Battlefield 3

First in game footage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi2tae2PmmU&feature=p...

Aslo check out the rewind vid where they analyse everything you see in the above trailer.

So. Very. Excited!

Yeah, it's looking pretty amazing graphics wise. Really appreciated the link to the Rewind Vid. Had a feeling the latest trailer would get thoroughly picked apart.

I'm very much looking forward to a proper Battlefield game. I have BBC2 but it just wasn't the same and I've rarely played it.

Not sure I'll be preordering it at £39.99 though! Crikey. How greedy can EA get? I expect they'll release a special ltd edition like Crysis 2, with steelbook and a silly pair of goggles or something for £200.

Shall have to give serious thought as to whether it's worth preordering. I am a man of principle. Or was... Very tempted!

Edited by deleted (Fri 25-Feb-11 10:10:29)

The £40 pre-order is the limited edition and you get the back to karkand map pack (says so at the end of the new trailer) with the limited edition. My understanding of that is that it is 4 re-made BF2 maps (but I can't remember where I heard that - perhaps on the rewind video or it could have been speaking with clan mates? (it was last night!!)). Karkand is a given I expect but then I would guess Wake Island is a near certainty and then maybe Jalalabad is a poplular choice. Personally I would love to see Sharqi again but who knows, they may pick a spec ops map or one of the add-on (euro forces/armored fury) type maps.

The good thing is that it is a PC-lead title - they are developing it for the PC and then dumming down things like server size for the consoles. 64 players again for PC. Oh how I have been looking forward to another 64 player FPS - it just raises new levels of utter carnage!

Dice have said this is a direct sequel to BF2 rather than BC2 (which apparently will have very limited influence on BF3). I am hoping this means the return of things like:

1) 6 man squads.
2) squad leaders (no more spawning on everyone)
3) commanders + commander map - with the added ability of squad leaders to issue squad orders like they could in BF2.
4) 5 classes again - medics having assault rifles and support having the ammo/LMG combo
5) prone

Some people are complaining that they are putting in a single player but I always like a nice bash at SP and tbh they are in a huge head-to-head with Activision (CoD) for supremacy and can't really avoid having one IMO.

BF2 was without doubt my favourite game (infantry only really) and as such I am a little scared at how excited I am getting. I hope I am not building this up in my head into something they can't possibly achieve!

Yes, it is tempting. I loved the Karkland map on BF2. Who didn't? Had many epic campaigns on that one. Started getting into infantry only a little towards the end. It was something else though.

So 4 maps you say? I saw the 'Back to Karkland' bit and it's definitely a strong hook. The real deal maker would be if this/these maps were not available elsewhere. I'm supposing they will be available (for a price) so I might just wait it out as I usually do and try and buy the game at a more reasonable price. £40 is a lot of money for a PC game with no large royalty payments to make.

Have you tried the Vietnam expansion for BBC2? I only just realised it was released 21 Dec 2010 so I could buy it now. Gamerankings give it a decent enough rating but I wouldn't mind finding out what other people think? Looks cool from the trailer though. Did you ever play the first Battlefield Vietnam game? Or even the mod for BF1942?

We are in complete agreement regarding the return to BF2's fundamental set of must haves: squad size/leader spawn, enemy spot!, kit and class, satellite commander view (and support but maybe not so much artillery!) and so on. There's plenty they could tweak. It would be nice to have easier server customisations and a far better in-game browser that actually allows you to filter by region just like good old BF1942 did. Or was that using the All Seeing Eye that tragically got bought, broken and burned by Yahoo?

Looks like a really speedy computer is going to be needed. My own rig is a year old now and might be lagging behind in the graphics department judging by the latest trailer. Plenty of time to upgrade though I suppose! Roll on BF3 day! Oh, you can also apparently play the game a couple of days early to get a head start I think i recall EA saying. Ha. I might need to judging by how hard it is to level up when you're a rookie and getting pwnd by bigger and better guns.

I wonder whether they will go back to the BF2 way of unlocking guns - you can unlock whichever gun you want when you reach a certain level.

I don't dispute £40 is a lot - any other game and I would be kicking up a fuss, no doubt about it. But they could ask for £50 and I would pay for this particular game hehe.

BC2 you can certainly filter by region which you couldn't on release. As much as they are not basing the game around BC2 I think they will have learnt their lessons regarding the server browser. (Fingers crossed).

No I haven't played any of the old Vietnam era BF games but I do have BC2:Vietnam. I like it - my only issue is that it only 5 maps and there are limits to how long 5 maps can hold my attention. That being said I have played it a lot and am still enjoying it. But I only really play Rush - I don't feel conquest works very well on BC2 with usually only 3 flags, often in a straight line. When I tried conquest on Vietnam it seemed almost worse than the BC2 conquest! - it felt like they had made Rush maps and then tried to stick a few flags down for conquest once they had finished.

I upgraded a portion of my PC last Nov (Black ops prompted me to do it and then turned out to be a [censored] game!). So my processor, memory & mobo are all fine. I have a HD4850 which is the weak link of my system as I didn't upgrade my graphics - but I am already thinknig that come release date I will have a shiny new card in my machine

Really looking forward to BF3
I played BF2 Vietnam and think the BC2 Vietnam in more fun.

From what i heard theres 4 classes sadly, tbh i'm quite happy with that as long as the unlock system is like 2142, NOT bc.

Prone is back

Theres been no word on squad sizes or anything but i heard that commander might not be back which would be disappointing but i suppose as long as they do something better then all for it.

The 4 maps returning is karkand (blech, i hated that through and through, stupid alley way of stat padding), wake (hell yesssssssssss), oman and sharqui (ithink, its on joystiq)

I know one thing about buying BF3 this time though, buy it on steam instead of retail as all retail copies seem to be 30quid a pop, steam will be the same so theres no reason not to. Although looks like shopto is getting my DNF preorder, that keyring looks great and its prolly £5 cheaper.

Looks like you're right on the button. From some further digging, confirmation of the 4 remade Back to Karkland maps: BF3 - Karky and What we know so far from BF3 blog. Back to Karkov is expected to follow a month later as separate DLC for those who don't go with the Ltd Ed version. They say it's to be $10 in the US so that's a tenner over here then.

# 64 player support on PCs
# 24 player support on Xbox 360/PS3
# Prone is back
# Jets are back
# No commander
# 4 classes
# Single player campaign + co-op
# It will have more unlocks than Bad Company 2
# No mod tools

There's a nice little video over at Game Informer featuring Lars Gustavsson, Battlefield 3's lead multiplayer designer. He talks about the long history of Battlefield right from Codename Eagle days. It's not really that informative in any regard, but at least it's something different.

That the core of the original developers from DICE are still controlling things (hopefully) is a good sign. Judging by their swanky offices and the number of times Lars pauses to suck back his saliva when he espouses that it's all for the love of making the game for gamers (and not the massive amount of money) it looks like he's already counting all that cash and thinking about what he can do with it.

Or perhaps Lars is just slurping so often as we all are in anticipation of playing this superb looking game? Maybe I'm just too cynical for my own good.

The urban combat footage looks mint. As someone who wasted money on the last Medal of Honor, I'm hoping Dice dont forget to send out the invites for BF3's beta.

I didn't preorder MoH, i couldnt bring myself to buy it it was a pants game and as much as i like BF3 i just couldnt do it.

Singleplayer makes me sad though, it means they spent time not working on multi but working on some stupid side gimmick noone is going to touch unless theyre [censored] bored without internet.

Hmm I am happy with that map pack actually. Sharqi was possibly my Fav map (as an inf only player really). Oman was a good map but it was a vehicle map so I didn't play it so much. Wake again is really only a vehicle map - but that is the all time BF series favourite and given they made 1943 was a certainty for BF3 I think!

Shame about the commander - although perhaps there will be no 'enemy spotted' spam now hehe. I do hope that there is some way to issue more than basic 'attack/defend here' orders. Quite often it is equally important to be able to say go to point X and then hit flag Y (from the direction they are not watching).

I did consider BF3 on steam but if its £30 without the map pack then I am happy paying £40 and getting it at release

I remember playing Codename Eagle at a LAN I went to with some clan mates back in about 2000 or something. Never realised it was the same company!

I can handle the 4 classes but will sulk if it is 4 man squads again I think. 6 is better for maximum carnage

Me either. I nearly justified to myself buying what I knew to be a terrible game because of the BF3 beta offer... but... couldn't... just... do... it!

You couldn't tell from all the bugs?

i am not exited at all for bf3, if anything it shows how lazy and unimaginative dice are, the features they have been using to promote it (prone, planes, 64 players) were all in bf1942. the game will end up a total shitfest once cod/bc2 players start playing it with half the team sat in base waiting for a tank/plane tking the others waiting and the other half of the team camping on wookie hill with a sniper rifle.

Haha I do remember it being buggy but I also remember it being huge amounts of fun when we were all rather drunk shouting at each other across the room!

I don't disagree that many of the features in BF2 have been there from the get go, but I had thought we had seen the last of 64 player games. CoD, BC2, MoH, Crysis etc all had 32 players. I think Crysis 2 is going for 12 players! I'm sure there will be a range of FF on/off options which will deal with deliberate TKing.

As I said above, I am an Infantry only man anyway really - it might not solve camping but it does stop people waiting for vehicles

Haha, yes I remember it well. Actually I linked my own in game vid of an Armoured Fury map and some 3 star general guy tk-ing another guy for a plane, which is a common occurrence.

Despite all of the negatives to online game play in Battlefield games, I think I'd rather see a new game coming than not. I always used to play 64 players despite the added mayhem and how it was often more difficult to do well with all the added chaos and stupidity with increased scarcity of planes and helos. It really shows you humanity at its most base.

Sometimes it was funny but most often very annoying and pathetic to see people so greedy they didn't respect anybody else, stealing planes from others calmly queuing. I had many a moment of rage typing. Selfish little pircks (rearrange the letters)!

But let's look on the bright side. Well, tell ya what I bet DICE don't do a damn thing to change the status quo. Would it really take that much effort to put in place some kind of system that held people in a proper queue so they could not skip their turn for the planes etc? And in this way, you could also be protected from being killed by all those annoying base raping plane [censored] deliberately targeting the newly spawned.

In reply to a post by ilh:

As I said above, I am an Infantry only man anyway really - it might not solve camping but it does stop people waiting for vehicles

Lol. Instant solution! Mind you, there was a helluva lot of running around on some maps. Say Karkand when you were USMC. With an APC you could always hit the water and attempt to get round the back and capture the MEC's home base. It only worked once every 50 tries or so but it was probably better than getting naded or blown apart by armour as infantry coming down that hill.

I have pre-ordered BF3 now btw but from Amazon, which will make T2D laugh. They were asking for £30 I think and that's the Ltd Edition. Okay, so I will have to wait a few days longer but I think it's worth it. Shop.net also offer a good price but for some reason I can't sign up as they say my address is already registered but I don't have a linked account.

They got it pretty much sorted by the last patch of BF2, it stopped the idiots exploiting ways to get what they want (a jet or heli).

TBH its always annoying when some idiot is sucking up a vehicle you know you can own in, for example in BC2 me and a friend or two love the blackhawk we can rake up to 60-80 kills in a round (supporting the team covering the mcoms, etc) always come top if we can get hold of one, but so many idiots just grab it will just kamakazi it, if the same person does it over and over sometimes we do just TK them out of it because theyre wasting everyones time, obviously if someone does a decent job and actual flies it and has gunners in it then we leave them alone, but so many idiots just load it up and fly it over and let it bail. BF2 was the same with jets people who couldnt bomb or attack so they ditched them into tanks, hopefully DICE will nerf the direct impact damage from the planes so kamakazi isnt viable.

I agree in some parts but how is someone like me that is not good in a heli supposed to learn??
Also it gets really boring when some ace heli pilot just keeps killing everyone, IMO helis should be easier to shoot down and not be so powerful

You practice flying by yourself on an empty server.

Like vietnam and the hueys?

Shooting helis down in BC2 was easy, it was just about plotting where the heli is going and shooting a rocket there based on its distance ;D or using a tracer dart.

In reply to a post by Zadeks:

You practice flying by yourself on an empty server.

Can't do that on PS3 it just sticks you in a game with other players
Only way is to take a heli when you see it, I'm getting better, I'm now carp at flying instead of completely carp, but anyone on the ground is still safe. Think I have about 4 kills. Everyone has to start somewhere and it's great when you get a chance to fly even if it's not for long.

Last night there were two really good rank 50 pilots flying around the ship map, no way to shoot them down as they destroyed the anti-aircraft guns within sec's of someone sitting on them, not that the anti-aircraft guns are much good, couldn't capture any flags and were just being constantly base raped, it got so bad everyone left.
I hope in BF3 the balance is restored.

Well I wouldn't be too hopeful about that mate. Rape from the air has been a central feature of the Battlefield series from day one, or at least until the time people had sufficiently mastered the art of flying and pwng.

It really does ruin a game to have some very skilled players obliterating everything land based that's moving. The game balance is totally out of whack in that regard. Just recall the way you basically have a radar showing you where all the vehicles are when switched to bombs in the planes on BF2.

DICE/EA didn't do a damn thing to change the balance - there was a distinct lack of ground based air defense. I mean, even the anti aircraft gun stations were highlighted for the planes. As I myself got better at flying, it didn't take too much effort to remember exactly where those AA guns were and to just drop your payload on them every time they spawned. Shooting at helos was a complete joke too as the flare recycle time was far too quick so they could fly around unmolested save for other jets and their machine gun turrets (heat sinking missiles were useless).

I'm ranting on as I understand the frustrations only too well. Actually I hated the people who whored the planes/helos; there should be a system in place where they cannot take the planes etc if they had only just used them. The system was totally set up in their favour in BF2. Die and spawn and there was a nice new plane ready for ya and only you knew it was imminently due as you'd crashed it previously. It really enforced the maxim greed and selfish stupidity is good. It'd be nice if DICE got the balance right this time but I expect it'll be a cold day in hell before they give that any proper consideration - it's all about the cash and catching up COD.

In reply to a post by ilh:

I don't disagree that many of the features in BF2 have been there from the get go, but I had thought we had seen the last of 64 player games. As I said above, I am an Infantry only man anyway really - it might not solve camping but it does stop people waiting for vehicles

Same here. The CoD 9 v 9 becomes dull quickly, especially when the games are released with so few maps. 32 v 32 is just the right level of frenetic action heh.

Well I wouldn't be too hopeful about that mate. Rape from the air has been a central feature of the Battlefield series from day one, or at least until the time people had sufficiently mastered the art of flying and pwng.

It really does ruin a game to have some very skilled players obliterating everything land based that's moving. The game balance is totally out of whack in that regard. Just recall the way you basically have a radar showing you where all the vehicles are when switched to bombs in the planes on BF2.

This to me will be the decider between BF3 and Homefront.

BF3 looks fantastic and has the obvious pedigree. But I want away from COD and onto something with vehicles. BF3 could be the best looking game ever produced if it wants. But I would take Homefront all day long if it delivers the MP gameplay in a properly balanced way. It's not all about the visuals? Is it?

God I hope BF3 gets that sorted!

Edited by mrnelster (Sun 06-Mar-11 10:48:59)

Agreed. Gameplay over graphics anyday!

If any large scale vehicle based online game can bet the balance right, that's definitely the crucial decider.

Still, those graphics from the trailers T2D and others have provided, do look tasty.

If any large scale vehicle based online game can bet the balance right, that's definitely the crucial decider.

Still, those graphics from the trailers T2D and others have provided, do look tasty.

Wouldn't it be great if they get both right?

In the meantime it's home front I guess.

In reply to a post by mrnelster:

Still, those graphics from the trailers T2D and others have provided, do look tasty.

Wouldn't it be great if they get both right?

In the meantime it's home front I guess.

Both graphics and evenly balanced gameplay? What kind of fairytale world would that be? Next, we're going to be asking for sensible, selfless, mature players all working as part of a team.

But, hey. That would be fantastic, yes. Just imagine if we could have it all? If EA ever released a working Battlefield game on day one and delivered the goods to us, they'd probably release a patch just to fudge it all up again.

Shall look into Homefront a bit more as I suspect some sacrifices are going to be needed. This is the real world afterall, and we all need something to tide us over till later in the year when our hopes are sure to be met with the grim reality of foolish expectation.

This from a review on homefront. Sounds too good to be true!

Those vehicles themselves benefit from another smart twist; if you've enough BP in hand it's possible to spawn behind the controls of a tank, for example, putting an overdue end to the act of players camping out by vehicle spawn points

You can find the rest of the review here

http://www.gamestracker.com/int/gopreview.asp?idu=13...

Its not a review mate but i preview of the game code in question,many previews promote how awesome a game is only to give it terrible scores once reviewed.

I have lost count of the times i have trusted ign.com with outstanding previews of games only to ditch the dirt after the retail game launches.

To late for me as the games in the past got pre/ordered based on there hype trail and other similar sites.

So now i am more careful and hope most times i get plenty of information in advance so the pre/order goes ahead or gets cancelled in time.Most times review scores are up about a week in advance so there is time to cancel.

I now look at games in a lot more detail and always smell a rat when game review embargo are in force with certain games.

Bulletstorm had a review embargo but has turned out to be a cracking game which is a exception to the rule as most turn out to be quite mediocre at best,

I used to like ign,com and the Magazine edge as i thought they had a lot of credibility but i now find them quite bias regarding different consoles and take most of what they say with a pinch of salt.

Saying that its still great to see gaming sites and magazines giving games you are buying great scores.

This Homefront has me a little concerned to be honest,after i posted the new multiplayer trailer the other day it looked pretty special ,but after watching this

SINGLE player trailer i have to admit it looks kind of lame and very uninteresting,the kind of game that i could get bored with in 10 minutes and end up trading it in the following day.

I will me monitoring the review scores closely regarding this game as one minute i am all for it and the next minute the game i feel should pass me by

I have this and Crysis 2 pre/ordered and Crysis 2 ships 1 week after this so this has to score good to have me interested.

Theres no chance homefront will turn out better than BF3.

You know what they sat T2D. One mans meat?

That trailer is right up my street. I'm not too fussed about the single player campaign. I use that as practicing the control for the MP. But the sheer freneticism of the gameplay with the vehicles is exactly my bag!

@FireFalcon

As I posted before, BF3 looks phenomenal in the trailers. But any game that let's the vehicles dominate (as with previous BF games) is daft. That should be the MO for an aircraft game, not predominantly an FPS. That's my only gripe.

If you prefer that type of simulation game play then fair do's. Personally I like to get down and dirty in the run and gun scenario. Kill/death ratios are nice but don't prove how good you are as a player.

Take COD for example. Everybody loved getting an airstrike/chopper etc. But in the previous Incarnations killstreak kills continued the streak. That meant game hosts bombing the map continually for 20 mins. Pointless, frustrating and an uneven playing field.

Perhaps if you have never played console games you won't have experienced that as badly, but either way it can never make for a good game.......unless you just like getting the biggest killstreaks no matter how realistic the gameplay might be?

Are you referring to EoD?

Post deleted by 12eason

Edited by deleted (Sun 06-Mar-11 20:19:01)

Comparing COD where vehicles are nothing more than stuff to fuel the best players getting better and battlefield where vehicles are a must to help push forward is daft IMO, theyre two totally different calibre of games that just share the FPS genre.

I HATE infantry only games, so boring and limited running around on foot, duty calls is the epitome of what these games are. I much prefer the bigger maps, the varied areas, the vehicles and their strengths and weaknesses, you have to think about what is around you or what might come in, its not just "oh dear someone called in an attack heli", its someone would be flying that heli and if theyre flying skills are good enough to kill or survive you, not like CoD's gimmicks with their aimbots.

To say all vehicles are OP and uneven is naive at best.

I've played tons of console games, I own a 360, i've also play with friends on their PS3, the difference i see is there are far more "scrub"ish players on there, sitting camping or using the most cheap load outs the game provides, noone communicates besides trash talk.

Comparing COD where vehicles are nothing more than stuff to fuel the best players getting better and battlefield where vehicles are a must to help push forward is daft IMO, theyre two totally different calibre of games that just share the FPS genre.

I didn't say that!

BF3 looks fantastic and has the obvious pedigree. But I want away from COD and onto something with vehicles. BF3 could be the best looking game ever produced if it wants. But I would take Homefront all day long if it delivers the MP gameplay in a properly balanced way. It's not all about the visuals? Is it?

I said this.

I want vehicles. I don't think COD is any good.

So because you didn't read the post properly you said this.

To say all vehicles are OP and uneven is naive at best.

I don't understand the need to be so confrontational to be honest.
Isn't that what "the console trash talkers" do?

I wouldn't call it confrontational at all.....

You're probably right. It's probably me. And the scrubbish, camping, unorganised, loud mouthed console gaming idiots that you mention. And come to think of it probably everybody else that doesn't hold the same opinion as you. They are obviously not worthy of your time.

I wonder if they can read though?

I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I don't believe that you would extend anybody else the same courtesy.

If you want to believe that mate then go ahead and I will gladly file you under that pile.

My response to your opinion

If you prefer that type of simulation game play then fair do's.

Your response to mine

To say all vehicles are OP and uneven is naive at best.

Whether it's confrontational or just plain rude I don't know. File me where you like.

What is EoD??

What it needs is a few indestructible SAM sites on each map, that will put an end to the helis owning the maps

What is OP? Too many acronyms here for me. EoD is Eve of Destruction, a mod for BF2? I have a hazy memory of it from BF1942 days.

To Falcon and mrnelster, I didn't read your posts with such careful scrutiny but think you're both making this into something it's not and never was. Totally pointless taking offence mrnelster, I think. You seem like a reasonable guy and I would suggest maybe Falcon can be a bit too straight talking at times? I didn't read anything to take offence at in his post. I don't know what OP means though so perhaps I am way off the mark. Reckon you should just accept each other's apologies and go on from there. Save the venom for the battlefield and all the oiks.

I'm going to be retraining myself for BF2 in the next few days. Gotta do some practise offline else I'll be slaughtered and shot down (in both senses) if I try to fly a helo/plane online. Reckon it'd be very nice if those with the inkling and a little time to spare could one day get more organised and team up for such outings. Perhaps Homefront, if it's any good will offer us all such an opportunity? Some serious organised online target practise is what we need!

Honestly i see nothing wrong with Falcons posts and Falcon maybe straight talking as Spook Suggested but no more than myself.

Personally i like it how it is straight up honest reply .

I used to play BF2, BF1942 and Vietnam but don't remember playing EoD

OP means original post

Yeah I couldn't see anything to take offense at either. No hidden sleights then as Lt. Swan tells me OP means Original post!

Of course it does. I knew that! Was just testing ya.

Ah. I feel dumb now! Totally forgot that one. ://

EoD

I used "OP" in it's military context of "operational perspective".
Sorry didn't think of the other meaning!

As for the other comments, straight talking is fine usually.

But "naive at best" is the normal precursor to "stupid at worst".

As a newcomer to the forum it's all about what you said, not what you meant. I would have apologised for any offence caused and explained what I actually meant.

Does that sound unreasonable?

You do sound like a very reasonable guy, yes. Never knew OP meant operational perspective. A military term. Guess you guys read more than I do about that side of things, eh?

Naive at best? Well, I haven't read it all through in detail but I imagine it was used as a defensive throwaway remark. What's the real argument here anyway? There's no real right or wrong point as far as I can see, just two differing perspectives. I doubt your points are all that at odds with each others. I imagine you and Fire Falcon both have a wealth of knowledge and valid perspectives that would help enlighten the more militarily/gaming ignorant like me.

I'm the last person to be giving advice in not taking things personally though I'd probably just ignore the naive remark. In its context it doesn't really stand for anything. As for synergism, I like and have respect for both infantry battles and vehicles in BF2. I prefer vehicles 9 times out of ten for pretty much what I feel Fire Falcon is driving at despite all the problems I've moaned about in balancing terms. I do enjoy infantry only and started to get into it more but could see how that was subject to some abuse too as well as requiring a silly amount of running around. It's a shame they couldn't have allowed just jeeps (minus gun turrets maybe) though I suppose it'd still be carnage with road kills galore.

No need to drag out this matter any more. As far as I see, there's no issue anyhow. It's always nice to see differing perspectives and the more people posting here the better. Let's try and be patient and show each other a bit more courtesy and leeway for explanation? These are just games we're talking about afterall.

Fair do's

Bought a tear to my eye

I've never really hear it used as operational perspective but original post and overpowered are known to me. So confusing!