Battlefield 3 Is "Grounded In Authenticity"

[Corporal Yakob]

Battlefield 3 is grounded in authenticity but civilians don't exist in its war-zones. Also can someone tell me who we're fighting in this one, Russians?

Russians, Chinese and various middle easterners...I believe.

Gasp! My most hated of foes!

 

[Revolutionary]

Lame....I just lost any remnant of interest in this game.

 

[Hexenwolf]

So, what I'm hearing is "we're jumping on the bandwagon folks!"

 

[RA92]

Don't we have have enough 'serious' military shooters? With games like Red Orchestra and ArmA doing the 'authenticity' bit better? The lightheartedness BF:BC1 filled a niche - so why can't they do their own thing?

Who says this isn't their own thing? Have you played the previous Battlefield games? They didn't really have much in the way of singleplayer, but the tone of the games was always serious.

What I meant was that the 'Three Kings' romp that was BC1 was a breath of fresh air from all the other serious military shooters. And especially today's shooter market could do with a bit of humor. So I would've liked it better if they went in that direction. Because seriously, all this promise of 'being grounded in realism' and 'asking difficult questions about patriotism' stinks of the promises Homefront made. And we all know where that went.

(No complaints on the his stance on pacing and atmosphere, though.)

As for previous Battlefield games, last time I fired up BF2, Special Forces, Armored Fury and Euro Force, they didn't even have a SP.

 

[SyphonX]

Really guys, you're complaining quite a bit.

I'm kinda laughing at all the, "Well that settles it, I'm not getting BF3." in this thread. He doesn't take Hogan's Heroes seriously enough, therefore I'm not interested in Battlefield 3.

 

[Frizzle]

"Tone is vibe. It's style. It's a feeling. It's why The Dark Knight is awesome and the 60s Batman is not, the difference between Saving Private Ryan and Hogan's Heroes," writes Goldfarb.

....

That seemed relevant here. Can't think of a better way to hurt your game's (and your company's) image than to do a press release that tells older people that stuff from back in their day sucked.

I think what he's getting at, is that people thought "the dark knight" was engaging and engrossing, and kind of drew you in. Batman from back in the day was more of a *fun to watch* thing. It was entertaining, but never really gave you a grand sense of immersion or feeling. I believe he thinks both are good, but that they're going for the style and tone of the latter, because it's a more intense version and that's what they want us to feel.

I haven't pre-ordered yet but I plan on it.

 

[intheweeds]

I think what he's getting at, is that people thought "the dark knight" was engaging and engrossing, and kind of drew you in. Batman from back in the day was more of a *fun to watch* thing. It was entertaining, but never really gave you a grand sense of immersion or feeling. I believe he thinks both are good, but that they're going for the style and tone of the latter, because it's a more intense version and that's what they want us to feel.

If that's what he meant, then that's what he should have said instead of "The Dark Knight is awesome and the 60's Batman is not". If he had said what you think he meant, then no one would be complaining right now. What he actually said though was just plain ridiculous.

Maybe Goldfarb is a traditionally a troll name?

 

[Warforger]

Oh so I guess the 80's and 90's era of gaming was totally shit then too? So I guess Doom, Mario, Assasin's Creed, Star Wars etc. all suck because they're not realistic. While I may laugh at Assasin's Creed's idea of being "realistic" and criticize the story for this it doesn't make it a bad franchise and if anything it's one of my favorites. It's a good thing most assasination games aren't realistic too, because then if you want a convincing single character you're probably just going to play the entire game stalking someone, watching what their routine is and learn about any medical conditions they have. Then bam you catch them in a dark corner or in their home, make them OD on heroine or whatever then leave, everyone will think it's just a standard drug addiction and not suspect assassination, plus it hits the targets credibility to weaken their fan base. But this would be completely boring and jumping off a roof and stabbing someone with a blade that comes out your wrist is frickin' awesome.

But really I don't know how BF3 is going to be able compete with that really old game that's so much more realistic you know real life? I know the graphics will be better but it won't have as good of a story or as realistic gameplay so I'm going to go join the army instead.

 

[Frizzle]

I think what he's getting at, is that people thought "the dark knight" was engaging and engrossing, and kind of drew you in. Batman from back in the day was more of a *fun to watch* thing. It was entertaining, but never really gave you a grand sense of immersion or feeling. I believe he thinks both are good, but that they're going for the style and tone of the latter, because it's a more intense version and that's what they want us to feel.

If that's what he meant, then that's what he should have said instead of "The Dark Knight is awesome and the 60's Batman is not". If he had said what you think he meant, then no one would be complaining right now. What he actually said though was just plain ridiculous.

Maybe Goldfarb is a traditionally a troll name?

I'll grant you that it is my interpretation of what he said. I just broke down the sentence as Dark Knight being "awesome" and 60's batman not being "awesome". He didn't say it was bad, it just wasn't awesome. Johny Quest (not sure of your age) was not "awesome", but I and many others enjoyed watching it on TV.

All that being said, I think there is a little too much overreacting going on here. especially since the majority of this site's visitors (myself included) were not around in the 60's.

 

[Frizzle]

Double post

 

[UnderCoverGuest]

Yes, sneaking up behind an enemy soldier, knife in hand, ramming it into their chest as they turn around and look at you dramatically, before staring vacantly into the sky while you navigate their thoracic cavity before withdrawling the blade, the victim's dogtags being pulled away at the same time...is very authentic.

Every day that goes by, ARMA 3 just looks better and better. Keep it up Infinity Ward 2.0, keep it up EA Dice. I'm looking forward to enjoying a real authentic military simulation game, and the more you two make movie-based action fests, the more I'm going to enjoy it when it comes out. Already enjoying the hell out of ARMA II and ACE, so whatever.

 

[The Random One]

Story? In my Battlefield?

It's less likely than you think that I'll bother with it.

 

[Double A]

So 60's Batman isn't awsome and neither is Hogan's Hero's... Has he watched either show?

In his defense, I think he was using a more classical definition of awesome, not the modern one that applies to anything and everything. As in, he might still think Batman and Hogan's Heroes are extremely funny, but not "full of awe."

OT: Looks decent enough. I'll probably get it used. Saw some plants. That was cool in the sense that actually having contrast in a game is cool.

 

[Xannieros]

And yet, half or more of the complainers will buy this game at release.

The game will still be fun. I don't care about what the publisher says about a game. I see for myself.