New Battlefield 3 trailer

[MatParker116]

I want this game quite badly as it looks quite intense and fun.

 

[Hachura]

Graphics look similar to the multiplayer portion of Medal of Honor, in a good way. Been a hardcore Battlefield boy since BF2. Really looking forward to this one.

Edit: Correction, since BFV, actually. BFV: the original Black Ops!

 

[mighty_wambat]

DO NOT BUY!!!

max of 24 players on consoles. not worth it, if we refuse to buy they will have to up the player count. arguments about it being impossible are total nonsense, its not impossible, not even difficult it would mean LESS profit, not even loss, just less profit. i call this a bad practice and i will not buy it if they do not up the player counts

(or buy it used and don't buy the dlc)

 

[Conza]

Never decided to get into the Battlefield series, but this one I am strongly considering buying, especially those graphics, it could be fantastic, and an FPS with the PC in mind, bring on the good ol' days of CS.

DO NOT BUY!!!

max of 24 players on consoles. not worth it, if we refuse to buy they will have to up the player count. arguments about it being impossible are total nonsense, its not impossible, not even difficult it would mean LESS profit, not even loss, just less profit. i call this a bad practice and i will not buy it if they do not up the player counts

(or buy it used and don't buy the dlc)

I can see how you may be disappointed in the 24 player limit (fair enough I guess, not a console FPS guy, so don't know if more is really really good or not), and considering they are doing, 64 players is it? For PC? It's clearly not impossible, there's just concerns/restraints or something. But I don't really understand how this will necessarily make the game less profitable, excluding people such as yourself deciding not to buy games, for this reason. Wouldn't it just mean for 360/PS3 that there are more games (maps of games started, hosted games, with the same amount of players just more spread out)?

 

[Sn1P3r M98]

That looks absolutely beautiful. I'll most likely be picking it up.

 

[TheSapphireKnight]

I cannot what for this game. What I've seen so far looks pretty good and it looks to have absolutely gorgeous graphics.

The best part of the trailer wasn't the gameplay, which we have seen in screen shots, it is the DLC at the end.

STRIKE AT KARKAND is returning. With DESTRUCTIBLE ENVIORMENTS. WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

 

[godofallu]

If it's like Battlefield 2 hell yes, if it's like the bad company games no thanks.

Can't tell from the 5 second long "trailer" there.

 

[brumley53]

DO NOT BUY!!!

max of 24 players on consoles. not worth it, if we refuse to buy they will have to up the player count. arguments about it being impossible are total nonsense, its not impossible, not even difficult it would mean LESS profit, not even loss, just less profit. i call this a bad practice and i will not buy it if they do not up the player counts

(or buy it used and don't buy the dlc)

It's probably because they've been spending alot of time on the PC version, because PC can easily do 64 players and yet so many games have it cut down to consoles 24 players because consoles aren't particularly good at large player counts without making huge sacrifices in terms of graphics and physics.

 

[mighty_wambat]

DO NOT BUY!!!

max of 24 players on consoles. not worth it, if we refuse to buy they will have to up the player count. arguments about it being impossible are total nonsense, its not impossible, not even difficult it would mean LESS profit, not even loss, just less profit. i call this a bad practice and i will not buy it if they do not up the player counts

(or buy it used and don't buy the dlc)

It's probably because they've been spending alot of time on the PC version, because PC can easily do 64 players and yet so many games have it cut down to consoles 24 players because consoles aren't particularly good at large player counts without making huge sacrifices in terms of graphics and physics.

so down grade the graphics and up the player count. i guarantee, if there were 2 versions, one with ps2 grade graphics and 64 players and one with those graphics and 24 players i guarantee that the one with more players would sell way better.

and i bet your right, they made a pc game, now there going to gut the best part of the game to sell it to me? respectfully; electronic arts, go #$%@#@ your self.
that is not reasonable,

don't buy battlefield 3 for console, or buy it used and don't buy the dlc. if we do it right then they will learn.

 

[Serving UpSmiles]

Looks good......*raises index finger* SO FAR! the sprinting and crawling animations look sucky.

 

[teqrevisited]

Battlefield being optimized for the pc, where it belongs. I can't wait.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

DO NOT BUY!!!

max of 24 players on consoles. not worth it, if we refuse to buy they will have to up the player count. arguments about it being impossible are total nonsense, its not impossible, not even difficult it would mean LESS profit, not even loss, just less profit. i call this a bad practice and i will not buy it if they do not up the player counts

(or buy it used and don't buy the dlc)

It's probably because they've been spending alot of time on the PC version, because PC can easily do 64 players and yet so many games have it cut down to consoles 24 players because consoles aren't particularly good at large player counts without making huge sacrifices in terms of graphics and physics.

so down grade the graphics and up the player count. i guarantee, if there were 2 versions, one with ps2 grade graphics and 64 players and one with those graphics and 24 players i guarantee that the one with more players would sell way better.

and i bet your right, they made a pc game, now there going to gut the best part of the game to sell it to me? respectfully; electronic arts, go #$%@#@ your self.
that is not reasonable,

don't buy battlefield 3 for console, or buy it used and don't buy the dlc. if we do it right then they will learn.

Nice to see console players getting upset like this while PC gamers have been screwed over for years. I appreciate the role reversal.

 

[fix-the-spade]

max of 24 players on consoles.

Unfortunately consoles lack RAM, they don't cope very well with high player numbers. MAG tried it and sort of worked but nothing else has come close. If they upped the players they'd have to down the graphics, then the fanboys would descend and it all goes to Hell.

24 players is still more than Halo or CoD's 18, it annoys me no end to hear an 18 player game referred to 'big team battle,' False advertising man!

It's unfortunate and yes, I agree with you, buying the console version gets you a neutered experience. Nevermind, good excuse to build a new gaming PC!

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

It just looks generec so far. I'm not seeing anything I haven't done a million times before in shooters.

Also, not liking the seizure-tastic style of these trailers.

 

[Katana314]

Player limits have helped plenty of games in terms of balancing - Team Fortress 2 is no fun with 32 players in a server. I'm sure they know what they're doing with 24-player battlefields on consoles. It's mostly a way of making sure the battlefield isn't filled with so many people that any kills are just lucky spam.

However, I'm going to wait until EA fixes their recording software so that their next trailer isn't all staticky, and actually shows some of the game they were trying to record.

 

[mighty_wambat]

max of 24 players on consoles.

Unfortunately consoles lack RAM, they don't cope very well with high player numbers. MAG tried it and sort of worked but nothing else has come close. If they upped the players they'd have to down the graphics, then the fanboys would descend and it all goes to Hell.

24 players is still more than Halo or CoD's 18, it annoys me no end to hear an 18 player game referred to 'big team battle,' False advertising man!

It's unfortunate and yes, I agree with you, buying the console version gets you a neutered experience. Nevermind, good excuse to build a new gaming PC!

that's just not true, its not a lack of ram is a question of game design, deltaforce black hawk down for the xbox, not the 360 the original xbox supported 50 players, mag does 256 without any difficulty and thats with the motion controls, but even games like resistance 2 can do 64, it is nonsense, its not that they can't its that they decided not to, so i will decide not to pay for that garbage.

mag had problems but not with lag, with general game design, making players spawn on weird corners of the map to spread it out lack of tanks or helicopters or jeeps, pretty much defeating the point, what they should have done is make smaller maps with more concentrated objective based modes, more cover and a generally denser game.

its true that the graphics were not amazing, but that was not the point, the point is they decided to make that game because they realize that people want player counts, apparently they don't understand this so i will say it again, WE WANT HIGH PLAYER CAPS!!!!!

nobody cares about graphics. if they did the gaming industry would not have grown the fastest on non graphics intensive platforms like the early pc, the ps1 ps2 and most of all wii and casual/social games.

 

[mighty_wambat]

Player limits have helped plenty of games in terms of balancing - Team Fortress 2 is no fun with 32 players in a server. I'm sure they know what they're doing with 24-player battlefields on consoles. It's mostly a way of making sure the battlefield isn't filled with so many people that any kills are just lucky spam.

However, I'm going to wait until EA fixes their recording software so that their next trailer isn't all staticky, and actually shows some of the game they were trying to record.

oh? you think so? if its best at 24 then why give the pc 64? if you had gears of war at 24 or 32 players it would break the game, that can happen but that is not what is happening here. if 24 was best for the game play then that would be across all platforms. this is nonsense and we should not buy it if we want good games in the future. don't buy new, don't buy the dlc.

 

[Zer_]

max of 24 players on consoles.

Unfortunately consoles lack RAM, they don't cope very well with high player numbers. MAG tried it and sort of worked but nothing else has come close. If they upped the players they'd have to down the graphics, then the fanboys would descend and it all goes to Hell.

24 players is still more than Halo or CoD's 18, it annoys me no end to hear an 18 player game referred to 'big team battle,' False advertising man!

It's unfortunate and yes, I agree with you, buying the console version gets you a neutered experience. Nevermind, good excuse to build a new gaming PC!

that's just not true, its not a lack of ram is a question of game design, deltaforce black hawk down for the xbox, not the 360 the original xbox supported 50 players, mag does 256 without any difficulty and thats with the motion controls, but even games like resistance 2 can do 64, it is nonsense, its not that they can't its that they decided not to, so i will decide not to pay for that garbage.

mag had problems but not with lag, with general game design, making players spawn on weird corners of the map to spread it out lack of tanks or helicopters or jeeps, pretty much defeating the point, what they should have done is make smaller maps with more concentrated objective based modes, more cover and a generally denser game.

its true that the graphics were not amazing, but that was not the point, the point is they decided to make that game because they realize that people want player counts, apparently they don't understand this so i will say it again, WE WANT HIGH PLAYER CAPS!!!!!

nobody cares about graphics. if they did the gaming industry would not have grown the fastest on non graphics intensive platforms like the early pc, the ps1 ps2 and most of all wii and casual/social games.

It's not hard to do if you sacrifice the visuals to accommodate it. But there are a bunch of other things that all those games don't have, and that's detailed physics engine, ambient lighting, very highly detailed player models.

Honestly, I don't care either way, since I'm getting it for PC. It's the game's native platform after all.

 

[mighty_wambat]

max of 24 players on consoles.

Unfortunately consoles lack RAM, they don't cope very well with high player numbers. MAG tried it and sort of worked but nothing else has come close. If they upped the players they'd have to down the graphics, then the fanboys would descend and it all goes to Hell.

24 players is still more than Halo or CoD's 18, it annoys me no end to hear an 18 player game referred to 'big team battle,' False advertising man!

It's unfortunate and yes, I agree with you, buying the console version gets you a neutered experience. Nevermind, good excuse to build a new gaming PC!

that's just not true, its not a lack of ram is a question of game design, deltaforce black hawk down for the xbox, not the 360 the original xbox supported 50 players, mag does 256 without any difficulty and thats with the motion controls, but even games like resistance 2 can do 64, it is nonsense, its not that they can't its that they decided not to, so i will decide not to pay for that garbage.

mag had problems but not with lag, with general game design, making players spawn on weird corners of the map to spread it out lack of tanks or helicopters or jeeps, pretty much defeating the point, what they should have done is make smaller maps with more concentrated objective based modes, more cover and a generally denser game.

its true that the graphics were not amazing, but that was not the point, the point is they decided to make that game because they realize that people want player counts, apparently they don't understand this so i will say it again, WE WANT HIGH PLAYER CAPS!!!!!

nobody cares about graphics. if they did the gaming industry would not have grown the fastest on non graphics intensive platforms like the early pc, the ps1 ps2 and most of all wii and casual/social games.

It's not hard to do if you sacrifice the visuals to accommodate it. But there are a bunch of other things that all those games don't have, and that's detailed physics engine, ambient lighting, very highly detailed player models.

Honestly, I don't care either way, since I'm getting it for PC. It's the game's native platform after all.

you sure? think about it, when the game does not have to stream massive textures and complex lighting it can split half the power for destruction and half for players. there was some destruction in battlefield 2, similar to games like cod, its all the same stuff. they made a game with graphics first and game play second, i call bullshit. i will not buy, neither should you.
so reduce the complexity of the physics, less little pieces in the destruction, more people doing the destroying. they could have made it that way, they didn't

 

[Zer_]

**Snip**

you sure? think about it, when the game does not have to stream massive textures and complex lighting it can split half the power for destruction and half for players. there was some destruction in battlefield 2, similar to games like cod, its all the same stuff. they made a game with graphics first and game play second, i call bullshit. i will not buy, neither should you.
so reduce the complexity of the physics, less little pieces in the destruction, more people doing the destroying. they could have made it that way, they didn't

Your consoles have only 512 (total) RAM to work with... G'luck with that!

MAG did it because each item in the game is pretty much a copy paste of something else... And reducing the destructible environmentS?! You must be insane, that's the best part about the new Battlefield games, it's what sets it apart from all the samey modern FPS games.