• The Full 12 Minutes Of Battlefield 3 Footage
    292 replies, posted
[img]http://i.imgur.com/kRvC6.jpg[/img] What are these even supposed to be? I was just thinking a mortar round with airburst shells or something, but each one has a double explosion.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;29250636]bad ban he's making a completely reasonable point. people are claiming just because it's a battlefield game it's going to be great when literally everything we have seen up to this point has made it look exactly like BC2 which is not battlefield at all. for everyone to have such blind faith is dumb. [editline]17th April 2011[/editline] bc2 was absolutely console garbage 2/3rds of the bad company 2 forum agreed after a month and a half[/QUOTE] Yeah, if BF3 has graphics similar to BC2, that means it's not Battlefield at all. :downs:
The hud kinda looks like Crysis 2 to me, I mean the layout and colour. But that game looks pretty sweet.
[QUOTE=Overv;29253036]He kept calling people fanboys when they countered him with valid arguments.[/QUOTE] No one countered him with a valid argument, in fact, the post he was banned for was a response to a shit post. He called it a generic shooter - which it certainly looks like, all things considered, and when someone called him out and called him a "shit poster" (parodying his own post) for disagreeing with the conventional opinion that BF3 is going to be god's gift to man, he responded that the person would have to be a fanboy to respond in such a way. Which is accurate. If you call someone a shit poster for disagreeing with an opinion, especially while making perfectly valid observations, you're dumb. In fact, the post that he responded to was actually an outlier. Most of the posts that responded to him [I]agreed [/I]with him, and questioned why he got so many boxes. The post that started the "fanboy" war was when he stated he didn't like BF2 (or said it wasn't worth it) and then when someone said "wow" (truly great post that shows a valid argument!) he called them a fanboy - rightfully so, if you're going to just say "wow" with no explanation in such a fashion showing you're so confident that someone is [I]completely wrong [/I]in every way, and that they don't deserve explanation - you're a fanboy. perfect example, in fact. regardless of that, that's not even the post he replied to. the post he replied to was a shitpost. tldr bad ban sorry overv [editline]17th April 2011[/editline] really did you even pay attention to the thread
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;29250636]bad ban he's making a completely reasonable point. people are claiming just because it's a battlefield game it's going to be great when literally everything we have seen up to this point has made it look exactly like BC2 which is not battlefield at all. for everyone to have such blind faith is dumb. [editline]17th April 2011[/editline] bc2 was absolutely console garbage 2/3rds of the bad company 2 forum agreed after a month and a half[/QUOTE] no, your point is reasonable, his was not he was just whining about bad company 2 and [del]bad company[/del] battlefield 3 no matter what, with no real logic behind it, like the 1.6 community gets their panties in a twist any time anything anyone says can even mildly be applied to counter-strike source you and I are trying our best to back up our viewpoints, he was just being senseless and distasteful
[QUOTE=The Great Ghast;29223949]The singleplayer looks as unappealing as the rest. The destructible cover is cool and all, but not enough to warrant me a buy. Heavily scripted with hoards of mindless enemies who cannot shoot for shit while you mow them down with big MG.[/QUOTE] ^ example of post that showed actual thought on his part [QUOTE=Android phone;29253762]no, your point is reasonable, his was not he was just whining about bad company 2 and [del]bad company[/del] battlefield 3 no matter what, with no real logic behind it, like the 1.6 community gets their panties in a twist any time anything anyone says can even mildly be applied to counter-strike source you and I are trying our best to back up our viewpoints, he was just being senseless and distasteful[/QUOTE] i disagree with his point but he didn't make it in an unwarranted way.
[QUOTE=sa2fan;29252982]Yay, the constant hate on BF3 is delightful.[/QUOTE] I see you didn't read my handy dandy list, let me repost it for you [editline]17th April 2011[/editline] -Battlefield: [list]Slow pace[/list] [list]Entire team working together[/list] [list]Commander is essential[/list] [list]Each class has a priority above pew pew[/list] [list]Multiple square mile maps with up to 4-stage campaigns[/list] [list]Up to 128 players[/list] [list]Realistic ammunition systems[/list] [list]Years to rank up and many weapons you'll never unlock[/list] [list]Hour-long rounds[/list] -Bad Company [list]Fast pace[/list] [list]Squads occasionally working together[/list] [list]No commander or voice chat with entire team[/list] [list]Each class priority is pew pew[/list] [list]Small, dense maps with many chokepoints and few vehicles[/list] [list]Up to 32 players[/list] [list]Ammo pool system for foot soldiers, infinite ammo of every kind for all vehicles[/list] [list]All items unlocked by level ~20, rank up incredibly fast[/list] [list]20-minute rounds[/list]
snipd moved up
we 'hate' it because it's being labeled as a battlefield game, when it [b]clearly[/b] is not [editline]17th April 2011[/editline] pretend brickinhead's post just says [editline]asdf[/editline] [editline]17th April 2011[/editline] alright, let's apply sa2fan's logic hypothetical scenario: the next big Call of Duty game is coming out next summer. Everyone's hyped, because it's been said it'll return to CoD's roots, play like a classic Call of Duty game instead of all the fancy ranks and weapon attachments and killstreaks we have now. They release a trailer just months before launch, all it is is this: [img]http://i712.photobucket.com/albums/ww129/EvanKski/cats.gif?t=1303080567[/img] sa2fan: guys it's too early to judge this looks like it could totally be like the older ones stop badmouthing it!!!
I thought I'd be excited to watch some real Bf3 game-play, but I've been left pretty disappointed. Honestly this could pass for a gameplay teaser for a new Call of Duty game. They should have stuck with the 2142 timeline, how many modern-day shooters can you cram into this over-saturated market.
Agreed, 2142 allowed much more interesting weapons, vehicles and locations, I wish it never died. Too many "futuristic" shooters now are only set 20 years in the future and only have AK's and M4's, typical bullshit, or they're set a good amount forward but are too optimistic/unrealistic and unatmospheric, like Dystopia or Blacklight.
this has inspired me to reinstall 2142, most likely the last true "Battlefield". The 2.0GB patch is going to be a bitch though.
I really lamented the loss of helicopters in 2142. The aircraft in that version just didn't work like they should. Other than that it really was a blast though.
2142 DLC for BF3 would be cool, like they did vietnam for BFBC2. [editline]18th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;29255376]I really lamented the loss of helicopters in 2142. The aircraft in that version just didn't work like they should.[/QUOTE] Hey guys it's a jet now wait it's a heli no wait it's both jk it's neither.
[QUOTE=rnate;29253046][img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/kRvC6.jpg[/img_thumb] What are these even supposed to be? I was just thinking a mortar round with airburst shells or something, but each one has a double explosion.[/QUOTE] Cluster Bomb Missiles.
snip
[QUOTE=Lizzrd;29255386]2142 DLC for BF3 would be cool, like they did vietnam for BFBC2. [editline]18th April 2011[/editline] Hey guys it's a jet now wait it's a heli no wait it's both jk it's neither.[/QUOTE] that is a fucking great idea and I actually rather liked the somewhat-fast, heavy weapons hover thing
I don't get all the hate in this thread. People are bitching that the multiplayer will be shit based on 12 minutes of singleplayer gameplay. What the hell? "It's not Battlefield" Why? Because the singleplayer has a story? These stupid "Battlefield has this and ONLY THIS" posts drive me up the wall. Gaming would be dead if people like that were in charge. I don't mind compliants about what you don't like, that's fine. I hate the blind hatred of change PC gamers seem to have these days. People seem to whine about EVERYTHING.
Looks pretty good. Gonna order it when it comes out.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;29255736]I don't get all the hate in this thread. People are bitching that the multiplayer will be shit based on 12 minutes of singleplayer gameplay. What the hell? "It's not Battlefield" Why? Because the singleplayer has a story? These stupid "Battlefield has this and ONLY THIS" posts drive me up the wall. Gaming would be dead if people like that were in charge. I don't mind compliants about what you don't like, that's fine. I hate the blind hatred of change PC gamers seem to have these days. People seem to whine about EVERYTHING.[/QUOTE] if the next counter-strike was a clone of ArmA would it still be counter-strike? [sp]no[/sp]
[QUOTE=Android phone;29255949]if the next counter-strike was a clone of ArmA would it still be counter-strike? [sp]no[/sp][/QUOTE] And this is a clone of? Don't say CoD, because if you do I'll know you have pudding where your brain should be.
If the next battlefield has pretty graphics would it still be a sequel to BF2? [sp]YESSS!!! however, BF2 on max is still pretty nice compared to a lot of console ports these days.[/sp]
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;29256033]And this is a clone of? Don't say CoD, because if you do I'll know you have pudding where your brain should be.[/QUOTE] not saying it's a clone, but bad company changed the formula from Battlefield to Generic FPS and you know it I'm saying if the next counter-strike played out hyper-realistically like ArmA does and obviously borrowed a few things from ArmA it wouldn't be counter-strike anymore [editline]17th April 2011[/editline] sweetwater, we know you're a fanboy, you don't have to keep hiding behind dumb ratings
Bad company didn't change the battlefield formula, it's a spinoff series.
[QUOTE=Android phone;29256260]not saying it's a clone, but bad company changed the formula from Battlefield to Generic FPS and you know it I'm saying if the next counter-strike played out hyper-realistically like ArmA does and obviously borrowed a few things from ArmA it wouldn't be counter-strike anymore [/QUOTE] But if the next Counter-Strike didn't change anything people would complain that it's the same. Either way they lose. That's no even the issue. Battlefield hasn't turned into a twitch-based, corridor shooter like CoD, nor a hyper-realistic, ultra tactical game like ARMA. Yes, Bad Company changed the formula, but this isn't Bad Company. It's not 24 players, it's 64 players, just like BF2. I know there were 128 player servers in BF2 but they didn't show up for some time, the game was always meant to be 64 players. There's still heavy focus on vehicle gameplay, jets, tanks and helicopters, it's not infantry focused like BC2. The removal of commanders is annoying but half the games I played the commander was fucking useless anyway so it's not that bad.
So 64 player "Bad Company"
[QUOTE=Android phone;29256260]not saying it's a clone, but bad company changed the formula from Battlefield to Generic FPS and you know it I'm saying if the next counter-strike played out hyper-realistically like ArmA does and obviously borrowed a few things from ArmA it wouldn't be counter-strike anymore [editline]17th April 2011[/editline] sweetwater, we know you're a fanboy, you don't have to keep hiding behind dumb ratings[/QUOTE] And we know YOU'RE a fanboy of BF2. So what if it's a mixture of BF2 and BC? That would probably be a good thing. It will probably have an in-the-middle pace, which is what I prefer.
implying MP will be any better maybe if your friends make a squad and such but if a bunch of people trickle from BC2 and COD it won't be much better even if the MP is ~amazing~
Really, what's so bad about mixing BC and BF2? Android Phone, your argument is leading to nowhere. What are you trying to prove? Are you trying to convince people?
[QUOTE=Lizzrd;29256035]If the next battlefield has pretty graphics would it still be a sequel to BF2? [sp]YESSS!!! however, BF2 on max is still pretty nice compared to a lot of console ports these days.[/sp][/QUOTE] BF3 isn't a console port... They even announced. PC First, Console second. If they don't stay to their word someone would most likely start a boycott. Also... They better make that expansion BF 2143. We've gotten vietnam, 1942, where the fuck is 2142?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.