Battlefield 3

Yep. Kind of ironic given how Krynn was railing so hard on Rico and others for "not reading the thread" and talking about stuff that's already been discussed :p

I'm not thrilled by the day-one DLC but I'm not too infuriated by it either, for a couple of reasons:
1) they are giving it away free to people who preorder BF3
2) it's a significant amount of content - a whole set of vehicles, weapons, and maps exclusive to this DLC - that I would be happy paying $10 or so for anyway
3) I don't expect them to give me free expansions to the game. I would be much more irritated if they had day-one DLC that was just extra BF3 multiplayer maps, where it felt like they were splitting content away from the full game.

I can't wait until E3. I am going to lock the shit out of this thread and we're going to have a new general BF3 discussion thread where everything is made of marshmallows and unicorns and rainbows and we all hold hands and sing songs in peaceful, happy coexistence.
 
Ennui said:
just extra BF3 multiplayer maps, where it felt like they were splitting content away from the full game.
Click to expand...

They're going to have the content finished and ready to go with the game on release, how is that not splitting content away? Because it's remade stuff from BF2? Pathetic excuse. I can agree to disagree though if you think that's a good enough reason to justify it.
 
It's a separate team within DICE working on it afaik. I guess I feel that way because I don't feel like they owe me all the remade BF2 content alongside everything I expect in BF3, because I am going to judge BF3 as a full game regardless of the existence of the Back to Karkand DLC which feels more like an expansion in my mind. I don't expect them to release any Mirror's Edge 2 content with BF3 either, even though it's all made in the same physical studio by the same company on the same engine. I know the difference between ME2 and BF3 is more than between BF3 and BF2 content, but still.

I'm iffy on the whole existence of DLC in general, particularly when it seems to come at the expense of mod tools and community-created content, but this is more stomachable to me than what they did with BC2, having players pay to get the new map packs. On PC you get them for free, but I still think that's a shitty deal for console gamers that's hard to justify, because you're basically saying here's 80% of the game for $60, then give me $10 more a few times for the remaining chunks of the content.

I guess I view the Karkand DLC as something I would gladly pay $10 for in a standalone situation, like Battlefield 1943 or something. If they had given out BF1943 for free to people who preordered BC2 and it cost however much it did ($15 or so?) to everyone else, that wouldn't really bug me much either.

tl;dr I don't really feel strongly enough in defense of EA DICE here to warrant making any points stronger than I already did about the DLC :p
 
Ennui said:
Yep. Kind of ironic given how Krynn was railing so hard on Rico and others for "not reading the thread" and talking about stuff that's already been discussed :p
Click to expand...

I didn't recall it being confirmed that it was pay-for DLC, my bad. Anyways the only reason I brought it up was Pvt. Ryan also forgot that it had been discussed already, because if he didn't forget it then he wouldn't have put it down in his bullet points as a thing BF3 wouldn't do.

I don't really care about DLC either, but map packs you have to buy put an unpleasant aftertaste to things and only contribute more to my dissatisfaction with the way the game is being handled. Even if I did pre-order and got it for "free" I'd still feel like the company is just being a shiesty mother****er.
 
Doesn't look that fantastic. Smoke hides everything, I can't even tell what the destruction looks like. Looks like prefabbed to me. I'm more impressed with the graphics in those pictures.
 
Of course it's prefabbed. I don't think there's any other technologically feasible way to have "realistic" destruction at this point in time.

If you have seen how destruction works in the Bad Company series, it's the same deal, just with a significantly higher level of detail. I don't remember which magazine article I read this in - I think it was PC Gamer UK's recent BF3 feature - but there was a quote about how the average BC2 building is made up of around 20-30 destructible parts, whereas the typical building in BF3 has upwards of 100 (I think the specific figure was somewhere around 140-150 parts for one of the buildings in the singleplayer trailer).

That picture is fairly old, it was first seen way back in February in the Game Informer BF3 cover story and first released in high-quality digital form about a month or so ago as part of a batch of BF3 production screenshots/images released to the media by EA. There are some other cool ones, you can see them here (like a shot of the FB2 editor):
http://battlefieldo.com/battlefield3/bf3-production-screenshots-2/

In today's news, the Karkand DLC details turned out to be not very much, just a concept art picture of Karkand, a wallpaper that is similar to those we've already seen, and relatively unsatisfying interviews with Niklas Fegraeus and David Spinnier. The best part is that you see one of the original design layout sketches for Karkand but it's just one page of a 16 page design doc they don't give to you :(
http://battlefieldo.com/battlefield3/karkand-details/
 
Ennui said:
In today's news, the Karkand DLC details turned out to be not very much, just a concept art picture of Karkand, a wallpaper that is similar to those we've already seen, and relatively unsatisfying interviews with Niklas Fegraeus and David Spinnier. The best part is that you see one of the original design layout sketches for Karkand but it's just one page of a 16 page design doc they don't give to you :(
http://battlefieldo.com/battlefield3/karkand-details/
Click to expand...

That concept art pic made me think of Mashtuur, not Karkand. There weren't any mosques in the original Karkand map, were there? Also, three mosques so near to each other?
 
Shakermaker said:
That concept art pic made me think of Mashtuur, not Karkand. There weren't any mosques in the original Karkand map, were there? Also, three mosques so near to each other?
Click to expand...

Yeah, exactly. Devs don't even know their own maps fuuuu. Also, Karkand had that 'smog' effect that meant you couldn't see too far into the distance
 
y'all should read the article - they state the image is concept art depicting the mood and colour palette of the map, not the actual map itself.
 
Four mosques does seem a bit much... does a structure being domed automatically make it a mosque?

Also, there was totally a mosque type building in the original Strike at Karkand. I think it's the 2nd or 3rd flag into the city, next to that big open square.
 
Ennui said:
Also, there was totally a mosque type building in the original Strike at Karkand. I think it's the 2nd or 3rd flag into the city, next to that big open square.
Click to expand...

Huh? Where? The climbable building next to the square is a regular one.

cq_64_strike_at_karkand.png
 
Unfocused said:
Huh? Where? The climbable building next to the square is a regular one.
Click to expand...

Yup, I am quite sure as well: no mosques in Karkand.

@Knut Sure, but in my mind Karkand was never a big town. Just a couple of high rises for the workers in the nearby factories. Not a place where you'd have three mosques that can house thousands of people.
 
Shakermaker said:
Yup, I am quite sure as well: no mosques in Karkand.

@Knut Sure, but in my mind Karkand was never a big town. Just a couple of high rises for the workers in the nearby factories. Not a place where you'd have three mosques that can house thousands of people.
Click to expand...

from the article said:
An early piece of concept art for the Frostbite 2 reimagining of a true classic. Meant to represent lighting and color palette only. Actual map layout will be very similar to the original.
Click to expand...

emphasis on the ''early'' and ''lighting and color palette only''

can't believe i'm actually defending the game now!
 
Good call on that, knut. I was worried about the mosques.
 
There's no mosques in Karkand! There might as well be a basement at the Alamo! Or sex in the champagne room!
 
Or a pool in the high school! Or a closet full of lolis in Vegeta's room!
 
Finding it harder to resist getting hyped about this

Finding it hard
 
karkand looks pretty unrecognizable, but i guess the simple colour palette and dust in the original weren't really artistic choices, more corners cut to make the game run better on what was considered old tech back in the day (i guess?) whereas now there obviously isn't the need for dust to obscure draw distance and to have buildings look identical.
 
knut said:
karkand looks pretty unrecognizable, but i guess the simple colour palette and dust in the original weren't really artistic choices, more corners cut to make the game run better on what was considered old tech back in the day (i guess?) whereas now there obviously isn't the need for dust to obscure draw distance and to have buildings look identical.
Click to expand...

It seems the layout is basically the same but the buildings are certainly bigger and more abundant. I'm not sure about the dust though. There are other city maps in BF2 that are just as big (or even bigger, like Jalalabad for example) that don't use it.
 
Dust I feel was an essential asset of the original. It gave the city it's claustrophobic intensity. Running from building to building, muzzle flashes in the far off dusty fog. The atmosphere was spot on.

It looks very much prettier but, much like Bad Company 2, there appears to be too much visual noise. I don't know If I'm just shit but often times there was actually just too much environment to get a real bearing on the tide of the battle itself, and made it so easy for enemies to just pop out and kill because of the myriad of locations they could hide. Hence why my favourite maps were Heavy Metal and Harvest where there were clear signposts and not too much clatter. I don't think I'm making any sense, my brain is mush right now.
 
Zephos said:
Dust I feel was an essential asset of the original. It gave the city it's claustrophobic intensity. Running from building to building, muzzle flashes in the far off dust. The atmosphere was spot on.

It looks very much prettier but, much like Bad Company 2, there appears to be too much visual noise. I don't know If I'm just shit but often times there was actually just too much environment to get a real bearing on the tide of the battle itself, and made it so easy for enemies to just pop out and kill because of the myriad of locations they could hide. Hence why my favourite maps were Heavy Metal and Harvest where there were clear signposts and not too much clatter. I don't think I'm making any sense, my brain is mush right now.
Click to expand...

i know what you're saying, though i don't necessarily agree with it regarding my own experiences in bad company 2. it's a matter of games and their respective technology and capabilities starting to mimic that of real life, with environments now beginning to really look realistically fleshed out. cities made from blocks and cubes 10 years ago now actually look like the downtown of a market someplace, and i can see where you might confuse targets with details. personally i quite like the aspect of moving from cover to cover having to really pay attention to your surroundings.
 
knut said:
i know what you're saying, though i don't necessarily agree with it regarding my own experiences in bad company 2. it's a matter of games and their respective technology and capabilities starting to mimic that of real life, with environments now beginning to really look realistically fleshed out. cities made from blocks and cubes 10 years ago now actually look like the downtown of a market someplace, and i can see where you might confuse targets with details. personally i quite like the aspect of moving from cover to cover having to really pay attention to your surroundings.
Click to expand...

I think it's just a mix of me being a nub, a yearning for huge open maps and the need for a new pair of glasses.
 
well it does say pre-alpha...soo dust n' stuff will be added later. I also think it looks to clean right now.
 
The fact that they have the same people who made the original Karkand making the remake is a good sign.
 
lolling so hard at 'pre-alpha'

pre-alpha for this was likely about a year or two ago
 
Bad^Hat said:
Hey, people do fall for this!
Click to expand...

There is still a possibility they will add dust and stuff at a later stage. Right now they could just be getting the layout done correctly and testing destruction and what not.
 
Yeah, but that's not what a pre-alpha is. What you're describing is a late, late alpha at the earliest, but more likely a beta.
 
Zephos said:
I think it's just a mix of me being a nub, a yearning for huge open maps and the need for a new pair of glasses.
Click to expand...

Hahaha. I share your feelings in some ways, I've been annoyed about how FPSes are so visually crowded and overstimulating these days... starting with about Unreal Engine 2 generation it seems like FPSes started getting really flashy and visually active which makes it harder to pick out and react to targets (as opposed to older games like UT or Counterstrike where it's just like... yeah, there's a dude over there in front of that super low res pixely gray wall). BC2 in particular, the snowblind stuff on Cold War and the other snow maps and the dust on Atacama drive me nuts.

Still, I sort of agree with knut, it's more realistic and I like that. Also, I don't know how recently you've played BF2, but karkand looks pretty damned old. It could do with some serious visual improvement. It was never a wide open map either. I'm guessing there will be a few MASSIVE conquest maps in BF3 to suit your needs.

Also, I'm guessing the idea is mostly to blow the **** out of all that scenery anyway. A market plaza doesn't stay recognizable for long when you've got a tank or two engaging a bunch of rocket infantry while I run around planting c4 everywhere.

What I heard is that compared to BC2, they are trying to make BF3 a bit more realistic, so where in BC2 a lot of effort is spent (with sound and visual effects especially) on making you feel immersed like there's a real battle going on. In BF3, the difference is that while they want you to feel that way, they also want it to be more practical, so where in BC2 things can be a bit overwhelming and confusing with all the stimuli hopefully in BF3 things will be a bit clearer (so you can tell where fire is coming from instead of just feeling like you're on Omaha Beach getting pounded). This was from a sound design interview but I imagine the design philosophy is something that extends out of just the sound department.
 
one thing that piqued my interest in that collection of video snippets was when the player put a hole through a building and stepped back to avoid rubble. i hope that buildings have more of an effect on the players safety than simply killing them if they are inside a structure when it comes down. the term tactical destruction would meet new highs if you could bring down a corner of a building into a squad of soldiers crouching in cover.

better yet, bringing down a corner of a building and the rubble staying on the ground, providing new dynamic cover that is completely random to a maps mechanic. road blocks, anyone? now this kind of shit would get me excited.
 
knut said:
one thing that piqued my interest in that collection of video snippets was when the player put a hole through a building and stepped back to avoid rubble. i hope that buildings have more of an effect on the players safety than simply killing them if they are inside a structure when it comes down. the term tactical destruction would meet new highs if you could bring down a corner of a building into a squad of soldiers crouching in cover.

better yet, bringing down a corner of a building and the rubble staying on the ground, providing new dynamic cover that is completely random to a maps mechanic. road blocks, anyone? now this kind of shit would get me excited.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that would be pretty sweet. One thing I'm fearful of is that HE weapons will be too prolific. I have a feeling the first half of every round will be to blow the shit out of the map to deny everyone cover, and then it just turns into a normal shoot fest.
 
well, bad company 2 seemed to get around that alright with the inclusion of non destructible cover such as containers, scenic/map specific objects such as a tanker, boat or other such set piece plus terrain, hills and the like, not to mention that when a building comes down it leaves a large pile of rubble which can be scrambled over. i can see what you mean though, but it's all speculation from here anyway. who knows what's going to be in the new destruction engine.

when i play a round in bad company, i usually am that person who sits in a tank with optics and provides makeshift artillery from the back of the map to deny the defenders cover, or to open up holes in buildings to stop the enemy from having good sniper/rocket spots. not to mention that i cannot stress enough that buildings that come down take out a charge much easier than rushing in and getting killed trying to arm it, so i usually try to do that whenever possible.
 
The only time where i've seen all the buildings down is on 500 (or more) ticket servers. The rounds last forever so the same buildings keep getting hit. I don't think it'll be a problem in BF3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Terminator
Long time...
Replies
10
Views
633
Raziaar
Raziaar
Krynn72
You guys, what the **** is up.
Replies
11
Views
1K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
HL2.NET HORROR SLAP
Replies
7
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
TechnoHippyChic
EA games returning to Steam
Replies
0
Views
1K
TechnoHippyChic
TechnoHippyChic
Tollbooth Willie
To Those That Stand, Those That Fell
Replies
6
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Back
Top