Battlefield 3 Gameplay

[SovietSecrets]

http://ca.kotaku.com/5774075/your-first-look-at-someone-playing-battlefield-3

Looks pretty. About it I guess. I think I am way too used to CoD to like how BF handles now.

 

[WrongSprite]

This doesn't deserve the title of Battlefield 3.

1942, Vietnam, 2, 2142, those are the real BF games, this is more in the style of Bad Company.

Don't get me wrong, it looks good, but it's not Battlefield.

 

[xDarc]

They didn't show any hip shooting because they don't want you to see how ridiculous the spread is. At 2:07 you can see several rounds go super high even when aiming down the sight. Always hated this about BF.

It's a game mechanic to level the playing field in the name of mass appeal; you have to stop to manage cone of fire- and limit yourself to slow bursts, ensuring some mouth breather has time to draw a bead on you. It's kill for kill gaming design.

Everyone gets kills and it sells copies. Passing on this til I see more.

P.S. Homefront looking better.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

That looks more like Call of Duty than Battlefield. Regenerating health, narrow corridors, CoD style reloading with infinite (as long as you have bullets to put in them) magazines, no sign of vehicles, basically not what I was expecting from Battlefield 3. As the OP said, however, it is very pretty. That has to be the best lighting I've ever seen in a videogame.

 

[Skops]

This doesn't deserve the title of Battlefield 3.

1942, Vietnam, 2, 2142, those are the real BF games, this is more in the style of Bad Company.

Don't get me wrong, it looks good, but it's not Battlefield.

I agree so far. Personally I'd much rather they do a half baked AI on small 8v8 multiplayer maps for singleplayer rather than do a full scale story mode. That being they can use all their energy to once again re-create and add to a masterpiece that is those other BF games.

another thing, I always like in previous BF games that when you reload, the spare bullets in your last clip don't get automatically added to your next mag. If you shot 20/30 bullets and reload, you're tossing away 10 rounds. They should keep it like that. Make noobs appreciate those last few bullets, this ain't Counter strike, this ain't Call of Dookie. THIS IS BATTLEFIELD!

also, respect to games that do have that feature like Red Orchestra.

 

[Dubious George]

Homefront looks far worse than this.
The gameplay videos look so stale.

 

[xDarc]

Homefront looks far worse than this.
The gameplay videos look so stale.

Thank you, lurker, for your completely meaningless comment. It's not a loaf of bread, it's a video game... try using words to articulate. DICE shill?

Homefront is going to enable a more traditional style of FPS gameplay with a less cumbersome cone of fire that makes weapons randomly spew lead for the sake of a level playing field.

I like my FPS without training wheels, yes please- thankyou.

 

[Dubious George]

Quite sorry, but when I look at homefront gameplay trailers, all I see is CoD. And by stale, I meant that it doesn't have a unique feel to me. Almost every engine has a certain feel, and I'm not feeling that with homefront. And also, I too like my fps' without training wheels, but I prefer rpgs.

 

[Still Life]

This doesn't deserve the title of Battlefield 3.

1942, Vietnam, 2, 2142, those are the real BF games, this is more in the style of Bad Company.

Don't get me wrong, it looks good, but it's not Battlefield.

They only showed the singleplayer portion and you're already jumping the gun on multiplayer?

 

[WrongSprite]

This doesn't deserve the title of Battlefield 3.

1942, Vietnam, 2, 2142, those are the real BF games, this is more in the style of Bad Company.

Don't get me wrong, it looks good, but it's not Battlefield.

They only showed the singleplayer portion and you're already jumping the gun on multiplayer?

No, I'm talking about the singleplayer mostly.

Although, I'll bet you £100 right now that it'll be almost identical to the Bad Company multi.

 

[xDarc]

They only showed the singleplayer portion and you're already jumping the gun on multiplayer?

Since when did Battlefield games need a campaign mode to begin with? This already indicates a shift in the development focus to me.

 

[Still Life]

This doesn't deserve the title of Battlefield 3.

1942, Vietnam, 2, 2142, those are the real BF games, this is more in the style of Bad Company.

Don't get me wrong, it looks good, but it's not Battlefield.

They only showed the singleplayer portion and you're already jumping the gun on multiplayer?

No, I'm talking about the singleplayer mostly.

Although, I'll bet you £100 right now that it'll be almost identical to the Bad Company multi.

Yes, but the games you mentioned never really had a singleplayer campaign -- just bot matches. At least as far as I can recall.

They only showed the singleplayer portion and you're already jumping the gun on multiplayer?

Since when did Battlefield games need a campaign mode to begin with? This already indicates a shift in the development focus to me.

Since when was it such a bad thing? Surely the team has expanded since BF2, and if Treyarch, Infinity Ward and other companies can pull it off, why not DICE?

 

[Skops]

This doesn't deserve the title of Battlefield 3.

1942, Vietnam, 2, 2142, those are the real BF games, this is more in the style of Bad Company.

Don't get me wrong, it looks good, but it's not Battlefield.

They only showed the singleplayer portion and you're already jumping the gun on multiplayer?

No, I'm talking about the singleplayer mostly.

Although, I'll bet you £100 right now that it'll be almost identical to the Bad Company multi.

Yes, but the games you mentioned never really had a singleplayer campaign -- just bot matches. At least as far as I can recall.

that is true, and is that a problem? Would that stop fans from their purchase? Did you buy Halo cause you thought the story was going to be thought provoking? The answer to all of these is 'No'. You bought it for the multiplayer, thats what matters, thats what Battlefield has always been. We've never asked for a story, we never wanted a story.

MAG doesn't have a singleplayer component anywhere apart from a 2min training session for each PMC, and its still one of the most played FPS' on the PS3.

EDIT: Halo is just being used as an example, I'm not assuming you have ever owned Halo or even played Halo and thought it was a ripsnortin good time. I could just as well put in CoD, Medal of Honor, or any other AAA FPS.

 

[xDarc]

Since when was it such a bad thing? Surely the team has expanded since BF2, and if Treyarch, Infinity Ward and other companies can pull it off, why not DICE?

Ask the folks in the EA BF3 PC forums why they feel it's bad thing. I just popped in over there and found comments like "What's next- it's being released on the wii?"

DICE has consistently demonstrated that they are a one trick pony. Their games have evolved little over the years, and in the case of BFBC2, they couldn't even have proper hit reg.

It's my guess that they are actually hurting in ways subtlety perceived and this just reeks of desperation to emulate some of the other titles out there, poorly I'll bet.

At least, this is the implication that is conjured in a lot of people's minds. Which is why so much can be taken away by a little preview clip, and why so little is given in the first place.

 

[Merkavar]

looks good. i think i need to get a new computer so i can run the game at high detail.

 

[Still Life]

This doesn't deserve the title of Battlefield 3.

1942, Vietnam, 2, 2142, those are the real BF games, this is more in the style of Bad Company.

Don't get me wrong, it looks good, but it's not Battlefield.

They only showed the singleplayer portion and you're already jumping the gun on multiplayer?

No, I'm talking about the singleplayer mostly.

Although, I'll bet you £100 right now that it'll be almost identical to the Bad Company multi.

Yes, but the games you mentioned never really had a singleplayer campaign -- just bot matches. At least as far as I can recall.

that is true, and is that a problem? Would that stop fans from their purchase? Did you buy Halo cause you thought the story was going to be thought provoking? The answer to all of these is 'No'. You bought it for the multiplayer, thats what matters, thats what Battlefield has always been. We've never asked for a story, we never wanted a story.

MAG doesn't have a singleplayer component anywhere apart from a 2min training session for each PMC, and its still one of the most played FPS' on the PS3.

Presumptuous much?

I did buy halo for the singleplayer, thank you; might I remind you that I am not the only one. Multiplayer was an added bonus. I will buy BF3 for the multiplayer, but I will not say no to a well made singleplayer tutorial/campaign, as well.

Regardless, BF:BC2 was well received in both departments and the point I am making is that it can't hurt to have an extra feature, not whether or not 'we' as a pseudo-collective had 'asked' for a singleplayer campaign.

This is a feat that should be easily accomplished by AAA devs like DICE.

Since when was it such a bad thing? Surely the team has expanded since BF2, and if Treyarch, Infinity Ward and other companies can pull it off, why not DICE?

Ask the folks in the EA BF3 PC forums why they feel it's bad thing. I just popped in over there and found comments like "What's next- it's being released on the wii?"

DICE has consistently demonstrated that they are a one trick pony. Their games have evolved little over the years, and in the case of BFBC2, they couldn't even have proper hit reg.

It's my guess that they are actually hurting in ways subtlety perceived and this just reeks of desperation to emulate some of the other titles out there, poorly I'll bet.

At least, this is the implication that is conjured in a lot of people's minds. Which is why so much can be taken away by a little preview clip, and why so little is given in the first place.

Well, being a PC gamer myself I have to disagree with this consensus. Ever since DICE announced 'multiplat' for BF3 certain elements of the PC community having been drowning themselves in a depressing pool of supposition and system elitism.

I haven't had any issues with hit registry and I felt that the SP portion of the game was solid, if unremarkable. I've also seen plenty of evolution with the BF games, down from the game engine to the class system.

 

[SovietSecrets]

No, I'm talking about the singleplayer mostly.

Although, I'll bet you £100 right now that it'll be almost identical to the Bad Company multi.

Of course it will be. DICE multiplayer is the exact same thing every time.

 

[WrongSprite]

No, I'm talking about the singleplayer mostly.

Although, I'll bet you £100 right now that it'll be almost identical to the Bad Company multi.

Of course it will be. DICE multiplayer is the exact same thing every time.

Well, not really, the Bad Company stuff took a diversion from the main Battlefield series in my opinon, and it's a shame.

 

[SovietSecrets]

No, I'm talking about the singleplayer mostly.

Although, I'll bet you £100 right now that it'll be almost identical to the Bad Company multi.

Of course it will be. DICE multiplayer is the exact same thing every time.

Well, not really, the Bad Company stuff took a diversion from the main Battlefield series in my opinon, and it's a shame.

Well I will give you that. BF 2 multiplayer was different from BC. Yet after MoH which was exactly like BC 2 with just a different paint job, I expect BF 3 to be more of the same that we have gotten over the years with BC.

 

[gl1koz3]

Man, the editing effect and the ending sound is seizure-inducing. How the hell is this even considered these days.

Otherwise, it feels like BC2 with better graphics. I miss the health bar... it's very bullet-spray-and-sponge-like now.

Captcha fail; so unreadable. And what the hell does "Oops! You must have posted since you started writing this post. Please fill in the Captcha below to proceed!" even mean?