Battlefield 3

[Supai]

Btw, who saw the new teaser trailer? It's freakin awesome!

Wasn't too impressive for me. 

[TMRNetShark]

Btw, who saw the new teaser trailer? It's freakin awesome!

Wasn't too impressive for me. 

That's why it's called a Teaser and not just a trailer. They wait to bait people to watch the whole trailer next week. I heard that the ad campaign that EA will be doing with BF3 will be extensive... so we all know this is just ad fishing for people to be excited next week.

[bloody000]

I have yet to see a game "realistically" portray ground warfare or the effects of being shot, shooting, explosions and the like. Because real gunfights aren't all that interesting, at the very least not from a visual standpoint.

Having said that, the unrealistic games you mentioned are precisely the type of games I like.

I'm going to say that I disagree with you... realistic gunfights (where you try to use cover, get an angle on the tango, and then shoot) is more fun than just running AIM DOWN SIGHTS, SHOOT, SHOOT, SHOOT til their dead. That kinda redefines what arcady gameplay is. Battlefield aims for the other end of the spectrum. Most fans of Battlefield since 1942 think that the "Battlefield" formula worked well back than and it works today. If you like unrealistic shooters, congrats... Modern Warfare 3 is the game for you then (because you will die a lot in BF3 if you bring that attitude to an online match).

Btw, who saw the new teaser trailer? It's freakin awesome!

Realistic gun fights easily stretch over several hours with only sporadic near-aimless shooting. Then you end up in the morgue or spend the next 6 months rehabilitating. NOT FUN.



PS: LOL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuTkgi7scKo

[AceHigh]

BF3 is not a realistic shooter.

OP Flashpoint/ArmA/ArmA2 are.

[TMRNetShark]

I never said Battlefield 3 was ultra-realistic or even realistic. I said realistic gunfights are more fun than running and gunning. Why? Because it requires strategy on top of being able to aim and shoot someone. Snipers have to work to take out entrenched LMGs. LMGs have to keep suppressive fire to send the enemy in a different direction. Engineers are there to keep your team's vehicles running and are able to take out enemy vehicles without a vehicle themselves (through RPG's and landmines). Soldiers are the only real class that can push forward into enemy territory and be able to capture points and hold an area until snipers/LMGs can come to support them.

That's a little more realistic than say... "Yeah, I have Ghost Pro... Hardline... and etc." Team mates don't really have to help other team mates to win, so the person with an inferior setup or isn't as skilled gets slaughtered in deaths but the run-and-gunner gets rewarded? I mean, I understand why run and gun gameplay is fun... it's just I think the Battlefield formula is better.

[AceHigh]

In practice mediocre snipers only shoot other snipers because they are the only ones not moving around. LMG players in BF2 just equipped PKM and used it as a semi sniper weapon thus causing a lot of rage on the opposite team.

Oh and don't forget that your main objective: To spot boats, preferably on maps that don't even have any water. If you manage to fill the entire minimap with boats, you are doing it right 

(my point is that gamers don't always follow the intended gameplay)

[TMRNetShark]

In practice mediocre snipers only shoot other snipers because they are the only ones not moving around. LMG players in BF2 just equipped PKM and used it as a semi sniper weapon thus causing a lot of rage on the opposite team.

Oh and don't forget that your main objective: To spot boats, preferably on maps that don't even have any water. If you manage to fill the entire minimap with boats, you are doing it right 

(my point is that gamers don't always follow the intended gameplay)

Yeah, that's a perfect world scenario I mentioned. But if you pick a class, you should know how to play to it's strengths to help your team win, right? Then again, this is why most Battlefield fans are gonna either want Cod Kiddies to stay in Cod, or make those kiddies rage quit because they cannot get a kill.

God I hope someone on the internet posts a BF3 rage quit form a kid... but sometimes it's endearing.

I will say, I want this guy to come to BF3 soooo badly... "Enemy has mucho airsupport!" HAHAHAHA XD

[shabutie]

BF3 is not a realistic shooter.

OP Flashpoint/ArmA/ArmA2 are.

Fuck yeah, Flashpoint. 

Fun? No...  Rage Inducing? YES.   Entertaining? FUCK YEAH.

[TMRNetShark]

For anyone who thinks the console version are going to be inferior.... well I agree the consoles will be inferior to the PC version...

But damn, those graphics on the (worst looking system) Xbox 360 look great. DICE really worked hard on the console versions (since the PS3 version is in the middle between the PC and the 360) and the worst looking version looks that good...

Damn... MW3 is already outdated... >.>

[newy]

Damn... MW3 is already outdated... >.>

Nothing new. But Kot fanboys... (pun with a German word for shit).

[TMRNetShark]

Nothing new. But Kot fanboys... (pun with a German word for shit).

But you would agree, up until now... we havn't seen any "official" console gameplay (only off screen stuff or on Jimmy Falon's show)... to be honest, who gives a shit about 60 fps when a game looks as good as it does... on a console no less. :O

EDIT: I took the liberty of taking screenshots of similar moments during the teaser trailer and the Xbox 360 trailer.

Teaser trailer released on 9/9/2011:

(click to show/hide)

Everyone thought that was PC footage, right? Hell, it looked like PC caliber game.

Xbox 360 footage released on 9/16/2011:

(click to show/hide)

Those look awfully similar, don't they? Does this mean that the teaser footage released on September 9th was really just Xbox 360/PS3 footage and the PC version looks BETTER than that? If so, DAAAAAMMMMMMNNNN Dice... you outdone yourself. Please, take my money... you motherfucking geniuses earned every penny of my $59.99.

Yes, I know other parts of the trailer looked like it had less fidelity, but I can't help to this that the original teaser was never PC footage in the first place... in which case, the PC version will look even better.

[newy]

http://velazquezasistant.wikispaces.com/file/view/Animation1.gif/254921992/Animation1.gif

http://i54.tinypic.com/xmjr10.gif

[TMRNetShark]

http://velazquezasistant.wikispaces.com/file/view/Animation1.gif/254921992/Animation1.gif

http://i54.tinypic.com/xmjr10.gif

So what you trying to say? That a few lighting effects make/break a game for you...  

I mean, there clearly is a difference between how the flash of the lighting is from the grenade. The smoke looks much more realistic... and the foliage around the building looks much better. Other than the effects, the game looks quite similar except for the PC version *obviously* has more fidelity.

Then again... you can't deny the 360 version looks good for a console game... now can you?  


EDIT: Grenades don't really explode that bright... nor as "exciting"

[AceHigh]

Then again... you can't deny the 360 version looks good for a console game... now can you?  

you can't deny the 360 version looks good for a console game

looks good for a console game

for a console game

If you are in doubt, what Tamarin basically said was "Considering how shitty consoles are, this game was made well enough to look somewhat decent" 

[TMRNetShark]

Then again... you can't deny the 360 version looks good for a console game... now can you?  

you can't deny the 360 version looks good for a console game

looks good for a console game

for a console game

If you are in doubt, what Tamarin basically said was "Considering how shitty consoles are, this game was made well enough to look somewhat decent"  

Which says a lot, right? So by comparison.. 2005 hardware is still capable of doing what a computer can do (short of a high-end computer) in terms of graphics. The only real advantage the PC has is the significantly more players online.

So I gotta thank DICE for being such a good developer, and I gotta thank Ace for pointing out the obvious.

For everyone who is going to start "Xbox 360 vs PS3" attacks... All I have to say is this is an interesting read. Finally, DICE is using Cell to it's full potential by off loading shading/lighting operations from the GPU (RSX) to the SPU's (on Cell). Will the PS3 version look significantly better? Probably not, but the game might either run smoother/have better effects than the 360 version.

For all you PC players... Pre-order numbers

That's right, the PC version of Battlefield 3 isn't even ranked yet. So this means one of two things. Either less than 125,000 copies have been pre-ordered from stores... OR everyone is pre-ordering the game from Origins (unlikely). So at least I know there will be plenty of players to fill the 24 player limit on consoles.

EDIT:
EA claims 1.25 million copies pre-ordered... that actually leave 400,000 difference between the added console versions and the total number of 1.25 million copies. So why hasn't vgcharts reported any of this OR people really are pre-ordering from Origins.

[shabutie]

Gameplay > Graphics.

[Sosseres]

Gameplay > Graphics.

Yup, which is why the PC version is best.

[TMRNetShark]

Gameplay > Graphics.

I think we can all agree on that...

That's why I don't care about having tighter maps on consoles. Funnels more of the conflict into "front" warfare and moves away from running and gunning. The PC will have the same thing, but with more players on the full sized maps.

I'm just curious as to how vehicle scaling will work. Will there be maps that have vehicles for everyone? Is there a map like "Battle of Britain" from the first update to 1942 where everyone gets (or can get) an aircraft?

I want questions answered!

Gameplay > Graphics.

Yup, which is why the PC version is best.

It's the same game. If it's a different game because a console player... Actually, I'll agree to that statement. The PC and console version of the games is completely different. You can play it on your computer screen and I can play it on my 59 inch plasma TV.

[AceHigh]

Which says a lot, right? So by comparison.. 2005 hardware is still capable of doing what a computer can do (short of a high-end computer) in terms of graphics. The only real advantage the PC has is the significantly more players online.

You got it backwards. 2005 hardware is not anywhere close to being able to handle PC version of BF3. That is why console versions will never have 64 player maps Result is sacrificing gameplay to retain graphics.

For all you PC players... Pre-order numbers

US pre-order sales huh? Well, at some point majority voted for the Bush in US, so I can't expect people to go for the quality 

As for the pre-order numbers, do you realize that for some obscure reason Steam never discloses the information on their sales or pre-orders? Same for most other game delivery platforms on the internet. That does put a big "unknown" area on the numbers and statistics, since PC games sell like hot cupcakes on Steam while the local shops are removing PC games sections all together because they lost customers to Steam.

[TMRNetShark]

As for the pre-order numbers, do you realize that for some obscure reason Steam never discloses the information on their sales or pre-orders? Same for most other game delivery platforms on the internet. That does put a big "unknown" area on the numbers and statistics, since PC games sell like hot cupcakes on Steam while the local shops are removing PC games sections all together because they lost customers to Steam.

It's "unclear" whether Battlefield 3 will be on Steam. As of right now, Battlefield 3 is only on Origins.