I know im going to get dislikes for this but i didnt like the beta and i dont think im going to buy the game the day it comes out now because i didnt like it. i know that it is only a beta but i could barley see other people form distance and i couldn't tell if i was getting hurt and it was to easy to kill people and be killed i just didnt like it at all plus there were no buildings to blow up but maybe i missed them
Look`s poor for what it is, but it is a beta. More interested in GoldenEye reloaded anyways. If you hate 007 give me a thumbs down.:) :) 7
Played both XBOX and PC beta versions. The console version is nowhere near it's desktop sister. Simple choice for me now...
Can't wait! It will eat up my graphics card so i should get about medium but even that will be superb!
@Lotus-Edge No, it wasn't a hardware issue, hence why I gave you a link from a respectable source to demonstrate that. I've played Crysis 2 on both systems on different TVs and both had it. On consoles put the two side by side and it is indeed easy to tell which is graphically superior. No frame rate or online performance issues and no tearing what so ever is the killer.On PC however, Crysis 2 does look better then its console counterparts (DX11). No denying Crysis 2 is still far from a visual slouch on any system. It wasn't "basically the same the whole way through", it had jungles, scenes set in snow, city-scapes, space settings..etc.. it's dark and atmospheric throughout yes but the setting certainly isn't. That said though, it has nothing to do with visual fidelity.
If I didn't know better I would have thought this was a CoD games. It all looks a bit close quartered and gimmicky - not like the BF2 I know and love.
Sounds more like you had a hardware problem. I've played both on a HD and it was great. Just putting screenshots of the two next to each other makes it rather easy to tell... Besides, KZ3's was pretty much the same the whole way through, Crysis 2 at least had variety....
i hate cod but im sorry so far in the xbox 360 beta this game is bad and i loved battlefield bad company 2
@Lotus-Edge You did and I quote word for word "Looks nearly identical to MW3...." referring to BF3. Only time will tell if the final product is visually superior to Crysis or not. Off topic but... At first glance Crysis 2 looks alright on consoles but it was sub-HD, had low-res cinematics (over compression), minimal screen tearing and suffered from a fluctuating frame rate. I've always said Killzone 3 is the most visually impressive console game, it has a superb amount of detail, suffers no tearing, no frame rate fluctuations in game play and little to no pop-ins. This is subjective to opinion though and I thoroughly enjoyed both games nonetheless. I have however found a reputable source to back up my claim and bounce off my experience of both games. http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head-killzone-3-vs-crysis-2-analysis/2/
I've never said the games were identical.... I believe I said before I was just going on the vids available... It may be four years old, but I'd still say it's superior. Though, the beta's not the full thing yet... And it doesn't hold a candle, on consoles, to Crysis 2....
@Lotus-Edge It's hand in hand. Your opinion is that this looks near enough identical to MW3, however for that to be the case, seeing as you won't have seen everything both games have to offer, you've made the assumption that what you haven't seen is identical to one another. You made no statement originally implying you were referring to this video footage alone rather then both games in their entirety. On the basis that the core game play mechanics won't change from beta to full retail release and that the Call Of Duty formula, and engine for that matter have remained unchanged for the past four years, I'd say we all have a pretty good idea of what we're going to get when they release wouldn't you? As for surpassing Crysis graphically, yes, it's highly likely. Running on ultra settings BF3 looks mighty impressive; arguably better then Crysis on max settings. I'm not the only one who thinks this. Remember, Crysis is four years old now, it's inevitable that it will be surpassed visually sooner or later.
Sigh... First, an opinion, not an assumption, actually. Second, you haven't played them either, and don't even mention the beta, so you're no more in the know than anyone here... Past experience with the series gives only the faintest info on the new product. As for surpassing Crysis, lol....
@MEDzZ3RO ~ Actually, it's not an assumption. To me, the video looks near identical to that of a vid from MW3. Slightly different animations though. The "assumption" was you thinking you know all about these games. Since, like you yourself said, they're not even out yet....
this game is not good at all flat out!!! EA needs to fix their servers they sucks a$$. pluse wen you spawn u randomly die, battlefields need to step their game up. im bout to take my reserve off to get a 3d tv haha
It's a f'n beta they still need to add and subtract things and role out what's lwft of the glitches. My opinion they will polish er up and make it like the game they say its going to be. The beta is mearly marketing and testing
I just started playing the BETA today. This is my first BETA trial. These can't be the final graphics right? Can someone lend some insight into what the BETA looks like compared to what the final game might look like. I'm really stoked about this game. It doesn't play like CoD, and I appreciate the change of pace. But I'm not impressed with the graphics at all.
@thefuzzybear I know! it's like a camp man lying down and saying " You got me, oopsy daisy!" Game looks amazing though!
@Lotus-Edge Let me get this straight your entire assumption is based on this video alone, having not played it? That aside, here's some food for thought. Battlefield 3 is much closer to Battlefield 2 then Bad Company 2 or Call Of Duty, which evidently came out in 2005. At times it has a hint of that Counter Strike vibe (which again, Call Of Duty owes a lot too). Battlefield 2 came out before Call Of Duty 2 meaning it was up against the original Call Of Duty. Assuming you've played both, how close were they? I'll tell you, Battlefield 2 was far more advanced in terms of mechanics and technicality. If anything, over the years, Call Of Duty has picked up more Battlefield traits then vice versa. It's usually the younger generation or people without sufficient knowledge about the fps genre who state things like that.
so many lame kills. sometimes the guy filming shot at someone a bunch of times, missed, and then it rolled to the next clip. like, really?
@MEDzZ3RO ~ Of they're different games, I'm talking about the vid. You know, the one right above the comments....
I wish they would unlock Hardcore. It's already pretty tactical in standard. Hardcore is only going to make it more intense.
totally agree with you Medzz3ro. Everyone is entitled to like whatever game they want, but they shouldnt hate on people just because they like the opposing game. I for one prefer BF over CoD, I like using squad tactics and planning moves and using vehicles and all the other awesome things BF offers. BF is a tactics and squad based shooter where you actually need your teammates for ammo, health, or cover-fire. Also you have a higher chance to live longer than 5 seconds so long as you are a decent player. I can also see the draw to CoD for people, it is an arcade run and gun shooter that satisfies people's bloodlust because every 2 seconds you are either killing or being killed, and with a quick respawn time, you can get right back to shooting because games are only 10 minutes long while BF makes you wait about 8 seconds to respawn because the matches always last about 20 minutes. As for graphic comparison, BF smokes CoD. I put movies and screenshots of CoD black ops and CoD MW3 side by side and could not tell any difference other than things being a little shinier. I then put BF BC2 and BF3 movies and shots next to each other and the change is extremely evident. All in all, if you like one game over the other, then buy that game, no one cares what style you prefer and anyone who does, is usually a little kid screaming over his headset.
i think they made this game for pc only then were like...ya dude we should put it out on the systems, dumb down the graphics no one will notice and still make us lots of money. well i played it lastnight and i was blown away by how crap tastic it was. this should not have been released for systems in my opinion. looks to pretty on pc and then u see it on consoles and get let down.
Only one major thing I don't like... The hand over the screen as u die! Petty I know but it was a unnecessary addition
@Lotus-Edge You should seriously reconsider that view and have a second look. Game play is entirely different as are the majority of the mechanics. MW3 is a CQB arcade-esque fps whereas BF3 is a large scale tactical squad based shooter rewarding team work. As for visual fidelity the video should speak for itself.... the new Frostbite engine is years ahead of the MW3 engine (essentially the same engine they used as far back as CoD 2). I've been playing the BF3 Beta the past 2 days and it's blown me away, I wasn't even particularly hyped for the game until now.
I'm in the BF3 beta, and I found it kinda boring not claiming to be good at it at all, I suck in this game it doesn't fit my ADD nature
If I still had a decent pc I'd get it for pc. My pc is real out dated only could play cs source on high lol play the beta after work on my box should be pretty fun my opinion it looks great on all systems. I'm just hoping it plays well lol
what is everyone complaining about? the game graphics look AMAZING and all the added animations look GREAT! the only concern i would have is that it looks like it plays "like" COD.
guys read this article and say something. i dont know wha to say but this is the new LOW for activision http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/09/29/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3-promotion-offers-free-xp-with-snacks/
@LeoLex_ Umm, have you ever been PART of a beta? Basically the arrangement is: You help the dev test server load, lag, hit detection, and gameplay/balance and in return you get to test the game before it hits shelves. You're getting to play Battlefield 3 a month before its actual release. DICE owes you nothing. The reason devs don't transfer beta stats to full games is because it would be unfair to new players if they had to go into a match against all the max level players that ranked up early in the beta. This is how it is and has always been. Even though you don't retain your stats, you know what you DO retain? Knowledge. Knowledge of the map layout, knowledge of what the best weapons / loadouts are, and knowledge of the best strategies for that particular objective. Long story short, if playing a huge AAA game before it's release isn't enough for you, perhaps you should seek a better pastime.
I think a lot of you are being over critical to be honest. From all the other gameplay videos we've seen the game looked outstanding. This montage seemingly doesn't really do the thing justice. The multiplayer gameplay posted up the other day with the collapsing trees and destruction of roadblocks looks sweet. I'm getting this anyway, leave the kids to COD ;)
I hope this game will be able to hold it's own on the consoles. I hated Crysis 2 because it was always laggy. I'm sure Frostbite will be able to handle it much better though; sure looked like it was in the the video. CAN'T WAIT!!
This is beta guys, this is not final software. Texture packs and some destruction is not in the beta.