On February 08 2011 15:49 Ideas wrote: that preview sorta sucked. basically no new information at all. the multiplayer interview didnt really tell us ANYTHING except that there wont be a commander mode lol. (prone and 64 players for PC version was already announced)
oh and there will be a campaign that probably wont be that great. hey anything could happen and it might be the greatest single player campaign ever, but I highly doubt that. the better destructibility might be really cool for the campaign but I don't see it really going anywhere since DICE hasnt really ever done anything notable in singleplayer.
im really curious to see what theyre going to do about player limits for PC and consoles. PCs is 64 vs consoles 24. will PC players be crowded onto smaller than ideal maps or will console players have maps that are probably too big? or will they just make the maps bigger for PC version?
...that article was about as informative as humanly possible. There was so much in there about DICE's design philosophy, the tools that they're developing to make BF3 a great game, etc...
What would you have liked to see, information on new unlockables? New weapons and vehicles? Because that seems like it would have been pretty boring to me.
what is different between BC2 and BF3 AT ALL
so far we have prone, 64 player limit, different story campaign. that was already known from the fucking cover of PCgamer.
edit- oh yea, no commander mode (i guess not really a bad thing)
uh a new engine?
i dont really know what people expect from sequels. if they're at all similar people call them rehashes and if they change too much people get upset that they ruined the franchise
new engine looks and sounds amazing, the developer tools they're using are really interesting (they had a dynamic lighting presentation for frostbite 2 and it was pretty sick stuff). I'd rather not they reveal every detail about weapons, classes, modes right off the bat. personally i'm satisfied enough with frostbite 2, i'd rather they stick to the tried and true formula
i guarantee more information will come out about that though. this is the first real preview. what do you expect?
I'd really like to actually see the new engine in practice before I judge if it's actually a huge leap from frostbite 1, but it does sound promising I suppose (but then every game magazine preview of a game showers it with praise no matter what so there's no way to judge how good the engine is until we actually see it in action).
so far though this game sounds EXACTLY like what my fear was that BF3 would be: basically a prettier BC2 with 64 player multiplayer. I loved BC2 but im not going to just buy it again.
BF2 COMPLETELY changed the way developers thought about multiplayer shooters. COD4 gets all the credit for persistence and stuff but BF2 essentially invented squads, character persistence/unlocking new guns etc, and map scaling two years before cod4 came out (cod4 took it further and brought in perks, but BF2 invented the whole unlock/progression idea for competitive shooters (as far as I know. there is probably some smaller game that did that but no one knew about lol). not to mention that 2142 in 2006 took it even further with way more unlocks). I would argue that BF2 is the single most influential multiplayer shooter to come out in the last decade.
BF3 needs to do something equally impressive or else it isnt worthy of being a "true" sequel to BF2. it might as well just be BC3.
I think there is still obviously a lot they havent told us that might make me look at it in a different light, which is because this preview sucked and didnt really tell us anything. like they had an interview about multiplayer and didnt ask "so what is different this time around?" although maybe thats because DICE said they wouldnt talk about it yet. hopefully it's because DICE said they wont talk about it yet lol, or else gameinformer really is just garbage journalism.
On February 08 2011 15:49 Ideas wrote: that preview sorta sucked. basically no new information at all. the multiplayer interview didnt really tell us ANYTHING except that there wont be a commander mode lol. (prone and 64 players for PC version was already announced)
oh and there will be a campaign that probably wont be that great. hey anything could happen and it might be the greatest single player campaign ever, but I highly doubt that. the better destructibility might be really cool for the campaign but I don't see it really going anywhere since DICE hasnt really ever done anything notable in singleplayer.
im really curious to see what theyre going to do about player limits for PC and consoles. PCs is 64 vs consoles 24. will PC players be crowded onto smaller than ideal maps or will console players have maps that are probably too big? or will they just make the maps bigger for PC version?
...that article was about as informative as humanly possible. There was so much in there about DICE's design philosophy, the tools that they're developing to make BF3 a great game, etc...
What would you have liked to see, information on new unlockables? New weapons and vehicles? Because that seems like it would have been pretty boring to me.
what is different between BC2 and BF3 AT ALL
so far we have prone, 64 player limit, different story campaign. that was already known from the fucking cover of PCgamer.
edit- oh yea, no commander mode (i guess not really a bad thing)
uh a new engine?
i dont really know what people expect from sequels. if they're at all similar people call them rehashes and if they change too much people get upset that they ruined the franchise
new engine looks and sounds amazing, the developer tools they're using are really interesting (they had a dynamic lighting presentation for frostbite 2 and it was pretty sick stuff). I'd rather not they reveal every detail about weapons, classes, modes right off the bat. personally i'm satisfied enough with frostbite 2, i'd rather they stick to the tried and true formula
i guarantee more information will come out about that though. this is the first real preview. what do you expect?
I'd really like to actually see the new engine in practice before I judge if it's actually a huge leap from frostbite 1, but it does sound promising I suppose (but then every game magazine preview of a game showers it with praise no matter what so there's no way to judge how good the engine is until we actually see it in action).
so far though this game sounds EXACTLY like what my fear was that BF3 would be: basically a prettier BC2 with 64 player multiplayer. I loved BC2 but im not going to just buy it again.
BF2 COMPLETELY changed the way developers thought about multiplayer shooters. COD4 gets all the credit for persistence and stuff but BF2 essentially invented squads, character persistence/unlocking new guns etc, and map scaling two years before cod4 came out (cod4 took it further and brought in perks, but BF2 invented the whole unlock/progression idea for competitive shooters (as far as I know. there is probably some smaller game that did that but no one knew about lol). not to mention that 2142 in 2006 took it even further with way more unlocks). I would argue that BF2 is the single most influential multiplayer shooter to come out in the last decade.
BF3 needs to do something equally impressive or else it isnt worthy of being a "true" sequel to BF2. it might as well just be BC3.
I think there is still obviously a lot they havent told us that might make me look at it in a different light, which is because this preview sucked and didnt really tell us anything. like they had an interview about multiplayer and didnt ask "so what is different this time around?" although maybe thats because DICE said they wouldnt talk about it yet. hopefully it's because DICE said they wont talk about it yet lol, or else gameinformer really is just garbage journalism.
All of that is fine and dandy, but I would be just happy with a BC2 but with a majorly updated engine, 32v32 maps, Jets, improved graphics, shockwaves knocking you off your feet, using anything as a weapon mount and dragging teammates to cover so you can revive them safely. I would enjoy that just fine.
On February 08 2011 15:49 Ideas wrote: that preview sorta sucked. basically no new information at all. the multiplayer interview didnt really tell us ANYTHING except that there wont be a commander mode lol. (prone and 64 players for PC version was already announced)
oh and there will be a campaign that probably wont be that great. hey anything could happen and it might be the greatest single player campaign ever, but I highly doubt that. the better destructibility might be really cool for the campaign but I don't see it really going anywhere since DICE hasnt really ever done anything notable in singleplayer.
im really curious to see what theyre going to do about player limits for PC and consoles. PCs is 64 vs consoles 24. will PC players be crowded onto smaller than ideal maps or will console players have maps that are probably too big? or will they just make the maps bigger for PC version?
...that article was about as informative as humanly possible. There was so much in there about DICE's design philosophy, the tools that they're developing to make BF3 a great game, etc...
What would you have liked to see, information on new unlockables? New weapons and vehicles? Because that seems like it would have been pretty boring to me.
what is different between BC2 and BF3 AT ALL
so far we have prone, 64 player limit, different story campaign. that was already known from the fucking cover of PCgamer.
edit- oh yea, no commander mode (i guess not really a bad thing)
uh a new engine?
i dont really know what people expect from sequels. if they're at all similar people call them rehashes and if they change too much people get upset that they ruined the franchise
new engine looks and sounds amazing, the developer tools they're using are really interesting (they had a dynamic lighting presentation for frostbite 2 and it was pretty sick stuff). I'd rather not they reveal every detail about weapons, classes, modes right off the bat. personally i'm satisfied enough with frostbite 2, i'd rather they stick to the tried and true formula
i guarantee more information will come out about that though. this is the first real preview. what do you expect?
I'd really like to actually see the new engine in practice before I judge if it's actually a huge leap from frostbite 1, but it does sound promising I suppose (but then every game magazine preview of a game showers it with praise no matter what so there's no way to judge how good the engine is until we actually see it in action).
so far though this game sounds EXACTLY like what my fear was that BF3 would be: basically a prettier BC2 with 64 player multiplayer. I loved BC2 but im not going to just buy it again.
BF2 COMPLETELY changed the way developers thought about multiplayer shooters. COD4 gets all the credit for persistence and stuff but BF2 essentially invented squads, character persistence/unlocking new guns etc, and map scaling two years before cod4 came out (cod4 took it further and brought in perks, but BF2 invented the whole unlock/progression idea for competitive shooters (as far as I know. there is probably some smaller game that did that but no one knew about lol). not to mention that 2142 in 2006 took it even further with way more unlocks). I would argue that BF2 is the single most influential multiplayer shooter to come out in the last decade.
BF3 needs to do something equally impressive or else it isnt worthy of being a "true" sequel to BF2. it might as well just be BC3.
I think there is still obviously a lot they havent told us that might make me look at it in a different light, which is because this preview sucked and didnt really tell us anything. like they had an interview about multiplayer and didnt ask "so what is different this time around?" although maybe thats because DICE said they wouldnt talk about it yet. hopefully it's because DICE said they wont talk about it yet lol, or else gameinformer really is just garbage journalism.
All of that is fine and dandy, but I would be just happy with a BC2 but with a majorly updated engine, 32v32 maps, Jets, improved graphics, shockwaves knocking you off your feet, using anything as a weapon mount and dragging teammates to cover so you can revive them safely. I would enjoy that just fine.
Yep. And to whoever mentioned that BF1942 was fun on foot, I agree. BF1942 was incredibly fun and my favorite of the series. One big change from BC2 to BF3 is it will return to what the franchise was famous for. Huge maps (with a ton of emphasis on conquest and strategy on holding/taking flags) and vehicles. Plus, it caters more to the PC community which I am ecstatic to hear. BC2 has so much remnants from the console and SC2 is also almost like a console game in structure and it makes me pretty angry. We'll have 64 player games, bigger maps, more vehicles, more strategy and emphasis on points (it seems, at least), etc. Although 128 would be pretty awesome too, too bad they can't implement it Also, hopefully balance will be better too. Aka machine guns are able to shoot and damage planes. Tracers removed which I am pretty happy about, they are cool but basically (oh I'm traced? well this tank is as good as dead) unless you have smoke . . .
I never play these BF games much just because by the time I have enough time to get all the ranks/weapons/points, everyone is already moving to the sequel and I have to buy another game for $60.
On February 09 2011 13:24 Sadistx wrote: I never play these BF games much just because by the time I have enough time to get all the ranks/weapons/points, everyone is already moving to the sequel and I have to buy another game for $60.
It fragments the community too much imo.
i think you're right, but i also think that bf3 will kinda stop this splitting (hopefully, if the developers are smart enough to see that opportunity) by bringing basically bc2 and bf2 (and maybe even moh, actually maybe even 2142) together...
On February 08 2011 16:34 Taku wrote: Not amused. Cutting down to 4 kits and taking away commander because it was too hardcore/complicated for the peasantry D:
Not true (about the kits anyway), they may be going the BF2142 route of cutting the classes in half but giving them twice the equipment.
In BF2142 they combined:
1. Sniper + Spec Ops - You could equipment from either class (mix and match, such as using C4 + Sniper Rifles if you wanted for example).
2. Medic + Assault - (Same deal as above).
3. Engineer + Antitank
4. Support
Anyway it made the game better IMO because it actually increased the variety (mix and match equipment from either kits).
As for Commander mode, was there a commander mode in BC2? Never played BC2 but played BF2.
As for player limits (console vs PC) - In BF2 there were multiple map sizes 16, 32, and 64.
Some maps (like Great Wall in one of the map addons[which is now free]) had only two player sizes 16 and 32. 32 was big enough for 64 players.
I wouldn't really be worried about console or PC players getting shafted due to the player sizes since they've done different player size maps in BF2 with success.
Please do not give the spammable grenade launcher class an ammo kit.
Not sure about BC2 but in BF2 the Assault (grenade launcher) was actually reasonable. The grenade launcher's grenade damage radius was only about a fifth of regular grenades. Also in close combats any class (with the exception of Sniper) can kill just as fast as an Assault with a grenade launcher.
So if they do everything the BF2 way (with improvements) they won't go wrong (except for some medals, badges, and ribbons which actually counterproductive in terms of teamwork).
It looks incredible and I'm so pumped but I swear to God DICE better get the connectivity/DC/lag issues sorted out before launch. A year on and disconnects and the dreaded 'Can't Connect to EA Online' are still regular for a lot of BC2 people, even for people who have taken the time to try all the 'fixes'. I know it works perfectly for many but if 90% of other developers can make their game work first time for 95% of users, so can DICE.
If this game is going to have 4 classes, this is how I want it. The assault class should be given a choice between light machine guns and rifles with grenade launchers, medics should be given assault rifles with no access to reflex or telescopic sights, recon should have a choice between a marksman rifle or a silenced carbine rifle, and the engineer should get an SMG or a shotgun. I also think classes should be cut off from some specialization, such as recon not having access to armor.
Also, that trailer is titties. Indoor combat might actually be fun instead of terribly awkward, like it has always been in the BF games.
That trailer is just straight out beautiful. Those visuals combined with the usual stellar Battlefield sound design....ohhhh man. I am so stoked for this game.
On February 24 2011 14:45 Athos wrote: Am I the only person who would just join a map, find wherever the planes were and flying around the entire game? Because I had a blast doing that.
-As long as they keep the planes in, I'm on board for Battlefield 3.
Oh hell no. You're one of those people that sit on the airstrip with 10 other people being useless, aren't you. >:|
On February 24 2011 14:45 Athos wrote: Am I the only person who would just join a map, find wherever the planes were and flying around the entire game? Because I had a blast doing that.
-As long as they keep the planes in, I'm on board for Battlefield 3.
Oh hell no. You're one of those people that sit on the airstrip with 10 other people being useless, aren't you. >:|
But yeah, Jets are in the game. :D
I actually like 10 people sitting on an airstrip. They're actually quite useful as 50 caliber bullet catchers. Even better when one jumps into a plane and waits to take off as a put a round through the cockpit.
EPT
Also, hopefully balance will be better too. Aka machine guns are able to shoot and damage planes. Tracers removed which I am pretty happy about, they are cool but basically (oh I'm traced? well this tank is as good as dead) unless you have smoke . . .
