Battlefield 3 Official Discussion

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="mitu123"] Looks like they're replacing it with squad leader, notice the star next to your name? In the Game Informer issue they say they want to make commanding more accessible.

Wasdie

The problem with commanders they are so damn hit or miss. You're entire team shouldn't suffer because of a bad commander. Giving the squad leaders more power will balance that power and give a much better chance for the team.

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="ghostwarrior786"]

where are these people playing the game?

ghostwarrior786

It was a multiplayer area in the DICE booth. They all got to go in and play a full match against each other and then another group came in

its so unfair in the UK we get nothing. there should be atleast 1 big gaming convention here so we get to check out all the new games.

I know I live in Ireland and I wish something was in Europe :(

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="mitu123"] Looks like they're replacing it with squad leader, notice the star next to your name? In the Game Informer issue they say they want to make commanding more accessible.

Wasdie

The problem with commanders they are so damn hit or miss. You're entire team shouldn't suffer because of a bad commander. Giving the squad leaders more power will balance that power and give a much better chance for the team.

I remember being so freakin pumped when i won the commander spot, i really felt like my team depended on me and if we failed i actually felt responsible. I was a great experience.

I think that giving squad leaders commander-like powers is the best compromise.

[QUOTE="ghostwarrior786"]

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

It was a multiplayer area in the DICE booth. They all got to go in and play a full match against each other and then another group came in

seanmcloughlin

its so unfair in the UK we get nothing. there should be atleast 1 big gaming convention here so we get to check out all the new games.

I know I live in Ireland and I wish something was in Europe :(

How come?There is EG games convention and there is Gamescom(best IMO in the world).One in UK,one in Germany.

Still no PS3 footage? I heard they are showing the PC/PS3 version atE3 and I just want to see how it looks.

finalfantasy94

WOW seems EA is going to milk BF and MOH to death each year.

http://www.develop-online.net/news/37956/EA-Battlefield-and-MOH-games-in-annual-rotation

WOW seems EA is going to milk BF and MOH to death each year.

http://www.develop-online.net/news/37956/EA-Battlefield-and-MOH-games-in-annual-rotation

Medic_B

Since my other thread got locked, I'll just put in what I think of it here:

You have got to be kidding me...I can't believe that we're going to have MoH and Battlefield yearly releases now. Well it's not necessarily the same game every year like CoD, it's MoH one year, Battlefield the next, then MoH, then Battlefield, but I hope this doesn't get out of hand. My guess is that we'll be having Bad Company every 2 years, then a new Battlefield game after, say, 5-7 years. What's your take on this? Do you like EA's strategy of fighting Activision by also having yearly releases? I wish they'd let DICE have a small break from Battlefield and really work hard on the next Mirror's Edge, it was a fantastic idea, and worked very well. They alreadyplan on having Mirror's Edge 2 with Frostbite 2, so that'll at least turn out great. I don't want a franchise like Battlefield to be milked, and MoH seems to have promise, I presonally think it needs a lot of work online, but I know friends who are huge fans of the game. I really dislike this vibe of devs needing to release these games every 2 years, I'd rather just give them freedom to at least support Battlefield 3 a lot, or create something new.

It's really unfortunate that they're doing this :( EA was the angel in comparison with Activision, I doubt they'd go as low as Activision does.

[QUOTE="Medic_B"]

WOW seems EA is going to milk BF and MOH to death each year.

http://www.develop-online.net/news/37956/EA-Battlefield-and-MOH-games-in-annual-rotation

XVision84

Since my other thread got locked, I'll just put in what I think of it here:

You have got to be kidding me...I can't believe that we're going to have MoH and Battlefield yearly releases now. Well it's not necessarily the same game every year like CoD, it's MoH one year, Battlefield the next, then MoH, then Battlefield, but I hope this doesn't get out of hand. My guess is that we'll be having Bad Company every 2 years, then a new Battlefield game after, say, 5-7 years. What's your take on this? Do you like EA's strategy of fighting Activision by also having yearly releases? I wish they'd let DICE have a small break from Battlefield and really work hard on the next Mirror's Edge, it was a fantastic idea, and worked very well. They alreadyplan on having Mirror's Edge 2 with Frostbite 2, so that'll at least turn out great. I don't want a franchise like Battlefield to be milked, and MoH seems to have promise, I presonally think it needs a lot of work online, but I know friends who are huge fans of the game. I really dislike this vibe of devs needing to release these games every 2 years, I'd rather just give them freedom to at least support Battlefield 3 a lot, or create something new.

It's really unfortunate that they're doing this :( EA was the angel in comparison with Activision, I doubt they'd as low as Activision does.

yea i know that sucked

[QUOTE="Medic_B"]

WOW seems EA is going to milk BF and MOH to death each year.

http://www.develop-online.net/news/37956/EA-Battlefield-and-MOH-games-in-annual-rotation

XVision84

Since my other thread got locked, I'll just put in what I think of it here:

You have got to be kidding me...I can't believe that we're going to have MoH and Battlefield yearly releases now. Well it's not necessarily the same game every year like CoD, it's MoH one year, Battlefield the next, then MoH, then Battlefield, but I hope this doesn't get out of hand. My guess is that we'll be having Bad Company every 2 years, then a new Battlefield game after, say, 5-7 years. What's your take on this? Do you like EA's strategy of fighting Activision by also having yearly releases? I wish they'd let DICE have a small break from Battlefield and really work hard on the next Mirror's Edge, it was a fantastic idea, and worked very well. They alreadyplan on having Mirror's Edge 2 with Frostbite 2, so that'll at least turn out great. I don't want a franchise like Battlefield to be milked, and MoH seems to have promise, I presonally think it needs a lot of work online, but I know friends who are huge fans of the game. I really dislike this vibe of devs needing to release these games every 2 years, I'd rather just give them freedom to at least support Battlefield 3 a lot, or create something new.

It's really unfortunate that they're doing this :( EA was the angel in comparison with Activision, I doubt they'd go as low as Activision does.

Gamers are so naive. Video game publishers live and die based on the amount of R&D they do. You need to keep pushing new product each year. If you are not doing that, then you are dead. Even sales of old titles would not keep you afloat.

At least it's a new game every two years for each franchise, which isn't too bad. Doesn't sound too much like milking to me, unlike Activision, which puts out a new title from the same old franchise each year. Would you rather have yearly DLC or new games every year? Take your pick.

I'm glad hardcore gamers are not running EA or Activision. I'd sell my shares more quickly than a rat would chew through cheese on a mouse trap if it happened.

[QUOTE="XVision84"]

[QUOTE="Medic_B"]

WOW seems EA is going to milk BF and MOH to death each year.

http://www.develop-online.net/news/37956/EA-Battlefield-and-MOH-games-in-annual-rotation

The_Capitalist

Since my other thread got locked, I'll just put in what I think of it here:

You have got to be kidding me...I can't believe that we're going to have MoH and Battlefield yearly releases now. Well it's not necessarily the same game every year like CoD, it's MoH one year, Battlefield the next, then MoH, then Battlefield, but I hope this doesn't get out of hand. My guess is that we'll be having Bad Company every 2 years, then a new Battlefield game after, say, 5-7 years. What's your take on this? Do you like EA's strategy of fighting Activision by also having yearly releases? I wish they'd let DICE have a small break from Battlefield and really work hard on the next Mirror's Edge, it was a fantastic idea, and worked very well. They alreadyplan on having Mirror's Edge 2 with Frostbite 2, so that'll at least turn out great. I don't want a franchise like Battlefield to be milked, and MoH seems to have promise, I presonally think it needs a lot of work online, but I know friends who are huge fans of the game. I really dislike this vibe of devs needing to release these games every 2 years, I'd rather just give them freedom to at least support Battlefield 3 a lot, or create something new.

It's really unfortunate that they're doing this :( EA was the angel in comparison with Activision, I doubt they'd go as low as Activision does.

Gamers are so naive. Video game publishers live and die based on the amount of R&D they do. You need to keep pushing new product each year. If you are not doing that, then you are dead. Even sales of old titles would not keep you afloat.

At least it's a new game every two years for each franchise, which isn't too bad. Doesn't sound too much like milking to me, unlike Activision, which puts out a new title from the same old franchise each year. Would you rather have yearly DLC or new games every year? Take your pick.

I'm glad you are not running EA or Activision. I'd sell my shares more quickly than a rat would chew through cheese on a mouse trap.

I'm not clueless as to really think that publisher's are able to let developers do what they want, but you do realize that giving dev's freedom builds great relationships, right? If you ran EA or Activision with the same strict motto or rules, then many devs would leave you. Bungie left Microsoft, Valve switched from favoring 360 to favoring PS3, there was the whole Infinity Ward and Activision debacle, and many more. Why did all that happen? Because of freedom. If you think forcing yearly or every 2 year releases of the same game without giving devs freedom to expand is good, then you're terribly mistaken. In the past Battlefield has never been an "every 2 years" release, it's like Elder Scrolls. Sony has a great reputation with devs because they give them freedom, it's why their first party is so great too, freedom in moderation is the key.

[QUOTE="The_Capitalist"]

[QUOTE="XVision84"]

Since my other thread got locked, I'll just put in what I think of it here:

You have got to be kidding me...I can't believe that we're going to have MoH and Battlefield yearly releases now. Well it's not necessarily the same game every year like CoD, it's MoH one year, Battlefield the next, then MoH, then Battlefield, but I hope this doesn't get out of hand. My guess is that we'll be having Bad Company every 2 years, then a new Battlefield game after, say, 5-7 years. What's your take on this? Do you like EA's strategy of fighting Activision by also having yearly releases? I wish they'd let DICE have a small break from Battlefield and really work hard on the next Mirror's Edge, it was a fantastic idea, and worked very well. They alreadyplan on having Mirror's Edge 2 with Frostbite 2, so that'll at least turn out great. I don't want a franchise like Battlefield to be milked, and MoH seems to have promise, I presonally think it needs a lot of work online, but I know friends who are huge fans of the game. I really dislike this vibe of devs needing to release these games every 2 years, I'd rather just give them freedom to at least support Battlefield 3 a lot, or create something new.

It's really unfortunate that they're doing this :( EA was the angel in comparison with Activision, I doubt they'd go as low as Activision does.

XVision84

Gamers are so naive. Video game publishers live and die based on the amount of R&D they do. You need to keep pushing new product each year. If you are not doing that, then you are dead. Even sales of old titles would not keep you afloat.

At least it's a new game every two years for each franchise, which isn't too bad. Doesn't sound too much like milking to me, unlike Activision, which puts out a new title from the same old franchise each year. Would you rather have yearly DLC or new games every year? Take your pick.

I'm glad you are not running EA or Activision. I'd sell my shares more quickly than a rat would chew through cheese on a mouse trap.

I'm not clueless as to really think that publisher's are able to let developers do what they want, but you do realize that giving dev's freedom builds great relationships, right? If you ran EA or Activision with the same strict motto or rules, then many devs would leave you. Bungie left Microsoft, Valve switched from favoring 360 to favoring PS3, there was the whole Infinity Ward and Activision debacle, and many more. Why did all that happen? Because of freedom. If you think forcing yearly or every 2 year releases of the same game without giving devs freedom to expand is good, then you're terribly mistaken. In the past Battlefield has never been an "every 2 years" release, it's like Elder Scrolls. Sony has a great reputation with devs because they give them freedom, it's why their first party is so great too, freedom in moderation is the key.

That might be true, but long hours and working on stuff that is very disinteresting is pretty much the norm in the industry.

I believe that developers should be allowed to incorporate new features as necessary (in order to keep the games fresh), but deadlines are deadlines. Imagine a world without deadlines. That wouldn't bode so well for most people on Earth.

Video game development has gone commercial a long time ago. Only indie developers can take their sweet time to come up with their stuff... More mainstream development is geared towards meeting goals and deadlines of some sort. It's a business. You can only generate revenue if you keep pushing development forward.

The naivete is astounding. It's a business, and if you don't like game developers getting trampled upon, then don't support developers that encourage such practices.

Frostbite 2 is a remarkable engine, and BF is a remarkable franchise. If EA can make this work properly and i get to see another BF game within the next 2 years I'm happy. If in 2 years i get to play another BF2142-like game made by DICE as a result from this I'm going to be so thrilled!

MOH needs work though. lots of it. i have the game and some aspects of it i enjoyed. it has potential. But i just don't see it competing with COD.

I don't care if they release a BF one year and a MOH another because I will only be playing BF. MOH can have its time in the light but DICE will put their best efforst and ideas into BF which is great. It means we get the game for longer with DLC incoming all year round. Smart move really. DICE only do the MP for MOH anyway

I don't care if they release a BF one year and a MOH another because I will only be playing BF. MOH can have its time in the light but DICE will put their best efforst and ideas into BF which is great. It means we get the game for longer with DLC incoming all year round. Smart move really. DICE only do the MP for MOH anyway

seanmcloughlin

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

I don't care if they release a BF one year and a MOH another because I will only be playing BF. MOH can have its time in the light but DICE will put their best efforst and ideas into BF which is great. It means we get the game for longer with DLC incoming all year round. Smart move really. DICE only do the MP for MOH anyway

lawlessx

Is that from the "technology" trailer? Looks great.

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

I don't care if they release a BF one year and a MOH another because I will only be playing BF. MOH can have its time in the light but DICE will put their best efforst and ideas into BF which is great. It means we get the game for longer with DLC incoming all year round. Smart move really. DICE only do the MP for MOH anyway

lawlessx

holy **** look at that.....wait for it............graphics

[QUOTE="The_Capitalist"]

[QUOTE="XVision84"]

Since my other thread got locked, I'll just put in what I think of it here:

You have got to be kidding me...I can't believe that we're going to have MoH and Battlefield yearly releases now. Well it's not necessarily the same game every year like CoD, it's MoH one year, Battlefield the next, then MoH, then Battlefield, but I hope this doesn't get out of hand. My guess is that we'll be having Bad Company every 2 years, then a new Battlefield game after, say, 5-7 years. What's your take on this? Do you like EA's strategy of fighting Activision by also having yearly releases? I wish they'd let DICE have a small break from Battlefield and really work hard on the next Mirror's Edge, it was a fantastic idea, and worked very well. They alreadyplan on having Mirror's Edge 2 with Frostbite 2, so that'll at least turn out great. I don't want a franchise like Battlefield to be milked, and MoH seems to have promise, I presonally think it needs a lot of work online, but I know friends who are huge fans of the game. I really dislike this vibe of devs needing to release these games every 2 years, I'd rather just give them freedom to at least support Battlefield 3 a lot, or create something new.

It's really unfortunate that they're doing this :( EA was the angel in comparison with Activision, I doubt they'd go as low as Activision does.

XVision84

Gamers are so naive. Video game publishers live and die based on the amount of R&D they do. You need to keep pushing new product each year. If you are not doing that, then you are dead. Even sales of old titles would not keep you afloat.

At least it's a new game every two years for each franchise, which isn't too bad. Doesn't sound too much like milking to me, unlike Activision, which puts out a new title from the same old franchise each year. Would you rather have yearly DLC or new games every year? Take your pick.

I'm glad you are not running EA or Activision. I'd sell my shares more quickly than a rat would chew through cheese on a mouse trap.

I'm not clueless as to really think that publisher's are able to let developers do what they want, but you do realize that giving dev's freedom builds great relationships, right? If you ran EA or Activision with the same strict motto or rules, then many devs would leave you. Bungie left Microsoft, Valve switched from favoring 360 to favoring PS3, there was the whole Infinity Ward and Activision debacle, and many more. Why did all that happen? Because of freedom. If you think forcing yearly or every 2 year releases of the same game without giving devs freedom to expand is good, then you're terribly mistaken. In the past Battlefield has never been an "every 2 years" release, it's like Elder Scrolls. Sony has a great reputation with devs because they give them freedom, it's why their first party is so great too, freedom in moderation is the key.

[QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]

Still no PS3 footage? I heard they are showing the PC/PS3 version atE3 and I just want to see how it looks.

killzowned24

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

yeah, its from that video, the PS3 part was shopped in, those are PC shots there.

[QUOTE="XVision84"]

[QUOTE="The_Capitalist"]

Gamers are so naive. Video game publishers live and die based on the amount of R&D they do. You need to keep pushing new product each year. If you are not doing that, then you are dead. Even sales of old titles would not keep you afloat.

At least it's a new game every two years for each franchise, which isn't too bad. Doesn't sound too much like milking to me, unlike Activision, which puts out a new title from the same old franchise each year. Would you rather have yearly DLC or new games every year? Take your pick.

I'm glad you are not running EA or Activision. I'd sell my shares more quickly than a rat would chew through cheese on a mouse trap.

hensothor

I'm not clueless as to really think that publisher's are able to let developers do what they want, but you do realize that giving dev's freedom builds great relationships, right? If you ran EA or Activision with the same strict motto or rules, then many devs would leave you. Bungie left Microsoft, Valve switched from favoring 360 to favoring PS3, there was the whole Infinity Ward and Activision debacle, and many more. Why did all that happen? Because of freedom. If you think forcing yearly or every 2 year releases of the same game without giving devs freedom to expand is good, then you're terribly mistaken. In the past Battlefield has never been an "every 2 years" release, it's like Elder Scrolls. Sony has a great reputation with devs because they give them freedom, it's why their first party is so great too, freedom in moderation is the key.

I'm talking about main Battlefield, the Bad Company series was just introducing Battlefield to consoles and the development stages of Frostbite. A spin-off series that lets DICE get a hang of working on consoles, that's how I look at it.

I personally don't care if BF goes into bi-yearly rotation after this. When DICE makes a badass BF game after this I'll pick it up, and that's that. For now I just care if BF3 is gonna continue to do justice to BF2.

After BF3, the only game I care about is Project Reality.

[QUOTE="killzowned24"][QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]

Still no PS3 footage? I heard they are showing the PC/PS3 version atE3 and I just want to see how it looks.

theshadowhunter

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

yeah, its from that video, the PS3 part was shopped in, those are PC shots there.

The same clips clearly state "PS3 footage" in the first e3 shown version of the trailer. Why they edited it out for their youtube upload is beyond me.

Not sure if these have been posted.

Battlefield 3 - 7 minute mutiplayer PC gameplay 1/2

Battlefield 3 - 7 minute mutiplayer PC gameplay 2/2

Looks good, though some of the weapons could use more muzzle movement or something when firing all auto, at one point I didn't even realise he was shooting.

EIDT: Ah nevermind they are also found in other videos. Same footage from that 12 min gameplay footage I think

Any info on the Beta? Like when it will start?

Any info on the Beta? Like when it will start?

MrJack3690

Any info on the Beta? Like when it will start?

MrJack3690

Any info on the Beta? Like when it will start?

MrJack3690

September for the open Beta (with limited keys). I'm guessing those who got MOH last year will get their Beta key in the email or something.

September. For all platforms.Mystic-G

Sometime in September.

mitu123

September for the open Beta (with limited keys). I'm guessing those who got MOH last year will get their Beta key in the email or something.

October_Tide

Thanks :P

Hoping even though I bought the PS3 version of MoH, I can get into the PC beta.

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

Sometime in September.

MrJack3690

September for the open Beta (with limited keys). I'm guessing those who got MOH last year will get their Beta key in the email or something.

October_Tide

Thanks :P

Hoping even though I bought the PS3 version of MoH, I can get into the PC beta.

Guess you will have to wait and see. I suppose the beta key might work on all platforms. If you post on the EA forums you may be able to find an answer (though I'm not sure if the main forum is the UK or US one for BF3).

Beta key? Hope that's only for MOH LE, what kind of open beta can't be opened to everyone?

[QUOTE="hensothor"][QUOTE="XVision84"]

I'm not clueless as to really think that publisher's are able to let developers do what they want, but you do realize that giving dev's freedom builds great relationships, right? If you ran EA or Activision with the same strict motto or rules, then many devs would leave you. Bungie left Microsoft, Valve switched from favoring 360 to favoring PS3, there was the whole Infinity Ward and Activision debacle, and many more. Why did all that happen? Because of freedom. If you think forcing yearly or every 2 year releases of the same game without giving devs freedom to expand is good, then you're terribly mistaken. In the past Battlefield has never been an "every 2 years" release, it's like Elder Scrolls. Sony has a great reputation with devs because they give them freedom, it's why their first party is so great too, freedom in moderation is the key.

XVision84

I'm talking about main Battlefield, the Bad Company series was just introducing Battlefield to consoles and the development stages of Frostbite. A spin-off series that lets DICE get a hang of working on consoles, that's how I look at it.

^ More like Battlefield 2143.

how exactly is this going to play online diffreently then cod?

im not hatin or anything, its just that every fps online looks the same to me

^ More like Battlefield 2143.

Ondoval

[QUOTE="XVision84"]

[QUOTE="hensothor"] Didn't Battlefield start less than 10 years ago? That's more than one game every 2 years.hensothor

I'm talking about main Battlefield, the Bad Company series was just introducing Battlefield to consoles and the development stages of Frostbite. A spin-off series that lets DICE get a hang of working on consoles, that's how I look at it.

That's exactly what I just said, Battlefield is every few years, Bad Company is every 2 years...

Lol...even Bobby Kotick wanted to play Battlefield 3 at E3, but EA denied his request :lol:

[QUOTE="Ondoval"]

^ More like Battlefield 2143.

zeta

Lol...even Bobby Kotick wanted to play Battlefield 3 at E3, but EA denied his request :lol:

XVision84

[QUOTE="XVision84"]

Lol...even Bobby Kotick wanted to play Battlefield 3 at E3, but EA denied his request :lol:

Lto_thaG

Even the SP looks so good,this game is certainly my Day 1 purchase.

[QUOTE="Lto_thaG"][QUOTE="XVision84"]

Lol...even Bobby Kotick wanted to play Battlefield 3 at E3, but EA denied his request :lol:

RR360DD

[QUOTE="Lto_thaG"][QUOTE="XVision84"]

Lol...even Bobby Kotick wanted to play Battlefield 3 at E3, but EA denied his request :lol:

RR360DD

I agree. DICE hae the better game. They shouldn't worry about showing it to him. Its too late for him to steal ideas :P Im sure they had good reasons

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

I don't care if they release a BF one year and a MOH another because I will only be playing BF. MOH can have its time in the light but DICE will put their best efforst and ideas into BF which is great. It means we get the game for longer with DLC incoming all year round. Smart move really. DICE only do the MP for MOH anyway

lawlessx

Its prettty sweet alright. I can't get over the character models. They look excellent

I can't wait to see what the Reality Mod team will be able to do with BF3. I've grown accustomed to the more hardcore realistic experience over the years. Plus insurgency mode is badass.

[QUOTE="XVision84"]

Lol...even Bobby Kotick wanted to play Battlefield 3 at E3, but EA denied his request :lol:

Lto_thaG

I'm assuming it's because it was invite only, so without an invite, you couldn't get in.

Glad the money Vamp wasn't allowed in. He doesn't support his games. He drains them dry.