Battlefield 3 SOON!

  • 0 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Seppli (10251 posts) -

 
 
Might it be true? MoH Pre-Order = Battlefield 3 BETA invinte?
 
Whaaaa...
 
Oh please be true. Oh please release an announcement trailer. Oh pretty please! I'M GIDDY!
#2 Edited by illmatic19 (964 posts) -

OMFGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG (this might not be real)
 
EDIT: Why is LP in the game?

#3 Posted by buzz_killington (3532 posts) -

So funny, get Battlefield: Bad Company 2 to get in the Medal of Honor beta, now get Medal of Honor to get into Battlefied 3 beta. 
 
And where did you get that picture from?

#4 Posted by Seppli (10251 posts) -
#5 Posted by Seppli (10251 posts) -
@buzz_killington: 
 
On my daily klick to the official BF UK forums. Thought it was just another hoax. But apparently IGN got official word from EA. It's legit.
 
But it's still ways off... BF3 sceduled to go into BETA within the next 12 months...
#6 Posted by Pie (7073 posts) -

Which platforms is the question

#7 Posted by Darko (115 posts) -

If it's not 64 players and doesn't atleast have all the features of BF 2142, this is gonna be a massive disappointment for me.

#8 Posted by Pie (7073 posts) -

Yay! It's for PS3 and 360 too! 
I know thats what PC users were dreading but not I sir!

#9 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

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!

#10 Posted by thehexeditor (1404 posts) -

FUCK. YES.
 

#11 Posted by Pie (7073 posts) -

Man, that game will be coming out in like 2012.... Things will be different then....

#12 Posted by Vinny_Says (5700 posts) -

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.

#13 Posted by DoctorOptimist (502 posts) -

It's about time for a real Battlefield sequel, I just it doesn't get dumbed down in the process to appeal to the Modern Warfare 2 crowd. That said, I may rent or buy the new Medal of Honor just for that.

#14 Posted by Pie (7073 posts) -
@blacklabeldomm said:
" 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. "
Dude MAG. 
 
Also I really didnt want to buy MoH
#15 Posted by Ryax (4630 posts) -

wait... battlefield 3 is gonna be on consoles? fuck that. 

#16 Posted by FrankCanada97 (4039 posts) -

I guess it's time I upgrade my PC for the first time in years.

#17 Posted by FreakAche (2951 posts) -

But what does Battlefield 3 even mean at this point? Would it have the Modern Warfare-izing that Bad Company had? Would it be PC exclusive, or at least be developed first and foremost as PC game, with console versions being an afterthought like Dragon Age?

#18 Edited by Evilmetal (468 posts) -

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!"
 
 
HA.
 
Desperation sets in. EA throwing it all on the table.

#19 Posted by Ryax (4630 posts) -
@FrankCanada97 said:
" I guess it's time I upgrade my PC for the first time in years. "
nope because the console players are getting it too!
#20 Edited by luce (4045 posts) -

SHIT 
 
I still need to buy Bad Company 2!
 
Oh wait..Battlefield 3? just Battlefield?

#21 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -
@Pie said:

" 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.
#22 Posted by Bionicicide (1213 posts) -

Smart move to just focus on the multiplayer-only Battlefield since the Bad Company series' singleplayer wasn't anything memorable apart from mannerisms of the squad.

#23 Posted by ShaunassNZ (2128 posts) -
@blacklabeldomm said:
" 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. "
Have you forgotten MAG???
#24 Posted by bonbolapti (1611 posts) -

I had a serious conversation about Battlefield 3 some time ago.
this makes me happy.

#25 Posted by ryanwho (12082 posts) -

So when Nicholson makes an article about this, would his thread be redundant and need to be locked? Double standard.

#26 Posted by Mikemcn (6967 posts) -

SHIT I need to buy Medal of Honor now.
 
But Bf3? YESSSSSSSS  

#27 Posted by Darko (115 posts) -
@ShaunassNZ: 
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).
#28 Posted by captainnoms (50 posts) -

i am not exite

#29 Posted by Diamond (8634 posts) -

Cool that we're finally hearing something solid about the game but I'm not buying MoH for the beta...

#30 Posted by Jimbo (9796 posts) -

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. 

#31 Posted by Jayross (2365 posts) -

Battlefield 3 on Xbox 360? 
 
Wut? 

#32 Posted by fwylo (3556 posts) -

Doesn't really mean it is soon.  Just means when they put out a beta.  You have a code.

#33 Posted by ajamafalous (11929 posts) -
@ryanwho said:
" So when Nicholson makes an article about this, would his thread be redundant and need to be locked? Double standard. "
I was thinking about this. 
 
Anticipating a shitty four-paragraph writeup by Nicholson late tonight or tomorrow.
#34 Posted by Seppli (10251 posts) -
@Jimbo said:
" 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.
 
#35 Posted by Bionicicide (1213 posts) -
@Seppli said:
" @Jimbo said:
" 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.
 
"
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.
#36 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -
@Bionicicide: 
 
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.
#37 Posted by shadows_kill (3165 posts) -
@blacklabeldomm said:
" 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.
#38 Posted by xnoxiousx (121 posts) -

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.

#39 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -
@xnoxiousx said:
" 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? 
#40 Posted by Karn (690 posts) -

Now Battlefield nutjobs will only get Medal of Honor for Battlefield 3. It's just like Crackdown/Halo 3.

#41 Posted by wefwefasdf (6729 posts) -

PC gaming it back, baby! 

#42 Posted by Pie (7073 posts) -

Man, I forgot that both bad company games didnt have the classic battlefield theme. 
I really want to see an announcement trailer with a updated version of that in it

#43 Posted by Diamond (8634 posts) -

Now that I think of it, I wonder if they'll do a fleshed out single player mode or go back to the old style this time.

#44 Posted by Emilio (3380 posts) -

I want to say re-hash... but that's a strong word...

#45 Edited by FrankCanada97 (4039 posts) -
@Pie said:

" Man, I forgot that both bad company games didnt have the classic battlefield theme. I really want to see an announcement trailer with a updated version of that in it "

The first Bad Company, did it plays right when you load up the game.
#46 Posted by Meteora (5787 posts) -
@illmatic19 said:
" 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.
#47 Posted by sodiumCyclops (2644 posts) -

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.

#48 Posted by RisingRaiden (149 posts) -
@blacklabeldomm said:
" 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.
#49 Posted by swamplord666 (1758 posts) -
@Pie: well not the music per say, just the recurring 6 beats
#50 Posted by ch13696 (4582 posts) -
@sodiumCyclops said:
" 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.