one number representing high rating and in the end the minorities rambling won´t do much if the game still sells well and if they keep on winning more new "fans" than losing "old ones".
But it´s a persons freedom to ramble about why he doesn´t want to spend 60 Euros of his (more or less) hard-earned money on a product he thinks is worth less (I can understand that, since I don´t want to pay a full price for a revamped version of a 2007 game) and it´s also his right to tell other "forum geeks" (as you call them insultingly) his opionion. And the number of pirated versions of a game might even give Yustax right, since these are potential buyers who think that revamp isn´t worth what they charge and didn´t invest 60 Euros. It´d be interesting to compare sales and "pirate" number, to get a new perspective on the economical part of a "successful" game.

I´m also glad that we can agree on the Origin EULAs creating a huge uproar in Germany and about "personal preferences" playing an important role in game ratings.  :)

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 12-11-2011, 12:11:03
^Nice wall of text, explaining the obvious.

Remember what you said?

uh, no? Metacritic is the only thing that matters... it's what the industry care about anyway..


So simply put: there are no shortcuts except to make a kick-ass game.

Atleast you admitted now that MC aren´t the most important things anyway, but merely a part of the overall picture and I agree with you there. A "successful" game is more than just one number representing high rating and in the end the minorities rambling won´t do much if the game still sells well and if they keep on winning more new "fans" than losing "old ones".
But it´s a persons freedom to ramble about why he doesn´t want to spend 60 Euros of his (more or less) hard-earned money on a product he thinks is worth less (I can understand that, since I don´t want to pay a full price for a revamped version of a 2007 game) and it´s also his right to tell other "forum geeks" (as you call them insultingly) his opionion. And the number of pirated versions of a game might even give Yustax right, since these are potential buyers who think that revamp isn´t worth what they charge and didn´t invest 60 Euros. It´d be interesting to compare sales and "pirate" number, to get a new perspective on the economical part of a "successful" game.

I´m also glad that we can agree on the Origin EULAs creating a huge uproar in Germany and about "personal preferences" playing an important role in game ratings.  :)
Homer_jay pretty much summes it up. Good ball mayte!

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 12-11-2011, 13:11:23
sums what up?

people who download games don't do it because they consider the game to be a "revamp", come on..  ::) They do it because it's free. You believe people who download movies judge the movies before as well?
"This movie is just exactly like that other movie I saw on the cinema in 2007, just new actors.. meh, I wont go see it, I just download it"

nope. People don't judge games like that when they download, they grab it cuz it's there, up for grabs. Saying things like "Activision is just revamping the same game over and over again" is just stupid, only forum trolls speak like that.. oh wait..  :-\
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 12-11-2011, 13:11:13
People who pirate games are a bunch of hypocrits shifting their responsibilities to possible disagreements within our economical society"everyone does it, you cant stop it, its our right to try before we buy, im not going to spend ... for a game wich i maybe wont like, its the internet, games are to expensive".

Get over it. Admit your a cheapass bastard stealing intellectual and fysical property.
You cant claim something wich isnt yours.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 12-11-2011, 14:11:06
sums what up?

people who download games don't do it because they consider the game to be a "revamp", come on..  ::) They do it because it's free. You believe people who download movies judge the movies before as well?
"This movie is just exactly like that other movie I saw on the cinema in 2007, just new actors.. meh, I wont go see it, I just download it"

nope. People don't judge games like that when they download, they grab it cuz it's there, up for grabs. Saying things like "Activision is just revamping the same game over and over again" is just stupid, only forum trolls speak like that.. oh wait..  :-\

Dude, I said it´d be interesting to find out motives of "pirates" and how this relates to the economical side of a "successful" game.
A good reason why someone might want to pirate a game could be that he´s interested in the singleplayer version but doesn´t care about the multiplayer part (he´d be excluded from that anyway, with a cracked game and a pirated key). Most people don´t seem to be willing to pay 60 bucks for a one-time 5 hour singleplayer experience, so it´s no wonder they pirate games.
Instead of condemming all pirates as "antisocial leeches", it´d be more interesting to find out why exactly they´re doing it. Sure, "it´s free" is a vallid argument, but definately not the only one. Other economical and social reasons apply as well, and again, generalizing it won´t help solving the problem (=companies losing money because of pirates).
The South Park creators have gone an interesting approach to combat internet streams of their series. They just give the people their "intellectual" property for free on their own streaming website. Regardless of where people are from, they can watch the latest episodes for free, without waiting for 2 years untill it´d appear on their own local TV stations. The only "downside" are adds on at the beginning of the show and on their homepage.
But I bet people are more than willing to accept a 20 second add and some banners on the page, if they get what they want (the latest episode for free), while SPs creators have a large audience they can serve and still make money by offering attractive advertisement space to other companies. It´s a win-win situation for everyone.

Instead of criminalizing "pirates", companies should extensively look into the problem and find solutions that actually work, because DRMs, like with EAs "Spore" or other Ubisoft titles punish honest people more, than "pirates".
It seems like the authoritarian approach doesn´t work, so new methods should be used. South Park Studios are going into the right direction, IMHO, and others should atleast look into that concept aswell.

Anyway, I fear with our talk about piracy we´re derailing this thread. My discussion with "natty" about Origins criminal EULAs and the idiocy of limiting a game´s "success" to one factor (=MC rating) seems to be solved, so I won´t bother those who enjoy BF3 anymore in this thread.

Maybe someone who´s interested in that whole "piracy" topic might create another thread where we could discuss this problem, instead of abusing another thread for it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 12-11-2011, 14:11:36
You can't simply generalize a crowd into a singular group. There a hundred different reasons why people pirate a game. I personally do it when I'm unsure of a games quality and would rather get it free than purchase it. However a game like Skyrim, where I had no doubt of its quality, I went in bought because the money is deserved for such a piece of art.

Origin may be creating an uproar in Germany, but I highly see the reality in causing such a fuss. Do I enjoy a marketing tool that stands in my way, while I'm trying to enjoy a game? No. Do I enjoy having to log into two different accounts just to play? No. However, am I upset because this game came with a marketing tool? No. Origin is just an example of what the future holds for everyone, marketing and digital distribution software will eventually become part of many major companies and their designs.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 12-11-2011, 16:11:15
People who pirate games are a bunch of hypocrits shifting their responsibilities to possible disagreements within our economical society"everyone does it, you cant stop it, its our right to try before we buy, im not going to spend ... for a game wich i maybe wont like, its the internet, games are to expensive".

Get over it. Admit your a cheapass bastard stealing intellectual and fysical property.
You cant claim something wich isnt yours.

thechnically is not stealing, there is no loss of a physical copy, and you can argue wherever or not someone that downloads a videogame would buy one if he couldnt download it. the mayoritie that download videogames wouldnt have brought it anyways so is not a lost sale (mayoritie been students, 3rd world countrys and kids without bank accounts). the only ilegal thing is the copyright and inteletual property
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 12-11-2011, 17:11:31
Spare me the semantics Sicario  ::) we all know what we're talking about here, it doesn't matter what you "call" it (stealing, borrowing, pre-viewing, pirating) and the "reasons" people have is also totally irrelevant. Archi says there is 150 reason, I say there is 15,000 reasons, all of them equally irrelevant.

People do it, and game studios suffer. Studios close down and people lose their jobs over piracy. Want to debate this? Then create a new thread and we can ponder it there, in the end it doesn't matter what futile attempts for an argument you scrap together, facts are facts, and this is the reality of software piracy - it has these affects, and if I cared more about the outcome of this particulary silly forum thread, I would list a bunch of projects, studios and people who lost jobs because of piracy. I won't now.

Now, what we're talking about here was not each individuals sacredness, I admit also using torrents now and then, but when dudes like Yustax openly encourages people to not buy a game and download it instead, that's where the flags get raised, even stating (then trying to cover up by saying he was joking) piracy has no effect is silly.. "people who download wouldnt have bought it anyway" is pure bullshit and you know it. Anyone can say that. It does affect sales, and alot. Some games more than others. but all games suffer from piracy, the end, period, nuff said.

Sure we can go the WaWhomer way and try and analyze exactly why people download, but that feels like early 00's methodology ("why do people download music?") - it's irrelevant why they do it. The most simple answer is cuz they can.

Npw obviously studios can design games that dont - can't - be pirated, like BFHeroes and BFP4F, but ofcourse not all games can have that model. We will always have physical, boxed products, and as long as there are haxx0rz out there to crack them and make torrents, there will be dudes grabbing what's free. The only thing we can do, is shut up about it and keep it to ourselves, not go online on forums encouraging people to do it, or make up half-ass defensive argument of why it "could be ok if you look at it this way blablabla"... or the old worn-out "it's not really stealing" notion.

maybe back on BF3 topic?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hitm4k3r on 12-11-2011, 17:11:35
You can't simply generalize a crowd into a singular group. There a hundred different reasons why people pirate a game. I personally do it when I'm unsure of a games quality and would rather get it free than purchase it. However a game like Skyrim, where I had no doubt of its quality, I went in bought because the money is deserved for such a piece of art.


I have to agree on this point. The times of playing Demo's is over. Tbh I am happy not to have spent 50 euro for BF3, a game that I don't like at the end. But if you like the game especialy if you want to play the MP, then you will have to pay for the game anyway. Same for music. Musicians who say "f*ck the dowmload pirates" and give as a reason, that they don't earn any money anymore and can't live are simply liars. Most money is earned by merchendising and concerts, same as public relations and the money from the sells goes to the industry. People get over it: Internet piracy is a big part of our society. kino.to is not without any reason the second most hit page in germany.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 12-11-2011, 17:11:46

People do it, and game studios suffer. Studios close down and people lose their jobs over piracy.

this is interesting, care to mention studios that have close down because of piracy? coz i can hardly imagine DICE, EA, Activision to close down because of it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 12-11-2011, 17:11:27

People do it, and game studios suffer. Studios close down and people lose their jobs over piracy.

this is interesting, care to mention studios that have close down because of piracy? coz i can hardly imagine DICE, EA, Activision to close down because of it.
Its just like that southpark episode.Christian Rock hard


I always buyed my games, and i always will. But i stopped buying EA games. i was planning to buy BF3 but i used my cash for a game from a truly good game studios=The elder scrolls V from Bethesda. Sure they have there downsides to, but i always enjoyed and loved there games

And they are super friendly towards the modding community.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hitm4k3r on 12-11-2011, 17:11:04

People do it, and game studios suffer. Studios close down and people lose their jobs over piracy.

this is interesting, care to mention studios that have close down because of piracy? coz i can hardly imagine DICE, EA, Activision to close down because of it.

Same here. I want to know some names. ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 12-11-2011, 17:11:30
*snip*
Ok, sorry, I´ve got to respond to this, this is too funny.

You said you were using Torrents, too? But condemn others?
Isn´t that highly hypocritical? Like "preaching water and drinking wine"? Yustax was simply pointing out the obvious (piracy exists, that´s a fact), but you came down on him like a mad hawk on a squirrel, basically "tearing him apart" (I think you even called him names...way to go..  :-\), yet you admit using Torrents yourselves? Well, your actions are ok, I guess, because you only do it "now and then".  ::)

Next thing:
Ridiculing analyzing things like "back in the early 00s" is short-sighted and plain stupid. Sorry, but you can´t solve a problem with a sledgehammer and the world isn´t black and white.
People do things for a reason. For example, TV streaming homepages are quite popular here, because you can watch foreign TV shows without waiting 2 years for the (sometimes really bad) dubbed version to air in local tv.
As I´ve said (and you seem to deliberately ignoring this point), SPS have looked at that problem and instead of suing the living cr*p out of pirates, they´ve found another, less brutal, way of solving the piracy problem, keeping and attracting new consumers and still making money with what they do.

If the "digital media" industry would follow a similiar way (being more "consumer friendly", e.g. having lower prices, offering a good cost-performance-ratio, hassle their consumers less with hurdles, such as DRM) the number of "pirates" would surely be fewer.


But yeah, assuming the world is black and white and "annihilate" those who are "against us", is always easier.

Or not, as Ubisoft and EA have shown.  ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 12-11-2011, 19:11:58
Quote
A good reason why someone might want to pirate a game could be that he´s interested in the singleplayer versron but doesn´t care about the multiplayer part (he´d be excluded from that anyway, with a cracked game and a pirated key). Most people don´t seem to be willing to pay 60 bucks for a one-time 5 hour singleplayer experience, so it´s no wonder they pirate games.
Instead of condemming all pirates as "antisocial leeches", it´d be more interesting to find out why exactly they´re doing it. Sure, "it´s free" is a vallid argument, but definately not the only one. Other economical and social reasons apply as well, and again, generalizing it won´t help solving the problem (=companies losing money because of pirates).

rediculous argument. If you do not like it, dont buy it. Im not stealing a n expensive car because it costs to much and isnt reliable for longer than 1 year.
Its simple. People who steal content should be punished.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 12-11-2011, 20:11:58
hah, ok wawhomer, now you proved to me that you dont actually read posts, you just scan through them, looking for a thing to start picking on, way to go.

proof: I only told yustax to keep what he's doing to himself, that I dont care what he does (in the comforts of his venezuelan bungalow, scroll back to read actual post) as long as he doesnt come in here, stating that piracy isnt harmful and encouraging people to do it.

get the difference? Hypocritical I would be if I told him piracy itself is bad, then still do it myself. Now I only told him going online preaching how piracy actually isn't so harmful, is bullshit, and he should just keep that to himself.

I guess this is why communicating on forum is just so simple and retarded. I totally admit downloading music illegaly is extemly low, that the artists that makes the music deserve money for their art, but I still grab songs from blogs and torrents when I see them. Why? it doesn't matter, I do have reasons for why I need them, but they dont justify my doings. For games I stopped downloading some years ago, simply because to me it is not the money that keeps me from playing games, it's the time. i still have unplayed games littered around my flat and Steam account. But it doesn't matter, some people will do it, some won't, it doesn't matter since we cant do anything about it (except design games as I mentioned^) but at least, we can shut up about it on games-related forums, and surely not public state stupid things like "it doesn't cause any harm". If you do, you'll get slapped in the face with shitstorms. Maybe that is exactly what Trollax was after, and giggles as he sees the effect of it, who knows. Im just not taking that stuff easily, even though it doesnt mean anything what some dudes on some german public mod forum are saying, it's still my most visited forum of which Im a member for years. Ofcourse it would be easier to ignore idiotic remarks, but hey.... who can?  8)

@SiCariO, irrelevant if EA or Ubisoft isnt closed down. money is still drained from both publishers due to piracy. Money that otherwise could have been used to make the games better, and provide more fun entertainment to the fans of the games.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 12-11-2011, 20:11:11
but when dudes like Yustax openly encourages people to not buy a game and download it instead, that's where the flags get raised, even stating (then trying to cover up by saying he was joking)

Lol, I never encouraged anyone. And it was a sarcastic joke :P Lol dude, you need to calm down. Meeting you in person would be like talking to an old bark. How old are ya?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 12-11-2011, 20:11:25
*snip*
Oh, ok, I get it. Piracy harms companies, makes them lose money, but it´s okeydokey if you do it privately? If it´s such a bad thing, as you said ("they lose money", "people lose their jobs" yada, yada yada), then why are you still doing it? Does it make you a better person if you keep it to yourself?
If someone does something illegal, without telling anyone, it´s still against the law. It´s like saying "alright, you can do cocaine, but keep it to yourself, like I do!", which is plain stupid and hypcritical....get what I mean?

Smiles, get off your high horse. I wasn´t justifying piracy in any way, I was just trying to give another perspective on why someone "steals" (which is an ethical and juridical controversy, anyways) games.
I´ve also given examples of creators taking another approach on how to deal with piracy and why most developers/distributors sometimes even provoke pirating their products (like with Spore or most of the recent Ubisoft games)....

And speaking of your "expensive car"-example:
Wouldn´t you try out your new car before you´ll buy it? It´s a bit stupid to buy a new car, which costs a fortune, without trying it out first. Or do you know that your new toy will satisfy you without trying it out first?

Do you get my analogy? ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 12-11-2011, 21:11:15

@SiCariO, irrelevant if EA or Ubisoft isnt closed down. money is still drained from both publishers due to piracy. Money that otherwise could have been used to make the games better, and provide more fun entertainment to the fans of the games.

you were the one stating that piracy made companies close down and people to loose their jobs, i was genualy interested in knowing what companies,because AFAIK piracy "loss" still represents and small % on the market, now you say is irrelevant?

and then you say that because of piracy, companies cant make better games ?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 12-11-2011, 21:11:20
Hiii heaar i hate horses. small tall slim or retarded.
You are right. We as customers like to try something before we buy. But to make it our rightto do so, wich one labels it when one uses it to justify stealing content, is another story.
Now we could debate why publishers wont release demos anymore, i am all for that. I bought BF3 because i knew i liked it after the demo.

And im a hypocrit too. I play pirated games at friends houses, listen to pirated music in pubs and use unreferenced pictures in essays and presentations.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 12-11-2011, 21:11:29
piracy "loss" still represents and small % on the market, now you say is irrelevant?
are you high? I never said it is irrelevant
and then you say that because of piracy, companies cant make better games ?
high again? or just trolling? I never said that.. maybe this discussion is too hard for you.  :-X

at wawhomer... wow.. you want to turn the discussion to wether or not I am using torrents sometime... lol  ::) good luck tricking me in to that one.  8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Lightning on 12-11-2011, 21:11:38
You guys want to talk about piracy? Make a thread about piracy. Come on...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 12-11-2011, 22:11:37
Henceforth I will delete all off-topic posts and ban every single person who endorses piracy.

(Not saying that anyone has done that, but keep that in mind nevertheless.)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zeno on 12-11-2011, 22:11:09
just installed the game and played a few rounds, Really love the game! battlelog is a bit annoying that you have to exit the game all the time, but i guess ill get used to it  :)

anyone want to add me and join for a couple of games? : Zeno123
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 13-11-2011, 06:11:13
To those of you who don't have BF3 (for whatever reason):

Bf3 has it's flaws, but these are seriously outweighed by it's good points.


A few of my favourite things:

 - The feel of the game is awesome, everything is so fluid, it's head and shoulders above every other FPS atm.

 - You can strafe while sprinting...it doesn't sound like much, but you'll realize how big of an improvement it is when you go back to FH2.

 - Killing people who are hiding behind destructible walls...



And best of all?

 - The mobile AA baby...ohh yeah!

If you ever suffered at the hands of flyboys in BF2, you will fucking LOVE the AA in BF3!

I don't know why they call them Tunguskas and whatnot, they should be called "Shredders" as this is more descriptive of their destructive capabilities, i.e: you can level a building with them faster than you can with a tank... ;)

Missiles? Forget about 'em, who needs missiles when you've got a chaingun that spews out about a million rounds a minute (no joke) and cuts through jets like a hot knife through butter... ;D


(My only fear is they'll nerf them in the first patch... :-X)





In short, happiness is bringing cocky flyboys back down to earth with my chaingun.

Revenge has never tasted so sweet... ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 13-11-2011, 07:11:48
I find it ridiculous that the rounds can destroy tanks...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 13-11-2011, 07:11:10
yea cannon, it's a fact that experienced pilots too easily could ruin the experience for other players in BF2. dice didnt want to repeat that in BF3.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 13-11-2011, 07:11:35
That was because DICE added that all the AA's were highlighted as soon as a player got in to use 'em and that the Jets had more range than the AA.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 13-11-2011, 08:11:36
no it was not just because of that  ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 13-11-2011, 08:11:07
no it was not just because of that  ::)

And of course the massive damage of bombs and other weapons  ;D Still, it's a shame that BF3 emplacements and vehicles have infinite ammo...again.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 13-11-2011, 10:11:57
uh.. there's more to design than just that  ::)

about BF3, there's no point with an emplacement or vehicle that hasn't got ammo. ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 13-11-2011, 10:11:31
no it was not just because of that  ::)

And of course the massive damage of bombs and other weapons  ;D Still, it's a shame that BF3 emplacements and vehicles have infinite ammo...again.
ye always found this very dissapointing..
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 13-11-2011, 14:11:21
Unlimited Ammo being a problem? Hahaha.

Personally, I wish they would've stuck with the design they had for Battlefield 1943, while it eliminates the need for a support class with ammo boxes, the number of support classes ACTUALLY supplying ammo is so minimal, and with no static Ammo or Medical boxes on the maps themselves, I still find times where I run out of ammo for my primary weapon on the defense, which is so annoying considering I could still hold my ground if I didn't run out, our if there was a static ammo box nearby. I can never understand why they removed static ammo boxes, instead of just limiting the types of ammo they can distribute. In BF1943 however, I'd always have another magazine, and if I waited long enough, more explosives to deal out damage, but always just a single grenade.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 13-11-2011, 15:11:54
dont worrie, next battlefield will have unlimited ammo, unlimited health and you can revive your self by pressing space
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 13-11-2011, 16:11:04
*ti Hi''GiGgLes*...  (http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ6gXqT71xcOy-n_M9jUTNPTjPTS9O6Cvoqf7P6XXeJ0FvyRl6A)

@Archi: static ammo/med boxes reduces the importance of the class specific abilities. But making a static AA gun run out of ammo is just silly, players would just blow it up and wait for a new to spawn. I also don't think dice designers wants to remove players from the action to do arbitrary chores like carrying a box to an AA gun, or drive a tank back to mainbase to get more ammo.
It wouldn't be any more realistic or fun.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 13-11-2011, 21:11:47
I seriously think that logic is flawed, since I know for years, players in Battlefield 1942 would go out of their way to find a repair pad, resupply point, or medical box. If its available players use it, and I still think they should be there, since as I said, people are not too keen on putting down ammo when its needed.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Moose on 13-11-2011, 21:11:02
I disagree, i think players are always willing to Toss ammo in BF3 because of the points you get..anytime I see a big group of people at a bottleneck, I'll throw ammo/med kit because youre guaranteed a shit ton of points.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 13-11-2011, 21:11:44
all that stuff is moved in to the persistence systems now. It creates a more dynamic and interesting battlefield. It also adds to the interest curve instead of having all the toys available from get-go.

+ all the campings at ammo/medic boxes simply disrupted the game too much in the old games.

Players want to be able to help eachother, but game play can never rely upon it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: HadrianBT on 13-11-2011, 22:11:44
The current system with resuming and healing boxes is the same as in BF2, therefore I like it. I would still prefer vehicles like tanks, APC and Mobile AA to have limited ammo, though.

What is really disturbing is what they did to planes. Heck, most of the time you can get in a plane because nobody wants one anyway. I think I'm rather good with them now, but the best I could do was 7:1 on Caspian and of those kills all were from air targets. That is, I am completely useless for the team, I am forced to hunt planes, as killing something on the ground is next to impossible. The heat-seeking air to surface missiles are just horrible. Even the fact that you dont have to press "W" all the time now does not help. I am yet to hit somebody with one yet. Usually I am past the vehicle by the time I can lock on.

This is not right, ppl feared planes in BF2 for a reason. You really had to hide well on Gulf of Oman when playing the US. You had to park a tank in between the buildings to avoid the SU-34. On the other hand, it was crazy fun to fly one both as a pilot (and thus getting just 15-20 kills), but helping your gunner, or the gunner himself and utilizing the double-purpose missiles to their finest. You could even kill single infantries and planes with it, since you could guide it with a mouse instead of using the lock-on feature.

And, once again, I see the tendency of only good pilots using planes now, as noobs can't even get their 300 points for flares with so many threats both in the air and on the ground where on some occasions every dude and his dog had a Stinger.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 14-11-2011, 01:11:20
behold, the smartest of all the DICE ideas, they call it art desing:

(http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/3187/dfghfghwti.png)

why do step 16/17 look way better than retail version?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 14-11-2011, 05:11:28
Artistic direction of the game=Melt your retinas.

At least in the next patch they tone down that flashlight a lot!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 14-11-2011, 07:11:19
Taste differs obviously. What one person think is ugly, the next think is beautiful and vice versa.
When it comes to those images, I think the last one looks way better, and the color fits that type of environment better as well, sharper contrast, just a cleaner/nicer look :)

Color correction is standard in current-gen games. It's a great way for the AD together with the level artist to be able to fine-tune the tone and look of a map, pretty much like they have been able to do in movies for ages (since the beginning of color flicks?) Games are catching up :) it's called progression of an industry.

Surely, in the beginning of each new cycle in all forms of media. there will be backwards people who complain and whine (why do we need this?) just like when the talkies came in the 20's, or when color was added to movies, or when special effects was started to be used, or CGI, or 3D etc etc.... same goes for music, people starting inventing new ways of recording music, with effects, synths, samples etc, always there are people there, stating that "things are good as they are, dont change"

Color correction is just a (somewhat) new feature that allows on-the-fly iterations for the art in games, some games have had it for years, other technologies are just adding it now. As usual, people are scared and confused about new things, personally I find it inspiring and exciting that game development is starting to catch up with old established entertainment productions such as movies & music. Just imagine what it will be like in just 10 years :) maybe we will experience a revolution with the same importance that the 'talkies' had, or when colored flicks came. And what could power such leap in development? Is it backwards thinkings and refusal to try new designs or tech? Nope, it ain't, and the industry knows this, and is contantly challenging itself with new innovations and ideas

Those, among other things, is why games development is so interesting  8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 14-11-2011, 08:11:37
No Natty, ultra exagerated bloom and the exagerated sun isnt beautiful, it's annoying. That's why many people have complained.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Knitschi on 14-11-2011, 10:11:41
BTW is it possible to switch off the lense flare with a console variable? It is totaly anoying. Especially on maps where there is a low sun. And I am no fan of exagerated bloom effects either. In this game i am half blind half the time.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 14-11-2011, 11:11:24
@Natty: Problem is they've nerfed the jets so badly we now have the opposite problem.


Like Hadrian said, they've gone from the most popular vehicle to the least (jeeps aside). I'm still yet to see anyone camping for a jet in BF3.

On foot, I've been killed by a jet twice, not sure about vehicles, but it'd be less than a dozen...and this is in over 42 hours (or 263 rounds).

In BF2, it wasn't unusual to be bombed in orbit half a dozen times or more per round... :)


And yeah, I'm one of those jet-noobs (don't have flares yet)... :)

Tried them a few times, I go up, fly across the map once (twice if I'm lucky), then beep-beep-beep-BEEEEEEEEEEEP - KABOOM!!!



People who don't drop ammo are as bad as SL's that don't give orders... :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 14-11-2011, 14:11:00
i have to pictures:

(http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/10d-16/maroon-bells-mountain-stream-1.jpg)

and
(http://www.dday-overlord.com/img/bob/film/imgfilm/band_of_brothers_manoir_brecourt.jpg)

one looks colorfull, compeling and realistic, the other looks plain, tasteless and desaturated, can you guess where bf3 "art" falls?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hitm4k3r on 14-11-2011, 15:11:19
It is difficult to say whether these artistic techiques like colour correction or bloom are nice to look at or not. It is very dependend on individual taste. The Band Of Brothers series is designed with this colour correction to give a special mute. The movie shouldn't look beautyful and I think it fits to the series. In games I have a different feeling about it. I like it, when the game feels more natural. Thatswhy I prefer FH2 for example much more than BF2v., BC2 or BF3. These games have a special feeling that I don't like very much. It feels very clinical and too clean. Compare S.T.A.K.E.R. games with battlefield. These games feel very dirty but still very natural and I like the whole style much more. At the end it is up to the designer, whether he uses these things but things like bloom can sometimes be very annoying. And in BC2 for example it has a negative influence on the game itself. When you can't see anything on Atacama Desert because it is too bright, than there was something done wrong.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 14-11-2011, 20:11:31
@Yustax, what do you mean "isnt beautiful", you mean you and your forum buddies on the BF3 forum are complaining? no shit sherlock, really? I wonder how it comes that a group of fans who has dedicated their life to find things to whine about, actually complaining.

No, most people like it, not all, but most. And the team behind the game is happy and it's done by some of the leading experts in game art, therefor, you lose  :-*

@SiCaRiO; BF3 would fall under the beautiful colorful picture, what was your point again?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 14-11-2011, 20:11:01
His point was that the current BF 3 color correction isn't the best for depicting real world...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 14-11-2011, 20:11:25
no my point is that the color correction in bf3 is the worst representation of a real eviroment.

and btw

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/11/14/ea-forum-bans-are-still-affecting-games/

seems like if you get your EA forum acount banned. you also loose all your games tied to that account. isnt it marvelous?

@Natty, buy new glasses
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 14-11-2011, 21:11:35
From pictures, it looks like BF3 is going with the recent trend in movies to colour-grade everything blu-ish. So that the orange fireballs tear your retinas better (contrasting colours and all that).
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 14-11-2011, 21:11:29
From pictures, it looks like BF3 is going with the recent trend in movies to colour-grade everything blu-ish. So that the orange fireballs tear your retinas better (contrasting colours and all that).

But new is always better!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Moose on 14-11-2011, 21:11:40
no my point is that the color correction in bf3 is the worst representation of a real eviroment.

and btw

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/11/14/ea-forum-bans-are-still-affecting-games/

seems like if you get your EA forum acount banned. you also loose all your games tied to that account. isnt if marvelous?

@Natty, buy new glasses

Well I'm not osting on EA forums ever
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 14-11-2011, 21:11:19
no my point is that the color correction in bf3 is the worst representation of a real eviroment.

what "real environment"?.. it's a game... Art direction is about setting a tone for a map (or entire game)... some maps have certain color palettes, other maps have others.. are you like, just discovering how games work or? o_0

It's not about making the "most beautiful" map/game either. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder (cliché, yea) so whatever you do, you'll never please everyone.. What an AD/artist does is crafting the one key art aspect for the given task (example; a map). That's the tough job. Designing the one thing and not letting it be consumed / tinted by other aspects. (such as silly "realism").

Have you even played BF3 on the absolute highest settings?.. It's a total eye-gasm, and ofcourse you can whine an QQ on the internet about stuff you don't like, but who cares about that? comparison pictures of a real world VS saving private ryan, to make a point about BF3 art? lulz. If I need better glasses, you need better reasons to press "reply" 8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 14-11-2011, 22:11:43
It's a total eye-gasm...

Sure it is... If an eye-gasm involves an instant head-ache after only a round of being spammed by excessive blur, lighthouse-like flashlights and eye surgery-grade lasers...  :-\
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 14-11-2011, 22:11:04
Natty, why you speak like nothing is wrong in BF3... there has to be something what YOU don't like in it either, because nothing is perfect. Tell us :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 14-11-2011, 22:11:00

what "real environment"?
sky, terrain, grass, vegetation, you know, things outside that windows you see at your left.

It's not about making the "most beautiful" map/game either. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder (cliché, yea) so whatever you do, you'll never please everyone.. What an AD/artist does is crafting the one key art aspect for the given task (example; a map). That's the tough job. Designing the one thing and not letting it be consumed / tinted by other aspects. (such as silly "realism").

wat key aspect?

Have you even played BF3 on the absolute highest settings?.. It's a total eye-gasm, and ofcourse you can whine an QQ on the internet about stuff you don't like, but who cares about that? comparison pictures of a real world VS saving private ryan, to make a point about BF3 art? lulz. If I need better glasses, you need better reasons to press "reply" 8)

no its not, stop licking nuts. i dont whine, i just state facts, and the fact is the color correction in bf3 maps is horrible and was just made to show how awezome the light engine is, without caring if it looks good or bad.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Musti on 14-11-2011, 22:11:57
I've played some Bf3 today. My impressions

Bloody screen, so real!
Bloody and muddy screen! SO REAL!!!
Bloody, muddy and completely blinded-by-every-source-of-light screen! SOOO FU***** REAL!!!!

No thanks.Just a mediocre over-hyped FPS RPG.Half of the money they spent one the marketing should go into that game.
Maybe then they would be able to make a proper Beretta M93R model.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: siben on 14-11-2011, 22:11:10
You guys should see the flashligh i have at work, it is so tiny yet can basicly blind you 5 meters away during daylight. People don't even like it when the batteries are new since it is to bright to work with, haha
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 14-11-2011, 22:11:41
@Yustax, what do you mean "isnt beautiful", you mean you and your forum buddies on the BF3 forum are complaining? no shit sherlock, really? I wonder how it comes that a group of fans who has dedicated their life to find things to whine about, actually complaining.

No, most people like it, not all, but most. And the team behind the game is happy and it's done by some of the leading experts in game art, therefor, you lose  :-*

Because it isnt; it's annoying. The sun doesnt shine like that, not even in real life. You have it all the time in your face, forever. Even Crysis 2 sun is way better. And those forums buddies made the flashlight flare to decrease.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 15-11-2011, 00:11:07
I haven't played the game but based on the screenshots presented I concur, the sun is fucking annoying
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Dukat on 15-11-2011, 00:11:53

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/11/14/ea-forum-bans-are-still-affecting-games/

seems like if you get your EA forum acount banned. you also loose all your games tied to that account. isnt if marvelous?


Well I'm not osting on EA forums ever

Many official publisher hosted game forums are totally messed up without any proper arrangement. The message is quite clear: 'dear customer, please go away.' Looks like EA found once more a way to raise pressure on their customers. Happily they can now celebrate the eviction of another potential customer. I will never ever post on EA forums after this.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 15-11-2011, 07:11:48
@yustax, have fun believing it was your forum buddies that made the changes in the game (flashlight, spawn creation etc) I allow you to treasure that belief, as I know it means so much to you. It's your snug rug... about the sun... true, the sun in a game does not shine like the real sun... and isnt supposed to. It is shining as the artist wanted it to shine, nothing more.

@SicariO, the real world is outside my window, good observation. I visit it from time to time, as opposed to you, who googles images of it and posts it on teh interwebz, and whines that "duh, games does not look like google image of RL, game can haz fail"

My answer was: the game isn't the real world, because the real world does not have an AD or artists who creates it.

You asked me "what key aspect" - in for example a map; it's the base color palettes used, the geometrical shape of the landscape, is the map taking place for example in a rural valley, the AD might set it at fall, making it look like this: (BC2)
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/7995/jxz164tmp.jpg

In other cases, he might want to go for a blueish futuristic look:
http://attackofthefanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/metro-capture-bf3.jpg

The key aspect Im talking about is the core visual that defines the map. It is what communicates to player what is going on here, it sets the tone and feel of the map (or an entire game)
AD can ofcourse also have larger purpose, as in the case of world of warcraft:
http://mmohuts.com/wp-content/gallery/world-of-warcraft-overview/world-of-warcraft-city-center.jpg

now the reason why WoW looks like that is not because that is how real fantasy world looks outside my window, it's because A) it is a timeless art direction which allows the game to live for many years if not decades, B) it allows users to play at any setting depending on what PC he has, and still get the same experience, and C) it's a streamlined AD to iterate on and create new content for. It has rules and regulations which makes it easy for new players to find their way around the massive world. and ofcourse D) it's good for performance (links with B), that players with low specs can reduce detail and it doesnt affect too much) as well as E) the designers can do what they want with shape and scale, and it still fits the general AD. You can have a house in WoW which is 300m high and it still belongs in the world nicely.

So Im starting to realize you actually asked me "what does an AD do for a game?", there is ofcourse more to that than what I can write in a forum post, and there are other way better writings about game art direction on the web, and how they use core aspects to define looks & feel; google it.

And nope, the color correction in BF3 map is not done to show how awesome the light engine is, it's done because the artists wanted it like that. Most people love it, and BF3 has won enough awards to prove it. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it can't be awesome and nice. Maybe you just don't "get it"?

@Ciupita; Im not commenting on the game itself, only on how it is produced & designed. You wont find any game-related posts from me about the actual in-game experience in this thread, simply because I haven't played it enough, and also because personal opinions isn't so interesting.. I dont think anyone cares how fun I think the game is. What Im doing is just trying to calm these haters down a bit, and explain to them why certain decisions were made in the game. But as usual, they dont listen and instead gets personal or calls me a dice fanboi... standard interwebz behaviour  ::)





Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 15-11-2011, 19:11:43
all beautifull and everything, but their reasons to include that AD doesnt matter when the choice was a bad one, and it is.

you listed a few reason of the "why" WoW has that espesific color, good. now back to bf3, there is sinple no reasons, does it looks good? no, does it help players to move around? no, is it good for performance? no, does it block the view with overexagerated lghting and reflections? yes, does it exploit to the max the marvelous lights and shaders of FB2? of course, does it helps gameplay? quite the contrary.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 15-11-2011, 19:11:46
Is the development team happy with it? Yes
Do millions of people like it? Yes.

No further reasons needed.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 15-11-2011, 19:11:56
proof of the second, plz.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 15-11-2011, 20:11:44
"proof"? lol

just give up  8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eat Uranium on 15-11-2011, 20:11:16
I'd say an easy way to measure the success of an online game would be to measure the average time played by each copy bought (excluding unused or offline only copies).  Or the proportion of copies under the same selection rules that didn't log more than 2 or 3 hours.  I'm willing to bet that there is a large number of bought copies that are abandoned very quickly in every game - with the number scaling with the objective quality of the game (as experienced by end users).

No point basing the reception of the game off sales, since you can't really express your opinion on a game as an end user until you have tried it (if you like it you keep playing, if you don't then you stop).

Still, I'll say that anything adding lensflare and 'visual realism' into the same equation should be laughed at.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 15-11-2011, 21:11:11
"proof"? lol

just give up  8)

thats what i trough ;) :-*
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 15-11-2011, 21:11:31
Damn where is the nerdrage filter for this topic. I want to read about stuff you do in BF3, not that sun shining from your ass is too bright.

Anyway if you feel liking doing some coop mission in BF3 for the PC, drop me a line. Don't feel like doing them with a random dude.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: siben on 15-11-2011, 21:11:53

Anyway if you feel liking doing some coop mission in BF3 for the PC, drop me a line. Don't feel like doing them with a random dude.

Happily, maybe tomorrow evening? I want my G3
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 15-11-2011, 21:11:50
add nth_nl in BF3.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paasky on 15-11-2011, 21:11:47
The haters are really grabbing the bottom of the barrel for things to gripe about aren't they....

Do you spend hours playing a game? I'm sorry, but you just might like it. Have you ever played it? If not, you're not allowed to have an opinion on the game. You've played it and thought it's shit? Great, you don't like it. Now please stop trying to make people who do like it look like retards who don't know what's good for them.

I've been reading through this thread laughing, facepalming and crying all at the same time. And I know anything I type here will do nothing to end the ridiculousness of this thread. Maybe I just want to be part of this whinefest.

(disclaimer: I haven't even touched BF3 as I've only got my laptop until christmas when I go back home. I can totally agree with vehicle unlocks being stupid, the UI being kinda shit, and jets being sort-of useless. But all this bullshit about the colour tint or sun glare or origin is just stupid. Games are art, and all art has a certain style. You sound like the people who said Van Gogh couldn't paint because "it didn't look like IRL!!111". As for origin, just prevent it from using the internet in your firewall once you've auth'd your cd-key and play without it)

/rant over, http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=cH6i2Z6mTRE#t=267s
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 15-11-2011, 21:11:12
Actually, there's already third party softwares that allow you to bypass origin and launch the game immediately.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 15-11-2011, 21:11:47
yea exactly :) people like yustax and sicario who thinks that just because they dont understand or like the art direction, then all the other millions of players also don't like it  ;D or because a few dudes on the public B3 forums are QQIng about things, that they somewhat represent what most players think

lol

add to that; surveys, research, QA testing and feedback together with actual data statistics (that's servers telling what setting you're playing at) tells that most people love how BF3 looks. especially playing on ultra high... so yea... sicario wants "proof" which is laughable... it's like those christian fanatics, crying "but duuh, can you prove god doesn't exist?"  ;D

It's funny, and cute, but the cause is lost boys. The world (the buyers, the players, the real fans, the media, the data statistics servers, the awards, the metacritic) has already proven the success of this game a few days after release.... just give it up.

It is a beautiful game, you just don't get it, because you only care about how similar to reality it looks. Maybe you don't understand art, maybe you're one of those dudes who walks in to a gallery and looks at a painting and goes "duuuh, anyone can slap that paint on a canvas", maybe you can't relate to art and the emotions it triggers

maybe you have no soul  8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 15-11-2011, 22:11:54
Lol, wait a second here. If we recount there was several other people who also said they didnt like burning their retinas. So this is personal against us Natty?  ;D

And such accusations from an individual. Lol...I have no eye for art? Such examples. You're very laughable.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 15-11-2011, 22:11:24
It's good looking game, I just don't like the lens flare from sun or street lights which also shine like little suns. I guess I have to live with it if I will play the game.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 15-11-2011, 23:11:53
yea exactly :) people like yustax and sicario who thinks that just because they dont understand or like the art direction, then all the other millions of players also don't like it  ;D or because a few dudes on the public B3 forums are QQIng about things, that they somewhat represent what most players think

lol

add to that; surveys, research, QA testing and feedback together with actual data statistics (that's servers telling what setting you're playing at) tells that most people love how BF3 looks. especially playing on ultra high... so yea... sicario wants "proof" which is laughable... it's like those christian fanatics, crying "but duuh, can you prove god doesn't exist?"  ;D

wait? playing on ultra means you like the way it looks?  :o last time I checked, if your hardware is capable, ultra is a must. besides, playing on low doesnt get ride of that anoying bluescreen overlay, so its not like we have a choise  ;D.

you still havent shown surveys done about the "art desing" and if people like it or not ;), players playing on ultra is hardly evidence.

It's funny, and cute, but the cause is lost boys. The world (the buyers, the players, the real fans, the media, the data statistics servers, the awards, the metacritic) has already proven the success of this game a few days after release.... just give it up.

oh i didnt said bf3 was a failure ;), maybe read better? , after all, cod also got millions of sells and good metacritics, why shouldnt bf3?

It is a beautiful game, you just don't get it, because you only care about how similar to reality it looks. Maybe you don't understand art, maybe you're one of those dudes who walks in to a gallery and looks at a painting and goes "duuuh, anyone can slap that paint on a canvas", maybe you can't relate to art and the emotions it triggers

maybe you have no soul  8)

maybe I like to play my shoters without arbitrary graphicals gymics that doesnt add anything usefull and,infact, cripple the ability of the player? (annoying glares, useless minimap,huge contrast)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 16-11-2011, 00:11:39
I'm not going to sit here and say that Battlefield 3 looks bad, because quite simply, it doesn't. BF3 is a fine example of modern artwork, and the amount of time and effort that went into it deserves respect. Just one of the highly detailed characters in the game would've taken any artist days of hard work to complete, and there is so much beautiful scenery in this game, that comes together in just the perfect ways that makes BF3 a truly stunning visual experience.

However, I have been questioning the current trend in games, where photo realism is becoming something of a contest between studios. While I love the idea that graphics, the hardware they are run on, and the speed with which they can be produced is improving exponentially over the past few years, there comes a point in my mind where I say. How much detail, is too much? If we look at another game run on the Frostbite engine (yes, an older version, but on the FB engine nonetheless): Battlefield 1943, we can see a game which still holds onto a style which I can only describe as, comic book in nature. Characters are not photo realistic, they are no even scaled properly as far as human anatomy is concerned, vehicles both air and ground seem short, tall, and colorful. Trees are simple and distinguishable, and the prickly facade of a palm tree is exaggerated by artists. Explosions are most comical in nature, large plooms of black smoke and fire. Tracers are on most weapons and heavily over sized. Weapons are big and bulky, and yet through all this the texture quality does not suffer, the grit of the game does not hide itself.

Its like playing a cartoon, but a more lifelike cartoon, where simplistic static placement, and funny looking stereotypical characters make you chuckle as they get blown away by aircraft and tanks. Battlefield Heroes also has a very comic book style to it, but it perhaps took it too far in the opposite direction. So in my mind we have two extremes and a nice medium, one extreme:

Battlefield Heroes, a pixel-shaded cartoon type art style

Another:

Battlefield 3, a game which prides itself on stunning photo realism

Medium,

Battlefield 1943, with the grit and look of the photo realistic game, but with the cartoon exaggeration of Battlefield Heroes, it lands right where I like it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 16-11-2011, 01:11:14
Nobody is saying that it looks bad. In fact, Im incredible impressed with the graphics, physics and look of the game. Water could use some work; but my only complain as graphics goes is the sun glint and that the bloom hurt my eyes after 20 minutes of playing, especially the blue tint. I just want a way to lessen down the bloom and a smaller dose of sun glint for me to be perfect.

But of course, a certain someone is taking things out of contest. If there was an option to less down the bloom and sun glint for those who preferred that it'll be good. I wouldnt be surprised if there's another third party software that allows you to do just that.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 16-11-2011, 08:11:08
The only way you'll get less bloom/sun glare is if it's reduced through a future patch.


I can guarantee that DICE won't be adding an option to reduce it.

If they did everyone will simply turn it down (or off altogether), so as not to be at a disadvantage.



Speaking of lighting, does anyone else have RAGE?

The way the light shifts when you go from the indoors to the outdoors (or vice versa) looks great.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 16-11-2011, 10:11:07
you still havent shown surveys done about the "art desing" and if people like it or not ;)

what do you mean "show you"? Im telling you how it is, just accept it. there is nothing to show, since that's confidential corporate information. All games (well, serious, big games) do internal reviews and surveys about how test people like things. What did you expect, a public forum poll? lol... No, the game looks the way it does because people like it. If you want to QQ about it, go ahead.
Tiny things that can be tweaked in post-release patches like sunflare etc could obviously be tuned if the artists wants that. That's the beauty of the modern age, you can iterate on-the-fly. So Im sure BF3 will go through a couple of more art passes in its lifetime. If you're lucky, one of the things you're crying about might be tweaked, if not, just play the game and accept it for what it is. Or go play Project Reality (which btw, is not at all filled with arbitrary stuff that prevents you from shooting. lulz)

@Archi: yes exactly, those three games have very distinct art direction. What I find so painfully laughable, is that whenever there is a military shooter coming, that uses the word "realistic" anywhere in its marketing, then these so-called "realism hardcore" dudes come flying and starts whining. I never saw anyone cry about features not being realistic in games like Mass Effect, Dragon Age or Uncharted, why is that?

It's like they are so simple-minded, they look at the ad for a game and go like "uuhh... realism.. hmm I live in reality, this game is realistic, it must mean... It has to be identical!111!" Then they flood the forums, posting whatever thing they can find about the game that does not have exact equal properties as in reality. Things like how recoil works in guns (Yustax private QQrusade on the bf3 forums) or if tanks have unlimited ammo or not, or how players receive health back etc....

A game has thousands upon thousands of parameters that does not equal real-life values, yet as soon as the realism-freakz manages to add 1 + 1 somewhere ("duuh... tank is tank in real life... tank in real life carry maximum of 50 shells... tank in game can  haz more shells.... faaiil!!11!!")

This is what I always found so... well, silly. You look at a game and get stuck on one wording on the box ("realistic") then expect that to be the whole design of it.
These particular little sQQuad of dudes are the ones who could say something like - "games dont need design, just make the guns work as real life, then build maps that looks like real-life areas, then let us decide how to play there. Dont need art direction either, just use google and make the models/textures as realistic as possible"

What they dont get, is that BF3 has just as much thought and design go in to it as BF heroes or Bf1943, or Mass Effect or Dragon Age. Just as much art direction is needed to get the right feel for a game, even if it's supposedly "realistic". This requires a bit more deeper understanding for the connection between design - art - vision & experience, than what the sQQuad seems to have. Im merely trying to shine another light on their quite simpleminded views of what a game is.  :-\
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 16-11-2011, 10:11:11
Look, nobody is saying that ""games dont need design, just make the guns work as real life, then build maps that looks like real-life areas, then let us decide how to play there. Dont need art direction either, just use google and make the models/textures as realistic as possible".

Cause it's impossible for a game to be 1:1 scale to RL... And it's a game which means that the players will always do stupid things... Also, every artist, as you said, has his own vision, so the game will have his personal touch when done. However I just can't agree with the few decisions DICE team has made with the newest iteration of BF series... Especially if they try to market it as "the most realistic modern warfare shooter up to date"... And then make Stingers able to be fired with 100 % accuracy while dangling from a parachute... Tanks never run out of ammo so they can camp all day long if they want... Vehicles that auto-repair (I know, I know, the game is set in the near future, but I still don't see how we could possibly develop auto-repair in just a few years from now)...

Actually I could get all over that if it weren't for their crappy Origin platform... I have  Steam, I don't need another bloatware on my PC, thank you...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 16-11-2011, 10:11:13
we aren't going to be able to autorepair tanks in the real world. It is just more fun to do it in the game, that feature isnt supposed to be realistic. That's my point, just because the word realistic is on the box, some people think everything int he box is supposed to be "realistic"........ in BF3, maybe just the way bricks of debris falling down, or light, or the way characters move, is what is supposed to be "realistic",,, the rest is just normal game stuff, as you find in Mass Effect or Dragon Age... do you complain if a gun in Mass Effect has 2,000 bullets? No you don't, because the word realistic isnt on the box.

Im here to help you think outside the box... (da-da-dam, pun totally intended)  8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 16-11-2011, 12:11:17
you still havent shown surveys done about the "art desing" and if people like it or not ;)

what do you mean "show you"? Im telling you how it is, just accept it. there is nothing to show, since that's confidential corporate information. All games (well, serious, big games) do internal reviews and surveys about how test people like things. What did you expect, a public forum poll? lol...

hahahah , you say forum polls and complains in forums does not represent the mayorities of players opinion, yet you base your view in internal test subjects, wich also represent less thant 1% of the players?? you are a funny dude ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 16-11-2011, 14:11:58
no not at all, you seem to haven't understand a thing, lol   ::)

I can write it more simple for you if you like: It is proven by various methods that the end-result of the art in battlefield 3 is how most people like it to be. If I knew how to write it clearer, I would... You will bounce back with trolling "prove it" posts, Im sure, but instead you can go "Oh, ok, companies that produce multi-million dollar products have a way of researching/telling what their intended consumer likes and don't like? wow, thanks, now I learned something. Here I was thinking they just do what they want, and millions of people who buy the products are left with something that they don't like.. because I believe that my opinions also apply to all other people"

this is what you should say, but I doubt you got the balls to admit it  8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eat Uranium on 16-11-2011, 14:11:43
As a scientist, my thoughts on this matter are thus:
It is proven by various methods that the end-result of the art in battlefield 3 is how most people like it to be.[Citation Needed]
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Fuchs on 16-11-2011, 14:11:26
But when will there be a company aimed at us?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 16-11-2011, 16:11:42
I use red to emphasize how right I am.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 16-11-2011, 16:11:51
But when will there be a company aimed at us?

who is "us"?

@Flippy, what do you mean by "right"?... Sicario has a hard time understanding words, so I use red so it's easier for him to read :) this is not about who is "right" or "wrong", facts are facts, and the facts in this case is that most people like how BF3 looks, swallow it and move on.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 16-11-2011, 16:11:16
Look at you, biting on to the troll bait with such enthusiasm its adorable.

 8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Lightning on 16-11-2011, 16:11:59
@Flippy, what do you mean by "right"?... Sicario has a hard time understanding words, so I use red so it's easier for him to read :) this is not about who is "right" or "wrong", facts are facts, and the facts in this case is that most people like how BF3 looks, swallow it and move on.
Define "most people like". "Most" is more than 50%? "Like" is any definitive positive reaction? If you rate BF3 from 1 to 10 is like more than a 5.5 or is like more than a 7? "People" is all living homo sapiens? You cannot possibly know what all people think, therefore you must redefine this term. Perhaps you mean "a selection of 1000 randomly chosen individuals" or maybe "a selection of 500 gamers" or maybe "a selection of 100 gamers who purchased BF3". Or maybe the survey was done among beta testers. Every category results in different outcomes. Betatesters or people who pre-ordered will of course say they like it, otherwise they would not have applied / pre-ordered. People who generally don't play video games might not think much of it on the other hand.

"Out of a selection of 200 randomly chosen individuals, it was found that over 50% would rate Battlefield 3's artistic direction as positive". That is what a fact sounds like, though of course "positive" is still a very subjective term, so that statement doesn't hold much information either way. "most people like potatoes" is what something I made up sounds like. You sound like potatoes Natty. Fact is, you can't reproduce a statement like this, because all you do is make the (reasonable) assumption that such a study was done and that it was found to be positive, otherwise it would have been changed. That's fine, but then you have to say that, don't present assumptions as facts.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Wilhelm on 16-11-2011, 17:11:05
Natty; sounds like potatoes!  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zoologic on 16-11-2011, 17:11:30
Look at you, biting on to the troll bait with such enthusiasm its adorable.

 8)

(http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/successful-troll-is-successful.jpg?w=300&h=441)

Congratulations Natty, you helped some guy achieved success!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 16-11-2011, 17:11:04
naah Flippy, you weren't throwing a troll bait, you were sincere, you always pop in to discussions whenever you sniff out that someone claims to know something about players behaviour. Hence your urge to comment on my red text.   ;) so right back at 'ya. ;)

@Lightning; cool story bro, but in this case, studies are made and proven, they're just not public for you to read. Who do you take me for? You think I use assume this? lol  ::) Have I ever said that everyone loves BF3? or any other game for that matter. No. The only thing Ive done is dement the QQ boys claims that bf3 lights / color are "ugly" with the fact that:; no, it isn't ugly, as most people like it.

Is it ugly in their eyes? Sure :) Im not taking that away from them, but until they squeeze out the words "ok, it isn't objectively ugly, I just dont personally like it, but I know that many others do like it" I will keep firing back, my anti-troll cannon has endless ammo, and whenever there isn't a QQ post to enlighten, I retrieve and auto-heal from the flames they shoot  8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 16-11-2011, 17:11:37
Uh...the discussion began because of the exagerated glint and bloom that makes people hurt their eyes after 20 minutes of gameplay. Nobody is saying that BF3 is ugly.

So for those people it would be bad for DICE to include an option to tone it down?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 16-11-2011, 18:11:37
Uh...the discussion began because of the exagerated glint and bloom that makes a few people hurt their eyes after 20 minutes of gameplay. Nobody is saying that BF3 is ugly.

So for those people it would be bad for DICE to include an option to tone it down?

Yea, some people don't like certain effects, some people don't like certain guns, some people don't like certain HUD elements, sounds, maps, other players etc etc... the list can be made quite long.

Let's play :) BF3 has sold what is it, 5 million the first week, let's say it hits 10 after Xmas... now let's say there are 1,000 different things that players can "like" and "not like".. Bloom being just one. A reload animaton of some gun another... you see, filling the list with 1,000 things is easy.

10 million x 1,000 is 10 billion. Now you have 10 billion possible "opinions" to consider. Should DICE take all these in to consideration? No. They don't, so why should they add options to customize the game for some of the things, and not other?
Companies generalise their customers. "bundle" them up if you like. Im sure there are tasks on the "to-do" wall in the BF3 offices that relates to art stuff, Id be surprised if there isn't. Now are these put there bcause of what forum dudes complain? Not at all. Ofcourse they add to the bucket O' feedback, but there are way more important factors to weigh in, one being reading the stats and see exactly how many use certain settings, then ofcourse the artists / AD decisions. If he/they want to change something post-release, they will. I know Yustax looks at it as "the community wins" but that's the way it should be :) it is very nice to do a change that people have whined about, and let them think the changes are made because they whined about it. Reality is though, if there's a change being made, it's been planned and known about for 6months.

But this is getting silly... who cares about some bloom or flare, really... It is just a topic to whine about for the sake of whining, Im disappointed though, I expected you to be able to scrap together more important things to whine about than that. Can't you make pictures of the maps and QQ about how small they are instead? Or how about making YT comparison videos of real-life weapons and their recoil, and compare with the BF3 interpretations of them? then lol at dice for not making the game look like your YT video.
 that would be more meaty to discuss, than irrelevant graphical post FX.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 16-11-2011, 18:11:58

But this is getting silly... who cares about some bloom or flare, really...
If FH2 had bloom and lens flares like that, I would fill a bug report because they obstruct my vision in a manner most annoying.  Sunny weather should not significantly reduce my vision and create weird lens flares floating in front of me.

It's not whining for the sake of whining. It is in my opinion the single most annoying thing in BF3. The game looks great, let mee see it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 16-11-2011, 19:11:42
Haw haw haw haw haaaaw!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 16-11-2011, 19:11:29
haw haw! The camera in FPS games are not "your eyes" dear Toris... you should know better.  ;)

Sunny weather does indeed obstruct your eyes in the real world, but since a computer monitor can not force you to look away from strong sunlight, or affect your vision as real light does, ta-dam: effects to the rescue!

The camera is your window in to the game world, it's not "you"... the camera is viewing your avatar, which you control. A bit like an "observer", sending you information about what happens to your avatar and what happens to the world. That is why you see blood stains on the camera, or waterdrops, or dirt, or... flare effects. It's just information, and its information about the game world that the designers decided to send to you. Be it a small effect, a sound, a HUD text, icon, or... flare... all is apart of the experience they created. Enjoy it instead of trying to imagine what it would be like if you did it, because let's face it; you wouldn't be able to do it better.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 16-11-2011, 19:11:55
Sunny weather does indeed obstruct your eyes in the real world,

Which is why they invented those funny things they call sunglasses. Don't know about yours, but only a very bright sun in Fall (when it's always very low) is too much for my 100 euro cycling glasses. In summer I can easily look straight into the sun. And I doubt military sunglasses are worse than mine.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 16-11-2011, 19:11:36
Regardless of what a certain person here babbles, here´s a comparison between the "old" and "new" tac-lights for those who care, courtesy of BF-games.net (http://www.bf-games.net/readnews/10363/battlefield_3_fortsetzung_cheater_taclight_karkand.html):

(http://images.bf-games.net/news/2011/11/10363_7.jpg)

(http://images.bf-games.net/news/2011/11/10363_8.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 16-11-2011, 20:11:52
firs time i saw that i trough it was the sun coming out of a mountain xD
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Moose on 16-11-2011, 20:11:42
That certainly looks better... I can't read German as well as I used to, but it this being patched when Karkand and all that is released?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 16-11-2011, 20:11:02
Regardless of what a certain person here babbles, here´s a comparison between the "old" and "new" tac-lights for those who care, courtesy of BF-games.net (http://www.bf-games.net/readnews/10363/battlefield_3_fortsetzung_cheater_taclight_karkand.html):

(http://images.bf-games.net/news/2011/11/10363_7.jpg)

(http://images.bf-games.net/news/2011/11/10363_8.jpg)

Wasn't tac light suppose to blind you? The bottom picture doesn't do the trick.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Moose on 16-11-2011, 21:11:46
I think that's the idea, people were complaining the light was to damn bright, so theyre toning it down, it still disrupts your vision. Basically now I can't see in dark map with a tac light on me, but you just point toward the middle of the light and let the lead fly and I always fuck them up.

Speaking of that, was is ya'all's best KDR in a round so far in BF3? Mine is 21-4 with a m16a3 with holo sight and foregrip.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Capten_C on 17-11-2011, 19:11:14
Lots of aimbotting snakebelly types starting to appear I notice, one cnut had 402 kills on a Metro server last night!  >:(

Anyway, I am colourblind in a few colours, so I don't know if this is just specific to me or not but... I can work out the friendly nametags in blue without a problem. But, to me, squadmate nametags look the same colour as do enemy nametags!  ???

Is there a major difference to non colourblind folks? Because I'm missing a lot of kills by hesitating to work out friend or foe!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 17-11-2011, 19:11:24

Is there a major difference to non colourblind folks? Because I'm missing a lot of kills by hesitating to work out friend or foe!
Enemy = red, squad = green. So yeah, there must be a disadvantage for green/red colour-blind people :/ 
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 17-11-2011, 19:11:18
Lots of aimbotting snakebelly types starting to appear I notice, one cnut had 402 kills on a Metro server last night!  >:(


impossible, DICE didnt released server files to the public to prevent hacking  on this game, and implying there are hacks would mean DICE was wrong and we know thats not possible.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 17-11-2011, 19:11:39
I thought enemies were orange. And the only way I tell if they are squadmates or enemies is if A) I can see them on the 3D HUD B) If they flash on/off the map. Thats all.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 17-11-2011, 20:11:03

thats what i trough ;) :-*
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: siben on 17-11-2011, 22:11:31

Is there a major difference to non colourblind folks? Because I'm missing a lot of kills by hesitating to work out friend or foe!
Enemy = red, squad = green. So yeah, there must be a disadvantage for green/red colour-blind people :/

Since FF is off most of the times i just shoot, if i don't get a hit indicator, it was friendly.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 17-11-2011, 23:11:54
awesome mav is awesome :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgLd2w3uuHU&feature=player_embedded
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Capten_C on 18-11-2011, 02:11:30

Is there a major difference to non colourblind folks? Because I'm missing a lot of kills by hesitating to work out friend or foe!
Enemy = red, squad = green. So yeah, there must be a disadvantage for green/red colour-blind people :/

You sure enemies are red? To me (the colourblind person  8) ) as  I said the squad/foe colours are too similar up close to work out in miliseconds whether to fire or not. I can cope pretty well if enemies are at a fair distance, then I have time to work it out.
Was just wondering whether anyone else here with colour identification difficulties had the same problem.  :)

* Ooh looks like there are others who have the same prob! The plight of a colorblind Battlefield 3 player  (http://www.reddit.com/r/battlefield3/comments/lovxa/the_plight_of_a_colorblind_battlefield_3_player/)  BC2 had a "colourblind feature" ? (I didn't play BC2)  And Bf3 doesn't!  Meh  :(

>THIS! (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13109063) < :D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 18-11-2011, 04:11:37
I'm partially color blind, but can still make colors out, its just they are different shades than they really are. I Guarantee to any of you all the blue in the game looks much darker to you than it does to me, where its practically white, and reds look red, instead of orange in tint.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: General_Henry on 18-11-2011, 07:11:11
There are rumors that a few guys are trolling on the battlefield with a LMG mowing down a hundred players dying just 4 times.

Maybe they are just too good, well...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 18-11-2011, 07:11:22
There are rumors that a few guys are trolling on the battlefield with a LMG mowing down a hundred players dying just 4 times.

Maybe they are just too good, well...

Rumor?

M249/M240+IRNR sight=Ultra easy kills.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: General_Henry on 18-11-2011, 07:11:32
There are rumors that a few guys are trolling on the battlefield with a LMG mowing down a hundred players dying just 4 times.

Maybe they are just too good, well...

Rumor?

M249/M240+IRNR sight=Ultra easy kills.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMlO3L6wrP8

:) that is how you get pwned.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 19-11-2011, 06:11:16
Patch for the PC version coming next week...


Quote
...So what’s in the PC patch? You’ll see improved polish, stability, weapons balancing, squad control functionality, user interface enhancements, and several feature enhancements that address feedback the community has provided to date  – plus we’re removing the so called “negative mouse acceleration” that some of you have experienced...

 - http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/battlefield_bad_company/archive/2011/11/18/incoming-battlefield-3-update.aspx
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 19-11-2011, 10:11:56
It's still a pain in the arse trying to get in same squad with a friend on a full server. I hope that they fix that.

By the way, am I the only one amused by those silly William Shatner attack voice commands? "This... objective. Is the one... you must.    Capture."
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 19-11-2011, 14:11:30
xD

AT least they got rid of the 'Be advised,' bit.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 19-11-2011, 19:11:59
my soldier still says "be advised" when spotting something ???
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 22-11-2011, 10:11:59
Patch has been released.


Quote
• Added round duration and ticket summary at EOR...

:)



Patch notes: http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/forum/threadview/2832654624754374621/
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 22-11-2011, 14:11:02
aww yea
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 22-11-2011, 18:11:19
I cant belive that after plenty of complains of the huge and useless chatbox, it's still not fixed. The commorose that they promised for a redesign for a better one hasnt arrived. Oh! And hear this out:

R9 includes many changes. Server-wise, it is most notable for fixing many server crashes, adding an unranked option, locking some variables so that they cannot be changed after a server is started (vars.gamePassword and vars.ranked), and locking some variables on ranked servers (vars.roundStartPlayerCount [which must now be four or higher], vars.roundRestartPlayerCount [which must now be two or higher], vars.idleTimeout [locked to 300], vars.idleBanRounds [locked to 0], vars.playerManDownTime [locked to 100], vars.bulletDamage [locked to 100], vars.miniMapSpotting [locked to true], and vars.allUnlocksUnlocked [locked to false]).


roundStartPlayerCount >= 4
+
vars.roundRestartPlayerCount >= 2
+
vars.idleTimeout = 300
= More empty servers!!!



And more good news! This is fresh out of the press...AA damage against infantry/tanks-vehicles/plane and helis was buffed! So before it was already a rape machine that could own everything, including tanks, so now...it's the anti everything!

Good job DICE, sweet patch.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 22-11-2011, 18:11:42
Well, those AA guns should do that.. More realistic :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 22-11-2011, 18:11:14
Well, those AA guns should do that.. More realistic :P

I dont quite remember that a mobile AA could destroy a mbt, care to post some news were they destroyed a m1 abrams or a t90?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 22-11-2011, 18:11:01
care to post a news where a game and real-life has anything in common what-so-ever?

If the designer wants it to destroy an MBT, it does, since his wishes is what matters, not real-life values or wikipedia facts  ;)

(you honestly dont think these guys knows what weapons can destroy what vehicles?.. lol... they sit on more info about military equipment than you can dream of. Their professionality comes where they realize when and where to deviate from those info, to make a better game.)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 22-11-2011, 18:11:57
Even so, a vehicle can deal with everything and I mean everything (tanks, light tanks/apc's, infantry, jets and helicopters) is very overpowered. This isnt about realism, it's about balance.

Can you imagine the Flak 38 to be able to engage everything, what would happen in FH2 uh?

And no Natty...30mm airburst rounds cant destroy a modern mbt. If not, mobile AA would be sent to the front lines.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 22-11-2011, 18:11:47
pointless to compare a mod with a real game
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 22-11-2011, 18:11:06
I actually consider FH2 to be a game on its own.

And it's still silly that there's an anti everything vehicle. That isnt balance, is again overpowered.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 22-11-2011, 18:11:23
Well, those AA guns should do that.. More realistic :P

I dont quite remember that a mobile AA could destroy a mbt, care to post some news were they destroyed a m1 abrams or a t90?

If a tank driver is stupid, yes, they can destroy MBT. Those don't fire 7.62mm but 20mm (M61 Vulcan) and 30mm (Tunguska) rounds. Of course, IRL tank crews aren't as stupid as are BF3 players.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 22-11-2011, 18:11:41
Airburst rounds cant penetrate armor. They just cant. And since BF3 isnt about realism but balance, making the mobile AA the anti everything is overpowered.

DICE should decrease damage against infantry and of course, tanks, leave damage against light vehicles alone and leave the damage against flying vehicles like it was before.

The AA tank was, in my humble opinion, already massively potent. Increasing it's damage vs. infantry is only going to exacerbate what is already an issue for certain rush maps - Noshahr Canal pops in mind as the worst case.

You can already set up shop on the docks and effectively lock down a whole game with it. Increasing damage? Attackers will be lucky to even hit the docks alive.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 22-11-2011, 18:11:57
All it takes is one decent helicopter pilot and gunner. Especially on Noshashar Canals. Besides three rockets and the AA vehicle is gone.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 22-11-2011, 18:11:17
All it takes is one decent helicopter pilot and gunner. Especially on Noshashar Canals. Besides three rockets and the AA vehicle is gone.

Mostly when I played that map, the AA took care of air vehicles before they even left the carrier (and many times, even the APC), and now that they have buffed damage what do you think it's going to happen?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 22-11-2011, 19:11:29
I don't know. Maybe I'm alittle biased. I'm a pretty good helicopter pilot/gunner and I had my highest kill streak (31) on noshahar canals. At the start the mobile AA dominated helicopters (jets have little to fear with flares and good turning) but when you unlock fire extinguisher, gunner and pilot flares and other gizmos to prevent being locked on it's easy to stay alive if you know what you're doing. Ground vehicles are a lot more vulnerable.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 22-11-2011, 19:11:00
Self-propelled AA vehicles have always been a threath against MBT"s. Tuguska 30mm and German Gepards for example, have APSFDS rounds wich easily penetrate the side hull armour of most MBT's.

Furthermore, the high ROF and HE shells can easily damage and destroy optics, cameras...Even the maingun
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 22-11-2011, 20:11:18
A10s even had problems penetrating the side armor of t72s in iraq, they could only be killed by shots at the top and back.

however you can detrack them, or destroy their optics quite easy with AA.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Musti on 22-11-2011, 20:11:11
you honestly dont think these guys knows what weapons can destroy what vehicles?.. lol... they sit on more info about military equipment than you can dream of. Their professionality comes where they realize when and where to deviate from those info, to make a better game.
Yet they are too lazy to make a proper Beretta M93R model.Either too lazy or they didn't do enough research (like googling a damn picture of the gun)

Yes I'am complaining about one weapon model.And no i don't care how stupid it is, I hate lazyness of devs thats all.
Just cause i can
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 22-11-2011, 20:11:47
My biggest problem right now isn't with the gatling or chain guns, its with the rockets on the attack choppers.

Anti-aircraft missiles are great!

But..

Take the AH-1Z for instance. I have no quarrels with the amount of ordinance provided, and I like the fact that it is equal for both attack choppers, but, assuming that the AH-1Z's unguided rockets are the Hydra 70, which is a 70MM Unguided Rocket that comes in pods of 16 or 7 on the AH-1Z, then I feel like they are too weak against some vehicles, and infantry. A Hydra 70 has no armor piercing variant, so the fact that it takes a good deal of rockets to take down a tank, I'm perfectly fine with, but commonly Vipers like this one are armed with the High Explosive rounds, these High Explosive rounds, regardless of the weight of their charge, have a lethality radius of about 50 meters. Now obviously 50 meters is a bit too much for a game, but when my Missile lands dead next to a Jeep or a group of infantry and fails to kill any of them, its like...seriously? I spend half my time waiting on my gunner below me to take out the infantry because my rockets are useless.

I've yet to unlock Anti-Tank missiles for the Attack chopper, but if it takes more than two missiles to take down a tank, I'm going to be heavily disappointed.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 22-11-2011, 20:11:22
Then be dissapointed already  ;D Takes a missile to disable a vehicle and another to destroy it. Some engage from behind to get a kill in one shoot, sometimes it works.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 22-11-2011, 21:11:11
not to mention the havoc, its mirror balanced to the viper, except is less agile and maneoubrable, so basicaly its just a fucked version of the american choper.

at least in bf2 it had a better gun and more armor.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: HadrianBT on 22-11-2011, 21:11:15
AT missles on choppers? lol
You can shoot your whole payload of unguided missles TWICE (yes, including the reload time) before your AT missle gets reloaded. Although the "pre-spotted designated targets" or locken onto faster.

Mi28 on BF2. Only two words - Sharqui Peninsula. You could get >100 kills with it as a gunner given a good pilot. And the pilot would get 3 if lucky :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 22-11-2011, 22:11:28
I actually consider FH2 to be a game on its own.

But what you "consider" doesn't matter, since it isn't a game of its own, it's just BF2 modified.

Yet they are too lazy to make a proper Beretta M93R model.Either too lazy or they didn't do enough research (like googling a damn picture of the gun)

"lazy"? lol... get real.. BF3 team lazy  ::) riiite... "ok"... Im sure weapon models that dont meet exact how "musti" wants them to be is proof of a lazy team.


@Archi: it's because the Hydra isn't designed as an anti-infantry weapon or anti jeep weapon. Good designers like Demize99 dont allow one type of weaponry to do more than one type of damage to a target. It's sends weird and unclear signals to both shooter and victim. If the Hydra would do explosive damage to jeeps, it couldnt do impact damage, and that would be experienced as even weirder. Also, explosives aren't accuracy mechanics, so if a player lands a shot right on the edge of a vehicle, or just next to it, he won't know which is which, so if there was a mixed impact + explosive damage, the actual damage would be severely crippled if he missed by an inch. (as then there would be zero impact damage)

This requires understanding of how players understand the rules of the game... for him, a near shot and a hit is the same if there is explosion (just like you proved), and that's why its better to have very little explosive radius damage if the weapons main target is direct hits. Which is what the Hydras are... Then he thinks "oh it's these guns that I need to hit with"... as opposed to bombs or say; Hellfires which are all about explosion damage and not about direct hits done with skill and aim.

So it's not about balance or realism, it's about communicating to the player, so he understands and accepts the rules of the game world. When he does that, it doesn't matter if they break some arbitrary similiarities with the real world. That, is what is hard with design.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 22-11-2011, 22:11:06
i dunno, MW3 has showed to have a lazy modelling team

"Hey guys lets just take the stock of the M4 and make a fantasy AK of it for russian army lol"
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 22-11-2011, 22:11:32

"lazy"? lol... get real.. BF3 team lazy  ::) riiite... "ok"... Im sure weapon models that dont meet exact how "musti" wants them to be is proof of a lazy team.


Yep they're not lazy, just efficient... They want maximum profit with minimal possible effort... Who cares if the model isn't right... 99 % of their "targeted customers" won't even notice... (As opposed to the FH 2 devs where any sign of historical inaccuracy, fallacy or inconsistency will be promptly discovered and moaned about).
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 22-11-2011, 22:11:07
well not always luckyone

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 22-11-2011, 22:11:27
Re the AA threat, IIRC there was one "mobility kill" Abrams (lost a track) in the 2003 Iraq War, the Iraqis used a sandstorm to close to point-blank distance and managed to break a track with a ZU-23-2 "Sergei" of all things. The crew survived though, but were evacuated before the tank, because the area was not secured in time.

Rear remains vulnerable to 20+ mm AAA, as in "disabling the engine" (see eg. page 7 of this presentation (http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/US-Field-Manuals/abrams-oif.pdf) for a single example), but causing "catastrophic damage" as in exploding the ammunition... naaaah. Also, how many times were such weapons fired in both Iraq Wars, and still, no more tank losses than a couple?

If BF3 still has hitpoints instead of individual components + crew, and no separate mobility kills, then 20-40 mm AA guns should cause only minimal damage or not at all. Introduce mobility, then tracks and rear vulnerable but not instantly or easily.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 22-11-2011, 23:11:11
SP aa guns can disable a MBT. They can destroy optics, tracks, vurnable parts. Destroying will be rather rare, but it is possible, especialy when you consider the Tuguska, Gepard or the now CV9040 with 40mm bofors. Its APSFDS shells penetrate IIRC 140mm

no MBT has that thick sidearmour. It is just to heavy
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 22-11-2011, 23:11:06

"lazy"? lol... get real.. BF3 team lazy  ::) riiite... "ok"... Im sure weapon models that are not how they actually are is proof of a lazy team.




fixed.

and yes it is.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Musti on 22-11-2011, 23:11:16

"lazy"? lol... get real.. BF3 team lazy  ::) riiite... "ok"... Im sure weapon models that dont meet exact how "musti" wants them to be is proof of a lazy team.


Yep they're not lazy, just efficient... They want maximum profit with minimal possible effort... Who cares if the model isn't right... 99 % of their "targeted customers" won't even notice... (As opposed to the FH 2 devs where any sign of historical inaccuracy, fallacy or inconsistency will be promptly discovered and moaned about).
Oh yeah sorry.I forgot its called "efficiency" now.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 22-11-2011, 23:11:37
Black screens, BF3 crashes and server coming down like flies cause of the new patch and server dumb rules that DICE implemented to combat stat padders. Many server owners are cancelling their servers.

They just had to do like BC2, score doesnt counts until the server has minimum players to start a round and reset inmediately. But no, they have to screw it over, again.

In before Natty says, everything it's fine!  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 23-11-2011, 00:11:47
SP aa guns can disable a MBT. They can destroy optics, tracks, vurnable parts.
This I never doubted. At any calibre.
Quote
Destroying will be rather rare, but it is possible, especialy when you consider the Tuguska, Gepard or the now CV9040 with 40mm bofors. Its APSFDS shells penetrate IIRC 140mm, no MBT has that thick sidearmour. It is just to heavy
Nice comparison of apples and oranges.
Tunguska (2A38) with APFSDS: 30 mm, muzzle velocity 1120 m/s, 55 mm RHA @ 1 km
compared to:
Gepard with APFSDS: 35 mm, muzzle velocity 1417 m/s, 100 mm RHA @ 1 km
Bofors L/70 with Slpprj 90LK/97: 40 mm, muzzle velocity 1465 m/s, 140 mm RHA @ 1 km (note: only 100 mm actual stated penetration, 130+ mm "severely deformed" in tests according to Jane's)
Bofors L/70 with Slpprj 95LK/05: 40 mm, muzzle velocity 1510 m/s, 170 mm RHA @ 1 km (see above)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 23-11-2011, 01:11:12
Black screens, BF3 crashes and server coming down like flies cause of the new patch and server dumb rules that DICE implemented to combat stat padders. Many server owners are cancelling their servers.

They just had to do like BC2, score doesnt counts until the server has minimum players to start a round and reset inmediately. But no, they have to screw it over, again.

In before Natty says, everything it's fine!  ;D
Really now? Are you a ranked server provider or just spouting bullshit?

Some of you guys need to grow up a bit me thinks. It's a game, some things you may like others you may hate. Deal with it or not.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 23-11-2011, 01:11:21

Some of you guys need to grow up a bit me thinks. It's a game, some things you may like others you may hate. Deal with it or not.

It may be a game, but clearly what DICE did to add those new server options and now many servers are dropping, and many people that would pay for more time, are cancelling their servers. Im just the messenger, go see the patch notes. If you arent a server admin, then of course you're not going to complain.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Moose on 23-11-2011, 07:11:21
So I just finished all Co-op missions today. If one of you hasn't tried them, do so. The last 3, the paris missions, are freaking awesome!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 23-11-2011, 07:11:33
trolled

of course it isn't.

Fixed it. Now go troll some other forum.

@Yustax.... what Eglaerinion said^
you are so "pubbie" in your mindset, it's soo very cute when you act like you sit on some secret inside info about how this works... All you do is read what your buddies say on the pub forum, then act like their messenger... "many complaints have been made on...".. yea, right.... on a forum, RLY?.. on facebook? OMG!...

Servers always come down after patches, you dont know how the distribution process works between EA and the R.S.P.S., and you have not a clue how the R.S.P.S. are to deal with, so just.... plz be quiet about things you dont understand... it's embarrasing to read when you make "pubbie" conclusions..

Ofcourse not everything is "fine" 100% of the time when you run the biggest game in FPS, what do you think?.... ofcourse server admins complain (news to you?) ofcourse pubbies complain.... you are so simple when you go to facebook page or bf3 forum and just read what people say, then take it as some truth or make it in to that "the game is coming down".... It's a gigantic service, thousands of computers, hundreds of companies involved, hundreds of people working, millions of players........ welcome to the big game world.. you think it matters that a few dudes who rents servers from the R.S.P.S. are cancelling? there are people waiting in line to rent those boxes... and isn't DICE and EA nice for not caring about money first, but the stability and balance of the game?

*sigh*  ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 23-11-2011, 08:11:31
Anyone who complains about the AA has clearly never played BF2 online... :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 23-11-2011, 15:11:52
trolled

of course it isn't.

Fixed it. Now go troll some other forum.



how is telling the true trolling?  ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 23-11-2011, 16:11:21
Shut up, both of ya.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 23-11-2011, 17:11:24
SNIP

Ok since you need a helping hand out of your little world, let's make this easy for you:

roundStartPlayerCount >= 4...this means that YOUR server will start with 4 players minimun. What does this do? That if you did a server for yourself before to practice flying, learning around the maps or at least sniping from long range, now you cant. Because the server requires 4 players to start.
+
vars.roundRestartPlayerCount >= 2...This means that YOUR server will restart when there's 2 players or more to restart BUT not to begin the round.
+
vars.idleTimeout = 300...This means that if your server is alone for 5 minutes, it will close automatically.

These measures were done in mind to combat stat padders, although extreme ones. What they should've done was to not let the score count until the minimum players are present, then restart to a round and begin a new game.

These kind of egocentric answers are getting silly. And has made me wonder a lot...Natty...have you ever played BF3? Cause I find it odd that the game is simple 100% perfection for you without any kind of fault.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 23-11-2011, 18:11:02
how is telling the true trolling?  ;)

For a "1337" troll, you aren't making very good trollz.... maybe you ran out of trollomands...

They aren't lazy, they just didn't feel like making the gun the way you wanted them to. Get over it. ::)

@Yustax: you haven't got a clue about what the best way is to prevent padding, or what the server requirements are for a game like this. Stop pasting server commands and pretend to sit on the solution what they "should" do. Really.. it comes off as so silly... There are a bit more things to it than some servercommands you copy off a changelog. you mean some pubbie dude on a forum know better then the people who runs and designed the system? lulz.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 23-11-2011, 18:11:15
Aren't you getting tired of pretending to be god and pretending BF3 is godlike? The game has its flaws, admit it. How could you possibly even try to defend the M93R argument? The model is wrong, end of story.

Don't know what could possibly be the reason to screw up a simple model for two games in a row, and I don't care. Fact is that the devs failed here.

''They screwed up the model on purpose because they wanted it to look like fail'', seriously?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 23-11-2011, 18:11:50
@Yustax: you haven't got a clue about what the best way is to prevent padding, or what the server requirements are for a game like this. Stop pasting server commands and pretend to sit on the solution what they "should" do. Really.. it comes off as so silly... There are a bit more things to it than some servercommands you copy off a changelog. you mean some pubbie dude on a forum know better then the people who runs and designed the system? lulz.

So it isnt bad that you cant practice alone in a server alone anymore for you? Or that your server will close down if there isnt activity in 5 minutes?

And stop dodging questions, did you played the game or not? Cause the game has its flaws.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Moose on 23-11-2011, 20:11:58
Can you all shut up and somebody talk with me about Co-OP! ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 23-11-2011, 20:11:57
CO-OP is great. You get cool weapons like MP7 from it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Mr_Cheese on 23-11-2011, 20:11:35
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15798017 - for those in the UK... ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 23-11-2011, 20:11:06
Sadly the G3 damage was nerfed in the patch, the one weapon that nobody was complaining about. It isnt ruined, but it has noticeable less damage. A shame as well as is the weapon with the slowest ROF and the assault rifle with the slowest reload.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 23-11-2011, 20:11:41
lol as if weapons are adjusted based on "complaints" or not  :-\

games arent made for practicing... practice on live servers, or are you scared of your precious stats?

@Sander: define "wrong", I think it's more fail to whine on forums about details that don't matter. It looks better, the real model would pose problems you dont understand about
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 23-11-2011, 21:11:32
If you don't like the game or changes in it, don't play it.

I will lock this thread because of unnecessary flaming and trolling.. You guys seriously can't discusss maturely.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 01-12-2011, 19:12:34
Third and final round guys.

If same style of "discussion" continues, I'll remove this thread and persons responsible (trolls) will be banned at least for a month.

Remember that everyone has a right to have his/her opinion. What others like, one might not like. No need to start bitching about it. If someone says "BF3 sucks", then that's his opinion and he has his reasons. No matter if most others like those things what this one dude hates.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 01-12-2011, 19:12:11
Exactly; anyway. The IRNV has been nerfed; Im just reporting the news.

This is how the new IRNV looks like in the latest patch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Picz26O0UVA



Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 01-12-2011, 19:12:38
Exactly; anyway. The IRNV has been nerfed; Im just reporting the news.

This is how the new IRNV looks like in the latest patch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Picz26O0UVA

Good but not good enough... It should be completely unusable in daylight.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 01-12-2011, 19:12:03
Well, at least the enemies arent highlighted in deep red/orange anymore. That's a major improvement.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 01-12-2011, 19:12:49
While BF3 did not lived up to the hype as most todays games, BF3 still is nice, you cant deny this.

it is not as epic as previous battlefields, but i like it

And even BF3 has its good things.

For example, grenade spamming
This issent in BF3 like it was in BF2. In BF2, strike at karkand meant= FRAG OUT FRAG OUT FRAG OUT FRAG OUT FRAG OUT FRAG OUT FRAG OUT FRAG OUT FRAG OUT FRAG OUT FRAG OUT FRAG OUT FRAG OUT FRAG OUT FRAG OUT FRAG OUT FRAG OUT FRAG OUT
I did not even noted this, untill Ciupita pointed this out, and she's right, BF3 is not grenade spammy as BF2. Sure there is more RPG Sniping, but i love to use anti-tank weapons against infantry(i am the n1 supporter of zookasniping, Faustillery and PIARMORTAR on FH2 for a reason)



Orderd my copy of BF3 today
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 01-12-2011, 19:12:57
It isnt as grenade spammy because there's a grenade indicator (That at least can be disabled in server options) and because the damage for the grenade is highly nerfed; meaning that a grenade can fall two feet from you and dont kill you.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 01-12-2011, 20:12:26
..and because you only have 1 (or 2 with frag specialization) nade and it takes forever to rearm. ;) They should do something about AT spamming though, it sucks playing Metro or similar CQB maps with half of the team playing Engineers and firing one rocket after another. Note I have nothing against handheld AT being used against infantry tho.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 02-12-2011, 17:12:00
Can anyone here confirm that change of Origin ID via http://www.origin.com/fi/change-id does NOT reset your stats?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: sn00x on 02-12-2011, 17:12:39
i miss the bf2 magazine ssytem... when you drop a mag.. you Drop it.. either in a drop pouch or the ground.. you cant reload a new mag 20times each time you fire a bullet.. its like the player reloads the old mags in the speed of light wich you obviously cant see..

allso how the player in a split second draws a new mag.. O.o but this goes for most games anyway..

i taught these new games where supposed to be more and more realistic?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 02-12-2011, 17:12:22
No; now everyone wants the herp derp ultra speed everything kind of games.

I still remember when I saw the entering animation for vehicles in SP...that in multiplayer could've been so awesome.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 02-12-2011, 17:12:44
i miss the bf2 magazine ssytem... when you drop a mag.. you Drop it.. either in a drop pouch or the ground.. you cant reload a new mag 20times each time you fire a bullet.. its like the player reloads the old mags in the speed of light wich you obviously cant see..

allso how the player in a split second draws a new mag.. O.o but this goes for most games anyway..

i taught these new games where supposed to be more and more realistic?
quite agree here, however with todays game engines, it should be possible to open up an animation where you reload your mags with stripper clips.with NATO its 15 rounds per stripper
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 02-12-2011, 17:12:51
Can anyone here confirm that change of Origin ID via http://www.origin.com/fi/change-id does NOT reset your stats?

it does not
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 02-12-2011, 18:12:40
first mod, removes the awfull blue tint and the hud, altrough you can leave the hud and just remove the blue tint =9

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5pvPZZzx_c

video showing changes.

doesnot conflicts with PB
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 02-12-2011, 18:12:38
I like the color correction, but the hud removal is meh without the ability to turn it on when I want. The minimap is crucial to survival.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 02-12-2011, 20:12:09
You can install it without the hud removal. No worries  ;D

No more hurt after 20 min of gameplay. I have been waiting for this since release.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 02-12-2011, 23:12:11
WUT WUT

Mods? In my BF3? Is it more likely than I thought?

Might have to reconsider if there will be even more extensive mods (such as PR:BF3).
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 03-12-2011, 07:12:16
lol, calling that a "mod"  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zrix on 03-12-2011, 07:12:14
lol, calling that a "mod"  ;D
It modifies the game in ways that are not possible using the game itself. Yeah it's a mod.

Total conversion? Of course not.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 03-12-2011, 08:12:56
naah.. it's like saying that console commands in BF2 like renderer.drawhud 0 is a "mod".

Mods are about content and creation. Singular players adjusting their game isn't a mod.

all this is, is a certain few people desperately trying to "win" over dice by getting their precious moddability.... unless you can create something new, you arent making a mod. Even if you could run a server and go in and lol around with damage settings and gun code, it wouldnt be a mod... It's not like design is so easy you can just go in and haxx some values and bam: my mod!11!!...

If they release a content creation tool, talk about mods. Until then, play the game as is and stop pretending to know better how it should work
 Nuff said.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kradovech on 03-12-2011, 09:12:08
If theymanage to create different type of gameplay, that is fun,then thats a good thing no doubt. It doesn't really matter what you want to call it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 03-12-2011, 09:12:00
yea indeed, I can just see infront of me a bunch of dudes going in and yanking values to the left and right to make it (what they believe to be) "moaarr realiztik!". ::) That's the first thing that would happen if game code were given out to be moddable on servers.

I would even bet, 24hours after said code was out, some pubby dude would throw up a "PR ULTRA 1337 HARDCORE REALIZM 24/7" server with yanked values. lol
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: sn00x on 03-12-2011, 09:12:15
as soon as you Modify it, its a Modification. no matter how small or how big, its Still a MODification.  ;)

but natty, please explain to me why they still keep the super-speed-lightning-reload-weapon-draw-stupid-"cod"-knife.. isnt this supposed to be more realistic?  :-\ or have i sadly missunderstood..
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 03-12-2011, 11:12:27
he is kinda right, is more like a tweak or improvement over the original config
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 03-12-2011, 11:12:13
hey anyone figured out how to disable the stupid AA shader? it seems to work like a morphological AA which smoothens not only the game world objects but also the hud (= text) which looks not awesome. I tried to delete the lines in the config/put "//" in front of the stuff I wanted disabled but then the game wouldn't launch :(
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 03-12-2011, 14:12:43
but natty, please explain to me why they still keep the super-speed-lightning-reload-weapon-draw-stupid-"cod"-knife.. isnt this supposed to be more realistic?  :-\ or have i sadly missunderstood..

Because the designers wanted it like that.... and yea, It's not about "realism" :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kradovech on 03-12-2011, 14:12:45
yea indeed, I can just see infront of me a bunch of dudes going in and yanking values to the left and right to make it (what they believe to be) "moaarr realiztik!". ::) That's the first thing that would happen if game code were given out to be moddable on servers.

I would even bet, 24hours after said code was out, some pubby dude would throw up a "PR ULTRA 1337 HARDCORE REALIZM 24/7" server with yanked values. lol
So what? Its not like there will be a lack of bf3 servers... And after a while some really nice innovations might show up amongst all the crap, that could widen the target audience of bf3.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 03-12-2011, 14:12:44
as soon as you Modify it, its a Modification. no matter how small or how big, its Still a MODification.  ;)

but natty, please explain to me why they still keep the super-speed-lightning-reload-weapon-draw-stupid-"cod"-knife.. isnt this supposed to be more realistic?  :-\ or have i sadly missunderstood..
Whoever told you that BF3 was supposed to be a Mil Sim lied to you. Now you can stop making arguments based on that fallacy.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 03-12-2011, 15:12:09
So what? Its not like there will be a lack of bf3 servers... And after a while some really nice innovations might show up amongst all the crap, that could widen the target audience of bf3.

Nothing what :) I didn't say anything about that, I just find it predictable that that is exactly what will happened... bunch of tweakers who thinks they can "design" just by changing values in someone elses design.... A bit like cover bands who think they actually wrote those Metallica or AC/DC songs they're playing...
But sure, a couple of hundred fanboiz would ofcourse make up a little "ultra1337" playerbase, it's a given. Battlefield has millions of fans, of course there are some who likes to pretend it is "reality" just as you have those who arent even aware of what game they play, they just shove the disc in to the Xbox and frag away. Players come in all shapes, smells and forms
Title: BF3 - Back to Karkand
Post by: cannonfodder on 04-12-2011, 05:12:50
Will arrive on the 13th of December (PC and Xbox), PS3 owners get it on the 6th.

 - http://bf3blog.com/tag/back-to-karkand/



I'm looking forward to the new maps, but not because I liked them in BF2.

I'm just interested in seeing how different they are (appearance and gameplay-wise) to the originals.



Although I still don't understand why Sharqi is one of the four chosen... :-\

Why did they need to include 2 CQB maps when BF3 already has more than enough of them (in Damavand, Seine, Bazaar, Metro, and Tehran Highway)??

It's especially strange considering the restricted playing area of Wake means it's effectively just a CQB map with jets.


Any of the other maps would've been better than Sharqi, but IMO they should've included Kubra, it's such a great map...*sigh*



With any luck, the BTK maps will be hugely popular, thus convincing DICE it should make another BTK mappack...Back To Kubra... ;D





Please Note: This thread is about the BTK maps ONLY! If you want to heap shit on the game/DICE, start pointless arguments, or just troll in general, post it where it belongs (the Battlefield 3 thread)...  ;)
Title: Re: BF3 - Back to Karkand
Post by: :| Hi on 04-12-2011, 06:12:43
Any particular reason why PS3 gets them first?


And is there a list of the BtK weapons you can unlock?
Title: Re: BF3 - Back to Karkand
Post by: Archimonday on 04-12-2011, 06:12:06
Im excited, these look excellent. Especially Wake
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 04-12-2011, 10:12:41
@Cannonfodder: Sharqi is one of the most popular BF2 maps without a doubt, that's why it's in.
DICE decided to do the same maps that were done for BFP4F; Karkand, Oman and Sharqi, since those three maps together represents the full spectrum of the Battlefied experience. Add Wake (undisputedly the most popular map designed for a shooter game ever) and BTK is an obvious package.

Then ofcourse, many fans dream of Kubra, Fushe pass, Dragon Valley and other amazing maps.... just go petition them to do a BTK(ubra)! There seems to be hundreds of petition all whining about stuff, maybe time someone did a "hey, you did this great, now do more great stuff and we pay you!"-petition, Im sure it's more motivating to develop for that, as opposed to "boo-hoo, I want this and that or I will QQ"-type petition that swarms the interwebz already. :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 04-12-2011, 15:12:53
Wake is no way more popular than de_dust2, sorry :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 04-12-2011, 18:12:10
Ciu has a point  ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 05-12-2011, 09:12:58
BIG patch arrives tomorrow (6/12) and weighs in at about 2GB as it contains a large chunk of the BTK pack.

Details: http://mp1st.com/2011/12/02/battlefield-3-2-gb-patch-on-dec-6th-on-pc-patch-notes/



@Hi: On the PS3, BF1943 was supposed to be included on the disc with BF3, but this wasn't the case, so to keep the masses happy they decided to give PS3 owners a headstart on all DLC.



@Natty: Full spectrum? Not in my eyes, not when Battlefield's main drawcard is big maps and lots of vehicles.

Like I said earlier, IMO it should've been one or the other, but it's a bit late to be grumbling about it now... :)


Yeah, a bit of flattery never hurts. I wonder how much ass-kissing is required to get that Back To Kubra pack?

BTK Part 2:

 - Kubra Dam

 - Op. Smokescreen or Op. Harvest

 - Daqing Oilfields or Songhua Stalemate

 -  FuShe Pass or Op. Road Rage
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eat Uranium on 05-12-2011, 10:12:43
FuShe Pass has to be the least popular of the BF2 maps.  I played so little of it and never really like the layout of it anyway.  Dragon Valley was much better.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 05-12-2011, 15:12:01
Battlefield 3 will be getting a massive update coming in two days (Tuesday) at 8 am GMT (3 am EST). The total size of the patch comes in at 2gb. The reason for the file size being so large is that the patch carries a large part of the Back to Karkand expansion pack (due out on the 6th for those with PS3&#39;s). Here&#39;s a list of the incoming fixes: (via MP1ST)


Bug Fixes:

    Fixed a problem with spawn timer now showing blue border on startup and lost spawn point
    Fixed a problem where player who joined queuing on End of round got spawn screen stuck on screen, but unable to do anything with it untill next round loaded
    Fixed a problem where camera would change to 3rd person on killcam when killcam was turned off in server settings
    Fixed stat references on several dogtags
    Fixed for surveillance ribbon not counting TUGS
    Fixed a missing combat area lines on the minimap for Grand Bazaar conquest small
    Moved a tank spawn in US base on Caspian Border so it would not be destroyed by a falling tree
    Fixed a problem where placing C4 with the russians soldier was playing US faction VO
    Fixed a problem where TV guided missiles could be shot into its own helicopter and destroy it
    Fixed a problem when attempting to fire lock on weapons without a target
    Tweaked the chat, it should now be a bit easier to read
    Fixed several vehicles that did not properly shoot rockets and guns towards their predictive sights
    Fixed the G17 Supressed Laser not working properly
    Added alternate HUD colors to help colorblinds
    Added a network interpolation setting. This allows users with good bandwidth reduce latency, but might increase some stuttering. The user can find what works best for his connection by tweaking the slider.
    Increased the Spawn protection radius on TDM
    Fixed a problem with smoke on land vehicles, Missiles should now miss more often
    Fixed a problem where users could end up with IRNV scope in any vehicle
    Fixed a problem where player dies if vaulting over a ledge and into water while sprinting
    Fixed several crashes and increased general stability
    Fixed a problem where the user was unable to revive two players that have the bodies one over the other
    Fixed so you can assign an axis and use as a digital input. This makes it possible for the player (on pc) to assign one of the sticks on a gameped to be used for throttle/brake.
    Fixed a problem with the Kill camera acting up when suiciding from parachute
    Fixed air radar was showing to much. now lasertagged, heatsignature above threshold, enemy missiles and capture points are only visible on air radar
    Fixed a problem where the game would enter a technical hang if the user pressed pause menu and tilde at the same time
    Fixed a problem where you could get green flashes on screen
    You can now reassign cycle weapons
    Fixed so the weapon zooms automatically after bipod deploy is gone when using zoom toggle
    Fixed a problem where the parachute would stay stuck in air if the owner was killed

Balance Tweaks:

    Fixed several weapons so they are properly suppressed and hide the player on the minimap when fired.
    Tweaked Tactical Light so it is not as blinding over longer ranges.
    Tweaked the IRNV scope so it is limited to usage only at close range.
    Reduced heat masking effectiveness of Spec Ops Camo.
    Fixed a bug where Ammo spec would give additional 40mm grenades instead of Frag spec.
    Increased the number of additional 40mm grenades from Frag spec.
    Fixed so AT mines only live for 20 seconds after a player dies to prevent infinite mines. (We want to make a different fix in the future, it’s in JIRA).
    Increased the Time to Live on sniper caliber rounds to allow extreme distance shots.
    Fixed several weapon descriptions, calibers, and fire rates. The weapons themselves have not changed.
    Fixed so the M9 and MP443 pistol can be equipped by the opposing faction when it is unlocked at 100 kills.
    Fixed Laser Guided Missiles missing their targets if the target is moving too fast.
    Reduced the effectiveness of Stealth on Air Vehicles.
    Reduced the effectiveness of Beam Scanning for Jets.
    Reduced the damage done to Armored Vehicles and Infantry from AA guns.
    Increased the damage RPGs and Tank shells do to AA vehicles.
    Slightly decreased the accuracy for all weapons on fully automatic, burst fire is now preferable at mid to long range.
    Increased the effective accuracy of long bursts for LMGs when using a bipod.
    Slightly increased the range of the 44magnum bullets.
    Increased the close range damage of 4.6x30mm and 5.7x28mm bullets.
    Increased the reload time of the Mortar from 3.5sec to 4.8sec and increased the time it takes before a shell hits the ground.
    Reduced the aimed accuracy bonus given by a Suppressor for the MP7, P90, PP2000, PP-19, and UMP45.
    Increased the range and FOV for designating targets with the SOFLAM and vehicle Laser Designators.
    Decreased the effectiveness of 12g FRAG ammo when equipped on semi-automatic and automatic shotguns.
    Slightly Increased the power of Fighter Jet Cannons against all vehicle targets, especially Helicopters.
    Decreased the power of Miniguns against Jets and Helicopters.
    Increased the power of Stingers against Jets.
    Flares reload times for Jets and Helicopter Gunners have been increased.
    Tweaked the AN94 so its burst fire better conveys the real world advantage offered by this weapon.
    Added Single Shot to the AN94 as an available fire mode.
    Slightly increased the recoil on the M416 and removed the Burst Fire mode (this weapon incorrectly had burst fire, which was not authentic).
    Tweaked the spawns for TDM on Kharg Island, Grand Bazaar, Caspian Border, Seine Crossing, Operation Firestorm, Damavand Peak and Noshahar Canals
    Moved a tank spawn in US base on Caspian Border so it would not be destroyed by a falling tree
    Tweaked the Gas station Capture area on Conquest on Caspian Border
    Tweaked the max vehicle height on Noshahar Canals




Best things:

Slower mortar fire,
Higher cieling on Noshahar Canals
Increased Jet Cannon Damage
Less effective Frag Rounds
TDM Spawn Point adjustments
Tac light fix


Skeptical about the IRNV change though, we'll see if it really works.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 05-12-2011, 16:12:26
already have problems to kill shit with Frag loaded M1014, wtf are they doin? memad
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 05-12-2011, 16:12:17
orderd BF3
had to arrive on friday

Still hassent arrived

MOTHAFUCKING belgian post!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 05-12-2011, 17:12:51
Best thing: IRNV sight nerfed. Now you can spot a sniper from other side of the map with it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 05-12-2011, 18:12:25
Like the IRNV thing.  After unlocking this I kept telling myself it is just for the darkest of darkness, and not to be tool and use it all the fucking time.  As time rolled on though I found myself using the damn thing all the time because it was just that good.  With the nerf now I only use it on very rare occasions and even in really dark areas it is not terribly effective.  The spawn beacon being fucked with however really makes me a sad panda.  My attack strategy in Rush was usually to spawn in as recon with a PP-2000 and spend a handful of lives fighting my way close enough to shit out a rally for my squad mates.  My K/D is shit but I have over 600 radio beacon spawns so my pals and I could get in and fuck up the objective.  Now the thing explodes every time you spawn so it is a big useless pile of dog shit.  >:(
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Moose on 05-12-2011, 20:12:04
Karkand comes out tomorrow and I am pumped!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 05-12-2011, 21:12:40
damn you, Sony! >:(
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 06-12-2011, 05:12:27
Inb4 lots of bugs for BtK patch for Ps3  ;D


I liked that part of the patchlog:

Quote
...Fixed a problem where TV guided missiles could be shot into its own helicopter and destroy it

I'm more worried about:
Tweaked the chat, it should now be a bit easier to read

Box of doom out to fuck me over some more
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Battlefieldfan45 (CroPanzer) on 06-12-2011, 13:12:01
I got my copy today ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 06-12-2011, 15:12:54
For those who havent seen it yet. Part 3: Wake Island.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-BX_DATeik&feature=g-u
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 06-12-2011, 16:12:10
Inb4 lots of bugs for BtK patch for Ps3  ;D


I liked that part of the patchlog:

Quote
...Fixed a problem where TV guided missiles could be shot into its own helicopter and destroy it

I'm more worried about:
Tweaked the chat, it should now be a bit easier to read

Box of doom out to fuck me over some more
Had that happen once or twice. Far more annoying is being killed by 556 rounds while piloting the helo. After evading all the stingers/iglas, guided tank shells and javelins, jet cannons and missiles you get freaking killed by a 556 round. Rage!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: siben on 06-12-2011, 18:12:45
Downloading a 3.9gb patch...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 06-12-2011, 18:12:24
Downloading a 3.9gb patch...

Patch + Back to Karkand.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paasky on 06-12-2011, 19:12:45
Downloading a 3.9gb patch...

Patch + Back to Karkand.
Hurray so everyone gets BtK for free! How nice of EA.



[/sarcasm]
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Moose on 06-12-2011, 22:12:05
Can't even download the fucker yet! It's not out in USA i guess?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 07-12-2011, 02:12:32
Wait. People payed for BtK and now everyone's getting it for free?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 07-12-2011, 09:12:54
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/12/05/ea-origin-bans-update-edition

banning of EA forums acounts keeps banning people from the games they brought.

somehow, something seems illegal about this
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 07-12-2011, 10:12:07
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/12/05/ea-origin-bans-update-edition

banning of EA forums acounts keeps banning people from the games they brought.

somehow, something seems illegal about this
Wait what......This is pure facism and communism right here

Read this story, titled=I used to own a copy of Battlefield 3, then I took an EA to the knee.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.328868-EA-now-issuing-permanent-Origin-bans-through-content-filter?page=1
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 07-12-2011, 10:12:58
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/12/05/ea-origin-bans-update-edition

banning of EA forums acounts keeps banning people from the games they brought.

somehow, something seems illegal about this

(http://www.megatonnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/eatributeeaglewall4.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 07-12-2011, 11:12:09
Everyone paid for the BtK Mappack.
You had to buy the Limited Edition which is a bit more expensive than the one without.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 07-12-2011, 12:12:53
Everyone paid for the BtK Mappack.
You had to buy the Limited Edition which is a bit more expensive than the one without.
Cheaper in most cases. Most shops had some sort of special discount on the LE and the normal version, if they even sold it at release, for standard retail prices.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 07-12-2011, 14:12:38
so cute with RPS and escapist mag links when debating game publisher's methodologies, lulz  ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 07-12-2011, 14:12:41
Relax, guys. This is all part of PROGRESS and is intended to IMPROVE your RIGHTS as a consumer. Games of today are so ADVANCED that if someone swears at you on the forums, it is for your own PROTECTION that you are banned from playing any of your legally purchased games even if you didn't do anything wrong.

War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 07-12-2011, 14:12:56
why did they change the color of that squad roster on your HUD from green to yellow? I can't help it but it kind of irritates me (the green felt much better) ???
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Battlefieldfan45 (CroPanzer) on 07-12-2011, 15:12:35
Hm I have a strange thing happening to me.
The game kicks me out of any MP match so far and I can't resolve why. I can play the singleplayer campaign without any problems but the MP thingy bothers me. I get like 20 seconds of gameplay and then I get an error that lasts for like 10 miliseconds and I don't know what does it say
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 07-12-2011, 15:12:29
why did they change the color of that squad roster on your HUD from green to yellow? I can't help it but it kind of irritates me (the green felt much better) ???

Colorblindness
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Battlefieldfan45 (CroPanzer) on 07-12-2011, 17:12:33
Now it seems it crashes every time after a few minutes of gameplay, regardless of SP or MP.
It's starting to freak me out a bit. I tried the Origin repair but it was in vain.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 07-12-2011, 18:12:28
  Wuv the patch and wuv the Karkand map pack.  Had some of my best BF3 lols to date on the new maps.  Many more open buildings make for more fun squad play as you hold up in a single 3 story building in the flag zone keeping assholes from getting in your house.  Destruction even seems better.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 08-12-2011, 00:12:08
DICE wont change VOIP in the PC version. I hope they change their minds.

http://www.tweetdeck.com/twitter/zh1nt0/~ypHpa

Latest news.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 11-12-2011, 21:12:05
what is it you don't understand?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 11-12-2011, 21:12:14
One guy says that there is nothing stopping them from fixing or whatever the Voip and in fact its looked into and the other claims there is business related problem forcing them not doing it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 11-12-2011, 22:12:49
One guy says that there is nothing stopping them from fixing or whatever the Voip and in fact its looked into and the other claims there is business related problem forcing them not doing it.

I don't want VOIP in game. Damn heliums would be screaming to my ears all the time, just like in counter strike.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 11-12-2011, 22:12:08
mute is easier than in counter strike
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 11-12-2011, 22:12:24
I would spend the half of the time muting people... :P

Just had the most epic moment in any BF game for a while: Metro was stuck once again, so I launched a small one map charge against one of the bottlenecks. I ran down a set of stairs, and found half of the enemy team. That's when it turned interesting. First four I killed with my MP7 (supp. laser, holo), the next two with a Glock 17. What followed was a total confusion amongst the enemies, so I managed to kill the remaining three with a knife.

After nine (9!) kills in 30 seconds, I ran back to own lines only to be teamkilled.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 11-12-2011, 22:12:54
players that find interest in chatting have always been creative in finding ways to do it, such as 3rd party voice programs, and giving out IP adresses to their own hosted voice servers via ingame text announcements etc... Not much need for voip systems in games if you ask me... that "era" of talking to random people ingame feels a bit over. Hardcore servers/players sort it out themselves, and regular players dont even think about it, they just game instead
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hitm4k3r on 12-12-2011, 14:12:45
I think VOIP is a very nice and easy system and belongs in every modern shooter or other teambased games.
You don't have to use it, if you don't like it. But I found myself very often in situations, where VOIP is the only way to warn or inform my squadmates who aren't in TS or Skype or whatever. In situations when typing in chat takes too much time and we have to react very fast as a squad/team and when every second counts. Next to this there are a lot of players who aren't speaking/writing english as native language. In this case VOIP is also a nice tool to help them, because they don't have to think about about, how every single word is writen. Speaking is faster then writing - thats a fact. It simply allows faster communication with random players.
At the end it would be a nice thing to see it added in BF3, because BF is a teambased game. DICE should atleast give the people who want it the possibility to use it. It is one of the things, that made BF2 so bad ass. I am waiting how it turns out for/in BF3.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 12-12-2011, 15:12:11
You can't simply dismiss the need for in-game VOIP. There is a real need to be able to communicate quickly and concisely with your fellow teammates in a game like Battlefield 3. So quick in-fact, that text cannot fill the gap. Not only does it take your hand off of your controls to do so, but it also is much slower than speaking.

While I agree that just like Battlefield 2 not every person is in a squad, the majority of them that are is enough to require VOIP for communication, and the more means of communication that a team has with each other, the better. No VOIP, is like taking a step backwards in time to much older games, and it does not reflect the more readily available plethora of technology.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 12-12-2011, 18:12:34
I had alot of problems with BF2 VOIP. Tbh Im not bothered about it being in BF3, 95% of the time im using TS anyway (and hell, isnt there some rudimentary VOIP system in the battlelog group system anyway?).

Anyway. I havent played this in a while now, it just isnt keeping me hooked. Ill probably play the game again this weekend for another couple of weeks (BTK shizzle) and then drop it for good. It has some lovely things going for it, but it just seems that important parts of the game were sacrificed to be more like CoD and more like Bad Company (graphically wise). Or hell, it mght just be me being sick and tired of playing MMS's now (RO2 pretty much killed hardcore shooters for me, also).
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 12-12-2011, 19:12:45
so BF3 arrived


i insert se DVD

nothing happens....
4 times did i do this, but nothing
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: mopskind on 12-12-2011, 20:12:23
start setup with explorer ?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 13-12-2011, 09:12:37
Or hell, it mght just be me being sick and tired of playing MMS's now

I don't think it's you G_Drew. I think that we all (we fps players) are gradually starting to realize that this is it, this is where the shooter genre "landed". It took about 15 years, and now it has reached its full potential. From now on, games will just keep on pumping out every other year or so, slightly better looking, slightly tweaked and improved, but we wont see any major "leaps" again. Not like the leaps that CounterStrike did, that Bf1942 did or that CoD4:MW did. Shooters have finally caught up with racing games and sports games such as Fifa or NHL.
It's totally understandable though, I mean why wouldn't shooters, just like sports, fighting or racing games also land in a "habitual state" after a while? They have so much in common mechanic wise. To me, a shooter is just like a racing game (use control to avoid curves/shots use speed to pass/kill opponents, beat an arbitrary timer, maneuver your avatar in a 3d space and use reflexes and wits to counter enemies) with very limited mechanics (jump, shoot, duck). Once a few studios have perfected these mechanics (DICE, Valve, Infinity Ward) what else is there to add?

Look at Fifa, what more can they add? I mean... really add?.. It's not even about "adding" anymore, it's about taking the existing functionality, and make it a bit better, a bit better looking. Each year.

I think shooter players have fooled themselves in to thinking that each new shooter generation should be a cataclysm and start the genre over, that the shooter games in themselves form up some RPG-like campaign where you as a player progress from lowtech to high tech and is "discovering" the world of shooters as they develop before your eyes.. when in fact, we're just playing fifa 2010, 2011, 2012 etc...

I dont remember which Fifa it was, but one of them really made that franchise take a leap (1998? 1999?) I think we have experience a few of those leaps in FPS games, and all are waiting for (expecting) every game to be like that. That's simply not the case, and after Battlefield 3, I wouldnt be surprised if we never see any leaps again. I mean I do hope for one, but we could also have landed now in the Fifa/NHL/Madden type cycle with shooters. And also, maybe the current players dont expect any more? For them, there were no revolutions or big leaps, because they werent around when HL1 came out, or bf1942, or Doom1 (like I was..) for them FPS games started with MW2 or BF3, they dont expect the next game to be anything else than slightly cooler, faster and better looking. Just like an 18 year old who today buys his first Xbox360 and a Fifa 12 copy, wont expect Fifa 13 to be anything else than a slightly improved fifa12.

It's a bit of a predicament I guess, for game developers, designers and publishers.. how to take that which has reached "complete" stage and sells by the millions and risk taking a leap with it (develop an FPS which is also a racing game in a free-roaming world and also have an economy in that world. Or make an FPS with 2,000 people on the same server, with RPG-like conversations and quests).
To add to this predicaement, the game industry have trained up their monkeys for 15 years, players have been drilled in to a certain behaviour pattern and reached an 'end-game state', so whatever new game comes out, many already consider themselves "vets".
In one way, they dont want the game to be just the same as the old one, and on the other, they dont want the game to be completely different so they have to learn everything from scratch again. Guess what Fifa players would say if the entire control system how you pass, lob or shoot balls would be changed? or if you no longer had real teams, but instead EA Sports own made-up teams. (The Berlin Ball Breakers VS the Seattle Slayers)

Im excited to see where all this will be going.  8)

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 13-12-2011, 10:12:26
develop an FPS which is also a racing game in a free-roaming world and also have an economy in that world
GTA or Saint's Row comes to mind...
Quote
Or make an FPS with 2,000 people on the same server, with RPG-like conversations and quests).
...and the MMO variant thereof was called APB and it failed horribly only to be relaunched.

Although, if MAG can support 256 players on a frakking PS3, there should be no technical limitation (apart from server bandwidth and CPU power) to have a PC-based FPS with even MOAR players. But then we come to the portability to consoles -even if the server could handle it, the client would not, and it is easier to cut out portions of a 64 player map and make it a 24 player map, than it would be to cut down a 2048 player map to said size. :P

Yes, I've seen MAG live, and to achieve that amount of players with PS3's 256 MB RAM (+256 MB of GFX memory) it does some... interesting things, like cutting visibility to minimum and filtering everything ludicrously heavily so that you wouldn't notice where the programmers had to save memory, and the result still does not look like a 2010s' shooter. So 24 players only if you want nice visuals on current-gen consoles.

Of course, one can live in self-delusion and think that the "next generation" of consoles (if it ever comes) would not be memory-impaired, unlike every other console generation that has come before. Reality check: the rumour mill says Wii U will have 1 GB of memory shared by the CPU and the GPU (only double what X360 and PS3 had six years ago). Gaming PC's now ship with more GFX memory alone, not to mention when the console is eventually released...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 13-12-2011, 18:12:51
BF3 is downloading but it goes PAINSTAKINGLY slow

anyone else who has this?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: kummitus on 13-12-2011, 18:12:38
Whole thing is lagging, took me quite a while to get logged in even as it said wrong password, after a while it just logged with the same.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hitm4k3r on 13-12-2011, 19:12:18
Or hell, it mght just be me being sick and tired of playing MMS's now

I don't think it's you G_Drew. I think that we all (we fps players) are gradually starting to realize that this is it, this is where the shooter genre "landed". It took about 15 years, and now it has reached its full potential. From now on, games will just keep on pumping out every other year or so, slightly better looking, slightly tweaked and improved, but we wont see any major "leaps" again.

Your post is very interesting and in some points I agree with you. But I don't think that milestones aren't possible in the future for the FPS genre. Do you remember Portal? This game is a good example of inovative design and it is still a FPS. Another game that is taking the next step is Heroes & Generals. I don't know how this will turn out, but when they have success with their mixture of RBS and FPS and MMO, I guess they will mark such a milestone and I think this could lead to a revolution in the shooter genre.

In history the mankind always thought that the technical limits were reached and that all posibilties were used. But history tells something different. There will always be progression in the limits of natural ressources. And compared to earlier games the games these days give away alot of potential because of time pressure and money hungy publishers. Not only BF3, also RO2 or CoD. They all feel worse than their sequels to me and more like a step backwards than forward. And in some years the costumers will get bored by the x'th shooter that feels the same as any other shooter before. Thats human nature.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: MaJ.P.Bouras on 13-12-2011, 20:12:28
The next thing in video games is smell and feel....
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hitm4k3r on 13-12-2011, 21:12:12
The next thing in video games is smell and feel....

The feeling sense plays an important role in video games. Ever heard of Force Feedback?  :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 14-12-2011, 06:12:51
I don't believe the FPS genre has totally stagnated leap wise. I think someone will come up with a major innovation eventually.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 14-12-2011, 11:12:23
dont expect it from big companys trough, too much of a risk to los all the precious €€
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ts4EVER on 14-12-2011, 11:12:37
Natty is right, at least gameplay wise. I am still hoping that developers will go more into story telling or interesting new scenarios in the future. After all, to sell their games in an increasinly competetive market they still need to have a selling point or something to set their product apart from the rest. You can't release games with soldiers walking towards the viewer on the cover indefinitely. Half Life 2 has shown that you can tell an engaging story and create interesting characters with relatively simple methods in video games. Sure, they are mostly on action film level if at all, but better then Michael-Bay action film level like Call of Duty. Considering the recent shift to special effects extravaganzas in Hollywood and character driven well written stuff on TV, I wouldn't be surprised if video games would start hiring authors for their singleplayer campaigns AND manage to actually use them right. Atm you get the impression that authors are mostly used to string set pieces together in some semi-plausible way (Uncharted), but a new generation of authors who actually know how the medium "video game" works could do some amazing and innovative stuff.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 14-12-2011, 17:12:57
There are tonnes of things to do in the FPS genre, but the most basic element of it all, point - click - shoot won't change.

I am looking forward to:

- More players, while keeping the gameplay still fun. BF3 could have had this, but the designers decided it didn't make for better gameplay, but who knows for the future
- Better graphics, this will keep evolving.
- Total VR immersion. This will take a long time, but playing with mouse and keyboard can't be the future in 15 years.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 14-12-2011, 20:12:05
So, this Back to Karkand thing.

I kinda like it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 15-12-2011, 09:12:36
Played till 03.00 AM on Karkand. Good maps will stay good.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 15-12-2011, 09:12:09
I finally got to try the BTK maps today.

They look so different to the originals, I find it easy to lose my bearings and have to rely on the flag indicators... :P


Wake plays just like Wake...no surprises there.

Karkand plays just like Karkand...but much harder due to the all the "open" buildings.


(Only played a round or two of Sharqi and Oman so far.)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 15-12-2011, 11:12:14
Oman is a nice large map, very close to the original. Too bad it has at the moment way too many vehicles. You can't go anywhere without an AFV attacking you.

Karkand is Karkand, no surprises there.

Wake is Wake.

Sharqi Peninsula is the best of the new maps. I don't remember how it played in BF2, but the BF3 version is nice.


Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Moose on 15-12-2011, 22:12:00
On back to karkand maps on ps3 with MG36 and Qu-88 sniper, there is an odd glitch. As somebody posted on the official ea forums, "Why do you hold the guns above your head like the talbian?"
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 16-12-2011, 08:12:19
Oman is a nice large map, very close to the original. Too bad it has at the moment way too many vehicles. You can't go anywhere without an AFV attacking you.

They ended up with the same dilemma that Oman for BFP4F faced. 'How to offer a large map without risking having a bunch of players stranded at flags'. Could be they redesign the vehicle spawn logic to make not all vehicles spawn all the time, just need to let the maps run over christmas and gather data I guess. Either way, better too many vehicles, than too few.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 17-12-2011, 11:12:59
Now that I've played a few more rounds of Oman...


I can safely say I don't like the changes to the layout, by removing the Village flag and replacing it with the City flag all they've done is create a big no man's land where there used to be a flag... ::)

Maybe they haven't heard the expression: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


If I judge it as a new map, I'm still undecided...

While I really dislike the city/construction site area, I had a great time yesterday on top of the hotel as a sniper. It's usually my least favourite class, but I was up there for ages sniping away before getting strafed by a jet... :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 17-12-2011, 11:12:10
Odd with all the Oman hate.  This is my favorite map out of the pack.  For the PS3 they have had two versions for each map with lotsa flags and also 3 flags that sorta work in a push fashion as far as combat is concerned.  When the big maps come up I kinda say fuck it and play with the toys and save the real teamwork for the 3 flag setup.  I actually wish they would do a push map setup with the full map for the console.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 19-12-2011, 00:12:26
(http://i42.tinypic.com/24zeyk8.gif)

damn, i cant believe how grey most maps are ><
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: mopskind on 19-12-2011, 00:12:44
If oyu want nicer colors put the color saturation slider in your graphic card driver as high as possible- voila, nice and warm colors, but strange looking icons
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 19-12-2011, 01:12:36
(http://i42.tinypic.com/24zeyk8.gif)

damn, i cant believe how grey most maps are ><

Wake looks like shit.   :-\
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 19-12-2011, 02:12:51
Yep, it's my least favorite map out of the pack... I feel so uncomfortable playing that map it's crazy :(
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 19-12-2011, 04:12:33
I hate wake and Oman. Far too open for me, but hell it feels like Wake has more cover than Oman now. I dispense Oman now, reminds me of Norshar Canals.

Karkand is the Karkand of my dreams. You have to clear out every single goddam house to be able to advance, same with Sharqi. Brilliant.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 19-12-2011, 06:12:40
that wake comparison picture is really badly done.

I think Wake looks ok, the goal was to make destroyed wake, it symbolizes 10 years of destruction, "this island has seen its fair share of battles" kind of deal.... it's metaphorically created to show how all battlefield players over 10 years have fought on this map, from bf42, bfv, BF2, bf2142, bf1943, BFheroes to BF3. (Did I forget any title?)

and it hits pretty spot on that goal :) never seen such a gloomy and depressing map in BF game, beats even Forgotten Hope maps. Funny that you dont like it, as it looks like maps we try hard to achieve here in this very mod :)

btw, nice fan video for those interested in digital art -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyevDm6az5U
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 19-12-2011, 06:12:45
How exactly is the comparison picture badly done?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 19-12-2011, 07:12:22
It looks just like someone took a screenshot and yanked around some sliders in photoshop (saturation, contrast) to prove a point. Which failed, since it was badly done. If the person managed to make it look nicer, it would have some point, but computergames art is not so simple so you can just take a screenshot and lol around in PS with it.

I guess it was ripped from this ridiculous thread:

http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/battlefield-3/1457975-art-direction-had-ruin-wake-island-too-12.html

What strikes me about all this is, what a fanbase!  ;D They love the game so much, they go through the hassle of making screenies, and cute attempts to change the looks, then pat eachother on the back and goes "hey, you make it look nicer than the devs"... true proof of hardcore fans. Adorable.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 19-12-2011, 09:12:32
Im an art designer too! look!
(http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/4478/bf32011121414584257.png)

where do I send my curriculum for bf4?  ;D

btw, nice fan video for those interested in digital art -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyevDm6az5U

truly amazing, FB would make a very good movie engine.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 19-12-2011, 20:12:16
DICE hinting about 2143?

(http://www.pressfire.no/image/screenshots2/0/402/2038/ss0.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 19-12-2011, 20:12:44
DICE hinting about 2143?

(http://www.pressfire.no/image/screenshots2/0/402/2038/ss0.jpg)

I can only hope and pray. God I would love them forever if they did that, a 1944 expansion wouldn't be bad either.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Battlefieldfan45 (CroPanzer) on 19-12-2011, 20:12:18
DICE hinting about 2143?

(http://www.pressfire.no/image/screenshots2/0/402/2038/ss0.jpg)

I can only hope and pray. God I would love them forever if they did that, a 1944 expansion wouldn't be bad either.
I'm so in for that!
BF2142 <3
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Moose on 19-12-2011, 20:12:50
yeah I actually really loved 2142, titan mode was off the hook.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 19-12-2011, 21:12:00
if that happens

I would fucking buy it twice


BF2142 was awesome, TITAN mode was AWESOME. It was my most played Battlefield ever. Timeless servers ftw!


I was know on titan Suez canal as the A8 tiger menace. The amounts of destruction i caused with it
OOOH the joy! I kept killing Pilum podding noobs and easily defeated the PAC Tank counterpart, wich was clearly OP
 (http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101018061711/battlefield/images/f/f7/A8_Tiger_BF2142.jpg)  <3 this baby

Also the riesig! BLOODY BRILLIANT

back on timeless Gibraltar...ooh the TS2 Server was chock full, i pop up above 10 PAC grenade spamming babies and shouted on TS3:
NOW ITS COWARD KEEELING TIME
at the same time, Some of those PAC soldiers= RIESIG RIESIG

BF2142 was EPIC
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 19-12-2011, 21:12:35
(http://i.imgur.com/S6OpJ.jpg)

Wow.

Apparently dudes on the EA UK forums are modding the files, so hopefully it'll be available to all soon.  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 19-12-2011, 22:12:02
aah, they want to make it more looking like BFHeroes :) yea, pretty colorz, cute, but I prefer the original BF3 art. Fits a bit better
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Musti on 19-12-2011, 22:12:08
(http://i.imgur.com/S6OpJ.jpg)

Wow.

Apparently dudes on the EA UK forums are modding the files, so hopefully it'll be available to all soon.  ;D
Wooow.
If they do this with all maps, I might try to reconsider buying BF3.Then we will have stupid blinding effects, and ultra high contrast to remove.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 19-12-2011, 23:12:35

 (http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101018061711/battlefield/images/f/f7/A8_Tiger_BF2142.jpg)  <3 this baby



ohh I LOVE that tank, its futuristic enought, yet realistic and compeling, the gun looks like a railgun and the hull looks really hard , its the best futuristic tank i have ever see .

but i have a feeling if they doo bf2142 remake its titan mode is gonna be butchered and we will still have regen health D:
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 19-12-2011, 23:12:09
i hope not. Titan mode was bad-ass and the grand lot of servers where titan.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Tolga<3 on 19-12-2011, 23:12:05
i hope not. Titan mode was bad-ass and the grand lot of servers where titan.

Are there people that still play 2142 lol? I remember buying it and loving it, and then randomly stopping without knowing why :D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 19-12-2011, 23:12:52
i hope not. Titan mode was bad-ass and the grand lot of servers where titan.

Are there people that still play 2142 lol? I remember buying it and loving it, and then randomly stopping without knowing why :D
but ofcourse people still play it  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 19-12-2011, 23:12:02
(http://i.imgur.com/S6OpJ.jpg)

Wow.

Apparently dudes on the EA UK forums are modding the files, so hopefully it'll be available to all soon.  ;D
Wooow.
If they do this with all maps, I might try to reconsider buying BF3. We will have stupid blinding effects, and ultra high contrast to remove.

The lower looks alot better imho
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 20-12-2011, 00:12:22
It does look better, thats immediately what I thought when I saw Wake. It just wasn't bright enough. I understand that the ships out in the sea, the smoke from them are blocking the sun, but the desaturated look of the Pacific Island just didn't make it seem right. Pacific Islands should be bright and vibrant, especially the foliage.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 20-12-2011, 01:12:42
(http://i.imgur.com/5Aq31.jpg)

:F
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 20-12-2011, 06:12:12
That battlefield three sxcreen show sis amazing and I fucking love int. Tyhe saturiation they added makes the gae look so much better. I thin ,they mneed to do this for all this gamre. I think the peeps are showing Dice what they need to do. cause honestly they are. trheryr are amazing with thes mods.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 20-12-2011, 08:12:16
The "color edited" shot is overdone.

It would probably look better if the colour was set halfway between the two.



Re. a 2142 sequel: Have no fear, given time you'll get another futuristic BF, and a WW2-based one as well. This modern warfare thing is getting old... ;)

Only question is, will they be stand-alone games or just expansions like BC2:Vietnam.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 20-12-2011, 08:12:24
Rather have full games than this silly expansions. BC:V was horrible.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 20-12-2011, 08:12:24
this is so lol.... just yanking around some sliders on a screenshot isn't how you color/lightset a game  ::)

If you dont have control over each individual parameter, you wont be able to keep the proportinate settings.

It's like someone mastering a piece of music with just increasing "gain" or "bass"... not how it's done.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 20-12-2011, 08:12:14
They are just playing with lightning and contrast about how the game should look like.

And while it isnt for the whole game and parameters...it looks very nice with less contrast and less blue tint everywhere. My eyes could adjust to the game looking like that.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 20-12-2011, 08:12:37
yes ofcourse they're just playing (what else would it be?)

This is not about how some people "want the game to look" this is purely just doing something differently than DICE, then posting it on the internet... It's a kind of graffitti actually.. Just making your mark for the purpose of making a mark. It's very common that fans do this with games.

I agree that some people can make pretty screenshots :) Kind of easy with a graphically good looking game such as BF3, but that's not the same as saying "this is how it should look like"....
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 20-12-2011, 08:12:17
The "color edited" shot is overdone.

It would probably look better if the colour was set halfway between the two.
Agree. Now it looks too read instead of too blue.
Re. a 2142 sequel: Have no fear, given time you'll get another futuristic BF, and a WW2-based one as well. This modern warfare thing is getting old... ;)
Future warfare will be getting old too once you have BF2143, several incarnations of COD:Future Warfare, along with Halo 4, Gears of War 4, Duke Nukem Begins, etc. :P
It's like someone mastering a piece of music with just increasing "gain" or "bass"... not how it's done.
Sorry, but I can't hear you over my 700W subwoofer. ;D

I wonder if I should ask the record company whether the songs I play were meant to be played this way? Maybe equalizers should be disabled in all audio equipment, because they allow changing the tone out of proportion, and after all, it's not about how some people "want the music to sound", it's just purely doing something differently than the record company ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 20-12-2011, 11:12:24

It's like someone mastering a piece of music with just increasing "gain" or "bass"... not how it's done.

mmm actually is more like having a good song coveret in noise background, and removing the noise background to apreciate the song better :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 20-12-2011, 14:12:02
I wonder if I should ask the record company whether the songs I play were meant to be played this way? Maybe equalizers should be disabled in all audio equipment, because they allow changing the tone out of proportion, and after all, it's not about how some people "want the music to sound", it's just purely doing something differently than the record company ;)

except that that analogy fails ;) Good mastering can handle EQ:ing on your home system, and in this case, the EQ:ing is the sliders you as user have on your system already, the video settings. You can tune and tweak a bit as end-user, but what the lol-patrol is trying to achieve isn't possible without the option to tweak all the actual light parameters, just like you on your home stereo, doenst have accesss to individual channels on the pre-mix down of the songs.

Maybe in the future, games companies and recording companies will start delivering their products without all the sound/graphics mixed down, but I doubt it. For two main reasons: One is being that they create art, and themselves want to direct this art (how much or little should be of each component) the other - which we painfully see proof of here - is that end users dont know how to do these things... the home-listener isnt a mastering engineer, and surely he is not a computer graphics artist..

but boy, does he try hard  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Tolga<3 on 20-12-2011, 15:12:05
Reading what Natty says, makes it feel like dating all over again :D You're never right, you're always wrong and you'll never ever (EVER) be right ;D

Quote
Re. a 2142 sequel: Have no fear, given time you'll get another futuristic BF, and a WW2-based one as well. This modern warfare thing is getting old...

Would love to see that, tired of all this hype over MOLLE vests and EOtech holographic sights... something new is needed :O
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 20-12-2011, 19:12:50
Needs more 'Nam n Korea
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 20-12-2011, 19:12:12
what i would want all above=

-Vietnam
-Korea
-Alternate universe cold war escalation(no nukes)
-2142 sequel but closely related to it, not like 80 years in the future with high tech laser shit. BF 2142 was awesome because it was futuristic but still Realistic in terms of weapons and vehicle design
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 20-12-2011, 23:12:44
i want my mmorpfps  >:(
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 21-12-2011, 00:12:21
That battlefield three sxcreen show sis amazing and I fucking love int. Tyhe saturiation they added makes the gae look so much better. I thin ,they mneed to do this for all this gamre. I think the peeps are showing Dice what they need to do. cause honestly they are. trheryr are amazing with thes mods.
Drunk or fudged up keyboard?:P
Anyways, the color edit looks much better.  I also experienced my first cheater. A guy with an aimbot and modded weapons. His M249 shot SV98 bullets...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 21-12-2011, 01:12:44
holy crap
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 21-12-2011, 01:12:07
That battlefield three sxcreen show sis amazing and I fucking love int. Tyhe saturiation they added makes the gae look so much better. I thin ,they mneed to do this for all this gamre. I think the peeps are showing Dice what they need to do. cause honestly they are. trheryr are amazing with thes mods.
Drunk or fudged up keyboard?:P
Anyways, the color edit looks much better.  I also experienced my first cheater. A guy with an aimbot and modded weapons. His M249 shot SV98 bullets...

Uhm...yea..was kinda drunk.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 21-12-2011, 03:12:31
video with the graphics changes, look at all those colors!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4lyJ1qxs0k&feature=player_embedded#!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 21-12-2011, 04:12:44
That looks magnificent.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 21-12-2011, 07:12:38
You're kidding, right?


Seeing it in motion just makes it look even worse.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 21-12-2011, 09:12:38
lol, that was not so pretty... awful contrast and saturation, just look at the ground and trees.. and that blue? he wanted it to be dead space on crack?...

naah... home-tweakers cant make a game look better with some plugins like that. nice attempt though, creative workarounds. extra point for effort, minus point for result.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 21-12-2011, 10:12:11
aparantly , neither can DICE with all the real tools ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 21-12-2011, 10:12:06
Screenshots looked OK, video looks like crap. Oversaturated mess, lots of detail is lost.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: siben on 21-12-2011, 10:12:12
It would be nice if we had something like an option in the settings where we can choose different filters. Like my computer screen can give 'warm', 'cold' and 'neutral' filter. Maybe a 'tropical paradise' filter where everything is nice and bright could be patched in?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 21-12-2011, 11:12:47
good thing is it can be configurated to anything you want/like, so if you think its too much color you can tone it down  :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 21-12-2011, 12:12:23
aparantly , neither can DICE with all the real tools ;)

they cant? well, if you visit some other sites than this forum once in a while, you would see how many prices BF3 has won for best graphics, add that to numbers sold, metacritic etc... apparently, they can ;)

 check the figures trollboy. ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 21-12-2011, 12:12:32

they cant? well, if you visit some other sites than this forum once in a while, you would see how many prices BF3 has won for best graphics, add that to numbers sold, metacritic etc... apparently, they can ;)

 check the figures trollboy. ::)

Yeah but...

Quote
EA planned on spending over $100 million on a marketing campaign for Battlefield 3.

Or do you believe advertising doesn't affect game reviewers?  ::)

Check the figures fanboi!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 24-12-2011, 07:12:58
What's the highest rank you've seen so far?


I thought all the level twenty-something colonels were bad, then last night I stumbled across a guy at level 65... :o
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Battlefieldfan45 (CroPanzer) on 24-12-2011, 11:12:23
My God...
Anyway does anyone know how to take screenshots in BF3 or make fraps work with it?
It seems fraps doesn't see it as a game or something so I don't get the counter nor anything. Any advices?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 24-12-2011, 13:12:36
dunno bout fraps but the screenshots (prntscreen) are saved in my documents->battlefiweld 3
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Battlefieldfan45 (CroPanzer) on 24-12-2011, 15:12:46
Hm that didn't work for me either :/
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 25-12-2011, 13:12:37
id check your hotkeys in control ^^.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 27-12-2011, 19:12:46
hey guys

i installed BF3 back because i did format a while ago. So i installed the games (Via the discs)

And

everytime i try to launch the game, it says we"re sorry an error has occured,there is a problem with your game setup, please reinstall the game"

So...i gotta reinstall it?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 27-12-2011, 20:12:07
1) Uninstall the game
2) Crack the discs half
3) Throw the pieces into trash
4) ...?
5) Profit!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 27-12-2011, 20:12:42
^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mUV0bcOxq4
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 28-12-2011, 02:12:38
Reinstalled the crap and same shit

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 28-12-2011, 07:12:41
Have you tried 'Check for updates' or 'Repair install'?

(Right-click on BF3 in Origin)


Dunno if that'll fix it, if not start searching the BF3 forum.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 28-12-2011, 11:12:02
ok guys

so i have that error
found this in the support section
https://help.ea.com/article/why-do-i-get-this-error-there-is-a-problem-with-your-games-setup-please-reinstall-your-game

So i download that thing, but when i try to install it, it says=This update does not count for your system

What the deuce?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 28-12-2011, 12:12:32
Every user has different problems with this game. Its a bitch to fix, sorry i cant help you  >:(.

Ea support?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: RAnDOOm on 28-12-2011, 13:12:20
Ea support?

Does that exist ?

 ;D ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 28-12-2011, 14:12:49
Ea support?

Does that exist ?

 ;D ;D
(http://ru.memegenerator.net/cache/instances/400x/12/12342/12638600.jpg)

Indeed it's a perilous journey... But for those who succeed the rewards can be really satisfying... Like ending up with 3 other "free" games as redemption for "we're sorry for the inconvenience"...  :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 28-12-2011, 14:12:54
For some retarded reason it works now-.....................
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Tankbuster on 28-12-2011, 15:12:23
Maybe it depends on the position of earth wrt uranus?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 28-12-2011, 15:12:05
Maybe it depends on the position of earth wrt uranus?
Probaly yeah

First time i "really want to play BF3"

Joined a server where a cheater knifes you just when you spawn!

Battlelog is still user unfriendly as hell

Bah
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Musti on 28-12-2011, 16:12:38
How to have maximum enjoyment with BF3
1. Find a pair of sharp scissors
2. Find your BF3 DVD
3. Shape it like a star
4. Throw it out of the window
5. YOU ARE A NINJA!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 28-12-2011, 16:12:42
lol

performance is also very low
Anyone who knows some fixes to increase performance?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 28-12-2011, 16:12:14
lol

performance is also very low
Anyone who knows some fixes to increase performance?

Buy a new GPU/CPU/computer...

Or... Don't try to run it on ULTRA with a stone age PC... (or a Mac xD).
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 28-12-2011, 17:12:48
im at low and lowest
:p

Still i have to say this game is nice
Nothing beats the fun of grabbing a Tuguska and LAV-AD and shoot down the plane/heli whores and hear them crying like tiny baby men
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Battlefieldfan45 (CroPanzer) on 28-12-2011, 18:12:28
or to shoot down two Su-35s with an Abrams.
That brings out a lot of tears too :)
Theta, add me on battlelog (CroPanzer)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 28-12-2011, 18:12:27
Done :v
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Battlefieldfan45 (CroPanzer) on 28-12-2011, 18:12:33
We gon' tear shit apart some day, yeah? :P
Need to hook up with FHA crew again
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 28-12-2011, 18:12:59
Hear hear.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 28-12-2011, 19:12:53
We gon' tear shit apart some day, yeah? :P
Need to hook up with FHA crew again
Aye :v
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Tolga<3 on 29-12-2011, 01:12:31
Oh god, I bought/played via Origin... and then I went to therapy :/
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 29-12-2011, 10:12:33
@THeTA: http://www.geforce.com/Optimize/Guides/battlefield-3-tweak-guide



I have two problems atm:

1. Freezing on the loading screen when changing maps.

This thread says it all: http://getsatisfaction.com/battlefield3/topics/hotfix_for_pc_loading_screen_freeze


2. Oman.

Is such an abortion (in CQ), it's now the only BF3 map I refuse to play. This may change after the next patch but I ain't holding my breath.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 29-12-2011, 13:12:22
....
2. Oman.
Is such an abortion (in CQ), it's now the only BF3 map I refuse to play. This may change after the next patch but I ain't holding my breath.

You forgot Metro 64 CQ. That map is a crime against humanity...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 29-12-2011, 13:12:52
....
2. Oman.
Is such an abortion (in CQ), it's now the only BF3 map I refuse to play. This may change after the next patch but I ain't holding my breath.

You forgot Metro 64 CQ. That map is a crime against humanity...
Metro CQ is great place to get stuff for your weapons and get insane score and k/d ratio.

If you know how to play that is. *Looks at Ciupita*
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 29-12-2011, 13:12:10
hehehehe

I did not expected the words that came out Of ciu's mouth after a great round of Metro


After that i was like=Okay i am also getting BF3  ;D

Anyway, Engineer is my favorite and pretty much only played class at the moment
Sniping stuff with RPG7 and SMAW is just plain jolly fun

On one of the maps, i dont recall wich one, it is in night in a city, middle flag is footbridge

On the north part of the map people snipe on eachother like halfway trough the map. 7 enemy snipers sat in that position!
I grab SMAW, fire behind cover at the "i hope it will land here" postion
BAF 2 kills  ;D

Edit=Its tehran highway
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 29-12-2011, 13:12:49
Metro CQ is great place to get stuff for your weapons and get insane score and k/d ratio.
If you know how to play that is. *Looks at Ciupita*

It's a map catered to all the stats-padders out there with no brains and who just need a rail-shooter and no Battlefield.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Tolga<3 on 29-12-2011, 13:12:09
....
2. Oman.
Is such an abortion (in CQ), it's now the only BF3 map I refuse to play. This may change after the next patch but I ain't holding my breath.

You forgot Metro 64 CQ. That map is a crime against humanity...
Metro CQ is great place to get stuff for your weapons and get insane score and k/d ratio.

If you know how to play that is. *Looks at Ciupita*

The longest I stayed alive on that map was about 10 seconds :/
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 29-12-2011, 14:12:54
Metro is fun. Its really about who can aim the fastest, wich i really enjoy.
Tactics in bf3 IMPOSSIBLE!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 29-12-2011, 14:12:10
Who needs bullets when you have rockets? found my new favorite map=Seine crossing
Love IT

And nothing beats the fun of firing RPG 7 and SMAW at infantry!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 29-12-2011, 18:12:19
Theta please never come back to FH2. Kthxbai.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 29-12-2011, 18:12:34
Theta please never come back to FH2. Kthxbai.
Hey i shoot infantry with PIAT, bazooka, Shreck and Faust on FH2. I can do the same on BF3  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 31-12-2011, 08:12:05
Metro isn't as bad as people make out, though reducing a map to 3 chokepoints (made even worse by being between levels) wasn't the smartest design move.


At the very least, it needs another flag on the lower level, so the US isn't bleeding from the get-go.

Ideally though, they should also extend the underground out into the park and add another access point between levels.


Problem with being on the US side is, in an average round, you'll have roughly:

 - 8 idiots spamming rockets/'nades

 - 8 hanging back with their sights on the top of the escalators

 - 8 that'll have a med-pack/ammo-pack/defib in their hands the whole round

Which leaves the task of trying to get an upstairs foothold to the remaining 8... ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 31-12-2011, 14:12:40
Running a streak of getting on absolutely terrible teams. I did play Vanilla BF2 yesterday though, in my opinion BF3 is more balanced as a whole, though BF2 was loads of fun.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Battlefieldfan45 (CroPanzer) on 31-12-2011, 16:12:59
I killed 2 T-90 with 1 Javelin rocket. Epic shit happened.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 31-12-2011, 16:12:35
Airdefense is my favorite vehicle without a doubt

Battlefield always had heli and plane whores. But shooting down planes and especialy those repair heli is so goddam difficult

If its caspian or other big vehicle maps, i always grab my stinger/IGLA With tuguska and LAV AD
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: EverettWV on 31-12-2011, 17:12:01
Taking down helicopters is easy. All you need is someone to lase them and then shoot a javlin. Then poof, its gone.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 31-12-2011, 17:12:36
well thats the part that troubles me aswel....
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Battlefieldfan45 (CroPanzer) on 01-01-2012, 15:01:20
There is not so much good SOFLAM spotting going around usualy.
I've seen some epic spotting on Wake once. The planes were going DOOOOOOOOWN!
What we need is a good and cooperative squad with all these flashy things and the enemy won't stand a chance!
Theta, do you get on FHA TS lately?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 01-01-2012, 16:01:18
ill come in once my new PC arrives, it is difficult to properly play BF3 now due to huge lag
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 02-01-2012, 06:01:04
Must be something in the air.

Had a great start to a round on Wake last night...

Spawned next to a tank, jumped in, and it quickly became apparent that there friendly recon painting everything he could see. I took out 6 choppers (K/D 11-0) before getting wasted by a jet... ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Daisuke Jigen on 02-01-2012, 22:01:54
Got this for Christmas and finally upgraded my computer enough to play it on high...

Anyone know if there's a way to change your name ingame, though? I'd like to go by Jigen like in BF2...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 03-01-2012, 07:01:52
You can change your Origin ID here: http://www.origin.com/change-id


As to whether you can get your old BF2 name...when I tried to choose mine, it kept telling me it was taken, so I had to choose a different one.

Mind you, this was when BF3 first came out, and lots of people were complaining about it, so they may have fixed it so you can.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Daisuke Jigen on 04-01-2012, 00:01:27
Much appreciated! :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 04-01-2012, 02:01:37
910 Meter Headshot, longest so far :D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 04-01-2012, 02:01:53
910 Meter Headshot, longest so far :D

958m, buahahhahaha.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Battlefieldfan45 (CroPanzer) on 04-01-2012, 02:01:28
Daaaamn, sick shit
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 04-01-2012, 04:01:24
318 Meters.....Most likely with the PP-2000 or some other lame SMG POS.  I should give the sniping thing a go sometime.  Only messed with the damn things a handful of times.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 04-01-2012, 10:01:23
Anybody wondering why Bffans K/D tends to change values all the time....I play on his acc sometimes...noob...xD
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Battlefieldfan45 (CroPanzer) on 04-01-2012, 12:01:57
You damn wanker, my K/D and spm are crying because of you :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: mopskind on 04-01-2012, 12:01:43
Just socred a 992 Meter Headshot from Veterans Retreat at Gulf to the Carrier :) and not with the damned M98
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 04-01-2012, 13:01:55
Seems like Cui has the biggest E-Penis here. ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 04-01-2012, 20:01:58
Seine crossing is one of my favorites for sure. But there is one B2K map wich i very enjoy. Sharqi peninsula also



Also

http://battlefield.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Pedro9basket/Battlefield_2143_Hinted_in_BF3%27s_Wake_Island

At least 4 new old skool hints giving by Ea. Yes! I CAN SMELL BATTLEFIELD 2143! i can feel the stomping sounds of Walkers and the automatic artillery guns of Titans!

Natty! SEND word to your bosses that we demand BF2143! Ill take eight!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 05-01-2012, 07:01:31
Anyone seen the boxes with "MICE" written on them (on Sharqi, I think it was)?


I'd like to know what that's hinting at... :-\
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paasky on 05-01-2012, 09:01:28
(http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/cmaus.jpg) !!!!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Battlefieldfan45 (CroPanzer) on 05-01-2012, 10:01:10
Probably some internal studio joke, I wouldn't say that everything written in the game has to do with some conspiracy :P (As one would notice, it's written in the same font as DICE and I found it on multiple BtK maps)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 05-01-2012, 13:01:19
Im absolutely not waiting for the space futuristic crap. Hate it. It always comes down to.. piewpiewpiew zoof. Sigh.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 05-01-2012, 15:01:08
Im absolutely not waiting for the space futuristic crap. Hate it. It always comes down to.. piewpiewpiew zoof. Sigh.

2142 was great. Don't know what your complainin about. :D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Battlefieldfan45 (CroPanzer) on 05-01-2012, 16:01:19
2142 is like the second best BF game I have ever played.
ANd the Titan mode is so damn awesome
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 05-01-2012, 20:01:02
Im absolutely not waiting for the space futuristic crap. Hate it. It always comes down to.. piewpiewpiew zoof. Sigh.
Dude BF 2142 was nothing like that

BF 2142 was so awesome because it remained in a reasonable level of science and engineering
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 05-01-2012, 22:01:57
Titan mode was awsome btw.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 05-01-2012, 22:01:27
aaah  ;D

BF2142 stayed very populated for a long time because of titan mode

If bf2143 follows the same grenade system, it will become much more funner

I hope they can expand it to. More then 2 types of aircraft for example.

Or perhaps one mother titan and one smaller one that can be manned for smaller skirmishes
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 09-01-2012, 20:01:00
Anyway after playing for quite some hours the past week i have to say it is a nice game.
nice
But not super the best.

The game has many things i like over BF2. Like reduced grenade spam
Yet some things i dislike. The 4 class system worked in BF2142. It works less imo for BF3. To much spamming..Thats the problem

Yet in some ways, it feels influenced by......Cod. The unlimited sprint, health that restores on its own, the unlocks and customizing and all bling bling that goes with it.
Weapon damage is also something..incredibly low.


Yet the ambient, levels and such, are top notch designed

Balance wise...i dare only to say later on. But some unlock weapons are vastly superior to the rest. CoughFAMASCough
And infantry vs tank combat...And especialy fighting planes and heli's
If you dont have LAV-AD or tuguska, even then, a decent pilot is extremely difficult to shoot down. Especialy on the one map where you go into a mine. Scout heli is impossible to shoot down

i would give it a deserved 8.5/10

The biggest flaw, is still however. Battlelog. Yes battlelog.  The stats overview and facebook style thing are all very nice, but server joining..i preferred the old skool style server joining.
Yet one positive thing however, what i found since the beginning, is when you join a server, you remain at windows and once the map is loaded, then you go to the game automaticly.

Its a nice game. Could have been better. But could also have been ALOT worser.


Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 12-01-2012, 08:01:10
COD influence = ATTACHMENT FRENZY!!!


I find the fact that you can put a suppressor on almost every gun in the game to be completely fucking ridiculous...not to mention scopes on PDW's.

I mean really, if they need to convert COD-tards to the series, I'm sure there's a better way than letting people put suppressors on M249's... ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 12-01-2012, 10:01:34
Why are you insulting me? Just because of supressors?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 12-01-2012, 11:01:37
not to mention scopes on PDW's.

The MP7 comes with a wide variety of optics. What's the problem?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 12-01-2012, 15:01:27
COD influence = ATTACHMENT FRENZY!!!


I find the fact that you can put a suppressor on almost every gun in the game to be completely fucking ridiculous...not to mention scopes on PDW's.

I mean really, if they need to convert COD-tards to the series, I'm sure there's a better way than letting people put suppressors on M249's... ::)

Why no suppressors on M249s? All sorts of weapons in the Armies of today are getting suppressors, yes, including M249's. The reason? A lot of the fighting we are doing today is inside populated areas, on open terrain, gunfire is far quieter than it is in a house or on a street. To protect the hearing of the soldiers, suppressors are becoming almost standard issue equipment.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 13-01-2012, 08:01:00
No, I'm not trying to insult anyone, I occasionally use a flash supp. or a silencer. It's these clowns who run around carrying support guns that have tac lights/silencers/foregrips on them that annoy me.

And I have no doubt you can attach almost anything to today's modular guns, but that still doesn't make having a scope on, what's basically just a sub-machine gun, any less ridiculous...to me at least.


So the safety wankers have caught up to the military have they?

Why doesn't that surprise me... ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 13-01-2012, 11:01:45
Have you ever fired an assault rifle indoors? Maybe it seems more "manly" or something but I'd rather have soldiers with all their senses intact.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hankypanky on 13-01-2012, 14:01:06
I would assume that the M249's high rate of fire would destroy any suppressor.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Viktor2a5 on 13-01-2012, 14:01:57
I would assume that the M249's high rate of fire would destroy any suppressor.

You are able to fit a supressor on a MG3, how can an M249 destroy one?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 13-01-2012, 18:01:03
Suppressor actually makes sense outdoors as well, since it "breaks up" the direction of the sound, making it harder for the enemy to locate you. Also, it acts as a flash suppressor (whose purpose, mind you, is not to prevent the enemy seeing you, but keeping yourself from being blinded).

Scopes on PDW's make sense too, if you're going to use them outdoors (read: longer distance than the next room) and are not going to fire them from hip and/or want to actually aim. Aiming through a reflector or red dot sight is always quicker than through ironsights.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 13-01-2012, 21:01:16
an M249 won't destroy a suppressor, its rate of fire is pretty much identical (actually somewhat less) than a M16 series rifle. Suppressors can easily be mounted on it, and are becoming way more important nowadays to modern armies.

The U.S. Army believes that a high majority of fighting in the future will be in highly populated urban centers, which results in soldiers have to discharge their weapons in-doors and in enclosed city streets. Gunfire echoing off the walls of buildings, especially in-doors is very loud, and without ear protection one can expect extended periods of sustained fire to make you deaf. This reality gives need for better hearing protection for our troops, suppressors are just part of that.

So no, I don't find suppressors on light-machine-guns being strange at all, assualt rifles neither, and especially not sub machine guns.

As far as optics on short range weapons like a PDW or a G53, I don't see that as being unrealistic either. Most soldiers would carry some form of optic on their weapon, even if its a small sub-gun like an MP5. Optics are necessary in modern combat, and more than common on smaller weapons of this nature. Sure, does a 6x Rifle Scope seem strange on an MP5? Yes, but doesn't mean that somebody out there isn't doing it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 13-01-2012, 22:01:56
isnt the whole concept of this game to "try out all fancy stuff" there more or like exists in the modern world?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 14-01-2012, 00:01:52
isnt the whole concept of this game to "try out all fancy stuff" there more or like exists in the modern world?

Not when you have stupidity like vehicle specs...like coaxial in a tank.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 14-01-2012, 14:01:39
Have you ever fired an assault rifle indoors?...

No, have you?

IMO it'd make more sense to provide soldiers with decent hearing protection rather than spending huge sums of money developing quieter weapons.



@Smiles: You miss my point, I don't see why you are able to have a combination of attachments that you would never see in RL.

(Show me a pic of a soldier (and not just a dumb redneck dressed up as one either) using an M249 or similar with a foregrip, a scope and a suppressor on it and I will happily eat my words. ;))



On topic: Thought I was hearin' things on Sharqi earlier.

I was heading downstairs in the TV station stairwell, and heard the original BF2 music in the background.

Turns out it's coming from behind a door on the floor above the flag.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 14-01-2012, 14:01:58
Have you ever fired an assault rifle indoors?...

No, have you?

He's in the Finnish army
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: siben on 14-01-2012, 14:01:44
I have shot the AK47 indoors (and many other rifles), it is loud, very loud, wearing ear plugs is very annoying on many rifles when you shoot, it simply is in the way when you want to aim true the sights.

Custom made ear plugs are good, but, what is somebody is sneaking up on you? you can barely hear small noises with that. Also, have you tried wearing those for a day? i did and it is strange (because i use these for shooting) your ears get moist and feel strange at the end of the day when you take out the pugs.

Best option is to make weapons more silent so you have no reason to protect your ears and your situational awareness improves a lot.

Oh, and custom made ear plugs easily cost more then 100 euro per person, a silencer can be made cheaper, i am sure.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 14-01-2012, 15:01:05
Have you ever fired an assault rifle indoors?...

No, have you?

Guard's Jäger Thorondor reporting in.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 14-01-2012, 16:01:44
Had some great moments last night. I was mainly sticking with the support class in order to unlock the mortar so that I could get the two kills required for the Chinese QBB-95 Light Machine Gun.

Playing with the 21CW guys, I was in Teamspeak remaining quiet. A good majority of them were on the opposing team when we played Grand Bazaar. As the Russians, they were pressing up the Highway (Echo) towards the Square (Alpha) and creating pressure on our flank from Alleyway (Bravo).

I came around the corner of Square, looking down at Highway, only to see a large group of about ten or eleven guys, a majority of which were 21CW players heading down the street. A short exchange of fire quickly highlighted my inadequacy, there was simply too many of them to fight off on my own, so I retreated back around the corner. I swiftly set up some plastic explosives along the edge of some concrete barriers that were adjacent to the corner, and retreated another ten or twelve feet to cover in a side alleyway that leads to the Alleyway flag.

In an instant four men came around the corner right on top of the explosives, I hit the clapper. The explosions killed two of them, and I proceeded to lay down my M249 and open up on the advancing group of enemies. The other two were taken down in swift succession, followed by four more who came bursting around the corner, as I valiantly heard "Oh shit, someone just detonated C4!" over Teamspeak.

Satisfying defense /completed
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 15-01-2012, 00:01:59
there is one thing i really enjoy in this game

I grab SVD and SKS
and remove the scope
And just iron sight and own things
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 15-01-2012, 10:01:28
...Also, have you tried wearing those for a day?...

Yes, more often than not I'll be wearing a pair at work.

I'm not sure what sort of earplugs you're thinking of, but anyone paying 100 euros a pair is getting shafted.



Guard's Jäger Thorondor reporting in.
Fair enough... :)

Doesn't exactly explain why you were shooting indoors though. Indoor range? Or training exercise?



Speaking of Grand Bazaar, earlier today I saw a few guys up on the second floor walkway/balcony on the building to the right (on the minimap) of the A flag.

It's got me fucked how they got up there, I've played that map dozens of times and I've never seen anyone up there before... ???
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 15-01-2012, 11:01:03
MAV.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paasky on 15-01-2012, 11:01:56
...Also, have you tried wearing those for a day?...

Yes, more often than not I'll be wearing a pair at work.

I'm not sure what sort of earplugs you're thinking of, but anyone paying 100 euros a pair is getting shafted.



Guard's Jäger Thorondor reporting in.
Fair enough... :)

Doesn't exactly explain why you were shooting indoors though. Indoor range? Or training exercise?



Speaking of Grand Bazaar, earlier today I saw a few guys up on the second floor walkway/balcony on the building to the right (on the minimap) of the A flag.

It's got me fucked how they got up there, I've played that map dozens of times and I've never seen anyone up there before... ???
Protip: Guard's Jäger are the guys trained to defend Helsinki and other urban areas.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 15-01-2012, 12:01:14
finnish jagers

using the latest and best equipment in urban combat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJx6ApGBxnQ
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 15-01-2012, 12:01:56
finnish jagers

using the latest and best equipment in urban combat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJx6ApGBxnQ
LOL

Guard's Jäger regiment, 1st Jäger company building, second floor, southern wing. The room opposite to the officer cadets' room used to be mine ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 15-01-2012, 15:01:19
...Also, have you tried wearing those for a day?...

Yes, more often than not I'll be wearing a pair at work.

I'm not sure what sort of earplugs you're thinking of, but anyone paying 100 euros a pair is getting shafted.



Guard's Jäger Thorondor reporting in.
Fair enough... :)

Doesn't exactly explain why you were shooting indoors though. Indoor range? Or training exercise?



Speaking of Grand Bazaar, earlier today I saw a few guys up on the second floor walkway/balcony on the building to the right (on the minimap) of the A flag.

It's got me fucked how they got up there, I've played that map dozens of times and I've never seen anyone up there before... ???

Theres a staircase behind a large concrete pavise near the U.S. main you can use to get to the second and third floor.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 16-01-2012, 11:01:06
LOL... :)



@McCloskey: MAV?



@Archi: Not that one, I'm talking about the building right next to the A flag (on the D flag side).

If you're standing near the US main looking towards the A flag, it's the building just behind it and to the left. If you're walking down the road from A to D, it's the one on your right.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 16-01-2012, 15:01:00
using it, you can get to places to which you otherwise wouldn't (just hop onto it and it can push you up, then you jump off - for example to get onto the huge construction building on Gulf of Oman)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 16-01-2012, 15:01:23
You sure its not this one?

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n630/EmpireTotalAAR/th_bf32012-01-1609-25-05-66.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/albums/n630/EmpireTotalAAR/?action=view&current=bf32012-01-1609-25-05-66.jpg)

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n630/EmpireTotalAAR/th_bf32012-01-1609-25-11-67.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/albums/n630/EmpireTotalAAR/?action=view&current=bf32012-01-1609-25-11-67.jpg)

(http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n630/EmpireTotalAAR/th_bf32012-01-1609-25-31-42.jpg) (http://s1143.photobucket.com/albums/n630/EmpireTotalAAR/?action=view&current=bf32012-01-1609-25-31-42.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 17-01-2012, 11:01:29
Ahh, sneaky...I assumed everyone who got up on the building on Oman used a chopper.



@Archi: In the top and bottom photo, you're looking at it.

See the 'Child Care' sign just to the left of your sight, they were up there behind the signs.


If I see them up there again, I'll take a happy snap.

I wonder if DICE whacks people with the ban-stick for exploiting that glitch?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 17-01-2012, 18:01:32
lol banning people for using creativity in a game.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paasky on 17-01-2012, 21:01:36
lol banning people for using creativity in a game.
To paraphrase a certain somebody: "It's not what the devs wanted."
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 19-01-2012, 06:01:08
@Smiles: If they're banning people for swearing/saying the wrong thing on the forum, it's not a far stretch to imagine they'd do the same to people exploiting a glitch.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 04-02-2012, 01:02:41
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne6pl8uC4PQ&feature=autoplay&list=UU7dlaP4GdMn7kBnsEDKupuQ&lf=plcp&playnext=1
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 04-02-2012, 13:02:37
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne6pl8uC4PQ&feature=autoplay&list=UU7dlaP4GdMn7kBnsEDKupuQ&lf=plcp&playnext=1
meh BUT the fighters coming scene was awesome  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 06-02-2012, 09:02:24
I've reached my Colonel Rank and have almost all weapons on 1 Star and now the game just feels empty, so I can officially proclaim to have deinstalled BF3 after ~80h of play. The negative aspects of pubby play just outweigh the will to play the game after I stilled my collector's hunger.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 06-02-2012, 11:02:31
Now thats interesting, i got a disconnected and the error said:
 "something went wrong" lol.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 06-02-2012, 19:02:11
I've reached my Colonel Rank and have almost all weapons on 1 Star and now the game just feels empty, so I can officially proclaim to have deinstalled BF3 after ~80h of play. The negative aspects of pubby play just outweigh the will to play the game after I stilled my collector's hunger.
yeah, there's actually much less content to get and the upgrades are all the same

Still i unlocked 2 things for wich i will keep playing BF3 for a while=
-Frag rounds for the 870MCS shotgun
-M60E4

Frag rounds are awesome, the M60 is just plain epicness
very accurate, very powerfull, and a goddam epic sound

I fell into the "lafette mode" today, equipped the MG scope, and just long range fired and ripped apart anything on bazaar
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 06-02-2012, 21:02:28
I enjoy unlocking shizzle for guns i like. My favorite when unpatched was the scar with supressor and holo
Now its the m249 with supressor and reflex, l96 supressor no scope, 870 with holo.
i love the mp7's looks but its useless, i like the m16's looks but its dull playing assault.
Cant wait reaching rank 36 for the .44 and id like to have the sg553 but its a pain getting the points. played coop a few rounds but its so booooooorrrriiiinnngggg
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 06-02-2012, 22:02:43
I enjoy unlocking shizzle for guns i like. My favorite when unpatched was the scar with supressor and holo
Now its the m249 with supressor and reflex, l96 supressor no scope, 870 with holo.
i love the mp7's looks but its useless, i like the m16's looks but its dull playing assault.
Cant wait reaching rank 36 for the .44 and id like to have the sg553 but its a pain getting the points. played coop a few rounds but its so booooooorrrriiiinnngggg
Add me on Steam and we can play together  ;)

theta2101 or theta123  i forgot wich one
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 06-02-2012, 22:02:00
Blasphemy! MP7 is one of the best weapons in the game.

Been a while since I have played BF3... >:/
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: kettcar on 07-02-2012, 08:02:38
sven, you should test the TDM experience with me :-)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 07-02-2012, 09:02:26
sven, you should test the TDM experience with me :-)

Nononono I deinstalled BF3. TDM is CoD not BF. ;)

I'm playing this nifty little game this evening for my TDM fix:
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2011/05/gotham-city-impostors-white.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 07-02-2012, 10:02:59
@Smiles: I couldn't believe it the first time I saw that "something went wrong" line.

But as irritating as it is, I can't help but laugh when it pops up.

Good to see the DICE boys have a sense of humour... :)


And the .44 is the shit mate. IMO the only pistol that comes close to it, and the only other one I use atm, is the G18 Supp. (simply due to it's ROF).



...Frag rounds are awesome...

Not at close range they're not...but killing people who are 50 or 60 metres away with a shotty is pretty fuckin' funny. ;D



I'm a level 12 Colonel, but there's no end in sight for me yet...

Two things keep me hooked:

1. Frostbite 2 - *droool*

2. Shooting down flyboys, especially jet pilots, with a tank is just so much Fun (note the capital F).

Wasted at least 7 or 8 choppers on one 600 ticket round of Kharg the other day... :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Battlefieldfan45 (CroPanzer) on 07-02-2012, 10:02:46
There is no greater feeling when you take down a jet with a cannon (or a grenade launcher ;D )
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 07-02-2012, 19:02:54
LAV AD is still my cocaine

the amount of jet fanboys i made CRYING

Uncountable
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 12-02-2012, 12:02:44
Anyone wiling to do CO-OP? i wanna unlock those epic weapons
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Battlefieldfan45 (CroPanzer) on 12-02-2012, 15:02:20
Maybe in the later afternoon, Theta.
If noone appears, poke me or smthing ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 12-02-2012, 20:02:27
coop is such a pain.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 12-02-2012, 20:02:11
The BF3 coop is awesome.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Battlefieldfan45 (CroPanzer) on 12-02-2012, 22:02:22
I love the gangsta mission
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 12-02-2012, 22:02:29
One kit i love to play with=

870MCS with frag rounds
MP412 .357 Magnum revolver
M26 MASS with standard buckshot


yes

I like this kit
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 13-02-2012, 08:02:19
I started using the M26 MASS (when playing Assault) about a week ago.

Not a big fan of it, only using it 'cause I'm chasing a service star for each weapon, but it looks cool hanging off the M416... :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 13-02-2012, 11:02:12
its actually far deadlier then any shot gun. the spread of this shotgun is much better then any other shotgun resulting in much more 1s1k, also it has very low recoil and it is very quiet.

Yesterday i used nothing else but revolver on Seine crossing. Just entering a building, clint eastwood style taking everyone from behind with one shot one headshot one kill

love this .357 magnum MP412 REX
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Musti on 13-02-2012, 19:02:48
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI_bB8Us-ic&feature=g-u-u&context=G22a6b4eFUAAAAAAAFAA
so... yeah.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 23-02-2012, 08:02:01
New nvidia drivers are out.


I hope these ones don't shit themselves when I try to use the Jav... :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Oberst on 23-02-2012, 12:02:33
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrOIgxQ--Tc&
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 23-02-2012, 15:02:36
^ And that's why I'm never touching BF 3 with a 10 foot pole... Most realistic shooter today, my a$$...

However it's nice for the lolz.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: mopskind on 23-02-2012, 15:02:03
Why the hell does everybody claim that Bf3 has to be "realistic" or whatever. The Battlefield series was never anything near realism and that is a good thing imo! Nowadays many PC gamers seem to put BF3 in the place of an MW3 realism 'antidote', though both games target a different type of gamer...meh, i like bf3 the way it is
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hslan.Grim on 23-02-2012, 16:02:01
I think what most people mean with ''realistic'' is teamplay. It at least was the reason I liked BF so much. But with BF3 it went more the MW way, where everyone is just running around trying to get as much points as possible or the most ''awesome kill'' as possible. The reward for teamplay and with that making it more realistic is gone :(. I still play BF3 though but not as much as I played bf1942/bf2 in the beginning.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 24-02-2012, 09:02:32
I dunno about that...

Extra points for attacking/defending objectives, 3 extra spawnpoints (if the squad is full), extra points for healing/reviving/resupplying squadmates, and squad perks...

Which suggests to me they're trying to encourage teamwork.

In fact, if it wasn't for the removal of the commander, I'd say it's more teamplay friendly than BF2.


FWIW, in BF2 I was lone-wolfing it about 75% of the time, in BF3 I'm always in a squad.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 24-02-2012, 16:02:49
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrOIgxQ--Tc&

Damn those are the moments you will remember!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Rustysteel on 26-02-2012, 01:02:16
watch video and check top comment, so true :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkkU0UO3sek
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 26-02-2012, 13:02:01
Being in a squad only means free spawn points, not teamwork.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 07-03-2012, 17:03:35
Battlefield 3: Close Quarters announced for June, two more packs incoming.

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/03/07/battlefield-3-close-quarters-announced-for-june-two-more-packs/

Some gameplay vids:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Neq7LFDJxNg&feature=g-all&context=G29398dbFAAAAAAAAAAA

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

Wow finally, they've actually changed the engine for the next Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare. Nice job Activision!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 07-03-2012, 17:03:24
The expansion includes four maps, 10 weapons and no vehicles -- it's about close quarters, after all.


You know what that means?

M320 and RPG spam


My god the fans are pissed  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 07-03-2012, 17:03:21
Meh. But the map pack with huge maps seems interesting.

"Largest BF map ever" and "Mobile artillery" were mentioned somewhere.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 07-03-2012, 17:03:29
Well...wont buy at all. Unless DICE can prove this time that they are actually the biggest maps in all the BF history. And they are actually...but just 40% of it is playable.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 07-03-2012, 17:03:02
Armoured kill sounds intresting and Mobile artillery has been mentioned yeah


Probaly M109A6 Paladin for americans and 2S19 Msta for russians

However the 2S3 Akatsiya is actually a better choise since the 2S3 Akatsiya was a counterpart to the M109, the Msta is a diffrent weapons system

ooh well, EA will fuck it up none the less
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 07-03-2012, 17:03:16
Ditto...still, let's see what DICE now bring to the table. And it's obvious that the cqc map pack are for the COD crowd that DICE cattered for easy money.

Most servers are metroll, it reminds me so much of all the servers are Karkand...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 07-03-2012, 18:03:30
(http://www.military-today.com/artillery/2s3_akatsiya.jpg)

Lets hope <3
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 07-03-2012, 18:03:23
“you don’t kill CoD by trying to be CoD. You kill CoD by making a better shooter.”
Alan Kertz: Core Gameplay Designer on Battlefield 3

(http://i518.photobucket.com/albums/u349/crow1001uk/Capture.png)

07/03/2012 BF3 close quarters anounced, COD themed map pack, you were saying Kertz........
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 07-03-2012, 19:03:17
i espect the gunner seat in the mobile artillery to locked untill certain level, also bigest map in bf history, 30% playable only in rush.

telemetry says so
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 07-03-2012, 19:03:36
Telemetry=Metroll players (COD crowd)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Battlefieldfan45 (CroPanzer) on 07-03-2012, 20:03:15
My God, 3 DLCs
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 07-03-2012, 20:03:25
My God, 3 DLCs

That will come in this whole year...seriously. Why not release the bigger extreme vehicles maps and the new vehicles first. But no! Of course not! The metroll and cod kiddies come first with their close quarters maps.

So now, we exit the metro come to the office!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 07-03-2012, 20:03:08
My God, 3 DLCs

That will come in this whole year...seriously.

You know why they release this? Because people buy it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 07-03-2012, 20:03:54
You know why they release this? Because people buy it

Of course they do, the metroll players and cod kiddies will have a blast with this new close quarters dlc.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 07-03-2012, 21:03:16
You know why they release this? Because people buy it.
You know why people buy them? Because they release it. 8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 07-03-2012, 21:03:34
Because they release it. 8)

Because people buy them...




































 8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 07-03-2012, 21:03:35
You know why they release this? Because people buy it

Of course they do, the metroll players and cod kiddies will have a blast with this new close quarters dlc.
Don't see why they would be playing BF if they are "cod kiddies". Gameplay is very different irrespective of map size. A lot of the people playing, liking and wanting CQ infantry maps are the same ones that played Karkand Infantry Only for years. They are battlefield players. Another group of Battlefield players prefers the larger combined arms maps.

I'll probably get all the mappacks since I spend too much money on games anyway. The footage of the new DLC didn't look particularly interesting though.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 07-03-2012, 21:03:06
Lol...you are seriously going to buy an office map?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 07-03-2012, 22:03:51
Hey i played bf3 for over 80 hours mp, so why not extending it with DLC. I hate DLC because i loved patches. Aslong as they dont make the stuf too expensive ill prob buy, i hate DLC though ^^.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Battlefieldfan45 (CroPanzer) on 08-03-2012, 00:03:06
Yep, DLCs are a pure act of stealing to me but...
It's BF3 and I am an addict
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 08-03-2012, 00:03:36
So, that makes a total of four DLC's?

Will still wait for the "Game of the Year Edition" with all the DLC's before even considering buying.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 08-03-2012, 01:03:05
just wait  18 months, bf4 will be in the making, price will drop and so would server numbers
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 08-03-2012, 01:03:48
Telemetry shows that people dont like vehicles, so the next BF will have killstreaks and the most exciting tight infantry maps in the history of Battlefield.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hitm4k3r on 08-03-2012, 16:03:20
I am not a total opponent of infantry and close quarter maps. They can be real fun if designed well - good examples are Strike at Karkand, Berlin in BF 1942 and Stalingrad, Tunis, Tobruk or Brest in FH2 and even Oasis can be fun from time to time, though the "main" bases are totaly f*cked up. It is just not good if you can fire from a flag directly into the main base.

But this DLC looks just like a bad joke. Why do they still call it Battlefield. Battleroom would fit better. Why are developers just destroying good franchises to squeeze out the last cent? When MW4, BF4 and the next MoH come out, you won't be able to find any difference between them. I for one will stick to BF2 and the beautiful mods the next five years. RO2 is on a good way but I am still not convinced to buy it until they bring back the good old feeling.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 09-03-2012, 01:03:58
BF3: office dlc = AA12 fun zone
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Battlefieldfan45 (CroPanzer) on 09-03-2012, 10:03:05
MK3A1* frag fun zone
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Musti on 11-03-2012, 00:03:13
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywQuyuPNh-Q&feature=fvwrel
I don't know how or why but i find this guy's commentary to be absolutely hilarious!
Also, he's THE luckiest BF3 player on this planet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBl-Q48zpZ8&feature=relmfu
"stroke my nipples and call me a BITCH"
"dis isn't a Volvo, but dis wil do fine"
"tits,tits tits hide like a bitch"
"stoking my ball sack around, like a REAL viking"
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 14-03-2012, 20:03:16
How the BF3 theme was made:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrhcV0YM2fQ
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 14-03-2012, 21:03:20
How the BF3 theme was made:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrhcV0YM2fQ


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AWESOME
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 16-03-2012, 06:03:07
http://uk.gamespot.com/news/ea-exploring-battlefield-subscription-service-6366335

Fuck that.......
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 16-03-2012, 09:03:37
http://uk.gamespot.com/news/ea-exploring-battlefield-subscription-service-6366335

Fuck that.......

Hell no, stop that shit EA.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 16-03-2012, 10:03:41
Hey it worked for CoD, can't blame EA for copying a working business model.
If people are stupid enough to buy anything they throw out there, they'll just continue to test their limits with every new release.

That picture of the Mona Lisa and the DLC politics was so true in many ways....
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 16-03-2012, 11:03:32
Well, it has worked for years for WoW, so why not?

World of Battlefield
World of Call of Duty
World of Medal of Honor
World of <insert multiplayer title here>
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 16-03-2012, 11:03:54
Well I guess if this trend continues, then in about five years I won't be playing any (new) games... but then again, I will actually have time to play FH2, perhaps with its finally released Pacific Theater of Operations! :D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 16-03-2012, 11:03:49
Well I guess if this trend continues, then in about five years I won't be playing any (new) games... but then again, I will actually have time to play FH2, perhaps with its finally released Pacific Theater of Operations! :D

I already went that way 5 years ago... The last thing I bought was RO 2, and I consider it a nice investment, even though it was kind of fail at launch...

But in a few years when all the cool mods are out, I'll have tons of stuff to play.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zoologic on 16-03-2012, 16:03:28
The Sims 3... that game is still out of that Monalisa gripes.

But it takes your hard-disk space a hostage.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 17-03-2012, 10:03:20
Had to laugh at that poll at the bottom of Battlelog.

When I voted, 46% of people (incl. me) were looking forward to the next patch rather than the DLC... :)


Get your finger out DICE.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Tolga<3 on 17-03-2012, 18:03:37
I take back everything I've said about this game, took me long enough (months and months of playing) but I have gotten used to it at last. At this rate I'll learn to play the next Battlefield over a period of 2 years :/
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 18-03-2012, 02:03:38
You must be new to the fps genre. Bf3 infantry combat is easy to get into and easy to master. The vehicles are even easier
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 18-03-2012, 02:03:57
I take back everything I've said about this game, took me long enough (months and months of playing) but I have gotten used to it at last. At this rate I'll learn to play the next Battlefield over a period of 2 years :/

MoMo forced you into bf3?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 23-03-2012, 21:03:47
http://blogs.battlefield.com/2012/03/game-update-will-drop-on-the-27th-of-march-for-playstation-3-xbox-360-and-pc-will-come-soon/


(http://blogscdn.battlefield.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/minimaps1.jpg)

haha, oh man, its exactly what i espected they will do to the minimap, not change the anoying blurry blue and just stamp a satelite view on it, usefull  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Tolga<3 on 23-03-2012, 22:03:06
You must be new to the fps genre. Bf3 infantry combat is easy to get into and easy to master. The vehicles are even easier

Nah, I was pro at BF2, but the leap in gameplay between the two obviously (also credited to me not playing PC games in a long time) wasn't small. At first I couldn't see shit and who was shooting at me, then started noticing fools moving around and now consider myself decent xD

@Eric ja ja I played with MoMo on coop a long time ago, he's been trying to get me into gaming for the last year or two so :D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Musti on 23-03-2012, 23:03:12
haha, oh man, its exactly what i espected they will do to the minimap, not change the anoying blurry blue and just stamp a satelite view on it, usefull  ;D
Better than nothing
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Moose on 27-03-2012, 21:03:31
I got the patch but my ps3 freezes all the damn time now, what the hell?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 27-03-2012, 22:03:47
Nice..Downloading the POS now....

May 8th can't come soon enough.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 30-03-2012, 12:03:43
Might give this new patch a bash tonight. At least now the minimap actually looks useful, and not just glow worms humping on a petri dish on the corner of your screen. Some of the weapon tweaks sound decent aswell.

I wonder if they will make the M key useful, as in making it display the entire map, rather than just making the minimap larger. One can always dream.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 31-03-2012, 08:03:17
Tanks useless now, way, way, way too easily destroyed now.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 31-03-2012, 08:03:07
Tanks useless now, way, way, way too easily destroyed now.
by RPGS or tanks themselves? I personally like the change that tanks inflict more damage to tanks
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 31-03-2012, 09:03:31
By RPGS or tanks themselves? I personally like the change that tanks inflict more damage to tanks

Rpgs do double the damage now, javelins more powerful against tan. Its just awful.ks, tv missiles kill tanks in one shoot, still weak against infantry
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 31-03-2012, 10:03:36
Holy shit your right...............

I just got killed by 2 fucking RPGS from the sides.....
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 02-04-2012, 11:04:11
Stingers have been super-nerfed.

Not only have they reduced the maximum range (as per the changelog), but they've also increased the minimum range to the point where it seems like there's only about 100 metres between the two... :P


Trying to set the objective as the SL is now hit-and-miss at best.

It's gone from being way too easy to accidentally set an objective, to being almost impossible when you are trying to set one... ::)


Hate the new sheetmetal tanks... >:(

Just like an AA vehicle with a turret now.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 02-04-2012, 15:04:45
Sheet metal tank? More like paper tanks.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 02-04-2012, 16:04:30
I barely used tanks in the game anyway...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kubador on 02-04-2012, 16:04:18
I still haven't bought the game. Simple question: is it worth it?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 02-04-2012, 17:04:35
If you know plenty of people that are still playing the MP: mybe. Otherwise, dont even bother.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 02-04-2012, 18:04:56
Played BF2 for about 2000 hours. Plus 500 or so of FH2 and PR.

BF3... I stopped playing after I got most of the vehicle unlocks and the M16A4. 100 hours tops
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 02-04-2012, 19:04:33
I barely used tanks in the game anyway...

Just because you dont use it much, doesnt means that the others that enjoy tanking and helping the team should be fucked.

So, what would happen if you are a jet or helicopter user, and suddenly, the helicopters become very, very, very easy to kill and they are very weak?

You would rage right?

So understand how I feel with the paper tanks in the new patch.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 02-04-2012, 19:04:05
Adjust and adapt.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 02-04-2012, 19:04:06
Adjust and adapt.

That isnt the answer to anything, this is unbalanced gameplay right here. You cannot reach a flag now like before, because of the raining down of rpg's and the javelins now, that actually have more damage against tanks. It isnt ironic? Even the Humvee can resist more hits than a tank now.

Sure, let's adapt to an unbalanced patch.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 02-04-2012, 19:04:20
Or whine. That's also an option. Less effective though.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 02-04-2012, 19:04:07
Or whine. That's also an option. Less effective though.

Noted. However, the forums are raging, both the UK forums, battlelog forums and I have seen plenty of threads in the american BF3 forums, along with supression.

But I prefer to place my complains in a listed manner. So for me...

...IMO, the tanks could be balanced by buffing the main gun against infantry and nerfing them to pre-patch levels against other MBT's and IFV's, lowering rocket pod damage against the tanks to pre-patch levels or perhaps slightly higher than that, making the repair tool around 15-25% slower than pre-patch (it's too slow at the moment) and most importantly, lowering the disable threshold to 30%. RPG damage should be 25 to the front regardless of angle, 25-50 to the side depending on angle, and 40-65 to the rear. Regeneration should only work over 75% or be taken out completely. The disable threshold would make the javelins okay as they are now.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 02-04-2012, 19:04:59
New players are already at a disadvantage by being inexperienced. On top of that, the unlock system means new players are intentionality fucked over because they dont have some of the basic equipment that a jet/heli/tank should have in the first place. Pretty much the main reason I never played in them.

However, making them a piece of piss to kill makes them less threatening and overall pointless. And then nerfing the weapons that are used to kill them (see the MANPADS now) is even worse.

So in summary: SNAFU. Unless they wheel out another major bugfixing patch (to fix the fix, as it were) before the next DLC, ill pretty much stay away from it. As I have been doing.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Musti on 02-04-2012, 19:04:21
Adjust and adapt.
Adjusting and adapting!
-Defenestrate your BF3 copy
-Start playing FH2
-???
-PROFIT!

After this few small steps you'll find that:
-tanks are no longer weak against hand-held AT weapons!
-killing infantry with hand-held AT weapons has been greatly limited (but not removed)
-no silly unlock system
-no "weird" graphics with too many special effects
-no tactical flashlights
-no USAS with frag rounds
-A minimap that actually works!
and much much more!

Or instead, you can continue playing game you constantly complain about....
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flyboy1942 on 02-04-2012, 19:04:01
I've never played BF3 and I have no complaints! Musti's method is indeed an exceptional pathway to contentment.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 02-04-2012, 23:04:10
you all could have avoided this problem if you hadnt brought a game that since the beggining looked like a POS , just like i did =9
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paasky on 12-04-2012, 14:04:31
Beating a dead horse is fun!

This guy pretty much nails my impressions of BF3 single player:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vzmiuw9LSnc

+ he's hilarious with his editing.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zoologic on 12-04-2012, 18:04:38
"Ha-ha-ha... That's what you get being a target for the game specified about murder!"

"Ah you can't take off, sucks to be you... we're Americans we don't like fair fights"

I find BF3 to be hilarious. Now I want to play SP
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 12-04-2012, 19:04:10
"blalblalbla terrorists, blablalalala nukes, balabalalala terrorists. Thats the plot"


Its funny cause its true
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Battlefieldfan45 (CroPanzer) on 16-04-2012, 20:04:01
I was screaming from laughter! :D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 17-04-2012, 00:04:46
so, DICE released that battlelog app for phones, but just for Iphone, when asked for an Android version, they said:

Quote
@mund0x Android.. It´s like asking if future BF games will be released on Betamax


ohh DICE, you never cease to amuze us  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paasky on 17-04-2012, 00:04:53
:D DICE, what a great PR person you have chosen :P

Yes android is exactly like Betamax: Slightly better, more expensive but not really bought by anyone.

Oh wait...
(http://cdn.techi.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Smartphone-Market-Share-Graph.jpg)

Yeah, much better, much cheaper and used by more people.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 17-04-2012, 10:04:37
"Nations Cup XV: Australia wins it all"

 ;D



Quote
...@mund0x Android.. It´s like asking if future BF games will be released on Betamax...

 ::)



Quote
@battlefield @ryanhill2430 We are aware that many would like to see an Battlelog app for Android and we are taking this into consideration. ^B

4 hours ago

LOL... ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 26-04-2012, 20:04:08
pretty nice if they follow the customers requests and adds it to Android also, isn't it?  ;)

or did you just up until now believed that something said on twitter is carved in stone and will never change?

lol
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: RAnDOOm on 26-04-2012, 21:04:03
pretty nice if they follow the customers requests and adds it to Android also, isn't it?  ;)

or did you just up until now believed that something said on twitter is carved in stone and will never change?

lol

(http://images.codingforcharity.org/dmp/20110329/demotivational_poster_Double-Face-Palm_20110329163038_reg.png)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 26-04-2012, 23:04:44
The hunt for the elusive L85A2 continues. Finally managed to win 3 out of 5 squad deathmatch rounds. G3A3 discovered to be an awesome rifle.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 27-04-2012, 06:04:15
I earned the G3A3 awhile back playing some coop with a friend, the mission lagged however and I didn't get it even though I unlocked it.

Now on my stats it says I unlocked all the coop weapons but I still have yet to unlock the G3A3.


I have unlocked the L85A2, but that was some time ago and I hardly ever play assault. Mostly just working on playing aggressive recon with PDWs. Namely, the Mp7 herpaderpa gun
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 27-04-2012, 12:04:54
@Natty: Sure, so long as it isn't DICE doing the work, they've got more important customer requests they should be following.

And what's "twitter"? I got that last quote from the bottom of Battlelog... ;)



A few days ago, I received my Russian Army Service Medal (which you get at 100 hours).

I'm also just over 1.5 hours away from earning my US Marines Service Medal.

I've 330+ hours up my sleeve in total.


I can't help but wonder which army I've spent the other 131.5 hours in... ???
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 29-04-2012, 00:04:03
L85A2 acquired and deemed awesome.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 29-04-2012, 15:04:50
Saw the first dirty harry movie yesterday

recieved undeniable tension to go play BF3 and use nothing but the .44 magnum

First round= 30 kills, 10 deaths

oooooh yeah
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 29-04-2012, 18:04:01
.44 is awsome, yet to unlock the scoped version:p.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 29-04-2012, 18:04:12
oh my god


everybody
ingame
now abuses the M26 Dart Bug

This game has became from unplayable to totally unplayable
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Musti on 29-04-2012, 18:04:47
It couldn't possibly have gone lower? seriously?
let me guess, G3A3+M26 MASS + Flechette rounds.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 29-04-2012, 19:04:53
It couldn't possibly have gone lower? seriously?
let me guess, G3A3+M26 MASS + Flechette rounds.
yes.

you need heavy barrel tough
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Akersorken on 30-04-2012, 13:04:42
Does AT rockets make any damage to human targets at all? not even slightly like BF2?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 01-05-2012, 12:05:38
Yep, just like BF2.

I rely on the RPG for long distance killing (mainly distant snipers) if I'm using a PDW or shotgun.


Although compared to BF2, it's not that often you see people using it as an anti-infantry weapon.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 01-05-2012, 12:05:57
Rockets and 40 mm grenades take a while to arm, so you can' really use them in close quarter combat.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 01-05-2012, 16:05:56
Yep, just like BF2.

I rely on the RPG for long distance killing (mainly distant snipers) if I'm using a PDW or shotgun.


Although compared to BF2, it's not that often you see people using it as an anti-infantry weapon.

Switch to semi autmatic fire and outsnipe the snipers. Assault rifles are great for long distance shooting if used properly. Pistols might be deadly over distance as well. It was like that in all the previous BF games but I haven't tried it in BF3 yet.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Akersorken on 01-05-2012, 17:05:08
Rockets take a while to arm, so you can' really use them in close quarter combat.
We'll see...  :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: General Tso on 01-05-2012, 21:05:09
Yep, just like BF2.

I rely on the RPG for long distance killing (mainly distant snipers) if I'm using a PDW or shotgun.


Although compared to BF2, it's not that often you see people using it as an anti-infantry weapon.

I also enjoy rubble kills using the RPG/SMAW, in places like Seine Crossing or Grand Bazaar.  Good times.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 02-05-2012, 11:05:20
There's at least one I know of, but then I'd hardly call the .44 a pistol.



Hahaha, "rubble kills", that's awesome terminology... ;D

Using it to blast snipers off the tower on Caspian, and the cranes on Firestorm, is good fun too.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 03-05-2012, 02:05:26
PP-19 = SUPER AWESOME!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 03-05-2012, 03:05:24
Having trouble using the SVD at long range....the sights are messed up. I aim with the reticle at 2 for 200 meters and I cant seem to hit anything....any recommendations of where to aim?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 03-05-2012, 18:05:42
Any bolt action sniper with IRNV and then into hiding mode, awesome  ;D

Guess there is a bit of awesome in this game
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 03-05-2012, 18:05:20
From what I remember, the standard marskman rifles work well as battle rifles if you just use the irons.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 03-05-2012, 18:05:40
Yes. But i want to use them from 200 to 500 meters if possible.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 04-05-2012, 03:05:45
Sv98, problem solved.
/thread
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 04-05-2012, 04:05:18
Sv98, problem solved.
/thread

Lol dude, I havent unlocked it yet. Today I managed to kill a guy from 398 meters, I suppose my problem is to land my shots accurately...the hold breath feature doesnt last very much. And there's deviation if you fire too fast.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 06-05-2012, 21:05:31
I have grown fond of bolt action sniper rifles. Today i played 3 rounds of sharqi penisula where i occupied a forward house on C. As a defender, i used MAV for spotting and recon, spotting stuff and shit. Then seeing where snipers are, and planting one right between there eyes.

14-0 was the result. Great round it was for me  ;D

As russians, i then infiltrated the entire enemy defense a la metal gear solid style. With SV98 silincer and M1911 silinced, i got a score of 25-2 in a 1000 ticket match. I kept wrecking havoc on there mortars and second line flags,i had an entire enemy squad looking for me  ;D

I today unlocked the M40A5 and i love this beast. Iron sights and on short range, it one shot one kills enemies via the chest and head on NORMAL servers!  ;D 
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Tolga<3 on 16-05-2012, 04:05:56
Hmmm anyone on xfire playin this around here? Been playing a bit of it lately, not very good but meh wouldn't mind hopping on if I saw anybody from here playing ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 16-05-2012, 11:05:55
Hmmm anyone on xfire playin this around here? Been playing a bit of it lately, not very good but meh wouldn't mind hopping on if I saw anybody from here playing ;D
get steam

we all use steam

add me on battlelog= theta0123
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Tolga<3 on 16-05-2012, 19:05:27
I only got steam years ago to play a certain Half Life 2 mod, outside of that I never really used Steam ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 16-05-2012, 20:05:09
I only got steam years ago to play a certain Half Life 2 mod, outside of that I never really used Steam ;D
Download it again then you bloody turkish bloke!  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 17-05-2012, 02:05:07
Premium Battlefield Subscription Service Coming

http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/27139-premium-battlefield-subscription-service-coming

I remember that the EA CEO and DICE always told us that they will never drop to this level...oh look, more lies. Not a surprise.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 17-05-2012, 11:05:51
Never underestimate the power of the almighty dollar.


So, Close Quarters arrives in less than a month, there's still a long list of shit that needs to be fixed/rebalanced, and now they expect people to subscribe?... ::)


If it wasn't so offensive I'd laugh.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 17-05-2012, 12:05:59
Do i need to pay for the close quarters shizzle?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 17-05-2012, 12:05:25
Do i need to pay for the close quarters shizzle?
It's an expansion with four maps and bunch of new weapons. I presume the price would be similar to the Back to Karkand expansion.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 17-05-2012, 12:05:00
New weapons in CQ Pack

Assault Rifles

    AUG A3 (http://world.guns.ru/assault/at/steyr-aug-e.html)
    SCAR-L (http://world.guns.ru/assault/be/fn-scar-e.html)

Carbines

    ACW-R (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_Combat_Rifle)
    MTAR-21 (http://world.guns.ru/assault/isr/tavor-tar-21-e.html)

Light Machine Guns

    L86A1 (http://world.guns.ru/machine/brit/l6a1-sa-0-lsw-e.html)
    LSAT (http://world.guns.ru/machine/usa/lsat-e.html)

Sniper Rifles

    JNG-90 (http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sniper-rifles/tr/mkek-jng-90-bora-e.html)
    M417 (http://world.guns.ru/assault/de/hk-417-e.html)

Shotguns

    SPAS-12 (http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/it/franchi-spas-12-e.html)

Personal Defense Weapons

    MP5K (http://world.guns.ru/smg/de/hk-mp5k-e.html)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 17-05-2012, 13:05:31
mostly fancy picatinny rail cod weapons but LSAT and L86A1 seem intresting



Again no AK in 7.62x39 or a 7.62x51 NATO(i would give everything for a MG3 or a Type 80) or a RPD
or a Zastava M76 in 7.92x57 mauser. FR F2 sniper or PSL
lets hope the other 4 DLCs do contain that

JNG-90 sounds intresting
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 17-05-2012, 13:05:07
stop making DLC's start making decent Xp packs  >:(
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 17-05-2012, 14:05:09
stop making DLC's start making decent Xp packs  >:(
By your definition, what is the difference between a "DLC" and expansion pack? Do you need a physical disc to make an expansion to be valid?

Let's compare Back to Karkand for BF3 / Special Forces for BF2:

- 4 new maps / 8 new maps
- 4 new vehicles / 10 new vehicles (minus the removed vanilla vehicles)
- 10 new weapons / 8 new vehicles (minus the removed vanilla weapons)
- Updated destruction effects / Gas masks etc.
- Awards and other fluff / Awards and other fluff
- $15 / $35*
- Digital only / Disc

*Inflation taken into account.

The BF3 expansions are basically smaller, cheaper and more frequent. And someone might claim that they offer more bang per buck.

I, for one, prefer the BF3 model of smaller expansion packs.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 17-05-2012, 14:05:29
If we compare BF3 DLC to COD DLC's.......

12.99 euros for a few fucking maps on COD
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 17-05-2012, 14:05:54
stop making DLC's start making decent Xp packs  >:(
By your definition, what is the difference between a "DLC" and expansion pack? Do you need a physical disc to make an expansion to be valid?

Let's compare Back to Karkand for BF3 / Special Forces for BF2:

- 4 new maps / 8 new maps
- 4 new vehicles / 10 new vehicles (minus the removed vanilla vehicles)
- 10 new weapons / 8 new vehicles (minus the removed vanilla weapons)
- Updated destruction effects / Gas masks etc.
- Awards and other fluff / Awards and other fluff
- $15 / $35*
- Digital only / Disc

*Inflation taken to account.

The BF3 expansions are basically smaller, cheaper and more frequent. And someone might claim that they offer more bang per buck.

I, for one, prefer the BF3 model of smaller expansion packs.

but BF xp packs always offered new factions, what can't be said of their current DLC line. DLC's in general offer "more of the same". xp packs usually try to differ themselves from the stock game.

Additionally, BF3 feels like the stock game has been striped of content, in order to be able to  sell the missing parts as a DLC, giving the customer the illusion he's buying something new, but in reality he's just buying his full game a piece at a time.

That's just my opinion.I never liked DLC's and I never will
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 17-05-2012, 14:05:42
in this luftwaffe is right.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 17-05-2012, 14:05:03
"Stripped out of content" would be valid argument if Back to Karkand was released as day 1 DLC. It was not.

And I don't really think that the difference between "evil DLC" and "glorious expansion pack" is few voice over lines.

DLC as a term has really lost is meaning nowadays. It seems that people blindly bas every damn expansion just because it's available via download. Fight against Capcom's day-one-on-the-disc DLC, but people should not think that a only valid way of releasing additional content after game's release should be a) free or b) on a disc with a $40 price tag.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 18-05-2012, 00:05:54
I encountered some first cheaters today. First time to be honest. One shot killing everything without headshots with practically every weapon from impossible distances.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 20-05-2012, 13:05:03
i have seen plenty



Anyway

TOday will be the day i unlock AS VAL, only 40 000 EXP needed  ;D

Also, Lafette MG ftw. When you play any infantry map you can easily see why teams lose, so very few take a proper Belt fed MG like M60E4, M240 or PKP with a bipod and then a MG scope.

Yesterday got great matches with them  ;D

Also every sniper always take the longest range of scope, the 12x ballistic, but scope glare kills you. i Machine gun sniped people yesterday alot on seine and metro because of this. 48-5 was my final score
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Nerdsturm on 20-05-2012, 15:05:30
"Stripped out of content" would be valid argument if Back to Karkand was released as day 1 DLC. It was not.

And I don't really think that the difference between "evil DLC" and "glorious expansion pack" is few voice over lines.

DLC as a term has really lost is meaning nowadays. It seems that people blindly bas every damn expansion just because it's available via download. Fight against Capcom's day-one-on-the-disc DLC, but people should not think that a only valid way of releasing additional content after game's release should be a) free or b) on a disc with a $40 price tag.

Selling low cost DLC splits the community more than free DLC or large expansion packs though. Obviously large expansion packs still split the community, but games have at most 1 or 2 expansions usually, and the effects of the expansions are often major enough that people who own the expansion only play the expansion content or only play the vanilla content, rather than playing both in the same session, so having servers switch between them on the fly is not really a problem.

I don't own BF3 so I won't say anything about that game's DLC, but I think you can look at Space Marine as a game's who was really negatively effected by DLC. The DLC for that game was perfectly reasonable (there's no doubt the game was complete at launch and there was actually some pretty good free DLC on top of that), but they released several map packs that people basically couldn't use because the community wasn't large enough to support half a dozen different combinations of map ownership. Had they released all of those in a single large expansion there's no doubt it would have worked far better.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 20-05-2012, 15:05:00
"Stripped out of content" would be valid argument if Back to Karkand was released as day 1 DLC. It was not.

And I don't really think that the difference between "evil DLC" and "glorious expansion pack" is few voice over lines.

DLC as a term has really lost is meaning nowadays. It seems that people blindly bas every damn expansion just because it's available via download. Fight against Capcom's day-one-on-the-disc DLC, but people should not think that a only valid way of releasing additional content after game's release should be a) free or b) on a disc with a $40 price tag.

I don't own BF3 so I won't say anything about that game's DLC, but I think you can look at Space Marine as a game's who was really negatively effected by DLC. The DLC for that game was perfectly reasonable (there's no doubt the game was complete at launch and there was actually some pretty good free DLC on top of that), but they released several map packs that people basically couldn't use because the community wasn't large enough to support half a dozen different combinations of map ownership. Had they released all of those in a single large expansion there's no doubt it would have worked far better.
The problem of Space Marine is the lack of dedicated servers. The console lobby system makes it impossible to have communities, and you can't choose where to play. In BF3 you can filter servers based on game mode, map and most importantly which expansion it uses.

BF3's player base is large and there actually are communities with their servers and there are many, many server that run only one map. I can't see smaller expansions harming BF3.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 21-05-2012, 14:05:40
But I can see the subscription service doing that.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 21-05-2012, 15:05:25
battlefield premium will be a one time purchase

intresting things

it will be released before the final DLC

Thus EA hopes to earn double money by people who buy the 4 first DLCS and want this premium aswel
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-05-2012, 13:05:05
okay

so i learned some things yesterday=

The more snipers in your team, the higher chance you will loose.

So i join a metro server yesterday, only to find out that the US team was getting there ass kicked majorly. They had only one flag left and i was on RU. Sitting with my trusty belt fed 7.62 MG with scopes, i counter sniped dozens of snipers. I notice that few had a postive K/D in the US team, so i decided to switch to US

I take M60 with M135 scope, and flash suppressor. I set up a defensive position near alot of snipers....And within minutes i achieve a score of 20-3. Wich ended in the end with 64-6. I climbed to the top ranks in only 10 minutes of a big match.....

After a while i realize i am the ONLY machinegunner on a 32 player team. Everyone else is either engineer, a few assaults and half is atleast sniper.


Your victory chances on BF3 are influenced by the amount of snipers on your team and by the amount of Call of duty players....  i think BF3 Close quarters will be a failure..... Not by the new weapons or small maps, but by the playing style of many on this game


Also i got banned just now for getting a great score of 40-2 on Metro. I played agressivly offensive with the great Deutsche Mg36. And bam i get banned
Motherfrakkers
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kubador on 23-05-2012, 13:05:48
The more snipers in your team, the higher chance you will loose...

BF1942, US team, Omaha beach, anyone?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 23-05-2012, 13:05:49
The more snipers in your team, the higher chance you will loose...

BF1942, US team, Omaha beach, anyone?
Superman bug FTW.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-05-2012, 13:05:49
Price for Close quarters will be 14.99 US dollars
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 23-05-2012, 13:05:33
Called it.

Also, Jackhammer is now officially the best weapon ever. Followed closely by G3A3 with a rifle scope and MP7 + PP-19.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-05-2012, 13:05:15
Called it.

Also, Jackhammer is now officially the best weapon ever. Followed closely by G3A3 with a rifle scope and MP7 + PP-19.
G3A3 and PP19 are indeed bloody awesome

especialy PP19
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 24-05-2012, 00:05:28
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!

EA_DICE looking for a new art director. It appears that the sucky blue theme and the super nova sun got him fired.

https://twitter.com/Nathanael_Brown/status/205305684491907072
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 30-05-2012, 21:05:53
(http://i.imgur.com/cCXlE.png)

enjoy :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: siben on 30-05-2012, 22:05:36
You know, don't shoot me for saying this but 10 euro for the DLC and the unique things you get with them aint that bad.

(5DLC so 50 euro)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 30-05-2012, 22:05:12
Might even buy that. We'll see.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 30-05-2012, 22:05:54
EA sure knows how to earn extra money
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 30-05-2012, 22:05:56
wow, i trough more people will be upset about the "serrver queue priority" :P,
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 30-05-2012, 23:05:07
The only thing that bothers me is the dollar = euro bullshit they pull at EA (and Steam as well of course).
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 31-05-2012, 23:05:37
How to download the June update on your platform
PC: As soon as you start your Origin client, the latest game update will automatically start downloading (unless you’ve disabled the option “Automatically keep my games up to date”, in which case it will start downloading when you try to run the game). In Battlelog, you will be notified from the Game Manager. Once you acknowledge the update, it will start downloading within the Origin client.
[...]

M26 dart situation resolved
Some of you have noticed lately how a certain loadout has been overpowered. When the M26 Lightweight Shotgun System was mounted under an assault rifle with a heavy barrel, the M26 would accidentally fire assault rifle bullets instead of shotgun pellets. This is fixed in the June update.

Somewhat reduced suppression effect
Since the last update, there has been an interesting debate on the increased suppression effect we introduced. While a lot of players like the increased effect and the possibilities it introduced, some players felt suppression was becoming too powerful. Now, we are dialing the suppression effect back a notch. It will still be higher than it was prior to any of our patches. Let us know what you think of this tweak.
[...]

Improved VTOL fighter jet (F35) performance
Based on community feedback, we have improved the performance of the F35 in Back to Karkand to better match that of the SU35, particularly when it comes to turning speed.
FULL JUNE (“MULTIPLAYER UPDATE 3″) CHANGE LIST BELOW

Vehicle related changes
> Tweaked the F35 handling to more closely resemble that of the SU35 (see above).
> Jet & helicopter ECM Jammer should now deflect missiles more reliably when it is active.
> Fixed an issue where vehicles wouldn’t spawn if their intended space was occupied by a deployable gadget. The vehicle will now spawn as intended and the gadget will be destroyed in the process.
> Fixed AA missiles not doing damage to vehicles moving at very high speeds.
> Reduced the direct damage from unguided Javelins to require better side hits for a 1 hit disable. This was previously too forgiving and easy to accomplish.
> Removed the direct damage from aircraft launched guided missiles. Players will need to have laser designated targets for full effectiveness.
> Adjusted the helicopter rockets to their original prepatch damage value against armored vehicles. This is a reduction; a revert of a knock on effect that was introduced accidentally.
> Fixed the US Tank Guided Shell doing the reverse damage values when guided and unguided.
> Adjusted the M224 mortar damage against vehicles. Some tweaks and adjustments in a previous update accidentally increased its effectiveness greater than intended.
> Increased the range on the AA guns so they can reach vehicles hovering at the maximum height in select maps.
> Replaced the VDV buggy on Gulf of Oman (Back to Karkand) with the DPV buggy for both teams at the City flag.
> Fixed a bug where some vehicle unlocks were still enabled after the player left the vehicle.

Soldier and gadget related changes
> Reduced the inaccuracy added when in suppression. There is still an enhanced suppression compared to the initial state in the game, but the effect is now less than it was in the last patch (see above).
> Reduced input lag for gamepads/joysticks on all platforms. Aiming as a soldier when using a gamepad or joystick should now be more responsive.
> Tweaked the deploy times on gadgets to be faster to deploy in high stress combat situations.
> Greatly improved the responsiveness when deploying a bipod when going prone and shortly after moving. The bipod deploy should no longer abort if the player deploys the bipod immediately after stopping.
> Fixed bug where you couldn’t deploy the mortar anywhere on Grand Bazaar.
> When changing the accessories of a weapon in the Customize screen, the weapon previously selected in the Deploy screen will now automatically be selected when entering the Accessories screen.
> Increased the effectiveness of the Aim Assist at close range. Testing in Close Quarters proved our current assist to be inadequate in tight quarters. This is a global change, and will improve the effectiveness of Aim Assist for all modes and maps. Aim Assist over distance is still significantly less effective. This is console only, as Aim Assist is not present on PC. If you prefer, you can also turn it off on console.
> Players will now spawn on the Radio Beacon looking in the same direction the Beacon is facing. The Beacon always faces in the direction the player is facing when it is planted. Previously the Beacon’s direction had no impact on the player’s spawn direction.
> The Spawn Preview camera on the Spawn Beacon has been updated to better reflect the direction the player will be looking when he spawns.
> 40mm smoke now stays longer again.
> Tweaked some tracers on sniper rounds to have better visibility at range (the tracers are smaller).
> Tweaked the flashlight so it is less blinding at the edge of the screen.
> Fixed bug where you couldn’t pick up your deployed gadgets after being revived.

Weapons related changes
> Fixed a bug where Heavy Barrels and Underslung Shotguns could be over powered. (This is the so called M26 dart issue, see above)
> All semi-automatic sniper rifles now properly have shorter range when using a suppressor.
> The L96 now properly shoots where the iron sights are aimed. The position was previously offset.
> The SKS now has the proper damage values when using a suppressor. The damage was previously too low at close range.
> Slightly reduced the suppression effect of SKS rounds.
> Decreased the long range damage of the SKS to highlight its close to medium range role.
> Slightly decreased the foregrip aimed accuracy penalty on the M4A1 to bring it in line with other guns.
> Slightly increased the foregrip aimed accuracy penalty on the SCAR-H to bring it in line with other guns.
> Reduced some of the vertical recoil and zoomed accuracy penalties added to the FAMAS in the previous update.
> F2000 foregrip accuracy penalty reduced and recoil reduction bonus increased.
> AEK971 foregrip recoil reduction bonus increased.
> SG553 foregrip recoil reduction bonus increased.
> FAMAS foregrip recoil reduction bonus increased.
> Fixed the M416’s M26 with Flechettes not having a name in the kill log.
> Fixed so all clip based LMGs have Extended Mags as an available unlock.
> All semi-automatic shotguns now fire at 220rpm. There was previously simply a small difference between them, whereas now they have different pellet counts instead of rates of fire.
> Improved the recoil and accuracy of the M26 to match the 870.
> Reduced the impact suppression has on shotguns. Shotguns are still affected by Suppression but it should no longer significantly impact their accuracy from the hip as it previously did.
> The 870’s pump speed has been increased slightly from 0.55 seconds to 0.48 seconds. The empty reload time for the 870 has also been reduced slightly.
> Improved the accuracy of aimed shotguns when on the move.
> The Saiga’s recoil has been reduced.
> The M1014 now fires 10 projectiles. The other semi auto shotguns have 9 pellets, and since the M1014 has a lower mag size and a slower reload it now fires 10 pellets to give it some edge.
> The USAS-12 now fires 7 projectiles.
> The MK3A1 now fires 8 projectiles.
> Fixed so the weapon’s fire mode is saved between spawns.

Miscellaneous changes
> Added colorblind option for consoles (see above).
> Added colorblind icon for squad leader (all formats).
> Added the option for console server admins to show a symbol in the server browser signifying custom rules are in effect (see above).
> Fixed an issue where footsteps couldn’t be heard behind you.
> Fixed so that the arming of an M-COM station will not be cancelled if you look at a dropped weapon.
> Fixed exploit where you could teleport to the AA gun on carriers by firing an EOD bot at its door.
> Fixed co-op ammo HUD not showing on first enter.
> Fixed so you get prompted if you really want to switch team when pressing the Switch team button.
> Fixed so that Assignments are being correctly sorted on the My Soldier\Assignments screen.
> Fixed issue with commorose not working on soldiers in vehicles (PC).
> Added blinking capture point icons in the 3D HUD, and added blinking neutral icons in objectives bar.
> Composed a more informative error message for when a console player attempts to rent a server in a location where there are currently no servers available.
> Fix for dog tag icons in the My Soldier/Assignments screen appearing slightly stretched.
> Fixed some tracers appearing behind the soldier or vehicle that fired them.
> Potential random audio crash fix.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 04-06-2012, 01:06:50
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Su33rBwP_Z0
Something got leaked

Armoured kill vehicles confirmed so far(by me)=

--US HIMARS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_mo..._rocket_system
-9A53-G Tornado http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9A53_Tornado
-M1128 Mobile gun system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Gun_System
-2S25 Sprut-SD (125mm, mounted on BMD3 chassis) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2S25_Sprut-SD
-C-130. Possibly Ac-130
-motorcycle
-Quad
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 04-06-2012, 07:06:24
I wont buy premium. 50 bucks, for just one of the worse conversions in bf history (Im looking at you close quarters), then we have armored kill that might be promising but I still have to see more and other dlc's I havent even seen.

Plus the russian knife from the campaign, some dumb camo and dog tags that I dont care anything about.

Is this worth the same price I payed for this game? Absolutely not.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 04-06-2012, 09:06:09
link is back up

one comment really made me laughing

Quote
So the spots closest to the water are reserved for those willing to pay more? I think i'll find myself another beach.

I wont buy premium. 50 bucks, for just one of the worse conversions in bf history (Im looking at you close quarters), then we have armored kill that might be promising but I still have to see more and other dlc's I havent even seen.
Plus the russian knife from the campaign, some dumb camo and dog tags that I dont care anything about.
Is this worth the same price I payed for this game? Absolutely not.
If you plan on getting the other 4 DLCS, wich cost 15 euros/dollars per piece, you save 10 dollars/euros. Then you get the goodies like those dogtags and weapons camo and crap, and 2 weeks of early acces

BUT is it really worth it?
I dont know. i will await official announcment first
but yes

we pay more, for less game these days with major game companies

If you look at the Elder scrolls V skyrim DLC dawnguard, that is a completly diffrent story. You get an entire new area to explore, a whole new story line, 2 new full factions, new skills, new weapons, new features
AND THE ABILITY TO MOD EVERYTHING YOU WANNA DO ON THIS game
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 04-06-2012, 14:06:45
It takes a lot more time (and money) to develop game content these days though. Where they used to be able to create a map with statics that didn't change, nowadays everything has to be destructible. Where they used to able to use a simple texture now they need all sort of fancy layers and shit to represent the changing battlefield, lighting etc.

PS. Armoured kill will be awesome with AC130, player controlled artillery etc.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 04-06-2012, 15:06:13
Ye people seem to be more pumped about armoured kill then close quarters
why?
because that shit COD gameplay has been in our throats for years now
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 04-06-2012, 15:06:02
Ye people seem to be more pumped about armoured kill then close quarters
why?
because that shit COD gameplay has been in our throats for years now
It looks fuckloads more interesting than CoD, though.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 04-06-2012, 15:06:56
Ye. Especialy the fortress map.

i am SO gonna camp with M60 and PKP
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 04-06-2012, 16:06:41
Might get it. Might not. Depends if I find people to play it again.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 04-06-2012, 18:06:00
Might get it. Might not. Depends if I find people to play it again.
*raises hand
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 04-06-2012, 22:06:11
Bought premium like a good drone.

http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/user/Eglaerinion/
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Alakazou on 05-06-2012, 06:06:02
did too :)

http://bf3blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/battlefield-3-ac130.jpg

Can't wait to see this monster in action. Finally big bird :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 05-06-2012, 09:06:04
  Anyone played the new DLC yet?  Is it worth my cash?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 05-06-2012, 09:06:35
I think I'll end up paying for Premium.

I intended on getting all the DLC except CQ, but because I'm now sitting here waiting for CQ to DL anyway (the patch couldn't possibly be 2GB) I might as well get it too. Shotguns and C4, methinks.


As long as there's at least one good map in each DLC pack, I'll be happy.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 05-06-2012, 13:06:46
AC-130:

(http://farm8.static.flickr.com/7239/7338864700_9ec9b332b7_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 05-06-2012, 13:06:37
(http://assets2.ignimgs.com/2012/06/04/battlefield3armoredkill-bandardesertmap-e3screen7jpg-f21d2c_640w.jpg)

It seems to be the AC-130H variant with one 40mm Bofors L60 and one 105mm howitzers.

(http://assets1.ignimgs.com/2012/06/04/battlefield3armoredkill-bandardesertmap-e3screen4jpg-286438_640w.jpg)

A M1 abrams with what seems to be a lazer on top of it. Probaly an CIWS system

(http://assets1.ignimgs.com/2012/06/04/battlefield3armoredkill-bandardesertmap-e3screen2jpg-737af7_640w.jpg)

2S25 Sprut-SD. BMD-3 chassis with a 125mm gun.

(http://assets2.ignimgs.com/2012/06/04/battlefield3armoredkill-bandardesertmap-e3screen1jpg-737af8_640w.jpg)

M1128 mobile gun system
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 05-06-2012, 14:06:31
Looks great. So looking forward to armored kill. Screenshots look amazing.

Don't think the AC130 is player controlled though.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 05-06-2012, 15:06:39
Nah, it won't be player controlled, you only get to be the gunners of the Bofor and the Howitzer while it circles around the sky.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 05-06-2012, 15:06:37
Nah, it won't be player controlled, you only get to be the gunners of the Bofor and the Howitzer while it circles around the sky.
where is this said?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 05-06-2012, 15:06:58
Here they say it:
http://scene-gamers.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/BF3_DLC_Facts.pdf

Quote
BATTLEFIELD 3: ARMORED KILL
Battlefield 3: Armored Kill ups the ante for vehicular mayhem as only Battlefield™ can do. Featuring new drivable tanks, ATV’s, mobile artillery and more, this expansion pack also delivers huge battlefields for an all-out vehicle assault. Armored Kill also includes the biggest map in Battlefield history.

Battlefield 3: Armored Kill key features
- All-out vehicle warfare on four new maps
- Includes the biggest map in Battlefield history
- Drive five new vehicles, including tank destroyers, mobile artillery and an ATV or spawn on the gunship and man the cannons.
- Earn 20+ unlocks for the new vehicles
- New Tank Superiority game mode
- Earn five new Assignments
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 05-06-2012, 15:06:23
fine shot mate, thanks
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 05-06-2012, 20:06:12
- Includes the biggest map in Battlefield history

I wonder how much of that map will actually be playable...  ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 05-06-2012, 20:06:45
Nothing is bigger than El Alamein.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paasky on 05-06-2012, 21:06:34
Nothing is bigger than El Alamein.
Except most of PR maps.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 06-06-2012, 02:06:36
I'm talking official BF maps, if unofficial yeah,  PR would definitely be the biggest
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 06-06-2012, 04:06:20
I think that everyone who gives EA more money buying BF Premium without even knowing what they are actually buying...should really check their heads about what they are doing.

As for the AC-130...is anyone really surprised? Of course not. I bet my life that Gustav Failing was  the one that proposed this, as the targeted audience, cannot fly a gunship.

Remember those days of BF 1942? Where even the big ships were drivable? Wave those days goodbye.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Alakazou on 06-06-2012, 07:06:24
More than 20 weapons, 15 new map, more than 10 new vehicle etc etc etc.
Don't know for you, but It remember the old day with expension pack. It's enough for me.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 06-06-2012, 08:06:22
I remember those days when mod teams delivered this and much more, for not one cent more. But if there are people who are willing to pay for it, go ahead. Noones gonna stop you.

"Desert Combat" had a AC-130 that was fully crewable and could be flown, btw....
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 06-06-2012, 09:06:58
No mod-tools, so what can we do...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 06-06-2012, 10:06:31
No mod-tools, so what can we do...
actually

EA says it has plans to release mod tools
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 06-06-2012, 10:06:05
I think that everyone who gives EA more money buying BF Premium without even knowing what they are actually buying...should really check their heads about what they are doing.

In that case, could you tell me what I bought and what's wrong with my head?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: mopskind on 06-06-2012, 11:06:44
No mod-tools, so what can we do...
actually

EA says it has plans to release mod tools

source?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 06-06-2012, 11:06:14
Bought Premium, it's cheaper this way and I don't have to wait to play the new maps, or wait longer to play the old ones for that matter (queue priority  ::)), don't care about the rest of the bling.


I must confess I do feel a little dirty as it seems to be a case of "Buy Premium or fuck off", and I'm trying to ignore the feeling I've been railroaded into it...

I console myself with the fact that it's the lesser of two evils...Blizzards loss is EA's gain.  :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 06-06-2012, 11:06:51
No mod-tools, so what can we do...
actually

EA says it has plans to release mod tools

source?
Wait nvm, its an old message, EA wont do it probaly
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 07-06-2012, 01:06:48
In that case, could you tell me what I bought and what's wrong with my head?

You just paid for something you dont know what's going to include. DICE showed you shiny and you threw away your money. Close quarters or AK, Ok, we know about them, everyone has their own tastes...but for the rest?

That's where I place the line. Im not going to pay for things I dont know in this unfinished game.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 07-06-2012, 10:06:27
^ Lemme guess you got this from here, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=e-LE0ycgkBQ#t=276s
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 07-06-2012, 13:06:13
More armoured kill info=

Several new vehicles are featured in the expansion, including new tank destroyers, an AC-130 gunship, ATVs, and mobile artillery.
Taking over a specific base grants the controlling team access to an AC-130 gunship. The gunship travels on a fixed circular path around the bases and it has four seats -- two for shooting 125mm cannons at the ground and two anti-air turrets for defending its airspace.
Though only four people can man the AC-130 at once, other soldiers can use it as a mobile parachute spawn point.
The AC-130 is also a great position to spot and mark enemies for your teammates.
If your team controls the AC-130, the smart strategy is to have all patrolling the aircraft defend it from oncoming attacks so it can continue its forceful barrage.
The AC-130 is heavily armored, but it cannot be repaired by engineers. This means ground forces can bring it down with concentrated fire.
The tank destroyers are lighter and more limber than the tanks included in the base game. They still pack a punch, but are much more vulnerable than the conventional tanks.

Over 20 upgrades are available for the new vehicles, but there is no new infantry weaponry.
Armored Kill also has a new Tank Superiority mode, but DICE wouldn't go into specifics just yet.
You should spawn on a squad member near a hot zone or to jump into a vehicle. Given the large size of the map, hiking from your home base to a flag point takes a while.
The maps are large enough that you can employ new team tactics like positioning your mobile artillery on the ridge and shelling any troops approaching a hotly contested flag capture point from a long range.
DICE plans to reveal the three other maps, the new vehicle upgrades, and details on the new Tank Superiority mode as we move closer to the September launch.


i am so dissapointed regarding the AC_130. What the hell? 2 125mm cannons? 2 ANTI-AIR turrets?

This issent a bf2142 titan for frak sake

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zoologic on 07-06-2012, 13:06:49
Well, it's just trying to look for legitimate reasons to pirate things  ;D

Honestly, the general quality of game, given the resources (e.g. processing power, possibilities, and number of talents) available today is alarmingly dwindling.

I still remember that there are great games like Falcon 4.0 and then Falcon Allied Force, that allows you to actively manage a campaign while playing in one of the most detailed combat simulation games ever.

Today, it's pretty much repeating the same thing: good graphics, with less, and lesser possibilities. The uncontrollable AC-130 is alright, at least we still can shoot stuffs using it (not AI-controlled, player directed fire). The original BF1942 ships with 16 maps with 3 game modes, BF3 ships with 9 maps with 5 game modes. Instead of leaving the environment "as what it is," they exaggerate the features (e.g. deliberately manipulate the colours) and calling it "realistic and lifelike."

No wonder, people buy the deluxe edition... the basic game at full retail price should be the deluxe edition, and properly renamed into "standard edition" FFS.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 07-06-2012, 13:06:17
I don't really care about the AC-130 being like that.

Sure, the best part of BF42's ships was that you could sail them anywhere, but that was also the worst part, for more often than not the ships were out of bounds or on land.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 07-06-2012, 14:06:21
Sure, the best part of BF42's ships was that you could sail them anywhere, but that was also the worst part, for more often than not the ships were out of bounds or on land.
So, what you´re saying is, that the players are too stupid to properly use assets, so it´s okay to dumb these features down and limit what players can do?

If that´s the way modern games are heading, I´ll rather stick to the "oldies" that grant me more choices and thus, more fun.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 07-06-2012, 14:06:16
Sure, the best part of BF42's ships was that you could sail them anywhere, but that was also the worst part, for more often than not the ships were out of bounds or on land.
So, what you´re saying is, that the players are too stupid to properly use assets, so it´s okay to dumb these features down and limit what players can do?

Yeah, that's exactly what I said.. ::)

Or do you seriously suggest that it wasn't way too common for a battle in BF42 end because some idiot took the carrier out of bounds or beached the PoW? :P


Oh, and I'll suggest you to check out Planetside 2. A modern game that has way more freedom and ridiculously larger scale battles than in BF42.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 07-06-2012, 15:06:22

Or do you seriously suggest that it wasn't way too common for a battle in BF42 end because some idiot took the carrier out of bounds or beached the PoW? :P

Beaching the carrier or the PoW was a legitimate tactic to give your team a spawn point on land. Did it look stupid? Hell yeah! Did it work sometimes? Absolutely!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 07-06-2012, 15:06:23
Ships where beached aswel in WW2 and WW1 and before that to create unsinkable fortresses

I can proudly say=I BEACHED THE YAMATO ON FH1 ON MIDWAY!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 08-06-2012, 00:06:04
^ Lemme guess you got this from here, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=e-LE0ycgkBQ#t=276s

No, out of the fact that they are asking for 50 bucks for 2 expansions we know of, but the rest we dont other than the name.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Battlefieldfan45 (CroPanzer) on 08-06-2012, 11:06:28
I have a problem that appeared last week.
It seems that I can't start my BF3 game. I log into battlelog and try to join server and the little window on the left says to me that it's joining server but it doesn't go further than that. I also tried starting the campaign but the same problem appeared when it was saying "initializing game". It just hold up to that message and nothing happened.
Any tips?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: siben on 08-06-2012, 23:06:01
Did you download the big patch? did you do the plugin update?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Battlefieldfan45 (CroPanzer) on 09-06-2012, 00:06:16
I did both and I don't have a clue what the problem is
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 14-06-2012, 10:06:25
First impressions of Close Quarters:

 - Maps are small (3 flags each). In the case of Scrapmetal, hilariously small. Any smaller, I reckon you'd be able to throw a grenade from one side to the other... :)

 - I've only played it on a 32 player server so far, but there's action aplenty with 32. Gonna try it with 64 later. I have little doubt it'll be as much of a fuckfest as Metro 64, probably more so.

 - Been tagged on spawn a few times already. The random spawn needs work; it's no fun getting tagged by a foe who spawned in the same place I did a few seconds earlier.

 - As expected, these maps are made for shotguns. Just run 'n gun, one-shottin' nooblets in the face as you go or find a good spot and blast 'em as they come through a doorway. Like when I sat defending the B flag on Donya, took out 10 or so in a row with me trusty 870... ;D

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 14-06-2012, 11:06:15
What I have noticed, the maps are (quite surprisingly) best played with either 16 or 64 players. With 16 you can move with your squad and look for enemies/capture points without instantly running into someone.

With 32/24 players it was a bit frustrating because of the random spawn... people just appeared behind you.

With 64 players the random spawn was not so much of an issue, because it seemed that a front line of sorts was forming. It was most definitely not the kind of grenade spamfest as metro. Metro has basically two routes and very stupid bottlenecks. CQ maps are much more open and have way more routes than the vanilla city maps.

The maps are really nice to be honest. It is something between BF and CoD. (You could make 4 cod maps from one CQ map.) The maps are designed nicely, they have many routes and no choke points whatsoever. And do they look nice, oh my. On low setting it suddenly looked that someone had changed everything to high. And the new destructible environment... beautiful.


Not sure about most of the new weapons yet. The assault rifles seem nice and I might end up using them. Spas does not quite beat the Jackhammer. But my absolute favourite is the HK417. Brilliant battle rifle.   
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 14-06-2012, 17:06:01
Yep HK417 ftw. Take iron sights, reflex, kobra or ACOG and win


But ye, i was thinking at first=NADE/ROCKET FEST but this seems to be not the case.  Claymores are a bit more of an nuisance

setting up a proper Machinegun position is also very reccomenable.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: G.Drew on 17-06-2012, 05:06:38
Give me a day when you guys are onat the one time and ill buy the premium service.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 17-06-2012, 16:06:58
http://youtu.be/fGuSfbkgmus

hilarity ensured
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 17-06-2012, 16:06:29
http://youtu.be/fGuSfbkgmus

hilarity ensured

Exactly the thing I see when I look at BF 3 and its "premium" subscription...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 18-06-2012, 10:06:07
...The maps are really nice to be honest. It is something between BF and CoD. (You could make 4 cod maps from one CQ map.) The maps are designed nicely, they have many routes and no choke points whatsoever. And do they look nice, oh my. On low setting it suddenly looked that someone had changed everything to high. And the new destructible environment... beautiful...
Initially I didn't like Scrapmetal due to it seeming so small, but the more I play it the more I like it. To the point where I don't know which of the 4 maps I like the most...  :-\

And after sinking about 8 hours into CQ over the weekend, I still find myself getting lost from time to time...  ;D



I feel like a bit of an arsehole doing it, but C4'ing flags is great fun.



Played a few rounds of Gunmaster too. It's not bad, I'd rather play it than Deathmatch.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: siben on 18-06-2012, 18:06:54
C4ing flags is as old as BF1942, i used to do it alot with tnt in the past.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 27-06-2012, 22:06:51
Finnaly unlocked Sig SG530. What a beast! i love it

If only EA would add some more variety ingame
I would do alot to see the SG 550(infantry rifle) and SG 510(carbine) ingame. (The SG530 is the commando version, even shorter then the carbine)

(http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/assault/as25/sig_sg550_family.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 28-06-2012, 07:06:07
I never knew what to think of the SG530. The series is so buttugly, but good.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 28-06-2012, 07:06:42
Playing drunk, come join me. Its fun! addm e on BF3: Archimonday
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 28-06-2012, 07:06:59
So, what you´re saying is, that the players are too stupid to properly use assets, so it´s okay to dumb these features down and limit what players can do?
correctemundo on the players stupid part. (I wouldn't call them stupid though, it's just not needed anymore, ships etc, no one wants it) Wrong on the dumb down features, since newer games have added features, not removed them ;)

If that´s the way modern games are heading, I´ll rather stick to the "oldies" that grant me more choices and thus, more fun.
more choices in bf42 than in BF3?? lololol.... yea.. sure  ::)
"I will attack the city! Where do I hide.. behind the ONE crate over there.. or at the one sandbag there... hmmmm"
"I will land on the beach!! but where do I go? to the one rock there, or run 100m to the one sandbag there..."
"I will charge the village!!.. eh, I mean the 2 houses standing alone on flat ground"
"What weapons should I take?... eh, I guess I just press on one of these images on the menu to get a pre-made kit"
"What game mode do I want? .. I guess the only ONE there is...."
"What mission should I go for, what should I do in this play session... wait a minute.. I dont even have a character! All my game time is wasted since there isn't even a progression system, LOL! They expect me to care about "the battle? yea, right.. As if this is a real war or something that matters at all"

No, you didn't have more choices in bf42 jsut because there was a gigantic floating grey box you could drive on water, ok?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 28-06-2012, 10:06:27
Natty has spoken. He speaks "truth". Arguing with him is pointless. Case closed.

Enjoy your BF3, I know I won´t, therefore I don´t care what you say.
I´m happy with the games I´ve enjoyed and still enjoy and don´t need your "added features".
A "grey box" is tons more fun to me than the frag/unlock orgy todays mainstream shooters are and I don´t need your brainwashed propaganda to tell me otherwise.
The fact that BF42 had tons of different free mods (Pirates, Medieval, Western, WW1, car races etc.) while with BF3 you have the choice between a handfull of DLC you´ve paid money for and of which not all of them have been released, should show which game offers way more entertainment and choices for the players.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 28-06-2012, 10:06:44
one would think 5 years serving coffee to DICE employers would at least make you know something about games   ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 28-06-2012, 12:06:26
Results from whatdoestheinternetthink.com:

Results for 'battlefield 3'
Negative
64.2%
Positive
35.6%
Indifferent
0.2%

Results for 'battlefield 1942'
Negative
39.3%
Positive
60.7%
Indifferent
0%

Apparently grey boxes were more fun than the current "new!1!11" persistence features, weapon unlocks, gamemodes, DLCs.... Yes I am aware that those results mean almost nothing but still :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 28-06-2012, 13:06:15
which game has:

- sold most units (BF3)
- have most daily players (BF3)
- generated the most revenue (BF3)
- won most awards (BF3)
- has highest metacritic (BF3/BF42 both on 89) obviously 89 in 2012 means more than 89 in 2002 since in 2012 you have way more competition

trollboyz lost again, slam-dunk, lol  8)

@zicario: you think 5 years of trolling on the internet should have taught you something about trolling
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 28-06-2012, 14:06:00
Quote
has highest metacritic (BF3/BF42 both on 89) obviously 89 in 2012 means more than 89 in 2002 since in 2012 you have way more competition

not really true. there where more WWII shooters in 2002 then modern warfare shooters in 2011. Currently the only franchises that produce this modern warfare crap are the survivors of the WWII shooters of 2002, which comes down to COD, MOH and BF. The rest vanished.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 28-06-2012, 14:06:46
theme has nothing to do with it. There were way way less FPS games in 2002 and even less that fatured vehicles etc, so that BF42 got 89 doesn't mean it has the same standards as BF3 today (obviously, compare bf42 engine to FB2 lol) so you can reduce 10 MC from Bf42. TBh, if bf42 was release today it probably would get 60 in metacritic and flop completely.

get with the times... movies that were blockbusters in the 60's wouldnt even make their money back today. times change, people want different things. you're talking about a full decade here for a product that's only been around 1,5 decades. bf42 is cute history, sure. But it's completely obsolete now

still want to use the "ships" argument? go ahead, it's amusing. tell me the awesome assaults you had on midway when the carrier was stranded, or when people kamikazed in to the destroyers with planes etc.. or when the defguns rape the airfield so no planes could take off, or the pixel aiming battleships on iwo jima... plz go on.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 28-06-2012, 17:06:19
which game has:

- sold most units (BF3)
An overmarketed overhyped game sells well. Large sale numbers doesnt says it is a good game
Quote
- have most daily players (BF3)
Well duh, we have far more gamers now then 10 years ago. And with BF3 aiming for the call of duty modern whorefare market. You add hundreds of thousands more to the list
Quote
- generated the most revenue (BF3)
And that makes a game good? Oh wait, it is good for your paycheck
Quote
- won most awards (BF3)
And we all know what the judges recieved to give those awards

Quote
- has highest metacritic (BF3/BF42 both on 89) obviously 89 in 2012 means more than 89 in 2002 since in 2012 you have way more competition
Ofcourse you have more competition when you make all the games towards the Modern whorefare genre

BF1942 will always be better for me because it was unique upon release. And it remained amazing. BF Vietnam was just awesome and BF2 was alright. It took me a long time to feel "Love" for this game. But my heart was sold to Battlefield 2142. I LOVED THAT GAME! i played for HUNDREDS of hours on Titan Suez alone. Timeless was the biggest community back then, and everyone knew me for my A8 Tiger tanking skills on Suez. Nothing was safe. Not even the bottom guns of the titan

But BF3? I quite like it, dont get me wrong. And i play it daily. But i will never fully love it the way i loved previous games. To much influences, to much aimed markets, to much Money involved. Every weapon can be used by any faction, the grenade icons, the regenerating health, the INSTANT KNIFE BUTTON POPUP STAB, the dozens of attachments on weapons.......
All to much frakking COD Modern warfare and thats why i cant "Love" BF3. I can like BF3. but never love it the way i do with the previous battlefields.

And lets be honest
The new Medal of honor? WARFIGHTER? what a name is that? OOH wait, it is aimed for 13 year old ones who play call of duty because the entire game LOOKS like it....

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 28-06-2012, 18:06:18
all that Natty is saying is CoD is a better game than Battlefield, how is that related to anything?  ???
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 28-06-2012, 19:06:20
all that Natty is saying is CoD is a better game than Battlefield, how is that related to anything?  ???

naah I didn't, good bait though, sadly you failed (again) got another one?

THeTA0123 saying the judges are bribed to give games awards... wow, I knew this discussion was feeble but wow, it just reached a new low (or simply showed its true self)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 28-06-2012, 19:06:44
Natty why do you have to insult everyone around just because they don't share your opinion?
Whenever I decide to visit this thread, all I see is you, spewing condescending mind-vomit on everybody. I just don't get it. If you like BF3 more than any other BF or even CoD, then ok, state your opinion and shut the fuck up, no need to prove it to other people as if you're an Apostle and BF3 is your God.

Just cut the crap already, some people like BF3 more than BF42 and some don't. Your constant trolling doesn't convince anyone that BF3 is actually superior, you're just making people frustrated. Which kind of fits the definition of trolling. You're not doing anything constructive, just causing flaming and insulting.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 28-06-2012, 19:06:17
you got it wrong, it's sicarios and some others that do the trolling, Im just waving the baits off like annoying flies  8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 29-06-2012, 00:06:52
I feel offended! im not trolling, everyone knows that Bf3 is not a good game/less fun than bf42, its just funny see you defend it  and dodging questions :3
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 29-06-2012, 04:06:25
Played some of their new Expansion tonight. Loved the office building map. It was quite entertaining to watch the door and walls of the connecting staircase disintegrate as we had a full blown firefight on the landing and in the adjacent hallway. hahaha  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 29-06-2012, 07:06:31
Yea they did a good job delivering that "cod" experience, although I think it's way coolers and insanely better looking/sounding than MW2. Frostbite 2 really shines in some of those maps. By the looks of it, the full Premium product once all the DLCs are released will definitely offer the most ultimate FPS package yet.
Tbh, Im having trouble even imagining a stronger package being produced within the near 5 years, it's just incredible what the team is doing. Im really excited about the "armor" DLC and whatever the "end game" will include.

I hope they request a re-review once the full premium DLCs are out, Im sure many magazines and reviewers will buff their score on BF3, possibly pushing them past the 90 MC mark.

@Sic: take a break, it isn't working anymore  ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 29-06-2012, 11:06:42
Yea they did a good job delivering that "cod" experience, although I think it's way coolers and insanely better looking/sounding than MW2. Frostbite 2 really shines in some of those maps. By the looks of it, the full Premium product once all the DLCs are released will definitely offer the most ultimate FPS package yet.
Tbh, Im having trouble even imagining a stronger package being produced within the near 5 years, it's just incredible what the team is doing. Im really excited about the "armor" DLC and whatever the "end game" will include.

I hope they request a re-review once the full premium DLCs are out, Im sure many magazines and reviewers will buff their score on BF3, possibly pushing them past the 90 MC mark.

@Sic: take a break, it isn't working anymore  ;)

The LeVIN office of Operation 925 wouldn't happen to be designed off of DICE's own headquarters would it? ;)


I don't know. I guess its every individuals own opinion about the game, but for once I agree with Natty, Battlefield 3 is spectacularly fun, and is only getting better. Its not only gorgeous, but its fun. Hell, if BF3 was World War 2, or had mod tools, I wouldn't need any other game.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: siben on 29-06-2012, 11:06:24
Well, i hate to break this to many of you but i like it more then bf1942.

BF3 and WoT are the only games i play regularly at the moment.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 29-06-2012, 16:06:03
Yea they did a good job delivering that "cod" experience, although I think it's way coolers and insanely better looking/sounding than MW2. Frostbite 2 really shines in some of those maps. By the looks of it, the full Premium product once all the DLCs are released will definitely offer the most ultimate FPS package yet.
Tbh, Im having trouble even imagining a stronger package being produced within the near 5 years, it's just incredible what the team is doing. Im really excited about the "armor" DLC and whatever the "end game" will include.

I hope they request a re-review once the full premium DLCs are out, Im sure many magazines and reviewers will buff their score on BF3, possibly pushing them past the 90 MC mark.

@Sic: take a break, it isn't working anymore  ;)
Well i to admit that it is alot better then MW2..better looking and less spammy gameplay.

But a good job delivering the cod experience? i dont want another frakking Cod game........
I want a game with a bit more realism and not this fancy US army 5.56x45 NATO spam weapon fests.

BF3 did a fine job in doing things, like for example. you can remove all optics from a sniper rifle! iron sights+bolt action=awesome win

And alot of weapons that no other game has. But still..
Of the 22 rifles and carbines... 14 are in 5.56 NATO,5 in 5.45x39 M74, 1 in 5.8x48 chinese and 2 in 7.62 NATO....
Not a single AK in 7.62x39. Or a good old fashioned battle rifle? We have the ancient G3. Why not the FN FAL? or the awesome Sig 510(STG 57)? I wish EA went a bit more in variety in this.

And why arent there sights on Rocket launchers? the RPG-7 widely deploys the PGO with 2.7 xmagnification and the SMAW has a 3.8x scope.

Still those things that should be done to BF3 to make it "Stand out"
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 29-06-2012, 20:06:41
I would use the FN FAL err'day if there was one ingame.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 29-06-2012, 21:06:50
I just wan't some regular AK's, and maybe a Galil and I'll be happy
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: siben on 29-06-2012, 21:06:27
With 3 more Xpacks coming and about 10 new weapons per pack there is a chance we might get them guys, I think a nice nostalgia tread that can gather enough support on the official BF3 forums might get the developers to consider getting some Cold war weapons.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 30-06-2012, 00:06:58
If this game had mod tools, I wouldnt play any other game than this one.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 30-06-2012, 01:06:45
With 3 more Xpacks coming and about 10 new weapons per pack there is a chance we might get them guys, I think a nice nostalgia tread that can gather enough support on the official BF3 forums might get the developers to consider getting some Cold war weapons.
Next DLC wont have new infantry weapons
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 30-06-2012, 09:06:56
If this game had good, fun, playable, released mods, I wouldnt play any other game than this one.

fixed it for ya ;)
problem is, mod tools for bf3 probably wouldnt give you any of that. the bf2 players managed to produce less than a handful of good, fun, playable mods and only 2 of them survived more than a year... so, for bf3 I doubt you'd even get one. Perhaps we or the PR team could pull it off but it'd easily take us 3 years to release it.... so, your correct sentence would be "I wouldnt play any other game than this one in 2015 when they were actually made available"

And in 2015, who knows, what if there are even newer games then, wouldnt you want mod tools for those also? so how could a mod team switch again then?

Naah. It's over. There are over 20 Battlefield titles released, only 3 had mod tools, and there hasnt been one in 7 years. Customer made content (mod tools) is only used to grow a dedicated community in the beginning of a franchise. Now, progression (persistence) does that job instead. bf42/bfv/bf2 didnt have a very strong progression, so the mod tools were great to allow players to create their own content and build mini-communities based on the main community. For BF3 it isn't really needed.
Although, I'm sure it would be fun to see what kind of creativity the BF3 players has, and what they could create, be it maps or even own models, but with the strong DLC campaign and the premium package, players have enough to play with the stock game.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 30-06-2012, 10:06:24
but they have to pay for it

EA wants money money money money

Mod tools are free.

See what Valve is doing with TF2 and the steam workshop. There is a reason why Valve is actually Loved by its customers. I cant say i can say the same about EA and there customers


Just tell your employers we want AK's in 7.62x39 and battlerifles like the FAL and  STG57 dammit  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 30-06-2012, 10:06:21
hehe, and Valve is doing a great job convincing their players that they arent doing it for the money  ;)

Don't be so gullible, Steam and Valve is nothing but a money machine.

People think they are enjoying an "open free" mod community, while
(http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Meanwhile_aa8e75_1580744.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 30-06-2012, 11:06:44
Give

us 

AK's

in

7.62x39

hehe, and Valve is doing a great job convincing their players that they arent doing it for the money  ;)

Don't be so gullible, Steam and Valve is nothing but a money machine.

Valve is doing it for money, so is steam. But i feel that they deserve it. Do i see super steam sales on Origin?  Nope. Do i see free DLC and new content being released on BF3? I do see it on TF2, L4D2 and others


no EA is still the evil money making company for me. EA destroyed westwood and my favorite franchise= Command and conquer. And it is on the way to ruin Dead space aswel
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 30-06-2012, 12:06:05
you feel they "deserve" it? What difference does that make to anything or one?

Your comment "See what Valve is doing with TF2 and the steam workshop. There is a reason why Valve is actually Loved by its customers. I cant say i can say the same about EA and there customers" should be framed and put up on the wall in the Valve office, as it's an obvious proof that their scheme has worked, good job  8)

And I love that you consider EA destroying Dead Space.. first they give you an awesome game, two awesome games, then when they change it, they "destroyed" it? LOL. If it weren't for them you wouldn't have played Dead Space at all.
It's kind of the same when people whine that BF3 has no mod tools, that the destroy "their" communities :) communities that wouldn't have existed in the first place if mod tools hadn't been distributed for the old games.

The reason BF2's archives came in .ZIPs was to allow modders to open them and learn how the game works, they could just as well have packed them in unmoddable files, but they were nice that time, because they felt they could benefit from user created content. For latter titles they didn't need that, since players get hooked on progression instead of customer created content.

Sure Valve is giving out free DLCs, but that is because they have tricked millions of customers in to pouring money in to Steam. More money than they know what to do with. Sales on Steam is an example, all players are doing is to give Steam money for virtual rights to a game. You don't "buy" any game on Steam, you pay a fee to license something hosted on their servers, it's virtual goods, just like buying a gun in Battlefield Play4Free.
Steam is extremely well orchestrated scheme to trick people in to a consumer behaviour. More than that, lure small studios in to a dependancy of using their platform to distribute their games, a platform which they couldn't live without. And Valve is taking a huge chunk of their sales money... Evil, and genius  8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 30-06-2012, 13:06:58
you feel they "deserve" it? What difference does that make to anything or one?

Your comment "See what Valve is doing with TF2 and the steam workshop. There is a reason why Valve is actually Loved by its customers. I cant say i can say the same about EA and there customers" should be framed and put up on the wall in the Valve office, as it's an obvious proof that their scheme has worked, good job  8)

There is no "scheme", they just came up with an idea of a digital distribution platform and made it accessible to their customers. With excellent customer support and great sales.

And I love that you consider EA destroying Dead Space.. first they give you an awesome game, two awesome games, then when they change it, they "destroyed" it? LOL. If it weren't for them you wouldn't have played Dead Space at all.
It's kind of the same when people whine that BF3 has no mod tools, that the destroy "their" communities :) communities that wouldn't have existed in the first place if mod tools hadn't been distributed for the old games.

That still doesn't change the fact that there is no (modding) community for BF 3... And will never be unless someone comes up with mod tools. Therefore they "destroyed" them in a way. As for Dead Space, I haven't played it so I can't comment on that.

The reason BF2's archives came in .ZIPs was to allow modders to open them and learn how the game works, they could just as well have packed them in unmoddable files, but they were nice that time, because they felt they could benefit from user created content. For latter titles they didn't need that, since players get hooked on progression instead of customer created content.

Players get hooked on progression because that's basically the only thing that is offered in today's games... How can you get hooked on customer created content when half of the people don't even know such things exist? That's the consequence of years and years of suppressing modding by big companies... The newer (console) generations simply grow up in a belief that only official developers can make (good) content for videogames.

Sure Valve is giving out free DLCs, but that is because they have tricked millions of customers in to pouring money in to Steam. More money than they know what to do with. Sales on Steam is an example, all players are doing is to give Steam money for virtual rights to a game. You don't "buy" any game on Steam, you pay a fee to license something hosted on their servers, it's virtual goods, just like buying a gun in Battlefield Play4Free.
Steam is extremely well orchestrated scheme to trick people in to a consumer behaviour. More than that, lure small studios in to a dependancy of using their platform to distribute their games, a platform which they couldn't live without. And Valve is taking a huge chunk of their sales money... Evil, and genius  8)

I don't understand how selling a game (or virtual rights, as you speak of it, which is basically every game and software you buy, whether in physical or digital form) for accessible prices is "tricking" people into buying them. You still don't have to buy them if you don't want to. You usually get what you have been promised. You usually know exactly what you are purchasing. Unlike some other... recent offers from the  competing publisher (*wink* *wink*)... And the added bonus of having access to the game that might not be available in physical form in your country.

And about "small studios" and dependency... I don't see the dependency here... They can try to sell without making their product available on Steam but good luck getting people of knowing about your product. Many small studios and indie developers tried and failed. Some succeeded thanks to innovative design and word of mouth (like Minecraft). The costs of marketing would be immense, and the gains probably minuscule. Steam is now an established platform and is great for boosting their sales. What you see as "dependency" I see as an opportunity. An opportunity for small studios to get to their customers easier.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 30-06-2012, 13:06:32
You know what, im out of discussion. Once natty comes in, he upsets everyone with his bloody Pro-EA speech


Well i tell you people this

SG530 is awesome! And i oppose the spraying people do these days!  Burst fire ftw!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 30-06-2012, 19:06:13
(http://www.army-discount.com/Images/Armes_feu/Long/SIG/STG57_3.jpg)

...You actually want this in game? Ugh, it's so fugly! I rather have the FAL with modernized rails like today FAL and also a carbine version for the rest of the classes.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 30-06-2012, 19:06:54
FAL is lovely


but really
when you see your first STG 57. And pick it up
It is a facinating amazing piece of craftsman ship


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsXw0WCfkb0
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SargentSundae on 30-06-2012, 20:06:41
Got banned from my first server today ;D Apparently because i was attacking the "main base" in a tank ::)! it was caspian border conquest large and i was attacking russian tanks in between their main base and E/gas station and then after i killed around 5 tanks then I got banned. For attacking the main base (it said so in the reason). Can you believe that? Server Admin cheating  :o...... Wait i can.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 30-06-2012, 20:06:25
There is no "scheme", they just came up with an idea of a digital distribution platform and made it accessible to their customers. With excellent customer support and great sales.

"scheme" or business plan, call it what you want. The Business Intelligence staff and market analysist at Steam/Valve are smarter than you. They planned to make Steam a digital monopoly when they started it and they are good on their way to become that. Monopoly has never been in the interest of the consumer, and if you actually talk to some indie/small studios who use Steam as digital distribution you will hear how much of a pain in the ass it can be.

Valve/Steam aren't any angels or care more about their community than Activision or EA, they are even more "evil" if you want to call it that. The best thing that could happen to the digital distribution on PC games is that Steam receives a true challenge. Activision tried and failed with the Battlenet client or whatever, Origin will most likely not threaten it, but in a few years (5+) you will realise just how ugly it can become when one platform becomes monopoly. Then, you can come and tell me "Natty, is this what you were talking about?" and I will smile and say 'hate to say I told you so'

About Mod tools, how can companies "suppress" mods? Mods are customers, not daughter-companies. If you are allowed to make a mod, you get support, If you arent allowed to make a mod, you're on zero. There is no negative here. You can't suppress something that doesn't exist. BF3 has no mod community, therefor it isn't suppressed.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 30-06-2012, 21:06:06
Eh...it doesnt has mod community cause the tools arent provided. If you're provided the tools such as Skyrim did. With over 30 million mods downloaded and over 15 thousand made. They support mod tools at 100% and one of the key factors in their sales on PC are actually the mods. So, in conclusion, mod tools just make games to have a longer life and more sales than a game that doesnt has mod tools at large of course.

I just bought BF2 for a single reason: FH2, then PR, and nothing more.

Imagine if BF3 had mod tools, the wonderful things that could be created. Leave vanilla to whatever players they want, and that they buy dlc's and whatever they want, and we could be happily making mods, and who knows? Have the support of thousand of players depending on the success of it.

But we wont get mod tools for a single reason. It would damage EA/DICE sales, and Im so desperate for modding tools in BF3 that I would even pay for them. Everyone wins.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 30-06-2012, 21:06:33
There is no "scheme", they just came up with an idea of a digital distribution platform and made it accessible to their customers. With excellent customer support and great sales.

"scheme" or business plan, call it what you want. The Business Intelligence staff and market analysist at Steam/Valve are smarter than you. They planned to make Steam a digital monopoly when they started it and they are good on their way to become that. Monopoly has never been in the interest of the consumer, and if you actually talk to some indie/small studios who use Steam as digital distribution you will hear how much of a pain in the ass it can be.

Valve/Steam aren't any angels or care more about their community than Activision or EA, they are even more "evil" if you want to call it that. The best thing that could happen to the digital distribution on PC games is that Steam receives a true challenge. Activision tried and failed with the Battlenet client or whatever, Origin will most likely not threaten it, but in a few years (5+) you will realise just how ugly it can become when one platform becomes monopoly. Then, you can come and tell me "Natty, is this what you were talking about?" and I will smile and say 'hate to say I told you so'

But that is what you tell us. And with your Pro-EA speeches all the time, i consider this to be propaganda. Valve/steam are also in for the money, but still they do those things that makes me a happy steam customer.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Fuchs on 30-06-2012, 21:06:39
Haha, Natty gave me my daily lol. His opinion is of course 100% neutral and un-biased.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: ajappat on 30-06-2012, 22:06:59
I'm saving that statement on .txt file Natty. If we both happen to be around after 5 years I would be more than happy to prove you wrong.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 30-06-2012, 22:06:54
But we wont get mod tools for a single reason. It would damage EA/DICE sales, and Im so desperate for modding tools in BF3 that I would even pay for them. Everyone wins.

lol you just said the games sell more if there were mods  ;D and now mods would "damage sales"?

You're again confused, you probably meant that if mod tools were made for BF3, then other dice/ea titles would suffer, because guess what, such amazing mods would be made that would like, make players totally stop playing the "vanilla" games and even resist buying future titles because their precious mods gave them all the gaming pleasures they needed for years and years?

right, here's a unicorn that shares that dellusion

(http://10and5.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/The-Unicorn-Costume-Was-A-Bad-Idea-full.jpg)

And here's some news: Skyrim sells great because they made an awesome game.  Not because "mods" are available.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 30-06-2012, 22:06:33
I find that unicorn very offensive.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 30-06-2012, 22:06:23
natty.........you just crossed the line
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 30-06-2012, 23:06:13
Haha, Natty gave me my daily lol. His opinion is of course 100% neutral and un-biased.

dont troll man, its bad :p
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Fuchs on 30-06-2012, 23:06:22
Since when is obvious sarcasm trolling?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 30-06-2012, 23:06:56
your sarcasm detector is not working sir.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Laffey on 01-07-2012, 00:07:34
I hate all game publishers like Activision and EA for how they've fucked up the gaming industry.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 01-07-2012, 00:07:45
But we wont get mod tools for a single reason. It would damage EA/DICE sales, and Im so desperate for modding tools in BF3 that I would even pay for them. Everyone wins.

lol you just said the games sell more if there were mods  ;D and now mods would "damage sales"?

You're again confused, you probably meant that if mod tools were made for BF3, then other dice/ea titles would suffer, because guess what, such amazing mods would be made that would like, make players totally stop playing the "vanilla" games and even resist buying future titles because their precious mods gave them all the gaming pleasures they needed for years and years?

right, here's a unicorn that shares that dellusion

(http://10and5.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/The-Unicorn-Costume-Was-A-Bad-Idea-full.jpg)

And here's some news: Skyrim sells great because they made an awesome game.  Not because "mods" are available.

So, everyone want to share opinions and you go around shooting everyone down throwing "offensive stuff" and making everyone look like an "biased idiot" and you always tell the truth uh? I wonder why these kind of posting arent deleted in the first place.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Fuchs on 01-07-2012, 00:07:35
your sarcasm detector is not working sir.
Well, get it fixed! If it's not on my desk by tomorrow, you're fired.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 01-07-2012, 03:07:35
if its not on your desk by tomorrow, dont espect to see it ever again
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: sheikyerbouti on 01-07-2012, 03:07:30
About Mod tools, how can companies "suppress" mods? Mods are customers, not daughter-companies. If you are allowed to make a mod, you get support, If you arent allowed to make a mod, you're on zero. There is no negative here. You can't suppress something that doesn't exist. BF3 has no mod community, therefor it isn't suppressed.

 Mod tools are suppressed by lawyer's and EA has the most litigious climate in the entirety of the gaming world.

 Look at how armyrage is fucking you Fh2 guys over and EA is doing sweet fuck all about it. Now if it were a current title, the lawyer's would be hovering over that company like a flock of vulture's.

Mods don't make as much money for EA because it proves the worth of past titles. This in turn, results in less sales for newer titles that are constantly pushed down the cutomer's throats as if we were a bunch of geese being fattened for our liver's.

 vote with your wallets and eventually they will get the hint or get out of the game entirely.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 01-07-2012, 08:07:27
So "lawyers" decided that there would be no mod tools for BF3?

OK. If that is what you believe, I will let you believe that. There's nothing more fun than seeing someone with a tinfoil hat, then reinforce his delusions so he tapes his whole flat full of tin foil.

Yea, EA has an army of lawyers who's job it is to hunt down small mod teams and destroy them. They're watching you right now!

(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRW7JczRTblkXNkbz8o_BM3DJSv-MkyahSiTwQkKaP4lRouyJ_I)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 01-07-2012, 08:07:34
I wonder why these kind of posting arent deleted in the first place.

Because that would be unjust and wrong.


 :-\

EDIT: Injust is apparently unjust. Whaddyaknow.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Laffey on 01-07-2012, 09:07:06
Natty, stop trying to defend EA, everyone knows they are the biggest douchebag milking assholes in the whole industry.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 01-07-2012, 15:07:38
"defend EA"?

uh.. wait... wut?

and no, everyone does not know that, it's just some dudes on random internet forums that likes to QQ about what EA does.  8) Valve/steam is milking a lot lot more... ever heard of a "steam sale"? ;)

then again, I dont consider milking of any product to be wrong. If you can get people to buy your stuff, just go for it. Milking = revenue = progress = new innovations = new games = new experiences.

Also, recent polls prove that everyone thinks Battlefield 3 Premium is an extremely great deal! Are you kidding me? All those DLCs+ the stock game for 429SEK http://www.webhallen.com/se-sv/spel/pc/155575-battlefield_3_premium which is like 46 euro, and Im sure that price will go down every month until the last DLC is out. You call it milking, I call it great product packaging
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: sheikyerbouti on 01-07-2012, 18:07:22
 i used to work for EA buddy,

lots of downtime in offices can make for plenty of intelligent discussions with the big bosses.


also, years after i left as a beta, I happened to work for one of the biggest honcho's in EA at the time (vice-president). His words (and I paraphrase) was that mods don't make money because they encourage gamer's to stick with products that have already delivered the highest margin to the corporate bottom line.

 P.S. Natty you didn't answer my major assertion towards EA and its' litigious practices.

 "Why aren't they suing for infringement of intellectual properties?"


also take my 'tin foil hat' and shove it up your ass... Love Sheik
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 01-07-2012, 18:07:04
The one who is asking, is not stupid.. the buyer is.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 01-07-2012, 18:07:57
wow... we're at 180 pages soon.... Maybe time to summarize a bit here

EA isn't actively "killing" mods, as some of you believe. EA is a publisher, they don't control or have any influence over if a title should allow user created content or not. It's all up to the project and what it needs. BF2 needed it, BC2 didn't. That's all there is. If DICE felt they needed Mods/UCC for other titles, they could easily have invested some money in creating that. If they simply felt that their titles would benefit from user created content, EA wouldn't "stop them" from that.
To add to that, Mods aren't altering the sales of titles at all. Battlefield sells by the millions, what if a few thousand guys played Mods for say BC2, it wouldn't move a single decimal in the revenue BF3 generated.

On top of not needing it for titles later than BF2, the Frostbite engine has been too problematic for this, Im sure you read the long post from Mikael Kalms on the official BF3 forum, if not Im sure Yustax can slap the link on us here.

Now to be honest, discussing why or why not there are or are not mod tools for a game that doesnt have it... What do we gain from that discussion? Will it make mod tools be available? No. It has zero meaning.

I like it when you discuss actual ingame experiences in BF3, some like it, some don't. It really doesn't matter... The number speaks for itself; BF3 is a success, no matter what you "think", it simply is. The sales, the playernumbers, the gradings, the awards, just bow down to the fact that DICE pulled off the almost impossible. With the time given and the manpower involved, they went the extra mile - nay, the extra hundred miles - to make this game. And it shows. It hears, it feels, and it shows.

Additional comment about that is nothing but plain and simple trolling. Teasing, QQing, whining. But dont worry, our little corner of the gaming world has a forum, and in that forum we have an off topic section, and in that section this little thread exists, and it listens to all your prayers :) Amen
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 01-07-2012, 20:07:23
The sales, the playernumbers, the gradings, the awards, just bow down to the fact that DICE pulled off the almost impossible. With the time given and the manpower involved...

You forgot the millions of dollars pumped into advertising, live action trailers and raising the hype and "ensuring" that the grades they get are positive etc.  ::)

BF 3 was simply too big to fail. If it had miraculously failed someone's asses would be held really responsible for it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 01-07-2012, 20:07:00
Doesn't work like that (deja vu moment here) since first of all, magazines and journalists arent bribed by publishers to give high grades, they are relentless, they give the grade they feel the products deserve.

Wanna know why? Because they (the magazines, the shows, the websites, the media) live on credibility. Even if EA wanted to, it would be completely impossible to bribe every single magazine to give a good grade. Look at the gigantic lists of multi-million dollar companies that rated BF3 PC
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/battlefield-3/critic-reviews

You think it would matter if EA bribed a few of those? it wouldnt move the ranking, since MC is based on average ranking from all critic sources :) If you scroll through the list there, you'll quickly realise also that none of those sources would risk a "bribe" scandal, since all their credibility would be lost and they'd probably go bankrupt. No bribe or fee would be worth it.

So bite the dust on this one fellas. Games receive just the grades / rank they deserve. The gaming world is extremely harsh on this, make a bad game and you'll get crap scores. Make a good game and you receive great scores. That is how simple it is.

"BF 3 was simply too big to fail" - yes i agree, that is why the team that made it pushed in the sweat, blood and tears needed to make it awesoeme, and they are currently reaping what they deserve from doing so, in form of players, sales, awards etc. If you really want to make this in to that EA "faked it" by bribing journalists or if it sold (and keeps selling) great just because the market is fooled by huge advertising campaigns, well.... c',mon.  ::)
But then again, making a game is just half the job. Dice did that. EAs job is to sell the game, and to sell a product you do what you have to, and marketing / advertising is taking care of that. But that's a business discussion, Im pretty sure no one here is interested in that.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 01-07-2012, 22:07:46
Actually, remember that EA controls what DICE does. They are the owners and publishers, therefore they call the shots. So if the EA CO wants to make a game to "take call of duty down" And I quote his words "battlefield 3 is designed to kill call of duty", and then you have former DICE CO saying that BF2 was too complex and they had to lower the threshold.  Its obvious that they lowered the game needed skill and features to make it more accesible to these kind of players cause well, its good business to attract the new customers they wanted. The game is very good and i like it. However as a main principal dislike I have with the game are vehicle perks, such as tanks unlocking the tank commander seat while vehicles should be equipped with everything. The map design leaves a lot to be desired off, they need to do what they did in BF2, create maps and include smallers versions to include all tastes. Also the game has crutches such as grenade indicators, skulls where teammates die. The very hated scope glint and the badly designed artillery system that should be like in BF1942, and that the soflam is robotic and cannot paint terrain or enemy locations. These are my main complains, and if the game resolved these, it would be glory. But the game is good, but its lacking several key features to be a true real sequel. Just my opinion here. Im sure there's people who are more pleased tthan i am and like it more than the past games.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 02-07-2012, 07:07:33
Actually, remember that EA controls what DICE does. They are the owners and publishers, therefore they call the shots.

eh... no? they don't.. so pls stop preaching that they do. This discussion gets distorted when you hop in and make stuff like that up.

So if the EA CO wants to make a game to "take call of duty down"

Neither JR or FG "makes"any game, ok? All they "want" is for the talented team at dice to do what they do best.

And I quote his words "battlefield 3 is designed to kill call of duty" etc etc

no again.... it wasn't.... it was designed to give Battlefield fans a true sequal to the game, and that is exactly what they got. You got smaller versions of the map, play TDM. Vehicles are part of the progression tree, of course you unlock stuff for those as well.
You complain about small details like certain scope features etc and how specific weapons work. That's your opinion, fine. But really.... map design? If your only complain is that, then it's obvious you really have very little to complain about :) how many maps will you have in the full premium package? 25? 30? You have more than what you know to do with. The progression you have left will keep you busy for years. I am sure you already pushed in more hours to BF3 than you did for BF2 ever ;) (not counting mods)

You have made how many thousands posts in the BF3 forum? and it's about the same dull points every time; maps too small, no mod tools, some scope/sight tweak, recoil.... really.. you plan to do this until the next title comes out? then start over again? good.... have fun with that  :-\ I have a piece of information; most players like that things you dont like holy crap! can it be? It's not like you have seen past the matrix and illusion of BF3 and discovered any deep flaws that other players are to stupid to see, not at all. You simply wanted to find flaws, months and months before the game was released, because it makes you feel special to be able to point them out on the internet :) Think a bit about that.

Any following posts being made on those topics will shine different under this light, it's no longer about the game, it's about you wanting to make your voice heard. We hear you yustax, we just dont agree with you  8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 03-07-2012, 01:07:39
Neither JR or FG "makes"any game, ok? All they "want" is for the talented team at dice to do what they do best.

Uh...you do know that this was an official quote right?

http://www.gamespot.com/news/ea-battlefield-3-designed-to-take-call-of-duty-down-6307366

Since BC2, EA just wants to take the ball in the fps sales, therefore, they cather more to the COD crowd to make more sales. It's just a way to make more money seeing from a business perspective.

As for the quote in lower the thereshold. It's right here, so you see Im not making everything up:

http://bf3blog.com/2011/02/battlefield-3-wont-include-commander-feature/

Plus, it wasnt a complain, it's just what I liked or dont like, and my opinion. You apparently have a disregard as people opinions as "complains" and start to shove down our throats, how glorious BF3 is and how EA magnificent.

Everyone has their own likes or dislikes. Plus, the BF3 UK forums where closed down cause we were a thorn in EA sid since a long time and the majority of my posts where actually suggestions for future BF games, or my opinions about people ideas, not to complain about EA or features or DICE.

Still, this is the BF3 discussion and Im sure that people have all the right in the world to discuss this neutrally. I dont see why not.

Edit: Im really going to laugh at you if you look through my 15k posts in the BF3 forums and come here to post them...

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 03-07-2012, 08:07:54
Ive seen what you write there, and I understand completely if they took the forum down. You and "realfox" and all the others over there... Sect-like behaviour almost. Like a little anti-EA sect :)

Yepp, this is the BF3 discussion right? Not the BF3 twitter. We comment on each others comments. that is what a discussion is. I've never said bf3 is glorious, all I am is an "opinion janitor" trying to correct some misunderstandings and teach you kidz some things  ;D Why? because it's fun.... it's just fun to spam the netz, isn't it? we all do it.

Again: BF3 was designed the way the dice team wanted it... there is way more to it than I can speak of here, but just swallow the fact here for once; the frostbite + BF3 team did exactly the game they want.
You fish for such small fishes when you post links about tiny features like the commander etc, that's nothing. That was no big EA decision, it was the designers and producers who simply didn't need that feature in the game. You think that the person being interviewed by media is always the person who made the decision?  ::)

They made the game they wanted to make, end of story.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 03-07-2012, 09:07:45
They made the game they wanted to make, end of story.

Yes but they haven't made the game we wanted them to make... That's why they won't get any of my money, nor the money of people who don't like BF 3 that much to actually buy it...

Of course they don't care as they get bucketloads of cash from former CoD fanboys and mindless sheep who fall for their "exclusive premium elite" offers...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 03-07-2012, 11:07:47
Yes but they haven't made the game we wanted them to make...

we = you and yustax? well.. sorry for you then :)
they got buckets of cashloads from old time Battlefield players and veterans. True fans of the series :) If you just wanted a remake of BF2 then you arent a true Battlefield fan perhaps?

there is always ArmA and RO2 for you then  :-\

and really... maybe - just maybe - EA have analysed their demographic a bit more indepth than you have... ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 03-07-2012, 18:07:14
Natty....please

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

you are constanly pissing everyone off with your Pro-EA paycheck claptrap. Maybe you should just leave this thread and realize we are fanboys of an era where actuall great videogames exist.

Yes we like BF3 and yes i said to EA=shut up and take my money. But never ever dare to question the following things=

-EA is an Evil company. Period!
-Old battlefield games are best battlefield games
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 03-07-2012, 20:07:42
Of course I question them, or, not question them, I simply disagree.

Everyone knows EA isn't evil :) It's just a game publisher

I think BC2 and BF3 are the best BF games yet. Hands down. bf42 was awesome and fun in its time period. BFv was also super!  But the newer titles are way better. BfP4F for example is way better than BF2.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 03-07-2012, 23:07:27
I think BC2 and BF3 are the best BF games yet. Hands down. bf42 was awesome and fun in its time period. BFv was also super!  But the newer titles are way better. BfP4F for example is way better than BF2.

Better in which way exactly? They just took BF 2, stripped off half of its features and added some polished shiny stuff like BC 2 weapons and voices, threw in some "perks", models and character customization... They basically just made it a poor man's BF2/BC2 mix...

I'd say you guys almost made more progress with the old limited BF2 engine in FH2 than they did in BFP4F. They only copied and ported stuff from their other games....
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 04-07-2012, 00:07:17
BfP4F for example is way better than BF2.


HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA.. this is priceless  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 04-07-2012, 00:07:52
BfP4F for example is way better than BF2.
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA.. this is priceless  ;D

I agree! Made me laugh so badly! Oh, and following Natty's point of view. Then Valve is also a game publisher.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 04-07-2012, 04:07:09
Hot off the press.

Sure, sure! DICE is making what they do best, being cluessly how to fix their own game while providing excellent support!

Remember the smoke glitch in the Aug? Well, that has been fixed now!

Quote
Changelist
* You can no longer revive someone who has switched team while being dead. This prevents a case where soldiers would be resurrected into the new team while still wearing the old team's uniform.
* The "invisible boats" problem is fixed. We had something similar in BFBC2, and the same solution was applicable in BF3.
* You can no longer equip the M320 Smoke grenade launcher to the underslung rail on the AUG 7. This prevents the AUG getting insanely high bullet velocity (and therefore, no discernible bullet drop).

So it was just easier to take the lazy road and remove the use of the underslung smoke grenade launcher than fix it.

No, no wait. This was a right change, the telemetry of DICE showed that players find the Aug sexy, but not with a grenade launcher, so you cannot equip one anymore.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 04-07-2012, 17:07:56
i am not really a fan of modern weapons, and you will see me with little attachments ingame


But this
(http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/assault/as20/aug_a3-2.jpg)

Is a sexy gun!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 04-07-2012, 19:07:14
i am not really a fan of modern weapons, and you will see me with little attachments ingame


But this
(http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/assault/as20/aug_a3-2.jpg)

Is a sexy gun!

Not according to DICE telemetry(tm)  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 04-07-2012, 20:07:51
Better in which way exactly?
- Better graphics (HD graphics, post processing, visually updated maps etc)
- Better looking player models
- Better sounds (redesigned and made from scratch)
- Better game mode
- Better HUD
- Better weapons (handling)
- Better animations
- Better ingame communication. For example you see how many hitpoints your shots do, and the game tells you how long range you shoot, and there are tons of other messages that inform you of what you do. This adds to immersion and is just plain fun
- Better second-to-second gun fights (combat interaction soldier v soldier is spot on)
- More variety of weapons and much better looking weapons
- No commander (he just spammed in BF2)
- No prone (not needed, just clutters the combat spectrum for this game)
- Added training skills. You can customize your soldier with abilities as well as weapons
- More interesting progression than just unlocking weapons
- Weapon attachments! (can add stock, barrel, sight, skin & Ammo as you wish)
- Completely customizable kit (10 slots, you add what you want, whereas BF2 had pre-made kits)
- Better commrose (simplyfied, way way less radio spam in the game)
- Better server system (have matchmade 'Play now' as well as server browser)
- Better update system (auto patcher with monthly updates VS download some "file" once a year)
- Better backend system (uses Blaze, same as BF3)
- Better front end (menu, web based)
- Customizable soldier look (can choose clothes etc)
- Daily Draw! (pick a card on the website every day and get a reward)

Do I need to continue....? :) Could probably list 10 more things if I logged in to the game and looked around

They just took BF 2, stripped off half of its features and added some polished shiny stuff like BC 2 weapons and voices

Sorry to stomp all over your argument there LuckyOne but I guess my previous point kind of disproved what you just said :)

Overall, it's a fun game. Try it out, really. They just added the Desert Eagle 50, first BF game to have that gun. You can customize your soldier in so many ways. Even though there are only 4 classes, reality is endless classes. Ive begun to play my medic as some sort of "sniper" almost lately, With the M60 + M-145 sight and shoot semi auto,works sweet. Then I have the "front line medic" skill which is a flareyou throw on the ground and team mates can spawn on it. You can really set up a nice nest of medic boxes and this flare, and push the enemy back. Tons fun. I suggest looking up the =OG= Old Gents clan server, great server with intense and mature action for hardcore players.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: ajappat on 04-07-2012, 20:07:31
tons of other messages that inform you of what you do. This adds to immersion and is just plain fun

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5128/5227712014_7d9b197606.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Musti on 04-07-2012, 21:07:28
You've done 60 damage! You are having fun! THE FUN IS BEING HAD!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 04-07-2012, 21:07:23
- When team mates have healed from the medic boxes you placed
- When team mates receive ammo from the ammobox you placed
- When you landed a headshot  ;)
- When you kill someone with a ranged shot, it tells you how far away he was
- When you rank up in level
- When you destroy an enemy vehicle
- When a vehicle which you placed a tracer dart on gets killed
- When your tracer dart hit

Can list 20 more relevant messages, but you get the picture. Wouldnt really want to miss this information while playing  ;)

Seeing the hitpoints reduced when you hit is absolutely crucial, makes it insanely more fun since you know the status of your enemy. We tried without them and it felt too arcadey and dumb.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Musti on 04-07-2012, 22:07:32
Sure! If only you could get Cam Clarke, Jace Hall and Beau Weaver to read out them, then i would probably play the game, that surely would make it fun! think about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibOkPx_Ej30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smCNLvFpP5o
I'm sure whoever makes P4F (actually it could for for BF3 aswell) can afford couple of good voice actors.
If not, well i say its just annoying, its like playing an RPG, only without all the RPG fun.
And how is not having random info all over your screen "arcadey" is beyond me.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 04-07-2012, 22:07:43
all that sounds like teamfortress 2, and actually TF2 is not that information spammy. face it, they are there to make the players go "GOd, look at my score, LOOK AT THOSE POINTS; THEY R RAINING!".
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 04-07-2012, 22:07:42
without the info the game becomes so stiff, simple and uninteresting.

Feedback. it's what drives the player forward in his actions. Without you don't have as clear choices what to do. Say you hit a guy and do 70 damage, you know he has 30 left so if you engage him again the odds are in your favor. Without the info it becomes a lottery more or less. Also the combat dialogue PvP becomes way more interesting, since both players keep track of each others HP the split second the interaction lives. When you win, you know exactly what you did right or wrong.

bah, this is fundamentals.. feels silly to write down such obvious stuff. sorry, you all know this already.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 04-07-2012, 22:07:04
DayZ for example works just absolutely fantastic without any of that information flood. Infact, the less information it gives its players, the more tense and scarier the situations become. Of course you cant really compare a an alpha mod still in development to a game designed for adhd kiddies, but its just a working proof that you dont need all that information.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 04-07-2012, 22:07:33
it isn't designed for adhd kids, good troll though.

You cant compare an alpha zombie mod based on a half-working simulator shooter with a polished triple A military shooter game like Battlefield, absolutely correct  :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 04-07-2012, 22:07:48
polished triple A military shooter game like Battlefield, absolutely correct  :)
STOP IT YOU'RE KILLING ME

i am laughing my ass so off now
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 04-07-2012, 22:07:58
I honestly dont think its healthy for a dev like yourself to go around having such bad attitude towards people. It doesnt get you anywhere, but if you desire to dig yourself a deep hole, then go ahead. I wont delete your message this time, but you should stop calling people trolls in a public forum like this. People can get a bad idea about your behaviour.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 04-07-2012, 22:07:11
so you werent trying to push a button (aka troll) on me by saying p4f is designed for adhd kids?

riiight... sure.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 04-07-2012, 22:07:48
P4F? I was talking about BF3 since its BF3 thread.

BF3 seems to be for adhd kids just as are COD and MOH games too.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Musti on 04-07-2012, 22:07:41
I'd say it was pretty accurate statement.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 04-07-2012, 22:07:52
Sadly you are wrong, since it's obvious EA wouldnt make a game for adhd kids. They make it for Battlefield fans. Old and new. And those are exactly the people that play it.

Can some of them have adhd? very likely, just as there are people on this forum who have it. And it in every single gaming community on the planet, including "Day-Z"


Edited the insulting shit out. Cheers and have a good one.
- Flip
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 04-07-2012, 23:07:48
saying moh, bf and cod is for adhd kids is proof of low knowledge and intelligence

It was obvious sarcasm but it's not that far away from truth... I've seen some people in BF communities and they sometimes say things like "omg I can't stand still for 30 seconds and wait for the enemy to come to me. THAT'S F***** BORING!!! It's just not fun if I don't see an explosion every few minutes!".
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: gavrant on 04-07-2012, 23:07:27
Wheeeee! Sweet Jebus!

- Customizable soldier look (can choose clothes etc)

Does this Gucci handbag fit to my Ray Ban glasses? Or should I wear that pink jacket today?

Dear moderators! Please, don't lock this thread! It's beneficial for popcorn industry and thus helps to fight global recession.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 04-07-2012, 23:07:47
Natty

you insult us with the word trolls. You give bad opinions about non EA games often and mods

Yet when somebody gives an bad opinion about an EA game, you suddently start with an attitude of "Show some respect please"

What are you? frakking Christianity?

(http://saying moh, bf and cod is for adhd kids is proof of low knowledge and intelligence and most of all severe disrespect)
Rather summs up YOUR knowledge and respect....

Dont you understand none of us buy your junk???That very few actually support your statements? Certain parts you where right, but most of them.......are pure EA propaganda IMO


you are supposed to be a developer for frak sake......A developers opinion should be neutral and a listener between both the community and the company..... Yet you show dipshit respect towards the community and are all behind the company

In this case, Electronic arts...And electronic arts has ZERO respect towards the community......ruining countless of franchises for years....
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 04-07-2012, 23:07:20
Check how many times Ive been called a troll in this thread  ;)

Im not "behind" anyone here. Im as neutral as you are. I like some games, some not. I really like playing P4F though, and I just listed some features that someone requested (well, asked me why I liked it more than BF2)

I like bf3 as well, dont play it so often though. I dont know why you think im a dev? Im no more bf3 dev than you.

this is off topic. just because im a fh2 dev doesnt mean i cant speak about off topic things as I want, right?

and you didnt understand why I said flippy was disrespectful, I didnt mean towards game devs or companies, I meant towards people with adhd. Just throwing that word around without knowing what it means. If he knew someone with adhd (I know he does) and what that defection is like,he would take it easy on that..... I call people "troll" sometimes, but no one here actually is, a troll. However by average standards we have at least 10 users on this forum with adhd, i dont think they like people using their diagnose to prove some point.

Games are designed and made for gamers. Fans of the franchise. Paying customers, they are the ones that deserve respect. Be it The Sims, ArmA, TF2 or BF3, all are just people who enjoy games. I dont differ them from each other based on some half-ass interwebz terminology that has grown forward based on elitism. No way, all games are good in their way, and anyone playing them is nothing but a guy enjoying a game. The end.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 04-07-2012, 23:07:25
And remember: Natty doesn't share his personal opinions here. He thinks that those are worth nothing. Ones he says here, are DICE's opinions.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 04-07-2012, 23:07:40
And remember: Natty doesn't share his personal opinions here. He thinks that those are worth nothing. Ones he says here, are DICE's opinions.

Oh. Apologies then.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 04-07-2012, 23:07:57
And remember: Natty doesn't share his personal opinions here. He thinks that those are worth nothing. Ones he says here, are DICE's opinions.

uh, lol wut? ???
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 04-07-2012, 23:07:50
And remember: Natty doesn't share his personal opinions here. He thinks that those are worth nothing. Ones he says here, are DICE's opinions.

uh, lol wut? ???

You said it yourself when I asked your personal opinion somewhere. "My opinion is worth of nothing" might not be exact words but that's basically what you said.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 04-07-2012, 23:07:16
now where is my pop corn
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 05-07-2012, 00:07:56
You said it yourself when I asked your personal opinion somewhere. "My opinion is worth of nothing" might not be exact words but that's basically what you said.

why do you drag dice in to this? what do they have to do with anything...?

my opinions are worth to you just as much as you value them :) to me they are of course worth something... not really sure where you're going with this.. why did we start to evaluate how much my opinions are worth lol? the train severly derailed  :P

BF3 anyone?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 05-07-2012, 00:07:52
Let's make a summary of this thread:

Blah blah blah .. nothing good came since Pong blah blah ...why can't we just stick to turn based isometric games ...  blah blag Fallout 3 is for pussies, it should have been like Fall Out 2 .... blah blah In Russia jokes makes fun out of you.

Onwards to the next 200 pages men  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 05-07-2012, 08:07:34
couldnt agree more. ohh, our beloved interwebz. Our modern day speakers corner

One key learning though: game developers do have the ultimate responsibility for player behaviour.
Players arent "free" beings with 100% control over their behaviour. They become what they play.
The fact that many games offer fast, instant action (the so called "cod" effect) definitely makes it harder for games to offer something more slow-paced (tactical if you want, that requires player coordination and "planning" as opposed to ultra fast twitch reflexes). It's a downward spiral and Im actually curious how we will ever turn the table on that.

I think it takes a big franchise to ultimately redefine FPS to make it. Small games like RO or ArmA simply cant do it. We might also look at a game genre in its mature state, it's habitual state. Like driving and sports games are. My thesis is that a game genre takes 15 years to reach its mature state, and shooters have been around exactly 15 years now. This might be, it. FPS games might not evolve more than this, we dont know yet. Could be that customizable content and progression will take over, it's only 5 years old (counting from coD4:MW) So it's possible that the shooter experience itself wont change, but the elements around it does. More RPG like features with progression on your soldier, missions etc. Basically other things to do while fr4gging.

Actual shooting experience... I fail to see it change much in the future, just as I fail to see how hockey, football, formula one, rally and fighting will change much in the future. Nicer looking games, cooler sounds, animations, environments etc. sure, but the core actions has pretty much riped to its end state.

we will see :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ts4EVER on 05-07-2012, 11:07:26
I always wondered why not more studios went down the HL2 road. I mean that game was not realistic or anything like that, but I recently played ep2 again and I thought the combat was a hundred times more tactical and varied than CoD. And it's not like people didn't enjoy it or it didn't sell.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 05-07-2012, 11:07:10
its fashion, right now military multiplayer shooters are "cool", and the market spawns copy after copy(CoD, homefront,Battlefield3, etc) with the same theme until no one buys it, then it will continue with the next trend, for eternity.

Those games are made to make money, not to be good games. Battlefield 3 SP is just an overpriced Frostbite tech demo
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 05-07-2012, 11:07:21
couldnt agree more. ohh, our beloved interwebz. Our modern day speakers corner

One key learning though: game developers do have the ultimate responsibility for player behaviour.
Players arent "free" beings with 100% control over their behaviour. They become what they play.
The fact that many games offer fast, instant action (the so called "cod" effect) definitely makes it harder for games to offer something more slow-paced (tactical if you want, that requires player coordination and "planning" as opposed to ultra fast twitch reflexes). It's a downward spiral and Im actually curious how we will ever turn the table on that.

I think it takes a big franchise to ultimately redefine FPS to make it. Small games like RO or ArmA simply cant do it. We might also look at a game genre in its mature state, it's habitual state. Like driving and sports games are. My thesis is that a game genre takes 15 years to reach its mature state, and shooters have been around exactly 15 years now. This might be, it. FPS games might not evolve more than this, we dont know yet. Could be that customizable content and progression will take over, it's only 5 years old (counting from coD4:MW) So it's possible that the shooter experience itself wont change, but the elements around it does. More RPG like features with progression on your soldier, missions etc. Basically other things to do while fr4gging.

Actual shooting experience... I fail to see it change much in the future, just as I fail to see how hockey, football, formula one, rally and fighting will change much in the future. Nicer looking games, cooler sounds, animations, environments etc. sure, but the core actions has pretty much riped to its end state.

we will see :)

Oh it will change... With motion controllers and IR tracking and innovations like these just around the corner... But it all depends on the people who will shape the future shooters...

It might end up like this:  :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlrBo3P3Rd8&feature=player_detailpage#t=762s

But as it now seems it will end up like this video except it will be just like a giant cutscene with this popping up from time to time:

(http://www.gamesprays.com/images/icons/win_button_icon350.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 05-07-2012, 13:07:23
Remember, Natty, when you told us you would stay away from this thread for good?


Now, 200 posts later, it might be safe to say that you don't really recall what you've said. :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 05-07-2012, 14:07:53
As I said before about the sports/ralley/fighting games. Do they change? Sure they do, in some small way, but it's not like Fifa or NHL or Madden, or Street Fighter, or Tekken or F1 will suddenly start making football in space or F1 with flying F1 cares etc.

Are those games only to make money? No. They are about making good new games and making money. Same goes for shooter games. Shooters arent any different from football or hockey games.

So if football, hockey, fighting, ralley etc games just pump out with the same theme, slightly better looking each year, why shouldnt shooters do the same? After all, people do get fed up playing Fifa 2009 after a while, so they get Fifa 2011. Same goes for CoD:MW2, it's fun a year, maybe two but then they want something else to play. So why not grab MW3?

It's not like the Fifa player stands and decides if to get Dead Space 2, Little Big Planet or Fifa 2012. he wants his freakin' Football game, and Fifa is his best choice.

When you start to look at FPS games the same way you view Football games, or Hockey or NBA or Madden or F1, then you'll think about it differently. Sure you can claim that EA Sports just makes Fifa for the money, but I think a few million Fifa fans disagree. They wouldn't like to play Fifa 11 for eternity, even if Fifa 11 was really great, Fifa 12 is out, and they want to see what they did with it. Same will the CoD/BF players want to see what their favorite franchise does next :)

Games are made to provide players with an experience, and to make money, so you can make new experiences. That is cold hard truth, boys.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Fuchs on 05-07-2012, 15:07:23
I keep getting EA Most Wanted commercials on YT and saw BF3 listed as a game for cheaps so I went to check it, expecting a little downgrade on the price.....BF3 is 50 Euros. How can they call that a steal? I didn't expect 25 Euros but 50 is like a retail price..
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 05-07-2012, 16:07:49
I keep getting EA Most Wanted commercials on YT and saw BF3 listed as a game for cheaps so I went to check it, expecting a little downgrade on the price.....BF3 is 50 Euros. How can they call that a steal? I didn't expect 25 Euros but 50 is like a retail price..

Don't forget you need the Premium too if you want to own everything the game has to offer... that's like 50 € more...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 05-07-2012, 16:07:05
Quote
As I said before about the sports/ralley/fighting games. Do they change?

No. They release the same crap every year with slightly different graphics and new player names. These games are only made because there are people out there who are stupid enough to buy a new title every year

Quote
Are those games only to make money?

100%. EA needs to utilise their FIFA licence to full extend !

Quote
after all, people do get fed up playing Fifa 2009 after a while, so they get Fifa 2011

yes they buy a "new" game because they want to play with the current world players, but technically they are buying the same game with a few additional skins. That's it.

Quote
he wants his freakin' Football game, and Fifa is his best choice.

I would recommend him to try something else instead of buying the same game every year. Maybe he should try Pro evolution soccer of football manager for all I care. It would be darn stupid to buy the same game over and over again.

Quote
When you start to look at FPS games the same way you view Football games, or Hockey or NBA or Madden or F1, then you'll think about it differently.

Yes I do and no I don't. I see that the market is evolving to that milking cow principle, but I refuse to your statement that it would do good for the players.

Quote
Sure you can claim that EA Sports just makes Fifa for the money, but I think a few million Fifa fans disagree.

Yes, either they're stupid or blind

Quote
Same will the CoD/BF players want to see what their favourite franchise does next

preferably something different that keep pushing the same shit in our throats  >:(
Why would I buy a new game if it's 98% recycling from the last ? (Or 75% copy from it's nearest competitor, such as the case for BF3)

Quote
Same goes for CoD:MW2, it's fun a year, maybe two but then they want something else to play.

yes something different and original. This is why I rate bioshock a more rememberable game then bf3 .
Quote
So why not grab MW3?

lol, how can you make that statement in relation to your previous sentence ? It does not make sense .
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 05-07-2012, 16:07:14
meh, I was hoping for some substances in that quote pyramid. but it was just filled with the regular "people are stupid" argument

EA Sports makes Fifa because people are stupid?... Ok, that's excellent 14 year old rhetoric  ::)

But in the last quote it's obvious you didn't fully read my post (which is weird since you put the time in to split it up in to separate quotes. perhaps you lost my context when you built the pyramid?)

I said; MW2 might be fun for players one or two years, and then they have all the perks, grinded through all the levels etc, they're done with the game, so why not just get MW3 then? Or to answer my own question: They do. And so does Fifa players, because (as I also said) they don't want to play Fifa 11 for eternity, they want the new Fifa that is out.

Kind of obvious when you think about it... Recommend a Fifa fan to get Pro Evolution soccer instead? you kidding? It's like telling a Battlefield fan to go get ArmA instead. He'd be like "uh, screw that, I want Battlefield!".... Even though many Fifa players also get PES, you also have BF fans playing other games like CoD for example... pretty obvious. You dont need to choose either, or you know.... most players enjoy many different games, they dont just have one.

So there you go, that's how it works. That is what people do, they enjoy new games. Are they stupid for that? Nope. What could be considered stupid though, is sitting back whining about how the game industry works and how games are just "pumped out" every year... What do you gain from that? People are out there having fun, enjoying their games, while you sit in some corner thinking you have seen through it all - the corruption and the lies  ;D give me a break plz.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Fuchs on 05-07-2012, 17:07:31
I keep getting EA Most Wanted commercials on YT and saw BF3 listed as a game for cheaps so I went to check it, expecting a little downgrade on the price.....BF3 is 50 Euros. How can they call that a steal? I didn't expect 25 Euros but 50 is like a retail price..

Don't forget you need the Premium too if you want to own everything the game has to offer... that's like 50 € more...

And I was all like 'Woah, this might be a good time to get BF3 because that buggy C4'ing looks like fun.'
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 05-07-2012, 17:07:24
Quote
EA Sports makes Fifa because people are stupid?

Ofcourse not ! I never stated that. EA makes games to get money ( and preferably from stupid people, so their customers don't feel cheated afterwards

Quote
I said; MW2 might be fun for players one or two years, and then they have all the perks, grinded through all the levels etc, they're done with the game, so why not just get MW3 then?
that's not what I read
Quote
ame goes for CoD:MW2, it's fun a year, maybe two but then they want something else to play. So why not grab MW3?

how can you suggest something else if your going to suggest them to buy the same thing again  ???

Quote
Kind of obvious when you think about it... Recommend a Fifa fan to get Pro Evolution soccer instead?

read again what you posted mate !

Quote
It's not like the Fifa player stands and decides if to get Dead Space 2, Little Big Planet or Fifa 2012. he wants his freakin' Football game, and Fifa is his best choice.

obviously fan =/= player. In my opinion this bloke is a guy who likes to play football games so why not try out something else on the market ? Or you think that people who play BF never played any COD title ? But obviously you figured this out so why even bother no mention this ?

Quote
That is what people do, they enjoy new games

I'm sure many people enjoy new games. But the problem with many new games today is that they are not new at all. It's the old game in a new jacket, but that doesn't necessary make it a new game. People who are getting pumped up to get a "new" fifa 2013 or whatever .. yes I don't understand that. They are obviously under the hypnosis of EA's mighty marketing & PR machine, only they don't realise this. They fall for the same trick year after year. and how do we call people who continue to do foolish things ? Right ... EA calls them good customers  :)

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 05-07-2012, 18:07:05
when you're cutting up quotes like that it doesn't make sense. Dont know if trolling but.. it makes you look like you didn't follow me at all.

Just some info.. EA doesn't make any games at all. They sell them, ok? Good.

Second. EA sell games to make money. True.
The studios make games to give players experiences. Ok. Fine.

I'll try a third time here with the MW2 example... Read slowly: Johnny has played MW2 since release, ok? he's done everything in the game (perks, levels etc) MW3 comes out. Now why on earth should johnny keep playing MW2? No reason, he can just as well get MW3. And he does. He gets a new game, new things to do, new experiences.

Now. Saying MW3 isn't a new game, is nonsense. Of course it is. Just like Fifa 12 is a new game.

You suggested that he should get PES instead of Fifa, why? To try something else? Why? He likes Fifa and wants the latest Fifa title.. how can this be so hard to understand?.. Go talk to some Fifa fans and they will explain

and your last segment... sure, EA has hypnotised millions of people. Whatever  ::) Now Im fed up. It's funny that when arguments run dry, it's easy to end everything with like "uh, uh, well.. EA is evil!"

next please.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 05-07-2012, 18:07:18
I'll try a third time here with the MW2 example... Read slowly: Johnny has played MW2 since release, ok? he's done everything in the game (perks, levels etc) MW3 comes out. Now why on earth should johnny keep playing MW2? No reason, he can just as well get MW3. And he does. He gets a new game, new things to do, new experiences.

When even half of your belowed Metacritic reviewers tell you it's the same old thing and nothing has changed, IT IS THE SAME DAMN OLD THING! (http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3/critic-reviews) They could as well dubbed this an expansion pack for MW 2 but they went with "TOTALLY NEW AWESOME MW3" in order to convince their fanbase that it is a "TOTALLY NEW AWESOME MW3" and not just a way to rip them off for 60 $...

BTW:

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

XFIRE Game Rank : 2

No change for 4 days

Highest Rank: 1 on 2011-10-09

Publisher : Activision

Release Date : 2007-11-5

Genre : First-Person Shooter

Why do all these people keep playing it? It's been almost 5 years they surely did everything they could in the game... but maybe... it's because they don't want to waste more money on the almost same experience they already have? It's easier to just torrent the new one for the few hours of good old SP and keep playing the multiplayer they already have...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 05-07-2012, 18:07:00
what's your point? :)

It's a new title. What difference does it make what you define it as? It's a new game. Not a DLC, not an expansion. New game.

I mean... face it. They didn't make it a DLC. They didnt make it "ww2". They made MW2 and MW3 just as they knew their fans wanted it to be :) And did they? hell, Yes. MW2 sold over 20million copies. MW3, no idea, probably way over 10 million at least.

You really need to come up with some sort of point here. Is it that all game publishers are evil and all players are stupid? OK, roll with that for a while then. So what? What if they are? What if by some miracle, you solved the mystery of the universe in this thread, you saw through the matrix and figured out that everyone is under some spell, they are brainwashed to buy games for their xbox, ps or pc.

So what? What will you do with that information? Sit here and glory in the fact that you "get it" and they are all sheep?
really? is that it?

Otherwise I'd be happy to learn this desperate desire to badmouth consumers and producers of a form of entertainment you yourself is a customer to. And it'd be extra interesting to learn why a coD MW2 player is more "stupid" than a mod player for a 7 year old game. I mean, where does it say that he is stupid, and you aren't? Aren't you infact, also under a spell by the mods and games you play? Or do you really think you are 100% free of choice, and that playing mods is some sort of proof of intelligence? :)

It all reminds me of this glorious bit by Louis CK when he goes on about how people are just whining and complaining about things. CoDMW2 is an amazing game! The people that play it are having fun! Why do you need to sit and have "opinions" about it in the first place? How can you hate a game publisher? Have strong opinions about it even.... they have nothing to do with you

enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grxL5umOE6g
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 05-07-2012, 18:07:42
And what is your point with the numbers of games sold?

overhyping and overmarketing a thing always sells like that. No mather how shit it is
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 05-07-2012, 19:07:42
uh.. no not always. There are numerous examples of games that had huge marketing budgets but that didn't sell well

The Call of Duty games sell great because they're great games, and have huge marketing budgets  8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 05-07-2012, 19:07:32
And what is your point with the numbers of games sold?

overhyping and overmarketing a thing always sells like that. No mather how shit it is

games sales and metacritics scores is how developers measure who has the biggest penis in the market, even if it is rotten and leaking green fluid
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Musti on 05-07-2012, 19:07:06
I swear this has to be the best damn topic on these forums!  ;D ;D
I keep getting EA Most Wanted commercials on YT and saw BF3 listed as a game for cheaps so I went to check it, expecting a little downgrade on the price.....BF3 is 50 Euros. How can they call that a steal? I didn't expect 25 Euros but 50 is like a retail price..
Whaaat? 50!? And here I was thinking that buying it for 30 20 euros was not worth the price...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 05-07-2012, 19:07:54
games sales and metacritics scores is how developers measure who has made the best games on the market,

Don't worry, I fixed it for you  8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 05-07-2012, 19:07:03
NO JUST

AAAAAAAAGH

SCREW it im out of this discussion
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 05-07-2012, 19:07:35
its best for your liver :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 05-07-2012, 20:07:57
its best for your liver :P
.......i see what you did there

Meh party time is over
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 06-07-2012, 10:07:35
27-0 on Caspian last night in the LAV. Didn't even need to be repaired once.

Does this mean I'm good with the LAV?

Hell no, the "pilots" on the other team were just completely useless... ;)



Wait a sec...am I posting this in the right place??
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 06-07-2012, 11:07:58
27-0 on Caspian last night in the LAV. Didn't even need to be repaired once.

Does this mean I'm good with the LAV?

Hell no, the "pilots" on the other team were just completely useless... ;)



Wait a sec...am I posting this in the right place??

Yes, yes you are. This actually is the BF3 thread. Even though at first glance it looks like a serious of stupid arguments.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 06-07-2012, 11:07:17
27-0 on Caspian last night in the LAV. Didn't even need to be repaired once.

Does this mean I'm good with the LAV?

Hell no, the "pilots" on the other team were just completely useless... ;)



Wait a sec...am I posting this in the right place??

Loudest folks are the ones who haven't even played it. Go figure.

It's plenty of fun on good sized maps like Caspian, Kharg, Gulf of Oman. Even smaller maps can be fun if you find the right squad. Yesterday I played a round with 3 randoms and we all worked together, repaired each others vehicles attacked and defended the same flags it was brilliant. As long as the teams are balanced there will be plenty of epic fighting going on because the maps are designed well.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 06-07-2012, 15:07:03
I have played BF3 alot and i like it, as does many people

We just dont agree with Natty.

Yesterday did some battle rifle action again. M417, MK11 and SVD with Iron sights  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: sheikyerbouti on 07-07-2012, 21:07:04
Just some info.. EA doesn't make any games at all. They sell them, ok? Good.


 So wrong that it needs to be corrected right now.

 EA still makes games. Otherwise that whole studio in the suburb (Burnaby, FIFA anyone?) next to me is a magical apparition. It's a nice place, great offices, cool motion cap studio and a truly epic sound recording studio.


But according to natty who lives on a different continent, it doesn't exist. very existential of you Buddy, I think you missed your calling. You should have become a philosopher.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 07-07-2012, 21:07:46
A few hundred years too late
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: sheikyerbouti on 08-07-2012, 00:07:30
 As I always told my teacher's in High school.

 "better late than never"   ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 08-07-2012, 09:07:45
First of all when people in this thread say "EA" they mean EA games ("Challenge everything"), not EA sports ("it's in the game"). Two completely different companies.
Fifa is published by EA sports. No one is ever bad-mouthing EA sports, when you hear the old "EA is evil" stuff, people always mean EA games. Fifa  is made by different studios, Fifa 13 was made by EA canada, not by "EA sports" If someone doesnt like a sport game, he simply stops playing it. When someone doesnt like a shooter game, he makes it his mission to tell everyone else about it.

The reason you never hear people shout and moan about EA sports is because players of sports games arent like shooter players. They don't need to voice their opinion as much. Shooter players are a bit different in that sense, as they usually think "they" know best how to make games (Mods have obviously played a part in that illusion,and the fact that shooter games easier form some sort of fan-cults around them than sport games)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LHeureux on 08-07-2012, 10:07:22
Natty, the thing with players who play sports games is that the majority are not as much implicated in the community and might not even know what a forum is.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 08-07-2012, 11:07:09
Less than 10% of FPS players ever visit a forum as well. It's the "loud minority" effect  8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 08-07-2012, 14:07:31
The reason you never hear people shout and moan about EA sports is because players of sports games arent like shooter players. They don't need to voice their opinion as much. Shooter players are a bit different in that sense, as they usually think "they" know best how to make games (Mods have obviously played a part in that illusion,and the fact that shooter games easier form some so  of fan-cults around them than sport games)

Not really. It's because majority of the EA sport games are played on console. They're not gonna bother to put the PC on to make a complaint, they'll just sack the tittle and tell their friends in the pub never to play it if it sucks donkey shit. FPS are mostly played on PC, and since the PC is already up and running, they'll pop by and make a complaint on the forum. It has nothing to do with a different mentality along gamers ; it has to do with practical use.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hOMEr_jAy on 08-07-2012, 15:07:13
Less than 10% of FPS players ever visit a forum as well. It's the "loud minority" effect  8)
It´s actually common convention to back up statistical claims with actual empirical evidence. I´m quite curious, do you actually have sources for all those number you throw around? Not that I´d say you´re making them up.  ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 08-07-2012, 16:07:10
Less than 10% of FPS players ever visit a forum as well. It's the "loud minority" effect  8)
70% of the statistics on the internet are made up
-Abraham lincoln, Vampire hunter
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: ajappat on 08-07-2012, 17:07:59
Not every player can be on every forum  ::). I for example play a lot of games, but only ever visit FH2 forum. On other games, when I have something to "whine of", I just say to my friend "I wish this was made different". Obviously I can't speak for those people who don't speak for them selves, but it's not like all of them were 100% happy with the product.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Leopardi on 09-07-2012, 00:07:48
Not every player can be on every forum  ::). I for example play a lot of games, but only ever visit FH2 forum. On other games, when I have something to "whine of", I just say to my friend "I wish this was made different". Obviously I can't speak for those people who don't speak for them selves, but it's not like all of them were 100% happy with the product.
but DICE only looks at the numbers and assumes you are 100% satisfied with the product.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 09-07-2012, 07:07:30
they look at the numbers (playernumbers, metacritic, sales, awards, rankings, website/battlelog users etc) to see how satisified they are with how their own game is doing :) and ofcourse checking the forums and ingame seeing what the trends are
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zoologic on 09-07-2012, 11:07:14
Seems like Natty have no idea about the whole FIFA vs. PES (Pro Evolution Soccer/Winning Eleven by Konami) spamfest  ;D

It is one of the worst in the internet. I would prefer PES' fluid control than FIFA. But FIFA has PC compatibility, and better menu layout. LOOOOOL

Natty, I don't know why you always berating your customer base so much and seems to enjoy it. If I were you, I would leave them be (if I don't like it) or just talk the otherwise (if I feel the need to make the talk). The last thing you need to moan about is why Volvo or Saab is making shitty cars that doesn't sell well, and we could very well argue back on why they are superior to Toyota Corolla or Honda Accord on paper, while completely ignoring sales statistics. What you do is currently hiding behind the rating, sales, users, awards, and player numbers. Right now, even Nokia and Saab couldn't say much if we say that their product is shitty or not. Just like when someday EA eventually fails to maintain those figures you repeatedly boast about... what would you say? Good game but poor reception?

Thankfully for EA, their games aren't as clunky as Ubisoft or as evil scheming and corporatist as Activision. I don't get why they receive the biggest share of hate in the net anyway. BF3 is a good game, it runs just fine and I like it, despite not being able to run it on fullest settings.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 09-07-2012, 18:07:25
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2zeqx5SYr0&feature=related


BF3 in a nutshell
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kalkalash on 10-07-2012, 14:07:22
Is anyone else having problems running the game after buying CQ? Ever since I bought the dlc I haven't been able to play. If I try to join a server the game manager connects to the server for a while and then closes itself down. The game itself doesn't start at all. I can't even play single player anymore.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 11-07-2012, 09:07:12
Have you tried a repair install?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kalkalash on 11-07-2012, 10:07:40
I have. I've even reinstalled the whole game but it still doesn't work.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Battlefieldfan45 (CroPanzer) on 11-07-2012, 15:07:34
Something simmilar happened to me a month ago, but I didn't buy the DLC, it just stopped working.
I tried repair instaling, even waiting for small patches and patching it, but it all didn't work. I thought I  might try to reinstal.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 11-07-2012, 16:07:48
I had this aprox 7 months ago. could not play at all. Didn't tough the game for about 3 months, a new patch came out and it worked again ... that's all I can say
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 12-07-2012, 09:07:48
I've got no idea what could be causing MP and SP to fail, esp. after a reinstall... :-\

If you can't find a solution, it might be worth trying EA Support.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 12-07-2012, 11:07:04
...it might be worth trying EA Support.

EA Support
EA Support
EA Support
EA Support

Yeah... Good luck with that.  :-\
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Steel_Lion_FIN on 12-07-2012, 15:07:20
I'm not botheres to read 186 pages of arguments so I'm posting my question, even if there's an answer: WTF is the deal with this BF3 Premium BS?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 12-07-2012, 16:07:46
I'm not botheres to read 186 pages of arguments so I'm posting my question, even if there's an answer: WTF is the deal with this BF3 Premium BS?

Well, basically they want you to pay in advance for all the expansions in the future... That way you get all of them for "just" 50 $ and they get the money to make them... It's a win-win situation, right?

The only trick is that...

1. You're paying for something that simply doesn't exist (yet, or if it does they are simply milking you for cash as they could have as well included this in the original release) and

2. You don't know about half of the things that the expansions will include.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 13-07-2012, 13:07:05
I'd only try it as a last resort, but if he can't find a solution and reinstalling doesn't fix it, what other option has he got?



Yep, that's Premium: "prepaid-DLC". Plus you get extra dogtags, soldier camos, double XP weekends, etc.

Asides from saving a few bucks on the DLC, most of the extra stuff is just for the wank-factor. (Soldier camos are shithouse. And carbon-fibre dogtags?  ::) ).



I won't play Blizzard's game but I'll play EA's, and if they burn me, well...it'll only happen once.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 19-07-2012, 19:07:10
Battlefield 4? How about we stick with Battlefield 3 for now.

New armoured kill footage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wF8H1Wh-Brc
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 19-07-2012, 20:07:51
Looking good.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 19-07-2012, 20:07:52
Now that looks like Battlefield to me.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 19-07-2012, 20:07:22
Now that looks like Battlefield to me.

I don't know how it looks... Since I can't see s*** from all the dust clouds... However I think they got that more or less right... Sand is always a problem in desert environments.

Now all  what we need is mod tools. (And FH moving to Frostbite  :P)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 19-07-2012, 20:07:05
I have to admit : looks very good !

Question : why wasn't this included in the first place ? Vehicles is all what bf is about ..
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 19-07-2012, 21:07:37
Question : why wasn't this included in the first place ? Vehicles is all what bf is about ..

Answer: milking money and the will to attract CoD players who might not be all that accustomed to vehicle warfare.

And it worked rather well...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 19-07-2012, 22:07:34
thats the stuff!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 20-07-2012, 14:07:42
Yep, I'll most definitely have some of that.


Finally, the real BF3 shows itself, and we get some maps with more than 5 flags.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 20-07-2012, 14:07:48
Can't tell from the trailer but I hope the artillery has some sort of indirect fire mechanic and isn't just dumb fire and hope for the best. I would love to be able to use the soflam camera to direct artillery fire. Don't know if this is possible though.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 30-07-2012, 10:07:42
http://www.battlefield.com/battlefield3/1/aftermath?sourceid=bf3-fb-wall--aftermathdebut?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=wall-post&utm_campaign=bf3-ak&utm_content=aftermathdebut

Well i be damned, EA trying to be origenal?.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Steel_Lion_FIN on 07-08-2012, 15:08:54
So... yeah... bought it and the Premium as well, since it was on sale for half the price. The Premium wasn't though.

E: And it won't allow me to validate the code on origin.. FFS.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 08-08-2012, 11:08:32
pff it's always the same with origin.

just wait a month and it will magically accept your code, or send a ticket to the support and wait a month for the reply ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Steel_Lion_FIN on 08-08-2012, 12:08:53
Well here's the kicker: it says that the code has been used.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 08-08-2012, 12:08:23
Where did you buy it from?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Steel_Lion_FIN on 08-08-2012, 13:08:25
Anttila. Now that I think of it, there was none in the shelf, I asced the clerk if they had any in stock, and there was one behind the counter, but the wrapping plastics were missing, so I think that someone had downloaded the game illegally, then gone to the store, torn off the plastic cover, written the code somewhere, and then left. The problem is that there are also these big plastic boxes that contain the DVD cases, and the boxes have to be removed by the clerks, before you can walk out of the store with the product, so I think it must have been a worker who stole the code.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 08-08-2012, 13:08:31
In that case, take it back to the store :/
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Steel_Lion_FIN on 08-08-2012, 13:08:00
yeah, gonna do it friday.

E: Much to my surprise, EA Support answered my post, and asked to send a picture of the receipt and the code. Did that, and we weill see the result shortly, I hope. Note that the support request I sent them was sent yesterday.

E2: They sent me a new code and everything seems to be fine now.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: siben on 09-08-2012, 18:08:17
Hopefully they deleted the account of whoever used your original code to play.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Steel_Lion_FIN on 09-08-2012, 19:08:34
Hopefully they deleted the account of whoever used your original code to play.

Would serve the motherfucker right..

Though there were lots of problems to get the multiplayer work, and there are still some odd crashes here and there.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: mopskind on 13-08-2012, 17:08:05
Karl Magnus Troedsson, General Manager of DICE, recently confirmed that Battlefield 4 will once more be settled at the current time...yay :( ..so no ww2 in frostbite or futuristic titan mode
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 21-08-2012, 15:08:16
http://games.on.net/2012/08/dice-not-ready-to-allow-modding-support-to-battlefield-3-afraid-of-the-implications/


I find this hellarius  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 21-08-2012, 16:08:45
http://games.on.net/2012/08/dice-not-ready-to-allow-modding-support-to-battlefield-3-afraid-of-the-implications/


I find this hellarius  ;D

Or the real reason.  They want us all to buy there DLC before someone makes a mod that makes all that shit obsolete.  Makes sense though.  I bought Secrete weapons weapons before I found FH1.  I would have got Road to Rome but why bother after experiencing the glory that is FH.  On the flip side of that I bought two copies BF3 for PS3 but would buy it in a second on PC as well if we had mod tools.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 22-08-2012, 18:08:12
They want us all to buy there DLC before someone makes a mod that makes all that shit obsolete. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 22-08-2012, 19:08:19
They want us all to buy there DLC before someone makes a mod that makes all that shit obsolete. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4

Me and my wife have all the DLC so far and plan on getting the stupid armor kill thingy.  So yeah.  If people started shitting out the most basic of mods and custom maps I would not spend another dime.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 23-08-2012, 07:08:26
Me and my wife have all the DLC so far and plan on getting the stupid armor kill thingy.  So yeah.  If people started shitting out the most basic of mods and custom maps I would not spend another dime.

so just because you wouldnt buy any DLCs if mods came out, all DLCs that dice makes will be obsolete?

lol  8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Tankbuster on 23-08-2012, 08:08:35
No, he meant that mods will prolly have the same content as DLCs and thus people won't buy them as they can download mods for free.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 23-08-2012, 08:08:35
Me and my wife have all the DLC so far and plan on getting the stupid armor kill thingy.  So yeah.  If people started shitting out the most basic of mods and custom maps I would not spend another dime.

so just because you wouldnt buy any DLCs if mods came out, all DLCs that dice makes will be obsolete?

lol  8)

No....I am sure many if not most all BF3 fans will still buy them.  But it would impact sales.  The days of slow interwebs are long gone and mods are much more easy to get and learn about.  I got FH1 by begging the one random guy I knew in town with good internets to get it for me and copy it on some CD's.  If someone started doing some nifty custom maps for BF3 I guarantee less people would buy DLC.
  Another game release I have snubbed in recent memory has been the last COH expansion.  Why?  As much as I love what the devs have done with that game I really did not give a fuck to buy the latest expansion after playing the Blitzkrieg mod.  I don't think Dice is evil.  It is just good business on there part.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 23-08-2012, 09:08:10
okay, stop it already.. bf3 dlc sales wouldnt be affecte if mods were made, who u kidding  ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 23-08-2012, 12:08:52
okay, stop it already.. bf3 dlc sales wouldnt be affecte if mods were made, who u kidding  ::)

Wow...Who the fuck are you kidding....Let us just say for lols that we had all the FH2 "stuff" in hi-def with all 40+ maps right today for BF3.  Do you really think that a small percent of the population would not download that shit and say fuck the DLC? 

I am not kidding in any real way about talking about the expansions/DLC that I have left because of mods.  Maybe there are only a small slice of a couple thousand of us.  But still that is a loss.  So Natty,  you think that Dice should spend a fuck load of man hours on mod tools so that we can cause them to lose more money on a loss of sales with DLC?  I am glad you are not running things because if you had we would never have had a BF3.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 23-08-2012, 15:08:01
Both positions have creed if you ask me. Id dl mods, but also buy dlc, if for no other reason than player numbers or mods requiring them.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 23-08-2012, 16:08:56
do the math Lainer. First of all 40+ maps for a bf3 mod? Say hello to 2025 when that would be reality.
More like 4-5 maps at the most, and that's 3+ years of development, learning the tech etc etc etcccc.

so here we are, it's 2015 and we release fh2 for bf3 with 5 maps. How many downloads do we get? Quite many Im sure, but your statement is that it would make people Not buy the DLCs.. hang on, the DLCs were released 3 years ago, in ancient 2012.........

So let's pretend we whipped out a mod right now, we somehow made a mod for frostbite in 6months (faster than it took to make a 3-map patch for a bf2 mod ::)), how many would download that? A few thousands Im sure, but would they not buy the DLCs too? maybe a few, sure. But would it affect sales?

Not at all. Even if 1000 people changed their minds from "I will buy dlc" to "scru dlcz imma play teh modz" that would hardly move the sales number when you ship millions of the DLCs.

So, end argument: Mods dont affect sales.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 23-08-2012, 16:08:09

So, end argument: Mods dont affect sales.
DayZ.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-08-2012, 17:08:01

So, end argument: Mods dont affect sales.
DayZ.
700 000 sales alone for Day Z on ARMA2


time to put up my insulting laugh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcSWo0TJ0gY
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 23-08-2012, 17:08:17

    Forgotten Hope Public Forum »
    Off-Topic »
    Gaming »
    Battlefield 3


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcSWo0TJ0gY
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 23-08-2012, 17:08:24

    Forgotten Hope Public Forum »
    Off-Topic »
    Gaming »
    Battlefield 3


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcSWo0TJ0gY
Good answer! Top class argumentation defending your statements based on fallacies.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 23-08-2012, 18:08:47
we were discussing if mods for bf3 would affect bf3 dlc sales.... and you come swinging with some mod for another game?

sales number because of this mod? sure, right.... might wanna add that you also get arrowhead in combined operations AND the fact they had a summer sale on steam.... aww, it hurts.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 23-08-2012, 18:08:55
ArmA 2 CO went on top of the sales far before summer sale.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 23-08-2012, 18:08:21
sales number because of this mod? sure, right.... might wanna add that you also get arrowhead in combined operations AND the fact they had a summer sale on steam.... aww, it hurts.
"There's no doubt that the thrilling Day Z mod currently drives Arma 2 Combined Operations sales on Steam. Sales have increased almost fivefold from how they were before Day Z's Alpha release!"
- Marek Španěl, CEO of Bohemia Interactive
http://kotaku.com/5910279/pc-zombie-darling-causes-sale-explosion-arma-devs-happy-to-help


But sure, of course you know better.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 23-08-2012, 18:08:53
I love these flamewars "Natty vs. the World", so entertaining. Keep it up Natty, you never cease to amaze :D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 23-08-2012, 19:08:37
aww... facepalm.. of course a mod for a minor game who always catered towards mods would affect sales. But we are talking BF3 here.. isnt there a day-z thread some where?

Bohemia gains a lot from praising their mods, it's a clever move by their CO to praise day-Z. He knows how rings on the water effects work. Bohemia has always had a modding culture, and since ArmAII never really took off, it's just obvious they're reaping the fruits off of mods.

Maybe finally there is a real reason to buy this game? whip that nicely together with a special package combined operations + some summer sale on Steam + jumping at every media opportunity you get and reault = sales. That's how the market works.

For BF3 however, it wouldnt matter much. BF3 isnt a modding game, doesnt have that culture that Arma has. In fact, only 3 of the 10 BF games for PC have been moddable, and the last one was release 7 years ago. (sure mod teams hacked the BF2 editor to mod 2142, but there never was official mod support for it.

So in short: yes, games that cater towards mod communities, minor games like RO or ArmA gains alot from supporting them, and their sales can be positively affected by it.
Games like BF3 wouldnt be negatively affected by mods as you stubbornly suggest. the DLCs would roll out just the same, and the fraction of the playerbase that indeed would play mods would of course enjoy them, but that'd be a small percentage only.

So case hereby closed, court adjourned.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Tankbuster on 23-08-2012, 19:08:07

Games like BF3 wouldnt be negatively affected by mods as you stubbornly suggest. the DLCs would roll out just the same, and the fraction of the playerbase that indeed would play mods would of course enjoy them, but that'd be a small percentage only.


So lets assume that BF3 released mod tools and someone managed to create the Armoured Kill addon as a mod, so even then people would PAY for the same thing?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 23-08-2012, 20:08:25
I was going to make a long winded post to respond to you Natty.  But it looks like you have already grabbed the shovel and taken it upon yourself to dig your own grave. 
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 23-08-2012, 20:08:20
So lets assume that BF3 released mod tools and someone managed to create the Armoured Kill addon as a mod, so even then people would PAY for the same thing?
How could a mod team develop that? you mean by stealing all the content and releasing it for free?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 23-08-2012, 20:08:23
So lets assume that BF3 released mod tools and someone managed to create the Armoured Kill addon as a mod, so even then people would PAY for the same thing?
How could a mod team develop that? you mean by stealing all the content and releasing it for free?

Well why they couldn't? It's just some bigass maps with some extra vehicle models... Not exactly something epically innovative... I mean a mod team managed to do almost the same thing with BF 2...  ::)

Or do you mean the "new" unlocks? Basically, yes they probably couldn't do it that way... But vehicle unlocks are the stupidest idea ever anyway... I'm sure modders would find a way to give you all the necessary standard equipment without making you grind countless hours of frustration to get it...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 23-08-2012, 20:08:59
Everytime I walk into this thread, I swear

(http://kepfeltoltes.hu/120724/jackie-chan-what-the-fucv_www.kepfeltoltes.hu_.jpg)

Havn't played BF3 in some time, since I only play B2K & Vanilla, servers on the west coast for those maps have dried up and I cannot mentally justify buying premium or the DLCs seperately.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 23-08-2012, 20:08:17
Well why they couldn't? It's just some bigass maps with some extra vehicle models... Not exactly something epically innovative...

because mod teams wouldn't be able to build content and experience of the same quality as dice of course? Mods are nice, but not of professional studio quality, come on..  ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 23-08-2012, 20:08:27
ArmA 2 is a minor game yeah  ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 23-08-2012, 20:08:08
Well why they couldn't? It's just some bigass maps with some extra vehicle models... Not exactly something epically innovative...

because mod teams wouldn't be able to build content and experience of the same quality as dice of course? Mods are nice, but not of professional studio quality, come on..  ::)

*Looks at FH2*

Well I see pretty much the same (and greater in fact) quality than DICE's work in 2005.

Given the time and tools I have no doubts that a dedicated and experienced mod team could succeed in creating a mod that could rival the quality of DICE's work. After all... DICE started small too... With only a handful of people and has grown over years.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-08-2012, 21:08:53
What natty means by a proffesional studio

is that in EA case, it revenue's 150 million dollars out of 50 million budget
instead of smaller game companies with smaller budgets and marketing capacity who revenue less.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Tankbuster on 24-08-2012, 06:08:30
Well why they couldn't? It's just some bigass maps with some extra vehicle models... Not exactly something epically innovative...

because mod teams wouldn't be able to build content and experience of the same quality as dice of course? Mods are nice, but not of professional studio quality, come on..  ::)


If FH2 doesn't cut it for you let me give another Example.

You may have played Medieval 2 Total War, you may know it has got a mod called Third Age Total War based on the Lord of the Rings books as well as the movies. Compare it with the BFME series that EA has made, it won't take you long to realize which one is superior keeping in line with the LoTR lore and general Gameplay.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 24-08-2012, 07:08:35
individual models can "look better" in a mod, sure. I mean, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and all. You're more likely to like a mod tank because you prefer ww2 tanks, you have biased love for the mod etc etc
overall game experience isn't better in FH2 than BF2 vanilla. Map designs, communications with the players etc is supreme in BF2. Metacritic 91 nuff said. We dont have any Karkand, FuShepass, Wake Island, Sharqi Peninsula, Gulf of Oman, Kubra Dam or Dragon Valley in FH2. One of our most popular maps is a DICE port.

That said, mods can create awesome and fun, cool experiences. Indeed, but mostly niched towards a small portion of players. That's alot lot easier than making it compatible with millions of players.
If some mod made a BF3 mod, it would be loved by a few hundreds players each night, Im sure. But to state that mod teams can do as high, or higher, quality than professional studios is just delusions of grandeur.
The reason for that isn't that the studio devs are just "better" per se, we have artists with just as high skills in mod teams. No, the reason is organisation. You dont have clear Producer / designer / programmer / artists / AD / DD / QA structure in a mod team. That is why you will never reach the same refined product quality. You get "nice" at your best. Trust me, Ive been trying to get more structure in to our team, but mods is a hobby, you want to have fun modding, not be ruled around like at a boss place, write documentation or sit and wait for an "ok" to do something. That's why mods are so inconsistent and varies so much in quality. Too many chefs for the soup, too many conflicting wishes. Too few clear goals and no overall set design.

no TheTa, I dont mean that quality is equal to revenue, Im talking about quality game experience.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Steel_Lion_FIN on 24-08-2012, 07:08:58
Attention to everyone with problems using nvidia optimus systems and Punkbudter kicks!

Problem is solved using older nvidia 285.33 series display drivers, which also fixes the random 10 minute crashes.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 24-08-2012, 10:08:05
thx! I had crashes last night, could be I run Win7 32-bit?

Will try that older driver. Just built a new PC so I guess I screwed something up......
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Nissi on 24-08-2012, 10:08:46
Why my dear didn't you listen when I told you win7 prof 64 bit and you will never have any problems?  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 24-08-2012, 13:08:58
I did! but for some reason it installed the 32 bit........ I think it's one of those Win7 ultimate versions where you can choose 32 or 64... must have screwed it up.. well, nothing like a fun friday evening formatting the PC  ::) at least I have beer....
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 24-08-2012, 14:08:41
I did! but for some reason it installed the 32 bit........ I think it's one of those Win7 ultimate versions where you can choose 32 or 64... must have screwed it up.. well, nothing like a fun friday evening formatting the PC  ::) at least I have beer....

I hope you bought it from System and not from normal market... the beer I mean. :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 24-08-2012, 14:08:28


no TheTa, I dont mean that quality is equal to revenue, Im talking about quality game experience.
Most EA games do not deliver that to a high standard. Super high tech visuals is not what i seek in quality game experience

Quote
For 2006, the games review aggregation site Metacritic gives the average of EA games as 72.0 (out of 100); 2.5 points behind Nintendo (74.5) but ahead of the other first-party publishers Microsoft (71.6) and Sony (71.2). The closest third-party publisher is Take-Two Interactive (publishing as 2K Games and Rockstar Games) at 70.3. The remaining top 10[75][when?] publishers (Sega, THQ, Ubisoft, Activision, Square Enix) all rate in the mid 60s. Since 2005, EA has published seven games that received "Universal Acclaim" (Metacritic score 90 or greater): Battlefield 2, Crysis, Rock Band, FIFA 12, Mass Effect 2, Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age: Origins.
EA's aggregate review performance had shown a downward trend in quality over recent years and was expected to affect market shares during competitive seasons. Pacific Crest Securities analyst Evan Wilson had said, "Poor reviews and quality are beginning to tarnish the EA brand. According to our ongoing survey of GameRankings.com aggregated review data, Electronic Arts' overall game quality continues to fall...Although market share has not declined dramatically to date, in years such as 2007, which promises to have tremendous competition, it seems likely if quality does not improve."[76][77]
EA had also received criticism for developing games that lack innovation vis-à-vis the number of gaming titles produced under the EA brand that show a history of yearly updates, particularly in their sporting franchises. These typically retail as new games at full market price and feature only updated team rosters in addition to incremental changes to game mechanics, the user interface, and graphics. One critique compared EA to companies like Ubisoft and concluded that EA's innovation in new and old IPs "Crawls along at a snail's pace,"[78] while even the company's own CEO, John Riccitiello, acknowledged the lack of innovation seen in the industry generally, saying, "We're boring people to death and making games that are harder and harder to play. For the most part, the industry has been rinse-and-repeat. There's been lots of product that looked like last year's product, that looked a lot like the year before." EA has announced that it is turning its attention to creating new game IPs in order to stem this trend, with recently acquired and critically acclaimed studios BioWare and Pandemic would be contributing to this process

Since you like wall of texts. If i compare EA games and EA sports games now...compared to the past, i pretty much agree with the above statement
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Tankbuster on 24-08-2012, 15:08:07
i

Indeed, but mostly niched towards a small portion of players. That's alot lot easier than making it compatible with millions of players.


One word: Counter-Strike
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 24-08-2012, 15:08:44
I was curius to see how bf3 did on metacritic, and look at this!:

Battlefield 3:

-Metascore:89
-User score:7.3

Battlefield 2:

-Metascore:91
-User score:8.2

Battlefield 1942:

-Metascore:89
-User score:8,6

So aperantly, all previus battlefield games were better than the godlike battlefield 3  :o. I guess big gray boxes moving on the sea are more apealing than shinny pixels flashing ech 4 seconds congratulating you for reloading your weapons without setting your router on fire.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 24-08-2012, 16:08:29
thx! I had crashes last night, could be I run Win7 32-bit?

Will try that older driver. Just built a new PC so I guess I screwed something up......

now you see why it is important to release a 100% stable product Natty, instead of "sell a beta and patch up later"
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 24-08-2012, 18:08:32
One word: Counter-Strike
Yea, what about counter-strike? What point did you want to make?

now you see why it is important to release a 100% stable product Natty, instead of "sell a beta and patch up later"
uhm, what? Im missing the point. Millions of people are playing BF3, I simply must have screwed up my system. Think there will be a day where a PC product is compatible with all PCs without problem, think again.
One word: consoles.

sicario, fail to make a point. All you're saying is that with 3 titles DICE managed to score 89, 91 and 89 on metacritic, a freaking amazing acomplishment if you ask me. User score is not as relevant, it's less conclusive. But yea, we know, those 3 games are all amazing, thanks for reminding us

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Tankbuster on 24-08-2012, 19:08:01
One word: Counter-Strike
Yea, what about counter-strike? What point did you want to make?

Simply that
That said, mods can create awesome and fun, cool experiences. Indeed, but mostly niched towards a small portion of players.r

Highlighted part stands Deflated.

Quote
sicario, fail to make a point. All you're saying is that with 3 titles DICE managed to score 89, 91 and 89 on metacritic, a freaking amazing acomplishment if you ask me. User score is not as relevant, it's less conclusive. But yea, we know, those 3 games are all amazing, thanks for reminding us

So now the feelings and rating of the Users themselves are unnecessary?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 24-08-2012, 19:08:29
I said "not as relevant"... scores from users arent really conclusive. Anyone can go in and click "1", it doesnt show his true opinions. Those numbers lie. However, sales numbers, player numbers on servers etc are true data. They speak for themselves :) If people didnt like the game, they wouldnt be playing it. Simple as that. And more people buy and play BF3 than bf42.

And nope, my argument isn't deflated, I said mostly niched towards a small portion of players which is of course true. CS is unique, it's among the first multiplayer shooter. How long are you going to use CS as an argument for why modding is the salvation for games? It's getting old. Soon Im hearing again how awesome the desert combat team was and that Trauma was bought by ea and bla bla bla...
Mods ride on the success of games, they can tweak them (modify them) but they arent designing/making them. No gains anything from trying to pretend that mods make games "better". They change them so they fit for a very small niched audience.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 24-08-2012, 20:08:59
Quote
uhm, what? Im missing the point. Millions of people are playing BF3, I simply must have screwed up my system. Think there will be a day where a PC product is compatible with all PCs without problem, think again.
One word: consoles.

have fun reading. Cheers !

http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/forum/threadview/2832654489766151611/
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 24-08-2012, 20:08:55
Why would I want to read a forum whine thread?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzhbyCaBaIM
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 24-08-2012, 20:08:57
Why would I want to read a forum whine thread?

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

You persistently read this thread too, so naturally one would think you'd enjoy reading that kind of stuff. Especially when its on your own "turf".
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eat Uranium on 24-08-2012, 23:08:05
Please explain to me how the number of games sold can be interpreted as a mark of player satisfaction with the product.  You cannot have a satisfactory opinion on how the product plays until you have actually played it.  So sales numbers are really a measure of how well the product has been advertised.  The player satisfaction is how many of those CD keys remained active for more than a few days.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hitm4k3r on 25-08-2012, 00:08:37
Mods ride on the success of games, they can tweak them (modify them) but they arent designing/making them. No gains anything from trying to pretend that mods make games "better". They change them so they fit for a very small niched audience.

Thatswhy almost every ArmA II player uses the ACE and the CBA mod. Your point failed Natty. And thatswhy almost every CoH player I know uses the Blitzkrieg Mod. Not to mentione all those Source Mods and Elder Scrolls as a modding paltform itself. Modding infact extends the game play experience and thus can make it better than the original platform. Just accept it  ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Dukat on 25-08-2012, 01:08:37
Natty, DICE is pushing very little innovation in its titles nowadays. That makes me kinda sad, from the customers view.

And this causes the recent titles not to be amazing. Its the same stuff in a different package. But you don't wanna see this. You still pretend like DICE is re-inventing the wheel each year. But they are not.

In the book of history, DICE will be the company that introduced a new first person shooter featuring mid-size-maps, situated between conventional XS-size-map shooters like Quake or Half Life and XL-size-map shooters like ARMA/Operation Flashpoint. DICE also mixed aspects of action shooters and simulation shooters to a coherent and popular composition.

Hmm, when I look at wikipedia, they see the greatest days of DICE in the past as well:

Quote
[...]the biggest break for DICE was the release of Battlefield 1942 and its sequels and expansions. The Battlefield series jump-started their popularity.

Edit:// But currently DICE is jumpstarting nothing. They're just squeezing money of an idea.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Tankbuster on 25-08-2012, 05:08:32
1) How long are you going to use CS as an argument for why modding is the salvation for games? It's getting old.

2) Mods ride on the success of games, they can tweak them (modify them) but they arent designing/making them. No gains anything from trying to pretend that mods make games "better". They change them so they fit for a very small niched audience.

1) Yet more people play CS than BF3/4/# can ever hope to have.

2) So when mods add something extra, change the gameplay, etc, they don't make the game "better" but when big companies just update the game engine, its automatically awesome?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 25-08-2012, 07:08:24
Please explain to me how the number of games sold can be interpreted as a mark of player satisfaction with the product.
Not what I said :) I said sales number and playernumbers. If a game has high on both and high metacritic from the industry, then it's a success, yes.
Thatswhy almost every ArmA II player uses the ACE and the CBA mod. Your point failed Natty. And thatswhy almost every CoH player I know uses the Blitzkrieg Mod. Not to mentione all those Source Mods and Elder Scrolls as a modding paltform itself. Modding infact extends the game play experience and thus can make it better than the original platform. Just accept it  ;)
uhh nope, they do that because the vanilla games suck. People bought ArmA, ArmAII with the hopes that they would get epic experiences, and they didn't. So they got a few hours out of the original game only, and are too "hardcore" fans to accept that their game is bad (these are guys who thinks battlefield is too "arcadey") so they try mods instead, since these guys refuse to play regular shooters like CS, BF, TF2 or CoD, they're the "elite" you know. LoL.)
So yea, in that case I wouldnt be surprised if modders took the game and made it more fun (for a niche, inbred elite type of players). It's not hard making a turd not smell, but I wouldn't eat it.

2) So when mods add something extra, change the gameplay, etc, they don't make the game "better" but when big companies just update the game engine, its automatically awesome?
Mods add custom content to existing games. studios create games, you no see the difference here? Yea, for a couple of hundred people, a mod can be more fun, sure, but quality isn't better/higher is it? You can have a lot of fun in low quality games. Just like you can enjoy low-quality movies or music. Just accept that mods cant deliver quality, but are just taking games in to an extreme direction which cater towards a very niched base. I fail to see the reasons to not just admit that this is what's happening.
FH2 and PR are freaking amazing if you are tuned in to one, very niched frequency of gaming. But FH2 lacks in quality on many many points. We just turn our blind eyes to it.

Or, is the ultimate thing you want to say that mods take games to a "higher standard" that only a few select people "gets" and that the rest of the 99.9% of the playerbase are just dumb and fooled by evil marketplans? Please tell me that is your innermost thoughts.  8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 25-08-2012, 10:08:51
Havn't played BF3 in some time, since I only play B2K & Vanilla, servers on the west coast for those maps have dried up and I cannot mentally justify buying premium or the DLCs seperately.
Wait...you mean they're all playing CQ?


You don't see many populated CQ servers down here (that aren't 1000-ticket meatgrinders). Which is a bit of a shame because, for what they are, they're good maps.

I guess it goes to show that CQ is not BF, it was just an attempt to convert the COD faithful.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 25-08-2012, 10:08:19
  Getting away from whatever silly crap Natty is trying to say......

Yeah CQ...I dig it when I am alone and just want to kill but if my wife or one of PSN buddies is on I generally just play Karkand and normal maps.  CQ never has any wow stand out moments or even good gameplay.  Just round and around the flags we go.  I got my $15 worth but beyond that not so much.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 25-08-2012, 11:08:21
I was curius to see how bf3 did on metacritic, and look at this!:

Battlefield 3:

-Metascore:89
-User score:7.3

Battlefield 2:

-Metascore:91
-User score:8.2

Battlefield 1942:

-Metascore:89
-User score:8,6

So aperantly, all previus battlefield games were better than the godlike battlefield 3  :o. I guess big gray boxes moving on the sea are more apealing than shinny pixels flashing ech 4 seconds congratulating you for reloading your weapons without setting your router on fire.
Especially look at the user score


now lets look at cod

Call of duty:united offensive:
metacritic: 9.1
user score: 8.5

Call of duty 2:
Metacritic=8.5
User score=8.2

Call of duty 4 modern warfare:
Metacritic=9.4
user score=8.6

Now the milking of the cow starts

Call of duty Modern warfare 2:
Metacritic=9.4
User score=>>>>6.0<<<<<

Call of duty Black ops:
Metacritic=8.8
User score= 5.8

Call of duty Modern whorefare 3=
Metacritic= 8.2
User score= 3.2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-LE0ycgkBQ

Good ol 'Subornation of perjury
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 25-08-2012, 12:08:56
but wait! you forgot, user score is useless, the guys that play it dont have the right to complain and their opinions doesnt matter, what matters is what the profesional and completaly objetive reviewers think of the game !  :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 25-08-2012, 12:08:17
http://williamsalisbury.blogspot.be/2012/04/video-game-journalism-is-it-corrupt.html
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hitm4k3r on 25-08-2012, 13:08:42
Thatswhy almost every ArmA II player uses the ACE and the CBA mod. Your point failed Natty. And thatswhy almost every CoH player I know uses the Blitzkrieg Mod. Not to mentione all those Source Mods and Elder Scrolls as a modding paltform itself. Modding infact extends the game play experience and thus can make it better than the original platform. Just accept it  ;)
uhh nope, they do that because the vanilla games suck. People bought ArmA, ArmAII with the hopes that they would get epic experiences, and they didn't. So they got a few hours out of the original game only, and are too "hardcore" fans to accept that their game is bad (these are guys who thinks battlefield is too "arcadey") so they try mods instead, since these guys refuse to play regular shooters like CS, BF, TF2 or CoD, they're the "elite" you know. LoL.)
So yea, in that case I wouldnt be surprised if modders took the game and made it more fun (for a niche, inbred elite type of players). It's not hard making a turd not smell, but I wouldn't eat it.

Do you actually know how those mentioned mods work? I think not, so your argument fails again.  ;)
And I think nobody would develop a mod for Oblivion or Skyrim, just because he things that the base game sucks. Once more. Mods extend the experience. Half Life is one of the best FPS out there. Do you really want to tell me that Garrys mod got developed because Half Life is shit. This just sounds dumb  ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 25-08-2012, 14:08:06
This discussion is dumb. Its looping.
(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/136/350/Hater.gif)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 25-08-2012, 15:08:22
I know smiles, they will simply never, ever, get it  8)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VMeXGE_a8Gg#t=17s
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 25-08-2012, 16:08:06
you forgot to read this ;)

http://williamsalisbury.blogspot.be/2012/04/video-game-journalism-is-it-corrupt.html
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 25-08-2012, 18:08:28
Dont waste my time reading subjective blogz about how the game industry works.. what, you....really think this guy has "seen through it all"?.... I mean... really?  :P

Aluminium foil is cheap, by some and make a hat.

Wait, I need to say it out loud: "Video game journalism is corrupt"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 25-08-2012, 18:08:13
Everything in this world is corrupt, so is this. Big publishers aren't going to spend millions of dollars for massive marketing and then let reviewers screw their sales up by having them give the game average rating, especially when their newest title is just a "copypaste" of the previous one. Just no.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ts4EVER on 25-08-2012, 18:08:35
Everything in this world is corrupt, so is this. Big publishers aren't going to spend millions of dollars for massive marketing and then let reviewers screw their sales up by having them give the game average rating, especially when their newest title is just a "copypaste" of the previous one. Just no.

This is something you assume. Now where is the proof? Note that a random blog on the internet does not constitute proof, otherwise there would be ample proof for Bush blowing up the WTC and Obama trying to kill sick people. For me this whole thing sounds like a conspiracy theory. I refuse to believe that an entire industry is in on some kind of scam like that, for practical reasons alone.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 25-08-2012, 19:08:47
Oh, but didn't you hear? The rockerfellers and the others in the illuminati planned this a hundred years ago :) the entire industrial society is grinded towards making all consumers brainwashed and just blindly buy what's in the ad's. They planned to create a multi-billion dollar industry for games and then set up hundreds of magazines, TV programs, Websites and communities that would all give high rating to certain hand-picked games so the masses would buy them. It's all controlled from their HQ, which is in a satellite named Bob.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 25-08-2012, 19:08:48
Everything in this world is corrupt, so is this. Big publishers aren't going to spend millions of dollars for massive marketing and then let reviewers screw their sales up by having them give the game average rating, especially when their newest title is just a "copypaste" of the previous one. Just no.

This is something you assume. Now where is the proof? Note that a random blog on the internet does not constitute proof, otherwise there would be ample proof for Bush blowing up the WTC and Obama trying to kill sick people. For me this whole thing sounds like a conspiracy theory. I refuse to believe that an entire industry is in on some kind of scam like that, for practical reasons alone.

Have you hear about the story of Jeff Gerstmann ??
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 25-08-2012, 19:08:48
Oh, but didn't you hear? The rockerfellers and the others in the illuminati planned this a hundred years ago :) the entire industrial society is grinded towards making all consumers brainwashed and just blindly buy what's in the ad's. They planned to create a multi-billion dollar industry for games and then set up hundreds of magazines, TV programs, Websites and communities that would all give high rating to certain hand-picked games so the masses would buy them. It's all controlled from their HQ, which is in a satellite named Bob.

You got a number i can call? Id like to be part of that group, sounds like living!

Quote
Ts4EVER

This is something you assume. Now where is the proof? Note that a random blog on the internet does not constitute proof, otherwise there would be ample proof for Bush blowing up the WTC and Obama trying to kill sick people. For me this whole thing sounds like a conspiracy theory. I refuse to believe that an entire industry is in on some kind of scam like that, for practical reasons alone.

An entire group, no(havnt read the blog) but some titles are ofcourse being rated before release as the new "revolution" in gameplay/graphics or whatever. The magazine i was reading did this with a few games every time, and after release admitting it wasnt that "woow". Very annoying and you can spot the effects of marketing well enough(posters/stupid handbooks with stupid things written in it). Dont have to be a conspiracist for that. Money buys things, its that simple.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 25-08-2012, 20:08:23
yep, anyone who thinks that money from big publishers does not affect rating and reviewing from large game sites or magazines is an incredule little shit. This is capitalism, game sites obtein revenue from traffic, they obtain more traffic if they rate big game tittles before anyone else, they obtein access to big tittles  by having contracts with game publishers and promising them good publicity in exchange for exclusives.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 25-08-2012, 20:08:50
An entire group, no(havnt read the blog) but some titles are ofcourse being rated before release as the new "revolution" in gameplay/graphics or whatever.
Noo noo... you got it wrong. pre-release grades aren't counted into MC. Only post-release reviews count towards the MC.

Sicario.. learn how it works.. sure PC gamer gets to play BF4 before you, but their "first look" grades are not counted in MC. Only the grade they give after the release. Magazines always do a pre- and post- release article, THEN, then make the REVIEW. Article and review is not the same

So, no. It's fair. Good games get good scores, the end.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ts4EVER on 25-08-2012, 20:08:48
yep, anyone who thinks that money from big publishers does not affect rating and reviewing from large game sites or magazines is an incredule little shit. This is capitalism, game sites obtein revenue from traffic, they obtain more traffic if they rate big game tittles before anyone else, they obtein access to big tittles  by having contracts with game publishers and promising them good publicity in exchange for exclusives.

Even if that was the case (which I doubt) then wouldn't it be profitable to blow the conspiracy? Imagine: "Come to our website for the only unbiased review! We refuse to be influenced by big industry!"
Hipsters and games would be all over it. They could publish E-Mails by the game publishers showing how they tried to get good ratings etc. But nobody does that, or when they do (like for that Kane and Lynch thing) the publishers are shamed and laughed out of the room.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 25-08-2012, 20:08:07
Its called consistency. If reviewer A gives the game "diary of a constantinoplan whore" of publisher B a good prerelease review, then after release reviewer A gives it a score of 4/10, then when "diary of a constantinoplan whore 2: syphilis" comes, publisher B will rather give an exclusive to reviewer C instead or reviewer A. You HAVE to talk good about big game tittles in the market, otherwise your bussiness goes down the toilet.

Now, im not saying ALL the reviers lie (most of the time), they just dont tell the entery true. For example, Bf3: yes, good graphics, AMAZING sound quality, etc. But nowhere you will find how the destruction is scripted, the multiplayer is repetitive or how the SP campaing is a completaly pile of garbage.

@TsEVER

the most simple reason would be "because hipsters are a small number and we cant feed our children with their internet traffic"  :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 25-08-2012, 20:08:49
I was just saying, things like this happen. I didn't say on how large of a scale it does, just that it does. I don't care if one company did it, it happens once and you can never be sure if the critic is biased or not again. Period.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Tankbuster on 25-08-2012, 20:08:10
"diary of a constantinoplan whore" ; "diary of a constantinoplan whore 2: syphilis"

Want Pls
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 25-08-2012, 21:08:25
I was just saying, things like this happen. I didn't say on how large of a scale it does, just that it does. I don't care if one company did it, it happens once and you can never be sure if the critic is biased or not again. Period.

ok let's do this again:
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/battlefield-3

based on 61 Critics

so, even if a few of those were paid by EA (lol) to "lie" or threatened like sicario says (GIEF GRADEZ OR U NO PLAY OUR GAMEZ NO MORE) it wouldnt move the meter. Look carefully at what the reviewers are, an axe-pick:
GameShark
GameSpy
Game Informer
GameTrailers
1UP

need I continue? these are all gigantic companies. And they live on credibility... what do you think would happen with GameTrailer if it was found out that they were bribed/forced by EA to give good reviews? I think the "exclusive" priviligue matters very little in comparison.
These companies put the grades they feel the game deserves. Then Metacritic takes all those and gives us the average. That is why it can be considered "the ultimate grade". I dont trust one reviewer either, not even 5. Some of them are also unknown to me, but when you have 61, and the average is 89, then you know it's a good game.
It's the same as IMDB and the movie ranking. If 20,000 people have voted an average 7.5 on a movie, it usually means high quality. Sure you might not like all of the movie, but it definitely isn't "bad". It either has very good actors, story, directing, budget, action, whatever, or all of it. Otherwise it wouldn't have gotten so high rankz.

you need to learn to read numbers. Games for example has too many haterz or fanboys to be able to measure by "user score" you get some who just trolls in and votes "1" and some who just puts "10" for teh lulz. Gaming magazines and review sources don't behave like that.

But nowhere you will find how the destruction is scripted, the multiplayer is repetitive or how the SP campaing is a completaly pile of garbage.

ehm, people want repetitive multiplayer... it's what shooters are about. You want to learn how to solve the same situation over and over again. The 10th time you attack the antenna flag on Caspian, you have more fun, since you can predict better where the enemy will come from, read the map deeper, play more tactical. It raises the anticipation and predictability factor, makes it more fun. Or you think players want to look for the enemy for 20 minutes in the forest like in PR?
"scripted destruction" lol? you know how FB2 works? plz explain to us
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 25-08-2012, 21:08:23

so, even if a few of those were paid by EA (lol) to "lie" or threatened like sicario says

never said they lie when reviewing or they are threatened. I said they dont tell the whole true, and that is more advantageous to make friends with big publishers ;)

ehm, people want repetitive multiplayer... it's what shooters are about. You want to learn how to solve the same situation over and over again. The 10th time you attack the antenna flag on Caspian, you have more fun, since you can predict better where the enemy will come from, read the map deeper, play more tactical. It raises the anticipation and predictability factor, makes it more fun. Or you think players want to look for the enemy for 20 minutes in the forest like in PR?
"scripted destruction" lol? you know how FB2 works? plz explain to us

yep, my point exactly, bf3 multiplayer IS repetitive, but reviews dont say that . And destruction in FB2 is scripted. Everytime the tower on Caspian gets destroyed, it falls always the same way, no physics, just scripted destruction.

Buildings in Bf3 work the same as in the Helmand map in PR. they are made of little bits that are destructable, but they are not dinamic. Buildings are destoyed on the same areas all the time, in the same way all the time,etc. Hardly innovative.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 25-08-2012, 23:08:01
never said they lie when reviewing or they are threatened. I said they dont tell the whole true, and that is more advantageous to make friends with big publishers ;)

"the truth"? what truth lol? it's a review.
yep, my point exactly, bf3 multiplayer IS repetitive, but reviews dont say that . And destruction in FB2 is scripted. Everytime the tower on Caspian gets destroyed, it falls always the same way, no physics, just scripted destruction.
Why would they write something that is obvious?? It's like the commentators at football would say that "this game is repetitive, they just run back n forth with the ball all the time"... It's no relevance in this statement, mooted point.
So you suddenly became the master of how game engines work? What does physics have to do with anything here? You really are on deep water here. Destruction dont need physics to work all the time. FB is clever and the designers and artist can choose if they want the object to behave in a predictable pattern or not. Obviously the clever leveldesigner of caspian chose the tower to NOT start hopping around weirdly or fall in weird positions. It has nothing to do with if destruction is "real" or not. Ofcourse it isnt, it's a game. Again, mooted.

Buildings in Bf3 work the same as in the Helmand map in PR. they are made of little bits that are destructable, but they are not dinamic. Buildings are destoyed on the same areas all the time, in the same way all the time,etc. Hardly innovative.
aaw... it hurts when you try... no dear, the PR team didnt make FB2 like objects for BF2, just please stop..
read again what you write, here Ill double quote you "Buildings in Bf3 work the same as in the Helmand map in PR"  ;D
You actually went online and tried to say that PR has as good destroyable environment as frostbite 2... please someone help this man.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 25-08-2012, 23:08:33
no, I said destructuable buildings in bf3 work the same as destructuable buildings in PR/Bf2, wich they do ;), they are just 3d objectes attached to each other with hitpoints that trigger dust effect when they reach 0 . As I said, hardly innovative
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 26-08-2012, 00:08:34
no, I said destructuable buildings in bf3 work the same as destructuable buildings in PR/Bf2, wich they do ;), they are just 3d objectes attached to each other with hitpoints that trigger dust effect when they reach 0 . As I said, hardly innovative

Yeah I thought the same thing when I first played BFBC1.  If you wanted to do big kafucko destroyed buildings like BFBC (I actually like BFBC1 and BFBC2 destruction better for the WOW factor) all you have to do is make all the destructo bits and have them make a bang with an explosion material that only effects the main structure.  When a certain amount of shit gets blown up the whole structure dies with an explosion that affects the remaining bits and brings the building down to destructo state.  Only thing BF3 brought to the table in tech terms is a nifty little animation for the final collapse.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 26-08-2012, 00:08:48
eh... no? Frostbites destruction simply doesnt work like in BF2, why are you stubbornly fighting over this? It's a completely different system altogether. Who misled you in to believing this? is this what they state over at the PR forums or what? I can totally sense you're taking someone else's word here, since I know for sure you haven't got a personal clue how any of the systems work, especially frostbite.

*christ*...  ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 26-08-2012, 00:08:24
Sorry, my point was directed at one magazine as i somewhat stated. I dont bother about metacritics (well ofcourse i do but that would be direct player feedback or advertisements)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 26-08-2012, 00:08:08
eh... no? Frostbites destruction simply doesnt work like in BF2, why are you stubbornly fighting over this? It's a completely different system altogether. Who misled you in to believing this? is this what they state over at the PR forums or what? I can totally sense you're taking someone else's word here, since I know for sure you haven't got a personal clue how any of the systems work, especially frostbite.

*christ*...  ::)

My first post on the subject so don't be a £$%^*.   And feel free to clue me in.   I was just saying that you could do the same thing in BF2 minus the animation bits.  I am not putting that out there as a maybe.  YOU COULD DO IT.  I am damn sure you are not that dumb and know this as well. 

*EU: Nope, none of that please.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: KnowYourEnemy123 on 26-08-2012, 02:08:27
I'm sorry but is someone actually taking metacritic seriously in this thread ?  :o

The most worthless and overrated website in gaming. The worst part is that some publishers take metacritic scores seriously too. Obsidian entertainment had to lay off 30 people because they they didn't get 85 on metacritic on Fallout new vegas, which was needed in order to get a major bonus from Bethesda. Guess what they got ? 84. They had sold 6 million copies on New vegas and it was a major success.

How fucking ridiculous is that ?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Tankbuster on 26-08-2012, 08:08:44
eh... no? Frostbites destruction simply doesnt work like in BF2, why are you stubbornly fighting over this? It's a completely different system altogether.

The technical aspects don't matter. For a random player playing the game, it does seem the destruction is the same, the building falls apart in the same way, etc.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 26-08-2012, 09:08:48
@Lainer, I wasn't responding to your post. More to Sicarios.. he states that the Frostbite 2.0 destruction system can be replicated in bf2  8) it's laughable really. No, it does not work at all the same way, and really I do not understand why someone would struggle to try and fight for this. Just accept that BF2s engine isnt capable of it? PR has some houses with armor components you can destroy, yea yea, it's not like FB's destructibility, the end.

@KnowYourEnemy123: That sounds horrible, but that is not a problem with metacritics, it's a problem with management at that company. If you can guide the industry towards a more important metrics than MC, then please do so, make a website called "The truth about game quality" where you build a system that better indicates how good a game is. I'm sure it will be a popular site... Until then; MC is what we have. Well, together with the goals of the studios, player numbers, sales etc.. But those arent made public and we'll never know where on the donkey's success-butt each studio pins their tail.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 26-08-2012, 10:08:10
@Lainer, I wasn't responding to your post. More to Sicarios.. he states that the Frostbite 2.0 destruction system can be replicated in bf2  8) it's laughable really. No, it does not work at all the same way, and really I do not understand why someone would struggle to try and fight for this. Just accept that BF2s engine isnt capable of it? PR has some houses with armor components you can destroy, yea yea, it's not like FB's destructibility, the end.

ehrm.. no. You cant replicate bf3 level of destruction in bf2,that will be awfull, mainly because there is a limit in the amount of dinamic objects you can have in a map before it starst to act funny and crash, as you may have already discover (been a "mapper" and all that).  I would tell you to re-read, but it will be pointless, destruction in bf3 its scripted, just like in bf2, end of it ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 26-08-2012, 11:08:22
aww the fail is so strong.... bf2 destruction isn't "scripted", do you even know what that means?
BF3 destruction also, isn't "scripted", it's such a vague term, what do you even think it means? It's like saying "BF3 destruction is just coded".... well, d'uh.

Give it up, You do not know how frostbite work, so throwing around statements that its destruction is just scripted makes you only look like a fool. What if it was "scripted" but each piece of geometry had 100 scripts, what then? "just" scripted makes it look as if it's more "simple" than if it was all randomly controlled by physics parameters (like a ragdoll) but you haven't a clue how those work either. Physics is also "scripted" in one way. A highly detailed and designed scripted series of events can be much more dynamic and cool than a purely physics-driven "random" one.

So, just give it a rest will you, you brought this thread to this state now:
(http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/7455/79979067.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 26-08-2012, 12:08:04
ooooooooooooooohhhhh nooow I get it...... you guys have totally mistaken innovation for invention this whole thread  ;D lol......... let me explain:

Innovation is the creation of better or more effective products, processes, services, technologies, or ideas that are readily available to markets, governments, and society. Innovation differs from invention in that innovation refers to the use of a better and, as a result, novel idea or method, whereas invention refers more directly to the creation of the idea or method itself. Innovation differs from improvement in that innovation refers to the notion of doing something different
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation


An invention is a unique or novel device, method, composition or process. It may be an improvement upon a machine or product, or a new process for creating an object or a result. An invention that achieves a completely unique function or result may be a radical breakthrough. (*cough Frostbite cough* )Such works are novel and not obvious to others skilled in the same field.

Some inventions can be patented. A Patent legally protects the intellectual property rights of the inventor and legally recognizes that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention


lesson over students. 8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 26-08-2012, 12:08:24
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJbv8HNZK4E
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 26-08-2012, 14:08:56
(http://hotlard.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/pwned.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 26-08-2012, 14:08:32
Do you want me to.. lock this thread perhaps?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Lightning on 26-08-2012, 14:08:58
And that signals the end of that discussion then.

Thread Closed
Title: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 03-09-2012, 18:09:29
FFS lighting.......

New patch is up tuesday and premium jerks can download armored kill as well.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 03-09-2012, 18:09:09
Anti-air Support
Unlocks Anti-air missiles for Mobile Artillery
> Get 15 kills in the Gunship


AAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWW YEAH

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 03-09-2012, 19:09:29
Merged two threads and unlocked them since the new thingy is coming and all.

Try to behave.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Steel_Lion_FIN on 03-09-2012, 20:09:53
Not sure if leaking but this is a premium achievement:
Quote
Get to tha Choppa
 Unlocks the Get to tha Choppa Basic Dog Tag
 > 50 kills with scout or attack helicopters
 > Destroy 25 MBT’s with scout or attack helicopters

That just made my day.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 03-09-2012, 20:09:56
Not sure if leaking but this is a premium achievement:
Quote
Get to tha Choppa
 Unlocks the Get to tha Choppa Basic Dog Tag
 > 50 kills with scout or attack helicopters
 > Destroy 25 MBT’s with scout or attack helicopters

That just made my day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9-Te-DPbSE :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 05-09-2012, 04:09:50
FFS lighting.......

New patch is up tuesday and premium jerks can download armored kill as well.

I am now a premium jerk as well.  I guess even at this point it is only costing me $5 more then if I just bought the expansions.  And I get that little banner that comes up that says you have been killed by premium douche.  ::)

Anyway....Armored Kill so far seems like it will be worth the $15.  Only played a couple of rounds of king of the hill so far.  I did not even know there was going to be rush layouts so that is a nice surprise as well.  Will post up a bit more when me and the wife hop in for a bit.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 05-09-2012, 05:09:15
Still can't justify it personally, broke college student n all.

Btw Lainer, looks like your sig is broken.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 05-09-2012, 10:09:41
I look forward to running people down with a quad, it'll make a nice change from doing it with a tank.



I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the new "mod": http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/09/battlefield-3-with-the-lights-out-is-like-an-all-new-game/
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 05-09-2012, 10:09:53
The illuminated smoke is..... meh. And lens flare, OH MY GOD THE LENS FLARE is still there.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 05-09-2012, 10:09:23
Is AK already playable?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 05-09-2012, 11:09:17
Ewwww cannon...Not really a fan of the night map bit.  And yes DLF it is up.  Pretty fun times.  I just hope that people make some servers with a mix as those 4 maps are great but really we need to mix some clasic/Karkand/CQ maps in there as well.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Steel_Lion_FIN on 05-09-2012, 12:09:43
Is AK already playable?
Ewwww cannon...Not really a fan of the night map bit.  And yes DLF it is up.  Pretty fun times.  I just hope that people make some servers with a mix as those 4 maps are great but really we need to mix some clasic/Karkand/CQ maps in there as well.

For premium members, it is..






 ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 05-09-2012, 12:09:24
*PS3 Premium douches, that is :P ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Steel_Lion_FIN on 05-09-2012, 14:09:25
And PC.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DLFReporter on 05-09-2012, 15:09:27
Me is PC.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 05-09-2012, 16:09:07
And PC.

No.

PS3 has exclusive access to all the DLCs one week before the other two platforms, including the Premium membership. It will be available on PC premium on Sept 11th and for normal users on 25th Sept.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paavopesusieni on 05-09-2012, 17:09:25
The illuminated smoke is..... meh. And lens flare, OH MY GOD THE LENS FLARE is still there.

My squad mate spotted a sniper in Afganistan because of the LENS FLARE. It is real thing you know...

If it's the sniper lens flare you mean, it's also good for balance. It's also nice effect.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 05-09-2012, 17:09:07
only when the sun is shining in the snipers lens direction do you get lens flare :/
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 05-09-2012, 17:09:34
only when the sun is shining in the snipers lens direction do you get lens flare :/

this and I was talking about the lens flare you get on screen whilst looking near sun (which is already ridiculous as is in the unmodified BF3)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 07-09-2012, 10:09:13
@Lainer: Yeah, way too dark. If they added some moonlight it might be worth a look.


I hope they release a BF2:SF-type night map or two in the last DLC pack, they were great.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 07-09-2012, 19:09:48
amazing Armored Kill review by EG :)

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-09-06-battlefield-3-armored-kill-review
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 07-09-2012, 20:09:06
Seen the trailer and I actually might buy this one DLC...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Steel_Lion_FIN on 07-09-2012, 21:09:07
Already got it due to being a "Premium Douche"
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 08-09-2012, 03:09:40
After putting many hours into it would have to give this a B.  Really fun new interesting vehicles and great maps.  Sad thing is that I can tell this is a shitty PC port.  All modes are great but the bread and butter is with conquest.  Would loved to have seen a push game mode for the other 4 flags (minus the all important C130 flag) for console.   I know back capping and such is a major part of the BF series but when half the team is tanking or flying on the outskirts of a 5 flag map and only 1.5 squads are involved in getting flags things become shit/Zzzzzzzz.  I really fucking hated the PC version enough to not hate the lack of players on PS3.  But with this version I am really starting to dislike conquest due to lack of people.  So shape the fuck up Dice and give us a push mode!  I know they want to keep things similar but lets face facts. My shit ass PS3 is 2005 tech and my PC is 2011 tech.  So it is okay to make them a bit different.  Give PS3 a groovy push mode FFS.

Beyond that all the other modes are great.  Love Rush and Tank Superiority.  My gaggle of FH2/PS3 buddies are mostly infantry based so I love the teamwork that comes from TS maps.  A couple javlin dudes and one ammo and scout guy can win a match without stupid tanks.

Worth the $15 regardless but conquest sucks.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 08-09-2012, 12:09:44
Well, Rush is kind of like "push" (if you refer to fh2's push) only far superior in both combat focus and progression.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 08-09-2012, 12:09:31
After playing the PlanetSide 2 beta for about a week now the lack of squad VOIP in BF3 is really starting to hurt. It's such a big step back from BF2.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 08-09-2012, 13:09:56
people still do that? 
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 08-09-2012, 15:09:01
of course not! coordination trough voice in pubbie matches is just a myth, dont you read DICE news?  ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Musti on 08-09-2012, 15:09:40
Here we go again....
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 08-09-2012, 16:09:32
If that (VOIP) discussion continues, thread gets locked again.... or completely removed.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 09-09-2012, 03:09:26
Well, Rush is kind of like "push" (if you refer to fh2's push) only far superior in both combat focus and progression.

Rush is great (though dice needs to lock the tickets).  But I would still love to see and A,B,C,D push type game mode that could be pushed from both directions.  With that C130 flag being the wild card flag.  Think it would make a nice alternative to conquest with funneling people across the map in a pure attack and or defend gameplay.

Lainer needs glasses
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 09-09-2012, 12:09:50
Okay i am really looking forward to Armored kill.

Mobile artillery is simply THE thing i am going for.
You can choose 4 missiles=

-ATACMS missile (basicly guided missile)
-TOW
-Air burst
-Surface to air missile!

this will be SWEET  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 09-09-2012, 19:09:12
Lainer needs glasses

Nah..Just chose to ignore it.   ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 09-09-2012, 19:09:22
You naughty person.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 09-09-2012, 22:09:38
Lainer just earned himself a one week ban.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 10-09-2012, 10:09:54
Okay i am really looking forward to Armored kill.

Mobile artillery is simply THE thing i am going for.
You can choose 4 missiles=

-ATACMS missile (basicly guided missile)
-TOW
-Air burst
-Surface to air missile!

this will be SWEET  ;D
I think TOW is for the Tank Destroyers. But yeah the mobile arty will be sweet. I'm still curious if it will be just blind fire or that we have some sort of way to use accurate indirect fire.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 10-09-2012, 17:09:51
Okay i am really looking forward to Armored kill.

Mobile artillery is simply THE thing i am going for.
You can choose 4 missiles=

-ATACMS missile (basicly guided missile)
-TOW
-Air burst
-Surface to air missile!

this will be SWEET  ;D
I think TOW is for the Tank Destroyers. But yeah the mobile arty will be sweet. I'm still curious if it will be just blind fire or that we have some sort of way to use accurate indirect fire.
TOW is an unlock aswel for the mobile artillery, check the ranks for the mobile artillery in battelog-
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 11-09-2012, 08:09:49
Counting the hours, the anticipation is killing me.


I must say I fail to understand the logic of being able to do the AK assignments before it's released.


Anyone else notice the Premium camo name-change (from Airman/Berkut/etc. to Premium Camo 1/Premium Camo 2/etc.)?

Not sure if it's intentional or if, like the new inability to set squad orders, it's been broken by the patch...  ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 11-09-2012, 14:09:54
start Origin and be happy  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 11-09-2012, 19:09:14
im not happy

Mobile artillery might be cool but the rockets are inaccurate and impossible to aim :/
If your vehicle is on a slope, the rockets go the way the slope goes.
Lets hope the AA missiles are worth it

The content is all in all not so big. The gunship is so easy prey for anything exept infantry.
Alborz mountains and basdar dessert are very nice maps. +1
Death valley is meh
Armoured shield is dissapointing

What armoured kill lacks=
Actuall presence of armour. Way to few tanks. Equal amount of tank destroyers and tanks..Way to much planes and heli's....

Even so, still a heck alot better then Close quarters
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 13-09-2012, 08:09:38
Wow...first impressions:

 - Bandar is bandastic.

 - Alborz is almost picture-perfect.

 - Armored Shield appears to be the dud of the bunch.

 - Death Valley absolutely blue me off my chair.

Speaking of which, I'm confused. Has DV rendered all the lighting critics speechless?


Quads are great fun...you can get some huge air on Bandar.  :)

It's not without it's flaws, the crosshairs are a mile out on the tank destroyers gunner seats.

Took me all night to get a turn in the gunship, only to have my display driver fail after firing all of a dozen rounds...I just hope it's not a bloody repeat of the Javelin fuckfest (where simply aiming with it caused the driver to fail).  ::)



@Theta: I noticed that too, not enough tanks.

I guess it doesn't really matter though as the tank destroyers are as powerful, if not more so, than the tanks. And it appears they can take a similar amount of punishment...not to mention their speed.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 13-09-2012, 17:09:08
They outclass MBT's in every way  ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 17-09-2012, 11:09:02
Did anyone else have any trouble with lagging/crashing PC servers over the weekend?

Down here they're fucked. I've got no idea what's goin' on, but I logged in late Saturday night to find only a few populated servers, tried to play a couple of rounds, but they kept crashing mid-round or just as it finished. If not, they just lagged non-stop all round. Sometimes both.

Same thing on Sunday, seems a bit better but it's basically the same thing today too.

I would say the last server patch broke something, but it was fine on Friday... :-\
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 17-09-2012, 11:09:14
Read a lot of complaints about Oz servers on battlelog. Probably server provider issues.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 17-09-2012, 15:09:30
(http://gifsoup.com/view4/3983054/f35-o.gif)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 17-09-2012, 22:09:38
http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/battlereport/show/43959215/1/301338486/


a fine round that was. 32 kills with M39 EMR. nothing fancy, just playing vintage M14 :)

Also 14 headshots

MONGRO's!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 18-09-2012, 04:09:22
Lainer just earned himself a one week ban.

I earned that years ago.   ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 19-09-2012, 11:09:12
Whatever it was has been sorted, it was fine last night.


Stole my 500th set of tags the other day... 8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: RommelBr on 19-09-2012, 19:09:06
  Just bought, my copy of BF3 for PS3. And as i seei,in the consoles, the conquest mode in big maps (Operation Firestorm, Caspian Border) stay a bit dead.
  But i still liked very much the game.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Steel_Lion_FIN on 19-09-2012, 20:09:46
Thank you, BF3, DICE, EA, Punkbuster and Nvidia for RUINING MY LIFE!

Can't play Deus Ex: HR now..
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ciupita on 19-09-2012, 20:09:14
Thank you, BF3, DICE, EA, Punkbuster and Nvidia for RUINING MY LIFE!

Can't play Deus Ex: HR now..

what?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Steel_Lion_FIN on 19-09-2012, 21:09:05
Yes, the drivers I need to run BF3 without a hitch caused DX:HR to stop working unless I use integrated graphics. Haven't tried the latest nVidia drivers though.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 19-09-2012, 22:09:15
  Just bought, my copy of BF3 for PS3. And as i seei,in the consoles, the conquest mode in big maps (Operation Firestorm, Caspian Border) stay a bit dead.
  But i still liked very much the game.

Join us!   http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/platoon/2832655241088910249/
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: RommelBr on 20-09-2012, 05:09:27
  Just bought, my copy of BF3 for PS3. And as i seei,in the consoles, the conquest mode in big maps (Operation Firestorm, Caspian Border) stay a bit dead.
  But i still liked very much the game.

Join us!   http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/platoon/2832655241088910249/

 Joining right now!
Apply sent !!  :D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 20-09-2012, 13:09:41
The 306.23 Nvidia drivers seem a bit better than the 301.42 drivers.

I base that on the fact it doesn't fail as often when I jump in the gunship. It's gone from failing every time I got in it to only failing every third or fourth time.


I only realized earlier tonight that the gunship has AA guns on it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 22-09-2012, 18:09:15
Do I have to unlock sights, barrels, laser, flashlight, bipod etc. separately for every single weapon, even of the same class?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: siben on 22-09-2012, 18:09:28
Do I have to unlock sights, barrels, laser, flashlight, bipod etc. separately for every single weapon, even of the same class?
Yes but with assets like tanks and planes you only have to do it once, then they are unlocked for the corresponding vehicle on the other team aswell..
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 22-09-2012, 18:09:00
Well, ain't that just annoying as fuck. Why would I ever want to change weapon if I have to start from scratch every time?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 22-09-2012, 18:09:59
or just dont play with attachments like i do
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Steel_Lion_FIN on 22-09-2012, 21:09:16
SCAR-H with a bipod/foregrip and a silencer and maybe an AGOC, and you won't need another engineer weapon.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 23-09-2012, 07:09:19
Well, ain't that just annoying as fuck. Why would I ever want to change weapon if I have to start from scratch every time?

Players love to have a unique progression chain for each weapon :)
Gaming isn't just about having the best weapon then sticking to that to pwn n' fr4g... part of the experience is just as you say; start over and play it again with another weapon. BF3 is not only about killing, the progression through the weapons is just as much part of the game as capturing flags or playing in a squad.

It's what players like these days, it gives the game another purpose than just racking up a good KDR
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-09-2012, 11:09:02
its a shame tough that all the attachments are the same for each weapon

would have loved to see things like a SUSAT scope for the L86 and A2 model. Or the origenal F2000 red dot

in this way i wish BF3 was more diverse. Would love to see some AK"s in 7.62x39 (AK103) or the swiss SIG 51 and 550 and 551 family
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 23-09-2012, 12:09:38
Players love to have a unique progression chain for each weapon :)

its a shame tough that all the attachments are the same for each weapon

 ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-09-2012, 12:09:29
Indeed. Its all the same scopes, flashlights and laser sights on each weapon. Nothing bloody "Unique" about it

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 23-09-2012, 12:09:29
Indeed. Its all the same scopes, flashlights and laser sights on each weapon. Nothing bloody "Unique" about it

Actually, he only said the progression is unique. And it is. The unlocked items however, are not.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Steel_Lion_FIN on 23-09-2012, 15:09:09
The next DLC has new weapons, but no idea what exactly.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-09-2012, 15:09:14
what weapons i would love to see=

-AK in 7.62x39 (AKM, AK103, RK62/95)
-SIG 510
-SIG 550 and 551(rifle and carbine. the SG 553 ingame is the commando version)
-FNC or swedish AK5
-G36
-HK11/21
-Heckler & Koch HK121
-MG3/51/59
-FAL
-Typê 64 or 89


And some more rocket launchers like the panzerfaust 3, Carl gustav and such


Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Steel_Lion_FIN on 23-09-2012, 19:09:14
Looks like you think the G36C in the Engie kit is not enough?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 23-09-2012, 19:09:05
Looks like you think the G36C in the Engie kit is not enough?
G36 i said, not G36C. You have AK74 and 74u. M16 and M4. Why not G36 and G36C?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Steel_Lion_FIN on 23-09-2012, 20:09:02
Fair point.

Plus MG3?  WANT! NAO!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: siben on 24-09-2012, 16:09:03
Nah theta, it needs more old weapons, my favourite sidearm so far is a plain colt 1911. I have barely used any other.

Semi and Full auto WW2 weapons could be fun, but I have a feeling the modern upgrades might ruin it a bit.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sander93 on 24-09-2012, 18:09:37
And some more rocket launchers Carl gustav and such

Oh god no, never again. That thing gives me nightmares of all the noobs that ran around in BC2 only spamming CG rockets.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 24-09-2012, 19:09:29
And some more rocket launchers Carl gustav and such

Oh god no, never again. That thing gives me nightmares of all the noobs that ran around in BC2 only spamming CG rockets.
......thats what they do ATM on BF3 with SMAW and RPG 7 :/
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 27-09-2012, 07:09:13
Played about a half hour match, then went to my stats to see this:

(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/486758_478875835479386_1997646517_n.jpg)


hahaha.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 28-09-2012, 08:09:11
The stat-related bugs will never get fixed.

They've been there since day one, and if they haven't fixed them after numerous monster patches, I think it's safe to say it's not going to happen.


Fuck Battlelog, I check my stats here: http://bf3stats.com/
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 29-09-2012, 02:09:43
don't bother.

My bf2 stats got nuked back in 2006 and are still crewed up. Me and about 60 other players apparently played 150 000 h , just 3 months after the game's release :P. We where victim of a terrible server crash, which resulted in  these odd stats. I wrote EA about it, and they said they would fix ASAP .. still waiting :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 29-09-2012, 10:09:22
Here's an interesting read: http://blogs.battlefield.com/2012/09/10th-anniversary-veterans/


Quote
MAGNUS: There was NOTHING wrong with single player in 1942!
I wonder why they changed it for the worse?

Quote
LARS: One interesting thing is we’ve talked about player counts over the years. A lot of people still feel that 40 or so players is the optimal number where it plays the best. Sometimes 64 players doesn’t necessarily mean a better experience. On Operation Métro, for example, 64 players gets pretty hairy.
Reducing the player numbers is one way of driving another nail into the Battlefield coffin... ::)



Most interesting bit of all:
Quote
MAGNUS: I’d love to see a remake of the big and beautiful El Alamein map.

MATS: Yeah, that was a real favorite of mine.

STEFAN: It was so much fun just flying around on it, doing nothing. Just looking around at everything.

LARS: M-hm. It would be great to return to the Second World War. There is so much left to do.

MATS: Yeah. And we picked 1942 for a reason. EVERYTHING had cool design.

MAGNUS: I’d like to give people back the possibility to modify Battlefield in the future.

MATS: Yeah.

MAGNUS: I remember this dude making the craziest mods for 1942. He remade a Tiger tank into a spider…

LARS: …And put a tilt rotor on the B-17 bomber!

MAGNUS: Awesome stuff!

LARS: And I remember a Pirates versus zombies mod and a Formula 1 mod.

LARS: Maybe Stefan knows, but if you do a mod tool nowadays I think it has to be pretty thorough since everything is so complex. You’d need to put a lot of work into those tools.

MATS: Wait, wasn’t it MORE complex in Battlefield 1942? Those mod tools were pretty basic.

LARS: Yeah, you pretty much had to reverse engineer the game! Could it be any more complex?

MATS: But seriously, it would be cool to make it moddable again. It makes the game live longer, not just because of us.

LARS: Yes. The game takes on a life of its own.


Never say never... ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 29-09-2012, 10:09:11
god i wish video games dint made automatic fire so dam unrealistic

BF3 is the second biggest spraying game i ever played...nobody aims, they just ADS and hope to hit something

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 29-09-2012, 19:09:39
god i wish video games dint made automatic fire so dam unrealistic

If it was realistic then hardly anyone would use full auto on any of the rifles.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 29-09-2012, 19:09:06
god i wish video games dint made automatic fire so dam unrealistic

If it was realistic then hardly anyone would use full auto on any of the rifles.
thats the whole point.......Automatic fire only works with SMGS or at very close range with assault rifles...even the 5.56x45 ones
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 04-10-2012, 00:10:57
http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/10/03/dice-hints-bans-color-correcting-battlefield-3-mo/

"OCEAN TOO PRETTY. MUST BAN"
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 04-10-2012, 00:10:27
most players would probably choose being able to play the game over the ability to hack the art direction  8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 04-10-2012, 01:10:57
sadly it is not just about turning the filter right off.. it makes the game feel blatantly bland (although more vibrant) so even if they didn't ban for it, I wouldn't use it anyway (although I really don't like the mood of wake island, probably because I'd love to see the island having richful color palette since it's in the Pacific = jungle for me)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: pizzzaman on 04-10-2012, 01:10:08
I think DICE is losing it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 04-10-2012, 11:10:57
yea I guess thats a way to prevent people from doing a better job than you
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 04-10-2012, 11:10:59
most players would probably choose being able to play the game over the ability to hack the art direction  8)
Premise being that EA are bunch of fuckwits...

Should EA release any sort of modding tools, players would probably choose modifying their game to look better over hacking or succumbing to fear of butthurt people banning them for not liking their "art direction".
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 04-10-2012, 11:10:15
'people doing a better job than DICE'

I'm probably about to sound like Natty right now, but come on, you don't really believe that's true. Admittedly, I do find the filters on some maps to be a little too much, but the game still looks better with them, than completely without them, as the environment was most likely created with those in mind. Only thing I want gone completely is the stupid lens flare ***** piece of shit, THAT was a wrong move in the art direction IMO (almost always blinding the US side, because fuck balance). (and I'm using the word ***** purposely as a derogatory term, deal with it - disclaimer: I do not have anything against homosexuals at all)

Use homophobic or racial slurs and you will get a short holiday. Deal with it.
Disclaimer: This goes for everyone, not just you.
- Thorondor
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 04-10-2012, 13:10:50
aaand, the cat os out of the bag!

http://www.mordorhq.com/showthread.php?2955-OFFICIAL-Battlefield-3-File-Tweaker

Quote
Due to the heavy focus on the client in bf3 compared to bf2, modifying weapon damage among other things actually increases the damage dealt in multiplayer games (compared to bf2 where it does exactly nothing at all; make sure you understand this, modifying damage on your client is NOT meant to have any effect in online play in any game with decent netcode). bf3 (like bc2) also does not check for modified content making it possible to join ranked games with pb enabled. I have decided to reupload the tool as it is simply a mod tool after all (a very limited one to be honest). As far as I understand there are even people out there using injectors to play around with their graphics which is exactly how hacks work. I wouldn't touch one when playing online. The worst thing I can see happening when using modified files is a kick the moment you join a game (that is how it was handled in bf2). On the other hand as far as I know injectors might get you banned instantly, though I am fairly ignorant when it comes to hacks. I'd like to add, I had modified some files for bc2 three months ago and played a bit online. The account is still not banned so I would not trust others when they speak of bans for modified content.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 04-10-2012, 16:10:24
yea I guess thats a way to prevent people from doing a better job than you
yea, bunch of tweakers are doing a better job than dice artists an ADs.. sure, LOL!

Should EA release any sort of modding tools, players would probably choose modifying their game to look better over hacking
naive faith in the players good intentions, we have?  :)
Games are like movies, carefully color and lightset by professionals. I don't see you wanting to "mod" a movie, are you? Apart from your TVs settings. You find the same settings on your monitor or graphics card settings, that's all you need to "mod" the art of the game.
Just because it's on PC doesn't mean it's "your" game. You dont expect to be able to "mod" a console game, are you? Then you have no reason to do so on PC either, nuff said.

'people doing a better job than DICE'
but come on, you don't really believe that's true.

of course they don't, LOL. They just like to troll. of course some hack or tweak wont do a better job, they just hate that they cant "mod" as they like, so even the slightest little "tweak-tool" released will get their pants wet. tweaking the colors? really? omg that's futile.
They want a mod tool so they can start adding "realistic" values to the gunz (just like it is, in "reality!") but since they can't, they settle for anything to just alter their favorite game just a little... "anything! just make me able to change one value, please!!11"  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 04-10-2012, 16:10:13
Quote
You dont expect to be able to "mod" a console game, are you? Then you have no reason to do so on PC either, nuff said.

ohh the stupidity, it just delicius :D.

BTW, here are the files: http://www.mordorhq.com/showthread.php?3027-Realmware-BF3-Colour-Tweaker-1-0

also, you forgot to mention that you can edit spread, sway and reload speed Client side, thanks to the wonderfull minds behind Bf3, AND it affects multiplayer too, isnt it wonderfull? ::)

its all here: http://www.bfeditor.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=15732

finally, here is a video of Metro without art intromission

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8mXVNgJxxcc
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 04-10-2012, 16:10:39
...so now you can get 1s1k weapons (damage), aimbot (nospread nosway), and fastreload with no way to detect or even less permaban people using it?

Now I'm getting interested. Never trolled in FPS games before, but this is almost too delicious caek to be missed. Oh the tears of RAEG. ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 04-10-2012, 17:10:36
yea I guess thats a way to prevent people from doing a better job than you
yea, bunch of tweakers are doing a better job than dice artists an ADs.. sure, LOL!

This is laughable. A video game is a form of art. What is good or bad is in the eyes of the beholder. You, the artist, or any one else cannot change what I consider better.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 04-10-2012, 17:10:14
...so now you can get 1s1k weapons (damage), aimbot (nospread nosway), and fastreload with no way to detect or even less permaban people using it?

Now I'm getting interested. Never trolled in FPS games before, but this is almost too delicious caek to be missed. Oh the tears of RAEG. ;D

This will only work on servers without the MD5 check on, otherwise a ban is probally coming your way.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 04-10-2012, 17:10:30
it used to be a kick until yesterday, aparantly DICE are now aware of how slopy their code is :P

correction: not bans, just kicks. DICE dont give a shit aparantly :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 04-10-2012, 17:10:13
it used to be a kick until yesterday, aparantly DICE can't focus on producing the games for their fans, and instead must waste time preventing haxx0rz and moddz0rs from ruining their art.

*fixed*

alsO. Pwned?  ;D ;) ;) ;D

This is laughable. A video game is a form of art.

yup, excatly. but some dudes refuse to accept it, and must "tweak" it.. lol, I wonder if they wear colored glasses to the museums "noes! this painting muzt looks as I want it to!"

 8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 04-10-2012, 17:10:29
Stop twisting my words. I wasn't agreeing with you.

If someone wants to photoshop a picture or painting they bought to make it look better, why not.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 04-10-2012, 17:10:16
m5d is still not mandatory, so there are tons of servers that will allow people with this tweaker wihtout banning nor kicking.

Values you can change :

Quote
Spread & Recoil on infantry weapons
Suppressions effects (If it adds recoil or not and how much it affects your accuracy can be tweaked/removed etc.)
You can tweak Rates of fire.
Damage.
Reload speeds (not the animation just the timer I believe)
Colour filters
Sun glare
Field of View.
Fog.
All suppression effects can be tweaked.
If i'm correct you could only enable suppression on Bipods too.

also, it works on expasion maps too:

http://www.mordorhq.com/showthread.php?3031-offsets-for-close-quarters-colour-grading

just look at this :D

http://i.imgur.com/xoitL.jpg
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 04-10-2012, 17:10:29
To be honest, that looks like shit. They should've at least used high graphics when taking the screenshot.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 04-10-2012, 17:10:03
woow that pic looks like... cod :o!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 04-10-2012, 18:10:59
ewww... this is the Battlefield 3 thread, not the Rainbox Six thread.. take it off take it off!

*washes eyes* aaah..... there.. I closed the tab  8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 04-10-2012, 18:10:16
DICE devs being total digbags for threatening people like that for something like a colour change hack (and please dont waste your time about bringing up the subject of purposefully brightly coloured skins etc to make the game easier...) but I personally dont see much of whoo in this hack anyways.

You take the run-of-the-mill modern fps game with its "gritty" graphics and toss on a layer or something to make it look like first person version of Tropico 4. I suppose if someone likes that sort of stuff... sure, but I see no point. Aint much of an improvement in this case and yes, I did look into the pics and vids about this so dont lose your marbles.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 04-10-2012, 19:10:00
agreed, they took a top-of-the-line award-winning graphically astonishing game and made it look like a run-of-the-mill generic early 00's shooter. Why?  :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 04-10-2012, 19:10:05
because they can?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 04-10-2012, 19:10:11
could  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: RAnDOOm on 04-10-2012, 19:10:02
agreed, they took a top-of-the-line award-winning graphically astonishing game and made it look like a run-of-the-mill generic early 00's shooter. Why?  :P

Forgotten Hope 2 was a brilliant award-winning World War II modification based on realistic and immersive gameplay and now it feels more like an arcade 1998 shooter.  Why? :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Smiles on 04-10-2012, 19:10:25
could  ;D ;D ;D

should ???
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 04-10-2012, 19:10:33
naah it doesn't.  8)

also this is the bf3 thread. Fh2 feedback goes here:
http://fhpubforum.warumdarum.de/index.php?board=26.0
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 04-10-2012, 19:10:55
upon seeing this thread

http://youtu.be/X-DmwZRGvvo?t=1m29s

might need another lock :/
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 04-10-2012, 21:10:17
woow that pic looks like... cod :o!

bear in mind its an SS with middle graphics and no AA or FSAA. this is more or less how it looks on a normal PC:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WJU-JKFPsTo

best examples are SHarky, gulf of oman and Wake
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 04-10-2012, 22:10:03
woow that pic looks like... cod :o!

And that just proves that EA/DICE didn't actually do anything "ultra revolutionary" with their "art direction" and "photo-realistic* graphics... Take away the blueish-grey tint and blur they slapped onto it and you get the same thing all the other current-gen games have...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ts4EVER on 04-10-2012, 22:10:28
*facepalm* Maybe because colour correction is a big part of art direction?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 04-10-2012, 23:10:08
Take away the blueish-grey tint and blur they slapped onto it and you get the same thing all the other current-gen games have...

really?... all other current-gen games have frostbite 2.0? wow... that's news  8)
Just accept it, you don't understand art, so you're trying to reduce it to be about "reality" instead, a place you feel more comfortable in. A place made out of facts and solid things. Not a place where you need to succumb to suggestion, or where imagination is needed...
here's a piece of news: it's a game.. really, look at your PC next to your desk, in there is little chips and wiring. It produces an illusion on your screen... Yea, I agree the designers and artists made it so great that you (much like a cave-man who finds a banana looks up to the sky and asks "did god give me this?") immediately walk to the window and look out, then back to the PC to double-check if it not actually is, reality materializing itself on the screen.

So why do you believe this? Why the immediate comparison with "reality". You surely didn't run down in the sewers looking for pixel-made dragons or mushrooms when you played Mario right?
Well it's because the designers/programmers/artists today created such a powerful media that you feel "part of it", as if the game belongs to you because you spent so much time running around in it, the effects, lights, sounds, cool hollywood action events you'll never see in real life are so well crafted that you start to erase the borders between the game and what happens on the news and in real-life. You see a documentary about Iraq and remembers cool-sounding names of guns and vehicles which testosteron-hyped and media-trained U.S. military advertises to you. You buy the whole deal and then rages on the interwebz if the game deviates from this.

It's so simple-minded and predictable...

btw the youtube video just looks like an alpha build without final art. It's funny that the one thing people figured out how to tamper with, is now the one thing they also want to change the most  ;D coincedence?.... if they could alter guns damages instead, you think color-correction would have been important?.. noo-nooh... this is all just about a desire to change for change's sake. Next time it's replacing the sky textures, or the sounds, or whatever they come up with.. because none of the items placed and created there by dice is good enough, now is it?
 ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ts4EVER on 05-10-2012, 00:10:55
Also, it's not like only video games use colour correction or similar techniques. That's why Miami looks yellow in CSI and Las Vegas blue ;)

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 05-10-2012, 01:10:01
This argument reminds me of this.
http://www.vgcats.com/comics/images/070119.jpg

Anyways, I don't like the colors of BF3. If I can download a tool that IN MY OPINION makes it better, why should the devs at BF be upset about it?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ts4EVER on 05-10-2012, 02:10:29
Well, anyway, in other news:

Spot the difference:

Before

(http://images.bf-games.net/news/2012/10/10553_2.jpg)

After

(http://images.bf-games.net/news/2012/10/10553_1.jpg)

Apparently the new weapons for the last two dlcs were canned. Considering they marketed premium with the promise of that content, that seems somewhat of a dick move.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 05-10-2012, 11:10:29
How do you know there won't be weapons in DLC4? Dont read blindly in to marketing copy text.

also, "new game mode" is probably worth more to most players than weapons.

people who bought premium get an insane amount of content and prolonged gaming pleasure, it's completely OK from EA to re-arrange some features  8) also it says clearly in the descriptions that they own the rights to do changes as they please.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 05-10-2012, 11:10:50
Alright perhaps I should have labeled my sarcastic comment more clearly. Yes I know FB 2 is currently one of the leading engines in terms of visuals, and yes I know they tried to convey the depressing feeling of a warzone by using color correction. But it seems to me they could have done a better job than 50 shades of blue, overaccented blur & bloom, and making my eyes hurt after half an hour of playing.

That's exactly one of the things that put me off from purchasing this title.

Next time it's replacing the sky textures, or the sounds, or whatever they come up with.. because none of the items placed and created there by dice is good enough, now is it?
 ::)


Ahh yes replacing DICE's items... Isn't that exactly what you guys did with BF 2?  ::)

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 05-10-2012, 12:10:01
and making my eyes hurt after half an hour of playing....

...that put me off from purchasing this title....

do you own BF3?

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 05-10-2012, 12:10:08
you dont have to own Bf3 to play it half an hour
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 18-10-2012, 17:10:09
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PcO5ajxGenc

Can't say I am super pumped for this one.  New player models and a crossbow.  Can't tell if the Iranians are getting added as a new faction or not.  No mention of new weapons either (beyond a crossbow).

Meh..........
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 18-10-2012, 17:10:02
Crossbow? Yes please!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 18-10-2012, 23:10:29
Crossbow? Yes please!

If it had some sort of alternative fire for zip lines then I am pumped.  As just another lame sniper rifle thing..Gay.............
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 18-10-2012, 23:10:25
Indeed, happy fun times!

Also, the new game mode sounds interesting.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 19-10-2012, 00:10:07
the new game mode sounds quite tasty
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 19-10-2012, 00:10:58
I just want fucking dinosaurs
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Steel_Lion_FIN on 19-10-2012, 10:10:24
Crossbow? Yes please!

If it had some sort of alternative fire for zip lines then I am pumped.  As just another lame sniper rifle thing..Gay.............

4 different bolts: ye olde bolt, exels at nothing, equally bad at nothing. Balanced bolt: long-range sniping bolt. Sonar bolt: a T-UGS bolt. And then there's the frag bolt.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: cannonfodder on 19-10-2012, 12:10:57
OMFG!!! NEW PLAYER MODELS!!!!!!!!!!!

Without a shadow of a doubt, this the best BF3 trailer I've seen.

I wonder what made them finally realize that nobody really gives a shit about the new maps/vehicles/weapons?



Crossbow?... :-\

Quote
...Inspired by real life military engineering ingenuity, this crossbow is created by taking the stock of a malfunctioning assault rifle and assembling with the other parts needed, like a piece of wire for the string (maybe found inside a broken down car), some scrap metal for the bow mechanic  and a scope. Just add duct tape, and you have a new and silent way to deliver deadly force to the enemy...
- http://blogs.battlefield.com/2012/10/aftermath-first-look/

Fair enough, but it doesn't really explain where all the ammo comes from.

If makeshift medieval weapons are acceptable, I want the ability to pick up any random piece of scenery, e.g: a branch, a steel bar, or even just a big fuckin' rock, so I can use it as a club.



Scavenger will be great, provided they don't put the weapons in the same place every round.



Finally, I like the way MoH news is posted on the BF3 part of Battlelog. I can't help but wonder how far off the next logical step is (in-game advertising)... ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 19-10-2012, 13:10:51
Those aren't "new" playermodels.... they just lost their helmets. And sniper put his glasses on, all right, all right...

Can't really say I'm super excited about this, I know I'll be buying AK some time soon, but they have yet to convince me this will be worth 15€ (a crossbow that likely won't even serve as a zipline tool certainly is not)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Steel_Lion_FIN on 19-10-2012, 14:10:57
Or it's just a Tac-15 (http://www.tac15.com/tac15.html), which combines AR-15 lower receiver with a crossbow-type upper.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 24-10-2012, 01:10:11
http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/10/22/dice-retreat-from-bf3s-war-on-colours-by-adding-disable-colour-grading-option/

DICE, embrasing common sense, then troughing it down the toilet, as their art style.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 24-10-2012, 06:10:21
DICE has retreated from its retreat, and will not be adding in a “disable colour grading” option. Mikael Kalms posted an update in the forums which reads:
After discussing this further with my colleagues, we have decided to not implement this feature. This is the studio’s take on this matter, and I support this decision:
“As a studio, it is extremely important for us at DICE to have a unique identity in our games, not only from a gameplay perspective, but visually as well. While we appreciate that some players might want a slightly different look to the game, we are proud of the visual identity of Battlefield 3 and do not wish to change it.”
I apologize for getting anybody’s hopes up, and if you have any further questions on this subject, I will refer back to the above statement.


I stay with color tweakers, you guys enjoy the super nova sun and the cheap blue tint that make my eyes bleed after 5 minutes.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 24-10-2012, 08:10:36
http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/10/22/dice-retreat-from-bf3s-war-on-colours-by-adding-disable-colour-grading-option/

DICE, embrasing common sense, then troughing it down the toilet, as their art style.

15 million players beg to differ  ;) Just because a few forum / interwebz modders made a 3rd party tool doesnt mean people dont like the art of BF3.... common sense would be: accept the game's art for what it is, instead of desperately trying to tweak anything that is tweakable just to make it "yours". Why this desperate demand to try and change the game?

I fully support Kalms argument, anyone with any sort of artistic pride or integrity would agree  8)
Using the haxxing "tweaker" is the same as using wall hacs or fog hacks. Have fun being a cheater.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 24-10-2012, 10:10:03
BF3 has 15 million players?

And why wouldnt you suck up to your colleques when it comes to these things? Would go against common sense now wouldnt it?

Also, its funny how you come from the modding background, yet nowadays you have a very insulting tone towards modders. When you use phrases like "interwebz modders" and "haxxing", it is in a way giving the feeling that you are dissing the people you once was yourself.

I suppose it is a good way to piss on your past now that you are a "big shot" and CAN do that.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 24-10-2012, 10:10:31
wooh there, take it easy.. Modding - as in actual development - like FH2, Project Reality, AIX, Black Mesa etc is extremely valuable for the industry. It is by far the best free education people can get when it comes to design, art and game making. I've never said a single negative word about this part of the gaming community. I'm still a "modder" since I am still active within the FH2 community.
Many of my internet friends are modders, I spend most of my internet time within the mod community.. the list goes on.

However... modders DO tend to become extremely megalomaniac and annoying. These "tweakers" that don't develop anything, just want to "change" stuff for the sake of changing, for the sole purpose of "sticking it to the man", yes I do lash back at them. Just like I would if someone released a "color tweaking tool" for FH2. I spend way too much time chasing the colors down to the last RGB color to get the maps to look right. It's our art-work, our Mona Lisa, why would we allow some tweaker to change it? Game development is a combination of technicalities and art. We create an experience, it is a mix of shapes, sizes, colors, sounds, light. When players move up on the bunkers in Pointe-du-Hoc, Beregil carefully selected where light comes from, the shades of the shadows, the colors of the light, the fog, the textures on the ground... It's the images that burn in to peoples minds and which connects them when all have the same experience.

It's important.

So yea; modders who develop experiences are awesome, it's amateurs who rather spend their time creating experiences for others, than to selfishly slay noobs on servers or watch movies, get drunk or whatever. Hackers who just want to ruin a game because "they can" is different. If you fail to see the difference, well, then you haven't been in the game long enough to tell.  :-\

I support DICEs decision not because they are DICE. I do it because I respect peoples artistic integrities. Just like I fully supported Project Realitys server license program. It's exactly what big companies would do if they weren't depending on R.S.P.s

So, perhaps you Flippy instead of being a bitter gamer, should take some time thinking about the reasons behind my statements instead of always jumping at me for working for a major company. Perhaps I still have the same ideals I did when I was a bf1942 fan mapper, but that I have learned some things over the years? Perhaps you don't sit on a golden egg of wisdom and have "seen through it all"? Maybe you are the one who thinks he's a "big shot", because I surely don't look at myself that way.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 24-10-2012, 11:10:52
I've never said a single negative word about this part of the gaming community.

But you make it sound like it. You make a lot of remarks about modding community which makes it seem like you think you are nowadays above them because you get paid for whatever you do.

And now I am a bitter gamer because you say so?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 24-10-2012, 11:10:49
And I just stated that that is not the case :) So obviously you misread me, which is sad.

And really.... what are we talking about here? What difference does it make what I think? Are we in some competition here like Romney VS Obama or? No, we ain't. We don't "belong" to either "the mod community" or "big company".. My work is my work, it does not define me. It has nothing to do with me, it's just what makes me able to support my family, pay my rent etc... it has zero to do with what I do on my spare time. I mod for fun, Im one of the owners of the Forgotten Hope brand, which I spend some time working on because I like it... You seem to think my work is somehow connected to my hobby? It's not. Pretend Im working at a gas-station or a super-market.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 24-10-2012, 11:10:26
Oh yeah, misread you. Sour about my life.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 24-10-2012, 15:10:12
nice!

http://www.egmnow.com/articles/news/battlefield-3-color-grading-console-command-no-longer-happening/  :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 24-10-2012, 15:10:32
::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: RAnDOOm on 24-10-2012, 15:10:18
DICE = Queens of internet drama acting like a bunch of kids.

 ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 24-10-2012, 15:10:09
nice!

http://www.egmnow.com/articles/news/battlefield-3-color-grading-console-command-no-longer-happening/  :)

that was in the article I linked, trus giving sense to the phrase "DICE throwing common sense down the toilet, like they art design", but why it doesnt surprise me you didnt read it? ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 24-10-2012, 15:10:45
Off-topic: Randoom, I like the new WaW signature, looks cool.

On-topic: The revolver is the best pistol in the game
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 24-10-2012, 15:10:07
that was in the article I linked, trus giving sense to the phrase "DICE throwing common sense down the toilet, like they art design", but why it doesnt surprise me you didnt read it? ;D

of course I read it, what makes you say I didn't? to troll?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 24-10-2012, 15:10:25
you posted an article talking about the same thing the article I posted a few post ago talked about. Either you didnt read the first article and trough it was news, or you just made a pointless remark, wich is still a totaly valid reason.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 24-10-2012, 15:10:24
you posted pc gamer link, I posted egm... different links.. much less pointless than 99% of your posts  8)

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/battlefield-3/1226466p1.html
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: gavrant on 24-10-2012, 17:10:50
Natty, the funny thing is that both links you posted don't support your opinion:
15 million players beg to differ  ;) Just because a few forum / interwebz modders made a 3rd party tool doesnt mean people dont like the art of BF3....

Gamespy (http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/battlefield-3/1226466p1.html):
Quote
...DICE's Mikael Kalms has stated that they "believe that turning it [the color grading] off gives no major competitive advantage/disadvantage." A nice victory for the community...

egmnow (http://www.egmnow.com/articles/news/battlefield-3-color-grading-console-command-no-longer-happening/):
Quote
...This console command [that would allow players to disable color grading] looked like the developer’s way of offering a legal workaround, sadly that seems to no longer be the case.

It doesn't look like a couple of vocal guys who have nothing to do but to complain on an obscure forum about the thing everyone else likes. Maybe, DICE should express their "artistic vision" and "unique identity" in something different? And please, stop pretending that DICE and EA never make mistakes. We all do, me, you or DICE.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 24-10-2012, 18:10:20
Using the haxxing "tweaker" is the same as using wall hacs or fog hacks. Have fun being a cheater.
You just lost any and all credibility in my eyes with that comment. I mean, it's too ludicrous to be even trolling. Changing colour gradient is the same thing as wallhacking?
Quote
...DICE's Mikael Kalms has stated that they "believe that turning it [the color grading] off gives no major competitive advantage/disadvantage".
These "tweakers" are changing what they can, because DICE in their infinite and almighty wisdom decided that the mod tools were too complicated to be released would sap the sales of DLC. Many a game gets better by "tweaking" even without added content, see the gazillions of mods... erm, tweaks in your newspeak made for every release of most major RPG franchises (Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Dragon Age, etc.). These tweaks would not certainly exist in such numbers if there was not a widespread demand for them! Do they change the experience from "what the designed intended"? Certainly, especially hires texture packs, FOV adjustments, removal of fog, etc. which are all put there just so that the console versions would not look too lame compared to PC versions, which would be kinda embarassing since they cost more than PC versions usually do.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 24-10-2012, 18:10:15
Call me whatever you want Natty, i rather have real colors than the blue tint plus no exagerated sun. Many agree with me and whoever likes the art style its their decision i dont bash anyone for it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 24-10-2012, 23:10:08
@Gavrant; I posted the link just to highlight the exposure that the news had. I dont care about the writers personal opinion on the matter. If you'd ask players, most would prefer to play against other players who dont tamper with the look of the game. you know, real battlefield players, the fans, they don't want to mess with the game, and they would prefer that their opponents didn't either.

If you rent an unranked server you can do what you want of course, make weapons be nukes or jump 50 meters in the air or have pink textures. On ranked server which allows you to unlock content, Nein.

@Kelmola: No, it's not exactly the same, of course. Aimbots make you aim better, giving some players more fun because they dont need to aim so much and they get more kills. Wallhacks allows people to see the enemy, color correction and lens removal allows them to change the look to their advantage, if only mainly visual. Still, it's tampering with the game and it's not the intended experience the designers wanted you to have :) Just like they didn't intended for you to see through walls, they didn't intend for the map to look as horribly bad as they do with this "tool"

@Yustax: the real colors are the one you get without the tool, didn't you understand that? The real color on Op. metro is that blue tint. The fake color comes from the tool.

because here Im hoping you didn't think there for a little second that BF3 was made to look like "reality" right?  :-\  Just like movies, games have alittle something called art-direction.... look it up :)

(http://splashpage.mtv.com//wp-content/uploads/splash/2012/08/the_dark_knight.jpg)
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRfHtpOdXcDJPX9Yyhywbhcks2HNGZn0hqAlADrR-5vdr3Fr8Ls)
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQfNRXCJWkvgTKIbvRk5SkwKUpt2X9KSQfH47KMN05wKjccWhQbBg)
(http://media.pcgamer.com/files/2012/04/crysis-3-interview-2.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 25-10-2012, 01:10:27
Lets say that I dont agree with their art direction, and I was given a choice, and my choice was to remove the blue tint and the exaggerated sun. You or millions like such style? Your decision, but for me, giving options for those who do not like it, is equally important.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: gavrant on 25-10-2012, 04:10:57
@Gavrant; I posted the link just to highlight the exposure that the news had. I dont care about the writers personal opinion on the matter. If you'd ask players, most would prefer to play against other players who dont tamper with the look of the game. you know, real battlefield players, the fans, they don't want to mess with the game, and they would prefer that their opponents didn't either.
...
@Kelmola: ...color correction and lens removal allows them to change the look to their advantage...
Let me quote Mr. Kalms again: "[We, DICE,] believe that turning [color grading] off gives no major competitive advantage/disadvantage." So if it doesn't give "major competitive advantage", why would players care how the game looks on someone else's display?

I'm not against "art direction" as a whole and I agree that with color grading turned off BF3 looks a little bit like a game from '90s, but I also agree with others that art direction in BF3 is overdone. The game would be more comfortable for my eyes with gentler "blueness" and sun effects. Why not give players an option if not to turn it completely off, but at least to tweak to some degree?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 25-10-2012, 08:10:10
your game musr be pretty shity if the only thinh that defines you is yout "art direction"
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 25-10-2012, 09:10:48
giving options for those who do not like it, is equally important.
It is up to the Art director to decide if it's important, not you  :)
your game musr be pretty shity if the only thinh that defines you is yout "art direction"
Get a new keyboard. And of course everyone understands that the only thing that defines BF3 isn't the art direction, but it's one of the things. Other key features that define BF3 is, destructible environment, 64 players, vehicles, multiple game modes, deep progression, multiple expansions, High-definition sounds, Ant Animation system etc etc etc... you all know it already. Art direction is one of the most important things in a game of course, are we having the "what is a game" lesson#1 here? I mean.... really? You're even trying to debate wether or not art-direction is important in games? I Lol'd


I'm not against "art direction" as a whole and I agree that with color grading turned off BF3 looks a little bit like a game from '90s, but I also agree with others that art direction in BF3 is overdone. The game would be more comfortable for my eyes with gentler "blueness" and sun effects. Why not give players an option if not to turn it completely off, but at least to tweak to some degree?

So Gavrant, why do you use quotation marks? It is like saying I'm not against "programming" as a whole or, I'm not against "modelling" as a whole...  it doesn't make sense in a serious discussion (wait a minute... is that what we're having? I begin to feel not, sounds mostly like trolling and flaming of game developers).
A game needs art direction just as much as it needs programmers and modellers. How else will the modellers, animators, lighting artists, texture artists, level artists etc etc know how their content should look?


They already stated the reason why you arent allowed to change the look, please read it again, spend some time thinking about what it means:
"“As a studio, it is extremely important for us at DICE to have a unique identity in our games, not only from a gameplay perspective, but visually as well. While we appreciate that some players might want a slightly different look to the game, we are proud of the visual identity of Battlefield 3 and do not wish to change it.”
I apologize for getting anybody’s hopes up, and if you have any further questions on this subject, I will refer back to the above statement."


And that is how they say, the end of it  8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 25-10-2012, 11:10:02
^ In other words: "We want our game to look different, so somebody doesn't accidentally mistake it for MW 3"  ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 25-10-2012, 11:10:31
It's not about preventing people from thinking it's another game  ::) but you already knew that, but it was a little trollingly fun to put it that way *ti hi*

lol @ comparison btw  ;D ;D ;D

BF3--> http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/9/2011/10/bf3_lights.jpg
MW3 -> http://www.digitaltrends.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3.jpg
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 25-10-2012, 11:10:22
astonishing graphics in one, fucked up campaing in both. No difference really, unless you see a video game as a movie, in wich case, they are better movies thant bf3.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 25-10-2012, 11:10:53
there's no difference between mw3 and bf3?

LOL!  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: titsmcgee852 on 25-10-2012, 13:10:44
I understand the concept of art direction, but whatever happened to actually giving gamers choice? They've already been unable to give us modding tools (granted though they have valid reasoning), so why not just give us the simple option of colour grading to at least keep some people happy?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: PanzerKnacker on 25-10-2012, 14:10:25
...

BF3--> http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/9/2011/10/bf3_lights.jpg

Who puts sights on an AK74u? That's blasphemy!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 25-10-2012, 16:10:42
I understand the concept of art direction, but whatever happened to actually giving gamers choice? They've already been unable to give us modding tools (granted though they have valid reasoning), so why not just give us the simple option of colour grading to at least keep some people happy?

- Video settings in the option menu
- Settings on your monitor
- Video card settings

These are your options :) just like when watching a movie. Movies don't come with "color correction tools" do they? No, you adjust your TV so it fits your eyes and preference. The art-direction of the movie stays intact.

Who puts sights on an AK74u? That's blasphemy!
Designers who care more about game play than arbitrary and subjective "realism"
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 25-10-2012, 16:10:54
Designers who have zero view on inovation and who just go the Call of duty way


Altough i do have to give DICE credit for the ability to remove scopes on sniper rifles.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 25-10-2012, 17:10:51
These are your options :) just like when watching a movie. Movies don't come with "color correction tools" do they? No, you adjust your TV so it fits your eyes and preference. The art-direction of the movie stays intact.


Flawed analogy IMO, movies are something completely different to games. Games are interactive, while in movies you are just an observer. Games are software, virtual worlds, which should have more options for adjusting to consumer's preferences than movies which convey a vision of one person, the director.

But of course that's just an opinion of a young ideologist who believes in open source development and giving people a choice, while modern gaming publishers tend to view games as a consumable product, something that should be canned after the expiry date... I know it's all about maximizing the profit, but still...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 25-10-2012, 17:10:25
Designers who have zero view on inovation and who just go the Call of duty way
(http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e285/Natty_Wallo/Untitled-1-109.jpg)

bwa hahahahaa..... yea.. right..  ;D oh man seeing people say blunders like that always make me laugh


Flawed analogy IMO, movies are something completely different to games. Games are interactive, while in movies you are just an observer.

wow! you still believe that??? I thought that myth died 10 years ago. amazing!

No, you aren't
Yes, it's the same.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 25-10-2012, 17:10:55
What blunders then my friend?
I think i am telling the truth when i say that BF3 is far closer to Modern whorefare then BF2 was
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 25-10-2012, 17:10:28
What blunders then my friend?
I think i am telling the truth when i say that BF3 is far closer to Modern whorefare then BF2 was
Saying that guys on that list have "zero view on inovation" lol!
You do think so, yes I know, and that is what is sooo funny about this thread  8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 25-10-2012, 17:10:58
That you are all alone in your little pro-BF3 crusade?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 25-10-2012, 17:10:10
That you are all alone in your little pro-BF3 crusade?
No I'm not  ;) there are a few million players agreeing with me.
How many want to use the color tool?

@LuckyOne: I found an excerpt of a very good read I did on design, to take this little lol-fest to something a bit more mature; enjoy:


The Myth of Passive Entertainment
Before we go any further, I want to deal with the persistent myth that interactive storytelling
is completely different from traditional storytelling. I would have thought
that by this day and age, with story-based games taking in billions of dollars each
year, this antiquated misconception would be obsolete and long-forgotten. Sadly, it
seems to spring up, weed-like, in the minds of each new generation of novice game
designers. The argument generally goes like this:

Interactive stories are fundamentally different from non-interactive stories,
because in non-interactive stories, you are completely passive, just sitting there,
as the story plods on, with or without you.


At this point, the speaker usually rolls back his eyes, lolls his tongue, and drools
to underline the point.

In interactive stories, on the other hand, you are active and involved, continually
making decisions. You are doing things, not just passively observing them.
Really, interactive storytelling is a fundamentally new art form, and as a result,
interactive designers have little to learn from traditional storytellers.

The idea that the mechanics of traditional storytelling, which are innate to the
human ability to communicate, are somehow nullified by interactivity is absurd. It is
a poorly told story that doesn’t compel the listener to think and make decisions during
the telling. When one is engaged in any kind of storyline, interactive or not, one
is continually making decisions: “What will happen next? ” “What should the hero
do? ” “Where did that rabbit go? ” “Don’t open that door! ” The difference only comes
in the participant’s ability to take action
. The desire to act and all the thought and
emotion that go with that are present in both. A masterful storyteller knows how to
create this desire within a listener’s mind, and then knows exactly how and when
(and when not) to fulfill it. This skill translates well into interactive media, although
it is made more difficult because the storyteller must predict, account for, respond to,
and smoothly integrate the actions of the participant into the experience.
In other words, while interactive storytelling is more challenging than traditional
storytelling, by no means is it fundamentally different. And since story is an important
part of so many game designs, game designers are well-served to learn all they
can about traditional storytelling techniques.


- Jesse Schell

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: gavrant on 25-10-2012, 18:10:47
How many want to use the color tool?
Enough to make DICE consider the console command and then publicly say "sorry" when they abandoned the idea?

Quote
The Myth of Passive Entertainment
...
- Jesse Schell
Oh, Jesse Schell, the guy behind such massive hits like Disney's Toontown Online and Pirates of the Caribbean Online. His creations still have no competition on online gaming market despite efforts of now forgotten titles like WoW, WoT, BF, MW etc.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 25-10-2012, 18:10:44
golden :D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Tankbuster on 25-10-2012, 18:10:31
WoW? what is WoW.


Maybe blizzard is shtoopid because they allow different addons because that is not how WoW is meant to be played.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Musti on 25-10-2012, 18:10:18
Say what you want, but i love it when its "natty and millions of players" vs "you and a dozen of nerds sitting on the forums"
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: FatJoe on 25-10-2012, 18:10:22
Jesse Schell is the author of The Art of Game Design (http://www.amazon.com/The-Art-Game-Design-lenses/dp/0123694965) a rather good read for game designers..
He's also given many interesting (http://www.ted.com/talks/jesse_schell_when_games_invade_real_life.html) talks (http://vimeo.com/16710926) on the subject of Game Design.

Game Design is much more than just games like WoW, WoT, BF & MW, so don't totally disregard something the guy said, just because he didn't design the most addictive games out there.

By the way, If you're interested into these gameplay hooks like XP's, levelups and unlocks (those games you mentioned there all feature this) you might want to check out Jesse's TED talk, 'When Games Invade Real Life'.. it's related to that subject.


On the subject of changing the look of the game, (to actually stay on topic) as far as I know, there is no game out there that offers you the option to drastically change the look of the game like that. The only way to change the way the game looks is usually through mods, and BF3 has decided to not support mods, sadly..

I like the look of it without the color correction, it looks more pretty in my opinion and I'd love to play it like that, but then again I'd also love to just play it, but as long as I have to use Origin, I won't. :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 25-10-2012, 19:10:55
Thanks FatJoe! someone who understands!

Oh, Jesse Schell, the guy behind such massive hits like Disney's Toontown Online and Pirates of the Caribbean Online.

Jesse Schell is s professor at Carnegie Mellon University's Entertainment Technology Center (ETC) where he teaches game design and leads several research projects. He is also CEO of Schell Games (largest video game studio in Pittsburgh) He has also been Creative Director of Walt Disney Imagineering Virtual Reality Studio and Chairman of the International Game Developers Association (IGDA)... The guy was named as one of the world's top 100 young innovators by MIT's Technology Review....

http://www.igda.org/
http://web.mit.edu/
http://www.etc.cmu.edu/site/

oouuch !

(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcb99xlmxC1rtc9of.gif)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 25-10-2012, 19:10:15

By the way, If you're interested into these gameplay hooks like XP's, levelups and unlocks (those games you mentioned there all feature this) you might want to check out Jesse's TED talk, 'When Games Invade Real Life'.. it's related to that subject.

Oh, that was him? He had some interesting ideas, altrough a small part of me trough "grinding stuff now in my real life?", but then again, disscounts :P. Nonetheless, its pretty scary that some algoriths and level-ups will dictate how someone behaves.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 25-10-2012, 19:10:17
is it? People have been doing that for ages, it's just now it becomes blatantly obvious that game design and "real-life" (stupid term) uses the same models for making people not only enjoy the products, but enjoy the culture around the product as well. Point systems in large retail stores? Been around for half a century.

The premise that players should play games completely detached and non-commited is dead. Players want to become addicted to games. - Oh I love that game, I can't put it down!. Trying to stay away from systems like points, ranks etc is just proof of you not being able to commit to an experience. It actually borders a bit on paranoia (I refused to get "trapped" in their "system") and almost anti-social (all those idiots "don't get it", they are fooled by "the system")

Facebook is probably the largest "game" online when you look at how people interact with it. But none of them would ever agree to being a "gamer". It's basically an MMO with 1 billion users (yes, they breached the 'bill some months ago. 1/6 of the planet is on FB) where you acquire friends, Likes, surf from topic to topic and "rank" up your profile as you fill it with content.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: RAnDOOm on 25-10-2012, 20:10:28
Comparing Facebook to an online videogame.

This is getting hilarious.   ;D

(http://forgottenhonor.com/modules/Forums/images/smiles/pcorn.gif)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 25-10-2012, 20:10:44
Gotta give credit when it's due, Devilman did come up with a very good acronym (ANFC) in his latest thread which is more than enough to describe pretty much the feeling you have when you are going to read one of Natty's replies in this or in any other thread.

Also, whatever does Psy have to do with BF3?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 25-10-2012, 21:10:19
Comparing Facebook to an online videogame.

If you don't see the resemblances, then I cant help you  ;) and I wasnt talking about "video games" per se, my whole point with the post was to underline just how the borders between "games" and other services / products are slowly being erased. It was a continuation of the Schell/points talk earlier in the thread, but that was perhaps too many words for you to read, so... carry on  ::)

@Flippy; it was a little victory meme, kind of like a "pwned" pic, but more spot-on since the dude didnt know who Schell was and just googled him and wrote him off as a no-one.. lulz
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 25-10-2012, 21:10:56
Ah yeah I see. :) You sure know how to make yourself more and more likable every day.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: RAnDOOm on 25-10-2012, 21:10:42
Comparing Facebook to an online videogame.

If you don't see the resemblances, then I cant help you  ;) and I wasnt talking about "video games" per se, my whole point with the post was to underline just how the borders between "games" and other services / products are slowly being erased. It was a continuation of the Schell/points talk earlier in the thread, but that was perhaps too many words for you to read, so... carry on  ::)

No, i cannot see the resemblances and i bet that anyone here or anywhere else ( besides you ) cant see it either.

But then again, it takes a "special" kind of person to believe they are always right.
A specific science acknowledges that as a disease.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Sgt.KAR98 on 25-10-2012, 22:10:40
Well,Zuckerberg actually seems like EA Games for me.Guess no explanations are needed...

How's BF3 btw?A friend of mine is freaking annoying me to get this game and some people from internet I knew said origin launcher is a spyware that will register everything you'll do on your machine,not only at BF3.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 25-10-2012, 22:10:56
basicly, what Natty and EA wants, is that there customers are always like this

(http://alfa.gifs-planet.com/new/2938.gif)

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 25-10-2012, 22:10:50
Well,Zuckerberg actually seems like EA Games for me.Guess no explanations are needed...

How's BF3 btw?A friend of mine is freaking annoying me to get this game and some people from internet I knew said origin launcher is a spyware that will register everything you'll do on your machine,not only at BF3.

You should get the game. I find an overwhelming amount of negativity in this discussion here. As for Origin monitoring your PC, its just like many other programs you already have, including Steam, and almost all Web Browsers, that monitor your traffic so they can cater advertisements to you. Its nothing harmful.  ::)

Its good fun with friends:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWIYVszp0mc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Uk1EkdV8zM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWIYVszp0mc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU6x9fYRrDM
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 25-10-2012, 22:10:13
No, i cannot see the resemblances
Perhaps in a few years you'll "get it"  ;)

and dude, calling people to have a "disease" is a bit trolling isnt it? and personal.. why make this personal? we're only chatting about games. maybe you have a disease if you make games personal?

Well,Zuckerberg actually seems like EA Games for me.Guess no explanations are needed...
How's BF3 btw?A friend of mine is freaking annoying me to get this game and some people from internet I knew said origin launcher is a spyware that will register everything you'll do on your machine,not only at BF3.

You start the game from a website called BattleLog. They integrated everything about your soldier in to a web platform. Just start Origin when you want to play BF3, you don't need to have it running 24/7.
It's much better than Steam, you wont be spammed by weird russian gaming communities who want to invite you, or dudes wanting to trade TF2 items  ;D You use Origin the same way you use a torrent client, you start it when you want to use any of its services, the rest of the time you can leave it off :) The beauty with Origin is that they didnt try to make it in to some "community" chat program like Steam.
It's a store, just like Steam, where you have all your games instead of DVDs, and you launch the games from it, that's it.

And, don't read too much about what the tin-foil hat conspiracy dudes say. If there was any malware with Origin, EA would have fixed it already.

basicly, what Natty and EA wants, is that there customers are always like this

Yea, that is how a person deeply immersed by an awesome game experience looks like, why wouldn't anyone want their customers to be that? I bet that guy just managed to get a triple kill on Operation Metro Rush and is arming the MCOM just as the picture is taken, look at him again, you'll see it  ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 25-10-2012, 23:10:14

Yea, that is how a person deeply immersed by an awesome game experience looks like, why wouldn't anyone want their customers to be that? I bet that guy just managed to get a triple kill on Operation Metro Rush and is arming the MCOM just as the picture is taken, look at him again, you'll see it  ;)
metro is the worst designed map in BF3.........
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 25-10-2012, 23:10:42
Whaaat, it's the best map to grind xp. You have to do fuck all to get kills. In CoD you at least have to run around the pipes, in Metro you can just sit.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: RAnDOOm on 25-10-2012, 23:10:31
Perhaps in a few years you'll "get it"  ;)

and dude, calling people to have a "disease" is a bit trolling isnt it? and personal.. why make this personal? we're only chatting about games. maybe you have a disease if you make games personal?

In a few years i will still be older and more knowledgeable about conputers/gaming than you.  ::)
I dont "troll", sorry Natty, im not that nerdy.
You just did a stupid idiotic comparison about Facebook and online gaming and i reacted to it.

Ontopic:
I like BF3, i got nothing agaisnt it. Its good looking arcade shooter.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: :| Hi on 25-10-2012, 23:10:40
Whaaat, it's the best map to grind xp. You have to do fuck all to get kills. In CoD you at least have to run around the pipes, in Metro you can just sit.

My highest ever score, was 27k, playing as medic only tossing down medpacks and shocking people back to life.

I had three kills and 2 deaths and am the current record holder for that server. I havn't played in 4 months  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: gavrant on 26-10-2012, 00:10:55
oouuch !

<pic>
it was a little victory meme, kind of like a "pwned" pic, but more spot-on since the dude didnt know who Schell was and just googled him and wrote him off as a no-one.. lulz

I love you too, Natty!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 26-10-2012, 00:10:02
You sure know how to make yourself more and more likable every day.
What, you don't like people who don't share the exact same opinions of games that you do? that's...normal.

You just did a stupid idiotic comparison about Facebook and online gaming and i reacted to it.
What's stupid about it? People sitting down at their PC's doing pretty much the exact same tasks as in games  ;) I listed a few.. and if you caught the discussion, we were talking about points and "grinding stuff", not games. How a product change the way people behaves... Are you even on facebook? Haven't you seen how it changed how people behave?.... Yea, there are many similarities between facebook and other social media, and games. If you don't understand these similarities is a different point.

metro is the worst designed map in BF3.........

Nope, it's one of the most popular maps and its design became an instant classic just like Karkand.
If you don't understand why it's well designed because you yourself don't "like it", is a different point. But then what you really are trying to say is "I don't prefer the game play on that map" which you are totally OK to think of course. It's still a very well designed map. 8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 26-10-2012, 00:10:07
breaking news: masturbating in you PC is the same as gaming!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Thorondor123 on 26-10-2012, 00:10:26
People like Metro because it's the best way to grind unlocks. The Metro servers have 10000 tickets... They don't play there, they grind for points.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: titsmcgee852 on 26-10-2012, 01:10:59
This is such a pointless argument, Natty is never going to change his opinion, so stop trying to convince him as it's only flaring up tension aaand it's not good for the community.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 26-10-2012, 02:10:20
This is such a pointless argument, Natty is never going to change his opinion, so stop trying to convince him as it's only flaring up tension aaand it's not good for the community.

Who gives a shit?  This is funny....

Please continue.......
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kalkalash on 26-10-2012, 06:10:50

metro is the worst designed map in BF3.........

Nope, it's one of the most popular maps and its design became an instant classic just like Karkand.
If you don't understand why it's well designed because you yourself don't "like it", is a different point. But then what you really are trying to say is "I don't prefer the game play on that map" which you are totally OK to think of course. It's still a very well designed map. 8)
That just doesn't make any sense. A product does not have a universally good design, design is subjective. One design is good for certain customers, where as for some it doesn't work and thus isn't good design for that group of people.

Of course there are guidelines and standards how to make a product that will be good design for basically everyone (a car with four tires, a cell phone with a screen), but when you design something you design it so that it will be a good design for the majority of your customers. So for example Metro is a well designed map for all those players who enjoy playing it because it suits their preferences and is to their liking. But for some people (such as Theta) who prefer a differently styled maps (or products) it is a bad design.

If you go to a restaurant and order a nice dinner for yourself and when you taste the food it tastes horrible. A normal person would just say "excuse me waiter, but this food taster horrible, I'm not eating it" but I guess that you, Natty, would think something like "This food tastes bad but the cook said it's good, so obviously he knows what is good food and what is not and I guess I have just a poor taste". We are in the 21st century Natty, we're not in the mass production thinking of the 20th century where one way is the right way, but industry philosophy is more batch based production, where we can mass produce but still adapt to a certain consumer group's needs.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 26-10-2012, 07:10:47
You sure know how to make yourself more and more likable every day.
What, you don't like people who don't share the exact same opinions of games that you do? that's...normal.

What does that have got to do with anything? I dont like people who are desperately trying to be funny, cool and/or hip by posting "pwn" pics in their posts. Doesnt have anything to do wether you like the same games I do. I'd ask where do you keep pulling your shit from but that would be an obvious answer now wouldnt it?

Since you are already such a lovable character in this community who everyone adores, I do think that posting such "pwn" posts with obnoxious gifs will surely affect more positively on your image. I swear in the long run it'll pay off.  8)

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 26-10-2012, 08:10:48
That just doesn't make any sense. A product does not have a universally good design, design is subjective. One design is good for certain customers, where as for some it doesn't work and thus isn't good design for that group of people.

Now you confuse design with taste... the iPhone as example; it has brilliant design. Objectively/universally, it has good design. I personally, hate it. Does that make it have bad design for me? No, it's just my taste that doesnt agree with it.

Metro has good design because it gets full score on multiple various points:
- Has very good direction, there's no question where you should be going
- Has easily recognisable environment; everyone has been in a metropolitan area, a suburb and a tube station, something you cant say for exampe about Damavand peak, very few have basejumped in to an industrial area.... yes, decisions like this is a huge part of the design process, but for the untrained it can be easy to just look at a map and say "d'uuuuh, anyone can decide a subway station duuh" No, they can't. Metro could just have well been a fail if it was designed differently.
- Has very clear progression, players notice easily the change in environment as the level shifts from outdoors, to indoors etc. Also good decisions were taken here. Something you cant say for many other maps
- Has very easily recognisable colors & light. Take any screenshot from the map and show it to someone, they'll go "ah its Metro" immediately

Of course there are guidelines and standards how to make a product that will be good design for basically everyone (a car with four tires, a cell phone with a screen), but when you design something you design it so that it will be a good design for the majority of your customers. So for example Metro is a well designed map for all those players who enjoy playing it because it suits their preferences and is to their liking. But for some people (such as Theta) who prefer a differently styled maps (or products) it is a bad design.

It doesn't suit his taste, that's all. A product isn't just universally well designed if it fits everybody, it's well designed if it fits the demography for which it is designed for. Metro is designed for the hardcore infantry players. Not the vehicle freaks. It would be a very badly designed infantry map if it tried to please the vehicle fans as well. They have Caspian Border for that

- Can you measure the quality of a design based on how many users it has?
That is a tricky one, I would say yes, sometimes but we have to simply face the facts that people out there don't always make conscious/well thought out decisions. Many people are just, idiots. They buy stuff without putting any thought in to it - as I feel about iPhone customers. But that's OK! Creating a culture around a product and invest in marketing, setting up clever advertisement campaigns is part of design, part of building a product. Apple has succeeded in every field there. And, they have a well designed product.
I am absoultely positive that many players also just hops in to Metro because "it's easy", they don't have to spend a lot of time figuring out what to do.
Good design does not always mean deep/complex products. Angry Birds is a good example of a well designed game. But you can't of course always use numbers as a measure of quality. It needs to be able to be measured better than that. I can't just say that Metro is well designed because many play it.

To answer the question of Can you measure the quality of a design based on how many users it has?
you should also think about the opposite a bit; Can you name any products with good design that has very few users? Why don't they use it?

If you go to a restaurant and order a nice dinner for yourself and when you taste the food it tastes horrible. A normal person would just say "excuse me waiter, but this food taster horrible, I'm not eating it" but I guess that you, Natty, would think something like "This food tastes bad but the cook said it's good, so obviously he knows what is good food and what is not and I guess I have just a poor taste". We are in the 21st century Natty, we're not in the mass production thinking of the 20th century where one way is the right way, but industry philosophy is more batch based production, where we can mass produce but still adapt to a certain consumer group's needs.

If it was rotten sure, or if it wasn't cooked properly (still frozen vegetables or not cooked mea) but that would be the equivalent of the map crashing, or Im getting stuck all the time or if the view was 10m so I couldnt see anything. If I just dont "like" the food I dont say anything. I ordered it from the menu didnt I?

If some people dont like the fighting style of Metro, doesnt mean it's badly designed.

lovable
That's been your topic in this thread, it doesnt matter much how "lovable" anyone is on a forum, does it? We're discussing BF3 here, and obviously since everyone has so strong opinions, it sometimes derails in to game philosophy etc. This is what happens with such major titles, people get too caught up in emotions, getting a need for "talking it out". It's the same with movies, check any Prometheus or Inception forums, people go nuts there as well, blaming the people who did Prometheus for "doing it wrong" etc.
Those would be the equivalent of BF3, major products which make people care... a bit too much perhaps...

This thread was resurrected with the news that DICE won't allow people to change the art direction, I just stand behind that decision because if it was my game, I'd do the same. Instead of just saying "oh ok, too bad" people get all...internet ragey and have to storm the forums..has nothing to do with me or how "loveable" I am, does it?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 26-10-2012, 08:10:38
I guess we forgot to add "ANFC" to the end of our posts.  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 26-10-2012, 08:10:03
nah, just post a lol cats or troll .gif, I know you arent interested in the design discussion some of us are having here anyway "d'uuh they be talkin all dat crazy talk bout stuff n thingz" ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 26-10-2012, 08:10:48
Why would I take part in a discussion for which I know how the course of it would go?

People talk about things, you come in and say how things are, they disagree, you tell them how they should think, they disagree more...

Like any other thread you take part of. And instead of letting things go, you have to have the last word. Always. :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 26-10-2012, 09:10:45
not the case at all :) they say how things "are" (dice are evil, bf3 is bad/wrong etc, EA is evil etc) I disagree with them. That's what happens. Then they disagree with me disagreeing, and on and on it goes.

example:
Quote
i love it when its "natty and millions of players" vs "you and a dozen of nerds sitting on the forums"
and I love when it's "The entire bf community and everyone on teh internetz" vs "EA and the dice designers"

clearly, it's not. ::)

and nope, I dont care about the last word, I walk away from many discussions which become boring or uninteresting,but this particular one is full of win
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 26-10-2012, 09:10:56
And instead of letting things go, you have to have the last word. Always. :)

I love being right.  :)

And look how cute, he had to reply to this. Proving my point even further. ;)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 26-10-2012, 09:10:05
so who's chasing the last word now? LOL

also.. you arent talking about BF3 now, stay on topic please. Or take it to PMs

I could tell you a thing or two about staying on topic, thank you very much.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 26-10-2012, 11:10:22
what, is it over? damn.

ONTOPIC: if you have Gmod, there are bf3 models coming to you :P

(http://imageshack.us/a/img525/7390/img17092012214922.png)
(http://i47.tinypic.com/4gkdab.jpg)

http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1160491&p=38188040&viewfull=1#post38188040
http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1160491&p=38188893&viewfull=1#post38188893
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 26-10-2012, 12:10:05
Love this thread, it's way better than your morning newspaper.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 26-10-2012, 12:10:37
I'd much rather play a FH2 made by Devilman than one by Natty.

Natty, PR began as a "lame cheat" for BF2. You cannot define what is contributing content and what is not, the players do. Regarding that one guy's opinions, well in theory he might know how to make a game, in practice his games suck donkey balls. Uwe Böll has a doctorate in cinematography, hasn't much helped him to make a good film. Also, your arguments about popularity being an "objective" measure are retarded. Ace Combat has sold more than IL-2, does it make it a better flight sim, or should IL-2  change itself similar ti Ace Combat? HELL NO. Ditto for FH2 vs. BF3. FH2 is not for "general audience" so it does not have to try to copy those games. If that's all what you have to contribute to FH2, it would be better if you didn't contribute even that.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 26-10-2012, 12:10:46
^ Wow, wow hold your horses. While Devilman's work is a lot of fun I wouldn't trade "Natty's" FH2 for some crazy FH 2 with dual wield Thompsons etc.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 26-10-2012, 13:10:06
Why would I take part in a discussion for which I know how the course of it would go?

People talk about things, you come in and say how things are, they disagree, you tell them how they should think, they disagree more...

Like any other thread you take part of. And instead of letting things go, you have to have the last word. Always. :)

that's because Natty thinks this forum is a game, and he is determined to win

On topic : I do think metro is a horrible map indeed, by far the worst one I ever played in a BF map

why ?

1) bad design. maybe it works with 24 players on rush mode, but on 64 with conquest this map is a joke. why is conquest even smaller then rush btw ? makes no sense. having a map designed with a single choke point where one team has an obvious height advantage, is quite fail indeed. That said, it's the easiest map to "grind" with medic and support, hence why it's so popular. for a proper design they should have added at least an alternative path above ground then it would be more balanced out.

2) it has no vehicles, the selling point of the BF series. combine that with the above, it's like you're playing a COD map rather then a genuine BF map.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 26-10-2012, 14:10:09
But vehicles isn't the #1 selling point for BF  ;) variety is. You think Bf1942 would have been so succesful without Berlin / Stalingrad? Nope, people expected BF games to deliver all kinds of experiences, and that is why Metro gets a hall-of-fame place on the shelf of BF maps next to Berlin, Wake, Karkand, HoChiMinh Trail, Camp Gibraltar, Caspian Border etc, it's a classic

OK agreed that it can be a bit too clustered on 64, absolutely. 48 players is the optimum number. I never said it's perfect, but it's pretty damn solid  8)

@Kelmola: the day devilboy makes a mod, lemme know how it was to play with 64 players online  ;)
quick question though: exactly what featurer or design in FH2 that I did don't you agree with? I'd like to know... We are discussing BF3 here, not FH2... perhaps you confused the two and thought they have anything to do with each other? As if my opinions about BF3 somehow magically transform in to FH2 as well? Newsflash; I do possess the ability to differ games from games. What works for BF3 doesnt in FH2, and vice versa.

@SiCariO: wow!! where did you get those renders? The guy looks a lot like Ben Cousins! former MD at Easy studios (works for ngmoco now)
http://www.gamepur.com/files/images/2010/ben_cousin.jpg
http://gamesauce.org/news/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Ben-Cousins-5-lo-res2.jpg
http://m.joystiq.com/2011/06/21/ngmoco-to-launch-swedish-branch-with-former-ea-easy-boss-ben-cou/?icid=joystiq_sweden_art

 
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 26-10-2012, 14:10:04
Quote
You think Bf1942 would have been so succesful without Berlin / Stalingrad?

both had vehicles. try to name one bf map from the past that did not have vehicles . right , you can't.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kelmola on 27-10-2012, 00:10:08
quick question though: exactly what featurer or design in FH2 that I did don't you agree with? I'd like to know... We are discussing BF3 here, not FH2... perhaps you confused the two and thought they have anything to do with each other? As if my opinions about BF3 somehow magically transform in to FH2 as well? Newsflash; I do possess the ability to differ games from games. What works for BF3 doesnt in FH2, and vice versa.
Hahahaha. As if your attitude didn't shine through into your input for FH2 also.

What you and me disagree about FH2 then? Removal of stamina. That frakking annoying alarm signal when your tank starts burning. Ramelle. Yes, every frakking thing about Ramelle. Your repeated wishes to have every map play like Ramelle, ie. have a minimum amount of chokepoints with no way of bypassing them, with awkwardly placed OOB zones taking most of the map (and you call this "guiding players by map design", some call it "tunnel run" or "ghost train"). Removal of destructible walls etc. ("gimmicks" as you like to mock them). Your constantly negative attitude on anything that would break the norm and would make the map/mod more interesting and/or surprising (ie. every time someone, especially Devilman, makes BF2 do things it is not "supposed" to do in your opinion, because BF2/FH2 doing such things would decrease the sales of your beloved BF3). Your adamant refusal to have any of PR's features (some of which would be very useful, such as better modelled tanking damage, etc.) in FH2. Your constantly negative attitude towards 128+p code. Your constantly negative attitude on any fan project (be it maps, alternate textures, alternate sounds), stating that it's "unnecessary" or "we will make it ourselves when time comes". Your wishes to standardize round length on any map to 30 minutes. Etc.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 27-10-2012, 03:10:59
Hmmmm....surprisingly, I think we have here our own patrick bach here.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 27-10-2012, 11:10:53
wow Kelmola :) you're wrong on almost all points. Let me touch back on them so you get to know me better
-Removal of stamina: yes, correct, and me and many others believe this change improved FH2 game play a lot.
-Tank siren: apart from a thread that died in 1 week after release, players dont care about this much at all, agreed the sound could have been designed slightly differently, but this is an ultra-minor point

The rest:
1. Ramelle: was done by Otolikos, not me
2. I do not wish every map to play out like Ramelle at all. Do I wish Gazala to play like Ramelle? I is confuse
3. OOB areas; which are awkwardly placed? Haven't read a single negative feedback on any of our OOB areas
4. Destructible walls? I removed one...on Supercharge...is that really a big deal? I also re-designed huge parts of that city, didnt you notice? Opened up more holes etc... placed ladders, changed spawnpoints, improved... you're welcomed
5. Negative attitude about norm-breaking stuff. If it's ridiculous and/or too time consuming, yes.But not because it's norm breaking... you know who the most norm-breaking dev is in FH2? me
6. devilboy stuff, he hasnt talked to us about any of his ideas, he just comes to our forum instead of the public bf2 modding forum and spams youtube links, of course I comment on them and I admit still not having seen one interesting or remotely useful thing he did, he also does everything in vanilla so, if he modded some fh2 stuff and sent to us for review, perhaps Id comment differently
7. PR features: they have many that I'd like to see in FH2. server license and queueing for servers are just some.
8. 128p code... I've said repeatedly; give us the codes and we'll design the maps with proper 128 game modes. running around and lolling on our 64 layers is "ok" in a moddy kind of way, but it's not real, not as we'd like our mod to play. I'd love to do some proper 128 layers
9. Fan projects; uuh... Ive spent the last 3 years pretty much only helping fan maps and brought them to release... Villers, Olympus, PeB, Eppeldorf, Cobra to name just a few. I support all fan projects in which people are dedicated to bring it to actual release. We have zero use for screenshots on teh netz. Final stuff which is solid and releaseable, mail them to us.
10. Minimod stuff, yea, I don't like these being used, and that's because I'm proud of our own content and I want everyone to have the same experience. Most game designers feel the same way
11. 30 minutes, this one you just pullled from thin air right? FH2 aims for map rounds to be 35-45 minutes at average, and that is what our bleed speed and tickets etc are set to. All mappers have agreed on this since 2.0

See? Im not as evil as you think.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 27-10-2012, 11:10:09
You are worse.

The only thing that really really bothers me, is that BF3 said that the last 2 DLCS will have plenty of new weapons. Now they silently removed that from the promotion posters.

I actually quite enjoy this game. But i do play this game rather unconventional.

I promote the use of burst fire and i rarely spray on medium-long ranges. I keep the MG42 lafette spirit alive by deploying my MG together with a scope (3.5 M135 or PKS-O) and provide suppresive fire


Or i just grab an SVD/SKS/MK11/M39 and remove the scope al together...And just use iron sights


I really hope they add some new infantry weapons. SIG 550, a FAL perhaps, MG3....
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 27-10-2012, 11:10:46
tears
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 27-10-2012, 17:10:28
quick question though: exactly what featurer or design in FH2 that I did don't you agree with? I'd like to know... We are discussing BF3 here, not FH2... perhaps you confused the two and thought they have anything to do with each other? As if my opinions about BF3 somehow magically transform in to FH2 as well? Newsflash; I do possess the ability to differ games from games. What works for BF3 doesnt in FH2, and vice versa.
Hahahaha. As if your attitude didn't shine through into your input for FH2 also.

What you and me disagree about FH2 then? Removal of stamina. That frakking annoying alarm signal when your tank starts burning. Ramelle. Yes, every frakking thing about Ramelle. Your repeated wishes to have every map play like Ramelle, ie. have a minimum amount of chokepoints with no way of bypassing them, with awkwardly placed OOB zones taking most of the map (and you call this "guiding players by map design", some call it "tunnel run" or "ghost train"). Removal of destructible walls etc. ("gimmicks" as you like to mock them). Your constantly negative attitude on anything that would break the norm and would make the map/mod more interesting and/or surprising (ie. every time someone, especially Devilman, makes BF2 do things it is not "supposed" to do in your opinion, because BF2/FH2 doing such things would decrease the sales of your beloved BF3). Your adamant refusal to have any of PR's features (some of which would be very useful, such as better modelled tanking damage, etc.) in FH2. Your constantly negative attitude towards 128+p code. Your constantly negative attitude on any fan project (be it maps, alternate textures, alternate sounds), stating that it's "unnecessary" or "we will make it ourselves when time comes". Your wishes to standardize round length on any map to 30 minutes. Etc.

Kemola you are kinda dissing the other developers and mappers if you think every decision in this mod is made by Natty alone. He may be very vocal, but sure isn't the sole leader of this mod.
And many of the things he say are pro gameplay if you look beyond the way he says it:

- average of 30 minutes per round, yes please. I want to play other maps too. 60 minutes of hopping flags on Gazala ... no way.
- Removal of stamina. Really didn't add anything, but frustration. Little out of breath soldier taking his time to catch his breath and slow down while bullets erupt around him.
- Adding siren sound, one of his dumbest decision :-)

And he did make one of the best map imo for FH2, Purple Heart Lane.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 27-10-2012, 18:10:58
thx, NTH.. I've worked on many more maps than that though... tbh I think I've worked on every map we have except goodwood, keren, bou zid (oh I did the sounds and placed some fx there though) and some of the old african maps.  but this forum is set up so we can get feedback on the mod, I know what Im getting myself in to... perhaps should do like most devs, never come here  ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 27-10-2012, 18:10:28
perhaps should do like most devs, never come here  ::)

Please? :)

Also, stay on topic.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 27-10-2012, 18:10:47
you too
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 27-10-2012, 18:10:02
Right behind ya.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: FatJoe on 27-10-2012, 18:10:44
Locking this until you two grow up and stop spamming our beloved forum..

As a Developer and Moderator, you two should be setting example to other forum members.. The example you are setting here is very very very poor


 >:(
Title: Awesome BF3 machinima
Post by: Natty on 29-10-2012, 13:10:45
5 minutes and 47 seconds of arguments why BF3 is among the best games ever made

*Watch in 1080 with loud volume*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0b6D6WmecY4#!

*drops the mic, walks away*  8)
Title: Re: Awesome BF3 machinima
Post by: SiCaRiO on 29-10-2012, 13:10:09
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGuSfbkgmus&feature=plcp

thats all.
Title: Re: Awesome BF3 machinima
Post by: Natty on 29-10-2012, 14:10:32
no I think my video showed BF3 in a better way than yours :) maybe you prefer those maps and the type of game play shown there, but "One" and "Moments" is more real battlefield the way we fans like it, huge open areas, plenty vehicle and awesome action and epic moments

so, again... yuo loooze  ;D ;D ;D

here is "One" again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVjIcSSTyrI
Title: Re: Awesome BF3 machinima
Post by: FatJoe on 29-10-2012, 18:10:15
so, again... yuo loooze  ;D ;D ;D

Yes, Sicario, you loose, we've deducted points from you, You do not pass go, you do not collect $200..
Because suddenly posting video is a race to the top ::)

Cool videos, would love to play BF3 :\
Title: Re: Awesome BF3 machinima
Post by: Natty on 29-10-2012, 22:10:12
he lost the trolling attempt.

Get it FatJoe, better get it + premium now because 6 months from now there's no way you will buy it, so get it now before you "miss it" (it would be like buying BC2 now, no one does that, the game is "over")
Title: Re: Awesome BF3 machinima
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 29-10-2012, 23:10:46
he lost the trolling attempt.

Get it FatJoe, better get it + premium now because 6 months from now there's no way you will buy it, so get it now before you "miss it" (it would be like buying BC2 now, no one does that, the game is "over")

doubtfully. I'm currently waiting for the premium collection to drop in price, cuz I'm sure it will ( well maybe not sold such as, but with the same content.

Also those vids seem to be quite edited, because it doesn't look as good on my PC and I have everything maxed :/
Title: Re: Awesome BF3 machinima
Post by: FatJoe on 30-10-2012, 00:10:04
Well it means I have to install Origin, and I don't want to use Origin nor do I need another platform for my games..
Title: Re: Awesome BF3 machinima
Post by: Archimonday on 30-10-2012, 00:10:26
he lost the trolling attempt.

Get it FatJoe, better get it + premium now because 6 months from now there's no way you will buy it, so get it now before you "miss it" (it would be like buying BC2 now, no one does that, the game is "over")

No-one buys BC2 anymore? I played not last night, and there is a ton of full servers.
Title: Re: Awesome BF3 machinima
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 30-10-2012, 00:10:06
(it would be like buying BC2 now, no one does that, the game is "over")

You can still find many a full game.  Just not so much on HC.  And just forget about trying to play Vietnam.  :(

Actually as a straight up shooter goes I would suggest BC2 over BF3 (if you could find it on the cheap).  Better singleplayer/gameplay/map design/shooting mechanics ect.   
Title: Re: Awesome BF3 machinima
Post by: LuckyOne on 30-10-2012, 09:10:45
Quote
5 minutes and 47 seconds of arguments why BF3 is among the best funniest games ever made.

More like this. Epic video, but the best? Hardly... Yes you can do amazing stunts like ramming a chopper with your tank that you drove off a cliff and you can go full retard with your quad strapped with C4 explosives, and the game looks really good (even without all the postprocessing in the vid) but that doesn't make a game "the best". Well maybe for a few stunt lovers but for people that are lookimng for "realistic first-person modern warfare"... not really (well unless played in a clanmatch with half-serious people, but then again you can do that in any game).
Title: Re: Awesome BF3 machinima
Post by: Natty on 30-10-2012, 16:10:24
Well it means I have to install Origin, and I don't want to use Origin nor do I need another platform for my games..
You don't need to look at it like that, start Origin when you want to play the game, it's like saying "I dont want more shortcuts on my desktop so I won't get any new games"

You have a Battlefield 3 shortcut on your desktop, dont need to have Origin running. Clicking Battlefield 3 exe will open Origin for you and your browser. BattleLog has all the profile stats and server browser in it, so you need that anyway. The reason for this web integration is far too complicated to chat about in a forum, let's just say web is in, game is out when it comes to this stuff.

So really.. for you the user this is just like starting any game. You'll see when you get it :)
At start people were all scared and confused because the server browser and the profile page was in the web, not in the game. But since technology and design on these levels far passes what normal users can predict and understand, they simply got used to it after a few weeks and now it's natural.
A bit like when the smart-phones came.

No-one buys BC2 anymore? I played not last night, and there is a ton of full servers.
Play, yes.. i didnt say no one plays it :)
You can still find many a full game.  Just not so much on HC.  And just forget about trying to play Vietnam.  :(

yes, of course.. "no one is..." is a saying, you know how people say "no one goes to Mallorca anymore" it doesnt mean literary no one goes. It just means, it's not a trend, not very relevant anymore

Im sure a few BC2 copies are sold here and there, but overall, the game is legacy, and done. People moved to BF3 or MW3 already (for shooters) still a great game though and I sometimes play it as well.

More like this. Epic video, but the best? Hardly... Yes you can do amazing stunts like ramming a chopper with your tank that you drove off a cliff and you can go full retard with your quad strapped with C4 explosives, and the game looks really good (even without all the postprocessing in the vid) but that doesn't make a game "the best". Well maybe for a few stunt lovers but for people that are lookimng for "realistic first-person modern warfare"... not really (well unless played in a clanmatch with half-serious people, but then again you can do that in any game).

Well... Im thinking really hard now, and no: I cant think of any better shooter game than BF3, can you? honestly? and I mean today, comparing the games today, not magically going in a time capsule back to 2002 when bf1942 was best. Today, what shooter game is better than BF3? :)

Title: Re: Awesome BF3 machinima
Post by: SiCaRiO on 30-10-2012, 16:10:01
Blacklight Retribution
Title: Re: Awesome BF3 machinima
Post by: Natty on 30-10-2012, 17:10:46
lol, yea... "right"... good troll. here's a cookie
(http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-ash3/276603_254288627932718_1523147_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Awesome BF3 machinima
Post by: Kalkalash on 30-10-2012, 17:10:36
The only thing that bugs me about Origin is that it keeps opening "My games" tab at every occasion it can (starting a game, joining a server, closing the game). Otherwise it's basically just Steam.
Title: Re: Awesome BF3 machinima
Post by: Musti on 30-10-2012, 19:10:55
5 minutes and 47 seconds of arguments why BF3 is among the best games ever made
LOL ::) Among best games ever? hardly, I'd say it barely classifies for 20 best shooters ever made. 8)
"General category" is far beyond its reach.

Well... Im thinking really hard now, and no: I cant think of any better shooter game than BF3, can you? honestly? and I mean today, comparing the games today, not magically going in a time capsule back to 2002 when bf1942 was best. Today, what shooter game is better than BF3? :)
FH2 8)

ANFC
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Flippy Warbear on 30-10-2012, 19:10:51
Unlocked BF3 thread and merged the machinima thread with it.
Title: Re: Awesome BF3 machinima
Post by: SiCaRiO on 30-10-2012, 21:10:43

FH2 8)

ANFC

ow,  forgot, Planetside 2.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 30-10-2012, 21:10:42
i can name much better shooter games then BF3.


But i can also name hundreds of MUCH worse shooter games then BF3.

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 30-10-2012, 21:10:18
i can name much better shooter games then BF3.

do so then?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 30-10-2012, 21:10:52
i can name much better shooter games then BF3.

do so then?

FH2, PS2, Call of duty 1, Battlefield 2142 (This one is for me),Team fortress 2...

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Battlefieldfan45 (CroPanzer) on 31-10-2012, 00:10:59
Battlefield 2142 is the second best vanilla bf ever and I would pick Titan mode over bf3 anytime  8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Hjaldrgud on 31-10-2012, 04:10:53
Warning: Wall of text

Battlefield is a good game, but there are a few drawbacks IMO that hinders this game to become a very good one.

-Jets are slower than a B17 in BF42. Seriously. The jets are so slow and has crappy maneuverability.

-Where the fuck are working squads?! Okey, we have squads, but it is reduced to nothing more then spawn points. BF2 squads with a leader actually had some teamwork going on (sometimes)

-Generally teamwork I see less teamwork on BF3 than the other games. Too many people run around hurring and durring to get exp to unlock some freaking weapon.

-Weapon unlocks is just ridiculous in this game. Seriously? Russians running around with M240b, FAMAS, M16's. IMO there should be FACTION restricted weapons. There are so many weapons, and they are so alike. Hurr durr, we CoD now! You can also not hear them apart. I haven't played BF42 in centuries, but I know EXACTLY what the STG44, K98 and M1 garand sounds like in that game. In BF3, many of the weapons has exact the same sound as others. Why?

To much UI When shooting someone the whole screen gets covered in letters that says who you killed, how far away it was, etc. It's really obnoxious.

The blue tint and bloom My eyes! aaaaaahhh

More factions Come on! Russians in the Middle East, Russians in Paris, Russians on WAKE ISLAND??? Bring PLA, IDF, MEC, insurgents, spec ops, EU. Only two factions is just fuarking lazy.

Laser accurate weapons FULL AOUTOU ACROZZ TEH MAAPP! HURRRRRR SPRAY N PRAY ALL UP IN THIS BITCH. Give me some freaking recoil to sort the kids from the real men.

Assault and medic combined wut. just wut. Medic should only have a freaking PDW. Why should every soldier carry a freaking magical revive apparatus?

Maps a tad too small or game too fast paced I have not played armored kill, but the vanilla maps just seem too small. Take Caspian Border. It looks like a huge map, but all the flags are in the middle of the map and there is only a 300 meter sprint from a "flank" flag to the other flag on the other side. I have a feeling this is because of the console virus. I feel other maps also is kinda small, but I don't know if its the game pace, which I don't like either.

Game Pace Too fast. Just because its many bullets, you run fast and lots of explosions doesn't mean that the game automatically is better. To put it like this: Do you really prefer the Pierce Brosnan Bond movies over Sean Connery? Faster doesn't mean better.

No mod tools Meaning 98% chance that no mod will ever come for Battlefield 3. Congratulations DICE, you killed replayability of your game. This is the thing I am most pissed off for. Yes BF2 didn't have mod tools, but I doubt anyone can pull a mod tool off from Frostbite 2 engine. No people will create custom maps, make it more realistic, bring it back to WW2...  etc..  God, I can't tell how pissed I am because of this. Half the fun of BF is the mods! Come on DICE! You f*cking hired a bunch of modders from Desert Combat mod of BF42 to help you create BF2! 

God... I'm just pissed off now. I Actually decided I would reinstall BF3 earlier this day. Now I don't want to. DICE lost alot of their old fans and gained a fucklot of COD-kids. Hooray, their wallets will be filled. Time to make Battlefield Modern warfighter 4: Attack of the consolebringsmoremoneysoletsjustportittoPC.


*sigh*Anyone up for some Forgotten Hope? 
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: titsmcgee852 on 31-10-2012, 05:10:55
Perhaps it's just not your style of game? A lot of people bought BF3 because of many of those reasons.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 31-10-2012, 07:10:39
indeed-e-li-doo

still, Hjaldrgud (are you from Iceland btw? your name looks like that) a good and comprehensive list of why you dont like the game.

I think you mistake bf3 for games like bf1942 and bf vietnam where you had more classic "armies" against each other. BF3 isnt that kind of a game. You train your meta-soldier, and players dont want to train up his medic for both russian and then again for american. It wouldnt make sense. It's not a "war" between nations like in classic conflicts. Also, you're picking up the enemy's weapon all the time, why shouldnt you unlock access to weapons you're using daily?

Medics are no longer just a passive role, didnt you a few paragraphs earlier complain about the lack of teamwork? A medic with box + defib with an assault weapon can be right there in the fight, keeping the squad alive. It's clever teamplay design for hardcore players.




Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 31-10-2012, 17:10:45
Medics are no longer just a passive role, didnt you a few paragraphs earlier complain about the lack of teamwork? A medic with box + defib with an assault weapon can be right there in the fight, keeping the squad alive. It's clever teamplay design for hardcore players.

The thing is, medics never were "just a passive role" since bf 1942, where the self-healing + SMG combo was repeadetly named as "overpowered", nor were they passive in BF 2 where every guy and his dog in a squad were playing the medic and you had a neverending stream of revived people coming your way...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 31-10-2012, 18:10:26
Quote
I think you mistake bf3 for games like bf1942 and bf vietnam where you had more classic "armies" against each other. BF3 isnt that kind of a game.

And that's exactly why I don't like it. I want to fight with classical armies, instead of with Ubersoldier X vs Ubersoldier Y in a surreal "combat" environment. I like the idea of full blown armies against eachother, and i think Bf3 is the only game in the bf series that simply does not give you that.

It's also all too generic. I liked the many different classes bf1942 and bf2 had to offer. now it's reduced to 4. What's next ? one class that has all weapons. i don't like it. In BF3 everything is too custom, generic and centralised at the same time : the reduction of the classes enhances the generic and centralised feel that IMHO does not contribute to the "army feel", while at the same time every soldier is walking around with a different gun, also does not enhance an army feel.

Instead it feels like you're a "special force", but if I want that I could play CS instead, since it does a better job at that 
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 31-10-2012, 22:10:09
The thing is, medics never were "just a passive role" since bf 1942, where the self-healing + SMG combo was repeadetly named as "overpowered"
Knife, Pistol, SMG, 4X nades, Medic pack with self-healing powers

yes, it was a very heavy kit and that is why all clan players used it all the time.
So now we just agreed that the medic should have weapons and be strong, right? I think an LMG is the best supportive weapon he can have. SMGs fit more for engineers.

I don't know luftwaffe.be, "the class" is also arbitrary. With more than 4 classes they can become too specific so you are at a disadvantage too often. How often don't you suicide just because you happened to spawn in a situation where you need "that specific" kit? Happened a lot in bf42, BF2 as well as our own FH2. 4 classes is enough IMHO, and give the players the freedom to customize his loadout as he see fit... Isn't that what you want? Freedom to do what you want?
The kit system in Battlefield Play4Free works sweet, you have 10 equipment slots, kind of like an inventory which you can assign to 10 different buttons (mouse button, keys, etc) then you just put whatever you want in any of them. For example gadgets like C4, sat scan, bandages, claymores, spawn items, knives, tracer dart guns etc etc of course these are assigned to classes.. so the medic cant get C4 and the assault cant get medic box ofcourse) and weapons. But you're allowed only one primary weapon (AR, smg, lmg, shotgun or sniper) in each, and they are tied to the class, except shotguns which anyone can get. Then one pistol as well for sidearm.

I find that I can "gear" my dude to exactly like I want to play him. I can be an offensive or defensive guy, an infantry- or vehicle focused guy. Selfish, or team-helping. All depending on my mood. Add to that you can customize the weapon itself as well, with scopes, ammotypes, stock and barrel, so it fits exactly how you need it to function.
Only downside is you can't save your "opted" configuration, so if you try a bunch of different load-outs, you need to remember how you spent all the slots and the points in the skill-tree.

The "class" is just the archetype, a rough outline, but the players own personality / gamer type should be what makes the soldier in to what he is. To me that feels more modern, more towards what the future of FPS should give us. Customization is fairly new, I see much more coming apart from skills, weapons and clothes. I think games like World of Tanks help out here as well, the game becomes a mere platform, where the players choose how to spend virtual or real money to tune it to their liking.

It is bordering on character creation in RPGs where you get a set of points to add to your character.. you know how some are spending all on physical strength and weapon skill, and none on intelligence and charisma for example.. or stupid people like me who spend one point on each so I become mediocre on everything, but not awesome in one thing, then need to face endless grind to become good at everything  :P
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Nerdsturm on 01-11-2012, 04:11:59

I don't know luftwaffe.be, "the class" is also arbitrary. With more than 4 classes they can become too specific so you are at a disadvantage too often. How often don't you suicide just because you happened to spawn in a situation where you need "that specific" kit? Happened a lot in bf42, BF2 as well as our own FH2. 4 classes is enough IMHO, and give the players the freedom to customize his loadout as he see fit... Isn't that what you want? Freedom to do what you want?
If classes don't have specialized roles (and thus weaknesses) there really isn't a purpose to having classes in the first place. These weaknesses incentivize the best type of teamwork, since players need to rely on each other for different types of support, and it's just bland if every player can fulfill every role. Tanks can't appear powerful if every single soldier is carrying an RPG, and so on.

And class customization can be a bit of fun, but it's still ultimately just a gimmick that doesn't change whether or not the core game is fun or not (and in my opinion can actually detract from that, since customization can come at a cost to balance and require implementing annoying leveling systems). If there are a few well designed classes with specific roles, then customization doesn't really add anything and only distracts from the game. If I know I'm going to have to be fighting tanks in FH2, I take the AT class. There's no benefit from 10 different AT weapons that all do basically the same thing, and limiting choices can actually lead to some interesting gameplay as it is the case in some of the maps in FH2 that have no spawnable AT kits or only very weak ones.



Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 01-11-2012, 08:11:17
But "levelling systems" is a permanent core in games now and will always be there. Progression / persistence and unlocks is as much a part of the game core as the maps are, or the menu. So you can't dedact that from the equation.

Classes still have their roles in BF3 though, it's not like anyone can become exactly what he wants with all classes, is it?
I also consider what "kit" the player has to be a minor balancing parameter. The heavy balancing factors should come from how the terrain is built, the level design and what vehicles the designer gives you.

Breaking it down, balance should come from a model looking like:
Terrain formation: 20%
Static placements: 25%
Vehicles/ assets on map: 15%
Soldiers individual strengths: 20%
Players individual "skills": 20%

These numbers are grabbed from thin air just to prove the idea of the model. It basically mean a very powerful soldier (all ulocks, all geared to the teeth with  the best stuff) and a very skilfull player (on a high-end rig with low ping) still won't be able to "ultra-pwn" another player if he has the map (terrain/positions) and map assets to his advantage. However if he also has the best vehicle, he'll crush the opponents even if they have the best position (>50%)
However a "low skilled" player who uses the map design and the assets to his advantage, will win over the highskilled/maxed out geared soldier (40% v 60%)

Design must take these rock-paper-scissors concepts in to practice, or the game will become too predictable and static. The game and the map should always be the over-weighing factor, if you use it well, you should get the upper hand, IMO

Consider Counter-strike as comparison. Their model could look like this:
Terrain formation: 10%
Static placements: 15%
Vehicles / assets: 0%
Soldiers individual strength (basically what weapon you buy in the beginning): 35%
Players individual skill: 40%

It does mean, that a low skilled player (like me) could win against a high-skilled player if I had the best weapon and had the best map-position advantage on him. However if I meet him in a straight corridor with equal cover, Im fragged, 100% of the times. It also means that if he has a better weapon, Im unlikey to ever get a kill on him, even if I use the best covers / routes.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paavopesusieni on 01-11-2012, 16:11:22
And here I thought using map design as advantage is part of player skill. Oh well...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 01-11-2012, 17:11:23
Of course it is :) That is exactly what I meant.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Nerdsturm on 01-11-2012, 18:11:50
It also means that if he has a better weapon, Im unlikey to ever get a kill on him, even if I use the best covers / routes.

Don't you see a problem with this? New players generally will be at a skill disadvantage (or at least they won't know maps as well), and adding an additional layer of perk and gun disadvantages only makes this worse. If I start playing a game and am just flat out worse than any other players (think magnum ammo in BC2) I'm not going to have fun, and I'm not going to continue playing a game for 30 hours that isn't fun.

Multiplayer FPS's aren't about character development, they're about competition. Maybe I'm in the old guard in that regard, but I haven't spent money on a primarily multiplayer FPS since BC2, and with the current trends in the genre I don't exactly plan to start again. Many of the older games are just simply more entertaining, even if their graphics aren't as shiny.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 01-11-2012, 18:11:43
^ You misunderstood him, he was talking about CS, not BF 3 (although I would say that not giving you a coax mg or flares for your plane  by default is seriously stupid and puts new players in a not-so-enjoyable position)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 01-11-2012, 19:11:52
yes exactly, I was refering to CS in that sentence

FPS evolved and are now a lot about progression. People is actually tending to more stick around to "continue playing a game for 30 hours" because they want all that cool stuff :)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 01-11-2012, 19:11:41
attachment wise, every weapon is the same :/
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: |7th|Nighthawk on 01-11-2012, 22:11:14
I don't know how this works out in BF3 ( I played it 2 or 3 hours) but I am gonna take the nightmare of all BF-gamers as a good example: Call of Duty 4 (the others after that are not more than "meh") had a really good starting loadout with M16, M249SAW and MP5. Even in the endgame this weapons are really top notch. Shortly after those you even get AK and RPD (and the buggy Skorpion). This is a really good example of how to combine unlocks with a good amount of balance. The only Weapon that is OP and is gained in the last levels is the Desert Eagle. The rest is really fair and balanced. Even the attachements don't change too much.
In BC2, the above mentioned Magnum rounds or the Saiga 12K with extended mag can really be a problem for new players. That combined with the nonexisting countermeasures in vehicles leads to the problem of them being not fun to play if the other players got all the gadgets. Even if you achieve to lock onto an enemy chopper, he can still throw his flares whereas you cant and get killed if not skilled enough.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 02-11-2012, 15:11:49
Beautiful hi-res images from Battlefield 3 showing key elements of both the awesome game play and the wonders of Frostbite 2 :)

http://imgur.com/a/XHbp0#32

exceprts from the 1080p 60 fps slow-motion video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqgPiE1suF0&feature=youtu.be

pretttYYyy niiiice  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Kalkalash on 02-11-2012, 18:11:51
Wait, did that jet just take-off from a snowy road at 0:36? Well, fuck logic. Anyways, looks absolutely gorgeous, I wish I had a machine that could run it that high.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Eglaerinion on 03-11-2012, 09:11:27
Kinda looking forward to Aftermath. Some interesting ideas. Should be fun.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 03-11-2012, 09:11:16
wish they included some "old world" weapons

like an AKM or M16A1. one little FAL. And then WITH bayonets!


But no, EA wants maximum profit and includes one crossbow...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Alakazou on 03-11-2012, 09:11:39
(http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa30/DelMonty/BAYONETS.jpg)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 03-11-2012, 09:11:26
YEAH now we are talking BRO!   ;D ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 03-11-2012, 10:11:58
Wait, did that jet just take-off from a snowy road at 0:36? Well, fuck logic. Anyways, looks absolutely gorgeous, I wish I had a machine that could run it that high.
Possible in all bf games since the start :) fh2 as well... games arent attempting to take that kind of stuff in to consideration, players dont want it.
The pictures are just taken with "ultra" on all settings, do you get lag if you use those settings?

But no, EA wants maximum profit and includes one crossbow...

LOL! you think they avoid using "old weapons" because or profit? Im curious, didnt you hear what I said earlier about it not being EA that makes the game?.... if DICE wanted that m16, EA wouldnt have anything to do with that... Im sure they could have included those weapons, but face it, maybe it's only you who want them, other players dont want it, ever thought about that?  :) but noonoo.. everytime "EA" doest something that you dont agree with, it's just to "maximize profit"... trololo much?
'
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 03-11-2012, 14:11:54
What are some pro ace tips/ I see some players doing corners and turns that looks impossibru. I am playing with mouse and keyboard.
And what are the best loadout for planes?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 03-11-2012, 19:11:52
What are some pro ace tips/ I see some players doing corners and turns that looks impossibru. I am playing with mouse and keyboard.
And what are the best loadout for planes?

Avoid dog fights. Fly high, look down on the battle. If you see an enemy plane, dive on him, if you dont get him in the dive, pull off and try again. In a turning battle though, your afterburners may allow you to turn around quickly if you use them at the right moment.

I use rocket pods, guns, and flares. The reason is, as a recon class in normal, you can spot for longer. From an aircraft looking down you can spot tanks. Their red icon will show you where they are. Once you have a location, dive on them with rocket pods. The gun is for air-to-air. and Flares to dodge missiles and locks.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: RommelBr on 05-11-2012, 01:11:24
I concluded that in Battlefield 3 Snipers were created to you fuck with, in any way you want.

- See the bastard lying, Knife him (Take Dogtag) + Teabag.
- More than 1 Enemy sniper spotted together!, Knife Rape Party!!!
- Sneak behind a sniper, place C4, throw ammo bag in his head, he turn around... + Teabag
- Place a trail of AT mine from him, shoot mine with magnum/RPG/whatever... + Teabag.     
- Kill him (Get Owned), see his SpawnPoint, place a bag of C4's wait his spawn or just knife/kill him
- Sneak behind a sniper, teabag him, get some LOL's, Finish him, teabag more.
- Consult your troll side for more.

I feel sorry for these snipers...  ::)                                                                                                                               
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: HadrianBT on 05-11-2012, 08:11:23
Natty, I would agree with others with having more faction-specific wearpons, this really added flavor to BF2. Faction-specific unlocks would be even better.

And, I think I haven't said that before, you finally nailed the voice recording right. I mean, these are the best Russian voice actors I have heard so far. This was really good. One bad thing, though - why everybody speaks the same language? Come on, I could perfectly comprehend those Iranian fighters in BF2 :)
Same here - hearing enemy soldiers speaking Russian is totally weird, besides now I have no idea if something was said by an enemy or by an ally.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 12-11-2012, 12:11:44
Nice walk-through on what Aftermath includes  :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFBGHARH1YY
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 13-11-2012, 18:11:50
I wonder: how much booze did it actually take to produce the shit that is Operation Metro? Even after so many months of not playing it, I get myself worked up over its fuck all gameplay balance.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 13-11-2012, 18:11:11
The thing is, I don't really believe Metro is that unbalanced, the thing about it, and the thing I've noticed about many of the Battlefield games as far back as, probably Battlefield 2. Is that DICE has secretly put a heavy toll on teamwork for accomplishment of goals.

I agree that Metro can turn into a straight up meat grinder. But whether you are on the US or Russian teams there are specific ways to deal with the narrow corridors and staircases.

For instance, as the Russians. If you can push your way past B, to a defensive position just before Charlie (leaving it to the US Team) and place half the team in the tunnels themselves, and a few good machine gunners on the flanking staircase beside Charlie, you can effectively hold the enemy team with no problem.

This same sort of thing is seen on River Seine Rush, where the use of the APC as a blocking tool is important, since the Russians spawn across the street and must cross to defend Bravo.

As the US Team, it takes a lot of coordination, but with enough people willing to charge forward, and use smoke grenades. As well as attacking from multiple directions, you can easily break the Russian defense with just a few minutes of grind.

Even BF2142, where using the Gunships with two people requires a good amount of communication to realize their true destructive potential.

There really is a heavy emphasis on teamwork in Battlefield that goes unnoticed. Therefore its no so much the game, as it is, the player base.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Natty on 13-11-2012, 19:11:46
Yup, exactly. The designers want you to teamwork, but let's face it, most people don't care about coordination in online shooters.
I think Rush is the perfect example of how you (as a designer) get the best of both worlds; you both have the tool to heavily reward teamwork at the same time as you can allow lone-wolves to do their thing without disrupting the core game play.

Operation Metro is very well designed and popular with the players. And I think Rush is easily the best game mode that DICE has designed, on many different levels (which I dont want to go in to now with the risk of writing a small essay)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Torenico on 14-11-2012, 05:11:47
The best game mode DICE has ever created is Titan Mode on BF2142 dear Natty.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 14-11-2012, 05:11:02
The best game mode DICE has ever created is Titan Mode on BF2142 dear Natty.

I have to agree with this one. I like rush, but Titan mode defines epic.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: NTH on 15-11-2012, 23:11:49
A case of stolen Origin accounts going on --> http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/forum/threadview/2832654348318777990/
Smells like social engineering.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 15-11-2012, 23:11:37
The best game mode DICE has ever created is Titan Mode on BF2142 dear Natty.
oooh so fucking this

i spended 500 hours on Titan suez alone. I played all the Titan maps with equal love aswel

BF2142 still remains my favorite battlefield
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 16-11-2012, 00:11:10
Got Armored Kill today and... I guess the money was worth it in the end. But while I understand it is called Armored Kill, there's too many vehicles for my taste (although it might have been the fast vehicle respawn)... and with SOFLAM that can reach like everywhere, it's impossible to fly a scout helo. :(

Maps are lookin good though.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 28-11-2012, 03:11:31
  I had to actually dig for this damn thread.   ???

  Aftermath is actually pretty fun.  Infantry gets a lot more love and there are some really fun statics to bump around in.  Scavenger mode seems pretty cool as well.  I don't see myself hitting that one a great deal but I may lump into the same category as team deathmatch (nice change of pace to play every 8 rounds or so).
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: RommelBr on 14-12-2012, 16:12:18

 Did you guys found this EasterEgg in the Aftermatch DLC ?

Battlefield 3 Easter Egg - BF1942 on Epicenter (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bmh7s9B-vq0)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 14-12-2012, 19:12:51
Hell no...But I am going to now.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: THeTA0123 on 19-12-2012, 00:12:13
i feel like an idiot for buying premium

-no new weapons for end game
-no new vehicle unlocks in AK

EA All promised this, but quietly removed it

Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 19-12-2012, 01:12:14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX7wtNOkuHo

Sorry man, couldn't help myself.. BF3 Premium = marketing trick masterpiece, they truly "nailed it."

Even the facebook BF3 posts are hilarious... now it's "Battlefield 3 Aftermath – Available now. New mode – new weapon – new maps!", with End Game it will be just "New maps".. oh, right, and A MOTHERFUCKING MOTORCYCLE. lmao.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 20-12-2012, 12:12:53
i feel like an idiot for buying premium

-no new weapons for end game
-no new vehicle unlocks in AK

EA All promised this, but quietly removed it

EA already has your money, why would they bother making the product you'll receive decent ? It's only taking resources away from their next milk cow : battlefield 4.

A few of my friends also bought premium. They thought they did a great deal at the time, now they feel screwed. They don't even bother downloading the content they paid for, and servers on PS3 for xp packs don't seem to fill up that easy (i have no idea for PC though). It was ofcourse  all a big marketing trick : you paid for something that wasn't even there in the first place. It's always dangerous to do that, since you're uncertain with the quality of the end product.

I fortunately have more patience then my friends. I'll see if EA drops their premium to a more reasonable level (20€), maybe then I'll purchase it. and at least I'll know what i'm paying for. Though I have to admit, Bf3 never appealed for me. I bought this game at the release, and played it a full 16 hours since -_-. meanwhile i've played 1942 for 24h since it's origin release.. 
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Tankbuster on 20-12-2012, 13:12:20
is that not illegal?
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Musti on 20-12-2012, 13:12:40
I'm pretty sure it falls in "false advertising" category.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Tankbuster on 20-12-2012, 13:12:17
Need natty to explain why it is actually correct and to saturate the thread with many 8)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 20-12-2012, 14:12:50
No worries. i'm quite sure that EA has their back covered by the EULA that comes with buying a premium pack. Big companies always have.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: McCloskey on 20-12-2012, 15:12:08
Actually, it was stated on the premium page that all the content was a subject to change, an obvious hint at stuff changing in the future (i.e. there being LESS content in the end than advertised at first). Unfortunately, the gaming crowd is full of people who don't pay attention to things like these or are even willing to buy a pig in a poke. And well, then there are people who buy Call of Duty annually...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: ajappat on 20-12-2012, 16:12:42
I bought Premium from sale so I got it for cheaper than what BF3 + armored kill would have cost me seperately. So with that in mind, I'm pretty happy with my premium because all other dlc's are just bonus for me.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 20-12-2012, 18:12:45
   I have 338 hours into this piece of shit.  My wife has 179 (only started playing this summer).  Since our PS3's have linked accounts I only had to buy this once.  I would say we got our moneys worth and then some.  Unlike close quarters and armored kill this last expansion seems to be holding up as something we like to play again and again alongside the base maps and Karkand.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: [130.Pz]S.Lainer on 09-03-2013, 10:03:15
End Game.   Is great.  Capture the flag plus moterbikes = win.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 25-03-2013, 22:03:01
Finally I've found out why I coudn't accelerate my aircraft and turn at the same time. Looks like by default the button was also assigned to free look. Now I'll finally be able to fly in this game :p
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zoologic on 01-04-2013, 08:04:27
Anybody still play this shit?

I've just received my Premium copy and the original BF3 from SimCity fiasco apology token. My Origin/Battlelog ID is the same with my old display name here: ZooMotorPool.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Ts4EVER on 01-04-2013, 09:04:41
I just bought it. Multiplayer is fun.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 01-04-2013, 18:04:08
Yea, still play it all the time. Here's a friend of mine and I playing some Wake Island awhile back:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWIYVszp0mc
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zoologic on 02-04-2013, 06:04:32
Are you guys going under the same screen name as in here?

I'm still completing the Campaign storyline. Here is my proper review I owed Natty after I really played the game and get rid all of that EA-hating biases.

The story so far it has been mind bogglingly stupid for a publisher company that is renown for their semi-realistic approach to its games (like always licensing real world stuffs). But it doesn't follow the grandiose philosophical nonsense like Call of Duty mainstream, but still retain some of that "CoD-only poor military planning (tm)" in order for you to be able to perform dangerous and risky actions. Don't expect a bit of realism from it other than occasional F-bombs finding its way on the dialogue and absurd ambush scenarios, which requires you to press certain keys ('e' or space bar) and click LMB at the right time to counteract successfully. The SP feels heavily scripted and very dull compared to CoD, IMHO.

But never mind the rest, the game looks great for a multiplayer platform. All the controls are complete, we have gone so far, evolving from simplified controls, uncharacteristic human player handling, bunny-hopping of Half-Life CS series into this seemingly 100 kg, heavily equipped US Marine grunts. Probably a typical EA FPS games since MoH series (despite being developed by entirely different studio). The movement feels heavy and realistic, might not be great for Hollywoodish action, but the effects made up to it.

The graphic is pretty much fancy to satisfy your penchant for showing-off to your trendy friends. It is just you need sunglasses if you want to keep your eye healthy, just like in the real world.

Sound effects are pretty much standard, the sounds and noises are typical to Hollywood movies.

Lastly, Frostbite 2 engine works brilliantly. Might be a bit taxing on the processor, but the result is satisfying. Seeing the enemy's cover blown into bit, watching the concrete blocks getting chipped by MG fire. Can't wait to see what they'll bring with Frostbite 3.

All in all, it is quite understandable if this game is an award winning one. Personally, I was slightly a bit dejected with some of its features and numerous DLCs and the pricing. Nevertheless, I am looking forward to the MP.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: SiCaRiO on 04-04-2013, 14:04:41
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bydGoAdvmZo&feature=player_embedded

im just gonna leave this here.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: |7th|Nighthawk on 04-04-2013, 15:04:25
Logical conclusion.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Zoologic on 05-04-2013, 06:04:33
Agree on that! The whole BF:MW thing make the current MoH series seem pointless. Why not make the MoH franchise stick to WW2 and BF series into modern shit while using the magnificent Frostbite engine?

If MoH was as seriously made as BF3 or BF4 with WW2 settings and all the hipster vehicles (like Ratte or Maus), I'm sure MoH will fare pretty well.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: luftwaffe.be on 05-04-2013, 16:04:54
MOH is dead. It has been killed with the release of the newest title. The BF series will need to fill the "gap".
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 14-04-2013, 20:04:56
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0ksHYUDfy0

Testing out some slow motion  ;D
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: flyboy_fx on 19-04-2013, 21:04:10
I picked up the premium edition a few days ago... I've forgotten what the sun looks like. O_O
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Yustax on 20-04-2013, 02:04:39
That's not the sun. Is obviously a meteorite going through the ozone layer to destroy earth.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: titsmcgee852 on 20-04-2013, 04:04:05
Just bought this for $5 off the origin store :----) If only my computer could run it...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 21-04-2013, 16:04:39
Its weird how much more conservative I've become while playing this game. Before the army I would've charged head-long into combat, dying without question, and disrupting the enemy at all costs. Now I find myself moving around the map differently, surviving for longer periods of time, and engaging in ways I never would have. Getting much higher KD ratios, but at the sacrifice of the number of enemies killed.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Knitschi on 26-04-2013, 07:04:52
You are getting old  ::)
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: hitm4k3r on 26-04-2013, 09:04:24
Or he is becoming a camper  ;D

That's how we call it in computer games.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: siben on 26-04-2013, 11:04:26
yeah, one of those assholes that hide around and kill you before you even see them.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: titsmcgee852 on 26-04-2013, 12:04:29
Its weird how much more conservative I've become while playing this game. Before the army I would've charged head-long into combat, dying without question, and disrupting the enemy at all costs. Now I find myself moving around the map differently, surviving for longer periods of time, and engaging in ways I never would have. Getting much higher KD ratios, but at the sacrifice of the number of enemies killed.
I'm the same just having played a lot of red orchestra ostfront. I used to be so reckless on FH2, now I've always got my head down.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Dukat on 26-04-2013, 12:04:42
He is probably advancing into a less arcadeous simulation game type, like ArmA or FH2. That depends on your overall knowledge and expirience with first person shooters. Besides age. IMHO
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 26-04-2013, 17:04:20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI6F59EEBCc&feature=share

Just had a good laugh.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Paavopesusieni on 26-04-2013, 19:04:47
http://enlist.veniceunleashed.net/ (http://enlist.veniceunleashed.net/)

Unofficial mod support coming it seems. Just like old BF42, proactive mod community does what they want ignoring developer set limits.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Musti on 26-04-2013, 20:04:29
Now that sounds awesome!
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: LuckyOne on 09-05-2013, 15:05:00
http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/05/09/ea-buy-domains-for-battlefields-up-to-20-release-new-screenshots-of-battlefield-4/?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=emp

Can't say I'm surprised... I probably won't be buying any new Battlefields it seems...
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Archimonday on 29-05-2013, 06:05:56
Just discovered a good number of servers that play with no mini-map or hud. Really makes BF3 more engaging. Now if only a brave admin somewhere would start up a server with 50% or less player health.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: DaWorg! on 30-05-2013, 01:05:14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bydGoAdvmZo&feature=player_embedded

im just gonna leave this here.

Sounds like Reapers are coming.

Kinda sad that i enjoy BF 2 more than BF 3 nowadays. BF 3 makes me regret the purchase
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: Biiviz on 30-05-2013, 15:05:37
BF3 has a bunch of cool new functions such as the destruction engine, various gadgets (I especially enjoy the Stinger and Javelin missile systems), plus beautiful sounds and animations.

However, I just don't have as much fun playing the game. I think this stems from the map design being different, I think. Most of the BF2 maps were fantastic, which is evident in DICE re-releasing them in the Karkand DLC. Even in BFBC2 I started noticing the difference, as even there only 1-2 maps were truly fun to play. In BF3 I only play 2 mediocre maps.

I also don't see the need for unlocking everything that's needed to make you even slightly useful.

Let's see if BF4 brings anything new to the table, although I doubt it.
Title: Re: Battlefield 3
Post by: 0utlaw on 16-06-2021, 21:06:13
https://veniceunleashed.net/

id buy bf3 and learn the mod tools to help port over some maps to help out  :D