War Is Hellishly Awesome in Battlefield 3 Multiplayer Trailer

[funksobeefy]

double post.

 

[Saulkar]

I do hope there isn't so many random bloom effects in the game, it made the game a bit hard to look at.

Think of it as an extra layer of difficulty hidden beneath the standard settings.

 

[XaVierDK]

Most of the bloom was in dark places, from different light sources... If you've ever had a high-intensity flash-light shone in your face in a dark place, you'll realize, the bloom isn't that un-realistic in those cases.. I'd rather they remove some of the smoke and dust.. Not all, but I want to be able to tell what's going on...

Other than that, I think it looks amazing.. But please remove the "I've spotted him" triangles, they kill it a bit for me when you can just shoot at marks on our HUD, and hope to hit SOMETHING!

Probably getting this, if I have a new GFX at the time... Should be fun after having not played BF2 for a couple years (please, let it be like BF2 )

Best Regards

 

[Saucycarpdog]

Huh, this looks exactly the same as COD for me, in fact you could have played this trailer with MW3 slapped on the front and I would have believed you. I think I'll pass on this one.

Yep. Vehicles and destructible environments and large scale warfare. That's definitely COD alright. *rolls eyes*

The last COD I played, MW2, had vehicles and somewhat destructible environments, not entirely sure what you mean by "large scale warfare" but I didn't see anything larger than what COD has. Nothing personal against you or anyone, enjoy what you want, but it amuses me how much hate there is for COD around here and yet as soon as you stick an "alternate" name on essentially the same product give or take a couple of features it's suddenly amazing.

I don't hate COD in fact. I will be buying both MW3 and battlefield 3 this fall.

We all have different likes and dislikes. Maybe you think all FPS's are the same because you hate them. Personally, Battlefield 3 looks like a nice step away from COD. Of course, I have yet to see any MW3 multiplayer.

 

[Saulkar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d91BIBgU-ao&feature=player_embedded

Theres some footage of the alpha, brought to you by people I assume broke the NDA. Looks shiny. Im liking you need to breathe to steady a sniper rifle again, and the knife is a separate weapon with decent kill animations. (near the end of that video, the player approaches the side of a enemy, then takes his legs out and stabs him in the chest while hes down)

Cant wait for this!

I really hope that was the console version because that guy was running into so many arbitrary kill walls that it was not funny. I want to go where I can see in a game. Not be herded like cattle into the meat grinder.

 

[JoJo]

Huh, this looks exactly the same as COD for me, in fact you could have played this trailer with MW3 slapped on the front and I would have believed you. I think I'll pass on this one.

Yep. Vehicles and destructible environments and large scale warfare. That's definitely COD alright. *rolls eyes*

The last COD I played, MW2, had vehicles and somewhat destructible environments, not entirely sure what you mean by "large scale warfare" but I didn't see anything larger than what COD has. Nothing personal against you or anyone, enjoy what you want, but it amuses me how much hate there is for COD around here and yet as soon as you stick an "alternate" name on essentially the same product give or take a couple of features it's suddenly amazing.

I don't hate COD in fact. I will be buying both MW3 and battlefield 3 this fall.

We all have different likes and dislikes. Maybe you think all FPS's are the same because you hate them. Personally, Battlefield 3 looks like a nice step away from COD. Of course, I have yet to see any MW3 multiplayer.

As a matter of fact I don't hate FPSs's, I can't tell if you're just assuming that or if you're implying it's a possibility, but either way I have played many, perhaps too many, FPS's and I think they are generally entertaining genre, I certainly never said they are all the same. Indeed even my avatar is from an FPS game. However honestly there seems to be almost no difference between this and it's competitor, it looks ridicolously similar and I'm fed up of seeing fan-boy arguments between opposing fans.

 

[70R4N]

This sums it up pretty well.

 

[Prof. Monkeypox]

I get it games industry, CoD4 was a good game- glad we agree. Now stop remaking it for every FPS franchise ever made.

Ok, now that that's over- could still be good, not very interesting to me.

Huh? The Battlefield franchise did the whole "modern warfare" theme way before COD.

Perhaps you are right (I don't know).
Whatever game gave the initial inspiration is irrelevant- my point is that all these modern realistic shooters look exactly the same. Same guns, same bloodscreen effect, same goddamn HUD.
From now on, I'm not even looking at games who have this Battlefield/CoD set-up.

 

[RA92]

Doesn't sound all that different to me, number of people on a map, how you control a vehicle, fact is to a neutral observer who isn't a fan of either they seem very similar.

In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about and are using cheap cop-out arguments to worm yourself out.

Please, you're just embarrassing yourself.

 

[banksy122]

If you watched this being told it was Modern Warfare 3, would you REALLY be able to call it out without prior knowledge of the video? Because I wouldn't.

I don't see why people get so worked up over how CoD outsells BF when they are almost identical to each other except for in the details.

64 players, huge maps with multiple objectives, vehicles and aircraft, no stupid perk or kill streak system. How is that like Cod again?

Killstreaks and perks destroyed CoD for me. What they've done with CoD is really retarded. The next logical step is to make Call of Duty: Wizards!

Funny you mention that, have a look at the latest Harry Potter game

 

[RA92]

Whatever game gave the initial inspiration is irrelevant- my point is that all these modern realistic shooters look exactly the same. Same guns, same bloodscreen effect, same goddamn HUD.

Yeah, honestly, I'm really getting tired of the whole 'modern warfare' theme in shooters these days. Why not do a futuristic setting, and bring some nice sci-fi gameplay features (like Crysis)? Or do a setting like the <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/111496-New-Bethesda-Title-Features-Deus-Ex-Talent>new project of the creators of the Arx Fatalis?

Remember what happened when everyone made WW2 shooters? We had a genre fatigue. Which is funny because now Red Orchestra seems like a breathe of fresh air.

 

[JoJo]

Doesn't sound all that different to me, number of people on a map, how you control a vehicle, fact is to a neutral observer who isn't a fan of either they seem very similar.

In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about and are using cheap cop-out arguments to worm yourself out.

Please, you're just embarrassing yourself.

Embarrassing myself? I'm not the fanboy here trying despearately to defend his beloved game against the competitor's identical product. Whatever, go and pretend that your game is entirely different, if it makes you feel superior to people who play COD then good for you.

 

[RA92]

Doesn't sound all that different to me, number of people on a map, how you control a vehicle, fact is to a neutral observer who isn't a fan of either they seem very similar.

In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about and are using cheap cop-out arguments to worm yourself out.

Please, you're just embarrassing yourself.

Embarrassing myself? I'm not the fanboy here trying despearately to defend his beloved game against the competitor's identical product. Whatever, go and pretend that your game is entirely different, if it makes you feel superior to people who play COD then good for you.

Fanboy? Heh heh. Try looking at <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.301978-War-Is-Hellishly-Awesome-in-Battlefield-3-Multiplayer-Trailer?page=3#12062373>my comment right above your's. I didn't bother with any CoD titles since CoD4, and passed BF2BC2 as well. And BF3 is less of a classic take on the Battlefield franchise and more of a polished Bad Company 2. I'm in no hurry to get myself yet another The-Goddamned-Foreigners-Are-At-It-Again shooter.

But see, you really are clueless. BF3 is a game where you can take out snipers lodged in buildings by firing a bazooka and making several floors collapse. Where you can take out the lights in a metro station and blind your opponents with your flashlights. Where you need 3 people to man a tank in multiplayer - one drives, one mans the cannon and the other the machinegun. Same goes for ATVs, APCs and helicopters. And did I mention you can fly fucking jets?

The fact is, CoD plays very differently. BF needs coordination, and it's hard to enjoy the game if the server is filled with assholes. CoD's lone-wolf style is much more easier to have fun with, which is one of the reasons why it's so popular. Want an airstrike? Kill several people in a row and you get a nice killstreak in CoD. But in BF? Ask for assistance, clear the vicinity of AA guns, keep a - oh wait, some imbecile decided to kill his own team member to get a jet and decided to crash it in the middle of nowhere.

Catch my drift?

It's like saying Burnout and Split/Second are the same thing because they're both demolition racers. So seriously, don't argue about things you've no clue about.

 

[JoJo]

Doesn't sound all that different to me, number of people on a map, how you control a vehicle, fact is to a neutral observer who isn't a fan of either they seem very similar.

In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about and are using cheap cop-out arguments to worm yourself out.

Please, you're just embarrassing yourself.

Embarrassing myself? I'm not the fanboy here trying despearately to defend his beloved game against the competitor's identical product. Whatever, go and pretend that your game is entirely different, if it makes you feel superior to people who play COD then good for you.

Fanboy? Heh heh. Try looking at <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.301978-War-Is-Hellishly-Awesome-in-Battlefield-3-Multiplayer-Trailer?page=3#12062373>my comment right above your's. I didn't bother with any CoD titles since CoD4, and passed BF2BC2 as well. And BF3 is less of a classic take on the Battlefield franchise and more of a polished Bad Company 2. I'm in no hurry to get myself yet another The-Goddamned-Foreigners-Are-At-It-Again shooter.

But see, you really are clueless. BF3 is a game where you can take out snipers lodged in buildings by firing a bazooka and making several floors collapse. Where you can take out the lights in a metro station and blind your opponents with your flashlights. Where you need 3 people to man a tank in multiplayer - one drives, one mans the cannon and the other the machinegun. Same goes for ATVs, APCs and helicopters. And did I mention you can fly fucking jets?

The fact is, CoD plays very differently. BF needs coordination, and it's hard to enjoy the game if the server is filled with assholes. CoD's lone-wolf style is much more easier to have fun with, which is one of the reasons why it's so popular. Want an airstrike? Kill several people in a row and you get a nice killstreak in CoD. But in BF? Ask for assistance, clear the vicinity of AA guns, keep a - oh wait, some imbecile decided to kill his own team member to get a jet and decided to crash it in the middle of nowhere.

Catch my drift?

It's like saying Burnout and Split/Second are the same thing because they're both demolition racers. So seriously, don't argue about things you've no clue about.

Sure, I've got better things to do with my time than argue with a raging fanboy who tries to make out I'm "clueless" because I don't recognise that his game is the superior product. Incidently it's funny you claim not to be a fanboy, then immediately write a ranting two paragraphs on all the features that supposedly make one game better, rather than the differences between the two.

Anyway, I'm out of here, from your first post in this debate it's clear that you're only here to throw insults and cause a mud-fight rather than intelligently debate and I shouldn't have risen to the bait. Apologies for the inconvience and have a nice day.

 

[RA92]

Sure, I've got better things to do with my time than argue with a raging fanboy who tries to make out I'm "clueless" because I don't recognise that his game is the superior product. Incidently it's funny you claim not to be a fanboy, then immediately write a ranting two paragraphs on all the features that supposedly make one game better, rather than the differences between the two.

Okay, before you go just answer me this - where did I mention one is superior than the other?

All I did was make clear distinctions between the 2 games, and show how they play differently. I even said CoD is 'easier to have fun with', and pointed out that BF MP's coordination-based gameplay isn't necessarily always great as it can be ruined by assholes. Along with that I provided an analogy by comparing Burnout and Split/Second - both excellent games. Since when is saying two games catering to different gameplay equals to one being automatically superior to the other?

And how am I a raging fanboy when I say that I have no interest in buying the game due to the rehashed setting that'll probably lead to genre fatigue and am more curious about some other <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/111782-Half-Life-2-Vet-Guides-Bold-Look-of-Dishonored>obscure FPS?

 

[JoJo]

Okay, before you go just answer me this - where did I mention one is superior than the other?

All I did was make clear distinctions between the 2 games, and show how they play differently. I even said CoD is 'easier to have fun with', and pointed out that BF MP's coordination-based gameplay isn't necessarily always great as it can be ruined by assholes. Along with that I provided an analogy by comparing Burnout and Split/Second - both excellent games. Since when is saying two games catering to different gameplay equals to one being automatically superior to the other?

And how am I a raging fanboy when I say that I have no interest in buying the game due to the rehashed setting that'll probably lead to genre fatigue and am more curious about some other <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/111782-Half-Life-2-Vet-Guides-Bold-Look-of-Dishonored>obscure FPS?

Fanboy? Heh heh. Try looking at <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.301978-War-Is-Hellishly-Awesome-in-Battlefield-3-Multiplayer-Trailer?page=3#12062373>my comment right above your's. I didn't bother with any CoD titles since CoD4, and passed BF2BC2 as well. And BF3 is less of a classic take on the Battlefield franchise and more of a polished Bad Company 2. I'm in no hurry to get myself yet another The-Goddamned-Foreigners-Are-At-It-Again shooter.

But see, you really are clueless. BF3 is a game where you can take out snipers lodged in buildings by firing a bazooka and making several floors collapse. Where you can take out the lights in a metro station and blind your opponents with your flashlights. Where you need 3 people to man a tank in multiplayer - one drives, one mans the cannon and the other the machinegun. Same goes for ATVs, APCs and helicopters. And did I mention you can fly fucking jets?

The fact is, CoD plays very differently. BF needs coordination, and it's hard to enjoy the game if the server is filled with assholes. CoD's lone-wolf style is much more easier to have fun with, which is one of the reasons why it's so popular. Want an airstrike? Kill several people in a row and you get a nice killstreak in CoD. But in BF? Ask for assistance, clear the vicinity of AA guns, keep a - oh wait, some imbecile decided to kill his own team member to get a jet and decided to crash it in the middle of nowhere.

Catch my drift?

It's like saying Burnout and Split/Second are the same thing because they're both demolition racers. So seriously, don't argue about things you've no clue about.

If you don't want people to accuse you of being a fan-boy stop pushing into other people's debates with a "you're so clueless, you have no idea what you're talking " type insult when a polite counter-argument would have got your point across much better, instead of making you look a like a butt-hurt fanboy who's angry that someone dared to compare his game to the arch-enemy. I still have no idea why you were so angry about me comparing two games you supposedly don't care about, especially when an actual BF fan was able to conduct the argument respectfully with me earlier in the thread.

 

[RA92]

snip

You really are predisposed to the to the idea that I'm trying to insult CoD, aren't you?

I wrote 2 paras on BF and not CoD because you yourself have played MW2 (and thus don't need any info on how it plays), and I just wanted to bring out the differences between the games by showing the extent of control you have over the wide range of vehicles and the destructible environment since you have this idea it's the same as CoD's scripted destruction and vehicles on autopilot. Now stating facts is being a fanboy?

And since when was 'easier to have fun with' a bad thing? Like I already mentioned, you need to usually stick with people you know on servers to actually enjoy BF, which gameplaywise makes BF weaker than CoD in design. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

And see, you never played any recent Battlefield titles as far as I can infer, so the 'clueless' badge fits you nicely, I would say.

 

[JoJo]

You really are predisposed to the to the idea that I'm trying to insult CoD, aren't you?

I wrote 2 paras on BF and not CoD because you yourself have played MW2 (and thus don't need any info on how it plays), and I just wanted to bring out the differences between the games by showing the extent of control you have over the wide range of vehicles and the destructible environment since you have this idea it's the same as CoD's scripted destruction and vehicles on autopilot. Now stating facts is being a fanboy?

And since when was 'easier to have fun with' a bad thing? Like I already mentioned, you need to usually stick with people you know on servers to actually enjoy BF, which gameplaywise makes BF weaker than CoD in design. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

And see, you never played any recent Battlefield titles as far as I can infer, so the 'clueless' badge fits you nicely, I would say.

You aren't insulting COD, it's me who you seem to oddly have a bone to pick. There are many more polite ways to infer that someone may not have all the facts than insulting them. I've already told you I have no wish to continue an argument with someone who immediately resorts to insults and in hindsight I shouldn't have replied to your first comment at-all, that was my mistake and I shouldn't have stooped as low as you did, you have my apologies for that.

Until next time, so long.