The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
[BATTLEFIELD 3] - Jets spotted (new trailer in the op)
Battlefield 3 is a first-person shooter video game, being developed by the Swedish company Digital Illusions CE and to be published by Electronic Arts. It is to be released on November 2, 2011 for Mirosoft Windows, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. Contrary to its name, it is the twelfth installment in the Battlefield franchise, and the real sequel to Battlefield 2, released in 2005.
What separates it from the numerous other "realistic" shooters out there? Well, first and perhaps most importantly: You get to use a lot of ARMOR! Tanks, APC's, Humvees, jets and helicopters are all at your disposal as well as the full range of infantry combat. This game also boasts destructible environments and enormous 64 player multiplayer maps (24 on consoles). The scope of gameplay is huge here and if it lives up to Battlefield: 1942 and Battlefield 2, it will deliver a ton of fun and the best multiplayer shootin' experience around.
The feedback has been very positive from our own Alpha testers in this thread. (*)
(there are also a bunch of leaked alpha trailers on the internets, if you care to search for such things)
It looks really great. It took 6 years but we finally have a proper sequel to Battlefield 2 and it happens to look amazing. The graphics and animation are all a step above any competition and the shooty bits look fun as hell. Can't wait!
I wish they'd show more of the multiplayer. I honestly don't care about the singleplayer at all. Battlefield is all about MP to me and I want to see jets zooming around dogfighting eachother not scripted quicktime events where you punch a terrorist
Zxerolfor the smaller pieces, my shovel wouldn't doso i took off my boot and used my shoeRegistered Userregular
edited April 2011
I've read people ask, seriously and unironically, what level killstreak are the planes for the game are. Apparently, that sort of thing is now a standard FPS mechanic now. Sorta depressing.
I've read people ask, seriously and unironically, what level killstreak are the planes for the game are. Apparently, that sort of thing is now a standard FPS mechanic now. Sorta depressing.
brb, slitting own wrists and bleeding to death in bathtub.
I've always found these killstreak rewards really stupid. Hey you're pretty good at getting lots of kills so we'll reward you by giving you free kills so that these filthy inferior players are even more helpless against your tremendous might.
Is it just me or are we done with modern warfare now? Like we were done with World War 2.
It looks very pretty and very competent; but when you go back and actually analyse what it is, it's shooting vaguely middle eastern men in the middle east with an M16. Again.
It's exactly what Gabe said to Tycho about the WW2 genre for shooters. He's done his tour of duty, he's saved Sainte-Mère-Église five or six times and stormed Omaha beach a dozen more.
Fast forward a console generation and, well, I've already liberated NotIraq, I've already uncovered enough terrorist cells, enough insurgencies and rebellions; and I've looked down the scope of the same guns again and again and again.
Even if Battlefield 3 turns out to be supremely polished, and it is certainly looking that way. And if it delivers a comprehensive single player campaign, and a robust multiplayer Battlefield experience that builds upon their legacy and brings it all into the high definition, modern gaming market. Even if they achieve all that - what are we doing in the game, still?
Shooting mans in the desert.
Maybe it's just a phase every gamer goes through, but watching that 12 minute trailer I was completely overwhelmed with a sense - not of deja vu - but of boredom. Of tedium and repetition and a complete lack of amazement. For all their cutting edge technology, their refined gameplay and hundreds of thousands of man hours spent buffing this game to gleam like nothing before or since - it's still the same game we all played November 2007 with COD4. It's the same game. To a lay man it's the same, to the informed man it's the same.
Perhaps the corridor you go down is a little wider in this game, even much wider to be basically an open field. Perhaps the controls have been tightened on level five or whatever. Maybe environmental destruction is utilized in an imaginative and cohesive manner. But that trailer shows a game so similar to everything else out there that I'm actually suspecting is was on purpose.
They have exploding cars. They have the guy shouting 'ARRRR PEEEE GEEEE' right before one hits. They have the chopper above you unloading its miniguns. They have you jumping on the mounted machine gun in the back of a pickup and shooting a hundred men over and over. Just moving pixels for your reticle to point at. They have crawling to avoid a sniper, and emerging from underground as a massive assault takes place stage left. They have the basejumping sequence that is shot for shot straight out of CoD and the amber glow of an arabian city on fire in the night. Oooh, it's so moody!
In the vast realm of possibilities of the real world, of this universe we inhabit of a million different threads of experience, they managed to cram in all the same sequences from Call of Duty, as though they've become genre tropes at this stage, except now everything has really nice ambient occlusion. It's the same. The only x-factor was the earthquake which was neither realistic nor credible. Nor anything other than a mechanic to deform the landscape to show off their fancy Frostbite technology.
It's really quite amazing just how much time and money they are putting in to bore me. Because it is no surprise people are confusing this for the next Call of Duty. No surprise it looks just like a million other games. It may be technically groundbreaking, and mechanically rock solid - but it is absolutely creatively bankrupt.
God I was honestly expecting an Oscar Mike the whole time. The worst thing is that nobody fucking uses that phrase in the real world, only in fucking Generation Kill - which I guess everyone at Infinity Ward got for Christmas that year before they made MW2.
Is it just me or are we done with modern warfare now? Like we were done with World War 2.
It looks very pretty and very competent; but when you go back and actually analyse what it is, it's shooting vaguely middle eastern men in the middle east with an M16. Again.
It's exactly what Gabe said to Tycho about the WW2 genre for shooters. He's done his tour of duty, he's saved Sainte-Mère-Église five or six times and stormed Omaha beach a dozen more.
Fast forward a console generation and, well, I've already liberated NotIraq, I've already uncovered enough terrorist cells, enough insurgencies and rebellions; and I've looked down the scope of the same guns again and again and again.
Even if Battlefield 3 turns out to be supremely polished, and it is certainly looking that way. And if it delivers a comprehensive single player campaign, and a robust multiplayer Battlefield experience that builds upon their legacy and brings it all into the high definition, modern gaming market. Even if they achieve all that - what are we doing in the game, still?
Shooting mans in the desert.
Maybe it's just a phase every gamer goes through, but watching that 12 minute trailer I was completely overwhelmed with a sense - not of deja vu - but of boredom. Of tedium and repetition and a complete lack of amazement. For all their cutting edge technology, their refined gameplay and hundreds of thousands of man hours spent buffing this game to gleam like nothing before or since - it's still the same game we all played November 2007 with COD4. It's the same game. To a lay man it's the same, to the informed man it's the same.
Perhaps the corridor you go down is a little wider in this game, even much wider to be basically an open field. Perhaps the controls have been tightened on level five or whatever. Maybe environmental destruction is utilized in an imaginative and cohesive manner. But that trailer shows a game so similar to everything else out there that I'm actually suspecting is was on purpose.
They have exploding cars. They have the guy shouting 'ARRRR PEEEE GEEEE' right before one hits. They have the chopper above you unloading its miniguns. They have you jumping on the mounted machine gun in the back of a pickup and shooting a hundred men over and over. Just moving pixels for your reticle to point at. They have crawling to avoid a sniper, and emerging from underground as a massive assault takes place stage left. They have the basejumping sequence that is shot for shot straight out of CoD and the amber glow of an arabian city on fire in the night. Oooh, it's so moody!
In the vast realm of possibilities of the real world, of this universe we inhabit of a million different threads of experience, they managed to cram in all the same sequences from Call of Duty, as though they've become genre tropes at this stage, except now everything has really nice ambient occlusion. It's the same. The only x-factor was the earthquake which was neither realistic nor credible. Nor anything other than a mechanic to deform the landscape to show off their fancy Frostbite technology.
It's really quite amazing just how much time and money they are putting in to bore me. Because it is no surprise people are confusing this for the next Call of Duty. No surprise it looks just like a million other games. It may be technically groundbreaking, and mechanically rock solid - but it is absolutely creatively bankrupt.
I never played COD<3
Guess I am lucky. But really, BF3 is about large multiplayer maps, air, ground and maybe water vehicles - all clashing together. Not just "m16" and certainly not only singleplayer.
I feel only the previous BF games actually did this formula in MP in a good way so this is not really "old" for me yet
I am slightly confused that DICE went with modern era for BF3. I was thinking that since this game has been in development for so long that it may have been something a little more unique.
Looks awesome of course but I am also tired of shooting M4s, AKs, .50 cals and now the SCAR is getting there too.
1 - Battlefield 1942 is released
2 - Battlefield 2 (modern era)
3 - Battlefield 3 (future era)
Instead they made the "future era" installment be a rather minor one (Battlefield 2142) and turned BF3 into an updated BF2.
I would have been pretty excited to have seen BF3 take the formula of 2142 to the next level instead. Mechs and future aircraft in this new engine would be pretty sweet
I am slightly confused that DICE went with modern era for BF3. I was thinking that since this game has been in development for so long that it may have been something a little more unique.
Looks awesome of course but I am also tired of shooting M4s, AKs, .50 cals and now the SCAR is getting there too.
Yeah, me too.
On that note, I feel like modern era games have failed to capture the same kind of versatile gunplay that the WW2-shooter games have. In the original Call of Duty, for example, there was a world of difference between the submachine guns, bolt action rifles, and LMGs. But in the modern-era games, all guns feel one-size-fits-all by comparison.
That's really a product of real world technological advancements though.
War today is totally unsuited to compelling gameplay. War today, literally modern warfare, is lightning fast, sporadic and precise - with no sustained combat, no battle of the wills to and fro.
99% of the time that insurgent stronghold that the game has you storming with a crack team of highly trained wet-work operatives is actually not stormed at all, just levelled by a laser guided bomb delivered by a plane flying so high and fast you can't see or hear it.
They've managed to make war boring. That's quite remarkable actually.
I've always found these killstreak rewards really stupid. Hey you're pretty good at getting lots of kills so we'll reward you by giving you free kills so that these filthy inferior players are even more helpless against your tremendous might.
That was my #1 complaint about COD4 when I was really into the game all those years ago, along with the retardo spawns. Instead of fixing those portions, they made the killstreaks even more retarded and the spawns apparently haven't been fixed a lick. It's part of the reason why I don't give a damn about that series anymore.
And now have every game and their mother aping that mechanic, from Crysis 2 to Homefront to Medal of Honor (from DICE, no less). Of all things you want to crib out of COD multiplayer, you guys are copying one of the worst and most unbalanced things about it? It confuses me.
I still want to play a Battlefield 1915 or something, even as just a smaller live arcade game or something, ala Battlefield 1943. I know most of what people know about WWI is sitting in trenches and starving to death, but if the game just focused on trench pushes I think it could be pretty awesome, if just for being able to play in an era no one's really touched.
I still want to play a Battlefield 1915 or something, even as just a smaller live arcade game or something, ala Battlefield 1943. I know most of what people know about WWI is sitting in trenches and starving to death, but if the game just focused on trench pushes I think it could be pretty awesome, if just for being able to play in an era no one's really touched.
I can imagine flying planes in such a game. I would expect many QTE's to not catch on fire, and my gunner to spend most of his time trying not to break the fragile mustard gas bombs.
I say this as good, mind you.
Antithesis on
0
TrippyJingMoses supposes his toeses are roses.But Moses supposes erroneously.Registered Userregular
That's really a product of real world technological advancements though.
War today is totally unsuited to compelling gameplay. War today, literally modern warfare, is lightning fast, sporadic and precise - with no sustained combat, no battle of the wills to and fro.
99% of the time that insurgent stronghold that the game has you storming with a crack team of highly trained wet-work operatives is actually not stormed at all, just levelled by a laser guided bomb delivered by a plane flying so high and fast you can't see or hear it.
They've managed to make war boring. That's quite remarkable actually.
This coming from personal experience of course.
Knew it all along Scarab the terrorist.
CoD2 had the best weapons that I can remember, I mean slight balance issues aside, the idea behind it was amazing. Shotguns were shotguns, no rifle shotguns, close range deadly weapons. SMGs were close to medium range, rifles were one shot kill and required precise aiming, carbines were inbetween SMGs and rifles and LMGs were like rifles but fired faster and had insane recoil. Every weapon had a strength, weakness and skillset to use. CoD4 actually took the series back very far in that regard, all the weapons are basically the same, and all weapons are judged into how much like an assault rifle they are.
I still want to play a Battlefield 1915 or something, even as just a smaller live arcade game or something, ala Battlefield 1943. I know most of what people know about WWI is sitting in trenches and starving to death, but if the game just focused on trench pushes I think it could be pretty awesome, if just for being able to play in an era no one's really touched.
There was a WW1 mod for the original BF1942. Had Zeppelins, Biplanes, Triplanes and the old WW1 tanks with multiple cannons on some maps. It was fun but a bit buggy.
I think the Korean War would be a good era to visit in a game like this too. Dawn of jet combat and some truly incredible battles that took place.
That's really a product of real world technological advancements though.
War today is totally unsuited to compelling gameplay. War today, literally modern warfare, is lightning fast, sporadic and precise - with no sustained combat, no battle of the wills to and fro.
99% of the time that insurgent stronghold that the game has you storming with a crack team of highly trained wet-work operatives is actually not stormed at all, just levelled by a laser guided bomb delivered by a plane flying so high and fast you can't see or hear it.
They've managed to make war boring. That's quite remarkable actually.
This coming from personal experience of course.
Knew it all along Scarab the terrorist.
CoD2 had the best weapons that I can remember, I mean slight balance issues aside, the idea behind it was amazing. Shotguns were shotguns, no rifle shotguns, close range deadly weapons. SMGs were close to medium range, rifles were one shot kill and required precise aiming, carbines were inbetween SMGs and rifles and LMGs were like rifles but fired faster and had insane recoil. Every weapon had a strength, weakness and skillset to use. CoD4 actually took the series back very far in that regard, all the weapons are basically the same, and all weapons are judged into how much like an assault rifle they are.
Drop to DX7 (6?) and 333 frames per second M1-Garand.
I love all Quake Engines. I always feel like I hit what I shoot and no one warps through me when we're running around each other like headless chickens.
Except you Quake Live, you take your somehow worse than Vanilla Q3 netcode and you go away.
Posts
Haha, that'll never happen.
New video game teaches children to murder US soldiers and declare Jihad, latest on Fox News.
Shame, because a dual campaign would be awesome.
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=136420
Psh, made by someone with one post. Not sitting through another two months with that OP.
Still, visually it looks great
Fair for everyone!
There. I just fixed FPS multiplayer for everything.
brb, slitting own wrists and bleeding to death in bathtub.
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507
It looks very pretty and very competent; but when you go back and actually analyse what it is, it's shooting vaguely middle eastern men in the middle east with an M16. Again.
It's exactly what Gabe said to Tycho about the WW2 genre for shooters. He's done his tour of duty, he's saved Sainte-Mère-Église five or six times and stormed Omaha beach a dozen more.
Fast forward a console generation and, well, I've already liberated NotIraq, I've already uncovered enough terrorist cells, enough insurgencies and rebellions; and I've looked down the scope of the same guns again and again and again.
Even if Battlefield 3 turns out to be supremely polished, and it is certainly looking that way. And if it delivers a comprehensive single player campaign, and a robust multiplayer Battlefield experience that builds upon their legacy and brings it all into the high definition, modern gaming market. Even if they achieve all that - what are we doing in the game, still?
Shooting mans in the desert.
Maybe it's just a phase every gamer goes through, but watching that 12 minute trailer I was completely overwhelmed with a sense - not of deja vu - but of boredom. Of tedium and repetition and a complete lack of amazement. For all their cutting edge technology, their refined gameplay and hundreds of thousands of man hours spent buffing this game to gleam like nothing before or since - it's still the same game we all played November 2007 with COD4. It's the same game. To a lay man it's the same, to the informed man it's the same.
Perhaps the corridor you go down is a little wider in this game, even much wider to be basically an open field. Perhaps the controls have been tightened on level five or whatever. Maybe environmental destruction is utilized in an imaginative and cohesive manner. But that trailer shows a game so similar to everything else out there that I'm actually suspecting is was on purpose.
They have exploding cars. They have the guy shouting 'ARRRR PEEEE GEEEE' right before one hits. They have the chopper above you unloading its miniguns. They have you jumping on the mounted machine gun in the back of a pickup and shooting a hundred men over and over. Just moving pixels for your reticle to point at. They have crawling to avoid a sniper, and emerging from underground as a massive assault takes place stage left. They have the basejumping sequence that is shot for shot straight out of CoD and the amber glow of an arabian city on fire in the night. Oooh, it's so moody!
In the vast realm of possibilities of the real world, of this universe we inhabit of a million different threads of experience, they managed to cram in all the same sequences from Call of Duty, as though they've become genre tropes at this stage, except now everything has really nice ambient occlusion. It's the same. The only x-factor was the earthquake which was neither realistic nor credible. Nor anything other than a mechanic to deform the landscape to show off their fancy Frostbite technology.
It's really quite amazing just how much time and money they are putting in to bore me. Because it is no surprise people are confusing this for the next Call of Duty. No surprise it looks just like a million other games. It may be technically groundbreaking, and mechanically rock solid - but it is absolutely creatively bankrupt.
I agree though, as neat as the tech is I'd like to see some alternate reality or future settings.
I never played COD<3
Guess I am lucky. But really, BF3 is about large multiplayer maps, air, ground and maybe water vehicles - all clashing together. Not just "m16" and certainly not only singleplayer.
I feel only the previous BF games actually did this formula in MP in a good way so this is not really "old" for me yet
Looks awesome of course but I am also tired of shooting M4s, AKs, .50 cals and now the SCAR is getting there too.
1 - Battlefield 1942 is released
2 - Battlefield 2 (modern era)
3 - Battlefield 3 (future era)
Instead they made the "future era" installment be a rather minor one (Battlefield 2142) and turned BF3 into an updated BF2.
I would have been pretty excited to have seen BF3 take the formula of 2142 to the next level instead. Mechs and future aircraft in this new engine would be pretty sweet
Yeah, me too.
On that note, I feel like modern era games have failed to capture the same kind of versatile gunplay that the WW2-shooter games have. In the original Call of Duty, for example, there was a world of difference between the submachine guns, bolt action rifles, and LMGs. But in the modern-era games, all guns feel one-size-fits-all by comparison.
Bah.
War today is totally unsuited to compelling gameplay. War today, literally modern warfare, is lightning fast, sporadic and precise - with no sustained combat, no battle of the wills to and fro.
99% of the time that insurgent stronghold that the game has you storming with a crack team of highly trained wet-work operatives is actually not stormed at all, just levelled by a laser guided bomb delivered by a plane flying so high and fast you can't see or hear it.
They've managed to make war boring. That's quite remarkable actually.
Don't give a fuck about the setting or time period. Bulidings are going down.
That was my #1 complaint about COD4 when I was really into the game all those years ago, along with the retardo spawns. Instead of fixing those portions, they made the killstreaks even more retarded and the spawns apparently haven't been fixed a lick. It's part of the reason why I don't give a damn about that series anymore.
And now have every game and their mother aping that mechanic, from Crysis 2 to Homefront to Medal of Honor (from DICE, no less). Of all things you want to crib out of COD multiplayer, you guys are copying one of the worst and most unbalanced things about it? It confuses me.
It was pretty much all I tried to do in BC2 whenever I played a map with a helicopter in it. And now I get to toy around in jetfigthters in BF3 <3<3
I can imagine flying planes in such a game. I would expect many QTE's to not catch on fire, and my gunner to spend most of his time trying not to break the fragile mustard gas bombs.
I say this as good, mind you.
This coming from personal experience of course.
Knew it all along Scarab the terrorist.
CoD2 had the best weapons that I can remember, I mean slight balance issues aside, the idea behind it was amazing. Shotguns were shotguns, no rifle shotguns, close range deadly weapons. SMGs were close to medium range, rifles were one shot kill and required precise aiming, carbines were inbetween SMGs and rifles and LMGs were like rifles but fired faster and had insane recoil. Every weapon had a strength, weakness and skillset to use. CoD4 actually took the series back very far in that regard, all the weapons are basically the same, and all weapons are judged into how much like an assault rifle they are.
There was a WW1 mod for the original BF1942. Had Zeppelins, Biplanes, Triplanes and the old WW1 tanks with multiple cannons on some maps. It was fun but a bit buggy.
I think the Korean War would be a good era to visit in a game like this too. Dawn of jet combat and some truly incredible battles that took place.
edit - http://www.moddb.com/mods/battlefield-1918
Looks like it's come a long way and is still being supported by the mod team. And something new that wasn't there years ago are WW1 era ships.
Drop to DX7 (6?) and 333 frames per second M1-Garand.
I love all Quake Engines. I always feel like I hit what I shoot and no one warps through me when we're running around each other like headless chickens.
Except you Quake Live, you take your somehow worse than Vanilla Q3 netcode and you go away.