PDA

View Full Version : Battlefield Tri-hard



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Ifafudafi
February 3rd, 2011, 07:00 PM
EA's Origin Twitter - "Battlefield 3 will be $30 off tonight at 9PM PST/12 AM EST. NA only." If you've been holding out due to cash or something you're quickly running out of reasons not to buy this (it's okay it's really pretty good)


9/20 - Beta information and official computer specs
The Battlefield 3 Open Beta is available on all platforms; console-goers should check their typical online marketplaces, and PC-elites should look to Origin.
If you've preordered on PC or bought Medal of Hondor new, you'll get to hop in the beta on September 27.
If you haven't because you refuse to buy off Origin or you didn't want to pay full price for some mediocre shooter just to get into a BF3 beta, you'll get in on September 29.
The beta will end on October 10. That means the beta will last for 11 or 13 days, depending on whether you're $60 poorer than others.

If you're a PC gamer, you'll still have time to get in early if you pre-order before September 25, but if you just really want to stick it to the man, your call.

DICE have also given us the system requirements/recommendations for the beta, which are as follows:
Minimum System Requirements
OS: WINDOWS VISTA (SERVICE PACK 2) 32-BIT
PROCESSOR: 2 GHZ DUAL CORE (CORE 2 DUO 2.4 GHZ OR ALTHON X2 2.7 GHZ)
MEMORY: 2 GB
HARD DRIVE: 20 GB
GRAPHICS CARD (AMD): DIRECTX 10.1 COMPATIBLE WITH 512 MB RAM (ATI RADEON 3000, 4000, 5000 OR 6000 SERIES, WITH ATI RADEON 3870 OR HIGHER PERFORMANCE)
GRAPHICS CARD (NVIDIA): DIRECTX 10.0 COMPATIBLE WITH 512 MB RAM (NVIDIA GEFORCE 8, 9, 200, 300, 400 OR 500 SERIES WITH NVIDIA GEFORCE 8800 GT OR HIGHER PERFORMANCE)
SOUND CARD: DIRECTX COMPATIBLE
KEYBOARD AND MOUSE
DVD ROM DRIVE

Recommended System Requirements
OS: WINDOWS 7 64-BIT
PROCESSOR: QUAD-CORE CPU
MEMORY: 4 GB
HARD DRIVE: 20 GB
GRAPHICS CARD: DIRECTX 11 COMPATIBLE WITH 1024 MB RAM (NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 560 OR ATI RADEON 6950)
SOUND CARD: DIRECTX COMPATIBLE
KEYBOARD AND MOUSE
DVD ROM DRIVE

For more information, check the official Beta website (http://www.battlefield.com/battlefield3/1/beta).

9/16 - Guillotine Gameplay Series: Part Xbox
So apparently instead of more PC gameplay we're getting a demonstration of what the game looks on Xbox 360, the first time we're seeing official footage on the console. Not as jaw-droppingly oh-god-there-goes-another-pair-of-pants pretty as PC, of course, but damn if it doesn't look nice.

AzA4dv0xkzg

9/9 - Guillotine Gameplay Series: Part 1
Looks like we'll be getting a similar treatment to the Fault Line series, i.e. three/four short clips of a long sequence every week and then the full video.

u5eLbPQt_Pk

8/16 - 64-player Multiplayer Trailer and Weapon/Upgrade Info
Here's a massive fact sheet (http://planetbattlefield.gamespy.com/fullstory.php?id=165281) listing all the weapons, attachments, and equipment.

Also sexy:
NDDfPxF3EFE&hd=1

7/21 - Mulitplayer Footage
First off, there's an official trailer:
XhBjBy5OOFY

A guy also put together all the player-recorded footage he could find. Note that a lot of this footage is of games with very few players in them, and also that the players recorded may not have their graphics settings on max.

Part 1:
d91BIBgU-ao

Part 2:
pfqlQPXPiFs

6/6 - E3 BLOWOUT
Battlefield 3 is officially coming to all platforms on October 25, 2011! An open beta taking place in September has been announced as well, so keep your eyes out for more information on that as it comes. Also, feast your eyes on three new vids:

E3 show floor demonstration
9UwOrl036_A

Frostbite 2 trailer
4WWEn4j_BEE

Multiplayer trailer
lVgdUahPk3s

6/3 - Pre-E3 BF blog info

From the BF blog (http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/battlefield_bad_company/archive/2011/06/03/bf3-goes-to-e3.aspx#%23)


...we will be showing both single player and multiplayer gameplay at E3! You can expect new trailers and screenshots as well as in-depth press previews hitting next week. You can also watch the EA press conference live on EA.com on Monday.

...Gamers will experience a physical battlefield and be able to temporarily disable vehicles, go prone, mount weapons, lay down suppressive fire and more.


Of course there are things we will not be showing at E3, including the game’s extensive co-op campaign, the introduction of Team Death Match mode and the Battlefield 3 Battlelog web destination – featuring powerful social tools, feeds and detailed player stats. Battlelog also lets you manage your friends lists, squad up, create platoons, use voice chat and follow your friends’ progress in real-time, and more. Battlelog will be available for the monthly fee of (drum roll)... zero dollars.

Zing!

5/27 - EA PWNED interview
PXaFw7aC9GE&hd=1

4/16 - 12-minute gameplay trailer
2zw8SmsovJc

3/30 - Gameplay demo, part 3
DsHIHxYXeLs

HOLY SHIIIT

3/16 - Gameplay demo, part 2
OsL2IuRL8qE

3/2 - Gameplay demo, part 1
Three-minute gameplay demo. YEEEAH.
s7-2IRX-0nM

Here's some more stills, thanks again Amit

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield 3/follow.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield 3/meatshop.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield 3/alleyrays.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield 3/doorbust.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield 3/street.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield 3/streetdoorbust.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield 3/mandown.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield 3/pulltosafety.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield 3/enemysighted.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield 3/firefight.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield 3/tracer.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield 3/sparks.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield 3/particles.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield 3/ACOG.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield 3/bodies.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield 3/RPGstrike.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield 3/ahhh.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield 3/knoeckedback.png


2/23 - Gameplay teaser

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9SCWClN4Ic&feature=player_embedded

Yeah.

Here's some hires stills, thanks Amit:

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/bloodlarge.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/chrome2011-02-2315-14-26-08.jpg
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/hotel.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/hotel2.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/hotel3.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/hotel4.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/run.png

2/7 - GI Cover Story
After wading through the murky, profanity-ridden depths of /v/, I found scans of the Game Informer cover story, and promptly saved and uploaded them. They're on display in the spoiler below, but here are the highlights:
-Full SP campaign, completely seperate from BC (going for a more srs tone, but not quite as high-octane as CoD)
-Dev team twice the size of BC2's, most of them being BF2/1942 vets
-"One probe contains more lighting information than an entire level in BC2." Badass engine
-Vastly upgraded destruction capabilities (within reasonable limits, i.e. no Red Faction destructo-marathons)
-Commander role not confirmed, not denied (implied that it's not there though :()
-Spotting system like that in BC2
-Four classes
-Killcam confirmed (can be turned off)
-Theater mode (eg. Halo 3/Reach, Black Ops) a strong possibility
-PC is lead platform (fuck yeah)
-Mod tools not confirmed, not denied (still in discussion)

E: goddamn imageshit scaled down the scans, here's a .rar with the lot (http://www.filefront.com/17912559/ddd.rar)

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/5305/48023422.jpg
http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/3041/22638930.jpg
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/5660/81526172.jpg
http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/4765/61774214.jpg
http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/7978/30337596.jpg

2/4 - Teaser Trailer
xP0Ij1_VTY0

Coming Fall 2011. YEEEAH

New information confirmed:
-Full single-player campaign (co-op included)
-Jets
-64 Players on PC
-Prone

2/3 - GI Cover Unveiled
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/02/03/march-cover-revealed-battlefield-3.aspx


In our world-exclusive cover story, Game Informer unveils the first numbered entry in the Battlefield series since 2005. Many longtime fans are wondering, "what took so long?!" DICE has honed the concept for the true sequel for years, but it wasn't until the company developed the powerful new Frostbite 2 engine that it felt all the pieces were in place to create a proper follow-up. Armed with powerful upgrades like deferred rendering, real-time radiosity, a new animation system borrowed from the EA Sports label, and an exponential leap in destructibility, executive producer Patrick Bach dubs Frostbite 2 "the best piece of technology on the market when it comes to building games."

So yeah looks like BFBC and its engine was just a warm-up for the next huge BF game. Look for more info come mid-February when this GI issues ships (I'll put info here as it comes)

Only problem I have there is "sets its sights on Call of Duty" in the cover blurb, hopefully that's just EA's marketing spewing shit and not an actual development focus

MXC
February 3rd, 2011, 07:21 PM
If by "sights set on Call of Duty" means more elaborate gun customization and painting, I'm in.

On the other hand, if by "sights set on Call of Duty" means killstreaks and two shot kills, I'm out.

TVTyrant
February 3rd, 2011, 07:24 PM
Dont forget the knife lunge!

Yeah, just that line is probably going to make some of the PC people go "Um, wtf?". But for all the XBox kiddies, it might be a draw-in.

Warsaw
February 3rd, 2011, 07:25 PM
Call of Duty isn't much of a benchmark.

TVTyrant
February 3rd, 2011, 07:41 PM
Except in the sales department...

Warsaw
February 3rd, 2011, 07:46 PM
And that is, unfortunately, the only one that counts.

Fake E: I better have my full range of six classes in Battlefield 3. And jets.

ThePlague
February 3rd, 2011, 07:54 PM
This better be like Bad Company 2, and not like Medal of Honor. That game was shit tier compared to BC2.

Warsaw
February 3rd, 2011, 08:00 PM
That game was NOT made by DICE. Only the multiplayer portion was, and even then I'm sure they had their hands tied.

MXC
February 4th, 2011, 06:44 AM
Here's the teaser trailer:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP0Ij1_VTY0&feature=player_embedded


Not much, but I saw jets! :iamafag:

Bastinka
February 4th, 2011, 07:27 AM
Looks exciting, can't wait to see some gameplay videos.

Cortexian
February 4th, 2011, 08:21 AM
Looks great, hopefully Combat Testing gets in on the beta so I can try it out!

1960

MXC
February 4th, 2011, 10:14 AM
Watching the trailer for a 10th time, I'm getting the feeling that the map's going to be something along the lines of a massive city.


Fill that with 64 players on the Frostbite 2 engine...add jets to fight overhead...


Boom.

Ifafudafi
February 4th, 2011, 11:23 AM
front post updated

the GI site (http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/02/04/check-out-first-battlefield-3-details-teaser.aspx) has now confirmed the return of jets, 64-player battles on PC, and the ablility to go prone.

Also Fall 2011 release date woo

E: The Battlefield Blog (http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/battlefield_bad_company/archive/2011/02/04/battlefield-3-is-coming-preorder-now.aspx##) also confirms a full (co-op!) SP campaign. I doubt it'll return to the BFBC dudes; just hope it doesn't get too convoluted like MW2.

Amit
February 4th, 2011, 02:26 PM
I hope the gameplay isn't as clumsy as BC2. When you are running around and jump over an object, it just doesn't feel right.

This game better have support for large squads like in BF2 and BF2142 along with commanders.

Warsaw
February 4th, 2011, 04:01 PM
front post updated

the GI site (http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/02/04/check-out-first-battlefield-3-details-teaser.aspx) has now confirmed the return of jets, 64-player battles on PC, and the ablility to go prone.

Also Fall 2011 release date woo

E: The Battlefield Blog (http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/battlefield_bad_company/archive/2011/02/04/battlefield-3-is-coming-preorder-now.aspx##) also confirms a full (co-op!) SP campaign. I doubt it'll return to the BFBC dudes; just hope it doesn't get too convoluted like MW2.

But I like the Bad Company characters! They were funnier in the first game, though.

I also hope the XM8 doesn't show it's ugly face this time, too, and that the HK416 comes back to campaign.

ExAm
February 4th, 2011, 06:03 PM
Warsaw, next time you play BC2's single player, sit around during a lull and wait for them to start talking. There's over 12 fucking minutes of hilarious conversations that you never hear during battle. Some of them depend on the area, too, so listen in on every level.

iizahsum
February 4th, 2011, 08:24 PM
Warsaw, next time you play BC2's single player, sit around during a lull and wait for them to start talking. There's over 12 fucking minutes of hilarious conversations that you never hear during battle. Some of them depend on the area, too, so listen in on every level.

Hulk Hogan Vs The Sarge.

ejburke
February 4th, 2011, 08:52 PM
Glad to hear BF is getting its player count back. I'm just so sick of the super-serious modern war aesthetic that it's making it hard to find my enthusiasm for this game.

I hope they can recapture some of the BF `42 magic. And by that I mean 1) leave room for some silliness and ridiculousness, 2) include environments that aren't all dusty, war-torn shit-scapes, and 3), make it more feasible to lone wolf than it was in BF2. The squad system in BF2 was revolutionary and I would never suggest they scrap it, but at the end of the day, it's one more social contract on an already steep pile.

cheezdue
February 4th, 2011, 09:03 PM
I'm wondering what kind of specs will be required to run this game.

Dwood
February 4th, 2011, 09:26 PM
Specs of an Xbx 360 or more.

ODX
February 4th, 2011, 09:44 PM
Official Info so far:
- 64 players in the PC version.
- The ability to go prone.
- JETS.
- Will use Frostbite Engine 2.
- Cutting edge animation provided by the team from EA Sports.
- Sea, air, and land vehicles.
- Urban Combat in some open and enclosed spaces.
- Does not support Windows XP.

(Ah, so here was the thread...hiding in the damn Tech Talk >_>)

Ifafudafi
February 4th, 2011, 09:48 PM
I remember reading somewhere (I'll dig up the link later) that FB2 was built around DX11, and will be compatible only down to DX10 (meaning XP users/people with old cards are SOL until somebody hacks it.) A modified version will run on consoles.

Adjust your expectations accordingly

ODX
February 4th, 2011, 09:49 PM
Whoops, I just edit-sniped you on that Infafudafi xD

ICEE
February 4th, 2011, 09:54 PM
God damn it. I really wish there were fewer excellent looking games coming out this year, I am so broke.

also,



Call of Duty isn't much of a benchmark.

+ rep

ExAm
February 4th, 2011, 10:01 PM
@EJburke: Lone Wolves can go fuck themselves in this game. And they can go fuck themselves in BF3. This is not COD, nor should it be anything like COD.

Warsaw
February 4th, 2011, 10:28 PM
Warsaw, next time you play BC2's single player, sit around during a lull and wait for them to start talking. There's over 12 fucking minutes of hilarious conversations that you never hear during battle. Some of them depend on the area, too, so listen in on every level.

I did this. This is why I love the characters. It's also why I love the game so much; it doesn't take itself too seriously which is awesome.

As for lone wolves: they ruin Battlefield. No, seriously, fuck them. I have lost too many matches because 30-70% of the team thought it would be awesome to be a sniper, and so they don't join a squad. Not. Cool.

CN3089
February 4th, 2011, 10:36 PM
Watching the trailer for a 10th time, I'm getting the feeling that the map's going to be something along the lines of a massive city.


Fill that with 64 players on the Frostbite 2 engine...add jets to fight overhead...


Boom.

tehran, new york and paris already confirmed friend <:-]

Cortexian
February 4th, 2011, 11:29 PM
be a sniper, and so they don't join a squad. Not. Cool.
What the fuck? Why would you not join a squad as a sniper? If you're in a squad and you get sniper you can strategically spawn on a squad member to counter-snipe. If you're not on a squad you can't do shit.

ejburke
February 5th, 2011, 12:18 AM
I'm not talking about jackoffs that are just in it to rack up kills and don't care if their team wins or loses. I'm talking about people that ARE trying to win the game, but do not want the added stress or obligation of a squad.

In my experience with BF2, I capped WAY more territory by myself than in a squad. The problem was, a squad would roll in and take it back and there was not a lot I could do about it. Maybe that's what should happen, but squads had a larger advantage than numbers and teamwork.

But when you don't want to be in a squad and you can't effectively compete in the game, what's left for people? Oh yeah, sniping solo! Personally, I never went that route. I just quit playing BF2.

Lone wolves aren't what's ruining these games, it's the fucking pressure and hostility that teammates have toward other teammates. Nobody is allowed to figure out a game, anymore. So, the good, conscientious lone wolves have been driven off, leaving only the lone wolves who don't give a fuck.

Amit
February 5th, 2011, 02:23 AM
The only way we got shit done was by being in a squad. I like to join servers where you have to be in a squad. The problem is when you get a commander who doesn't know what they are doing.

They'll order your squad to take an objective and we'll get pwned by entrenched enemies. Then he'll tell us to continue assaulting and don't try to flank. Alright, so eventually we break through and start securing the point. Then the one sniper that was hiding there pops up on the commander's screen and then he orbital bombards the place to shit while we're cappin the flag. From the position where the sniper and his squad was situated, it would have made perfect sense to attack from the side because they had no cover on their flanks. That's why I don't give a fuck anymore and just command my squad where I damn well please.

Phopojijo
February 5th, 2011, 02:51 AM
I was actually quite effective as a "lone wolf" in Battlefield 2 and 2142. During many pushes I was with my squad -- but a very large portion of the time I was either capping very obscure objectives to split the enemy up, screwing with their supply of vehicles, setting up annoying traps for enemies (c4 under bridges, double claymore near heavy jeep routes, etc), or taking down high-value targets that my squad would complain about. When they needed me I was there of course -- but during a very sizable amount of time I was professional shit disturber... get in the enemy's head... keep their jets, walkers, and tanks dead or our's... etc.

Cortexian
February 5th, 2011, 03:32 AM
Is 2142 still active?

ICEE
February 5th, 2011, 02:44 PM
I like battlefield's squad system, but it seems like my squadmates always spawn on me at the wrong times. When I'm in a narrow hallway, trying to run my ass off from an enemy tank, a squadmate spawns behind me and blocks my path, not knowing whats going on. etc

Amit
February 5th, 2011, 03:03 PM
Is 2142 still active?

Quite active, still, but obviously not as much as BF2. BF2 was a more popular game for mods, though. For ground battles I enjoyed 2142 more for some reason. Oh and Titan combat is epic in 2142.

Warsaw
February 5th, 2011, 04:14 PM
2142 is actually the only game in the Battlefield franchise that I do not own.

Cortexian
February 5th, 2011, 04:16 PM
I can't find my install disk for 2142 :(

Oh well, looks like some guy(s) have a promising hack/crack/emulator that should be out soon that will allow me to try it out again.

ExAm
February 5th, 2011, 05:01 PM
I'm not talking about jackoffs that are just in it to rack up kills and don't care if their team wins or loses. I'm talking about people that ARE trying to win the game, but do not want the added stress or obligation of a squad.

In my experience with BF2, I capped WAY more territory by myself than in a squad. The problem was, a squad would roll in and take it back and there was not a lot I could do about it. Maybe that's what should happen, but squads had a larger advantage than numbers and teamwork.

But when you don't want to be in a squad and you can't effectively compete in the game, what's left for people? Oh yeah, sniping solo! Personally, I never went that route. I just quit playing BF2.

Lone wolves aren't what's ruining these games, it's the fucking pressure and hostility that teammates have toward other teammates. Nobody is allowed to figure out a game, anymore. So, the good, conscientious lone wolves have been driven off, leaving only the lone wolves who don't give a fuck.
I don't care if you wander off from your squad a ways, i care that you join a squad and let people spawn on you, so they can, you know, help, and have a strategic spawn point if they need one. Hell, you get three strategic spawn points if you join one. That should be reason enough!

Amit
February 5th, 2011, 05:16 PM
I can't find my install disk for 2142 :(

Oh well, looks like some guy(s) have a promising hack/crack/emulator that should be out soon that will allow me to try it out again.

Yeah it sucks that after all these years we still have to use the damn disc to start up the game. Like, we already need an account to play online, wtf do we need a disc in for? The devs must have known that offline would have been cracked anyways.

Cortexian
February 5th, 2011, 05:58 PM
Well, my problem is that apparently I didn't use my "regular" EA information and I can't remember what it was. I have a No CD exe for 1.50 but I can't remember my login info.

Amit
February 5th, 2011, 06:01 PM
Well, my problem is that apparently I didn't use my "regular" EA information and I can't remember what it was. I have a No CD exe for 1.50 but I can't remember my login info.

Pretty much screwed, then. Unless you can recover some details through email or something.

RedBaron
February 5th, 2011, 08:48 PM
Recently played a few games, then uninstalled it due to lack of proper wide screen. Wide screen is supported with the last patch, but most of the gun models have big gaping holes past the FOV that was originally intended. Plus most scope reticules became retarded.

Bastinka
February 5th, 2011, 10:05 PM
I've played and own BF2, BF2142, BF: Bad Company (X360), BFBC2 and BFBC2:Vietman (PC). So far my favorite is Bad Company 2, especially the Vietnam expansion.

TeeKup
February 5th, 2011, 11:00 PM
Vietnam got stupid once everyone started whoring the fucking PT Boats:

Get in boat, drive it out into the middle of the lack/river.

Spray shoreline, get 20+ kills.

Hastings was fun though. So was Phu bai valley.

Ifafudafi
February 6th, 2011, 12:09 AM
2142 and BC2 are my two favorite BFs personally, for different reasons

My hope is that BF3 will take all the nice things from BC2 (streamlined classes, better teamwork incentives, next-gen polish, heavily customizable loadouts) while keeping all the classic BF staples (VEHICLES EVERYWHERE, commander/squad leader hiearchy and tactics, quicker deaths, effing jets). The good thing is that we'll have a lot of time to preview and make decisions on this; GI's running the first cover story later this month, other magazines are getting previews too; it'll be demonstrated live (and maybe even playable) at GDC in March, and I'm sure it'll be one of EA's main attractions at E3.

Of course even if it does lean too heavily towards CoD, modders will probably scale it back towards BF2 within a week. BC2 didn't have mod tools because it was a console-to-PC port, but FB2, seeing that it's built for PC, should have good mod support (and DICE has always been mod-friendly; there's no reason a main BF entry wouldn't have mods)

ejburke
February 6th, 2011, 12:12 AM
I don't care if you wander off from your squad a ways, i care that you join a squad and let people spawn on you, so they can, you know, help, and have a strategic spawn point if they need one. Hell, you get three strategic spawn points if you join one. That should be reason enough!That is an abuse of the system. They didn't put spawn-on-squad in there just so people could take advantage of cheap spawns, without actually cooperating. Maybe you didn't care, but when things are going badly and you are the leader of a full squad that is MIA, it's natural to resent them. As I said before, a squad system is a social contract.

My solution would be to roll strategic spawning into class abilities and out of the squad mechanic. That way, they can balance it properly and I wouldn't have to squad up for people to be able to spawn on me -- if I chose the spawning class ("Radio Man"?), which would sacrifice some combat prowess as a trade-off.

Hell, I'd be more likely to join a squad if I could be sure that the other people in squads actually wanted to cooperate and weren't looking to take advantage of a loophole to get back into the fight more quickly. It's not like I always prefer lone-wolfing. Squads are fun in the proper mindset.

Warsaw
February 6th, 2011, 02:16 AM
That is an abuse of the system. They didn't put spawn-on-squad in there just so people could take advantage of cheap spawns, without actually cooperating. Maybe you didn't care, but when things are going badly and you are the leader of a full squad that is MIA, it's natural to resent them. As I said before, a squad system is a social contract.


Actually, that is basically the entire reason for having squads; strategic spawn points.

Amit
February 6th, 2011, 02:51 AM
I liked the system in BF2142 where you could only spawn on your squad leader. However, it is more useful to be able to spawn on your entire squad. Still, I thought it was badass how the squad leader could throw down a drop pod beacon (provided it is unlocked) and you can pretend to be an ODST. Somebody should mod 2142 EU characters to be ODSTs and PAC characters to be insurrectionists. And the Titans can be miniature frigates or something.

Sadly I have tried to get people to post in my BF platoon thread for availability for BC2, but only three people have replied so far. Get in there right now!

Warsaw
February 6th, 2011, 05:46 AM
I've been taking a break from BC2. If I play a game too much, I never want to touch it again. Right now, focus is AvP multiplayer. When BC2 cools down, I'll join.

RedBaron
February 6th, 2011, 01:15 PM
I liked the system in BF2142 where you could only spawn on your squad leader. However, it is more useful to be able to spawn on your entire squad. Still, I thought it was badass how the squad leader could throw down a drop pod beacon (provided it is unlocked) and you can pretend to be an ODST. Somebody should mod 2142 EU characters to be ODSTs and PAC characters to be insurrectionists. And the Titans can be miniature frigates or something.

Sadly I have tried to get people to post in my BF platoon thread for availability for BC2, but only three people have replied so far. Get in there right now!
I friended everyone on the first post, only two of them accepted

Amit
February 6th, 2011, 01:22 PM
I friended everyone on the first post, only two of them accepted

Yo do know that the BC2 friends list is broken and that only people logged in at the main menu will actually see your request?

Cortexian
February 6th, 2011, 06:08 PM
I've never experienced that Amit... That said, I know it can be buggy.

How about this? (http://steamcommunity.com/groups/battlefieldmodacity)

Ifafudafi
February 8th, 2011, 12:35 AM
Yeah you saw the title, check the first post for everything you need to know

Oh god I had to go into /v/ to get these scans, but goddamn there's a lot of info

Amit
February 8th, 2011, 12:42 AM
Based on the small sized scans, the game visually looks like COD4 and GRAW put together with amazing graphics.

Ifafudafi
February 8th, 2011, 12:47 AM
yeah imageshack resized the pieces of shit, there's a .rar now which has the full size pics (so you can, you know, read the text)

I'm a bit worried about all the emphasis on cowadoody in the first page but that's probably the editor spewing idiocy, I don't think DICE is thinking of this game that way (even if EA probably is)

Warsaw
February 8th, 2011, 01:31 AM
The graphics, oh my god, the graphics! Look out Crytek, I think DICE might have you nailed. This might just be the best game to come out in a long time. Great visuals, superior audio to anything else on the market, and a surefire multiplayer (it's Battlefield).

Amit
February 8th, 2011, 01:32 AM
What EA has to realize is the BC2 is as close to COD that Battlefield should get. The real battlefield games are popular for a reason. They don't have bullshit in them.

Warsaw
February 8th, 2011, 01:51 AM
Agreed. I also hope they retain the hardcore/regular mode options. I like the no-HUD approach.

TeeKup
February 8th, 2011, 02:51 AM
The graphics, oh my god, the graphics! Look out Crytek, I think DICE might have you nailed. This might just be the best game to come out in a long time. Great visuals, superior audio to anything else on the market, and a surefire multiplayer (it's Battlefield).

Audio can either make or break a game, not music, general sounds and ambient noises. DICE has always been spot on IMO.

Amit
February 8th, 2011, 08:27 AM
If you guys download and read all the pages from the scans in the OP, you'll have your answers to a lot of questions. Sadly, it doesn't look like the Commander position will be available anymore. DICE says nobody uses it. Maybe, in Battlefield 2, but I see everyone using it 2142. They also said that their audio is not only positional, but clearer and it will be more realistic. Less music, but more sound information for the player to make informed decisions.

Warsaw
February 8th, 2011, 01:49 PM
Commander is used a lot in BF2, actually. I don't know where they are getting their data from. It's actually hard to shut the SoB in the Commander's position up.

TeeKup
February 8th, 2011, 02:42 PM
Anyone wanna play some BF2 with me? All this talk got me wanting to play again.

Amit
February 8th, 2011, 07:45 PM
I'll play.

MXC
February 8th, 2011, 09:48 PM
If I could get the game to make it past the spash screen I'd love to play.

ExAm
February 9th, 2011, 04:18 AM
If we can find a server where nobody's flying the jets, using TV guided missiles against other choppers, dolphin diving, or grenade spamming, I'll play.

Cortexian
February 9th, 2011, 04:41 AM
So basically you want to play Bad Company 2?

ejburke
February 9th, 2011, 07:32 AM
I wonder if BF3 will finally shake the occasionally buggy/laggy weapon switching that has been a problem since forever. I almost fell back in my chair when I found it was in BC2 all these years later.

Lateksi
February 9th, 2011, 01:20 PM
1942 and BF2 were really great. Looking forward to this with anticipation!

ExAm
February 9th, 2011, 01:51 PM
So basically you want to play Bad Company 2?
What the fuck are you smoking?

Phopojijo
February 9th, 2011, 01:56 PM
I actually really liked the Laser-guided missiles on the bombers. Those things were BEASTS when you figure out how to actually make it land where you wanted to. I used to pick off commander structures with one shot when I had a sensible pilot.

ExAm
February 9th, 2011, 02:31 PM
I meant the ones on the choppers. They could be used to take out other choppers, which fucking ruined chopper combat for me. I want to dip, dive and dodge and take them out with dumb rockets while my gunner peppers them with cannon fire, not sweat over the enemy's TVGM every eight seconds.

What TVGMs needed was a huge vertical dead zone, so they could be used like the ATG missiles they were meant to be, and so that pilots who wanted to seat switch and fire them at air vehicles had to dip backwards into a dangerous and nigh-inescapable stall while they managed their missile.

Lateksi
February 9th, 2011, 02:41 PM
I hope you can skydive and do crazy in-and-out (lol) jet stunts. In Gameinformer, they quoted a DICE developer mentioning (http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/02/03/march-cover-revealed-battlefield-3.aspx) single player. I wonder if that means a story campaign or the usual bot match?

ExAm
February 9th, 2011, 02:50 PM
The magazine spread mentioned a full campaign.

Lateksi
February 9th, 2011, 02:53 PM
Wow, I gotta be too drunk to have missed it... Well that's awesome, thanks for the info!

Phopojijo
February 9th, 2011, 08:35 PM
I meant the ones on the choppers. They could be used to take out other choppers, which fucking ruined chopper combat for me. I want to dip, dive and dodge and take them out with dumb rockets while my gunner peppers them with cannon fire, not sweat over the enemy's TVGM every eight seconds.

What TVGMs needed was a huge vertical dead zone, so they could be used like the ATG missiles they were meant to be, and so that pilots who wanted to seat switch and fire them at air vehicles had to dip backwards into a dangerous and nigh-inescapable stall while they managed their missile.Yeah I knew what you meant. I just really liked the LGBs (not TVs on the choppers... on the jets) because they were SOOOO deadly -- hard to hit if you can't lock them (like you can't lock on commander structures) but if you figure out how to make them land where you want them to anyway -- blam.

ThePlague
February 23rd, 2011, 10:41 AM
New trailer, shows gameplay:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9SCWClN4Ic&feature=player_embedded

ejburke
February 23rd, 2011, 12:20 PM
That certainly is modern military...

I'm wary of the urban focus of the game. I wasn't a fan of Strike at Karkland.

hobojoe
February 23rd, 2011, 12:31 PM
Yeah, something tells me that this game is COD MW3 killer.

Mr Buckshot
February 23rd, 2011, 01:07 PM
I want the ping reporting system in the server browser to be TRUTHFUL this time. I'm sick of clicking on a server that claims only 20 ping, and then getting 150 when I join!

Also, it took DICE waaay too long to patch out the stupid SPECACT requirement to get all the insignias in BC2. I had 48/50 done in less than 120 hours and I got really pissed off that I couldn't get the full achievements. If they pull this crap again, I'm not buying it.

ExAm
February 23rd, 2011, 03:04 PM
Your ping to the server is not the same as your ping to everyone on the server. That's what shows ingame, and it's more truthful than other games, which just show your ping to the server. 100 ping is fucking fantastic, as far as that system is concerned.

Amit
February 23rd, 2011, 03:04 PM
I want the ping reporting system in the server browser to be TRUTHFUL this time. I'm sick of clicking on a server that claims only 20 ping, and then getting 150 when I join!

Also, it took DICE waaay too long to patch out the stupid SPECACT requirement to get all the insignias in BC2. I had 48/50 done in less than 120 hours and I got really pissed off that I couldn't get the full achievements. If they pull this crap again, I'm not buying it.

Well, if the game turns out to be better than expected, you're not going to buy it simply because you won't be able to grab one or two measly achievements that nobody else cares that you have? Get real, man. BC2 is a good game and I don't care that I can't earn some achievement that is stupid to begin with. What ever happened to playing games for the fun?

Warsaw
February 23rd, 2011, 04:05 PM
Not to mention, Steam achievements don't count for anything and chances are you are at Rank 50 already anyways, so points from earning the pin don't mean anything. It's a goddamn game, play it if it's fun.

That said, I need more footage. Now.

Amit
February 23rd, 2011, 04:07 PM
I grabbed some stills from the trailer:

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/bloodlarge.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/chrome2011-02-2315-14-26-08.jpg
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/hotel.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/hotel2.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/hotel3.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/hotel4.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/run.png

Warsaw
February 23rd, 2011, 05:14 PM
Amazing. Crysis 2 is being hyped why, again? I think DICE has just shown Crytek how it's done, and we are basically guaranteed a better game from DICE than from Crytek.

My only criticism of the game so far is that the smoke column from the building in the last picture should be much bigger. As far as complaints go, that is paltry and downright frivolous.

=sw=warlord
February 23rd, 2011, 05:19 PM
Amazing. Crysis 2 is being hyped why, again? I think DICE has just shown Crytek how it's done, and we are basically guaranteed a better game from DICE than from Crytek.



Or it's because Crysis 2 is near release and companies tend to hype their games near release?
That and the fact that C2 is the first time the Cryengine has been on consoles since Farcry.:downs:

Ifafudafi
February 23rd, 2011, 06:02 PM
updated title and front page, woo

Honestly I'm not sure a GRITTYREALISTIC story will really appeal considering how done to death that is, but 1. who knows maybe DICE can actually do something novel and 2. I don't think a single person will be buying this for the campaign

Amit
February 23rd, 2011, 06:20 PM
updated title and front page, woo

Honestly I'm not sure a GRITTYREALISTIC story will really appeal considering how done to death that is, but 1. who knows maybe DICE can actually do something novel and 2. I don't think a single person will be buying this for the campaign

I dunno. I bought all BF games that I own because of the MP, but I also kind of wanted to play BC2's campaign. I didn't find it all that interesting, but I want to see the direction of this realistic style campaign. COD4 is as close as we got to a realistic campaign for modern day. Of course, Ghost Recon is always set in the future, GRAW 1 felt very modern and not too futuristic which is why I liked that game and its sequel. However since those were elite troops with cross com and shit, I want to see a realistic modern shooter. I think DICE will give us that. To be honest, I'm not worried about MP. DICE makes superior MP games so I'm not thinking much about it rather than how awesome it's going to be. It's for that reason that I'm focusing more on SP right now.

ejburke
February 23rd, 2011, 07:15 PM
I have never enjoyed a DICE single-player experience and that includes Mirror's Edge. I don't think that's where their talent or technology lies. Destructibility is great in a MP environment, but all it does is expose AI. Overpenetration, too.

And if they try to choke me out with atmospherics again, so that I can't see as far as the tips of my own diamond-hard nipples, so help me...

Warsaw
February 23rd, 2011, 07:41 PM
Or it's because Crysis 2 is near release and companies tend to hype their games near release?
That and the fact that C2 is the first time the Cryengine has been on consoles since Farcry.:downs:

Crysis 2 has been hyped at the same intensity even before it was announced, all for no good reason; the first game was actually pretty lackluster apart from its visuals. I have yet to be honestly impressed by anything that it [the sequel] has displayed. Even Frostbite 1.5 has better destructibility than CE3 while maintaining environments that are at least as believable looking even if not technically superior. As for CryEngine on console, who cares? I remember most of you balking at them making it multi-platform, saying it would drag it down. :downs:

Then we get to actual gameplay, where DICE has the upper hand on all fronts. Crysis 2 multiplayer so far looks like Call of Duty with Armor Abilities instead of perks. That is not a good thing. In campaign, the AI is likely to be retarded easy to kill and we'll all probably only die for shit reasons like the enemy being able to take three magazines of cannon ammunition while we die in two hits from his fist nipples, while in armor mode no less. All DICE has to do to make their campaign fun is not constantly force us through bottlenecks with no cover like they did in BC2; BC1 was very enjoyable.

=sw=warlord
February 23rd, 2011, 08:11 PM
Crysis 2 has been hyped at the same intensity even before it was announced, all for no good reason; the first game was actually pretty lackluster apart from its visuals.
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree, Crysis came at a time where corridor and linear shooters were still all the rage.
Halo 3? pretty linear you didn't really have much choice in where you were heading.
CoD 4? same again only in that you died after pistol rounds went through walls and clipped your ears.
I personally enjoyed Crysis a lot more for the gameplay than I did for the graphics.
The fact you could change your weapon load out on the fly as and when you needed/wanted I enjoyed very much, nothing like changing your rifle to a incendiary round and watching that guy at the turret fall out the outpost.

I have yet to be honestly impressed by anything that it [the sequel] has displayed. Even Frostbite 1.5 has better destructibility than CE3 while maintaining environments that are at least as believable looking even if not technically superior. As for CryEngine on console, who cares? I remember most of you balking at them making it multi-platform, saying it would drag it down. :downs:
I've always liked the idea of Crysis on consoles because I know they would need to optimize the engine to a point and that would bring the performance of the PC version up.


BC2 pisses me off in so many ways with various bugs that it's just obnoxious.
I have a perfectly good sound card and yet for what ever reason, BC2 will only play voices if I'm looking at a 30* angle away from the person talking making cut scenes extremely annoying.
There is also the issue of the obvious "what you see is not how it is" in multiplayer.
I can empty a entire mag into a enemy and they will turn and shoot me after somehow teleporting behind me.
In no other game do I get such issues with multiplayer gameplay.
The sniper? I can get a perfect aim and the bullet will land between the guys eyes and he will turn and just plaster me with M60 rounds.

Warsaw
February 24th, 2011, 01:06 AM
Why are we even mentioning Halo 3? In a thread about PC games? I've always been in the camp that dislikes all Halos except the first one. As for open gameplay, STALKER came out first, and I thought it had the better game play. It also allows you to change up your weapons on the fly. It's also a lot more involved in other respects.

As for those bugs you mentioned: never had a single one of them happen to me. The only bullshit I get is when I clearly knifed somebody and it didn't register or the inverse: I knifed the air and it registered.

All said, I'm already seeing more attention to detail in the Battlefield 3 than I have seen in Crysis 2. Graphics are not every thing, but the little things like lighting on even mundane objects like cartridges or on the thin rubber soles of your boots just make a game feel more polished.

=sw=warlord
February 24th, 2011, 06:57 AM
never had a single one of them happen to me. The only bullshit I get is when I clearly knifed somebody and it didn't register or the inverse: I knifed the air and it registered.
I had that happen a few times and swore to never try knifing someone again.
Spawn killing is just ridiculous on Rush, I can spawn into my camp and as i decend I can see about 3 people with M60's spraying into the air hoping to hit me as I'm landing and if I do somehow make it, some jackass with a shotgun is waiting in a bush somewhere close to bum rush me.

All said, I'm already seeing more attention to detail in the Battlefield 3 than I have seen in Crysis 2. Graphics are not every thing, but the little things like lighting on even mundane objects like cartridges or on the thin rubber soles of your boots just make a game feel more polished.
I'm pretty sure lighting comes under the graphics category.:v:
I'm not too sure comparing Crysis 2 to BF3 is really a good idea, the two have two different styles of gameplay, different art styles and different overall aspects.
Battlefield being the class style game in which you can customize your classes to some degree where as Crysis has a generic soldier that you build up to suit your own traits.

Amit
February 24th, 2011, 10:47 AM
I feel that Crysis 2 and Battlefield 3 will be great games in their own arena, but they are hardly comparable, even if they are both in the FPS genre.

TeeKup
February 24th, 2011, 03:34 PM
There is no way in-game is going to look like that. >__>

Amit
February 24th, 2011, 04:40 PM
There is no way in-game is going to look like that. >__>

Yeah. I'm skeptical even though they said that's actual gameplay footage.

CN3089
February 24th, 2011, 05:13 PM
There is no way in-game is going to look like that. >__>

Why not? It didn't look that far past BC2.

Higuy
February 24th, 2011, 05:37 PM
The game simply looks amazing in graphics, but will the SP actually take place in less generic looking city environments? I hope so.

ExAm
February 24th, 2011, 06:06 PM
Teek, did you see the video showcasing their new lighting engine? It's pretty fucking slick. I have no doubt that it'll look like that, cranked up.

Amit
February 24th, 2011, 06:13 PM
Well, we were skeptical with Crysis and that followed through. Crytek doesn't have to be the only one making progress on that front.

ejburke
February 24th, 2011, 06:33 PM
I'm not excited about graphics in a multiplayer game. I would crank it down so that every enemy is rendered as bright flashing diamonds, if I could. It's getting to the point where the only things I can pick out of the environment are the things that are moving. Now I know how the T-Rex from Jurassic Park felt.

Hey DICE, how about some augmented reality to help cut through the fog of cutting-edge rendering and lighting techniques?

Lateksi
February 24th, 2011, 06:45 PM
I'm not excited about graphics in a multiplayer game. I would crank it down so that every enemy is rendered as bright flashing diamonds, if I could. It's getting to the point where the only things I can pick out of the environment are the things that are moving. Now I know how the T-Rex from Jurassic Park felt.

Hey DICE, how about some augmented reality to help cut through the fog of cutting-edge rendering and lighting techniques?
Look for tweak guides after release, mate.

And you guys questioning the graphics... The game's production started at around the time they were developing Bad Company 1, so they've had enough time in their hands at least.

Warsaw
February 24th, 2011, 07:09 PM
I'm pretty sure lighting comes under the graphics category.:v:

I think you just didn't comprehended that part of my post properly. I said I know graphics aren't everything, but the little details like <insert graphical nitpick> make the game feel more polished. Operative conjunction is "but".


@ejburke: That's the point. In real life, the only thing you really have to attract your attention to a threat is motion, because everybody uses camouflage and cover. Battlefield is not just a game-game, it's always been about simulating a real combat situation within some constrained location. The difference between them and ArmA II is that DICE wants to keep it accessible to everybody, not just hardcore sim players.

@higuy: DICE have said that it will take place in a wide range of locations all over the world, from close-in urban combat to wide expansive battlefields in places like Europe, China, and the Middle East.

@Amit: I'm still sceptical of Crysis 2. It doesn't look THAT impressive so far. It may be technically advanced, but they could learn a thing or two on how to create atmosphere.

Cortexian
February 24th, 2011, 07:13 PM
I have complete faith that the game will look as it did in the trailer(s), as CN#'s stated it doesn't look that much past BC2 in terms of graphics when you've got them maxed out.

Amit
February 24th, 2011, 07:56 PM
Now I know how the T-Rex from Jurassic Park felt.

Contrary to popular belief, the T-Rex had excellent vision.

ODX
February 24th, 2011, 09:59 PM
I wouldn't entirely doubt those are in fact the in-game graphics, seeing as this is now the full upgrade to Frostbite. What comes to mind is MoH's MP, which was at first what I thought I was looking at when I saw the pictures in whatever magazine they showed it in. That was just Frostbite 1.5+ (or so) though, now we're at Frostbite 2.0 and years of production with a full staff on it.

But really, I'd like to not compare graphics seeing as no one has played the retail version of either game on your computer on a full screen at a high res with all the settings to a respectable degree. How about just going back to the general discussion of what we expect out of this monster?

Phopojijo
February 25th, 2011, 03:29 AM
A forked Frostbite at that.

I believe those are legit graphics.

MXC
February 25th, 2011, 07:37 PM
I believe those are legit graphics.

Speaking of which, when was the last time DICE didn't use ingame footage for a trailer?

Hunter
February 25th, 2011, 07:59 PM
This looks beast. Better not be like Medal Of Honer. Camp gallor that game is, and it fails really bad at letting you know you are taking bullets until it's too late. Movement is also too slow.

But this looks AWESOME I'm happy if i can blow the supports from a building up and make it fall :P

Amit
February 25th, 2011, 11:58 PM
Speaking of which, when was the last time DICE didn't use ingame footage for a trailer?

This man speaks the truth.

Limited
February 26th, 2011, 10:41 AM
I'm not excited about graphics in a multiplayer game. I would crank it down so that every enemy is rendered as bright flashing diamonds, if I could. It's getting to the point where the only things I can pick out of the environment are the things that are moving. Now I know how the T-Rex from Jurassic Park felt.
Geez, not everything is about multiplayer.

=sw=warlord
February 26th, 2011, 11:34 AM
Geez, not everything is about multiplayer.

Wait, Battlefield has campaign?

ExAm
February 26th, 2011, 02:17 PM
BF3 will have a full campaign

Phopojijo
February 26th, 2011, 02:19 PM
Battlefield 3 will.

We'll see a lot more at GDC. Apparently EA is going to do their big release March 1st.

Mr Buckshot
February 27th, 2011, 01:41 PM
Wait, Battlefield has campaign?

BC1 and BC2 did, but the gameplay felt like playing multiplayer maps with sub-par AI, even on the highest difficulty. Even Modern Warfare 2 had better level design. The characters were pretty likable, though!

I wouldn't be too concerned about the quality of BF3's single player, after playing BC1 and BC2 my expectations aren't high anyway.

=sw=warlord
February 27th, 2011, 01:53 PM
BC1 and BC2 did, but the gameplay felt like playing multiplayer maps with sub-par AI, even on the highest difficulty. Even Modern Warfare 2 had better level design



Whoosh!

Cortexian
February 27th, 2011, 02:48 PM
Buckshot, Battlefield and Bad Company are very different games in terms of development direction. Battlefield 2 never had ANY Singleplayer, which is what BF3 is going to be the sequel 2. The Battlefield games were never really about Singleplayer.

ExAm
February 27th, 2011, 03:44 PM
Well, BF2 did have singleplayer, but it was, um, multiplayer maps with sub-par AI... Guess they knew where they stood back then :P

Amit
March 1st, 2011, 02:01 AM
BVU-8Kd-IMo

Warsaw
March 1st, 2011, 04:14 AM
His hair bothers the shit out of me.

That aside, I kind of liked the over the top audio in Bad Company 2. Granted, it was more fitting for a large battle rather than the small, isolated warzones that we had, but it was fun. Still, I trust DICE with the audio because quite frankly, they are the only ones who seem to put some love into it.

Phopojijo
March 1st, 2011, 04:08 PM
Don't like Leon Kennedy? :p

Amit
March 1st, 2011, 04:54 PM
ROFL. He doesn't bother me so much, but it would help if his voice was cinematic like Leon's.

TeeKup
March 2nd, 2011, 02:05 AM
At least he doesn't have a whiney bitch behind him.

Amit
March 2nd, 2011, 08:29 AM
Wow check this out:

s7-2IRX-0nM

EDIT: Fresh screen caps from the vid, just to add to the OP. It's blasphemy to look at the pics without watching the video.


http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield%203/follow.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield%203/meatshop.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield%203/alleyrays.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield%203/doorbust.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield%203/street.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield%203/streetdoorbust.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield%203/mandown.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield%203/pulltosafety.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield%203/enemysighted.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield%203/firefight.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield%203/tracer.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield%203/sparks.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield%203/particles.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield%203/ACOG.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield%203/bodies.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield%203/RPGstrike.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield%203/ahhh.png
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/Battlefield%203/knoeckedback.png

TVTyrant
March 2nd, 2011, 10:12 AM
Video wouldn't load. The M4 in the screen caps looks awesome. I like how they made the charging handle more prominent than in most games. Looks good that way.

Phopojijo
March 2nd, 2011, 02:30 PM
http://scrawlfx.com/gallery/albums/battlefield-3/march-1-2011/Battlefield-3_2011_03-01-11_001.jpg

Also a screenshot they released.

Also -- when he's dragging the body -- notice the overlay... "WSAD". It's a PC build.

ExAm
March 2nd, 2011, 03:15 PM
Fucking fantastic character animations

Amit
March 2nd, 2011, 03:48 PM
Also -- when he's dragging the body -- notice the overlay... "WSAD". It's a PC build.

Yeah, I noticed that too. I'm not too surprised as they said they are working with the PC as the main build platform.

ejburke
March 2nd, 2011, 04:03 PM
With all the new animation and destruction, I wonder how CPU-bound this game is going to be. Upgrading my GPU, I can do, but I am not building a whole new PC for another year at least. Hopefully, it scales really well. I guess it has to, to be able to run on consoles.

ODX
March 2nd, 2011, 04:21 PM
Wow, this game looks pretty damn ni-

...omfg, are you fucking kidding me? WHAT IS THAT THUMB DOING ON THE GUN? D:
Y RELOAD HAVE NO MOTION?!
WHERE BE ENTHUSIASM IN SPRITING?
Someone shoot me, and them too, because that's just embarrassing.

Donut
March 2nd, 2011, 04:41 PM
its gonna be ok odx.
E: holy shit it really is gonna be ok. that is one impressive trailer.

ThePlague
March 2nd, 2011, 04:46 PM
Ugh, I hate the HUD. Hated that style in MoH too. Go back to BC2 HUD guys :/

Warsaw
March 2nd, 2011, 04:47 PM
@ODX: Dude...it's an alpha build, and the trailer jumped forwards several times. And if you've ever fired a real AR-15 rifle, that is where your thumb generally winds up if you hold it there. I prefer to hold mine by the magazine well, but you risk burning yourself on the delta ring if you do that.

That said: OMGIWANTTHISGAME. I'm going to call it now: Activision is about to be dethroned. My only outstanding criticism is that the M4 sounded too squishy (not enough pop or bang). Considering that they went to a live military exercise, I hope that this will be remedied. The audio is still two cuts above the rest, though, even at this stage.

Ifafudafi
March 2nd, 2011, 05:02 PM
updated the first post accordingly

I noticed that they've gotten rid of the BF2 mag system (reloading dumps the extra bullets still left) in favor of the standard ammo pool, and there were a couple of muddy textures here and there, but

well

yeah

Can't wait to see some MP footage

E: Update with some new info, according to an IGN article (http://pc.ign.com/articles/115/1152917p1.html)

-Dragging bodies will not be included in multiplayer
-Singleplayer will not stay with the same characters over the course of the entire story
-The campaign is likened to a tutorial for online play (don't know if that's good or bad)
-Different firing modes for guns (ex. M16 can switch between semi-auto, burst, and full-auto)
-"Every encounter has a finite amount of hostiles that react dynamically to the demands of battle." No CoD infinite enemy generators
-DICE isn't sure what kind of health system they're using yet, but they say "We know there are pros and cons. We want to make sure that when we talk about that, we take it seriously."

Warsaw
March 2nd, 2011, 05:17 PM
Saw some comments complaining about the HUD. Honestly, they could just remove it entirely and I wouldn't mind. If nothing else, they could do away with the crosshairs since you have to use the irons to hit anything reliably anyways.

ODX
March 2nd, 2011, 05:26 PM
@ODX: Dude...it's an alpha buildIt's not like it's hard to make good animations the first time around :saddowns:

ejburke
March 2nd, 2011, 05:47 PM
I just watched it again and saw my fears realized -- can't see shit. Enemies appear as smokey silhouettes, and that's only if you're looking right down your magnification scope at them. I realize that's "realistic", but is having a 70 degree field of view realistic? Is seeing a narrow, low-res 2D raster image of a battlefield what soldiers experience? As graphical fidelity goes up, situational awareness gets left to die. That's my chief complaint about all these modern soldier porn wank-fests. BF '42 wasn't that at all.

Amit
March 2nd, 2011, 07:12 PM
I just watched it again and saw my fears realized -- can't see shit. Enemies appear as smokey silhouettes, and that's only if you're looking right down your magnification scope at them. I realize that's "realistic", but is having a 70 degree field of view realistic? Is seeing a narrow, low-res 2D raster image of a battlefield what soldiers experience? As graphical fidelity goes up, situational awareness gets left to die. That's my chief complaint about all these modern soldier porn wank-fests. BF '42 wasn't that at all.

Did you not see the guy throw the smoke grenade? Of course they are going to show up as silhouettes when they come through the smoke. Not to mention, the dust from the environment when it gets shot up.

Another thing I found funny was that they bleeped out the F word twice in the beginning and then when the squad leader asks for a sitrep, the guy yells out: "I'm fucked up, but I'm up!"

I lol'd more at his line, than the censoring.

Abdurahman
March 2nd, 2011, 07:30 PM
Oh god why can't they get the arabic right? why is all the arabic backwards??!! the hotel in the pictures has the right spelling, but it's backwards! it's the same thing as bf2. all the hotels had backwards spelling, and it's kinda annoying to an arabic speaker like me.

Warsaw
March 2nd, 2011, 09:00 PM
I just watched it again and saw my fears realized -- can't see shit. Enemies appear as smokey silhouettes, and that's only if you're looking right down your magnification scope at them. I realize that's "realistic", but is having a 70 degree field of view realistic? Is seeing a narrow, low-res 2D raster image of a battlefield what soldiers experience? As graphical fidelity goes up, situational awareness gets left to die. That's my chief complaint about all these modern soldier porn wank-fests. BF '42 wasn't that at all.

Situational awareness does not get left to die. What you want is a bright neon sign pointing out where all the enemies are. That is not situational awareness, that is called assisted or augmented reality. If anything, the game is demanding you to be more aware because now you have to keep your head on a swivel to check all the nooks and crannies for bad guys. Even though it's obviously a scripted instance, it would still be intelligent to attack with your back to the glare in order to disrupt your profile as the enemy has to squint to make you out. Then there's the obvious advantages to throwing dust and smoke around to hide your movement. Are you frustrated because this is a game where smoke actually does what it's supposed to?

It's fine. There is nothing wrong with having to actually have some skill and thought input to play a game well. Shooters do not have to be mindless.

Cortexian
March 2nd, 2011, 10:20 PM
Oh look, something to put my canceled Crysis 2 pre-order money into.

Warsaw
March 3rd, 2011, 02:04 AM
Heh, I did that two days ago. Back to Karkand!

Amit
March 3rd, 2011, 02:20 AM
Why is there no Steam pre-order option! :gonk:

I'm waiting for pre-ordering through Steam so I don't have to go through painful update processes every time I download the game on a new computer. I advise you people to do the same.

ExAm
March 3rd, 2011, 02:33 AM
You played the MP demo, too? Terrible, isn't it?

Amit
March 3rd, 2011, 02:34 AM
You played the MP demo, too? Terrible, isn't it?

Wrong thread?

TVTyrant
March 3rd, 2011, 02:42 AM
Wrong thread?


Oh look, something to put my canceled Crysis 2 pre-order money into.

Nope.

Warsaw
March 3rd, 2011, 03:03 AM
I want the physical box. While there are no details, the picture on EA's website makes it look like the Limited Edition comes in a metal case with the artwork painted/printed on. Do want.

I also like having my massive library of games be tangible. Much more impressive than a 300+ GB Steam list.

Amit
March 3rd, 2011, 09:00 AM
I'd like the physical box as well, but I'm not gonna let EA fuck me for $60 and not get the map pack for free with it. Especially when the game will be $59.99 after launch and since it's almost guaranteed that they will price the map pack at $15. Pre-order on Steam is the way to go.

Warsaw
March 3rd, 2011, 09:05 PM
Gamestop automatically bumps you to the limited edition with a pre-order. Still get the map pack for free.

Amit
March 3rd, 2011, 09:28 PM
Gamestop automatically bumps you to the limited edition with a pre-order. Still get the map pack for free.

You do realize that there is only one edition of the game, right? The Limited Edition. The only thing limited about this edition is that if you don't pre-order the game before it launches, the limited time offer for free Back to Karkand expires. After launch the game will drop the limited edition and EA will charge $15 for the Back to Karkand maps.

Warsaw
March 3rd, 2011, 09:51 PM
Exactly. Which is why I don't understand why you are holding out for a Steam pre-order if you also want the physical copy. Pre-order your physical copy, and get Back to Karkand for free.

Amit
March 4th, 2011, 01:36 AM
Exactly. Which is why I don't understand why you are holding out for a Steam pre-order if you also want the physical copy. Pre-order your physical copy, and get Back to Karkand for free.

Ahh, I see what you mean now. Yes, but I'm not gonna let them fuck me on the shipping. The game isn't available in Canadian Gamestops yet. The last time I imported a game from the US, it cost me $85 altogether. $49.99 for the game, add taxes, shipping...there you go.

Warsaw
March 4th, 2011, 02:31 AM
Holy fuck...that's almost as bad as Australia has it.

Phopojijo
March 4th, 2011, 04:27 AM
Well yeah that's what we call "Customs Fees".

Amit
March 4th, 2011, 04:43 AM
Yeah, LOTRO was the last physical boxed game that I've bought. That was April 2007. I started up a steam account in February 2007 to buy CSS. I've gone purely digital since April of that year.

ExAm
March 4th, 2011, 03:53 PM
So how about some more gameplay footage (http://oron.com/5cmz7fnf0d8n/Battlefield3_GameplayGDC2011.hi.mp4.html)?

It's got earthquakes!

Amit
March 4th, 2011, 05:54 PM
Is it not on youtube yet?

ExAm
March 4th, 2011, 06:04 PM
It has been, several times. Then it gets deleted in 10 minutes. This one probably won't go down, though:

height=353, width=470

Amit
March 4th, 2011, 06:08 PM
Well I downloaded it anyways. Looks awesome.

Pooky
March 5th, 2011, 01:01 AM
Situational awareness does not get left to die. What you want is a bright neon sign pointing out where all the enemies are. That is not situational awareness, that is called assisted or augmented reality. If anything, the game is demanding you to be more aware because now you have to keep your head on a swivel to check all the nooks and crannies for bad guys. Even though it's obviously a scripted instance, it would still be intelligent to attack with your back to the glare in order to disrupt your profile as the enemy has to squint to make you out. Then there's the obvious advantages to throwing dust and smoke around to hide your movement. Are you frustrated because this is a game where smoke actually does what it's supposed to?

It's fine. There is nothing wrong with having to actually have some skill and thought input to play a game well. Shooters do not have to be mindless.

How does being able to see your enemies clearly make a game mindless.

Hell, I could make the argument that lowered visibility makes a game more mindless as it encourages random spray anywhere you think an enemy might be (see: call of duty).

ejburke
March 5th, 2011, 02:16 AM
Situational awareness does not get left to die. What you want is a bright neon sign pointing out where all the enemies are. That is not situational awareness, that is called assisted or augmented reality. If anything, the game is demanding you to be more aware because now you have to keep your head on a swivel to check all the nooks and crannies for bad guys. Even though it's obviously a scripted instance, it would still be intelligent to attack with your back to the glare in order to disrupt your profile as the enemy has to squint to make you out. Then there's the obvious advantages to throwing dust and smoke around to hide your movement. Are you frustrated because this is a game where smoke actually does what it's supposed to?

It's fine. There is nothing wrong with having to actually have some skill and thought input to play a game well. Shooters do not have to be mindless.How do you make intelligent decisions when the information you need to make those choices is thoroughly obscured? The dust and glare are static and pervasive. If someone strategically deployed a smoke grenade, that would be one thing, but when the smoke is something that must be overcome, always, it factors out of any tactical utility.

I don't necessarily need augmented reality. I just want to be able to become aware of a situation from a reasonable distance, in a reasonable amount of time, so I can get to the part of the game that is fun. The part of the game where I'm reacting and making informed decisions.

But I'm sure there are plenty of people that agree with you. The "Soldier role play" market is huge. But I'm not into that. I want some substance.

Warsaw
March 5th, 2011, 02:30 AM
You're in the wrong game then. Battlefield has always been about soldier play. I'm not seeing why you are having a hard time picking out targets, though. If "reasonable distance" to you is anything more than 250m, that's being a bit over-demanding. I mean, even at greater ranges you can still see someone, you just have to be more attentive. The only maps that I feel could seriously use some toning down on the dust and glare are White Pass and Atacama Desert, but they are not unplayable. The other big issue is that the dust/snow clips through buildings as if they aren't even there. That really fucks with you. You aren't the type of player that goes sprinting around the map shooting any enemy you can find, are you?

@Pooky: now that's just a stupid statement and you know it. Nobody goes running around in Battlefield just spraying their weapon into every nook because they supposedly can't see.

TVTyrant
March 5th, 2011, 02:39 AM
Over 250 you need a sniper rifle or to be very practiced in marksmanship. That's why the Taliban are so ineffective at using small arms. They have to resort to using IEDs because they dont know how to hit shit.

Amit
March 5th, 2011, 04:03 AM
Over 250 you need a sniper rifle or to be very practiced in marksmanship. That's why the Taliban are so ineffective at using small arms. They have to resort to using IEDs because they dont know how to hit shit.

I heard they excel in hit and run tactics, though.

TVTyrant
March 5th, 2011, 05:24 AM
Yeah, but they have to get close. Thats the key when you dont know how to shoot; get in close and spray as many rounds at your target as you possibly can.

Warsaw
March 5th, 2011, 05:49 AM
Over 250 you need a sniper rifle or to be very practiced in marksmanship. That's why the Taliban are so ineffective at using small arms. They have to resort to using IEDs because they dont know how to hit shit.

250 is child's play. 400 is where it starts getting tricky.

At any rate, I meant in-game. In Bad Company 2, it's easy to spot enemies with little effort out to 250m. Beyond that, and you have to be actively looking for them against the background. Hitting them with any weapon is actually not that hard until you start making those >800m headshots on Heavy Metal, and THEN I can understand it being hard to see the target. However, at 800m, not seeing the target too well is natural.

TVTyrant
March 5th, 2011, 06:02 AM
Yes it is for someone who practices all the time. As far as I've heard from some buds who have been on tour there, most taliban only know how to change mags and cycle the bolt. There guns are rusted and pitted pretty badly, and a lot of there AKs have had the stock removed. 250 is a pretty generous range for a rusted out gun with Sino produced ammo and no weapons training.
I was refering to BC2 in a way as well. Out to a certain range, its pretty easy to hit targets with the irons. After that you need the sniper though, because there 4x reticle sucks and the red dot is incredibly inprecise. The Recon class is the only one capable of hitting players at that distance.

Pooky
March 5th, 2011, 09:33 AM
@Pooky: now that's just a stupid statement and you know it. Nobody goes running around in Battlefield just spraying their weapon into every nook because they supposedly can't see.

Only about as asinine as saying that a clear view of your enemies makes a game mindless. I never said I actually think that.

Warsaw
March 5th, 2011, 06:52 PM
I said that running and gunning was mindless (i.e. CoD and Halo). The view of the enemies is plenty clear in BC2. What he wants is essentially the game to especially contrast them with their background. Well, so much for camouflage or hiding in shadows. I play BC2 on a 480i TV set (since the gaming PC is busted). I can claim I have trouble seeing enemies, but only at ranges exceeding 200m. If you are playing at 1080p, or even 720p, you have no claim. If a guy is hiding in the dust or a shrub, of course you aren't going to see him-that was the point. If he's barely poking his head out of a window, you aren't going to see him from 400m, not even 250m without bringing up irons.

The glare isn't the trouble. The problem is that Battlefield is a game where you have to sit tight, look around, and pray you don't get spotted as you dart from cover to cover. It's not a classic deathmatch, it's not a full on arcade shooter like Halo, and the maps are on a whole different scale than any other popular title. If you can't see, you aren't adapting very well to the game play. If you don't play regularly, then why are you even complaining? Battlefield has never been a game where players can just jump in and kill things well...hell, it's not even a game strictly about killing, it's about team play. You can always tell who the CoD players are because they get a ton of kills and still somehow stay at the lower ranks on the score board because they weren't doing anything useful like healing, reviving, resupplying, capping, or tank-busting.

ExAm
March 5th, 2011, 07:42 PM
You can make the glare a hell of a lot less obtrusive by turning off bloom in settings.ini, and turning down your brightness ingame.

FRain
March 5th, 2011, 07:48 PM
I said that running and gunning was mindless (i.e. CoD and Halo). The view of the enemies is plenty clear in BC2. What he wants is essentially the game to especially contrast them with their background. Well, so much for camouflage or hiding in shadows. I play BC2 on a 480i TV set (since the gaming PC is busted). I can claim I have trouble seeing enemies, but only at ranges exceeding 200m. If you are playing at 1080p, or even 720p, you have no claim. If a guy is hiding in the dust or a shrub, of course you aren't going to see him-that was the point. If he's barely poking his head out of a window, you aren't going to see him from 400m, not even 250m without bringing up irons.

The glare isn't the trouble. The problem is that Battlefield is a game where you have to sit tight, look around, and pray you don't get spotted as you dart from cover to cover. It's not a classic deathmatch, it's not a full on arcade shooter like Halo, and the maps are on a whole different scale than any other popular title. If you can't see, you aren't adapting very well to the game play. If you don't play regularly, then why are you even complaining? Battlefield has never been a game where players can just jump in and kill things well...hell, it's not even a game strictly about killing, it's about team play. You can always tell who the CoD players are because they get a ton of kills and still somehow stay at the lower ranks on the score board because they weren't doing anything useful like healing, reviving, resupplying, capping, or tank-busting.

and Battlefield (even back in BF1942) has ALWAYS been that way.

Warsaw
March 5th, 2011, 08:12 PM
^ And that is exactly my point. They have their formula down.

Pooky
March 5th, 2011, 09:51 PM
I said that running and gunning was mindless (i.e. CoD and Halo). The view of the enemies is plenty clear in BC2. What he wants is essentially the game to especially contrast them with their background. Well, so much for camouflage or hiding in shadows. I play BC2 on a 480i TV set (since the gaming PC is busted). I can claim I have trouble seeing enemies, but only at ranges exceeding 200m. If you are playing at 1080p, or even 720p, you have no claim. If a guy is hiding in the dust or a shrub, of course you aren't going to see him-that was the point. If he's barely poking his head out of a window, you aren't going to see him from 400m, not even 250m without bringing up irons.

In that case, I apologize for misunderstanding. Carry on.

ejburke
March 5th, 2011, 11:06 PM
Let's back up a bit. I was complaining about the demo shown, which was single-player. It is entirely possible that those elements are toned down in multiplayer and I won't have issue. I played the BC2 campaign and hated that for how I was shooting at silhouettes so fricking often. I never got around to the multiplayer. It's entirely possible they reserve the over-emphasis on atmospherics in SP to compensate for some performance issues. Who knows? It was just a little too convenient in BC2's campaign that every time I was about to get in a firefight, I knew because a fog descended on the area and my visibility went to crap.

The last BF game I put any time into multiplayer was 1943 and I didn't have a problem, so I'm hopeful that it's just the BF3 campaign that I will have to avoid like the plague. I mean, you can talk about 250m, but in that demo, those shits were 15 meters away at most.

Ifafudafi
March 5th, 2011, 11:09 PM
I played the BC2 campaign... I never got around to the multiplayer.

Yeah there's your problem, never ever ever judge a BF game based on its single-player

I personally never have a problem with visibility in BC2 MP, even on the rare occasions I (gasp) go sniper; any time I do, it's because somebody just blew a hole in a building or laid down a smoke grenade, in which case it's perfectly reasonable and justified

Warsaw
March 6th, 2011, 01:25 AM
Let's back up a bit. I was complaining about the demo shown, which was single-player. It is entirely possible that those elements are toned down in multiplayer and I won't have issue. I played the BC2 campaign and hated that for how I was shooting at silhouettes so fricking often. I never got around to the multiplayer. It's entirely possible they reserve the over-emphasis on atmospherics in SP to compensate for some performance issues. Who knows? It was just a little too convenient in BC2's campaign that every time I was about to get in a firefight, I knew because a fog descended on the area and my visibility went to crap.

The last BF game I put any time into multiplayer was 1943 and I didn't have a problem, so I'm hopeful that it's just the BF3 campaign that I will have to avoid like the plague. I mean, you can talk about 250m, but in that demo, those shits were 15 meters away at most.

BC2's campaign was poorly constructed. I don't think it was the glare killing you so much as the level layout, because every single level forced you through god damn bottleneck with no cover. The first game's campaign was MUCH more fun because it was open combat and you could achieve your objective however the hell you wanted. THAT was Battlefield. The shit we got in BC2 was them trying to appeal to the Call of Duty crowd. The graphics in campaign and multiplayer are the same, but the way the levels are constructed in single player makes it irritating to deal with.

I can't tell how BF3 will be, that was just a single encounter. I need to see more before I write it off as an extension of BC2's campaign style.

ejburke
March 6th, 2011, 02:42 AM
It was the bottlenecking, the scripting, the crappy AI that doesn't know how to interact with destructible environments, and the magic haze that would descend on any set-piece battle, but be nowhere to be found any other time. It wasn't even a matter of being killed. I didn't have any trouble with the campaign on the default difficulty, I just couldn't stand playing it for more than 20 minutes at a time and it took me forever to finish.

The BF3 demo gave me a rage flashback. Maybe I was being too harsh, maybe I wasn't. I don't expect the campaign is going to be any good, but I know the MP is going to be great, even if I would do things slightly differently.

I do lament the loss of crisp, clear graphics in favor of blurred, smeared, bloomed-out, desaturated "current gen" graphics, but the issue is, for the most part, tolerable. And it is not unique to battlefield.

Amit
March 6th, 2011, 03:39 AM
I do lament the loss of crisp, clear graphics in favor of blurred, smeared, bloomed-out, desaturated "current gen" graphics, but the issue is, for the most part, tolerable. And it is not unique to battlefield.

Well, BC2 was none of those things except it wasn't very clear and had too much environment effects on the two previously mentioned maps. Otherwise I don't know what you're talking about. It's not so hard to see enemies in the game, and they definitely weren't hard to see in BF3 Demo vid.

TVTyrant
March 6th, 2011, 04:14 AM
Wasn't hard for you. My brother can't even play Halo 2 XBox because the colors all blur too badly and he can't see anything. Perhaps burke is having the same reaction? Not everyone's eyes are the same.

Amit
March 6th, 2011, 01:17 PM
Wasn't hard for you. My brother can't even play Halo 2 XBox because the colors all blur too badly and he can't see anything. Perhaps burke is having the same reaction? Not everyone's eyes are the same.

Hmm, that's unfortunate, but not the fault of the developers. Halo 2 was a pretty crisp looking game for its time. I doubt ejburke is having this problem he seems to be able to play other games fine. Or that's what it sounds like. Also, what were the specs of the TV when your bro was playing Halo 2? Might not have been his vision but a crappy TV.

TVTyrant
March 6th, 2011, 01:44 PM
Yeah its not that great, but we have been to friends who had high res flat screens (mid 07 before H3 came out) and he still had a really hard time seeing without getting a migraine. It wasnt the devs fault, he just has really bad eyes. One is perfectly okay and the other is really bad. Puting on his glasses is like being drunk in one eye.
My point is that it may be just a problem only Burke is experiencing.

Warsaw
March 6th, 2011, 02:57 PM
I have a similar problem: 20/200 vision in my right eye and 20/20 in the left. It's not his eyes, it's the way his visual cortex is wired; gives him headaches when he has to strain.

TVTyrant
March 6th, 2011, 04:54 PM
Yeah exactly. And for whatever reason the coloration used in H2 really bothers him.

Warsaw
March 6th, 2011, 05:29 PM
Note, I don't get headaches at all. I guess my brain adapted to use the left eye almost exclusvely so it largely ignores signals from the right. Therefore, I get no headaches.

I wouldn't mind a toning down of motion blur in ALL video games, though. I'm sorry, but when something whizzes past my head it doesn't get all stretchy and distorted like that.

ExAm
March 6th, 2011, 07:13 PM
HL2 episode 2's subtle approach to motion blur is good.

Cortexian
March 6th, 2011, 07:14 PM
I for one, loved all the effects (with the exception of over-used bloom/glare and sand/snowstorms obstructing your entire screen) in BC2. When every single thing interacts with an effect like I though I think that makes the game much better, so long as your PC can handle running the game at maxed settings at your max resolution for the ideal picture. It was more prominent in the Singleplayer, because when I play Multiplayer I almost never have viability problems in BC2, with the exception of the sandstorm on Atacama Desert.

Most games (BC2 included) let you disabled motion blur, and it's a huge improvement.

Warsaw
March 6th, 2011, 07:46 PM
I ran BC2 maxed out, didn't really have a problem even with motion blur except on Atacama, and we all already know that Atacama is fucked (yet somehow remains one of the most popular maps).

I just finished installing BC2 on my old machine, and it runs and still looks good even on lowest setting, but multiplayer is unplayable. Single player I can get away with.

Speaking of installing BC2, anyone have an explanation for why the BC2 updater takes EIGHT hours to update the game? Even if it were a 8GB patch, it should still only take me four hours maximum to do that with my connection.

Lateksi
March 6th, 2011, 08:03 PM
ChJnbQstAE4&feature=player_embedded#at=241

Shaky cam footage of single player.

Amit
March 6th, 2011, 09:24 PM
ChJnbQstAE4&feature=player_embedded#at=241

Shaky cam footage of single player.

Old. Link to that was posted days ago.

Rooster
March 7th, 2011, 12:38 AM
ORGAZM!!!!!!!!

ExAm
March 7th, 2011, 01:24 AM
I ran BC2 maxed out, didn't really have a problem even with motion blur except on Atacama, and we all already know that Atacama is fucked (yet somehow remains one of the most popular maps).

I just finished installing BC2 on my old machine, and it runs and still looks good even on lowest setting, but multiplayer is unplayable. Single player I can get away with.

Speaking of installing BC2, anyone have an explanation for why the BC2 updater takes EIGHT hours to update the game? Even if it were a 8GB patch, it should still only take me four hours maximum to do that with my connection.It's because EA's servers give data to you at the speed at which they decide to give it to you.

And, um, BC2 doesn't even have motion blur. I've run it maxed out, it just ain't there.

Rooster
March 7th, 2011, 01:57 AM
i hope they dont bloom the shit out of everything when you look through sniper scopes.

Amit
March 7th, 2011, 02:52 AM
It's because EA's servers give data to you at the speed at which they decide to give it to you.

And, um, BC2 doesn't even have motion blur. I've run it maxed out, it just ain't there.

This. And it's best to buy BF games on steam. The inevitable patches are a pain in the ass to update through EA's system.

=sw=warlord
March 8th, 2011, 03:22 PM
DICE general manager, Karl Magnus Troedsson has been talking about DICE’s focus on the PC version of Battlefield 3, saying that he feels DICE neglected the PC while they were building the first Frostbite Engine and making Battlefield: Bad Company. He also confirms that the PC will get “the same post-launch campaign” as the consoles in terms of downloadable content, unlike Battlefield: Bad Company 2.
(http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/03/04/dice-on-the-decline-of-pc-gaming-bullshit-battlefield-3-will-give-extra-love-to-the-pc-community/)

Golly Gee, thank's for allowing us to be fleeced by DLC I guess?

Amit
March 8th, 2011, 07:00 PM
Now that I'm skeptical about.

Warsaw
March 8th, 2011, 08:38 PM
But I liked getting all of that shit for free. Unless of course he is referring to Onslaught Mode, which PC didn't get at all...not that I much care.

Pooky
March 8th, 2011, 08:38 PM
DICE general manager, Karl Magnus Troedsson has been talking about DICE’s focus on the PC version of Battlefield 3, saying that he feels DICE neglected the PC while they were building the first Frostbite Engine and making Battlefield: Bad Company. He also confirms that the PC will get “the same post-launch campaign” as the consoles in terms of downloadable content, unlike Battlefield: Bad Company 2.
(http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/03/04/dice-on-the-decline-of-pc-gaming-bullshit-battlefield-3-will-give-extra-love-to-the-pc-community/)

Golly Gee, thank's for allowing us to be fleeced by DLC I guess?

What, you mean you actually thought PC gamers were going to keep getting free DLC forever?

Bam! Right in his sense of smug satisfaction!

TVTyrant
March 9th, 2011, 12:31 AM
What, you mean you actually thought PC gamers were going to keep getting free DLC forever?

Well I always hoped...

Warsaw
March 9th, 2011, 01:27 AM
I don't see how they are going to be able to enforce the DLC on non-Steam BF3 users. One person gets it and redistributes it on the web, bam, everyone has free DLC again.

Phopojijo
March 9th, 2011, 03:02 AM
You do realize that booster packs were on the PC for a dog's age, right?

Sure piracy might happen -- but you know what? Piracy might happen on their whole game. They can still try, and I might actually buy it if I believe the value is right (value in terms of a: original game value b: booster pack value c: value of free updates to game intermediate the game and the boosters)

Warsaw
March 9th, 2011, 05:24 AM
I know the concept is old, but piracy is easier and more common now than it was then. I'll likely buy any expansion they throw us so long as it is priced like an expansion and not an entire game unto itself. I have no problem with devs making money. If people want their product, they deserve to profit.

=sw=warlord
March 9th, 2011, 06:18 AM
I don't see how they are going to be able to enforce the DLC on non-Steam BF3 users. One person gets it and redistributes it on the web, bam, everyone has free DLC again.

They could easily take the route some games are already taking and require steam to be installed and tie the product key to that account.

Amit
March 9th, 2011, 07:26 AM
They could easily take the route some games are already taking and require steam to be installed and tie the product key to that account.

The problem is that Warsaw is looking at this from a console point of view instead of a PC point of view like most of the rest of us. BC2 DLC was tied to your EA account so you couldn't just download it for PC. I don't think you need an account for consoles so you can just download and play.

Warsaw
March 9th, 2011, 04:12 PM
Console will download it automatically through an XBL Update and then require you to redeem a code to play, most likely.

As for PC, they won't tie it to Steam. EA hasn't put its faith in the system 100% yet. I can't wait until they do, because then some of this retarded DRM will go away. What this means is that all someone has to do is find out where the EA Updater downloads to, hack the updater and the new files (creating false verification codes), and presto: free DLC. Redistribute as a .exe to the internet, show trollface.

Patrickssj6
March 9th, 2011, 05:58 PM
Don't know if this was posted
http://www.gamersbook.com/scene/news/battlefield-3-can-take-up-to-256-players/

Amit
March 9th, 2011, 06:00 PM
Don't know if this was posted
http://www.gamersbook.com/scene/news/battlefield-3-can-take-up-to-256-players/

I read that article earlier. Saw it on reddit.

Cortexian
March 9th, 2011, 06:07 PM
256 total would be to much for any kind of organized game play most likely. It might be interesting to allow modders/mappers the ability to make 128 player maps.

ExAm
March 9th, 2011, 06:27 PM
unfortunately, they've said that the Frostbite 2 engine is too damn complicated for any official modding kit to be released. Someone might get it working eventually, but for now the file structure is just too tightly packed, and making it easier to mod would result in performance loss.

Amit
March 9th, 2011, 06:30 PM
256 total would be to much for any kind of organized game play most likely. It might be interesting to allow modders/mappers the ability to make 128 player maps.

In a regular game server anything more than 64 would be complete chaos, even on the large maps they have. The thing is that pre-organized gaming sessions like LAN parties may be able to create a scenario where that many people can play together successfully.

I've seen mods that support more than 64 players (usually up to 128). However I don't know anybody who has gotten enough players onto the test server to see if it really works or not. I'd imagine that it would cause stability issues with the server.

Warsaw
March 9th, 2011, 09:25 PM
If Squads could have 8 players, I could see 128 players happening. Just worry about what your squad is doing and communicate with them. If at least one person has their eye on the map and is paying attention to what needs done, it will be successful.

But then again, some players are just interested in killing the enemy and not winning. We call them snipers.

Phopojijo
March 10th, 2011, 01:12 PM
The funny part was when you were a sniper with a shotgun in -- I believe it was the Beta but it could have been early launch when the Saiga was OP.

People would come up to you to "kill the wookie" -- and then CLACK CLACK CLACK CLACK.

Warsaw
March 10th, 2011, 02:54 PM
Using a shotgun as a sniper was actually how I ranked up my sniper class anyways. :lol:

Cortexian
March 10th, 2011, 03:50 PM
Shotguns are still way to OP in BC2. If I play with a shotgun+slugs+mag ammo I completely dominate the server. Top 5 players guaranteed.

Warsaw
March 10th, 2011, 05:56 PM
Not really. I can get top 5 without killing a single player; score is all about how useful you are to the team. Shotgun + slugs is only really good in those close maps because it drops like a bitch on bigger maps. I shoot slug users down with the M1 with ease because in the time it takes them to fire and cycle, I can get off four to five rounds. Using a Saiga or USAS12 has no benefit over the M1 or M14, so using that combo is asinine.

Anybody who is a good shot can shit all over slug users, irregardless of weapon choice (except maybe with the SCAR and AKS74U...those guns suck). Slugs are great only if you get the drop, and most people who use slugs just camp.

No, shotguns are best used as scatterguns with magnum ammo. In Arica Harbour, you can counter 90% of all situations with that combination. Use a Rex or an M1911 to counter the rest. As a medic, I usually use a shotgun because it allows me to drop a target in one hit so I can get to healing faster. If I know I need range, I'll use the M1.

ExAm
March 10th, 2011, 06:09 PM
Slugs? Bah, you get more reliability with the M14. And you free up a perk.

Cortexian
March 10th, 2011, 06:28 PM
Slugs + Mag ammo on the 870 Combat get you 1 hit kills at about 50 yards, anything else will be 2 hit kills, and your accuracy with that combo is like a laser so it's insanely easy. You can still be out ranged, that's for sure. Even though you can get 2 hit kills, once they're past the range where your crosshairs obscure them completely with the shotgun you're pretty much relying on luck to hit 'em. On maps where I'm engaging at those ranges I'll almost always just go to M14 or whatever I feel like using at the time that isn't a shotgun.

Can't tell you how many M14 scrubs I've completely raped on Harvest Day Rush while rocking an 870 Combat. It's all about moving around constantly and getting in close to them. It's surprisingly easy to do on that map.

Phopojijo
March 10th, 2011, 06:48 PM
Slugs used to be amazing because they were as accurate as tracer darts, just faster. Not sure if they still are though.

ExAm
March 10th, 2011, 08:04 PM
Well, M14 scrubs, yeah. But I assure you that any M14 scrub isn't going to be able to use slugs at a decent level either, so the comparison is useless due to the already wide skill gap.

Warsaw
March 10th, 2011, 08:15 PM
Besides, real men use the M1 anyways; magnified scopes are for wimps. :v:

I use slugs for the lulz every now and then, but they aren't worth the slow rate of fire. You might as well try to use a sniper rifle at point blank. If you want one-hit kills, better to use an M95 with a red dot. At least it will always be a one-hit kill regardless of range.

Amit
March 10th, 2011, 09:18 PM
Besides, real men use the M1 anyways; magnified scopes are for wimps. :v:

Use the M14 without optics then. I was happy when they brought that in with the last patch, but then I started using the ACOG on it and hated it. The Red Chevron doesn't feel as accurate at the iron sights, but the iron sights are chunky as fuck on this gun. The M1 is nice, but with the M14 having 2 more rounds for just a small amount more of recoil, I wouldn't take the M1 into close combat.

Warsaw
March 10th, 2011, 10:23 PM
I love the M1 for close combat. I don't even have to scope in with the irons for half of the kills. The M14 just feels wrong even on irons. With a scope on, it feels like extra tunnel vision beyond what it should be.

I don't know, I guess I just have too much practise invested in the M1 to jump over to the M14. I just find the handling on the former to be far superior.

ExAm
March 11th, 2011, 01:36 AM
Besides, real men use the M1 anyways; magnified scopes are for wimps. :v:

I use slugs for the lulz every now and then, but they aren't worth the slow rate of fire. You might as well try to use a sniper rifle at point blank. If you want one-hit kills, better to use an M95 with a red dot. At least it will always be a one-hit kill regardless of range.
I use the M14 because it has more rounds and a faster reload time. I almost never use the acog or the red dot with it, since it's basically my engineer kit weapon, and I play with exp+ all the time.

Warsaw
March 11th, 2011, 02:03 AM
I'm just jesting. I'll pull out an M14 if I feel like switching it up a little bit. I just can't use it with anything but irons very well. Though when I really want to change my loadout, I'll use something like the M16, PP2000, or MG3. Yes, I know, all of those are the best of their respective categories, but since I usually use the M1 or shotguns it's different.

As for perks, I always have Explosive Mk. 2 on as an engineer, and as a medic or sniper I usually have armour. When I'm using shotguns or the M95, I'll put magnum ammo on. As an assault, I either have Armour or Explosives on, depending on whether or not I have C4. The other perk is usually a red dot sight or extra explosive ammo. As a medic, it's the Medkit upgrade.

ExAm
March 11th, 2011, 02:58 AM
Dude, the M249 is obviously the best medic LMG. 200 rounds and a high rate of fire, as opposed to a high rate of fire, 100 rounds, and lower accuracy.

Amit
March 11th, 2011, 05:01 AM
Dude, the M249 is obviously the best medic LMG. 200 rounds and a high rate of fire, as opposed to a high rate of fire, 100 rounds, and lower accuracy.

I find the iron sights on the M249 pretty bad. I can't aim comfortably with it like I can with the PKM for some reason. I guess it's because the iron sights bobs up and down more freely even though it doesn't feel like there's any more recoil than the PKM. For good measure I just use the Type88. I haven't unlocked the rest of the Medic weapons yet. That's the class I play the least.

Cortexian
March 11th, 2011, 11:16 AM
G36 (XM8 for Hardcore mode if you want optics) or MG3 are the best Medic guns.

TeeKup
March 11th, 2011, 06:21 PM
The MG3 is fucking terrifying if you can use it.

ICEE
March 12th, 2011, 04:44 PM
Don't get me wrong, I'm still excited about this game... but am I the only one who thinks the animation looks like shit?

Edit: apparently, I'm not.



It's not like it's hard to make good animations the first time around :saddowns:


ODX is absolutely right. I could out animate that shit after a frontal lobotomy. The thumb is just absolutely terrible. The arm positioning is awful. Please god allow there to be a bf2 style editing kit so I can make skins that don't cause me to cringe.

Amit
March 12th, 2011, 06:16 PM
Don't get me wrong, I'm still excited about this game... but am I the only one who thinks the animation looks like shit?

Edit: apparently, I'm not.





ODX is absolutely right. I could out animate that shit after a frontal lobotomy. The thumb is just absolutely terrible. The arm positioning is awful. Please god allow there to be a bf2 style editing kit so I can make skins that don't cause me to cringe.

Don't worry, you'll be moving around restlessly in your bed at night because nobody is getting their hands on the Dev kit except DICE, unless...it gets leaked

ODX
March 12th, 2011, 07:03 PM
...unless one of us barges into the fucking studio to do it ourselves.

ExAm
March 12th, 2011, 07:59 PM
You guys are clearly insane. A: You're looking at pre-alpha footage, B: It's not even bad, and you guys are being horribly nitpicky.

ICEE
March 12th, 2011, 09:44 PM
Exam, why don't you post pictures of yourself with your arm in that position?

Oh wait, you can't. Because your arm would break. And by then it wouldn't be worth it. Also, the era of the build is irrelevant. If it was good enough to be made public, 90% of the time that's the way it will be in the actual game (strictly speaking about animation).


...unless one of us barges into the fucking studio to do it ourselves.

^^

ExAm
March 12th, 2011, 11:59 PM
I'm doing it right now. I have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

http://i.imgur.com/n1EFA.jpg

I was doing the same hand configuration as this guy. minus the right to hold the camera.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2523/3942924069_4983ecb852.jpg


Seriously, you guys are fucking whiners and perfectionists. The animation quality is fine. Great, even. I see nothing about it that looks unnatural, and I see a bunch of additional touches that make them even better than the BC2 animations for the AR15 variants. The movement of the sights in LDS mode, the indication of the stock being braced against the shoulder while reloading, it just fits.

ICEE
March 13th, 2011, 01:16 AM
Exam, you're full of shit. Your arm position isn't even close to as broken as the one in the video. You have zero idea what you're talking about.

Amit
March 13th, 2011, 01:38 AM
Exam, you're full of shit. Your arm position isn't even close to as broken as the one in the video. You have zero idea what you're talking about.

Jesus fucking christ, you don't even describe what the problem is and then you expect everyone to understand you. Fuck. I think the following image shows what you mean, though, and why it proves that the arm is positioned unrealistically for a human.

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/amit9821/fparms.png

The green line shows the relative position the middle of the arm should be in to hold the gun comfortably in RL. The red line shows the position that DICE uses and it feels unnatural to hold it that way. Still, I don't give a fuck since it doesn't ruin the gameplay. If it ruins it for you, go send DICE an e-mail and tell them how to do it instead of bitching on this forum.

I'm surprised nobody has bitched yet about how none of the AI have optics or iron sights mounted on their weapons.

TeeKup
March 13th, 2011, 01:40 AM
I think it may be the hand model is too big compared to the M4. The M4 IS a carbine but it's not that tiny.

ExAm
March 13th, 2011, 01:48 AM
It's just the FOV, teek. It's just the FOV.

ExAm
March 13th, 2011, 01:50 AM
Jesus fucking christ, you don't even describe what the problem is and then you expect everyone to understand you. Fuck. I think the following image shows what you mean, though, and why it proves that the arm is positioned unrealistically for a human.



The green line shows the relative position the middle of the arm should be in to hold the gun comfortably in RL. The red line shows the position that DICE uses and it feels unnatural to hold it that way. Still, I don't give a fuck since it doesn't ruin the gameplay. If it ruins it for you, go send DICE an e-mail and tell them how to do it instead of bitching on this forum.

I'm surprised nobody has bitched yet about how none of the AI have optics or iron sights mounted on their weapons.
It's not unrealistic, it's just slightly uncomfortable. But you know what? I tried it, and it's easier to hold the gun up that way. Less stress on fewer muscles.

Cortexian
March 13th, 2011, 04:04 AM
I'm not seeing anything wrong there... You guys complaining about that are crazy lol.

ICEE
March 13th, 2011, 04:07 AM
It's just the FOV, teek. It's just the FOV.

It isn't. I agree with teek, I think the gun is too small. Amit is also right about the positioning of the arm, but I figured that was obvious.

@ amit: I'm not saying it's going to be a bad game just because the animations are bad. I'm just tired of animation being the third wheel behind model and texture. Everything graphical about that trailer is excellent except the animation. It's stiff, unnatural, and plainly bad.

You want to see good animation? look no further (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdxouiVeyNk). Ignoring the fact that a lot of weapons are mirrored. That was intended to be conducive the jamming feature.

ExAm
March 13th, 2011, 04:46 AM
Ye gods, now I know you're trolling. FC2's animations didn't move very realistically at all. They were somewhere in the uncanny valley or something. BC2's animations were fucking fantastic, and I expect nothing less from BF3. I have seen nothing less, aside from the sprinting animation.

TVTyrant
March 13th, 2011, 01:48 PM
Crytek needs to learn how guns work. Some of those animations were unbelievably ridiculous. Loading an 03 from the bottom? WTF?

ExAm
March 13th, 2011, 02:42 PM
Crytek doesn't actually put any real guns in the crysis games. They make their own versions of recognizable weapons and make them work how they want.

ICEE
March 13th, 2011, 02:51 PM
Ye gods, now I know you're trolling. FC2's animations didn't move very realistically at all. They were somewhere in the uncanny valley or something. BC2's animations were fucking fantastic, and I expect nothing less from BF3. I have seen nothing less, aside from the sprinting animation.

Aside from some of the guns being mirrored, and/or functionally incorrect (mgl 140, lol) FC2's animations are awesome. Anyone who knows shit about animation can tell you that. BC2's animations were fantastic, I agree, and I am severely disappointed at bf3's. Even the chopped up BC2 animations they used in MOH were better than this.

Edit: and FC2 was made by ubisoft.

Donut
March 13th, 2011, 03:01 PM
tbqh, i agree with icee on this. what amit pointed out is exactly the issue with the arm placement. not to mention some of the movement was a little stiff in the reload. the ADS firing was pretty cool though.

the issue here is not just the m4 in the bf3 trailer. the issue is how many FIRST PERSON shooter games focus just on models and textures, while leaving animations behind. theyre just as important. im not saying every gun has to be EXACTLY perfect to real life, but the animations should always receive as much care as the models do. clearly, the models and textures in bc3 are going to be fantastic, so why not the animations?

as for farcry 2, that game has the best first person animations iv ever seen. they even chose to use left handed guns to show off the internals of some of the weapons. that is the kind of attention to detail that i love to see in a game, and for me, significantly improves the experience to know the developers cared enough to polish the animations as well as the other visuals. it doesnt matter as much that some of the stuff is functionally incorrect, because sometimes you have to change things to account for time of reloading, puling weapon out, etc... for gameplay purposes.

exam, just because you dont agree with icee and you think hes nitpicking does NOT mean he is trolling. thats a fucking insult.

CN3089
March 13th, 2011, 06:01 PM
Crytek needs to learn how guns work. Some of those animations were unbelievably ridiculous. Loading an 03 from the bottom? WTF?

Crytek didn't make Far Cry 2, Ubisoft Montreal did.

ExAm
March 13th, 2011, 07:10 PM
YOU GUYS

ARE COMPLAINING

ABOUT A FUCKING ARM.


SHUT UP.

ODX
March 13th, 2011, 07:39 PM
No, we're complaining about all the animations which are horribly low-quality for such a highly-respected development team known for quality games. It's disappointing, and there's no excuse for it.

No excuse.

TVTyrant
March 13th, 2011, 07:41 PM
Crytek didn't make Far Cry 2, Ubisoft Montreal did.

Either way, still sad.

Cortexian
March 13th, 2011, 07:55 PM
There's literally nothing wrong with the majority of the animations shown so far for BF3. I seriously don't see what the problem is with the arm or the thumb, that's a proper grip for an AR style rifle, the arm may be angled a little to far down (as in, your elbow pointing to the ground/close to the magazine) but I've seen people shoot like that.

Ifafudafi
March 13th, 2011, 07:58 PM
oh dear god, stfu about the animations already

I'll let you guys have some time to cool down, the next official part of the gameplay demo is supposed to release wednesday

Ifafudafi
March 16th, 2011, 01:02 PM
Aaand we're back. Part 2 of the gameplay series back in the first post; you've already seen this on shakycam but here it is in HD goodness.

anybody mentions animations again (pro or against) and I'll violate each and every one of your soft, supple anuses with every instrument available to me