Battlefield 3 gameplay footage revealed today? (E: YES. NOW.)

Game looks very promising. Limited edition goodies are decent as well. One negative is the trend of $60 price tags. Oh well, as long as the game is great. Will pre-order as the game gets closer to release date.

By the way, has anyone noticed that the BF3 cover was done to look like the cover of Bad Company 2? Wonder why they did that.

NeoTemplar

Probably because they liked the style and/or want to make console players recognize this the part of the same game series BC2 was in.

AAAAAAAnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnndddddddddddddd....iam going to pre-order the game now...

Saw It,Liked It,Pre-Order it! :P

I am going to overhaul my comp with a juicy monitor and speakers with 30 days of camping food locked into my room.darkfox101

If that really is in-game then I'm amazed! Everything about it looked CGI, the lighting, animations... Too bad it was so short. PernicioEnigma

[QUOTE="PernicioEnigma"]If that really is in-game then I'm amazed! Everything about it looked CGI, the lighting, animations... Too bad it was so short. Elann2008

Looks stunning, haters will hate though.

[QUOTE="Baranga"]

Can't believe they're still using that Terminator theme rip-off.

Daytona_178

Really need to start saving up for an upgraded PC. I want more footage now.

Might just be me but that looked a lot like COD and less like battle field.Empirefrtw

Might just be me but that looked a lot like COD and less like battle field.Empirefrtw

Oh Em Gee.....Gfx King?

I love this trailer, it's basically the Game Informer scans in motion, hell, the scans had the HUD in them, I bet you can turn it on/off to be immersed or they're playing hardcore.

[QUOTE="Empirefrtw"]Might just be me but that looked a lot like COD and less like battle field.gunmaster55555

[QUOTE="gunmaster55555"][QUOTE="Empirefrtw"]Might just be me but that looked a lot like COD and less like battle field.dakan45

Deffinitely not like CoD, I mean some levels don't even look like CoD.

Who started this again? nevermind, I don't even care, waiting for BF 3.

[QUOTE="dakan45"][QUOTE="gunmaster55555"] lol? Think you need to watch again.DanielDust

Deffinitely not like CoD, I mean some levels don't even look like CoD.

Who started this again? nevermind, I don't even care, waiting for BF 3.

Deffinitely not like CoD,DanielDust

"O how the mighty have fallen"!

This video had me reminiscing - compared to that, the Blops campaing is just a sad joke. It was even worse than the campaign in BC2 - at least in that game, the jokes were intentional...

With that said, it's a brand new, genuine Battlefield game we're talking about here - I'm gonna pry out of some poor bloke's cold, stiff hands if I'd have to! I'm gonna pre-order that thing, SP or no SP, but yeah - if they can make it to resemble something along the line of the original MW in terms of gameplay, yeah, it'll be sweet.

Remeber how all the CoD games from 1 to 4 had those big, open SP levels, that weren't scripted half to death, but rather, made you choose where to make the push, and left both the allies and the enemies to adapt to your pace?

So what happened to that?

Remeber how all the CoD games from 1 to 4 had those big, open SP levels, that weren't scripted half to death, but rather, made you choose where to make the push, and left both the allies and the enemies to adapt to your pace?

So what happened to that?

Zyamaman

Since you add cod 4 in the discussion,i would say a level in waw against the japanesse was just like thatdakan45

Haven't played WaW, so I can't really comment on that.

and the mission with the fast food buildings in mw2 was just like that too.dakan45

Also the Favella levels (because for the life of me, I can't remember any fast food building levels!).

And TBH, the gameplay in MW2 wasn't that far away from the high standards set by it's hyghly-acclaimed progenitor - it's just that the story in that game made my ears bleed...

[QUOTE="dakan45"]Since you add cod 4 in the discussion,i would say a level in waw against the japanesse was just like thatZyamaman

Haven't played WaW, so I can't really comment on that.

and the mission with the fast food buildings in mw2 was just like that too.dakan45

Also the Favella levels (because for the life of me, I can't remember any fast food building levels!).

And TBH, the gameplay in MW2 wasn't that far away from the high standards set by it's hyghly-acclaimed progenitor - it's just that the story in that game made my ears bleed...

[QUOTE="xXDrPainXx"]Really Single player??? I'm still iffy, of course the graphics look good and such but if it really is just BC with 64 players and planes I might wait a bit and see what the actual community says after the hype has fallen a bit.groowagon

could you please tell me what it is that defines a Battlefield in your opinion? having no singleplayer?

if they have double the amount of people working on it than in BF2 (maybe even more), then why not make a singleplayer?

Umm when was a Battlefield title eve about single player ever????? Seriously that trailer was basically all the images from the various mags out there mashed into motion with an extra 10 seconds. Call me a purist or whatever I want multiplayer footage, I want something that says yeah this if a true successor to BF2 until then I'm going to wait it out until I actually see it.

Wow. This looks like it blows Black Ops away. I am definitely getting it.

Come on optimization... meaning hoping it runs well as well as looks well... if you need systems that aren't even made yet to run it great, then that is kinda ridiculous.

I am excited about this.. I just hope it is done as a work of art, instead of just some profit producing crap... (meaning I hope they work on making it actually a fantastic game, instead of spending half the budget on marketing which is so useless)....

Wow. This looks like it blows Black Ops away. I am definitely getting it.

WiiRocks66

Every game DICE has ever made blows Black Ops away...

Come on optimization... meaning hoping it runs well as well as looks well... if you need systems that aren't even made yet to run it great, then that is kinda ridiculous.

I am excited about this.. I just hope it is done as a work of art, instead of just some profit producing crap... (meaning I hope they work on making it actually a fantastic game, instead of spending half the budget on marketing which is so useless)....

Lach0121

It looks like it's going to be a very demanding game. Maxed settings @ high resolutions is going to be killer. I've watched the gameplay trailer a dozen times and I can't get over how photo-realistic it looks. I must prepare for a greater PC build.

Not to mention, multiplayer 64 vs 64 players. With improved destruction over Bad Company 2? Envision it now.

It looks like it's going to be a very demanding game. Maxed settings @ high resolutions is going to be killer. I've watched the gameplay trailer a dozen times and I can't get over how photo-realistic it looks. I must prepare for a greater PC build.

Not to mention, multiplayer 64 vs 64 players. With improved destruction over Bad Company 2? Envision it now.

Elann2008

Did you make a mistake? You know that it is going to be 32 vs 32 players, right?

[QUOTE="Elann2008"]

It looks like it's going to be a very demanding game. Maxed settings @ high resolutions is going to be killer. I've watched the gameplay trailer a dozen times and I can't get over how photo-realistic it looks. I must prepare for a greater PC build.

Not to mention, multiplayer 64 vs 64 players. With improved destruction over Bad Company 2? Envision it now.

Remmib

Did you make a mistake? You know that it is going to be 32 vs 32 players, right?

PC version: 64 vs 64 players. Thank me later. ;)

http://n4g.com/news/693769/battlefield-3-singleplayer-missions-64-player-online-packshots-and-more

[QUOTE="Remmib"]

[QUOTE="Elann2008"]

It looks like it's going to be a very demanding game. Maxed settings @ high resolutions is going to be killer. I've watched the gameplay trailer a dozen times and I can't get over how photo-realistic it looks. I must prepare for a greater PC build.

Not to mention, multiplayer 64 vs 64 players. With improved destruction over Bad Company 2? Envision it now.

Elann2008

Did you make a mistake? You know that it is going to be 32 vs 32 players, right?

PC version: 64 vs 64 players. Thank me later. ;)

http://n4g.com/news/693769/battlefield-3-singleplayer-missions-64-player-online-packshots-and-more

Yeah... 64 players TOTAL. Thus 32 per team...

[QUOTE="Remmib"]

[QUOTE="Elann2008"]

It looks like it's going to be a very demanding game. Maxed settings @ high resolutions is going to be killer. I've watched the gameplay trailer a dozen times and I can't get over how photo-realistic it looks. I must prepare for a greater PC build.

Not to mention, multiplayer 64 vs 64 players. With improved destruction over Bad Company 2? Envision it now.

Elann2008

Did you make a mistake? You know that it is going to be 32 vs 32 players, right?

PC version: 64 vs 64 players. Thank me later. ;)

http://n4g.com/news/693769/battlefield-3-singleplayer-missions-64-player-online-packshots-and-more

It says in the translated article that consoles will have 24 players fighting simulatenously. "Up to 64 players online means" up to 64 players per map then most likely.

[QUOTE="Elann2008"]

[QUOTE="Remmib"]

Did you make a mistake? You know that it is going to be 32 vs 32 players, right?

Remmib

PC version: 64 vs 64 players. Thank me later. ;)

http://n4g.com/news/693769/battlefield-3-singleplayer-missions-64-player-online-packshots-and-more

Yeah... 64 players TOTAL. Thus 32 per team...

[QUOTE="Remmib"]

[QUOTE="Elann2008"]

PC version: 64 vs 64 players. Thank me later. ;)

http://n4g.com/news/693769/battlefield-3-singleplayer-missions-64-player-online-packshots-and-more

Yeah... 64 players TOTAL. Thus 32 per team...

[QUOTE="Lach0121"]

Come on optimization... meaning hoping it runs well as well as looks well... if you need systems that aren't even made yet to run it great, then that is kinda ridiculous.

I am excited about this.. I just hope it is done as a work of art, instead of just some profit producing crap... (meaning I hope they work on making it actually a fantastic game, instead of spending half the budget on marketing which is so useless)....

Elann2008

It looks like it's going to be a very demanding game. Maxed settings @ high resolutions is going to be killer. I've watched the gameplay trailer a dozen times and I can't get over how photo-realistic it looks. I must prepare for a greater PC build.

Not to mention, multiplayer 64 vs 64 players. With improved destruction over Bad Company 2? Envision it now.

I know it will prolly take a beast to max at high frames...

But I hope that it is seriously optimized where it actually performs decent at that level of detail...

I am building a new rig in a year or two, so I guess this will be one of the games I could look forward to rocking on that rig, (I have plenty for this one So many yet to play and still yet to come out that will still play fantastic on this one, which is almost 3 years old)

[QUOTE="Elann2008"]

[QUOTE="Remmib"]

Yeah... 64 players TOTAL. Thus 32 per team...

MyopicCanadian

No, quantity does not improve quality. 64 vs 64 on a massive map with full destruction = death of our FPS and horrible network lag. Not to mention unless you get a full 128 players in the game, it's going to feel really empty unless the map is tiny, then if you get over 64 players in the game the map would be to chaotic.

More players means more crap to deal with. 64 is a good number because they know how to work with that already.

Call of Duty what? This will be the best game ever.

[QUOTE="MyopicCanadian"][QUOTE="Elann2008"] I misunderstood it this whole time? !!!! Thanks for the major correction. Well, 64 players total, still awesome.

Wasdie

No, quantity does not improve quality. 64 vs 64 on a massive map with full destruction = death of our FPS and horrible network lag. Not to mention unless you get a full 128 players in the game, it's going to feel really empty unless the map is tiny, then if you get over 64 players in the game the map would be to chaotic.

More players means more crap to deal with. 64 is a good number because they know how to work with that already.

I would have to agree with this... 64 is a good number 32 vs 32 isn't small by any means... and also it allows for use in slightly larger maps without it feeling so big and empty, (and use smaller ones when there isn't 45+ players on a map or something) IDK, just brainstorming/daydreaming lol.

We are not quite at the point where we would run something like "this" at 128 players, and not run into network and framerate issues.. I am glad they went 64 and no higher..

64 is fine but I thought they we're thinking of going to 80 then making 2 battlaions per team (20) and 4 squads of 5 per battlation so that battles could be coordinated ever further guess not :(

128 players might be unplayable for this kind of game.