***OFFICIAL*** FBG All things BATTLEFIELD Thread (4 Viewers)

[madshot31]

Multiplatform beta in September for Battlefield 3.

:Just announced in EA conference @ E3:

 

[Spanky267]

Multiplatform beta in September for Battlefield 3. :Just announced in EA conference @ E3:

Saw that, really looking forward to that. The multiplayer and campaign both looked really good.

 

[TLEF316]

Link to 2 new vids

Release date is October 25th.

MP footage in these trailers is obviously pretty brief, but it doesn't look all that much more graphic intensive than Bc2 (light rendering probably being the biggest difference).

I plan on doing a full PC rebuild anyway, but based on these quick clips, i imagine most PC's that can run Bc2 will at least be playable on Bf3.

 

[TLEF316]

guys on the BF forums saying the multiplayer looks "COD'ish" based on 30 seconds of 2 second clips.....

Just watched the full presentation from the EA press conference. It was just the 2 vids already posted plus a 7 or 8 minute single player demo. Basically a long tank battle. Pretty cool stuff though. They had thermal vision, and at one point, the player was able to get an overhead thermal view from a satellite and use it to laser designate targets for airstrike.

I still don't think I'd ever play single player (barring my internet going down) but it did look pretty cool.

hopefully we get a longer look and some actual multiplayer details as the week goes on.

 

[ren hoek]

guys on the BF forums saying the multiplayer looks "COD'ish" based on 30 seconds of 2 second clips...

Beam me up Scotty. I think I'm still registered over there.

 

[TLEF316]

guys on the BF forums saying the multiplayer looks "COD'ish" based on 30 seconds of 2 second clips...

Beam me up Scotty. I think I'm still registered over there.

i don't post at all at totalbf2 or planetbattlefield. The forums are usually dead and those that do post are always insanely negative.I've started to post a little on the official EA forums, but those are pretty brutal as well.

 

[ren hoek]

guys on the BF forums saying the multiplayer looks "COD'ish" based on 30 seconds of 2 second clips...

Beam me up Scotty. I think I'm still registered over there.

i don't post at all at totalbf2 or planetbattlefield. The forums are usually dead and those that do post are always insanely negative.I've started to post a little on the official EA forums, but those are pretty brutal as well.

Ah. I'm over at the official EA ones. I haven't watched any official multiplayer footage yet, but if by CODish they mean the controls are tighter and the weapons handle quicker, I really wouldn't be opposed to that. BC2 is way too sluggish on my HDTV.

 

[ODoyleRules]

There is a misconception that PC gaming is an expensive hobby. I remember reading an article laying out the costs of each console and platform, and adding up the additional costs, and I believe that the PS3 was the most expensive console, with the XBox 360 being second, and PCs being 3rd, with the Wii easily being the cheapest gaming machine. The article took into account that the user didn't already have a screen to play a game on. Typically, a gamer will buy a TV to accommodate their new console purchase. Thus, HD TVs usually costs more than the typical high-end gaming PC itself.

This is probably true in most cases, but in the case of BF3, isn't the graphics card alone to run it well like $350-400? Between that and the desktop PC I would imagine you're looking at $750-800 upfront. I guess that's not quite 1k, but I'm sure there are other costs associated with it (nice gaming mouse and keyboard, a nice desk to put it on, etc.) that would put it in expensive territory.You're right about the consoles nickel and diming, or at least the 360. Here's every thing I've had to buy for mine:-5 controllers. I think I broke 2 just by dropping them and spilled some sort of drink on a couple others. These are at least $30 a piece, so $150.-1 wireless access point. $99. -another xbox. Between the original 20gig that RRODed I bought for $399 back in 06 and the new arcade version I got for $199, that's $598.-like 6 mics. They are made cheaply and designed only to outlast their 30-day return policy. $75.-Turtle Beach headset that broke down on me. I think it was like $70.-Used Tritton AX Pro headset, $80. -Throwing in the HD PVR I use to record for kicks, used, $160. -40" ProScan LCD HDTV: $350-400? I got a good deal on this one. So I've spent $1,632 on the 360 platform alone, and that doesn't take a single game purchase or Xbox Live subscription or DLC purchase into account. Sheesh.

Good god. I don't get this at all. When a new game comes out, I just buy it and play it. No new controllers. No new TV. No new receiver. No new wristbands (well, sometimes). Just stick in the PS3 and get to work. I'm excited for the demo in September. BF3 looks cool.

 

[TLEF316]

guys on the BF forums saying the multiplayer looks "COD'ish" based on 30 seconds of 2 second clips...

Beam me up Scotty. I think I'm still registered over there.

i don't post at all at totalbf2 or planetbattlefield. The forums are usually dead and those that do post are always insanely negative.I've started to post a little on the official EA forums, but those are pretty brutal as well.

Ah. I'm over at the official EA ones. I haven't watched any official multiplayer footage yet, but if by CODish they mean the controls are tighter and the weapons handle quicker, I really wouldn't be opposed to that. BC2 is way too sluggish on my HDTV.

no, they just thought the game play looked "COD'ish" based on a dozen short little cuts of video. IMO, it was impossible to tell anything.

 

[Mad Cow]

Please tell me we get selective fire again.

 

[Spanky267]

There is a misconception that PC gaming is an expensive hobby. I remember reading an article laying out the costs of each console and platform, and adding up the additional costs, and I believe that the PS3 was the most expensive console, with the XBox 360 being second, and PCs being 3rd, with the Wii easily being the cheapest gaming machine. The article took into account that the user didn't already have a screen to play a game on. Typically, a gamer will buy a TV to accommodate their new console purchase. Thus, HD TVs usually costs more than the typical high-end gaming PC itself.

This is probably true in most cases, but in the case of BF3, isn't the graphics card alone to run it well like $350-400? Between that and the desktop PC I would imagine you're looking at $750-800 upfront. I guess that's not quite 1k, but I'm sure there are other costs associated with it (nice gaming mouse and keyboard, a nice desk to put it on, etc.) that would put it in expensive territory.You're right about the consoles nickel and diming, or at least the 360. Here's every thing I've had to buy for mine:-5 controllers. I think I broke 2 just by dropping them and spilled some sort of drink on a couple others. These are at least $30 a piece, so $150.-1 wireless access point. $99. -another xbox. Between the original 20gig that RRODed I bought for $399 back in 06 and the new arcade version I got for $199, that's $598.-like 6 mics. They are made cheaply and designed only to outlast their 30-day return policy. $75.-Turtle Beach headset that broke down on me. I think it was like $70.-Used Tritton AX Pro headset, $80. -Throwing in the HD PVR I use to record for kicks, used, $160. -40" ProScan LCD HDTV: $350-400? I got a good deal on this one. So I've spent $1,632 on the 360 platform alone, and that doesn't take a single game purchase or Xbox Live subscription or DLC purchase into account. Sheesh.

Good god. I don't get this at all. When a new game comes out, I just buy it and play it. No new controllers. No new TV. No new receiver. No new wristbands (well, sometimes). Just stick in the PS3 and get to work. I'm excited for the demo in September. BF3 looks cool.

They were comparing the cost of buying a gaming pc to play games as opposed to everything needed to get a console like the 360 or the PS3 all together so you can game.So assuming that you were starting from zero to game on a pc or a console. The theory is that it is more expensive to game on a console, if you dont already have a TV to game on.Ren's cost estimates are accurate. You can cut a few things out, like the wireless adapter, if you connect via ethernet.If you already have a TV it might be cheaper to go the console route. If you dont then it is more expensive.I bought a new controller for my PS3 because I wanted one that was a different color from the ones that my sons use. I bought a new headset because my old one broke. But I use that headset on my 360 and my PS3.I no longer have a desktop so I'll be getting BF3 for my 360. Simply beause I have more friends on the 360 than the PS3 who will play it.

 

[Spanky267]

guys on the BF forums saying the multiplayer looks "COD'ish" based on 30 seconds of 2 second clips...

Beam me up Scotty. I think I'm still registered over there.

i don't post at all at totalbf2 or planetbattlefield. The forums are usually dead and those that do post are always insanely negative.I've started to post a little on the official EA forums, but those are pretty brutal as well.

Ah. I'm over at the official EA ones. I haven't watched any official multiplayer footage yet, but if by CODish they mean the controls are tighter and the weapons handle quicker, I really wouldn't be opposed to that. BC2 is way too sluggish on my HDTV.

no, they just thought the game play looked "COD'ish" based on a dozen short little cuts of video. IMO, it was impossible to tell anything.

The video itself seemed to be presented in a "CoD'ish" way. But it was definitely Battlefield. I do hope that the lighten up the controls. BC2 is heavy and sluggish in my opinion. Being able to form platoons will be good as long as you can communicate with more than just the people in your squad. The squad dynamic in BC is nice but being able to be in a group of 8 or 9 in CoD is better. If you could have 16 players on one team in 4 squads of 4 all communicating with each other that would be terrific.

 

[ODoyleRules]

There is a misconception that PC gaming is an expensive hobby. I remember reading an article laying out the costs of each console and platform, and adding up the additional costs, and I believe that the PS3 was the most expensive console, with the XBox 360 being second, and PCs being 3rd, with the Wii easily being the cheapest gaming machine. The article took into account that the user didn't already have a screen to play a game on. Typically, a gamer will buy a TV to accommodate their new console purchase. Thus, HD TVs usually costs more than the typical high-end gaming PC itself.

This is probably true in most cases, but in the case of BF3, isn't the graphics card alone to run it well like $350-400? Between that and the desktop PC I would imagine you're looking at $750-800 upfront. I guess that's not quite 1k, but I'm sure there are other costs associated with it (nice gaming mouse and keyboard, a nice desk to put it on, etc.) that would put it in expensive territory.You're right about the consoles nickel and diming, or at least the 360. Here's every thing I've had to buy for mine:

-5 controllers. I think I broke 2 just by dropping them and spilled some sort of drink on a couple others. These are at least $30 a piece, so $150.

-1 wireless access point. $99.

-another xbox. Between the original 20gig that RRODed I bought for $399 back in 06 and the new arcade version I got for $199, that's $598.

-like 6 mics. They are made cheaply and designed only to outlast their 30-day return policy. $75.

-Turtle Beach headset that broke down on me. I think it was like $70.

-Used Tritton AX Pro headset, $80.

-Throwing in the HD PVR I use to record for kicks, used, $160.

-40" ProScan LCD HDTV: $350-400? I got a good deal on this one.

So I've spent $1,632 on the 360 platform alone, and that doesn't take a single game purchase or Xbox Live subscription or DLC purchase into account. Sheesh.

Good god. I don't get this at all. When a new game comes out, I just buy it and play it. No new controllers. No new TV. No new receiver. No new wristbands (well, sometimes). Just stick in the PS3 and get to work.

I'm excited for the demo in September. BF3 looks cool.

They were comparing the cost of buying a gaming pc to play games as opposed to everything needed to get a console like the 360 or the PS3 all together so you can game.

So assuming that you were starting from zero to game on a pc or a console. The theory is that it is more expensive to game on a console, if you dont already have a TV to game on.

Ren's cost estimates are accurate. You can cut a few things out, like the wireless adapter, if you connect via ethernet.



If you already have a TV it might be cheaper to go the console route. If you dont then it is more expensive.

I bought a new controller for my PS3 because I wanted one that was a different color from the ones that my sons use.

I bought a new headset because my old one broke. But I use that headset on my 360 and my PS3.

I no longer have a desktop so I'll be getting BF3 for my 360. Simply beause I have more friends on the 360 than the PS3 who will play it.

Who doesn't have a TV, though?

 

[Spanky267]

There is a misconception that PC gaming is an expensive hobby. I remember reading an article laying out the costs of each console and platform, and adding up the additional costs, and I believe that the PS3 was the most expensive console, with the XBox 360 being second, and PCs being 3rd, with the Wii easily being the cheapest gaming machine. The article took into account that the user didn't already have a screen to play a game on. Typically, a gamer will buy a TV to accommodate their new console purchase. Thus, HD TVs usually costs more than the typical high-end gaming PC itself.

This is probably true in most cases, but in the case of BF3, isn't the graphics card alone to run it well like $350-400? Between that and the desktop PC I would imagine you're looking at $750-800 upfront. I guess that's not quite 1k, but I'm sure there are other costs associated with it (nice gaming mouse and keyboard, a nice desk to put it on, etc.) that would put it in expensive territory.You're right about the consoles nickel and diming, or at least the 360. Here's every thing I've had to buy for mine:

-5 controllers. I think I broke 2 just by dropping them and spilled some sort of drink on a couple others. These are at least $30 a piece, so $150.

-1 wireless access point. $99.

-another xbox. Between the original 20gig that RRODed I bought for $399 back in 06 and the new arcade version I got for $199, that's $598.

-like 6 mics. They are made cheaply and designed only to outlast their 30-day return policy. $75.

-Turtle Beach headset that broke down on me. I think it was like $70.

-Used Tritton AX Pro headset, $80.

-Throwing in the HD PVR I use to record for kicks, used, $160.

-40" ProScan LCD HDTV: $350-400? I got a good deal on this one.

So I've spent $1,632 on the 360 platform alone, and that doesn't take a single game purchase or Xbox Live subscription or DLC purchase into account. Sheesh.

Good god. I don't get this at all. When a new game comes out, I just buy it and play it. No new controllers. No new TV. No new receiver. No new wristbands (well, sometimes). Just stick in the PS3 and get to work.

I'm excited for the demo in September. BF3 looks cool.

They were comparing the cost of buying a gaming pc to play games as opposed to everything needed to get a console like the 360 or the PS3 all together so you can game.

So assuming that you were starting from zero to game on a pc or a console. The theory is that it is more expensive to game on a console, if you dont already have a TV to game on.

Ren's cost estimates are accurate. You can cut a few things out, like the wireless adapter, if you connect via ethernet.



If you already have a TV it might be cheaper to go the console route. If you dont then it is more expensive.

I bought a new controller for my PS3 because I wanted one that was a different color from the ones that my sons use.

I bought a new headset because my old one broke. But I use that headset on my 360 and my PS3.

I no longer have a desktop so I'll be getting BF3 for my 360. Simply beause I have more friends on the 360 than the PS3 who will play it.

Who doesn't have a TV, though?

Virtually no one. But if you were a college kid moving into a dorm you might be better off getting a kicking PC with a 23" monitor. Than getting a TV and an Xbox or PS3. You can game, watch TV and do your term papers on the PC. I doubt you can do all 3 on the PS3 or the 360.

 

[TLEF316]

guys on the BF forums saying the multiplayer looks "COD'ish" based on 30 seconds of 2 second clips...

Beam me up Scotty. I think I'm still registered over there.

i don't post at all at totalbf2 or planetbattlefield. The forums are usually dead and those that do post are always insanely negative.I've started to post a little on the official EA forums, but those are pretty brutal as well.

Ah. I'm over at the official EA ones. I haven't watched any official multiplayer footage yet, but if by CODish they mean the controls are tighter and the weapons handle quicker, I really wouldn't be opposed to that. BC2 is way too sluggish on my HDTV.

no, they just thought the game play looked "COD'ish" based on a dozen short little cuts of video. IMO, it was impossible to tell anything.

The video itself seemed to be presented in a "CoD'ish" way. But it was definitely Battlefield. I do hope that the lighten up the controls. BC2 is heavy and sluggish in my opinion. Being able to form platoons will be good as long as you can communicate with more than just the people in your squad. The squad dynamic in BC is nice but being able to be in a group of 8 or 9 in CoD is better. If you could have 16 players on one team in 4 squads of 4 all communicating with each other that would be terrific.

I think by platoons, they meant groups of friends. (or clans). I don't think it meant the ability to link multiple squads together in game.6 man squads would be good for BF3 PC. 4 would be rough. (and based on screen caps people are posting on the forums, it looks like 4 man squads and the same 4 classes from Bc2). It also looks like there is a squad leader mechanic (one player in each squad has a star next to their name on the HUD)Personally, I'd prefer to keep in game VOIP to squad only. The guys that play on PC usually talk to eachother over VENT anyway. Personally, i don't really want to hear what the other squads are doing. Most of it would just be useless chatter. As for the controls, i'd prefer they stay as is. Again, this is coming from PC, but i have no issue with sluggishness when aiming. It does look like they've addressed some of the sluggishness when running around. The videos show several clips where the player vaults over cover or small obstacles. Good addition, depending on how they incorporate it.

 

[Mad Cow]

Any word on if commanders will be back? :cartillery:

 

[GroveDiesel]

The guys over at Arstechnica certainly seem to think that BF3 will be a game built for PC gaming. It doesn't mean that they're right, but both the editors and forum posters there seem to think that BF3 will still really cater to PC players.

Explain it to me as if I were 5. Is that a bad thing?

It depends on if you're a PC or console Gamer. If you're a PC guy, it's great news because it means the game will be optimized for the PC gaming experience.If you're a console Gamer, it means the game will be mostly built for pC and then ported to the consoles which means the console versions will most likely suffer some.

 

[TLEF316]

Any word on if commanders will be back? :cartillery:

They've already confirmed they wont be.They didn't see the need to use resources to develop something that only 1 guy on each team played (usually poorly at that).Personally, I have no problem with this. A good commander could be very helpful, but most were useless.I'm guessing commander-type features like UAV's and Artillery (probably not cartillary though ) will be available for everyone to use. I do believe that they have confirmed that selectable fire modes are in.

 

[ODoyleRules]

Virtually no one. But if you were a college kid moving into a dorm you might be better off getting a kicking PC with a 23" monitor. Than getting a TV and an Xbox or PS3. You can game, watch TV and do your term papers on the PC. I doubt you can do all 3 on the PS3 or the 360.

OK. College freshman need a TV. I'm not knocking anyone, but I sometimes think some PC players want to spend extra $ and are secretly excited that new game releases will help them rationalize the upgrade of their video card, mouse, monitor, speakers, etc.. just a theory.

 

[Mad Cow]

Any word on if commanders will be back? :cartillery:

They've already confirmed they wont be.

They didn't see the need to use resources to develop something that only 1 guy on each team played (usually poorly at that).

Personally, I have no problem with this. A good commander could be very helpful, but most were useless.

I'm guessing commander-type features like UAV's and Artillery (probably not cartillary though ) will be available for everyone to use.

I do believe that they have confirmed that selectable fire modes are in.

Thank heavens. I think that was one of the casualties of making BC2 console friendly. There is no reason most of these rifles should not have a semi-auto, burst and full-auto selector. I would love them to be a little more true to actual rifle performance, as well, instead of making the "cool" guns the best ones. There are so many great things they could do, but probably won't. :(

 

[TLEF316]

Virtually no one. But if you were a college kid moving into a dorm you might be better off getting a kicking PC with a 23" monitor. Than getting a TV and an Xbox or PS3. You can game, watch TV and do your term papers on the PC. I doubt you can do all 3 on the PS3 or the 360.

OK. College freshman need a TV. I'm not knocking anyone, but I sometimes think some PC players want to spend extra $ and are secretly excited that new game releases will help them rationalize the upgrade of their video card, mouse, monitor, speakers, etc.. just a theory.

I'm certainly not gonna try to rationalize it.There is really no logical reason for me to build a new PC this fall. My current PC is more than adequate for every day computing and is able to run all current games at med-high settings with respectable frame rates. But I have the money to burn (single, no kids, good job) and this is my favorite game franchise. So, as a result, I'm gonna splurge and dump most of my 3.5 year old system (gonna have to buy a motherboard, processor, SSD, RAM, Vid card and maybe a power supply. Only keeping the case, current hard drive, maybe power supply, keyboard, mouse and monitors) so that i can enjoy the game in all its glory. I certainly understand your thinking though. I have both major consoles as well, and i do enjoy just being able to pop in a game and play. But for shooters and RTS games (which i really don't play anymore, but would if one came out that i could get into) PC is just the way to go for me.

 

[Mad Cow]

Virtually no one. But if you were a college kid moving into a dorm you might be better off getting a kicking PC with a 23" monitor. Than getting a TV and an Xbox or PS3. You can game, watch TV and do your term papers on the PC. I doubt you can do all 3 on the PS3 or the 360.

OK. College freshman need a TV. I'm not knocking anyone, but I sometimes think some PC players want to spend extra $ and are secretly excited that new game releases will help them rationalize the upgrade of their video card, mouse, monitor, speakers, etc.. just a theory.

I'm certainly not gonna try to rationalize it.There is really no logical reason for me to build a new PC this fall. My current PC is more than adequate for every day computing and is able to run all current games at med-high settings with respectable frame rates. But I have the money to burn (single, no kids, good job) and this is my favorite game franchise. So, as a result, I'm gonna splurge and dump most of my 3.5 year old system (gonna have to buy a motherboard, processor, SSD, RAM, Vid card and maybe a power supply. Only keeping the case, current hard drive, maybe power supply, keyboard, mouse and monitors) so that i can enjoy the game in all its glory. I certainly understand your thinking though. I have both major consoles as well, and i do enjoy just being able to pop in a game and play. But for shooters and RTS games (which i really don't play anymore, but would if one came out that i could get into) PC is just the way to go for me.

Are you sure you don't want to join me and get the 3X28" LCD Eyefinity setup?

 

[ODoyleRules]

Virtually no one. But if you were a college kid moving into a dorm you might be better off getting a kicking PC with a 23" monitor. Than getting a TV and an Xbox or PS3. You can game, watch TV and do your term papers on the PC. I doubt you can do all 3 on the PS3 or the 360.

OK. College freshman need a TV. I'm not knocking anyone, but I sometimes think some PC players want to spend extra $ and are secretly excited that new game releases will help them rationalize the upgrade of their video card, mouse, monitor, speakers, etc.. just a theory.

I'm certainly not gonna try to rationalize it.There is really no logical reason for me to build a new PC this fall. My current PC is more than adequate for every day computing and is able to run all current games at med-high settings with respectable frame rates. But I have the money to burn (single, no kids, good job) and this is my favorite game franchise. So, as a result, I'm gonna splurge and dump most of my 3.5 year old system (gonna have to buy a motherboard, processor, SSD, RAM, Vid card and maybe a power supply. Only keeping the case, current hard drive, maybe power supply, keyboard, mouse and monitors) so that i can enjoy the game in all its glory. I certainly understand your thinking though. I have both major consoles as well, and i do enjoy just being able to pop in a game and play. But for shooters and RTS games (which i really don't play anymore, but would if one came out that i could get into) PC is just the way to go for me.

Nothing wrong with it and there are certainly worse ways to spend your money. I do the same thing with home audio and photography.

 

[TLEF316]

Virtually no one. But if you were a college kid moving into a dorm you might be better off getting a kicking PC with a 23" monitor. Than getting a TV and an Xbox or PS3. You can game, watch TV and do your term papers on the PC. I doubt you can do all 3 on the PS3 or the 360.

OK. College freshman need a TV. I'm not knocking anyone, but I sometimes think some PC players want to spend extra $ and are secretly excited that new game releases will help them rationalize the upgrade of their video card, mouse, monitor, speakers, etc.. just a theory.

I'm certainly not gonna try to rationalize it.There is really no logical reason for me to build a new PC this fall. My current PC is more than adequate for every day computing and is able to run all current games at med-high settings with respectable frame rates. But I have the money to burn (single, no kids, good job) and this is my favorite game franchise. So, as a result, I'm gonna splurge and dump most of my 3.5 year old system (gonna have to buy a motherboard, processor, SSD, RAM, Vid card and maybe a power supply. Only keeping the case, current hard drive, maybe power supply, keyboard, mouse and monitors) so that i can enjoy the game in all its glory. I certainly understand your thinking though. I have both major consoles as well, and i do enjoy just being able to pop in a game and play. But for shooters and RTS games (which i really don't play anymore, but would if one came out that i could get into) PC is just the way to go for me.

Are you sure you don't want to join me and get the 3X28" LCD Eyefinity setup?

Nah. Pretty sure any girl that saw that would turn around and walk out the door. It's hard enough explaining 2 monitors (one of which is 27 inches) and a case that looks like a spaceship.

 

[madshot31]

The guys over at Arstechnica certainly seem to think that BF3 will be a game built for PC gaming. It doesn't mean that they're right, but both the editors and forum posters there seem to think that BF3 will still really cater to PC players.

Explain it to me as if I were 5. Is that a bad thing?

It depends on if you're a PC or console Gamer. If you're a PC guy, it's great news because it means the game will be optimized for the PC gaming experience.If you're a console Gamer, it means the game will be mostly built for pC and then ported to the consoles which means the console versions will most likely suffer some.

I am purely a console gamer and don't mind them building this for PC and then porting it. I can see the end product, even if it is inferior to the PC version, be much better overall in the end than if they started with console and went to PC. To me, being designed around a PC means that they are building the game to the best of their ability and not catering to the lowest common denominator in the COD money train.

 

[Spanky267]

guys on the BF forums saying the multiplayer looks "COD'ish" based on 30 seconds of 2 second clips...

Beam me up Scotty. I think I'm still registered over there.

i don't post at all at totalbf2 or planetbattlefield. The forums are usually dead and those that do post are always insanely negative.I've started to post a little on the official EA forums, but those are pretty brutal as well.

Ah. I'm over at the official EA ones. I haven't watched any official multiplayer footage yet, but if by CODish they mean the controls are tighter and the weapons handle quicker, I really wouldn't be opposed to that. BC2 is way too sluggish on my HDTV.

no, they just thought the game play looked "COD'ish" based on a dozen short little cuts of video. IMO, it was impossible to tell anything.

The video itself seemed to be presented in a "CoD'ish" way. But it was definitely Battlefield. I do hope that the lighten up the controls. BC2 is heavy and sluggish in my opinion. Being able to form platoons will be good as long as you can communicate with more than just the people in your squad. The squad dynamic in BC is nice but being able to be in a group of 8 or 9 in CoD is better. If you could have 16 players on one team in 4 squads of 4 all communicating with each other that would be terrific.

I think by platoons, they meant groups of friends. (or clans). I don't think it meant the ability to link multiple squads together in game.6 man squads would be good for BF3 PC. 4 would be rough. (and based on screen caps people are posting on the forums, it looks like 4 man squads and the same 4 classes from Bc2). It also looks like there is a squad leader mechanic (one player in each squad has a star next to their name on the HUD)Personally, I'd prefer to keep in game VOIP to squad only. The guys that play on PC usually talk to eachother over VENT anyway. Personally, i don't really want to hear what the other squads are doing. Most of it would just be useless chatter. As for the controls, i'd prefer they stay as is. Again, this is coming from PC, but i have no issue with sluggishness when aiming. It does look like they've addressed some of the sluggishness when running around. The videos show several clips where the player vaults over cover or small obstacles. Good addition, depending on how they incorporate it.

I would certainly understand not wanting to hear all the voice chatter if you were in a game with 12 randoms. I am looking at it from the Xbox360 perspective. It would be cool to have 16 FBGs in one group playing a match in BF3 or even BC2 for that matter. As it is now we'd have to be in party chat and would be limited to 8 players. Although I have never played with more than a squad in BC2.It's great to play with 8 or 9 in a match in CoD and being able to hear everyone in our group.

 

[SlaX]

There is a misconception that PC gaming is an expensive hobby. I remember reading an article laying out the costs of each console and platform, and adding up the additional costs, and I believe that the PS3 was the most expensive console, with the XBox 360 being second, and PCs being 3rd, with the Wii easily being the cheapest gaming machine. The article took into account that the user didn't already have a screen to play a game on. Typically, a gamer will buy a TV to accommodate their new console purchase. Thus, HD TVs usually costs more than the typical high-end gaming PC itself.

This is probably true in most cases, but in the case of BF3, isn't the graphics card alone to run it well like $350-400? Between that and the desktop PC I would imagine you're looking at $750-800 upfront. I guess that's not quite 1k, but I'm sure there are other costs associated with it (nice gaming mouse and keyboard, a nice desk to put it on, etc.) that would put it in expensive territory.You're right about the consoles nickel and diming, or at least the 360. Here's every thing I've had to buy for mine:

-5 controllers. I think I broke 2 just by dropping them and spilled some sort of drink on a couple others. These are at least $30 a piece, so $150.

-1 wireless access point. $99.

-another xbox. Between the original 20gig that RRODed I bought for $399 back in 06 and the new arcade version I got for $199, that's $598.

-like 6 mics. They are made cheaply and designed only to outlast their 30-day return policy. $75.

-Turtle Beach headset that broke down on me. I think it was like $70.

-Used Tritton AX Pro headset, $80.

-Throwing in the HD PVR I use to record for kicks, used, $160.

-40" ProScan LCD HDTV: $350-400? I got a good deal on this one.

So I've spent $1,632 on the 360 platform alone, and that doesn't take a single game purchase or Xbox Live subscription or DLC purchase into account. Sheesh.

Good god. I don't get this at all. When a new game comes out, I just buy it and play it. No new controllers. No new TV. No new receiver. No new wristbands (well, sometimes). Just stick in the PS3 and get to work.

I'm excited for the demo in September. BF3 looks cool.

They were comparing the cost of buying a gaming pc to play games as opposed to everything needed to get a console like the 360 or the PS3 all together so you can game.

So assuming that you were starting from zero to game on a pc or a console. The theory is that it is more expensive to game on a console, if you dont already have a TV to game on.

Ren's cost estimates are accurate. You can cut a few things out, like the wireless adapter, if you connect via ethernet.



If you already have a TV it might be cheaper to go the console route. If you dont then it is more expensive.

I bought a new controller for my PS3 because I wanted one that was a different color from the ones that my sons use.

I bought a new headset because my old one broke. But I use that headset on my 360 and my PS3.

I no longer have a desktop so I'll be getting BF3 for my 360. Simply beause I have more friends on the 360 than the PS3 who will play it.

Who doesn't have a TV, though?

I'll put you down as gaming on a 12 year old SD TV. Otherwise, it's included as part of your cost.

 

[Spanky267]

Virtually no one. But if you were a college kid moving into a dorm you might be better off getting a kicking PC with a 23" monitor. Than getting a TV and an Xbox or PS3. You can game, watch TV and do your term papers on the PC. I doubt you can do all 3 on the PS3 or the 360.

OK. College freshman need a TV. I'm not knocking anyone, but I sometimes think some PC players want to spend extra $ and are secretly excited that new game releases will help them rationalize the upgrade of their video card, mouse, monitor, speakers, etc.. just a theory.

In a sense, the PC guys should be excited. Their gaming systems can be upgraded to play cutting edge games that push the envelope in terms of graphics and physics. For those of us on consoles we have to hope that the game companies can throttle back to make their games work on our systems.I certainly remember upgrading graphics cards and adding more RAM to my PC so that I could run games on the highest settings.

 

[TLEF316]

Personally, i don't think its entirely fair to consider the entire cost of a gaming PC as the true cost of PC gaming. IMO, its more fair to base it on the cost of upgrading from a typical PC. (since people use PC's for other stuff as well). In this same vein, I don't include the cost of a TV as part of the cost of console gaming (as almost everyone has an HD Tv now a days)

An average desktop computer (just looking at newegg for a quick reference. you could obviously get a bargain deal or a sale for less, but I'm just trying to keep it simple) costs somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 or 7 hundred dollars. (including a mediocre monitor). You could probably build a high end gaming PC for 500 or so more. (maybe a little less or more depending on current sales and what kind of monitor you get).

Now, obviously, if you're starting from scratch and buying all kinds of high end accessories (top of the line input devices and monitor) but I'm just ball parking it.

So i really don't think the cost is that different when you break it all down.

 

[Nick Vermeil]

Nah. Pretty sure any girl that saw that would turn around and walk out the door. It's hard enough explaining 2 monitors (one of which is 27 inches) and a case that looks like a spaceship.

"This is my command center baby... for love!"

 

[ODoyleRules]

They were comparing the cost of buying a gaming pc to play games as opposed to everything needed to get a console like the 360 or the PS3 all together so you can game.

So assuming that you were starting from zero to game on a pc or a console. The theory is that it is more expensive to game on a console, if you dont already have a TV to game on.

Ren's cost estimates are accurate. You can cut a few things out, like the wireless adapter, if you connect via ethernet.



If you already have a TV it might be cheaper to go the console route. If you dont then it is more expensive.

I bought a new controller for my PS3 because I wanted one that was a different color from the ones that my sons use.

I bought a new headset because my old one broke. But I use that headset on my 360 and my PS3.

I no longer have a desktop so I'll be getting BF3 for my 360. Simply beause I have more friends on the 360 than the PS3 who will play it.

Who doesn't have a TV, though?

I'll put you down as gaming on a 12 year old SD TV. Otherwise, it's included as part of your cost.

Right, because I would never use my TV for movies or watching shows.

 

[SlaX]

They were comparing the cost of buying a gaming pc to play games as opposed to everything needed to get a console like the 360 or the PS3 all together so you can game.

So assuming that you were starting from zero to game on a pc or a console. The theory is that it is more expensive to game on a console, if you dont already have a TV to game on.

Ren's cost estimates are accurate. You can cut a few things out, like the wireless adapter, if you connect via ethernet.



If you already have a TV it might be cheaper to go the console route. If you dont then it is more expensive.

I bought a new controller for my PS3 because I wanted one that was a different color from the ones that my sons use.

I bought a new headset because my old one broke. But I use that headset on my 360 and my PS3.

I no longer have a desktop so I'll be getting BF3 for my 360. Simply beause I have more friends on the 360 than the PS3 who will play it.

Who doesn't have a TV, though?

I'll put you down as gaming on a 12 year old SD TV. Otherwise, it's included as part of your cost.

Right, because I would never use my TV for movies or watching shows.

That's the criteria of the article. You need a display. I didn't write it. A PC can be used for different things too. My gaming PC is also my work PC, I also use it as a TV, DVR, editing video and music, programming, and of course, web browsing. It's silly to assume that gaming PCs are used only for gaming in the same way it's silly to assume your TV is only used for gaming. But it's always classified as such. That's why the article was written with that criteria in mind.

 

[ODoyleRules]

They were comparing the cost of buying a gaming pc to play games as opposed to everything needed to get a console like the 360 or the PS3 all together so you can game.

So assuming that you were starting from zero to game on a pc or a console. The theory is that it is more expensive to game on a console, if you dont already have a TV to game on.

Ren's cost estimates are accurate. You can cut a few things out, like the wireless adapter, if you connect via ethernet.



If you already have a TV it might be cheaper to go the console route. If you dont then it is more expensive.

I bought a new controller for my PS3 because I wanted one that was a different color from the ones that my sons use.

I bought a new headset because my old one broke. But I use that headset on my 360 and my PS3.

I no longer have a desktop so I'll be getting BF3 for my 360. Simply beause I have more friends on the 360 than the PS3 who will play it.

Who doesn't have a TV, though?

I'll put you down as gaming on a 12 year old SD TV. Otherwise, it's included as part of your cost.

Right, because I would never use my TV for movies or watching shows.

That's the criteria of the article. You need a display. I didn't write it. A PC can be used for different things too. My gaming PC is also my work PC, I also use it as a TV, DVR, editing video and music, programming, and of course, web browsing. It's silly to assume that gaming PCs are used only for gaming in the same way it's silly to assume your TV is only used for gaming. But it's always classified as such. That's why the article was written with that criteria in mind.

OK. Whatever. I really don't care. I was just surprised someone had lots of accessory costs for their console as I've really had none. They probably play more than me and it doesn't bother me.

 

[SlaX]

Battlefield steaming footage starting on Gametrailers now.

link fixed

 

[SlaX]

They were comparing the cost of buying a gaming pc to play games as opposed to everything needed to get a console like the 360 or the PS3 all together so you can game.

So assuming that you were starting from zero to game on a pc or a console. The theory is that it is more expensive to game on a console, if you dont already have a TV to game on.

Ren's cost estimates are accurate. You can cut a few things out, like the wireless adapter, if you connect via ethernet.



If you already have a TV it might be cheaper to go the console route. If you dont then it is more expensive.

I bought a new controller for my PS3 because I wanted one that was a different color from the ones that my sons use.

I bought a new headset because my old one broke. But I use that headset on my 360 and my PS3.

I no longer have a desktop so I'll be getting BF3 for my 360. Simply beause I have more friends on the 360 than the PS3 who will play it.

Who doesn't have a TV, though?

I'll put you down as gaming on a 12 year old SD TV. Otherwise, it's included as part of your cost.

Right, because I would never use my TV for movies or watching shows.

That's the criteria of the article. You need a display. I didn't write it. A PC can be used for different things too. My gaming PC is also my work PC, I also use it as a TV, DVR, editing video and music, programming, and of course, web browsing. It's silly to assume that gaming PCs are used only for gaming in the same way it's silly to assume your TV is only used for gaming. But it's always classified as such. That's why the article was written with that criteria in mind.

OK. Whatever. I really don't care. I was just surprised someone had lots of accessory costs for their console as I've really had none. They probably play more than me and it doesn't bother me.

It's ok. I don't have a lot of those accessories either. I've thought about buying a good gaming headset for my 360, but I still haven't. The accessories and things he mentioned in his listing weren't factored in in the article. It's been about a month since I saw the article. With E3, it's hard to find it. It was an interesting read, though. I'll post it if I ever do find it again.

 

[TLEF316]

Forgot to set up my computer to record the game trailers stream.

Hopefully we get lots of mp info today (so we can't stop speculating on squad and class setup)

 

[SlaX]

Battlefield steaming footage starting on Gametrailers now.

link fixed

That's it? ####. If you missed it, you didn't miss anything. No new footage was shown. Just talked to a guy from Dice. It was supposed to be a streaming multiplayer demo. Disappointed. :(

 

[madshot31]

.

 

[ODoyleRules]

New (to me) info on multiplayer:

IGN article

Battlefield 3 is developer DICE's eighth game in the franchise. With over a decade of experience in the multiplayer shooter space, Battlefield 3 represents its attempt to make their biggest, most inclusive shooter yet. Accessibility is a huge mandate for the studio (with the team focusing on making a game that appeals to both team players, lone wolves, console owners and the hardcore PC audience), but above all else, fun is king. From listening to the community, to examining the failings of their previous games, to making a title that takes full advantage of their new engine, Battlefield 3's multiplayer is a work in progress. Unpolished as it is, though, it's already a hell of a lot of fun.

The new, cheesy-sounding philosophy DICE is taking with Battlefield 3 is "Play it Your Way." While hollow PR babble on the surface, in practice it reflects their desire to make Battlefield as universally appealing to shooter fans as possible. To this end the levels will be varied, from giant stages full of jets and armored vehicles, to the more funneled stages like the Paris one I got to play. While there were armored personnel carriers in the level, it was largely a corridor stage, focusing first and foremost on player's gun skills as opposed to a cooperative effort of vehicles and soldiers. It may have started in an open park (which itself still felt relatively small since players were fenced in by walls and rivers), but within moments the level was small, 50 ft wide corridors and cramped hallways. The hope appears to be to create an experience that'll give the hardcore, long-time fans what they desire in a battlefield experience, but also to have stages that appeal to the more arena-style fans that play games like Call of Duty. Don't go abandoning hope and lamenting the end of the franchise, though, as I'm assured many of the levels we've yet to see will bring back the epic-sized conflicts the franchise is known for.

Classes have also been redesigned in Battlefield 3, giving players new ways to customize their load outs to suit their play style. Riflemen now double as medics, healing players and reviving those who are downed. The Support class is now equipped with a light machinegun and ammo packs, the sniper is a long-range and demolitions expert, and the Engineer is the master of destroying and repairing vehicles. With weapon attachments players can adapt the classes to how they want to play, with Riflemen choosing things like underslung grenade launchers in place of advanced medical equipment, for instance.

The Support class was super important in Battlefield: Bad Company 2 because it could heal, but they're given a new role in Battlefield 3:suppression. Shooting in an enemy's general direction is important in real combat, giving your own team a chance to move and gain position while the enemies are frightened into running for cover. Battlefield 3 takes this into account, and anyone firing a hail of lead near foes – something the Support class is especially good at, much more so with a fancy bi-pod attachment – will suppress the enemy. This not only garners points for the shooter, but dims and shakes the screen of those affected. Shooting to kill is an important role, but shooting to provide actual supporting fire is now emphasized as well.

Vehicles have also been tweaked in Battlefield 3, in hopes of making them more fun for both the operator and passengers. Vehicles regenerate small amounts of health when damaged, but in order to heal to full will need the assistance of an Engineer. Vehicles can also be immobilized right before destruction, forcing an Engineer to intervene to save it, and giving the passengers a chance to bail out. The hope is that this will alleviate a lot of the rage that comes from a team jumping into a humvee, only to be destroyed by one well placed rocket. Yes, the rocket might kill the person it blows up right next to, but the whole squad won't be punished for one crazy driver, or feel like vehicles are death traps.

Two tweaks that stood out during the time I played, and really show DICE's commitment to making the experience better and better, were the inclusion of prone and the ability to opt out of revive. Prone could be dangerous to the balance, as it makes players incredibly hard to discern at a distance, but to balance this DICE is finding new ways to make the cost match the benefits. You might be harder to see, but your lens will flash if a player looks at it, and getting up and laying down takes time that will cost you if someone is close. Revive was also something that players liked in Battlefield: Bad Company 2, but it was annoying when someone would revive you for points, only to do so when you were going to stand up right in an enemy's fire. Now you can opt out of a revive, looking to see how safe it is before you make a decision about whether a respawn at a different location would be more effective. It's a small change, and one of those head-slap inducing choices that seem obvious, but a testament to the time, experience and passion DICE has for making Battlefield 3 as fun and balanced as possible.

My playtime was entirely too short, but Battlefield 3 is following a proven formula that's been created by, refined and tweaked by one of the best first-person shooter developers in the world. If the single-player manages to live up to expectations, and the multiplayer keeps getting even better, it might not be long before there's a new king of modern warfare.

 

[Mad Cow]

New (to me) info on multiplayer:

IGN article

Battlefield 3 is developer DICE's eighth game in the franchise. With over a decade of experience in the multiplayer shooter space, Battlefield 3 represents its attempt to make their biggest, most inclusive shooter yet. Accessibility is a huge mandate for the studio (with the team focusing on making a game that appeals to both team players, lone wolves, console owners and the hardcore PC audience), but above all else, fun is king. From listening to the community, to examining the failings of their previous games, to making a title that takes full advantage of their new engine, Battlefield 3's multiplayer is a work in progress. Unpolished as it is, though, it's already a hell of a lot of fun.

The new, cheesy-sounding philosophy DICE is taking with Battlefield 3 is "Play it Your Way." While hollow PR babble on the surface, in practice it reflects their desire to make Battlefield as universally appealing to shooter fans as possible. To this end the levels will be varied, from giant stages full of jets and armored vehicles, to the more funneled stages like the Paris one I got to play. While there were armored personnel carriers in the level, it was largely a corridor stage, focusing first and foremost on player's gun skills as opposed to a cooperative effort of vehicles and soldiers. It may have started in an open park (which itself still felt relatively small since players were fenced in by walls and rivers), but within moments the level was small, 50 ft wide corridors and cramped hallways. The hope appears to be to create an experience that'll give the hardcore, long-time fans what they desire in a battlefield experience, but also to have stages that appeal to the more arena-style fans that play games like Call of Duty. Don't go abandoning hope and lamenting the end of the franchise, though, as I'm assured many of the levels we've yet to see will bring back the epic-sized conflicts the franchise is known for.

Classes have also been redesigned in Battlefield 3, giving players new ways to customize their load outs to suit their play style. Riflemen now double as medics, healing players and reviving those who are downed. The Support class is now equipped with a light machinegun and ammo packs, the sniper is a long-range and demolitions expert, and the Engineer is the master of destroying and repairing vehicles. With weapon attachments players can adapt the classes to how they want to play, with Riflemen choosing things like underslung grenade launchers in place of advanced medical equipment, for instance.

The Support class was super important in Battlefield: Bad Company 2 because it could heal, but they're given a new role in Battlefield 3:suppression. Shooting in an enemy's general direction is important in real combat, giving your own team a chance to move and gain position while the enemies are frightened into running for cover. Battlefield 3 takes this into account, and anyone firing a hail of lead near foes – something the Support class is especially good at, much more so with a fancy bi-pod attachment – will suppress the enemy. This not only garners points for the shooter, but dims and shakes the screen of those affected. Shooting to kill is an important role, but shooting to provide actual supporting fire is now emphasized as well.

Vehicles have also been tweaked in Battlefield 3, in hopes of making them more fun for both the operator and passengers. Vehicles regenerate small amounts of health when damaged, but in order to heal to full will need the assistance of an Engineer. Vehicles can also be immobilized right before destruction, forcing an Engineer to intervene to save it, and giving the passengers a chance to bail out. The hope is that this will alleviate a lot of the rage that comes from a team jumping into a humvee, only to be destroyed by one well placed rocket. Yes, the rocket might kill the person it blows up right next to, but the whole squad won't be punished for one crazy driver, or feel like vehicles are death traps.

Two tweaks that stood out during the time I played, and really show DICE's commitment to making the experience better and better, were the inclusion of prone and the ability to opt out of revive. Prone could be dangerous to the balance, as it makes players incredibly hard to discern at a distance, but to balance this DICE is finding new ways to make the cost match the benefits. You might be harder to see, but your lens will flash if a player looks at it, and getting up and laying down takes time that will cost you if someone is close. Revive was also something that players liked in Battlefield: Bad Company 2, but it was annoying when someone would revive you for points, only to do so when you were going to stand up right in an enemy's fire. Now you can opt out of a revive, looking to see how safe it is before you make a decision about whether a respawn at a different location would be more effective. It's a small change, and one of those head-slap inducing choices that seem obvious, but a testament to the time, experience and passion DICE has for making Battlefield 3 as fun and balanced as possible.

My playtime was entirely too short, but Battlefield 3 is following a proven formula that's been created by, refined and tweaked by one of the best first-person shooter developers in the world. If the single-player manages to live up to expectations, and the multiplayer keeps getting even better, it might not be long before there's a new king of modern warfare.

Very interesting. Thanks

 

[ren hoek]

Good article.

 

[TLEF316]

Vehicles automatically regenerating health? oof

Allowing players to bail out of a vehicle right when its about to blow up? Double oof.

Its bad enough that people can instantly bail out of tanks and choppers, but now we can't even instantly blow up humvees? That sucks.

I like the class changes though. LMG medics were lame.

One thing I hope they change is automatically giving the snipers ghille suits. It just encourages bush wookieing.

I still bf2142 had the best class system

 

[SlaX]

From Battlefield Twitter account:

Our Live @Battlefield 3 Ustream event begins at 1:15pm PDT/4:15pm EDT @ http://t.co/qlCFBke

I won't be able to catch it.

 

[JbizzleMan]

I like the part about the suppressing fire. VERY COOL!

 

[Mad Cow]

I like the part about the suppressing fire. VERY COOL!

Agreed

 

[TLEF316]

Why would they need to make the game more accessible?

What was inaccessible about past bf games? (Other than maybe flying jets and choppers)

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

EA dude said that the footage shown yesterday was from both the PC and console versions all in one. That should be good news I guess since no one noticed.

 

[madshot31]

Why would they need to make the game more accessible?

What was inaccessible about past bf games? (Other than maybe flying jets and choppers)

Speaking from the 360 perspective here. People have issues with the knife, but that's only because they were used to the COD instant lung knife kill. I really like the Battlefield knife and believe it is fair and effective at the same time, others don't. Many people on the consoles have issues with the tanks. I am fairly good with them and have been since launch and never played a Battlefield game before, but there are other FBGs (Barley/Manback) that have logged a good amount of time in BC2, and just won't drive the tanks. For me, being good with the vehicles is more about situational awareness and defensive/support priority then straight invincible offensive power, which the COD kids hate and in turn, ##### about.

 

[TLEF316]

EA dude said that the footage shown yesterday was from both the PC and console versions all in one. That should be good news I guess since no one noticed.

Well,its kinda hard to tell when all you're seeing is 2 seconss of footage at a time.But going back and looking at, I think I can tell which clips are which

 

[TLEF316]

Honestly, I think the tanks are perfect (other than the fact that you repair too quickly)

There has to be some sort of learning curve. I'm going to be pretty pissed if anyone can just jump in a tank and go 20-0.

Can't be worse than bf2 though. For those who didn't play, engys driving a vehicle would automatically repair vehicles next to them. So 2 engys in tanks could lay waste to an entire team while constantly repairing as long as they stayed next to eachother