Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well, teaser's out:
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/debut-teaser-battlefield-3/710218

Doesn't reveal anything except that again, it's just a modern shooter, so not very interesting there..

Who will be the opponent this time? Evil Communist Asian country or Evil Radical Islamic country? Maybe both again if they are feeling adventurous and in need of treading old ground.

They need to get off their butts and get Battlefield 2143 going.

Oh man, if they release it to consoles with the jets I'm sold. Missed out on flying around because I hade the PS2 version of Battlefield 2.

Battlefield 2142 was a good game, but starwars Battlefront caught my future shooter interests more.

Well if it's anything like battlefield 2 I'll be happy as larry,

Obviously I want some change in there other than shiney new graphics

Wolf wrote:Well if it's anything like battlefield 2 I'll be happy as larry,

Obviously I want some change in there other than shiney new graphics

New graphics and hopefully some new weapons and vehicles with some of the old maps. If they can keep the balance the game had in terms of the classes I would be pleased as a peach.

i've just got into BF2 BC (loved BF2 bit late on the uptake lol) but ive always loved the idea of 2142, the whole future shooter + BF style multiplayer just appeals to me. guess i'll be content with BF3 till they get their arses in gear and release 2142 for xbox lol

They are saying consoles probably won't be getting the 64 player experience, which is rather disappointing IMO. I understand that cutting edge PC's out-power both the PS3 and 360, but the PS3 has proven capable of handling 128 players w/ semi-decent graphics, I don't see why they can't produce a 64 player version w/ maybe slightly scaled back graphics for the PS3 at least.

Other than that, I really wish this fetish that modern warfare FPS developers seem to have with the 'Elite' USMC. Yeah, I get it, Oorah Devil Dog! Marines are supposed to be hardcore, etc. etc. But they aren't these super-common battlefield gods that video games make them out to be. How about giving some other units some attention? Aside from the ELITE US Army Rangers, the Army has plenty of units with storied histories and pride that would make even some Marines blush.

PS3 can actually handle 256 players at once(128 on each side), but they also have a dedicated server for it. Same with Resistance 2(60 players) and Resistance(40 players). As far as Battlefield goes they really don't make the USMC look incredibly epic like Black Ops and the MW series do. I think the main reason behind the Marines being the biggest branch seen in most games is the fact that marines are usually the first fighting force in the region. They were the first at D-Day, the first in Vietnam, and the first in the Middle East.

halonachos wrote:PS3 can actually handle 256 players at once(128 on each side), but they also have a dedicated server for it. Same with Resistance 2(60 players) and Resistance(40 players). As far as Battlefield goes they really don't make the USMC look incredibly epic like Black Ops and the MW series do. I think the main reason behind the Marines being the biggest branch seen in most games is the fact that marines are usually the first fighting force in the region. They were the first at D-Day, the first in Vietnam, and the first in the Middle East.

Ah, I thought the max was 128, my bad. And I totally forgot about the Resistance games (and they have some decent graphics too...)

In regards to the USMC, wrong on all three counts. D-day was conducted by the US Army, with support from other Allied Forces. Not a single US Marine was involved in the landings at D-Day to my knowledge (ironically enough, this is the largest amphibious op in the history of warfare...). In Vietnam, the first units there were USAF. In fact, the USAF was conducting operations IN (they were based in S. Vietnam) and OVER Vietnam for 3 years before anyone else bothered to show up (1961). The first units into the Middle East were Spec Ops, usually Army or Navy with attachment from the Air Force and much more rarely from the USMC. The first units physically (not including air operations by the USAF/Navy) in Afghanistan and Iraq(both times) were Army. In Afghanistan it was the 5th SFG and the 75th Rangers. Granted, the first truly conventional units were Marines, but they took control of Camp Rhino FROM THE 75th RANGERS who had conducted a paradrop to seize the base. In Gulf War 1, the first units in Iraq and Kuwait were spec ops. The first conventional warfare units were US Army Apache Helicopters. The first ground combat units to enter a combat zone (discounting the SAS who are not american and thus not the point of discussion) were the 1st Cav Division of the US Army, approximately 1 week before Marines entered Kuwait. The first units into Kuwait were Marines w/ heavy armor support coming from the US Army 2d Armored Division, but this was largely intended as a diversionary attack rather than a main effort, and came after the regular Army had begun ops in Iraq. I will give the Marines credit for having seen direct combat action before the Army... on Saudi soil, as part of a counterattack to recapture a border town. In Gulf War 2, well the USAF and Navy had been flying combat sorties since the 'end' of Gulf War 1. Ground wise, it was once again spec ops, including US Army forces from the 10th SFG. More conventionally, the Armys 173rd Airborne Brigade opened up the Northern Front. The Southern Front was opened simultaneously by both Army and Marine units. Technically, the first conventional unit to cross the border was a MEU (Marine Expeditionary Unit), but they weren't really the 'tip of the spear' that the general public makes them out to be.

Really, I don't think Marines have been 'first in' in like a century. Spec Ops are there long before and long after everyone else, the Air Force (and Navy aircraft as well) are usually flying overhead well before the Marines hit the ground, and the Army not only usually does the brunt of the fighting, but is usually in combat before or near simultaneously w/ the Corps.

PS/Fun Fact - the Marine Corps didn't really 'earn' the name Devil Dog/Teufelhunden. In fact, evidence overwhelmingly points to the fact that the story was made up, and they gave the name to themselves. Truman once said "They have a propaganda machine that is almost equal to Stalin's." He wasn't kidding.

That is funny, the Army carried out on of the most well known amphibious landings in the history of the world.

As far as the Marines being first, they usually are the first major fighting force in the region. The airforce is there before the war begins and special ops are there, but aren't in the public's eye as much as the Army or Marine Corps. The USMC is usually the first large fighting force in the area and the Army usually follows within 72 hours

Vietnam-The air force was already in the area, but they were starting to receive attacks around 1965 when they realized that they were incapable of defending themselves so the marines were sent in to protect them.

Marine Expeditionary forces are the 'tip of the spear' but I will agree with you on the fact that they are grossly overdone.

Back to the games, MW had the Army Rangers as their force. So far I have yet to see a FPS war game that places you in the role of a basic Army private.

The USMC is usually the first large fighting force in the area and the Army usually follows within 72 hours

Eh, I'm not going to keep arguing the point, but in recent history this really hasn't been the case.

MW

MW= Modern Warfare? Could have sworn it was the Marines there too...

So far I have yet to see a FPS war game that places you in the role of a basic Army private.

I didn't play them, but I think the original Medal of Honor (PSOne/2 series) and Call of Duty games (CoD1/2/Big Red One) did, but I'm not positive. FWIW, I know Medal Of Honor Airborne and Call of Duty 3 did, but they were WW2 games, and neither one was very good or popular...

I could've sworn that the Modern Warfare US troops were Army Rangers and Marines, or was it Army Rangers in multiplayer and Marines in campaign?

Well, campaign is SAS and Marines + an Airman during the C-130 bit. I assume multiplayer is also Marines, but I haven't played the game in a long time.

MW2, I believe, gave the Rangers a bit more attention, but I never played that one, as I generally dislike the CoD gameplay as of late.

Yeah, MW was Marines and SAS. MW2 is SAS and Rangers, and SEALS.

When do you play as a SEAL? The only seal part i remember is when you go into the oilrig and your still a SAS dude i believe

Seals are available in multiplayer. They're in the Sub Base level vs Spetznaz and in the Ground Zero level vs Op For.

Here's some scans from the latest Game Informer with pictures from BF3! It looks quite impressive.

http://battlefield.gamersverse.com/articles/655/game-informer-cover-issue-including-scans/


And the tl;dr for you who don't want to read the article: http://www.gamersmint.com/battlefield-3-gameinformer-scans-are-here-info-blowout/

I just wonder... Will it stick to the old formula?

IE. No story mode?

Soladrin wrote:I just wonder... Will it stick to the old formula?

IE. No story mode?

Well, if you'd have taken 1 minute to read the article in the second link: "Significant narrative that goes with the SP mode"

It's primarily a PC game and will be ported to consoles. PC will get 64 player matches, consoles don't. The maps will be bigger (and jets will be included!). Prone is also back. I would say it does stick to the old formula (pre-Bad Company), but with added goodies.

Sounds awesome, I'll have to wait to see whether the difference between PC and console is so great that I'll have to invest in upgrading my PC. Its good for what it is, a cheap, three year old compact desktop, but it won't run something like this...

I don't know what DICE is talking about "console players aren't complaining about match sizes" I do constantly, and a cursory glance at the BF3 forums is filled with people saying console should get 64 player matches...

Soladrin wrote:I just wonder... Will it stick to the old formula?

IE. No story mode?

I don't know if the PC version lacked a campaign, but the console versions had a campaign. It wasn't the main focus but there was some sort of story there(ie the US was trying to fight off the chinese when all of a sudden the MEC turned out to be the real bad guys), in the end you played on both the US and Chinese sides and I believe the final mission had two versions(one with Chinese assaulting the missiles and one with the Americans assaulting the missiles). BTW it sort of played out like MW did, heck the campaign for MW and parts of MW2 could be better versions of the singleplayer part of BF2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
From the name I would think that they would stick to the minimal campaign and mostly multiplayer plan, Bad Company seems to be their singleplayer focused game while Battlefield seems to be the multiplayer focused series.

As far as there being 64 players I really wouldn't mind it if they set up dedicated servers for the consoles, if they don't set up servers then I'll stick with the 12-18 player range.

halonachos wrote:

Soladrin wrote:I just wonder... Will it stick to the old formula?

IE. No story mode?

I don't know if the PC version lacked a campaign, but the console versions had a campaign. It wasn't the main focus but there was some sort of story there(ie the US was trying to fight off the chinese when all of a sudden the MEC turned out to be the real bad guys), in the end you played on both the US and Chinese sides and I believe the final mission had two versions(one with Chinese assaulting the missiles and one with the Americans assaulting the missiles). BTW it sort of played out like MW did, heck the campaign for MW and parts of MW2 could be better versions of the singleplayer part of BF2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
From the name I would think that they would stick to the minimal campaign and mostly multiplayer plan, Bad Company seems to be their singleplayer focused game while Battlefield seems to be the multiplayer focused series.

As far as there being 64 players I really wouldn't mind it if they set up dedicated servers for the consoles, if they don't set up servers then I'll stick with the 12-18 player range.

That BF2 console port doesn't count, it was aweful.

Then Battefield 2142 doesn't count because my PC couldn't run it.

As long as it isn't the failtastic MW2 clone that made me hate Bad Company 2 (I never bothered with the first one), I'm happy. If the campaign goes back to the freeroaming, XBawks Hueg maps with two armies beating the crap out of each other and everything in a 10Km radius, I'll be buying it.

If the campaign ends up the same as the previous Bad Company well... I'll think less of Dice. Much less.

DICE doesn't do singleplayer.

Last 2 games say otherwise.

They don't do it incredibly well, actually BC2 was more of a jab at MW2 if anything. I would dare say that BC2 isn't a modern warfare clone but actually a modern warfare 2 parody.

Prone in BF3.....