New Battlefield? OF COURSE!

Treyzilla

Game Informer announces first numbered Battlefield since 2005:

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

Thoughts? I'm super pumped. And the makers seem to think it will be a legitimate COD fighter.

Kadoken

I was looking for this a while back today.

-SPI-

Let's just get this out of the way:

I hope they don't fuck it up having to cater for consoles.

Suriko

Modern era. Dammit.

Edit: Not that it's a surprise. But man, it feels really played out as a setting by now, especially with BC2 still around.

Zxerol

Nah they're just going to delay the PC version a few months to make it best they can, and then two years later cancel it.

uean

I don't WANT to compete with COD

SirToasty

Pretty sure DICE has stated that BF3 will not be a console port. They're gonna make it special (read: normal).

e: Yes you do want to compete with CoD because it is garbage now. CoD4 was awesome, MW2 was mostly awesome with some awful shit thrown in, Black Ops is mostly awful shit with some awesome thrown in.

randombattle

God damnit no more call of duty style games..

SirToasty

random if you haven't played BF then trust everyone when they say it is nothing like CoD. Much slower paced, much larger maps, and a touch more realism.

Dyvion

More realism means: Travel 10 minutes to the firefight, get sniped, repeat.

chasehatesbears

Realism is six semi-AFK pilots waiting on the runway for a jet to spawn. Damn budget cuts.

Despite all the stuff like this that plagues every Battlefield game, something about them just compels me.

Velmeran

Now now, no one died to snipers in BF:BC2, we all died to grenade spam.

Suriko

There is a pretty big gulf between pseudo-military-simulator ala ArmA2, and sprinting while dual wielding golden shotguns in the hopes of being able to call in a tactical nuke if you kill enough dudes in a row ala MW2. Battlefield is in that gulf.

randombattle

SirToasty wrote: »

random if you haven't played BF then trust everyone when they say it is nothing like CoD. Much slower paced, much larger maps, and a touch more realism.

I can't help but worry everytime someone says "This is gonna beat COD!" or "This will be a COD killer!"

Dox the PI

Offline Multiplayer:
Online Multiplayer:
Competitive: 64-Player (PC) 24-Player (Console)

Not sure what to think of this (if it's real, how this will work with maps ect.)

chasehatesbears

Dox the PI wrote: »

Offline Multiplayer:
Online Multiplayer:
Competitive: 64-Player (PC) 24-Player (Console)

Not sure what to think of this (if it's real, how this will work with maps ect.)

I imagine they could shrink the maps to player size like they did in BF2, which was a pretty cool idea.

Darlan

I'm an apparently crazy person who just couldn't get into BC2(PC), so I'm not sure if this is something for me to look out for or not. I just didn't like the controls and the way the guns felt.

Fizban140

As someone who put thousands of hours into Battlefield 2 (hated 2142 and BC, enjoyed BC 2 though ,just wished it was more like BF2) and competed on a sponsored team, it is about fucking time. I just hope they actually put in some skilled weapons unlike BC2. Bring back fly by wire RPGs (I was a fucking surgeon with those, I could hit anything on a map from absurd distances, like those little buggies I knew how to hit from a hundred or so yards away) and TV guided missiles. Also the post nerf 203 was perfect, one shot kill but you pretty much had to hit them with it.

This is probably the game that I had the most fun with, I just hope they can do it correctly. Snipers that actually work, RPGs that take skill, helicopters that take skill and require teamwork (no more single seat shenanigans) tanks that require teamwork would be fun, but hard to implement and jets that aren't the main force in a game but still feel worthwhile.

MegaMek

Darlan wrote: »

I'm an apparently crazy person who just couldn't get into BC2(PC), so I'm not sure if this is something for me to look out for or not. I just didn't like the controls and the way the guns felt.

Well then you're in luck, because BC2 was nothing like Battlefield.

Fizban140

BC2 took battlefield and took half the fun out of it, although the guns and controls were much better in BC2. I just hope BF3 has a CoD like control system, tight controls, but more like CoD1 style gun controls. Shooting in bursts (NO BLOOM) and that sort of thing.

wakkawa

I would pay, even money, for a planetside like battlefield game.

64 people, ok whatever. 300 people with 30 blackhawks dropping into enemy lines?

EVEN MONEY

Fizban140

I would pay an even larger amount of money to fly a jet through that mess.

Antihippy

Trailer tomorrow too.

I think.

Spoit

-SPI- wrote: »

Let's just get this out of the way:

I hope they don't fuck it up having to cater for consoles.

Yeah, good luck with that. Like zxerol said, the day they announced this, they also said fuck off to the 2 years of promising that there'd eventually be a PC version of 1943. And some random BC2 thing.

programjunkie

Fizban140 wrote: »

I would pay an even larger amount of money to fly a jet through that mess.

Jets should stay dead forever. They've been terrible perpetually.

MegaMek

programjunkie wrote: »

Fizban140 wrote: »

I would pay an even larger amount of money to fly a jet through that mess.

Jets should stay dead forever. They've been terrible perpetually.

Yeah, jets were terribly ballanced. I don't think they'd be able to rectify that without screwing choppers too.

CarbonFire

Really guys? We've been talking about this in the Battlefield thread for a while now. Let's not get too invested in a thread with a drive-by OP.

Darlan

Probably old news to people who have been following this closely, but apparently this one will have a new engine, or at least full-version upgrade. Music to my ears!

DICE has used both versions of the engine for their in-house games Battlefield: Bad Company, Battlefield 1943, and Battlefield: Bad Company 2. Frostbite 1.5 has also been used for the multiplayer component of Medal of Honor which DICE developed. (The single player was developed by another EA studio with the Unreal Engine 3.) The next generation of the engine, Frostbite 2.0, will be used in Battlefield 3.[1]

This is mostly PR shlock, but I'll be really interested to see an "exponential leap in destructibility." Those 1943 and BC2 houses were pretty destructible.

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."

Gaslight

I am disappointed to come in this thread and not find http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8u7px_GzWQ

NickTheNewbie

COLOR ME EXCITED.

I realize everyone has been talking about it for a while, I'm just glad to see an official announcement.

Sanders

Dox the PI wrote: »

Offline Multiplayer:
Online Multiplayer:
Competitive: 64-Player (PC) 24-Player (Console)

Not sure what to think of this (if it's real, how this will work with maps ect.)

My room mate and I were talking about this just last night; he was expecting BF3 for the ps3 to support 64 players.

Not sure how i feel about destructible environments in a 64 player game though. It works in BC2 where the max number of people trying to take down a single building is 12 (assuming friendlies are not trying to take down your cover). 32 people though? Maps will get flattened in minutes.

Also, while this will probably get me called out as being a heretic, the lack of prone in BC2 is starting to grow on me. It makes the game feel less about camping and more about using actual buildings for cover and aggressive combat movement.

Sheep

Sanders wrote: »

Dox the PI wrote: »

Offline Multiplayer:
Online Multiplayer:
Competitive: 64-Player (PC) 24-Player (Console)

Not sure what to think of this (if it's real, how this will work with maps ect.)

My room mate and I were talking about this just last night; he was expecting BF3 for the ps3 to support 64 players.

Not sure how i feel about destructible environments in a 64 player game though. It works in BC2 where the max number of people trying to take down a single building is 12 (assuming friendlies are not trying to take down your cover). 32 people though? Maps will get flattened in minutes.

Also, while this will probably get me called out as being a heretic, the lack of prone in BC2 is starting to grow on me. It makes the game feel less about camping and more about using actual buildings for cover and aggressive combat movement.

They allowed prone in the last CoD and it surprisingly wasn't as infuriating as I expected.

Though since snipers are useless in BLOPs and in Battlefield can prone a mile away it would be different.

HyperAquaBlast

CarbonFire wrote: »

Really guys? We've been talking about this in the Battlefield thread for a while now. Let's not get too invested in a thread with a drive-by OP.

No mega-threads


I was hoping for a slightly more futuristic tone. Modern day warfare has been pretty played out especially for a game like Battlefield that will probably want to stay around for a couple years. We have played way too many M-16s, M1 Abrams and Apaches lately just like we have played the Thompson sub- machine gun, Sherman tanks and P-51 Mustangs to death.

Could only hope it does something special in the online world. Giant war zones with persistent results of win/loss territory maybe.

Skull2185

The last time DICE tried to "fight" Call of Duty, we got the MP component of Medal of Honor. So yeah... there's that to think about.

Hank_Scorpio

Dhalphir

I feel like Battlefield would have been a ton more fun if i got into playing it seriously competitively or at least on private servers where half your team isn't at the airfield waiting for jets to spawn.

Fizban140

The coordination capable in this game is just so amazingly fun, I remember for one clan match I convinced the leader to let me fly a suicide helicopter with C4 strapped to it. The match was being casted too and they thought I was wasting my time. After my third triple kill I think everyone changed their mind. Any game that allows something so fucking ridiculously awesome in a competitive setting should be Game of the Year.

Blackbird SR-71C

Sanders wrote: »

Dox the PI wrote: »

Offline Multiplayer:
Online Multiplayer:
Competitive: 64-Player (PC) 24-Player (Console)

Not sure what to think of this (if it's real, how this will work with maps ect.)

My room mate and I were talking about this just last night; he was expecting BF3 for the ps3 to support 64 players.

Not sure how i feel about destructible environments in a 64 player game though. It works in BC2 where the max number of people trying to take down a single building is 12 (assuming friendlies are not trying to take down your cover). 32 people though? Maps will get flattened in minutes.

Also, while this will probably get me called out as being a heretic, the lack of prone in BC2 is starting to grow on me. It makes the game feel less about camping and more about using actual buildings for cover and aggressive combat movement.

To counter it, every Spec - Ops (if they return, if not then recon) should be able to carry only one or two C4s. Grenade launchers should be able to clear out about half a room if launched through a window, but not destroy walls. No more mortars; either that or make it so that at max it can take out about a third of a buildings ceiling. I have no idea how to make it so that jets won't be able to level the map in minutes...aside from not giving them bombs or rockets at all. How about giving them a supply of, say, 5 rockets, with a reload of twenty or thirty seconds, a machinegun and make it so that the rockets are as strong as a C4, as in only blowing a hole in a wall, not the whole wall away. This coupled with scaling the buildings about 1.5 times their current size would make the whole thing better in my eyes.

Fizban140

Make jets realistic, 2 bombs 4 missiles and 5 seconds of ammunition. Make it so they have to land to resupply too, that would fix a lot of problems.

Hank_Scorpio

Fizban140 wrote: »

Make jets realistic, 2 bombs 4 missiles and 5 seconds of ammunition. Make it so they have to land to resupply too, that would fix a lot of problems.

Yeah, this sounds good. Making everything more realistic would generally help.

Waffles or whatever

Fizban140 wrote: »

Make jets realistic, 2 bombs 4 missiles and 5 seconds of ammunition. Make it so they have to land to resupply too, that would fix a lot of problems.

Better Idea

SAM Sites shoot them down with two missiles instead of four. That way if your a pilot and you go over a SAM site and chaff that doesn't mean fly back over there without worry. It means STAY THE FUCK AWAY like it should be. The other option is make chaff have a percentage rate of failure and require a landing to rearm it as well as a long cooldown timer.