Battlefield 3 Discussion Thread

Consoles wouldn't be able to handle it. They would have to redo the game with CryEngine 3 for consoles. That game has unlimited physics, nothing is deferred, rendering or shading and the lighting is true real lighting, it's not all that deferred crap. So yes, it's too taxing for consoles.

Remember the hardware in PS3 and 360 is equivalent to a HD3800 (ATi) and 7800 (Nvidia). Crysis 1 brought down even the best, most overclocked, beefy 8800 Ultra to it's knees.

Crysis 1 is pure brute performance at work, nothing optimized for consoles.

 

Guys this is derailing the thread in a big way. Start your own Crysis vs BF3 graphics thread.

Also just because you find a certain game epic doesn't mean everyone else does. Crysis was fun. I played it, enjoyed it, done. Don't care to really touch it again. But that's just me.

Now move along before the derailing police come in and have to clean up this mess.

 

I think it's hilarious that deferred shading bothers some of you. I don't think it means what you think it means. It's entirely an computer engineering solution to a performance problem. It allows more dynamic lights in a scene by reducing the number of draw calls per object. This is good for both the PC and consoles, any program with lighting and shading will benefit. Starcraft 2 is PC only and uses similar techniques. There's a long list of games that use deferred shading and lighting. Lighting is still being done in each frame. Do you think it means like "wait 10 minutes and then do the lighting?"

 

XBox has ATI 1900XT and PS3 has 7600GT.

 

For one, Metro 2033 uses deferred rendering and looks amazing.

I didn't think Crysis was "epic". I thought it was okay. Nothing more, nothing else. MP was fun though. Now Crysis 2, SP wise, I found it epic.

Metro 2033, maxed, 1080p, definitely looks better than any game available. And I played Crysis with high @ 1080p with Natural Mod, and all texture mods I could find : POM+AF, foliage, trees, grass, etc, and still didn't find it the best in the best.

 

is this thread about crysis?

 

BATTLEFIELD 3 IS GOING TO BE A FUN GAME. /)^3^(\

I prefer conquest mode, classic BF gameplay. Rush was interesting, but it was too face-to-face, too linear. The enemy would always be in front of you.

 

That's what I've been trying to figure out.

Start a different thread to compare them.

In any case comparing Crysis to BF3 makes zero sense. Crysis is pretty much a single player game. BF3 is primarily multiplayer game about modern combat on a massive scale with tanks and boats and planes and helicopters and every available weapon imaginable.

 

You forgot a very important factor for me, tactical squad advancing and defending. Its a lot of fun to play with friends on a squad, I so wanna play this game right now.

 

Oh man, that reminds of all the awesome AT mine boosting fun I had with DEagleson and The Happy Swede

 

I hate AT mines

 

The only thing I used AT mines for was to make my quad fly across Arica Harbor in Conquest

The enemy was like "WAT?!"... It was fun

 

I rarely see squad play in BC2. I haven't played that much, maybe put in 50 hours or so, but during that time I only remember a few times playing squad style. Rest of them time, everyone was Rambo.

I don't expect anything different from BF3.

 

But it's usually my mother who says that.

Anyway, I just made that long list for teh LuLz.
"Crysis is clearly a single player modder friendly game.
Battlefield 3 is a huge open map multiplayer game." -HT.

And HT you won't play a game with wireframe. It's annoying as hell but it does make my mod making in Crysis easier.

 

when i played bc2 on the xbox i always played as a squad we moved together and supported eachother, i was always engineer in vehicles or a medic with the mg3, put down suppressive fire. Hardcore of course. also the best way to reduce snipers is to add wind travel to the bullets, not make the gun sway.

 

^When I played BF2 I was a lone wolf. No one waited for me to get into a helicopter.

ForeverAlone.jpg

 

So stoked for this game.

I'm building a rig this weekend with a GTX 560 Ti. Will be adding a second before the release.

 

do you think this game will support actual dual GPU use? im very curious...

 

yes it willl

 

I'm also very psyched for this game. I'll be building my first evar desktop to run this and Guild Wars 2. Can't wait!

 

Battlefield Blog

50 weapons, DAMN!

 

And they all do the same thing.

 

did you guys hear the review on youtube about how if your support and you just lay down suppressive fire, that person will recieve points for that? and adding to that, apparently if you do lay down suppressive fire (eg. theres a guy behind a rock and the support-"er" is shooting at the rock) the person on the other side will either have slower movement or be affected in some way. i think thats awesome!

Source

 

Yeah, they've said that a while ago. I think that's a GREAT mechanic, and will add teamwork and immersion to the game.

OT : It's funny that I created a MW3 discussion thread, and it's dead

 

Yes, because the Spas-12 shotgun and the RPG-7 Launcher are effectively the same as an m16A4 when taking out multiple infantry targets at various elevation mid-distance.

/sarcasm

 

Yes, and the pistol has totally the same damage as the F-18 missile.

 

Oh man, that means the M93R is three F-18 missiles! I'm gonna nuke everyone!

 

man i am absolutely amazed at everything you can do. one thing i would like to see though, is more weapon customization like in crysis. i know there already is alot, but atleast i would want to see a suppressor that you can put on, (hopefully on almost any weapon)


that, and lastly, one thing i did hate in BF2 was the sniper. if it wasnt a headshot, one would have to shoot the guy twice. Now thats all fine and dandy when considering the "weaker" sniper rifles, but when it comes to a 50 cal, if its a body shot, the guy should be dead in one shot.

what do you guys think?

 

So...

M93R = 3 F18 missiles = nuke

Then, a nuke, is...?

 

When I mean they do the same thing, I mean they just kill people. What gun doesn't? -.-

 

Stun gun.

 

That would be pretty useless in BF3, it'd be more practical to just kill.

Also, I'm pretty sure you could still kill someone with that to, with it's primary use.

 

Go to 1:42 in this video:
Battlefield Bad Company 2 Busting Myths Vol.1 - YouTube

50 cal can shoot through 5 people with/without magnum ammo up to 100 meters.It better be one shot one kill to the body.

these other videos are just cool. lol

Battlefield Bad Company 2 Busting Myths Vol.2- YouTube
Battlefield Bad Company 2 Busting Myths Vol. 3- YouTube

 

Yes, guns do just kill people so technically they all do the same thing in game. However, certain weapons are going to be more effective and useful in certain situations. A shotgun will rule CQB with one shot kills, etc. Also, I personally wouldn't want to have a pistol or sub-machine gun in a wide open environment because they're not accurate enough over such vast distances. As you can see, every weapon has it's strengths/weaknesses depending on the situation.

 

Nein, nein, nein, nein, NEIN!

One-shot kills to the body from any sniper rifle will ruin this game.

If any sniper rifles are a guaranteed single-bodyshot kill, I will not play this game. If you're using a sniper rifle, you're supposed to be rewarded with one-shot kills for aiming for the head, not just being lucky enough to hit them at all. This was one of the biggest game-breakers of Bad Company 2 for me; that snipers had damage dropoff that meant 100 damage (i.e. instant kill anywhere) at close range.

 

@mastershroom
@3demons

the mechanics of the game outweigh the reality. BF3 is not a simulator, it is supposed to be realistic but focus on teamplay and fun. It's better if we all just suspend our disbelief to make sure the game is balanced and fun.

i'm not totally against one-shot-body-kill weapons, but it needs to be done carefully and thoughtfully. i don't really feel strongly about it except that i strongly want it to work well and be balanced.

infinite range + 100% accuracy + 100% aiming stability may not be the best combination, but i'm sure they'll figure all that out.

 

Well if the bullet physics are more complicated in BF3 (as they said they would be) its possible that sniper rifles will require more skill to use. I honestly would prefer that they were difficult to use, as this would discourage lazy players from getting easy kills from them and leave them for the more devoted players who actually put in the time to get good a sniping. There needs to be a fairly steep learning curve for balance to work, otherwise there will just be squads of wookies like in BFBC2.

 

to be honest, if they added wind in it, that would be perfect. on top of the scope, it would show you how hard its blowing left or right. kind of like sniper, ghost warrior.

 

If you want realism, play ArMA2 (However it might not be too realistic with mods, I saw a monkey driving a bicycle in ArMA.)

 

Last night I bought BF3 on Origin, I wanted retail but since you need origin anyway I just went ahead and ordered it.
When I was pressing the BUy button, I felt like I was signing a contract with the Devil

 

I hope they add some kind of random wind resistance factor (like they do in golfing games).

Also, It's viable that a specific body shot should be rewarded with 1-shot-kill. I mean, if your a** is grazed Laterally, it shouldn't kill you. It certainly wouldn't in real life, even if it is considered a "body shot".

Just add the 1-shot kill areas to be the Head, and the Heart. If you want more realistic, then add a bleed-out factor for other shots, but they are not always insta-kill if you get shot in the appendix, for instance.

 

I think bullet effectiveness and spray should be more varied between weapon types. No way should a handgun get a kill from 1000 yards away, let alone be accurate enough to even get a hit from that far like in BC2. After that distance, the bullet would probably hit the ground or bounce off your armor. Hell an uzi should be even worse, but it's got accuracy beyond belief. I don't think it would break the balance much to not let people kill you from long distances, except by a huge probability curve.

I like the idea of bleed-out too. Instead of dying, or timed healing, I'd rather have it degrade your health over time, still giving you a chance to get revenge and/or seek out a medic. But if you don't act quickly enough you will eventually die.

 

Been waiting for it to be on Steam, but I guess it's confirmed that is no longer happening. Now, I am wondering if I should preorder on Origin, or from a third party like D2D. Does anyone know if there is any difference in preordering between the two, other than the early beta?

 

D2D offers 10% off while Origin has the Physical Warfare Pack.

 

uhoh... well, i pre-ordered mine on amazon, but i dont know ifit comes with the physical warfare pack. anyone knows if it does?

 

^Low chance it does.

 

I'm fairly certain Amazon does not get you the Physical Warfare Pack. It comes with the Back To Karkand expansion and some in-game Amazon-exclusive dogtags.

 

^that's good enough.

 

I pre-ordered from Amazon too. We won't be getting the PWP, but we get 5 unique dog tags aside from the Back to Karkand expansion. Don't recall where I read it, but EA claims everyone will get the PWP later in the future for free.

 

I will just go to GameStop and get it there cause i always have trouble with pre-ordering .