What's new

Battlefield 3 (Open BETA 9/29 - 10/10)

Shark Tank

I don't actually play these games
So there done with the BC series finally.

I wish my PC could run this, but knowing Dice the console versions will be fine. They're actually going to have jets in this one? I can only imagine the scale and the amount of other vehicles this game will have. Gives me battlefield 2 flashbacks
 

CRKFIEND

Noob
Anyone in the Battlefield 3 Alpha? I'd love to get some games in - so hit me up if you were one of the lucky souls.
 

salvificblood

Worst Sub-Zero Ever
A visually stunning game but one that will ultimately be a disappointment if they don't make the multiplayer radically different to Bad Company 2. There's a reason why, even for all its flaws, more competitive fps players still play Cod.
 

Theme

Noob
A visually stunning game but one that will ultimately be a disappointment if they don't make the multiplayer radically different to Bad Company 2. There's a reason why, even for all its flaws, more competitive fps players still play Cod.
Really? I have been a long time COD fan, since MW until Black Ops. I just recently picked up Battlefield Bad Company 2 and honestly, I think the gameplay is much better on Bad Company 2. I feel more like I'm in a battle. The only difference is that COD has more guns which is a huge plus.
 

Tim Static

Adminerator
Really? I have been a long time COD fan, since MW until Black Ops. I just recently picked up Battlefield Bad Company 2 and honestly, I think the gameplay is much better on Bad Company 2. I feel more like I'm in a battle. The only difference is that COD has more guns which is a huge plus.
Couldnt agree more.

Im a casual player in this genre but BFBC2 was fucking amazing in single and mulltiplayer modes.
 

Sentry_Gun

Target Acquired
A visually stunning game but one that will ultimately be a disappointment if they don't make the multiplayer radically different to Bad Company 2. There's a reason why, even for all its flaws, more competitive fps players still play Cod.
The gameplay better be reminiscent of other Battlefields, not bad company, this game should not be compared to bad company because bad company isn't a true Battlefield game, I've been playing Battlefield since the beggining of the series, Battlefield 1942, Battlefield Vietnam, Battlefield 2, Battlefield 2142, those are the real battlefield games, on PC with 64 players in a map with helicopters, tanks, and planes, that is what Battlefield is.
 

Lord Beef

Death Metal and Trance
The gameplay better be reminiscent of other Battlefields, not bad company, this game should not be compared to bad company because bad company isn't a true Battlefield game, I've been playing Battlefield since the beggining of the series, Battlefield 1942, Battlefield Vietnam, Battlefield 2, Battlefield 2142, those are the real battlefield games, on PC with 64 players in a map with helicopters, tanks, and planes, that is what Battlefield is.
Totally, Cod has always seemed to be more about run n gun, and stats,which is fine, don't get me wrong. The BF series(minus BC) just feels more rewarding to strategic play imo, which is what drew me in in the first place. Hopefully the console versions can retain the essence of BF given that it will not support 64 players. (24 iirc)

-b_s- :headbang:
 

salvificblood

Worst Sub-Zero Ever
Really? I have been a long time COD fan, since MW until Black Ops. I just recently picked up Battlefield Bad Company 2 and honestly, I think the gameplay is much better on Bad Company 2. I feel more like I'm in a battle. The only difference is that COD has more guns which is a huge plus.
It's true that it feels more like an actual battle but there's a lot of garbage in there, too. For one thing, tanks and helicopters (especially the latter), cannot come free of killstreaks. That stuff is just dumb. The main battle used to be fought in your own squad's deployment zone: to see who could get in the helicopter first because if you knew how to fly them, they could dominate the whole map. There's also way too much camping in bfbc2 because there's no UAV/spy plane, so you can quite literally sit in corners or bushes at no real cost. Sometimes iit would take a whole clip just to kill somebody because they were sitting on a medic's health pack behind cover up to the chest. All of this stuff encourages camping an area and "digging in". The fact only recon units have throwable motion sensors says it all since most recons were snipers.

What battlefield had going for it was the destructable environments but the maps were far too big and the long lines of sight just meant you got raped if you tried to rush like you can in Call of Duty. This meant everybody had to play so much more slowly and constantly hug cover due to random snipers pinging you from across the entire map, perched in such obscure places you could barely see them.

Mind you, one of the biggest reasons I play fps's is to bulldozer people with the highest killstreaks the game has so cod has always suited that play for rewards mentality, whereas bfbc2 just didn't.
 

Theme

Noob
What battlefield had going for it was the destructable environments but the maps were far too big and the long lines of sight just meant you got raped if you tried to rush like you can in Call of Duty. This meant everybody had to play so much more slowly and constantly hug cover due to random snipers pinging you from across the entire map, perched in such obscure places you could barely see them.
Yeah, because running and gunning is just so fun.... This game is meant to be more realistic than Call of Duty is. You dont just run in the middle of the street spraying with a machine gun and getting kills. You better believe a snipers going to take you down. Thats how a Battlefield in real life is.

It's true that it feels more like an actual battle but there's a lot of garbage in there, too. For one thing, tanks and helicopters (especially the latter), cannot come free of killstreaks. That stuff is just dumb. The main battle used to be fought in your own squad's deployment zone: to see who could get in the helicopter first because if you knew how to fly them, they could dominate the whole map.
Dont see how thats a problem, they are easily taken down by RPGs. I've spent well over 50+ hours on the game online, and I have yet to see a helicopter doing enough damage to 'dominate the map'. Hell, they usually go down within first minute of lift off.

As far as sniping goes, I do agree with you, there are more camping possibilities for snipers, and that there are more snipers than in Call of Duty, but thats just how the games played. Dont hate the game, hate the players. Besides, the whole medic pack thing, I didnt even realize that was viable... much less running into it online. You dont try to go head to head with a sniper, thats your fault. You sneak around cover to try and get close. You dislike this game because its more realistic than the overrated run and gun shooter like Call of Duty?

The maps are perfect for this type of gameplay anyways. They have to make it big because cover and buildings get blown to shit all the time. I prefer this so much more than stupid maps like NUKETOWN in Black ops where you just throw a god damned grenade and get kills.

The only thing I agree with you is no motion sensor, but then that would just mean you have to rely on your radar more often. Another realistic point. In Call of Duty, spy planes are often ignored, since people rack up that shit so easily and fast. I just usually go straight for the 5+ kill streaks.

This game gets a 9/10 from me. Call of Duty Black Ops, 8.5/10 mainly because of Zombies =] I am a vivid fan of that, maybe thats why Call of Duty hasnt been sold.
 

Loot

the special effects
Will be getting this, fuck CoD.

And competitive FPS players are playing CSS/1.6.
 

salvificblood

Worst Sub-Zero Ever
Yeah, because running and gunning is just so fun....
It is actually but rushing is a lot more than just running around aimlessly and spraying your gun. Rushing is navagating the map as fast as possible but maintaining advantage in your gunfights all the way. You're just doing it at a fast speed. That's not possible in Battlefield because the maps have too many massively open spaces.


Dont see how thats a problem, they are easily taken down by RPGs. I've spent well over 50+ hours on the game online, and I have yet to see a helicopter doing enough damage to 'dominate the map'. Hell, they usually go down within first minute of lift off.
Well, I've spent over 320 hours on the game (I don't hate it), and I know that a good helicopter pilot will circle my spawn almost endlessly, and as soon as he's shot down, he will wait for the helicopter to spawn again in his own deployment, and then it will be straight back to the rape. rpgs do not shoot helicopters down easily if they're being piloted correctly because a gfood pilot changes his flight path up while he's floating over your head firing rockets and whatnot at you. They completely dominate the game when played correctly.

]As far as sniping goes, I do agree with you, there are more camping possibilities for snipers, and that there are more snipers than in Call of Duty, but thats just how the games played. Dont hate the game, hate the players. Besides, the whole medic pack thing, I didnt even realize that was viable... much less running into it online. You dont try to go head to head with a sniper, thats your fault. You sneak around cover to try and get close. You dislike this game because its more realistic than the overrated run and gun shooter like Call of Duty?
It's all the reasons I mention, dude. I can stick black ops in, set my killstreaks to blackbird, chopper gunner and dogs and get half a century of kills for less than double figures in deaths consistently just by playing somewhat intelligently and having fast target acquisition. I put Battlefield in and, in some games, I am getting raped by tanks and choppers straight off my spawn through no fault of my own. I can spend a whole game just trying to shoot this stuff down while being picked off by the men on the ground, too. If that's realistic or fun for some, good for them, I just hate being the punch bag for unskilled players because they're vehicle whoring or sitting in dark corners where their camo completely blends them in with the scenery so I don't know they're even there until I've been shot in the back...

The maps are perfect for this type of gameplay anyways. They have to make it big because cover and buildings get blown to shit all the time. I prefer this so much more than stupid maps like NUKETOWN in Black ops where you just throw a god damned grenade and get kills.
I think nuketown is a garbage map. Firing range, Summit and Grid are by far the best maps on Black Ops because they're the most balanced and you can't out and out hide on any of them.

If they made the battlefield maps more urban with many more streets and alternate routes which are in cover, that would be a massive benefit to the game. It's garbage that you have to get in a vehicle just to get from your deployment zone to within 200ft of the objective, or spend 5 minutes running across an open expanse with snipers and heavy machine guns looking to pick you off from across the entire map.


T
the only thing I agree with you is no motion sensor, but then that would just mean you have to rely on your radar more often. Another realistic point. In Call of Duty, spy planes are often ignored, since people rack up that shit so easily and fast. I just usually go straight for the 5+ kill streaks.
A game like Battlefield needs some kind of killstreak system and more recon tools like spy planes would help you navigate the maps, and given the size of them, you really do need the help if you're a devoted foot slogger.

I want to see Battlefield excel and be a far better game than Call Of Duty because I am tired of COD and some of the garbage stuff in that, but it's going to have to implement some of the things I am talking about to outdo Call of duty in my opinion. If the primary market is PC gamers, Battlefield 3 will suck. Console players should be your bread and butter.
 

CRKFIEND

Noob
A visually stunning game but one that will ultimately be a disappointment if they don't make the multiplayer radically different to Bad Company 2. There's a reason why, even for all its flaws, more competitive fps players still play Cod.
I'm currently playing the game. You won't be disappointed. I hope the console versions hold up...
 
I've got the Alpha test right now and I really like it but I've got this feeling that it won't be as good as I expected to be but they still have some time left to fix it
 

Theme

Noob
I've got the Alpha test right now and I really like it but I've got this feeling that it won't be as good as I expected to be but they still have some time left to fix it
Great! Is it anything like Bad Company 2 or at least a bit similar? I am stoked for this game...... October couldnt be any farther away :(...

It is actually but rushing is a lot more than just running around aimlessly and spraying your gun. Rushing is navagating the map as fast as possible but maintaining advantage in your gunfights all the way. You're just doing it at a fast speed. That's not possible in Battlefield because the maps have too many massively open spaces.
Well, I've spent over 320 hours on the game (I don't hate it), and I know that a good helicopter pilot will circle my spawn almost endlessly, and as soon as he's shot down, he will wait for the helicopter to spawn again in his own deployment, and then it will be straight back to the rape. rpgs do not shoot helicopters down easily if they're being piloted correctly because a gfood pilot changes his flight path up while he's floating over your head firing rockets and whatnot at you. They completely dominate the game when played correctly.
It's all the reasons I mention, dude. I can stick black ops in, set my killstreaks to blackbird, chopper gunner and dogs and get half a century of kills for less than double figures in deaths consistently just by playing somewhat intelligently and having fast target acquisition. I put Battlefield in and, in some games, I am getting raped by tanks and choppers straight off my spawn through no fault of my own. I can spend a whole game just trying to shoot this stuff down while being picked off by the men on the ground, too. If that's realistic or fun for some, good for them, I just hate being the punch bag for unskilled players because they're vehicle whoring or sitting in dark corners where their camo completely blends them in with the scenery so I don't know they're even there until I've been shot in the back...
If they made the battlefield maps more urban with many more streets and alternate routes which are in cover, that would be a massive benefit to the game. It's garbage that you have to get in a vehicle just to get from your deployment zone to within 200ft of the objective, or spend 5 minutes running across an open expanse with snipers and heavy machine guns looking to pick you off from across the entire map.
A game like Battlefield needs some kind of killstreak system and more recon tools like spy planes would help you navigate the maps, and given the size of them, you really do need the help if you're a devoted foot slogger.
I want to see Battlefield excel and be a far better game than Call Of Duty because I am tired of COD and some of the garbage stuff in that, but it's going to have to implement some of the things I am talking about to outdo Call of duty in my opinion. If the primary market is PC gamers, Battlefield 3 will suck. Console players should be your bread and butter.
I think Bad Company 2 does a far better job at map control and navigating them. How often do you run into helicopters anyways? Because by the way your talking, it seems that youre running into this pro pilot every game... I haven't even met 1 yet. If hes spawn camping you, just spawn at a different location, thats the beauty of Bad Company 2, you actually get to pick where you will be spawning next. One great addition is being able to spawn next to one of your teammates, which is a great move. However, there was 1 game I played where the opposing team took every single flag in Conquest, and we were forced to respawn back at our base, with their foot soldiers and tanks rolling up our front doors. It took us awhile to finally kill that damned tank, and the remaining soldiers (some of them respawning next to their team lol) but honestly, I think its quite fun that way. I felt all secretive when I ran into the city and climbed the building to the top to start picking off soldiers one by one. The satisfying feeling when that tank explode and they are retreating under fire is just awesome.

One of the reasons I get bored of Black Ops and MW2 is because of the killstreaks. They are fairly easy to achieve, MW2 much more so, since kills rack up by killstreaks. Its still easy for Black Ops. Snipers are so much harder to spot in Bad Company 2, I'll give you that. But snipers -ARE- supposed to be hard to find, else they wouldn't be good snipers would they. Besides, most snipers arent 1 shot kill, so you can usually get to cover for the time they have to cock their rifle. At least thats my experience. I never get 1 shotted unless its a M95, which is rare, and or a headshot.

As for the maps, there is a map that is urban setting, I forget the names. Its a huge map, but awesome for conquest. Anyways, with Battlefield 3, there will be more urban fighting than Bad Company 2. Most of the time, you dont have to run that 200ft to your objective... Thanks to the respawning system, you can pick where you respawn, just do it near your objective or teammates. Kill streaks would make it too much like Call of Duty, however, a spy plane for a 3 killstreak would be decent... but nothing else besides that is needed. Or maybe no tanks or helicopters starting out, and make those killstreak vehicles. That might be a cool idea, that solves a lot of your problems.
 

salvificblood

Worst Sub-Zero Ever
As for the maps, there is a map that is urban setting, I forget the names. Its a huge map, but awesome for conquest. Anyways, with Battlefield 3, there will be more urban fighting than Bad Company 2. Most of the time, you dont have to run that 200ft to your objective... Thanks to the respawning system, you can pick where you respawn, just do it near your objective or teammates. Kill streaks would make it too much like Call of Duty, however, a spy plane for a 3 killstreak would be decent... but nothing else besides that is needed. Or maybe no tanks or helicopters starting out, and make those killstreak vehicles. That might be a cool idea, that solves a lot of your problems.
My favourite map on bc2 is Arica Harbour. I think that's the one you mean.

It's really just a case of making the action more fluid by taking away all the vast open areas on maps, making snipers have to change their positions by providing alternative routes which are in cover for all maps, cut out the vehicle whoring by balancing the vehicles better and making them harder to attain. The killstreak system should be simple. Things like personal uavs and whatnot are really good since they reward the individual and speed the pace of the game up by allowing you to find your opponents, which also seriously hinders the viability of camping corners.

If I want to hunt my enemy on foot, I should be given the tools to do so.
 

DIRTY

Noob
Anyone with PC capable of running this, I have a beta code ( But no PC :( ) First one that says they can use it, I'll PM you the code. :)
 

Theme

Noob
Battlefield 3 on the PC is going to be phenominal, however, I am going to be getting it for the PS3. I need more console games. Besides, I already have a few good shooters on the PC, namely 1.6 and Source. Id love to try the beta tho since its PC only.