Battlefield 3 - Coming this autumn

NotorietyH

Teaser trailer released and release window of Autumn 2011 announced.

Looking forward to it.

EA has launched the official website for Battlefield 3, revealing a Fall 2011 launch window for the DICE-developed warfare fest. The game utilizes the Frostbite 2 engine, which delivers "earth-shattering destruction" and compels official product descriptions to insert phrases like "real as hell combat gameplay" and "dramatic immersive First Person Shooter experience."

To catch an early glimpse of those dramatic immersive things, you'll have to watch the game's all-too-brief teaser after the break. (Does anyone else hear a garbled Terminator theme in there?)

Update: The Battlefield Blog has updated with a few more details. In addition to the "signature multiplayer," Battlefield 3 offers both single-player and co-op campaigns, a prone stance, 64-player multiplayer in the PC version and -- as seen in the trailer -- wonderful, shrieking jets.

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/02/04/battlefield-3-targeting-fall-2011-teaser-trailer-out-now/#comments

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRGGR0FDvDc

Kiith

Sweet. If it can be as good as Battlefield 2, with Bad Company 2's terrain destruction, i'll be a very happy person.

Duggy747

Battlefield 3 offers both single-player and co-op campaigns, a prone stance, 64-player multiplayer in the PC version and -- as seen in the trailer -- wonderful, shrieking jets

My, what an age of technology we live in :pac:

Spear

Ahem:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056143535

SeantheMan

Trailer gave away nothing, at least its out this Fall

Fanny Cradock

By "Fall" you mean Autumn, right?

hal9000

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

By "Fall" you mean Autumn, right?

Im going to go with Q4

muppetkiller

Well if the Trailer is showing any in-game graphics the player animations look fantastic.

pablomakaveli

I hate trailers that show very little. Still looking forward to this though.

Kiith

To be fair, it's a teaser, not a trailer.

NotorietyH

Kiith wrote: »

To be fair, it's a teaser, not a trailer.

The jet was enough of a tease for me! Though I'm crap at flying helis and planes in Battlefield so not sure why I'm excited for jets!

dreamers75

Cant watch it in work but does the video have DEN DEN DEN DEN?

Spear

dreamers75 wrote: »

Cant watch it in work but does the video have DEN DEN DEN DEN?

Not exactly, but it sounds like the low key music is hinting at it.

Raze_them_all

Prone????? Tis a great day for camping snipers like myself!!

Spear

Raze_them_all wrote: »

Prone????? Tis a great day for camping snipers like myself!!

Just means I have to look down when I stab a sniper, that's all.

Raze_them_all

Spear wrote: »

Just means I have to look down when I stab a sniper, that's all.

or up, prone in a tree ftw!

Sisko

Please be a proper PC shooter and not dumbed down due to being on consoles too, PLEAAAAASEEEEEEE.


The teaser gives away a few things. We know its modern warfare or at least the 90's or 80's anyway.

Someone was telling me they might make it ww2 , guess thats not the case.

That looks like a russian su 27 that takes out an american Huey.

But a number of countries could be using that plane, and its not like americans wouldnt be in the game :rolleyes:

They seem to be hinting on heavy urban built up city maps as well.

dreamers75

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-02-04-battlefield-3-to-level-paris

more stuff

Sisko

why are they even bothering with single player. :rolleyes:

Jim

dreamers75 wrote: »

Cant watch it in work but does the video have DEN DEN DEN DEN?

Best bit of the trailer is the hint at the music.

Also, I can't believe the amount of people online giving out that the trailer didn't show much. It's a TEASER. You're lucky you're getting more than just the title on the screen.

Jim

Sisko wrote: »

why are they even bothering with single player. :rolleyes:

$$++ Lots of people buy the CoD / other FPS for the single player alone. I'll play it coop I think, wont bother playing it on my own.

Sisko

If theres coop there I'll give it a shot. But I buy a BF game for team versus team conquest with vehicles. In other words multiplayer.

Which is what BF is about imo. This single player crap stinks of consolities to me and thus has me worried. Tis also less time spent on the MP.

Don't really see why they bother isnt that what the COD's and MOH's are for?

Damn I feel like the opposite of one of those anti multiplayer people who go crazy at the idea of coop added to the likes of the new elder scrolls game skyrim or mass effect 3 cept I have a valid point.

Jim

Sisko wrote: »

If theres coop there I'll give it a shot. But I buy a BF game for team versus team conquest with vehicles. In other words multiplayer.

Which is what BF is about imo. This single player crap stinks of consolities to me and thus has me worried. Tis also less time spent on the MP.

Don't really see why they bother isnt that what the COD's and MOH's are for?

Damn I feel like the opposite of one of those anti multiplayer people who go crazy at the idea of coop added to the likes of the new elder scrolls game skyrim or mass effect 3 cept I have a valid point.

You're right, BF is about the MP. But it's just all about money. Even if there's loads of games that are better for SP people will still buy BF just because there's SP. Afaik COOP will be in it. I don't really care if it has SP or not as long as it doesn't take anything away from the MP.

Sisko

Indeed, I suppose thinking about it, you can't not take something away when adding an entire singleplayer campaign to a multiplayer game. Its not the same as adding coop to a single player game.

However , one can hope that likely they only took away an earlier release date. Meaning if they never added the single player bloatware we'd all probably be playing it right now.

Still I can picture this being released with less then usual maps and instead they'll add more maps later through DLC.

But back to the positives though, the map ideas do seem interesting, I was right about the big city maps, New York, Paris , Tehran, this should be interesting if done right.

BF2 had the USMC versus China v the Middle Eastern coalition. I wonder are they just going to continue on with that. But now add russia in it or something.

Paris makes me wonder if the EU forces will be in it, having America in it constantly gets really really old.

They never had any MEC versus China maps annoyingly enough in BF2.

dreamers75

I have faith in Dice :eek:

Only way a PC game can be PC only is we get constant paid DLC, as most games have a lifespan of about 3 months unless Call of Duty is in the title.

No point in supporting a PC title if you got paid for the day it was released.

Jim

Well BC:2 didn't have paid for DLC, so even it's maps are late hopefully we wont have to pay for them.

Also, they could "strategically" hold back maps and then release them later to reinvigorate the game when the player base starts to drop off.

Sisko

I was an original BF1942 fan. Those were the fuckin days let me tell yea.

New maps were given for free along with patches. The mods were brilliant and the best ones were always populated.

Eventually the Desert Combat mod which ended up being all I played, got nearly as popular as BF1942 itself and became at the time, second only to counter strike.

Then EA bought DICE, BF2 came out and all of that went to hell.

They fed the fans BS about the guys behind desert combat were working on BF2, this turned out to be false.

They stopped adding free maps with patches and held off to instead charge people for map packs. They killed the modding community by adding ranked servers and stats for official servers only. Thus manipulating the idiotc hordes who care more about fake digital medals then game play to stay away from any of the mods. Thus no matter the quality of the mod, there was very few people playing it, not enough to give decent populated servers.

And BF2 itself gameplay wise was a step backwards from DC in a lot of ways.

But DC was too old and the sad thing in the end was BF2 was still better then anything else, and hell nothings come out to take that crown yet as apart from 2142 everything since has been even more dumbed down console crap.

I'm a big fan of ArmA etc but sometimes I do feel like I'm in the mood for a more fast paced arcadey shooter and I love conquest. So with all that said I've been looking forward to BF3 for awhile. But my faith in DICE was lost long ago.

**edit**

and btw good multiplayer PC games work differently to consoles. BF1942 had people playing for 4 years , I imagine there's still people playing BF2, I gave it a good 3 years largely due to being in a clan and largely due to trying out and giving time to every mod I could.

When I buy a bf game, that becomes my main multiplayer FPS and I tend to get a couple years out of it or at least that used to be the case.

As far as I know TF2 is the most popular PC shooter atm, how old is that? 2007?

Spear

Jim wrote: »

Well BC:2 didn't have paid for DLC, so even it's maps are late hopefully we wont have to pay for them.

SpecTact, Onslaught and Vietnam were all DLC for BC2.

Jim

Spear wrote: »

SpecTact, Onslaught and Vietnam were all DLC for BC2.

Yea, sorry. I meant maps.

Spear

Jim wrote: »

Yea, sorry. I meant maps.

Users who bought second hand had to pay €10 for a "VIP" code to get them though, another of EA gouging tactics. Nothings ever truly free these days.

Spear

Sisko wrote: »

**edit**

and btw good multiplayer PC games work differently to consoles. BF1942 had people playing for 4 years , I imagine there's still people playing BF2, I gave it a good 3 years largely due to being in a clan and largely due to trying out and giving time to every mod I could.

When I buy a bf game, that becomes my main multiplayer FPS and I tend to get a couple years out of it or at least that used to be the case.

As far as I know TF2 is the most popular PC shooter atm, how old is that? 2007?

What EA need to do is devise a proper plan of support for 3 to 5 years afterwards. They need a schedule of free, new content, just one or two maps every two to three months. Maybe a major engine revision after 2 years to freshen things up. For many players they're not buying a game, but making an investment. EA needs to recognise this, and that it applies to them too. Supporting it properly means they keep selling copies and maintaining a market for expansions and DLC. But, inevitably, they won't do this.

Spear

The first expansion is 4 maps from BF2, including Karkand, and it's the pre-order bonus:

Sisko

They need better support for the modding community and encourage mods rather then kill them off. The battlefield format and conquest mode lends itself greatly to mods.

Grim.

Sisko wrote: »

They need better support for the modding community and encourage mods rather then kill them off. The battlefield format and conquest mode lends itself greatly to mods.

+1 to this its what i loved about the older battlefield games unfortunately i can't see it happening

dreamers75

Sisko wrote: »

They need better support for the modding community and encourage mods rather then kill them off. The battlefield format and conquest mode lends itself greatly to mods.

Wont happen, games have a lifespan theres no money in supporting a PC game. So they wont we have to buy the DLC to keep it alive.

Sisko

One can still dream though.....






.......That valve will make a large scale conquest based military shooter






I disagree about having to buy the DLC to keep it alive btw. Am I the only one that played these games back before the consoles got proper online? BF3 might have a 3 week shelf life for console gamers. But if the PC version is anywhere near as good as BF2 or 1942 it'll have a large PC player base for a couple of years.

I also know many people that bought the BF games just for the mods (mainly 42). I say **** all this holding back content just to release later to make more money, it disgusts me how things have gone. It wouldnt be so bad if they weren't dumbing down the gameplay with every new release also. If theres regen health, infinite ammo and really basic class systems in this like there was in 1943 I'll be pissed.

I understand if the console version is like that but have it the classic way on PC ffs

Paddez

Game Informer has an exclusive BF3 Preview in the latest issue, full res scans of the preview are here.

I was excited before, but now I can't wait. PC being the lead version is great, not just a console port.
4 class roles return. They also want to change the squad system, which I hope doesn't mean a huge change from BC2. I think it worked extremely well.

Only downside I can see is the lack of Mod Support. I guess they want to keep the exclusive rights to DLC.

dreamers75

dreamers75 wrote: »

Wont happen, games have a lifespan theres no money in supporting a PC game. So they wont we have to buy the DLC to keep it alive.

Dammit


http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-02-08-no-mod-tools-for-battlefield-3-for-launch

Sisko

**** sake, damn you EA. Killing creativity in PC gaming since 2005

dreamers75

Sisko wrote: »

**** sake, damn you EA. Killing creativity in PC gaming since 2005

meh play more Arma, evo on Fallujah, mududududud on takistan, domination 4 coming out.

Sisko

played plenty of arma great games, love them in fact but they are totally different kinda games. The quote you quoted of yourself implies its because its the PC and not EA that modding wont happen and DLC is the only thing that'll keep it alive.

Which I found odd coming from a fellow arma player. So I assume you didnt mean it that way.


I'm just pissed cause I ranked Desert Combat as my favourite multiplayer FPS of all time. And there was so many other fantastic 1942 mods, I'm sad I wont get to see the equivalent from BF3.

dreamers75

Sisko wrote: »

played plenty of arma great games, love them in fact but they are totally different kinda games. The quote you quoted of yourself implies its because its the PC and not EA that modding wont happen and DLC is the only thing that'll keep it alive.

Which I found odd coming from a fellow arma player. So I assume you didnt mean it that way.


I'm just pissed cause I ranked Desert Combat as my favourite multiplayer FPS of all time. And there was so many other fantastic 1942 mods, I'm sad I wont get to see the equivalent from BF3.

Not so Bohemia games thrive on mods it how it works for them, the game is the initial sell then as they realised if good DLC is worth paying for people will buy it(atlho PMC was a bit ****). Personally i think BI are a bit clueless about pc gaming atm. Arma 2 rapes the **** out of every other FPS ever but its not "pick up and play" it punishes failure and people dont like that.

EA on the other hand release a game in august and expect 2 million sales by december, if they get that they will release DLC to keep players playing until next August. When part 2 comes out, actvision sorta beat them on that front.

Dice i actually believe intend on releasing PC Battlefield 3 and their version of it, BC2 crackin PC sales prolly justified to EA to let DICE do whatever they wanted with their BF franchise.

Well i hope anyway.

/crosses fingers.

BeansBeans

dreamers75 wrote: »

Cant watch it in work but does the video have DEN DEN DEN DEN?

You forgot a DEN

Sisko

dreamers75 wrote: »

Not so Bohemia games thrive on mods it how it works for them, the game is the initial sell then as they realised if good DLC is worth paying for people will buy it(atlho PMC was a bit ****).

Whats not so? I know all this, the arma games are basically just platforms that thrive on community based content and modding. All arma players know and understand this.

You initially seemed to make the claim that PC games only have a short shelf life time and the only way to increase life time is to limit modding and increase DLC's instead. Which I couldnt see how you could say such a thing when your an arma player, a game which would have utterly failed if Bohemia went out of their way to limit modding.

I'm obviously misunderstanding you somewhere cause you can't possibly be saying this. lol. I'm just not sure what it is your trying to say.

dreamers75 wrote: »

Personally i think BI are a bit clueless about pc gaming atm. Arma 2 rapes the **** out of every other FPS ever but its not "pick up and play" it punishes failure and people dont like that.

The arma games are military sims , they're not there to compete with the COD's the BF's etc. Both types of games are very different experiences just like Ace combat and Lock on are. The pace is very different etc. Counter-Strike and Swat 4 would be another example.

So when you say it rapes them, it doesn't really apply. Different genre of games imo. Don't get me wrong though I love Arma and literally have no interest in any of those COD games or BFC's. Only BF3 has any interest from me.

Woulda been nice if there was solid conquest type team v team gameplay in arma though I think BI failed there alright. TVT is pretty weak in arma.

dreamers75 wrote: »

EA on the other hand release a game in august and expect 2 million sales by december, if they get that they will release DLC to keep players playing until next August. When part 2 comes out, actvision sorta beat them on that front.

Dice i actually believe intend on releasing PC Battlefield 3 and their version of it, BC2 crackin PC sales prolly justified to EA to let DICE do whatever they wanted with their BF franchise.

I view the Bf1942, BF2 and now BF3 series of games as separate from all those COD clones and the Bad company games.

If they turn the pure BF games into something like that I'll be pissed. By something like that I mean weaker games, that just turn into money making clones with a new version every year like fifa.

Less maps and content included so they can release it later by DLC.

Again people played BF1942 for years, same with bf2. There was expansion packs for both games but after releasing loads of new maps for free along with patches back in 1942 they decided to start charging people for them in BF2 with their 'DLC' was a large up roar about that but that's just how the industry went.

BF2 was enough game to stand on its own and none of the DLC or expansion packs improved the game at all, karkand was still the most popular map and its still being played today. People kept playing BF2 not cause of the DLC but cause BF2 itself was worth playing for that many years, as PC gamers like it more then the other military shooters out at the time.

I'm hoping its the same for BF3 but the worry is they'll hold back on all the good stuff in order to release them bit by bit later. Sell us a half complete game and release the rest of it in parts , one dlc at a time.

The console BF3 will have a lot more competition then the PC version of BF3 however. I wonder will we start to see platform only content at some stage.


Anyway apart from all the bad news, I'm really looking forward to BF3, its never going to be as good as the old days, but I really do miss conquest and I really hope its still more like BF2/1942 and less like those dumbed down bad company games or 1943.

cherryghost

More information continues to trickle out from DICE on Battlefield 3. This time it goes beyond saying that the PC version of Battlefield 3 is the primary development platform for the title and the console versions will come from the PC version. This is a much different strategy than DICE has used in the past where the PC version was simply an enhanced port of the console version of the title.

Battlefield 3 will be using dedicated servers to host the online action, as has become tradition in the Battlefield franchise. While mod tools are still planned for release for Battlefield 3, they will not be coming at release due in part to the new Frostbite 2 engine that powers Battlefield 3. In addition, it is still up in the air as to what kind of functionality these mod tools will offer and how they will handle mods. DICE has noted that the development and release of mod tools takes a lot of effort; and right now they need to be focused on the release of the title.

One other interesting thing of note is that DICE has apparently learned a lot of lessons about DLC content, and they will not be handling it the same way they did for Battlefield Bad Company 2. In the future, you can expect a steady stream of content and no six-month wait. DICE has realized that the content is necessary to maintain momentum of the title and keep player interest in the title at a high level. While DICE offers no hints, you can bet that you will see a lot of content for Battlefield 3.

http://fudzilla.com/games/item/21792-battlefield-3-is-a-pc-title-first

Sisko

Interesting stuff. Things are sounding better and better.


I reckon the need for this constant stream of DLC is down to the console versions. Again I wonder if we'll see different DLC for different platforms.

Seems to be happening with the likes of deadspace 2 where only the consoles get certain DLC.

I dunno I can imagine some maps types for example having different levels of populating on different formats.

Great news though. I can't wait for some actual footage of this game.

Jim

Right now I'm most interested in seeing the Frostbite 2 engine. Seeing micro destruction and how it effects buildings especially if there's going to loads of close, built up urban maps.

Reckon it'll be fun to mod.

Sisko

Sometimes less is more though, remember el alamein? Large open area, handful of buildings and only 3 takeable flags.

Yet it was fantastic. BF2 unfortunately messed up on the larger open maps by making them overly cluttery thus harder to navigate, and they added far too many flags which harmed the gameplay. But BF2 did the more infantry based maps very well.

In BF2 by trying to make things look cool they harmed the gameplay for the open area vehicle maps so I'm really hoping they improve on this for BF3.

But seeing fully built up cities now sounds verrrrrrry interesting. Could have never imagined a new york map back in the BF2 days, never mind a destructible one. In fact all their locations sound brilliant. I have no doubt the smaller more infantry based maps will be done well.

Sounds like a brilliant engine if it can do all this and still play on a console. If this was PC only I'd be wondering how much of a beast of a PC would be needed but since its not (and assuming destruction will be the same on all formats) one has to wonder how they can pull this off on such dated hardware.

Bring on the footage!

Jim

That's why console players are giving out about 32 being the max for them when it's 64 on the PC. Saw one lad saying he didn't know why if MAG could do 256 (or whatever it is) then why can't BF3. Duuuuurrrrrrr

Spear

Jim wrote: »

That's why console players are giving out about 32 being the max for them when it's 64 on the PC. Saw one lad saying he didn't know why if MAG could do 256 (or whatever it is) then why can't BF3. Duuuuurrrrrrr

It appears to only be 24 on the consoles, though that's still a step-up from the 16 of BC2.

PogMoThoin

More epicness, good news is, the SP is supposedly 12 hours long
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/03/new-battlefield-3-trailer-out-campaign-to-be-12-hours-long.ars

Watch in 1080p on youtube

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