Battlefield 3 Is "Grounded In Authenticity"

[Squilookle]

Bad Company 1 was a lighthearted Indiana Jones-style adventure. Bad Company 2 tried to make things more serious, and I'd say it fell on it's face. We went from a romp through whateverstan for gold to Russians invading the US. No, neither story was particularly that great, but the first's lighthearted nature allowed me to forgive it a bit more. The second's focus on being serious hurt it.

Yeah pretty much- so are they going after Flashpoint and Arma now? Don't they realise that there are WAY too many overly serious games lately? I'd rather take my Just Causes and Saint's Rows over GTA IV any day.

Besides, Battlefield was at it's best in BF1942 when the action got so over the top. One reviewer described it as a comic-book version of WW2, and I think that was a good way of looking at it, and a decent enough reason why no battlefield game since has been as good or as balanced.

When games forget that they are still games, they just get... mediocre.

 

[English Stew]

Um... that reminds me of that U.S.D.D part in black ops where the so called "mission" is just a first person cutscene.

While I like the theory of pacing behind this idea, it's just going to be boring in an fps. It's part of the reason why I think that the best way to make a realistic modern war game would be as a third-person survival horror game - leave almost all the focus on the tension between encounters and the fear that every civilian you meet might have a bomb strapped to their chest, and you could get a way more compelling game than Modern Warfare or Battlefield - not saying either is bad, though.

Edit: forgot to put in quote I was replying to, I'll put it in the comment below

 

[English Stew]

Yeah, this one.

Edit: Fucked up again, why can't we delete posts?

 

[English Stew]

I'd like there to be a mission where nothing crazy happens at all. A patrol through the city where you don't get ambushed or blown up by an IED. It would make a good counter point to when shit goes tits up, i.e. every other mission you go on.

Okay, this one.

 

[Frostbite3789]

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

Because it has a single player campaign? Or because it's serious? Every single player trailer out already told us that. This shouldn't be news.

 

[Irridium]

Bad Company 1 was a lighthearted Indiana Jones-style adventure. Bad Company 2 tried to make things more serious, and I'd say it fell on it's face. We went from a romp through whateverstan for gold to Russians invading the US. No, neither story was particularly that great, but the first's lighthearted nature allowed me to forgive it a bit more. The second's focus on being serious hurt it.

Yeah pretty much- so are they going after Flashpoint and Arma now? Don't they realise that there are WAY too many overly serious games lately? I'd rather take my Just Causes and Saint's Rows over GTA IV any day.

Besides, Battlefield was at it's best in BF1942 when the action got so over the top. One reviewer described it as a comic-book version of WW2, and I think that was a good way of looking at it, and a decent enough reason why no battlefield game since has been as good or as balanced.

When games forget that they are still games, they just get... mediocre.

Well, there was 2142 with its mechs and floating tanks...

And the titan matches were fun.

 

[Machocruz]

Just make a new Battlefield game, guys. Act like this isn't your first time making one.

It's BF3, not Bad Company 3, so no need to go on about tones and shit.

 

[RUINER ACTUAL]

Is it just me, or did that last paragraph about tone kind of take jabs at Call of Duty? If so, kudos on the metaphoric trash talk DICE.

 

[RUINER ACTUAL]

Wow an shooter grounded on modern warfare authenticity ... why hasn't anybody came up with that before?

I don't think you fully understand what they mean by "authenticity." It's not "realism." Authenticity is more of the small things. Even just from the feel of it. Play MW2, then play this, and see which one makes you feel like you're in a war.

Story? In my Battlefield?

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

I don't understand. Why would you just entirely ignore a whole section of the game? Are you some kind of Battlefield Multiplayer Elitist? If anything, you might as well get your moneys worth.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

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?

I'm not even a big fan of Battlefield, but this little nit picky argument really gets on my nerves.

There's no reason to have civilians. It's making the war zone more authentic. You want a game with realism it would be you driving around in a Humvee stopping at individual houses and asking it's citizens if they've seen suspicious activity, then searching there house.

Civilians have never been a necessary part of a Warzone.

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

What were you expecting from a military shooter that just now you lost interest?

Seriously people, this late in the market filled with war shooters you either like them or you don't. If you want to hate the game, at least have a good reason other than "It's trying too hard to be serious"

Christ. I'm actually defending Battlefield.

At least my reason for not liking the games isn't half retarded.

 

[Waffle_Man]

They're going for authenticity? The trailers up to this point sure fooled me into thinking otherwise.

 

[Vrach]

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.

I know what you mean, but that still doesn't change that Battlefield's take was always serious warfare. The words 'Bad Company' come after a colon for a reason - they're a spinoff, not true Battlefield games.

Now, I sympathize with your general feeling that srs bsns military shooters are a dime a dozen. But let's stop for a second and think - how many good ones have been made? Off the top of my head, I can think of CoD4 and CoD WaW. Just because a ton of shit has been funneled out of the industry within the same genre/niche, doesn't mean someone shouldn't still be able to come in and try to do it right. And DICE sure as hell looks to be heading the right way.

I get you're over-saturated with this niche, perhaps so much so that you won't even enjoy a good campaign, but I can tell you from my end that I only care about the quality. Don't get me wrong, I can enjoy a good laugh here and there and I certainly don't mind some of my shooters humouristic. But it's not Battlefield.

Spoiler: This - is (Spaaaaaartaaaaa... ehem, sorry) Battlefield:

And after all, if Battlefield really does deliver a fantastic serious narrative, won't it be so much better for the fact that it'll stand out as one of the rare gold bars above the cesspool of failed mediocrity?

 

[Arrrgh_Bruce]

I think people are jumping to a bit of an extream here on the retro batman and hogans heros things. I'm pretty sure it was just a mistake in his thought process in getting out his intentions. I just think judging a game on something a designer said which has been grossly nitpicked is not the greatest thing to do. He was clearly just trying to sell his game and people who were already not going to by the game or have some kind of superioty complex and take it as an upmost insult that a favourite show wasnt deemed awesome are just using it as an excuse not to get the game.

 

[MercurySteam]

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.

It's mind boggling that people still let what some game devs say stop them from buying games that had an entire team of other people contributing to it. I think that all games will soon need that Ass Creed tagline about the game being developed by a diverse group of people with different beliefs.

 

[Smooth Operator]

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?

Non Americans, they is all evil.

I liked BC2 because of it's slight Indiana Jones and sci-fi smell, going dark and gritty just makes it CoD again.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

To that end, the game will feature authentic military-themed gibberish - Goldfarb claims Dice " going closer to the slang of the modern warrior."

After playing Crysis 2 I vowed I would never again play any games where any NPC at any time uses the words LZ, Bravo, Marines, Sitrep (used often enough I could let this one slide), Exfil, and all that other jargon [http://www.gamesradar.com/pc/modern-warfare-2/videos/modern-warfare-2-most-baffling-jargon/]. But for some reason, American males aged 14-21 eat this stuff up like it was ambrosia. MW3 and now from the sounds of it BF3 as well, will be a yawn-fest full of that stuff.

 

[Baresark]

The story in Battlefield 3's single player campaign will be a non-linear affair, with the player dumped into the boots of numerous different gun-toting characters around the globe

So... now they are copying off of CoD directly...... I mean, wow.... just wow. They released a statement stating outright they are copying CoD single player style.

 

[Baresark]

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?

I'm not even a big fan of Battlefield, but this little nit picky argument really gets on my nerves.

There's no reason to have civilians. It's making the war zone more authentic. You want a game with realism it would be you driving around in a Humvee stopping at individual houses and asking it's citizens if they've seen suspicious activity, then searching there house.

Civilians have never been a necessary part of a Warzone.

I think he meant simply that they shouldn't claim realism when they aren't even going to have this element. While they may not be a necessary part of a warzone, more often than not, they are in warzones, historically speaking. I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm just saying that they are there. Even CoD games had civilians in what turned into warzones.

I think this whole strange, "no innocents hurt/killed in video games", is ridiculous. It makes the point of a game such as this simply to shoot with no motivation behind it. Even in real war, people are motivated to do the fighting beyond kill the other guy for the sake of killing them.

 

[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?

I'm not even a big fan of Battlefield, but this little nit picky argument really gets on my nerves.

There's no reason to have civilians. It's making the war zone more authentic. You want a game with realism it would be you driving around in a Humvee stopping at individual houses and asking it's citizens if they've seen suspicious activity, then searching there house.

Civilians have never been a necessary part of a Warzone.


I'm not demanding total realism, the closest I can get was walking around a muddy field for a real life hour before being run over by a Sherman in Red Orchestra: Darkest of Days but it does seem iffy to me for a game such as Battlefield 3 to claim its going to be gritty and dark and realistic and then have no civilians whatsoever because their afraid they might get hurt. Even iffier when you consider many of the missions take place in densly populated cities.

Their not a necessary part of a war-zone correct, but they often get stuck in them.

 

[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?

I'm not even a big fan of Battlefield, but this little nit picky argument really gets on my nerves.

There's no reason to have civilians. It's making the war zone more authentic. You want a game with realism it would be you driving around in a Humvee stopping at individual houses and asking it's citizens if they've seen suspicious activity, then searching there house.

Civilians have never been a necessary part of a Warzone.

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

What were you expecting from a military shooter that just now you lost interest?

Seriously people, this late in the market filled with war shooters you either like them or you don't. If you want to hate the game, at least have a good reason other than "It's trying too hard to be serious"

Christ. I'm actually defending Battlefield.

At least my reason for not liking the games isn't half retarded.

I'm not even a big fan of Battlefield, but this little nit picky argument really gets on my nerves.

There's no reason to have civilians. It's making the war zone more authentic. You want a game with realism it would be you driving around in a Humvee stopping at individual houses and asking it's citizens if they've seen suspicious activity, then searching there house.

Civilians have never been a necessary part of a Warzone.

I'm not demanding total realism, the closest I can get was walking around a muddy field for a real life hour before being run over by a Sherman in Red Orchestra: Darkest of Days but it does seem iffy to me for a game such as Battlefield 3 to claim its going to be gritty and dark and realistic and then have no civilians whatsoever because their afraid they might get hurt. Even iffier when you consider many of the missions take place in densly populated cities.

Their not a necessary part of a war-zone correct, but they often get stuck in them.

P.S Sorry for the double reply, I somehow managed to bugger it up first time round.