Battlefield 3

BlackSabre wrote:

I just wish they'd release a whole bunch of info/screens/video so I could actually see it. I'm more than likely buying it since I've been loving BC2. But really EA, just give us some solid info on what to expect.

Yeah but I'm a sucker for the Battlefield games so it's a day 1 purchase anyways..still would be nice to get more info asap

Scratched wrote:

I think GDC is when they're going to reveal a load of details.

And when exactly is this "GDC" you speak of?

BlackSabre wrote:
Scratched wrote:

I think GDC is when they're going to reveal a load of details.

And when exactly is this "GDC" you speak of?

March 1 I believe.

It's Feb 28 to March 4 and I can't go

Awesome. So hopefully a bunch of info gets released. Would be nice to see a gameplay video too.

Man, this is killing me.

No computer to run the PC version. Even if I did, no IRL friends to jump on with me.

Console version just by virtue of player count will be drastically cut back.

Curse you, cruel world!

That's it. Time to win Powerball. Buy a new computer and some nerd friends to go with it.

MannishBoy wrote:
Scratched wrote:

I want players to have to chose between CQB and Long Range, there won't be hybrid scopes because it kills that choice

Wonder what that means. Is that no 4x scopes on ARs and SMGs, no 4x's on sniper rifles, or no 4x's in general?

I think I'd prefer just removing the option of 4x scopes on sniper rifles in general than any thing else. That would greatly increase difficulty for many if they want to run and gun with a sniper rifle.

It is curious. I'd be pretty content if they'd just let the player configure the weapon the way he/she wants. Introduce scope sway for sniper rifles, problem solve. MAG does that very nicely.

I get nervous when DICE talks about CQBs, makes me think of some of the horror shows or MoH.

Planet Battlefield has some scans over there. Not too much information about the gameplay unfortunately, it's mostly technical stuff.

I'm still concerned about 64 players on PC, 24 on console - how will you balance the maps for both? Looks impossible and it's already seen in BC2 that 32 players is too much for the way they've segmented the maps. The only way this might work is to not have different parts of the map on PC and give us the whole map with all the objectives while keeping the maps work like in BC2 on consoles.

Slowly working my way for the upgrade, so I will definitely have the PC to run this. Looking forward for even more destruction, even better sound and prone and hopefully more gore.

The way they did it for BF2 was they had 16/32/64 variants of the map, with different amounts of capture points, a smaller area of operations, and different vehicle availability (i.e. no jets in 16/32 variants).

Seeing as they've advertised air and naval power as part of BF3, I don't think consoles will be left unable to get to the airfield/carrier/frigate in the distance, but there will be some other way they'll slim down the maps. I don't think client processing power is the only factor involved, but also the 'control dexterity' (for want of a better term) in how you relay the battlefield situation with more players, and also servers as you can't have the same server infrastructure on consoles as you do on PC. EA would have to run everything on the console side, on PC they can let someone else throw high powered servers at the problem.

edit: One of the features they were planning for BF2 was dynamically scaling servers, so the map would reconfigure itself based on the number of players on a server, and the area of battle would grow/shrink as needed.

If this is the case, then it will be awesome - the best of both worlds for each platform. This should have been in BC2 as well. If what they say is true, this should be a kick-ass game on all platforms.
I do believe that all devs who make games for all platforms should have a lead platform the one that is most technically advanced and then scale back - this way I think all versions will be as good as possible.

liquid wrote:

I do believe that all devs who make games for all platforms should have a lead platform the one that is most technically advanced and then scale back - this way I think all versions will be as good as possible.

It's a shame the current most technically advanced is often the least commercially profitable (for games like this). I suppose the other thing is that you can go off the deep end if you try and make full use of the 'best' platform to the extent that you end up making different games for different platforms, like old ports that would be across PS2/xbox/pc.

I heard somewhere that consoles have a network bandwidth limitation set by MS/Sony that might be the cause for the game to stay 24 player. BF is probably sending a lot of network traffic per player, if you consider all the destructibility data, bullet travel (since it's not hitscan like many other games), vehicles, etc.

I was a convert to Battlefield from the Bad Company angle, so I'll be really interested to see how BF3 compares to those.

liquid wrote:

Looks impossible and it's already seen in BC2 that 32 players is too much for the way they've segmented the maps.

Still biased i see Just because you are doesnt mean thats the way of the world.

Nah, not biased. I actually really like BC2 now, more so than CoDBO but I never pick 32 player servers because you just can't play there on most maps, not to mention there are like 3 decent maps in the game. It's obvious that they were designed for 24 players and were bumped to 32 because PC BF fans were bitching about it.

Yes, good 64 player maps is something I'm not sure I'll believe until I see them.

BF1942 did them well, as did BF2-- why not the next iteration of a franchise based on that premise?

WipEout wrote:

BF1942 did them well, as did BF2-- why not the next iteration of a franchise based on that premise?

They never played BF2 is what it sounds like.

360/PS3. I'm willing to bet that the maps they bring back from BF2 will be the most played/fan fav maps in BF3. And the game will be most fun/balanced there.

I guess I'm a cynical bar steward. As much as they say they're making a PC lead game, and they've still got PC around from the start of battlefield, I know EA needs the money, consoles are where the big bucks are, and something like doing a new version of a map for the least lucrative platform can be a big ask.

I guess I want to believe, there's plenty of developers out there that do good PC development, I just think actions speak louder than words. After Bad Company, which was admittedly a console lead, I'm curious to see what DICE can do. I want them to deliver a great game on PC.

ranalin wrote:
WipEout wrote:

BF1942 did them well, as did BF2-- why not the next iteration of a franchise based on that premise?

They never played BF2 is what it sounds like.

Earlier in this thread, I posted that I preferred BF2 with 32 players then 64 b/c of balance reasons. It just felt like it was designed for 32 players then they bumped the max up to 64 as a selling point. Most of the ground fighting remained within the 32 player boundaries b/c that's where all the structures were.

That being said I imagine they will design BF3 for 64 then adjust down accordingly.

Battlefield 3: DICE has 'learnt lesson' from BC2 DLC mistakes

I find it oddly comforting that someone finally stepped up and said, ya know, we kinda f*ed up with DLC.

For some reason, and even though I knew this, it never clicked with me that this is coming to consoles too. I've always assumed it was going to be PC-only and Bad Company is the console spin-off, and even hearing about "64 on PC, 24 on consoles" etc was just missed by this cognitive blind spot.

Until yesterday. And now I am goddamned excited. Jets!

I haven't played a core BF game since BF1942/BFV. I remember reading previews of BF2, before I ditched my PC for a Mac and an Xbox, describing the ability of a jet to destroy a bridge. That destructibility never panned out for BF2, but it looks like six years later I can pick up right where I left off.

Is anyone still playing BF2? I just looked on Steam and you can get the complete package for $20. That's mighty tempting if it still has an active community.

BF2 was quite active when I checked earlier in the week, and that was probably excluding mods. I'll bet there's plenty of more recent games who would love to have the active players of that nearly 6 year old game.

I've been getting the itch to re-install BF2 lately (actually since CoD:Blops released). Maybe if we got enough GWJers we could get a BF2 night going. I know there was a Thursday Night BF2 thread here a while back, but that quickly turned into BF2142 and now it's something else entirely, I believe.

WipEout wrote:

I've been getting the itch to re-install BF2 lately (actually since CoD:Blops released). Maybe if we got enough GWJers we could get a BF2 night going. I know there was a Thursday Night BF2 thread here a while back, but that quickly turned into BF2142 and now it's something else entirely, I believe.

Bad Company 2, natch.

Stolen from Shacknews, GI, and Neogaf.

-Aiming for CY Q4 2011 release
-Concept for BF3 has been in the works for years, waiting on proper tech to seamlessly come together
-Frosbite 2.0 is the culmination of this tech, entirely re-written
-Lighting sounds neat, one "probe" contains more lighting information than an entire BFBC2 level.
-Level destruction is going to be "believable" but basically everything is destructible.
-Character animations powered by ANT, what EA Sports uses.
-AI characters and multiplayer characters have different animation sets
-No more "gliding" animations that look off, animation realism is a focus
-Captured their own war audios (bullets, tanks, helicopters, etc) at different distances to ensure realism
-Better audio cues for certain actions, more easily able to listen for threats
-Plan on better, more immediate post release content
-More unlocks than BFBC2
-Dice trying to find a good balance between customization of your character and not having "pink rabbit hat(s)"
-4 classes
-Will talk about squads "later"
-Looking into a theater mode but can't talk about it
-Will have co-op
-There will be a kill-cam but it can be turned off
-BF3's team is almost twice as big as the team for BFBC2
-They want the pacing of the single player mode to be balanced, with highs and lows. Makes the comparison to a song vs a guitar solo.
-Part of the single player mode takes place in Sulaymaniyah - Iraqi Kurdistan.
-"f*ck" will be used often, so M rated for sure
-There will be an earthquake in a level. The destruction sounds very impressive. 7 story building collapses, looks very well done
-Significant narrative that goes with the SP mode
-More than one setting, you're not in the middle east for the whole game
-PC version is lead version
-Why 64 players for PC only? No complains from the console crowd.
-No mod tools at release. Maybe none down the line either. Frosbite 2.0 is complex and mods tools would have to be dumbed down, so does Dice really want to put their time to that or would it be better spent elsewhere?
-Original story, not based on Bad Company at all.

Anyone else notice that the background in the promo pics is a city? I'm thinking we'll see some tall buildings that will be fully destructable (mentions 7 stories). Anyone who plays BC2 enough will notice that a lot of the buildings are duplicated throughout the maps. It would be nice to see a little more variety.