Battlefield 3 Is "Grounded In Authenticity"

[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.

 

[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?

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.

Thats pretty much what I was thinking, those dastardly foreigners and their despicable lack of Americanness!

 

[Eveonline100]

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.

Seriously, fuck M-Com stations or whatever, give me chests of gold!

As for BF3, well yeah that looks all nice and whatnot. But honestly, eh. Pretty graphics really don't interest me that much, mainly since I most likely won't be able to see 'em all due to my setup. And the shooting... well lets just say that I think I've had enough shooters for a while.

you nailed why i liked BC1 with that being it would be nice if they went back to being silly(but not dumb) sort like an alternative to COD, Medal of Honer, and homefront. Also i wonder if Hag ever got a truckasoares?

 

[The Heik]

....uh yeah, did Goldfarb not notice that most FPSs that have come out recently have done the same thing? For crying out loud, this game is pretty much MW2 with an extra level of pretentiousness slapped on.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

....uh yeah, did Goldfarb not notice that most FPSs that have come out recently have done the same thing? For crying out loud, this game is pretty much MW2 with an extra level of pretentiousness slapped on.

No, it really isn't. It's another Battlefield game. Battlefield was always very different than CoD. It was always better. But I'm still not getting another military shooter. I'm done with those no matter how good they are.

 

[The Heik]

....uh yeah, did Goldfarb not notice that most FPSs that have come out recently have done the same thing? For crying out loud, this game is pretty much MW2 with an extra level of pretentiousness slapped on.

No, it really isn't. It's another Battlefield game. Battlefield was always very different than CoD. It was always better. But I'm still not getting another military shooter. I'm done with those no matter how good they are.

Yeah it really is. The current BF installments have been a rip-off of the MW series, as seen from the fact that that trailer looks practically identical (both visually and plot wise) to the "Of their own accord" mission of MW2's campaign, and that despite making fun of the MW2 series (ie Sweetwater talking about special forces with special issue weapons replacing them on the mission) they do effectively the exact same thing by being part of the Special Activities Division, a division of the CIA, and wielding the experimental XM8 assault rifle, which is still in the testing stage today (this being the poster-child for the pretentiousness of the series).

Not to mention that they completely F up the story of BC2 by making the scary EMP superweapon (replacing the nuke of the MW series) an entirely flawed plot point, as back in WW2 when it was developed almost every part of every last vehicle and system were mechanical, not electronic, so all that the EMP would do is knock out the radar and radio, which to be honest weren't that reliable to begin with at the time, making the weapon pretty much useless.

So yeah, what was that about BF being better?

 

[UnderCoverGuest]

[Blah blah blah I typed some sarcastic stuff here]

No, snapping your bayonet [blah blah bayonet blah]

I don't get it; yer' being sarcastic about my sarcasm, or...?

 

[dancinginfernal]

No one is more authentic than Kid Rock.

 

[Dawns Gate]

Authenticity is good and all, but I find games that are corny more fun than not. That's why I - and many people I know - liked modern warfare 2, because it was like playing an action movie, as opposed to a simulator or something. I just hope the multiplayer is just like Battlefield 2 with frostbite.

 

[KarlMonster]

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

Actually, the Adam West Batman could make an AWESOME game - if you could get the right art style and atmosphere. In other words, getting the tone and style right. However, neither Batman nor Colonel Hogan are a direct competitor to Battlefield. Call of Duty is. But to be fair, 1960's Batman and Hogan were mostly theatre. There were long slow sequences that existed only for effect. And so that they could get more mileage out of the laugh track machine.

For this person to be talking about tone and style for a combat simulation, that bothers me a little. It tells me that EA probably paid attention to Yahtzee's complaint about 'Black Ops' beating on the player relentlessly from start to finish. Yet making a refinement in 'tone' probably won't do anything groundbreaking for the game, so its probably nothing to bother about.

Heck. It wasn't so long ago that there WAS no single player campaign in Battlefield. maybe we should be thankful?

.... nah

 

[SammiYin]

60's Batman...IS awesome.

 

[duchaked]

kinda get what he's trying to say, but probably not the best way to put it haha don't wanna anger certain fans

 

[LawlessSquirrel]

What would I really do for my country? I can choose to abandon it, turn into a pacifist, then ***** about the wars I'm not a part of?

That doesn't sound gritty, but I like that it's thinking outside of the box. It's refreshing that it's not just going to force me into the perspective of a patriotic stranger in a war for a nation I have no stake in.