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.
It looks like Battlefield 3 is coming out in September this year. It looks amazing, looks like we are getting the new Frostbite 2 engine and will be able to fly jets. I just want to see what other people think, so throw down some comments.
The 12 Minute gameplay is below
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/04/20 01:52:39
Dunno. Looks rather meh and generic to me. Mind you, I've never really liked battlefield (or CoD or MoH for that matter, before anyone yells CoD fangirl like most BF fangits do) so I'm probably biased. Or maybe just very jaded.
If I got it, it'd not be for multiplayer for sure... battlefield's multiplayer hasn't ever been very good for me, especially not once they started to adopt the schtick of destructible terrain turning everything into a hideous stinking snipefest or a "camp in spawn and teamkill your way to a vehicle"... fest.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As a side note, at least the single player looks good, unlike BFBC2. Perhaps it's long enough to buy it for that by itself.
But probably not...
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2011/04/20 02:31:34
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
It looks fantastic personally. As far as the single player it looks good which is weird for a Battlefield game.
Vehicles have and always will be the biggest selling point for it, its not everyone's cup of tea though and unfortunately some people fail to accept the fact that there's no vehicle at the spawn point.
Spawn campers have a double meaning in Battlefield.
Makes me wish I got the Beta code from Medal of Honor, hell the Medal of Honor: Frontline download was worth it, too bad I didn't pick it up.
Great work on the shading and lights, it also looks like smoke comes from the gun when you fire it. Overall, good overhaul.
Oh, no. I like vehicles. I hate the way battlefield does them. Battlefield's failed attempts at doing vehicles is one of the primary reasons I dislike the series....
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/04/20 03:57:34
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Looks stunning imo, have to disagree with pretty much everything Mel says
Spent many many hours in BF2 and BFBC2 and if they get this to run on your "average rig" without messing up the essentials of the series it'll be an autopurchase.
Dman137 wrote:
goobs is all you guys will ever be
By 1-irt: Still as long as Hissy keeps showing up this is one of the most entertaining threads ever.
Melissia wrote:Oh, no. I like vehicles. I hate the way battlefield does them. Battlefield's failed attempts at doing vehicles is one of the primary reasons I dislike the series....
You are entitled to this opinion, but everyone I know who play BFBC2 believe that battlefield is the only game that has done vehicles combat correctly, especially for multiplayer.
An issue I have read about is that Windows cannot allocate more than 4gigs of RAM to battlefield, so they are going to have to optimize their coding while keeping that in mind. I have games that are considered "old" that take almost 4gigs of RAM already.
If you think that having half the team sitting around spawn fighting over who gets the next vehicle that teleported in is a GOOD design and not a hideous stinking design flaw, I doubtr we would have much to agree upon to begin with.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Melissia, you disagree with the majority of game reviewers.
Battlefield has and will always be known for its vehicles and its attempt to force squads to stay together(with the ability to respawn with your squad and such), it also attempts to force players together into transports which 8 year olds will often forgo for a tank or a helicopter which they will crash.
They try to create massive tank battles in certain maps because tank battles are amazing. Their vehicle system has been touted as the best one around. Its not their fault that impulsive 12 year olds also play the game.
halonachos wrote:Melissia, you disagree with the majority of game reviewers.
Which coincides about where I think the majority of reviewers' heads are firmly planted.
Which is a location that smells rather bad, and is on their own body. These are the same reviewers that give starcraft 2 a ten out of ten, mind, and plenty of other bizarre and nonsensical scores, so I have zero faith in the gaming industrys' reviewers.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/04/20 17:09:40
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Yes, but even a stopped watch is correct twice a day.
That and user reviews are off the charts for their gameplay style.
Players affect the gameplay more than developers do, you can design a map meant for close quarters, rapid gunfights and the players can turn it into a campfest. DICE had a lot of good intentions in their games and if I want a massive tank battle in multiplayer they're my only source. The destructable terrain is something that they need to get used to, if they managed to get Volition's level of physics in there it would be amazing. Imagine a tank rolling through a street only to have a guy with an RPG blow it up from the third or so floor of a building and then watching as a helicopter strafes the building to get him.
Now imagine the building being magic and stopping all of the bullets, then imagine pieces of the wall flying off and his cover being removed by the hail of bullets. That's what Battlefield tries to reach, the players on the other hand plow through the streets and get blown up by a mine while the players camp it out with sniper rifles and artillery to preserve their precious k/d ratio.
They did add the ability to damage choppers with light weapons fire in the Vietnam DLC for Bad Company 2 so I hope they decide to keep that in there and find a way to balance the fighters.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/04/20 17:18:45
halonachos wrote:Yes, but even a stopped watch is correct twice a day.
A pretty phrase to be sure, but still useless because it's wrong the other 1398 minutes
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Not really understanding why a sequel to Battlefield 2 actually has a, uh, campaign. The Battlefield games have always been about boss-tastic multiplayer. 64-person servers FTW!
Oh well, they've got to do a campaign to keep up with the rest of the market.
Gavo wrote:Not really understanding why a sequel to Battlefield 2 actually has a, uh, campaign.
For my part, the campaign is the only thing drawing me to BF3... if the multi is more BFBC2 crap, then doubly so, because that game's multiplayer was even more unbalanced and poorly designed than black ops... and if it's MoH styled (they did work on the most recent one) then it'll just be another snipefest where all classes are snipers (I still don't htink they've addressed this issue yet). And if it's traditional BF styled, it'll be spawn camping for and with vehicles.
halonachos wrote:They try to create massive tank battles in certain maps because tank battles are amazing. Their vehicle system has been touted as the best one around. Its not their fault that impulsive 12 year olds also play the game.
It might be TOUTED as the best around... but it's not. While it might be caused by "impulsive players", a GOOD vehicle system would have a means to prevent this. Having them earn the vehicles Homefront style, for example.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Have to agree with Melissia - the BF games were all plagued by spawn camping, team killing morons. You can have the best game in the world but by definition if the players can utterly ruin the entire thing then it shows that the game isn't actually very well designed.
No game can survive +50% of your team fething over the other half, but at least in other games you can work around it.
In terms of multiplayer team based games, I'm looking forward to Brink far more than BF3. 8 player campaign coop, VS campaign, "select your own objective" system, etc...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/04/20 19:20:09
I see so many little terms like "spawn camping" thrown around, when this hasn't happened once in the few days I have been playing BFBC2.
Like, seriously, if you don't play the fething game, don't comment on it.
Melissia, we know that you hate battlefield because you always seem to join the server with a bunch of tweens, and then generalize the whole game as such. Battlefield isn't a story-mode game, it will never be.
... because that IS what the game is, due to it being a poorly designed multiplayer game.
Yes, more mature players would make it better... but a good game understands how its players are going to act and compensates for it if these actions are negative.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Melissia wrote:... because that IS what the game is, due to it being a poorly designed multiplayer game.
Yes, more mature players would make it better... but a good game understands how its players are going to act and compensates for it if these actions are negative.
Melissia, you are impossible to argue with. You played the game, what, a few days? You got spawn camped a few times? You had a bad encounter with a 12 year old?
Like seriously, think of what you saying. Tell me how this game is poorly balanced. Don't give me "all the players are 12 year olds who do everything in their power to spite me"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/04/20 23:59:38
Karon wrote:You played the game, what, a few days?
Seventy or so hours of multiplayer gameplay.
The results were consistent throughout.
The vehicle spawning is EXACTLY the problem I have with the game, if you don't think that's a good reason, I don't particularly care. If you don't think seventy hours is enough gameplay to judge a game, then I also don't particularly care about THAT opinion either...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/04/21 00:03:40
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Karon wrote:I see so many little terms like "spawn camping" thrown around, when this hasn't happened once in the few days I have been playing BFBC2.
So you've played a 'few days' and think it's extremely balanced?
You're not even actually getting what Melissia is saying. She's saying that players "camp" the vehicle spawns.
Which is true. Everyone wants the heavy tanks or helicopters so that they can zip around the map and get the highest score. It's inevitable in any game where you have static spawns for items rather than acquiring those items via deliveries or spawning with/inside of them.
Like, seriously, if you don't play the fething game, don't comment on it.
So if people don't like GW, Privateer Press, et al they shouldn't comment?
I love that idea!
Melissia, we know that you hate battlefield because you always seem to join the server with a bunch of tweens, and then generalize the whole game as such. Battlefield isn't a story-mode game, it will never be.
I've played at least a month or more worth of BFBC2.
It was crap. The BF games are highly overrated when it comes down to it.
Does that make them any less fun? No. It makes them "overrated" and "bad".
Yeah, right. So the majority of games you have played, you always had to fight over vehicles, always got spawn camped.
No, I played for a few months pretty actively when it first came out, and I'm just getting back into it now.
Kanluwen, why would you play a month of it when it is crap? Why did you play that long when you think the game is overrated and bad?
I think Battlefield games in general have the right concept down, in that they really encourage squad play. In this concept, I have a lot more fun when I play with my two mates, on the rare occasion we all have the time to do so.
Karon wrote:Kanluwen, why would you play a month of it when it is crap?
A game can be crappy and still be fun. I have no shame saying I spent at least 100 fun filled hours playing Too Human, and it doesn't get much crappier than Too Human.
I think BFBC2 is a bad game (Not for the vehicles though) and I still logged about 439 hours (according to steam) on it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/04/21 01:57:36
Karon wrote:Yeah, right. So the majority of games you have played, you always had to fight over vehicles, always got spawn camped.
No, I played for a few months pretty actively when it first came out, and I'm just getting back into it now.
Kanluwen, why would you play a month of it when it is crap? Why did you play that long when you think the game is overrated and bad?
Because I played it at launch. I was willing to give it a shot to see if things got better.
It didn't. I've played it a few times since on my brother's copy of it--and nothing more has been done to address the issues that were brought up.
I think Battlefield games in general have the right concept down, in that they really encourage squad play. In this concept, I have a lot more fun when I play with my two mates, on the rare occasion we all have the time to do so.
They don't "really encourage squad play" though.
"Squad play" doesn't mean everyone goes medic and you chain together support actions in between reviving or spawning on each other.
Battlefield supports teamwork in the same way that cholesterol supports good health-- only certain kinds of it and even then only in a very limited amount.
Karon wrote:Yeah, right. So the majority of games you have played, you always had to fight over vehicles, always got spawn camped.
Yes. Which is why I almost always refused to use vehicles in the game, it wasn't worth being teamkilled over-- the vehicles had gakky control schemes anyway.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/04/21 02:37:00
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Rarely see the majority of my team sniping/camping, yes it does occur but its a part of a game and is helpful in certain situations. Destructible terrain is a great feature, sniper in the window? blow up the house - classic american tactics. Only issue i had in the game is vehicles on some occasions (which was a result of poor team co-ordination, but hey it happens)
Destructible terrain just means some douchebag with a tank is going to go around destroying all your cover so his team can snipe you easier
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Melissia wrote:Destructible terrain just means some douchebag with a tank is going to go around destroying all your cover so his team can snipe you easier
I personally love deformable terrain, but it often goes the way of "shoot a building X times and it explodes", rather than being more realistic whereby the location of the shot determines the damage, and the damage stacks up (so if you shoot out part of the bottom floor the top floor above it will fall in). Also dislike buildings being quite so fragile
Murray wrote:Well, that's one tactic - easily countered though.
... by having your own snipers and tanks to do the same tactic back, mostly.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Badork Magthugs 2000Pts WAAAGH 
Purge the Unclean 5000Pts 
2000 pts 
