Battlefield 3 Is "Grounded In Authenticity"

[Vindictus]

ITT: The Dark Knight isn't more awesome than campy 60's shows. Keep up the strawmen, guys.

I don't mind it if they take this direction. I do mind if they fuck it up. If they're going realism, I don't want to play an average (read: super) soldier that racks up ~200 kills in a single mission with an assault rifle.

I want character development, I want a seasoned story, and most of all I want a reason to be fighting the war. No more of this "LETS SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE PIT T-90S AGAINST ABRAMS, THATS LIEK AWESOME RITE".

 

[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?

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.

Fair enough. I wasn't attacking your stance per se. He may very well have meant what you suggest. I just think he had a VERY unfortunate choice of words there if he doesn't want the gaming community to flame him as a troll.

 

[ScrubberDucky]

I'm a little concerned with what direction they're going to go in with this. Battlefield kinda pulled itself up onto the big boys table with Call of Duty overnight and now it's the major contender, so obviously EA's going to be pushing DICE away from anything even remotely risky in order to have as many sure sales behind it as possible. I mean, there's no reason this COULDN'T work. I'm not much an FPS gamer myself--I see them more as popcorn games than anything else--but I do remember fondly enjoying Bad Company 2. More than the same Call of Duty at the time, at least. Seeing it go in the same direction as Call of Duty's blatant action-move overdramatic slow-motion explosion-scene filled territory would be disappointing, but it's always possible to move away from that just enough to keep the game fresh and interesting.

You never know, I guess. I hope they don't fuck it up, simply because I enjoyed BC2's originality and the stark contrast it made to COD at the time, but sales generally win out when pitted against creative ambition.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

No civilians dying in combat.
"Authenticity".

bull fucking shit

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

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.

No, snapping your bayonet whole cutting a HVTs head off and then having to fill in a fuckload of requisition forms for the QM to get a replacement bayonet, only to have your request for a replacement turned down because the equipment was broken under 'unaccepted usage' so you have to pay for the replacement is authentic.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

No civilians dying in combat.
"Authenticity".

bull fucking shit

They're not civilians if you arm them before anyone can investigate.

 

[Itsthatguy]

No civilians dying in combat.
"Authenticity".

bull fucking shit

They're not civilians if you arm them before anyone can investigate.

Ah, so BF3 will be set in Iraq will it?

OT: Its another war shooter, with a high end graphics engine, no matter how much Goldfarb(damn that is a weird name) tries to convince people otherwise.

 

[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.