Battlefield 3 SOON!
Evil plan is evil...
It's truely evil because it worked. Cancelled my MoH pre-order, because the beta was too fast paced and generic for me. Now - I cannot resist. Just hope the singleplayer will be worth my dime and that the MP grows on me.
I'm a sucker for Battlefield. Exploiting my weakness... how dare you... damn... you got me!
EA: "We are so desperate to get people to buy Medal of Honor, because the BETA blew up in our face and we can't fix the BETA, what else can we entice these fools with to buy our game? Let's just tell them they get early access to BF3 beta!"
Desperation sets in. EA throwing it all on the table.
" Man, that game will be coming out in like 2012.... Things will be different then.... "
They've been working on it for a looong time. At least pre-production wise.
Kinda hope it's gonna be slated for a summer '11 release. Mid-june was the classic release window for Battlefield games before BF:BC 2. Would love to it to come out on the 10th anniversary of BF 1942.
Obviously - EA is about to reveal more about the game as soon as MoH is out of the door. My guess is an announcement and a reveal trailer coming out of GamesCom in Germany. It's still the biggest Games Convention in the world. They're bound to be some reveals happening there.
MAG has very little in common with the PC versions of BF. MAG had a huge player count, but the spawn points and objectives kept the teams, for the most part, in their little parts of the maps. Previous Battlefield games were more open-ended; 64 players doing whatever they wanted (for better or worse).
" If they aren't sacrificing the scale and scope of Battlefield 2 in order to bring it to consoles, then great. If they are (which seems likely) then that's just Bad Company 2 again. "Check out the pic with an indepth developer commentary on the topic of scale and playercount on consoles.
" @Jimbo said:I don't think destruction is that amazing in that I would miss it... especially since the Bad Company series suffered from copy and paste empty buildings to get their destruction." If they aren't sacrificing the scale and scope of Battlefield 2 in order to bring it to consoles, then great. If they are (which seems likely) then that's just Bad Company 2 again. "Check out the pic with an indepth developer commentary on the topic of scale and playercount on consoles.
Destruction and Ground Deformation is an absolute must-have for me at this point. More destruction. Higher fidelity destruction. That's what I want. Especially since it has a big impact on gameplay. Ever-changing lines of sight and continously degrading cover. Bombed out streets slowing down vehicles and opportunity to hide AT-mines in craters from sight. Hell - how often did a crater safe my life when I used it as cover? Nah - you just need to play the Frostbite games more to learn the true value of what Destruction and Deformation does for the Battlefield experience. It's invaluable. Indispensable. Just think of a tank being stopped by a mere fence or tree back in the day. Nah - there's no way back from destruction and deformation.
It'd be nice if BF3 goes for the 64 player cap. I guess it's gonna be a must-have for the PC version of Battlefield 3, if DICE wants to live up to the heritage of the PC predecessors. Before Bad Company 1, a high playercount was more important to me, than it is now. Since BF:BC 1 introduced me to Frostbite engine destruction, I just prefer high fidelity interactivity over a higher playercount. In previous BF games, you were only able to interact with vehicles and emplacements and enemy soldiers. That wouldn't fly with me. Not anymore. No matter how high the playercount is. Just look at MAG and shudder in fear of gamedesign catering to high playercount.
That said, my favorite Battlefield-like game of all times has to be Joint Operations, which ran 128 player servers (there even was a 200+ slot server running from time to time) as I recall. That said - I played it recently and it didn't hold up. A high playercount doesn't mitigate the loss of high fidelity interactivity and true vehicle physics simulation and good ballistics simulation and whatever else gets simulated that would be sacrificed for playercount. I hope for a 32+ playercount for console versions and a 64+ playercount for PC. BF2 had 64 and 32 player versions of each map. Who knows, maybe Frostbite 2.0 will increase what can be done and Microsoft and Sony let go of their stupid bandwidth recommendations. Consoles might get a 64 slots Battlefield game too.
Hell - by then, there might be a version for Xbox 720 and PS4. Maybe Nintendo's next puppy might run as fast as Microsofts and Sonys consoles too.
" has any console done 64 player multiplayer before? If this comes out on consoles and does it will be the shit. If it comes out but without 64 player online then it will literally be shit. "MAG.. 256 players on ps3 runs super smooth but with my guess player count will probably be 64+ and consoles being 32.
" If it has no of these clearly a console game If it has: Non-regen health Helicopters, tanks, jeeps, jets 64-players at least Massive maps Great graphics Balanced multiplayer Everything BF2 was, but better Then I'll buy it. "Are you taking shots at console gaming?
" OMFGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG (this might not be real) EDIT: Why is LP in the game? "I dunno. Probably some kind of agreement struck between EA and Warner Bros. They played one of their songs during the multiplayer trailer at E3 too.
Either way, I'm excited for BF3. They made me a fan of the Battlefield franchise with BFBC2; but with BF3 shit just got real.
" has any console done 64 player multiplayer before? If this comes out on consoles and does it will be the shit. If it comes out but without 64 player online then it will literally be shit. "Resistance 2 had 60 players and it was amazing.
" My guess is the Bad Company story will continue with this one but it will only be called Battlefield 3. Either way, I'm VERY excited. "I take it you don't know much about Battlefield. Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield 2 were just strictly multiplayer games. The reason they the side game, Bad Company, was to tell the story of Bad Company. If they decided to continue the Bad Company story on Battlefield 3 it would, fore one, throw everything off. Therefore, no Bad Company 3. Two, There will be no single player in Battlefield 3. That would just kill the game. Basically, they're taking away time they could be spending working on the multiplayer.
They better not have this go to console either. I want this game to be better than Battlefield 2. Not the same.
This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.
Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.