Battlefield 3 Gameplay! *Real Footage*

[QUOTE="dakan45"]The actual graphics are not impressive, its just that they use dx10 all over the place. Well done for that but i bet the console versions will look like crap. Anyway, "follow" and the game is linear in the near future, cod 4 ripoff anyone? It looks just like how moh supose to be. Now on the gameplay itself? They did not show much apart from following someone around and a cod-like slow mo effect when someone gets killed :roll: how original and not ripped from cod...and finally some shooting which is, well too much like moh for my taste but with recoil. I dont know, it looks bad (the shooting that is) kinda gives me the feeling that the gunshot sounds are not sync with the recoil. Weird i know but the actual shooting does not really get me, it remindes me of moh, bc2, i dont really dig it, id like something more like battlefield 2.[QUOTE="Elann2008"] *Ahem* DICE is not Crytek. They stay true to PC. I know I know.. walls of flame are coming at me. xDkozzy1234

And here is Dakan on time for his usual hate....

What the hell? where did you see the hate? Plz, everything i say is hate to you. Propably because you dont want to admit i was right when i was predicting crytek will turn into a console focused company.

Game looks absolutely fantastic graphically. Holy good god :shock:. I'm also loving the visceral look of the gameplay and the subtle things your gun and squadmates do. As awesome as the video was, I would have liked for them to show off some FB2 destruction and maybe even multiplayer, but perhaps that is for E3. I suppose it's better to underwhelm at first to keep the surprises.

I hope DICE has learned from their mistakes with the BC and BC2 campaigns and will make a tighter, better designed campaign with better storytelling in BF3.

DICE never fails to capture the atmosphere. If this is single-player, the multi-player would definitely be as chaotic and immersive.

[QUOTE="with_teeth26"]

[QUOTE="Daytona_178"] I am waiting for it to become available on steam. Hang on, will the game be Steam only like BC2 was?Daytona_178

BC 2 wasn't steam only. Some of us still buy retail!

I don't think EA likes Steam that much, so they don't make steam required for their games.

Nope, as others have mentioned there is no steam activation code. You install and play the game 100% seperately from steam.

Screw the graphics. I'm loving the recoil!millerlight89

That's pre-alpha? Damn. Greatest game ever made. I'm calling it now.

[QUOTE="-CheeseEater-"]If that's the tre lighting engine, that looks amazing.Daytona_178

This looks MUCH more realistic though, and realism is not only harder to attain from an artistic point of view but also from a technical stand point.

Also, that dog was cool. I love details like that, makes the invironments seem much more real.

WOW! I can't wait!

It looks amazing, visually, but I just can't help recall COD4. I already spoke to some others about levels like "Charlie Don't Surf" and how much this looks like that. And this is on top of BC2's single player trying to ape Modern Warfare. I hope there are some original scenarios at least beyond the "ambush" and the "find the bazooka to take out the tank" tropes. Nonetheless, it'll probably be worth getting for the multiplayer alone. biggest_loser

I thought Bad Company 2 was superior to Modern Warfare and MW2 in almost every way.

I'm not at all impressed.

The graphics and sound are superb, but the game itself? Complete meh. The same overly-scripted single-player nonsense found in Call of Duty. Until I see large maps with all-out war, 60+ players, I'll not be impressed. Because large maps with player-versus-player combat is what defines "Battlefield." Not single-player stuff like this.

[QUOTE="dakan45"]The actual graphics are not impressive, its just that they use dx10 all over the place. Well done for that but i bet the console versions will look like crap. Anyway, "follow" and the game is linear in the near future, cod 4 ripoff anyone? It looks just like how moh supose to be. Now on the gameplay itself? They did not show much apart from following someone around and a cod-like slow mo effect when someone gets killed :roll: how original and not ripped from cod...and finally some shooting which is, well too much like moh for my taste but with recoil. I dont know, it looks bad (the shooting that is) kinda gives me the feeling that the gunshot sounds are not sync with the recoil. Weird i know but the actual shooting does not really get me, it remindes me of moh, bc2, i dont really dig it, id like something more like battlefield 2.[QUOTE="Elann2008"] *Ahem* DICE is not Crytek. They stay true to PC. I know I know.. walls of flame are coming at me. xDkozzy1234

And here is Dakan on time for his usual hate....

I'm not at all impressed.

The graphics and sound are superb, but the game itself? Complete meh. The same overly-scripted single-player nonsense found in Call of Duty. Until I see large maps with all-out war, 60+ players, I'll not be impressed. Because large maps with player-versus-player combat is what defines "Battlefield." Not single-player stuff like this.

THA-TODD-BEAST

It must take a lot to impress you if that didn't. But you have a point. For example when the player took cover behind the car one of your team member screems out "get away from the car!" and then the RPG destroys the car, I wouldn't even be suprised if that was an ingame cutscene and not even playable. Anyway, the video just contains small bits of gameplay, so it's a bit to soon to be saying this is going to be like CODs single player.

looks perfect

I'm not at all impressed.

The graphics and sound are superb, but the game itself? Complete meh. The same overly-scripted single-player nonsense found in Call of Duty. Until I see large maps with all-out war, 60+ players, I'll not be impressed. Because large maps with player-versus-player combat is what defines "Battlefield." Not single-player stuff like this.

THA-TODD-BEAST

How else you going to do the single player? Make it as boring and broken as ArmA 2?

Singple player looks great. I can't wait to see the actual multiplayer.

[QUOTE="THA-TODD-BEAST"]

I'm not at all impressed.

The graphics and sound are superb, but the game itself? Complete meh. The same overly-scripted single-player nonsense found in Call of Duty. Until I see large maps with all-out war, 60+ players, I'll not be impressed. Because large maps with player-versus-player combat is what defines "Battlefield." Not single-player stuff like this.

Wasdie

How else you going to do the single player? Make it as boring and broken as ArmA 2?

The point is that single-player doesn't belong in a Battlefield game, because "Battlefield" from the beginning has been about loads of players battling it out online with large maps littered with vehicles ranging from boats to tanks to planes. The series has gone in the direction of Call of Duty and Medal of Honor, it seems, because they're opting to show footage of single-player which makes no sense at all to me. It's no different than taking a game like, say, Counter Strike and creating a sequel, then showing single-player footage. Any true Battlefield fan would desperately want to see how the game will look and play online, because I know one thing for certain: I will not play the cruddy single-player campaign. I can see from these videos alone that it's the same "move into an area, kill enemies that magically appear, proceed" type of ordeal that every other Call of Duty clone and even Bad Company 2 falls for. And this type of gameplay is exactly what's wrong with the industry.

I'm starting to feel like I'm surrounded by hordes of Battlefield virgins.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="THA-TODD-BEAST"]

I'm not at all impressed.

The graphics and sound are superb, but the game itself? Complete meh. The same overly-scripted single-player nonsense found in Call of Duty. Until I see large maps with all-out war, 60+ players, I'll not be impressed. Because large maps with player-versus-player combat is what defines "Battlefield." Not single-player stuff like this.

THA-TODD-BEAST

How else you going to do the single player? Make it as boring and broken as ArmA 2?

The point is that single-player doesn't belong in a Battlefield game, because "Battlefield" from the beginning has been about loads of players battling it out online with large maps littered with vehicles ranging from boats to tanks to planes. The series has gone in the direction of Call of Duty and Medal of Honor, it seems, because they're opting to show footage of single-player which makes no sense at all to me. It's no different than taking a game like, say, Counter Strike and creating a sequel, then showing single-player footage. Any true Battlefield fan would desperately want to see how the game will look and play online, because I know one thing for certain: I will not play the cruddy single-player campaign. I can see from these videos alone that it's the same "move into an area, kill enemies that magically appear, proceed" type of ordeal that every other Call of Duty clone and even Bad Company 2 falls for. And this type of gameplay is exactly what's wrong with the industry.

I'm starting to feel like I'm surrounded by hordes of Battlefield virgins.

I've played Battlefield since 1942. Single player has a place, it's just never been fully realized.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="THA-TODD-BEAST"]

I'm not at all impressed.

The graphics and sound are superb, but the game itself? Complete meh. The same overly-scripted single-player nonsense found in Call of Duty. Until I see large maps with all-out war, 60+ players, I'll not be impressed. Because large maps with player-versus-player combat is what defines "Battlefield." Not single-player stuff like this.

How else you going to do the single player? Make it as boring and broken as ArmA 2?

The point is that single-player doesn't belong in a Battlefield game, because "Battlefield" from the beginning has been about loads of players battling it out online with large maps littered with vehicles ranging from boats to tanks to planes. The series has gone in the direction of Call of Duty and Medal of Honor, it seems, because they're opting to show footage of single-player which makes no sense at all to me. It's no different than taking a game like, say, Counter Strike and creating a sequel, then showing single-player footage. Any true Battlefield fan would desperately want to see how the game will look and play online, because I know one thing for certain: I will not play the cruddy single-player campaign. I can see from these videos alone that it's the same "move into an area, kill enemies that magically appear, proceed" type of ordeal that every other Call of Duty clone and even Bad Company 2 falls for. And this type of gameplay is exactly what's wrong with the industry.

I'm starting to feel like I'm surrounded by hordes of Battlefield virgins.

Looks good and happy to see this is PC footage. The drag event looks like a QTE?

Hope they improve the SP a lot from BC2.

But it has 64 players and vids will be shown later for that.

BTW I love BF multiplayer, put more hours into those games than any other multiplayer game out there.

Do want, do want! Now if we can just see footage of multiplayer....

[QUOTE="THA-TODD-BEAST"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

How else you going to do the single player? Make it as boring and broken as ArmA 2?

Wasdie

The point is that single-player doesn't belong in a Battlefield game, because "Battlefield" from the beginning has been about loads of players battling it out online with large maps littered with vehicles ranging from boats to tanks to planes. The series has gone in the direction of Call of Duty and Medal of Honor, it seems, because they're opting to show footage of single-player which makes no sense at all to me. It's no different than taking a game like, say, Counter Strike and creating a sequel, then showing single-player footage. Any true Battlefield fan would desperately want to see how the game will look and play online, because I know one thing for certain: I will not play the cruddy single-player campaign. I can see from these videos alone that it's the same "move into an area, kill enemies that magically appear, proceed" type of ordeal that every other Call of Duty clone and even Bad Company 2 falls for. And this type of gameplay is exactly what's wrong with the industry.

I'm starting to feel like I'm surrounded by hordes of Battlefield virgins.

I've played Battlefield since 1942. Single player has a place, it's just never been fully realized.

I appreciate your response, and understand. You've earned my respect by replying sensibly rather than with anger. 8)

[QUOTE="gunmaster55555"] I know right its why I ignore his posts now because all he does is hate hate hate.dakan45

Well when his saying "Modern Warfail" his not hateful...but iam not going to start a flame here...i just want to let you know that there are others who think that "Mondern Warfail" is the perfect title for MW2...and above all we dont hate on MW2(i even bought it and spent more than 100 h in multiplayer)

[QUOTE="dakan45"][QUOTE="gunmaster55555"] I know right its why I ignore his posts now because all he does is hate hate hate.rhazzy

Well when his saying "Modern Warfail" his not hateful...but iam not going to start a flame here...i just want to let you know that there are others who think that "Mondern Warfail" is the perfect title for MW2...and above all we dont hate on MW2(i even bought it and spent more than 100 h in multiplayer)

[QUOTE="THA-TODD-BEAST"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

How else you going to do the single player? Make it as boring and broken as ArmA 2?

Wasdie

The point is that single-player doesn't belong in a Battlefield game, because "Battlefield" from the beginning has been about loads of players battling it out online with large maps littered with vehicles ranging from boats to tanks to planes. The series has gone in the direction of Call of Duty and Medal of Honor, it seems, because they're opting to show footage of single-player which makes no sense at all to me. It's no different than taking a game like, say, Counter Strike and creating a sequel, then showing single-player footage. Any true Battlefield fan would desperately want to see how the game will look and play online, because I know one thing for certain: I will not play the cruddy single-player campaign. I can see from these videos alone that it's the same "move into an area, kill enemies that magically appear, proceed" type of ordeal that every other Call of Duty clone and even Bad Company 2 falls for. And this type of gameplay is exactly what's wrong with the industry.

I'm starting to feel like I'm surrounded by hordes of Battlefield virgins.

I've played Battlefield since 1942. Single player has a place, it's just never been fully realized.

You're 69 years old?

:P

Todd has a very good point. Single Player in BC2 wasn't very interesting, it was basically like a movie in which you had to do things to get past. You couldn't change anything. Heck this might be the case with most FPS games, but until the genre gets games with more than one ending, or actual decision making, I won't really be into it.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="THA-TODD-BEAST"]

The point is that single-player doesn't belong in a Battlefield game, because "Battlefield" from the beginning has been about loads of players battling it out online with large maps littered with vehicles ranging from boats to tanks to planes. The series has gone in the direction of Call of Duty and Medal of Honor, it seems, because they're opting to show footage of single-player which makes no sense at all to me. It's no different than taking a game like, say, Counter Strike and creating a sequel, then showing single-player footage. Any true Battlefield fan would desperately want to see how the game will look and play online, because I know one thing for certain: I will not play the cruddy single-player campaign. I can see from these videos alone that it's the same "move into an area, kill enemies that magically appear, proceed" type of ordeal that every other Call of Duty clone and even Bad Company 2 falls for. And this type of gameplay is exactly what's wrong with the industry.

I'm starting to feel like I'm surrounded by hordes of Battlefield virgins.

SkullShooter17

I've played Battlefield since 1942. Single player has a place, it's just never been fully realized.

You're 69 years old?

:P

Todd has a very good point. Single Player in BC2 wasn't very interesting, it was basically like a movie in which you had to do things to get past. You couldn't change anything. Heck this might be the case with most FPS games, but until the genre gets games with more than one ending, or actual decision making, I won't really be into it.

Alternate endings and decision making that effects the story is difficult to do and requires a whole different subset of skills in writing and level design to pull off. Bascially it's beyond what DICE is capable of if BC1, BC2, and Mirror's Edge are any indication of their skills.

However I do hope they take a note from BC1 and give the player a bit more freedom and choice along with scripted enviroments. BC1 on the 360 and PS3 played much more closely to Crysis than any other console shooter. It didn't have the depth, but it did allow you to approach objectives with mulitple weapons, vehicles, and in multiple directions. It gave a great sense of scale to the levels and felt much more like a proper Battlefield game. BC2, while fun, was pretty much a direct attempt to copy CoD in every way possible.

While this is looking pretty damn scripted already, I'll have to wait until people get their hands on real levels of the game as the initial gameplay is going to go for the "wow" factor before anything else and scripted events are probably the best way to capture that.

[QUOTE="SkullShooter17"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

I've played Battlefield since 1942. Single player has a place, it's just never been fully realized.

Wasdie

You're 69 years old?

:P

Todd has a very good point. Single Player in BC2 wasn't very interesting, it was basically like a movie in which you had to do things to get past. You couldn't change anything. Heck this might be the case with most FPS games, but until the genre gets games with more than one ending, or actual decision making, I won't really be into it.

Alternate endings and decision making that effects the story is difficult to do and requires a whole different subset of skills in writing and level design to pull off. Bascially it's beyond what DICE is capable of if BC1, BC2, and Mirror's Edge are any indication of their skills.

However I do hope they take a note from BC1 and give the player a bit more freedom and choice along with scripted enviroments. BC1 on the 360 and PS3 played much more closely to Crysis than any other console shooter. It didn't have the depth, but it did allow you to approach objectives with mulitple weapons, vehicles, and in multiple directions. It gave a great sense of scale to the levels and felt much more like a proper Battlefield game. BC2, while fun, was pretty much a direct attempt to copy CoD in every way possible.

While this is looking pretty damn scripted already, I'll have to wait until people get their hands on real levels of the game as the initial gameplay is going to go for the "wow" factor before anything else and scripted events are probably the best way to capture that.

I do agree that it would be very difficult to pull something like this off, but then again I'm not asking for it. I just don't need single player, and probably won't like it. The game will be worth it for multiplayer alone.

Crysis 2 is also somewhere on my wishlist. Getting lots of hate, but I just have something for it. Big year for EA(and yes I know this is off topic :P).