We didn't have a fully dedicated thread to BF3, so I thought I would post up a teeny thread for it.

So far, we know that it's gonna be a modern setting like BF2 and the Bad Companies.

The new engine is a redesigned Frostbite engine. So far, from EVERYTHING I've seen, it's slick as can be.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pNOxynC1Dc[/youtube]

As you can see, the tech that's being used is pretty intense looking. The animation software being used was derived from EA Sports' FIFA series called ANT. It's more of a procedural animation engine from what I gather. In short, it makes body movements look very natural and smooth. The destruction engine has had a revamp again. This time, it looks like they want facade destruction, which you can see in some of the gameplay vids of the multiplayer. It basically reminds me of blowing up the walls in the Bad Companies, but with the added bit of watching massive pieces of plaster fall to the ground realistically.

The idea that DICE is using this time around is to push the graphical boundaries on the PC, and then have a version (not a port) for the consoles that utilizes the maximum of the hardware for those systems. I know a lot of people have been upset in the past that DICE announced the PC was the lead platform this time around, but the PC has been the lion's share of Battlefield sales. Just look at how quickly the BC2: Vietnam unlock campaign went between the PC and the consoles: Operation Hastings Unlock Campaign.

Nothing has been said about the gunplay yet. In the past DICE has tried to use bullet deviation algorithms to fine tune shot placement, which does make it better to emphasize short burst rather than spray and pray tactics, but nothing has been said about it's version in this game. I do know that at E3 this year, people were talking about how fun the gunplay was. My only hope is that the issue I have had in EVERY FPS to date is alleviated somewhat. I'm tired of emptying an entire magazine's worth of rounds into someone at point blank, only to be 2 shot by them.

Classes so far have been returned to their 2142 versions. We have an assault medic, a support gunner, a recon, and an engineer. The recon and engineer seem to be the same tried and true versions of their past incarnations with the addition of breath holding for recon sniping, and flashlight blinding for engineers. Assault medic sounds almost identical to the 2142 assault medic; an assault rifle, medkit, and defib paddles. The support gunner seems to have had the most overhaul. Now that prone is back, the gunner can bipod up his LMG for added accuracy, and he can lay down suppressing fire. If you're suppressing an enemy, the other player will have blurred vision from what I gather, and if he's killed while under suppression, the support gunner will get suppression assist points, much like a kill assist.

All in all, I'm excited. VERY excited. I've always been a huge Battlefield fan, and this game is what Bad Company should have been.

Now for some videos:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP0Ij1_V ... ure=relmfu[/youtube]
First Teaser Trailer

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPu7-LtL ... ure=relmfu[/youtube]
Operation Metro

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UwOrl036_A[/youtube]
Thunder Run Singleplayer E3 Demonstration

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfrrAp1b ... ure=relmfu[/youtube]
Singleplayer Trailer

BTW, I don't want this turning into a CoD vs Battlefield thread. That topic has been beaten enough, and in the end, both games offer vastly different experiences for the players.

If this game can recapture the dirt-simple and nearly limitless FUN that BF:1942 had, then I'm in. I have been sorely disappointed with every single subsequent iteration of the game, though. Buggy, restrictive piles of shiat, all of them.

I have high expectations for this game. As a CoD fan, I honestly want it to destroy MW3, only because the CoD series is starting to go the way of Guitar Hero. The enitre FPS genre is getting old and repetitive. I would love to see Activision/IW sit back, take a good two years off from churning out CoD/MW titles, and really develop something innovative. Take FPS's to a whole new level, if it's even possible. Meanwhile, EA had better step up and show some amazing support for this game. Maps, game modes, weapons, vehicles, the works. The graphics and visuals so far look insane. Back it up with good support, and I won't play a CoD game until something even better comes out.

This game really could be the perfect military FPS.
Also, it's nice to see fire suppression...Red Orchestra has it and it's a b**** to return fire while being shot at.

I'm curious to see what the online experience will be like. This game is gorgeous! I mean the graphics are truly beautiful. I'm not a huge fan of the class based system, but maybe this one can change my opinion of this type of game.

im am so stoked for this game, i loved bad company 2 and this only seems better

I absolutely love that you can finally go prone, much to the dismay of every other hardcore Battlefield . How are you supposed to realistically snipe a dude from a crouch position. I understand it will lead to camping, but really that what snipers do, they camp... for days, just for 1 shot.

Just fyi, prone was only removed in bad company 2. Every other Battlefield has had it. The decision to remove it from bc2 was a gameplay reason. In testing, people lying prone slowed the game to a crawl, and i believe graphically on the consoles, it was difficult to spot prone players

In the console versions of both Bad Companies, BF 1943, and Battlefield 2: Modern Combat, you can't go prone. At least not on the Xbox 360 versions.

Prone was removed from bc1&2 like i said. 1943 was a console only game, so no surprise it was still missing, and don't compare the port of bf2. That was done back in the day and was one of the worst ports of all time

I don't play PC games, I'm strictly an Xbox guy, so for them to have Prone in a BF game for the consoles is a major deal for us console guys. And Since it drops the same time as the new COD iteration, we won't have to worry about the campers from COD until most of us have ranked up enough make their time in the BF3 MP maps a living nightmare.

New multiplayer trailer posted up

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB9jU5wV ... r_embedded[/youtube]

Also, check out some leaked alpha testing footage here

My buddies and I have been trying to figure out when our next LAN party will be. This game will be a catalyst for that decision.

wow...okay you know, screw the debate MW3 or Battlefield 3. I'm just going to get both

This game looks really good and I bet it plays just as well. I've heard they've changed up some of the way that the multiplayer works to make options available for every type of gamer. The deciding factor for me, those graphics look killer!!

Chaotic_Warlord wrote:I don't play PC games, I'm strictly an Xbox guy...

Then BF3 should be played before being purchased. The console version will be a graphically washed down version of what you are seeing in the trailers running at 30fps. The difference between the PC and console version will be huge. If you are interested in the game because of how awesome it looks I would reconsider. Just a thought.

Actually, they had a demo of it running in the Microsoft/Xbox briefing @ E3 and it looked just as solid and ran at the same FPS as the PC version. That 12 minute long gameplay footage that's all over Youtube is actual game play on the 360. As far as the PC being graphically superior, that's not as true anymore, especially considering that the price for a dedicated gaming rig is more out of most peoples price ranges and developers know this. While a dedicated rig can run you into the thousands, a console is a couple hundred, which is more accessible.

Link me this vid you are talking about. The only super long gameplay demo I can remember of was the unedited Fault Line, and DICE was running that on the PC. If you watch the demo when it's broken down into it's 3 parts, you can see the control prompts are for PC (ie, repeatedly press S to drag the fallen squad mate during the parking lot ambush, mouse clicks for QTE during the fist fight in the basement, etc). As far as I know, DICE has yet to have released any official footage from the console versions. Jimmy Fallon played a bit of the PS3 version on his show, but that's about all I've been able to see that wasn't a PC version.

Chaotic_Warlord wrote:As far as the PC being graphically superior, that's not as true anymore, especially considering that the price for a dedicated gaming rig is more out of most peoples price ranges and developers know this. While a dedicated rig can run you into the thousands, a console is a couple hundred, which is more accessible.

I'm not going to get into the PC versus console debate too heavily as I find the rhetoric to be highly misinformed. When I priced out my rig and built it in November of 2008, I dropped maybe $1500, and I went top of the line for everything. Dual Radeon 4870s with 1GB ram EACH, quad core AMD, terabyte HDD, 1kw PSU. The only thing I skimped on was the RAM. I put in 4GB because I was still running XP at the time, and that OS can't support over 3GB.

I will tell you that the recommended specs for the alpha trial were released. And they're not that bad.

DICE wrote:Windows 7 or Vista (SP1)
EA Origin
CPU: quad core 2.0 GHz or faster
RAM: 4 GB or more
Hard Drive: 7.25 GB free disk space
Video RAM: 512 MB or greater
DirectX 10 or 11 compatible video card with latest drivers (AMD 11.5 or later, nVidia 275.33 or later)
Sound: DirectX 10 or 11 compatible card
Internet: broadband connection

Not that bad. Looking at these specs, most mid range rigs will support this. I could put a rig together that could run this at a very cost effective level. My top of the line rig from nearly 3 years ago can easily run this, and it is now considered below mid range. The only thing I would change on my end would be drop a few extra gigs of ram, and a DX11 vid card.

As for the whole "a good gaming PC costs THOUSANDS of dollars", that quote has been played out. Jim Sterling at Destructiod made that exact comment in an article he wrote, and it quickly was redacted when people started calling him out on it and linked rig setups with prices attached that were very reasonably priced. Now, I know this isn't as much of an issue as it used to be, but the I've known multiple 360 owners who have had multiple 360s due to RRoDs. Sorry, but if once I've heard of people dropping over a grand on 360 hardware to replace old busted hardware, I find the argument of price to be a moot point.

And the devs do know that the console market is still more lucrative than the PC market, but DICE has shown a track record that their PC sales have always been higher. I'll refer to my link in my OP about the Operation Hastings unlock. I unfortunately don't have a sales breakdown between platforms, but the user base numbers should hint towards where their core demographic plays. Also, EA's CEO, John Riccitiello recently was quoted saying "Consoles now only account for 40% of the gaming industry". Now, it's not the PC that's taken back market share, but it's the mobile devices, iDevices, Androids, etc. But given the drop in market share, I can see why EA would let DICE focus a bit more on the PC. EA made the decision to make the Bad Companies a console game first, and we see where that left them.

I know how some people feel about this, because I moaned and complained when Call of Duty became a console-ized game and the PC platform was left in the dust (no dedicated servers, IWnet, no lean, no graphical innovation, etc). But that was Activision making a call to follow the money. EA is making the same call here, and letting DICE develop the game for where they believe it's going to perform better sales-wise. That's just business 101. The important difference here, though, is that DICE is trying to tailor the software for each platform, it just happens to be that the PC version is out in front due to it's lead status for development.

Hijacker wrote:Link me this vid you are talking about. The only super long gameplay demo I can remember of was the unedited Fault Line, and DICE was running that on the PC. If you watch the demo when it's broken down into it's 3 parts, you can see the control prompts are for PC (ie, repeatedly press S to drag the fallen squad mate during the parking lot ambush, mouse clicks for QTE during the fist fight in the basement, etc). As far as I know, DICE has yet to have released any official footage from the console versions. Jimmy Fallon played a bit of the PS3 version on his show, but that's about all I've been able to see that wasn't a PC version.

I can't find the segment of the Microsoft E3 press briefing with the gameplay demo of BF3, but it was a good 10 minute segment where they played through the first mission completely.

Chaotic_Warlord wrote:Actually, they had a demo of it running in the Microsoft/Xbox briefing @ E3 and it looked just as solid and ran at the same FPS as the PC version. That 12 minute long gameplay footage that's all over Youtube is actual game play on the 360. As far as the PC being graphically superior, that's not as true anymore, especially considering that the price for a dedicated gaming rig is more out of most peoples price ranges and developers know this. While a dedicated rig can run you into the thousands, a console is a couple hundred, which is more accessible.

This wasn't my opinion. It was the opinion of professionals in the industry.
Running the same FPS as a console? Console is limited to a peak of 30fps a PC can run as high as it can. I am sure on release people will be running BF3 @ 100+ FPS (on high end machines of course). I can promise you that the footage played on the Xbox might of looked just as good but a side by side comparison would be light years a part. DX11 allows for spectacular visuals that a Xbox can not provide. The PCs capabilities far exceed a console. BF has amazing visuals and to take full advantage of them, it needs a powerful PC.

Destructiod had a nice artcle on how to build a budget PC that can handle BF3. The price will surprise you I think.

I had a chance last week to play in the alpha trial. It was primarily for testing the backend systems for stat updating, battlelog cross referencing, etc. But basically, we got access to 32 player Metro on rush with 4 bases to attack. It was a load of fun. The gunplay seems to be a bit more solid than BC2, although I will say that some of the weapons are way overpowered. I know there was quite a bit of an outcry on the alpha forums to lower the damage overall. That's a balance issue I expect DICE to handle during the beta or before then.

All in all, I had a ton of fun playing it. I won't go into too much detail, but the game feels like a good solid mix of BF2 with the rush mode of BC2. I wish I had a chance to try conquest out, but that wasn't on the table for the alpha.

The major issue I had was with my teams. It seemed that most teams were about racking up kills only and not pushing for the objectives. Granted, there was a slight bug that would randomly shut down a squad's ability to spawn on the squad leader, and I know that had a detrimental effect on assaulting the second base.

After playing the alpha, I have good faith that BF3 will far exceed my expectations.

Like I've said before, if it can just capture the sandboxy, raw FUN that BF1942 had (and has decent maps) I'll be happy. A big plus would be an option to play through all the maps in a campaign mode with bots like BF1942 let you do so you can practice.

Encryptshun wrote:Like I've said before, if it can just capture the sandboxy, raw FUN that BF1942 had (and has decent maps) I'll be happy. A big plus would be an option to play through all the maps in a campaign mode with bots like BF1942 let you do so you can practice.

Like the training mode in COD Black Ops, yeah I get more enjoyment doing that than playing against real people, no campers and no prestige junkies. Seriously, a game against even MGL level AI bots is 10x more fun than a room full of a$$ who just go around stabbing you in the back or spawn camping you.

BF3 on PC requires you to be on Origin to play it.

Well another one bites the dust. Thanks for making that decision for me EA; CoD it is!

OMG
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDDfPxF3EFE[/youtube]

hitbychance wrote:OMG
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDDfPxF3EFE[/youtube]

Wait, so on top of the jeeps, APC's, Tanks, gun emplacements, and helicopters (which are a PITA to fly), we now have fighter jets to worry about. Sweet Baby Jesus, now it's starting to get overly complex. Guess everyone is going to be fighting to get into the fighter jets now instead of the helicopters. I'll just keep my boots on the ground. Wonder if you can snipe a pilot of one of those jets like you can the helicopters.

Jets were in Battlefield 2. They're making a return to the series :P

BTW, DICE went on record saying that they're bringing the coma rose system back. It was a hot topic of debate on the alpha forums. Every third or so post was a petition to bring it back

DICE announced today on twitter the way server browsing will be in BF3. I had a chance to play the tail end of the alpha and have a perspective on how it's being handled. After seeing the knee jerk hatred of it on BF3blog.com, I thought I'd mention it here since there seem to be a few people interested in the game.

There will be no in game server browser like previous battlefield titles. That's the tag line that has people upset. The thing is, you fire up battlelog, and it houses a web based server browser. You can check out everything about BF3 socially without ever having to launch the game. Once you find a server to join, an app within the website will load up the map for you and launch the game. It takes about the same amount of time to load a map in BC2, and I can check other things out while I'm loading.

People seem to be upset because you have to exit the game completely to find a new server in case of rage quits, but given that the amount of time spent exiting, searching, and relaunching the game is equivalent to currently leaving a server, reloading the server browser, and loading the map, I don't see the fuss. I guess you don't get the cool loading music like you have for the past handful of battlefield games?

Another point of contention seems to be people hating on Origin and battlelog. I set Origin to launch when I turn my computer on, and it runs in the background. I could just pull up battlelog in firefox through either a cached link, or a bookmark, search for a server, and launch the game with minimal fuss. I can understand the desire to hate on origin, but I don't really see the issue. Maybe I'm old school, and could care less where my game comes from. yeah, I don't have a steam overlay for this game, but I tend to avoid IMing when I'm getting my battlefield on anyways. And I still had to sign into BC2 to play, so yeah, I get to manually sign onto one less thing now. I had an EA account from years ago when I picked up BF 2142's expansion, Northern Strike. My EA account was upgraded to an Origin account, which is fine by me. Plus I usually made sure my BF veteran status was up to date when a new battlefield game came out.

Tl;dr Origin and Battlelog aren't that bad, and people need to give it a try instead of just brushing it off because they feel like it.

How does this ^ work for the console versions.

Consoles get an in-game server browser.

Pre-order BF3 for $47.99 w/ code EMCYTZT688

http://deals.woot.com/deals/details/d1d ... edition#13