Battlefield 3 to be revealed

mozattack

I cant wait for this game but two/three things casting doubt:

(1) The pics and footage are obviously from a high end PC - i'd like to see what the PS3 version will look like

(2) Multiplayer - not much said here (don't care about singleplayer). How many maps, is it 32 or 64 for PS3. Is Commander gone? Etc

BlastedGlute

Everything displayed has indeed been from a PC. If you want a benchmark for how the game will look you could probably accurately take bad company as an example(which to me was a pixelated mess, but im a pc gamer so most console games look that way to me)

The multiplayer, I'm pretty sure was confirmed at 24 players a map with slightly reduced size maps to what PC gamers will have.

As said previously I think, this is a PC developed game,albeit one that is being "made available" for consoles, one they probably want to be a workhorse of expansion packs and add ons for the next 5-6 years, like BF2 maybe seeing as thats still got a large core player base. Either way it's about time a new high end PC game was introduced in this vein, COD will keep console players happy though and thats cool! But PC gamers want this for multiplayer action and that 9/10 means that we will all PAY FOR IT. Piracy shouldnt be too much of an issue.

Spear

mozattack wrote: »

I cant wait for this game but two/three things casting doubt:

(1) The pics and footage are obviously from a high end PC - i'd like to see what the PS3 version will look like

(2) Multiplayer - not much said here (don't care about singleplayer). How many maps, is it 32 or 64 for PS3. Is Commander gone? Etc

PS3/Xbox edition have cut down graphics, resolution, shadows are reduced. No way to know how different it looks until there's video/screenshots available.

It's 24 players on consoles, 64 is for PC's.

Commander is gone. No news yet if there's any kind of replacement mechanic.

mozattack

BlastedGlute wrote: »

Everything displayed has indeed been from a PC. If you want a benchmark for how the game will look you could probably accurately take bad company as an example(which to me was a pixelated mess, but im a pc gamer so most console games look that way to me)

The multiplayer, I'm pretty sure was confirmed at 24 players a map with slightly reduced size maps to what PC gamers will have.

As said previously I think, this is a PC developed game,albeit one that is being "made available" for consoles, one they probably want to be a workhorse of expansion packs and add ons for the next 5-6 years, like BF2 maybe seeing as thats still got a large core player base. Either way it's about time a new high end PC game was introduced in this vein, COD will keep console players happy though and thats cool! But PC gamers want this for multiplayer action and that 9/10 means that we will all PAY FOR IT. Piracy shouldnt be too much of an issue.

I knew i couldn't ask that question without expecting some PC snobbery.

I seriously doubt Dice are going to neglect PS3 and Xbox players and focus on the PC market. They are running a business, not a hobby shop, so focusing on one of the three markets wouldn't make sense.

Granted PC will have better graphics and more players online but I fear there is a lot of window dressing here. I'd like to know the facts about multiplayer (maps, game modes etc) not how many pixels are in this game versus Ps3 BFBC2 etc.

cherryghost

Battlefield 2 has sold almost 4 million copies excluding digital copies since release. (3.7 was the last quoted figure 2 years ago from EA, so I'll assume 4 million in this case)

The Battlefield series on PC has sold almost 12 million copies in its entirety that being the case, they announced 6 million sold upon release of Battlefield 2 (not Bad Company 2, just 2).

Bad Company 1 struggled beyond 1 million sales since its launch, Bad Company 2 has roughly doubled that, both console figures of course.

Bad Company 2 was neglected a little on PC and it still managed to sell 700,000 excluding digital copies. You can bet your arse the figures hover around the console sales when everything is tallied up.

So for DICE to focus on the PC platform as a priority and then consoles as secondary is a great marketing strategy. To port to the 360 is simple too after PC coded as the 360 uses similar coding. The PS3 is the company's weak platform, as it sold about 20% less copies than the other platforms. Console owners will lap up the game either way, and marketing the game towards PC gamers will only result in very high sales all round.

Raze_them_all

cherryghost wrote: »

Battlefield 2 has sold almost 4 million copies excluding digital copies since release. (3.7 was the last quoted figure 2 years ago from EA, so I'll assume 4 million in this case)

The Battlefield series on PC has sold almost 12 million copies in its entirety that being the case, they announced 6 million sold upon release of Battlefield 2 (not Bad Company 2, just 2).

Bad Company 1 struggled beyond 1 million sales since its launch, Bad Company 2 has roughly doubled that, both console figures of course.

Bad Company 2 was neglected a little on PC and it still managed to sell 700,000 excluding digital copies. You can bet your arse the figures hover around the console sales when everything is tallied up.

So for DICE to focus on the PC platform as a priority and then consoles as secondary is a great marketing strategy. To port to the 360 is simple too after PC coded as the 360 uses similar coding. The PS3 is the company's weak platform, as it sold about 20% less copies than the other platforms. Console owners will lap up the game either way, and marketing the game towards PC gamers will only result in very high sales all round.

Ah but cod is the juggernaut on the consoles which Dice seem to be trying to take down now. The advertising campeign is underway probably earlier than any other game they'v released

cherryghost

DICE have won that already on PC. For console you can guarantee that the BF3 sales will be higher because of the high praise BC2 already got, the only way is up.

For COD most CODheads already know that the series is fleeting, and Modern Warfare 3 may be the final nail in the coffin unless the devs pull a massive trick out of the bag. DICE would be looking at sales in the big run over all platforms. It's not like they're going to neglect the console platform, I'm sure it'll still be a great game on the console. But focusing on the PC platform as well the consoles will only bolster their sales.

If I were a betting man, I'd say the BF3 sales will match the MW3 sales on consoles, but the PC sales will push DICE over the winning line.

Jaafa

cherryghost wrote: »

DICE have won that already on PC. For console you can guarantee that the BF3 sales will be higher because of the high praise BC2 already got, the only way is up.

For COD most CODheads already know that the series is fleeting, and Modern Warfare 3 may be the final nail in the coffin unless the devs pull a massive trick out of the bag. DICE would be looking at sales in the big run over all platforms. It's not like they're going to neglect the console platform, I'm sure it'll still be a great game on the console. But focusing on the PC platform as well the consoles will only bolster their sales.

If I were a betting man, I'd say the BF3 sales will match the MW3 sales on consoles, but the PC sales will push DICE over the winning line.

No way MW3 will still out sell BF3 on consoles on pure fanboyism.

Bad company 2 sold 6 million copies to date on all platforms.
MW2 sold 4.7 million copies in its first day, 20 million to date.

For sure BF3 will start to catch up but theres a long way to go yet.

mozattack

What are the sales figures for BFBC2 on the PS3 out of interest?

I see that pre-orders are up 700% on the last game... encouraging.

Anyway does it matter, as long as there are 23 other players online I am happy (seriously though, doesn't matter if its 1 million or 6 million!)

shootermacg

Spear wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN62PAKoBfE

If only there was a forum where we showed people how to do this kind of thing properly....

Do what the Macarena? where's the like button lmfao!

KeithAFC

The battlefield games are better than the COD games. I used to enjoy the COD games. When the focus went into the single player from the old COD games about WW2, it was great then.

Battlefield online is much better than COD online.

shootermacg

The old BF vs CoD raises it's ugly head again, who are we to say that someone who prefers CoD is wrong, it's all a matter of taste.
CoD is very well presented and some people just prefer that, likewise some people don't really like team play or big maps. To each his own.

BlastedGlute

I think the debate is more about advancing a series. Breaking new ground and evolving a product. Instead the CoD developers have decided that what they have since COD4 is a winning formula not to be changed. This really couldnt be further from the truth. They want people to pay top dollar for map packs and standalone titles, promising new and exciting things. But honestly it's polishing turds at this stage. Surely team play is one of the key draws to online gaming? I reckon I could pit 80% of the player base against bots and they'd play the same way and wouldn't notice. There's no thought to CoD online until it comes down to 1v1 type play, it's like Quake with no skill requirement. If people want military games to be military simulation and not action movie blockbuster stylizing, then they need to accept that team play, big maps, battle plans, that's the way forward. I doubt you'll see any maps like nuketown etc. The new features in black ops could go and in my case did go largely un-noticed and irrelevant. The contract system was silly and pointless and I didn't bother with it, the clan stuff was cute but basic and most of the weapons felt cruddy, not to mention the amount of red dot tech that was way off continuity with the proposed time frame. The story line was *yawn*, really there was nothing gritty about it at all, and I know MW is going the same way, so much focus on the multiplayer and nothing new and unique is actually happening there.

Raze_them_all

BlastedGlute wrote: »

I think the debate is more about advancing a series. Breaking new ground and evolving a product. Instead the CoD developers have decided that what they have since COD4 is a winning formula not to be changed. This really couldnt be further from the truth. They want people to pay top dollar for map packs and standalone titles, promising new and exciting things. But honestly it's polishing turds at this stage. Surely team play is one of the key draws to online gaming? I reckon I could pit 80% of the player base against bots and they'd play the same way and wouldn't notice. There's no thought to CoD online until it comes down to 1v1 type play, it's like Quake with no skill requirement. If people want military games to be military simulation and not action movie blockbuster stylizing, then they need to accept that team play, big maps, battle plans, that's the way forward. I doubt you'll see any maps like nuketown etc. The new features in black ops could go and in my case did go largely un-noticed and irrelevant. The contract system was silly and pointless and I didn't bother with it, the clan stuff was cute but basic and most of the weapons felt cruddy, not to mention the amount of red dot tech that was way off continuity with the proposed time frame. The story line was *yawn*, really there was nothing gritty about it at all, and I know MW is going the same way, so much focus on the multiplayer and nothing new and unique is actually happening there.

Also seriously the hit boxes in cod are a joke. The amount of final kill cams where crosshairs aren't even on people

BlastedGlute

yeah I've had it with hit boxes in cod, its deeply frustrating. I'm a counter strike fan though I still reckon it's about as accurate as any hit box system has been to date.

shootermacg

I don't know guys people like CoD for a reason, it obviously ticks some boxes for them. You can't make people like what you like so why bother.

As for as advances are concerned, being able to download your entire game and spec it from any player, that is such an advance words fail me.

Lets talk BF improvements then shall we? They added destructable environment (sweet), they removed the commander (unforgivable), pretty much everything else is a lick of paint or a physics/speed update. Don't get me wrong I'm not complaining at all, it's pretty perfect anyway in my book.
I actually thought the choppers were better in BF2 than BC2.

All I'm saying is there is no accounting for taste so why even bother trying? I'm sure there are guys who like nothing better than driving a remote controlled car into a room and killing 5 guys.
Some people like it gritty and some people are a bit more Hollywood.

Joeface

I'm a COD fan , and they murdered the series with the last 2 releases.
very poor games , no life span . For me COD4 was the best fps game in years.
mw2 and black ops were over arcade'y , serverless games with crap pings full of gimmicks instead of game play.
After seeing the BF3 trailers , I can't wait , I like the team play and map scale in all the BF series , my only fear is i have to spend 40+ on the game and 500 euro on my system to play it.

this should put dice over the top................see ye on the frontlines more than likely in corpse form

merc.ie

shootermacg wrote: »

I actually thought the choppers were better in BF2 than BC2.

Yeah, the choppers in BF2 controlled so much better then the auto hovering crap in BC2. The TV missile was way overpowered though, far too maneuverable and thus didn't need line of sight at launch to hit stuff. Could easily loop it over and under obstacles, through doors into buildings, even after passing jets at obscene angles.

Kiith

We better see some multiplayer footage at E3.

mozattack

I never played COD so I dont know and never bothered checking it out cos BC2 is in my PS3 constantly since Nov' 2010. Best game of all time.

I'd love to see the limit on Rank disappear, like 51, 52, 53 etc. I'd want them at massive intervals but I dont see why your limited to 50 (I am rank 35 by the way, not a rank 50)

I know BC2 is a team game and they shouldn't really move from that but I'd love to be able to play squad deathmatch with fewer than 8 in a private match... 2 v 2 for example.

BlastedGlute

Hum mm. I think players who've only played the BC series will be surprised at how different bf3 might feel and play. Although who knows what it's going to be like. I don't anticipate seeing much console footage at e3. And I don't care because my pc is ready for it anyway! i love how pc gaming is kind of on the outside these days, it's not as popular as it used to be. Even apple are kind of more popular than pc's in a lot of ways. Ah well, their loss.

InTheTrees

I wont be at E3 but I'm going to siggraph in vancouver in august so I'm really hoping for some indepth details.

mozattack

BlastedGlute wrote: »

Hum mm. I think players who've only played the BC series will be surprised at how different bf3 might feel and play. Although who knows what it's going to be like. I don't anticipate seeing much console footage at e3. And I don't care because my pc is ready for it anyway! i love how pc gaming is kind of on the outside these days, it's not as popular as it used to be. Even apple are kind of more popular than pc's in a lot of ways. Ah well, their loss.

How is BF2 mainly different to BC2 - out of interest? (never played any BF/BC other than BC2

Dublin_Gunner

mozattack wrote: »

How is BF2 mainly different to BC2 - out of interest? (never played any BF/BC other than BC2

Its a slower overall gameplay style, with mroe emphasis on squad level tactics and teamwork.

BC2 in comparison is a run and gun shooter.

You could literally sit on an anti-air gun for an entire round in BF2. There are so many avenues of attack, play styles, defensive options etc

Best thing to do would be to play BF2 for a month or so, and then you'll know how different they are.

shootermacg

The old bf games were sweet, when you add the destructible scenery and remove the commander (They really should have tried to include it on the consoles, it wouldn't be impossible) , the lines between BC and BF start to blur.

Kiith

Destructable scenery is probably the biggest improvement in FPS's in years. It adds to the game massively. Give me BF2, with destructable terrain, and i'll be bloody happy.

the_syco

Kiith wrote: »

Destructable scenery is probably the biggest improvement in FPS's in years. It adds to the game massively. Give me BF2, with destructable terrain, and i'll be bloody happy.

Agreed. Partly destructible bridges in BF2 Made access hard. Fully destructible bridges would make entrance into some places impossible

I wonder will they bring back those wee huts that allowed you to repair bridges? They were annoying as f**k, but allowed you to take back bridges in some areas.

mozattack

I hear there was no "rush" mode in BF2... no good so surely?

steve_

mozattack wrote: »

I hear there was no "rush" mode in BF2... no good so surely?

haha your a funny guy

merc.ie

BF2 is better without rush mode, the focus was on expansive conquest maps like it should be. Rush mode is a chokepoint spamfest (stinks of COD tbh) and it's disappointing to hear that it's wriggled it's way into BF3. Just my opinion though.