Battlefield 3

[Omnomnick]

Lol. Good luck Activision, you pricks.

Anyway, EA and Steam should be working together to integrate their systems, not start a war like the consoles have been having for years now.

 

[Krynn72]

Also
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/14188406

lol, I'm pretty sure they can't get control of it through legal bitchery. The guy owns it fair and square so its not like they can just say "hey, nope, thats ours". They have to either buy it from him, or deal with it. They may have a case in getting him to stop linking to BF3's site, but then thats subject to parody/free speech issues that make it far from a sure thing. Cybersquatters are a bitch, but Activision/Infinity Ward should have thought of that years ago.

 

[Lobster]

I don't understand how this applies to this scenario. Will I be able to pirate it through Steam?

I guess I was speaking generally about the state of game ownership. As a customer you have to be so careful about where you buy a game now, either because of exclusive content deals or where and how you can access it. It just leaves you feeling like it would be easier to rip stuff off than abide by the ever changing rules of legitimate ownership. Which is a sucky place to be as a customer.

 

[Ren.182]

More leaked footage:

 

[Krynn72]

Looks pretty much like BC2 but with better maps. Which is a good thing I guess, but that nearly complete lack of recoil is bugging me a bit. It looks like even when there is decent recoil (the sniper rifle) you recover too fast from it and it just automatically puts your aim right back at where your last shot was., without you needing to do any adjusting yourself. The way he was using that sniper rifle was kinda bullcrap. Still waiting on seeing some actual vehicle combat too. It looks fun, but I'd still rather get the new Red Orchestra.

 

[knut]

two things i've noticed from the video;

1) everyone seems to be engineer, because the carbine can basically be used as a mid to long range weapon if used correctly, unlike some of the smgs in BC2. if you were patient, you could score some long range kills with the smg by using short bursts, but not even close to the same scale that some of the people in those videos were using it as frequent. little worried that the engineer classed might get overplayed and it isn't the carbine that worries me, it's the fact that they carry a rocket launcher round with them for backup. lets not forget the carl gustav from BC2 here.

2) prone really seems to make a hell of a difference for coming under fire or getting under the other teams nose, or at least when fighting against idiots it does. this isn't a complain; i'm looking forward to being stealthy with it.

 

[Unfocused]

The more I look at the videos, the more it seems that it's just another game in the Bad Company (sub)franchise and calling it Battlefield 3 is just a marketing manouver.

It just looks like an expansion pack to BC2 - what stands out to me is that the HUD, the MCOM siren, the "enemy down +100", the colors are basically the same (the ammo counter has a new design). Unless those are placeholders for the alpha.

Also, what's that bullshit with "leaving area; 10 seconds to return"? That was in BF2, but you'd really have to go far away, where there's no point to be. In these videos the player finds himself 10 meters away from the middle of the action and he's going AWOL? Or arms an explosive on the MCOM, wants to take cover on the steps above it (5 meters away!) and that's AWOL as well? I sincerely hope those are limitations present only in an early version of the game, because they haven't finished all the parts of the map.

While complaining about the same look of the HUD elements may be considered nitpicking, the blatantly limited map area seems pretty game breaking.

 

[knut]

there's a new multiplayer operation metro trailer out, too.

nothing new to see, but the guys at DICE have obviously got together and made a series of mildly-choreographed videos that show the action off to be coherent and startling, with rockets whizzing by just missing people and infantry following tanks through smoke, when in reality no one fires a rocket to miss for dramatic effect, and being logical by following a tank for cover is unheard of in online player. reminds me of those videos they made for BC2 which had enemies convieniently popping up in places to blow up cover, or squad mates getting gunned down just in front of you to revive. still cool though, i guess.

 

[15357]

there's a new multiplayer operation metro trailer out, too.

nothing new to see, but the guys at DICE have obviously got together and made a series of mildly-choreographed videos that show the action off to be coherent and startling, with rockets whizzing by just missing people and infantry following tanks through smoke, when in reality no one fires a rocket to miss for dramatic effect, and being logical by following a tank for cover is unheard of in online player. reminds me of those videos they made for BC2 which had enemies convieniently popping up in places to blow up cover, or squad mates getting gunned down just in front of you to revive. still cool though, i guess.

I suppose you do need better teammates for a better gameplay experience.

 

[knut]

well yeah, i mean all of that is possible and i have seen it myself, but it's only really when you've got some good pals online or you're in the one in ten game that has people playing coherently. i mean compare that official trailer to the three leaked videos posted on the previous page, all of which are nothing like it. a guy lone wolfing behind enemy lines with a sniper, another guy camping behind a rock whilst the other team expose their back to him, etc...

 

[Pulse]

I highly doubt the developers would want their trailers to consist of footage containing people tea bagging each other or having a single shot of a recon sniper being sat underneath a park bench for 15 minutes.

 

[Unfocused]

Why are they milking that Operation Metro map still? Don't thay have any more MP maps semi-ready yet, with the release date being in 3 months?

BTW, I LOLed at one of the soldiers screaming "I'm getting ****ed up the ass in here!"

 

[15357]

I'm kinda worried though that this won't be like BF2 which was awesome because of things that made coherent teamplay possible. Like a commander, for example. (Of course, assuming that the commander actually communicates his intentions to the rest of the team or at least the squad leaders)

 

[knut]

I highly doubt the developers would want their trailers to consist of footage containing people tea bagging each other or having a single shot of a recon sniper being sat underneath a park bench for 15 minutes.

yesssss but you're kind of missing my point, it's selling the game as something orchestrated by how DICE employees play, perhaps slightly scripted and choreographed, when in reality it's not quite so like watching a war film or helmet cam footage: it actually is people tea bagging each other and people camping under park benches. or at least, the mass majority of it is going to be played that way.

don't get me wrong, i can see why they advertise it this way and it makes perfect sense to, it's just a shame people are going to get suckered into it when in reality it's going to play like the rest of the battlefield games. but hey, that's online multiplayer.

 

[15357]

Yeah, well, I guess I am remembering only the good parts of BF2.

 

[Stigmata]

Knut, it really seems like you're forcing yourself to not enjoy any piece of news or media about this game.

 

[knut]

Knut, it really seems like you're forcing yourself to not enjoy any piece of news or media about this game.

actually, look back a few pages to around abouts E3-ish and you'll see i'm quite anticipating the game. it isn't looking perfect, but what we've seen so far from the multiplayer has me quite looking forward to it. hell, compared to the PC users i'm LOVING the news and media that's being put out, because being a 360 gamer means all this silliness with steam, origin, system specs and mod capability means nothing to me. look to them!

nevertheless, my criticisms here aren't about battlefield 3, more the marketing strategy that has gone into making that little trailer. like i said, i understand why they're doing it, and i'm not even complaining about how the battlefield games play as that's what i expect from them, but when they try to show it off as something it's not, i find it a bit iffy. it's a bit of a paradox i suppose - how else do you show off your twitchy run-and-gun game without showing it as twitchy run and gun prone camp nonsense? i guess you lie a little bit, tell the people playing the game whilst the video is made to act a certain way here and there and perhaps one out of ten games it will look a bit like that video, but not the majority.

 

[Pulse]

yesssss but you're kind of missing my point, it's selling the game as something orchestrated by how DICE employees play, perhaps slightly scripted and choreographed, when in reality it's not quite so like watching a war film or helmet cam footage: it actually is people tea bagging each other and people camping under park benches. or at least, the mass majority of it is going to be played that way.

don't get me wrong, i can see why they advertise it this way and it makes perfect sense to, it's just a shame people are going to get suckered into it when in reality it's going to play like the rest of the battlefield games. but hey, that's online multiplayer.

Perhaps I'm missing your point as I really don't see where you're coming from. Look at trailers for any action/FPS game; they're all choreographed, scripted and edited to make them look action packed and chaotic when in reality everyone's gameplay experience is completely different, which is common sense really. Players are hardly being 'suckered' into the game as everything you see in that footage is plausible and could occur in-game.

It's like if you went to a cinema to see an action movie and then complained that the same sequences you saw in the trailer weren't continuous though out the entirety of the film and you were 'suckered' into it.

 

[Ren.182]

More here:

Not had chance to watch these yet, taking ages to buffer. But it looks like there is some vehicle combat in the videos.

I agree with Shaker on the AWOL thing. There's a nice bit of park/street to go hide in over there, easily reachable... but you're not allowed to go there. At least mostly in BF2 and BC2 you had to climb up a mountain or really run out of the map for the before they start screaming at you. Battlefield is about big maps, shame we're getting confined. Then again, it might be fine the way it is, it's hard to say from the limited gameplay videos we have. I can't see it changing before release though.

Nice to see some guys in the buildings finally (in the trailer) I hope all, if not most, are able to be entered.

I definitely agree that it looks more like BC3 than BF3, but I do really enjoy BC2's infantry combat, so that's not such a bad thing. I just hope the vehicle combat is better (we shall see when these damn videos buffer!)

Also... Prone. <3

Overall I reckon I'm gonna have a lot of fun with this.

Edit: Just seen the APC gameplay. I know there wasn't a LAV25 in BC2 so the responsiveness/handling will obviously be different, but it seemed nice to control, shame he couldn't kill anyone I want to see some chopper gameplay please.

 

[Stigmata]

The AWOL thing is to prevent the attacking team from camping out in the enemy deployment area, I believe.

Also, I really don't understand all these "this is BC3 not BF3!!!" comments. Did we not agree, years ago, that Battlefield's infantry combat is pretty shitty? Are we not aware that Operation Métro is an infantry-centric Rush map, being shown for the purposes of showing off infantry combat that's been further improved since Bad Company?

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

Also, I really don't understand all these "this is BC3 not BF3!!!" comments.

I admit it's largely fear of the unknown since even though I own it I never really played it, and the bad taste in the mouth a lack of prone left when I found out about it. I choose to cling to my irrationalities.

 

[Shakermaker]

Also, I really don't understand all these "this is BC3 not BF3!!!" comments. Did we not agree, years ago, that Battlefield's infantry combat is pretty shitty? Are we not aware that Operation Métro is an infantry-centric Rush map, being shown for the purposes of showing off infantry combat that's been further improved since Bad Company?

Well, you'd have to admit it looks an awful lot like Bad Company 2. The only big change is the urban setting.

 

[Ren.182]

The infantry combat is a lot like BC2... I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I've always said I hoped BF3 had the infantry of BC2 and the vehicles of BF2.

 

[Ennui]

Visually it looks like BC2 a lot, but the gameplay seems to be different... less recoil, higher damage, and significantly faster pace it looks to me. The pace looks closer to BF2 than BC2.

BC2 is a great game btw, for anyone who hasn't really spent much time with it. It takes some getting used to but has some really great moments.

I'm getting pumped watching all of the alpha footage... the game looks fun as hell to be honest (I love that video of the guy disarming the MCOM and just destroying everyone in his path).

 

[Krynn72]

watching all of the alpha footage...

That's it. I've had it with this subforum. If you're saying it now too, then I need to get outta here before I blow my brains out.

 

[Stigmata]

Well, you'd have to admit it looks an awful lot like Bad Company 2. The only big change is the urban setting.

What other big changes can there even be if it's a Battlefield game?

 

[Vegeta897]

Also, I really don't understand all these "this is BC3 not BF3!!!" comments. Did we not agree, years ago, that Battlefield's infantry combat is pretty shitty?

But that doesn't mean it should try to be like BC2's combat. Why not go for an original angle?

Visually it looks like BC2 a lot, but the gameplay seems to be different... less recoil, higher damage, and significantly faster pace it looks to me. The pace looks closer to BF2 than BC2.

Huh!?! Why is a faster pace more fitting for a Battlefield game? Maybe it's just me, but I thought the bigger maps, and more tactical approach to combat with squads and a commander, and assets in the map that you had to use wisely and not get spammed by noobs such as static weapons and vehicles, lent itself to slower combat. Of all the things I wanted to see in the next Battlefield game's combat, it wasn't super fast paced running around and proning/standing up every 2 seconds, with no ****ing recoil. That's arcade-style stuff that I really don't see how any of you guys could think fits with Battlefield.

I think the combat should have an emphasis on cover and stability. Running around dodging bullets should destroy your ability to aim, as well as sap up a lot of stamina. Looking at the videos this guy is sprinting everywhere no problem, and still able to aim a perfect shot a second later. Makes it feel like deathmatch. You could have awesome prolonged street battles in this game if cover and stability were keys to staying alive and getting kills. It also makes things like grenades and smoke more effective. Because it's closer to what real life combat is like. And I'm not saying the game should be like arma. Arma is way further down the line in terms of realism. I'm asking for some resemblance to believable combat.

 

[Stigmata]

But that doesn't mean it should try to be like BC2's combat. Why not go for an original angle?

Huh!?! Why is a faster pace more fitting for a Battlefield game? Maybe it's just me, but I thought the bigger maps, and more tactical approach to combat with squads and a commander, and assets in the map that you had to use wisely and not get spammed by noobs such as static weapons and vehicles, lent itself to slower combat. Of all the things I wanted to see in the next Battlefield game's combat, it wasn't super fast paced running around and proning/standing up every 2 seconds, with no ****ing recoil. That's arcade-style stuff that I really don't see how any of you guys could think fits with Battlefield.

I think the combat should have an emphasis on cover and stability. Running around dodging bullets should destroy your ability to aim, as well as sap up a lot of stamina. Looking at the videos this guy is sprinting everywhere no problem, and still able to aim a perfect shot a second later. Makes it feel like deathmatch. You could have awesome prolonged street battles in this game if cover and stability were keys to staying alive and getting kills. It also makes things like grenades and smoke more effective. Because it's closer to what real life combat is like. And I'm not saying the game should be like arma. Arma is way further down the line in terms of realism. I'm asking for some resemblance to believable combat.

Sounds like you want ARMA 3.

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

I would probably like to buy this game Vegeta is describing.

 

[Evo]

Huh!?! Why is a faster pace more fitting for a Battlefield game? Maybe it's just me, but I thought the bigger maps, and more tactical approach to combat with squads and a commander, and assets in the map that you had to use wisely and not get spammed by noobs such as static weapons and vehicles, lent itself to slower combat. Of all the things I wanted to see in the next Battlefield game's combat, it wasn't super fast paced running around and proning/standing up every 2 seconds, with no ****ing recoil. That's arcade-style stuff that I really don't see how any of you guys could think fits with Battlefield.

I think the combat should have an emphasis on cover and stability. Running around dodging bullets should destroy your ability to aim, as well as sap up a lot of stamina. Looking at the videos this guy is sprinting everywhere no problem, and still able to aim a perfect shot a second later. Makes it feel like deathmatch. You could have awesome prolonged street battles in this game if cover and stability were keys to staying alive and getting kills. It also makes things like grenades and smoke more effective. Because it's closer to what real life combat is like. And I'm not saying the game should be like arma. Arma is way further down the line in terms of realism. I'm asking for some resemblance to believable combat.

You pretty much summed up BF2 for me personally there, that is how I like to think of it. I've been playing BC2 recently and it is too fast to get to grips with after playing a bit of BF2. Starting to think that I may not like BF3 as much as I thought I would :'(

 

[morgs]

BC2 is just a game trying to compete with COD really, a true Battlefield game to me is, like Veg said, very open, tactical battles with a nice slow pace.

 

[Ennui]

That's it. I've had it with this subforum. If you're saying it now too, then I need to get outta here before I blow my brains out.

Fine, say whatever you want. Pre-beta or whatever. If it makes you feel any better, while they were referring to all media a while back as "pre-alpha", they are now saying just "alpha". And what else do they call the build which is ONLY 32 player Operation Metro rush mode, with limited weapon/kit customization options? Presumably the beta will be a bit larger, I'm guessing it'll have one 64 player conquest map. Beta doesn't come out for a month at least. I'm just calling it what it's officially referred to as, since I always gotta be writing news and tweeting about it and whatnot.

But that doesn't mean it should try to be like BC2's combat. Why not go for an original angle?

Huh!?! Why is a faster pace more fitting for a Battlefield game? Maybe it's just me, but I thought the bigger maps, and more tactical approach to combat with squads and a commander, and assets in the map that you had to use wisely and not get spammed by noobs such as static weapons and vehicles, lent itself to slower combat. Of all the things I wanted to see in the next Battlefield game's combat, it wasn't super fast paced running around and proning/standing up every 2 seconds, with no ****ing recoil. That's arcade-style stuff that I really don't see how any of you guys could think fits with Battlefield.

I think the combat should have an emphasis on cover and stability. Running around dodging bullets should destroy your ability to aim, as well as sap up a lot of stamina. Looking at the videos this guy is sprinting everywhere no problem, and still able to aim a perfect shot a second later. Makes it feel like deathmatch. You could have awesome prolonged street battles in this game if cover and stability were keys to staying alive and getting kills. It also makes things like grenades and smoke more effective. Because it's closer to what real life combat is like. And I'm not saying the game should be like arma. Arma is way further down the line in terms of realism. I'm asking for some resemblance to believable combat.

You sound like you are just whining because you have nothing better to do than whine. Once again we run into the issue that you have extremely high expectations with a pretty nebulous idea of what you actually want to see. I was saying the pace seemed more like BF2 than BC2, because BF2 is a moderate speed game and BC2 is relatively slow for the most part. Luckily you have ARMA3 and RO2 for all of your hand-signal, insane learning curve hyperrealistic combat simulation desires.

Honestly, BF3 really is looking more and more like a modern version of BF2... obviously not rush mode, but the pacing and mechanics seem closer to BF2 than BC2. Also for everyone saying it looks like BC2 infantry combat... it LOOKS like it, but it doesn't look like it FEELS like it, if that makes sense. I've played like 300+ hours of BC2 and it's just a lot more sluggish/clunky feeling than those vids are. Gunplay also looks significantly different. Maybe you want it to be more realistic, but Battlefield games have never been realistic, what they do so well has always been to simply create an atmosphere and impression of realism with really fun gameplay... BF3 is doing great in that department from what I can tell.

edit: I think you guys are confusing setting with pace. BC2 has mostly smallish claustrophobic maps which makes the gameplay seem a lot faster than BF2 where everything was super sparse and open. However I'm pretty sure the movement speed in BC2 is slower than BF2, and in close quarters like you'd find in BC2, BF2 is equally hectic (actually more so, because it's a lot easier to spam grenades and whatnot). 1942 was slower but that was also based on a 2002 engine. I am sensing a lot of nostalgiagoggles being worn in here. Yall seem to expect BF3 to deliver nonstop 24/7 tactical sublimity, but you don't seem to remember how 75% of public BF2 games consisted of retards in your squad not listening to you or working together at all, the commander camped out somewhere sniping and ignoring his responsibilities besides occasionally using UAV or artillery to support himself as a sniper, and everyone else just running around dolphin diving and spamming ENEMY BOAT SPOTTED ENEMY BOAT SPOTTED ENEMY BOAT SPOTTED.

 

[Vegeta897]

Sounds like you want ARMA 3.

Did you even read what I said? What I'm proposing is much closer to simply an improved version of fitting Battlefield combat, and not close to Arma at all.

You sound like you are just whining because you have nothing better to do than whine.

What is your problem? Seriously. Is nobody allowed to discuss this game? This is like my first post in a while about this game and you're instantly calling me a whiner. When I ****ing proposed an idea that OTHER PEOPLE IN THIS THREAD ACTUALLY LIKED. And all you can come up with as a response to my ideas is this:

Once again we run into the issue that you have extremely high expectations with a pretty nebulous idea of what you actually want to see.

Umm? Point me to the 'extremely high' part? Point me to the nebulous part? I think I pretty well illustrated what kind of combat I'd like to see, and even explained what key changes needed to be made to accomplish it.

Luckily you have ARMA3 and RO2 for all of your hand-signal, insane learning curve hyperrealistic combat simulation desires.

This is seriously getting annoying and you sound like a troll. Who the **** said anything about hyper realism and hand signals? You are being the annoying one here. You take everything I say and interpret as 'OMG ME WANT MILISM WHY IS BF3 NOT ARMA 3' when that couldn't be further from the truth.

Maybe you want it to be more realistic,

It's not even about the realism. It's about pace. I think the slower paced combat that I described would be more fitting for BF2. And I'm not the only one:

I would probably like to buy this game Vegeta is describing.

You pretty much summed up BF2 for me personally there, that is how I like to think of it. I've been playing BC2 recently and it is too fast to get to grips with after playing a bit of BF2. Starting to think that I may not like BF3 as much as I thought I would :'(

BC2 is just a game trying to compete with COD really, a true Battlefield game to me is, like Veg said, very open, tactical battles with a nice slow pace.

Thank you. Some people in here aren't fanboys that can understand just because we want something that isnt' deathmatch doesn't mean we want a ****ing milsim.

 

[Ennui]

Oh Vegeta, you adorably predictable bastard. It's so good how indignant and self-righteous you get about my "trolling" but can't resist trolling a little bit yourself with the little "fanboy" bit at the end

I'm not going to multiquote you back and argue for the next three pages, so I'll just say this: every SINGLE post of yours in this thread - and that's 34 posts - is unerringly negative. Every single one (a couple of relatively off-topic ones notwithstanding). Now, the thread is quite old so it makes sense to have a high post count.. if you're interested. But you aren't. You've made it very clear that you aren't excited and don't care about this game and have no plans to buy it. And yet you insist on posting THIRTY FOUR TIMES about how skeptical you are. You've expressed your opinion dozens of times over, it's time to leave the thread if you are just gonna continuously whine and talk about how much this game isn't what you want. Notice how in the MW3 thread I just put in my 2 cents and abandoned it? Same with past threads about Halo games, Bioshock and any other major game that I don't care about. I'll skim the thread, post once or twice and be done with it. I don't sit there and F5 the thread all day so I can tell people how unexcited I am about the game and how much it's going to suck for reasons X and Y and Z that I'm basing mostly on conjecture anyway.

The line between discussing the game / expressing yourself and trolling is thin enough as it is... and once you get to several full pages over the past six months of you just bitching about how much this game is gonna suck and how wrong they're doing everything, I don't think it's very hard to tell which side of the line you're on.

 

[morgs]

You sound like you are just whining because you have nothing better to do than whine. Once again we run into the issue that you have extremely high expectations with a pretty nebulous idea of what you actually want to see. I was saying the pace seemed more like BF2 than BC2, because BF2 is a moderate speed game and BC2 is relatively slow for the most part. Luckily you have ARMA3 and RO2 for all of your hand-signal, insane learning curve hyperrealistic combat simulation desires.

Honestly, BF3 really is looking more and more like a modern version of BF2... obviously not rush mode, but the pacing and mechanics seem closer to BF2 than BC2. Also for everyone saying it looks like BC2 infantry combat... it LOOKS like it, but it doesn't look like it FEELS like it, if that makes sense. I've played like 300+ hours of BC2 and it's just a lot more sluggish/clunky feeling than those vids are. Gunplay also looks significantly different. Maybe you want it to be more realistic, but Battlefield games have never been realistic, what they do so well has always been to simply create an atmosphere and impression of realism with really fun gameplay... BF3 is doing great in that department from what I can tell.

edit: I think you guys are confusing setting with pace. BC2 has mostly smallish claustrophobic maps which makes the gameplay seem a lot faster than BF2 where everything was super sparse and open. However I'm pretty sure the movement speed in BC2 is slower than BF2, and in close quarters like you'd find in BC2, BF2 is equally hectic (actually more so, because it's a lot easier to spam grenades and whatnot). 1942 was slower but that was also based on a 2002 engine. I am sensing a lot of nostalgiagoggles being worn in here. Yall seem to expect BF3 to deliver nonstop 24/7 tactical sublimity, but you don't seem to remember how 75% of public BF2 games consisted of retards in your squad not listening to you or working together at all, the commander camped out somewhere sniping and ignoring his responsibilities besides occasionally using UAV or artillery to support himself as a sniper, and everyone else just running around dolphin diving and spamming ENEMY BOAT SPOTTED ENEMY BOAT SPOTTED ENEMY BOAT SPOTTED.

Who said anything about a super realistic military sim? He pretty much just said he'd like to see an improved version of BF2.

 

[Krynn72]

You sound like you are just whining because you have nothing better to do than whine.

You sound like you're just grumbling because you have nothing better to do than grumble over people who disagree with decisions in a game you made a fanboyclub for. HA! Insulting people IS FUN!

I agree with him, Morgs, Mutoid, and Evo. I don't like how fast the game looks, and would have preferred a game that promoted more teamwork and grouping, with cover being more necessary than sprinting around, and thus promoted more intense firefights that weren't just one-off, ambush style kills like every other online shooter.

 

[Stigmata]

Did you even read what I said? What I'm proposing is much closer to simply an improved version of fitting Battlefield combat, and not close to Arma at all.

What you're proposing has absolutely no history whatsoever in the Battlefield franchise. Battlefield has always been about arcadey combat. Making things more realistic for the sake of realism is retarded when you're trying to design a non-simulation game. Flat-out retarded. Realism is not the goal of BF3. That's why we have magical medkits and squad spawning, pooled ammo magazines, snipers without ghillie suits, and on and on.

You simultaneously claim:

- You don't want a milsim
- But you want slower combat
- You want a stamina system
- You want a ****ing stability system that determines your accuracy in tandem with movement, stamina, stance, and god knows what else
- This stability system makes the combat better "Because it's closer to what real life combat is like."
- BF3 doesn't put emphasis on cover

How am I supposed to interpret this, exactly?

 

[Vegeta897]

Oh Vegeta, you adorably predictable bastard. It's so good how indignant and self-righteous you get about my "trolling" but can't resist trolling a little bit yourself with the little "fanboy" bit at the end

Oh I'm sorry, but that's literally the only explanation I can come up with to make sense of how you can read my post and interpret it the way you did, and call me a whiner on top of that.

I'm not going to multiquote you back and argue for the next three pages, so I'll just say this: every SINGLE post of yours in this thread - and that's 34 posts - is unerringly negative. Every single one (a couple of relatively off-topic ones notwithstanding).

I don't see what my previous posts have anything to do with my latest post. If you want to reply to my old posts, go ahead. But don't drag your grudges back up to reply to a perfectly valid post of mine.

Now, the thread is quite old so it makes sense to have a high post count.. if you're interested. But you aren't. You've made it very clear that you aren't excited and don't care about this game and have no plans to buy it. And yet you insist on posting THIRTY FOUR TIMES about how skeptical you are.

I insist on being able to discuss the game like everyone else. And don't tell me what I'm interested in. I own BF1942, BF:V, and BF2. I had no reason to not be interested in BF3. If BF3 had turned out a little bit differently, like if it was like I described in my last post, I'd really be considering it.

You've expressed your opinion dozens of times over, it's time to leave the thread if you are just gonna continuously whine and talk about how much this game isn't what you want.

Um, this would be a valid point if I was saying the same thing over and over. But I'm not. I did not say anything about my new ideas for what I'd like to see in the combat department before this post. How could I have? The videos showing the gameplay I'm referring to weren't released back then.

The line between discussing the game / expressing yourself and trolling is thin enough and once you get to several full pages over the past six months of you just bitching about how much this game is gonna suck and how wrong they're doing everything, I don't think it's very hard to tell which side of the line you're on.

My, how convenient it must be to be able to just lump everything I've said about the game as 'bitching'! Wow! I had no idea that making valid points and talking about a game in any way that wasn't positive was bitching. I also had no idea that proposing a different combat style, and having people in the thread, fans of Battlefield agreeing with you, was also bitching!

I'm not going to let you tell me I'm the one trolling here when all I'm doing is talking about what I don't like about the game, or what I'd like to see in the game. I'm doing it in a civil manner, and I do not appreciate you calling me a whiner or a bitch, on top of misinterpreting every other thing I say. It's like you read all my posts with arma-goggles on. It's seriously annoying.

What you're proposing has absolutely no history whatsoever in the Battlefield franchise.

I and others tend to disagree with you here.

Making things more realistic for the sake of realism

Good thing I said nothing like this.

You simultaneously claim:

- You don't want a milsim
- But you want slower combat
- You want a stamina system
- You want a ****ing stability system that determines your accuracy in tandem with movement, stamina, stance, and god knows what else
- This stability system makes the combat better "Because it's closer to what real life combat is like."
- BF3 doesn't put emphasis on cover

How am I supposed to interpret this, exactly?

I didn't say anything about 'a stability system' Where do you come up with this shit? BF2 already had a stamina system, and rightly so. It's to prevent people from sprinting around constantly. And all I meant by stability was that using up your stamina should greatly affect your ability to shoot accurately. What is so ****ing complicated and 'milsim' about this? It's a simple mechanic that would slow the pace from the current deathmatch-looking frantic fragfest. Me saying that it looks closer to real life combat was just a side note. The important thing I was trying to emphasize was the pace of it all, not to mention being more original.

 

[Ennui]

Guys, if I ever make a game remind me not to release ANYTHING about it until the game actually comes out. My only solace is that I'm 100% positive that most of you will be singing a far more merry tune come October 25 when we're all playing on one of my 64 player conquest servers and you guys are renouncing all of your previous doubts in between explosive, involuntary ejaculations at the sheer might and scale of the whole spectacle.

You guys are basing conjecture off of footage of a bunch of people who have been playing the game for less than 24 hours in a very close quarters, cramped Rush map (which isn't even supposed to be like "classic" battlefield gameplay). The videos leaked so far are just a bunch of people running around like idiots. Half of them are busy gaping in awe at the graphics or just running around like it's TDM so they can get a feel for it and nobody knows the map. Why do you think that in a few of those videos the guy playing is just annihilating everyone? It's because he, unlike most of the rest of them, is actually playing the game instead of stroking their boner over the fact that they are actually playing BF3.

So what you guys are saying is that BF3 is ruined because they took out fatigue and the pace is a little bit faster? Clearly tactical gameplay will be impossible! Seriously, look at the videos. It takes like 2-3 shots to kill someone... and with low recoil that means it's pretty damn easy to die. Which means that cover and whatnot WILL be really important, and that you and your squad WILL be rewarded for playing slowly and deliberately and minding cover and lanes of fire and all that good stuff.

edit: Okay, go ahead and high road me, whatever. You're right Vegeta, you never whine about anything :upstare: how dare I intrude upon your right to post 34 negative comments in a thread about a game you aren't going to buy. Oh wait, you don't have that right. Luckily for you I'm so sweet I'll let you keep pretending you do.

 

[Vegeta897]

So what you guys are saying is that BF3 is ruined because they took out fatigue and the pace is a little bit faster? Clearly tactical gameplay will be impossible! Seriously, look at the videos. It takes like 2-3 shots to kill someone... and with low recoil that means it's pretty damn easy to die. Which means that cover and whatnot WILL be really important, and that you and your squad WILL be rewarded for playing slowly and deliberately and minding cover and lanes of fire and all that good stuff.

Granted, what you're saying here is true. But I'd still like to see them emphasize this ideal combat that both you and I clearly agree on by doing some of the things I mentioned.

See, this is why I don't know why you had the need to say I wanted Arma ultra realism combat when I clearly was describing the same kind of combat that you want to see in the game.

edit: Okay, go ahead and high road me, whatever. You're right Vegeta, you never whine about anything how dare I intrude upon your right to post 34 negative comments in a thread about a game you aren't going to buy. Oh wait, you don't have that right. Luckily for you I'm so sweet I'll let you keep pretending you do.

All I did was post some ideas that other people in the thread liked, and that I wanted to see the kind of combat that you just described. Why did you have to bring up my old posts in the thread? They are totally irrelevant to my post, and only serve to derail the thread with these stupid arguments. Good job.