Battlefield 3?

[FaTtY-mIc-FaTFaT]

how come no one is talking about this game? i mean, this game is in my opinion is going to be the next leap in fps.... no, ill go even bolder to say its going to be the next leap for gaming.

if you have not kept up to date with this you must pick up this months gameinformer. they talk about their new frostbite 2 engine and it is just amazing. crysis 2 may be the only contender against it.

DICE is putting their all to develop this and release by the end of the year (hopefully no delays )

you have to just read about their entire new system, it is just incredible. you think bad company 2 was good? that was just a beta testing to the new frostbite 2 engine and i have to say, this is going to be on my watch list now.

 

[Turk]

Remember BF2 the legend? I want graphics update on that game and new guns. Then call it battlefield fry pan 4 or what so ever; I will buy that game and play as much as I can. But please, please DICE, go away..

 

[IDigitalDeadI]

not trying to poop on anyone's parade, but bf3, from what i saw in game informer, looks like red faction all over again. And by that, I mean destroyable buildings. Seriously was done years ago! Besides that, I can wait for this game I just hope people don't say bf3 created fully destroyable buildings......I'm going to rage hard on multiple forums because of it

 

[FaTtY-mIc-FaTFaT]

no, they did not, but what they did do was improve a hell lot on it. in gameinformer, instead of blowing up one part of the building it will be more realistic because they made ripple effects. as anyone know, when a huge explosion occurs, people tell you to stay away from windows.

red fraction had very impressive destructible environment, but in my opinion was not as believable as it could have been. hopefully bc3 can make this happen.

 

[chapp]

No one is talking about it because BF is overrated. Sure they have vehicles, cool guns, destructible environments, etc. But none of that matters in a shooter if you can't get the core mechanics right...

Hit detection has always been the Achilles-heel of the BF series. Dice knows this and instead of fixing it, they claim it's part of the "realism". When your crosshair is on someone and you pull the trigger, you should hit them. If I wanted "bullet drop" type realism, I would join the Army... Either way, if this is a flaw in the netcode or a design mechanic, they need to change it.

Then there's the other minor things like no leaning, no prone, no strafe running, etc.

Sure the BF games look great but with FPS games, the core mechanics are far more important than eyecandy. Want proof? Look at the two most popular PC FPS games, CS(11 year old game) and CS:S(5 year old game).

Why do you think the new MoH bombed? Dice made the multiplayer...

 

[Lance]

No one is talking about it because BF is overrated. Sure they have vehicles, cool guns, destructible environments, etc. But none of that matters in a shooter if you can't get the core mechanics right...

Hit detection has always been the Achilles-heel of the BF series. Dice knows this and instead of fixing it, they claim it's part of the "realism". When your crosshair is on someone and you pull the trigger, you should hit them. If I wanted "bullet drop" type realism, I would join the Army... Either way, if this is a flaw in the netcode or a design mechanic, they need to change it.

Then there's the other minor things like no leaning, no prone, no strafe running, etc.

Sure the BF games look great but with FPS games, the core mechanics are far more important than eyecandy. Want proof? Look at the two most popular PC FPS games, CS(11 year old game) and CS:S(5 year old game).

Why do you think the new MoH bombed? Dice made the multiplayer...

Wait, did you just criticize a game because if you had your crosshair someone you would still miss, and then give Counter-Strike as an example of hit detection done right?

 

[chapp]

Wait, did you just criticize a game because if you had your crosshair someone you would still miss, and then give Counter-Strike as an example of hit detection done right?

Yes I did... and I think what you're getting at is hitboxes. My CS/CS:S comparison to BF was about proving that it's more about gameplay mechanics than eye candy. And even though CS and CS:S have hitbox issues, it's still FAR FAR more popular than any BF game and that was my point.

 

[Cut Chem!st]

There's a post like a few posts down with the gameinformer scans..

 

[JunK]

PS css is 6 and a quarter years old now =P

but ya i've never been too interested in the BF series - to me its just as attractive as the cod/moh series...which is not very

 

[Sexy Beast]

No one is talking about it because BF is overrated. Sure they have vehicles, cool guns, destructible environments, etc. But none of that matters in a shooter if you can't get the core mechanics right...

Hit detection has always been the Achilles-heel of the BF series. Dice knows this and instead of fixing it, they claim it's part of the "realism". When your crosshair is on someone and you pull the trigger, you should hit them. If I wanted "bullet drop" type realism, I would join the Army... Either way, if this is a flaw in the netcode or a design mechanic, they need to change it.

Then there's the other minor things like no leaning, no prone, no strafe running, etc.

Sure the BF games look great but with FPS games, the core mechanics are far more important than eyecandy. Want proof? Look at the two most popular PC FPS games, CS(11 year old game) and CS:S(5 year old game).

Why do you think the new MoH bombed? Dice made the multiplayer...

Really? You have a grudge against DICE because they made the rational decision to put in "bullet drop". Yeah, I can see where that would be a problem.

Also, MoH did go platinum...pretty far from a bomb.

 

[chapp]

Beast, I have no grudge, I could really care less TBH. There's PLENTLY of other PC shooters to play. I was merely answering Fatty's question on why BF3 isn't getting that much attention. And that's because it's not that great of a game because of the various issues I mentioned earlier.

And another major issue I forgot to mention about the BF series, with the exception of 1942, is that the games are HORRIBLY unoptimized. When BF2 came out, you had to have the top of the line rig to even attempt running the game. When BC2 came out, it was the same thing. As far as I can tell, BC2 is the only PC game that needs a quad core processor to run decently. Black Ops(and I'm only picking this because it's the newest shooter out there) runs flawlessly on my dual-core box with a 512MB 9800GT. Granted the maps in BC2 are HUGE and maybe that's part of the problem. But then again, if the majority of PC gamers can't run your game... well then you're already selling yourself short.

And MoH going platinum only proves that it was marketed well. That doesn't mean it was a good game. The fact that hardly anyone plays MoH NOW(and it was only released four months ago) is how you should really be judging the game.

 

[Orange_Kun!!!]

Beast, I have no grudge, I could really care less TBH. There's PLENTLY of other PC shooters to play. I was merely answering Fatty's question on why BF3 isn't getting that much attention. And that's because it's not that great of a game because of the various issues I mentioned earlier.

And another major issue I forgot to mention about the BF series, with the exception of 1942, is that the games are HORRIBLY unoptimized. When BF2 came out, you had to have the top of the line rig to even attempt running the game. When BC2 came out, it was the same thing. As far as I can tell, BC2 is the only PC game that needs a quad core processor to run decently. Black Ops(and I'm only picking this because it's the newest shooter out there) runs flawlessly on my dual-core box with a 512MB 9800GT. Granted the maps in BC2 are HUGE and maybe that's part of the problem. But then again, if the majority of PC gamers can't run your game... well then you're already selling yourself short.

Horribly unoptimized? 1.7 GHZ CPU, 512MB RAM, and 128MB Video Card? In 2005? It seems a little much to consider that to be out of reach. Also, I was there, playing BF2 at launch and I can assure you that there was no shortage of players at all.

I don't see any problem with "Bullet Drop" in my own opinion. All it meant to me was you were capable of judging distance. A necessary skill for a sniper like me. :]

Also, you were able to go prone in 1942, BF Vietnam, BF2, and BF2142.

 

[chapp]

Horribly unoptimized? 1.7 GHZ CPU, 512MB RAM, and 128MB Video Card? In 2005? It seems a little much to consider that to be out of reach.

LOL!! if you played BF2 you would know that it would NOT run on those specs... just because that's what DICE posts as recommended specs doesn't mean the game will be playable...

Just like if you think BC2 would actually be playable on this:

Dualcore 2 GHZ
2 GB RAM
GeForce 7800 GT / ATI X1900 with 256 MB VRAM

 

[Nik :D]

Don't know if I'm going to pre-order, but I know I will get it.

 

[gingertonic]

You are complaining that a developer decided to make a game that loosely follows the laws of physics?

 

[chapp]

You are complaining that a developer decided to make a game that loosely follows the laws of physics?

I'm not even talking about bullet drop for snipers, even though I think it's a stupid idea.

I'm talking about the hit detection problem that ALL Dice games suffer from. I'm talking about circle strafing an opponent right in front of you and not hitting him once... Dice calls it "bullet drop" I call it poor netcode/hit detection.

And lets get something straight, I am not complaining. I was just responding to the topic question. That's great if you like the BF games, you're entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. So we'll just leave it at that.

 

[Rukus.]

blahblahblah Call Of Duty is better blah

I've never had a problem with hit detection in any Battlefield game.

 

[Sexy Beast]

Beast, I have no grudge, I could really care less TBH. There's PLENTLY of other PC shooters to play. I was merely answering Fatty's question on why BF3 isn't getting that much attention. And that's because it's not that great of a game because of the various issues I mentioned earlier.

And another major issue I forgot to mention about the BF series, with the exception of 1942, is that the games are HORRIBLY unoptimized. When BF2 came out, you had to have the top of the line rig to even attempt running the game. When BC2 came out, it was the same thing. As far as I can tell, BC2 is the only PC game that needs a quad core processor to run decently. Black Ops(and I'm only picking this because it's the newest shooter out there) runs flawlessly on my dual-core box with a 512MB 9800GT. Granted the maps in BC2 are HUGE and maybe that's part of the problem. But then again, if the majority of PC gamers can't run your game... well then you're already selling yourself short.

And MoH going platinum only proves that it was marketed well. That doesn't mean it was a good game. The fact that hardly anyone plays MoH NOW(and it was only released four months ago) is how you should really be judging the game.

Well BF 3 is getting a lot of attention, DICE is still a AAA dev and the Battlefield series is still considered a premiere shooter series...so yeah it's getting massive press. I've actually never had any major hit detection issues in a Battlefield game...but I guess experiences can differ from player to player.

When someone say bomb...it usually equates to financial or critical. Which MoH both succeeded in not being. Was it a mediocre game, yeah it was. It tried so damn hard to be like Call of Duty that it wound up being neither original nor entertaining. Of course that was both on the single-player and multiplayer front, which you can pretty much blame on EA for micromanaging the project.

I can agree that Battlefield 2 wasn't optimized worth a damn. Easily one of the worst system hogs I've ever come across.

 

[Orange_Kun!!!]

LOL!! if you played BF2 you would know that it would NOT run on those specs... just because that's what DICE posts as recommended specs doesn't mean the game will be playable...

Just like if you think BC2 would actually be playable on this:

Dualcore 2 GHZ
2 GB RAM
GeForce 7800 GT / ATI X1900 with 256 MB VRAM

I was a little higher than the minimum specs at launch, but my old Athlon 64 3700+/1GB RAM/GeForce 6800 Non-Ultra ran it very well . My buddy's old Athlon Barton core/1GB RAM/Radeon X800 also ran it fine.

I will agree w/ Sexy Beast though, the game was a resource hog so in that respect I was wrong. It probably could have been optimized better; but those specs were capable of playing the game back in '05.

Your complaints with the hit detection seems to be blown way out of proportion when I can distinctly remember using my pistol to snipe people from the same distance I would use my sniper rifle at and make hits consistently. If what you say is true, then pistol sniping would've been impossible.

Even the MP5 wasn't so bad that you could empty a clip at someone point-blank and not hit them.

My guess is it sounds like you must have suffered from system or server lag unless people were dive exploiting non-stop on you.

 

[labowsky]

only thing i have against the BF games (maybe only BC1, little better in two) the fact that it took a whole clip of an assault rift to take someone down.
only problem.